6A - Amendments to Title 9, Land Use RegulationsCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 29, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: November 21, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Public hearing and consideration of amendments to Title 9, Land Use Regulations. The changes
include, but are not limited to, creation of Transportation Demand Management criteria,
reduction of single-family residential parking requirements in certain zones, general definitions,
allowances for larger restaurants in the BMS-X zones, use review criteria to implement recently-
adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, posting requirements for
discretionary and conditional use reviews, and numerous non-substantive clarifications of
current regulations. The Planning Board is also asked to review and comment on Title 10
changes regarding demolition of historic structures.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Robert Cole, Land Use Review Directar
Gary Kretschmer, Senior Planner
OVERVIEW:
Staff is proposing the first phase of general Land Use Regulation amendments that were
discussed conceptually with the Board in October. Many of the amendments clarify existing
code language without altering the substance of the regulation. Other amendments modernize
code sections or are a part of ongoing clean up and corrections to the code.
Planning Board is asked to consider the proposed changes and recommend approval of the
amendments to City Council.
S:\plan\pb-items~tnemos\bblur3.mem:wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee i
INTRODUCTION:
The last amendments to the Land Use Regulations were completed in January of this year. The
number of amendments was extensive, and were generally intended to correct or streamline
regulations that resulted from the 1997 comprehensive rezoning. Because of the extent of the
1997 amendments, including the creation of several new zoning districts, use lists, and
definitions, it was recognized that later refinements and possible corrections would be needed. It
was further recognized that regular, periodic amendments should occur so that the code would be
in step with evolving community land use needs.
The proposed 2001 amendments are generally a continuation of "clean-up" items and conections
as well as the introduction of several new issues for consideration.
PROPOSED AMENDNIENT PAASES:
This is the first of three phases of amendments that will be brought to the Board. The
amendments in this phase include a wide range ofmajor and minor items that will improve code
clarity, several substantive changes that correct regulatory conflicts, and some time-sensitive
items that have been raised by applicants, the Planning Board and City Council.
Several major work items are also included in this phase. Major work items require considerable
time for research, or additional public process, and may have staff outside the Planning
Department in the lead. In October staff presented five major work items to the Board. These
included issues dealing with demolition of structures, Transportation Demand Management
(TDM), restaurant limitations in BMS-X zoning districts, inclusionary zoning revisions and Title
8 amendments addressing several right-of-way issues. The latter item does not require Planning
Board action but will be presented in a later phase for informationat purposes. Of the above list,
restaurants in the BMS-X district has been redefined as a minor item.
AMENDMENTS DEFEI2RED TO LATER PHASES
Staff has determined that several amendments require more wark than could be completed in
time for the current phase. As a result, two major work items have been deferred to the next
phase: inclusionary zoning and Title 8 amendments. The TDM amendments are included in
this current phase to apply to office developments. Additional staff work is needed to create
effective TDM measures for other land use types, and further TDM amendments will be included
in the next phase.
Several minor work items have been continued or deleted as well. These include:
The proposed fence regulation modifications. Staff has determined that the fence issues
should be incorporated into a comprehensive re-write of this section rather than done on a
piecemeal basis.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 2
• Part of the wireless communication antennae modifications allowing monopole antenna
on rooftops - more time is needed for analysis.
• The enclosure of pools and spas will be handled as a local amendment to the building
code rather than a land use regulation amendment.
• The definition for "open space" will is postponed to Phase II so that it can be coordinated
with other proposed open space amendments.
• The amendment to establish a minimum size far Owner's Accessory Units has been
withdrawn, as staff found that this issue was discussed and rejected at the time the
ordinance was adopted.
• Breezeway/walkway connections involve many code sections; additional analysis is
needed to avoid unintended consequences.
. Establishment of minimum size requirements for off-site industrial uses when associated
with administrative offices will require additional research to determine a rational size
threshold,and avoid unintended consequences.
NEW AMENDMENTS
Several amendments have been included that were not discussed with Planning Board at the
October study session. They address issues that were discovered while drafting ordinance
language for other items. They are included in this phase because they are relatively minor, and
may help avoid the confusion that results from making multiple amendments over several
months to a single code section. These new amendments include:
Reduction of off-street parking requirements for single family residences in LR-D, MR-D
and HR-D zones
Creation of a means to rescind a use or site review approval if the property has been
returned to a conforming, "by-rigltt" condition
ORGANIZATION OF AMENDMENTS
Two sections of amendments requiring Planning Board action are presented as attachments. The
first group includes substantive amendments. These involve new regulations, or changes that
alter the affect of current regulations. The second group includes non-substantive amendments.
These are changes that clarify existing regulations, but do not substantially change the way in
which the regulations have historically been applied. Explanatory sketches are included for some
amendments to illustrate physical concepts. Sketches will not be included in adopted ordinances,
except for the setback averaging sketch. Other sketches will be used in informational materials
provided to the public. Staff has considered incorporation of sketches into the ardinance, but
concluded that flexibility is needed to improve many of them over time without requiring
ordinance amendments for minar graphic changes.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee .3
Demolition regulations, related to historic structures, are also proposed for amendment, and are
included as an attachment. These regulations are included in Title 10, and do not require action
by the Planning Board. They are included instead for informational purposes. These regulations
are within the purview of the Landmazks Preservation Advisory Board, and they have
recommended their approval to the City Council.
Descriptions of each of the proposed amendments on which the Board must act are attached as
separate, numbered items. Each description is intended to provide the necessary rationale for the
amendment, and an explanation of the effect of the proposed change. Each description sheet lists
the code section(s) being amended at the top. Refer to these sections in the ardinance
(Attachment C) £or the specific language proposed. The ordinance is ordered sequentially by
code section, rather than by amendment topic.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Board is asked to review the proposed amendments to Title 9, Land Use
Regulations, and recommend their approval to the City Council.
The Planning Board is also asked to provide comments, if any, to the City Council about the Title
10 amendments concerning demolition of historic structures.
Approved by:
~-U~ ~
Peter Pollock, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A- Descriptions of Title 9 Amendments
Attachment B- Demolition of Historic Structures
Attachment C- Ordinance Amending Title 9
S:\plan\pb-items~memos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee y
ATTACHMENT A
Deseriptions of Title 9 Amendments
Table of Contents
Substantive Amendments
Amendment # Description of Amendment Page #
1. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 6
2. Single family parking in LR-D, MR-D, and HR-D zones 9
3. New Use Review criteria 10
4. Allow lazger restaurants in the BMS-X zones 12
5. Standards for extension of Site and Use review approvals 16
6. Recission of Use or Site Review approvals 17
7. Split zoned buildings 18
8. Separation between principal and accessory structures 19
9. Street tree and alley tree locations 24
10. Definition of "building envelope° 26
11. Protection of residential zones from height increases 27
12. Forms of ownership for ADUs and OAUs 28
13. Financial guarantees required priar to TCO 29
14. Revise definition of "setback" 30
15. Mobile Home Variances 32
16. Consistent posting and notice requirements 33
Non - Substantive Amendments
17. Use charts - referral to definitions 34
18. Method of calculating slope 35
19. Recreational uses in residential zones 39
20. Graphics for setback averaging 40
21. Variance application submittal requirements 42
22. Removal oFunrelated code language 43
23. Options chart - Antenna for Wireless Communication 44
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ,S
Amendment #1
Description: Transportation Demand Management Option Points
Code 5ections: 9-3.3-30
Purpose of Amendment
Establishment of a points system to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
requirements for office uses over a certain size threshold, and for parking reductions below code
requirements, and parking increases above code requirements.
Additional TDM amendments will follow in the next phase to expand the requirements to other land
use types in addition to offices. The recommendations contained herein might also be applied to
other land uses, but staff is still "testing" to determine if the recommended point values and
thresholds are equally applicable to other land uses. Office was the focus of these initial
recommendations because of its relatively consistent trip generation characteristics, and because
office-related commuter trips are a significant component of total trips.
Overview
Transportation Demand Management is the management of single occupant vehicle trips by
encouraging other modes of transportation and carpooling. The goals set forth in the July 1996
Transportation Master Plan for the Boulder Valley is to reduce the single occupant vehicle trips to
25% of the total trips. Transportation demand management is an important factor in providing other
options for travelers other than single occupant vehicles, particularly for commuters in the moming
and evening weekday time periods.
The primary shortfall ofhow the code deals with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is that
there is a requirement in Section 2.03 (I) of the Design and Construction Standards to provide TDM
strategies, but there are no specific criteria for what level of TDM must be achieved. This puts the
city in a position at times of having to justify a requirement based on impacts that are unclear.
Specific criteria for TDM requirements will eliminate confusion and remove the need to negotiate
TDM requirements when contested. A secondary issue to TDM is what appropriate level should be
required when a pazking reduction or increase is requested. Parking reductions have benefits to
developers because they increase the developable land, however this extra development may increase
the trips to a site without the space provided for parking. This change to the code will deal with
office uses within the discretionaty review process, however it is anticipated that this will be the first
step and other uses and reviews will follow with adjustments made from stafPs experience with this
first step.
In considering how to deal with new development, it is important to keep in mind that everything
that can be negotiated or required is done so up-front. Once an approval is issued, the ability to
make changes or additions to requirements is extremely limited. In dealing with new development,
S:\plan\pb-items\memos\bblur3.mem:wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ~~
parking is the best criterion on which to base TDM requirements. Vehicle trips were considered and
are generally the way that other cities have been addressing TDM requirements. However, in a case
where clear site-based criteria are needed, parking is a tangible item up-front while vehicle trip
reductions are speculative. Since available parking has a significant effect on vehicular trips
generated by a site, relating parking to Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) trips works well.
Parking reductions are currentlydealt with independently from TDM requirements, however parking
reductionscanbejustifiedbyimplementingprogramsthatwouldalsoserveforTDM. Thisproposal
would directly tie TDM requirements to parking reduction requests.
Staff Recommeudation
The point system is designed to address three separate scenarios:
1. A proposal that requests 100% of the parking required for the use. This situation will require
TDM points based on square footage of the building.
2. A proposal that requests a parking reduction. This will have the points based on square footage
of the building plus one point per parking space reduced.
3. A request for parking above 100% of the parking required for the use. This will have points
based on square footage of the building plus one point per parking space above the 100%
required parking number.
As is the case currently, any parking reduction request will still need to be assessed for
appropriateness based on factors other than TDM, such as location, intensity of use, neighborhood
parking problems, etc. Also, as is the current case, a 20% or greater parking reduction must be
approved by the Planning Board.
The TDM solutions are divided into two categories: On-Site and Programmatic TDM. On-site
solutions are those that can be reviewed with a discretionary review, approved, and then no follow-
up would be needed. Examples ofthese include pedestrian links, transit stops, additional bike racks,
and other items that can be reviewed on plans for a site. Programmatic TDMs are focused on the
daily operation of the site. These can be very effective when proactively administered; however, the
city will need to develop an implementation plan to ensure proper operation and monitoring where
necessary. These programmatic solutions will generally be more appropriate for larger sites with
larger parking requirements but may also be applicable to smalier sites in some cases. Programmatic
solutions include transit passes, parking pricing strategies, and others that involve ongoing
participation.
The point values assessed are based on a study completed for the Non-Residential Growth
Management Ordinance Administrative Regulations dated January 16, 1996. This study evaluated
more general solutions than the ones contained herein; however, these categories and their relative
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee '~
values related to trip reduction were used for evaluation. Another consideration was not to create
such a value as to be inappropriate for the level of development that these solutions were designed
for. For instance, a parking pay-out solution was given a high value due to its propensity to change
trip modes as well as its applicability to larger sites with more employees and the potentiai for larger
parking reductions. Meanwhile, showers were given a low value because it is expected that this
solution would have only modest results in changing travel behavior, but also because of its relative
ease in applying to smaller as well as larger developments.
Administrative review will be needed to confirm the required points assessed toward TDM and to
determine the appropriateness of a solution. If no solutions exist, staff may waive some or all of the
TDM point assessments; however, this should not need to be done except in very rare cases. A
solution may present itself that the TDM points could better be used outside of the site or vicinity
ofthe site. Also, points can be reduced by innovative solutions that a developer or business operator
may propose.
These initial TDM requirements will be supplemented in the next phase by requirements for land
uses other than office. Although the same point values and thresholds might be applicable to other
land uses, additional testing by staff is needed to verify their appropriateness.
Options Considered
None. Because of the need for an objective system that could be applicable to by-right projects, a
points-based system derived from the former Non-Residential Growth Management System was
found to be the only viable approach. The specific requirements of the points-based system can be
varied as needed far projects in a discretionary review process.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ~
Amendment #2
Description: Reduce single family residential parking requirements in LR-D, MR-D and HR-D
Code Section 9-3.2-1
Purpose of Amendment
Reduce the off-street parking requirement for detached single family residential units in the low,
medium and high density "developing" zoning districts, from 1.5 spaces to 1 space per unit.
Overview
The off-street pazking requirement for detached dwelling units in the residential "developing"
zoning districts is 1.5 spaces per unit. This is rounded up to two spaces per the rounding rule found
in Section 9-3.3-9(a)(2). In all other low density residential zones (RR-1 E, RR-E, ER-E, and LR-E)
the parking requirement is one off-street parking space per dwelling unit. The parking standard oF
one off-street space has proven to be sufficient in the established zones. Single family detached units
in the developing districts are very similar in physical characteristics (including density and lot sizes)
to those in established districts. There does not appear to be a logical reason to require double the
parking in the developing districts. The existing requirement of 1.5 spaces per unit does make sense
for multipie units, including duplexes, in the developing zones. In the case of multiple units, the
fractional space requirement results in reasonable "rounding-up" of parking requirements. It is not
logical, however, to specify 1.5 spaces for a single detached unit. Staff recommends that this
requirement be reduced to match the single family detached requirement (one space per detached
unit) found in the established zones.
This change will not directly affect the several existing Planned Unit Developments that are zoned
LR-D (Shanahan Ridge, Wonderland Lake, Winding Trails). These developments include narrower
streets which can accommodate fewer on-street parking spaces. As a result, these developments were
required to provide the two off-street parking spaces and sometimes more to make up for this on-
street parking loss. Since these projects are PUDs, homeowners will not be able to reduce the off-
street parking requirements to the proposed standard without the review and approval of the city.
Staff Recommendation
Amend the bulk regulation of Section 9-3.2-1 to require one off-street parking space instead of 1.5
spaces for single family detached homes in the residential "developing" zoning districts.
Options Considered
No modification to existing parking requirement.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 9
Amendment #3
Description: New Use Review criteria
Code Section: 9-4-9(d)
Proposed Amendment
Establish Use Review criteria to implement recently adopted policies to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan which encourage the conservation of existing residentia] dwelling units.
Overview
Recent adopted comprehensive plan amendments established policies to preserve existing residential
dwelling units when possible. The adopted policies are as follows:
Policv 2.13 -
Preservation of Community Character. The city will encourage the preservation of community
character as reflected in the development pattern and relative affordability of the existing housing
stock in Boulder's varied neighborhoods.
Polic~2.15 -
Preservation of Existing Residential Uses. Existing legally established residential uses in non-
residential zones shal] be preserved or replaced in kind; non-residential conversions in residential
zoning districts shall be discouraged except where there is a clear benefit or service to the
neighborhood.
