Item 5A Site Review Criteria Ordiance 8515
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 19, 2022
AGENDA TITLE
Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Ordinance
8515, amending Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, to update the Site Review
criteria as part of the Community Benefit code change project.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS
Planning & Development Services
David Gehr, Interim Director
Charles Ferro, Development Review Manager
Karl Guiler, Senior Planner / Code Amendment Specialist
OBJECTIVE
Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear Staff presentation.
2. Hold public hearing.
3. Planning Board discussion.
4. Planning Board recommendation to City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff has been working on an update to the Site Review criteria as part of the Community
Benefit project and has provided updates to the board and council throughout the process.
Staff presented the draft updated Site Review criteria to the Planning Board on Oct. 21,
2021 at a work session. The memorandum to the work session that details the background
on the project, goals and objectives, public feedback etc. can be reviewed at this link.
At the work session, the board was generally supportive of the proposed changes but
requested additional work focused on housing diversity, housing ownership and
Agenda Item 5A Page 1 of 81
economic feasibility. The board also raised an equity concern about the proposed open
space reduction intended to encourage more permanently affordable housing units within
the Business Community – 1 (BC-1) zoning district. The board generally agreed with the
list of zoning districts that should be excluded from the Community Benefit program
(effectively where requests for additional height or floor area could not be requested), but
found that the Business Transitional (BT) and Residential Mixed – 2 (RMX-2) zones
should be eligible for such requests. One board member noted that the Residential Mixed
– 1 (RMX-1) zone should not be eligible for height modifications and the board appeared
to agree with this.
Staff has since updated the criteria based on the feedback from the board and the details
of the changes are found within the ‘Analysis’ section of this memorandum. Since
October 2021, staff has been rethinking the density bonus provisions previously proposed
in light of recent state law changes that allow rent control as one of at least two options to
meet inclusionary housing requirements (something that was previously not possible) and
taking into account work program discussion with the newly elected City Council. More
specifically, City Council has requested that staff explore other changes to the Land Use
Code intensity and density requirements and the city’s inclusionary housing program
outside of the Site Review process to be better incentivize smaller, more affordable
housing units. These tasks are on staff’s work plan and planned to start in the third
quarter of this year. This is discussed further in this memorandum.
The draft language for the criteria can be found in draft Ordinance 8515 in Attachment
A. This memorandum details the proposed changes and a summary in Attachment B also
provides a concise description of the changes along with pictures to provide more
rationale for the changes.
Staff is requesting that the board make a recommendation to City Council on the
proposed code change as the board is required to make recommendations to council on
any changes to Title 9, Land Use Code. If passed, the effective date of the new criteria
would be January 1, 2023.
Planning Board was scheduled to review the ordinance on April 21st but due the lateness
of the hour continued the item to a later meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion Language:
Staff requests Planning Board consideration of this matter and action in the form of the
following motions:
Planning Board recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance 8515, amending
Title 9, “Land Use Code,” to update the Site Review criteria as part of the
Community Benefit code change project.
Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 81
KEY ISSUES
1. Does Planning Board find that the updated Site Review criteria meet the goals
and objectives outlined for the project (see goals and objectives below)?
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and
environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan.
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.
2. Does Planning Board recommend any modifications to the criteria in the draft
ordinance? Does the Planning Board find that the criteria should be modified
to be less prescriptive?
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
There have been ongoing opportunities for public feedback on the Community Benefit
project since it started in 2018 through in person and virtual open house meetings, focus
groups with the development community and neighborhoods, specific meetings with
stakeholders, segments on Channel 8 news, and Be Heard Boulder questionnaires. This
link to the August 25, 2020 study session contains a comprehensive history of the project
and summaries of feedback obtained through the course of the project. Stakeholders and
interested persons have been notified of the status of the project and the Planning
Newsletter has also included updates.
A summary of feedback received to date is provided below:
Neighborhood Review Group (this group is composed of members of the public that are
interested in planning issues in Boulder):
• There was general support for the changes and purpose behind the amendments.
• Commenters felt that the new criteria on BVCP compliance and the increase in
specificity aligned with the goals and objectives of the project.
• Criteria should increase the housing supply where possible.
• There were concerns about restricting ability for more affordable housing and the
proposed mechanisms to incentivize such uses (e.g., density modifications).
• There was discussion about ensuring that new projects are compatible with
surrounding properties through the Site Review process – there should be specific
listed examples of “elements” that ensure compatibility.
• Example photos of good vs. bad design should be developed to show the intent of
the criteria.
• There were concerns about one-size-fits-all nature of the criteria. Need to ensure
that Site Review is not overly burdensome on smaller developers who may be
Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 81
able to provide types of housing that are desirable and supported by
goals/policies.
Site Review Focus Group (this group is composed of local design professionals,
representatives in the affordable housing industry and people associated with active
development projects):
• Comments from members of the group have been mixed.
• Attendees felt the proposed regulations were too prescriptive (too many “shall”
statements, metrics that have to be met) and more than anticipated; others were
relatively positive to the more prescriptive elements borrowed from the Form-
Based Code (e.g., building materials, detailing etc.) to create more predictability.
The more descriptive language used to set the level of expectation for quality in
buildings was also commended. Some examples of this included how buildings
address the street, open space quality and pedestrian interest.
• Workforce housing should be a BVCP priority criterion.
• Some were supportive for the more specific BVCP criteria vis-à-vis the current
language which is vague about policy compliance whereas others were concerned
about the new housing diversity and environmental preservation criteria.
• Most of the attendees were concerned with the new embodied energy/life cycle
carbon section and found that it should be better handled later and through
changes to the energy code rather than the Site Review criteria. Others noted that
it should not apply to residential projects as to incentivize more housing.
• Concerns were expressed about the applicability of new Site Review criteria and
how it would impact smaller projects and/or previously approved projects, and
had questions about how amendments would be considered.
• Raised concern that new high quality building materials requirements and blank
wall standard should perhaps not be applicable in all parts of Boulder.
• Some interest and openness to the alternative compliance standard, while some
had concerns about how such exceptions would be reviewed.
• Attendees felt that the criteria should work for all types of projects, not just large-
scale new construction.
• There was some concern about the updated criteria would prevent investment in
existing buildings.
• There was a desire to have a broader range of architects to review and provide
their opinion on whether criteria are workable.
• There was disagreement with the sentiment that open space reductions to gain
more affordable housing would be inequitable. Affordable housing, in and of
itself, provides for equity. Creating barriers to encouraging more affordable
housing is a greater harm to providing equity in the community.
Staff has shared the draft criteria with architects that work in Boulder and has presented
to ULI and PLAN Boulder (see below) on the topic. Staff has reached out to architects
and the stakeholder groups about specific criteria since the Planning Board work session
and has received little feedback. One communication requested specific changes to the
Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 81
criteria (some of which has been incorporated into the ordinance) and another cautioned
the city from adopting additional Site Review criteria which are already lengthy and
arduous for many developers. These comments can be found in Attachment C.
At a discussion with PLAN Boulder, there was interest in the criteria related to building
design quality and housing diversity. The group also had the following comments:
The Cool Boulder initiative should be considered either through this process or a
process to update the city’s landscaping and open space standards.
The city should look more into energy standards that address the need for
microgrids and encourage more on-site solar generation.
Caution was expressed about any type of open space reduction offered by the
criteria and that there should be a focus on family friendly and middle-income
housing.
Interest was expressed about criteria that would require a certain minimum
percentage of home ownership units to create greater community stability and
passing of intergenerational wealth.
Staff has also continued to meet with the Site Review Focus Group members to address
concerns related to the prescriptive nature of the criteria. This topic is discussed further in
Key Issue #2.
BACKGROUND
A comprehensive background section on the Site Review update project can be found in
the prior memorandum to Planning Board from October 21, 2021. This memo can be
reviewed at this link.
ANALYSIS
1. Does Planning Board find that the updated Site Review criteria meet the goals
and objectives outlined for the project (see goals and objectives below)?
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and
environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan.
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.
As enumerated below, staff has found that the proposed Site Review criteria found within
Attachment A, would meet the goals and objectives above. Attachment B provides a
summary of the changes discussed in detail below. The current Site Review criteria can
be found at this link. If passed, the effective date of the new criteria would be January 1,
2023.
Agenda Item 5A Page 5 of 81
To reorganize the criteria into a more top-down approach (e.g., high level policy issues
down to building detailing) as discussed above, the following Table 1 includes the outline
of the proposed criteria with the existing criteria added for comparison:
TABLE 1-
Comparison between existing and proposed Site Review Criteria structure.
Existing criteria structure
(11 pages in the current code)
Proposed criteria structure
(15 pages with new text and images)
9-2-14(h)(1) - Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan
9-2-14(h)(1) - Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan
(A) Land Use Map
(B) Subcommunity and Area Plans and
Design Guidelines
(C) Energy Conservation and Building
Life Cycle Impact Carbon Reduction
(D) Community Design and Edges
(E) Historic or Cultural Resources
(F) Housing and Unit Diversity
(G) Environmental Preservation
9-2-14(h)(2) - Site Design
(A) Open Space
(B) Open Space in Mixed-Use Projects
(E) Landscaping
(D) Circulation
(E) Parking
(F) Building Design, Livability, and
Relationship to the Existing or
Proposed Surrounding Area
(G) Solar Siting and Construction
(H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above
the Permitted Height
(I) Land Use Intensity Modifications
(J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area
Ratio Increase for Buildings in the
BR-1 District
(K) Additional Criteria for Parking
Reductions
(L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site
Parking
9-2-14(h)(2) - Site Design
(A) Access, Transportation and Mobility
(B) Open Space
(C) Landscaping
(D) Public Realm and Building
Locations
9-2-14(h)(3) - Building Design
(A) Building Materials
(B) Window and Balcony Requirements
(C) Building Detailing
9-2-14(h)(4) - Building Design, Massing
and Height Requirements for Buildings
Proposed Above the Zoning District
Permitted Height and/or Maximum
Floor Area
9-2-14(h)(5) - Alternative Compliance
for Site and Building Design Standards
9-2-14(h)(6) - Additional Criteria for
Poles Above the Permitted Height
9-2-14(h)(7) - Land Use Intensity and
Height Modifications
(A) Land Use Intensity Modifications
with Open Space Reduction
Agenda Item 5A Page 6 of 81
(B) Land Use Intensity and Density
Modifications with Height Bonus
(Community Benefit regulations)
(C) Additional Criteria for a Height
Bonus and Land Use Intensity
Modifications (Community Benefit
regulations)
Section 9-2-14(h)(8), B.R.C. 1981-
Additional Criteria for Parking
Reductions
Section 9-2-14(h)(9), B.R.C. 1981-
Additional Criteria for Off-Site
Parking
Although the length of the criteria structure appears longer, it is only due to
reorganization, descriptive language and added graphics for greater clarity on intent and
more straight forward section titles. It does not mean that the proposed criteria are
substantially longer than the existing criteria. The proposed criteria are roughly 15 pages
versus the existing count of 11 pages. The draft code changes are found within
Attachment A. Attachment B contains a more concise overview of the changes, and an
analysis of each section, a description of each change, and how it would meet the goals
and objectives of the project are provided in Table 2 as follows:
TABLE 2
Description of the proposed Site Review changes and how the changes meet the
goals and objectives of the project.
Code section Section 9-2-14(h)(1), B.R.C. 1981- Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan (BVCP)
Description
of changes • BVCP criteria language have been simplified with respect to
density and replaced by clear language that refers to
consistency with the BVCP land use map and designation.
• Specific criteria have been added to focus on consistency with
adopted area plans or guidelines as well as specific criteria
furthering policies on:
o Energy conservation and building life-cycle impact
carbon reduction [three options below would apply to
buildings or additions over 30,000 square feet]
Reduce the Embodied CO2e of concrete
materials
Design a Fully Electric Project
Whole-Building Life-Cycle Assessment
o Preservation of important historic or cultural resources
(applies when there are buildings qualifying for
landmarking on the site)
Agenda Item 5A Page 7 of 81
o Housing and unit diversity (depending on the size of the
project or site, requires a minimum specified number of
housing types or unit types [3-bedroom vs. 2-bedroom
etc.], and
• Economic feasibility criteria have been removed; An applicant
would not move forward with a project if not found
economically feasible, so the criterion is unnecessary. One
Planning Board objected to its removal, but staff continues to
find that the criterion has not been useful and has not been
consequential either positively or negatively in reviews. Again,
staff assumes that if a project is moving forward the applicant
has indicated that the project is feasible despite the multiple
criteria applied to reviews.
• The existing criterion about gateway sites creating a sense of
entry to the community, which is currently in the building
design section, has been moved up to this section as it derives
from the BVCP policy on enhanced design.
• An existing criterion about preservation of natural resources
has been updated and moved up to this policy related section.
Goals and
Objectives
met
Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals
and create more predictability in projects.
The BVCP criteria have been debated by community members,
applicants, and neighbors for being somewhat vague criteria in the Site
Review criteria since the “on balance” application of many BVCP
policies leading to unpredictable decisions on applications because of
competing policies. The combination of making this section clearer and
more explicit about key city policies guiding development, along with
the other proposed changes to the criteria, would further city goals and
create more predictability in projects.
Code section Section 9-2-14(h)(2), B.R.C. 1981- Site Design
Description
of changes
o A more top-down approach to the criteria has been employed
starting with the more holistic elements that inform the overall
design being listed first.
o Parking and circulation, which have similar and redundant
criteria, have been consolidated into a new Access,
Transportation, and Mobility section. This section has been
updated to reflect the city’s commitment to multi-modal
transportation solutions, encouraging modes other than the
Agenda Item 5A Page 8 of 81
vehicle, and more clearly stating expectations regarding
connectivity.
o Redundant criteria about open space have been removed. More
objective and specific criteria have been added that indicate
what the level of quality open space must be and new size
thresholds applying to larger sites for active recreation (i.e., >50
units) and/or courtyard spaces (i.e., >1 acre) is added to help
break up the size and scale of buildings and provide attractive
gathering spaces.
o More specific criteria are added regarding buffering between
higher and lower intensity uses instead of the currently vague
language of “providing relief to density”.
o The landscaping criteria have been updated to set the
expectations for design quality, including language about high
quality hardscape materials into landscaped areas, conserving
water and incorporating bioswales.
o The vague, subjective language that landscaping shall be “in
excess” of by-right standards has been updated to require a
minimum of 15% more plantings than by-right projects and a
commensurate increase in the size of planting areas to
accommodate the additional plantings.
o Currently vague language about “human scale,” “attractive
streetscape,” and “pedestrian interest” has been replaced by a
new Public Realm and Building Location section that
requires defined building entries along streetscapes every 75
feet and more specific language on the amount of fenestration
in such areas.
o The expectation that buildings should be oriented to the
street instead of parking areas is emphasized in this new
section.
o Staff is proposing to update the currently vague language on
protecting views (minimizing blocking of views) with criteria
that set expectations for maintaining prominent views of the
mountains for the public or for users of the site.
Goals and
Objectives
met
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.
Agenda Item 5A Page 9 of 81
The updates above would more clearly specify the level of quality site
designs must achieve in Site Review projects. The proposed criteria
include several new metrics that would have to be met for larger
projects which are often requesting height modifications. These
changes are intended to achieve better design outcomes from the onset
of a project, rather than the current criteria which often necessitate
repeated revisions and iterations. The changes would remove
ambiguity and redundancy in the criteria resulting in more predictable
and efficient outcomes and are meant to encourage projects that are
more consistent with the criteria upon initial submittal rather than the
back and forth to often necessary with current reviews to meet the
criteria.
