Policy Documents: Proposed Changes to the Site Review, Use Review, and Re-Zoning Rules


FAR “density transfer”, used at 1440 Pine and 311 Mapleton:

Add underlined language to BRC 9-2-14 (c):

(c) Modifications to Development Standards: The following development standards of B.R.C. 1981 may be modified under the site review process set forth in this section. However, land underneath a building or part of a building may not be counted in calculating the allowed floor area for another building or part of a building, and no building or part of a building may be built on land that has been counted in calculating the allowed floor area of another building or part of a building:


Spot Zoning, used at 311 Mapleton:

Add underlined language to BRC 9-2-19:

(e) Criteria: The city's zoning is the result of a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of the city's present and future land use allocation needs. In order to establish and maintain sound, stable and desirable development within the city, rezoning of land is to be discouraged and allowed only under the limited circumstances herein described. Therefore, the city council shall grant a rezoning application only if the proposed rezoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and, for an application not incidental to a general revision of the zoning map, meets one of the following criteria.

In addition, where such rezoning [[not incidental to a general revision of the zoning map]] would potentially allow an increase in the size, density, intensity, or impact of development in the rezoned area, no development that would produce an increase in size, density, intensity, or impact above what would have been allowed under the previous zoning shall be permitted for a period of 5 years after the rezoning is approved:

[[I added in the language in brackets clarifies that this only applies to what was discussed in the previous sentence, so it’s not really necessary, but might be needed for some. Also, I used 5 years, since it takes some developments a number of years to be actually built, and having to wait 5 years seems like a pretty good disincentive.]]

(1) The applicant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed rezoning is necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan map;

(2) The existing zoning of the land was the result of a clerical error;

(3) The existing zoning of the land was based on a mistake of fact;

(4) The existing zoning of the land failed to take into account the constraints on development created by the natural characteristics of the land, including, but not limited to, steep slopes, floodplain, unstable soils and inadequate drainage;

(5) The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area; or

(6) The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide land for a community need that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.


Quasi-Judicial Process for Land Use Approvals (site review, use review, landmarks, etc.)

Add the underlined language to BRC 1-3-5. - Hearings and Determinations after paragraph (h) in a new paragraph (i).

[[This might be better added to 9-4-4 Appeals, Call-ups, and Public Hearings]]

In addition to the other requirements in BRC 1-3-5, hearings and decisions on site reviews, use reviews, re-zonings other than general revisions of the zoning map, [add in applicable others] shall be conducted using the following sequence and procedures:

The sequence shall be:
presentation by the applicant;
analysis by city staff, including all applicable criteria, to be presented objectively and without recommendations;
questions to both applicant and staff from the agency or hearing officer(s);
comments from members of the public;
questions from the agency or hearing officer related directly to public comments, with responses allowed from the members of the public who made the comments.

The hearing shall be closed after the questions and responses from the public, and no new evidence shall be presented thereafter.

If evidence is introduced by the applicant at any point in the site review, use review, etc. [add in applicable others] process that ties the current review to the development of a site that is not in the current review or in another such review, whether directly or indirectly such as by press releases, etc., then that site shall be included in the site or use review under consideration and the process shall begin anew.

[This last is an attempt to cover the situation that occurred with 311 Mapleton and Fruehauf’s. There may be a better way to cover it. My idea is create a real penalty that will dissuade developers from trying to pull this again.]


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more