Polic,~ -
Conversion ofResidential Units in the city. The city shall evaluate and revise its land use regulations
to reduce the opportunities for the conversion of residential uses to non-residential uses or require
mitigation for residential units lost through the redevelopment of existing housing or the conversion
of a residential use to a non-residential use.
While the comprehensive pian policies are relatively straightforward, Planning Board has indicated
the desire to allow for flexibility in any criteria established in the land use regulations. The Board
indicated that there may be occasions where preserving a residential use or replacing it "in kind" may
adversely impact the economic viability of a project or the replacement is outweighed by the benefits
of the new development. The desire is to allow some discretion to consider such circumstances.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Use Review criteria be modified to include a summary of the
comprehensive plan policies as they relate to the conservation of existing dwelling units.
Furthermore, the criteria should also allow the Board the discretion to require mitigation or
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ~~%
replacement of the dwelling units either on- or off-site or to waive mitigation if the Boazd finds that
it would adversely impact the economic viability of the development or that the new uses would be
more beneficial to the immediate neighborhood. The Board may also impose economic restrictions,
such as price or rental rates to reflect the value and market of the displaced unit(s).
Options Considered
None, this is a code amendment that is necessaryto implement adopted comprehensive plan policies.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee //
Amendment #4
Description: Allow larger restaurants without Use Review in the BMS-X zones
Code Section: 9-3.2-19 Restaurants and Taverns
Purpose of Amendment:
Allow larger restaurants to locate in BMS-X zones, such as on the Hill, through a conditional
review, instead of a use review.
Overview:
The University Hill business area was rezoned in 1997 to BMS-X. Previously, the Hill was zoned
TB-E. The TB-E zoning allowed restaurants to locate in the business area by-right, without review,
regardless of size. At the time of the creation of the BMS-X zone, there was concern that this was
too lenient for a business area located so close to a residential area. Therefore, the BMS-X zone
requires that all restaurants greater than 1,500 square feet in size, or which close later than 11 p.m.
undergo a staff-level use review. This process can take between two and six months.
Since the 1997 rezoning, a market study conducted earlier this year identified that prospective
restaurant owners, property owners, and residents have the perception that the 1,500 square foot
by-right restriction on restaurants is discouraging an up-scale, sit-down restaurant from locating on
the Hill, and is instead attracting fast food establishments which typically are less than 1,500 square
feet in size.
Since the market study was conducted, several meetings have been conducted with Hill constituents,
including Hill residents, property and business owners, the UHGID director, and the Hill staff
planner. This group proposes to allow restaurants from 1,500 to 5,500 square feet to locate on the
Hill through a conditional review process. This would include almost al] ground floor leaseable
areas on the Hill with the exception of the largest buildings, such as the former Flatirons Theater,
the Fox, and the Sink. The 11 p.m. closing time would remain the same. The review period for a
conditional review is two weeks, provided the prospective restaurant owner has already conducted
its neighborhood meeting and submitted a management plan. Restaurants under 1,500 square feet
in size would still be allowed by-right.
During these meetings, however, there was concern that the current conditional review requirements
for restaurants and tavems is too relaxed in terms of the requirements related to meetings with the
surrounding neighborhood. Changes were suggested to make the code stronger in terms of complying
with the neighborhood meeting and management pian.
Cunently, a violation of any conditional use approval under 9-3.4 (such as not closing on time) can
carry a criminal fine of up to $2,000.00 per violation, in addition to sanctions for violations of other
parts of the Boulder Revised Code (trash, noise, etc.). The difference in enforcement between a
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee /v~
conditional approval and a use review approval is that a violation of a use review approval may be
referred to Planning Board for a quasi judicial hearing, in which sanctions may include changed or
additional conditions of approval, or revocation of the approval. A revocation of a conditional
approval is not a possible sanction under a conditional approval.
Below are examples of cunent restaurant sizes for consideration (in square feet):
On the Hill:
The Sink
Player's Club (formerly Nick's)
Moe's space (currently for lease)
LaIguana
Downtown Restaurants:
Gondolier
Triana
Sunflower
Hapa
BJ's
Bacaro 4400
Rhumba
6000
2880
2400
2300 (seating area only)
5800
3625
4600
3120
5141
3059
For purposes of calculating square footages, the city does not include basement storage area in the
size of the restaurants, but does include seating, kitchen, bar, restrooms and waiting areas.
The proposed change has received unanimous support from the University Hill Neighborhood
Alliance executive committee(UfINA), as well as the general membership of this group. This
proposed change has been e-mailed to the Hill e-group (approximately 200 addresses) and also
posted on the hillneighbors.com website. The LJHNA group feels that the 11 p.m. closing, beefed
up conditional review requirements regarding neighborhood meetings, the restaurant management
plan, and existing code provisions relating to noise, trash, graffiti and liquor violations, will provide
sufficient protection to the neighborhood. Please see their e-mail attached to this description sheet.
Staff Recommendation:
Amend the use regulation of Section 9-3.2-1 to allow restaurants between 1,500 and 5,500 square
feet which close no later than I 1 p.m. to locate in a BMS-X zone, which is located within a general
improvement district (this limits the code change to the University Hill commercial zone oniy) as
a conditional use.
Please note that the proposed amendment affects all BMS-X zones, not just on the Hill. The Planning
Board should consider whether the amendments should be limited to just the BMS-X district located
in the University Hill General Improvement District.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee /3
Options considered:
No modification to the existing requirement.
A lower square footage restriction of the restaurant size.
No square footage limitation of the restaurant size.
Modification of the restaurant size without any change to the conditional review criteria.
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ~y
Prom: Dee Andrews <deeseiwaldandrews@yahoo.com>
To: <PommerCO@aol.com>, <tinpa@ci.boulder.co.us>, <Macon@seedcolorado.org>,
<ado-ecos@indra.com>, <algunter@worldnet.att.net>, <mruzzin@igc.org>
Date: 11/20/2001 2:15:25 PM
Subject: Uni Hill Proposed Restaurant Review Changes
Dear Planning Board Members,
At your November 29th meeting, you will be discussing
proposed restauranl review changes for the Universiiy
Hill business district.
On behalf of the University Hill Neighborhood
Association (UHNA), I am writing to advise you that we
are in favor of these new changes.
The proposed changes would allow for Conditional Use
Review for Uni Hill Restaurants IF they meet certain
new criteria. Uni Hill neighbors participated in the
work group that developed these new criteria (along
with restaurant owners, landlords, City staff, etc.),
and we support their proposal.
We believe the criteria that requires restaurants to:
-- close by 11:OOpm,
-- comply with the Good Neighbor Policy requirements,
-- provide a management plan to the City which
addresses how each point of the GNP will be complied
with, and
-- facilitate a public meeting with neighbors to
present their management plan
will minimize the potential negative impacts to the
neighborhood. We feel these criteria protect the
neighborhood even if the restaurant is at the maximum
proposed 5,500 square feet.
We strongly support the revitalization of the
University Hill business district and view these
proposed changes as a positive step in attracting more
quality restaurants to the Hill.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
University Hill Neighborhood Association
Executive Committee
Dee Andrews
Gregg Deboever
Prentiss Donohue
Neil King
Terry Rodrigue
Jane Bliss Stoyva
AgsNlgllem / ~A Page ~ ~ ~ -
Amendment #5
Description: Standards for extensions of Site and Use Review approvals
Code Section: 9-4-8(b)
Purpose of Amendment
Establish standards for extensions use and site review approval prior to expiration.
Overview
Applicants are given three years to substantially complete an approved site review or use review.
Staff is permitted to grant up to two six-month extensions for the completion of a development
subject to a use review or site review. After that, any request for an additional extension must be
considered by the Planning Board. The Boazd must find that °the applicant exercised reasonable
diligence in completing the project according to the approved development schedule and of good
cause as to why the extension should be granted."
There are no standards for staff to consider when evaluating the initial request. Based on the lack of
standards, one could conclude that the two referenced extensions are automatic and no reason for
the extension requests are required. Criteria should be available for both staff and Planning Board
level extensions of development approvals. A higher standard should generally be applied for the
longer extensions available through Planning Board review.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the new criteria shown in Attachment C, Section 9-4-8(b).
Options Considered
No change to code. This would acknowledge that the initial time extension requests. are automatic
and no criteria need be addressed.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee /(p
Amendment #6
Description: Rescission of Use and Site Review approvals
Code Section: 9-4-8(~
Purpose of Amendment
To create a mechanism to eliminate existing discretionary use review approvals when the reason for
the approval has terminated, and the property will return to conforming "by right" status.
Overview
Under current regulations, a use review approva] that has been implemented never expires. The
approval remains in place even if the property is redeveloped to "by right" standards. For example,
if a property, zoned for residential use, received a use review (formerly called special review)
approval for a non-residential use, and that use was implemented, then the use review will never
expire. Should the non-residential use cease, and the property returns to a residential use, it can only
be accomplished by amending the original use review. Even after such an amendment is
accomplished, and the property is used for conforming residential purposes, the use review approval
remains in effect on the now-by right use. This creates a nonsensical situation that may deter property
owners from redeveloping certain properties in a by-right manner.
Staff Recommendation
The proposed amendment provides a mechanism to eliminate use review approvals that will not
expire, but also are no longer needed. Rescinding outmoded approvals, at the request of the property
owner, will simplify future code administration and improve customer service as well. A large
number of old approvals currently exist that may no longer be needed. Rescinding them will help
ensure that redevelopment follows today's zoning expectations.
Please refer to Attachment C, Section 9-4-8(~ for the specific proposed language.
Options Considered
No change - allow outmoded approvals to remain in effect forever. Alternatively, require rescission
of outmoded approvals to be accomplished by special ordinance approved by the City Council.
While this approach can work, it would be very time consuming and costly, perhaps discouraging
property owners from pursuing a"by right" redevelopment.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee / 7
Ameudment #7
Description: Split zoned buildings
Code Section: 9-3.1-2
Purpose of Amendment:
Provide direction for development on lots with more than one zoning category, specifically where
an existing structure is bisected by the zoning line.
Overview:
The Land Use Regulations provide little in the way of direction on how to treat split zoned parcels,
where an existing building is split by a zoning boundary line. There are only a few places where this
exists, mostly along arterial streets such as Broadway and Folsom. The zoning is mostly Transitional
Business adjacent to the street, and residential in the back of the lot. The long-term solution may
be to rezone these parcels, or create a new zone which addresses the transitional uses of these lots.
To this date, staff has had to treat each section of the lot basically as a separate parcel, and so
reasonable development cannot occur on some ofthese lots. Furthermore, where the building itself
is split by the zoning category, it is questionable what uses are allowed in the building. Allocating
uses to the portion of the building which is located in the respective zone does not make sense in
existing buildings. It is also difficult to provide direction on whether these buildings can be
expanded or not.
Staff Recommendation:
Amend Section 9-3.1-2 to allow the City Manager the ability to shift the zoning line to either side
of the building that is split by the zoning line. The resulting zoning of the building shall be that zone
that which a majority of the building falls within. The resulting zoning line would follow the
footprint (perimeter) of the existing structure. Any proposed addition to the structure would have
to meet the requirements of the zone in which the addition is built.
Options considered:
No modification to the existing code (the zoning is what it is--the uses and development
requirements for each zone shall apply on the portion of the parce] covered by that zone).
Shift the zoning line up to 25 feet to either side of the existing location of the zone line to provide
flexibility on the site.
Most restrictive zoning applies to the whole parcel (difficult to determine where one zone is more
restrictive in one way, but another zone is more restrictive in another way, i.e., the properties
along Broadway are zoned TB-E in the front and MXR-E on the back. The MXR zone is more
restrictive in terms of density of residentia] units, but the TB zone is more restrictive in terms
of floar area ratio).
Create new zone applicable to lots that currently have split zoning, or change current zoning to place
lots and buildings within a single zoning district (may be best long-term solution).
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ~g
Amendment #8
Description: Separation between principal and accessory structures
Code Section: 9-3.2-1
Purpose of Amendmen,t
Consider reduction of the existing six-foot minimum separation requirement between principal and
accessory buildings.
Overview
The definition of accessory buildings specifies that they be detached'from the principal building and
are subordinate to the principal building. Up to last year there was no separation standard. A
minimum separation requirement of 10 feet did, however, exist in pre-1971 land use regulations. Up
to last year, a garage or shed, for example, could be built within inches of a principal building if
minimum fire protection standards could be met. It was pointed out to Planning Boud and City
Council that accessory buildings benefit from reduced setbacks. In many cases, sheds and garages
were placed within inches of a principal building and in some cases at zero side-yard or rear-yard
setbacks as well. The result was the appearance of a single structure built with minimal to no side-
yard or rear-yard setbacks and was determined to have adverse aesthetic impacts to adjacent
properties. The accessory building no longer had the appearance ofbeing subordinate to the principal
structure but was, as a result of basically no separation, an integra] part of it. The six-foot minimum
separation standard was recommended by staff because not only did it provide reasonable visual
separation, it was also the minimum distance to meet fire separation standards without additional fire
protection measures far a majority of structures.
A recent building permit application, and subsequent variance request, was denied for not meeting
the separation standard. The architect has questioned the appropriateness of the separation standard,
as it may limit design creativity. In this case the applicant proposed a gazebo-like structure which
was within three feet of the principal building. The intent of the design was to allow the roof
overhang of one structure to project over the roof of the other, providing an effective covered
connection between the two while maintaining the appearance of separate structures. No hazdship
was found in this case, as the limited separation was a design choice. Although other design
solutions were possible that met the code requirements, the applicant felt that the separation
requirement impedes architectural creativity. Staff agreed to return this item to the Planning Board
for possible reconsideration of the standazd.
Attached is a letter from the architect who has asked reconsideration of this regulation, challenging
the standard based on fire and building codes separation requirements. It appears the applicant is
saying that (unlike a garage or some other accessory structure) a gazebo requires no additional fire
protection and, therefore, should be allowed closer than the current separation standard permits.
(Please note that the applicanYs code analysis was referred to Cory Schmidt, the city's Chief
Building Official, for his review and comment. His response to the letter is attached.)
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee / 9
Staff Recommendation
While the applicanYs building permit argument is technically true for this particular combination of
buildings, fire separation was not the exclusive criterion used to establish the adopted standard. The
applicant's azgument appears to recommend using the building code as the guideline to determine
the minimum separation. As mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, the lack of visual
separation resulting from the appiication of the building code was the impetus for the establishment
of the minimum separation requirement. Based on this, the staff cannot find any compelling reason
to change the current standard at this time.
Options Considered
Consider excluding certain accessory structures such as gazebos (which may have a roof but are
completely open on all sides) from the minimum separation requirements. Such structures should
meet the principal building setbacks. A resulting shucture would be viewed as being similar to a
covered parch, but because it is detached, would still be considered an accessory structure.
S:\plan\pb-itemstinemos\bblur3.mem,wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pa e d
steven dodd
architect
REGE~~F~
aCl ~ ~ ~p~~
October 26, 2001
Gary Kretschmer
City of Boulder
Planning and Development Services
P.O. Box 791
Boulder. CO 80306
re: Phase i, minor work item #7, 9-3.2-1 Bulk Regulations - Minimum separation between principal and accessory
buildings
Dear Gary:
I would first like to thank you for including the the above referenced item on the recent planning board meeting
agenda. I lett the planning board meeting after the discussion of this particular work item and understood the
board's direction to be that if clear, simpie and concise language could be crafted to address this issue it could be
included in the Phase I amendment proposals. I believe I have discovered such language.
