Agenda_2020_8_25_Meeting
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Mary Ann Weideman, Interim Director, Planning/Assistant City Manager
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager, Planning
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner/ Code Amendment Specialist
Phil Kleisler, Senior Planner
DATE: August 25, 2020
SUBJECT: Community Benefit Phase 2 Study Session
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update City Council and to receive feedback on the progress of
Phase 2 of the Community Benefit project. Phase 2 of the Community Benefit project is
currently in the community engagement phase.
On Oct. 29, 2019, City Council adopted Ordinance 8359, which established new Site Review
criteria requiring community benefit in the form of additional permanently affordable housing
requirements above by-right standards for proposals for buildings over the zoning district height
limit (typically over 35-feet through the height modification process). The council did not agree
with the board motion. The new criteria, created as part of the Community Benefit Phase 1
project (focus on permanently affordable housing), would only apply to developments where
floor area is proposed above the zoning district height limit in a fourth or fifth story (e.g., “bonus
floor area”) up to a maximum height of 55-feet.
Staff is now working on Phase 2 of the Community Benefit project. An update was provided to
City Council on April 14, 2020 where the council narrowed the community benefit list to the
uses listed below and the project was prioritized at a discussion of council on May 19, 2020:
Phase 2 Community Benefit uses-
Below market rate rent commercial
Space for arts and cultural uses
Human / social services
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 1
Since the spring 2020 discussions on the project, staff has also moved forward with refining the
uses above, updating the Site Review criteria and implementing the community engagement
plan. Background on the foundational scope, goals and objectives of the project etc. is found in
Attachment A and recent history on the project is included below. Attachment B contains an
engagement handout on the scope of Phase 2 of the project and Attachment C contains results
of the Be Heard Boulder questionnaire on the project approaches and options. Attachments D,
E, and F contain public comments on the community benefit options listed above.
At the April 2020 discussion on the project, City Council requested that the project return to
council in Quarter 3 of 2020 for an update and more discussion. Staff is seeking direction from
council on the questions regarding the options listed below before moving forward with
ordinance preparation, economic analysis, zoning district analysis for Appendix J (the map the
shows where height modifications may be requested) and additional community engagement.
KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED
Definitions and approaches to adding Phase 2 Community Benefit uses: Below market
rate rent commercial, space for art and cultural uses and human / social services
Duration and penalty fees for Community Benefit uses
Approaches to updates to the Site Review criteria
Community engagement feedback on the Community Benefit project
QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
1. Does the City Council agree with the Table 1 staff recommendations for adding below
market rate rent commercial as community benefit use? Should the Department of
Community Vitality provide recommendations on how well the use meets the
definition? To encourage more small local business, should additional restrictions on
tenant space size, tenant space width, or on national franchises be applied?
2. Does the City Council agree with the Table 2 staff recommendations for adding arts
and cultural uses as community benefit use? Should the Arts Commission provide
recommendations on how well the use meets the definition?
3. Does the City Council agree with the Table 3 staff recommendations for adding human
/ social service uses as a community benefit use? Should Department of Human
Services and Initiatives provide recommendations on how well the use meets the
definition? Should uses related to Food & Nutrition, Health & Well Being be included
on the list? Should all the uses in this category be non-profit to qualify?
4. Minimum duration: Should community benefit uses be required by agreements to be
in operation for a set period of time (e.g., 10 years, 20 years) or should they be required
in perpetuity like permanently affordable housing?
5. Penalty fees: For community benefit uses that cease operation after approval, should a
penalty fee be required until a use of equal benefit is established?
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 2
6. Site Review criteria: Does the City Council agree with the staff Table 5 staff
recommendations for updating the Site Review criteria?
BACKGROUND
For the foundational elements and discussions on the Community Benefit project from 2018,
including the Purpose, Why and Problem Statements and guiding Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies established at the Sept. 2018 study session, please see
Attachment A. This background section will cover the progress of the project from late 2019 up
to now.
Completion of Community Benefit Phase 1
On Oct. 29, 2019, City Council adopted Ordinance 8359, which established new Site Review
criteria requiring community benefit in the form of additional permanently affordable housing
requirements above by-right standards for proposals for buildings over the zoning district height
limit (typically over 35-feet through the height modification process). The new criteria, created
as part of the Community Benefit Phase 1 project (focus on permanently affordable housing),
would only apply to developments where floor area is proposed above the zoning district height
limit in a fourth or fifth story (e.g., “bonus floor area”) up to a maximum height of 55-feet.
The permanently affordable housing requirement could be met through provision of on-site
affordable units or through in lieu fees for residential projects or an increased commercial
linkage fee for non-residential projects as applied to any “bonus floor area” approved according
to the regulations. Council also amended the land use code map that specifies where height
modifications may be requested (i.e., Appendix J – Areas Where Height Modifications May Be
Considered) by adding the Residential High – 3 (RH-3) zoning districts and the area subject to
the Alpine Balsam area plan. These regulations became effective Jan. 1, 2020 and can be
reviewed in the packet here. (see page 189 of the packet). Council also approved extending the
Appendix J map sunset date to May 31, 2021. Staff’s goal is to complete the project by the
sunset date.
Staff is currently in Phase 2 of the Community Benefit project, which includes consideration of
additional community benefits in exchange for additional height and/or density in projects. These
benefits, initially identified through Phase 1 and discussed in detail during a council study
session in September 2018 (see page 227 of packet here). Phase 2 also includes updating the
city’s Site Review criteria to be more in line with city policies, and to make the criteria more
streamlined and make development review processes more predictable for developers, neighbors,
review bodies and staff.
Progress in 2020
Update to City Council
An update on the Community Benefit project was presented to City Council on April 14, 2020.
The memorandum from that date can be viewed here (see page 118). At that meeting, staff
shared the scope of Phase 2 of the project, an updated community engagement plan, and
considerations for the project moving forward.
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 3
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic and impacts to the city economy, council reception to the
project moving forward was mixed. Some council members found the project important and one
which should move forward to help the community with needed uses while others expressed
concerns about layering on new requirements on projects, businesses etc. in light of the
economic uncertainties. The council also felt that the scope of the project should be narrowed to
the following community benefit options:
Below market rate rent commercial
Space for arts and cultural uses
Human / social services
The three community benefit uses above are often interrelated and linked to the ever-growing
cost of leasing commercial tenant spaces. Outreach from Phase 1 indicated that these uses are
finding it more and more difficult to establish or stay in Boulder and drives some uses outside
the city. Restricting tenant lease rates in some form as part of a height modification could reduce
rent and increase the possibility for any of the three uses above.
Despite concerns about moving forward with the benefit listed above, the council was supportive
of the Site Review criteria component of the project advancing as the updates to the criteria may
be beneficial to the business community with greater levels of predictability and simplification of
the code.
P&DS Work Plan Discussion
On May 19, 2020, City Council discussed Planning and Development Services (P&DS) work
plan item prioritization recognizing the new fiscal realities for the city. The memorandum from
that meeting can be found here (see page 119). Staff presented all the top P&DS work plan items
to the council with different options for each including financial adjustments and even options to
not proceed. At this meeting, City Council found that the Community Benefit project, with the
scope and community engagement plan discussed above, should proceed on its original pre-
pandemic schedule of moving towards completion by the fourth quarter of 2020 or the first
quarter of 2021, as feasible, with assistance from the economic consultant. This study session is
being conducted to get further direction on the project and also because council requested that
staff return with an update on this project in the third quarter of 2020 at the work plan discussion.
Economic consultation on the options
The economic consultant, Keyser Marston Associates, had done the economic analysis on Phase
1 of the project and had recommended that, to keep costs lower and in light of recent economic
uncertainty, prior assumptions in the analysis would be used so that any new community benefits
would be analyzed in an “apples to apples” comparison to the adopted permanently affordable
housing option adopted in 2019. Following the pandemic, any adopted regulations as part of
Phase 2 and economic studies could be re-assessed for adjustments to adapt the changes to any
adjusted market realities. Staff has thus, moved forward with working with KMA on the project.
An economic analysis is currently being done on the options and will be prepared in advance of
any ordinance adoption on the project. More specifically, KMA will be recommending how
much each community benefit use would need to be included in a project to be equivalent or
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 4
more than the permanently affordable housing option, the overall feasibility of the options, if the
in lieu fees would need to be adjusted with the addition of new community benefit options and
what penalty fees may need to be should a community benefit use cease to operate and not be
replaced. KMA will also be evaluating a zone by zone analysis prepared by staff to help inform
City Council’s decision on the Appendix J, the map that specifies where height modifications
may be requested.
Refinement of Community Benefit options
Staff has continued to study defining each of the new three community benefits. If adopted, each
benefit would need to be well defined so that it is clear that a developer is meeting the baseline
community needs with the inclusion of the use. This has to be balanced with not defining each
community benefit use too rigidly that there is no flexibility with the Community Benefit
program. Staff has been working with Community Vitality staff on the ‘below market rate rent
commercial space’ option, with the Arts Commission and City Office of Arts and Culture on
‘space for the arts and cultural uses’ option and Boulder County’s Human Service Alliance
(HSA) and Human Services city staff on ‘human / social service uses’ option. The ‘Analysis’
section below contains the results of this refinement as well as options moving forward.
Community Engagement
Following the update to council in April, staff has moved forward with implementing the
community engagement plan and has prepared updated engagement materials for posting on the
city’s website found here.
In light of the COVID-19 outbreak, staff has continued to develop outreach materials and
questions for the public for feedback, but has shifted more to an online platform. Staff’s
approach has been to get the word out to people online first with questionnaires and online
engagement opportunities and then go out in person when circumstances improve. This is being
done by updating current code change website and outreach handouts, providing online
presentations of the projects and what feedback the city would like, and using the Be Heard
Boulder format for getting input. At present is it not clear when in person engagement could
commence.
Since the last check in with council on May 19, 2020, staff has also formed a Site Review Focus
Group and Neighborhood Representative Focus Group to review and discuss the project. The
first group is largely composed of design professionals who are familiar with the criteria and Site
Review process and that have worked on Site Review projects (see Attachment G). The second
group is comprised of neighborhood representatives from throughout the city that was assembled
with the help of the city’s Communications and Engagement Department (see Attachment H).
Both groups have advised on what types of updates should be made to the Site Review criteria as
well as their thoughts on the community benefit options. Staff has also reached out to the
Boulder Chamber of Commerce, Better Boulder, and Plan Boulder and has met with the Human
Services Alliance and members of the art community on the options.
On July 27, 2020, staff held an online community information session on all of the in process
code amendments projects and answered questions and directed people to questionnaires on the
Community Benefit project at the city’s Be Heard Boulder website (www.beheardboulder.org).
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 5
Community and Planning newsletters, a segment on Inside Boulder, and use of social media
informed people of the session and the updated city websites on all the code changes.
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire: The Be Heard Boulder online questionnaire opened on July 6,
2020, and as of August 12th there have been 149 respondents to the questionnaire. The content
was visited by nearly 400 persons. The questionnaire will be open through the end of August.
Below are some of the highlights of the questionnaire responses thus far. Please see Attachment
C for the questionnaire report. A high level summary follows:
At the time of the Planning Board packet, approximately half of the respondents agreed
that community benefit in the form of affordable commercial space, space for arts and
cultural uses, or social service uses would be appropriate to permit buildings over the
zoning district height limit. 38% of the respondents did not agree. This is consistent with
split seen in previous responses during Phase 1 of the project. However, between August
4th and August 12th, this number has shifted to more than 60% not agreeing that
community benefits justify any type of height modification. Only 25% supported the
option for allowing height modifications with community benefits incorporated into a
project.
Over 70% of respondents disagreed that existing interim measures that restrict where
height modifications are permitted should be lifted, once more stringent community
benefit requirements are put in place meaning the existing restrictive map should stay as
is and should not be expanded or repealed.
The majority of respondents agreed that if height modifications were permitted that
additional requirements (nearly 100 responses each) should apply to buildings that
exceed the by-right height limit:
o Special protection for important public view corridors
o High-quality building materials
o Limits on building widths
o Larger upper floor setbacks or limits on upper floor sizes.
Nearly 70% of the respondents were in support of updating the Site Review Criteria to be
less subjective and more predictable, with nearly 20% indicating they did not think the
criteria should be updated in such a way.
Regarding what “view protection” means in the context of the Site Review Criteria
o The most selected option (88 respondents) was “No buildings over the zoning
district height limit should be permitted anywhere in the city.”
o 66 respondents (the most selected option) chose “Important public view corridors
should be identified and mapped from public spaces and any proposal in such
corridors must demonstrate that the height of any buildings maintain important
public views”
View to be protected included views to / from public open spaces, the Flatirons, as well
as Pearl Street Mall, and 29th Street & Arapahoe were indicated for preservation of views
among others.
Summaries of the community engagement are found within the ‘Analysis’ section below and
within Attachments G and H.
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 6
Appendix J map considerations
Appendix J is a map in the land use code that specifies where height modifications may be
requested. The map was originally adopted as an interim measure by council in 2015 until the
Community Benefit project was adopted. The sunset date applied to the map has been extended
twice – once in 2018 and again in 2019 when Ordinance 8359 was adopted. The question of how
to address the map will need to occur by the time of final adoption. In general, the options (to be
considered later) are:
1. Keep Appendix J as it is in perpetuity;
2. Modify Appendix J (expand where it applies);
3. Remove Appendix J entirely (apply Community Benefit program citywide); and
4. Apply Phase 2 of the program, analyze the efficacy of the program and determine what to
do with Appendix J at a later time.
Staff is developing a zone by zone analysis of the pros and cons of applying allowable height
modifications to other areas of the city to help inform future council decisions on whether to
amend, remove or maintain the current Appendix J map.
ANALYSIS
Based on City Council’s recent direction on the project, staff has moved forward with the
following scope, as amended, to address council direction:
SCOPE FOR PHASE 2 COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROJECT
Phase 2 Project Focus:
Continue analyzing the following community benefits for integration into the land use
code as options to be added to the codified requirements for permanently affordable
housing for buildings over the height limit:
o Below Market Rate Commercial (emphasis)
o Space for the Arts
o Human Services
Case Studies for Below Market Rate Commercial:
Continue analyzing how restrictive covenants, like 30Pearl, could be applied as a
requirement for height modification projects or other projects requesting additional floor
area or density where such requests may be allowed and if directed, explore an in-lieu fee
option for below market commercial
Continue analyzing other case studies that limit the size and/or frontages of commercial
spaces to encourage more local, affordable spaces
Continue analyzing restrictions on national chains like New York or San Francisco for
possible integration into the community benefit option for below market commercial
Appendix J land use map:
Develop a zone by zone analysis of the pros and cons of applying allowable height
modifications to other areas of the city to help inform future council decisions on whether
to amend, remove or maintain the current Appendix J map
Site Review criteria update:
Proceed with analyzing updates to the criteria that:
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 7
o Create more consistency with the BVCP with an emphasis on energy and
resiliency
o Foster higher-quality design outcomes
o Include more clarify and simplification in application
o Result in more predictability for applicants, neighbors and staff
o Add more clarity to the criteria view protection from important public views
(e.g., views of the mountains from public places like parks, plazas etc.)
Updated Community Engagement Plan/Timeline:
Move forward with the plan, public outreach strategy (as amended by COVID-19
realities) and timeline found in Attachment A with the goal of completing the project by
the fourth quarter of 2020 or first quarter of 2021 and no later than May 31, 2021.
In this section staff will discuss the following topics and requests direction on the options herein:
Table 1 - Community Benefit - Below Market Rate Rent Commercial
BVCP policy
guidance &
goals of the
project
Guiding BVCP Policies:
1.11 Enhanced Community Benefit
2.35 Building Height
Adopted Goals and Objectives for the project:
Determine the type and amount of community benefits that would be
provided to achieve increased intensity, building height or zone district
changes.
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and
environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan.
Clearly specify the required triggers for community benefit and identify
how (or if) the benefits would be maintained in perpetuity.
Determine additional design standards for projects requesting a height
modification.
Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals and
create more predictability in projects.
Ideas for
definition
A specified amount of any building proposed to be over the height limit
(or over maximum floor area) would need to be reserved for commercial
or retail uses or non-profit organizations
The space would be deed restricted to a reduced percentage of the market
rate rent to ensure a greater level of affordability (for example, it could be
70% or 75% or some other percentage of the market rate determined by an
economic analysis)
Further, this percentage could be adjusted over time following periodic
economic analysis to ensure that the community benefit uses continue to
be feasible and incentivized for taller buildings
To encourage smaller, locally owned type business, the city is looking at
restricting non-local, national franchises, tenant space sizes and tenant
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 8
widths (e.g., 3,000 square feet and 30 feet respectively), with some
flexibility if the nature of the use would conflict with these limits
The majority of space used for below market rate rent commercial space
may be on the ground floor facing a street and may include window
glazing requirements to make the uses visible and to contribute to a
walkable, pedestrian friendly streetscape.
Summary of
community
feedback on
ideas
Staff is currently in the community engagement phase on Community Benefit
and plans to meet with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Better
Boulder on the potential options. Staff has also offered to present to PLAN
Boulder. Materials on the potential options have been distributed for review
to these groups. Previous correspondence from the Chamber of Commerce
has expressed concern about adding new community benefit options finding
that the economic analysis for the Phase 1 option (i.e., permanently affordable
housing) inaccurate and not providing real incentives. There are also concerns
about adding new regulations at this time due to the economic impact of the
pandemic. The Site Review Focus Group, discussed below, also felt that any
housing, market rate or affordable, should be considered a community benefit
in Boulder.
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire: At the time of the Planning Board packet,
approximately half of the respondents agreed that community benefit in the
form of affordable commercial space, space for arts and cultural uses, or
social service uses would be appropriate to permit buildings over the zoning
district height limit. 38% of the respondents did not agree. This is consistent
with split seen in previous responses during Phase 1 of the project. However,
between August 4th and August 12th, this number has shifted to more than
60% not agreeing that community benefits justify any type of height
modification. Only 25% supported the option for allowing height
modifications with community benefits incorporated into a project.
Site Review and Neighborhood Focus Groups feedback: See Table 5.
Options Staff recommended option to the right with explanation below Yes No
Option 1-A Create option as a subset of Site Review criteria?
Option 2-B Set a minimum amount at least equivalent to Phase 1
benefit (e.g., permanently affordable housing)?
Option 1-C Have Community Vitality evaluate the below market rate
rent commercial use for consistency with the definition?
Option 1-C Require agreement?
Option 1-D Minimum duration of the use?
Option 1-E In lieu option?
Option 1-F Penalty fee?
Option 1-G Do not proceed?
Option 1-H Restrict square footage of each tenant (i.e., 3,000 square
feet)?
Option 1-I Restrict tenant frontage width (i.e., 30 feet)?
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 9
Option 1-J Define national franchises and prohibit like New York,
San Francisco, and Telluride, CO?
Staff Recommendation
Staff is analyzing how regulations could be written to incentivize more below market rate rent
commercial in the city through this proposed process. The goal is to also create commercial
or retail spaces that are conducive to small local business or minority owner or women
owners, similar to what was done by agreement at 30Pearl. The agreement was voluntary so
the uses could be clearly specified; however, as new regulations, further legal analysis is
necessary to see how the code language would avoid being in violation of state or federal law.
Based on the analysis and feedback thus far, staff is recommending the use be define as
specified above, and potentially be required in perpetuity through a special agreement. Non-
profit uses would also have to be specially defined. If the community benefit use ceased to
operate, it would require a Site Review Amendment to change out the use to something that it
at least an equivalent of community benefit. Otherwise, after a specified period of time, a
penalty fee would apply. In lieu fees would apply as adopted in Phase 1.
(Options 1-A through 1-F above)
To keep the business conducive to small local business, staff suggests a maximum of 3,000
square feet per tenant (Option 1-H). Some flexibility could be included in the code language
if a particular use did not fit into that limitation. Staff is not recommending restrictions on the
tenant widths as done in San Francisco and New York at this time and is hesitant about
restricting national franchises as they may exclude some woman or minority owned
businesses. Staff is also hesitant to add too many limitations at this time considering the
economic circumstances of 2020. (Options 1-I and 1-J)
Table 2- Community Benefit – Space for Arts and Cultural Uses
BVCP
policy
guidance &
goals of the
project
See Table 1
Ideas for
definition
Visual art studios, maker spaces, or education spaces with accessory sales
operated by the local art community
Performing arts studios, practice spaces, education spaces, or community
dance halls, with accessory sales operated by the local art community
Visual art galleries or co-ops operated by the local art community with
accessory sales
Performing arts venues, concert halls, or black box theaters operated by the
local art community with accessory sales
Amphitheaters, sculpture parks, outdoor spaces conducive to murals and art
in public places, or other outdoor arts venues with management by a
nonprofit.
Video, film, and digital arts studios, education spaces, interactive
experiences, art cinemas, and immersive arts venues operated by the local
art community with accessory sales
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 10
Art or cultural uses that contribute to the growth and vitality of the
community or any locally designated arts districts
Summary of
community
feedback on
ideas
Staff has coordinated with the city Office of Arts and Culture and the Arts
Commission on the approaches discussed above and has presented the options
below to the Boulder Arts Matrix and the Professional Arts Forum. The
information has also been disseminated in a newsletter to the local arts
community for feedback.
In general, feedback from the arts community has been positive regarding the
approaches discussed in this section. Suggestions for other types of arts to be
encompassed in the definition have been incorporated into the list above. Some
comments were for the concept of community benefit, but against tall
buildings that block views. One comment suggested art museums be added,
but staff believes that could fall into the umbrella of categories in the list.
The Boulder Arts Matrix supported the list, but felt that it should go further in
securing affordable housing for local artists, should better support the creation
of local arts districts and that the city should take a larger role in fostering
productive, creative and mutually beneficial partnerships between artists and
developers before applications come in. They also found that a special
subcommittee of Planning officials and local arts representatives should be the
ones providing recommendations on the value of the arts and cultural space
vis-à-vis the Arts Commission. Specific comments from members of the arts
community are found in Attachment E below.
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire: See Table 1.
Site Review and Neighborhood Focus Groups feedback: See Table 5.
Options Staff recommended option to the right with explanation below Yes No
Option 2-A Create option as a subset of Site Review criteria?
Option 2-B Set a minimum amount at least equivalent to Phase 1
benefit (e.g., permanently affordable housing)?
Option 2-C Have Arts Commission provide a recommendation on the
consistency of the use with the definition?
Option 2-C Require agreement?
Option 2-D Minimum duration of the use?
Option 2-E In lieu option?
Option 2-F Penalty fee?
Option 2-G Do not proceed?
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending that space for the arts and cultural uses be added as a community
benefit option to the Site Review criteria in the same section as previously drafted for
permanently affordable housing. The amount would be determined by an economic study to
be as equivalent as possible to the benefit created for permanently affordable housing. This
includes all the options listed above with the exception of Option 2-G.
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 11
Prior to submittal of an application a developer would have to work with the local arts
community on their needs and design a project that reserves a specified amount of floor area
in a building proposal over the height limit to include spaces for arts and cultural uses.
The space would have to meet the specifications for what is considered “space for the arts and
cultural uses” as defined in the new code language and would be designed with the arts
community needs in mind. Staff is recommending that the City of Boulder Arts Commission
review proposals prior to Planning Board and make a recommendation to staff and Planning
Board about whether the use is indeed a benefit to the community as a local arts or cultural
use.
The specifications of the use (e.g., size, operating characteristics) would be put into an
agreement that the developer would need to commit to ensuring that the community benefit
continues. The use could be required to continue with the building for a period of 10 years, 20
years or in perpetuity. Staff’s recommendation on the duration of all the community benefit
uses and penalty fees is listed below Table 3.
Table 3- Community Benefit – Human / Social Services
BVCP policy
guidance &
goals of the
project
See Table 1
Ideas for
definition
High rents are putting pressure on human and social service uses to consider
moving to locations outside the city of Boulder making provision of these
services to the local population more difficult. This process is evaluating
human and social service uses as an option to incentive retaining such uses
within the city limits. The following uses are being considered:
Custodial care facilities
Daycare centers
Day shelters
Emergency shelters
Essential service facilities
Group home facilities
Non-profit health care facilities
Nursing care facilities that accept Medicaid for at least a set
percentage of beds
Overnight shelters
Residential care facilities
Transitional housing
Family resource centers
Services for underserved populations (e.g., developmental
disabilities, food pantries)
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 12
Any other non-profit or government facility that the applicant
demonstrates serves a special population that the review authority
agrees is a community benefit meeting the intent of this section
Summary of
community
feedback on
ideas
Staff has coordinated with the city Department of Human Services and
Initiatives and the Boulder County Human Services Alliance (HSA) on the
approaches discussed above. HSA has been very helpful in communicating
with its members and preparing surveys to get feedback on the proposed
options.
Attachment F contains answers to questions posed to the HSA membership.
Most of the responses were positive toward the approach of incorporating
human/social services uses as a community benefit uses. Some felt the list did
not include their particular type of use and felt it needed to be refine more.
Staff has updated the list to include “services for special populations (e.g.,
development disabilities, food pantries)”. Two questions posed to council are
whether uses related to Food & Nutrition, Health & Well Being should be
included on the list and whether all the uses in this list should be non-profit?
Human Services found that the list should not necessarily be limited to non-
profits as there might be some small local businesses that provide human
services that would be beneficial.
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire: See Table 1.
Site Review and Neighborhood Focus Groups feedback: See Table 5.
Options Staff recommended option to the right with explanation below Yes No
Option 3-A Create option as a subset of Site Review criteria?
Option 3-B Set a minimum amount at least equivalent to Phase 1
benefit (e.g., permanently affordable housing)?
Option 3-C Have Human Services provide a recommendation on the
value of the proposed human / social service use?
Option 3-C Require agreement?
Option 3-D Minimum duration of the use?
Option 3-E In lieu option?
Option 3-F Penalty fee?
Option 3-G Restrict to non-profit uses?
Option 3-H Do not proceed?
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending that human / social uses be added as a community benefit option to the
Site Review criteria in the same section as previously drafted for permanently affordable
housing. The amount would be determined by an economic study to be as equivalent as
possible to the benefit created for permanently affordable housing. This includes all the
options listed above with the exception of Option 3-C, 3-G and 3-H.
Staff is recommending against limited to non-profits only (Option 3-G) based on the advice
of Human Services that notes that some small, local, for-profit businesses may provide such
services and they should not be excluded. There may have to be some criteria that are worked
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 13
into the code to ensure that such businesses are not a large national, non-local business to
capture the uses that would be meet community needs. It’s possible as well that such a
business could fall under the community benefit options in Table 1.
The space would have to meet the specifications for what is considered “human and social
service uses” as defined in the new code language. Staff is not recommending that the City of
Boulder Human Services staff review proposals prior to Planning Board and make a
recommendation on their advice that this could appear as favoritism. Rather, a set of
minimum standards should be included in the code to ensure that such a use meets the
definition in the code. Staff will be working with Human Services staff on what these criteria
might be if this option moves forward.
The specifications of the use (e.g., size, operating characteristics) would be put into an
agreement that the developer would need to commit to ensuring that the community benefit
continues. The use could be required to continue with the building for a period of 10 years, 20
years or in perpetuity. Staff’s recommendation on the duration of all the community benefit
uses and penalty fees is listed below Table 3.
Staff recommendation on the duration of community benefit uses and penalty fees
To be equivalent to the benefit of permanently affordable housing, staff recommends that these
uses be required in perpetuity and that a penalty fee be required for any community benefit use
that ceases to operate. The penalty fee would apply until a Site Review Amendment is completed
and a new replacement community benefit use is established.
Table 4 – Appendix J, Height Modification Eligibility Map Considerations
BVCP
policy
guidance &
goals of the
project
See Table 1
Ideas for
updates
See options below
Summary of
community
feedback on
ideas
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire: Over 70% of respondents disagreed that
existing interim measures that restrict where height modifications are
permitted should be lifted, once more stringent community benefit
requirements are put in place meaning the existing restrictive map should stay
as is and should not be expanded or repealed.
Site Review and Neighborhood Focus Groups feedback: See Table 5.
Options Staff recommended option to the right with explanation below Yes No
Option 4-A Keep Appendix J as it currently is
Option 4-B Modify Appendix J to expand areas of eligibility
Option 4-C Revoke Appendix J and allow Community Benefit
program to apply city wide
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 14
Option 4-D Apply Phase 2 of the program, analyze the efficacy of the
program and determine what to do with Appendix J at a
later time.
Staff Recommendation
No recommendation at this time. Staff is developing the analysis to present to City Council at
a later date.
Table 5 – Site Review criteria update
BVCP policy
guidance &
goals of the
project
See Table 1
Ideas for
updates
Emphasize criteria that result in projects that address important city
policies on design, environmental protection, and resiliency
Reorganize the criteria into a more top-down approach starting with
policies compliance down to more detailed aspects like building design.
The intent being that they would logically take the applicant and the
reviewer through the site review in a clear way and not leave any major,
important, site-design-altering criteria to the very end where the entire site
needs to be redesigned.
Simplify the criteria by reducing the length through eliminating redundant
criteria (e.g., environmental preservation, open space, parking design,
landscaping) and combining criteria that already have similar themes/goals
Remove unnecessarily complicated criteria that don’t accomplish design
excellence or overlap with other code sections or are rarely implemented
(e.g., energy efficiency, BR-1 floor area bonus standards)
Add more specificity to the criteria to make them less subjective, more
prescriptive and measurable, where appropriate, and more predictable
(e.g., noise mitigation, energy standards, building materials)
Summary of
community
feedback on
ideas
Site Review Focus Group: Staff has convened a Site Review Focus Group of
local design professionals and citizens of Boulder that have provided
feedback on the ideas listed above as well as specific feedback for changes
that would meet the goals of the project. The individuals were chosen based
on their experience with working with the criteria. The following questions
were posed to the group:
o What has been your experience working with the Site Review criteria?
o What has worked well? What has not work well?
o Do you generally agree with the staff recommended ideas for
changes?
o Do you agree or disagree that the criteria should be made more
prescriptive (more black and white) rather than subjective (subject to
degrees of compliance)?
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 15
o What changes would you suggested to make the criteria better meet
city goals, make criteria more simple and easy to understand, and
make the outcome of project more predictable?
The group largely agreed that the current Site Review criteria are subjective
which can lead to unpredictable results and a lot of risk for developers. There
were some that preferred the flexibility that the subjective criteria offered
while others preferred more black and white standards like the Form-Based
Code (FBC) because expectations were more clear. There was a range of
support for this issue with some being concerned that if the criteria were too
black and white, there would be less design creativity. As the discussion
moved to be more specifically on each criterion, some found that some areas
of the Site Review criteria should be made more prescriptive (e.g., BVCP)
and other areas should remain more subjective (e.g., open space design,
parking design). Some areas like “landscaping” were not found to require
many changes and some criteria were recommended for removal (e.g.,
compliance with BVCP policies, criteria on density of surrounding area or
economic feasibility) due to vagueness or redundancy (e.g., environmental
preservation which shows up in three places). It was felt that some BVCP
policies should be more directly implemented in specific criteria rather than a
broad-brush criterion on complying with the BVCP. Some criteria were
considered outdated and should be updated (e.g., open space, circulation) to
reflect current values on shared spaces between cars and people and less
suburban driven design. The discussion on the ‘Building Design’ and ‘Land
Use Intensity Modification’ criteria indicated consensus that certain criteria
were vague, redundant and often not used and thus, should be removed to
simplify the criteria. On the matter of whether the building design criteria
should be more black and white versus subjective, the group was initially in
disagreement, but after discussing the FBC, came to some consensus that
some FBC standards on the public realm, building materials and common
sense design elements could be integrated into the Site Review criteria to
increase the level of predictability. The group also generally agreed with the
staff ideas for changes in addition to their suggestions. Summaries of the
focus group meetings can be found in Attachment G.
Neighborhood Representative Focus Group: The Department of
Communication and Engagement assisted with assembling neighborhood
representatives from a number of different neighborhoods of Boulder (e.g.,
around downtown, University Hill, Martin Acres, Gunbarrel, Iris Hollow
etc.). The group discussed all the aspects of the Community Benefit project
including questions similar to the Be Heard Boulder questionnaire discuss
below:
Do you agree that the three community benefits being analyzed in
Phase 2 are appropriate to permit buildings over the zoning district
height limit?
