Loading...
Minutes - Planning Board - 2/24/2009 (Joint meeting with City Council) - REDACTED - Tuesday, February 24, 2009 Joint City Council and Planning Board Special Meeting on the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhood Project CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzy Ageton Matthew Appelbaum, Mayor Macon Cowles Angelique Espinoza Crystal Gray, Deputy Mayor Lisa Morzel Susan Osborne Ken Wilson PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: KC Becker Bill Holicky Willa Johnson, Vice Chair Elise Jones Philip Shull, Chair Adrian. Sopher PLANNING BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Andrew Shoemaker STAFF PRESENT: Jane Brautigam, City Manager David Driskell, Deputy Director of Community Planning David Gehr, Assistant City Attorney Jerry Gordon, City Attorney Julie Johnston, Senior Planner Alisa Lewis, City Clerk Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Staff introduction: S. Richstone provided an overview of the agenda and described additional material provided to City Council and Planning Board in hard copy. J. Johnston briefly discussed the project background and gave an overview of the questions for City Council and Planning Board to consider as well as project next steps. Consultant Presentation: Nore Winter of Winter and Company, briefly reviewed the project definition and objectives. He said his company reviewed both case studies, the area affected, existing regulations (including solar access regulations), and current trends. In addition, he I described the outreach process which included nine public workshops, interest groups, and a survey of the affected property owners within the area of consideration. He then spoke to the strategy report and indicated the staff report is what is under consideration, which includes some changes. He also provided some detailed information about the public survey responses and how those responses may be interpreted. He described the criteria applied for creating tools including that they be effective, fair, predictable, efficient, context sensitive, flexible and build on the existing system. Abe Barge with Winter & Company reviewed data associated with the economic impacts of development regulations on property value. He said in general, careful regulation increases values but diminishing neighborhood character does not promote investment. Landmark's Board Presentation: Tim Plass, Landmarks Board Chair noted that the Landmarks Board did not have an opportunity to review the revised strategy presented in staff's memo so he was representing comments based on the original strategy report. He expressed on February 4, the Landmark's Board voted unanimously to move forward with the project based on the problem definition, strategy and proposed tools. He spoke to the importance of context in determining compatibility and neighborhood input. He said the Landmark's Board supported moving forward but did not want to see the numbers associated with the tools increase to penmit certain types of development. Public Hearing: 1. Mark Stang[, 30-year resident of Martin Acres and President of the neighborhood association but speaking as an individual, expressed fear of the large homes that have been built in other neighborhoods. He would like to see more models apply to existing housing and suggested throwing out the FAR as a measurement and focus only on volume. He also expressed that the 25 foot setback is too restrictive. 2. John Goodson, Newlands resident, expressed confidence in council's ability to achieve a resolution that is sufficient for everyone. He spoke to several flaws in the data presented and questioned if size and volume is driving this effort, is coverage really needed at all. 3. Ron Geary thanked council for supporting the process associated with this project. He felt the process and revised strategy go a long way toward meeting council's objectives. He indicated the wall length mirroring provision should be removed as it creates a domino effect in the long term- 4. Leonard May, Landmark's Board member but speaking as an individual, presented a sketch of a home in Boulder showing impacts of the revised strategy as it relates to adjacent properties. Viewed from this perspective, he did not feel it was compatible. 5. Jeff Bennett, lives next door to the house presented by Mr. May, and expressed that nothing has been taken into account regarding the impacts on neighbors. He indicated that he intends to move based on what has happened next door to him and the lack of views and sun. He urged council to 2 encourage basements as they do not impact the surrounding neighbors. In addition, he said it is important to ensure that the rules are clearly interpreted. 6. Michael Hibner spoke to the "sprawl implosion" taking place in Boulder and spoke to profit derived from the pops and scrapes industry. He said the proposed strategy will not apply to all areas but the tools suggested are good ones. He asked council not to approve the suggested staff recommendation but rather to review more modeling before making their decision. 7. Pat Shanks, speaking for PLAN Boulder County, expressed support for council's efforts moving forward. He also urged City Council and Planning Board to adopt recommendations I and 2 in the staff memorandum. He raised concern about the 20% exceedance noting that it should have a very high standard to be allowed. He urged council to move as quickly as possible. 8. Mary Young expressed that the context of design has been lost in Boulder and urged council to follow through on this project. 9. resident (RMX-I zone), noted that his neighborhood is not a single-family neighborhood. He raised concern about a one-size fits all rule and asked council to consider the costs for home owners and impacts of the green points program. 10. Jeanette Fielden, Martin Acres resident, expressed a preference that homes be allowed to push forward or back but not up. She urged flexibility, particularly in regard to the 7,000 sq. foot homes. She expressed concern that everything will be placed into a single mold. 11. Gwen Dooley asked that council distinguish between speculating and home ownership. She raised concern that the loss of mature trees and vegetation is not addressed in this process. She also suggested that the No. 3 staff recommendation is a slippery slope. 