Loading...
6A - Discussion of RRC Assoc., Inc, Report on Focus Groups on major additions and demolitions to resCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING $OARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: January 23, 2003 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: January 8, 2003) AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of RRC Associates, Inc. Report on Focus Groups on major additions and demolitions to residential properties, i.e., Pop-ups and Scrape-offs, and next steps. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ruth McHeyser, Long Range Planning Manager Susan Richstone, Senior Planner Neil Holthouser, Planner Bohdy Hedgcock, Planning Associate OBJECTIVE: To discuss the report prepared by RRC Associates, Inc. and staff recommendations for next steps to address the issue of large additions and scrape-offs. BACKGROUND: RRC Associates was hired to conduct a series of focus group discussions to better identify the nature and extent of community concern regarding pop-ups and scrape-offs, and to axplore the dagree of acceptability of a variety of approaches to address them. In August, Nolan Rosall of RRC Associates facilitated a discussion with the Planning Board and City Council to assist in designing the focus group sessions. The focus groups were held in October and November. The report prepared by RRC Associates is included as Attachment A. On May 28, 2002, the City Council and Planning Board conducted a joint study session to prioritize potential amendments to the land use ragulations. The regulation of pop-ups and s:lplan\pb-items~nemos\sr]-23-02popsscrapespb.mem.doc AGENDA ITEM # 6A PaQe 1 scrape-offs was identified as the highest priority, receiving the largest number of total votes of all of the potentia] amendments (13 votes from City Council and Planning Board members combined; of those, 8 votes were from Planning Board members and 5 from City Council members). ANALYSIS Staff previously prepared information on the various regulatory approaches taken by other communities. The City and County of Denver recently approved changes to their regulations to address the issue of incompatible redevelopment in established residential neighborhoods. While the specific conclusions of Denver's process may or may not be applicable to the situation in Boulder, the process used by Denver provides insights for designing the next steps in Boulder's process. A summary of Denver's process is included as Attachment B. The report from RRC includes a summary of key findings (page 2). Below are a few staff comments relevant to the design of this proj ect as it moves forward, based on past efforts, the focus group process and RRC report: - As the city knows from past efforts and surveys, and the RRC report confirms, this issue is controversial and has the potential to be divisive in the community. Therefare, it is extremely important that the process we design for moving forward is carefully thought through, ensures the opportunity for broad community discourse and the full airing of issues and concerns, and is designed to reach an outcome. 2. "Pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" does not accurately describe the issue, and we should find a new name for the project as it moves forward. Some possibilities are "major residential additions and demolitions," "single family residential redevelopment," "incompatible residential redevelopment," or "demolition, infill, and major rasidential additions." 3. The project scope should include an analysis of the existing regulations and identify the opportunity for improvements or trade-offs, as well as the interrelationship of any new regulation. Denver's recent effort included extensive analysis of how the new regulations would affect specific properties and neighborhoods, and the solution reached in Denver traded off increased open space at the rear of the lot for more massing in the front. Their new bulk plane regulations replace their previous combined solar and bulk plane ordinance, and simplified the review process by eliminating exceptions to the bulk plane. 4. The city's Historic Preservation Ordinance provides several tools for addressing bulk, massing, and neighborhood character, including landmarking, historic district designation, and the review of demolition permit applications for non-designated structures more than 50 years old. These tools are intended to preserve structures with a recognized historic value, and are not designed to address the specific issue of pop-ups s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr1-23-02popsscrapespb.mem.doc AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pase 2 and scrape-offs in non-historic areas of the city. The demolition provision (Sea 10-13-23, B.R.C. 1981) should not be relied upon to prevent demolition or influence the design of propertias that do not rise to the level of individual landmark designation ar that do not contribute to potential historic districts. NEXT STEPS: Based on the results of the focus groups, Planning Board and City Counci]'s desire to address this issue, and staff's analysis, staff recommends that the following components should be incorporated in a process for moving forward on this issue; 1. Additional staff analysis and data collection. Staff used city building permit data to evaluate the quantity and location of major additions and redevelopment over tha past ten years. Future staff research would provide additional analysis of development and redevelopment patterns in Boulder and efforts to address similar issues in other communities. 2. Formation of an advisory group with balanced representation of the various interesis concerned about this issue. An advisory group could play a critical role in helping to identify proposed regulatory changes that would be acceptabie to a broad spectrum of the community. 3. Opportunity for input by the larger public. The process will need to include meaningful opportunities for all interested community members to weigh in on the issue at various stages. 4. Urban design consultant assistance to help in the design and analysis of various potential regulatory changas and their implications. The analysis will need to include the evaluation of existing regulations and interrelationship with any proposed changes. Staff recommends that, following Planning Board and City Council review and direction, staff return with a more detailed work plan and recommendations on the membership and role of the advisory group. Approved By: '~~~~~~~$-~ Petar Pollock, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Report on Focus Groups on Pop-ups and Scrape-offs Attachment B: Summary of Denver's Quick Wins Two (qw2) Project s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\sr1-23-02popsscrapespb,mem.doc AGENDA ITEM # 6A Paee 3 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF BOULDER FOCUS GROUPS POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS Summary of Results December 2002 Prepared for: City ofBoulder Prepared by: RRC Associaies 4940 Pearl East Circle, Suite 103 Boulder, Colorado 80301 303/499-6558 Agenda Item # ~ Page #~ CITY OF BOULDER FOCUS GROUPS POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Key Findings/Overview ................................................................. l Appendix Discussion Notes from City Council/Planning Board .......................A-1 Discussion Guide--First Sessions ............................................... B-1 Discussion Notes--Focus Groups 1, 2 and 3 (including list of participants) .................................................C-1 Discussion Guide--Second Sessions .......................................... D-1 Discussion Notes--Focus Groups 4, 5 and 6 .................................. E-1 Additional Attachments Introductory Survey Questionnaire and Results .............. Attachments 1-9 Discussion Materials Summary of Alternatives (Power Point Slides Used in Focus Groups) ............. Attachments 10-17 Trend Data .................................................... Attachments 18-21. Maps ............................................................ Attachments 22-24 Agenda Item # lvf~ _ Page # ~ POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS KEY FINDINGS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS Introduction The City of Boulder Planning Department retained RRC Associates, Inc. to design and conduct a series of focus groups to provide feedback with respect to the possible regulation of pop-ups and scrape-offs. To achieve that objective, RRC conducted one focus group with a joint meeting of the Boulder City Council and Planning Board on August 13, 2002. RRC then conducted six additional focus groups between mid- October and mid-November 2002. The six groups were organized into two phases. The initial three sessions were designed primarily to acquaint the participants with the extent of pop-up and scrape-off activity occurring within the city over the past 10 years, and to solicit feedback with respect to their views of the issues and what type of response the City should undertake, if any. The same participants were then asked to come to a second round of discussions to respond in greater depth to the issues and observations identified in the first phase of sessions. The first two groups consisted of pre-selected individuals who were knowledgeable about tha issues related to pop-ups and scrape-offs and who represented a variety of interests, philosophies, and experiences. Participants included architects, buildars, neighborhood residents, real estate professionals and others. The third focus group included representatives from a variety of organizations such as Plan Boulder, the Chamber of Commerce, Boulder Board of Realtors, Architects and Planners of Boulder, the Sierra Club, Historic Boulder, Boulder Housing Partners, League of Women Voters, and a neighborhood Civic Association. It is important to recognize the benefits and limitations of focus groups as a tool for gathering opinions. Focus groups are not quantitative research and are not necessarily designec! to be projectable to a l arger universe such as opinion in the City of Boulder as a whole. By our definition focus groups are carefully organized and moderated discussions designed to obtain a variety of opinions in a systematic manner. The recent sessions were structured to explore differences of opinion as well as areas of potential consensus as a means of anticipating community dialogue around Cha topic of pop-ups and scrape-offs. The sessions were facilitated by Nolan Rosall and Chris Cares of RRC Associates, and were viewed by Planning Department staff Susan Richstone, Neil Holthouser and Bohdy Hedgcock. Data and maps describing the number and location of pop-up and scrape-off activity were prepared by the Planning Department and RRC For discussion and distribution among the participants. Copies of these handouts and maps are provided in the Appendix to this packet. Prior to the first wave of focus groups members of the City Council, Planning Board and participants from the six focus group sessions were invited to complete a short e-mail survey designed to elicit opinions in advance of discussions. The results from the surveys indicated that there was wide divergence of opinion represented by focus group participants. The survey measured some of the differences. For example, given a series of choices ranging from "no concern at all" to "very significant concern" (a 1- 5 scale), responses from participattts were typically divided. On a question: "To what extent do you believe tha increased development of pop-ups and scrape-offs within Boulder's residential neighborhoods represents a major concern requiring City response," the responses from participants in the ihree focus groups ranged from 28 percent "no concern" to 28 percent "very significant concem" with the remaining 44 percent in the middle. It should be remembered that the surveys occurred prior to the focus groups and were not intended to be broadly interpreted; they were but one tool used to acquaint participants and begin the process of thinking about some of the issues to be probed in the sessions as well as to get an indication of the range of opinions RRC ASSOCIATE$ Agenda Item # y ~ Page # ~~ POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS FOCUS GROUPS among focus group participants. A copy of the survey form along with a statistical tabulation of the results is provided in the Appendix. The following Summary of Key Findings summarizes selected observations from the composite of the focus groups. All of these observations represent opinions that were voiced multiple times over the six sessions, The findings were prepared by the moderators (Rosall and Cares of RRC). Most of these findings were reviewed by focus group participants in the second round of sessions (Focus Groups #4, 5 and 6) and minor changes in wording and emphasis were made following the focus groups. As a result, we believe the Findings represent a summary of the broad input received through the focus groups A Summarv of Kev Findinas It is noted that for any given observation, a variety of opinions existed among individual participants, Inclusion of a particular perspective as part of this overview merely indicates sufficient support among the group that it warrants additional attention. • There is a divergence of opinions regarding the extent to which pop-ups and scrape-offs should be defined as a"problem." Similarly, a variety of opinions existed with respect to how best to addrass the issue. There should be greater clarity with respect to terminology. The terms "pop-ups" and "scrape-offs" do not completely or accurately describe the variety of situations which are occurring within the various neighborhoods. There are a number of additions, only some of which include "pop-ups." Also, some projects incorporate demolition of all or part of the original dwelling. Scrape-offs are intended to refer only to "complete" removal of the original structure. The suggestion was made that an alternative term be created to more fully describe the situation - something like redevelopment, or "demolition, infill and major residential additions" that could include a variety of significant additions and scrape-off conditions. • The City already has a large body of land use regulations. It is not wise to "layer" another set of new restrictions on top of these. Rather, there should be a diagnosis of the effectiveness of the existing regulations to determine where adjustments might be made to improve their performance before any new rules are imposed. • It was noted that a very complex range of situations exist, making effective regulation very difficult. Several existing homes, especially in the older neighborhoods, are currently considered non- conforming based on lot size, setbacks, building coverage, etc. The existing regulations make it very difficult to address proposed renovations or additions to these homes