Meeting Packet - Planning - 8/4/2011
CITY OF BOULDER
PIX*P~ PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA
DATE: August 4, 2011
TIME: 6 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers, 1777 Broadway
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The July 7 and July 21 Planning Board minutes are scheduled for approval.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS/CONTINUATIONS
A. Site Review for Height Modification Correction, LUR2011-00027, 809 Pine Street
B. Floodplain Development Permit, LUR2010-00035, 3005 Arapahoe Ave.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the following proposed
code changes downtown:
1. Add a 1.0 floor area addition for non-residential uses in conjunction with a housing linkage
fee in the DT-5 zone district.
2. Add a 65-foot building setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right-of-way in
zone districts P and DT-5, from 9th to 16th Streets.
B. Floodplain 101 Presentation and Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council of an
Ordinance Amending Chapter 9-3 "Overlay Districts", Section 9-16-1 "Definitions." B.R.C. 1981 to
Amend Floodplain Regulations in Order to Protect Critical Facilities and Mobile Populations
in the 500- and 100-year Floodplains.
6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A. Boulder's Energy Future Update
7. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to meeting. online at www.bouldercolorado.gou, at the Boulder
Public Main Library's Reference Desk. or at the Planning and Development Services office reception area, located at 1739 Broadway. third floor.
1
CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD
MEETING GUIDELINES
CALL TO ORDER
The Board must have a quorum (four members present) before the meeting can be called to order.
AGENDA
The Board may rearrange the order of the Agenda or delete items for good cause. The Board may not add items requiring public notice.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The public is welcome to address the Board (3 minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any item not
scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on the
Agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board
and admission into the record.
DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS
Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or reconmiendation.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows:
1. Presentations
a. Staff presentation (5 minutes maximum*)
b. Applicant presentation (15 minute maximum*). Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in
quantities of ten (10) to the Board Secretary for distribution to the Board and admission into the record.
c. Planning Board questioning of staff or applicant for information only.
2. Public Hearing
Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (3 rnninnutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and
time allotted will be determined by the Chair. No pooled time presentation will be pennitted to exceed ten minutes total.
• Time remaining is presented by a Green blinking light that means one minute remains, a Yellow light means 30 seconds remain,
and a Red light and beep means time has expired.
• Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group, homeowners' association, etc.,
please state that for the record as well.
• Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or
disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize continents wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted
and will become a part of the official record.
• Speakers should address the Land Use Regulation criteria and, if possible, reference the rules that the Board uses to decide a case.
• Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of ten (10) to the Secretary for distribution
to the Board and admission into the record.
• Citizens can send a letter to the Planning staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks before the Planning Board meeting,
to be included in the Board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed at the Board meeting.
3. Board Action
a. Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. With regard to a specific development proposal, the motion generally is to
either approve the project (with or without conditions), to deny it, or to continue the matter to a date certain (generally in order to
obtain additional information).
b. Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the Board. The applicant, members of the public or city staff
participate only if called upon by the Chair.
c. Board action (the vote). All affirmative vote of at least four members of the Board is required to pass a motion approving any
action. If the vote taken results in either a tie, a vote of three to two, or a vote of three to one in favor of approval, the applicant shall
be automatically allowed a rehearing upon requesting the same in writing within seven days.
MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY
Any Planning Board member, the Planning Director, or the City Attorney may introduce before the Board matters which are not included in the formal
agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 10:30 p.m. and that study sessions adjourn by 10:00 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after
10:00 p.m. except by majority vote of Board members present.
*The Chan may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her connuents.
2
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
July 7, 2011
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Aaron Brockett
Willa Johnson
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker, Chair
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Bill Holicky
STAFF PRESENT:
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Elaine McLaughlin, Senior Planner
Chris Meschuk, Planner I
Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
Michelle Mahan, Transportation Engineer
Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer II
Heidi Schum, Civil Engineer I
Elizabeth Vasatka, Business Sustainability Coordinator
Chris Haglin, Transportation Engineer
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 5:09 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved 5-0 (W.
Johnson and B. Holicky absent) the June 2 Planning Board minutes, as amended
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
A. Nonconforming Use Review, 902 Marine Street
B. Minor Site Review Amendment, 6060 Spine Rd.
C. Wetland Permit, Valmont Road Widening
The board did not call up these items.
3
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public Hearing and consideration of additional changes approved by the City Council as
part of the 2010 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP).
Staff Presentation
C. Meschuk presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
1. Jerrie Hurd, Chair of Goss-Grove Neighborhood Association, asked the board to
approve the expanded boundary because the initially proposed boundary excludes 3 of 4
board members that live on Goss Street and would benefit from land use and zoning of the
Whittier Neighborhood. This neighborhood is what helps make Boulder vital and create a
true neighborhood.
Board Discussion
Goss-Grove
A. Brockett felt the Arapahoe should not be included. He felt the street should instead be used
for more dense development since it is a traffic corridor. M. Young, T. Plass and W. Johnson
support the staff recommendation and therefore the council recommendation. A. Shoemaker
also supports the staff and council recommendation and felt that adding the properties along
Arapahoe would help keep the street more pedestrian friendly and change the character of the
interior parts of the neighborhood.
Planning Reserve
T. Plass and M. Young expressed concerns that the change to the Planning Reserve process
from four-body to two-body would make development inevitable. A. Brockett felt that the
wording does support development, but does not guarantee it, so will support the change.
On a motion by W. Johnson, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved (6-0, B.
Holicky absent) approved the additional changes to the Boulder Valley CoMprehensive Plan
(BVCP) as shown in the staff memorandum dated July 7, 2011.
B. Public hearing and consideration of the following:
1. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Planning Area boundary change for
the project site from Planning Area IIb to IIa;
2. Annexation of an approximately 2.9-acre portion of Arapahoe Road from 62nd Street
on the west extending eastward to a point along the north property line of 6400
Arapahoe Road, with an initial zoning of Industrial General (IG);
3. Annexation of an approximately 9.5-acre parcel of land located at 6400 Arapahoe
Road with an initial zoning of IG;
4. Annexation of an approximately 0.25-acre portion of Arapahoe Road located
northwest of 6400 Arapahoe Road with an initial zoning of IG;
5. Site Review to permit the phased redevelopment of 6400 Arapahoe Road for Eco-
cycle's office, commercial hauling operations and Center for Hard-to-Recycle
Materials (CHaRM) and Resource operations. Request includes proposed
modifications to the 20-foot front yard setback and sign placement in Phase 2 and a
parking reduction of 20 percent in Phase I and 37 percent in Phase 2. Request for a
time line for phasing of up to five years for Phase I, and up to 10 years for Phases 2
and 3;
4
6. Use Review to permit use of the site as a Recycling Processing Facility and includes
the following uses: Building Material Sales, Lumber Yard, Administrative Office,
and Outdoor Display of Merchandise; and
7. Preliminary Plat to subdivide an approximately 9.5-acre parcel of land located
generally at
6400 Arapahoe Road into two lots (Lot 1 of 6.24 acres and Lot 2 of 2.1 acres) and
an outlot of 0.54 acres (#LUR2011-00021 and LUR2011-00023).
Applicant: Carol Adams
Owner: City of Boulder
Staff Presentation
E. McLaughlin presented the item to the board.
Applicant Presentation
Elizabeth Vasatka, City of Boulder, and Carol Adams, presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
1. Sam Brown, 6397 Swallow Lane, spoke in opposition to the project due to the
construction recycling and demolition being permitted in the Use Review.
2. Denise Perreault, 3239 8t' St. - spoke in support of the project.
3. Judy Renfroe, PO Box 17100, spoke to the concern about the wetlands being overused
and how the management plan will be used in regards to the C& D restrictions not being
strict enough for the long term.
Board Discussion
Zoning/Use Review
The board discussed at length with staff regarding the Use Review item 3b which states "no
person shall construct or demolish aggregates, such as asphalt or concrete, with machinery
outside of a building", and the binding nature of the third party potential purchase of the property
in the future. The board agreed to modify the condition to delete the last 4 words of the
condition.
Site Review
W. Johnson expressed concern about the street presence in relation to the elevations and the
ability to draw people into the site, as currently proposed. She suggested adding greater level of
transparency with the front door. A. Brockett, T. Plass and A. Shoemaker agreed and would
like to see public art to help offset the tall wall.
T. Plass complimented the design team with the project.
On a motion by M. Young, seconded by T. Plass, the Planning Board approved (6-0, B. Holicky
absent) the following motions:
1) Approve the BVCP Planning Area II change: IIb to IIa;
2) Recommend approval of the proposed annexation and initial zoning of IG;
3) Recommend approval of the Site and Use Review application no. LUR2011-00021
for the project located at 6400 Arapahoe, incorporating this staff memorandum,
5
conditions of approval, and the attached criteria checklists as findings of fact and
subject to the conditions of approval for annexation, site and use reviews as follows.
M. Young added a friendly amendment regarding the Conditions of Use on item 3B to remove
language "No person shall construct or demolish aggregates, such as asphalt or concrete, with
machinery And to add the preliminary plat to the motion. T. Plass
accepted the friendly amendment.
W. Johnson offered a friendly amendment to include in Site Review Conditions 3A, after the
word `acceptable', to add "increased visual interest to the Arapahoe street front." M. Young
accepted the amendment.
RECOMMENDED ANNEXATION CONDITIONS:
1. Requirements. Applicant will be required to do the following:
a. Prior to first reading of the annexation ordinance before City Council, the Applicant
shall pay the then applicable Storm Water and Flood Management Utility Plant
Investment Fee.
2. City Council Has Final Decision Authority for Site Review. The City Council has final
decision authority for the initial site review application. This site review application will
be referred to the City Council for hearing and final decision concurrent with the hearing
for annexation. Any subsequent amendments or modifications to this approval shall be
completed in compliance with the requirements of the laws of the City.
3. Conveyance of Drainage. The Applicant shall convey drainage from the Property in a
historic manner that does not materially and adversely affect abutting property owners.
4. Phasing, Plan. The Phasing Plan set forth on the Applicant's approved Site Plan dated
June 15, 2011 on file with the Department of Community Planning and Sustainability
consists of the following phases:
a. Phase I shall commence at the date of this approval and shall be substantially
completed within five years.
b. Phases Il and III may begin at any time after the property is annexed into the city and
shall be substantially completed no later than five years after the completion or
expiration of Phase I.
RECOMMENDED SITE REVIEW CONDITIONS:
now-
Requirements. Applicant will be required to do the following:
1. This approval shall be contingent upon adoption of an ordinance by the City Council
6 4
annexing and zoning the property Industrial - General (IG) and permitting the requested
recycling use. In the event that said ordinance is not passed by the City Council, this
development approval shall expire without any further action and shall be of no further
force or effect.
2. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in
compliance with all approved plans dated June 15, 2011, and the Applicant's written
statement dated March 18, 2011 and management plan dated June 22, 2011 on file in the
City of Boulder Department of Community Planning and Sustainability, except to the
extent that the development may be modified by the conditions of this approval.
3. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document
Review application for the following items, subject to the review and approval of the City
Manager:
a) Final architectural plans, including material samples and colors, to insure
compliance with the intent of this approval and compatibility with the surrounding
area. The architectural intent shown on the approved plans dated June 15, 2011, is
acceptable with increased visual interest to the Arapahoe street front. Planning staff
will review plans to ensure that the architectural intent is performed.
b) A final site plan which includes detailed floor plans and section drawings.
c) A final utility plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards.
d) A final stormwater report and plan meeting the City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards.
e) Final transportation plans in accordance with City of Boulder Design and
Construction Standards, for all transportation improvements. These plans must
include, but are not limited to: Transportation site plan illustrating and dimensioning
all proposed public transportation improvements, signage and striping plans in
conformance with Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards,
transportation detail drawings, geotechnical soils report, and pavement analysis.
f) A detailed landscape plan, including size, quantity, and type of plants existing and
proposed; type and quality of non-living landscaping materials; any site grading
proposed; and any irrigation system proposed, to insure compliance with this
approval and the City's landscaping requirements. Removal of trees must receive
prior approval of the Department of Community Planning and Sustainability.
Removal of any tree in City right-of-way must also receive prior approval of the City
Forester.
g) A detailed outdoor lighting plan showing location, size, and intensity of
illumination units, indicating compliance with section 9-9-16, B.R.C.1981.
h) Building elevations for any trash enclosure, including materials, to ensure
compliance with this approval and compatibility with the surrounding area.
4. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall submit a Technical Document
7
Review application for a Final Plat which shall include, but not be limited to, the
dedication to the City of the following, in accordance with the City of Boulder Design
and Construction Standards and in the form and final location of which shall be subject to
the approval of the City Manager:
a) The dedication to the City of the following, at no cost, meeting and in the form and
final location of which shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager: all
necessary public access easements; utility easements; and a stormwater detention,
drainage, and utility easement covering Outlot A as shown on the approved plans.
b) The Applicant agrees to commence, construct, and complete all of the on-site and
off-site public improvements necessary to serve the Property, as shown on the
approved plans dated June 15, 2011 including but not limited to the following:
Detention Pond in Phase I and Detached Sidewalk along Arapahoe in Phase II.
5. Prior to a building permit application, the Applicant shall execute a subdivision
agreement meeting the requirements of chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981 and
which provides for the construction of all public improvements necessary to serve the
development as shown on the approved plans.
6. The Applicant shall ensure that its tenants provide RTD Eco Passes or equivalent all-
access transit passes to the employees of the development for three years after the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy as proposed in the Applicant's Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR USE REVIEW
1. The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with all
approved plans dated June 15, 2011, the Applicant's written statement dated March 18,
2011, and the Management Plan dated June 22, 2011 on file in the City of Boulder
Department of Community Planning and Sustainability, except to the extent that the
development may be modified by the conditions of this approval.
2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to
subsection 9-2-15(h), B.R.C. 1981.
3. The Applicant shall ensure that the use is operated under the following conditions:
a) No person shall accept hazardous waste materials. For the purposes of this
condition, hazardous waste materials are those materials routinely accepted by the
Boulder County Hazardous Materials Management Facility (HMMF), located at
1901 63rd Street, Boulder, CO. The Applicant shall keep a list of such materials
on site and placed in locations approved by the city manager to ensure that
employees, visitors and customers are on notice of this condition.
b) No person shall construct or demolish aggregates, such as asphalt or concrete,
with machinery.
7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
8
A. Staff briefing and Planning Board input on improving Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Effectiveness in Development Review: Modifications to the
TDM Plan Process and the TDM Toolkit
Staff Presentation
C. Hagelin presented the item to the board.
Board Discussion
T. Plass commented that the graphics were hard to follow. By making the line items coordinate,
it will make it easier to follow the comparisons. He also recommended a glossary of terms and
programs to help the general reader understand the TDM better.
A. Brockett recommended an alternative of having unlimited tickets available for small
businesses or small HOAs under 10 units.
T. Plass had concerns about the requirement of a shower. M. Young didn't agree, she thinks it is
a good idea. A. Shoemaker agreed.
W. Johnson likes the package approach and feels it offers a good variety for businesses. She
asked if there was the ability to have extra credit options for businesses that want to push the
environmental envelope. She expressed concerns about having a requirement of 3 years for the
EcoPass program.
A. Brockett commented on the code change for carpool spots, he would like to see as few as
parking spots, as necessary. He is concerned that requiring carpool spots leaves a lot of empty
spots and he was concerned about having electronic car spots in lots that have high demand.
A. Shoemaker would like to have long term bike parking
A. T. Plass will be the Landmarks Board representative again.
B. T. Plass has concerns about the LED signs on such buildings as the First Presbyterian
Church on Canyon.
C. W. Johnson requested of the board to miss the first two meetings in September.
D. Paperless metrics to City Council - info packet
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p.m.
APPROVED BY
Board Chair
DATE
9
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
July 21, 2011
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years)
are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also
available on the web at: http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bill Holicky
Willa Johnson
Tim Plass
Danica Powell
Andrew Shoemaker, Chair
Mary Young
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
Aaron Brockett
STAFF PRESENT:
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Division Manager
Karl Guiler, Planner II
Chris Meschuk, Planner II
Robert E. Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Robert J. Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Coordinator
Joe Castro, Facilities and Asset Management
Abbie Poniatowski, Finance
Don Ingle, Information Technology
Jeff Dillon, Parks & Recreation
Annie Noble, Public Works / Utilities & Tributary Greenways
Joe Castro, Facilities and Asset Management
Mike Orosel, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Mike Patton, Director of Open Space and Mountain Parks
Molly Winter, DUHMD
Stephany Westhusin, Public Works / Transportation
Kim Hutton, Water Resources Specialist
Debbie Fox, Administrative Specialist III
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair, A. Shoemaker, declared a quorum at 6.08 p.m. and the following business was
conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by M. Young, seconded by T. Plass, the Planning Board approved 5-0 (W.
Johnson and A. Brockett absent) the May 24 2 Joint City Council/Planning Board
minutes.
10
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Public hearing and recommendation to City Council of an ordinance that proposes
amendments to Title 11, "Utilities and Airport" B.R.C. 1981 related to section 11-1-15,
"Out-of-City Water Service," B.R.C. 1981 and section 11-2-10, "Out-of-City Sewer
Service," B.R.C. 1981.
Staff Presentation
K. Guiler presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
No one presented to the board.
OL
Board Discussion
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by M. Young, the Planning Board recommended approval
(6-0, A. Brockett absent) of the changes to sections 11-1-15 "Out-of-City Water Service,"
B.R.C. 1981 and 11-2-10, "Out-of-City Sewer Services." B.R.C. 1981 to the City Council.
B. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council for Acceptance of the Water
Utility Master Plan
Staff Presentation
B. Harberg and S. Richstone presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
1. Billy Patton, 2770 Carnegie Drive- Asked the board to question staff on how the tier
structure could be minimized and instead be increased for higher users.
Board Discussion
There was no discussion.
On a motion by M. Young, seconded by D. Powell, the Planning Board approved (6-0, A.
Brockett absent) recommended acceptance of the WUMP to the City Council and approved the
proposed BVCP WUMP Master Plan Summary.
T. Plass commented that he found the information useful to learn and noted that Boulder's water
supply infrastructure is important.
11
C. Planning Board Public Hearing on the recommended 2012-2017 Capital Improvements
Program (CIP)
Staff Presentation
C. Meschuk presented the item to the board.
Public Hearing
1. Diane Curlette, 530 Hartford Drive, gave a history of the project and asked for support
for the development of the Mesa Memorial Pocket Park.
2. Billy Patton, 2770 Carnegie Drive, spoke in support of the Mesa Memorial Pocket Park.
Thanked the city for purchasing the property to preserve the use for a park.
3. Diane Ward, 798 Hartford Drive, spoke in support of the Mesa Memorial Pocket Park.
And noted that the children currently have to cross either Table Mesa or Broadway to get
to a park.
4. Phyllis Gunn, 860 Hartford Drive, spoke in support of the Mesa Memorial Pocket Park.
She provided pictures of the lot currently and noted that the community has raised money
to purchase picnic tables or other amenities.
Board Discussion
Parking lot at North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC)
The board unanimously agreed that expanding the parking lot at the NBRC is not necessary and
suggested a solution that incentivizes people to not drive to the center. D. Powell and B. Holicky
were concerned about the lease option that is costing tax payers money when the property is only
zoned for agriculture. T. Plass agreed and would like it removed from the CIP since it was voted
as such last year. A. Shoemaker proposed that this item be removed in a resolution that gives
transportation examples and provide options to address the parking issues, as previously stated.
M. Young would support the proposal.
Artificial Turf
T. Plass was concerned that replacing grass with artificial surface isn't environmentally friendly
and doesn't match the environmental goals of the community, but was willing to let the issue go
due to the fact no other board members agreed.
Greenways
W. Johnson questioned why the Greenways administration is funded under the CIP when other
boards are not. Staff responded that the majority of operating costs have been removed from the
CIP, and the remaining costs are directly associated with CIP project administration.
On a motion by T. Plass, seconded by W. Johnson, the Planning Board approved (6-0, A.
Brockett absent) recommended to City Council the 2012-2017 proposed Capital Improvements
Program, including the list of CIP projects to undergo a Community and Environmental
Assessment Process, as outlined in the staff memorandum dated July 21, 2011.
B. Holicky proposed a friendly amendment to remove the Longs Garden parking purchase from
the CIP. W. Johnson and T. Plass accepted the friendly amendment.
On a motion by A. Shoemaker, seconded by T. Plass, the Planning Board approved a resolution
(6-0, A. Brockett absent) that the City and City Council make the NBRC an example for the
cit gpproach to alternate mode transportation. In doing so it should explore creative solutions
12
to address the needs of all users, such as families, versus mere convenience, such as single
occupancy vehicle visitors.
7. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY
ATTORNEY
A. D. Driskell will give an update of the Energy Futures project at the next meeting under
Matters.
B. A. Shoemaker is recused from the September 1 meeting and W. Johnson will be
absent.
C. August 18t` will be a joint meeting with the Landmarks Board to review the Camera
building.
8. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK
A. The board found the transitions on the new Prezi presentation was tough
B. The board noted that the new sound system cuts out when board members turned
sideways.
C. In regards to the CIP, the board found that the paper version was easy, but the
bookmarking in the electronic would lend itself well to being electronic next year.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
APPROVED BY 4W
Board Chair
DATE
13
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Board
FROM: Jessica Vaughn, Planner I
DATE: July 26, 2011
Subject: Call Up Item: 809 Pine Street
SITE REVIEW for HEIGHT MODIFICATION CORRECTION
(LUR2011-00027) request for a detached garage to exceed the maximum
permited height for accessory structures in the RL-1 zone district (20 feet)
at 27 feet. This approval is subject to call-up on or before August 8, 2011.
Attached is the disposition of the approval for a Site Review for Height Modification
Correction (LUR20 1 1-00027). This request will increase the maximum permitted height
of the proposed detached garage to 27 feet, where the previous dispostion of approval
permitted a maximum height of 25 feet (see Attachment A, July 26, 2011 Planning
Board Notice of Disposition).
Existing Conditions:
809 Pine street is zoned Residential Low-1
(RL-1), which is defined as "Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to
veiy low residential densities" (section 9-5-
2 c 1 A , B.R.C. 1981. Currently, there _
is not a garage on the site.
809 Pine Street was designated as an A
individual landmark in 1977 as the - £ ` T t
Morrison-MacKenzie House. Located s 809 Pine Street
within the Mapleton Hill Historic District, 809 Pine Street is located at the northeast
corner of Pine and 8th Streets. The property
is comprised of 27,500 square foot lot that is
two to three times larger than the lots within
the same block.
Project Background:' ,.-lw~
Staff approved a Site Review for Height c'' f t
Modification on May 19, 2011 for the
construction of a 1.5-story, 912 sq. ft., two car garage in excess of the maximum
permitted height for accessory structures in the RL-1 zone district (20 feet). The
proposed garage did not exceed 25 feet as measured from the low point 25 feet away;
14 Agenda Item 4A Page 1 of 13
19'-7" from grade. Planning Board approved the project on June 2, 2011 with no
discussion.
Proposal:
The proposed request for Site Review for Height Modification Correction would permit
the proposed garage to exceed the maximum permitted height for accessory structures (20
feet) in the RL-1 zone district at 27 feet, where the previous disposition of approval
permitted 25 feet. The change in the height is a result of a misreported low point (please
refer to Attachment B, Applicant's Written Statement). The original approval utilized
5412.5 as the low point where the low point, now confirmed by a surveyor, is 5410.3.
The height of the garage from grade will not be impacted; it will remain 19'-7" and will
be comparable to that of the surrounding structures, which range in height from 12 feet to
20 feet. Please refer to Attachment C, Proposed Plan Set for a complete set of
drawings.
AWFALT 9WO" MCM
M.
13'-7" 19'-7" 26'-4"
IE LF .E705-H "CUM
}O'1 LAP W!" i KOOP Or. (""I 69SHAKA TO
I~IG@CR
X
~Q
RJ ewAVr
. ALLl7` r r--7
SOMALK 0154=7 ~
care. roa~ATea~ - - - ioac•
5mM6 TO EXTtM OVER e+WdE LeJ~ i`f4
awokoncom Tro, "M a
~4'-O"
6
RANEL DR[
Low Point 25' Awav (EL. 5410.3) + #V1
0 AEST ELEVr4TIUN
Public Comment and Process:
Upon receipt of the Site Review for Height Modification Correction request, staff mailed
notices to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property, as well as posting
signs on the property.
No communications were received from the residents of the surrounding neighborhood.
2
15 Agenda Item 4A Page 2 of 13
Conclusion:
Staff finds that this application meets the Site Review criteria set forth in Section 9-2-14,
B.R.C. 1981 (see Attachment D, Site Review Criteria) in terms of consistency and
compatibility with the existing zoning district and surrounding neighborhood.
This proposal was approved by staff on July 26, 2011 and the decision may be called up
before Planning Board on or before August 8, 2011. There is one Planning Board
meetings within the 14-day call up period on August 4, 2011. Questions about the
project or decision should be directed to Jessica Vaughn at (303) 441-4161 or
vaughnj La)bouldercolorado. gov.
Attachments:
Attachment A: July 26, 2011 Planning Board Notice of Disposition
Attachment B: Applicant's Written Statement
Attachment C: Proposed Plan Set
Attachment D: Site Review Criteria
3
16 Agenda Item 4A Page 3 of 13
Attachment A
CITY OF BOULDER
V IP114 Planning and Development Services
1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net
i4
AMENDED
CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION
You are hereby advised that the following action was taken by the Planning Department based on the
standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-2, B.R.C. 1981, as applied to
the proposed development.
DECISION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
PROJECT NAME: 809 Pine Street Accessory Structure Height Modification
DESCRIPTION: SITE REVIEW for HEIGHT MODIFICATION CORRECTION (LUR201 1-0002 7) request
to increase the maximum permitted height of the proposed detached garage to 27 feet,
where the previous dispostion of approval permitted a maximum height of 25 feet.
LOCATION: 809 Pine Street
COOR: N03W07
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 6-8, Block 152, Squires Addition to West Boulder,
County of Boulder, Sate of Colorado
APPLICANT: Brad and Holly Drevno
OWNER: Brad and Holly Drevno
APPLICATION: Site Review for Height Modification, LUR2011-00027
ZONING: RL-1
CASE MANAGER: Jessica Vaughn
VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: NO; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such right
under Section 9-2-19, B.R.C. 1981.
FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION.
Approved On: July 26, 2011
Date
By:
Da id Driskell, xecutive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability
This decision may be appealed to the Planning Board by filing an appeal letter with the Planning
Department within two weeks of the decision date. If no such appeal is filed, the decision shall be
deemed final fourteen days after the date above mentioned.
Appeal to Planning Board expires: August 8, 2011
IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A
SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED MYLAR PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE
MYLAR PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS
OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY
EXPIRES.
Address:1$09 Pine Street Agenda Item 4A Page 4 of 13
Pursuant to Section 9-2.12 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the applicant
must begin and substantially complete the approved development within three years from the date of final
approval. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-2-12) the development within three
years shall cause this development approval to expire.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Applicant shall ensure that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated
July 26, 2011, on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department, except to the extent that the development
may be modified by the conditions of this approval.
2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved use, except pursuant to subsection 9-2-15(h),
B.R.C. 1981.
3. The Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions contained in any previous approvals, except to the
extent that any previous conditions may be modified by this approval, including, but not limited to HIS2011-
00152.
4. The Applicant shall ensure that the garage shall not exceed the height of 27 feet as measured pursuant to
the methodology set forth in the definition for "Height" within section 9-16-1, "General Definitions," S.R.C.
1981.
AddressjC09 Pine Street Agenda Item 4A Page 5 of 13
Attachment B
Mistin lew"is
A r c h i t e c t s
July 13, 2011
Jessica Vaughn
Planner I
City of Boulder Planning Dept.
Re: 809 Pine Street (LUR2011-00027) Low Point Revision
Dear Jessica,
We appreciate all of your efforts in the Site Review for height exception on the proposed
accessory structure at 809 Pine Street. While reviewing the drawings for a building
permit submittal, it came to our attention that an error was made in the low point on the
documents that were approved by the Planning Board. The low point of 5412.5' on the
drawings dated May 13 , 2011 incorrectly remained from a previous design and location
for the proposed garage. The 25' arc on these drawings shows that the low point should
have been recorded as 5410.3' at the landmarks board approved location; however human
error did not allow us to pick up this change at the time of submittal for height exception.
The design and height of the garage relative to the immediate grade remains at +/-19'-7
3/4" from the grade to the garage peak. What will change with the low point revision is
the height of the garage relative to the low point 25' away from the building. When the
planning board approved a 25' height allowance for the garage, what they should have
been considering was a 27' allowance for the proposed structure. The drawings, dated
May 13th, 2011, previously reviewed by the Planning Board show the garage design as
being 26'-3 1/4" away from the low point of 5410.3as it should have been described.
Prior to the last submittal, Flagstaff Surveying was hired by the owners to give a
topographic survey of the north portion of the lot. This survey, dated February 22, 2011
was used on the May 13th drawings and it is clear on that survey that the low point should
have been noted as 5410.3'. In resubmitting these drawings to you and the Planning
Board, we are simply hoping to correct an honest mistake that negatively affects the
approved ht variance and landmarks approval for the proposed garage. Again, the design
of the garage has not changed. It is only the low point, which was incorrectly noted on
the May 131h plans as 5412.5' when it should have been shown as 5410.3', that we need
to revise. We apologize for this inconvenience and very much appreciate your assistance
in getting this corrected.
Sincerely,
Kristin Lewis
1928 1 &h St. #200
Boulder CO 80302
Phone 303 449.5747
Fax 303 447.2843
klarch@indra.com
19 Agenda Item 4A Page 6 of 13
Attachment C
i
Z
O
~ ~
w r
CURB ~ r
CUT
rn
pl ~ _
{ ~
~j rn~ ~ ~ N ~ ~
~ 51DEWALK p l.I~
163' U~ !I ~ ~
i ~ ~
i 6'- "H HE~E 1 1 <<, 1
i' 1 _ ~ Z
o ~ ~ ~ ~
rn
~ N ~ ~
z <a ~ ~
U► 1 rn~rn a j ~
Xi ~ \ ~ _D
~ Orn0/ « ~ ~ rnrn~ rnrn << ~ I I rn rn T T rn~ ~ -
I-
x OD r ~ ~ 0 ~ I~ ~ U -
cA~ A rn 0 ~ W
ar z r ~~z x ~ - rnrn ~ _ ~ ~ N ~ ' rn ~ ~ 0 0
Az I 0 .
