HomeMy WebLinkAbout5A - Amendments to Title 9, Land Use Regulation, to allow residential uses in the Industrial GeneralCITYOFBOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 25, 2003
AGENDA TITLE:
Publ~c hearmg and cons~deration of amendments to Title 9, Land Use Regulation, B.R C,
to ailow residential uses in the Industrial General (IG) and Industrial Manufacturing
(IM) zoning districts under certam condihons
PRESENTERS:
Plamm~g Department
Peter Pollock, Plannmg Director
Ruth McHeyser, Long Range Plamm~g Manager
Susan Richstone, Semor Planner
Lou~se Grauer, Planner
Executive Summary
The purpose of this agenda rtem is to prov~de the feedback that staff recerved at the pubhc
meetmgs, present the recommended approach to allowing residenhal use m mdustr~al zones, and
request directton on how to proceed.
StafPs recommendahon is to revise the land use regularions to allow residential use m the
General and Manufactunng Industrial zones (IG and IM) through use review Th~s would not
change the underlymg mdustnal zone but would add attached res~dential uses to the list of uses
allowed m the zone through use review This change would not compel or require any property
owner to add or mclude res~dential uses.
The ongmal proposal, the revised staff recommendation, and the status quo are analyzed in the
decision matrtx m Attachment A.
Fiscal Impacts:
Staff Time: Admmistratron of a proposed code change to allow residenUal use m
mdustrial zones will require staff time and may impact case load. An appl~cation fee
would be mcluded as part of the ordmance change wh~ch would recoup half of the staff
time costs. Current regulat~ons require both a change to the Comprehensive Plan and a
s\plan\pb-rtems\memos~rm9-25-03res m~ndus3 AGENDA ITEM k SA Paee 1
zonmg change to allow residenhal uses, wh~ch entail a length~er rev~ew process and more
staff time than the proposed changes.
Other Impacts
Economic Many mdustrial property owners have asked for mcreased flex~b~hty to add
housmg m mdustrial zones, particularly far properties ad~acent to res~dent~al zones
Some mdustnal property owners have expressed concern about allowmg resident~al use
on neighbonng properties which could potentially resmct some mdustnal operations
Environmental: Proposals for residenhal use will be required to address env~rorunental
impacts, such as noise and air yuality In addition, an Environmental Assessment would
be required m order to demonstrate that there are not adverse health or safety impacts
associated with potential on-siYe pollution or contammation
Board and Commission Feedback
Plamm~g Board discussed this item on Apnl 17 and May 20, 2003 The discuss~ons
focused on potential environmental and compatibil~ty impacts assoc~ated with allowmg
residential uses m the Industnal General (IG) and Industnal Manufacturmg (IM) zonmg
distncts, and possible standards and review processes to address them
Public Feedback
Staff has d~scussed the issues with an ad hoc group of mdustrial property owners and
representahves On September 3 and 4, 2003 staff heid two meetmgs to get feedback on a
draft proposal to allow residential uses m the IG and IM zomng distncts. Notice of the
meehngs was mailed to all IG and IM property owners, and an ad was placed m the
Sunday Daaly Camera Approximately 12 people attended the meetmgs. A summary of
the comments received from the publ~c are provided m Attachment B, and a copy of the
staff presentahon is mcluded m Attachment D.
Concerns that staff heard at the pubhc meetmgs mclude
This proposal could result in pushmg out mdustrial uses m the future
• Once residenhal ~s there, tenants will put pressure on mdustnal uses to limit their
operations and will eventually dnve out mdustrial We are underestimatmg how
difficult ~t will be for larger manufactunng firms to co-exist alongside res~dential
or mixed use There will be fnction and complamts from trucks, operations, after
hours activity, etc
• Due to the economics of mdustnal and resident~al land uses, th~s may result m
sigmficant speculatrve development While there was general support for th~s
market-based approach, it may result in more residenhal development m the
mdustnal zones over time than we real~ze and may end up mcreasmg the land
values and thus the cost of leasmg mdustnal space.