In ah effort to better understand our current dittering perspectives on this issue I have reviewed the case with my
code consultant, Ben Weese of Ben Weese and Associates in Colorado Springs - a nationaily recognized code
specialist.
The statt report refers to the 6 foot separation as being chosen because it meets building code requirements for
the minimum separation between structures without fire protection improvements. This is derived from Chapter 5
of the UBC, Section 503.3, which states that for the purposes of determining required wail and opening
protection, buildings on the same property shall be assumed to have a property line between them. Table 5A, in
the same chapter, indicates that for R-3 occupancies (single family homes) and Type VN construction (non fire-
reted wood frame construction) that walls less than 3 feet from the property line must be protected with 1-hour fire-
rated construction, and openings in walls are not permitted less than 3 feet from the property line. It has been
interred from this that if each building is separated from the imaginary property line by 3 feet (6 feet tota! between
buildings) that neither building requires 1 hour fire-rated construction.
This interpretation fails to consider several key provisions in the code:
1. Exception number 2 in Section 503.3 states that "Two or more buildings on the same property may be
considered as portions of one building if the aggregate area of such buildings is within the limits
specified in Section 504 tor a single building...."
Section 504 refers fo Table 5-B to determine the allowable floor area for varidus types of constructlon
and occupancies. The allowable area for R-3 occupancies (single family homes) is unlimited in all types
of construction. Therefore the UBC in fact does not require any separation between buildings ot R-3
occupancy located on the same property.
3076 Seventh Street, Boulder CO 80304 Ph 303.440.7957 Fx 303.727.4549
pgende llem t~ A Page #?~
2. Table 5A does not in fact require the separation of buildings. Wall less than 3 feet from the assumed
property line must be of 1 hour fire-rated construction and doors and windows less than three feet are
not permitted. This of course was the norm in the City of Boulder prior to the year 2000 land use
amendments.
3. The code does require a 1 hour occupancy separation between R-3 (single family home) and U-1
(private gar~qe or carport). This is typicaliy addressed by the application of a single layer of fire-rated
gypsum board to the garage side of any common walls. In the case of a detached garage, this
separation could be achieved by a six foot separation of the structures 5hould non fire•rated
construction be desired. This is, in fact, the only case in which it couVd be inferred that the UBC
requires a separation between single family residential structures.
In light of this, and to bring the land use code into closer alignment with the building code on this specific issue, I
would propose the following amendment: that language to the effect of "Accessory buildings or structures which
are of the same occupancy type as the principal building may be located closer than six fcet from the principal
building provided the accessory building or structure meets all the setback and height requirements for the
principal building".
I believe that this language would achieve two important goals. First, it would maintain the requirement to separate
a detached garage a minimum of 6 feet from the principal building. Second, it would afford design professionals
the freedom allowed by the UBC to eddress the albeit rare circumstance when a detached structure is the best
solution to a given design problem. In my specific case, the detached covered porch would be an R-3 occupancy
as it is an extension of the house itself and therefore could be located closer than 6 feet from the principal
buitding.
Piease contact me with any questions or comments that you may have regarding this issue. I sincerely hope that
this is at least the tirst step in a quick and straight forward resolution to the matter.
cc: Peter Pollack
~~~ l~f1 Page# a~-
__ ~ . ,
~~.. _ _ __
i _~. .~. ~ ~ ~
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services ~ ~
-, r
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, Colorado 80306-0791 ~~ ~`~
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-4413241 • email plandevelop@ci.boulder.co.us yt
www.ci.boulder.co.us/pwplan/ ~ ~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Kretschmer, Senior Planner
Steve Brown, Plan Review Engineer
FROM: Corey Schmidt, Chief Building Official
DATE: November 5, 2001
RE: Minimum separation between principal and accessory buildings and specifically addressing that
written correspondence received from Steven Dodd, Architect and dated Oct. 26, 2001.
Mr. Dodd's letter is not entirely accurate and would mislead the reader in the proper meaning and application
of the building code. General statements such as `Yhe UBC in fact does not require any separation between
buildings of R3 occupancy located on the same property" (page 1, last paragraph) is not a true statement. A
fire separation (fire protected construction) or a physical separation of 6 feet is required between separate
dwellings, Although there are other statements in the letter that could be misleading to the reader not
practiced in the interpretation and application of the building code, I would agree with Mr. Dodd regarding his
specific case. The proposed "porch" would be considered an appurtenance, accessory or incidental to the
dwelling and having the same use according to the building codes occupancy or use classification. Obviously
a porch is most often and normally a part of the dwelling however, the building code does not require
"attachmenY' or common connection.
I can only assume that the Land Use code used the 6 feet of physical separation from table 5-A of the UBC as
a pertormance standard in order to better define the term "detached". In fact, the UBC does this same thing
albeit in a more indirect manner. The term "detached accessory buildings' is found under UBC 106.2 item 1
and yet the term detached is not defined. Consider a one story detached accessory structure as separate or
standing alone from the principal or primary use structure, in order to exempt it from the permit process (the
exception being within the city of Boulder) we would need to see a physical separation of 6 feet. If the one
story detached accessory structure did not have 6 feet of separation from the primary use, we would
aggregate the area and include such structure as part of the primary structure. Mr. Dodd eludes to this UBC
provisions on page 1, item 1, paragraph 1 in his letter.
I agree with Mr. Dodd regarding the flexibiiity of design and further applaud his effort to provide code language
to allow this flexibility. I would caution our policymakers on using the language provided by Mr. Dodd as it is
not clear as to what occupancy classifications or zoning districts this language should apply to.
Gary, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue and wish you a speedy resolution
A9enda Ilem / ~' ~ Page # -,~3
Amendment #9
Description: Street and Alley Tree Locations
Code Section: 9-3.3-3 (b)
Purpose of Amendment
Clarify where street tree and alley tree can be located when adjacent to (a) alleys and (b) within front
yardslandscape setbacks.
Overview
(a) The landscape regulations do not have any setback requirements for trees adjacent to alleys. As
a tree matures it can obstruct the alley if planted too close as well as obstruct ingress and egress to
off-street parking. A reasonable setback to prevent such obstructions is required.
(b) Currently, the landscape regulations require that when remodeling exceeds 25% of the valuation
of a building occurs, compliance with the landscape regulations is required. For single family
detached structures in low density residential zones the landscaping is limited to the provision of
street trees. The preferred location for a street tree is between a curb and a detached sidewalk or four
to five feet from the back edge of an attached sidewalk. On occasion, providing a street tree in the
required location will conflict with existing trees within the front yard landscape setback.
Maintaining minimum separation between trees is important to the long-term health of the tree
(please referto attached graphic).
Staff Recommendation
Trees should be setback a minimum of four feet from the edge of an aliey. Four feet is consistent
with the minimum distance reyuirement for spacing of street trees from streets. Existing trees over
two inches in caliper, on the City Forester's approved street tree list, and are within 20 feet of the
front yard or side yard adj acent a street setback (corner lot frontage) will qualify as a required street
tree.
Options Considered
While other minimum distance requirements were considered for tree spacing from an alley, the
standard recommended is consistent with the spacing standard for street trees from a street. There
was little justification to establish another standard.
Regarding front yazd street trees, the option considered was not requiring street tree for any remodel
regardless of cost of improvements. Because remodels are responsible for the majority of
development in established neighborhoods, this results in the most opportune time to assure street
trees are being provided.
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee a~~{
~ ~~r~r ~ ~u.~r ~ t~cprt~+us , ~
___
~
~~~y
. .~... ..
_______ ~~~. 5 ~~.
~ ~''~
:
~
~ ~I
j l ,~~~~ i
~ ~~'=~` 1
~ 1
~ i...__ ___._.. _. ____ _. ~
' ___ _ ~_ ~ ~
_ _ _ ~-~
' 20` ~GyU.a- G~r~~
.. ..._.~..., .. .. ~G~te7~ ~
~~~
,~- '~."
u-r~.6-~ ---~ ~ _--
~~~
AgB~Id91bAI #..,G~Page # . a? 5
Amendment #10
Description: Definition of Building Envelope
Code Section: 9-1-3
Purpose of Amendment
Create a definition for -"Building Envelope."
Overview
The term "building envelope" is used in the regulations and as a common term when discussing
land use development within the city. The term is also being used in a current code modification
(Amendment #1) as it relates to slopes calculations. While the term is defined in Title 1 of the
Boulder Revised Code, it is not currently defined in Title 9, the Land Use Regulations. The existing
definition in Title 1 includes outdated language in reference to Planned Unit Developments. Staff
anticipates that the term may be used more frequently in future modifications to the code as well.
Staff recommendation
Proposed definition -
"building envelope"- means that area on any lot on which a structure can be erected consistent with
the existing setback requirements and is defined by the setback lines applicable to that lot."
Options Considered
Leave code as is and not define the term.
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ~~~
Amendment #11
Description: Protection of residential zones from height increases
Code Section: 9-3.2-13(d)
Purpose of Amendment
Clarification of existing standards to protect °residential zoning districts" rather than a specific use
from impacts which are a result of building height. The amendment will provide greater protection
for residential zones.
Overview
The current regulations state that "any building over thirty five feet in height adjacent to a residential
use shall be setback from the property line of such uses one foot far every foot of height over thirty
five feet in addition to the required setback". As written, this section only protects existing
residential uses regardless o£zoning district that are adjacent to proposed buildings which will
exceed 35 feet. There are occasions where a taller building could abut a residentially zoned property
that currently contains a non-residential use. Such residential zones wouid not benefit from the
increased setback required by a taller building.
Staff Recommendation
Staffrecommends that the existing code language be modified to read "....adjacent to a residential
zoning district shall be...." This would protect residential properties that could be redeveloped in
the future from the impacts of increased height.
Options Considered
Leave existing wording as is (no change).
S:\plan\pb-items~memos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ~'7
Amendment #12
Description: Forms of ownership for ADUs and OAUs
Code Section: 9-3.4-12 & 9-3.4-13
Purpose of Amendment
Add revocable living trusts as a form of allowable ownership for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
and Owner Accessory Units (OAU).
Overview
The ADU and OAU regulations require that at least one owner of record with at least an estate for
life or a fifty percent fee simple ownership interest reside in either the principal building or the ADU
or OAU on the subj ect property. The City Attorney's Office has received several inquiries to include
revocable living trusts as a ownership option. Adding a revocable living trust will require either the
grantor or one of the grantees to live on the subject property.
Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff and the City Attorney's Office recommend addition of this increasingly common form
of ownership to the ADU and OAU regulations.
Options Considered
No changes to existing code language.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA TTEM # 6A Paee ~~
Amendment #13
Description: Financial guarantees required prior to TCO
Code Section: 9-1-4
Purpose of Amendment
Resolve inconsistency between Building Code and Land Use Regulations regarding financial
guarantees and issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
Overview
The Land Use Regulations indicate that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) can be issued if an escrow
(financial guarantee) is submitted for any incomplete improvements. The Uniform Building Code
indicates than only a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) will be issued when outstanding
improvements exist. The building code requirements have been the adopted practice oFthe city.
A CO is the last hold the city has on a project and the practice has been not to issue the CO until the
project is 100% complete. A TCO is issued when improvements, which do not affect the safety of
the building's occupants, are incomplete. An example would be to issue a TCO for a building being
completed in the winter and landscape improvements cannot be completed until the following spring.
Prior to the issuance of the TCO the applicant would submit a financial guarantee for the value of
the incomplete improvements. Upon the compietion of those improvements, a CO would then be
issued.
Staff Recommendation
Staffrecommends that Section 9-1-4(a) be revised to indicate that oniy a TCO will be issued when
there are incomplete improvements.
Options Considered
Leave Land Use Regulations as written and continue to enfarce the City's current practices based on
the building code.
S:\plan\pb-itemstrnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee A y
Amendment #14
Description: Revise definition of "setback"
Code Section: 9-1-3(a)
Purpose of Amendment
Revised definition of "setback" to indicate that setbacks are measured to the outer perimeter of the
building or structure whether above or below grade.
Overview
The code does not currently specify if setbacks apply to portions of stiuctures below grade. Pressures
to maximize floor area are raising questions as to what can be done on a site below grade. In several
zones below grade floor area is only counted at 50% and completely below grade parking is not
counted toward floar area at all. Maximizing the below grade floar area could be beneficial to some
projects.
Inquiries by applicants have raised yuestions as to whether below grade improvements, such as a
parking garages or a basement, are applicable to setback regulations. The bulk regulations generally
indicate that the setback is a minimum yard (front yard, side yard, etc.) for a principal building or
an accessory building.
The definition of "building" reads as foilows "means any structure built for the support, shelter,
or enclosure of persons, animals, or property of any kind...." The term "setback" is defined as °the
minimum distance in linear feet measured on a horizontal plane between the outer perimeter of a
structure and each of its property lines."
The term "structure," while not defined in the Land Use Regulations, is defined in Title 1 of the
code and is therefore applicable. It defines a structure as "anything constructed or erected with a
fixed location on the ground above grade...."
Due to the definition of "structure" it appears that below grade structures are not applicable to
minimum setback requirements. Other standards, such as the landscape regulations, must still be
complied with as well. It would be very difficult to provide the landscaping required by the code over
a below grade structure. Staff has conveyed to applicants contemplating such structures that it will
not consider waiving the landscape requirements to accommodate such a building.
The construction of a below grade improvement immediately adjacent to a property line could also
have detrimental impacts to adjacent properties and improvements including streets, alleys, utilities.
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 3G
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the definition of setback be modified to read as foliows "setback" means tl~e
minimum distance in linear feet measured on a horizontal plane between the outer perimeter of a
structure whether it is above or below grade and each of its property lines."
Options Considered
Define structures (for use in the Land Use Regulations) and indicate that structure means an above
or below grade building. No changes to code. This would acknowledge that below grade structures
may encroach into the setbacks.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ,3~
Amendment #15
Description: Mobile home variances
Code Section: 9-3.6-2
Purpose of Amendment
Permit variances to bulk standards for mobile homes located in mobile home parks not zoned MH-
E.
Overview
The requirements of Section 9-3.2-2, "Mobile Home Park Bulk Requirements" are applicable to al]
mobile home parks regardless of the zoning district in which they are located.
The Variance & Interpretation section of the code allows variances to the Bulk and Density
Standards found in section 9-3.2-1. The MH-E (Mobile Home-Established ) zoning district
requirements found in the Bulk Standards refers users to section 9-3.2-2 to find the appticable
spacing requirements for mobile homes. Due to this reference, variances can be granted to the
spacing requirements.
There are, however, several mobile home parks which are not zoned MH-E but are, however, subject
to these spacing requirements. Since these spacing requirements are not found in the Bulk and
Density Standards, the spacing requirements cannot be varied for these mobile home parks.
Staff Recommendation
Staffrecommends that subsection 9-3.2-2(a) be added to the list of standards in section 9-3.6-2(a)
(variance section) which can be varied by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals
and the City Manager.
Options Considered
Rezoning all existing mobile home parks MH-E. This would be a major work project and has been
considered a viable option. The current recommendation is a"quick fix" that is needed to deal with
continuing requests to modify mobile homes in non-mobile home zoned parks.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ,3x
Amendment #16
Description: Consistent posting and notification requirements
Code Sections: 9~2.4-12(b), 9-3.4-13(c)(1), 9-3.6-2(c),9-8-14(c), 9-12-6(e), 9-3.4-18(b), and
9-3.4-19.
