5A - Recommendation to City Council on approaches to interim regulations that may provide additional limitations in single family ...ts aimed to protect neighborhood characterCITY OF BOULDER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: Apri13, 2008
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and recommendation to City Council on approaches
to interim regulations that may provide additional limitations in single family zoning districts
aimed to protect neighborhood character.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Susan Richstone, Acting Long Range Division Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Over the years, concerns have been expressed by members of the community regarding out of
scale new homes and additions in established residential neighborhoods. Currently, a
maximum floor area ratio~(FAR) limit of 0.8 exists in the Residential - Low 1(RL-1) zoning
district only. The City Council identified addressing the issue of FARs/ pops and scrapes as a
high priority at its January retreat and indicated a desire to put in place some interim measures
as well as a longer-term solution that would require broader community discussion and
analysis. This issue was discussed at the joint Planning Board/ City Council Study Session on
March 13 and at its March 18 meeting, the City Council requested that Planning Board provide
input on an interim ordinance.
Planning Board and City Council members have identified some approaches and elements that
would be appropriate to address in an interim ordinance. Two general approaches have been
suggested: a simpie FAR limit by zone district or a sliding scale FAR limit based on lot size.
The first would set an FAR maximum and also include a maximum square footage limit and a
minimum square footage amount allowed irrespective of lot size. The sliding scale approach
would set an FAR for a specified lot size and the FAR would then increase as lot size
decreases, and decrease as lot size increases (see Attachment C). In addition, other issues that
an interim ordinance would address include: identification of~ the zoning district affected,
clarity as to what square footage is included in the FAR maximum (high ceilings, basements,
garages, etc.), a variance or appeals process, grandfathering of existing plans and structures,
and sunset provisions. The analysis section of the memo goes into detail on options for all of
these issues.
~ Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - The ratio of total tloor area of a building to the size of the lot The FAR is calculated
by dividing the total building area by the area of the lot, as measured in square feet.
AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 1
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD:
1. What is the board's recommended approach to interim regulations?
2. How should the following issues be addressed:
• What zone districts should be included?
• What square footage should be cozmted towards the FAR (basements, high
ceilings)?
• Should !here be a variance/appeal process? lfso, what should the process be?
• What shoztld the provisions be regurding grandfathering of certain approved
plans and existing structz[re.r?
• Should the ordinance exempt permits already in process?
• What type of sunset provision should be incorporated Into an ordinance?
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Board recommend to City Council adoption of an interim
ordinance that would:
1. Use a sliding scale approach in the RL-1, RE, and RR zoning districts along the lines of
the two versions included in Attachment C.
2. Establish a maximum overall building square footage for lots in the RL-2 and RMX-1
zoning districts. Staff believes it is important to include these districts in an interim
ordinance both for reasons of equity and to address concerns that limits in the other
zones may lead to more redevelopment pressure in these districts.
3. Continue to include garages and other above ground square footage in the maximum
floor area calculations, incorporate Option 2 on page 7 for calculating basement square
footage (proportional approach), and Option 1 for addressing ceiling heights on page 7.
4. Provide for a variance procedure through the Board of Zoning Adjustment subject to
call up by Planning Board as described in Option 1 on page 8.
5. Provide grandfathering provisions and address nonconformities as described on page 9.
6. Apply the ordinance to all building permit applications filed after City Council first
reading of the interim ordinance, thereby exempting permits already in the review
process. Without this provision, the pending ordinance would apply to all applications
not yet approved.
7. Include a sunset date of March 31, 2009.
ANALYSIS:
1. Approaches to maximum floor area ratio (FAR)
Two general approaches to limiting the allowed floor area ratio on a site are outlined
below. A maximum FAR would limit the amount of building square footage on a site
in relation to the size of the lot. While FAR limits alone will not address issues of
house shape and design, which may be desirable in a permanent approach to the issue
of protecting neighborhood character, they do provide a commonly used and simple
AGENDA ITEM # SA Pate 2
approach to addressing oversized houses. Some supporting information is provided in
Attachments A and B that may assist Planning Board members in thinking about FAR
limits. Attachment A includes a photo study of various FAR examples on different lot
sizes. Attachment B includes a table showing the amount of square footage different
FARs yield by lot size. Two general approaches to FAR limits for an interim
regulation are outlined below.
Currently, the city's Residential Low- 1 (RL-1) zone district limits the maximum floor
area above a basement to a floor area ratio of 0.8:1. This regulation was put in place to
prevent the very few "egregious" instances of oversized homes that had been built prior
to 2004, but was not seen as reflecting an FAR consistent with existing neighborhood
character. Additionally, it is only in place in the RL-1 district.
