Loading...
6A - Update on the process to address remodels and demolition/rebuilds that impact established neighborhoods ("Pops and Scrapes") CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM ;MEETING DATE: Aubust 21, 2008 AGENDA TITLE: Update on the process to address remodels and demolition/rebuilds that impact established neighborhoods ("Pops and Scrapes"). REQUESTING llEPARTMEN"I': Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Julie Johnston, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Board with an update on the process to address single-family remodels and demolition/rebuilds that are impacting established neighborhoods. I'he project, formally refen-ed to as "FARs" or "Pops and Scrapes" is now being called "Compatible Development in Single-family Neighborhoods." In particular, the board can provide Winter and Company, the consultants hired for this project, with feedback on the project tasks and schedule. Finally, staff will be recommending that Council form a subcommittee oFCity Council and Plaru~ing Board members at their September 2005 meeting. 13ACKGROUVD: 'f'he firm of Winter and Company has been hired as the city's consultant to address the impacts of new construction and additions in established single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposal, scope of work, draft schedule, and budget are included in Attachment A. Winter and Company has begun work on the project and the first public workshop will be held nn September 10 at the West Senirn- Centel-. City Council identified addressing this issue as a high priority at its .lanuary rcircat. 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 meeting City Council: • Decided not to move forward with an interim ordinance; • Requested that staff move forward expeditiously to develop an ItI~P for consultant services and select a consultant with the assistance of a subcommittee composed of two members each of City Council, Planning Board, and Landmarks Board; and A(:l~;Nl);~ I'i'I~:A1 ;l 6A Pa~~e l ~ Identilied a problen~i statcmment, project objectives and public process objectives. (sec Attachment I3) following the April 15 City Council meeting, an RFP for consulting services was issued, fow- proposals were received, and three (inns were short-listed and then interviewed by the subcommittee and staff on June 27. The Council Subcommittee met four times to provide input to the Request for Proposals (RFP), review proposals received, and select the consultant. The subcommittee has completed its work, which was to help draft the RFP and select the consultant. Winter and Company was selected, is under contract, and has begun work on the project. QUk;S"I'TONS: 1. Does Planning Board have any questions or comments on the scope of work? 2. Does Planning Board have any questions or comments on staff's recommendation to form a subcommittee? COI\SUL`TANT TEAM AND SCOPE OF WORK: The project team includes Winter and Company as the project lead with the following sub- consultants: Code Studio -assistance on code changes RRC Associates -conduct focus groups and assist in public outreach process Urban Advisors -overview of potential economic impacts The project will include four steps (please see pages 23-27 of Attachment ~ for more information): 1. Frame the Question (July -October) This step includes collecting data, reviewing the city's cun•ent regulations, modeling six to seven neighborhood contexts (existing character, existing regulations, alternative standards), refining the problem statement, and conducting a community survey. This step will include a convnwZity workshop, neighborhood workshops, interest group meetings, and a survey. The survey will glean feedback on alternative visual models that will be developed based on issues raised in the initial community workshop. 2. Develop a Strategy (.November -January) A strategy paper will be produced in this step that will outline alternative tools and provide preliminary suggestions for revisions to regulatory tools. This step will include a Peer Review Panel, preparation and presentation of an economics report, a community workshop, and smaller neighborhood workshops and/or interest gz•oup meetings as determined by feedback received in Step l .This step will include Planning Board and City Council meetings for direction on the tools. 3. Produce the Tools (February -March) During this step, the consultants will assist staff in developing the actual tools to implement the strategy. This will include drafting recommended ordinance language for adoption, a community workshop, and a focus group meeting. 4. hnplementation (A~~ril) This step will include adoption hearings. AGENDA ITEM # 6A Px~~e 2 PROCI+,SS SUBC()yIMI'I"I'EIJ: Planning staff and the consultant are recommending that City Council appoint a new subcommittee composed of two members each of Planning Board and City Council to monitor and provide input on the public process as the project proceeds. The subcommittee would provide input on the agendas and materials for public meetings and also identify when additional process steps are needed or if additional City Council or Planning Board check-ins should be added. The subcommittee would not provide direction on substantive issues. Approved By: lZuih McIIeyser, ing Director Planning & Development Services ATTACHMENTS A. Scope of Work ' B. Problem Definition, Goals and Objectives AGENllA ITEM # 6A I'a~e 3 n~rTAC>liMEnT ~ Winter & Company Team Proposal for Single-Family Zoning District Regulations City of Boulder, Colorado QUALIFICATIONS Introduction Boulder is recognized for its livability and high quality of life, much of which derives from the character of its neighborhoods. These have emerged over more than 125 years and are places where residents have ` ~,r invested, raised families and contributed to the civic vitality of the commtu~ity. Many exhibit physical characteristics that have defined traditional neighborhoods of the city. These features have sustained over time, even when changes in the area have occurred. The City Council has identified new construction and additions that are incompatible in scale and bulk with the character of established - _ neighborhoods as an important issue. This determinationbuildsupon - ,f... decades of previous efforts and action to address the character of infill construction in and around the city's neighborhoods. In 2002, a focus Nore Winter conducting a group process helped clarify the issues and generate discussion on community workshop. possible solutions. The results of this process, responses to the 2007 Community Survey and other previous projects and evaluations • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ; provide a solid starting point for this project. Key Objective: ; "I'n revise the single family ; `Ibday, there is a sense that change now is happening which chal- zoningdistrictregulatio~u ; lenges neighborhood character and Iivability. While the term "pops to address the impact of ; and scrapes" has been used in an abbreviated manner to describe new construction and ; the discussion, we recognize that there are several issues that have additions that are incom- ; brought the city to this point. Those issues include: patibte in scale and bulk ; with the character of the ; Accommodating Creative Design neighborhood. ; The potential for new regulations to hinder creative designs is an issue. Adjusting to Change Some negative reactions may simply be in response to the pace of change that has been experienced recently. How change influences one's perception of compatibility, and how that feeling alters as a site matures, is an issue as well. Increasing Density Distinguishing increased building mass that is a part of increasing the number of living units on a site, versus increasing the floor area of a property is also an issue. Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado Loss of Traditional Buildings - ~ ~r - Demolition of older buildings, some potentially with historic signifi- ''i ` _ ~ ? ' ~ canoe, erodes neighborhood character. F , • ~ i~ ~ Mass and scale of buildings " - , Size, as seen from the street, and as perceived scale along side prop- p ~ erty lines are issues. In preparing this proposal, Open space we have reviewed the fol- •I'he ercenta e of lot covers a that is ex erienced as o ens ace is lowing materials: p g g p p p said to be declining in some areas. • 2005 Boulder Valley Com- prehensive Plan Pedestrian Orientation Some new houses and landscape designs seek to isolate a property, • Boulder Community Sur- rather than contribute to the pedestrian orientation of a neighbor- vey, Dec. 2007 hood. • "Pops and Scrapes Prob- lem Definition, Goals and Solar Access Objectives" Larger buildings may constrain solar access. At the same time, the city's solar code may shape buildings in a manner that is inconsistent • Pop-UpsandScrape-offs with design traditions. Summary of Results (Dec. 02) To reach a practical solution, we must build upon previous efforts • Staff memo and accompa- while also taking a fresh look at the issues. An inclusive process will Hying background informs- be needed to define the compatibility threshold for new construction lion regarding the process to acidressicnpactsofremodels u1 a variety of neighborhood contexts. It will also be important to and demolition/rebuilds in understand what can be built under current regulations. ~:stablished neighborhoods. With these starting issues in mind, we recognize that further analysis and discussion is needed to more precisely frame the problem and craft a response that is appropriate. That process is described later in this proposal document. Proposal Contents: Page Project Team Overview 3 National "Trends ni Neighborhood Character 5 Key Features of Our Approach 12 Scope of Work 19 Schedule 23 13udgct 25 1Zeferences 26 Office Resources 26 Append ices 27 Paget t1ll~Rl~ i~~if ~ U~ Winter & Company Team Project Team Qverview "Winter & Company is . one of the top firms in the Winter & Company is pleased to respond to the request for proposal to ;country who do this type ; assist the City of Boulder in refining its Single-Family Zoning District of work. Their technical Regulations. We offer a team of professionals skilled in developing ;expertise is exemplary. neighborhood character strategies that are tailored to the community : : Whiter & Company and that are structured for implementation and easy administration. ~ grasped the challenge of : Our experience includes projects in cities of similar scale across the ~ designing solutions for country. ;diverse neighborhoods, came up with the concepts, Winter & Company is a planning and urban design firm based in d,d the analyses, bandied the public meetings, and Boulder that consults nationwide to public agencies, neighborhood ~ designed an effective solu- ; associations and private property owners. Many projects focus on ~ tion to our neighborhoods' maintaining community character and protecting livability. ~ design challenges. Services include urban design plans, neighborhood conservation They did a great job with .their computer modeling strategies, historic preservation programs and design guidelines. ~ of showing our neighbor- A special area of emphasis is in balancing development regulations ;hoods' existing character, • as established in underlying zoning codes with more discretionary ~ the implications of building design review guidelines. Projects span more than 150 communities ;under our current zoning, in 48 states and Canada. ~ displaying various alterna- fives for each neighbor- ~ hood, preparing the results Nore Winter, principal and owner of Winter & Company, is a planner ~ of ~teighborhood surveys, and urban designer with more than thirty years of experience consult- and showing how zoning ing nationwide. He is frequently a featured speaker at conferences and ~ ne ghborhoods.affect the conventions, including the National Trust for I-iistoric Preservation, the Western Planners Association, the American Plaruting Associa- ~ We have used Winter & Lion and statewide preservation organizations. He is former Chair ~ Company here ut Durango of the National Alliance of Preservation Commissions. He will be ~ since 1981 and they have always delivered award- Principal-in-Charge. ;winning products on the • various contracts we have • Other Winter & Company team members include: ~ employed them on." Julie Husband -Director of I'Ianning & Urban Design Studio • Abe Barge -Senior Planner, and Project .Representative ~ Greg Hoch, Ptannfng Mary Phillips -Associate Planner & Designer ~ Director, Bodh 5araswat -Junior Planner & Designer ~ Durango, CO We are joined by: Code Studio -Code Writing Strategies Based in Austin, Texas, Code Studio focuses on high quality place- making strategies--moving plans from concept to implementation. They specialize in crafting zoning codes that are easily understood and accessible. In the past ten years the owners have been involved in planning and code initiatives in over 40 communities nationwide. They are collaborating with Winter & Company on several cornrnu- nity character projects across the country, including the Denver code update, and mass and scale projects in Alamo Heights, TX; Terrell Hills, TX; West Palm Beach, I~L; Atlantic Beach, FL; Sun Valley, ID; and Galveston, TX. Page 3 Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RRC Associates -Public Outreach & Strategies "we continue to use the ; Also located in Boulder, Colorado, RRC works with local governments, • master guidelines you • wrote for Atlanta as the ; public agencies and private developers and corporations, offering basis for all neighbor- ; services in research, feasibility planning and design. The staff includes hood-specific standards. ; professionals with extensive experience and qualifications inaddress- ; They provide an excel- ; ing the problems and needs of communities. They have worked in • lent framework for preset- • a variety of communities and seek solutions to problems which are vation in our historic and conservation districts" ; tailored to local conditions and needs. RRC conducted a preliminary analysis of mass and scale issues for Boulder in 2Q02, which include • Atlanta Urban focus groups and a survey. Materials from that assignment will be . :Design Commission available for review in this project. They will help to design the public outreach process and conduct a series of focus group meetings. They also will assist in larger com- munity meetings in generating workshop oriented surveys that seek to answer the broader questions regarding neighborhood character. They worked with Winter & Company in planning assignments in Breckenridge and Telluride. Urban Advisors -Economics With offices in Portland, Oregon and Washington, UC, Urban Advi- sors creates strategies for community development based upon the market and economic factors. 'they will provide an economic over- view of potential impacts for zoning changes. They assisted Winter & Company on similar projects in Walla Walla, Washington, Truckee, California, Canton, Ohio and Helotes, Texas, as well as a mass and scale project for Lexington, Kentucky. (More details of individual firm qualifications are presented in the Appendix to this proposal.) Page 4 Winter & Company Team PROJECT National Trends in Neighborhood UNDERSTANDING Character . ~ Older established neighborhoods throughout America have been sleeping giants that have now awakened. To some it is a nightmare, to others an exciting opportunity. ~•P[ . ilA i1 1 Perhaps as much as a decade ago, residents began to notice that some- Durango Ridge Offset: thing was happening to the character of these places that they called Anew context-based zvn- home. After many years of apparent stability, change was occurring. ing designation in Durango Original cottages and bungalows were torn down, and were replaced establishes a maximum length with larger structures that were out of scale. fvr wall and roof planes. This ' divides the overall muss into "modules" that reflect tradi- Alarms went off. At first, neighborhood associations responded by tional building sizes. trying to get historic districts established. This designation provided a detailed set of design guidelines and a process of review that could consider mass and scale as well as architectural character. In some cases, the city also offered an alternative "conservation district," which focused more on block character and less on preservation of ' the details of individual buildings. While these are useful tools, they were not practical for all situations. These systems require substantial manpower to administer, both in terms of staff and volunteer commissions. In