Purpose of Amendment
Establish consistent posting requirements for discretionary reviews, including several conditional
use reviews which require public notification, as well as variances, solar exceptions, and wetlands
permits.
Overview
At the beginning of this year a comprehensive rewrite of the posting requirements for Land
Development Reviews was adopted. Sepazate, but consistent, standards were established forproperty
posting and mailed notification. The most significant change to the posting requirements was to have
the applicant assume the actual posting of the signs (provided by the city).
While these notification standards have been incorporated into the majority of the discretionary
review processes, several where not. Those, possibly overlooked, include Conditional Use Reviews
for Accessory Dwelling Units, Owners Accessory Units, Cooperative Housing Units, and
Restaurants and Tavems. Other review types include Variances, Solar Exceptions, and Wetland
Permits. At a minimum, staff believes that all the review types referenced should be amended to
include the standard posting requirements found in Section 9-4-2(e).
Staff Recommendation
Staffrecommends that the posting requirements of those code sections referenced above be modified
to refer to the posting requirements found in Section 9-4-2(e)
Options Cousidered
Consider adopting the Personai Mailing/Six-Hundred-Foot Radius requirements in addition to the
posting requirements where application requirements also required mailed notice. This option is not
recommended as the distance requirements are excessive in some cases. For example, several of the
reviews referenced now only require notifying adj acent property owners (solar access, ADUs); others
limit the notification distance to 300 feet (variances, Coop housing, Restaurants & Taverns, and
Wetland Permits). This notification distance is considered adequate for these lessor impact land uses
applications.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee J~ 3
Amendment #17
Description: Use charts - refenal to definitions
Code Section: 9-3.1-1
Purpose oT Amendment
Identify tl~at each land use category found in the land use tables has a specific definition and users
of the code should refer to the definition section.
Overview
Users ofthe land use tables, found in section 9-3.1-1, aze often unaware that the use category found
in the use charts is only a general description of the types of uses encompassed by the category
description. For example, Yhere are several use categories for office uses such as technical offices,
professional offices, and administrative offices. Each of these use categories specifically limits the
type of offices allowed within the category. As an example, an insurance broker is listed in the
professional office category and is not allowed in the technical office category. Unless a code user
is aware of the specific definitions, an inappropriate use decision or assumption may result. Such an
error is, unfortunately, quite common and can be costly.
Staff Recommendation
Staffis recommending that a prominent referral be placed as a preamble to the use charts, which will
remind users to refer to the definitions section of the code.
" The use category shown in the charts is a general description and may represent a broader range
of uses than indicated. Please refer to the definitions of each use category found in Section 9-1-3 for
an actual list of the uses permitted by the category."
Options Considered
No other options were considered. This is intended to be a customer service improvement and does
not change the substance of the code.
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pase ,~`~
Amendment # 18
Description: Method of Calculating Slope
Code Section: 9-3.2-3
Purpose of Amendmen,t
Establish a simplified method of calculating "slope" such that correct building height measurement
procedures can be selected.
Overview
The land use regulations establish two formulas to determine the height of a structure. One of those
methods of ineasurement is based on the existing slope of the lot or parcel. The code states that "on
slopes greater than 20 degrees (36.4 percent slope), the building inay not exceed 25 feet." The
regulations do not specify how the slope will be calculated.
In 1992 a steep slope ordinance (which is not a part of the Land Use Regulations) was approved.
In general, this ordinance establishes additional requirements for development on slopes of 15 % or
more. This ordinance allowed for the establishment of administrative guidelines, one ofwhich was
a complex fottnula to calculate the percentage of slope. This formula has proven to be confusing and
inaccurate.
The simplest way to measure slope is to determine the locations of the highest point and lowest point
of grade on the parcel or lot, and then divide the elevation difference between the two points by the
horizontal distance in feet between the points. The problem with this is that the high and low points
may be located within a small area of the parcel and may not be an accurate representation of the
slope over the majority of the lot.
Staff Recommendation
Staff believes that the most important location on a lot is the building envelope or where a structure
can be built. The building envelope is determined by the principal building setbacks. Because of this
importance, staff is of the opinion that slope should be measured within the building envelope. Slope
should be measured through the building envelope from front to rear or from side to side, whichever
results in the steepest grade (see attached graphics) using common slope calculation mathematics
(difference in grade between high and low points/distance between high and low points = percent
of slope).
Options Considered
Options considered by staff included measuring the slope between the front and rear or between the
side property lines whichever resulted in the greatest slope. Once again this triay not be a fair
depiction oF the site, if for example, the majority of the slope fel] within the front or rear setback
(areas where a building cannot be built).
S:\plan\pb-items~memoslbblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee '~S
`~;GO~ Gr?GCUC.~vTO.~ ~'X~Mp~~" ~•
~~
_... `. „ _...__ .. ____. ____ .V. /l.iD ~H/6f/)
-~ ____ --__ ___. __.__. ___. _, 9~
- _._. ..~ _.. ~. --. _._. ~. .., qo
---- , --- ____, ___. ___, __-. _-_. ___. ~._, ___,g~
.
._-_. _._. ..-_. _-_.. _... _. -,. --..~o
.., .~ ~ ^ _--_ ____ ---. 75
-- ~ .,.. .-.. ....,, ~o
~ l
__.. .~ ~ ..._ ._. Y _-___. ____, lv5
,8U/Ga/•rJla ~ ~ /G~D-¢g = 5Z
I F.,~t/Uf./,~PB ' 5Z : l~id= 3?%a
. --~.:
. ,
~ IC~ I ~ f~.,G ~N~i'~
~~ ~
75_~~ _ ~S
. J ~ .S=9o: ~~.~~~
. . ~..-:
~~
1 ~
: .
_ _. _ 1....._.. ~
~.. _ ~ ~
.._~. f-~, -~ -.~ _~ ~~ ,_~„~ .~. ~~
~~ T'^ • n----~ c~.,
~~ ~--.--~ ~~ ~ .--y JC/
• • ~~ ~ • ~~~~~
/IWNT
/~'`4/
Ag~da Nem t.,,L`fL,Pege Y ~~lu
~C~055 S~GT/D~J OF
~ ~Xsa~1~GS"
/ ~~ZD ~
Apanda 16smm t~Page t ~~-
_ -
.~.....y..
~~ ~
I/
/ ~%
, ~
~o° ~ : ~I
~; IT ,
~~,
.._..L ..
~ ~
~ ~ T ~
i /~ ~
~,~:~
, ,~
,~
.
_ ~~;
,~ 1 ~
~' ~ ~ ~ ,~
~-, ,~
~~ r ~ ~ ~ `f
.~"' /,
S
fi~1~ ~
~~ 1
~ .C~
~~C~~
11 I
:II
~11~~~1
s~l I
~ ~ 11
~1L--~- ---~
a
. fi..'f..
~
,~
1
1
~,,ii~~~
.~~.~....{, ~
~~ ~
` ,__ _ /OD
• .__ ~ ~.
~ -- -r- 90
_ ~' ~" _ ~-}--
--~ ~-- _ ~ -.B~
-;-~ ~-}--
~. ~ --F-~-.'°
~. _,~.
L _ .~
~~. - -~-
~~
:
_ ~ ^~.~
~ ~
.. ..~.._:..
$d/l•D/NG ~'NYEIOf~" ~TY~~L''~G "
For building permit height
calculation purposes, slope
will be measured in a
manner that results in the
steepest slope within the
building envelope.
Ag~allemf ~~ PageN ~i ~ _
Amendment #19
Description: Recreational uses in residential zones
Code Section: 9-3-1(a)
Purpose of Amendment
Create consistent land use terms for recreational uses that are allowed to be considered in residential
zones.
Overview
Two recreation oriented use categories are found in the residential zoning districts. Neither term is
specifically defined as it appears in the use section of the code. The categories are "reareational
buildings and uses open to the publid' and "recreational or athletic facilities operated as part of and
for the sole use of the occupants of a development." The term "recreational or a[hletic facility" is,
however, defined. Staff has responded to a number of questions as to whether there is supposed to
be differences between a recreationa] building and a recreational or athletic facilities, or whether the
two terms are intended to include the same general uses. Staff is of the opinion that the intent was
to include the same uses and to differentiate between when the use was permitted or would require
further review. Those uses meant for the general public (the equivalent to a commercial use in a
residential zone) would require a review and a recreational or athletic facility which is meant
exclusively for the occupants of a specific development (such as a commons area ownad by a
homeowners association that includes indoor and/ar outdoor recreation facilities) would be allowed
by right in most cases.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that one term with two options be used rather than severa] terms with several
definitions. Since "recreational or athletic facility" is already defined, we recommend retaining this
as the principal use category term. The two options would be "recreational or athletic facility -
available to the general publid' and °recreational or athletic facility - located within and used
exclusively by the occupants of a residential development." The former term would replace
"recreational buildings and uses open to the public." The later term would replace "recreational or
athletic facilities operated as part of and for the exclusive sole use of the occupants of a
development."
Options Considered
Create clearer definitions for the two land use categories that currently exist.
S:\plan\pb-itemstinemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee :,~~~
Amendment #20
Description: Graphics for setback averaging
Code Section: 9-2.2-13(a)
Purpose of Amendment
Provide a graphic showing an example of setback averaging in the appendices.
Overv'-ew
Setback averaging is a code tool that allows reduced setbacks when the majority of structures on a
face block do not meet the minimum setbacks. In older areas of the city it is not unusual to find the
majority of existing structures on a block to not be in compliance with the minimum front setback
requirement. Prior to setback averaging, additions to non-standud or new structures had to meet the
setbacks of the underlying zoning district. This would often result in the additions or new structures
being setback wall to the rear ofthe building. This additions could not always be integrated very well
into the structure, and the additions ]ooked like an afterthought and incompatible with adjacent
structures. Setback averaging was created to result these design problems and prevent awkward
looking structures.
The regulations establish several criteria that must be taken into consideration before a lot or parcel
qualifies for setback averaging. Some of these criteria are that the applicant must demonstrate that
more than 50% of the principal buildings on the "face block" must be less than the minimum
required setback, that the setback will be measured to the "bulk of the building" and the average
setback will be based on the "average setback of the two adjacent buildings." If the subj ect property
is a corner ]ot, what are the two adjacent lots?
Staff Recommendation
A graphic (see attached) was prepared to help train the Project Specialists at the front desk of the
Building Services Center. The Project Specialists have indicated the graphic is of considerable help
when they explain questions regarding setback averaging. As it has proven to be helpful, staff feels
that it would be appropriate to add the graphic to the appendices and add a referral to the graphic in
the code text.
Options Considered
None. This is an addition to improve customer service and does not impact the existing code
language. The setback averaging section is frequently misunderstood, so inclusion ofthe graphic in
the code, rather than supplementary pamphlets, was considered the most effective solution.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pase yG
~~
~~r~~ ~v~~i~ .,
..._.....J ~.._..._..._.._.."..~.. .. .....J
sr.~~r
_.... ~
~
~
~~~f •• N ~
?°' ~' a~ ~'
: f : ~
1 I I P~
~ t ~ I
_.. .~1.._ ..~....E.I..... ~:
i!' ~'f~RcH ~
~
Lots "B" through "F" are the face block.
Lot "A" is not includes in the face block as it fronts on a different street.
L
r
:
w~
~~
~~
I
Setback averaging is measured to the bulk of the building and does not include
porches.
Assume the block shown is zoned LR-E. The minimum required front-yard
setback would be 25 feet. The block face shown wou]d qualify for setback
averaging. The number of lots with buildings less than the minimum required
setback exceeds 50% of the total number of lots on the face block.
An addition to the front of I.ot "E" would require the averaging of the setbacks of
lots "D" and "F", the two closest buildings on the same lot face. In this example,
the resulting setback would be 20 feet (the average of 15 feet (lot "D") and 25 feet
( lot "F")).
An addition to the front of lot "F" would require the averaging of the setbacks of
lots "D" and "E", the two closest bnildings on the same 1ot face.
Ag~a Poem /.,.~Page # ~
Amendment #21
Description: Variance application submittal requirements
Code Section: 9-3.6-1
Purpose of Amendment
Revise the minimum variance application materials requirements to include floor plans, demolition
plans, and architectural elevations.
Overview
The application requirements for a variance are minimal in that only a site plan and written statement
being required. While a majority of applicants provide complete plans, a few do not. Several of the
variance criteria require the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals to make findings
regarding architectural compatibility, character, volume and a finding that the variance is the
minimum one to afford relie£ To arrive at these findings additional information is often necessary.
At minimum, the Board has requested floor plans, demolition plans, and architectural elevations to
do so. Floor plans tell the Board what exists and what is being proposed. Demolition plans indicate
how much of an existing structure is being removed and replaced, and architectural elevations help
with height compatibility and architectural design compatibility issues. On occasion, the Board has
fouud it necessary to continue a meeting until such plans could be provided.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the application submittal requirements of subsection 9-3.6-2(b) be expanded
to include floor plans, demolition plans, and architectural elevations.
Options Considered
No changes. Leave requirements as they currently exit.
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee ~{a?
Amendment #22
Description: Removal of unrelated code language
Code Section: 9-33-19(b)
Purpose of Amendment
Code correction- remove incorrect, unrelated language in a cross-reference.
Overview
Section 9-33-19 is a section within the Site Development Standards which refers users to the Solar
Access and Solar Siting standards found in Chapter 9-8 of the Land Use Regulations. Sub Section
(b) makes reference to floor area ratios which has no relationship to the solar access referral. It
appears that this sub-section may be a typographical or printing error.
Staff Recommendation
Remove subsection (b) from Section 9-3.3-19
Options Considered
None. This is a correction to an appazent error.
S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee y~
Amendment #23
Description: Options chart - wireless telecommunications antennae
Code Section: 9-3.4-17
Purpose of Amendment
Add a chart of locational options for wireless telecommunication antennae.
Overview
The antennae for wireless telecommunication section ofthe Land Use regulations contains numerous
options for location of antennae on a building. Each option has several different criteria that must
be met. A chart was created to aid staff in the review of the conditional use applications. It was
determined that the same chart may be equally helpful to other users of the code.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends inserting the following chart in Section 9-3.4-17 or adding it to the appendices
section with the appropriate referral.
Note: The chart in the proposed ordinance is modified from the chart below to incorporate the
footnoted text directly into the matrix.
Antenna Locations On building wall On existing On a roof On new 6TS equipment
conforming mechanical allowcd on roof
penthouse or screening or
mechanicalscreen replacemenl
screenin
On buildings Under Yes Yes (a) Yes (b) Yes (c) Yes (d)
55'in hei ht
On buildings Over Yes Yes(a) No Ycs(c) Na
55'in hei ht
(1) Antennae may not project above existing penthouse or mechanical screen
(2) Maybe located on the roof subject to the criteria of Section 9-3.4-17(a)(5).
(3) The new or replacement mechanical screening can be no higher than the existing
mechanical equipment it is intended to screen. Antennae cannot project above the
mechanical screen.
(4) No portion of the base station equipment (BTS) can project above the maximum
allowable building height of the underlying zoning district.
S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA TTEM # 6A Paee ~/4/
Options Considered
None. This addition is modification to make the code more user friendly and is not a substantive
change.
