7A - Discussion regarding the 2001-2002 Planning Department Work ProgramCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 15, 2001
(Agenda Item Preparation Date: November 9, 2001)
AGENDA TITLE:
Discussion regarding the 2001-2002 Pianning Department Wark Program
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Planning Department
Peter Pollock, Planning Directar
Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning
Neil Holthouser, Planner
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED:
Feedback on the proposed work items, priorities, and timing far tha Planning Department
2001-2002 Work Program
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this discussion item is to address a variety of cunent and proposed work program
items to gain clarity over objectives and timing. This discussion is scheduled so that the results
can be communicated to the new City Council as they embark on their goal setting for
2002/2003.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bhfourntilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 1
2001-2002 WORK PROGRAM PRIORITIES
Long Rm:ge Planning
The current work program for the Long Range Planning division is shown in Attachment A. The
highest priority projects are listed as priority A. Those that we expect to complete, but are not as
high priority are listed as priority B. Also listed are on-going functions and projects for which
the division coordinates with departments or agencies, but is not in the lead. Separate project
descriptions, status, and major milestones are provided for each project and program in the
division.
The primary focus of the division's work program will be the jobs to population project and
associated efforts involving implementing the mixed use land use designations and city-wide
travel demand management (TDM) strategies. The Neighborhood planning process for Area II
properties near 47`h and Jay Road will also be a focus For the rest of this year and the first quarter
of 2002.
Based on the extent of staff time required to carry out these two projects, staff had initially
proposed that a number of projects discussed previously with the Board would not begin until the
jobs to population project was substantially completed. However, the Boazd expressed concern
about delaying the discussion about annexation policy, so we have proposed a phased approach
to this project as outlined in Attachment A and summarized below.
Annexation Policy
The purpose of this project is to get clear about how the recently adopted annexation policy will
be interpreted in different situations. We are proposing a project phasing so that Planning Board
and Council can refine the policy to make more consistent and informed decisions on annexation
requests for largely developed Area II parcels. The project will entail developing specific
strategies and prototypical annexation conditions for different types of properties to more
efficiently implement the BVCP annexation policy. Staff has proposed that this project be
completed in three phases.
Phase I will focus on individual property annexations for enclave, western edge, and fully
developed residential Area II properties. (November 2001 through February 2002).
Phase II will focus on group annexations for fully developed residential Area II properties.
(Second quarter 2002).
Phase III will focus on individual property annexations for developed commercial or
industrial properties. (Third•quarter 2002).
A draft Phase I economic analysis, along with staff comments on suggested revisions to it, are
provided in Attachment B. An agenda item to review the final report and discuss preliminary
policy options regarding annexation conditions for individual property annexations is scheduled
for January 13. Please give us your questions or comments on the draff economic analysis report
at your November 15 meeting.
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 2
Conanaunity, Development
In the area of community development, staff is working on a variety of issues including an
analysis of zoning on University Hill, an analysis of zoning along Pearl Street from 9~h to 18`~'
streets, and consideration of the expansion of the design review functions of the Downtown
Design Advisory Board: The Planning Board previously had a discussion concerning the
University Hill zoning issues. What follows is a brief outline of how staff proposes to proceed
with the downtown zoning analysis and the consideration of whether to expand design review.
Downtown Zoning Analysis
At its June 9, 2001 meeting, the Downtown Alliance expressed significant concerns about the
appropriateness of third-floor additions in the downtown, especially along east and west Pearl
Street. The issue stemmed, in part, from the development review process associated with a
proposed 3-story, mixed-use building at 902 Pearl. Under the current zoning, third stories are
allowed essentially "by righY' at corner locations within the RB1-E and RB1-X zoning districts,
provided that certain conditions are met. Furthermore, the 0.5 FAR bonuses for residential use
and parking often encourage third-floor additions to maximize a site's development potential.
Staff has been conducting an analysis of zoning in the downtown, focusing on the following:
1) The conditionall~eight provision in the RB1-E and RB1-X zoning districts.
2) The FAR bonus for residential uses and structured parking along the Pearl Street corridor
from 9`h to 18`~' streets.
At its October 4, 2001 meeting, the Planning Board voted unanimously to eliminate the
conditional height provision in the RB1-E and RB1-X zones, City Council is scheduled to
consider the change at its November 13, 2001 meeting.
Staff is currently working with the Downtown Ailiance to form a task force to study the issue of
third-floor additions along Pearl Street. The purpose of the study is to identify areas where, and
under what conditions third stories may be appropriate, and to recommend policy options that
allow for the introduction of residential uses in the downtown while preserving the historic
character of Pearl Straet. Staff anticipates that the task force will meet at least once in the final
quarter of 2001, and will have completed the study by June 2002.
Design Review
The Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB) was created in 1986 as part of the City's Urban
Design Plan, which established design guidelines for new buildings and renovation projects in
the downtown. DDAB is a five-member, Council-appointed board consisting of at least three
design professionals. The purpose of DDAB review is to identify design issues and provide
applicants with design advice based on the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. DDAB review
is mandatory for all new construction and exterior renovation projects totaling more than $10,000
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 3
in the non-historic and interface areas of the downtown. Applicants are not obligated to comply
with DDAB's recommendations, although DDAB's comments are often forwarded to the
Planning Board for projects requiring site review.
The comments of DDAB have been particularly useful to the Planning Board in their reviews of
commercial and mixed-use projects in the non-historic downtown. Usually development projects
in the downtown will undergo several iterations of review with DDAB before coming befare the
Planning Board, thereby improving the qualiYy of projects. At this time, the Planning Board does
not have specific architectural expertise, which is provided by DDAB.
There has been substantial market pressure for new commercial development in other areas of
the City, although that has abated somewhat given the current recession. But projects such as
Cox Corner at 26`h and Pearl and the office development on 28`h Stteet south of Goose Creek
indicate the potential for significant redevelopment. All development in the Boulder Valley
Regionai Center is required to undergo site review. There has been some work in developing
design guidelines for portions of the Boulder Valley Regional Center, and Boulder Urban
Renewal Authority staff comment on projects.
One option would be to expand the purview of the DDAB to function as a design advisory board
for significant commercial projects in other areas of the City. This option could be considered in
light of implementation of new zoning associated with the new land use designations for
commercial areas passed as part of the Comp Plan land use map changes. The Jobs to Population
Balance Project may also lead to discussions on ways to deal with new commercial and mixed-
use development.
Prior to any such policy options being considered, staff recommends that we undertake an
evaluation of the effectiveness of DDAB in improving the quality of building and project design.
This could be done in a variety of ways, including evaluating the quality of projects as proposed
and as-built, and focus groups with designers and developers.
ITEMS NOT ON THE WORK PROGRAM
In August, the Planning Department took an option to City Council as part of the year 2002/2003
budget process to accelerate a variety of work program items. The two charts at Attachment C
show the status of when staff feels we can address these work program items under the current
budget and how the addition of resources could be used to accelerate them. The Council did not
approve the addition of resources. This was due to two factors: current budget limitations and a
concern over the ability to tackle a variety of controversial topics on top of our present focus on
the jobs to population balance.
The background below is offered to provide some factual and historical context to our
discussion. The outcome of this discussion should be greater clarity as to the goals of any effort
to address these issues, the urgency of dealing with these issues, and the appropriate process to
address them.
s:\plan\pb-items~tnemos\bhfoumvlepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 4
Centers
During the Year 2000 Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Planning staff
advanced the proposal that a variety of neighborhood shopping centers be designated as mixed
use business to signal the City's intent that they be redeveloped as mixed use projects including
housing. These included the Table Mesa Shopping Center at Table Mesa and Broadway,
Basemar Shopping Center at Baseline and Broadway, Diagonal Plaza at 28'~' Street and Iris, and
Gunbarrel Square at Lookout and Spine. There was a strong neighborhood reaction to this
proposal in the summer of 2000, particularly in the Table Mesa area, and City Council ultimately
decided to take these proposals "off the table" pending further neighborhood planning processas.
Previously, the Department has sponsared a mixed-use workshop to evaluate the economic
feasibility of mixed-use redevelopment, using the Table Mesa Shopping Center and a site at Pearl
Street between Folsom and 26`" as casa studies. Mixed-use business designations were appiied
through the Comp Plan process to a variety of parcels along 28'h Street, including Crossroads and
the Wiltiams Village area.
Terry O'Connor has proceeded with his own proposal to develop a portion of the Gunbarrel
Square area as a mixed-use development. Planning staff directed that his development review
process include a significant effort to engage the neighborhood residents in the Gunbarrel area.
He has done that and has come forward to Planning Board with a concept plan review. He has
also committed to further meetings in the neighborhood and a second review and comment
before the Planning Board.
Staff has met with the owner of the Basemar Shopping Center who indicated little interest in
proceeding with a mixed-use development in the near future. Interest at the Diagonal Plaza
Shopping Center appears low, although staff intends to meet with the property owners in this
area as well.
The owners at Table Mesa Shopping Center, W.W. Reynolds & Company, continue to be
interested in the concept, but want the City to lead a planning effort before bringing forward any
specific proposals. Staff would characterize that effort as an area plan for the shopping center
and immediate sunoundings. Resources may be available for that effort in 2003, depending upon
the outcome of the Jobs to Population Balance Project.
Planning staff has also encouraged transportation staff to include an evaluation of connections
(transit, street, pedestrian, bicycle) to and from centers as part of their work on developing
transportation network plans, to be inciuded in the Transportation Master Plan update.
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
In 1982, the city adopted an ordinance allowing a second unit in single family homes in low
density zoning districts. The intent of the ADU ordinance was to enable the cost-effective and
efficient use of existing single family homes in Boulder. In particular it was hoped that ADUs
s:\plan\pb-items~tnemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 5
would offer supplemental income and possible services to older residents and to single parent
househoids, allowing them to stay in their homes. An added bonus would be an increase in the
supply and choice of rental housing in the community.
Adopting the original ordinance was not easy. At the time of the adoption, public opposition
came from home owners, particularly those in the University Hill neighborhood. It was feared
that ADUs would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood because of the increase in
the density, noise, and traffic created by ADU tenants. Supporters included the Gray Panthers,
CoPIRG, the Boulder Tenants Union, and the CU student government.
What started as a fairly simple ordinance with few restrictions other than owner occupancy ended
up somewhat complex and was thought to be under utilized as an affordable housing tool for
many years. However, the ordinance was revised in 2000, and-whether as a result of the
changes, because of market demand or simply more knowledge of the ADU ordinance-the
number of ADU applications has risen sharply. In 1999, we received five ADU applications; in
200Q twenty were received and approved. The changes that were made included a) the right for
new owners to transfer the right to have an ADU for a small fee (previously, the right ran with
ownership and could not be transferred without re-applying); b) not requiring paving of the new
parking space; and c) reduced notification requirements. The revised ordinance is provided in
Attachment D.
If Planning Board is interested in further expanding the use of ADUs, additional changes could
be made in the ardinance, although staff feels that many of these should probably involve a
public process. Some ideas for further changes include:
• Increasing the percentage of ADUs that can be allowed in a neighborhood (currently the
maximum is 10%)
• Allowing ADUs in new structures/ new neighborhoods
• Allowing ADUs in other zoning districts (they are currently only allowed in the LR-E zone
district) or on larger lots
• Allowing ADUs to be constructed as part of an addition
• Allowing ADUs to comprise more than 1/3 of the total floar area in smalier homes.
Pop-ups( Scrapeoffs
As far back as 1990 concern started to surface over the changing character of Boulder's
residential neighborhoods due to additions or new homes that were larger and out of scale with
existing homes. Larger homes consume most of the space on smaller lots and were replacing
more modest homes. Several issues surfaced surrounding this trend: loss of neighborhood
character, poor design quality, increasing loss of affordable housing stock, the waste of resources
associated with scrape-offs, and the trend in building large expensive homes as speculative
ventures. There are several Comprehensive Plan policies that address this issue, and a new policy
was added in the 2000 update (see the work program in Attachment A).
s:\plan\pb-i[ems~memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 6
The City has a considerable history in identifying ar dealing with pop-ups and scrape-offs in one
way or another. In 1990 the issue was identified in a raport from a citizen's committee that
reviewed the City's land use code. In 1993 the Integrated Planning Process was undertaken in
response to development and changing community character. Maximum Floor Area Ratios
(FAR's) were proposed for residential districts as part of the code overhaul. This approach,
which did not include any public involvement, resulted in considerable opposition at public
hearings. Council did not adopt FAR limitations in residential zone districts saying they were too
blunt of an instrument to be used citywide. They suggested an area by area approach.
In 1995, the Flatirons neighborhood was chosen as a test case for residential design guidelines.
The resulting public process was very divisive and resulted in design guidelines that were
published as an educational resource but not adopted.
In late 1999 the Planning Board discussed a proposal to include language designed to address
pop-ups and scrape-offs as part of tha inclusionary housing ordinance. The proposal included a
fee for additional square footage (subject to additional criteria); however, the City Attorney
questioned whether this amounted to a tax subject to TABOR. Planning Board decided not to
include the language in the inclusionary zoning ardinance but requested that the issue be brought
back at a later date.
At this point concern over pop-ups and scrape-offs has not gone away, yet the high level of
controversy and emotion surrounding the issue remains. The 1999 citizen survey done for the
BVCP indicated that the community was almost equally split on the issue.
