HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Study Session October ist, ZOOS
'I'(D: Landt7~arks Board
hROM: Julie Johnston, Senior Planner
Susan Richstone, [.ong Range Planning Manager
SLJIiJ1CT: Compatible Dcveloprnent in Single-Family Nci~~hhrn-hoods study session
i~;XI?CUTIVE SUMMAR'Y':
'1'Ius study session is dcsi;ned to obtain input frond the Landmarks Board on the
Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project. Meeting with you
during the early phase of this project is to tap your expertise and experience with the built
environment in Bot.tlder. In addition, we will be providing an update on the public
oritreach to get your thoc.tghts on how the process is progressing and to outline further
oPh~~rtunitics for the Board's involvement.
S'['UI)Y S1:SSION IN7'ERAC'I'ION:
Nuie Winter or Winter and Company will be present to lead the sa.tdy session and solicit
your input. The following questions have been devclopccl by Wintr.r and Company to
lu~l~~ ~~,~~iiri~it~~ intcr~i~'li~~ii uii~l ~~,ui~l~~ ili~~,~~is~,i~~n;
1, 111 "l'lii°'";;~ lC;lll.~, I~ '~.'~ill \1.'I~' t~.f f111?C~It`v ill': ~'1~1~1~~_'I;I ~ ~~'I!ill(l~!(l li! ;lhl?~V' III~~I~.'
~.i~ecifically to historic districts and properties, what would you say`? (Please
:;e Attachnte~ct A for C.'ity Council Problem Definition, (goals and Objectives)
' I„ your opinion, what are the biggest issues that should be addressed in this
i~r~~ject as then relate to the crnnpatibility of single-family development in
l;i;~~_n~~: ci,:;tri~L~ ui ~~n f~i ,t~~r~~ ~~"~~perties?
i. l)t> flit i~suc:; ~-,iry Icy ~~n~il~•:~l'~
l ~ )ti y'~lll i.'rl (flail filt'~' ;111' :~IIIII~;!I I il'.~;; 1~:'':1~1 I!I ~.il'll~`.~ l~."vi.ll?hfll~'i!~ ii
~~~~ighborhoods that arc not designated as historic? Where'?
t ~ the design review process, have you encountered specific issues with the
,..~y that cun-ent re;ulations influence single-family development in historic
a rict~~
11'i):'~"i'F; ;i~; i'l lit,?(• Plii?i~i•..`ti.`;.
"i'he first set of conununity and nci~;hborhood workshops held to address sin~lc-family
remodels and demolition/rebuilds within established nci,,hborltoods arc almost complete.
"I'he kick-off workshop ~~-as held on Septr,mbcr 1O and two of the four nci~hborhood
workshops were completed on September 15 and 17. All three workshops were well
attended with over 80 participants at the community-wide event and between 25 and 30
parrticipants at the two neighborhood workshops- We will provide further information on
the final two workshops at the study session. Please Cmd a copy of the Planning Board
memo that provides more detail on the public process included in Attac/~.rlrcrat L3.
N)~X`T STE:F'S:
"I'he first phase of the project, Define the; Question, is ncarng its conclusion. /liter the
remaining two neighborhood workshops are completed next week, Winter and Company
will begin their analysis of the information collected. In addition, interest groups are
being assembled by RRC Associates, a subconsultant to Winter and Company, and are
expected to convene within the next nu)nth. Finally, a visual survey is being developed
that will be distributed to all of the potentially affected property owners within the study
area. Phase 1 should be completed by the end of October.
The project will then move into Phase 2: Develop a Strategy- Acommunity--wide
workshop and neighborhood workshops will again he conducted during this phase to
garner feedback regarding the proposed strategies. We encourage you to continue your
participation at these meetings.
Phase 3: Develop the Tools is when a second study session with Winter and Company
~a~ill be scheduled with the Landmarks Board. This will be a critical moment in the
project, as actual draft tools will begin to be developed. 'l'apping the expertise of the
I .andmarks F3oard will be an important step in this phase. /1('tcr Phase 3, which is
projected to finish by March of 2009, the project moves toward implementation when
(_'ity Council will consider adoption of the rccomrnendcd tools.
0"I'TACf IMEN'1'S:
:a. ('itv C'cnlncil Problem l)e(~inition, Goals and Objectives
I_~. I'I,~nniu~~ Board Mcmo of September 25 2008
a'1~'~~.~ ?.~~tl ~'.~7~1~ r`'`...