J ~ rn 0 ~ ~ a
D ~ o r ~
,I l ~ ~ N ~ ~ I i ~ ~
x ~ ~ rn ~ ~ i ~ c ~ CIi ~ i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ I, ~
N ~ - ~ N \ o D o C y~ ~ O N p N
~ non ~ PQ U ~ 0 ~ cv
rn ~ ~ r z ~ rn D~ ~ ~ ~ - rn ~ ~W w~
o I~ `K ~ ~ . ~ ' wo
I~~ I v ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ b v ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 ,
t 1 II Q _141. -0 - d ~ i ~ p _24 ~'I _Q 1
i o o ryA _ y
a ti
~ 1~~ ~ N 1
~ ~ i
i
1 ~ N 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ( i ~
aDrz ~ I- ~ 1 - ~ rn ` ~ 0 1
rnzDO
~rzrn 0 D a ~D~.. r
NOy r z I~ rn rn ` I I ~I
~ 0 rn 0 A ~
zD~ 0 N a ~ ~ ~ 1
-u ~ a Drn~ z rn rn 1~ 1 ~ ~ 'i ~ \
zrn0 ~ ~ z z to ~ I l ,1
D ~ A - ~ ~ ' 1 -PI ~ ~ '
00~ rn - 0 4 0 V
rDD A ~ II ~I ~ 1
0 z -o rn ~rn~ N D i l ~ 1 ~ ~
~ } Sao a ~ rn - ~ ~ ~
z 0 (P
rnrn 0 ~ - - ~za rn ~rn ~ .a o I~ rn ~ -P .1,
i ~ ~
- ~ OJ ~z~ ~ ~ CP 1'
~ DO_ rn~
r ~ 3~ rata D~ ''s
~'zrn z 1'~
DN ~ ~ r- D rn 0 ~
4 z rn ~ 1
~0 ~ R~ 0 0 N ~ 1'', ' I N j
~ Orn
i ~ ~ ~ 1
= 0 rn (E) OVERHANG ~ ~z a ~ ~
~ ~
nj =D 6~ 1 - . I PQ~
~rn
0
z ~t ~ d
rn rn z
0 rn 1 ,1 ~1
rn ~r
DD z ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ~ ~
0 m
~ (J1 z _ - rn 1~1
~
~rn 0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~
r-
1 ~
~I
z 1 ~ 4~
I ll1__h
1 ~ P~ ~ ~
rn ~ ' F' ~ ~ ~
~
rn ~ 0 0
i
1
~ 1 0
-
20 Agenda Item 4A Page 7 of 13
i ~ BULK PLANE ~'-b 1 u 1 n 1 u
'_b' OFFr?~T ASPHALT 5HIN6LE RAOF, QFES~_T_ TYP.
V/
+119'-'1 I/2_ LINE OF EXI51TN6 HOUSE Z
GARAGE PEAK (5436.b7 < ROOF HT. 5434.05'); (NOTE: LOW POINT FROM 25' 12 i LINE OF EXISTING HC O .INE OF
EXISTING HOUSE ~
AWAY : 10. 'GARAGE HT 4r ~ ~T~4 NEW LAP SIDING' d ROOF HT. (5434.0! FROM LOW POINT= 26'-3 I/4" ELEVATION HT
SIMIALR TO (F~ ROOF HT. (5434.05') % ~ ~
Ih5'-I .I ` -I (5434.057 RESIDENGE,TYP. DORMER PLATE HT. i2 - W r
10~ ~ - ~ ~
;LOT LINE ®8TH STREET ~ - / m / ~ ~ ~
m I. _ ~ r- ~ I I z ~ a' - m a
1 41~_~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 109`_0° LOFT LEVEL 6 N I ~ ~ LOFT LEVEL+
i ~ ~ I / LOFT LEVEL / '11 ~ ~I
/ _ t + , ~
I ~
(EJ GRADE RE6RADE d D / ! (Fa HILL5IDE ! (E) GRADE ® ALLEY 5422.5') / ®ALLEY E ~ -I
GARAGE ~ (Fa GRADE ®RLLEY t
~ / 51DEWALK (~4`32b') SIDEWALK ~ ~
100'-0" ~ _ _ GARAGE LEVEL r - - - - ~~-0~ X100'-O' (5422H') ~ i f1 GARAGE
LEVEL (5417') 1.1 1
(541?') WOOD d 6LA55 / ~ GONG. FOUN6AtI0N-- bARA6E LEVEL (541'1) GRADE OVERHEAD GARRIA6E / 51DING TO EXTEND
OVER FOUNDATION TO WITHIN 6" 24'--~"
® GURB GUT ! STYLE GARAGE DOORS. OF GRADE, TYP. 41- GRAVEL DRIVE (5417A) NEW DRYSET STONE G D 0 T
LINE OF LOW POI~lT WALLS t LANDSGAPIN6 M 25' AWAY NEW DRYSET STONE
10. q4 0 $ NOTE: GARAGE 15 5ET BACK 24' - - (E) HOUSE FLDOR LEVEL WALL5 t LAND5GAPING
/ ~ (5411.05') FROM THE EXISITNG RE5IDENGE / 24'-7" 24'-011
t GRAVEL DRIVE/ TURNOUT Z
_24'_011 /
50UTH EL~~I,~TION WEST ~LEV;~ ~ L ~ Y '~T 101 `1 NOTE: bARAGE 15 5ET BACK 24' S~ G T O N ~ ~ FROM
THE EXI51TN6 RE5IDENGE
NOTE: GARAGE 15 5ET BAGK 24' FROM THE EXI51TN6 RE5IDENGE ~8" = I'-0" I~8" = '-0"
I 1. 4' III 41- II
INE OF EXI5TIN6 HOUSE U -
t ROOF HT. (5434.057 ~ ~
LINE OF EXI51TN6 HOU5E d ROOF HT. (5434.057 1
12 I _ p
~4 - -1 ~ # - = Ulf i ~ ~I z
r I' ~~i
~ ~ - ~ 10 104'-0" ~ _ c"' I 0 ~ ~
LOT LINE ®8TH STREET LOFT LEVEL ~ e' \ ' b o AO
\ ~ 109'_0" ~ p ~ N
- LOFT LEVELL \ \ -
~ NEW WOOD 5TAIR O SIR A )AL~ t ~ w W ~
51DEWALK W O
100'-0" SiEc6RADE_(EJ _ _ _ (EJ GRADE GARAGE LEVEL (5411.0') HILLSIDE (5422.57
~ D3 J ~ ~
® ALLEY d 51DEWALK (5422.57 Y~ - b U~
100'-0~ b = ~
GARAGE LEVEL (541'1') W DRYSET 570NE WALLS Q LANDSGAPIN6
U b D
24'-0" I 11 ~ J ~
~ ~ ~~O
Q ~m~
\ NOTE: GARAGE 15 5ET BACK 24'
I `~01 \T~ ~ ~ Y ~T 01 FROM THE EXI51TN6 RESIDENCE ~~C~T ~ ~ l ~L~V~TION
, _ _
~ ADJUSTED 50LAR SHAI _ - `D SOLAR SHADOW ANALY515 CHART SOq PINE MAIN LEVEL ®541?'+/-
RAE ELEVATION OF I . - PDINT WILDINb ELEMENT ELEVATION OF ELEVATION OF GRADE
RELATIVE HT OF LENGTH OF SHADOW BUILDINb ELEMENT a PROPERTY LINE BUILDING ELEMENT
~ ~ / ~ e 10 A.M. 54189' a 10 A.M. 18.5'
/ A 5436.6' 5436.6' a NooN 18.26' a NOON ® 2 P.M. 54169' • 2 PM. ]5b'
" ~ ~ I • 10 A,M, a 10 A.M. -
/ 6 not used = / ' nOt Used a NOON - • NOON e 2 P.M. 0 2 PM.
"i~~' , - ~ G 5435.25 e 10 A.M. 54185' • 10 A.M. 10.6' 5435.25' a NOON 15,95' a NOON
e 2 P.M. e 2 PM. e 10 A.M. - e 10 A.M. -
" . ~ , „ D not used not used a NooN - e NooN
i 6 -0 H FENCE " f . • 2 P.M, s Z PM. e 10 A.M. 5420.q' a 10 A.M. 1.q'
i - # (E) TREE E 5435.5' 5435,5' • NOON 14.6' o NOON • 2 P.M. 0 2 PM.
E / ~ e ID A.M. 5422b' 0 10 A.M. 2.6'
i= - 5435.5' ~ +j" I / ~ _ ~ ~ 5435.5' a NooN 12.q' a
NooN e 2 P.M. 5422b' e 7 PM. 2.6'
_ e 10 A.M. 0 10 A.M. 5434.1' a NooN 15.1' e NooN
I _ e 2 P.M. 541q.0' 0 2 P,M. 10.6' e 10 A.M. a 10 A.M.
i' ~ q- ~ ~ 5 - E H 5434.x' 5434.1' • NOON 15.1' a NOON e 2 P,M, 541q.0'
e 2 PM. 10.6'
e 10 A.M, • 10 A.M.
I ~ " - I 5434.6' 8 1 A 5434.6' e NOON 11.8' a NOON e 2 P.M. 5416b' e 2 PM. 15.9'
4--- - e 10 A.M. a 10 A.M. 5430.0' . NOON 10.5' • NOON
I W - ~ - ~ J 5430.0' • 2 P.M. 54195' 6 2 P.M. 2.6'
- " - = NOTE;
W ~ _ I. ALL POINTS NOT .L POINTS NOT SHOWN ON CHART ARE PQ~
I I i'~ UNDER 13' IN RELATI~ I - J 13' IN RELATIVE HT. ~
/ i ~ / c~ Y
I ~ J d
W - 24'-0" ~j
I G - 24'-Q" 13'-8 1/4" ~
I PR OS D G RAG 1
-J I ~ \19
- - I P ~ ~ I
RON GATE GONG. APRON - - ~ - I r~ ~ ~ I I
m ~ , l I I I i i i I I I I I I I ~ '
5 ~ - ~ 5 (E) CURB GUT ~ 4 I I I III I I I I I~-------- p
I I ~
~ U 8 DRIV 41~' - - U E (5 ) , ' ~ z II I ~ _ l~ _ _ _ ~ I ' i
f '-b" 24'-0" ~ p I ~ I - I I I LINE OF~ _ _ I I ~
f - - - a 1 _ _ 1 III ~ II I II a I STAIR ABV. d O I ~ ~ I ai ~
I I I
4 - - 5 _ GRAVEL ~ ~ ! ~ - - - ~ I ~ II j _I I ~ I
I I I I ~ ~ A~ 2- AR A I I I I I y,~/
DRIVE _ ryl N `~T FT I ~ I ~ I I y~ ~
NEW DRY 5ET STONE ~ - J ~ ~ _ ~ i ~ '~~_II'1n I I ~1_ n I ~
j~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ L.L-Y
RET. WALLS - - - I ~ - - - / _ - - E BRIGK PAVERS ( )
I - i ~ I TO REMAIN t ~ L I p~
J " 4~ LINE OF (E) BRIGK PATIO I I I ~ o0
\ ' Q ~ ~~a ~ S NEW GRAVEL / I I Q~
W DRIVE FOR ~ - ~ ~l> ~ ~ - , L I I ~ I I 1~ ~
I.J--I 1 I _ I I
LU VEHICLE TURN-OUT o L---------------- ----------------J
25 0 LOW POINT 5410.5
LU 16.8
EA A DENOTES HEIGHT 5' (GONG. APRON A50VE 6'
E RESIDENCE
ll~ n 16.5 NOTE:
-610 III I O II y I I- II
LANDMARK DRG HAS APPROVED THIS DE516N. z ~ L 1
LINE OF (E) GRAVEL AN LAG HAS BEEN GRANTED PENDING FINAL 4 24'-011
DRIVE _ DETAILS ON PAINT COLOR $ RET, WALLS..
SOLAR ANAL-l"515 GARAGF- FLAN LOFT PLAN
N hall =r-0, N 1/811=i~-o" N 1/811
21 Agenda Item 4A Page 8 of 13
Case LUR2011-00027
Attachment D
Project Name: 809 Pine Street Accessory
Structure Height Mod.
Date: April 27, 2011
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that:
(1) Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan:
Y (A) The proposed site plan is consistent with the purposes and policies of the
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
This application request is for the construction of an accessory structure, garage, for a single family
residence. The site is not only an individual landmark, but also within the Mapleton Hill Historic District.
The provision of the accessory structure will provide sheltered parking and storage on a site where the
amenity currently does not exist rendering the site more functional and livable as a residential use. The
location of the proposed garage utilizes an existing curb cut and drive so as not to fragment the useable
open space on the site and is located a significant distance away from the main house so as not to
encroach on the historic resource.
The proposal protects the existing and historic development pattern for accessory structures in the Mapleton
Hill Historic District, as well as is compatible in design, location and form to the historic character of the
existing landmark and site.
Comprehensive Plan Policies
2.12 Neighborhoods as Building Blocks
2.13 Preservation of Community Character
2.33 Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources
2.42 Enhanced Building Design for the Built Environment
Y (B) 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:
Y (i) The density permitted in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, or,
The BVCP land use designation is Low Density Residential and the zoning is RL-1
(Residential Low-1). As it exists today, the site complies with the maximum permitted
densities of the zone district (6.2 unit per acre) and the land use designation (2 to 6 units
per acre) with only 1 units or 1.6 units per acre.
N/A(C) The proposed development's success in meeting the broad range of BVCP
policies considers the economic feasibility of implementation techniques require to meet
other site review criteria.
Economic feasibility is not an issue as it only applies to the single home owner.
22 Agenda Item 4A Page 9 of 13
(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, and its physical setting. Projects should utilize site design
techniques which enhance the quality of the project. In determining whether this
Subsection is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors:
Overall, the development proposal places the proposed garage in the northwest, rear, corner of the site
where, historically, accessory buildings are found to be located, especially on large corner lots within the
Mapleton Hill Historic District. The location of the proposed garage preserves the backyard open space and
the historic character of the site as well as reinstates a historic condition.
Y (A) Open Space: Open space, including, without limitation, parks, recreation areas,
and playgrounds:
Overall, the development proposal, preserves the backyard area between the house and the
proposed garage, and maintains a general proportion of built mass to open space found within the
surrounding area.
Y (i) Useable open space is arranged to be accessible and functional;
Y (ii) Private open space is provided for each detached residential unit;
Y (iv) The open space provides a relief to the density, both within the project
and from surrounding development;
The location of the proposed garage on the site leaves the site open. It preserves the existing
rough proportion of building mass to open space.
Y (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;
There is 29' of separate between the proposed garage and the existing house.
N/A(vi) The open space provides a buffer to protect sensitive environmental
features and natural areas; and
N/A(vii) If possible, open space is linked to an area- or city-wide system.
N/A(C) Landscaping
Landscape improvements are not required nor proposed as part of this application request.
Y (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:
The transportation system (81h Street, Pine Street and the alley) that serves this property is existing. No
modifications to the existing roadways are being proposed with this application request. Additionally, the
proposal provides the required backing distance and turning radius on site to minimize vehicular and
pedestrian conflicts.
23 Agenda Item 4A Page 10 of 13
Y (E) Parking
The development proposal is to locate the proposed garage and driveway in the rear, northwest corner of
the lot. The garage will provide two sheltered parking spaces (where one parking space is required), as well
as the required backing and turning radius on site.
The parking area is proposed as gravel, which provides a more permeable surface that is more compatible
with the historic condition than concrete. Final details of the parking area will be worked out at the Ldre.
Y (F) Building Design, Livability, and Relationship to the Existing or Proposed
Surrounding Area
Overall, the proposed garage:
• Respects the traditional relationship of the main house to the accessory structures on large corner
lots within the Mapleton Hill Historic District;
• Preserves the functionality of the existing backyard open space by maintaining adequate
separation between the house and the proposed accessory structure;
• Maintains a general proportion of building mass to open space;
• Proposes historically appropriate paving materials;
• Maintains traditional parking location at the rear of the lot;
• Limits pedestrian and vehicular conflicts given the parking, turning radius and back distance are all
accommodated for on site;
• Is subordinate to the landmark house in mass, height and scale, but takes design cues from the
primary structure; and
• Is simpler in design and detail than the primary structure in terms of windows and materials.
Y (i) The building height, mass, scale, orientation, and configuration are
compatible with the existing character of the area or the character established by
an adopted plan for the area;
809 Pine Street is not only an individual landmark, but it is also within the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Of note, 809 Pine Street is the largest lot within a 500' radius with the exception of the
Mapleton Hill Elementary School that is adjacent to the north. 809 Pine Street is at least double
the size of all of the lots within the 800 block of Pine.
Accessory structures in near proximity to the site (500' radius) range in size from 260 sq. ft. to 816
sq. ft. The majority of the accessory structures in the vicinity are a single story, however it is not
uncommon to find 1.5-story accessory structures on larger lots within the Mapleton Hill Historic
District. Of those accessory structures in near proximity to the site, the majority are a single story
and they are all subject to a significant change in grade.
The proposed garage is a 1.5-story, 912 sq. ft. and 26.3' tall measured from a low point 25' away.
The height is a result of the grade change in the northwest rear corner of the lot. There is
approximately 11.5' of grade change from the rear property line to the low point (a distance of
roughly 49') equating to a 23% change in grade.
The height of the proposed garage measured from grade is 19'-7", which is more consistent with
the adjacent structures that range in height from 12'-6" to 20' tall according to City of Boulder
building permit records.
24 Agenda Item 4A Page 11 of 13
Given the historic evidence of an accessory structure of this size, location and height, and the size
of the lot, the proposed garage is consistent with not only the Historic Preservation Ordinance but
also Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines.
Y (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 for the immediate area;
The height of the proposed garage measured from grade is 19'-7", which is more consistent with
the adjacent structures that range in height from 12'-6" to 20' tall according to City of Boulder
building permit records.
Y (iii) The orientation of buildings minimizes shadows on and blocking of views
from adjacent properties;
The location of the proposed garage, being consistent with other accessory structures, located in
the rear of the lot, maintains a clear line of sight through the property north from Pine Street as well
as east and west from 81h Street.
The location of the proposed garage also minimizes the impacts of shadows on adjacent
properties. The grade change from the alley to the property will minimize cast to the north through
the alley. There are no adjacent properties to the west, so there will be no adverse impacts of the
shadows that are cast.
Y (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;
809 Pine Street is located within the Mapleton Hill Historic District and is an individual landmark.
The proposed garage, approved by the Landmarks Board, meets the historic district design
guidelines in that it:
• is subservient to the principle structure;
• is simplistic in materials and design; and
• is complimentary to the principle structure in that it takes design elements and
architectural features from the principle structure.
Y (v) Buildings present an attractive streetscape, incorporate architectural and
site design elements appropriate to a pedestrian scale, and provide for the safety
and convenience of pedestrians;
The location of the proposed garage, in the northwest corner of the site, is reflective of a historic
condition as evidenced by the 1890 Sandborn Maps, which indicates that a 540 sq. ft. structure
was once located on the property in the same location. Access to the site will be taken from 8th
Street and not the alley given the change in grade between the alley and 81h Street, which is
approximately 6'.
The proposed garage will face Pine Street so as to accommodate all of the parking, required
backing distance and turning radii required on site, which will limit the number of pedestrian and
vehicular conflicts.
25 Agenda Item 4A Page 12 of 13
Y (x) The project incorporates the natural environment into the design and
avoids, minimizes, or mitigates impacts to natural systems;
Although there are no major natural systems located on the lot, the proposed development does
take into consideration the existing topography and site conditions. Locating the garage in the
northwest corner of the lot minimizes the disruption on the site in terms of onsite useable open
space fragmentation and limiting paved drive surface by utilizing the existing drive and turnaround.
This location also utilizes the natural grade to minimize the visual impacts of the north and west
sides of the building, including bulk and mass, will be recessed into the grade.
Y (xi) 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.
Y (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:
The proposed garage faces south with a gabled roof on a north/south axis, which will maximize solar
energy, if so desired.
26 Agenda Item 4A Page 13 of 13
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Board
FROM: Katie Knapp, Civil Engineer, Floodplain and Wetlands Permitting
DATE: July 28, 2011
SUBJECT: Call Up Item: 3005 Arapahoe Ave.
Floodplain Development Permit (LUR2010-00035)
This decision may be called up before Planning Board on or before
August 11, 2011
A Floodplain Development Permit was approved by Planning and Development staff on
July 28, 2011. The project involves the construction of a replacement gas station facility
at 3005 Arapahoe Ave.
The proposed project includes constructing a one-story gas station building and
associated fueling pumps, parking areas and grading. The project site is within the flood
conveyance zone of Boulder Creek and the building structure will be elevated above the
flood protection elevation (2-feet above the water surface elevation of the 100-year
flood). The applicant completed a floodplain analysis that demonstrated that the project
will not adversely impact the floodplain or cause a rise in the floodwater elevation during
the 100-year flood event. A copy of the floodplain development permit is attached.
This floodplain development permit was approved by Planning and Development
Services staff on July 28, 2011, and the decision may be called up before Planning Board
on or before August 11, 2011. There is one Planning Board meeting within the required
14-day call-up period on August 4, 2011. Questions regarding this floodplain
development permit should be directed to Katie Knapp in Planning and Development
Services at 303-441-3273 or knappkL&bouldercolorado.gov.
Attachments:
A. Floodplain Development Permit
27 Agenda Item 413 Page 1 of 3
CITY OF BOULDER
Planning and Development Services
.4' 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791
phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-4241 • web boulderplandevelop.net
Land Use Review Floodplain Development Permit
Date Issued: July 28, 2011 Expiration Date: July 28, 2014
(Pursuant to Subsection 9-3-6(e), B.R.C. 1981)
Permit Number: LUR2011-00035
Contact Information
KING SOOPERS
65 TEJON ST
DENVER, CO 80223
Project Information
Location: 3005 ARAPAHOE AV
Legal Description: TRACT A KEITH MINOR SUB LESS. 017AC TO ROW - CHEVRON OIL (IM
PS ONLY LOCATED ON TRACT A ID 1498) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 003005
ARAPAHOE AV BOULDER
Description of Work: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT for the construction of a replacement
gas station in the flood conveyance zone.
Type of Floodplain Permit: Floodplain Review W/ Analysis
Creek Name: Boulder
Flood Protection Elevation: 5,273
Conditions of Approval
The proposed project/activity is approved on the basis that it satisfies applicable requirements of Chapter
9-3-3, "Floodplain Regulations," Boulder Revised Code 1981. Other floodplain requirements as set forth in
Chapter 9-3-3 which are not specifically outlined in the conditions of approval below remain applicable to this
project/activity.
Prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the applicant shall submit a top of foundation wall survey
elevation to the Planning and Development Services Center to verify that the finished floor elevation of the
structure will conform with the flood protection elevation requirement. This interim survey shall be
prepared by a professional Land Surveyor, registered and licensed in the State of Colorado.
Prior to final inspections being scheduled, the applicant shall submit an Elevation Certificate, prepared by
a Colorado registered land surveyor, certifying that the structure has been constructed at or above the
flood protection elevation. This certification shall be provided on a standard Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Elevation Certificate. (FEMA Form 81-31) No Certificate of Occupancy will
be issued for any structure where this provision has not been satisfied.
In accordance with the submitted plans, the building structure is to be constructed at or above the flood
protection elevation for this property.
Certification by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer that the development has been completed in
compliance with the approved permit application and that all conditions have been fulfilled must be
submitted to the City of Boulder prior to scheduling final inspections. No Certificate of Occupancy will be
issued for any structure where this provision has not been satisfied.
28 Agenda Item 413 Page 2 of 3
The applicant is required to submit as-built drawings and written documentation certifying that the
improvements have been constructed in conformance with all applicable flooplain regulations and this
floodplain development permit. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for any structure where this
provision has not been satisfied.
Inspections
To schedule an inspection, call 303-441-3280 and refer to your permit number (LUR2011-00035).
Rough Elevation Certificate
Final Elevation Certificate
Final Floodplain Inspection
29 Agenda Item 4B Page 3 of 3
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City
Council on the following proposed code changes downtown:
1. Add the option of a 1.0 floor area addition for non-residential uses in
conjunction with a housing linkage fee in the Downtown-5 (DT-5) zone
district, subject to Site Review.
2. Add a 65-foot supplemental setback from the centerline of the Canyon
Boulevard right-of-way in zone districts Public (P) and DT-5, from 9th to
16th Streets.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Community Planning and Sustainability
David Driskell, Executive Director
Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Charles Ferro, Land Use Review Manager
Louise Grauer, Senior Planner
Sam Assefa, Urban Designer
Molly Winter, Director, DUHMD/Parking Services
City Attorneys Office
David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney
Public Works
Maureen Rait, Executive Director
Tracy Winfree, Director of Transportation
Martha Roskowski, GO Boulder Program Manager
Chris Hagelin, Senior Transportation Planner
Bill Cowern, Traffic Operations Engineer
Housing and Human Services
Karen Rahn, Director
Andy Proctor, Manager Housing Planning
Michelle Allen, Housing Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this agenda item is for Planning Board to consider recommendations to City
Council on two code changes in the downtown, both of which were previously discussed by
Planning Board at the March 17 meeting. The draft ordinance is in Attachment A.
30 Agenda Item 5A Page 1 of 47
Currently, the base floor area (FAR) in the Downtown-5 zone district (DT-5) is 1.7 with two
floor area additions allowed: one for housing (.5) and one for parking (.5), or 1.0 FAR for
housing if the parking addition is not used. The maximum FAR in DT-5 is currently 2.7 and
is not proposed to be changed.
Planning Board and City Council adopted code changes downtown and changes to the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines on March 17 and May 3, 2011. Staff's original analysis
and recommendations in April 2010 identified the demand for additional Class A office
space downtown and suggested it be given equal consideration with housing.
This issue surfaced again in discussions related to the site redevelopment at 11th and Pearl. City
Council, at its May 3 meeting, directed staff to bring back a proposal for a floor area addition for
non-residential use in the DT-5 zone district as an option to the existing floor area addition for
residential use. The community benefit for this additional non-residential floor area would be a
housing linkage fee of $9.10 per square foot to be paid on the additional non-residential floor
area. The housing linkage fee was analyzed by TischlerBise in the Development Excise Study
2008 (See Attachment B). In addition, Council requested staff to come back with a proposal to
codify the 65 foot setback along Canyon Blvd from 9th to 16th Streets that was adopted by
Planning Board and City Council in the Guidelines. (See
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com content&vlew=article&id=14191<e
mid=260 for the revised minutes of the May 3 City Council meeting.)
The analysis of the proposed change shows the following:
• Through build out, there could be an additional 440,000 square feet of non-residential
floor area: estimated to be 120,000 square feet in the next 5 years (2012-2016); 160,000
square feet in the 2017-2021 period and 159,389 square feet after that.
• Through build out there could be an additional approximate 2000 trips per day resulting
from the additional non-residential floor area.
• The proposed change could result in a reduction in additional housing units downtown,
from an estimated potential of 240 additional units to a potential 92 additional units.
• The proposed linkage fee could generate approximately $7.7 million in affordable
housing funds through build-out, which is $3.5 million less than what might be generated
under the existing Inclusionary Housing (IH) in-lieu fee option if and when new units are
added downtown.
• Economically, the potential incremental increase in commercial space downtown could
generate (at build-out) an additional $5.5 million per year in employee spending;
$190,000 per year in new sales tax revenues; $51,000 per year to CAGID at build-out;
and $43,000 to the Business Improvement District (BID).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following:
1. Allow up to a 1.0 floor area addition above the 1.7 base FAR in the DT-5 zone district for
non-residential uses subject to a housing linkage fee ($9.10 per square feet of additional
31 Agenda Item 5A Page 2 of 47
floor area). (Section 9-8-2 Floor Area Ratio Requirements for DT-5, and 4-20-62
Affordable Housing Impact Fee, B.R.C. 1981)
Rationale: This is the same structure and format of the existing residential floor area
addition in the code for housing in the DT-5 zone. The maximum FAR of 2.7 would not
change, so the maximum potential mass and bulk of future development in DT-5 is not
being changed. The additional flexibility will allow the market to respond to a critical
need in the downtown, while the linkage fee will create a community benefit in the
affordable housing fund.
2. Add a 65-foot setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right-of-way from 9th
to 16th Streets for properties in the P or DT-5 zone districts. (9-7-1 Setbacks and 4-20-62
B.R.C. 1981).
Rationale: This change was adopted in the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (March
17 and May 3). By placing the setback in the code, it is established as a consistent
requirement.
BACKGROUND
As part of the downtown code and South of the Downtown Area (SoDa) meetings, Planning
Board and Council had several discussions about community benefit for additional floor area.
Staff had included a list of potential community benefits in exchange for the additional
nonresidential floor area in DT-5:
• Cultural or artistic floor area (percentage of the lot area)
• Publicly accessible open space: such as at-grade plazas, courtyards or rooftop spaces
(percentage of the lot area)
• Commercial Linkage Fee for nonresidential floor area (See Attachment B,
Affordable Housing Excise Tax, TischlerBise, 2008)
Although there was support for these other community benefits, the only one that can be
implemented in a timely manner is the housing linkage fee since it has already been analyzed by
TischlerBise. The other potential community benefits listed above would have to be further
analyzed to establish the necessary nexus.
Planning Board and City Council both adopted the 65-foot setback from the centerline of the
Canyon Boulevard right-of-way (ROW) in the Guidelines. The setback included the option of an
arcade condition, where the first floor is setback 65 feet from the centerline of Canyon, and
upper stories would overhang the first floor setback from a range of 12 to 15 feet. City Council
agreed with the urban design vision for the public realm focused on the south side of Canyon but
wanted it to be part of a larger study from 9tti to 16th Streets which would include city-owned
property and the area of the Farmers Market. By codifying the 65-foot setback, the ability for
future streetscape enhancements along Canyon Boulevard would be preserved. The setback
would only apply to properties along Canyon Blvd which are redeveloping.
The following meetings were held since the May 3 City Council meeting:
32 Agenda Item 5A Page 3 of 47
• Notification of the proposed code changes mailed to property owners adjacent to Canyon
Boulevard.
• A follow-up meeting with the Downtown Boulder Inc (DBI) policy committee July 27.
• Design Advisory Board (DAB) met July 13 and discussed the proposed code changes.
(Draft notes from the meeting in Attachment C.)
• Met with three downtown boards at a joint meeting on June 8: DBI, Downtown
Management Commission (DMC), and the Business Improvement District Board (BID)
• Met several times with the property owner of 1580 Canyon.