even when such additions are reasonable, due to lack of flexibility in how such proposals may be interpreted. • Certain existing regulations may have unintended consequences. For example, the solar ordinance is well intended, but may force construction in the lot where mass is stacked on the south side to reduce shadow impact on the adjacent property to the north. This may negatively impact the adjacent property to the south. A bulk/plane type of regulation is normally designed to maximize light and air for neighboring properties, and tends to focus height and density in the center of the lot, contrary to the solar ordinance. In light of this situation, suggestions were made to recognize and attempt to resolve conflicts or contradictions between individual regulations. It was also suggested to create a process where an applicant can request a more flexible system where trade-offs or exceptions to the specific standard regulations may be made and the overall final design solution be considered for appropriateness for a particular property (for example, exceptions for dormers within the solar ordinance). This would likely entail a"by righY' process under certain conditions where standards are complied with or a RRC ASSOCIATES Agenda Item # ~v /~ Page #~_ POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS FOCUS GROUPS . discretionary process with formal notification and participation of neighbors under others where "constructive trade-offs or exceptions" might to be made. It could require a public hearing as well. While opinions among individual focus group participants were varied, there appeared to be a predominant view that the issue of mass and scale, or bulk/plane of the new construction/addition, was easier to define and more important to address than the issue of taste, design and style. Most participants indicated support for permitting a diversity of architectural styles, colors, etc., at least within certain broad parameters, so long as the specific design solution fit within some defined mass and scale criteria. Strict design guidelines that force all new development to comply with a single style or use of materials may tend to create monotonous, uninteresting buildings. This was not the objective of the participants although it was observed that style can be important in historic situations. However, it was observed, paRicularly in one of the second round of focus groups, that desien of major additions is an issue. Some felt that efforts to address bulk and scale alone would not adequately take care of situations that were observed in various neighborhoods (including through a walking tour conducted by two of the participants following the first round of focus groups). It was generally believed that homeowners have the right to make additions and modifications to their properties in order to make them more functional and attractive for their household. It is when such additions extend beyond a certain threshold or size, particularly in context with the surrounding neighborhood, that special attention and perhaps some level of discretionary review should be given. The ultimate procedures adopted by the City should not be too stifling of homeowners' ability to create reasonable additions. There was a widespread perception that existing homeowners who seek to expand their residence, and who intend to remain in their property after the addition is complete, tend to generate more compatible solutions. The speculator who purchases property solely with the intention of investment return is more frequently interested in maximum square footage and, perhaps, less "sensitive" design. To the extent that this may be true, it remains a challenge to address through City regulations ~ Currently, the majority of pop-ups and scrape-offs and new additions are located in the central part of Boulder, and tend to be concentrated in certain sub-areas within the older core area. As well, most tend to be located within the Low Density Established and Developing zones along the west edge of the City. However, over the next several years it is anticipated that other neighborhoods and locations not so currently active, such as Martin Acres or Table Mesa, may well become the source of increased pop- up, scrape-off, and new addition activity. Additional data summarizing the pace and location of demolitions, infill and major additions are presented through graphs and maps in the Appendix. These materials were provided to focus group participants at the sessions. As a result of this anticipated pattern, City policies or regulations should reflect a community-wide perspective, and should not be limited to certain specific neighborhoods. It might be appropriate, however, to tailor or customize specific criteria to recognize unique patterns that may exist in individual neighborhoods. . With the exception of historically or architecturally significant or contributing structures or landmarks, including structures located within historic districts, there is not a dominant concem with scrape-off situations specifically. Rather, it is the quality and compatibility of new construction including either pop-ups, scrape-offs or other major changes, that are of greatest concern. • Preservation of affordable housing is a very important objective in the City of Boulder. However, achievement of this objective is difficult to require as part of the pop-up/scrape-off question. Opportunities for incentives may exist whereby accessory dwelling units may be incorporated into tnajor new additions in order to expand the range of affordable housing within given neighborhoods. However, most participants agreed that the need of the City to address the expansion of affordable housing was largely independent and unrelated to the issue of major residential additions. aec nssocinres Agenda Item # ~~ Page #_~ POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS FOCUS GROUPS • The groups noted that changes in neighborhoods are felt in terms of the profile of occupants of homes as well as physical changes to the structures themselves. The issue of owners who cannot remodel and expand as a result of new requirements, and therefore leave the neighborhood, was felt to be an impact that should be considered as a part of any evaluation. A suggestion was made to organize a tour of selected neighborhoods where examples of pop-ups and scrape-offs, both those well done and those which were controversial or clearly out of scale, would be examined and documented. Efforts would be undertaken to define the specific attributes that differentiate the variety of additions which were built and to understand how the existing City regulations applied in each case. Care must be taken in the organization of such an exercise to ensure that observations be objective and unbiased. An example of bad design to one person might be considered positively by someone else. A ConcludinQ Observation Based upon feedback from the variety of sessions, it is apparent that the process to develop a broad set of regulations, consisting both of amendments to existing rules and a set of new rules, will be difficult. There is considerable difference of opinion and philosophy about what, if anything, needs to be done and what the nature of the "problem" really is. Clearly, compromises will need to be made if any consensus is to be reached. Any altemative which is viewed to be at either end of the spectrum is unlikely to gaio "majority support." A successful resolution may need to be balanced and moderate in approach, focusing primarily on those situations where certain thresholds of size or mass are exceeded, in a manner which provides a reasonable level of flexibility in finding solutions appropriate for the property involved, while at the same time respecting the rights and needs of nearby properties. RRC ASSOCIATES Agenda Item # /Ll~ Page # ~ CITY OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: September 3, 2002 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: August 27, 2002 Pop-ups & Scrape-off Summary Nolan Rosall of RRC Associates facilitated a discussion of this issue. The questions that guided the discussion were: • How important is the issue? Will it be more critical in the future? • Where is it a concern? • What is the nature of the concern? A summary of the discussion is included as Attachment "B".below. Attachment "B" August 15, 2002 Joint City Council and Planning Board Study Session Focus Group Discussion on Pop-ups and Scrape-offs How important is the issue? More critical in the future? • Very important • This is critical: we're seeing massive scale projects with no reuse of good materials • High priority • Escalating concern - quickened rate from 90's • Economic downturn might affect rate • West and east coast experience indicates that the phenomenon will continue as land values increase • Symptomatic of how economy has affected community character • In focus groups, include people who demolished houses to increase size • We are losing medium sized homes, and we have mostly very small and very large homes • Design issues are getting worse • Aspects of the issue that are important, aspects that are not • Not all pop-ups and scrape-offs are bad • Resource use - recycling should be required for large additions • Housing affordability is a concern, but homes are already expensive • Really ]arge out of scale additions and remodels are core concern • Speculative additions are key concarn • Government is lagging behind tha issues - homeowners' associations have addressed the issue for decades • Very important issue - one of the issues that got me to appiy for Planning Board • There's a limit to how much can go on - it may be too late for some neighborhoods • Concern is mostly in the pre-1970's neighborhoods, since most post-70's neighborhoods have PUD's that lirnit the scale of additions c~TV couNCi~ D~scoss~oN NoTes Agenda Item #~ Page #~ • Now what is the monster home? Sizes keep getting larger • Times have changed, so homes are getting larger. That's ok - but monster homes are a concern • Speculative houses are the most egregious • Concern that perfectly functional homes aze getting tom down • Affordability a concern Where is it a concern? • Core neighborhood now, newer neighborhoods in the future • Post 70's neighborhoods may already have limitations • Evaluate city-wide or may push problem onto other neighborhoods • Solutions should be moderate • Tools may be different by neighborhood, but issue should be addressed city-wide What is the nature of the concern? Mass and Scale • Impact on livability: big homes can rob privacy • Evaluate non-conformities • Need appeal process • Don't want to preclude additions • How appropriate are large garages, especially in historic neighborhoods • Character defining features vary by neighborhood. Look at neighborhood specific appropriateness • Not sure that we need to preserve every neighborhood - eciectic mix can be positive • Don't focus on design details - that's where the community becomes split • Look at threshold - above this s/f regulations apply; don't make issue too broad • Quality of design can overcome some concerns about mass and scale - good idea to have some maximum scale threshold • Some design standards, such as articulation, can make monster homes more acceptable Streetscape/ Neighborhood Character • Pay attention to experience from street • May want to deal with issues in phases - deal with mass and scale first • Then may want more detailed design issues • Palo Alto requires that proponents meet with their neighbors - good idea (some felt this is not a good idea) Affordability • Change in housing stock - still concerned about relative affordability • Reconsider a sliding scale for DET • Evaluate inclusionary zoning applied to scrape-offs • Can we address the concerns regarding spec home development? c~rv cou~vc« D~scuss~oN NoTes Agenda Item # ~/.a Page #~ Demolition • Issues of impacts on the neighborhood, during demolition/ construction, e.g. - loss of mature landscaping and proliferation of port-a-potties • Historic preservation ordinance may slow demolition, but it doesn't address recycling of materials Pace of Change • Concern in neighborhoods where there are more spec homes Recycling of Building Materials . This issue should be addressed regardiess of what is done to address pop-ups and scrape-offs c~rv couNCi~ o~scuss~oN NoTES Agenda Item # ~~ Page #~o,~ FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE Interested Citizens October, 2002 Pumose To give the staff direction and prioritization as to the issues on which they should focus attention over the coming months and the types of information we should gather as we conduct follow-up research on the pop-ups and scrape-offs questions. This is the first of a series of two groups in which you will participate. We are not looking for conclusions today. Rather, we want to make the follow-up research as productive as possible so that we can return to you later this November with the best possible alternatives to review. Your guidance tonight, in combination with the brief survey information, should help give us the direction we need. Cover Ground Rules 1. Be as concise as possible - time is short. 2. We are looking for individual comments and opinions. 3. Would rather not enter into a debate with one another and want you to speak honestly about your own individual opinions and suggestions. Brief Introductions Where do you live in the area, occupation or point of interest and how long have you lived in Boulder? Brief Overview of the Extent of the Problem uestions From your perspective how significant is this particular problem of pop ups and scrape offs now? Over the next few years do you see it becoming more significant, staying about the same, or becoming less of an issue? Why do you feel this way? 2. Do you believe the issue is affecting all or most neighborhoods of Boulder, or is primarily limited to the older, more established.neighborhoods? 3. What are the principal issues or concerns which need to be evaluated as part of the follow-up research? Perhaps you can comment on each one as we go through them. DISCUSSION GUIDE 1 Agenda Item # ~ f~i Page # /..3 • The issue of scrape offs; that is the demolition of typically older, sometimes historic structures • Potentially incompatible mass and scale of new construction • Loss of affordable housing stock • Loss of neighborhood character • Pace of change within established neighborhoods Which of those, if any, is most significant? 