The URL can be used to link to this page

5B - Direction on changes to the RH-2 Zone District CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 19, 2009 AGENDA TITLE: Direction on changes to the RH-2 Zone District including: • Parking requirements, • Calculation of density, • Floor area requirements, and • Potential consideration of comprehensive plan land use designation and zoning changes in designated areas. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: David Driskell, Executive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning.Manager Julie Johnston, Senior Planner Jessica Vaughn, Planner I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this agenda item is to receive direction from the Planning Board on possible regulatory changes to the RH-2 zone district, as well as potential land use designation and zoning changes for certain areas currently zoned RH-2. To accomplish this goal, staff prepared a report (Attachment A: Residential High-2 Zone District Report) that provides an overview and analysis of the R11-2 zone district regulations and the subareas of the City zoned RH-2, as well as staff's recommendations for potential changes. The purpose of the recommendations is to amend the regulations of the R11-2 zone district to better align it with the intent of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) and the purpose of a high density residential zone district as outlined in the Boulder Revised Code. The RH-2 Zone District Project was originally requested by Planning Board with the goal of surveying and analyzing the "working functionality" of the RH-2 zone district. City Council placed the R1:1-2 Zone District Project on the 2008-2009 work program after issues and concerns were identified by the Planning Board, staff and the development community, including parking requirements, compatibility of uses, and density/floor area calculations. The RH-2 zone district is currently mapped in four subareas: University Hill, Goss Grove, Pine/Spruce Street and North Broadway. Please refer to Attachment A: Residential High-2 Zone District Report for a complete description of the subareas' boundaries, overall characteristics, recent development, development potential, and key issues. The subareas range in size from whole neighborhoods, like Goss Grove, to a small subset of lots on University Hill. Additionally, each subarea is comprised of a mix of residential use types and nonresidential developments. /OQere:r Meal -~.1.f 1.~pW After City Council directed staff to include the RI-1-2 Zone District Project on the work program, staff developed a problem statement and objectives to help guide the project, began the initial examination of the zone district, and reviewed those areas of the City zoned RH-2. This inforniation was presented to Planning Board as an update on March 19, 2009 with a list of key issue questions. Planning Board supported the key issues, problem statement and objectives identified by staff and provided direction to continue the analysis of the RII-2 zone district regulations and subareas and to develop recommendations for change. The problem statement, objectives, and key issue questions presented to Planning Board on March 19, 2009 are as follows: Problem Statement: Problem Statement: The current RH-2 zone district regulations are complex and difficult to understand. Their complexity results in unpredictable development patterns, that are often required to be heard by Planning Board and which lead to variations from the existing regulations. The purpose of the III-2 zone district project is to provide consistency and clarity to the existing regulations by addressing the current parking requirements, density and floor area calculations, and nonresidential uses currently permitted within the RH-2 zone district. In doing so, the following objectives were developed: Objectives: 1. Maintain consistency with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). 2. Maintain consistency with the purpose and intent of the hi(Yh density residential zone district, particularly in terms of permitted density. 3. Provide predictability and consistency to property owners and developers regarding permitted density, parking and floor area calculations. 4. Ensure that the regulations are effective and that they directly address a specific issue identified in the problem statement. Key Issue Questions: 1. Due to their differing characteristics, should rezoning be considered for those subareas that are not in accordance with the intent of'the RI.1-2 zone district based on current development patterns and should potential solutions be more subarea .specific? 2. Should the parking requirements of the RH-2 zone district (square footage) be revised to reflect the parking requirement of the other zone districts (bedroom count), or should the parking requirements be revised to more accurately reflect demand? AgWxb Nei 0 ' ~e - v-- 3. Should the relationship between density and floor area be revised to provide better clarity of the allowed density on site? 4. Should the inaximum floor area per dwelling unit (400 square feet) be revised to allow more square.16otage for single family development? 5. Should the RH-2 zone district regulations be revised to address floor area regulations of nonresidential uses permitted within the district? 6. Are there compatibility issues between the nonresidential uses artd residential uses that are permitted within the RH-2 zone district? QUESTIONS TO PLANNING BOARD: 1. Do you agree with the staff recommendation on regulatory changes to the RH-2 zone district as outlined in below and discussed in the RH-2 Zone District Report (see Attachment A: Residential High-2 Zone District Report)? 2. Do you agree with the staff recommendation to consider land use designation changes for certain subareas zoned RH-2 as part of the 2010 Major Update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan'? 3. Do you agree with the staff recommendation to consider zoning changes for certain subareas zoned RH-2? 4. What order of phasing should the next steps of the project take`? SJ'AFF RECOMMENDATIONS: At the conclusion of the Residential High-2 Zone District Report, staff provides a series of' recommendations (see Attachment A: Residential High-2 Zone District Report) that are supported by the project objectives and which respond to the key issue questions posed to Planning Board on March 19, 2009. A summary of these recommendations are provided below: 1. Amend the parking calculations in section 9-9-6 (Table 9-1) of the B.R.C. 1981 to be more consistent with the intent of the high density residential zone district and the methodology of calculating parking in other zone districts: • 1 for detached dwelling units • 1 space for a 1 bedroom attached dwelling unit • 1.5 for 2 bedroom attached dwelling unit • 2 for 3 bedroom attached dwelling unit • 3 fbr 4 or more bedroom attached dwelling unit Aqw4a MmA 68 pw#-Z- 2. Amend the density and floor area requirements of section 9-8-3 and `liable 8-1 of the B.R.C. 1981 to be clear and predictable, and consistent with the intent of the BVCP and the high density residential zone. Decrease the minimum lot area per dwelling unit from 3,200 square feet to 3,000 square feet which would increase the by-right number of dwelling units per acre from 13.6 to 14. Increase the minimum lot area per dwelling unit for the discretionary review from 1,600 square feet to 2,000 square feet. This would decrease the maximum allowed density from 27.2 dwelling units per acre to 21.7. While lowering the density from 27.2 to 21.7 is still consistent with the high density residential zone and BVCP, it also permits a density that is unique to the RH-2 zone district, not the RI-1-5 zone district, which is a separate district. Eliminate the maximum floor area of 800 square feet as defined in section 9- 8-3(c), B.R.C. 1981 that applies to all dwelling units in the RH-2 zone 3. Consider the following BVCP land use designation changes as part of the 2010 Major Update: • Goss Grove South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood from HR, high density residential to MXR, mixed density residential • Spruce/Pine Street West of Broadway Neighborhood from HR, high density residential to MXR, mixed density residential 4. Consider possible rezoning for three subarea neighborhoods: • University Hill University Boulevard Neighborhood from RH-2 to RII-5 • Goss Grove South of Canyon Neighborhood from RH-2 to a RMX-I • Spruce/Pine Street West of Broadway Neighborhood From RH-2 to RMX-1 5. Staff recommends that a phasing plan be considered to ensure that the order in which the above recommendations are pursued is the most practical and time sensitive. Staff recommends Phasing Option 2, which entails a four step process for implementing the regulatory changes and the proposed zoning and BVCP land use designation changes. For a complete discussion of all of the phasing options please refer to the Phasing Plan Options section below. PHASING PLAN OPTIONS: Due to the recommendations and their potential impacts, staff recognizes that a phasing plan should be considered prior to their commencement. The order in which the proposed Agmxb %=I PW# recommendations are pursued will affect development in each of the subareas differently. For instance if the regulatory changes are implemented prior to the proposed land use designation and zoning changes, there will be an- increased by-right density for all subareas, which would conflict with the recommendations for a land use designation change. Additionally, the proposed recommendations require amendments to both the BVCP and the Boulder Revised Code. Amending either of these documents generally involves a fairly lengthy process. The 2010 Major Update to the BVCP will be initiated in 2010 with a completion date in 2011. The proposed recommendations for land use designation changes would be considered as part of this BVCP Major Update_ Staff has also developed an ongoing program in which substantive changes to the Boulder Revised Code are taken to Planning Board on a regular basis. The proposed regulatory changes to the RI 1-2 zone district are considered substantive changes that could be carried forward as part of this ongoing update program. Below are the three options developed by staff for pursuing the recommendations. Each of the options presents phases in which the proposed recommendations would be implemented. Option 1: BVCP amendments are made first. • Phase 1 - Consider BVCP land use designation amendments as part of the 2010 Major Update to the Comprehensive Plan. • Phase 2 - Rezone subareas at the conclusion of the BVCP Update. • Phase 3 - Amend the Boulder Revised Code to include all of the recommended regulatory changes. Pros Cons Actively pursues the recommendations Regulatory changes would not be in an orderly, clear process. implemented immediately. All regulatory changes will be in place at the same time so the implications of Amending the BVCP and rezoning the changes could be surveyed and can be lengthy processes. analyzed immediately. Option 2: Portions of the regulatory changes are made immediately; others will be made following the BVCP update and rezoning. • Phase 1 Amend the Boulder Revised Code to include the recommended changes that would eliminate the maximum floor area requirement (800 square feet), change the parking requirement (moving from a floor area basis to a per bedroom basis), and decrease the Planning Board approved maximum permitted density from 27.2 to 21.2 dwelling units per acre. • Phase 2 - Consider BVCP land use designation amendments as part of the 2010 Major Update to the Comprehensive Plan. • Phase 3 - Rezone subareas at the conclusion of the BVCP Update. Im ip-5-B- • Phase 4 -Amend the Boulder Revised Code to include the recommended changes that would increase the by-right density from 13.6 to 14 dwelling units per acre. Pros Cons _ Since the by-right density will be changing at a future date, and Implements parking, floor area, and depending on when a development Planning Board approval density proposal was submitted, the recommendations immediately. maximum permitted by-right density could be different. Could be confusing. Not able Avoids increasing the by-right density to survey and analyze the rezoning and land use implications of the full regulatory until subarea changes changes are complete. as they will not all be in place at the same time. Option 3: All regulatory changes are made first. • Phase I - - Amend the Boulder Revised Code to include all of the recommended regulatory changes. • Phase 2 - Consider BVCP land use designation amendments as part of the 2010 Major Update to the Comprehensive Plan. • Phase 3 - Rezone areas at the conclusion of the BVCP Update. Pros Cons Regulatory changes would be Regulatory changes increase the by- implemented immediately. right density in some subareas where high density is not favored. All regulatory changes will be in place Implementing the regulatory changes at the same time so the implications of first contradicts goals of rezoning and the changes could be surveyed and land use designation changes with analyzed. regard to density. Based on the analysis of the tlu-ee options, staff would not recommend Phasing Option 3. The impacts associated with an increase in the by-right densities to those subareas recommended for a land use designation change could be detrimental. Staff recognizes that while Phasing Option 1 is the most sequentially succinct option, it is not time sensitive in providing relief to the development community, property owners and City staff in their review and implementation of the current RH-2 zone district regulations. Phasing Option 1 would require the regulatory changes to remain on hold for approximately 18 months to two years while the land use and rezoning changes are reviewed. Staff recommends Phasing Option 2, as it provides some flexibility regarding changes to the RH-2 regulations and the timing of amendments to the zoning and I3VCP land use designation maps. From a practical stand point Phasing Option 2 would be the more time sensitive option; it would provide development proposals immediate relief from the existing regulations, including parking requirements and maximum permitted floor area. The proposed regulatory changes could be included in the Land Use Code Edits that will go before City Council during the first quarter of next year. Also, under Phasing Option 2 the permitted Planning Board density would be lowered immediately from 27.2 to 21.7, while the maximum permitted by-right density would remain 13.6 until after the proposed rezoning and BVCP land use designation changes were completed. By delaying the implementation of an increase in maximum permitted density, the associated potential impacts on the existing character and development pattern would be avoided in those areas recommended for BVCP land use designation changes and rezoning. PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENT'S: A public outreach session was held on December 17, 2008 to engage property owners and residents on the key issues within their neighborhoods. Approximately 25 participants attended the workshop and provided feedback through small groups based on geographic location. From the cornmunity feedback, the issues which were considered top priority to residents and owners were found to be consistent with staff's evaluation. They included: • Appropriateness of nonresidential uses in a primarily residential area; • Permitted density and understanding how density is calculated; • Square footage per dwelling unit; • Changing the zoning to better reflect development and land uses; and • Reducing parking requirements and overall parking concerns in the subareas. REVIEW OF KEY ISSUES: The following issues have been identified as the key concerns with the Rfl-2 zone district: 1. Parking Parking requirements are currently based on a per square foot regulation, which typically results in high parking requirements and is inconsistent with other residential zoning districts, which utilize bedrooms as a basis for calculating parking. For example, an 801 square foot, one-bedroom unit requires three parking spaces. 2. Density/Floor Area Calculations Density within the Rll-2 zone district is dependent on four factors: 1. Lot size; 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit; 3. Minimum open space requirement per dwelling unit; and 4. Maximum floor area per dwelling unit. -da MW #-fo pap 1 "fhc combination of all four factors increases the complexity of calculating density, as the calculation standards lead to specific limitations that become tied to the floor area of individual units. Density calculations are further complicated any time interior architectural changes occur that either increase or decrease individual unit square footage. All of these calculations combined make it difficult for both the developer and the adjacent neighbors to understand the ultimate development potential of a lot. In addition to the by-right standards outlined above, Planning Board may allow an increase in density through a reduction in the minimum square footage requirement per lot from 3,200 square feet to 1,600 square feet pursuant to site plan approval. 3. Floor Area for Single-Family 't'here is a maximum floor area of 800 square feet that applies to all dwelling units, including new single-family residential construction within the RH-2 zone district. Limiting the square footage of a single-family residence discourages new single-family development and encourages the conversion of single-family units to multi-family units. 4. Nonresidential Land Uses There are two concerns regarding nonresidential land uses within the R11-2 zone district, which relate to floor area and compatibility of uses. The intent of the district is to be residential in nature; however there are a variety of nonresidential uses allowed per section 9-6 of the Boulder Revised Code through the Use Review process. The mix of uses permitted in the RH-2 zone district is of concern with regard to compatibility in some of the subareas. The current regulations do not place any limitations on floor area for nonresidential uses while there is a limit on residential uses. It becomes difficult to surmise the level of impact a nonresidential development may have on the surrounding residential uses. Further, the current regulations can act as an incentive for nonresidential development in what is intended to be a predominantly residential zone. 5. Zonin€,/BVCP Changes The analysis completed on the subareas of the City zoned RH-2 makes evident the differences tbund in terms of uses, density, and associated issues. Some of the subareas may be suitable for rezoning to higher density districts based on their current development patterns, while others may be considered for a different land use pattern. The future vision of some of the subareas may need to be reevaluated as part of the 2010 Major Update to BVCP. NEXT STEPS: The next steps in the project will ultimately depend on Planning Board's direction regarding the phasing plan. If Option 1 is chosen, then staff will place the regulatory changes on hold until the BVCP land use and rezoning changes can be reviewed. If Option 2 is chosen, then AQWWG #_58 Pam it S staff will move forward with the identified subset of suggested regulatory amendments while the BVCP land use designation changes are considered during the 2010 Major Update. Finally, if Option 3 is chosen, then staff will prepare all of the reconmended regulatory changes for Planning Board to review. Additional meetings with the property owners regarding the land use designation and zoning recommendations are not planned as part of this project. If Planning Board provides direction that these recommendations should be considered, then meetings would occur during the public process for the 2010 Major Update. However, staff will schedule a meeting within the next month with residents and property owners to debrief on the direction received from Planning Board. Approved By: David Driskell, -xecutive Director of Community Planning and Sustainability ATTACHMENTS: A: Residential High-2 Zone District Report Attachment A X1.1 i w} !r R' t~~ ~ Illlll~ll{I Ilfllllllll~i~,~ . - a ra r. , ilk Residential High-2 Zone District Report An In-depth Look at the RH-2 Zone District P Y f J RO aA •4 - 1 << ~ x'116. 