Option 1: FAR maximum + square footage maximum + square footage
minimum
This option would set a maximum FAR, maximum overall square footage limit on a lot,
and minimum allowed square footage below which the FAR maximum would not
apply. All square footage on the lot that is determined to contribute to the FAR
calculation would be included, i.e. garages and other accessory structures:
• The FAR maximum would address overall amount of square footage relative to
lot size.
• The square footage cap would address the issue of large lots, i.e. the concern
that an FAR limit when applied to a large lot can result in extremely large
homes.
• The minimum square footage would ensure that someone with a small lot is not
unduly impacted, e.g. a .4 FAR on a 5000 sq. fr. lot would limit square footage
to a maximum of 2000 sq. ft. so it might be appropriate to specify a minimum
square footage below which the FAR maximum would not apply.
As an illustration of Option 1, a potential interim regulation could include:
• FAR maximum of .4, square footage maximum of 4500, and FAR max would
not apply to construction of structures up to 2500 sq. ft. In considering an FAR
maximum it will be important to consider garage size, typically approximately
450 sq. ft. for a two car garage.
Option 2: Sliding scale FAR maximums based on lot size
Council Member Appelbaum has identifted a sliding scale approach as a possible basis
for an interim regulation. The sliding scale approach addresses concerns raised with
Option 1 relating to the disproportionate impacts on small and large lots of a uniform
FAR in a district. Attachment C includes two spreadsheets based on this approach that
illustrate how a sliding scale would work. The first starts with anFAR = .45 for a 7000
sq. ft. lot, with the FAR going up as lot size decreases, and going down as lot sizes
increase. The second starts with an FAR of .5 fora 6000 square foot lot, and has a
slightly different formula. These are just two versions, and various tweaks in the sliding
scale or the FAR are possible.
AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 3
2. Zones to be included
Currently, the 0.8 FAR maximum only applies to the RL-1 district. At the time the 0.8
FAR was put in place, the RL-1 zone was viewed as the area where the problem of
oversized homes primarily existed and it includes the majority of single family lots in
the city. However, the same issue has been raised for other zone districts as well. An
interim ordinance could apply to the RL-1 district only or to all low density zone
districts: RL-1, RL-2, RE, RR. The RMX-l, which includes Whittier and other
neighborhoods close to the downtown, is a mixed density residential zone district and is
another potential zone to consider including in an interim ordinance. A map showing
these districts is included in Attachment D.
While some of the zone districts have a variety of existing conditions including
nonconforming units and nonstandard lot sizes, below is a summary of the current
minimum lot size requirements in each of the districts:
RL-1:7,000 sq. ft.
RL-2: 0 minimum lot size, 6,000 sq. fr. minimum open space per dwelling unit
RE: 15,000 sq. fr.
RR: 30,000 sq. fr.
RMX-1:6,000 sq. ft. and 600 sq. ft. open space per dwelling unit
Due to the unique characteristics of the RL-2 and RMX-1 zoning districts, staff would
recommend that the board consider either a different approach or higher FAR
maximums in these districts. The RL-2 zone allows attached single family units and
since the ownership parcel for townhomes is usually the unit itself excluding all open
space, staff would recommend that an ordinance only apply to single family detached
units in the RL-2 zone. In addition, the RL-2 zone has a requirement of 6,000 sq. fr. of
open space per unit and most of the homes in the RL-2 zone are in Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) where most of the open space is in common ownership and not
attached to individual lots, such as in Shanahan Ridge and Wonderland Hills. The
RMX-1 zone also has some unique characteristics such as small alley house lots and
many multi-unit buildings. Therefore, either a higher FAR or perhaps only a maximum
square footage limit might be appropriate in these zones.
3. What should be counted in the FAR
Generally, the current 0.8 FAR maximum in the RL-1 district includes the square
footage of enclosed structures that affect massing on the lot such as garages, other
accessory buildings, and exposed basement levels, but does not include unenclosed
porches and carports.
a. Basements
The current 0.8 FAR limit in the RL-I zoning district treats basements as follows:
In the RL-1 district, the maximum,floor area above a basement shall be a
floor area ratio of 0.8:1. The floor area above the basement is all the floor
area of all levels, not including a basement, bait including fifty percent of the
AGENDA ITEM # SA Page 4
floor area of a partially exposed lower level of u detached single family
residential building in which less than fifty percent of the perimeter of the
walls of that level are more than two feet above the adjacent grade,
including, without limitation, walk-out levels or terrace levels. All of the
,floor urea ofu partially exposed lower level ofa detached single-family
residential building which exceeds two feet above grade,for fifty percent or
more of the perimeter of the walls shall be counted as floor area.