4. Balancing on the other side of the equation are the rishts of property owners and their desire to upgrade or renovate their homes to meet their household's needs. Obviously these needs run the gamut from relatively minor renovations to significant additions, or wings, to the demolition and rebuilding associated with pop-ups and scrape-offs. • How important is it to acknowledge and protect those ri~hts? Are there obvious or clear boundaries where the public need to regulate interferes with these private property rights? Briefly describe the three primary approaches by which the City might target to address the issues of pop ups and scrape offs. 5. Hopefully you have had a chance to consider some of the approaches other communities have utilized. Are there any approaches that stand out, in your opinion, that may be most appropriate for Boulder to consider? • Regulation of building mass and scale through criteria such as bulk/plan, cubic volumas or density, or Floor Area Ratios • Design review/guidelines • Area-specific zoning regulations that are particular to certain designated neighborhoods Are there other approaches we should consider? Probe - defining specific thresholds. 6. What other important information do you need or suggestions you have that have not been covered tonight? Other concerns? oiscussioN cu~DE i Agenda Item # lv ~ Page #~ POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS FOCUS GROUPS DISCUSSION NOTES GROUP #1--Moderated by Nolan Rosall NOLAN: What is the significance of the issue? Looking out into the future, will it become more of a problem? Why? • Not a problem. Existing tools are great. A problem is dumpsters on 6~n,7~h, g~h Sireets. The market may make a difference. Market is the best regulation we could have. A number of homes were done on speculation. • T'here is a problem. Hate to say more regulation, but we need something. It might differ by neighborhood. Mapleton can take larger homes. Can't blanket the whole city. • Market will take care of it. Builders have tapped themselves out. Spec houses aren't done to fit in neighborhood. People who are renovating tend to be more conscious - maybe some type of design review. • Tried to get support for historic district (Whittier). Couldn't get it. • Architect - Redwood now. It is a significant issue, obviously more in some neighborhoods than others. Market could be effective. Concern for city's ability to deal with it. Deal with it in different ways. • She is concerned about social fabric. "Upscale-ism" destroys it. Housing costs are the problem. Lack of diversity, escalating market ruins Boulder. People will always have "too much" money (editorial comment). Palo Alto is a"terrifying thought." • More than enough regulations are on the books. Doesn't think the answer is more. Impossible to legislate taste. Importance of good architecturai input. Very concerned with scrape-offs (heads nodding). It isn't a one-size-fits-all. Appraisals are a sub-part of the problem - if you want to keep original Boulderites you need to do something. • It is a problem. You need some type of design review. (described a problem near her home) THE SCRAPE-OFF ISSUE: Is there a difference between Pop-Ups and Scrape-Offs? • The scrape-offs ARE a major issue. • Disagree-the issue is what replaces (them). . Either can be done tastefixlly. Case by case. • Doesn't distinguish one over other. New building can hide square footage. • In general better to save house. How demolished?...the waste stream is a concern. FocuscxoueNOTES-ssssioNSi,2AND3 Agenda Item # lv ~} Paga #/.~ • The future is the lost Califomia beach town built wall to wall. Solar access helps. • Solar ordinance needs to be reworked. You get unintended consequences. Nolan asks, "is it mass and scale?" You can get good houses on comers. It's not just size, it's character of the neighborhood. • Bigger homes require more parking. Observation Most, in the group, seem to feel mass in and of itself is not the problem. But everyone expanding to the maximum would be an issue. IYs not mass alone - design is a key part of the problem. NOLAN: Is there a threshold? • You can't regulate taste. You can allow latitude (she favors bulk/plane regulations). There are "quirky" buildings in Newlands that are unique. Uncomfortable with design review as a solution. • Work with regs the city has. Wants city to shape up existing regs and integrate new ideas with existing. • Alley houses. FARs worked well in Whitder. He thinks the example of FARs in Whittier could work. Opened door too wide, then came back and imposed FARs to get properly sized units. • Wants some level of flexibility. Planners think regulations are God's word - they aren't flexible. AFFORDABLE HOUSING • It hasn't worked (affordable housing efforts). Very important to keep older people in the neighborhood. DIVERSITY is the goal. Observation General agreement that affordable housing and diversity are problems. • Neighborhood comparibility - historic districts are defined. • Concerned when someone says "we're going to define the character of the neighborhood." Eclectic is a good thing. Preserve these qualiries of neighborhoods. Observation Agreement: scale and context rather than materials or style. City needs to "sharpen the tools they have." Pay attention to social fabric of community. Building mass should be focus, BUT flexibility is also critical. Focus caour NoTES-sESSioNS i, z n~vo s Agenda Item # ~~ Page #/~v PROPERTY RIGHTS • City will need to have some "backbone" in order to create these types of requirements. CONCLUSIONS . Use design review above a certain threshoid. Combine bulk/plane with area-specific regularions. LIST OF GROUP 1 PARTICIPANTS Ben Moss 3188 10th St. Newlands Own 9 yrs Builder Build for clients & self Don Werthman 3233 10th St. Newlands Own 27 Retired, does Commented on petition re adding remodeling on restrictions the side Diane Dvorin 3232 6th St. Newlands Own 27 Management Renovated own home, consultant neighborhood activist John McElveen 728 University West End Own 29 Realtor Sold properties for PU &SO. Done for self. Involved in downtown dev. & infill for 20 yrs. Alima Silverman 1600 Redwood Redwood Own 31 Architect Architect, aware of projects in No. Bouider Boulder Vicki Naber 1540 Pine Whittier Own 30 Neighborhood group Kristin Lewis 1928 14th St. Flatirons Own 22 Architect As architect Claire Lindgren 903 13th St. University Own 40 Retired realtor Realtor, on planning board in the Hill 70's Agenda Item # ~ ~ Page # /'~ FOGUS GROUP NOTES-SESSIONS 7, 2 AND 3 GROUP #2--Moderated by Chris Cares • Concern at Newlands primariIy wifh mass and scale, not whether it was part of a pop-up or scrape-off. The issue will abate for a while, but as economy recovers will become greater. • Part of issue is the unknown of what will be created - personalty likes diversity. FAR is the issue - trying to fit pop-ups within the proper context. Issue will get greater as more people go through process - people resist change, don't like the immediate impact, then eventually adapt. • Agrees with Sharon that people resist change, but Iikes eclecticism and diversity; change of color and style is appropriate. Mass and scale is one area where controls are appropriate - solar access, FAR, etc. Tough to legislate style and taste. • Balance of property owners rights and public interest difficult. People who lived in home for 40 years now having an opportunity to sell for retirement - difficult issue to control, but public need is also there - protecting rights of other neighbors, as well. Setbacks, solar access are appropriate areas of control. Pure aesthetics not for regulation. View corridors also difficult - individual doesn't own long range corridor. • Also likes flexibility in design. • Issue of where you draw the line. She is a preservationist. Feels older history should be preserved. Needs to be protected as part of any tasteful remodel. • Concerned that wording is presuming there is a problem. Survey was prejudiced. • Within each neighborhood are differences as to where the line needs to be drawn where discretionary review is appropriate. Not saying things shouldn't be changed - should be able to define what is appropriate -not always the envelope but the quality of what is in the envelope. (debate among group about where it is appropriate to regulate) • Feels it is a collective sense of what is appropriate. Size, FAR not necessarily the issue. Big is not necessarily ugly. Need to be careful. Resents that people just want to stop big homes. Much of Boulder's stock is old and needs updaring. Current regulations not effecHve in controlling attractive/appropriate. Is the problem city-wide or central areas? Primarily the central area. Likes idea of encouraging people to go through design review or regularion, but not both. Uni Hill will see rentals convert back to single family as rents go down - sets off different types of renovation. Regulations in central area with long, narrow lots with alleys need different type of regs than peripheral areas with wider, larger shaliow lots and no alleys. FOGUS GROUP NOTES--SBSSIONS 1, z nND s Agenda Item # jv/-} Page #/~ • Greatest challenge is narrow lots in central area with close proximity - issues of privacy, bring idea of suburban trophy home into the central area where it doesn't fit.. • Doesn't want to just regulate one neighborhood - do it to everyone. • Doesn't necessarily agree. Case by case basis - already many non-confornung lots. • Regulations driven by paranoia - fear that everything will be bad. How do we encourage evolution? Why is the framework so critical to maintain? Freedom of design is imperative. • Disagrees - it is a context that is important. SCRAPE-OFFS • Some old should be torn down, others should be saved. Can't regulate everything. • Important to have predictability in the regularions. Scrape-off is an issue of emotion, like a tree. • Scrape-offs in Newlands, resulting in new construction, were an improvement. MASS AND SCALE • Doesn't want it as an issue. • Is important, along with design. • How do you define it? • Not always the issue, house can be reduced by 30% and still be ugly. • Context of neighborhood is important. Can't have a single standard which applies across the board. • How can you control the "builder° house - that is the problem. • Design guidelines. • Within design guidelines, still need flexibility. Menu of appropriate choices. • Currently regularions such as height regulation get in the way of good solutions. • Big homes lead to big 3-car garages, exacerbates the problem. Affordability - how can we protectit? FOGUSGROUPNOTES-SESSION51,2AND3 Agenda Item # lv~ Page # i~ House behind a house an issue in university area. Designed concept to encourage affordable housing. Has not worked. A disaster. Just major money maker, intent was destroyed. • How can we implement diversity/affordability? EXISTING REGULATIONS • Doesn't ]ike any of them, except PUD. • Conflicting regulations. Solar access - can't compromise and provide some flexibility within the solar code. • Regs are well intended, all are necessary. Needs tweaking. In older neighborhood many regs re: setbacks create non-conforming/non-standard - should be modified to reflect exisring character. Lot coverage good idea, but not always. • Green poutts incentive idea positive- if violate solar ordinance, create wedands someplace else. • Can do good designs within context of existing regulations, maintain historic context, etc. • So much variability within regs, some good, some bad. Best approach is give the envelope within which the designer must operate. • If some new regs created, remove others. • Issue in where is it appropriate to apply which of the regularions? E.g., historic guidelines only kick in certain situations, others apply across the board. 50-year definition is irrelevant - it is the period, not the age. Should be reconsidered. • 25 foot front yard too big a setback - works against good streetscape design. CHRIS: PRESENTS NEW REGULATION ALTERNATIVES Doesn't like any of them. Retreads 15 years ago. When you add all of the approaches, makes it most difficult - how to define thresholds? • More regulated, the uglier it gets. Not clear what is the problem - unril we define the problem, how do we determine the soluHon? Focvs cxour NoTES--sESS~oNS i, z nND s Agenda Item #~ Page #~~_ . Design review approach tried, got shouted down. Not mandatory. As a preservarionist, she supports design review. Sees regs as protection, not the problem. Left on its own, many of the redevelopments are in bad taste. Supports geographic customization. • This is a menu of discouragements and restricHons, not encouragements. • Design guidelines, mandatory review/voluntary compliance. • DDAB has that, does seem to work - review by peers and professionals has never made the project worse, should be considered. • Thinks voluntary review, voluntary compliance. • Spec builders the issue-causers in Newlands. Buys a$500,000 lot, demolishes, needs to build huge house, worries about profit - if no binding procedure, will not be effective - market conirols what occurs now. CONCLUSIONS . Nobody likes the "big ugly" - quesdon is does regulation fix the probiem. Hasn't seen beauty come out of regulation. • Prefers regulations - when pitting neighbors against neighbors it is destructive. Prefers arbitrator. • Need to be more precise in where applying parHcular regs. . Regs cause more problems than they solve. Want to back off regs and create more incentive for good design. . Property rights are important. Regs tough to deal with character of community. Existing tools pretty adequate. • Regs don't create good communities, help stop bad communities. Focus cxour NorES-sESSioNS ~, z aNO s Agenda Item #~ Page #~/ LIST OF GROUP 2 PARTICIPANTS Dea~ Garyet 803 Forest Ave Newlands Own 30 yrs Software Concerned citiien, developer property owner Dee Andrews 888 15th St. University Own 3.5 Homemaker Neighborhood volunteer Seth Frankel 400 Marine St. Highlands Own 1 Designs Downtown Design Advisory Board Lawn museums Kirk Watson 828 University University Own 27 Design, build, Neighborhood design issues remodel houses Chuck Lazansky 3170 9th St. Newlands Own 14 Manager and Remodeling home, incensed by engineer neighborhood group's tactics Fenno Hoffman 505 Geneva University Own 20 Architect Architect, renovate for self, others, Ave. Sharon Rouse Mock Realty Shanahan Own 18 Reaitor Realtor, Boulder energy conservation 825 S. Ridge center Broadway Fran Sheets 521 Marine Flatirons Own 30 Psychiatric Concerned citizen, works on city nurse plans and guidelines practictioner Leonard May 3016 9th Si. Newlands Agenda Item # ~ A Page # o~~? FOGUS GROUP NOTE6-S$SSIONS 1, 2 AND 3 GROUP #3--Moderated by Nolan Rosall NOLAN: Introduction-Ilirection from Council for staff to examine the issue or question of pop- ups and scrape-offs. Diagnosis was requested by staff. No one sees this as a simplistic problem or issue. Is this an issue where Council will deal with a free-for-all at the end? You've seen the impact of what has happened in the past 2 years (121 demolitions). Nolan uses maps to show the activity that has occurred west of 9~. Quite a few in Bluebell, Devil's Thumb, South Boulder. • How is addition defined? • These are all permits where square footage is added. • Not a very significant issue in the community. Most of the properties in town are more than 40 years old. Two thirds will be scrutinized if they want to do additions. This activity