The URL can be used to link to this page

Information Item: Update on Compatible Development in Single Family Neighborhoods WEEKLY INFORIVIATION PACKET MEMORAiVDUM To: Mayor McGrath and City Council From: Ruth McHeyser, Executive Director of Community Planning Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Julie Johnston, Senior Planner Date: December 11, 2008 Subject: Information Item:~Update on Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods EXECU'T'IVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide City Council with an update on the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project, including: 1. "Framin tg he Question" report -Included in Attachment A is the "Framing the Question" report prepared by Winter and Company. The report refines the problem definition which was adopted by city council at the beginning of the project. It is informed by the community uiput received to date and the analysis completed by the consulting firm. This report is an interim step and the background support to the strategy report, which will be posted to the project Website (www.boulderptandcvelop.net) this month. 2. Summary of Public Input -The following outreach activities have been completed ~as part of "Step L• Define the Problem;" • Workshops held in September (summary included in Attachment C) • Interest group meetings conducted in October (summary included in Attachment D) • Results of the survey mailed to all single-family homeowners within the project area (summary included in Attachment E). 3. Next Steps -The next steps in the project will include the strategy report and additional community outreach. 'The strategy report will recommend options for regulatory changes. On January 12, Winter and Company will present the strategy paper at a televised public event held in council chambers. The economic paper will also be presented and a peer panel of professionals from other municipalities will discuss their experiences with this topic. Following the January 12 event, community workshops will be held to solicit public feedback. The input received during these public events will be pivotal to Winter and Company's final recommended strategies. 1 At the conclusion of the public involvement, Planning Board and City Council will hold a joint study session on February 24 to discuss the recommended strategies. Following the study session, the Planning Board will make a recommendation to City Council and then Council will provide direction to staff to guide the creation of regulatory tools- The Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project includes four phases, which are as follows: • Phase 1: Frame the Question (August 2008 -December 2008) -analysis of project area and community outreach to better dune the problem; • Phase 2: Develop a Strategy (December 2008 -March 2009) -supported by Phase 1, ~a strategy paper that includes recommendations for how the city should respond to the problem and community outreach to solicit support; • Phase 3: Produce the Tools (March 2009 -May 2009) -development of regulatory tools; and, • Phase 4: Implement the Tools (May 2009 -June 2009) the public hearing process for adoption. As part of Phase 1: Frame the Question, the consultant team, with input from city staff, developed a public process to ensure broad input from residents and stakeholders in Boulder. The community outreach activities have been completed and the "Framing the Question" report is provided in this packet completing the work product for Phase 1. Phase 2: Develop a Strategy begins with the strategy paper which will be posted to the project -Website by December 22. FISCAL IMPACT: The project has a budget of $132,000. The contract with Winter and Company is for $112,000. The cost for the survey mailing and tabulation was $12,000 and $8,000 has been budgeted to cover the community outreach meetings, advertisements, and miscellaneous expenses incurred for this project. These funds are included in the Planning and Development Services 2008 budget. In addition, staff time is included in the department's 2008 and 2009 work plan. COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS: • Economic: As part of the consultant work, the broad economic impacts of any potential regulatory changes will be evaluated. • Environmental: Very large new homes and the demolition of existing homes results in loss of resources embedded in the existing home, demolition waste, and in general, larger homes use more energy than smaller homes. 2 • Social: Large homes and additions that are out of scale with existing neighborhoods can negatively affect neighborhood liveability. The replacement of relatively affordable homes by very expensive homes reduces social and economic diversity in the community. BACKGROUND: City Council identified this issue as a high priority at its January 2008 retreat. This issue was discussed at the joint Planning Board/ City Council Study Session on March 13, and at its March 18 meeting, City Council requested input from the Landmarks Board and the Planning Board on an interim ordinance. At its April 15 meetuig, Council decided: • Not to move forward with an interim ordinance; • Have staff move forward expeditiously to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services and select a consultant; • To appoint a Request for Proposals (IZFP) subcommittee composed of two members each of City Council, Planning Board, and Landmarks Board; and • To approve a problem definition, project goal and objectives, and public process objectives. Following the April 15 City Council meeting, an RFP for consulting services was issued and three firms were interviewed by the RFP subcommittee and staff on 3une 27. The R1~P subcommittee completed its work with the selection of the consultant, Winter and Company who was hired in July 2008. The Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project has been proceeding steadily since August 2008. The community outreach process to date has included akick-off event and four neighborhood workshops in September, two interest group meetings in October, and aproject-wide single-family survey mailed to over 12,000 property owners. Winter and Company has completed their investigation of the project area, as well as their examination of the issues raised under city council's problem definition. These issues center on overall house size, loss of green space, massing and bulk planes, loss of space between houses, privacy, view sheds, lot coverage, blank walls, setbacks, height, streetscape, and visual character. Their analysis culminates with two documents. The "Framing the Question" report, which is included in this packet, provides the foundation for the Forthcoming strategy report and marks the end of Phase 1 of the project. Both documents are informed by the conclusions drawn from the community outreach efforts. 3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT Community Workshops To begin the project, acommunity-wide kick-off event was held on September 10 at the West Senior Center. Over 80 people were in attendance, with 82 names on the sign-in sheet. On _ September 15, the first of four neighborhood area workshops were conducted. The dates of each 'workshop and the total number of participants who signed-in are as follows: September 15 -Central Area neighborhood - 27 participants September 17 -North Central Area neighborhood - 29 participants September 22 -North and Gunbarrel neighborhood - 20 participants September 23 -South neighborhood - 25 participants A map of the neighborhood areas is available in Attachment B. Workshop participants provided a wide range of comments. However, after all of the materials from the five workshops were reviewed, Winter and Company concluded that several overall themes emerged; 1. In general, participants agreed with council's problem definition. 2. Concern was expressed that the problem definition will lead to new or revised regulations which would be burdensome. 3. Many felt that residents should be allowed to vote to determine whether there was actually a problem or whether specific regulations should be enacted. 4. There was general interest in addressing related community goats and issues like community-wide economic goals, affordable housing, environmental sustainability and neighborhood planning. S. There was concern that the problem is isolated to a few projects and that far reaching restrictions would be an inappropriate reaction. 6. Many felt that existing regulations produce unintended consequences or lead to undesirable forms. 7. There was identification of specific design issues that are currently problematic or could become problematic with the design of new construction and additions in single-family neighborhoods. The most commonly cited issues included: • Overly long, tall or blank walls (especially those built at or near a minimum side setback) 4 • Houses which are much larger than their neighbors or the surrounding context. (Participants expressed concerns with both compatibility and envirorunental sustainability) . Houses t}iat appear over-scaled or give the perception of being overly massive or bulky (regardless of actual square footage) • Loss of open space • Accessory structures that impact alley character or have privacy and compatibility impacts on neighboring properties • Loss of mature tl-ees and vegetation 8. Several participants felt that the social character of their neighborhoods and possibly the broader community is changing in undesirable ways. In some cases, participants noted design-related issues such as overly large garage doors or lack of open space that made new houses less conducive to social interaction. The full community workshop summary is available in Attachment C. Interest Group Meetings RRC Associates conducted two interest group meetings on October 22 and 23. The groups consisted of 10 to 12 diverse participants, including members front local organizations, professionals in the field ofsingle-fanuly development, and neighborhood representatives. The meetings were designed to be loosely structured discussion groups, geared toward identifying issues and potential solutions for compatible development in single-family neighborhoods. The full interest group summary results arc available in Attachment D. Each group was asked a series of five questions by Nolan Rosall of RRC to help direct discussion. The questions centered on the following topics; • Significance of the issue within the city • Compatibility of new development and individual property rights • Specific design issues that cause the greatest concern • Overall house size /square footage as a determinant of compatibility • Issues with current regulations Diverse views were expressed in both groups, but consensus emerged on a few central issues, as follows; 5 • "One size does not fit all," expressing the need for flexibility in regulations. • Desire to see regulations vary by lot or by neighborhood. • Concern with large featureless walls built at or close to side setbacks. • Concern with loss of landscaping and backyard privacy. • The unintended consequences of existing regulations, including the solar access ordinance and height measurement system While the participants expressed concerns about the impacts of incompatible development on their neighborhoods, many were also troubled with the idea of creating additional regulations and bureaucracy. A number of participants felt that only 10 - 15 percent of additions and new construction cause substantial problems for their respective neighborhoods. Compatible Development Survey On October 24, 12,044 surveys were mailed to all of the single-family homeowners within the Compatible Development project area. A total of 3,947 or 33 percent of the surveys were returned in time to be included in the statistical analysis. The full survey zesults are available in Attachment E. RRC Associates completed the data input and review of the survey results. Based on their analysis, the following patterns were discerned; • Returned surveys were dominated by owner occupied units; only six percent of the responses were returned on long-term rentals and only one percent of the returned surveys were for second homes. • Owner-occupied respondents were more concerned about the impacts related to compatible development (66 percent agreed/strongly agreed with problem definition). Those who used their properties for long-term rentals were less likely to agree with the problem definition established by city council (40 percent disagreed/stronglydlsagreed). • The older the home the stronger the homeowner felt about the impacts of compatible development. Those with homes built on or before 1950 agreed more strongly with the problem definition and the impacts raised in the problem statement. • Geographically, respondents from Central Boulder felt the issues related to compatible development were more of a concern for their area. • The most returned surveys came from the 55-64 age group (27 percent) with 45-54 years old as the second largest category of responses (26 percent). Those respondents that were 6 under 45 years of age predominately live in the South Boulder (22 percent) and Central Boulder (21 percent) areas. • The older the respondent, the more likely they were to indicate that compatible development is a significant issue. When asked whether they agreed with the problem definition, those under 35 years of age were evenly split between agree/disagree. • Of those who strongly agreed with the problem definition, a convincing percentage felt that the problem existed throughout the city and understandably, those who did not agree with the problem definition felt there was no problem. • For those who agreed with council's problem definition, most felt that either the existing zoning standards should be changed and/or some type of design and approval process should be implemented by neighborhood. If the respondent disagreed with the problem definition, they indicated that either existing regulations should be streamlined and/or that no new regulations should be created. Overall, respondents support council's problem definition and feel that the issue is city-wide. However, many indicated that the development of new housing and additions were not having as big of an influence on the character of their neighborhood. But, when asked about the impacts of new development, the survey revealed that the mass and scale of these homes reduce the privacy on their lots. This lends support to the idea that the direct impacts of new development, particularly on adjacent neighbors is stronger than the influence these new homes have on the overall character of the neighborhood. It appears that there is almost equal support for dealing with the issue of compatibility from both a city-wide and a by-neighborhood perspective. In addition, there appears to be support for regulating the size of the homes, particularly proportionate to the lot. However, size is not the whole picture. With a significant majority of respondents indicating that large houses can fit in if designed properly, other design related regulations will need to be considered. Regardless of the final recommendations, some changes to current regulations are definitely supported. The "do nothing" scenario received the lowest percentage of all possible responses. NEXT STEPS: December: • December 22 -Post strategy paper to the project Web site We have entered the second phase of the project, which is "Develop a Strategy." Winter and Company are preparing a strategy paper that will outline their recommendations for how the project should proceed. The paper will be based on all of the community outreach results received to date, as well as their professional expertise. It may include recommendations for revisions to existing regulatory tools or options for new tools to be developed. The paper will also outline how these tools should be implemented and the administrative requirements 7 to implement the strategy. The strategy paper will be available for public review after December 22 when it will be posted to the project Web site (www.boulderplandevelop.net). January: ' • January 12 - "Compatible Development Strategy Introduction" This meeting will he broken down info three parts: open house, presentations, and peer panel discussion. The open house will occur in the municipal lobby and the presentations/peer panel will take place in council chambers. The presentations/peer panel will be televised live by Channel 8. The intent of the meeting is to provide stakeholders with all of the necessary information to help them effectively participate in the community workshops. o Open House - 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Participants will be provided an opportunity to review the materials to.be presented. that evening; strategy paper and economic paper. In addition, information collected to date will also be available to the public and will include the workshop summary, interest group summary, and survey results. Winter and Company, as well as staff will be available for questions. o Presentations - 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Nore Winter will present the draft strategy paper, including the project objectives; purpose of the draft strategy; the pros/cons of each strategy; overview of their recommendations; the relationship between their recommendations and the project objectives; and, the next steps for implementing the strategies. The economics consultant will also give a presentation on the general economic implications as well as some case studies of other communities. o Peer Panel Discussion - 7:00 p.m. to B:OU p.m. The peer panel will include professionals from hvo or three different municipalities that have already dealt, in some way, with this issue. They will give an overview of their experiences, outlining what worked and did not work in theix respective communities. At the conclusion of their presentation, the panel will take questions from the audience. The question/answer phase of the event will be managed by a neutral moderator. • January 14 and 15 - "Coinpatiblc Development Strategy Workshop" These workshops will also be broken down into three parts; open house, presentation, and small group breakout sessions. The January 14 meeting will take place at Boulder High School and the January 15 meeting will be held at the West Senior Center. We will be requesting participants to RSVP for the workshops to ensure enough staff is available to facilitate the small group interaction. 8 o Open House - 5:30 p.m. to b:UO p.m.; The open house will focus on providing information to participants who could not attend the January 12 presentation or who were not able to pick up the workshop materials ahead of time. Winter and Company and city staff will be available to answer questions. o Presentations - 5:00 p:m. to 6:15 p.m. City staff will provide a brief presentation on the workshop objectives, the activities to be completed, and a quick summary of the strategies to be reviewed. o Breakout sessions - 6:15 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Participants will work in small groups facilitated by city staff to provide input on the strategy paper recommendations. The desired outcome is that some consensus can be reached on a preferred set of recommendations. January 20 -Interest group meetings RRC will convene the two previously established interest groups to discuss the recommendations outlined in the strategy paper. January 26 (week) -Process subcommittee meeting Prepare for Planning Board/City Council. joint study session February: February 4 -Landmarks Board Meeting Staff will be requesting a meeting with the Landmarks Board to solicit their input on the strategy paper. February 24 -Planning Board/City Council Planning Board and City Council to review and provide feedback on the strategy report, as well as all of the feedback received. The Planning Board will then make a recommendation to City Council and Council will provide direction to staff onto guide the development of the regulatory tools. ATTACHMENTS: A. Framing the Question report B. Community workshop neighborhood map C. Community workshop summary D. Interest group summary E. Survey results 9 Attachment A Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods ~.1,,}~ ..y a •:5~-= '.mot 'la'-~ Fram i n the Question . J ~ . _4 Preliminary Working Report December 10, 2008 `f . ~ TheCompatibleDevelopmentinSingle-Family Neighborhoods project y'~' was initiated by the Boulder City Council in response to concerns with potential impacts of additions and new construction in the city's established residential neighborhoods. ' The project will be conducted in four steps. The first step, which began in September 2008, was intended to frame the question. It 'j ~ was guided by an initial problem definition adopted by City Council. ` ~ Public feedback on the initial problem definition has helped to more i~ ~ i~C • clearly define the issues that the community seeks to address. These issues provide the foundation for a refined problem statement that will direct a recommended strategy to promote compatible development in single-family neighborhoods. ,a' ` This report provides a general summary of the first step in the Compatible Development inSingle-Family Neighborhoods project and ' ~ presents the refined problem statement. The next step will include 1:~T,, - a recommended strategy to address the problem statement. In the , ~ _ third step, specific regulatory tools will be developed to promote the f~,'>~,.,.s recommended strategy. Implementation of the tools will be the final step in the project. Members ofthe community will have an opportunity to participate and provide feedback during each step. The problem statement and recommendations herein are based on a review of the current zoning code, existing neighborhood characteristics and public feedback. Community outreach included a series of public workshops and interest groups as well as a survey mailed to all single-family property owners within the project area. Comments received will inform the recommended strategy. A strategy report will describe a range of general options and specific regulatory changes related to the refined problem statement with • - the end of promoting compatible development in single-family ' ' ' neighborhoods. Framing the Question Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Project Area The project area includes single-family detached homes the following residential zoning districts: • Residential Estate (RE) • Residential Low Density 1 (RL-1) • Residential Low Density 2 (RL-2} not including Planned Unit Developments • Residential Mixed Density 1 (RMX-1 }not including multi-family development • Residential Rural 1 (RR-1 } • Residential Rural 2 (RR-2) Lookout Rd C~V r ee Hill Dr Yarmouth A~ ~ ~i ° Jay Rd ~s - as°c _ al ~PiL1r ioai~l~n ~1 J i~arioo®~ ~a ~ •Iris n~ sN ~~~c ut, ~ ~ ~L `;~~~~n~~r ~ ~~~®iI~Q~~I~ ~i t S Valmont Rd t1~~1~~~G~~ Gb~~~~ltalasF ~~.l~or cGl1i1F7~ tIt'1 ' ~F~YBIA~p.~+° :17[7[3 ! ~ t:=' ~:v'13~~~ Bai,am Av - p°ri ~ry sa a~ 1°tt oaRtjv,= o..• ~ Qe rIFP:C ~'~~~;,~r`~~rf, ~ o ~ comn e5l • r° M aor.~ gptuc i ~~~''•r ~dlt~utst• v v,r.,a Canyon ~ ~ Arapahoo Av r l:IIF~~[ ,m •:?~rnrr- R dy rr ~ 'Colorado Av A I 91I~f~~,~~ ~~y9s[a ,y o,,;,,;;:;; r [3asel~r:e Rd ~gnmr9~c~e;r`~ 1 i~ ~ dgee~cc._ ~c-_ y, e~ LIP r~ l~d~~scira~-gym ~ F[f Ci ~ ~~~~~f~~~~ y-y~~~ d1 r _ ~ _~~~rl ~ ~ ~l e pia ~ ~ . Soulh Boulder Rd Ta6;~-~ I:;esa Dr f ~~ukg~~~~c-~~.~,~~ ~ Legend r ~ ~ Single family detached ~ -~~O'O~g: Graen~'~ V properties in study ~ ~ December 10, 2008 I~ Part 1: Summary of Existing , kt~ ~ ~3 ~ r .F' ~L`L , 1 `~`y`~`~ ' Conditions i 1~ x'Ewl. Y- I` I ~ 'tom"r~~~~~~~~~"'~,.,,,.."" ` Existing conditions in the city's single-family neighborhoods include _ both physical and regulatory characteristics as well as current l~~ ' ~ development trends. These conditions help shape development and .t -~,,,,y,~ may influence its perceived compatibility. They provide important i ~ ~ ~ i ~ background for the refined problem statement described in Part 2 ~ ' ~ i:l ~ ~ and the forthcoming recommended strategy report. ; ~ - " Existing Neighborhood Features x ; - ~ Both qualitative and quantitative features define the city's existing single-family neighborhoods. Members of the community identified ~ ~ ~ a number of mostly qualitative features that help to define their neighborhoods. Extensive quantitative or statistical information on ~ ~ existing conditions is archived in the city's Geographic Information r,.,. System (GIS). Additional statistical information is available from the - - ~ _ r_ ~ Boulder County Assessor. - - - Community Identified Neighborhood Features As part of the project's public outreach process, members of the Existing conditions in Boulders di- community helped to identify and describe features of different verserangeofsingle-famityneighbor- neighborhoods and areas throughout the city. These features include hoods may influence the perceived quiet streets, a sense of stability and a sense of consistency or compatibility of new development, diversity in the built environment. Commonly identified features are summarized below. Areas with Different Street Patterns, Topography or other Framework Features Participants identified features such as wide curving streets in Table Mesa, long north-south blocks with east-west lot orientations in Old North Boulder, narrow gridded streets with alleys in Mapleton Hill and consistent lot sizes in University Hill. Participants also noted that sloping topography and varied tot shapes are features of some parts of Table Mesa, University Hill, Mapleton Hill and Newlands. December 10, 2008 J ~ Part 1: Existing Conditions Framing the Question ~~;1~~~ - r ~ Areas with Different Site Features ;fit, r, - r, Y~ ~ Participants identified a number of site features that help to define ° different neighborhoods such as consistent front yard setbacks in . .1 " alley accessed parking in Mapleton ~ ~~i Newlands and Old North Boulder, ~ Hill and Newlands, and front or side yard parking areas in Martin Acres ,Z~ _ and Old North Boulder: Partici ants fre uentt noted landsca e and _ p q Y p s open space patterns such as mature trees and landscaping in Mapleton ? • Hill, large backyards in Old North Boulder, modest landscaping in '?f- ~ Newlands and diverse landscaping in Table Mesa. Areas with Different Building Features ~ Participants identified building heigh#, diversity or consistency of _ building size and style as wel! as presence or lack of additions and _ ~ new construction as being among the defining building features of different neighborhoods. Some participants noted defining features - - ~ ~ such asdiverse, mostiyone-story building forms in Old North Boulder, , sw.. a high number of additions in Mapleton Hill, unique custom homes in - ~ Table Mesa, uniform architecture ofone tonne-and-a-half (split-level) !