The URL can be used to link to this page

5A - Recommnendation to City Council on Compatible Development Planning Board Meeting July 9, 2009 5:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING on the Proposed Ordinance for the Compatible Development in Single- Family Neighborhood project. 1777 Broadway Municipal Building City Council Chambers Submit Written Comments to Planning Board ATTN: Julie Johnston, Senior Planner 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 or Fax to 303-441-3241 or E-mail: boulderplanningboard.bouldercolorado.gov Planning Board Public Hearing Memo Attachment A: Ordinance Language Attachment B: Other Ordinance Options Analyzed 3 Attachment C: Background Attachment D: Zoning/Project Map Attachment E. Economic Reports • (Staff and Consultant) Attachment F: Compatible Development Project Costs Attachment G: Public Feedback • Attachment H: Packages of Tools and Associated Applicant Costs Attachment I: Sliding Scale for FAR and Building Coverage Attachment J: Sketch-Up Models of Typical RL-1 ' Lots Attachment K: Matrix of Regulatory Options Attachment L: Self-Guided Tour of Recent Construction CITYOF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 9, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council on the Compatible Development project to include an ordinance amending the regulatory language for the Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1), Residential - Rural 2 (RR-2), Residential - Estate (RE), Residential - Low 1 (RL-1), Residential - Low 2 (RL-2), and Residential - Mixed 1 (RMX-1) zone districts. PRESENTERS: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning Ruth McHeyser, Deputy Director of Community Planning David Gehr, Deputy City Attorney Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager Julie Johnston, Senior Planner EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to request a recommendation from Planning Board to City Council on changes to the land use regulations as part of the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project. The proposed ordinance is included in Attachment A. Winter & Company developed a recommended set of tools which were considered by Planning Board on Feb. 26, 2009. Planning Board made its recommendation to council and on March 3, 2009, City Council provided direction. City Council supported the Winter and Company/ staff recommendation for a combination of three tools: 1. Floor area ratio (FAR), which is the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of the lot on which the building is situated. 2. Building coverage which is the total ground area of a lot occupied by any building or structure as measured from the maximum horizontal area within the outer perimeter of the building walls, dividers, or columns at ground level or above, whichever is the greater area. 3. Side yard wall sculpting, which included a bulk plane standard and wall length articulation requirements. A bulk plane shapes the maximum permitted three- dimensional building envelope by limiting the height and mass of building elements on different parts of a lot. Wall length articulation requires walls to divide into smaller components, or "modules" to help reduce the perception of scale on long side walls. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE # 1 Please see pages 3 and 4 for a table comparing council's specific direction on each of the tools with the staff recommendation in this memo. Where staff's reconunendation differs from council's direction, a few points pertaining to the rationale for this difference is included. Also, page numbers are referenced to quickly locate information on each topic. A more detailed description of staff's recommendation follows on page 5. Since March, staff has conducted significant additional analysis including sketch-up models, and worked with both an internal staff group and a Technical Advisory Group composed primarily of members of the development community to analyze the various options and recommendations. This effort was based on the previous research and analysis completed by Winter & Company. Attachment B includes ordinance language for the additional tools included in the Council direction and analyzed by staff, but not included in the staff recommendation. The general approach of the staff recommendation is regulations that concentrate on basic mass and scale elements, tied to lot characteristics, such that they can be applied to a wide range of settings. The intent has been to establish standards that are less complex to administer but are still effective and which focus on the areas of primary concern expressed throughout the project objectives and the public process. The proposed ordinance would become effective 60 days following City Council approval. (Section 9-1-5(b) which details the regulations regarding pending ordinances would not apply.) This is to allow for an implementation period to develop the appropriate documentation for applicants, the necessary programming changes for internal processes and fee updates, and to ensure a smooth transition to the new standards. Additional attachments to this memo include an analysis of the cost impacts to the applicant based on staff's recommended package of tools (Attachment F); an overview of four different ways to package the variety of tools included in council's direction (Attachment H) which details staff's recommendation under option 3; a variety of graphic models to illustrate how the three tools interact (Attachment J); and, a matrix summarizing some of the analysis that was completed on the different options associated with each tool (Attachment K). Finally, a self-guided tour is included as Attachment L and consists of a random sampling of 2008 building pen-nit construction as well as some existing single-family homes, with information showing how each of the homes compares to the recommended standards. AGENDA ITEM # 511 PAGE # 2 Tools Council Direction Staff Recommendation Rationale Page FAR: Calibration Sliding scale by lot size. Sliding scale by lot size. 1. Allows majority of homes to add square Page 11 0.45 - 0.55 FAR on a 7,000 0.45 FAR on a 7,000 square foot footage. square foot lot. lot. 2. Smaller FAR only needs two additional tools to regulate mass and scale. Measuring 36-inch exemption and floor 36-inch exemption and floor area Page 14 lower levels area measured proportionally. measured proportionally based on percentage of exposed walls. Virtual floor Include as measurement of Not included 1. Complexity of reviewing and regulating Attachment B for high floor area with a floor area high volume spaces. volume multiplier above a 10 foot 2. Recommended tools manage overall spaces ceiling height. building mass. 3. Bulk plane controls height toward the center of the lot. 4.Allows package of tools to be less complex. Building Coverage: Calibration Sliding scale by lot size. Sliding scale by lot size. 1. Reduces impacts of long side walls. Page 16 30 - 35 percent on a 7,000 35 percent on a 7,000 square foot 2. Smaller building coverage only needs two square foot lot. lot. additional tools to regulate mass and scale. One-story 40 percent Not included 1.Inequitable between small and large lots. Attachment B building 2. Difficulties with definition of story and the coverage influence of grade change. 3.Allows package of tools to be less L complex. 1 10 2" story 20 to 22 percent Not included 1. Regulatory difficulties with height and Attachment B building high volume spaces. coverage 2. Difficulty with non-traditional homes like tri-levels. 3.Allows package of tools to be less complex. Exemptions Covered porches and small Covered porches up to 300 Page 20 from building accessory structures. square feet and accessory } covera a structures u to 80 square feet. Tools Council Direction Staff Recommendation Rationale page Side Yard Wall Sculpting: Bulk plane Review both: Maximum of 12 feet in 1.Balance between the two Page 21 1. Winter & Company: A maximum 20 height at side yard property recommendations. foot tall wall at the minimum side line and then increase one 2. Utilizes the same bulk plane starting yard setbacks and then one foot of foot of height for each point as the solar ordinance, height for each additional foot of additional foot of setback. 3.Easy concept to convey. setback. 4. Utilizing the property line is more advantageous because it is a fixed 2. Planning Board: Beginning at point. property line, for every one foot of setback, two feet of height is permitted. Wall length Within 5 feet of minimum side Not included 1.Bulk plane reduces height of looming Attachment B articulation setback, a maximum wall length of 35 walls at the minimum setbacks. feet would apply to walls more than 2. Lower FAR and building coverage 12 feet in height. At maximum wall limits length of side yard looming walls length, wall height would be reduced and encroachment into rear yard. to 12 feet or a minimum 5 foot wall 3.Allows package of tools to be less offset towards interior of lot is complex. required. Variances Tie variances to hardship, with Variances proposed to bulk Page 24 possible staff level design review on plane and building coverage focused circumstances. through BOZA. Zoning Districts: RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, RL-2, RMX- Includes all zoning districts. Page 5 and 25 1.Continue to review RMX-1. ~r E1'r- s STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed regulations generally apply to the following: • All residential uses in the RRA, RR-2, RE, and RL-I zone districts. • RL-2 - Only those properties shown on the project map (Attachment D). Single- family detached uses located in a Planned Development (PD), Planned Residential Development (PRD), or Planned Unit Development (PUD) that have restrictions on house size have been excluded from the regulations.' • RMX-1 -All single-family detached uses. Properties that have a contractual annexation agreement with conditions related to house size are excluded from the proposed regulations. In the case of properties subject to the regulations that are part of a PD, PRD, or PUD, the more restrictive provisions will apply. The proposed ordinance includes the following key components: 1. Floor Area Ratio on a sliding scale based on lot size (see Attachment I): • 0.45 for a 7,000 square foot lot for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 district. In the RL-2 district, the FAR standards apply to lots 8,000 square feet and larger. 0.55 for a 7,000 square foot lot for the RMX-1 district. 2. Building coverage on a sliding scale based on lot size (see Attachment I): 30 percent for a 7,000 square foot lot for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 district. In the RL-2 district, the coverage standards apply to lots 8,000 square feet and larger. • 35 percent for a 7,000 square foot lot for the RMX-1 district 3. Bulk Plane - Beginning at the property line, 12 feet in height and then one additional foot in height for each additional foot in setback. See pages 21-24 of the analysis section for more detail. In the RL-1 zone, the bulk plane standards will not apply to those properties located within a PD, PRD, or PUD. The new proposed bulk plane will not apply to the RL-2 district, which has an existing bulk plane standard. 4. Properties that are individually landmarked or located within a designated historic district would be subject to the new standards but would be able to receive an exemption for bulk plane and building coverage upon approval of a Landmark Alteration Certificate. ' PDs, PRDs, and PUDs are developments that have previously received approval through Planning Board and/or City Council action and generally have development conditions attached to the approval. AGENDA ITEM # ,~f PAGE # 5 5. Variances to the following standards would be allowed through the Board of Zoning Adjustment: • Bulk plane (Attachment A, Table 7-1) • Building coverage (Attachment A, Table 7-2) 6. The proposed ordinance would become effective 60 days following City Council approval. COMMUNITY SUS'I'AINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS: Economic: There are several economic considerations with the Compatible Development project. Urban Advisors, an economic advisory firm, prepared a report evaluating the potential effect on residential property values. In addition, staff researched newspaper and journal articles. These two reports are included in Attachment E. The conclusion was that standards for addressing mass and scale do not have a detrimental impact on property values or the ability to profit from improving existing units. Urban Advisors stated that in most areas of Boulder, as lot size increases, building to the existing 0.80 maximum FAR appears to be uneconomic. In addition, it is difficult to isolate one specific factor, like land use regulations, that contributes to the economic vitality of a community. It is usually the dynamic interaction of many different influences that result in the desirability of a place. An additional economic consideration is the cost to the homeowner to prepare the necessary documentation for building pen-nit approval, and the possibility that additional documents from surveyors and architects may be necessary. While current code requirements often warrant documentation from applicants, the inclusion of new regulations will likely necessitate an increase in this practice. An analysis of both design costs and building permit fee increases to the applicant is included in Attachment F. Based on input provided to staff from the development community, the costs to produce the expected documentation needed to authenticate the proposed Compatible Development tools could range from $0 to $12,000 depending on-the complexity of the project. This cost would be in addition to existing architectural fees that could range from $25,000 to $75,000. Staff has developed some project thresholds in an effort to reduce the documentation costs related to the Compatible Development tools. Continued analysis will occur on developing a "reasonableness test" to minimize the documentation burden on smaller projects. In addition to the design costs, the city will also need to review increased building pen-nit fees to compensate for the time necessary to review the new tools. Based on staff's analysis, building permit fees may need to increase by approximately $200. Again, this is an average and could vary depending on the complexity of the project. Currently, the mean building permit fee for new single-family construction and addition/remodels is $4,152. Environmental: The demolition of existing homes and the construction of very large new homes result in loss of resources embedded in the existing home, demolition waste, and in general greater energy use as larger homes typically use more energy than smaller homes. However, the new requirements of Chapter 10-7.5, Green Building and Green Points Program, Boulder Revised Code, adopted in March 2008 requires greater energy efficiency AGENDA ITEM # ' ~ PAGE # 6 as the home increases in size. In addition, new building technologies are improving the overall energy efficiency of single-family development. Thus, while a larger house will still consume more energy, the differential based on home size is reduced. The proposed regulations will limit construction of very large new houses and therefore promote conservation of resources and energy efficiency. Social: Large homes and additions that are out of scale with existing neighborhoods can negatively affect neighborhood liveability. The replacement of relatively affordable homes by very expensive homes reduces social and economic diversity in the coarmnunity. OTHER IMPACTS: City resources: Based on the city's cost recovery policies, the expenses relating to building permit review are 100 percent recovered through application fees. The building permit process will require additional staff time to review any new standards incorporated into the code. This may result in a fee change to recuperate these costs. An analysis of the staff time to manage the new regulatory tools is included in Attachment F. It is anticipated that one additional full time employee (FTE) will be needed to help manage customers that request information at the Planning and Development Services counter and to complete the zoning review as part of the building permit process. The $200 noted above in increased building permit fees is the dollar amount necessary to support this FTE. In addition, staff anticipates a need to reallocate staff resources in the short term to support implementation of the new regulations including preparation of informational materials, updating application forms and assisting with custorn.er questions and permit review. PUBLIC FEEDBACK: Since the March 3, 2009 council meeting, staff has conducted two public open houses to solicit feedback from the community, one meeting with the Chamber of Commerce, one meeting with Architects and Planners of Boulder, and four Technical Advisory Group meetings with members of the development community. The open houses were held on April 20 and 22. Information regarding the work staff had completed since council's direction was available for public review. Items like how partially exposed lower levels (the story of the home that is partially below grade) would be counted in FAR; how wall heights would be measured; modeling of the different recommendations for building coverage and FAR, including solar bulk planes; the different bulk planes being recommended, etc. were provided. A comment sheet was made available for written feedback. The completed sheets are included in Attachment G, Public Feedback. The packet of information and the comment sheet were also available on the project Web site. The Technical Advisory Group was made up of eight members of the development community, including architects, builders, and developers, as well as a neighborhood representative. The group met four times over the course of a month to assist staff with the technical issues related to the development of ordinance language. For example, the direction provided by council was that floor area for partially exposed lower levels be AGENDA ITEM # 5 PAGE # 7 counted proportionally in FAR. Staff generated several options on how to effectively accomplish this while balancing the complexity of the calculation, the cost to the ayplicant, and the ease of use and understanding of the code. The options were presented to the Technical Advisory Group to discuss the technical concerns and to help staff come to a preferred alternative. The meetings with the Technical Advisory Group culminated in the development of over 30 sketch-up models testing all of the various recommendations for bulk plane, FAR, building coverage, and wall articulation. These models incorporated the solar ordinance and provided an understanding of development potential from both an east/west and north/south perspective on flat regular shaped lots. The results of the modeling helped staff to understand some of the advantages and limitations of the different recommendations in these circumstances. ANALYSIS: After receiving direction from council on March 3, staff began intensive analysis of the final set of tools. An internal working group was created with staff from the long range, land use, and building construction divisions. This group met approximately 24 times over the past four months to analyze the different tools, determine opportunities and constraints, and develop regulatory options. Input was solicited from Winter & Company and Code Studio on how other communities regulate development using these tools, and their recommendations on how the city could utilize them to resolve the issues identified by the Compatible Development project. .r Staff Recommendation Considerations In developing the recommendations outlined in this memo, staff considered the project objectives developed by council. These included retaining flexibility for property owners to be able to alter their homes as their needs change; develop solutions that promote variety; treat properties equitably; and, try to address unintended consequences (see Attachment C for more detail). Staff also considered the ease of understanding and enforcing the regulations and the relationship of project costs to community benefits. A key topic of discussion in the Compatible Development project has been the degree to which potential design standards can be applied universally, or to what extent they must be tailored to specific contexts or neighborhoods. At a broad, citywide level, standards need to be rather general or they may run the risk of unintended consequences or may require many exceptions in their application. Very specific standards that address the context of individual city blocks can be very sensitive, but require substantial analysis to produce, and need more administrative effort to execute. The tradeoff with utilizing the broad approach is regulating the middle ground or average circumstance. Based on the considerations noted above, specific objectives were utilized to determine which tools and application approach would be most appropriate (see Attachment K, Matrix of Options): AGENDA ITEM # .r~~ PAGE # 8 I . Effectiveness - The tool should directly address a specific issue identified in the problem statement. For example, building coverage directly addresses how much of a lot can be covered by a building. 2. Predictability - The regulations should be understandable by all parties. That is to say, a property owner should be able to predict a likely outcome of the approval process if they follow the regulations. City staff should be able to consistently interpret the regulations, and neighborhoods should have a reasonable understanding of the scale of building that potentially can occur. 1 3. Efficiency - The regulations, and the permitting process that is employed, should be understandable and consistently administered, such that time is used efficiently to develop a plan set for building permit approval. This applies to the applicant, city staff and other decision-makers. 4. Flexibility - A system that provides sorne flexibility is also desirable as described in council's goals and objectives. The recommended tools can be calibrated to ensure the potential for property owners to meet changing needs. Packaging the Tools At the March 3 meeting, City Council supported the Winter & Company recommendation of utilizing the three tools of FAR, building coverage, and side wall articulation. In addition, new regulatory options were developed by Planning Board and supported by council for further analysis. These included items like second story building coverage, a bulk plane, and calculations for high volume spaces. These additional tools are analyzed in Attachment B. The staff recommended package of tools includes three of the possible regulatory alternatives that were included in the direction received from council. Much of the reasoning for not including the full gamut of suggested tools relates to the staff recommendation of 0.45 FAR and 30 percent building coverage maximums on a sliding scale and not the increased limits of 35 percent building coverage and 0.55 FAR suggested by Planning Board. Through the continued analysis completed by staff, it was determined that the use of a bulk plane, 30 percent building coverage and 0.45 FAR base line on a 7,000 square foot lot effectively addressed the proportionality of house size to lot size, the impacts of side yard looming walls and the encroachment of tall side walls into what many would consider- the "traditional" rear yard. If the FAR and building coverage maximums were set higher than the recommendation, the ability to manage these concerns effectively is lessened with just the three suggested tools. The package of tools at the calibration recommended by staff will provide the following benefits: AGENDA I'T'EM #5 ~ PAGE 4 9 1. A 30 percent building coverage reduces the length of side walls and the building's encroachment into the rear yard by limiting the amount of the lot the building can cover. 2. The bulk plane moves the mass of the home away from the minimum side yard setbacks towards the center of the lot while still allowing two- and three-story construction. 3. The combination of 30 percent building coverage, 0.45 FAR and a bulk plane standard help to address side yard looming walls and encroachment of the home into the "traditional" rear yard. 4. The concept of a bulk plane is already understood by the development community through the application of the solar ordinance. 5. The combination of FAR, building coverage, and a bulk plane will less complex regulations to understand and enforce. 6. The expense to the applicant to provide documentation on these three tools should be relatively cost effective as opposed to other combinations of tools considered (see Attachment H for the costs of different tool packages). 7. The time required for staff to review this package of tools should be relatively cost effective as opposed to other combinations of tools considered. If Planning Board chooses to recommend the higher calibration for building coverage and FAR, staff would advocate including wall length articulation standards into the package of tools. This option was chosen over the alternatives that regulate second stories due to its ease of use. Based on the technical complexities identified by staff and the Technical Advisory Group, an ordinance that addresses articulation of side walls is much easier to both regulate and ensure compliance than the other options outlined by Planning Board. In addition, calculating high volume spaces should also be considered for inclusion to help address the overall visible mass of the structure. Attachment H provides four different options for packaging the tools included in council's direction. The options range from the more complex, which includes all of the tools, to the more simplistic, which only includes building coverage and a bulk plane standard. An analysis was done of each option against the four objectives previously noted (page 8). Regulatory Tools This section details staff's recommendation and the analysis completed since the March 3, 2009 City Council meeting when direction on the Compatible Development project was given. The analysis conducted on the tools that were part of council's direction but were not included in staff's recommendation can be found in Attachment B, Other Ordinance Options. Prior to conducting any new research, staff reviewed the work completed by AGENDA ITEM # 5)~ PAGE # 10 Winter & Company, including average building coverage and FAR for each zoning district within the project area; responses to the property owner's survey; input from the community workshops; and the modeling of different neighborhood contexts (see Attachment C, Background). 1. Maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) Council supported utilizing FAR on a sliding scale with a base line number from 0.45 to 0.55 on a 7,000 square foot lot. The recommendation from Winter & Company was 0.45 FAR and Planning Board was a 0.55 FAR on a 7,000 square foot lot. As part of our continued analysis of FAR, staff reviewed the work completed by Winter- & Company including the modeling of different neighborhood contexts around the city, the property owner's survey, and the previous community workshops. Research was then conducted on existing FARs within the project area and how they compare to Winter & Company's recommendation of a 0.45 FAR. The 0.45 FAR on a sliding scale was also compared against the single-family construction that occurred in 2008. This analysis is included later in this section. Finally, some extensive modeling of both of the recommended FAR base line numbers in combination with the other tools was completed. Examples of this modeling are located in Attachment J. After careful consideration of these factors, the staff recommendation includes a sliding scale approach to FAR with a base line of 0.45 on a 7,000 square foot lot for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-I and RT -2 districts, and a 0.55 FAR on a sliding scale for the RMX-l district for the following reasons: 1. Utilizing a sliding scale with a base 0.45 FAR (0.55 in RIAX-1) in conjunction with the recommended building coverage and bulk plane standards achieves the project strategy developed by Winter & Company of correlating overall building size to lot size, reducing the perceived mass of the building and preserving open space in the rear of the properties. 2. This approach addresses concerns of disproportionate impacts on both small lots and large lots. 3. Existing FARs within the city compared to the proposed 0.45 FAR on a sliding scale allow for the majority of homes to add square footage. 4. As FAR increases, more tools are needed to address the issues of second story rear yard encroachment and looming side yard walls, which has been a concern heard throughout the Compatible Development public outreach. 5. It allows the tools to remain less complex, reducing costs to both the applicant and the city. AGENDA ITEM # 5~ PAGE # 11 Attachment I presents the recommended FAR formulas and resulting sliding scale tables. One table has been created for the RMX-l, and a second for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1 and RL-2 districts. The illustration below provides a model of the standard 7,000 square foot lot at a 0.45 FAR. See Attachment J for additional modeling. 9 n' FAR_ Lot Size: 7,000 SF Primary Structure Floor Area: 2,795 SF Accessory Structure Floor Area: 350 SF Total Floor Area: 3,145 SF Total FAR: 0.45 The formulas to achieve the sliding scale approach were developed from the 7,000 square foot lot. Then the maximum standard either increases as the lot size decreases or decreases as the lot size increases. At a certain point in both tables, the maximum FAR is the same regardless of the size of the lot. In the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, and RL-2 districts, lots less than 6,000 square feet would be permitted a maximum FAR of 0.50. For RVIX-1, any lot less than 4,000 square feet would have a maximum FAR of 0.74. In addition, FAR varies by zoning district. The average lot size within the RMX-1 zone is approximately 4,800 square feet with an existing average FAR of 0.50 (see page 9 of the Winter & Company Strategy Report). Further, the RMX-1 zone is a mixed density district that has a blend of duplexes and multifamily units, as well as single-family homes. The existing single-family residential development has occurred on subdivided lots that were previously zoned for higher densities, resulting in higher FARs and building coverages. Because of these existing conditions within the RMX-1 zone, a higher FAR is recommended. The RL-2 district is unique in that almost all the single-family development was approved as part of a PD or PRD. Therefore, only a limited amount of RL-2 zoning is affected by the Compatible Development regulations. RL-2 has no minimum lot size but an open space requirement of 6,000 square feet, which helps to manage overall building footprints on small lots. With the 6,000 square foot open space requirement, house size is effectively limited on lots smaller than 8,000 square feet. Therefore, the staff recommendation includes applying a maximum FAR to RL-2 lots that are 8,000 square feet or larger based on the same sliding scale utilized for the RL-1 District. AGENDA ITEM # 5~ PAGE # 12 The table below compares existing FAR against the proposed 0.45 sliding scale for all of the lots in the project area to determine how many homes would either meet or be below the recommended FAR. Most of the districts have less than 15 percent of existing single-family homes that exceed the FAR limitations for their lot size. This analysis was important to deter-nine if the majority of the lots would be able to benefit from the recommended FAR standard. A non-standard lot does not meet the minimum lot size requirement for its zoning district. Non-standard lots were also examined to see if they represented the majority of existing homes that exceeded the recommended FARs. Interestingly, in three of the districts more than 50 percent of the lots are non-standard. Of these lots, the number that either meets or is below the recommended FAR is presented. The results are outlined in the table below: Com arison of Existing FAR to Staffs Recommendation _ Number of Percent of non- non- Number of Percent of standard standard Total lots with lots with lots with lots with number of FAR at or FAR at or Number of Percent of FAR at or FAR at or lots in below below the non- non- below the below the project sliding sliding standard standard sliding sliding area scale scale lots lots scale scale RR 294 274 93% 156 53 % 144 93% RE 1,407 1,113 79% 794 56% 720 91% RLA 10,228 9,531 93% 2594 25% 2381 95% RL-2' 511 311 83 p2 1387 26 %3 100 72% RMX-1 591 527 89% 343 58 % 298 87% 'Does not include those PDs or PRDs that were removed from the project area. Percentage is based on 373 lots that are 8,000 square feet or larger. 