HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.08.20 Use StandardsSubcmte Mtg Notes1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
06/08/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
Virtual Meeting – Planning Department, 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302
Meeting materials including the audio recording of the meeting are available online:
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=171690&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Subcommittee members: David Ensign (Chair), Sarah Silver
Staff: Karl Guiler, Andrew Collins
1) Welcome and Ground Rules
2) Public Comment Period – Six members of the public provided comments.
L. Segal – Big concern regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUS). Planning & Development
Services (P&DS) has been of little help with the online mapping tool, that is supposed to show the
20% saturation lots - including duplexes, coops and the like. This tool is not accessible to the public,
it should be available for everyone to view online. Not clear if the information has been updated in
months, shouldn’t have to come-in to view this information at P&DS.
C. Gray – Comments regarding community engagement:
• Community engagement should be setup based on what will affect people so they can
understand it.
• Outreach could include mailers in utility bills. Importance to reach out to renters, not just
property owners.
• Consider using the recommendations and resources of the Government Alliance on Race
and Equity (GARE).
L. Spalding – Comments on previous subcommittee discussions:
• Long’s Garden – the property has a conservation easement on the property, so any café
type use would likely not be feasible, strict regulations.
• Outdoor entertainment use in rural areas and agricultural zoning – cause for concern, a
national problem with overuse and impacts to neighbors.
• Live / Work use – some concern about additional commercial type activity in areas that
were not intended for it, such as through special sales or events. The art gallery space in
North Boulder on Broadway as an example of a need to be careful of unintended
consequences.
B. Hondorf – Experiencing difficulties in trying to get an ADU on her property. May need variances
from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA). Rents are down everywhere placing difficulties on people
at this time. There are less families in Boulder than there used to be, possibly related to abortion
rates here. What does GARE recommend on these topics?
2
K. Nordback – Agrees with C. Gray’s comments on community engagement. In addition, community
engagement should include many visuals as possible.
• Show examples of places, such as Alpine Modern cafe, mercantile buildings in
neighborhoods that already exist like at 6th and Maxwell and along Dellwood and Broadway.
• Show people what the ideas of 15-minute neighborhoods and neighborhood-scaled
commercial uses can look like.
D. Takahashi – Energy efficiency certificates should be required to be posted at the entrances of
every building in Boulder. Similar to occupancy certificates requirements. Denver has done this
recently, as has the country of Germany - we should be able to as well. Information on building’s
efficiency and energy use should be widely accessible in a database for each building in the city that
the public can look-up and view.
3) Acceptance of the June 1, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
N/A, to be completed at a later meeting.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session –Discussion on Community Engagement
RMX-2 zoning and affordable housing density bonus discussion (see Section 9-8-4, B.R.C. 1981)
S. Silver: Concerned about applying the RMX-2 affordable bonus to the RMX-1 zone. Not sure this is
where the entire subcommittee landed, would like to put this topic n into the “Parking Lot”, rather than
as a consideration for this phase. This is similar to the discussion that the subcommittee had on Large
Lots and homes (allowing subdividing of larger lots), that was outside the scope of Use Table and
Standards. And put into the Parking Lot. Let’s go back and listen to the recording from earlier in the year
on the RMX-discussion.
D. Ensign: The previous discussion was not intended to single-out the RMX-1 zone, but was a broader
discussion on applying the density bonus provisions to other zones as a consideration. Many of these
older built-out zones, such as in RMX-1, would likely have limited opportunity to utilize the bonus under
Section 9-8-4, B.R.C. 1981, based on the existing lot and parcel sizes, thus would be a gentle infill over
time. Would like to see what the public thinks about this idea of gentle-infill in the residential zones
including RMX-1.
Staff comment: Staff will find the previous RMX zoning discussion recording from the November 2019
subcommittee meeting, and forward to the subcommittee members to re-review. The audio recording
from the November 2019 RMX meeting is available online here:
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=171232&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
The RMX conversation runs from approx. the 1:00 HR to 1:07 HR mark.