addition, applying the historic district approach sometimes goesbeyond the neighborhood's goals and the city's intentions. Even when these systems are in place, there is a lingering conflict with underlying zoning provisions. Forexample, while the traditional height of buildings in a neighborhood may be one story and design guidelines call for compatibility, the base zoning often permits a _ --1 \ r, - ~r ; r cam" Durango Height Elevation C r New standards for established ~ ~ , neighborhoods in Durango ~ ' limit wall height ut the side ~ ' yard setback line as well us the overall maximum. _ Page 5 Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado r. ~ - ~ Carmel Plate Limits: - In Carmel, California, revised _ height standards established ~ _ a lower mass on the front of \ , the lot to maintain traditional scale. Terrell Hills, TX Model: A computer model compares a proposed maximum building envelope (transparent form) with a poterTtial new building using draft revisions structure of thirty-five feet, well in excess of a single story. This sets up an expectation that maybe contrary to the guidelines or neighbor- hood plans. How did this conflict arise? Basic dimensionalstandardsweresetforth inmostzoningordinances, which originally dated from the 1930s and often were revised in the 1950s. In most cases, this limited the size of a building by establishing minimum setbacks from the property lines and an overall maximum height limit. These prescriptive standards were intended to provide adequate separation of buildings for health and safety reasons, but at the same time they established an overall "theoretical building envelope" within which one could develop. For most people, this envelope went unrecognized. f;'arly on, residents seldom constructed houses to that maximum envelope. A smaller home was sufficient, either by taste, budget or tradition. As a result, residents considered their neighborhoods to be "complete." While renovations and small additions might occur, the area was, by and large, thought to be "finished" in terms of the overall number of buildings and their mass. 'Today, these older neighborhoods are hot spots ofinvestment for exist- ing owners who seek to expand their homes and for developers and new buyers. In some cases, additional pressure comes from zoning that permits higher densities as well. Even though density itself does i~ot necessarily mean that a new building will be larger than those seen traditionally, the two factors (mass and density) can be linked in a dynamic that results in larger structures. Page 6 ;t;~~~~3 i~~ ~ _ #-.fib-- Winter & Company Team While many people seek to tame this trend, there are two sides to : • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • the question. Even though "neighborhood protection" is a strong ~ "In its community de- sign planning, the • motivator, some planners argue that cities should go through cycles city will support and of investment, which keeps them vibrant and healthy. The influx of ; strengthen its residen- new owners helps support community schools and services, improves tial neighborhoods. The ; property values and can enhance the efficiency of public transit. city will seek appropri- ~ • ate building and com- • patible character of new One resident has described it as viewing building from the "two ; development or redeve2- ; sides of a fence" that runs along a property line. )f you are the owner ; opment, desired pub- ; of the property, the ability to expand or to sell and realize a profit is lie facilities and mixed ; • commercial uses, and • important. If you are the adjoining neighbor experiencing a massive new buildin and a loss of sun and rivac , our ers ective ma be ; sensitively designed and g~ p Y Y p p y sized rights-of-way. • different. Both viewpoints must be acknowledged if a viable answer ; ; is to be found. ~ Excerpt from the 2005 ; . Boulder Valley Comp • What can be done? ~ nlan These are some steps that communities are taking: Adjust the underlying zoning A key step is tofine-tune the basic prescriptive standards in the zoning ordinance to be more context-sensitive. Some basic calibrations are: Adjrtsf f/re rrnrtirrrrrm bail<li>~~ /reriJ/rf. In some cases, reducing the overall height Iimit may be needed; in other cases, reducing the height along sensitive edges may be more • important. I7<frirr <ffferr. rrf he ~~~/N liirrrfs• b<~s«/orz f/<e pasiftarr nir <r lof. Setting a lower wall height limit at the minimum sideyard setback line, for example, can help reduce impacts on neighbors, without necessarily limiting overall building height. Different systems may limit the front wall height, or that along side lot lines. Some address the rear lot. Sef <r Irrrrif arr ~z rr1/I~r~~~fh For example, establish a maximum front wall plane length that reflects the traditional width of buildings along the street. While the overall width of a new building may 'be permitted to be greater, the front portion will appear to be in scale with the context. Cslabtz.'sh <rJ7<>or <rre<r r<rlir>. This sets a relationship of the maximum building area to the size of the lot, with the idea that these should be in proportion. R<~z>r"se I>zrrI<liiri~srf-b<rckx>rar>tsron. In some cases, existing codes may prevent one from constructing a new house in line with neighboring structures, because the front yard setback minimum is greater than the traditional pattern. Page 7 ~~~~11~ It~l ~aqa ~ ~ ~"I . Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado Describe the existing context in objective terms In order to develop standards that are more context-sensitive, the existing character must be documented. This may include descrip- tions ofbasic framework features, such as the configuration of blocks, streets and alleys, as well as specific patterns of building arxangement, setbacks, mass and scale. Looking for patterns of consistency is a key part of this analysis, but defiiung the range of diversity is important as well. This may help to identify the range of "tolerance" that exists for accommodating change. It is also important to match this analysis of context with other community planning goals related to livability, growth and economic health. Existing Context Computer models show the established neighbor- hood context. This served - - as a base for testing alter- I- native regulations. ~ `r` -t. - - Existing Regulations _ " ~ ~ - 'the conzputez• models ~--`~~a.~ show the potential cu- mutative impact of new building that could reach the rrtaximu»z potential building envelope. One f~ earlier traditional house _ - remains in the image for comparison. i _ Proposed Regulations - A computer model il- _ lustrates the potential ~ character of a new infill ~ - building designed to meet r ~ ~ ~ ti' proposed standards. ~ Page 8 ;~rilalt~Gtl~'_ .~rJt~n:1~#~_ Winter & Company Team Illustrate the potential effects of revised standards The numbers placed into a code can yield unexpected results. The best way to predict the potential outcome and test to see that the changes will yield a compatible solution is to generate three-dimensional representations, or "models," of alternative standards. This helps the community shape policy in an informed manner. Computer imagery is particularly easy to apply to this task today. Provide options for discretionary review Changes to existing zoning standards should address many issues, and keep the system simple to administer, but in some situations a more discretionary approach may be needed. When an owner seeks to execute a design that doesn't quite fit the mold but could still be compatible, they may wish to have an option for using alternative standards, or even enter into a design review process using guidelines. In other cases, the city may wish to modify a regulation to respond to an unusual site condition, such as where lots exist that are smaller than the permitted minimum. These "alternative compliance" methods can provide flexibility in a system that otherwise is prescriptive. They should be designed, however, to be used only as needed, such that the overall system is efficient, fair and predictable. This may be built into the basic zoning as an alternative track, or it may be enabled through an overlay, the way historic district designation typically is. - - r ~ ; _l ~ll~~l Basic Standards We see how different mass aitd scale standards