Code section Section 9-2-14(h)(3)- Building Design
Description
of changes • Replace the highly subjective and vague criteria on building
design with more specific requirements for building design
quality. These have primarily been drawn from tested elements
of the Form Based Code (FBC) that staff and the design
community have been found to be successful.
• Some examples of currently vague criteria are the following
existing language:
(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;
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of
views from adjacent properties;
(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made
compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping,
signs and lighting;
(v) Projects are designed to a human scale and promote a safe and
vibrant pedestrian experience through the location of building
frontages along public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths, and
through the use of building elements, design details and landscape
materials that include, without limitation, the location of entrances
and windows, and the creation of transparency and activity at the
pedestrian level;
(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in
producing a variety of housing types, such as multifamily,
townhouses and detached single family units, as well as mixed lot
sizes, number of bedrooms and sizes of units;
• To address this, the following new criteria or changes are
proposed:
- (vii) has been moved up to the BVCP section and
replaced by a new more specific criterion on housing
diversity
Agenda Item 5A Page 10 of 81
- (v) has been replaced by the new Public Realm and
Building Location section discussed above.
- (iii) has been replaced by the aforementioned criteria on
views.
- Where “character of the area” and issues of
“compatibility” are relatively subjective, more specific
criteria are proposed that are drawn from basic elements
of the FBC, such as:
o the requirement for at least 75% of facades be
composted of high-quality materials such as brick,
stone, wood, high density panel systems, high
pressure laminate, cementitious or composite siding
with a wood finish, or architectural metal panels, in
any combination
o building material transitions may only occur away
from public facing facades and within interior
corners
o minimum transparency requirements per floor
(amount of area that must have window and door
openings) are proposed at a minimum of 20% per
floor or 70% in storefront, walkable, more urban
areas
o no blank walls wider than 25 feet
o required recess of windows by 2 inches which
creates shadow lines and contributes to wall details
and higher quality construction
o new balcony requirements to integrate balconies
into the design of the building and also requirements
to finish the bottoms of balconies (no drip through
slats), which also contributes to higher quality
construction
o new building detailing requirements for
“expression lines”, which like the recessed
windows, are small changes in materials or the
layout of materials with an offset of 2 inches adding
to the visual interest on facades.
Goals and
Objectives
met
Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals
and create more predictability in projects.
Like the BVCP section, concerns about the subjective nature of the
current building design section have been raised. Further, the section
has been a “catch all” for new criteria that have been added over the
years meant to compensate for projects that were less successful in
meeting the criteria. While many criteria have been added, the current
Agenda Item 5A Page 11 of 81
criteria do not always successfully result in higher quality buildings.
Rather than vague references to “authentic materials” and “human
scale,” the proposed changes above would set a new baseline for
quality.
While most of the criteria above are more like “black and white”
performance standards, staff recognizes that it is important to ensure a
project fits in with its surroundings, but the criterion related to
compatibility is challenging as it is a relatively subjective concept.
Rather than removing it entirely, to provide more direction staff has
added new criteria that would require that the applicant to demonstrate
at least three elements of a building’s materials and detailing in how it
meets or improves the character of the area. While this is one of the
more subjective criteria to remain, this additional specificity will
provide more guidance to the review authorities in assessing whether a
project fits within its surroundings or not.
Staff finds that the more specific requirements discussed above, which
have been borrowed from the FBC and have been demonstrated in
projects at 30Pearl as ensuring a higher level of quality, would meet the
goals above to further city goals on community design, improving the
appearance of buildings, and increasing the level of predictability in
projects.
Code section Section 9-2-14(h)(4)- Building Design, Massing and Height
Requirements for Buildings Proposed Above the Zoning District
Permitted Height and/or Maximum Floor Area
• With the exception of the relatively new criteria on Community
Benefit (permanently affordable housing) and the criteria
below, there are few additional requirements for buildings that
include height modification or land use intensity modification
requests, as outlined in the code:
(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;
• Add new criteria from the FBC that relate to taller buildings
including the following:
o addition of “expression lines” on taller buildings
including horizontal detailing between the ground floor
and upper floors, between any 4th and 5th floor, if
applicable, below any parapet and the top of building
and vertical detailing at least every 60 feet
o maximum building length of 150 feet
Agenda Item 5A Page 12 of 81
o required façade variation at least every 90 feet for
building greater than 120 feet in length
• Additionally, a new criterion for taller buildings would include
more specific requirements for consistency with context for
taller buildings.
While the criterion is more on the subjective side, it specifies
the area that should be analyzed if there are other buildings
taller than the zoning district height limit, if the project is not in
an area that has an adopted area plan.
• Like the FBC on taller buildings, there would be new
requirements for roof cap types including pitched (gable, hip)
roofs, parapets, and flat roofs.
Goals and
Objectives
met
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.
One of the primary goals of updating the Site Review criteria has been
to “determine additional design standards for projects requesting a
height modification.” This new section would apply many of the same
baseline requirements that apply in the FBC area to buildings proposed
over the zoning district height limit. These standards on height and
massing are already demonstrated in the FBC areas to be successful in
resulting in higher quality buildings that are detailed but not overly
“busy” in design.
Staff finds that the combination of the new requirements for building
design, maximum building length, respect for public views, and new
ground level open spaces for larger buildings would result in taller
buildings that better fit into their context and result in better designs.
Applicants and staff alike have noted that the standards of the FBC
have resulted in less back and forth revisions to meet criteria, achieve
better design outcomes and ultimately have a greater level of
predictability in the process, consistent with the goals of the project.
Code section Section 9-2-14(h)(5)- Alternative Compliance for Site Review
Projects
Description
of changes
With more prescriptive, “black and white,” performance standards
integrated into the criteria for more predictability and clear
expectations, there is a need for some flexibility as the regulations may
not be appropriate in all scenarios. As with the FBC process where
exceptions may be requested (albeit on a limited basis), staff is
proposing an “alternative compliance” option that allows some
modification (i.e., excludes the first two criteria for BVCP compliance)
Agenda Item 5A Page 13 of 81
from the Site Review criteria in accounts where it makes sense to
afford some flexibility.
Goals and
Objectives
met
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and
environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan.
Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals
and create more predictability in projects.
Including an alternative compliance section that would be used on a
limited basis would allow some necessary flexibility in the regulations
where the typical standard should not always apply, or to allow other
ways to meet the intents of the BVCP in an alternative way.
Code section Section 9-2-14(h)(7), B.R.C. 1981- Land Use Intensity
Modifications
Description
of change
One of the objectives of the project has been to “Identify incentives to
address the community economic, social and environmental objectives
of the comprehensive plan.” Staff has focused on how to get more
permanently affordable housing and smaller sized housing units in
locations that are designated for more housing like the Boulder Valley
Regional Center (BVRC) and within neighborhood centers to address
the housing needs of the community and the jobs: housing imbalance.
Such areas include residential areas along Broadway and east of 28th
Street and neighborhood centers of the BC zones. Other approaches to
work toward the objective are criteria to better achieve designs that are
appropriate to the context of an area.
Staff has heard from the development community that there are barriers
to additional permanently affordable housing and smaller housing units
by virtue of some intensity standards – one prime example being the
1,600 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit standard of the BR-1,
RH-5 and BC-2 zones which are in areas incentivized for housing in
the BVCP as discussed above. Allowing more flexibility in the code,
like density bonuses for permanently affordable or smaller units, could
incentivize these uses and better BVCP goals.
Following discussions on the Site Review changes in 2021, City
Council requested that staff bring the previously discussed density
modifications forward. Such density bonuses, like other land use
intensity modifications, would require Planning Board approval at a
public hearing as well as consistency with the Site Review criteria,
parking and other development standards that would ensure that the
proposed intensity, design, and configuration will be consistent with
the surroundings.
Agenda Item 5A Page 14 of 81
The ordinance in Attachment A contains the following modifications
but does not include the density bonus provisions linked to
permanently affordable housing as outlined in detail below:
• DT, BMS, and MU-3 zones: The DT, BMS and MU-3 zones
are the most pedestrian oriented of zones in Boulder and have a
“Main Street” typology of buildings built up to the street with
wide sidewalks and trees in grates etc. Oftentimes, the city’s
requirements for up to 20 percent open space on a narrow
downtown or West Pearl property results in this “Main Street”
design pattern being interrupted by less useable open space. For
instance, to meet the open space requirements, developers have
pushed buildings back from the sidewalk to have open space
along the streetscape or provided less than optimal open space
along an alley given the constraints on these sites, which results
in a less than ideal design solution and open spaces that are
largely meant to meet the code despite not being functional.
• A new modification is proposed that would allow requests to
reduce the open space by up to 50 percent if it is necessary to
avoid siting of open space that is inconsistent with the urban
context of neighboring buildings or the character established in
adopted design guidelines or plans for the area, such as along a
property line next to zero-setback buildings or along alleys.
These zones already largely benefit from public open space like
the downtown pedestrian mall and the Boulder Creek corridor
or other nearby open spaces or parks. An existing modification
to reduce open space by up to 100 percent already exists for the
DT zones and is proposed to be removed since it currently
requires the applicant to demonstrate that the owner of the site
has paid into a community fund for the Pearl Street Mall and
other nearby open spaces. This has proved to be difficult to
track and administer and thus, is proposed to be replaced by the
criterion above.
• BR-1 zone: An existing section of the Site Review criteria that
allows bonuses for up to 4.0 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is
proposed to be removed. Requests for over 2.0 FAR are rare
and oftentimes, the setback, open space, landscaping and
circulation requirements limit buildings to not much more than
the 2.0 FAR permitted without the modification. Staff has not
found any examples of projects that built to a 3.0 or 4.0 FAR.
Further, the criteria to obtain more floor area are redundant to
the existing open space criteria and do not necessarily result in
enhanced design above what the Site Review criteria already
require. The vast majority of projects in BR-1 are possible at
around 2.0 FAR and if a developer wanted to go beyond the 2.0
Agenda Item 5A Page 15 of 81
FAR, they would have the option to increase that through the
Community Benefit requirements. As an alternative, staff is
proposing that the modification be changed to simply allow
requests for up to a 3.0 FAR if the bonus floor area meets the
community benefit standards.
Density Bonus for Permanently Affordable Units: Staff had previously
presented density bonuses linked to permanently affordable housing
units in the BR-1, RH-5 and BC-2 zones by modifying the 1,600
square feet of lot area per dwelling unit standard. A separate density
modification in the BC-1 zone was also proposed, which would have
enabled more permanently affordable housing on sites where a
reduction in open space is done to incentivize on-site affordable units.
The reasons for exclusion at this point are listed below:
• Legislative changes at the state level impact how the city’s
permanently affordable housing program may be administered,
primarily related to how rent control is conducted. Rent control
was previously not permitted by state law, but now can be, so
staff is evaluating this and will determine what changes to the
Boulder Revised Code will be necessary. Implementing the
density bonus provisions, as previously drafted, would be
premature based on change in state law.
• At the October 2021 discussion, Planning Board raised equity
concerns related to density bonuses in the BC-1 zone because
the allowance for more density and permanently affordable
units involved an open space reduction. While individual
permanently affordable units would not have ended up with less
open space than market rate units, the approach to the open
space reduction prompted staff to reconsider.
• Concerns have been raised related to allowance of density
bonuses through the Site Review process which prompted staff
to look into other approaches for bonuses that could be done
by-right rather than through Site Review. The concern is that
tying increased affordability to increased density in a Site
Review complicates the application of inclusionary housing
standards significantly, while they result in only minimal
additional affordable units. In comparison, a by-right density
increase automatically results in additional inclusionary
housing benefits.
• At its retreat in January 2022, some City Council members
requested that changes to the Land Use Code Intensity
Standards be considered that would allow for more dwelling
units in certain zones and provide flexibility for a wider range
of more affordable and attainable housing types through the
Agenda Item 5A Page 16 of 81
city’s Intensity Standards rather than the Site Review process.
Suggestions included changes to zoning district density
requirements such as removing lot area per dwelling unit
restrictions (e.g., BR-1, RH-5, BC-2) as discussed above and
replacing with more straightforward floor area ratio (FAR)
limits etc. As this concept is similar to the density bonuses
concepts discussed as part of the Site Review project and these
new concepts will likely change the intensity standards for the
same zoning districts, staff found it more appropriate to address
the density questions as part of the new work program items
presented by council and remove the density bonuses from the
Site Review criteria project. Staff intends to explore this further
as a new and separate work program item.
Goals and
Objectives
met
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and
environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan.
As with the prior ordinance for the Community Benefit project (which
was not acted upon by City Council), staff finds that these
modifications would be consistent with BVCP Policy 1.11, Enhanced
Community Benefit and BVCP Policy 7.12, Permanently Affordable
Housing for Additional Intensity and consistent with the goal above
related to finding incentives to further objectives of the BVCP.
The proposed changes, while leaving out the density bonus provisions,
would still work towards incentivizing more affordable housing in
locations that are already identified as areas where additional housing
(e.g., along multi-modal corridors, in the Boulder Valley Regional
Center and in neighborhood centers around the city) is to be
encouraged such as the within the BR-1 zone where a floor area ratio
(FAR) bonus would be possible to achieve any FAR above 2.0 FAR,
an increase commercial linkage fee or provision of permanently
affordable units would be required for the “bonus floor area.”
Agenda Item 5A Page 17 of 81
Height Modification exemption for projects with Permanently Affordable housing
and building required to be raised to above the Flood Protection Elevation:
Lastly, staff is proposing changes to the current height limit exemptions for projects that
are not subject to the Community Benefit requirements. This was also included in the
prior Community Benefit ordinance that was not passed but is included in these changes
are important updates to the code. The changes relate to buildings up to three stories that
need to be raised due to flood protection requirements, tightening up the current
permanently affordable housing provision of the current exemptions and removing
references to Appendix J, which has already expired.
Current exemptions, found within Section 9-2-14(b)(1)(e), B.R.C. 1981, are for any
project with more than 40% of its floor area as permanently affordable housing, industrial
manufacturing spaces that are not over three stories or height modifications that are
requested for buildings no taller than the maximum number of stories (typically three
stories) that is necessary due to topography.
The proposed changes add a new exemption on projects that must be raised to meet flood
protection regulations (up to 5 additional feet may be requested if no taller than the
maximum number of stories permitted without Site Review). The proposed changes
would also tighten up the permanently affordable housing standard to require that at
least 40% of the units in the building be permanently affordable in addition to meeting
the minimum 40% of the floor area of a building. Finally, the permanently affordable
units in the building cannot be used to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements for
dwelling units in other buildings.
Remove reference to Appendix J: Finally, the proposed changes would delete the
reference to Appendix J as the map has already expired. The Appendix J map is the
map that indicated where height modifications were permissible in the city prior to
adoption of the community benefit standards. The map expired in August 2021. With the
expiration of the map, Planning Board and City Council have requested staff move
forward with a requirement that the Community Benefit regulations not apply to specific
zones where additional height in the form of four or five stories would not be anticipated
due to context and compatibility. The zones proposed for exclusion are: Rural –
Residential (RR), Residential – Estate (RE), Residential -Low (RL), Residential – Mixed
(RMX-1), Mobile Home (MH) and Agricultural (A) zoning districts. Descriptions of
these zones can be found in the Land Use Code within Chapter 5, “Modular Zone
System,” B.R.C. 1981.