Therefore, basement square footage is not included in the FAR calculation unless it is
partially or totally exposed such that the lower level perimeter walls are more than two
feet above the adjacent grade. The amount of basement floor area counted toward floor
area is determined by the amount of exposed basement perimeter walls. If some
basement perimeter walls are exposed, but by no more than fifty percent of the overall
perimeter, then fifty percent of the basement floor area is counted. For those
circumstances where more than fifty percent of the basement perimeter walls are
exposed, the entire amount of basement floor area is counted toward the maximum
allowed floor area. The result is that the amount of basement floor area counted toward
the maximum allowed is either 0%, 50%, or 100%. See_ figure 1.
c2 ~ r
r ~ r '
rr ! n ii _ ~ ~n ~ l
Q=O~ tJ=~o~ C=~Q~~ C(=to~~
Figure I
In 2004 concerns were expressed both about basements on sloping lots, and also about
basements on flatter lots where the site could be excavated to allow for lower level
access. In response to those concerns an approach that relies on "adjacent grade" was
used to measure exposed basement perimeter walls. The choice to reference "adjacent
grade" instead of "natural grade" was intended to address the resulting conditions
found on site instead of a past condition that may no longer be in place. If "natural
grade" were used it may be possible to have exposed basement walls at or below
where "natural grade" once was, and those areas would not be counted. See figure Z.
///~4T/J R,n.L C-IRgpE
1 ^ / P.D~AL6JT L~K1gE
1 {
11 t ~
~
Figure 2
AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 5
In administering this section, to determine if basement floor area should be counted,
staff uses the related definition of "story" for guidance. Per 9-16 the definition of
'`story" includes "...Abasement is a story if any portion of the space included between
the szmface of the floor and the surface of the ceiling above it extends more than two
feet above the natural grade around the perimeter". Substituting "adjacent grade" for
the reference to "natural grade" staff considers portions of basement floor area to be
counted toward the maximum floor area when portions of the space included between
the surface of the floor area and surface of the ceiling above it extends more than two
feet above adjacent grade around the perimeter.
Option 1: Maintain the current RL-1 approach
If we continue to use the existing approach to calculating 0%, 50%, or 100% of the
basement level square footage, staff would recommend modifying the section to
include language that explains how to measure exposed basements. This would include
incorporating language from the definition of `'story" and by adding language to
explain what is meant by "adjacent grade".
The existing language in 9-8-2 (e)(1) does not provide a specific method of how to
measure the amount exposed basement walls are above adjacent grade. As mentioned
above, in evaluating the amount of exposed basement perimeter walls staff has
referred to the detinition of "story" and focused on the portions of the space included
between the surface of the floor area and surface of the ceiling above it extends more
than two feet above adjacent grade around the perimeter. As an administrative matter
staff has already resolved this issue with this approach. However, to better
communicate this interpretation and for ease of use by applicants, it would be useful
to incorporate a portion of the language from the definition of "story" directly into 9-
8-2 (e)(1) or into specific interim ordinance language.
Additionally, because there is no detinition provided in Title 9 to explain what is
meant by ``adjacent grade" there may be confusion about how to measure when
basements are counted towazd the maximum amount of allowed floor area. Within
section 9-8-2 (e)(1), or as a part of an interim ordinance, modified language could be
provided to clarify that measuring to adjacent grade, for the purposes of this section,
means measuring to a low point of finished grade within a specific distance from the
basement perimeter walls. To avoid capturing elements such as code compliant
window wells such a distance might be set at 5' or more, but the approach would
serve to deter the piling of materials against the basement perimeter walls to avoid
being considered as exposed basement walls. See,figure 3.
x. x
~
/ ~ /r
Figure 3
AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 6
Option 2: Calculate basement square footage based on the percentage of
exposed basement perimeter walls.
Under the current regulation it is possible that a small amount of exposed basement
can lead to a significant amount of basement floor area that contributes toward the
maximum floor area allowed. Additional gradations of the amount of floor area that
is counted toward the maximum would allow for more flexibility on the part of the
designer and homeowner, and would also more directly relate the amount of floor area
included toward the maximum to the actual amount of exposed basement perimeter
walls. A simple solution would be to relate the percentage of exposed basement
perimeter walls directly to the percentage of basement floor area that is counted
toward the maximum allowed floor area. For example: if 30% of the basement
perimeter walls are considered to be exposed, then 30% of the basement floor area
would be counted toward the maximum amount of floor area. See example "b "from
Figure
<2 ~ ~ 1 ~
,
H.._____'_J ~t_____ ~L_____ _ ~ ~L______~__~_.../1
F _y
a=0% b=30% c=60% d=100%
Figure 4
If this option is recommended, staff would also suggest the modifications be included
that are described in Option 1 on how to measure the amount of exposed basement.
b. Ceiling height
Currently, the city's regulations do not address the bulk and mass impacts associated
with vaulted ceiling spaces (high volume areas). A few options to address this issue
are provided below.
