[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: BVCP questions and comments

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Appelbaum, Matt

Colleagues - As requested, here are some of my questions/concerns/comments regarding the latest BVCP draft.  These will be limited to the amendment procedures and CU South.  While we can, and no doubt will, continue to argue over specific words in the many policies, I generally think they're fine (if rather overly detailed and repetitive...) - so long as we remember that the policies are general guidance and are not regulatory, and that no single policy or group of policies takes precedence over any others.

First, the amendment procedures:

-- As council has discussed, changing land-use designations for Area II properties must be under the control of the city, with approval required from both the Planning Board and the City Council.  There should be a referral to the county and their concerns should be seriously considered, but the county will not have any sort of veto power or the ability to delay or modify the approval process.  Clearly, Area II properties that are already developed - the "rural" county subdivisions - should remain as they are if annexed.  Area II properties with development potential are very limited, and are either owned by the county or are those that the county has long wanted the city to annex.  The one exception is CU South, discussed later.

-- The decision to expand the service area (growth boundary) is essentially relevant/controversial only in the Planning Reserve.  As council discussed, this decision must be made by the City Council and the County Commissioners only.  While the Planning Board and Planning Commission must not have veto power on these decisions, I think we should add the requirement that both boards be asked for their advice.

-- But the service area expansion in the Planning Reserve has other problems that need to be fixed.  A letter from Macon Cowles points out a particular problem - one I have also talked about with a number of people - regarding the annexation of an Area II property and the possible desire to simultaneously annex an adjacent Planning Reserve property.  The current process makes this essentially impossible, but such dual annexations would likely result in a much better outcome regarding infrastructure, site design and layout, and impacts on surrounding residents (including those in unincorporated areas).  Therefore I'd like staff to suggest some options to allow such an action to be possible.  This could include: reducing the minimum size of a parcel that can be considered for such annexation; allowing for such an annexation to occur at other than the five-year intervals; describing the type(s) of parcels this might apply to, perhaps limiting it to the (singular?) case when an adjacent Area II parcel is annexed; not requiring a full-blown analysis of the entire Planning Reserve in order to annex a fairly small property; and other such considerations.

-- I have one other concern with a service area expansion.  The draft plan states this requirement: "b) Capacity: The need for a service area expansion cannot be met within the existing Service Area because there is not suitable existing or potential land/service capacity."  Taken literally - which is how some people take these concepts - it could preclude any expansion since, one could claim, any new use in the Planning Reserve could, in theory, after perhaps significant redevelopment that might or might not occur within any particular timeframe, be possible in the existing Service Area (as an obvious example, any affordable housing that could be built in the Planning Reserve could, in theory, be built somewhere in the existing Service Area, even if it really wouldn't be for a very long time, if ever, due to other practical/political constraints).  So, I'd like staff to consider how to make this language clearer, perhaps by including some time and/or likelihood elements.

Second, CU South:

No doubt there will be considerable discussion here, as appropriate.  I believe the correct approach - assuming there is a re-designation of some of the property to P/Public - is to add conditions to that designation to constrain the development potential and form; I've been suggesting this for some time now and am encouraged that this concept has been included in the draft plan.  However, I'd like staff to take another look at tightening up some of the constraints by adding in specific values when possible - with the understanding that many of these values could be expressed as ranges, such as: the number of housing units; the impact on VMT (although this is made more difficult by really needing to determine the "net" increase given that students would otherwise live elsewhere, and faculty/staff currently do live elsewhere and undoubtedly will reduce their VMT when living at CU South); a clearer definition of the transit services CU must provide and the limitations on parking; a more nuanced take on the "academic" buildings that could be built, considering not just their sizes but also their differing uses and thus potential impacts; the requirement that CU abide by the city's floodplain and wetlands regs; a clearer take on CU's need to abide by the city's height limits with any potential exceptions noted (not clear why there would be any, although the slopes are a potential issue here as they are in other parts of town), etc.

Thanks --Matt