3RL-2 requires 6,000 square feet of open space. Any lot below 8,000 square feet was listed as non-standard. Source: city of Boulder GIS data which relies on Boulder. County Assessor data for floor area. New residential single-family building permits for 2008 were also reviewed. Approximately 86 building permits were issued in the city for new single-family construction. Based on the square footage indicated on these permits, the mean (average) house size was 5,149 square feet and the median (middle) house size was 3,511 square feet (does not differentiate between homes with or without basements and may not include accessory structures). The following table provides a comparison of this infonnation to the staff recommendation of a 0.45 FAR. Com arison of New Construction to Staffs Recommendation Staff Constructed Recommendation Lot SF House SF FAR (based on lot size) Difference Mean 12,400 5,149 0.41 0.33 0.08 Median 9,450 3,511 0.37 0.37 0.00 Source: city of Boulder I.andlink data AGENDA ITEM # 5Ar PAGE # 13 i As can be seen, the mean (average) new single-family construction exceeds the recommended FAR by eight percent while the median (or middle) square footage for new construction meets the recommended standard. Based on the median number, half of the projects developed in 2008 would meet the recommended FAR. The issue outlined by Council was that new construction is incompatible with existing neighborhood conditions and their lots. Staff's recommendation addresses the concern of new construction that is disproportionate to their lot size while still permitting the "middle ground" by allowing flexibility and change. Partially Exposed Lower Levels City Council provided direction that floor area within "basements" should be measured more proportionally than how it is today, which requires that 0, 50 or 100 percent be counted in FAR. Council also recommended a 36 inch exemption from grade for these lower levels. Staff is recommending the 36 inch exemption; however staff is proposing a method to calculate floor area that is similar to what is used today. Section 9-16 of the Boulder Revised Code provides a definition for what is considered a "basement" in a home. Basements are defined as that portion of a building that is partially or totally below grade such that no portion extends more than two feet above the natural grade around the perimeter of the building. A partially exposed lower level is a term that describes a story of a home that does not meet this definition. Therefore, any story of a home that in the common vernacular would be considered a "basement" but does not meet this definition as outlined in the Boulder Revised Code has been tenned a partially exposed lower level. Currently, the square footage of a partially exposed lower level included in FAR is calculated at either 50 or 100 percent depending on how much of the perimeter wall from the floor of the level to the ceiling (underside of the upper story floor structure) is exposed. Staff generated a number of options calculating the floor area of partially exposed lower levels so that it more proportionally reflects what is exposed above grade (See Attachment K for matrix of options). These options were presented to the Technical Advisory Group for their consideration. After lengthy discussions regarding the complexity of the issue, the need to develop a calculation that is equitable but easy to understand, and the regulatory realities of construction verification, the following recommendation was reached: Measure floor area for partially exposed lower levels in the same manner as it is today without the requirement of categorizing floor area into 50 or 100 percent increments. Instead, the amount offloor area included in FAR would be the equivalent percentage of the perimeter of exposed wall, based on linear feet exposed. A + or - 6 inches in.final grade would be permitted for field tolerance and all measurements would be taken from final grade. The Technical Advisory Group suggested allowing for + or - 6 inches in final grade for field tolerance to account for construction realities and the need for some flexibility with measuring finished grade. Measuring from finished grade was AGENDA ITEM # ~ PAGE # 14 determined the best solution for FAR calculations. Finished grade will be what the neighbor experiences once construction is complete. Measuring FAR from finished grade will require applicants to provide a finished grading plan, which is not generally required today. Measuring Floor Area of Partially Exposed Lower Levels 36"above grade i i i I Porch L SECTION In this example, a house sits on a site that slopes _A upward from the street. The lowest level ceiling ' height is located at the front of the house. In the i elevation drawing, the first floor ceiling height to the right of label (A) is more than 3 feet above i finished grade. The ceiling height to the left of label (A) is 3 feet or less above finished grade. The perimeter of the wall where the lowest level ceiling height is more than 3 feet above finished grade (the solid line) represents 60 percent of the perimeter wall of the house. Therefore, 60 percent of the actual floor area of the lowest level is counted towards the total permitted FAR. L_ _ Q~f Topography PLAN Lines Utilizing an exemption of 36 inches to calculate floor area in FAR for partially exposed lower levels requires a change in Section 9-8-2 of the code, which defines how FAR will be calculated for this application only. Currently, the definition of basement with a 24 inch exemption triggers the inclusion of that story's floor area into FAR. While the change to 36 inches does not affect the definition of basement, it does require that the exemption be clearly articulated in the Section 9-8-2. (see Attachment A). AGENDA ITEM # PAGE # 15 2. Building Coverage Council supported a building coverage standard using a sliding scale approach, and requested continued study of Winter & Company's recommendation of 30 percent and Planning Board's of 35 percent coverage on a 7,000 square foot lot. Building coverage, as defined in the Boulder Revised Code, is the total horizontal area of any structure on the lot divided by the total square footage of the lot. The importance of building coverage is limiting the amount of the lot a structure can encompass, Staff conducted a review of Winter & Company's modeling of the different neighborhood contexts throughout the city, the property owner's survey, and public workshops. Staff also completed some additional analysis of the existing building coverages within the project area and extensive modeling of both the 30 and 35 percent building coverage base line numbers in combination with the other tools. Examples of this modeling can be found in Attachment J. Based on this analysis, a sliding scale with a base line standard of 30 percent on a 7,000 square foot lot is recommended for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, and RL-2 districts and 35 percent for the RMX-1 zone for the following reasons: 1. Utilizing 30 percent building coverage in conjunction with the recommended FAR and bulk plane standards achieves the project strategy developed by Winter & Company of correlating overall building size to lot size, reducing the perceived mass of the building and preserving open space in the rear of the properties. 2. The 30 percent building coverage reduces the impact of long looming side yard walls that encroach into the rear yard. 3. Higher building coverage requires additional tools to address long, uninterrupted walls, increasing costs to both the applicant and the city. 4. Existing building coverages on lots in the city compared to the recommended 30 percent allow the majority of homes to add square footage. Attachment I includes the recommended formulas and resulting sliding scale tables. One table has been created for the RMX-1 zone, and a second for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, and RL-2 districts (see Attachment I). The RL-2 zone will utilize the same maximum building coverage standards as the RL-1 district. However, because of the 6,000 square foot open space requirement in RL-2, building coverage would apply only to lots 8,000 square feet and above. The illustration on the next page shows a 7,000 square foot lot at a 30 percent building coverage (also see Attachment J for additional modeling). The formulas to achieve the sliding scale approach were developed for the 7,000 square foot lot. Then building coverage increases as lot size decreases and decreases as lot size increase. AGENDA ITEM # 57~ PAGE # 16 Building Coverage: Lot Size: 7,000 SF Primary Structure Footprint: 1,755 SF Accessory Structure Footprint: 350 SF Total Footprint: 2,105 SF El Total Bldg. Coverago: 30 percent i M Eil B [ED_ For lots less than 6,000 square feet in the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 districts, building coverage is 35 percent. hi the RMX-1 district, lots 4,000 square feet or less have a building coverage of 50 percent. Staff has conducted additional analysis to reach the recommended standard for building coverage. As with FAR, a review of building coverage based on the recommended sliding scale for all of the lots in the project area was completed. The intent was to determine how many lots would either meet or be below the building coverage standard. Again, this analysis was important to determine if the majority of the lots would be able to add square footage to their home. The results are outlined in table on the following page: Com arison of Existing Buildin Covera a (BC to Staff s Recommendation Percent Percent of of lots non- Total with BC standard number at or Number of lots with of lots Number of lots below Number Percent non-standard BC at or in with BC at or the of non- of non- lots with BC at below the project below sliding sliding standard standard or below the sliding area scale scale lots lots sliding scale scale RR 294 274 93% 156 53% 144 92% RE 1,407 1,086 77% 794 56% 593 75% RL-1 10,228 9,483 92% 2594 25% 2459 95% RL-21 511 335 86%Z 1383 26% 100 72% RMX-1 591 562 95% 343 58% 328 96% Does not include those PDs or PRDs that were removed from the project area. 'Percentage is based on 373 lots that are 8,000 square feet or larger. 3RL-2 requires 6,000 square feet of open space. Any lot below 8,000 square feet was listed as non-standard. Source: city of Boulder GIS data which relics on Boulder County Assessor data for floor area. AGENDA ITEM # 6 i1 PAGE # 17 For both FAR and building coverage, the RE district had the lowest percentage of lots that would either meet or be below the recommended sliding scale standard. That is, more lots within this district already exceed staff's recommended building coverage standard. The graphics below and on the following pages illustrate both the Planning Board and staff recommendations for building coverage on typical size lots within the RL-1 district. These typical lot sizes were determined from an examination of the largest neighborhoods within the project area, which total over 30 percent of the RL-1 lots. These neighborhoods include Martin Acres, Newlands, Table Mesa, and University Place. Building Coverage for a 50 x 125 Lot in the RL-1 District: s~ '35, 125' r1 5.116" 35" Planning Board BC Staff Be 50' The purple indicates the difference between the two t recommendations. Side yard setbacks are maximized. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 9 18 Building Covcra~Ze for a 65 x 105 Lot in the RL- I District: a!'•.Z13Y16" Flurming Gourd SC k. j~ sur1:,. ~ . Staff SC ,i lo5' The purple indicates the difference between the two recommendations. Side yard setbacks are maximized. Building Coverage for a 70 x 100 Lot in the RL-1 District: 1/2" .1 Planning 3~ ' `3/16" _ Board BC i~ Staff BC 100, 70' AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 9 19 As can be seen from the graphics, the higher the building coverage percentage, the more likely a structure can develop long looming side yard walls that encroach into the rear yard. As a consequence of higher building coverage, an additional tool would be needed to address long, uninterrupted walls. This became particularly clear when reviewing the sketch-up models that tested the combination of tools. Utilizing the staff recommended building coverage standard, the set of tools remains relatively easy to regulate. In addition, by limiting the number of tools that applicants must meet, the impact of architectural and building permit costs can be reduced. Exemptions from Building Coverage Council provided direction that building coverage should not include items like porches, decks, patios, etc. that contribute to the visual appeal and livability of a home. In addition, there was some discussion that small garden or tool sheds should not be counted in building coverage. The recommended ordinance (Attachment A) provides language, described below, to achieve this aim. The Boulder Revised Code defines building coverage as the maximum horizontal area within the outer perimeter of the building walls, dividers, or columns at ground level or above, whichever is the greater area. This includes, without limitation, courts and exterior stairways, but excludes: (1) Uncovered decks, porches, patios, terraces, and stairways all less than 30 inches high. (2) The outer four feet of completely open, uncovered, cantilevered balconies that have a minimum of eight feet vertical clearance below. In order to ensure that front porches and sheds are exempted from building coverage, the following language is being proposed to be included in the definition: • Front porches up to 300 square feet. • One accessory structure no larger than 80 square feet in building footprint and no taller than 10 feet in height (see Attachment A, for ordinance language). The proposed definition specifically addresses "front" porches as opposed to all porches. The current language in Section 9-7-4(a) which allows for encroachment of porches into the front yard setback emphasizes that porches have historically contributed to the ambiance of residential streetscapes and encourages social interaction in neighborhoods. fn keeping with this intent, only covered front porches would be exempt from building coverage. To address the scale of porches, specific dimensions have been provided based on the typical porch size of a historic home. The city does not require a building permit for residential sheds less than 80 square feet. Our research into prefabricated garden sheds has indicated that they range in size AGENDA ITEM # S91 PAGE # 20, from 24 to 80 square feet. Based on these two factors, utilizing an exemption of 80 square feet will likely cover most of the options available to a property owner. 3. Bulk Plane The direction received from City Council on the development of a bulk plane that deals with the height of side yard building walls was to consider both the recommendation from Winter & Company and Planning Board. These recommendations were as follows: 3. Winter & Company: A maximum 20 foot tall wall at the minimum side yard setbacks and then one foot of height for each additional foot of setback. (Winter & Company's recommendation also included wall length articulation standards.) 4. Planning Board: Beginning at the property line, for every one foot of setback, two feet of height is permitted. Both of these options were presented to the Technical Advisory Group to review the technical difficulties related to each. See Attachment K, Matrix of Options for some of the analysis related to the different recommended bulk planes. During these discussions, it was determined that a bulk plane standard from the property line was more appropriate because setbacks can vary between lots and in many cases can be non- standard on a lot. Property lines are a fixed point to measure from and more generally follow natural grade contours. Besides Planning Board's recommendation, two separate bulk plane standards were discussed. Both begin with a height of 12 feet at the property line utilizing a recognized concept from the solar ordinance and providing some consistency with existing code. Twelve feet was chosen as it mirrors the solar fence height at the property line for the RL-1 district and emulates a standard already understood and utilized by the development community and staff. Beginning at a height of 12 feet at the property line, one bulk plane had a one-for-one height to setback ratio and the other had a two-for-one height to setback ratio. After extensive modeling, the recommendation is to utilize the bulk plane that incorporates one foot of height for each additional foot of setback for the entire lot from side yard property line to side yard property line. Based on the angle of the plane, a wall height of 17 feet is obtainable at the minimum five-foot side yard setback and 22 feet at the 10-foot side yard setback. This bulk plane angle allows for more flexibility in height at the minimum five foot side yard setback than the Planning Board recommendation but not quite as imposing as the Winter & Company option. The graphic on the next page provides an illustration of the bulk plane on a 50-foot wide lot. AGENDA ITEM # I)A PAGE # 21 Bulk Plane at the Property Line for a 50-Foot Lot Width r Graphic example of a bulk plane with 12 feet of height at the property line and then one- foot of height for every one- foot of setback on a 50-foot wide lot. The 5-foot setback allows 17 feet in height and the 10-foot setback allows 22 35' feet in height. 1 s~T 2P' [ Z~ i .o r. Bulk Plane Shown from Property Line to Property Line \ s \ \ h 1 45 i i 12' i i Front Yard Setback Graphic example of the Property recommended bulk plane Line Side Yard over the entire lot from Setback side property line to side for Principal property line. Structure AGENDA ITEM # 5A PAGE # 22, FAR Dh~,u•.?113 The Tecluucal Advisory Group expressed a concern that a bulk plane coupled with the requirements of the solar ordinance might begin to force a specific structural form and that single-family construction may become monotonous. One technique to resolve this concern is the use of a FAR that is set below bulk plane limits. The lower FAR provides space within the bulk plane to allow variation in building form and to promote different design solutions and different massing arrangements. Bulk Plane Encroachments Another technique to promote variation of building farm with the use of a bulk plane is to allow encroaclunents for architectural details. In addition, there may be certain architectural styles, like Dutch Colonial and Georgian architecture where the roof form slopes to the front of the lot, which would not fit within a side yard bulls plane. The Tecluucal Advisory Group suggested that if a bulk plane from the property line is approved then there should be some flexibility for things like dormers and side facing gables. The direction of this discussion was that these types of architectural details should be allowed to penetrate the bulk plane as long as an equal amount of space along that same wall was subtracted from the This graphic illustrates how structure. When discussing this concept with Winter & Company a 0.40 FAR might work and Code Studios, they indicated that it is quite common for within a bulk plane to assist communities that utilize a bulk plane to allow certain exemptions in variation of building form. without the need for negative space elsewhere. It does not represent the recommended standards. The important concept behind a bulk plane is to inform the location and scale of building mass on the lot while still allowing different building styles. The exemption of limited encroachments will promote this intent. And, with the use of an FAR that helps to limit house size, the need for a "take-away" that mirrors the permitted encroachment was not considered necessary. See Attachment A, Ordinance Language for the allowed encroachments. Measuring Bulk Plane The bulk plane standard would apply to the entire lot fi-om side property line to side property line. The measurement of this plane can vary from very precise, which would require building sections at many points along the structure, to more simplistic, needing only one point of measurement on the lot. The Technical Advisory Group discussed measuring bulk plane at the front and rear of the home. After further review of the issue, which included investigating the City of Denver's method of measuring bulk plane, staff is recommending a two-tiered approach (see ~i Attachment A, Ordinance Language). For predominately flat lots, staff recommends the bulk plane be measured from natural grade at the midpoint of the lot. AGENDA ITEM # PAGE: it 23 For more sloping conditions or for applicants who wish to utilize a more precise approach, the bulk plan would be measured at natural grade from a series of points that are separated by 10 feet along the side yard property line. Natural grade was chosen as the point of measurement because property lines more generally following natural grade contours and the difficulty of altering grade at the property line. The approach used for flat lots could be presented on the elevation drawings that are currently required as part of the building permit process. The cost to the applicant is minimal and the review time for staff is reduced. The more precise method would require building sections to be included in the building permit plan set. This would increase documentation costs to the applicant and staff review time. The benefit to utilizing these two separate approaches is the complication of averaging the bulk plane over a sloping lot. By calculating the bulk plane from a midpoint, the downslope of the lot may receive a height advantage while the upslope might be more restricted. Employing multiple points allows the building to better conform to the bulk plane and the sloping condition of the lot. Variances to the Tools Under the original recommendation made by Winter & Company and staff, a two-tiered process for development approvals was suggested. The first tier was the standard building permit process which is in use by the city today and the second tier was a staff level design review process. Staff has heard from the professional design community and from homeowners that they need an avenue to do something outside of the regulations without requiring a variance from the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA). The recommendation was to allow projects to exceed the standards by up to 20 percent if they could comply with a specified set of review criteria. During the public hearings held in February and March, Planning Board and council indicated that they had sonic concerns regarding a design review process and the 20 percent flexibility exceptions proposed at that time. The direction received from council was that ui most instances, variances to the standards should be based on a hardship. However, there was still some discussion about allowing some minor modifications based on focused circumstances, particularly on those lots where the new regulations make their existing conditions non-standard. The difficulty with these two options is finding the balance between what circumstances would be considered a hardship and should be reviewed by BOZA and what focused circumstances would be allowed some administrative approval. At this time, staff recommends only allowing variances to those specific set of circumstances that are outlined currently or will be amended as part of this project under Section 9-2-3(d) for the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA). Historically under Title 9, BOZA has had the authority to vary setbacks listed in section 9-7- 1, Schedule of Form and Bulk. For the new set of Compatible Development tools, this would AGENDA ITEM # PAGE # 24 include the ability to vary the bulk plane regulations. In addition to this precedent, we are recommending that BOZA also have the ability to vary the building coverage standard beyond their current power that only allows them to grant a variance based on a nonstandard condition. Section 9-10-3(a)(1)(B) of the Boulder Revised Code specifies that the building coverage of a non-standard building can be no greater than what is allowed in the underlying zoning. However, Section 9-2-3(d)(2) states that a variance can be granted to the building coverage requirements of Chapter 9-10. This would indicate that non-standard buildings have an opportunity to seek a variance from building coverage while conforming buildings would not. To remain equitable, both conditions should have the opportunity to seek a variance if the limited criteria for granting a variance as established under Section 9-2-3(h) can be met. Properties Subject to Compatible Development When council provided direction in April 2008 to begin the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project, an analysis was conducted to determine which zoning districts and properties should be included. It was deter7nined at that time, that all of the single-family zoning districts should be incorporated for further evaluation to ensure equity across the city. At this time, staff continues to recommend that all single-family zoning districts be subject to the new regulations. However, the issue of Planned Developments (PD), Planned Residential Developments (PRD) and Planned Unit Developments (PUD) needed to be resolved. Extensive research of the RL-2 district was completed at the onset of the project and those PD's, PRD's, and PUD's that already had restrictions on house size were eliminated from the project area. The remaining RL-2 properties were consistently presented on the Project Area Map for clarity to those residents that may be affected by any regulatory changes as a result of this project. In addition, a map is proposed for reference in the code to continue to assist both citizens and staff in understanding which RL-2 lots are subject to the new regulations. Research was not conducted on the PD's, PRD's of PUD's in the other zoning districts. Record keeping within the city over the years has not been consistent and the total number of PD's, PRD's or PUD's is not known. The anecdotal number is estimated at over 3,000. There are a large number of small developments that were approved in the RL-1 and RMX-1 districts in the 1980's that typically affected only two lots. This regulatory tool was often used to allow lots to subdivide or to develop a house behind a house. In an effort to resolve any unintended consequences that may result from the proposed Compatible Development ordinances, PD's, PRD's, and PUD's are recommended to be exempt from the new regulatory standards if the conditions of the development are more restrictive in nature, with one difference in the RL-1 district. As most of the PD's, PRD's and PUD's in the RL-1 district are the very small two-lot developments, often the setbacks for these lots were varied. Eliminating the requirement of the bulk plane may help to resolve conflicts that will likely arise in the future. AGENDA ITEM 4 ~7f~ PAGE 9 25 Those properties that have a contractual annexation agreement with the city are exempt from the Compatible Development regulations. For example, Crestview West has some specific language within the annexation agreement on house size. These agreements would prevail. Finally, the proposed ordinance would apply to nonconforming duplexes and multi-family properties in the RRA, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 zones. ADDITIONAL TOOLS: The recommendation made by Planning Board and. the direction from City Council included a number of other tools to address the issues identified by the Compatible Development project. These included the following: 1. Building coverage for one-story structures 2. Wall length articulation 3. Second story rear yard setback 4. Second story building coverage 5. High volume spaces These tools are provided in Attachment B with an explanation as to why they were not chosen as part of the staff recominendation. In addition to the tools that would directly address mass and scale of detached single-family homes, a number of other items related to single-family development were discussed by both Planning Board and City Council. These items included the following: 1. Distance between accessory structures 2. Building coverage of accessory structures 3. Floor area of accessory structure second stories 4. Tree planting program 5. Front fagade garages 6. Neighbor notification Due to time constraints associated with the project, staff was unable to fully evaluate these items. However, some analysis of each is presented in Attachment B. NEXT STEPS: The next steps in the project include City Council first and second readings of the proposed ordinance, which are scheduled for July 21 and August 4, respectively. The public hearing is scheduled to be held at second reading on August 4. At the conclusion of council's action, staff is proposing a 60-day time period to manage the implementation of the Compatible Development tools. The implementation phase is needed to provide staff with the time to develop the appropriate documentation for the building AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 0 26 permit process and to ensure a smooth transition to the new standards. This implementation period will include the following: 1. Internal and Technical Advisory Group meetings to assist in the creation of an Applicant Packet. 2. Applicant Packet: a. Definition of the tools b. How they are measured c. Graphic examples for ease of use d. Documentation required e. Any administrative rules developed 3. Training for the project specialists so accurate information is being disseminated. 4. Training for the plans reviewers to ensure they are measuring the tools correctly. 5. Programming changes for internal processes and fee updates. This time will also be beneficial to the development community to allow them to incorporate the new standards into their ongoing projects. The cumulative impact of the Compatible Development tools to single-family development will be challenging for all to manage in the short-term. This time period will be essential to ensuring success. Staff is also proposing a year review of the Compatible Development tools. At the conclusion of a year, staff will review the strengths and limitations of the new code, and bring forward suggested modifications if needed. Approved By: 0~4 David Driskell Executive Director of Community Planning ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Ordinance Language Attachment B: Other Ordinance Options Analyzed Attachment C: Background Attachment D: Zoning/Project Map Attaclunent E: An Examination of Single-Family Regulatory Controls and Property Values (staff report) and the Economic Overview of Massing and Scale Standards (consultant report) AGENDA ITEM 4 `~7-~ PAGE # 27 Attachment F: Compatible Development Project Costs Attachment G: Public Feedback Attachment H: Packages of Tools and Associated Applicant Costs Attachment I: Sliding Scale for FAR and Building Coverage Attachment J: Sketch-Up Models of Typical RL-1 Lots Attachment K: Matrix of Regulatory Options Attachment L: Self Guided Tour of Recent Construction AGENDA ITEM PAGE # 28 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 RELATED TO THE "COMPATIBLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT" BY THE ADDITION OF LAND USE REGULATIONS TIIAT AFFECT BUILDING SIZE, COVERAGE, AND FLOOR AREA RATIOS IN THE RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1 RL-2 AND RMX ZONING DISTRICTS AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 9-1-4, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read: 9-1-4 Transitional Regulations. This section addresses the applicability of new substantive standards enacted by this title to activities, actions, and other matters that are pending or occurring as of the effective date of this title. (a) Building Permits: This title will be amended from time to time. Any building permit in effect prior to the effective date of a specific amendment to this title will not be subject to the requirements of the subsequent amendment. (b) Expiration of Development Approvals: (1) Any approval previously granted, including, without limitation, site reviews, use reviews, planned unit developments, special reviews, height reviews, nonconforming reviews, and variances, becomes subject to the provisions of any amendment to this title, unless application for a building permit has been inade, or a certificate of completion has been issued pursuant to such approval by the date falling one year after the effective date of such respective amendment. (2) If a building pen-nit has been issued on any, such development approval by September 15, 2006, it may be continued under the conditions of its approval, but it may only be amended or modified in accordance with the minor modification and amendment provisions of sections 9-2-14, "Site Review," and 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981. (c) Expiration of Exceptions, Planned Developments, And Planned Residential Developments: Any exception, PD (planned development) or PRD (planned residential development) is subject to the provisions of this title, unless construction of such exception, PD, or PRD commenced by February 8, 1984. If, by February 8, 1984, a building permit had been issued for any use or occupation of land previously approved as an exception, a PD, or a PRD, such use or occupation may be continued under the conditions of its approval. Any change in the use or occupation of such land shall be made in accordance with the amendment provisions of section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. KACCAD1o-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item # ;5A- Page nueat Reyulatims-Notwithstanding ions of slil7seci l (e~l~ Add't~ iozIal T evelop alldiel abpve additional deve o ment regulations may b-Qi posed as porn it a va +1 i17. proJ~erties in a orevinl~,sl _ granted and ot11ei~vise valid development a r val_,1rtcludin without limitatia site revickvs. use review -Rimuiedunit deve o pine-tts, dcv_elopine°tts, i~lal~i ed residential dc_velc~~»nents. cxce_ptio s, special reviews. arrZ1Cd ci ht reviews. nonconfor reviews, and variance~t are u iaisteltt vii the term and conditions of the development approval if_ L - TlleAanda_rd ► exnrwr ly-s t in tl~e laud u. re in tai _ a a licable to sue ~ development request; and (2) The standard wilLt3ot violate tlte1 rnis_ Qf an annexation as ~ rcel i1:t_-I-a_v_este i4ht that as granted pursuant tic Lion 9-2-19. "Vcs e-di hls_' B.R.C. 1981. (dje Existing Uses That Require a Use Review or Conditional Use Approval: Any previously approved use that was established prior to the adoption of new regulations that make such use permitted only pursuant to a conditional use or a use review shall be allowed to continue in operation. Any change or expansion of a use that was established prior to the adoption of new regulations that make such use permitted pursuant to a conditional use or a use review shall be made in conformance with the applicable standards for use review, conditional uses, or for changes or expansions to nonconforming uses. If active and continuous operations of such a use are not carried on for a period of one year, it shall thereafter be occupied and used by a use meeting the requirements of this title, as required by subsection 9-10-2(a), B.R.C. 1981. (eD Violations Continue: Any violation of the previous land development regulations of the city shall continue to be a violation under this title and shall be subject to the penalties and enforcement set forth in chapter 9-15, "Enforcement," B.R.C. 1981, unless the use, development, construction, or other activity is clearly consistent with the express terms of this title. Section 2. Subsection 9-2-3(d), B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read: 9-2-3 Variances and Interpretations. (d) Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA): The BOZA may grant variances from the requirements of. (1) Setbacks} and separation and bulk plane requirements listed in section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (2) The building coverage requirements of section 9-7-10. "Maximum Building Coverage." and chapter 9-10, "Nonconformance Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (3) The spacing requirements for mobile homes of section 9-7-10, "Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981; (4) The porch setback and size requirements of section 9-7-4, "Setback Encroachments for Front Porches," B.R.C. 1981; l(ACCAMo-compatible development regulations 6-18-09458, doe Agenda Item # q Page (5) The size and parking setback requirements for accessory units of subsection 9-6-3(a), B.R.C.1981; (6) The total cumulative building coverage requirements for accessory buildings of section 9-7-8, "Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones," B.R.C. 1981; (7) The use of a mobile home for nonresidential purposes subject to the requirements of subsection 10-12-6(b), B.R.C. 1981; (8) The parking requirements of subsection 9-9-6(d), B.R.C. 1981, with regards to parking in landscaped front yard setbacks; (9) Sign code variances and appeals as permitted by subsection 9-9-21(s), B.R.C. 1981; and In granting any variance, the board may attach such reasonable conditions and safeguards as it deems necessary to implement the purposes of this title. Section 3. Subsection 9-2-14(c), B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read: 9-2-14 Site Review. (c) Modifications to Development Standards: The following development standards of B.R.C. 1981 may be modified under the site review process set forth in this section: (1) Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards." (2) 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," table 8-1, minimum lot area (in square feet unless otherwise noted) and the floor area ratio-standards to uor111it_111e averagin_z_o_f floor area across multiple lots within a zoning district. (3) 9-8-4, "Housing Types and Density Bonuses within an RMX-2 Zoning District." (4) 9-9-3(a), window requirements for buildings. (5) 9-9-4, "Public Improvements" and subsection 9-12-12(a), standards for lots and public improvements, conditions required, only to the extent that certain development criteria for alternative street standards are noted in the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. (6) 9-9-5, "Site Access Control." (7) 9-9-6, "Parking Standards." (8) 9-9-7, "Sight Triangles." (9) 9-9-9, "Off-Street Loading Standards." (10) 9-7-10, "Mobile Home Park Form and Bulk Standards." (11) 9-9-12, "Landscaping and Screening Standards." (12) 9-9-11(c), "Open Space Standards for Buildings Over Twenty-Five Feet in Height." (13) 9-9-13, "Streetscape Design Standards." I(ACCAMo-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item # X7''1 Page 7 I (14) 9-2-14(h)(2)(I) and (h)(2)(J) land use intensity modifications for nonresidential buildings. (15) 9-9-14, "Parking Lot Landscaping Standards." (16) 9-9-15, "Fences and Walls." (17) 9-9-17, "Solar Access." (18) 10-12-7, "Accessory Structures." (19) 10-12-13, "Mobile Home Park Environmental Standards." (20) 10-12-14, "Nonresidential Uses in Mobile Home Parks." (21) 10-12-18, "Windbreaks." (22) 10-12-19, "Mobile Home Park Streets and Walkways." (23) 10-12-23, "Permanent 'Buildings." Section 4. Section 9-7-1, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by adding and amending the following regulations in Table 7-1, to read: ICACCAMo-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doe Agenda Item # 5A- Page Table 7-1: Fon-n and Bulk Standards A RR-2 RH-2 RL-I B7-1 r.! = Mii RM- RMX-2 RH-3 BCS NIU BNS L)I-1 U1-4 Mt- NIH RR-1 RG RH-5 RA1 < BC ftm-I R1=1-1 R11-7 M[;-4 DT-2 1MS /oniu c P RN1X-1 BR RFI-6 D"f-, District IS-1 DT-; IS-2 IG 1 n:r Form Module a b e d e f h i k 1 to n o r s SETBACK AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS Principal Building and Uses Minimum Side See Section 9-7-9 n/a Yard Bulk_ Planc BUILDING SIZE AND COVERAGE LIMITATION (Accessory and Principal Buildings) Maximum eize See Section 9-8-2 15,000 See Section 9-8-2 15,00 See Section 9- 15,00 n/a floor area of (FAR Requirements) sq. ft. (FAR Requirements) 0 sq. 8-2 0 sq. any principal building ft. (FAR ft. )cnni(ted by Requirements) chanter 9-Q See ~ 9-7-10 n/,, Scc n1, See nra Maximum total 9-7-10 9-7- - buildin 100 ov MLL'e K:ICCAD1o-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item # 5)}" Page Section 5. Section 9-7-3, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read: 9-7-3 Setback Encroachments. No structure or building sball be constructed or maintained in the required setback except for: (a) A balcony, patio, or deck less than thirty inches in height; (b) A stairway less than thirty inches in height; (c) An encroachment of no more than thirty inches into the setback by a fireplace; (d) A maximum of thirty inches of roof overhang; (e) lnsubstailtial mia- acbments including without limitation electric meters. cable television or plID11c uti_I_i_ boxes, N 461170S, C_QDdit . wall inowited light fixtures, air conditioner compressor w' ows or doo>i•s that may swing into a setback when open: radio or telev_-ot3 antennae, or small architectural details; or (eD The outer four feet of completely open, uncovered, cantilevered balconies that have a minimum of eight feet vertical clearance below, which may project into any required yard except an interior side yard of less than ten feet in width. A balcony may be placed above another balcony if the railings along the exterior boundaries of all such balconies are not more than fifty percent opaque, the railings do not exceed forty-two inches in height, and there are no horizontal connections of any kind between balconies except the wall from which the balconies are cantilevered. Section 6. Chapter 9-7, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the addition of a two new sections, 9-7-9 and 9-7-10, B.R.C. 1981 with the remaining sections to be renumbered, to read: 9-7-9 Side Yard Bulk Plane Standards. (a) Pun os : ulldln s w't tall side walls ma imp act rivae -vie or visua_ access to the sky on neiglibliborin _nrouerties. The nurnose_of-thi si e yard bulk plane standard is to =s_u a tNaf bun di _ 5 step down towards_ileighbonin gjImpcrt ieS in oz'der to enlRance vacy~ tn. eseryeome views 3_ ild visual aIrc5s to the sky for lots or parcels that are adjacent to new development. b) S-cope: A]1 constructiog r~la ed to )rineipal alid accessory buddilias. shall co l~vilh the W IL L~Z ~irements of this secti This~ection agplics to all construction related to buildinss incliidin tiew construction gilding addition or o ification~f cx~ ~ g bl i_Itlialas as follows: (1) All residential principal and accessory buildings in the RR-1. Rlt-2. RE. and RC -1 zoning district; and (2) All principal and acccss~~± ildings that are used as a detached Single faIRQ aiid_ use in the RMX-1 zoning district. KACCAMo-compatible development regulations 6-I8-09-458.doc Agenda Item # 6~_ Page `N' _ Live vc feet abov-e tlie ide lob (c) IyIcawac,-tnent standal-de k vlaile is a plane 'j- 1_irLes-of a lOt or narccl-, them- rises over a slope at a fo>_._ -the &&-ec aagip uiitiUreachcsAllc pe~ttcd heigl _ihe_ronin~district intersects with tlle plane that is _y trot line_ on the c7 )osile side of the lpt or narceL The buIkj)lane l1all b~ ~»cast~ d-fr i the ji.nts clcscribal in ?a_ra T a ohs (c)(1) and 2.) htLQw usitl-Que o the Collo~v_U~> njethods:_ cl (1) Gra _C levcl._poinl method: -"I ire bulk pltrne Shall Ue measut'cd ILom thea_cle l(iv r ty 1lus, that Court idcw_ith tttrrl Ivin14 whir lla]'c pt~ntl__ alali thQIiA -0 - - - - t.oct'el 731 t~f the-cnsl point of the lot rJrt~rcel, clescbeci.