[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Questions for staff for item 5B

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Ferro, Charles



Council Member Wilson,
Thanks for the questions. Staff has provided some responses below in bold.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions.
Best,
Charles
 
Charles Ferro, AICP
Development Review Manager 
City of Boulder - Department of Community Planning + Sustainability
303.441.4012 - Direct
303.441.3241 - Fax
ferroc at bouldercolorado.gov
www.bouldercolorado.gov
 Facebook
 |  Twitter
 |  YouTube
 |  RSS
P 
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
New Services Center hours begin on January 7th! 

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.& Tuesday 10:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
LUR & TEC application appointments are also now available.
 
Original Message-----
> From:
cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov [mailto:cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 4:08 PM
> To:
bouldercouncilhotline at list.ci.boulder.co.us
> Subject: [bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Questions for staff for item 5B
 
Sender: Wilson, Ken
 
I have the following questions regarding suggested changes to the ordinance suggested by Planning Board.  These changes are stated at the bottom of page 156 of the
 Packet for tomorrow night.  The paragraph beginning:
"Planning Board suggested a change to separate by size ..."
 
For a 20,000 sf threshold for identified uses, Use Review is required over the threshold.  Regarding the criteria for approval,  is the only criterion that the facility
 will "contribute to a diversity of uses in the area and make a lively and engaging place"?  What are the other factors for the decision?  If it is the only one, then it should be a Conditional Use (C) rather than a requirement for a Use Review (U).
 
How is this to be determined?  Would it be based on adjacent uses that are the same, thereby reducing diversity?
No, if an identified use in the MU-4 zone exceeds the 20,000 square foot threshold, it would be required to comply with the following
established criteria for Use Review found in Section 
9-2-15(e)(1),(3),(4) &(5) B.R.C. 1981 (below) in addition to the proposed criterion requiring that the identified uses
"contribute to a diversity of uses in the area and make a lively and engaging place."
Criteria for Review:
 No Use Review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of the following:
(1) Consistency With Zoning and Nonconformity: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in
section 9-5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a nonconforming use;
(3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development
 are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from
 nearby properties;
(4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under
section 9-6-1, "Schedule of Permitted Land Uses," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a nonconforming use, the proposed development will not significantly
 adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets;
(5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area or the character established by adopted
 design guidelines or plans for the area; and
Planning Board’s concern was that the identified uses, if large in size, would negatively affect the creation of the envisioned “creative
 chaos” of uses in Boulder Junction.  The proposed criterion of "contributing to a diversity of uses in the area and make a lively and engaging place", was added to the other applicable Use Review criteria to address that concern.   One of the central tenets
 of the TVAP plan is to provide a mix of uses that “contribute to a diversity of uses in the area and make a lively and engaging place."  Adding this criterion to the other applicable Use Review criteria would specifically codify and emphasize that tenet for
 the identified types of use exceeding 20,000 square feet in size.   
Over what distance?  Would multiple tenants of the same use but at a lower threshold mean that diversity is maintained because they are different tenants? Is this
 on a per tenant basis? A per building basis? A per property basis?
 
A specific distance isn’t specified; however properties requiring Use Review would be reviewed in the context of the entire Transit Village subarea.  Offices,
 financial institutions, or laboratories are considered separate, defined uses under the code.  The 20,000 square foot threshold triggering Use Review for the identified uses would not be applied on a per building or per property basis. For example, two separate
 11,000 square foot financial institutions occupying separate, leasable office areas in the same building would not trigger Use Review.  
 
How would this work for someone actually running a commercial property.  Would a new use review be required  every time you get a new tenant? This would seem unrealistic.
 
No. Typically conditions of approval for Use Review applications allow a specifically approved use to run with a property unless a new use that triggers Use
 Review is proposed. For example, if a property is approved with a 25,000 square foot financial institution use, a new Use Review wouldn’t be required if First Bank moves out and Wells Fargo moves in (assuming a new tenant agrees to all existing conditions
 of approval) however, a new Use Review would be required if an addiction recovery facility use wanted to assume the space as they have different operational characteristics and impacts to the surrounding area.  

 
Sorry this is at the last minute, but I thought it better to get this out today than bring it up in the meeting  tomorrow.
 
Ken Wilson
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 387 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20130206/19361b47/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 95 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20130206/19361b47/attachment-0001.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 425 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20130206/19361b47/attachment-0002.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.gif
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 409 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.ci.boulder.co.us/pipermail/bouldercouncilhotline/attachments/20130206/19361b47/attachment-0003.obj