Nr~blem i)ef'initio~~s Coals and ®bjecti~~es
Pt•ohlem Definition:
'l'o address the nrllrrct on existing, established nei~,hl?orhoods o1 ne~~~ cunstructron anti
acldiUons that arc; incompatible in scale and bulk with the; character of file neighborhood.
"l'he impacts to be considered include without limitation: consideration o(~ size, open
space, massing and bulk planes, loss of space between houses, privacy, view sheds, lot
coverage, blank walls, setback, height, and the streetscape and visual character.
Additionally:
1. The biggest problem is scrapes that result in very large homes and nre~;a spec
horlles that are. out of scale with the existins~ nci~;hborhood. The definition cif what
constitutes a `mega home" is related to both absolute size and rclatrve size as
corrrpared to lot size and Heir;hborhood context.
2- tine aspect of the problem is that oversized homes are often built as speculative
ventures, and the developer is trying to maximize profit by building the largest
home possible. The high real estate values in our community drive the problem.
a. The loss of space between homes is important. It is importamt to maintain visual
openness and a sense of space in neighborhoods and often new homes are built
right to the setbacks at two stones, and open space on the lot, backyards, and
privacy arc lost.
4. The streetscape and visual character of the uei;;hborhood are irnportant-
"fhe loss of mature trees, baclryards, and sunlight affects neighborhood livability.
t~. The [oss of older homes rel)rescnts loss of the community's heritage and culture.
I'f)e solar ordinance affects the shape of houses and is one aspect of the issue that
~!ceds to be evaluated.
I'ruject Goal and Objectives:
I ~ ~ protect the charact.cr of established single-family nciL~hborhoods by assuring that new
~I~structiou and additions are cornpatihle in scale and i)ulk witli the character oi' tt;e
I I I s! h bol-hOOd.
I . It is very important to retain flexibility for people to alter their homes as their
eds change, since many can't afford to move to another house. However, there
a threshold of pops over which these additions can be "too much." It is
Important Io provide for appropriate change over tirl)e.
' L:nsure That solutions prorllolc vaiicty as opposed to monotony.
f;nsure that. all neighborhoods or certain lots with characteristics different front
one another are treated fairly and equitably.
Include an efficient process to address unintended consequences (an appeal or
variance process).
Include analysis of broad economic impacts.
A°uhhc• Process Objectives:
I . 1'ruvidc the Inrblic with balanced and objective. inforination tr) ati~tii.5t them in
i~.i_I,,. ,I~~1!. ~ I ! .il ~ II
I'~iil~ (~li I~Il~~ili Illl~>1lllit~. ~I,,lill l~l allll ~Iil~Ill)\\ ~i~l,'C it~Il~ Cllr. ally ~~I(~`~ Illi
Iecdl~acl. an h~~~~ pul)I?c Input can ?nflucncc Final d~~c?sions.
3. Work ~`,~ith the potentially at'Fected residents and other stakeholders to ensure that
their concerns and issues are reClc;cted in altcrnat?ves that are developed.
~t. Work with file pOlc;llllally aFfected residents and stakeholders to come up ~+•ith
potential solutions that council and Plannins Board will consider.
n'r'rACllrtilENT li
LI"1'Y OI' ROU1.1)H'It
PLANNING ROARD AGENDA I~l•EM
MT;E1'IN(: DA"CF~:: SEP~['h:M131?R 25, 20(18
AGENDA TIT1.1?: Report on the Compatible Development in Single-family Neighborhoods
Community Meetings.
It 1•;QUI?S"I'[N(: Uh;PAIL"l MEN'I~:
Ruth Ylcllcysel, n~tinti; Planning I)irectur
Susan [Zichstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Julie Johnston, Senior Planner
h:XI?CI!~l'IVG; SU17~9AI2Y:
't'he purpose of tius item is to provide the Planning Board with an update on the (-first set of
community and neighborhood workshops betel to address single-family remodels and
demolition/rebuilds that arc i?npacting established neighborhoods.