will stabilize, won't see same levels of boom activity. Not a short run massive increase in this activity. • Moderate problem but concentrated in certain areas. Sees need to balance issues. Let people expand their home. • Not a problem in and of itself. There are anecdotal examples and there may be abuses where things weren't done well, but we have exisring codes. Are our codes working the way we want? I don't believe you get affordable housing by keeping homes "small and crappy." This home doesn't work for my family - need to have the ability to adapt the housing stock. I think this is a lot of a red herring. • I live in a neighborhood where we have seen so many of these. Character is changing. People move in with the sole intention of altering the house. Evolution is natural but wanted the city to put some limits on what was going on. • The charm of Boulder is being altered. Not have gigantic houses. Would like to see some reason. • Hasn't felt immediately impacted. Her neighborhood association (Devil's Thumb) looks at plans. Doesn't see it as a big threat. • Sees it as a significant problem. There are not a lot in Mt. Acres. Does affect his neighborhood and historic details. Will continue, will go up and down. It is an alternative to buying a new home. Suggestion: Map where there are covenants. Age of units - landmark review. Some neighborhoods that don't have the problem have covenants, also newer neighborhoods. Majority of blue on map is in the nicest most expensive areas of Bottlder. Home of $400,000 on land of $800,000 creates a problem. You get frustrated when a skyscraper goes up near Focus cxour NoTas-sESSioNS i, z nND s Agenda Item # ~~~_ Page # a~ _~ your house. Boulder has an incredible number of regs. Every direcdon is controlled. Mentioned Mapleton Hill and no regulations. I'm struggling with the balance. Does have an impact. Land value is greater than improvement. Homes with poor quality (from 40s and newer) is a better candidate for this. These homes do impact affordability. I am in favor of increasing density on lots. NOLAN: Is it city-wide? • IYs concentrated in certain neighborhoods now but if regulate it will be felt elsewhere. • Whitder is different than Mt.Acres. My perception is that you wouldn't see same resistance in all neighborhoods. • You open a Pandora's box by having different sets of rules in different neighborhoods. • There are differences from an historic basis. • There are differences by part of town. Wonders if city can't find a way to address this at zoning district specific level. If city addresses it at all they should address it at the zoning district level. • We do have different rules for different neighborhoods. If you think the rules aren't working is it the zoning that is the problem. If you do large broad regulations, be careful what you wish for........you end up with regulations that encourage sprawl. NOLAN: Introduce idea that we will focus on various topics beginning with Scrape-Offs. • IYs a mistake to attack scrape-offs. He believes it is an artificiai distincrion to try to single these out. • Agrees. So many of the Whittier houses are unrecognizable. • Scrape-offs become a problem when they are replaced by something that has bulk and mass that are out of context. NOLAN: How do you define mass and scale? Understands this problem. Economics are part of what drives things. Most people think large is good. When you start to regulate you're now messing with economics not design. There are crappy large and small buildings. You are trying to regulate taste. I don't necessarily agree that large is better. I'd like every building to be beautiful. Boulder has twice as many regulations as other communities. FOGUS GROUP NOTES-SESSIONS 1, 2 AND 3 Agenda Item #~~ Page #;~y . When people say mass and scale they are really saying "taste." I'm not sure this is where we should be regulaiing. We're already regulating through zoning. Everyone already has a box in which they can build. • To say we have setback regulations is not enough. I think it is mass and scale. If you regulate mass and scale and stay away from design it would be palatable. • Agrees thaYs the real issue, are bulk standards working? A lot of structures we ]ike would be non-conforming. Just reducing size may not get you where you want to go. If city is going to regulate, do it in mass and scale, not design, Rules should be the same for everyone. • We have SUV homes along with SUV cars. Why can't developers encourage people to not use up so much space? Doesn't like the idea that big is good. • I make the same amount on large house as small. • Agrees with Mary. Scale, proporHon, size is the issue. Scale is overdone when it starts pushing lot line to lot line. • Has a problem when people buy a house to change the character. A lot of the time you are sucking the value from your neighbors. • Mass and scale is the issue. • Narional data confirms trends are to larger homes on smaller lots. People do feel larger is better. Wrong to demonize someone who wants to increase size oE home they buy. Concerns for how you differentiate "speculator" from family who wants to expand. • Concerned for peopie who don't care about their neighbors. • Isn't there value in the evolution of neighborhoods? (debate Mary and Ken about what's being said) NOLAN: Loss of affordable housing? • Doesn't think this issue relates to affordabie housing. None of these properties are affordable before OR after. . There are neighborhoods where this issue does have an impact on affordability. • Newlands scraped and rebuilt houses are $1.2 million. Aspenization of Boulder. • Affordability, overall we're 140% of the nation. Focus caour roorES-sESStorvs i, z nND s Agenda Item # !~- /~ Page # a? S • What makes a neighborhood great? • Neighborhood character is a"tarbaby." You can't define it. People object to Rock Creek. Table Mesa used to be Levittown. NOLAN: Pace of change? How many units in Boulder: 48,000. If we look at the problem quantitatively, iYs reaily not that big a problem. • Don't look at it overall, look at it in concentrated neighborhoods. Idea: Calculate rate by neighborhood rather than across city as a whole. For example, calculate in LRE zone Quantify the extent of the issue by: City - PUDs - Age - Historic Neighborhoods - Create ratios in all areas to portray conditions.. • We will see more activity relative to existing structures. • ThaYs a good argument why the city needs to address this. NOLAN: Which is most important? • If I must choose, iYs mass and scale. • Address mass and scale in current context. (Listen to comment from Bruce on property values-a good thorough description of his beliefs.) • Concern for changing regulations related to zoning. NOLAN: Cor~rmed that staf~'will review current regulations. There was complete agreement with this approach. Nolan introduced potential approaches to regulation. • Most attractive among choices is bulk/plane. But I don't like any of them. Look at the 7 areas we already regulate. Not necessary at the moment. Focus on existing regulations. • Identify which particular structures are a problem. Shy away from case by case subjective review. Might tailor neighborhood by neighborhood. Doesn't like design review. • Is there a problem? What is it? How did our exisring rules fail to achieve what we wanted? FARs are a horrible idea based on his commercial experience. • Doesn't know about anything but she favors threshold approach. Would like to hear from neighbors. • Likes a little of each, but maybe threshold and design review. • Look at current regs first. Agrees with first 3 comments. Focus cxour NorES-ssssioNS i, 2 AND 3 Agenda Item # lc ~} Page # o?(v • Geographic. Thresholds within districts if the building contributes. Bulk plane is easiest to implement. • Current regs first. Threshold approach is what she'd support, perhaps with bulk/plane kicking in. • Would like to give a seminar on how these don't work. Go to neighborhoods - photograph and figure out why probiems are problems. • Visual preference survey is taking place now - looking at where things stand. Being done by Sierra Club. LIST OF GROUP 3 PARTICIPANTS Claire Levy 3172 Redstone Shanahan Ridge Doug Johnson 2303 Mapleton Whittier Marilee DeGoede P.O. Box 578 Lisa Egger 2455 10th St. lived in both Highland Lawn & Mapleton Hill No. of Mapleton Hill, expanded historic district Own 16 yrs Attorney- Co-chair land use law PLAN Boulder Own 28 CU computer President-elect programmer Historic Boulder 16 Director Board of Historic Boulder, worked for Scientific Chautauqua Assoc. Reports Office at JILA Own 7 Architect Landmarks Board Architect Done scrape-offs Ken Hotard Bruce Dierking Rob Fisher New West Architecture 29803 State Hwy 72 Coal Creek Canyon, also owns house in south Boulder Whittier 26 Willa Johnson Housing Partners 3120 Broadway Mary Leonard 1440 Wildwood Lane Mary West- 1628 Pine Smith Pat Lehman Own 2 Devil's Own 10 Thumb Whittier Own 22 Mapleton Hill Own 14 Boulder Area Realtors Assoc. Land use Boulder Chamber attorney Board of Directors Architect APOB; architect for residential renovations Housing Housing Partners Partners Planning Asst, observed friends unemployed League of Women Voters, Neighborhood Association unemployed Whittier Neighborhood, tried to designate as historic district Sierra Club Retired college prof. • design & computer graphics Focus cxour NoTES-sessroNS i, 2 AND 3 Agenda Item #~ Page #~_ FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE Second Round of F.G.'s November, 2002 Purpose To give both the staff and us direction and prioritization as to the issues we should focus attention on and the types of information we should gather as we conduct follow-up research on the pop-ups and scrape- offs questions. We are looking for refinements today in the comments and points you made at our last session. Your should help give us the direction we need to provide a report back to staff, and ulfimately to the Planning Board and Councii.. Cover Ground Rules 1. Be as concise as possibie - time is short. 2. We are looking for individual comments and opinions, not consensus of the Council or Planning Board. 3. Would rather not enter into a debate with one another. Questions We talked last time about which aspects of the issue are most important to be addressed. Perhaps you could provide a bit more commentary on each one as we go through them. (SUMMARIZED ON THE FLIP CHART) (We are seeking a clear concise definition oi the issue in your words.) • Incompatibie mass and scale • Demolition of older, historic structures • Loss of affordable housing stock • Loss of neighborhood character • Pace of change within established neighborhoods Which of those, if any, is most significant? 2. Observations from the i s' three sessions - review list one at a time: A. There needs to be clarity on exactly what the issue is with respect to pop-ups and scrape- offs. The City can't effectively implement a solution without a more precise definition of what needs to be done and why. B. The Citv alreadv has a larae bodv of land use rectulations. It is not wise to "laver" anoth set of new restrictions on to~of these. Rather, there should be a diagnosis of the effectiveness of the existing regulations to determine where adjustments might be made to improve their pertormance before any new rules are imposed. C. While opinions among individual focus group participants were varied, there appeared to be a predominant view that the issue of mass and scale, or bulk-plane of the new DiscassioN cuioe z Agenda Item #~_ Page #;~~ taste, desian and stvle. Group participants indicated support for permitting a diversity of architectural styles, colors, etc., at least within certain broad parameters, so long as the specific design solution fit within some defined mass and scale criteria. Design guidelines that force all new development to comply with a single style or use of materials may tend to create monotonous, uninteresting buildings. D. It was generally believed that homeowners have the right to make additions and modifications to their properties in order to make them more functional and attractive for their household. It is when such additions extend bevond a certain threshold or size, qarticularlv in context with the surroundinp neiqhborhood, that special attention and perhaps some level of discretionary review should be given. The process should not be too stifling of homeowners' ability to create reasonable additions. E. Currently, the majority of pop-ups and scrape-offs and new additions are predominantly located within the central part of Bouider, and tend to be concentrated in certain sub-areas within the older core area. However, over the next several years it is anticipated that other neighborhoods not currently so active, such as Martin Acres or Table Mesa, may well become the source of increased pop-up and scrape-off activity. As a result of this anticipated pattern, F. With the exception of historically or architecturally significant or contributing structures or landmarks, including structures located within designated historic districts, there is not a dominant concern with the scrape-off portion of the orooosal. Rather, it is the quality and compatibility of the new construction that is most important. G. Preservation of affordable housinq is a very important objective in the City of Boulder. However, achievement of this objective is difficult to reauire as part of the poo-up/scrape-off ug estion. Perhaps opportunities for incentives exist whereby accessory dwelling units may be incorporated into major new additions in order to expand the range of affordable housing within given neighborhoods. H. A suggestion was made to oraanize a tour of selected neiahborhoods where examples of pop-ups and scrape-offs, both those well done and those which were controversial or clearly out of scale, would be examined and documented. Efforts would be undertaken to define the specific attributes that differentiate the variety of additions which were built and to understand how the existing City regulations applied in each case. I. It was frequentiy noted that existing homeowners who seek to expand their residence, and who intend to remain in their property after the addition is complete, tend to generate more compatible solutions. The speculator who purchases property solely with the intention of investment return is more frequently interested in maximum square footage and, perhaps, less "sensitive" design. To the extent that this may be true, it remains a challenge to address via City regulations. oiscuss~oN cui~e z Agenda Item # ~~} Page #~_ 3. Further discuss the existing land use regulations: (Use boards to describe) . Aspects that work well • Aspects which are not effective • Major gaps 4. Hopefuliy you have had a chance to review some of the approaches we have provided in the packet. Do you have additional comments on the types of approaches other communities have utilized and that might be appropriate for Boulder to consider? • Regulation of building mass and scale through criteria such as bulk/plan, cubic volumes or. density, or Floor Area Ratios . Design review/guidelines • Area-specific zoning regulations that are particular to certain designated neighborhoods Review of potential direction of future policies and regulations - Relative to the issues we have considered which do you believe are most important? Are there other approaches we should consider? 