As a working mom I always get excited when I run across great sites to help me make my life easier and more organized with kids. So with this in mind, every time I run into one, I will try to place it on my blog. Here is a good one that I found when I was trying to find a fun new activity for a birthday party.
www.coloradokids.com
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
City of Boulder Looking to Limit House Size to 2500 Square Feet
Council may scrap 'scrapes'
Boulder leaders consider limits on razing old houses to replace with larger ones
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A few of Boulder's elected and appointed leaders will sit down Thursday night to ponder the best way to keep "mega" houses from being built on the remains of more modest ones.
The question of whether "pop-and-scrape" residential redevelopments should be limited is just one of several land-use issues the members of the City Council and Planning Board will discuss at Thursday's meeting, Mayor Shaun McGrath said.
McGrath said members of the City Council have heard lots of complaints from people across Boulder upset when small homes are razed and replaced with many-thousand-square-foot homes. One City Council member is even proposing a maximum size of 2,500 square feet for rebuilt homes, prompting debate among leaders.
"We've heard from a lot of people who have worried about how scrapesin particular are changing the character of neighborhoods," McGrath said. "I don't know what the end policy might look like, but we certainly want to have a conversation with the community."
Critics say big, new homes in older neighborhoods -- such as the Newlands in north-central Boulder -- are an environmentally destructive, aesthetic assault. They're particularly upset by new homes that spread from one end of a housing lot to the other, crowding their neighbors.
This isn't the first time members of the City Council have expressed an interest in possibly limiting residential redevelopment -- but Thursday's meeting could be the first step toward putting an ordinance in place.
Two years ago, City Councilwoman Crystal Gray tried to bring up the issue, but it didn't gather much momentum. That's changed, said Gray, who's now the city's deputy mayor.
"I just think that the pace of redevelopment has really picked up and spread to all areas of the city," she said, so an issue that only raised eyebrows in a few neighborhoods a few years ago now has broader resonance.
Many cities have enacted measures limiting house sizes, and Gray said Boulder has plenty of new regulatory options from which to choose. The City Council could tighten existing caps on "floor-area ratios" for homes -- that is, the percentage of a property that's covered with finished square footage.
They could examine more subtle and flexible "building envelope" limits, or even "character guidelines," which would be more labor-intensive to enforce.
Policy-makers often use the shorthand term "pops and scrapes" when talking about the issue. But both Gray and McGrath said they're more concerned with scrapes -- the practice of demolishing a home and replacing it with something much bigger -- than pops, which just expand the size of existing homes.
Any proposal is likely to be controversial. Susan Graf, president of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, said people in the city's business and residential community are nervous.
"I would hope that the City Council and the Planning Board would clearly identify the problem they're trying to solve," she said. "They point to a few specific examples of big houses or ugly houses, and I don't know that that constitutes a problem. ... I'd be worried they're trying to hit a fly with a sledgehammer."
And elected leaders will likely disagree about the best way to go forward. City Councilman Ken Wilson delivered a rebuke Monday to a proposal from City Councilwoman Lisa Morzel on the City Council's "hot line," a public e-mail list officials use to communicate.
In a post to the e-mail list, Morzel wrote that she'd "strongly suggest our building size maximums start at 2,500 (square feet) for the main structure/house, allowing 450 (square feet) for garages."
To which Wilson replied, "I guess I will need to tear down a third of my home. I will not support regulations that limit my neighbors building something smaller than the home I live in, or a (floor-area ratio) less than mine -- which has been at its current size since the mid-1920s."
Wilson said he'd consider asking the city's staff to assemble a list of the sizes and floor-area ratios of City Council members' houses.
"I think it is only fair to see where our homes fall into this mix," he said.
That drew a reply from City Councilman Macon Cowles, who said the city has a duty to maintain the supply of affordable and reasonably sized housing, protect existing neighborhoods and address the environmental impacts of new construction.
"The council has a fiduciary obligation with respect to each of these three things, and the route forward cannot be determined by using the house sizes of individual people as a yardstick with which to measure an appropriate response for the city," he wrote.
Boulder leaders consider limits on razing old houses to replace with larger ones
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A few of Boulder's elected and appointed leaders will sit down Thursday night to ponder the best way to keep "mega" houses from being built on the remains of more modest ones.
The question of whether "pop-and-scrape" residential redevelopments should be limited is just one of several land-use issues the members of the City Council and Planning Board will discuss at Thursday's meeting, Mayor Shaun McGrath said.
