PBC Position Statement on Compatible Development

Compatible Development Ordinance/ “McMansions”

Adopted April 6, 2009

PLAN Boulder County strongly endorses the city initiative to encourage more “compatible development” in residential neighborhoods.  Many surveys and workshops have shown strong citizen support to address accelerating poor “scrapes and pops” that loom over neighbors, present too much mass to the street, unreasonably cut off viewsheds, compromise solar access, cut down far too many trees, and foreclose neighborhood open space.  In addition, very large houses may hinder our Climate Action Plan and “carbon reduction” goals by eliminating “embodied energy” in existing buildings, and/or creating large, unused, “energy wasting” spaces in massive buildings.

In addition, many “scrapes and pops” developments fundamentally change the character of a neighborhood, not only physically, but by replacing too many modest houses with homes that only the very wealthy can afford.  The spirit and character of Boulder has always been about diversity, and this diversity should include not only racial diversity, but also income diversity, age diversity, and household diversity – all factors that have contributed not only to liveability, but also to our continued economic strength and vitality – Boulder has weathered the recent recession far better than other cities in Colorado.

Whereas Winter and Co. has spent months in workshops, research, and reviewing public opinion (as opposed to only hours spent by

1. Most importantly, a sliding scale (up to .45 for a 7000 square foot lot) “floor area ratio”  (“FAR”) should be the cornerstone of any future ordinance.  Visual preference surveys show that citizens do not want the higher ratio of .55 proposed by the Planning Board – this higher ratio so waters-down the proposal as to make it ineffective.  If up to a .45 “FAR” is approved, count covered front porches, and uncovered/covered balconies at half the regular floor area of a home.
2. Basement square footage should not be counted, as long as the average exposed height of the basement wall is 18 inches or less below the bottom of first floor joists – basement light and egress can be gained through window wells.
3. Eliminate the 20% “bonus” square footage (by review).  The “bonus” opens the door to discretionary abuse, and might be regarded in the future as a “use by right.”
4. Do not allow new homes to “mirror” a non-conforming adjacent lot wall.
5. For a 20 foot high wall at minimum side yard setback, a maximum 35 feet of wall length before a 5 foot offset is required, or reduce the wall height to 12 feet.  In addition, add a rear yard setback to the 2^nd story of principal structures.
6. For building coverage on a lot, maintain a sliding scale and model base number between 30% and 35% for a two-story structure on a 7,000 square foot lot; up to 40% for one-story structures.
7. High “loft” ceilings, and high floor-to-floor heights may dramatically increase building mass – include some of this additional mass as “virtual floor area” so as to decrease actual floor area allowed.
8. Include a tree planting program for substantial additions/ new construction.
9. Include regulations for courtesy notifications to adjacent neighbors.
10. Include regulations for accessory structures, with a second floor of accessory structures not to exceed 500 square feet, together with scaled back height.  If there is any “exemption bonus” for accessory structures, there must be a clear and permanent “public benefit” for such an exemption.
11. Affected zoning areas should include RR-1,  RR-2, RE, RL-1, RL-2 (with special provisions for RMX-1).

For additional research, please refer to this City of Boulder web page link.

PBC Action on House Size

Letter to the Boulder City Council
April 14, 2008

Mayor McGrath and Members of Council,

PLAN-Boulder County has closely followed the ongoing city discussion of protecting neighborhood character by implementing some action to limit construction of overly large houses. We have attended and participated in all the public meetings, listened to comments from all points of view, read blogs and emails and editorials and letters to the editors.Ê

After this "lively" discussion, we remain convinced of one thing undefined there is a problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Even many of the most determined opponents of the FAR approach to house-size limitations admit that in some cases new houses constructed in established neighborhoods have huge impacts on neighborÕs solar access, view sheds, trees, privacy, and open space. These inappropriate houses fundamentally change the character of the neighborhood. They also are replacing relatively modest houses with houses that only the very wealthy can afford. Finally, they are wasting embodied energy in existing houses and consuming huge amounts of new energy and materials. Clearly all three legs of the community sustainability stool are being overly stressed.

PLAN-Boulder County urges you to continue the course you have embarked upon. An interim or final ordinance in the shortest possible time-frame is essential to preventing a surge of demolition proposals, and to keeping the conversation alive. A number of approaches are available, including the FAR approach, a flat cap on house size, increasing setbacks and bulk limits, enhanced site plan review, much more stringent environmental requirements, special review for neighborhoods with potential for historic designation, transfer of development rights programs, and a tree protection ordinance. For the health and welfare of the Boulder community, it is imperative to keep this moving forward.Ê

We have attached a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of Urban Design led by Professor Jack Nasar from Ohio State University that provides a much needed unbiased perspective on this issue. As you will see, surveys were sent to over 100 cities that have a perceived problem and a sizeable number of those have taken action. Considering the approaches other cities have taken, a viable approach for Boulder might be to establish a threshold, perhaps 125% of the mean square footage of all houses within 1500 ft (as the County has used for its neighborhoods). Above that threshold site plan review by a subcommittee of the Planning Board would review the proposal for impacts on housing stock, neighborhood character, and environmental impacts such as materials, trees, green space, and open areas. Rather than site plan review, this process could be termed "Community Sustainability Review." This kind of process could be implemented quickly and would allow consideration of cases where modest expansions might be prevented by indiscriminate application of a set formula such as FAR.

The seven council members elected last fall all pledged to take action on this important issue (as did most of the other candidates who did not get elected). Excerpts from PLAN-Boulder County questionnaire responses follow this letter and speak for themselves. These questions came up at nearly every election forum. Citizens are concerned and the fall election was at least in some sense a referendum on this issue. Forty angry developers and frightened homeowners speaking out to the Planning Board does not alter the fact that most citizens want a new policy on pops and scrapes.

PLAN-Boulder County supports you in your efforts and encourages you to pursue a fair and practical policy that will solve this matter and its attendant problems.

Sincerely,
Pat Shanks, chair
for the PLAN-Boulder County Board