Loading...
2 - Discussion and recommendation on the proposed strategy for Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project MEMORANDUM February 4, 2009 TO: Landmarks Board FROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Julie Johnston, Senior Planner SUBJF,CT: Discussion and recommendation on the proposed strategy for Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project This purpose of this agenda item is for the Landmarks Board to provide input on the recommended strategy prepared by Winter & Company for the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project, particularly as it relates to historic districts and resources in the city. The goal of this agenda item is to receive a recommendation from the Landmarks Board that will be forwarded to Planning Board and City Council. We are in the process of collecting feedback to determine possible modifications to the recommended strategy prior to the Planning Board/City Council joint study session scheduled for February 24. Comments received from the Landmarks Board and any recommendations will be included in the study session packet, which will be available February 13. Please be sure to review the Strategy Report, which is included in your packet, or view the presentation by Winter & Company, which can be found on the project Web site at the following link: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com content8~task=view8~ id=90518~Itemid=22 Or go to the city's Web-site at www..bouldercolorado.gov and look under Issues/Projects - on the main page to link to the Compatible Development Web site. This memo will also outline the public process completed to date on the recommended strategy, as well as delineating further opportunities for the Board's involvement. 4UESTIONS FOR THE BOARD: 1. Do you agree with the refined problem definition? 2. Do you agree with the proposed strategy and set of tools? Do you have any suggested changes? 3. Do you anticipate that these tools would help address. issues with additions and new construction in residential historic districts? Af~ENDA tTE(U ~ PAGE / i BACKGROUND: The Compatible Development in Single-Fanuly Neighborhoods project includes four phases, which are as follows: • Phase l: Frame the Question (August 2008 -December 2008) -analysis of project area and community outreach to better define the problem; • Phase 2: Develop a Strategy (December 2008 -March 2009) -supported by Phase 1, a strategy paper that includes reconunendations 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. At the beginning of the Compatible Development project, City Council drafted a problem definition and a set of objectives to help guide the formation of tools to address ibis issue. The problem definition and objectives are as follows: Problem De rnition: To address the impact on existing established neighborhoods of new construction and additions that are incompatible in scale and bulk with the character of the neighborhood. The impacts to be considered include without limitation: consideration of size, open space, massing and bulk planes, loss of space between houses, privacy, view sheds, lot coverage, blank walls, setbacks, height, and the streetscape and visual character. Additionally: 1. The biggest problem is scrapes that result in very large homes and mega spec homes that are out of scale with the existing neighborhood. The definition of what constitutes a "mega home" is related to both absolute size and relative size as compared to lot size and neighborhood context. 2. One aspect of the problem is that oversized homes are often built as speculative ventures, and the developer is trying to maximize profit by building the largest home possible. The high real estate values in our community drive the problem. 3. The loss of space between homes is important. 1't is important to maintain visual openness and a sense of space in neighborhoods and often new homes are built right to the setbacks at two stories, and open space on the lot, backyards, and privacy are lost. 4. The streetscape and visual character of the neighborhood are important. S. The loss of mature trees, backyards, and sunlight affects neighborhood livability. b. The loss of older homes represents loss of the community's heritage and culture. 7. The solar ordinance affects the shape of houses and is one aspect of the issue that needs to be evaluated. Pro'ecr r Objectives: 1. It is very important to retain flexibility for people to alter their homes as their needs change, since many can't afford to move to another house. However, there is a threshold of pops over which these additions can be "too much. " It is important to provide for appropriate change over time. 2. Ensure that solutions promote variety as opposed to monotony. 3. Ensure that all neighborhoods or certain lots with characteristics different from one another are treated fairly and equitably. 4. Include an efficient process to address unintetaded consequences (an appeal or variance process). S. Include analysis of broad economic impacts. As part of Phase l: Frame the Question, the consultant team, with input from city staff, developed a public process to receive input on the problem definition and objectives from residents and stakeholders in Boulder. This phase included a kick-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. The summary of all of the public input received under Phase 1 is included in the Strategy Report. The Strategy Report details a refined problem definition which was based on the public feedback received in Phase 1 and provided a focus of action as an interim step in the project. The following refined problem statement guided the development of the recommended strategy outlined in the Strategy Keport. It also provided a basis for discussion with the community during the public workshops completed under Phase 2 