s\plan\pb-~tems\memos~rm9-25-03res m mdus3 AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 2
2 It ~sn't poss~ble to anric~pate all of the issues and concems, so allow resident~al uses
through a discretionary process to facil~tate more commumty mput and evaluat~on
3 Be cautious Do not open it up so w~de Apply~udiciously m select areas that already
touch residential areas, not areas completely surrounded by mdustnal
4 The Arapahoe Network Plan may not work well with restdential and mdustnal, could
have mdustnal traffic dnvmg through residential areas
5. Comments on the standards
• 600 square foot per umt open space requirement is too high, use the RB-D
standard
• Allow personal sernces, convemence retazl. People who l~ve m the residenhal
areas will need services
• Noise is a complex issue, partmularly from the railroad Don't make mitigation
so difficult for res~denhal that it isn't feasible
Staff recommendation:
Staff is recommendmg a two-tiered approach that would allow residential uses m the IG
and IM zonmg distncts through use review
Sites ad~acent to a non-mdustnal zone would be a staff level use review sub~ect to
call-up to Plamm~g Board Those sites that are not ad~acent to a non-mdusmal
zone could be considered through a Plannmg Board-level review
In addition, all sites greater than 5 acres would still be required to go through site
review.
• The use review cnteria would Ue amended to mclude those ~tems prev~ously
discussed with the Board as outhned m Attachment C.
Analysis:
This proposal ~s m response to Resolut~on 922 which provides direction to "add housmg as a
condrt~onal, use revtew, or by-nght use m mdustnal zones "
Staff has identified the followmg goals for the pro~ect
• Improve the city's ~obs/ housmg balance m order to reduce the arnount of commercial
growth, create more affordable housmg, and mitigate the impacts of traffic
congestion (From BVCP Policy 1 19 Jobs PopulaUon Balance)
Provide ophons for people to hve, work and shop wrthm close prox~mity (BVCP Pohcy
2 20 M~xed Use)
s\plan\pb-~tems\memos~rm9-25-03res ~n mdus3 AGENDA ITEM # SA Pase 3
Create susYamable, hvable res~denYial neighborhoods that offer a different and potenhally
less expensive type of l~vmg environment than ~s currenUy offered m the c~ty (BVCP
1 04 Communrty Sustamability, 7 06 Balancmg Housmg Supply wrth Employment Base)
Provide appropnate srte design and supportmg amenrt~es and serv~ces to ensure good
places to Irve and to hold value and attract~veness over hme (BVCP Pohcy 2 40 Qualrty
Residential Site Des~gn)
Improve the economic viability of the city's mdustrial areas which are currently
experiencmg high vacancy rates by allowmg flexibil~ty for mdustrial property owners to
add residential uses m the IG and IM mdustnal zones (BVCP Pol~cy 5.03 Balance of
Employment and Housmg)
Keep mdustrial zones viable for mdustnal uses by requ~rmg the residential developer to
mitigate for potential future conflicts (BVCP Policy 5.05 Industrial zonmg)
Estabhsh a review process and standards that
• recognize that the mdustrial areas were not origmally planned for residenhal
neighborhoods and may ]ack some of the basic services such as proximity to
neighbarhood parks and may entail conflicts related to existmg and allowed uses
• are easy to understand and implement for the applicant and the city
• anhcipate and mingate the impacts mherent m locahng mdustnal and resident~al
uses ad~acent to one another
• provide for appropnate mput from ad~acent property owners and busmesses
Options
Staff has idenhfied two oprions to implement residenrial use m the General and Manufacturmg
mdustr~al zones (IG and IM) m addition to the status quo.