5. Are there any concluding comments or suggestions that you would like to make? Thank you for your time and participation. DiscussioN cui~e z Agenda Item # ~~ Page # 43~ POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS FOCUS GROUPS DISCUSSION NOTES GROUP #4--(SECOND SESSION GROUP 1)--Moderated by Nolan Rosall Idea/suggestion: Map locations by values. There were questions about $SQ000 cutoff. There was interest in the extent of problem by size. *Clarification - all numbers we used DO raflect additional square footage. Idea: Create a summary packet for council with a map showing values of improvements. • Additional sq ft doesn't make it a pop-up or scrape-off. • Try to synthesize -"major addition" is the problem, not pop-up or scrape-off per se. Key idea: Are we talking about maJor additions? Exaressions of sauare footaee is the only way to discuss. NOLAN: What are the issues? A followup to discussion at last meeting. "From the staff standpoint is there a precise or concise definition?" • Incompatible mass and scale. Character is also a part of it, but it falls under the character. • Loss of character is the social issue but it happens because of a loss of mass and scale. • Thinks mass and scale and character are different. If neighborhoods are too transient that would change character. People are forced out of neighborhoods because they can't make improvements. He points out the dilemma of character changing because of mass and scale OR because of loss of families. • Question of loss of trees as a result of a new foundation. Construction shouldn't limit their neighbor's construction. DISCUSSION OF POINTS FROM LAST MEETING Divergence of opinion • Don't put anoCher layer on top of existing. • Talked about the lack of taste of speculative units. • There will be instances where the owner WANTS to fit into neighborhood. • Agrees with what was written. It would be absolute stupidity to add new regs before the city has a handle on the regs they have. City needs to give latitude to those making calls on regulations. Seems like city wants a Bible - instead there should be some flexibility. • Maybe there should be 1 Q 15 or 20 percent requirement on when flexibility gets triggered. (Example of solar regs - maybe if you could exceed solar access slightly.) FOCUS GROUP NOTES--SESSIONS 4, 5 AND 6 „ger.ua Item # ~'~"7 Page ~ a~l NOLAN: Who makes the judgment on where something "adds to the quality of development?" • Call ups to a landmarks boazd? Landmarking "has a tendency to micro-manage." • Her experience is that planning staff is very bureaucratic. Kristen: Talked about thresholds. Maybe there is a discretionary review triggered if you want to take advantage of the additional density. Maybe there is a staff inember with expertise in this area. • Suggested using Board of Adjustments as the group that gives flexibility. He gave an example of how he got flexibility on a front porch through the Board of Adjustments. Pt. #4 - agreement - no further comments made Pt. #5 - no further discussion Pts. #5 and #6 - combine these Pt. #7 - affordable housing shouldn't be linked. There was agreement with this statement. Pt. #8 - discussion of a tour • Doesn't think a tour is a valid way to evaluate existing regulations. • If there's a tour you need it to be detached and "arm's length." Could include someone who is used to dealing with these types of problems. • Concern about the tour as a way for city to evaluate their regs. • Did a tour on Panorama and her neighbors thought it was great. But a participant had heard these additions were "atrocious." • She'd like to know what are some of the sites where the regs didn't work. Maybe iYs style? or bulk? NOLAN: Mentioned council member's idea about a waiting period. A participant was skeptical - you couldjust buy and rent unit. A better approach would be threshold approach. EXISTING REGULATIONS NOLAN: Are there things that work well? Is there some guidance that you can giveT • Pitch for flexibility. He likes the idea of disregarding chimney and dormer. He'd like the staff review person to have some flexibility to look at whole picture. He wants to REQUIRE people who do this to look at the total. • Difficulties with existing setbacks approach. The existing homes are not within setbacks. So, you want to balance the character of an existing house. She thinks the problem was with solar ordinance and/or setbacks requirements. • Staff seems to be most comfortable with situations where it is clear cut. Is staff comfortable with making discretionary review? FOCUS GROUP NOTES--SESSIONS 4, 5 AND 6 Agenda Item # ~G/7 Page #~ • Faels the tools are there. Feels he has been reasonably dealt with through variances. Adding rules and regulations will make it harder for people at front desk. • Think about the neighbor or lay person. • I believe solar is important but maybe we should be regulating the "sum total." This would let you tweak the total • Concern for the idea that it be neighbor's sign-off. • Thinks staff would jump at the chance to be creative and flexible, NOLAN: Where is the appropriate direction.to go with regs? • Threshold. Need to define thresholds by neighborhoods. Mapleton Hill compared to small home areas to north. Example of north slope, east/west orientation creates the potential for conflicts between existing regs. • Don't get rid of solar. Maybe the threshold for easUwest property has a little more flexibiiity. • Likes bulk/plane better than volumetric approach. FARs work best with commercial. She has concerns about how the bulk/planes get created. Concerns: In existing neighborhoods you do want to have light and air. The bulk/plane approach makes sense in existing neighborhoods. Hates to see things allowed in one neighborhood and not another bacause it is hard to determine tha edges of neighborhoods. Maybe the threshold is different by zones. FINAL REMARKS • Impressed that city has tried to collect info from outside their own organization. Also impressed with input of participants. Proud to be a part of the group. • As a builder, I see all sides of the situation. Don't stop increasing size of houses - people want ability to enlarge. People want bigger homes, let them do it. • IYs a complex situation. I don't know what I'd do if I was in the city. Very complicated when you get bad development that doesn't fit. She doesn't know what she'd do - iYs complex. • When will this move ahead? NOLAN: Next year's work program. Agenda Item # (c!~ Page # ,7 ~ FOCUS GROUP NOTES--SGSSIONS 4, 5 AND 6 GROUP #S-(SECOND SESSION GROUP 2)--Moderated by Chrls Cares • As before, issues are real in my neighborhood but indapendent of p/o & s/o. All issues are current in my neighborhood, even if vacant lots. Incompatible mass and scale most important. • Loss of neighborhood character, incompatible mass & scale • All problems, esp. in Newlands, people have scraped off structures, all related problems • Compatibility question, demolition of historic structures when replaced by better buildings in Martin Acres might be good, depends on quality of the project • Taste and style questions, important to let people make older homes suit their families, individual choice more important than neighborhood character, etc. Can regulate process to give people suppoR to create good design. Put extra reviews on people who don't intend to live there. Speculators (by anecdote) more concerned with square footage. • Wary of additional regulation. Hard to draw lines where it begins and ends. Hulking mess might be just what resident wants. How do you legislate taste? Don't infringe on homeowner rights. • Don't legislate lifestyle. Grid in Newlands, smaller lots, more dif6cult to fit homes. Lifestyle dictates size. Loss of affordable housing is just whaYs happening in Boulder. Trees create berm, trees should be addressed as a part of any code changes because trees are important to character. Plusses for green points, give for trees. • Shape of streets caused by regulation (i.e. solar regulations) EastJwest access most of town. Don't use the regulatory weapon...Big not necessarily ugly. Builder will bulk out buildings before new regulations. Threat of regulation causes problems. Difficult to do the right thing. Incompatible mass and scale depends on where you are. Segmenting city's sections...Could make entire city historical district. Every house over 50 years old is historic. If you demolish 50% of roof iYs against regulations. Effects take time to work through system. Allow building front porch is good regulation. What is good now, not so in 50 years. Bad physical systems in homes need to be repaired. CHRIS: Synthesis of last focus groups - reviewed comments from last groups with participants and asked for their input. • City can't implement. City looking for solution in search of a problem. • Disagrees with Kirk - people are coming with problems to city • Careful exam of what is in place is good idea; a plnce to start • Like to see net reduction in land use regulations, not additional burden on homeowners • Planning Dept., how to measure design quality? • Unintended side effects... • No exceptions, not good, illegal to put in a tower under current regulations. Consider more flexibility Focus ~eouP Norss••sESS~oNS a, 5 AND 6 Agenda Item # ~ fj~ Page # c~_~ • Even if you work it out with neighbors, to build tower still illegal. With flexibility and discretionary regulations paople will not be treated equally. • Single style not necessarily monotonous. Some areas would benefit from guidelines. • 2-tiered minimum threshold...What do I get, what do I give up? 1) minimum tlueshold 2) beyond that must go through a discretionary review. There is a richness in diversity. • Richness is what we have in place. Upper-class, wealthy can do whatever they want. Many architects have put in very modem buildings, texture is foreign, roots are being lost, no appreciation for 100 years of history. Understands the desire of architects to have less restrictions. • Don't like lights that illuminate garages. • Accept change • Good large additions are possible, social good ovenides individual needs • Favor incentives rather than regulations • Mass & scale, bulk plane is least common denominator - simplistic, texture is more important THRESHOLD APPROACH: • Dangerous...Flatirons design voluntary or mandatory, voted out mandatory. Incentive or design review, don't do both. • By-right system up to a threshold, then regulate and review • If hell-bent on regulation, shouldn't be size of building. Large and small variation can be beautiful. If regulate just one, threshold would be it. • Takes 6 months of review to put in tower • Can be huge advantage, buildings come out better for review process • Might not be better for people living in it CTTY WIDE VERSUS LOCAL/NEIGHBORHOOD APPROACHES • City-wide inventory should be done, but different areas can't be treated the same, because of history and relevance to downtown, etc. • Look at existing context, don't apply regulations not applicable. My neighborhood has lots of non- conforming lots, need to create variances because of city-wide regulations. • Dangerous to cherry-pick each home and define each non-conforming building • Boulder regulations are not as liberal as other cities FOCUS GROUP NOTES--SESSIONS 4, 5 AND 6 Agenda Item # !C/7' Page # 03_5 CHRIS: Is customizing appropriate? + Process hopefully objective • Percentage of homes not meeting criteria... • How "granular" should and can yoa make policies? Can vary block by block. Can have regulations for each individual house. Mixed-use zones - for "walk-able" ]ife - don't fit zoning policies. • What percentage want to regulate? What percentage of households are controlled by non-city regulations such as covenants? (Bohdy- do a map ro illustrate this condi[ion) SCRAPE-OFFS • Issue hijacked to pop-ups and scrape-offs • Just because iYs old, doesn't mean iYs worth saving • Different levels of drawing the line • Don't want city to tell me, as an owner, what to do AFFORDABLE HOUSTNG • Accessory dwelling- is the City will to consider these? • Affordable housing larger usually • If building something for affordable housing, give more flexibility and incentives • Affordable housing, but not at the price of our neighborhoods • Unintended consequences muddle up the discussion •$1/2 million only buys a lot in Newlands • Want affordable housing and diversity, don't want 400 new apartments • Unintended consequences of including this issue THE IDEA OF A TOUR • Tour of homes, we can see ugly but can't speak freely about how it got that way: a) regulations b) economics • Can we ask, "why is your house ugly?" • Tour is process of education, very good tool to educate community, Why do people flock here7 FOCUS GROUP NOTES--SESSIONS 4, 5 AND 6 Agenda Item # ~~ Page #~,~~o SPECULATORS • Not all speculators are bad. Some speculators are renovating Victorians as to what they think people will like and some are good • Generally huge monstrosities are done by speculators • Speculators are forced to max out. A ttu~eshold-based process may help to address it • Just because you're a speculator, not a bad person • Threshold...6 month review discourages speculators • Since iYs a more expensive process, people won't use architects, just builders - permit $7000, variance $8000 • Interfaces with other things...50 yr...2/3 of roof...Historic district overlays. Stuff hasn't been implemented yet. Coordinate all regulations. • How to incent good architecture, but be concerned about base-line? Prevent exceptional and incent exceptional • Allow exceptions-if iYs exceptionally bad, at least not exceptionally large Agenda Item # ~A Page #~ FOCUS GROUP NOTES--SESSIONS 4, 5 AND 6 POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS • Existing solar regulation same and assumes all city is flat. On hill a mean set of rules works against you. How many historic houses meet solar regulations? I bet none. Solar based on propeRy line creatas incentives to build on south side • All in all, solar is a good ordinance, simplify. More variation in neighborhoods. In Chautauqua, where it slopas, grandfather existing structure shadows • Add dormer flexibility to the solar regs • Have something to illustrate what you can do, buyers are worried about constraints • Unintended consequences as Boulder 6ecomes more urban...question post 1950's setbacks • Aesthetics review is what people really want, size and shape won't address the issue • Predictability in the process is needed. There are historic aspects to these issues • Fear of unknown keeps people from building and makes them build as fast and as big as possible • Another hurdle to jump through • Garage 25' height creates cuba garages, current regulations create uglinass • Solar access code was created for access to enargy, not aesthetics CHRIS-PRESENTED ALTERNATNE APPROACHES-volumetric, threshold, geographic, etc.? Bulk plane- "This is a variation of solar ordinance." It is ofthe most interest • Solar ordinance limits beautiful form. Bulk plane will do same thing, because no exceptions. One or other, don't do both, costs $1000+ for architect to figure out. •$3000 to figure solar regulations. Bulk plane or solar, not both. Roll bulk plane into solar. Current system so inflexible, impossible to administer. • Maximize the envelope • Irregular shapes are desirable. Can't do with solar ordinance, can use bulk plane to achieve solar outcome • Simple buildings not interesting, regulations create simple, yet we prize exceptions • Incompatible mass and scale design review?...Which is best tool? • Design review as an exception only; don't mandate it • Design review - where in city and what kind7 - planning dept., citizens, where in process? eocus caouP NoTSS--sessioNS a, s nNO 6 Agenda Item #~~ Page #,.