Option 1: Count areas with ceilings over 15' in height twice as floor area,
measured from finished floor to the bottom of the uppermost point
of the ceiling.
This would count high volume areas twice as floor area. Additionally, to allow for a
limited amount of floor area associated with entry elements and stairs, an exception
for a certain amount of high volume space could be included.
This approach would only look at the volume between the finished floor and the
ceiling above it. In the example of steeply pitched roof structures without interior
vaulted spaces, this approach would not necessarily address the outward visual
impacts of such structures.
AGENDA ITEM # SA Paee 7
Option 2: Count high volume spaces that are taller than 16' when measured
from the finished floor to the top of the rafters or structural roof
element, regardless of whether a ceiling breaks up the area.
Option 2 is from an approach used by Cupertino, CA with a height threshold of 16'
measured from finished floor to the top of the rafters or structural roof elements
(regardless of whether a ceiling breaks up the area). As with Option 1 this option
could also include an exception to allow for a limited amount of floor area associated
with entry elements and stairs.
Because the method of height measurement is to the top of the rafters or structural
roof elements, instead of to the bottom of the uppermost point of the ceiling, it is
much more restrictive than Option 1. This approach more directly responds to
outward visual impacts associated with high volume spaces and tall structural
elements.
4. Variance/ appeal process
City Council requested that the interim ordinance include an appeal process to provide
flexibility for hardship situations. Two options are provided below.
Option 1: Variances would be granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA)
An existing process exists for the granting of variances by BOZA subject to call up by
Planning Board. Approval of a variance could be based on the following criteria:
a. The applicant has owned or lived on the property for at least two years or certifies
his or her intention to live on the property for his or her primary residence for at
least two years following issuance of a certificate of occupancy; and
b. The variance granted is the minimum variance that would afford relief; and
c. Would not substantially or. permanently impair the reasonable use and enjoyment
or development of adjacent property; and
d. There is a physical disability affecting the owners of the property or any member
of the family of an owner who resides on the property which impairs the ability of
the disabled person to utilize or access the property or the size limitation would
impose a hardship on the activities of daily life of the owner and her family and
the hardship cannot be solved by a relatively inexpensive design change in the
proposed project.
e. No variance granted pursuant to this subsection shall exceed 250 sq.fl.; or
£ The size limitation would result in a violation of federal or state legislation
including, but not limited to, the Federal Fair Housing Act, or the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Option 2: Appeal process whereby staff, with call up by Planning Board, can grant
hardship exceptions to the FAR limitation up to a maximum of 250 additional square
feet. A hardship exception shall not be granted unless:
a. "I'he applicant has owned the property in excess of two years, and
AGENDA ITEM # SA Paae 8
b. The size limitation would impose a hardship on the activities of daily life of the
owner and her family and the hardship cannot be reasonably eliminated by a less
expansive design change, and
c. The proposed project does not negatively impact the character of the
neighborhood and immediately adjacent neighbors.
5. Grandfathering/ Non-conforming uses
Concerns have been raised about both the categories of projects that an interim
regulation would not apply to and the potential creation of nonconforming uses as a
result of the interim regulation.
Suggested categories of projects that the regulations would not apply to:
a. A building permit to allow the construction of improvements associated with a
landmark alteration certificate or variance approval that was completed prior to
[add first reading date].
b. Any property that has a vested right granted pursuant to §24-68-101 et seq., C.R.S.
prior to [add first reading date].
Suggested language to address non-conforming uses:
The maximum floor area ratio on a lot or parcel [add zoning districts] shall be the
greatest of the following:
a. The floor area set forth in [refer to FAR chart];
b. The floor area approved pursuant to a building permit that was submitted prior to
[add first reading date]; or
c. The floor area on the lot or parcel on [add first reading date].
6. Sunset provision
Both Planning Board and City Council have expressed a desire that the interim ordinance
be in place for a limited period of time and that work on a permanent regulation
commence as soon as possible and not take a long period of time. City Council members
have indicated that they would like to see a permanent ordinance developed in six months.
Unless a relatively simple solution based on the interim ordinance becomes the permanent
ordinance, staff does not believe that six months is a realistic timeframe to put in place a
permanent ordinance based on the experience of other communities. Therefore, staff's
recommendation is to put in place an expiration date of March 31, 2009. Staff will begin
work on the permanent ordinance once the interim ordinance is approved. Assuming an
interim ordinance is approved in May, this would give us 10 months to complete a
permanent regulation. Depending on the process that is determined for a permanent
ordinance, this maybe sufficient or the interim ordinance may need to be extended.