1. Status Quo
Currently the land use regulahons do not aliow for res~dential use m mdustrial zones
Throughout the last several years a number of property owners have mdicated an interest
m developmg residential use m mdustr~al zones on sites that seem to be appropriate for
residenhal use The only process available to an applicant cunently is to request a
comprehensive plan land use change and a rezomng from an industriai to a residential
zone This is an expens~ve, complex and lengthy process
2. Conditional Review
The first proposal that was presented to the Plamm~g Board, property owners, and the
public mcluded the followmg elements
Condrt~onal or staff level review for srtes 2 to 5 acres m s~ze that meet specified
locat~onal cntena The cntena mcluded
s\plan\pb-~tems\memosUm9-25-03res m mdus3 AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 4
1 Prox~mrty of at least one of the followmg
A park withm the service area (Parks service area cr~teria)
Open space w~thm a quarter mile (1320 feet)
A mult~ use trail withm a quarter mile (1320 feet)
Ad~acent to residenUal use
Ad~acent to commerciai services (quarter mile or 1,320 feet)
2 Proximity to mulUmodal corridor (quarter mtle or 1,320 feet)
3 Current charactenstics and buildmg types m the area are compatible wrth housmg
- i.e office type buildmgs with mm~mal noise, delivertes, outdoor storage
• S~tes that do not meet the cntena could be considered for resident~al use through tlie
srte review process
• Srtes greater than 5 acres would go through s~te review
• The standards mcluded m Appendix C would apply m all cases
3. Use Review
Staff modified OpUon 2 above based on feedback from property owners at the publ~c
meetmgs held m September, spec~fically m response to two concerns
• The proposal opened up too many sites m the mdustrial zones to staff level
condrtional review for residenhal use
• Conditional rev~ew provides nohce to ad~acent property owners but if a pro~ect
meets the cntena identified, the pro~ect is automarically approved
Elements of the revised proposal include
• Locat~onal criter~a reduced to one pnmary cntenon ad~acent to a non-mdustna]
zone Srtes greater than 2 acres meetmg this cntenon will be mapped as an exhibit
for easy reference, but the map will have no official status as srtes that don't
currently meet the cntena could meet them at a later time. This map will be
ava~lable at the Plannmg Board meehng, and staff has mcluded a zonmg map m
the packets.
SiCes from 2 to 5 acres m s~ze ad~acent to a non-mdushtal zonmg d~strtcY would be
rev~ewed through a staff leve] use review Fewer s~tes will be ehgible for staff
level review than m Ophon 2 All surroundmg property and busmess owners
would be nohfied and the proposal could be called up to Plamm~g Board at the
request of any crtizen ar the Board. Those srtes that do not meet the locahonal
criter~a could be cons~dered through a Plamm~g Board-level review.
• Use review ~s proposed as the appropnate review process In add~t~on, all sites
greater than 5 acres would still be requ~red to go through srte rev~ew The purpose
of use rev~ew ts to determme ~f the use is appropriate m the proposed location
The purposes of site review relate pnmanly to the proposed design of the s~te
s\plan\pb-rtems\memos~rm9-25-03~es m mdus3 AGENDA ITEM # 5A Paee 5
The use rev~ew cnteria would be amended to mclude cnterta prev~ously d~scussed
with the Board as outlmed m Attachment C related to pro~ect size, env~ronmenta]
assessment, noise m~hgation, etc We will contmue to refine the cntena based on
the mput we've rece~ved and research we are contmumg to do on noise issues
The Ywo-hered approach to the review (sYaff-level for s~tes meeting locaUonal
cntena and full-board review for all other srtes) allows for considerahon of all
sites w~thout opemng up too many sites to staff level rev~ew Some sites could be
determmed through the review process to be mappropnate
A matnx showmg Yhe ci4y staff analysis of the proposed alternat~ves based on four goals ~s
mcluded m Attachment A. The goals m the matr~x are summanzed from those listed on pages 3
and 4
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD
Do you have any comments or queshons about the pro~ect goals hsted on pages 3 and
4~
Do you agree with the review and public mput process and locational cnteria
recommended by staff'~ If not, what process and locarional crttena do you
recommend~
3. Recogmzmg that we are contmumg to refine the review critena and development
standards, do you have any comments on those hsted m Attachment C?
Approved By
1 C~u~,~,~. .~c~.-- ~! ~, l%.~L l~~ Z~i~ ~
.
Peter Pollock
Plannmg Director
Attachments
A Decision-makmg matnx
B Summary of public comments
C Cnteria and Standards
D PowerPomt presentation presented by staff at the September 3"~ and 4`h publ~c
meetmgs.
E City of Boulder zomng map
s\plan\pb-~tems~nemos~rm9-25-03res m mdus3 AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 6
ATTACHMENT A
Decision-making Matrix
Goais
i. Increase the availability of affordable housmg
2. Improve the Jobs/housmg balance
3 Ensure the livabihty of residenhal ne~ghborhoods
4. Implement an appropnate process (to reflect a flexibie and streamhned process and to provide adequate
Goals
1. Status Quo
2 Condihonal Review for srtes 2 to
5 acres that meet the locational
cntena and site review for others
Srtes greater than 5 acres would be
reviewed through srte review
3 Use Review - two-hered
approach Srtes greater than 5 acres
would also be reviewed through srte
review
Affordable Housing
Would not increase affordable
housing
Aliows more potenhal srtes to be
reviewed and considered through a
staff level review, would result in
more housmg bemg provided.