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 16
Should the map where height modifications are permitted be modified
to include more areas, be revoked to permit height modifications
citywide, or maintained as is?
Should additional design requirements apply to taller buildings?
Should the Site Review criteria be updated to be more prescriptive
rather than subjective?
What does view protection mean to you?
Some on the group felt that no more buildings over the height limit should be
permitted. Others felt that some areas of the city may be appropriate to allow
taller buildings (e.g., Opportunity Zone, Diagonal Plaza, East Boulder away
from existing residential uses, industrial zones etc.) if additional requirements
related to design and community benefit were applied. Most supported the
community benefit options of Phase 2, but felt that other benefits should be
included (e.g., net zero, mixed-use, transportation improvements, greenspace,
publicly accessible rooftops etc.). Most of the group expressed support for the
benefits, but some found that allowing additional housing and intensity is is
concerning because Boulder is getting over-built and too congested. There
was some frustration that development was being forced on residents.
There was near consensus on adding new requirements to taller buildings,
such as building width maximums or higher quality design requirements.
There was also consensus on making the Site Review criteria more
prescriptive and predictable, but similar to the Site Review Focus Group, that
there may need to be some criteria that are black and white and others that
remain subjective dependent on the criteria’s intent.
View protection was supported by the group, but the degree of protection
ranged from citywide to specific areas or view corridors. More detailed
comments from the group can be reviewed in Attachment H.
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire:
Nearly 70% of the respondents were in support of updating the Site
Review Criteria to be less subjective and more predictable, with
nearly 20% indicating they did not think the criteria should be updated
in such a way.
Regarding what “view protection” means in the context of the Site
Review Criteria
o The most selected option (88 respondents) was “No buildings
over the zoning district height limit should be permitted
anywhere in the city.”
o 66 respondents (the most selected option) chose “Important
public view corridors should be identified and mapped from
public spaces and any proposal in such corridors must
demonstrate that the height of any buildings maintain
important public views”
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 17
View to be protected included views to / from public open spaces, the
Flatirons, as well as Pearl Street Mall, and 29th Street & Arapahoe
were indicated for preservation of views among others.
Options Staff recommended option to the right with explanation below Yes No
Option 5-A Implement the ideas above?
Option 5-B Simplify BVCP criteria by removing references to all
BVCP policies, on balance?
Option 5-C Remove vague criteria regarding density and economic
feasibility?
Option 5-C Update “Circulation” criteria to reflect more
contemporary design patterns of shared spaces?
Option 5-E Remove criteria re: “minimize and mitigate energy
conservation…”?
Option 5-F Address view protections?
Option 5-G Add FBC type regulations on street level detailing and
treatments?
Option 5-H Building material minimums?
Option 5-I Transparency/fenestration minimums?
Option 5-J Building length maximums?
Option 5-K Upper floor requirements?
Staff Recommendation
As there is consensus from both groups on improving the Site Review criteria, staff
recommends that work continue on redrafting the criteria to be more simplified, more
prescriptive where it makes sense, and with some new requirements that are borrow from
successful elements of the Form-Based Code (FBC) regulations as baseline design
expectations (e.g., building materials, building widths, detailing at ground level to improve
the public realm etc.). Removing vague criteria and reducing redundancy would also be a big
part of the changes. View protection appears to be important to many and thus, revisiting how
to address views is recommended in the criteria update. This aspect is more complicated and
may need to be deferred to a later date after view corridors are identified and mapped. Either
way, staff is recommending moving forward with specific drafting of criteria to address the
points raised by the focus groups and to accomplish the objectives of the project.
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 18
QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
1. Does the City Council agree with the Table 1 staff recommendations for adding below
market rate rent commercial as community benefit use? Should the Department of
Community Vitality provide recommendations on how well the use meets the definition?
To encourage more small local business, should additional restrictions on tenant space
size, tenant space width, or on national franchises be applied?
2. Does the City Council agree with the Table 2 staff recommendations for adding arts and
cultural uses as community benefit use? Should the Arts Commission provide
recommendations on how well the use meets the definition?
3. Does the City Council agree with the Table 3 staff recommendations for adding human /
social service uses as a community benefit use? Should Department of Human Services
and Initiatives provide recommendations on how well the use meets the definition?
Should uses related to Food & Nutrition, Health & Well Being be included on the list?
Should all the uses in this category be non-profit to qualify?
4. Minimum duration: Should community benefit uses be required by agreements to be in
operation for a set period of time (e.g., 10 years, 20 years) or should they be required in
perpetuity like permanently affordable housing?
5. Penalty fees: For community benefit uses that cease operation after approval, should a
penalty fee be required until a use of equal benefit is established?
6. Site Review criteria: Does the City Council agree with the staff Table 5 staff
recommendations for updating the Site Review criteria?
NEXT STEPS
Dependent on the direction from City Council, staff intends to move forward with preparation of
draft ordinance, economic analysis of the community benefit options, zoning district analysis for
Appendix J (the map the shows where height modifications may be requested) and additional
community engagement. Staff plans to bring forward an ordinance for consideration in either
Quarter 4 2020 or Quarter 1 2021.
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 19
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A- Background
Attachment B- Handout on the Community Benefits Phase 2 project
Attachment C- Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
Attachment D- Handout on below market rate rent commercial and associated public comments
Attachment E- Handout on space for arts and cultural uses and associated public comments
Attachment F- Handout on human and social services and associated public comments
Attachment G- Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
Attachment H- Summary notes from Neighborhood Representative Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 20
BACKGROUND
Commencement of Community Benefit project
The Community Benefit project commenced in 2018 following moving forward with specific
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) implementation measures that were agreed upon
by council in late 2017. Prior to focusing on permanently affordable housing as part of Phase 1
of the project in 2019 (discussed below), a study session was held with City Council on Sept. 25,
2018 (see page 227 of packet here) where council agreed with the stated purpose statement, goals
and objectives and outreach approach for the broader project. City Council at that time requested
that staff move forward with the broader list of identified community benefits. This foundational
information as well as the guiding BVCP policies are listed below for reference:
Community Benefit code change project
Project Why Statement
A community benefits program has been discussed as one tool to ensure that new growth and development
contribute positively to the community’s quality of life. While higher quality of development is often
attained through the Site Review process, in recent years community sentiment has expressed that more
specific community benefits in exchange for additional height, intensity or density should be required.
Project Purpose Statement
Consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies developed and adopted in 2017 (see
below), update the land use code to create regulations and incentives for obtaining certain community
benefits when considering height modifications requests and/or additional floor area or density requests.
Problem/Issue Statement
Under code standards prior to October 2019 (described below), applicants could request height
modifications to build above the zoning district height limit (typically 35-feet or 38-feet) through the Site
Review process without any specific requirements for Community Benefit. Further, prior to the adoption of
Ordinance 8028 and Ordinance 8172, requests for height modifications could be made anywhere in the city.
Such requests could be granted by the Planning Board if the Site Review criteria were met. Other than the
open space requirements below and criteria related to compatibly and proportional height compared to
other nearby buildings, no specific design, or community benefit requirements beyond the standard
requirements for Site Review were required as part of height modification requests.
Open Space requirements (Section 9-9-11, B.R.C. 1981):
Buildings under 35 feet in height must provide 10% of the land area as useable open space;
Buildings 35 to 45 feet in height must provide 15% of the land area as useable open space, and
Buildings greater than 45 feet in height must provide 20% of the land area as useable open space
Process requirements (Section 9-2-14(g)(3), B.R.C. 1981):
Requests over by-right height of a zoning district must be reviewed under Site Review, must meet
the detailed Site Review criteria to be approved, and are reviewed by the Planning Board.
Site Review criteria (Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(F), B.R.C. 1981) related to compatibility and height:
Attachment A - Background
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 21
(i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture and configuration are compatible with
the existing character of the area or the character established by adopted design guidelines or plans
for the area;
(ii) The height of buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing buildings and the proposed
or projected heights of approved buildings or approved plans or design guidelines for the immediate
area;
There are some in the community that have found that height modification requests should require
additional design requirements that improve the appearance and compatibility of taller buildings and/or
include benefit to the community in exchange for the additional intensity granted. This sentiment is
reflected in the following Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies relative to community
benefit, building height and permanently affordable housing:
Guiding BVCP Policies
1.11 Enhanced Community Benefit: For land use or zoning district changes that result in increases in
the density or intensity of development beyond what is permitted by the underlying zoning or for
added height that increases intensity, the city will develop regulations and incentives so that the new
development provides benefits to the community beyond those otherwise required by the underlying
zoning. Any incentives are intended to address the community economic, social and environmental
objectives of the comprehensive plan. Community objectives include without limitation affordable
housing, affordable commercial space, spaces for the arts, community gathering space, public art, land
for parks, open space, environmental protection or restoration, outdoor spaces and other identified
social needs and services. Community objectives also may be identified through other planning or
policymaking efforts of the city.
2.35 Building Height. The city will review and update site review regulations to provide clear
guidance on height and intensity of land uses and to address relationship of building height to
aesthetics and view protection. The city will consider additional height (up to the City Charter 55-foot
height limit) as an incentive in exchange for community benefits that further other community
objectives such as the provision of permanently affordable housing (as described in Policy 1.11).
7.11 Permanently Affordable Housing for Additional Intensity. The city will develop regulations
and policies to ensure that when additional intensity is provided through changes to zoning, a larger
proportion of the additional development potential for the residential use will be permanently
affordable housing for low, moderate and middle-income households.
Attachment A - Background
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 22
1
Stay Informed
www.bouldercolorado.gov/planning/community-benefit-
project
Contacts:
Karl Guiler, guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov,
303-441-4236
Shannon Moeller, moellers@bouldercolorado.gov,
303-441-3137
COMMUNITY BENEFITS PHASE 2
Review other Land Use Code
Amendment Projects:
www.bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop/
code-amendment-projects
What is the
Community
Benefits Project?
A suite of additional
regulations and
incentives that result
in specific community
benefits with certain
development
projects, like...
Types of Community Benefits:
Affordable Housing (Phase 1 adopted Oct. 2019)
Below Market-Rate Rent Commercial Space
(Phase 2 Empasis)
Arts & Culture
Environmentally Enhanced Design
Social Needs
Three stories
allowed in most
areas of the city.
Some areas or
types of projects
could request an
additional 1-2 stories
in exchange for
providing community
benefits.
Building Height Example:
Attachment B - Handout on the Community Benefits Phase 2 project
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 23
2
Project Background
Why?
A community benefits program has been discussed as one tool to ensure that new growth and
development contribute positively to the community’s quality of life. While higher quality of
development is often attained through the Site Review process, in recent years community sentiment
has expressed that more specific community benefits in exchange for additional height, intensity or
density should be required.
Purpose
Consistent with Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies developed and adopted in 2017
(see page 3), update the land use code to create regulations and incentives for obtaining certain
community benefits when considering height modifications requests and/or additional floor area or
density requests.
Project Scope (What sections of the Land Use Code may change?)
o Code changes to Section 9-2-14, “Site Review”, B.R.C. 1981 that:
Expand the Community Benefit program by adding new land use intensity modification criteria for
community benefits beyond permanently affordable housing.
Revise criteria to be more prescriptive to increase the level of predictability in projects in terms of
form, design and intensity and to better achieve BVCP goals of sustainability and resiliency.
Add design standards that address taller, larger buildings and avoid impacts to identified public
view corridors.
O Consider updates to, or repeal of, the Appendix J map.
What will this project aim to do?
Determine the type and amount of community benefits that would be provided to achieve
increased intensity, building height or zone district changes.
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and environmental objectives of
the comprehensive plan.
Clearly specify the required triggers for community benefit and identify how (or if) the benefits
would be maintained in perpetuity.
Determine additional design standards for projects requesting a height modification.
Completed Q4 2019: Opportunity Zone related
Use Standard changes adopted citywide.
Option Development
and Public Feedback
Community Outreach
Phase 1
WE ARE HERE!
Phase 2: Expand the Community Benefits program to include other community goals and site review criteria.
Completed Q4 2019
Additional affordable housing required
2020 Quarter 22019 2020 Quarter 1 Quarter 3
Attachment B - Handout on the Community Benefits Phase 2 project
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 24
3
Community Benefits Phase 2 Focus
What Community Benefits are being explored?
Below Market Rate Rent Commercial
A voluntary agreement to establish a maximum rent rate of
75%, for example, of the market rate rent for local, independent
and small businesses, and non-profit organizations.
Arts & Culture
Affordable space for arts-related uses like art studios, arts and
cultural retail sales and live-work units.
What has been completed so far?
Community Benefit Phase 1 was completed on Oct. 29,
2019, when City Council adopted an ordinance adding
new Site Review criteria requiring additional permanently
affordable housing requirements for proposals requesting
floor area above a zoning district height limit up to 55-feet
in any fourth or fifth story.
Appendix J, the map that specifies where height
modifications may be requested was kept in effect, but was
updated by council to include the Alpine-Balsam Area Plan
area and the Residential High – 3 (RH-3) zoning district with
a new sunset date of May 31, 2021 (see page 4).
BVCP Guiding Policies
1.11 Enhanced Community
Benefit:
For land use or zoning district
changes that result in increases
in the density or intensity of
development beyond what is
permitted by the underlying zoning
or for added height that increases
intensity, the city will develop
regulations and incentives so that
the new development provides
benefits to the community beyond
those otherwise required by the
underlying zoning. Any incentives
are intended to address the
community economic, social and
environmental objectives of the
comprehensive plan. Community
objectives include without
limitation affordable housing,
affordable commercial space,
spaces for the arts, community
gathering space, public art, land for
parks, open space, environmental
protection or restoration, outdoor
spaces and other identified social
needs and services. Community
objectives also may be identified
through other planning or
policymaking efforts of the city.
Visit the project webpage
for additional policy and
background information:
www.bouldercolorado.gov/
planning/community-benefit-
project
Environmentally Enhanced Design
Require net zero buildings that are designed to consume less
energy than what is produced on site.
Social Needs
Require a minimum square footage of space allotted for social
services uses (e.g., day cares, health clinics, senior services)
Adoption of Phase 2
Community Benefits
Council Feedback Preferred Option
Development and
Public feedback
Council Consideration,
Public Hearings, and
Ordinance drafting
Phase 2: Expand the Community Benefits program to include other community goals and site review criteria.
Quarter 3 Quarter 4
Attachment B - Handout on the Community Benefits Phase 2 project
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 25
4
Appendix J Map
Appendix J, is the map in the land use code that specifies
where height modifications may be requested. It was originally
adopted as an interim measure by City Council in 2015 until
the Community Benefit project concluded. The sunset dates
applied to the map has been extended twice – with the
current sunset date set at May 31, 2021. Staff will be looking at
whether the city should remove the map, amend the map or
keep it as it is as part of this process.
Other Considerations
Site Review Criteria Update
Planning staff is also looking at
updating the detailed Site Review
criteria that apply to larger
development projects in the city
to:
Better achieve BVCP policies,
particularly related to design,
energy use and resiliency
Create a greater level of
predictability
Increase the level of simplicity
and reduce redundancy
Staff is also looking at additional
design requirements applied
to taller buildings for enhanced
compatibility and reducing
impact to important public view
corridors.
Higher quality building design for
taller buildings
Attachment B - Handout on the Community Benefits Phase 2 project
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 26
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 27
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 28
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 29
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 30
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 31
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 32
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 33
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 34
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 35
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 36
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 37
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 38
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 39
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 40
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 41
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 42
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 43
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 44
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 45
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 46
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 47
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 48
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 49
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 50
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 51
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 52
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 53
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire results
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 54
Summary of Community Benefit Phase 2 approaches
Below Market Rate Rent Commercial Space
In 2019, the city added permanently affordable housing as a community benefit option that
would apply to buildings that add a 4th or 5th story over the zoning district height limit (no taller
than the city charter limit of 55 feet). Such projects still have to receive Planning Board approval
at a public hearing of a Site Review Height Modification. This was considered Phase 1 of the
Community Benefit project.
Phase 2 is to analyze additional options for Community Benefit as related to requests for 4th or
5th story buildings over the zoning district height limit. City Council has reviewed several options
and has directed staff to focus on the following three community benefit options:
Below market rate commercial space
Space for arts and cultural uses
Human/social services
This handout will focus on below market rate rent commercial space and approaches to how
this could work.
We look forward to your feedback.
Community Benefit option – Below Market Rate Rent Commercial Space
Where would it be?
It would be a component of a building that is over a zoning district height limit (typically a 4 or 5
story building) or potentially a building built over a floor area maximum of zoning district. Right
now, requests to build over a zoning district height limit are restricted to several areas of the
city (e.g., downtown, the Hill, Boulder Valley Regional Center etc.). City Council may change this
to make the allowance to request a height modification city wide.
How much would there be?
At present, we do not know. It could be an amount that is equal to the amount of bonus floor
area (floor area that is in a 4th or 5th story or above a floor area maximum) or it may be more or
less than this. An economic analysis is being done to advise how much this use would be
equivalent to the benefit provided by the Phase 1 option, permanently affordable housing.
Attachment D - Handout on below market rate rent commercial and associated public comments
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 55
What is being considered for below market rate rent commercial space?
A specified amount of any building proposed to be over the height limit (or over
maximum floor area) would need to be reserved for local small businesses, minority or
women-owned businesses, or non-profit organizations
The space would be deed restricted to a reduced percentage of the market rate rent to
ensure a greater level of affordability (for example, it could be 70% or 75% or some
other percentage of the market rate determined by an economic analysis)
Further, this percentage could be adjusted over time following periodic economic
analysis to ensure that the community benefit uses continue to be feasible and
incentivized for taller buildings
To encourage smaller, locally owned type business, the city is looking at restricting
tenant space sizes and tenant widths (e.g., 3,000 square feet and 30 feet respectively),
with some flexibility if the nature of the use would conflict with these limits
The majority of space used for below market rate rent commercial space may be on the
ground floor facing a street and may include window glazing requirements to make the
uses visible and to contribute to a walkable, pedestrian friendly streetscape
How would this work?
A developer and architect would design a building, proposed over the height limit, to include a
specified amount of floor area reserved for below market rate rent commercial space. The
space would have to meet the specifications for what is considered “below market rate rent
commercial space” and would be designed for certain types of eligible tenants. The potential
regulations pertaining to below market rate rent commercial would be similar to what was
applied to the 30th and Pearl development project, where a restrictive covenant was applied to
the project to meet requirements for restricted rent to encourage more independent, local,
small, a minority or women-owned, or non-profit businesses or organizations.
Similar to the covenant discussed above, the specifications of the use (e.g., size, operating
characteristics) would be put into an agreement that the developer would need to commit to
ensuring that the community benefit continues. City Council will need to specify if the use
should be for the duration of the project or for a set period of time (e.g., 10 years, 20 years
etc.). Staff is looking at a penalty fee that could apply to projects that do not find an equivalent
community benefit to occupy the space if the use ceases to operate and another eligible
community benefit use is not in the space.
Questions for you.
1. Do you agree with this approach to below market rate rent commercial space as a
community benefit option?
2. What suggestions do you have to help incentivize such uses?
3. What other feedback do you have?
Send any comments to Karl Guiler at guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov.
Please also consider visiting the Community Benefit questionnaire on Be Heard Boulder at:
www.beheardboulder.org
Attachment D - Handout on below market rate rent commercial and associated public comments
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 56
Summary of Community Benefit Phase 2 approaches Art & Cultural Uses
In 2019, the city added permanently affordable housing as a community benefit option that
would apply to buildings that add a 4th or 5th story over the zoning district height limit (no taller
than the city charter limit of 55 feet). Such projects still have to receive Planning Board approval
at a public hearing of a Site Review Height Modification. This was considered Phase 1 of the
Community Benefit project.
Phase 2 is to analyze additional options for Community Benefit as related to requests for 4th or
5th story buildings over the zoning district height limit. City Council has reviewed several options
and has directed staff to focus on the following three community benefit options:
Below market rate commercial space
Space for arts and cultural uses
Human/social services
This handout will focus on space for arts and cultural uses and approaches to how this could
work.
We look forward to your feedback.
Community Benefit option – Space for Arts & Cultural Uses
Where would it be?
It would be a component of a building that is over a zoning district height limit (typically a 4 or 5
story building) or potentially a building built over a floor area maximum of zoning district. Right
now, requests to build over a zoning district height limit are restricted to several areas of the
city (e.g., downtown, the Hill, Boulder Valley Regional Center etc.). City Council may change this
to make the allowance to request a height modification city wide.
How much would there be?
At present, we do not know. It could be an amount that is equal to the amount of bonus floor
area (floor area that is in a 4th or 5th story or above a floor area maximum) or it may be more or
less than this. An economic analysis is being done to advise how much this use would be
equivalent to the benefit provided by the Phase 1 option, permanently affordable housing.
Attachment E - Handout on space for arts and cultural uses and associated public comments
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 57
What type of arts uses are being considered?
Visual art studios, maker spaces, or education spaces with accessory sales operated by
the local art community
Performing arts studios, practice spaces, education spaces, or community dance halls,
with accessory sales operated by the local art community
Visual art galleries or co-ops operated by the local art community with accessory sales
Performing arts venues, concert halls, or black box theaters operated by the local art
community with accessory sales
Amphitheaters, sculpture parks, or other outdoor arts venues with management by
nonprofit or for profit businesses based in the local art community with accessory sales
Video, film, and digital arts studios, education spaces, interactive experiences, art
cinemas, and immersive arts venues operated by the local art community with accessory
sales
Art or cultural uses that contribute to the growth and vitality of any locally designated
arts districts
How would this work?
A developer would work with the local arts community and dependent on the amount
necessary to qualify per code, would reserve a specified amount of floor area in a building
proposal over the height limit to include spaces for arts
The space would have to meet the specifications for what is considered “space for arts
and would be de signed with the arts community needs in mind. Staff is
currently considering a step in the process that would require the City of Boulder Arts
Commission to review the proposal and make a recommendation to staff and Planning Board
about whether the use is indeed a benefit to the community as a local art.
The specifications of the use (e.g., size, operating characteristics) would be put into an
agreement that the developer would need to commit to ensuring that the community benefit
continues. City Council will need to specify if the use should be for the duration of the project
or for a set period of time (e.g., 10 years, 20 years etc.). Staff is looking at a penalty fee that
could apply to projects that do not find an equivalent community benefit to occupy the space if
the use ceases to operate and another eligible community benefit use is not in the space.
Questions for you.
1.Do you agree with this approach to space for arts and cultural uses as a community
benefit option?
2.Does the list of art related use capture uses that would be of benefit to the local art
community? Is there anything missing?
3.What other feedback or suggestions do you have?
Send any comments to Karl Guiler at guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov.
Please also consider visiting the Community Benefit questionnaire on Be Heard Boulder at:
www.beheardboulder.org
Attachment E - Handout on space for arts and cultural uses and associated public comments
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 58
Summary of Community Benefit Phase 2 approaches
Human / Social Service Uses
In 2019, the city added permanently affordable housing as a community benefit option that
would apply to buildings that add a 4th or 5th story over the zoning district height limit (no taller
than the city charter limit of 55 feet). Such projects still have to receive Planning Board approval
at a public hearing of a Site Review Height Modification. This was considered Phase 1 of the
Community Benefit project.
Phase 2 is to analyze additional options for Community Benefit as related to requests for 4th or
5th story buildings over the zoning district height limit. City Council has reviewed several options
and has directed staff to focus on the following three community benefit options:
Below market rate commercial space
Space for arts and cultural uses
Human/social services
This handout will focus on human / social service uses and approaches to how this could work.
We look forward to your feedback.
Community Benefit option – Human / Social Service Uses
Where would it be?
It would be a component of a building that is over a zoning district height limit (typically a 4 or 5
story building) or potentially a building built over a floor area maximum of zoning district. Right
now, requests to build over a zoning district height limit are restricted to several areas of the
city (e.g., downtown, the Hill, Boulder Valley Regional Center etc.). City Council may change this
to make the allowance to request a height modification city wide.
How much would there be?
At present, we do not know. It could be an amount that is equal to the amount of bonus floor
area (floor area that is in a 4th or 5th story or above a floor area maximum) or it may be more or
less than this. An economic analysis is being done to advise how much this use would be
equivalent to the benefit provided by the Phase 1 option, permanently affordable housing.
Attachment F - Handout on human and social services and associated public comments
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 59
What is being considered for human / social service uses?
High rents are putting pressure on human and social service uses to consider moving to
locations outside the city of Boulder making provision of these services to the local population
more difficult. This process is evaluating human and social service uses as an option to incentive
retaining such uses within the city limits. The following uses are being considered:
Custodial care facilities
Daycare centers
Day shelters
Emergency shelters
Essential service facilities
Group home facilities
Non-profit health care facilities
Non-profit nursing care facilities that accept Medicare for at least ?? beds
Overnight shelters
Residential care facilities
Transitional housing
Family resource centers
Services for special populations (e.g., developmental disabilities, food pantries)
Any other non-profit or government facility that the applicant demonstrates serves a
special population that the review authority agrees is a community benefit meeting the
intent of this section
How would this work?
A developer and architect would design a building, proposed over the height limit, to include a
specified amount of floor area reserved for human and social service space. The space would
have to meet the specifications for what is considered a “human and social service use” and
would be designed for the needs of the specific use.
The specifications of the use (e.g., size, operating characteristics) would be put into an
agreement that the developer would need to commit to ensuring that the community benefit
continues. City Council will need to specify if the use should be for the duration of the project
or for a set period of time (e.g., 10 years, 20 years etc.). Staff is looking at a penalty fee that
could apply to projects that do not find an equivalent community benefit to occupy the space if
the use ceases to operate and another eligible community benefit use is not in the space.
Questions for you.
1. Do you agree with this approach human or social service uses as a community benefit
option?
2. What suggestions do you have to help incentivize such uses?
3. What other feedback do you have?
Send any comments to Karl Guiler at guilerk@bouldercolorado.gov.
Please also consider visiting the Community Benefit questionnaire on Be Heard Boulder at:
www.beheardboulder.org
Attachment F - Handout on human and social services and associated public comments
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 60
Focus Group Notes
5-22-2020
Attendees: 6 design professionals, one BHP rep, one Chamber rep and one member of the public
Staff: Karl Guiler, Shannon Moeller, Jay Sugnet
Karl Guiler gave an overview of the history of Site Review, issues with the process and implementation
of the criteria (refer to email). Possible changes including reorganizing, simplifying, removing
redundancy, removing irrelevant criteria, and possibly making some criteria more prescriptive.
Introductions of staff and attendees.
Purpose of the Focus Group is for staff to listen to experiences of those that have worked with the Site
Review criteria and get ideas for updating criteria.
Comments:
Could be a good idea to discuss the purpose (flexibility? control?) and the meanings to different
people.
1. What has been your experience working with the Site Review criteria? Purpose?
Broad brush, are criteria met? Does the project have merit? Landscape plan has become very
detailed and should pull back up to broad level.
Has had Planner and applicant roles. Wording is very malleable and mushy, can be
bent/interpreted. Good to have flexibility but can be way too malleable as it exists now.
Fundamental question: discretion or not? If you meet criteria, you get something... Criteria are
so open-ended and criteria can be mutually exclusive. FBC takes away discretion and removes
the unknowns. Work load has become so massive that applicant does not want any changes at
the time of Planning Board. Site Review has gotten very detailed. Should be only 50%
construction level documents. Go back to level of detail like Steel Yards. There is a lot of risk
with Site Review applications.
Agrees that there are too many criteria in Site Review and not all necessary. Inflexibility with
Minor Mods (could be a separate discussion). Once a Site Review is approved it has to be built
exactly as approved.
Agrees that Site Review requires a lot of cost and time and should be more efficient. Refer to
Team Tipton discussion/feedback.
Supports Site Reviews for inclusion of public feedback. Purpose can be to get public input on
larger or more impactful projects, need to weigh competing goals. From an equity standpoint,
make it more deterministic/clearer/more objective, Site Review used less often (unusual
circumstances or situations). People in the know are a lot more familiar with the process have
more privilege and excludes those that are less familiar with the process, cost is impediment to
those with less resources. Prefer to be less commonly used. Flexibility through Minor Mods
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 61
becomes problematic if things change from renderings presented at site review (“promise” vs a
possibility).
Have to pick someone familiar with Site Review / BHP often has to rely on the consultants on
the Site Review process / FBC. 30/Pearl FBC worked well and was faster process than Site
Review. Time is money and the project resulted in attractive buildings. Preference for more
prescriptive standards.
The difficulty of the process results in the “privilege” of the group of people that have managed
to get projects through the process. Not clear that the process results in a better project? Has
not resulted in better designs. Requirements have increased drastically since 1990s. Process or
product hard to agree on due to lack of agreement on important items.
Creativity gets lost in demands in Site Review (will not take risks to do something innovative).
FBC takes away risks because everyone has already agreed to the desired outcome. Creativity is
lost in FBC Reviews, but you know what you’re getting into. FBC may be more expensive based
on the detail, but the outcome is better. Site Review also crushes creativity.
FBC is more expensive, but is still discretionary. Should not be discretionary.
Site Review is frustrating due to the repeated comments after every review. Would be
expensive to develop FBC across entire town.
Karl: Original plan for FBC Reviews was to have it not be discretionary. After seeing how 30/Pearl looks,
staff could recommend that the call-up provision be removed.
Minor Mods / Amendments – need to talk about considering whether criteria should not apply
at the amendment stage (hard to comply at the time of amendment for exiting Site Reviews).
Lack of full comments on first review makes for an unreliable process. Staff trying to tailor
comments to PB/CC wants/needs causes issues.
2. What has worked well? What has not worked well?
I know what to expect (based on experience). Level of detail has increased, # of resubmittals has
increased (not ever getting out of the process).
Like categories of Site Review like landscaping, parking etc. (explain to a client, makes sense).
Building design category has gotten too long (too many criteria). Too many, too repetitive, don’t
fit every project. Don’t keep adding.
5 years the discussion has focused on quantity rather than quality. So much focus on mass, sq.
ft. has removed focus on look and feel of buildings. Depends a lot on personal relationships
between applicant, board, etc. Process needs to be strong enough to not rely on people. Criteria
need to be strong and clear (e.g. how to create a great street).
Karl: Will come back to more specific discussion of terms like “human scale” and “pedestrian friendly,”
etc.
Staff is helpful and knowledge has been a strength. That is built on relationships. Those that are
new and lack relationships don’t have the knowledge and resources (haves vs. have nots, etc.).
Council values small independent businesses but process is easier to navigate for larger out-of-
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 62
state businesses and chains. Reduce costs and scale processes. Tenant finishes, signs, etc get
caught in net.
Speaking as an advocate. Site Review process is more transparent, democratic and accessible for
public input than other processes. Can give input, well noticed, people really listen, relatively
obvious how to make voice heard. Other processes are very opaque and not able to take input.
Pros – allows for flexibility which is needed for projects that don’t fit the mold, can allow for
innovation. Cons – only works for large scale projects, can there be other scales of review that
would allow for projects at other scales? Cons – very expensive for small businesses and non-
profits, not predictable. Concept Review – positive to get a sense of where the project is going.
Cons – hard for new blood to learn and navigate system.
Pros – allows for neighborhood input which otherwise would not exist (may or may not benefit
project but benefits those who want to comment). Allowing for flexibility in situations where it
is called for (setbacks, scale, etc.). Height has become a fixation. Cons – same as above.
Neighborhood comments become overwhelming. Need to vet neighborhood input earlier in the
process (?) so that we can get through it. Call-up consideration (1 member of the public) can be
very burdensome with too much risk.
Bizarrely low threshold for call-ups – agreed.
Above a certain threshold (size) if Site Review – you will ask for as much as possible. Site Review
depends a lot on the area of town and public comments. Inherently challenging.
A lot of process challenges still exist (beyond just the criteria). Process issues could be a sub-
topic of the conversation.
Karl: Q3 – could float the idea of process changes, open to suggestions.
Process changes get talked about a lot but not on work plan. Could possibly go hand-in-hand.
Expectation management – what is approved at Site Review is built no matter what (staff,
applicant, Planning Board). Impossible to meet. Reject surety, create more quality.