S:\plan\pb-items~rriemos\bblur3.mem.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pase '/7
ATTACHMENT B
MEMORANDUM
November 29, 2001
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Peter Pollock, Planning Director
Ruth McHeyser, Directar Long Range Planning
Deon Wolfenbarger, Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Discussion of recommendations to Planning Board and City Council
regarding various code changes to Section 10-13 of the Boulder Revised
Code, 1981.
PURPOSE & BACKGROUND:
The Planning Board is being asked to consider and make recommendations to City
Council regarding proposed changes to the historic preservation code, Section 10-13 of
the Bouldet• Revised Code, 1981. These changes have been discussed and approved by
the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Discontiguous districts
As the code is currently written, a historic district must be a"distinct section" of the city
(10-13-3), or an "entity" (administrative regulations for significance criteria for districts).
This would appear to disallow discontiguous historic districts. However, there are some
resources that may share a common history or architecture which are not found
immediately adjacent to one another. Tha most common example found in Boulder is
irrigation ditches. In order to give the city the ability to designate these types of
resources, the code changes shown below are recommended.
10-13-3 City Council may Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts.
(a)Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the city council may by ordinance:
(~ Desi~nate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites,
buildines, structures, or obiects which are contained in two or more
geogranhically segarate areas, but which are united historicallv.
architecturallv. or environmentally: and
(~ (4) Amend designations to add features or properties to the site or
district.
2. Threshold far full LPAB hearings
The Landmarks Board has discussed raising the thrashold for construction of new
accessory buildings which may be reviewed at the design review committee level.
/~ende Ilem i ~~A Page A `/ro
This proposed change is in response to the growing number of applications for
new garage construction. The purpose of allowing additional landmark alteration
certificates to be issued at the committee level is to encourage smaller, secondary
buildings to be constructed, thereby having less impact on the historic districts or
landmark. Additionally, this would significantly reduce the additionally staff and
board time which is required for preparation for full board hearings.
10-13-14 Staff Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate.
(b)The landmarks board shall hold a public hearing on all applications for
landmark alteration certificates for new construction, removal, or demolition of a
designated landmark structure or a structure within a historic district, except that
an application for construction of a~ one-storv accessory building or structure
with a total floor area of 6A 340 square feet or less may be approved by the
manager and two ]andmarks board designees without a public hearing.
3. Definition of "demolition"
The purpose of the proposed changes is to clarify for the public and staff what
constitutes demolition for the purposes of LPAB's review of demolition of non-
landmarked buildings over fifty yeazs of age. The definition of "demolition" is found
in Section 10-13-2, and pertains to sections 10-13-12 through 10-13-18, and to Section
10-13-23 ofthe BoulderRevised Code (B.R.C.), 1981. 10-13-23 provides review of
demolition and moving permits for non-landmarked buildings and buildings outside of
designated historic districts to order to prevent the loss of potentially historically or
architecturally significant resources. This review process gives the board time to
review the significance of the building, as well as allows the applicant time to seek
alternatives to demolishing or moving the property in question. The ordinance was
not developed to provide the Board a chance to review or affect the design of
alterations to non-landmarked buildings.
[Note: changes to the code are underlinedJ
Section 1. Section 10-13-2, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the repeal of the
definition of "demolition," to read:
"Demolition" means an act or process which removes one or more of the followine: al
sevent~percent or more of the roof area as measured in plan view; b seventypercent or
more of the exterior walls of a buildine as measured contiguously in nlan view around the
"buildin ce overage" as defined in Section 9-1-3. "Definitions;' B.R.C. 1981: or cl anv
exterior wali facine a nublic street. but not an act or process which removes an exterior
wall facine an alleX
Section 2. Section 10-13-23, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
10-13-23 Review of Permits for Demolition, Moving, and Removal of Buildings.
qgenda IEe~n i~'A Pegs H~f 7
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the review of permit applications for demolition,
moving, and removal of buildings that are over fifty years old is to prevent the
loss of buildings that may have historical or architectural significance. The
purpose of this section is also to provide the time necessary to initiate designation
as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives for the building.
(b) Permit Requirement. No person shall demolish, move, or remove any building
which is over fifty years old without first applying to the city manager for a
permit under this section, receiving the permit, and conducting the demolition,
moving, or removing of the building before the permit expires. The application
and permit shall be in addition to any application or permit required under
Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981, and shall be on a form provided by
the city manager, although the manager may combine the application and permit
with any other form or permit at the manager's discretion.
(c) Demolition Determination: The city manager will determine if demolition review
under this section is required by examining building permit applications for
buildings described in subsection (b) above.
(1) Demolition'I'hresholds: A proposed action that exceeds any ofthe
standards described in 10-13-2 shall be considered a demolition and shall
be subject to the review process required by this section.
(2) Retained Exterior Walls: In order to be considered a retained exterior
watl, the exterior wall shalI, at a minimum, retain studs, the exterior wall
finish. and the fully framed and sheathed roof above for that portion of the
remaining building. The retained exterior walls shall be continuouslv
connected.
(ed) Initial Review. The city manager and two designated members of the landmarks
board shall review all permit applications for demolition, moving, or removal of
buildings that are over fifty years old. The initial review shall be completed within
fourteen days after the city manager accepts a completed permit application to
determine whether Yhere is probable cause to believe that the building may be
eligible for designation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes
and standards in Sections 10-13-1, "Legislative Intent," and 10-13-3, "City
Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981. If the
city manager and two designated members of the landmarks board fail to review
the application within thirty days after the city manager accepts a completed
permit application, the city manager shall issue the permit if all other
requirements of the permit process have been met.
(~e) Scope of Permit Review and Stav of the Issuance of a Permit. If the city manager
and two designated members of the landmarks board unanimously determine that
there would be no significant impact or potential detriment to the historic
resources of the city, the city manager shall issue the permit if all other
Agendai tlem 1~'R Page ~ ysf
requirements of the permit process have been met. If the city manager or one of
the two designated members of the landmarks board determines that there is
probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an
individual landmark, the issuance of the permit shall be stayed for up to sixty days
from the date that a completed application is accepted by the city manager, and
the permit shall be referred to the landmarks board for a pubiic hearing. A copy
of this determination, including the reasons why the building may be eligible for
designation, shall be provided to the property owner within fourte0n days of the
determination.
(e fl Notice of Public Hearine. The city manager shall publish notice of the time,
place, and subject matter of the public hearing before the landmarks board in a
newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days before the hearing.
At least fifteen days before the hearing, the city manager shall also:
(1) Post the property subject to the application to indicate that a permit review
appeal has been requested; and
(2) Mail written notice to the record owners of the property subject to the
application. If the address of the property owner is not a matter of public
record, any failure to send notice by mail does not invalidate any
proceedings on the permit application.
(€g) Landmarks Board Pubiic Hearings on Permits. The landmarks board shall hold a
public hearing on the permit application within sixty days after the city manager
accepts a completed application, pursuant to the procedures prescribed by Chapter
1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. If the landmarks board fails to hold
a public hearing within sixty days after the city manager accepts a completed
permit application, the city manager shall issue the permit if all other
requirements of the pennit process have been met. The landmarks board shail
consider and base its decision based upon any of the following criteria:
(1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark
consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 10-13-1,
"Legislative Intent," and 10-13-3, "City Council May Designate
Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981;
(2) The relationship of the bui3ding to the character of the neighborhood as an
established and definable area;
(3) The reasonable condition of the building; and
(4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair.
In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration
or repair as set forth in paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the board may not consider
deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.
(gh) Decision of the Landmarks Board. If the landmarks board finds that the building
to be moved, removed, or demolished does not have historical significance under
the criteria set forth in subsection (€g) above, the city manager shall issue a permit
if all other requirements of the permit process are met. If the board finds that the
building may have historical significance under the criteria set forth in subsection
Agenda item A~° g Page #`I 9
(€g) above, the appiication shall be suspended for a period not to exceed one
hundred eighty days from the date the permit application was accepted by the city
manager.
(ki) One Hundred Ei~v Dav Stav Period. During the period of a stay of the
issuance of a•permit for demolition, moving, or removal, the landmarks board
may take any action that it deems necessary and consistent with this chapter to
preserve the structure, including, without limitation, consulting with civic groups,
public agencies, and interested citizens; recommending acquisition of the property
by private or public bodies or agencies; exploring the possibility of moving
buildings that would otherwise be demolished; and salvaging building materials.
If individual landmark designation has not been initiated during the one hundred
eighty day period, the city manager shall issue a permit if all other requirements
of the permit process have been met.
(~j) Record of Demolished and Moved Properties. Prior to the issuance of a permit
for demolition, moving, or removal, the city manager may require the applicant to
provide information about the building, including, without limitation, the date of
original construction, significant events and occupants, architectural features, and
a description of the building through photographs, plans, and maps. The city
manager will determine where the documentation is to be deposited.
(}k) Ex~iration. Any approval pursuant to this section shall expire one hundred
eighty days after such approval is made if the work authorized by such permit has
not commenced. A decision or failure to take action by the city manager and two
members of the landmarks board pursuant to subsection (~e) above, or by the
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board pursuant to subsection (gh) above, shall
be considered an approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Graphic Illustration of demolition definition
Agenda Ilem t %~Page # . 5lJ
Attachment A
A. Removal of seventy percent or more of the roof
area, as measured in plan view
B. Removal of seventy percent or more of the exterior
walls of a building as measured contiguously in plan
view around the "building coverage" as defined in
Section9-1-3. "De~nitions."B.R.C.1981:
C. Removal of any exterior wall facing a public street,
but not an act or process which removes an exterior
~ wall facing an alley.
M
~
Street
S:~PLAN~data\Comdev~HIS'I\GEN~Code changes\planningboardmemo.doc
Agenda Item A~Paae # ~
ATTACHMENT C
ORDINANCE NO._
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "LAND USE
REGULATIONS," B.R.C. 1981, BY MAKING AMENDMENTS
TO SECTION 9-1-3, "DEFINITIONS," AMENDING THE
DEFINITIONS OF "BUILDINGENVELOPE"AND "SETBACK,"
SECTION 9-1-4, "FINANCIAL GUARANTEES," SECTION 9-
3.1-1, G°SCHEDULE OF PERMITTED USES OF LAND,"
SECTION 9-3.1-2, "OTHER PERMITTED• USES OR
RESTRICTIONS UPON LAND," 9-3.2-1, °°SCHEDULE OF
BULK REQUIREMENTS," SECTION 9-3.2-3, "BUILDING
HEIGHT," SECTION 9-3.2-i3, "SETBACK STANDARDS,"
SECTION 9-3.3-3, °GSTREETSCAPE DESIGN STANDARDS,"
Section 9-3.3-9, "PARHING REDUCTION," SECTION 9-3.3-19,
"SOLAR ACCESS AND SOLAR SITING AND
CONSTRUCTION," SECTION 9-3.4-12, "ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS," SECTION 9-3.4-13, "OWNER'S
ACCESSORY UNIT," SECTION 9-3.4-17, "ANTENNAE FOR
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES," 9-3.4-18,
"COOPERATIVE HOUSING UNITS," SECTION 9-3.4-19,
~BESTAURANTS AND TAVERNS," SECTION 9-3.6-2,
~°VARIANCES AND INTERPRETATIONS," SECTION 9-4-8,
~DEVELOPMENT IN STAGES, TIME OF APPROVAL, CITY
MANAGERREVIEW OF PROGRESS, AND EXPIRATION OF
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL," SECTION 9-4-9 "USE
REVIEW," SECTION 9-4-11, ~~SITE REVIEW," SECTfON 9-12-
6, G°WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION," AND BY THE
ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 9•3.3-30,
"TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT OPTION
POINTS," AND APPENDIX I, "SETBACK AVERAGING,"
AND SETTING FORT DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section *. Tha definition of "building envalope" in Subsection 1-2-1(b); B.R.C 1981, is
repealed:
K:IPLCU'~o-2001 lurvamendmenl. ehf
Apa~ldelfemt ~'~ PageA ~?~?
« >,
' « „
. , ,
... ,
,
>
Section *. Subsection 9-1-3(a), B.R.C. 1981, is amended by the following additions to and
amendments of the following definitions, to read:
"Building envelope" means thaf area on a'lot on wfiich a shucture can be erected consistent
with existing setback requiremenfs thak is defined by the setback lines applicable to thaf lot
consistent with the underlying zoning district, or as modified pursuant to a variance, a site
review, or prior city approval.
"Setback" means the minimum distance in linear feet measured on a horizontal plane
between the outer perimeter of a structure, whether above grade or below grade, and each of
its lot lines. Where a lot abuts a major roadway, the building and use setback is measured
as prescribed in Section 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981.
Section *. Subsection 9-1-4(a), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(a) If at the time of a request for a temporary certificate of occupancy ar temporary certificate
of completion all work required by a building permit or development agreement is not
completed, the developer shall provide financial security in the form of an escrow of funds
with the city, a letter of credit, or other financial guarantee that is acceptable to the city
attorney to secure the installation or completion of improvemenYs required by this title or the
terms of a development agreement, including, without limitation, landscaping, building and
site treatment, and public improvements.
Section *. Section 9-3.1-1, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.1-I Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land.
The schedule shows the uses which are permitted, conditionally permitted, prohibited, or which may
be permitted through use review pursuant to Section 9-4-9, ".Use Review," B.R.C. 1981. An
K:\PLCU\oQ001 lurvamendmeneehf
~ ~ ~ (~I pe~ q ~5.3
application for a conditional use will be reviewed in accordance with the procedures established in
Section 9-3.6-1, "Administrative Review," B.R.C. 1981. Use review applications will be reviewed
in accordance with the procedures astablished in Section 9-4-9, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981.
Conditional use and use review applications shall also meet the additional standards set forth in
Chapter 9-3.4, "Specific Use Standards and Criteria," B.R.C. 1981. The land uses described in this
section may be further defined in Seotion 9-1-3, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981. No person shall use
any land within the city except according to the following schedule of uses.
Section *. Line 19 in Subsection 9-3.1-1(a), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
RR-E MR-E MR-D MXR-E MXR-D HR-E MU-X MU-D RMS-X MH-E
~ RRbE LR-D MR-X HR-D
ER-E HR-X
LR-E HZ-E
19. recreational U U U U U U A U U 0
~~
athlelic.facilities open lo
the public
K;\PLCU~o-20011ur-amendmenteh£
Agsnda Ibm # ~ ~ Page ~ • 5~
Section *. Line 13 in Subsection 9-3.1-1(b), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
TB-E BMS-X CB-E RB-E RB-D RBl-E RB2-E RB3-E RBl-X RB2-X RB3-X
TB-D CB-D
13. (a) restaurants and U A A A A A C C A C A
tavems no larger [han
1,500 square feet in floor ~ ~
area, which may have
meal service on an ou[side
pa[io no[ more than 1/3
[he floor area, and which
close no laterthan 11:00
p.m.
~ db) respuranG~ and- U C q A A~ A G C A C A
tavems greater ihan ! 500 ~
square feet; but less than
5500 square feet in floor;
aiea; which may haye
meaFservice on an outside
paNa tlot rrlore than~ 1/3
[ho 11oor ares; and which
closeno laicr than 11:00
p.m.
(bc) restaurants and
~ U U A A A A U U A U A
tavema
over 1;SB~S,500
syuare feet in Floor area,
or which close akcr I I:00
p.m.