{~ojl]l5 that s~lc cclua! cli5tan~:c l~t._tti~e'1 Ze_front_a.c£3r val_ds. The 1_~clc Iev_el~}~e.i~i:5_sl7a~~t_a,.s~clt~~e to oiihlc to the na(u Le ade and in case •i~ e 11- .1inall_t~locateci on t1~~ side rgpcr Ainc, the-gEc)uncl level n.o ij shall ) Q taker (min tlw~basc -Qf the wall. An c tltllldY_rCClct t that tll~ city manage -&kmi - tl~c locA tlt~ 'ad_~le~c~: points and con- Zondingg_b_ulk_pla or irregularly sled lots or Hart-cls. includ 1 r flag lots:-or - ara I_cl_ ao! iiit)t~tl>oci: -The bulkpne slrall beJnca$U1"cd liom a_serics of (2) _ P- mcasurcrtlcnl-points that are senaratcd by ten feet alonelh~, va , on -.u-v ]inc. The lu.e4~ttc menl~szints_shall be as erase SLi~sil~le~tp ll~e natual_rrade- and_in case a retahl g wall is located on the side Mpcrty line. the measuremelit p t d dlb-e taken from the base of the wall. 417' 2' 12, Property SidoYard Side Yard Property Line Setback Setback Line KACCAMo-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item # ~ Page , . . p I.J 45 i 12' Front Yard Setback Property Line Side Yard Setback for Principal Structure Fig=ure 9-3: Side Yard Bulk Plane The side var•d Gr.rlk plane begins at a voint twelve feet gl one t1 e c r y ierat ine--md Lu, toll r s to ce-1e~_00th? z~ o art b ~t~e_fr~nf £o_r- ~~l~ r e t of Odd_rtLnal distance Roly? the vrorrerty lure. All urirtciraal and crccessor a harildiagLl.twA>it ivithin the side vard bulk l - (dLJ~ncroachments: No buildin or portion tlletcof shall be constrict maintained beyond the required bulk plane except as-nrQyjded for below. 2 "La-tidn-n--k Aitcrat Qa 00--An ctt_croachinent appro -edA)ui_sunt t-o-5wion 9-1 1-1 . Certificate Required." B.R.G. 1981. for an individual landmark or within a historic DiLUirm-L (2) Roof overhangs or caves for the primary roof. nroy &d- at t ~e roof overhang or 4sd2nOt ext tt more than thirty inches hQ izontally bey(ald:tite_l7ul n linait._ The primary roof is the dominate rctnent that 1-C, -all inclucl_e.s-the upper most ot-l ctrl 4f the 1`Q.of suck s thee ~idaeline of h slo inp roof.- The arinia roof is n1tine_ Rabic end of a sloping roaf fot to ur a dmlet s described in tli s_serli_on. e roof; o B un to a fifteen (3) A rooft-on solar system. that is: (A) flush-n_iounted to dy,at_ex at- 1c, C s fired from a hpi-i 3zia Iatle. pro_v__ided that the roo rct1-1 rQ wipporting the solar system cl©r, trot exten l~cyond the bOlk t»c i it. (4) The gable end of a sloping roof form, provided that: LA). Thc_r-QQfL fiche of the !-able end does not extend more thall eight feet l~,ey~trict the bulk plane limit, including any roof overhang. (B) The tiortion oft e Qa le end that extends bey-ond tllo bulk vlane limit haft a maximum width of thirty-six feet including any roof overhang. KACCAD1o-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doe Abenda Item #i Page 3G' Figure 9-4: Gable Roof End Encroad.iiiienl: ilLto tue S`de Y bulk-Plane r hullt~2lnr e zr TI7e gable zz ~"ay Lq,g roof f_ar•al may n_raiect~-,1 file;Fide va~f to zt feet._ able encls that prr~fect bevo!r h side uarcllzud ulune mni Ire r1o Man fhirty-.s x ee lu'cl (S) -Dormers -provided that (A) The highest point of any dorm&L- s at car ~c[ w tEI I. fight oft orimary roof ridyv. The mifti c f and dormer that ext-gas IigT,% sand the i~LiI ~l~l e limit has a. maximum width of ei.g it_fee_t,JJ]Eludin, alroof overran ~(l Th maximumhti_ght of an d nner feet or Icss_ a_, i~_ ieasSUred frol_n the surface of the roof on which it is located to the ton.(j the dormcr roof De Combined widtll_of all dormcrs does not exceed fifty e~ccllt of t17_e Icneth Q.f the roof on which then arc locate (T?) The s a elweeit dormers is not less t wn lie-half the width- , lf_ftg ad`tleent dormer or the average of the tti JieY ate ifl'cimit sizes. ~vhicUcvcr_is t~a_l~r i KACCAMo-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doe Agenda Item # `7('t Page _ 81 6' ieure 9-5• Dormer Encroachment into the Side Yard Bulk Plane A tlyrnrer rraav cart~iect h yourrd the side >>crrd I~arllalarre liv u, to si.~ eft. 1i dormer that la,~c m eta ,ia~tri' tlintt e Jeer tivr'cte. vct.sy~nrrc t17e .side u(rrd &mlk 61 A chimney that is no more than seventy inches Wide and this! riclzes_.deen. C7_ Ai)P)ult(~i1c911eeS th$t c~T C~Wl~( rl0rrnlt Pd undE r scCfl(1iL9=~-J. `>3uila,n i. ~t, Anlnu-tenanses•„ B RC. 1981._ ln.$~f a tia(_Qncroachmen_ s 'ncludin wit17CIL11 limitation radio or television anteiuz .s~tj all architectural cietaiI5 or 5culoiur lements or weather vanes. 9-7-10 Maximum Building-C'nvei as~e. Ia) Pumose: The pumos s o't_he uilding_cQ i a staudadLue_tocstqblislube maxin um percentaU_e of IQt sulrfacc that may be covered by nri cir~al and accessory 1111ildings to preserve oven space o i 1 t and to preserve se_z~view~ aid ~+i al acees tctlic sklncl enhanee..rivacy for re. ids ences that are adjacent to new development. struction related to t~rinci al and acce~~sarv yuildin~s sl al] corn ~l~ with tl>u Cope, All coil bui diit&v_eras+e rec uunwnts 0f this section,_T1Ls sectie~ a 1ijys ta. allc nstructin mated t buildings includin aQw construction. budd111a7(jd1t1011S or illf}dltlcatlcm ex_istin }>u.ilciiiis..as_ f~llo~vs. l~ All residntial )ri_nci dal and acressD-u Luil in it 1tLc R-R-1,_RR-2s_RE._ an zoning district including lots_Iocated i~1a,i~ j !j develop d.eveloa)lnents and platineci unit clove pns n s. ftat arc used pa detached j _le family land use l21 All principal attd aecessoty huildin s_t ir~_tl~e 12,M_X-1_zoninU district. it~cludin~ lot5~2~ated 111 t71_~lnneci dcvclot~m_ents._rt ~ led residential developments and anned unit developme KACCAp1o-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item # Page _L~ 4 ()_In the RL-2, zonine_distri t he buildingoverat*e requirements shall atai 14ts ig a~ci 1~1_ili4usa~rd ~cLuaa~ feet ~r l~ti~~_r,.,s~ 1 Al! lots and parcels usc-- for detacbedsiicl e family laird u>. kliat are not within the boundaries f a planned developn-ent ied. residentia dev~_ n i ent: latnied ulrit develo nitnt an at i-oved sil_e_review. (M-All lots and an rccJs use-d k(letaehe Sid I~faini land use that are within I e bowldaries of a_trlai ed dgy v i» ent ) lanneQdleside ti i evel ~e~it: L)laiinOi u»ik dcv_elonnlcnt t at are shown on Apcndix Ii of this t t c (c) Maximum uil ing-C2v_era e ~l_prineitaal and acccssoi buildit shall be co~tstructed in a manner that dioes_11ot excel ~_tllc maximil Lbvj1 lin~cLera ~ i_i1 Ta le 7-2 be1Di able 7-2: Maximum Building Coverage fbr_Ds ajjtd Dwelling Units. 6,000 t4 91AQ Lot Size: 9.500 SI 14,500 SR ?WS ize x 0.1 Lot Size x RR-l, RR-2. RF, RL-1~ and RL-2 ayzo (L&La 20% + 140Q 0.1 + ]-540 4.000 to 7,001 Lot Size: 7 43 .Q4 E 2 14 -SE SE t Lot Size Lot Size x0.165 _ x0.16_± RMX-1 501 &k165 - 25° t 1300 1300 (d) Encrnaclmlents: No bui]ding or portion thereof shall be constnicted nr_n. aintat_ned in violatlol tlle_ol tl 1,~u1iin_cQVCraeeetLui~rc»ts of thi_s_sec_ti~n, excclit i_o_r aiay. Construction apraroved pursuant to s-utiop 9-11-12 "Landmark Alterati(-)n C~ rtil_icate Required." B.R.C, X 2 1 for an individual 1_al lark ©r -within -a i toric district. KACCAMo-compatible development rcgulations 6-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item # Page I t Section 7. Table 8-1: Intensity Standards, in section 9-8-1, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: TABLE 8-1: INTENSITY STANDARDS Minimum Minimum Open Space Private Minimum Open on Lots Minimum Open Space Open Space Minimum Lot Space Per (Residential on Lots (Nonresidential (Residential Dwelling Unit Uses) Uses) rot Uses) Area (in square Minimum Lot Area Number of See section 9-9-11 for additional open space requirements. For mixed use developments, use Zu nin Intensity feet unless Per Dwelling Unit Dwelling Units the requirements of either the residential or nonresidential standards that result in the greatest Maximum Floor District Module otherwise noted) (square feet) Per Acre amamt ofo ens ecc Area Ratio 1 5 acres 5 acres 0.2 0 - 10 - 20% 0 0 RR-1. R R 2 30,000 30.000 1.4 0 - 10 - 20% 0 :;cc "I'<iWe_4-3 i{ 1- - 3 15.000 15.000 2.9 0 - 10 - 20% 0 _ -3 RL_1 4 7,000 7,000 6.2 0 - 10 - 20% 0 0$ ) T 61, -q 5 7.000 7,000 6.2 0 - 10 - 20% 0 0 R 6 0 0 - 6,000 - 10 - 201K, 0 `_3 mix-1 7 6.000 6.000 7.3 600 - 10 - 20% 0 h-3 Renrcrurintrows trnc•Gunted - - Page K:ICCAD1o-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item # S rT Section 8. Subsection 9-8-2 (e), B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read: 9-8-2 Floor Area Ratio Requirements. (e) District-Specific Standards: (1) Maximum Floor Area in the RR-1. RR-2 RE RL-1 RL-2, and RMX-1 Zoning Districts:__ In the RL 1 , the Peer- area Fatie of 0.8: !-.The-floor the basement is all tho Pee area of all less than fifty per-eent of the per-iffieter- of the walls ef theA level are ffier-e thail twe fee above the adjaeent gr-ado, ineluding, without jimitatien, walk out levels or teffaee levels. All f tthe fl `•f . ai4i ,11, exposed lower- level of a ` etaehe f siiigle 1 VVnt a f •1 •.f ti 1 building 1,;" 1, exeeeds t" foot above grade for- fiit-. Y` ` 7 (_1)_ P irp_ow; Tl sc of a floor area atio standard is to addrL the ~:~.~orliona)`' uil iita size t4 lot size at~l allow variation il~ buildin~QUu within the established buildingnvelope. All construction related to nrinsi;nd _acces54t_lauilti 1 1 cclinl7ly p it the c ratio regtlirc3i~etzta f_thL_,5__ i-_c~_ This secti~ applics tcl GOn traction related to )ilLtl c]u _lt. an ir~ctiam. i~lcfi tiaras c~~ tncadificationcxi_L__g_bi l il]f 5_a~s Mlows_ of (il A I resideatial buildings in the_R_lZ_I_, RR-2, RE- - and RL-1 unit i_stricts. includin lo_ is loeatedu ~lat~n i 4ic_velc~l~n ctaL~~ul mze d residential develo ents an planned unit developments. (ii) x.11_ buildings that are used as a dctacaied single fali1ily land use in t1y RMX-1 zoning district~i.ncludin lots.located in planned d~evejopme its._pIjim e idential devc~ bj2m an c 1 ed unit developments. (iii) In tl~e RL-2 zoning distrj,_ct the floor area ratio ►_citizettlents _at~nly tt ot: that are eight thous squai-cfcet a lai~_l errand:, a All lots and parcels used for detached single family land use that are not within the boundaries of a_ planned development, planned residential dev_clQg.~ne_irt planned > 't deydopnlent or an approved site review. b, All lots and parcels used for detach ed single family land use that are wilhiri. the._boundarics of a -planned development, t laniled residential development 121anned unit develo n it that are shown on Appendix II of this title- (C) axi ~m F or Area ermitfied The niilxdLLl of ilc~2r airc 111 ~e tltc floor area that is in Table 8-3. "Maximum 1 loor Aw-a Ratio for esidelatial L4and Uses.,, - - KACCAMo-compatible development regulations 6-18-09458.doc Agenda Item # Page Table 8-3: Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Residential Land i7ses. 14~~9LtQ ? ~4 ~ Lot Size: x,000 SR fi&QOAO 14.500 SF 20.500 SF SE RR-1_, RR-2, RE, RL-1, and RL-2 0.501 (Let-Size x 0.1. L4~ 1902 of Size x 0.25:1 - 9,19 + 975 Lot lz : 44~ 09 t4 Q~ .C-SD OAR 4.9_ 49 U b.499 SF 14 -QQ SE LLot Size x. (Lot Size L0-LSize x RMX-1, 0.74:1 a.-19-51-+2450 0.42:1 - - 0.2± 2150 0.20)+ 2320 jD7 Fluor hr nt; :_The maximum floor area allows 1-iLic-tucies the (lour area of all levels. Tbc am~> t cif cc~ilt}' ut'n floor area of the lo_ west l-evel shall be calculated as f. Ll As.-. (Lenth_of theeriuicter of t3ic wall that is exsGd ire dial t lrec -I Qf feet aUave a(iaeelit_filzishod-p- = (Total len th of the e ri1- liete th_0 wall) (t)ie crcentasse cif the floor area that _is co nn-Wd on_ lower level). See Figure 9-8-1. Window wells ordoor wdhs that meet the following standards shall not be wilsi_dererl an_exlaosed wall if the distance of 1:11 om~ig_~t_lie ~vc11 is no more than four feet, measure"ar to the wall, it does not exceed five feet-in_lel nth neasured~arzllel to the wall: and the cun~ul_attve lcn~th of all weirlpi~ , any fi 1c nt. rear. or~ide a1 does oat excc_ttivcilt feet in length for each such vard. Figure 9-8-1: Floor Area Ratio Caleulation for Lowest Level Floor with Totally or Pay ally Exposed Walls. O 136"above grade t i I------------- L------ Porch SECTION KACCAD1o-compatible development regulations 6-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item # 1; Page - , t i 1 t t Topography PLAN Lines Section 9. The following definitions in section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981 arc amended to read: "Building coverage" means the maximum horizontal area within the outer perimeter of the building walls, dividers, or columns at ground level or above, whichever is the greater area, including, without limitation, cowls and exterior stairways, but excluding: (1) Uncovered decks, per-eh,s; _st9q s atios, terraces, and stairways all less than thirty inches high; a+4 (2) The outer four feet of completely open, uncovered, cantilevered balconies that have a minimum of eight feet vertical clearance below-.,- (3y to three humored s_ uare fe L sin lc_f detached residence froj I)orc]Ltlt" adia_eent to a_- -eet- a -d (4,~ne acsessor.Y_ huilclint4 lamer than eight} setuare eex~i~c aitd ino taller l,ts ten feet nl lij: t oclated with a single-fan i de ned residence. "Nonstandard building" means any building that does not conform to the setback,, of-height-or side yard bulk plane requirements of section 9-7-1, "Schedule Of Form And Bulk Standards," Of 9 4-z 1, `Sued le Of intensity Stanaff A.r1unless the nonstandard features of the building were approved as part of a planned unit development or a site review, or as a variance. Section 10. Title 9, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the addition. of a new Appendix H to Title 9 which is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A. KXCAD\o-compatible devclupment regulations 6-1 8-09458.doc Agenda Item # Page ' Section 11. '['his ordinance shall be prospective in nature and apply to building permit applications submitted after the effective date of this ordinance. This ordinance shall be effective sixty days after the final reading of this ordinance. Section 12. Building permits that are found to be complete and meet the requirements in effect at the time of application by the city manager may be considered under the development regulations in effect at the time of application, provided that the applicant: (A) continues to use due diligence to commence and complete construction of such building; and (B) continues to meet all deadlines set by city building codes or that otherwise may be set by the city manager. Section 13. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section 14. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of 12009. Mayor Attest: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record KACCAMo-compatible development regulations G-18-09-458.doc Agenda Item 4 7t Page _ READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITTLE: ONLY this day of 2009. Mayor Attest: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record K 1M D\osompa'iblc developmentregu'-ition.s 6-18-09-45F.doc Agenda Itch # Page ! ~ EXHIBIT A To Ordinance No. TITLE 9, B.R.C. Appendix H THIS PAGE TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW APPENDIX II f K:1CCADNo-compatible development regulations 6-19-09-45Kdoc Agenda Item # Paae Appendix H RL-2 Properties Within PD, PRD, PUD ha` y~erod Subject to Compatible Development Regulations or ac~~ r 00 m Cl) _ Kohler Dr. J Stanford Av l YI A - / a r~n " ----Rm egis Dr Ca-- sde; VasSa°r.~Dft sr . Case C, Furmac <,)N co2~z I0 Armer Av - / I Stephens Ra, "1ielia ' gritting_Av 4, m ~ _T - - - d 1 ~ ~ ~ mac ~Colby_~ Yale Cr Darley_Av podii: _~r~ iU,- fig'-- - •o chi. 'arrowCt m x c a o LL o E o y ~i o a o y a N 7 m % POvon Cr 0~ Emerson Av i ~_l_1J 1 1'a.C t o --_I Endi Cttr ,i - N - - - - CIV Berithaven PI 0 g - J 411 Everett 406~ 4 - - Heidelbero Or 01 I -Ililf-S_1,.. wpoa I I ` , 1 J ~q }u cd st _ 1 CQ "2 Legend RL 2 Properties within 4~-- PD• PRO, PUD Subject 0 to Compatible Development Regulation ` ooa PJ Lafayette Dr FP- n9~ I T Il Ownership Parcels L ~ City limits Gra3nioo~ Rd l AGENDA M ATTACHMENT B ADDITIONAL ORDINANCE OPTION ANALYSIS During the public hearing in March, direction was given by council to review a number of regulatory options that would help to meet the goals and objectives of the Compatible Development project. The following information outlines those tools not selected to be included in the staff recommendation and the reasons they were not chosen. However, for a select number of the tools, possible draft ordinance language has been provided should Planning Board or City Council wish to include theirs. ANALYSIS 1. 0.55 FAR and 35 Percent Building Coverage Planning Board recommended a 0.55 FAR and a 35 percent building coverage for a 7,000 square foot lot on a sliding scale. Staff did not propose tlus calibration for the following reasons: 1. The analysis completed by Winter & Company to develop the 0.45 FAR and 30 percent building coverage. 2. The results of the property owner survey and comments received at the public workshops. 3. The larger the calibration for building coverage the more likely additional regulatory tools will be needed to address looming side walls and building encroachment into the "traditional" rear yard. 4. The 0.55 FAR enlarges the overall mass of the building and requires additional regulations to address the larger second story which impacts the side and rear yards. 5. The additional tools needed to address the impacts of increased building coverage and FAR amplify the regulatory complexities for development projects. The additional require more documentation for compliance and additional staff time to review, increasing costs to the applicant. However, if Planning Board wishes to reconunend to council the higher building coverage and FAR standards, the sliding scale associated with each is at the end of this Attacbment. In addition, the new formulas can be inserted into the ordinance language. 2. One=Story Building Coverage Planning Board recommended a more generous building coverage of 40 percent for all lots that maintain both piimaiy and accessory one-story structures. Staff has analyzed this recommendation and decided not to include this option in the package of Compatible Development tools for the following reasons: 1 I . As proposed, the building coverage for one-story structures is a flat percentage allotment which does not relate building coverage to lot size as is anticipated through a sliding scale approach. 2. Utilizing a sliding scale approach becomes less equitable between large and small lots. As lot sizes get larger, building coverage overtakes the limits on FAR, allowing the maximum FAR to be developed as one floor. This is not the case with small lots where the building coverage remains the limiting factor. 3. The smaller the lot the less likely a one-story building coverage can be maximized because setbacks become more restrictive limiting the buildable area. 4. The intent of encouraging one-story construction may only be realized on lots larger than around. 10,000 square feet. Lots 10,000 square feet or less have more floor area through the maximum FAR then they would making use of a 40 percent building coverage limit. If the property owner wanted to maximize development potential on this size lot, a one-story home would not be advantageous. 5. Regulatory complexities relating to the influence of grade and the definition of story as outlined below: The influence of grade on a lot determines whether a home has a basement as defined by code or a partially exposed lower level. If a true basement exists, it is not considered a story. However, a partially exposed lower level is considered the 15` story of a home resulting in a two story structure. Whi'e the overall visual impact of this two-story structure might be minimal and warrant the allowance of increased building coverage, based on current code definitions it would not be permitted. Resolving these issues could occur through carefully constructed code language. However, the general approach in the staff recommendation is to establish standards that are simple to administer and focus on the areas of primary concern expressed by the public. The increase in building coverage from 25 percent on a 7,000 square foot lot, which was outlined in Winter & Company's original strategy report, to staff's recommendation of 30 percent was a direct result of public input and helps to resolve this issue. However, if Planning Board wishes to recommend this option to City Council, language could be added to the newly created Table 7-2 of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) which outlines the formulas for building coverage. Table 7-2 could be substituted with the following: Table 7-2: Maximum Buildhw Coverage for Detached Single-Famih- 6.000 to 9.501 to Lot Size: = 6.000 SF 9.500 5F 14.500 Sl' 14.50o R-1. RR-2. RE. RL-1. and RL-2 5 Lot 'Size x 0.1 Lot Size x 1400 0.1 I O() 3.9,P) -1.000 to 7.001 to 9.001 to > 10.000 f.nt Size: tiF 7.000 SF 9.000 SII 10.000 51' SF l.~~t Size K Lot Size Lot Size 14,15 0_~Ci-. i 11~t-1 ill" ).15 0.165 - i- 1320 1340 1300 [.c,ts ;vith all one-story (15 feet in lteisl)t 40% (r less) stnictures 3. Wall Length Articulation Wall length standards for both sidewalls at the minimum. side yard setback were proposed by Winter & Company to help alleviate the visual impact of a solid "looming" wall. Council provided direction that this proposal should continue to be analyzed. The original recommendation from Winter- & Company was the following: Within 5•feet of the mininwn? side setback, a ntaximunt wall length standard of 35 feel would apply to any walls between 12 feet in height and the maxinuan allowed wall height. .4t the rnaximunt ivall length, the wall height limit would be reduced to 12 f cwt or a nrininn an 5 foot wall offset towards the interior of the lot would be required. The intent of this regulation was to address those walls that exceed in height what would typically be considered a one-story building. According to the Technical Advisory Group, the development of a one-story structure needs a hei alit of 13 to 13 feet. This would include the following: • Foundation: 1 to 2 feet. • First Level Floor Structure: 10 to 12 inches • First Level Floor to Ceiling Height: S to 9 feet • Roof Structure: 3 to 4 feet (to meet insulation energy code requirements) Based on this assumption and after continued discussion with Winter & Company, the following recommendation was developed: Within 20 feet of the property line, cr rndxinuan wall length standard of 36 feet would apply to any walls between N feet in height and the 7naxiinuin allowed wall height. 3 Before the maximzr»a wall length, the wall must either offset by 4 feet for a »7inimum of 10 feet, or the height of the wall must reduce to 14 feet. The change in the recommendation from setbacks to property line was to address wall length standards for any possible combination of setbacks regulated by the zoning districts within the project area. In addition, the original recommendation of a 35 foot wall length with a 5 foot offset was considered more difficult to develop from a construction standpoint and that even measurements would be more efficient. Therefore, a 36 foot wall length with a 4 foot offset was suggested. This option was removed from the staff recommendation for the following reasons: 1. The recommended bulk plane helps to reduce the height of looming walls at the setback. 2. The typical lot in RL-1 with the longest depth is a 50 x 125 foot lot (6,250 square feet). Utilizing staff's recommendation of 32 percent building coverage for this size lot and assuming that the house would maximize the side yard setbacks, the longest wall possible would be approximately 58 feet. This still leaves 42 linear feet to the rear property line if, as generally observed, the house is built to the fiont yard setback. It is likely that the length of the wall would reduce when factoring FAR and the possibility of a detached accessory structure. 3. The desire to keep the set of tools relatively easy to regulate and keep costs down to the applicant while still respecting the goals and objectives of the project. However, if the 35 percent building coverage and 0.55 FAR numbers reconunended by Planning Board are ultimately approved by council, wall articulation becomes more of a concern. Using the same lot di pensions as 50 x 125 noted above,-the Planning Board recommendation would allow 37 percent building coverage. This would likely equate to a 66 foot long wall, or an additional 8 feet above staff's recommendation. When factoring FAR, these wall lengths could be reduced, but the combination of the higher FAR and higher building coverage produces walls that will likely be longer at a two-story height. If wall articulation is included in the package of tools, the following ordinance language is proposed: 4 Table 7-l: Form and Bulk Standards, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read. R L- I RR-1 IM-2 RNT-2 RL-2 Lo►iin District A RE RAIr-1 Rtii-1 Donn Module a b d \laximmn uninterrup(ed wall lengili t'c•r , iIdc walls mer I-1' in h6dit_within 20' of (does not include RM-1 or R%M-2 zones( side property line. Mininulnl mall offset at waxinurrti side wall IenQth Y' ldnc not include R\f-l r R\1 1,t'?~i illl.<<t' ] 1; il, C.•_' "li l' ~II_lfl' i' 111 Ili - ! l l (I I(:.' wall cuimit rouably parallel to a sidc properly tine angles to run roughly uetl)eiidicular to a side; oropetty line for a minimum specified distance. A wall offset may cause a wall to run closer to. or further from. a side property line. The offset wall area must continue for a minimum specified distancebefore _the wall is allowed to continue in the original plant. ~ ~ do Z0 4' 36' Property Line \ ('inure 9-XX: Horizoiital Side Nall Articulatlell .lit this eXamplE. a wall that is over 141. r_ 'ri_= .1 , rr'r: rfl: ~,~•~.~,.,t.~i. t~. r~ ~ .T' fn~ijff, lf~.. '~r f'.'.i'i. ~.-tjr~Ilf ;~i j - - 5 14' .~qf xJ 36' Property Line ,KK Veriical -,ILle 'WA l Atticulatii-An in phis example, a it-all that is over 14 1eet tall and is within 0 feet ofthe side r J r irE~rtV llrtc?_c1J c~n.1 lO 11 p'c't in I:i'~!!IJr crt A'_ma.W111 m! !cns7-th 10, FiOjire 9-XX: Side Wall Offsct_ 6 4. Side Wall Adjacency In the original recommendation, side walls that abut a multi-family or nonresidential development did not require side wall articulation. The justification was that the mass and scale of these types of developments do not typically warrant consideration from the adjacent single-family property owner with regard to their side wall impacts. This was removed from the staff recommendation because side wall articulation was also removed. hi addition, basing a. regulatory requirement on adjacent land uses could be problematic because uses can change over time. If the side wall adjacency tool is reconsidered as part of the Planning Board's recommendation, we would suggest allowing the exemption only if the property abuts high-density residential and/or non-residential districts. The only district wits in the project area where more consideration might be given is the RMX-1 zone as it already pen-nits a inix of land use types. S. Second Story Rear Yard Setback Council's direction was to analyze Planning Board's recommendation for a second story rear yard setback that would help with the encroaclunent of tall walls into the rear yard. Staff completed some analysis on the typical lot sizes within each zoning district in the project area. The lot sizes between the different zoning districts range in depth froin 50 linear feet to P 275 linear feet. Several options were proposed. The first alternative was to develop a setback for the rear third of the lot. This was successful for the shorter lots but not for those that had significant depths. A second option was the rear half of the lot. It quickly became obvious that this was too restrictive for lots less than 125 feet in length. A final alternative was to have different setbacks for different lots. The downside to this option was developing breaking points between lot requirements. For example a lot with a length of 125 feet would be required to setback the rear third, but a lot that was 130 feet in depth would be required to setback from the rear half. In addition to the difficulty of managing different lot depths tivas how to write regulation that would only apply to that story that causes the concern of a looming wall. Section 9-16 of the Boulder Revised Code defines a story as any portion of a building included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the next floor above it, or if there is no floor above it, then between the floor and the ceiling above it. Basements, as defined by the code, are excluded from this definition. Therefore, any partially exposed lower level is defined as a story. Based on this understanding, the story above a partially exposed lower level would technically be the second story. It is assumed that the recommendation from Planning Board was not to require a rear yard setback for this story but allow building coverage limits to prevail. Therefore, the regulatory language would need to be very clear regarding what the "second story" rear yard setback is actually trying to address. 7 The next difficulty with a second story rear yard setback is managing homes that do not have what would traditionally be considered a true second story. Homes like tri-levels where y' visually the structure appears to be two-stories when in fact it is three. If a height measurement was used to manage these types of homes, it would also have to take into consideration one-story structures with high volume spaces. For example, if a second story setback applied to all building mass above 12 feet in height, a one-story home with a vaulted eciling family room may not be permitted because the vaulted ceiling could violate the height restriction. With this analysis in mind, staff chose not to include second story setbacks in the reconunended tools. The reasons are as follows: 1. Difficulty in managing different lot lengths. 2. Difficulty in managing non-traditional homes like tri-levels. 3. The use of the staff recommended FAR and building coverage already limits the ability of home to encroach into the established rear yard. 4. The balance between a set of tools that are relatively easy to regulate and the costs to the applicant while still respecting the goals and objectives of the project. Further analysis of a second story setback is provided in the Attachment K, Matrix of Options. If a second story setback is chosen by Plamvng Board to be included in the recommended package of Compatible Development tools, we propose the following language: Table 7-1: Form and Bulk Standards, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: RL-1 RRA IM-2 RM-2 RL-2 Zoning District A RE RMX-1 Ri11-1 Form Module a b d \'liuimum rear vard.;ciback tier second story !third story for structures with a 112 of the buildin=, envelooe measured from the roar rcl cth ck partially exposed lo*,ver fevell on lot_v 130 fcfoc; not inc_ hld,~ R%I-1 01- RINI-' 70_nc_0 - feet in depth or greater. -Ikear Yard Setback. Second Story" means an additional setback measured from the require I rear yard setback for the finished floor located above the floor surface of the first Story _;ll 4 CC_ky1' Ilti ,.'i71111_ 'llil lhlti`' -I'!, i fi'--'i I:i 1.. -t ! ,'•r}` i 1 level. i 8 6. Second Story Building Coverage An additional reconunendation made by Planning Board was to consider a second story building coverage of 20 to 22 percent to limit the mass of the structure above the first floor. After some analysis of this recommendation, staff concluded that the regulatory complexities as well as the enhanced documentation needed from applicants made this a difficult ordinance to enforce. Ulany of the swine constraints that Innlt the Llse of a second story setback also hinder the building coverage recoinnlendatlon. The complication of non-Standard home construction where a "true" Second story was not developed; the issue of high voluine spaces and at what height the building coverage is calculated; and, t11e unintended consequences to building form when a height restriction is used to determine second stories all contributed to the difficult of utilizing this tool. Finally, the necessary documentation an applicant would need to provide will increase architectural costs, particularly for an existing home with a second story that is constructing an addition. It will a'.so increase review times by city staff which will in-turn increase building pennit fees. With this analysis in mind, staff chose not to include second story building coverage in the recorrunended tools. The reasons are as follows: 1. Difficulty in managing high volume spaces and the height where building coverage limits are required. 