Since that time, there has been a significant down turn in the economy and a number of
regulatory changes that may deter large additions and demolitions. These include the energy
code, green points, and demolition review of non-landmarked buildings over 50 years of age.
Staff would like the Board to help staff clearly define the nature of the problem. Are the Board's
concerns about this issue related to affordable housing, community character, environmental
impacts associated with demolitions and resource consumption, or other issues?
Occupancy limits
The Boulder Revised Code, 1981 contains the following standards concerning occupancy of
dwelling units:
9-3.2-8 Occupancy of Units.
(a)General Occupancv Restrictions: Subject to the provisions of Chapter 10-2, "Housing Code,"
B.R.C. 1981, no persons except the following persons shall occupy a dwelling unit:
(1)Members of a family related to the head of the household by marriage, adoption, ar
blood, up to the second degree of consanguinity, plus one or two roomers, but only if the
quarters that the roomers use do not exceed one-third of the total floor uea of the
dwelling unit and do not occupy a separate dwelling unit;
s;\plan\pb-items~memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 7
(2)Up to three persons in P-E, AE, RR, RRl, ER, and LR zones;
(3)Up to four persons in MU, MR, MXR, HR, RMS, HZ, TB, CB, BMS, RB, RB1, RB2,
RB3, IG, IM, IS, and IIvIS zones; or
(4)Two persons and any of their children by biood, marriage, or adoption.
The Comprehensive Housing Strategy, which was accepted by the City Council in early 1999
recommended the initiation of a community-wide discussion on the occupancy limit regulations
to determine whether there could be modifications to the existing regulation within a five year
timeframe. The Strategy recommended that a task force of property owners, renters,
neighborhood homeowners, and others be convened to determine if there is a viable option to be
considered by City Council. .
The following discussion of this option is contained in the Comprehensive Housing Strategy
report:
"Under today's regulations, housing unit occupancy in single family residential zones is limited
to three unrelated people. In multi-family residential zones, occupancy is limited to four
unrelated people. Increasing or eliminating occupancy ]imits was mentioned numerous times
throughout the public process as a way to alleviate the demand for housing and to remove people
from the illegal situation many currently live in.
However, many interested and concerned community members expressed opposition to this idea.
The occupancy limit is perceived by some as a very important safeguard for protection against
specific impacts often associated with higher occupancy (parking problems, noise, pets). And it
is unclear what the direct long-lasting affordability benefit of increasing occupancy would be.
Ideas in the Tool Kit included allowing an increase in occupancy through a licensing procedure
or based on the number of lega] bedrooms in a house. These themes were echoed in the public
meetings where interest was expressed at looking at a performance-based standard for
occupancy. In any case, a change to Boulder's occupancy limits is of great interest to different
segments of the community, and a public process to discuss and possibly craft a change should
be conducted within the five year time-frame."
The focus of the Comprehensive Housing Strategy turned to issues of funding through the
appointment of a task force in June 1999 on implementation and funding and the year 200 major
update to the Comp Plan which focused on increasing opportunities for housing through land use
changes.
Another issue was to surface that took over the occupancy agenda: housing and neighborhood
conditions on University Hill. A citizen and staff effort called the University Aill Action Group
(LTHAG) went to work in the fall of 2000 on an action plan for dealing with a variety of issues.
The executive summary of the i7HAG report is in Attachment E. A staff report to UHAG on the
topic of occupancy is shown in Attachment F.
s;\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\btifourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITENT # 7A Paee 8
Subsequent actions by the City to more actively enforce existing laws concerning occupancy by
issuing more summonses have by cheered by some and opposed by others. Neighborhood
advocates see these enfarcement actions as consistent with the fair applicafion of current law.
Landlords and tenants see them as punitive and unrealistic. Four summonses for over-occupancy
violations were issued in all of 2000. Twenty-five summonses have been issued to date during
2001 for over-occupancy violations. Approximately 17% of all complaints about occupancy
have resulted in the issuance of a summons during 2001.
SUMMARY
Staff would appreciate any comments on the current and proposed work program items as to their
focus and timing. The Board's comments will then be shared with City Council at their retreat.
Approved By:
_ ~~ ~ ' :~
Peter Poilock, Planning Director
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Long Range Planning Division Wark Program
Attachment B: Preliminary Draft Economic Analysis of Annexation for
Phase I of the Annexation Policy project (includes staff
comments on Yhe analysis)
Attachment C: 2002/2003 budget review - Long Range Planning work
program options
Attachment D: Accessory Dwelling Unit Regulations
Attachment E: Executive Summary of the UHAG Report
Attachment F: Over Occupancy report for IIHAG
s:\plan\pb-items~tnemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 9
ti11r~~.,ni~ii.i~i n
LONG RANGE PLANNING DIVISION
2001- 2002 WORK PROGRAM
• Printing and Ordinance Adoption of the BVCP update
• Jobs to Population Balance Project
• Mixed Use Land Use Designation Implementation
A • Rezonings to Implement Land Use Designation changes
• Annexation Policy Implementation Phase I
• Annexation Policy Implementation Phase II
• Neighborhood Planning Process forArea II
properlies near 47th and Jay/ Kalmia
• BVCP Annual Update
• Depot Relocation Project
• Downtown Design Guidelines
• Historic preservation aspects of Uni-Hill Action
Plan implementation
• Historic Preservation General Design Guidelines
• PPAPI CEAP update
• North Broadway Streetscape
• Gateway Out-of City Utilities Agreement
• Historic Preservation Program
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Omgoing . Deparlmental Master Plan Coordination
• Landscape Review
• Data development and support
• Prairie ~og fnterdeparlmental Poficy
Completion and Coordination
• Environmental Task Force
• Housing Implementation Team
• Transportation Sub-committee
• Boulder Valley School District
• Coordination with CU on planning issues
• Land Use Regulation Revisions
Coordination • Greenways Staff Team Coordiantion
with ather • Development Review
Deparmentsl • Wetlands Review
Projects • DRCOG coordination
• Coordination with the County
• Civic Cente~ Master Plan
• Broadway 8ridge
• 7MP Update
• Transportation Network Planning
• Boulder Transit Village Planning
• Environmental Management System Implementation
• Amendment of Agreement with Lek Hand Water District
A(pldAAsmt 7~ Paget~
Last updated: 11/Ol
Printing and Adoption by Ordinance and by Resolution of Year 2000 Major Update to the
BVCP
Project Description:
Prepare the comprehensive plan text and map for printing and print the document and map.
Schedule City Council adoption of the plan by ordinance and Board of County Commissioners
adoption of plan by resolution.
Milestones:
• Approval of plan by four approval bodies (September 2001)
• Preparation of document and maps for printing (October - November 2001)
• Print document and map (December 2001)
• City Council adoption by ordinance and County Commissioners adopt by resolution
(January 2002)
• Distribute plan (January 2002)
\\COBCLUSTBR SHARE_SERVER\SHARE\PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02- BVCP
printing.doc
Agande Ibm ~1:__Pege # ~..
Jobs to Population Balance Project (Ruth, Louise, Michelle, Bev)
Last updated: 11 /O1
Project Description:
As a result of the population and employment projections developed for the major five-year update to the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (B VCP), a"Jobs-to-Population Balance" policy was adopted. The
policy grew out of cottcern for Boulder's current imbalance; there aze approximately 50,000 workers
who commute into Boulder, This number could increase by over 60 percent over the next 20 years
resulting in worsening traffic, escalating housing prices, and decreasing community involvement. The
adopted BVCP policy explains why the city and county aze concerned about potential imbalance between
jobs and population and states that:
The city will therefore embark on a public process to determine whether or not ~aJ I;1 ratio is
appropriate. This will be accomplished through a public process that will establish an
appropriate and acceptable jobs-to popuJation ratio and identify a combination of actions that
will reduce the amount of commercial growth, create more affordable housing, and mitigate the
impacts of traffic congestion.
The project will involve land use, housing and transportation issues. It is expected to take
approximately one year to complete, with implementation to begin shortly after.
Status:
An interdepartmental staff team from Planning, Housing, Transportation, BURA, and the City
Attorneys Office has begun work on the project. A task force has been appointed by the City
Manager to work with city staff to define an appropriate public process for the project and develop a
range of future alternatives for the community to consider. The first task force meeting was held October
30. Planning Board received a copy of some of the materials developed for the task force, including the
draft 2001 draft Data Sourcebook and a series of briefmg papers.
Majar Milestones:
• Task Force agrees on the data regarding existing and projected housing units, population and
jobs.
• Task Force agrees on the public process.
• Planning Board and City Council review draft scenarios developed by task force and staff:
are these the right number and range of scenarios to develop and analyze?
• Task force agrees develops and refines the scenarios selected by Planning Board and Council
and agrees that the costs and benefits aze fairly and accurately analyzed.
• Planning Board and City Council agree that the scenarios and cost/ benefit analysis are ready
for distribution to the public for comment and discussion. Task force work is complete.
• Formal public process (not yet designed) begins.
• Public comments aze summarized and discussed with Planning Board and City Council.
• Planning Board and City Council hold public hearings and select a preferred scenario.
• Implementation of the scenario thaYs selected begins (+/- 2003)
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02 jobs to pop.wkprgsum.doc
Apanda Poem t~Page E ~_
Zoning Changes to Implement the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (Ruth, Louise)
Proiect Desc~tion:
As a result of land use changes approved as part of the Year 2000 Update to the BVCP there are
two categories of zoning changes that are needed to implement the land use changes.
1. Mixed Use Land Use Designations. There are approximately 12 sites where the
Comprehensive Plan land use designation was changed to mixed use, either mixed use-
residential, business, or industrial. Since these sites currently have a non-residential
zoning designation, they will be included in the jobs-to-population project. They will be
analyzed for appropriate zoning designation during the jobs-to-population project. This
could include rezoning or changes to existing zoning designations. At the completion of
the jobs-to-population project, zoning changes or rezonings will occur to implement the
policy recommendations of the jobs-to-population project including the mixed use land
use designations from the BVCP.
2. Rezonings to Implement BVCP Land Use Designation Changes. There are
approximately 10 sites in the city where the land use designation was changed as part of
the year 2000 Update to the BVCP. These sites require rezoning to be consistent with the
new land use designations. These rezonings would occur in conjunction with other zoning
changes as described above.
Status:
The jobs to population balance project is in the initial stages (see separate work program). The mixed use
land use designation implementation will be analyzed as part of this project, through the end of 2001.
Recommendations on the most appropriate zoning changes will be included in the jobs-to-population
project final recommendations. Zoning changes will follow the policy recommendations, in 2002. The
other rezonings will be listed and analyzed during 2001, for rezoning consideration in 2002.
Major Milestones:
1. Mixed use sites
. Task force develop scenarios for future policy changes on the ratio of jobs to population,
including the mixed use sites
• Scenarios including the mixed use sites analyzed for costs and benefits
• Public input into scenarios including mixed use sites
• Planning Board and City Council decide on prefened policy direction including direction
on mixed use sites
• Begin implementation of the preferred policy
• Staff develops a plan, including property owner notification/ meetings, for zoning
changes to implement policy recommendations from the jobs-to-population task force.
• Zoning change process initiated
2. Other rezonings
• Staff develops a plan for rezonings, including types of zoning changes, timeline, property
owner notification, etc.
• Discussion and direction from Planning Board and City Council
• Zoning change process initiated
\\COBCLUSTER_SHARE_SERVER\SHARE\PLAN~data\longrang\work plan\02-mixed use and rezonings to imp bvcp.doc
~nda~emt 'jg Page# ~.3
Last updated: 11/O1
Annexation Policy Implementation (Bev, Michelle)
Proiect Description:
The BVCP provides a framework for annexation and urban service provision. However, in
recent years, annexations have been difficult at times because of the lack of clarity about what is
reasonable and appropriate for the city to require and for the property owner to gain, particularly
on parcels that are largely or fully developed. In many cases there are health and environmental
reasons for encouraging these parcels to annex to the city. Annexation policy 1.24 was revised in
the major update to the BVCP this year to address some of these issues. The policy relates to
enclaves and largely developed Area II properties that are not connected to city water and sewer
services. The purpose of this project is to provide clarity about how the recently adopted policy
should be interpreted in different situations. The project will entail developing specific strategies
and prototypical annexation conditions for different types of properties to more efficiently
implement the BVCP annexation policy. The project will also involve working with the county
to implement the application of city standards on fully developed area II sites when substantial
changes are proposed.
Status:
An economic analysis of the costs/benefits to phase I property owners is near completion.
Comprehensive mapping of Area II sites is underway.
Major Milestones:
Phase I- A plan for individual property annexations for enclave, western edge, and fully
developed residential Area II properties. (November 2001 through March 2002)
•' Complete economic analysis of costs/benefits to property owners.
• Complete comprehensive map of Area II properties, properties on city utilities, development
potential, and septic/well conditions.
• Outline past history of annexation conditions.
• Develop and evaluate preliminary policy options re: annexation conditions for individual
property annexations.
• Hold policy discussion with Planning Board (January 10, 2002}
• Develop proposed annexation strategy and prototypical conditions.
• Initiate discussions on a city and county agreement to use consistent development standards
in the subject areas.
• Diraction from Planning Board and City Council (March, 2002)
Phase II - A plan for group annexations for fully developed residential Area II properties.