'C- RH-2 Zone District Report prepared by: Julie Johnston, Senior Planner Jessica Vaughn, Planner I Susan Richstone, Comprehensive Planning Manager David Driskell, Executive Director Department of Community Planning and Sustainability November 19, 2009 I i TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Introduction Problem Statement and Project Objectives HISTORY 5 Regulatory Origins Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan RH-2 ZONE DISTRICT OVERVIEW 11 Existing Regulations Key Issues SUBAREA ANALYSIS 13 Subarea Introduction University Hill Subarea 15 Overall Character Recent Development/Development Potential Key Issues Analysis Goss Grove Subarea 19 Overall Character Recent Development/Development Potential Key Issues Analysis Spruce/Pine Street Subarea 29 Overall Character Recent Development/Development Potential Key Issues Analysis North Broadway Subarea 37 Overall Character Recent Development/Development Potential Key Issues Analysis REGULATORY ANALYSIS 43 RECOMMENDATIONS 49 Subarea Changes Regulatory Changes Summary EXHIBITS 59 A: RH-2 Zone District Historic Resources Map B: RH-2 Zone District Floodplain Map C: North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood Existing Development Pattern D: South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood Existing Development Pattern E: Matrix of Options F: RH-2 Zone District Use Standards Table G: RH-2 Zone District Bulk and Intensity Standards RH-2 Zone District; Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The RU-2 Zone District Project (the Project) was Broadway on the east, University Avenue on the included in City Council's 2008 work program with south and 9th Street on the west; the goal of analyzing and surveying the "working functionality" of the R1-1-2 zone district. The Project's 2. Goss Grove Subarea, bounded generally by placement on the work program was due to concerns Walnut Street on the north, Folsom Street on raised by Planning Board, staff and the development the east, Arapahoe Avenue on the south and community related to the implementation of the Broadway on the west; zone district regulations. Phase 1 of the Project commenced in October 2008, when staff began an 3. Spruce/Pine Street Subarea, which is generally initial investigation into the issues relating to the bounded by Pine Street on the north, 26th Street RH-2 zone district. Phase 1 also included a public on the east, Spruce Street on the south and 11th workshop and a meeting with the Planning Board to Street on the west; and solidify the key issues of the Project and to receive direction guiding the Project's next steps. Phase 2 4. North Broadway Subarea, bounded generally of the Project began with a detailed analysis of the by Forest Avenue on the north, 13th Street on areas of the city zoned RH-2 and the zone district's the east, Alpine Avenue on the south, and North regulations, with a focus on preparing recommenda- Broadway on the west. tions. This report is the culmination of these efforts. As part of the Phase 2 analysis, the University Hill, Purpose Goss Grove and Spruce/Pine Street Subareas were further broken down into individual neighborhoods. The purpose of this report is to summarize staff's Staff found that the variations in character of the analysis of the RH-2 zone district regulations and to subareas may suggest solutions that are specifically provide information regarding the areas zoned RH-2 tailored to particular neighborhoods, rather than a within the city. The recommendations provided in single change that might apply to the entire subarea this report focus on amending the regulations of the or the RH-2 zone district as a whole. RH-2 zone district to better align them with the intent of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Problem Statement and Objectives and the purpose of a high density residential district as outlined in the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.). As After City Council directed staff to include the a result of these recommendations and accompanying Project in the 2008 work program, staff developed analysis, additional proposals are included that a problem statement and objectives. The problem relate to changes to BVCP land use designations and statement for the Project is as follows: zoning. The current RH-2 zone district regulations are Subareas complex and difficult to understand. Their complexity results in unpredictable development In the Project's preliminary analysis, staff patterns, that are often required to be heard by distinguished four separate subareas where the R14-2 Planning Board and which lead to variations fronz zone district is currently in place (see Subarca Map the existing regulations. The purpose of the RH-2 on page 14): zone district project is to provide consistency and clarity to the existing regulations by addressing 1. -University Hill Subarea, which is generally the current parking requirements, density and floor bounded by Arapahoe Avenue on the north, area calculations and nonresidential uses currently permitted within the RH-2 zone district. RH-2 Zone District Report 1 Specifically, the Project aims to: Reducing parking requirements and overall 1. Maintain consistency with the Boulder Valley parking concerns in the subareas. Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Planning Board Direction, March 2009 2. Maintain consistency with the purpose and intent The problem statement, objectives, results of the of the high density residential zone district, public outreach session, and staff analysis of the particularly in terms ofpermitted density. RH-2 zone district were presented to Planning Board as an update on March 19, 2009. In the presentation 3. Provide predictability and consistency to property to the Planning Board, staff outlined the following owners and developers regarding permitted key issue questions for the board's consideration and density, parking and floor area calculations. feedback: 4. Ensure that the regulations are effective and that 1. Due to their differing characteristics, should they directly address a specific issue identified in rezoning be considered for those subareas that the problem statement. are not in accordance with the intent of the RH-2 zone district based on current development Community Input patterns and should potential solutions be more subarea specific? On November 26, 2008, a public notice was sent to all residents and property owners within the 2. Should the parking requirements of the RH-2 RI-1-2 zone district. A public outreach session was zone district (square footage) be revised to held on December 17, 2008 to engage property reflect the parking requirement of the other zone owners and residents on the key issues within their districts (bedroom count), or should the parking neighborhoods. Approximately 25 participants requirements be revised to more accurately reflect attended the workshop and provided feedback demand? through small groups based on geographic location. Two group activities were completed to understand 3. Should the relationship between density and floor the effects the current regulations and recent area be revised to provide better clarity of the development trends were having in these subareas. allowed density on site? The small groups reported out their findings on key issues within each subarea, appropriateness 4. Should the maximum floor area per dwelling unit of the existing regulations, and options for future (800 square feet) be revised to allow more square development. Individual worksheets were also footage for single-family development? provided to workshop participants and on the project website. From the community feedback, the issues 5. Should the RH-2 zone district regulations be which were considered top priority to residents and revised to address floor area regulations of non- owners were found to be consistent with staff. They residential uses permitted within the district? included: 6. Are there compatibility issues between the non- Appropriateness of nonresidential uses in a residential uses and residential uses that are primarily residential area; permitted within the RH-2 zone district? • Permitted density and understanding how Planning Board supported the key issues identified density is calculated; by staff and the community, and provided direction to staff to continue their in-depth analysis of the RH-2 • Square footage per dwelling unit; zone district and its subareas. • Changing the zoning to better reflect development and land uses; and 2 November 19, 2009 RH-2 Zone District Report, November 2009 • 3 for 4 bedroom or more attached dwelling unit This report provides an overview of the RH-2 zone 2. Density and Floor Area: Amend the density district regulations and the individual subareas zoned and floor area requirements of section 9-8-3 and RH-2 with an analysis of the key issues associated Table 8-1 of the B.R.C. 1981 to be clear and with each. Staff provides a series of recommenda- predictable, and consistent with the intent of the tions that are supported by the project objectives and BVCP and the high density residential zone. respond to the key issue questions posed to Planning Board in March of 2009. To be effective, the rec- • Decrease the minimum lot area per dwelling ommendations for the subareas and those for the unit requirement from 3,200 square feet to 3,000 regulations interconnect, as built form within each square feet which would increase the by-right subarea is directly influenced by these development number of dwelling units per acre from 13.6 to standards. 14. Staff studied the working functionality of the • Increase the minimum lot area per dwelling unit recommended regulatory changes in each of the for the discretionary review from 1,600 square subareas zoned RH-2. In doing so, staff recognized feet to 2,000 square feet. This would decrease that the changes, in some cases, would not be a the maximum allowed density from 27.2 blanket fit for resolving the key issues identified dwelling units per acre to 21.7. in each of the subareas. For example, increasing the maximum permitted by-right density within • Eliminate the maximum floor area of 800 square the RH-2 zone district might positively impact feet as defined is section 9-8-3(c), B.R.C. 1981 the development potential in Spruce/Pine Street that applies to all dwelling units in the RH-2 Subarea. However, this same increase may not zone. achieve a development pattern appropriate for the South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood in the 3. Land Use Designations: Consider possible Goss Grove Subarea. The increase in density would BVCP land use designation changes as part of the likely continue to alter the single-family residential 2010 Major Update: character found in this neighborhood. • Goss Grove South of Canyon Boulevard Recognizing this outcome, staff made additional Neighborhood from HR, high density residential recommendations for each subarea that are intended to MXR, mixed density residential. to work in concert with the regulatory changes to resolve any unintended consequences. ° Spruce/Pine Street West of Broadway Neighborhood from HR, high density residential Staff Recommendations to MXR, mixed density residential. 1. Parking Requirements: Amend the parking 4. Rezoning: Consider possible rezoning for three calculations for RH-2 in section 9-9-6 (Table 9-1) subarea neighborhoods: of the B.R.C. 1981 to be more consistent with the intent of the high density residential zone district: • University Hill University Boulevard Neighborhood from RH-2 to RH-5. • 1 for detached dwelling units ° Goss Grove South of Canyon Boulevard 1 space fora 1 bedroom attached dwelling unit Neighborhood from RU-2 to RMX- 1. • 1.5 for 2 bedroom attached dwelling unit • Spruce/Pine Street West of Broadway • 2 for 3 bedroom attached dwelling unit Neighborhood from RH-2 to RMX- 1. RH-2 Zone District Report 3 4 November 19, 2009 HISTORY Regulatory Origins The RH-2 zone district began as an overlay zone. In original zone districts, IIR-E and HR-X. What 1985, the High Density Overlay Zone (HDOZ) was resulted was a method that allowed for by-right created to address the redevelopment of single-family development with 3,200 square feet of lot area per residential areas that were planned in the BVCP dwelling unit, and a minimum of 600 square feet for high density. The areas included in this overlay of open space per dwelling unit. Higher densities zone were located in close proximity to Boulder's could be accomplished with Site Review where downtown and University Hill, and were areas zoned Planning Board may reduce the minimum lot area HR-X (now RH-1) and HR-E (now RH-5). Please per dwelling unit to 1,600 square feet. The change see the map on page 6 for the HDOZ Map. from HDOZ, which required site review for every project to HZ-E, which had a by-right and site review The objective of HDOZ was to address the changing process, recognized that different densities required character of these areas and to mitigate the impacts more sensitivity to context of the neighborhood and of redevelopment to higher densities on the therefore needed discretionary review (Memo to existing neighborhoods, which were predominantly City Council, May 18, 1993). single-family detached residential. HDOZ was created to allow for development to full densities, but In order to further address concerns of parking only through the discretionary site review process, demand in some areas that were zoned HZ-E, the rather than through a by-right scenario. At that time, parking requirements were modified in 1993 to be developments with less than 3,200 square feet of based on the unit's square footage, rather than on lot area per dwelling unit in the HR-E district were a per bedroom basis, as was the case with other subject to further review. Developments with less high-density residential zone districts. Administering than 1,600 square feet of open space per dwelling a parking standard based on the number of bedrooms unit in the HR-X district were also subject to further proved to be a difficult task because of disagreement review. surrounding the definition of what constitutes a "bedroom." This being a constant source of In 1993, it was determined that HDOZ was not conflict between staff and applicants, the parking meeting the objective it was created for which was requirements changed to a standard that was based to mitigate the development impacts of high-density on the square footage of the building (Memo to residential development on existing single family City Council, May 18, 1993). The parking standard neighborhoods, and additional concerns primarily required one space for the first 500 square feet, and related to enforcement of parking and occupancy an additional space for every 300 square feet or issues existed. The goal at that time was to reduce portion thereof, up to 4 spaces per dwelling unit. reliance on discretionary reviews and encourage At the time the parking standard for the HZ-E zone more by-right development by adopting clearer and district was changed, the Planning Board expressed more comprehensive development standards (Memo concern that the new regulations may result in too to City Council, May 18, 1993). As a result, the high of a requirement (Memo to City Council, May areas zoned HR-X and HR-E that had the HDOZ 18, 1993). designation were consolidated and rezoned into a new zone district, called HZ-E. In 2006, the HZ-E zone was renamed to the RH-2 zone district as part of the Land Use Code Siinplifica- When the overlay zone was replaced with the tion project. No changes to the regulations were made HZ-E zone district, the requirements for calculating at this time and they remain as they are today. Please density were combined to include elements of their see the nzap on page 7. RH-2 Zone District Report S tI r J - 77 QI(rP.O '6a tffil _ A maim U C4 f f Valmont Rd 1 L ffMI 14-4 EdgeW°f~ 1 PEI A ~ i.~L1111~1J i- I`Ilk -AA ahpe AV.~ 1~ I T r L) CY E ~~L. `J ~1 t I V TIN - 11 ~ L~~11T -i ersity:Av - RH-2 Zoning District ` 1 1 1 1 1 _ 0 HOW 1~ - Ownership Parcels [_ll1L!J i [I!ID 41-Al Ali L 1- High Density Overlay Zone (HDOZ) - RH-2 Zone District, 1985-1993 6 November 19, 2009 - ~ 5- -TLI { << P tu~rm>ti BC- att ! - - - - ~f- RM-2 mtm Hrl ~Rl 'Valmont Rd--~ FIR TM BC ood Edge=Y RM-1 m P BM BalsamAv- MH. BT-2 RH12 Qi _ 3;,IJ1= P I RM-2 ~~~1 i_i -i 1~'J:'.• RH-_4 [RM-2 r,- RH-5- I _Rrl 5' ~ 4 '~j ll~ , s l y 5t BT-2y ABC -2 1 RMX=1 BT L_, FIR- rj~~e s RH-1 rM~p -_1 t t ~ ~S BT-21~ N ~1 ! R H-2, BT-2 1 RH-21.'; ,l l _Z ~n~t s~ l -r - ~BR-1 ~i ' i BMS -111J11~ E B fl 111 I l I L1llL - LLM R _ a~ DT-1 x} 17 llID - ! P- CDT 5 11[?1' LPL - - - 1 Arapahoe Av L Mflu ~ Lj l BC.-1 C TRH-2 J~ - t RH-1 4 BT-1 c{ t(._RMX-1 -RM-2~ RL-2 p RH-5 I T-'it1 2- 2 - RH 5 niversity'Av I ! ! i ! RH-2 Zoning Distriz;! L-U ~Chvnersfiip Parce' " I-5~ RL- 1 BMS RH-2 Zone Districts 0 500 1,000 2,000 Fuel RH-2 Zone District Report 7 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan units that could be added. The average density of the mixed density residential land use designation is The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) between six and 14 dwelling units per acre. is the guiding policy document for growth and development in the city since 1970. The BVCP Land The 2001 Land Use Map continues this same Use Map provides the desired land use pattern for the land use designation pattern except for the North Boulder Valley regarding location, type and intensity Broadway Subarea, where the low density residential of development. A review of the Land Use Map from land use designation of 1990 was changed to high 1970 to the most current 2008 map chronicles the density residential for those lots immediately vision for the subareas zoned RI-1-2 over time. adjacent to the west side of Broadway in the North Broadway Subarea. In 1970, the first BVCP indicated a less intense land use designation for most of the RH-2 subareas. The Finally, during the 2005 BVCP major update, five Goss Grove and the University Hill Subareas were lots west of Lincoln Place south of Arapahoe Road originally designated as high density residential, in the University Hill Subarea that were designated which has not changed dramatically since that time. mixed residential in 1997 were changed to high The Spruce/Pine Street Subarea was originally density residential. These land use designation planned for medium density residential, while most patterns are found in the current BVCP Land Use of the North Broadway Subarea was designated as Map. Seepage 9 for the current BVCP Land Use low density residential. Designation Map. By 1983, all of the subareas were planned for high density residential except for the seven lots east of Folsom Street within the Spruce/Pine Street Subarea, which continued to be designated as medium density residential. The 1990 Land Use Map indicates this same pattern of development, except for one discrepancy. The properties within the North Broadway Subarea that front Broadway on the west side of the street were delineated as high density residential in 1983. The 1990 map shows these same properties were planned for future low density residential. The low density residential designation continued through the 1997 BVCP map. The development pattern for the University Hill and the Spruce/Pine Street Subareas changed slightly in the 1997 Land Use Map. At that time, the mixed density residential designation, or MXR, was planned for those properties between Lincoln Place and 9th Street along Arapahoe Road in the University Hill Subarea, and for those properties west of Folsom Street in the Spruce/Pine Street Subarea. The change to mixed density residential for these areas indicated the city's goal to preserve current neighborhood character by reducing the number of new dwelling 8 November 19, 2009 LR HR OS-0 MR 000e V5 m fir, . OS=QR ii PK-ul0/oralOr IAv HR IOS D $ fvg+9 n s, vJ ~'D I OS-Q Eldnr Av Av M E LR HR I a LR J ¢t co: Dellwood Av PUB t''a - - N i rr 1]+ G B HR LR i Edg MR Cedar Av HR MR LR JAII-I Dr I E Panortma_AV__ S TB P'UBHR Alplne Or- V' P 3EL AlpirteAv t -j MR PK_UiO \o TB CB ---Mass 9F 1' k° r~ CB PKU 10 i E I~~a Ivgtsn st MXR ust MXR, a HR . MXR PK-U!O Sw"54,$v LR MOW ~MUB _ = 1 LR e HR, PonfzndPf ~ - . ti ' Clon P'r c _ PUB PUB j i ~.1s>• N _ I-s ,n st,I't S MXR ~l MUR ° . PK=UIO - f I MUB Mam',-11 Av - p a5~ HR l MXR HR MXR _ UB PK-UIG - MXR SP",ce OS-0 N RB MR, P.UB 1 HR MXR y HR' OS PK=Uf,lOt RB _ HRt HR RV, wRY. w~kE`i ~1 B RR, -HR.. RB RR PUB RS HR OS_0 RB RB c R$ PUB RB I PK-WO 1 HR RB = - ~ ~ OS=O R l - e3. L:f•v OS-O I TB HR HR - --I%--II - t RB RB OS 0 J fI. I HR MUR R k PK-W6 PUB I FIR RB q' st r- PK-U/0 PUB , - OS-0 PK-00 II _II yy S ` PUB - IiR _ GB TB - P Legend PK-WO 911.':.. Lan d U S9• Wl lh 1.d..¢nd lfOm09 - "-~4t1 !ai••n '•>M~' R: s1Uen~a1 .u . o... 1+91 Open Span •n! Meuhu4l PuFr HR rr,lw0araq Ra.dril l'•ZRI ~ftr.IfeY PYW:4T.61 P:n•G:6%I. /aYMl~3-V •ine~t 'PUB _ :...r~,.AR,.mrwtiu Induilrfal oru•r„+...d..w•~n•re..lcrn, PK-U/0 •tiae.enrwy:Mrq r .t,ar ewc~en w••.ssw.lwar PUB LR+ni aarnnc c.Par ~c.ry:vwwlar otrwr ,:cw,wr n.,a..nm v.•m ,ra eexacsd+! ~b•an>. ~•sr MXR wrn7 ruaa yt-' -7 ndm ~o-sr. Pa 1=1r,+us.oaK Uwm uol ;v; f•'+ Gfl. d V 6 I of IAIYed U3! , M1ye 6-1 i ~.C°-.--ny 6i.ttif4l -x.._iu Bvr.s lt4rtl Cc..v,vr:14..e~a...t-li LR MXR HR -c.•«4a.wucoul • vale a ,vcl Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Land Use Designations, 2008 (RH-2 zone district is outlined in black) RH-2 Zone District Report 9 10 !November 19, 2009 RH-2 ZONE DISTRICT OVERVIEW Existing Regulations The RI-1-2 zone district regulations are specific to the for residential development are a maximum of 800 district, including parking, density, floor area. One square feet of habitable floor area per dwelling unit. Habitable floor area within a dwelling unit regulation that is consistent between high density includes those areas used for living, sleeping, residential districts are the permitted uses. eating, cooking, laundry and personal storage. The Within the RH-2 zone district, a variety of uses, floor area calculation excludes common areas for including residential and nonresidential are permitted a multi-family development, including stairways, as by-right development, conditional uses and hallways, utility rooms and garages. Floor area for through the use review process. nonresidential developments is not regulated directly in the RH-2 zone district, but through the use review • By-right uses do not require public hearings process. and include single- and multi-family residential, parking calculations are based on the square footage group quarters (congregate care and fraternities), of the development and require one space for the first schools and universities, religious assemblies and 500 square feet and one space for each additional 300 parks. square feet of floor area, not to exceed 4 spaces per • Conditional uses are those uses that are allowed unit. provided that certain conditions can be met. These uses also do not require a public hearing. Key Issues Conditional uses in the RH-2 zone district include group homes, residential care facilities, home Based on the concerns heard from the development occupations, day care centers catering to less than community and Planning Board, and staff's analysis 50 children and emergency day and overnight of the RH-2 zone district regulations, the following shelters. key issues were identified. • Use review uses require a public hearing and Planning Board approval and include most Parking nonresidential uses like offices, medical centers, Parking is currently based on a space per square foot retail, personal service establishments and regulation, as follows: restaurants. One space for the first 500 square feet offloor Please refer to Exhibit F, RH-2 Zone District Use area and I additional space for each 300 Standards Table for a complete list of Use Standards square feet or portion thereof not to exceed 4 permitted within the RH-2 zone district. spaces per dwelling unit. Within the RH-2 zone district, by-right density calculations are based on a 3,200 square foot lot area and 600 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. This results in a density of 13.6 dwelling units per acre. Planning Board may reduce the minimum lot area requirement to 1,600 square feet per dwelling unit to allow for higher density (up to 27.2 dwelling units per acre). Floor area requirements RH-2 Zone District Report 11 This typically results in high parking requirements In addition to the by-right standards outlined above, and is inconsistent with other residential zoning the applicant may request an increase in density districts, which utilize bedrooms as a basis for through Site Review. Planning Board may increase calculating parking. the permitted density by reducing the minimum square foot per lot required from 3,200 square feet to Density / Floor Area 1,600 square feet pursuant to Site Review approval. This equates to a density of 27.2 dwelling units per Density within the RH-2 zone district is dependent on acre, which consequently is the by-right density of four factors: the RH-5 zone district. 