(ed) restauran[s and U U U U U U U U U U U
tavems with an outdoor
seating area of 300 square
feet or more within 500
feat of a residential zoning
district
Section *. Section 9-3.1-2, B.R.C. 1981, is amended by the addition of a new subsection (e),
to read:
(e) Zoning Standards for Lots in Two or IGtore Zonine DistrictsE Ex~sfing bnildings located in
more than one zoning district sfiall be regulated according to the applicable use sfandards foa
the. zoning district in which tlte inajority of tha existing building is locafed. Any buildirig
additions or site improvemenfs shall be regulated accarding to the zoning district in which
such additions oX improvements aze located' In the event that the an existipg building is split
in halfbetween twQ zoiring disfricts, fhe'city manager-shall de~ermine,~ufiich use sCandards
shall apply based upon the historic use of the building and the:oharacter of the suriounding
azea::
K9PLCU~o-20011ur-amendmentehf
1~enda 16em t l' R Pege R_55
Section *. Line 4 of Subsection 9-3.2-1(b), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
ZONING
REQUIREMENTS LR-D MR-D HR-D MU-D MXR-D TB-D CO-D RB-D IS-D IG-D IM-D
4. mininmm number for detached dwelling units, for detacheA I'or detachcd dwelling units, for de[ached dwelling units, 1.5
otbff-street parking i31 parking spaces; Tor dwelling units, 1.5 I.5 parking spaces; for parking spaces; for nnached
spaces per dwclling at[ached dwelling uni[s, I parking spaces; for a[tachcd dwelling uni[s, 1 Awelling units, 1 bedroom
uniA"' bedroom requires 1 spaoe~~, 2 a[mched dwelling 6eAroom requires I spaee~~, 2 ~~~~~~~ i 8pao~~~, z n~d~~~o~»s
bedrooms require 1.5 spaces, uni~s, 1 or 2 bedrooms require 1.5 spaces, require I.5 spaces, 3 bedrooms
3 bedrooms require 2 spaces, bedrooms require 1 3 6edrooms require 2 spaces, require 2 spaces, and 4 or morc
and 4 or more 6edrooms space~'~, 3 bedmoms and 4 or more bedrooms bedrooms require 3 spaces
require 3 spaces require LS spaces, rcquire 3 spaces
and 4 or more
bedrooms rcquirc 2
Section *. Subsection 9-3.2-3(a), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(a) Permitted Heieht: The height permitted wiYhout review within the city is set forth in Section
9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, except as provided below in
paragraph (2). Buildings greater than the permitted height may be approved under Section
9-4-11, "Site Review," B.RC. 1981.
(1) The height of a building is determined as described in the definition of height in
Subsection 9-1-3(a), B.RC 1981. The 1958 contours, as shown on maps on file at
the planning department, shall control to determine the elevation.
(2) On a slopes-measured within the building envelope created by the required setbacks
from property lines that is greater than twenty degrees (36.4 percent slope), the
building height may not exceed twenty-five feet. (See Appendix "D".) However,
under no circumstances shall a structure exceed fifry-five feet as measured under
Charter Section 84 except as provided for poles in Section 9-4-11, "Site Review,"
B.R.C. 1981. The slope percentage shall be calculated by measuring the difference
between the high poinf and the low point within the building envelope and dividing
it by the distance,between the high and low points.
K9PLCU~od001 lur-amendmenLehf
Ag~da Nem t~: A, page #<SlG
Section *. Appendix I of Title 9, B.RC. 1981, attached to this ordinance as "Exhibit A" is
adopted by this reference.
Section *. Subsections 9-3.2-13(a) and (d), B.R.C. 1981, are amended to read:
(a) Front Yard Setback Reductions: In any established district, the front yard setback required
in Section 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced for a
principal structure on any lot ifmore than fifty percent of the principal buildings on the same
block face or street face do not meet the required front yard setback. The setback for the
adjacent buildings and other buildings on the block face shall be measured from the property
line to the bulk ofthe building, excluding, without limitation, any unenclosed porches, decks,
patios or steps. The bulk of the building setback shall not be ]ess than the average bulk of
the building setback for the two adjacent structures. The front yard setback may be reduced
to the average of the setback of the closest two buildings on the same block face. An
illustration of how to reduce a fr6nt yard setbaok pursuant to Ehis seqtion may be found in
Appendix I; Title 9, "Land Use Regulations," B.R.G: 1981:
(d) Additional Setback over Thirtv-Five Feet: Any building over thirty-five feet in height
adjacent to a residential czsedistricYshall be set back from the property line of such uses one
foot for every foot of height over thirty-five feet in addition to the required setback.
Section *. Section 9-33-3, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.3-3 Streetscape Design Standards.
Streetscape improvements shall be designed in accordance with the following standards:
(a) Street Trees: A planting strip consisting of deciduous trees shall be planted along the full
length of all public and private streets in all zoning districts. VVhen possible, trees shall be
planted in the public right-of-way. Large deciduous trees and detached sidewalks are desired
wherever possible and sHall be planted at a minimum, in accordance with Subsection 9-3.3-
3(c), B.R.C. 1981.
(b) Alle,~: Except for existing single-family lots, along all alleys adjacent to or within a
residential zone, trees shall be planted at an overall average of one tree per forty linear feet
within ten feet of the pa{+e~nenE~ge~€ailey ~ighf of way. Such trees shall be set back
at least four feet from the alley right-of-way:
K:\PLCU\o-20011ur-amendmenLehf
Agende Item t~~ Page #_5 7
(c) Street and Allev Trees in Areas with Existine Mature Trees. The city manager will approve
an existing tree as replacement of a tree required by this section if the following requirements
are met:
(1) The tree is a species from tfie city's approved street tree list or an equivalent species
approved by the city manager;
(2) The tree is two inches caliper or greater and will be preserved as part of the building
plan; and .
(3) The tree is located within twenty feet bahind the right-of-way.
(ed) Streetscane Reauirements: Street trees must be selected from the approved streat tree list sat
forth in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards, unless an equivalent tree
selection is approved by the city manager. The table below sets the minimum planting
interva] far street and alley trees. The specific spacing for each development is dependent
upon tree type (for a list of tree species in each type, see Approved Street Tree List, in the
City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards) and existing conditions as identified
in this section or an equivalent approved by the city manager.
STREETSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
Existing or Approved Condition Required Planting
Sidewalk
Condition Planting Strip Width Utility
Location Tree Type Min. Tree
Planting
Interval
No sidewalk Trees must be planted 4 ft. to 5 ft.
from the street. Trees may be
l
if
d
ri bur;ed ]arge 30 ft - 40 ft.
p
ante
on p
vate property
there is not adequate right-of-
way. overhead small t5 ft. - 20 fr.
Detached 8 fr. or more buried large 30 ft. - 40 fr.
overhead smal] I S ft. - 20 ft.
more than 6 ft. - 8 ft. buried medium 25 ft. - 30 ft.
overhead small 15 R. - 20 fr.
4 fr. - 6 ft.: This planting strip width is buried small 15 ft. - 20 fr.
less than desirable.
overhead
small
15 ft. - 20 ft.
K:IPLCU~o-20011urvairrendmentchf
Agenda Item e l A Page #~
Attached Trees must be planted 4 fr. - 5 ft. from the buried large 30 ft. - 40 ft.
sidewalk. Trees may be planted on
privafe property if there is not adequate
right-o£ way. overhead small 15 ft. - 20 fr.
Urban sidewalk of Trees must be planted in irrigated tree buried large 20 fc - 25 fr.
12 ft. or wider grates or tree pits unless approved by the
(i3MS, RB, and city manager. For tree grate dimensions
MU-X zones) and tree pit volume, see Design and overhead medium 15 ft - 20 fr.
Construction Standards, Section 3.03.
(~e) Understory Planting: Except where planted in tree grates, all required street trees in the
landscape strip shall be planted together with an irrigated understory planting that will cover
the entire planting strip, except for walkways between the street and sidewalk, within five
years of the initial planting.
(efl Special Area Streetscape Plans: In areas of the city where a streetscape plan has been
adopted by city council, including, without limitation, downtown, University Hill, North
Broadway, and the Boulder Valley Regional Center, landscaping improvements shall be
completed in accordance with the adopted streetscape program.
Section *. Section 9-3.3-9, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.3-9Parking Reduction.
(a) Parkine. Reduction: The city manager may grant a parking reduction for commercial
developments, industrial developments and mixed use developments not to exceed twenty
percent of the required parking. The off-street parking requirements for projects which
would require five or more parking spaces under the requirements of Section 9-3.2-i,
"Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified pursuant to this section.
(b) Residential Parking Reductions: Parking reductions for residential projects may be granted
as part of a site review approval under Section 9-4-11, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981.
(c) Parking Reduction Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the
project meets the following criteria, the city manager may approve reductions of up to and
including twenty percent of the parking requirements of Section 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk
Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, if the manager finds that:
(1) The parking needs of the use will be adequately served;
K:\PLCU~o-20011ur-amendmentehf
Agenda Item A ~~ Page # ~
(2) A mix of residential uses with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking
needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking;
(3) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will
accommodate proposed parking needs; or
(4) The applicant provides an acceptable proposal for an alternate modes of
transportation program, including a description of existing and proposed facilities
and assurances that the use of altemate modes of transportation will continue to
reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis.
(d) Parking Reduction with a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requiras both a review
pursuant to Section 9-4-9, "Use Review," and a public hearing, the city manager wil] make
a recommendation to the approving agency to approve, modify and approve, or deny the
parking reduction as part of the use review approval.
(e) Assurances of the Nature of the Use: If the applicant proposes to reduce the number of off-
street parking spaces because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant must provide
assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change.
(~ TransportatiomDemand Manaeement Option Points. In addition to the standards set forth
in this section, an applicant for a parking reduction shall also comply with Section 9-3.3-30,
"Transportation Demand Management Option Points," B.R.C. 1981.
Section *. Section 9-3.3-19, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.3-19 Solar Access and Solar Siting and Construction.
f aj--Solar Access: All development shall meet the requirements of Chapter 9-8, "Solar Access,"
B.R.C.1981.
,
nnn inoi
a.1c.L-L"JiTr
Section *. Chapter 9-3.3, B.RC. 1981, is amended by the addition of a new Section 9-3.3-
30, to read:
9-3:3-3Q ' Transportation Demand Management Option Points.
K:\PLCIf~o-20011ur-amendment.ehf
Agende I~m 1~/~ pega A lr- G
~a) puroose: The purpose of these standards is to encourage a cost-effective and sustainabie
transportation options in order to: conserve natural resources and fossil fuels; r uehicle trips;
emissions and improve air guality; reduce the reliance om single occupancy
encounag~ans ortation nfrastruotnre thtamoccuTSdas}a result of s ngle o~cc pantn eh cle use.
exist g P .
~) Sco e: This section shall apply {o tt~e additr°n of a11 new-office floor area or no hed for after
area that is converted to office floor area for which a building pe~it was app ~
the effecrive date of this ordinance: 3n addition,'these siandai'ds shall apply'to parking
`°parking Reduation;" B.R.C.1981 and
reduction applicantions pursuant to,Section 9-3.3-9> uirements set forth in section 9-
to the inerease of parking beyand the minimum pac'king req
3,2-1, "Schedule of Bu1k Requirement," B:12~~~ 1981. No person sfia11 fail to occupy;
construct; or operate any use of land violation of its approved transportation demand
managementplan:
(~) Cai dinatinernth1 i for new offOe floor~arearor foor On off ce floo raraa th t stconverted to
bul gl?
office floor area, an applicant sfiall demonstrate how it wi11'accumulate the number of
transportationmanageiiierit options points inthe amount oforie poiht foY eachfhree-YhQUSand
square feet of floor area.
. . ~ . _ _ n,.A..nfinne '
~d) Calculatin the Number of O tion Re uirea tor rarK~~. ~••~~~°~-- -- -
Any person requesfing a parking reduction for nonresidential :deyelopment shall meet the
requiremenYs of Sedion 9-3.3 r9,"Patking Rednction;" ~• o nts9n the~amount equ~i~red bY
to accumutate transportation demand management option p
this subsection. An aPplicant shall be required to obtain oaae additional transpa ~ngTeq ir d
point for e~cch parking space that is constructed over or under the minimum p
„ B.R.C. 1481:
by Section 9-3.?-1,""~chedule of Bulk Requirements,
~e~ Trans ation Mana ement Eoints: , The points assigried tq transportation deina??d
management st~ategies will irave the following values:
(1) SiteS ecific ranssortaofthes~eandadacentpublic mp eme ts,locationofthe
seetionrelatedtode gn _ .
site in relarion to transportation a~id transit improvements.
`-1:point -,for- each;group of fiv~bicycle racks or bicyele ~o BeR,C. °1981Stha~ a~'e
minimum required by Section 9-3,3-13, Bicycle Packing,
covered or placed,indoors.
K:~P4ClAo-20~~luc amendmeneehC
pgenda{~A ~._.~---page# ~._. ~--
1 point - for each 1001inear feet of concrete path connections to existing or proposed
infrastructure that are not specifically required by the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards ar,Title 9, "Land Use Regulations," B.R.C. 1981.
1 point - for each shower provided on-site.
1 point - For buildings placed at zero setback from a pubiic right-of-way, with an
entrance directly onto the right-of-way.
1 point - for an on-site information kiosk that contains information about the use of
alternative modes to and from the property, including schedules and maps of bus
routes and car pooling opportunities: An additional point is available for on-site
transit pass or transit token purchase availability.
3 points for each 50 parking spaces required for properties that require a minimum
of 50 parking spaces or more - on-site eating and lounge facilities, day care facilities,
post office; or exercise faciiities for employee use.
3 points - for each transit sh8lter or conerete pad for a transit stop,
1 point - for each bus stop bench.
8 points - for aregional transit facility that exceeds the standards for a transit shelter.
2 points - if property is located within 500 feet of a high frequency local segvice
transit route ( I S minutes or less scheduled head times during peak times).
1 point - if property is located within 500 feet of a local service or regional service
transit route. ( frequency ofmore than I S minutes scheduled head times during peak
times)
1 point - If located within a general improvement district that owns and manages the
parking supply for a number of properties.
1 point - If the project contains a mix of residential and non-residential uses.
(2) Programmatic Transportation Demand Management Techniques: Compliance with
the programmatic transportation demand management techniques are subject to the
agreements, monitoring, and certification techniques required by subsections (g) and
(h) below.
10 points - parking cash-out for eaoh employee
4 points - for each van pooi
1 point per 10 employees - for transit passes, except for transit pass that are paid for
or otherwise proVided by a general improvement district
2 points - Employment shifts beginning and ending during non peak times
2 points - Employ a alternate modes transit coordinator
1 point - Ongoing educational programs for employees
1 point per 3 spaces of required parking - Employer subsidy for car pooling
K9PLCU~o-20011ur-amendmenLChf
/~qends ftem #~Page # ~
(3) Innovation Points: Up to l0 points - Points under this section will be granted for
innovative product, program; or design: Points will awarded based on demonstrated
reduction`in fhe reliance of transportation by way of singie occupant vehicle or
shifting of trips to non- peak times: In assessing the value of a product, program, or
design, the ciry maaager will use equivalent point vatues to those set forth in
paragraphs (1) and (2) above.