(Second and third quarter 2002)
• Evaluate public health and environmental issues.
• Conduct economic analysis of costs/benefits to city and property owners.
. Develop and evaluate preliminary policy options re; annexation conditions for group
annexations.
• Hold policy discussion with Planning Board.
• Develop proposed annexation strategy, prototypical conditions, and priorities for
annexations.
Apendalbm t.~-Fage R ~--
Last updated: 11/01
. Discussion and direction from Planning Board and City Council.
Phase III - A plan for individual property annexations for developed commercia] or industrial
properties. (Fourth quarter 2002- 2003)
• Assess developmentpotential within city/county for individual properties.
• Analyze economic costslbenefits to city and property owners.
• Develop preliminary policy options re: community benefit menu and annexation conditions.
• Prepare preliminary evaluation of policy options.
• Complete city and county agreement to use consistent development standards in the subject
areas.
• Policy discussion and direction from Planning Boazd and City Council.
PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-WRKblank template.doc
Agenda Item t._..~Page # / 5
LasC updated: 11/O1
Neighborhood Planning Process for 47`h/Jay/Kaimia Properties
Project Description:
Follow-up with neighborhood about land use map changes approved as part of BVCP Major
Update. Convene a working group comprised of landowners, neighborhood representatives, and
city staff to provide for neighborhood input and attempt to resolve key issues prior to resubmittal
of annexation requests b'y the property owners.
Milestones:
• Neighborhood Meeting (November 6, 2001)
• Working group meetings (November 2001 - December 2002)
• Develop preliminary concept plan alternatives (December - January 2002)
• Neighborhood meeting to review alternatives (February 2002)
\data\longrang\work plan\02-47th and Jay.doc
Agend9ltem i~Page q ~
LasY updated: 11 /O 1
BVCP Annual Update
Project Description:
The BVCP is reviewed on an annual basis. Changes considered during the annual review require
a public hearing and approval by each of the four signatory bodies: the City Planning Board, City
Council, Boulder County Planning Commission, and Boulder County Commissioners. The
following types of changes maybe considered as part of the annual review:
• Changes to the Land Use Map Designations and Definitions
• Textchanges
• Minor additions or clarifications to the Policy section
• Minor Service Area boundary changes
• Boulder Valley Planning Area expansions
The following items were identified during the Year 2000 Major Update as appropriate to
address during the next annual update:
• Trails map - develop criteria for trails map designations, explore the concept of study areas for
trail proposals, and develop a new process for trails map changes in the future.
• Species of Concern list - refine and prioritize global, federal, state, and county lists of
species of concern to reflect the uniqueness of lands in the Boulder Valley; and provide a
guide for making citywide policy, land use, and regulatory decisions,
Milestones:
• Planning Board reviews plan and schedule for annual update process, and suggests items
for consideration as part of annual review (May 2002)
• Convene working group to address trails map issues (May 2002)
• Draft species of concern section sent out for interdepartmental and public review (May
2002)
• Public notice of opportunity for landowners and general public to request changes to the
plan (September 2002)
• Planning Board Public Hearing to compile list of proposed changes to be considered
during that year's annual review. (November 2002)
• Public Hearings on proposed changes (February and March, 2003)
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-BVCP Annual Update.wkprgsum.doc
Agendaileml~,Page# ^
Depot Relocation Project (Deon)
Project Description:
This project is to coordinate the Depot Relocation Task Force and the City of Boulder's
efforts to relocate th~ Boulder Jaycees Depot for some public purpose.
Status:
The Historic Depot Relocation Task Force was established in February 2000, and
presented an interim report in May 2000 to City Council. The Task Force reconvened in
June 2000 and recommended that the City acquire the Depot building. Council endorsed
this recommendation in September 2000. Negotiations for acquiring the Depot have been
initiated, but the Jaycee's requirements for provision of ineeting space have been difficult
to meet. In the meantime, studies for the Civic Center Master Plan and for the Boulder
Transit Village Site Selection Study have included options for relocating the Depot to
these sites.
Major Milestones:
• City staff ineets with Jaycees' representatives to continue negotiations. (Nov./Dec.
2001) [note: the following milestones aze valid only if an agreement is reached
between the two parties]
• Civic Center & Transit Village studies will continue to consider Depot relocation for
both projects (ongoing 2002)
. An ordinance recommending purchase of the Depot building is presented to City
Council. (Apr.2002)
• Depot Relocation Task Force is reconvened to make recommendations for final
relocation site. (May 2002)
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\wark pian\02-Depot.doc
Agenda Item A~Page N ~_
Downtown Design Guidelines (Deon, Neil)
Project Description:
This project is to update the Downtown Design Guidelines and include illustrative
drawings and photos;
Status:
The Landmazks Board has held two public hearings this summer to discuss proposed
changes and illustrations for the Downtown Design Guidelines. An interim draft was
distributed at the September 2001 Downtown Alliance Meeting. Final edits are currently
being undertaken, and this copy will be made available for review and public comment.
Included in the public comment process are the DMC and DDAB boards. The
Landmarks Boazd will then consider these comments, and make final recommendations
before adopting the Guidelines as an administrative regulation.
Major Milestones:
• Planning Department staff completes editing changes and illustrations for Guidelines.
• Guidelines are submitted to Landmarks Board and the City Attorney's office; Boazd
approves as to substance; City Attomey approves as to form and to legality.
(Nov./Dea 2001)
• Three copies are filed with the City Clerk.
• Publication in the Dailv Camera, and public is allowed at least fifteen days for
comment.
• After public comment, the Board decides which, if any, of the public comments bear
merit. (Dec. 2001/Jan. 2002) [if amended, a copy is provided to the City Attorney
and the Board.]
• Board chair signs the administrative regulation, and it is filed with the City Clerk.
(Jan./Feb. 2002)
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-Downtown Design Guidelines.doc
Agenda Ilern t ~~ Pege # / `7
Historic preservation aspects of Uni-Hill Action Plan implementation (Deon)
Pr~ect Description:
This project was recommended by the University Hill Action Group as an "action item
requiring extensive xeseazch, data collection and/or technology improvements." UHAG
recommended measuring support for residential and/or commercial historic districts on
the Hill.
Status:
The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Boazd applied for a Historic Preservation Grant to
re-evaluate the potential for residential historic district(s) in the University Hill area.
This grant was awarded in 2001, and consultants were hired in August Z001. Pubiic
meetings are included in this process.
Maior Milestones:
• Re-evaluation of the University Hill area for potential historic districts is completed.
(June 2002)
• Public meetings to present recommendations of report (June 2002)
• Landmarks Board and staff conduct additional public information meetings on
historic designation (Sept. 2002)
• Staffmeets with individual commercial building owners interested in landmarking, as
a starting point for commercial district designation (ongoing 2002)
S:\PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-Uni Hill.doc
Agendallem111.._PegeN ~~
General Design Guidelines (Deon, Neil)
Project Descrintion;
This project is to complete the General Design Guidelines and include illustrative
drawings and photos. The general design guidelines are intended to serve for review of
exterior alterations for individuallandmazks, and any historic districts which do not
presently have separate design guidelines.
Status:
The Landmarks Board has received draft General Design Guidelines prepared by a
consultant. The Board has held two work sessions in 2001 to make recommendations for
changes to the first three chapters. Additional work sessions will be held to review and
make recommendations to the remainder of the guidelines, After illustrations and photos
are added, the final draft will be made available for review and public comment. The
Landmarks Board will then consider these comments, and make final recommendations
before adopting the Guidelines as an administrative regulation.
Major Milestones:
• Landmarks Board conducts study sessions to review and make recommendations for
changes to the draft General Design Guidelines. (Mar. 2002)
• Planning Department staff completes editing changes and illustrations for Guidelines.
(June 2002)
• Guidelines are submitted to Landmarks Board and the Ciry Attorney's office; Board
approves as to substance; City Attorney approves as to form and to legality. (Aug.
2002)
• Three copies are filed with the City Clerk.
• Publication in the Dailv Camera, and public is allowed at least fifteen days for
comment.
• After public comment, the Board decides which, if any, of the public comments bear
merit. (Sept./Oct. 2002) [if amended, a copy is provided to the City Attorney and the
Board.]
• Board chair signs the administrative regulation, and it is filed with the City Clerk.
(Nov./Dec. 2002)
S:\PLANldata\longrang\work plan\02-General Design Gaidelines.doc
I~qenda Item t_.J_' [_-Page # a~ ~
Last updated: 11/01
Project Planning and Approval Process and CEAP Update (Bev, Jean)
Project Descri tp ion:
The Project Planning and Approval Process (PPAP) for major capital improvement program
(CIP) projects has not been updated since 1992. The Community and Environmental
Assessment Process (CEAP) for impact review of CIP projects has not been updated since it was
originally adopted in 1987. Several issues have arisen through discussions with the boards and
City Council about the inadequacy and lack of clarity of project review. In particular, the City
Council Environmental Task Force added the PPAP and CEAP revisions to its set of goals for
the year 2001. The update will result in revisions to the overall process for impact assessment,
review and approval of CIP projects and a handbook that describes the PPAP in detail. The City
Council will be asked to adopt an ordinance updating the procedure in handling major capital
improvement projects under B.R.C. Title 2, Government Organization.
Status:
A draft handbook describing the processes for approval of master plans, CIP, CEAP review and
project design and construction is near completion and review by staff and boards.
Major Milestones:
• Review and comment of draft PPAP handbook by staff, public, boards, and Council.
• Adoption of ordinance by Council updating the procedure in handling major capital
improvement projects.
PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-WRKblank template.doc
Agenda Item A~Page # ~
Last updated: 11 /O1
North Broadway Streetscape Plan (Ruth)
Project Description:
The project will produce a streetscape plan for North Broadway to ensure the future
improvements along the, street aze coordinated and consistent with the North Boulder
Subcommunity Plan. The project boundaries nxn along North Broadway, from Upland to US 36/
Broadway intersection. The final product will be a plan showing the street layout, with
dimensioned drive lanes, parking stalls, medians, bicycle lanes, turn lanes, and sidewalks. It will
also include drawings of street furniture and a concept for the US 36/ Broadway intersection.
Status:
The project was begun several years ago, and a draft plan was discussed at a meeting with
property owners along the corridor. Because of the uncertainties of re-development potential
raised by the Fourmile Creek Master Plan and questions raised about the site formerly owned by
Safeway, the project was put on hold. Now that the Master Plan is substantially complete and the
former Safeway site and Drive-In Theater projects are under review, it is appropriate to complete
the project. It is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2002.
Major Milestones:
• Draft streetscape plan presented to Planning Boazd for comments
• Final streetscape plan presented to Planning Board for adoption
PLAIV~data\longrang\work plan\02-northbroadstr.wkprg
Agenda Ilam t i, ~ Page #~.3
Last updated: 11/O1
Historic Preservation Program (Deon and Neil)
Proeram Descri tn ion:
The historic preservation program contains the fotlowing on-going functions:
Design Review ,
Historic district and individual landmark designation
Demolition Permit Review
Education/ Outreach
The 2001/02 work program also includes the following special projects (see separate work
programs):
General Design Guidelines
Downtown Design Guidelines
Historic preservation aspects of University Hill Action Plan implementation
Depot Relocation Project
Status:
This is an on-going program with oversight by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. The
Board holds an annual work program retreat where a more detailed work program is devetoped.
The next retreat will be held in March.
\PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-histpres.wkprgsum.doc
Agenda Item t~ Page A~`
CIP (Jean)
Last updated: 11/O1
Project Description:
This annual project involves the coordination of the city's capital budget wit1~ specific
department master plans, and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Status:
The budgeting process begins in March of every year. Staff prepares the CIP for Planning
Board's review in July or August. Recommendations are made by Planning Board to City
Council during its budget retreat in late summer. The CIP is adopted every fall by Council.
PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-cip.WRKprg
Agendaltemt~Page# .~~
Last updated: 11/O1
Departmental Master Plan Coordination (Jean)
Pro~ect Description:
The Planning Deparhnent provides land use and demographic information, reviews master plans
with an interdeparhnental staff team, provides policy input and assists departments in canying
through the review process to Planning Board and City Council. Master Plan summaries are
prepared for the BVCP, typically through the annual change.
Status:
The following deparhnental master plans are in process:
The Transportation Master Plan
The Fire Master Plan
The Police Master Plan
The Comprehensive Drainage Utilitity Master Plan
The Facilities and Asset Management Master Plan
The following master plans aze scheduled to begin updates after 2003:
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The Library Master Plan
The Airport Master Plan
PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-mpreview.WRKprg
Agenda Item A„, Page A<~~
Last updated: I 1/Ol
Landscape Review (Bev)
Proiect Descri tn ion:
Landscape review is part of the on-going development review function of the deparhnent. This
particulaz part of the review includes the following functions:
Review of discretionary review projects for landscape requirements (concept review, site review,
use review, subdivision)
Review of tecturical document submittal for final landscape plan requirements.
Review of building permit applications for landscape requirements.
Special projects relating Yo the landscape requirements (User's guide, consultation on landscape-
related problems)
Status:
This is an on-going function as part of the Development Review Committee.
PLAN\data\longrang\work plan\02-WRKblank template.doc
qgenda Ilem i~Page # ~ 7
Data Development and Support (Michelle Allen, Jean Gatza)
Project Descri tn ion:
Data development and support consists of the following on-going functions:
Data collection and updates to current and projected housing unit, population, job
and related estimates.