ANALYSIS
1. Change to the DT-5 Zone District
Currently in DT-5 there is a 1.7 base floor area ratio (FAR) which can be used for either
residential or non-residential uses. In addition, there is a potential .5 floor area addition for
residential uses and a potential .5 floor area addition for parking uses, or 1.0 floor area addition
for residential uses if the parking bonus is not used. The proposal is to mirror this DT-5
requirement: there would be a .5 floor area addition for non-residential uses or 1.0 floor area
addition for non-residential uses if the parking bonus is not used in conjunction with a housing
linkage fee for the additional FAR. The maximum FAR (2.7) would not change.
The analysis of the potential addition to the DT-5 zone district to allow non-residential floor area
in conjunction with a housing linkage fee and the impacts to the economy, the affordable housing
program, parking services, and access to downtown are described below.
Core Project Principles
➢ Respond to the changing needs of Boulder's downtown core to ensure that downtown
remains a vibrant center of the city's economic, cultural and social life.
➢ Respond to the expressed community need for more and better office space in the downtown
core.
➢ Acknowledge the market realities of delivering "market rate affordable" housing units in the
downtown core given its high land prices (absent a high level of public subsidy).
➢ Recognize the value of downtown to the community at-large as well as to the community of
downtown businesses, residents and property owners.
➢ Address the needs and desires of the surrounding neighborhoods in terms of transportation
impacts.
➢ Ensure adequate and balanced access to downtown by all modes of travel.
Data Analysis
An update of existing and future estimated development in all of the CAGID area is scheduled to
be completed in 2011. Since the change to DT-5 is being considered now, the initial analysis has
focused on additional projected development and corresponding trip generation in the DT-5 zone
which is the downtown's highest density zone district. Projections and analysis for all of the
CAGID area are anticipated to be completed within the next several months, including a parking
study of existing supply and demand of parking downtown and projected parking demand based
on development projections.
33 Agenda Item 5A Page 4 of 47
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) intensity in DT-5 would remain at the current 2.7 for either
the residential or nonresidential option. Most of the projects developed in the DT-5 zone district
in the last ten years, however, have developed at a lower intensity than 2.7 and we would expect
this trend to continue because of the physical and regulatory constraints of each site, including
the provision of open space, setbacks, and parking access. See the diagram in Attachment D for
the existing FARs of projects on the north side of Canyon Blvd in the DT-5 zone district.
Projections
The RRC report on development projections is included in Attachment E. In summary, under
the existing zoning, through build-out, an additional 1.01 million square feet of development is
projected, approximately 550,000 square feet of nonresidential space, and 460,000 square feet of
residential space. The incremental commercial space under existing zoning is projected to house
between 1,673 and 1,880 employees, depending on the employment intensity assumptions
utilized. Employment will vary over time depending on market conditions. The incremental
residential space is projected to result in approximately 240 residential units.
This compares to 1.17 million square feet of development projected with the proposed DT-5
zone change, including approximately 990,000 square feet of commercial space, and 180,000
square feet of residential space. Under the proposed change to DT-5, the projected incremental
commercial space, 990,000 square feet, could house between 2,240 and 3,160 employees and the
incremental residential space is projected to result in approximately 92 residential units. The
differences in development projections between the existing residential FAR policy and the
proposed non-residential option are shown in the table in the report in Attachment E.
Economy
➢ What are the potential economic benefits to the downtown of the proposed DT-5
changes?
The additional property tax revenues to the Business Improvement District (BID) based on
the proposed change and the additional non-residential uses, could add an estimated $43,115
annually by build-out, and to CAGID, an estimated additional $50,814. A survey from June
2011 showed that downtown employees spend an average of $86 per week in restaurants and
shops. The increase in the number of employees downtown will have a positive impact for
downtown businesses and corresponding sales tax revenues. By 2022, the total incremental
expenditures could be $5.5 million annually with the resulting incremental annual sales tax
revenues of $190,000.
➢ What would be the potential economic benefits to the community at-large?
• Provide additional Class A office space to the Boulder commercial market. This market
is limited and has a low vacancy rate, particularly in downtown Boulder. There are
currently very few options for large floor plate office space in downtown Boulder.
• Increase the likelihood of retaining existing Boulder primary employers, particularly
those that are seeking Class A space or that prefer a central Boulder location. In some
cases, these employers are choosing space in other communities in Broomfield and
Boulder counties or elsewhere in the region and country because they cannot find
34 Agenda Item 5A Page 5 of 47
adequate choices in Boulder (especially those seeking upgraded or newer space).
Business retention and expansion is a key goal of the city's economic vitality program.
• Attract new start-up and mid-stage primary employers to the downtown area and to
Boulder. These companies could support and strengthen Boulder's key industry clusters
(aerospace, bioscience, IT/tech, clean tech, natural/organic products, and outdoor
industry) and add to the community's "entrepreneurial density."
• Taxes and fees generated by primary employers and employees benefit the Boulder
economy and the city of Boulder, supporting services for the Boulder community.
Primary employers often pay high wages in a wide variety of industry sectors. The
companies pay taxes directly to Boulder and their employees patronize Boulder
restaurants and shops, which also generates tax revenues.
Access
➢ What would be the additional potential access demands that could result from this
change?
There are a number of reasons why downtown is an appropriate location for additional class
A office space. From a policy perspective, the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)
identifies the "historic downtown as the community's hub of economic, civic, cultural and
social activity. It provides specialty shopping and restaurants, a center for civic activities, a
central place for professional offices and banking, spiritual and educational facilities and an
active area for the arts."
The Downtown is also well-served by transit service and bike share programs. Commercial
employees and residents have the highest mode share for alternative travel modes-bus, bike,
and car pool-of any area in Boulder. For employees it is 63 percent. With such a high mode
share, although additional employees downtown will create additional demand for parking
and additional traffic impacts, these impacts would be much less than the same amount of
new commercial development located elsewhere in the city. The alternative mode share for
residents, at 73 percent, is twice the city-wide residential mode share due to the proximity to
transit and walkable destinations.
The preliminary transportation analysis from Fox Higgins is included in Attachment F. The
increase in incremental trips per day at build-out, based on the change to the DT-5 zone
which would provide the option of office development on the upper floors, is approximately
2000 additional trips per day. This trip generation number is based on the very high mode
share for employees downtown. The downtown street grid is adequate to accommodate these
additional trips without significant additional impact.
Expanded and/or new transportation demand management (TDM) programs which will
incentivize alternative travel modes and reduce the impacts of additional auto trips are being
considered:
• Eco Pass programs;
• Car share and bike share programs;
35 Agenda Item 5A Page 6 of 47
• Additional transit service, and improvements to 14th and Walnut RTD transit station,
which could include a new bike station; and
• US 36 bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements due to arrive by mid 2015.
Management of parking supply and price are also critical to maintaining and increasing the
downtown's alternative mode share in light of the DT-5 zoning changes. The following
strategies are being considered to reduce long term parking demand: increasing the price of
parking, unbundling parking, using variable- priced parking, and developing joint shared use
of parking. These and other strategies will be discussed further for the downtown following
completion of the 2011 parking utilization survey. Also, site specific TDM and parking
management strategies will be considered through the site review process.
Housing
➢ How many potential new housing units might result from the existing FAR bonus policy
in the downtown core?
Table 1 in the RRC report (Attachment E) shows 240 residential units projected at build out
under the existing zoning, with an average unit size of 1650 square feet. This is based on the
assumption of an overall average FAR of 2.3. This projection assumes approximately 46
percent of all incremental development will be residential. Currently, residential development
represents 14 percent of the total existing downtown development. In the December 2008
analysis of downtown residential development by staff, 233 units were projected at 50
percent residential, very similar to the RRC report. At 75 percent residential, the 2008 study
projected 355 units.
The analysis by RRC of the proposed FAR policy change to DT-5 assumes continued but
lower levels of residential development downtown, creating an additional 92 units through
build-out.
➢ What might be the total potential contributions to the city's affordable housing
program under both the existing policy and proposed new policy?
In the first ten years of the Inclusionary Housing (IH) program, very few affordable units
were created in the DT-5 zoning area. This is due to the high cost of land for development
and the economic calculations developers make in order to recoup the costs of their land
investment.
Since 2000 when both the downtown residential floor area bonus and IH were put in
place, 142 housing units were built in the downtown area. Twelve of these replaced
existing units and as such had no affordable housing requirement for a total 130 new
units. Inclusionary housing required 26 affordable units. Of these, half, or thirteen
would be expected to be built on-site. Of the thirteen, four were built on-site, three
single family homes were provided off site, and for six units, the developer contributed
cash-in-lieu plus an additional 50% for an affordable unit required on-site but not
provided on-site. Developers contributed cash-in-lieu at the standard rate for the
remaining 13 required affordable units.
36 Agenda Item 5A Page 7 of 47
The comparison of an FAR addition for residential use with the corresponding cash-in-lieu
(CIL) and an FAR addition for office use with the corresponding housing linkage fee shows
that the city would receive more funding from the residential use. However, under either
scenario less residential development is projected overall in the DT-5 zone in the next five
years or so.
Analysis
Analysis was performed on two prototypical projects downtown to test the scenarios that
may result using the following assumptions: Scenario 1: No change to the current code for
DT-5 (IH); and Scenario 2: A mix of office and residential, based on the development
assumptions in the RRC report, applying IH to the additional residential floor area and a
linkage fee to the additional commercial floor area. Additionally, this level of analysis was
performed across all development as projected in the DT-5 zone district in the RRC report
(Appendix E).
Prototypical project 1 is a lot of 21,500 square feet with a small existing building, and project
2 is a 41,500 square foot vacant lot. The results of this analysis are represented in the
following table:
Proposed Change to DT-5: Comparison between Residential and non-
Residential
Community Benefit - Cash
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Variance
Residential Non-residential
Addition (No Change) Addition
Complete $11,185,000 $7,721,000 ($3,463,000)
DT-5 Area
Prototypical $486,400 $349,200 ($137,800)
Project 1
Prototypical $619,600 $354,900 ($264,700)
Project 2
Affordable housing benefit is realized in either units or cash-in-lieu of units. In the
downtown, few affordable units have been created due to the high cost of land for
development and the economic calculations developers make in order to recoup the costs of
their land investment. Consequently, the proposed change would have a neutral impact on the
production of affordable residential units downtown. Most downtown projects contribute
cash-in-lieu of units to meet their IH requirements. Community benefit in the form of cash
contributions to the affordable housing fund are expected, although they would be at a
reduced level with the proposed change.
Summary
As community benefit programs in the form of either a commercial linkage fee or IH would
operate in parallel to each other, staff feels that adding a community benefit standard for non-
residential development in the DT-5 zoning district will provide developers an alternative
37 Agenda Item 5A Page 8 of 47
manner in which to develop their properties, while at the same time capturing adequate
community benefit for the Affordable Housing Program.
Development Feasibility
➢ What would be the relative development feasibility for housing vs. commercial space
under the existing and proposed FAR bonus options?
The research detailed below indicates that with all things being equal, modifications to the
density bonus to allow class A office space is likely to result in more commercial and less
residential development in the DT-5 zone. This conclusion assumes that the only factor under
consideration by a developer is the cost to comply with community benefit requirements, and
does not include other factors such as current housing or office demand, costs of construction
or developer return on investment.
Cost
In Boulder, the cost of development is higher for residential versus commercial development,
due partially to the Inclusionary Housing (IH) requirement that 20% of units in any given
residential development be provided in satisfaction of IH requirements (including the option
of paying cash in lieu of providing units) and due to the residential parking requirement. In
comparison, changes contemplated to the DT-5 zoning district anticipate that for commercial
developments, a linkage fee of $9.10 per square foot will be applied to the additional floor
area portion of the project. .
Financing
As capital markets around the country have experienced dislocations over the past several
years, the availability of capital has been constrained for multifamily residential
developments. Bank financing for these projects is typically now only accessible to the most
solid developers with proven track records; therefore very few residential developers will
qualify for financing.
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a branch of the federal Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) is currently one of the nation's largest lenders for
multifamily rental developments. Due to the number of projects in Boulder that are FHA-
approved, as well as those funded by other means, the FHA is unlikely to finance a
multifamily rental project in Boulder until existing FHA-funded rental projects have been
leased-up. HUD does see Boulder as a market opportunity in part because of its low
unemployment rates as well as a decline in vacancy rates and an increase in average monthly
rents, but would likely delay approval of the finance of any new projects until existing
projects are adequately leased up.
Financing for commercial projects remain similarly constrained at present. While some banks
are willing to provide financing, those qualifying are often those with the least need for bank-
offered financing.
Vacancy
Commercial
Chris Boston with Gibbons-White Inc. reported that there is very little availability of office
suites of more than 7,000 square feet in size, which can pose a challenge for companies
looking to move downtown. (Boulder County Business Report, June 24, 2011) The
38 Agenda Item 5A Page 9 of 47
Newmark Knight Frank/Frederick Ross First Quarter 2011 Boulder Market Report states that
the market ended the year 2010 with flat absorption. While the first quarter of 2011
experienced a slight decline, the forecast is for moderate improvement over 2010, with
leasing activity steady throughout the balance of the year and slight increases in rental rates
expected later in the year. Additionally, the Downtown submarket continues to demand the
highest rental rates among the seven Boulder submarkets.
Residential-Rental
Rental vacancy rates throughout Boulder remain extremely low, at 3.5% excluding the
University Hill area according to the latest available data from the Colorado Division of
Housing (01 Quarter 2010). Nonetheless, due to the high costs of land and the high costs of
construction downtown the likelihood of rental housing development in the DT-5 area is
considered low, at least in the short term.
Residential-For Sale
While the exact number of residential for-sale units on the market fluctuates in the DT-5
area, the Boulder Multi Listing Service (MLS) indicates a number of unsold units with prices
below $2 million. With unsold for-sale units in the area, funding for construction of
additional units may be difficult to obtain.
Transaction Volume
According to Micah McKee with AIP Commercial Real Estate in a letter written to Sean
Maher of Downtown Boulder Inc. in June 2011, the total transaction and dollar volume for
building dealings within the Boulder Business Improvement District (BID) has decreased, as
with the rest of Boulder County. Within the Downtown BID, there was a drop in transaction
volume by 98 percent in four years, from roughly $22.5 million to $400,000. Office
Condominium transactions have performed better from a low of three transactions (2008) to
a high of ten transactions (2010). Seven projects were completed in the downtown area
between December 2007 and June 2011, adding 72,585 new square feet of office, retail and
miscellaneous to the District. He noted that the demand for office space is substantially
greater than retail space.
Summary
Construction funding remains constrained for development of new units in the residential or
commercial categories. While financing may be obtained in either category, the terms may be
prohibitive, or available only to the most well capitalized borrowers.
Vacancy rates for rental housing throughout Boulder remain at extremely low levels, though
land costs and the availability of financing point to difficulty in the development of rental
housing in the downtown area. Difficulties in obtaining financing due to dislocations in the
commercial real estate banking area as well as indications of unsold units downtown point to
a small likelihood of condominium development in the DT-5 zone in the near term. While
financing constraints also exist in the market for commercial real estate construction loans,
there appears to be a shortage of larger-sized commercial space downtown. The market for
downtown commercial space is also expected to improve moderately, and the demand for
office space downtown appears to be stronger than for retail space.
39 Agenda Item 5A Page 10 of 47
While all categories of development thus appear to have present constraints, allowing a floor
area addition for Class A office space in the DT-5 zoning district is expected to increase the
relative attractiveness of this development alternative and provide needed flexibility for
developers. Additionally, if the cost of compliance with Boulder's community benefit
priorities is compared between IH on residential projects and a linkage fee on commercial
projects, the linkage fee cost is projected to be less on a project by project basis.
A reduced cost for complying with community benefit standards for development of Class A
office space downtown should increase the relative attractiveness of this type of development
option, while still providing resources to the Affordable Housing Program in support of the
City's affordable housing goals.
DT-5 Code Options
The options for changes to DT-5 include the following:
1. No change to DT-5.
Pro: No change, no additional impacts to parking and traffic downtown.
Con: Does not provide additional class A office space downtown and related economic
benefits.
Does not provide additional benefit to the affordable housing program if
residential development does not occur.
2. Change DT-5 to allow a maximum floor area addition of .5 for non-residential uses in
conjunction with a housing linkage fee.
Pro: Would result in half of the projected future increment of the development in the
build-out analysis and fewer impacts-- number of employees and average trips per
day.
Con: Would not provide the additional amount of class A office space downtown and
related economic benefits.
3. Change DT-5 to allow a maximum floor area addition of 1.0 for non-residential use in
conjunction with a housing linkage fee.
Pro: Would provide the maximum amount of new class A office space downtown and
related economic impacts.
Con: Would generate approximately 2000 additional average trips per day which could
result in increased traffic.
2. Codifying 65 foot Supplemental Setback from the Centerline of Canyon Boulevard
Between 9th and 16th Streets
Purpose
As part of the adopted changes to the downtown zone districts and to the Cnsidelines
approved by Planning Board and City Council (March 17 and May 3, 2011), a 65- foot
setback from the centerline of the Canyon Boulevard right-of-way and corresponding
conceptual streetscape for the public realm were adopted in the Guidelines. Council
requested that the Canyon supplemental setback be codified in order to preserve the right-of-
way for future design options along Canyon Boulevard. A comprehensive urban design
40 Agenda Item 5A Page 11 of 47
approach for Canyon Boulevard from 9`h to 16th Streets is planned to be part of a future larger
civic center master plan effort.
Council requested staff to codify 65-foot Canyon setback now in order to preserve the
Canyon Boulevard public realm for the future enhancements/ improvements based on the
completion of the larger study. Council requested that staff identify properties affected by
this code change. Staff has been working with property owners who have projects on Canyon
Boulevard to help identify maximum developable floor area while preserving this 65- foot
setback on the first floor.
The urban design vision for Canyon Boulevard as stated in the Guidelines is:
Canyon Boulevard and Broadway accommodate large volumes of traffic moving
through the downtown. Streetscape features should be designed to buffer pedestrians
from traffic impacts, provide greater building setbacks and detached sidewalks with
planting strips between the sidewalk and curb. In areas with detached sidewalks, well
designed landscaping and street trees should be provided. On Canyon Boulevard, the
use of landscaped median strips and pedestrian safe zones should be designed to
minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. (Guidelines, pages 40 and 65.)
Design of the Public Realm
In order to preserve the future opportunity to implement a vision for the public realm along
Canyon, a minimum setback was adopted in the Guidelines. An analysis of the proposed
Canyon Boulevard streetscape has determined that 65 feet is the minimum setback from the
centerline of the right-of-way needed to preserve the opportunity for the future vision for
Canyon Boulevard.
An example of an enhanced Canyon streetscape that could be implemented in the proposed
setback given the high hazard flood implications where no additional parking would be
allowed is shown on the following page. The drawing to be included in the Guideline shows
the design of the public realm along Canyon Boulevard and an arcade design on the south
side of Canyon which would allow the second story and above to project from 12 to 15 feet
over the first floor setback, including the supporting columns.
41 Agenda Item 5A Page 12 of 47
Canvon Blvd. Looking East
--r-___~-/
B r7T
YKct ~ ` -15~r
6 5' 6
Canyon Boulevard 65' Suplemental Setback
DAB had a number of questions about the details of the arcade condition and about feasible
first floor uses. Staff will come back with additional information about uses, design details,
examples of arcades, and other details as part of a civic center master plan. (See the draft
notes from the DAB meeting in Appendix C.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will take Planning Board recommendations on the proposed code changes for City Council
consideration and action. The First Reading of these code changes in the downtown is currently
scheduled for the Sept. 6 City Council meeting and the public hearing and Second Reading on
September 20.
Approved B
D 'd Driskell, Ex u i irector
Department of Community Planning and Susfainability
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft ordinance
B. TischlerBise Analysis of the Housing Linkage Fee
C. Draft notes of DAB meeting July 13
D. FAR diagram
E. RRC Report
F. Fox Higgins Report
42 Agenda Item 5A Page 13 of 47
Attachment A
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "LAND USE CODE",
B.R.C. 1981, TO IMPLEMENT THE DOWNTOWN URBAN
3 DESIGN PLAN, AMENDING THE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR CANYON BLVD, MODIFYING THE
4 FLOOR AREA RATIO STANDARDS IN THE DT-5 ZONING
DISTRICT AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
5
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
6
COLORADO:
7
8
Section 1. Section 9-8-2 (e)(3), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9
9-8-2 Floor Area Ratio Requirements.
10
11 (e) District-Specific Standards:
12
(3) Maximum Additional _Floor Area_ in DT-_
13 In the DT-2 district, the maximum additional floor area consisting of
either residential floor area, parking within the principal building or detached garages that
14 is not included in the FAR calculation is 0.5 FAR.
15 (B) In the DT-5 district, the maximum additional floor area that can be added to the Base
FAR in Table_ 8-2 shall be a floor area ratio of 1.0. Each component of the additional
16 FAR shall not exceed the maximum FAR additional components listed in Table 8-2. To
be eligible for the non-residential floor area. prior to an Mication for bui~erm t
17 the applicant shall a- the housin lg inka e fee in section 4-20-62. B.R.C. 1981 for each
square foot of additional floor area above the base floor area ratio.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RTLZO\o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
I Section 2. Section 9-8-2, "Floor Area Ratio Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, Table 8-2, is amended to read:
2 TABLE 8-2: FLOOR AREA RATIO ADDITIONS
3 DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 NIU-1 11IU-2 MU-3 XI BT-2 BMS IS-1/2 IG IM
INIS BR-1 (c)
Base FAR 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.7 I 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 12.0(d) 0.5 0.67 ' 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 n/a
4 Maximum total FAR 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Fii/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
additions (FAR)
5 FAR addition components: 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 A31.0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a r>/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1) Residential floor area ro>
6 (FAR)
2) Residential floor area if at n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.07 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
least 35% of units are
7 permanently affordable and
at least 50% of total floor
area is residential (FAR)
8 3) Residential floor area for n/a n/a rt/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.33 rt/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
a project NOT located in a
9 general improvement district
that provides off-street
parking
10 4) On-site parking provided 0.5 0.5 0.5 n/a 0.5 Not Not Not n/a n/a Not Not Not Not Not n/a
entirely within the principal counted counted counted counted counted counted counted counted
structure, or above grade
11 parking structure
5) Below grade area used for Not Not Not Not Not n/a 11/a n/a n/a Not Not n/a l n/a n/a n/a l n/a
12 occupancy counted counted counted counted counted counted counted
6) Nonresidential floor area n/a &a n/a n/a 1.0 ro~ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
13 kAR~see_subsection 9-8-
2(e)(3) and subsection 4-20-
62. Table 4)
14 Maximum allowable FAR 2.0+ 2.0+ 2.7+ 2.2+ 2.7+ 0.67+ 0.6+ 1.0+ 2.0+ 0.5+ 1.0+ 0.5+ 0.5+ 0.4+ 0.6+ 4.0
(sum of base plus all row 5 row 5 row 5 row 5 row 5 row 4 row 4 rows 4 row 4 row 5 rows 4 row 4 row 4 row 4 row 4
15 available additions) above above and _5 above above and 5 above above above above
above above
16
17
18
19 K:\PLZO\o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
20
I Footnotes:
2 (a) FAR up to 1.85:1 if property is located in a general improvement district providing off-street
parking.
3 (b) Maximum 1.0 if other additional floor areas are par-king used. Additional floor
4 areas may b_e_c_ombmed, but_shall _not exceed the 1.0 maximum floor area limit.
(c) See subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(2)(J), B.R.C. 1981.
5
(d) The maximum amount of floor area for nonresidential uses is .5 of the total floor area. This
6 floor area may be increased to .75 of the total floor area if the standards in subsection 9-8-2(e),
"District-Specific Standards," BR. C. 1981, have been met.
7
(e) n/a: not applicable.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RTLMo-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
1
2 Section 3. Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981jable 7-1, is amended to read:
3 Table 7-1: FORM AND BULK STANDARDS
4 BT-1
BC
5 BR
IS-1 DT-1
A RH-2 RL-1 IS-2 RM-3 DT-2
Zoning RR- RR-2 RH-5 RM-2 IG RL-2 RH-1 RH-3 BMS DT-3 MU-2
6 District 1 RE P RMX-1 BT-2 IM RM-1 RH-4 MU-1 RH-6 RMX-2 RH-7 BCS MU-3 MU-4 DT-5 DT-4 Ims MH
7 Form l F F p 4
module a b c d e f FG It
Fi k 1 F. u o r s
- -F
8 SETBACK AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS
Principal Buildings and Uses
9 Minimum 25-=00 20' 15' 10' 0'=(k) See section 9-7-
front yard 13
landscaped
1 o setback
(e)(h)
11 Minimum 25'-(k) 20' 20' 20' 10' 20-A) See section 9-7-
front yard 13
setback for
all covered
12
and
uncovered
parking
13 areas
Maximum n/a n/a n/a 10' n/a n/a 10' 15' nn/a 10' nn/a
14 front yard k(k)
landscaped
setback for
15 corner lots
and side
yards
16 adjacent a
street
17
18
19 K:\PLZO\o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
20
1 Maximum n/a n/a n/a 15' n/a n/a 15' 15' ti/a 15' ii/a
front yard
landscaped
2 setback for
an interior
lot
Minimum 25' 12.5' 15' 10' 1' per 0' or 5' P per 1' per 2' 10' 0' for first and 0' 0' n/a
side yard 2' of (b) 2' of (attached of bldg. second stories
4 landscaped bldg. bldg. DUs): 1' height, 12' for third
setback height, height. per 2' of 10' mil. story and above
from a 10' 10' bldg.
5 street 111m. min. height, 5'
(a)(i) min.
(detached
DUs)
6
Minimum 15' 10' 5' 10' 0' or 1' per 2' of 0' or 5' 0' or 3' 0' 1' per 3' 0' or 0' or 0' or 5' 0 or 0' or 12' 0' or 5' See
section 9-7-
7 side yard 12' bldg. height. (b) (attached of bldg. 12' 5' 12' 13
setback 5' min. DUs): 1' height,
from an per 2' of 5' min
8 interior lot bldg.
lute (i) height, 5'
min.
9 (detached
DUs)
Minimum 40' 25' 20' 15' 20' n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
10 total for
both side
yard
1 1 setbacks
Minimum 25' 25' 20' 10' 15' 20' 15 20' 15' 0' 15' 15' 10' See section 9-7-
12 rear yard 13
setback (f)
Mininnim See section 9-7-9 n/a
13 side yard
bulk plane
14
15
16
17
18
19 K:\PLZO\o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
20
1 Minimum n/a n/a n/a n/a 20' 15' 15' 20' 20'
front yard
setback
2 from a
street for
all
3 principal
buildings
and uses
4 for third
story and
above
5 Accessory Buildings and Uses
Mininnun 55' 55' Behind 55' Behind Behind 55' 55' Behind 55' 55' Behind rear See section 9-7-
6 front yard rear wall rear wall rear wall rear wall wall of 13
setback of of of of principal
uses (e) principal principal principal principal structure
stncture structure stricture structure
Minimum 25' 125 15' 10' 1' per 0' or 1' per 0' 1' per 2 10' 0' 0' 0' 0' n/a
8 side yard 2' of 5'(b) 2' of (attached of bldg.
landscaped bldg. bldg. DUs):l' height.
setback height, height. per 2 of 10' min.
9 fronn a 10' 10' bldg.
street min. min. height. 5'
(a)(i) mitt.
10 (detached
DUs)
11 Minimum 15' 10' 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3'
(b) See section
side yard 9-7-13
setback
12 from an
interior lot
line
13 Minimum 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See section
rear I 9-7-13
yard
14 setback (f)
Minimum 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6-
15 separation
between
accessory
16 buildings
and any
other
17 building
18
19 K:\PLZO\o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
20
1 MiniffiHt13 tea il/a £ta Wa i S 2W 2V
F ea
';PAAok
2 fro- a
St£€ft for
a4
3 Pfincipa}
buildings
and uses
4 fol-
Ster-y and
above,
5
6 Footnotes:
7 In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city:
8
(k) For properties located in the DT-5 and P zoning districts and shown in Appendix I, there shall be a minimum setback
9 requirement as required by section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981,Table 7-1, Form And Bulk
Standards or 65 feet measured from the centerline of_Can_y_on Boulevard right-of-way.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 RTLZO1o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
20
1 APPENDIX I
to Table 7-1: Form and Bulk Standards
4 ~L IT, Ll I I n LLLA . . flu I
5 HT l-elf I N.5 - ! Z 19
~ ~ LW_J~JJ L
.
6 Pow Ei Pau a
FF -E EY [TT
MT~ ELI
8 T:+ f ^
T- I
Nnr:2 Fr
10 SrJ ~4
11 f ~ I a _ ~Y Y
Y 4 ~ _ I ra-~~Y I
{cp•_~ayalYKa e
13 IJJLIJ
17
r
14 Tir y ~i ez
15 4p Mill v-v..'a
16
~~+rrJ~w~ dlx ,
17 - - P
18
19 K:\PLZO\o-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
20
I Section 4. Section 4-20-62, "Capital Facility Impact Fee," B.R.C. 1981, is amended by
2 the addition of a new subsection (b), to read:
3 (b) Supplemental Floor Area Affordable Housing Linkage Fee. Section 9-8-2 ermits
supplemental floor area above the base floor area in the DT-5 zoning district. No person
4 engaged-in non- residential development that is associated with the addition of
supplemental floor area permitted under the requirements of section 9-8, "Floor Area
5 Requirements," BR. C. 1981 shall fail to pay a housing linkage fee of $9.10 per sq. ft. for
such supplemental floor area.
6
7 Section 5. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
8 the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
9 Section 6. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
10 only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
11 public inspection and acquisition.
12 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
13 TITLE ONLY this day of , 20.
14
15 Mayor
16 Attest:
17
18 City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
19
20
21
22
23
24
RTLMo-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
I READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
2 PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of 20.
3
4 Mayor
5 Attest:
6
7 City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
RTLMo-setbacks DT-5 and P.DOC
Attachment B: TischlerBise Analysis
DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX SYUDY
city of Boulder, Colorado
77
~gv
1],@g2 q
Residential and nonresidential development in the City of Boulder currently pays a Housing
Excise Tax (HET) to help provide permanent affordable housing in the City. As part of the
Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study, TischlerBise was asked to calculate an impact fee or excise tax
for Affordable Housing. Due to limitations in the State Impact Fee Act and impact fee case
law, TischlerBise recommends an excise tax for Affordable Housing. If this Development
Excise Tax is approved by the voters, the current HET should be repealed.