2. Difficulty in managing non-traditional homes like tri-levels. 3. The use of the staffreconunended FAR and building coverage already limits the ability of home to encroach into the established rear yard. 4. The use of a bulk plane limits the vertical building envelope, which helps to address the impacts of second story walls on adjacent side yards. 5. The balance between a set of tools that are relatively easy to regulate, managing the costs to the applicant, and respecting the goals and objectives of the project. Further analysis of a second story building coverage is provided in the Attaehnnient K, Matrix of Options. If a second story building coverage regulation is chosen by Planuling Board as part of the package of Compatible Development tools, we recommend the following language: Table 7-l: !{orni and Bulk Standards, S.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: RL.-1 RR-1 RR-2 RN1-2 R1.2 Zonin6 District A RE RMX-1 RNI-1 Form Module a b d \faxinium'.xond ~-toiy (third stmv for _Aructures whit' a partially exposed lower .+r:, iiluc~ not In lade R\f-_I or [ZM-2 zww-s) !cvel_) building covera6e as a nerccwt i2e of the total lot area "Building coverage. Second Storv" is calculated utilizing the definition fur bt ildina coverage !ntd is required for the finished floor located above the floor stn'face of the First story above _rrade or the second storv above urade for those structures with a partially exposed lower level. 7. Second Story Floor Area as a Percentage of the 1St Story Floor Area Another idea to manage second story building mass was generated by staff after receiving direction from council. This concept limited second stories through a percentage of the first story floor area. For example, the second story floor area would be limited to 60 percent of the 1St story floor area. The FAR regulation will require applicants to have a thorough understanding of the floor area within their home. Therefore, the documentation to the city outlining the floor area for each story will be included in the project plan sets. However, many of the same difficulties that afflict the other second story options also apply to this approach. Further analysis of limiting second story floor area is provided in the Attachment K, Matrix of Options. If a second story floor area regulation is chosen by Planning Board to be. included in the package of Compatible Development tools, we recommend the following language: Table 8-1: Intensity Standards, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: Secolld Story Floor Area (third story lilr !h,_lsL,:_ tru__,_:t•,r~: Intensity District Zoning District p.irtially exposed lower level l 2 RR-l. RR-2 60% 3 RE 60% 4 RL-1 60% 6 RL-2 60% 7 RMX-1 60% "Floor Area. Secotld Staty" rne;mg the total stlliarl'_fiootage ineasured to the outside surfaci: ii1C cX[L_i' iii' 10 1'Faininu, of a buildin,-, or portion thereof. which includes stairways. (,levators. the oortions o1 ,till exterior elevated above tirade corridors. balconies, and walkways that are renuired for i~rimary or secondary egress by chanter 10-5. "Building Code." B.R.C. 1981. storage and 1echanical rooms. whether internal or external to the structure. but excluding an atrium on lie interior of a building where no floor exists. a courtvard. the stairwav oveniiw at the At?nermost floor ofa buildinz. and floor area that meets the definition of uninhabitable space Ild is measured for the finished floor located ibove the flour surtitce or the second story J-iove i~n-ade or the second story above grade for those structures with a partialiv exposed lo%~-cr L-.V'~l. 8. High Volume Spaces high volumes spaces were also a concern of Planning Board and council during the February and March public hearing. Council provided direction that high volume spaces should be counted as a multiplier above a 10 foot ceiling height through the concept of a virtual floor. At the conclusion of the sketcli-up modeling of the recommended tools, staff ultimately concluded that virtual floors could be excluded from the package of Compatible Development regulations for the following reasons: 1. Complexity of explaining and regulating high volume spaces. 2. The use of building coverage, FAR and bulk plane to manage the overall mass of the home. 3. The use of a bulk plane to restrict height and move the mass to the center of the lot. 4. The balance between a set of tools that are relatively easy to regulate, managing the costs to the applicant, and respecting the goals and objectives of the project. When regulating mass through FAR, high volume spaces can become an important component to the overall "visibly-" mass of the home. If high volume spaces are not considered, the floor area not counted in the high volume space can be constructed elsewhere. However, there is also a work-around to high volume spaces. A home that has maximized their FAR because of a high volume space could enclose that space and possibly receive more floor area. The high volume space may be counted in FAR per our definition of high volume spaces but it may not be counted as floor area if enclosed per the definition of floor area under Chapter 9-16. The outside visible mass of the home has not changed whether the high volume space in open or enclosed. However, once enclosed the lot may be permitted more floor area per the sliding scale for FAR. In addition, high volume spaces are extremely difficult to regulate and can be quite costly to review for compliance. The regulations have to be carefully crafted to ensure that large high volume spaces are captured while traditional high volume spaces like stairwells are exempt. Depending on the construction of the lionie, many building cross-sections could be needed to understand the complexities of the high volume space. This would require additional documentation from the applicant and additional review time for staff. 11 During our discussion with the Tecluiical Advisory Group, only one member knew of a community that regulated high volume spaces and he indicated that it was quite difficult to understand. Iii addition, Winter & Company and Code Studio suggested that the combination of FAR, building coverage and particularly bulk plane already control the overall mass of the building and where that mass can occur on the lot. Additional analysis that helped inform whether high volume spaces should be regulated as part of the Compatible Development tools is included in Attachment K. If Planning Board chooses to include high volume spaces through a virtual floor in the package of Compatible Development tools, we recommend the following language: Amend Section 9-8-2: Floor Area Ratio Requirements to the following: (a) District-Specific Standards: Tlte maxiniuni door area MIOWCd i»cludes: (13) Floor area for detached residential hi<_li volume spaces as cletin`d tirkfcr Section 9-16. Anicnd Section 9-16: Definitions as follows: *'Floor area. detached residential Mull volume spaces" nicans uiy interior space with a floor-to-floor height greater than 10 feet shall add 10 percent to the area of that floor for every foot. or fraction thereof. Hi lieivlit over 10 feet. Floor-to-floor lieiQlit sllall be. measured as (lie average vertical distance at the exterior walls from the finished on the storv above. or if on the top floor. to the underside of the highest horizontal framing niember. Vaulted ceilinu areas :md volume spaces within sloved roof fonll,. sllall not be included in the calculation E floI r•Ii1 i~1!1)r11': 1 '11tI-.- t11:1-1! 1fl i1',i. 12 s © ~ to 16' i i Q i, , ,his eraiiivle, floor area (A) has a cediuu height o1 16 feet. Noo• area for this area >ul d be cadcudwecl at 160% 0,00% +10% for each of the 6feet above 10 feet of 'c,ew to floor heivhr). The faulted ceiling area svithin the slopett root for'iii is not i;ic ht,ded in the calcidation of additiona floor area. Floor areas (B) anti (C) lroulyd be ccrlculateel at 100% because thev have a floor-t4-floor height of 10 feet or less. ~x ADDITIONAL TOOLS During the public hearings in February and March, Plannmg Board and council developed some additional tools to consider as part of the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project. Due to time constraints, staff was unable to fully evaluate these tools. However, some analysis was completed for each item and draft ordinance language has been developed for some. 1. Accessory Structures Height and Setbacks A recommendation was made by Planning Board and direction given from council for staff to review restrictions on accessory structure height at the side yard property line. With the inclusion of a side yard bulk plane, this issue has been addressed. The bulk plane requires that accessory structures also be setback farther from the property line to gain an increase in height beyond 12 feet. 2. Accessory Structure Building Coverage Limit Council requested staff review a building coverage limit for accessory structures. Currently, the only limit on size of accessory structures is that they must be smaller than the primary building on the lot. Through our research, we have found that many commuiiities have a square footage limit for detached accessory buildings. Others use a percentage of the primary structure. With the inclusion of accessory structure in the total FAR and building coverage 13 calculations for the lot, it is likely that the size of detached accessory structures will be limited to utilize that square footage in the primary building. With this in niind, staffdoes not. believe it is necessary to alter the code with regard to IluS issue. However, if Planning Board wishes to address the building coverage of accessory structure we would recommend a limit of 50 percent of the building coverage of the primary sts-ttcture. On a 7,000 square foot lot under the staff recommendation of 30 percent building coverage this would equate to an accessory building footprint of 1,050 square feet. Under the Planning board's reeonunendation of 35 percent building coverage, the accessory structure could develop to 1,225 square feet. The following language is recommended: Table 7-l: Form and Bulk Standards, S.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: RI.- RR-1 RlZ-L RNI-.'. IZL-2 Zoning District a RE WNIX-i RIN1-I Form Module a b d Maximum cumulative coverage of all No greater than 5O vercent of iho coverage of the principal accessory buildings regardless of location building (does wt include R %I-1 ~r lz,\ I on . It should be noted that this option does not address the current rear yard exemption for accessory structures. Section 9-7-8(a) allows 500 square feet of an accessory building to be located in the rear yard setback. 3. Accessory Structure Second Story Floor Area Limits Direction was also provided to review a limit on the square footage of the second story of accessory structures. Again, with the requirement to include this square footage within the cumulative FAR for the lot, as well as the limits of the bulk plane, it is less likely that large accessory structures will be developed. If, however, large accessory structures are built, it will reduce the overall mass of the primary building, providing a trade-off on the lot. In addition, lie inclusion of the bulk plane will help to move the mass of an accessory structure with a large second story more towards the center of the lot. However, if regulation is being reconunended by Planning Board for a restriction on the size of the second story of an accessory structure, we propose the following language: 14 Table 8-1: Intensity Standards, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: Intensity District zrmina District ti«~:,t~l it;rv i loor :Irea of Accessary Buildlines 2 RR-1. RR-2 500 squa1,4Z teet 3 RE 500 square feet 4 Rt--f i00 square feet 6 RL_2 X00 square feet l MX-t 4. Separation between Principal and Accessory Buildings The current separation requirement between accessory and principal buildings on a lot is 6 feet. Plaiuiing Board provided some new separation requirements between one- and two- story structures. These new distances are as follows: At a "face to face" development where the accessory structure wall faces a primary structure wall on the saine lot the following distances are recommended: O 15 feet for a two-story accessory to a two-story primary structure • 10 feet for a two-story (primary or accessory) to one-story (prunary or accessory) structure • 6 feet betwecu one-story strictures with a maximum 6 inch eave overhang Due to time constraints, staff did not have an opportunity to fully analyze this recommendation. In addition, staff believes the FAR and building coverage limits will address this issue. 5. Tree Planting Program Currently, in the single-family zoning districts only street trees are required by the Boulder Revised Code. The standard is one tree for every 40 linear feet. When a building hermit application is submitted for a remodel, addition, or new home that is valued at more than _21 percent of the Boulder County Assessor's actual value of the existing structure, a review is conducted to ensure street trees have been included. In 2008, around 300 landscape inspections were completed on detached single-family developments. Due to time constraints, staff did not have an opportunity to fully analyze the impacts of changing the current code requirements. It should be noted that the Landscape Architect 15 position responsible to do this review is a fixed-term position through 2009 and may not renewed due to budgetary constraints. 6. Garages To continue to address the public realm, Planning Board recommended and City Council confirmed that staff should study garage numbers, location, presentations, entry emphasis, offsets, etc. Due to project tune constraints, staff was not able to analyze this recomi-iendatioal. 7. Neighbor Notification Council directed staff to review a requirement that a courtesy notice be sent to adjacent neighbors (and across streets and alleys) once a building permit has been issued. This is a fairly simple request to achieve. A list of neighboring property addresses could be generated at the issuance of a building permit and a form letter processed and mailed. Since building permits are a total cost recovery permit through the city, the cost to issue these notices would have to be included in the building permit fees. This will be an additional cost to the applicant beyond the new documentation requirements necessary for building coverage, FAR, and bulk plane (see Attachment F for applicant costs). 16 RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, and RL-2 District Standards Planning Board Recommendation Building FAR Coverage Square Square Building Lot Size Footage FAR Footage Coverage 6000 3646 0.61 38% 2,280 6500 3733 0.57 37% 2,405 7000 3820 0.55 35% 2,450 7500 3907 0.52 34% 2,550 8000 3994 0.50 33% 2,640 8500 4081 0.48 31% 2,635 9000 4168 0.46 31% 2,790 9500 4255 0.45 30% 2,850 10000 4342 0.43 30% 3,000 10500 4429 0.42 29% 3,045 11000 4516 0.41 29% 3,190 11500 4603 0.40 28% 3,220 12000 4690 0.39 28% 3,360 12500 4777 0.38 27% 3,375 13000 4864 0.37 27% 3,510 13500 4951 0.37 26% 3,510 14000 5038 0.36 26% 3,640 14500 5125 0.35 25% 3,625 15000 5175 0.35 25% 3,750 15500 5225 0.34 25% 3,875 16000 5275 0.33 25% 4,000 16500 5325 0.32 25% 4,125 1!000 5375 0.32 25% 4,250 17500 5425 0.31 25% 4,375 18000 5475 0.30 25% 4,500 18500 5525 0.30 25% 4,625 19000 5575 0.29 25% 4,750 19500 5625 0.29 25% 4,875 20000 5675 0.28 25% 5,000 20500 5725 0.28 25% 5,125 21000 5775 0.28 25% 5,250 21500 5825 0.27 25% 5,375 22000 5875 0.27 25% 5,500 22500 5925 0.26 25% 5,625 23000 5975 0.26 25% 5,750 23500 6025 0.26 25% 5,875 24000 6075 0.25 25% 6,000 24500 6125 0.25 25% 6,125 25000 6250 0.25 25% 6,250 25500 6375 0.25 25% 6,375 26000 6500 0.25 25% 6,500 26500 6625 0.25 25% 6,625 27000 6750 0.25 25% 6,750 27500 6875 0.25 25% 6,875 28000 7000 0.25 25% 7,000 28500 7125 0.25 25% 7,125 29000 7250 0 25 25% 7,250 29500 7375 0.25 25% 7,375 30000 7500 0.25 25% 7,500 30500 7625 0.25 25% 7,625 31000 7750 0.25 25% 7,750 31500 7875 0,25 25% 7,875 32000 8000 0.25 25% 8,000 FAR Formula's 5,000 - 14,500: Allowable floor area = lot size x 0.174 + 2602 14,501 - 24,500 Allowable floor area = lot size x 0.100 + 3675 Lots below 6,000: 0.62 FAR Lots above 24,500: 0.25 FAR Building coverages were increased by 5% from the staff recommendation. Lots below 6,000: 39% Lots above 14,500: 25% 1~ RMX-1 Standards - Planning Board Recommendation Building FAR Coverage Square Square Building Lot Size Footage FAR Footage Coverage 4000 3200 0.80 2240 56% 4500 3600 0.80 2295 51% 5000 3850 0.77 2400 48% 5500 3960 0.72 2475 45% 6000 4140 0.69 2640 44% 6500 4355 0.67 2730 42% 7000 4550 0.65 2800 40% 7500 4650 0.62 2925 39% 8000 4800 0.60 3040 38% 8500 5015 0.59 3145 37% 9000 5130 0.57 3240 36% 9500 5320 0.56 3325 35% 10000 5400 0.54 3400 34% FAR was increased by 10% from the staff recommendation. Lots 4,500 or smaller: 0.80 FAR Lots 10,000 or greater: 0.54 FAR Building coverages were increased by 5% from the staff recommendation, Lots 4,000 or smaller: 56% Lots 10,000 or greater: 34% 18 ATTACHMENT C BACKGROUND City Council identified the issue of new construction and addition/remodels that are out of scale with the character of their neighborhoods as a high priority at its January 2008 retreat. This issue was discussed at the joint Planning Board/ City Council Study Session on March 13, 2008 and at its March 18, 2008 meeting, City Council requested input from the Landmarks Board and the Planning Board on an interim ordnance. At its April 15 meeting, council decided: Not to move forward with an interim ordinance; Have staff move forward expeditiously to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services and select a consultant; To appoint a Request for Proposals (RIiP) subcommittee composed of two members each of City Council, Plarrivng Board, and Landmarks Board; and To approve a problem definition, project goal and objectives, and public process objectives. A problem definition was created, as follows: To address the impact on existing established neighborhoods of new construction and additions that are incompatible in scale and bulk with the character of the neighborhood. The impacts to be considered include without limitation: consideration of size, open space, massing and bulk planes, loss of space between houses, privacy, view sheds, lot coverage, blank walls, setbacks, height, and the streetscape and visual character. Additionally: 1. The biggest problem is scrapes that result in very large homes and mega spec homes that are out of scale with the existing neighborhood. The definition of what constitutes a " razega home" is related to both absolute size and relative size as compared to lot size and neighborhood context. 2. One aspect of the problem is that oversized homes are often built as speculative ventures, and the developer is trying to maximize profit by building the largest home possible. The high real estate values in our community drive the problem. 3. The loss ofspace between homes is important. It is important to maintain visual openness and a sense ofs pace in neighborhoods and often new homes are built right to the setbacks at two stories, and open space on the lot, backyards, and privacy are lost. 4. The streetscape and visual character of the neighborhood are important. 1 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 one aspect of the issue that needs to be evaluated. Goals and objectives were also established by council and are detailed below: To 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. 1. It is very important to retain flexibility for people to alter their homes as their needs change, since many can't afford to move to another house. However, there is a threshold ofpops over which these additions can be "too much. " It is important to provide far 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 effcientprocess to address unintended consequences (an appeal or variance process). 5. Include analysis of broad economic impacts. Following the April 15, 2008 City Council meeting, an RFP for consulting services was issued and three fines were interviewed by the RFP subcommittee and staff on June 27. The RF,P subcommittee completed its work with the selection of the consultant, Winter and Company who was hired in July 2008. The Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project includes four phases, which are as follows: Phase l: Frame the Question (August 2008 December 2008) analysis of project area and community outreach to better define the problem; Phase 2: Develop a Strategy (December 2008 - March 2009) - supported by Phase 1, a strategy paper that includes recommendations for how the city should respond to the problem and conununity outreach to solicit support; Phase 3: Produce the Tools (March 2009 - May 2009) - development of regulatory tools; and, • Phase 4: Implement the Tools (May 2009 - June 2009) - the public hearing process for adoption, Phase 1: Frame the Question This step incorporated work from Winter & Company, the selected consultant for the project, that included collecting data; reviewing the city's current regulations; and, modeling six to seven different neighborhood contexts, which included existing character, existing regulations, and the possibility of alternative standards. In addition, the intent of this phase was to check in with public to ensure general agreement with the problem-definition created by council. Winter & Company conducted research into mean and median FAR for each zoning district in the project area. As of December 31, 2007 the mean FAR was 0.27 and the median was 0.25 for the RL-1 district, which is the most prevalent in the project area. In July of 2008, Winter & Company also began their fieldwork to understand the different neighborhood contexts in the city. They conducted a general inventory of the different neighborhoods to develop a variety of block configurations to begin to model various development scenarios. An extensive public process was developed to ensure broad input from residents and stakeholders in Boulder. This phase included a kick-off event and four neighborhood workshops in September of 2008, two interest group meetings in October, and a project-wide single-family survey mailed to over 12,000 property owners. The summary of all of the public input received under Phase I coin be found on the project Web site at rvivw.bouldea•i)landevelou.rnct and click on "Hot Topics and Current Projects" and within council's Weekly Information Packet dated December 11, 2008 and Planning Board's Agenda packet dated December 1.8, 2008. Winter and Company completed their investigation of the project area, as well as their examination of the issues raised under City Council's problem definition. Their analysis culminated with the "Framing the Question" report, which marked the end of Phase 1 and provided the foundation for the "Strategy Report" which began Phase 2. 'l'lie Framing the Question report, is also available on the project Web site. The report concluded with a refined problem statement from City Council's initial problem definition for the project. This refined problem statement was based on public feedback acrd provided a focus of action as an interim step in the project. The following refined problem statement guided the development of the recommended strategy outlined iii the Strategy Report. It also provided a basis for discussion • with the community during the public workshops completed under Phase 2. The refined problem statement is as follows: The problem is new single-family construction and additions that are viewed as being incompatible with adjacent homes and the surrounding neighborhood in three key respects: They are overly large in relation to their lots They negatively impact the privacy of neighboring lots i Q They cover too much of their lots or result in a loss of mature trees or vegetation Phase 2: )1Deve9oiD a Strategy Based on this premise, Winter & Company drafted a strategy for resolving the issue of mass and scale within neighborhoods. Their strategy to address the problem definition was: Correlate overall building size to lot size. Reduce the perceived mass of a building. Preserve open space in the rear of properties. The recommended strategy was also based on the following criteria: I . Effectiveness - The tools developed should directly address a specific issue identified in the problem statement. 2. Fainiess - Council's goals and objectives direct that all properties of a similar class should be treated equally. For example, the standards should be the same for all similarly sized lots located within the same zone district. 3. Predictability - The regulations should be understandable by all parties. That is to say, a property owner should be able to predict a likely outcome of the approval process if I they follow the regulations. City staff should be able to easily interpret the regulations, and neighborhoods should have a reasonable understanding of the scale of building that potentially can occur. 4. Efficiency - The regulations, and the permitting process that is employed, should be simple to understand and administer, such that time is used efficiently to develop an improvement plan and obtain approvals. This applies to the applicant, city staff and other decision-makers. In general, a system that uses easily interpreted prescriptive standards as described in the strategy options is most efficient. 5. Context Sensitivity - A system that responds to differences in context is also desirable as reflected in the property-owner survey responses and other community feedback indicating that some form of design review should be implemented at the neighborhood level. Fine-tuning the tools for different lot sizes in each zone district provides a measure of context-sensitivity. 6. Flexibility - A system that provides some flexibility is also desirable as described ill council's goals and objectives. While this may seem to contradict the objective of predictability, the recommended tools can be calibrated to ensure the potential for property owners to meet changing needs using creative design solutions. Consideration of methods for alternative compliance or future use of design guidelines could increase options for flexibility. Such methods would recognize 4 public feedback that some larger buildings could be compatible if they were well designed. 7. Interface with Existing Regulations and Address Unintended Consequences - Opportunities to refine existing regulations arc typically preferred, rather than creating new categories of regulation. For example, a FAR standard is already in place. Adjusting and applying it to additional zoning districts as described in the strategy options may be easier than drafting a new regulation. To accomplish this strategy, as well as incorporating the seven points noted above, the following tools were developed: Adjust floor area ratio (FAR) to fit different zoning districts and lot size categories. Articulate building mass to further reduce perceived scale, using limits on the length and lieight of side walls at the minimum setback line. Increase protection for rear yard open space with a maximum building coverage or minimum rear yard open space percentage. The refined problem definition, reconunended strategy, and set of tools were presented to the public on January 12 at a community event that was held in council chambers and televised live on Channel S. In addition to Winter & Company's presentation of the strategy report, a peer panel of professionals offered advice and input on how they resolved the issue of single- family compatibility in their communities. A question and answer period, facilitated by a moderator, to the consultants and the peer panel followed. Approximately 80 people attended the event. The presentation was followed by two community workshops to solicit feedback on the recommended strategy. Approximately 70 participants attended the workshops. The final strategy report and a web stream of the January 12 event are available on the (project website. During this time period, staff also met directly with several organizations in town, included Plan Boulder, Architects and Plarniers of Boulder, Siena Club, and the Chamber of Commerce. The intent of these meetings was to solicit direct feedback on the strategy report front these groups. 'Phase 3: 2roduce the TooN After the receiving public input on the Strategy Report, Winter & Company and staff began crafting a recommended package of tools to be presented to Planning Board and City Council at a joint public hearing which was held on February 24, 2009. This proposal was a refinement of the tools presented in the strategy report based oii public feedback. On February 26, Planning Board developed a rccominendation on the tools that they felt should be further analyzed, which was forwarded to City Council for their review. On March 3, 2009, City Council provided direction to staff on the regulatory tools they Nvanted further assessed as part of the Compatible Development project. The direction from City Council included a combination of floor area ratio, building coverage, and wall articulation tools. The exact standards for each tool were not specifically agreed upon but direction was given on the range of options presented by Winter & Company and Planning Board. This range was intended to recognize traditional development patterns while providing flexibility for additions and new construction that are compatible to their zoninu district and lot size. Council's direction included applying the tools to all single- fami.ly properties in the project area zone districts, as follows (See Attachment D: Project Area Map): Residential -Rural 1 (RR-1) Residential - Rural 2 (RR-2) Residential Estate (RE) Residential -Low 1 (RL-1) Residential - Low 2 (RL-2): Single-family properties that are not currently governed by a Planned Development (PD) or Planned Residential Development (PRD) Residential-Nfixed 1 (RMX-1): Only existing single- farmly properties. Council directed staff to continue analysis on the follow set of tools: Floor Area Ratio (FAR): FAR is defined as the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of the lot on which the building is situated. A FAR standard would be used to relate overall building size to lot size through a sliding scale approach. City Council direction included continued analysis of the following; 1. Winter & Company's recommendation of 0.45 FAR as a base line standard on a 7,000 square foot lot for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1 and RL-2 districts. Lots less than 6,000 square feet will be limited by a FAR of 0.50 or a house size of 2,400 square feet, whichever is greater. The RL-2 zone will utilize the same maximum FAR standards as the R.L-1 district. However, because of the 6,000 square foot open space requirement in RL-2, only lots 00,000 square feet and above will be subject to a FAR limit. A base line standard of 0.55 FAR on a 7,000 square foot lot for the RMX-1 zone. Lots below 4,000 square feet would have a FAR of 0.73 or a house size of 2,400 square feet, whichever is greater. . 2. Planning Board's recommendation of abase line standard of 0.55 FAR on a 7,000 square f-oot lot. y c~ - ~'=Ij•'~..~ 0 E• ~ • r it 77 f " 0.45 FAR or 3,120 SF 0.55 FAR or 3,850 SF on a 7,000 SF lot on a 7,000 SF lot Calculating FAR Additional direction from council was that the floor area calculated i-n FAR for basements should be proportional to the amount the basement is exposed above grade. As defined by code, a "basement" that is exposed more than 24 inches above grade does not meet the definition of a basement and is termed a partially exposed lower level. Cui7ently, the square footage of a partially exposed lower level included in FAR is calculated at either 50 or 100 percent depending on how much of the perimeter wall is exposed. Council's direction was to calculate this square footage at a more proportional measurement with the exemption for calculating FAR at 36 inches. Virtual Floor Council's direction was to include regulations for virtual floors with a multiplier above a 10 foot ceiling height. A virtual floor is a tool used to address impacts of high ceilings on overall building mass which can not be captured by FAR. Building Coverage: Council provided direction supporting a building coverage standard as a maximum percentage of lot size through a sliding scale approach, with continued analysis of the following two options: 1. Winter & Company's recommendation of 30 percent building coverage on a 7,000 square foot lot as a base line standard for the RR-l, RR-2, RE, RL-1 and RL-2 districts. For lots below 6,000 square feet in the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 districts, building coverage is 35 percent. The RL-2 zone will utilize the same inaximum building coverage standards as the RL-1 district. However, because of the 6,000 square foot open space requirement in- RL-2, building coverage would apply only to lots 8,000 square feet and above. For the RMX-1 district, a 35 percent building coverage on a 7,000 square foot lot is recommended. In the RMX-1 district, lots below 4,000 square feet have a building coverage of 50 percent. 7 2. Plarwing Board's recommendation of 3)5 percent building coverage as abase line standard on a 7,000 square foot lot for a two-story home and 40 percent for a one- story structure. To obtain the 40 percent building coverage, all structures on the lot would have to niauntain a one story configuration. In addition, Planning Board's recomi-iendation included a building coverage maximum of 20 percent for the second story of the home. t= r Overall r Building Coverage 17 2nd Floor Building Coverage 30% coverage or 2,100 square toot building footprint on a 7,000 SF lot NEW ICI _ r; ~ r F 35% coverage or 2,450 I - 40% coverage or 2,800 square foot building square foot building footprint on a 7,000 SF lot footprint on a 7,000 SF lot 211d Story Buildin Coverage Planning Board developed a reconuniendation to limit the impacts of 2"d stories on the adjacent lots through a building coverage maximum. Council provided direction that a 2"d story building coverage should be considered to help address looming walls and their encroachment into the rear yard. s Wall Articulation: Winter & Company proposed a wall sculpting standard to address looming walls along side yards. Planning Board included an additional suggestion of a bulk plane standard. Council's direction was to review both: 1. A bulk plane from the property line which would equate to two feet of wall height for every one foot of setback; and 2. A maximum wall height at the minimum side setbacks of 20 feet with the maximum Height through a bulk plane standard of 1 foot of height for each foot from the side setback. Within 5 feet of the minimum side setback, a maximum wall length standard of 35 feet would apply to any walls between 12 feet in height and the maximuin allowed wall height. At the maximum wall length, the wall height limit would be reduced to 12 feet or a minimum 5 foot wall offset towards the interior of file lot would be required. Examples of the two wall articulation suggestions are shown below: 20 Foot Wall at Setback with Articulation Standards (Winter & Company recom. mendatiorn) 35' Graphic example of a 5 foot horizontal offset that articulates side wall mass. I s" -1 12' _ - r\ r 35' 20' ~ i Graphic example of a vertical reduction to one- 3 story that reduces side wall mass. to 2 for 1 Bulk Plane at the Property Line (Recommended by Planning Board) ~ i i/ ~ i SSSl5!