Documentation of inethodology, including origin and reasons behind any changes
in methods, base numbers or assumptions.
Collection and analysis of basic economic data and demographic trends.
Explanation, presentation and dissemination of data related information to City
officials/ public - including graphs and charts.
In addition to on-going functions, data is developed and presented for individual projects:
2001 Planning Data Sourcebook revisions as a result of the Jobs to Population
Process
Jobs to Population Project estimates and indicators (development of scenarios)
Planning process for Area II properties near 47~' and Jay/ Kalmia
Year 2000 census analysis of demographic characteristics and trends
Several recent upgrades and improvements in data collection, as well as the near
completion of the 2001 updated projections necessitate the reorganization and
reconfiguration of several spreadsheets used for tracking and estimating jobs, population
and housing. Building permit information used to track development is now obtained
through reports generated by the Land Link system. A process wiil need to ba developed
to glean information from the reports in a consistent manner.
Status:
Complete documentation of the methodology used to generate the 2001 job, housing, and
population projections and reconfiguration of older spreadsheets can be completed by the
end of the year (depending on time @emands related to the jobs to population balance
project). First of the year updates to current and projected estimates should be completed
by the end of January. Collection and anlysis of economic and demographic trends is on-
going but several spreadsheets should be developed to continuously track indicators. The
2001 Planning Data Sourcebook is 95% complete requiring only minor revisions.
Additional revisions are anticipated as a result of the Jobs to Population task force
analysis.
\\COBCLUSTER_SHARE SERVER\SHARE~PLAN~dataUongrang\work plan\02- ~j~
Data_DevlpmntSpprt_workProgram.doc AgCfld9~lAm# //1 P899# .~~
Last updated: 11/O1
Prairie Dog Interdepartmental Policy (Bev)
Project Description:
City Council adopted an ordinance in January 2000 prohibiting the poisoning of prairie dogs.
This ordinance was amended in 2001 prohibiting the destruction of prairie dog burrows. Staff
has been working on streamlining the administration of these ordinances and developing an
interdeparhnental policy on relocation.
Status:
Task
1. Develop a City of Boulder Relocation Administrative
Rule and Interdepartmental Policy on Relocation to
establish a protocol for prioritizing relocation requests and
deadlines for relocation on to city lands.
2. Identify a response and enforcement protocol and
coordinate with the Police Department and Animal
Control.
3. Develop public information on the web about local code and
policies.
4. Develop Planning and Development Services processes
for responding to prairie dog issues.
• Develop map that identifies zones of potential prairie
dog movement.
• Mail information about code and policies to
landowners and developers.
•. Create function in Landlink to tag properties with
potential prairie dog habitat.
Status
Final documents are
drafted and in process of
adoption.
Complete
Complete
Complete
Major Milestones:
• Adoption of Relocation Rule and Interdepartmental Policy by city manager.
PLAMdata\longrang\work plan\02-prairie dog policy
Agenda Ilem A ~A Page # -~c/
ATTACHMENT B
Notes on Draft Annexation Cost Analysis
24 October, 2001
1. Redevelopment value
• Zoning in Githens Acres (p. 10) would be RR (based on the North Boulder
Plan)
• Avg costs of $250,000 per acre is way low. Maybe the appraiser could help.
2. Update costs
Should include next yeazs PIF increases (enclosed handout)
Development fee may be able to be amortized by pmperty owner depending
on age of home (enclosed; in Boulder City Code)
There is an additional annexation fee that not sure you have included (see
Schedule of fees, enclosed)
3. Health issues
Will ask Chuck Stout, County Health Dept, to review draft report for input re
health issues on water quality and leaching septic systems.
. PossibIy health impacts of shallow wells and septic leaching aze issues.
Fire insurance rates lower in city?
• Concern about future failure of well and septic?
4. Differences in septic system costs
• For developed property, there is a distinction between an existing
house/existing owner compared to an existing house/owner who wants to add
a substantial addition. For additions, there may be a requirement to add to a
septic system, which in some cases (topography, floodplain) is more
expensive or not possible. The analysis should include a broader range of
possible costs in these situations. County Health may be able to shed light on
this.
Market comparison between annexed and non-annexed properties.
• Needs additional data; appraiser might be able to help.
• Names of appraisers from Wally Cameron (does acquisitions far Open Space
and Mountain Parks) not sure if you can get "free" information from them:
Greg Berry 303 442-4983
Steve Rothweiler 303 440-6100
C:\WINDOWS\TEMPU 0 24 Ol notes on draft annex report.doc A~~ ~~ ~~=P~~ ~`~~
~ ~ ~
RF,sF,nnxcx &
CONSULTING
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive
Suite 850
Denver, Colorado 80209-3827
303321.2547 fax 303999.0448
www.hbcresearch.mm
bbc@6bcresearch.com
October 8, 2001
Ms. Louise Grauer
Ciry of Boulder
Planning & Development Services
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
Re: Boulder Annexation Cost Analysis - Preliminary Findings
Dear Louise:
This lecter report examines the costs and benefics of pocential annexaxion to the City of Boulder
(City) for property owners in unincorporated Boulder County. It identifies, quantifies and compares
a variery of potencial costs and benefits that may accrue to properry owners to evaluate the net
impacts of annexation.
Issue
The Ciry of Boulder (City) is in the process of re-evaluating its annexation policies as a part of a
larger comprehensive plan update. The Ciry seeks co develop praccical and reasoned annexation
guidelines, but policy uniformiry has proven difficult because of the variery of properties that are
candidates for annexatioq and the uncercain consequenees for annexation for the property owner and
the Ciry. The City wishes to understand and quantify the costs and benefits of annexation fot the
property owner as xhe community evaluates appropriate annexation fees and policies.
Approach
BBC representatives met wlth Ciry of Boulder planning deparcmen[ scaff and discussed both che
hisrory of these annexaxion debaces and Ciry CounciPs concems wich annexation decisions.
Prospective annexation targets were identified that could offer prototypical examples for detailing the
financial consequences of annexation policies.
At the stafFs direction, BBC's efforts have focused on three enclave sices that have bee~ the subject of
xecenc annexation proposals or discussion: Githens Acres, Cherryvale and the West Side
neighborhood. Lot size and properry taxation infotmation for propercies in these areas were used to
develop the assumptions underlying BBC's fiscal analysis.
Apadelbmi~Paget o~~
Cost categorfes analyzed. Based on a review of past annexation hearings and recenc
comprehensive plan discussions, BBC identified six property owner cos~ categories that are directly
af~ecred by annexation. These are:
^ Wacer provision costs: wells versus municipal syscem;
^ Sewer provision costs: septic systems versus municipal treatmenc,
^ Changes in properry taxes;
^ Municipal annexation charges;
^ Changes in properry redevelopment potential; and
^ General market perception of properry desirability.
To quantify the costs and benefits co Property owners in each of these categories, BBC took a number
of steps. These included reviewing annexation agreements approved by the City in recent years,
calculating fees based on the Ciry of Boulder's Schedule ofFees, interviewing well, septic, wacer and
sewer sysrem providers to estimare costs of various services and interviewing City staff to clarify
projected charges.
Note on present value. In order to present comparative costs in a meaningful fashion, BBC
calculated the present value of all costs. This involves calculating the value to a property owner today
of making paymencs at some poinc in the future. In developing chese presene values, BBC used a 3
percent inflation ra[e and a 4 percent discounc rate, implying that real earnings on property owners'
funds will slightly outpace inflarion. This relatively conservacive discount ra[e is used par~ially due to
the possibiliry that property owners would debt finance some improvements, reducing the value of
their earnings.
With nvo exceptions, our present value calculations ex[end ovet a ten-year time horizon. This
timeframe waz chosen to reflect the decision making process of individuals, which we believe is
unlikely to consider events more than ten years in the fucure. The exceptions co this rule are well and
septic capital costs, which are calculated co allow one replacement, even if it is likely to occur beyond
the ten-year timeframe. This exception was made to account for the fact that the properry owners are
likely to account for such large capical coscs when making annexarion decisions.
The remainder of this memo is organized into a discussion of the properry owner's perspeccive on
potential costs, evaluations of costs and benefits in each of the cacegories listed above and a summary
oF findings.
Property Owner Perspective
The net new cost of municipal utiliry services occutring with annexation compared to the costs of
maincaining wacer and sewer services in the unincorporated county will depend in large part upon
whether a newly annexed property is undeveloped, partially developed or fully developed at the time
of annexation.
ApandeAaml~=Pagei 3~?
Developed property considerations. Developed residencial pazcels in che unincorporated
counry rely on well, water and septic systems. In the majoriry of circums[ances, an unincorporated
homeowner has already absorbed xhe cost of well and septic development and if the owner were co
remain in che unincorporated counry he would face only che expense of continued syscem
maintenance, operations and eventual redevelopment. For these homeowners, the relevant cost
comparison is the cost of continuing to utilize their existing syscems versus the new cosc of
connecting to che municipal systems.
Undeveloped property considerations. In instances where uqdeveloped or under-developed
ptoperties are considered for annexation, these owners would be weighing the full costs of new well
and septic installation, as well as maintenance, operations and replacement, against the new coscs of
connecting to the municipal systems.
Water Provision Costs
The evaluation of warer provision costs consists of a comparison between well opetation and
maintenance for properties in t6e unincorporated County with the fees and on-going operating
charges paid by property owners w6o aze connected to the City water system. It also involves
characterizing the non-financial considerations that properry owners are likely co cake into account
when consideting City or independent warer provision options.
Well development and operation costs. Three faccors determine the present value cos[ of a
well for an unincorporated landowner: the capital cost of well installation, che useful life of a well and
annual well operating costs.
Through interviews with well services and water information associations, BBC found a range of
coscs for well developmenr.
^ T6e State of Colorado's Groundwater Information service indicaced a cost of $20 per
foot to drill a well, with wells reaching from 100 to 500 feet, in addition to a$60 well-
drilling permit.
^ The Colorado Water Well Pump Service noted a cost of benveen $2,500 and $5,000 to
install a pump, water line trench, pressure tank and control sys[em for a residential
water well.
^ The Boulder Wacer Well Service stated chat a new well in the areas identified in this
study could be drilled and installed for roughly $8,000, all inclusive.
^ The National Well Owners Association indicated that well mechanical system
replacement, not including drilling, would cost $2,000.
Apan~~ Ibm ~~Page t ~
Given chese observations, BBC assumed that well system replacement (pump, pressure tank and
distribution) would cost $3,500 (the average of our high and low estimaces of $5,000 and $2,000)
and be required every 15 years.
For undeveloped properties, owners would be required to invest $6,000 in a well and $3,500 in well
pumping systems. In addi[ion, all well owners face periodic sys[em component replacement. For
undeveloped properry owners this invescment is valued at the present value of a$3,500 investment
15 years in che furure. For developed proPerry owners, capital replacemenr costs are valued at the
presenc value of an eight-year investment of $3,SOQ refleaing the average life remaining on
previously installed systems.
Finally, given interview commencs chat well operating costs would likely average $100 in annual
rescing and electriciry, BBC included the present value of a$100 per year outlay for ten years
(discounted at 4 percenc per year) co determine a one-time representation of capitalized operacing
expenses of $921.
In total, warer wsts were calculated at $4,066 without drilling and $13,339 wich drilling. These
calculacions are presenred in Exhibit 1 below.
Exhibit 7.
Water Costs -
Unincorporated Scenario
Note:
Q) Assumesf20pertoot.
(2) Pump, pretsure tank and distribution
(3) This is the nec presentvalue of the f3,500
rtplacement mst 7.5 years In the fuwre, inflated a[
3 perrent and tliswunted a[ 4 percent.
(4) AssumesresNngbrbacrenaonceannually.
(5) Assumes cen years of payments at 396 inllation and
4%discount ~ate.
Source
State of Colorado Groundwacer Inlormation, Colorado
Wacer Well Pump Service, South Carolina 8ureau of
Water, National Well Owne/s Association, Boulder
Water Well Service, Amencan Gmundwa[er Tmst and
BBC Research H Consulting.
Unincorporated Scenarfo ~
.Cost of a Well ~
-- drilfing (assumes 300 feet) (1) f6,000
-- state well drilling permit (1) 160
Replacement of Sys[em Components (2) 53,500
Useful Life of a Well 15
Annuallnflation ~ 34'0
Discoun[ Rate 4~/0
Net Present Value of Well System Components (3) 53,255
Net Present Value of Well Installation 572,528
(vacant land only)
Capitalized Value of Well O& M(5) 5921
Annual Well O& M Cost (4) f100
Total(developed land) 54,176
Total(vacantland) f13,449
ag~al~n,t 7A Paget ~3y
Incorporated scenario. If a property owner chooses to annex into the Ciry, they will be subjecc to
a number of initial wacer service fees, in addi[ion to on-going wacer charges once they are parc of che
City water system. Fees will include at~ application fee, an inspection fee, a tap fee, a planc
investment fee, a mecer fee and a municipal sub-disttict fee for the Northern Colorado Water
Conservanry Discrict (NCWD). Together, fees alone will tocal $5,458.