Agenda Item 5A Page 18 of 81
Areas Where Height Modifications /
Community Benefit Will Not Apply
Agenda Item 5A Page 19 of 81
Planning Board work session and changes since the discussion
At the October 2021 work session, the board was generally supportive of the proposed
changes but requested additional work focused on housing diversity, housing ownership
and economic feasibility. The board also raised an equity concern about the proposed
open space reduction intended to encourage more permanently affordable housing units
within the Business Community – 1 (BC-1) zoning district. The latter point is already
discussed above.
The board generally agreed with the list of zoning districts that should be excluded from
the Community Benefit program (effectively where requests for additional height or floor
area could not be requested), but found that the Business Transitional (BT) and
Residential Mixed – 2 (RMX-2) zones should be eligible for such requests. One board
member found that the Residential Mixed – 1 (RMX-1) zone should not be eligible for
height modifications and the board appeared to agree with this. A summary of the
changes is provided below:
• Housing and bedroom type diversity: Staff has updated the criterion on housing
and bedroom type diversity based on input from the board, staff and the Site
Review focus group as follows:
Excepting the RR, RE and RL-1 zoning districts, for projects that are more than 50
percent residential by measure of floor area, not counting enclosed parking areas, the
following housing and bedroom unit type requirements apply:
• For lots or parcels five acres or less, at least one qualifying housing type shall be
provided;
• For lots or parcels that are greater than five acres but less than ten acres, at least
two qualifying housing types shall be provided;
• For lots or parcels that are ten acres or more, at least three qualifying housing types
shall be provided,
• The minimum number of units of any qualifying housing types for lots or parcels that
are more than five acres shall be five dwelling units,
• The minimum number of bedroom unit types in a project with greater than 20
attached dwelling units shall be two-bedroom unit types, and
• For the purposes of this subparagraph, qualifying housing type shall mean duplexes,
attached dwelling units, townhouses, or efficiency living units (ELUs) and bedroom
type shall mean studios, one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, or three-bedrooms
units.
• Housing ownership (rental vs. ownership): Adding requirements for a
minimum amount of home ownership units was not within the scope of work for
the project. If the city were to move forward with this type of change, staff would
need additional time to research the implications for developers and for the city’s
administration of such a program and legal issues implicated by requiring
ownership over rental units. Further, staff has concerns that requiring ownership
Agenda Item 5A Page 20 of 81
units may negatively impact groups that are less likely to be able to afford to own.
Restrictions that require ownership may require long term covenants and
agreements that likely would add a complex layer onto the Site Review process.
Nevertheless, staff looks forward to additional Planning Board input on this
matter. Staff could incorporate further research into this topic on future work
plans.
• Economic feasibility criterion: The following economic feasibility criterion was
discussed at the Oct. 21st work session. While one board member found that the
criterion should not be removed, staff continues to find the criterion unhelpful,
difficult to respond to, and generally unnecessary and recommends that it be
removed because of its vagueness and how it could contribute to unpredictable
results in evaluating Site Review applications. This is not a criterion that in the
past has resulted in conditions beings added or discussion by the public, board or
council.
The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP policies
considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques required to meet other
site review criteria.
• RMX-1 (Mixed Residential – 1) zone: Based on comments from the Planning
Board on the RMX-1 zone and that four or five story buildings would be
inappropriate in the neighborhoods surrounding downtown based on the single-
family character and context, staff has removed the RMX-1 zone from the list of
eligible zones for height bonuses and application of the Community Benefit
regulations.
Key Issue #2, as follows, discusses the topic of whether additional changes to the criteria
should be made at the request of Planning Board if the board felt that the issues above
require further changes.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Board recommend approval of Ordinance 8515
to City Council finding that the combination of the proposed changes discussed above
would be consistent with the following goals and objectives for the project, would
increase the level of predictability, incentivize projects that further BVCP goals, and
result in better design outcomes:
• Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and
environmental objectives of the comprehensive plan.
• 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.
Agenda Item 5A Page 21 of 81
2. Does Planning Board recommend any modifications to the criteria in the
draft ordinance? Does the Planning Board find that the criteria should be
modified to be less prescriptive?
While many criteria have been made more prescriptive than the existing criteria to meet
the goals of the project, many have also been made more “descriptive” in that the
language has been revised to be more explanatory about what the intent of the criteria is
and how to best meet that intent, which would also help to achieve better design
outcomes. Staff finds that the new criteria would not necessarily make it significantly
difficult for new projects to meet ever increasing qualitative standards, but rather the
updated criteria are meant to better inform projects before they are submitted making
them more suited to have an increased level of quality commensurate with what has been
seen in recent years where better design outcomes have been more routinely achieved as
part of the Design Excellence initiative as opposed to an application requiring repeated
rounds of review to meet the criteria.
That said, the Site Review Focus Group has expressed concern about the prescriptive
nature and how the criteria may impact smaller scale projects. Thus, staff is raising this as
a key issue. The focus group is composed of local design professionals, representatives in
the affordable housing industry and people associated with active development projects.
Similar concerns about how the criteria would impact smaller scale projects was also
raised by the neighborhood representative group composed of members of the public that
are interested in planning issues in Boulder.
Table 3 below focuses on the criteria that are of most concern heard from the groups,
what their specific concerns are, and how, if applicable, the criterion has been modified
to address the concerns.
TABLE 3-
Key criteria of concern of the Site Review Focus Group and staff revisions to
address concerns (if applicable)
Key criterion of
concern
Focus Group comments Staff revisions (if applicable)
All criteria
(Section 9-2-
14(h)….)
Too prescriptive
Too many “shall”
requirements
Should be changed to
“should”, based on factors
Not enough flexibility in
Building Design criteria
Concern about how smaller
scale projects would be
impacted
Industrial, single-family,
duplex, mobile home and
townhouse uses have been
excepted out of specific
prescriptive requirements
like the balcony
requirements or limit on
number of materials
Alternative compliance
criterion has been updated
to apply more flexibility to
Agenda Item 5A Page 22 of 81
Concern about how the new
criteria will be applied to
previously built or approved
projects that may undergo
amendments
projects previously built or
approved
(h)(1)(C), Energy
Conservation and
Building Life-
Cycle Impact
Carbon Reduction
Too restrictive
Adds to expense
Should only apply to non-
residential buildings to
encourage housing
No changes proposed.
(h)(2)(D), Public
Realm and
Building
Locations
Building entries every 50 feet
on public streets, plazas,
sidewalks, paths and natural
features too restrictive
Passive solar requirement to
unpredictable and unrealistic
Criterion protecting public
views of the mountains too
rigid
Building entry requirement
increased from 50 to 75 feet.
Created a new definition for
“public realm” and clarified
where requirements apply.
Removed solar requirement
(city already has Solar
Access regulations)
No change to view criteria
(h)(3)(A),
Building
Materials
75% high quality building
materials too rigid
Will impact smaller projects
Should not be applied to all
projects (e.g., industrial)
Window transparency
requirements (20% per floor)
should not be applied
citywide
Blank Wall restriction (15-
feet) and 2-inch window
recess requirement too strict
No change to building
materials percentage.
Revised window
transparency requirement to
be 20% on public street
facades and 15% on other
facades.
Reduced window
transparency requirements
in certain zones from 75%
to 70%.
Increased blank wall
allowance from 15-feet to
25-feet. Also, allowed more
flexibility by excepting any
ground floor walls facing
alleys, loading areas not
along a public street or any
walls of a building not
facing a public street where
an industrial use.
(h)(4), Building
Design, Massing
& Height
Requirement for
Buildings
Proposed Above
Form-Based Code (FBC)
type requirements should not
apply citywide
Does not allow for
innovation
The limitation on where
height modifications could
occur outside of area plan
areas has been made less
restrictive with more
subjective criteria
Agenda Item 5A Page 23 of 81
the Max. Height
or FAR
Limiting height
modifications to only in areas
where there are like height
buildings within 1,000 feet
too restrictive (n/a in areas
where taller buildings
anticipated by area plans etc.)
determining whether the
taller building is compatible
with its surroundings and
that building over three-
stories should be near a high
frequency transit corridor.
If so desired by Planning Board, the criteria could be modified to be less prescriptive than
code standards and include more discretionary language if the board found the criteria too
strict. As suggested by a member of the Site Review focus group, the criteria could be
changed from more prescriptive standards to requirements that would read as follows,
“the project will [describe intent]. In determining whether this criterion is met, the
following factors will be considered”, which would not necessarily require the project to
strictly meet every single consideration, but rather that the project, on balance, would
meet the intent of the criterion based on the collection of considerations. Such an
approach would lower the level of predictability in projects and would increase the level
of subjectivity, but would allow for more flexibility than is reflected in the current draft
of the criteria.
That said, staff finds that the proposed changes would continue to meet the goals and
objectives of the code change project discussed in Key Issue #1 and appropriately strikes
a balance between more prescriptive standards and others that allow a certain degree of
flexibility in Site Reviews. The flexibility would be offered through adding new
thresholds to certain criteria on when they apply (e.g., large scale mixed-use buildings vs.
smaller scale townhouse or single-family development), adjusting some of the metrics to
be less strict as discussed in Table 3 above, and allowing modifications to requirements
like the form and bulk standards as currently done in Site Reviews. For those criteria that
may not make sense in all scenarios, applicant would be able to use the “Alternative
Compliance” section as long as the applicant demonstrates that the intent of a specific
standard is met in an alternative way and otherwise meets the purpose of Site Review. If
the code language were to be rewritten to be less prescriptive as discussed in the
paragraph above, staff would then suggest that the “Alternative Compliance” section be
removed.
By:
David Gehr, Secretary to the Planning Board
Agenda Item 5A Page 24 of 81
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A- Draft Ordinance 8515
Attachment B- Summary of Code Changes
Attachment C- Public comment
Attachment D- Summary of Site Review criteria update approaches and feedback
from earlier in the Community Benefit project process
Agenda Item 5A Page 25 of 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ORDINANCE 8515
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,”
B.R.C. 1981, TO UPDATE THE SITE REVIEW CRITERIA AS
PART OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT CODE CHANGE
PROJECT AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended as follows:
9-2-14. Site Review.
(a) Purpose: The purpose of site review is to allow flexibility and encourage innovation in
land use development. Review criteria are established to promote the most appropriate
use of land, improve the character and quality of new development, to facilitate the
adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and
scenic features of open space, to ensure assure consistency with the purposes and policies
of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans of the community, to
ensure compatibility with existing structures and established districts, to ensure assure
that the height of new buildings is in general proportion to the height of existing,
approved, and known to be planned or projected buildings in the immediate area, to
ensure assure that the project incorporates, through site design, elements which provide
for the safety and convenience of the pedestrian, to ensure assure that the project is
designed in an environmentally sensitive manner, to ensure assure that the building is of a
bulk appropriate to the area and the amenities provided and of a scale appropriate to
pedestrians, and to set requirements for additional height, density, and intensity that
provide additional benefits to the community beyond the underlying zoning.
(b) Scope: The following development review thresholds apply to any development that is
eligible or that otherwise may be required to complete the site review process:
(1) Development Review Thresholds:
…
(E) Height Modifications: A development which exceeds the permitted height
requirements of Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," or 9-7-6, "Building Height,
Conditional," B.R.C. 1981, or of Paragraph 9-10-3(b)(2), “Maximum Height,”
B.R.C. 1981, to the extent permitted by that paragraph for existing buildings on
nonstandard lots, is required to complete a site review and is not subject to the
minimum threshold requirements. No standard other than height may be modified
under the site review unless the project is also eligible for site review. A
development that exceeds the permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-5 or
Agenda Item 5A Page 26 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-7-6, B.R.C. 1981, must meet any one of the following circumstances in addition
to the site review criteria:
…
(iv) The height modification is to allow up to the greater of two stories
or the maximum number of stories permitted but no more than five
feet above the maximum building height under Section 9-7-5(a) or
9-7-6, B.R.C. 1981, in a building where the height modification is
necessary because the building has to be elevated to meet the
required flood protection elevation.
(iv v) At least forty percent of the dwelling units in the building meet the
requirements for permanently affordable units in Chapter 9-13,
“Inclusionary Housing,” B.R.C. 1981; at least forty percent of the
floor area of the building is used for dwelling units that meet the
requirements for permanently affordable units in Chapter 9-13,
B.R.C. 1981.; all floor area above the first floor of the building is
used for dwelling units; and the permanently affordable units in the
building are not used to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements
under Chapter 9-13, B.R.C. 1981, for dwelling units located in any
other building.
(v vi) The height modification is to allow an emergency operations
antenna or a pole.
(vi vii) The building or use is located in an area designated in Appendix J,
"Areas Where Height Modifications May Be Considered," and
meets the requirements of Paragraph 9-2-14(h)(2)(K), "Additional
Criteria for Height Bonuses and Land Use Intensity Modifications
for Properties Designated Within Appendix J," B.R.C. 1981. [3]
meets the requirements of Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(7)(C), B.R.C.
1981, for a height bonus, and is not in the RR, RE, RL, RMX-1,
MH, or A zoning district.
TABLE 2-2: SITE REVIEW THRESHOLD TABLE
Zoning
District
Abbreviation
Use Form Intensity Minimum
Size for Site
Review
Concept Plan and
Site Review
Required
Former Zoning
District
Abbreviation
A A a 1 2 acres - (A-E)
BC-1 B3 f 15 1 acre 3 acres or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(CB-D)
BC-2 B3 f 19 1 acre 2 acres or 25,000
square feet of floor
area or any site in
BVRC
(CB-E)
Agenda Item 5A Page 27 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BCS B4 m 28 1 acre 3 acres or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(CS-E)
BMS B2 o 17 0 3 acres or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(BMS-X)
BR-1 B5 f 23 0 3 acres or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(RB-E)
BR-2 B5 f 16 0 3 acres or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(RB-D)
BT-1 B1 f 15 1 acre 2 acres or 30,000
square feet of floor
area
(TB-D)
BT-2 B1 e 21 0 2 acres or 30,000
square feet of floor
area
(TB-E)
DT-1 D3 p 25 0 1 acre or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(RB3-X/E)
DT-2 D3 p 26 0 1 acre or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(RB2-X)
DT-3 D3 p 27 0 1 acre or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(RB2-E)
DT-4 D1 q 27 0 1 acre or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(RB1-E)
DT-5 D2 p 27 0 1 acre or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(RB1-X)
IG I2 f 22 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000
square feet of floor
area
(IG-E/D)
IM I3 f 20 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000
square feet of floor
area
(IM-E/D)
IMS I4 r 18 0 3 acres or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(IMS-X)
IS-1 I1 f 11 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000
square feet of floor
area
(IS-E)
IS-2 I1 f 10 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000
square feet of floor
area
(IS-D)
MH MH s - 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
- (MH-E)
MU-1 M2 i 18 0 1 acre or 20
dwelling units
(MU-D)
Agenda Item 5A Page 28 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MU-2 M3 r 18 0 3 acres or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
(RMS-X)
MU-3 M1 n 24 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
1 acre or 20
dwelling units or
20,000 square feet
of nonresidential
floor area
(MU-X)
MU-4 M4 o 24.5 0 3 acres or 50,000
square feet of floor
area
-
P P c 5 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000
square feet of floor
area
(P-E)
RE R1 b 3 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
- (ER-E)
RH-1 R6 j 12 0 2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(HR-X)
RH-2 R6 c 12.5 0 2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(HZ-E)
RH-3 R7 l 14 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(HR1-X)
RH-4 R6 h 15 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(HR-D)
RH-5 R6 c 19 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(HR-E)
RH-6 R8 j 17.5 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
3 acres or 20
dwelling units
-
RH-7 R7 i 14 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
2 acres or 20
dwelling units
-
RL-1 R1 d 4 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
3 acres or 18
dwelling units
(LR-E)
RL-2 R2 g 6 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
3 acres or 18
dwelling units
(LR-D)
RM-1 R3 g 9 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(MR-D)
Agenda Item 5A Page 29 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RM-2 R2 d 13 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(MR-E)
RM-3 R3 j 13 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(MR-X)
RMX-1 R4 d 7 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(MXR-E)
RMX-2 R5 k 8 0 2 acres or 20
dwelling units
(MXR-D)
RR-1 R1 a 2 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
- (RR-E)
RR-2 R1 b 2 5 or more
units are
permitted on
the property
- (RR1-E)
…
(c) Modifications to Development Standards: The following development standards of
B.R.C. 1981 may be modified under the site review process set forth in this section:
…
(17) Land use intensity modifications pursuant to Paragraphs 9-2-14(h)(7)(2)(I) and
(h)(2)(J).
