Minutes - Planning Board - 4/3/2008 - REDACTED - APt'7.4)VhD f7V' .01::9, 5, ?008
CITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES
Apri13, 2008
1777 Broadway, Council Chambers
A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven years) are
retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on
the web at htto://www.bouldercolorado.<~ov/
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Elise Jones, Chair
Willa Johnson
Andrew Shoemaker
Phil Shull, Vice-chair
Adrian Sopher
Bill Holicky
KC Becker
STAFF PRESENT:
Michelle Allen, Housing Planner
Juliet Bonnell, Administrative Specialist
David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney
Brian Holmes, Zoning Administrator
Meghan Lawson, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager
Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Division Manager
1. CALI. TO ORDER
Chair, E. Jones, declared a quorum at 5:09 p.m. and the following business was conducted.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
No Planning Board minutes were scheduled for approval.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No one spoke to this item.
4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS
The Planning Board did not call up the following item: Floodplain Development Permit and Wetland Permit
for Goose Creek improvements.
5. ACTION ITEMS
A. Public hearing and recorrunendation to City Council on approaches to interim regulations that
may provide additional linutations in single family zoning districts aimed to protect neighborhood
character.
Case Manager: Susan Richstone
Staff Presentation
R. McHeyser provided an introduction [o the item.
S. Richstone presented staff s recommended approach to the board.
1
A. Sopher inquired if staff's FAR recommendation is similar [o what other cities who are enforcing
limitations are practicing and if they apply to single family residential areas, the entire city, orjust certain
zones.
S. Richstone replied that staff s recommendations are similar to what is being enforced in other locations,
but other cities haven't used a sliding scale approach to FARs in interim ordinances. Even though FARs
are a connnon approach to this issue, the regulations vary greatly.
E. Jones noted that most of the other cities included in the staff memo used an FAR of 0.4.
A. Sopher asked about equity in regards to different zoning districts.
S. Riehstone replied that maxinmm house size can be included in zoning districts with large lot size (such
as RL-2 zone) in order to make regulations more equitable. An FAR approach can still be used, but [he
sliding scale should be higher for certain districts to take into account the larger lot size.
Public Hearing
Tim Plass, Landmarks Board representative, updated the Planning Board on the Landmarks Board's
reconvnendation regarding the topic at hand. Landmarks Board expressed concern about the downsides of
this issue, but agreed that interim regulations were appropriate including the staff s recommendation.
They proposed using a sliding scale with a base of .425. For the RMX-I district (Whittier) they
considered a sliding scale with a higher number to be more appropriate.