In addition, property owners who are not currently part of the NCWD are likely to face filing fees of
0.013 of assessed value, or $595 on a$500,000 house. This primarily applies to properties in the
Cherryvale area, as properties in Githens Acres and the West Side neighborhood are predominandy
parc of the district already, and consequendy would only be required to pay the municipal sub-
disvict fee of $150.
In addition to the fees described above, property owners are likely to be responsible for payment of
the cost of constructing water mains to their properry. These costs will either be recovered directly, if
the mains have not yet been constructed, or through a main front footage charge. Given average
wacer main construction cosxs of $45 per foot, an average of 50 feet of front footage and cwo properry
owners contributing to each section (one on eixher side of the street), this cost is assumed to average
$1,125.~ Finally, once they are connecced ro City water, property owners can expect to pay an
average of $345 in annual water costs, which BBC calculated to equal $3,177 in present value over
cen years ac a 4 percent discount rate.' The City's wacer rate scructure is designed to recover the
periodic costs of system repair and replacement.
As seen in Exhibit 2, the anticipated water costs of annexed properties subs~antially exceeds the costs
of developed unincorporaced properry but are less than the costs of undeveloped uninwrporaced
property.
~ Cost per foot estimate ftom phone interviews wi[h representative of Twin Peaks Excavating and Valley Excavating,
September and Oc[ober 2001. -
2 Bued on interviews wich Ciry scaff, average single-family warer and sewer costs are likely to equal $690. Half of [his
amounc is included here, wich the ocher half in [he sewer sec[ion. I[ is calculated a[ a three percen[ inElation race and a four
percent discoun[ rare.
Aganda ~mm e ~~ Page # ~S
Exhibit 2.
Water Costs - Annexed Scenario
Note:
Q) Assumps tletached residential unit.
(i) AssumesSOleetdfrontfootage,fl8perfootandlwapmpercies
paying tor each segment.
(3) Assumes Yi" i~ AGPV[.
(4) fusumes an average size sinqle family residena.
(5) Assumes a 4." meter,
(b) 5150 application fee Por sub~district For a 5500,000 house [ha[ is not
in the tlis[nc4 this cost would increau by 3595.
(7) Asiumes ten years of paymen4 at 396 inllalion and 496 dittount rate.
Saurce:
Ciry ot Baulder Schedule ol kes and BBC Pesearch k Consulting.
Annexed 5cenario , ; .
Application Fee (1) E13
Inspection Fee (1) E93
Main front Footage Charge (2) 51,125
Tap Fee (3) E146
PIF (4) E4,855
Meter Fee (5) E201
Filing fees
-- No. CO Water Conservancy District NA
- Municipal Sub-District (6) 5150
Capitalized Costr of Annual Charges (7) 5~,177
Total E9,760
Other considerations. While wacer provision costs in the unincorporated County are less than
those for property owners who choose to annex into the Ciry, a number of non-financial
considerations should be noted when compazing the two scenarios. In fact, for many homeowners
these secondary considerations may ounveigh the cost differentials calculated above. First, there are
fire safery concerns for well owners because wells require electricity, which can go out in the case of
fires, meaning that property owners must depend on water provision by pumper trucks for fire
protection. Additionally, there are water safery issues that arise from using a water source that is
tesred annually, rather than a source, such as Ciry water, thac is tesced more frequently. Wa[er safety
issues are exacerbated by che presence of older septic tanks. Well owners also face uncertainty about
water provision, including fears about welis deterioracing or running dry, that homeowners do not
face on Ciry water.
Conversely, some homeowners will find the "off-the-grid" independence offered by a well appealing
for a number of reasons. Most prominently, che Ciry of Boulder's water race struaure is designed
such that rates increase with usage. Consequendy, owners of large lots with extensive landscaping
could find the availabiliry of well water very appealing. This and other items should be considered in
evaluating the differential water costs presented above and properry owner reactions to annexation
offers. Euhibit 3 below summarizes the costs of water provision for owners of developed and
undeveloped properry in the Ciry and in the incorporated Counry.
Exhibit 3. Within the Unincorporated
Water Service Cost Comparison: Present Property , City of Boulder County
Value of Capl[ai and Operating Costs ~ ~ -
~ Developed Parcel 113,449 34,176
Note:
CIryolBnuldertostsforp~openlesthatarenotcurtmtlyinthe UndevelopedParcel 573~449 • E9~760
NG1ND will Increase by appronimately f595.
Source:
8BC Research & CansulGng.
ApBtldd Nem #~Pege ~ ~G~
Wastewater Service
The second major utiliry service chat is provided by the Ciry to residents and is iridependently
provided in the unincorporaced County is wastewater service. As in the case of water, BBC's analysis
examined the net present value of septic system developmenc and maintenance in comparison with
xhe cost of hooking into the Ciry's sewerage sysrem.
Unincorporated scenarlo. Based on an interview with T. Brown Excavation of Boulder, BBC
identified a cost of septic system installation in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. This is slightly
higher than other estimates identified in our reseazch, but is used here because it originates from a
knowledgeable local source.' In addicion, our interviewees identified operating coscs of $250 for
cleaning every nvo or three years. Finally, sepcic tanks were estimaced to have a 20-year useful life,
although some last up to 40 years. Septic system life can vary dramatically depending on many
factors, ranging from upkeep and household size to soil conditions and system design.
Given these estimates, and an assumption that each system requires replacemenc every 20 years, BBC
estimated a net present value cost of $9,604 for ownets of developed property. This calculation uses
the net present value of replacing a septic system in ten years - reflecting the average life remaining
on previously inscalled syscems and incorporares annual oPerating costs. For undeveloped properry,
we calculated the cost of sep~ic syscem development (in addition to replacement in ZO years and
capicalized operating costs) resulting in a total cost of $17,852. These calculations are presented in
E~chibit 4 below.
Exhibit 4.
Wastewater Costs -
Unincorporated Scenario
Notes:
Q) Netpresen[valuecostafreplacementin
10 years, reflecting the avemge life
remainin9 tor iniwlled systems.
(2J Assumes cen yean of paymenb at a 3%
inflaHOn rate and 9%discoun[ rate.
Source:
BBC Pesearch & Consulting and interview
withT.BrownE~caw[ioa Findingswere ~
confirmed by wxw.inspeony.mm, assumes
ezisting lea[h field ii suHitlent.
Unincorpora4ed Scenarlo ; '
Ins[allation Cost of a Septic Tank E9,000
Annuallnfla[ion ~ ~ 3~/a
Useful Life of a Septic Tank (years) ~ 20
Discoun[ Rate . 49'0
Net Present Value of Septic Tank Replacement (1) 58,177
Net Present Value of Installation and Replacement 516,419
Annual Septic O& M Cost E125
Capitalized Value of Septic O k M~(2) 51,433
Total (developed land) 59,604
Total(vacantland) 517,852
3 For example, in WhatAn Septic Sytteml by Lockwood, Dietershagen Associates, rosts are es[ima[ed to range from $3,500
to$10,000. ~ ~
l~al6ami ~~ Page#.~.7--
Annexed scenario. As in che case of water, properry owners will be subject to a number of
wascewater annexacion fees, including inspection, tap and public improvemenc fees, as well as either a
main front footage charge or their share of the capital cosc of construccing mains. The capical coscs of
constructing mains were calculated a~ $750, assuming 50 feet of front foocage, $30 per foot in
consttuction costs and cost sharing by two properry owners. BBC calculated these charges and added
the cost of annual wastewater charges to reach a total present value oF costs under the annexacion
scenario. As in the case of wacer, annual operating chatges of $345 were assumed, with che present
value of ten years of those payments calculated at $3,955 4
4 Bued on interviews with Ciry staEf, average single-Family wa[er and sewer costs are likely to equal $690. HalFof this
amoun[ is included here, with the other half in [he water sec[ion. These rosts are capitalized a[ four percenc.
Agenda Item B 7~ Page # 3~ •
These calculacions are presenced in Exhibit 5 below.
Exhibit 5.
Wastewater Costs -
Annexed Scenario
Note:
p) Assumesdetachedsinglefamilyhome.
(2) Assumes4"PVCNCP.
(3) Auumesaveragesizesinglefamilyhome.
(4) Assumes W fee[ at f30 perloop paid tor
by Rvo property awners.
(5) Assumes ten years of payments at a 3%
infla[ion rate and 496 dismunt rare,
Sour<e:
Ciry of 8oulder Schedule o! ices and 6BC
Research 6 ConsNting.
Application Fee (1)
Inspection Fee
Tap Fee (2)
PIF (3)
Main Front Footage Charge/Cos[ of Construction of Mains (4)
Sanitary Sewer Main Assessmen[ •
Gapitalized Costs of Annual Charges (5)
Total
E73
$93
f117
f7,140
E750
56,062
Other considerations. As in the case of water, non-financial considetations may en[et property
ownets' decision-making processes when considering wastewatet ptovision. In particular, the
reliabiliry and ease of being a part of the City sewer syscem is likely to be highly valued by property
owners. The xotal costs of sewer development for owners of developed and undeveloped property are
summarized in E~chibic 6 below.
Exhibit 6.
Wastewater Service Cost Comparison:
Present Value of Capital and Operating Costs
Source:
BBC Nesearch fl Consulting.
Property Taxation
Within the Unincorporated
Property C(ty of Boulder Couniy
Developed $6,062 E9,604
Undeveloped 56,062 217,852
A third consideration thac property owners may take into account in considering the cost and
benefics of annexation is [he differential effect of City and County properry cax levies. Regardless of
annexation, all property will be subject to Boulder Counry's 19.835 mill levy. Based on a review of
property tax records for incorporated and unincorporated propercies in and near Gichens Acres, BBC
assumed [hat annexed properties would pay the City's 10,908 mill levy, while unincorporated
properties would pay the Boulder Rural Fire Protection Districc's 4.405 mill levy. In addition, both
types of properties will pay school district, Northern Colorado Water District and Urban Drainage
I~endal6emA ~~ Pagea ~~~
and Flood Control property taxes.s Given these mill levies and the state's residential assessmenc ratio
of 9.15, the total p{operry tax burden on a$500,000 house in the City of Boulder would be $3,442,
while the same house in the unincorporated County would pay $3,144. The present value of the
Ciry of Boulder payment over ten years equals $31,700 - nearly $3>000 more than the present value
of payments in the unincorporaced County. These calculations are presented in Exhibit 7 below.
Exhibit 7.
Property Tax Calculations
Note:
p) Assumesrenyearsafpaymenuwi[h
3961ntiatian and a 99fi discnunt rare.
source:
Boultler County Asseua/s Nemrds.
Annexation Charges
Annexed Scenario_ ~ ~
Ciry of Boulder Mill Levy 10.908
Boulder County Mill Levy 19.835
Boulder Valley School District 42.89
Northern CO Water District 1
Urban Drainage k Flood Control 0.594
Assumed House Value E500,000
Annual Property Tax
Present Value of Annual Paymentr (1) 531,697
Unincorporated Scenarb ;
Boulder County Mill Levy 19.835
Boulder Rural F.P.D. 4.405
Boulder Valley School District 42.89
Northem CO Water District 1
Urban Droinage ~ Flood Control 0:594
Assumed House Value $500,000
Proper[y Tax %3 144
Present Value of Annual Payments (1) $28,957
In addicion to che fees associated with utilities and property taxation, property owners desiring
annexation will be required ro pay a number of addicional chazges. These include a public
improvemen[ fee for stotmwater/flood control and excise taxes for housing, education and
development. As seen in Exhibit 8 below, these charges will total $8,3G4.
5 Some Cherryvale pmpeicies are no[ part of [he NCWD and would no[ pay the 1.0 mill lery. For the owner of a$500,000
house, chis would result in a decrease of $46:
Agenda Ilem A 7~ Page #`~~
Exhibit 8.
Annexation Charges ,
Note:
Assumes a 2,500 square loo[ house.
Source;
Ciry of Boulder Schedule a/Feel.
Redevelopment Value
Annexed Scenario
_.._. _ . . . _. s ,._. v ~ ,~ .,. . . _.
Storm Water/Flood Control PIF 51,095
Development Excise Tax $4,594
Housing Excise Tax $225
Education Excise Tax $2,450
Total E8,364
The above analysis is concerned with direct chazges paid by property owners for public services.
However, it is also possible that property owners could reap some benefit from annexation due to
potential redevelopmenc of their lots. According to a Ciry of Boulder analysis, in the areas under
examination, "further subdivision is not possible" if they remain in the County.G However, ic is likely
that properties in Githens Acres, as well as some properties in the Cherryvale area, would be zoned
ER-E, requiring minimum lot sizes of 15,000 acres per square foot and pocentially permitcing
subdivision for lots that exceed 30,000 square feet. BBC has estimated that there are 178 such lots in
the nvo areas, alchough the precise number may vary slightly depending on definitions of the areas'
boundaries and xhe accuracy of the maps used for the analysis.
There were few sales of vacant land wi~h residential development potential in the Ciry of Boulder in
the pasc nvo years. However, the limited rewrds available indicate average wsts of $250,000 per acre
for vacant land, or $5.75 pet square fooc. At this value, the 15,000 square fooc lot resulting from a
subdivision could be sold for $86,250. While this benefit may not be available due to zoning and
City planning policies, it could make annexation very attracxive for those individuals.