Makes sense but also need explanation to public about what is the level of surety? What might
change, what won’t change? Set expectations that something can change, or certain things can
change.
Karl: Some areas without area plans – what can we put in criteria to make people more comfortable
with outcomes.
Feeling that process is fair is important. Different from what is “promised” or expected.
What defines “fair”? Often people want to have you just go away.
Agree and explain that’s not how it works; general form and bulk not going to change,
landscaping, materiality may change... convey to people which elements may change. (Changes
AFTER site review.)
Agree that there needs to be protection against value removal after approval.
Too much design up front... with no guarantee as to outcome.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 63
Karl: Question 3 / 4, then process, Minor Mod/Minor Amendment. Move question 4 before question 3.
Specific suggestions welcome. Another meeting for question 5. In the next 2-3 weeks. Feel free to mark
up and send around criteria with thoughts and comments.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 64
Focus Group Notes
6-12-2020
Attendees: 4 design professionals, one member of the Chamber and one member of the public
Staff: Karl Guiler, Shannon Moeller, Jay Sugnet
Karl Guiler gave an overview of staff’s review of the site review criteria and possible changes:
What ideas do we have to make changes?
Staff has gone through the criteria and identified the following types of changes that could be
pursued:
Emphasize criteria that result in projects that address important city policies on design,
environmental protection, and resiliency
Reorganize the criteria into a more top-down approach starting with policies compliance
down to more detailed aspects like building design. The intent being that they would
logically take the applicant and the reviewer through the site review in a clear way and
not leave any major, important, site-design-altering criteria to the very end where the
entire site needs to be redesigned.
Simplify the criteria by reducing the length through eliminating redundant criteria (e.g.,
environmental preservation, open space, parking design, landscaping) and combining
criteria that already have similar themes/goals
Remove unnecessarily complicated criteria that don’t accomplish design excellence or
overlap with other code sections or are rarely implemented (e.g., energy efficiency, BR-1
floor area bonus standards)
Add more specificity to the criteria to make them less subjective, more prescriptive and
measurable, where appropriate, and more predictable (e.g., noise mitigation, energy
standards, building materials)
1. Do you generally agree with the staff ideas for changes to the Site Review criteria?
BR-1 is not used b/c it is so hard to get the density and height that is needed.1-4 are right on.
There are so many criteria that you have to pick and choose. It is scattershot now. Figure out
what are the main points to focus on (maybe not resiliency). Reorganizing needs to happen.
Sustainability, street design, etc. So much easier to understand. Simplifying is important,
removing unnecessary parts (pole height, etc.). Adding more criteria makes him nervous.
Emphasize that community benefit is already within the criteria. Zoning standards should
already implement the BVCP without creating more criteria. Having to go back to BVCP for every
project is very difficult-pull into criteria instead.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 65
list is good. Level of detail required by staff is too much at Site Review (construction document
level).
list is good. See key drivers of BVCP in chat. Inclusive and
diverse community, innovation, public spaces, economy.
Criteria can be used in lots of different ways to serve
different perspectives for and against a project – hone in
on top choices. (Ends up arguing against affordable
housing by talking about nature and views, etc.) People
aren’t arguing about site design anymore.
“On balance, does this reflect the goals of BVCP…” Very
subjective, impossible goal, narrow down to selected ones. Pick
10 or 11 top BVCP considerations to focus on.
Some criteria have too many words ((f)(v) Projects are designed to human scale…) Remove extra
words. Specific additional criteria for parking, etc. are easier to use and are less subjective, more
specific. Clarify words like “minimize” – becomes subjective. Why do we have a criteria for
lighting if we also have a specific lighting code? Pick battles that are concerns for the community
and result in a better project.
Site Review is not being used in keeping with the “purpose” statement (e.g. you have to do it if
you are over a certain size); need to align how it is being used with a selected purpose. Housing
affordability is #1 priority in the city. Conflict between having to meet criteria and BVCP policies.
Agree with simplifying process and level of detail required; equity issue with the amount of
resources available for people to get through the process. Process so complex, only well-funded,
expert developers or applicants can do the process. Not equitable.
When reorganizing criteria, go back to “purpose” of site review.
Agree with others. Conceptually, yes agree with staff proposal. But want to see draft of criteria
and check back and get more input at every step of the way. Agree to revising criteria to become
more prescriptive.
Discussion regarding costs of site review (paper costs), etc. stifling creativity, hopes, dreams, and
business ideas and/or requiring help from the development community. Hundreds of thousands
of dollars. $250,000 minimum for Site Review, $300,000-$400,000 for Technical Documents.
Consider looking at who are site review applicants, and how Site Review Amendments are being
addressed (they are for more specific changes or only for specific area of the site).
Criteria are not used to improve the project, just to argue for or against the project. Important
to focus on “purpose” and list of things. The purpose “assumes” that there is a project and how
it will be designed in an improved way—the criteria is not a “go” “no-go” conversation. Look at
9-2-14(a) make sure criteria support that “purpose.”
2. Do you agree or disagree that the criteria should be made more prescriptive (black and white
standards) rather than subjective (subject to degrees compliance)?
FBC is extremely prescriptive and a relatively straightforward and eliminated bulk and scale
conversation; but can stifle creativity and devil’s in the details. If things are overly prescriptive,
you don’t have “flexibility and innovation.”
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 66
Agree with previous commenter. How do we determine the FBC across the city? Difficult
process. Predictability is a good thing.
It was discussed that a better question might be “what criteria could be made more
prescriptive”?
Parking could be made more prescriptive, shading/shadowing is already in the code (removing
things that are already in the code is a good start), addressing confusing language, criterion
related to housing (mix, etc.).
The Code is prescriptive, but Site Review criteria need to be subjective yet straightforward. Can
be clear, specific, and subjective. There are so many types of projects that go through site
review where subjective criteria are needed.
Clear (possibly quantitative) about what we want to achieve, not about how we want to achieve
it. May not be possible for all criteria. Projects are not particularly creative due to needing to get
through the public process (can’t take chance someone will object to project). Worst possible
world is subjectivity AND no creativity. Don’t need to go to extent of FBC. Discussed example of
creativity in Portland and simpler review process.
Could add a criteria to specifically support creativity, innovation.
“Is that approvable?” becomes a major question for worried clients. Conversation devolves into
“how much” and “where” instead of about merits of design. Criteria and board are focused on
other issues, other than design.
If we could agree on “what” outcome we want to achieve, and leave the “how” up to the
applicant. It will be difficult to agree on “what” the desired outcome is.
Discussed example of a community benefit that was suggested by an applicant to contribute to a
city need but was not able to be considered as a community benefit.
Difficulty in quantifying “innovation” and getting to that point when people are fixated on other
issues.
We rely heavily on “compatibility” and “consistency” with surroundings, “its good if you look like
everyone around you.” Need more direction on big picture issues. “Be the same. “Status quo.”
If the purpose is to be changed, that could be a very difficult process. There is an equity issue
with making a neighborhood “compatible” with itself – better to consider equity, sustainability,
etc.
“Equity” would need to be defined, e.g. being harmed by a new development vs. not being able
to attain housing.
One of the major policies is a welcoming community and need to look at criteria through that
lens – should be one of higher priorities. Avoid pitting existing residents against housing for next
generation. Certain “go” “no-go” items and avoid squabbling about other issues.
Point system could be intriguing to put prescriptive nature on something, and criteria could still
be subjective.
Red/yellow/green, threshold criteria (top 5 goals). Allow projects to rise up that serve
community.
Points system would be a big change. Sick of hearing prejudiced comments from public during
reviews (rent vs. own, “those people,” etc.). Anti-discriminatory criteria could be added.
Staff review and interpretation could be another discussion.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 67
For next meeting:
Focus of the next meeting will be to go through individual criteria and any that can be made more
prescriptive.
Consider looking at other communities for examples of highlighting community values.
3. What changes would you suggest to:
1) better meet city goals? (e.g., affordable housing, environmental conservation, resiliency etc.),
2) make the criteria more simple and easy to understand?, and
3) make the outcome of projects more predictable?
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 68
Focus Group Notes
7-9-2020
Attendees: Two design professionals, one BHP rep and one member of the public
Staff: Karl Guiler, Shannon Moeller
(h) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds
that:
(1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
Anyone can pick and choose policies, so this does not create predictability. However, it can draw
attention to important policies that need to be implemented. This section can be “weaponized”
to use one or two policies to oppose a project.
Other criteria are more specific, BVCP section is not, can lead to contentious environment.
Fundamental problem is that the BVCP does not prioritize any one policy; this can’t be solved
through this process. Comprehensive Plan policies should already be applied through zoning and
area plans, and should have been implemented through those and should (in theory) not need
to be re-litigated through Site Review.
It was discussed that the BVCP policies are often implemented through area plans and design guidelines
which projects need to meet.
It was discussed that this section could be simplified to refer to the BVCP land use map, area plans, and
design guidelines, rather than generically references BVCP policies. Consistency with zoning is discussed.
It was discussed that the criterion related to density is vague and does not seem equitable, and doesn’t
seem to be often used.
It was discussed that the criterion related to economic feasibility never seems to be used and doesn’t
make a difference on a project.
(2) Site Design:
(A) Open Space:
Some seem more applicable to green-field, suburban style development, rather than infill which
is what Boulder experiences today.
It was discussed that it is good to have private open spaces, but should it be required for all unit types?
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 69
Agreed that it would be OK if some of the open space standards are subjective and are intended
to have applicant demonstrate that they’ve thought about how to create a good space. #2
(specific) move to bottom; #4 (subjective, general intent) should be moved up.
Agree that there could be a mix of subjective and prescriptive standards.
Subjectivity leads to multiple rounds of review which is a loss of time and money, different
answers at different times and/or from Planning Board increases risk and unpredictability.
Having a limit to the subjectivity would be helpful.
Process (having a conversation instead of ping-ponging through the reviews) could be improved
to reduce number of reviews.
Because site review applies to some many types and sizes of projects, keep in mind that we
want to have criteria apply to all types of projects.
Consider removing criterion related to “recreational” open space and place in something like the
zoning code.
Criteria related to open space for mixed-use developments seems redundant.
Care should be taken to maintain access to all users (residential and non-residential), if the
criteria is kept. Consider simplifying or removing.
This could negatively impact projects that cannot provide access to all users; e.g. affordable
housing mixed with non-residential uses may not all be able to share the same open space.
(c) Landscaping
It was discussed that this section does not seem to be too problematic, however there were not any
landscape architects present in the discussion.
The language related to “in excess” is vague. The interpretation of this criterion was discussed. What is
“in excess”? When is this met?
Item (ii) seems to be redundant and appears elsewhere in the standards.
(d) Circulation
(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized—this is referring to 1970s design principles
and we’ve moved on from that. Discussed language regarding “optimizing safety” would allow
for designs like woonerfs, etc.
Need to look at in a comprehensive way with the transportation engineers involved.
Agree that some criteria are outdated and seem too basic.
Suggest referencing Transportation Master Plan, Vision Zero Goals, and others.
Need to look at holistically rather than whether or not it just meets the Design and Construction
Standards.
(vi) “On site-facilities for linkages…” criterion is vague, it was discussed what it means? Could
be anything from a bike path, bus stop, on-site sidewalk, etc. Reword to make it clearer.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 70
(e) Parking
(iii) … “reduce visual impact on the project”… what does that mean?
So many of these criteria seem redundant.
Criteria is vague, maybe refer to how it is reviewed, e.g. screening and photometric standards.
(i) Criterion separating people and cars prevents sharing of uses (e.g. basketball hoop on parking
area). Prevention of using space for both cars and open spaces can be short-sided and might be
outdated.
(i) and (ii) are in conflict with each other. Combine and see how they can work together.
Consider looking at projects that went through Site Review and how any proposed criteria
would affect those projects. Example of Walnut Hollow.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 71
Focus Group Notes
8-4-2020
Attendees: 4 design professionals, one BHP rep, one Chamber rep and one member of the public
Staff: Karl Guiler, Jay Sugnet
The discussion continued from the July 9th meeting focused on the Site Review criteria within the scope
of the following question:
What changes would you suggest to:
1) better meet city goals? (e.g., affordable housing, environmental conservation, resiliency etc.),
2) make the criteria more simple and easy to understand?, and
3) make the outcome of projects more predictable?
In the interest of saving space in this summary, subsections of the Site Review criteria below are
excluded, but may be referenced in comments.
Section 9-2-14:
(h) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds
that:
(F) Building Design, Livability and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area:
Zoning should specify height allowances, not the criteria
Consider specific bulk restrictions for projects at zone boundaries (mandatory step downs) instead
of leaving it to subjectivity in the criteria; however, it is a dangerous game to make the criteira
fore prescriptive. Focus should be on whether the building works at the street level or not
This is why we have a Planning Board
Respectfully disagrees. Advocate of the prescriptive standards of the FBC. PB has no architects.
Likes the FBC as some of the requirements are what should architects should do anyway to crate
good projects. Also, likes that the FBC allows staff to modify certain requirements without board
approval.
Fair point, we have to be clear as you cannot always count on the sophistication of review bodies.
Likes the predictability in projects as long as the intent is clear and the standards bring out that
intent.
Intrigued by the FBC
Still nervous about FBC type standards. Basic guidelines could be helpful
The board should have a certain composition (e.g., architect, attorney, citizen at large). Worried
about how politics impacts good design.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 72
Commonsense FBC standards could apply and should focus on the public realm, such as horizontal
element requirement between first and second floor, base details on the first floor. Agrees that
stucco should not be pervasively used and material changes should occur in interior corners.
Agrees that the Planning Board is more focused on How Much? Over How Good? Not against
incorporating some FBC type standards as criteria.
FBC is not cheap, but it is certainly better – buildings are pretty – supports FBC type standards
Subsection (F)(vii) is confusing
Agrees. (vii) should be in the zoning and removed from the criteria
Housing criteria should be like RMX-2 standards on housing diversity, not vague standard
(F)(viii) on noise between units should be struck as it is already addressed by the Building code
(F)(x) should be removed as well as it is addressed by the lighting code; (xi) is redundant and
could be removed and (xii) is already in the energy code and could be struck. Consider adding
“minimizes transportation impacts on the environment”.
Housing, whether market rate or not, should be added as a community benefit
As should Solar, Care Share, etc. Instead of (F)(xiii), use FBC like standard although there may have
to be some discretion for the different character found around the city. (Xiv) could be removed
because it is irrelevant.
There is nothing wrong with hardie plank.
Not entirely…hardie plank has to be done right such as appropriately address edges and corners
(F)(xv) seems like it’s aimed at Hogan Pancost…remove.
There is no problem with (F)(xvi), but it may need to be re-written to be simpler. Shouldn’t it say
between Area I and II and not Area II and III?
(G) Solar Siting and Construction: For the purpose of ensuring the maximum potential for
utilization of solar energy in the City, all applicants for residential site reviews shall place
streets, lots, open spaces and buildings so as to maximize the potential for the use ofsolar
energy in accordance with the following solar siting criteria:
There is a fundamental tension between solar and planning principals. Consider removing this
section entirely.
The criteria are contradictory and vague.
(H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above the Permitted Height: No site review application for
a pole above the permitted height will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of
the following:
No comments
(I) Land Use Intensity Modifications:
Why have an extra section that just repeats requirements elsewhere in the code?
These standards should be in the Intensity section and not in the criteria. Plus, the BR-1 lot area
per dwelling unit requirement makes all these standards infeasible anyway.
Agrees that these standards are either redundant or below elsewhere in the code.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 73
Much of these criteria where thrown into the code after subsection (F) and were not tested. They
are not like the other criteria.
(L) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The off-street parking requirements of
Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified as follows:
Subsection (a) is problematic because it you provide parking it will inherently increase the need
for vehicles.
Finds the parking reduction criteria to be the most useful and clear of the criteria. These have
largely worked well.
The section is still not clear about what is “adequate” parking.
Change “probable” to “planned”?
(M) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section 9-9-6,
"Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if the following
conditions are met:
Why does (ii) require the same zoning districts? It should allow sharing across zoning districts.
Agrees. Remove this zoning district limitation.
These criteria don’t seem like Site Review criteria and should be taken out.
Requiring singular ownership is too limiting. Wouldn’t this restrict property sales in the future?
Agrees. Should be allowance for shared parking agreements.
Maybe remove this section, but add new criteria that encourages “innovations in parking” such
as managed parking, agreements etc.
Attachment G - Summary notes from the Site Review Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 74
Focus Group Notes
8-5-2020
Attendees are neighborhood representatives from different parks of the city, around downtown,
Gunbarrel, Martin Acres, Iris Hollow, University Hill etc.
Staff: Karl Guiler, Jay Sugnet
Staff provided an update and overview of the Community Benefit project including the benefits being
analyzed and the work being done to update the Site Review criteria.
The group was asked similar questions to those posted in the Be Heard Boulder questionnaire:
1. Do you agree that community benefit in the form of affordable commercial space (locally
owned businesses or non-profits), space for arts and cultural uses or social service uses (e.g.,
child care, senior care) is appropriate to permit buildings over a zoning district height limit
(typically over 35-feet, but no taller than 55-feet)?
Not in support of taller buildings
Depends on where
Agrees – we should prioritize redevelopment and reuse of existing buildings. The city should
be the one providing benefits to the city.
Likes the mixed-use component. Opportunities for mixed-use should be integrated with the
15-minute neighborhood discussion – we need to be careful that this project isn’t just a
developer benefit.
Agrees with commenter that we should be reuse existing spaces – most people think we are
overbuilding and that development is being forced on people.
Doesn’t feel super strongly – but supports new regulations for CB of buildings exceeding
zoning limits.
Not a fan of taller buildings – Boulder keeps growing and the level of services is going down
– Boulder is becoming too crowded at rec centers, dog parks – the city should charge more
for growth to pay for maintaining services – we have lower levels of service than
surrounding communities now. Supports affordable housing, but the addition of housing will
make things worse – Strongly supports ways to get more affordable commercial or retail –
prices in Boulder have risen dramatically and this drives affordable businesses away –
people are going to surrounding communities for cheaper food and to get away from
congestion.
The community benefit list looks good and could justify height modifications.
2. With some exceptions, height modifications are only permitted in limited areas of the city
(e.g., downtown, Boulder Junction etc.). This limitation on where height modifications could
be requested was only meant as an interim measure until community benefit requirements
were added to the land use code. Do you agree that the restrictions on where height
Attachment H - Summary notes from Neighborhood Representative Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 75
modifications are permitted should be lifted (i.e., allowed city wide) once more stringent
community benefit requirements are put in place?
Some areas shouldn’t be on the map due to impact to views.
Would like to not see taller buildings, but recognizes things may change. Perhaps some
areas could not have tall buildings but other areas of the city where there are not view
impacts could have taller buildings in the future.
Doesn’t support in lieu fee option – benefits should be on site. If we allow in lieu fees for the
new benefits, where is the money going to go?
For specific locations, it may be appropriate like areas with subcommunity or area plans –
but allowing it citywide doesn’t make sense.
Add the Opportunity Zone to the areas where height modifications could occur – Diagonal
Plaza, East Boulder, 55th and other areas that have low impact to existing residential uses.
Also consider large, underutilized parking areas and faith-based community properties.
Some light industrial or commercial areas may be appropriate. The height regulations may
have made sense at the time, but do not necessarily make sense now.
Why doesn’t Community Benefit apply to the first 3 floors? Height modifications should not
be required to make a good city. Not crazy about taller buildings downtown, but there are
lots of precedents there, so keeping it downtown may be ok. No more viewsheds should be
diminished. The current map should be maintained and not expanded. Most people moved
to Boulder to get away from congestion and not to see additional density.
If adopted as interim, it seems like a good idea to modify the map to add areas that are
appropriate.
3. All buildings over the height limit are subject to consistency with the Site Review criteria and
require Planning Board approval. The criteria require higher quality site and building design
than “by-right” projects. What additional requirements do you think should apply to buildings
over 35-feet, but no taller than 55-feet?
Let’s change how we build things, supportive of building width restrictions
There should be more requirements on public safety, transportation improvements, water
retention, creative sharing of uses (times), bundled parking, mixed-use and walkability.
Net zero should be part of the community benefit list – indifferent on building materials,
defers to the experts on that
We should look at other cities – we are too reliant on trends – just learn from what has
worked in other cities and apply here. Buildings in Boulder are too blocky.
Yes, to additional requirements.
4. Larger projects, including those seeking height modifications, require consistency with the
detailed Site Review criteria of Section 9-2-14(h), B.R.C. 1981. The criteria have been criticized
by neighbors and developers alike for being too subjective and resulting in projects that are
not necessarily predictable or more consistent with city policies. Do you think the criteria
should be updated to be less subjective, more predictable (e.g., more black and white as to
whether a requirement is met or not)?
Attachment H - Summary notes from Neighborhood Representative Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 76
The answer is not mutually exclusive – there should be a more nuanced review – some black
and white where it makes sense and if you are outside of the intent, perhaps more
discretionary.
Supports more black and white standards – it would take less time and would be more clear
path.
Agrees with first commenter – you have to be adaptable – some could be concrete and
others more context sensitive.
Defers to architects – Greenspace is enormously important – Diagonal Plaza will need good
open space – Open space is necessary for quality of life.
Yes, they should be more prescriptive – Today they feel arbitrary. Board makes rulings based
on their gut, instinct and not clear criteria – They should be more concrete. Define exactly
what affordable commercial is and what the lease rate is. Despite this, does not support
removing public hearing requirements from Site Reviews.
Architects should be able to do what they like from a design standpoint so not every thing
looks the same, but good to have guidelines. Good with having a more standardized review
with some prescriptive standards.
5. Boulder’s Comprehensive Plan supports updating regulations to address the relationship
between buildings built over zoning district height limits and view protection. Presently there
are Site Review criteria related to building height and view protection, but they are not
specific or explicit. Any buildings over the zoning district height limit requires Planning Board
review and approval of a Site Review height modification and this process will not change.
However, updates to the Site Review criteria may result in regulations/criteria more specific
related to view protection. What does view protection mean to you?
We should protect the whole city from view impacts
City needs to be clear about expectations – Require solar off-sets for impact to solar access
– emphasis on views of the Flatirons (south and west)
You have to be flexible – protect some views
Views to the north front range are also important -rents are charged dramatically different
dependent on views – most important views should be from residential properties –
financial loss can occur if someone’s view is impacted -Restaurants with views should also
be protected – they are a big draw – access to light is also important in new development.
Why doesn’t 29th Street have more roof top decks? The views are great from there. Make
use of building rooftops and allow public accessibility.
Very cautious about viewsheds – there will always be someone to the east who will lose
their view.
Impact on views depends on what the property is being used for. How good is the benefit?
If it is good community benefit, impact to views may be a good trade off. Some view
protection makes sense, but generally would rather not see new view restrictions.
Attachment H - Summary notes from Neighborhood Representative Focus Group
(1) Update on Phase 2 Community Benefit Project Page 77
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Mary Ann Weideman, Interim Director, Planning/Assistant City Manager
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager, Planning
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner/ Code Amendment Specialist
Andrew Collins, Planner II / Code Amendment Specialist
DATE: August 25, 2020
SUBJECT: Use Table & Standards Phase 2 Study Session
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to update City Council and to receive feedback on the
progress of Phase 2 of the Use Standards and Table project. Phase 2 of the Use Standards
and Table project is currently in the community engagement phase.
The project seeks to bring the Use Standards and Table into greater alignment with the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) policies and the city’s priorities, especially
those related to encouraging 15-minute neighborhoods and a diversity of walkable
neighborhood centers. Phase 2 commenced in November 2019, following the adoption of
Phase 1 Use Table and Standards ordinances that were an outcome of the Opportunity
Zone program (please see the Background section of this memo for a description of Phase
One of this project).
At the May 28, 2019 City Council study session, council confirmed that a key priority for
the project moving forward was to consider fostering 15-minute neighborhoods in-line
with the BVCP policies. A video link of the study session is available online here. The
project subcommittee, comprised of three Planning Board members, have held 14
subcommittee meetings during Phase 2 providing direction on the Phase 2 overarching
goals, conducting deep-dive discussions considering updates to use categories, and
informing the community engagement plan and online questionnaire for the project. A
summary of the subcommittee project goals, areas of consideration and deep-dive
discussions is found within Attachment A, and the subcommittee meeting notes are
found in Attachment B. A summary of public feedback received thus far from the Be
Heard Boulder project questionnaire is found in Attachment C.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 1
QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
Do you agree with, disagree with, and/or have other feedback on updating the Use Table
and Standards of the Land Use Code to accomplish the following considerations?
1. Allow a greater diversity of uses in the Neighborhoods Center areas as identified
in the BVCP to better serve community needs? These areas are typically zoned
Business - Commercial (BC) and comprised of older, suburban shopping centers.
a. If so, what uses and elements are important to have in a neighborhood
center areas to serve residents daily needs?
2. Allow limited circumstances of walkable and compatible mix of uses (such as
small-scale cafes or corner stores) to foster 15-minute neighborhoods in typically
homogenous neighborhoods, in appropriate locations?
a. If so, should additional use standard criteria and/or zoning restrictions
apply to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses?
3. To what degree should additional uses (such as residential, retail, or restaurants)
be allowed in light industrial areas, in order to foster mixed-use, walkable
neighborhoods, while protecting and minimizing disruption to existing industrial
uses?
a. If so, should additional use standard criteria and/or zoning restrictions
apply to protect and minimize disruption to existing industrial uses?
4. Allow greater flexibility for creative uses such as live/work units, artist studios,
home occupations, and galleries, and small-scale performance venues citywide?
a. Are there other uses that should have greater flexibility citywide?
5. Streamline the Use Table to simplify similar use categories?
a. Consolidate the existing six office use categories from six down to a
smaller number of office use categories?
b. Consolidate and simplify the existing restaurant use categories?
6. What other comments and ideas do you have for updating and improving the Use
Table and Standards?
7. As some of these changes may impact a variety of residential, commercial and
industrial neighborhoods, what type of additional community engagement is
suggested to receive feedback on the new ideas for mixed-use discussed above?
BACKGROUND
In its 2018 Annual Letter to City Council, the Planning Board identified ‘Use Tables and
associated code revisions’ as a priority item for Land Use Code updates. The Planning
Board appointed a subcommittee comprised of three Planning Board members, who
guide the project and make recommendations on potential changes to the Use Table and
associated standards of the Land Use Code. Council also included the project in their
work plan for 2018 / 2019, and has carried it forward into 2020.
Chapter 9-6, “Use Standards” of the Land Use Code describes what uses are allowed in
the city’s zoning districts. The Schedule of Permitted Uses (Section 9-6-1) includes the
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 2
Use Table which lists the uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted, prohibited, or
which may be permitted through Use Review pursuant to applicable regulations of the
Land Use Code, across the city’s zoning districts. The remainder of Chapter 9-6, “Use
Standards” (Sections 9-6-2 through 9-6-9) contains the specific use standards which
apply to various uses, whether conditionally or as otherwise required, as noted in the Use
Table and specific use standards sections. The scope of the project focuses on the entirety
of Chapter 9-6 as described above, as well as ancillary sections, such as Chapter 9-16,
“Definitions”, as may be necessary.
The approved project Why and Purpose statements as well as the broad goals of the
project are found below.
Project Why Statement
The Land Use Code’s Chapter 9-6, “Use Standards” may be out of alignment with the
intent of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) goals, policies and land
use designations, and may not be achieving desired development and community
outcomes.
Project Purpose Statement
Bring Chapter 9-6, “Use Standards” of the Land Use Code, into greater alignment
with the BVCP policies and the city’s priorities, to better enable desired development
outcomes throughout the city and to more effectively support the goals and outcomes
of the BVCP and as expressed in the scope statement.
Initial Project Goals
Align the Use Table and permitted uses with the BVCP goals, policies and land
use designations.
Simplify the Use Table and streamline the regulations where possible, making the
Use Standards & Table more understandable and legible.
-
Identify any community-desired land use gaps in the Use Standards & Table, and
better enable the desired land uses in the identified neighborhoods as well as in
commercial and industrial districts.
The project’s scope does not include form, bulk, or intensity regulations (e.g.
setbacks, building height, or floor area) found within other sections of the Land Use
Code.
Project Objectives approved by the subcommittee in 2018 and reconfirmed in Dec.
2019.
Update the Use Standards and Use Table to meet community needs and desired
land uses
Identify opportunities for mixed use that can help provide services to residents
and needed housing/services/uses to non-residential and industrial areas
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 3
Consider changes to the Use Review criteria that would better serve city goals
(e.g., walkability, site design)
Consider changes to the Use Standards & Table that would incentivize a diversity
of housing types.
Consider more flexibility for non-impactful retail uses for home occupations and
live/work, such as selling one’s art
Consider Mobile Home Parks and their evolution to affordable fixed-foundation
buildings, and how it may intersect with the Use Standards & Table.
Allow more retail/active uses in the Public (P) zones.
Allow second floor residential in light-industrial zones.
Increase the diversity of uses found in neighborhood centers, both existing and
new.
Identify community desired land uses.
Consider how the Use Table project is beneficial, complements and intersects
with other planning efforts, such as Community Benefits/East Boulder
Subcommunity Plan implementation.
Completion of Use Table and Standards Phase 1
more consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) for zoning
Census Tract 122.03).
The focus of the Phase 1 changes followed BVCP goals of reducing non-residential
capacity through restricting office, incentivizing residential in appropriate locations
(preferably permanently affordable housing) and protecting and creating more
opportunities for retail. While the changes reference the O.Z., the changes applied to the
respective zoning districts The Oct. 29, 2019 memo and ordinances can be
d an
ing demolition of attached dwelling units in Federal Census
Tract 122.03 for the period the tract is a qualifi Opportunity Zone
program webpage for additional information.
Progress in 2020
Focus of Phase 2
Following completions of Phase 1, staff continued work with the Planning Board
subcommittee based on the foundational scope of the project discussed above and further
explored changes that would better align the Use Table of the land use code with the
BVCP.
The BVCP includes policies to create more mixed-use neighborhoods in appropriate
locations and foster more walkable neighborhoods where people live, work and play.
The Use Table and Standards project aims to align the use standards of the city’s Land
Use Code with the BVCP and explore updated land uses in the code. The project also
seeks to streamline regulations and create more predictability and certainty in the code.
At the May 28, 2019 City Council study session, council confirmed that a key priority for
the project moving forward was to consider fostering 15-minute neighborhoods in-line
with the BVCP policies.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 4
The most relevant BVCP Policies guiding this phase of the project are listed below:
KEY BVCP POLICIES
2.14 Mix of Complementary Land Uses
The city and county will strongly encourage, consistent with other land use policies, a variety of
land uses in new developments. In existing neighborhoods, a mix of land use types, housing sizes
and lot sizes may be possible if properly mitigated and respectful of neighborhood character.
Wherever land uses are mixed, careful design will be required to ensure compatibility,
accessibility and appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity and scale.
2.19 Neighborhood Centers
Neighborhood centers often contain the economic, social and cultural opportunities that allow
neighborhoods to thrive and for people to come together. The city will encourage
neighborhood centers to provide pedestrian-friendly and welcoming environments with a mix
of land uses. The city acknowledges and respects the diversity of character and needs of its
neighborhood centers and will pursue area planning efforts to support evolution of these
centers to become mixed-use places and strive to accomplish the guiding principles noted
below.
Note: See the BVCP page 43 for the additional guiding principles.
2.24 Commitment to a Walkable & Accessible City
The city will promote the development of a walkable and accessible city by designing
neighborhoods and mixed-use business areas to provide easy and safe access by foot, bike and
transit to places such as neighborhood centers, community facilities, transit stops or centers and
shared public spaces and amenities (i.e., 15-minute neighborhoods). The city will consider
additional neighborhood centers or small mixed-use retail areas where appropriate and
supported by the neighbors they would serve. In some cases, the definition of mixed use and
scale and character will be achieved through area planning.