`"~'J''_'~-' ' _ ~I`: . • ~ homes in Martin Acres and a mix of old and new houses, remodels ~ • ~ and infill in University Hill. ptti.~~ ~ Statistics on Neighborhood Features I i - - _ The city's G IS database and County Assessor's records may be used As parfoftheproject'spubiicoutreach to identify existing features such as lot sizes, open space patterns, process, members of the community building floor areas and setbacks. The Existing Regulations section helped to identify and describe both beginning on page 5 includes lot size summaries for each of the qualitative and quantitative features zoning districts in the project area. The table on page 12 provides ofdifferentneighborhoodsandareas additional statistical summary information on existing building sizes throughout the city. and building size trends. ' x ~ , f ~ ~ ~ • 1. ~ ~ ' - d ~ ,l i _ a Workshop participants used maps to identify artd list characteristics that helped to identify different neighborhoods, areas or contexts in the city's single-family neighborhoods. 3 December 10, 2008 Framing the Question Part 1: Existing Conditions Existing Regulations ° ~ The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan establishes general land ~ use policies for the city and surrounding (primarily rural) land within = ; the count .The zonin code establishes the basic use and dimen- Y 9 sional requirements for additions and new construction in single- ~ ~ ti ~J ~ \\;~j~~ famil nei hborhoods. Locally designated historic districts such as ,j Y g Mapleton Hill are also subject to the requirements of the city shis- r ~ , ~ toric preservation ordinance.\,; ~ Zoning Districts ~ ~ The zoning districts that apply within the project area are briefly ~ ~ / described below and summarized in the table on page 10. Because ~ , the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods proj- ~ ect has been defined to include only single-family properties, spe- ~ ' cific land use and density standards are not described. Current regulations define a three dimensionai building envelope on Residential -Rural 1 (RR-1) each lot. The new construction This zoning district applies primarily to areas that are near the edg- shown above illustrates what could es of the city, including several areas north of Iris Avenue and some be buiit within the building envelope on two sample lots in the RL-1 zon- areas within southeast Boulder. The district's 30,000 SF minimum ing district. lot size is intended to help maintain a rural character. The district's _ dimensional standards are similar to the RR-2 district, but the side (~J(~}1T1 fi'" Rf~;t setback standard is greater. ~ ~i E.~iit 8~ F2E° Residential -Rural 2 (RR-2) ~ Like the RR-1 district, this zoning district applies mostly to areas ~{~~1(j~l~~ that are near the ed es of the cit includin some areas north of `LL'~E.'~!,; ~ Iris Avenue. The district's 30,000 SF minimum lot size is intended ~ `~;~~~'~IC~1~~~'~~~'~'' to help maintain a rural character. The district's dimensional stan- r, ~ In E ~ ~~r _'I,R_ii][IIIiTI' Bards are similar to the RR-1 district but the side setback standard f, ~'`'-!~~[7~~m1111 d '[!i~ J ii,1~Tj ~~~F'~7~' ~ i is tower. ~19ii1~~~__-_~ ,,_~r,~f~~~~.:,~ R~-z %~;~t Just over 55% of lots in the RR-1 and RR-2 districts do not meet the Avarietyofexistingresidentialzoning existing 30,000 SF minimum lot size standard. Nearly 5% of lots are districts apply in some parts ofNorth 10,000 SF or less. Boulder. December 10, 2008 ly Part 1: Existing Conditions Framing the Question Residential -Estate {RE) This zoning dis#rict applies to portions of neighborhoods through- out the city including areas within north Boulder, southeast Boulder and central Boulder (near Chautauqua). The district's 15,000 SF minimum lat size is intended to help maintain a rural character. Its dimensional standards are similar to the RR-1 district, but has a reduced side setback standard. Nearly 60% of lots in the RE district do not meet the existing 15,000 SF minimum lot size standard. About 50% of lots are between 10,000 and 15,000 SF. Residential -Low 1 (RL-1) This zoning district applies to a diverse array of neighborhoods throughout the project area from Newlands to Martin Acres and por- tions of Table Mesa and Gunbarrel. The district applies to the ma- jority of single-family homes in the city. It is the only single-family residential district with an existing floor area ratio (FAR) regulation (The ratio of built floor area to the size of the lot. A one story build- ing covering an entire lot or a two story building covering half of a lot would both have an FAR of 1.0). . Lot Size Distrubution 4000 - 3500 - i 3000 - 2500 _ I 2000. - - i 1500 - 1000 - - - 500 ~ _ _ . - - - 0 - - <6000 6000.7000.7000-800016000-9000 9000- 10000- i 11000- >12000 ' 10000 i 11000 12000 , ~T°tdl' 153 1831 - 3404- 1236 702 403 310 I 1026 I The table above provides a snapshot of existing lot sizes in the RL-1 zon- ing district. Just over 50% of existing lots are between 7,000 and 9,000 SF. Nearly 22% of lots do not meet the existing minimum lot size standard of 7, 000 SF. December 10, 2008 r~ Framing the question Part 1: Existing Conditions Residential -Low 2 (RL-2) This zoning district applies to portions of neighborhoods through- out the city including several areas north of Iris Avenue and signifi- cant areas within Table Mesa, Southeast Boulder and Gunbarrel. A 6,000 SF open space requirement per dwelling unit differentiates RL-2 from other zone districts in the project area. Many areas that are zoned RL-2 are part of master planned devel- opments with specific development agreements that often include restrictive dimensional standards for additions and new construc- tion. Only existing single-family properties and those RL-2 zoned areas that are not subject to specific development agreements are included in the project area for the Compatible Development in Sin- gle-Family Neighborhoods project. lot Size Distribution 800 - - -I 700 600 - - - - 500 - - i 400 - - 300 - - - - 200 - - - - 100 - - 0 <600D 6000-7000 7000-8000 8000-9000 9000- 10000- 11000- >12000 10000 11000 12000 ~Total~--- 656 310 ~ 718 628 - ~ 38D 218 118 ~ 350 . The table above provides a snapshot of existing lot sizes in the RL-2 zoning district. About 40% of existing lots are between 7,000 and 9,000 SF while close to 20% are less than 6,000 SF December 10, 2008 ~ fa Part 1: Existing Conditions Framing the Gluestion Residential -Mixed 1 (RMX-1) This zoning district applies to certain residential areas surrounding downtown Boulder, including parts of Mapleton Hill and Whittier. The district recognizes an existing mix of densities including multi- family development while protecting existing single-family proper- ties. Some limited commercial uses may be permitted through use review. The minimum lot size is 6,000 SF. This project will address only existing single-family properties in the RMX-1 district. Lot Size Distribution 60 70 60 50 i 40 30 20 10 0 - 3000- 4000- 5000- 6000- 7000- 8000- 9000- 11000- <3000 >12000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 12000 (Totail 42 - 86- ~ 27 13 - 29 33 ~ 6 8 _ 1 4 1 The table above provides a snapshot of existing lot sizes in the RMX zoning district. Nearly 68% of existing lots are less than 6,000 SF. December 10, 2008 I~ Framing the Question Part 1: Existing Conditions Solar Access Regulations The city's existing solar access regulations (solar ordinance) limit the amount of shadow that a building can cast on a neighboring property. In the RR-1, RR-2, RE and RL-1 districts, the ordinance is designed to protect solar access principally for south yards, south walls, and rooftops. In the RL-2 and RMX-1 districts, the ordinance is designed to protect solar access principally for rooftops. 111 r~ Northern property 1 1~ line Southern ro ert - line ~ ' jj .i - The city's existing solaraccess regulations (solarordinance)limit fheamount ofshadow thata building can cast on a neighboring property. This may reduce permitted building height on the northern side of tots. December 10, 2008 Part 1: Existing Conditions Framing the Gluestion Summary of Existing Dimensional Standards by Zane District zone District: RR-1 RR-2 RE RL-1 RL-2 RMX-1 LOT DIMENSIONS Min. Zone Lot size 30,000 SF 30,000 SF 15,000 SF 7,000 SF - 6,000 SF OPEN SPACE Min. Open Space per Dwelling Unit - - - - 6,000 SF 600 SF INTENSITY Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)2 - I - - 0.80 - - Max. Lot Coverage for Accessory Structures' 500 SF I 500 SF 500 SF 500 SF 500 SF 500 SF SETBACKS (Primary Structure) Min. Front Setback3 25' 25' 25' 25' 20' 25' Min. Side Setback 15' 10' 10' S' 5'4 5' Min. Rear Setbacks 25' 25' 25' 25' 20' 25' Min. Combined Side Setback Total - - - 15' - - SETBACKS (Accessory Structure) Min. Front Setback 55' S5' S5' 55' S5' S5' Min. Side Setback 15' 15' 15' 10' 0' or 3' 10' Min. Rear Setbacks 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' 3' Min. Separation Between Primary and Accessory 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' SETBACKS (Parking Areas) Min. Front Setback for Covered/Uncovered Parking 25' 25' 25' 25' 20' 25' HEIGHT (Primary Structure) Max. Height' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' Max. Stories 3 3 3 3 NA 3 HEIGHT (Accessory Structure) Max. Height 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Indicates no requirement or that a requirement is not applicable 'Foraccessory structures located within the required rearyard setbackforthe primarystructurewith exceptions permitted in historic districts. Maximum lot coverage for accessory structures IoGated on any part of the lot may not exceed the lot coverage of the primary structure. ZThe ratio of built floor area to the size of the lot (a one story building covering an entire lot or a two story building covering half of a lot would both have an FAR of i.0). FAR includes basements where more than 50% of the perimeter walls are greater thap 2' above adjacent grade. If less than 50% of the perimeter walls are greater than 2' above grade, 50% of basement floor area is counted towards FAR. If all perimeter walls are 2' or less above grade, no basement floor area is counted towards FAR. 3May be reduced if more than 50% of existing structures on the block/street face do not beet the required front setback °Or 1' per 2' building height, whichever is more restrictive sWhere a rear yard is adjacent to a street, the minimum rear setback is equal to the minimum front setback 6May be reduced to 0' with common maintenance agreement. Note that a maximum 12' wall height applies at a minimum rear setback of less than 3' 'As measured from the top of the roof to the lowest point on the natural grade within 25' of the lowest exposed point on the building (for lots with less than a 20 degree slope) -Note that height standards vary for non-conforming lots. December 10, 2008 19 I Framing the Question Part 1: Existing Conditions Current Trends After years of relative stability, many established residential neigh- borhoods across the country have been experiencing significant changes. Within the last fifteen years, residents began to notice changes in the character of their neighborhoods. In some cases, these changes were seen as exciting opportunities. In other cases, residents worried that inappropriate changes could ruin the charac- ter of their neighborhood. Changes such as increased house size and height of additions and new construction in established residential neighborhoods reflect current market conditions in which established neighborhoods are becoming more desirable places to live. Many buyers are seeking to maximize the square footage of their homes to justify high purchase prices and add amenities found in new construction. The resulting wave of infill housing, home expansion and renovation is contribut- ing to a shift in the character of some neighborhoods. Cities such as Boulder have experienced rising demand for hous- ing and an increased pace of change. The pressure for change has been particularly acute in neighborhoods near existing amenities such as downtown or the foothills. A review of building permit activ- ity indicates a trend towards higher building square footages and floor area ratios in most zone districts within the project area. Although E3oulder's market remains strong by comparison with the national residential rea( estate market, current economic conditions may slow the trend towards larger homes in established residen- tial neighborhoods. Once the real estate market begins to improve, however, the pace of change is likely to increase once again. „C ilk ~ ~ ~ ' ~ i f ~g~'%~' ~~%i"~ lVewconstructioninmanyofBoulder's ~ single-family residential neighbor- ~ _ ~ ~i ~ = ~ ~ hoodsisoftenlargerfhansurrounding ~ homes. The two homes indicated at ~ _ ~ % % teftillusfrate recent trends in a central ~ / ~ ~ Boulderneighborhood. The permitted ~ ~ building envelope defined by current ~ regulations in the Rl.-1 zoning district ' is also shown. December 10, 2008 ~ ~ - Part 1: Existing Conditions Framing the Question December 10, 2008 ~ ~ Part 2: Identifying The ' .r _ Problem i ' ; ~ The community has struggled with issues related to the compatibility of t~,._~ ~ new infilldevelopment insingle-family neighborhoodsfor many years. - ~ Previous efforts to address neighborhood compatibility issues in the _ ~ _ city have generated considerable controversy. Although there have ~ ~~=~.<<t.,, been incremental changes to existing regulations, the community has ~~~~,~_~-.=~y- . not implemented a system to address neighborhood compatibility. ~ Past efforts to address potential issues have been criticized as too restrictive or as responding to a problem that does not exist or is very Compatible Development in Boulder's limited in scope. Prior to moving forward, the city has sought to more Single-Family Neighborhoods •,~Nn,,,,,°.°„~..~_,W.a..~.~~:r~°,m.,y,,..~„ clearly define the problem and evaluate the potential impact of any .a,.a,.,," ,.b ..,,~.,..~u~„•°~„~,,,,,,y•,~,~,r,,,,,,~,~„ proposed solutions. City Council adopted an initial problem a mi ion "`°'"'""""°°"~"°"~`~""'""'"°C4 that was followed by a public outreach effort to generate community ~lua, nf°m yib OMyI„PO NM1~Y M MP1 t O~YM 0~1 ill cu~1b M 4M W~ °nen~w..nee r. ro. •wwa =vr e~•nw~.a.o °.....w.....~ ,~r ~~°•°~~^°°~~-~m°~'~°~°°"~~°~°~°' feedback and refine the list of issues to be considered. This prove es M°.z,M°,.M,~°,: the foundation for a refined problem statement focusing on key issues =~=No.~°""'"'""°'""°~""`°""~""'~~~""' that will inform a set of specific recommended actions. Part 1: t.ocation , wnkA sM el a, My i. yo+r p°p~1y~ I ° ' Initial City Council Problem Definition ~n ay.M,v.•....s >d~~»~°"~' ~ In April 2008, the Boulder City Council adopted the following initial e~°~ problem definition to direct the Compatible Development in Single- Family Neighborhoods project: e.~d ~ ','::.rte - "To address the impact on existing established neighborhoods of new ~ ~ ~u construction and additions that are incompatible in scale and bulk A public outreach effort included with the character of the neighborhood. The impacts to be considered interactive community workshops include without limitation: consideration of size, green space, massing and a survey sent to all single-family and bulk planes, loss of space between houses, privacy, view sheds, property owners in the pr%ect area. lot coverage, blank walls, setbacks, height and the streetscape and Public feedback received provides visual character." the foundation fora refined problem statement that will inform a set of recommended actions. The City Council's initial problem definition provides an additional list of specific issues and considerations including: • Homes that are overly large for their lots and neighborhoods • Speculative homes that maximize square footage with limited setbacks • Loss of green space • Impacts to the visual character of neighborhoods • Loss of mature trees, backyards and sunlight • The loss of older homes representing the community's heritage • Effect of the solar ordinance on the shape of buildings City Council also adopted specific goals and objectives for any actions proposed to address the problem. These goals and objectives will be incorporated into the forthcoming recommended strategy report. December 10, 2008 a~ Part 2: Identifying the Problem Framing the question feedback Summaries Community Feedback Complete workshop, interest The first step in the Compatible Development in Single-Family group and survey summaries Neighborhoods project tested and refined the City Council's problem are available on the project definition in consultation with members of the community. This public web site. Go to: outreach effort sought to answer several questions: www.boulderplandevelo~ What is the community's response to the initial City Council and click on "Hot Topics" problem definition? • Are there additional issues to be addressed? • Which issues are most and least important? • What potential actions should be considered? • Are there related issues and concerns that need to be acknowl- edged? _ - _ f;~r.'_ The public outreach effort included five workshops with over 180 total , ..y~ participants, two interest group sessions with 21 total participants ~~,qj;~~ and a property owner survey with over 3,700 participants. Members i - ~ ~ ~ of the community also provided comments through the project web ;Tr,~~-~- site. Each of the primary components of the public outreach effort - to date are described below. Key conclusions are reflected in the refined problem statement. Community Workshops The project began with a community kick-off workshop followed by four neighborhood area workshops. Participants at each workshop _ i completed a series of interactive exercises. These activities offered Az= opportunities for individual comments and to work as teams to _ discuss important concepts and provide feedback. The information . V garnered during the workshops helped inform the contents of both 1 the community survey and the refined problem statement described 4 ~ ~ in this report. 0~ ~ i I_ , _+j , A separate Community Workshop Summary document provides - a detailed description of workshop results. Feedback provided by workshop participants is summarized below. Agreement with the Initial Problem Definition Participants ineachoftheworkshops Many participants expressed agreement with the initial problem completed a series of interactive ex- definition adopted by City Council at the outset of the project. ercises and presented the results of Participants who did not agree with the problem statement generally small group discussions. noted that it either failed to mention important issues, that potential solutions would negatively impact property owners or that there was not a problem. Concern with the Potential Impacts of New or Revised Regulations Many participants expressed concern that the initial problem definition could lead to new or revised regulations that would be burdensome to property owners or builders and limit design flexibility. December 10, 2008 ~2 I~ Framing the Question Part 2: Identifying the Probtem Concern with How Final Decisions Will Be Made ,inpatible DrvclnpmrmtinSiny{n Family Noighborhooes A number of participants felt that residents should be allowed to r~e~ynbornDOd area wo~esr,op _ vote to determine whether there was actually a problem or whether ~n~l°I°°al~^~ks"ee' -..:~u~ ~ ~ x..~.,..M..,~,,..~... specific regulations should be enacted. r vtlnY I~b.n,nnMUlu:MaWlktlr.rsNWVYw'rrfb5.nxaW c Y e~ Yveev« wn'W >mw.w~.~wn t«.1.~ rt~shbefew4t X iPV urop.v ' .+a: tlwald Interest in Addressing Related Community Goals and Issues ~ ~>°WT~~~'N.:~~°~~~~°~~~°~°°" A number of participants felt that the project had been defined only to address cosmetic or aesthetic issues and hoped that broader •-~~°°yM issues and concepts could be considered. The concerns that ;,~;,;`K°;~,:""':`"„~w '~~,.;.:.'_,..d•.~.,..•_ some artici ants wished to address included communit -wide economic goals, affordable housing, environmental sustainability -3~~"-~ ~m~,,-.,`.°~:~~titit._,n.. 9 T....-a .emuy- ,_a and neighborhood planning. Concern that the Problem is Isolated to a Few Projects - - - b¢ p.k61r_. A number of participants expressed the view that any potential problemswere related to a small numberof inappropriate projects and that far reaching restrictions would be an inappropriate reaction. - - - Identification of Specific Design Issues _ ~ Participants identified a number of specific issues that they felt were currently problematic or could become problematic with the design of new construction and additions in single-family neighborhoods. ~~..z:. The most commonly cited issues included: • Overly long, tall or blank walls near setbacks ° • Houses that are, or appear to be, much larger than their neigh- - _ bors or the surrounding context • , . • , • Loss of open space ' - • Accessory structures that impact alley character or have privacy . _ ~ - and compatibility impacts on neighboring properties • Loss of mature trees and vegetation - - - - - - - - - - Concern That Existing Regulations May Produce Unintended workshop participants provided Consequences or Lead to Undesirable Forms feedback using both an individual Some participants cited specific issues or concerns with potential worksheet and poster-size group unintended consequences relating to existing regulationsorprocesses, worksheets. such as solar access regulations or the process for calculating height on sloping lots. Concern with Changes to the Social Character of Neighborhoods and the Community Sorne participants feltthat the social character of their neighborhoods and, possibly the broader community, is changing in undesirable ways. In some cases, participants noted design-related issues such as overly large garage doors or lack of open space that made new houses less conducive to social interaction. December 10, 2008 Part 2: Identifying the Problem Framing the Question Interest Groups RRC The community workshops were followed by two special sessions that provided a diverse selection of participants with the opportunity r~ m~a~ ~•n..en~r+na..~w+.rvm ~.u. wTr.•r m°"°'°m`""°`°"°`°"""'°°°°"°'°"°'°"~°""°'"' to have a more in-depth discussion of potential issues and solutions. ~ YlN.At,.NO~.1 ,6,.~r~,«..,m6.a~ry.,...~MV, The groups included membersfrom local organizations, professionals . in the field of single-family development, and neighborhood ~M..,~.... A~ representatives. .eTn n er,,.w re,~t ere eas r dwarq uW.r4..rti 4.c~•Try..vaV W wnOmmp s>MtlG~pe ~^;s-°~ A separate Interest Group Summary document provides a detailed M &o~aw.>, description of the two discussion sessions. Overall themes are - y" summarized below. Z mawsJwmmra.e~e aria, ra W~eeawr.