Imputed Value of Annexation/Unincorporation
Finally, BBC explored the question of whether there is some imputed value of having a home within
the Ciry limics, in addition ro the components desctibed above. To evaluace this quescion, we
incerviewed Realtors with experience in annexa~ion issues in Boulder. In general, chey believed thac
the value of annexing inro the Ciry was due to the presence of Ciry services and utilities. As one
individual noted, "you have a Boulder address either way." Moreover, some inrerviewees noted that
the difficulry of the City's annexation process is an added cost that property owners should consider
in making annexation decisions. As a result, we did not include any additional value for a City of
Boulder location in our analysis.
Summary
Exhibit 9 on the following page summarizes the costs faced by properry owners who chose to remain
in the unincorporared County and those who chose to annex inco the Ciry. As seen in Exhibit 9, on
a present value basis, annexing is approximately $13,000 more expensive for owners of developed
G Memo [o Mayor Toor and Members of City Council, from Ronald A. Secris[, Ciry Manager, et. al., March 14, 2000.
Agenda Item #~Page ~ y ~
land than remaining in the unincorporated County. Howevet, for owners of undeveloped land,
annexing is $4,500 ~ess expensive than remaining in che unincorporated Counry.
Exhibit 9.
Summary of Costs for Annexed
and Unincorporated Property
Source:
00C Nesearch 6 ConsuRing
Developed Property
Scenartos
Net Present Va1ue of Costs
_, ___._..... _ _._._, .... . . Annexed "
._.._ . . . .. . . Not Annexed
. ..
Water . 59,760 E4,ll6
Sewer ~6,062 E9,604
Property Taxes {70 years) $31,697 E28,957
Annexation Charges E8,364 EO
Redevelopment Potential $0 $0
Market Perception g_Q ~Q
Total 555,883 542,737
Vacant Land
;; ~ ~3 ::
' Scenarlos
`
a
Net Present Value o# Costs Mnexed Not Annaxed =
Water E9,760 E13,449
Sewer $6,062 $77,852
Property Taxes (10 years) $31,697 $28,957
Annexation Charges $8,364 EO
Redevelopment Potential $0 $0
Market Perception $Q ~Q
Total E55,883 $60,257
A number of considerations s6ould be taken into account when evaluating chese findings. First, the
cost of remaining in the unincorporaxed Counry should be weighed againsc the certainry of City
uciliry provision. While owners of properry in che unincorporated Counry have less expensive access
to utilities, this wst savings is accompanied by uncer~ainry. A second consideracion is thac the costs
described above could vary due to a number of factors, including properry value, inclusion in the
NCWD, front footage of the property and others. While these variations will not change che basic
finding, they will change the magnitude of the impaas of annexation. Finally, the potential for
redevelopment could potencially make annexation a relatively lucrative proposition, regardless of the
increased costs. An owner of a 30,000 square foot lot that is eligible for subdivision could reap a
benefic in excess of $85,OQ0.
Agenda Item A,•~ Page i ?
We hope this analysis is helpful as you consider Ciry annexation policies. We would welcome the
opportunity to spea~c with you furchet about our research or findings at your convenience.
Sincerely,
v~~ ~
Ford C. Frick Jim Carpenter
Managing Director Associate
Agenda Item A,•~ Page # y-3
Planning & Development Services
Long Range Planning 2002 - 2004 Work Plan Per Proposed Budget
'~
~
~
2001
2002
~ 2003
~ ;JobsJtorPoptPro~ect Jobs: to Pop Pro~ect .;.
~ ;~ £• Pol~cy Direct~on • Implerr~entation ~ ~
BVCP Update BVCP !mplementation
Adopted • Mixed Use
2004
Planning & Development Services
Long Range Planning 2002 - 2004 Accelerated Work Plan
Add. Cost ~
$66,500
$143,000
$41,000
~
~
I
~
d
~
~
~
2002
2003
;iJQbs to Pop Pro~ect" Jobs to Pop Projec~~
F ? ~ , J
~~ • Pol~cy D~trection~ ~~ : ;,; • Im;plemei~tation ~4 ~
, ~~: ,~
2004
~ - r--~ -~ ~--.
~" - ' i5b` y_t
Fi ' - !' °i K ~ ~?i
i~vry P ~~fs ~ x ,.
ry ;~ ~ ~_ ; ~ ,,~~~ ~~t, ~a ,;
~.~. iY .:~ ..~.-~ :~ ~~:~ ..,s~*.:c
BVCP Implementation
° . • Mixed Use
ATTACHMENT D
9-3.4-12Accessory Dwelling Units.
(a)Standards: An owner or the owners of a lot or parcel with an existing single-family dwelling
unit may establish and maintain an accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure of a
detached dwelling unit in the LR-D, LR-E, ER-E, RR=E, RRl-E, A-E, or P-E districts if all of the
following conditions are met and continue to be met during the life of the accessory dwelling
unit:
(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 parcel upon which the
detached dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit is located, who possesses at least an
estate for life or a fifty percent fee simple ownership interest.
(2)Parking: In addition to the parking required in each district, one off-street parking
space is provided on the lot upon which the detached dwelling unit is located meeting the
setback requirements of Section 9-3.2-1, "Schedule ofBulk Reyuirements," B.R.C. 1981,
unless a variance to the setback is granted pursuant to Section 9-3.6-2, "Variances and
Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981.
(3)Occupanc~quirement: The occupancy of the accessory dwelling unit does not
exceed two persons, and the occupancy of the detached dwelling unit including the
accessory dweliing unit does not exceed two persons unrelated to the head of the
household by marriage, adoption, or blood up to the second degree of consanguinity.
(4)Additional Roomers Prohibited: The detached dwelling unit is no[ also used for the
renting of rooms pursuant to Section 9-3.2-8, "Occupancy of Units," B.R.C. 1981.
(5)NeiQhborhood Area: In the LR-D, LR-E, ER-E, RR-E, RRl-E, A-E, or P-E zoning
districts, no more than ten percent of the single-family lots or parcels in a neighborhood
area contain an accessory dwelling unit. For the purpose of this paragraph:
(A)The "neighborhood area" in LR-E, LR-D, and P-E zoning districts is the area
circumscribed by a line three hundred feet from the perimeter of the lot line within
which any accessory dwelling unit will be located.
(B)The "neighborhood area" in ER-E, RR-E, RRl-E, and A-E zoning districts is
the area circumscribed by a line six hundred feet from the perimeter of the lot line
within which any accessory dwelling unit will be located.
(C)For the purpose of calculating the ten percent limitation factor, a legal, non-
conforming structure containing two or more units is counted as an accessory
dwelling unit. The city manager may promulgate regulations defining additional
methods to be used in calculating the ten percent limitation factor and the
neighborhood area.
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM,# 7A Paee ~/
(D)If an application for an accessory dwelling unit exceeds the ten percent
requirement set forth in subparagraphs (B) and (C) above, the city manager will
place the applicant on a waiting list for the neighborhood area. At such time as
there is room for an additional accessory dwelling unit within a neighborhood
area, the city manager will notify the first eligible person on the waiting list. Such
person on the waiting list shal] be required to provide notice of intent to file an
application within thirty days and file an application within sixty days of such
notice.
(6)Criteria: The accessory dweiling unit is clearly incidental to the principal dwelling unit
and meets the following criteria:
(A)The accessory dwelling unit is created only in a single-family detached
dwelling unit on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more.
(B)The accessory dwelling unit is a minimum of 300 square feet, and does not
exceed one-third of the total floor area of the principal structure, unless a variance
is granted pursuant to Section 9-3.6-2, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C.
1981, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
(C)The accessory dwelling unit utilizes only those utility hookups and meters
allotted to the detached dwelling unit.
(D)The accessory dwelling unit is created only through internal conversion of the
principal structure. Minor exterior changes may be made on the building,
however, if the square footage added constitutes no more than five percent of the
principal structure's existing foundation area.
(E)If there is an interior connection between the accessory dwelling unit and the
principal dwelling prior to the creation of the accessory dwelling unit, the
connection shall be maintained during the life of the accessory dwelling unit. Any
additional entrance resulting from the areation of an accessory dwelling unit may
face the side of the lot fronting on the street only if such entrance is adequately
and appropriately screened in a manner that does not detract from the single-
family appearance of the principal dwelling.
(7)Permits for Existine Units: No permit for an accessory dwelling unit shall be granted
for a detached dweiling that is not at least five years old.
(b)Application: All applicants for accessory dwelling units shall apply on forms provided by the
city manager showing how and in what manner the criteria of subsection (a) of this section are
met, provide a list of all property owners adjacent to the front, rear, and side of the applicant's
property, provide a statement of current ownership and a legal description of the property, and
pay the application fee prescribed by Section 4-20-43, "Development Application Fees," B.R.C.
1981. After receiving an application, the city manager will cause the property to be posted and
notify, by first class mail, al] property owners adjacent to the front, rear, and side of the
applicanYs property indicating that an accessory dwelling unit permit application has been filed
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee y 7
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 permit subsequently granted.
(c)Review and Approval: All appiicants for accessory dwelling units shall meet the requirements
of Chauter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, but the city manager will issue only a thirty-six
month rental license for the rental unit and will conduct an inspection of the property to ensure
compliance with the standards and criteria of this section.
(1)City Manaeer Approval: If after reviewing the application, but no fewer than ten days
after posting of the property, the city manager determines that the criteria of this section
and the requirements of Chapter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, are met, the
manager will grant the applicant a non-transferable permit for the use of an accessory
dwelling unit within the applicanYs detached dwelling unit.
(2)Declaration of Use Required: Before receiving the permit, all owners shall sign a
declaration of use, including all the conditions for continued use, to be recorded in the
office of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder to serve as actual and constructive
notice o£the legal status of the owners' property.
(3)Apneal to PlanninQ Board: If the application is denied, the applicant may appeal the
manager's decision to the planning board by delivering a written notice of appeal to the
city manager within fourteen days of the decision.
(4)City Council Call-Up: The city council may call up any decision of the planning board
that grants an applicant an accessory dwelling unit pursuant to the procedures in
Subsection 9-4-3(c), B.R.C. 1981.
(d)Permit Required: No person shall maintain an accessory dwelling unit without an accessory
dwelling unit permit.
(e)Transfer: An accessory dwelling unit permit may be transferred to the new owner of a
dwelling unit that has an existing, approved accessory dwelling unit, if there is no person on the
waiting list within the dwelling uniYs neighborhood area. A new property owner may apply to
transfer an accessory dwelling unit peimit into its name if the following standards are met:
(1)Proof of Ownershin: The transfer applicant shall provide proof of ownership or of
pending ownership of the dwelling unit.
(2)Declaration of Use Required: The transfer applicant shall sign a declaration of use, that
will be recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder acknowledging that the
accessory dwelling unit is not automatically transferable to subsequent purchasers, that no
vested right to duplex status arises by virtue of the city's granting of the accessory
dwelling unit permit or a building permit to construct the same, and that lists all the
conditions for the continued use of the accessory dwelling unit.
(3)Rented or Occupied: The transfer applicant shall provide proof that the accessory
dwelling unit has been rented or occupied in the year prior to the application for the
transfer.
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Pase y~
(4)Exoiration: If a new owner fails to apply for a transfer of the permit within thirty days
of the purchase of the dwelling unit, the permit shall automatically expire and the re-
establishment of an accessory dwelling unit wili require a new application.
(5)Fees: The applicant shall pay the fee required by Sectiou 4-20-43, "Development
Application Fees," B.R.C. 1981, and all necessary fees for recording documents with the
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder.
(6)Transfer of Rental License Required: The new owner shall apply for a transfer of the
rental license after the transfer of the accessory dwelling unit has been approved.
( flExniration and Revocation of Permit: An accessory dwelling unit permit granted by the city
manager or planning board automatically expires one hundred eighty days after the date on which
it is granted unless a rental license for the unit is obtained within such period. The manager may
grant an extension of this period for good cause shown, but only if application therefor is made
prior to the expiration of the period. After revocation or expiration of the accessory dwelling unit
permit, the city manager will inspect the property to ensure that the accessory dwelling unit has
been removed.
(1)Expiration: An accessory dwelling unit permit expires upon the failure of the permittee
to satisfy any condition prescribed by subsection (a) of this section or upon the sale,
conveyance, or transfer of the property upon which the unit is located.
(2)Revocation: An accessory dwelling unit permit may be revoked by the city manager
upon the permittee's ar the permittee's tenanYs conviction of a violation of this ordinance
or any provision of Chaqters 6-2, "Weed Control," 6=3, "Garbage," or ] 0=11, "Signs on
Private Property" or Sections 6-1-21, "Animals as Nuisance Prohibited," or 5-6-2,
"Excessive Sound Levels," B.R.C. 1981.
(3)Removal Reauired: Upon notification of permit expiration or revocation, the permittee
may request a hearing as provided in Chapter 1-3, "Quasi-Judicial Hearings," B.R.C.
1981. Within thirty days of revocation or expiration of a permit, no owner shall fail to
remove the accessory dwelling unit and return the property to its single-family use status
as a single dwelling unit. The applicant shall either:
(A) Remove the kitchen within the accessory dwelling unit and any physical
separation between the accessory dwelling unit and the balance of the unit; or
(B)Remove any physical separation between the accessory dwelling unit and the
balance of the unit and sign a declaration of use in a form acceptable to the city
manager, which will be recorded with the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder,
stating the property will remain owner occupied for so long as the accessory
dwelling unit kitchen remains and that the dwelling unit is used by the owner and
the owner's family in a manner consistent with Section 9-3.2-8, "Occupancy of
Units," B.R.C. 1981. No person shall fail to remove the additional kitchen
installed pursuant to this section if the dwelling unit is no longer owner occupied
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee y ~/
and if the dwelling unit requires a rental license under Chapter 10-3, "Rental
Licenses," B.R.C.1981.