McGrath said members of the City Council have heard lots of complaints from people across Boulder upset when small homes are razed and replaced with many-thousand-square-foot homes. One City Council member is even proposing a maximum size of 2,500 square feet for rebuilt homes, prompting debate among leaders.
"We've heard from a lot of people who have worried about how scrapesin particular are changing the character of neighborhoods," McGrath said. "I don't know what the end policy might look like, but we certainly want to have a conversation with the community."
Critics say big, new homes in older neighborhoods -- such as the Newlands in north-central Boulder -- are an environmentally destructive, aesthetic assault. They're particularly upset by new homes that spread from one end of a housing lot to the other, crowding their neighbors.
This isn't the first time members of the City Council have expressed an interest in possibly limiting residential redevelopment -- but Thursday's meeting could be the first step toward putting an ordinance in place.
Two years ago, City Councilwoman Crystal Gray tried to bring up the issue, but it didn't gather much momentum. That's changed, said Gray, who's now the city's deputy mayor.
"I just think that the pace of redevelopment has really picked up and spread to all areas of the city," she said, so an issue that only raised eyebrows in a few neighborhoods a few years ago now has broader resonance.
Many cities have enacted measures limiting house sizes, and Gray said Boulder has plenty of new regulatory options from which to choose. The City Council could tighten existing caps on "floor-area ratios" for homes -- that is, the percentage of a property that's covered with finished square footage.
They could examine more subtle and flexible "building envelope" limits, or even "character guidelines," which would be more labor-intensive to enforce.
Policy-makers often use the shorthand term "pops and scrapes" when talking about the issue. But both Gray and McGrath said they're more concerned with scrapes -- the practice of demolishing a home and replacing it with something much bigger -- than pops, which just expand the size of existing homes.
Any proposal is likely to be controversial. Susan Graf, president of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, said people in the city's business and residential community are nervous.
"I would hope that the City Council and the Planning Board would clearly identify the problem they're trying to solve," she said. "They point to a few specific examples of big houses or ugly houses, and I don't know that that constitutes a problem. ... I'd be worried they're trying to hit a fly with a sledgehammer."
And elected leaders will likely disagree about the best way to go forward. City Councilman Ken Wilson delivered a rebuke Monday to a proposal from City Councilwoman Lisa Morzel on the City Council's "hot line," a public e-mail list officials use to communicate.
In a post to the e-mail list, Morzel wrote that she'd "strongly suggest our building size maximums start at 2,500 (square feet) for the main structure/house, allowing 450 (square feet) for garages."
To which Wilson replied, "I guess I will need to tear down a third of my home. I will not support regulations that limit my neighbors building something smaller than the home I live in, or a (floor-area ratio) less than mine -- which has been at its current size since the mid-1920s."
Wilson said he'd consider asking the city's staff to assemble a list of the sizes and floor-area ratios of City Council members' houses.
"I think it is only fair to see where our homes fall into this mix," he said.
That drew a reply from City Councilman Macon Cowles, who said the city has a duty to maintain the supply of affordable and reasonably sized housing, protect existing neighborhoods and address the environmental impacts of new construction.
"The council has a fiduciary obligation with respect to each of these three things, and the route forward cannot be determined by using the house sizes of individual people as a yardstick with which to measure an appropriate response for the city," he wrote.
Boulder County House Size Restrictions
House-size proposals tweaked
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
BOULDER — Restrictions and conditions should be imposed on new rural Boulder County homes that would exceed county-set size thresholds, the Board of County Commissioners has tentatively decided.
Commissioners Ben Pearlman, Will Toor and Cindy Domenico unveiled their latest version of proposed structure-size regulations at a Monday evening study session.
Under the commissioners’ currently favored scenario, an applicant would have to buy development rights before being allowed to proceed with building a house and related structures totaling more than 3,000 square feet of above-ground floor area — regardless of whether that residence is to be located in the mountains or on the plains.
Subterranean basements of any size, whether finished or unfinished, would not count against that 3,000 square-foot total. But walk-in basements would.
The developer could have up to 500 square feet of detached or attached garage space — enough to house two vehicles, county officials said — that also would be exempt from the 3,000 square-foot threshold. But any additional garage space would count against the limit.
The project could include up to 500 feet of detached storage sheds and other outbuildings that wouldn’t count against the 3,000 square-foot calculation. But any additional outbuildings would be factored into the floor-area totals.
By not counting below-grade basements, 500 square feet of garage space and 500 square feet of outbuildings, the resulting overall project could actually wind up being several thousand square feet larger than the 3,000 square-foot threshold, Pearlman said.