This proposal aIlows for add~t~onal
residential use ~n the mdustnal zones
Jobs/FIousing BalaQCe
Would not improve the Jobs/hoL
balance
Smce this proposal provides
increased housing opportumties,
would result m a better~obs/hou
balance
Th~s proposal would improve th~
Jobs/Housmg Balance by allowi
addrtional housmg and potenrial
replacmg some future industnal
s \plan~pb-items\memos~rm9-25-03res m indus3
ATTACHMENT B
Summary of Public Comments
September 3& 4 Public Meetings to discuss Proposal to Allow Residential uses in Industri~l
Zones
• Some areas are not appropriate for residential uses and children They are not safe
• Allow only by site or use review, not as a cond~t~onal use Consider a shorter site rev~ew
process
• Clarify nohficarion requirement
• Slow down the process
• Change schedule Don't schedule 1 S` readmg with current council and 2"a with the new
council "
• Light mitigation will be an issue
• Like proposal, market will determme.
• Idea generally has ment. Support providmg more housmg m communrty.
• Once residenhal is there, tenants will put pressure on mdustnal uses to limit their operations
and will eventually dnve out mdustnal When PUDs need to be amended, nearby occupants
will put polrtical pressure on to stop expans~ons Thts has the potenhal to result m the city
losmg its mdustrial base over time.
• Celest~al Seasonmgs receives complamts frequently from nearby resident~al on noise from
rught operations
• Allow mmor subdrvision process m mdustr~al to create 2 to 5 acre srtes and facilrtate
• Arapahoe Network Plan may not wark well with residenhal and mdustnal, could have
mdustrial traffic dnvmg through residential areas.
• 600 square foot per umt open space requirement is too high, use the RB-D standard
• Allow personal services, convemence retail People who live m the res~dential areas will
need services
• Don't open up so wide Apply th~s ~udiciously in select areas that already touch residenhal
areas, not areas completely surrounded by mdustnal
. What safeguards w~ll be m place re. traffic, mfrastructure, etc ~ Celestial had to redesign
water system to ~mprove pressure for fire fighhng.
• City is underest~matmg how difficult it will be for larger manufactunng firms to co-exist
alongside residenhal or mixed use There will be friction and complamts from trucks,
operahons, after hours actrv~ty, etc
• Can't anticipate all of the issues and concerns allow by use review only and not as
cond~honal use to fac~l~tate more commumty mput and evaluation of proposed res~dential
This is untested and need to be cautious
• Noise is a complex issue, particularly from the ra~lroad Don't make mrtigahon so difficult
for residenhal that rt isn't feasible
. Attendance at public meehngs was small. Is there mterest from those who want to
implement~
• A case manager should be present at all meehngs on this
Agenda Item # 3 ~ Page # ~'
s \plan\pbatems\memosUm9-25-03res m mdus3
ATTACHMENT C
Criteria attd Standards
a) Environmental Assessment The appl~cant must submit a report that addresses each of the
rtems required by the Amencan Society far Testmg and Matenals Standards (ASTM) E-1527
and E-1528 The report shall be cunent and contam data that ~s less than five years old
b) Protect Size• Mmimum 2 acres m size, all pro~ects over 5 acres shall be allowed through s~te
review only
cl Location Will vary dependmg on which process ophon is selected. No residenttal uses are
allowed withm airport mfluence zones 1 or 2(AIZ I, II)
dl Neighborhood NotiFicat~on Require nohficat~on of all property owners and busmess wrthm
600 feet
e) Construction Standards for Noise Miti ag tion The applicant shall utilize construction
standards that w~ll add a mmimum of ten decibels of addit~onal sound attenuat~on to
buildmg design and construchon techruques that are typically used for res~denhal buildmgs
under SecUon 10-5, "Buildmg Code," B R C 1981 m order to m~ttgate anttcipated extenor
noise levels that may occur m an mdustnal zonmg district Noise shall be measured m a
manner that is consistent with the federal Housmg and Urban Development DepartmenYs
standards m Sectrons 24 C F R 51 100 to 106 for the "measure of external noise
environments," or a similar standard adopted by the city manager in the event that such rule
is repealed. The appl~cant shall prov~de wntten certification prior to the issuance of a
ceitificate of occupancy that the sound abatement and attenuahon measures were
mcorporated m the construchon as recommended by a professional engmeer.
fl Disclosure - declaration of use
gl Bulk and Densi~ Standards The underlymg zonmg densrty and bulk standards will apply
with the followmg changes.