(4)Limitations on Re-Application after Revocation: Upon revocation of a permit, the
owner may not reapply for an accessory dwelling unit permit for any Iocation in the city
for a period of three years following the date of revocation or conviction.
(g) Accessory DwellinQ Unit Will Not Become a Non-Conforming Use: If the provisions of this
section are repealed by this or any future city council, the legal use of an accessory dwelling unit
must be terminated within five years from the date of repeal, and the accessory dwelling unit will
not become a non-conforming use.
s:\plan\pb-itemslmemoslbhfotirniilepbmemo.wpd AGF.NDA ITEM # 7A Paee .'~Q
ATTACHMENT E
Reviving University Hill
A Report From
University Hill Action Group
To
Boulder City Council
November 28, 2000
Boulder City Council & University Hill Action Group Study Session
November 28, 2000, 6:00 - 8:00 p.m.
Base Line Middle School, Cafeteria, 700 20th Street
Public Written Comment due Monday,
November 27, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. to City Council, 1777 Broadway, ar
P.O. Box 791, 80306, or FAX (303) 441- 4478 Attn: Sarah Goodroad, or
e-mail: goodroads@ ci.boulder.co.us
We used the image of broken windows to explain how neighborhoods might decay into disorder
and even crime if no one attends faithfully to their maintenance. If a window is broken,
passersby observing it will conclude that no one cares or no one is in charge. In time, a few will
begin throwing rocks to break more windows. Soon all the windows will be broken, and now
passersby will think that, not only is no one in charge of the building, no one is in charge of the
street on which it faces. Only the young, the criminal, the foolhardy have any business on an
unprotected avenue, and so more and more citizens will abandon the street to those they assume
own it. Small disorders lead to larger and larger ones, and perhaps even to crime.
James Q. Wilson
In the Foreword to "Fixing Broken Windows" By George L. Kelling and Catherine M. Coles
1. Executive Summary
This report, RevivinQ Universitv Hill, is a call to action for the Boulder City Council. Based on ten
weeks of listening and learning, the report recommends more than thirty proj ects and five broader
policies for reviving the University Hill neighborhood.
The University Hill Action Group's fifteen members are very concemed by the continuing
decline of the University Hill neighborhood--physically, socially, and economically. What was
an historic and once prestigious area now suffers from neglected buildings and trash, the city's
highest crime rate, and sharply declining sales tax revenues.
The Hill's decline has been gradual but relentless. Now the neighborhood has reached a critical
moment when, unless City Council acts swiftly and decisively, it will tilt dangerously
downward. This has happened elsewhere as weary neighbors give up and move out in a nzsh to
avoid being the last one on the block.
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee .~i/
The Action Group identified five strategic goals for reviving University Hill and used them to
guide our specific recommendations for action to City Council. The goals are:
• Clean up The Hill and keep it clean.
• Set standards for neighborly behavior, communicate them to newcomers, and when
required, enforce them fairly and consistently.
• Improve the physical conditions on The Hill on both public and private properties.
• Broaden the commercial mix to better serve the community.
• Promote a sense of community among University Hil] neighbors.
Council chartered us an "action group" so we wanted to recommend only policies and projects
we are convinced will work in the real world and substantially improve conditions on The Hili.
Some of the recommendations are straightforward, even obvious, like sweeping streets more
often to reduce trash. Others are more complex and will take longer to make a difference. All
the recommendations are important to reviving University Hill. Our recommendations for
Council include:
• Review and Reform Environmental and Code Enforcement Organizations
• Encourage New Businesses on The Hill
• Expand the City's Trash Ordinance
• Adopt a Civil Nuisance Abatement Ordinance
• Require Landlords to Provide Regular Trash Removal
• Educate University Students About Responsibilities as Good Neighbors
• Promote More Social Activities Involving Students and Neighbors
The Action Group also recommends five broader policies, which are key to improving
conditions on The Hill. These will demand political courage and leadership, but without them
as a firm policy foundation, individual projects are not likely to make a real improvement in
livability on The Hill. The policy themes are:
• Lead the Revival. University Hill can be revived but City Council must lead the way.
The Council must make a clear, unequivocal, and enduring commitment to restoring
University Hill to a prized Boulder neighborhood.
• Invest More Resources on The Hill. More investment, both public and private, is
needed to revive The Hill. After a period of relative neglect, the area now deserves
Councils' priority attention and support.
• Enforce Our Laws Fairlv and Consistentlv. Council must make clear the city will
enforce our laws fairly and consistently. Wrongdoers who break laws and threaten the
neighborhood should expect punishment that is "swift and sure
• Intervene Earlv to "Fix Broken Windows." Disorders, including trash, noise, drugs,
and property neglect are all contributing to the HilPs decline. Council should encourage
enforcement strategies and tactics that emphasize early intervention before marginal
conduct or conditions deteriorate into neighborhood problems.
. Promote More Housine for the Universitv Market. The chronic shortage of housing
for staff, faculty, and most importantly students, is a major aggravating factor in many
of the University Hi1Ps problems. The Action Group urges City Council to continue
efforts to encourage the University and private sector to build additional housing for the
university market.
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\bhfottrmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Pa¢e .>c~
University Hill's decline was not inevitable. More importantly, the Action Group is convinced
it can and must be reversed. We can renew The Hill to a beautiful, diverse neighborhood where
people are proud to live. Achieving that will require changes in city policy, pursuit of a host of
targeted projects, and a commitment by City Council and staff to work closely with community
members and the University of Colorado to revive the University Hill neighborhood.
s:\plan\pb-itenu~memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee $.3
ATTACHMENT F
OVER OCCUPANCY
A report for the University Hill Action Group
October 27, 2000
INTRODUCTION
The management of occupancy limits involves complex enforcement and poticy issues. Investigation
and prosecution of such cases is complicated. More significant is the fact that within our community
there are diverse opinions about managing occupancy. These disparate opinions are reflected in our
legislative history.
Some members of this community have stressed that high occupancy levels are associated with a
series of density relatad impacts which present difficult challenges for neighborhoods. Others have
pointed out that affordable housing is increasingly rare in Boulder so that those in need of housing
are motivated to pool their resources to establish informal group living situations.
Enforcement is always difficult when a community has different opinions about a]aw. This was the
national experience during the prohibition era, and more recently with regard to the enforcement of
marijuana laws. To some extent, this enforcement phenomenon has manifested itself localiy with
reference to occupancy limits.
When a community is conflicted, offendars don't see themselves as "criminals," and as a result they
are mare apt to rationalize behaviors Yhat are at variance with the letter of the law. By the same
token, witnesses may be less willing to testify in such cases then in cases involving traditional crimes
like assault or theft.
This memorandum provides background on the issue of over occupancy in Boulder. It explains some
of the complex legislative history associated with this question. Finally, it presents some of the
enforcement issues associated with enforcement of occupancy limits and additional tools that may
be useful.
SOME RELEVANT ZONING HISTORY
RELATING TO OCCUPANCY ISSUES
IN THE UNIVERSITY HILL AREA
The 1972 Down-zoning - A Decision to Work Toward Less Density
In 1972, two separate sections of University Hill were down-zoned. The first down-zoning affected
a portion of the area bordering 9th Street to 15th Street, from College to Aurora. The change was
from an existing designation of MR-E to a lower density zoning of LR-E.
According to a staff survey conducted at the time, ninety-two percent of the owners who lived on
their properties in the affected area were in favor of the down-zoning. They believed it would
preserve the character and uniqueness of the area. Residents hoped that the down-zoning would help
s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee ,77
stabilize the neighborhood, which was moving toward more student occupancies. Other concenis
included parking issues and an expressed desire to disperse the student population to other parts of
the city.
Even at that time, there was a vocal minority opposition that expressed the view that the public was
overreacting to the student occupancy problem and population growth. The people who held this
view suggested that the down-zoning would make it more difficult for students to find housing and
might cause the area to stagnate economically. However, such concerns did not prevent the ordinance
from passing in 1972.
The second azea of the Hill that was rezoned in 1972, is located generally beriveen 4th Street and 9th
Street and extends from Boulder Creek to Pennsylvania. This rezoning was accomplished by an
emergency ordinance, and responded to an apparent increase in the number of applications to
construct second dwelling units within the area while it was designated MR-E.
Those in favor of this rezoning expressed a desire to preserve the character of the older homes and
felt that further redevelopment in the MR-E zone would negatively impact their neighborhood. These
residents stressed that the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan called for low density residential
development in this area. Parking uid density issues were other reasons cited in support of the down-
zoning. A number of home owners expressed a desire for limiting development to one dwelling unit
per lot.
As a result of the two down-zonings, a number of non-conforming uses were created. Some
historical uses and densities were no longer consistent with the new zoning schemes. There are 421
dwelling units in these two down-zoned areas which are non-conforming because these properties
have more than one dwelling unit per lot in the LR-E zone.
1993 Code Amendment - A Decision to Lower Occupancy in Buildings with Non-conforming Uses.
Before 1993, the existence of historically higher occupancy in dwelling units located within down-
zoned azeas was treated as a legal but non-conforming use. In other words, any new proj ects had to
comply with the newer and lower occupancy limits. But existing units could continue at historical
levels. As a result, the allowed maximum number of occupants was different for varying dwelling
units, and City records had to reflect these differences in order to allow for appropriate enforcement.
Enforcement during this period was accomplished in conjunction with rental license inspections. At
the time of inspection, the number of actual occupants was checked against the City's non-
conforming occupancy recards in order to insure that occupancy had not increased. Also, if non-
conforming occupancies were not maintained at higher historic leveis, the right to have the non-
conforming higher was lost and property owners were required to comply with the newer lower
occupancy levels.
In 1993, a different approach was taken to this issue. The following provision ~vas added to the
Boulder Municipal Code regarding the relationship beriveen occupancy and non-conforming uses:
Although the number of dwelling units may be a non-conforming use, subject to
discontinuance pursuant to Chapter 9-3.5 Non-conforming Uses and Nonstandard Buildings
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee _~i5
and Lots, B.R.C. 1981, the number of occupants in a dwelling unit is not a non-conforniing
use and all occupancies in the city are subject to the restrictions set forth in this title.
§** B.R.C. 1981, "Occupancy of Units," The effect of this new provision was to make it clear that
the number of persons that could occupy non-conforming dwelling unit in areas of the city that had
been down-zoned had been reduced.
This amendment had an impact on both landlords and tenants . It was implemented as part of the
rental housing inspection process which existed at that time. At the time of inspection, landlords of
non-conforming imits were inforn~ed about the code amendment and the lowered maximum
occupancy limit.
The enforcement approach utilized to bring non-conforming properties into compliance was to allow
existing occupants to remain until the end of their then current lease or the expiration of the rental
license, whichever came last. At that rime, property owners had to reduce occupancy levels and bring
them into compliance with the new regulations.
The 1998 Code Amendment: A Change of Direction Based upon Concein for Rental Housing
Availability
In 1997, landlords and others raised concerns about the impact of the 1993 code change. They argued
that the reduction to occupancy levels was causing financial hardships by reducing rantal incomes.
A concern was also expressed that the policy was reducing available renta] housing stock.
Landlords and others argued that the new policy was having the effect of mandating empty bedrooms
at a time when people in the community were desperately in need of rental housing. They also argued
that reduced occupancies necessarily resulted in forcing remaining tenants to pay increased rents so
that landlords could meet operating expenses. Based upon such concerns, the City Council directed
staff to evaluate the possibility of once again allowing occupancies to be maintained at the
historically higher levels.
The 1997-1998 Staff Analysis
In response to the Council directive, staff engaged in substantial research in 1997. That research
determined that while occupancy limits had varied somewhat over time, permitted occupancy had
generally allowed one family plus two non-family members to occupy residential units in most
zoning districts. In medium and high density areas, the rule after 1984 allowed up to four unrelated
persons in each unit. Following a change in 1962, the maximum number of unrelated persons in units
located in low density zones was three.
Staff's 1997 study also included an analysis of the manner in which other municipalities addressed
occupancy issues in down-zoned areas. City staff in Madison, Wisconsin; Ann Arbor, Michigan;
Tempe, Arizona; Eugene, Oregon; Lawrence, Kansas and Provo, Utah were consulted. These cities
allow the continuation of historically higher occupancies in existing properties located within down-
zoned areas. It is important to note that in California no occupancy restrictions aze enforced because
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Pase .S(,,-,
California courts have declared that enforcement of occupancy limitations violates a California state
constitutional right to privacy.
After completing its analysis, staff presented three options to the City Council for consideration.
Those options included the following:
A. The first option Was to move back to the pre-1993 approach which allowed usage of
buildings at the historically higher occupancy levels. Under this approach, property owners
would either have to have maintained occupancy levels subject to 9-3.5-1, °Non-conforming
Uses and Nonstandard Buildings and Lots" or they would have lost the higher non-
conforming occupancies.
