<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word"> <div class="WordSection1"> Mayor Brockett,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thank you for posing these questions and providing us an opportunity to clarify some of these important topics related to the proposed ordinance. We have answered each below.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:#5B9BD5;margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"> Residential in Industrial Zones. The ordinance proposes to prohibit residential uses in the IS and IM zones. The memo states that the current approach for allowing residential in industrial zones is somewhat haphazard and doesn't allow for logical development of residential in those zones. However, that current approach has allowed for the development of hundreds of homes, including a substantial amount of on-site affordable housing. Is there an alternative change we could make to the current code that would still allow residential in those zones, even if there isn't a subcommunity plan for that area, but that would be more consistent and less haphazard?<o:p></o:p></li></ol> <o:p> </o:p> Considering the BVCP guidance in Policy 2.21 to “preserve industrial land as places of industry and innovation,” with housing infill “not located in areas zoned for manufacturing or service uses,” staff does not believe that residential uses in IS- or IM-zoned land is consistent with the zoning district purposes or comprehensive plan guidance for these areas. However, below is further analysis on each zone with potential alternative options.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> IS Zoning District: Council direction at the August 25 Study Session noted the need for protection particularly of the IS zones, where many needed local industrial services are located. IS-zoned properties are not currently subject to the contiguity requirements that apply to IG and IM, so any IS parcel is currently eligible for residential development, as long as the residential use is not located on the ground floor. Residential uses were not allowed in IS zones until a 2004 code change allowed residential uses above the ground floor in IS zones. However, staff does not believe this allowance is consistent with the stated purpose of the IS zone in the land use code, which is “primarily used to provide to the community a wide range of repair and service uses and small-scale manufacturing uses” or the above noted comprehensive plan policy. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Option: If Council desires, the current allowances in IS could be maintained as the IS district is not currently affected by the inconsistent nature of the contiguity requirement as in other districts.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> IM Zoning District: Considering alternatives for the IM district benefits from a more location-based analysis. In the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan and the Transit Village Area Plan areas, the proposed ordinance changes would result in a significantly greater amount of land area and number of parcels becoming eligible for residential development due to the proposed change (from 25 parcels to 118 parcels), even with residential prohibited in IM. However, in Gunbarrel, the number of parcels would be reduced from 39 to 8 and eligible land area would be reduced. This is because the adopted area plan in Gunbarrel does not cover all industrially zoned land, and because there is a significant amount of IM-zoned land in the Gunbarrel area. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Option: If it is Council’s desire, an alternative could be to maintain the contiguity eligibility for residential development for IG or IM properties that are located outside of subcommunity plan boundaries, to account for those parts of Gunbarrel that are not covered by a subcommunity plan, and to include any IG or IM zoning outside of the boundaries of a subcommunity plan. For areas that are within subcommunity plan boundaries, the proposal to base residential eligibility on subcommunity plan guidance could also be applied to IM, instead of just IG. If the above approaches are taken, staff would still recommend eliminating the other current standards for residential development in industrial zoning as proposed in the ordinance, such as the minimum lot size of 2 acres, as that would allow for a more cohesive pattern of eligibility in Gunbarrel than the requirements result in currently. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Clarification on previously approved projects: Of the four residential projects that have been approved or developed using the current residential in industrial zoning standards, only one was located in IM zoning: 4775 Spine Road. (A point of clarification: The Waterview project location at 5801 Arapahoe is identified as “mixed use residential” in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan, and would therefore theoretically have been eligible at the time of approval if the proposed ordinance (and plan) was in place. The example land use plan graphic in the staff memo with the outlined areas may have been a bit confusing on this point as we were not taking into account previously approved projects but rather trying to highlight the areas of future change in the plan.)<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="2" type="1"> <li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:#5B9BD5;margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"> Office uses. The ordinance proposes to combine the Technical Office and Professional Office uses into one general Office category, and then add restrictions to that use such as size limitations and prohibiting office uses on the ground floor in the IG and IM zones. This would make many properties that already have office buildings in those zones nonconforming with the new rules. What would be the consequences for those now nonconforming properties, and do we know how many properties would be affected?<o:p></o:p></li></ol> <o:p> </o:p> At the August 25 study session, City Council gave direction to staff to combine the technical and professional office terms, but specified that some type of protection or “guardrails” were still needed to preserve industrial land for industrial uses and to not accelerate speculative office development. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Since professional offices are currently prohibited in industrial districts, there is not much concern about nonconforming professional offices – if there are any, they would have had some kind of special approval (like a PUD) through which they were originally allowed and which likely would be unaffected by the ordinance.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The issue of potential nonconformities is therefore primarily related to existing technical offices. The new definition of “research and development” was drafted to be fairly generalized and ideally capture most of the existing technical office businesses in the industrial districts. Research and development would not be subject to the same size or ground floor limits as office space in IG or IM, and staff believes many existing technical offices would be reclassified as research and development, and therefore would not become a nonconforming use. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> For those current technical offices that do not fit into the research and development definition (that would become nonconforming because they are considered offices either located on the ground floor or are in a building with over 50,000 square feet of office space), we have incorporated some procedural flexibility for those businesses to change out tenants, owners, numbers of employees, and similar minor changes, without requiring a change of nonconforming use review. Only the expansion of new office space into floor area not currently occupied by office would trigger a nonconforming use review. Nonconforming uses may not be expanded more than 10 percent in floor area.