Planning Board Subcommittee, Community Engagement & Timeline
Staff has conducted 14 meetings with the Planning Board subcommittee since the
inception of Phase 2, all of which were publicly noticed, including email notification to
individuals interested in the project. Each meeting included a public comment period
where comments are received and help inform the discussion of the subcommittee and
add further ideas and thoughts for consideration. A summary of the meetings including
the public comments is included in Attachment B. The meetings shifted to online virtual
meetings (open and noticed to the public) midstream due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In addition, an online public information session was held on July 27th, consisting of a
presentation by staff on the code amendment projects (including the Use Table and
Standards Phase 2), with a question and answer session for the public to receive more
information, and directing the community to provide feedback via an online
questionnaire. In light of the COVID-19 outbreak, staff has developed outreach materials
and the online questionnaire for the public’s feedback, shifting to the city’s online
platform BeHeardBoulder.org. Both the engagement plan and online questionnaire were
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 5
informed by the subcommittee’s feedback (as well as the public who have attended the
subcommittee meetings). The questionnaire opened-up for public responses on July 20th
and is currently scheduled to be open through the end of August, and is focused around
key questions and topics identified by the subcommittee. The questionnaire was
organized around the Phase 2 overarching goals:
I. Supporting mixed-use neighborhood centers (or sting-of-pearls),
II. Encouraging 15-minute neighborhoods, and
III. Incorporating structural changes to streamline the Use Table.
Please see the Analysis section of this memo and Attachment C for a report-out on the
initial Use Table & Standards Phase 2 online questionnaire as of August 11, 2020.
The feedback received from the questionnaire will inform the option development, along
with feedback from City Council and Planning Board. A Matters Item discussion with
Planning Board is also scheduled for August 20, 2020. A second round of public
feedback will be available on options as we move toward specific recommended changes
to the Use Table & Standards in Fall 2020. Subsequently draft recommendations will
then be created for public comment, Planning Board recommendations, and City Council
consideration. A virtual open-house, or should circumstances improve (and with the
public’s and staff’s safety in-mind) an in-person open house, would also conducted on the
draft ordinance and recommendations.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 6
ANALYSIS
Overarching Phase 2 Project Goals
The progress with the Planning Board subcommittee resulted in the following refined
overarching goals for Phase 2 as approved the subcommittee in December 2019:
See Attachment A for more detail.
Support a “String of Pearls” consisting of
mixed-use nodes along corridors, and
support walkable neighborhood centers of
varying scales.
Encourage 15-minute neighborhoods
through use table changes in all types of
districts (residential, commercial,
industrial), acknowledging transportation
barriers may exist.
Incorporate administrative and structural
updates to the Use Table and Standards
for clarity, legibility, and usability.
The three goals noted above have been the
common themes that have framed the subcommittee discussion and deep-dives into the
Use Table and Standards during Phase 2 of the project. A summary of the
subcommittee’s ideas and discussion for further consideration and potential areas of
change is include as Attachment A. During the course of the process other topics outside
the scope of the project were also discussed, and are included in the summary as “Parking
Lot” items, potential future work plan items for City Council and Planning Board to
consider. The subcommittee reached broad consensus on many ideas and topics including
the goals above, and disagreed on others, as noted in the Attachment A summary. In all
cases the subcommittee and staff recognize that the initial ideas and considerations
require the public to weigh-in and provide additional feedback. Topics of interests
centered around these three overarching themes.
I. Support a String of Pearls and Neighborhood Centers
A primary goal of the project is to support a “string of pearls” consisting of mixed-
use nodes along corridors, and support walkable neighborhood centers of varying
scales. As part of the project’s considerations, the subcommittee has identified
neighborhood centers within the city that could better function as mixed-use
centers for their respective surrounding neighborhoods, providing daily services
and needs, aligning with the policies of the BVCP. These areas typically include
some Business zoned areas, for example the Table Mesa Shopping Center or in
Gunbarrel along Lookout and Spine roads.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 7
City Structures Map with neighborhood centers, page 36 of the BVCP.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 8
Existing Neighborhood Center examples:
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 9
Example Imagery of Uses:
II. Encourage 15-Minute Neighborhoods
A primary goal of the project is to encourage 15-minute neighborhoods through use
standards and table changes in all types of districts. The project is considering
potential use standard changes in residential, commercial or industrial
neighborhoods to enable people greater access to neighborhood serving uses (basic,
day-to-day needs) within a 15-minute walk of people’s homes or workplaces. This
concept is called a 15-minute neighborhood, and seeks to encourage a diversity of
uses across zones and supported by walkable access.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 10
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 11
15-Minute Neighborhood Assessment Low Stress Facilities Only, Fig. 13 from the city’s
2019 Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 12
Ideas for updating the structure of the Use Table has included streamlining use categories
and definitions for greater usability, including:
Consideration for consolidating the six existing office use categories down to a
smaller number of entries, and updates to corresponding definitions.
Consideration for streamlining the restaurant use categories in the Use Table &
Standards.
Community Engagement Summary on the concepts discussed above
The Be Heard Boulder questionnaire asks a series of questions organized around the
Phase 2 overarching goals.
I. Supporting mixed-use neighborhood centers (or string-of-pearls),
II. Encouraging 15-minute neighborhoods, and
III. Incorporating structural changes to streamline the Use Table.
Background information, key definitions, and reference maps were also incorporated into
questionnaire. Results from the questionnaire were not yet available at the time this
memo was written. Please see Attachment C for a report-out on the Use Table &
Standards Phase 2 questionnaire as of August 11, 2020.
Based on the evolution of the project discussed above and on the structure of the public
engagement questionnaire, staff requests City Council feedback on the following
questions and policy options.
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire: The Be Heard Boulder online questionnaire opened on
July 6, 2020, and as of August 11th there have been 72 respondents to the questionnaire.
The project’s Be Heard Boulder webpage content was visited by approximately 272
persons. The questionnaire will be open through the end of August. Below are some of
the highlights of the questionnaire responses thus far. Please see Attachment C for the
questionnaire report.
Regarding questions related to Neighborhood Centers:
79% indicated they would be open to use standard changes that encourage a
greater mix of uses in neighborhood centers as discussed in the questionnaire.
III. Incorporate Structural Use Table Updates
A primary goal of project is to consider improving the Use Standards and Table
clarity and usability. These are structural updates to the table and standards itself
and are generally non-substantive. Examples would be consolidating numerous
entries of similar use categories into a single use category, updating definitions, and
re-organizing elements of the Use Standards and Table (for example separating
industrial uses from commercial uses in the table).
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 13
o There was broad support for a variety of uses that included restaurants and
coffee shops, retail uses, personal services and residential housing among
others.
o Of those that choose residential housing, a broad mix of housing types were
indicated including duplexes / triplexes, townhouses, cottages, condos /
apartments, and single-family houses.
Walkable or bike access has the most important element to have in a
neighborhood center, followed by human-scaled building design.
Regarding questions related to 15-minute Neighborhoods:
Approximately 72% of the respondents indicated they would be open to having
uses and establishments like the ones pictured in the questionnaire, within a 15-
minute walking distance from their home or workplace if limited in scale and
number. See Attachment D (Background Materials) for the imagery included in
the questionnaire.
o There was broad support for a variety of uses that included small restaurants
and coffee shops, small grocers, small retail uses, residential housing, and
personal services.
Of those that choose residential housing, a broad mix of housing types were
indicated for support, with duplexes / triplexes, townhouses, and cottages
receiving the most support.
Sentiments were fairly evenly split (between yes, no, and maybe) whether
additional zoning restrictions should be considered for additional 15 - minute
neighborhood uses. The additional restrictions with the most support indicated
were:
o Require additional bike parking to encourage bike access
o Limit vehicle parking to encourage walking or bike access
o Limit the size of establishments (ex. 500 square feet, 1,000 square feet,
etc.)
o Limit to multi-modal corridors (streets that carry traffic through a
neighborhood with bike facilities and transit access)
The majority of respondents agreed (somewhat or definitely) that the city
should allow more flexibility for live / work uses, artist studios and galleries,
and small-scale performance venues citywide.
The majority of responses indicated agreement that the city should consider
allowing additional residential, retail, and restaurant uses in the light industrial
areas to foster mixed-use walkable neighborhoods, to one degree or another.
Regarding questions related to streamlining the Use Standards and Table structure:
Approximate 63% of respondents were open to simplifying the Use Table by
streamlining the number of similar uses such as office use categories and
restaurant use categories.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 14
QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL
1. Allow a greater diversity of uses in the Neighborhoods Center areas
as identified in the BVCP to better serve community needs?
Types of
additional
uses to
consider
Art galleries
Convenience retail stores
Office uses
Personal services such as yoga studios, hair salons
Restaurants or coffeeshops
Retail uses (such as shops, grocers, or hardware stores)
Light industrial uses (such as small equipment or bike repair)
Residential housing
o Single-Family Homes, Duplexes/Triplexes, Townhouses,
Cottages, Apartments / Condos
Others?
Options
(A) Agree
Yes, open to allowing a greater diversity of uses in Neighborhood Center areas. Please
specify the uses listed above.
(B) Disagree
No, not open to allowing a greater mix of uses in neighborhood center areas. Please
specify the uses listed above.
Other Feedback
1a. What uses and elements are important to have in a neighborhood center
areas to serve residents daily needs?
Elements
to consider
Human scaled building design
Main street design with mix of uses
Attractively landscaped gathering areas
Parking located out of sight or behind buildings
Better walkable or bike access to centers
Others?
Options (A) Very
Important
(B) Somewhat
Important
(C) Not
Important
(D) Neutral
Other Feedback
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 15
2. Allow limited quantities of walkable and compatible mix of uses
(such as small-scale cafes or corner stores) to foster 15-minute
neighborhoods in typically homogenous neighborhoods, in
appropriate locations?
Key Project
Goals &
Objectives
Relevant Overarching Goal:
Encourage 15-minute neighborhoods through use table changes in all
types of districts (residential, commercial, industrial), acknowledging
transportation barriers may exist.
Relevant Project Objectives:
Update the Use Standards and Use Table to meet community
needs and desired land uses
Identify opportunities for mixed use that can help provide
services to residents and needed housing/services/uses to non-
residential and industrial areas
Consider changes to the Use Review criteria that would better
serve city goals (e.g., walkability, site design)
Consider changes to the Use Standards & Table that would
incentivize a diversity of housing types.
Allow more retail/active uses in the Public (P) zones.
Allow second floor residential in light-industrial zones.
Identify community desired land uses.
Types of
additional
uses to
consider
Small grocers
Personal services (such as yoga studios or hair salons)
Small restaurants or coffeeshops
Personal services such as yoga studios, hair salons
Small retail uses (such as shops or hardware stores)
Residential housing
o Single-Family Homes, Duplexes/Triplexes, Townhouses,
Cottages, Apartments / Condos
Others?
Options
(A) Agree
Yes, open to allowing a limited quantity of such uses in typically homogenous
neighborhoods, in appropriate locations. Please specify the uses listed above.
(B) Disagree
No, not open to allowing a limited quantity of such uses in typically homogenous
neighborhoods, in appropriate locations. Please specify the uses listed above.
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 16
Other Feedback
2a. Should additional use standard criteria and/or zoning restrictions
apply to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses?
Restrictions
to consider
Locational restrictions
Limit to multi-modal corridors (streets that carry traffic through a
neighborhood with bike facilities and transit access etc.)
Limit to corner lots
Limit to conversion of existing buildings
Size and separation restrictions
Limit the size of establishments (ex. 500 square feet, 1,000
square feet, etc.)
Minimum distance separation from other similar uses (ex, 1,000
feet, 2,000 feet)
Saturation limits
Parking and Access Restrictions
Limit vehicle parking to encourage walking or bike access
Require additional vehicle parking to reduce on-street parking
impacts
Require additional bike parking to encourage bike access
Other criteria?
(A) Yes
Please specify
(B) No
Please specify
Other Feedback
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 17
3. To what degree should additional uses (such as residential, retail,
or restaurants) be allowed in light industrial areas, in order to foster
mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods, while protecting and minimizing
disruption to existing industrial uses? (See Attachment D for a map of the
industrial zones)
Key Project
Goals &
Objectives
Relevant Overarching Goal:
Encourage 15-minute neighborhoods through use table changes in all
types of districts (residential, commercial, industrial), acknowledging
transportation barriers may exist.
Relevant Project Objectives:
Update the Use Standards and Use Table to meet community
needs and desired land uses
Identify opportunities for mixed use that can help provide
services to residents and needed housing/services/uses to non-
residential and industrial areas
Consider changes to the Use Review criteria that would better
serve city goals (e.g., walkability, site design)
Allow second floor residential in light-industrial zones.
Increase the diversity of uses found in neighborhood centers,
both existing and new.
Identify community desired land uses.
Consider how the Use Table project is beneficial, complements
and intersects with other planning efforts, such as Community
Benefits/East Boulder Subcommunity Plan implementation.
Options
(A) More of these uses should be allowed
(B) A small amount of these uses should be allowed
(C) No amount of additional uses should be allowed
Other Feedback
3a. Should additional use standard criteria and/or zoning restrictions
apply to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses?
Restrictions
to consider
Locational restrictions
Limit to multi-modal corridors (streets that carry traffic through a
neighborhood with bike facilities and transit access etc.)
Limit to corner lots
Size and separation restrictions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 18
Limit the size of establishments (ex. 500 square feet, 1,000
square feet, etc.)
Minimum distance separation from other similar uses (ex, 1,000
feet, 2,000 feet)
Saturation limits
Minimum distance requirements from non-compatible industrial
uses
Parking and Access Restrictions
Limit vehicle parking to encourage walking or bike access
Require additional vehicle parking to reduce on-street parking
impacts
Require additional bike parking to encourage bike access
Other criteria?
(A) Yes
Please specify
(B) No
Please specify
Other Feedback
4. Allow greater flexibility for creative uses such as live/work units,
artist studios and galleries, and small-scale performance venues
citywide?
Key
Project
Goals &
Objectives
Relevant Overarching Goal:
Encourage 15-minute neighborhoods through use table changes in all
types of districts (residential, commercial, industrial), acknowledging
transportation barriers may exist.
Relevant Project Objectives:
Update the Use Standards and Use Table to meet community
needs and desired land uses
Identify opportunities for mixed use that can help provide services
to residents and needed housing/services/uses to non-residential
and industrial areas
Consider more flexibility for non-impactful retail uses for home
occupations and live/work, such as selling one’s art
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 19
Allow second floor residential in light-industrial zones.
Increase the diversity of uses found in neighborhood centers, both
existing and new.
Identify community desired land uses.
Options
(A) Yes
(B) No
Other Feedback
4a. Are there other uses that should have greater flexibility citywide?
Please specify
5. Simplifying the Use Table & Standards to streamline the number
of similar uses? Specifically, the office use and restaurant use
categories?
Key
Project
Goals &
Objectives
Relevant Overarching Goal:
Incorporate administrative and structural updates to the Use Table and
Standards for clarity, legibility, and usability.
Relevant Project Objectives:
Update the Use Standards and Use Table to meet community
needs and desired land uses
Options
(A) Yes
please specify
(B) No
please Specify
Other Feedback
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 20
6. What other comments and ideas do you have for updating and
improving the Use Table and Standards?
NEXT STEPS
Staff will incorporate the feedback received from council tonight, along with the public’s
feedback from the questionnaire and develop specific options for updating the Use Table
and Standards of the Land Use Code. The draft options will then be available for public
feedback through the BeHeardBoulder.org platform, and feedback will also be
incorporated from the Planning Board and project subcommittee in the late summer and
fall. It’s anticipated that draft recommendations and ordinances will then be ready for
consideration by City Council in Quarter 4 of 2020.
Anticipated remaining timeline:
Development and refinement of options – Sept. 2020
Receive Public feedback and subcommittee feedback on options – Sept./Oct. 2020
Draft Use Table & Standards staff recommendations – Oct. 2020
Planning Board Public Hearing and recommendation – Nov. 2020
Public Open House (virtual or in-person) of draft ordinance – Nov. 2020
City Council consideration of draft ordinance – Nov. / Dec. 2020
ATTACHMENTS
A. Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive
discussions.
B. Subcommittee meetings’ notes
C. Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
D. Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 21
1UseTableSubcommitteeZoningDistrictsDeepDiveSummaryGeneral Phase 2 changes identified to consider addressing across multiple zones. Consideration of the following (subcommittee consensus): Move forward incrementally or gradually for certain use table changes. There is a danger of disrupting the industrial zones through possible changes. Need to consider how changes could increase the land values, that could in turn raise rents and force many businesses out. Consider Business Community (BC) zones as seeds for 15 min. neighborhood centers - existing zones/ areas to consider implementing 15-min. neighborhoods. Incentivize small, local business in BC zones through limited uses that encourage smaller floor plates. Update Live/Work use definition, consider additional live/work definitions based on context and reconsider use allowances in zones beyond industrial zones Redefine Home Occupation and reconsider use allowances Reformat, simplify and update the Restaurant uses including square footage limits and use allowances Reformat and update office uses in the Use Table, and reconsider use allowances if appropriate. Separate out and reformat Fraternities and Sororities uses in the Use Table from Dormitories. Update Art or Craft Studio Space definition and reconsider allowances Update Group Quarters definition and reconsider allowances Create a new Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) use, under Agriculture and Natural Resources uses. Considerations of potential changes specifically related to achieving 15-minute neighborhoods & more functional neighborhood centers (correlates to green cells in the following tables): Update Live/Work use definition, consider additional live/work definitions based on context and reconsider use allowances in zones beyond industrial zones Consider less restrictions for arts or craft studios and allow more broadly? Reconsider mobile food vehicles citywide to enable more walkable access to food Consider limited sized restaurants or brewpubs that could be better integrated into industrial zones or potentially residential zones along primary corridors to promote more mixed-use and walkability Create a definition of post office separate from “government facilities” and allow on the ground floor of neighborhood centers Are neighborhood business centers still a relevant use? Should it be eliminated in favor of more fine grained limited sized uses that could be better integrated into residential zones. Consider updating personal service uses definition and explore other areas where they could be allowed to better serve neighborhoods. Consider creating a new definition for “grocery stores” that are smaller and more accessible to neighborhoods. Create limited use or conditional use criteria for smaller scale convenience retail uses to encourage small corner stores in appropriate locations. Allow Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) as a new use permitted in the Agriculture (A) and Public (P) zones. Consider changing Animal Hospitals or Vet Clinics from a Use Review use to allowed uses to encourage them as a neighborhood serving use. ProjectgoalsapprovedbysubcommitteeinDecember2019.Use Table structure suggestions (staff): Consider splitting off Industrial Uses from Commercial and Retails Uses. Consider adding Lodging Uses to the Commercial and Retail Uses. Consider correcting the seemingly erroneous “Outdoor Storage of Merchandise” in the Use Table to “Outdoor display of merchandise”, to align with the corresponding definition. Move to appropriate section in the Use Table. Consider moving Outdoor Entertainment use to under the “Dining and Entertainment” Use Table section rather than the “Parks and Recreation” section. USE TABLE AND STANDARDS OVERARCHING GOALS Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table ProjectPage 22
2Definitions and other areas suggested for potential changes (subcommittee consensus) consistent with the goals of the project shown above: Consider revising the definition of Outdoor Entertainment. Some of the uses listed within the definition could be split-off as separate, less intense uses. For example, driving ranges, go-cart tracks, miniature golf, versus a small amphitheater probably fit into neighborhoods differently. See BC zones. Consider revising the definition of Sales and Rental of Vehicles to split-off large vehicles, such as Recreational Vehicles (RVs) and boats. Such large vehicles sales and rentals are more appropriate in light industrial zones instead. See BC zones. Also need to align the use title in the Use Table to the definition (change the “and” to an “or”). Consider revising the Telecommunications use definition to be less vague. See BC zones. Consider splitting Dormitories and Boarding Houses off as a separate use(s) and definition from Fraternities and Sororities use. See BC zones. Consider breaking out grocery stores as a separate use from Retail Sales, with a separate definition. See MU zones. Consider updating and modernizing the Personal Service Use definition, to more accurately reflect modern uses. Perhaps consider creating a new use category for adult businesses and limiting the operational hours, and require spacing standards as well, although may be a solution in search of a problem. Consider defining hotels and motels as separate uses, with hotels having emphasis as a lesser automobile-focused use. Consider creating a new use for Bicycle repair / sales, and allow in the DT zones and elsewhere as may be appropriate. Update definitions related to professional, administrative, technical and accessory offices. Is it necessary to have the number of definitions currently in the code? Difficult to administer. As stated above, consider new definitions for live/work dependent on neighborhood context beyond industrial zones. Other subcommittee member suggestions for the Use Standards & Table - No subcommittee consensus: Consider splitting off the RH 1/2 zones from the RH 4/5 zones, and adjusting the allowed uses within the RH 1/2 zones to reflect a more suburban character (less density). Currently these RH zones are all within the R6 use module. See the April 20, 2020 Use Table meeting notes for further discussion of the suggestion(s). Consider allowing Efficiency Living Units (ELUs) outside of University Hill, in the R2 and R3 use modules to some extent, currently prohibited. Industrial zones could be an interesting place to pilot some increase in residential uses that would complement the existing uses (at certain locations). Tweaks to the current use standards rather than rezonings. Pilot any changes in Industrial zones to protect the existing industrial uses. Subcommittee Parking Lot (additional ideas outside the scope of this project to be conveyed to planning staff on other projects): Looks at more options for new and updated area or subcommunity plans citywide to inform use table changes. Consider changing the RM zoning of the Table Mesa area near CU south, to potentially an appropriate mixed-use zone in the future. Revisit the ADU regulations and saturation limits when appropriate. Consider easing the subdivision regulations for RR and RE zoned lots (reduced minimum lot sizes). Would allow an increase in the pool of single family houses in Boulder. It would be an incremental way to add housing without radically changing the character of single family neighborhoods. Such a change would need to be incremental, and impacts spread out across all zones. Consider studying the potential for overlay areas (or other tools) to allow mixed-use including more residential uses in industrial zones at specific locations (rather than wholesale). Would likely be part of an implementation process as an outcome of subcommunity planning, that would identify such locations within a given community. Different industrial zones (such as Gunbarrel or East Boulder) have different needs. Consider lessening the parking standards in the Industrial zones, as seemingly an overabundance of surface parking. Consider the idea for the creation of an Arts District in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan area (EBSCP). Consider applying the existing RMX-2 density bonus for providing affordable housing types (section 9-8-4c, B.R.C.) to other zones. Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table ProjectPage 23
Deep-Dives: Uses Identified for Consensus Consideration of Potential Changes (RMX, A, P, BC, MU, and DT zones)
*green color denotes considerations related to 15-minute neighborhoods
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
RESIDENTIAL USES
Residential (general category)
Consider applying the mixed
housing standard for lots larger
than one acre (Section 9-8-4a), to
RMX-1 zones (currently only
applies to the RMX-2 zone).
Additional staff comment: In
RMX-2, consider changing
Duplex, Attached, Townhouses,
et al from a C use to a Limited
use and moving the 9-8-4
standards under Chapter 9-6, or
an L use referencing 9-8-4.
The Appendix N (and section 9-
6-11) restriction on limiting
residential uses from the ground
floor, may be too restrictive.
Consider limiting the uses along
major street ground floor
frontages only instead.
Consider changing residential
uses from a C use to a Limited
use, or adding in provisions
similar to L16 which only restricts
specified uses from the ground
floor along major streets for a
depth of 30’, providing more
flexibility for residential uses.
Staff note: the current
regulations do allow ground floor
residential uses via Use Review in
Appendix N areas. Outside of
Appendix N area, they are
permitted on the ground floor.
In MU-3, residential uses are a
Conditional (C) use that
mandates a 20’ deep commercial
space along the ground floor, per
section 9-6-4(j), B.R.C. 1981.
Consider modifying this
conditional use to allow for a use
review when the specific
conditions cannot be met, given
concerns about vacant
storefronts.
Detached Dwellings Consider prohibiting Detached
Dwellings in the A zones to avoid
estate type development
In DT-4 and 5, consider changing
from an allowed use, to a limited
use such as L15 (use review for
new detached dwellings, existing
are allowed by-right).
Attached Dwellings,
Duplexes, Townhouses
Additional housing
considerations depends on
where more housing is
appropriate based upon the
context. Use Reviews allow that
basic consideration to occur.
Change from prohibited to Use
Review, especially in A zones.
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 24
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
ELUs Change from prohibited to Use
Review, especially in A zones.
Staff note: Staff is concerned
about permitting non-agricultural
uses in the A zones given that
there are limited A zones and
considering the profitability of
uses other than Ag, this could
threaten the preservation of A
zones.
In MU-3, the L2 limitation may
not work (allowed by right if at
least 50% of the floor area of the
building is for residential use and
the nonresidential use is less
than 7,000 square feet per
building, otherwise by use review
only), given that ELUs are limited
to no more than 40% of the
residential use mix.
Live/Work Change from prohibited to Use
Review, especially in A zones.
Consider changing from a
prohibited use to an allowed
use in DT zones to encourage
smaller commercial spaces
with a residential component
as well. For example, a
shopkeeper flat.
Group Quarters
Group Quarters (general
comments)
Consider allowing these uses
along the ground floor. Concern
about the Appendix N limitation
being too restrictive in this
regard.
B. Custodial Care In MU-4, consider changing from
Prohibited use to a Use Review,
consistent with the other MU-
zone
Consider prohibiting in DT zones.
Currently a Use Review in DT-1, 2, 3,
and DT-5 zones, and prohibited in
DT-4. Reconsider if DT is best
location for this use
E. Fraternities, Sororities,
Dormitories, and Boarding
Houses
Separate out from dormitories as
a use, update the various rows
the use Table.
Consider prohibiting Fraternities
and Sororities in the BC zones, or
change to Use Review (currently
C related to Appendix N)
In MU-3, consider changing from
a Use Review to Prohibited use.
Taking into account possibly
splitting dormitories out as a
separate use from fraternities
and sororities, prohibit
Fraternities and sororities.
DT-1, 2, 3 zones , consider
changing from a Use Review to a
prohibited use (already
prohibited in DT-4, 5). Taking into
account possibly splitting
dormitories out as a separate use
from fraternities and sororities.
F. Boarding Houses In DT4 and 5, consider changing
from a prohibited use to a
limited use (L16 perhaps –
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 25
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
ground floor limit along major
streets).
In DT-1, 2,3, consider changing
from an allowed use to a limited
use (L16 perhaps). Need to be
careful about tourist centric
downtown zones however.
Transitional Housing Consider allowing this use along
the ground floor. Concern about
the Appendix N limitation being
too restrictive in this regard.
DINING AND ENTERTAINMENT USES
General category
Art or craft studio space Consider changing Art or craft
Studio space from a Use review
to an A, L, or C.
Breweries, distilleries or wineries Consider allowing these uses in
limited amounts, and potentially
changing from prohibited to a
Limited Use.
Staff note: currently prohibited
likely because of manufacturing
component, yet they are listed
under the Dining and
Entertainment section, rather
than the Industrial uses section.
Brewpubs (a separate use) are
permitted in the BC zones.
Commercial kitchens and
catering
Consider allowing these in
limited amount, potentially
changing from a Use Review to a
Limited Use.
Consider changing from a Use
Review to prohibited use or with
additional limits on hours of
operation, particularly DT-5.
Indoor Amusement
Establishment
Consider changing from
prohibited to a Limited use to
one degree or another, providing
greater mix of possible
uses/small businesses on the
ground floor in the zones.
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 26
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
Mobile Food Vehicle on private
property and on Public Right -of-
way
Consider allowing in RMX and all
residential zones
Change to a Conditional use
in the A zones. Currently
prohibited in A zones, C use
in P zones.
Consider if the conditional use
regulations if overly stringent.
On Public row, consider changing
from prohibited to a Use Review.
Perhaps with specific locational
standards such as in the alley
between Walnut and Pearl
Streets.
Staff note: Push-carts (Mobile-
vending carts) are regulated on
Pearl Street Mall by Chapter 11
of Title 4, Licenses and Permits,
B.R.C. 1981, and are allowed per
those standards - not under the
purview of the Land Use Code.
Museums In MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3,
consider changing Museums
from a Prohibited use to a Use
Review. Or possibly a Limited
Use allowed up to a smaller
square footage (7,000 sf for
example), above which would
require a Use Review.
Restaurant Uses Consider changing Restaurant
uses from Prohibited to Use
Review (U) or L use to some
extent.
Consider allowing restaurants in
the P and A zones to some extent
- whether a cafe fronting a park,
or a “farm to table” experience
on a working farm. Currently
prohibited or NA.
Reconsider allowing restaurants
as a principal use to some degree
within the P and A zones.
Currently allowed as an accessory
use.
Additional staff comment: In the
P zone, the table only has N/A -
needs to be changed to
prohibited or another allowance
level in the table.
Evaluate simplifying and
consolidating the restaurant
uses, possibly using the Limited
Use structure, and part of a
rework of these uses across all
the zoning districts.
In DT-1, 2, 3, consider further
restrictions of outside patios to
limit impacts to adjacent
neighborhoods (if an issue),
currently a use review with
locational operational
requirements.
Consider mandating a level of
food service with these uses,
given possible negative impacts
of solely bars in the DT zones.
Brewpubs and similar uses w/
square foot limits
Consider changing from
prohibited to a Use Review at the
least.
Small Theater or Rehearsal Space In MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3
consider changing from a
Prohibited Use to a Use Review
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 27
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
(or Limited Use perhaps),
consistent with the MU-4 zone.
Temporary Outdoor
Entertainment
Consider changing from a
prohibited use to a C or U in the
Agriculture zones
Consider adjusting existing
permitting to better enable these
events such as farm to table uses.
Consider revising applicable Use
Review standards or perhaps the
open space design requirements
of the code, to better
accommodated public space,
plaza and open space design in
development projects in the BC
zones.
LODGING USES
Staff: Consider adding into Commercial, Retail Uses
Bed and Breakfasts Consider allowing Bed and
Breakfast uses to some extent
(perhaps a C, L, or U) in the
Agricultural zones. Currently
prohibited.
Motels and Hotels Consider adding standards to
limit the potential for off-street
parking in front of buildings
along street frontages in DT
zones.
Possibly define hotels and
motels separately, with hotels
having emphasis as a less
automobile focused use.
PUBLIC AND INSITITUTIONAL USES
Day Shelters Take a look at the Conditional
and Use Review standards in 9-6-
7(b) through the lens of
improving the homeless
situation. Consider consolidating
with Overnight Shelters entry if
feasible.
Home Daycare Consider allowing it to some
degree (A, C, L, U) in the
Agricultural zones.
Consider changing from
prohibited to an Allowed use.
Governmental facilities Consider allowing post offices to
be exempt from the ground floor
and square footage limits on the
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 28
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
Appendix N, section 9-6-11. Post
offices can be part of an active
and desirable ground floor in
neighborhood centers.
Mortuaries and Funeral
Chapels
In MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3
consider changing from a
Prohibited Use to a Use Review,
consistent with the MU-4 zone.
In DT-1, 2, 3 zones consider
changing from a use review to a
prohibited use, consistent with
their prohibition in DT-4, 5 zones.
Overnight Shelters Take a look at the Conditional
and Use Review standards in 9-6-
7(b) through the lens of
improving the homeless
situation. Consider consolidating
with Day Shelters entry if
feasible.
OFFICE, MEDICAL AND FINANCIAL USES
General Category Consider changes to better
effectuate creating
neighborhood centers out of the
BC zone areas.
The existing 10% limit (Appendix
N and section 9-6-11 restrictions)
on office use square footage and
other specified uses is good as-is.
Data Processing Facilities and all
allowed Office and like uses,
consider changing to a limited
use that prohibits a ground floor
location (L16 or L1).
Consider changing to a limited
use to encourage more active
street level uses, rather than
other non-active uses that don’t
contribute to the life of the
street.
PARKS AND RECREATION USES
Outdoor Entertainment
Staff note: Consider moving
this to “Dining and
Entertainment uses” -where
Temp. outdoor entertainment
lives… should be listed
together.
Change from a prohibited use to
a Use Review use (U) within the A
zones. Consistent with the
allowance level in the rest of the
Use Table.
Consider revising the definition
of Outdoor Entertainment. There
may be some outdoor
entertainment uses, like public
performance, that may be
appropriate in BC zones.
Consider revising the definition
of Outdoor Entertainment. There
may be some outdoor
entertainment uses, like public
performance, that may be
appropriate in MU zones.
Consider revising the definition
of Outdoor Entertainment. There
may be some outdoor
entertainment uses, like public
performance, that may be
appropriate in DT zones.
Currently a Use review in the DT
zones.