The City's current adopted goal for provision of permanent affordable housing is 10 percent
of the City's housing stock, The breakdown of units by income category is 35 percent of
units for very low-income households (<30% of Area Median Income (AMI)); 40 percent for
low-income households (30-68% AMI) and 25 percent for moderate income households (69-
80% AMI). The City's current inventory of approximately 2,800 permanently affordable
units is short by approximately 1,700.urziis. The City will continue to pursue adding these
units to the inventory to meet the current need through a variety of means such as funding,
policies and planning, direct services, and asset matnagement.l
Fuudh-ig is currently. from a variety of grants and loans-approximately $3.5-4.5
million annually-provided to non-profit and for-profit agencies and housing
developers. Public investment is used toward acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or new
construction of permanently affordable rental or for-sale housing. Funding and
- - - - -financing sotrrces-include-locally_cQ-ti: piled funds such as Affordable Housing Funds
(from the General Fund and Cash-in-Lieu); Community Housing Assistance Program----
(CHAP); property tax dedicated mill levy; Housing Excise Tax;. CDBG (federal
funds),- HOME (federal funds); and. Private Activity Bonds (tax-exempt bond
allocation that may be used to finance affordable housing). State and Federal funds
and financing are available as well.
Policies and Planning: Design, development and implementation of policies that
increase affordable housing inventory. Planning efforts focus on identification of
future housing needs and mechanisms 'to address theta. Planning staff also
implements the city's Indusionary Zoning Ordinance, which requires that at least 20
percent of new residential development is committed as permanently affordable.
i Discussion below front, Cify of Boulder Affordable Housing Report, February 2008.
16
53 (;at, fc era"ds rl ,atr.~cx,[a?-mt.
Agenda Item 5A Page 24 of 47
®EVELOPRALIVS EXCISF TAX STUDY
City of Boulder, Colorado
If the City were to stop growing today, the affordable housing goal would still be pursued
through the above means. However, the City will not stop growing and additional units will
be required to meet the needs of future development. To meet the City's future affordable
housing needs, Tischlerl3ise recommends implementation of a development excise tax for
affordable housing, paid only by nonresidential development. Nonresidential development
should pay the affordable housing excise tax because employment is the most direct
generator of affordable housing needs. The recommended DLT component uses a plan-
based methodology driven by the City's adopted goal for affordable housi ig and the
average cost to the City to subsidize the provision of affordable units.
It should be noted, that impact fees or development excise taxes on new residential
development can be waived for affordable units. If the City were to adopt impact fees, .the
amount waived or foregone would have to be covered through other means (such as from
the General Fund) to make each impact fee account whole. This should be addressed in the
ordinance that adopts the fee. Without this waiver, the proposed impact fees will add to the
cost of an affordable housing unit.
Furthermore, the consultant recommends that 'the existing dedicated property tax for
housing and other existing funding sources be used to correct the existing deficiency in LOS
and cover housing related operating costs. With this funding strategy, Boulder will be able
to correct the existing deficiency in affordable housing with property tax revenue and other
means such as inclusionary zoning, while meeting its future growth-related affordable
housing needs through the updated development excise tax.
Nonresidential development will be assessed the flax per square foot of gross floor area, or
- _--__--based on unique demand indicators, such as the number of rooms in a hotel. The tax rate is
derived by multiplying the affordable housing cost per employee by the nuhiber of--
employees per demand indicator.
Figure 13 summarizes the demand for affordable housing units through 2030. The current
employment base of 97,750 jobs is projected to increase to 117,400 jobs by 2030. Residential
development is projected to increase by 7,500 units. Assuming the City's current target of 10
percent as permanently affordable, an additional 750 units are needed to accommodate
future affordable housing needs brought about by nonresidential development in the City.
The 750 units are further broken down by income category, per the City's targets at 35
percent for very low income, 40 percent for low income, and 25 percent for moderate income.
The projected net increase of 19,650 jobs is used as the denominator in the LOS calculation
for affordable housing. -
77717
a
54 Agenda Item 5A Page 25 of 47
DEVROPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
City of Boulder, Colorado
t
Figure 13. Affordable CAousertg ®ervia nd
Denttan d Units Base Year 2030 Net
2008 Projection Increase
Jobs in BoOder 97,750 117,400 14,650
Housing, Units* 45,000 52,500 7,500
10% Per7nanentl , Affordable HU Goal 750
% Of Aff Units''`
35% Very Low Income Aff. Units (<30% AMD 262
40% Low Income Aff. Units (30-68% AMI) 300
25% Moderate Income Aff. Units (69-80% AMI) 187
TO'T'AL _ 750
' Current affordable housinggoal is based on 45, 000 total lousing units, then efoi e this is base year figure.
City ofBoulder adopted targets.
Figure 14 provides detail on total subsidy required for each affordable housing unit income
category and the City's estimated share of the subsidy..,Incorne levels and affordable prices
are from 2008 housing data, provided by City staff. City subsidy estimates were provided by
City of Boulder staff based on recent practice. The City share of the subsidy is the basis for
the excise tax calculation. However, it should be noted that staff notes that the external
sources of subsidy that are used to leverage financing--naively Federal funds, foundation
money, donations to non-profits, tax credits, etc.-are not, anticipated to increase to meet
additional future demand generated by new nonresidential development. If this is the case
and the City share increases commensurately, the methodology used to calculate the
Affordable Housing excise tax, which is based on current practice, may not fully cover future
- costs. This should be monitored for potential refinement in future updates.
:77~7 71
lisq
,ar,fia•w:'c s<I'Ir.:nlir~f;noli5ms
55 fk
Agenda Item 5A Page 26 of 47
DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
Ciiy of boulder, Colorado
Figuve 14. Afloraable Housing Costs / Subsidy Requirement
Medianlncowe Haderatelrrcoux Lowlitcome VeiyLowlrrcoine
%ofAMI (•rnage)-> I00y/a 69-80% = 30-68% <30%
%ofAm(assumption) _ 75.M 50.0% 30%
Assumed Income for HouseholdSize4' $78,300 $59,265: $39,150 $23,500
AfFordabtePrice ofAttadied Unit*` $220,600 $156,700: $89,078 - $36,500
Mediae Price of AttachedUnit*` $250,000 $250,000: $250,000 = $250,000
Total Subsidy Required $29,400 $93,300: $160,922 = $213,500
City Share of Subsidy-** $0 $50,000 $60,000 = $70,000
City of Boulder, 2008 Housing wW Income Data,- assume 3-person household
City ofBouldea; 20081-fouriargaazdlncomeData, assunws Attacked Unit
City of Boulder
The City's total share of the cost to provide permanently affordable housing due to new
nonresidential development between 2008 and 2030 is estimated to be approximately $45.8
million. The, estimated cost was derived from the projected increase in the need for
affordable units and the current estimated City subsidy per unit. Based on the projected
increase in employment from 2008 to 2030 of 19,650, the cost per job is $2,328. Detail is
provided in Figure 15.
Figure 15. Projected Future AR-ordable Housing Cos-is
Cost of Affordable Housing City Cost Affotzlable Total
per Unit* Units Need*
y ) _ _ _ _ $70,000 262 $18,375,000
- - Very Low TilcomeAff. Units(<30% AMI
Low Income Aff. Units (30-68% AMT) $6Q,000 300 $18,000,000
Moderate Income Aff. Units (69-80% AMI) $50,000 1187 $9,375,000
TOTAL $45,750,000
Net Increase in Jobs (2008 thru Buildout) 19,650
lNet City Cost per 4dditiorrc,l.>ob in Houlder $2,3L8
See ':Subsidy Requir•emerat',• repr•eseats the estimated City share ofgap beftwerr medicuz price and affordable pricefor attached units
Based on net increase in affordable unit needs by income category multiplied by ewbrurted City share ofsubsidy rnquiret.
To derive the affordable housing development excise tax per square foot, the City cost per
job is multiplied by the number of employees per demand unit. For example for retail
establishments, the cost per job of $2,328 is multiplied by 2.86 employees per 1,000 square
feet and divided by 1,000 ($2,328 x 2.86 / 1,000 = $6.65 per square foot). As shown-in Figure
16, the resulting affordable housing excise tax for office development is 19 times the City's
current adopted tax rate of $0.49 per square foot of nonresidential development.
4 I:1 n?.Y~::73 &33 FF~ X34 i ~ 1✓
I'!;:>I.F:q :~-is,lc Pl:n,tli:iytnn +nut.
56 ~V, Agenda Item 5A Page 27 of 47
DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX SIUDY
City of Boulder, Colorado
Figu -e 16. Affordable Housing Development Excise Tax Calculation
Let)elOfser•vice Per Employee
Affordable Housing City Cost per Job $2,328
ITE Eirrplo eesPer Excise Tax
code, X, 009 SgFt pe^ Sq Ft
Nonrpsidentlal aF'loor,,I ea)
820 Retail / Restaurant 2.86 $6.65
770 Business Park 3.16 $7.35
710 Off oc 3.91 $9.10
610 Hospital 3.38 $7.86
520 School 0.92 $2.14
151 Muii-Warehouse 0.04 $0.09
150, Warehousing 1.28 $2.97
110 Light Industrial 2.31 $5.37
Excise Tax per
Other-Mai °esidenda.1 Denyand Indicator
620 Nursing Horne (per bed) 0.36 $838
565 Day Care (per student)' 0.16 $372
320 Lodging (per room) 0.44 $1,024
20
57 xal.facrpmic "iY-.,a wr n,ir.:
Agenda Item 5A Page 28 of 47
qS
DEVELOPMENT EXCISE TAX STUDY
Cify of Boulder, Colorado
77
A new excise tax for Vehicles and Equipment may be used to expand the City's fleet to
maintain the current infrastructure standard. This excise tax uses the same calculation steps
as the impact fee for Municipal Facilities, with both residential and nonresidential
development paying the cost of additional vehicles and equipment. As shown in Figure 17,
the total value of Boulder's fleet (-$24.7 million excluding fire apparatus that will be fielded
with fire impact fees) was allocated 72-% to residential development and 28% to
nonresidential development. This cost allocation is based on Boulders functional population
that accounts for residents and jobs, with adjustments for commuting patterns. The current
count of vehicles and equipment by class, along with the average purchase price for each
class, were provided by City staff.
21
58 Agenda Item 5A Page 29 of 47
Attachment C: DRAFT DAB Meeting Minutes
DRAFT Boulder Design Advisory Board (BDAB) Meeting Agenda Summary
July 13, 2011
Topics of discussion:
1. Proposed DT-5 Code & Guideline changes
2. BDAB Roles and Responsibilities
Proposed DT-5 Code Changes:.5 or 1.0 FAR for Non-residential Use
• Generally agreed with proposed changes.
65' Setback
• Generally agreed that the 65' supplemental setback from the centerline of the ROW of
Canyon Blvd. on the ground floor, with allowance for upper floor projections into the
setback was good.
• All agreed codifying it was OK in opposed to having it in the Design Guidelines.
Upper Floor Projection over Ground Floor Arcade
BDAB had several questions and issues with codifying the upper floor projection over the
first floor "arcade" from a design and land use perspectives, including the following:
• A "descriptive" guideline that is more flexible in opposed to "prescriptive" design
guidelines would be appropriate to guide the design, scale and character of the arcade.
• The focus of the guidelines should be more on the character of the "public realm", i.e.,
sidewalks, landscaping, trees, etc., rather than on the buildings.
• Consider a variety of ceiling heights for the arcade, anywhere from 14' to 18' height.
• Consider a variety of column spacing such as 10' wide spacing (which works with
standard architectural modules & parking spacing) of spacing, and other spacing that
would help express the 25' lot pattern currently in the Design Guidelines.
• Expressed concern about non-active ground floor land uses such as banks that would not
activate the arcade as opposed to retail uses.
• Some felt since existing retail spaces at One Boulder Plaza are not doing well, there is
no reason to believe that retail will thrive along Canyon, especially with less visibility
due to the arcade.
• Others felt we should be designing for the next 50 years and not be constrained by
current economic or other conditions since the area would be much denser in the future
and could attract more retail.
• There was also concern that because the arcade would be in the shade, whether that pace
would be desirable form retail as well as pedestrian
59
• An arcade concept for a "market-place" type of uses would be desirable, and it could
work well at the City site at 13th & Canyon.
• Concern about whether an arcade along the north side of buildings would be desirable
since it would be in the shade.
• BDAB members asked to have various examples of arcades from other places, and that
we comeback to them with various options and recommendations regarding the arcade
concept.
BDAB Roles and Responsibilities
• Elected David Biek to serve as the chair.
• Agreed to have minutes taken by staff in a summary format which the Chair and board
members would discuss and approve at the end of each meeting.
• Staff to highlight sections of guidelines relevant to the specific review of projects in
advance.
• The Tuesday before BDAB meeting, the chair to discuss agenda with staff to prioritize
the order of review and time.
• Asked to have some involvement at various stages of project review as appropriate. For
example, an early concept level review just on building massing and placement, and a
later review on architecture and design.
• Want to have a joint PB/BDAB site tour for buildings to evaluate/discussion what
worked and didn't work.
• Suggested creating an ongoing documentation to evaluate the guidelines to identify
those that do not work or are contrary to current design goals and objectives, but exist in
the current Guidelines.
60 Agenda Item 5A Page 31 of 47
900 Walnut St. 1050 Walnut St. 1877 Broadway 1800 N. Broadway 81801 13th St. 1360 Walnut St. 1495 Canyon Blvd. & 1470 Walnut St.
F.A.R.1.27 F.A.R.4.0 F.A.R.2.77 F.A.R.2.19 F.A.R.2.2 F.A.R.: 1.66
cn a"
Aj~
1
NN A041j"T
_1 ti
✓ III ~1~j.+KYl +i
CANYOI y T►
0
" f;. -4- ARAPAHOE AVE.
~ 4
j t' i 1095 Canyon Blvd. 1155 Canyon Blvd. 1300 Walnut St. 1301 Canyon Blvd. 1800-180214th St. 182015th St.
' F.A.R.: 2.4 F.A.R.: 2.2 F.A.R.1.74 F.A.R.: 2.53 F.A.R.:1.67 F.A.R.1.0
N Average F.A.R.: 2.15
s)v
61 Existing FARs North Side of Canyon Boulevard Agenda Item 5A Page 32 of 47
Attachment E: RRC Report
RRC
ASSOCIATES
..,sue
An SYR Company
MEMORANDUM
TO: Molly Winter and Louise Grauer, City of Boulder
FROM: David Becher and Nolan Rosail, RRC Associates
RE: DT-5 Zone Development Projections Under Existing and Proposed FAR Bonus
Regulations
DATE: July 20, 2011
Introduction
RRC Associates has prepared development projections for the City of Boulder DT-5 zoning
district in order to evaluate the development patterns which might occur as a result of
proposed changes to the City's policy for floor area ratio (FAR) bonuses in this district.
Specifically, this memo discusses future development projections in the DT-5 district under two
scenarios: 17 status quo, i.e. regulations pertaining to the DT-5 FAR bonus remain unchanged;
aI d 2) proposed. change, i.e. regulations pertaining to the DT-5 FAR bonus are amended-to
permit commercial uses. The analysis also examines the incremental differences in projected
development between the two scenarios.
This memo first summarizes the overall results of the analysis, and then reviews the
methodology and assumptions underlying the analysis.
Summary of Results
As summarized in Table 1 to follow, under existing zoning, it is projected than an additional 1.01
million square feet of incremental new development will occur in the DT-5 zone through the
"2022-x" period (i.e. between the present and likely practical buildout). This includes
approximately 547,000 square feet (sgft) of commercial space and 466,000 sgft of residential
space. The incremental commercial space is projected to house between 1,673 and 1,880
incremental employees (depending on the employment intensity assumption utilized;
4940 Pearl East Circle, Suite 103 ^ Boulder, CO 80301 • 303/449-6558 • 3031449-6587 FAX • www.rrcassoc.com
62
M. Winter and L. Grauer
7/20/11
employment is likely to vary over time depending on market conditions). The incremental
residential space is projected to result in approximately 240 residential units (assuming a
similar average unit size as today).
As summarized in Table 2 to follbw, under the proposed zoning scenario, it is projected than an
additional 1.17 million square feet of development will occur in the DT-5 zone through the
"2022+" period. This includes approximately 988,000 sqft of commercial space and 179,000
sqft of residential space. The incremental commercial space is projected to house between
2,742 and 3,163 incremental employees. The incremental residential space is projected to
result in approximately 92 residential units.
Table 3 to follow illustrates the incremental difference in development projections between the
proposed zoning regulations and the existing zoning regulations. The proposed zoning scenario
is projected to generate approximately 150,000 more square feet of development than the
existing scenario, including approximately 440,000 more square feet of commercial
development and 290,000 less square feet of residential development. Additionally, the
proposed zoning scenario is projected to generate 1,069 -1,283 more employees than the
existing scenario, and 148 fewer residential units than the existing scenario. These results
reflect the assumption that somewhat more development will occur in aggregate under the
proposed regulations than under the current regulations, due to a combination of market
demand and design feasibility reasons. Additionally, the results reflect the assumption that the
nature of development which occurs will be more heavily weighted towards commercial
development than residential development under the proposed zoning regulations than under
existing zoning.
RRC Associates 2
63 Agenda Item 5A Page 34 of 47
M, Winter and L. Grauer
7/20/11
Table 1
Projected DT-5 Development: Status Quo Zoning Scenario
2012-16 2017-21 2022+ Subtotal: 2012 Grand Total
Measure Existing Incremental Incremental Incremental to 2022+ (existing + future
Commercial built sqft 1,530,656 93,209 276,429 177,299 546,937 -2,077,593
Residential built sgft 251,755 931269 182,184 190,537 465,990 717,745
Total built sqft 1,782,411 186,477 458,614 367,836 1,012,927 2,795,338
Jobs - low projection nla 272 862 538 1,673 n/a
Jobs - midpoint proj. n1a 291 913 572 1,776 n1a
Jobs - high projection n1a 310 964 606 1,880 n/a
Residential units n1a 48 94 98 240 n1a
Table 2
Projected DT-5 Development: Proposed Zoning Scenario
2012-16 2017-21 2022+ Subtotal: 2012 Grand Total
Measure Existing Incremental Incremental Incremental to 2022+ (existing +future)
Commercial built sqft 1,530,656 215,780 435,878 336,688 988,346 2,519,002
Residential built sgft 251,755 3,723 74250 99,890 178,563 430,318
Total built sgft 1,782,411 219,503 510,828 436,578 1,166,909 2,949,320
Jobs - low projection n/a 569 1,249 925 2,742 n/a
Jobs - midpoint proj. n/a 618 1,338 997 2,953 n/a
Jobs - high projection n/a 666 1,428 1,070 3,163 n/a
Residential units n/a 2 39 51 92 n/a
Table 3
Projected DT-5 Development: Comparison of Proposed Zoning Scenario vs. Status Quo Zoning Scenario
2012-16 2017-21 2022+ Subtotal: 2012 Grand Total
Measure Existing Incremental Incremental Incremental to 2022+ (existing + future
Commercial built sgft 0 122,571 159,449 159,389 441,409 441,409
Residential built sgft 0 (89,546) 107,234 9t O,G47) 287.427 {287,427}
Total built sgft 0 33,025 52,215 68,742 153,982 153,982
Jobs - low projection n/a 297 386 386 1,069 n1a
Jobs - midpoint proj. n/a 327 425 425 1,176 n/a
Jobs - high projection n/a 356 464 463 1,283 n1a
Residential units n/a 46 (55) 47 148 nla
RRC Associates 3
64 Agenda Item 5A Page 35 of 47
M. Winter and L. Grauer
7/20/11
Methodology and Assumptions
The following discussion summarizes the six-step approach and accompanying assumptions
used in the analysis.
Step 1: Prepare DT-5 land and building inventory
City of Boulder GIS staff developed an inventory of "summary sites" in the DT-5 zoning district,
consisting of legal parcels or (in some cases) combinations of parcels under common ownership
or subject to a single development plan. A total of 63 sites or "sub-sites" were identified. For
each site, estimates were developed for the total land area, total existing built square footage
(per Boulder County Assessor records), and existing above-grade FAR. A map of development
sites in the DT-5 district (as well as other sites in the Central Area General Improvement District
- CAGID) is attached to end of this memo.
The analysis found that the DT-5 sites currently have an aggregate of approximately 1.43
million square feet of total land area and 1.78 million square feet of existing above-grade
floor area, for an existing aggregate FAR of 1.24.
Ste 2. Proiect additional development ca acit
For each site in the DT-5 district, additional zoned development capacity was evaluated. While
both current and proposed DT-5 regulations permit development up to a maximum of 2.7 FAR,
it was assumed for purposes of this analysis that not all sites would develop to their theoretical
maximum potential in the foreseeable future. Instead, for projections purposes, it was
assumed that sites with additional zoned capacity would eventually develop to an aggregate
average of 2.3 FAR under the current zoning regulations, and,to an aggregate average of 2.5
FAR under the proposed FAR bonus regulations.' A higher FAR.4as assumed under the -
proposed regulations, for reasons of both increased development feasibility/flexibility and
expanded market opportunity, given that the proposed regulations would add commercial
development as a permitted use for FAR bonus purposes.
From this analysis, it was estimated that at "practical" buildout, a total of 1.01 million
additional square feet of floor area would be developed in the DT-5 zone under the existing
zoning regulations, and 1.17 million additional square feet of floor area would be developed
under the proposed regulations.
1 It was further assumed that future development would only take place if there was a minimum of 3500 square
feet of additional floor area that could be built up to the 2.3 or 2.5 FAR modeling thresholds respectively; or if the
additional development capacity was equal to at least 10 percent of the size of the existing floor area; whichever
was greater. Additionally, based on existing uses and recency of development, some parcels with additional zoned
capacity were assumed to be unlikely to be redeveloped in the foreseeable future in a way which would be
influenced by the proposed DT-5 regulations, e.g. the U.S. Post Office site, selected residential projects, and
religious uses.
RRC Associates 4
65 Agenda Item 5A Page 36 of 47
M. Winter and L. Grauer
7/20/11
Step 3. Proiect future incremental development by time period
The development projections outlined above were broken down by five-year time period,
specifically 2012-16, 2017-21, and 2022 or later (i.e. through likely practical buildout). For
several development sites, timing assumptions were based on submitted plans or conversations
with property owners. For selected other sites, timing assumptions were made by City staff
and RRC Associates. For remaining sites, if the existing structure was built in 1996 or later, it
was assumed that future incremental development would take place in the 2022+ time period.
If the structure was built in 1995 or before, it was assumed for projection purposes that 20
percent of the remaining zoned capacity (up to the 2.3 or 2.5 threshold) would be built in the
2012-16 timeframe, 30 percent would be built in the 2017-21 timeframe, and 50 percent would
be built in the 2022+ timeframe. (For these latter sites, it should be noted that a given
individual site would not necessarily be expected to develop pursuant to these assumptions,
but rather that the sites in aggregate would be assumed to exhibit this general timing
distribution.)
Step 4. Project future incremental development by type of use
For both zoning scenarios, existing built square footage was assumed to continue in its present
use into the future. To the extent that some existing buildings might be "scraped" and
redeveloped, it was assumed that the future uses would have the same general,nature of use
(residential or commercial) as the existing uses.
By contrast, for the remaining incremental FAR capacity, a different mix of uses was assumed
for each of the two zoning scenarios.
For the status quo zoning scenario, the following uses were assumed:
o North of Canyon: 100% of remaining available FAR increment beiwcen 0 to 1.7 is developed as '
commercial.
a South of Canyon: 20% of remaining available FAR increment from 0 to 1.7 is developed as
residential, 80% as commercial (i.e., a higher residential mix is assumed south of Canyon than
north of Canyon).
• All areas: 100% of remaining available FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.3 is developed as
residential.
For the proposed zoning change scenario, the following uses were assumed:
North of Canyon: 1001 of remaining available FAR increment between 0 to 1.7 is developed as
commercial.
o South of Canyon: 20% of remaining available FAR increment from 0 to 1.7 is developed as
residential, 80% as commercial (i.e., a higher residential mix is assumed south of Canyon than
north of Canyon).
0 All areas: remaining FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.5 which is developed in 2012-16:.100%
development as commercial. (This reflects an assumption that market conditions currently
strongly favor commercial development over residential development, and will continue to do
RRC Associates S
66 Agenda Item 5A Page 37 of 47
M. Winter and L. Grauer
7/20/11
so in the next five years. However, for later time periods, summarized below, it is assumed that
market conditions for residential development will gradually improve.)
® All areas: remaining FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.5 which is developed in 2017-21: 80%
development as commercial and 20% development as residential.
All areas: remaining FAR increment between 1.7 and 2.5 which is developed in 2022+: 67%
development as commercial and 33% development as residential.
Again, it should be noted that a given individual site would not necessarily be expected to
develop pursuant to these assumptions. Instead, it is assumed that the development sites in
aggregate will exhibit this distribution of use assumptions.
Step 5. Project future incremental employment
Incremental future employment was projected based on the following assumptions regarding
the utilization of commercial space:
® Net leasable space is equivalent to 85 percent of gross square footage (after deducting
for common areas, stairways, etc.).
® Commercial vacancy rate is 5% (i.e. effective full occupancy).
m First-floor tenants have a range of 4.8 to 5.1 employees per 1000 sqft of gross leasable
area (corresponding to the low and high range of "employment intensity" observed in
CAGID in selected years over the 1994 - 2011 period).
• Upper-floor tenants have a range of 3.0 to 3.6 employees per 1000 sgft of gross leasable
area (corresponding to the low and high range of "employment intensity" observed in
CAGID in selected years over the 1994 - 2011 period).
A set of "low", "midpoint" and "high" employment scenarios were developed corresponding to
the range and midpoint employment intensity measures described above.
Step 6. Project future incremental residential units
Incremental future residential units were projected based on the following assumptions
regarding residential space:
• Deduct 15 percent of gross residential space for hallways, stairways, and related
common areas.
• Divide remaining square footage by an assumed average of 1,650 square feet per unit.
e (The above assumptions are the same as those utilized in a 12/2/08 City analysis
regarding downtown residential development potential.)
RRC Associates 6
67 Agenda Item 5A Page 38 of 47
t ~ .is h l~ a
a7tn s+ m #
SA,E P tt ti - - ; t o o _
PP S. ! ~ l y 1 s.,. 11 , r'' .F^++~'•. ~ ~Y 3 3 = ~ E a
rBtG ~ ~ - i m 571 ~ z r°~~ w NE N~ (7
'mss t t L.T 4 a t'~ r Ljsb _
_ x
32 lip
s t a 1 _ t~ "t a:
st
tsu s~~ 1" y N k _ !-1
a
y `4 ti s tamsi 1_ m
x
tl
£ l
t 1r= ~r'1 s
~ t Est t $ t ~ z 3 ~ 3to~~t ~ ~ e•
si
t N ' ' ' _ t3U St 1 ~ b k ~~k ta.
urn x r 1 l a _ ='a .~-Z .
•`S`9i'~" s7 'taro si i - .-ce- ~ -
G `N-. 'arc,
~ a F 6~d roY ~ S l r ly ~ t m c _ zyf .aun 5"^
0 ~-d t 6 t' . r,: c t $ / - ttu st. t ~ ~
a k$"
tw-
'r t E r - ~ ~y~e ~t
No # -i 4 ? 9tt t _ wr s » s, ~t 3,~, rx.
m
sAr- ie
68 Agenda Item 5A Page 39 of 47
Attachment F: Fox Higgins Report
SOX
T R AN S P O R T AT 10 N G R 0 UP
MEMORANDUM
To: Molly Winter
From: Bill Fox
Date: July 21, 2011
Project: Downtown Boulder DT-5 District Zoning Change Study
Subject: Trip Generation Comparison for DT-5 Changes
At your request we have prepared a set of preliminary trip generation estimates for the DT-5
District in downtown Boulder. under the following two land use scenarios:
® Existing zoning which allows a density bonus for residential development on upper
floors
Revised zoning that would allow a density bonus for commercial development on
upper floors.
We have then estimated the ability of the downtown street grid to accommodate the
additional traffic. This approach is similar to that used previously when evaluating the
impacts of the proposed land use changes in the Downtown Alliance rezoning project.
Projected Additional Development:
The land use projections for each scenario in the DT-5 zone have been provided by RRC
Associates with intermediate year and buildout totals as follows:
Scenario: Year 2012 - 2016 Year 2017 - 2021 Year 2022+ Total
Existing Zoning
• Dwelling 48 94 98 240
Units
• Upper Floor 61,273 143,870 102,341 307,484
Commercial
S q, Ft.
Revised Zoning
® Dwelling 2 39 51 92
Units
® Upper Floor 183,844 303,319 261,730 748,893
Commercial
S q. Ft.
RO: Box 19'768, BOULDER, COLORADO 80308-2768.
PHONE: 303-652-3571 ~ FAX: 303-772-3329 OR: 303-652-6574
69 Agenda Item 5A Page 40 of 47
70 Agenda Item 5A Page 41 of 47
Ms. Molly Winter
July 21, 2011
Page 2 of 3
These land use projections on the upper floors are in addition to a projected additional
240,000 sq. ft. of first floor commercial space in the DT-5 District.
Trip Generation:
An estimate of additional traffic that will be generated by the proposed new development in
the DT-5 District has been made for each of the two zoning scenarios using the following
key assumptions:
® Initial trip generation rates for residential, office, and retail uses were based on
information in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual. ITE rates for residential development are per dwelling unit, and for
commercial development are per 1,000 sq. ft. of non-residential floor area. Note that
this methodology did not need to use the number of employees in the trip generation
calculation since there may be some variability over time as to the assumed
employee density per building area in downtown Boulder.
• It was assumed that these ITE trip rates already account for or include an alternative
mode use share of approximately 10% which is the approximate national average.
® Boulder specific alternative mode use factors were then applied based on recent
surveys and discussions with Transportation staff as follows:
- Downtown employee alternative mode trip reduction factor of 63% (this accounts
for single occupant vehicle (SOV) access of 34% and 3% for multi-occupant
vehicle (MOV) drivers).
- Downtown resident alternative mode trip reduction factor of 73% (this is
approximately twice the city-wide residential alternative mode use due to the
downtown location, proximity to transit, and walkable destinations, etc.)
- Both of the above Boulder specific trip reduction factors were them reduced by
10% to account for the above mentioned alternative mode use that is already
included in the national average trip generation rates.