AGENDA ITEM # SA Pace 9
The March 13 study session notebook includes a proposal for moving forward on
permanent regulations and Planning Board feedback on the staff proposal would allow us
to begin work on a permanent solution as soon as the interim ordinance becomes effective.
NEXT STEPS:
Following input from the Landmarks Board on April 2 and a recommendation from the
Planning Board on April 3, staff will prepare a draft interim ordinance for City Council first
reading on April 15. If City Council approves the first reading ordinance, based on the city`s
pending ordinance provision, the interim ordinance would go into effect on April lb.
Approved By:
Ruth McHeyser, f1 ting Director
Planning & Development Services
ATTACHMENTS:
A FAR Photo Study
B Above Grade Floor Area for Different FARs by Lot Size
C Sliding Scale Versions 1 and 2
D Map of Low Density and RMX-1 Zoning Districts
S: \PLAN\ P B-1 T E M S\M E M O S\s r4-3 p b fa r i n to r i m. d o c
AGENDA ITEM # SA Page 10
ATTACHMENT A
FAR Photo Study
The floor area ratio (FAR) photo study provides visual examples of
differing floor area ratios on typical lot sizes within the city of Boulder. The lot
sizes chosen for this study were 6,000-6,500 square feet, 7,000-8,000 square feet,
and 10,000 square feet and above. All of the examples are located in the RL-1
(Residential Low) zoning district.
Methodology
Specific neighborhoods were chosen for their average lot size and
redevelopment trends. Photographs were then taken of properties with differing
lot coverage. The lot and house/garage sizes were collected two ways. For
buildings that are currently under construction or recently completed, the
building permits were used, which includes afloor-area-ratio worksheet and is
considered to be the most accurate data. For the other properties, the lot and
building size information was taken from the Boulder County Tax Assessor
website, which is known to have discrepancies, but provides general square
footage information for the properties.
A floor area ratio is calculated by dividing the lot size by the total built
square footage. When dealing with a house that has a basement, the square
footage of the basement is calculated based on the surrounding grade. If the
basement height is less than two feet above grade, its square footage is not added
into the FAR calculation. If less than 50% of the basement perimeter is more than
two feet above grade, 50% of the basement area is counted towards the total
FAR. If more than 50% of the perimeter is exposed more than two feet above
grade, then 100% of the square footage is counted in the FAR calculation (please
see FAR calculation worksheet available through the city of Boulder planning
office for further information). When a permit was not available for a house with
a basement, an estimate was made from a site visit and photograph of the
building. The FAR calculations are therefore approximate, as are the lot and
house sizes, due to the nature of the GIS and Tax Assessor systems. The study
aims to provide a visual example of differing floor area ratios in typical
neighborhoods of Boulder, but the true impact can be better experienced by
walking through these neighborhoods and noting the relationship to the adjacent
houses.
~„d,r,m~ yA P.o.~e A~l
- 1 1 1 . 1 1 • - • • •
FAR Property Information Image
.48 3191 10th Street
Newlands
_ ~ -
Lot Size (approx.)
6,087 sq. ft. -
.
3~ ~
House (approx.) , ti
!p~
2,697 sq. ft.
Basement (approx.) _
671 sq. ft. ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ ,
(Not calculated in FAR) ° ~
Gara a (approx.) : 3 I '
240 sq . ft. ~ , 7=
"
-
,
.48 3075 7th Street ~ _ •rv
Newlands ~ ~
Lot Size (approx.) ~ ; r ,~z
6,240 sq. ft. ~ ,A ~ - ~t
4 cti -
House (approx.) b ~ ~ '
1,645 sq. ft. ~ ' {
f ~1
Basement (approx.) °
1,549 sq. ft. ~i'
(50% calculated in FAR) f ~
•
+ I
'
Garage (approx.) - ~
600 sq. ft. -~J'~• ~'~C~
. r _
.65 3083 8th Street r _
Newlands t ~ ~ a
Lot Size (approx.)
,
6,389 sq. ft. - " ¦ - -
House (approx.) R~ ' ~ ~
3,645 sq. ft. ~
Basement (approx.) ~ ~ _
~ 'i , -
2,068 sq. ft. ~ j
(Not calculated in FAR) - _ ~ : ~ , A
ri;
~ .
Gara a (approx.) - - _ _ ~
528 sq. ft.
~1gw+d~ wrn~ ~ ~
FAR Property Information Image
860 Aurora Avenue
Flagstaff
Lot Size (approx.)
6,200 sq. ft.
House (approx.) -
3,763 sq. ft. ° .
wR*•.:
Basement ` ~
Garage (aPProx.) r=
..,~i',~ .cx=„~.~ mow. f. - _ _4~ ..a
400 sq. ft. _ „a•- ti .