Staff note: Also consider moving
outdoor entertainment use to
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 29
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
the Entertainment Use Table
category rather than the Parks
and Rec category.
COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES
Staff: Consider splitting Industrial Uses off as separate use category
Service Uses
Service Uses (general
category)
Consider relaxing allowances for
service type uses in BC zones, or
utilizing Limited Uses.
Animal Hospital or Veterinary
Clinic
MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3 zones -
consider changing from
prohibited to a Use Review,
consistent with the MU-4
allowance.
In the DT-4 and 5 zones, consider
changing from a prohibited use
to Use Review in the DT zones.
Neighborhood Business
Center
Personal Service Uses Consider updating and
modernizing the definition
Retail Sales Uses
Retail Sales (general category) Existing L11 limit of 20,000
square feet allowed by-right,
otherwise by Use Review seems
appropriate.
MU-1 zone - consider changing
from a prohibited use to a
limited or Use Review use to
allow small sized retail. Possibly
U1 (Use Review required for
2,000 square feet or less of floor
area per lot or parcel, otherwise
prohibited).
Consider breaking out grocery
stores as a separate use from
Retail Sales use.
Vehicle-Related Uses
Car Washes Consider changing from a use
review to a prohibited use. Not
use consistent with our
walkable downtown zones.
Drive-Thrus Consider prohibiting drive-thru
uses or further restricting them.
Consideration should also be
given to ADA accessibility.
Consider changing from a use
review to a prohibited use. Not
use consistent with our
walkable downtown zones.
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 30
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
Fuel Service Stations or Retail
Fuels Sales
Consider changing from a use or
conditional use review to a
prohibited use if no existing use
are in the zones.
Staff note: as part of a code
clean-up this use name and
entry may be updated and
consolidated with other
duplicative entries, and the
definition.
Sales and Rental of Vehicles Consider revising the definition
to split-off large vehicles, such as
Recreational Vehicles (RVs) and
boats, and then changing large
vehicles sales and rentals to
prohibited in BC zones.
Service of Vehicles Consider relaxing allowances for
service type uses in BC zones, or
utilizing Limited Uses. Currently a
Use Review.
In MU-4, consider prohibiting
Service of Vehicles with No
Outdoor Storage. Currently a Use
Review in MU-4, but prohibited
in all other MU zones.
Industrial Uses
Industrial (general category) Consider allowing more limited
service/impact industrial uses
into the MU zones with
appropriate restrictions, if
appropriate locations exist.
Cold Storage Lockers Consider changing from a use
review to a prohibited use in the
DT zones. Consider adding a
definition.
Staff note: If not defined by the
code, definition of terms typically
defaults to a common language
understanding (or a dictionary
definition) – Cold storage is then
essentially a warehouse with
refrigerated storage.
Computer Design and
Development Facilities
Consider changing from an
allowed use to a limited use that
limits a ground floor location (L1
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 31
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RMX zones A & P zones BC zones MU zones DT zones
or L16) in the DT-1, 2, 3, and 5
zones, consistent with the L1 use
in the DT-4 zone.
Equipment Repair and Rental
with Outdoor Storage
Consider changing from a use
review to a prohibited use in the
DT zones.
Outdoor Storage of
Merchandise
Correct the erroneous table
language to “Outdoor display of
merchandise”, across all zones to
match the definition..
Manufacturing Uses In MU-4, consider changing from
a Limited use to a Prohibited use.
Particularly if no existing
manufacturing uses exist in the
MU-4 zone., consistent with
prohibition in other MU zones.
Self-service storage facilities Should be restricted across the city. Should not be an allowed as a by-right use (A), but instead should require a discretionary review where permitted, or prohibited.
Telecommunications use Consider if broader allowance is
warranted. If the intent is to
allow for necessary switch
terminals or telecom distribution
infrastructure, then the section
9-6-11 limits on ground floor
uses may be a barrier in
Appendix N areas. Although the
Use Review process allows some
flexibility as is.
Consider changing from an
allowed use to a limited use that
limits a ground floor location (L1
or L16) in the DT-1, 2, 3, and 5
zones, consistent with the L1 use
in the DT-4 zone.
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE USES
Community Supported
Agriculture - CSAs (new
proposed use)
Create a new use formalizing
Community Supported
Agriculture (CSAs)
Allow (A) CSAs in P and A zones.
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 32
Deep-Dives: Uses Identified for Consensus Consideration of Potential Changes (RH, RM, RL, RE, and RR, and Industrial zones)
*green color denotes considerations related to 15-minute neighborhoods
Subcommittee Deep Dives: RH zones RL-2 & RM zones (R2 &
R3 Use Modules)
RE, RR, RL-1 zones (R1
Use Module)
Industrial zones
RESIDENTIAL USES
Residential (general category) No subcommittee consensus
areas of consideration for uses in
these zones. See the April 20,
2020 subcommittee meeting
notes for a summary of the
discussion.
No subcommittee consensus
areas of consideration for uses in
these zones. See the April 27,
2020 subcommittee meeting
notes for a summary of the
discussion.
An incremental approach is most
appropriate, not broad-brushed
for any considerations.
Currently, duplexes, townhomes
and other similar housing uses
are prohibited. Consider asking
the public what elements would
be important if allowing
additional housing types,
including:
o design guidelines and
saturation limits, maintaining
the single-family character.
No subcommittee consensus
areas of consideration for uses
in these zones. See the May 11,
2020 subcommittee meeting
notes for a summary of the
discussion.
Detached Dwellings
Attached Dwellings,
Duplexes, Townhouses
ELUs
Live/Work Consider changing from a use
review to an allowed use,
updating the definition / creating
a new sub-category for arts,
creatives, and trades uses.
o Would support these
complementary uses in
industrial zones, and preserve
spaces for the creative
community in Boulder.
Group Quarters
Group Quarters (general
comments)
B. Custodial Care
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 33
E. Fraternities, Sororities,
Dormitories, and Boarding
Houses
F. Boarding Houses
Transitional Housing
DINING AND ENTERTAINMENT USES
General category Consider any potential changes
through an incremental approach
with positive impacts.
Consider any potential changes
through an incremental
approach with positive impacts.
Not every industrial zone has
the same characteristics and
needs.
Art or craft studio space
Breweries, distilleries or wineries Consider asking the public if the
current limited use (typically by-
right up to 15,000 square feet),
should be lowered to encourage
smaller square footage facilities.
Commercial kitchens and
catering
Indoor Amusement
Establishment
Mobile Food Vehicle on private
property and on Public Right -of-
way
Consider changing from a
prohibited use to a use review or
limited use, as a small way to get
some mix of uses in these zones.
Consider broadening the existing
conditional use (C) standards to
conditionally allow them in
additional locations.
o Currently a conditional use
(C), that limits their location
to specific city parks only in
these zones.
Consider changing the
conditional use standards to
more readily allow food trucks in
the zones, by relaxing the
distance requirements.
Museums
Restaurant Uses Consider changes to Restaurant
uses over 1000 SF, in order to be
consistent with the use
allowances for restaurants less
than 1000 SF (U in the R6
module, A in the R7 module):
o In the R6 use module,
consider changing
Restaurants, Brewpubs,
Taverns over 1,000 SF / close
after 11 pm / outdoor dining
Consider asking the public if this
is a use (at a small scale) that
they want in these R1 use
module zones. Coffee shops and
small scale uses
o Perhaps consider a Use
Review (such as a new Ux),
with a small size limit (above
which it’s prohibited),
operational limits, locational
requirements, and design,
Consider asking the public if the
existing conditional and use
review regulations in section 9-6-
6(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981, should be
revised to be more flexible.
o There may be physical and
other limitations, including
access limits, that make the
industrial areas not
attractive for restaurants.
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 34
over 300SF, from a use
review (U) to prohibited;
o In the R7 use module,
consider changing
Restaurants, Brewpubs,
Taverns over 1,000 SF / close
after 11 pm / outdoor dining
over 300SF, from a
prohibited use to a use
review (U).
public safety and viewshed
protection criteria.
o Perhaps the existing business
zones nearby (such as BC
zones) are better locations
instead of within residential
areas.
Brewpubs and similar uses w/
square foot limits
Small Theater or Rehearsal Space In RH-1, 2, 4, 5, 3, and 7 zones (R6
and R7 use modules) consider
changing from a prohibited use to
a use review to encourage more
15-min. neighborhood
uses/amenities.
Temporary Outdoor
Entertainment
LODGING USES
Staff: Consider adding into Commercial, Retail Uses
Bed and Breakfasts In the in the RM-1 /3 zones,
consider changing from a
prohibited use to a use review or
conditional use, with limited
locations and smaller size
requirements.
Motels and Hotels
PUBLIC AND INSITITUTIONAL USES
Day Shelters
Home Daycare
Governmental facilities
Mortuaries and Funeral
Chapels
Overnight Shelters
OFFICE, MEDICAL AND FINANCIAL USES
General Category Medical offices, Professional
offices, and Technical offices are
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 35
currently a use review (U) in
these zones.
o Consider further restricting
these uses, put the question
to the public if these uses are
appropriate as a use review
in these zones.
PARKS AND RECREATION USES
Outdoor Entertainment
Staff: Consider moving this to
“Dining and Entertainment
uses” -where Temp. outdoor
entertainment lives… should
be listed together.
COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, AND INDUSTRIAL USES
Staff: Consider splitting Industrial Uses off as separate use category
Service Uses
Service Uses (general
category)
Animal Hospital or Veterinary
Clinic
Consider changing from a
prohibited use to Use Review in
these zones, to encourage more
walkable 15-min uses.
Neighborhood Business
Center
Should neighborhood business centers be eliminated in favor of more fine granted limited sized uses that could be integrated into residential zones?
Personal Service Uses Consider updating definition and modernizing the definition of personal service uses and explore other areas where they could be allowed to better serve neighborhoods.
Retail Sales Uses
Retail Sales (general category)
Convenience Retail Sales In the R6 use module, consider
changing from a use review to a
new Ux designation (similar to
U1) that limits the square
footage to say 1,000 SF or less
via use review, otherwise
prohibited.
o Also consider other standards
such as saturation limits,
design guidelines, and
locational requirements to
ensure appropriate levels of
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 36
the use in R6 module
neighborhoods.
Potential to apply such a Ux
designation in other residential
zones to encourage compatible
15-minute neighborhood
convenience retail uses.
Vehicle-Related Uses
Car Washes
Drive-Thrus
Fuel Service Stations or Retail
Fuels Sales
Sales and Rental of Vehicles
Service of Vehicles
Industrial Uses
Industrial (general category)
Cold Storage Lockers
Computer Design and
Development Facilities
Equipment Repair and Rental
with Outdoor Storage
Outdoor Storage of
Merchandise
Manufacturing Uses
Self-service storage facilities Should be restricted across the city. Should not be an allowed as a by-right use (A), but instead should require a discretionary review where permitted, or prohibited. Consider changing from
an allowed use in the Industrial Service zones (IS) to a Use Review.
Telecommunications use
AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE USES
Community Supported
Agriculture - CSAs (new
proposed use)
Attachment A - Summary of the Subcommittee’s areas of consideration, project goals, and deep-dive discussions
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 37
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
11/12/2019 Meeting Summary Notes
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
Under the Sun Eatery – 627 A South Broadway Street, Boulder, CO 80305
Meeting materials including the audio recording of the meeting are available online:
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=171230&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Subcommittee members: David Ensign (Chair), Bryan Bowen, Sarah Silver
Staff: Karl Guiler, Andrew Collins
1) Welcome and Ground Rules
2) Public Comment Period – No comments received during the public comment period. Two members
of the public observed during the course of the meeting.
3) Acceptance of the Oct. 04, 2019 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
4) Areas of Consideration and Project Priorities
Review the initial Areas of Consideration from 2018/2019
Subcommittee feedback:
With the recent emphasis on the Opportunity Zone, staff felt it necessary to go back to the core parts of
the project and revisit the council endorsed areas of consideration. There was a discussion on the
overall project approach and how public engagement would play a part. 15-minute neighborhoods is
one of the prime focuses of the project. The following points were raised:
Consider an area / neighborhood approach to the work. Listen to what residents may / may not
want.
Lived experiences, neighborhoods walks, mapping exercises were ideas previously discussed for
next phase and for 15-min. neighborhood focus.
Purpose of the subcommittee is to act as steering committee (idea generator), and to dig-in to
the Use Tables and make recommendations. Recommendations will be vetted with the public.
Council ultimately will make code changes, with staff doing the work of preparing proposed
ordinances and draft changes, with guidance from the subcommittee.
Not every implementation effort for 15-minute neighborhoods needs area planning. More
effective way is to utilize the Use Table (this group) to get the desired outcomes, as expressed in
the subcommittee areas of consideration, the BVCP, and in the ongoing subcommunity planning
efforts. Plug into those.
Staff can recommend the uses in what zones support 15-min. neighborhoods. Then bring those
suggestions to the subcommittee for input and feedback. Following that staff will go out to the
community for community engagement events, feedback, and input.
The Use Tables should be aligned to increasing the walkability to desired Land Uses that support
15-min. Neighborhoods. These can be informed by peoples lived experience, and the changes to
the Use Tables can be applied citywide.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 38
2
Discussion and subcommittee recommended strategy for re-organizing the Areas of Consideration:
Subcommittee Consensus to reorganize the Areas of Considerations (priorities) into four
buckets/priorities (some priorities may overlap and be included in multiple buckets/themes):
1. 15-Minute Neighborhoods & Walkability
2. Strings of Pearls Concept (e.g., mixed use nodes along multi-modal corridors)
3. Neighborhood Centers
4. Administrative & Structural updates to the Use Tables
Staff to diagram out the Areas of Consideration re-organization. There is overlap in the concepts, staff
may propose consolidating of 1, 2 or 3, or perhaps an alternative breakout.
Recommendations for new Areas of Consideration:
Increase the diversity of uses found in neighborhood centers (existing and new ones)
Identify community desired land uses.
Consider how the Use Table project is beneficial, complements and intersect with other
planning efforts, such as Community Benefits/East Boulder Subcommunity Plan implementation.
Additional Comments:
Critical to be able to tell the story of 15-minute neighborhoods to the public/community.
Explore lived experiences, neighborhoods walks, and neighborhood discussions.
Concept of neighborhoods is important in the Use Table work.
An outcome for this project could be to identify area plans that should be updated in order
implement the subcommittee recommendations.
The Citywide Retail Study findings are important to consider as part this work.
Services and other uses (besides the typical “coffee shops and restaurants”) are critically
important for neighborhoods. For example, walkable access to pharmacies and repair services.
5) RMX zones deep-dive into the Use Table.
Apply the Conditionally Allowed (C) density bonus under RMX-2 for affordable housing, to
additional zoning districts including to RMX-1.
Implement a density bonus for triplex / fourplex affordable housing.
Flagged Uses- revise definitions and update to improve them:
o Group Quarters
o Live / Work
o Craft Studio
Neighborhood serving uses that promote walkability (15-minute neighborhood lens) should be
permitted to some extent:
o Brewpubs and like uses less than 1,000 SF should at least be a Use Review (U).
o Reconsider Mobile Food Trucks, currently prohibited in all residential zones, perhaps
some allowance is appropriate.
Consider ways to vary the square footage limitations (1,000 sf for example) prescribed by the
Use Table - via a modification or similar process. Additional flexibility would better allow
businesses to utilize existing spaces, and a variety of spaces sized to meet the actual real-life
needs and contexts of uses and businesses.
Bed & Breakfast uses are good as currently prescribed in RMX-2 zone (prohibited). No
recommended changes.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 39
3
Next Steps
Continue the subcommittee deep-dive into the Use Table.
o Finish up the RMX zones review (if needed).
o Next zoning districts and use modules to take a deep-dive into:
o Low Density Residential (RE, RR, RL) , Public (P), Agricultural (A) zones, or Business Community
(BC) zones. Greatest subcommittee consensus for the P, A, and BC zones next time.
Staff to diagram-out the re-organization of the Areas of Consideration as discussed by the
subcommittee.
Next subcommittee meeting - potentially December 2019 or early 2020.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 40
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
12/20/2019 Meeting Summary Notes
12:00 PM – 1:30 PM
Municipal Building - 1777 Broadway Street, Boulder, CO 80302 (W-100 Conf. Room aka 1777 West)
Meeting materials including the audio recording of the meeting are available online:
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?dbid=0&id=47549&row=1&_ga=2.1317
12911.1825451154.1577746909-742746605.1577746909&cr=1
Subcommittee members: David Ensign (Chair), Bryan Bowen, Sarah Silver
Staff: Karl Guiler, Andrew Collins
Members of the Public: Lisa Spalding, Kurt Nordback
1) Welcome and Ground Rules
2) Public Comment Period – Two members of the public provided comments.
L. Spalding – People don’t usually know what their zoning is, but they have a sense of the place. They
can feel it by the context and the built environment, as well as the impacts from development. For
example, University Hill. Important to keep this in mind as the subcommittee works through the
idea of 15-minute neighborhoods. Think carefully about 15-minute neighborhoods.
K. Nordback – Grew up in the University Hill neighborhood, and it wasn’t a 15-minute neighborhood
then, the services weren’t there. It is crucial to add services that people need, not just restaurants,
so that people can truly walk. Need to zone to allow this to happen or change what is permitted in
the zoning to encourage more walkable destinations in neighborhoods.
The subcommittee commented:
The subcommittee needs to think about how a “string of pearls” is implemented to allow
services.
The city should set up the code to state and get what it actually wants from development
and uses (more of a form-based approach), rather than just a laundry list of uses.
3) Acceptance of the Nov. 12, 2019 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
4) Areas of Consideration and Project Priorities
Staff supplied the subcommittee with a new diagram that re-organized the previously endorsed
Areas of Consideration into a categorized illustration of three themes: Encourage 15-minute
Neighborhoods & Walkability, 2) Support a “String of Pearls” of mixed-use nodes along corridors,
and 3) Incorporate Administrative & Structural Use Table Updates. Staff provided a brief overview of
the re-organization and chart. Additional areas of consideration were ones suggested by the
subcommittee from the previous meeting.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 41
2
Subcommittee feedback:
The subcommittee was comfortable with the re-organization and new format.
5) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session.
The RMX zones deep-dive is sufficient from the previous meeting. The subcommittee is focusing
on the Public (P) and Agricultural (A) zones at this meeting.
The Public zones consist of City, University, or State/Federal lands. The BVCP open space
designations correspond to many of these zoning districts.
Consider greater allowances for restaurants in the P and A zones - whether a cafe fronting a
park, or a “farm to table” experience on a working farm.
Should encourage and allow more pocket parks (if barriers exist to them).
Duplexes, attached dwellings, townhouses, live/work, efficiency living units, should all be
changed from prohibited uses to Use Review uses (U) in the Agricultural zones, similar to how
they are permitted in the Public zones.
o Additional housing considerations depends on where more housing is appropriate based
upon the context. Use Reviews allow that basic consideration to occur.
o Additional uses and housing in the P and A zones fit within the sting of Pearls concept
and 15-minute neighborhoods, if those uses are identified as needed in those locations.
Dining and Entertainment Uses:
o Should formally recognize Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) as a use in the Use
Table, and allow them in the A zones.
o Consider adjusting the existing permitting to better enable temporary outdoor
entertainment events, farm-to-table dinners, and similar uses in the A and P zones.
o Consider farm restaurants and cafes potentially for Allowed uses in the A zones. Look at
the Pacific Northwest for precedents.
o Reconsider allowing restaurants as a principal use to some degree within the P and A
zones. Currently allowed as an accessory use.
o Temporary Outdoor Entertainment should be a Conditional Use in the A zones, similar
to how it’s permitted elsewhere in the city.
o Consider allowing Bed and Breakfast uses to some extent (perhaps a C, L, or U) in the A
zones.
Self-Service Storage Facilities should be restricted across the city. Should not be an allowed as a
by-right use, but instead should require a discretionary review where permitted, or prohibited.
Home Daycare use – consider allowing it to some degree (C, L, U) in the A zones.
K. Nordback suggested, and the subcommittee agreed, that the Outdoor Entertainment use,
under the Parks and Rec category, should be changed from a prohibited use to a Use Review use
(U) within the A zones. Consistent with the allowance level in the rest of the Use Table.
o Could allow for events such as corn mazes, farm to table experiences, etc.
Mobile Food Trucks should be a conditionally allowed use (C) in the A zones.
Next Steps
Continue the subcommittee deep-dive into the Use Table:
o Business Community (BC) zoning districts.
Next subcommittee meeting - potentially Friday January 24th, somewhere in a BC zone such as the
Meadows Shopping Center.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 42
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
01/24/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
3:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Coma Mexican Grill – 4800 Baseline Road, Suite E105, Boulder, CO 80303
Meeting materials including the audio recording of the meeting are available online:
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=171756&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 – Two members of the public provided comments.
D. Takahashi – Within the Opportunity Zone, there should be much more affordable housing options
as part of any redevelopment and to accommodate all needs. Opportunity to get permanent
affordable housing development right in Boulder. Consider Net Zero energy neighborhoods as
precedent examples of what the Opportunity Zone should become in Boulder. The Arvada project
“Geos” was shown as an example. D. Takahashi also noted that in the BC zones there is a concern of
overbuilding parking lots and need to better utilize the spaces.
K. Nordback – In the Agricultural zone, consider not allowing detached single-family dwellings, as
such an allowance runs the risk of enabling large estate homes. Conversely, allowing farm-worker
housing would be a better residential use in the A zones.
3) Acceptance of the Dec. 20, 2019 Subcommittee meeting summary notes - Revisions requested
The subcommittee will include L. Spalding’s email as part of the public record archive.
S. Silver suggested an additional comment for the December meeting notes, regarding using the
permitting process (rather than just changing use table allowances) to better enable cafes, farm-to-
table, and similar uses in the A and P zones. Staff to add the comment into the Dec. 20, 2019
meeting summary notes and send back out to the subcommittee.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session - BC-1 and BC-2 zones
Staff provided an overview and description of the Business Community zoning districts (BC-1 and BC-
2 zones), and the recent code updates in 2019 meant to encourage more neighborhood serving
uses.
• Underutilized shopping centers should be redeveloped in a neighborhood serving manner, in
order to become interesting mixed-use places.
• May need area planning, design, and access, and streetscape figured out in the redevelopment
some of these BC nodes, in order to set them up for context and scale appropriate
redevelopment. They should be lively, vibrant, and appropriate to the neighborhoods and
context sensitive.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 43
2
o Scope of the project is the Use Table and Standards. Suggestions on changing form, bulk
and intensity (density) requirements, as well as design can be touched on, but are better
addressed through other BVCP and subcommunity planning processes.
• Consider possibly allowing some industrial or service types uses such as auto repair and bike
shops for example, to serve the neighborhoods - not just cafes, yoga studios and coffee shops.
o Consider using Limited Uses for such service types uses.
• A goal should be developed to help preserve and incentivize local small business in the BC zones.
o Could apply the Limited Use tool – that for example would allow by-right desired
uses/small businesses up to a given square footage (such as 5,000 SF), but above which
would require a Use Review.
Residential Uses in BC zones
• The Appendix N and section 9-6-11 restrictions on limiting residential uses from the ground
floor of any development, may be too restrictive. Consider limiting the uses along major street
ground floor frontages only (similar to the BR zone L use), but probably ok to have residential
uses at the ground level behind buildings on large sites (the current regulations do allow ground
floor residential uses via Use Review).
o Redevelopment of Diagonal Plaza would likely require some ground level residential
uses. Area planning may also be appropriate here.
• S. Silver: Consider setting a maximum of 40% cap on Efficiency Living Units (ELUs) in BC 1/2- with
no variances. D. Ensign respectfully disagreed.
• Transitional housing, group quarters, and other similar residential uses – concern about the
existing limitation in the Appendix N areas that prevents them from the ground floor by-right.
o There could be scenarios where it makes sense to occur on the ground floor as some of
the BC zones redevelop into neighborhood serving nodes. Consider allowing these on
the ground floor, and/or with a more nuanced approach.
• Separate out Fraternities and Sororities in the Use Table from Dormitories. Fraternities and
sororities are usually privately owned and operated, versus a school owned and operated
dormitory that has more oversight. Different impacts to neighborhoods.
o Clean-up those respective rows in the Use Table to simplify them (currently are
redundant entries).
o Consider not allowing Fraternities and Sororities in the BC zones or changing from a
Conditional use to a Use Review at the least. Dormitories may be appropriate as is.
Dining and Entertainment Uses in BC zones
• Breweries, wineries, commercial kitchens and catering are currently prohibited in the BC zones,
due to their more industrial categorization. Taprooms are allowed however in the BC zones.
Perhaps reconsider these, and smaller scale breweries, wineries etc.
o Large scale breweries and neighborhood kites are not necessarily neighborhood serving,
compared to taprooms, or restaurants.
• Staff: the restaurant entries in the Use Table and associated uses are something that we’d like to
revamp. Open to ideas from the subcommittee – consider utilizing the new Limited Use
structure.
• Temporary Outdoor Entertainment uses should be better accommodated in public space, plaza
and open space design in development projects in the BC zones.
o Consider revising applicable Use Review standards or perhaps the open space design
requirements of the code.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 44
3
Public and Institutional Uses
• Home Daycare Centers are currently prohibited in the BC zones. Staff: this use is geared toward
daycares in the residential zoning districts (R1 through R6 use modules), daycare centers are
allowed by-right in the BC-zones and other commercial zones.
o Consider changing to an Allowed use across all zoning districts including the BC zones, if
it makes sense.
• Consider allowing post offices to be exempt from the ground floor and square footage limits in
the Appendix N BC zones. Post offices are an active ground floor uses that are desired in centers.
• The rest of the Public and Institutional uses look good as-is in the BC zones.
Next Steps
• Continue the subcommittee deep-dive into the Use Table:
o Finish the Business Community (BC) zones
o Next zones to consider Downtown (DT) and Mixed-Use (MU) zones
• Increase the frequency of the subcommittee meetings to twice per month to complete the deep-
dive into the zones.
• Community engagement likely for early summer/late spring potentially, with project completion by
Q4 2020/ Q1 2021.
• Next subcommittee meeting - Friday February 7th, in city offices.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 45
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
02/07/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
3:30 PM – 5:00 PM
Planning Department Room 401, Park Central Building - 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=171835&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 – No members of the public were present.
3) Acceptance of the Dec. 20, 2019 and the Jan. 24, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes –
Approved. Emails received to be included in the public record.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session – BC zones continuation.
General Discussion before the BC zones specific work session:
In thinking about how we encourage walkable neighborhood centers, the scale and context is
important, to determine the right size of the centers. We want to encourage smaller, finer-
grained businesses and establishments, rather than office park type development.
We should consider what a string of pearls might look like/what purpose they might serve if the
BC zones were to evolve into more residential/local retail/neighborhood serving offices and
commercial rather than the car centric suburban shopping centers that they are today.
Ideas about creating a “string of pearls” through neighborhood centers may result in
recommendations to pass along to Planning Board and/or City Council about where to focus on
creating future area plans. The actual creation of such plans is outside the scope of this
subcommittee and project.
Consider changing residential uses from a C use to a Limited use, or adding in provisions similar
to L16 which only restricts specified uses from the ground floor along major streets for a depth
of 30’, providing more flexibility for residential uses.
Regarding Industrial zones, we should have someone from Community Vitality department
attend a subcommittee meeting to discuss affordable commercial, small business efforts.
Office, Medical, and Financial Uses in BC zones
Should consider changes to better effectuate creating neighborhood centers out of the BC zone
areas.
The existing 10% limit (Appendix N and section 9-6-11 restrictions) on office use square footage
and other specified uses while restrictive, can be an effective way to encourage the other uses
that are desired. The existing percentage limitation on nonresidential uses is good as-is.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 46
2
Parks and Recreation Uses in BC zones
Consider revising the definition of Outdoor Entertainment. Some of the uses listed within the
definition could be split-off as separate uses. For example, driving ranges, go-cart tracks,
miniature golf, versus a small amphitheater probably fit into neighborhoods differently. There
may be some outdoor entertainment uses, like public performance, that may be appropriate
and desired in such areas.
o Driving ranges, go-cart tracks, etc. may not be appropriate uses in BC zones, smaller-
scale outdoor uses with less visual and noise impacts may be more appropriate. The
existing Use Review does provide for discretion.
Commercial, Retail and Industrial Uses in BC zones
Service Uses:
“Neighborhood Business Center” uses should be looked at closer.
o Staff: These are non-residential uses that are permitted to a limited degree in
residential zones. May provide a framework or starting point for fostering 15-minute
neighborhoods. This is a use we’d like to take a look as part of the 15-minute
neighborhoods goal for the low density residential zones.
Retail Sales Uses:
Retail Sales use - L11 limit of 20,000 square feet allowed by-right, otherwise by Use Review
seems appropriate. For reference a Trader Joes grocery store may typically fall in the 12,000SF
range.
Vehicular-Related Uses:
Automobile Parking Lots - We want to encourage “park and rides”, the existing conditional use is
good: in Appendix N areas, “park and rides” are the only type of parking lots as principal use
allowed (unless in a Use Review).
Consider prohibiting drive-thru uses or further restricting them. Consideration should also be
given to ADA accessibility.
Sales and Rental of Vehicles use: Consider revising the definition to split-off large vehicles, such
as Recreational Vehicles (RVs) and boats, and then changing large vehicles sales and rentals to
prohibited in BC zones. Such large vehicles sales and rentals are more appropriate in light
industrial zones instead.
o Staff: also need to align the use title in the Use Table to the definition (change the “and”
to an “or”).
Industrial Uses:
Outdoor storage of merchandise: confusing when linking the allowances in the table to the
definition. Staff: this is an error in the code – it should be “Outdoor display of merchandise”,
which has a different definition. Correct the erroneous table entry to “Outdoor display of
merchandise”.
Consider revising the Telecommunications use definition to be less vague. If the intent is to
allow for necessary switch terminals or telecom distribution infrastructure, then the section 9-6-
11 limits on ground floor uses may be a barrier in Appendix N areas. Although the Use Review
process allows some flexibility as is.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 47
3
Brief overview of project timeline provided by staff
Zoning districts’ deep-dive wrap-up by end of April 2019. Engagement to occur beginning in late
spring/early summer of 2020. Ordinance adoption hopefully by end of 2020. Subcommittee
recommendations on potential industrial zones will likely not be in the late 2020 ordinance, but rather
referred to the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan implementation project, which relates closely to
visioning and uses in the industrial zones. Change to the industrial zones would likely occur in 2021 as
part of that process.
Subcommittee members in general agreement with the timing, and provided additional feedback:
Consider having meetings or stations organized by zone type. For example, low density
residential zones, shopping center oriented zones, etc.
Visual aids may be useful as feasible.
Consider getting feedback on future area plans or asking a broad question regarding them.
Next Steps
Continue the subcommittee deep-dive into the Use Table:
o Mixed-Use (MU) zones
o DT zones time allowing
Next subcommittee meeting - Thursday February 20th (prior to Planning Board) in city offices.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 48
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
02/20/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
4:00 PM – 5:30 PM
Municipal Building - 1777 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302 (W-100 Conf. Room)
Meeting materials including the audio recording of the meeting are available online:
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=171835&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Subcommittee members: David Ensign (Chair), Sarah Silver, Bryan Bowen
Staff: Karl Guiler, Andrew Collins
1) Welcome and Ground Rules
2) Public Comment Period – Three members of the public provided comments.
L. Spalding – Would like to understand more about the “String of Pearls” concept that the
subcommittee has been discussing. What is meant by it?
L. Segal – Concerned about the recent removal of the Medium Density Overlay Zones from the
University Hill area. We need to put more services into neighborhoods, encourage smaller living
spaces that are inherently more energy efficient through the sharing of living spaces.
D. Takahashi – We are all in a climate emergency. The city should connect its policies to its Climate
Action Plan and consider changes to uses that promote reduced carbon emissions and reduced
vehicle miles traveled – ideas such as smaller residential units and greater walkable access to a mix
of uses.
• Also consider updating and/or defining Live/Work use during the subcommittee’s
discussions.