“We are talking about very large houses” that still could be built, Pearlman said — if the applications pass other county tests, such as clearer site-plan review criteria about whether the project would be compatible with other homes in its county-defined neighborhood.
Under the latest proposal, “you really do have to be building a giant structure before it affects you,” Pearlman said. The development rights that a large-house applicant would have to buy in order to exceed the 3,000 square-foot threshold would be made available when owners of property elsewhere in Boulder County sell building rights after deciding not to develop their own land to its full county-set potential. That, county commissioners said, should help preserve open areas and maintain a mixture of small, medium-size and larger houses in unincorporated Boulder County.
On Feb. 20, the Boulder County Planning Commission recommended against proceeding with the structure-size thresholds and development-rights transfer program under consideration at that point. Pearlman noted on Monday, however, that the planning advisory panel also endorsed the general concept of using such a program to offset the impacts of large-scale houses.
Commissioners directed Monday that the county staff prepare another draft of the program, based on the commissioners’ study-session positions — a revised draft that may be ready for further consideration and possible board action as early as next Tuesday.
The earlier version of the proposed program drew more than 60 speakers to a three-hour-long public hearing last Thursday night.
When Pearlman was asked after Monday’s study session whether there would be another hearing on the revisions the commissioners have ordered before they take final action, he said, “I don’t know that we need another public hearing.” Commissioner Will Toor suggested that before scheduling any more hearings, he and his colleagues first have to see how substantively their study-session directives changed the draft program published before last week.
During Monday’s study session, Commissioner Cindy Domenico said there will be many chances in the months and years ahead to modify the house-size and development-rights transfer program, if that proves necessary. “There’s always an opportunity to fine-tune a program as you move forward into the future,” Domenico said.
Commissioners said they’ve decided to drop a proposal to designate such unincorporated communities as Allenspark, Raymond, Riverside and Hygiene as “special character areas.” Instead, the county will work with residents and property owners on possible plans and guidelines for future development in those communities.
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
BOULDER — Restrictions and conditions should be imposed on new rural Boulder County homes that would exceed county-set size thresholds, the Board of County Commissioners has tentatively decided.
Commissioners Ben Pearlman, Will Toor and Cindy Domenico unveiled their latest version of proposed structure-size regulations at a Monday evening study session.
Under the commissioners’ currently favored scenario, an applicant would have to buy development rights before being allowed to proceed with building a house and related structures totaling more than 3,000 square feet of above-ground floor area — regardless of whether that residence is to be located in the mountains or on the plains.
Subterranean basements of any size, whether finished or unfinished, would not count against that 3,000 square-foot total. But walk-in basements would.
The developer could have up to 500 square feet of detached or attached garage space — enough to house two vehicles, county officials said — that also would be exempt from the 3,000 square-foot threshold. But any additional garage space would count against the limit.
The project could include up to 500 feet of detached storage sheds and other outbuildings that wouldn’t count against the 3,000 square-foot calculation. But any additional outbuildings would be factored into the floor-area totals.
By not counting below-grade basements, 500 square feet of garage space and 500 square feet of outbuildings, the resulting overall project could actually wind up being several thousand square feet larger than the 3,000 square-foot threshold, Pearlman said.
“We are talking about very large houses” that still could be built, Pearlman said — if the applications pass other county tests, such as clearer site-plan review criteria about whether the project would be compatible with other homes in its county-defined neighborhood.
Under the latest proposal, “you really do have to be building a giant structure before it affects you,” Pearlman said. The development rights that a large-house applicant would have to buy in order to exceed the 3,000 square-foot threshold would be made available when owners of property elsewhere in Boulder County sell building rights after deciding not to develop their own land to its full county-set potential. That, county commissioners said, should help preserve open areas and maintain a mixture of small, medium-size and larger houses in unincorporated Boulder County.
On Feb. 20, the Boulder County Planning Commission recommended against proceeding with the structure-size thresholds and development-rights transfer program under consideration at that point. Pearlman noted on Monday, however, that the planning advisory panel also endorsed the general concept of using such a program to offset the impacts of large-scale houses.
Commissioners directed Monday that the county staff prepare another draft of the program, based on the commissioners’ study-session positions — a revised draft that may be ready for further consideration and possible board action as early as next Tuesday.
The earlier version of the proposed program drew more than 60 speakers to a three-hour-long public hearing last Thursday night.