12. Robert Sharpe spoke to how this process came about in neighborhoods and that the communication issue with neighbors still has not been addressed. He suggested providing a simple notice to neighbors. He also spoke to the need to provide tools that allow for negotiating. In addition, he raised concern that there has been no tracking of special interest groups or who is participating in the public workshops. 13. Mark Bush, Newlands resident, suggested that council is taking a sledge hammer approach to what really needs a surgical approach. He spoke to the fact that many homeowners purchase homes with an expectation of a future pop up to increase property value. He expressed dissatisfaction with the survey analysis. 14. Kay Bingham agreed with most of what had been expressed. She expressed that she is a neighbor impacted by a pop up which prevented sun and resulted in the loss of half her garden. She also spoke to a resident who may lose an active solar green house due to a construction project next door. Site suggested that council consider a moratorium until these issues are resolved. 15. Jim Pettit, N. Boulder resident, provided council with a handout. He analyzed nine residences within 200 feet of his home and found that only one would be allowed under the new regulations. He noted this is partly due to 3 I how basements are counted. He asked council look at how basements are included in the regulations and not include them in the floor area ratios. 16. Kathryn Con 17. Tim Ryan, 16-year Newlands resident, expressed that the survey clearly showed there is a problem to be addressed. He noted that what has happened in the Newlands neighborhood is anti-family oriented. He said this will have a long tern detrimental affect on the community. 18. Paul Saporito, local architect, expressed concern that the regulations are cosmetic only and may preclude a broader discussion of sustainable infill. He distributed a handout. He noted this is an opportunity to re-think how we live. 19. Jane Greenfield, N. Boulder resident, thanked council for its attempt to deal with this issue. She expressed that the final details are what is crucial including how basements are measured. She urged council/staff to also consider the slopes of properties, the appeal process and how much this will cost residents. She also agreed with Gwen's comments relating to vegetation. 20. Al Gunter, former Planning Board member, expressed that council is on the right track. He cautioned against unintended consequences, particularly for the 20% of properties that the standard regulations would not work on and spoke to the importance of the floor area ratios. 21. Lynn Segal urged council to be specific and prescriptive. She suggested bonuses for smaller homes and requiring that a basement exist before allowing pop ups. Generally, she supported smaller FARs. 22. Paul Turmaza, a local builder and 4"' Street resident, expressed that the regulations proposed would make it difficult to add on to his current home. . He asked council to provide relief to existing homeowners who have paid top dollar and where the restrictions will now impact the property value. He expressed that the 20% should be grandfathered to existing homeowners. City Council and Planning Board Discussion W. Holicky acknowledged Winter and Company's excellent work in modeling and analysis of the current and proposed ordinances. He identified the following key issues: loss of privacy, apparent mass, blank side walls, loss of light and air, overall height and green space. He further indicated he would like to clearly define the "tools" as being Floor Area Ratio (FAR), building coverage maximums, wall sculpting standards, and height standards. M. Appelbaum questioned whether we have the right or wrong tools or if the terminology needs to be better defined. M. Cowles said the tools are the correct tools but specifics need to be addressed with each. K. Becker agreed with B. Holicky and stated that the speculators (a/k/a developers) should be regulated differently than home owners. C. Gray stated she would like more discussion on 1) wall sculpting in order to achieve privacy with neighbors, 2) building coverage not having unintended consequences by supporting one community over another, 3) incorporating exempting historic 4 outbuildings such as an old stone building and chicken coups in FAR's and 4)'excluding covered porches and intended second level porches in the FAR's. S. Osborne said the tools can work but need refining. She said there needs to be a better understanding of what the use is that we are regulating. L. Morzel said there should be flexibility using FAR's with the wall height building coverage and suggested weighting each category. She said basements should be encouraged in addition to porches. She further stated that the tools are the right tools but should include trees and vegetation. M. Appelbaum agreed that the three tools are the right tools, but said they need to be modified with the least amount of impact on the neighbors as possible. He disagreed with the idea of regulating speculators. A. Sopher agreed to remove regulating speculators, but felt 90% of residential homes in Boulder were designed by speculators. He also stated the tools should make the distinction between neighborhood wide and individual lot impacts by indicating what tools are addressing which issues. K. Wilson stated he was intrigued with B. Holicky's comments and was interested in what other tools could be added (e.g. context averaging). He said there is a balance between property rights of one neighbor vs. property rights of another neighbor, for example minimizing the impact of an existing neighbor and being sensitive to the needs of an expanding family to be able to build a slightly bigger house. P. Shull stated he would like to see an emphasis on design to the character of the streetscape as a byproduct of the tools. S. Ageton stated the tools should give enough flexibility to allow for reasonable development and opportunity for creative design while