The resultant trip generation estimates are detailed on the attached Table 1 for each
planning horizon. On a daily basis, the buildout trip generation in the DT-5 zone is
summarized as follows:
Buildout traffic increase "s per day) in the DT-5 District.
Zoning Upper Floor Emphasis Additional Trips Per Da
Existing Residential 5,225
Revised Office 7,144
Increase due to zoning change: 1,919
includes ground floor development that is the same under either zoning alternative
71 Agenda Item 5A Page 42 of 47
72 Agenda Item 5A Page 43 of 47
Ms. Molly Winter
July 21, 2011
Page 3 of 3
It can be seen that the revised zoning scenario (with more office space rather than
residential) will generate less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day more than the existing zoning
scenario. This is a relatively small traffic increase when compared to all of the traffic
generated by the downtown area. For context, the Broadway / Canyon intersection alone
currently serves over 50,000 vehicle trips per day.
I anticipate that the downtown grid of streets will be able to accommodate the approximate
2,000 trip per day increase in traffic at buildout caused by the revised DT-5 zoning. It
should also be noted that:
• The alternative mode use in downtown Boulder is much higher than anywhere else
in the City, particularly for employees. In fact, if the same increment of office space
were to be added elsewhere in the City, we would anticipate that the additional traffic
would be more than twice as high.
• Even though the downtown area already leads the City in alternative mode share,
there is also the highest potential to further reduce automobile use through
transportation demand management (TDM) measures. The bike share program, the
car share program, additional bus transit service, improvements to the 14th Street
transit plaza, a new bike station, and more aggressive parking management and
parking all have the potential to increase the downtown alternative mode share and
further reduce automobile traffic. This is true not only for the incremental
development in the DT-5 District, but also with the existing users in the downtown
area.
hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate. to call if you have any questions.
WCFI
73 Agenda Item 5A Page 44 of 47
74 Agenda Item 5A Page 45 of 47
Downtown Boulder DT-5 District Zoning Change Study pox
Table 1. Vehicle Trip Generation Estimate Comparing Existing Zoning (Residential) and Revised Zoning (Office)
Year 2012 - 2016 Boulder Trip Paily Tfac AM Peak Hour Tmific PM Peak Hour T.M.
Rate
Adjustment
Land Use ITE Code Size Unit Factor") Ratel'1 Total I. Out Rate 11 Total in Out Rate"' Total In Out
Existing Zoning - Residential
Apartment 220!223 48.0 Owetling Unit 0.37 6.65 118 59 59 0,56 10 2 8 0.62 11 7 4
Office 710 61.3 1,000 sq. R. 9.47 i1.61 317 159 158 1155 45 39 8 1.49 43 7 36
Total: 435 218 217 55 41 14, 54 14 40
Revised Zoning -Office
Apartment 22=23 2.0 Dwelling Unit 0.37 6.65 5 3 2 0.56 0 0 0 0.62 0 6 0
Office 710 183.8 1,000sq. tL 0.47 71.01 951 476 475 1.55 134 118 i6 IA- 129 22 107
ToWI: 956 479 477 134 118 16 129 22 107
Dlffeiegee6ReviseBiMlnus Fitlsfin9: : '2: 3;E... . ..::'62'1': 261 ::260 , . : 1 R:. .79 .477. . ' 2
Year 2017-2021 Boulder Trip DaOy Traffic AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic
Rate
Adjustment
Land Use Irecode SEze Unlt Factor{'} Rat lo Total fn Out Rate"' Total to Out Rat-(') Total out
Existing Zoning -Residenf_iaf
Apartmenti8 220f223 94.0 Uvetling Unit 0.37 5.65 231 146 115 0.56 19 4 75 0.62 22 14 8
offim 710 }43.9 #,000 Sq. R. 0.47 11.01 745 373 372 1.55 105 92 13 1.A9 10; 17 84
Total: 976 489 487 124 96 28 122 31 92
Revised Zoning - Ot6ce
Apadmentf0 2201223 39.0 Dwelling U it 0.37 6.65 96 A6 48 0,55 8 2 6 0.62 9 fi 3
Omce 710 3D3.3 1,000 sq. R. 0.47 11.01 1,569 785 784 9.55 221 144 27 1.49 212 36 176
Total: 1,665 833 632 229 196 331 1 22142 179
. ..::664 • :344 '..:345 : A o -400 . 5 St9 s ; .
Diff,etehce: -11V - _
RevisaAMinus ExisHn9 • " - - .
Year 2022+ 'Boulder Trip Daily TmRic AM Peak Hour Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic
Rate
Adjustment
Land Use ITE Code Size Unit Faetor"I Rate"1 Total In Out Rate") Total In Out Rate"" Total In Out
Existing Zoning - Residential
Apartment", 2201223 98.0 Dwelling Unit 037 6.85 241 121 120 0,56 20 4 160,62 22 1 5 7
dfFce 710 102.3 1,000 sq. R. 0.47 11.01 _ 529 265 264 1.55 75 66 9 1.49 72 12 60
Total: 770 386 384 95 70 25 94 27 67
Revised Zoning - OMce
Apartment 2201223 51.0 Dwelling Unk 0.37 6.65 125 63 _62 __0.56 I1 2 9 0.62 12 8 d
Office 710 261.7 1,000sq, ff. 0.47 1},01 1,354 677 677 1.55 191 168 23 1.49 183 31 152
ToWI:4,479 740 739,201 170 52 196 39 156
P1A8rerite:'Rev,ISeb:Mlnus Eit!stin(: ' - .w9 354 31117 777E 784-
Total Year 2012 - 2022+ Boulder Trip Daily Traffic AM Peak Heur Traffic PM Peak Hour Traffic
Rate
Adjustment
Land Use ITE Code sire Unit Factor", Ratelv Total In out Rata 7 Total In Out Rate(') Total in out
Existing Zoning -Residential
Apartment" 2201223 24D.0 Dwelling Unit 0.37 6.65 591 296 295 0.56 50 10 40 0.62 55 36 1g
Office 710 307.5 1,000 Sq. R. 0.47 11.01 7,591 796 795 1.55 224 997 27 1.49 215 37 978
Total: 2,;82 1,092 1,090 274 207 671 1 270 73 197
Revised Zoning - Office
Apartment 220!223 92.0 Dwelling Unit 0.37 6.65 226 173 113 0.56 19 4 15 0.62 21 14 7
Otltce 710 748.9 1,0005q. fl. 0,A7 5101 3,675 1,938 i,g37 9.55 546 480 66
524 84 435 ,
I, 1.49 I
Total: 1,1G1 2,051 2,0501 1 565 4114 s1 546 103 442
D9ffeieniet Revtsed.Minus EiiisOne•. . _ _ ' is14 459 ,'.::460 - ' E: 291 ..::277 .~14 275 :.....30..::245
Ground Floor Commercial 820 120.0 1,000 sq. R. 0.47 42,94 2,422 1,211 1,211 9.1m 56 34 Z2 3.73 210 103 107
Ground Floor OfRce 790 720.0 3,000 sq. R. 0.47 11.01 621 319 310 1.55 87 77 10 1.49 84 14 70
Ground Floor Total: 3,043 1,522 1,5211_ 1 1441 11 32 ~2g4 :117 177
Tdid13Y-~~i„-2422; WIIh~£MIS81ig7e5>Aentlal,-zoc8n0"'=.. ~ _-6225. 2,6fA ,_~Sti ..w
Ipt
alY h,
m 573
Lsedcarnrytgrt:jaizonPgg.-.___ - -
1. ITE trip generation rate
2. Using the higher of the ITE rates for Apartment (220) and Luxury CondofTownhome (233)
3. Trip rate adjustment factor based on Boulder specific alt. mode use data minus 10% to account for the national average all. mode use assumed in the national
average trip generation rates. For example, Downtown employee alt. mode use (non-driver) of 63%. Therefore, factor= 1-0.63+0.10=0.47
Trip Oen-t-DTS.As
75 Agenda Item 5A Page 46 of 47
76 Agenda Item 5A Page 47 of 47
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council of an
Ordinance Amending Chapter 9-3 "Overlay Districts", Section 9-16-1 "Definitions."
B.R.C. 1981. to Amend Floodplain Regulations in Order to Protect Critical Facilities
11 and Mobile Populations in the 500- and 100-year Flood plains
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Maureen Rait, Executing Director of Public Works
Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Annie Noble, Greenways Coordinator
Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent and historical flood events have demonstrated that flood damage to certain critical
elements of community infrastructure can significantly delay and increase the costs of
flood recovery or increase the life safety risk associated with flooding. By providing
additional flood protection to a critical subset of uses, local governments can enhance
economic and social sustainability and decrease risks of deaths or injuries from flooding.
The purpose of this item is for the Planning Board to consider a proposed ordinance
(Attachment A) to revise the floodplain regulations under chapter 9-3 "Overlay
Districts" and section 9-16-1 "Definitions" of the B.R.C. 1981 and to provide a
recommendation to City Council on the adoption of the proposed ordinance.
The following list summarizes the proposed changes to the floodplain regulations:
1. Implement flood protection of critical land uses in the 500- and 100-year
floodplains. [Section 9-3-2 through 9-3-7]
2. Implement emergency management plans for mobile populations in the 500- and
100-year floodplains. [Section 9-3-2- through 9-3-7]
3. Implement subsurface (groundwater) flooding protection for areas removed from
the floodplain by placement of fill dirt as required by the Colorado Water
Conservation Board. [9-3-3-(a)-17-(C)]
This ordinance also implements changes required to be compliant with the Colorado
Water Conservation Board's recent update to "Rules and Regulations for Regulatory
Floodplains in Colorado," which was established on Nov. 17, 2010.
77 Agenda Item 58 Page 1 of 60
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Board recommend the adoption of the proposed
ordinance to revise the floodplain regulations (Attachment A) to City Council.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
• Economic: By ensuring the functionality and sustainability of the city's critical
facilities and by providing life safety information to mobile populations, the
proposed ordinance will enable the city's public and private critical facilities to
survive flooding and return to pre-flood business operations more quickly.
• Environmental: The proposed regulation of hazardous material facilities will
reduce environmental contamination often associated with floods.
• Social: The protection of critical facilities will reduce damage caused by flooding
and assist in providing continuity in business operations for facilities that are
critical to the community's health and safety. This will increase the city's ability
to respond to life safety issues and its economic and social sustainability.
OTHER IMPACTS:
• Fiscal: A critical facilities and mobile population ordinance cost analysis report
has been prepared and is presented in Attachment B. Average costs of
compliance were analyzed for the development of emergency management plans
and protection of critical facilities. Costs of compliance for emergency
management plan development and permitting are expected to range from $3,000
to $12,600 with the average cost of different plan types being $6,200. Costs of
compliance for critical facilities protection (building elevation or floodproofing
and permitting) are expected to range between $1.5 per square foot and $76 per
square foot with an average cost of $11 per square foot.
• Staff time: Approximately 3 percent of properties in the 500- and 100-year
floodplains will be classified as critical or mobile population facilities. An
estimated 60 hours per year of staff time will be required to determine if land
development activates meet the critical facilities and mobile population definition.
Up to 14 new floodplain development permits per year are expected in the 500-
year floodplain. The properties associated with these permits will be subject to
review fees and cost recovery in a manner consistent with existing 100-year
floodplain permits. Increases of up to 9 new floodplain development permits per
year are expected in the 100-year floodplain. The time associated with
implementing and communicating about the ordinance and permits will be
covered using existing resources.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
The WRAB reviewed and provided input on the proposed ordinance at its January 20,
2011 meeting and at its March 28, 2011 meeting and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of
the ordinance. During the January 20al meeting, staff received feedback from the WRAB
members and members of the public. Most comments focused on public outreach and the
development of the economic analysis. Staff response and additional research related to
this feedback is included in Attachment C. Following the Planning Board review and
recommendation, staff will present the proposed ordinance to City Council.
78 Agenda Item 5B Page 2 of 60
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
An August 24, 2010 open house was held to inform the public of the proposed ordinance
and the initial three proposed management strategies. Approximately 25 members of the
public attended this meeting. Most comments focused on understanding the proposed
management options and providing feedback on which option provided the best solution
for the city. A summary of questions and answers from the critical facilities and mobile
populations' open house is provided as Attachment C.
Since the August 24, 2010 open house, staff has continued to engage stakeholders
through a variety of methods including e-mail, a presentation to the Chamber of
Commerce Community Affairs Council in October 2010 and a February 2011 spot on
"Controversy and Consensus" a Municipal Channel TV show.
Background
The City of Boulder is the number one flash flood risk community in the Front Range.
As such, the city must be prepared to provide protection to mobile populations and
continued operations of critical facilities.
• Critical facilities are classified as buildings that house essential services, at-risk
populations and hazardous materials. Examples include hospitals, schools,
buildings containing hazardous materials and fire stations.
• Mobile populations are groups of people that may not be familiar with the flood
threat to the area they currently occupy; examples include hotels, restaurants,
theaters and dormitories.
As part of addressing this need, City Council endorsed the development of protection
measures and the city's Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater master Plan and Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan call for identification and protection of critical facilities located
in the city's 500- and 100-year floodplains. The proposed ordinance will protect pieces
of the city's infrastructure that will be critical to life safety and social or economic
recovery during and after a flood. The proposed ordinance will also implement new
flood protection measures required by the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
The proposed ordinance would expand the regulation of mobile populations and the
critical facility categories of essential service, at-risk population and hazardous materials
facilities to areas encompassed by the 500-year floodplain. In the 500-year floodplain:
• Substantial improvements or modifications to or development of new at-risk
population and essential service facilities would be constructed so that the lowest
floor of the entire building is protected to the level of the 500-year flood
elevation plus one foot. Smaller building additions would protect the new
construction to that level.
• New hazardous materials facilities or existing hazardous materials buildings with
modifications requiring a floodplain development permit or a building permit
which exceeds 25 percent of the market value of the existing structure, or by a
future date 10-years from the ordinance adoption, would be required to secure the
79 Agenda Item 58 Page 3 of 60
hazardous materials from flooding.
In the 500- and 100-year floodplains emergency management plans will be required for:
• Mobile population facilities requiring building permits for new construction, the
addition of any floor area, or any building permit for a substantial improvement.
• Critical facilities requiring a floodplain development permit.
Emergency management plans will include either shelter in place or evacuation plans.
The most appropriate method of protection would be defined, and evacuation routes or
sheltering locations would be posted in the building, similar to requirements for fire
response. This requirement would ensure that necessary flood education and protection
information is available during times of flooding.
Mobile populations and critical facilities will be regulated within the area encompassed
by the 100-year floodplain, consistent with other types of buildings. Existing 100-year
regulations will remain in place and an update of the definition of hazardous materials
will be provided. Existing critical and mobile population facilities can continue to
operate in their current capacity. Existing mobile population facilities have new
requirements for additions or substantial improvements. During an emergency
management plan 10-year implementation window, existing at-risk and essential service
facilities are subject to new regulations when they propose additions or substantial
remodels. Existing hazardous material facilities are also subject to new regulations when
they propose a modification exceeding 25 percent of the value of the building, during a
10-year implementation window.
Recent updates to the ordinance are outlined in Attachment D.
Analysis
The current regulations do not define or acknowledge the unique needs of critical
facilities or mobile populations with respect to flood hazards. The proposed ordinance
provides a definition of critical facilities that are integral to promoting life safety or are
critical to emergency operations during or after a flood. The ordinance proposes to
require protection of critical facilities not only within the 100-year floodplain (current
regulations) but also within the 500-year floodplain. In the 500- and 100-year floodplains
the proposed ordinance requires the development of emergency management plans that
would identify and inform critical facility occupants of an appropriate flood response.
The proposed ordinance also provides a definition of buildings that serve mobile
populations (example uses include hotels, restaurants, and theaters). These populations
are most likely to be unfamiliar with Boulder's flood danger or characteristics during
times of flooding. In the 500- and 100-year floodplains the proposed ordinance requires
the development of emergency management plans that would identify and inform mobile
population building occupants of an appropriate flood response.
The State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources Colorado Water Conservation
Board (CWCB) updated its "Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in
Colorado" on Nov. 17, 2010. Most of the new provisions of this regulation promote, at a
80 Agenda Item 5B Page 4 of 60
state-wide level, floodplain regulations that are already in place in the City of Boulder.
However, the new CWCB regulations require that new structures protect the lowest floor,
including basements, by elevating residential structures and elevating or floodproofing
non-residential structures. The new ordinance closes an existing loophole where land that
was subject to surface and subsurface (groundwater) flooding could be removed from the
floodplain by placement of fill dirt and then developed without subsurface flood
protection measures. In order to meet the requirements of the CWCB, the city's
floodplain ordinance will be updated to require subsurface flood protection in areas
removed from the floodplain by the placement of fill dirt.
The content of the proposed ordinance is based on direction from the National Flood
Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS). The NFIP's CRS
provides guidance on floodplain regulations designed to reduce flood damage to existing
buildings and protect new buildings beyond the minimum requirements of the NFIP. At a
general level, the CRS calls for the protection of critical facilities to a 500-year level to
reduce damage to those facilities that, in turn, would improve a local government's ability
to respond to the needs of citizens during a disaster. The CRS also outlines management
strategies for protecting critical facilities. Based on the CRS's guidance, and input from
the public, the WRAB, facility managers, Local Emergency Planning Committee and
Boulder Chamber of Commerce, the proposed ordinance was developed.
Care has been taken to ensure that ample public outreach has been completed as part of
the development of the Critical Facilities and Mobile Populations ordinance. Outreach
started with solicitation for input on critical facilities definitions and management
strategies and has continued with education and outreach efforts to insure that impacted
facility managers are aware of and can comment on the proposed ordinance. As part of
this process, comments and suggested edits on the ordinance have been received. Major
elements of the project outreach have included two meetings with the Local Emergency
Planning Committee, two meetings with Boulder Chamber of Commerce, a front page
news paper article, phone calls to hazardous materials facility mangers, a spot on
"Controversy and Consensus" a Municipal Channel TV show, an open house and public
hearings. Additional detail on this outreach is provided in Attachment C.
MATRIX OF OPTIONS:
Planning Board options for review and consideration include:
• Accept the proposed ordinance and recommend that City Council adopt the
ordinance.
• Propose modifications to the ordinance and recommend that the City Council
adopt the modified ordinance. A matrix that represents alternative options that
were developed from feedback of facility managers, members of the public and
staff members is presented in Attachment E.
• Request additional public involvement, information or evaluation on the proposed
ordinance.
81 Agenda Item 58 Page 5 of 60
Next Steps:
Implementation of the proposed ordinance has been structured to allow existing facilities
to continue current operations until they request modifications through floodplain and
building permits or the expiration of a 10-year implementation window that is intended to
provide time for facilities to research best management options and secure funding for
emergency management plans or containment of hazardous materials.
To date, city staff has responded to and incorporated feedback received from the public,
facility managers and the WRAB and based on that response requests a final
recommendation to submit the ordinance to City Council for approval. The City Council
public hearings and discussion are anticipated to occur in September and October.
AFRD~s- B
kell, E x u i irector
Department of Community Planning and Sustainability
ATTACHMENTS
A: Proposed Ordinance
B: Cost Analysis
C: WRAB and Open House feedback with staff response
D: Recent updates to the proposed ordinance
E: Matrix of Options
82 Agenda Item 5B Page 6 of 60
Attachment A
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
3 IN ORDER TO PROTECT CRITICAL FACILITIES AND
MOBILE POPULATIONS IN THE ONE HUNDRED-YEAR AND
4 FIVE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOODPLAINS INCLUDING
CHAPTER 9-3 "OVERLAY DISTRICTS," SECTION 9-16-1
5 "DEFINITIONS," B.R.C. 1981; AND SETTING FORTH
6 RELATED DETAILS.
7 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
8 COLORADO:
9
Section 1. Section 9-3-2, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
10
11 9-3-2 Floodplains.
12 (a) Legislative Intent: The purpose of this section is to regulate certain areas of the city
subject to flooding in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by:
13 (1) Restricting or prohibiting certain uses that are hazardous to life or property in
14 time of flood;
15 (2) Restricting the location of structures intended for human occupancy and
regulating the manner in which such structures may be built in order to minimize
16 danger to human life within and around such structures;
17 (3) Requiring that those structures allowed in the floodplain be expanded or
enlarged, and equipment and fixtures be installed or replaced, in a manner
18 designed to prevent their being washed away and to assure their protection from
severe damage;
19
(4) Regulating the method of construction and replacement of water supply and
20 sanitation systems in order to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary
conditions;
21
(5) Maintaining for public inspection available maps delineating areas subject to such
22 provisions in order to protect individuals from purchasing or using lands for
23 purposes that are not suitable;
(6) Protecting and preserving the water-carrying and water-retention characteristics
24 and capacities of watercourses used for conveying and retaining floodwaters; and
25 (7) Obtaining and maintaining the benefits to the community of participating in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
26
(b) Flooding May Occur: The degree of flood protection provided by the terms of this section
27 has been determined to be reasonable for regulatory purposes. Floods of greater
magnitude will occur, and flood heights may be increased as a result of natural or human-
28 made causes. The provisions of this section do not imply that areas outside of the
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 1
83 Agenda Item 5B Page 7 of 60
I floodplain or land uses permitted within the floodplain are free from flooding, flood
hazard, or flood damages. A grant or approval by the city under the requirements of this
2 section does not constitute a representation, guarantee, or warranty of any kind or nature
3 by the city or any city official or employee of the practicability or safety of any structure
or proposed use, and it creates no liability to or cause of action against the city or any city
4 official or employee for any damages from flood or otherwise that may result from such
structure or use.
5
(c) Scope And Application:
6 (1) The requirements of this section supplement those imposed on the same lands by
7 any underlying zoning provisions of this code or other ordinance of the city. If
there is a conflict between such requirements, the more restrictive controls.
8
(2) If a lot or parcel of land lies partly within the high hazard zone or the conveyance
9 zone, the one hundred-year, or the five hundred-year
floodplain, the part(s) of such lot or parcel lying within such area or areas shall
10 meet all the standards and requirements of such respective area as prescribed by
11 this section. For the purposes of new construction, if any portion of a structure lies
partly within the high hazard zone or the conveyance zone the one hundred-year,
12 or the five hundred-year floodplain^r thhea ' fringe- area, all the standards and
requirements of this section shall apply to the entire structure.
13
(3) If lands located outside the city limits are included within the floodplain, the
14 flood fringe, the conveyance zone or the high hazard zone, the requirements of
15 this section shall apply to such lands upon annexation.
(d) Administration: The city manager shall administer the requirements of this section and
16 shall:
17 (1) Determine that the requirements of this section have been met before issuing any
permit for development in the floodplain;
18
(2) Obtain and maintain for public inspection any certificates of floodproofing
19 required by this section, and any information on the elevation (in relation to mean
sea level) of the level the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or
20 substantially improved structures, and information specifying whether or- net such
21 structures contain a basement, and if the structure has been floodproofed, the
elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed;
22 (3) Notify Boulder County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board before
23 permitting any change in a watercourse and submit evidence of such notice to
FEMA;
24 (4) Adopt rules interpreting and implementing the requirements of this sectie
25 chap including, without limitation, application procedures for floodplain
development permits and specifications for the floodproofing of structures,
26 substantial improvements, and utilities;
27 (5) Assure that the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the
floodplain management objectives of this section and the regulations of FEMA;
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 2
84 Agenda Item 5B Page 8 of 60
1 (6) Make necessary interpretations of the exact location of the boundaries of the
floodplain, the food f_ nge five hundred-year flood plain, the one hundred-year
2 floodplain, the conveyance zone, and the high hazard zone;
3 (7) Amend the boundaries of the high hazard zone and the conveyance zone pursuant
4 to subsection (f) of this section;
(8) Determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from state, federal, or
5 local agencies the approval of which is required before issuing any permit for
6 development in the floodplain;
(9) Require that persons changing a watercourse maintain the watercourse so that its
7 flood carrying capacity is not diminished;
8 (10) Require that new and replacement water supply systems in the floodplain be
9 designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems;
(11) Require that new and replacement sanitary sewage systems within the floodplain
10 be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems
11 and discharges from the systems into floodwaters;
(12) Require that on-site waste disposal systems be located to avoid impairment to
12 them or contamination from them during flooding; and
13 (13) Obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any be-w-flood elevation and floodway data
available from federal, state, and other sources, including data developed pursuant
14 to chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981, as criteria for requiring that all new
15 development meet the requirements of this section. Where the water surface
elevation of the five hundred-year flood has not been established or is determined
16 by the city manager to be inconsistent with other available topographic or
hydraulic data, the city manager may establish a flood protection elevation based
17 on data sources described in this paragraph.
18
19 (e) Appeals: Any person contesting the city manager's interpretation of a boundary location
under paragraph (d)(6) of this section, or any person aggrieved by the granting or denial
20 of a floodplain development permit, may appeal such determination to the planning board
through the process described in section 9-4-4, "Appeals, Call-Ups And Public
21 Hearings," B.R.C. 1981. The request shall set forth the reason and basis for the appeal
22 and such other information as the manager may prescribe by rule.
23 (f) Map Amendments: As watercourse or flood channel improvements or mapping
corrections are made, the city manager may amend the flood regulatory area maps to
24 recognize the changed conditions produced by such improvements or corrections
provided that no such amendments or corrections may change a FEMA "area of special
25 flood hazard" or "regulatory floodway" unless the city is in receipt of a letter of map
26 amendment or a letter of map revision issued by FEMA.
(g) Flood Regulatory Areas:
27
(1) The provisions of this °enchapter_apply to the area shown as five hundred-
28 year floodplain_and_floodplain on the most recent maps adopted by the city
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 3
85 Agenda Item 5B Page 9 of 60
I council, as amended from time to time by the city manager pursuant to
subsections (d), (e), and (f) of this section. The regulatory floodplain encompasses
2 the five hundred-year floodplain, the one hundred-year floodplain, the floe
3 fringe the conveyance zone, and the high hazard zone. The following regulations
governing each portion of the floodplain are cumulative and not exclusive.
4 (2) In addition to the regulatory areas identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
5 the city has adopted the areas of special flood hazard identified in the Flood
Insurance Study for Boulder County, effective October 4, 2002, and delineated on
6 the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Boulder County and the City of Boulder as
adopted by the city in compliance with 44 C.F.R. chapter 1. In no event will the
regulations contained in this seetion be interpreted to permit any action
8 not permitted under those regulations promulgated by FEMA for the regulation of
areas of special flood hazard and regulatory floodways.
9 h) Floodproofing: Whenever this chapter requires floodproofing a building or structure, the
10 following-standards shall applT.
11 (D Floodproofing shall comply with any prescribed by the ci mana eg r for
floodproofing and current FEMA National Flood_ Insurance Program_ (NFIP)
12 Technical Bulletins:
13 The manner of floodproofing shall, without requiring any human intervention,
make the building or structure watertight with walls substantially mipermeable to
14 the passage of water,
15~ The building- or structure shall have structural components capable of resisting
projected hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy: and
16 The applicant shall provide a certification in a form acceptable to the city
17 manager froma Colorado re - istered-professionaLengineer or registered architect
certifying the floodproofing-measures comply with this chapter.
18 (i) Standards for mobile population facilities and critical facilities in the five hundred7
19 flood plain:
20 (=I Floodplain Development Permit Required. No person shall construct a critical
facili or mobile population facility in the five hundred-year floodplain without a
21 floodplain develo ment permit under section 9-3-6, "Floodplain Devel~nt
Permits," B.R.C. 1981.
22
(2) Emergency Management Plan Required. No owner or operator of a mobile
23 population facility-within the five hundred year floodplain shall fail to develop
and have roved-an emer~enc~~ management plan meeting~the requirements of
24 this section.
25 (A) Emergency management plans shall include either an evacuation plan or a
26 shelter in place plan.
Ci) Evacuation plans shall be certified bbd a Colorado re isg tered
27 professional engineer or registered architect and shall provide a
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 4
86 Agenda Item 5B Page 10 of 60
I means for safely evacuating occupants to a location outside of the
2 five hundred-year floodplain.
ii Shelter in place plans shall be certified by a Colorado registered
3 professional engineer and shall demonstrate that the structure will
4 be safe to occupy during and after a five hundred-year flood event.
5 _-BB Emergency management plans shall be posted on the inside of each
doorway leading to a separate unit in a hotel, motel, dormitory, bed and
6 breakfast or hostel and dis lay_ed in a_prominent location within a
assembly _-group use or a location designed to provide information to
7 persons within the facility that is approved by the city manager.
g (C) Emergency mana ement plans-shall he completed rior to final inspection
fora _b_uildnmit for new const_ructio_n_ the addition of any floor area,
9 or any building permit for a substantial improvement.
10 (=-3) Construction Requirements for Critical Facilities in the Five Hundred-Year
Flood in. The following requirements ap l to critical facilities located in a
11 five hundred-year floodplain:
12 W No owner or operator of a critical facility shall construct or modify a
building within the five hundred-year floodplain except in compliance
13 with the requirements of this section.
14 M Any person making an expansion or an enlargement to an existing
residential at-risk population or essential services facility shall elevate the
15 lowest floor, including the basement, of the expanded or enlarged portion
16 to or above the flood-protection elevation.
Any person making an expansion or an enlargement to an existing
17 nonresidential at-risk population or essential services facility shall
18 floodproof or elevate the lowest floor, including the basement, of the
expanded or enlarged pgl*n to or above the flood protection elevation.
19 Any person making a substantial modification or a substantial
20 improvement to any existing residential at-risk population or essential
services facility shall elevate the lowest, floor including the basement of
21 the entire residential structure to or above the flood protection elevation.
22 Any person making a substantial modification or a substantial
improvement to any existing nonresidential at-risk population facility or
23 essential services facilit) shall floodproof or elevate the lowest floor.
including the basement, of the substantially modified or improvedportion
24 to or above the flood protection elevation and shall floodproof or elevate
25 the remainder of the existing-structure to or above the flood protection
elevation.
26 Any person constructing- a new residential at-risk population or essential
27 services facility shall elevate the lowest floor, including the basement, to
or above the flood prote_c-t_io_n elevation.
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 5
87 Agenda Item 5B Page 11 of 60
I (G)_ AAy person constructing a new nonresidential at-risk population facility
essential services facility shall floodproof or elevate the lowest floor
2 including the basement to or above the flood protection elevation.
3 (H) Any person constructing a development associated with a critical facility
that requires a flood plain development permit shall develop and complete
4 an emergency management plan.