addressing one-story elements affect a ~teighborhood. Top left, a house with n porch, acid bottom left, in context. Tup right, a house without porch, and bottom right, in cnritert. Page 9 Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado Where is this going? Project Goal and Objec- ~ . rives: With current trends, we will see planning tools becoming more context 'To protect the character ~ sensitive, responding to traditional development patterns. At the same of established single fam- ~ time, residents will also recognize that neighborhoods are not frozen, ily neighborhoods by as- ~ and that change can be sculpted to respect context and even can be Suring that new construe- ~ beneficial. `['hose refinements will come with extensive debate, and it . tion and additions are is important to provide a forum for reasoned discussion in which all ;compatible in scale and ; ' ;bulk with the character of ~ viewpoints can be heard. The stakes are high. The character of our ~ the neighborhood. ~ neighborhoods and the success of our cities will be greatly influenced • 1. It is very important to by this movement. It is important that we all work to craft creative : retain flexibility for ~ solutions that will enhance livability in all of its aspects and maintain : people to alter their ~ the character that we value. homes as their needs ; change...It is impor- rant to provide for ap- propriate change over How do these trends relate to Boulder? time. 2. Ensure that solutions ; promote variety as op- ~ Boulder is experiencing these same mass and scale issues. Part of • posed to monotony. the problem is that the Boulder's neighborhoods each have distinc- t 3. Ensure that all neigh- ~ five characteristics, and yet the current standards may not effective- : borhoods or certain : ly convey these differences. lots with characteristics ; • different from one an- • other are treated fairly ~ In many cases, a project may be approved, and then residents are and equitably. • later surprised by unexpected results that are inconsistent with the : 4. Include an efficient setting. 1~unciamentally, these districts are now threatened by their • process to address un- • • intended consequences ~ own success: People wish to invest here, and increase housing supply. • (an appeal or variance "That is good news. But, these new buildings can threaten to alter the : process). : character of these neighborhoods. : 5. Include analysis of : broad economic im- ~ At the same time, there are genuine considerations for those who seek • pacts. • to make improvements, and to assure that investment flows into these a yeas in a positive way. The challenge is to Eind the appropriate balance of interests and then tailor tools to meet shared objectives. At this point, we understand these needs: 1. The key characteristics of each of the city's neighbor- hoods need to be articulated. 'I'bis will help everyone involved consider context more effectively when considering infill design concepts. `.['his includes descriptions of traditional lot coverage ratios, building heights and massing. 2. The force of the underlying zoning regulations should be described. The base zoning sets expectations for single-family residential mass and scale that should be illustrated such that people understand the difference between the "by right" condition and the goals for com- munity character. Page 10 r~~lc:~fc~tn ~ Winter & Company Team 3. A strategy needs to be adopted that explains how zoning : standards and other potential tools can be combined to ad- "Projects should be- : dress the issues. come a coherent part : of the neighborhood in Thisstrategyshouldillustrate,throughcomputermodels,thepotential ~ which they are placed. results of new .regulations upon single-family residential buildings. ~ 'They should be pre- . served and enhanced where the surroundings 4. Following these steps, spec(fic tools should be crafted to ~ have a distinctive char- address the issues. acter." • We assume that this will include amendments to single-family rest- : Excerpt from the 2005 : dential zoning standards. Boulder Valley Comp • Plan • 5. The process must actively involve the community. A series of interviews, focus groups and public workshops will b~ needed to assure that those with interests in the historic districts have an opportunity to provide their insights. Workshops must be planned • p to be interesting, informative and productive. ` „ . ~r~-~'. These needs are addressed in the discussion of our approach, which '°a~~ ' follows in the next section of this proposal. ~ . - i 'bsr 1P • ~ ~Ki ~ ~ .3 ~ ~ a- , i ~ ' ' a I I ! s - ..t Page 11 Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado Key Features of Our Approach "Projects should incor- ; ~ porate well designed • ~ functional open spaces A Four-Step Process with quality landscap- The project will be conducted in four basic steps. The first two steps : ing, access to sunlight : and places to sit com- ~ constitute the bulk of the consultant work effort, with city staff pro- ~ fortably." ~ viding support, in which the city's actions will be defined. 'The last • two steps focus on executing the strategy defined previously, with Excerpt~i~om the Zoos city staff leading and the consultant team providing support. : Boulder i/alley Cornp ; Plan • Step 1: Frame the Question At the outset, we will strive to help the community more clearly de- ~ ~ scribe the "problem." The intent is to reach agreement on this such a+ k that the subse vent efforts will be directed toward addressin T rt This r, a 9 ~ ' . -'T.~-~'%~ step therefore includes an analysis of existing codes, descriptions of ' - ~ the differing single-family residential neighborhood contexts that ex- ist, a summary of current trends, and prioritization of issues related to them. This effort includes a review of the studies and surveys developed by city staff, other consultants and municipal boards to build a start- ingpoint for this project. It also will include an initial public meeting, and a set of focus group discussions. It will culminate with a working paper that frames the question and sets a direction for the next step. This will include summaries of existing conditions and trends as well as an outline of some potential responses. Step 2: Develop a Strategy In the second step, we will produce. a strategy paper that defines the way in which the city should respond to the question framed in Step 1. It will include recommendations for revisions to regulatory tools, and may introduce new ones as well. Revisions to basic development standards are anticipated. Where they axe relevant, specific numeric code recommendations will be provided. This will be a technical document that will propose standards poten- tially including: height, lot coverage, LVR, FAR and solar standards. It will also considex basic urban design and conservation principles. Illustrations will be used extensively. The strategy paper will also address how the tools are to be imple- mented.Some may apply city-wide to all properties in a zoning class. Ushers may apply to parcels of specific sizes, or those within specially designated areas. This element will also consider the administrative requirements to implement the strategy. Minimizing staff and board work loads, and expediting review and decision-making are key objectives. Page 12 Winter & Company Team This phase will also include an energetic public outreach component, - ~ _ with public workshops and focus groups. A visual survey also will - _ ~ be developed, which will provide an opportunity for residents and property owners to express opinions on alternative development _ ~~r-~~~ . r'te' ` scenarios. "~i~- As an additional service, we will assemble a panel of planning an~1 design professionals from other communities thathave implemented, or are developing, similar types of community character systems. We will also produce a white paper in this phase. It will discuss tine broader issues of economic impacts and design regulations that ad- dress house size. It will look at several communities where regula- tions have been adopted that limit house size and the overall impact on the market since the regulations have been adopted. This will take into account the current housing market trends. We anticipate two presentations of this material, one with the community and one with the