~oawlatya mya•ort br WJkR ee Y+. f..ae em a~drr-e.Hwa abcva ors tartnat ?ntlr4WV rop'La.eel.W.r.d lw ~.e.rlN.v> _ _ ~ t - ~ ~ Support for Strategies that Recognize Context and Preserve Flexibility Many participants noted that "one size does not fit all" and expressed Interestgroupparticipantscomp/eted the need for flexibility in any proposed regulations. Discussion a brief survey prior to the group dis- focused on potential issues with non-conforming lots and differing cusslon. neighborhood conditions. Concern Regarding Large, Long and/or Featureless Walls at ar Near the Side Setback Participants in both groups i ndicated that the character of a building's side walls could have aesthetic or privacy impacts on neighbors. Interest in Preserving Mature Vegetation or Landscaping Some participants were concerned with the loss of mature vegetation or landscaping that could occur with additions or new construction. A Desire to Review or Streamline Existing Regulations Many participants felt that some of the unintended consequences of exis#ing regulations, including the solar access ordinance and height measurement system, made them worth reviewing. Concern that the Project is Responding to a Problem That Does Not Exist - A number of participants, especiat{y those in the first discussion group, felt that the project represented a "solution in search of a problem." Concern Regarding the Possibility of New Regulations While participants expressed concerns about the impacts of incompatible development on their neighborhoods, many were also concerned that the project could lead to additional regulations and bureaucracy. A Desire to Allow for Increased Density Several participants spoke of the need t¢ increase population densities to address sustainability or affordable housing goals. In some cases, theyhopedtoseegreaterflexibilityforduplex,multi-familyorcarriage house development within primarily single-family neighborhoods. December 10, 2008 Framing the Question Part 2: Identifying the Problem t Community Survey Tofacilitate a broader range of public feedback, asurveywasmailed to - allsingle-family property owners in the project area. The survey asked participants to provide feedback on the City Council's initial problem _ definition and a series of statements reflecting feedback heard during the community workshops. (t included questions regarding potential ~ ~ , actions and tools and presented a series of alternative development ~~4 scenarios to generate feedback on compatible development options. - I Additional demographic and geographic questions were also included to help determine how responses vary for different parts of the city ~ ~ (as shown on the map below) and by age, income, experience and other characteristics of survey participants. ~ _ - Ofjustover 12,000 surveys sent, 33%were returned. Aseparate report provides an in-depth summary of survey responses, with a series of detailed charts and graphs. The summary of survey responses Side wall jog reduces below includes only those overall themes that were used to develop Wall lengths. the refined problem statement. The survey included questions to generate feedback on how different Agreement with the Initial Problem Definition design variables affect the compat- About 65% of survey participants expressed agreement with the City ibilityof developmentinsingle-family Council's initial problem definition (20%strongly agreed),14%did not neighborhoods. indicate particular agreement ai` disagreement and 21 % disagreed (9% strongly disagreed). Gunbarrel was the only area where most participants did not express overall agreement with the initial problem definition. Agreement was highest in Central Boulder. l c, . I w ~ ~ _ `\h` 1. Gunbarrel r 2. North - - i Bi ulder ~ ~ ~ S o m i a ~ - _ ; ~ _ I_- 3 ~c,+ i i ` ~ ~ . 0 tsi!'ILAYa.'~ 'L' ~ 3: Ceritr~l -~`ti---~ ° ~ 5,: ~ ~ S o u t h e a~ s t _~u~~A~~ ~ ~ % Boulder` '•'r'~{~ a,n,.ii~~ ae _ e nr~ re- - _ . _ L_~ , ~ The survey asked participants to Lr K+^ n°°: \ ~ ~ choose one of free areas in Boulder to 4. South i indicate where their house is located. Boulder - Participants could also choose one ~ of four subareas if their house was i located in Central Boulder and one of two subareas if theirhouse was located in South Boulder. December 10, 2008 ~ S~ Part 2: Identifying the Problem Framing the Question A Feeling That New Construction and Additions Are Not Having Overall Negative Impact on Neighborhoods Although survey participants expressed general agreement with the initial problem definition, only 30% agreed that the character of their \ neighborhoodswasbeing negatively impacted by recentconstruction ~ ~ ,I~ (13%stronglyagreed}while 15%did not indicate particularagreement ~ or disagreement and 55% disagreed (26% strongly disagreed). ~ ! , ParticipantsfromCentralBoulderweremorelikelytoagreethatrecent construction was an issue in their neighborhoods with 52% expressing Lower proportion of agreement (31 % strongly agreed), 11 % not indicating particular building size to lot size. agreementordisagreementand 37%expressingdisagreement(16% strongly disagreed). Support for Requirements that Relate House Size to Lot Size About 67%of survey participants agreed that requirements should be set to relate the size of a building to the size of its lot (26% strongly \ ~ agreed), 13%did not indicate particular agreement or disagreement \ and 21% disagreed (9% strongly disagreed). Gunbarrel was the on(y part of the city where most participants did not express overall agreement. The level of agreement was very similar throughout other ~~-~f parts of the city. Higher proportion of Although there was agreement that house size should be related to building size to lot size. lot size, it is important to note that only 43% of survey participants agreed that some recent construction in their neighborhoods was too A majority of survey participants large (21% strongly agreed) while 13% did not indicate particular agreed that requirements should be agreement or disagreement and 45% disagreed (2i % strongly set to relate the size of a building to the size of its lot. disagreed). In addition, 42% of survey participants agreed that bigger houses could fit in if they are well designed (22% strongly agreed) while 17%did not indicate particular agreement or disagreement and 20% disagreed (5% strongly disagreed). December 10, 2008 Framing the Question Part 2: Identifying the Problem Concern With Building Coverage and a Possible Loss of Open Space or Mature Trees or Vegetation About 56% of survey participants agreed that a lirniton the percentage of building coverage on a lot should be considered (18% strongly agreed), 17% did not indicate particular agreement or disagreement and 21 %disagreed (11 %strongly disagreed). Agreementwas highest in Central Boulder and North Boulder. 51 % of survey participants agreed that the loss of mature vegetation when new construction occurs is a key issue (16% strongly agreed), 17% did not indicate particular agreement or disagreement and 32% disagreed (12% "strongly disagreed"). Agreement was highest in Central Boulder. Although therewas agreementthat a limiton the percentage of bu ilding coverage should be considered, it is important to note that only 49% of survey participants agreed that the loss of green space when new buildings are constructed is a key issue (18% strongly agreed) while 15% did not indicate particular agreement or disagreement and 37% disagreed (16% strongly disagreed). Building Coverage l i , A majority of survey participants agreed that a limit on the percentage of building coverage on a lot should be considered. December 10, 2008 ~ ~ - Part 2: Identifying the Problem Framing the Question Concern With Potential Privacy Impacts of New Construction and Additions and Support for Requirements Related to Side Walls About 62% of survey participants agreed a large house next door diminishes privacy in others' back yards (26% strongly agreed), 12% did not indicate particular agreement or disagreement and 26% disagreed (9%stronglydisagreed).Agreementwas highestinCentral Boulder and North Boulder. Survey participant support for side wall height requirements may be related to privacy concerns. About 56%of survey participants agreed that wall height limits should be lower near the side property line (16% strongly agreed), 19% did not indicate particular agreement or disagreement and 24% disagreed (10% strongly disagreed). Agreement was highest in Central Boulder and North Boulder. Large featureless walls along the side of a building were a less pronounced concern for survey participants. However, 50% agreed that they could be an issue (16% strongly agreed}, 20% did not indicate particular agreement or disagreement and 28% disagreed (10% strongly disagreed). Support for Making Changes to Existing Regulations Mostsurvey participantsfelt#hatsomeaction should betaken to address the compatibility ofdevelopment insingle-family neighborhoods or to streamline existing regulations. Only 12% of survey participants said that no changes should be made to existing regulations while 59% said that existing zoning standards should be changed to mitigate the impactof largerbuildings eitherthroughoutthecity'ssingle-family zone districts or only in certain targeted areas. Many survey participants also supported streamlining existing regulations (30%), providing additional flexibility for special conditions (35%) and establishing a review and approval process tailored to individual neighborhoods (41 - - ~ •yl 'l i,~ 4} ~ ~ Side wall height steps down along side property line. A majority of survey participants agreed that wall height limits should be lower near the side property line. g December 10, 2008 Framing the Question Part 2: Identifying the Problem Refined Problem Statement ' City Council's initial problem definition guided the first step in the ' ~ project including extensive public outreach to more clearly define the ~ " r . issues that the community seeks to address. Public feedback was used to refine Council's problem definition as an interim step. The following refined problem statement will guide the remaining steps in the project including a recommended strategy to promote compatible - ; 4" development in single-family neighborhoods: _ The problem is new single-family construction and additions that are a viewed asbeingincompatiblewithadjacenthomesandthesurrounding neighborhood in three key respects: r / ti n to fheir lots 'mil` -`r • They are overly large in e a o • They are negatively impact the privacy of neighboring lots Cwnmur~rty feedbaclcrecerved during They cover too much of their lots or result in a (ass of mature trees the projects first step provides the • foundation for the refined problem or vegetation statement. December 10, 2008 °2 Part 2: Identifying the Problem ~ Framing the Question Next Steps The refined problem statement will help direct a set of recommended actions to be described in the forthcoming strategy report. It will ~~u be important to ensure that any revised regulations drafted to support the problem statement are carefully integrated into existing ~ - ~ regulations. Where feasible, existing regulations should also be _ ~ simplified or streamlined so that they are easier to use and do not , t~ ~ create unnecessary barriers for homeowners or for architects and ~r ' ' - builders who are engaged in compatible development projects in 9 Y g sin le-fami nei hborhoods. .,r~ _ The strategy will incorporate the following goals and objectives ~ ; ,1 ~ adopted by City Council: It is very important to retain flexibility for people to alter their ' homes as their needs change, since many can't afford to move to another house. However, there is a threshold of pops over , which these additions can be "too much." {t is important to pro- The projects next steps will include vide for appropriate change over time. workshops and other opportunities Ensure that solutions promote variety as opposed to monotony. for community members to provide Ensure that all neighborhoods or certain lots with characteristics feedback on the recommended different from one another are treated fairly and equitably. strategy. include an efficient process to address unintended consequenc- es (an appeal or variance process). • Include analysis of broad economic impacts. The strategy report will link City Council's goals and objectives to specific recommended strategies to address the refined problem statement. The forthcoming economics report will provide a broad economic analysis and discuss economic considerations related to the recommended strategy. Related Issues The problem statement reflects only those issues that have been identified with the character of development in single-family neighborhoods. Related problems and issues identified by members of the community will be discussed in the strategy report. December 10, 2008 Attachment B - Workshop Areas 1.1!neral R o' Gunbarrel 4$ ~ Lookout Rd a • r 3 ¦ • y r • $ _ o •••r.. s. • ~ Leo HrF Or • ~ • M . ~1.• • • • • i ~ v,rmaatn Av • s. • r. Gunbarrel (id . ~ ~ Cf r • ri Qo • _ _ oo. . North .1•.. _ ~ N 1 ~ - - . spas R~ - • r - y • • r • - N7, ~ L . North LL Vnlm¢At Rd Central - I,. ;:r~ • jrtt~ 7t?ob:nm Av /ifftl.~'r. r ?°~~e, l a ~ r ~ • ~Illr • ~ 'SV • • Aropahoe Av Central • un:,e,;,ry ~ • ~ • ' • ........v.... • ¦ • ¦ - _ • ¦ • _ ¦ • RA Fd • 4 •0 - • • • r f • t South ? • 'e • • - ~ ~ _ ~ South Boulder Rd • i Tn L.I.. t'~=i i~r ~ • • ? ~ . - • • • • svi • ¦ • ,r . - o• - • ` ~ V : r~ ~ ' b • ` ~ , ~ ~WOfIlRhOj>Arn RR ~ I ~ SL,gle F¢mlly Detached Properties in Analy+iR ¦ • • • cno~~a~l - - Zaning Dlstrkts In Anelys"s S ~ ~s ~ rz~t zu,~.r ~s raaz~~ ~ Prtizn i:,:,a RA Zorip City Urn~Ls 31 Attachment C Compatible Development i n Single-Family Neighborhoods i -ice ~ 7~; ~ ~ ' iL i - ~ i i l~I _ Community Workshop Summary_ - - ~ : October 17, 2008 To begin the Compatible Development inSingle- Family Neighborhoods r project, the city held acommunity-wide kick-off on September 10, ' 2008. More than 80 members of the public were in attendance.This "~I ' meeting was followed by a series of four neighborhood workshops v,. • a'~ which concluded on September 23, 2008. _ _ Participants completedaseriesofinteractiveexercises.Theseactivities offered opportunities for individual comments and to work as teams to discuss important concepts and provide additional feedback. The _ ,1 3- information garnered during the workshopswill inform the project's next .«,h. steps, including a visual survey to be mailed to all property owners in " the project area. , This document provides a general summary of the comments and ~ r ° feedback received during the September 2008 workshops. The first sections describe the workshop objectives and some overall themes that resulted from the public's interaction. The final sections provide a more detailed description of responses received through each of the workshop activities as well as additional comments that have been ' ~ • - - provided to date. _ . , Gety pf .13ould~~ ~ _ j ~ , Fx: ~ >c~ - . ~~~4 - 3~ Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Workshop Objectives r ~ ~ The September 2008 workshops served to inform the community regarding the project scope and schedule as well as to obtain initial public feedback ~~'~c3~;, on existing conditions and potential issues. Specific objectives included: ~ ~ • Assessment of city council's problem definition _ ~ ' v~~~`;.,~,- • Evaluation and definition of im ortant existin ~ - __f_-~ ~ •"y ~ characteristics of different neighborhood con- texts • Evaluation of devebpment permitted by current ~ ~ regulations in different neighborhood contexts ~ ~ ~ ~ " • and identification of potential issues . = ~ • Evaluation of development trends in different workshop participantsprovidedawiderangeofcomments neighborhood contexts and identification of po- and feedback that will inform project direction. tential issues • Identification of design features that could pro- Concern with the Potential Impacts of New or mote compatible development in single-family Revised Regulations Many participants expressed neighborhoods concern that the initial problem definition, could lead to new or revised regulations that would be Overa I I Themes burdensome to property owners or builders and limit design flexibility. Feedback included: Workshop participants provided a wide range "There is already an overwhelming amount of of comments. However several overall themes restrictions, guidelines, requirements and gov- emerged. These are summarized below. ernment nonsense in this town!" Agreement with the Problem Definition Many "Will proposed changes make it extremely dif- participants expressed agreement with the problem ficult, if not impossible, for homeowners to do definition provided by city council at the outset of the without help from professionals?" project. Some participant feedback included: "I believe that the existing regulations are suf- "The problem definition encompasses all the e!- ficient to limit house size." • ements of design that influence neighborhood Concern with How Final Decisions Will Be Made character; integration of new housing into exist- A number of participants felt that residents should ing compatibility should be the keys to develop- be allowed to vote to determine whether there was ment of a successful ordinance/zoning code." actually a problem or whether specific regulations • "The problem definition seems to cover all the should be enacted. Some participant feedback problems I perceive with new houses." included: • "I think the council nailed it!" (referring to the =Making sure that ALL property owners have a problem definition) say, i.e., a vote on whether the true majority of property owners want these new reguiations." • "Wha thinks there is a problem? Let's take a vote!" October 17, 2Qt38 3 - 3 Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary InterestinAddressingRelatedCommunityGoals " ''~f~~' and Issues A number of participants felt that the project had been defined only to address cosmetic 1 or aesthetic issues and hoped that broader issues _ _ - _ ~ and concepts could be considered. The concerns ~'o~; ~ that some participants wished to address included - ~ , community-wide economicgoals, affordable housing, ~ -~e'' environmental sustainability and neighborhood IE `y ~ ' s~~ planning. Some examples of feedback included: ~.r-.,_ _ • "Council is missing even bigger and more ~ ~ rw~~`r. f I important issues such as affordability and ~ T,~ 1 sustainability and energy that should be inte- - . grated into this problem. • "Our sin le-farnil net hborhoods must change ~ ` ~ 9 Y 9 ~ = to became more sustainable and compact." ~ ~ ~ .rn~ . , Concern that the Problem is Isolated to a Few Projects. A number of participants expressed the ;Y ~r~~. ~ view that any potential problems were related to f~ , a small number of inappropriate projects and that Participants identified a number of potential issues wish far reaching restrictions would be an inappropriate the design of new construction and additions in single- reaction. Participant feedback included: family neighborhoods. • "You may be penalizing a very large number of Concern That Existing Regulations May residents for a very small number of problem produce Unintended Consequences or Lead houses. to Undesirable Farms Some participants cited • "There are very few houses that most people specific issuesorconcernswithexistingregulations, would consider a problem." including the way that permitted building heights Identification of Specific Design Issues are calculated, and building forms that may be Participants identified a number of specific issues encouraged by application of the city's solar access that were currently problematic or could become regulations (solar access ordinance). Feedback problematic with the design of new construction and examples included: additions in single-family neighborhoods. The most "Cause and effect of the solar code. Tall south commonly cited issues included: walls are unusual design elements." • Overly long, tall or blank walls (especially those "Solar ordinance needs to review ar)d preclude built at or near a minimum side setback) `saw-toothed' design impacts." • Houses that are much larger than their neigh- bors or the surrounding context. (Participants Concern with Changes to the Social Character expressed concerns with both compatibility and of Neighborhoods and the Community Some environmental sustainability) participants felt that the social character of their • Houses that appear over-scaled or give the neighborhoods and possibly the broader community percep#ion of being overly massive or bulky (re- is changing in undesirable ways. They felt that gardless of actual square footage) residents of many of the newly built houses were • Loss of open space not as involved in the neighborhood nor were they • Accessory structures that impact alley charac- as social with neighbors as previous residents had ter or have privacy and compatibility impacts been. In some cases, participants noted design- on neighboring properties related issues such as overly large garage doors • Loss of mature trees and vegetation or lack of open space that made new houses less conducive to social interaction. October 17, 2008 3 Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Workshop Activities The responses were almost evenly distributed with just over half of the returned worksheets indicating Three workshop activities were used to solicit thattherespondent"agreed"or"strongly agreed"with participant feedback and discussion. The first the problem definition, with the remaining indicating workshop activity was completed by individual that they "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed." attendees while the remaining activities were completed as team exercises. Each workshopactivity Some comments from participants indicating that is briefly described below, followed by a summary they agreed with the problem definition included: of responses. "f strongly agree. These are some of the im- pacts we see in our neighborhood as well as Individual Worksheet throughout the city." Thisactiyityprovidedparticipants with an opportunity I strongly agree. Real estate values are putting pressure to develop large houses that do not fit tocommunicatetheirindividualconcernsandissues. into neighborhood context." The worksheet allowed citizens to express their "I strongly agree. I have lived in Boulder for 36 opinions about the need for the project, the issues years and have seen it greatly change. I un- that are of greatest concern to them and potential actions that should be considered. derstand one cannot stop progress, but I feel Boulder is losing its character in good part due Question 1. The first question on the individual to monster houses. f think we need to ask if this worksheet asked the respondent to comment on is what we want, instead of letting development the initial problem definition drafted by city council. pressure decide for us." Participants were also asked if there were specific "I agree. It's a good start. Let's get moving on changes that they would make to the problem this fast!" definition. "I agree. 1 would strongly agree if noise and neighborhood impact were added." Com.~a1161e Devtl>pm:>[In Slnylpremll, Nsiphb Ct*o00• CumprlbM Davd•pmMHln Slnpr•.Frri ly Nrf,Abrho•0• fampmib4a Cevd•pman In Sin91TF>va1y 141gADO/IroeQ~ NelghbOrhoad Arcs Workshop Community Workshop ft COmmunlty Workshop Mt - fMY~LFiG J SM.f ~F W Indrvldw0 Wo.hslwst •.4 rn~r-,i.w u.+.+< w.r.erw+rvn•wwrr A: Ivlry'!:-kNFNA Var WCtle.lrM Ac'I.riy 11-IrMMdrgl WOr~c~le1 .i~rc .u r.r,.~.c...- nr.v.~•im.r+~. ....w+..n N r...........~r.....~r..r.q .............w.... ~R i 4rn F.N~ ~c!rwa rom,M.d..aw. nY•.~...°'.^`. vnc N:«a..w.a~~~r.+.rn r.,r.rr. w -....•c r+w.. ic...~ > raw... _ - 1. t~..a W+e'ma~~~.J..-^i. ~+ww~ ~e.a/w>~ ••••••~uu.rv. u.r.«w~ns a..+.~r~. .e.r.r.a r..wav.wnrr.Mwr~..r. r....~w.. er.. r~~ w..,.. r.s.a. env+-i ..:.v.. ~1.wM>e-.r... r^ :.ne-~rrt[a.f iF Y-1-x i[ r. y, y..l..~~ .~v.Y=w. a. r.rYrO.•- Mfr.^.. ..1.,f.1.(.1,,. ..D.ir.,.. vi eyaWwr,.~ nvo F. 2~.~ .vim te~l:naL•.•1:.'^ r.. _ .w~~LLIL.<i,. tn... a-. ~ Y-r_..).L. ~..:Y i~..~c .n ~M1^`: .~r.~ -..m:t_,a_...14,.t ~...i i......:r~rz.l.4.r.~a - ,...1~ i ~..j~, ..v__ :.-rte-J_ r'~•_n ..u ~ .k•r»: i.d:.-lx}c--s__ :4,c .'lr .i',(:.J,c.. a._..1..._i4~ ~:?~.J.. l ~•',iTA l,l..~l.r. ~ ;~n L,_.~i~ .L2. 1 • l~ ' ' ~ rid ~~.-d~.r~-~: sF..,.. !:r`~'~(Fvu.~,)i:n ~.s:. ,.i..1 :-a i-.i„1_,a ~ nE. r a,• ;.v 1.~. ~.V.LI., •ftr.bi `..~e..l9t>. r.:Ev~.<` ..<4li v.~). ..1 ,se_, r,~.r _ r. uon rer,res. rr~. arya.~w: ..u ) b:..-r _d.. ~:,-w.. ~ u...,.. • iws,:'s-.:-.~ .G.,qv, .r.~.wr.nr s.h..s.~, ?~+4c-, ~'.<t. G.-Il v:n 11r. 1,1...x. •==_R-f~li-•rT-'S~•=u4a.~•••~- 1 ....:'rlr..-.n.Nn...., :•,c.r_:^r~.s±t_.r_.'r..LL ..l ~)a.,41. i e.Ira)~n~1.J.:n!~~C{ 9Sr Gl~a~.i, ~,~af__~L_ - _.J&~• ~,~.w:.~.r'-. •>..iw!~_.l~k^•r~ w.r ~.r.>r ~Cu»..'4s~i.ud.:v~~ci,.vso~w->.t>u-~.~i`c..._ aw,.l. ~«.=,r~i'~ ry~.._n,ry„rli_- y, _kr~.:ii.:_s.:.~~,K, v.~~c-....r-.~. ...3 Pr~~ ~/..n ....i.