5 W No person owning, operating, or otherwise using a critical facility shall
fail to apply for receive approval, and implement an emer een
6 mana. ementplan that complies with the rectuire__ments of this section
7 January 1, 2022.
Any person constructing a new hazardous material building, making a
8 modification requiring a building permit to an existing hazardous material
9 building exceeding twenty-five-percent market value of the existing
structure within the five hundred-year flood plain, or any development
10 requiring a flood lain de_veloPment -permit, shall secure the hazardous
materials from flooding or otherwise being released during a five hundred-
11 year flood event. The owner shall demonstrate compliance with this
12 standard by providing a certification from a Colorado licensed
professional engineer
_ that documents that due to the flood threat and
13 hazardous material storage conditions, hazardous material will not be
14 released at or from the facili - during a five hundred-year flood event.
~K) No Person owning,-operat ng.-Qr otherwise using_a critical facilitythat
15 stores hazardous material_s__sha_ll-fail _to brin_ its facility into compliance
16 with this paragraph by no later than January 1, 2022.
4 Accredited Levies. New or existing critical facilities located on the protected
17 side of an accredited or nrovisionallKaccredited levee and mapped Zone_X
(shaded) in accordance with 44 CFR & 65.10 are exempt from the requirements of
18 this section so long as the levee is designed and certified by a Colorado licensed
professional engineer to provide floodTrotection to a minimum five hundred ear
19
flood elevation plus one foot of freeboard and is operated and maintained
20 according to 44 CFR 65.10 and Rule 10 of the Colorado Rules and Regulations
for Re u_g latory Floodplains in Colorado.
21
22 9-3-3 Regulations Governing The Floodplain.
23 (a) General Provisions: In the entire floodplain, the following standards apply:
24 (1) Floodplain Development Permit: Except as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(A), no
development in the floodplain may occur prior to the issuance of a floodplain
25 development permit pursuant to section 9-3-6, "Floodplain Development
Permits," B.R.C. 1981.
26 (A) Activities exempt from a floodplain development permit: The following
27 activities are allowed within the flood regulatory area and do not require a
floodplain development permit:
28
C:\Documents and Settings\Ha1niL1\Loca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 6
88 Agenda Item 5B Page 12 of 60
I (i) "Maintenance" as defined in chapter 9-16 "Definitions" that do not
constitute a substantial improvement and do not affect the
2 efficiency or capacity of the conveyance zone or high hazard zone.
3 (ii) Sidewalks, concrete, asphalt or stone flatwork that does not result
4 in the establishment or expansion of parking areas and does not
modify existing grade by more than six inches.
5 (iii) Underground utilities that do not modify existing grade.
6 (iv) Poles, lines, cables, sign posts, landscaping and artwork that do not
affect the efficiency or capacity of the conveyance zone or high
7 hazard zone.
8 (v) Temporary facilities that are not permanently attached to the
ground such as tents, traffic control devices and lawn furniture
provided that they will not affect the efficiency or capacity of the
10 conveyance zone or high hazard zone, or they will remain in place
for no more than 30 days.
11 (2) Anchoring:
12 (A) All new construction and substantial improvements or substantial
13 modifications shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral
movement of the structure and be capable of resisting the hydrostatic and
14 hydrodynamic loads.
15 (B) All manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation,
collapse, or lateral movement and capable of resisting the hydrostatic and
16 hydrodynamic loads. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not
limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties connecting to permanent
17 ground anchors, in addition to any anchoring requirements for resisting
18 wind forces and any tie-down requirements of chapter 10-12, "Mobile
Homes," B.R.C. 1981. Requirements shall include, without limitation, the
19 following:
20 (i) Over-the-top ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of
the manufactured homes. For manufactured homes fifty feet or
21 longer, two additional ties per side are required at intermediate
locations. For manufactured homes less than fifty feet long, one
22 additional tie per side is required;
23 (ii) Frame ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the
manufactured homes. For manufactured homes fifty feet or longer,
24 five additional ties per side are required at intermediate points. For
25 manufactured homes less than fifty feet long, four additional ties
per side are required;
26 (iii) All components of the anchoring system shall be capable of
27 carrying a force of four thousand eight hundred pounds; and
28 (iv) Any additions to manufactured homes shall be similarly anchored.
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 7
89 Agenda Item 5B Page 13 of 60
1 (3) Construction Materials And Methods:
2 (A) All new construction, substantial improvements, and substantial
modifications shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment
3 resistant to flood damage as outlined in FEMA Technical Document 2-93,
4 Flood-Resistant Materials Requirements.
(B) All new construction, substantial improvements, and substantial
5 modifications shall be constructed using methods and practices that
6 minimize flood damage.
(C) All new construction, substantial improvements and substantial
7 modifications shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation,
8 plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that
are designed and located (by elevating or floodproofing the components)
9 so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the
components during flooding conditions.
10
(4) Utilities:
11 (A) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to
12 minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems.
13 (B) All new and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and
14 discharge from the systems into floodwaters.
15 (C) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment or
contamination during flooding.
16 (5) Subdivision Proposals:
17 (A) All subdivision proposals shall demonstrate efforts to minimize flood
18 damage.
(B) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as
19 sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to
20 minimize flood damage.
(C) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce
21 exposure to flood damage.
22 (D) Base flood elevation data shall be provided for subdivision proposals and
23 other proposed development.
(E) No subdivision proposal shall create a lot which is unbuildable pursuant to
24 this section.
25 (6) Floodproofing: Whenever this section requires a building or structure to be
26 floodproofed, the following standards _in_subsection 9-3-2ft B.R._C_1981 shall
be met:
27 (A) S11e , „;t,a;in . o r- stfuetufe °t,°tI t,° -A-edp eef ,a ; ^rd44^° w ;tt,
28 r„leo _f 'Or fin-odpreefing peen: lgate by the c ty fnanager ,,rank to
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 8
90 Agenda Item 5B Page 14 of 60
I
"Ruleffiak4ng," B.R.C. 1981, and with etiffent FE
2 '
(B) Sech building or- stfuetuf e shall be fiaodpr-aafed to the flood pfateetion
3
elevation in sueh a manner- that the building or- stfuetufe is water-tight wi
4 -Alts sub-st,,,,tially ; °-Ab'e, to the passage of;.vat°r ~r a in a manner
hi4f,.,,, ,,,ter-vent;
5
6
7
8
9 shall be provided to the eity manager- as set for-th in paragraph 9 _ B.R.C.
i9gi-
10 (7) Hazardous Materials: No person shall store a hazardous substance at or below the
11 flood protection elevation for the area of the floodplain in which it is located,
except for the storage of fuelge-s~ in existing and replacement underground
12 tanks in existing gaseline-fueling service stations and service garages, which tanks
are designed to prevent infiltration and discharge into floodwaters and which are
13 adequately anchored and shielded against rupture. For purposes of this paragraph,
14 "existing" means in place and in use on January 1, 1989.
15 (8) Automobile Parking: Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, no person
shall establish an area for automobile parking in any portion of the floodplain
16 where flood depths exceed eighteen inches.
17 (9) Flood Warning System: No owner of a hotel, a motel, a dormitory, a rooming
house, a hostel, a school, a bed and breakfast, a daycare center, a group home, or a
18 residential or congregate care facility located in the Boulder Creek floodplain
shall fail to provide a flood warning system approved by the city manager that is
19 connected to a point of central communication in the building with twenty-four-
20 hour monitoring. No such person shall fail to maintain such a flood warning
system.
21 (10) Rental Property: No owner of property that is located in athe floodplain and
22 subject to a city rental license under chapter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," B.R.C.
1981, shall fail to post on the exterior of the premises at the entrance a sign
23 approved by the city manager stating that the property is subject to flood hazard
and containing such further information and posted at such other locations inside
24 the building as the city manager may require.
25 (11) Manufactured Housing: All manufactured homes placed in the city after July 1,
1989, and all manufactured homes which are substantially improved or
26 substantially modified shall be elevated on a permanent foundation so that the
lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the flood protection
27 elevation and is securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system,
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 9
91 Agenda Item 5B Page 15 of 60
1 and shall meet the anchorage and tie-down requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of
this section.
2
(12) Recreational Vehicles: In order to reduce debris and hazard potential, recreational
3 vehicles shall either: a) be in the floodplain for fewer than one hundred eighty
consecutive days, b) be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or c) meet the
4 permit requirements and elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured
5 homes.
(13) Structure Orientation: In order to minimize the obstruction to flow caused by
6 buildings, to the extent consistent with other city policies regarding solar access,
7 new structures shall be placed with their longitudinal axes parallel to the predicted
direction of flow of floodwaters or be placed so that their longitudinal axes are on
8 lines parallel to those of adjoining structures.
9 (14) Existing Uses: The use of any land or structure that was lawful before the
application of this °°rcha ter or any amendment thereto but that does not
10 conform to the requirements of this c°~tihapter maybe continued subject to
the requirements of this section chapter. If such a use not conforming to the
11 requirements of this seetio chapter is discontinued for twelve consecutive
12 months, no person shall use the land or structure thereafter unless such use
conforms to the requirements of this see ch= ate.
13 (15) New Uses: All uses allowed by the underlying zoning district may be established,
14 subject to the requirements of this section, except for the outdoor or uncontained
storage of moveable objects below the flood protection elevation.
15 (16) Existing Structures: Any structure in existence before the enactment of this
16 section or any amendment thereto that does not conform to the requirements of
this section may remain or may undergo rehabilitation subject to the requirements
17 of this section. Further, any such structure may be otherwise improved as follows:
18 (A) Any person making an expansion or an enlargement to an existing
residential structure shall elevate the lowest floor, including the basement,
19 of the expanded or enlarged portion to or above the flood protection
elevation.
20
(B) Any person making an expansion or an enlargement to an existing
21 nonresidential structure shall floodproof or elevate the lowest floor,
22 including the basement, of the expanded or enlarged portion to or above
the flood protection elevation.
23 (C) Any person making a substantial modification or a substantial
24 improvement to any existing nonresidential structure shall floodproof or
elevate the lowest floor, including the basement, of the substantially
25 modified or improved portion to or above the flood protection elevation
and shall floodproof the remainder of the existing structure.
26
(D) Any person making a substantial modification or a substantial
27 improvement to any existing residential structure shall elevate the lowest
floor, including the basement, of the entire residential structure to or above
28 the flood protection elevation.
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 10
92 Agenda Item 5B Page 16 of 60
1 (17) New Structures: Construction of new structures shall meet the following
2 requirements:
(A) Any person constructing a new residential structure shall elevate the
3 lowest floor, including the basement, to or above the flood protection
4 elevation;
(B) Any person constructing a new nonresidential structure shall floodproof in
5 a manner requiring no human intervention or elevate the lowest floor,
6 including the basement, to or above the flood protection elevation with the
following exceptions:
7 (i) Open air carwashes;
8 (ii) Unheated pavilions;
9 (iii) Unfinished or flood resistant building entryways or access areas;
10 (iv) Garden storage sheds;
(v) Sidewalks, paving, or asphalt, concrete, or stone flatwork;
11
(vi) Fences; and
12 (vii) Poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities
13 of public utilities.
14 (C) Any person constructing a new structure on a property removed from the
one hundred-year floodplain through a FEMA Letter of Map Revision
15 Based on Fill_(LOMR-~ll_protect the lowest floor_ including
16 basements to or above the flood protection elevation that existed before
placement of fill as follows:
17
(i) Residential structures: by elevating the structure.
18
ii Non-residential structures: by eleva Wg,_9r floodproofingthe
19 structure.
20 (18) Enclosures: Enclosures below the lowest floor that are unfinished or flood
resistant, usable solely for parking of vehicles, crawl spaces, building access or
21 storage, in an area that is not a basement, and that are not floodproofed as set forth
in this section shall meet the following requirements:
22
(A) Compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of
23 this section; and
24 (B) Design and construction that automatically equalizes hydrostatic flood
forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters.
25 (i) Designs for meeting this requirement shall meet or exceed the
26 following minimum criteria: a minimum of two openings having a
total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot
27 of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom
28 of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade.
Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Loca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 11
93 Agenda Item 5B Page 17 of 60
1 coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry
and exit of floodwaters.
2
(ii) Any designs not in conformance with subparagraph (a)(18)(B)(i)
3 of this section, shall be certified by a registered professional
4 engineer or architect and shall conform with FEMA Technical
Bulletin 1-93, Openings In Foundation Walls.
5 (C) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor subject to this provision,
6 include the following:
(i) Residential garages placed at or above grade;
7 (ii) Enclosures or vestibules that are attached to structures and that are
8 utilized for storage or entryways;
(iii) Crawl spaces; and
9 (iv) Outdoor pavilions and patio enclosures with removable walls not
located in the high hazard zone.
10 (19) Below Grade Crawl Space Construction: New construction, expansion or
11 enlargement, substantial improvement and substantial modification of any below
grade crawl space shall meet the following requirements:
12 (A) Interior grade elevation that is below the base flood elevation shall be no
13 lower than two feet below the lowest adjacent grade;
(B) The height of the below grade crawl space measured from the interior
14 grade of the crawl space to the top of the foundation wall shall not exceed
15 four feet at any point;
16 (C) Adequate drainage systems shall allow floodwaters to drain from the
interior area of the crawl space following a flood; and
17 (D) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(18) of this
18 section shall be complied with.
19 9-3-4 Regulations Governing The Conveyance Zone.
20 In the conveyance zone, the following standards apply:
(a) The provisions of section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981.
21
(b) The provisions of section 9-3-5, "Regulations Governing The High Hazard Zone," B.R.C.
22 1981, if the land is also located in the high hazard zone.
23 (c) All uses allowed under the provisions of section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The
Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981, if they are not prohibited by the underlying zoning district or
24 any ordinance of this city, may be established except that no person shall establish or
25 change any use that results in a rise in the elevation of the one hundred-year flood.
(d) All structures allowed under section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The Floodplain,"
26 B.R.C. 1981, may be established except that no person shall:
27 (1) Place any structure in the conveyance zone that will result in any rise in the elevation
of the one hundred-year flood; or
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 12
94 Agenda Item 5B Page 18 of 60
1 (2) Place any obstruction in the conveyance zone, except a device reasonably necessary
for flood management if the device is designed and constructed to minimize the potential
2 hazards to life and property.
3 (e) No person shall carry out any other development that results in a rise in the elevation of
4 the one hundred-year flood.
(f) Localized rises within flood channels or on a specific parcel that is being developed are
5 permissible, if there is no adverse impact on nearby properties and there is no increase in
6 the average water surface elevations along the cross sections of the floodplain.
7 9-3-5 Regulations Governing The High Hazard Zone.
8 In the high hazard zone of the floodplain, the following standards apply:
9 (a) The provisions of section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981.
10 (b) The provisions of section 9-3-4, "Regulations Governing The Conveyance Zone," B.R.C.
11 1981, if the land is also located in the conveyance zone.
(c) All uses allowed under the provisions of section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The
12 Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981, if they are not prohibited by the underlying zoning district or
13 any other ordinance of the city, may be established, except that no person shall:
(1) Change the use of an existing structure intended for human occupancy from a
14 nonresidential use to a residential use or use as a school, daycare center, group
15 home, residential care facility, or congregate care facility.
(2) Establish any new parking lot for motor vehicles.
16
(3) Establish any campground.
17 (d) All structures allowed under the provisions of section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The
18 Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981, may be established, except that no person shall:
19 (1) Construct or place any new structure intended for human occupancy.
(2) Expand, enlarge, or make a substantial modification or substantial improvement
20 to any existing structure intended for human occupancy. Notwithstanding this
21 provision, a person may reconstruct a non-flood-damaged structure or portion
thereof, which otherwise does constitute a substantial improvement, under the
22 provisions of subparagraphs 9-3-3(a)(16)(C) and (a)(16)(D), B.R.C. 1981.
23 (e) Unconditioned, unenclosed building elements such as balconies, awnings, and roof
overhangs may extend up to four feet into the high hazard zone if completely located
24 above the flood protection elevation and the remainder of the structure complies with this
25 chapter.
26 9-3-6 Floodplain Development Permits.
27 (a) An applicant for a floodplain development permit shall pay the fee prescribed by section
4-20-44, "Floodplain Development Permits And Flood Control Variance Fees," B.R.C.
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 13
95 Agenda Item 5B Page 19 of 60
1 1981, and shall complete an application form provided by the city manager that shall
2 include, without limitation, the following:
(1) The written consent of the owners of all property subject to the development
3 request;
4 (2) A written statement addressing the criteria for approval;
5 (3) A surface view plan showing elevations and contours of the ground; pertinent
structures, fill, and storage elevations; sizes, locations, and spatial arrangements
6 of all proposed, anticipated, and existing structures on the site; location and
elevations of streets, water supplies and sanitary facilities; and soil types; and
7
(4) Specifications for building construction and materials, filling, dredging, grading,
8 channel improvements and changes, storage of materials, water supply, and
9 sanitary facilities.
(b) The manager may require the applicant to furnish additional information and details
10 deemed necessary to evaluate the effects of the proposed construction upon the
11 floodplain, including, without limitation:
(1) Valley cross sections showing the floodplain surrounding the watercourse, cross
12 sections of the area to be occupied by the proposed development, five hundred-
13 year and one hundred-year flood maximum water surface elevation information;
(2) A profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or thalweg of the
14 watercourse;
15 (3) A floodplain analysis by a Colorado registered professional engineer of the flood
profile, elevation, and velocity, using methodology acceptable to FEMA,
16 including existing and anticipated uses and making a determination that the
17 proposed construction or development will not cause a rise in the elevation of the
water surface of a one hundred-year flood;
18 O 4 A structural analysis by a Colorado registered professional engineer showing that
19 any proposed structures will be adequately designed and constructed to prevent
flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from
20 hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy and
21 scouring.
5) An applicant for a non-residential floodplain development permit in the five
22 hundred-year floodplain shall indicate whether the_facilit will contain hazardous
23 material. If the facility will contain hazardous material., the application must
include information on the location of the hazardous material and how the
24 hazardous material_ will be secured tore_v_ent its release during a five hundred-
year flood _event.
25 _
(c) When reviewing an application for a permit, the city manager shall determine which
26 portion or portions of the floodplain are affected by the particular development request
and shall then apply the provisions of sections 9-3-2, "Floodplains,"_9-3-3, "Regulations
27 Governing The Floodplain," 9-3-4, "Regulations Governing The Conveyance Zone," and
28 9-3-5, "Regulations Governing The High Hazard Zone," B.R.C. 1981, as applicable. The
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 14
96 Agenda Item 5B Page 20 of 60
I manager also shall determine whether the application meets the intent of this chapter
2 prescribed by subsection 9-3-2(a), B.R.C. 1981, after considering the following factors:
(1) The effects upon the efficiency or capacity of the conveyance zone and high
3 hazard zone;
4 (2) The effects upon lands upstream, downstream, and in the immediate vicinity;
5 (3) The effects upon the one hundred-year flood profile;
(4) The effects upon any tributaries to the main stream, drainage ditches, and any
6 other drainage facilities or systems;
7 (5) Whether additional public expenditures for flood protection or prevention will be
8 required;
(6) Whether the proposed use is for human occupancy;
9
(7) The potential danger to persons upstream, downstream, and in the immediate
10 vicinity;
11 (8) Whether any proposed changes in a watercourse will have an adverse
environmental effect on the watercourse, including, without limitation, stream
12 banks and streamside trees and vegetation;
13 (9) Whether any proposed water supply and sanitation systems and other utility
systems can prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary or hazardous
14 conditions during a flood;
15 (10) Whether any proposed facility and its contents will be susceptible to flood
damage and the effect of such damage;
16
(11) The relationship of the proposed development to the Boulder Valley
17 Comprehensive Plan and any applicable floodplain management programs;
18 (12) Whether safe access is available to the property in times of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles;
19 (13) Whether the applicant will provide flood warning systems to notify floodplain
20 occupants of impending floods;
21 (14) Whether the cumulative effect of the proposed development with other existing
and anticipated uses will increase flood heights; and
22 (15) Whether the expected heights, velocities, duration, rate of rise, and sediment
23 transport of the floodwaters expected at the site will adversely affect the
development or surrounding property.
24 (d) If the city manager determines that the applicant meets the purposes and requirements of
25 this chapter, the manager shall issue the permit and may attach such conditions as
deemed necessary to further the purposes of this chapter.
26 (e) A permit issued on or after April 7, 1985, expires three years after its date of issuance, if
27 the permittee has not commenced construction under the permit. The term "commenced
construction" shall mean the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a
28 site, such as the pouring of slabs or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 15
97 Agenda Item 5B Page 21 of 60
I columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a
manufactured home on a foundation; but does not include land preparation, grading and
2 filling, or installation of streets or sidewalks.
3 (f) No person who has obtained a permit shall fail to construct in accordance with their
4 approved application and design.
(g) Floodplain development permits that allow for development in the conveyance zone or
5 the high hazard zone, or which will involve a change of watercourse, shall be decided by
6 the city manager. The decision of the city manager shall be subject to call-up by the
planning board, or appeal by any aggrieved party to the planning board, subject to the
7 call-up and appeal procedure of section 9-4-4, "Appeals, Call-Ups And Public Hearings,"
B.R.C. 1981.
8
(h) A floodplain development permit for any of the following items is effective upon the date
9 of its issuance:
10 (1) Sidewalks, parking lots, or other concrete, asphalt, or stone flatwork that do not
modify existing grade;
11 (2) Uninhabited overhead structural projections, no portion of which extends below
12 the flood protection elevation; or
13 (3) Rehabilitation of an existing structure in accordance with the definitions in
chapter 9-16, "Definitions," BR. C. 1981. In addition, for properties in the high
14 hazard zone, the rehabilitation shall not result in a prohibited change in use as set
forth in subsection 9-3-5(c), B.R.C. 1981.
15
(i) No person shall initiate any use after obtaining a permit under this section without first
16 submitting to the city manager a certification by a Colorado registered professional
engineer that the development has been completed in compliance with the approved
17 permit application and that all conditions have been fulfilled.
18
9-3-7 Variances.
19
(a) A person wishing to develop in_a manner that does
20 not conform to the requirements of this chapter and cannot be made to conform without
unreasonable expense or unreasonable impact on the existing structure may apply to the
21 city manager for a variance from the requirements of sections _9-3-2_, 9-3-3,
22 9-3-4 and 9-3-5, B.R.C. 1981, except that no variance shall be
granted for expansion or enlargement of any structure constructed after July 12, 1978,
23 unless such expansion or enlargement conforms to the flood protection elevation
requirement in effect at the time of the original construction.
24
(b) The city manager shall not grant a variance under this section unless the manager
25 determines that:
26 (1) Considering the flood hazard, the variance is the minimum necessary to afford
relief,
27 (2) To do so would not result in additional threats to public safety, extraordinary
28 public expense, nuisance, fraud, victimization of the public, or for variances in the
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 16
98 Agenda Item 5B Page 22 of 60
I conveyance zone a rise in the elevation of the water surface of a one hundred-year
flood, or be in conflict with existing provisions of this code or any ordinance of
2 the city; and
3 (3) Failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant.
4 (c) The manager shall examine the following factors in determining whether or not to grant a
variance under this section:
5
(1) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
6 (2) The likelihood that the proposed development, in conjunction with existing and
7 anticipated development, may increase flood hazards;
8 (3) The relationship of the proposed development to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan and any applicable floodplain management programs; and
9 (4) The cost of providing essential services such as maintaining and protecting public
10 utility systems, roads, and bridges during and after floods.
(d) The city manager shall not grant a cumulative total of variances that increases a
11 structure's floor area by more than ten percent of the structure throughout the life of the
12 structure.
(e) An applicant for a variance shall apply on forms provided by the city manager and pay
13 the fee prescribed by section 4-20-44, "Floodplain Development Permits And Flood
14 Control Variance Fees," B.R.C. 1981, unless a floodplain development permit is required
as well, in which case no fee is required for the variance.
15 (f) Any decision by the city manager to approve a variance is subject to call-up by the
16 planning board or appeal by any aggrieved party to the planning board as described by
section 9-4-4, "Appeals, Call-Ups And Public Hearings," B.R.C. 1981.
17 (g) When granting any variance that allows for construction below FEMA's one hundred-
18 year flood protection elevation, the city manager shall provide to the recipient of the
variance written notice that the proposed construction does not conform with FEMA
19 guidelines and that the proposed construction and the original structure may be subject to
20 increased flood insurance premiums.
21 9-3-8 Development Violating Chapter Is Nuisance.
22 (a) Every development placed or maintained in the floodplain contrary to the terms of this
chapter constitutes a public nuisance that may be enjoined and abated by suit or action by
23 the city or any resident of the city.
24 (b) In the event of a flood, when a structure intended for human occupancy located within a
high hazard zone is damaged to an extent exceeding fifty percent of its market value
25 before the flood damage occurred, it may not be repaired or replaced, and use of the
26 structure for human occupancy shall cease. After written request of the property owner
within ninety days after the date on which the damage occurred, subject to appropriation
27 by the city council of sufficient funds therefore, the city manager shall agree to contract
or purchase the land upon which the structure was located at its fair market value after the
28 damage occurred.
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Locat Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 17
99 Agenda Item 5B Page 23 of 60
I (c) When this section provides for acquisition of a structure and the city manager does not
accept as reasonable the values submitted by an applicant, the fair market value shall be
2 determined by an appraiser acceptable to the applicant and the manager, whose cost shall
3 be borne equally by the city and the applicant. If the applicant and the manager are
unable to agree upon an appraiser, each shall select an appraiser, whose cost shall be
4 borne by each respective selector, and the two appraisers shall select a third appraiser,
whose cost shall be borne equally by the city and the applicant. The value shall be the
5 average of the values determined by the three appraisers.
6
7
Section 2 Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
8
9 9-16-1 General Definitions.
10 (a) The definitions contained in chapter 1-2, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, apply to this title
11 unless a term is defined differently in this chapter.
12 (b) Terms identified with the references shown below after the definition are limited to those
specific sections or chapters of this title:
13
14 (1) Airport influence zone (AIZ).
15 (2) Floodplain regulations (Floodplain).
16 (3) Historic preservation (Historic).
17 (4) Inclusionary housing (Inclusionary Housing).
18 (5) Residential growth management system (RGMS).
19 (6) Solar access (Solar).
20 (7) Wetlands Protection (Wetlands).
21
(8) Signs (Signs).
22
(c) The following terms as used in this title have the following meanings unless the context
23 clearly indicates otherwise:
24
25 "Area of special flood hazard" means the land in the floodplain subject to a one percent or
26 greater chance of flooding in any given year. Such areas may be designated as Zones A, AO,
27 AH, AE and Al-30 on the FIRM for the City of Boulder. (Floodplain)
28 "At-risk-population facility" means a vre-school-public or private prima or secondary school
before and after school care center with twelve or more students. daycare center with twelve or
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 18
100 Agenda Item 5B Page 24 of 60
I more children, group home, and assisted living residential or congregate care facility with twelve
2 or more residents. (Floodplain)
3
4 "Base flood elevation" is the computed elevation to which floodwater is anticipated atedto rise
during the one hundred-year flood. (Floodplain)
5
"Basement" means any enclosed area of a building having its lowest floor a minimum of two feet
6 below grade level on all sides. (Floodplain)
7
8
"Change in a watercourse" means any change in an existing thalweg, bed, or bank of a
9 watercourse. (Floodplain)
10
11 "Conveyance zone" means those portions of the floodplain required for the passage or
12 conveyance of the one hundred-year flood based on equal encroachment (measured in volume of
water) of the floodplain from the edges of the flood channel to a point where the one hundred-
13 year flood profile will be raised by six inches or more, after considering a reasonable expectation
14 of blockage at bridges and other obstructions by flood borne debris. (Floodplain)
15
16 "Crawl space" means the enclosed area contained inside the foundation walls and below the
17 habitable floor of a structure. Crawl spaces having the lowest floor a minimum of two feet below
grade level on all sides shall be considered a basement, and not a crawl space. (Floodplain)
18
"Critical facility" means any structure or related infrastructure, the loss of which may result in
19 severe hazards tQ=public health and safety or=m~intgrrupt essential services and operations for
20 the community at any time before, during, and after a flood. Critical facilities are classified as
follows: (1) Essential Services Facility, (2) Hazardous Material Facility-, and (3) At-risk
21 Populations Facility. _(Floodpla n)
22
23 "Development" means any change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, without
24 limitation, constructing, relocating, rehabilitating, reconstructing or expanding or enlarging (but
not maintaining) a building or other structure or portion thereof, or establishing or changing a
25 use, or mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, or excavation. (Floodplain
)
26 "Essential services facility" means anyfacilityj_r_ovdnes_sential services that if flooded, may
27 result in severe hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations
for the communit at any time before, during-or after a flood that include without limitation,
28 public safety, emergency response, emergency medical, designated emergency shelters,
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 19
101 Agenda Item 5B Page 25 of 60
I communicatims_public utility plant facilities and equipment, and government operations.
Exam
2 ples of essential services facilities include without limitation the following=:
3
(1) Public safety facilities such as police stations, fire and rescue stations, and
4 emergency operation centers,
5 (2) Emergency response facilities such as emergency vehicle and equipment storage
6 and essential governmental work centers for continuity of government operations;
(3) Emergencymedical facilities such as hospitals renc ~care, rgent care, and
7 ambulance services but excluding hnics, doctors offices and non-urgent care
8 medical facilities-
9 (4) Shelters desi a ted by the city manage that will be used during or after a flood
10 for displaced persons;
(5) Communication facilities such as main hubs for telephone main broadcasting
11 eauipment for television systems, radio and other emergency warning systems but
12 excludintowers poles lines, cables and conduits,
13 (6) Public utility plant facilities and essential equipment for treatment, generation,
storage,==puj in -and distribution such as hubs for water wastewater. ower}and
14 gas but excluding hydro electric facilities, towers poles, power lines. buried
15 pipelines, transmission lines distribution lines, and service lines
16 (7) Essential-gcvernmental facilities necessaryfor operations, without
limitation facilities where public records are stored, courts~jails~building
17 permitting and msPection servicesa-overnment administration -and nana ement3
- - - - - - -
18 maintenance and equipment center
sl
19 (8) Air transportation lifelines such as an airport or heliport and structures serving
emergencyfunctions and associated infrastructur_etaviation control towers _air
20 traffic control centers, and ewer-genc e uipment aircraft haaMj,, Flood in)
21
22
"Exceptional hardship" means a substantially disproportionate burden in relationship to the
23 benefit to be derived from conformance with the requirements of this title. (Floodplain)
24
25 "Existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park for which
26 the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be
affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and
27 either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) was completed prior to July 12, 1978.