simultaneously keeping the preservation of the neighborhood. She indicated that the ordinance should provide balance to individuals without creating an inequitably across communities. She . suggested putting the final ordinance to public vote in an effort to produce a structure that will not have a tremendous amount of appeals, which will create an administrative burden. A. Espinoza stated she is not prepared to answer if we have the right tools because of unanswered questions on the economic impacts. She was also bothered by the age split where the elderly want more regulations and the younger want less regulations, in general. M. Appelbaum acknowledged additional tools brought up by various Planning Board and council members, which may not directly affect what is being presented this evening but should be discussed and used as a part of the final solution, specifically the averaging concept. E. Jones agreed that the tools are the right tools, however the details and combination of tools need to be clearly defined. She said the tools will encourage discussions on how incompatible development affects the community. She further stated it is important to be mindful of secondary structures, trees and vegetation. W. Johnson stated that generally the tools are the right tools and agreed not to discount the idea of averaging. L. Morzel spoke about side wall adjacency issues and said it is a bad design and would not support that being continued as a recommendation. W. Holicky disagreed with the 30% building lot coverage. 5 P. Shull stated his concern with lot coverage and how basements are measured. C. Gray stated a basement that can mitigate the bulk of a site that is on a slope lot following the slope of the lot should be allowed and not be penalized in FAR. S. Ageton reiterated her desire to have as much choice and flexibility and was uncomfortable in dictating design to the applicant. M. Cowles was not in favor of the appeals process unless it is tightly limited to hardship. Ile also said there needs to be a volume multiplier when calculating FAR. He further stated a zoning split situation needs to be addressed. L. Morzel was not interested in the appeals process unless it is linked to a hardship or extreme condition. She said utilizing ADU's is important. C. Gray said the design review process should have community benefit, address hardship, and address unique site specific features such as historic outbuildings. She further stated it would be a great tool to use in companion with the tree ordinance. She said she might not support exceeding the standards by 20% if it would allow a process of where one would check off a variety of criteria to obtain a higher FAR. A. Espinoza agreed with C. Gray and strongly felt the need for flexibility in the design review process. S. Osborne was in favor of the 20% rule and suggested that rather than staff level review, it be heard and decided on by the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BOZA), recognizing that the BOZA meets only once a month and there is an additional cost to the city. K. Wilson said there must be an appeals process unless the code is designed neighborhood by neighborhood and potentially block by block. S. Ageton stated the final ordinance may not cover all the various possibilities and therefore an appeals process is needed. However, she felt the appeals process should not primarily be associated for community benefit. She also cautioned creating additional significant hardship to applicants with the added costs factored by the city's 100% cost recovery on the discretionary review process. M. Appelbaum stated there must be some process with regulations that may have some trade-offs that will be as equitable and applicable as possible. A. Sopher stated a need to create a circumstance for change over time that will allow for possible changes in regulations and give allowances for upgrading materials. P. Shull was in favor of an appeals vehicle designed with set limits so that it doesn't go to board review. W. Holicky said there should be flexibility in the process in an effort to not create a cookie-cutter community and agreed that the appeals process should go to the BOZA. W. Holicky asked staff to address the `notice of mailing' process and added a suggestion to have homes built by speculators go through one final step of having an architect, for example, stamp the drawings. K. Becker agreed with W. Holicky and added that having an additional process for speculators may eliminate a lot of negative impacts on neighborhoods. A. Espinoza stated the focus must be on personal impact and less on overall streetscape based on the survey comments in that what most people care about is how their neighbor can personally impact them. A. Sopher agreed with A. Espinoza and suggested restricting the hours of construction within a neighborhood to during the weekdays only. 6 M. Appelbaum agreed with A. Espinoza and added that it is important to speak to the affect of the overall community, and not necessarily each individual. K. Wilson offered caution as to how we regulate small lots and encourage basements. He asked that staff consider examples within our respective neighborhoods. . C. Gray agreed with M. Appelbaum and added the importance of the public realm. S. Ageton indicated there is a large percent of citizens yet to be heard on this issue and asked the boards to be conscious because those citizens will be directly affected. She also suggested bringing a broad perspective to this issue. Motion On a motion by M. Appelbaum, seconded by C. Gray, the City Council unanimously continued the direction to staff on changes to the land use regulations as part of the Compatible Development in Single-Family Protect to the Tuesday, March 3, 2009 City Council meeting. Vote 8-0. Motion On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by E. Jones, the Planning Board unanimously continued the discussion and recommendation to City Council on changes to the land use regulations as part of the Compatible Development in Single-Family Project to the Thursday, February 26, 2009 Planning Board meeting at 6:00 PM. Vote 6-0, A. Shoemaker excused absent. APPROVE BY Board C r D E 7