That is a heck of a lot of money spent considering that the study upon which the proposed ordinance is based seems to have failed to capture the opinions of even a simple majority of the single-family homeowners in Boulder.  One would have hoped that the City Council (or the planning staff, or the Council's consultants) would have realized that the response rate to their survey was inadequate (to say the least) and tried some other approach to gathering the opinions of the majority of people who would be affected by the decisions they made.  Instead they glossed over the poor response to the survey and presented the results based on the number of people who actually responded to the survey.  Why?  I suppose that saying that about 65% of the respondents agreed with the "problem statement" looked a lot more compelling than saying that about 21% of the single-family homeowners in the City agreed with the "problem statement", especially to a City Council whose minds were seemingly made up before the study was even initiated.

It is also a heck of a lot of money spent on a process that has culminated in the proposed adoption of specific numerical criteria (FARs and areal built-space coverage) whose technical bases are at best obscure.  What is the technical basis for a FAR limitation of 0.45?  A built-space coverage of 0.30?  The publically-available documentation is strangely devoid of explanations of how these criteria were derived.  Why is that, do you suppose?  Are they perhaps imaginary numbers concocted based on that failed survey? 

What is most interesting to me is that the structure of the study and the "buzz-words" used by the City's consultents to describe that structure suggest to me that their process was based at least in part on a planning process template developed by USEPA quite a while ago (around 15 years ago).  That process was intended to improve the effectiveness of the USEPA's decision-making process.  And properly implemented, it worked.  It worked well.  I should know....I was involved in its creation and also was the first to test it in my region. 

Sadly, though, in the current situation application of that process is flawed...deeply flawed.  There is no apparent consensus amongst the single-family homeowners in the City that there is a problem worthy of the City Council's attention.  That is the first step in the process: to identify a problem that is worthy of the attention of those involved in the process.  Without such consensus, the entire process should have been stopped, or at least delayed until consensus had been reached.  Without such consensus the proposed ordinance seems to be at best arbitrary and capricious....and completely undefensible.

To the opponents of the propose ordinance I would say that your opposition is reasonable and rational: please keep it up in as vocal a manner as possible.

To the proponents of the proposed ordinance, I would ask you to ask yourselves why it should be passed given the apparent lack of consensus amongst the affected homeowners,  And I would ask you to ask yourselves whether the proposed criteria really are technically sound and supportable. 

As for the money spent by the City, is it reasonable and justified based on the results?

I would say no.

Pinetree said:

July 7, 2009

Re: Compatible Development

Dear Members of the Planning Board and City Council,

I’m writing to object to the proposed Compatible Development ordinance.

The proposed ordinance will create restrictive standards that I have only encountered in the City’s historic districts, creating a virtual historic district in the entire project area.

Is this initiative really a back door approach by overzealous preservation interests to capture and control all of those neighborhoods that have resisted historic designation (Chautauqua & Whittier) ?

Because there is only a marginal dilemma with oversized homes, I feel the proposed ordinance far exceeds the minimum remedy necessary to cure the problem and penalizes all of the property owners of detached single-family homes, particularly and disproportionally those homeowners in historic districts.

The analysis that I’ve read are flawed in that there are no evaluations of how many of the homes in the project area are already located in historic districts and are already protected by historic guidelines, nor is there an evaluation of what effect the ordinance will have on modifications to historic properties.

An evaluation of historic homes in the project area should be an important factor in assessing:

            1. The number of properties that will be affected by the ordinance.

            2. What protections already exist for properties within the project area.

3. What neighborhoods are historically worthy of the level of eternal protection that the   ordinance creates.

4. How Owners within these historic districts will be inequitably penalized by the proposed ordinance.

It appears the project area encompasses most or all of the City’s historic districts. The historic homes are already protected from expanding to their full building envelope by the always conservative and unpredictable interpretation of the historic guidelines by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB).

The LPAB has recently (last 2-3 years) considered backyard open space as an historic feature worthy of preservation – because this is where the 19^th century family garden might have been located. The LPAB has the authority to limit the size of additions to protect this feature.