City Council. Step 3: Produce the tools In the third step of the project, the regulatory tools will be developed. At this point, staff will take a greater role, and the consultants will provide assistance. While developing the regulations, we will strive to make them user-friendly as well. Step 4: Implement the Tools The implementation step focuses on public hearings requisite for adop- tion, and also includes assistance inputting the new regulations into action. A special training session, for example, is included. This will be designed for staff and boards to practice using the new regulations such that the first real projects to enter the system will be handled in an optimum manner. Staff will also take the lead in this phase, with the consultants providing assistance. We will attend selected hearings and direct the training. Tailoring to Boulder The most effective actions to address mass and scale will be those that respond to the community. `t'his means that social, political and economic factors in Boulder must help shape the outcome. Physical characteristics of individual neighborhoods are also import•unt to consider. In our approach, we strive to tailor the recommendations to fit the distinct climate of the colrununity. Page 13 c ~II , Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado ~ ~ Understanding Neighborhood Character While there are city-wide values to consider, there are also different ~ fi ~ ~ settings to acknowledge. Boulder's single-family residential neigh- borhoods exhibit a diversity of characteristics that give them their unique identities. The traditional scale of buildings found izi one - _ _ area, the manner in which they are situated on their lots, and the general density of development are basic features. The arrangement of streets in grids, or in curvilinear patterns are also defining features. : "7n order to achieve : Predominant landscape designs and parking arrangements are other :community goals and : variables. Finally the degree of similarity that exists, versus the degree policies, the city will ~ of diversity that is found, may be a defining feature. In our approach, implement growth man- • agement tools that con- : we workwith the cornmunityto analyze neighborhood characteristics : trol the scale, location, : and describe t}gem in an understandable way. type, intensity and tim- ing of new development Evaluati n Re u lations and redevelopment" ; g g • City regulations combine in a dynamic relationship that influences : Excerpt from : the way in which property improvements occur. Maximum potential the 2005 13outder : buiiding mass, for example is defined by a combination of height Walley Comp Plan limits, setback requirements and ratios. Other regulations, including the solar ordinance and landscape standards further shape develop- ment. We will therefore begin with a study of what the current codes permit. This will build on the substantial documentation that the city has already assembled in the initial stages of this project. ' Neighborhood character and zoning district boundaries We know there are "character areas," which are parts of neighbor- hoods that share certain physical characteristics. These areas need closer study. That analysis may suggest some modifications to zone districts, or some refinements to existing regulations such that they are better keyed to contextual features. Mass and scale in the zoning code "The fundamental tools that address mass and scale are those in the zoning code which set limits on building height, floor area and lot coverage. These vary by zone district, and in some cases by differ- ent lot sizes. But, to what extent do they also reflect differing design contexts? This needs analysis. Sculpting building form Beyond the basic massing standards found in the zoning ordinance, several finer-grained. standards that seek to articulate single-family residential building forms to reduce their perceived scale may need to be developed. This is based on the assumption that, to some extent, a larger mass maybe more compatible if it is "broken up" such that is appears smaller. Page 14 Winter & Company Team Design guidelines More specificguidelinesmaybedeveloped. Whileitisourunderstand- ;Public Process Objectives: ing that the city does not envision establishing acity-wide residential ; 1.Provide the public : design review process, there may be special, more limited applica- with balanced and ; lions. They could be tailored to selected neighborhoods with special objective information ; circumstances, or they may be used in an "alternative track" initiated ; to assist them in ; by the applicant, or simply used when considering variances. These : understanding the problem, alternatives and other approaches will be evaluated. ; and solutions. ; 2. Keep the public Visualizing the code informed, listen to and • acknowledge concerns, : "Modeling" is athree-dimensional computer imaging tool that is ~ and provide feedback : projected in accurate scale, and will illustrate the potential effects of ; on how public input ; the existing code. While these effects may already be understood by ; can influence final ; many people, others in the community may not. It will be helpful to ; decisions. ; generate computer models of the existing code, such that average ; 3. Work with the ; • potentially affected citizens understand what the current regulations produce. This set ~ residents and other ; of illustrations can also be used as a starting point to model and test ; stakeholders to ensure any potential changes that might be considered. This modeling will ; that their concerns and ; build on the analysis and photo essay work that the city has already ~ lternatives that wren produced. It is a component of our approach. ; developed. ; ~ 4. Work with the ; Balancing Variables ~ patentiallyaffected residents and • This project requires balancing several key variables in order to best stakeholders to come up fit the community. 'these are some key "balancing acts" that we an- ; with potential solutions : ticipate: ; that council and ; Planning Board will consider. ~ Simplicity versus complexity The outcome should be simple to understand and administer. A lim- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ited set of specific standards that address mass and scale, Eor example cnay be the easiest Eor property owners to understand and Eor staff to interpret at the permit counter. On the other hand, if the system is over-simplified, it may not sufficiently respond to differing contexts that occur throughout the city, or offer flexibility for owners with special requirements or creative solutions. Finding a balance between a system that is a "one size fits all" versus one that considers each project on acase-by-case basis is an objective of our approach. Property rights The owner o.f a property has certain rights, in terms of their ability to make improvements. Owners of abutting properties also have expectations based on their understanding of rights. The neighbor- hood and the city as a whole also have certain rights to be considered. Therefore the differing viewpoints of being "inside the property line" and "outside the property line" must be acknowledged. Page 15 ~ fl` ~ ~ Single-Famiiy Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado i~- Property values Similarly, there are different perspectives on the value of property ,i' ~ that must be addressed. Value, in terms of potential sales price, is a key consideration. Part of this is derived from the features of an in- y dividual property, and of the size of the building that can be placed f'~~ ~ on it. The way in which the quality of a neighborhood contributes to '~='r~ - - "location" and therefore affects price is also a factor. Additionally, the quality of life that a neighborhood affords its residents is a component of property values to include in the discussions. Public Outreach t, ~ An interactive dialogue with the community is, of course, essential. We will design a communication system that has these features: , 1. It must be informed. ~ .People need information that will help them make informed deci- _ - _ ~ sions. This includes: • Summaries of research that is conducted • Open discussions of issues and potential responses r--i' • Testing the potential outcome of alternative responses Public participation is an im- portantpart of the process. 