- -
(g 3060 8`h Street
Newlands
Lot Size (approx.) ~ '
6,389 sq. ft. ~p .
House (approx.) ~ i f ••s'~ - ~ ;=r~
3,953 sq. ft. ~ ,~asas• -
Basement
i - ..t
GaraQe (approx.) ~ ~ r ~ ~
440 sq. ft. _ . , ~ ~ ~ r
6$ 2985 7` Street
Newlands
~ a' rr*
Lot Size (approx.) ~ ~ ~ Vii'
6,266 sq. ft. ~ , ~ ~
f l iY~ J• ~ ~ ~ ~
House (approx.) - lk~~ ~~._!~''`i
3,392 Sq. ft. '~---~-~-r~~ . -3'~~~ :r~r~:
Basement (approx.) ~ T c ~ ~ -
616 sq. ft. ~ ~ -
(50% ca/culated in FAR) - -
_
Garage (approx.) ~ _
,
612 sq. ft. . ~ _
1 1 1 1 1 1 • •
FAR Property Information Image
.35 2790 Carnegie
Drive ` ~
Table Mesa
Lot Size (approx.) ~
8,632 sq. ft. ~ •
~.f ~ !.'Y,
House (approx.)
~1
2,683 sq. ft. -
.
Basement
i
Gara a (approx.) `
406 sq. ft. - t .w _ .
. ,
r,~
.41 55 32"d Street "
Martin Acres
Lot Size (approx.) '
7339 sq. ft. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
.~4 i
House (approx.) ~
2,774 sq. ft. ~ ` :`ham-~--~~~~`
] _
Basement r ~ ~ _
n/a _
Gara a (approx.)
308 sq. ft.
.43 3021 5th Street
Newlands ~ ~ z
Lot Size (approx.)
8,289 sq. ft. _,r ~ ~ .
House (approx.) _ ~ ( ~
3,078 sq. ft. i ! ~ t
• 1 (4; ~ _ '
Basement (approx.)
f ~ ,
600 sq. ft. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
=
(Not calculated in FAR) . ~.~~-~`L ` - ~
s4~ F
Garage (approx.)
508 sq. ft.
A01116~ i111m ~ ;..~i~ ~ f~
1 1 1 1 1 1 • •
FAR Property Information Image
.49 2805 7th Street
North Boulder Park ~ r~
4 1 ` k
Lot Size (approx.) ~~~'~,i~ ~ ~
7,125 sq. ft. I . !
House (approx.) ~ ` ~ t t ~ ~ E'..~. ~ . -
3,201 sq. ft. 1'< ~ ~ '~I
v
~
Basement (approx.) ~
1,818 sq. ft. ti _ . - - -way ~1,.,.'.'~~''="",
y j~
(Not calculated in FAR) i - ~
Gara a (approx.)
300 s . ft.
.53 1492 Columbine Avenue ~ -
Flagstaff
Lot Size a rox.
( Pp )
8,025 sq. ft. `~y .
House (approx.)
3,241 sq. ft. _
Basement (approx.) - ~ ~ ~ •
999 sq. ft.
(SO% calculated in FAR) ~ " ~ _
Garage (approx.)
561 sq. ft. -
~
,57 3040 7th Street
Newlands
{V'i
Lot Size (approx.) •ir ~ ~
7,846 sq. ft. i~<A i!!ii' ~"!9~"
House (approx.)
3,875 sq. ft. ~ _ ~
Basement (approx.) i° ~ ~
2,091 sq. ft. -
•<<
(Not calculated in FAR)
Garaae (approx.)
652 sq. ft.
FAR Property Information Image
.47 1425 King Avenue ,=-~r
Flagstaff ~ - .
_
t_ -
Lot Size: . ' , , ~P.
10,002 sq. ft. ' _ _ f
` ~
~ ` ` t : Mai
House Size: ~ _ ` n~ r ~
4,752 sq. ft. ~ _
*data from ~ ' ~ ~ ~~l~~
~i~
FAR calculation worksheet ~ 1 ~
submitted with building = _ _
permit _ -
.49 517 15th Street
Flagstaff
- ~a~
~ }
Lot Size: ~
12,141 sq . ft. ~ l ~~S _ ' -:r:
House Size: ' ' ~ § rj~ ~ 4~_
5,998 sq. ft. ~ _ ~
~ Y
*data from FAR calculation ~ ~ ':F ' k
worksheet submitted with
building permit ~
2380 Balsam Avenue i'
.54 Whittier
Lot Size (approx.) ~
11,791 sq. ft. ~r'"" -
:
House (approx.) 1 . ,J - ~ ~
4, 576 sq. ft. k~
;
~ ~
Basement (approx.) ~ - -
1,797 sq. ft. -
(50% calculated in FAR) - ~ -
- - -
929 sq. ft.
i>~ ~~~~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 1 1 1 • - • • •
FAR Property Information Image
,38 1936 Vassar Circle
Highland Park
Lot Size y.~, .f"""`~-
11,962 sq. ft. ~ ji1~1~~ .,~-"'~"'1i fR . , .