of the project. The refined problem statement is as follows: The problem is new single family construction and additions that are viewed as being incompatible with adjacent homes and the surrounding neighborhood in three key respects: • They are overly large in relation to their- lots • They negatively impact the privacy of neighboring lots • They cover too much of their lots or result in a loss of mature trees or vegetation Based on this definition and the objectives drafted by City Council, Winter & Company drafted their recommended strategy for resolving the issue of mass and scale within neighborhoods. The basic strategies to address the problem definition are: • Correlate overall building size to lot size. • Reduce the perceived mass of a building. • Preserve open space in the rear of properties. To develop the set of tools that would address these strategics, Winter & Company also reviewed their approach against a list of criterion. These included effectiveness, fairness, predictability, efficiency, flexibility and context sensitivity. The tools recommended by Winter & Company to tackle these issues are: AGEYVI3A PT1eAN # PAGE i • FAR: A FAR standard would be used to relate building size to lot size and address mass and scale or looming impacts on adjoining properties. Fora 7,000 SF lot in the RL-1 zoning district, the maximum FAR would be 0.42. An exception to the FAR standard is i recommended for a portion of any detached accessory structures to encourage breaking down overall mass. • Buildin Coverage A building coverage standard would be used to help preserve rear yard open space and ~ reduce privacy impacts on adjoining properties. Fora 7,000 SF lot in the RL-1 zoning district, the maximum building coverage would be 2S percent. An exception to the building coverage standard is recommended for a portion of any detached accessory structures to encourage breaking down overall mass. • Wall Sculpting Wall height and length standards would help mitigate looming and privacy impacts on adjacent properties by limiting wall dimensions near the side setback. Fora 7,000 SF lot in the RL-1 district, maximum wall plate height at the minimum side setback would be 22' with the maximum height increasing by 1' for each foot from the side setback. Within S' of the minimum side setback, a maximum wall length standard of 4S' would apply to any walls between 12' in height and the maximum wall height. At the maximum wall length, the wall height limit would be reduced to 12' or a minimum S' wall offset would be required. Recommended StrateQy Lot Size 7,000 SF Max. Building Coverage 2S% Max. FAR 0.42 SF Exce ted from FAR and Bld .Cover for a Detached Accessory Structure 3S0 Max. Wall Plate Height at Side Setback 22' Max. Length for Walls over 12' in Height 45' Min. Offset at Max. Wall Lcn th S' Wall plate height may increase by 1' for each additional 1' from the side setback. 2For continuous building walls with a plate height over 12' and without a minimum offset as noted. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Two workshops were held to solicit input from the public on the recommended strategy. Participants worked in small groups, each facilitated by a Planning Department staff person. Approximately 67 people attended the workshops, and were asked the following questions: • Do you agree with the refined problem definition? If not, what would you change? • Do you agree with the strategy? If not, what other strategies should be considered? • Does the combination of tools and actions address the strategy? If not, what other tools should be considered? As the tools are refined, what are the key things to be considered? . ~ta~~®~1 i'1'~iUl ~ ~v~~A~l; The workshop participants were also given three models of the recommended strategy differing by lot size and asked if they agreed that the building coverage, building size, and side wall scale was compatible. The final exercise was to review the "typical" lots size, 7,000 square feet, against alternate standards for building coverage (30 percent instead of 25 percent) and FAR (.45 or .50 instead of .42}. The summary for the workshops has not yet been completed. Based on our initial review of comments, we did hear general agreement with the recommended strategy from a large number of workshop participants, many indicating the importance of providing a "set" of tools. However, some refinement is still warranted, with some of the most recurring comments including the need to evaluate the streetscape, non-standard lots, flexibility for homeowners, increased articulation, neighborhood specific design guidelines, and the right intensity of standards. NEXT STEPS: After the public outreach process is complete, Winter & Company, supported by city staff, will develop a revised recommendation to be presented to Planning Board and City Council at their joint study session. Following direction from City Council, staff will begin preparing the regulatory tools. The following next steps will take us to the conclusion of Phase 2 of the project, "Develop a Strategy." • February 13 -Study session materials available to public • February 18 -Administrative hearing This is an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the revised strategy recommendations prior to the joint study session. All comments received, both written and verbal will be provided to Plarming Board and City Council for the Feb. 24 meeting. • February 24 -Planning Board/City Council study session Planning Board and City Council to review and provide feedback on the strategy report, as well as all of the feedback received. • February 26 -Planning Board Meeting Public hearing for Planning Board to make recommendations to City Council. • March 3 -City Council Meeting Public hearing for Council to provide direction to staff on the strategy and regulatory tools. ~,Q~N©~+ ~}~q ~ PAGE