~~ • Favors design review combined with thresholds • Who reviews, architects? • Incentives for beautiful... who's on the board?...ugly and beautiful usually gets consensus, incentivize: ugly gets to pay more for permit • Incentives and point system...objective criteria for points...doesn't matter who's on board, win and lose points in design, review must be cheap and quick • Incentive for smaller garages • No mandatory design review...by-right...no threshold...numerical way to do calculations, no review, takes time, bottlenecks, architects will not agree • People all dress differently- codes should respond to diverse opinions and needs • If you choose to live in Boulder, you choose modicum of conformity and control • Can't separate the individual tools. They all work together. • What I see as protection, you see as limitations FOCUS GROUP NOTES--SESSIONS 4, 5 AND 6 Agenda Item # !~ ~ Page #<v ~- GROUP #6--(SECOND SESSION GROUP 3)--Moderated by Nolan Rosail • All out of scale or "mafor" additions in the issue--start using that word (mafor additions} rather than pop-ups and scrape-offs. (Nolan took time and went over maps. A few questions and clarifications about what the problem is.) • She's "torn" - iYs time to replace some of this stock. Demolition - loss of affordable housing. Quality of housing stock versus housing stock. • Walked with another participant after last meeting. Notices that struggle with which one was bad but they both agreed which ones were bad. It didn't have to do with mass and scale. Rather it was "character." Worst was units designed by architects for themselves. But "bad design" is evident. Some think it is "beautiful" but most people who walk by would say "it doesn't go here." • We're here because of all these items. It is all of them. •"Contributing" historic structures, not all structures. Also incompatible mass and scale. • Loss of character, she thinks it is good Rob looked at houses. IYs character that is primary concern. • I'm a skeptic. IYs getting more nebulous afrer looking at it. Neighbors do lots of things that others don't like. Interested in whether covenants couldn't be used to address some of these issues. Seems like mass and scale was the issue last time. But if it's nebulous "character" issues then iYs more difficult. Bothers me that this is an affordable housing issue. They weren't affordable before, these are units for architects and lawyers. • Solution is to ban architects from designing their own homes! What is large to one person isn't large to another. Real pace of change is the larger environment around Boulder. • Mass and scale is the one thing you can get to and still be objective. I still think it is more of a mass/scale issue thah anything else. City doesn't need to get involved in pace and rate of change. Once change is done, iYs done. • Historic districts give us a place to start. To create guidelines from a blank slate you are definitely regulating taste. • Quibbles with the issue of "loss of character." He has difficulty with terminology. In a historic district you can define the character. In a"tracY' neighborhood it is more a sense of evolution and change not deviation from a defined character. •"Change existine regs." (They didn't say there is "no problem.") • There needs to be clarity on exactly what this issue is. • If someone paid too much, the city shouldn't have to try to protect people. Don't reward unlimited expectations. • Public debate will focus on the economics of properties. The land investment is tied to family. The city doesn't have to protect wild speculation, they do have an obligation to protect property values. eocus cxoue NoTes--sesstoNS a, s nN~ 6 Agenda Item # ~~ Page # yv • Some of the people you're trying to protect are the people that will be most impacted by the regulations (seniors). • Concern for property tax increases with redevelopment. Value of neighborhood goes up and taxes increase. • Example at Pleasant-now all McMansions. Which were done by owner occupants. •"Sensitive design" is a good word to use. How do you define sensitive? • We may decide we can only do so much. • There's no way to control what this gvy did. Someone else will come in and change the house eventually- economics over the long term will take care of some of these situations. NOLAN: Were there examples of mass and scale problems? • No, it wasn't size. (Discussion of talking with neighbors.) As a designer, he does it as a matter of course. • Thinks it is important to have neighbors talking with one another. • Having neighborhood dialogue doesn't always solve problems. Non-conforming units are common in old neighborhoods. • New regulations "piled on." Should allow some flexibility through a site review process-you'd have to go through site review on a discretionarv plan. • Concern for bulk/plane that has a prescribed roof pitch works in historic areas but not in Martin Acres. Residential site review is a great idea. Might allow flexibility and result in a better product. • Define some threshold that is by right (define as a% of bulk). Then it should go to design review. The county has defined some criteria. There is debate but she thinks the county approach could work. • Concerned that we haven't really defined what the problem is. Agenda Item # lof~ Page # '`~/ FOCUS GROUP NOTES--SESS[ONS 4, 5 AND 6 - POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS SURVEY - FALL 2002 POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS SURVEY i. To what extent do you believe the increased development of pop-ups a~d scrape-offs within Boulder's residential neighborhoods represents a major concern requiring City response? NO CONCERN AT ALL VERY SIGNIFICANT CONCERN 1 2 3 4 5 ~ r ~ c- r 2. Do you believe the issue is affecting all residential areas of Boulder, or is primarily concentrated in older, core area neighborhoods? ~ All neighborhoods are impacted C' Primarily older, core neighborhoods ~' Other Comments: ~ 3. Recognizing that at this time considerable data remains to be collected and analyzed in order to document the current situation and its related impacts, do you believe that the City's current land use regulations are adequate to handle the issue or, conversely, that additional City actions are warranted? ~' Current land use regulations are adequate with regard to pop-ups and scrape-offs r Additional policies/actions are warranted T No opinion at this Yime--awaiting further information 4. Based upon your current level of knowledge, to what extent do each of the following represent areas where pop-ups and scrape-offs are of concern? Agenda Item # ~: ~} Page #y~ http://www.snowsurveys.com/surveys/boulder/popup-10220~.ncm POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS SURVEY - FALL 2002 NO CONCERN AT ALL Loss of neighborhood character Housing affordability Incompatible mass and scale Demolition of older, historic structures Loss of valuable resources Neighborhood disruption Other: (please specify) ~ VERY SIGNIFICANT CONCERN 1 2 3 4 5 (" C (' C' (' ~ r ~ r ~ c c r c r r ~ r ~ r c~ r r r r C' C' C" C C` r r r r r Which of the above do ~ou believe is the area of greatest concern? Click Here -> ~ 5. Several communities have enacted land use regulations specifically intended to address this issue. Such measures tend to fall into general categories. Again, based upon your current level of knowledge, which of these categories, if any, seem most appropriate to investigate? ~ Regulation of building size and scale (e.g., floor area ratios, lot coverage, building height, bulk/plane) ~` Design review (at least of proposals above a certain threshold) ~` Area-specific zoning (e.g, targeting specific neighborhoods that meet certain defined characteristics such as proportion of older structures, existence of a relatively consistent neighborhood character) ~' Other Do vou have anv further comments? ~ J In what general Boulder area neighborhood do you live? Please provide your first and last name: Agenda Item # loi9 Page #~3 http://www.snowsurveys.com/surveys/boulder/popup-1022 POP-UPS AND SCRAPE-OFFS SURVEY - FALL 2002 Thank you for taking the time to complete this brief survey, wa look forward to seeing you at the fpcus groups. Click "EN7ER" to submit your results. ENTER 02002, RRC Associates Agenda Item # ~ /~ Page #!~/~ http://www.snowsurveys.com/surveys/boulder/popup-102202.htm 2002 - Pop~Ups and Scrape~ORs Survey ( ----r-- I - Werall ~ ------- GROUP 1 UROUP 7 Mornlnp - _~ Allernoon • _.. OROUP 3 A/tarnoon • i ~ 1= NO CONCERN AT AlL ~ 28°/ 17°k I 50% 18% I 1. To wh~t exlent do you bellsva the I ? 17% i 17 % 13°k 1B% Increued developmenl of pop•up~ ~nd ___ I terape•ofl~ withln Boulder'~ realdentlal ( 9 - 14% 17°h ~ ~ ' 9~ 0 nelphborhood~ rapiesanb ~ m~Jor t ~ - i coneem requiring Ciry re~pontai I 4 ._........._..._..._.~..._._'__.___.__.._-__1'..._ 14% ____.. _ 97% ..___.__'___.. 13°h t 9% I ~ S=VERY 516NIFICANT CONCERN ~ ' 28°,6 11°k , 25%I 45% I TOTAL ` i 100% 100% ~ 100°h tpp^y . ... __" "'_ ~ Avsraye .. .__ .. _.__... , _r__ I _'_' 3.0 __"' ' 3.2 2 5 _ 3.5 ~ _._. .. ___ ......__. n ......._ .. ___. ~. ; ~ 29 _ _~ ... . 6 j __' _ .. ., 8 I _.._ -- ~~ i .. ____ _ _..-... r A_ _' _ _. __ ~".. ._ _ I --_ Y. Do you belleva tha luue b allectinp ~ all residentlal area of Bouldar or i~ i ~ All nelphborhoods va Impaeted i ~ v ~~~~ ~ 34°h ~ _ 17 % I ~~~-~~ _ 63% 18% , i dl e ncentnted i ore l ld ( Prim~rlly older, core _ q8°h 89°h I . 38% 55% pr ma y o er, c n o f . . - . - - - - _- ~! - .___ r _ I ~ro~ nelphborhoods4 ~ . ____...._ ._...._.._._- ...---_.__ ~ ~ Other ; t .. . ._.. .... . __- - -- ~ ' 17°h .... .. 100 /0 .__ _.__. _ _. _ . 100% i ..___. 100 % 27% _ 700°h .'__._. - ~ -.- ' _-_ TOTAL _._..~._______"_..._~ _1 ., ~'._._.-..-____. i 29 ~ 6'_._ _~__B I 11 14 Nov 07 Source: RRC Aeeoclatn 2002 • Pop~Ups and Scrapa-Offs Survey ~ . .. . . Overdl . : ~ ..... _ _. _......__ ! 7.Rxopnl:InB~HriMl~tlme . _. .... . . _ __. . .. ... . ~~;' CurrentNnduurepul~tlon~~n~dequH~ _ .__ 38% ~~ ron~iden61eda4remdnitoM ~ '. I callsclsd~nd~natyxed,doyou ......._.. ...__... _._.__.___... ; _ ..".._.._. ; bellavathrttheCity'~eurcentlmd AddlOondpollcled~ctlon~~rowamnted 38% ~w~raYUltllonnre~deQwhto , ,........_.. .........._.. ...__....__ . ........ :. ........-- ~ h~ndleth~i~weor,aonvenely, ~ ' ~'~ Nooplnlonatthbtlma-~w~NlnO~~erinkrm~tlon ~ 14% ~N~t~ddklonalClry~c4on~m ........_..._ .. . ._ ....... ~ i~ ......_.... ._......__ . _ ._. ... ._.., ....._ ._..-. ... 10~% ~ TOTAL .--____.._._"'______.___._'-_-_. __- ' ' n• 49 L..-~_"_'_._"""_ 1/ Nov 01 Sourca: RRC A~~ocl~h~ GROIIP1MOming• GROUPYARomoan ~GRWV7AIhmoon• 1011110P 1012L07 i 1Gp0107 33Y ~ 63h i 27% .__.... ...._._...__ .:__.'.__ 33°/ 3Bh I 36% 39% ~ j 3fi% 100% ~100% i- 100% - 6 -_ B I 11 Agenda Item # ~/9 Page #~~j 2001- Pop-Ups and Scrape•Offs Survey GROUP 1 Moming GROUP 2 Akemoon GROUP 3 Afternoon Polenlia/arees o/concem.• Overall - 70@~102 • 10122102 -10130102 I 1= NO CONCERN AT ALL -- --- - - -- - - 24% '._ 17% - - ------- 38% ------- --- ----- 9% -- -- Z 7% 13% 9°/a es L f - -- o o nelghbOfh00d 3 ~ 10% 17% 13°/a 9°k "-- ---' -' ~ character I4 28% 50% 13°/a ~ 18% r-- I 5=VERY SIGNIFICANT 31% 17% -- 25°/a ~ 55°k TOTAI. 100% _ 100% ~ ` 100% ~ 100°h Average 3.3 3.5 2.8 4.0 n= _ __-- -- - - 29 -. 6 _ ~_ 8 _ - 11 --- i 1 NO CONCERN AT ALL _ _ 38°/a _ _ 17% ~ __ _ _ 50°/a _ _.. 36% ---- ~ 2 3% ~ 13% r--,. . ---., _. .,_,__.._ . Hou5ing ; 3 __ _ _ 10% _ ~ _ .__ _ 17% ~ _ .-- - _._ _ 25% -- attordabllity ; ~ ________ __ ~ __. --_- 50% ^z 27 4 2A% i % '~ 5=VERY SIGNIFICANT --- - ~-' •.- - -- 21% -- -- 17% I 13% - -- 36°k -- _ TOTAI. _._ _._.. _..,.._....._____. _ _._ 100% ___ _ . 100% I .. _--... _ 100% ~...__ _ ______. 100°/a . _---.--- Average 9 I 2 3.5 I 2.1 3.3 _._.__ _._..---,_.~-.~ - „--- - ----r 4 T -- ---°---- n= 29 6 ~ 8 11 14 Nov 02 Source: RRC Aasociates Agenda Item # ~~ f~ Pagz #~la 2002 • Pop-Ups and Scrape~Offs Survey GROUP 1 Moming GROUP 2 Akemaon GROUP 3 Afternoon Polenlia/aieas olcnnc~m.• Ovenll -10@Y/02 -10121J02 - 70130102 1= NO CONCERN AT ALL - - - -` `- 14% ---- 17% 25% 2 21°/a 17% 25% 18% fbl I --} - e ncompat - massand 3 3% 13% -------------- ---- - -- ---- _ ecale o o 4 17 /e 17 /o ~ 18°/a I -- -.~~ S=VERYSIGNIFICANT L __..__...~__ ~ 45% 50°/a _~ 38% -- 64% TOT/LL 100% 100% 100% 100% Avenge `' 3.6 3.7 3.0 4.3 n - -- 29 6 ~ - 11 --- ------ ... -- - ---.._.._- ------------ ---------..--- - _ ---- 1= NO CONCERN AT ALL_ - ~ 28% 17% _ 38°I° ~_ 18°!0 ------- ~ 2 Demolilion ~ --_ -------- - _ 17% _. _...--- I 17°/a • . _ - - --- - 25% ____-__-----_.__ 18°k ______ ___ of older, i 3 _. 14% - 33% 18% histodc ,._ __ ___ _ _ __ __. . _ __- __. 5f~uolUfBE i 4 21% ~ 33% 13% 9°/a % - --'- - .-,_ , -.. _ _--- ___ ! S^VERYSIGNIFICANT 21 _'__ 25% I _ 38% TOTAL -~-- 100°/a ( 100% ~ 100% ~ 100% Average ~- --- -~ 2.9 ~ 2.8 2.6 ~ 3.3 ------- -- ---- ---- I ------ --- ---n_-., - -- ---29 S i 8 I r 11 14 Nov 02 Source: RRC Aesociates Agenda Item # ~o/~ Page #~ 2002 - Pop-Ups and Scrape-Offs Survey GROUP 1 Morning GROUP 2 ANemoon GROUP 3 Aftemoan Polenlia/aieas a~cnncem.~ a'e~~~ • 10l22102 -10@2102 • t0730102 1= NO CONCERN AT ALL 41°/a 33°k 63% 27% 2 7% 18% Loss f o valuable 3 1)°/a 50°/, 13°/, 9°k reaources -----__..- -------- ----__- - --------- --_...------- 4 24% 17% 13°/, 27°k 5'VERY SIGNIFICANT ^.~- 10% 13% 18% TOTAL _ _----- ------------ --------- 100% __--- 100% - --- ------ 100°/, ---- -- - ____ 100% --- Average 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.9 n= - 29 - 6 8 -- 11 - -- - ~ 1= NO CONCERN AT ALL 43°/a - 17°/a 63% 40°/n G--,__.._.._~__-_.----- --__-__ ; 2 ___._..__._ 11% . .. --. _......__ _ -- 33% ----,._.,---_ _ -- ------- 1D% _._ - -- - -.._._ __. _ Nelgh6orhoo i 3 _..__ ... _ . 29% I ..._...._..___ _ .. 50% .------ ---_ 25% _------- 10°~ d diaruption !_ - ~ ~-_ -- ' 4 -- -' -- 14°k ( ~ 40% ~ - ~ 5=VERY SIGNIPICAN7 4% 1 13% . ......