Subcommittee and staff comments:
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan has specific policies regarding neighborhood centers, and
string of pearls is a term of art when talking about the concept of walkable neighborhood centers
that provide a mix of neighborhood serving uses at the scale appropriate to the neighborhood
context. String of pearls has also been used when discussing the broad concept of neighborhood
centers that are linked along the Broadway corridor. In addition, the updated subcommittee goals
and polices chart has information regarding the concept and key areas of consideration about these
about centers and a string of pearls.
3) Acceptance of the Feb. 7, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
Approved.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session – Mixed-Use zones (MU)
General Discussion:
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 49
2
• Concern about vacant storefronts in the MU-3 zones along the east side of Pearl Street.
• As offices have seemingly moved eastward away from the central Boulder core, how can we fill
these urban Mixed-Use zones with active ground floor uses?
Residential Uses
• In MU-3, residential uses are a Conditional (C) use that mandates a 20’ deep commercial space
along the ground floor, per section 9-6-4(j), B.R.C. 1981. Consider modifying this conditional use
to allow for a use review when the specific conditions cannot be met, given concerns about
vacant storefronts.
• Consider adjustments to this section to be more flexible in order to meet future needs, with the
goal to enhance and encourage active ground floor of buildings.
• In MU-3 for Efficiency Living Units (ELUs), not sure the L2 limitation makes sense (allowed by
right if at least 50% of the floor area of the building is for residential use and the nonresidential
use is less than 7,000 square feet per building, otherwise by use review only), given that ELUs
would be limited to no more than 40% of the residential use mix.
• In MU-4, consider changing Custodial Care from Prohibited use to a Use Review, consistent with
the other MU-zones.
• Fraternities, Sororities, and Dormitories use in MU-3, consider changing from a Use Review to
Prohibited use. Taking into account possibly splitting dormitories out as a separate use from
fraternities and sororities, as discussed in prior subcommittee meetings.
Dining and Entertainment Uses
• Like the L6 limitation in place for many of these uses – encourages small businesses (Allowed by
right for 2,000 square feet or less of floor area per lot or parcel, otherwise by use review only).
• In MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3, consider changing Museums from a Prohibited use to a Use Review.
Or possibly a Limited Use allowed up to a smaller square footage (7,000 sf for example), above
which would require a Use Review.
• In the MU zones, consider re-evaluating the Mobile food vehicle on private property use
conditional regulations if overly stringent. Currently a conditional use in the MU zones.
• Consider changing Indoor Amusement Establishment use from prohibited to a Limited use to
one degree or another, providing greater mix of possible uses/small businesses on the ground
floor in the MU- zones.
• Restaurant and like uses in the MU zones – evaluate simplifying and consolidating these uses,
possibly using the Limited Use structure, and part of a rework of these uses across all the zoning
districts.
• In MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3 consider changing small theater or rehearsal space from a Prohibited
Use to a Use Review (or Limited Use perhaps), consistent with the MU-4 zone.
Public and Institutional Uses
• Day shelters and overnight shelters in the MU zones – take a look at the Conditional and Use
Review standards in 9-6-7(b) through the lens of improving the homeless situation, in order to
better align with the policy direction of council.
• In MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3 consider changing mortuaries and funeral chapels from a Prohibited
Use to a Use Review, consistent with the MU-4 zone.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 50
3
Office, Medical, and Financial Uses
• These appear to be consistent with BVCP policy and require no change..
Parks and Recreation Uses in BC zones
• Outdoor entertainment uses in the MU zones - currently prohibited in the MU zones. Per
previous subcommittee meetings – consider revising the definition of Outdoor Entertainment,
with appropriate sub-uses, such as a small amphitheater, considered for allowance to one
degree or another.
Commercial, Retail and Industrial Uses
Service Uses:
• Animal hospital or veterinary clinic in the MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3 zones - consider changing
from prohibited to a Use Review, consistent with the MU-4 allowance.
• “Neighborhood Business Center” uses should be looked at closer.
o Staff: These are non-residential uses that are permitted to a limited degree in
residential zones. May provide a framework or starting point for fostering 15-minute
neighborhoods. This is a use we’d like to take a look as part of the 15-minute
neighborhoods goal for the low density residential zones.
Retail Sales Uses:
• Retail Sales use in the MU-1 zone - consider changing from a prohibited use to a limited or Use
Review use to allow small sized retail. Possibly U1 (Use Review required for 2,000 square feet or
less of floor area per lot or parcel, otherwise prohibited). MU-2 and MU-3 allow it as a U2 up to
5,000 sf via Use Review, and MU-4 allows retail as L11 up to 20,000 sf by-right, otherwise by Use
Review.
• Consider breaking out grocery stores as a separate use from Retail Sales use.
o Currently it’s encompassed within the Retail Sales use.
• Consider updating and modernizing the Personal Service uses definition, to more accurately
reflect modern uses.
o Current definition: Personal service use means an establishment that provides personal
services for the convenience of the neighborhood, including, without limitation, barber
and beauty shops, shoe repair shops, bicycle repair shops, dry cleaners, laundries, self -
service laundries, bakeries, travel agencies, newsstands, pharmacies, photographic
studios, duplicating services, automatic teller machines, and the healing arts (health
treatments or therapy generally not performed by a medical doctor or physician such
as physical therapy, massage, acupuncture, aromatherapy, yoga, audiology, and
homeopathy).
Vehicular-Related Uses:
• In MU-4 zone, consider prohibiting Service of Vehicles with No Outdoor Storage use. Currently a
Use Review in MU-4, and prohibited in all other MU zones.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 51
4
Industrial Uses:
• Manufacturing Uses in the MU-4 zone, consider change from a Limited use to a Prohibited use.
Particularly if no existing manufacturing uses exist in the MU-4 zone.
o Staff: intention of allowing manufacturing uses was probably to prevent creating
nonconformities for pre-existing manufacturing uses. However, it may be very likely that
those manufacturing uses no longer exists in MU-4 zoned parcels.
• Consider allowing more limited service/impact industrial uses into the MU zones with
appropriate restrictions, and in locations that make sense.
Next Steps
• Continue the subcommittee deep-dive into the Use Table:
o DT zones focus
• Staff to send out updated project timeline to subcommittee members, and post it to the online city
documents archive.
• Next subcommittee meeting - Friday March 13th at the Planning Department, Park Central Building,
Room 401.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 52
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
04/13/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
4:00 PM – 5:30 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=171835&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 – One member of the public provided comments.
L. Spalding – Late night operating hours are important to consider in the DT zones. There are
approximately six tavern licenses in downtown zones, and ten hotel licenses in DT zones that require
only a limited 25% food service requirement. Concern about operating as essentially a bar rather
than true restaurant and impacts to the area. Also consider prohibiting adult business in the DT
zones.
Staff comments: Planning Board’s purview considers the hours of operation and operational
characteristics during their review of projects. The Beverage Licensing Authority has authority of
liquor and tavern licensing requirements.
D. Takahashi – No formal comments at this time.
3) Acceptance of the Feb. 20, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
Approved.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session – Downtown zones (DT)
Background:
DT-5 and DT-4 (Pearl Street) more intense DT zones in terms of floor area and uses. DT-1, 2, 3
are as a transition down into the neighboring areas, somewhat less intense.
Current zoning and use standards encourage residential in the DT zones, as it was a lacking use
in these areas during 1990’s when DT zones were first put into effect.
Subcommittee comment: DT-1, 2, 3 seem more appropriate for neighborhood serving uses
(more limits in place to be sensitive to the nearby neighborhoods), rather than the more intense
version of uses in DT-5, and 4 zones.
Residential Uses
Detached Dwelling Units – Currently allowed uses, consider making a L15 (Use Review for new
detached dwellings, existing are allowed by-right) or make no change. Protection of historic
single family structures is important. Leave as an allowed use in DT-1, 2, 3 zones.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 53
2
Consider redefining Live-work use as not just applying to industrial zones (prohibited in DT zones
currently), and allow live-work use to occur in DT zones to encourage smaller commercial spaces
with a residential component as well. For example, a shopkeeper flat.
Reconsider whether Custodial Care is appropriate in DT zones. Currently a Use Review in DT-1,
2, 3, and DT-5 zones, and prohibited in DT-4. Reconsider if this is best location for this use
Fraternities, Sororities, and Dormitories use - consider changing from a Use Review in DT-1, 2, 3
zones to a prohibited use (already prohibited in DT-4, 5). Taking into account possibly splitting
dormitories out as a separate use from fraternities and sororities, as discussed in prior
subcommittee meetings.
Consider make boarding houses a limited use (L16 perhaps – ground floor limit along major
streets) in DT-4, 5. Currently an allowed use in DT-1, 2,3 zones. Need to be careful about the
possibility of transient housing in tourist centric downtown zones however.
Dining and Entertainment Uses
Commercial Kitchens and Catering – Consider changing from a Use Review to prohibited or with
limits on hours of operation in the DT zones, particularly DT-5. If not neighborhood serving uses,
it may not be appropriate (shipping off-site).
There is no separate use category for adult businesses, potentially an existing loophole to fix.
Perhaps consider creating a new use category for adult businesses and limiting the operational
hours, and require spacing standards as well. May be a solution in search of a problem, would
need public comment and attorneys to weigh in.
Mobile Food Vehicle on Public right-of-way use – Consider changing from prohibited to a Use
Review in the DT zones. Perhaps with specific locational standards such as in the alley between
Walnut and Pearl Streets.
Staff note: Push-carts (Mobile-vending carts) are regulated on Pearl Street Mall by Chapter 11 of
Title 4, Licenses and Permits, B.R.C. 1981, and are allowed per those standards - not under the
purview of the Land Use Code. Separately, Temp outdoor event uses could include mobile food
vehicles.
Restaurants, Brewpubs, Taverns use categories across the DT zones - consider mandating a level
of food service , considering possible impacts of solely bars in the DT zones. In DT-1, 2, 3
consider further restrictions of outside patios to limit impacts to adjacent neighborhoods if an
issue, currently a use review with locational operational requirements.
Lodging Uses
Motels and hotels in DT zones, consider adding in standards to limit the potential for off-street
parking in front of the building along street frontages in DT zones. Possibly define hotels and
motels separately with hotels having emphasis as a less automobile focused use.
Public and Institutional Uses
Mortuaries and funeral chapels – consider changing from a use review to prohibited use in DT-1,
2, 3 zones, consistent with their prohibition in DT-4, 5 zones.
Overnight shelters in the DT zones – Currently a conditional use across the board, likely a good
strategy to conditionally allow them across the city’s various zoning districts, good as-is.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 54
3
Office, Medical, and Financial Uses
Data Processing Facilities and all allowed office and similar uses under this category, consider
whether changing to a limited use that prohibits a ground floor location (L16 or L1) in the DT
zones is more appropriate. Consider changing in order to encourage more active street level
uses, rather than data processing facilities and other non-active uses that don’t contribute to
the life of the street
Parks and Recreation Uses
Outdoor entertainment uses – currently a Use review in the DT zones. Per previous
subcommittee meetings – consider revising the definition of Outdoor Entertainment, with
appropriate sub-uses, such as a small amphitheater, considered for allowance to one degree or
another.
Staff note: Also consider moving outdoor entertainment use to the Entertainment Use Table
category rather than the Parks and Rec category.
Commercial, Retail and Industrial Uses
Vehicular-Related Uses:
Consider updating Fuel Service Stations, Retail Fuel Sales in the DT zones from a use or
conditional use review to a prohibited use if no existing uses in the zones. Also the table has
duplicative listings in the Use Table.
Staff note: as part of a code clean-up this use name and entry may be updated and consolidated
with the duplicative entries.
Car washes and drive thru uses – consider changing from a use review to a prohibited use in the
DT zones. Not the type of uses that are consistent with our walkable downtown zones.
Industrial Uses:
Consider prohibiting cold storage locker use from a use review to a prohibited use in the DT
zones. Consider adding a definition.
Staff note: If not defined by the code, definition of terms typically defaults to a common
language understanding (or a dictionary definition) – Cold storage is then essentially a
warehouse with refrigerated storage.
Computer Design and development facilities – consider changing from an allowed use to a
limited use that limits a ground floor location (L1 or L16) in the DT-1, 2, 3, and 5 zones,
consistent with the L1 use in the DT-4 zone.
Telecommunications use – consider changing from an allowed use to a limited use that limits a
ground floor location (L1 or L16) in the DT-1, 2, 3, and 5 zones, consistent with the L1 use in the
DT-4 zone.
Equipment repair and rental with outdoor storage – Consider changing from a use review to a
prohibited use in the DT zones.
Consider creating a new use for Bicycle repair / sales as a new use in the use table and allow in
the DT zones, and elsewhere as may be appropriate.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 55
4
Next Steps
Continue the subcommittee deep-dive into the Use Table:
o Residential High zones (RH) zones
o Following meetings: R3 use module (RM-1 and RM-3 zones)
o Following meetings: R1 and R2 use modules (RE, RR, RL, and RM-2 zones)
Standing weekly virtual subcommittee meetings – Every Monday afternoon at 4pm for at least the
next few weeks.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 56
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
04/20/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
4:00 PM – 5:30 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=171835&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 – One member of the public provided comments.
C. Gray – Regarding last week’s subcommittee discussion:
The 15 min. neighborhood discussion should consider the concept from a transportation
perspective, and requires good and safe access.
Good idea to regulate hours of operation for businesses in the DT zones for businesses, as
suggested by members of the public.
Be careful regulating sexually oriented businesses, as they do have to be allowed
somewhere legally.
Subcommittee comments: The subcommittee is collecting ideas and providing initial suggestions,
but nothing is being decided now. Recommendations will occur after community engagement later
this year.
3) Acceptance of the April 13, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
Approved.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session – Residential - High zones (RH)
Background: Overview of where the various zones are located, brief review of the background of
the zones and some characteristics of density and open space requirements.
General subcommittee comments:
Many of these RH zones are located in such a way as to be already walkable to many daily needs such as
commercial and office uses. May not need much adjustment as other zones to encourage 15-min.
neighborhoods, as already function as such in many instances.
S. Silver: Consider separating out RH-1/2 from RH-4/5 (currently grouped together under the R6 use
module), as they are in different areas of town with different character. RH-1/2 zones are older areas
with some historic character mixed-in around the downtown area, and RH-4/5 are more suburban in
location and character. Additionally, suggestions (of S. Silver) will reflect the current Covid-19 situation
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 57
2
and the idea that sheltering in place should include equitable access to open areas/space in
developments, that it’s not a privilege.
D. Ensign: We should be cautious about the cross-section of the current Covid-19 situation and urban
planning. It’s complicated and evolving, therefore we need to be cautious about drawing conclusions at
this time.
Residential Uses
Detached Dwelling Units – Currently a Limited Use L15 (Use Review for new detached dwellings,
existing ones are allowed by-right) in the R6 use module (RH-1,2,4,5). S. Silver suggests splitting
off RH-1/2 and making an allowed (A) use. D. Ensign disagrees, stating there are other zones
that already allow detached dwelling by-right, and often to the exclusion of other residential
types.
o No subcommittee consensus.
Efficiency Living Units (ELUs) outside of University Hill – S. Silver suggests splitting of RH-1/2
zones from RH4/5 zones and prohibiting 40% or greater mix of ELUs in the RH-1/2 zones.
Currently a use review for 40% or greater, and allowed for less than 40%. The percentage was
recently increased from 20% to 40% in the Use Table Phase 1 approved by council, perhaps too
much in the areas.. D. Ensign disagrees, believes the existing use review requirement provides
enough scrutiny and public process when these occasionally come-up. Would like to avoid an
effective downzoning.
o No subcommittee consensus.
Fraternities, sororities, and dormitories in the R6 use module – S. Silver suggests these may be
appropriate in the RH-5 zones around the CU campus, but not with other RH zones, consider
changes from currently an allowed use (A) in the R6 use module to reflect that. D. Ensign
doesn’t share this concern with the existing use allowance.
o No subcommittee consensus
Dining and Entertainment Uses
Restaurants, Brewpubs, Taverns over 1,000 SF / close after 11pm/outdoor dining over 300SF –
consider as a question for the public to weigh in on whether to change from a use review (U) in
the R6 use module zones, to prohibited. Especially given the use is prohibited in the RH3/7/8
zones already. Perhaps flip the use allowances between these zones.
o Restaurants, brewpubs and taverns uses less than 1,000 SF / close before 11pm/
outdoor dining less than 300 SF are allowed by-right (A) in the R3/7/8 zones, but a use
review (U) in the R6 use module. This is not consistent with larger restaurant use
allowances a noted above.
Small theater and rehearsal space – consider changing from a prohibited use to a use review in
the R6 and R7 use modules to encourage more 15-min. neighborhood uses/amenities.
Lodging Uses
Ok as -is.
Public and Institutional Uses
Ok as -is.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 58
3
Office, Medical, and Financial Uses
Discussion on the existing Use Review versus L2 limited use. Ok as -is.
Parks and Recreation Uses
Ok as -is.
Commercial, Retail and Industrial Uses
Service Uses:
Consider changing Animal and Vet Clinics from a prohibited use to Use Review in the DT zones.
Would seem to fit within the desired uses for 15-minute neighborhoods, and would not include
kennels as a principal use. Worth asking the public.
Retail Sales Uses:
Convenience Retail Sales – Currently a use review in RH-1,2,4,5 (the R6 Use Module), a limited
use in RH-3 /7 zones (L6 - allowed by right for 2,000 square feet or less of floor area per lot or
parcel, otherwise by use review only), and prohibited in RH-6.
o Consider putting in a size limit in the R6 use modules, perhaps a new Ux designation
(similar to U1) that limits the square footage to say 1,000 SF or less via use review,
otherwise prohibited.
o Also consider other standards such as saturation limits, design guidelines, and locational
requirements to ensure appropriate levels of the use in R6 module neighborhoods.
o Potential to apply such a Ux designation in other residential zones to encourage
compatible 15-minute neighborhood convenience retail uses.
Additional Public Comment -
K. Nordback - The Goss Grove neighborhood as an example of RH-1 and RH-2 zones is a mix of
character, it’s not all single-family character and historic. It’s a mix with some of those 60’s –
90’s style apartment buildings. Not a homogeneous character across the board.
C. Gray - Please be sure to update the project website and post summaries of the meetings to
the online archive.
Next Steps
Continue the subcommittee deep-dive into the Use Table:
o RL-2 and RM-2 zones (R2 use module), and the RM-1 and RM-3 zones (R3 use module)
o Following meeting: RE, RR, RL-1 zones (R1 use module)
o Following meetings: Industrial zones and project next steps
Standing weekly virtual subcommittee meetings through May 18th – every Monday afternoon at
4pm.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 59
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
04/27/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
4:00 PM – 5:30 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=171835&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 – Two members of the public provided comments.
L. Spalding – Regarding last week’s subcommittee discussion:
Supports the idea of separating out RH1-1/2 from RH-4/5 in the Use Table.
Fraternities and sororities should be limited to only the RH-5 zones around CU campus, they
do not need to be permitted elsewhere tin the respective zones.
Brewpubs open after 11 pm and like uses – concern about them transitioning to purely bars
if allowed to a greater extent and if not a level of food service required. In addition, Use
Reviews are not always the answer or an effective method to regulate undesirable uses,
speaking from experience.
C. Gray – Regarding community engagement:
Think about structuring the engagement of potential changes based on sub areas or
subcommunity areas, and the zones within them.
Can then list the uses that are under consideration for each subcommunity / neighborhood.
People would be able to better relate to the idea of changing land uses in their respective
neighborhood, rather than in the Use Table citywide.
Subcommittee comments: Like the idea of geographically breaking up the engagement and tailoring
it by subcommunity and the zoning districts within it.
3) Acceptance of the April 20, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
Approved.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session – R2 and R3 Use Modules: Residential – Low/ Medium
zones (RL-2 and RM-2 zones ; RM-1 and RM-3 zones)
Background: Overview of where the various zones are located, brief review of the background of
the zones and some characteristics of density and open space requirements. Within the RM zones
not much redevelopment has occurred over the years. RL-2 and RM-1 have similar min. open space
per dwelling unit requirements, development of these zones mainly from 1970’s to 2000’s. RM-2
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 60
2
and RM-3 have a density based on lot area per unit and development in these zones typically
predated the 70’s.
Despite similarities in metrics each zone is a unique blend of allowed uses, and different
form and bulk standards as well.
Scope of this project is the allowed uses with each zone.
General subcommittee comments:
S. Silver:
The RM-1 zone near the Table Mesa commercial area by CU South and Tantra Drive seems like
an area that could be transformed to more of a mixed-use area. Many empty parking lots that
could be repurposed and would be supported by transit, particularly the northeast corner of
that zone.
Need to be cautious about putting retail into neighborhoods.
No matter the development metrics, we need to maintain and protect the existing green spaces
in these R2/R3 use module neighborhoods.
15-minute neighborhood discussion should be more focused on BC zones and how they can
transform into true neighborhood centers.
D. Ensign:
D. Ensign agreed with S. Silver that the area on the South side of Table Mesa bounded by CU
South and Tantra serves as a small commercial/retail center, and that mixed use zoning that
allows for a mix of housing and retail (such as BC zoning among others) could be a better fit for
this limited area. D. Ensign said he has noticed some other areas where zoning boundaries
could be adjusted to better match existing/potential uses.
o The subcommittee agreed that zoning change recommendations are outside the scope
of this effort, but when such potential adjustments are noticed it could be good to
remember those insights for future zoning efforts.
Supports the idea that Table Mesa and other similar areas could be re-envisioned as walkable
15-min. neighborhoods.
Broad observation - the RL-2 zones seem to have lower walkability with less access to 15 min.
neighborhood serving uses (in reference to GoBoulder’s 15-min. neighborhood access maps).
Other zones within the R2 and R3 use modules appear to have more / better walkable access to
such 15 min.-neighborhood uses.
A key question for the public is “Do you want neighborhoods that are more mixed-use where
you can walk to other uses?”
Residential Uses
Efficiency Living Units (ELUs) outside of University Hill D. Ensign poses the question of whether
ELUs should be allowed to some extent or another in these zones, currently prohibited. S. Silver
thinks they should remain as currently prohibited in these zones.
o No subcommittee consensus.
Accessory Dwelling Units (all types) in the RL-2 zone – D. Ensign suggests considering an increase
to the existing 20% saturation limit on ADUs within the RL zones. S. Silver disagrees. The
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 61
3
proposal of such may be a distraction and is known to be sufficiently controversial as it could
derail the Use Table project. Would need to be its own project focused on ADUs.
o Subcommittee consensus- no changes for consideration at this time as part of the
current Use Table project.
Dining and Entertainment Uses
General discussion:
What ways can we get an appropriate mix of uses in these lower density residential zones? Use
Review is a tool, but not perfect. May need to be combined with new use standards geared
towards regulating scale, saturation limits, design standards, and walkability/access to transit.
Not every area would want a mix of uses in their neighborhoods. 15-min. neighborhoods are not
a solution for every problem.
We need to be clear about what we mean by “15-minute neighborhoods”. Any potential
changes to allowed uses in the low density residential zones, should be made clear that it could
be someone’ neighbor or the neighboring property that changes its use (if not specific about
where a give proposed use can and cannot occur).
Opportunities to focus 15 min-neighborhoods to key areas such as key intersections along
Broadway (“String of Pearls” concept).
We need to be clear about what we mean by “15-minute neighborhoods” and the importance of
getting the BC 1/2 zones right with any proposed changes to uses, as that may provide much of
what we mean by a walkable neighborhood.
Staff comment: We will discuss 15-minute neighborhoods in more detail along with a discussion on
community engagement at the end of the zoning districts deep-dives. Tentatively the May 18th
subcommittee meeting. Ultimately the consideration and possible adoption of changes to allowed uses
will be vetted by the public, with recommendation provided by Planning Board for City Council to make
a decision on later in the year.
Mobile Food vehicles on private or public property – consider changing from a prohibited use to
a use review or limited use as a small way to get some mix of uses in these zones.
Lodging Uses
Bed and Breakfasts uses - consider changing from a prohibited use to a use review or
conditional use in the RM-1 /3 zones. Limited locations and smaller size requirements perhaps.
Public and Institutional Uses
Discussion on Overnight and Day Shelters. Currently a Use Review in the RM-1 and RM-3 zones,
and prohibited in the R2 use Module. While not perfect, the use review allowance is spread
evenly across many zones in the city. Consistent with previous subcommittee discussion on this
topic, the current use review does provide oversight and the use is ok as-is.
Office, Medical, and Financial Uses
Medical offices, Professional offices, and Technical offices are currently a use review in these
zones. Consider further restricting these uses in these zones, put the question to the public if
these uses are appropriate in these zones.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 62
4
Commercial, Retail and Industrial Uses
General discussion on all nonresidential uses:
The application and implementation of 15 min. neighborhoods is both a philosophical and
practical question. The community should be inspired by how their neighborhoods may or may
not look and function in the future, and also aware of what uses could or could not happen next
door to them depending on what changes to uses are considered.
Community engagement and questions to the public around the topic is key.
Opportunities for Business Community (BC) zones as seeds for 15 min. neighborhood centers,
e.g. catchment areas to consider implementing 15-min. neighborhoods..
Subcommittee Parking Lot (additional ideas outside the scope of this project):
Flagging the RM zoning of the Table Mesa area near CU south, as potentially appropriate to
change to a mixed-use zone.
Revisit the ADU regulations and saturation limits when appropriate (Council or Planning Board
would need to identify this as a priority project).
Next Steps
Continue the subcommittee deep-dive into the Use Table:
o R1 use module - low density residential zones RR, RE, and RL-1 zoning districts
o Following meeting: Industrial zones
o Following meetings: 15 min. neighborhoods and community engagement, project next steps
Standing weekly virtual subcommittee meetings through May 18th – every Monday afternoon at
4pm.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 63
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
05/04/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
4:00 PM – 5:30 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=171835&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 – One member of the public provided comments.
C. Gray – Regarding community engagement:
Agrees with S. Silver comments at the 4/27 meeting regarding community engagement.
Need to do outreach to a lot of people notifying them of issues specific to their
neighborhood. People need to be notified by neighborhood areas, with listing of specific
uses that could be changing related to their neighborhoods.
3) Acceptance of the April 27, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
Approved.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session – Deep-dive into the R1 use module (low density
residential zones) -Residential Rural (RR), Residential Estate (RE), and Residential Low-1 (RL-1)
zoning districts
Background: Overview of where the various zones are located, brief review of the background of
the zones and some characteristics of density and open space requirements.
General subcommittee comments:
S. Silver - Would like to flag for future consideration (for ideas / code changes outside the scope
of the Use Table and Standards) the potential to subdivide RR and RE zoned lots, in order to
make the opportunity to do so more straightforward. Would allow an increase in the pool of
single family houses in Boulder. It would be an incremental way to add housing without radically
changing the character of single family neighborhoods. D. Ensign agrees that the subdivision of
RR and RE lots could be an idea for future consideration.
D. Ensign - One of the things learned from the Large Homes and Lots study and community
engagement was that changes need to be incremental, and impacts spread out across all zones,
even to avoid the perception of some neighborhoods feeling targeted for change.
S. Silver - Could be useful for the public to understand potential increase in dwelling units based
on the ideas or consideration put out there from this project. Projections of density, units and
development would be useful to present to the public if such ideas for use changes move
forward.
D. Ensign - Walkability scores of neighborhoods (from GoBoulder’s 15-min. neighborhood
analysis) would also be useful for communicating with public.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 64
2
Residential Uses
General Discussion:
What would be some palatable ways to allow (whether via use review or limited use) some
different housing types in the R1 use module zones. Currently, duplexes, townhomes and other
similar housing uses are prohibited.
o Elements that would be important to consider could include design guidelines and
saturation limits. Could be a question to ask the public, what elements would be
important to consider.
o Would be important to maintain the single-family feel through design requirements.
o Would need to be an incremental approach, not broad-brushed.
The 2014/15 Housing Survey on in-commuters to Boulder revealed a strong preference for
missing middle housing types, specifically more single-family homes, duplexes, and triplexes
with lawns. There is a clear demand for single-family homes.
o Consider asking the public if more flexibility is warranted in these R1 use module zones.
ADUs in RL-1 zone – Currently a 20% saturation limit for ADUS. Consider asking the public if this
saturation limit should be changed or not.
Staff comments:
The 2014 Housing Choice may be found online at https://bouldercolorado.gov/housing-
boulder/housing-data-challenges. The webpage also includes recent housing strategies and
polices as developed by the city around this issue.
Information on the middle-income housing strategy can also be found online at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/housing-boulder/middle-income-housing-strategy-working-group
Dining and Entertainment Uses
General discussion:
Mobile Food Vehicles in Public right-of-way - Currently a conditional use (C), and the use
standards limits their location to specific city parks only in these zones. Consider broadening the
standards to conditionally allow them in additional locations.
Coffee shops (Alpine Modern as an example near College Avenue) and similar small scale uses
(small scale, part of the Restaurants, Brewpubs and Taverns use categories): Consider asking the
public if this is a use they want in these R1 use module zones. Perhaps the existing business
zones nearby (such as BC-1/2) are better locations instead of within residential areas if the BC
areas are already accessible/walkable. Barriers such as major intersections may exist to some of
the business areas. Attaining neighborhood buy-in will be critical for any changes.
Incremental Changes with positive impacts should be the focus.
Perhaps consider creating a Use Review allowance (such as a new Ux), with a small size limit
(above which it’s prohibited), operational limits, locational requirements, and design, public
safety and viewshed protection criteria.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 65
3
Other General Discussion:
Incremental change will be appropriate for the R1 use module zones, and identifying what the
parameters are to make possible new uses work (see previous subcommittee discussion above
as well).
Engagement should ask what other elements are missing from creating 15-minute walkable
neighborhoods (besides uses). Pedestrian connections, transportation access, and what are the
barriers.
Alpine-Balsam area plan could be a model for the community engagement – talk to everyone,
lots of conversations with residents not just business owners.
We want everyone to have a voice in implementing 15-minute neighborhoods.
Subcommittee Parking Lot (additional ideas outside the scope of this project):
Consider easing the subdivision regulations for RR and RE zoned lots (reduced minimum lot
sizes). Would allow an increase in the pool of single family houses in Boulder. It would be an
incremental way to add housing without radically changing the character of single family
neighborhoods.
As part of public outreach, consider a “Parking Lot” approach to hearing about other changes
beyond use table changes that could be conveyed to other departments for consideration.
Next Steps
May 11th - Discussion on the Industrial Zones - centered on use categories such as residential
uses, restaurant uses, etc.
o Following meeting: 15 min. neighborhood ideas and community engagement, project
next steps.
May 18th is the last scheduled virtual subcommittee meeting currently – will need to get more
scheduled for June 1st and 8th as needed.
Public Comment Period II – Three members of the public provided comments.
K. Nordback –
Incremental and considered is the right way to go regarding changes in these areas.
Agrees with the ideas of reducing lot size minimums in the RE and RR zones.
With saturation limits, consider increasing them slowing/gradually over time, for example a
percentage or two increase each year up to a limit.
Regarding design compatibility - street corners could be a consideration for duplexes
required to be separately oriented to each street (as an example), as well as what other
cities have done such as mandating that within neighborhoods, commercial type uses must
also maintain the residence on the property (a house and coffee shop, not just a coffee
shop).
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 66
4
L. Spalding –
Alpine Modern was historically a neighborhood grocery store and food co-op. People in the
neighborhood were familiar with its history and use, so they were more willing to be
accepting of one nonconforming use for another in the structure.
Could be a model as an easy way to start - utilizing such nonconforming or historic
structures that are already in place, and are part of the neighborhood character.
L. Segal –
Housing paradigms are shifting with Covid-19 pandemic. Disagrees with the idea of
incremental increases to saturation limits. Wary of creeping density.
Likes the idea of neighborhoods centers and ADUs. Food co-ops and little grocery stores
could be ok, but duplexes and triplexes are too much.
Community engagement is important, but not like the Alpine-Balsam area plan.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 67
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
05/11/2020 Meeting Summary Notes
4:00 PM – 5:30 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, Kathleen King, Sarah Wiebenson
1) Welcome and Ground Rules
2) Public Comment Period – Three members of the public provided comments.
L. Spalding – Industrial Zones: Be careful about increasing restaurant and residential uses in
Industrial zoning districts. There are usually incompatible uses, and these new uses may come in and
displace necessary industrial uses that re lease spaces.