…
(22) The height standards in Paragraph 9-10-3(b)(2), “Maximum Height,” to the
extent permitted for existing buildings or structures exceeding the height
limitation of that paragraph and the number of permanently affordable units
requirement in Paragraph 9-10-3(c)(4)(B), "No Reduction in Affordable
Units." pursuant to the standards of that paragraph.
…
(d) Application Requirements: An application for approval of a site plan may be filed by any
person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a site review on a
form provided by the city manager that includes, without limitation:
…
(17) Plans for preservation of natural features existing on the site or plans for
mitigation of adverse impacts to natural features existing on the site from the
proposed development and anticipated uses. Natural features include, without
limitation, healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and
surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas and habitat for species on
Agenda Item 5A Page 30 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder
County" designated by Boulder County, or, if prairie dogs (Cynomys
ludiovicianus) are present on the site, a statement of intent that specifies how the
applicant will address the prairie dogs consistent with the applicable standards of
Chapter 6-1, “Animals,” B.R.C. 1981. which is a species of local concern.
(18) A tree inventory that includes the location, size, species, and general health of all
trees with a diameter of six inches and over measured fifty-four inches above the
ground on the property or in the landscape setback of any property adjacent to the
development. The inventory shall indicate which trees will be adversely affected
and what if any steps will be taken to mitigate the impact on the trees. The tree
inventory shall be prepared by a certified arborist that has a valid contractor
license pursuant to Chapter 4-28, "Tree Contractor License," B.R.C.
(1819) A three-dimensional, digital model illustrating the project site and surrounding
context for view and scale analysis, unless exempted by the city manager due to
small project size.
(1920) An acoustic study prepared by an acoustic consultant who is INCE-USA (The
Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA) Board Certified or a firm that
is a member of the National Council of Acoustical Consultants for any building
located within 200 feet of a railroad, freeway, expressway, or principal arterial
demonstrating the interior noise level the building is designed to achieve for such
external noise source.
(2021) For projects with any new building exceeding 30,000 square feet of floor area,
any documentation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the energy
conservation and building life-cycle impact carbon reduction standards of
Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(1)(C), B.R.C. 1981.
(22) A transportation demand management (TDM) plan which outlines strategies to
mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and measures that
the development will implement to promote alternate modes of travel, in
accordance with Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(A), B.R.C. 1981, and Section 2.03(I) of the
City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards.
(e) Additional Application Requirements for Height Modification: The following additional
application requirements apply if the development proposal includes a request for the
modification of the permitted height:
…
(8) Plans and a written statement demonstrating that the development meets the
requirements for a height bonus specified in Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(72)(CK),
B.R.C. 1981.
…
(g) Review and Recommendation: The city manager will review and decide an application
for a site review in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-2-6, "Development
Review Application," B.R.C. 1981, except for an application involving the following,
Agenda Item 5A Page 31 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which the city manager will refer with a recommendation to the planning board for its
action:
(1) A reduction in off-street parking of more than fifty percent subject to compliance
with the standards of Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981.
(2) A reduction of the open space or lot area requirements allowed by Subparagraph
(h)(72)(I) of this section.
…
(h) Criteria for Review: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving
agency finds that:
(1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan: To ensure consistency with the goals and
policies of the BVCP and other adopted plans of the community, projects shall
meet the following criteria:
(A) Land Use Map: The proposed site planproject is consistent with the land
use map and the service area map and, on balance, the policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive PlanBVCP.
(B) Subcommunity and Area Plans or Design Guidelines: If the project is
subject to an adopted subcommunity or area plan or adopted design
guidelines, the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the
applicable plan and intents of the guidelines.The proposed development
shall not exceed the maximum density associated with the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan residential land use designation. Additionally, if the
density of existing residential development within a three-hundred-foot
area surrounding the site is at or exceeds the density permitted in the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, then the maximum density permitted
on the site shall not exceed the lesser of:
(i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan,
or
(ii) The maximum number of units that could be placed on the site
without waiving or varying any of the requirements of Chapter 9-8,
"Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except as permitted for
building sites with permanently affordable units meeting the
requirements of Paragraph 9-10-3(c)(4), "Nonconforming
Permanently Affordable Units," B.R.C. 1981.
(C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP
policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques
required to meet other site review criteria.
(C) Energy Conservation and Building Life-Cycle Impact Carbon Reduction:
If the project includes any new building with a floor area that is greater
than 30,000 square feet, the project shall meet one of the following
requirements:
Agenda Item 5A Page 32 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(i) Reduce Embodied CO2e of Concrete Materials: The total CO2e of
the concrete mixes used in the project shall not exceed the values
set in Table 2-3, Maximum CO2e Content Standards, based on the
compressive strength of the concrete product. CO2e content shall
be documented by a product specific Type III Environmental
Product Declaration for each concrete product utilized. The Type
III Environmental Product Declaration shall be certified as
complying with the goal and scope for the cradle-to-gate
requirements in accordance with ISO Standards 14025 and 21930.
TABLE 2-3: MAXIMUM CO2e CONTENT STANDARDS
Minimum specified
compressive strength
f. psi
Maximum CO2e content
of concrete mix (kg/m3)1
Up to 2499 222
2500-3499 336
3500-4499 376
4500-5499 409
5500-6499 433
6500 and greater 426
1 Portland cement compliance with ASTM C150.
(ii) Electrification: The space and water heating appliances in new
buildings exceeding 30,000 square feet shall be fueled by
electricity.
(iii) Whole-Building Life Cycle Assessment: A life-cycle assessment
shall be conducted of any building with floor area exceeding
30,000 square feet. The assessment shall demonstrate a minimum
of 10% life-cycle carbon reduction compared with a baseline
reference building. The baseline and proposed buildings must be of
comparable size, function, orientation, and operating energy
performance as defined in the Athena Guide to Whole Building
LCA in Green Building Programs. The service life of the baseline
and proposed buildings must be the same and at least 60 years to
fully account for maintenance and replacement. The same life-
cycle assessment and software tools and data sets shall be used to
evaluate both the baseline building and proposed building.
Agenda Item 5A Page 33 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(D) Community Designs and Edges: If the project is located within the
urbanizing areas along the boundaries between Area I and Area II or III of
the BVCP, the building and site design provide for a well-defined urban
edge, and, if, in addition, the project is located on the major streets shown
in Appendix A of this title, the buildings and site design establish a sense
of entry and arrival to the city by creating a defined urban edge through
site and building design elements visible upon entry to the city.
(E) Historic or Cultural Resources: If present, the project protects significant
historic and cultural resources. This may require application and good
faith pursuit of local landmark designation.
(F) Housing Diversity and Bedroom Unit Types: Excepting the RR, RE and
RL-1 zoning districts, for projects that are more than 50 percent residential
by measure of floor area, not counting enclosed parking areas, the
following housing and bedroom unit type requirements apply:
(i) For lots or parcels five acres or less, at least one qualifying housing
type shall be provided;
(ii) For lots or parcels that are greater than five acres but less than ten
acres, at least two qualifying housing types shall be provided;
(iii) For lots or parcels that are ten acres or more, at least three
qualifying housing types shall be provided;
(iv) The minimum number of units of any qualifying housing types for
lots or parcels that are more than five acres shall be five dwelling
units;
(v) The minimum number of bedroom types in a project with greater
than 20 attached dwelling units shall be two different bedroom
types; and
(vi) For the purposes of this subparagraph, qualifying housing type
shall mean duplexes, attached dwelling units, townhouses, or
efficiency living units (ELUs) and bedroom type shall mean
studios, one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units, or three-bedroom
units.
(G) Environmental Preservation:
(i) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of
adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation,
significant plant communities, ground and surface water, wetlands,
riparian areas, drainage areas, and species on the federal
Endangered Species List, "Species of Special Concern in Boulder
County" designated by Boulder County and their habitat.
(ii) Where excavation occurs, the location and design of buildings
shall conform to the natural contours of the land with tiered floor
plates and the site design shall avoid over-engineered tabling of
Agenda Item 5A Page 34 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
land. Slopes greater than 50 percent should be avoided and, to the
extent practicable, any such areas shall be stabilized with
vegetation.
(2) Site Design: Projects should preserve and enhance the community's unique sense
of place through creative design that respects historic character, relationship to the
natural environment, multi-modal transportation connectivity and its physical
setting. Projects should utilize site design techniques which are consistent with the
purpose of site review in Subsection (a) of this section and enhance the quality of
the project. In determining whether this subsection is met, the approving agency
will consider the following factors must find consistency with the following
criteria:
(A) Access, Transportation, and Mobility: The project efficiently
accommodates all modes of travel, promotes pedestrian and bicycle use,
minimizes motor vehicle miles traveled, and meets the following criteria:
(i) The project enables or provides vehicular and pedestrian
connectivity between sites consistent with adopted connections
plans relative to the transportation needs and impacts of the
project, including but not limited to construction of new streets,
bike lanes, on-street parking, sidewalks, multi-use paths, transit
stops, streetscape planting strips, and dedication of public right-of-
way or public access easements, as applicable considering the
scope of the project. Where no adopted connections plan applies,
the applicant shall, in good faith, attempt to coordinate with
adjacent property owners to establish and, where practicable,
establish reasonable and useful pedestrian connections or vehicular
circulation connections, such as between parking lots on abutting
properties, considering existing connections, infrastructure, and
topography.
(ii) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site
design techniques, land use patterns, and infrastructure that support
and encourage walking, biking, and other alternatives to the single-
occupant vehicle.
(iii) The transportation demand management (TDM) plan will be
complied with that results in a significant shift away from single-
occupant vehicle use to alternate modes.
(iv) Streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways, trails, open space, buildings,
and parking areas are designed and located to optimize safety of all
modes and provide connectivity and permeability through the
subject site.
(v) The design of vehicular circulation and parking areas make
efficient use of the land and minimize the amount of pavement
necessary to meet the circulation and parking needs of the project.
Agenda Item 5A Page 35 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(AB) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, common
gathering areas, recreation areas, landscaped areas, and playgrounds, shall
be designed to create an attractive site plan, promote use, and meet the
following criteria:
(i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional
designed to encourage use by incorporating and incorporates
quality landscaping, a mixture of sun and shade, hardscape areas
and green spaces for gathering; and places to gather;
(ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
The open space will meet the needs of the anticipated residents,
occupants, tenants, and visitors of the property. In mixed-use
projects, the open space provides for a balance of private and
common areas for the residential uses and common open space that
is available for use by both the residential and nonresidential uses.
(iii) If the project site is greater than one acre in size, an outdoor garden
or landscaped courtyard, designed for the use of the occupants of
the building, with a minimum dimension of at least twenty feet,
shall be incorporated into the site open space. The minimum
dimension of this space shall increase at least one foot in width for
each one foot of height over thirty-five feet. This space shall be
designed to encourage use through incorporation of seating and
other design elements and to be an integral part of the circulation
pattern within the project. To the extent practical, such space shall
also meet the following standards:
a. The space shall have southern exposure and sunlight;
b. Hard surface areas shall be paved with unit pavers, such as
bricks, quarry tiles, or porous pavers, or poured-in-place
materials. If poured-in-place materials are selected, they
shall be of decorative color or textures;
c. At least twenty-five percent of the area shall be dedicated
to gathering areas that include amenities such as seating,
tables, grills, planting, shade, horseshoe pits, playground
equipment, and lighting;
d. The space shall be directly visible from an adjoining public
sidewalk along a street frontage; and
e. The space shall include a minimum of one tree per one
thousand square feet of space, planted in the ground or
accommodated in tree vaults over parking garages.
(iv) If the project includes more than 50 dwelling units, including the
addition of units that causes a project to exceed this threshold, and
is more than one mile walking distance to a public park with any of
the amenities described herein, at least 30 percent of the required
Agenda Item 5A Page 36 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
open space shall be designed for active recreational purposes.
Active recreation areas may include amenities such as children’s
play equipment, picnic areas, open lawn, gardens, or organized
sport fields or courts.
(v) If the project is adjacent to a zoning district of lower intensity in
terms of allowable use, density, massing, or scale, open space is
located to create a buffer along the abutting property lines to create
an appropriate transition to the adjacent properties, unless
inconsistent with the predominant building pattern of the area.
(vi) A pedestrian linkage from and through the on-site open space to a
public open space may be provided if consistent with Department
of Open Space and Mountain Parks plans and planning for the
area.
(iii) The project provides for the preservation of or mitigation of
adverse impacts to natural features, including, without limitation,
healthy long-lived trees, significant plant communities, ground and
surface water, wetlands, riparian areas, drainage areas and species
on the federal Endangered Species List, "Species of Special
Concern in Boulder County" designated by Boulder County, or
prairie dogs (Cynomys ludiovicianus), which is a species of local
concern, and their habitat;
(iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the
project and from surrounding development;
(v) Open space designed for active recreational purposes is of a size
that it will be functionally useable and located in a safe and
convenient proximity to the uses to which it is meant to serve;
(vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive
environmental features and natural areas; and
(vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
(B) Open Space in Mixed Use Developments (Developments That Contain a
Mix of Residential and Nonresidential Uses):
(i) The open space provides for a balance of private and shared areas
for the residential uses and common open space that is available
for use by both the residential and nonresidential uses that will
meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants and
visitors of the property; and
(ii) The open space provides active areas and passive areas that will
meet the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants and
visitors of the property and are compatible with the surrounding
area or an adopted plan for the area.
(C) Landscaping: Landscaping shall exceed by-right standards, contribute to
an attractive site plan, conserve water, and meet the criteria below:
Agenda Item 5A Page 37 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(i) The project provides significant amounts of plant material
exceeding the minimum landscaping requirements of Section 9-9-
12, “Landscaping and Screening Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, by at
least fifteen percent in terms of planting quantities, includes a
commensurate area to accommodate the additional plantings, and,
where practical, preserves healthy long-lived trees.
(ii) The project provides for aesthetic enhancement of the site by
including a variety of plants providing a variety of colors and
contrasts in terms of texture and seasonality and high-quality hard
surface materials, such as stone, flagstone, porous pavers, and
decorative concrete.