1. Lot size The complexity of calculating density is clear, as the calculation standards lead to specific limitations that become tied to the floor area of individual units. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit 3. Minimum open space requirement per dwelling Floor Area for Single-Family unit The maximum floor area of 800 square feet also applies to new single-family residential construction 4. Maximum floor area per dwelling unit within the RH-2 zone district. Residents of the zone district have indicated that this discourages For example, a by-right development requires a new single-family developments. Section 9-8-3(f) minimum 6,000 square foot lot with at least 3,200 of the B.R.C., 1981 allows the expansion of homes square feet of lot area and 600 square feet of open built prior to September 2, 1993 without Planning space for every dwelling unit (the 600 square feet of Board approval. However, this does not address new open space is assumed to be included in the lot area) single-family construction or homes built after 1993. For a one acre lot, the following formula would be used to calculate density: Nonresidential Land Uses 43,560 square, feet / 3,200 square feet lot area There are two concerns regarding nonresidential land per dwelling unit= 13.6 dwelling units uses within the RH-2 zone district: floor area and the compatibility of uses. The intent of the RH-2 zone Then, the ordinance requires that the maximum floor district is to be residential in nature, however there area allowed on the lot be based on the maximum are a variety of uses allowed per section 9-6 of the floor area allowed per dwelling unit, which is 800 B.R.C. that causes property owners and residents to square feet. Utilizing the above equation for a one be concerned. In addition, the current regulations acre lot results in the following formula: do not place any limitations on floor area for non- residential uses while there is a limit on residential. 13 dwelling units x 800 square feet = 10,400 The lack of floor area limitations may incentivize square feet of allowable floor area the development of nonresidential uses within predominantly residential areas. The maximum allowed floor area can be manipulated on the lot to allow for larger units than 800 square However, nonresidential development within a feet, but this would then equate to a reduction in the residentially zoned area requires Use Review total number units on the lot. For example: approval through Planning Board. Section 9-2-15, Use Review, provides criteria by which the proposed 0 13 dwelling units x 800 square feet = 10,400 use must be reviewed. The review and approval criteria include considerations of compatibility 7. dwelling units x 1,485 square feet = 10,395 with nearby properties and the character of the • 4 dwelling units x 2,600 square feet = 10,400 surrounding area. 12 November 19, 2009 SUBAREA ANALYSIS Introduction In conducting the review and analysis of the RH-2 zone district, staff identified four subareas within the city zoned RH-2; University Hill, Goss Grove, Spruce/Pine Street and North Broadway. Please refer to the RH-2 Subarea Location Map on page 14 for detailed Subarea locations. The subareas range in size from whole neighborhoods, like the Goss Grove Subarea, to a small subset of lots like in the University Hill Subarea. Additionally, each subarea is comprised with a mix of residential use types, and in some subareas nonresidential land uses. Each subarea was broadly studied to delineate distin- guishing characteristics, general building style and massing, development constraints, and the key issues specific to that area. The analysis included: • Field verification of uses and number of dwelling units per lot. • Calculation of densities based on number of dwelling units and a comparison to the permitted densities. • Review of the most recent development projects within each subarea to gain an understanding of how the existing RH-2 zone district regulations are being utilized and implemented. Analysis of each subarea allowed for lines of consistency and distinction to be drawn across both the RH-2 zone district regarding deficiencies within the districts' regulations, and each of the subareas' character and current development potential and pressure. RH-2 Zone District Report 13 _ ~ f art Valmant Rd ooa rp - - ell j H7- H _ CL'IJ!~IJBalsalrl AV, • ~ ~ 11,E ~ S't ~ o to 1Mapleton.Av ]Peat 115111 1t`11 1' 1t1~ SP~u/ = _ J ~1` ~ ''~sl~~t' 1 Y ' ~ ~ 11. 1_L+„",~ _ I cNLYt _ Gtariy Tel - - r1- A L111 EM EIT101-1 - 111 1\ _ ~~q\ arm ~111.L1~t~ I University,AV~- - University Hill Subarea ~RH•2Zoning District rr1 111 ~~I~ rI Gass Grove Subarea Q Ownership Parcels ED Ll-t-I_I-I_l1J LJI- IU~LLJ Spruce)Plne Subarea North Broadway Subarea [jlrr7m n MTM Hu. RH-2 Subarea Location Map 14 November 19, 2009 University Hill Subarea the residential units in this neighborhood, over 91 percent are renter-occupied. The University Hill Subarea is generally bounded by Arapahoe Avenue on the north, Broadway on the Arapahoe Road Neighborhood cast, University Avenue on the south and 9th Street on the west. The Arapahoe Road Neighborhood is similar to _ the University Hill Neighborhood when examining ` 1• o e owner and renter occupied housing. Approximately 97 percent of the dwelling units are renter occupied. Also significant to the Arapahoe Road Neighborhood is the Presbyterian Senior Housing complex. This complex has a total of 81 units and is tight stories °~1, r~ng5~-- °u-" tall, exceeding the 55 foot height limit established in the city. VA The Arapahoe Road Neighborhood has a number of s view P~ - - bungalow-style single-family residences which are GOAd- indicated as a potential historic district. See Exhibit - A, RH-2 Zone District Historic Resources Ma for reity.A~~1~, a complete map of individual landmarks, potential s - _ historic districts and designated historic districts in the RH-2 zone district. University Hill Subarea The Arapahoe Road Neighborhood is also home to Overall Character the historic Boulder City Brewery site, established in 1875 (later known as Crystal Springs Brewery The University Hill Subarea is located in close and lee Company). The brewery was fed by an proximity to the University of Colorado and is underground spring, which later became the same characterized by a high number of student housing source of water to feed the Boulder Fish and rentals. The majority of housing found in this subarea Game Club fish ponds (1630 Lincoln Place) after is comprised of a variety of multi-family units, including senior and student apartments. The general building type and mass within the University Hill Subarea is a mixture of one- and two-story houses 952Mapahoo r and two- and three-story multi-family apartment - complexes. While defined as one RH-2 subarea, r.~aa~" Ay~~` l ~ there are really two distinct neighborhoods that have slightly different characteristics; the University i , 1 1 Boulevard Neighborhood and the Arapahoe Road 1 1 1630 Uncolt Neighborhood. r 1 t~ b r , t University Boulevard Neighborhood The University Boulevard Neighborhood is distin- Ana'. guishable by the high proportion of rentals and its proximity to the University of Colorado campus. The neighborhood is predominately comprised of large apartment complexes and fraternity houses. Of Potential Landmarked Properties RH-2 Zone District Report 15 the brewery closed during the Prohibition era. r+ Constructed in the early 1920s, the hatchery is still owned and operated by the Boulder Fish and Game 1 Club. The only remaining structure associated with the Crystal Springs Brewery is the employee t ;r:,r.''r" housing quarters located at 952 Arapahoe Road. An application to demolish the house was reviewed - and approved by the Landmarks Design Review Committee in March 2006. Their decision was based largely on the alterations to the buildings historic architectural integrity. This approval has since expired. Despite the non-historic alterations, its historic form is largely intact. There is also evidence ;ronoeanca wak npraprass to suggest the building dates from very early in = Flood Conveyonce Zone © 149h Han rd . Work in Rogess Boulder's history and its association with the brewery - - - - FFOnFfozerdF~oodZonn maybe of significance. 100 YearFloodpWn - Work In Progress _ - - ~ , ] $ppyYJr Flopdplnn - Workn Progress II 100 Year FlooVbin The Arapahoe Road Neighborhood is not only i _ 500yeer Flown n potentially impacted by historic resources, but also Arapahoe Road Neighborhood Flood Map, Work in by the floodplain. The current floodplain mapping for progress the city indicates the Arapahoe Road Neighborhood is directly impacted by the 500-year floodplain impact to the Arapahoe Road Neighborhood. The and is on the outskirts of the high hazard and flood proposed floodplain mapping delineates the entire conveyance zones. Sec Exhibit B, RI-1-2 Zone neighborhood within the 100-year floodplain with District Floodplain Map for a complete depiction of portions in the conveyance and high hazard zones. the floodplain impacts on the RH-2 zone district. On November 17, 2009, the Gregory Canyon Creek Study will go before City Council for a first reading ordinance. .ice/'/ ! ✓`,1~ ' JIX _ ~ ; .f , . ~ f; _ ~ _ Residential buildings are required to be elevated to • ,r. the designated flood protection elevation; and non- residential buildings maybe either elevated to the ,G . f•'. gripe _ - - designated flood protection elevation or floodproofed. In the conveyance zone, no new development may occur that would obstruct the conveyance zone or would result in any rise in the elevation of the 100-year flood. Finally, no construction is allowed in X11 ' the high-hazard zone. If the proposed floodplain maps are approved by City Council, they will have an impact on the ~.lluni~~rs ~y.Av~ I development potential in this area based on existing - regulatory floodplain constraints. However, it is not Arapahoe Road Neighborhood Flood Map, Existing the city's current policy to alter the existing land use designation or zoning based on new floodplain information. Nevertheless, because of the potential l Iowever, the Gregory Canyon Creek Study, flood issues in this neighborhood, increasing which is a proposed revision to the current City of density beyond what is already existing should be Boulder floodplain maps, indicates a greater flood thoughtfully considered. 16 November 19, 2009 Recent Development and Development which may have potential for redevelopment. The Potential single-family homes both have lot areas large enough to accommodate one additional by-right unit and two Recent Development additional Planning Board approved units. The two There has been no recent development within fraternity houses are both currently in use. The Pi this subarea in either the University Boulevard or Kappa Alpha house boards 34 students in a building Arapahoe Road Neighborhoods. that is 17,903 square feet. This is approximately 526 square feet per student. The Phi Kappa Psi house lodges 28 students in a building that is 9,269 square Development Potential in the University feet or approximately 331 square feet per student. Boulevard Neighborhood For the purposes of making a generalization, both of The existing densities in the University Boulevard these calculations include common area as floor area. Neighborhood are currently higher than would Per section 9-8-5 of the B.R.C., up to four persons be allowed either by-right or through Planning are allowed per dwelling unit in the RH-2 zone Board approval in the RH-2 zone district. The district. This would allow more density than what is University Boulevard Neighborhood has an average currently housed in either fraternity home. multi-family density of 40 dwelling units per acre and an overall density of 29 dwelling units per acre. Finally, there is one lot, which is a noi~residen- Bccause of the higher densities of the apartment tial use that is currently used for parking and that complexes, it is unlikely that they would wish to is not included in the table below. The lot is the redevelop under the existing RH-2 zone district designated parking area for the apartments located standards, which would reduce the maximum at 1555 Broadway. If this parking area was to be permitted dwelling units 27.2 per acre. redeveloped, it would likely occur through the redevelopment of the entire apartment complex. However, there are two single-family homes and two fraternity houses within this neighborhood, University Boulevard Neighborhood Existing Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size FAR Residential Apartment 1903 11 32.3 14,820 10,813 0.73 Apartment 1967 21 45.9 19,951 19,430 0.97 Apartment 1904 5 33.8 6,451 6,211 1.03 Pi Kappa Alpha Ilouse 1924 11,924 17,903 1.50 Condo 1968 47 48.8 40,797 992 0.02 Phi Kappa Psi House 1990 13,085 9,269 0.71 Single Family 1918 1 5.69 7,653 1,408 0.18 Single Family 1916 1 5.78 7,527 1,316 0.21 AVERAGE 14 28.71 13,424 7,066 .58 RH-2 Zone District Report 17 Development Potential in the Arapahoe Road by the 100-year, high-hazard and conveyance zones. Neighborhood Increasing densities in this area should be carefully The Arapahoe Road Neighborhood is comprised of weighed against the likelihood ofa flood. In addition, a variety of housing units, multi-Family and single- many of the single-family homes in the Arapahoe Road Neighborhood are included in a potential family, owner occupied and rentals. The average historic district, possibly }uniting their redevelopment density in this area is approximately 12 dwelling potential. units per acre, which is consistent with the permitted by-right density within the RH-2 zone district. This average was calculated without including the senior Key Issues housing complex found at the corner of Arapahoe and After reviewing the overall character and I 1 th Street. The senior housing facility has 81 units development potential of the University Hill Subarea, or a density of 40 units per acre. This is an anomaly several key issues can be identified. They include: within this neighborhood, which significantly alters the average density for the area. 1. Existing densities exceed what the University There is a greater potential for redevelopment in Boulevard Neighborhood than would be this area as the existing single-family residential permitted by-right or through Planning Board stock becomes less viable. In addition, many of the approval in the RH-2 zone district, limiting the lot sizes for both the multi-family and single-family redevelopment potential. developments would permit additional units, increasing the density. However, floodplain issues 2. The existing densities of the University are a concern for this neighborhood. Once the Boulevard Neighborhood are more consistent Gregory Canyon Creek Study is completed and with the RH-5 zone district and the BVCP land adopted, the entire neighborhood will be impacted use designation of high density residential. Arapahoe Road Neighborhood Existing Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DUTA Lot Size Size FAR Residential Apartment 1958 7 13.90 21,908 5,068 0.23 Condo 1973 6 24.10 10,404 666 0.06 Duplex/Triplex 1918 3 11.50 11;334 1,912 0.17 Duplex/Triplex 1921 2 15.60 5,570 1,656 0.30 Senior Housing 1963 81 39.90 88,409 110,076 1.33 Single Family 1944 l 5.33 8,174 1,156 0.14 Single Family 1927 2 16.00 5,451 1,104 0.20 Single Family 1922 1 9.30 4,683 2,016 0.43 Single Family 1927 1 9.16 4,755 1,344 0.32 Single Family 1925 1 5.22 8,342 1,356 0.16 Single Family 1925 1 8.67 5,021 540 0.11 AVERAGE* 2.5 11.88 17,405 12,689 0.35 Nonresidential Fish and Game 5.581 3,105 0.56 Without Senior Ilousing 18 November 19, 2009 3. Proximity to the University and dense student Goss Grove Subarea rentals generate high demand for on-street parking. The current parking requirements in The Goss Grove Subarea is bounded generally by the RH-2 zone district help to alleviate this Walnut Street on the north, Folsom Street on the cast, concern. Basing parking on square footage Arapahoe Avenue on the south, and Broadway on the instead of the number of bedrooms generally west. leads to a higher parking requirement. However, in the most recent RH-2 zone district projects, a modification to this requirement has been requested b the applicant and ranted by Planning Board. Managing on-street _ j s+a parking may need to be addressed throughs LL alternate means rather than zoning, such as the Neighborhood Parking Permit Program. Canyon Bv, 4. The 100-year floodplain, conveyance zone lf` I and high-hazard zone could all potentially impact the Arapahoe Road Neighborhood if C30 s+~ - the Gregory Creek Canyon Study is adopted. Increasing densities in this area should be l , I I - Ara Paha^`Ao. carefully evaluated. While consistently planned I i L I_li1_I_, ~_l, for high density residential since 1983 in the 1 !-I~I i ti-il,~ 1 BVCP, the likelihood of flooding in this area is a real concern. Therefore, exceeding the Goss Grove Subarea by-right density of the RH-2 zone district might Overall Character be detrimental to the long term stability of this area. This subarea is comprised of a variety of residential uses, including a high proportion of student housing 5. Preservation of the eligible historic due to the proximity of the University of Colorado single-family bungalow homes in the Arapahoe and Naropa University. Several pocket parks and Road Neighborhood, if designated, could the Chamberlain Historic District are found in this possibly reduce the development potential on subarea. The general use type in the Goss Grove the lots by requiring the existing structures be Subarea is a mixture of condominiums, multi-family left intact. units, and single-family homes, which range in size from large four-story apartment buildings to small one-story Queen Arnie style homes. Due to its proximity to the universities, there has been a high conversion rate of single-family residential units to multiple units, some with rear additions. Much of the Goss Grove Subarea, particularly south of Canyon Boulevard, is impacted by the 100-year floodplain (see map on opposite page for general flood infonnation). Please refer to Exhibit B, RH-2 7one District Floodplain Map for a complete depiction of the floodplain impacts on the RH-2 zone district. Residential development within the 100-year floodplain must be elevated to the designated flood RH-2 Zone District Report 19 protection elevation and nonresidential buildings may 16 percent of the residential units in the North of be either elevated or floodproofed. No development Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood are owner-occu- may occur prior to the issuance of a floodplain pied. development permit, subject to city staff approval and a 14-day Planning Board call-up period. There is one designated and one potential local historic district bordering the North of Canyon _ Boulevard Neighborhood; the Chamberlain Historic `u _ 1 11 v N~ 1 ~~ata~ t District, which is a designated local district, and the Whittier historic district, which is a potential local rst- " i`• district. See Exhibit A, RH 2 Zone District Historic Resources Map for a complete map of individual landmarks, potential historic districts, and designated - historic districts in the RH-2 zone district. =S~ _ 1 Canyon 8v' V, l! Syr I ~I 1 Paeon4ellemlMlspkG61t -I~~-L _l~ L~~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ml~ ~~71 t,x s, - til~ tom, [ "~`~'•l' f+ - `D fl I1 1 fT?17 i-~! j 1~W ^IIIi _1-1 ArapahoO ~I I _ tl-_ 1 ~ \I 1 •r~`L1:^_i/_ i~ti~~y~• ,t ~l _ i. L•nrmh~tleY, Ia.,ak Q4fMd _ J Goss Grove Subarea Flood Map h, _ _ ~.mm.