C. Gray – Regarding uses in the R1 use module:
Like the discussion last week, including the possibility of revisiting mobile food trucks
allowances. Worth considering again.
The ADU regulations with the 20% saturation limit in the RL zones have not been in place for
long. Before considering changing them, should understand what’s occurred so far, how
many units have been built.
Regarding Meadows shopping center (and similar locations) - agrees with the idea of them
becoming more of true neighborhood centers, and taking into account access to transit, and
other factors beyond uses will be a key to their success.
Covid-19 pandemic related social distancing and restaurant restrictions - the city should
consider closing off streets for restaurants to use for outdoor seating and the allowance for
liquor as appropriate.
K. Nordback –Industrial zones: Has worked in Industrial zoning areas for 20 years, and people have
to leave the area and drive to get lunch. An issue that should be addressed, by bringing in
interesting uses into the zones to serve more of people’s daily needs.
Subcommittee comments:
S. Silver - Agrees with some of the concerns mentioned about increases land values by allowing
more residential uses, that could then displace light industrial uses.
Don’t want to displace industrial small businesses that exist, such as in Industrial Service (IS)
zone. Valuable to the community.
Perhaps could carve out certain areas or smaller spaces for funky uses that fit within the
industrial uses, rather than displacing them.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 68
2
3) Acceptance of the May 4, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
Approved.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session
Update and discussion on the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan (EBSCP) – Kathleen King, City of
Boulder
Background and overview of the project, what’s happened so far, and where they are in the process
was provided. For more information please see the EBSCP project webpage online at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/east-boulder
Presentation highlights:
Over 60% of the land within the EBSCP is zoned Industrial. Approx. 820 businesses within
the plan area.
In addition to typical industrial or light industrial uses, there are also many artistic/maker
uses (and performance art) with these zones, as they need similar large spaces, storage
requirements, an/or may produce noise or even fumes - for example metal working or
sculpting.
There is also many distilleries and breweries in these areas.
EBSCP Working Group – (comprised of local stakeholders – residents that live or work in the
area, or own property/businesses nearby) have heard people have to drive to get lunch or
other services.
o Would like to see more daily services incorporated in the plan, including potential
for 15-min neighborhood centers (some level of retail and increased rooftops) at key
locations (map showing areas was presented, and is included in the PB archive
folder):
55th and Valmont
55th and Arapahoe (near the planned transit center/stop)
47th and Valmont
Subcommittee comments:
S. Silver - There is a danger of disrupting the industrial zones through possible changes. Need to
look at how changes could increase the land values. That could in turn raise rents and force many
businesses out. Would prefer changes to focus on nodes rather than wholesale changes across the
board.
D. Ensign – This could be an interesting place to pilot some increase in residential uses that
would complement the existing uses (at certain locations). Tweaks to the current use standards
rather than rezonings would be the technique.
Staff comments: Strengths of the Subcommunity planning process is the transportation and land
use plans. Zoning changes could be implemented later on as an outcome of the actual plan
adoption (longer range timeline). The Use Table goals is to make incremental changes to Use
Standards and allowances if appropriate, that align with the ongoing planning process occurring
with the EBSCP, and with the existing BVCP policies and goals (particularly15-min. neighborhoods).
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 69
3
Deep-dive into the Industrial zones (IG, IS, IM, and IMS)
Residential Uses
Subcommittee Discussion:
Duplexes and Attached Housing uses – Currently allowed to some extent in the Industrial zones (by
Limited Use or Use Review)
S. Silver - Concern about residential uses pushing out industrial uses. We should move
cautiously with encouraging residential and retail uses in these zones. We don’t want to raise
property values such that rent increases and existing business are forced to leave.
D. Ensign – Agrees that we don’t want to gentrify these neighborhoods or force out existing
businesses. But we shouldn’t back away from the existing allowances (further restrict them) for
residential uses in industrial zones.
D. Ensign - Noted that current use restrictions in 9-6-4(f) make it virtually impossible to propose
residential within IG and IM zones. Contiguity with residential in adjacent zones excludes most
possibilities. In addition, there is language requiring the entire property being used for
residential purposes if it is approved. This is on top of environmental suitability, which would
likely be expensive for developers to demonstrate. There may be ways to create the possibility
of mixed use within these zones by relaxing some of these requirements while implementing
other limited use restrictions to ensure that needed industrial uses are not priced out.
S. Silver - Gentrification (displacement of existing industrial uses due to higher land values and
rents, associated with other uses coming in such residential or other non-industrial uses), has
the potential to bring about additional contiguity by increasing residential uses over time. Under
the existing regulations, this could enable more residential uses to be established over time as
the contiguity to the residential uses grows, increasing the undesired gentrification of the
Industrial zones and pushing out industrial. The Transit Village Area Plan area (TVAP) is an
example of how gentrification of an industrial area pulls residential development ever deeper
into our limited industrial areas. Thus the Use Tables may not be the best tool for a robust
discussion of uses in industrial zones.
I used TVAP as an example of how gentrification of an industrial area pulls residential
development ever deeper into our limited industrial areas
S. Silver - Major concern about residential uses in the Industrial zones. Could see carving out
specific locations for residential, but not appropriate everywhere in these zones - idea for the
subcommittee’s parking lot.
D. Ensign - The existing Use Review standards and Limited Uses provide enough restrictions and
standards to limit residential uses in these zones as it is today. Would not want to further limit
it. It is critical to have transit and critical infrastructure in place though in locations where
residential uses could be increased, such as around 55th and Arapahoe.
No subcommittee consensus on potential changes to consider to Residential uses in Industrial zones.
Points of agreement related to Industrial Zones :
Not every industrial zone has the same characteristics and needs. There is a difference, for
example, between Gunbarrel and the 55th Street Industrial zones. Perhaps Gunbarrel would be a
better location for some uses like residential than the east Boulder industrial zones.
Whether changes should be limited in scope, or more robust to these industrial zones, is a
question best served by the EBSCP process.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 70
4
Subcommittee Parking Lot (additional ideas outside the scope of this project):
Consider studying the potential for overlay areas (or other tools) to allow mixed-use including
more residential uses in industrial zones at specific locations (rather than wholesale). Would
likely be part of an implementation process as an outcome of subcommunity planning, that
would identify such locations within a given community.
Seems to be a prevalence of under-used parking in the area, consider lessening the parking
standards in the Industrial zones.
Public Comment Period II – One member of the public provided comments.
L. Segal –
ULI re-imagining density – need to reconsider density and the urban grid with the pandemic,
more space for bikes, and less car dependent. Less need for arterials and parking. People
more grounded at home and less travel.
Shares concern about raising property values pushing out industrial business.
Don’t need more Eastpointe or the Adult Care facilities that are most impacted but Covid-19
virus.
Next Steps
May 18th – Continuation of the discussion on the Industrial Zones - centered on use categories.
o Following meeting: 15 min. neighborhood ideas and community engagement, project
Meeting will be scheduled until 6pm if needed, and staff will try to stick to time limits on
sections.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 71
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
05/18/2020 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, Kathleen King
1) Welcome and Ground Rules
2) Public Comment Period – Three members of the public provided comments.
L. Segal – Looking at other examples of development, we don’t want to become like Shenzhen,
China, cannot be too big. The scale of some recent Boulder projects is too big, the Hill hotel, East
Pointe, and others. If too big, we can’t revert back to a more livable scale. Agree that we should
change incrementally and slowly.
D. Takahashi – A series of rhetorical questions to consider:
1. Can we envision a lower carbon world?
2. Can we then infer what can be built with Net Positive in mind (including remodels)?
3. Can we re-imagine a pedestrian (PMT) scaled world and abandon automobile dominance
and VMT?
4. Can we then evaluate our gaps and build a land use table that supports a lower carbon
pedestrian scale world?
5. Then can we use the “new” conforming definition to fast track permit “conforming” projects
thus getting developer buy-in to encourage the world we know is required?
6. Then repeat?
C. Gray – Agrees with D. Takahashi’s comments.
Liked the presentation last week on the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan (EBSCP) with
Kathleen King, interesting discussion. We also need to be aware that some sites in the
EBSCP are former industrial sites that are polluted, should be conscious when encouraging
other types of development.
Use Tables can be leveraged to enable arts and creative spaces in the Industrial zones, but
also to protect industrial spaces.
K. Nordback –Also agrees with D. Takahashi’s comments.
3) Acceptance of the May 11, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
Approved.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 72
2
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session – continuation of deep-dive into the Industrial zones
(IG, IS, IM, and IMS)
Dining & Entertainment Uses
Mobile Food Truck Uses - Consider changing the conditional use standards to more readily allow
food trucks in the zones, by relaxing the distance requirements.
Breweries Wineries and Distilleries – S. Silver: Would like to encourage these to be of a smaller
more fine-grained and walkable scale. Current allowance is for a limited use typically by-right up
to 15,000 square feet – may be too large. Smaller facilities could allow more space for other
desired uses as well. Would like to encourage smaller brewpubs, human scaled places, but
perhaps the size is appropriate to these facilities. Consider putting the question to the public.
Restaurants Industrial zones – D. Ensign: the existing conditional and use review regulations in
section 9-6-6(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981, are a maybe too heavy-handed of an approach. Consider asking
the public if these should be revised to be more flexible. S. Silver: There may be physical and
other limitations, including access limits ,that make the industrial areas not attractive for
restaurants.
Taverns in Industrial zones – D. Ensign: Unique that taverns are called out and explicitly
prohibited in the industrial zones. No strong feelings either way though.
Lodging Uses and Public & Institutional Uses – ok as is. Noted that somewhat strange that Private
Schools are a prohibited use and Public Schools are an allowed use.
Office, Medical, and Financial Uses – ok as is. Medical, Dental clinics and like uses – Noted that they are
largely prohibited in industrial zones, could be a future point to consider.
Staff comments - K. King: As part of the EBSCP process, the lens of Covid-19 has come up in the
recent discussions. For office uses, some people have made the point that larger office spaces
might be needed in order to accommodate social distancing within office spaces, while others
point out that remote working is reducing the need for traditional office space. Similarly,
regarding parking some people have pointed out additional parking is good if drive now in order
to protect themselves versus riding transit. While others make the point that with more
teleworkers, there will be less need for vehicular parking, creating an opportunity for infill
development. People have also mentioned a desire for more dining and entertainment uses in
the area. Bike facilities are generally well used and are a desired physical improvement, along
with pedestrian and street connections.
Parks and Recreation Uses – ok as is
Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Uses
Keep the retail uses as -is. Nothing is standing out as needing change.
Live-work definition - Per previous subcommittee discussions, consider updating the definition
to include other zones, and potentially be more flexible in the Industrial zones.
o Opportunity to re-envision the use (possibly a new sub-category) for arts, creatives, and
trades specific uses. Consider making it an allowed use in order to encourage live/work
uses in the Industrial Zones. Would support these complementary uses and preserve
spaces for the creative community in Boulder.
o Parking Lot idea: creation of an Arts District in the EBSCP area.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 73
3
Self-service storage facilities uses: Consider changing from an allowed use in the Industrial
Service zones (IS) to a Use Review. These should have a level of oversight, with further limits on
them.
Other Subcommittee Discussion:
D. Ensign: The subcommittee recognizes that the Gunbarrel industrial area has needs and desires of
their own, and that area may not align with some of the discussion regarding the EBSCP. Not every
industrial zone has the same characteristics and needs.
Staff comment: the Gunbarrel area does have an existing area plan in place (i.e., Gunbarrel
Community Center Plan), albeit close to 10 years old now. It’s a good framework guiding future
development there.
S.Silver: Some concern regarding the three 15-minute neighborhoods areas depicted in the EBSCP
discussion last week. Would not want the future plan to build out those three areas as such without a
community process.
Staff comment: Those were depicting some of the options as identified by the working group
that could be areas for change, but may not be all of them in actuality. They are preliminary
options and ideas that will have to be played out and evaluated in the coming year. The
concentric circles as presented were diagrammatic, and are in reality constrained by access and
other limits.
Regarding community engagement:
Concern with an online only engagement strategy.
Should try to engage by subcommunity and by relevant zone as previously suggested.
Subcommittee Parking Lot (additional ideas outside the scope of this project):
Consider the idea for the creation of an Arts District in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan area
(EBSCP).
Next Steps
June 1st – Summary of What we’ve heard from the subcommittee. 2hrs.
June 8th – Community Engagement discussion. 2 hrs.
Public Comment Period II – One member of the public provided comments.
K. Nordback – Would have liked to have seen more discussion today around retail sales, and
convenience retail. There is missing need for general retail, office supply stores, and smaller retail in
industrial areas.
Staff comment: “Convenience retail” was changed to an allowable use last year in the industrial
zones. “Retail” use is still prohibited.
L. Segal – Has concerns with limits placed on ADUs in boulder, has had to give up AirBnB. Likes and
misses the fluidity that short-term rentals provided. Glad that people are discussing the Covid-19
effect on cities, and that it’s come up here in the discussion and in the EBSCP process as well.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 74
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee
06/01/2020 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=173010&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2&cr=1
Subcommittee members: David Ensign (Chair), Sarah Silver
Staff: Karl Guiler, Andrew Collins
1) Welcome and Ground Rules
2) Public Comment Period – Three members of the public provided comments.
L. Spalding –
• The 15-minute neighborhood concept needs to be nailed down. People would be very
disappointed if it would allow a convenience store, if what they have in mind is a “Mom &
Pop” type store and you end up with a chain store. Need to be clear in what could be
permitted with potential changes.
• Changes to Efficiency Living Units (ELU’s) may be worthy of a ballot initiative – concern with
occupancies of each ELU.
L. Segal –
• We should not be allowing more ELUs. They are inefficient with separate utilities for each
unit, rather than a shared living concept.
• Parking needs have changed with the Covid-19 pandemic, need to rethink parking spaces
and their uses.
• Glad to hear recent planning conversations acknowledging the Covid-19 world we live in
now, hope to see that reflected in BVCP updates and area planning as well.
D. Takahashi – Statement read aloud:
“Let us connect the dots between the theme of Sustainability in the Comprehensive Plan and
the Use Table and Zoning. The single use zoning code served its purpose at the time it was
adopted: energy was cheap and climate change was beneath the radar. However, single use
zoning no longer serves us well and needs to be respectfully put to rest. In its place we need to
be ushering in rules and codes which serve coming generations: our present choices cannot
restrict the options available to generations that have not yet been born and who do not have a
vote in the present decisions.
To this end, we vow to dismantle zoning rules that segregate buildings by income level and use,
which result in isolation, dispersion, and automobile miles. The built environment will integrate
and reflect methodologies such as permaculture, circular economics, biophilia, biomimicry,
cradle to cradle, and prosumerism. This will substitute environmental well-being in place of net
profit. In doing so, profit will flow. Our built environment will place priority in right livelihood:
buildings will be required to test their energy efficiency and publicly display it much like a mpg
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 75
2
or mpc sticker on a vehicle being sold. Value will be redefined as the efficient use of supply and
demand side energy levels.”
3) Acceptance of the May 18, 2020 Subcommittee meeting summary notes
Approved.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session –
S. Silver:
• Following-up on previous discussions regarding residential uses in Industrial zones - If
residential uses are allowed to a greater extent in the Industrial zones, we’d mostly get stacked
flats, as the zoning district already allows 27 dwelling units/acre in terms of density. Based on
previous housing surveys, people are not looking for stacked flats. Duplexes or townhomes
would possibly make more sense with less intensity. Concern then that the Use Table project is
not the right tool to carefully get appropriate residential in the Industrial zones.
• Additional concerns regarding the expanding RMX-2 zoning district density bonus for additional
housing types to other zoning districts.
Staff comment: Email regarding the above comments from S. Silver will be placed in the online planning
subcommittee archive.
Review and Discussion on the Subcommittee Deep-Dive Summary:
The focus of this meeting is a review of what we’ve heard from the subcommittee during the deep-dive
work sessions during the past year . A copy of the draft summary is available online here:
https://documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=173013&dbid=0&repo=LF8PROD2
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 76
3
The subcommittee reviewed the document and provided edits, suggestions, and asked clarifying
questions. Subsequent edits to the Deep-Dive summary will be made and available during the June
subcommittee meetings.
Public Comment Period II – Three members of the public provided comments.
C. Gray – Good summary of the ongoing subcommittee discussions.
Regarding previous subcommittee discussions:
• Business Community zones (BC-1/2) - make them vibrant community centers.
• RMX-1: concern about increasing intensity / applying density bonuses to RMX-2 zones. RMX
zones in North Boulder are not blighted, occasional bad landlord perhaps, but no blight.
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – saturation limits may/may not already be reached. Would
need to reach out to housing department for an update and where we stand with ADUs.
• Restaurant or other non-residential uses in residential zones or mixed zones – fine balance
between losing a residential unit and encouraging mix of uses. Size limits for non-residential
uses would be important.as well as considering beverage licensing issues.
• Adult business uses – the city can’t discriminate, tread carefully.
L. Segal – Interesting ide of creating small model areas to live, small, efficient neighborhoods. ELU’s
are not cheaper or more efficient, should not be allowed. Need to consider encouraging
transformative spaces and communality. Look at Floral Park in Chautauqua.
L. Smith – Can see the subcommittee’s hard work and appreciates it.
• Regarding 15-minute neighborhoods – increasing intensity where intensity already exists
makes the most sense, e.g. along corridors, intersections, nodes, etc.
• Example of Alpine-Balsam area plan as a good planning / engagement template with visuals
and options. Take advantage of design students to help out as needed.
• Would suggest “The Color of Law” as an informative book - make sure we’re not shutting
people out of the process.
Next Steps
• June 8th – Community engagement discussion. 2 hrs as needed.
• Potential for an additional meeting if needed.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 77
1
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?
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 78
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.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 79
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.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 80
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
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 81
1
Use Standards & Table Review Subcommittee - DRAFT
06/29/2020 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, Lupita Montoya (joining the subcommittee)
Staff: Karl Guiler, Andrew Collins, Jean Gatza
1) Welcome and Ground Rules
2) Public Comment Period – Five members of the public attending, four provided comments.
L. Segal – Conker with recent HAB/HRC meeting, too many condos going up. The virus has changed
everything. How can we do outdoor dining in the winter?
L. Spalding – When does this go before the Planning Board?
Staff comment: staff provided an outline of the timeline of the project.
D. Adamson – Excited to be here to learn more about the project and to be with fellow urbanists.
C. Gray – Comments regarding the previous subcommittee meeting:
The “Parking Lot” issues can be addressed in area planning,
Expand on the images for the draft questionnaire. Liked the BC zoning discussion.
Should ask questions such as “what do you want to preserve?”, “what do you value?”
Could do walking tours of neighborhoods (educational both ways), could include fold-out
project materials in the mail. Aimee Kane as a resource for equity issues.
3) Acceptance of the June 1, 2020 and June 8, 2020 Subcommittee meetings summary notes
Approved.
4) Use Table and Zoning Districts work session
Deep-Dive Matrix revisions and previous discussions on section 9-8-4,, B.R.C. 1981
Good with the revisions.
Community Engagement
L. Montoya: People need to be able to picture it. Suggestions should come from the neighborhoods. The
city has a certified translator for Spanish language translations.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 82
2
Online July Meeting / Information Session - Zoom has a setting for a live translator, but may not be
doable for this meeting and/or not needed. May be able to provide a Spanish language questionnaire, or
have a possible focus group of Spanish speaking stakeholders.
S. Silver: People are familiar with their lived environment, rather than zones. Place less emphasis on
zones in the draft questionnaire.
L. Montoya: Update the project goals’ Venn Diagram to show an overlap in the middle, if intended.
Images for the Questionnaire:
Neighborhood Centers & and “String of Pearls” are difficult concepts to visualize. Should have more
housing – too much focus on neighborhood serving commercial uses in the initial draft.
D. Ensign: Add in residential housing to the images, with different housing types to be tied into revised
questions.
L. Montoya: Add in images with people, eating outside, happening now in Boulder on Pearl Street with
the social distancing requirements.
Staff comment: Staff has revised the initial draft questionnaire and images based on the subcommittee
feedback. The final questionnaire is available online at www.Beheardboulder.org
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.
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.
Draft Questions review for the online BeHeardBoulder outreach
S. Silver: Concern with the language and mixing of concepts of Neighborhood centers and 15-
minute neighborhoods. We should define these terms somewhere.
D. Ensign: The Neighborhood Centers would occurring at key nodes along corridors and
intersections with more intensity, correspond to BC zones; the 15-min neighborhoods concept
would be more spread-out and lower in intensity. This is consistent with what’s been previously
discussed and agreed upon by the subcommittee.
L. Montoya: Need to better describe and lead into what 15-minute neighborhoods are and what
they look like.
D. Ensign: The draft questions themselves are pretty good.
S. Silver: Change the order of the questionnaire and lead with Neighborhood Centers first, then
15-min. Neighborhoods section.
Use A different Centers Map, perhaps something from the BVCP for the centers. Includes images
of some of these BC zoning areas (Basemar, Table Mesa for example)
D. Ensign: Use the walkability score map that we have seen from the city’s transit plan for the
15-minute neighborhood section.
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 83
3
L. Montoya: ask the questions that we want answers too, be specific when possible with the
answer options. Make sure the open comment questions are not too open-ended. Purpose of
the questions should be to get feedback on specific options and/or degrees of agreement.
D. Ensign: need to clarify the draft questions and options, such as “vehicular parking”? Does that
mean more parking, less parking, get specific.
o Can provide degrees for various questions, such as high, medium, low amounts.
Regarding Industrial Zones and neighborhood centers questions; consider adding in uses into
the questions that have been previously discussed, such as small-scale vehicular repair, art
galleries and any others uses we have previously discussed.
S. Silver: Questions phrased should not be “to” the neighborhood center, but rather “in” the
neighborhood center.
L. Montoya: Regarding art type uses, art should reflect the actual history of the place, including
past or present abuses or injustices to communities of color. The same goes for Boulder’s
history.
S. Silver: Need to have definitions of these concepts in the questionnaire.
Staff comment: Staff has revised the initial draft questionnaire and images based on the subcommittee
feedback. The final questionnaire is available online at www.Beheardboulder.org
Next Steps
July online information session
Online Community Engagement beginning July 2020.
City Council check-in August 2020
Attachment B - Subcommittee meetings' notes
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 84
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 85
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 86
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 87
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 88
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 89
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 90
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 91
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 92
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 93
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 94
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 95
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 96
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 97
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 98
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 99
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 100
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 101
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 102
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 103
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 104
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 105
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 106
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 107
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 108
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 109
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 110
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 111
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 112
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 113
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 114
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 115
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 116
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 117
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 118
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 119
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 120
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 121
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 122
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 123
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 124
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 125
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 126
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 127
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 128
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 129
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 130
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 131
Be Heard Boulder Questionnaire “Other” Responses Tabulation
Q2. Would you be open to use standard changes that encourage a greater mix of
uses in the neighborhood centers as discussed in this questionnaire?
OTHER RESPONSES:
OK for OZ but not city wide
Not if it increases the ferocious high-density moves that the City keeps making. Ideal &
Community Plazas do not need huge, dense additions.
Q3. What types of uses would you be open to encouraging more of in the
neighborhood centers? (select all that apply)
OTHER RESPONSES:
they're mixed use neighborhoods. by their nature they should have a mix of uses. they have to
have some residential (especially dense) to help support traffic, they should have some office
space (think above the retail, like in downtown, not office parks which are ugly and everyone
hates) so that people can work near where they live, and they should have a variety of stores
so that people can do more of their shopping locally, ideally by walking or biking. every house
should be within a 7 min bike ride of a small grocery store. these big box stores people drive to
are a waste of space and encourage car dependency.
We don’t have really shopping in Boulder for residents. We don’t have real grocery stores. In
our neighbors or real clothing stores. Too many coffee shops and high density offices.
The never get real residents involved in planning because we have an imperial council the hand
picks activists to fill planning groups.
Anything that serves residents and/or office workers, primarily focused on the surrounding
neighborhood needs, but also a drawing cross-town visitors.
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 132
Branch library, pubs, youth activities, child care and activities associated with other uses
Transit and transportation facilities
Community Gardens
grocery stores
Don't just take the top three things that people choose and run with it! It's Boulder - you know
darn well that everyone's just gonna say art, restaurants, and retail because they have their
own utopian vision. Channel your inner Jane Jacobs. Cultivate a vibrant, diverse, adaptable
ecosystem of land uses, which allows for all uses as long as they don't harm people!
Just to add a caveat re I would like those in the form of small scale businesses, not the full
range of sizes of each such business type.
Commons areas, community gardens, farmers' market, community performance areas (music,
theater, performing arts, outdoor movie venue), public art, meeting area for community affinity
groups.
But I would like to add that we need to be thinking about how to transform toward Missing
Middle Housing in order to boost our neighborhoods to a 16 dwelling units per acre value that is
the gateway for walkable neighborhoods.
local farmers markets and small pop up craft vendors, food trucks
Small businesses, locally owned would be approved - large chains unless they fit the aesthetic
and scale of the neighborhood would be frowned upon. No shopping centers
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 133
Q4. Which housing types would you be open to having in your neighborhood?
(select all that apply)
OTHER RESPONSES:
Duplexes/ triplexes, Townhouses, Condos / apartments, My neighborhood already has a mix.
LR-1, potentially allow for some of the other options if there were saturation limits.
Garden apartments with small-scale, neighborhood serving retail on the first floor corner.
every neighborhood should have a mix of housing types. near (1 to 2 blocks off of) every
neighborhood center should be a mix of apartments and townhomes. outside of that should be
a mixture of single family, duplexes/triplexes, and townhomes. no where in the city should be
zoned only single family (and this shouldn't be gotten around by using RE which is even worse).
We should pull a portland and say any lot in the city can have up to 4 dwelling units at market
rate, or up to 6 if 2 of them are affordable housing. if we absolutely have to have some single
family only areas (for reasons of racism/classism and exclusion i presume) it should be in the
very edge. Maybe in the areas zoned for semi-agricultural use.
Co-Ops . . . Basically, supportive of a wide mix of types (not just a single character of housing
units in a neighborhood).
Co-ops, Co-housing, assisted living, ADUs, quad-plexes
ADUs
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 134
quad and sixplexes via zoning and condoization
co-housing communities
coops. cohousing, coliving, pocket neighborhoods
ADU's
Single-family homes, Condos / apartments,I am an advocate for Missing Middle Housing:
diverse housing, diverse affordability, along transit corridors in order to begin rebuilding the
sustainable and resilient community that the BVCP is seeking. I do not see this happening
without code changes and policy to support it, and hidden transformation of the existing building
stock since we are growth challenged.
affordable housing units
micro housing
More ADU density
Apartments with a mix of income renters
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 135
Fourplexes, Co-housing
Q7. Would you be open to have uses and establishments like the ones pictured
above, within a 15-minute walking distance from your home or workplace if
limited in scale and number?
OTHER RESPONSES:
Yes as long as buildings do not work strict views and stay in the range of 2-3 stories
The 15min standard is too far. Needs to be 10min max. Preferably 5-7. Also, you (the city)
need to do a much better job of informing the public that these kind of "hood amenities" only
come from a much higher population density than we currently have. Re: the tipton report, stop
considering that the customer is always right, the vast majority of the loud voices in this
community are idiots with zero understanding for land use, you're the experts, tell them their
wrong, do it fast, and get back to building a better future. Right now you've got NIMBYs
clamoring for this kind of retail and cafe landscape while also demanding that no new people be
added to the community. Schoedingers NIMBY: wants all the amenities, doesn't want the
population density to support it.
the 55th and Arapahoe area and eastward on Arapahoe to the South Boulder Creek is a high
risk flood zone. It was under water in the 2013 Flood. Therefore this area should not be
considered for the 15-minute neighborhoods
"If limited in scale and number?" Give me as many as you can!
I live within a 15 minute walk of a neighborhood center so don't need this.
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 136
My answer is maybe, depending on how close. 15 minutes is a mile for some. I would not want
these changes closer than an half mile.
Boulder has way too much shee-shee, foo foo useless shops that cater to tourists, the wealthy
and the ultra young. Regular people and working families need grocery stores, convenience
grocery, convenience liquor, convenience hardware, office supplies, pet supply stores, bike
repair shops, auto parts stores, hair salons, department stores, gift stores/bookstores, and
affordable restaurants...yes, even fast food. The last thing we need is to lose those and have In
their place:10 fancy coffee shops per block, 10 yoga studios per block, co-office space, high
density housing, and a community garden where there used to be much-needed, useful,
affordable retail. If the shee-shee and "alternative" neighborhood center trend continues,
working families will all be driving to Longmont for the things they need every day. Please don't
do that.
I already do. Limited in scale and number is critically important. We don't have anything that
looks like the pix except Pearl St, so it seems disingenuous to tempt survey takers with these
attractive, human scale projects that look appealing.
Q8. Which of the following uses would you be open to having in your
neighborhood? (select all that apply)
OTHER RESPONSES:
Other services like dental offices, insurance offices, etc.
Co-working sites or even small private offices (maybe less than 1000 sq ft or so)
please please please we need this so badly in table mesa. it's a never ending maze of single
family homes and curvilinear roads. it definitely needs more commercial/office space and some
higher density housing.
Really full service grocery stores and clothing stores not muni markets.
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 137
Small offices
Brewery
Branch libraries, child and youth activities, performance and spaces
transportation facilities. Less individual car parking. Less on street parking.
Community gardens, ADUs
inclusive housing types, affordable housing
None - I live in a high risk flood area
I would be open to a balance of all these uses in my neighborhood center.
My neighborhood is semi rural far east Boulder and I do not want any of these within or close
than a half mile. They bring issues that my neighborhood does not want, and certainly none of
us want any of these next door or nearby.
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 138
Community areas that use place-making principles to enliven neighborhoods
No more yoga studios, galleries, and fancy expensive restaurants, please. Boulder has plenty
already. No more ultra fancy restaurants and coffee shops. Do your survey of the top 10 highest
priority everyday retail needs and services that most working families and middle class workers
jump in their cars to get everyday. You will have your hands full, just ensuring that those top 10
needs exist in each neighborhood center. But those are what should be there, if we're serious
about getting people out of their cars. If you prioritize actual, most critical human needs, you
won't have room for the shee-shee stuff. And that will be okay.
Want to preserve our larger grocers
We already have housing, and the City plans an ENORMOUS development at Alpine/Balsam.
How about more development to the east where there is space to do it instead of annoying
people in established neighborhoods with yet another huge, ugly project?
Q11. What types of zoning restrictions should be considered? (select all that
apply)
OTHER RESPONSES:
Attractive and convenient pedestrian access / allow for plenty of on-street activity, like seating
limit the restrictions, the land use code is already problematic, make it simpler to allow for this
desired reality to actually come into being. when you make a venn diagram of properties that fit
all the restrictions you end up with zero chance anything gets built. Just how jane and the
nimbys like it.
Give the people in the neighborhood control over the zoning and let them decide.
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 139
please stop taking the car out of planing it does freeze and snow here and citizens are not all
25 yr old in Boulder as mater of fact fewer young bike riders can afford to live here! get real
Boulder
Human scale ground floor - require a friendly pedestrian experience
I think we should be thinking about incentives rather than limits...
Not limit to conversion of existing buildings but maybe require when possible? I feel that way
about corner lots too, those should be first choice but not required
Require additional vehicle parking to reduce on-street parking impacts,No more Class A office
space, or any office space for that matter. Boulder has way too much already. And post-coved,
you'll have even more of an excess of office space. Prioritize the everyday needs people
actually have.
Limit single family housing and other low density housing that decreases permeability and limits
the density needed to foster small stores in a small neighborhood environment.
Distance between residential homes and creation of these establishments.
Ban truck traffic. Limit truck size.
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 140
Q16. Are you open to simplifying the Use Standards to streamline the number of
similar uses (ex. restaurant use categories) in the Use Table?
OTHER RESPONSES:
I don't know. I don't use the Use Table and there aren't examples here of when someone might
want it simplified or when someone might be against that.
Perhaps - it depends on if simplification does not further incentivize development or create
loopholes for developers
Important distinctions (alcohol service, size, outdoor service, live music, closing hours) must be
preserved as separate types.
Q17. Are you open to consolidating the number of office uses from six down to a
smaller number of office use categories?