(iii) The landscaping design conserves water through use of native and
adaptive plants, reduction of exotic plant materials, and
landscaping within stormwater detention facilities to create
bioswales or rain gardens, or other similar design strategies.
(D) Circulation: Circulation, including, without limitation, the transportation
system that serves the property, whether public or private and whether
constructed by the developer or not:
(i) High speeds are discouraged or a physical separation between
streets and the project is provided;
(ii) Potential conflicts with vehicles are minimized;
(iii) Safe and convenient connections are provided that support multi-
modal mobility through and between properties, accessible to the
public within the project and between the project and the existing
and proposed transportation systems, including, without limitation,
streets, bikeways, pedestrian ways and trails;
(iv) Alternatives to the automobile are promoted by incorporating site
design techniques, land use patterns and supporting infrastructure
that supports and encourages walking, biking and other alternatives
to the single-occupant vehicle;
(v) Where practical and beneficial, a significant shift away from
single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes is promoted through
the use of travel demand management techniques;
(vi) On-site facilities for external linkage are provided with other
modes of transportation, where applicable;
(vii) The amount of land devoted to the street system is minimized; and
(viii) The project is designed for the types of traffic expected, including,
without limitation, automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians, and
provides safety, separation from living areas and control of noise
and exhaust.
Agenda Item 5A Page 38 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(E) Parking:
(i) The project incorporates into the design of parking areas measures
to provide safety, convenience and separation of pedestrian
movements from vehicular movements;
(ii) The design of parking areas makes efficient use of the land and
uses the minimum amount of land necessary to meet the parking
needs of the project;
(iii) Parking areas and lighting are designed to reduce the visual impact
on the project, adjacent properties and adjacent streets; and
(iv) Parking areas utilize landscaping materials to provide shade in
excess of the requirements in Subsection 9-9-6(d), and Section 9-9-
14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards," B.R.C. 1981.
(D) Public Realm and Building Locations: Building facades shall orient to the
public realm, which means for the purpose of subsection 9-2-14(h), B.R.C.
1981, building facades along public streets, not including alleys, and along
common open space areas intended for gathering, and meet the criteria
below:
(i) Building entries along the public realm shall be emphasized by
windows and architectural features that include one or more of the
following: protruding or recessed elements; changes in building
materials, color, or detailing; or increased window glazing.
(ii) No building along the public realm shall have less than one defined
entry for every 75 feet of the frontage as described in subparagraph
(i).
(iii) New buildings and, to the extent practicable, additions to existing
buildings shall be positioned towards the street, respecting the
existing conditions or the context anticipated by adopted plans or
guidelines. In urban contexts, buildings are intended to be close to
the property line and sidewalk along a street; in lower intensity
contexts, a greater landscaped setback is in intended to be
provided.
(iv) Operational elements, such as electrical transformers, trash storage
and recycling area, parking, and circulation, are screened from the
public realm through design elements, such as landscaping,
fencing, or placement of structures, to mitigate negative visual
impacts.
(v) Wherever practical considering the scope of a project (e.g., new
buildings versus additions to existing building), parking areas shall
be located behind buildings or set back further from the streetscape
than the building façade along a streetscape.
Agenda Item 5A Page 39 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(vi) If there are prominent views of the mountains from the site, open
spaces on the site or elevated common areas on the building are
located to allow users of the site access to such views.
(vii) In circumstances where a building is proposed to exceed the by-
right zoning district height limit and is located adjacent to a public
park, plaza, or open space, buildings are sited or designed in a
manner that avoids or minimizes blocking of prominent public
views of the mountains from these spaces.
(F)(3) Building Design: The following criteria apply to the exterior of all buildings to
ensure high-quality, enduring architecture and simplicity in design:, Livability
and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed Surrounding Area:
(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;
(iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking
of views from adjacent properties;
(iv) If the character of the area is identifiable, the project is made
compatible by the appropriate use of color, materials, landscaping,
signs and lighting;
(v) Projects are designed to a human scale and promote a safe and
vibrant pedestrian experience through the location of building
frontages along public streets, plazas, sidewalks and paths, and
through the use of building elements, design details and landscape
materials that include, without limitation, the location of entrances
and windows, and the creation of transparency and activity at the
pedestrian level;
(vi) To the extent practical, the project provides public amenities and
planned public facilities;
(vii) For residential projects, the project assists the community in
producing a variety of housing types, such as multifamily,
townhouses and detached single family units, as well as mixed lot
sizes, number of bedrooms and sizes of units;
(viii) For residential projects, noise is minimized between units, between
buildings and from either on-site or off-site external sources
through spacing, landscaping and building materials;
(ix) A lighting plan is provided which augments security, energy
conservation, safety and aesthetics;
Agenda Item 5A Page 40 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design
and avoids, minimizes or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
(xi) Buildings minimize or mitigate energy use; support on-site
renewable energy generation and/or energy management systems;
construction wastes are minimized; the project mitigates urban heat
island effects; and the project reasonably mitigates or minimizes
water use and impacts on water quality;
(xii) Exteriors of buildings present a sense of permanence through the
use of authentic materials such as stone, brick, wood, metal or
similar products and building material detailing;
(xiii) Cut and fill are minimized on the site, the design of buildings
conforms to the natural contours of the land, and the site design
minimizes erosion, slope instability, landslide, mudflow or
subsidence, and minimizes the potential threat to property caused
by geological hazards;
(xiv) In the urbanizing areas along the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan boundaries between Area II and Area III, the building and site
design provide for a well-defined urban edge; and
(xv) In the urbanizing areas located on the major streets shown on the
map in Appendix A to this title near the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan boundaries between Area II and Area III, the
buildings and site design establish a sense of entry and arrival to
the City by creating a defined urban edge and a transition between
rural and urban areas.
(A) Building Materials: The following requirements apply to each new building
or additions to existing buildings in the project:
(i) A minimum of 75 percent of the total façade area, not including
window and door areas, of all sides of the building shall be
composed of high-quality building materials, such as brick, stone,
polished concrete masonry units, wood, high density panel
systems, high pressure laminate, cementitious or composite siding,
architectural metal panels, or any combination of these materials.
Split-faced concrete masonry units, stucco, fiber cement board,
vinyl siding, or unfinished or untreated wood shall not be
considered high-quality materials. EIFS is prohibited. Alternative
materials may be considered by the approving authority if it is
demonstrated that the material will be high quality, durable, and
human scaled.
(ii) Excluding detached dwelling units, duplexes, townhouses, and
mobile home parks, no more than three primary building materials
shall be employed upon the facades of the building. Primary
Agenda Item 5A Page 41 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
materials shall mean those materials listed in (i) above and exclude
trim, fascia, windows, and other similar secondary façade features.
(iii) Excluding detached dwelling units, duplexes, townhouses, and
mobile home parks, transitions of primary building materials,
irrespective of trim, fascia, windows, and other similar secondary
façade features, shall not occur at any exterior corner or on a
building façade facing a street unless there is at least a 12-inch wall
off-set. Other building material transitions shall occur at interior,
concave corners or on a non-street facing façade at least 20 feet
back from a corner (see Figure 9-1).
Figure 9‐1: Building Material Transitions on Facades.
(iv) If a building is located within 200 feet of a railroad, freeway,
expressway, or principal arterial, and contains residential uses, an
acoustic study prepared by an acoustical consultant who is INCE-
USA (The Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA)
Board Certified or a firm that is a member of the National Council
of Acoustical Consultants that demonstrates that the building is
designed to reduce normal daily traffic, including train, noise, such
that an interior decibel reading from the exterior noise source shall
not exceed a day-night average sound level of 45 (dbA) A-
weighted decibels. The day-night average sound level (DNL) shall
be calculated according to the standards of 24 C.F.R. 51 Subpart B.
(v) To the extent practical, appurtenances that are not architectural
features are located within or concealed by the building and, if they
cannot be located within or concealed by the building, their
Agenda Item 5A Page 42 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
visibility from streetscapes and other areas of the public realm
shall be minimized.
(vi) At least three elements of the proposed building design, including
but not limited to use of materials, color, or style, shall draw from
or improve upon the character of the surrounding area.
(B) Window and Balcony Requirements: The following requirements apply to
windows on all buildings and to balconies on certain buildings to ensure an
appropriate amount of window transparency, avoid large expanses of blank
walls, contribute to visual interest on building facades, and ensure well-
designed balconies:
(i) Minimum Transparency Per Floor: Each floor shall have a
minimum transparency of 20 percent on building facades facing
the public realm and a minimum of 15 percent on all other facades.
In the DT, MU-3, MU-4, BMS, BC, and BR zoning districts, any
ground floor facade facing a street shall have a minimum
transparency of 70 percent if it is within 20 feet of a property line,
excepting ground floor residential uses which shall have a
minimum transparency of 20 percent (see Figure 9-2).
Figure 9‐2: Window Transparency Per Floor.
Agenda Item 5A Page 43 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(ii) Blank Walls: On any floor, no exterior wall area wider than 25 feet
shall be without windows (see Figure 9-3) with the following
exceptions:
a. Ground floor walls facing alleys, or
b. Loading areas not located along a public street, or
a.c. For buildings designed for industrial uses and not primarily
office space, walls not facing a public street where such wall is
designed with a decorative element that creates visual interest.
Figure 9‐3: Blank Wall Examples.
(iii) Recessed Windows: The glass of all windows, with the exception
of windows provided pursuant to (i) above within the DT, MU-3,
MU-4, BMS, BC, and BR zoning districts along a ground floor
façade facing a street, shall be recessed at least two inches from the
façade surface material or adjacent trim.
(iv) Balconies: Balconies on buildings containing attached dwelling
units shall meet the following requirements:
a. The balcony shall be integrated into the form of the
building;
b. The balcony shall be at least four feet deep and five feet
wide, and at least 50 percent of the perimeter of the balcony
shall abut an exterior wall of the building, partially
enclosing the balcony (see Figure 9-4); and
a.c. The balcony platforms shall be at least three inches thick,
and any underside that is visible from any public street, not
Agenda Item 5A Page 44 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
including alleys, or installed over another balcony shall be
finished.
Figure 9‐4: Balcony Requirements.
(C) Building Detailing: The following requirements apply to all buildings to
encourage visual interest and simplicity in design on the most visible parts
of the building:
(i) On commercial or mixed-use buildings, the first floor along the
public realm shall be distinguished from the floors above by a
horizontal expression line within three feet of the top of a ground
story.
(ii) On buildings that are not proposed with an angled or gable roof,
the top of the building façade shall be distinguished through a
horizontal expression line within two feet of the top of the
building.
(4) Building Design, Massing, and Height Requirements for Buildings Proposed
Above the Zoning District Permitted Height and/or Maximum Floor Area Ratio:
Any building exceeding the by-right zoning district height as permitted by Section
9-2-14(b)(1)(E)(vii), B.R.C. 1981, and any building exceeding the by-right floor
area limits as permitted by Section 9-2-14(h)(7)(B), B.R.C. 1981, shall meet the
following requirements to ensure high quality, appropriately sized buildings that
are compatible with the context and of a design that is attractive, but simple with a
discernable base, middle, and top:
(A) Additional Building Design Requirements:
(i) The first floor shall be distinguished from the floors above by a
horizontal expression line within three feet of the top of the ground
story.
(ii) On buildings that are not proposed with an angled or gable roof,
the top of the building façade shall be distinguished through a
Agenda Item 5A Page 45 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
horizontal expression line within two feet of the top of the building
and also between the uppermost story and the story below.
(iii) A vertical expression line shall be provided at least every 60 feet
on each façade.
(B) Special Building Massing, Height, and Siting Requirements:
(i) No building shall exceed 150 feet in length along any public right-
of-way. This requirement may not be exceeded by creating a wall
angle of greater than 90 degrees from each of the furthest corner.
(ii) Building facades exceeding 120 feet in length along a public street,
excluding alleys, shall differentiate the building façade into
distinguishable building modules to appear as more than one
building rather than one long expanse. Such facades shall vary in
type of dominant material or in color, scale, or orientation of that
material and in at least two of the following elements at least every
90 feet of the length:
a. the proportion of recesses and projections along the
building façade;
b. the location of entrance and window placements, unless
storefronts are utilized;
c. roof cap types; and
d. building height.
(iii) Building height modification or height bonus requests shall be
consistent with one of the following criteria:
a. Height Modification: If the building is no taller than three
stories and the request is made pursuant to Section 9-2-
14(b)(1)(E)(i) through (vi), B.R.C. 1981, the applicant
demonstrates that the building’s height, mass, and scale is
compatible with surrounding development, or
b. Height Bonus: If the building is taller than three stories and
the request is made pursuant to Section 9-2-
14(b)(1)(E)(vii), B.R.C. 1981, for a height bonus, the
applicant demonstrates that:
1. The building’s height is consistent with the building
heights anticipated by the adopted subcommunity or
Agenda Item 5A Page 46 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area plan or design guidelines applicable to the site,
or
2. If no subcommunity or area plan or design
guidelines are adopted for the site or the
subcommunity or area plan or design guidelines do
not specify anticipated heights for buildings, the
applicant demonstrates that the proposed height is
generally compatible with the height of other
buildings within 1,000 feet of the site. Where there
are no buildings that exceed the height limit within
1,000 feet, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
building is near a high frequency transit corridor
and the building’s height, mass and scale is
compatible with other buildings along said corridor
and the character of the surrounding area.
(C) Roof Cap Types: Any roof forms above the by-right zoning district height
limit shall be one or more of the following cap types:
(i) Pitched Cap Type: As shown in Figure 9-5, gable, hip, shed, or
butterfly roofs or any combination thereof. No such roof shall be
sloped less than 4:12 (rise:run) or be sloped more than 14:12
except that slopes less than 4:12 are permitted to occur on second
story or higher roofs. Gambrel and mansard roofs are prohibited.
(ii) Parapet Cap Type: As shown in Figure 9-6, parapets meeting the
requirements of Section 9-7-7, “Building Height, Appurtenances,”
B.R.C. 1981, and subparagraph (h)(3)(C)(ii) on expression lines of
this section.
(iii) Flat Cap Type: As shown in Figure 9-7, flat cap types if the eave
depth (horizontal measurement) is at least 14 inches from the
Agenda Item 5A Page 47 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
building façade and eave thickness (vertical measurement) is at
least 6 inches from the top of eave to bottom of eave.
Figure 9‐6‐ Parapet Cap Type.
Figure 9‐5: Pitched Cap Type. Figure 9‐7: Flat Cap Type.
(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 of solar energy in accordance
with the following solar siting criteria:
(i) Placement of Open Space and Streets: Open space areas are
located wherever practical to protect buildings from shading by
other buildings within the development or from buildings on
adjacent properties. Topography and other natural features and
constraints may justify deviations from this criterion.
(ii) Lot Layout and Building Siting: Lots are oriented and buildings are
sited in a way which maximizes the solar potential of each
principal building. Lots are designed to facilitate siting a structure
which is unshaded by other nearby structures. Wherever practical,
buildings are sited close to the north lot line to increase yard space
to the south for better owner control of shading.
(iii) Building Form: The shapes of buildings are designed to maximize
utilization of solar energy. Buildings shall meet the solar access
protection and solar siting requirements of Section 9-9-17, "Solar
Access," B.R.C. 1981.
(iv) Landscaping: The shading effects of proposed landscaping on
adjacent buildings are minimized.