1 Mm~mum usable open space per dwelhng umts shall be not less than 600 sq. ft.
2 If the srte is not located withm an area adequately served by parks as defined m thc
Parks and Recreahon Master Plan, the followmg addirional open space requirement
applies, A mmimum of 40% of the requ~red open space shail be configured as a
common conhguous space that provides active areas and passive areas that will meet
the outdoor recreahonal needs of the anttcipated residents
3 Mmimum side lot setback from an mtenor lot Ime for all new pnncipal bu~ldmgs and
uses shall be 20 feet Existing buildmgs wrth a mimmum setback of no less than 12'
that are converted to res~denhal uses wiil be allowed and considered nonstandard
4 Total prmcipal buildmg maximum floor area ratios apply only to the nonresident~al
portion of a development
1~) Landscanmg Standards Any existmg buildmg that converts to or adds res~dential uses must
meet the standards m Sections 9-3 3-2 "General Landscaping and Screenmg Requ~rements," 9-
3 3-3, "Streetscape Design Standards," and 9-3 3-4, "Parkmg Lot Landscapmg Standards,"
B R C. 1981 Standuds for the underlymg mdustrial zone apply.
i Buffer. Shall prov~de visual screerung of the followmg ad~acent condrt~ons through the use of
one or more of the followmg walls, fencmg, topographic changes, hor~zontal separat~on or
plantings
s\plan\pb-items\memosUm9-25-03res m mdus3 Agenda Item # S~ Page # ~
1 Loadmg docks
2 Ingress or egress for trucks or del~venes
3 Dumpsters
4 Recyclmg facilities
5. Outdoor storage areas
The city manager may modify this provision upon findmg that
1 The stnct application of these standards is not possible due to existmg physical
condit~ons;
2 The modificarion is consistent wrth the purpose of this sect~on, and
3 The mod~ficahon is the mmimum modification that wouid afford relief
)1 Site Plan A site plan is required for pro~ects meetmg the requirements that show the ma~or
details of the proposed development prepared on a scale of not less than one mch equals one
hundred feet and providmg sufficient detail to evaluate the features of the development requ~red
by this sechon The site plans shall contam, msofar as apphcable, the mformat~on set forth m
this subsection;
1 A north arrow
2 The site and locat~on of proposed uses with dimensions mdicatmg the distance from
lot lmes
3. The densrty and types of uses
4 The areas that are to be conveyed, ded~cated, or reserved as parks, recreation areas,
playgrounds, outlots, or open space
5 A general landscapmg plan
6 The ad~acent surroundmg zonmg, land uses and types of uses
7 Off-street loadmg areas, serv~ce and refuse areas, means of mgress and egress
k) Special M~xed Use cntena needed~
Agenda Item # 5%~ Page # /0
s \plan\pb-rtems~nemosUm9-25-03res m mdus3
ATTACHMENT D
Residentinl in
Industrial Zones
Purpose and Goals '
• Implement Resolution 922;
"add housing as a conditional use, use rewew
or by-right use in the industrial zones"
• Allow flexibility for residential uses m
industriol zones
• Create viable, livable residential
neighborhoods withm industrial zones
• Keep industrial zones viable for
mdustrial uses
Review Process
• Conditionnl Use (staff level):
sites 2- 5 acres on the map
Site Review: sites 2- 5 acres
not on map and all sites 5 acres
and above
Draft Proposal
• Initinl thoughts
• Looking for feedback
Agenda Item # 5 !1 Page #~_
Site Selection Criteria for
Conditional Review Map
i Proximity of one of the
following:
- Park
- Open Spuce
- Residentinl (nd~acent)
- Multi-use trail
- Commercial services
Components of Industrial Code
Changes
• High density residential stand4rds
• Residential square footage as a
floor area bonus
• Stnndards for Irvability reqwred by
residential development
• Notice of nd~ncent property owners
required
Development Standards
• If not locnted m park service area,
mmimum of 40% of open spnce shall
be common area
• Mmimum side yard setback - 20 ft
Residentinl development as a floor
area bonus
Site Selection Criteria for
Conditional Review Map-con't
2. Proximity to multrmodal
corridor
3. Current churacteristics and
buildmg types m area are
compatible with housing
Development Standards
• Minimum lot size - two acres
• Minimum open space - 600 sq. ft./d.u.
