6 - Information Item: City Council FARs SubcommitteeWEEKLY INFQRMATIpN PACKET
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Ruzzin and City Council
From: Frank Bruno, City Manager
Stephanie Grainger, Deputy City Manager
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Division Manager
Date: October 31, 2007
Subject: Information Item: City Council FARs Subcommittee
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
City Council identified reevaluation of previous decisions regarding Floor Area Ratiosl (FARs)
as one of its initiatives earlier this year. The purpose of this item is to provide an update to the
Council from the FARs subcommittee. The subcommittee was formed by City Council to:
• Scope the issue and better define the problem.
• Look at communications that have been received.
• Help frame questions for the community dialogue and survey
Members of the committee include:
• City Council members Crystal Gray and Andy Schultheiss (until August 2007);
• Landmarks Board members Lisa Podmajoisky and Kirk Watson
• Pianning Boazd members Elise Jones and Adrian Sopher
The scoping report prepared by the committee is included in Attachment A. The purpose of the
committee's work is to help inform City Council's decision as to whether or not to move forward
with a project to address the issue. A publication from the National Trust fro Historic Preserva-
tion titled "WhaYs Wrong with Teardowns: A Visnal Analysis" is included at Attachment B.
BACKGROUND
The City Council identified the reevaluation of previous decisions regarding FARs as one of 11
potential 2007 City Counci] initiatives at the 2007 Council retreat. City Council requested some
updated data from staff and the following information was provided in a WIP on April 26, 2007:
• Data on residentia] demolitions and additions citywide from 2001-2006 including house
size and FARs in the RL-1 (formerly LR-E) zone district.
~ Floor Area Ra[io (FAR) - The ratio of [he [o[al floor area of a building to the size of the loL The FAR is calcula[ed
by dividing the total building area by the area of the lot, as measured in square feet.
• Background on the 2004 decision to put in place a maximum FAR of 0.8 in the RL-1
zone district (Attachment B includes a WIP on this subject from February 2006).
• Additional information to assist City Council in scoping this issue at the May 3 Commu-
nity Sustainability Committee meeting.
The WIP may be accessed on the city's web site at:
http://www. bouldercolorado. aov/files/City%20Counci 1/W IPS/2007/04-26-07/2b.ndf
On May 3, 2007, Council's Community Sustainability Committee discussed the FARs initiative
and expressed interest in forming a subcommittee of City Council, Landmarks Board, and Plan-
ningBoard members to frame the issue and build questions for community dialogue. At the May
15 City Council meeting, City Council requested that staff convene a subcommittee of two mem-
bers each from City Council, Landmarks Board, and Planning Board to:
• Scope the issue and better define the problem.
• Look at communications that have been received.
• Provide input to the community dialogue process.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is an information only item and does not have any fiscal impact.
COUNCIL FILTERS:
• Economic: If the City Council decides to move forward to address this issue, the economic
impacts of any proposed solutions would be evaluated.
• Environmental: New very large homes and the demolition of existing homes results in loss
of resources embedded in the existing home, demolition waste, and in general, larger homes
use more energy than smaller homes.
• Social: Large homes and additions that are out of scale with existing neighborhoods can
negatively affect neighborhood livability. The replacement of relatively affordable homes by
very expensive homes reduces social and economic diversity in the community.
Attachment A: FARs Subcommittee Scoping Report
Attachment B: "What's Wrong with Teardowns: A Visual Analysis," National Trust for
Historic Preservation
2
ATTACHMENT A
City Council FARs/ Pops and Scrapes Subcommittee
Scoping the issue: What is the issue/problem to be solved?
November, 2007
Subcommittee members:
City Council: Crystal Gray, Andy Schultheiss (until August 2007)
Landmarks Board: Lisa Podmajorsky, Kirk Watson
Planning Board: Elise Jones, Adrian Sopher
The subcommittee met five times from June to October 2007. Several members of the
public attended the meetings and were given the opportunity to share their opinions with
the committee at each meeting. This report summarizes the committee's scoping of is-
sues relating to Floor Area Ratios2, "pops and scrapes3" or the "too-big house" in the
city's RL-1 (Low Density Residential -1) zone district.
The following are a few overarching points from the committee's discussions:
1. The biggest problem is scrapes that result in very large homes and mega spec
homes that are out of scale with the existing neighborhood. The definition of
what constitutes a "mega home" is related to both absolute size and relative size
as compared to lot size and neighborhood context.
2. It is very important to retain flexibility for people to alter their homes as their
needs change, since many can't afford to move to another house. However,
there is a threshold of pops over which these additions can be "too much." It is
important to provide for appropriate change over time.