~r_: n An individual worksheet allowed citizens to express their opinions about the need far the project, the issues that are of greatest concern to them and potential actions that should be considered. October 17, 2008 Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Some comments from participants indicating that In othercases, participantsfelt that additional issues they neither agreed or disagreed with the problem should be included in the problem definition. Some definition included: of these issues included: • "I strongly disagree. I believe all important ele- Loss of open space and mature trees menu are already addressed in existing zoning Traffic regulations." The importance of historic preservation • "I strongly disagree. I believe there is not a Energy efficiency and environmental problem of general scale.» sustainability • "i strongly disagree. Low density suburban de- Neighborhood notification for scrape-offs or velopment is directly responsible for high au- large additions tomobile usage. The problem is rather haw to transform these districts." Question 2. The second question on the individual • "I disagree. `Character' is too nebulous acon- worksheet asked respondents to indicate the three cept. Many of the impacts to be considered are biggest issues that should be addressed as part of already addressed in current building codes." the project. • "1 disagree. I don't believe the majority of citi- Many indicafedspecificdesignelementsthattheyfelt zens feel this is a problem significant enough to would be important to address. The design elements drastically change zoning regulations or FAR." that were most often cited included: Some comments from participants indicating that `'Huge blank areas of some new houses" they neither agreed nor disagreed with city council's "Loss of space between houses" problem definition included; "Overall size regardless of mitigating features" "Apparent scale of building" • "I am neutral. The issue of property rights vs. "Height" government involving themselves in these is- » sues is a big concern for me.» Retaining views • "I am neutral. I am concerned that new regula- Participants also listed a number of other issues tions will handicap creativity and an individual the felt should be addressed including: homeowner's ability to live in a home that works y for them. I think it is only a few homes that are "Maintaining flexibility" - "Homogeneity should making people react." not be the goal!" • "Allowing redevelopment for higher density - Some felt the problem definition included subjective more foot-friendly neighborhoods." language, was overly focused on potential issues "Make sure the problem exists before proceed- or did not adequately address property rights and ing" - "There is always a house or two that may the potential impact of regulatory changes. Some be `out of character' but why penalize everyone comments included: with more restrictions?" "To not further limit homeowners in what they • "Statement (problem definition) is focused on can do to their homes." • `I would NOT include character in any way - it Addressing the "economic implication of higher is not a problem and trying to define or legislate levels of restriction." character is absurd." • "I think that `visual character' is too subjective" • "Why does the City Council continually attack an this issue? How can we ensure that city resi- dents truly understand the limitations that the City Council is trying to impose?" October 17, 2008 3~ Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Question 3. The third question on the individual Question 4. The fourth question on the individual worksheet asked for suggestions about any actions worksheet asked for any additional suggestions that should be considered at this early stage of the and to indicate whether specific information would project. assist with informed decision making as the project Some felt that no potential actions should be moves forward. considered as part of this project, often indicating Additional information that was identified by par- that too many restrictions were already in place ticipants as being potentially helpful included: or that property rights could be violated. Other Information about other cities that have gone participants described a number of specific actions through a similar process to be considered. Some of the most often cited Thorough notification about project meetings or actions were: proposed regulations Addressing what can be built on non-conform- Testimonies from residents who have built new • ing lots homes or had new homes built nearby Lowering, raising or eliminating the permitted An up-to-date web site • floor area ratio A clear description of potential economic im- pacts • Specifically addressing open space and land- scaping Additional suggestions from participants included: • Increasing or decreasing permitted density and considering potential mixed-use development Address zone district boundaries to ensure ap- • Modifying the solar ordinance propriate transitions • Considering the impact of garages and acces- Provide incentives for desired development sory structures Slow the process down to ensure that there really • Considering interim ordinances is a problem __s-_ Y ~ T_ /l ~ . J ~i M _ J,~ 4 In addition to individual comments, participants also provided comments as smali groups or "teams." October 17, 2008 3 ~ _ Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Map Activity Broadway between Alpine and Dellwood This team activity provided participants with an • Small lots, narrow widths opportunity to identify and describe different • East West Orientation neighborhoods, areas, or contexts throughout the • Cul-de-sacs city. Participants in the overall community workshop • View lots were given citywide maps, while participants in the • Blocks havebackyardsbackingtoeach otherwhich neighborhood-area workshop were given larger creates open space scale maps illustrating their neighborhood and • Mature landscapes surrounding areas. In both cases, participants • Quiet streets were asked to discuss, identify and describe key • Significant scrape projects of small 196Q's ranches features of at least three areas that they felt had a with front garages attached distinct character. • New construction 2-3 stories many w/ detached garages or rear load Some indicated that Boulder's neighborhoods were • Attached garages mostly too diverse to classify or that they felt that • Good privacy existing neighborhood characteristics or charac#er • Homes have consistent architectural style were not valid considerations as part of this project. • A traditional, contemporary, and eclectic mix Most participants did, however, identify some areas Mapleton Hill that they felt had unique qualities. • Walkable, visually pleasing scale • Narrow, gridded streets with alleys The following areas and their defining character- . On-street parking istics were most commonly identified by partici- .Mature landscaping pants: ~ • Historic homes, large lots Old North Boulder (between Broadway and 19th • Variety of house sizes, multi-unit complexes Streets) • High number of additions • North-South streets and East-West lots • Quiet streets • Front to street University Hill • Diversity of lot size • Original development, historic component • Consistent fron# yard setbacks • Alleys • Large backyards • Consistent lot sizes • Mature landscape • Mixed density • Diverse building forms, mostly single story • Mixture of old & new houses, remodels & pops • Attached garages, driveways from front • Original character of older houses maintained ~ -n:- • Good landscaping i• ? - •_ti { ~ ~4 1 ,rN• 1 ~ i~ , ~4 . - Amap activityprovided workshop participants with an op- ~ portunity to identifyand describe differentneighbarhoods, I 1' ' ~ areas or contexts in single-family neighborhoods. ~ 1 _ _ _ October 17, 2008 3~ Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Newlands Other Areas or Neighborhood Contexts • Flat to hilly Participants identified a number of other areas of • Clear grid with attached sidewalks and alleys the city as being distinct contexts or having unique • Long narrow lots characteristics which included: • Detached garages North West Broadway • Mixture of home ages & styles Historic District NW • Mature trees North Central Bouider: Western Edge • Modest landscaping North Central Boulder: Eastern Edge • Pedestrian friendly Washington School Area • Elder Ave. and Jefferson St Loop Martin Acres Eider Ave. and 15th St. • Attached sidewalks Alpine Ave. and North St. loop • Identical setbacks Folsom St. to 19th St. (Edgewood Dr.) • Rare street trees Pine St. East of Folsom • Uniform architecture of 1 to 1-1/2 stories/ split Area east of Broadway, North of Walnut level homes West Arapahoe • Parking in front or single car garage Goss-Grove Table Mesa North Table Mesa • Curvy, wide roads Tabie Mesa and US Hwy. 36 Setbacks vary due to sloping cliffs West of Broadway and Table Mesa • Consistent buffers between houses Marine Area (Canyon to College, West ofBroad- • Trees are close to maturing way) • Random landscaping South Broadway Varied building height East Broadway • Many custom homes, each is unique, many are North of Baseline Rd. • large Baseline Rd. and Foothills Pkwy. • In some cases, popping up would have no ef- Shanahan Ridge • West of Lehigh St. fect on views, solar, etc. Highlands Park _ ~ - Frasier Meadows ,t i. D~ - i nl•=- 7~ -I ~i ; ~ ice: s ~.j ~ f G Y_- ` _ ~ Y ~ • ~ , 1 Workshop participants listed characteristics that they ~a felt helped to identify different neighborhoods, areas or _ ' ,r,, . contexts in the city's single-family neighborhoods. ~.Ti;,=-_ October 17, 2008 Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Poster Activity The teams were asked to identify three keyfeatures This team activity provided workshop attendees of the illustrated context, as well as three potential with an opportunity to review and discuss current issues with both the permitted development and the development trends and development that would development trends that were illustrated. be permitted by existing regulations to identify any potential issues for single-family neighborhoods. Although different key features were identified Participantswere also given an opportunityto review for each of the five different sample blocks, some and discuss specific design elements that could features were often cited as being important in promote compatibility in new development. several or all of the illustrations. These features included: Part 1. The first part of the poster activity showed a Existing ratios of house size to lot size three dimensional illustration of one of five different prientation of houses towards the street sample blocks insingle-family neighborhoods. Each Existing open space patterns sample block illustrated a set of existing conditions Existing setback patterns (consistent front yard within the neighborhood in which the workshop setbacks, varied side yard setbacks, etc.) was held. Three different views of the sample-block Existing parking locations and garage charac- illustration were shown on each poster: teristics (attached garages, detached garages, • Typical existing conditions parking access from an alley when present, • Typical existing conditions with new develop- etc.) ment permitted by existing regulations • Typical existing conditions with new development corresponding to current development trends Compallblo Dovclapmont In SleplaFomlly Nelghborltoods Atllvlly A3 • Team VlotYsheel Communlly Workshop i t • Snplember 10, 2008 r~+r +o n.r n«~+... n....a wY,aa~. n..p c~„r., IPatt:fdCnldylrpFe.+turryandlaau•aReCtledlaContort -1oh...~swy: - 6 ~ ;~i-. ~r ParttldnmuylnO COmpmrdo Elsmr:nU _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ 1 ~i'~ . The poster activity provided participants with an opportunity to discuss potential issues with current trends and permitted deve/opmeni as well as to identify specific design features that could promote compatibility in new de- velopment. October i7, 2008 ~ y Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Some of the commonly identified issues with permitted development (as illustrated} were: F - Too much mass an b . ~ ' • d ulk ~ ~ • Too much permitted square footage (FAR too I - low) ~ _ • Walls that are too tall (especially on the south side per the existing solar ordinance) `z p • Long, unbroken walls and uninteresting build- t~ ing elevations r ~r ~ • Lack of variety in wall planes/height ~ F, j, • Loss of open space (especially in back yard ar- - Y ' .,7! eas) r~- flP~? - • Forms~that loom over the street or neighbors ~ ~ ~ • Loss of privacy • Potential for three story buildings • Loss of views , ' a _ ' ~,1~,..~r,, • Shape of the building permitted/encouraged by . ~±r: the solar ordinance • Some of the most commonly identified issues with the illustrated development trends were: ~ • Overall mass, size and height ~ ~ • Buildings that are very large and do not have compensating design elements ~ ~a ~ • Shape of homes caused by solar envelope 3as a-. • Major axis of homes in opposite direction as ex- isting homes • Loss of open space (especially in backyard ar- eas) _ , _ , • Long, unbroken walls and uninteresting build- - " ; ing facades • Long, tall homes built at or near setbacks ~ ~ t_ • `Looming' quality of buildings - - • Unsustainable development patterns Part 1 of the poster activity included three-dimensional models illustrating development trends occurring in the city's single-familyneighborhoods. Participants discussed and commented on potential issues with the develop- menttrends. October 17, 2008 Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Part 2,. For the #inal part of the poster activity, each :~;;i.;~ j 1 team was given a set of photographs of new homes 1;•;£= ~ ~ ' ~ l~ and additions from a number of communities around ~Y the country. Working as a team, they were asked to select six photographs that illustrated at Icast one " designfeaturethatwouldhelp itfit intothesample block - illustrated in Part 1. They were then asked to caption , , - Y ~ , the photographs and paste them to their poster. While a wide variety of sample photographs were - ~3 ~ ~ ~ selected, the primary reasons cited fortheir selections cry weresimilar.Theexplanations mostcommonly given for the selected photographs included: r Variety in building and/or roof massing ~ ° ~ _ • Stepped-back upper floors ~ ; - • Articulated facades, particularly front facades ~ ~~~4;;~~~ ~ ; ; • No front garage, or anon-prominent garage : ` t R~r. ~~i; +rl` ~ , • Front porches _ f ~ _ ~ ~ • Establishes a relationship with the street At the conclusion of the posteractivlty, some participants • Room in side yards for vegetation summarized their team's discussion and comments in • Mature trees and landscaping front of the larger group. Yti ---e.~ ~ +U - f - ~ ~ ~ Imp^c PacYct hJ t~11? r.~y ~ I ~ - g:~ _ µrn "lye ~u ..l ,l I ~j r. F._ 1 _ L _ _ _ _ J I L _ _ J In Part 2 of the poster activity, participants worked as teams to discuss photographs of new construction and ad- ditions and select several that illustrated design features that could help make them more compatible in a specific single-family neighborhood context. ,;z-. t~~ 1`11 ~ ~4~ ~ ~_'+il ~ 7.1~~. i , . : y ~ , . Participants used the photographs provided forPart 2 of 1 = : ~ the poster activity to indicate a variety of design features r r J ~ ; ~ _ ~ that they felt could help promote compatibility in new I l i _ ~ i .t=--> ~ - ~ ~ development. Commonly selected features included 1 - ~ _ , modest massing, sloped room forms, vegetation, front ~ - - - - ~ ~ orches and relationship to the street. October 17, 2008 Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Workshop Summary Other Feedback For More Information A number of community members have sent a-mails Please visitthe project Web site listed belowandclick or letters to the city with additional feedback on the on "Hot Topics" for more information. project.Thisadditionalfeedbackisbrieflysummarized www.boulderp/andeve/op.nef below: "Long term economic, demographic and afford- Workshop information and feedback opportunities • ability effects should be considered earlier on in will be available online throughout the project. To the process as they have a large impact on haw subscribe to the project a-mail list, go to the project Boulder will shape up in the coming years." Web site and click on "Subscribe to a-mail list" for more information. • "Sustainability and economic issues have direct implications for building envelopes and should For more information contact: be included in the study." p?anning & Deve?opment Services • "Modifications, such as home offices, acces- City of Boulder sory units, etc. should be included." 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor • "Intensity or density changes, such as al- Boulder, Colorado 80302 ley houses, end block row houses and higher density along transit routes, should be consid- Julie Johnston, Senior Planner ered." • "The size and location of accessory structures (303) 441-1886 and garages should be considered, especially johnstonj@bouldercolorado.gov where they abut neighboring properties or dom- inate rear years." • "Trends towards removal of all existing mature trees should be mitigated." . October 17, 2008 ~3 Attachment D Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Discussion Group . Summary Dates: October 22"d and 23'~`~, 200$ Location: RRC Associates, Boulder CO Facilitator: Nolan Rosall Attendees: October 22 October 23 Len Ashack, Mapleton Hill Ruth Blackmoor, Majestic Heights John Koval, Developer Betsy Hand, Sierra Club Eric Stonebraker, Sierra Club George Russel, Builder. Dan Powers, Chamber of Commerce Lisa Eggers, Architect Catherine Long Gates, North. Boulder Mark Stengl, Martin Acres David Biek, APOB Michael Iiibner, Old North Boulder Lynn Ryan, Realtor Leonard May, Landmarks Board Irene Shaffer, Realtor Gwen Dooley, Plan Boulder Rhonda Wallen, Rose Hill Nico Toutenhoofd, University Hill Cathy Ftuegel, Old North Boulder Tim Rohrer, Martin Acres Rich Gribben, Realtor Executive Summary Un October 22n`~ and 23`d, 2008 two discussion groups were held at the RRC Associates office to identify issues around compatible development in single-family neighborhoods in the city of Boulder. These groups are one piece of a larger effort to collect community input and are being considered in conjunction with resident feedback from other sources, including workshops and a resident survey. Participants in the groups were members of local organizations, including the Sierra Club, Boulder Chamber of Commerce, and flan Boulder; professionals in the field ofsingle-family residential development, including realtors, architects, and builders; and, neighborhood representatives. The groups were diverse with respect to age, background, gender, length of time in Boulder, and neighborhood affiliation. Prior to the start of the groups, participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire designed to help introduce the discussion topics. Results of this participant survey can be made available upon request. The groups began with a brief overview of the Compatible Development ui Single- Family Neighborhoods project, presented by Abe Barge of Winter and Company. A structured discussion followed the presentation, during which participants were asked how significant they found the issue of incompatible development, which specific aspects or styles of new construction cause the greatest concern, and whether current regulations could be streamlined. Participants were also asked to speak to the question of individual property rights versus community needs and the value of floor area ratio regulation. Facilitator Nolan Rosall probed participants for their opinions on large featureless walls, loss of green space, lack of privacy, large accessory structures, paved areas, building height, solar access, and overall building size. Diverse views were expressed in both groups, but consensus emerged on a few central issues. Specifically, participants noted repeatedly that "one size does not fit all," expressing the aced for flexibility in the regulations in instances where lots arc non- conforming, as well as a desire to see regulations vary by lot or by neighborhood. Many participants also expressed a desire for design guidelines that followed a mandatory review and voluntary compliance model. They suggested residents could receive incentives for adhering to these guidelines. Members of both groups indicated concern with large featureless walls built at or close to side setbacks, as well as a loss of landscaping and backyard privacy. Many participants also felt that the unintended consequences of existing regulations including the solar access ordinance and height measurement system make them worth reviewing. Key findings Gom the discussion are outlined below, along with a summary of facilitator conclusions. Key Findings Significance of the Issue Participants had varying levels of concern about the issue of incompatible renovations, additions, and new construction in their neighborhoods. Key points from the discussion of the significance of the issue within their particular neighborhood are as follows: ~s • The October 22na group, overall, found incompatible development to be less significant an issue than did the October 23"~ group. Representatives of the Newlands, Majestic Heights, OId North Boulder, and Martin Acres were overall more concerned than representatives of Mapleton Hill, Rose Hill, and University 1-fill. • Participants from all over Boulder noted that renovations, additions, and new construction often improve the aesthetics of a neighborhood and add value to property. They did not want the regulatory envirotunent to stifle or discourage all such improvements. Several participants noted that most projects in their areas are "tastefully done." • About half of the participants in the October 23`d group felt that the issue of incompatible development was very significant in their neighborhoods with nearly all of that night's participants noting that the issue was significant in some neighborhoods. A participant from the Old North Boulder area noted a dramatic increase in the number of tear-downs in the area, stating the neighborhood was "under siege from speculators." It was generally agreed that the speculators have less commitment to "fit" the house into the existing neighborhood context, and are most likely to maximize the total square footage and mass of the house, thereby creating many of the problem properties. While the objective of targeting speculator-built houses for scrutiny was noted, it was also recognized that this would be difficult legally. One participant stated of spec Iiouses, "huge houses are antithetical to the character of [an] historic neighborhood." • The majority of participants in the October 22°d group did not feel that incompatible development was pervasive enough to cause concern although some participants did support voluntary neighborhood based design guidelines or streamlining of existing regulations. One participant called the city's project "a solution in search of a problem:" N~ Compatibility and Property Rights When asked to identify the particular threshold point at which the compatibility of new development becomes more important than individual property rights, respondents in both groups had difficulty identifying a specific "tipping point" that is applicable in all situations. They stressed the need for neighborhood-specific regulations and allowances for non-standard lots. Key points from the discussion are as follows: • More than one participant stated, "one size does not fit all," in reference to regulations. • Participants in both groups stressed that homogeneity should not be the goal of regulations. Several participants noted, "I don't live in an HOA for a reason." • Many participants in both groups were in favor of design guidelines, or standards that are agreed upon by the residents of a neighborhood, that architects and builders would receive incentives for following. A resident of Mapleton Hill noted the neighborhood guidelines that apply in that historic neighborhood were important and helpful. The Downtown Design Guidelines were also noted as a positive influence. A process that involves mandatory review and voluntary compliance was suggested as a good model to follow. • Most members of the October 22°d group and a few members of the October 23`a group indicated that they prioz~itized private property rights, and would not be in favor of any new restrictions. Some noted that setback, height, and solar limitations in Boulder may already be too restrictive. • Many members of the October 23r~ group spoke of the need for regulatory changes or other actions to reduce the potential impacts of additions and new construction iii some neighborhoods. Specific impacts noted included overall height, wall heights and lengths, loss of green space, loss of trees and mature landscaping and overall mass and scale or size. • Participants expressed concern about attempts to legislate taste or define a concept as subjective as "character." One participant said, "the rationale for regulation shouldn't be based on a subjective opinion of what's ugly." • Members of both groups spoke to the inevitability of change, noting that the historic homes on Mapleton Hill were the "McMansions of 1905." • Une member in each group brought up the usefulness of a "good neighbor policy" in which homeowners are rewarded for taking input from owners of adjacent properties. Specific Design Issues Participants were asked to identify the specific aspects of new construction that cause the greatest concern or frustration in their neighborhoods. Participants identified a range of concerns. Key points are as follows: • Large featureless walls that "loom over adjacent properties," and minimize side yards were a concern for several participants. This is particularly the case when trees and mature landscaping are removed or not provided. Similarly, properties of a mass and scale that block sunlight and shade adjacent properties are problems. • It was generally agreed that problem projects are likely to result from an effort to maximize house size on a lot, or go for "quantity over quality." • Participants also mentioned distaste for garage-forward designs. • Participants dislike feeling as though their backyards are not private. Large additions extending far to the rear, with windows and decks that "peer" onto the back yard or into the windows of the existing adjacent houses were