(with 60 sq ft of prrvate open space/
d.u.)
• Prior to filing nn application,
property owner shall notify
ad~acent property owners
Agenda Item # s/I Page # i„~
Livability Standards
• Visual screenmg
of loading docks, delivery areas, outdoor storage
• No adverse health or safety impacts
demonstrate ihrough environmental assusment
• Noise mitigntion
ten decibels of additional saund attenuatian in
design and construction
Next Steps
• Refine proposal
~ Plannmg Board scheduled to consider
on September 25
Proposal available online September 19
• City Council tentatively scheduled to
consider on October 21(first reading)
Public Henring November 18
Mixed Use Projects
• Should the stnndards or review
process be different from pro~ects
with 100% residential~
Pianning Board materials
The staff memo will be available online on
September 19 at
htt~ //www ci boulder co us/olannina/aaen
das/boaae htm or contact Mary Lovrien at
(303) 441-4464 to have the memo sent to
you
Agenda Item # S ~1 Page #~
Plar~ning 09/25/20Q3
#5A page14
Residential In Industrial Zones
Proposed Staff Level Use Review Sites
Draft 9/25/2003
a
a
~
Staff Level Use Review Sites Other Map Data ~~ i•~ IG or IM Zoning o os ,~,
- Staff Level ->= 2 acres, < 5 acres Non-Industrial Zoning pther Industrial Zoning N •~°'°"deo"°~'m •°~JCTiOREV1B1OM ,„,~
.. `.~~.~,.,...s~...,,..~...~.e...._d...~
w4 eirre ~°'~a~w~eew~v.~msnat.~dwm++~~m~n
~_ _~ Not Elegible Unless Combined With Adjacent Parcel =< 2 acres ~ Ownership Parcels ~'i'~ . ~ _. ~,.,._,~.,
~ :~.:o ~...~~,.~,.w~°~d~,.~.:A~.......
5 acres .:~.,,: °wo~.~...~~. ~~ ~ w.~...
Site Review Required - >_ ~`° ~~ ~-e~~~~~~~~~
w<..,w..,.~..,...,...m.,.~
~
Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2003
To: City of Soulder
Ruth McHeyser
Phone: 303-441-3292
Fax: 303-441-3241
From: Chrisman Commercial LLC
Steven Chrisman
Phone: 303-938-8200
Fax: 303-938-8201
Pages: 4
Subject: Residential uses in IG and IM zoning districts
,~ Draft Proposal to Allow Residential Uaes in
;~ ''' Indnatrial.Zones
~
Public Meeting
~,;'
' ' September 3, 20Q3
~~ '~~~' ~ . ~
~ ..~;,,
. - 7 p.m.
Comment Form
Please give us your comments on the propoeel to ellow r4eidencial uaea in thc TG and IM zoning
G~.16117Ct8.
p ~ eas~ ,5.~~ a(~.c 4..~d ~.e.l~G~/
City of Boulder
Planntng and Devolopirent Servli
1738 Broadw~y
P~O 8vx 79i
6oultl~r, Calemtlo 8q908•07G1
303l441~0282
303/447•3241 FA7(
amall meheysarrOclbouldercaus
www cl,bould~r.oo,udpwplen
Ruth MoHeyser
Dlrwnrel Lanp R~np~ Pl~nnlnp
Please leave this form at the welcome table.
'You may also send your comments by fax (303) 441•4210, or by mall to the C1fy of Boulder
Long Ran$e Planning,1739 Srasdway, third floor, Soulder, CO 80302, or P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306.