= - - s - In addition, a small portion of the eastern parts of (EE I L I_Ij the subarea, closest to Folsom Street, are included within the 500-year floodplain , and while there are 1~I r l I' 11 1 p~`~'1 1 -1!1 ~ Lila no regulatory impacts at this point the potential for - , . - i i flooding still exists. There are four ditches within the Goss Grove Subarea, the North Boulder Farmers Historic Preservation Districts Ditch, which splits into the Boulder and White Rock in addition to the historic districts, the North of Ditch; the McCarty Ditch; and the Smith & Goss Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood is home to several Ditch, which runs along Arapahoe Road. individual landmarks, see Individual Landmarked The Goss Grove Subarea can be further divided into Properties, on page 21 for locations: two distinct neighborhoods in terms of character and 1. Lytle-Huriburt House (1872-73), 2016 Walnut density: North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood Street, located in the Whittier potential local and South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood. historic district. Mr. and Mrs. George Lytle built this house in 1873 after coming to Colorado. North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood The Lytles were credited for discovering the The North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood Poorman and Caribou mines. In 1893 the house is distinguished by its proximity to the downtown was bought by Frank Streamers, a pioneer core and its development pattern of larger lots and druggist. The Lytle-Hurlbut house is an example relatively dense multi-family developments. Within of classical detailing with a hipped roof and this neighborhood there is a strong presence of large bracketed eaves, which are representative of the multi-family complexes with a variety of apartment, Italianate style of architecture; condominiums, and townhome units. Approximately 20 November 19, 2009 2. Gutfelder House and Mason Terrace, 2045 was also an incorporator of the Boulder- Valley Walnut Street, which is located in the Whittier Railroad and the Boulder and White Rock Ditch potential local historic district. The Gutfelder Company, which now runs through a portion House is significant in its architecture. It is a of the Goss Grove subarea north of Canyon good example of the Foursquare building style, Boulevard; and commonly found in Colorado after 1900. The Foursquare is recognized for its square floor plan 4. Woodward Baird House (1870's), 1733 and overall, classical simplicity. The building Canyon Blvd., located in the Chamberlain local is also representative of Boulder's early 20th historic district. The Woodward Baird House Century, middle-class housing; was constructed during the 1870s along Canyon Boulevard, which at that time was known as 3. Berkeley Farm (1863-1895), 2108-2141 `Water Street,' located in a flood zone near the Walnut Street, located in the Whittier potential railroad tracks and considered a "less desirable" local historic district. The Berkeley Farm site place to take up residency. The home was bought represents a portion of the original homestead and sold several times, however today is home to settled by pioneer Granville Berkeley, Sr. and the offices of Historic Boulder, Inc. Located in an his wife, Anna in 1863. Mr. Berkeley became area that was considered "undesirable" 100 years a prominent lawyer and judge and also served ago, This simple structure is a prime example of as the first president of the Board of Trustees to how and where ordinary people of very modest the University of Colorado. Granville Berkeley means lived during Boulder's early years. l ~ 0 1~ 1 7 1 ~ N a S Peat1 ~N 2 r Ena a4vut S c~ rr 3 i s 4 r+ Canyon-Bv Individual Landmarked Properties: 1) Lytle-Hurlburt House, 2) Gutfelder House and Mason Terrace, 3) Berkeley Farm, and 4) Woodward Baird House RH-2 Zone District Report 21 South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood to 1859 and the discovery of gold. Two prominent The South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood Boulder settlers in this area were Marinus G. Smith exhibits a quaint nostalgic neighborhood with and Robert Culver. The historic neighborhood is roughly bounded by Canyon Boulevard (fonnerly a variety of Bungalow, Victorian inspired and water Street) on the north, Folsom Street to the east, Four-Square homes, pocket parks, mature Arapahoe Road (fonnerly Valley Road) to the south, landscaping and white picket fences. While a good and 15th Street on the west. The neighborhood deal of the original single-family architecture in encompasses two subdivisions, the majority of which this area remains, many have been converted to is within the Culver's Subdivision, platted in 1874, multi-family units, some as rear additions. It is see image below. The second subdivision is the worth noting that of the conversion units with rear Orchard Home subdivision, which is the western additions, the way in which the original structure corner of the neighborhood, annexed and platted in addresses the street has not altered. The appearance 1902 after the death of Marinus Smith, sec image of a single-family residence is maintained with the below. rear addition having alley access. The historic significance of the neighborhood begins Significant redevelopment occurred in this area in in 1859, when Marinus "Marine" Smith who had the 1970's and 1980's when the 1;iDOZ allowed attempted mining in the California gold rush, decided higher densities. Multi-family apartments and that he could make money off the miners, rather than condominiums were constructed throughout this area, mining himself. Prior to the residential development concentrated close to Canyon Boulevard where the of the area, the neighborhood was farmed by Smith, general appearance of development intensity and who dug one of the first irrigation ditches in the density shifts to larger, more uniform multi-family state in this neighborhood. He was the first to plant complexes. The conversion from owner-occupied wit in Boulder, which is where the Orchard Home housing to renter-occupied is very evident in this subdivision name originated. He homesteaded neighborhood as well, with almost 90 percent of the 160 acres, including the land that he later donated residential units as renter-occupied. for the construction of the state university, while The Goss Grove South of Canyon Boulevard the remaining acres developed into residential Neighborhood is one of Boulder's oldest, dating back neighborhoods. Marine Street is named in his honor. PLAI OY 1d 1r e.J6Q91.RS SIIRpIPf151bCA_ TA a . ,o r.w nom.. -1 Y .r[" ya s...e.. r........f~ S 1A 7 ` a ~a f 1 _ a •R 10 . I. • r FryL I ae; s • ' s r, .I ,rYr°N~ Il GROVE STfl E: F- -r ~i li`~.'_I _ .•I• _...If i 1I e 45 ?7 .ff l Yf JS s: .i KiI HEM, - N.- u.-~!?.=.At••}... SA:1lob~+ ~a { S t. - I v ~ rh, c G.w a.w rtt,:. k.... ~T~~~i. .r `i+'' / ~p cti Yo ~ s~ s at • -r c ^.1' ~ y ,1- 24 ~/vrt S 6 J'~r Ce{ 4e^Jo c c•i/ Historic Plat Map of Culver's Subdivision, 1874 Historic Plat Map of Orchard Home Subdivision, 1902 22 November 19, 2009 Robert Culver came to Boulder County in 1860 and in the neighborhood are Queen Anne, Classic ran the Horsfal Mine. In 1862 he was a key figure Cottage, and Bungalow. The neighborhood is also in formulating a plan that lead to the 1863 passage considered significant because of its association with of the bill to build the state university in Boulder. the establishment of the city and its early pioneer Culver reportedly also built the first brick house in residents, as well as the Boulder and White Rock Boulder at 1716 17th Street, which was razed for the Ditch which flows through the area. construction of the apartment complex now on the site. While the neighborhood has experienced some significant change over time, the architectural Many of Boulder's early leaders called this character is indicative of the evolution of the city. neighborhood home. It was also heavily populated The pre-war history of the neighborhood has been with many of Boulder's early Swedish immigrants. well documented, but much history is still not well The Grove/Arapahoe side of the neighborhood known post World-War 11, as the neighborhood housed a mix of lawyers, merchants and tradesmen. transitioned. However, reports of the neighborhood However, the Goss/Canyon side of the neighborhood being a significant part of the "hippie" population, was considered to be the "other side of the establishment as a core neighborhood for student "tracks", where even by 1886, many referred to the housing, and stories of this being home to many of neighborhood as Culver's Flats. The area housed part the modern pioneers or entrepreneurs of Boulder are of the "Red Light" district, and was the place where prevalent but not well researched, the "town's poor" lived. The neighborhood flooded regularly during the spring runoff in Boulder Creek. Within the South of Canyon Boulevard Through the turn of the century, the area between Neighborhood, there are two distinct individual Goss, Canyon, 18th and 22nd became known as landmarks (see map on page 21 for locations): the "little rectangle", which was where Boulder's black population was centered. Even through the 1. McVey House, 1718 Canyon Blvd., This house mid-twentieth century the "rectangle" was primarily is significant for its association with John bi-racial, with a large Hispanic and Black population. Wesley McVey family, prominent members of Boulder's early black community. The John While the neighborhood was largely developed by and Emma McVey family resided ui this house 1910, redevelopment pressures following World War from 1900-1913. John Wesley McVey was one II focused in this area, which resulted in high-density of the charter members of the Allen Chapel of zoning. The neighborhood began to slowly transition the African Methodist Church. The McVey's to a more middle class neighborhood. New develop- children were active in Boulder's musical ment in the 1970's and 1980's resulted in many of the community: Hazel played the piano in the multi-unit structures present today. However, it was George Morrison's Band; Genevieve was the not until 1980 that the city paved the streets in the first graduate of University of Colorado School Goss Grove neighborhood, the last in the city core of Music; and, Kenneth conducted his own to be improved. It was at this time that the traffic orchestra, under the name Kennie `Sticks' McVey, diverters were installed to discourage through traffic. in Denver. The neighborhood was identified as being potentially The house at 1718 Canyon is one of the earliest eligible for historic district designation in 1998 built in the Goss-Grove neighborhood. This by Front Range Research Associates, a consultant neighborhood, formerly known as "the little funded through the Colorado Historical Society. rectangle," is the area bound by 19th Street, Goss The architecture in the neighborhood is significant Street, 23rd Street, and Canyon Boulevard. "The for its representation of middle and working class little rectangle" was the center of Boulder's black homes and lifestyles of the late nineteenth and community during the nineteenth century; by the early twentieth centuries. The predominant styles 1950's there was also a large Hispanic population. RH-2 Zone District Report 23 2. Ruth Cave Flowers House (1921), 2019 Goss Recent Development and Development Street, was built by Ruth Cave Flowers and her Potential grandmother, Mirmesota Flowers. Ruth was one of the first black graduates of the University of Recent Development Colorado. Born at the turn-of-the-century, Ruth Current development within the Goss Grove Subarea moved to Boulder from Cripple Creek in 1917 has consisted of multi-family units and single-family with her sister and grandmother after living in a residential conversions with rear additions. The alining town relatively free of racial prejudice. most recent examples of new developments are 2221 Flowers and her family were not prepared for Walnut (2007) and the Canyon Townliomes (1997), the segregated life they found in Boulder as they which both received Planning Board approval. A were forced to live in the area bounded by 19th, new development at 2044 Walnut (2009) is the first 23rd, Canyon and Goss Streets. Both of the by-right development within the Goss Grove Subarea Flowers' girls attended the Boulder Preparatory in many years. School, however were not permitted to graduate because of their race. Ruth, however, still went on to receive her B.A. in foreign languages from the University of Colorado and an LLB degree from Robert Terrel Law School in 1946, and her Ph.D. in foreign languages from the Catholic University of America in 1951. This building is most significant for its association with Dr. d ~ ~ r r . r~ tax Ruth Cave Flowers. Moreover, the structure is ` b Ir r significant for being part of the "little rectangle"; the area bounded by 19th, 23rd, Canyon and,.. Goss Streets and the center of Boulder's black community in the first half of the 20th century. I `t•'' re".'' The Canyon Townhomes - _ s - The Canyon Townhomes, originally approved in - October, 1997, is a 9-unit (800-977 square feet per N. unit two-story, multi-family residential project - Goss 5t - located at 2233 Canyon Boulevard, which is the ' northwest corner of 23rd and Canyon Boulevard. The Canyon Townhomes are located on a 22,187 ~N square foot lot with a permitted by-right density Gro7e-,: t of six dwelling units. Several modifications were TH requested for the Canyon Townhomes, including: fii l I • Increased density from 6 to 9 units; Historic Preservation Districts and Individual • 2.8 percent increase in permitted building floor Landmark Properties; 1) McVey House and 2) Ruth area; Cave Flowers House • Decrease in required lot area per dwelling unit; 24r November 19, 2009 • 16 percent parking reduction from 25 required alley. The conversion comprised of a 7,000 square spaces to 21 spaces provided; and foot lot, 3,011 square feet of total floor area and five off-street parking spaces. Several modifications were • Front yard setback reductions for both Canyon requested with this proposal, including: Boulevard from 25 feet to 22 feet, and 23rd Street from 25 feet to 12.8 feet. • Increase in pennitted building floor area to allow With Planning Board's approval to lower the for a variety of unit sizes; minimum lot area requirement, a total of nine units were constructed. In addition, the Planning Board 'Decrease in the required lot area per dwelling unit from 3,200 square feet to 1,600 square feet also approved an increase in building floor area to allow for maximum density; per dwelling unit from a maximum of 800 square feet per code to 977 square feet. The density of the . 55 percent parking reduction from 9 spaces development could have been maximized at 13 units required to 5 spaces provided; and with the 800 square foot maximum floor area per unit. However, an increase in the unit size for four • Reduction in the side yard interior setback from units to 977 square feet was requested, providing 10 feet to 9 feet and from 10 feet to 3 feet, side fewer, but larger dwelling units. yard combined setback from 20 feet to 12 feet 2221 Walnut, approved May 2007, was a conversion and rear yard setback from 25 feet to 12.5 feet. of an existing single-family residential dwelling A reduction in the lot area per dwelling unit unit with detached garage to a 3-unit, two-story, permitted three units to be developed on a lot multi-family residential development located where only two would be permitted by-right. An mid-block between 22nd and 23rd Streets. 2221 additional modification was also made to increase Walnut is an preferred example of a single-family the total square footage of the units to 3,488 square conversion with a rear addition. Looking from feet, allowing for one 1,327 square foot unit (four the front, the single-family architecture appears bedrooms), one 772 square foot unit (two bedrooms) unaltered while the additional units address the and one 912 square foot unit (two bedrooms). 7V: Ft AW ` r~ ~IIIIIIIIIIII` j` =r 2221 Walnut, Front Elevation 2221 Walnut, Rear Elevation RH-2 Zone District Report 2S 2044 Walnut, a by-right development that is currently Development Potential North of Canyon under construction, consists of 10 units, four Boulevard Neighborhood single-family units and two duplexes, with a total of 12,393 square feet of floor area. The existing Based on the different lot patterns and other house, a multi-family unit, is being rehabilitated development issues including the potential for into two attached units. As this is a by-right project, additional density within the Goss Cove Subarea is slightly different in the North of Carryon Boulevard no modifications were approved or requested, and construction is required to meet the current RE-2 Neighborhood than in the South of Canyon zone district standards. Boulevard Neighborhood. There are generally large parcel developments found in the North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood, with only 47 of the 143 lots less than the 6,000 square feet, which is the required lot size in the RH-2 zone district. In fact, a almost 60 percent of the lots classified as residential are listed as some type of multi-family development. The average number of dwelling units per lot in the C!~ North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood is six, 'Ta which equates to approximately 20 dwelling units per acre. When factoring out the single-family homes still found in this neighborhood, the average number F; 5 of dwelling units per acre increases to a little over 27. This is equal to the density tables that can be ~ approved by the Planning Board within the RH-2 zone district, limiting any additional development potential. Please refer to Exhibit C, North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood Existing Development 2044 Walnut, Existing Structure Pattern, for additional information. Development Potential South of Canyon ! Boulevard Neighborhood In the South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood a more traditional subdivision lot pattern is found and approximately half of the dwelling units are classified as single-family. While large apartment and condominium complexes exist south of Canyon, they are not the dominate land use type. While no recent development examples exist within U B = this neighborhood, there is development potential through the continued conversion of single-family residential to multi-family units. In the South of ` y Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood, there are 115 lots classified as single-family residential. Of these lots, 2044 Walnut, New Structures Under Construction eight meet the by-right lot area requirement of at least 6,400 square feet, which would allow the conversion to multi-unit developments. In addition, there are approximately 62 single-family lots that could add 26 November 19, 2009 units and increase their density through the Site single-family homes. The regulation that limits Review and Planning Board approval process. unit size to 800 square feet promotes conversion of single-family homes and the development of There are, on average, four dwelling units per lot multi-unit construction over new single-family in the South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood, developments. which equates to approximately 21 dwelling units per acre. If only the multi-family units are calculated, 4. The more consistent subdivision lot pattern in the the number increases to almost 30 dwelling units per South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood could acre. Overall, the multi-family developments within be an impediment to high density residential the South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood have development. To construct new multi-family maximized or exceeded their development potential. projects of any size, lots would have to be Redevelopment of these lots is unlikely if a reduction consolidated, which could be difficult because in the number of dwelling units per acre would be of individual lot ownerships. The existing required. Please refer to Exhibit D, South of Canyon lot pattern influences conversion of existing Boulevard Neighborhood Existing Development single-family homes over new multi-family Pattern for additional information. construction. Key Issues 5. The presence of the 100- and 500-year floodplains for much of the Goss Grove Subarea, The following key issues are identified for the Goss particularly in the South of Canyon Boulevard Grove Subarea: Neighborhood should be carefully evaluated when considering new development and adding 1. In general, the densities in the North of Canyon densities to the subarea. Boulevard Neighborhood already meet or exceed the densities that require Planning Board 6. On-street parking has consistently been a problem approval, limiting any additional development in the Goss Grove Subarea because of its central potential. location to downtown and the universities, the limited amount of off-street parking, and 2. Densities in the South of Canyon Boulevard restricted parking hours Neighborhood have been a concern, particularly to single-family homeowners. The conversion of single-family homes into multi-unit buildings and the development of apartment complexes have increased the density within the neighborhood. While many residents welcome the increase in density, the quality of the architecture and appearance of massive multi-family units are not. The neighborhood is supportive of a mixture of density and eclectic architecture; however of a high quality that preserves and enhances the existing character and styles prominent in the subarea already. 3. The residents of the Goss Grove Subarea, particularly in the South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood have expressed a desire to see new construction or improvements to the existing RH-2 Zone District Report 27 28 November 19, 2009 Spruce/Pine Street Subarea West of Broadway Neighborhood The Spiuce/Pinc Street Subarea is generally bounded The West of Broadway Neighborhood, within the by Pine Street on the north, 26th Street on the east, Mapleton Hill Historic District, is comprised of eight lots that contain the Boulder Carnegie Library (1125 Spruce Street on the south and 11th Street on the west pine Street), three single-family residences, and the (see snap below). First Congregational Church (1128 Broadway). See Exhibit A, RH-2 Zone District Historic Resources Overall Character Map for a complete map of individual landmarks, The Spruce/Pine Street Subarea has a variety of uses potential historic districts and designated historic including some nonresidential, civic, religious and districts in the RE-2 zone district. commercial. Conversion of the existing single-family Of the eight lots in the West of Broadway Neigh- housing stock to multi-unit buildings is also prevalent. Within the Spruce/Pine Street Subarea borhood, there are two individual landmarks: approximately 82 percent of the residential units are renter occupied and 18 percent are owner occupied. 1. Carnegie Library (1906-1907), 1125 Pine Street, which was Boulder's first public The Spruce/Pine Street Subarea can also be library. Initiated by Lucius Paddock, editor of further divided into three neighborhoods. The the "Daily Camera," the library was financed first neighborhood is west of Broadway which is by Andrew Carnegie, and as such, was a characterized by the Mapleton Hill Historic District; part of the national movement for libraries the second neighborhood, between Broadway and supported by Carnegie. In the 1890's, Boulder 16th Street is characterized by its opportunities for was considered the "Athens of the West," redevelopment with several surface parking lots; and Thomas MacLarens' design reflects this and the third neighborhood, east of 20th Street is sentiment. characterized by its mixture of multi-family units and single-family residential conversions to nonresiden- 2. First Congregational Church (1908), 1128 tial uses east of Folsom Street. Pine Street, the oldest surviving congrega- tional church in Colorado. It is the home of qA Q . 2 , X11„' 4 ` ~5t Cn Canyon By Spruce/Pine Subarea Neighborhoods: 1) West of Broadway, 2) 16th Street & Broadway, and 3) East of 20th RH-2 Zone District Report 29 the first church bell in Boulder County, and .l. U. Li he church of Boulder's first full-time pastor. - I - L Fr' r~ 71"11 ~ i . k It is also important for its association with ff HIPI TfI 1:.1111 I'l 1 ~ t 1 MT1 1~ , it [rim, III Thomas MacLaxen, an internationally renowned UM I Colorado Springs architect who also designed the Carnegie Library. mww. ~jiJJ I t TXT ~ LiTII:iJ Ll~l ~ ` t~t~~~r1 ~y.• t__ ~ 1;•!'