cited as problems. • Several participants felt it was important to protect trees, on side and rear setbacks, both for pxivacy and green space. Other participants noted that the suburban model is not sustainable, and that "we all need to get used to living denser." • Some participants mentioned retaining view sheds should be a priority. • One participant expressed a desire to see "blue sky at lower angles," and to see "interesting shapes of blue sky." • Another participant noted that the height and width of some new houses was an issue, though the main issue is coverage area. He felt 6U percent coverage area is reasonable. ~a • Again participants expressed the need for lots to be considered individually. One participant said, "Lots and spaces are different. I can't~think of any one thing that is so egregious it's not appropriate in some context." • Participants also expressed again the need for an incentive system to help achieve design objectives. One participant suggested a "series of trade-offs, like green points, so that architects are not in straight j ackets." • One participant in each group also commented that the quality of construction and building materials in some projects is what makes them aesthetically attractive or unappealing, depending upon the circumstances, yet this "detailing" is difficult to regulate. Overall House Size / Sguare Footage Participants were asked their opinion of overall house size and square footage as a determinant of compatibility. In connection with~this, they were also asked to discuss the city's existing floor area ratio (FAR) regulation or potential future FAR regulation. • Most participants in both groups felt that FAR regulations did not produce good design., especially if used without other design regulations. They referred to FAR regulations as "a blunt instrument," "crude," and "a hammer." Several participants in the October 23'~a group favored using a measure of volume in place of FAR. • Particularly in the October 23`d session, participants believed the current .8 FAR standard was inadequate to be effective and in most situations was too "generous" in terms of moderating building size. • Discussion was had on how to calculate FAR, with a participant noting that there is not a standard way of calculating FAR, in light of questions about whether basements, accessory buildings, garages, porches, etc are used in the calculation. • One participant felt that FAR could be useful as an analytical tool, in that it could trigger a review, but was not useful as a design tool. • 'Participants saw potential for a tiered review system, where a more detailed discretionary review process is triggered above a certain threshold of size. That threshold should be customized to the neighborhood and take into account yq adjacent properties. Participants stressed that any review process should Leave zoom for flexibility. Current Regulations Participants with personal experience with current regulations were asked if the current regulations could be streamlined. • Many members of the October 22°d group indicated that there are already too many restrictions in Boulder. One participant described a "complex set of regulations enforced to a fine degree," adding, "we've lost sight of the forest for the trees." • Some participants felt that "a simplified process would lead to better building." • Discussion was had on the size of a porch that is allowed to encxoach on a front setback. Many participants in both groups spoke of the value of front porches in increasing the aesthetic appeal of a neighborhood. • Several participants in both groups expressed concern about the "sawtooth elevation'' created by the current solar access regulations, stating that they led to buildings that are not symmetrical, and skew mass to one side of the lot. • Participants expressed concern over the large number ofnon-conforming lots and historic structures in many of the older neighborhoods of Boulder, and again stressed the need for greater flexibility in how non-conforming structures are treated in the regulations. • Members of both groups spoke to the need to continue to support affordability and sustainability. Facilitator Conclusions Feedback from both groups suggests that residents would like to see greater flexibility in current regulations, as well as a more effective method of allowing selective improvements and additions that enhance the property and contribute to neighborhood quality in instances where lots are non-standard. Feedback from the October 23 group indicates concern with new construction and additions occurring in single-family residential areas, especially neighborhoods such as Old North Boulder which have seen a recent influx of development. Most participants in both groups felt that any new or updated regulations should vary by and relate to specific neighborhoods. Participants also expressed a desire for neighborhood-specifc design guidelines and a process through which residents received incentives for creative solutions that meet community objectives. Though participants expressed concerns about the impacts of incompatible development on their neighborhoods, many were also concerned about creating additional regulations and bureaucracy that could add cost and hassles to development projects. A number of participants felt that only 10 -15 percent of additions and new construction cause substantial problems for the neighborhood. In addition, several participants spoke of the need to increase population densities to address overall sustainability or affordable housing goals. In some cases they hoped to see greater flexibility for duplex, multi-family or carriage house development within neighborhoods that are currently primarily single-family in character. S~ Attachment E ~~la! ° o ~ C O ~j j ~ COMPATIBLE .DEVELOPMENT IN SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS SURVEY RESULTS The survey results are organized in four sections and are presented as follows: 1. Written overview of results 2. Annotated survey with overall city-wide results 3. Graphs depicting the strongest agreement/disagreement with each question and the responses to the demographic questions 4. Cross tabulations of key survey results Overview On October 24, 12,044 surveys were mailed to all of the single-family homeowners within the Compatible Development project area. The project area included single-family homes withixt the RR, RE, RL-1, RL-2, and RMX-1 zoning districts. There are a total of 13,038 properties located within the project area. The reduction in total surveys mailed related to the number of property owners who own more than one home. Each homeowner, regardless of the number of properties they own, received one survey to voice their opinions on the project. A breakdown of property ownership is as follows; Number of Total # of # of Homeowners outside # of Homeowners homes owned Homeowners Boulder but in CU out-of--state 1 11,275 562 500 2 593 40 24 3 82 7 3 4 18 1 '2 5 11 0 2 6 5 0 0 7 3 0 0 8 or more 5 0 0 Total *1I,992 610 531 *52 unknown addresses A total of 3,947 or 33 percent of the surveys were returned in time to be included in the statistical analysis. To understand if there were differences in responses beriveen different areas of Bouidcr, respondents were asked to indicate where they lived. The project area was broken down into Gunbarrel, North Boulder, Central Boulder, South Boulder, Southeast Boulder, and Other. Both Central Boulder and South F3oulder were broken down further into smaller geographic areas. The largest number of returned surveys was fxom property owners located within the Central (38 percent) and South (32 percent) Boulder areas. This .is very consistent with the percentage of surveys mailed, as noted below; Property % of Surveys % of Surveys Location Mailed Returned Gunbarrel 1.70% 2.00% North 10.50% 14.00% Central 39.00% 38.00% South 32.fi0% 32.00% Southeast 15.45% 14.00% Other 0.76% 1.00% 'T'otal 100% 100% Patterns of Results RRC Associates completed the data input and review of the survey results. Based on their analysis, the following patterns were discerned; • Returned surveys were dominated by owner occupied units; only six percent of the responses were returned on long-term rentals and only one percent of the returned surveys were for second homes. • Owner-occupied respondents were more concerned about the impacts related to compatible development (66 percent agreed/strongly agreed with problem definition). Those who used their properties for long-term rentals were less likely to agree with the problem definition established by city council (40 percent disagreed/strongly disagreed). • The older the home the stronger the homeowner felt about the impacts of compatible development. Those with homes built on or before 1950 agreed more strongly with the problem definition and the impacts raised by the definition. • Geographically, respondents from Central Boulder felt the issues related to compatible development were more of a concern for their area. • The most returned surveys came from the 55-64 age group (27 percent) with 45-54 years old as the second Largest category of responses (26 percent). Those respondents that were under 4S years of age predominately live in the South Boulder (22 percent) and Central Boulder (21 percent} areas. • The older the respondent, the more likely they were to indicate that compatible development is a significant issue. When asked whether they agreed with the problem definition, those under 35 years of age were evenly split between agree/disagree. • Of those who strongly agreed with the problem definition, a convincing percentage felt that the problem existed throughout the city and understandably, those who did not agree with the problem definition felt there was no problem. • For those who agreed with council's problem definition, most felt that either the existing zoning standards should be changed and/or some type of design and approval process should be implemented by neighborhood. if the respondent disagreed with the problem definition, they indicated that either existing regulations should be streamlined and/or that no new regulations should be created. Survey Questions Part 2: Problem Definition Ovexall, the largest number of respondents, 65 percent, either agreed (32 percent) or strongly agreed (33 percent) with the problem definition adopted by council. The average score for all areas, besides Gunbarrel, was Higher than a six on the 10 point scale while the median score (or middle . of the 10 point distribution) for all areas was seven or above. These scores would indicate strong consensus on the problem definition throughout the city. The next question in the survey allowed respondents to determine where the problem existed in the city and it allowed them to mark any of the statements with which they agreed. When examining the respvnse, it woutd appear that the largest percentage believed the problem occurred vnly in limited areas of the city, i.e. small lots, small number of building, and limited to a few parts of the city. However, because this question allowed for multiple responses, closer scrutiny is required. The following table indicates in which categories respvndents provided more than one answer to this question. s~ There is The There is The a There is problem a problem problem, a most problem, most but it is problem, often and it often limited but it is occurs exist in occurs to small limited on many on small number to few There is steeply parts of tots in of parts of no sloping Overall the ci the cit buildin s the cit roblem lots There is a problem, and ii exist in man arts of the cit 44% 100% 45% 4% l% 0% 57% With The problem most often which of occurs on small lots in the the ci 20% 21% 100% 14% 23% 0% 7l% following statements There is a problem, but it is do you limited to small number of agree buildin s 23% 2% 16% 100% 14% 0% 14% There is a problem, but it is limited to few arts of the ci 19% 0% 22% 12% 100% 0% 17% There is no roblem 14% 4% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% The problem most often occurs on stee 1 slo in lots 3% 4% 12% 2% 3% 0% 100% Total 122% 128% 194% I33% 141% 100% 260% The table indicates that many of the respondents who believed that the problem is limited within the city marked more than one response. For example, of the 19 percent who felt that the problem is limited to a few parts of the city, 23 percent of those also believed the problem occurs on small lots. Uf the 23 percent who responded that the problem is limited to a small number of buildings, 14 percent of those felt it was on small lots and 12 percent felt it was limited to a few parts of the city. The largest number of respondents indicated that the problem exists in many parts of the city at 44 percent and of that percentage, 21 percent felt it was on small lots. When asked if the character of their neighborhoods were being impacted by recent construction, 53 percent either disagreed (15 percent) or strongly disagreed (38 percent) while only 30 percent of respondents either agreed (13 percent) or strongly agreed (17 percent). The average response rate to this question for all geographic areas, as well as by age, was a five or below. The responses were almost evenly divided between agree/strongly agree (43 percent) and disagree/strongly disagree (45 percent) to whether recent construction within neighborhoods was too large. Only the Central Boulder area had an average response higher than a five on this question. Of the ten questions asked based on the community workshops, there were three that showed a significant percentage response. They are as follows: *Updated on December 18, 2008 1. "A large house next door diminishes privacy in others' back yards." - 26 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed / 62 percent agreed or strongly agreed 2. "Bigger houses can fit in if they are well designed." - 20 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed / 62 percent agreed or strongly agreed ' 3. "Regulations to address new single-family construction should vary by neighborhood." - 22 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed / 58 percent agreed or strongly agreed When. exanuning the average response to the two questions receiving the largest support based on age, a pattern emerged. The younger the respondent, the more they felt large houses could fit into their neighborhoods and the less they felt their privacy is being diminished. Conversely, the older the respondent the less they felt larger houses could fit in and the more they felt large homes diminish their privacy. Part 3: Building Variables The question which received the highest percentage of agreement related building size to lot size (67 percent agreed or strongly agreed / 21 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed), indicating a desire for more proportionality on lots. The question with the second highest rate of agreement (62 percent agreed/strongly agreed and 19 percent disagreed/strongly disagreed) related to the solar access ordinance and the building form that is often seen as an unintended consequence of these regulations. The questions relating to a limit on building coverage and lowexing side wall heights also received strong support, 56 percent agreed or strongly agreed to both of these statements. The remaining two questions regarding a limit on paved surfaces and jogs or offsets in sidewalls were fairly evenly split along the 10 point scale. ' The final question under Part 3 asked respondents to indicate which actions the city should take regarding this issue. Eight actYOns were provided and property owners could mark all. They felt applied. The responses are ranked as follows; 1. Change existing zoning standards to mitigate impacts of larger buildings throughout the city's single-family districts. (46 percent) 2. F..'stablish a design review and. approval process that is tailored to individual neighborhoods. (41 percent) 3. Provide more flexibility in zoning standards for special conditions. (35 percent) 4. Provide a voluntary design handbook addressing mass and scale. (32 percent) 5. Streamline/simplify existing regulations (no new regulations). (30 percent) S~ 6. Change the existing solar access regulations to reduce possible effects on building form. (20 percent) 7. Change existing zoning standards to mitigate impacts of larger buildings, but only in targeted areas. (13 percent) 8. Make no changes to regulations (leave existing regulations in place). (12 percent) Geographically, the percentages of responses for each action were relatively the same. For example; 44 percent of the respondents in North Boulder, 47 percent of the respondents in Central Boulder, and 45 percent in South Boulder felt that existing zoning standards should be changed throughout the city's single-family districts. Part 4: Building Scenarios Of the four scenarios presented, Scenario C received the highest compatibility scores with the percentage of agree/strongly agree as follows; 67 percent on building coverage, 57 percent on overall mass, 45 percent on building height, and 53 percent on building foam. Scenario A received the lowest scores of eornpatibitity while B and D had mixed responses. Most respondents felt that building coverage and overall mass for Scenario B were compatible but they didn't feel as strongly about the buildings height and shape. Scenario D had very even percentage scores between agree/strongly agree and disagree/strongly disagree. The plan view drawing of Scenario's B and C provided the most open space in the rear yard. Lack of rear yard privacy was listed as one of the largest issues of concern under Part 2: Problem Definition. The support for Scenario's B and C lends credence to this concern. In addition, these homes have a more proportional ratio of building size to lot size supporting many of the concerns relating to lot coverage listed under Part 3: Building Variables General Conclusions Overall, respondents support council's problem definition and feel that the issue is city-wide. However, many indicated that the development of new housing and additions were not having as big of an influence on the character of their neighborhood. But, when asked about the impacts of new development, the survey revealed that the mass and scale of these homes reduce the privacy on neighboring lots. This lends support to the idea that the direct impacts of new development, particularly on adjacent neighbors is stronger than the influence these new homes have on the overall character of the neighborhood. It appears that there is almost equal support for dealing with the issue of compatibility from both a city-wide and a by-neighborhood perspective. In addition, there seems to be support for regulating the size of the homes, particularly proportionate to the lot. However, size is not the whole picture. With a significant majority of respondents indicating that large houses can fit in if designed properly, other design related regulations will need to be considered. Regardless of the final recommendations, some changes to current regulations are definitely supported. The "do nothing" scenario received the Lowest percentage of all possible responses. 't . This Survey Has Been Marked Up With Overall Citywide Results l-he percentage of ~:tll citywidis survey resl?aiidents sel~Ctiny eacf~7 c ~aice ~-e'rnctrkeci p - Com atible Developr~i~r~~~~~~• ~ 4=~~r~~~~~~~~~`~~~~'= ~ • Sin,g~l:e~-Fa : ~ ~.iy~ N~eig~h.borho~o~d~s City of Boulde~ .a ~s ~ ~ r• ~ ~ The city of Boulder is studying the impacts of home additions and new construction in single-family neighborhoods. We would like your help! Your response to this survey is important because it will help de#ermine whether new regulations or changes to current regulations should be considered by Planning Board and City Council. The survey has been sent to all property owners in single-family neighborhoods under evaluation as part of this project. Please return your completed survey as soon as possible but post-marked no later than Friday, November 7. You may use the enclosed postage paid envelope or deliver your survey in person to RRC Associates at 4940 Pearl East Circle, Suite 103, Boulder, CO 80301. If you have questions about the survey, you may contact Julie Johnston at the city of Boulder Planning Department by email at johnstonj@bouldercalorado.gov or phone at (303) 441-1886. More Information: Please visit the project Web site at www.boulderplandevelop.net and click on "Hoff Topics" for more information. To subscribe to the project a-mail list, go to the project Web site and click on "Subscribe to e-mail list" for more information. ~ Part 1: Location ~ ~ 1.1 In which part of the city is your property? ~ % • - \ 1. Gunbarrel 2%'- Response Rate: 3002 y,~.;, / 2. North Boulder 14%' -Response Rate: 4202 ~ - 1. Gun6:~rrel! cj. 3. Central Boulder 38°~' -Response Rate: 31 2 ~ ~ 2. North - a. north of Alpine and west of B Ioulder ~ Broadwa 24% of Central Linden AVc y Boulder Responses m b. north of Balsam/Edgewood i„;A~~. a I and east of Broadwa 2~°i° of Centrpal ° 'y I _ - _ ~ - y Boulder Res onses ~ ~ra~~aYe.`~N ~8 x Inlnr- - 0 c. south of AlpinelBaisamlEdgewood 3; Centr,~f.. _ ~ and north of Colle a zs%of central Boulder= y - _ - _ g Boulder Responses ~ n"P'""' ~ 5. ,Souttiea_'s_f~ 26% of Central d. SOUth Of College Boulder Responses ~~+~~•v`';, -c° ~Bo_ %ilder~~ r O 4. SOUth Boulder 32%' -Response Rate: 3202 . ~ _ .'f~ QL~.4~tSi~ a - 1'r Y.:ltf~, r-IIS-_ _--I~ 0 a. west of Broadwa s4°i° of South l ~ y Boulder Responses I(in av°. ! i 36% of South o O b. east Of BCOadway Boulder Responses 4. South 5. Southeast Boulder Boulder J--~:~,~` 14%' -Response o Rate: 29%2 ~~°a~. O 6. Other 1%' -Response Rate: 35%2 ~ Overall Response Rate: 32% i'Survey responses receiied from this area as a percent of all survey responses received. _ l' n Approximate percentage of property owners in this area responding to the survey. _ - ~j Problem Definition 2.2 please mark any of the following statements Part 2: with which you agree. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statements below. (Check U There is no problem. one answer for each question unless otherwise 1a% noted.) ~ There is a problem, but it is limited to a small 23%number of buildings. !n April 2008, the Boulder City Council adopted the ~ There is a problem, but it is limited to a few fallowing problem definition for this project: 1s°i°parts of the city. "To address the impact on existing established ~ There is a problem, and it exists in many parts neighborhoods of new construction and additions 4 %of the city. that are incompatible in scale and bulk with the character of fhe neighborhood. The impacts to be ~ The problem occurs most often on small lots considered include without limitation: consideration 2Q% m the city. of size, green space, massing and bulk planes, loss O The problem occurs most often on steeply of space between houses, privacy, view sheds, lot 3% sloping lots. coverage, blank walls, setbacks, height and the , streetscape and visual character." The following statements reflect specific comments The City Council also adopted specific goals and made in community workshops and meetings. objectives to supplement the problem definition. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or These include retaining flexibility for property disagree with the statements below as they apply owners, promoting variety in new construction, to the neighborhood where your house is located. ensuring that different neighborhoods and lots are (Check one answer for each question unless treated fairly, providing for unintended consequences otherwise noted.) and evaluating broad economic impacts. 2.3 "Some recent construction in my 2.7 Do you agree with the problem definition as neighborhood is too large." stated above? Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Strongly 45%' 13%2 43%3 0 1 O 2 O 3 O o O o o O o O o 0 Disagree 20 14 65 Agree 210 0 /0 9 /0 5 C7 /0 6 l0 7 0 9 /0 6 /0 211 ~ U 4 ~5) U 7 ~J 9 X10 2.4 "The character of my neighborhood is being 9% 4% 4% 3% 7% 7% 12% 20% 13% 20°i° negatively impacted by recent construction." erCentage of respondents w~dTsagree. Strongly Strongly Percentage of respondents who did not emphasize particula Disagree Agree agreement or disagreement. 55%' 15%Z 30%' ~Porcontage of respondents who agree. U (2) ~3j (4~ U U ~ (8~ U 10 26% 12% 11% 6% 8% 7% 6% 7% 4% 13% 2.5 "The loss of green space when larger buildings are constructed is a key issue." Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 37%' 15%2 49%3 3~ (4~ (5 6 (7~ (8 9 ~0 16% 7% 9% 5% 8% 7% il% 12% 8°10 18% 2.6 "The loss of mature vegetation when new construction occurs is a key issue." Part 3: Building Variables Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree New or revised regulations may be considered to 32%' 17°i 2 51°i' promote compatibility and address potential issues (2) (3 4) 5 U U U (9) with development in single-family neighborhoods. 12% 7% 8% b% 9% 8% 12% i5% a°i° 16% Such regulations could address potential visual 2.7 "A Large house next door diminishes privacy impacts of new construction or promote green in others' back yards." space on lots. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Please indicate the degree to which you agree 26°i' 12°io2 62°i' or disagree with the statements below. {Check 1 U 5 (6) U (9) ~0) one answer for each question unless otherwise 9% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 10% 15% 11% 26% noted.) 2.8 "Large, featureless walls along the side of a building is an issue that should be Relationship to Lot Size addressed." Regulations can limit a building's size in proportion Strongly Strongly to its iot. Disagree Agree 28%' 20%2 50%3 1 (2) (3 (4 lb) 6 7 (8. ~ 10 ~ 10% 6% 6% 6% 8% 12% 12% 14% 8% 16% ,•i : j 2.9 "Re ulations to rotect nei hborhood r~ 9 p g ~ ~ ~ character will lower property values." ~ ` ~ Strongly Strongly ~ - Disagree Agree 53%' 1802 30%3 Lower proportion of Higher proportion of 1 (2 3) U 5 6 8 (9 building size to lot size. building size to lot size. 17% 10% 16% 10% 11% 7% 6% 8% 5% 11% 2.10 "Bigger houses can fit in if they are well 3.1 Requirements should be set which relate the designed." size of a building to the size of its lot. Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 20%' 17%2 62%3 21%' 13%2 67%' ~t~ U ~3) (4~ ~5~ U U U (9~ (10 U ~ 4 (6) (7~ $ ~9~ ~tJ 5% 4% 5% 6% 8% 9% 14% 16% 10% 22% 9% 4% 5% 3% 6% 7% 12% 17% 12% 26% 2.11 "Neighborhood character should not be +percentageo respon entswho3isagree. regulated." Percentage of respondents who did not emphasize particula Stroh I Stroh ( ~a9reement or disagreement. g y 9 Y 'Percentage of respondents who agree. Disagree Agree 47%~ 15%2 37%3 1 ~3~ (4) (5) 6 (8) 10 15% 9% 13% 10% 9% 6% 7% 9% 6% 15% 2.12 "Regulations to address new single-family construction should vary by neighborhood." Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 22%' 18%2 58%' c1~2~®~~6~~~c9~~~ 10% 4% 5% 3% 9% 9% 16% 19% 9% 14% Building Coverage Side Wall Height Alf areas of a property that are covered by buildings Regulations can limit the height of all or part of a and roofed porches are included in building side wall. coverage. _ Building % Coverage ~ ~ j - Side wall height~~te,ps down along side proper~"y~ line. 3.2 A limit on the percentage of building 3.4 Wall height limits should be lower near the coverage should be considered. side property line. Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 21 17%z 56%3 24%' 19%Z 56%' 1~ (2~ 4 5 (6 (7) ~ Li (10 (1) 2 ~3) 4 5 ~6 7) (8) 10 11% 5% 6% 5% 8% 9% 13% 16% 9% 18% 10% 5% 5% 4% 10% 9% 14% 16% 10% 16% Paved Surfaces Side Wall Length These include all areas of a property that are Regulations can limit the length of a side wall. covered by driveways, parking areas and any paved patios and paths. - - - Paved Surfaces ~ _ - - _ r~ ,T-, Side wall jog reduces wall lengths. ~ 3.3 A limit on the percentage of paved surfaces 3.5 Jogs or offsets should be required to limit should be considered. the length of a building's side walls. Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Disagree Agree 35%' 19%2 45%3 35%' 27%2 39%3 (1 U 3 4 5 6 U ~ (9~ 1 U (3~ 4 U 6 ~7, ~ U 10 13% 7% 8% 7% 10% 9% 13% 12% 7% 13% 13% 7% 9% 6% 16% 11% 12% 10% 6% 11% ercentage o rest ponderits w of~cisagree. Percentage of respondents who did not emphasize particula agreement or disagreement. ~'Percentagr: of respondents who agree. ~Oi Solar Access Forms 3.8 Which of the following actions do you believe The city's existing solar access regulations limit the city should take? (Mark all that apply.) the amount of shadow that a building can cast on a ~ Make no changes to regulations (leave neighboring property. In some cases this may result 12% existing regulations in place). in a building form that is tallest near the southern property line and steps down on the north side. Streamline/simplify existing regulations (no - - 3o°i° new regulations). Change existing zoning standards to mitigate Ji t` ~ 4s°~° impacts of larger buildings throughout the city's single-family districts. southern ~ ~ Change existing zoning standards to mitigate property ' 1.3% impacts of larger buildings, but only in line / targeted areas. ~ / 0 Provide more flexibility in zoning standards for ~ 35% special conditions. Building mass jepped to meet Provide a voluntary design handbook solar access requirements. 32% ~ _ _ addressing mass and scale. 3.6 The impact of existing solar access O Establish a design review and approval regulations on building form should be 41% process that is tailored to individual evaluated. neighborhoods. Strongly Strongly Disagree 1s 18 Agree ~ Change the existing solar access regulations ° ~ ° 2 62°~' 20°i° to reduce possible effects on building form. U ~ U 5~ <8~ ~Q~ 8% 3% 5% 3% 9% 9% 12% 16% 12% 22% 3.7 In determining the compatibility of major Part 4: Building Scenarios additions and new construction in your neighborhood, please rate the six variables Each of the four scenarios on the following discussed above from most important (1) to pages illustrates a house that could be built on least important (6). a 7,000 square foot lot in a sample single-family neighborhood in Boulder. The sample neighborhood ss°~ ° / 82°i°~ Relationship to lot size represents typical conditions in some single-family 10%° / 73%5 Building coverage areas but may not represent the typical conditions in your neighborhood. However, your responses to the 3°~a °°5 Paved surfaces various scenarios will help us understand whether or not specific regulations should be considered. 5%° / 45%5 Side wall height Please select one answer for each question that 1°i4/2o°i$ Side wall length best describes your opinion regarding the new house illustrated in each scenario. 21°~°° s°i 5 Solar access forms ~'i'eroentago oTrespondents wTio disagree. ~ Percentage of respondents who did not emphasize particula agreement or disagreement. Percentage of respondents who agree. 'Percentage of respondents ranking variable as most important (1). Percentage of respondents ranking variable as first, second or third most important (1), {2) or (3). .y.... Part 4: Scenario A , Plan View Isometric View - - New - - - l Building M;_~ , ~ 1 ~ fy,3 F,:. ~ ~ d ` r~' .''l y ' ~ ~ r ~ ~ C P i m ~ ~ ~ ~ i ' New? r ~ ' r Street Level View New Building .a, Elevation View III [ Q ~ I ~ New Building i ~ dB © B 9 a , - d ~ i~ - Please respond to each of the statements below 4.3 Building height is compatible. by checking the answer that best describes your Strongly Strongly opinion. Disagree Agree 53%' 16%t 30%3 4.1 Building coverage is compatible. 1 2) ~3) ~ `6 U 10 18% 11% 14% 10% 9% 7% 8% 7% 5% 10% Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 4.4 Building form (shape) is compatible. 63%' 11 %2 2603 U (2~ 3 41 U 6 (7~ (8~ ~ ~ p~ Strongly Strongly 22% 14% 16% 11% 6% 5% 6% 6% 4% 10% Disagree o ~ o z ° 3 Agree 52 /0 16 /0 31 /o 4.2 Overall mass (size) is compatible. 2 5~ 6~ 71 (8~ 9 Strongly Strongly 18% 12% 13% 9% 9% 7% 9% 9% 4% 9% Disagree Agree ~'lsorcentage of respo-~~~disagree. 68%' 10%' 23%' 'Percentage of respondents who did not emphasize particula 1 (3 ~4~ 5 6 7~ (S~ (9) agreement or disagreement. 24% 16% 17% 11 % 6% 4% 5% 5% 4% 9% j Percentage of respondents who agree: ~3 Part 4: Scenario B Plan View Isometric View New - - - ~ % Building CIF ; 1,~ C~ \ / ~ , ,J • - - - New u Buildin Street Level View -i New Building -J~. _ _ ~ eo o e a Elevation View ~ ~ ~ ~ I IJ~ New Building ~ - - rye e ~ a _ = t-.~ n - ~c ~ ~ Please respond to each of the statements below 4.7 Building height is compatible. by checking the answer that best describes your Stron I opinion. Strongly A ree Disagree ° . ° z , , 9 44 ~ 17 /0 38 /o 4.5 Building coverage is compatible. (1 ~ (2) U 4 ~5 (EJ (8_, 9 Strongly Strongly 11% 9% 13% 11% 9% 8% 10% 9% 6% 13% Disagree ° ~ ° : ° 3 Agree 4.8 Building form (shape) is compatible. 18 18 64 Strongly Strongly U ~ (4) 5 6 ~7) (81 ~ 10 A ree 4% 3% 5% 6% 9% 9% 15% 18% 12% 19% Disagree ° ~ 22°/ 2 a7%3 g 30 /o 4.6 Overall mass (size) is compatible. (1) U 4 (7 8 9 10) Strongly Strongly 8% 6% 8% 8% 1i% 11% 13% 13% 7% 14% Disagree Agree ~orcen(age o~spon ents who disagree. 27%' 20%z 5303 'Percentage of respondents who did not emphasize particula 1, (2~ 3 t 4) (7~ 8 ~9) agreement or disagreement. 6% 4% 8% 9% ti % 9% 14% 14% 9% 16% Percentage of respondents who agree. fo Part 4: Scenario C Plan View Isometric View /r- - - New C ~ Building _ 7 - _ i r i r. a~'fk' • ~ ~ ~ I „r 1 r,, - .i. ~ . ~ ~ ~ q ~ ~ ~ - f<_; New , Buildin Street Level View New Building - OB ~ ~~8, Elevation View ~I ~ ~ Q C ~ i New Building 00 aee - - T - 1 1 ~ i~ ' i - - - Please respond to each of the statements below 4.11 Building height is compatible. by checking the answer that best describes your Strongly Strongly opinion. Disagree Agree 36%~ 19%z 45%3 4.9 Building coverage is compatible. 1 2~ 4 5 (7~ l,_>~ (9~ 10 Strongly Strongly 8% 7% 10% 11% 10% 9% 11% 12% 7% i5% Disagree Agree 4.12 Building form (shape) is compatible. i 6%' 17%2 67%' 1 (2~ ~3) (\51 (7 (8~ ~ 10 Strongly Strongly 4% 3% 4% 5% 8% 9% 14% 19% 13% 21% Disagree ° ~ ° z ° 3 Agree 25 21 53 4.10 Overall mass (size) is compatible. 1 U 4 5 ~ U (8~ 9 10 Strongly Strongly 6% 4% 7% 8% 10% 11 % 14% 14% 9% 16% Disagree ° ~ 19%z 57°~ 3 Agree ercentage o respon ents w o isagree. 22 Percentage of respondents who did not emphasize particula 1 2 ~5) 6 7 8 9 ~0 agreement or disagreement. 4% 5% 6% 7% 9% i0% 13% 15% it% 18% (Percentage of respondents who agree. Part 4: Scenario D Plan View Isometric View New ' - Y Building ~ _ 1 ~ ~ l~ ~ \ ~j ~ ~ ~ i~ - \ ~s. -y%5 - - _ - - - New ~ Buildin Street Level View New Building OB i 0~ ~ , Elevation View I New Building ~ 8 0l3 ~ Piease respond to each of the statements below 4.15 Building height is compatible. by checking the answer that best describes your Strongly Strongly opinion. Disagree Agree 37%' 19%= 44%3 4.13 Building coverage is compatible. (J ~ <3) 4) (5) ~6) L) 8) 9 X10 Strongly Strongly 9% 7% 11 % 10% 11 % 8% 10% 11 % 8% i 5% Disagree Agree 4.16 Building form (shape) is compatible. J ~ J Strongly Ll (2) 3 U UOo/(~ U ~8~47o/r~~ ~0 Strongly A ree 7% 6% 9% 1i% 11% 9% 12% 11% 8% 16% Disagree 29°/, 21%Z 50%3 g 4.14 Overall mass (size) is compatible. 2 U 5 (6 U (J 10) Strongly Strongly 7% 6% 8% 8% 11% 10% 12% 13% 9% 16% Disagree Agree orcentage o respondenis wh~isagree. f 37%' 19°~ z 45°~ a ~Percentago of respondents who did not emphasize particula U (3) 4) 5J U 8 (,9) 10 agreement cr disagreement. 7% 7% 10% 13% 10% 9% 11% 10% 8% 16% [Percentage of respondents who agree. t~ 5.7 Within the next five years, do you plan to: Part 5: General Questions ~ 1. Sell your house in Boulder 11% 5.1 How is your property in Boulder currently ~ 2. Maintain your house in Boulder as it is ~s°~° used? ~ 3. Expand your house in Boulder 12°~° 1. Primary residence for owner e3°i° 5.8 What do you think you could sell your house 2. Rented long-term to local resident s°i° in Boulder for today? 3. Second home for owner i°i, ~ 1. Less than $300,000 j% ' 4. Vacant o°i° ~ 2. $300,001 to $400,000 15% 0 5. Other: ~ 3. $400,001 to $600,000 3s°i° 5.2 What year was your house in Boulder built ~ 4. $600,001 to $800,000 21°i° (tf you know)? Average: 1959 ~ 5. $800,001 to $1,000,000 ~z°i° 6. $1,000,001 to $1,500,000 s% 5.3 to what year did you purchase your house ~ 7. $1,500,001 to $2,000,000 3°i° in Boulder? Average: ~sso ~ 8. More than $2,000,000 z°i° 5.4 How many square feet of living space does 5.9 Which of the following best describes your your house in Boulder have? household? 1. Less than 1,000 square feet 5°i° 1. Adult living alone ~~°i° 0 2. 1,000 to 2,000 square feet as°i° 0 2. Single parent with child(ren) a°~° 3. 2,001 to 3,000 square feet 37°i° ~ 3. Couple, no child(ren) 3s°i° 4. 3,001 to 4,000 square feet 13% 4. Couple with child(ren) 32% 0 5. 4,001 to 5,000 square feet a°i° ~ 5~ Unrelated roommates 3°i° 6. Over 5,000 square feet 2°i° ~ 6. Family members and unrelated roommates z°i° Q 7. Immediate and extended family members 3°~° 5.5 Have you in the past 10 years: 1. Constructed an addition to your house in 5.10 If you are a resident of Boulder, in what year Boulder ~~°i° did you move to Boulder? Average: 1981 Q 2. Demolished the prior house and replaced it 5.11 What year were you born? average Age: 57 with a new house z°i° 0 3. Built a new house on an empty lot 1°~° 5.12 Additional Comments: 4. None of the above ao°i° 5.6 If you have constructed an addition or built a new house, how many square feet did you add? 1. Addition Average: 713 square feet ss°i° Q 2. New houseAverage:3413square feet 12°i° Thank you for your participation! (o ~ Boulder Compatible Development 2008 10 -Strongly Agree 20% i g 13% I $ 20% 7 12% i f DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROBLEM DEFINITION AS STATED? I I ~ Average=8.8 I_ - - - 7% I ~ f 3 ~ 4% ~ ~ ~ 1 -Strongly Disagree - - 9% I There is a problem, and it exists in many parts of the city ~ ~ I' There is a problem, but limited to small number of buildings _ 23% ~ I The problem occurs most often on small lots in the city 20% I I I I WITH WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING There is a problem, but limited to few parts of the city 19% STATEMENTS DO YOU AGREE? There is no problem 14% The problem most often occurs on steeply slcping lots 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% QO% X15% 50% Percent responding Boulder Compatible Development 20Q8 Do you agree or disagree with the following statements as they apply to your neighborhood 100% 9.0 ° ~ % Responding 9 - 10 90 /c - ©%Responding 1 - 2 - 8.0 Mean SO% • - 7o°i° 6-4 -~'`.~Q~5.8 '~'~-'Q.5.2 ~ ~ y 50% - "~O-~ ~ a.5 ~ c y y 4.0 ~ ~ p 40% 37% 38% a 32% 3.0 e 31% w ~ 30% - 2T°/ 27% 24% 25% 24% 25%23% 25% ° 21% 2.0 20% - 17% 19/0 16% 17% 14% 14% ° 0% 0.0 6;gysr ncuses A lace i;u.ae .zuyu;z;,nns lu Large fealu •eless Th° ,oss of ma;;.ra Thu .oss of grea^ Soma recent Neig^bo•^.-ooc Rogula5cns to T`° cha~ac;er of niy car ir. if they next door adcress new single- vials along :h° s;de vegetatior. when rew spac° whon larger consttucti?a .n my character st:ou;d not protect neighba•".ooc.' r:eighbornuoc is are wet, cesigned diminishes privacy far;i;y canstrucdon of a bui:dirg is an construction occurs buildings ere nelghbort:ood is too ha regulated characterv>':II lower being negatively i.- otners' back yards =_ho,.Id vary by issue Nal shou'd be I; a koy issuo crostueted Is a key large property vanes impacted by rece^; neighborhAOd add-essed issue consWCficr Boulder Compatible Development 2008 bo you agree or disagree with the following statements 100% 9.0 ~ % Responding 9 - 10 0 90 0 p % Responding 1 - 2 • 8.0 ~ Mean 80% p"7 ~ -----Q-6.9 - 7.0 v ar iA 70% 6.3 Q 6.0 a ~ to 5.7 C 60% - 5.5 p u 5.0 c Q o fY m 50% - C ~ `at - - 4.0 a~i ro h o i q 40% - ~ 38 /o d ~ 34% 0 3.0 30% 0 27% 26 /o - 20% 20% 20% - 2.0 20% 16% 17% 15°/a 13% = ==t~'~' 11% 1.0 10% 0% 0-0 Requirements should The impact c. existing Wail f•eiyht Timis A limit on the percentage cf A limit on the percentaye of Jogs or offsets should be be set which relate solar access regulations should be lower near building coverage should be paved surfaces should be required to limit the length of a the size of building on building form should the side property line considered ccnsidered building's side walls to the size of its lot be evaluated Boulder Compatible Development 2008 Relationship to lot size 59% i Solar access forms 21 % Building coverage 10% Side wall height 5% MOST IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE COMPATIBILITY OF MAJOR ADDITIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Paved surfaces 3% Side wall length 1% i Building coverage 3g jo Relationship to lot size 17% t Side wall height 15% ~ I i SECOND MOST IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE COMPATIBILITY OF Solar access forms 14% MAJOR ADDITIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Paved surfaces 9% Side wall length 7% Relationship to lot size 76"/0 i i ~ Building coverage 47% I i i Solar access forms 35% Side wall height 20% TOP TWO MOST IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE COMPATIBILITY OF MAJOR ADDITIONS AND NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Paved surfaces 12% 1 Side wall length 9% ~ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent responding Boulder Compatible Development 2008 Which of the following actions do you believe the city should take? i Change existing zoning standards 46% (single-family districts) f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Establish design & approval process for 41% indiv. neighborhoods More flexibility in zoning standards far .'~5% 1 special conditions i Provide a voluntary design handbook 32% addressing mass & scale i Streamline/simplify existing regulations 30% (no new regs.) i Change solar access regs. to reduce effects 20% 1 on building form ~ I Change existing zoning standards 7301 (only in targeted areas) i Make no changes to regulatiors 72% I ~ (leave existing in place) i 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45°ro 50% Percent responding Boulder Compatible Development 2008 Scenario A: Which best describes your opinion regarding the new house? 100% 6.0 90% ~ ~ % Responding 9 - 10 Responding 1 - 2 ~-Mean - 5.0 80% 4.7 m 70% - .3 a~ Q 4-D 4.0 ~ o~ = 0 60% ~ w C Q O C t`0 t~ ~ ~ 50% - 3.0 ~ - W C ~ 1CC~0 ~ N C ~ ~ 40% - 40% per. ~ 36% Lam` 30% 31% - 2.0 30% - 1 5 `'i,. 13% 14% 1.0 12% 10% - 0% 0.0 B~i,ding height is cempatlble Building form (shape) is compatble Building coverege Is compa5bfe Overall mass (size) is compatible Boulder Compatible Development 2008 Scenario B: Which best describes your opinion regarding the new house? loo°i° 8.0 ~ % Responding 9 -10 ° ° - - Responding 1 - 2 7.0 0-s•s ~--Mean 80% - .4 s.o - - s.o a 70% Q 5.3 rn ~a~`i 5.0 ~ 0 60% - ~1 o ~ c Qo ~ 50% - ~ 4.0 ~ S ~ ~ ~ 40% - - 3.0 a c 31 p 30% - 25% 21% 21% 2.0 19% 20% - 14 10% - 1.0 10% 7% _ 0% . 0.0 Bwldirg coverage is compatible Overall mass isi~e) is cornpa:itrle Building form (shape) is compatible Building height is compatible Boulder Compatible Development 2008 Scenario C: Which best describes your opinion regarding the new house? 1 oo°i° s.o 90% _ - ~ % Responding 9 -10 x"7'1 Responding 1 - 2 7.0 ~ Mean 6.7 80% - 6.4 6.0 m 5.9 d 70% a, Q a ~ 'a, i 60% 5.0 O ~ C ~ n 'a ((1~ ~ ~ 50% - - 4.0 ~ r,, i ~ ~ h d d 4 40% - ~ d. ~ 34°!~ - 3.0 0 u 30% - - 29% 25% 22% 2.0 20% 15% 10% 1.0 9% 10% 7% 'i - - 0% 0.0 Building coverage is corpatible Overall mass (size) is compatible Butlding form (shape] is compatible fiudding height is compatible Boulder Compatible Development 2008 Scenario D: Which best describes your opinion regarding the new house? 1 oo°r° a.o ~ % responding 9 - 10 Responding 1 - 2 90% -O-Mean - 7.0 BO% Q-6.2 s.i 6.0 ^m 5- 5.8 70% - Q C~ or - - 5.0 ~ Qo T ~ ~ ~ 50% - 4.0 ~ c ~ d ~ H ~ ~ 40% 3.0 a 0 y 30% 25% 25% 23% - 2.0 LO% 16% 12% 13% 14% 1.0 10% - ~r 0% I - 0.0 Buil~~n~ Corm lshape~ is compat,b?e i;ur.aing coverage s corr:patiG;e Overall mass (size) is compatible Bulldiny height is compatible Boulder Compatible Development 2008 Primary residence for owner 93,/0 Rented long-term to local resident 6% Other 1% HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY 1N BOULDER CURRENTLY USED? Second home for owner 1 °1o I I Vacant 0% i 2001-2008 12% I 1991 - 2000 20% i 1981 - 1990 18% i 1971 -1980 22°k IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF BOULDER, IN WHAT YEAR DID YOU MOVE TO BOULDER? i 961 -1970 18% Avorage=1981 ` .1951 - 1960 7% 1950 or before 3% i I ~ 1950 or before 20% ~ 1951 -1965 45% IN WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT? 1966 - 1980 22% Avorage=1959 1981 to present 14% 1950 or before 0% 1951 - 1965 6% ~ IN WHAT YEAR DID YOU PURCHASE YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER? 1966 - 1980 19% I Average=1990 i i 1981 to present 7q% 0% 10% 20°'0 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent responding Boulder Compatible Development 2008 How many square feet of living space does your house in Boulder have? Over 5,000 square feet 2% 4,001 - 5,000 square feet 4% 3,001 - 4,000 square feet 13% ~ ~ i 2,001 - 3,000 square feet 37% ~I 1,000 - 2,000 square feet 40% i Less thar. 1,000 square feet 5% ~ ~ 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35°l0 40% 45% Percent responding Boulder Compatible Development 2008 None ~ 8U% Constructed an addition to 17% your house in Boulder Demolished the prior house and 2% WHICH HAVE YOU DONE IN THE PAST 10 YEARS replaced it r,vith a new house Built a new house on an empty lot 1% i I Maintain your house in Boulder as it is 7$% I Expand your house in Boulder 12% i WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, DO YOU PLAN TO: Sell your house in Boulder 11% i $400,000 or under 17% $400,001 - $600,000 36% WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU COULD SELL $600,001 - 5800,000 21 % YOUR HOUSE !N BOULDER FOR TODAY? I ' 5800,001 - $1,000,000 12% ~ 51,000,001 or more 14% o 'o o ~o 0 0 0 0~ o 0 0 /0 10 /0 20 /0 30 /0 40 /0 50 /0 60 /0 70 io 30 /0 90 /o Percent responding Boulder Compatible Development 2008 18-24 0% ! 25 - 34 5% I 35-44 15% I ~ 45 - 54 26% AGE OF RESPONDENT i ~ Average=56.6 55 - 64 2T% I I I 65-74 16% ~ ~ 75 or older 1Z% O ~ Couple, no child(ren) 39% Couple with child(ren) 32% Adult living alone 17% Single parent with child(ren) 4% ~ WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOUR HOUSEHOLD immediate and extended family members 3% Unrelated roommates 3% Family members and unrelated roommates 2% Other 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40°,~0 45% Percent responding BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long residence for term to local Second home OVERALL Under 35 35-45 46.55 56.65 86 orolder owner resident for owner Vacant Other Gunbarrel 2% 1'/o i~, 2`i; 2% i% 2°,~E 1% North Boulder bi?~~ 4'!a i0`h 14°/, 17°!° 13% 14°5 9°ic "s3% IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS Centtal Boulder 3830 33% 44°/ 39% 37% 34% 38% 34% 37 % i7% 38% YOUR PROPERTY South Boulder 32% 46% 3"s% 30°./0 29% 34% 32% 39% 37°l0 5C°,% 38',/0 SoutheastBoutder ?4% ?7% 10`S 14% 13% 17% 14% 161 15% 21% Other 1°h 1°/, 1% 1°h 2% 11% 3;6 100% 100°k 100% 1U055 1G0% 100% 1CG°io ;OC'/o "OC°h i0G°i0 'OC TOTAL n = 3,86 i 183 615 1,009 973 920 3,561 218 27 6 34 Norlh of A1plne and West of Broadway 24%. 19% 31 % 27°,6 22% 19% 25% 11% iC'% 100% 15 is (IF CENTRAL BOULDER] North of BaisamlEdgewood and Eastof Broadway 213'0 36°! 2"a% 19% 18% 24°~ 21°h 21% 1C% 15% WHERE IS YOUR PROPERTY LOCATED South of AlpinelBalsamiEdgewoodand NoM of College 29% 31°h 27;5 30% 35% 23% 28°~ 35% 30'~ 31% South of College 26% ; 5'/0 19% "[4% Z6% 35% 25°~ 2?% 5G% 38% 100% 100°h 1GU% 100% 1c0/ 1C"v% 1C3°h 100% 100°'0 100°/, 'OC% TOTAL n = 1,421 59 266 392 347 3C1 1,317 71 10 1 ?3 (IF SOUTH BOULDER} WHERE IS West of Broadway 64% 36% 53% 66% 66;5 75% 57 % 30% 60% 67% 38% YOUR PROPERTY LOCATED of Broadway 36% 64% 4?% 34% 34% c"5°./e 3355 1G% 40`k 33% 62% ;CCic 'OC'/ 100'/0 100% 100i~ ?UG`; 100`/ 10C96 1GC% iCv% 1G0%o TOTAL n = 1,241 84 2G5 296 28,7 310 ',122 82 I 10 3 13 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long residence for term to local Second home OVERALL Under 35 35.45 46.55 56-65 66 or older owner resident for owner Vacant Other 1 • Strongly Disagree 9% 9% 9°b 1 CYo 9°~a 7°/ 8% 24'ic '.9°,~c i 3 io 2 4% 3% 4% 5°~ 5% 2°,~c 4% 1Dio 4% 33% 3 4% 4% 5% 4%a 4% 3°0 4'/0 3% 4% 3 is 4 3% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3`,~S 3% 3% 4% 17% 6% DO YOU AGREE WITH 5 T,6 1"°,%c 7% 6'/0 6°ie 8% 7°I° 6'/0 :'1°/a 1T/c 13i~ THEPR08LEM DEFINITlONAS 6 9% 8% E°/a 8% 7?/0 7% 5% 7% 17o E%o STATED 7 12% 22%0 15%a i3°h 10°/a 8'0 12% 8% 4?0 6% 8 ZO°/a 23% 21% 2 i°/a 18% 19% 20% 14°ea 2570 22°/a 9 13°l0 4ii 12% 12°h 12% 15`,~~ 13% '.3% 4% 1714 3'.0 10•StronglyAgree 2C%a 8'/0 14°h 18% 24% 27% 21% 14% 21°rc 1E'h c~c~ TOTAL iOCh 1C0% 100% 100°/a 100% 10'J% 100'/0 1C0% 100% 1'JO°ri 1GG5o Average 6.8 6.2 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.3 6.9 5.5 6.2 4.7 5.8 Median 8.D 7.C 7A 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 7.5 4.5 6.0 n = 3,784 181 6C1 989 958 885 3,473 216 28 6 32 There is a problem, and it exists in many parts of the city 44% 18% 30;'a 42% 48%a 55;~ 45% 29°,~0 33% 33°i° 21% WItH WHICN There is a problem, but limited to small number of buildings 23';~a "S5%a 30'/c 2"s°k 22% 16°'0 22:~a 24% 21°i° 33% 33% OF THE The problem occurs most oten on small lots in the city 20',~o 13% 18% 20'~ 19°!0 26% 21% '.4%a 21 °,6 17°la 12'/a FOLLOWING STATEMENTS There is a problem, but limited to few parts of the city 19% 30°/a 26% 18°io 17% 17%a 19°/a 19% il% 27`/ DO YOU AGREE There is no problem `4% 17% 14% 15°/a 13°io 1i'/a 12% 30% 21% 33% 21% The problem most often occurs on steeply sloping lots 3°/a 2°/a 2% 3'/ 4'/0 4°/a 4% CY 4%a 3?4 122% 113% ' 19',~ ' 21 0 123°k 128Y 123°/a 116'/ 1' 7°h `.1? is ' 18°h TOTAL 3,7E4 176 592 988 955 895 3.467 207 24 6 33 09 Dec OB Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long /IGREE CR CiSf+GREE'NITH THE FOLLOV?I!vG residence for term to local Second home ASTHEYAPPLY70YOURP:E!GHBORHOOp OVERALL Under35 35.45 46-55 56-65 66 or older owner resident forowner Vacant Other 1-ShonglyDtsagreo 2'% Z3';~ 2C% 22% 23"/c 18'/, 20% 33°~ 23°/a 33% 33% 2 10% 12% 11°/ 10°!c 10% 7% 10% 50% 8% 9;; 3 9°rc 15% 13% 7°h 9% 8% E?' 9% 15% 17°e 243c 4 5% 8°l 6% 6°l0 4% 5°.E 530 2% 4% E SOME RECENT CONSTRUCTION IN MY 5 7°/a 7% 7% 6°k 6% 93c 7% 10°k 43c '7°{a 6°,~0 NEIGHBORHOOD IS T00 6 g%, g% 7°/u 6% 6°h 5% 6% 5% 4% 17',ro 3% LARGE 7 7% 7% 8% 7°,5 63~c 6% 6% 6% S% 17% 6°;~ 8 9°,ro 6% :0% 8%a 9% i0'J;o 5.0 6°1c 8% 9 6°./0 4% 4% 7°h E% 7% 6°.k 4°/ 8aio 10-StrongiyAgree 21% 6% 14°h 22% 23% 26% 22% 12% 19% 12°~0 TOTAL 1C0°l 100`h 1G0°h 1003; 100%0 1GC% 100'/ 100°r, SGO% iC056 Average 5.4 4.0 4.9 5.4 5.5 5!3 5.5 4.2 5.2 3.8 3.6 w Median 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 6.C 5.0 3A 4,5 4.0 3.0 n=' 3,855 179 612 1,0;6 973 697 3,535 21S 26 6 33 1- Strongty Disagree 26°10 383~c 3G% 27°k "[3% 22% 25% 39 % 27% 33% 34',0 2 12'h 1?