3. One aspect of the problem is that mega homes are often built as speculative ven-
tures, and the developer is trying to maximize profit by building the largest home
possible. The high real estate values in our community drive the problem.
4. Any solution needs to promote variety as opposed to monotony.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) -The ratio of [he total floor area of a building [o [he size of the lot. The FAR is calculated
by dividing the total building area by the area of the lot, as measured in square feet.
Z A "pop-[op" is a house enlarged by an addition that "pops the top" the existing house by breaking through the
original roof line. A "scrape-off' refers to the practice of purchasing a home on a lot, demolishing it and construct-
ing anew, larger home in its place. The purchased home is typically small and older; the new home is typically
oversized for the lot and out-of-character with the neighborhood. These are also referred to as "teardowns,"
"knockdowns," and "bash and builds"
3
5. The committee did not define what constitutes amega-home or "too big" house,
and also did not discuss potential solutions. However, the committee did indicate
that any solution should include education of builders and homeowners as to the
impacts of very large additions and new homes.
6. FAR alone is not an adequate tool to address the problem. It is a blunt instru-
ment.
The subcommittee identified three categories of issues for scoping:
• Affordability
• Environmental Sustainability
• Community Character
The committee's scoping of the issues and problems is summarized below:
Affordability
1. Larger homes create a problem with "relative affordability," limiting the ability for
middle class people to live in the community. A $400,000 - $600,000 home be-
comes amillion dollar plus home.
2. We may want to look at carefully providing for more flexibility through changes in
policy regarding ADUs(OAUs. How has the current ordinance worked? We may
want to combine policy changes with increased enforcement to manage impacts.
Environmental Sustainability
1. Retaining existing homes and encouraging smaller new homes and additions
supports multiple city goals, in particular the Climate Action Plan and reducing
the city's carbon footprint.
2. The demolition of existing homes to construct new larger homes results in the
loss of resources embedded in the existing home as well as pollution associated
with disposal of the materials, in particular from disposal in landfills.
3. Mega homes use significant additional resources to construct, including the envi-
ronmental costs of manufacturing and shipping those resources.
4. Mega homes use additional resources to operate including higher energy and
water use. Although the existing housing stock is less energy efficient than new
construction, a new energy efficient larger home may still use more energy than
a smaller less•energy efficient home.
4
5. Generally speaking, new small is more environmentally sustainable than new
large from the perspective of both construction and ongoing operation. The
committee acknowledged that the behavior and lifestyle of the occupants greatly
impacts how "sustainable" a particular home may be, however the committee fo-
cused its discussion only on the physical aspects of home construction and op-
eration, and not other variables.
6. Retention of a more diverse housing stock is related to the jobs:housing balance
and reducing in-commuting and its associated impacts on air quality and green-
house gas emissions, since a more diverse housing stock provides more oppor-
tunities for different segments of the workforce to live in the city.
7. The construction of very large homes that max out lot coverage and height have
more environmental impacts including: increased impervious surface leading to
stream degradation and loss of groundwater storage, loss of wildlife habitat, loss
of large mature trees that provide effective shading, and increased pollution.
8. The recent improvements to the city's residential green points program may pro-
vide more incentive to keep existing structures as a result of construction waste
recycling requirements and the increased requirements triggered by larger home
sizes. Subcommittee members acknowledged the importance of ramping up city
efforts to improve energy efficiency of the existing housing stock while ensuring
that attaining energy efficiency does not compromise historic features of older
homes that contribute to community character. The effectiveness of the program
should be reviewed and revised as needed.
Community Character
1. Mega-homes are not in keeping with the character of the existing neighborhood
and are out of scale with existing homes
2. They consume most of the space on smaller lots
3. The homes are often very big and ugly. Good design can reduce the impact of a
large home on the neighborhood. There are a variety of "ugly gestures" that de-
teriorate community character such as a concrete front yard or multiple roof
penetrations that can be identified and solutions implemented. This is also true
for fences and walls.
4. The loss of space between homes is important. It is important to maintain visual
openness and a sense of space in neighborhoods. Often new homes are built
right to the setback for two stories, and open space on the lot, backyards, and
privacy are lost.
5
5. The streetscape and visual character of the neighborhood are important.
6. The loss of mature trees, backyards, and sunlight affects neighborhood livability.
7. The loss of older homes represents loss of the community's heritage and culture.
One aspect of this is providing flexibility for historic accessory buildings.
8. The solar ordinance affects the shape of houses and is one aspect of the issue
that needs to be evaluated. ,
Additionallssues:
1. The committee identified several aspects of the existing code that sometimes
have unintended consequences and/ or don't allow mechanisms to provide relief
to homeowners with non-conforming existing conditions. In particular, the com-
mittee discussed the city's solar requirements and the limited circumstances for
which variances may be granted.