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Unfortunately, we do not have publicly available data to comprehensively assess how many buildings or businesses would become nonconforming due to the proposed ordinance. There are no data sources that can tell us the current floor area of each business, or which floor they occupy in a building. We do know that based on floor area analysis, approximately 25% of IG-zoned properties and 65% of parcels in IM are large enough to accommodate more than 50,000 square feet of floor area on a parcel by-right. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <ol style="margin-top:0in" start="3" type="1"> <li class="MsoListParagraph" style="color:#5B9BD5;margin-left:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo4"> Manufacturing types. The ordinance proposes to change the existing "manufacturing use" and "manufacturing use with potential for off-site impact" categories to "light industrial" and "general industrial", with updated definitions for the newly named types, including a definition for general industrial of uses that involve the processing of raw or primary materials. What would be the consequences for a use that was moved from the existing "manufacturing use" to the new "general industrial" category, and do we know how many properties would be affected by this change? Would businesses that don't have any measurable off-site impacts but do utilize some raw materials be affected by this change as well?<o:p></o:p></li></ol> <o:p> </o:p> The current definitions for “manufacturing” and “manufacturing with potential for off-site impact” are challenging to administer, as the differentiation hinges essentially entirely on a determination of potential impact. The intent with the proposed change was to better support small-scale light manufacturing uses by adding more specificity to the definition, to make it clear that they would not be considered a “manufacturing with potential for off-site impact” use, which is requires a use review in IG and IM and is prohibited everywhere else. The proposed changes specify that potential impact is presumed to be increased if the use is processing/manufacturing/compounding predominately raw or primary materials, and at that point would thus be considered a general manufacturing use. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Some examples of uses that utilize raw materials and would be classified as “general manufacturing” would be chemical manufacturing, petroleum refining, foundries, leather tanning, tire manufacturing, etc. We do not have many of these heavier/general manufacturing type uses in Boulder.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Staff is not aware of any businesses or properties that we currently classify as a “manufacturing use” that would become “general manufacturing” with the proposed changes, as the new parts of the definition simply clarify that predominately processing with raw and primary materials tend to have a greater impact and thus are allowed in different locations and by different regulatory processes.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Thank you for your questions – please let me know if there is anything else we can clarify prior to the meeting tomorrow. We plan to send a separate Hotline message tomorrow summarizing the status of our continued engagement as requested at CAC, as well as to forward additional public comment received by that point. <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Lisa Houde, AICP Senior City Planner <o:p></o:p> <img width="383" height="63" style="width:3.9861in;height:.6597in" id="Picture_x0020_2" src="cid:image001.png@01D90FD5.1712A990"><o:p></o:p> O: 303-441-4234 <a href="mailto:houdel@bouldercolorado.gov">houdel@bouldercolorado.gov</a><o:p></o:p> Planning & Development Services Department<o:p></o:p> 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Boulder CO 80306<o:p></o:p> <a href="https://bouldercolorado.gov/">bouldercolorado.gov</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> From: Brockett, Aaron <BrockettA@bouldercolorado.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2022 12:11 PM To: HOTLINE <HOTLINE@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Questions about Use Table Changes<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Hello colleagues, city staff, and Hotline followers. This Thursday we will be holding a public hearing about an ordinance to make changes to the city's Use Tables. I greatly appreciate all of the work city staff has put into these proposed changes, as well as the Planning Board, and particularly the Planning Board's Use Table Subcommittee. I have a few questions for city staff about the specifics of some of the proposed changes.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> <ol start="1" type="1"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;background:white"> Residential in Industrial Zones. The ordinance proposes to prohibit residential uses in the IS and IM zones. The memo states that the current approach for allowing residential in industrial zones is somewhat haphazard and doesn't allow for logical development of residential in those zones. However, that current approach has allowed for the development of hundreds of homes, including a substantial amount of on-site affordable housing. Is there an alternative change we could make to the current code that would still allow residential in those zones, even if there isn't a subcommunity plan for that area, but that would be more consistent and less haphazard?<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;background:white"> Office uses. The ordinance proposes to combine the Technical Office and Professional Office uses into one general Office category, and then add restrictions to that use such as size limitations and prohibiting office uses on the ground floor in the IG and IM zones. This would make many properties that already have office buildings in those zones nonconforming with the new rules. What would be the consequences for those now nonconforming properties, and do we know how many properties would be affected?<o:p></o:p></li><li class="contentpasted0" style="color:black;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;background:white"> Manufacturing types. The ordinance proposes to change the existing "manufacturing use" and "manufacturing use with potential for off-site impact" categories to "light industrial" and "general industrial", with updated definitions for the newly named types, including a definition for general industrial of uses that involve the processing of raw or primary materials. What would be the consequences for a use that was moved from the existing "manufacturing use" to the new "general industrial" category, and do we know how many properties would be affected by this change? Would businesses that don't have any measurable off-site impacts but do utilize some raw materials be affected by this change as well?<o:p></o:p></li></ol> <div> Thanks again for everyone's hard work on this subject, and I look forward to our discussion on Thursday.<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div id="Signature"> <div> <div id="divtagdefaultwrapper"> Best,<o:p></o:p> <div> Aaron Brockett<o:p></o:p> <img border="0" width="211" height="63" style="width:2.2013in;height:.6597in" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image002.png@01D90FD5.1712A990"><o:p></o:p> C: 720-984-1863<o:p></o:p> <a href="mailto:brocketta@bouldercolorado.gov">brocketta@bouldercolorado.gov</a><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>