OTHER RESPONSES:
as long as this is done to allow more office types to intermix with other building types in the city,
and not to broaden the category for exclusionary purposes. office, professional should be
allowed anywhere in the city. no parking minimums!
I don't know. I don't work in Boulder so I have no interaction with this land use code.
Yes, but the complexity is there for a reason so lets understand why it is so complex?
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 141
1
Collins, Andrew
From:Kurt Nordback <knordback@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 30, 2020 1:31 PM
To:David Ensign; Sarah Silver; Collins, Andrew; Guiler, Karl
Subject:Use Standards comments
External Sender
Dear Use Standards subcommittee,
Thanks for another good discussion yesterday. I wanted to give some comments on a few topics that
came up.
1. 15-minute neighborhoods
In my view, 15-minute neighborhoods -- defined as the ability to take care of most of your daily trips
within a 15-minute walk of home -- are the objective we're trying to achieve, in service of higher BVCP
goals like reducing motor vehicle usage, improving resilience, and bolstering local business. There
are various ways to achieve 15-minute neighborhoods. We can put non-residential uses (including
neighborhood centers, the more linear "string of pearls" forms, or isolated non-residential uses like
Alpine Modern) close to residential neighborhoods. Or we can allow more residential in service-rich
areas like Diagonal Plaza or, perhaps, some industrial zones. In any case, 15-minute neighborhoods
are the goal, and neighborhood centers or "strings of pearls" are ways to achieve the goal.
In terms of the "Venn diagram" (which, as Lupita points out, doesn't really work as a Venn diagram as
drawn), the purple "neighborhood centers/string of pearls" circle perhaps should be a subset of the
green "15-minute neighborhood" circle. The purple helps to achieve the green.
2. Be Heard Boulder questionnaire
Sarah expressed concern about technocratic questions like "Would you be open to use standard
changes that may permit limited size commercial uses near your home or workplace, if it made for
greater walkable access to daily needs?" I think this is a very valid concern. Using more visuals,
where possible, again seems better. For instance, perhaps the question above could be phrased as
"Would you be open to having establishments like these in walking distance from your home or
workplace?", with representative photos. Question 4 could also perhaps better be asked visually, as
"Which of the following would you be open to having in your neighborhood?", with photos of a
restaurant in a 1000 square foot house, a restaurant in a 3000 square foot house, a restaurant in a
Victorian building, a restaurant in a very modern building, and so on. I'm aware that assembling
photos is time-consuming for Staff, but I'm hopeful that asking questions this way could yield more
useful information that would save time in the long run.
3. Parking
Any significant amount of off-street parking would destroy the benefits of these changes, in my view.
These are supposed to be walkable places attracting people from the neighborhood. Parking other
than street parking should be unnecessary, and would severely diminish the pedestrian experience.
So I'd like to see minimal parking be part of the assumptions communicated to the public.
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 142
2
4. Missing-middle residential
I strongly support asking for input on the possibility of limited changes to the low-density residential
zones allowing for modest numbers of missing-middle forms like duplexes, triplexes, or row houses,
even if such changes aren't part of the project scope. Since we'll be doing the outreach, it would be
natural to ask about these possibilities, and even if not asked I would expect many Boulderites would
like to give input on them in this context.
5. RMX changes
I understand that extending the RMX-2 density bonuses for affordable housing to RMX-1 has been
removed from the scope, in part because it spills over into the intensity standards. However, I would
very much like to see us revisit this in the future. I'm particularly concerned about Goss-Grove, which
has seen the demolition of small, historic dwellings (mostly rentals) and replacement with much larger
single-family houses. This gentrification will continue as long as single-family conversion is more
profitable than small multi-family housing. Allowing density bonuses would help rebalance this, and
ideally would be combined with making detached single-family a conditional use (at most) in RMX-1.
Thanks for reading, and I apologize for the long email.
Kurt Nordback
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 143
1
Collins, Andrew
From:lets ficks <letitia.fickling@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 9:22 PM
To:Guiler, Karl; Collins, Andrew
Subject:'String of Pearls' and other land use comments.
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
External Sender
Mr.Guiler,Mr.Collins,
I really like the 'string of pearls'idea,(although i think allowing non industrial mixed uses throughout the city is
preferable)however I worry that these 'community centers'will end up being more like the table mesa strip mall area
that like actual walkable local high streets like s.Pearl or s.Gaylord in denver.We should be encouraging lots of smaller
shops,especially lots of smaller grocery stores,so people can do their grocery shopping quickly and easily by foot or
bike.
The whole table mesa neighborhood is really a hot mess in a beautiful location.all those curvilinear roads that are
impossible for peds to navigate with no ped/bike cut throughs,only single family homes as far as the eye can see,with
the only slightly more dense housing on the very edge furthest from anything,the only local shops are a massive strip
mallsurrounded by large open parking lots,and there are barely any jobs in the region so almost everyone has to
commute across town.It's just horribly designed,way way too car dependent.,and frankly quite ugly with all the 50's
homes.
We should be simplifying our use code into just 4 categories:
Heavy to light industrial we can all agree heavy industry should be kept out of human areas.
High streetsareas designated for dense housing,dense commercial and dense office space.no office parks!!
rural rural greenbelt,occupants must be engaged in agricultural activities for income.The London greenbelt
has similar laws to this.it shouldn't just be giant homes for rich people.
generaleverything else.any type of housing (you can do things like apartment/condo building must be less
than 20 units if you must)single family,duplex,triplex,row houses,etc.etc.commercial and office is allowed if
it's under a certain size.you can limit the types of businesses in 'general'by setting mandatory closed hours like
9:30 pm 6 am it has to be closed.that way you prevent any night clubs etc.without explicitly banning
businesses.offices have to be under a certain square footage.'general'areas should be designed to minimize car
use but encourage walking and biking.
A big part of this is eliminating parking minimums,or reducing them so that the only parking required is handicapped
parking if it is over a certain size.we should also ban open flat parking lots outside of 'heavy industrial'.we need to
enable people to densify by getting rid of (or severely reducing)set backs,setting a citywide minimum lot size that is a
lot smaller than any we currently have (less than 3500),provide a way for people to split lots if they have an oversized
on,allow people to build ADUs and rent them out by right,and identify specific corridors in the city as the only places
where people are allowed to demand parking/traffic studies at the developers expense (and even then it should only be
for projects over a certain square footage.)See this CityLab article for
more:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/20200729/to add housing zoning code reformis just a start
We also need to be encouraging people to densify.This can mean city programs that encourage development
(https://inclusionaryhousing.org/designinga policy/land dedicationincentives/).It can also mean requirements like
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 144
2
Crested Butte's where if you remodel a certain amount of your single family home near the center of town you are
required to build an ADU and rent it out at market rate as a long term rental.It is not enough to just end single family
zoning (though we desperately need to eliminate R1 and RE,they are embarrassing unwalkable blights on our city).
Our city use rules are relics of 1950s70s proto segregationist,car worshiping nonsense and desperately need to change.
Everyone wants to live in the mixed use neighborhoods anyway,but we've stopped building them for some reason.Even
when we do start building them again (North Boulder is nice)we only build them on the edge of town rather than near
the city center where the jobs are.it's less than effective.for things to be equitable they need to be city wide.
This video about dutch zoning sums up well what i think we should be
doing:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnKIVX968PQ
and then once we have the density and the mixed uses we can move on
to:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlXNVnftaNs
This is all much more environment and human friendly than our current hypocrisy and car riddled city.If we live denser,
we can fit more people into the city,reducing the amount of people who have to commute in,making our city safer and
our air cleaner.It will alsoreduce traffic.Boulder should aim to be a leader in this regard.
Those are my thoughts,
Thank you
Lettie Fickling
Attachment C - Be Heard Boulder questionnaire report and public feedback received
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 145
Key Concepts & Definitions:
15-Minute Neighborhoods - Concept of providing limited commercial or mixed-uses in predominantly residential or
industrial neighborhoods, to foster accessibility to daily goods and services within a 15-minute walk from where
people live or work.
Neighborhood Centers - Specific areas identified in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) at existing
commercial nodes that provide goods and services for the day-to-day needs of nearby residents, workers and
students and are easily accessible from surrounding areas by foot, bike and transit. Neighborhood centers
contribute to a sense of place and the
achievement of walkable (15-minute) places
with a mix of uses and range of services.
• Neighborhood Centers typically
include areas zoned Business
Commercial (BC), Business Main
Street (BMS), and/or for mixed-uses
(examples include Table Mesa,
Basemar, or the Meadows shopping
centers). Please see Figure 3-3, City
Structure map from the BVCP, for
Neighborhood Center locations.
Live / Work uses - A structure that is both a business and the residence of a person working on premises. Typically
combines business/commercial and residential uses. Example, salon studio with living quarters above.
The Land Use Code defines Live-work unit as, a structure with a combination of uses where work activities
occur as allowed in the industrial zoning districts and includes a dwelling unit for the business occupant, but
not including a caretaker dwelling unit. Such unit shall have only one kitchen and shall be occupied by either
the owner, the tenant, or the owner's or tenant's employee plus any other persons that may be allowed to
occupy a dwelling unit pursuant to Section 9-8-5, "Occupancy of Dwelling Units," B.R.C. 1981. The live-work
unit must be the residence of a person responsible for the work performed on the premises.
“String of Pearls” - A series of mixed-use centers of varying scales linked together by transit corridors, and
providing a variety of uses for resident’s needs. The “String of Pearl’s” was originally conceptualized as a series of
neighborhood centers along Broadway in the 1990’s. This project is broadening the concept to include
neighborhood centers throughout the city.
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 146
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 147
CITY OF BOULDER Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan
13
15-Minute Neighborhood Assessment
The low-stress pedestrian methodology was
incorporated into an update of the 15-minute
neighborhood tool, a tool designed to identify
walking access throughout Boulder. Specifically, the
15-minute neighborhood tool calculates how many
destinations, such as schools, parks, or grocery
stores, can be reached in less than a 15-minute
walk in order to better understand how well the
low-stress pedestrian network connects people
with the places they want to go. This 15-minute
neighborhood analysis tool only considers a
destination as accessible if it can be reached
exclusively on high comfort facilities. This means
that there is a continuous low-stress route from
place to place without any high-stress crossings
or segments. For the purposes of the 15-minute
neighborhood tool, the scoring simplifies and
consolidates the typical LTS 1 to 4 scoring to classify
each segment and crossing as either high comfort
(LTS 1 or LTS 2) or low comfort (LTS 3 or LTS 4).
Using the segments and crossing methodologies
described next, the complete pedestrian network
including segments and crossings was designated
as either high-stress or low-stress, as shown in
Figure 11.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the outcomes of the
15-minute neighborhood assessment by presenting
the walk access scores throughout the city. Higher
scores represent better access. Figure 12 shows the
scores when considering a network of all facilities.
Figure 13 shows the scores when considering a
network of just low-stress facilities.
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 148
CITY OF BOULDER Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan
14
Figure 11. Existing Low-Stress Walk Network
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 149
CITY OF BOULDER Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan
15
Figure 12. 15-Minute Neighborhood Assessment, All Facilities
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 150
CITY OF BOULDER Low-Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan
16
Figure 13. 15-Minute Neighborhood Assessment, Low-Stress Facilities Only
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 151
Character Imagery: 15-Minute Neighborhoods
Character Imagery
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 152
Character Imagery: Neighborhood Centers
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 153
Character Imagery
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 154
Character Imagery
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 155
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 156
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table ProjectPage 157
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table ProjectPage 158
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table ProjectPage 159
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table ProjectPage 160
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table ProjectPage 161
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table ProjectPage 162
Attachment D - Background Reference Materials
(2) Update on Phase 2 Use Standards and Table Project Page 163
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Maris Herold, Police Chief
Curtis Johnson, Deputy Police Chief
Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager
Wendy Schwartz, Human Services Policy Manager
DATE: Aug. 25, 2020
SUBJECT: Matters Related to Policing
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum provides a summary of matters related to the City of Boulder Police
Department, including an update on the Police Department Strategic Action Plan progress
and an introduction to the upcoming Police Department Master Plan process.
An update on the Police Department Strategic Action Plan is included in the body of this
memo. This action plan work is driven by the Boulder Police Department (BPD) and
includes several efforts presented to council by Chief Maris Herold on June 9, 2020.
The Boulder Police Department Master Plan was last updated in 2013. Since then, the
department has made significant progress on several goals including: community
policing, responding to calls for service, upgrading department technology, and public
outreach and education. As examples, the Boulder Police Department was one of the first
adopters of body cameras and stop-data collection.
Since 2013, several social and technological changes have occurred that have impacted
the police department and the need to update its master plan. Primarily, increasing local
and national concern about police reform indicates a need for in-depth examination of
community needs and utilization of police department resources.
The Police Department Master Plan process will include robust community engagement,
as well as integration of the city’s racial equity planning leadership. As described on page
six of this memo, staff recommends creation of a Police Master Plan Process
Subcommittee comprised of two council members who can work with staff to help guide
and “champion” the plan process. Staff and the process subcommittee plan to return to
council in early 2021 to present the results of work to define the scope, schedule and
public process.
Council also requested that the timeline for police oversight implementation be included
with this memo. This information is included in Attachment A.
Questions for Council
1. Does council agree with the staff recommendation to appoint a Police Master Plan
Process Subcommittee, composed of two council members, to work with staff to
develop the Police Master Plan process?
POLICE DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN PROGRESS UPDATE
Chief Herold joined the city in April 2020, bringing significant expertise in policing
reform and a history of cultivating meaningful, solution-oriented community
partnerships. Shortly after she arrived, she outlined the categories she considers essential
to policing reform. These have become encompassed in a strategic action plan, which the
department is in the process of implementing. The following items summarize some of
the work to date.
New Use of Force Policy and Training
In July 2020, the Police Department adopted a new Use of Force Policy, outlined below.
The Police Executive Research Center (PERF) traveled to Boulder and trained more than
30 Boulder Police Department (BPD) officers/sergeants on the Integrating
Communications, Assessment, and Tactics (ICAT) use of force model. All sworn officers
will be trained in the next quarter. ICAT is designed for situations involving persons who
are unarmed or are armed with weapons other than firearms, and who may be
experiencing a mental health or other crisis. The training program is anchored by the
Critical Decision-Making Model, which helps officers assess situations, make safe and
effective decisions, and document and learn from their actions. ICAT incorporates
different skill sets into a unified training approach that emphasizes scenario-based
exercises, as well as lecture and case study opportunities.
Figure 1: Critical Decision-Making Model
All of the guiding principles of the ICAT Model have been incorporated into Boulder’s
new use of force model and will be incorporated into numerous procedures and training
lesson plans, including, but not limited to the following policies: traffic stops, bias-
policing, response to civil disturbances, mental health response and people experiencing
homelessness.
The use of force against another person is the most serious action an officer can take.
Implementation of effective use of force accountability measures must align with the
following: (1) implementation of best practice policies and procedures governing the use
of force, (2) training to ensure force is only used to the extent necessary and centered
around the sanctity of all human life, (3) thorough and impartial reviews to ensure use of
force follows policy, and (4) any use of force determined to be out of policy must be
remediated through re-training and/or discipline up to, and including, termination. Police
departments can garner the trust of the communities they serve only after thoughtful
application of these four criteria.
Boulder’s new use of force policy integrates the sanctity of all human life and emphasizes
the following principles:
The primary duty of all police is to preserve human life and to use the Critical
Decision-Making (CDM) Model during interactions with the community.
In cases where the CDM model proves ineffective, the least amount of force will
be used to gain compliance.
The District Attorney and Police Chief will approve all “no-knock” search
warrants (a review of BPD’s records reflect that zero “no-knock” search warrants
have been requested in at least 10 years).
The most serious action a police officer can take is the use of deadly force. The
authority to carry and use firearms comes with enormous responsibility.
When feasible, police officers will give the suspect a warning before deadly force
is used.
Consideration should be given to a person’s mental and physical capacity when
making use of force decisions.
Officers shall intervene immediately when witnessing inappropriate or excessive
use of force.
Officers shall not draw their firearms unless they reasonably believe there is an
immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or another
person.
Police officers shall not fire warning shots.
Police officers shall not fire at moving vehicles unless an occupant of the vehicle
is firing upon them or the vehicle is used to attack innocent persons in crowd
situations.
It is often tactically superior for police to withdraw, take cover, or use distance
than to immediately respond to rapidly evolving incidents.
Officers will not discharge their firearms to subdue a fleeing individual who
presents no immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to another person.
Officers shall not use any form of a chokehold.
Thorough investigations will be conducted on all use of force incidents and
resident complaints, including detailed interviews with witnesses, individuals
involved in the incident or interaction, and officers.
Officers shall consider less-lethal alternatives to deadly force encounters –
including tactics, equipment, and technologies.
BPD’s new use of force policy is based on best practice. It addresses the concerns of
police reform organizers, such as 8 Can’t Wait and President Barack Obama’s Task Force
on 21st Century Policing. Moreover, BPD will work with Dr. Paul Taylor, Policing
Scholar at the University of Colorado-Denver, to evaluate the impact of the ICAT
training on officer behavior and inform future training curriculum.
Creation of Full-Time Training Section
Twenty-First Century Policing demands a well-trained workforce that can manage a vast
array of problems, from community quality of life issues to acts of violence. Today’s
officers require ongoing and innovative training to serve as community problem-solvers
with critical thinking skills. BPD has established a full-time dedicated Training Section,
staffed with one supervisor and four officers, to ensure adoption and implementation of
best practice training curriculum. The Training Section will employ problem-based
scenario training and develop a “lessons learned” program that reviews critical incidents,
uses of force, community member complaints, and reports of active threats to guide
ongoing assessment and process improvement.
Inspection Policy, Process, and Creation of the Position of Inspections Commander
The inspection process is one of the foundations of any modern police force. The
mechanism is in place to ensure responsibilities of everyone in the organization are
adhered to, and that any deviations are discovered and handled accordingly. It is
imperative a strong audit and inspection process is occurring on a regular basis and
inconsistencies are remedied immediately. The Inspection Commander reports all audit
results directly to the Police Chief. A detailed audit and inspections plan is included in
the new policy, and includes, but is not limited to, Body-Worn Cameras (BWC),
equipment inspections, uniforms and equipment, performance evaluations, promotional
processes, overtime usage, bias-free policing review of applicable data, resident
complaints, early intervention plan, recruitment plan, training standards, analysis of use
of force incidents, weapons inspections, vehicle pursuits, mental health response,
community involvement reports, resident surveys, property and evidence audit.
Creation of New Strategic Data and Policy Advisor Position
Elizabeth Christenson began her position with BPD on Aug. 3, 2020. She brings over 20
years of experience as a crime analyst, geographic information system (GIS) expert,
programmer, tactical and strategic analyst, and problem-oriented policing expert.
Christensen will ensure the agency is deploying with purpose, based on data and
community input. She will produce reports to support crime prevention and reduction
strategies, problem-solving, and the evaluation and accountability of BPD initiatives.
This position is crucial for 21st Century Policing and reform efforts. Moving forward,
BPD will have the capacity to publish important data sets to the community to build
community trust and demonstrate a commitment to evidence-based policing.
Development of Disciplinary Matrix
Focus groups from the BPD, including representatives from the Boulder Police Officer
Association (BPOA), have developed a robust disciplinary matrix to ensure fairness,
consistency, and progressive discipline for officer misconduct. BPD will collaborate with
Joe Lipari, Boulder’s newly hired independent police monitor, and community members
to solicit feedback and ensure transparency of the matrix before adoption and
implementation.
Initiated Process of Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies
(CALEA)
In July 2020, BPD initiated a contract with CALEA. The accreditation process has begun
and will provide for greater accountability, community involvement, transparency, and
integrity within the BPD. The process of accreditation takes two to three years to
accomplish, but ensures BPD will have model polices, strict accountability measures,
community engagement projects, and will enhance BPD’s technology platform (Power
Data Management System) to manage and revise policies and procedures.
Development of Evidence-Based Crime Reduction Strategy
The BPD selected the chronic problem of domestic violence (DV) as one of its first
comprehensive Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) projects. In POP, a problem is defined
as a recurring set of related harmful events in a community that members of the public
expect the police to address. These criteria are captured by the acronym CHEERS:
Community, Harm, Expectation; Events, Recurring; and Similar.
BPD Victim Services, a civilian division of the agency, will lead this project. The first
phase of a POP project, “scanning,” involves gathering information about the identified
problem. The BPD has/will gather information by analyzing existing incident data,
conducting lethality assessments, requiring co-response for serious incidents, and
determining the feasibility of establishing a DV fatality review board. Figure 2 presents
an initial analysis of the number of DV incidents reported to BPD from 2017 to 2020.
Two women were murdered in DV incidents during this time period. For all future DV
cases, an officer or Victim Services caseworker will complete a Domestic Violence
Lethality assessment, a tool to guide victims’ understanding of their safety. Further, in
line with evidence-based practices, officers will co-respond with BPD’s Victim Services
personnel on DV calls where serious injuries or attempts to choke/strangle the victim
occur. BPD will partner with local social service agencies, the District Attorney’s Office,
and other regional police agencies to explore the feasibility and potential impact of
establishing a DV fatality review board. BPD will provide quarterly updates to council,
likely in the form of an information item.
Figure 2: Domestic Violence Incidents Reported to BPD
Year # Incidents
2017 330
2018 348
2019 262
2020* 164
*To July 1, 2020
BACKGROUND
Purpose and Process for City Master Plans
Master plans provide a common city framework for planning the delivery and funding of
services, facilities and programs, as well as policies. The facility and service priorities
and funding plan established through the master planning process provide the basis for
capital improvement programming. All master plans are developed consistent with the
city’s Community Sustainability + Resilience Framework, as well as the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The BVCP states that the “planning period” for master
plans is to be 15 years. However, this period may vary for different master plans.
The master planning process involves four major steps that occur over approximately two
years. Each step below includes check-ins, review and input from the community,
relevant city departments, Planning Board and City Council.
1. Step I - Scope, Schedule and Public Process – Key steps include identifying
stakeholders and underserved and underrepresented people most impacted by the
plan. Staff use the Engagement Strategic Framework, with attention to the public
process for outreach to underserved and underrepresented people as well as input
from stakeholders and the general public. The project timeline anticipates the
public process, plan development and formal review steps.
2. Step II – Systems Overview, Needs Assessment and Current Priorities – This step
establishes the current state of the department (services offered, how funding is
allocated among department priorities, etc.), evaluates services in the context of
industry or other service standards, and examines emerging or unmet needs. Phase
II includes an assessment of the department’s mission and how each currently
funded service contributes to achieving it.
3. Step III – Develop the Master Plan Document – Key Focus Areas and Issues to be
addressed in the plan are developed based on work completed in Step II, including
ongoing feedback from the community, Planning Board and council. Discussion
of Key Focus Areas and Issues will incorporate policies, programs and initiatives
to achieve them. After input on Key Focus Areas and Issues, the department
develops the draft master plan, which receives further review and revision before
proceeding to the acceptance process.
4. Step IV – Acceptance Process - The draft plan review and acceptance process
comprises final consideration by the public as well as Planning Board and City
Council reviews, with public hearings.
Steps II and III above include categorizing projects, programs and services into three
levels:
Current Funding – a prioritized, refocused service plan within existing budget
targets.
Action Plan – service expansion or restoration when funding is available either
within current revenue sources, or if new sources should become available.
Vision Plan – the complete set of services and facilities desired by the community
and aligned with values and policies, with alternative proposals to fund them.
2013 Police Master Plan Goals and Accomplishments
The Boulder Police Department Master Plan was last updated in 2013 and adopted by
council in early 2014. In 2013, the department budget was $31.7 million, and it
employed 173 sworn officers and 104 civilian employees. By comparison, the 2020
department budget is $38.6 million (prior to COVID-related reductions) and there are 184
sworn officers and 94 civilian employees. Approximately 86 percent of the department’s
budget is personnel expenses.
The 2013 master plan outlined several goals that the department has worked to
accomplish over the last seven years.
Community Policing
One of the major initiatives was to refine what community policing looks like in Boulder.
The department also wanted to evaluate the Neighborhood Impact Team and apply the
lessons learned to approaching public safety in the future. The outcome was the creation
of the department’s Neighborhood Policing Area Program, which now assigns officers to
specific neighborhoods in Boulder with the goal of collaborating with community
members and businesses on public safety issues. In addition, the Neighborhood Impact
Team has been expanded to work in traditionally underserved parts of the community
with the goal of building trust in communities that may be reluctant to call the police.
Responding to Calls for Service
To better manage calls for service, the department committed to looking at other options
for handling non-emergency calls that do not require an officer’s response, as well as
reducing false alarm calls. The department has increased its online reporting capabilities,
providing community members the option of completing minor reports in a manner that
leaves police officers available for calls that require more immediate in-person response.
In 2016, council passed ordinance 8123, creating the false alarm reduction program. This
program requires all alarms in Boulder to be registered with the intent to reduce police
response to false alarms. This ordinance has reduced officer response to false alarm calls
by more than 20 percent over the last two years.
Technology
To upgrade technology for the department, the master plan identified the need to replace
the records management system and improve radio communications for first responders.
In 2015, the department used funding from the asset forfeiture account to purchase a new
records management system. The new system went live in 2017 and includes the ability
to capture stop-related data and manage reports that are submitted online. In 2016, the
department, in conjunction with other radio system users, hired a consultant to evaluate
the current radio system and provide recommendations for improvement. Based on that
review, funding from the Community Culture and Safety tax was allocated to replace the
radio system with a new state-of-the-art system. The new radio infrastructure project
should be completed by the end of 2020 and will provide all first responders in Boulder
with clear and reliable radio communications.
Public Outreach and Education
The police department also sought to strengthen partnerships with social service
providers in areas where law enforcement interfaces with human service needs in
Boulder. In 2016, the department collaborated with Mental Health Partners (MHP) to
bring the Early Diversion, Get Engaged (EDGE) co-responder program to Boulder. This
program was initially grant funded but has continued with city funding to ensure that
mental health co-responders are available to respond with police officers to calls
involving people facing a mental health crisis. In addition, to enhance the department’s
response to people experiencing homelessness, two officers were re-assigned to become
the Homeless Outreach Team in 2016. These officers use a non-enforcement approach to
connect individuals with services and benefits with the goal of transitioning them into
housing.
ANALYSIS
Adjusting the Master Plan for a Changing Environment
Since 2013, when the previous master plan was completed, several social and
technological changes have occurred that have impacted the police department.
On the technology side, body-worn cameras became readily available and were viewed as
an important piece of equipment to promote transparency. In 2015, the department
purchased body-worn cameras for all officers and developed a strict policy on how and
when they would be activated.
Also in 2015, the police department hired Hillard Heintze to review the department’s
operations and specifically to investigate any indications of racial bias in policing in
Boulder. Hillard Heintze provided 12 recommendations to the police department, and all
12 recommendations have been implemented.
One of the most important recommendations from the Hillard Heintze report was the
need to begin collecting data on all discretionary police stops. The police department has
been collecting this stop data since 2018 and uses it to help identify and evaluate officers’
work as it relates to racial bias. Body-worn cameras and stop data collection are now
required statewide with the passage of SB20-217. Because the Boulder Police
Department was the first law enforcement agency in the county to purchase body-worn
cameras in 2015 and one of only three agencies in the entire state to collect stop data, it is
already in compliance with two of the most costly and challenging aspects of SB20-217.
The police department is working to make significant changes aligned with local and
national discussions around major reform in policing. The master planning process will
provide a framework for the department to do a broader and more in-depth examination
of community input, use data-driven strategies to review current operations in the context
of changing conditions and determine future policing goals. This master plan will be used
as the roadmap for creating meaningful changes to public safety in Boulder.
NEXT STEPS
Step I of the master planning project will be important to design a thoughtful process,
including robust and inclusive public engagement. To implement this step, as well as the
entire process, staff recommends creation of a Police Master Plan Process Subcommittee
comprised of two council members. A similar subcommittee structure has been used with
other master plans. The process subcommittee will work with other core members of the
master planning team – including the project manager, City Manager’s Office, master
planning coordinator (Planning), the finance coordinator and community engagement
lead. Part of the role of the two councilmembers on the subcommittee is to “champion”
the project, using their knowledge of the in-depth work behind the process to help explain
its evolution to peers, stakeholders and the community. Staff anticipates that the
remainder of 2020 will be devoted to working with the subcommittee on Step I.
A principal aspect of the process will be integration of the city’s racial equity work with
the Police Master Plan steps. The city’s Equity Program Manager will be a key team
member helping to design a project applying an equity focus throughout community
engagement, development of priorities, key issues and plan drafts.
Staff and the process subcommittee would plan to return to council in early 2021 to
present the results of Step I work on the scope, schedule and public process.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A- Process update on Police Oversight Implementation
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Members of Council
From: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager
Aimee Kane, Equity Program Manager
Pam Davis, Assistant City Manager
Date: July 10, 2020
Subject: Process Update on Police Oversight Implementation
The purpose of this memo is to provide city council an update on the progress and remaining
steps of the Police Oversight Implementation Team.
DEFINITIONS
Staff recognizes as the work has progressed there is benefit in clarifying the teams in each phase
of the work. This section shall serve as definitions to maintain clarity.
Police Oversight Task Force Selection Committee – The committee that selected task force
members from a pool of applicants included 3 representatives of the NAACP and two members
of council.
Police Oversight Task Force- Group chartered by city council in April 2019, to research and
recommend a new model of police oversight for Boulder. This Task Force concluded its work in
November 2019.
Police Oversight Implementation Team- Group made up of a subset of members from the Police
Oversight Task Force who volunteered to continue helping refine police oversight
implementation details alongside city staff from January-November 2020.
Police Oversight Panel- Soon to be created group of up to 11 community members to engage in
review of complaint investigations, perform community outreach, and conduct research and
develop policy recommendations regarding future improvements to policing in Boulder.
HISTORY
April 2, 2019—Council approved the charter for the Police Oversight Task Force.
Their purpose, as described in the charter: The task force will study different
models of police department oversight boards which are comprised exclusively or
largely of community members in order to determine which models or aspects of
such boards are most appropriate for the city of Boulder. The task force will
recommend one or more options to the Boulder City Council. The options should
include the recommended number and qualifications of members of the oversight
board, the manner of appointment of the oversight board members, the
responsibilities of the oversight board, a description of the investigative powers
and decision-making authority of the oversight board, how it will be staffed and
the projected costs of staffing the oversight board.
May 7, 2019—Council approved membership of the Police Oversight Task Force,
selected by a committee consisting of two members of council and three
representatives of the Boulder County Branch of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
October 29, 2019—Council adopted Ordinance 8361 amending title 2 by adding a new
chapter 2-11, “Police Oversight,” B.R.C. 1981, pertaining to the composition,
duties and power of a new city organization related to civilian oversight of the
police and setting forth related details.
In addition to codifying the framework for the new model of police oversight, the
ordinance included a provision for the creation of an ongoing implementation
team to further refine and make recommendations regarding the technical
approach to implementation. The team is composed of Police Oversight Task
Force members who wished to continue the work from the original task force, as
well as staff from the city manager’s office, the city’s data team, and the police
department, including at least one member of the Boulder Police Officer’s
Association.
Since January 2020, this implementation team has met biweekly to finalize detailed
recommendations and revise the ordinance.
UPCOMING ACTIONS
The Implementation Team will finalize its work in the coming months and intends to bring a
revised ordinance with a supporting recommendations report to council on the following topics:
o Independent Police Monitor Role
o Police Oversight Panel Role and Governance
o Complaint Investigation Review Process
o Community Engagement Mechanisms
Planned council dates related to policing:
July 27, 2020—Anticipated start date for newly hired Independent Police Monitor, who
will immediately take on a leadership role for the remainder of the implementation work
August 4, 2020 – Police update on reform efforts including a roadmap committing to
ethical, effective and equitable policing in addition to providing an outline of the police
master planning process. The master plan is intended to guide the Boulder Police
Department for the next 5 to 10 years in providing safety through data driven and
collaborative strategies, education, community engagement and investigative services to
the City of Boulder.
September 22, 2020 - Study Session to present the draft ordinance changes and other
recommendations
October 20, 2020 - First reading of ordinance update
November 5, 2020 - Second reading and public hearing of ordinance update – recruitment
for the Police Oversight Panel will begin immediately following the adoption of a
successful ordinance