UI'DA"1'H; UN PUl~1.IC 1'IZO('I~:~~:
~Ilic 1irn~ ~~1~ \~~'inlri ui~d ('~,uil~alfy~, ~~~~ill? inl~ul fi~~)n_I ~:ilV st~:ft, ~lrv~'Ic~hc~! ;i Inlhli~~ ~~utrc,I~ li
I~r~~cess to ensure broad input from rc;idents and stakeholders iu 13ouldcr.
I begin the process, a conununity-wide kick-off event was held on September IU at the West
tienior Center. Over 8U people were in attendance at the workshop, with 82 names on the sign-in
sheet- Z'hc workshop began with a welcome address from Councilmember Cowles and a brief
historical overview of this issue fi-our Ms. Ruth McI Ieyser, Acting Plarufing Director. Several
Planning and I,andrnarks Hoard members attended the tneetin}~ includinf~, Plise Jones, Adrian
iL~lr_ ivlc~r~~ \-1'ullcr ~~I~ \~ti'Int~~r .nil ('nuil~.iiiy ll~~•ii <<:ivc ;i nr~~s:~nl:~fi„n ~,vlii~~l< <~utliii~~~1 their four step
hro~ect approach and provided an ov~~I view of I?ow to define ncrghburhuod character, the
existing city regulations, current redevelopment trends, and some potential tools. The agenda for
the; workshop is included in Altac%rnient A.
At the conclusion ol~the presentation, three workshop activities were performed. 'Che first was
,uI individual activity which asked participants to weigh in on the problem definition established
by Clty Col1nC11, priwide thrcc~ of the biggest issues that should he addressed by this proji~i~t, and
,ui~, ,1cU~~u~, tl~,+t :;l:~uilil h,~ r~~ii:;i~lcr~~~1 I~l~i~rc wus ~ils~~ ~~,Iiporltuiil~,- I_o ii~~~lu~i~ <iny ~~Ihc~r
I:11~_~rl.l:iili!!. Ills' I~II'~~ali'I 111UC~~111 \V;I'~ I)~'1'.li~~~ll lv 1~1~: J'~~~1~:~~i. ;ACit'~~Il}~ i!i I_~ I;I~;III~I~U 111
ffttaclunc~rt B.
Activity #1 has also been placed on the project Web site; to allow members ol~the public wllo arc
unable to attend unc of the public outreach meetings a chance to provide inlnrt clutzng this phase
oFthe project.
The second activity, which was a team endeavor, dealt with neighborhood amtext that includes
items such as setbacks, building orientation, street patterns, etc. Workshop participants were
given an aeria) map of the city and asked to describe at Icast three different nciJ?hborhvod desif~,n
contexts. The intent of fltis exercise was to get the participants thinking about the variety of
trei~;hborhoods in the city, as well as to provide the cvnsultanl team with some: insight into how
these neighborhoods arc perceived.
The final activity of the evening also had the participants working in small teams. Each team
was tasked with identifying key features of a computer modeled neighborhood, outluung the
issues surrounding what current regulations would allow, and selecting building design elements
that were considered compatible with existing neighborhoods. Par-ticipanls we:rc given a
computer generated model of a standard grid subdivision. 'I`hey were asked to identify the key
components that produced the design context of that neighborhood. The next step was Eo review
a second computer model that placed a new home within this neighborhood context which was
developed to its fullest extent under existing regulations, including the solar access ordinance.
Wvrkshop attendees were asked to indicate the issues they felt the new home created.
Finally, the consultant learn wanted to get a better undcr:tilanding of what features of a home
participants thought could work or were compatible in their neighborhoods. A series of
photol,~raphs were given to each team and they were asked to select those photographs they felt
had compatible design elements to the home and why those elements worked. "l'he instruction
sheets for Activities ll2 and #3 are included in ~lttcechi~ient C.
1'he meeting concluded with an overview of-the wvrkshops to come and an encocn-a}?ement for
~tll 1c~ st;ty invc~lvc~l.
)I1 ~Chll'fill)Ci i ` III' 1lI~;C Ilc'L';hh~~l~l~~~~~1 :If~'a `.b'~~;"E;~;h~~~~ V`,';I: i~llllllj~'.i~li. 1~ I~~f:l~ i~l + 1111ll11~tS
~>f the public signed in for the Central Area ncighborhovd meeting. Un September 17, the North
('antral Area neighborhood meeting was held and 29 participants were present. "I'he agenda for
the neighborhood workshops is included in flttach~~rent U.
fhe overall scope of the neighborhood workshops is sirnrlar to the kick-off event, however the
intent is to try and hone in more closely on specific neighborhood types. Through learn activities,
participants are asked to address design context and potential new construction through a
computer modeled neighborhood. `hhey were given aerial maps of their particular neighborhood
to allow them to spend time discussing the specific issues that are impacting them directly.