Agenda Item 5A Page 48 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(5) Alternative Compliance for Site Review Projects: With the exception of criteria
(h)(1)(A), (h)(1)(B), and (h)(7), the minimum standards of the criteria of
subsection (h) may be modified by the approving authority if the applicant
demonstrates for each criterion not met that:
(A) The height, mass, scale, orientation, architecture, and configuration of the
project is compatible with the existing character of the area or the character
established in adopted design guidelines or plans for the area;
(B) The project is designed to a human scale and promotes a safe and vibrant
pedestrian experience through the location of building frontages and the
use of building elements, design details, and landscape materials that
include, without limitation, the location of entrances and windows and the
creation of transparency and activity at the pedestrian level;
(C) Open space is arranged to be accessible and functional and incorporates
quality landscaping, a mixture of sun and shade and places to gather
meeting the needs of the anticipated residents, occupants, tenants, and
visitors of the property;
(D) The proposed alternative is consistent with the purpose of site review
described in subsection (a) of this section; and
(E) The project meets one of the following criteria:
(i) The proposed alternative is innovative in meeting BVCP policies
on the built environment, energy, climate and waste,
transportation, or housing and such innovation prevents the project
from complying with the standard being modified, or
Agenda Item 5A Page 49 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(ii) Strict adherence to the standard being modified is impractical
because of site location, site conditions, or the building’s use, or
(iii) The project is an amendment or minor amendment to a site review
that was approved under site review criteria in effect prior to
adoption of Ordinance 8515 and meets all the following standards:
a. The modification is for a previously approved or existing
building and the floor area of said building is not being
enlarged by more than 60 percent;
b. The project site and building design are of a quality at least
equal to or better than that previously approved; and
c. Application of the standard being modified to the approved
or constructed building or site plan is impractical.
(H6) 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:
(iA) The light pole is required for nighttime recreation activities which are
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, light or traffic signal pole
is required for safety or the electrical utility pole is required to serve the
needs of the City; and
(iiB) The pole is at the minimum height appropriate to accomplish the purposes
for which the pole was erected and is designed and constructed so as to
minimize light and electromagnetic pollution.
(I7) Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications: Modifications to minimum open
space on lots, floor area ratio (FAR), maximum height, and number of dwelling
units per acre requirements will be approved pursuant to the standards of this
subparagraph:
(A) (i) General Land Use Intensity Modifications with Open Space Reduction:
a. The density of a project may be increased in the BR 1
district through a reduction of the lot area requirement or in
the Downtown (DT), BR 2 or MU 3 districts through a
reduction nt he open space requirements.
(b.i) The open space requirements in all Downtown (DT) districts may
be reduced by up to one hundred percent. In the DT, BMS, BR-2,
and MU-3 Zoning Districts: The open space requirements in
Chapter 9-8, “Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced
Agenda Item 5A Page 50 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in all DT districts and the BR-2, BMS, and MU-3 districts subject
to the following standards:
c. The open space per lot requirements for the total amount of
open space required on the lot in the BR-2 district may be
reduced by up to fifty percent.
d. Land use intensity may be increased up to twenty-five
percent in the BR-1 district through a reduction of the lot
area requirement.
(ii) Additional Criteria for General Land Use Intensity Modifications:
A land use intensity increase pursuant to Subparagraph (i) above
will be permitted up to the maximum amount set forth below if the
approving agency finds that the criteria in Paragraph (h)(1) through
Subparagraph (h)(2)(H) of this section and following criteria have
been met:
a. Open Space Needs Met: The needs of the project's
occupants and visitors for high quality and functional
useable open space can be met adequately;
b. Character of Project and Area: The open space reduction
does not adversely affect the character of the development
or the character of the surrounding area; and
c. Open Space and Lot Area Reductions: The specific
percentage reduction in open space or lot area requested by
the applicant is justified by any one or combination of the
following site design features not to exceed the maximum
reduction set forth above:
1. Close proximity to a public mall or park for which
the development is specially assessed or to which
the project contributes funding of capital
improvements beyond that required by the parks
and recreation component of the development
excise tax set forth in Chapter 3-8, "Development
Excise Tax," B.R.C. 1981: maximum one hundred
percent reduction in all Downtown (DT) districts
and ten percent in the BR-1 district;
2. Architectural treatment that results in reducing the
apparent bulk and mass of the structure or structures
and site planning which increases the openness of
the site: maximum five percent reduction;
3. A common park, recreation or playground area
functionally useable and accessible by the
development's occupants for active recreational
Agenda Item 5A Page 51 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
purposes and sized for the number of inhabitants of
the development, maximum five percent reduction;
or developed facilities within the project designed
to meet the active recreational needs of the
occupants: maximum five percent reduction;
4. Permanent dedication of the development to use by
a unique residential population whose needs for
conventional open space are reduced: maximum
five percent reduction;
a. In the DT, BMS, or MU-3 zoning districts, the reduction in
open space is necessary to avoid siting of open space that is
inconsistent with the urban context of neighborhood
buildings or the character established in adopted design
guidelines or plans for the area, such as along a property
line next to zero-setback buildings or along alleys:
maximum fifty percent reduction.
5.b. In the BR-2 zoning district, the following shall be met:
51. The reduction in open space is part of a
development with a mix of residential and
nonresidential uses within a BR-2 zoning district
that, due to the ratio of residential to nonresidential
uses and because of the size, type and mix of
dwelling units, the has a reduced need for open
space is reduced: maximum fifteen percent
reduction; and/or
62. The reduction in open space is part of a
development with a mix of residential and
nonresidential uses within a BR-2 zoning district
that provides with high quality urban design
elements. This common open space that will meet
the needs of anticipated residents, occupants,
tenants, and visitors of the property or will
accommodate public gatherings, important activities
or events in the life of the community and its
people, that may include, and may include, without
limitation, recreational or cultural amenities,
intimate spaces that foster social interaction, street
furniture, landscaping, gardens, sculptures, and hard
surface treatments for the open space: maximum
twenty-five percent reduction.
(iiiB) Land Use Intensity and Density Modifications with Height Bonus: In the
BMS, BR-1, IMS, IS, MU-1 and MU-2 zoning districts if associated with
a request for a height bonus, the density and floor area of a building may
Agenda Item 5A Page 52 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be increased above the maximum allowed in Chapter 9-8, "Intensity
Standards," B.R.C. 1981, as follows, provided the building meets the
requirements for a height bonus under Subparagraph 9-2-
14(h)(7)(C)(h)(2)(K), B.R.C. 1981:
a.(i) In the BMS zoning district outside a general improvement district
providing off-street parking, and in the IMS, IS, MU-1, and MU-12
zoning districts, the base floor area ratio (FAR) in Table 8-2,
Section 9-8-2, "Floor Area Ratio Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, may
be increased by up to 0.5 FAR.
b.(ii) In the BR-1 zoning district, the allowed number of dwelling units
per acre in Table 8-1, Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity
Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by up to fifty percent
and the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) may be
increased up to a 3.0 FAR.
(J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area Ratio Increase for Buildings in the BR-
1 District:
(i) Process: For buildings in the BR-1 district, the floor area ratio
("FAR") permitted under Table 8-2, Section 9-8-2, "Floor Area
Ratio Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by the city
manager under the criteria set forth in this subparagraph.
(ii) Maximum FAR Increase: The maximum FAR increase allowed for
buildings thirty-five feet and over in height in the BR-1 district
shall be from 2:1 to 4:1.
(iii) Criteria for the BR-1 District: The FAR may be increased in the
BR-1 district to the extent allowed in Subparagraph (h)(2)(J)(ii) of
this section if the approving agency finds that the following criteria
are met:
a. Site and building design provide open space exceeding the
required useable open space by at least ten percent: an
increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1.
b. Site and building design provide private outdoor space for
each office unit equal to at least ten percent of the lot area
for buildings twenty-five feet and under and at least twenty
percent of the lot area for buildings above twenty-five feet:
an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1.
c. Site and building design provide a street front facade and
an alley facade at a pedestrian scale, including, without
limitation, features such as awnings and windows, well-
defined building entrances and other building details: an
increase in FAR not to exceed 0.25:1.
d. For a building containing residential and nonresidential
uses in which neither use comprises less than twenty-five
Agenda Item 5A Page 53 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
percent of the total square footage: an increase in FAR not
to exceed 1:1.
e. The unused portion of the allowed FAR of historic
buildings designated as landmarks under Chapter 9-11,
"Historic Preservation," B.R.C. 1981, may be transferred to
other sites in the same zoning district. However, the
increase in FAR of a proposed building to which FAR is
transferred under this subparagraph may not exceed an
increase of 0.5:1.
f. For a building which provides one full level of parking
below grade, an increase in FAR not to exceed 0.5:1 may
be granted.
(KC) Additional Criteria for a Height Bonuses and Land Use Intensity
Modifications for Properties Designated within Appendix J: A building
proposed with a fourth or fifth story or addition thereto that exceeds the
permitted height requirements of Section 9-7-5, "Building Height," or 9-7-
6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981, together with any
additional floor area or residential density approved under Subparagraph
(h)(7)(B)(h)(2)(I)(iii), may be approved if it meets the requirements of this
Subparagraph (h)(7)(C) (h)(2)(K). For purposes of this Subparagraph
(h)(7)(C)(h)(2)(K), bonus floor area shall mean floor area that is on a
fourth or fifth story and is partially or fully above the permitted height and
any floor area that is the result of an increase in density or floor area
described in Subparagraph (h)(7)(B) (h)(2)(I)(iii). The approving authority
may approve a height up to fifty-five feet if the building is in an area
designated in Appendix J, "Areas Where Height Modifications May Be
Considered," and one of the following criteria is met:
(i) Residential Developments: If the development is residential, it will
exceed the requirements of Subparagraph 9-13-3(a)(1)(A), B.R.C.
1981, as follows:
a. For bonus units, the inclusionary housing requirement shall
be increased as follows: Instead of twenty-five percent, at
least thirty-six percent of the total number of bonus units
shall be permanently affordable units. If the building is a
for-sale development, at least fifty percent of all the
permanently affordable units required for the building shall
be built in the building; this fifty percent on-site
requirement may not be satisfied through an alternative
means of compliance. A minimum of one bonus unit shall
be assumed to be provided in the building if any bonus
floor area is in the building.
b. For purposes of this Subparagraph (i), bonus units shall
mean a number of units that is determined as follows: A
percentage of all the units in the building that equals in
Agenda Item 5A Page 54 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
number the percentage of bonus floor area in the building.
For example, if twenty percent of the building's floor area
is bonus floor area and the building has one hundred units,
twenty percent of those one hundred units are bonus units,
resulting in twenty bonus units.
c. The city manager shall review the development's
compliance with this increased inclusionary housing
requirement pursuant to the standards and review
procedures of Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing,"
B.R.C. 1981.
(ii) Non-Residential Developments. : For non-residential
developments, the applicant shall pay the affordable housing
portion of the capital facility impact fee in Section 4-20-62, B.R.C.
1981, at a rate of 1.43 above the base requirement for the bonus
floor area. In a building with several types of non-residential uses,
the bonus floor area of each type identified under Section 4-20-62,
B.R.C. 1981, shall be a percentage of the bonus floor area that
equals in number the percentage of the total floor area in the
building of such use type. For nonresidential uses with a fee that is
calculated per room or bed under Section 4-20-62, B.R.C. 1981,
the increased rate for the affordable housing portion of the fee shall
apply to bonus rooms or bonus beds as applicable under that
section; the number of bonus rooms or bonus beds shall be
determined consistent with the methodology for bonus units in
Subparagraph (i)b. above.
(iii) Mixed Use. : If the development is a residential mixed-use
development, the requirements of Subsections (i) and (ii) above
shall apply to the bonus floor area according to the percentage of
the total building floor area of each use.
(iv) Alternative Community Benefit. : Pursuant to the standard in this
Subparagraph (iv), the approving authority may approve an
alternative method of compliance to provide additional benefits to
the community and qualify for a height bonus together with any
additional floor area or density that may be approved under
Subparagraph (h)(7)(B)(2)(I). The approving authority will
approve the alternative method of compliance if the applicant
proposes the alternative method of compliance and demonstrates
that the proposed method:
a. wWill improve the facilities or services delivered by the city,
including without limitation any police, fire, library, human
services, parks and recreation, or other municipal facilityoffice,
or land or service, or will provide an arts, cultural, human
services, housing, or other benefit that is a community benefit
objective in the BVCP, and
Agenda Item 5A Page 55 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a.b. iIs of a value that is equivalent to or greater than the benefits
required by this Subparagraph (h)(27)(CK).
(L8) 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:
(Ai) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed
fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council
may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent.
(Bii) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the
project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve
proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-9-6,
"Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981 (see Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if it
finds that:
(i)a. For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be
owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will
be adequately accommodated;
(ii)b. The parking needs of any nonresidential uses will be adequately
accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking;
(iii)c. A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed,
and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through
shared parking;
(iv)d. If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time
periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and
(v)e. If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the
nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the
nature of the occupancy will not change.
(M9) 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:
(Ai) The lots are held in common ownership;
(Bii) The separate lot is in the same zoning district and located within three
hundred feet of the lot that it serves; and
(Ciii) The property used for off-site parking under this subparagraph continues
under common ownership or control.
…
(l) Minor Amendments to Approved Site Plans:
(1) Standards: Changes to approved building location or additions to existing
buildings, which exceed the limits of a minor modification, may be considered
through the minor amendment process if the following standards are met:
…
Agenda Item 5A Page 56 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(2) Amendments to the Site Review Approval Process: Applications for minor
amendment shall be approved according to the procedures prescribed by this
section for site review approval, except:
(A) If an applicant requests approval of a minor amendment to an approved
site review, the city manager will determine which properties within the
development would be affected by the proposed change. The manager will
provide notice pursuant to Subsection 9-4-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, of the
proposed change to all property owners so determined to be affected, and
to all property owners within a radius of 600 feet of the subject property.
(B) Only the owners of the subject property shall be required to sign the
application.
(C) The minor amendment shall be found to comply with the review criteria of
Subparagraphs (h)(2)(A), (h)(32)(C), and (h)(42)(F) of this section.
(D) The minor amendment is found toshall be substantially consistent with the
intent of the original approval, including conditions of approval, the
intended design character, and site arrangement of the development, and
specific limitations on additions or total size of the building which were
required to keep the building in general proportion to others in the
surrounding area or minimize visual impacts.
(E) The city manager may amend, waive, or create a development agreement.
Section 2. Section 9-7-7, “Building Height, Appurtenances,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended as
follows:
9-7-7. Building Height, Appurtenances.
(a) Appurtenances: Appurtenances may be added under the following circumstances:
(1) The addition of an appurtenance to a building is permitted if it does not cause the
building height to exceed the height allowed in this in Ssections 9-7-5, “Building
Height,” and 9-7-6, “Building Height, Conditional,” B.R.C. 1981, considering, for
this purpose only, the uppermost point of the appurtenance to be the uppermost
point of the roof.
…
(3) No appurtenance may have useable floor area except for mechanical equipment
installations; have more than twenty-five percent coverage of the roof area of the
building; or be more than sixteen feet in height. Mechanical equipment,
considered cumulatively, may not cover more than twenty-five percent of the roof
area of the building. For the purposes of this paragraph, coverage means the total
area enclosed by the screening and roof area means the outside top covering of a
building which is parallel to the ground.
…
Section 3. Section 9-8-1, “Schedule of Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended as
follows:
Agenda Item 5A Page 57 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9-8-1. Schedule of Intensity Standards.