~ r-r~-I i ~ • _ .t t ! - _ ~I~~~I`Ll~ n2lFloSt EIVI ";J T~ 4, t11 t t I t 1.' r IL JI 1125 Pine St Mapleton Hill Historic District Map S 1128 Pine St - the major update to the BVCP, the eastern lots of the Mapleton Hill Historic District were designated MXR which is a mixed density residential land use designation. It appears the MXR designation may have been utilized as a transitional zone between Historic Preservation Districts and Individual those lots immediately adjacent to Broadway and Landmark Properties; 1) 1125 Pine Street - the low density single-family neighborhood to the Carnegie Library and 2) 1128 Pine Street - First west. Because the eight lots currently zoned RH-2 Congregational Church were not a part of the historic district, they were not included in the land use designation change. In Also present in the West of Broadway Neighborhood 1997, the zoning of those lots in the historic district is the Mapleton Hill Historic District, which includes designated as MXR was changed to RMX-1 to all eight lots. The Mapleton Historic District was reflect the MXR land use designation. In 2002, the landmarked on October 7, 1982 with the goal of Mapleton Hill Historic District was expanded all preserving one of the first prominent residential the way to Broadway to include the eight lots zoned areas for the emerging middle- and upper-class RI-1-2 between Broadway and 11th Street. However, businessmen in the 1880's. Of the homes currently changes to the BVCP or zoning map have not been existing in the neighborhood today, approximately 28 evaluated to make these eight lots more consistent percent were built in a five-year period, 1895-1900. with the surrounding properties in the Mapleton Hill Four percent were built before 1895, and 57 percent Historic District. were built before 1910. The Mapleton Hill Historic District is notable for its wide variety of architectural styles and homes. Included in the Mapleton Hill 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood Historic District are representations of virtually every The 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood is late nineteenth century architectural revival style characterized by a number of nonresidential uses (Mapleton Hill Historic District Design Guidelines). and large surface parking lots with close proximity to the downtown core. This area is comprised of When the Mapleton Hill Historic District was a mix of uses and densities as once single-family designated in 1982, it did not originally include the residences are converted to multi-family units, eight lots that are zoned RH-2. In 1995, as part of including apartment, town.homes and condos. The 30 !November 19, 2009 potential Whittier historic district is also located in See Exhibit A, RH-2 Zone District Historic and surrounding this neighborhood. Resources Mal) for a complete map of individual landmarks, potential historic districts and designated The 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood historic districts in the RH-2 zone district. contains two individual landmarks, including the First Methodist Episcopal Church and 1540 Pine The Whittier neighborhood is situated east and north Street, which is the If enry Fulton House. Both of of downtown Boulder. Part of the area is located these properties are within the potential Whittier in what was Boulder's Original Townsite, platted historic district. See map below. in 1859, as well as in a number of other later 19th century and early 20th century additions to Boulder. 1. First Methodist Episcopal Church (1892), The neighborhood is predominantly residential in character with a vernacular mix of architecture 1421 Spruce Street. The Methodists were one reflecting local tastes, customs, and materials. The of the first religious groups in Boulder. This origins of the Whittier neighborhood can be traced high-style, Romanesque church is important to the founding of the city itself. Organized in 1859, also for its association with architect Ilarlan the Boulder City Town Company was a group of Thomas and the A.M. Stuckert architecture sixty pioneers led by Thomas A. Aikins, who were firm. responsible for dividing the land along Boulder Creek into 4,044 lots. Each lot was approximately 2. Henry Fulton House (1882), 1540 Pine Street. fifty feet wide and on-hundred-and-forty feet deep. A large frame house built by Major Henry Streets were eighty feet wide and alleys were twenty Fulton, a Civil War veteran, who served as dean feet wide. Included in the original city blocks were of the University of Colorado's engineering Hill (now Mapleton), Pine, Spruce, Pearl, Front school from 1898 to 1901. With its clapboard (now Walnut), and Water (now Canyon) Streets from and shingle siding, the building is an important approximately Eleventh Street to Seventeenth Street visual landmark on Pine Street and adds to the (Whittier Neighborhood History and Walking Tour architectural diversity of that street and the and Guide, 1993). Whittier Neighborhood. Most of Whittier's residences are vernacular and predominantly single-family however there are Maps/ several examples of duplexes. The buildings are generally of brick or wood frame construction with few examples of early s construction. Of the 1 w,,_ N Y architectural styles represented, Queen Anne style is Pin the most predominant, although the neighborhood i 1 also displays examples of ltalianate, French Second Empire, Dutch Colonial, Edwardian Vernacular and L _ Foursquare style buildings (Whittier Neighborhood History and Walking Tour Guide, 1993). In recent years, the sections of the Whittier Neighborhood that are closest to downtown have _ PEar15t _ felt development pressures and have experienced the most intrusions and changes to the built environment. Single-family conversions to multi-family housing Historic Districts and Individual Landmark Properties; units, or nonresidential uses arc prevalent in this 1) First Methodist Episcopal Church and area. It is these sections that are home to some of the 2) Fulton House areas most historically and architecturally significant homes. RH-2 Zone District Report 31 East of 20th Street Neighborhood Development Potential West of Broadway The East of 20th Street Neighborhood is Neighborhood characterized by the presence of multi-family While some development potential exists on these dwelling units, including several conversions of once lots, particularly the single-family homes located single-family homes to multi-family units, some on the north side of Pine Street, redevelopment with rear additions. The blocks east of Folsom Road could alter the historic character of this area. Based within this area are primarily comprised of nonresi- on the research completed on the Mapleton Hill dential uses, including office and retail uses. Historic District and the RMX-1 Zoning Project, the continued inclusion of this area as high-density There is one individual landmark in this area, within residential may need to be addressed. the potential Whittier historic district: 1. Whittier School (1882), 2008 Pine Street, PINE 2205 originally called Pine Street School, was 1117 PINE ST BROADWAY designed by Frank Edbrooke, one of Denver's most prominent architects. Whittier School was Boulder's second permanent schools and _ now survives as its oldest. It is also the oldest PINEsT continually used school building in Colorado. 1128 PINE ST Recent Development and Development Potential . 1104 PINE ST Recent Development 1' 2130 11TH ST 31 1118 a FINEST There has been no recent development within the LP Spruce/Pine Street Subarea. However, there have ~y puce st been some single-family conversions from residential to nonresidential, including office (2541 Spruce) West of Broadway Neighborhood and retail uses (2539 Spruce). These have been documented and approved through the Use Review process in the early 1990's. West of Broadway Neighborhood Existing Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size FAR Residential Apt: 4-8 units - 2130 11th Street 1921 4 50.00 3,483 3,216 0.98 Single Family - 1109 Pine Street 1901 1 3.84 11,381 3,214 0.34 Single Family - 1117 Pine Street 1878 1 4.83 9,015 1,151 0.13 Single Family - 1104 Pine Street 1898 1 12.23 3,561 2,222 0.62 AVERAGE 1.75 17.71 6860 2450.75 .52 Nonresidential Boulder Masonic Temple - 2025 Broadway 1949 20,757 14,872 0.72 Carnegie Library - 1125 Pine Strect 5,593 0 0.00 First Congregational Church - 1128 Pine Street 2003 28,291 16,686 0.59 Parking - 1116 Pine Street 6,802 3;500 0.51 32 November 19, 2009 Development Potential 96th Street and way; for example underground parking, there is Broadway Neighborhood approximately 34,534 square feet of available land The 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood has a immediately adjacent to the heart of downtown completely different mix of land uses and likely the Boulder. The redevelopment of these lots could have most development potential due to its proximity to a significant impact on the desired future land use the downtown core. There are 22 properties in this pattern for this neighborhood. section of the Spruce/Pine Street Subarea that are nonresidential and 17 that are residential, making this the most diverse of all of the RH-2 zoned subarea neighborhoods. The average densities of the residential developments are generally in-line with the maximum densities allowed through Planning Board approval and there are a number of developments that exceed the allowed density for this district. Development potential does exist for many of the single-family homes either through the by-right or Planning Board approval process. In addition, the nonresidential uses have capacity to redevelop, particularly the surface parking lots found in this area. If parking requirements change or parking for these uses can be handled in a different 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood Existing Residential Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size FAR Residential Apt: 4-8 units 1902 4 38.30 4,553 3,220 0.71 Apt: 4-8 units 1974 4 25.30 6,887 4,862 0.71 Apt: 4-8 units 1978 6 25.30 10,349 6,201 0.65 Apt: 4-8 units 1922 4 24.70 7,060 3,568 0.51 Apt: 4-8 units 1893 3 19.20 6,791 4,650 0.72 Apartments 1894 13 39.10 14,473 7,177 0.50 Condo 1984 9 57.60 6,601 734 0.14 Condo 1904 4 25.60 5,288 934 0.18 Condo 1920 2 51.20 1,676 630 0.38 DuplexlTriplex 1890 2 15.80 5,521 2,088 0.38 Single Farnily 1894 1 7.61 5,723 1,861 0.33 Single Family 1904 2 11.80 7,405 2,607 0.35 Single Family - church property 1898 1 10.34 4,212 1,444 0.42 Single Family 1898 1 12.23 3,561 2,222 0.62 Single Fami ly 1894 1 7.61 5,723 1,861 0.33 Single Family 1904 2 11.80 7,405 2,607 0.35 Single Family - Church Property 1898 1 10.34 4,212 1,444 0.42 AVERAGE 4 27.07 6,657 3,075 0.46 RH-2 Zone District Report 33 Development Potential East of 20th Street Neighborhood This neighborhood has a very uniform and consistent lot pattern where the majority of the lots range from 6,000 to just over 7,000 square feet. The uses found on these lots are primarily multi-unit residences with densities that are either at the maximum allowed through Planning Board approval or are far greater than what is currently permitted under the RH-2 zone district. The average density for the East of 20th Street Neighborhood is 27 dwelling units per acre. Based on the existing lot pattern, the size of the lots and the number of dwelling units per acre in this area, redevelopment to higher densities does not seem likely. 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood Existing Nonresidential Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size FAR Nonresidential Boulder County Parking 10,501 0 0.00 Boulderado Parking 10,582 0 0.00 Commercial Condo 1984 10,947 5,101 0.47 Commercial Condo 1940 5,288 934 0.18 First Baptist Church 1960 14,084 11,778 0.84 First Baptist Church 13,761 22,792 1.66 First Church of Christ 1925 17,371 9,400 0.54 First United Methodist Church 1905 3,160 1,118 0.35 First United Methodist Church 1891 34,652 43,625 1.26 First United Methodist Church - parking 5,137 0 0.00 First United Methodist Church - parking 15,701 0 0.00 Lodging 1904 6,960 4,195 0.60 Office 1900 3,607 3,268 0.91 Office 1950 10,077 17,856 1.77 Office 1951 7,052 2,539 0.36 Office Parking 6,649 0 0.00 Residential converted to office 1880 7,498 1,710 0.23 Restaurant - church property 1920 3,753 1,979 0.53 34 November 19, 2009 East of 20th Street Neighborhood Existing Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size FAR Residential Apt 1981 26 82.00 13,814 10,059 0.73 Apt: 4-8 units 1963 4 23.90 7,298 3,328 0.46 Apt: 4-8 units 1973 4 24.80 7,026 4,196 0.60 Apt: 4-8 units 1979 4 24.90 7,002 4,316 0.62 Apt: 4-8 units 1960 4 24.90 6,992 3,998 0.57 Apt: 4-8 units 1976 4 25.00 6,957 3,790 0.54 Apt: 4-8 units 1962 4 25.20 6,917 3,404 0.55 Apt: 4-8 units 1960 4 25.30 6,886 4,340 0.63 Apt: 4-8 units 1910 4 25.40 6,870 3,505 0.54 Apt: 4-8 units 1966 4 25.90 6,732 2,880 0.43 Apt: 4-8 units 1905 4 26.50 6,573 2,560 0.39 Apt: 4-8 units 1920 5 30.20 7,220 2,871 0.40 Apt: 4-8 units 1955 5 30.30 7,196 4,330 0.60 Apt: 4-8 units 1972 5 30.89 7,050 3,176 0.45 Apt: 4-8 units 1905 5 31.22 6,976 3,739 0.54 Apt: 4-8 units 1976 5 31.23 6,974 4,292 0.62 Apt: 4-8 units 1920 5 31.33 6,952 4,157 0.60 Apt: 4-8 units 1973 5 31.57 6,898 3,192 0.46 Apt: 4-8 units 1977 5 31.60 6,892 3,913 0.57 Apt: 4-8 units 1984 5 31.76 6,858 420 0.06 Apt: 4-8 units 1973 5 33.55 6,492 3,192 0.49 Apt: 4-8 units 1978 8 48.08 7,247 4,613 0.64 Condo 1978 4 24.60 6,996 960 0.14 Condo 1979 8 25.20 13,638 960 0.07 Condo 1984 6 36.70 7,004 984 0.14 Condo 12 38.30 13,615 0 0.00 Duplex/Triplex 1989 4 24.90 7,008 4,280 0.61 SF 1900 1 6.17 7,063 1,136 0.16 SF 1905 1 6.33 6,877 2,316 0.39 SF 1905 1 6.45 6,747 1,910 0.28 SF 1927 2 13.00 6,719 1,433 0.30 Townhomes 1977 6 24.70 10,441 1,791 0.17 AVERAGE 5 29.09 7,933 3,227 0.44 Nonresidential Boulder Valley School 103,693 0 0.00 Office 1996 7,065 906 0.13 Office 1976 6,826 2,359 0.35 Residential converted to office 1925 7,091 15537 0.22 Vacant 5,821 RH-2 Zone District Report 35 Key Issues 4. This subarea has the highest percentage of non- residential uses. Residential conversions to non- As the subarea with the most development potential, several key issues have been identified, as follows: residential uses have played a role in changing the neighborhood character of this subarea over time. The presence of nonresidential uses and 1. The expansion of the Mapleton Hill Historic their interface with residential developments District for those eight lots located in the will continue to be a challenge for this subarea. West of Broadway Neighborhood, along Pine Street indicates a desire by the city to 5. The potential Whittier historic district, and preserve existing character. The history of the the desire to preserve existing character and Mapleton Hill Historic District and the RMX-1 building stock should be evaluated against Zoning Project points to a purposeful zoning the intent and development outcome of a high designation for the historic district to help density residential district. maintain the existing character of the Mapleton Hill neighborhood. Maintaining a high density residential zone designation for these lots significantly increases their development potential, which is counterintuitive to the goal of the historic district. 2. The presence of several off-street surface parking lots in the 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood and their redevelopment potential could have a significant impact on the character of this area and the potential Whittier historic district. With no limits on nonresiden- tial other than the controls of Use Review, large commercial or retail uses could be developed. In addition, as a high density residential zoning district, large multi-unit residential apartments or condominiums are likely uses. As a prime location immediately adjacent to the downtown core, careful planning will be required to ensure compatible development in this neighborhood. 3. Densities equivalent to what could be approved by Planning Board (27.2 dwelling units per acre) or higher are found in the East of 20th Street Neighborhood. The existing higher densities would discourage any redevelopment within this area. In addition, to snatch the densities in the area, Planning Board approval would be required for any new development project. 36 November 19, 2009 North Broadway Subarea 1. Washington Elementary School (1903), 1215 Cedar Street, is a good example of a turn-of- The North Broadway Subarea is generally bounded the-century Boulder school building. Built by Forest Avenue on the north, 13th Street on as a response to overcrowding in the schools, the east, Alpine Avenue on the south, and North Washington Elementary School represents Broadway on the west. the city's growth and population boom from 1900-1905. ~-4 2. Newland House (1937), 3011 Broadway Street, _EVu~ftn A was the home of Frank and Stella Chleborad. C Frank was a self-employed Boulder County E~~erAv l' land developer born in Atwood, Kansas in -7 1 ` 1904. The residence with its cross-gabled roof with overhanging eaves, exposed rafters and triangular braces, and what was once an open li porch is a good example of a Craftsman-style ul ILI C - edar Av bungalow. --j _l 3. Wolff House 1870 1237 Elder Street built - by Joseph Wolff on a 160-acre fann that Wolff purchased in 1864 on what was the northern fringe of the Boulder community. The building site represents what was once a North Broadway Subarea bountiful orchard and an important asset to the community during the town's development. It Overall Character also represents the efforts of Western pioneers to cultivate the land and establish agriculture as This subarea is comprised of a mixture of single- a viable resource for the Boulder Valley. and multi-family residential developments with some nonresidential uses along Broadway. Typical building mass and type within the North Broadway L-L Subarea is predominately large two- and three-story multi-family units. Some small single-family homes ! a ~I E CU exist; some of which have been converted to an e _ ElderAv- assortment of office and commercial uses along Broadway. _ Approximately 27 of the 44 lots in this subarea DelLVw ood- are currently developed as either an apartment, condominium, or duplex/triplex. Of the total number _ - r of units classified as residential, approximately 79 - percent are renter-occupied and 19 percent are own- er-occupied. - I - -C_edarA There are three individual landmarks in the North Broadway Subarea, which are not affiliated with or in proximity to a historic district or potential historic Individual Landmark Properties: 1) Washington Elementary School, 2) Newland House, and 3) Wolff district: House RH-2 Zone District Report 37 See Exhibit A, RH-2 Zone District Historic The overall redevelopment plan includes a total of Resources Map for a complete map of individual 33 units on three acres, or 11 units per acre, which landmarks, potential historic districts and designated is well below the by-right and discretionary review historic districts in the RU-2 zone district. densities of the RH-2 zone district. However, the area zoned RH-2 has a density of 16 dwelling units Recent Development and Development per acre, which is at the lower end for a high density Potential residential land use designation (14 or more dwelling units per acre). Recent Development Overall, there were four modifications requested for There have been three recent development approvals the Washington Village II development, including: within the North Broadway Subarea, which include Washington Village II, the Broadway Brownstones and • Reduction in the minimum lot area per dwelling the Flats at 1201 Balsam. Washington Village 11 and unit from 3,200 square feet to 1,600 square feet; the Broadway Brownstones were both discretionary reviews while the Flats at 1201 Balsam is a by-right • 55 percent parking reduction from 105 spaces project. Similar to other recent development required to 59 provided; examples within the RI-1-2 zone district, both the Washington Village II and Broadway Brownstones • Height modification from 35 feet to 41 feet; and requested parking reductions, a reduction in the minimum lot area requirement per dwelling • Front yard setback from 25 feet to 17 feet for the unit, height modification and various setback first floor and 21 feet for the second. modifications. Another recent development within the North Washington Village II is located at the northeast Broadway Subarea is the Broadway Brownstones corner of Broadway and Cedar Avenue and is dual located between Balsam Avenue and Cedar Avenue zoned RH-2 and RL-1. Recently approved by City on the east side of Broadway. The Brownstones have Council on February 25, 2009, a combination of been developed at approximately eight dwelling single-family, duplexes, and attached condominium units per acre, which is below the high density land housing types are planned along with 2,950 square use classification for this subarea. The Broadway feet of ground-floor office to be located on Broadway. Brownstones were approved in July, 2005 as a 7-unit fl lip. ti ~x Washington School Broadway Brownstones 38 November 19, 2009 (1,999-4,374 square feet), three-story, multi-family maximized the by-right development potential on residential project located on a 31,045 square foot the lot or are very close to meeting the maximum lot, The Brownstones replaced a 10-unit apartment permitted density through Site Review of 27.2 building, which was a reduction in density for this lot. dwelling units per acre. However, there is some development potential on some of the single-family Three modifications were requested for the Broadway lots. The average density for this subarea is about Brownstones development: 24 dwelling units per acre, leaving little overall • 20 percent parking reduction from 30 spaces development potential. This is further solidified by required to 24 spaces provided; the recent developments that have been approved in this area, which have densities less than what could • Conditional height modification of five-feet from be permitted through Site Review and Planning 35 feet to 40 feet; and Board approval. • Front yard setback modification from 25 feet to fn addition to the residential development potential, 13.2 feet. there is some ability for the nonresidential uses to The Flats at 1201 Balsam is a by-right development expand, particularly the Boulder Medical Center. located at the northeast corner of Balsam Avenue If parking concerns can be alleviated, the parking and Broadway. This development is a conversion of lot associated with the Medical Center could be the existing 16-unit apartment building to a 16-unit redeveloped. The presence of Broadway as a major condominium building, which