(~ Agreements: The city manager is authorized to require agreements that describes the range
of property owner oommitznents to ,carry out obligations from the prograznmatic
transportation demand managemenY measures. Such agreements will specify4he terms to
which the applicant has agreed and shall run with the land. The city manager will cause such
agreements to be recorded in with the Bonlder County Clerk and Recorder,
{g) ? Certifioation: ' In order to insare that the ongoing obligations from the programmatic
Yransportation demand management measures are maintained over time, fhe praperty owner
shall submit certification the cify manager: that certifies that th8 programmatic measures
agreed upon have been achieved within thirty days of such request..
(h) Reeulations: The city manager may;make reasonable interpretive and administrative
regulations to aid in applying this section under , the procedures of Chapter i-4,
"Rulemaking," B.R.C. 1981.
(i) Variance: A person having an interesE in property for which a buiiding permit is required
may file amapplication for a yariance, on a form provided by the eity manager and containing
the information required by such forni, for review of that variance request by the city
manager. The burden of proof is on the appiioant to shpw by clear and convincing evidence
that a11 of the criteria for a variance have been-met." -The city manager may grant a varias~ce
only ifit finds that because ofthe type ofuse, looaYion, or ofher factor; that aproperty n~vner
is not able to accumulate enough transportation manageinent points, that it is not practical
far the applicant to accumulate enough points; based on the factors above, or ,fhaY literal
enforcement of the applicable provisions of this section will result in undue hardship, then
the city manager will reduoe the number of required transportation management points to
whaf is practical for such property.
The financial resources of the applicant shall not be considered as an undue hardship;
However, the cost of the required work may be considered relative to the beneftt of
compliance with this section to the public and future owners or occupants:of the building in
rriaking such a determination. In granting ~ny variance, th8 city manager may. attach such
reasonable conditions as it deems necessaiy tp implement the purposes of this section.
K9PLCU~odp01 lurvamendment.ehf
l~qenda 16em ~ ~ ~ Page k .~
Section *. Paragraph 9-3.4-12(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(1) Owner Occupied: The detached dwelling unit within which the accessory dwelling
unit is located, or the accessory dwelling unit itself, is actually and physically
occupied as a principal residence by at least one owner of record of the lot or parcei
upon which the detached dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit is located, who
possesses at least an estate for life; ~r-a fifty percent fee simple ownership interest,
or the trustor of a revocable living trust.
K:\PLCU~o-20011ur-amendment. ehf
Agenda 16em t ~~ Page # ~
Section *. Paragraph 9-3.4-13(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(1) The detadhed dwelling unit or the owner's accessory unit itself is actually and
physically occupied as a principal residence by at least one owner of record, of the
lot or parcel upon which the detached dwelling unit and owner's accessory unit is
located, who possesses at least an estate for life, ~r-a fifty percent fee simple
ownership interest; or the trustor.af a revocable living trust.
Section *. Section 9-3.4-17, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.4-17 Antennae for Wireless Telecommunications Services.
(a) Standards: An antenna for wireless telecommunications services is permitted as a principal
use on a lot if the following conditions are met:
1) Architectural Compatibility: The antenna must be architecturally compatible with
the building and wall on which it is mounted and designed and located so as to
minimize any adverse aesthetic impact.
(2) Wall Mounts: The anteruia shall be mounted on a wall of an existing building in a
configuration as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above
the wall on which it is mounted.
(3) Screenina: The antenna shall be painted or fully screened to match as closely as
possible the color and texture of the wall on which it is mounted.
(4) Mounts on Roo£ Appurtenances: The antenna may be attached to an existing
conforming penthouse or mechanica] equipment enclosure which projects above the
roof of the building but may not project any higher than the penthouse or enclosure
(no increase in height is permitted).
(5) Roof Mounts on Buildines Less Than Fiftv-five Feet Tall: On buildings fi$y-five
feet or less in height, the antenna may be mounted on the roof if:
(A) The manager finds that it is not technically possible or aesthetically desirable
to mount the antenna on a wall;
(B) No portion of the antenna or related base station shall cause the height of the
building to exceed the limitations set forth in Sections 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of
K~.\PLCU~o-20011ur-amendment.ehf
Agenda ibm 0~~ Page k~' S.
Bulk Requirements," 9-3.2-3, "Building Height," and 9-3.2-4, "Conditional
Height," B.R.C. 1981;
(C) No antenna and related base station cover more than ten percent of the roof
area of a building, and the aggregate of any antennae, any base stations, and
any appurtenances do not exceed an aggregate of twenty-five percent of the
roof area;
(D) Roof-inounted antennae and related base stations are completely screened
from view by materials that are consistent and compatible with the building
design, color, and materials; and
(E) No portion of the antenna, related base station, and attendant equipment
exceeds ten feet above the height of tha existing building.
Summary of Appropriate Antenna Locations: The fable below summarizes the
appropriate location for an antenna.
Antenna
LocaNons On building
wall On existing
conforming
penthouse or
mechanicel
screen On a roof On new
mechanical
screening or
replacement
screening Base station
equipment,
allowed on
roof
On buildings Yes Yes , if it does Yes, subject to Yes, if it does Yes, if it does
Under 55' in not-project the-standards in not ptojeot not project
height above an Paragraph 9-3,4- abovethe abovethe
existing 17(a)(5) mechanical ma7cimum
}ienthouse or screen allowable
mechanical building height
screen of the
underlying
zoning district
On buildings Yes Yes ,if it does No Yes, if it does No
Over 55' in no[ projgct not projepC
height above an abovethe
existing machanical
penthouse or screen
mechaniGal
screen
K:\PLCIJ~o-20011ur-amendmenl.ehf
Agenda IOem i ~~ Page ~ ~' ~
(6) Site Review and P.U.D. Annroval: If a proposed antenna is located on a buildis,g or
lot subject to an approved planned unit development ar site review, a minor
modification to the approval is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(7) Historic Preservation Rules: No antenna shall be permitted on property designated
as an individual landmark or as part of a historic district, unless such antenna has
been approved through the issuance of a landmark alteration certificate pursuant to
Sections 10-13-13, "Landmark Alteration Certificate Application," 10-13-14, "Staff
Review of Application for Landmark Alteration Certificate," 10-13-15, "Landmark
Alteration Certificate Hearing," 10-13-16, "Call-Up by City Council," 10-13-17,
"Issuance of Landmark Alteration Certificate," and 10-13-18, "Standards for
Landmark Alteration Certificate Applications," B.R.C. 1981.
(8) Exclusion of Competitors Prohibited: No antenna owner or lessee or officer or
employee thereof shall act to exclude or to attempt to exclude any other competitor
from using the same building for the location of other antennae.
(9) Co-location of Facilities: No antenna owner or officer or lessee or employee thereof
shall fail to cooperate in good faith to accommodate other competitors in their
attempts to use the same building for other antennae. If a dispute arises about the
feasibility of accommodating another competitor, the city manager may require a
third party technical study, at the expense of either or both parties, in the discretion
of the manager, based upon the relative fault of the parties, to resolve the dispute.
(10) Technical Standards: No antenna owner or lessee shall fail to assure that the antenna
complies at all times with the then current applicable American National Standards
Institute or Federal Communications Commission standards, whichever is more
stringent, for cumulative field measurements of radio frequency power densities and
electromagnetic fields. After installation, but prior to putting the antenna in service,
each antenna owner shall provide a certification by an independent professional
engineer to that effecC.
(11) Interference with T. V. or Radio Si~nals Prohibited: No antenna owner or lessee shall
fail to assure that the antenna does not cause localized interference with reception of
television and radio broadcasts.
(12) Public-Established Zoning District: In the P-E zoning districY, no person shall mount
or maintain an antenna on a lot, parcel, or building containing a residential use.
K9PLCNod001 lur-amenAmentehf
Agen~li~nb ~~ Page# ~>
(13) Residential Zoning District Variance: The city manager will grant a variance to the
prohibition of antennae for wireless wmmunications in the RRI, RR, ER, LR, MR,
MH zonirig districts, if the applicant, in addition to all of the standards ofthis section,
can meet the standards of this paragraph:
(A) The antennae are located on a building that is used as one of the following
uses of land: public elementary, junior, and senior high schools; private
elementary, junior, and senior high schools; adult education facilities and
vocational schools; religious assemblies; recreational buildings and uses open
to the public; offices, professional and technical; medical or dental clinics or
offices; essential municipal and public utility services; governmental
facilities; and neighborhood centers;
(B) The antennae are located on a non-residential building. To be considered a
"non-residential building," at least fifry percent of the floor area of the
building shall be used for non-residential uses;
(C) The applicant demonstrates that it cannot provide reliable coverage within the
City of Boulder by locating antennas within other zoning districts that allow
antennae for wireless communications as a condiCional use; and
(D) If such location is needed as part of an overall comprehensive plan to provide
full wireless telecommunications within the City of Boulder or the
surrounding area.
(14) Water Towers: Notwithstanding that a water tower may be considered an accessory
building or use, antennae may be placed on water towers in zoning districts where
antennae for wireless communications are designated as conditional uses in Section
9-3.1-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C.1981, and in compliance with
the standards set forth in this section. No portion of any antennae or accessory base
station shall extend above the height of the water tower walls. Far the purposes of
this section, "water tower" means a freestanding, above ground, water storage
facility, usually round or cylindrical in shape.
(15) Annlication Fee: No antenna owner or lessee shall fail to pay to the city the sum of
$2,161.00 for each application for a base station and related antennae conditional
review under this section. The city council finds that such fee is roughly
proportionate to the costs of developing these standards and reviewing such
applications.
K:\PLCU\o-2001 lur-amendment.e6f
Agende Item ~ ~='~ Page # ~ ,y
(b) Prohibition: No person shall locate an antenna for wireless communications services upon
any lot or parcel except as provided in this section.
Section *. Paragraph 9-3.4-18(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(b) Conditional Use Review Required: Any cooperative housing unit shall be reviewed in
accordance with the following:
(1) Notice: After receiving an application, the city manager will cause the property to
be posted gest-Eke~pieperfq-and notify, by first-class mail, all property owners within
three hundred feet of the boundaries of the applicant's property indicating that a
cooperative housing unit application has been filed and that more detailed
information may be obtained from the planning department. Failure to provide such
notice, however, does not affect the validity of any approval subsequently granted.
Section *. Section 9-3.4-19, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.4-19 Restaurants and Taverns.
The intent of this section is to ensure that restaurant and tavern owners and operators in close
proximity to re:.~;3ential districts are informed of the effects upon neighboring residential properties
of operating a business, and are educated about ways to mitigate, reduce, or eliminate potential
impactsofarestaurantortavernoperationuponneighboringproperties. Thefollowingeriteriaapply
to restaurants and tavern uses permitted as a conditional use or pursuant to a use review:
(a) Meetin~ with Surrounding Pronertv Owners Required: Prior to submitting an application
under this section, ~restaurant and tavern owners and operators shall be required to organize,
host, and participate in a meeting with the surrounding property owners. The time and place
of the meeting shall be approved by the city manager. Notice of the meeting shall be
provided as set forth in subsection (c) below. Compliance with the results of the meeting is
voluntary for the restaurant and tavern owners and operators. Nothing in this section shall
relieve the owner or operator of the responsibility to otherwise comply with all other laws
applicable to the property or business.
(b) Puroose of Meeting: The purpose of the meeting described in subsection (a) above is to
provide residents of the surrounding residential neighborhood an opportunity to inform
restaurant and tavern owners and operators of the concerns of the residential neighborhood.
Restaurant and tavern owners and operators shall also provide intarestad persons in the
surrounding neighborhood an opportunity to comment on its proposed management plan:
K\PLCIf~o-2001 Wrromendmant.ehf
Agenda Item 9 ~'~ Page # ~
The issues to be addressed at this meeting may include, without limitation, coordinated times
for deliveries and trash collection; mitigation of noise impacts; programs for graffiti removal;
employee education and business responsibilities as good neighbors; and methods of €n~t~re
dispute resolution with the surrounding residential neighborhood.
(c) Notice for the Meetin~with Surroundin Propertv Owners: The city manager will cause the
property to be posted and publish notice ofthe meeting in a newspaper of general circulation
in the ciCy at least ten days before the meeting.
~raper-Eq-The city manager will mail written notice of the meeting to the record owners of
the property within tkre~six hundred feet ofthe property at least ten days before the meeting.
Any defects in the compliance with the notice provisions contained in this subsection will
not invalidate a decision approving a conditional use.
(d) Mana~ement Plari: The mariagement plan sball address how the applicant will mitigate the
potential adverse impacts that a restaurant and tavern may have on the snrrounding
neighborhood. The following standards apply to the preparation, submission, and review of
a managemant plan:
(1) Elements of a Management Plan: The management plan shall contain the following
components that address the mitigation of potential adverse impacts the restaurant
or taverri may have on the surrounding neighborhood, to the extent necessary:
coordinated times for-deliveries and trash collection; mitigation of noise impacts;
programs for graffiti removal; employee education and business responsibilities as
good neighbors; neighborhood outreach and methods for future communication;
lighting; pazking and methods of future dispute resolution with the surrounding
neighborhood.
(2) Preparation and Distribution ofa Proposed Manaeement Plan: The owner or operator
sha11 prepare a proposed managementplan and present it to the surronnding property
owners at the neighbor meeting required by subsection {a) above.
(3) Submission of a Manaeement Plan: After the good neighbor meeting, the applicant
shall submit a revised management plan with its application to the city.
(4) Apnroved Management Plan: An approved management plan shall be used to define
the operating characteristies of a facility. No person shall operate a facility in
violation of an approved management plan:
K:~PLCNod001 lur-amenAmenLehf
Agenda Item # ~'~ Page # .~C
(5) Amendment of a Management Plan: When the owner or operator changes the
operating characteristics in a manner that does not comply with the approved
management plan, the owner or opetator sha11 resubmit a management p1an. No
owner or operator shall fail to resubmit a management plan that meets . the
requirements of this section. The city manager is authorized to require an owner or
operator to organize, host, and participate in a good neighbor meeting if the city
manager determines that such a meeting will be of assistanee in identifying
additional adverse impacts that , may .havg been created by the facility. The
management plan shail address how the facility will address any additional adverse
impacts that have been identified by the city manager: The city manager will approve
the managernent plan upon finding,that any such additionai adverse impacts will be
mitigafed by amendments to the management plan.
(6) Manaeement -Plan as a Condition of a Use Review A nrp oVal: A management plan
shall be incorporated into tlte conditiotts o£ approval if the applieant is required to
complete a use review pursuant to Section 9-4-9,:"Use Review," B:R.C. 1981.
Section *. Section 9-3.6-2, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-3.6-2 Variances and Interpretations.
(a) Board of ZoningAdjustment MaxGrant Variances and Decide Ouestions of Interpretation:
The board of zoning adjustment may grant variances from the setback requirements of
Section 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.RC. 1981, the spacing requirements
for mobile homes of Sectiom9-3.2-2; "Mobile Home Park Bulk Requirements,"B.R.C.1981;
theporch setback and size requirements ofSubsection 9-3.2-15(c), B.R.C. 1981, and the size
and parking setback requirements for accessory dwelling units of paragraphs 9-3.4-12(a)(2)
and 9-3.4-12(a)(6)(E), B.R.C. 1981, and may decide questions of interpretation by the city
manager of Sections 9-3.1-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land" and 9-3.2-1, "Schedule
of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981. Sign variances shall be subject to the additional
requirements of Chapter 10-I 1, "Signs on Private Property," B.R.C. 1981. In granting any
variance, the board may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it deems
necessary to implement the purposes of this title.