% 13% 10'/0 15% 1C3o 12`5 11% ',9';6 3 'S% 16% 12% '1°/ 10% 10%u 11% 10°~ 8% 3330 .0°/, 4 5 ~ 133'o S°/ fi% 6% 4% 6% 5% i2'/o 17`!0 6iS THE CHARACTER OF MY NEIGHBORHOOOIS 5 8% 7°!0 9% 8% 530 '2% Sib 13% 4% 6iS BEING NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY RECENT 6 7% k% 7°io 69a 5°,~ 7% 53c 8% 17`iu 3% CONSTRUCTION 7 6% 3°.~0 6°/ 6% 6% 7% 7% 2% 12%a 3% S 7°./0 4a/a 5°h 7% 8°k 8% 7% 6% 4% 3% 9 4% 1% 3% 4% 43'0 6%0 4% 2% S% 1S-Strongly Agree 13% 1% 7% 12% 14% 18%. 13°~ 6% 19% 9% TOTAL 1C~°c 10C°!° 100`h 1G03~ 100% 1C0% iG~% 100a/° 100% 1G~°/c iGv°k Average 4.5 3.0 3.9 4.6 4.7 5.1 4.6 3.5 5.3 3.0 3.3 Medtan 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 2.5 5.5 3.0 2.C n = 3,854 179 61~ 1,0'7 970 898 3,544 216 26 6 32 09 Dec OB Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USEp AGREE ORuiSAGREE'1i;TNTr'E Primary Rented long FOLLGNW~ residence for term to local Second home ASTNEYAPPLYTOYOURA't:1~tI80RH0pD OVERALL Under 35 35-45 46.55 56.65 66 or older owner resident for owner Vacant Ofher 1-Strongly Disagree 1896 '7% 15°6. 18% 16'/0 13°!> 15°'~ 2655 1516 33 % 18% 2 7%, 4%> 9% 7% 9% 5% 7% 10% 7% 24`'/> 3 9°h 'S% 10% 8% 9°10 7% 9°h SC% 496 33'10 3% 4 5% 9?0 6% 5% 596 5°k 5% 7°h 15°.lc 690 THE LOSS OF GREEN SPACE WHEN 5 8% 8% 896 7% 896 10°6 8% 8%c 11% '255 LARGER BUILDINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED 6 736 5% 8°h 8°h 6% 7% 7% 3% 4% 995 IS A KEY ISSUE 7 11°h 9% 12% 1i% :1% 11°!° 11% 7% 1796 6°!0 8 1296 13% 11% 12°h 1036 '4°ib 12% 10°!° 19% c°~ 9 8% 7% 6°.6 7% Bic 99S 8% 9% i 1°/0 696 10-SironglyAgfee '8% 12% 159'0 i8% 199 19% 18% 12°!0 15% 1Tio 9°h TOTAL ':0036 1C,^,°,•6 13GS6 10C'S 12790 i0:;% 1005i> 100% 100% 10C°/ 100`ib Average 5.8 5.3 5.5 5? 5.7 62 5.8 4.8 5.7 4.2 4.5 ,,,5 Median 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.C 6.0 7.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 n = 3 867 182 617 1,017 971 9C4 3.55C 221 27 6 33 1-StronglyplSagree 12% 1336 12% 13% 13°/a iC% 11% 23% 15°h 16°/> 2 7% 890 7% 8% 8% 6% 1C°/ 17°io i9% 3 896 9% 9% B% 7;5 8% 8°ib 8% 4% 179b 3% THE LOSS OP 4 5% 10 0 61 4%> 5°l 6% 5% 6°b 7% 17% 9% h1ATURE 5 9°,6 9`/0 8% 8% 8°.'0 1U`/o 9°'0 9% 11i'o 13°./0 VEGETATION WHEN NEW CONSTRUCTION 6 8% 7% 996 896 79c i196 9% 796 33 ~ 13°,~0 OCCURS IS A KEY ISSUE 7 12% 1196 10% 1396 13% 1"[% 12°i0 9°./0 22`'0 6% 8 1536 15% '-755 14% '3% 15% 15°1c 13% 1'.% 9% 9 8% 790 890 8%> 9% 89'c 8°/ 4°h i5% E%c 10-StrongyAgree 1696 '3;5 1696 '6°/ 18% 16% 17% 13°k 7% 69'0 TOTAL 100°/o i(A2i6 1C0% '00°,io 1v~J% 10C''/ 100% im°'c 1W'% '00'ib 10Uo Average 8.0 5.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.1 U. i 5.0 5.8 3.7 4.8 Medlan 7.0 6.~ 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.C 7.0 5.0 7.0 3.5 5.C n ~ 3,87'? 18's 6'.7 1,017 5?7 9~4 3,55E 222 27 6 32 09 Dec OS Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN 80ULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long AGREE OR DISAGREE YIiTH THE FOLLO'N1NG residence for term to local Second home AS THEYARRLYTOYOURNE;GHBORhOpp OVERALL Under 35 35.45 46-55 56-65 66orolder owner resident for owner Vacant Other 1-StronglyDlsagree 9% ;0% 5% 10% 9% 9% 15% 11% 33% 946 2 6°( 796 740 6% 5% 4°/ 5% ?3% 7% 12% 3 6% ;3% 5% 6% 6% 4% 9% 4% 18°(c 4 544. 5°h 7% 4% 4 ~6 3°!0 446 7`,~0 6% A LARGE HOUSE NEXT 5 690 990 5°h 596 6% 6°h 6°/ 9% 11% 1T/o DOOR DIMINISHES PRIVACY IN OTHERS' 6 6% 1390 9% 590 5% 5°<< 6% 245 7% ;8% BACKYARDS 7 10% 1740 12% 11'/0 9% 94'0 10% 7% X46 :79'0 3 9 ?5% 14% 16% 15% 16% 16°/c 16% 6% 19% 33',5 6'i:. 9 '1">-~ 7% 12'/0 119c 14% 139c 1990 6°~ 10-Strongly Agree 269° 890 21% 25% 30% 31',6 2790 19% 19'/0 2t% TOTAL 100% 10.7% 100% 100% 10046 10090 ?00% 1CD96 lOC'/o 10U% 10016 Average S.8 5.6 6.4 6.7 7.0 T.3 6.9 5.6 6.6 5.0 5.6 Median 8.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 d.0 5.0 8.0 6.0 6.0 n= 3,892 182 614 1,019 981 907 3,563 223 27 6 33 1•StronglyDlsagree ;0% 12% ;0% 11°h 9% 10% 19% 15% 17% 6% 2 690 11% 655 7% 5% 4% 69'0 12°h 8% 3% 3 6% 1C°!o 7% 745 6% 6°i6 646 8°/ 4°h 33% 9°n' 4 6% 4% 7r6 69o Oi6 390 6% 4% 8% 9% LARGE FEATURELESS WALLS ALONG THE 5 8°/a 9% 9°!0 9% 7°l0 9% 9% 5% 496 1790 12% SIDE OF A BUILDING IS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD 6 ?2% 1546 ;2% 12`/ 1046 `1% 12% 546 4',~0 33% ;555 BE ADDRESSED 7 ?241 1<4a 16°k `2% 12°h ~1% 1290 14% 15% 9`16 8 14% 1346 16°h 14% 1346 ?6% 159'0 9% 6'/0 9% 9 8% 4°!0 6°h 10% 846 :'03'0 8% 9% ?2°l0 15% 10-Strongly Agree 1690 6% ?145 15% 19',0 20°i6 164'0 154'° 234b 1'290 TOTAL 10046 100'!0 10.1% 10G;6 '-00',0 100% 100% ?0016 100?'0 100% 1(10% Average 6.2 5.2 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.2 5.4 62 4.C 6.2 tdedlan 7.C 6.0 6.C 7.C 7.0 7.0 7.C 6.0 7.G 4.0 6.0 n= 3,860 180 615 1,023 972 893 3,544 223 26 6 33 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long AGREE OR DISAGREE V/ITH THE hOLLOWI~'G residence for tens to local Second home AS i NEY APPLYTO YOUR ,'dElCHi30RN,OOD OVERALL Under 35 35 -45 66.55 56.65 66 or older owner resident for owner Vacant Other 1 • Strongly Disagree 17 ; 954 S% 16;5 2C90 19% 17% 1650 15°i0 9% 2 1G95 3% 890 ".0% i190 12;5 1010 6% i5% 'sl 3 15°/u 12% 15°k '.5°/ 169'0 i7% 16°h 72ND 11'/0 ?7% 1890 4 109i~ 14% 1C% 11°1a i1% 10°~ 6'/a 15% '7% 9iS REGULATIONS TO PROTECT 5 1110 '.0°,0 11°b 10% 10%0 1290 11% ° NEIGHBORHOOD 1690 4/0 '.'1°,0 CHARACTER WILL LOWER 6 7%a 8?6 9% 8°/ 510 7% 7010 6°/a 49J° S29'o PROPERTY VALUES 7 6/a lk% 6`/o c9~ 7% 5'/c 750 6'ic 4°%o i29~ 8 890 149'0 7% 990 7% . r 8X 990 7% 1790 6°.•6 9 5% 3% 6% 5% 5% 39b 50 3% 7°k 17°h E`/c 10-Strongly Agree 11% 13°h 12°!~ 11°i0 1110 8% 10% 19% 19;5 1710 12% TOTAL ;00'/0 100°i0 100%a 100% 10C% 100°/a 10C'/o 1~0°ro 100`2 1~0°h 1C09o Average 4.9 5.9 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.4 4 ~ 5.4 5.1 6.5 5.5 Median 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.5 5.0 61 n= 3,843 18f 612 1,C)B 972 898 3,531 218 27 6 33 1-Strongly Disagree 5% 3°4 5% 5% 8% 596 2% 410 990 2 410 1% 2°h 3°h 4% 5% 4% 2'/0 790 3 5% 3°/ 5% 490 650 7°h 5/0 5% 4% 910 4 6 i0 490 6`ic 790 6 % 7 % 6% 5°/0 410 69c BIGGER HOUSES CAN FIT IN 5 8% 450 7% 8°! 990 1'%, 9 % 6`10 1110 17°,n IF THEY ARE WELL DESIGNED 6 910 810 990 9! 990 990 7°/a 15%a 6`,'0 7 14°h 10% 14% 14',6 14% 14% 141e i2% 15% 17% ?2'i0 8 `6% 2C% 1950 1796 16°/a 139'° 16% 13% 11 % 33°h 1290 9 .0% 14°/a 11% 9~ '0% 10% '.0% 10% 1 i°1a 19°.~ 10-Strongly Agree 22% 361c 2510 25% 22°k 14% 21',0 37% 1910 33/a 27% TOTAL 1G % 10055 SOC90 100% i00% 10096 1CC90 100% i00% 100% 100n Average 6.9 8.1 7.4 7.0 6.8 6.2 6.8 7.7 6.T 8.0 7.2 Median 7.G 9.5 B.0 7.0 7.C 7.0 7 ~ 8.0 ?.C 8.0 8.0 n = 3,885 182 617 1,017 981 1 3,572 220 27 6 33 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT MOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED AGREE ORDiSAv^REEVIITNTHE Primary Rented long POLLOWIN'G residence for term to local Second home AS 1HEYAPPLYTOYOURNElGHEsORN,00D OVERALL Under 35 35-45 46-55 56-65 66 or older owner resident forowner Vacant Other 1 • Strongly Disagree 15%° 5°,5 1C% 14°k 18% 1995 15% 12% 22 % 9°!° 2 9% 3% i0% 9% 10% 11% 9% 10% Ti, 15% 3 13°h 17% 12'/0 13% 14% 15% 14% 9% '195 9%, 4 10%u 13% `:2% '1% 1U% 9%0 1'4h 6% 4% 995 NEIGHBORHOOD 5 9% gok 1Uo/, 8°k 8ok 9% 9°,~ 3°ic 6`i5 CHARACTER SHOULD NOT BE 6 6°h 10°!0 - 595 6°h 6% 5°h 6% 5°k 7°h 1?% 3% REGULATED 7 7°h 1"[°k :•U9S 6°h 6% 0°k 7°k 9% 7°h 33% 6'% B 9% 5°6 .0! 11% 9% 8% 9% 995 11% 17% 15%, 9 6%u 7% 595 5`i, 6°~ 6% 5% 1G% 4% 17% 9°/0 10-SttonglyAgree t5% 15°k 17% 16°h 14% 12'/0 14°h 27% 26% 17°k 2:95 TOTAL lUU°~ ICU°,4 100%u i00% 1C0% 10C% 100°/a 10`J% 10U% 1C0°k 100°h M Average 5.2 5.9 5.5 5.3 5.0 A.8 5.1 6.2 5.6 7.8 5.9 Median 5.0 6.C 5.0 5.0 4.0 ° 4.0 5.0 7.0 6.0 7.5 6 n= 3,879 182 617 1,019 976 9U9 3,551 222 27 5 34 1•StronglyDisagree 10% 69~ 10%, 11% 1U% 995 10°h 19% 4% !7°io 15% 2 4% 3°k 3% 4%, 6% 3% 4% 2% 4°h 3% 3 5% 3°/, 6% 6% 6°k 4°k 5°h 690 .1`~ REGULATIONS TO 4 395 2% 4% 3°k 4°l, 4% 3%, 3°k 4°k 129 ADDRESS NEVd 5 9% 7% 9% Th 8% 1C% 6°h 10% 15°h 12°,5 SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION 6 9% g% g°h 990 10`k 1C°h 9% 11% 4'n 33°h 69> SHOULD VARY BE NEIGHBORHOOD 7 16'h 21% i7%, 18°k 16% 15% .?95 1196 15%, 1'L`i5 8 ;9 ~ 19% 1690 f9°/, 18% 22% `.9% 16% 795 17% 1895 9 9% 10% 11% 9% 8% 1C% 9% 9% 1995 33°k 9% 10-Strongly Agree i4°h 179io 1595 15'/u 13°k 14°h 14% 13% 19°io 15'/ TOTAL 10C% 14U% 'OC% '.OU% 1C0%° t0U% 100% 190% 'OC95 100% 100°,% Average 6.4 6.8 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.6 6.5 5.9 6.7 6.5 5. i Median 7.0 7.U 7.0 7.U 7.0 7.0 7.0 6:3 7.0 7.0 7.0 n= 3,834 177 605 1,C09 98% 9U~ 3,~i9 220 27 6 34 09 Dec 08 Source:RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT NOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long DO YOJ AGREE O.R DISAGREE WITH residence for term to local Second home THEEOLLOW;~'GSTATEIdEIJTS OVERALL Under 35 35-45 46-55 56.65 66 or older owner resident for owner Vacant Other 1-Strongly Disagree 5% I ?3°r'a 9'6 10?> 1P! 6% 8l 20-% 12?h 21% 2 456 2% 51 5% 21 4f 696 6'%a 3396 6% 3 5% 9% 5% 5°Ic 4°io ~'%c 5% 4°6 4% 6°,~0 REQUIREMENTS 4 39t 1296 496 3% 295 2% 3% 356 17% 6% SHOULD BESET WHICH RELATE 5 6Sb lck 8% 555 5i6 6°10 6% 7% i2'/o 17% THE SIZE OF BUILDING TO 6 7% ?3% 10% 6',5 Tr'c 4% 7% fi% 4% 17°/a 9% THE SIZE OF ITS LOT 7 i2% 12% 14% 13%c 10So 1G% ?2% 10°k 456 17% 3%a 8 17% 1456 1896 175''0 16°k 18% 11%r. 1631 '2Y 15% 9 1296 '0°rb 9°~ '1% 12°70 16°1e 12% 9% i996 15°~ 10-Strongly Agree 26% 9% 16`ia 25% 2B% 33% 26% 179'0 2796 16`5 TOTAL 100% 100"/0 100% 1C0% 100% 10C96 100% 1C0°'~ 1C0`/o 10C9'o 1000 Average 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.7 7.? 5.$ 6.6 4.3 5.9 Median 8.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 4.5 7.C n= 3,866 s82 615 1,017 970 907 3,554 219 26 6 33 1-Strongly Disagree 11°,6 16%, 12',6 12% ' 196 7°k 1096 23°k 12X 17% :5% 2 5°,~a 7% 4% 6°k 6% 3% 5°k 9% 8% 1T% 12~~ 3 6% 11% 6% 7% 650 6% 8% 6% 12% A LIMIT ON THE 4 5%~ 115b 7`/0 6°k Oro 3% 5% 6% 4% 1796 6'6 PERCENTAGE 5 6~6 9% 11°/0 6%a 7°,b 996 8% 5% 2°k 396 OF BUILDING COVERAGE 6 956 6°k 10°k 10'6 6/ 6`ib 9°k 4°k 6% 509a 5`ib SHOULD BE CONSIDERED 7 13'6 12% 15% 1496 12% 12%a 14% 9°(e 4c16 3% 8 1656 15i" 13a 14% 17°k 191 16% 20`.0 '956 12% 9 9°h 6% 8% 8% 996 ^.356 109'0 5% 6% G1% i0-StrongtyAgree ?8% 5/ 12`/a 16% 19% 23%a `8% 1Li'o 19°ie 9`i6 TOTAL 10096 1C0% ?OC% 160°h i00',o 1C096 1C0% 1;,~o5S 100°k 1"u056 '-0G°~ Average 6.3 5.1 5.9 6.'. 6.4 7.1 6.4 5.2 6.1 4.2 5.5 Median 7.0 5.0 6,0 7.0 7.C 8.0 7.0 S.0 6.5 5.0 6.0 n = 3,850 182 612 ",014 972 901 3 `42 219 26 6 I 's3 09 Dec OS Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY 1N BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long CO YCU AGREE OR DISAGREE ih9 i H residence for term to local Second home TNEFOLLO~NGS7ATEMENTS OVERALL Under 35 35-45 4fi-55 56-65 66oralder owner resident for owner Vacant Other 1-StronglyDlsagree "3°~, 15% '6% 14% 1436 9%, i2%, 25°% 15°h 33% 15% 2 7% 11°h 8% 7% T/o 4`i0 6% 8',6 fi% 9°!° 3 e°b 11% 10% 836 7% fi% B% 7°/ 17% 3% A LIMIT ON THE 4 7% 9'/0 6% T% 7`10 6% 796 5% 15% ' 2 PERCENTAGE 5 10% Tn' 1J% 1C% ° ~ o~ OF PAVED 10,0 11% 10% 9'/° 8% 17% 15io SURFACES 6 9% 11% 9% 9% 9% 1C% 1C% 7°,U "33% 9% SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ~ 13% 14% 13°/. '3% 13% 12% 1336 10% 23°k 9% 8 12°k 10% 12% 12% 10°h 16'/0 i3% 13% 4% 6`/0 9 7% 396 5% 7`h 8°k 9°l0 75io 5°,6 5% 10-Strongly Agree ''3°! 7% 9% 12% 15°io 16% 13% 11% 27% 12% TOTAL 100% ?00% 100% 1C096 100°/a 100% 100% 'OOio 1C~% 100% i003n Average 5.7 4.9 52 5.6 5.8 6.3 5.8 5.0 5.9 3.7 5.4 Median 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 E.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 n= 3,859 183 612 1,0;7 974 903 3,550 710 26 6 33 1 - Strongly Disagree 10% ' 3 % t i% 1136 9"/c 7°°~ 9%0 20'/0 19 % 33',6 936 2 5% 7% 8°.~ 5% 6% 4/ 5°h 7% 8°h i2% 3 5% 13°k 6% 6% 5% 4% 5% 6% 4% 1Tx'0 6% 4 4 % 9°/a 5% 4% 4°k 3% 436 4% 4% '.2% WALL HEIGHT LIGIITSSHOULD 5 10°Jo 10% 596 1C% 10% 1C% 1C36 '0% 6°,6 BE LOWER NEAR THE SIDE 6 9°/ 13% 1336 936 850 7% 9% 10% i5% 33% i5% PROPERTY LINE 7 14°''c 14°lc 14% 15% 13°/ 94% 10°h 12% '2% 8 16% i2% 14% 18% 15% 1836 16'i6 ";4% 8% i7% 9%0 9 10'!0 7% 936 10% 11% i2'/o i0'/o 8% 12% 3% 1D-SttongiyAgree 16'ks5'o 11% 14% 19% 21% 16'/0 10`/0 19% 1555 TOTAL 100% 1C0% 100'/0 100Y 1D0°ic 100% 10096 100% 100°k 100% 100% Average 6.3 5.1 5.9 6.3 6.5 6.9 6,4 5.4 5.9 42 5.6 P°tedlan 7.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 1.0 6.0 6.5 4.5 6.0 n= "s.d28 I 181 6C9 1,016 959 856 3,521 220 26 6 33 09 Dec D8 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATfBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN 130ULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long Dv YOU AGRcE OR D!SA~REE V,'iTH residence for term to local Second home iHEFOLLOW!N~GSTA7E!v!ENTS OVERALL Under 35 35-45 46.55 56.65 66 or older owner resident for owner Vacant Other 1-SirongiyDlSagree 13% ',5% 1~°,5 '4"° 1[94 '.0°h 12°.~c 22%° 13% 1Ti5 i55S 2 7% 6°,'0 3°'~ 8% 7% 5'0 796 6i5 12% S2 S 3 9io 17% 10% 3% 7% 7% 9% 8% 33°~ JOGS OR OFFSETS 4 695 1290 6°,'0 6% 6% 5% 5`/, 6'i5 8% 33% 21 i5 SHOULD 8E 5 16'/0 19% '6°,4 15% 14°h 164'c '6% 159c 4% 694 REQUIRED TO L1MlTTHE 6 i145 10% 13% 1"% '0% 109'0 11% 0% LENGTHOFA '2n 1,° 5. BUILDING'S SIDE 7 12% 9% 12%a 13% 13% 12% 12% 10% 1595 1595 WAILS 8 13% 7% 6% 1245 10% 1 i°h 1C% 9% 894 6`r5 9 6°i5 2% 3% 5°i5 794 79v 6% -3 ~ 494 10 • Strongly Agree 1 i% 14.0 69'0 695 13% 16% 1' S5 9% 19% ' S % TOTAL 10D% 1t;0% 100% 'CC'S 100°b 100°la 130% tOC95 130% 'OC'.~c 1C0'% Average 5.5 42 4.9 5.3 5.T 6.0 5.5 4.8 5.6 3.5 5.2 Median 5.0 4.0 5.0 SA 6.0 6.0 E.0 5.C 6.0 3 ~ 5.0 n = 3,819 181 508 1,013 965 886 3,512 2ZC 26 33 1-Strongly Disagree 6% 5% 9% 9% 8% 6% 7°i5 16% 4% 544 2 3% 2% 5°! 4% 494• 2% 4% 2°h 33% 3% 3 595 7% 7°i4 5°io 6% 3% 59'5 5',4 1"[°h 3% THE Ih1PACT OF 4 3°;5 7 % 5``,'0 3°+4 49~e 2% 3°,b 3% 17% 12~i6 EXISTING SOLAR ACCESS 5 9">~ 0 % 8% 8% 8% 9y 994 8% 69+5 REGULATIONS ONBUILOING 6 9'S 14%> il% 7% 940 890 9% 8% `2% 33% 1295 FORM SHOULD BE EVALUATED 7 1296 '6% 13% ':3% 12°k li% 12% 149'0 15% 17°,'> 15% 8 16°i5 20°h 1490 17% 15°h 18% 15°h 1495 12% 12;5 9 12% 10% 10% t1°.'o 13% i4% 12°io 9% 15°./0 'S%5 10-Strongly Agree 22°k 12% 16% 23% 22% 27% 2294 2C?/c 2"s% '2iS TOTAL 100°/a 1CJ% 100% 1C6~% 1JO,o 1CC°/ 100% 1C0°lc 1J0%a iC9°'ro 100io Average 6.9 6.6 6.3 8.6 6.9 7.4 6.9 6.3 7.2 4.5 6.4 Median B.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.0 7.5 5.0 7.0 n = 3,609 i?6 513 1,002 353 533 3,5DD 223 26 6 33 09 Dec OS Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE residence for term to local Second home FOLLOWING STATEAAENTS OVERALL Under 35 35 - 45 46.55 56.65 66 or older owner resident for owner Vacant Other Relationship to lot size 59%~ 54% 57% 57% STYo 66% 6G% 52°ro 5070 17%0 43`/0 MOST IMPORTANT IN Solar access forms 21% 22% 23% 24% 22% 15% 21% 2370 14°io 33% 210/• DETERMINING THE COMPATIBILITY OF Building coverage 10% 9% 9% 9% 10°0 12% 10% 11% 23% 33% 14%;. MAJOR ADDITIONS AND Side wall height 5% 10% S° ° ° 17 7'/0 NEWCONSTRUCTIONIN 4i° /0 6/0 4/0 55'0 6`/0 ° YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD paved Surfaces 3% 3% 5% 4°h 3% 2% 3% 6% 14% 11'/0 Side wall length 1% 2% 2% 2% i%c 1% 1% 3% 4% lOG% 100% 100% 100% 100`/c 100% 100°/a 100% 100% 100'/0 100% TOTAL n = 3,435 173 572 926 870 758 3,181 179 22 6 28 Building coverage 38% 33% 38% 3670 37% 43°k 39% 31% 32% 17% 38% SECOND MOST Relationship to lot size 17% 17% 15°h 17°!° 20% 17% 17°0 20% 23% 50°h 24% IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE Side wall height 15°/0 14`/0 1670 17'/0 15% 13% 15% 14% 27% 14% COMPATIBILITY OF MAJOR ADDITIONS AND Solar access forms 14% 20% 15% 14°k 14% 14% 14% 19°~ 14% NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Paved surfaces 9% 9% 9% 9% 8°/0 8% 9% 7% 1470 17% Side wall length 7% 670 7% 8% 7% 6% '1% 9% 5% 17% 10% 10030 100% 100% 100% 100°'0 100% 100% 100% 10070 100% 100% TOTAL n = 3.395 17D 567 920 855 750 3,145 175 22 6 29 Side wall height 25% 21% 25% 23% 23% 27% 25% 22% 18% 17% 31% THIRD MOST IMPORTANT Solar access forms 2170 22% 23% 21% 21% 22°,% 22% 15% 2770 33% 14% IN DETERMINING THE BUildin Covers c 21% ° ° 21% 24% 21% 21010 0 0 ° ° COMPATIBILITY OF g g 21 /0 19/0 23/0 18/a 33/0 21 /o MAJOR ADDITIONS AND paved SUrfaceS 14% 16% 12°h 16% 14% 15% 14% 16% 9°/a 17% NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Side wall length 12% 12% 14% 12% 13% 11% 12% 16% 1$% 17% 17%0 Relationship t0 lot Size 6% 8% 8°,~0 7°0 6% 4% 670 8% 9% 10G% 1D0% 1D0% 1C•C% 10G% 100% i00% 100% 100% 10070 :CC°l0 TOTAL n= 3,382 1E9 563 92G 853 747 3,133 174 22 6 29 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Finat Results AGE OF RESPONDEI6T NOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long Ci, YOU AGREE OR CrSAu^REE'Ni iH r~fE residence for term to local Second home FULLOW6VGSTA7rAAENr~ OVERALL Under35 35-45 48-55 58.65 66 oroldw awnor rasldent for owner Vacant Other Sldewallhelght 2;56 '1395 26% 2594 3C95 2895 27% 3296 2795 ;056 2'0x4 FOURTH.'ADST Side wall length 21Y 1!°,'6 2'% +.9% 'Lt9'° 2Ck ?2°6 14°,6 19°,L 33`,6 2:% I.'APORTANT IN OETERPAINING THE paved sufacos 269E 29% 27`6 2^Ub 1886 '.5% 20% 18% 14°; 17% COMPATIBILITY OF MAJOR ADDITIONS AND Bulldingcoverage 1J',5 14;6 1490 1545 12;0 11% 13% 13°5 9:5 7°6 NEVf CONSTRUCTION fN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Solaraccessforms 13% 10% t1S5 13°k 13% S3% 12°,6 tE';6 27°k 28°„ RetaNonshiptobtslze 3% 8% 616 d96 6% 4% 6% E"`° 596 17% 1`,5 ;C096 7W% WO% SCO u 10C'.k ;00% 1C0`/° lOC`;S lOCio 1C0% 1GCh TOTAL n= 3,3E3 1n8 553 910 847 744 3,'13 173 22 6 29 Sidewalftength 3e o 30°6 ...,s2% 33% 32% 32;4 29! 2?°k 3395 28°l- FIFTH MOST IMPORTANT SidewaU he1gM 23%> 2795 2396 25%, 2t % 23'x6 239E 219'; 27% t7;G 2894 INOETERMININGTHE paved surfaces 16% 13% 16% 149b 18% i7Y0 t6% 1696 t4% '.7ck 17% COMPATIBILITY OF MAJOR ADDITIONB AND Soar access forms 14% 11% 13% 13% tE°k 14% 13% 9°to 179: ~r96 NEVJ CONSTRUCTIDA IN YOUR NEIGHOORIiDOD Building coverage 12% 16% M13% 13c,'° 11°k 99: 11°6 18% 14% 1T% 2196 RetaUonshipWlots¢e 396 4% 3% 1=k 3< 2% 3;6 3% 5% 13C~% 100% '.C+71 10C9'° 1001: 1C0% 100% 180% 100% ',CO% IOC/o TOTAL n= 3,351 taE 5E3 9;C 850 739 3,108 174 22 6 29 Paved surfaces iii°.4 'J9°16 "s8'S 37% 3996 35°k 3d% 37°~ 35°~ 67;6 38% SIXTH MOST BJPORTANT Side walll¢ngth 26% 31'k 25% 2796 24'h 25% 26°6 25 ~6 3296 21% IN DETERMINING THE Solaraa¢ss forma 1896 'E','. 15% 1696 2;% 181 tai: 23x6 17% 17% COhtPAT1BILIT" OF MAJOR ADDITIONS AND RelaUonshlptolotshe 8% 9"': 9% 59r 8'!0 7% 656 1'0,5 596 17% 24< NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOURNE1GH80RHOOD guildingcoveraee 6M 5% 1% 6°; 5% 6": 3% 51de wall height 5% 5% , 5°.6 5% <56 5 % 6% 1C01: M1CG96 tIXi% iCO:b 1CD% 106:5 iCU96 1CC%o SCC% 13696 'OC% TOTAL n = 3,3'17 ' 6E 559 91 t d49 734 3,699 174 22 6 29 SoWraccessfo:ms 99% 95%0 99°5 99% 99% 98% 9815 97°k 1GCcio 1C0% 1GC6 TOP BD(M08T Relationship to lotslze 98% 98% 59% 95% 98%> 98% 98% B8% 10G°k 'CD96 9T"° , I"APORTANT IN DETERMINING THE Building coverage 9716 B7°•, 9Hck 98% 9795 98;0 9d95 97% 700% 10056 100°k COMPATIBILffY OF MAJOR ADDITIONS AND Pavedsurfacos 57% 9T% 99% 9d% 9896 B7% 97°k 97% 100% tOG°k 100% M1EYf CONSTRUCTION IN YOURNEtGHBORH00D Side wall length 979; 57;6 98% 99% 9656 9fik 5/% 97;0 160°6 lOC% 1C0°r6 Sidawalihelaht 97°,6 5156 989E 9T% 98% 96% 9716 9T°k 10C;n 1CU96 1CC`/ 58696 585% 692% 58916 583% S94% 58E',5 56395 830% GC3y 59?i': TOTAL n= 3,462 173 572 d3: 879 755 3,206 19U 22 6 25 g9 Dec 08 Source: RRC Asscciates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results AGE OF RESPONDENT HOW IS YOUR PROPERTY IN BOULDER CURRENTLY USED Primary Rented long residence for term to local Second home DO YOUFiG,REEORDISAGREEV?ITHTHEFOLLCV/hVGSTATEM6VTS OVERALL Under 35 35.45 46-55 56.65 66 or older owner resident for owner Vacant Other Change existing zoning standards (singie•family districts) 46% 24% 43% 44% 4E% 53% 47`/° 28% 50'% 30% Establish design & approval process for indiv. neighborhoods 41°/ 3t% 35°/ 39% 4C%, 49°k 41 `h 4C% 38% 33% 39% WHICH More flexibllity in zoning standards for special conditions 35°k 37% 36% 3fi% 35% ~33% 35°k 33% 21% SQ°h 55 ACTIONS DO YOU Provide a voluntary design handbook addressing mass 8 scale 3'L% 4C% 33;6 32%n 35% 28°h 32°,6 33% 12% 67% 39% BELEIVE THE CITY Streamline/simplify existing regulations (no new regs.) 30% 41% 34°k 3C°~° 3C% 25% 29% 37% 12°Jo 50% 45% SHOULD TAKE Change solar access regs. to reduce effects on bui{ding form 2b°ic 18% 19% 22% 22°/, 19% 21 % 19% 19% 17°io `.2°/ Change existing zoning standards (only in targeted areas) ' 3% 14% 14°~ 15% 11 % 12°h 13% 9% 4%, ' 2% Make no changes to regulations (leave existing in place) S2% 12% '2% 11% 12% 12% 11% 24% 12% 17% 'S% 22E% 221°/s 224% 231% 232°/, 231% Z29% 222% 173% 233%, 248°h 70TAL n = 3,794 177 6Cfi 1,OC3 952 E92 3,489 215 26 fi 33 09 Dec OS Source: RRC Associates vV BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHATYEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT Southeast OVERALL Gunbattel North Boulder Cenfral Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 7950 or before 1951 •7965 1986.7980 1981 to present Gunbarrel 2°/ 'GO',, I 0% 0% I '295 North BoUid¢t 14`/c 1C09'o ?9i ':0°ii 7'. ~ 397> tN WHICH PART OF THE CITY 15 Central Boulder 38°k 7 v3% 8995 29°/, 1C% 37?5 YOUR PROPERTY South Boulder 32°/> 100°l0 3~ 44 52°%0 <',5 SoutheastBOWder :4% t04% 150 1590 259'0 7% Other t?~, 700% t% t% 19m 1% 1~G"!° .00% ;~3'S 100'x6 100'/0 10096 1~~90 1096 10G% 10096 100% TOTAL n= 3,881 67 532 1,462 1,254 540 32 737 ',853 799 50< North of Alpine and West of Broadway 24% 24% 20°,S 2255 39% 37`k QF CENTRAL BOULDER) North of BalsamlEdgewoodsnd East of Broadway 27 io 21% ?i; 440ro 25% 996 WHERE IS YOUR PROPERTY LOCATED South of AlplnNBalsamlEdgewoodsnd North of College 29',5 29% 41% 13°k 18°i0 33% South of College 2596 2695 32% 1.1 "6 19% 21°k 1G0% 100`5 100% 1`~'% 1C0°io 1v"096 TOTAL n= ;.421 1,418 633 473 8:; t78 (iF SOUTH BOULDER} WHERE West of Broadway 64`.6 64°l0 47% 52`./0 88% 85% IS YOUR PROPERTY LOCATED East of Broadway 36 % 3E°~ 53% 46% t2% 15°k 1005 10090 '00% '0095 '.03%0 70D°i0 TOTAL n = 1,24' ',241 '9 724 414 20 09 Dec OS Source: RRC Assaclales BOULDER COMPATIBLE dEVELOPMEN7 2008 Final Results 1N WNICH PART OF THE CnY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT Southeast OVERALL Gunharrel North Boulder Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or before 1951.1965 i966.198D 1981 to present 1-Strongly Disagree 9'r~ 1676 9 % 10 % 10% 7% 19 % 9 % 8% 9°/ '.2% 2 3','j 6% 3% 336 5`/0 3%, 3°,% 8% 3 4% 10°/ 5'/c 5% 3°/, 4;4 3% 3% 4% 4% 6% 4 3'/a 2°/a 2'%0 4°/a 3% C% 3% 3% 3°/a 3'% DO YOU AGREE WITH $ 7% 7% 7% 7°/ 7% 836 3°!e 6% 890 7% 7% THE PROBLEM DEFINITION AS 6 7?% 7`!'0 4'/0 6% B% 1096 13% 7% 796 8% 6°,% STATED 7 '236 11% 12°k 10`b t4% 12% 25°h 10% ?3% 12°h 1096 8 20'/0 21% 21°k 17°/, 22;0 T9t° 13% i7% 2"u% 23% 22°5 9 ;3% 13% 15% 13% 12% 12% 9% ?3% 13% 13°h 11% 10 • Strongly Agree 20 %0 8% ~ 2 ~ i6 24°/, 18% 17% 16% 28% 20% 18°h 15% TOTAL 100'/0 100% 100°/, :i;0°i6 100% ?00% 109°,% ^00% 100% 100% Average 6.8 5.8 5.9 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.3 7.1 6.9 6.9 62 Median b.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 8:0 8.0 7.0 n = 3.784 6? 507 1,413 1,206 519 32 715 1,608 782 X95 There is a problem, and it exists in many parts of the city 44',% 21% 45% 47% k4% 34°/a 35% 52% 45% 43% 3136 WRH WHtCH There is a problem, but Ilmited to smag number of buadings 23'!0 29'!0 19% 23% 24%, 22°k 19% 20% 22cio 22% 27% OF THE The problem occurs most often on small lots in the city 20% 20°!0 22',6 22% 18% 18% 29% 21% 19% 20% 24°io FOLLOWING STATEMENTS There is a roblem, but limited to few arts of the cl '9% 14% 2"°io 32% 19% 14% 20°!e 23% S9'/o DO YOU P P b' 29 ro 'Sib AGREE There is no problem ?496 18',6 ' S% 13°h 14% 13% 19% 10% 12% 13% ?9 Tha problem most often occurs on steeply sloping lots 3% 2% 3'/0 4% 3°h 3°G 3`i0 3`/0 390 S'/ 122°,/° 118% 1'9% 12336 124'.1 122% 123% i2''c/, 122% 1249'0 12~% TOTAL n= 3,76 S6 508 I 1,;16 ',204 5^4 31 717 1,599 775 491 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results 1N WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT tiGREc OR D,BRGREE WITH ?HE FOLLOVl1P.'G Southeast k5 TrIEYAFFLY 70 YOUR iJEfGH&ORHOOG OVERALL Gunbarre) NoAh Boulder Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or before 1951-19fi5 1966-1980 1981 to present 1-StronglyDisagrea 21% 4790 23Sro 18;5 20~ 309 31% 13°'0 1996 22'/ 29°/ 2 10°/a 179c 8',° 9'/ 9°.0 '<'/a 14% 9% 9o 1~c% 12% 3 9'/'0 5% T, o I 7°i'o 10`n' 14°l° 7% 5.'io 1' % 11 % 9'/ 4 5% 2% 5°% 5% 6% 6%i 7°.~a 490 6/ 69'0 5'/0 SOME RECENT 5 79c 890 8% So 0 c a 5a, g~ CONSTRUCTION IN MY /0 8/0 9/0 10ro ~lio 9a 7% NEIGHBORHOOD 1$700 6 6% 8°,% 5`,; 5`i, 69'0 6% 7% 5% c9c 6°,/0 7%> LARGE 7 79~ 3% 9c,5 5 % 9',u 5% 3'/0 6% 7`i0 6% 8 9',~ 3% 6'~0 90 9S'o 790 10°k 9% 8% 8% Tic 6% bra 5ro 10•StronglyAgree 21°~0 3io 2".