1. Dean Thedos, 51 lOverland, Ward
2. Tim Rohrer, P.O. Box 3736, Boulder
3. Anne Olson, 2340 9°i Street
4. Fenno Hoffman, 505 Geneva Ave
5. Anne Fenerty, 2805 Stanford Avc
6. Jesse M. Cleveland, 2790 Stanford Ave
7. FIarvey Hine, 2305 Kenwood Dr
8. Stephen Sparn, 1731 15ih Street #250
9. Kirk Watson, 828 University
]0. Nico Toutenhoofd, 935 Lincoln PI
11. Sarah McKenzie, 935 Lincoln PI
12. Jill Lester, 1415 Cedar Ave (pooled time with Russell Lester and Gus Lester)
13. Mark Young, 1909 Norwood
14. Peter Heinz, 1319 Spruce Street
15. John Stillman, 1000 Evergreen Ave
16. Susan Balint, 760 9°i Street
17. Adam N. Stevenson, 2093 Balsam Drive
18. Rhonda Wallin, 640 College
19. Libby Brown, 2951 14'x'
20. Michael Hibner, 2950 Washington St
21. Leonard May, 3016 9`~' Street
22. Jane Monson, 721 Iris
23. Geof Cahoon, 1420 Elder
24. Denny Robertson, 1107 Cedar Ave
25. Cathy Fluegel, 1368 Cedar Ave
26. Ervin Bell, 3498 Iris Ct.
27. Warren Hultquist, 1820 Mapleton
28. Elizabeth Perreault, P. U. Box 991, Niwot
29. Pat Shanks, speaking for Plan Boulder County, 3345 Broadway
30. Gary Felix, 674 Locust Ave
31. Helen Horsfield, 2448 Bitterroot Circle, Lafayette
32. Macdonald,
33. Susan Gold
34. Adam Edelman, 1727 Bluebell Ave
35. Catherine Schweiger, 628 Maxwell
36. Susan Andre, 410 Spruce
2
37. Scott Dale, 504 Marine Street
38. Steve Kremm, 3770 Spring Valley Rd.
39. Mark Crelband, 505 College Ave
40. Sam Ausfin, 1722 14"'
41. Susie Kirlin, 3065 Galena Way
42. Robert Sharpe, 5995 Marshall
43. Randy Bailey, 3067 10'x' Street
44. Jonathan Hondorf, 2720 4th St.
45. Beth Hondorf, 2720 4"' Street
46. Elizabeth Allen, Boulder
47. John Rohmer, Bluff Street, Boulder
48. Emil Tanner, 1580 Findlay Way
49. Page Pulver, 230 Bellevue
50. Steve Keenen, 1820 Pearl
51. Sheila Horton, Executive Director of Boulder Area Rental Housing Association, P. O. Box 17606
52. Carole Kaye, 3051 7'~' Street
53. Dan Powers, Chamber of Co~runerce Community Affairs Manager, 2440 Pearl Street
54. Fran Sheets, 520 Marine
55. Lloyd Christiansen, 850 Hartford
56. Arn Rosker, 4782 Valhalla Drive
57. Mark Hartwig, 2525 Arapahoe Ave, Ste. E4-402
58. Scott Heap, 805 29'x' Street
59. Lynn Segal, 538 Dewey
60. Daniel Ong, 1205 Holly Pl
61. JV DeSousa, 1480 King Ave
62. Mark Ruzzin, 3135 5'~' Street
63. Brett Robbs, 3145 5'~' Street
64. Amy Barnes-Frey, 575 W. Hawthorn St., Louisville
65. Thom Krueger, 655 Pleasant St.
A majority of the public (80%) spoke against the proposed FARs regulations.
The board recessed at 930 p.m. and resumed at 9:40 p.m.
Board Discussion
S. Richstone clarified that there are 178 properties with single family dwelling units that are 6,000 sq.
feet or larger including garages within the zone districts that are being discussed this evening. She noted
that several of the people who testified about their potential hardships due to this issue are located in the
RMX-1 and R[, 2 zoning areas that may not be affected directly by this and would probably have higher
FAR allowances.
A. Sopher asked D. Gehr about the legality of allowing homeowners to act differently from developers
under the same regulations.
D. Gehr noted that he has seen this done (particularly in regards to OAUs). He explained [hat
homeowners can be treated differently from developers if the rationale behind the differences can be
upheld.
P. Shull inquired about the relationship between Boulder County and the citys regulations and if the
county could be used as a model.
S. Richstone replied that other cities would be more relevant to consider because they are more similar to
the city of Boulder than the county is.
K. Becker inquired about Green Points affect on home sizes.
B. Holmes replied that the Green Points requirements increase as home size increases.
S. Richstone mentioned that City Council formed a subcommittee to define the issues involved in pops
and scrapes/oversized homes within the past year. The main issues were identified as affordability,
environmental issues, and neighborhood character. The city's affordable housing program addresses
3
affordability, Green Points addresses the environmental issues, and tonight's proposal attempts to address
neighborhood character and scale.
E. Jones proposed that each Planning Board member briefly describe the elements of the issue that they
feel are important to address, whether they want to give a reconunendation to council regarding an
interim ordinance, and what role FARs should play in the ordinance.
A. Shoemaker thought that neighborhood character needed to be addressed neighborhood by
neighborhood using a different instrument than FARs for a permanent solution. He didn't consider this
issue to be urgent, but recognized that it is necessary for Planning Board to provide some sort of guidance
to council. He recommended a .6 FAR at 7,000 sq. feet using a sliding scale for RL-1, RE and RR zoning
districts for any interim regulations. He felt they needed more infom~atimr on RM-2 and RM-X zoning
districts to be able to make a reasonable recommendation on FARs for those areas.
W. Johnson thought [hat a neighborhood by neighborhood approach should be conducted and noted that
any interim ordinance should support reinvesUneut in single family neighborhoods. She reconunended
that the interim ordinance help ease the transition in neighborhoods with lots of redevelopment, be easy to
use (for staff and public), and be short-lived. She felt [he interim ordinance should apply to all proposed
zones. The interim ordinance should not be so broad that it has no effect and it shouldn't grossly affect
property values or adversely impact long-term property owners.
B. Holicky appreciated the public testimonies. He recognized the need to be sensitive to current
homeowner's long-term financial health. He acknowledged the danger of losing small property stock and
expressed the importance of neighborhoods being able to change over time. He brought up the issue of
property rights laws and noted that land is expensive, and relatively-speaking, building is less expensive.