(b) Application Requirements: A person having an interest in the property for which the
variance is requested or a person having an interest in an interpretation by the city manager
of Section 9-3.1-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land" or 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk
Requirements," B.R.C.1981, may file an application on a form provided by the city manager
that shall include, without limitation, the following, but the manager may waive particular
application requirements if not required for review of the interpretation at issue:
K:\PLCU~m2001 lur-amendmenLehf
Agenda il~n A~~ Page q'~l
(1) The written consent of the owners of the property for which the variance is requested
or, in case of a request for review of an interpretation, a statement of the person's
interest in'the interpretation at issue;
(2) A list of property owners within three hundred feet;
(3) An improvement survey;
(4) A site plan including building height and setback;
(Sj A building floor plan and.building elevation plan;
(6) A demolition plan, if the.applicant proposes to remove any part of the roof or remove
any walls;
(37) In case of a var~ance, a written statement addressing the applicable criteria for
approval of subsection (fl ar(g) o£this section; and
(68) Any other information pertinent to the request. In addition, in case of a variance, the
submitted application shall include the fee prescribed by Section 4-20-43,
"Development Application Fees," B.R.C. 1981.
Section *. Section 9-4-8, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-4-8 Development in Stages, Time of Approval, City Manager Review of Progress, and
Expiration of Development Approval.
(a) Three-Year Rule: The applicant must begin and substantially complete the approved site
review or use review as specified in the development agreement within three years from the
time of the final approval of the site or use review or as modified by a development schedule
incorporated in the development agreement. For the purposes of this section, "substantially
complete" means the time when the construction is sufficiently complete so the owner can
occupy the work or portion thereof for the use for which it is intended. If the project is to
be developed in stages, the applicant must begin and substantially complete the development
of each stage within three years of the time provided far the start of construction of each
stage in the development agreement. Failure to substantially complete the development or
any development stage within three years of the approved development schedule shall cause
the development approval to expire. Nothing in this section is deemed to create a vested
K:\PLCU\o-2001 lur-amenAmenLehf
Agenda Ilem A°~ Page H ~~
property right in any applicant; such vested property right may only be created pursuant to
the provisions of Section 9-4-12, "Creation of Vested Rights," B.R.C. 1981.
(b) Extension: Prior to the expiration of a use review or site review approval, the applicant may
request an extension of the time allowed for the completion of the development.
(1) ; CitV Manaeer Level Extension: ,The city manager may grant up to two six-month
extensions for each phase of the development if such extension will enable the
applicant to substantiall.y complete the phase of developinent or is necessary to allow
the applicant to.request an extenSion;from the planning board.
(2) Piannine Board Level Extension:. The planning board may grant an extension of a
development approval; pursnant to a hearing, condncfed under the provisions.of
Ghapter 1-3; "Quasi-Judicial Heacings," B.R.G. 1981, after` the applicant has
exhausted any extension granted ~ursuant to paragraph (1) above, The applicant shall
be required 1o demonstrate that :it ,
exercised
reasonable diligence in completing the project according to the approved
development schedule and of good cause as to why the extension should be granted.
(A) Griteria for Demonstrating Reasonable Dili~nce: An applicant may show
that it has exercised reasonable diligence by providing evidence of what it
has done ta work towards completing tlie project. Such evidence may
include without limitation, attempts to secure construction financing, drafting
plans for building permit or technical document rediew, applications for
building permits or other permits that are required prior to the issuance of
bnilding permit8; sife preparation and grading; or commencement of the
construction of a portion of the project,
(B) - Criteria for Demonstrating Good Cause: ;An applicant my show good cause
as to why an extension- should be granted by providing evidence; thaf
includes without limitation fhe following: a demonstration of the applicant's
the ability to complete the project within extension; the extension is needed
because ofthe size of the project or phasing of the development; or eoonomic
cycles and market conditions prevented the construction ofthe project during
the original approval period.
(C) Additional Gonditions: As part of a hearing to consider an extension,'the
planning board may impose additional conditions on the application in order
K:\PLCU\o-2001 iur-amendmenLehf
Agenda Item # ~~ Page # -~
to ensure compliance with any amendments to Title 9, "Land Use
Regulations," B.R.C. 1981 enacted after the date of the original approval.
(c) Failure to Complete: If the applicant does not begin and substantially complete the
development or any stage of the development within the time limits imposed by subsection
(a) of this section, the city manager will review the site plan approval and recommend to the
approving agency that the time for completion of the project be extended, that the approval
be revoked, or that the approved site plan be amended. The city manager's recommendation
is subject to the procedures authorized by Subsection 9-4-I I(c), B.RC. 1981, governing the
approval of an initial application for a site review.
(d) Building Pennits: Upon issuance of a building permit pursuant to a development review
approval, the applicant must adhere to the schedule for construction and inspection as
defined in the city building code, Chapter 10-5, `Building Code," B.R.C. 1981. In addition
to the provisions of this title, all provisions of the building code regarding expiration and
termination of building permits shail apply.
(e) Annexations/Six-Month Rule: Ifan owner ofproperty not located within the city, for which
a development review application is approved, fails to annex the property to the city wiYhin
six months of the date of approval, the approval shall expire unless the approving agency
extends the time period, upon a finding of good cause predicated upon a written request of
the applicant delivered to the city manager before the expiration of the six-month period.
( fl Rescission of Development Apnroval: If afrer use review or site review approval is granted
pursuant to this chapter the owner of property desires to develop, instead, under the
provisions of Chapters 9-3.1, "Uses of Land," 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density Standards," and 9-
3.3, "Site Development Standards," B.R.C. 1981, the owner may request rescission of such
use review or site review approval by filing a written request for rescission with the city
manager. The city manager will grant a rescission of such use review or site review approval
if no building pennit has been issued for the developinent and neither the city nor the
developer has taken any actions in detrimental reliance on the terms of the development
agreement. An owner may aiso request a rescission of a use review or special use approval
in order to return the property to a use that is permitted as a rnatter of right, or as a
conditiona] use if it is able to meet all applicable standards for such use under Title"9, "Land
Use Regulations," B.R.C. 1981>
(g) Violations: The city manager may review all building permits which have been issued for
a development and examine the construction which has taken place on the site. If the
manager finds a violation of any of the provisions of this title, any ordinance of the city, the
development agreement or of the project approval, the manager will forward a report of this
K:\PLCU\o-2001 lur-amendmentehf
Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page a ~
information to the planning board. The planning board will hold a hearing on the report of
violations submitted by the city manager, having first given notice by first class mail to the
applicant, affected property owners, and all owners of abutting property. Upon review ofthe
alleged violations, the planning board may require that appropriate action be taken to remedy
the violations, that the approval be amended or modified, or that the approval be revoked.
This course of action is independent of any other enforcement action that the manager may
choose to take.
Section *. Subsection 9-4-9(d), B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
(d) Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving
agency finds all of the following:
(1) Consistencv with Zonine and Non-Conformity: The use is consistent with the
purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section 9-2-1, "Zoning Districts
Established," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use;
(2) Rationale: The use either:
(A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the
surrounding uses or neighborhood;
(B) Providesacompatibletransitionbetweenhigherintensityandlowerintensity
uses;
(C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic
preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed
uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special
populations; or
(D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted
under subsection (e) of this section;
(3) Compatibilitv: The locaYion, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use
will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of
nearby properties;
K:\PLCU~o-2001 lur-mnendmentehf
Agenda Item N l. ~ Page N 7J
(4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-3.1-1,
"Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to
the existidg level of impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed development will
not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure ofthe surrounding area, including,
without limitation, water, wastewater, and stonn drainage utilities and streets; and
(5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the
surrounding area.
(6) Conversion ofDwelling Units to Non-residential Uses: There shall be a presumption
against approving the oonversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts
set forth in Subsection 9-3:1-1(a), B.R.C: 1981; to non-residential uses that are
allowed pursuant to a use review, or thrpugh the change of one non-conforming nse
to another non-conforming use.' The presumption against such am conversion may
be overcorne by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling
social, human services; governmental, or recreational need in the community
including without limitation a use for a day care center, park, religious assembly,
social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, musewn, or
an educational use.
(e) Additional Criteria for Modifications to Non-Confonning Uses: No application for a change
to a non-confonning use shall be granted unless all of the following criteria are met in
addition to the criteria set forth above:
(1) Reasonable Measures Reauired: The applicant has undertaken all reasonable
measures to reduce or alleviate the effects of the non-conformity upon the
surrounding area, including, without limitation, objectionabie conditions, glare,
visual pollution, noise pollution, air emissions, vehicular traffic, storage of
equipment, materials, and refuse, and on-street parking, so that the change will not
adversely affect the surrounding area;
(2) Reduction in Non-Conformitv/Improvement of Appearance: The proposed change
or expansion will either reduce the degree of non-conformity of the use or improve
the physical appearance of the structure or the site without increasing the degree of
non-conformity; •
(3) Compliance with this Title/Exceptions: The proposed change in u'se complies with
all of the requirements of this title:
K:\PLCU~o-20011urvnmendmenLehf
Aganda Item # ~'~ Page # ~
(A) Exceptforachange ofa non-conforming useto anothernon-conforming use;
and
(B) Unless a variance to the setback requirements has been granted pursuant to
Section 9-3.6-2, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, orthe setback
has been varied through the application of the requirements of Section 9-4-
11, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981; and
(4) Cannot Reasonablv be Made Conforming: The existing building or lot cannot
reasonably be utilized or made to conform to the requirements of Chapters 9-3.1,
"Uses of Land," 9-3.2, `Bulk and Density Standards," 9-3.3, "Site Development
Standards," and 9-3.4, "Specific Use Standards and Criteria," B.R.C. 1981;
(5) No Increase in Floor Area over Ten Percent: The change or expansion will not result
in an increase in floor area of more than ten percent of the existing floor area; and
(6) Approvine Authorit~y Grant Zonine Variances: The approving authority may
grant the variances permitted by Subsection 9-3.6-2(a), B.R.C. 1981, upon finding
that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-3.6-2( fl, B.R.C. 1981, have been met.
Section *. Subsection 9-4-11(b), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to readt
9-4-ll Site Review.
(b) Scone: The following development review thresholds, exceptions, modification standards;
requirements related to previously approved deuelopments, and height requirements apply
to any development that is eligible or that otherwise may be required to complete the site
review process:
(3) Modifications to Develonment Standards: The height and bulk requirements of
Section 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, apply to all
developments in the city unless modified through site review. The following
development standards may be modified under the site review process set forth in
this section; however, no other standards of Chapters 9-3.1, "Uses of Land," 9-3.2,
"Bulk and Density Standards," and 9-3.3, "Site Development Standards," B.R.C.
1981, may be modified under this section, and except as modified' hereunder, such
chapters of the Boulder Revised Code 1981 shall apply to all developments in the
city:
K:\PLCIJ~o-20011urvamendmentehf
Aganda item S~'~ Page # 7~
Sections 9-3.2-2, "Mobile Home Park Bulk Requirements"
9-3.2-7, "Useable Open Space and Building Height for Business and
Influstriai Uses over Twenty-Five Feet in HeighY'
9-3.2-22, "Housing Types within an MXR-b Zoning DistricY'
9-3.3-2, "General Landscaping and Screening Requirements"
9-33-3, "Streetscape Design Standards"
9-3.3-5,"Sight Distances"
9-3.3-6, "Fences, Hedges, and Walls"
9-3.3-7, "Parking"
9-3.3-8, "Parking Deferral"
9-3.3-10, "Parking Reduction for Housing for the Elderly"
9-3.3-1 l, "Parking Stall Requirements"
9-3.3-12,"Parking Area Design Standards"
9-3.3-13, "Bicycle Parking"
9-3.3-15, "Site Access"
9-3.3-16, "Off-Street Loading"
9-3.3-19, "Solar Access and Solar Siting and Construction"
9-33-20, "Public Improvements" and 9-5-9(a)(2), only to the extent that
certain development criteria for alternative street standards are noted in the
City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards
9-3.3-29, "Ground Floor Windows for the BMS, RB1-E, RB2-E, RB3-E,
RB1-X, RB2-X, and RB3-X Districts"
9-3.3-3Q "Transportation Demand Management Option Points"
10-12-7, "Accessory Struetures"
10-12-13(a), "Mobile Home Park Environmental Standards"
10-12-14, "Non-Residential Uses in Mobile Home Parks"
10-12-18, "Windbreaks"
10-12-19, "Mobile Home Park Streets and Walkways"
10-12-23, "Permanent Buildings"
Section *. Paragraph 9-4-11(p)(3), B.R.C. 1981 is amendad to read:
(3) If an applicant requests approval of an amendment to an approved site plan, the city
manager will determine which properties within the project would be affected by the
proposed change. The manager will provide notice of the proposad change to all
owners ofproperty so determined to be affected and to all owners ofproperty within
a radius of tkre~six hundred feet from every point on the perimeter of such affected
K:\NLCU\o-2001 lur-amendmenl.chf
Agenda Item 9 ~9 Page # ~ ~
property. The owners of all property for which an amendment is requested shall sign
the application.
Section *. Subsection 9-12-6(e), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
(e) Upon the submission of a complete application, and at least ten days before the comment
deadline, the city manager will cause a notice to be posted in a manner designed to give
reasonable notice that is descriptive of the property for which a wetland application has been
submitted and the date when comments on the application are du
Section *. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section *. The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only
and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public
inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE
ONLY this day of , 20_
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\YLCU~o-2001 lur-amenAmen[,ehf
Agenda Item ~ ~>A Page ~ ~
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY this ' day of , 20
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
K:\PLCU~a-20011ur-amendmentehf
Agenda Item # ~~ Page # ~~
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO.
APPENDIX I
(Upon final agenda submission, this page will be replaced by an illustration that explains how to do
setback averaging.)
K:\PLCU\o-20011ur-amandmentehf
Agenda Item ~ ~ ~ Page # ~~
EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO.
APPENDIX I
.._.~..~ 1..~..-._~.. ..~.~~.. .. ..~
° ST.~'E~'T
__.•~ ~.. .. .. ~
.. .. ~ ~
15'T '
. p ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
. ~
; rP
.~ l--------.-~ i i i~~ T~
~ . : .~
~ . . 1
~ .~ ..~. ~. . ~. .~. ~~.I
~..._.... ,. ~ .. G ~D ~? ~-PoRCk, !
i" j_
~ ~
Lots "B" throush "F" are the face block.
Lot "~" is no~ includesin the face block as it fronts on a dif.`erznt street.
~
~
~~
~
~~
~ ~
Setback avera~ing is measured to the bulk of the buildin~ and does not include
porches.
Assume the block shown is zoned LR-E. The minimum required front-yard
setback would be 2~ feet. The block face shown would qualify for setback
averagin~. The number of iots with buildines less than the minimum required
setback exceeds 50°/o of the total number of lots on the face block.
An addition to the front of Lot "E" would require the averaeing of the setbacks of
lots "D" and "F", the t~vo closest buildings on the same lot face. In this example,
the resulting setback would be 20 feat (the averase of IS feet (]ot "D") and 2~ feet
( lot "F")).
An addition to the front of lot "F" would require the averagin~ of the setbacks of
lots "D" and "E", the two closest buildings on the same lot face.
Agenda Item f ~~ Page # ~~