will increase the owner arterial might also influence the development of new occupied units in this subarea. As this is a by-right nonresidential uses. project, all RH-2 zone district regulations were required to be met prior to the issuance of a building Key Issues permit. This project is currently under construction Compared to the other four subareas, the North with an expected completion date in early 2010. Broadway Subarea has relatively few regulatory or Development Potential development issues. The key concerns to note are: 1. While the existing densities in this subarea are Most of the existing multi-family developments at or above what would be allowed through within the North Broadway Subarea have either Site Review with Planning Board approval, the new developments recently approved are within the medium density residential land use and zoning designation. The existing higher densities and the trend to approve lower density developments may discourage any 6 redevelopment within this area. 1cam' ' - 2. This subarea has a number of nonresidential uses and there is a potential for these uses to r, rya - expand. The size of the existing nonresiden- tial uses may have an impact on the overall character of this subarea, particularly with the ~!i~. draw of Broadway as a major arterial street. The presence of nonresidential uses and their f a.A 1:r t('T interface with residential developments will continue to be a challenge for this subarea. The Flats at 1201 Balsam RH-2 Zone District Report 39 North Broadway Neighborhood Existing Residential Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size FAR Residential Apartment: 4-8 units 1967 7 25.40 12,009 5,422 0.45 Apartment: 4-8 units 1965 6 27.70 9,446 4,524 0.48 Apartment: 4-8 units 1937 7 38.80 7,866 4,389 0.56 Apartment: 4-8 units 1937 6 33.50 7,808 5,800 0.74 Apartment: 4-8 units 1930 4 23.00 7,574 6,202 0.89 Apartments 1951 16 59.20 11,779 15,288 1.47 Apartments 1954 13 29.50 19,170 12,804 0.67 Apartments 1962 12 26.10 20,024 9,184 0.46 Apartments 1984 22 31.40 30,547 16,747 0.55 Apartments 1979 36 31.60 49,603 44,518 0.90 Apartments 1966 23 48.20 20,795 19,431 0.93 Apartments: 4-8 units 1950 4 15.60 11,181 4,488 0.40 Condo 1983 11 32.30 14,578 419 0.03 Condo 1981 18 26.60 29,098 1,088 0.04 Condo 1952 7 10.60 28,711 616 0.04 Condo 1961 11 20.60 23,026 883 0.04 Condo 1978 15 21.40 30,224 2,220 0.07 Condo 1883 10 35.40 12,076 390 0.03 Condo 1984 39 49.60 33,331 462 0.01 Condo 1915 4 32.50 5,307 1,484 0.28 Condo 1904 2 18.70 4,645 840 0.18 Duplex/Triplex 1905 2 9.60 9,091 2,288 0.25 Duplex/Triplex 1952 3 11.30 11,562 2,440 0.21 Duplex/Triplex 1930 3 18.50 7,077 3,794 0.54 Duplex/Triplex 1940 2 18.20 41457 1,692 0.38 Duplex/Triplex 1915 2 16.50 5,291 1,534 0.29 Duplex/Triplex 1925 2 19.00 4,574 1,656 0.36 SF 1955 1 3.87 11,262 1,144 0.14 SF 1950 2 11.50 7,577 948 0.19 SF 1 9.17 4,779 1,760 0.37 SF 1914 1 6.99 6,234 1,204 0.19 SF 1925 2 9.10 9,583 2,457 0.30 Wasbington School 33 11.03 130,645 26,757 0.20 AVERAGE 10 23.71 18,210 6,208 0.38 40 November 19, 2009 North Broadway Neighborhood Existing Nonresidential Development Pattern Density Building Garage FAR no FAR with Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size Size Garage Garage Nonresidential Boulder Housing Authority Boulder Medical Center 31,970 0 0.00 0.00 Parking Boulder Medical Parking 22,176 0 0.00 0.00 Gas Station 1999 20,027 1,590 0.08 0.08 Mental Health Center of 12,731 4,838 0.38 0.38 Boulder Office 1940 6,210 3,220 0.52 0.52 0.52 Office 1976 12,474 3,799 0.30 0.30 0.30 Office 1889 12,781 4,946 0.39 0.39 Office 1950 16,091 6,867 0.43 0.43 Retail 1915 6,356 1,798 0.28 0.28 Unluiown 1951 7,747 15,288 2.24 2.24 RH-2 Zone District Report 41 42 November 19, 2009 REGULATORY ANALYSIS Parking Staff has generated several possible options to utilizing three different development scenarios. resolve the parking concerns within the RH-2 zone Please note the number of units, the size of the district. Exhibit E: Matrix of Options summarizes the units, and the number of bcdrooms changes in each analysis completed on the possible parking options scenario. against the objectives created for this project. The options include: It is clear that the different options generate different parking requirements. Option 2, would require the 1. Maintain the current parking requirements. least amount of parking. The dominate land use in the RH-2 zone district is 2. Change the parking calculations to be based multi-family apartments and condos, often renter- on the number of bedrooms, which would be occupied. The table below, Percentage of'Owner consistent with all other residential districts. and Renter Occupied Housing, provides the percent of owner and renter occupied housing in the four 3. Change the parking calculations to be based subareas. The information regarding owner vs. renter on number of bedrooms per unit, and require occupied housing was attained from the Boulder an additional half space for each bedroom over County Assessor's records and relates to the owners' two. home addresses. Propert ies are considered rentals if the owner has a separate address where their tax bill The table below, Required Parking Based on is mailed. The properties that have post office boxes Regulatory Options, calculates the number of are unknowns and not counted as either owner or required spaces for each regulatory option outlined renter occupied. Required Parking Based on Regulatory Options Number of Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Number of Units Size of Units Bedrooms Required Spaces Required Spaces Required Spaces 13 800 sq. ft. 1 26 13 13 7 1,485 sq. ft. 2 28 10.5 (11) 14 4 2,600 sq. ft. 3 16 8 18 Percentage of Owner and Renter Occupied Housing Percent Owner Percent Renter Sub Area Occupied Occupied Unknown 1. University IIill 4.0% 94.3% 1.7% 2. Goss Grove 12.5% 86.5% 1.0% 3. Spruce/Pine 17.8% 82.2% 0.0% 4. North Broadway 19.4% 78.9% 1.7% Source: Boulder County Assessor data RH-2 Zone District Report 43 Based on information from the "Parking Generation wise use and sustainability of the urban core. The Manual" developed by the Institute of Transportation city's Transportation Master Plan has several policies Engineers, rental based housing typically generates that indirectly support off-street parking reductions, higher parking demands. For example, an owner- particularly improving alternate modes or transpor- occupied condominium or townhome is listed as tation and reducing vehicle miles traveled. These needing 0.98 spaces per unit while a rental townhome policies provide support for a reduction in parking requires 1.5 spaces per unit. Also, a low/mid rise requirements for the RH-2 zone district. apartment complex often requires between 0.8 and Density / Floor Area 1.4 parking spaces per unit. Based on the higher per- centage of renter occupied units, requiring additional Staff developed several possible options to resolve parking may be important in some subareas. the issues related to density and floor area within the RH-2 zone district. Exhibit E: Matrix of Options The U.S. Census Bureau provides data on the num- summarizes the analysis completed on the possible ber of vehicles available per occupied housing unit. options against the objectives created for this project. According to the Census, over 78 percent of the oc- The options include: cupied homes in the city have one or two vehicles as shown in the Vehicles Availahle per Occupied Hous- 1. Maintain the current density/floor area ing Unit, table below. calculations found in the code. Vehicles Available per Occupied Housing Unit 2. Eliminate the floor area component from the density calculation. Occupied housing units 37,174 100% No vehicles available 3,033 g.2p% 3. Eliminate the floor area component from the 1 vehicle available 15,317 41.20% density calculation and reduce the required lot area per dwelling unit to allow 2 dwelling units 2 vehicles available 13,899 37.40% per minimum lot size or 14 dwelling units per 3 or more vehicles available 4,925 13.20% acre (3 dwelling units per minimum lot size Source: 2005-2007 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates; or 21.7 dwelling units per acre if approved by U.S. Census Bureau Planning Board). The table, Permitted Densities Based on Regulatory Measuring vehicles available per household results in Options, on the opposite page, delineates the a slightly higher number per household than, for ex- densities that could be achieved based on the above- ample, measuring car ownership. Measuring vehicles mentioned options. per occupied housing unit may include vehicles not parked at home, as well as the vehicles parked at The difference in density between these three home, but not owned by a resident, such as work ve- options varies slightly. Ilowever, when including a hicles or borrowed cars. Vehicles available per house- maximum unit size into the density calculation, the hold, however, is a reliable predictor of residential total number of allowed units can change. Under parking behavior, which indicates that the majority of Option 1, the total allowed floor area calculates as households need at least one to two spaces per unit. follows: Minimum parking requirements are intended to 13 dwelling units x 800 square feet = 10, 400 square reflect an estimate of minimum anticipated demand, feet of allowable floor area coupled with allowances for guest parking and for maintenance and delivery vehicles. These factors are The maximum allowed floor area can be manipulated balanced against transportation policies that seek to on a one acre lot to allow for larger units than 800 reduce dependence on automobile use and promote 44 November 19, 2009 Permitted Densities Based on Regulatory Options Min. Lot Min. Lot Area per Open Space Max. Unit Density (sq. ft.) DU (sq. fl.) Size (du's/acre) (sq. ft.) Option 1 - current regulations 6,000 3,200 600 800 13 Option 2 - eliminate floor area 6,000 3,200 600 0 13 Option 3 - eliminate floor area and change 6,000 3,000 600 0 14 DU/A *Alt calculations are based on a i acre, 43,560 square foot development. square feet, but this would then equate to a reduction Staff is unsure why floor area has been tied to the in units on the lot, For example: maximum density allowed on a lot; however, there are two possible reasons. The first may relate to the • 13 dwelling units x 800 square feet = 10,400 overall building size. Through a maximum floor • 7 dwelling units x 1,485 square feet = 10,395 area requirement per unit, the maximum size of a building can be generally understood. The second • 4 dwelling units x 2,600 square feet = 10,400 reason may relate to the total number of occupants per building. The RH-2 zone district was intended to Utilizing the same calculation for dwelling units per alleviate some of the density issues related to student acre for Options 2 and 3, which do not tie density to occupancy. Limiting the amount of floor area per floor area, a total density of 13 and 14 dwelling units unit might have been intended to help reduce the total per acre can be achieved. This is a more predictable number of persons per building. way of measuring permitted density on a lot. If staff's assumptions about the goal of these In addition to the existing by-right standards outlined regulations are correct, the ultimate result may not above, Planning Board may also approve an increase be achieved. Limiting building size is problematic in density through a reduction in the minimum square because common areas are not included in the way foot per lot requirement from 3,200 square feet to floor area is defined under section 9-8-3(c), B.R.C. 1,600 square feet pursuant to site plan approval. This 1981 for the RH-2 zone district. While the interior increase in density essentially rezones the property unit sizes may be limited, the overall building mass to RH-5 district, which allows a maximum density could still be quite large. In addition, limiting total of 27.2 dwelling units per acres. However, this floor area does not necessarily equate directly to maximum density was often limited by the maximum the reducing number of occupants. Theoretically, floor area requirements of the zone district, which a project with twelve, 800 square foot units, or six, could be seen as an indirect approach to limiting 1,600 square foot units could still yield the same density on a site. number of persons per unit. Also, limiting the total number of occupants per unit can be achieved The complexity of calculating density is clear, as through section 9-8-5, "Occupancy of'Dwelling the calculation standards lead to specific limitations Units," B.R.C., 1981. This section permits a that become tied to the floor area of individual units. maximum of four unrelated persons per unit. Density calculations are further complicated any time interior architectural changes occur that either Option 3 noted above indicates an increase in density increase or decrease individual unit square footage. from 13.6 to 14 dwelling units per acre, which would All of these calculations combined make it difficult allow a single-family home on a minimum 6,000 for both the developer, and the adjacent neighbors to square foot lot to convert to a two-unit structure. This understand the ultimate development potential of a could be an issue for the Goss Grove Subarea where lot. RH-2 Zone District Report 45 the single-family property owners have expressed a 3. Eliminate single-family development from the concern for the loss of single-family development. floor area standards. However, the RH-2 zone district is intended to be a high density residential district. The purpose of this Section 9-8-3(f), B.R.C. 1981 permits homes built district as defined under section 9-5-2(c), B.R.C. prior to September 2, 1993 to increase in size without 1981 indicates the following: Planning Board approval and allows them to be exempt from the parking standards of the district, High residential areas are primarily used for provided the following conditions are met: a variety of types of attached residential uses, including, without limitation, apartment buildings ° Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the complimentary uses may be allowed owner of the property executes a declaration of and where use, in a form acceptable to the City Manager, While single-family is still a permitted use, the stating that the dwelling will continue to be used purpose statement does not indicate single-family as a single-family dwelling; residential as a primary use. According to the County Assessor's data, 142 single-family lots remain in • The dwelling contains no more than one kitchen; the Goss Grove Subarea. Of these lots, only 26 are and over 6,000 square feet and could convert without Planning Board approval to a two-unit attached • At least one off-street parking space, in structure. An additional 91 could convert with compliance with city standards, is provided. Planning Board approval. If there is a desire to The intent of this regulation was to allow existing preserve the single-family residences in the Goss single-family homes to expand beyond the maximum Grove Subarea, a new vision through the BVCP for floor area requirement. The conditions applied to the this neighborhood may need to be considered. expansion were to ensure that the home remained single-family. While single-family residential Floor Area for Single-Family development is not specifically mentioned in the The maximum floor area of 800 square feet per purpose statement for the RH-2 zone district, it is dwelling unit also applies to new single-family still an important housing type for this district. Public residential construction within the RH-2 zone feedback from the community workshop indicated district. Residents of the district have indicated that the district's regulations for single-family that this discourages new single-family residential housing types were of particular concern to residents construction, which is part of some subareas' in this subarea. character and architectural significance, as is the case in the Goss Grove Subarea. Nonresidential Uses When determining how to address single-family The purpose statement of the RH-2 zone district development in the RE-2 zone district, staff created indicates that complementary uses, other than three possible options. These included: residential, may be developed. Many nonresidential uses are compatible with residential neighborhoods if developed appropriately. The nonresidential 1. Change section 9-8-3(f) by eliminating the uses permitted through the Use Review process, if date of September 2, 1993 and exempt all approved by Planning Board, include offices, medical single-family development. centers, retail, personal service establishments and restaurants. For a complete list of uses allowed 2. Write specific standards for single-family within the RH-2 zone district please refer to Exhibit homes that are built after September 2, 1993. F: RIT' 2 Use Standards Table. For the complete RH-2 zone district bulk requirements, please refer to Exhibit G: RH-2 Bulk and Intensity Standards. 46 November 19, 2009 When determining how to address the issues related considered, a more global approach to either all of to nonresidential development, staff created several the RH zone districts or all of the residential districts options that were compared to the objectives of the may be warranted. project (see Exhibit E: Matrix of 01-3tions), and are as follows: 1. Maintain the existing Use Review process for nonresidential uses. 2. Develop a maximum floor area ratio or maximum building size for nonresidential uses. 3. Redesign the use standards for the RE-2 zone district to eliminate the more intense uses currently allowed. 4. Mandate a 20 percent open space requirement instead of the existing 10 to 20 percent. The variety of uses that are allowed per section 9-6, B.R.C. 1981 concern many property owners and residents, particularly the Goss Grove and Spruce/ Pine Street Subareas. In addition, the current regulations do not place any limitations on floor area or building size for nonresidential uses. However, the nonresidential uses are subject to the discretionary Use Review process with Planning Board approval for determining their compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Additionally the RH-2 zone district utilizes the same use module as RH-1, RH-4 and RE-5, as exhibited in the B.R.C. 1981; only the RH-3 zone district has a different use module. Changing the uses permitted in the RE-2 zone district would either require the creation of a new use module or amending the permitted uses in almost all of the RH zone districts. This is a catalyst for a larger discussion regarding nonresidential developments in a residential district. The nonresidential uses currently permitted subject to the Use Review process have been allowed in the RH zone and other residential zone districts as complementary uses for years and are generally considered compatible uses that enhance a residential neighborhood. If a change to how nonresiden- tial uses are permitted in the RII-2 zone district is RH-2 Zone District Report 47 48 November 19, 2009 RECOMMENDATIONS Subarea Changes University Hill Subarea Recommendations Goss Grove Subarea Recommendations The recommendations for the University Hill Subarea North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood have been broken down by neighborhood based on the key issues that are associated with each. Recommendation: Maintain the RH-2 zone district designation. University Boulevard Neighborhood The existing development densities, larger lot pattern Recommendation: Consider rezoning the area and current uses influence a recommendation to currently zoned RH-2, along University Boulevard to maintain the existing RH-2 zone district designation. the RH-5 zone district. The University Boulevard Neighborhood is South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood immediately adjacent to the RH-5 zone district Recommendation: Consider a land use designation to the south (see Zoning Map on page 7). The change to MXR, mixed density residential and a zone RE-5 zone district has a by-rigbt density of 27.2 change to RMX-1. dwelling units per acre, which is comparable to the existing densities in the area. It would also support The key issues in this neighborhood include redevelopment that is compatible with adjacent the preservation of existing character, a lotting properties without the need for a discretionary pattern that discourages consolidation for larger review. Finally, the change in zoning would be developments, the presence of the 100-year consistent with the BVCP land use designation of floodplain, and the possibility of losing historic high density residential. resources that add uniqueness to the city. All are counterintuitive to a high density residential district. Arapahoe Road Neighborhood The BVCP indicates that the MXR land use Recommendation: Maintain the RH-2 zone district designation is intended for older downtown designation. neighborhoods that have variety of housing types and densities. The intent of the RMX-1 zone district The existing densities in the Arapahoe Road is to permit a variety of residential land uses that Neighborhood are consistent with the by-right maintain their existing densities, while still allowing densities of the R fl-2 zone district. Based on existing renovation or rehabilitation. Both of these district densities, the possibility of preserving the historic intents are consistent with the existing development bungalow homes in this neighborhood and the pattern in the South of Canyon Boulevard possibility of new floodplain mapping, maintaining Neighborhood. the RH-2 zone district at this location is appropriate. However, new development and redevelopment Spruce/Pine Street Recommendations should be closely evaluated to maintain compatibility with the existing by-right densities in the area, which West of Broadway Neighborhood are more fitting for this neighborhood. Recommendation: Consider a land use designation change to MXR and rezoning to RMX-1 for the eight lots west of Broadway. RH-2 Zone District Report 49 This recommendation will help to preserve the existing historic single-family homes and structures included in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. 