When Pearlman was asked after Monday’s study session whether there would be another hearing on the revisions the commissioners have ordered before they take final action, he said, “I don’t know that we need another public hearing.” Commissioner Will Toor suggested that before scheduling any more hearings, he and his colleagues first have to see how substantively their study-session directives changed the draft program published before last week.
During Monday’s study session, Commissioner Cindy Domenico said there will be many chances in the months and years ahead to modify the house-size and development-rights transfer program, if that proves necessary. “There’s always an opportunity to fine-tune a program as you move forward into the future,” Domenico said.
Commissioners said they’ve decided to drop a proposal to designate such unincorporated communities as Allenspark, Raymond, Riverside and Hygiene as “special character areas.” Instead, the county will work with residents and property owners on possible plans and guidelines for future development in those communities.
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
2965 Moorhead
2965 Moorhead
LOWEST PRICED HOME IN CITY OF BOULDER! This Highland 
Park home has been tastefully updated: remodeled kitchen & bath.oak cabinets, granite tile counters, 2-tone paint, vinyl replacement windows, & 6 panel colonist doors. Third bdrm. with outside entrance. Great for student rental property. Close to CU & public transportation.
Park home has been tastefully updated: remodeled kitchen & bath.oak cabinets, granite tile counters, 2-tone paint, vinyl replacement windows, & 6 panel colonist doors. Third bdrm. with outside entrance. Great for student rental property. Close to CU & public transportation.
8500 Sugar Loaf Rd
Pristine Mountain Property! Build your dream home on 9+ acres of privacy! Surrounded by
forest service land. 360 degree views of Back Range, Peewink, Comforter & Sugar Loaf mountains & plains! Only 30 minutes to Boulder. Rock Outcroppings, Ponderosa Pines, Douglas Fir & Native Grass Meadows on slopping terrain. Complete Privacy...
Own 9.12 acres - feels like 9,000! Unrecorded physical access via open forest service road.
forest service land. 360 degree views of Back Range, Peewink, Comforter & Sugar Loaf mountains & plains! Only 30 minutes to Boulder. Rock Outcroppings, Ponderosa Pines, Douglas Fir & Native Grass Meadows on slopping terrain. Complete Privacy...
Own 9.12 acres - feels like 9,000! Unrecorded physical access via open forest service road.
900 Cleveland Ct. Louisville
Beautifully updated Four level contemporary home on a quiet cul-de-sac*** Open floor plan with an eat-in kitchen, Brazilian Cherry Hardwood floors, Granite Counter Tops in Kitchen, Master bath and Hall bath***Stainless steele Dishwasher!! Double Sink in the Master Separate dining room, family room and lower level rec room, bedroom & study/office. Close to Downtown Louisville, Memorial Pool, Louisville Rec Center** Backs to green belt from fenced yard.
2880 Sundown #308
Gold Run Condo. This quiet and spacious top floor unit with vaulted ceilings, is just minutes away from CU. The property is popular not only for students but also for those individuals that love the proximity to all the wonderful experiences that Boulder has to offer. The Boulder Bike path and Boulder Creek offer visually pleasing areas and with 29th St. A car is not necessary to enjoy fine dining and shopping. The rare and fabulous club house includes racquetball, tennis, volleyball, indoor pool, indoor and outdoor hot tub, exercise equipment & so much more!! This is a lifestyle of education, fitness and beauty that can not be replicated anywhere else!
Boulder City Council Member on County TDR Program
I normally do not agree with Steve on many things but on this we are in complete agreement!
Pomerance: Expanded Transfer of Development Rights -- the wrong approach
Steve PomeranceSunday, March 2, 2008
When the Boulder County commissioners meet this week, they should abandon the ill-conceived Expanded Transfer of Development Rights proposal. The program has fundamental flaws that are not amenable to correction, would accomplish little to benefit the citizens of the county, and potentially could put the county at risk from "takings" and TABOR lawsuits.
The proposed ETDR scheme envisions setting "thresholds" for the square footage of development on a parcel, with the thresholds being lower in the mountains and higher in the plains. In general terms, and ignoring many of the details, if a property owner wants to build more than the threshold allows, he or she would have to purchase the requisite amount of square footage of "development credits" from another property owner at market price. The seller's development potential would then be restricted by an equivalent amount below their threshold.
This action in effect transfers development potential between the property owners. It also reduces the average floor area of new development, since one development's going above the threshold requires another to be below. Unfortunately, as the county Planning Commission noted, the thresholds are inevitably somewhat arbitrary.