The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the requirements for the allowed intensity of all types
of development, including maximum density for residential developments based on allowed
number of units and occupancy. All primary and accessory structures are subject to the standards
set forth in Table 8-1 of this section except that developments within an area designated in
Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards or Appendix M, "Form-
Based Code," are exempt from Table 8-1 and Sections 9-8-1 through 9-8-4, B.R.C. 1981.
Developments within an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject
to the standards or Appendix M, "Form-Based Code ," are subject to the standards of Sections 9-
8-5, "Occupancy of Dwelling Units," 9-8-6, "Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences,"
and 9-8-7, "Density and Occupancy of Efficiency Living Units," B.R.C. 1981. No person shall
use any land within the city authorized by Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except
according to the following requirements unless modified through a use review under Section 9-2-
15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C.
1981, or granted a variance under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981,
or approved through a form-based code review under Section 9-2-16, "Form-Based Code
Review," B.R.C. 1981.
TABLE 8-1: INTENSITY STANDARDS
Zoni
ng
Distri
ct
Intens
ity
Modul
e
Minim
um Lot
Area
(in
square
feet
unless
otherw
ise
noted)
Minim
um Lot
Area
Per
Dwelli
ng Unit
(square
feet)(c)
Numb
er of
Dwelli
ng
Units
Per
Acre(c)
Minimu
m Open
Space
Per
Dwelling
Unit
(square
feet)(c)
Minimu
m Open
Space on
Lots
(Residen
tial
Uses)(c)
Minimum
Open
Space on
Lots
(Nonreside
ntial
Uses)(a), (c)
Minimu
m
Private
Open
Space
(Residen
tial
Uses)
(square
feet)(c)
Maxim
um
Floor
Area
Ratio(c)
Mixed-use developments require the greater
amount of the residential or nonresidential
standard for open space. See Section 9-9-11 for
additional open space requirements.
A 1 5 acres 5 acres 0.2 - - 10-20% - -
RR-1,
RR-2
2 30,000 30,000 1.4 - - 10-20% - See
Table 8-
3
RE 3 15,000 15,000 2.9 - - 10-20% - See
Table 8-
3
RL-1 4 7,000 7,000 6.2 - - 10-20% - See
Table 8-
3
P 5 7,000 7,000 6.2 - - 10-20% - -
RL-2 6 - - - 6,000 - 10-20% - See
Table 8-
3
RMX
-1
7 6,000 6,000 7.3 600 - 10-20% - See
Table 8-
3
Agenda Item 5A Page 58 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RMX
-2
8 - - 10 (up
to 20
by site
review
)
- 15% 15% 60 -
RM-1 9 - - 3,000 - 10-20% - -
IS-2 10 - - - 600 - 10-20% 60 0.5:1
IS-1 11 7,000 - - - - 10-20% 60 0.5:1
RH-1 12 - - - 1,600 - 10-20% - -
RH-2 12.5 6,000 3,000
(down
to
1,600
by Site
review)
14 (up
to 27.2
by site
review
)
600 - 10-20% - -
RM-
2,
RM-3
13 6,000 3,500 12.4 - - 10-20% - -
RH-3,
RH-7
14 - - - - 60%(b) 60%(b) 60 -
RH-4,
BT-1,
BC-1
15 - - - 1,200 - 10-20% - -
BR-2 16 - - - - 40%(d) 10-20%(d) 60 -
BMS 17 - - - - 15%(d) 15%(d) 60 0.67
(1.85 if
within
CAGID
or
UHGID
)(d)
RH-6 17.5 - 1,800 - 600 - - - -
MU-
1,
MU-
2,
IMS
18 - - - - 15%(d) 15%(d) 60 0.6:1(d)
RH-5,
BC-2
19 6,000 1,600(d) 27.2 600 (400
by site
review if
in a
mixed use
developm
ent)
- 10-20% - -
IM 20 7,000 1,600 27.2 600 - 10-20% 60 0.4:1
BT-2 21 6,000 1,600 27.2 600 - 10-20% - 0.5:1
IG 22 7,000 1,600 27.2 600 - 10-20% 60 0.5:1
BR-1 23 6,000 1,600 27.2(d) - - 10-20% - 2.0:1(d)
MU-3 24 - - - - 15%(d) 15%(d) 60 1.0:1
MU-4 24.5 - - - - 15% 15% 60 2.0
DT-1 25 - - - - - 10-20%(d) 60 1.0:1
DT-2 26 - - - - - 10-20%(d) 60 1.5:1
Agenda Item 5A Page 59 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DT-3,
DT-4,
DT-5
27 - - - - - 10-20%(d) 60 1.7:1
BCS 28 - - - - - 10-20% - -
Footnotes:
(a) This requirement may increase based on building height pursuant to Subsection 9‐9‐11(c), B.R.C. 1981.
(b) Open space may be reduced using the standards in Sections 9‐8‐3, "Density in the RH‐1, RH‐2, RH‐3 and
RH‐7 Districts," and 9‐9‐11, "Useable Open Space," B.R.C. 1981.
(c) For properties within an area designated in Appendix L, "Form‐Based Code Areas," and subject to the
standards of Appendix M, "Form‐Based Code," the footnoted requirement is not applicable. Refer to
Appendix M, "Form‐Based Code," for specific form, bulk, intensity, and outdoor space requirements.
(d) This requirement may be modified pursuant to Section 9‐2‐14(h)(7), B.R.C. 1981, for specified zoning
districts.
(‐) No standard.
Section 4. Section 9-8-1, “Schedule of Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended as
follows:
9-8-2. Floor Area Ratio Requirements.
. . . TABLE 8-2: FLOOR AREA RATIO ADDITIONS
DT-
1
DT-
2
DT-
3
DT-
4
DT-
5
MU
-1
MU
-2
MU
-3
BT-
2
BM
S
IS-
½1,
IS-
2
IG IM IM
S
BR-
1(c)
Base FAR 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.6
7(a)
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 -
Maximum total FAR
additions (FAR)(d)
1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.0
7
- - - 0.3
3
- - - - -
FAR additional components:
1) Residential floor
area (FAR)
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0(
b)
- - - - - - Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
- -
2) Residential floor
area if at least 35% of
units are permanently
affordable and at least
50% of total floor area
is residential (FAR)
- - - - - 0.0
7
- - - - - - - - -
3) Residential floor
area for a project
NOT located in a
general improvement
district that provides
off-street parking
- - - - - - - - - 0.3
3
- - - - -
4) Floor area used as
off-street parking and
circulation that is
above grade and
0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
- Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
-
Agenda Item 5A Page 60 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
provided entirely
within the structure
5) Below grade area
used for occupancy
Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
- - - Not
cou
nte
d
Not
cou
nte
d
- - - - -
6) Nonresidential
floor area (FAR) (see
Paragraph 9-8-2(e)(3)
and Section 4-20-62,
Table 4)
- - - - 1.0(
b)
- - - - - - - - - -
Maximum allowable
FAR (sum of base
plus all available
additions)
2.0
+
row
5
2.0
+
row
5
2.7
+
row
5
2.2
+
row
5
2.7
+
row
5
0.6
7 +
row
4
abo
ve
0.6
+
row
4
abo
ve
1.0
+
row
4
abo
ve
0.5
+
row
5
abo
ve
1.0
+
row
s 4
and
5
abo
ve
0.5
+
row
4
abo
ve
0.5
+
row
s 1
and
4
abo
ve
0.4
+
row
s 1
and
4
abo
ve
0.6
+
row
4
abo
ve
43.0
(c)
Footnotes:
(a) FAR up to 1.85:1 if property is located in a general improvement district providing off-street parking.
(b) The maximum additional FAR component is 1.0. FAR additional components may be combined, but shall
not exceed the 1.0 maximum total floor are ratio limit.
(c) See Subparagraph 9-2-14(h) (2)(J7), B.R.C. 1981.
(d) For properties located in an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the
standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," the floor area and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements do not
apply. Refer to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," for specific form, bulk, intensity, and outdoor space
requirements.
(-) Not applicable.
. . .
Section 5. Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended as follows:
9-16-1. General Definitions.
(a) The definitions contained in Chapter 1-2, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, apply to this title
unless a term is defined differently in this chapter.
(b) Terms identified with the references shown below after the definition are limited to those
specific sections or chapters of this title:
(1) Airport influence zone (AIZ).
(2) Floodplain regulations (Floodplain).
(3) Historic preservation (Historic).
(4) Inclusionary housing (Inclusionary Housing).
(5) Residential growth management system (RGMS).
(6) Solar access (Solar).
(7) Wetlands Protection (Wetlands).
(8) Signs (Signs).
Agenda Item 5A Page 61 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(c) The following terms as used in this title have the following meanings unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
…
BVCP means Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
…
Expression line means a slight change in the layup of a building material through an offset,
indentation, or protrusion of a building material by at least two inches to create detail, shadow
lines, and variation.
…
Transparency means the measurement of the percentage of a facade that has highly
transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum fifty percent transmittance factor and a
reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25.
…
Section 6. This ordinance repeals Appendix J to Title 9, “Areas Where Height
Modifications May be Considered,” and reserves Appendix J to read: APPENDIX J: Reserved.
Section 7. For the limited purpose of adopting this ordinance, city council suspends the
provisions of Subsection 9-1-5(a), “Amendments and Effect of Pending Amendments,” B.R.C.
1981.
Section 8. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 9. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
Section 10. This ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2023. It shall be applied
to site review applications submitted on or after the effective date. Complete site review
applications submitted before the effective date shall be considered under the standards in effect
at the time of application.
Agenda Item 5A Page 62 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 21st day of June 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Elesha Johnson, City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of August 2022.
____________________________________
Aaron Brockett, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________________
Elesha Johnson, City Clerk
Agenda Item 5A Page 63 of 81
Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8515
1
Background
Staff has been working on updates to the Site Review criteria as part of the Community
Benefit project since 2018. Phase Two of that project includes considering additional
community benefits in exchange for additional height and/or density in projects, updating
the city’s Site Review criteria to be more in line with city policies, and making the criteria
more streamlined and the development review process more predictable for developers,
neighbors, review bodies, and staff.
This document summarizes the proposed amendments. Draft code text and detailed
information and analysis of the amendments can be found in the memo.
Public and Stakeholder Input
There have been ongoing opportunities for public feedback on the Community Benefit
project through in-person and virtual open house meetings, focus groups with the
development community and neighborhoods, specific meetings with stakeholders,
segments on Channel 8 news, and Be Heard Boulder questionnaires. Stakeholders and
interested residents have been notified of the status of the project and updates have been
included in the Planning Newsletter. The feedback that has been received throughout the
project has helped to shape the draft code text summarized here.
Project Goals and Objectives
Identify other aspects of the Site Review criteria to further city goals and create more
predictability in projects.
Determine additional design standards for projects requesting a height modification.
Identify incentives to address the community economic, social and environmental
objectives of the comprehensive plan.
Site Review
Criteria Update
Summary of Proposed Changes
Agenda Item 5A Page 64 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
2
9-2-14(h)(2) - Site Design
(A) Open Space
(B) Open Space in Mixed-Use Projects
(E) Landscaping
(D) Circulation
(E) Parking
(F) Building Design, Livability, and
Relationship to the Existing or
Proposed Surrounding Area
(G) Solar Siting and Construction
(H) Additional Criteria for Poles Above
the Permitted Height
(I) Land Use Intensity Modifications
(J) Additional Criteria for Floor Area
Ratio Increase for Buildings in the
BR-1 District
(K) Additional Criteria for Parking
Reductions
(L) Additional Criteria for Off-Site
Parking
9-2-14(h)(1) - Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan
9-2-14(h)(1) - Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(A) Land Use Map
(B) Subcommunity and Area Plans and Design Guidelines
(C) Energy Conservation and Building Life Cycle Impact Carbon
Reduction
(D) Community Design and Edges
(E) Historic or Cultural Resources
(F) Housing and Unit Diversity
(G) Environmental Preservation
9-2-14(h)(2) - Site Design
(A) Access, Transportation and Mobility
(B) Open Space
(C) Landscaping
(D) Public Realm and Building Locations
9-2-14(h)(3) - Building Design
(A) Building Materials
(B) Window and Balcony Requirements
(C) Building Detailing
9-2-14(h)(4) - Building Design, Massing and Height
Requirements for Buildings Proposed Above the Zoning
District Permitted Height and/or Maximum Floor Area
9-2-14(h)(5) - Alternative Compliance for Site and Building
Design Standards
9-2-14(h)(6) - Additional Criteria for Poles Above the
Permitted Height
9-2-14(h)(7) - Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications
(A) Land Use Intensity and Density Modifications with Open
Space Reduction
(B) Land Use Intensity and Density Modifications with Height
Bonus
(C) Additional Criteria for a Height Bonus and Land Use Intensity
Modifications
9-2-14(h)(8) - Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions
9-2-14(h)(9) - Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking
Existing Criteria Structure
14 pages of ordinance text
Proposed Criteria Structure
16 pages of ordinance text, with graphics
Agenda Item 5A Page 65 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
3
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
Consistency with specific
policies of the BVCP
Replaces current language about consistency
“on balance” with the policies of the BVCP with
specific criteria furthering policies on:
Energy conservation and building life-cycle
impact carbon reduction
Requires that large projects meet at least one
of three options to conserve energy and reduce
carbon impact.
Enhanced design
Moves existing criterion about gateway sites
creating a sense of entry to the community,
which is currently in the building design section,
up to this section.
Historic or cultural resources
Adds new criteria regarding the protection of
significant buildings on site.
Housing diversity and bedroom unit types
Includes new criteria specifying a minimum
number of housing types and bedroom unit
types for some projects.
Environmental preservation
Updates an existing site review criterion about
preservation of natural resources and moves it
up to this policy-related section.
Intent: To ensure consistency with
the goals and policies of the BVCP
and other adopted plans of the
community.
Density and economic
feasibility
Simplifies existing BVCP criteria language
with respect to density and replaces with
clear language that refers to consistency with
the BVCP land use map. Removes criterion
regarding consideration of the economic
feasibility of implementation techniques.
Consistency with adopted
plans and design guidelines
Updates criteria ensuring consistency with
adopted area plans or design guidelines.
Agenda Item 5A Page 66 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
4
Site Design
Access, Transportation, and
Mobility
Intent: The project efficiently accommodates
all modes of travel, emphasizes pedestrian and
bicycle use over motor vehicle use, and reduces
motor vehicle miles traveled.
• Consolidates existing redundant parking and
circulation criteria into this new section.
• Updates language to better reflect the city’s
commitment to multi-modal transportation
solutions, encouraging modes other than the
vehicle, and more clearly states expectations
regarding connectivity.
Open Space
Intent: Open space shall be designed to create an
attractive site plan and promote use.
• Removes redundant criteria about open space.
• Adds more objective and specific criteria to
indicate the required level of open space quality.
• Establishes new thresholds for when active
recreation and/or courtyard spaces are required.
• Increases specificity regarding buffering
between higher and lower intensity uses, rather
than the currently vague “providing relief to
density” language.
Landscaping
Intent: Landscaping shall exceed by-right
standards, contribute to an attractive site plan,
and conserve water.
• Adds specificity that planting quantities must
exceed minimum requirements by at least 15
percent, rather than currently vague language.
• Updates criteria to set clear expectations for
design quality, including hardscape materials,
conserving water, and incorporating bioswales.