6
s ~ a b
_
NATIONAL TRUST ~ _ x
7^-}-}ISTOR[C PKF:Sf. K\'A"iION
~ ~ ~ I
As older homes are demolished and ~ ~ •~1 ~
replaced with dramatically larger, out- ~ ,~\I• ~ • ~s • ~ v
of-scale new structures, the essential
rs Y ~
character of existing neighborhoods } ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
are changed forever. House by house, ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ ~
_
neighborhoods are losing a part of their ~ _ ; , ~ ~
~ _ _ ~ , , ~ ° •
historic fabric and much of their char- - _
' i ~ ~ -
- - ,f -
-
Not every older home can or even _ _ ° ~
should be saved. Teardowns are some-
times an acceptable approach for rede- ' - -
veloping existing areas and increasing
density, but more recently, viable - . ~ ~ _
healthy historic neighborhoods are - ~ - .=1„ It•. y
targets for teardowns. •
•
~
At the heart of the issue, teardowns are ' , ~ ~ ' _ ~
about losing historic architecture, but - - - "tea.;.
the phenomenon is also about commu- ~ -
nity character, smart growth, affordable n •
housing, economic and demographic
shifts, and e~~er-changing housing pref- ~ 1~;
erence~ o
A Visual analysis helps illustrate the ~ ~``+g.~ I~ 1.
physical impact demolition and inap- ~j~ -
propriate infill are having in historic ~ ~ - _ Y ,,~f ~
neighborhoods across the nation. The ~ - ~ _
following is the result: ~ ,y s. •
w
Loss of Historic ' r . ~ - _ _ °
Teardowns often destroy older homes ; r ;
- , _ _ '
~M ,r•
that are part of the community's heri- - - - _
tage. - a -
- ~ ~
Loss of Community '
a
- -
Character - - -
Without proper safeguards, historic
neighborhoods will lose the identity b
that drew residents to put down roots '
in the first place. a••-
{ 3 .
Loss of Livability ~ ~K>
Neighborhood livability is diminished as ~ ~ 1 ~ • •
trees are removed, backyards are elimi- ~ ' " .a*~~
Hated, and sunlight is blocked by tower- I ~
ing new structures built up to the prop- _ k
erty lines. - r - _ -
.
Loss of Diversity - w~
Community economic and social diver- f ~ ~ _ a.,.,. .
sity is reduced as new mansions re- _ -
place affordable homes-
NATIONAL TRUST for HISTORIC PRESERVATION WHAT'S WRONG WITH TEARDOWNS: A VISUAL ANALYSIS
www.nationaltrust.org/teardowns/ TEARDOWNS RESOURCE GUIDE
;.a
c-..---" _ ~ ' -
_
$
_ ~ ~ I,N' _ (11111 i~iil
. A ~ ` ~ ~ Via` - ` ~ 41„1 I i' . -
r ` ~ '2~~_- _ ! 11 111 1111111 t~uy ~ ~
~ ~
V
_ ~ ~I~~
Y~_ ~
¦ ir~:. ~ I
~
I 7~
,a . tai
>R
~ _ r ~ : ~ . , :mom _ -
~
1
- -
-
• .
. ~
a~W
i ~ ~
- - _
t ~ ~ f 1 t S
1
, i I
- , . .
r. i,
_ ~ ~ I
_ a -
_ -
NATIONAL TRUST for HISTORIC PRESERVATION WHAT'S WRONG WITH TEARDOWNS: A VISUAL ANALYSIS 2
www.nationaltrust.org/teardowns/ TEARDOWNS RESOURCE GUIDE
- Y Ies~a ~
'I
1 1 ~ , "f, g, ~ ra
_ - - ~ /
~
_ _ r
i
~!ac x 1 7 r r _ 71.,:._311 ~ .!`~/t N F,
~ ~ ~
.:x .
tip"''
~ - ~ ~ z~ r
- -
_ 1
1.
_
y
~ ,
~
.Y S'
~ 1
:.a ` ~ 1 ~ -rte', i~ -
r~r` 5r_ 1'.
c, f .t ~ `n
, _ _ _ ,1 1 1 1 1 1 1
,I tf ~1 ~ - - _ _ 1 _
~ ~
~ ~ &
d
N
N
0
NATIONAL TRUST for HISTORIC PRESERVATION WHAT'S WRONG WITH TEARDOWNS A VISUAI ANALYSIS 3
www.nationaltrust_org/teardowns/ TEARDOWNS RESOURCE GUIDE