28 (Floodplain)
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 20
102 Agenda Item 5B Page 26 of 60
I
2 "Expansion or enlargement of a structure" means any addition of an exterior wall to the structure
3 or any addition to the floor area of the structure, whether under, at, or above grade, and whether
or not the external dimensions of the structure are changed, or the reconstruction of a flood-
4 damaged portion of a structure, so long as such expansion, enlargement or reconstruction does
5 not constitute a "substantial modification" or a "substantial improvement." (Floodplain)
6 "Expansion to existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means the preparation of
additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured
7 homes are to be affixed (including, without limitation, the installation of utilities, the
8 construction of streets, final site grading, or the pouring of concrete pads). (Floodplain)
10 "FEMA" means the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (Floodplain)
11
12 "Five hundred-year flood" means a flood having a 0.2ercent chance of occurring
13 (Flo_ odplain)
14 "Flood" or "flooding" means a general or temporary condition of partial or complete inundation
of normally dry land areas from a watercourse that temporarily overflows the boundaries within
15 which it is ordinarily confined or from the rapid accumulation of runoff of surface water caused
16 by rain, snow melt, flow blockage, or any other source. (Floodplain)
17 "Flood channel" means a natural or artificial watercourse with a definite bed and banks which
periodically or continuously conducts flowing water and is shown on the Flood Channel
18 Inventory Map prepared by the city's Utility Division of the Public Works Department.
19 (Floodplain)
20 "Flood fringe" means those portions of the floodplain that are not in the conveyance zone or in
21 the high hazard zone. (Floodplain)
22 "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" means the official map on which FEMA has delineated
both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.
23 (Floodplain)
24 "Flood insurance study (FIS)" means the official report provided by the Federal Emergency
25 Management Agency that included flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, and the
water surface elevations of the base flood. (Floodplain)
26
"Flood profile" means a graph showing the elevations of the floodwater surface and the
27 elevations of the underlying land as a function of distance along a path of flow. (Floodplain)
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 21
103 Agenda Item 5B Page 27 of 60
I "Flood protection elevation" means an elevation of. 1) two feet above the elevation of the water
2 surface of a one hundred-year flood as determined pursuant to sections 9-3-2 through 9-3-8,
B.R.C. 1981, or, if no such elevation is determined, two feet above the highest grade adjacent to
3 a structure, or 2) two feet above the base flood elevation in AE zones or two feet above the flood
depth number indicated for AO zones on the FIRM for the City of Boulder, whichever is higher.
4 (Floodplain)
5 "Flood protection elevation - 500-year floodplain" means an elevation of one foot above the
6 water surface of a five hundred-year flood under there standards in sections 9-3-2 through 9-3-8,
B.R.C., 1981.
7
8 "Floodplain" means the area that is inundated by a flood. Unless the context clearl indicates
9 otherwise, _"floodplain"refers . to the one hundred-year floodplain. (Floodplain)
10 "Floodplain development permit" means any permit granted under the terms and conditions of
11 sections 9-3-2 through 9-3-8, B.R.C. 1981, for development on land in a floodplain. (Floodplain)
12 "Floodplain_, five hundred-year" means the area inundated by a flood having-a 0.2-percent or
greater chance of occurring- _y given year.
_(Fle~dplain_
13
"Floodplain, one hundred-year" means the area inundated by a flood having a one percent or
14 greater chance of occurring in any given year. (Floodplain)
15 "Floodproofing" means any combination of structural and nonstructural changes, modifications,
16 or adjustments to structures or real property which reduce or eliminate flood damage to improved
or unimproved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.
17 (Floodplain)
18 "Floodway, FEMA regulatory" means the channels of watercourses and the adjacent land areas
19 that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
20 water surface elevation more than one foot. (Floodplain)
21
"Hazardous material" means any material used}-generated, or stored at a facili of a type and in
22 a quantity that would classify the facility as a hazardous materials facilit (Floodplam)
23
"Hazardous material building" means an~structure on_a hazardous materials facility in which
24 hazardous material _isused, generated, or stored (Floodplain)
25 "Hazardous material facilit „means:
26
(1) A facility subject to Section 303 of the Emergency Planning and Community
27 Rig ow Act..42 USC $11003 because it has on site an "Extremely
Hazardous Substance" in quantities that meet or exceed the "Threshold Planning
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 22
104 Agenda Item 5B Page 28 of 60
I Quantities" established by the United States Environmental Protection A en c
and listed at 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A and A
2 ppendix B.
(2)Unless covered by subpart (a) above, facilities storing hazardous material as
3 defined by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Parts 171-180 but
only to the extent that the facility is storing the hazardous material in the "Bulk
4 Packaging" container in which it was delivered as that term is defined at 49 CFR
5 171.8.
6 (3)--A facility storing a hazardous substance of the We and quantity listed by §29-22-
107.C.R.S.
7 (4 A facili _ regulated as a transfer facility under Colorado hazardous waste
8 regulations at 6CCR 1007-3, Part 263. (Floodplain)
9
ffianagef ptifstiant to the vale faaking aiathafit~, gf anted by subseetiEffi 9 3 2(e), B.R.C. 199 1, that
10
animals, or- plant life. (Fleedplain)
11 humans, be hattmfiil to
12
"High hazard zone" means those portions of the floodplain where an unacceptably high hazard to
13 human safety exists defined as those areas where the product number of flow velocity (measured
14 in ft./sec.) times flow depth (measured in feet) equals or exceeds four, or where flow depths
equal or exceed four feet. (Floodplain)
15
16
"Intended for human occupancy" means, as applied to structures, capable of and likely to be used
17 for residential habitation, or for commercial, industrial or governmental occupation by persons
18 on a regular basis. Examples of structures normally not intended for human occupancy include,
without limitation, garages useable solely for the parking of vehicles or storage, open air
1 carwashes, unheated pavilions, porches or patio covers, crawl spaces, flood resistant enclosures
20 useable solely for building access, barns and other agricultural buildings, garden storage sheds,
ATMs, and mausoleums. (Floodplain)
21
22
23 "Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement or crawl
space). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building
24 access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest
25 floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the
applicable design requirements of sections 9-3-2 through 9-3-8, B.R.C. 1981. (Floodplain)
26
27
"Maintenance" means any activity undertaken to repair or prevent the deterioration, impairment
28 or failure of any stream, previously constructed improvement or structure including, without
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Loca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 23
105 Agenda Item 5B Page 29 of 60
I limitation: the removal of sediment and debris, installation of erosion and sediment control
2 devices and the replacement of structural components. Maintenance does not include substantial
modifications, substantial improvements, total replacement of existing facilities or total
3 reconstruction of a facility. (Floodplain)
4
5 "Manufactured home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on
6 a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a
7 "recreational vehicle." (Floodplain)
8 "Manufactured home park or manufactured home subdivision" means any lot or tract of land
9 designed, used, or intended to provide a location or accommodation for one or more
manufactured homes and upon which any manufactured home or homes are parked or located,
10 whether or not the lot or tract or any part thereof is held or operated for profit, on which
11 construction was completed on or after July 12, 1978. (Floodplain)
12
13 "Mobile population facility" means a hotel, motel, dormitory, bed and breakfast, or hostel, as
14 defined in the Boulder Revised Code and an assembly group occupancy or use, as defined in the
city's adopted version of the International Building Code. Flood In ain)
15
16
"Moveable object" means an item or material not anchored to the ground that is subject to being
17 transported by water, including, without limitation, a manufactured home not anchored to a
18 permanent foundation, a tank, a trash dumpster, lumber, and other materials, but not a motor
vehicle. (Floodplain)
19
20
"New construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or
21 after July 12, 1978, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. (Floodplain)
22
"New manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision
23 for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes
24 are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets,
final site grading, or pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after July 12, 1978.
25 (Floodplain)
26 "Nonresidential structure" means any structure or any portion of a structure used exclusively for,
27 or designed as and capable of being used for, office, commercial, industrial, or governmental
occupation. (Floodplain)
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 24
106 Agenda Item 5B Page 30 of 60
I
2 "Obstruction" means any item or material not constituting a moveable object in, along, across, or
3 projecting into the floodplain that might impede, retard, or change the direction of a flow of
water, either by itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water, in a way that the
4 city manager determines would increase the flood hazard to adjacent properties. (Floodplain)
5
6 "One hundred-year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of occurring in any year.
7 (Floodplain)
8
9 "Reconstruction" means exact replacement of an existing structure or portion thereof or exact
10 structural repair of a damaged structure. (Floodplain)
11 "Recreational vehicle" means a vehicle which is: 1) built on a single chassis; 2) four hundred
square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; 3) designed to be self-
12 propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and 4) designed primarily not for use as
13 a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or
seasonal use. (Floodplain)
14
15
"Rehabilitation" means any improvement, maintenance, or remodeling made to the interior or
16 exterior of any existing structure or the reconstruction of a deteriorated or non-flood-damaged
17 portion of an existing structure so long as such improvement or reconstruction does not
constitute an "expansion or enlargement of a structure," "substantial modification," or a
18 "substantial improvement." (Floodplain)
19
20
"Residential structure" means any structure or any portion of a structure that is used for, or
21 designed as and capable of being used for, the temporary or permanent domicile of persons,
22 including, without limitation, a dwelling, a boarding house, a hotel, a motel, and similarly used
structures. (Floodplain)
23
24
"Start of construction" means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of
25 construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement
26 was within one hundred eighty days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first
placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site such as the pouring of slab or
27 footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of
28 excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. (Floodplain)
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 25
107 Agenda Item 5B Page 31 of 60
I
2 "Structure" means a building or other roofed construction, a basement, a wall, a fence, a
3 manufactured home, or a storage tank. (Floodplain)
4
5 "Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent of the
6 market value of the structure before the damage occurred. (Floodplain)
7
"Substantial improvement" means any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or
8 improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value
9 of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes
structures which have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work
10 performed. For the purposes of this definition, "substantial improvement" is considered to occur
when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building
11 commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The
12 term does not, however, include either: 1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply
with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely
13 necessary to assure safe living conditions or 2) any alteration of a structure listed on the National
14 Register of Historic Places or the Colorado Inventory of Historic Places or designated as an
individual landmark under section 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate Or Amend Landmarks
15 And Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981. (Floodplain)
16
17
"Substantial modification" means any expansion or enlargement of a structure which equals or
18 exceeds fifty percent of the floor area of the structure intended for human occupancy, considered
19 cumulatively, commencing July 12, 1978. (Floodplain)
20
21 Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective on the later of January 1, 2012, or 30
22 days after its final passage by the City Council. This ordinance shall apply to all permits and
23 development applications submitted to the city after the effective date of its passage.
24
Section 4_ This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
25
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
26
27
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLl\Loca1 Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Ontlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 26
108 Agenda Item 5B Page 32 of 60
I Section 5. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
2 only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
3
public inspection and acquisition.
4
5 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
6 TITLE ONLY this day of , 2011.
7
8 Mayor
9
Attest:
10
11
12 City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
13
14 READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
15 PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20.
16
17
18 Mayor
19 Attest:
20
21 City Clerk on behalf of the
22 Director of Finance and Record
23
24
25
26
27
28
C:\Documents and Settings\HarniLI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\GLNQ7ADL\o-critical facilities- 1190.doc 27
109 Agenda Item 5B Page 33 of 60
Attachment B - Cost Analysis
Civil Engineering Solutions L'C°uR
CITY OF BOULDER
CRITICAL FACILITIES AND MOBILE POPULATIONS ORDINANCE
COST ANALYSIS
Prepared
For
CITY OF BOULDER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Boulder, Colorado
Contact: Ms. Christie Coleman, P.E., CFM
March 15, 2011
Prepared By:
The Sanitas Group, LLC
1022 Willow Place
Louisville, CO 80027
Contact: Mr. Curtis C. Stevens, P.E., CFM
110 Agenda Item 513 Page 34 of 60
PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE REVISIONS
COST ANALYSIS
Boulder, Colorado
,I- L
1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................1
Purpose ..............................................................................................................................................1
Proposed New Regulations ...............................................................................................................2
2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................2
Why Higher Regulation Standards? ...................................................................................................2
Why the City of Boulder ....................................................................................................................4
3.0 Mobile Population analysis ...............................................................................................................5
Methodology and Assumptions .........................................................................................................5
Analysis Results 6
Mobile Population Regulations Conclusions .....................................................................................7
4.0 Critical faciltiy analysis 7
Proposed Rules ..................................................................................................................................7
Extent of Impact on Critical Facilities ................................................................................................8
What about Hazardous Materials Facilities? .....................................................................................9
4.1 Fill Based Flood Protection Analysis ..................................................................................................9
Methodology and Assumptions .........................................................................................................9
Analysis Results ...............................................................................................................................10
4.2 Floodproofing Based Flood Protection analysis ..............................................................................10
Methodology and Assumptions .......................................................................................................10
Flood Depth 0-2 feet Analysis Results .............................................................................................11
Flood Depth 2+ feet Analysis Results ..............................................................................................12
4.3 Critical Facilities Conclusions ...........................................................................................................13
5.0 Final Conclusions .............................................................................................................................13
6.0 References .......................................................................................................................................14
Page ii
111 Agenda Item 5B Page 35 of 60
Mobile Population Analysis Calculations Appendix A
City of Boulder Emergency Planning for Flooding/Flash Flooding Evacuation and
Shelter in Place Guidelines Appendix B
Critical Facilities Analysis Calculations ....................................................................................Appendix C
City of Boulder Draft Critical Facilities Ordinance Appendix D
ASFPM White Paper "Critical Facilities and Flood Risk" Appendix E
Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Flood Regulations ..........................................Appendix F
Page iii
112 Agenda Item 5B Page 36 of 60
The City of "Boulder is the #1 flash flood risk community in Colorado". Because of this
elevated risk the city must diligently evaluate ways to reduce damages to property and
injuries resulting from flooding. Flood protection regulations increase public safety and
reduce potential damages from flood waters. Under current flood protection regulations,
two segments of the community are particularly vulnerable during a flood: Mobile
Populations and Critical Facilities. Mobile populations often lack flood risk awareness and
warrant additional flood protection regulations to improve public health and safety during a
flood. Critical Facilities warrant additional flood protection to ensure essential services for
the community remain uninterrupted or, if flooded, a facility does not pose a risk to public
health and safety.
In 2002, the City Council supported developing additional flood protection regulations for
Critical Facilities. City Staff, with input from the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, the Local
Emergency Planning Committee, Colorado Water Conservation Board, City of Boulder first
responders, local business owners, and members of the public, drafted additional flood
protection regulations for both Mobile Populations and Critical Facilities. Under the
proposed flood protection regulations, Mobile Populations facilities within the 100-year or
500-year floodplains will be required to have a Flood Emergency Operations Plan. Critical
Facilities within the 500-year floodplain will be required to dry floodproof, elevate,
construct floodwalls or construct other equivalent protection measures to the 500-year
water surface elevation plus one foot of freeboard. The proposed flood protection
regulations will not be enacted retroactively and will apply to future activities requiring a
City Floodplain Development Permit.
City Staff is currently studying the potential impacts of the proposed flood protection
regulations. As part of their due diligence, City Staff engaged The Sanitas Group to quantify
potential specific cost impacts to land owners and facility operators directly resulting from
the proposed flood protection regulations. For facilities with Mobile Populations, the cost
impacts addressed by this report include the cost of preparing a Flood Emergency
Operations Plan (shelter-in-place or evacuation options) and any added floodplain
development permitting costs. For Critical Facilities, the cost impacts addressed by this
report include engineering services needed to design the flood proofing measures,
construction costs to build the flood proofing measures, and floodplain development
permitting costs.
The following report summarizes the potential specific cost impacts to land owners and
facility operators directly resulting from the proposed flood protection regulations. The
report includes background data and the assumptions used to develop this cost impact
analysis. The cost opinions stated in this report are at a feasibility level study, meaning they
are meant to address overall characteristics and patterns of the subject properties, and
facilities were not analyzed on a specific case by case basis. Cost data was obtained through
previous project experience, discussions with local contractors and design professionals,
and RS Means Costworks data. Costs are based on 2010 dollars.
i www.BoulderFloodlnfo.net
Page 1
113 Agenda Item 5B Page 37 of 60
This analysis will look at two different parts of the proposed regulations. The first part
involves mobile populations located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplain areas.
Mobile populations consist of facilities such as hotels, motels, dormitories, bed and
breakfasts, hostels, and assembly group uses2 such as restaurants/taverns, theaters/halls
and similar spaces where groups of people gather. With the proposed new regulations,
facilities meeting the above description located within the 100-year and 500-year
floodplain will prepare a Flood Emergency Management Plan. The intent of these plans is to
make sure that staff and occupants are aware of the areas flooding potential and have
information they need to keep themselves safe. The City has prepared an emergency
planning document (see Appendix B) to assist property owners/managers in preparing
plans, and this document outlines both "shelter in place" and "evacuation" options.
Facilities will prepare plans upon change of use, new use, or expansion/building permit
application.
The second part of the new regulations is in regard to Critical Facilities located within the
500-year floodplain. Per the proposed Ordinance, a Critical Facility is defined as:
"any facility, including without limitation, a structure, infrastructure, property,
equipment or service, that if flooded may result in severe consequences to public health
and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any
time before, during, and after a flood. A critical facility is classified by the following
categories: (1) Essential Services Facilities, (2) Hazardous Materials Facilities, (3) At-
risk Populations Facilities."
Under the proposed regulation, new or substantially improved/modified at-risk population
and essential service facilities will protect buildings through floodproofing, floodwalls,
elevation or other equivalent measures to the 500-year water surface elevation plus one
foot of freeboard. In instances where the standard 100-year flood protection elevation
(100-year water surface elevation plus two feet) is lower than the S00-year water surface
elevation plus one foot, the 100-year flood protection elevation may be used. For additions
to existing critical facilities that are smaller than these limits, the new construction will be
protected to the 500-year water surface elevation plus one foot of freeboard or 100-year
flood protection elevation. Hazardous materials facilities will be required to secure their
hazardous materials from flooding during a 500-year flood event upon new use or
modification requiring a building permit.
Additional discussion of the proposed new regulations is included in the detailed analysis.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Historically, the original approach to mitigating the effects of flooding was construction of
flood mitigation projects such as channelizing the watercourse and construction of flood
levees. However, these projects did nothing to prevent unwise development in floodplains
and as a result, flood damage and risk for flood damage actually increased. In response to
continually increasing flood recovery costs, regulations have evolved to provide rules on
how to develop in the 100-year floodplain. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
2 2009 International Building Code, Chapter 3, Section 303 "Assembly Group A"
114 Agenda Item 5B Page 38 of 60
was started in 1968. This program provides minimum regulations for communities which
promote safer development in the floodplain, and makes available flood insurance for all
residential and non-residential buildings.
Even with these efforts to minimize flood impacts, damages due to flooding in the United
States, both in terms of human safety and economic recovery costs, continue to rise.
Additionally, an increased barrier to local community economic and social recovery from
flooding has been noticed in areas where flood damage has occurred to a subset of critical
uses in flood prone areas. In response, the National Flood Insurance Program has developed
the Community Rating System and the Community Rating System Coordinators Manual
which promotes research on additional flood protection measure local governments can
adopt including the development of 500-year protection standards for critical land uses.
Nationally, the concept of promoting additional protection to critical facilities beyond the
standard 100-year flood event is not a new one. In 1977, through Executive Order 11988
(which is implemented though Title 18, Chapter VI, Part 725 of the Code of Federal
Regulations and the U.S. Water Resources Council's Floodplain Management Guidelines for
Implementing Executive Order 11988) federal critical facilities are directed to either avoid
the 500-year flood plain or protect federal facilities to the 500-year water surface level.
This is in order to insure that during a major flood event, critical government operations
sustain the least structural and economic damage and inflict the least environmental
damage possible.
Nationally, there is a renewed interest in providing a higher level of protection, specifically
for critical facilities. In November 2010, the Association of State Floodplain Managers
(ASFPM) published a white paper called "Critical Facilities and Flood Risk" (see appendix E).
The paper specifically called for states to adopt rules protecting critical facilities from the
500-year flood event. Additionally, FEMA has been encouraging communities to adopt
higher standards and is currently working on updating the NFIP to try and strengthen the
rules regarding critical facilities.
Because flood risk is very much an economic risk, it is prudent that we take a commonsense
approach to examining the rules and regulations that have been followed by floodplain
managers for the last 40-years. For the most part, the current approach to floodplain
management deals primarily with how to build in a floodplain; not how to minimize future
damages and create a sustainable environment. The basis of sustainability mandates that
we simply cannot continue to do the same things as we have done in the past.
According to ASFPM publication "Floodplain Management 2003: State and Local Programs",
at that time a total of six states required critical facilities to be protected from the 500-year
flood event. These states are Alabama, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, and
Ohio. At the local level, the City of Fort Collins has also adopted critical facilities regulations
for their 100 and 500-year floodplains. In 2010, the State of Colorado, through the Colorado
Water Conservation Board (CWCB), proposed new "Rules and Regulations for Regulatory
Floodplains in Colorado". Rule 6 of this document defined critical facilities and set higher
protection standards for those facilities. Although the rules do not require that critical
facilities be protected outside of the 100-year floodplain, the document recommends that
local communities use the 500-year floodplain in their critical facilities planning.
Page 3
115 Agenda Item 5B Page 39 of 60
As previously stated, the City of Boulder is the #1 flash flood risk community in the Front
Range of Colorado, and the City has historically had stricter flood protection regulations
than the NFIP and the State of Colorado's Colorado Water Conservation Board. This is due
to the fact that the City is located at the base of the foothills, with a number of creek
drainages coming directly into the City. Because of this flood risk, the complications to flood
recovery that damaged critical facilities present and the current exposure of many critical
facilities to flood damage, in 2002 the City Council endorsed the investigation and
development of additional protection measures that will help protect critical facilities
serving the City. This guidance was later incorporated in the Comprehensive Flood and
Stormwater Master Plan in 2004. This master plan directs city staff to review and update
the floodplain regulations occasionally in order to reflect the ever changing needs of the
community. In 2008, the City of Boulder's Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted. This
plan calls for the development of an ordinance that will regulate critical facilities located in
the 500-year floodplain as a top priority. City Council reiterated their support for such an
ordinance in April 2009.
When new flood protection regulations are proposed for Boulder, many people ask "Why?"
pointing out that Boulder is not in the southeast where flooding can occur over days or even
weeks in the spring or can result from hurricanes like along the gulf coast. They are correct;
Boulder is not subject to the long-term flooding that impacts some portions of the country.
But Boulder is at risk to flash flooding in many areas, and although the duration of the
flooding is shorter, that does not mean the impacts are not significant. In a flash flood,
water levels rise very quickly, often with little or no warning giving little time to implement
flood protection measures or evacuate. Combine this with the city's step gradient streams
which will exhibit high water velocities and the very rapid increases in flow depth
associated with flash flooding, and the danger to public safety is significant. Additionally,
during a flood, it does not matter if you have water in your living room or mechanical room
for 2 days or 2 weeks, the structure and contents will still be significantly damaged. When
this damage occurs to critical facilities it will impede flood response and community
recovery.
It should be pointed out that loss-of function impacts associated with flooded critical
facilities are sometimes as important as or even more important than the direct physical
damages. For example, the loss of function of a hospital or fire station or other facility
critical to the emergency response and recovery during and immediately after a disaster
may have a much greater economic impact on the community than simply the repair costs
for the physical damages. Similarly, loss of utility services (water, power and sanitary
sewer) has a much larger economic impact on a community than simply the costs to repair
damage to the utility system.
The positive side to Boulder's flood situation is that there are many relatively low cost
solutions that when properly thought out and implemented, can have significant impacts on
minimizing damages during a flood. By requiring operators of mobile population facilities
to prepare a Flood Emergency Management Plan, public safety can be significantly
increased, for a relatively low cost. By educating the operators of such facilities of the flood
risks, having a warning system to notify of a flood warning or watch in place, and having a
chain of command and procedures to follow can greatly reduce the risk of injury or death.
Additionally, by making sure groups of people are either evacuated from the flood zone; or
Page 4
116 Agenda Item 5B Page 40 of 60
in a safe shelter from the flood, emergency services can focus on those less fortunate. This
sort of planning can help educate the community of Boulder's flood risk and reduce injuries
or even deaths during flooding.
Protecting critical facilities in Boulder from the 500-year flood event can also be a cost
effective solution. The majority of areas subject to 500-year flooding in the City are subject
to depths 2' or less. Constructing floodwalls, importing fill to raise the building site, or
floodproofing to these smaller depth can be done in a cost effective manner in many cases.
Due to the flash flooding nature of the creeks in the area, flood levels go down quickly,
allowing roads and access to critical facilities to be reopened quickly. Having these facilities
operational and ready for service immediately means the downtime of City services is
greatly reduced, increasing human safety and minimizing the economic impacts from a
flood.
Additional discussion of the benefits and impacts resulting from the proposed regulations is
included in the detailed analysis below.
The proposed regulations will require facilities classified as a mobile population by the City
to prepare a Flood Emergency Management Plan. The City has prepared a guideline and
checklist to assist facility owners/operators as well as engineers and architects in preparing
plans. A copy of this document is included in Appendix A for reference. For this analysis,
The Sanitas Group was tasked with analyzing the direct costs of preparing the required
Flood Emergency Management Plans. This includes the cost to review the City
requirements, discuss plan options with pertinent parties, and prepare the final plan for
review and approval by City staff. The analysis will analyze direct costs to prepare a plan,
and costs associated with community benefits, like reduced deaths and injuries and avoided
emergency management costs, were not analyzed, although these impacts are discussed in a
qualitative manner.
After review of the City database of mobile populations and their locations throughout the
City, it was determined that evacuation based plans would be the most common for existing
facilities. This is due to the fact that in order to shelter in place, a structural engineer will
need to verify that the existing structure can withstand the hydrodynamic forces generated
from flood waters. Additionally, a shelter in place plan requires that any necessary supplies,
including water, food, bedding, etc. be stored on site for any potential occupants during a
flood. All of these items have costs and coordination/upkeep time associated with them.
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that when possible, facility owners will prefer to utilize
an evacuation plan. Shelter in place plans will most likely only be utilized in areas of high
hazard flooding, excessive flood depths, large evacuation distance to non-flooded areas, or
areas of high velocity flood waters. Based on a review of facility types and locations, it is
expected that approximately 10% of existing facilities classified as mobile populations will
shelter in place.
For evacuation and shelter in place plans, two scenarios were reviewed, a simple one and a
more complex. A summary of plan assumptions is as follows;
Page 5
117 Agenda Item 5B Page 41 of 60
Simple Evacuation Plan
Facilities that fall under this designation may consist of:
• Smaller to mid-size facilities with one main gathering area or a limited number
of rooms that are in close proximity to each other.
• Facilities that do not provide overnight housing, temporary or permanent.
• Areas of shallow flooding with direct evacuation routes to higher elevations.
• Evacuated persons will not necessarily need housing/long term shelter once
evacuated if facility is damaged/inaccessible.
• Will include most gathering spaces such as halls, restaurants, theatres,
gymnasiums, etc. (Assembly Group Uses).
Complex Evacuation Plan
Facilities that fall under this designation may consist of:
• More complicated facilities such as hotels, dormitories, etc. that occupants will
be spread out in and will take more advanced planning and staff to assure
everyone is accounted for and safely evacuated.
• Facilities that have temporary or permanent residents that may require
housing/shelter once they have been evacuated.
Simple Shelter in Place Plan
Facilities that fall under this designation may consist of:
• Designations similar to that of the simple evacuation plan facilities.
• New facilities where the structural analysis and necessary components to deal
with flood waters have been previously incorporated into the design.
• Existing facilities with flood depths and foundation/structural components that
will allow for a structural engineer to do a basic review and analysis of the
structure and approve for sheltering in place.
• Facilities without occupants that would require planning for storage for medical
supplies beyond that of a basic first aid kit.
Complex Shelter in Place Plan
Facilities that fall under this designation may consist of:
• Facilities with a large number of occupants that require advanced staff planning
to track and account for.
• Facilities that will require a high level of structural analysis by a structural
engineer to determine if flood waters can be supported.
In order to review costs of the different levels of Flood Emergency Management Plans,
spreadsheets were created for the different scenarios. The spreadsheets broke down basic
tasks associated with preparing the plan and an approximate number of hours applied. For
this analysis, an average consulting/preparation fee of $100 per hour was used. The
spreadsheets are included in Appendix A for reference. A summary of results is below:
Page 6
118 Agenda Item 5B Page 42 of 60
Evacuation Based Shelter in Place Based Shelter in Place -
New Construction
Simple Complex Simple Complex
Approximate Number 95 12 6 5 N/A
of Existing Facilities
Impacted
Estimated Plan Prep $2,500 3,600 $5,000 $11,500 $3,500
Costs
City Fees $542 $542 $1,082 $1,082 $1,082
Total Costs $3,042 $4,142 $6,582 $12,582 $4,582
See Appendix A for detailed calculations.
Based on the results of the analysis, it is expected that approximately 80% of facilities
classified as mobile populations which required a Flood Emergency Management Plan will
fall under the simple evacuation plan category. For these facilities the process for
completing plans and gaining city approval involves the development of site specific plans
and flood education.
For facilities requiring a structure in place plan, the structural evaluation for sheltering in
the building during a flood event may call for structural improvements. The costs for the
shelter in place plans include an estimated structural engineering analysis fee, but due to
the number of different construction types and facility sizes in the City, the associated fee
can vary greatly. Due to this, actual construction costs of structural improvements that may
be implemented are not included as part of this analysis. It is expected that the number of
facilities who chose to shelter in place and require building improvements after structural
review will be limited and the improvements will vary on a case by case basis.
Emergency management plans will develop the most practical solution that can be
implemented properly and safely. One of the benefits to requiring these plans is the
increase in knowledge about flood situations and how they are going to affect certain areas.
The plans will promote situational awareness, and monitoring of the weather for flood
warnings and watches. The increase in public safety resulting from having a plan before the
flood hits can be significant. This analysis does not apply a monetary value to increased
public safety, but we do feel its benefit is important to note.
The second part of the proposed ordinance involves critical facilities. As stated previously, a
Critical Facility is defined as:
"any facility, including without limitation, a structure, infrastructure, property,
equipment or service, that if flooded may result in severe consequences to public health
and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for the community at any
time before, during, and after a flood. A critical facility is classified by the following
categories: (1) Essential Services Facilities, (2) Hazardous Materials Facilities, (3) At-
risk Populations Facilities."