Participants were very active; asking questions, interactinY with their fellow neighbors, and
tir~ivi~litrf~ insi~rhlllil f~~ciilt.tck ft~ cify s1.~('f~riil~l the c~~~n.~ul(,ul! leant.
Nl?V'I' S'I'l~:PS:
"!'here are two additional neighborhood workshops to complete as part of I'11asc I : [define the
Question. These include North Boulder/Gunbarrel area and South Boulder and we will report on
these workshops al the Planning Board electing. We are also planning the llrst pl-ocess
SUbCOITlmlttet; 111CCt111~; in early October. [merest groups arc being assembled by RRC Associates,
a subconsultant to Winter and Company, and are expected to convene within the next month.
Two groups often people with diverse opinions and backgrounds will be assembled to address
the issue of compatible development. finally, a visual survey is being developed that will be
distributed to all of the potentially affected property owners within the study area. The survey
will include three-dimensional computer nu)dels of alternative regulatory options that would
aCfCCt n"lass and SCaIC. I lie; a[Thelpated 111allln~, for the surveys is early to raid-October.
Approved By:
'~J ~~w~ ~ Vii(
Ruth Mclleyser, Actin; 171rcctor
Planning & Devcloprnent Services
A: Scptcnlhcr 10 Conlnlunity Workshop Agenda
Activity lit - Indivrdual Worksheet
c Activity r`t? and #3 [nstnlctions
.n~l°rnc~in~t~N~r ~
Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods
t, t
- A' ~ hil~~,1. G~rT--1~ i.~~. : ~ -.;r 111iIIT. .t - - Ala ~ I i`...-.-.^- ~ -
_r~-
Community Workshop Agenda
September 10, 2008
West Senior Center -909 Arapahoe Avenue
6:30 - 6:40 Introduction
- <<~~ ~ ,r'J;:- Macon Cowles -City Council
~ ~ Ruth McHeyser -Planning Director
- - ,t.
_ -City staff and consultant tc<~m introduction
s 4 -Project introducaion and backcfround
- , 6:40 - 7:15 Presentation
` ~ Nore Winter and Abe Barge -Winter & Company
A ' ~ - ~ ~ -Project scope and schedule
t r
t ~ `~n = ~ ; ~ -Defining neighborhood character
,r~ . -Overview of existing regulations
> ~
-Redevelopment trends
-Potential Tools
f L
~~h.u~ Y,~st 4k~`; 7:15 - 7:30 Activity 1: Problem Definition and
~ ~ ,s r Potential Issues
_
~ v ~ ?f
f
-Introduction and workshop activity
~7 ~~r~
` _ :30-7:55
r~-~<<-~~ ~ } 7 Activity 2: Defining Different Contexts
Qt{~V'',`~.~ ~ -Introduction, learn activity and reporting
~~t~ ~ z~. ~ 7:55 - 8:30 Activity 3: Analyzing Potential
i~ ~ a
7.;=, New Construction
,
Introduction, tcari ~rctivity ~~nd retx>rGng
ice. ~ 's~s!
t M~~y ~ ~ ~ . ~ 8:30 Wrap-Up
~ f3v23 rQ~z. ~J ,
~ r-:~~~h ~{fib\Yri
L V ~ -:!r ~ k~ -
.f Upcoming Neighborhood Workshops
y this crrmnrunity workshop will be followed by a series of smaller neighborhood area
workshops to discuss redevelopment trends, regulations and potential issues in
J~z~'` Treater detail. Please visit the project Web site at www.boulderplandevelop.net and
,LNG`, , rr; ,.C wick on "t lot Iopres" to learn more. To subscribe to the project e-mail list, go to the
l,rr~~cr;t W~•h <<nd click r~n'~Subscrih~~ .v ni:ia li:.t" to rrccivc ur~a;a;cd information
Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods
Community Workshop #1
September 10, 2008
Activity #1 -Individual Worksheet
At this early stage in the Compatible Development in Single f-amity Neighborhoods Project, we seek to
gain an understanding of your opinions about the basic direction the project should take. In this first activity,
please express your opinions about the need for the project, the issues that are of greatest car~cern to you
and the potential actions that should br. considered. Please answer the questions below, and leave your
response in the box indicated near the entrance to the room when you leave the meeting. All responses
' will be tabulated. l~hank you!