The ETDR approach does not appear to distinguish areas the county would like to protect from areas where the commissioners have less concern. In other words, an owner in an area where the county wants less development could purchase development credits, leading to more, not less, development in those areas.
A technical difficulty with ETDR is that some properties can never be developed up to their thresholds because of the stringent nature of the Site Plan Review process. So it appears that these owners could sell credits for development that would, in fact, not be permitted under the county's review process. Thus they would be the prime sellers of development credits -- their prices would be lowest because they are giving up the least. This would remove most of the disincentive for building larger homes.
On the other hand, some property owners do not have significant Site Plan Review constraints. If such an owner sells credits, he or she can sell only the amount of square footage below their ETDR threshold. But in the process, they also apparently lose what they might have been able to build above their threshold. However, a similarly situated purchaser only needs to buy what is needed to go above their threshold. Thus the cost of these credits will be prohibitive, because the seller is giving up far more than the buyer is getting.
In Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that exactions from property owners need to have an essential nexus with the action being permitted. In layman's terms, the fix being exacted must be tied to the problem being created. But there is no real connection between, for example, the impact from building an overly large house near Niwot and the benefit from buying down development rights on properties near Ward or Raymond.
Some people will claim that the commissioners are, in effect, taxing people who build big houses to pay for a county effort to buy out development rights. This would then arguably be a county excise tax imposed without a TABOR vote, which would make it illegal on two counts. And further legal issues might be raised about the arbitrary thresholds.
The commissioners have better alternatives: They could impose a Floor Area Ratio requirement that would limit houses to, say, 3500 square feet, with each extra 100 square feet requiring the lot to be one additional acre over 35 acres. They could also set visual standards, increase set-back requirements, and so on.
In politics, many times an ill-defined problem and a "good idea" solution get so stuck together that alternatives are never examined. The commissioners have done some very good work recently on building codes and on making the whole development process more "green." They need to bring a similar level of reality-check to this process.
Steve Pomerance is a former Boulder city council member and can be reached at stevepomerance@yahoo.com
Pomerance: Expanded Transfer of Development Rights -- the wrong approach
Steve PomeranceSunday, March 2, 2008
When the Boulder County commissioners meet this week, they should abandon the ill-conceived Expanded Transfer of Development Rights proposal. The program has fundamental flaws that are not amenable to correction, would accomplish little to benefit the citizens of the county, and potentially could put the county at risk from "takings" and TABOR lawsuits.
The proposed ETDR scheme envisions setting "thresholds" for the square footage of development on a parcel, with the thresholds being lower in the mountains and higher in the plains. In general terms, and ignoring many of the details, if a property owner wants to build more than the threshold allows, he or she would have to purchase the requisite amount of square footage of "development credits" from another property owner at market price. The seller's development potential would then be restricted by an equivalent amount below their threshold.
This action in effect transfers development potential between the property owners. It also reduces the average floor area of new development, since one development's going above the threshold requires another to be below. Unfortunately, as the county Planning Commission noted, the thresholds are inevitably somewhat arbitrary.
The ETDR approach does not appear to distinguish areas the county would like to protect from areas where the commissioners have less concern. In other words, an owner in an area where the county wants less development could purchase development credits, leading to more, not less, development in those areas.
A technical difficulty with ETDR is that some properties can never be developed up to their thresholds because of the stringent nature of the Site Plan Review process. So it appears that these owners could sell credits for development that would, in fact, not be permitted under the county's review process. Thus they would be the prime sellers of development credits -- their prices would be lowest because they are giving up the least. This would remove most of the disincentive for building larger homes.
On the other hand, some property owners do not have significant Site Plan Review constraints. If such an owner sells credits, he or she can sell only the amount of square footage below their ETDR threshold. But in the process, they also apparently lose what they might have been able to build above their threshold. However, a similarly situated purchaser only needs to buy what is needed to go above their threshold. Thus the cost of these credits will be prohibitive, because the seller is giving up far more than the buyer is getting.
In Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that exactions from property owners need to have an essential nexus with the action being permitted. In layman's terms, the fix being exacted must be tied to the problem being created. But there is no real connection between, for example, the impact from building an overly large house near Niwot and the benefit from buying down development rights on properties near Ward or Raymond.
Some people will claim that the commissioners are, in effect, taxing people who build big houses to pay for a county effort to buy out development rights. This would then arguably be a county excise tax imposed without a TABOR vote, which would make it illegal on two counts. And further legal issues might be raised about the arbitrary thresholds.