16th Street Broadway Neighborhood Recommendation: Maintain the RH-2 zone district designation. The 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood has the most potential for redevelopment. Its proximity to downtown and the number of potential lots for redevelopment would likely have a significant impact on the character of this neighborhood. The permitted densities of the Pd-1-2 zone district are appropriate close to the downtown core where goods and services can be readily attained. The main concern with high density residential in this neighborhood is the presence of the potential Whittier historic district and the impact it may have on development potential. In addition, there are some significant resources in this neighborhood that could possibly be designated as local historic landmarks. Careful consideration will need to be given to these properties prior to any redevelopment. East of 20th Street Area Neighborhood Recommendation: Maintain the RH-2 zone district designation. Existing development in this neighborhood is at or above the permitted densities, limiting the redevelopment potential. North Broadway Subarea Recommendation Recommendation: Maintain the RH-2 zone district designation. Existing development in this subarea is at or above the permitted densities for the district, limiting the redevelopment potential. 50 November 19, 2009 _ - - - - --11 - - J _ - ~-ti~ [liIJCu°lu l~ F ; ....i 11 rA - I 7 1 ' 1i-- - I I I ~ ~ E i i North Broadway Subarea - Walmont Rd - - No change Balsam AV.J - Mi- Spruce/Pine Street Subarea CI r1~~L~ "t ] 16th Street and Broadway Neighborhood o - - 7 No change r Al „ L Spruce/Pine Street Subarea Spruce/Pine Street Subarea o'. B West of Broadway Neighborhood East of 20th Street Neighborhood F=1 Land Use Designation change to MXR No change ]]t Rezone to RMX-1r~~"~j - ti I All if:.) ~ L~: 1111 1].i' ll lly Goss Grove Subarea tT North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood No change ~N1r ~I-- 5~ l 11,_ University Hill Subarea 1 _I T SO Arapahoe Road Neighborhood - _ _ _ - . X11 ,~}j No change [HE F i i11 I i~ ~ lJL1llJ L1L l _ F F l T -7 PraPahpefAv.,-- Goss Grove Subarea ~I1 South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood 117 Land Use Designation change to MXR l Rezone to RMX-1 LLI LJ Ll~ Y ~n i t 7 N ~University:Av ® ~I I l tli 1 University Hill Subarea 1 University Boulevard Neighborhood Colorado~Av _ .J Rezone to RH-5 University Hill Subarea RH-2 Zoning District I Goss Grove Subarea Ownership Parcels Spruce/Pine Subarea 0 500 111000 2.040 Feet North Broadway Subarea Subarea and Neighborhood Recommendations RH-2 Zone District Report 51 Regulatory Changes However, the regulatory changes will not likely resolve the current parking issues within the Goss Parking Grove and University Hill Subareas. The majority of the multi-family developments located within Recommendation: Consider amending the parking these two subareas were constructed prior to the calculations from a ratio based on floor area to a ratio current parking regulations for the RH-2 zone based on the number of bedrooms. district. Therefore, the associated off-street parking lots connected with these developments do not meet This recommendation reduces the parking current code. Also, their proximity to the University requirement within the R11-2 zone district while of Colorado, Naropa University, and downtown still addressing typical demands through a bedroom generates considerable additional demand for count. This aligns with the parking estimates on-street parking. Resolving the parking concerns in provided by the "Parking Generation Manual" these two subareas may require more than regulatory developed by the Institute of Transportation changes. Engineers. The city has developed a Neighborhood Parking The amendment would include section 9-9-6, Program (NPP), which regulates on street parking "Parking Standards," Table: 9-1, "Residential through the creation of a district. The NPP was Parking Requirements by Zoning District and Unit developed as a tool to balance the needs of all who Type," B.R.C. 1981, to reflect the current standard park on city streets, including residents, visitors and represented in all high density residential zone commuters. The Goss Grove Subarea, generally districts. As a result the RH-2 zone district standards south of Goss Street, currently employs this program. for parking would be as follows: Expansion of this program may need to be considered for both the Goss Grove and the University Hill • 1 for detached dwelling units Subareas. • 1 space for a 1 bedroom attached dwelling unit Maximum Density Calculations/Floor Area • 1.5 for 2 bedroom attached dwelling unit Recommendation: Consider eliminating the calculation that ties density to the floor area of a • 2 for 3 bedroom attached dwelling unit project. In addition, reduce the required by-right lot size per dwelling unit to allow the RH-2 zone • 3 for 4 bedroom or more attached dwelling unit district to reach the density standard established in The reasons for this recommendation are: the BVCP, which is 14 or more dwelling units per acre and increase the Site Review lot area to allow a 1. Consistent with the other high density density less than RH-5. residential districts. To achieve this density, the "Intensity Standards" 2. Addresses the higher parking demand often of section 9-8, B.R.C. 1981 would be amended as needed with rental units, but balances the follows: requirements of owner occupied units. • Decrease the minimum lot area per dwelling 3. Consistent with Transportation Master Plan unit requirement from 3,200 square feet to 3,000 policies, which relate to reduced parking square feet which would increase the by-right demands. number of dwelling units per acre from 13.6 to 14. 4. Generates predictable outcomes through bedroom counts instead of through floor area Increase the minimum lot area per dwelling unit square footage counts which is more variable. for Site Review from 1,600 square feet to 2,000 52 November 19, 2009 square feet. This would decrease the maximum achieved, which is the intent of both the high allowed density from 27.2 dwelling units per acre density land use designation and the purpose of to 21.7. the RH-2 zone district. • Eliminate the maximum floor area of 800 square Floor Area for Single-Family feet as defined is section 9-8-3(c), B.R.C. 1981 that applies to all dwelling units in the RII-2 Recommendation: Consider eliminating the maximum floor area per dwelling unit equivalent of zone. 800 square feet as defined under section 9-8-3(c), The rationale for this recommendation includes: B.R.C. 1981 for all single-family residential. This will support the development of new 1. The by-right density meets the intent of the single-family homes and will allow expansion of BVCP of at least 14 dwelling units per acre existing homes without requiring any additional through a 3,000 square foot minimum lot area approvals beyond a building permit. The conditions per dwelling unit. outlined in section 9-8-3(f), B.R.C. 1981 stating that the dwelling unit will continue to be used as a 2. The elimination of density tied to floor area single-family residence and that no more than one allows the total number of dwelling units to be kitchen is present, which applied to homes that regulated through an open space and lot area wanted to expand can be reviewed and confirmed as requirement, which is more consistent with the part of the existing building permit process. other high density zone districts. Nonresidential Land Uses 3. Currently, the density permitted through Site Recommendation: No changes are being Review is fundamentally as high as the RH-5 recommended to the existing B.R.C. with regard to zone district, essentially establishing a rezoning nonresidential uses. when approved. However, this density is limited through a maximum floor area requirement, The reasons for this recommendation include: often reducing the actual number of allowed units on a site. With the recommendation to eliminate the maximum floor area requirement, 1. The uses permitted in the RH-2 zone district a more direct approach to reducing the density are intended to be complimentary and promote permitted by Planning Board through the Site integrated and sustainable neighborhoods. Review process is warranted. 2. The use review process, which is mandatory 4. Eliminating RH-2 from the specific floor for all nonresidential use proposals, requires area requirements of section 9-8-3(c), B.R.C. the Planning Board to review compatibility 1981, which allows floor area to be defined and character through a public process before consistently across zone districts. approval. 5. Eliminating floor area from the density 3. The current use standards are generally calculation allows for more predictability of consistent across all residential zone districts. the permitted density on a lot when developing a site. In addition, eliminating maximum 4. By removing the maximum floor area floor area, high density developments may be requirement for residential uses, the disparity between how residential and nonresidential uses are calculated is eliminated. RH-2 Zone District Report 53 Summary the increase in density may result in the increased number of conversions of single-family units to The changes to the RH-2 zone district regulations multi-family developments that would be permitted are designed to meet the intent of the BVCP and the by-right under the new regulations. intent of a high density residential district as outlined in the B.R.C. The BVCP states that properties Recognizing this outcome, staff made additional designated as high density residential should allow recommendations for each subarea that are intended development with densities that are 14 dwelling units to work in concert with the regulatory changes to per acre or more. The B.R.C. indicates that the high resolve any unintended consequences. All of the density residential areas should primarily be used for recommendations are designed to work together a variety of attached residential types. to resolve the key issues indicated for both the RH-2 zone district regulations and the individual The existing RH-2 zone district regulations neighborhoods or subareas. allow 13.6 dwelling units per acre under by-right conditions. Coupled with the limits in allowable floor area, even this density is hard to achieve. The increase to a by-right condition of 14 dwelling units per acre aligns with the intent of the BVCP and the zoning district purpose statement outlined in the B.R.C. The recommended increase in density supports this development pattern. At the conclusion of the regulatory analysis, staff studied the working functionality of the recommended changes in each of the subareas zoned RIH-2. In doing so, staff recognized that the regulatory changes, in some cases, would not be a blanket fit for resolving the key issues identified in each of the subareas. For example, increasing the maximum permitted density within the RH-2 zone district would likely have a positive impact on the Spruce/Pine Street Subarea. This subarea has the most development potential and its close proximity to the downtown core, where goods and services can be readily acquired, supports an increase in density. Conversely, increasing the maximum permitted density, while consistent with the BVCP and the B.R.C. for high density residential, may not achieve a development pattern appropriate for the South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood in the Goss Grove Subarea. The recommended change in density would allow 6,000 square foot minimum size lots to develop two dwelling units by-right where only one unit is permitted under the current regulations. This increase in density would likely continue to alter the single-family residential arcbitecture, character and densities found in this neighborhood. Additionally, 54 November 19, 2009 Exhibit A: RH-2 Zone District Historic Resources Map EH -I-LL I I UU T, MEL, W - nu I - a>r7ci~® 7 _ a L - _ ' Valmont Rd - - - - ~ I d 1~d9e= "I 6 1-1-1 h~T~y~~ Balsam Av m~ 1 .1171 o ~i - c l' HI NJ J- Mapleton A~ ` P} 5 `j1,~~ ~ F 1 east S `y}`~ 4 e Ski - Vya_ ffen r r ~ en By - N _ Gac~Y U ti Ll..n II QRFI.2 Zoning District 0 Designated Local Historic District =ownership Parcels =Potential Local Historic District Historic Landmarks in RH-2 District Landmark - District Landmark - Individual (I I I-T~T7TI` 1 RH-2 Zone District Report 55 Exhibit B: RH-2 Zone District Floodplain Map J_I f -Jij L t Ai~i - , I Mcr>pn Ix S _ - 71 'Valmont R d -r- r FITQ - - F r7 -PT - L = Balsam Avg Cd r i ~f i 1 I ` , fj ~n - OT - H-M h Ill s Mapleton_Av ~ fi 11v"' ~ r 5t _ _ r `N a1n i ~S1' j.S r -V F1 ^tt }1 1 1 t•,~ `l 111 _ 1 1'~ 1_ L_lJL 11 At =L- W01111 L - Vk, Is l•2Zoning District 100 YearFloodploin x~. Orrnershlp Parcels 500 year FloodpWri Flood Conveyance Zone Q High Hazard Flood Zone / J I~Iit I 1-7 fITf~CTII 56 November 19, 2009 Exhibit C: North of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood Existing Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size FAR Residential 4-8 units 1915 4 29.22 5,963 4,059 0.68 4-8 units 1974 4 27.70 6,291 4,096 0.65 4-8 units 1974 4 25.90 6,728 4,096 0.61 4-8 units 1965 4 25.43 6,851 5,611 0.82 4-8 units 1984 8 50.13 6,952 3,540 0.51 4-8 units 1974 4 24.50 7,112 4,096 0.58 4-8 units 1984 4 24.47 7,121 3,456 0.49 4-8 units 1920 7 42.62 7,155 4,065 0.57 4-8 units 1925 4 24.31 7,167 6,661 0.93 4-8 units 1979 4 23.68 7,359 5,850 0.79 4-8 units 1977 4 22.46 7,758 3,456 0.45 4-8 units 1994 4 21.69 8,031 5,100 0.64 4-8 units 1974 4 21.44 8,127 2,992 0.37 4-8 units 1968 5 25.89 8,413 2,784 0.33 4-8 units 1985 4 20.33 8,572 6,728 0.78 4-8 units 1935 5 25.18 8,651 4,660 0.54 4-8 units 1900 6 26.97 9,689 6,625 0.68 4-8 units 1985 7 29.45 10,353 5,410 0.52 4-8 units 1900 13 50.70 11,168 1,377 0.12 4-8 units 1976 6 21.69 12,051 3,558 0.30 4-8 units 1973 8 26.17 13,315 5,128 0.39 4-8 units 1976 8 23.85 14,611 9,006 0.62 4-8 units 1976 8 23.14 15,059 11,139 0.74 4-8 units 1896 5 4.35 50,042 4,128 0.08 9 units above 1983 16 54.06 12,892 7,247 0.56 9 units above 1981 26 83.62 13,544 9,888 0.73 9 units above 1981 24 75.51 13,846 10,924 0.79 9 units above 1966 11 33.91 14,130 8,326 0.59 9 units above 1971 11 33.10 14,477 12,300 0.85 9 units above 1972 12 26.71 19,568 9,630 0.49 9 units above 1974 12 25.82 20,245 9,888 0.49 9 units above 1972 18 33.70 23,266 15,748 0.68 9 units above 1972 32 43.47 32,066 22,098 0.69 9 units above 1972 31 41.60 32,461 21,612 0.67 9 units above 1969 29 30.77 41,060 20,730 0.50 9 units above 1984 43 42.47 44,103 22,747 0.52 9 units above 1968 60 47.84 54,632 49,140 0.90 Condos 1982 4 25.97 6,708 5,768 0.86 Condos 1951 4 25.22 6,908 5,298 0.77 RH-2 Zone District Report 57 Condos 1915 3 18.68 6,996 3,036 0.43 Condos 1978 4 24.78 7,031 4,415 0.63 Condos 1913 3 17.24 7,579 2,871 0.38 Condos 1983 5 26.80 8,127 3,155 0.39 Condos 1980 7 25.51 11,955 8,125 0.68 Condos 1987 6 21.56 12,123 8,825 0.73 Condos 1982 16 50.09 13,913 7,120 0.51 Condos 1978 16 49.91 13,966 14,188 1.02 Condos 1978 6 17.62 14,829 7,625 0.51 Condos 1983 16 38.67 18,026 10,337 0.57 Condos 1984 14 33.21 18,364 1091 0.59 Condos 1966 10 22.32 19,517 7,873 0.40 Condos 1984 15 30.90 21,148 8,983 0.42 Condos 1978 11 22.66 21,148 16,939 0.80 Condos 1999 5 9.34 23,320 5,244 0.22 Condos 2001 11 20.42 23,469 11,847 0.50 Condos 1979 14 24.18 25,219 17,378 0.69 Condos 1967 98 37.50 113,822 82,750 0.73 Duplex/Triplex 1920 2 26.62 3,273 1,296 0.40 Duplex/Triplex 1986 2 24.26 3,590 3,440 0.96 Duplex/Triplex 1920 2 20.81 4,186 1,173 0.28 Duplex/Triplex 1952 2 20.47 4,257 1,584 0.37 Duplex/Triplex 1920 2 17.33 5,026 1,674 0.33 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 15.63 5,575 1,340 0.24 Duplex/Triplex 1920 2 15.59 5,590 2,152 0.39 Duplex/Triplex 1920 3 22.68 5,763 1,556 0.27 Duplex/Triplex 1990 3 21.57 6,058 5,246 0.87 Duplexi"rriplex 1920 4 27.67 6,296 2,377 0.38 Duplex/Triplex 1915 2 13.52 6,443 3,012 0.47 Duplex/Triplex 1920 2 12.21 7,134 1,894 0.27 Duplex/Triplex 1970 2 12.17 7,158 2,079 0.29 Duplex/Triplex 1949 3 18.06 7,235 2,262 0.31 Duplex/Triplex 1920 3 18.03 7,247 2,296 0.32 Duplex/Triplcx 1945 2 11.98 7,272 1,950 0.27 Duplex/Triplex 1955 3 17.96 7,275 1,836 0.25 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 11.66 7,473 1,146 0.15 Duplex/Triplex 1935 2 10.84 8,035 2,335 0.29 Duplex/Triplex 1922 2 10.60 8,219 1,718 0.21 Duplex/Triplex 1904 2 9.64 9,036 1,448 0.16 Duplex/Triplex 2000 5 9.90 22,005 2,152 0.10 Single Family 1991 1 23.62 1,844 1,226 0.66 Single Family 1991 1 22.02 1,978 1,226 0.62 Single Family 1911 1 15.40 2,828 1,618 0.57 Single Family 1990 1 15.29 2,849 1,352 0.47 58 November 19, 2009 Single Family 1990 1 14.34 3,037 1,480 0.49 Single Family 1990 1 14.22 3,063 1,762 0.58 Single Family 1890 1 13.85 3,144 1,194 0.38 Single Family 1992 1 13.69 3,181 1,526 0.48 Single Family 1900 1 13.26 3,285 962 0.29 Single Family 1995 1 13.21 3,298 1,068 0.32 Single Family 1920 1 12.79 3,405 1,788 0.53 Single Family 1905 1 12.74 3,419 1,284 0.38 Single Family 1915 1 12.59 3,461 1,034 0.30 Single Family 1924 1 12.41 3,511 1,062 0.30 Single Family 1900 2 24.11 3,614 856 0.24 Single Family 1909 1 11.77 3,702 655 0.18 Singlc Family 1919 1 11.50 3,788 1,970 0.52 Single Family 1900 1 11.37 3,832 952 0.25 Single Family 1990 1 11.28 3,863 1,818 0.47 Single Family 1956 1 11.12 3,917 1,020 0.26 Single Family 1993 1 11.02 3,953 1,502 0.38 Single Family 1992 1 10.72 4,062 1,674 0.41 Single Family 1990 1 10.56 4,124 1,700 0.41 Single Family 1901 1 10.53 4,137 1,692 0.41 Single Family 1900 1 10.36 4,203 1,756 0.42 Single Family 1956 1 10.34 4,214 1,026 0.24 Single Family 1921 1 10.17 4,283 1,276 0.30 Single Family 1950 1 10.17 4,283 883 0.21 Single Family 1910 2 19.98 4,359 645 0.15 Single Family 1926 1 9.80 4,443 816 0.18 Single Family 1960 1 9.77 4,456 768 0.17 Single Family 1880 1 9.31 4,679 1,380 0.29 Single Family 1920 1 8.91 4,887 864 0.18 Single Family 1920 1 8.87 4,912 1,508 0.31 Single Family 1940 1 8.41 5,179 878 0.17 Single Family 1940 1 7.55 5,767 1,062 0.18 Single Family 1872 1 7.27 53996 2,260 0.38 Single Family 1999 1 6.68 6,523 1,100 0.17 Single Family 1920 2 12.92 6,742 1,550 0.23 Single Family 1920 1 6.29 6,921 1,782 0.26 Single Family 1920 1 6.18 7,044 1,500 0.21 Single Family 1915 3 18.54 7,049 1,386 0.20 Single Family 1936 2 12.01 7,254 1,364 0.19 Single Family 1922 2 11.97 7,278 2,238 0.31 Single Family 1920 2 11.89 7,328 996 0.14 Single Family 1915 3 17.81 7,337 1,294 0.18 Single Family 1945 1 5.70 7,647 1,396 0.18 Single Family 1900 2 11.32 7,699 1,178 0.15 RH-2 Zone District Report 59 Single Family 1910 2 10.81 8,056 2,476 0.31 Single Family 1910 1 5.31 8,211 953 0.12 Single Family 1923 1 4.09 10,651 1,538 0.14 Single Family 1903 1 3.41 12,785 1,500 0.12 Single Family 1915 1 3.22 13,520 1,140 0.08 Single Family 1980 1 1.45 30,023 1,058 0.04 Single Family 1915 2 2.90 30,048 2,116 0.07 AVERAGE 6 20.47 11,002 5,229 0.43 Nonresidential Charitable - Boulder County 1984 7,341 3,006 0.41 Merchandising 1950 7,167 1,395 0.19 Office 1900 7,834 2,605 0.33 Office 1930 9,698 4,487 0.46 Office 1898 3,684 1,301 0.35 Office 1915 6,346 1,064 0.17 School 1900 5,760 1,263 0.22 School 1900 10,110 2,905 0.29 School 1900 20,196 3,480 0.17 Warehouse 1958 30,094 2,000 0.07 60 November 19, 2009 Exhibit D: South of Canyon Boulevard Neighborhood Existing Development Pattern Density Building Use Age Units DU/A Lot Size Size FAR Residential -8 units 1944 4 39.56 4,404 2,048 0.46 -8 units 1997 4 37.83 4,606 2,960 0.64 -8 units 1900 4 32.50 5,361 3,354 0.63 -8 units 1900 4 31.77 5,484 2,090 0.38 4-8 units 1938 4 30.29 5,753 2,913 0.51 -8 units 1985 4 30.27 5,755 4,324 0.75 -8 units 1900 4 29.59 5,888 3,488 0.59 -8 units 1954 5 34.17 6,374 35322 0.52 -8 units 1984 4 26.27 6,631 3,456 0.52 -8 units 1981 4 25.99 6,703 4,988 0.74 -8 units 1984 4 25.83 6,745 6,048 0.90 -8 units 1984 5 31.47 6,922 3,861 0.56 -8 units 1952 4 25.01 6,966 4,689 0.67 -8 units 1978 4 24.92 6,991 308 0.56 4-8 units 1984 5 30.85 7,059 5,806 0.82 -8 units 1986 4 24.53 7,104 4,206 0.59 -8 units 1977 4 24.24 7,188 3,861 0.54 -8 units 1925 5 30.04 7,251 4,219 0.58 -8 units 1979 4 23.93 7,282 4,872 0.67 -8 units 1973 4 21.92 7,951 5,224 0.66 -8 units 1985 5 27.24 7,995 5,853 0.73 -8 units 1880 4 21.57 8,078 3,001 0.37 -8 units 1925 5 25.68 8,482 4,333 0.51 -8 units 1969 4 20.36 8,558 2,523 0.29 -8 units 1977 4 19.71 8,842 3,577 0.40 -8 units 1900 7 3298 9,245 7,824 0.85 4-8 units 1888 6 25.84 10,116 6,331 0.63 4-8 units 1973 6 25.65 10,189 5,488 0.54 -8 units 1900 6 25.03 10,444 8,834 0.85 4-8 units 1985 7 28.48 10,707 6,908 0.65 -8 units 1974 6 24.30 10,757 4,836 0.45 -8 units 1983 8 31.39 11,103 4,748 0.43 -8 units 1971 8 31.10 11,205 4,116 0.37 -8 units 1976 7 26.54 11,489 4,842 0.42 -8 units 1974 8 24.37 14,299 11,170 0.78 -8 units 1961 8 15.87 21,952 4,592 0.21 units above 1978 12 81.37 6,424 3,870 0.60 9 units above 1972 11 71.64 6,688 5,290 0.79 9 units above 1976 12 77.58 6,737 3,456 0.51 RH-2 Zone District Report 61 9 units above 1977 12 76.92 6,795 3,456 0.51 9 units above 1981 12 73.46 7,116 4,320 0.61 9 units above 1976 12 72.21 7,239 3,456 0.48 9 units above 1980 18 75.96 10,322 6,815 0.66 9 units above 1972 22 86.89 11,029 11,440 1.04 9 units above 1991 12 39.38 13,274 6,448 0.49 9 units above 1969 18 52.73 14,871 9,730 0.65 9 units above 1968 12 34.43 15,181 12,616 0.83 9 units above 1972 12 33.31 15,694 5,970 0.38 9 units above 1984 18 49.64 15,796 8,176 0.52 9 units above 1970 14 36.66 16,633 9,186 0.55 9 units above 1900 13 33.74 16,782 12,562 0.75 9 units above 1963 14 33.65 18,120 11,288 0.62 9 units above 1972 20 46.38 18,784 15,506 0.83 9 units above 1973 12 26.71 19,572 10,368 0.53 9 units above 1973 26 55.92 20,252 15,496 0.77 9 units above 1971 23 47.79 20,966 14,028 0.67 9 units above 1991 15 30.28 21,581 12,180 0.56 9 units above 1972 22 43.66 21,950 16,771 0.76 9 units above 1969 31 60.73 22,237 16,080 0.72 Condos 1984 3 24.13 5,416 2,704 0.50 Condos 1984 7 42.58 7,161 4,114 0.57 Condos 1982 14 52.78 11,554 5,220 0.45 Condos 1976 9 33.38 11,746 4,432 0.38 Condos 1930 6 21.83 111974 6,432 0.54 Condos 2008 1 3.62 12,038 990 0.08 Condos 1981 9 27.12 14,458 7,254 0.50 Condos 1979 8 23.29 14,964 7,106 0.47 Condos 1981 10 25.34 17,188 15,415 0.90 Condos 1985 14 33.38 18,269 8,257 0.45 Condos 1966 26 48.77 23,223 21,330 0.92 Duplex/Triplex 1981 2 30.15 2,890 1,664 0.58 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 26.07 3,342 1,119 0.33 Duplex/Triplex 1910 2 24.11 3,614 2,128 0.59 Duplex/Triplex 1998 2 23.81 35659 1,586 0.43 Duplex/Triplex 1996 3 33.58 3,892 2,006 0.52 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 22.38 3,893 1,820 0.47 Duplex/Triplex 1900 3 32.82 3,982 1,490 0.37 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 20.01 4,353 