B. The second option was to set occupancy levels at one person per bedroom, up to a
maximum based upon pre-1993 historical occupancy levels. This approach would have
avoided the situation in which bedrooms sat empty while a lack of affordable rental housing
remained a problem.
C. The third option was to leave the Code alone and enforce the lower occupancy limits
imposed by the zoning change and the 1993 amendment.
At a Planning Board hearing held on the January 15, 1998, Option A(allowing historically higher
occupancy levels) was supported by a majority of the citizens who testified. Some members of the
Planning Board pointed out that dowu-zoning always has economic consequences and that reduced
occupancy was one such consequence. Other Planning Board members stressed that there was a great
need for rental housing. There was also a suggestion that the issued raised by the proposed code
change be considered within the context of the Comprehensive Housing Strategy that was then
planned for discussion during 1998.
In the end, the Planning Board recommended that the draft ordinance be amended to include a
provision that would limit the number of occupants in units with more than four persons to the
number of bedrooms. The motion for approval passed 4-3, with an amendment limiting the total
occupancy of units with more than four people to the number of bedrooms.
The matter was then considered by the City Council. Ordinance 5970, allowing the continuation of
occupancy at historic levels as non-conforming uses, was approved by City Council on March 3,
1998 by a vote of 9-0. This ordinance included the provision recommend by the Planning Board that
units with an occupancy greater than four unrelated persons not exceed a total occupancy of the
dwelling unit of one person per bedroom.
ENFORCEMENT ISSUES TtELATED
TO OCCUPANCY VIOLATIONS
Enforcement of occupancy violations is difficult. Complaints about over occupancy of dwelling units
constitute the category of land use complaints most often registered by members of the community.
Under the current state of the Saw, no more than three unrelated persons are permitted to inhabit any
single family dwelling unit in the LRE zones. In buildings containing multiple dwelling units such
s:\plan\pb-i[ems\memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee . 57
as condominiums and apartments, no more than four unrelated persons are permitted in each unit.
Occupancy levels for non-conforming uses for greater than four unrelated persons cannot exceed the
total occupancy of the dwelling unit of one person per bedroom, as outlined above.
Enforcement of occupancy limitations involves several steps. First, enforcement persoruiel must
become aware that there is a problem at a given address. Second, an investigation is initiated to try
and confirm the existence of the problem. Third, if a problem is found to exist, an attempt is
generally made to obtain voluntary compliance Failing voluntary compliance, enforcement personnei
evaluate whether or not there is sufficient legally admissible proof of a violation to give prosecutars
a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction for a violation of the ]aw. Under the current system,
the only two practical tools available to enforcement personne] in t}iis area are an attempt to get
voluntary compliance and criminal prosecution.
The first step in any enforcement strategy is to figure out where violations are occurring. In the case
of occupancy violations, code enforcement efforts are almost always initiated by the receipt of
complaints. However, sometimes during the course of investigating other kinds of violations,
evidence of over occupancy comes to the attention of enforcement personnel. Complaints that cause
occupancy violations to come to ]ight generally are stimulated by concerns with increased noise,
trash and parking problems.
Investigations into occupancy complaints often include the following steps:
Interview of the complainant
Research of property records
Inspection of the property
Discussion with those apparently living in the unit or units in question
Notification of the owner/manager of the violation
Consider criminal prosecution if matter is not resolved, if there is a pattern of violations or
if there are other reasons why prosecution appears appropriate
Inform complainant of action taken
Usually, it is necessary for enforcement personnel to have the name of those making complaints..
However, if violations can be easily seen from the public right-of-way or there is very cleaz evidence
of a violation, a complainanYs name may not be needed. If criminal prosecution is required, there
have to be witnesses to testify in court. This is both because deFendants are entitled to confront and
cross examine witnesses against them and because prosecutors have to prove that alleged over
occupancy exists. For court purposes, it is generally not possible to prove violations without
competent witnesses.
For these reasons, anonymous complaints are generally not very useful with regard to land use
violations. On the other hand, there are many reasons why people want to remain anonymous,
including the fear of retribution and a desire to avoid getting involved with their neighbors or with
city government. In order to try and be sensitive to these concerns, the names and addresses of
complainants are generally kept confidential during the course of an occupancy investigation.
s:\plan\pb-items\memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee 5~
However, if the matter goes to court for prosecution, the defendant or defendants are generally
entitled to the names and addresses of complainants and witnesses.
INSPECTIONS AND THE CONSTITUTION
In order to determine that there is an occupancy violation, it is almost always necessary to do an
interior inspection of a dwelling unit. After the initial information gathering phase of an occupancy
violation investigation, a staff person attempts to inspect the property. The zoning officer attempts
to determines who actualiy lives on the property by walking through it and observing evidence such
as number of beds, clothing in the ciosets and other circumstantial evidence relating to residents of
that unit.
Sometimes, tenants do not allow officers to inspect their living units. The Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution generally prohibits entry into someone's home unless either there is consent or a court
has issued a warrant.
The Boulder Revised Code empowers the Municipal Court judge to issue administrative warrants
for the inspection of privately owned premises to ensure compliance with Building and Fire codes
and rental licensing requirements. However, pursuant to constitutional requirements, warrants can
only be issued upon a showing of probabie cause. As a result, some evidence (generally including
the existence of citizen complaints) of a violation must exist prior to applying for the issuance of an
inspection wanant.
THE PROCESS: PUTTING A CASE TOGETHER
Under the Boulder Revised Code, the property owner, agent and tenants can all be held equaily
responsible for violations of the land use regulations. However, proving violations in court can be
challenging. Proof of over occupancy can take several forms. Often, the statements of residents help
to prove over occupancy, although under the law, such statements must be corroborated (either by
other statements or by physical evidence) in order to serve as the basis for a conviction.
In addition to statements, physical evidence is often useful. Examples of such evidence could include
occupied bedrooms, names on mailboxes, papers found (which might establish that the unit is a
"home address" for a number of people), and evidence that particulaz automobiles are parked on the
property on a regular basis.
In the absence of admissions, proof of residency can be difficult. Residents have visitors and proving
that a given person is a resident iather than a guest can be problematic. This is particularly so within
the context of a criminal prosecution because of the legally mandated presumption of innocence and
the requirement that defendants be acquitted unless the prosecution case meets the very stringent
standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." For example, the Code contemplates that "guests"
may stay in rental units for up to 14 days in any 90 day period (§ 9-10-9) without becoming
"residents." Proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a recurrent 'bisitor" overstayed this
commutative total of days represents a challenge.
s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Pase .5`/
In part because the issues of proof in a criminal prosecution present significant challenges, voluntary
compliance is generally sought in the first instance. However, another reason why voluntary
compliance is often the best remedy is because it can occur quickly. The processing of a criminal
case, in contrast, may take weeks or months. The outcome of prosecution, even if successfiil, may
involve the imposition of a fine which may not cover the administrative costs of investigating and
preparing a matter for court. In addition, hours spent by enforcement personnel preparing for and
appearing in court are hours not spent in the field locating and attempting to resolve problems.
Finally, the length of the court process ofren causes frustration on the part of complainants,
especially if a case goes to trial. As a result, staff attempts to work closely with complainants to keep
them apprized of the status of cases.
This is not to say that enforcement through criminal prosecution is never appropriate. If compliance
is not obtained within a reasonable time, then a summons and court appearance are the next
acceptable steps. Although most offenders are people who have acted without knowledge of the city
codes or the negative impacts of their action and are willing to bring their actions onto compliance
with the law, there are some who manifest repeated misconduct or who refuse to remedy problems
for whom Municipal Court prosecution is both necessary and appropriate.
Based upon this enforcement philosophy and the issues discussed above, a level of enforcement has
been achieved over the years. The following information may assist in understanding the impacts of
enforcement:
Over Occupancy Cases in 1999 and 2000 YTD
Number of Complaints: 215
Number of Informal Resolutions: 207
Number of Cases Formally 8
Prosecuted:
1 case pending (jury trial)
Overview of results of Court 3 cases dismissed
Prosecution: 1 guilty/fine deferred for 2 years
3 guilty/fines: $200, 500 & 3,000
ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS AND TOOLS
Under current law, occupancy enforcement actions are processed as criminal investigatory or
criminal prosecution matters. Two other potential approaches have been discussed by the University
Hill Action Group. Those include:
The adoption of civil nuisance abatement provisions; and,
The adoption of administrative license revocation (and conditioning) procedures.
The utilization of the two new approaches, if adopted, would have application to a range of nuisance
related matters including over occupancy.
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGF.NDA ITEM # 7A Paee loL%
An obvious issue for consideration in regard to the potentia] new tools is how they would be utilized
and whether having them in the enforcement tool box will make enforcement more effective or more
efficient. The following short discussion focuses on the how the three tools might be utilized:
1. Criminal Prosecution: Criminal prosecution will remain a valid tool even if the additional
approaches are enacted. Criminal prosecution is particularly well suited for the imposition of
consequences on individual law breakers. Because criminal prosecution can impose punishment, it
is helpful in establishing a normative base-line for acceptable conduct in the community. However,
because it implicates liberty interests (people can go to jail), it is properly shrouded with procedural
protections for defendants.
The criminal prosecution process need not be glacial in speed, but it is intentionally designed to be
methodical so that the basic principles of justice are not trampled'and the due process rights of
individuals are adequately protected. Also, criminal prosecution of organizations presents some
challenges. Partnerships can not be prosecuted as entities. Corporations can be, but a corporation can
not go to jail. Criminal justice enforcement against a corporation (at least in regard to the kinds of
issues about which the University Hill Action Group is concerned) can be difficult. On the other
hand, criminal prosecution will probably always be the most appropriate enforcement tool with
respect to individual tenants or "guests" who are violating occupancy laws.
2. Nuisance Abatement: Nuisance abatement, in the form in which it would most probably be
enacted in Boulder, would provide a civil remedy to address ongoing nuisance concerns. One of
those might include over-occupancy. Nuisance abatement actions would have a relationship to
criminal prosecutions in that a series of convictions for defined criminal nuisance violations would
be one basis for bringing a nuisance abatement action. However, concurrent notices of violations
which are not criminally prosecuted might also serve as a basis for a nuisance abatement action if
those violations were proven during the civil nuisance abatement action. The nuisance abatement
action could result in orders from the court to a landlord or owner to take corrective action.
Nuisance abatement would probably have best application in nuisance cases other than those
involving over occupancy. Repeated nuisance parties or excessive noise at a given location, failure
to control trash and weeds and the like are probably more susceptible to nuisance abatement orders
and enforcement than is the problem of over occupancy. However, at least in theory, a nuisance
abatement order might mandate the eviction of tenants from over occupied units. The City currently
has no power to initiate evictions from private property.
While nuisance abatement would be triggered by a series of past violations, if successful, it would
be prospective in impact. That is, it would result in the issuance of orders which would mandate
corrective action rather than punish for past violations. To some extent, this function can be fulfilled
under current criminal prosecution procedures through the imposition of conditions of probation
after conviction. However, since fines in municipal court cases are limited as a matter of law, some
defendants might be inclined to accept the imposition of maximum fines as a"cost of doing
business" rather than immediately rectify over occupancy problems. Seqnential criminal prosecutions
would be the current enforcement response, but criminal prosecutions are difficult and cosUy.
s:\plan\pb-items~memos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee ~U ~
3. Action Against a Rental License: Under some circumstances, the threat of an administrative action
against a rental license might be the most significant stimulus to encourage a landlord to actively
manage a problem rental property. This is because the income stream from operation of rental
housing in the University Hill area can be significant. As a result, the threat of losing the ability to
legally rent units would get the attention of a landlord. An occupancy complaint framed as a potential
action against a rental license might stimulate active involvement on the part of a potentially
impacted landlord.
Registration List Tool
A tool which might be useful in some enforcement contexts is to require that every landlord maintain
a cunent list of tenants for every rental unit. Such lists might be obtained by enforcement personnel
where there have been complaints of over occupancy or where there is other reasonable cause to
believe that an occupancy violation is occurring. Knowing who is appropriately residing in a unit is
obviously an essential first step in trying to sort out occupancy issues in a given dwelling unit. The
lists might aiso be subpoenaed into court or administrative proceeding to help prove occupancy
violations.
Resources
Unlike some of other issues which have become the subject of discussion in connection with
University Hill area enforcement, there is no real choice between "patrol based" and "complaint
based" enforcement with regard over occupancy issues. Generally, the occupancy of the interior of
dwelling units will not be obvious to patrol officers. The investigation will generally be initiated
based upon complaints or upon evidence which emerges in connection with the investigation of other
offenses. That being said, if there is interest in reducing the time involved in conducting over-
occupancy investigations and in concurrently evaluating a variety of neighborhood nuisance issues,
additional resources could be utilized to provide a more prompt and comprehensive response. The
challenge in considering additional resources is determining how best to make them sustainable
(such as through the reduction of other programs and costs).
Finally, from the perspective of enforcement personnel, it is clear that the phenomenon of over
occupancy is, at least to some extent, a symptom of an unmet need for affordable renta] housing.
Addressing the symptom may help control the ferocity of the problem. However, it is only by
addressing the cause of the problem that a more fundamental goal will be achieved.
s:\plan\pb-items~cnemos\bhfourmilepbmemo.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 7A Paee ~.~