New additions in historic districts are further restricted to be smaller and less tall than the historic structure. The LPAB can also limit the overall size of an historic home and its addition by evaluating its compatibility with the size of nearby homes to preserve the neighborhood context.

More regulations governing the homes in the historic districts are unnecessary and will complicate the ability of historic homeowners, already burdened with multiple complexities of planning analysis, to predictably create even small additions. The ordinance will increase the costs to the homeowner for review application fees and for the professional services required to prepare surveys and review documents.

Many of the properties in the historic districts are non-standard structures, often related to side-yard setbacks. The proposed ordinance will create more non-standard conditions, especially in regard to the building height at the side setback, requiring expensive and unpredictable variance review in addition to the unpredictable Landmark Alteration Certificate review.

An example would be a request for a new dormer to collect southern light on a historic roof above a two-story wall that has a two foot side-yard setback. The wall already exceeds the ordinances’ required height (if the bulk plane is adopted) and the requested dormer, even if it is setback four feet from the face of the wall (6 ft. setback from the property line), will exceed the bulk plane height. Under current standards only an LPAB review would be required (if the dormers met the solar ordinance). Currently an affordable improvement location certificate and the City’s free GIS contours are accepted by the Planning Departments as adequate factual evidence to assess setback and height.

Under the proposed ordinance the dormer would exceed the bulk plane and a variance review would be required in addition to the LPAB review. Further, a full boundary and contour survey might be required to confirm setback and height. The cost to the historic homeowner for fees and services could be as high as $7,000 for a $5,000 dormer.

Finally, consider the advantage that a homeowner in a non-historic district would have over a homeowner in an historic district. The non-historic homeowner, with buildings at the threshold of FAR and building coverage, could elect to demolish their two-car Garage or a part of their non-functioning home in order to create surplus FAR for a new addition. The historic homeowner, however, would not be allowed to remove any part of their historic home or accessory structure (not even a rotting chicken coop) to create surplus FAR for an addition.

If this ordinance does move forward I strongly recommend that either:

1.) The ordinance should not be applied to homes in the historic districts. Modifications to these homes is already restricted, and the need for unpredictable variance requests would be reduced; or

2.) If the ordinance is applied to historic districts, that the standards for FAR, building coverage, and wall articulation (or bulk-plane) become a by-right threshold for the size and bulk of all homes in the historic districts, so the unpredictability of historic review is reduced.

There are several other exceptions as well.

Don' t get me wrong. I am opposed to any of the elements in the proposed ordinance. However, if my point is valid then the city will be hard pressed to lower FAR below .45 (the smallest lots given minimum house size) and as a pratical matter .45 for all owners would not be as adverse as what is proposed.  

I would also like to propose that the several organizations opposing this ordinance join forces before the hearing .

mhartwig said:

Post edited 10:39 am – June 30, 2009 by mhartwig

In an article published in the Daily Camera on June 28, 2009, Heath Urie reported that, “If the council approves the ordinance in August, it would go into effect Oct. 3.”  Does anyone know what that means?  Does it mean that plans submitted prior to October 3rd will still be reviewed under the old regulations?  Thanks

Take a look at sections 1 and 12 (pages 1 and 16) of attachment A on the city's Compatible Development website for the proposed ordinance language re this issue.  It appears that building permits complete and approved before October 3rd will be considered under the old regulations as long as they continue to be in good standing with the City.  Sprcial rules apply to older permits, vested rights in an annexation agreement, etc.

October 3rd will be the effective date of the ordinance only if City Council does actually read and pass an ordinance at its next two regularly scheduled meetings.  Given that that there are five council members who have already seemed to be willing to vote for an even more severe package of restrictions, that appears to be likely. 

We'll need to turn out a large show of public resistance toward the proposed regulations to make any dent in Council's religious fervor–letters to the editor, phone calls to council members, and attendance at council meetings.  Barring that, we will have to work to gather enough signatures in order to overturn their ordinance at the ballot box in November.

1) Be courteous.  Remember, these forums are for the exchange of ideas and for building alliances among those of us skeptical of the City's proposals.

2) Keep on topic.  The point of these forums is to discuss problems with the proposed FAR ordinances, not to give long diatribes about unrelated matters.