Use Table Deep-Dive Summary & Chart review
• Good with the revisions made.
• Consider re-examine the contiguity provisions for residential development in the industrial
zones, perhaps remove it if not helping.
3
• Any pilot-projects for residential uses in industrial zones should not create more subsequent
contiguity as a result. Would not want a pilot-project to increase potential contiguity that
could then in theory allow additional residential uses to pervade.
Community Engagement Discussion:
• S. Silver: Use BC-1 & BC-2 (Business Community zones) for focal point for the ideas raised –
reach out to owners and renters around these areas – more meaningful than zoning. Likes the
idea of presenting visuals - small, medium, large impacts. Utilize outreach to people who are
not usually vocal, and who may have been critical of the Opportunity Zone process. Some
concern with lack of in-person meetings.
• D. Ensign: Shares some concerns about lack of in-person meetings, but the virtual meetings may
be more accessible to people, can participate from their homes more readily. The East Boulder
Sub-community Plan (EBSCP) did a good job using break-out rooms in Zoom. Consider using a
moderator format, and get people to discuss in smaller break-out virtual rooms – provides a
more comfortable environment to share ideas. Do BC zones first, then branch-out.
• S. Silver: Concern about staffing for these virtual events due to the city furlough’s and lay-offs.
There may be push-back from some in the community about online engagement versus in-
person meetings. Would prefer to have some small in-person meetings if possible.
Staff comment: staff will be directed by city protocol’s regarding in-person gatherings and
meetings, during the pandemic. Should the city policy-makers allow small-in person meetings
(and if city staff feels personally safe and comfortable doing so) then it could be a future
consideration. Virtual and online engagement is expected though at least the early fall at this
time.
• S. Silver: Is there rush to do this since we cannot feasibly to in-person meetings?
Staff comment: We can consider doing more straightforward changes now, and any more
complex issues that arise from the first round of engagement could be pushed out later.
• S. Silver: Include visuals for what BC areas will look like with use changes. D. Ensign – including
different parking requirements.
• S. Silver: Need to involve those that aren’t always involved.
• D. Ensign: this project is not necessarily like an area plan with a working group. But we will need
to get the word out as much as possible.
• S. Silver: This is going to be hard to do on-line. Perhaps consider doing a test run online, then a
take a breather and reconsider what’s working and what’s not.
• D. Ensign: Get the city’s engagement staff involved, can help assist with Zoom and the resources
for virtual engagement. It may be awhile before we can have people in the same room. Like
having an emphasis on bi-lingual participation.
• S. Silver: Should have Spanish translation available. Virtual Sticky Note options to add ideas or
have participants do a Strength, Weakness Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis.
• D. Ensign: Make questions open-ended so we can hear other ideas. Need visuals to trigger
discussions.
4
Ideas for questions for the community to consider:
• Is your vision in-line with the identified changes?
• What kind of changes would you envision in your immediate neighborhood?
• What would you like your neighborhood to look like?
• What would your ideal new neighborhood look like?
• Do you want the existing neighborhood center (BC zones) to be the center of your
neighborhood? How can these areas be updated to meet your needs?
D. Ensign: Gauge support for items that did not have consensus from the subcommittee. For
example: What do you think about a slow integration of well-designed duplexes in some zones?
S. Silver: We should ask: What changes would the public want to see that wasn’t identified by
the subcommittee?
Public Comment Period II – Three members of the public provided comments.
L. Segal – Enjoyed the conservation, very thoughtful, glad to be part of the community here. Phasing
will be a consideration – it can be a moving target, and culture changes. People need to think
beyond what they think they need today.
L. Smith – Great discussion by the subcommittee on community engagement. There is both good
and bad with the online / virtual outreach. Look forward to seeing the process play out.
K. Nordback – Agree, great discussion by the subcommittee today.
Next Steps
• Late June subcommittee meeting to wrap-up.
• Online Community Engagement beginning July 2020.
• City Council check-in August 2020