Public Realm and Building
Locations
Intent: Building facades shall orient to the public
realm, which includes public streets, plazas,
sidewalks, paths and natural features.
• Replaces currently vague language about
“human scale,” “attractive streetscape,” and
“pedestrian interest” with this new section
requiring defined building entries along
streetscapes every 75 feet.
• Emphasizes the expectation that buildings
should be oriented to the street instead of
parking areas in many contexts.
• Incorporates requirements for screening of
operational features with design elements to
mitigate negative visual impacts.
• Updates existing vague language about blocking
views with a criterion that sets expectations for
maintaining prominent views of the mountains.
Intent: Projects should preserve
and enhance the community’s
unique sense of place through
creative design that respects historic
character, relationship to the
natural environment, multi-modal
transportation connectivity and its
physical setting.
Agenda Item 5A Page 67 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
5
Building Design
Intent: To ensure high-quality, enduring
architecture and simplicity in design.
Overall, these changes replace the highly subjective
and vague criteria on building design with more
specific requirements for building design quality.
These have primarily been drawn from tested
elements of the Form-Based Code that staff and the
design community have been found to be successful.
Building Materials
Intent: To ensure buildings are attractive, well-
designed, and are composed of long-lasting
materials to give a sense of permanency.
• Specifies a minimum percentage of high-quality
building materials, defines which materials qualify,
and sets a maximum number of primary building
materials to be used on a building.
• Requires that building material transitions may
only occur away from public-facing facades and
within interior corners.
• Requires acoustic studies for certain buildings
close to areas with exterior transportation noise.
• Clarifies expectations to conceal appurtenances.
• Incorporates new criteria requiring building design
to draw from or improve upon the character of the
surrounding area.
Agenda Item 5A Page 68 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
6
Window and Balcony Requirements
Intent: To ensure an appropriate amount of window
transparency, avoid blank walls, contribute to
visual interest on building facades and ensure well-
designed balconies on larger projects where more
balconies are common.
• Specifies minimum transparency requirements per
floor, with higher requirements on facades facing
the public realm and in certain zoning districts.
• Sets a standard for maximum length of 25 feet for
blank walls.
• Requires a two-inch recess for glass of windows
to create shadow lines and contribute to wall
detailing.
• Establishes new balcony requirements for larger
buildings to integrate balconies into the design of
the building and require finished platforms.
Building Detailing
Intent: The following requirements apply to all
building facades facing a public right-of-way or
common open space to encourage visual interest
and simplicity in design.
• Adds new requirements for expression lines on
certain buildings to add visual interest.
• Incorporates new criteria requiring building detail
elements to draw from or improve upon the
character of the surrounding area.
Agenda Item 5A Page 69 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
7
Requirements When Proposing
Additional Height or Floor Area Ratio
Additional Building Design
Requirements
• Requires horizontal and vertical expression lines
incorporated within specific distances on the
building.
Special Building Massing, Height
and Siting Requirements
• Specifies a maximum length along a public right-
of-way, and requirements for façade variation.
• Incorporates specific criteria to ensure consistency
with the anticipated or the existing context for
taller buildings in the area.
Roof Cap Types
• Outlines design requirements for pitched, parapet,
and flat roof cap types.
Intent: Ensure high quality,
appropriately sized buildings that are
compatible with the context and of a
design that is attractive, but simple
with a discernable base, middle and
top.
Agenda Item 5A Page 70 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
8
Alternative Compliance
With more prescriptive performance standards integrated into the criteria for more predictability, there is
also a need for some flexibility as the regulations may not be appropriate or practical in all scenarios. This
new option allows some modification from the Site Review requirements, where a project meets certain
criteria. Alternative compliance is only available for site and building design standards. A summary of the
criteria that need to be met to obtain alternative compliance is below.
Meets one of the following specific criteria:
• Innovative approach to meeting BVCP
policies
• Impracticality of the standard due to certain
conditions
• Specific standards for amendments or
minor amendments for previously approved
projects
Compatibility with existing character or
character in established design guidelines or
plans for the area.
Human scale, pedestrian-oriented building
design and placement.
Functional, accessible, and high-quality
landscaping.
Consistency with the purpose of Site Review.
Agenda Item 5A Page 71 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
9
Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications
Open space requirements
• In the DT, BMS, BR-2, and MU-3 districts, up to 50%
reduction of open space requirements is allowed,
provided certain criteria outlined for that district
are met.
Criteria for height bonuses and land
use intensity modifications
• Adds arts, cultural, human services, housing or
other community benefit from the BVCP as eligible
alternative community benefits.
Density and floor area requirements
with height bonus
• Modifies this existing standard, removing
references to the Appendix J map and instead
allowing in districts other than RR, RE, RL, RMX-1,
MH, and A (as shown in the map to the right).
• Makes projects in MU-2 district now eligible for 0.5
FAR increase, in addition to other districts where
this is currently allowed.
• Projects in BR-1 district eligible for FAR increase up
to 3.0. Removes section allowing for bonuses up to
4.0 with additional criteria.
Modifications to the minimum open space on lots,
dwelling units per acre requirement, maximum height,
and minimum lot area per dwelling unit standards may
be requested if the requirements of this section are met.
Requirements are outlined for specific zoning districts.
A
A
MHRE
RL-2
RL-1
RMX-2
A
MH
RL-2
RE
RE
RE
RL-2
RE
BT-1
RL-2
RL-2
RL-1
RE
RL-1
MH
A
RL-1
RE
A
RL-2
RL-2
RR-1
RL-2
RL-1
RL-2
RE
RL-2
RE
A
RL-1
RL-2
RL-1
RL-1
RL-1
RL-1
RL-1
RMX-1
RL-2
RL-1
RR-2
RMX-1
BT-1
RMX-1
RE
Arapahoe Ave
Br
o
a
d
w
ay
P e a rlPkwy
Pearl St28th StTable
M
e
s
a DrCanyonBlvd
Baseline RdFoothillsPkwy Mineral Rd
Arapahoe Rd
Us
H
w
y
3
6 63rd StS
B
r
o
a
dw
a
y
Va lm on t R dIris Ave DiagonalHwy75th St61st StSouth Boulder
R
dN Foothills Hwy76th StA n d r us RdFoothills HwySFoot
h
ills
P
k
wyUCB
CAD/
City Limits
Community Benefit Exempt Zoning Districts
Commercial & Business
BT-1 Business - Transitional 1 (TB-D)
BT-2 Business - Transitional 2 (TB-E)
Residential
MH Mobile Home (MH-E)
RE Residential - Estate (ER-E)
RL-1 Residential - Low 1 (LR-E)
RL-2 Residential - Low 2 (LR-D)
RMX-1 Residential - Mixed 1 (MXR-E)
RMX-2 Residential - Mixed 2 (MXR-D)
RR-1 Residential - Rural 1 (RR-E)
RR-2 Residential - Rural 2 (RR1-E)
Agricultural and Public
A Agricultural (A-E)
Areas Where Community
Benefit Will Not Apply
Agenda Item 5A Page 72 of 81
Attachment B - Summary of Code Changes
Public Comments Received Since October 2021
Message from member of the public (11/2021):
Dear Council:
"Let’s compare the physical characteristics of the 2004 and 2021 Site Review Criteria:
2004 Site Review Criteria 2021 Site Review Criteria
Page Length 9 20
Words 3,514 8,588
References outside the Site
Review Criteria to other
sections of the BRC that
contain additional restrictions
9 63
And while the Site Review Criteria together with its external references to yet more land use regs
that require compliance have more than doubled since 2004, you would be hard pressed to find
people in our City who think that the quality of our buildings has improved during that period of
time.
Agenda Item 5A Page 73 of 81
Attachment C - Public comment
Message from member of the focus group (3/2022):
Thanks for this additional information. In general I support having clearer, more objective
criteria and language, and I think the proposed changes accomplish this in many ways. However,
I have a few other comments.
1. I completely agree that the open space requirements for affordable units. Calling this an equity
issue is a false flag, in my opinion. Nothing is more inequitable than not providing enough
affordable housing, so removing barriers to that should be our top priority.
2. I’d still like this project to look at the thresholds for SR. In particular, the thresholds based on
number of units seem very clearly to fly in the face of Council’s intent, expressed at their retreat,
to identify and eliminate code provisions that encourage fewer, larger units instead of more,
smaller ones, which the unit-based thresholds do.
3. I would also like to see higher thresholds (or waiver of SR criteria altogether) for projects that
are mostly affordable housing.
4. I still object to the blanket requirement for an acoustic study. There are uses for which
acoustics matter, and uses for which acoustics don’t matter. I don’t understand why we’re
requiring all uses to do the study. I would suggest removing this requirement.
5. I still have concerns that the energy conservation requirements don’t account for bigger-
picture emissions implications, including those from transportation. Since additional housing (at
least workforce-oriented housing) reducing in-commuting, I would like to see projects that
provide some threshold amount of housing be exempt from this requirement.
6. Paragraphs 2(A)(ii) and 2(A)(iii) continue to reflect our schizophrenia regarding automobiles.
If we’re encouraging alternatives to the automobile, as required in (ii), then why is a TDM plan
required for projects that ask for more than a given level of parking reduction? It should be the
reverse: if you’re not asking for a parking reduction, then a TDM plan should be required.
7. I’m supportive of the garden/courtyard requirement in 2(B)(iii), but I think it should be
specifically required to be publicly accessible. Private, gated open space detracts from rather
than enhances community.
8. I’d like to see “operational elements” as described in 2(D)(iv) required to be away from streets
and main entrances. Too often we’ve gotten street-side entrances that don’t feel like entrances
because they’re next to transformers or other equipment.
9. I feel 2(D)(v) doesn’t reflect the new realities of climate change. Shading is becoming at least
as important as sun access.
10. I object to some of the definitions of “high-quality” building materials in 3(A)(i). In
particular, I don’t see why polished masonry is high-quality but split-faced masonry is not, and
why cementitious siding is but fiber-cement board is not. These seem like transitory aesthetic
judgements.
11. I don’t support 3(C)(iii). This seems to encourage homogeneity.
Agenda Item 5A Page 74 of 81
Attachment C - Public comment
Message from member of the focus group (4/2022):
Karl,
First, please know that I understand the herculean nature of the task you are undertaking, the
shifting pollical climate of those that will implement it, and the outstanding quality of work and
thought you have brought to the process so far. After further consideration, I think I’m still in
the same place I was on the call. The intent of this project was to make Site Review more
predictable, but not to change its purpose. Site Review, by code, exists to “allow flexibility and
encourage innovation in land use development.” 9-2-14 (a), first sentence - under Purpose. I
don’t believe that adding metrics or strict requirements complies with this code intent and in fact
seems clearly in conflict with it.
Therefore, I think the idea of this update is to make clearer the considerations that staff, PB and
CC should be using to judge a project. As we all know, right now the Criteria for review are
numerous, conflicting and gray. Your work thus far is a great basis for changing that.
It is specifically against the intent of Site Review to mandate metric-based compliance – for
example, 3 types of parapets or a specific percentage of glass. That is not Site Review, but is
instead code. In fact, those types of metric exist in two places – the base code and the Form
Based Code, both of whom, through using “code” in their name, are explicit about their purpose,
which is to establish strict requirements. Site Review, again, is to encourage innovations and
flexibility to those requirements, so we if we feel something should be a black and white
requirement, it should not be in Site Review, it should sit in one of these two Code sections.
The work you’ve done would work very well, in my opinion, for the basis of the Site Review
changes if the compliance requirements are removed. For example, the old building design
section of the Site Review criteria was very general without giving the reviewers many specifics
by which to judge the projects, leading to hugely divergent opinions regarding compliance. Your
new work would make for an excellent, more direct basis for this criteria if you removed the
metrics that are only appropriate in an FBC or base code. As an example, using that building
design section as an example, you could specify that the review should consider the following
(please notice that there are no absolute metrics and the term “should” is liberally used):
• high quality building materials, including stone, brick, wood, composite wood, etc.
• a preference should be given to using 2-4 high quality materials rather than a large
numbers of disparate surfaces, except when the extras are accents
• building material transitions should occur on inside corners, away from public faces,
and/or be hidden
• the buildings should be responsive to their area and surroundings, though not necessarily
a repeat of the surroundings
• large blank wall areas should be avoided
• shadow or control lines should be created, including vertical ones to break up building
length and horizontal ones to establish the level of the first floor and accent the pedestrian
area
• windows should be designed to create shadows and depth, either large or small
Agenda Item 5A Page 75 of 81
Attachment C - Public comment
• particular attention should be given to the first floor of the building, and this first floor
level should include items to engage and support the pedestrian, potentially including, but
not limited to, things like water tables, bases, kick plates, lighting, signage, awnings,
expressed doors, increased horizontal planar movement, material changes, expression
lines, overhangs, eaves, planters, landscaping, steps, railings, and artistic and
architectural expression.
This approach takes your ideas and translates them into a set of guidelines by which a design can
be judged without that judgement being purely discretionary. It would establish what the
conversation will include so designers can address the points of the criteria, but not hem in a
specific response. It would allow architects to explain to developer clients the standards that will
constitute the discussion points at staff and board level, and it sets guidelines and railings for the
Planning Board and City Council to discuss the building. It does, however, leave the code
language in the code, not in the Site Review criteria, where it, by definition, does not belong.
While this is a shift in thinking for you within the update project, I don’t think it is a huge
change, but I believe it lines up much better with the code and process, and I think this shift in
approach is existentially important to the way the code works. Please note, due to the critical
nature of these criteria, I’ve copied Charles Ferro on this email.
Again, Karl, I think your work thus far has been both dogged and excellent, but I believe this
shift in approach is critical for this to be successful.
Agenda Item 5A Page 76 of 81
Attachment C - Public comment
The following information was provided to Planning Board and City Council earlier in
2021 and summarizes the feedback from the community on the Site Review criteria
update along with specific statements regarding what changes to the criteria would be
made based on the feedback and goals and objectives of the project.
Site Review criteria update
BVCP
policy
guidance &
goals of the
project
See ‘Background’ section of this memorandum.
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?
Agenda Item 5A Page 77 of 81
Attachment D - Summary of Site Review criteria update approaches and
feedback from earlier in the Community Benefit project process
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)?
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.
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,
Agenda Item 5A Page 78 of 81
Attachment D - Summary of Site Review criteria update approaches and
feedback from earlier in the Community Benefit project process
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?
• 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.
Be Heard Boulder questionnaire:
• The following additional requirements received the greatest
support (over 20 responses each) to apply to buildings that
exceeded the by-right height limit:
o Special protection for important public view corridors
Agenda Item 5A Page 79 of 81
Attachment D - Summary of Site Review criteria update approaches and
feedback from earlier in the Community Benefit project process
o High-quality building materials
o Limits on building widths
o Larger upper floor setbacks or limits on upper floor
sizes.
• Half of the respondents were in support of updating the Site
Review Criteria to be less subjective and more predictable, with
only 14% 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 25 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”
o The next most selected option was (14 respondents) was
“No buildings over the zoning district height limit
should be permitted anywhere in the city.”
• 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? Council later
recommended
this be
removed.
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
Agenda Item 5A Page 80 of 81
Attachment D - Summary of Site Review criteria update approaches and
feedback from earlier in the Community Benefit project process
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.
Agenda Item 5A Page 81 of 81
Attachment D - Summary of Site Review criteria update approaches and
feedback from earlier in the Community Benefit project process