_ .... ...L.~~ ......- ~-------~------ ----.. ..........1 ..._ ....._.......--- --...__.._ .-- --~~-- ---'----- TOTAL - - - 100% I - 100% --- 100% ~ 100% -- ------ - --- Avemge - - 2.3 ~ -- - 2.3 f------' 2.0 ------ 2.5 __ _` ---------__----- ---- n~ - 28 I 6 B 10 14 Nov 02 Source: RRC Assoclatee Agenda Item # Cr: /~ Page # ~`/F~ 2002 - Pop-Ups and Scrape•Offs Survey GROUP 7 Moming GROUP 2 Akemoon GROUP 3 Aftamoon Polenlia/aBas cJcnnc~m. Overall -10122102 • 1012~102 • 70130102 3 20% 50% Olher: 4 - 20% 100% ~ ~ 5=VERY SIGNIFICANT 60°h 50% 100% . ._._.._..'---"----L_~__Y.__.__--------- ------~ ----._-_._-------- ------_._--'---------- TOTAL 100% I 100% 100°/a 100°/a Averoge , 4.4~ 4A ~ 5A ~ 4.0 n 5 ' 2 ~ 1 1 '.._..._._____.___...r..____..___'.__' ".. _'_"_'._0_' _ ,_ - _...._._..------ I '-_ I Incompatl6le masa and scale 41 /a p I 40% 17% 57% Whlch of the --.__ _ . - -------- - - --- - - - -- - --- ---- ----- ----- --- -+ --- above do you Loss of neighborhood eharecter 32% ~ 40% 50% ~ 29% b li i th - -1 eve e a e ~- ; area of greatest i Housing aHordability 14% j 20%a I 17% ~ 14°h concern4 F - _ - --- - .._ r._.. --- ~ -- - - -- ------ ~ Other 14% ~ l 17% ' _ ... ,..._. _ -- -... __..__ - _ .___ r _-- - ___ _ _.__~ _._ ~ ~~~% ~Q~°~a ~~~°/a j ~OQ% TOTAL - I n= 2 2 ~ 5 I 6 i 7 14 Nov 02 Source: RRC Asaoclates Agenda Item # ~'~ Page #~ 2002 • Pop~Ups and Scrapa-0Hs Survey GROUP 1 Mominp ~ GROUP 2 Allemoon • GROUP 3 Aftemoon • Wenll 1N'17~D2 ~ 10~l7102 1N3W02 5. Again, baeed upon Reguladon oF building ~Iza and scala I 32% I 17°/a 38°/, 50~/, yourcurrentlevNof - - ~-~-~-------~----.~__ ......-- ~- ---- ~` -- -------~~ knowledge~ wh(ch o( Ofher -- 39% -----~~- 33% ---~-- ----- 38qo -i , 217°/a ~. tlreae cffiegodes, H - j erry, aeem most Desipn revlew 14°/, I !50% ~ 10% appropdrie to i Area-speciflc mning 14% ~ ~ 25% ZO°/, Inveedoafe? . ... _... , i _.,. __~.-------_ ~_._..__ ..._----} - --.... ,.....__.._... --._ _. ---- ~~% I ~~% I ~~% ~~% AL 70 ~-- ~- i_u T I n= 2B 6 ~ B 10 ......_..._._ ._.___ ;_ ,......---`-- -....---------. tl I W .....-~---'- %. .C .._.___ - -'_---- ..._~. _ ..-.- _- ---~ 3% ---'--~ ---- hlt M 17 17% ~ - 1 27% NeWlands 14% 17% ~- - 25% 9°h ~---- ~ DeVll'6 7% - 1B% I----' ;~ Univeni - i 7% i 1P/o '~. - - u 13%a i - i Nurth Bo 7% ~ ; 17% ~ Bouldar neighborhood: TOTAL 14Nov02 ~~~~_~ Sourca: RRC Aaaociafe~ j Central Boulder I-- Do not I ! ~ fl~Gron i Flafiron --'- __ _,._ ' Highland Maplaton ,... ___ _. i North Maplaton ~ __ ..._-- I Own prop ;_____--_______- ~ Shanahm j unlveniry hlll ~._ .........__ _.. i Wat UnNenity hlll ~_ ...._....___ __. I Chahqua ~ ~n' i 7% ~ - 3% , -----*-- ~ -=--- 73°h ---- ------- ._ 3% ~ . ,- --- - -•_.__ _, . - --..._. . . ..---. 9% _..._-~ --- 3% j ---!-- --- t3% ------ - -- _---... ---._.._. 3% i _..__, __ 17% y - .... ___..__ . _ ._..._.. _---___ - ~ 3% ' ---- ~ ----~- 13% -"_- ---- _--_._ _.. 3o/a i _; _ __. _ --_ ' I __._._ . .....__. ~% _.__` 3°/u i , ~ 1 9% _ _._ _ . ------ _ ~ _ - --3% ~-- _ -- . r _ _ . --- --_ - _ ~__.... _ _. ~.._ ~ ,---- 9% . _----.. _---.. . 3% . . _ .:. ... ~ ___.___ ~,__ ...._.. 1 ~ ..,.__ ,. ..._._.._ 9°/a .--~ ...~..._..._.. """_'. . 3% I . ..._, _.. . ~~% i __..__.._. ,......_. _ ~ ....._..._..__' ' ' _ -_____ _-.._.__ ., _....._ 3% i ' . _ .,..._,.-~ - ...-.-- _ i -~---..._... 73% . ..._........._...., .___...~~ ---'-~~-- - ---- . _._ . 3% ~ .___ _. . . .. _"_' ---- - ~~~o ~ -.- ------ ~~% ~: ~ -- ~~~o --- ~~~a ~ ,t 6 ; 8 11 Agenda ltem # ~/~ Page # SG% Existing Tools ~ ~ ~ ~ a m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ o~ ~ ~ Setbacks: Regulates building placement by establishing a minimum distance from front, side and rear property lines. Lot Coverage/ Regulates the amount of the lot that may be covered by principal buildings or Open Space: accessory structures. Height Limit: Sets a maximum height for all structures; also determines the number of stories a building may have. Solar Access: Limits the amount of shadow a building may cast on neighboring properties. Historic Individual landmarks and properties within designated historic districts are Designation: subject to design review and approval for all exterior alterations, including additions, new construction and demolition. Demolition No building that is older than 50 years old may be demolished without Ordinance: Landmarks review. Purpose of review is to prevent the loss of potentially significant buildings, not to regulate the design of new buildings. Planned Unit Allows developers to negotiate with the city to crate a final development plan, Development: which becomes a binding legal document and replaces the zoning regulations for the property. , Menu of Approaches Potential new regulation may involve some combination of the following approaches: Volumetric Approaches Floor-Area Ratio Ratio of gross floor area to the size of the lot Cubic Volurne Ratio of building volume to the size of the lot Bulk Plane Imaginary "envelope" within which the building must fit Design Review Approach Process by which a public agency reviews and approves architectural plans on a case- by-case basis, using established design standards or guidelines. ~ Geographic Approach ~ Targeted approach identifying areas or neighborhoods where pop-ups and scrape-offs ~ pose a significant problem, with regulations or review failored to each neighborhood or ~ zoning district. 3 *~ Threshold Approach ~ A limit or amount of development that triggers additional regulation and/or review; meant ~ to regulate or constrain e~ctreme cases, while allowing moderate proposals to proceed under existing rules. b ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~. ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The ratio of the total floor area of a building to the size of the lot. In mathematical terms, the FAR is calculated by dividing the total building area by the area of the lot, as measured in square feet. An FAR less than 1.0 means that a one-story building cannot cover the entire lot. An FAR greater than 1.0 generally results in multiple stories. i.ms~: ~o,ooo.e euuoixc s~: ~o,ooose FAR 7:7 In this diagram, a 1.0 FAR is achieved in three different ways: a one- story burlding covering the entire lot; a two-story building covering half of the lot; and a four-story building covering one quarter of the lot. Examples: Boulder currently uses Floor Area Rafios to regulate building size in some commercial zoning districts. v •~ i ,~~ IAT S~: 10,OOOtf ~u.oixcs~: ~o,eoo.r F,~: , :, ~ois~: to,ooo.r euunMC s~: ~o,ooo•r FAR 1:1 ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. b ~ ~ ~ ~ s Cubic Volume The ratio of a building's volume to the size of the lot. In mathematical terms, the cubic volume is calculated by multiplying the building height times the width times the depth, then dividing by the area of the lot. In addition to regulating building footprint and floor ,~. ~` ~ °~ ~ .` ~. ~._` ~~ __`~ ~ors~: ~o,ooo.e ~ors~: ~o,ooar CUBIC VOLUME: 100,Otl CUBIC VOLUYE: 150,00! RATp: 10:1 RAi10: 15:7 In this diagram, buildings of equal floor area have differing cubic volumes because of taller plate heights. area, cubic volume also Examples: Aspen, Colorado limits the height between floors. ~~5~: ,o.ooo.~ WBICVOLUIE: SO,OOOef RATp: 5:1 a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~. b ~ va ~ ~ J~ f~ Bulk Plane Regulation Imaginary planes that create a three-dimensional space, or envelope, in which a building may be erected. Bulk planes are used to control the height and massing at the sides or edges of the lot to allow greater light and air between buildings. Bulk planes generally require greater setbacks for upper floors. In this diagram, the bulk-plane envelope is suggested by the dashed line. Regulations vary regarding the amount of a building that may be allowed to extend outside of that envelope, but do sometimes exempt building elements such as chimneys and dormers. Examples: Denver, CO; Pasadena, CA Design Review a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A process by which a public agency reviews and approves architectural plans for new construction, additions, or major alterations. The design review approach allows the approving authority to review plans on a case-by-case basis to determine what impact the proposal may have on the surrounding neighborhood. Design standards or guidelines are often used to guide decision-making and heip property owners design compatible buildings. Boulder currently uses the design review approach in a variety of settings. Large-scale developments often go through discretionary Site Review, in which Planning Board decides whether the project meets the city's stated planning goals and objectives. The Landmarks Board also uses a design review process to review and approve exterior alterations within historic districts and on individually landmarked sites. A variation of the design review approach involves the concept of "voluntary compliance," in which the city acts in an advisory capacity to influence urban design. Most projects in the downtown area are subject to review by the Downtown Design Advisory Board. DDAB reviews plans and makes recommendations for improvement, but the developer is not obligated to comply with DDAB's recommendations. Geographic Approach a ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ro ~ aro ~ ~ U( A targeted, rather than universal, approach to land use regulation. The geographic approach recognizes that different approaches may work best in different neighborhoods, depending on neighborhood character, established building patterns, topographic constraints, or economic conditions. The geographic approach identifies specific neighborhoods or zoning districts where pop-ups and/or scrape-offs pose a significant problem. For example, older core- neighborhoods with a smaller housing stock may be particularly susceptible to demolition or pop-up additions, while newer neighborhoods, including PUDs, may not be affected at all. The geographic approach uses a combination of tools (bulk plane, FAR, cubic volume, design review, threshold limits) to address building size, scale, and character. Regulations are typically written into the requirements for the underlying zoning district. Zoning overlays may also be used. Examples: Vancouver, B.C; Raleigh, NC Threshold Approach a ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ U, ~ A limit or amount of development that triggers additional regulation and/or review. The threshold approach is used to regulate or constraint extreme cases, while al~owing more moderate proposals to proceed under existing rules. Threshold review allows for flexibility on a case-by-case basis. Approval may be based on established criteria or conditions, or through a discretionary design review process. The threshold approach builds on Boulder's existing system of land use regulations, which sets forth a"by-right" standard yet, under certain circumstances, allows for additional development through a discretionary Site Review process. Boulder's land use code also allows for conditional review, in which certain conditions or exceptions are written into the code to allow development beyond the by-right standard. Number of Major Additions (Value $50,000+ in 2002 Dollars) and ScrapeoffslHome Demolitions by Yearand Type a ~ ~ C ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d w ~ ~ ~ J1 250 200 150 m ~ a N ~ .~ a a 100 50 0 ^ Scrapeoffs/home demolitions ^ Additions valued at $150,000+ ^Additions valued at $100 - $149,999 ^ Additions valued at $50 - $99,999 198 _ -- - ---- ---- -- ----- 131 111 97 93 98 --_ - --- ---- --- - $o - - 10 -- gg 1 11 20 ~~ 15 q4 41 11 11 20 24 13 2~ ~~ 21 ~5 20 - 16 28 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year of Permit Issuance Source: RRC Associates. (Note: The data presented in this graph is based on and corresponds to GIS maps and analyses prepared by the City of Boulder.) Number of Major,4dditions (Value $50,000+ in 2002 Dollars) and ScrapeoffslHome Demolitions by Year and Subcommunity ~ Qa A .7 a m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b m ue ~ ~ ~ 140 120 100 ro 80 ~ m N N £ 1 60 4~ _ - _ _ __ 20 - -- --- Q ~ ~ i ~ r-ITL1'~ N~ I'l ~ i r~ r i ~ ~ r-. CenVal Boulder South Boulder North Boulder Southeast Crossroads CU Gunbarrel East Boulder Palo Park Boulder Subcommunity ~ 1992 ^ 1993 O ~ 994 O 1995 ^ 1996 ~ 1997 ~ 1998 ^ 1999 ^ 2000 ~ 2001 Source: RRC Associates. (Note: The data presented in this graph is based on and cortesponds to ~IS maps and analyses prepared by the City of Boulder.) Number of Major Additions (Value $50,000+ in 2002 Dollars) and Scrapeoffs/Home Demolitions 1992 - 2001 Period by Subcommunity and Type ~oo -- - -- - - - sos ~ Scrapeoffsmome demolifions - ----- __ _ - -- 600 - _ ^ Additions valued at $150,000+ = 3~ v O Addi6ons valued at $100 -$149,999 ^ Additions valued at $50 - $99,999 -_. 500 --- _ _-- - - - - 141 d 400 - - _ - - -- - - --- _-- - ---- 3 N N N ~ 30~ '~ _._-_ _ . ___._._ __. __ _ __. _ -_ . .- _ ._ _ . - __ _.. . __- _ ..__- __ Y~ A 20~ ~87 ._" _ __-__ _. . _ "_" __ _ ' -"_ "_- __. _ Z ,~..a 35 129 ~ ~~~ ~ E ~ 100 - - LL - --- ~ - -- - ~ 25 ~ ~2 4 3 3 1 ` O ~ p Z I -O I J I O W Central Boulder South Boulder North Boulder Southeast Crossroads CU Gunbarrel East Boulder Palo Park Bouider ^~ ~ Subcommunity m ~ ~ Source: RRC Associates. (Note: The data presented in this graph is based on and cortesponds to GIS maps and analyses prepared by the City of Boulder.) 600 - 500 - 400 ~ 0 w w w 300 E ~ d a ua 200 - ~ ~ c ~u ~ ~. ~ ~ 100 ~ ~ ~ 0 b ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ Number of Major Additions (Value $50,000+ in 2002 Dollars) and ScrapeoffslHome Demolitions 1992 - 2001 Period by Subcommunity and Type 490 O Other Subcommunities ^ Southeast Boulder ^ North Boulder ^ South Boulder 0 CenVal Bouider , , ~ iditions valued at $50 -$99,999 Additions valued at $100 -$149,999 Additions valued at $150,000+ Scrapeoffs/home demolitions Permit Type and Value (2002 Dollars) Source: RRC Associates. (Note: The data presented in ihis graph is based on and corresponds to G1S maps and analyses prepared by fhe City of Boulder.) ~ , MAJOR RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS 1992 - 2001 (BY VALUE) ~ 0 00 0 0 0 o a eoOn ~~ o e ^ a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° ~ n o0 - 0 0 ~ I ' N i@ pbs -I'~4?Iw~'~'i;.liL CPJ.'"".se.' ~ n~° ~°~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ f~D , ~a s ~ q ~ ~ s . , ~r~ :~~mi a4~~s ~"~~- D ~ ~ ~6.w~ m ~ g ¢ ~ ~I ~ ~ r nt ~ „rF e tl ~rif ~~_ ~ ~ rr ~ 9 ~ y 1~1 ~ ~ Figures are shown in the accompanying charts prepared by RRC. i -b ^ Residential AddiUons Valued at $50 -$700K (2002 Dollars) A~ Q Residential Additlons Valued at $100 -$150K (2002 Dollars) ~ Q ResideMial Additlons Valued at Greater than $150K (2002 Dollars) ~ ~ Selected Residential Zoning Districts ER-E (Estate Residential Esteblished) ~ ~ ~. ~ LR-D (Low Density Residential Developing)' ~ ~ LR-E (LOw Density Residendal EsWblished) ~ - MR-D (Medium Density Residential Developing) S MR-E (Medium Densisty Residential Esfablished) - MR-X (Medium Density Residential Redeveloping) MXR-D (Mixed Density Residential Developing) I MXR-E (Mixed Density Residential Established) Q Gity Limits zaoz i~:ao 0 N 1:40813 ;,~~ ~~'~~ ~ MapLink City of Boulder The iafomation depitted~o¢ this map u p~avided ss gnplucal xptaeatadon only. The Ciry of Bodda provides no wairantyr uptased oi implied, aa m t6e ucuracy and/oxcomplecmesaoFtk~e iofo~atioa mumincd hceoa RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AGE 0 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~r ^ -~~.