City of Boulder

Printable Version

CODE SIMPLIFICATION COULD YIELD HOMEOWNER BENEFITS
-The city’s land use code simplification project, initiated last spring, may yield some significant benefits for Boulder homeowners. The first phase of the projects is simple enough. Reorganize the land use code so it is easier to use and understand. Then, simplify the zone system to reduce the number of zones and then organize the code by standards rather than zones. This is straightforward and non-controversial. Approval of these changes will happen independent of other proposed code changes. Three recommended changes are significant in simplifying homeowners’ ability to use and/or alter their property. First, many planned urban developments (PUDs) in Boulder have unclear on non-existent information on open space requirements, expansion potential within the PUD or on individual lots, and require a lengthy, complex and costly process even for relatively minor additions. In older PUDs open space reductions were allowed but are not today. City staff is recommending flexibility on open space requirements and other rules governing PUDs that will allow homeowners to alter their property through a simple process and would return some properties in PUDs to by-right status. Second, Some LR-E zoned older neighborhoods allowed two or more housing units (duplexes or two single family units on a single lot) but have since been rezoned to single family, thus making the multi-unit properties non-conforming and severely limited in the improvements that can be made. Cit staff is recommending consideration of reclassifying the multi unit properties as conforming, thus allowing improvements that are not currently allowed or to treat the multi-unit properties as conditional accessory uses as long as one of the units is owner occupied. Third, many pre 1971 houses and lots in the LR-E and ER-E zones do not conform to current regulations. Prior to 1971 lots were required to be 6,000 and 10,000 square feet versus 7,000 and 15,000 post 1971. Pre and post 1971 side yard setbacks are also different. Additions to these homes are not allowed to match existing setbacks, and, many homes have reduced front yard setbacks. So when these homes are improved the differing requirements result in altered structures that change the character in the existing neighborhood. Staff is recommending two alternatives. Either add the older standards to the existing zones to continue current uses and allow alterations, or create new zones that match the pre 1971 standards and rezone those neighborhoods while retaining the current zoning for the post 1971 neighborhoods. Public hearings on these changes will be scheduled this spring and final action could be taken by the end of the summer. BARA is monitoring these proposals and will advocate for change.

BUSINESS LEADERS WILL WEIGH IN ON ECONOMY DURING BVCP UPDATE
-The 2005 major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan begins in earnest this month with a public open house scheduled on February 23. The open house will be held at the West Senior Center at 9th and Arapahoe from 5:30pm-8:30pm. In the face of an on-going exodus of businesses to nearby communities and the continued weakness in retail sales, much of the public process will be on addressing the city’s weakening economic position. BARA is working with the Boulder Chamber by creating a task force of business leadership organizations to write and recommend economic policy language that will focus on Employment, Retail, Built Environment, Housing and Transportation. The task force has been meeting weekly and will offer its recommendations prior to the February 23 open house. Participants in BARA, Boulder Chamber, Boulder Tomorrow, Commercial Brokers of Boulder, Architects and Planners of Boulder and the Hill Alliance. The task force’s goal is “To produce language for the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan designed to realize the goals set forth in the City’s Economic Vitality Policy. We also intend to generate additional progressive and realistic business enhancement goals and strategies that can be incorporated in the Comp Plan’s language.” It is our current view that economic policies now offered by city officials and staff is inadequate to meet the challenges of an increasingly competitive economic development marketplace. Boulder is being out-competed for jobs and retail in the region. A couple of interesting developments in the process are 1) a city commitment to study the 500-acre urban reserve east of U.S. 36, north of Jay Rd. for future annexation and development, and 2) a proposal by two former city officials and a local private planner to adopt an “Adequate Public Facilities and Services” policy and implementing legislation. The adequate public facilities and services proposal is similar to concurrency regulations that require facilities and services be in place or funded before developments can be approved. This proposal runs counter to the need for rebuilding Boulder’s economic health.

BOULDER CONTINUES TO LAG OTHER COUNTY CITIES IN SALES TAX GROWTH
-Factor out the January 1, 2005 increase in Boulder’s open space sales tax and there is no gain in sales tax receipts coming into city coffers. Since 2000 city sales tax revenue has dropped by 63 percent, according to recent reports. Four years ago sales taxes generated nearly $120 million. In 2004 total receipts from sales taxes was a meager $44 million. No doubt that some of the decline is related to the national and regional economic downturn but much is directly related to the city’s inability to respond to regional economic competition, especially in retail. This is evident in the fact that neighboring communities like Broomfield, Louisville and Longmont have rebounded from the economic downturn and saw strong single digit gains in retail sales tax receipts during 2004.

HISTORIC DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVES GET PUBLIC IN THE LOOP
-City historic preservationists are proposing several alternative methods to establish new historic districts in city neighborhoods. The proposals are being developed in response to public opposition to a 2002 attempt to declare virtually all of University Hill a historic district. Four options are being put out for community comment and each one would require significantly more public notice. One proposal suggests no change to current procedures that give the city near complete discretion. That option would require the city survey of property owners but their opinions would not be binding. Options two and three would require the survey results be binding but have different survey and notification requirements. The fourth option allows the city to designate a neighborhood a historic district but requires a two-thirds vote of both the Landmarks Preservation Board and the City Council. Formal consideration of the proposals will begin in March or April.