[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Comments on BVCP for 5.23.17 Council Meeting

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Burton, Jan

Lesli and Jay,
Thanks for spending a couple hours with me on Friday to answer my questions about this version of the Comp Plan. Also, thanks for the many years the team has put into building this plan.

I have the following comments:

1.       Highest priority items: I believe a Comp Plan should be strategic in nature, and we should strive to accomplish the biggest goals of the community. We should use it to ensure execution of the values and as little confusion or cross-messaging as possible. In the Vision and Core Values section the bullet “compact, contiguous development and infill that supports evolution to a more sustainable urban form” is an objective that supports our environmental and housing goals, and I fully support it.   This is supported in Chapter 3, Sec 1, 1.29 Jobs: Housing Balance. “
this will be accomplished by encouraging new housing and mixed use neighborhoods in areas close to where people work, encouraging transit-oriented development in appropriate locations, preserving service commercial uses, converting commercial and industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate locations, improving regional transportation alternatives, and mitigating the impacts of traffic congestion.”  Then in Chapter 3, Sec 2 Built Environment 2.16 it states that “the city will encourage well-designed mixed use and higher density development that incorporates a substantial amount of affordable housing in appropriate locations, including in some commercial centers and industrial areas and in proximity to multimodal corridors and transit centers. The city will provide incentives and remove regulatory barriers to encourage mixed use development where and when appropriate.” Here’s my comment: In our discussions about the Broadway corridor, we have recommended making portions “medium density housing”.  That doesn’t support what has been written in the comp plan.  Broadway, Arapahoe east of 38th St, 28th Street should be examples of transit-oriented development.  In addition, I wonder if we have enough options in our land use and zoning codes to accomplish our objectives. Medium density allows 6-14 du/acre, and high density allows >14.  Neighborhoods react negatively to “high density”, but I wonder if there should be a “tweener” or if the mixed use residential is enough of a tool to get more density and support the 15-minute neighborhood concept (with the advice and counsel of staff and Planning Board).
2.       Housing is bullet point 11 in our Core Values. I would suggest that it be moved up into the top three to clearly communicate that it is the highest value and need in the community, as supported by the 2016 Community Survey and both BVCP surveys. In some places of the plan, it calls for only “affordable housing”. That terminology causes confusion, and we need all types of housing: permanently affordable, workforce, and middle income.
3.       Chapter 3, Sec 2, Built Environment. 2.13. This states that “the city and county will take appropriate actions to ensure that the character and livability of established residential neighborhoods will not be undermined by spill-over impacts from adjacent regional or community business zones or by incremental expansion of business activities into residential areas. The city and county will protect residential neighborhoods from intrusion of non-residential uses by protecting edges and regulating the impacts of these uses on neighborhoods.”  Comment: Lesli, you have stated that this is old language and that it hasn’t been re-done. While we all agree that we need to respect neighborhood character, we should strive to balance this with everything written in the new BVCP about 15 minute neighborhoods and transit corridors. Can we do that through clarifying verbiage?  In addition, we should offer benefits to neighborhoods that are accepting of change (pocket park development, local grocery store, other things they might desire.).
4.       Chapter 3, Sec 2, Built Environment 2.11. Accessory Units. This is old language, and given the support from the community survey (62% supported ADU’s), the restrictive language in this verbiage should be changed to support more broad allowance of ADU’s throughout the community. Also, since this is just a housing type, I’m not sure why it’s in this section vs. the housing section.
5.       Section 7: Housing. There is no mention of policy changes that were broadly supported in the BVCP survey: ADU’s, alley houses, duplexes, cottage courts, and lot divisions to allow smaller homes (instead of big ones). Since these are policies the overall community supports, we should be more explicit about our policy direction. In addition, given the seriousness of the situation, we should have a statement about “housing first” in relation to addressing homelessness.
6.       In general: How do we get ahead of the developers to more clearly state what we think is acceptable for property development, particularly on properties designated as “P”? It seems we are very reactive and defensive in our approach. 3303 Broadway would be an example. Another, the Mapleton Hospital site is coming at us like a freight train. As a historic Boulder site, shouldn’t we have a “say” in putting some vision out there for the property? As it stands, the developer purchases the property, begins their process, and the neighborhood and the City must just react. Perhaps we need a Master Plan for the City, something which was mentioned by the Design Advisory Board.
7.       Design Excellence. The City of Boulder should declare that we strive for design excellence and then put policies in place to support. We should take seriously the comments from the Design Advisory Board. They should help craft Sec II 2.37 on Enhanced Design.
8.       Transportation: we have all those specific goals in the Comp plan, adding two more, but no history of achieving our goals. Other sections don’t include the specific goals that are in their master plans. Why the inconsistency? I’d like to see mention of developing more north/south bike routes, which should be a higher priority, and working with the county to complete bike routes from Gunbarrel, either in Sec II, 2.37, Sec III, Sec 6.
9.       Some minor points: encouraging xeriscape vs. grass and new types of grey water systems (not using drinking water for toilets and car-washing, for example) would lead us to better water conservation. Electric bikes might be a better way to get people out of their cars in this hilly town. Farmers have requested allowance for food stands on their properties.

Thanks again for all your work!
Jan
Jan Burton
Member of City Council