Name f3 ~on 5~1-e~u1 ~. Sw~a-n CkYlsnla.v~
Addrese 7 ~ - +~ ~ ~ ~ '
o u.l d. ~ ~ D
Phone U/uv~ l,~a-e~/e.n-3~3- 3a-Q'ldD~ S4-S~~ 303-'~'`~-1-13)
E•maal h f a v~ a'7r.Ltri s yv.a..~ l'r. eo w. y S~e.Ja"~ rJ~i ~ s w.eu~ c. Cc,w~~
3~S~n. G-,+~~sw~a.~w~.}~erpaises. cow.
Note: This inForms~ion Is coneldered publ~ record and m~y be released upon request.
. ~ 5777 Cenhal Ave.
Sulte N11a
Boulder, CO 90301
' COMMERCIAL F~° 303 998-8201 ~
September 18, 2003
City of Boulder Long Range Planning
Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway
$oulder, CO 80302
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We aze wnting this letter in response to your request for opinions from property owners
affected by your latest pzoposal to allow residential uses m the IG and IM zoning
districts.
As representarives for a large nutnber of investors that own unproved property in the City
of Bouldez that collectively totel several htuldred thousand squaze feet that will be
affected by your proposal, we believe the planning department is doing another great
disservice to the City of Boulder, We were hoping after your last mistake regarding
changing the lighting codes, wluch, hy the way, will cost significantly more than your
department infomied city council, that you would not follow that up with another
misguided decision. Much to our surpnse, once again you are taking stepe to try to
further negatively impact business in Boulder.
It is unfortunate that the City appears to coneider only the potential benefits of such
residenhal uses without looking at the negative consequences fot the industrial uses, or
the residential uses for that matter. Residential and industrial uses aze not compatihle.
You only have to look at other industrial areas located near residential to sae the
problems. Without nammg specific properties, a long-time business located in Crunbarrel
was required to spend $60,000 to mitigate noise bacause of the many complamts they had
received from residential neighbors. They were just trying to conduct their business but
felt compelled to spend money to deal with the complatnts msCead of deal with Che wrath
of the City of Boulder They were confident they would win a legal battle but that costs
money too.
If the City allows residential uses in tha middle of industrial zoned areae, the complaints
will only rise. I~TOise and traffic in the middle of an industrial park will be much worse
than in a strictly residenrial area. Industnal zoning is very different from oFfice zomng.
Office is a lot cleaner and quieter than industrial. If you put residential in an industrial
azea, what will happen when a company has a second and third shift, creating late mght
traffic and lights that stay on most, if not all, of the night? What will happen when
outdoor air compressors kick on late at night? 5uch issues should not exist by mixmg
office and residential, but we know that they, in fact, exist m mdustrial and residential.
W e have had to personally deal with some of these issues, One of the propartias we
represent in your proposed area had a parking lot light that met the city standards yet we
finally had to change it because of a City of Boulder employee contacted us repeatedly
statxng "we were legally required to change the light ..." because of a oomplaint by one
neighbor. It is amazing how the City of Boulder will go to great lengths to satisfy one
neighbor even though the city requirements were being met. Wi~o do you think paid for
the new light7 The tenant did, of course. ~ ne tenant of course was very unhappy, as
anyone would be if they had to pay for the cost of a new light.
As you aze awaze, the City of Boulder has a eignificant office and industrial space
vacancy percentage that has not improved in a long time. Because of these vacancies, we
have had many opportunities to show our properties to prospects that are zeconeidering
relocating to a new space in Boulder. More and more we keep heering complaints from
these prospects that the Crty of Boulder is difficult to deal with and for that reason :ney
are not sure if they want to stay in Boulder. They have less expensive options in the
conidor area and Longmont. 5ince many of their employees are coming from these
areas, they are starting to think it might make more sense to go elsewhere than to deal
with the City of B~ulder,
Right now the City of Boulder, along with Boulder property owners, must do everything
possible to save and attract as many new tenants as possible. These tenants spend/will
spend money aY retails centers azound the city. As the slumping salea tax revenues
indscate, we cannot afford to lose any more tene.nts, and we think this proposal will
definitely run more businessea out of Boulder.