He believed that FARs have limited use in addressing the real issue at hand. He agreed that these issues
should be evaluated and dealt with on a neighborhood by neighbmfiood basis. He noted that other cities
that have put FARs restrictions in place have done it on a smaller (less restrictive) scale than Boulder is
proposing. He felt it was important to recommend a specific interim ordinauce to council.
P. Shull mentioned that this issue has been around and unsolved for a long time, despite the feeling that it
is new to the public. FARs are not detailed enough to adequately address the problem, requiring
neighborhood character to be defined in a different manner than tluough PARS. PAR only addresses
mass, not design and character He is against an interim ordinance (especially using the wrong tools, such
as FARs) and would prefer to put energy into developing a permanent ordinance.
A. Sopher agreed with his colleagues' comments regarding the inadequacy of FARs as a tool for
addressing neighborhood character. He expressed the need to acknowledge the changeability of single
family housing areas and the expectation that these areas will be modified as family's needs and tastes
change, budgets allow, etc. But he questioned what level of change is acceptable and what tools are most
appropriate in the regulation of that change.
K. Becker appreciated the public testimonies. She felt it was important to define the problem properly in
order to find appropriate solutions. She stressed the importance of responsibility- responsibility on a
personal level, on a neighborhood level, and on a government level. She was uncomfortable with
recommending an interim ordinance and would like to have more public process regarding this issue.
E. Jones acknowledged the importance of public process. She considered this to be an important issue
that needs to be addressed now. FARs is a blunt instrument that is insufficient for resolving the issue.
Environmental issues still need to be addressed further, even though Green Points is helping. Relative
affordable housing and the retention of starter homes is an additional important issue. She felt that an
interim ordinance was important and would like to provide guidance to council on its specifications. She
would like to see a neighborhood by neighborhood conversation take place and exemptions/different
treatment for current homeowners put into place.
4
A straw poll was taken to determine support for an interim ordinance.
The Planning Board did not support an interim ordinance on a straw poll vote (2-5, K. Becker, A.
Sopher, P. Shull, B. Holicky, A. Shoemaker opposed [he idea of an interim ordinance).
Despite Planning Board's lack of support for an interim ordinance, Planning Board feh it was important
to craft guidelines outlining appropriate details that should be included in an interim ordinance if council
chooses to implement an interim ordinance.
When asked about a realistic timeframe for a permanent ordinance, R. McHeyser replied that it would
likely take at least a year to put a permanent ordinance in place. She noted that this is difficult to estimate
because until they receive specific guidance from council, staff doesn't know exactly what work will be
entailed.
E. Jones suggested that Planning Board put together a framework regarding FARs usage in the interim
ordinance to guide council with their decision while making it clear that FARs is not along-term solution
to the issue of neighborhood character.
B. Holicky reiterated the fact that FARs doesn't address the real problem. An approach that handles bulk
mass or design would be a more appropriate way to deal with this. Ile proposed creating a hybrid
approach where FARs could possibly begin to have the desired effects of reducing mass. He mentioned
the possibility of creating a working group to address this and propose more specific approaches to the
underlying problem.
E. Jones noted the even though the majority of Planning Board is not in favor of an interim ordinance,
they should either comment on and enhance staff s recommendation or create a hybrid approach as B.
Holicky suggested in order to provide some sort of productive guidance to council.
A. Sopher noted that slope sites, basements, freestanding garages, etc. should also be addressed in their
comments to council.
W. Johnson asked how much a working group as B. Holicky suggested could accomplish within the
timeframe council has requested.
B. Holicky replied that the information that a working group could gather would potentially improve the
details of an interim ordinance more than Planning Board could outline tonight.
A. Shoemaker agreed that more time is necessary in order to create a more ideal ordinance.
B. IIolicky would like to take a simple approach, make a recommendation, and ask for more time to flesh
out the details of the ordinance.
Planning Board agreed to customize staff s recommendations with their expertise.