• _ 1 U • l~ ~-f 1 c y X> tr '~,ra}chic pl o ~~o feet in lleig}it for every one root of 1 setl.)aclc on a 50 foot wide lot. ' 35 I lJ _ :0 L ) -alA cx a;i~l~lu of two feet in height for every one foot of, setback on a 70 foot wide lot. 11 Side Wall Adjacency Issue Council's direction was to continue consideration of side walls that abut a multi- family or nonresidential development and whether side wall articulation would be required. 2na Story Dear Yard Setback: Another recommendation made by Plarvung Board to address looming walls was to limit two-story structures through a rear.yard setback. Council requested further analysis. Phase 4: Ii-imlement the Tools The project is now in its final phase. The goal of this phase is to complete the analysis requested by council on the various tools and prepare an ordinance for the adoption public hearings. As part of this phase, staff reviewed the work completed by Winter & Company and conducted further study as outlined in the Analysis section of the memo. The draft ordinance provided in Attachment A is the result of this work. 12 City Councci Public Tearing March 3, 2009 Compatible Development Recommendations and Council Direction On March 3, 2009, City Council reviewed the set of tools and standards recommended by Winter & Company and Planning Board for the Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods project. In general, Council agreed with the three tools presented, which included wall articulation, and building coverage and floor area ratio on a sliding scale. Direction was given to staff to continue to analyze and model the standards associated with the three tools recommended by both Winter & Company and the Planning Board. The following table outlines the recommendations made by Winter & Company and the Planning Board to City Council. Direction from Council to staff is also included as follows: Winter & Co. / Staff Planning Board Recommendation Council Direction Recommendation Wall Articulation: Wall Plate Height . Maximum 20 feet high at minimum side 2 feet of wall height for every 1 foot of 2 feet of wall height for every 1 foot of yard setback. setback from the property line, setback from the property line Wall Length , For a 20 foot high wall at minimum side Winter & Co. recommendation Review both Winter & Co. yard setback, a maximum 35 feet of recommendation and consider a 2"d wall length before a 5 foot offset is OR story rear yard setback requirement on required or the wall must reduce to 12 a certain portion of the lot. Also, review feet. Add a rear yard setback to the 2"d story wall articulation standards for more of principal structures. than just minimum setbacks. Wall Mirroring Consider allowing lots to mirror Eliminate from recommendation. Eliminate from recommendation. adjacent wall configurations. i W PLANNING BOARD 2ned CI'T'Y COUNCIL acticnti az-e DRAFT pending a re al o'lt lelr me -ag M- e . Winter & Co. ! Staff ? an:nirg Board Recornmendatlcn Cour.cii YrecEion Recommendation Building Coverage: Sliding Scale with 30% or 2,100 SF fora 7,000 SF lot. 35% or 2,450 SF for a 7,000 SF lot for Maintain sliding scale and model base beginning two-story structures. number between 30% and 35% for Base Number two-story structure on a 7,000 SF lot. 40% or 2,800 SF for a 7,000 SF lot for Allow larger building coverage for one- one-story structures (all structures story homes (30% to 40%). Review must be one-story). sliding scale adjustments to ensure small lots are treated equitably. 2" Story Not included in recommendation. 22% building coverage for second- Include 2" story building coverage story. limit. Model 22% with other tools to ensure compatibility. FAR: Sliding Scale with 0.45 or 3,120 SF for a 7,000 SF lot. 0.55 or 3,850 SF for a 7,000 SF lot. Maintain sliding scale and model base beginning number of 0.45 to 0.55 on 7,000 SF lot. Base Number Review sliding scale adjustments to ensure small lots are treated equitably. Virtual Floor Recommended - numbers to be Recommended - numbers to be Include virtual floor with a multiplier determined. determined but to include SF above a 10 foot ceiling height. exemptions for items like stairwells and vaulted ceilings in roof structures. Zone Districts: Include all in Project Area; RR-1, RR-2, Include all in Project Area - review Include all in Project Area - review RE, RL-1, RL-2, RMX-1 RMX-1 based on recommendations RMX-1 based on recommendations Staff Level Design Review: Allow projects to exceed the standards Not recommended - exceed standards Would like variances tied to hardship, by up to 20% if they comply with design only through Board of Zoning with some possible staff level design review criteria. Adjustment variance process. review on some focused circumstances. PLANNING BOARD and CITY COUNCIL actiorny, °~e DRAFT pending approval of their meeting minutes. Additional Planning Board Recommendations - Council's direction in BOLD Basic Tools: 1. Wall Plate Height Measurement: Measure plate height from finished grade. Agreed with Planning Board's recommendation. 2. Porches and Balconies: Exclude covered porches and covered/uncovered balconies up to a certain square footage from building coverage and FAR. Consider excluding covered porches and coveredluncovered balconies if lower EAR (0.45) is ultimately approved. 3. Measuring Basements in FAR: Planning Board supports considering proportional approach to measuring basements. Recommendation is to consider that portion of a basement that has an average exposure of larger than 36 inches is counted. Anything beyond the average zone of 36 inches would count toward FAR. Measurement would be taken from the underside of the first floor structure to the finished grade. Basements measured from grade with 36 inches exempted, remaining exposed basement measured proportionally. Accessory Structures: 1. Distance Requirements: At a "face to face" development where the accessory structure wall faces a primary structure wall the following distances are recommended: 15 feet for a two-story accessory to a two-story primary structure 0 10 feet for a two-story (primary or accessory) to one-story (primary or accessory) structure 0 Six feet between one-story structures with a maximum 6 inch eave overhang Staff to review if small structures (less than 100 square feet) can be exempt from these requirements. 2. Setbacks from Property Line: At the zero setback, accessory structures are prohibited from developing a second story. 3. Second-Story Square Footage: Limit the second floor to 500 square feet. PLANNING BARD and CITY COUNCiIL actions are (DRAFT pending approvaR of their meeting minutes. Generally agreed with Planning Board's recommendations. Would also like to consider wail articulation and maximum building footprint for accessory structures. Additional Recommendations: 1. Tree Planting Program: Include a tree planting program at a certain caliper in single-family zone districts. Staff to review a possible tree planting requirement at a certain caliper. 2. Garages: To continue to address the public realm, the Board requested staff study garage numbers, location, presentations, entry emphasis, offsets, etc. in the next phase of the project. 3. Neighbor Notification: Courtesy notice be sent to adjacent neighbors (and across street and alley) once a building permit has been issued. Generally agreed with Planning Board's recommendations. Directed staff to develop options for these additional recommendations. PLANNING BOARD and MY COfJNCE L, action- -me DRAFT pending ng prcvall of their mneetfung minutes. ATTACHMENT D Areas Subject to Proposed Compatible Development Regulations t r ,ru.:,:,r ."I RA Tr r' Le. A~ I ~ I ~ ~ 1nLnnrN - i t I r•~-t` f_ 'R.,fr1 ~~°J 1 _`~~~'Y f ~ i a -:0 al .i I~ f~ ~ I ~ I rii' BotMin •I 1~ I I ^t-rtes - ^I-I I _ I. , t -I •BiNrlJirr ~I I - _ I r 1 ' I d ~ . I - e Ruu otr ~J Pit i-~-'f T_ r~^I TaM,e Moos t1r t SO_irh f r - LL ; i Legend Areas Subject to Proposed N Compatible Development Regulations a :_i jrlQ~! Portions of RL-2 Zone DlstrictAs Shown RE Zone District RL•1 Zone District 6 S N RR Zone District ppp Greenbnar Bi s M RMX-1 Zone District City Limits N j ATTACHMENT E An Examination of Single-Family Regulatory Controls and Property Values The development of regulatory language to address the impacts of incompatible single- family development is not unique to the city of Boulder. This issue has been felt by a number of communities across the United States, particularly where teardowns have become commonplace. Citizens within these communities are worried that there will be a disintegration of neighborhood character and a destabilization of local property prices due to these new developments. In an effort to curb the adverse affects of these teardowns, many municipalities across the country have implemented ordinances that place restrictions on single-family development which often include floor area ratios (FAR), lot coverage, and setbacks.I Concern has been expressed in many communities, as well as in the city of Boulder, regarding the potential economic consequences to property values when ordinances of this type are adopted. Many feel that these restrictions Ili-nit the ability to maximize development potential and thereby cause a decrease in the average home price. To better understand how new regulations restricting the mass and scale of single-family development may affect property values, a review of both empirical and anecdotal evidence was conducted. Included in this report is a spreadsheet of some communities that have adopted similar massing ordinances and the economic effects they experienced. Of the included case studies, most if not all of the community's experienced positive growth within their housing market. Most notably in Palo Alto, California, where regulations restricting house size have been in place since the 1970's and their housing prices have increased by over 3,000 percent .2 Additionally impressive is Newton, Massachusetts where the average annual increase of the assessed value of single family homes has exceeded the entire U.S.3 In other cases, the communities' residential development management ordinances are relatively new, but there has not be any evidence that they have adversely impacted the housing markets in which they have been applied. While much of the evidence indicates that new regulations effecting house size have not detrimentally harmed property values there is also no direct evidence that these regulations have contributed to housing market growth. Much empirical evidence fails to draw a direct relationship between growth controls and their effect on housing price. It's possible that many of the more desirable communities where housing values continue to increase are likely to have more regulatory control.4 The direct correlation between the factors in the community that make it desirable and the regulations that control mass and scale of housing can not be definitively reached. Alex Wilson and Jessica Boehland, "Small is Beautiful: U.S. House Size, Resource Use, and the Environment," Journal of Industrial Ecoloy Winter/Spring: 2005- 2 Wayne Martin, "Battling a Palo Alto Myth: Housing Prices Driven Solely by Schools," Palo Alto Weekly Online Addition 2005. 3 John E. Petersen, Professor of Public Policy and Finance, George Mason University, -the Economic Impact of Proposed FAR Regulations, A Report to the Town of Chevy Chase, Maryland," 28 April 2008. 4John M. Quigley and Larry A. Rosenthal, "The Effects of Land Use Regulation on the Price of Housing:" Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 2005: Volume 8, Number 1. 1 ATTACHMENT E An Examination of Single-Family Regulatory Controls and Property Values Location Regulatory Measure Enacted Year Adopted Results Palo Alto, ■ Building coverage- 35% 197S; and Since 1970's housing prices have gone up over 3000 percent in Palo Alto.' Even California ■ FAR - 0.45 for the first 5,000 sq. revised in with the long standing size limitations, the values of single-family homes have ft. Any additional square footage 2001. increased to relatively high standards.' In this area, housing prices have gone up must have 0.30 FAR. far more than home sizes, this may be attributed to people seeking location based amenities rather than larger homes.' Austin, Texas • Building coverage- range between 2006. Median prices of single-family homes in affected areas have increased since 2006; 40% and 45% new home construction permits in the same area are up 23 percent.' Several data FAR - 0.40 (ordinance only sets conclude that the implementation of the ordinance has not had a negative applies to R1 zoned affect on the housing market. neighborhoods) Alexandria, Maximum FAR permitted on lots 1951 There is no evidence that its long-term policy of restrictions on residential Virginia of: development has led to a curtailment in housing prices. Between 1999 and 2006, 0 5,000 sq. ft.-0.45 the assessed value of single-family homes rose in Alexandria by an annual average 0 10,000 sq. ft.-0.35 of 16 percent while in other regions the average was around a 15 percent.5 0 15,00 sq. ft.-0.30 Newton Building Coverage- ranges from 1997 Between 1992 and 1997 (before implementation) the value of a single-family Massachusetts 15% to 30% home rose on average 2.4 percent per year. Following the passage of the • Maximum FAR permitted on lots rc~_ulations in the years between 1998 and 2005 the average assessed value of: increased by 8.4 percent per year. This period's average annual increase exceeded 0 10,000sq.ft.-0.35 the average sale price (4.8 percent) in the entire U.S. 0 15,000sq.ft.-0.3 - Cupertino, ■ Building coverage- 45% of the net 1999 Housing prices continue to go up because of the amenities that residents have California lot area. An additional 5% is access to by living in the city.' allowed for roof overhangs, patios, porches, and other similar features. ■ FAR - 0.45 Arlington, Building coverage- from 25% to 2005 In the short term, the ordinances have caused little negative impact on property Virginia 45% depending on zoning district, values. Studies have shown that there have been no significant or widespread ■ Side wall articulation and height decreases in value or in future appreciations on single-family residential standards properties. Available inventory has remained low and the average prices have s, increased 6 percent.' ti _ ATTAC MENT E An Examination of Single-Family Rebulatory Controls and Property Values Location Regulatory Measure Enacted Year Adopted Results Bayside, • Building coverage - 30% 2005 There are fewer teardowns overall, yet this has not put a damper on the market, Queens NY ■ Lowered allowed building height. houses are still being. sold in two or three weeks. There have been very few ■ Many areas have been down- instances where property values have gone down,' zoned. Scarsdale, ■ Building coverage- range between 2002 The average full market value of single-family residences continues to rise; the New York 20% and 30% average increase between 2003 and 2007 was 8.5 percent per year. The village ■ Maximum FAR permitted: assessor reports that the introduction of the FAR regulations did not have any o 5000sq.ft.-0.43 negative impact whatsoever. 0 10,000sq.ft.-0.35 15,000sq.ft.-0.29 Alamo Building coverage - 35% (some January, 2008 Resulted in decreased building permits in the first year, but then became business Heights. additional building coverage is as usual for new development and remodels. Property values have continued to Texas provided if 50% of the original increase or remain level after the adoption of the new regulations. The city plans structure is saved. to monitor and continue to tweak the code language as needed to ensure proper ■ FAR - 0.53 balance between private property rights and the public good.9 • Side wall articulation and height standards Durango, Building coverage - range from 2006 Have not experienced any economic impacts to property values based on new Colorado 25 percent to 30 percent code regulations.FO ■ FAR - range from.0.45 to 0.50 ■ Enacted in four residential districts based on lot size. Wayne Martin, "Battling a Palo Alto Myth: Housing Prices Driven Solely by Schools," Palo Alto Weekly Online Addition 2005. Sandy Sims, "Buried Measure," Saratoga News 2001. Aaron Wheeler, "Market Update for Cupertino," Report for July 27, 2007. 4 Kate Miller Morton, "New Home Construction Remains Strong Despite New Rules," Austin American Statesman 2008. 5John E. Petersen, Professor of Public Policy and Finance, George Mason University, "The Economic Impact of Proposed FAR Regulations, A Report to the Town of Chevy Chase, Maryland," 28 April 2008.. 6 Conversation with Cupertino Planner Arlington Real Estate Assessment. "Economic Indicators," Arlington Economic Development 2008. $ Marc Ferris, "Bavside: A Posh Corner of Queens Wrestles with Zoning," New York Real Estate News 2006. ,'Ann McGlone, Community Developmew Director, City of Alamo Heights 2009. "'Greg Hoch., Planning Director, Durango, CO 2009. Economic Overview of The Impact of Massing and Scale Standards For the City of Boulder, Colorado January 12, 2009 Economic Overview of Massing and Scale Standards An important issue for many when considering massing and scale standards is whether they support or detract from property values. A short answer is that it depends on what characteristics confer value. There is an ingrained assumption that limiting size also limits potential profit. It is true that limiting size may limit unit sale value, but this is not the same as limiting profit. Depending on the neighborhood and the reason for purchasing a unit in a given neighborhood, building larger units may or may not confer more profit. To understand this better, Urban Advisors looked at values in each of the neighborhoods using city GIS data for every parcel in the city. For each area we tested for pricing effects of the year built, land area and unit size in order to understand how each area differed. The results indicate that in a few neighborhoods, restricting size might restrict profit in an upwardly bound market, but that in most neighborhoods, creating units near the current size limit increases cost such that little profit is gained despite a much higher sales price. In some areas of Boulder, building age increases value, while in others, new construction adds value. Larger lot size adds to value in some areas and adds little difference in others. Average building value per square foot varies by area. In each of the areas examined, these factors vary and add differing amounts to the total value of land and buildings. Land values change as building types change so a differential for land value for each area was formulated based on building value to calculate change in land value resulting from the interaction of land value and building value (in all areas, as building value rises land value also rises by some amount). To evaluate the impact of new standards, we combined the results of our analysis with current construction pricing' to see whether the neighborhoods had differences in profit available by adding to unit size. Using typical existing unit sizes, the net profit of an addition to bring the unit up to the FAR proposed in Option 1 was calculated. We then calculated the net profit of adding on to an existing building to achieve a floor area ratio of 0.7 for each lot size. To test for different lot sizes, we used a variety of sizes from small to very large. The results are shown in the tables below. This analysis is based upon the idea that the potential profit available from increasing unit size is part of the profit to existing owners when they sell (that is, that zoning regulation is capitalized into lot value. Thus a net profit of zero or greater indicates that redevelopment is feasible for a given lot size and floor area ratio. The results indicate that building the largest house does not necessarily confer the best net profit for the existing owner. Reducing the unit size lowers the total unit value, but increases the net change to the owner in most areas. In other words, a current property owner is likely to make more money with a smaller addition than with a larger one in most areas of Boulder. I New construction was priced at $200 per square foot (costs range up to $300/sf for custom work), and remodeling of existing units at $85 per square foot. Consultation with local contractors indicates that the remodeling number is low, but we wished to be conservative. UrbanAdvisors Ltd Urban Economic Advisory Services 1211 Nif Glisan Street, Suite 204, Portland. Oregon 97209 phone: 503.249.4030 • email: ofce@urbanadt,isors.com Economic Overview of Massing and Scale Standards Strategy Option 1 FAR Versus Maximized FAR Lot Size SF 5,000 7,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 50,000 Option I FAR 0.45 0.42 0.35 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.25 New I louse Size SF 2250 2940 3500 4500 6000 7500 9000 12500 Old House Sire 900 1800 2400 3140 3700 3700 3700 3700 Net Change in Value by Area Central Boulder $ 129,141 $ 140,281 $ 221,233 $ 382,307 $ 552,954 $ 775,674 $ 998,393 $ 1,884,803 Crossroads $(245,102) $ (293,212) $ (334,775) $ (422,742) $ (574,531) $ (747,640) $ (920,750) $ (1,311,851) East Boulder $(204,802) $(236,723) $(261,404) $ (331,104) $ (480,775) $ (667,918) $ (855,060) $(1,235,001) North Boulder $ 103,385 $ 122,301 $ 199,827 $ 335,072 $ 446,968 $ 578,012 $ 709,057 $ 1,365,946 South Boulder $ 97,537 $ 126,709 $ 208,997 $ 338,018 $ 420,516 $ 498,991 $ 577,467 $ 1,120,630 Southeast Boulder $ 77,506 $ 109,238 $ 192,807 $ 320,546 $ 396,171 $ 462,184 $ 528,197 $ 1,044,803 University of Colorado $ 178,605 $ 233,324 $ 344,544 $ 509,266 $ 606,977 $ 680,179 $ 753,380 $ 1,360,811 Maximized FAR (Takes into account that unit size may be restricted by Solar Regulation) Lot Size SF 5,000 7,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 50,000 Maximized 17 AR 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 New House Size SF 3500 4900 7000 10500 14000 17500 21000 35000 Old House Size 900 1800 2400 3100 3700 3700 3700 3700 Net Change in Value by Area Central Boulder $ 131,375 $ 143,784 $ 227,488 $ 393,030 $ 567,252 $ 793,546 $ 1,019,839 $ 1,925,014 Crossroads $ (395,770) $ (529,461) $ (756,648) $ (1,145,953) $ (1,538,812) $ (1,952,992) $ (2,367,172) $ (4,023,892) Fast Boulder $ (389,117) $ (525,729) $ (777,485) $ (1,215,815) $ (1,660,390) $ (2,142,436) $ (2,624,482) $ (4,552,667) North Boulder $ 37,030 $ 18,256 $ 14,033 $ 16,568 $ 22,295 $ 47,172 $ 72,049 $ 171,555 South Boulder $ (17,094) $ (53,034) $ (111,972) $ (212,213) $ (313,125) 11 (418,061) $ (522,996) $ (942,737) Southeast Boulder $ (48,772) $ (88,764) $ (160,770) $ (285,585) $ (412,003) $ (548,034) $ (684,064) $ (1,228,188) University of Colorado $ 21,293 $ (13,342) $ (95,931) $ (245,834) $ (399,823) $ (578,322) $ (756,820) $(1,470,815) The impact of the proposed Option 1 FAR limits should not have an adverse impact on any of the areas evaluated. In all areas except for Crossroads and East Boulder, where no scenarios for redevelopment as modeled showed a profit, the proposed FAR regulations appear to be at a threshold where adding to unit size is feasible, and in addition appear to add to potential profit in most areas. Another interesting aspect of the comparison is that adding dramatically to unit size does not change the net profit significantly in Central and North Boulder. In most areas, as lot size grows, building to a maximum FAR appears to be uneconomic. This raises the question of why people are buying units and building the maximum possible. The above table indicates that this is economically feasible only in Central and North Boulder. Where it is less feasible, the question of whether buying decisions are based upon non- economic factors becomes important (i.e. are people willing to spend more than the property is worth to be in the neighborhood). Part of the price inflation of the past eight years has been due to favorable interest rates and an unfounded sense of confidence in markets that has been recently dashed. The pressure to get as much house as possible in the best neighborhood possible, with construction fueled by relatively low transaction costs and appraisal standards that posit an upward price spiral, rather than realistic economic considerations of profit available, may abate in the current economy and financing environment. Urban-Advisors Ltd Urban Economic Advisory Services 1211 NW Glisan Street, Suite 204, Portland, Oregon 97209 phone: 503.248.4030 • email- ofce@urbanadvisors.cont Economic Overview of Massing and Scale Standards At the moment financing and sales trends militate against a continuation of pop and scrape development. Recent sales trends show a decline in sales (a 48 percent year over year decline in Boulder from November, 2007 to November, 2008). This low level of sales is likely to continue until pricing reaches a level consonant with national economic trends and the financial sector of the economy recovers. House pricing is traditionally known as "sticky," meaning that most people will hold a unit in a down market until prices improve. With fewer people willing to sell and with lenders exercising tighter standards out of aversion to risk, construction is likely to slow or halt. A well-known study of jurisdictions with zoning controls argues that such controls maintain higher prices of units in comparison with areas that do not have such controls.' While some may argue with the meaning of that conclusion, if true it means that Boulder, by maintaining controls over the character of what is built, will maintain value for its present homeowners. This would seem to indicate against a drop in value from regulation. At the same time, standards for massing and scale do not appear to harm the ability to profit from improving existing units. Standards can also serve to maintain neighborhood character and some measure of affordability for middle-income residents by damping down financially unrealistic development in some areas. In addition, in areas where land costs are low, there is a possibility of maintaining a measure of affordability through regulation that maintains existing neighborhood character. Boulder can expect to hold value better than many cities because of its convenient location between a major metropolitan market and the magnificent surrounding countryside, but it will also hold value because of its sense of community and actions to preserve its character. Edward Starkie, principal of Urban Advisors Ltd., has 23 years experience in real estate that includes moving complex projects from conception and feasibility analysis to financing and development. A particular career focus has been the economic structure of vilal urban. places, of downtowns and neighborhoods that are pedestrian and transit oriented environments. Isis work has received four awards from the American Planning Association in the areas of main streets and downtown revitalization, and he contributed to the current EPA guidelines for promoting Smart Growth. His recent work has also gained an award from the California Preservation Foundation and a Charter Award from the Congress for New Urbanism. 2 'Me study is Zoning's Steep Price by Edward Glaeser of Flarvard and Joseph Gyourko of the University of Pennsylvania published in 2002 and is available on the web. Their conclusion states, "Measures of zoning strictness are highly correlated with high prices. While all of our evidence is suggestive, not definitive, it seems to suggest that land-use regulation is responsible for high housing costs where they exist. " The dispute one might have with this conclusion is obvious to those living in a great community-great places where the community values the amenities and resources of their city are also those where people insist on community regulation to avoid poor quality construction and poor quality environments. Put another way, we can all agree, I think, that poorly regulated communities with ugly development are less desirable and command lower prices. UrbanAdvisors Ltd Urban Economic Advisory Services 1211 NW Glisan Street. Suite 204, Portland, Oregon 97209 phone: 503.248.4030 • email: affii~ce@urbanadvisors.coin K-~ ATTACHMENT F COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COSTS The package of Compatible Development tools ultimately approved by City Council will have cost implications for the applicant. These will include both documentation costs to prepare building permit plans and fees to cover the enhanced services provided by the city to administer the new regulations. The city's policy is to fully recover the costs associated with issuing a building permit as the applicant is the primary beneficiary of the permit. The services built-in to the cost recovery include plan review, issuance of the permit, inspection, administrative support, enforcement, and building code and Title 9 code amendments.) There are three general functions of Planning and Development Services that will be involved in the education, review, and verification of the Compatible Development tools. These include the project specialists who are the primary source of contact and information for development review, providing guidance in property development and the application process; plans reviewers who will review for zoning compliance before building permits are issued; and, verification of the standards during construction. The increased services the city will need to provide include the time project specialists will spend with applicants and potential applicants; the increased staff time to complete the zoning review; and, the need for verification of the regulatory standards during constnuction. In determining staff's recommendation on the package of tools, the costs associated with each tool were considered. Internal staff discussions between the different divisions in Planning and Development Services became an iterative process to ultimately determine which set of tools met the goals and objectives of the project in the most cost effective way. The analysis provided below is based on staff's recommendation for the package of Compatible Development tools. The costs associated to the applicant with the other options of tools can be found in Attachment H. COSTS TO THE APPLICANT Building Permit Documentation Costs The new Compatible Development regulations will require additional documentation from the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the new standards. To determine what these documentation costs might be, staff reached out to the development community both through the Technical Advisory Group and other professionals that have worked with the city. A documentation inventory was generated for all of the possible tools based on the recommendations made by staff for how these tools could be measured. To determine the documentation list, three possible building scenarios were generated. They included: City of Boulder, Planning and Development Services, Revenue Policies and Procedures I I . A brand new home with a partially exposed lower level on a vacant sloping lot. The house is designed to the minimum front and side setbacks and has maximized solar access for some roof elements. 2. A horizontal addition that increased building coverage and FAR on a three story home (which includes a partially exposed lower level). Front and side yard setbacks, as well as solar access are maximized on this generally flat lot. 3. A vertical addition to a two-story home (which includes a partially exposed lower level) that increased FAR. Again, the house is designed to the front and side setbacks and solar limitations are maximized. The lot is generally flat. These three scenarios were developed because the documentation required for each may vary due to the need to confirm three separate regulatory tools. In addition, a range of costs were provided by the development community as complexity of construction can vary. New Residence: Documentation: Costs Land Survey Plat (FAR): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Finished Grading Plan (FAR): $ 800 - $3,500 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Sections (Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $2,000 Total: $4,950-$10,475 Addition with Increased Coverage: Documentation: Costs Location Survey Plat (FAR and Building Coverage):$2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Finished Grading Plan (FAR): $ 800 - $3,500 As-Built Drawings (FAR and Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $5,200 -$11,825 Addition over Existing Coverage: Documentation: Costs Land Survey Plat (FAR): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 As-Built Drawings (FAR and Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $4,400 - $8,325 It is important to note that many of the members of the Technical Advisory Group indicated that much of this documentation is already included in their work programs and fees. Therefore, the costs associated with Compatible Development may not be as large of an increase as shown above. According to the Technical Advisory Group, the complexity of a project and the design requirements of the applicant play a more significant role in the final design costs than the regulatory requirements of the city- Many of the architects indicated that they determine design fees on either an hourly basis or on the total construction costs of the project. The design fees for the three scenarios presented above could range anywhere from $25,000 to $75,000 depending on the complexity of the project. The total percent increase in documentation costs could range anywhere from 0 to 30 percent. The current documentation requirements for building permit review frequently do not provide enough information to satisfactorily verify regulatory standards. Often, requests are made for additional documentation above the current Improvement Location Certificate (TLC) generally provided. An ILC is typically used to document the location of improvements, any easements or encumbrances, and any encroachments of other structures on a lot. The certificate is primarily used by mortgage or title companies to assist with property sales. An TLC is not intended to precisely determine the location and dimensions of property lines, or the exact location of improvements on or adjacent to the lot. By state law, a surveyor must certify that: this Improvement Location Certificate is not a land survey plat or an improvement survey plat, and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment offence, building or other future improvement lines... " In many cases, the city allows ILCs to be used as a site survey for items such as building locations, building footprints and lot size. While this tool might still be appropriate for projects that are well below the maximum regulatory limits established for a lot, it is not an accurate enough tool in most cases. Relying on an TLC to develop building permit plans could cause verification problems as the regulatory standards become more complex with Compatible Development. Thresholds to Lower Documentation Standards As staff was analyzing the above noted fees, it became apparent that some thresholds should be developed for those projects that are below the new regulatory standards. The intent is to provide some relief in documentation costs. The thresholds recommended by staff are as follows: 1. FAR - Project with a basement as defined by code and within 20 percent of the maximum standard for the lot. 2. Building Coverage - Within 20 percent of the maximum standard for the lot. 3. Bulk Plane - Structures 12 feet in height or less and one-story construction 5 feet from the minimum setback 3 The documentation required for a project that can meet these standards is noted below: New Residence: Documentation: Fees: Improvement Location Certificate (FAR and Building Coverage): $ 300 - $ 500 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $1,700 - $2,825 Addition with Increased Coverage or PAR: Documentation: Fees: Improvement Location Certificate (FAR and Building Coverage): $ 300 - $ 500 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Assessor Info (FAR and Building Coverage): No Charge Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $1,700 - $2,825 It should be noted that much of the documentation required supports all three of the recommended Compatible Development tools. If an applicant is below the FAR but is maximizing building coverage and the bulk plane, the higher standard in documentation may need to be required. It is the hypothesis of staff that with the new sliding scale approach, many projects will maximize at least one of the Compatible Development tools. Consequently, the number of projects that will be below the threshold requirements may be relatively small. Therefore, there is also a need to provide some thresholds for those additions/remodels that are only adding limited amounts of new square footage to the home. A "reasonableness test" needs to be developed so that the documentation costs of a project do not exceed the construction costs. Staff will continue to analyze ways to minimize the documentation burden on smaller projects as we move forward with the public hearing process. Building Permit Fees The city has a policy of total cost recovery on building pen-nit fees. Based on the analysis completed on staff time to implement the recommended standards, building permit fees will need to increase to recover the enhance services provided by the city. In 2008, the mean (average) building permit fee was $4,152 while the median (middle) was $3,806. The analysis completed on costs only relates to the first two functions of Planning and Development Services, the initial interaction with the public through the project specialists and the zoning review completed by the plans reviewer as part of the building permit process. It is anticipated that single-family building permit fees will need to increase by around $200 to cover these services. The third step in the process, verification, has yet to be detenmined but will likely require an increase in fees. 4 ENHANCED CITY SERVICES Project Specialists A four year average of the time project specialists spend answering building permit questions, accepting building permits, and answering zoning questions was estimated. On average, approximately 2,400 hours a year is spent on the phone and at the counter helping customers on these three topics. Based on the experience of the project specialists, approximately 65 percent of this time is with residential customers. This equates to around 1,600 hours annually. To determine how much additional time will be needed after the Compatible Development tools are adopted, the project specialists discussed how their time is currently spent with these customers. Staff s experience is that most residential customers are concerned with two main topics - the solar and height ordinances. The project specialists feel that Compatible Development will become the third main topic. Based on a four year average, each customer takes approximately 20 minutes at the counter and 7 minutes on the phone. If Compatible Development becomes a third main topic, it is likely to increase counter time to 30 minutes and phone time to 10 minutes. Utilizing these assumptions, the following increase in hours is expected: Cumulative Time Spent Annually on Residential Customers Phones Counter Total Current Average Staff Time (hours) 281 1,296 1,577 Average Staff Time after Compatible Development (hours) 381 1,978 2,359 Difference (hours) 100, 682 782 The increased hours for Compatible Development equates to approximately 0.5 full time employee (FTE) based on 1,560 work hours annually. It should be noted that an additional 1,000 hours were spent answering "general questions" at the counter. Depending on the reason the customer gave for needing to see a project specialist, the time spent on single-family questions could be more than noted above. In addition, the reporting procedure available on phone calls can only document those that were logged in to the system. More hours were spent answering single-family development questions then were tracked. Plans Review A four year average of the time it takes to accomplish the zoning review on a single-family residential building pen-nit was also estimated. On average, it takes a plans reviewer approximately 6 hours to complete new single-family construction and 2.4 hours on additions/remodels. This equates to approximately 1,198 hours a year. The difference between the two review times is the complexity of the project. Currently, very little information on the existing structures of additions/remodels needs to be reviewed. However, with the inception of the new Compatible Development tools, this will change significantly. 