1. Problem Definition from City Council:
In April, ?_008, the Boulder City Courica <jdopted the following Problem Definition:
"To address trre impact on existing established neighborhoods of new construction and additions tfrat
are incompatible in scale and bulk with the character of the neiyhborl rood. The impacts to be considered
ir?clude without limitatia~: consideration of size, open space, massing and bulk planes, loss of space
between houses, privacy, view sheds, lot coverage, blank walls, setbacks, height and the streelscape
<rnd visual character. "
Question 1.1:
F 1c~w do you feel abou# the Problem I>crlinition presented above?
I :strongly Agree_ _ I Agrce_ I am Neutral I Disagree__ (Strongly Disagree _
`'1~f lv'~~ - -
Question 1.2:
In itr~~i~~r,rl ter~T~s, i( yogi woi_il~l ~nr~rirfV tfir~ f'r~rhl~~n I)cfinition, ~wh<rf ~rdcriil~i y~_ru ~~,~ry'?
2. Key Issues:
Question 2.1:
In your opinion, what are the three biggest issues that sho;ild be addressed in this project?
B. - - - - - - -
C.
3. Preliminary Action Ideas:
Question 3.1:
While it is very early in the process, please give your suggestions about any actions that should be
considered
B.
C. - - -
4. More Information and Suggestions:
Question 4.1:
ns the project proceeds, what information do you believe will be helpful in making informed decisions
about potential actions?
A. - - - - -
a- - - - -
C. - - - - -
Question 4.2:
I)o you have any other suggestions for this project?
Question 4.3:
In wf~ich part of the city do you livr~? _
AT'L'AC;I[MI?N7' C
Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods
Community Workshop #1
September 10, 2008
Activity #2 -Team Worksheet Instructions
Defining Different Contexts in Single-family Areas
Foulder's single-family residential areas share many features. Some areas do, howrver, differ significantly
from each other. Those areas with similar features may be considered as distinct design "contexts." In
some contexts, streets are straight, and are arranged in a grid pattern. Residential lots in these areas may
have uniform setbacks and share design features such as a consistent building scale- In other contexts,
streets may be curving with differently shaped lots and buildings aligning in an arc. sloping hillsides, views
and the presence or lack of alleys may also be distinguishing features of a design context.
Existing design contexts are important to recognize because they may affect the way in which buildings
are perceived as well as the potential compatibility of new development. In this activity, we seek to identify
some of thr, bask design contexts that exist in Boulder's single-family residential areas. Some of the
variables that may define a context include:
Framework Features
~111eys (present, or not)
Topography (relatively flat, or steep)
`street trees (common, or not)
`sidewalks (attached to curb, detached from curb, or not present)
Site Features
I rout yard; (typical depth, varied or uniform)
Hack yards (typical depth, varied or uniform)
f ;wilding orientation (facing the street, or not)
Building setbacks (typical depth, varied or uniform)
f'~rking location (in front, set back and accessed from street, on alley)
Driveways (common, or not)
Building Features
13uildiny heights (consistent or varied)
Building bans {similar or varied)
13;,ildiny mass & scale (sirr,ilar or varied)
I iuildiny features (porches, entries, dormers, materials)
Task 1: Mapping Contexts
Working as a team, discuss how a range of physical characteristics may define a particular design context
f..r some st~I~xaed arf~as of thr, city. Identify at Ier,sf three (3) different design contexts, rind mark examples
~,f Ih~~m an fl~~~ rr~~,,~
Task 2: Describing tine Contexts
Iclc~ntify at Ict,st three features that define eacf~~ context that your team has marked, and describe them.
Use the Post-It sheets provided at the table io record them, and place them on the map. Consider the
hr~ •cedinq list of de ;iron vari;_thlr?~ to helf~ you in descrihinrt the lccy features.
r I
Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods
Community Workshop #1
September 10, 2008
Activity #3 -Team Worksheet Instructions
Identifying Key Features, Issues and Compatible Design Elements
Development in l3oulder'sstngle-family residential areas is shaped by a number c~i factors including existing
context and current regulations. Existing context may constrain development in certain ways or may
influence its perceived compatibility. Current regulations define a "budding envelope" that further constrains
development. [3oth existing context and current regulations influence the character of development that
may occur in Eoulder's single family residential areas.