2. it must have broad participation. We will help the city strive to maximize public participation, through a variety of outreach tools (described below). 3. Communication must be clear. We will produce interim working papers that are concise, and well- illustrated. 't'hese will serve to: • Explain options and alternative tools • Group related issues to facilitate discussion • Highlight key policy decision choices Organizing the Communication System A clear communication system will ensure that the project reflects community concerns. This includes conversations with community representatives at large, as well as smal ler focus groups, individuals, ci ty staff, boards and commissions. We will workwith staff at the outset of the project to refine the communication plan. Public participation must be planned strategically and meetings must be organized to engage participants in meaningful activities. We organize each meeting in advance and provide materials ahead of time for review so that meeting participants can arrive informed. We organize work sessions with the city staff, subcommittee, boards and the City Council. We also conduct interviews with select individuals, and stage focus groups, workshops and public meetings. Page 16 Winter & Company Team The communication effort will include schedules for: 'iVlany thanks for your hard work and fine re- • Community Workshops ports. All are greatly ap- ; These are designed to engage the greatest numbers of people and to preciated. We hope to ; highlight a diversity of ideas. We will conduct public workshops that use your services againP' engage participantsinhands-on exercises that are exciting,interesting ~ Eileen B.Segrest, ; and consensus building. Executive Director, ; • Atlanta Preservation • • Neighborhood Work Sessions ~ Center We plan for a set of neighborhood grouped sessions. These may be organizedby geographic quadrants of the city, orneighborhoods with similar characteristics may meet together. • Interest Groups 1 K These appeal to stakeholders who wish to participate in more specific r~:.. discussions about matters of interest to them. In these sessions, special ' concerns are addressed and information related to specific issues is . ~ ~ collected. Some representative groups are Neighborhood Associa- ~ tions, Pian Boulder, Realtors, Developers, Boulder Housing Partners `•~r-~ ' and Historic Boulder. ~ , _ ~ • Resource Group We will meet with Planning and Development Services Advisors Group that has been convened by the City. They will provide insights into specific building techniques that should be considered. They will provide advice about construction methodsand standard dimensions that typically are used, such that the community can understand how potential regulatory changes may affect building. • Personallnterviews These meetings axe used for key individuals whose advice is critical to the success of the project and who may not be able to attend group meetings. These will be scheduled as needed. • Peer Panel As a special service, we will assemble a panel of planning and design professionals from other communities that have implemented, or are developing, similar types of community character systems. "I'he peer panel would meet in Boulder at a mid-point in the project, to review the Problem Statement and the draft Strategy. In a public presentation they would provide observations about their experiences and contrib- ute advice to the Boulder project. Our initial. recommendations are representatives from Denver, CtU, Durango, CO and Palo Alto, CA, although other peer representatives may be identified in the initial stage of the project. Team Conference Calls We will schedule regular conference calls between our office, our con- sultantteam members, and city staff to discuss general administrative matters as well as specific project content elements. Page 17 rl ~.dll~f~ ~'vrfl'1 _ _ ~j~1 ~~l' a;#, y~--- 1..! .-i Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado ; Website 'The comments received ; We will assist the city in establishing a web communication compo- • from the workshop were • : very positive. Participants : nent for the project. We will provide content for posting on the city's : remarked on your knowl- : website, and will assist city staff in creating interactive tools including edge and expertise in this ; surveys, aS well. ; subject area and the use- ; • fulness of the information • : that was provided." Community Survey ; ; We also will develop a Visual Survey, to be administered at an ap- Ginger Newman, ; propriate point in the project. Phis will include three-dimensional, ; Convei:tron Coordinator, ; computer-generated models of alternative regulatory options that Wyomi~~g Associatiwi would affect mass and scale. This will be designed to be administered of Municiyrtlities ; in an efficient manner, potentially throughout the community. Working as a Team with the City This project requires a collaborative effort, with the consultants work- ingwith city staff and boards. We will include them in work sessions and strategy sessions throughout the process. Process Subcommittee The subcommittee's role is to monitor the process. It is not to review the content of project materials and recommendations. The subcom- mittee will act as a the sounding board to confirm "this is what we heard, "from the community, planning and city council sessions. They will also identify if they believe more public process is in order, or if a city council or planning commission meeting should be added. City staff City staff bring in-depth experience with the issues related to the project. They will be key participants in the team in analysis strategy sessions and community workshops as well as implementation. There are also these administrative responsibilities: • !\pp~int Planning Department project manager as noted in RFP. • Provide background materials and data research as requested. • Schedule meeting rooms for staff and community sessions. • Provide consolidated comments on draft materials in a timely manner (as determined by schedule). • Arulounce public meetings in appropriate publications. • Announce posting of draft materials. • Print workshop materials for communty sessions. • Distribute and tabulate survey • Identify single-family residential areas where the study will apply within the RL-1, RL-2, RMX-1, IZE and RI2 districts on a map. This will omit existing PUDs, homeowner association areas with cov- enants that address mass and scale issues, multifamily, duplexes and townhome lots/areas within these districts. Page 18 Winter ~ Company Team Scope of Work Each of the components described in the project approach is presented ~ Neighborhood Contexts here in a chronological description of services. ; Neighborhoods of similar • character may be grouped in • Thisstudywilladdressthefollowingsulgle-familyresidentialdistricts: ~ contexts.For example: ~ study will apply within the RL-1, RL-2, RMX-1, RE and RR districts. • • • 1. Early Traditional Grid • It will omit existing PUDs, homeowner association areas with cov- . _ Narrow width ' enants that address mass and scale issues, multifamily, duplexes and ~ _ Alleys townhome lots/areas within these districts. • • ~ 2. Later Grid ~ Step 1.0 Define the question & Develop Survey • -wider lots 1n this step, we will help to summarize existing features of the neigh- ~ - No alleys borhoods related to single-family residential mass and scale, review • 3. Compact Grid • the current regulatory system, characterize development trends and • -Newer developments • then summarize the "question" to address. ; -Alleys ~ 4. Curvilinear Streets A ~ This step will also include a modeling analysis and community survey ~ _ No alleys to inform the strategy. • -Flat top • ~ -Wider width ~ 1.1. Collect background materials and site visit • 5. Curvilinear Streets B • With staff assistance we will collect the following background materi- • _ No alle s ' Y als to inform the project: . -Larger lots • GIS data ~ -More topo ~ • Aerial maps • • • 6. Base of Mountains • • Kegulatory documents • Staff study materials developed to date ; -Steep lots ~ • -Special streets ~ • • 1.2 Review system of regulations • • The consultant will review the Zoning Ordinance and other existing regulatory tools including: • Background materials • Underlying zoning • Neighborhood descriptions and goals statements, as may be found in surveys and neighborhood plans 1.3 Community Workshops, Modeling Analysis and Survey The consultant will study residential building design issues in re- lationship to traditional building patterns, current regulations, and market trends in a modeling exercise. With staff we will establish the appropriate contexts to be modeled (six to seven neighborhood contexts are assumed; each context will include one-half of a typical city block). We will evaluate the analysis with the community. 