5 Currently, the reviewers do not have to examine building coverage or a bulk plane. Floor area is only reviewed if the applicant indicates the project is above a 0.70 FAR. With the new regulations in place, it is expected that most of the single-family residential projects will require detailed reviews to ensure compliance with the new Compatible Development standards. Based on the experience of the plans reviewers, an additional 1.5 hours will be needed for new single-family construction and addition/remodels will need 3 more hours for review. Addition/remodels become more complicated because the verification of building coverage and FAR on the existing structure is crucial. Based on these assumptions, the following increase in hours is expected: Cumulative Time Spent Annually on Residential Zoning Reviews Average Staff Time (hours) 1,198 Average Staff Time after Com atible Development (hours) 2,170 Difference (hours) 972 The increased hours for Compatible Development equates to approximately 0.5 FTE based on 1,560 work hours annually. Verification of Single-Family Projects Currently, only height, solar and setbacks are being verified during the construction phase of a single-family project, and only if these regulatory standards are being maximized. The verification requirement is a statement from the applicant that the home was constructed to the approved building permit plans. Very little field verification is being completed on zoning related issues at this time. Only if a complaint is lodged against a project is more detailed verification being conducted. The building inspectors that make field visits are generally reviewing the project for health and safety issues only. With the onset of the Compatible Development tools, more detailed construction verification may need to be considered. It has been hypothesized that with the sliding scale approach to FAR and building coverage, more projects will reach or come close to the maximum limits. Staff is still considering how verification of single-family construction may occur and the costs associated with this step. 6 Attachment G Compatible Development in Single--Family Neighborhoods April 20`h and 22" d Open House Public Comments Floor Area Ratio • Do not count any square footage for basements. Keep the cost of this proposal to a minimum_ • Proposal seems reasonable, try to keep the ratio as low as possible. Perhaps a cap on house size would be beneficial no matter what the FAR is. • 0.55 FAR is too high; it should be no more than 0.45. Close FAR loopholes like excess ceiling height. • A higher FAR is much more appropriate because older neighborhoods tend to have a higher land cost which translates into needing more square feet in order, to encourage redevelopment and have it make more economic sense. 0.45 FAR is too low, 0.55 FAR is too low. The city should not be dictating aesthetics at all, but should listen to citizen objection and increase the FAR to 0.60. • This proposal strongly impacts disparate lots and cannot be done globally. Strongly opposed. • FAR should be 0.45 on a 7000 square foot lot. • 0.45 is reasonable but no more. Building Coverage • Maintain flexibility and provide an understandable and fair process to address variances. • Seems reasonable • 30% building coverage seems okay, but 35% is too much, though an exception should be made for some one story developments. • Don't limit second story to 201/o of building coverage, instead let the bulk plane determine this value. This will allow for more design flexibility. • 'I'ltis is unnecessary, additional restrictions were not requested. • Too much control for a small percentage of-offenders. • Agree with Winter's recommendations of 30% coverage not the 35% or 40% • 30% is reasonable, but no more. Wall Articulation One size does not fit all. • Winter & Company's plan was far better than what planning board discussed regarding the bulk plane proposal. • Reduce offset to two feet, modify the bulk plane for a percentage of the rear property. Do not restrict wall length or height. • This proposal is overzealous, we sent council back to the drawing board and you came back with more restrictions when we wanted less. • This proposal is okay but should be more modest • It does help a lot to have a wall height limit if it is to long, but I think that a wall of 35' in length and 20' tall is still to big and massive. • 35' is reasonable for wall length on two sides, but in bulk plane it should start at no more than 17' at a 5' setback. Other • Reconsider including RMX-1 properties in this proposal because it is not truly a "single family neighborhood". The majority of these properties have already been remodeled. Council needs to consider the unique characteristics of RMX-1 and be sensitive to the dramatically increasing costs of remodels. If'RMX-1 does remain in this proposal, the FAR, building coverage, and wall articulation limits need to be higher and more flexible than in other zoning districts. • Just tweak the Winter & Co. proposal, don't do a reworking of the tools as planning board has suggested. The modeling tonight shows that planning boards' proposals are unacceptable. • This is a legal battle in the making. Applying this across al.l or almost the entire city will result in the taking of property, and will hit property values. • What makes living in Boulder so valuable is the space around the house, the mature landscaping and the views of the foothills (which all of Boulder used to have). It will lose its character if the only thing here is big houses with big walls with no vegetation. • Building height would work better at 30'. Synopsis Overall the public's comments are divided. There are some who believe that tl.cse regulations will lead to more suitable development in their neighborhoods. While others strongly believe that these recommendations are too stringent and controlling. There are also differing opinions on whether or not these restrictions will actually remedy the situation that they are intended to fix. From the public's comments, it is clear that tin: y feel the most impacted by the restrictions on FAR and speak out most passionately for or against this regulation. Perhaps because this is the restriction that will most influence them if their adjacent neighbor decides to pop or scrape their home. Johnston, Julie From: Richstone, Susan Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:47 PM o: Johnston, Julie ubject: FW: [CouncilCorr] FWD: lnfill Study input ---Original Message From: CouncilAdrninC~,lroutdercoloracio.gov SinaiIto:CounciIAdcnio.(r11bouldc•rcol.orado.l;ov] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:18 PM To: Richstone, Susan Subject: [CouncilCorr] FWD: Infill Snrdy input 'T`his is only for your information. No need to reply. From: Carlo ciaravion Date Received: 02/28/2009 Response Key: 26676 Respondents sent this email: Ruth Mcf 1eyser in Planning sent an FYI only. Susan Richstone in Planning sent an FYI only. . ouncil Correspondence: ouncil Members and Planning Board Members: The building department and the building perr-nitting process requires setbacks, shadow detail, solar protection, etc., but the building department wilt accept Improvement Location Certificates as the basis for determining setbacks f,-)t 11:idding7 ;nlar fence, and to,, si?F. This is wrorig.. Serious permanent construcfion is being '~asc t on arbi*,':a;:v, unproven documentation. Below is a statement that exists on every Improvement 1,ocation Certificate. 1 hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was prepared for THAT IT IS NOT A LAND SURVEY PLA'1- OR IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT, and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of fence, building, or to future improvement lines. How can this be used to deterr uie such important issues as d-tose mentioned above? I brought this up to the building department and they said that if there is a problem after the fact then the person who built the building would have to tear down the part that was built illegally. That would not happen. Shouldn't this be dealt with before the fact? The building official also said that the building department cannot get into disputes about lot lines No they cannot, but showing the neighbors the Improvement Location Certificate should be made part of the building permit process and if there is a dispute on boundary lines or encroaclunents, then everything should be put on hold until it is resolved. The main reason for instituting this requirement is that so much is determined based on w document at all, or at most a document that. states that it is unreliable for the use that it is put to- This fact mares all the decisions based on the documentation of lot lanes suspect and subject to question. thin] that this lack of verification of a parameter that is the foundation of the ordinances that are in the code is ~conscionably U' responsible. and undermines the whole building permitting process since so much is determined by -file property boundaries: lot s1-".C' setbacks, building; licight, solar impact, etc. A planner said that it was not an issue for the City because it should be worked out between land owners and that the extra cost to builders might be a burden to building. 1 think that proving that you have right to a property should be the first thing that you have to do before investing a lot of other money in permit fees, building plans, etc. It is riot an unreasonable burden to establish valid, verifiable, ownership of property. Usually, the permit for a building is submitted without anyone's knowledge. No letters are sent out when a building permit is issued. The hole is dug and then the issues come up and usually it is too late for building design and changes. The planning director said that then you have to sue to have the builder tear down the part that is in violation. I don't thank would happen . You arc issuing building permits based on undocumented facts. For example, my neighbor had his house surveyed arid the surveyor, on the survey, noted that the Plat said 75 foot width, but the surveyor measured the width of the lot, taking into account the layout of the Newlands neighborhood land and this showed it was really 72.5 feet wide. There are many situations like this. I sold a house near the cemetery on College and die boundaries of the lot closed using one section corner marker and did not close using one from the other direction. The property owner ended up losing 10 feet of the property to the cemetery. The ILC would not have shown this discrepancy. The building official also said that it would be too expensive to ask everyone who applies for a building pernvt to provide a survey. The fees and costs of building a house are outrageous now, what is a few thousand more? The City requires a site plan, building plans, elevations, etc. Why not a survey also which is ultimately the foundation for all of these? Another issue that is affected by arbitrary lot lines is solar impact. 1 think the protection of solar gain should he of the highest priority and by using an ILC as basis of lot lines the 12 foot solar fence might be in the wrong place. Solar rights should be part of the green building policy. Building green should also mean riot blocking energy savings oil the surrounding properties. even passive solar gain. The green construction done to save the net ene.. try usage in our commurnity can be negated if the building increases the energy costs of neighbors by shading existing and future active and passive solar gain. Protecting solar gain of a south facing window by requiring the solar fenc._ shadow be under the minimum window height of the building code should be the goal of the solar fence if green building is the intended goal of this City. I was roid i - a planner that reliance on ari Improvement Location Certificate has be done for a long; time i_ r this City and that is the way it is, but that doesn't mean it is right. If length of ti.rne things were in existence as code determines validity, then much of the code should not have been changed. Again, how can this reliance on a Improvement Location Certificate be allowed? Please consider a requirement of lot line documentation by a survey in the new building regulations that you are discussing now. The present permitting process is a permit process built on sand. the building permitting process needs as solid a foundation as you would require for building a building. Sincerely yours, Carlo Ciaravino A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!< littp://pr.am,ola.corn/Irroinoctk/100126575x121882273Gxl201.'_6788'1/aol?r_c&i-- hrtp:%2F%2Fwww.f reecr 4 Johnston, Julie From: CouncilAdmin@bouldercolorado_gov gent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:57 PM i'o: Johnston, Julie Subject: [CouncilCorr] FWD: Compatible Development This is only for your information. No need to reply. FFrom: Philip May Date Received: 03/05/2009 Response Key: 26690 Respondents sent this CI-nail: Susan Richstone in Planning sent an FYI only. Ruth Mclleyser in Planning sent all FYI only. Julie Johnston Hi PLAN - P&DS sent an FYI only. Council Correspondence: Hello City Council, This is regarding one of the Planning Departments recoznnnrendations about lot coverage, not to be confused wirh FAR. They are recomtnending having two lot coverage linuts based on the type of house built, one for single story and on for multi-story. I understand the thinking behind it, but I don't think they have looked at the possible rrrpacts of it. 1. Current owners may agree to the lager one story home in exchange for not building a second story, but future ,owners may nor agree or tray not be aware of this regulation. It could impact the future sales of these homes and it could also lead to lawsuits if this information is not disclosed at sale time. I'-k could also lead to the scraping of the larger sinlgle ;story homes ill order the ilew ~~;?ners to build a w<; story II:)TlIt that fits in the smaller building area. Isn't part of the reason these regulations are being put in place is to cut down on houses being scraped? 3. K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple Stupid. Why add another layer of possible confusion or conflict when it isn't needed. On a 7000 sgft lot, based on the recommendation .35 and .4 lot coverage, it only gives an additional 350 sgft of building space. Is that worth the potential conflicts or additional homes being scraped? Sincerely, Philip May If you would like to respond to this correspondence, please use the following link "17tll): //intraweb.ci,boulder co,_LIS/C 01111 il(k rr/Pa€,cs1em til res x>ti,(l~li.nk,is1?res )Kc X UaVR a'l V-S'll " if the link above does not work, copy and paste the link into your browser. Johnston, Julie From: Richstone, Susan Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 8:59 PM To: Johnston, Julie; Holmes, Brian Subject: FW: [CouncilCorr] FWD: RE: CDSFN and BOZA illumination -----Original Message From: CouncilAdrrin@bouldercolorado.gov [mailto:C:ouncilA ch-nin(cbouldercolorado.gov] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:38 PM To: Richstoric, Susan Subject: [CouncdCor-rj FWD: RE: CDS)±N and BOZA illumination This is only for your informarion. No need to reply. From: Jonathan Flondorf Tate Received: 03/04/2009 Response Key: 26682 Respondents sent tlus email: Ruth McHeyser in Plannizig sent an FYI only. Susan Richstone un Plannirig sent an FYl only. ;ouncil Cortespondetnce: Mayor Appelhaurn and Council, I wanted to respond to your BOLA comments and fears that you mentioned on March 3 by illuinitnating fact from fiction. The criteria that BOLA can only grant relief from the code are limited in a very narrow scope to four plus all must meet the fifth standard of minimum relief measured against NOT altering neighborhood character AND Private propertti rights of use and enjoyment. The four are;: (1) physical characteristics Clots) or ADA requirements, (2) solar access, (3) energy usage, and (4) historic preservation. In the six years I was on BOZA all variances shat were granted met these guidelines. A point in fact, we were able to discern those that truly had a hardship and were seeking minimal relief from those that were very egregious and just seeking more to increase profit. The latter was always denied. The majority of requests were either caused by nonstandard properties created by changing code or historic preservation. I can tell you from the vast number we reviewed that nonstandard conditions were the greater majority. Bear this in mind with the CDSFN code changes. There were two exceptions that we encountered that were difficult to make fit intci the hardship definitions but were hardships nonetheless. First was where a growing family needed to expand their tiny home with a modest addition via the only affordable method available to them that necessitated a variance. They could physically build by right on the lot elsewhere but could not afford to. They wanted to convert their existing detached garage into a living space for their growing farnily. 't'heir only other option was to sell and move out of town. Providing affordable living and flexibility while retaining families was a good criteria but not clearly outlined in the five options. We granted them a variance witli the restriction that they could not build anywhere else on the lot. If they removed the variance condition in the future than the property would revert back to the standard conditions. Second case involved an elderly couple that needed to build a handicap ramp on their Mapleton home but was being forced by Landmarks Board to put it in the setback. 1_! B ruled that it was not a historically contributing; tructure and did not take a position can the variance, When we instructed the applicant to build it in die front wher.' it did not require a variance (and they preferred), LB carne back and demanded that we give them a variance placing the structure in the side setback not in the front where it w,-,s by right. We begrudgingly approved it, more for the applicant's peace of mind, despite our opposition to I_.AB mandate to rubber stamp it. This was a conIUnon occurrence with LAB where their arbitrary decisions on additions often placed them in the setback for no apparent reason with the expectation of BOZA tubber stamp the approval. BOZA was balanced in its view point for the six years I was on it but that has changed. There is only one new member of BOZA that is n ow the minority voice for denial and the board d~)cs need some balance. With regard to neighborhood context, the only condition in the building code where you take into consideration neighbors' properties and non-standard conditions has to do with the front setback averaging. This is not even a variance request but a built in by right of the code. It is very troubling to me because I call it `mission creep', whereby you can eventually ignore the front setback and move a whole block of homes that start out at 25 + feet and move them to witlint 12 15' of the street. 't'his has happened on 71hStreet between Evergreen and Forest. The board's hands are tied on this one because it is not a variance request until you add a front porch request. I bristle at the accusation, but let me be very clear, in NO circumstances can the board, NOR has the board, especially when I was on it, ever allowed the argument that `well the neighbors have it and it exists on other streets' as a basis to ask for and grant a valiance. You can check with die city's legal staff to verify this. While I was on BOZA we turned down many applications and the board was riot viewed as a way to circumvent the code. Many tried and failed. Applications Wright have appeared in the public notifications to be cases for denial but you really had to read and see each case to discern it. There were many times when I would first read the application thinking this is not one to ;approve but after field visits, reading documents, and listening to testimony that I came to a different conclusion. In almost every circumstance where neighbors were strongly and numerically in opposition, we denied those that might have met the criteria and probably should have been granted. We took the support or opposition of affected neighbors to heart. This was one caveat that we followed without wavering. With regard to any relief mechanism to the code for the changes proposed by CDSFN, there needs to be a relief valve for many probletrr sites. I guarantee you there are many that you cannot even begin to fathom for I ran full face into them on BOZA, and with 35 years experience, I was surprised at the riurnber and type. Be assured that nonstandard conditions will be the catalyst for the majority of requests of relief from an overly restrictive new ordinance. It will either have to have incredible detail and variation for every zoning district and lot condition or Igulate ave broader but slightly focused, conditions allowing flexibility for owners to solve it themselves. You cannot for every egregtous person that tries to circwnvent the cache without punishing the majority. It should not be written from the approach of catching the bad guys but rather to educate and direct the remaining population on how to build better, sensitively, and more respectfully. I continue to be disturbed by the -implication that FAR is the solution to all problems. It has been shown that many low FAR homes were more offensive than some high FAR ones. FAR should he the final end cap that catches those conditions that do riot change the structure in a positive -<ny. I believe that what Planning Board was trying to do was cover all the bases rid add -cs:, the real problems without making it so inflexible for the extremely varied physical conditions of properties in town. Additionally, I think they were headed in the right direction to meet the latter ordinance choices I described above. The tools are dose but need sorne more tweaking and modeling to see how they work under varied conditions. On a final note, the modeling examples need to be placed in accurate context. The survey and past modeling used very small homes that are not an averaging of sizes found throughout town. For example where are the types found in Mapleton, Uni-Hill, or Wonderland Lake? The new models would appear very small by comparison. Winter and Company dodged the question of size basis of existing homes compared to the models when asked. You need to press this more to get a true and fait comparison with which to judge the final solution ley. Jonathan Hondorf A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above.. See. yours in just 2 easy steps! <http://pr.atwola-corn/promoclk./100126575x 1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2li''%,2F-,vww.freecr editreport.corn`/, )2Fpna%2Fdcfatiltaspx`/o3F'sc%3D668072%7.6hmp ;Ill%3D62%261)cd%3DfebemailfooterNO62 '1 Johnston, Julie From: Bonnell, Juliet lent: Friday, April 10, 2009 1:46 PM >i o: Johnston, Julie Subject: FW: Compatible Development Web comment form Original Messat!c larom: sandersflerr Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:19 AM To: Bonnell, Juliet Suhjcct: Compatihlc 1 )evelopmenl_ Wch comment farm Chuck Sanders Our home is at Table Mesa neighborhood. Built in 1972 it has 2000 SF, but our lots are fairiy large- approx. 80' wide x 270' deep, mostly left in native grasses. Scrapes are happening around us and new houses appear to be in the 6-10,000 SF range, overwhelming the existing housing stock. The lot next door to us, same size with similar size house to ours, sold to a developer last year. Under current FAR limits, I believe they would be able to build a 14,000 SF house by right. Even with required setbacks, a house like that would tower over ours, destroy our privacy and block all mountain views to the west. I believe our house would then only be salable as a scrape. We had hoped to stay in our house through retirement hopefully another 20-25 years. We are very concerned about the future of our home and neighborhood. FAR limits need to be greatly reduced, proportional to For ,izc (lower FAR for larger lots) with maximum cap. And setback requircments m ay need to be increased. 0 STEWART ARCHITECTURE o PLANNING April 24, 2009 Ms Julie Johnston, Sr. Planner City of Boulder Re: Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Comments for the record Issue: Measurement of floor area in rooms with sloped ceilings. Ms. Johnston, I believe it is critical to clarify how floor area is calculated for a '/z story house, such as a room with a sloping ceiling. I have always assumed that spaces 6-feet or less in ceiling height would not be counted in a floor area calculation. However, the planning staff has told me that the BRC definition of "uninhabited space" means not a space but a room. Therefore, if any portion of a room is more than 6' in height, the entire floor even where the ceiling is low would be counted. For example a portion of a room with a 1- inch of ceiling height would count the same as a height of 9- feet. 600 SF Second Floor 600 SF Second Floor The example above (and below) illustrates how this would result in encouraging full 2- story design and discourage a 1 '/2 story design as they have the same 'floor area". This results in encouraging more mass and bulk of building not less which is the intent of FAR. L O V 1 5 V 1 L L F, C O L O R A D O c 8 0 0 2 7 R Compatible Development - Comments for the record April 24, 2009 Recommendation: The code should clarify that "potions of rooms" with less than 6-feet in height be excluded from floor area in calculating FAR- Sincerely, Peter Stewart Stewart Architecture Example: 0.45 FAR 3.000 SF 0,45 FAR _ rf j7 3,000 SF iY S We ~ t` ~ i'li~ 'fir.. t ~ - '11 ~ xW 1,000 SA' Example: All second floor "floor-area" counted the same regardless of ceiling height. ]n Johnston, Julie From: Bonne(], Juliet /I ent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:37 AM o: Johnston, Julie Subject: FW: Compatible Development Web comment form FYI Original Message----- From: time Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:57 AM To: Rorinell, Juliet Suhjec Compatible 1)eveloptnernt Web cotume. t form Tine hohrcr Based on information T learned at last week's community open house meetings, I have once again become strongly opposed to the draft regulations proposed by stuff/Winter and Company. The planning board recommendations were more reasonable to me, however, and below I explain both the principles and the numbers that would seem to me to be a fair compromise. (1) The building coverage standard is fundamentally unfair to those neighborhoods where ranch house architecture predonunates, and will actually increase perceived bulk by forcing homeowners to expand upward and not outward. The Winter and Co proposal currently allows for structures to cover only 30% of the lot, while the planning board address these issues in a principled manner by (a) a more reasonable standard of 35% lot coverage (many unexpanded Martin Acres, Table Mesa and Floral Heights homes already approach 25% lot coverage), and (b) provides an alternative path in which the lot coverage standard is increased to 40% for those homes which will remain single story structures. 1he second is important not only for those homeowners who wish to preserve their ranch architecture, but for those members of community who prefer a single story layout due to physical needs, such as the elderly, the mobility disabled, and the chronically ill, such as a patient and young mother undergoing chemotherapy for her breast cancer. The overly small building coverage standard is especially hurtful when considering that there is no longer even the possibility of adding a detached garage that would be exempt nom the building coverage standard (and the FAR standard, see f#2 below). l~ (2) The proposed 1'AR is simply too small to accornrnodate a contemporary family homc with a two-car garage on a 7000 sq. ft. RI.--1 lot (or one-car plus assorted bicycles, gardening and camping equipment, as most boulder garages are actually used), and it is unfair to those homes (particularly the track homes) which were built with two-car garages- When increasing the FAR recommendation to compensate for removing the exemption for detached garages, the consultants were apparently unable to do arithmetic correctly. As this was related to me by a staff member, the consultants original FAR was .42 on a 7000 sq. ft. lot but in the process of writing the joint staff consultant proposed regulations the detached garage exemption was dropped and the FAR was increased to .45 as a result. IIowever, the 500 sq. ft. detached garage exemption amounts to approx..07 FAR on a 7000 sq_ ft. lot (actually 490 ft), not.03 FAR or 210 sq. ft (the amount of the actual increase). 210 sq. ft is an undersized one-car garage, and while perhaps appropriate fora small urban home on a tiny lot in RA4X-1, it is not a reasonable amount to allocate to a garage in an RL-1 neighborhood with 7000 sq. ft. lots. By any reasOnable arithmetical process, the FAR in the join staff-consultant proposal should have been .49 FAR for Rl. 1, not the currently proposed .45 FAR. This deficiency can he easily remedied by splitting the difference to the planning board's recommendation of.55 by using either a .50 FAR, OR by exempting ALL garage square footage up to.07 FAR. Only with a larger FAR standard do we stand a chance of reversing the pattern of suburban flight to the L towns, with its increased traffic and driving, and the conconnitant "generational cleansing" and closing of schools that goes with restricting whether a contemporary family would choose to live in Boulder. We do not live in the 1950s or have 1950s era nuclear families any more, and our housing standards should reflect f hat fact. (3) The staff and consultant proposal does not reflect the desire for FLEXIBILITY and variety indesign that was repeatedly articulated by everyone, even proponents of these restrictions, in the FAR process. Council must also share the blame for not listening to the process when they instructed staff to drop their proposed design review on the grounds that it would afford (up to) "a 20% bonus." In fact, Council failed to understand that a design review could be as tool to further Borne of the ancillary goals this regulation is intended to promote, such as Macon Cowles desire to preserve the streetscape, Cowles and Lisa Morzel's concerti for tree preservation, and Crystal Gray's desire `o further the public good and rrtaintaun the old feel. of multi-stnacture buildings (fie detached garages and gatuctr sheds) of the older neighborhoods in RMX-1 and central Boulder. By derisively dismissing the staff design review process as a "20% bonus because we want a larger house"--a profound absurdity when council is considering a 50% reduction in the baseline FAR from the present standard--led council to dismiss it. as a tool of flexibility if they would only not shirk from the hard work of actually making the rules of a design review variance process genuinely contribute to the public good. Shame on the council for riot listening, to the people's desires, and shame on then for shirking the hard work to make those desires possible. (4) With the addition of the basement and virtual floor calculations, what 1 have long predicted would happen has happened: The advantage of the "easily understood" and "continuous with our code" FA 1Z measure have been overwhelmed by an arcane set of rules and procedures to calculate the homeowners virtual FAR. 