Page 7
119 Agenda Item 5B Page 43 of 60
• "Essential Services" include, without limitation, public safety, emergency
response, emergency medical, designated emergency shelters, communications,
public plant facilities and equipment, and government operations.
• "At-risk Population Facilities" include, without limitation, pre-schools, public
and private primary and secondary schools, before and after school care centers
with 12 or more students, daycare centers with 12 or more children, group
homes, and assisted living residential or congregate care facilities with 12 or
more residents.
• "Hazardous Materials Facilities" include (a)Facilities subject to Section 303 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, 42 USC §11003,
because they have an "Extremely Hazardous Substance" in excess of the
"Threshold Planning Quantities" established by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and listed at 40 CFR Part 355, Appendix A and Appendix B.
(b)Unless covered by subpart (a), facilities storing Hazardous Material as
defined by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Parts 171-180
but only to the extent that the facility is storing the Hazardous Material in the
"Bulk Packaging" container in which it was delivered as that term is defined at
49 CFR 171.8. (c)Facilities storing a Hazardous Substance of the type and
quantities listed by §29-22-107 C.R.S. (d)Facilities regulated as transfer stations
under Colorado hazardous waste regulations at 6 CCR 1007-3, Part 263.
The City has researched business and government operations that have the potential to be
classified as a critical facility under the new ordinance. This list was used as a dataset from
which attributes of average facility types, construction methods, flood depths, and locations
were developed. The subsequent analysis represents average compliance cost representing
the types of facilities and characteristics of flooding expected. Any facilities that are non
representative (for either having less than average cost of compliance or more than average
cost of compliance) are not explicitly analyzed. For the purpose of this analysis, existing
buildings that have the potential to be considered critical were used to develop costs of
compliance. Any future critical facilities that chose to construct in the 500-year floodplain
can reasonably be expected to be of similar sizes and types.
For operators of critical facilities that wish to make improvements, there are a number of
ways they can protect their property from flood waters, including importing fill, elevating
the first floor via structural improvements, construction of flood walls, and floodproofing.
The two most common and economical forms of flood protection for individual properties
in Colorado are importing fill in order to raise the building site, and floodproofing the
building. This analysis has been tasked with reviewing these two most common flood
protection approaches specific to the City of Boulder. For the purposes of this analysis, new
facilities are assumed to utilize a fill based flood protection approach, and be of similar type
and size as existing critical facilities within the City of Boulder. Detailed discussion of both
approaches and their associated benefits and impacts is presented below.
Page 8
120 Agenda Item 5B Page 44 of 60
The proposed ordinance will require facilities that store hazardous materials to protect
those materials from being released during the 100 and 500-year flood events. Many types
of hazardous materials are required to be stored in a water tight manner by existing EPA
regulations, and most are stored inside an existing structure or with permanently mounted
tanks adjacent to the building. Based on these types of best management practices, it is
anticipated that the majority of hazardous materials facilities will choose to obtain an
engineer's certification that the hazardous materials will be secure during a flood instead of
floodproofing or elevating the facility. Protecting materials from release would require
confirming that they are stored in watertight containers, which is very common, and cannot
float away, which is also common as most hazardous materials are stored inside a building
or a secure facility. Other economical solutions may involve certifying that hazardous
materials are stored in an elevated location protected from flood waters; this can be
accomplished with shelves or similar means. In cases where a facility may have a
permanent tank storing hazardous materials, the tank will need to be elevated or evaluated
to confirm it cannot float away during a flood. If flooding is a concern, additional mounting
supports may be required. All of these solutions would be of significantly lower cost than
floodproofing the entire structure. Applying the above techniques to the construction of a
new facility would have a negligible impact on the overall construction cost of the project.
In the rare case an entire hazardous materials facility needs to be elevated or floodproofed,
the results of the cost analysis for at-risk and essential services facilities would apply.
When importing fill to raise a building site, the key factors are the size of the building
footprint and depth of fill required to raise the site to the desired grade. After reviewing
City data regarding potential critical facilities, it was determined that two building
footprints would provide a representative sample. A 5,400 square foot footprint represents
the approximate average building footprint of the smaller facilities, and a 65,000 square
foot footprint represents the approximate average of the mid-size to larger facilities. These
two footprints were utilized in the fill analysis. A summary the existing structure sizes is
included in the appendices.
Based on a review of the City data on potential critical facilities, the approximate depths of
flood water during the 500-year event for the impacted 26 facilities were reviewed. It was
determined that the average water depth was approximately 2.0 feet. For this analysis,
three water depths would provide a representative sample size, with additional water
depths of 0.5 foot and 3.5 feet. With the required 1-foot of freeboard included, the final
depths of fill used in this analysis were 1.5 feet, 3.0 feet, and 4.5 feet.
For a typical fill section, it was assumed that the area under the building footprint would
require structural fill. All other areas of the property would utilize a lower cost standard fill
material. For earthwork volume determination, it was assumed than an average tie in slope
of 20:1 horizontal to vertical (5%) from the building limits to existing grade would be
reasonable. Slopes steeper than this are difficult to provide ADA access and parking on.
The unit costs for fill are "in-place", meaning the final cost includes the purchase of the
material, delivery, and fill placement in compliance with necessary compaction
Page 9
121 Agenda Item 5B Page 45 of 60
requirements. Fine grading costs are excluded, as the developer would be required to do
fine grading on the site with or without the fill requirements of the proposed ordinance.
The results of the fill analysis showed fill costs per square foot of building footprint ranging
from $1.13 to $9.68. The resulting percentage increase in building costs per square foot
ranges from 1% to 6%, with the majority between 1% and 3%. These results are based on
single story construction in order to look at worst case scenarios, and an initial per square
foot construction cost of $160 per square foot for smaller facilities and $135 per square foot
for larger facilities. See Floodproofing Assumptions in Appendix C for details on base cost
determination. In the case of a multi-story facility, the amount of fill required per square
foot of building is less than for a single story structure of similar footprint; therefore the
percent increase in construction costs per overall building square footage would be lower.
A summary of results is presented below:
Building Footprint
5,400 Square Feet 65,000 Square Feet
Depth of Fill Required (ft) 1.5 3.0 4.5 1.5 3.0 4.5
Fill Quantity (C1) 612 2,015 4,905 4,530 11,155 20,285
Fill Cost per Building SgFt $1.52 $4.36 $9.68 $1.13 $2.54 $4.31
Orig. Assumed Const. Cost $160 $160 $160 $135 $135 $135
Adjusted Construction Cost $161.52 $164.36 $169.68 $136.13 $137.54 $139.31
% Increase 0.94% 2.65% 5.70% 0.83% 1.85% 3.09%
See Appendix C for detailed calculations.
Importing fill as a means of flood protection is an effective solution for protecting critical
facilities, especially on new large scale projects. In the 500-year floodplain the water depths
and velocities are typically lower than in the 100-year, meaning the average depth of fill
required on most sites is less than 100-year areas, Additionally, there are no FEMA flood
permitting requirements for 500-year flood areas, reducing the costs and timeframe
compared to 100-year flood areas. This method of flood protection is expected to be most
commonly used on new construction, and is limited to properties that have adequate space
to raise the building and still provide adequate access from adjacent roads, etc. See the
Critical Facilities Conclusions section for additional discussion.
4.,~ t-LL.ii.. L)?Kf.. Ur1NU 13A_t)tU rLUUU PKOI L L i iUN ANALYSiJ
The costs associated with dry floodproofing a structure can vary significantly depending on
the building construction type and size, the depth of the floodwaters, and the number of
doors, windows, and other openings. Because of this, standardized cost data for
floodproofing is limited. The cost data that is available is related to the 100-year floodplain,
and includes a wide range of building types including wood frame residential structures,
which because of the relatively weak timber structural components typically have a higher
floodproofing costs. The proposed critical facilities ordinance will only impact facilities
containing critical land uses located in the 500-year floodplain, buildings that typically have
commercial grade construction types and have shallow flood depths.
A review of the potential critical facilities identified by the City of Boulder as being essential
services or containing at-risk populations showed that the typical construction type for
122 Agenda Item 5B Page 46 of 60
these facilities involves either brick, masonry, or similar type water resistant construction.
Additionally, large storefronts or similar types of construction that include large expanses
of windows or similar wall openings that go low to the ground are not common.
The current 500-year flood depths were reviewed at each site, and it was determined that
30% of the potential at-risk population or essential service facilities currently have main
level finish floors located greater than 1-foot above the 500-year floodplain, and therefore
would not require floodproofing. In order to have an accurate representation of required
floodproofing depths, these facilities were excluded from that analysis. The remaining
facilities were used as a sample set for the floodproofing analysis.
When floodproofing an existing structure, there are two main types of floodproofing often
utilized. The first involves providing a waterproof barrier that uses the existing walls for
support. This approach can only be used for lower flood depths, as the existing wall
structure can only resist a certain amount of load. Based on a review of FEMA design
guidelines, as well discussions with local design professionals, existing structures can
typically resist water depths of 1 to 3 feet, depending on the existing structural design.
Doors and other openings are typically protected by reinforced floodproof doors, and
floodgates. For structures where the existing wall systems cannot resist the forces from the
flood waters, it is typically most cost effective to install a ringwall around the structure to
provide flood protection. Access openings in the ringwall are typically protected by a
floodgate or similar device that remains open until flood waters come up. In some cases,
the ringwall is tied into the existing structure at doors, and a floodproof door installed. This
analysis included costs for floodgates.
The cost-impact analysis results are broken into two groups, one for facilities with 500-year
flood depths of 2 feet or less (flood protection depth of 3 ft), which are assumed to be able
to utilize the existing wall structure to resist flood forces, and a second group consisting of
flood depths greater than 2 feet where a concrete ringwall is utilized for flood protection.
A review of City data finds that 56% of the proposed at-risk population and essential service
facilities that will require floodproofing, or 38% to the total number of potential at-risk
population and essential service facilities in the 500-year floodplain, will have flood depth
in the range of 0-2 feet. The main level building footprints of these sites were reviewed and
two representative building sizes were chosen for the analysis, 3,000 square feet and
35,900 square feet. The average 500-year flood depth for these 10 facilities is 0.6 feet.
Floodproofing - Facilities with Flood Depths to 2 Feet
3,000 Square Feet 35,900 Square Feet
Floodproofing Depth (FT) 0-3 0-3
Estimated Average Cost $29,940 $121,340
Contingency (20%) 20% 20%
Total Estimated Average Cost $35,928 $145,608
Estimated Cost per S.F. $12 $4
See Appendix C for detailed calculations.
Based on the results presented above, it is estimated that floodproofing existing structures
where the existing structure can resist the forces from flood waters will cost between $4
and $12 per square foot. One half of the proposed at-risk population and essential service
123 Agenda Item 5B Page 47 of 60
facilities located in the 500-year floodplain are anticipated to be able to floodproof in this
manner. Existing facility sizes included in this portion of the analysis range in size from
under 1,000 square feet to over 65,000 square feet. The results are based on a single story
facility. In cases where a multi-level facility is involved, the cost per total square footage
would be reduced significantly.
To determine base substantial improvement or modification costs two alternative trigger
points were analyzed. The first, substantial improvements, requires the owner to improve
the existing structure more than 50% of its current building value. For substantial
improvements, the proposed facilities for which Assessor's building value information was
available were averaged and multiplied by one-half. A resulting baseline remodel cost per
overall building square foot of approximately $38 per square foot to trigger the need for
floodproofing was determined. This is an average of varying building types and sizes,
therefore actual numbers will vary and this is only the average minimum. A full remodel
project will cost significantly more per square foot. The second trigger point, substantial
modifications, applies if the existing building square footage is increased more than 50% via
an addition. For this, an average of the base construction costs used in the fill analysis
($135/SF and $160/SF) was used, resulting in $148 per square foot as a baseline
construction cost that would trigger floodproofing. Under the minimum substantial
modification threshold up to three feet of building could be protected for one foot of
addition resulting in a worst case base cost per square foot of $49/SF. The average of the
substantial improvement or modification costs is $44 per square foot.
A review of City data estimates that 44% of proposed at-risk population and essential
service facilities that require floodproofing will have flood depths greater than 2 feet. The
main level building footprints of potential sites were reviewed and two representative
building sizes were chosen for the analysis, 3,000 square feet and 69,000 square feet. In
order to provide a conservative estimate on cost of compliance existing facilities with flood
depths greater than 2 feet are assumed to utilize a ringwall for flood protection. This is a
worst-case analysis, as existing structures utilizing masonry block or concrete construction
may be able to resist higher flood depths than the three foot design threshold used here.
Floodproofing - Facilities with Flood Depths Greater than 2 Feet
3,000 Square Feet 69,000 Square Feet
Average Flood Depth (FT) 3.5 3.5
Flood Protection Depth (FT) 4.5 4.5
Estimated Cost per S.F. $76 $11
See Appendix C for detailed calculations.
The resulting costs can range from $11/SF or less for large multi-level facilities, to $76/SF
plus for small single level facilities. Ringwalls are a cost effective solution for large or
multilevel structures in areas of relatively deep flooding. For small existing structures,
compliance with the proposed ordinance is required only for additions or remodels
exceeding 50% of the value of the structure. For small buildings, such a large improvement
will most likely include such a significant change to the structure involving structural
improvements. In this situation additional evaluation to include dry floodproofing
measures will be more cost effective than installing a ringwall. This approach is site and
building specific, therefore the worst case scenario of installing a ringwall was assumed for
Page 12
124 Agenda Item 5B Page 48 of 60
this analysis. It should be noted that only 2 facilities impacted by the ordinance have a
footprint of less than 5,500 square feet and flood depths greater than 2 feet, and both of
those are preschools/day care centers located in single family home structures. The single
family structures could still be used as a single family home and therefore another cost
effective alternative may be to relocate the facility to another single family home outside of
the 500-year floodplain. The anticipated cost impacts for the remaining 6 larger structures
in this category ranges from less than $11/SF to roughly $40/SF. This is a conservative
analysis assuming none of the structures would be able to utilize the existing structure for
flood protection.
Using the same data as discussed previously for the 0 to 2 foot flood depth analysis, the
average baseline cost for substantial improvement or modification average costs is $44 per
square foot.
Of the potential at-risk populations and essential service facilities located in the 500-year
floodplain, 30% are potentially located above the 500-year water surface elevation, 38%
have flooding depth of zero to two feet and 31% have flooding depths greater than 2 feet.
The cost associated with providing flood protection to these facilities is dependent on the
depth of flooding and existing structural configuration of the facility.
When the extensive flood risk in the City of Boulder, is coupled with the limited future
development space, it is likely that new critical facilities will be constructed in the 500-year
floodplain. Importing fill to elevate the building is a cost effective approach to provide flood
protection in 500-year flood areas. The flooding depths and velocities are typically lower
than in the 100-year floodplain. Additionally, permitting requirements for importing fill in
the 500-year floodplain are less than in the 100-year, as there are no FEMA approvals
necessary, reducing costs and timeframe impacts.
It should also be noted that Boulder Valley School District (BVSD) facilities, Boulder County
Facilities, Federal Facilities, State of Colorado Facilities and facilities operated by the
University of Colorado have no requirement to comply with the City of Boulder critical
facilities and mobile population ordinance. Critical facilities and mobile population facilities
operated by these entities are included in this analysis, as the City will encourage all critical
land uses and mobile population facilities to comply with the proposed ordinance.
Protecting critical facilities and mobile population facilities from flooding is important for a
number of reasons, whether it be reducing the economic impact of flooding, protecting
public health or reducing risk to life and safety. When a critical facility is damaged from
flood waters, the damage extends well beyond the limits of the facility itself and includes
loss of everyday services that can have severe economic impacts to a community and delays
the economic and social recovery of the community. Protecting mobile population facilities
through emergency management plans will allow the dispersement of flood protection
information to people not familiar with Boulder's flood risk or the area they are located.
Page 13
125 Agenda Item 5B Page 49 of 60
Providing 500-year flood protection to critical facilities and mobile population facilities will
increase public safety, reduce the impact of flooding, and increase the communities'
sustainability and ability to recover and thrive after a major flood.
In summary:
1. Educating the public on the risks associated with flooding is one of the best ways to
reduce injuries and loss of human life. Requiring operators of facilities containing
mobile populations to have a Flood Emergency Plan in place will increase public
knowledge and planning.
2. Providing flood protection to critical facilities protects the overall community
population, not just the public within a defined floodplain.
3. Providing flood protection to a critical facility limits the interruption of response
and service to the public during a flood event.
4. Providing flood protection to critical facilities helps control costly repairs to public
or private infrastructure facilities, which are extended to the overall community.
The intent of this analysis is to provide a feasibility level opinion of probable cost impacts
associated with the proposed ordinance. A list of assumptions is included in the appendices
for reference. Facility specific costs were not part of this analysis, and actual bid costs for
construction will vary depending on actual site conditions, economic conditions, and extent
of work proposed on the facility.
• "Critical Facilities and Flood Risk" prepared by Association of State Floodplain
Managers, Inc., November 2010.
• "Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado" prepared by the
Colorado Water Conservation Board, November 17, 2010.
• "2010 Proposed Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains in Colorado - Cost,
Benefit, and Regulatory Analysis" prepared by Icon Engineering and Colorado Water
Conservation Boars, October 14, 2010.
• "Cost, Benefit, and Regulatory Analysis - Addendum 1 Colorado Water Conservation
Board, November 1, 2010.
• YDOT Construction Cost Data 2009", Colorado Department of Transportation.
• "RS Means CostWorks , online construction cost database, RS Means.
Page 14
126 Agenda Item 5B Page 50 of 60
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF BOULDER
Department of Public Works/Utilities Division
Planning and Project Management
PO Box 791
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
401 (303) 441-3266
(303) 441-4271 FAX
WRAB January 20, 2011 Meeting Feedback or Questions with Response and Additional
Research•
1. What types of public outreach have been completed and what more can be done?
As of the January 20, 2011 Water Recourses Advisory Board Public Hearing outreach for the
critical facilities and mobile population ordinance included:
• October 2009 meeting with the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
(The LEPC is an emergency planning organization comprised of local businesses
and government emergency planning and response organizations.)
• March 2010 meeting with the Local Emergency Planning Committee
• July 2010 meeting with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce
• August 2011 A project website was developed for the proposed ordinance
• August 2010 "Protecting `Critical' Buildings" front page article in the Boulder
Daily Camera
• August 2010 Open House:
1. Invitations were sent to potential critical facilities and mobile
population facilities.
2. Boulder Daily Camera article included information on time and
location of open house.
3. Boulder Chamber of Commerce included information on open house
time, location and content in their monthly news letter.
4. Information on the open house was included on the project website
and city websites.
• October 2010 meeting with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce
• January 2011 Water Resources Advisory Board Public Hearing:
1. Invitations were sent to potential critical facilities and mobile
population facilities.
2. The Boulder Chamber of Commerce was given information on Water
Resources Advisory Board public hearing time, location and content.
1
127 Agenda Item 5B Page 51 of 60
ATTACHMENT C
3. Information on the Water Resources Advisory Board Public Hearing
was included on the project website and city websites.
Since the January 2011 Water Resources Advisory Board Public Hearing the following
additional public outreach has been completed:
• February 2011- Public outreach
(Facility managers at 28 potential hazardous materials facilities were contacted by
phone. They were told about the proposed ordinance, the hazardous materials
definition and project website. Staff answered their questions and gave them
contact information for additional follow up)
• February 2011 Controversy and Consensus Channel 8 TV show
(The topic of this months recurring episode was the proposed critical facilities and
mobile population ordinance)
• March 2011 Water Resources Advisory Board Public Hearing:
1. Invitations were sent to potential critical facilities and mobile
population facilities.
2. The Boulder Chamber of Commerce was given information on Water
Resources Advisory Board public hearing time, location and content.
3. Information on the Water Resources Advisory Board Public Hearing
was included on the project website and city websites.
4. Email invitations where sent to people who requested electronic
notification on the proposed ordinance.
2. Can staff provide an economic analysis on the proposed ordinance?
An economic analysis of the proposed ordinance is summarized in the March 28, 2011 Water
Resources Advisory Board Critical Facilities and Mobile Population Ordinance memo and
the full analysis is included as an attachment.
3. Is the language of the hazardous materials ordinance causing a drag net which will result
in more facilities being included?
The proposed hazardous materials definition was written to regulate facilities with large
amounts (typically more then 120 gallons) of hazardous materials in the city's floodplains.
The reason that the proposed definition, which is taken from the Colorado Statute, US
Department of Transportation hazardous materials definition, or the Federal Emergency
Management and Community Right-to-Know Act, does not distinguish between large and
small businesses is that it's the chemicals that are dangerous and there is nothing about the
size of the business that makes those chemicals more or less dangerous. There is no reason to
believe that a quantity of hazardous material in a pile of flood debris is less dangerous to
rescue workers because if it came from a small business.
4. Does the duration of flood inundation affect the cost of recovery?
2
128 Agenda Item 5B Page 52 of 60
ATTACHMENT C
The National Flood Insurance Program's website (www.floodsmart.gov) contains a flood
damage estimator that calculates flood repair costs based on the depth of flooding at a given
building. For a two thousand square foot residential building subject to 3 feet of flooding, flood
recovery costs will include:
• Cleaning $4,100
• Repair of doors, windows $2,150
• Electrical and plumbing repairs $3,320
• Carpet and wood flooring replacement $15,870
• Repair to interior wall finishes $1,920
• Drywall and wall insulation or paneling replacement $3,310
• Kitchen and Bath Cabinets $6,100
• Appliance repair/replacement $4,200
• Computer, TV and Electronics Replacement $3,500
• Repairs to HVAC $2,200
• Furniture replacement (living room, table and chairs) $6,000
In reviewing these costs it is apparent that that depth of flooding and building materials
(masonry walls vs. dry wall or concrete floors vs. carpet) will impact the cost of recovery but for
the most part length of flood inundation (2 days or 2 weeks) will not. Drywall, carpet,
electronics, furniture, etc that is immersed in contaminated and muddy floodwater for even 2
days will still need to be repaired, replaced, or cleaned.
5. What would be the impact of the ordinance on a daycare facility in a 500-year
floodplain?
A brand new daycare facility would have to comply with the regulations by providing
protection to the 500-year water surface elevation (WSEL) plus one foot of freeboard.
Existing facilities will be grandfathered and can continue to operate in their existing
configuration. If an existing facility proposes a modification that will be less the 50% of the
value of the existing building or represent less then a 50% increase in square footage the
proposed addition will need to be built with flood protection to the 500-year WSEL plus one
foot of freeboard. If a larger expansion or remodel is proposed the entire facility will be
protected to the 500-year WSEL plus one foot of freeboard.
6. Since the national guidance on protecting critical facilities comes from the National
Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Community Rating System, are critical facilities
regulation required for compliance with the NFIP?
At this point in time the NFIP's Community Rating Systems recommends protection of
critical facilities to a 500-year flood level. Adherence to this recommendation is not required
to be in compliance with the NFIP. However, the federal government is in the process of
3
129 Agenda Item 5B Page 53 of 60
ATTACHMENT C
evaluating updates to the NFIP and its regulations and requiring protection of critical
facilities to a 500-year level is currently being evaluated as part of that process.
4
130 Agenda Item 5B Page 54 of 60
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF BOULDER
Department of Public Works/Utilities Division
Planning and Project Management
PO Box 791
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80306
(303) 441-3266
(303) 441-4271 FAX
August 27, 2010
Ref: Critical Facilities and Mobile Population Ordinance Open House Minutes
Date Held: August 24, 2010
Location: Municipal Services Center (City Yards) Conference Room
Purpose: Start to Project Public Process
Present: Christie Coleman - City of Boulder
Bob Harberg - City of Boulder
Annie Noble - City of Boulder
Katie Knapp - City of Boulder
Kon Damas - Pro and Kon
Jeanine Foster - AMEC
Timothy Gablehouse - Gablehouse Calkins & Granberg, LLC.
Open House (4:00 to 4:15 pm)
Guests welcomed and directed to sign in sheet and informational handouts. Displays of
locations of proposed critical facilities (at-risk populations, hazardous materials and essential
services) and mobile population facilities were located around the perimeter of the room. We
generally had enough representatives to answer the public's questions individually.
Representative Questions and Concerns:
Q: What is the definition of a "substantial improvement"?
A: A fifty percent square footage increase or a fifty percent of value increase. These are based
on FEMA guidelines.
5
131 Agenda Item 5B Page 55 of 60
ATTACHMENT C
Q: Do downstream effects need to be considered when doing fill?
A: Only in the conveyance zone.
Q: How long does it take for the remapping to occur?
A: Several months given working with FEMA.
Q: Is there coordination of the City map and FEMA's?
A: This is in progress.
Q: Does single room occupancy standard (above 50) apply to retail?
A: Yes, it tracks with the fire department regulations.
Q: Are there emergency sirens in place?
A: Yes. They can be included as part of evacuation plans.
Presentation and General Q&A (4:15-5:50)
Kon provided opening remarks to Christie's presentation. There were between 20 and 30 people
present for the presentation including City staff.
Presentation Points:
• City Council has asked staff to draft a critical facilities ordinance, the city's
Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan and Multi-hazards Mitigation
Plan call for protection of critical facilities to a 500-year standard.
• The National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating Systems Coordinators
Manual recommends protection of critical facilities to a 500-year standard and
promotes two main management strategies for protection critical facilities. These
management strategies were presented as options A and B. A third option (Option
C) that combines various components of the two CRS management strategies was
also presented.
• Options A, B, and C and the definitions of critical facilities, at-risk populations,
essential services, hazardous materials, and mobile populations were presented.
• Requirements for emergency management plans including evacuation or shelter-
in-place plans for mobile populations were discussed.
• Three example critical facilities were presented with discussion on what options
A, B and C meant for each facility.
General Questions and Answer Session:
Q: What would trigger the ordinance for a facility with hazardous materials or a gas station?
A: Only if there is an improvement/expansion (the 50% rules) or, in Option B, a new expansion.
Otherwise all are grandfathered in.
6
132 Agenda Item 5B Page 56 of 60
ATTACHMENT C
Q: Has a cost analysis been done of the economic impact of doing this kind of mitigation for a
500 year flood? This could be very costly.
A: The Critical Facilities Ordinance allows protection of key components of the City that allow
for faster recovery economically. A cost analysis will be done on the selected option.
Q: Can mitigation be done upstream in Boulder Canyon? Changes to Barker Reservoir?
A: The focus for the City is the floodplain in city limits. A blue ribbon panel looked at
alternatives to do upstream mitigation on Boulder Creek. Currently the decision is not to. A lot
would need to be done well below Barker Reservoir to make a difference.
Q: Are there considerations of doing quick deployment of measures to protect buildings (e.g.,
sand bagging)?
A: Floods here would happen too quickly. Although automatic flood gates are a possibility.
Option A Example Questions and Comments:
Q: Would a wall be needed for Yards in Option A?
A: Yes; or fill or channelization.
Q: Does raising the floor apply to the original building as well?
A: Yes under Option A, if it is an addition rather than a new separate building.
Comments:
--There needs to be distinction made between flash floods and areas such as the Mississippi
where water stands longer.
--Regulating the 500 year floodplain calls for expensive mitigation even if the water may stand
here only a brief time and possibly do less damage.
Option B Example Questions and Comments
--Define floodproofing.
Q: It is possible that the floor elevation of a building would be above the flood level (except of
course if there is a basement involved).
A: Maps of the floodplains do not go to that level of detail, with additional survey information it
could be demonstrated that a building is indeed already out of the floodplain.
--Option B needs better clarification.
Option C Example Comments and Questions
Q: Are there specific guidelines or do hazardous material facilities get determined through
individual discussions?
7
133 Agenda Item 5B Page 57 of 60
ATTACHMENT C
A: There is individual site certification by a consultant (not the City of Boulder).
Each business explains its strategy.
--It would be helpful to have guidelines of what are protective measures to avoid problems with
certification in the future (e.g., if there are staff changes).
--When would recertification be necessary?
Q: For non habitable buildings do rules apply?
A: The focus would be on the ability to respond to flood for those facilities.
--Is there a change in requirements if mitigation is done to lower the flood level impact?
Q: What if multiple buildings have different addresses?
A: Regulation is tied to what will be done in each building and if there is addition or expansion
to that building.
Open House (5:15-6:00)
After all questions associated with the overall project were answered the floodplain exhibits
were re-opened and staff and consultants worked with the public one on one to answer property
specific questions. Questions from this time frame were similar to the representative questions
listed above in the first open house period.
8
134 Agenda Item 5B Page 58 of 60
Attachment D
Recent updates to the proposed ordinance
The proposed critical facilities and mobile population ordinance was recently reviewed
by the city's Planning and Development Services Workgroup to ensure the ordinance is
implementable and can be incorporated into the city's existing land development
processes. As part of that review several mobile population and critical facilities
management strategies were updated as follows:
1. The implementation threshold for mobile population emergency management
plans was changed from new construction or any modification requiring a
building permit to permits for new construction, the addition of any floor area, or
any building permit for a substantial improvement.
2. Flood protection strategies for residential at-risk populations in the 500-year
floodplain were changed from elevation or floodproofing to elevation.
3. The implementation threshold for hazardous materials containment was changed
from new construction or any modification requiring a building permit to new
construction or a modification requiring floodplain development permit or a
building permit to an existing hazardous material building exceeding 25 percent
of the structure's value. A ten year implementation window was also added to this
requirement.
4. Critical facilities are now required to develop an emergency management plans
within a 10-year implementation window.
135 Agenda Item 5B Page 59 of 60
Attachment E - Matrix of Options
y y 4" a, v °
Y Ct M
cl~
o5 v
p 4 a E vy
CL-
rA ct O y c y vy N p
s~
Q~ :C ~ U ° ~ y U U ~ C ~ y
cc o 0 4.
~n C15
CbLj C~~ ~ O 3 O E Q i
y
y
O c~ v U
C rn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
73 v Yn
.L 3 V •X o
C i C U y b ~ U O
C ° 4. ° o
C y ~ N 4. O 4. y
-a GA -d ~ ~ ~ cn y m
cG ^IJ
rte. Cu
y
y a.
o y
by > y N
E G C3 C13 O
' X O b O ~ ~ ~ v'
y y s
y 4) > o o c
c~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ O -O y L O
p ~ ~ ° cc ~ U y ~
N U ~ O v Lf U
CE C)
U .y b y O
s, M U
C CS U y E Vi M U .U N
n R G 00 z u
O O C CYa cn t7 O
O O O y 4.
U O y `n
O L O d E x 0 W b E
136 Agenda Item 5B Page 60 of 60