There is plenty of space in the Gunbarrel area that would support additional residential
growth that will not result in a conflict betwean residents and industrial usezs. If the City
is hying to balance jobs and population, it should be looking foz annrQpnate azaas to
allow additional housmg and converting those annropriate azeas to residantial. Areas
along 28`M and 30`h Streats would seem much more suita6le for this use. They already
include a nice mixture of residential, office and retail. Mixed used developments in these
azeas seem the most appropriate, while putting them in industrial areas will definitely
create a huge proUlem for industrial users.
As we are sure we have conveyed, we passionately object to the proposal to allow
residential in industrial zones. It is our hope that the City of Boulder will re-evaluate this
idea and come to the realization that it is not m the best interest: o~most of the parties
involved. Historically, zoning has been used to aeparate incompatible uses and we are
concemed that the City is now ignoring that hietoric reality. We believe that thoxough
reseazch will show that mingling residential and industrial is an idea that should not
become reality.
Sincerely,
~~..~ ' ~ ~
~-.__.
Byron R, Chrisman Steven P, Chrisman Susan J. Chriem
SEP-24-2003 WED 01~43 PM SR VP OPS HRIN CtLrSIIR~ hHx
FAX TRANSMISSION
nATE: September 24, 2003
TO: City of Boulder, Long Range Planning
FAX: 303-441-4210
FROM: David Ziegert
FAX: 303-581-1337
PHONE: 3Q3-581-1521
CONTENTS• 2 pages (including cover sheet)
Re: Draft 1'roposal to Allow Residential Uses in Industrial Zones
I wanted to provide you my feedback on the current proposal which would allow
residential uses in the TG and TM zoning distncts. I realize that I may have aussed
the deadline for such responscs, but I would like to request that ttus feedback be
u[ilized for the policy making process.
I appreciate your consideration. If you have any questions or comments, please
contact me at 303-581-1521.
Thank you,
David K. Ziegert
Plant Manager
460o Slespytime Drive
Boulder, Colorado 80301-3292
(303) 530-5300
~tN-14-CUU~ WED 01~43 PM SR VP OPS HAIN CELESTIAL FAX N0, 303 581 t337 P, 02
llrsft Proposal to Allow Residcnrial Uscs in Industrial Zoncs
Comment Porm:
A goal of this progrum is to keep Tndustrial Zones as Industrial - a concern ex~sts
that this goal will become secondary as more residentisl is integrated into [hese
areas. Public opinion will then suppon the goals/ob~ecpves of the residenual
areas and became an obstacle/cosddeterrent to Compames uc~yimng their land as
originally ihcended and pmvided for in Indusuial Zoning Ordtnancos. Good
oxamples of this concepc appear when rosiden~ial developments are built in close
prox~mity to airports.
• Tf we wanted to further develop our industriel property as allowed by the original
PUA, will any additional rewew be required as~de from a Buildmg Parnut?
Further site review and public comment could be limitmg to us fulfilling our
mtcnded usc of our property,
• The Norification mquirements for Canditional Usa Development need to go
beyond "Ciood Neighbor Not~ficat~on". This is an imporutnt check-and-balance
that would be ronderul meamngless with the current proposal.
• A concern exisCS regarding the mitig~tion of noise/visual screemng for future
developmcnt. It is my understanding thac this is the responsibility of the
developer (even for future induetrial development). My intuitian is that this will
be the case in theory, but in reality, the rosponsibility will fall on the industrial
developer.
• A conccrn exiats regarding the availability of the necassary infrastructure to
support significant residential development in areas that are zoned industrial
(water, sewagc, traffic, etc,), Since the construcCion of our facil~ty, we have
nociced a sigaificant reduction in the available watar pressure at our facility. This
~ssue has resulted m an enGre redesign of ow fim suppression syatem at a cost in
excess of $50,000. Addtnonally, the increused demand on our already
overburdened stroets and roads would be problemaUc.
• W~th Residential2oning bordcnng Industnal Zonsng, which set of ordinances
would take prccedence? For examplc, noise Icvels in Industnal Zonmg can be
beCween 75 - 80 dBA while in Resideatial Zoncs, noise lcvels aze not to cxcccd
50 dHA. It is yuite likcly that a company can be in compliance for Industrial
Zoning yet be in violation w~th Rcsidcnual Zoning Ordinances.
David Ztegcrt
4600 Sleepynme Drive
Boulder, CO 80301
303,581-1521
dzie2ert Cfl~ hai n-celesti ai.com