'Phis analysis will be undertaken in two parts. In the first part, we will present the established neighborhood models, current regula- tions and market trends in community workshop #1. We will collect public comment on the materials presented. We envision that this workshop will be able to be taken "on the road" for use in several smaller neighborhoodworksessions where more detailed discussions can occur. These sessions will be undertaken primarily by city staff, with a member of the consultant team in attendance. Page 19 Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado In the second part, we will develop alternative models that address ~ issues that may have been raised in the initial workshops. We will . , ~ _ glean feedback on these models through a community survey. The `rf:~w,~r . survey will use a similar format to existing surveys we have used in t.:'~•'~' ~ ' ` ' ~ the past, but tailored to Boulder. Within the visual survey we will pres- ~ ent alternative models. The.concept of the survey will be introduced at the end of the first public workshop. f, ~ It is assumed that the contexts that are studied will potentially apply to ~ a ~ different zone districts. We understand from previous studies that we • ' ' ' .i ~ have undertaken that there will be lessons learned in one context that '.f.~~~ can be applied to another similar context in a different zone. This will - - - ' be our approach in the Boulder project uz order to add ress the building design issues regarding single-family residential development. For each selected context we will: • Model the traditional building scale; this information will be gathered from eaxly maps and aerial images of Boulder • Model what the existing system produces; we will model the cu- mulativeeffect ofcurrent regulations and citywide development trends For the survey we will: • Model alternative measures; we will model the effects of potential alternative standards. Mee>ings • Meetings with city staff (6 meetings -kick-off, review models, review workshop #1, debrief workshop #1, review survey and debrief survey). • City Council Meeting to review project process (Project Represen- tative will attend -determine make-up of subcommittee) • i'Ianning Board (Project Representative will attend -review pro- cess) • Community Workshop #1 to define neighborhood character, re- view traditional models and trends, identify the building issues and introduce the survey (1 community workshop). • Participate in additional neighborhood workshops. The format from the initial community workshops will be repeated in these sessions (4 smaller workshops). • Conduct interest groups (4 meetings -resource group, other to be determined) • Meet with subcommittee (2 meetings -kick-off, post workshop #1) Page 20 Winter & Company Team Deliverables • '"Thank you for drafting • • Community Workshop Summary #1 (6-8 pages) for public disiri- the Cannery Row Con- butiori ; nervation District Design ; • Visual survey on alternatives (12 pages) ; Program. Your expertise ; • • has been invaluable in • Powerpoint Presentations brid in a s between • Workshop Materials (PDF format) g g g p • various groups and help- • Project Process Summary (I'DF format) ; ing to identity awin-win ; • Problem Statement ; solution...your profes- ; sionalisrn and insights Step 2.0 Develop a Strategy have been invaluable!' • In this step, we will develop a strategy for addressing single-family ; Fred Meurer, • residential mass and scale within the RL-1, RL-2, RMX-1, RE, RR ; City Manager districts. It will outline the alternative tools and provide preliminary city of Monterey, CA suggestions for specific standards that may then be refined for formal • adoption. i' In this step we will also include a Peer Review Panel (described on ~-k~. page l7)andapresentationofthe~cunimlicsreporttheevenin;before ~;~I- I; I x~ or after public workshop #2. R~ 2.1 Produce strategy paper 1 Akey question will be the extent to which mass and scale issues should be addressed ii modifications to the underlying zoning. If so, how would this be implemented-as a blanket text change, as an overlay, or through some other mecha?usm? 2.2 Economics The consultant will present the economics paper in a community workshop setting. Meetings • Meetings with city staff (4 meetings -review draft strategy, review final strategy, review workshop #2, debrief workshop #2). • Community Workshop #2 to review the survey results, present strategy with preliminary standards and determine the appropri- ate tools (1 community workshop). • Peer review panel and economics presentation (1 community workshop the day before or after workshop #2). • City Council Session (1 meeting - to provide formal direction on tools) • Planning Board (1 meeting -project update) • Participate in additional smaller neighborhood workshops and / or interest groups as determined by feedback received in Step 1. If additional neighborhood workshops are undertaken the format and materials from community workshop #2 will be xepeated in these sessions (6 meeting). • Meet with subcommittee (1 meeting -post workshop #2) Page 21 Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado ` ~ Deliverables Community Workshop Summary #2 (6-8 pages) for public distri- bution ' ~ PPT presentations r ~.E ~ ~ Workshop Materials (PDF format) Strategy Paper {PDF format (20 pages), outlining recommended actions) - Draft #1 (review with staff) - Final strategy paper (edited per staff comments) • Economics Paper Step 3.0 Develop the Tools In this phase, we will assist city staff in developing the actual tools that will implement the action strategy. Revisions to current codes arc expected to be a focus, and other tools, such as design guidelines and incentives may also be developed. We will prepare an initial draft of recommended ordinance language and will then assist city staff as they refine this for adoption. This also will include decisions about how the regulations will be applied. Some, for example, may be adopted for use throughout all relevant zone districts. Others may be tailored to specific lot conditions or geographic locations, perhaps as an overlay system. Meetings • Community Workshop #3 (assist city staff in presenting draft #1 of the design standards). • :Meetings with city staff (4 meetings -produce draft tools, review staffs refined draft, review workshop #3, debrief workshop #3). • City Council Study Session (1 meeting -review tools) • Conduct focus group (1 meeting -resource group) Deliverables • Outline of draft standards • Outline of draft design guidelines (if appropriate) • Preliminary draft of design standards • PPT presentations • Workshop Materials (PDF format) • Memo describing recommended application of the standards Page 22 Winter & Company Team Step 4.0 Implementation In this phase, the final tools will be put forth for adoption. We will assist city staff in this phase by attending one hearing as a part of the base services. Once the regulations are adopted, we will then conduct a training session with staff and relevant boards to refine their skills in applying the standards (as an additional service). Meetings • City Council hearing for adoption (2 -public hearing) • Planning Board (1 -public hearing) / Page 23 Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado SCHEDULE Task: Authorization to Proceed July 9, 2008 Step 1: Define the Question Planning Board meeting Aug. 21, 2008 City Council meeting (alt. to Aug. 19) Sept. 2, 2008 Subcommittee meeting (kickoff) Early Sept. 2008 Workshop #1: Define the Question Sept. 10, 2008 Neighborhood Workshops Sept. 15, 17, 23, 24, 2008? Interest Group Meetings Sept. 15 - 25, 2008? Deliver Workshop #1 summary Sept. 30, 2008 Deliver draft problem statement to staff Sept. 30, 2008 Deliver survey materials to staff