'Plus could have been avoided, should have been avoided, and still should be avoided by using a fairer measure that actually objectively addresses one of the most important pain points--perceived bull{--such as a volume-based measure like the CCR. But the consultants have continued along their merry way, oblivious to the comments and suggestions that citizens make. While I understand the pragmatism and fears that occasioned these arid other trade-offs in the process, I cannot support the draft regulations in their current form. I remain optimistic however, that, with a small tweak upward in the the building coverage and the FAIZ standards, tlrat the outcome of this will be a regulation that can address the lnbor_hoods without being unduly hurtful to the pain points in certain western central. and north Boulder ne' 'Ell revitalizing neighborhoods of the southern and eastern reaches of our city. ~a Johnston, Julie From: McHeyser, Ruth Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:31 PM ro: Johnston, Julie Cc: Richstone, Susan Subject: Fwd: Compatible Development - Community Open House Material Used 4.20.9 - 4.22.9 Attachments: open house docs.pdf FY[ Ruth McHeyser Community Planning Boulder, Colorado Begin forwarded message: From: "Len Ashack" To: "boulderplanningbaard" <boulclerpfanningboard(cibouldercolocado.aov>, "McHeyser, Ruth" <Mc.C_leyserRcLbouldercolorado,,lot,>, "Weber, Paula" <WeberP r/. bouldercoloradov> Cc: Subject: Re: Compatible Development - Community Open House Material Used 4.20.9 - 4.22.9 hello Planning Board Members: My wife and I bought our current home in the Mapleton Hill historic district in 2005; this is our 2nd "old" home in Mapleton Hill, we purchased it knowing the guidelines. We fell in love with the charm and character of our current home, and we purchased it to take care of it and to make it our family home for many many years, and also knowing that we would like to add on when we could afford it. With the current regulations of.80 FAR there are to many homes that take up an entire lot. Even if we could afford it, we would not want any of these properties, for we enjoy and place a very high priority on a good yard. The FAR of our current block is .44 NOT including any basements or virtual space. Our home is .33. We are looking to reinvigorate and add to existing home resulting in the FAR range of .45 - .50. With good design, there are no issues oi'building coverage nor wall articulation. Upon reviewing the attached drawings provided on Page numbered 3(2), having knowledge about construction the .55 home felt and appeared significantly larger than it should than the.45 home. Through examination I began to notice differences in the drawing BESIDES straightforward FAR size that gives this appearance; thus it is these differences rather than the FAR difference that result in the Open House .55 home drawing material looking that much larger than the .45 drawing (besides the straightforward FAR component difference). yi Specifically: 1. Angle of.45 and.55 Drawings: The .45 is drawn more from the side and drawn from further 13 away; having the .55 drawings be that much closer makes the .55 home look that much larger; 2. The .55 house drawing is narrower on both sides! Resulting M.55 house being even longer than a apple to apple .45 and .55 drawing; 3. On the .55 drawing: 2 of the other homes arc drawn larger/longer, AND 2 homes have larger garages and the other (3rd) home has a garage added, thus the .55 entire drawing is distorted and the.55 drawing looks and feels that much more cramped; 4. On the .45 drawn house: their is a dormer and windows drawn and the eye stops there; on the .55 house their is NO dormers or NO side windows so the eye does not stop, and thus the.55 home appears significantly larger than the .45 home. 5. There is a person drawn outside the.45 home and not .55 home; thus playing a trick on the eye, giving you a starting point on the.45 home and not having any starting point on the .55 home. I am not an advocate or fan of homes that take up a whole lot; we are for some sort of controls on these "looming homes". Though I am an firm. believe on making decisions off of accurate, forthright information and not manipulated skewed documentation; please put a ruler to it. 'Chese drawings differences give a distorted inaccurate view of the two different .45 and .55 FAR sizes being considered. I would be happy to elaborate via email, phone or in person. Thank you. Concerned Citizen. Sincerely, Leonard T. Ashack Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12-11/2089 - Release Date: 4/30/2009 5:53 PM Py Johnston, Julie From: Mark Gerwing, Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:1 r AM To: Johnston, Julie Subject: compatible development guided by bulk planes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged As the issue really only concerns the impact of large or awkward houses on the surrounding properties, I think the compatible development standards should only address the issue from the exterior via bulk planes. These are relatively simple to not only figure out but also to explain to my clients. All other methods that include calculations of interior square footages are needlessly complicated. Inevitably throughout the design of a project the square footage area calculations change almost continuously and don't necessarily impact the exterior of the project. Denver's bulk plane regulations have proven fairly easy to design within and administer and this method is used throughout the United States in many municipalities. Mark Alan Gerwing, AIA m. gerwJng ARCHITECTS l~ 70 j-1r ~ ~ l f -7 ❑ ~I _ 11_ _ - I-_I I I ~ _ _ _ Compatible Development in Single-TamiIy Neighborhoods Community Open House April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on nand Use Regulations Please provide comments by topic area: FLOOR AREA RATIO: BUILDING COVERAGE: fvl fu,.h r~ Cr. l WALL, AIZTICIJI,ATION :--A~9-•,. S , 2G cic e 5 -7 N Please provide any additional cornxnents on the back- rL 1 / Other: I C I'd 01 ~✓Gtt~. l r-p ~•`t%`~' ; 'l 7 ~ • ~'v - Sir ~ o'-'~ f ~ ~ y~ Tr r U tJ ~r C ! s~ / /fix - f Z vL. ~e- _ r~-,-1t't /f i - 1/,V t C~ir fici ~s , ~r~/✓J 1 !1 ~e." S t/,'Li C c-' N c:v'ci..C~c_°!'i ! C~ j d~ _ /C,Fr" IX ~ ~/J~ .1 ~~~t ' , ✓ ~ T Alf 1-5 Z~ R-"~X-' ~ f' 0~-r~/1-~ ~ ✓I1 S f fl y/h I ~/~/.7~cJ ~ I ' ~J ~-~f~ ~ . ! : ~ G~in~J C U JL~f' ' E? .~Gf b✓e!L' i r GG ✓ 16ar ~ --T ~1 Pry ~ r;s-Q ASv n ~~h o , 5, c C7~..~~r~~ /•r/~ Cu.~.,t 1 o ref re -129 ✓q, '1 ~a C1Lf rAr~ S S- Cc~.~ n c i l l~~i .~-1 I r S O -mot Gi_c ~ ~ ~ct / t ~Qca ~,?✓i ocJ f~ X71 / i E~5 F. C J. ` I L AL-- LIZ L ~C°rf yV L [ _ I.~z~.'f- !1 ~1 E~i~ -i E f rtrv / 5~~ ~.iJ L~ l~ iT ' i - _Ililir ~I Fj Compatible Development in Single--Family Neighborhoods Community Open House April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide comments by topic area: FLOOR AREA RATIO: ! W o u L__ i Tn U 1 L.,~) Cca Nt` ~ M N6, LR 2 -DT I Ti n CYN d, ` d4d2 Try n t-AMMr&3r, QN'i t1~T- (2 5 N S F DS? I'Tr ~ N L O e(~) Tfr'l' (AI 7- _ SA I) `,1_ 2J,4 S 45S f G N F D =O '00f, MCI , Can d'~S dd +-i Quo Pc►~~ BUILDING COVERAGE: WALL ARTICULATION: 1'lc~sc f~ro~i~ic any additional cun-~_iTZCnts can tlic; back. ,1.11.. Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Community Open House April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide comments by topic area: FLOOR AREA RATIO: BUILDING COVERAGE: WALT, ARTICULATION: Please provide any additional comments on tine back. (I r l 1 ``J fly I i l r L I a Il Logo jl n it a Il ii I f u~Ilm. L, Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Community Open Douse April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide continents by topic area: FLOOR AREA RATIO: ~ li. exCp~2A ~~!a Av,_4 LAt l'.-~ 10 r1 r-ltrz sly n 1 l - - , BUILDING COVERAGE,: r WAIL ARTICULATYON:_ Please provide any additional continents on the back. 00 ntltcr. T15 r ~ fly I ~ 11~ ➢ I ' i~ ~ CI l_ - ~ ~ ~ - f l~~ ~ ~IfRI i~- ~ I -tifiif _~TpIII-i n t-~ ~ ~_LJ ~ ~ ~ Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Community Open House April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide comments by topic area: FLOOR AREA RA'T'IO: U ( Jr l ~4 ~j \j / c BUILDING COVERAGE: Y ~7~ WALL ARTICULATION: ~A V Please provide any additionai comments on the hack. F t' Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Community Open House April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide comments by topic area: FLOOR AREA RATIO : q5 ),5. ~a 0 v c ~l /S S U t' v t - `~t ~ C ~ I' it ~ U_ o l,d ~ rlt Y2 0~ ~c ^ t)x 1 C r ~t ~✓~r ~ C ~/'~i e '~~C~ Cc G` 1~ t.~ ~ ~ ~ 5 / 1 li S kn 7 u -tz~= ~~(GL1 C 1 r~ ~'Z~ - 0 b C< M r ; vt c e cs: r f !9 )Z 460 LO r1 4 u Cc c; Lt 4,3 C 1,6 l~ -t L f S fl rid 6 ~:n r Cc Ylc i 1 Ul( GuL fjcreu Wert i17-10 Y L`' ITT r<SSfNC r~>S , 1 S I' S n n (t n i'y rr'cr BUILDING COVERAGE: T4 S ,5 ,z0P? c'Cc-ss a~-~_ ~ C~C4CV+d0 na~ ~GS'l~rJa~,/~~~ -c --10 -t _Leejk WALL ARTICULATION: Lt "5 5 Wa /0V-,-- (/V C fi C~/I f t0 a ~C1! ~ ~C G fit 7O ~ r i~ ~r[;Y e s s Please provide any additional comments on the back- OF tlQ~~O Sign-up Sheet April 22, 2009 G~~~GL Open House on Compatible Development in Single-Family NE you would . added i Name Mailing Address, Zip Code If 5 yc'u ~,<e o be to our Do you want to share yol..I e-mail list, please include your email contact information with address belo.;. others who are interested in his issue and who request this list? i I Yes No I E%~rl Ar r~•r, ,.s i t~ ~ ~ ~ ~j.c~ J~ C~~J" mc%( tv~^, Yes No <.t~ ~~L~~ l ? / S' cC a ...C r c r Yes No Yes Yes No Yes j No I Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes a No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes I lip c- tc 1 t L- J_ Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Community Open Rouse April 20 and 229 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide comments by topic area: FLOOR AREA RATIO: o Lt) E'lrr~y7~ ci I c) i - r')- C'r-~Zj 10 f- 1 - - - Inc( Aj T BUILDING COVERAGE: WALL ARTICULATION: Z&y'U J i -:j Gr Please provide any additional comments on the back.' Other: C VL-o lh7,OZui , ` a C /UY ~l cv rt~rnG S / c! /r /Ts i,~u A Nr:-~ h1i //-7 1141 J t r - Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Community Open House April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide comments by topic area: FLOOR AREA RATIO: _ l o~ t ~1Q - - u- r 6j~_ `i ' BUILDING COVERAGE:: = ,uu., l.tl CSC2~ ~ 4070 WALL ARTICULATION: y~ Please provide any additional comments on the back. a~ Other: _ 4 G4- ag r (uIr1 .1 'J ~I lAll •Illf. - ~ { I:~ 'l _ 1 li _ ~ ~ IJ ~ f J ~ I ~l Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Community Open House April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide comments by topic area: FLOOR AREA RATIO: - -x - 11- AIA Z-Ige-ll BUILDING COVERAGE:_ z1 /~~f~`-~''~,f~•~~j r WAIJ, AR'1'WULA•1•ION: ?aL f ' _ Please provide any additional con-mieats on the back" ~9 Other: 14~/iii~11.G;f ~J al a J 1 ~ 1• 4rAwk Compatible Development in Single-Family Neighborhoods Community Open House April 20 and 22, 2009 Council Direction on Land Use Regulations Please provide comnnepts by topic area. , FLOOR AREA RATIO: _ , ,#,H -T (4 1 Wit/ c j . J h) FAiS wyTr , i ~ %rz4- a,,!;,q Le)" 'fl 6-N :~lL -M[,O• td Sat-,AM C5RV1tSA,V( 15 ~Er -M `r-d kLi, Lo-($ `L- l ~..~.a.t~t ut-~r~-{ _ a ~ ~.y ~ rt,~(~ [~lo wt~. D u~ ►s ~ rL• 'CD F3c, ~ S t-t ~ Easo~3-a►~. ov ,~,c ri f,a rvi L:~-~ Y,, R Pfr~L s a ~ ~ 4 v i~ Utz ~ t,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cr~'L►~T tiJ Yt~ir~ 2 wti,_ Q VV1 ,f_krr -7 Yrtiz.r x.11 u~r b Lam, ~r~ c,~ . , wn~n.~t 7 c,4s.-r 1j~,7: ~ Ill y+~►, ~c C~ •fN ~ ~ ~ `s1 i4~ N'~~ - W ~ 1cz s ~ au ~,vz.,Ja.w ~zzt~. 5 v LT a. ~ ,4 w,' ~ ~ v vt~.r2. r~vti t.x~ i N BUILDING COVERAGE: WALL AtRT/IICUL.ATJONC • `n _ -n ! A_-f y_Z J~ PI'S tYLY~~ Please provide any additional cornments on the back. ATTACHMENT H PACKAGES OF TOOLS AND ASSOCIATED COSTS The direction received from council on March 3 had a variety of regulatory options to help address the development of compatible single-family construction. The packaging of these tools results in a multitude of different regulatory outcomes as well as documentation requirements, applicant costs, and increase in staff review time to approve development projects. The options outlined below reflect four different packages of ordinance alternatives. The costs associated with each package were based on the three construction scenarios developed under Attachment F, Compatible Development Project Costs. The options begin with the most regulatory, incorporating almost all of the recommended Compatible Development tools, to the more simplistic utilizing just two of the regulatory choices. An analysis of each option is provided in the attached matrices utilizing the following objectives: 1. Effectiveness - The tool should directly address a specific issue identified in the problem statement. 2. Predictability - The regulations should be understandable by all parties. That is to say, a property owner should be able to predict a likely outcome of the approval process if they follow the regulations. City staff should be able to consistently interpret the regulations, and neighborhoods should have a reasonable understanding of the scale of building that potentially can occur. 3. Efficiency - The regulations, and the permitting process that is employed, should be understandable and consistently administered, such that time is used efficiently to develop a plan set for building pen-nit approval. This applies to the applicant, city staff and other decision-makers. 4. Flexibility - A system that provides some flexibility is also desirable as described in council's goals and objectives. The recommended tools can be calibrated to ensure the potential for property owners to meet changing needs. In addition; the documentation costs to the applicant for each option are provided. The staff time to review the documentation is expected to decrease as the regulatory requirements become less complex. I OPTION 1: Package of Tools 1. FAR on a sliding scale Virtual floor for high volume spaces 2. Building coverage on a sliding scale • One-story building coverage 3. 2" d story rear yard setback 4. Bulk plane 5. Wall length sculpting standards Documentation and Costs New Residence: Documentation: Costs Land Survey Plat (FAR): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Finished Grading Plan (FAR): $ 800 - $3,500 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Plan View I" and 2nd Floor (Building Coverage and Setbacks) $ 150 - $ 350 Building Sections (Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $2,000 Building Elevations (Specifically for Wall Articulation) $ 250 - $ 350 Building Sections (Virtual Floor) $ 800 - $1,200 Total: $6,150-$12,375 Addition with Increased Coverage: Documentation: Costs Location Survey Plat (FAR and Building Coverage): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Finished Grading Plan (FAR): $ 800 - $3,500 As-Built Drawings (FAR and Building Coverage): $1,000 $3,000 Plan View 1" and 2nd Floor (Building Coverage and Setbacks) $ 150 - $ 350 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Building Elevations (Specifically for Wall Articulation) $ 250 - $ 350 Building Sections (Virtual Floor) $ 800-$1,200 Total : $6,400-$13,725 Addition over Existing Coverage: Documentation: Costs Land Survey Plat (FAR): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 As-Built Drawings (FAR and Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Plan View 1" and 2'd Floor (Building Coverage and Setbacks) $ 150 - $ 350 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Building Elevations (Specifically for Wall Articulation) $ 250 - $ 350 Building Sections (Virtual Floor) $ 800-$1,200 "Total: $5,600-$10,225 2 OPTION 2: Package of Tools 1. FAR on a sliding scale • Virtual floor for high volume spaces 2. Building coverage on a sliding scale • One-story building coverage 3. Bulk plane Documentation and Costs New Residence: Documentation: Costs Land Survey Plat (FAR): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Finished Grading Plan (FAR): $ 800 - $3,500 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Plan View 1St and 2"d Floor (Building Coverage) $ 150 - $ 350 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Building Sections (Virtual Floor) $ 800-$1,200 Total: $5,150-$10,375 Addition with Increased Coverage: Documentation: Costs Location Survey Plat (FAR and Building Coverage): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Finished Grading Plan (FAR): $ 800 - $3,500 As-Built Drawings (FAR and Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Plan View 1St and 2nd Floor (Building Coverage) $ 150 - $ 350 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Building Sections (Virtual Floor) $ 800 - $1,200 Total: $6,150-$13,375 Addition over Existing Coverage: Documentation: Costs Land Survey Plat (FAR): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 As-Built Drawings (FAR and Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Plan View 1St and 2nd Floor (Building Coverage and Setbacks) $ 150 - $ 350 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Building Sections (Virtual Floor) $ 800 - $1,200 Total: $5,350 - $9,875 3 OPTION 3: Package of Tools 1. FAR on a sliding scale 2. Building coverage on a sliding scale 3. Bulk plane Documentation and Costs New Residence: Documentation: Costs Land Survey Plat (FAR): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Finished Grading Plan (FAR): $ 800 - $3,500 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $4,200 - $8,825 Addition with Increased Coverage: Documentation: Costs Location Survey Plat (FAR and Building Coverage): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Finished Grading Plan (FAR): $ 800 - $3,500 As-Built Drawings (FAR and Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $5,200 -$11,825 Addition over L'xisting Coverage: Documentation. Costs Land Survey Plat (FAR): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (FAR and Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 As-Built Drawings (FAR and Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Floor Area Info (FAR): $ 150 - $ 375 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - S 350 Total: `4,400 -.S8,3)25 4 OPTION 4: Package of Tools 1. Building coverage on a sliding scale 2. Bulk plane Documentation and Costs New Residence: Documentation: Costs Topo Survey Info (Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $1,250 - $1,950 Addition with Increased Coverage: Documentation: Costs Location Survey Plat (Building Coverage): $2,000 - $3,000 Topo Survey Info (Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 As-Built Drawings (Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $4,250 - $7,950 Addition over F,xisting Coverage: Documentation: Costs Topo Survey Info (Bulk Plane): $1,000 - $1,600 As-Built Drawings (Building Coverage): $1,000 - $3,000 Building Elevations (Bulk Plane): $ 250 - $ 350 Total: $2,250 - $4,950 5 ATTACHMENT H: PACKAGE OPTIONS MATRIX Options: Effective Predictable Efficient Flexible Option 1 Directly manages the concern of: Regulations are extremely Costs will markedly increase for More flexibility for building 1. FAR on a sliding scale • proportion of mass to lot controlling and some may be documentation and staff time. coverage between one- and two- • Virtual floor • preservation of open space difficult to understand. story buildings. 2. Building coverage on a sliding . height of side walls in rear Intricate set of tools that may scale yards Project outcomes are tightly make administration less Allows for incremental change • One-story building • imposing side walls on side controlled, increasing consistent. over time. coverage yards predictability of results. 3. 2d story rear yard setback • location of mass towards Could result in long-term More constrained in floor area 4. Bulk plane the center of the lot Could result in more non- problem for one-story buildings calculations and wall length 5. Wall length sculpting standards • long, unarticulated side standard conditions/unintended where a structure has floor area standards could be limiting in walls consequences. and wants to build up. design. • impact of high volume spaces Option 2 Directly manages the concerns Regulations are controlling and Costs will significantly increase More flexibility for building 1. FAR on a sliding scale of: some may be difficult to for documentation and staff time. coverage between one- and two- Virtual floor • proportion of mass to lot understand. story buildings. 2. Building coverage on a . preservation of open space Complex set of tools that may sliding scale e height of side walls on side However, project outcomes are make administration less Allows for incremental change • One-story building yards more controlled, which increases consistent. over time. coverage • location of mass towards predictability of results. 3. Bulk plane the center of the lot Could result in long-term More constrained with regard to • long, unarticulated side problems for one-story buildings how floor area is calculated, walls where the structure has not maximized floor area and wants Building coverage limits could to build vertically. address encroachment into traditional rear yard. ATTACHMENT H: PACKAGE OPTIONS MATRIX Options: Effective Predictable Efficient Flexible Option 3 Directly manages the concerns Regulations are less controlling, More cost effective to the More flexible approach as the 1. FAR on a sliding scale of: which may decrease applicant as the effort to develop design of the home is less 2. Building coverage on a sliding • proportion of mass to lot predictability of construction. and review plans, and explain regulated. scale • preservation of open space regulations become less time- 3. Bulk plane • height of side walls on Without calculating high volume consuming. side yards spaces in FAR, the visible mass • location of mass towards of the structure may be larger. Fewer complexities to the the center of the lot regulatory tools, which will Could have long, unarticulated likely result in more consistent Building coverage limits could walls with larger building administration. address encroachment into coverage limits. traditional rear yard. Option 4 Directly manages the concerns Construction is less predictable The most cost effective of the More flexible approach as the 1. Building coverage on a sliding o£ with fewer regulations, four options as FAR is the most design of the home is less scale • preservation of open space specifically the mass of the home expensive regulation to regulated. 2. Bulk plane • height of side walls on side without FAR. document. yards • location of mass towards the Without calculating high volume Fewer complexities to the center of the lot spaces in FAR, the visible mass regulatory tools, which will of the structure may be larger. likely result in more consistent Depending on building coverage administration. limits, could address Could have long, unarticulated encroachment into traditional walls with larger building rear yard. coverage limits. Attachment I STAFF RECOMMENDATION RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, and RL-2 District Standards Building Lot Size FAR Square FAR Coverage Building Footage Square Coverage Footage 6,000 2,946 0.49 2,000 33% 6,500 3,033 0.47 2,050 32% 7,000 3,150 0.45 2,100 30% 7,500 3,207 0.43 2,150 29% 8,000 3,294 0.41 2,200 28% 8,500 3,381 0.40 2,250 26% 9,000 3,468 0.39 2,300 26% 9,500 3,555 0.37 2,350 25% 10,000 3,642 0.36 2,500 25% 10,500 3,729 0.36 2,550 24% 11,000 3,816 0.35 2,600 24% 11,500 3,903 0.34 2,650 23% 12,000 3,990 0.33 2,700 23% 12,500 4,077 0.33 2,750 22% 13,000 4,164 0.32 2,800 22% 13,500 4,251 0.31 2,850 21% 14,000 4,338 0.31 2,900 21% 14,500 4,425 0.31 2,950 20% 15,000 4,475 0.30 3,000 20% 15,500 4,525 0.29 3,050 20% 16,000 4,575 0,29 3,200 20% 16,500 4,625 0.28 3,300 20% 17,000 4,675 0.28 3,400 20% 17,500 4,725 0.27 3,500 20% 18,000 4,775 0.27 3,600 20% 18,500 4,825 0.26 3,700 20% 19,000 4,875 0.26 3,800 20% 19,500 4,925 0.25 3,900 20% 20,000 4,975 0.25 4,000 20% 20,500 5,125 0.25 4,100 20% 21,000 5,250 0.25 4,200 20% 21,500 5,375 0.25 4,300 20% 22,000 5,500 0.25 4,400 20% 22,500 5,625 0.25 4,500 20% 23,000 5,750 0.25 4,600 20% 23,500 5,875 0.25 4,700 20% 24,000 6,000 0.25 4,800 20% 24,500 6,125 0.25 4,900 20%' 25,000 6,250 0.25 5,000 20% 25,500 6,375 0.25 5,100 20% 26,000 6,500 0.25 5,200 20% 26,500 6,625 0.25 5,300 20% 27,000 6,750 0.25 5,400 20% 27,500 6,875 0.25 5,500 20% 28,000 7,000 0.25 5,600 20% 28,500 7,125 0.25 5,700 20% 29,000 7,250 0.25 5,800 20% 29,500 7,375 0.25 5,900 20% 30,000 7,500 0.25 6,000 20% 30,500 7,625 0.25 6,100 20% 31,000 7,750 0.25 6,200 20% 31,500 7,875 0.25 6,300 20% 32,000 8,000 0.25 6,400 20% FAR Formulas: Lots between 6,000 - 14,500: Allowable floor area = lot size x 0.174 + 1902 Lots between 14,501 - 20,500 Allowable floor area = lot size x 0.100 + 2975 Lots smaller than 6,000: 0.50 FAR Lots 19,500 or above: 0.25 FAR Building Coverage Formulas: !Lots between 6,000 - 9,500: Allowable building coverage = lot size x 0.1 + 1400 Lots between 9,501 - 32,000: Allowable building coverage = lot size x 0.1 + 1500 Lots smaller than 6,000: 35% building coverage Lots above15,000: 20% building coverage FAR and building coverage standards begin at an 8,000 square foot lot in the RL-2 zone. i RMX-1 Standards FAR Building Lot Size Square FAR Coverage Building Footage Square Coverage Footage 4,000 2,950 0.74 1,980 50% 4,500 3,050 0.68 2,063 46% 5,000 3,320 0.66 2,145 43% 5,500 3,420 0.62 2,228 41% 6,000 3,520 0.59 2,310 39% 6,500 3,718 0.57 2,393 37% 7,000 3,850 0.55 2,450 35% 7,500 3,913 0.52 2,538 34% 8,000 4,010 0.50 2,620 33% 8,500 4,108 0.48 2,703 32% 9,000 4,205 0.47 2,785 31% 9,500 4,303 0.45 2,820 30% 10,000 4,400 0.44 2,900 29% FAR Formula: Lots between 4000 - 4999: Allowable floor area = lot size x 0.2 + 2150 Lots between 5000 - 6499: Allowable floor area = lot size x 0.2 + 2320 Lots between 6500 - 10000: Allowable floor area = lot size x 0.195 + 2450 Lots below 4,000: 0.74 FAR Lots above 10,000: 0.44 FAR Building Coverage Formula: Lots between 4000 - 7000: Allowable building coverage = lot size x 0.165 + 1320 Lots between 7001 - 9000: Allowable building coverage = lot size x 0.165 + 1300 Lots between 9001 - 10000: Allowable building coverage = lot size x 0.16 + 1300 Lots below 4,000: 50% building coverage Lots'ab,ove 10,000: 29% building coverage ATTACHMENT J SKETCH-UP MODELS OF TYPICAL RL-1 LOTS This attachment presents two sets of models. The first set, on pages 2 - 13, model the staff recommended standards of 0.45 FAR, 30 percent building coverage and a bulk plane. The second set, on pages 14 - 21, compare staffs proposal with Planning Board's reconullendation of 0.55 FAR, 35 percent building coverage, a bulk plane, and wall length articulation. The models are also presented at a north/south and east/west perspective. Council provided direction to staff that continued modeling of the various Compatible Development tools should be conducted. Staff began to model the recommended methods of measuring FAR, building coverage and the side wall articulation standards, which ultimately became a bulk plane. It was suggested by the Technical Advisory Group that the models should be simple in nature and not incorporate architectural details. There was a concern that viewers of the models react more to the style and appearance of the structure than the maximum regulatory standards it is trying to convey. The models developed after this discussion became simple block figures. A set of models were then presented to Planning Board at the May 14 Technical Study Session. Planning Board provided additional suggestions to help scale the buildings like trees and people, and developing block diagrams that relate more to real construction realities. These suggestions helped in the development of the attached models. The models included in this attachment utilize the following assumptions: 1. Typical RL-1 lots sizes determined from an examination of the largest neighborhoods within the project area. 2. All standard minimum RL-1 setbacks apply (25 feet front yard, 25 feet rear yard, minimum of 5 feet and a total of 15 feet for side yards). 3. Construction realities within the building envelope are considered, therefore setbacks and building coverage may not be maximized. 4. FAR is maximized to the extent possible based on the constraints of the lot. 5. The solar ordinance is incorporated to demonstrate how the solar bulk plane may be more restrictive than the recommended bulk plane. 6. For simplicity of model development, the solar bulk plane is applied to the entire lot. In reality, solar may only apply to a portion of the lot allowing for taller structures. However, the recommended bulk plane continues to regulate the mass of the building more towards the center of the lot. Description of the models: 1. Green - total lot size. 2. Yellow - indicates the allowed horizontal buildable area of the lot based on setbacks. 3. Red --that area of the vertical building envelope (maximum allowed height of 35 feet) that is constrained by the recommended bulk plane or the solar ordinance. 1 Typical RL-1 Lot: 50 feet X 125 Feet Lot Size: 6,250 square feet Orientation: East/West Lot Width: 50 linear feet Lot Length: 125 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at a 5 foot setback from the north property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at a 10 foot setback from the south property line FAR: 0.46 Building Coverage: 29.82 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 16.40 percent Side Wall Lengths: 53 feet 4 inches Wall - Front Width First Floor: 35 feet Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 19 feet 4 inches IF f / ,,.SCE 2 ~t 77 i u Nom wast Eav aloe ARW 3 Typical RL-1 Lot: 50 feet X 125 Feet Lot Size: 6,250 square feet Orientation: North/South Lot Width: 50 linear feet Lot Length: 125 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at a 5 foot setback from the west property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at a 13 foot, 3 inch setback from the east property line FAR: 0.477 Building Coverage: 27.43 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 20.30 percent Side Wall Lengths: 54 feet Wall - Front Width First Floor: 31 feet 9 inches Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 23 feet 6 inches r ~ -x,•`31 _ ~ ~ jr!~c _ t~~.,~ - r~~ Ilr'' r. y ~r 4 1 I ~'r { J ;~_r f I ~ h L_ 3F 2 - South Mevatbn VIEW Ilk ? l I ~~v~iY _ ~y 4 I J Typical RL-1 Lot: 65 feet X 105 Feet Lot Size: 6,825 square feet Orientation: East/West Lot Width: 65 linear feet Lot Length: 105 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at a 5 foot setback from the north property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at a 7 foot, 6 inch setback from south property line FAR: 0.46 Building Coverage: 25.63 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 20.46 percent Side Wall Lengths: 36 feet 10 inches Wall - Front Width First Floor: 47 feet 6 inches Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 37 feet 11 inches q 5 7T Il'~~ t~l - X65'` / ~r i r'6 .1_ W w- t Memtfoo Il4 A 111 / Typical RL-1 Lot: 65 feet X 105 Feet Lot Size: 6,825 square feet Orientation: North/South Lot Width: 65 linear feet Lot Length: 105 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at a 7 foot, 3 inch setback from the west property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at a 13 foot, 4 inch setback from the east property line FAR: 0.45 Building Coverage: 24.17 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 20.92 percent Side Wall Lengths: 37 feet Wall - Front Width First Floor: 47 feet 7 inches Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 38 feet 7 inches 4 1~ f. g LT 1 I is C~ South Hematorl VU~ T nt tip, / - ~ 'J 7 Typical RL-1 Lot: 70 feet X 100 Feet Lot Size: 7,000 square feet Orientation: East/West Lot Width: 70 linear feet Lot Length: 100 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at a 10 foot setback from the north property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at a 10 foot from the south property line FAR: 0.45 Building Coverage: 25.53 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 19.36 percent Side Wall Lengths: 35 feet 9 inches Wall - Front Width First Floor: 50 feet Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 37 feet 11 inches _ , fir, .1 "`-.y rr~ - ~ - >r u• ter-- ~ - V~ -tu y~ 10 ~i North ' 15 1` f ~ J l 1 1 ll Typical RL-1 Lot: 70 feet X 100 Feet Lot Size: - 7,000 square feet Orientation: North/South Lot Width: 70 linear feet Lot Length: 100 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at a 12 foot 3 inch setback from the west property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at a 13 foot 2 inch setback from the east property line FAR: 0.45 Building Coverage: 23.56 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 20.39 percent Side Wall Lengths: 37 feet Wall - Front Width First Floor: 44 feet 7 inches Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 38 feet 7 inches 12 I South Havah©R ti vim} i 13 The following models provide the Planning Board's recommendation of a 35 percent building coverage and a 0.55 FAR and staff's recommendation of 30 percent building coverage and a 0.45 FAR. Typical RL-1 Lot: 50 feet X 125 Feet Lot Size: 6,250 square feet Orientation: East/West Lot Width: 50 linear feet Lot Length: 125 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at the 5 foot setback from the north property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at the 10 foot setback from the south property line Wall - Front Width First Floor: 35 feet Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 19 feet 4 inches Difference between Staff and Planning Board Recommendations FAR: 0.46 0.58 Building Coverage: 29.82 percent 38.00 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 16.40 percent 19.04 percent Side Wall Lengths: 53 feet 4 inches 72 feet Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation r ' IT 4-. ,J-~__-~ - IZ• I'~~ - 362• as, lU' S' 35' .I 1V.I ~r~:a31'j 1 West M wucn West LO wmda l 14 Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation y LL . Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation - 125' 15 Typical RL-1 Lot: 50 feet X 125 Feet Lot Size: 6,250 square feet Orientation: North/South Lot Width: 50 linear feet Lot Length: 125 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at a 5 foot setback from the west property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at a 13 foot, 3 inch setback from the east property line Wall - Front Width First Floor: 31 feet 9 inches Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 23 feet 6 inches Difference between Staff and Planning Board Recommendations FAR: 0.46 0.59 Building Coverage: 29.82 percent 36.08 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 16.40 percent 26.71 percent Side Wall Lengths: 54 feet 71 feet 11 inches Staff Reconunendation Planning Board Recommendation 1 PEA fff 31' 9' l 31' 9' ~I l~ i 5, 1, - 35' 30' South Mevadan South MewnMdon Wft-t 16 Staff Recorninendation Planning Board Recommendation t5 1 =4 4 ',saw Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation 1~ I `Y%! ti it 3.1 9* • ~m 50 17 Typical RL-1 Lot: 70 feet X 100 Feet Lot Size: 7,000 square feet Orientation: East/West Lot Width: 70 linear feet Lot Length: 100 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at the 5 foot setback from the north property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at the 10 foot setback from the south property line Wall - Front Width First Floor: 50 feet Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 37 feet 11 inches Difference between Staff and Planning Board Recommendations FAR: 0.45 0.55 Building Coverage: 25.53 percent 35 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 19.36 percent 19 percent Side Wall Lengths: 35 feet 9 inches 49 feet for first floor Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation T 37' l i` - - 31' 11" - W%t sention WOW SWatloh 18 Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation ti -37' 11' % \A~ - Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation 37' t l" - - _r 50 137 11"- 70', 100, Typical RL-1 Lot: 70 feet X 100 Feet Lot Size: 7,000 square feet Orientation: North/South Lot Width: 70 linear feet Lot Length: 100 linear feet Height at Side Setback: 13 feet high at a 12 foot 3 inch setback from the west property line Height at Side Setback: 22 feet high at a 13 foot 2 inch setback from the east property line Difference between Staff and Planning Board Recommendations FAR: 0.44 0.55 Building Coverage: 23.56 percent 32.56 percent 2nd Story Building Coverage: 20.39 percent 22.41 percent Side Wall Lengths: 37 feet 45 feet 7 inches for first floor Wall - Front Width First Floor: 44 feet 7 inches 50 feet Wall - Front Width Second Floor: 38 feet 7 inches 43 feet 7 inches Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation r 4 33' 7" ti - - aA' 7" - - 50 - - - - 1D'- 70' 70' - Sow nmtio~ll Sow S tIon 20 Staff Recd emendation Planning Board Recommendation lei t• i \ Tom' - f -•J 1 [J 3 m _ r7P i Staff Recommendation Planning Board Recommendation ; f _ -Sfl _ ~ ~ff t V&e r y 21 ATTACHMENT K MATRIX OF REGULATORY OPTIONS On March 3, 2009, City Council provided direction on the tools that should continue to be reviewed as part of the Compatible Development project. This direction included both Winter & Company's package of tools as well as the additional options developed by Planning Board. The combination of these two recommendations created a variety of regulatory alternatives for addressing the issue that tool was trying to resolve. These issues include measuring high volume spaces, calculating floor area of partially exposed lower levels, articulating second story walls, and the height of side yard walls at the minimum setback. For example, tall, long, unarticulated walls at the minimum side yard setback that "loom" over the adjacent property has been an issue consistently expressed throughout the public outreach process. Several alternatives were presented to address this issue, which included second story rear yard setbacks, second story building coverage limits, and wall height and length articulation standards. The following matrices provide an analysis of the alternatives for each issue against the four objectives developed based on Council's goals and objectives for this project. These objectives include: 1. Effectiveness - The tool should directly address a specific issue identified in the problem statement. 2. Predictability - The regulations should be understandable by all parties. That is to say, a property owner should be able to predict a likely outcome of the approval process if they follow the regulations. City staff should be able to consistently interpret the regulations, and neighborhoods should have a reasonable understanding of the scale of building that potentially can occur. 3. Efficiency - The regulations, and the permitting process that is employed, should be understandable and consistently administered, such that time is used efficiently to develop a plan set for building permit approval. This applies to the applicant, city staff and other decision-makers. 4. Flexibility - A system that provides some flexibility is also desirable as described in council's goals and objectives. The recommended tools can be calibrated to ensure the potential for property owners to meet changing needs. The exercise of developing these matrices began to reveal some of the strengths and weaknesses of each regulatory alternative, which assisted with staff's development of the recommended package of Compatible Development tools. 1 I ATTACHMENT K: MATRIX OF REGULATORY OPTIONS Issue: Height of Side Yard Walls at the Setback Recommendation Considerations: Effective Predictable Efficient Flexible Winter & Company Directly- addresses looming Beginning a bulk plane at the Simple to understand and Allows more flexibility in Recommendation: 20 feet tall at walls by lowering their height setback line is problematic administer, but creates an height at the minimum side minimum setbacks and then one foot to no taller than 20 feet at the because setbacks can vary on a unknown to the neighbors yard setbacks. of height for each additional foot of setback line. However, an lot. For example, RL-1 has a regarding overall wall height setback. argument has been raised that minimum five foot setback. If based on varied setbacks of the a wall 20 feet tall at the five a building is placed at the six building. foot setback is too tall. foot setback, is 21 feet in height allowed? If the building Requires the development of Note: Technical Advisory is developed at the other side new ordinance language to Group indicated that 20 feet in yard 10 foot setback, can the define wall height and new height does not permit a true wall be 25 feet in height? documentation from the two-story wall. 20 feet in applicant to determine wall height may not be effective if heights from finished grade. attempting to allow two- stories. Planning Board Recommendation: Directly addresses looming Very predictable to both Simple to understand and Very restrictive at the Two feet of height for every one walls by significantly lowering regulators and neighbors as the administer. Becomes more minimum five foot setback foot of setback from the property heights at the side yard bulk plane begins at the problematic on sloping lots as where only a 10 foot wall is line. setbacks. However, very property line and heights can the bulk plane will determine permitted, particularly for restrictive to height at the be determined at any point heights from finished grade. narrow width lots. Does not setbacks and more permissive within the lot. work as effectively in existing internally to the lot, which Bulk planes are a concept neighborhoods where two- could result in unusual Easy concept to convey. already used in the solar story structures are found at building shapes for typical RR, ordinance. However, the setback lines. RE and RL-1 lots. additional documentation will be needed to confirm the Becomes even more restrictive structure sits within the plane. when applying solar bulk plane. Technical Advisory Group Directly addresses looming Very predictable to both Simple to understand and Allows some flexibility at the Recommendation: 12 feet of height I walls but is more restrictive regulators and neighbors as the administer. Becomes more minimum side yard setbacks to at the property line and then one than Winter & Co. and less bulk place begins at the problematic on sloping lots at develop a two-story element, foot of height for each additional restrictive than the Planning property line and heights can the bulk plane will determine but limits the height at the five foot of setback. Board recommendation. be determined at any point heights from finished grade. foot setback to a more within the lot. reasonable 17 feet Utilizes the same bulk plane Easv concert to convey. starting point as solar. ATTACHMENT K: MATRIX OF REGULATORY OPTIONS Issue: Articulating Second Story Walls Regulatory Considerations: Effective Predictable Efficient Flexible Winter & Company Foi long narrow lots, a Y foot Provides predictability to Relatively easy to regulate and Flexible in that it provides Recommendation: Within 20 feet offset may not effectively neighbors that walls over a understand. Information options to the applicant on how of the side property line a 20 foot alleviate the long "looming" certain length must be regarding wall heights and to articulate tall wall may not be uninterrupted wall, particularly as it articulated, but how that is building setbacks are generally for more than 36 feet in length encroaches into what was accomplished is variable. included in plan sets. with either providing a 4 foot traditionally considered the Additional information on wall offset for a minimum of 10 feet or rear yard. Potential for loop- heights from finished grade the wall reduces to 12 feet in holes if not regulated correctly. and wall lengths and offsets height. will be required. Planning Board Recommendation: Would directly address the size Predictable in that 2d stories This regulation is difficult to A percentage rule only 2nd story building coverage limit of of the 2"d story which could are based on a percentage of develop. The 2nd story would provides flexibility between lot 20 percent of the total lot square reduce the length of 2"d story the size of the lot. However, as have to be carefully defined to sizes. However, the footage (3`d story for a home with looming walls. the square footages of lots gets avoid unintended consequences recommended 20 percent a partially exposed lower level). larger the overall size of the 2"d of tri-levels, tall one-story offers large square footage May have unintended story increases. buildings, and limiting the numbers for 2"d story consequences for those homes story above partially exposed development. that do not have a "traditional" lower levels. Detailed plan god story, like tri-level homes. drawings of 2nd stories would (7,000 square foot lot could be needed to verify building have a 1,400 square foot 2"d coverage limits. story) Planning Board Recommendation: Would dircctly address the size Provides predictability to the Somewhat more difficult to Less flexible in that it forces 2"d story rear yard setback (3`d of the 2"d story wail. However, neighbor on the location of develop based on the same the bulk of the home to a story for a home with a partially forces the building to load to where 2"d stories can develop. unintended consequences of certain portion of the lot. exposed lower level). the front of the lot. However, rear yard could be 2"d story building coverage. However, this could be hard to define on odd shaped As lot depths are varied, somewhat alleviated depending lots or the perceived rear yard specific cut off points and on the restriction of the 2nd i is not the regulated rear yard. standards would be needed. story rear yard setback. Staff Recommendation: 2" story Directly addresses the size of Predictable in that 2"Q stories Generally efficient as floor A percentage rule only floor area is a percentage of the I" the 2"d story which could are based on a percentage of area is a defined term and is provides flexibility between lot story floor area (3rd story floor area reduce the length of the 2nd the ls` story. However, as the utilized today. Again, there sizes. is a percentage of the 2"d story for story looming walls. square footage of the 1" floor maybe some difficulties with homes with a partially exposed increases the overall size of the tri-level type homes. lower level). 2 ❑d story increases. ATTACHMENT K: MATRIX OF REGULATORY OPTIONS Issue: Measuring Partially Ex posed Lower Levels in FAR Regulatory Considerations: Effective Predictable Efficient Flexible Volumetric Approach: Measuring Directly relates the amount of Very difficult regulation to Extremely complicated A more flexible approach as it the volume of the partially exposed the partially exposed lower understand and interpret, but regulation to calculate and only counts the volume lower level exposed more than 36 level to FAR. predictable in that it more enforce. Would required very exposed more than 36 inches inches above finished grade to directly relates the visibly detailed documentation from above grade. determine the floor area counted in More equitable to gradually exposed mass of the building the applicant to ensure FAR. sloping lots that have more to floor area. accuracy. Unlikely a than 36 inches above grade. measurement a homeowner could do without the help of a development professional. Difficult to verify in the field. Percentage of Wall Exposed in Less effective in its approach A more variable approach and Easy to interpret and enforce. Less flexible to the applicant as Bins: Measuring the percentage of to counting the floor area of the ability to predict exact floor Allows more flexibility in the they are assigned to a bin the wall exposed above finished partially exposed lower levels. area diminishes through the field as the bins offer "wiggle" which could require counting grade and then placing them in Utilizing defined "bins" could process of assigning bins. room for construction realities. floor area that is not truly smaller bins of 0-20%, 21-40%, be a boon or a detriment to an exposed in their lower level. etc. to determine the floor area applicant depending on where counted in FAR. they fall in the bin. (similar to current method of measurement of 0%, 50%, or 100% bins used today just with smaller increments) Percentage of Wall Exposed: More effective in that it utilizes Predictable to the applicant and Generally an easy regulation to This approach is less flexible Measuring the percentage of the the true percentage of the wail neighbor in that the percentage interpret and enforce. Utilizes than volumetrics and more wall exposed above finished grade exposed. However, could be a of the wall that is exposed the same method for flexible than the bins. It is a which is the percentage of the detriment to those homes on equates to the percentage of the calculating FAR that is used balance between providing floor area counted in FAR. gently sloping lots where the floor area calculated into FAR. today but eliminates the flexibility to the applicant, full level is exposed more than However, will require some concept of bins. Also, would predictability to the neighbor, 36 inches. This would require field tolerance of the finished not call for much additional and efficiency to everyone 100 percent of the partially grade for construction realities. documentation above what is involved. exposed lower level floor area required today, except for a to be counted in FAR. finished grading plan. ATTACHMENT K: MATRI F REGULATORY OPTIONS Issue: High Volume Spaces Regulatory Considerations: i Effective Predictable Efficient Flexible Virtual Floor: Count high Helps to directly tie the visible Provides predictability to the A difficult regulation to enforce May limit the amount of volume spaces in FAR mass of the building to FAR. neighbors that the visible mass and ensure compliance. Will flexibility an applicant has on of homes will be limited to the require additional determining interior spaces as associated FAR. documentation from the high volume spaces will applicant to ensure accuracy. correlate to the overall However, will be less permitted FAR. predictable to applicants as they will have to determine the floor area of high volume spaces before calculating FAR. No Vimial Floor Allows high volume spaces to Less predictable to the neighbor More efficient from a More flexible to the applicant develop without being counted as the visible massing of the regulatory standpoint as a as interior spaces can develop in FAR which would allow home could be increased with virtual floors can be difficult to without the need to count high more floor area and possibly high volume spaces. regulate. However, can allow volume spaces. more visible mass to a building more mass to the structure. than with a virtual floor. klore predictable to the applicant as they do not have to count high volume areas. ATTACHMENT L COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT SELF-GUIDED TOUR This self guided tour includes examples of recent residential redevelopment and is intended to be an examination of current construction trends, and how they will be affected by the recommended regulations. The homes that are included were selected from the building permits that were issued in 2008. All of the homes are located within the Residential Low 1 (RL-1) district with the exception of one, which is in the Residential Estate (RE) district. The tour also includes a few existing homes that were developed prior to 2008 in order to provide some neighborhood context. It was important that the tour include a wide variety of examples that were evenly spread throughout the project area. Therefore, a much larger set of building permits were initially evaluated. Each house was visited and documented with photographs for further examination. A few were discarded immediately, either because they could not been seen from the street, or because it was impossible to tell which part of the home had been renovated. Another grouping was removed from the tour for lack of available plan sets for data review. Based on this refinement, no building permits were available for inclusion in the tour from the RR, RL-2 or RMX-1 districts. The plans and documents for the remaining homes were gathered and examined in order to confirm setbacks, bulk plane, building coverage and FAR. This information was then compared to the staff recommendation, as follows: 1. Floor Area Ratio on a sliding scale based on lot size • 0.45 for a 7,000 square foot lot for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-l, and RL-2 districts 0.55 for a 7,000 square foot lot for the RMX-1 district 2. Building coverage on a sliding scale based on lot size 30 percent for a 7,000 square foot lot for the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, and RL-2 districts • 35 percent for a 7,000 square foot lot for the RMX-1 district 3. Bulk Plane • Beginning at the property line, 12 feet in height and then one additional foot in height for each additional foot in setback. It should be noted that the data on building coverage and floor area for the existing homes was provided by the Boulder County Assessor's office. In addition, compliance with the bulk plane standard could not be confirmed as building heights were unavailable. A map is attached showing all of the homes within the self-guided tour. This map highlights six insets that offer larger scale views of these geographic areas. The insets are provided on the subsequent pages. Property Tour ii N ti 2A X 1 N 1 , Linden Av Independence Rd, a~ 'Kalmia Av ~=5~ r bia9onal 14Y j 9 I /-'111 ' r~ N T EFfayden a is Av l/♦ L a ! atra m I I h l\ L LJ li ~o !n V LL \ f 4A 5 g 48 5A valmonl Rd 7A oo4d . /tid90W in Pearl P t'` ~MaPlulonA' gingSt ` J QeadSt o ar - 8 1- `3 I i' i Qe3.1 St ~!l_ CacY° Pahoe.Av~~ Arapat-,oe Avg UnivzrsilyAv o ro wa ~ 10 D N G,.Iaado Am ; 41 fF- f Baseline Rd 12A pa5elinG Rd 12, 11J 13 13A L&, oOhP~aG ~F°>a J C ey r 14A 14 / rn lx9 ~,aw r~h4JSi Dr Tnti1e Mesa Or' 16 Legend New Construction 17 ~ K ® CYIslln9 Constriction ((1~~~~ N D 0.5 1 1.1des teryi o v; _e , InsetA ° PerivAc~ Orchard Av U ~ Oakleaf U _ L N Oakdale Ct OaK Cr Oak Av Y v OakO Orange PI U Norwood AV A v C ~ eya ~N ds°~ c 'a d~ PI Ctoverleat Or Moed ;Neher Ln m m t,eaaovr Moss Rock Pt 2A Lombardy Or L rn 2 U LindenAv m X-I U N ~ I c s. U P t Dogwood 4,> ~ o U Kalmia AV Kingwood Pi 0 270 540 1,0 0 Feet i Inset B Forest AV 61 ' U z~~V L ~ Vl 48 Fvergreen Avg 4A r vi 4 r z L _ Elder A: 5A Delwond Av in Bellwood - AV T ~ r`n 5 t n ~ o m GedarAv n 0. r L adi:am Av 7A Alpine AV Legend North St r A Naw Construction Existing Consin"c"on 720 7,440 Feet N I J Inset C - - Mapleton Fw_ - N__ 6 n IF Highland Av C in N CrPP7 n - N "N- Pyno S\ L g 10 M04nta! 9 SpN~o S1 n VJely Rtl µo~nRY peaOSls ,y - Il ~ vynut St _ _ m~ r 3 on gv N Gant / 98a`~on Cy 0 570 1,140 Feat Inset D 'N Collage Av - Geneva Av N oym 4 10 m n t~ Furlid Av Cleveland PI N a = yr ' - 11 Aurora Av ~ z g ro ~ ~ o t~ 1 V ~ N d f ~ c- C-13 S' 6 Casr_Ao Av c!' Legend New construction gasellne Rd_m - Emling Construction N D 295 0 6e~i 590 Clemal ; Dr 1,180 Feet I I i-TI f F-~ / v inset E Basalina Basoli a Rd l fr1°prhegaFr F runiage Rd °o `~3e Columbine Av ry _ Rd 12A ° to in w 5 t Mariposa Av N 5 " N5~ N ~7 12 Elm Av ~r ~3a Bluebell Av - N ~ooryit 101.'C King Av 0 N n a. a a a 4' N r= S s t `O4 c g W O~~ ~ © V to O to N G { ~ N L O V ~ G 9rreh Av M i V ~ NG s 'y Ash Av RJ v f~aykevll sy GcoiCt d kr y e ~ h U1 rs V1 c v N n rn fh C7 y ~ N ~ e`°~ 13 $ s n Cr rn 13A rn < Fastman Av N Dadmouih Av 7c 9 ~Yd / ~pc ~ boa 41b 9.Oi-. 31~Sh' 010 860 Feet ap Kenwood Dr O r n Ct Inset F m H''~ad r° /S0n 4R f4'r "°r' N ~ o S a c 14A c--1L ' v N F ' as: < rn to to w 0 -G F~r~ a~~ \ ` e Ur C~as~` - lianovar Av n£vcvcv))) °JO'a a~-~ ` ~~ya Armer Av Q ..'aye \ \ S;eptiens Ra ko A\~ BnttingAp °do t 'a ~ . .,ficy P Howard PI r dio R m O a 4 L 3' o C;b e fs4 f31 o ~i~~.,, r'oluy~r aft Or f9 yo J~ Darley Av geN .~:~1/ 15` ~\~°o p e range Cr O O ~ in 4• W lSvo ~Ot ~~~G` o t d QutierGt r ~attow o a 1 & ~o° G~ n O S Grinnell Pv eat Woodstock PI i o w ti 0 ia?s Sc 6~ Lyon Cr y c~ ;a'R Ludlow SI dd, by pay, 5 Emerson Av Y mod q Endicott Dr Ci ca oc~ ~ ~ ys1 c, o~ EveralO' J e~i 4 U ii aGuat•.rho°r~ Y SI°ny~`` B Heidelberg Dr Cne Viaic• Lake 1/ aood Ilif151 f. ` Greenhriar o t4 SI ~ _ Ct rr.A yty~\\~a ~4' ' 17 K~ 4~~pDd r`v.i Legend / ~teue Dr t UZI Mew Construcliotti CraAmpOC Rd v Tin yb o tr°G~f G - E:xisling Const"c"On N 0 650 t, a t'300 ?.,600 Feel j t { s 1670 Orchard Ave. a GcneralInformation ~ r1,,, Zoning District: R- xv ' ~ t Lot Size: 18,768 sq. ft. s :o<4i J House Size: 8,260 sq. fl. L, c Accessory Buildings: DA Total Floor Area: 8,260 sq. fl. Building Footprint: 3,700 sq. f2 Overall Height: 33.6' a 1 Summary - • Exceeds FAR ' ' ^ ` • _ • Below Building Coverage • Meets Bulk Plane - East West r R. f-~q Building 14'8„ 10'3„ Setback ' wan 22' 12' Heightat I{T_ e~ !Cl• '-'yti'' Building ti sy~ _ ~t,?5 Setback 4,> f V= . Bulk Meets Plane proposal proposal -i ; }116A . c : 1 J,I ' ; Constructed Recommendation Exeeeds/Below Recommendation FAR 8,260 0.44 4,852 SF 0.26 SF Building 3,700 20% 3,754 SF 20% 54 SF Coverage SF E 1590 Unden Ave. General Information ` Zoning District: RL-1 Lot Size: 9,400 sq. fl. House Size: 3,741 sq. ft.;` i; Accessory Buildings: 734 sq. ft. Sc rli; yi; Total Floor Area: 4,475 sq. ft. Building Footprint: 1,687 sq. ft. - Overall Height: 31.3' i' Year Remodeled: 2008 .r Summary • Exceeds FAR • Below Building Coverage ^y,,il , ~f • Meets Bulk Plane } f I North South Building 25'6" 3P6" - Setback Wall 25' 25' _ Height at Building y Setback Bulk Meets Meets Plane proposal proposal - ` - G •"`s• Constructed Recommendation Exceeds/Below Recommendation FAR 4,475 SF 0.48 3,538 SF 0.38 - } Building 1,687 SF 18% 2,340 SF 25% 653 SF Coverage 1595 t 1 General Information - - Zoning District: RL Lot Size: 9,784 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 1,728 sq. Il r i' ,ct Accessory Building: 0.0 •v , t' u' Building Footprint: 1,728 sq. i Year Constructed: 1963 a•~F'' ~l .',kvC•.~,,; ~ ~ Summary • Below FAR • Below Building Coverage t. •si tl' J _ . Imo. Os."~? - '~~it. • . ' ' ~ , - Constructed Recommendation Exceeds/Below East West Recommendation FAR 1,728 SF 0.18 3,604 SF 0.37 1,876 SF _ Building 10' 3' Building 1,728 SF 18% 2,478 SF 25% 650 SF Setback Coverage F9 U WA General Information Zoning District. RL-1 w Lot Size: 7,000 sq. it. House Size: 4,578 sq. II. ' Accessory Buildings: 574 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 5,152 sq. ft. w r ,;r Building Footprint: 1,974 sq. R. r Tai `4l `p Overall Height: 30.33' s ' Year Constructed: On-going Summary • Exceeds FAR ~ - • Below Building Coverage A • Fails to Meet Bulk Plane (South) - - - - North South o- Building 10' 5'Iy' . rrrF , Setback Wall 18' 24W' T Height at f--. Building so Setback Bulk Plane Meets 1[>nal24k proposal Nit a Constructed Recommendation Exceedselow RecommeBdation _ `i _ - FAR 5,152 SF 0.74 3,120 SF 0.45 2.0 ; - Building 1,974 SF 28% 2,100 SF 30% 126 SF Coverage General information i „ Zoning District: RL-1 ~7,y r, 1 Lot Size: 7,812.5 sq. ft. e5 House Size: 3,519 sq. ft. Accessory Buildings: 496.8 sq. ft. i • ' ' Total Floor Area: 4,015 sq. (t. -10 - ~-A Building Footprint: 2,513 sq. ft. Overall Hcight: 33.9' Year Constructed: On-going Summary • Exceeds FAR ' i • Exceeds Building Coverage • Meets Bulk Plane IM I North South Mff4' ~t - Building 1015" 8' Setback Wall 20' 20' l Height at T; Building Setback i *I J Bulk Plane Meets Meets proposal proposal •4` Constructed Recommendation EacceflVBelow ■ I `4 Recommendation FAR 4,015 SF 0.51 3,261 SF 0.42 754 Building 2,513 SF 32% 2,181 SF 28% 2 Coverage 0: + General Information , 4' q', Zoning District: RL 1 Lot Size: 6,225 sq. ft. House Size: 1,120 sq R. Accessory Buildings: 0.0 Total Floor Area: 1,120 sq. D. Building Footprint: 1,120 sq ft. Year Constructed: 1953` i Summary >r • Below FAR • Below Building Coverage s r'4~ I 'r . Constructed Recommendation ESceeds,/BcloW North South Recommendation FAR 1,120 SF 0.18 2,985 SF 0.48 1,865 SF Building 1,120 SF 18% 2,022 SF 32% 902 SF Building 4' 5' Coverage Setback i~ - _ I 3074 4" St. : General Tnformation Zoning District: RL-I Lot Size: 6,285 sq. ft. Vq House Size: 1,340 sq. ft. fy~ 1I~ Accessory Buildings: 0.0 Total Floor Area: 1,340 sq. fl. ;`s't •~°.±„'tir: ' Building Footprint: 1,340 sq- fl. Year Constructed: 1952 ~ \ 3, ,yrr f Y- r Summary 1 - • Y L • Below FAR sy • Below Building Coverage ed rt+ a~ T Y.,+' - Won 47, Constructed Recommendation F\ceedsBelow North South Recommendation FAR 11340 SF 0.21 2,996 0.47 1,656 SF SF Building 5' 6' Building 1,340 SF 21% 2,029 32% 689 SF Setback Coverage SF 3007 10"' St. General Information Zoning District: RL-1 Lot Size: 9,357 sq. fl. House Size: 4,411 sq. fl. 1 Accessory Buildings: 1,143 sq. fl. Total Floor Area: 5,554 sq. ft, Build Ing Footprint: 3,291 sq. fl. Overall Height: 29.5' Year Constructed: 2008 Summary • Exceeds FAR ~ • Exceeds Building Coverage v + - • Fails to Meet Bnik Plane " North South -'4' i~?wt = r Building 5' 13' - - Setback - - - Wall 23'l 1.5" 23'11.5" f Height at - Setback ,Z BulkYlane Lscceds Meets + by 6'11.5" proposal Constructed Recommendation FsceedsBelow 4' I "l - Rerommendation ~ ~f,.• FAR 5,554 0.59 3,530 SF 0.38 SF ? r. , Building 3,291 3S% 2,336 SF 25% 9,55 SF ' Coverage SF General in formation ~i4TS'~ 1' Zoning District: RL-1 Lot size: 6,571 sq. ft. 2 f r, House Size: 2,461 sq ft. Accessory Buildings: 476 sq. ft. Total Floor Area: 2,937 sq. ft. ` l = n % Building Footprint: 1,933 sg ft. a J Year Constructed: 1946; Remodeled r JJ` Summary p t ar S pelf • Exceeds FAR i' l~•`,`' • Exceeds Building Coverage Z ! f`•.':`Pi: ' i ' 'fir,., ]I 1 k ~1 Constructed Recommendation L%cc,dQBelow North South Recommendation FAR 3,413 SF 0.52 3,045 SF 0.46 F Building Coverage 2,409 SF 37% 2,057 SF 31% q; 1 ;;I Building 10' 13 Setback :,I 7'h St. t General Information Zoning District: RL-1 tK"; r ' L ' t s+ Lot Size: 6,401 sq. fl. ` ~t y X'; 3 tis. House Size: 4,224.5 sq. ft. ` • r air : } , Accessory Buildings: 550 sq. ft. i* h 3v f 1 Total Floor Area: 4,774.5 sq. ft. Building Footprint: 2,269 sq.ft. Overall Height: 29.95' till j _ r~s n. ~~*rl Year Constructed: 2008 did Summary • Exceeds FAR 1 J • Exceeds Building Coverage _ • Fails to Meet Bulk Plane (South) `K I H 1 _ North South t t I Building 12'6" Setback Well 24' 21 Height at ; i.•~ Y 1 Building Setback Bulk Plane Meets exceeds ffifila~ IN proposal by 3.8' i• a,1'. - 5 Constructed Recommendation E,.cccd JBelo%v Recommendation FAR 4.775 SF 0,75 3,016 SF 0.47 1,': -:ft ` ~ Ik: f !ti ~ .s Building Coverage 2,269 SF 35% 2,040 SF 32°fo 22y St - rid. tY, 1440 Alpine Ave. #7 General Information Zoning District: RI-1 Lot Size: 10,941 sq. ll. House Size: 4,044 sq. fl. Accessory Buildings: 0.0 Total Flour Area: 4,044 sq- ft. i r ,t Building Footprint: 1,945 sq. ft. ` ' r cJ Overall Height: 34.96' Year Constructed: On going 33j~ p'. ~T' t a Summary "S ° ti ec • Exceeds FAR R~ c 1! • Below Building Coverage e~j s•! 1 • Mccts Bulk Ylane ~ l• ~ ~ i y ! , East West Building 14'6" 191 V Setback Wall 26' 18'9" Height at 1 tom` Building L f ~l 9 Setback - Bulk Plane Mcets Meeis i proposal proposal Constructed Recommendation FtcreddBelow Recommendation FAR 4,044 SF 0.37 3,806 SF 0.35 ' 11F Building Coverage 1,945 SF 18% 2,594 SF 24% 649 SF 1391 Alpine General Information Zoning District: RM-2 Lot size; 8,418 sq. ft. House Size: 1,755 sq. fl. Accessory Buildings: 0.0 f ' Total Floor Area: 1,755 sq. ft. c E Building Footprint: 1,755 sq. ft. 4 s f~ r , Sul 4 Year Constructed: 1954 N. J' Summarv eye' d?i' rr~" 1.. • Below FAR A • Below Building Coverage A ~ • ` ~ l 1 "3 'i ~ ~ fC-~''N - 'fly }'Y~ S • t ^ \1,:~~F~:, J.w. _ r Constructed Recommendation Ezcccd.,/Below East West Recommendation FAR 1,755 SF 0.20 3,366 SF 0.40 1,611 SF Building 30' 6' Building Coverage 1,755 SF 20% 2,241 SF 28% 486 SF Setback 1/ General Information r., Zoning District: RL-1 t' Lot Size: 7,000 sq, ft. t House Size: 4,583 sq. R. Accessory Buildings: 352 sq. ft. 't'otal Floor Area: 4,935 sq. ft- lddmancnmrecs Building Footprint: 2,061 sq. fl. sua<wreto Overall Height: 32' ,<acssorybudding Year Remodeled: On-going r Summary • Exceeds FAR Ci• • Below Building Coverage • Fails to Meet Bulk Plane (Both Sides) East West iBuilding 7'4" 3'10" Setback Wall Height 20' 20'' at Building Setback Bulk Plane Exceeds by I' by I i Constructed Recommendation d,Below _ Recommendation FAR 4,935 SF 0.71 3,120 SF 0.45 I•;15 S~ s L Building Coverage 2,061 SF 29% 2,100 SF 30% 39 SF - 608 Spruce St. General Information !c ^r* ' Zoning District: RL-I Lot Size: 9,200 sq. ft. kvf~ +,xr! y ft House Size: 4,887 sq. ft. I y, IN, st Accessory Buildings: 576 sq. n. Total Floor Area: 5,463 sq. ft. ° Building Footprint:3 Overall Height: 28.3' Year; On -going 4 i I' . Summary 1 = 3 y i•~^, - • Exceeds FAR i • Exceeds Building Coverage • Meets Bulk Plane s t -V r East West Building 6' G Setback Wall 18' 18' Height ti' r Setback Bulk Mccts Meets Plane proposal proposal j: Constructed Recommendation F.\Ceed'IBelo%%' t: 1 Recom me nda h un FAR 5,463 SF 0.59 3,503 SF 0.35 1,960 l Building 3,393 SF 37% 2,320 SF 25°/n Coverage - A-052 Rose Ifill-Dr. General Information Zoning District: RL-1 Lot Size: 12,100 sq. ft. i%- House Size: 5,882 sq. R 't Accessory Buildings: 816 sq. ft. . Total Floor Area: 6,698 sq. ft. Building Footprint: 2,828 sq, ft. Overall Height: 35' 00 SY~ Year Constructed: On-going ;i r• r 1., Summary • Exceeds FAR + ~ ;_r,'~ti • Exceeds Building Coverage • Fails to Meet Bulk Plane (South) Fryl 1=' (fi 1 1 North South - .i Building 10' S' Setback - _ r Wall Height 20' 20' ~ at Building Setback Bulk Plane Meets Fscccds proposal Constructed Recommendation Exceeds/Below rV Recommendation FAR 6,698 SF 0.55 4,007 0.33 '.(")1 ~ I `Ai SF r_ Building 2,828 SF 23;6 2,710 22% Coverage SF r 505 Aurora Ave. General In formation Zoning District: gE Lot Size: 10,214.6 sq. ft. House Size: 4,052 sq ft Accessory Buildings: 6< ~r Total Floor Area: 4,740.5 sq. I' _ • . Building Footprint: 2,876 sq. tt. j d.7'.-. v un aF Overall Height: 25.8' r= Year Constructed: On-going r3" Summary • Exceeds FAR " - • Exceeds Building Coverage - t • Meets Bulk Plane East West Building 10' 2~ i° i4slr s - ^L~ Setback Wall 10' 14' I t rr Height at Building r 11 xr. - Sct Backp Bulk Meets Mccls Plane proposal proposal Constructed Recommendation Ek"I'dAMoti Recommendation 1 4 FAR 4,740 SF 0.46 3,679 SF 0.36 1,061 SF! Building 2,876 SF 28% 2,521 SF 25% 5Y SF - V 5- Covers e 506 22"d St. 912 General Information Zoning District: Rl.-1 Lot Size: 10,625 sq. ft. y 4 r House Size: 4,301 sq. ft. 1`y = 'rf Accessory Buildings: 462 sq. ft. f..r~ TY zr x` Total Floor Area: 4,763 sq. ft. _ ~•1 z~ Building Footprint: 3,362 sq. ft. i • y~ • , r t Overall Height: 30' e Sr I ' , Year Constructed: On-going • 7c. y' Sum marv ;1 1fi, . r. 4 • Exceeds FAR • Exceeds Building Coverage • Meets Bulk Plane I i t r North South j' Building 77" 12'8" M1 Setback Wall 10' 10.* Height at Building Setback Bulk Meets Mcr' : ~y q: Plane proposal propu I Constructed - _ IZeCGItS rII Clld htiou ~.a-~ FAR 4,763 SF 0.45 3,750 SF 0.35 I ,o I a I 1' r Building 3,362 SF 32% 2,563 SF 24% 799 S' - - . Coverage 508'22" Street #12A General Information v ec'- • Zoning District:RL-1 ; J w ^ 1 ~ Lot Size: 6,153 sq. it. ~ ~1 ~ `►t s , T ~ r House Size: 1,154 sq. ft. Accessory Buildings: 364 sq.ft. Total Floor Area: 1,518 sq. ft. r' "1 r Building Footprint: 1,518 sq ft. Year Constructed: 1946 Summary i •It a, • Below FAR • Below Budding Coverage 4 J. Constructed Recommendation CrceedslBelow North South Recommendation FAR 1,518 SF 0.25 2,972 SF 0.48 1,454 SF f Building I1' 7' Building Coverage 1,518 SF 25% 2,015 SF 32% 497 SF Setback ~`l 155 S. 32P, General Information 4 r l < y {~+i Zoning District; RL-I Lot Size: 7,350 sq. r1. ~ Q, ! . > I louse Size: 2,968 s 11. A -cessory Bu ildi ngs: 0 Total Floor Area: 2,968 sq. ft. Building Footprint: 2,475 sq. StL11 Overall Hcight: 26' Year Remodeled: 2008 Summary • Below FAR r _ LI i • Exceeds Building Coverage 1- 'y ICJ • Meets Bulk Plane r North South , sl'a MA !5Y - A. e ~a..- Building 8' l0'8" -4~' ' Setback - Wall (l' IS' - - - - - Height at Building Setback Bulk Meets Meets Plane proposal proposal i. nti f" Constructed Recommendation F.ecceds/Below Recommendation f'tl';',4 iie FAR 2,968 SF 0.40 3,233 SF 0.43 265 SF a. • 401, j 7- + t h. tA,_~ Building 2,475 SF 34% 2,135 SF 29% ` + 1e Covers a - 7 145 S. 32"0 St. #13A General Information A!, i Zoning District: RL Lot Size: 7,317 sq. ft. House Size: 1,270 sq fl. ..••Z Accessory Buildings: 230 sq.fl. + '.yr 1 y Total Floor Area: 1,500 sq. ft. Building Footprint: 1,500 sq ft. M.t C t' Year Constructed: 1955 a' Summary - • Below FAR • Below Building Coverage .r r ft 7,+ Constructed Recommendation E\cee~,/Below North South c Recommendation FAR 1,500 SF 0.21 3.175 SF 0.43 1,675 SF Building Set S' Building Coverage 1,500 SF 21% 2,135 SF 3D% 635 SF Back - - - - - . 2765 1 General Information I { x Zoning District: RL-I II* t J■ Lot Size: 7,662 Sq. ft. e e f House Size: 1,962 sq. ft.= Accessory Buildings: 0.0 Y • t ` Total Floor Area: 1,962 Sq. ft. 1 ! Building Footprint: 1,745 sq, ft. All Overall Height. 26' Year Remodeled: On-going 331 r Summary • Below FAR tt t el • Below Building Coverage v ' =r • Fails to Meet Bulk Plane (Northwest) Northwest Southeast; f i Lam; ' c y Building 117' 7' a' r ' t Set Back r Wall 9' 18' = - - Height at Building Setback Bulk E :ecd Meets : i Plane b) 2proposal ? Constructed Recommendation 13zcccds/Below Recommendation 'r FAR 1,962 SF 0.26 3,235 SF 0.42 1,273 SP Building 1,745 SF 23% 2,166 SF 28% 421 SF r Coverage L-Milo Carnegie 2735 , General Information 7Aning District: RI-1 ' RNS. -v4% i Lot Si.: 7,662 sq. ft. House Size: 1,450 sq ft. Accessory Buildings: 0.0 Total Floor Area: 1,450 sq. ft"' Building Footprint: 1,450 sq ft. " Year Constructed: 1963 Summary `r - • Below FAR • Below Building Coverage :t - f • - _ _ - Win Constructed Recommendation L zcccdc/Below Northwest Southeast Recommendation FAR 1,450 SF 0.18 3,235 SF 0.43 1,785 SF Building 20' 6' Building Coverage 1,450 SF 18% 2,166 SF 28% 716 SF Setback ff l 995 Gil •Y~ General information laming District: RL-1 Lot Sire: 7,000 sq ft House Size: 2,564 sq, ft f11' Accessory Buildings: 0.0 ' Total Floor Area: 2,564 sq. II r 1• Building Footprint: 1,806 sc, I i ' Overall Height: 26' ri Year Remodeled: 2008 fd,7: Summarv a, • Below FAR ~L_' r 1 r I • Below Building Coverage low • Meets Bulk Plane "y North South F -It Building 7' 5'6 'ya l\~= Setback It ; _ Wall 12' 12' Height at - s+ Building Setback Bulk Meets Meets Plane proposal proposal i Constructed Recommendation 1:~t d,/Bclow _ Recommendation t . FAR 2,564 SF 0.37 3,120 SF 0.45 556 SF Building 1,806 SF 26% 2,100 SF 30% 294 SF 1 Coverage MEMO O f:ia: -tl1) - General Information - - - yTyr~- zf: Zoning District: RL-1 .e f^'sz o , Lot Size: 6,337.5 sq. ft. House Size: 2,837 sq. ft. ~ ~ :,.pr,'; „ ~ ~ Accessory Buildings: 600 sq. ft. a Total Floor Area: 3,437 sq. fl. 'Tr i r+ Building Footprint: 1,928 sq. ft. r - ' Y Overall Height: 27.5' ` t` Year Remodeled: 2008 Y ri 11~ CNt Summarv t• _ t • Exceeds FART • Below Building Coverage Meets Bulk Plane East West L~ 1, tM1 sta iz. r r7;' ; Building 8' 11' F~(F _~~~A[9~~~ ' Setback Wall 14' 14' - Height at Building r _ Setback C. t Bulk Lsl Meets Plane prproposal r1 Constructed Recommendation /Below t: 1( Recommendation >s r FAR 3,437 SF 0.54 3,005 SF 0.47 .13 ? Building 1,928 SF 30% 2,034 SF 32% 106 SF `4 Coverage 2920 Lafayette Dr. Cencral Information Zoning District: RL-1 Lot Size: 8,050 sq. n. l'I ;yte House Size: 3,744 sq. ft. a ' Accessory Buildings: 0 , . 'total Floor Area: 3,744 sq. ft. Building Footprint: 1,529 sq. ft. , r 1 Overall Height: 31.6' Year Remodeled: 2008 Summary_ F • Exceeds FAR t • Below Building Coverage !`iV Fails to Mect Bulk Plane Both Sides) ~a East West, Building Set 10' 5. Back ° Y - Walt Height 26' 26' at Building Setback Bulk Plane I j. Constructed Recommendation F~cceds/Below Recommendation FAR 3,744 SF 0.47 3,303 S5 0.41 -1 S F Building Coverage 1,529 SF 19% 2,205 SF 27% 676 SF