-- ~__ _ ~- a -, ~ ~ ~ ~ Built Before 1950 ~ Built 1950 - 1969 °~ ~~ ~aa Built 1970 - 1989 ~ Buiit 1990 - 2002 ~~ Vacant or Building Age Unknown ~ City Limits ~ F~I2ppeclWP 14~18 N 1:40813 r ~ ~~=,~~~ ~ MapLink City of Boulder TLe info~uion depicted~on tlvs map u provided u gnpkticil mpiemtatian oaly. 17te Ciry of Bouldc provida no waRmry, apmeeed ox implied, €t to rhe accuncy md/oa compltteneaa of @m info~ation mntained htteoa RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT (1992 - 2001) ~ ^ 0 ~ ^ ~ ~ . ~ ~,~, ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~j~~~~~~~~~~~G~s "+ z. ~ ~~, ' ^ ~~L~ "_•• ~ r.'~~~.: m:"~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ Figures are shown in the accompanying charts prepared by RRC. ~ - O Residential Demolition and Redevelopment p~i 3elect Residential Zoning Districts ~ ~ ER-E (Estate Residential Established) ~ LR-D (Low Density Residential Developing) ~ ~ LR-E (Low Density Residential Established) ~ MR-D (Medium Density Residential Developing) ' ~ MR-E (Medium Densisty Residential Established) ~~ MR-X (Medium Density Residential Redeveloping) ~ MXR-D (Mixed Density Residentlal Developing) ~ MXR-E (Mixed Density Residential Established) ~ ~ City Limits oe~zam ta~~e N 1:40813 ,~/~%J'~~'i~~ ~ MapLink City of Boulder The infoimadon depictedan thia mnp u provided w gnphical npieemmtion ody. 11s City of Hoddtt p[ovides no wunaty. npxeeaed ox impGed, w to the ucunry aad/ot mmpletmesa oEthc info~ofioa rontained he~ma .-• .~... .~ y. ATTACHMENT B SUMMARY OF DENVER'S QUICK WINS TWO (QW2) PROJECT The City and County of Denver recently concluded a public process designed to look at the issue of incompatible redavelopment in established residential neighborhoods. While the specific conclusions of Denver's process, known as Quick Wins 2(QW2), may or may not be applicable to the situation in Boulder, the project does provide some insights for designing the next steps in Boulder's process. This memo reviews the background, process and conclusions of QW2 and suggests some lessons that can be used in designing the next steps for a similar effort in Boulder. Background The QW2 project was a continuation of earlier Denver pianning efforts, including Blueprint Denver (an implementation tool of the Comprehensive Plan focusing on land usa and transportation) and the Quick Wins One (QWl) process, which addressed issues such as the placement of driveways and common setbacks in the residential zones. Issues related to incompatible redevelopment in residential neighborhoods was a consistent concarn of Denver citizens and was idantified as an area needing further study through both the Blueprint Denver and QW 1 processes. The primary goal for QW2 was to address the growing concerns of Denver residents regarding the scale and character of residential redevelopment, particularly the issues of "long" houses (large, two-story homes extending along an entire property), pop-tops and scrape- offs. In addition, both QWl and QW2 were aimed at streamlining the approval process in order to create more efficiency for both the city and property owners. Process The overall QW2 process lasted about one year, from the appointment of a citizan advisory committee in late 2001 to adoption of changes to the zoning code by City Council in December of 2002. The Planning Director appointed the QWZ committee. The committee's charge was to recommend to City Council specific language amendments to the zoning code to help remedy some of the conflicts between new residential construction and the preservation of neighborhood character. The 13-member committee was composed of neighborhood representatives, architects, preservationists, builders, developers, and a Planning Board member, all of whom had some expertise or experience with the issue. The Chairperson of the committee, Carolyn Etter, had served on the citizen advisory committee for Blueprint Denver, is a former director of Denver's Parks Department, and has been acrive in her own neighborhood association. She was selected as chair by the Planning Director largely for her ability to facilitate groups and reach consensus on controversial issues. The committee was designed to reflect the wide variety of viewpoints on the issue. They were also charged, however, to reach consensus in terms of both defining a problem and suggesting specific code changes to address that problem. Recognizing the diversity of opinions in the larger community, there was an acknowledgement that if this smaller group could not reach consensus then larger political approval would be extremely s:lplan\pb-items\memos\srDenver Process Agenda Item # ~~ Page #~ difficult. It was hoped that the committee could arrive at a mutually agreeable position and serve as an advocate of that position to the public. The overall process, as outlined in their charge, was to gain an understanding of the issue and how it had been addressed in other communities, draft a problem statement and define the issue, generate solutions in the form of language amendments, test those solutions, and then make a recommendation of their preferred solution to Planning Board and City Council for adoption. Reports on the committee's progress were made approximately once a month to the Planning Board. The committee began meeting monthly in January of 2002. Planning staff, including an Urban Design Architect, supported the committee. Members were introduced to the issue and efforts in other communities through a reader of articles from popular and academic sources. In March the committee agreed on a rough draft of a problem statement. That statement was modified somewhat over time, eventually reading: Quick Wins Two Problem Statement The existing character of Denver's R-0, R-1, and R-2 neighborhoods is valued by the community. 1. Many people want to live in Denver's established neighborhoods because they are great places to live. 2. Many people want to live in homes larger than typically found in these neighborhoods and are expanding existing houses or building new, larger ones. 3. This re-development can hann the existing character of these neighborhoods, such as privacy, open space, mature landscaping, solar access and existing homes. At that time, the committee also identified five policy areas that needed evaluation for possible language changes: open space, building setbacks, floor area ratios for residential structures, modifications to the bulk/plane regulations, and design review. Staff prepared a second reader, addressing each of those five areas, which included: ^ An overview of the definitions and existing code requirements ^ Staff analysis of the issue ^ Recommendations to the committee ^ Advantages and disadvantages of the recommendation s:\plan\pb-items\memos\srDenver Process Agenda Item #~ Page #~ Summary from tha first reader that discussed what other communities have done in this particular area Results of staff analysis regarding typical open space ratios, floor area ratios, development patterns, etc., in established neighbarhoods. Staff also presented a series of simple mass models that helped to illustrate what was allowed under the current regulations and some potential changes. Eventually, more than 40 such models were created to illustrate and tast code changes on typical lots. After reviewing that material, the committee discussed the pros and cons of each approach, and how changas in each area could (or could not) help address the problems they had defined. After considerable debate, consensus regulations allowed "long houses"- two story homes stredching from front setback to rear. The smaller building on the left represents a typacnl 1.200 sf bungalow cornmon to eVentually deVeloped around many ofDenver's older neighbw~hoods. The larger building is 1SSUes of pTOteCting open SpBCe over 5,500 sf, yet still met the 50% open space requiren~ent. and privacy, avoiding the two-story long house, and allowing for less complicated development review. How to specifically address those issues, however, was unclear at this point in the process. In a May report to the Planning Board, the Committee Chair noted that, "the Committee is moving forward but the destination is unknown at this time....this is a very diverse community represented on the Committee." The Committee was eventually able to further focus their direction by agreeing that two of the five approaches, design review and floor area ratios, were inappropriate tools to address the particular problem they had identified. Instead, efforts were focused on how open space requirements, setbacks, and bulk/plane regulations could work together to control the mass and scale ofresidential radevelopment. After their June meeting, the Committee was able to suggest draft code amendments focusing on those azeas. Suggestions from staff and committee members were tested using the mass models and the analysis of aerial photographs to determine the amount of redevelopment possible under various options in selected neighborhoods. That infortnation was presented at a series of public open houses in five Denver neighborhoods. Whila all five of the origina] policy azeas were suggested to the public, the presentation focused on the committee's recommended direction. Between 400 and 500 citizens total turned out for the meetings. Reaction to the proposal was characterized by staff as being ]argely supportiva. A smaIler group of dissenters was split fairly evenly between those who felt that the measures were too restrictive and those who felt thay were not restrictive enough. In addition to these five open houses, additional public comment was raceived at each of the 13 total committee meetings and s:\plan\pb-iYemslmemos\srDenver Process Agenda Item # ~ ~} Page # ~ ~ in response to three mailings to all registered neighborhood organizations. In all, over 100 letters, emails, and comment cards were received from the public during the course of the process. The Committee then worked on refining the proposal and coming to consensus on the specific language changes. Compromises were made in order to gain committee support. In response to a July Planning Board question about the ground rules for reaching consensus and whether 100% agreement was necessary, Chairperson $tter responded that from her view consensus meant that, "everyone on the Committee would feel they could stand behind what is moved forward. It may not be 100°/a of what they wanted, but they would agree that the plan is as good as can be achieved for the citizens and the city of Denver." She added that when the final proposal was brought to Planning Board and City Council, her goal would be that no committee member would say, "I sat on that Committee for nine months and I disagree." QW2 Conclusions The ultimate recommendations of the committee were presented to the City Council and approved by a 9-4 vote on December 16, 2002. The major changes to the Zoning Code: 1. Redefine and clarify the definition of open space. 2. Increase the overall zoue lot open space requirement from 50% to 62.5%. 3. Establish a two-tiered bulk plane that allows a larger house on the front 65°/a of the lot (Zone A) than is allowed under current zoning but restricts the height of the house on the rear 35% ofthe lot (Zone B). (See Illustration 1). 4. Require that 60% of Zone B be maintained as open space. This is reduced to 50% on lots ]ess than 5000 square feet. Staff summarized the benefits of the proposed changes for City Council as: ~z T D _ rr ~' I I l ~ m ~g ~' ,~~~.~ ~ _ _ H _ .--- , _ I-; ~ ~ ~ ZaneH ~ ~ .5'Seiback ~` I ]mrtA I rp _ _. ~3V ~ rd I f~~5~1 M i nr ~ a j ~ - -- J ( y TI :~ .. __ _ _ _ _ h.: -___~ ;.,,,,A ~ / ~~~5'4~laR Requires houses that are more compatible Illustrarion 1 with more traditional open space patterns than the "long" house 2. Increase overall lot open space (from 50% to 62.5%) 3. Add privacy and solar access to back yards 4. Increase open space in back yards (60% of the rear 35°/a of the lot) 5. Modify bulk/plane to: ^ Move the mass of the house to the front 65% of the zone lot ^ Limit structures in the reaz 35% of the zone lot to one story 6. Clarify illogical parts of open space definition 7. Provide incentive for detached garages under specific conditions 8. Provide incentive for front porches s:\plan\pb-items\memos\srDenver Process Agenda Item # ~f} Page #~_ 9. Provide for a wider variety of design and floor plan options, including the Denver Square and other traditional home styles 10. Provide opportunity for more economical additions in front 65% of the site 11. Adjust the proposed open space and bulk plane requirements to address the variety of shapes and lot sizes through R-0, R-1 and R-2 zone districts 12. Equalized opportunity to build either single family homes or duplexes in R-2 13. Support establishment of a new residentiai zone district for Cherry Creek North 14. Make the zoning code easier to administer: ^ Eliminate need for most Zoning Administrative variances ^ Eliminate dormer intrusion into bulk plane ^ Eliminate abuse of involuntary demolition ^ Eliminate complex calculations for open space Lessons for Boulder The specific conclusions of Denver's QW2 process, while seemingly a well-reasoned and effective answer to one community's concerns, are less important than the lessons that can be learned from the process they followed. Some key conclusions: ^ Project responded to community concerns heard consistently in other processes ^ Recognition that there was a wide variety of opinions on subject ^ Need to define problem before solutions can be sought. In Denver, the issues of rear-yard privacy, long houses, increased process efficiency were agreed upon ^ Committee was chuged to reach consensus and suggest specific changes, despite diversity of opinion ("If they can't do it, larger public won't be able to") ^ Importance of the Chairperson in facilitating, building consensus ^ Staff support to provide background research and test suggestions ^ Importance of being able to illustrate what the problem is and how the suggested changes address that problem (models and graphics) ^ Importance of being able to address a primary concern of affected property-owners - the ability to redevelop - with real world analysis of specific sites ^ Trade-offs led to consensus within the committee, which eventually led to community approval s:\plan\pb-itemslinemos\srDenver Process Agenda Item # ~ f~ Page #~