% 31% 159c 7%a 1Th 37% 2C% 14% 13% TOTAL 100% '0%'4 10`,5 '~::~°m 100°k 100%a 100% 100°i~ ^0;:°./c 100°/a 1G'o'o Average 5.4 3.1 5.5 ~.2 5.2 3.8 4.3 6.6 5.4 4.9 4 Median 5A 20 5.C 7.0 5.0 3.0 3.C 6 ~ 5.0 5.0 3.5 S n= 3,851 60 521 1,439 1,237 517 29 728 5,638 793 508 1-Strongly Disagree 26°/a 549'0 24% 22',S 28% 33% 31% 1895 25%0 28% 35°l0 2 '2% 8%i <296 9?5 13% 18% 28% 8 0 12% 14% 14% 3 11% 890 11% 9% 1"0/a 15% 3°ro T/c 11% ^2% 11'0 4 6%0 5% 59'0 5% 79~a 6% 7% 4% Tic 7% 5 io THE CHARACTER OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS 5 8% 8% 8% 795 1C% 59e 3%a 7% b% 10% 7"0 BEING NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY RECENT 6 T/o b% 5% 7°0 8%> o`'Jo T~ 6'',~0 7"n 5% CONSTRUCTION 7 Bic 2Y 7% 6 % 4%a 7°!c 9°/a 6°/a 5'/° ~''o 8 7% 2% 8% T.%a 4% 3% 10% 7% 6'ia 6'c 9 4% 6`n 5% 39'0 2% 3',5 5% 4% 3°/ 5°,'0 10 - Strongly Agtee 13% 3% 13% 20% 8% 4% 7?%a 25'/0 12% 9% 69u TOTAL 10.0% 100% `.00% 10Gro 100%0 100`io 100°'0 10C^'/° 100'io 100°/ 100?'0 Average 4.5 2.7 4.8 5.3 4.2 3.3 3.6 5.8 4.5 4.1 3.7 Median ~.0 ',.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 4,0 3.0 3.0 n= 3,854 59 519 ',44< 1,245 513 29 727 `,E44 794 ~C8 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Resuifs IN WHICH PART OF 7HE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT AGREE CR DISAGREE t^/ITN, THE FOLLOWING Southeast AS THEYAPPLY TO YOU,4 i;iEIGN,'BORH000 OVERALL Gunbarrei North Boulder Central Baulder South Bouldor Boulder Other 1950 or before 1951.1965 1966.1980 1981 to present 1-Strongly Disagree 16°i0 33 i0 14'/0 '.4~^~ 1fi%a 17'l 26'5 13°/ 14% 1T/0 214 2 7% '2°/ 8?/a %96 T/o 7% 6°/a 7°n 6°/a 6% i0% 3 9% 3% 8% 990 9°/a 13% 950 9°io 9%a 9°/ 4 S% 12% 4% 5c/a 5% S°.G 6',0 4% 6% 4°fo 6% THE LOSS OF GREEN SPACE WHEN $ 890 5% 7°/D 7% 9%D 11 % 390 6% 990 9% 7°/ LARGER BUILDINGS ARE CONSTRUCTED 6 7%D 2% 8% 8'/° 9% 8;6 6clo 5% 7% 8% 6% IS A KEY ISSUE T '190 13°/D 17% D°n 13°io 5% '.3% 7C% ?1% 11% 11% 8 '2'/ 7°/ 12% 12°h 12°.b 12°.0 :3% 13°h '['/0 13% 1"[%a 9 8% 5% b% 8`i5 7% 9% 6% 8% 8'/0 750 6°h 10-SlronglyAgrea 18°k 8% 18% 23% 139'0 15°/a 6% 25°k 18%D "3.c 12% TOTAL lU0'k ICO% ?00°!c 'C~°i0 10C% 100% 100% 100% 100'/ 100°l0 70C°,6 Average 5.8 4.2 5.9 6.1 5.5 5.7 4.7 6.3 5.9 5.5 5.1 M1Redian 6.0 4.0 6.0 7.0 6.C 6.C 4.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 n = 3,867 6U 522 1,445 1,238 523 31 731 1.647 792 508 1-StrongiyAisagree 12% 20% 'C°/ 72% i3°io '3% 1690 11%a 10% 73'/0 '.6°~ 2 7% 16% 8% 7% 6'/c 6°.% 10'/0 5°l0 6°i0 7% °°,o 3 b% 7% 7% 8% 9% 7% 3% 8°k 8°%D 9°c 850 THE LOSS OF 4 5% 590 6'/0 5% 6°h 6% 70°.ro 4% 6% 59c 7 MATURE VEGETATION WHEN 5 9% 6°,~0 7°h 7°i0 10%a 109c i09'o T/ 9%D .U50 850 NEW CONSTRUCTION 6 6°h 5% 8?0 8% 9°/a 9'.0 13% 8Y 8a/a 10% 8°,0 OCCURS IS A KEY ISSUE 7 12°;0 15% 14% 10% '3% '2'u 19%D 10°/D 14'%a 71% 1250 8 15% 3% 15% 1590 •5% '4% i5°/D 15°!° 15% 1355 9 B%D 10% 9°/a 7% 7°/a 1U%a 10% 8% 8°/a 6% 8"/0 10-Strongly Agree 16°/, 11% 15°~ 21°6 ",2% 14'/D 10'/D 25'k 16°,ra 94% '0% TOTAL SCO%D 100%a 100°k 100% lU0% 10D'%o lUD%D 100°/a 1C0% tU0% 100'i Average 6.0 5,C 5.1 6.2 5.7 6.0 5.3 6.5 6.1 5.8 5 Median 7.0 5.0 7.0 7,0 6.0 6.5 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 5.C n = 3,873 61 525 ",439 1,239 53U 3' 728 1,652 79.' 508 09 Dec OB Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results 1N WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT AGREE ;.R DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLO~VIPlG Southeast AS THEYAFPLY TO YOUR h'EIGH90,4HOCD OVERALL Gunbarrel North Bouldor Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or before 1951 •1965 1966 -1960 1981 to present 1- Strongly Disagfee 9°%c 1 65c 6?0 9`5 1370 7 k 735 9'/c ' 130 2 570 11°/ 6% E,' S'/o 5% 6% 5% 5%/° 53.0 6°0 3 655 6% 5% 6% 6% 7°/n 3% 5%a 5% 6% a0~ 4 5;5 590 6% 4°/a 4% S% 10% 3% 5°/ 5%a A LARGE HOUSE NEXT 5 695 "s% 5'/0 6°%0 5% 7% 3% 530 6°/a 6% 7`i~ DOOR DIh11NISHES PRIVACY IN OTHERS' BACK YARDS 6 c3c 35'0 530 6°10 8% 5°'0 6"A 6% 7% 5°/n 7% 7 10% i3'.'o 9°/a 8% '1% 13% 13% 830 11°5 '1% 12% 8 15°./0 1G'c 18°/a 14Y l7`0 "6% 13a/a 15"0 15'/u 19% 13°~ 9 1135 8% 13°/ `.U% 1155 :234 16% 10°k 11% 1[% 135 10 -Strongly Agree 26.'0 16°/a 26°/ 32°,5 "[3% 22% ' 6% 36'6 27% 23% 15% TOTAL 10"u°o 100°/a 10G% 1UG% 1C.9'S 1C0`!'a '.0;;°.0 10'0 100% 100'10 100','a Average 6.8 5.3 6.8 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.3 7.3 6.9 6.8 6.1 ..D Median 8.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 8:; 7.U 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 n= 3,862 61 523 1,442 1,244 532 3i 729 1,659 796 506 1-StfoDgty015agree 1095 2i% 9'/° ^•0°./u 11°/a 1;i% 10% 8% 10;5 1J% 1Z°h 2 6'/0 1Ui~ 8% 59o Tk 735 i0% 5% 630 6% e%n 3 63'0 8% 6% T! T%a 3% S% 6'/0 7% 8°./0 4 6% 5% 6% 5`/, 7% 6°/a 5% 6% 7% 5°.~0 LARGE FEATURELESS WALLS ALONG THE SIDE OF 5 8°k 7% 8°~5 73'0 9`,5 9% 19% 7% 9°k 9% 7`h A BUILDING IS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD 0E 6 '2°10 15% iC% 1190 1'1`n 13°/ 6% 1C% 12% 11°k i33s ADDRESSED T i2% 8°k 11% 1235 12% 1fi% 16°l0 12% 11% ',6°/n '295 8 14% 1U% 16% 15% i3% '335 10% 16% 14% 1335 15°'0 9 8%0 7% 8% 10% 6% 7°,~ 63'0 1 i% 9°io 750 750 10-SUonglyAgree i6°k 10% 16% 19% 14% 143'0 13°,/0 22% 16% 14% 12% TOTAL :UC35 1Q0% 1C0% 100% 10035 1CU°io 10U% 10U°1o 10015 100% 10U% Average 6.2 5.0 62 6.5 5.9 6.0 5.8 6.7 6.2 6.0 5.8 Median 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 6.U 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 n= 3,860 E1 522 1,437 1,235 526 31 726 1,645 795 5C9 09 Dec OB Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPA7iBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT ,4GREE OR D?SAGREE V??TH THE ~OLLOWL'VG Southeast .4S THEYkPPLY TO YOUR PdEIGHBORN00p OVERALL Gunharcel North Boulder Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or hefore 1951-1965 1966.1980 1981 to present 1•StronglyDisagree 17% 15% "~96 2C'/o 15;0 ',5% 26% 25% 16'6 i4~6 '1°6 2 lU% 890 'C'/c 1C% 8'/0 X1',-0 1G%0 13°10 9'/0 11i6 8% 3 15`,S `896 15% 14% 17% 17% 16% 13% 16°k 18°/ 15% 4 1C% ?G"/a 8°/ 9% 1'.% 12% 10% 9% 10% 1' % 1 i REGULATIONS TO 5 11% i3% ° c c' o' ° c ~ c PR07ECTNEIGHBORHOOp 14/0 9/a 1;io 11n 3/0 8% 11/0 1390 12/0 CHARACTER WILL LOWER 6 7 % 5% 7% 6°/a 6`'/0 6%a 3% 6"/> E% 7% 8% PROPERTY VALUES 7 6% 5°!0 5'i> 6% 7 % 7% 390 5% '19c 796 5% 8 8% 5°,', 996 8°k 89'c 0% 396 796 8% 7% 1D9o 9 5% 10°/a 7°h 5% X96 3% 6% ~ % 4% 4% 8% 10-Strongly Agree 10% 10% 129'0 'C9~ 8°'0 13% '096 10°;0 9°./c '.3% TOTAL 100% 1C0% i0U% 10G% lOC% 100% lOD'/o 100°k 100% 100% 10C% Average c.8 4.E 5.U 4.7 q.9 4.6 4.2 4.3 4.8 4.7 5.4 Medlan 4.U 4.0 5.D 4.C 4.C 4.0 3.G 3.0 4.0 4.C 5.C •~J n = 3,843 8 i 520 1,434 ;,224 525 31 724 1,641 757 508 1-Strongly Disagree 5% 3% 5°(° 6'/o q'/ 4% 6% 7°h 6% 5% 2'/0 2 4% 2% 3% 4% 3% 5°k 6% 5% 4% 4°'0 2% 3 5°!0 2% 5%a 6% 5°l0 6% 3% 7%> 6°/a 5% 4'10 4 5% 7% 7°/ 6% 6% 6°k 1D9o 6% 6°k 7% 596 BIGGER HOUSES CAN F1T 5 E°h 7% 9'/n 9% 7% 10% 3','0 10°I> 8% 7°,4 T/a IN IF THEY ARE WELL DESIGNED 6 9% 1C% 10% 9%a 9% 8% 6% 9% 9% 9%> 9% T 14% 15% 12% 12% 16% 17% 6"/> 13% 14% 17% 1i% 8 16% 11% 17% 15% 17% 18°! 29°/a 13% 17% 17°/> i8%a 9 10% ',1°/ 1',°h 9%a 1D%> 9`Ji 5% 9% 10% 9%a 12% 10 • Strongly Agree 22% 33%a 22% 24°/a 23% 17% 23% 21% 21% 19%c8% TOTAL 100% 100% 1CD% ;CU96 'DU% 1CU95 ?OC% :OD% 'UD% `00% 1C0% Average 6.9 7.6 6.9 6.8 7.U 6.7 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.9 7.5 Medlan 7.G E.0 7.9 1.0 8.0 7.C 8:U 7.0 7.;, 7.0 B.0 n = 3,985 6'. 525 1,417 1,241 532 31 734 1,657 795 51' 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WIiICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT AGREE OR D;SAGREE WITH THE FOLLOW61'G Southeast AS THEYAPPLY TO YOUR NEIGHBOR400D OVERALL Gunbarrel NoAh Boulder Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or 6etore 1951 •1965 1966-1980 1981 to present 1•SlronglyDisagree 15°6 11°/ 15°,6 16%0 134,1 :~i/° '3ic "[2% 15% 14% 9'~ 2 936 2°ib 9% "0% 6%, 1C% i7°.~c 12'/0 10% b% 8c.~0 3 '3°~ 11% i1% ',3°h 14% 14% 13% '396 14%0 14°k 10% 4 iC% 11% 1046 S% 12% 10% 3% "1% 12% 11% NEIGHBORHOOD 5 9% 15% 12% 6% 846 E!°,b 3% ° " ° CHARACTER 8% 8/c 8 0 11!0 SHOULD NOT BE 6 6% 5% 6% 5% 640 7 3% 5% 5% 7% 746 REGULATED 7 7% 7% 5% 7% 8°10 7% 10% 6°k 8% 64'c l o 8 9% 2% 10% 9% 9% 11'/0 ''096 8°/ 10% 10% 10'0 9 6°l0 5% 6% 5% 5°~ 74'c 17% 5rb 5`ib 6% 8'ib 10-5tronglyAgree 159'0 3150 15% i5% 15% 11% 13°i0 14% 14% 13% 1946 TOTAL lOC% 100% iC0°h 100,% 1C0% 1CG% 1O:"r°io iOCAIo 100',0 1;;0% 100°/° O Average 5.2 6.1 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.2 5.6 4.7 5.1 5.2 5.9 Q Median 5.0 5.G 5.0 C:0 5.0 5.0 6.5 4.0 5.:, S.C 6A n= 3,879 6i 523 ",443 1,2=: 532 30 731 1,659 792 5C9 '1-Strongly03sagree 10% 13% 11% `.1% 9% 9% iC'% 1Q'/c 9°is 9% 12% 2 44'0 5% 5% 5%a 446 3%i 340 446 4% 5% 3 5% ~G'/o 4% 5% 5% 5% 16% 5% 6% 6% 590 REGULATIONS TO 4 3% 2% 3°k 4'I0 3°l0 446 445 4°!0 3°k 356 ADDRESS NE6V 5 9% 2% 896 946 9% 94`0 6% 9% 9% 9% 5°,~ SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION 6 9% 7% 84'c 990 1"% 996 34'0 1G46 9% 10°h EI?~6 SHOULD VARY BE NEIGHBORHOOD 7 16% 10% 18% 15% 18% 16% 1~% 75°~ 18°ib 16% ?7% 8 15% 22% 19% 17% 19% 23% 19% 19% `996 20% 20% 9 9% 13°lc 10'/0 9% 9% 9% 13°k 1C4!0 946 946 11% 10-Strongly Agree 14% i746 14'!0 15°h 1446 13°k 23% 15°h 134'o i5% 15°n TOTAL 100% 1G0% 100°h 100°k 1Cv% 100°ib 10096 100% 1CG`,'o 100% ',~C"-,''o Average 6.~ 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.4 Median 7.0 8.0 lA 7.^u 7.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 n = 3,834 60 51b 1.419 1,229 529 3'. 721 1,635 791 501 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT DD YOUAGREE CR DlSAGREEWITH Southeast THE r'OLLDWiNG STATr~'.?ENTS OVERALL Gunbarrel North Boulder Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or before 1951-1965 1966 -1980 1981 to present 1-SVongiyDisagree 9% 'S°,~ 10% 10% 8% D% 3°/ 9% 8`/, 6% '2'~0 2 4% 5% 4% 4%c 3% 3%0 6% 4% 4% 350 6% 3 5°h 1C%o 4% 4°'0 5°!0 5% 13°/ 3% 5% 5% 6% REQUIREMENTS q 3%0 2% 3% 3% 3% 5% 6°k 2% 3% 3 %0 4% SHOULD BE SET WHICH RELATE 5 5% 8°/" 6°! 6% 5% 5%~a 10% 6% 5°io 6% 8% THE SIZE OF BUILDING TO 6 7% 12% 6%i 6% 8°/a E% 6°/a 5%'0 7% 8% 6%a THE SIZE OF ITS LDT 7 :2% 17% 13% 10°!0 13°k 12°h 3% 'i;'% i2% 12% 13% 8 i7% 15°.6 16% 15°h 19% 18% 13%0 'S% 17% 1J% 17% 9 i2a/o 3°/a 14°0 12%a 11% 14% 'D% i3% 12% '3aio 12% 10-Strongly Agree 26% 12% 25% 29% 24% 22% 29% 33% 27% 25% 15°!0 TOTAL 100% 100% 10U°o 10C% 100% 10D% 100°k 900% 1C0% 100°/a 100% Average 7.0 5.7 7.0 7.C 7.0 6.9 6.7 7.3 T.1 7.0 6.2 Median B.0 6.0 8.0 8.C 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 d 3,866 59 520 ',439 1,239 529 31 T25 1,652 795 5D8 1-Strongly Disagree 11% 18°h 1C% s2% 10% 70°k 13% 12% 1090 10% 13'/0 2 8% 6°,n 4% 5°k 3°/ 45i 5% 5% 7'/u 3 6% 7"/° 5% 7% T% 6°/a 10% 6% 7% 6% 7i0 A LIMIT ON THE 4 5% 5'/u 5%'0 5% 6°i0 6°k 5% 5°h 5%a 6% PERCENTAGE ° ° o g% g°,0 3% 7% 7°h 9% 9°i0 OF BUILDING 5 6/0 :0/ 9%0 7/c COVERAGE 6 9% ±6% 10% 7°~ 9% 9% 13% 7°h 10% 7% '0%a SHOULD BE CONSIDERED 7 13% 18% 12% :1'0 15%a 14°h 16% 11% 12°/ 16°k 1410 8 16% 11% 16% 16% 15°l0 19% 13°k 16% 16%0 17% 15% 9 9% 7% 8% i0% 9% 8% 6°k 10°ie 10°k 9% 9% 10-Strongly Agree ;8% 5°k 1890 2% 16% 14% 16°h 22°io 15% 16% 10%a TOTAL 100% 1C0°k 1C0% iC0% 100% 100% 100%'0 10C%'e 100"/ 10D% 10010 Average 6.3 5.3 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.0 6.5 6.4 6.4 5.7 Median 1.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.C 7.C 7.0 6.0 n ° 'x,850 5' 518 1,434 1,228 530 31 72: 1,647 794 5~4 09 Dec OB Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT DO YOii FiOREE OK DISl,3REE U/I7h' Southeast 7riE FOLLOW/JIN6 STA.TEMEPITS OVERALL Gunbarrel North Boulder Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or betore 7951 •1965 1966.1980 1981 to present 1-StroOgfyDlsagree 13°rS 21'6 13'/a 14% 12'/0 '3.6 1336 14%a 12% 12°.G 1T6 2 7% 11% 7% 6% 7°/a 7°6 ',C% 6'/0 6°ia 6°,'0 63'0 3 8% 10°/ 9',~ 8% 9% 10%a 6% 8°/a 9% 'G'S: A LIMI' ON THE 4 ~5 5cy 6`U 6°~c 9% 7°$ 6°% 6% 7% 9% 7'0 PERCENTAGE 5 1Gio °0',~a 1".6 1C%> 10% 10% Ao OF PAVED 10% 3% 9% ° 1C / 11 SURFACES 6 9/ i 1'.6 11 % 9%> 9% 10% 13% 7°,~ 11 °io 8% 1: `n SHOULD BE CONSIDERED 7 13% 1G°o "~'/0 1', io 14% 14% 16% 12% 13% 14°~° 13°io 8 ^.2% 1'56 12% 12% 12:0 15°i> SO~o 13% 1 i io 14;0 1396 9 1°l 5So 7io 8% 7',6 6% 3°h 8°io 8°l0 6°l0 6'/0 10 -Strongly Agtee 13% 5% 1L°/a 16 % :2°6 12% 16°!0 18% 14% 13°/a 6 TOTAL iC0°k 100% 100''/0 ',~0; 10C% 100% 100% 100% 100°k 100% 1C~`5 Average 5.7 4.7 5.7 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.6 6.0 5.8 5.8 Median 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.C 6.U 6.0 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 S.C n= 3,859 61 521 1,435 1,230 531 31 725 '.,652 795 505 1-Strongly Disagree '.;:°.~6 ;6% 9;c 11% 9'6 9% 13% 1c°'c 9% P.% '2°~E 2 5% ':6% S% 4'% 6'.4 5%a 10% 5%> 5% SSU 8`.~S 3 5% 7% 5% 6%a 5% 6'~6 1C'/o 6% 5`/0 4S6 Dig 4 4°k 2% S.c 4% 4'% 5% 7% 4% 3% 5x5 hi6 WALL HEIGH7 LIh11TSSH0ULD 5 1G% 16% 9"'0 .G% 10% 10% 10% 1C°h 9% '1% "0',6 BE LOWER NEAR THE SIDE 6 9% 10% 9`/0 9`i '0°!c 10% 1U% 7% 1C% 9;c 1C% PROPERTY LINE T 14°/a 13°/a 16% 1'.96 14°~0 'T/c 17% 12% 13`S 164< 15`% 8 16% 10% 159o is'io 17% 15% 7% 15% 18% 16% 143b 9 D% 7%a 1096 9% 11% 9% 3% 1C% 10% '1% 9'/ 10-Strongly Agree 15% 3% 15°k 20°% 13%a 13% 13°l0 22% 17% 14'/ '.G% TOTAL 100°/° 10C% 100°/> 10'J% 1GC96 iD0'k 100'% iC0% "00% iG:;% 1C'„Y Average 6.3 4.8 6.3 6.5 6.3 6.2 5.3 6.5 6.5 fi.4 5.8 Median 7.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.5 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.C n = 3,828 6'. 516 1,430 1,217 526 30 723 1,635 788 504 09 Dec OB Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY Wt~IA7 YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT DO YCUA6REE OR DfSAGP,EE'NrTN Southeast THE FOLLOWb~~G STATEMEPJTS OVERALL Gunbarre( North Boulder Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Othor 1950 or before 1951 -1965 1966.1980 1981 to present 1-Strongly Disagree 13'/'0 "[3% 11°h 13% 139'0 ; 2'/0 '.394 ' 2% : 2 % 15% 2 7% 11% 6% % 8'/ 8/ 7% 6% 7% 690 'C'/o 3 9% 10% 9% 856 8'/o i0°o 20'/0 8% 9°h 8% 5% JOGS OR OFFSETS 4 6°~ 5% 7% 5% 7% 5%0 7% 4°k 7% 6% 6% SHOULD BE 5 16% 18% 'S% :5'/° i7% 17% 20°ic 77°k 15% 18% ^3'/° REQUIRED TO LIMIT THE 6 11% 7% 11% 11% 10% 13'/0 3% 9% 11% 12% 10% LENGTH OF A BUILDING'S SIDE 7 12% 15% 14% 11'/0 13% 12% 17% l0% 13°io 13% 14% WALLS 8 1C°k 8% 12% 11% 10% 7% 12°/v 10°h 10% 970 9 E°,/o 3% fi% 6% 5°!0 6°ro 3% 7% 5% 556 7% 10 - SUongly Agree 11?'0 996 14% 99'0 10% 1G°/v 15% 11% 1 ~ % 6% 70TAL 'OC% 100°0 100% 1C0% '.CO% 100% 100% iCC%o '0890 :00% 1W% Average 5.5 4.2 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4 4.6 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.1 Median 5.C 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6:0 6.0 5.0 W n= 3,819 51 513 1,430 1,213 524 3,7 724 1,629 785 5Gi 1-Strongly Disagree B% 12%v 7% 9% 8% 6%0 3% 9% 796 7`/0 7 io 2 3%v 3% 3% 4% 4% 3% 6°k 4% 3% 3% 4% 3 5% 5°,6 5°k 5% 5% 4"0 3% 5% 5% 5% 7°io THE IMPACT OF 4 3% 7% 4% 3°/ 3'/0 ~°k 3% 3"6 ~°c 2'/0 EXISTING SOLAR ACCESS 5 9% 5% 9/ 9% 8% 9% 13% 9% 9% 896 9% REGULATIONS ON BUILDING 6 9% 16% 9°k 9% 9?'0 9% 3% 8 % 9 % 8"/0 11% FORM SHOULD BE EVALUATED 7 12°./0 10% 14°~0 1 13% 14% 23% 11% 12?6 14% 13% 8 16% 14°! 18% 14% 17°k 19`6 13°/a 13% i7% i75~o 1850 9 12% 12°h 12°!0 11,0 12°k 12% 13% 12°'0 ~1°6 13% 12% 70•Strong(yAgree 22% 16% 19;0 26% 20°'0 21% 23% 27%v 23°5 21"6 10`.0 TOTAL 100% 1C0%0 iC0% 100% 10C% 100% 100% 10G?6 i0G?6 10C% iCD96 Average 6.9 8.3 6.8 6.9 6.8 7:0 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.6 Median 8.0 7.0 7.D 8.0 7.C 8.0 7.0 8.G 8.G 8.0 7.0 n= 3,869 58 514 1,418 1,219 521 31 720 1,624 787 498 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPAT{BLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY 1S YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE ~r11TH Th'E Southeast FOLLOV?liv'G STATEMENTS OVERALL Gunbarrel North Boulder Central Boulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or before 1951-1965 1966.1980 1981 to present Relationship to lot size 59% 56% 62o/c 6C% 57% 59°i~ 52°/a 62% 58°./0 6i°k 55% MOST IMPORTANT IN Solar access forms 21°k 26% 19`/0 2G% 22`/0 22`k 26% 21% 2.1°k 99% 24°0 DETERMINING THE BuildirigCOVerage 10% 7°0 8`/0 10'/0 1U% 13°k 15% 10% 10io 10% 10% COMPATIBILITY OF MAJOR ADDITIONS ANO Side wall height 5% 2'/0 6% 5`k 6%~ 4% 4% 6% 5% 5% NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD paved surfaces 3'/° 9% 3'0 3`/ 4°r5 4% 3% 3°l0 4°(0 4'/0 Sldewalllength ",`c 3'k 2`ic "Cic 1% 4% 2% 1°~0 1',~~ Z9~c 1CC5o 10G% `00°/ 1C0% 1C0% 100°k 100"% 100% 100% 100% ".CC%c TOTAL n= 3,435 54 Afi7 1,284 1,087 471 27 653 1,481 714 446 Building coverage 38% 29% 42% 39% 36% 37°/0 42% 42% 37% 36`/0 37% SECONDIv10ST Relationship to lot size 17°/o i6% 14°!0 179fi 19°0 18% 23% 97°k 1890 1fi% 17% IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE Side waU height 15"/ 18% 14% 14% 15% 16% 4% 14% 14% 16% 17%, ~ COMPATIBILITY OF 14/o i4ro 16/0 12/ MAJOR ADDITIONS AND Solar access forms 14% 18°ro 74% 14% i4% 14% 12% ° ' NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Paved surfaces 9% 7% 8~~0 8% 10% 8'h 19°k 8'/c 9%: 9°,b 8% Side wall length 7% 1 °l0 7% 7% 7% 7% 5°ic 8% 7% 10°,ro 100% 1C0°k 100% 130°k 100% 1CG% 1DD% 10G% 100% 100% 100'/0 TOTAL n= 3,395 55 464 1,2fi8 1,070 467 26 644 1,470 702 445 Slde wall height 25% 22% 23% 26% 24% 24°k 21°k 24°/° 26% 26% 2C% THIRD MOST IMPORTANT Building coverage 21% 3095 22~ro 20'/0 23% 23°k 15% 19% 22% 22% 22% IN DETERMINING THE Solar access forms 21% 13% 18% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMPATIBILITY OF 23/0 21/0 21/0 23/0 22/0 20% 22/0 23/0 MAJOR ADDITIONS AND paved surfaces ' 4°io 17°k 18% 13% 14% 14% 15% ° ' " ° ' ' NEW CONSTRUCTION IN 16k ~4~c 12/0 .5/° YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Side wall length 12% 9% 11% 13`/c 1 i% 12% 8% 14% 1'.°k 12% 13°k Relationship to lot size 6% 9°k 8°k 5% 6% 6'/° 129'° 5% 7`,~ 690 7% 10G% 100°/0 10C% 10090 1G0% 100% 1G0% 100% 100% 100% 100°.~0 TOTAL n= 3,382 54 463 1,265 1,063 466 26 643 I ;,464 899 444 09 Dec OS Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPAT?BLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY IS YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT DO YG'J.4GREE CR%iSP.GKiE With i'!E Southeast FOu.Or'/LNG S?~1?E!°fE,';'? ~ OVERALL Gunbarrel NoN.h Boulder Ceotral8oulder South Boulder Boulder Other 195D or bo!aro 1951-1965 1966.198D 1981 to present Side wall height 2?1 ' 9"6 23% 28 % 29% 24% 3` % 29`,'~ 2796 25.0 2Tk FOURTH h105T Side wall lengm 2'96 22;b 7:i % 21 % I'r% ZZ% 23iS 19°k 22°ib 2246 21',6 C~IPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE Pavedsurtaces 20% 20% 2!% '9% 19% 24% 27% 18% 20% 21% 221 COMPATIBILITY OF h!AJORADDITIDNSAND Buildingcovetaye 139; 17% 13%a '3% 14% 10% 12% 13% 14% 13% 1250 NEVJ CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Solaraccessiorms 13%, 75•,6 15% •1!6 12% 8% 15% 129> 13% '2%0 Relationship to bt size 6% , , 6% 5°lo B% 7% 5% 6% 64h 7`6 •.00°.6 100% 10C~'/a 100% iCC•t° ~:)0°io 100% <07% 100°h 1~'0 :GC:k TOTAL n= 0,360 54 459 1,260 7,;59 460 26 0 8 1,460 (i93 438 Side wall length 3'L/ 36'k 2B% 33% 33% 29%a 42% 34% "s2% 31% 31`,'0 FIFTH6!OSTIMPORTANT Side wallheigh! 23% 2[k 25°!a 22% 2i`/a 2'i% 31% 24% 22% 23% 24% IN DETERMINING THE COMPATIBILITY OF Paved surfaces 1&45 24% 1546 165'0 16% 10;6 15°10 16',6 1696 191 MAJOR ADDITIONS AND Solar accesstorms 14% 6% 16% 13 % 15°k 12% 153'0 12% 15°/a 55% !usk NE1Y CONSTRUCTION IN YOURNEIGH80RHOOD Building coverage 12% 9% 1'% 13% 12% 12°1 12% 11°k 1tr6 13% 7290 Relationship to(otsize 's% ~i< 245 3% 3% 3% 3% 3'r6 3% <46 1 '0095 10Q% 100?6 1601 tOPb '00°,6 1UC'k 100°k 100°k ,009'0 'GOib V \1 TOTAL n= 3,3„W 54 459 1,255 1,059 459 26 638 1..d53 69C 441 Pavedsurfaces 38% 22% 3590 42% 3B% 33°k 36 % 46% "s9°k 38% 3Z°i0 SIXTH MOSTItdPORTANT Sidowalllength 26% 22ib Z?%, 24% 2'/% 30% 23% 25°k 2645 26%0 24% IN DETERMINING THE Solar accesstorrns 19% 2416 20% '8% 17% 19°k 19% 17% 17% 16% 21% COMPATIBILITY OF MAJOR ADDITIONS AND RolaUOnshiptolotslze 9% 7% d% 5?0 9% 796 1215 8% 64> B% '1`,6 NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOURNEIGHBORHODD guildingcoverage 6% T..<. 5% 6% 5% B% 4% 6% T.rO 6% Side wall height 55'0 17 5% 4% 5% 496 v% 6% 4% 3°(0 6% 106% lOG% 10D%0 10G% 100°h 100% 100% 1CJ% 1C0% 106% 10PYo TOTAL n = 3,347 54 457 1.251 1,C59 455 Z6 636 1,449 fiB9 440 Sotaraccessforms 989'0 100% 99% 99°/ 98°.0 98% IuU% 985'0 99% 98% 99',•5 TOP SIX MOST ReWUonship to tot size 9896 9B % 99% 99% 98% 99% 96°k 99)'0 9896 99'1° 98% IMPORTANT IN DETERMINING THE Building coverage 915'0 98°+S 98% 9?i., 9?% &8% 95% 98% 98°k 9N/a 9:'% C0.'dPATIBILITY OF MAJOR ADDITIONS AND Paved surfaces 979'0 98% 9796 98% 9791 58% 9696 98% 9996 97% 97% NEW CONSTRUCTION IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD Side wall length 97%0 98% 964'0 3?% 9?% 91% 9510 97°k 99% 96°1 R!°h Side watt height 97% 98% 95% 919': 979; 97°io 96% 97'%O 99% 96% 97% 58690 591% 584% 58135 694 % 586`i0 68196 586% 689`,'0 583% 586°k T07AL c = 3,462 55 474 1,291 1,055 <?5 2'r 657 1,499 71B 463 09 Dec 03 Source: RRC Associates BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results IN WHICH PART OF THE CITY !S YOUR PROPERTY WHAT YEAR WAS YOUR HOUSE IN BOULDER BUILT Southeast GO YO'JAG,4EE CR G!SAGREE WI?H TN.E FOLLO'Nlfv'G STATEf~IE~lTS OVERALL Ounbarrel North Boulder Central eoulder South Boulder Boulder Other 1950 or before 1951-1965 1968-1980 1981 to present Change existing zoning standards {single-Family districts) 46oh 23% 4496 47°/ 45;6 48°'0 3655 49',4. 481 4° % 339rc Establish design & approval process for indiv. neighborhoods 419'° 30%, 4096 e0°! 43°h 42%, 39% 4396 431 4G95 32°r6 WHICH More flexibility in zoning standards for special conditions 3590 30'/0 34°/, 35°i0 34% 36% 2':96 35°/, 35'/, 33% 38'/ ACTIONS DO YOU Provide a voluntary design handbook addressing mass 8 scale 32% 2396 32°/, 3390 32% 30% 29% 3496 33% 29°i, 33%, DECEIVE THE CITY Streamlinelsimplify existing regulations {no new rags.) 30'k 's9% 3296 32% 2796 30%, 46°k 2896 2896 27% 4296 SHOULD TAKE Change solaraccess rags. to reduce effects on building form 20% ?896 18/0 2' 1 2G'!o 21°/, 25% 23% 20°l0 20% 2"% Change existing zoning standards {only in targeted areas) ?3'/, 2696 14'/0 '.2/ 12% 14°io 4% 1396 ?3% 131 15% Make no changes to regulations (leave existing in place) ?2% tE°io 1395 11°/, 1296 1216 7% 1196 ?196 12% 12°i, 228% 204% 22890 23196 22"o°h 233°,'0 207% 236'% 232%< 222°/ 224% TOTAL n= 3,79< 67 5;125 1.21!1 509 26 %2'. 1,61 762 454 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates d BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROBLEM DEFINITION AS STATED 1-Strongly 10 -Strongly SELECTEDCRCSSTABUt~CTfCNS OVERALL Disagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Agree There is a problem, and it exists in many parts of the city 44%, 5% ? 5%, 9% 23% 25°'° 34% 55°i5 58;'0 75 io WITH WHICH There Is a problem, but limited to small number of buildings 23°k `5% 48°iS 59% 52% 39°h 39°! 30°(° :655 12% 6% OF THE The roblem occurs most often on snail lots in the cif 2C to 3 /o e',S .8 /0 25 /0 26% 22 /0 27 /o FOLLOWING p Y ° ° 7% '2% 17% ° ° ° ° STATEMENTS There is a problem, but limited to faw parts of the city 19% 3% 9'/ 18% 30% 255'0 3C% 28% 24% 1855 ^ 2% DO YOU AGREE There is no problem 145; 77% 36°/ Z4°i° ' 6°/ 10% 5% 5% 3% 2% 35~ The problem most often occurs on steeply sloping lots 3`/0 1% 3'/° 2% 1% 2;0 3% 3% 4% 4% 6 ?22;5 104% i10% 116So 121°k 11T% 121°k 125% 128°io 126% 129% TOTAL n = 3,764 345 153 153 116 269 2E3 438 720 468 744 09 Dec OS Source: RRC Associates G BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROBLEM DEftNITION AS STATED 1 • Strongly 10 -Strong{y SELECTED CROSS TAEULFiTiG^!S OVERALL D(sagree 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Agree Change existing zoning standards (single•family districts) 46',r° 3`So T/° 6'/° '4~5 269o I 25%a 43% 61% 97°y 74° Establish design & approval process for indly. neighborhoods 41 ;'0 8~5 18% 18% 30% 31`,b 34% 41°h 5^% 57°~~ 54`i; WHICH More flexibility in zoning standards for special conditions 35% 27% 42% 42°k 43°h 39°k 45% 39°!0 40% 35°0 2t% ACTIONS DO YOU Provide a voluntary design handbook addressing mass ~ scale 32% 21% 33°h 37% 39% 30% 35% 33% 35`S 36°io 30'/° BELEIVE THE CITY Streamlinelsimplifyexlsting regulations (no new regs.) 33',k 62% 70% 56% 52% <3'/° 45°h 28% 18`/, 13°,ro 11 a SHOULD 7A~ Change solar access regs. to reduce effects on building form 20% 17% 20% 19% 21% 2G°k 22% 18% '9`/~ 2G°h 25`,'° Change existing zoning standards (onty in targeted areas) 13% 1% 2% 10% 12% 13% 19°r6 ;7% i6'/o 15~o i2% Make no Changes to regulations (leave existing in place) 12;r° 49% 26% 31% 14% 10% 10% 6°k 4'/° 4% 4% 228% 189% 216% 222%; 225°./0 21"3% 235% 220"0,c 2~47~ 248°0 232io TOTAL n = 3,79 346 152 150 122 270 260 433 I 720 466 ?45 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates O BOULDER COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT 2008 Final Results WHEN DID YOU PURCHASE YOUR HOME In the past 5 In the past 6 In the past 11 More than 20 years to 10 years to 20 years years ago SELECTED CROSS TABULATIONS OVERALL (2004-2008) (1999-2003) (1979-1998) (1978 & prior) 1 -Strongly Disagree 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 2 ~ 4% 5% 5% 4% 2% 3 4% 6% 6% 4% 2% DO YOU 4 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% AGREE 5 7% 7% 9% 7% 8% WITH THE PROBLEM 6 7% E?% 8% 7% 8% DEFINITION AS STATED 7 12% 14% 13% 11% 11% C7 8 20% 23% 19% 19% 18% ~ 9 13% 11% 10% 13% 15% 10 -Strongly Agree 20% 14% 17% 22% 24% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100°/0 100% Average 6.8 6.5 6.5 6.9 7.2 Median 8.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 n = 3,784 729 580 1,563 807 09 Dec 08 Source: RRC Associates