In this activity, we seek to gain an initial understanding of the effects of current regulations and development
trends and also to identity some of the features of new buildings that may be compatible with existing
context. On the I-eam Worksheet, a typical half-block area within one type of design context is illustrated
in a number of different views. The building models in the illustration represent two conditions: Typical
existing context and "permitted development."
nlthough they do often influence the compatibility of development, trees and landscaping are not included
in the illustrations at this early stage of the project. As this project continues, a number of additional design
rx~nlexts will be studied and illustrated in workshop materials.
Part 1: Identifying Features and Issues Related to Context
~3 tu,~r1~, ans~~~~cr th~~ fallen^nng questions on the Team Worksheet:
A. Existing Conditions
f xisting features tl~iat contribute to the character of Boulder's residential design context and neighborhoods
rrriy include building height, open space patterns and the perceived mass of buildings as viewed from the
~;treet or neighboring properties. Discuss the existing conditions illustrations on the team worksheet. Then,
i~?~~ntify three (3) key features of the context that should be considered for new development.
B. Permitted Buildings
c-;crrrent regulations such as setbacks, height Irrnits and solaraccess requirementsdefine a three dimensional
"knrilding envelope" that limits where development may occur. This envelope is shown as a transparent
iiubblc on two selected lots in the illustrations below. Development that would be permitted by current
ri~qulations is shown within the transparent building envelopes. Discuss the permitted development
illustrations on the learn worksheet and identify Three (3) potential issues
Part 2. Identifying Compatible Elements
~Nhat are some of the design elements that can lxap achieve compatibility with the established context?As
a team, discuss the set of photographs in the provided handout and identify design features that would be
.:c>mpatible with the context illustrated above. Then, select six (6) images that have some positive features
which could contribute to compatibility and paste ahem below wish captions to explain their selection. (Note
that there may be some aspects of an image that may not be considered to be appropriate -focus on
those elr~ments that ~:ould he compatihlc~)
Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods
~~L ` - ` ~~~~,#a~ks : ' ~r}y,~~Y~' - . tt ~ , t_ t*ya~a.,. ~ . • T ~ Ir
Neighborhood Area
Workshop Agenda
6:30 - 6:35 Introduction
-City staff and consultant team introduction
i , -Project introduction arrd background
t
6:35 - 6:50 Presentation
' -~r
Abe Barge -Winter & Company
i -
~ h Y ~ ~ -Project scope and schedule;
` . r -Community Workshop lit briefing
~ -Defining neighborhood character
' f~~'1 ~ Y -Overview of existing regulations
I y S y.~ '',,a
i S Redevelopment trends
~~x~ ° ~ ni~,~.'h ~ - Potenllal tOOIS
1 t 'ir ~ •rit ~ {
F y ,
~ ' 6:50 - 7:20 Activity 1: Defining Different Contexts
~ ~ r ~rye~,~-a r~ ~ within the Neighborhood Area
~ ~ 1 I y~~T~ ~R~~
~ ~~~'t- ti: ~ ~ _ InSirUCtIUnS and learn aCtlVlty
- Team reporting
~~Y~p 7:20 - 8:00 Activity 2: Review of Current
a ~ ~;<Y<< ~ Regulations and Potential New
Construction in the Neighborhood Area
.,t;r.
a Instructions and team activity
- Perim rei~ortinct
.~~y 8:00 Wrap-Up
~J¢ ~-yJq~a
Upcoming Visual Survey
~3.,,r~~ ~ ~'y In Octc~her, a visual survey wilt be sent to all property owners of record in the project
Y _ f `z:
~ ~tirr~ hs~s;~,~ area to ,oiu;it Ieedback on potential developrnenl alternatives. Please visit the project
wob site al www.boulderplandevelop.netnnd click on "I lot Topics" to learn more;. to
: `S;;~Fs ~ ~ s * ~ subscribo to the project e-mail list, go to the project Web site and click on "Subscribe
` + s to e rna~l list" to rc:~ccive updatea rnforrn;rtu>n.
~_..t~..._~r_._.._ .ti_...__....,