House Size = ~ ~r _ r
4,608 sq. ft. ~
*data from FAR calculation ~ - - - - ~ _
worksheet submitted with ~ _
building permit 1 ~ ~ _
,39 1945 Vassar Circle
Highland Park _
Lot Size:
12,900 sq. ft.
'
House Size: ~ ~ ~ ~
5,000 sq. ft. r ~i.
'J ~ s i • r
l
_
"'iMl~ v
*data from FAR calculation ~f• ~ ~ ~ 9••
worksheet submitted with - _ ~
4
building permit ~ ..;~;,r„~~
_
' `^h
R
535 Evergreen Avenue ~
t~
Lot Size (approx.) ;t*
10,839 sq. ft. _ '
House (approx.) ~
3,538 sq. ft. =
~ . o~4t., ~ f: ~ ~ _ ~
a
Basement (approx.) ' 4 a _ A'
1,736 sq. ft. = •
r... - ~ - t'..i.
(not included in FAR)
r _
Garage (approx.) ~ _....r
1,298 sq. ft.
1~~~~ _
ATTACHMENT B
Maximum Above Grade Floor Area for Different FARs by Lot Size
F.A.R.
0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6
5000 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000
5500 1925 2200 2475 2750 3025 3300
6000 2100 2400 2700 3000 3300 3600
6500 2275 2600 2925 3250 3575 3900
7000 2450 2800 3150 3500 3850 4200
7500 2625 3000 3375 3750 4125 4500
8000 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800
8500 2975 3400 3825 4250 4675 5100
9000 3150 3600 4050 4500 4950 5400
9500 3325 3800 4275 4750 5225 5700
10000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
10500 3675 4200 4725 5250 5775 6300
11000 3850 4400 4950 5500 6050 6600
11500 4025 4600 5175 5750 6325 6900
12000 4200 4800 5400 6000 6600 7200
12500 4375 5000 5625 6250 6875 7500
13000 4550 5200 5850 6500 7150 7800
13500 4725 5400 6075 6750 7425 8100
14000 4900 5600 6300 7000 7700 8400
14500 5075 5800 6525 7250 7975 8700
15000 5250 6000 6750 7500 8250 9000
15500 5425 6200 6975 7750 8525 9300
16000 5600 6400 7200 8000 8800 9600
Lot Size 16500 5775 6600 7425 8250 9075 9900
(sq.ft.) 17000 5950 6800 7650 8500 9350 10200
17500 6125 7000 7875 8750 9625 10500
18000 6300 7200 8100 9000 9900 10800
18500 6475 7400 8325 9250 10175 11100
19000 6650 7600 8550 9500 10450 11400
19500 6825 7800 8775 9750 10725 11700
20000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
20500 7175 8200 9225 10250 11275 12300
21000 7350 8400 9450 10500 11550 12600
21500 7525 8600 9675 10750 11825 12900
22000 7700 8800 9900 11000 12100 13200
22500 7875 9000 10125 11250 12375 13500
23000 8050 9200 10350 11500 12650 13800
23500 8225 9400 10575 11750 12925 14100
24000 8400 9600 10800 12000 13200 14400
24500 8575 9800 11025 12250 13475 14700
25000 8750 10000 11250 12500 13750 15000
26000 9100 10400 11700 13000 14300 15600
27000 9450 10800 12150 13500 14850 16200
27500 9625 11000 12375 13750 15125 16500
28000 9800 11200 12600 14000 15400 16800
28500 9975 11400 12825 14250 15675 17100
29000 10150 11600 13050 14500 15950 17400
29500 10325 11800 13275 14750 16225 17700
30000 10500 12000 13500 15000 16500 18000
30500 10675 12200 13725 15250 16775 18300
31000 10850 12400 13950 15500 17050 18600
31500 11025 12600 14175 15750 17325 18900
32000 11200 12800 14400 16000 17600 19200 J~ ~
A Ilemli~Pr~f ~J 1
ATTACHMENT C
SLIDING SCALE VERSION 1
Lot Size (sq. ft.) Max Floor Area Max Above Ground Floor Area
5,000 0.55 2,750
5,500 0.52 2,860
6,000 0.49 2,940
6,500 0.47 3,055
7,000 0.45 3,150 Baseline for Sliding Scale-2
7,500 0.43 3,225
8,000 0.42 3,360
8,500 0.40 3,400
9,000 0.39 3,510
9,500 0.38 3,610
10,000 0.37 3,700
10,500 0.36 3,780
11,000 0.35 3,850
11,500 0.35 4,025
12,000 0.34 4,080
12,500 0.33 4,125
13,000 0.32 4,160
13,500 0.32 4,320
14,000 0.31 4,340
14,500 0.31 4,495
15,000 0.30 4,500 Standard RE lot FA= -4,500 sq. ft.
