[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: FW: Minor Edits in BVCP

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Spence, Cindy

Planning Board Comments – D. Ensign

Cindy

From: David Ensign [mailto:dwensign at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 3:55 PM
To: Ellis, Lesli <EllisL at bouldercolorado.gov>; boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard at bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Minor Edits in BVCP

Hi Lesli and Planning Board,

I thought I’d put my questions and some minor edit suggestions into an email before tomorrow’s meeting.  If it needs to go to the HOTLINE for City Council, please let me know.

Minor edit:  In Chapter 1 under “Interpreting Core Values and Policies of the Plan” the following line had me confused:  "The city and county strive to balance the values noted in the previous section, recognizing that achieving all the values may not be possible under any circumstance.”  Do we mean under any “particular” circumstance?  if so, I would suggest adding the word “particular” or “individual”, or just change “any” to “every”.  I don’t think the meaning is to say that there is a circumstance where none of the values apply?

Minor edit:  In Section 1.14, list item b), the wording of what is included in “New Urban Development” says:  "Any proposed development within Area II subject to a county discretionary review process before the Board of County Commissioners, provided the county determines that the proposed development is inconsistent with the land use projections, maps or policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time.”  Shouldn’t the word “inconsistent” be “consistent”?

Minor edit:  In Section 3.14, Amy Strombothe, during public testimony, recommended taking “full” out of the phrase:  "a full range of alternative wildlife and land use management techniques will be considered by the city and county”. I have no problem with supporting this, but would it complicate completion of the plan?  I really don’t know if such changes can cause the referenced “ping pong” effect :-).

Minor edit:  In Section 6.08, the NAMS acronym is missing a word
should be Northwest *Area* Mobility Study.

Community feedback question:  Section 7.13:  There is significant community concern about the rewording of Section 7.13 from:

Permanently affordable housing, whether publicly, privately or jointly financed will be designed as to be compatible, dispersed, and integrated with housing throughout the community.

to

Permanently affordable housing, whether publicly, privately or jointly developed and financed should be dispersed throughout the community. Where appropriate, the city will encourage new and affordable units provided on the site of and integrated into new housing developments.

Is the concern that the original language seems to imply that the the city drives the design?  I’d like to understand why this wording was changed, and see if it can be strengthened in any way to address community concerns.

Process/newbie question: with regard to Subcommunity and Area Plans.  If we are reviewing a site that has one of these plans, does staff prepare our package with a section on how the project meets criteria in these plans as well as comp plan, zoning?  I don’t think I’ve seen a proposal in an area or subcommunity with a plan yet, so just wondering how that works.

Engineering question:  There is at least one ditch/channel into the western edge of CU South site (from Tantra Park or Viele Lake area I think).  Have the studies so far looked into how such a waterway might behave in flooding situations, and how it needs to be diverted around or through the berm if required in normal operation?

Land Use Designation question:  Last night I brought up the idea of whether we could consider going forward with the proposed land use designation for CU South in the Comp Plan, but have a way to address unforeseen/unexpected complications as studies on the flood mitigation are completed.  This would be something like a “conditional” land use.  I heard that this hasn’t been done before and could be complicated.  But I wonder if there still could be some targeted language making it easier to revisit and revise the land use map if something does come up that indicates the boundaries need to be modified.  I do understand the power of having the 4 body review process weigh in on the direction before final studies and hammering out the annexation agreement, but maybe there’s something that can be finessed that wouldn’t slow down the process but would make those concerned with unexpected complications feel more comfortable that there is some flexibility.

Great work last night
looking forward to tomorrow!

d.