1,879 0.43 Duplex/Triplex 1997 2 19.56 4,454 1,000 0.22 Duplex/Triplex 1985 3 28.05 4,658 3,336 0.72 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 18.17 4,794 1,289 0.27 Duplex/Triplex 1947 2 17.33 5,027 2,552 0.51 Duplex/Triplex 1913 2 17.11 5,091 3,180 0.62 62 November 19, 2009 Duplex/Triplex 1957 2 16.94 5,142 1,545 0.30 Duplex/Triplex 1925 3 25.30 5,165 3,447 0.67 Duplex/Triplex 1900 3 25.12 5,202 2,210 0.42 Duplex/Triplex 1961 2 16.74 5,205 1,080 0.21 Duplex/Triplex 1949 3 24.59 5,314 2,520 0.47 Duplex/Triplex 1910 2 16.33 5,336 1,530 0.29 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 16.06 5,423 1,294 0.24 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 16.01 5,440 1,202 0.22 Duplex/Triplex 1924 2 15.99 5,450 1,869 0.34 Duplex/Triplex 1956 2 15.86 5,492 1,711 0.31 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 15.77 5,525 1,416 0.26 Duplex/Triplex 1927 2 15.63 5,572 1,962 0.35 Duplex/Triplex 1968 3 23.38 5,588 1,632 0.29 Duplex/Triplex 1937 2 15.58 5,591 1,547 0.28 Duplex/Triplex 1923 3 23.36 5,593 2,076 0.37 Duplex/Triplcx 1979 3 23.25 5,619 4,004 0.71 Duplex/Triplex 1910 2 15.48 5,629 2,202 0.39 Duplex/Triplex 1996 3 22.66 5,766 1,968 0.34 Duplex/Triplex 1920 3 22.53 5,801 1,648 0.28 Duplex/Triplex 1927 2 15.00 5,808 2,181 0.38 Duplex/Triplex 1910 2 14.88 5,854 1,683 0.29 Duplex/Triplex 1899 3 21.90 5,967 2,987 0.50 Duplex/Triplcx 1900 2 14.58 5,974 1,308 0.22 Duplex/Triplex 1968 2 14.42 6,042 1,632 0.27 DuplexJTriplcx 1925 2 14.42 6,042 1,760 0.29 Duplex/Triplex 1894 3 21.43 6,099 3,431 0.56 Duplex/Triplex 1900 2 14.06 6,197 1,656 0.27 Duplex/Triplex 1910 2 13.97 6,238 2,940 0.47 Duplex/Triplex 1898 2 13.57 6,421 1,480 0.23 Duplex/Tziplex 1992 2 13.56 6,425 1,372 0.21 Duplex/Triplex 1920 2 13.03 6,688 1,248 0.19 Duplex/Triplex 1952 2 12.50 6,968 11512 0.22 Duplex/Triplex 1905 2 10.77 8,089 1,418 0.18 Duplex/Triplex 1900 4 17.45 9,983 1,440 0.14 Duplex/Triplex 1960 2 8.53 10,213 1,242 0.12 Mobile Home 1954 1 5.60 7,772 1,439 0.19 Single Family 1985 1 35.12 1,240 932 0.75 Single Family 1987 1 23.17 1,880 1,108 0.59 Single Family 1900 1 22.19 1,963 624 0.32 Single Family 1985 1 20.79 2,096 1,200 0.57 Single Family 1900 1 20.59 2,116 744 0.35 Single Family 1947 2 39.27 2,218 1,325 0.60 Single Family 1988 1 17.99 2,422 1,671 0.69 Single Family 1900 1 17.89 2,434 672 0.28 RH-2 Zone District Report 63 Single Family 1900 1 17.53 2,486 657 0.26 Single Family 1989 1 17.02 2,559 1,272 0.50 Single Family 1989 1 15.82 2,753 1,620 0.59 Single Family 1900 1 15.75 2,766 1,996 0.72 Single Family 1988 1 15.74 2,767 1,854 0.67 Single Family 1995 1 15.65 2,783 1,059 0.38 Single Family 1900 l 15.44 2,822 1,078 0.38 Single Family 1995 1 15.37 2,834 1,043 0.37 Single Family 1900 1 15.30 2,846 1,284 0.45 Single Family 1860 1 15.24 2,859 1,328 0.46 Single Family 1900 1 15.09 2,886 1,224 0.42 Single Family 1923 1 14.86 2,931 1,166 0.40 Single Family 1990 1 14.86 2,932 1,274 0.43 Single Family 1911 1 14.59 2,986 1,052 0.35 Single Family 1947 1 14.45 3,014 768 0.25 Single Family 1947 1 13.74 3,170 657 0.21 Single Family 1900 2 27.28 3,194 2,786 0.87 Single Family 1900 1 13.42 3,246 1,228 0.38 Single Family 1989 1 11.99 3,634 1,930 0.53 Single Family 1989 1 11.91 3,658 1,878 0.51 Single Family 1900 1 11.48 3,795 1,389 0.37 Single Family 1923 1 11.40 3,822 940 0.25 Single Family 1900 1 11.12 3,917 912 0.23 Single Family 1900 1 10.93 3,984 1,349 0.34 Single Family 1900 1 10.87 4,007 1,274 0.32 Single Family 1889 1 10.61 4,104 1,283 0.31 Single Family 1923 1 10.46 4,165 1,302 0.31 Single Family 1947 1 10.22 4,262 962 0.23 Single Family 1900 1 10.08 4,322 790 0.18 Single Family 1900 2 20.07 4,342 1,874 0.43 Single Family 1905 1 9.83 4,429 1,901 0.43 Single Family 1900 1 9.69 4,495 1,868 0.42 Single Family 1900 1 9.56 4,559 1,118 0.25 Ingle Family 1988 2 18.64 4,675 1,692 0.36 Ingle Family 1900 1 9.14 4,766 830 0.17 Single Family 1900 1 8.99 4,845 1,584 0.33 Single Family 1900 1 8.98 4,849 1,024 0.21 Single Family 1948 1 8.97 4,855 936 0.19 Single Family 1910 1 8.61 5,057 1,370 0.27 Singlc Family 1900 1 8.61 5,061 712 0.14 Single Family 1900 2 17.12 5,090 3,122 0.61 Single Family 1900 1 8.55 5,097 1,612 0.32 Single Family 1870 3 25.60 5,105 1,896 0.37 Single Family 1920 1 8.52 5,114 2,154 0.42 64 November 19, 2009 Single Family 1929 2 16.92 5,147 861 0.17 Single Family 1900 1 8.37 5,207 1,476 0.28 Single Family 1900 1 8.33 5,227 1,117 0.21 Single Family 1903 1 8.29 5,257 1,700 0.32 Single Family 1925 1 8.27 5,270 1,987 0.38 Single Family 1920 1 8.22 5,298 1,632 0.31 Single Family 1950 1 8.22 5,300 1,787 0.34 Single Family 1910 1 8.21 5,307 1,176 0.22 Single Family 1920 2 16.40 5,313 2,442 0.46 Single Family 1890 1 8.17 5,332 1,658 0.31 Single Family 1980 2 16.33 5,335 1,157 0.22 Single Family 1950 l 8.16 5,341 1,100 0.21 Single Family 1910 2 16.26 5,359 1,592 0.30 Single Family 1920 2 16.16 5,391 1,466 0.27 Single Family 1912 1 8.04 5,415 1,020 0.19 Single Family 1900 1 8.02 5,429 1,804 0.33 Single Family 1900 1 8.02 5,430 1,242 0.23 Single Family 1929 1 7.96 5,472 2,554 0.47 Single Family 1947 1 7.95 5,478 1,344 0.25 Single Family 1900 1 7.95 5,478 1,008 0.18 Single Family 1900 2 15.81 5,511 1,323 0.24 Single Family 1921 1 7.89 5,521 1,224 0.22 Single Family 1900 1 7.86 5,540 1,192 0.22 Single Family 1929 2 15.68 5,555 1,423 0.26 Single Family 1899 1 7.82 5,569 1,838 0.33 Single Family 1947 1 7.82 5,572 2,400 0.43 Single Family 1947 1 7.81 5,579 899 0.16 Single Family 1910 1 7.81 5,579 1,619 0.29 Single Family 1988 2 15.61 5,581 1,719 0.31 Single Family 1988 2 15.58 5,592 1,717 0.31 Single Family 1900 1 7.78 5,596 556 0.10 Single Family 1900 1 7.76 5,613 880 0.16 Ingle Family 1900 1 7.75 5,623 877 0.16 Single Family 1900 1 7.74 5,631 1,680 0.30 Single Family 1910 1 7.71 5,648 914 0.16 Single Family 1957 1 7.68 5,675 896 0.16 Single Family 1900 1 7.61 5,721 872 0.15 Single Family 1900 1 7.61 5,721 1,445 0.25 Single Family 1930 1 7.61 5,726 1,275 0.22 Single Family 1946 1 7.59 5,739 2,293 0.40 Single Family 1890 1 7.57 5,755 1,092 0.19 Single Family 1890 1 7.56 5,761 1,308 0.23 Single Family 1923 1 7.53 5,784 1,240 0.21 Single Family 1900 2 15.02 5,802 1,639 0.28 RH-2 Zone District Report 65 Single Family 1900 1 7.49 5,818 613 0.11 Single Family 1920 1 7.43 5,867 1,689 0.29 Single Family 1924 l 7.41 5,877 864 0.15 Single Family 1915 2 14.65 5,947 864 0.15 Single Family 1905 1 7.25 6,005 2,280 0.38 Single Family 1922 1 7.19 6,056 1,456 0.24 Single Family 1900 3 21.48 6,084 2,303 0.38 Single Family 1910 1 7.14 6,100 1,255 0.21 Single Family 1920 1 7.13 6,107 1,258 0.21 Single Family 1920 1 7.13 6,113 754 0.12 Single Family 1900 2 14.18 6,145 1,902 0.31 Single Family 1989 2 13.69 6,364 1,706 0.27 Single Family 1908 1 6.41 6,792 2,100 0.31 Single Family 1927 1 6.32 6,889 864 0.13 Single Family 1915 2 12.60 6,915 1,068 0.15 Single Family 1900 3 18.11 7,217 2,106 0.29 Single Family 1900 1 4.06 10,733 1,066 0.10 Single Family 1900 1 4.01 10,866 842 0.08 Single Family 1900 1 3.80 11,478 1,650 0.14 Single Family_ 1910 1 3.51 12,403 1,314 0.11 AVERAGE 4 20.85 6,967 3,089 0.41 Nonresidential Lodging 1898 13,930 0 0.00 Outbldg 1923 5,804 2,215 0.38 School - Private 1973 32,311 32,808 1.02 Restaurant 1936 6,383 1,943 0.30 Office 1985 63397 3,222 0.50 Boulder County 1972 19,977 14,424 0.72 Office 1965 16,490 2,876 0.17 Warehouse 1975 11,305 352 0.03 School 1964 16,699 6,266 0.38 I 66 November 19, 2009 = Exhibit E: Matrix of Options - Nonresidential Uses k rv Consistency with the o Consistency with Purpose and Intent of M. Project Objectives Comprehensive Master Plan the High Density Resi- Predictable/Consistent Effective/Clear m dential Zone District 3 Option 1: (Staff Recommendation): This option is consistent with The current use stan- The current use standards The current use Stan- Maintain the status quo; Planning Board the Comprehensive Plan in that dards are consistent are predictable in process, dards are consistent k review and approval of non-residential it allows for the mix of uses across all residential but not in approval due to with the code. 0 o uses within a residential zone district. and complementary services to zone districts. the public process. residential development. a Option 2: Develop a maximum floor This option is consistent with Currently, there are no Implementing a floor area This option would be 0 area ratio or floor area requirement for the Comprehensive Plan in that floor area restrictions in ratio creates predictability effective in limiting U) non-residential within a residential zone it allows for the mix of comple- place in residential zone because the size of the use floor area, however Z district. mentary uses and will limit in- districts. They are only would be directly related not limiting the actual p tensity of the use through floor utilized in `true' mixed to the size of the lot. intensity of the use in area to ensure compatibility use districts. terms of impacts to y in terms of size, intensity and neighboring proper- A potential impacts. ties. Option 3: Redesign the use standards This option is consistent with Currently, use standards Redesigning the use stan- Establishing a list of ~i for the RH-2 district to eliminate the the Comprehensive Plan in that are consistent across dards specifically for the penmitted uses would C more intense uses currently allowed, i.e. it may allow for some comple- residential zone dis- RH-2 zone district would reduce the potential N ~D restaurants. mentary uses to be permitted tricts. Redesigned use create fixed, permitted conflicts between non- and will exclude uses based standards for the RH-2 uses. residential and resi- upon intensity of use to ensure zone districts would dential uses. It would compatibility. make them unique and also aid in the preser- inconsistent with other vation of the existing residential zone dis- residential character in tricts. the RH-2 zone district- Option 4: Mandate 20% open space in- This option is consistent with This option would This option does not create This option could be stead of the existing range from 10-20%. the Comprehensive Plan in that require more open space predictability. Use size effective based on lot it allows for complementary than other zone districts. and impacts would vary size. The bigger the (Please note that currently within the uses. Uses and services to resi- based on lot size. lot the larger the use, RH-2 zone district it is unlikely that dential development. which may increase open space in amounts greater the 10% The amount of open space intensity in terms of would be exceeded. An increase in This option would regulate required would be predict- impacts. the amount of open space is based on nonresidential uses based on an able, however building heights exceeding 35' pursuant section open space requirement, which size and use intensity 9-9-11(c). The maximum permitted would create use sizes and im- would not. height in the RH-2 zone district is 35'.) pacts based on overall lot size. v 000 Exhibit E: Matrix of Options - Parking M Consistency with the Pur- s Consistency with Project Objectives Comprehensive Master pose and Intent of the High Density Residential Zane Predictable/Consistent Effective/Clear M Plan District 3 Option 1: Maintain the status quo; the Currently the parking regu- This option creates unique The current regulations are The current regula- existing parking requirements within the lations within the RH-2 parking requirements for the not predictable because tion does not reflect k' RH-2 zone district: 1 space for the first zone district result in high RH-2 zone district that are they are based on square demand and results 500 square feet and an additional space parking requirements and based on floor area. footage of units, not a in unnecessary, high % for each 300 square feet or portion there- an associated high num- fixed number like bed- parking requirements, 'a of, not to exceed 4 spaces per dwelling ber of parking reduction All other residential zone rooms. especially with regard p unit. requests. districts, with the exception to owner occupied y of RH-1, use bedrooms as The current regulations units. Since park- the basis for parking calcula- also lack predictability ing is currently tied ID tions. and consistency based on to floor area, fewer, one's familiarity with the larger units will yield 3 municipal code. a greater parking re- quirement than several smaller units. Option 2: (Staff Recommendation): This option decreases the This option is consistent This option is consistent This option takes Change the parking regulations to be overall parking requirement with all other residential with all other residential into account multiple based consistent with other residential for the zone district, which zone districts. zone districts, which cre- tenants per unit and re- zone districts. 1 space for 1 bedroom; is consistent with the goals ates a level of predictabil- fleets demand for high 1.5 for 2 bedrooms; 2 for 3 bedrooms and objectives of the city. ity throughout the develop- renter occupancies. and 3 for 4 bedrooms or more. ment process. This option establishes parking requirements that create a balance between owner oc- cupied units and renter occupied units. Option 3: Change the parking calcula- This option decreases the Although this option is based Familiarity with the code Takes into account o tions to be based on the number of bed- overall parking requirement on the number of bedrooms, would determine full multiple tenants per rooms per unit, and require additional for the zone district, which which is consistent with the predictability and function- unit and provides for parking (half a space) for units in excess is consistent with the goals basis of parking require- ality. guest parking and rb of two bedrooms. and objectives of the city. ments for other residential vehicle storage. zone districts, it would be unique to the RH-2 zone district.. 0 to = Exhibit E: Matrix of Options - Density / Floor Area X tv Consistency with the ? N Consistency with a p Purpose and Intent of Project Objectives Comprehensive Predictable/Consistent Effective/Clear Master Plan the High Density M p Residential Zone District Option 1: Maintain the status quo. Density will The current regula- The current regulations in- There is no predictability or The current regulations, for the d C remain tied to floor area. Density within the RH-2 tions only permit elude a floor area require- consistency with the current purposes of calculating density ~10 zone district is dependent on four factors: a by-right density ment, which is unique to regulations. and floor area, are confusing and X emu- a. Lot size: 6,000 square foot minimum lot area. that is less than the the RH-2 (and RH-1) zone difficult to understand due to all of % o b. Minimum open space requirement per dwelling High Density district. Floor area is a malleable the components and possible varia- 0 unit: 600 square feet of open space required per Residential land number as it exists currently tions. The current requirements V dwelling unit, use designation in the RH-2 zone district. are ineffective as serving as an O c. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit: 3,200 standard. It can be altered through occupancy and density control as N square foot lot required per dwelling unit Planning Board approval variations to the requirements can ■ d. Maximum floor area per dwelling unit: 800 with decrease in lot size and be sought through Planning Board square foot maximum per dwelling unit. through the number of units approval. 3 proposed. H Option 2: Eliminate the regulation that ties density This option de- This option is consistent This option is consistent This option takes into account mul- C to floor area. Eliminate the 800 square foot maxi- creases the overall with all other residential with all other residential tiple tenants per unit and reflects mum floor area per unit. parking require- zone districts. zone districts, which creates demand for high renter occupan- a went for the zone a level of predictability ties. district, which is throughout the development consistent with the process. This option establishes parking goals and objet- requirements that create a balance tives of the city. between owner occupied units and renter occupied units. Option 3 (Staff Recommendation): Eliminate the This option allows The removal of the floor This option eliminates the This option is effective in reaching existing floor area and lot area regulations tying for the permitted area component makes tie between floor area and permitted densities. density to floor area and revise them to include: densities under the this option more con- density, which creates clarity 2,400 square foot lot area per dwelling unit; 600 Comprehensive sistent with other high and predictability, square feet of open space per dwelling unit; elimi- Plan to be attained. density residential zone nate the definition of floor area pertaining to the districts. With Planning RH-2 zone district; and create a by-right process This option allows Board approval, this for permitted density (14 du's/acre) and up to 21.7 2 du's/acre on a option allows for the lot du's/acre with Planning Board approval. 6,000 square foot area to be varied from lot, which equates 2,400 square feet to 1,400 to a density of 14 square feet, which equates du's/acre. to a density of 21.7 du's/ acre, or 3 du's/acre on a 6,000 square foot lot. rn Exhibit F: RH-2 ZONE DISTRICT USE STANDARDS TABLE Uses Allowed By Right Detached dwelling units A Duplexes A Attached dwellings A Efficiency living units: A. If <20% of total units A Group quarters: A. Congregate care facilities A E. Fraternities, sororities, and dormitories A F. Boarding houses A Daycare, home A Private elementary, junior, and senior high schools A Public elementary, junior, and senior high schools A Public colleges and universities A Religious assemblies A Park and recreation uses A Retail Sales Uses: Accessory sales A Conditional Uses Cooperative housing units C Group quarters: C. Group homes C D. Residential care facilities C Horne occupation C Transitional housing C Daycare center with <50 children C Day shelter C Emergency shelter C OverniRlit shelter C Antennas for wireless telecommunications services C Uses That Require Use Review Efficiency living units: B. If >20% of total units U Group quarters: B. Custodial care U Mobile home parks U Art or craft studio space <2,000 square feet U Art or craft studio space >2,001 square feet U Restaurants and taverns no larger than 1,000 square feet in floor area, which may have meal service on an U outside patio not more than 1/3 the floor area, and which close no later than 11:00 p.m. Restaurants and taverns over 1,000 square feet in floor area, or which close after 11:00 p.m., or with an out- U door seating area of 300 square feet or more 70 November 19, 2009 Hostels U Bed and breakfasts U Daycare center with >50 children U Essential municipal and public utility services U Governmental facilities U Adult educational facility with <20,000 square feet of floor area U Adult educational facilities with >20,000 square feet or more of floor area U Medical or dental clinics or offices or addiction recovery facilities U Offices, professional U Offices, technical; with <5,000 square feet of floor area U Offices, technical; with >5,000 square feet of floor area U Offices - other U Indoor recreational or athletic facilities U Broadcasting and recording facilities U Neighborhood business center U Personal service uses U Convenience retail sales <2,000 square feet U Convenience retail sales >2,000 square feet U Retail fuel sales (not including service stations) U Automobile parking lots, garages, or car pool lots as a principal use U i RH-2 Zone District Report 71 Exhibit G: RH-2 ZONE DISTRICT BULK AND INTENSITY STANDARDS Form module C SETBACK AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS Principal Buildings and Uses Minimum front yard landscaped setback (e)(h) 25' Minimum front yard setback for all covered and uncovered parking areas 25' Maximum front yard landscaped setback for corner lots and side yards n/a adjacent a street Maximum front yard landscaped setback for an interior lot n/a Minimum side yard landscaped setback from a street (a)(i) 12.5' Minimum side yard setback from an interior lot line (i) 10' Minimum total for both side yard setbacks 20' Minimum rear yard setback (d) 25' Accessory Buildings and Uses Minimum front yard setback uses (e) 55' Minimum side yard landscaped setback from a street (a)(i) 12.5' Minimum side yard setback from an interior lot line 0' or 3' (b) Minimum rear yard setback (d) 0' or 3' (b) Minimum separation between accessory buildings and any other building 6' BUILDING SIZE AND COVERAGE LIMITATION (Accessory and Principal Buildings) Maximum size of any principal building See section 9-8-2 (FAR Requirements) Maximum accessory building coverage within principal building rear yard n/a setback 9-7-9) Maximum cumulative coverage of all accessory buildings regardless of For residential uses - no greater than coverage of the principal location building PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT Maximum height for principal buildings and uses (c)(d) 35' Conditional height for principal buildings and uses Sec section 9-7-6 for conditional height standards Maximum number of stories for a building 3 72 November 19, 2009 Maximum wall height for detached dwelling units at zero lot line setback (9-7- 12' 2(b)(3)) Maximum height for all accessory buildings, structures and uses (g) 20' (30' in agricultural zone) FENCES, HEDGES, AND WALLS (for additional standards see section 9-9-15) Maximum height of fences, hedges or walls Minimum height of fence on top of retaining wall Maximum combined height of fence/ retaining wall in side yard within 3' of 1 lot line with nei hbor a roval BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS nia Minimum front facade window area (9-9-3) n/a Primary building entrance location facing street n/a Minimum percent of lot frontage that must contain a building or buildings Minimum front yard setback from a street for all principal buildings and uses Ilia for third story and above Intensity Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Area Maximum Number Minimum Open Space District Area Per Dwelling Unit of Dwelling Units Per Per Dwelling Unit Acre 12.5 6,000 3,200 13.6 600 Minimum Open Space on Minimum Open Space on Minimum Private Open Maximum Floor Lots (Residential Uses) Lots (Nonresidential Uses)(a) Space (Residential Uses) Area Ratio 10 - 20% 0 0 RH-2 Zone District Report 73