15,500 0.29 4,495
16,000 0.29 4,640
16,500 0.28 4,620
17,000 0.28 4,760
17,500 0.27 4,725
18,000 0.27 4,860
18,500 0.27 4,995
19,000 0.26 4,940
19,500 0.26 5,070
20,000 0.25 5,000
20,500 0.25 5,125
21,000 0.25 5,250
21,500 0.24 5,160
22,000 0.24 5,280
22,500 0.24 5,400
23,000 0.23 5,290
23,500 0.23 5,405
24,000 0.22 5,280
24,500 0.22 5,390
25,000 0.22 5,500
25,500 0.21 5,355
26,000 0.21 5,460
26,500 0.21 5,565
27,000 0.21 5,670
27,500 0.20 5,500
28,000 0.20 5,600
28,500 0.20 5,700
29,000 0.19 5,510
29,500 0.19 5,605
30,000 0.19 5,700 RR, FA= -5,560 sq. ft.
30,500 0.18 5,490
31,000 0.18 5,580
31,500 0.18 5,670
32,000 0.18 5,760 Formula max, FA= 5,650 sq. ft.
SLIDING SCALE VERSION 2
Lot Size Maximum Floor Maximum Above Ground Floor
s . ft. Area Ratios . ft. Areas . ft.
5,000 0.56 2,800 -2,800 FA on a 5,000 sq. ft. lot
5,500 0.53 2,915
6,000 0.50 3,000 Baseline for Sliding Scale-1
6,500 0.48 3,120
7,000 0.46 3,220 7,000 sq. ft. lot, RL-1, FA= -3,200
7,500 0.44 3,300
8,000 0.42 3,360
8,500 0.41 3,485
9,000 0.40 3,600
9,500 0.38 3,610
10,000 0.37 3,700
10,500 0.36 3,780
11,000 0.35 3,850
11,500 0.34 3,910
12,000 0.34 4,080
12,500 0.33 4,125
13,000 0.32 4,160
13,500 0.31 4,185
14,000 0.31 4,340
14,500 0.30 4,350
15,000 0.30 4,500 Standard RE lot FA= -4,500 sq. ft.
15,500 0.29 4,495
16,000 0.28 4,480
16,500 0.28 4,620
17,000 0.27 4,590
17,500 0.27 4,725
18,000 0.26 4,680
18,500 0.26 4,810
19,000 0.25 4,750
19,500 0.25 4,875
20,000 0.25 5,000
20,500 0.24 4,920
21,000 0.24 5,040
21,500 0.23 4,945
22,000 0.23 5,060
22,500 0.23 5,175
23,000 0.22 5,060
23,500 0.22 5,170
24,000 0.21 5,040
24,500 0.21 5,145
25,000 0.21 5,250
25,500 0.20 5,100
26,000 0.20 5,200
26,500 0.20 5,300
27,000 0.19 5,130
27,500 0.19 5,225
28,000 0.19 5,320
28,500 0.19 5,415 Formula max, FA= 5,222 sq. ft.
29,000 0.18 5,220
29,500 0.18 5,310
30,000 0.17 5,100 RR and above, FA sel at 5,222 sq. ft.
City of Boulder Low Density &RMX-1 Zoning Districts
L Mineral Rd
g
u_
z
a
8~
4
m
O t~l
- -t r
ti;.,
C
C
J
v-,~ I
+~o rus t
S__,..
_ w
(/J
t _ ~ w
Yr ~ < ~ ~ N
S cD
f. _
- ~ _ J"1_
Valmont R
in
al a _r in eOa~Q
_ ,~J M
I, e r
e
u
~ u V
n n Ara h e v
i ~ s
~ ~
i.~~
CL _
f
as line
d .
m
~
U
South oulder Rd
I r
-d
~ ~ ~
~ , i
( ~ Sy 3g
'e ~
~ ~
{
v m
,~1 ~ y
~ Legend ~
t`'t e~~ ~ RE Zoning
~ vieenbr ~r 31 ~ RL-1 Zoning
Mar ~
k - RL-2 Zoning Z
y ,
f~~ ;RMX-1 Zoning
RR Zoning
City Limits
~Iq