Sept. 30, 2008 Review survey materials with staff Oct. 3, 2008 Subcommittee meeting Oct. 6, 2008 ? Conduct Survey Oct. 8-22, 2008 Staff submit tabulations Oct. 27, 2008 Step 2: Develop a Strategy Submit draft strategy Nov. 12, 2008 Staff review Nov. 18, 2008 Post strategy paper Nov. 25, 2008 Subcommittee meeting Nov. 25, 2008 ? Workshop #2 Dec. 3, 2008 Neighborhood/Interest Group Meetings Dec. 8-12, 2008 Subcommittee meeting Dec. 15, 2008 ? Joint Council-Planning Board Study Session Jan. 13, 2009 ? Planning Board Meeting (Direction on tools) Late Jan., 2008 ? City Council Meeting (Direction on tools) Early Feb., 2008 ? Step 3: Develop the Toals Submit draft tools Feb. 27, 2009 ? Staff refines March 10, 2009 ? Workshop #3 March 25, 2009 ? Step 4: Implementation April, 2009 TBD Page 24 Winter & Company Team Additional Services A. Additional Workshops, Focus Group Meetings and Public Hearings Consultant team members are available to participate in additional meetings. The need for these may arise during the course of the project, especially in Steps 3 and 4. B. Training Session We offer a training session with staff and related boards as an ad- ditional service. The extent of this training will be influenced by the extent of the changes to codes that may occur. C. Design Guidelines If the need Eor more detailed guidelines arises for certain specific ap- plications, in which they are custom tailored to different contexts, we can assist in producing these as well. D. Additional Contexts Seven context arc to be modeled in the base contract. If additional context are identified that need to be modeled these will bean ad- ditional service. E. Organize and conduct a Peer Review Panel 'this would be staged near the end of Step 2, when draft strategies are ready for comment and evaluation. Page 25 Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado BUDGET lees and expenses associated with each of the project steps are sum- marized below. See Appendix for detailed budget breakdowns. Step 1 $42,840 Step 2 $39,785 Step 3 $19,060 Step 4 10 390 Total Fees and Expenses $112,075 We understand that the city is eager to move forward on this project and to place revised regulations into action, and has an initial goal of completing the project by the end of the year. We will strive to execute the project in a timely manner, but anticipate, based on our experience with similar projects, that the timeline is substantially in- fluenced by public input. Providing people sufficient time to review draft materials acid xespond to them in an informed manner will be important. With summer vacation schedules and end-of-the-year holidays, the tim ing of public work sessions may be extended longer than what is preferred. Our schedule proposes completion of the first two of the four steps in the project by December. At that point, the direction would be clearly established, with the specific regulatory concepts defined. Although it is not Likely that the project would be completed by then, everyone would have a clear understanding of the outcome, and from that point on, technical drafting of code Language, and then the adoption hearings process would extend into eaxly 2UU9. We also have found that, upon acceptance of the strategy report that is due at the end of Step 2, there may be certain "quick actions" that can be enacted, while other details of the total strategy package are still in development. We will advise the city if there are such oppor- tunities. Page 26 2 Winter & Company Team OFFICE RESOURCES Winter & Company operates with a staff of fourteen in its Boulder, Colorado offices. Among the eleven professionals on staff, seven hold degrees in architecture and six hold degrees in planning and related fields. An appropriate amount of staff time has been reserved for the profes- sionals designated in the proposal to meet the project schedule and work load requirements. Details of staff hour allocations are provided in the detailed budget, which is included as an appendix. The firm operates multi-platform computer systems. Reports are pro- duced indesktop publishing Format, using Adobe InDesign. Graphics are generated in AutoCad, Sketchup, Illustrator and Photoshop. Other graphics are generated by hand, where appropriate. REFERENCES City of Denver Contact: Tina Axelrad City Planner 201 West Colfax Avenue Denver, Colorado 80202 720/865-2933 tina.axelrad@denvergov.org Zoning Code Update and Development Standards For Established Nei~hborhoocls City of Durango Contact: Greg I Ioch Director of Planning 949 E. Second Avenue Durango, Colorado 81301 970/375-4850 hochgsL ci.durango.co.us Kesiderrtial Design Standards City of West Palm Beach Contact: Friederike Mittner City Historic Preservation Planner Department of Plaruung and Zoning 20(l 2nd Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 561/822-1435 fmittnerC?wpb.arg Ruildirrg Mass and Scale in Historic Districts Page 27 t:r_ s. _L._._c.~ Single-Family Zoning District Regulations, Boulder, Colorado Appendices Budget : Please Return All : Listed Project Samples : Firm Qualifications to: • Winter & Company ~ : Winter & Company • Code Studio : 1265 Yellow Pine Ave. : • Urban Advisors : Boulder, CO 80304 •IZRC Project Samples A copy of each of these sample products is provided separate from the proposal document: City of Alamo Heights, `Texas: Report on Potential Changes to the Resi- dential Development Standazds City of Atlantic Beach, Florida: Report on Potential Changes to the Resi- dential Development Standards City of Atlantic Beach, Florida: Design Guidelines for Traditional Neigh- borhoods City of Boulder, CO: Design in the Flatirons Neighborhood Boulder, CO: Pop-ups and Sc7ape-offs: Summary of Results, December 2002) Chevy Chase Village, MD: Preliminary Report on Potential Changes to the Residential Development Standards Denver, CO: Zoning Code Update Diagnostic Report Denver, CO: Draft Building Form Approach for Areas of Stability City of llurango, Colorado: Design Guidelines for Established Neigh- borhoods City of Durango, Colorado: Report on Potential Changes to the Residen- tial Development Standards City of Durango, Colorado: Neighborhood Survey Results City of Durango, Colorado: Public Workshop Summary #1 City of Durango, Colorado: Project Summary City of Durango, Colorado: Ordinance No. 0-2005-41 West Palm Beach, FL: Strategy Report for Residential historic Districts Page 28 FF ~ / C? ~ viii} 1~{~:ii 11_„-~ y~ ATTACHNI>?N'T l3 Problerri Definition, Goals and Objectives Problem Definition: 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 neigl-?borhood. 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: ] . 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 1~igh real estate values in our community drive the problem. 3. The loss of space between homes is important. It is important to maintain visual opezuless and a sense of space in neighborhoods and often new homes are built right to the setbacks at itivo stories, and open space on the lot, backyards, and privacy are lost. 4. The streetscape and visual character of the neighborhood are important. 5. The loss of mature trees, backyards, and sunlight affects neighborhood livability. 6. 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 ozle aspect of the issue that needs to be evaluated. Project Goal and Objectives: 'I'o protect the character of established single-family neighborhoods by assuring that new construction and additions are compatible in scale and bulk with the character of the neighborhood. l . 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 unintended consequences (an appeal or variance process). 5. Include analysis of broad economic impacts. Public Process Objectives: l . Provide the public with balanced and objective infozmation to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and solutions. 2. Keep the public informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns, and provide feedback on how public input can influence final decisions. AGENDA ITEM # 6A Pale ~j j 3. Work with the potentially af~tc.cted residents and other stakeholders to ensure that their concerns and issues are reflected in alternatives that are developed. 4. Work with the potentially affected residents and stakeholders to come up with potential solutions that council and Planning Board will consider. A(:N;nUA l'1'EM l~ 6A Pa~;c t~2,.