Despite Planning Board's opposition to an interim ordinance, in the event that council decides to put an
interim ordinance in place, Planning Board took straw polls to determine what would be the best
framework for FARs if they are to be employed. Below are the results of their straw palls and what they
would like the interim ordinance to include, if there must be one:
Planning Board suggested the following framework for FARs:
Supported the FAR sliding scale, 6-0 straw poll
Supported including the RL-1 district in the sliding scale, 6-0 straw poll
Opposed including the RL-2 district in the sliding scale, 5-2 straw poll
Supported including the RE district in the sliding scale, 5-2 straw poll
5
Supported including the RR district in the sliding scale, 4-3 straw poll
Opposed including the RMX district in the sliding scale, 5-2 straw poll
Supported treating detached garages differently from attached garages, 6-0 straw poll
Supported exempting first 500 sq. feet of detached garages and/or accessory structures, 6-0 straw poll
Supported exempting existing outbuildings, 5-1 straw poll
Supported minimal penalization for basements
Supported counting percentage of exposed habitable basement above two feet and Mr. Christiansen's
suggestion of measuring internal space (excluding wall space), 6-1 straw poll
Supported high ceilings design exemption, specifically 1 and %z times the floor area (above 17 feet) with
the exemption of 300 sq. feet, 5-2 straw poll
Supported putting a variance appeal process in place, 6-0 straw poll
Supported the staff's recommendation on the variance appeal process including BOZA's review with a
call-up to Planning Board, 6-0 straw poll
Supported criteria for variances, but with 500 sq feet (instead of staff s recommended 200 sq. feet), 6-0
straw poll
Supported interim ordinance going into effect after April 15 and applying to applications filed after City
Council's first reading of the ordinance
Supported grandfathering non-conforming uses as recommended by staff on pg. 9 of the memo, 6-0 straw
poll
Supported a sunset provision designating that a permanent ordinance be put into place by March 31, 2009
(with a phased approach- that as neighborhood polls are completed, the interim ordinance is lifted and the
permanent one put into place), 6-0 straw poll
Supported an FAK of .55 fora 7,000 square foot lot.
Supported an FAR of .69 for lot sizes below 5,000 square feet.
P. Shull suggested having some neighborhood based design guidelines.
B. Halicky suggested ratcheting down HEKS rating [o encourage sustainable building with large lots and
houses.
E. Jones supported B. Holicky's idea for inclusion in the permanent ordinance. She didn't thirilc this was
practical [o include in the interim ordinance, but supported more stringent HERS rating and offsetting
carbon footprints of large homes by requiring solar panels, etc. in the permanent ordinance.
Planning Board agreed that bigger homes must have lower HERS ratings. Planning Board suggested a
HERS rating of 20 for homes 7500 sq. feet in size and larger. They requested that staff recommend
reasonable HERS ratings to council for various house sizes to include in the ordinance.
B. Holicky's proposed a .2S FAR for Tots over 24,000 sq. feet.
On a motion by A. Shoemaker, seconded by K. Becker, the Planning Board did not recommend (5-2, E.
Jones and W. Johnson opposed) that City Council adopt an interim ordinance as recommended in the
staff memorandum dated April 3, 2008 because from a planning perspective FAR (the only simple
solution that can be employed in the timeframe Planning Board was given) is a blunt instrument that is
not sufficient to solve the issue.
Planning Board recommended the following alternative options to FARs to address the issue of
neighborhood character:
Height limits, design guidelines, setbacks and setback planes, review of the solar ordinance, reduction in
the minimum allowable lot size in [he RL-1 zone, higher density along transit corridors, a neighborhood
by neighborhood approach, open space requirements (floor plates instead of FARs), limiting length of
6
floor planes (vertical surface), bulk mass/plant Flexibility within design and/or zoning guidelines,
variations to intensity standards in zoning districts, TDRs.
S. Richstone sub_ested a way of expediting the process by putting together a workaroup of Planning
Board and City Council members in order to produce an RPP for consultants to accomplish this work.
Plamliug Board aorecd that this was a ;ood way to expedite the process.
'Ihe Chair and Vice chair are unavailable to attend the April I S City Council meeting when this item will
be discussed further, an alternate member of Planting Board will need to attend the mecting.
G. MA"I°I'ERS PROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
ANll CITY A"ITORNEY
A. Shoemaker requested that staff provide copies of Montgomery County, MD rules regarding
development con idors.
R. McHeyser noted that a chair will need to be appointed for the 4/l7 mecting since both the Chair and
Vice-chair will be absent fiam that meeting. Planning Board agreed to choose a Chair for this mecting
via email.
E. Jones will continue acting as Chair until a new Chair is appointed at the 5/3 Planning [3oard retreat.
7. DEI3RIEP/AGENDA CHECK
8. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board adjoumcd the meeting at 1:03 am.
Al' VPiD 3.Y
' - 1 ~ ~ t ,~-c/
oard .hair _ - n
DA'Ih
7