The commissioners have better alternatives: They could impose a Floor Area Ratio requirement that would limit houses to, say, 3500 square feet, with each extra 100 square feet requiring the lot to be one additional acre over 35 acres. They could also set visual standards, increase set-back requirements, and so on.
In politics, many times an ill-defined problem and a "good idea" solution get so stuck together that alternatives are never examined. The commissioners have done some very good work recently on building codes and on making the whole development process more "green." They need to bring a similar level of reality-check to this process.
Steve Pomerance is a former Boulder city council member and can be reached at stevepomerance@yahoo.com
Transeral Development Rights Study Session Boulder County
Only two more hearings and then I am sure that the County Commissioners are going to pass this regulation!
Subject: Board of County Commissioners meetings on TDRs N Boulder County Board of County Commissioners Study Sessions and Public Hearing Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program including Structure Size Thresholds - Docket DC-05-002H Thursday, March 6, and Monday, March 10, 2008 Third Floor Hearing Room, Boulder County Courthouse 1325 Pearl Street, Boulder Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM The Boulder Board of County Commissioners will be holding a study session on the proposed Expanded Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM. The hearing will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street. The purpose of this study session is for staff to present the Planning Commission recommendations on the proposed TDR program to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board will not be taking any public testimony or any action on this program at this March 4th study session; however the public is invited to attend. Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM The Boulder Board of County Commissioners will be holding a public hearing on the proposed TDR Program on March 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM. The hearing will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street. The purpose of this hearing is to take public comment on the proposed TDR program including the draft TDR regulations, proposed amendments to the Site Plan Review Standards, interim regulations for the designated Special Character Areas, amendments to the Definitions included in the Land Use Code, and the authorization for a County-run TDR Clearinghouse. Public testimony will be limited to three minutes per person. Written comments for this public hearing may be submitted. Please e-mail comments to Michelle Krezek at mkrezek@bouldercounty.org. The Board of County Commissioners will not be taking any action at this March 6th hearing. Monday, March 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM A study session for the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the public comments given on March 6th and to give direction to staff regarding changes to the proposed TDR program will be held on Monday, March 10, 2008 beginning at 5:00 PM at the Boulder County Courthouse. This study session will be open to the public, but no public testimony will be taken on March 10th. Materials for these meetings are available on the Boulder County Land Use Department website at <http://www.bouldercounty.org/lu/code_updates/expanded_tdr/index.htm%3E . The same materials will be used for the March 4th and March 6th meetings. These study sessions and public hearings will be web cast. To view the web cast, please go to <http://www.bouldercounty.org/stream/index.htm%3E . If you have additional questions, please contact Michelle Krezek at 720-564-2623 or mkrezek@bouldercounty.org
Subject: Board of County Commissioners meetings on TDRs N Boulder County Board of County Commissioners Study Sessions and Public Hearing Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program including Structure Size Thresholds - Docket DC-05-002H Thursday, March 6, and Monday, March 10, 2008 Third Floor Hearing Room, Boulder County Courthouse 1325 Pearl Street, Boulder Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM The Boulder Board of County Commissioners will be holding a study session on the proposed Expanded Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM. The hearing will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street. The purpose of this study session is for staff to present the Planning Commission recommendations on the proposed TDR program to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board will not be taking any public testimony or any action on this program at this March 4th study session; however the public is invited to attend. Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM The Boulder Board of County Commissioners will be holding a public hearing on the proposed TDR Program on March 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM. The hearing will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street. The purpose of this hearing is to take public comment on the proposed TDR program including the draft TDR regulations, proposed amendments to the Site Plan Review Standards, interim regulations for the designated Special Character Areas, amendments to the Definitions included in the Land Use Code, and the authorization for a County-run TDR Clearinghouse. Public testimony will be limited to three minutes per person. Written comments for this public hearing may be submitted. Please e-mail comments to Michelle Krezek at mkrezek@bouldercounty.org. The Board of County Commissioners will not be taking any action at this March 6th hearing. Monday, March 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM A study session for the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the public comments given on March 6th and to give direction to staff regarding changes to the proposed TDR program will be held on Monday, March 10, 2008 beginning at 5:00 PM at the Boulder County Courthouse. This study session will be open to the public, but no public testimony will be taken on March 10th. Materials for these meetings are available on the Boulder County Land Use Department website at <http://www.bouldercounty.org/lu/code_updates/expanded_tdr/index.htm%3E . The same materials will be used for the March 4th and March 6th meetings. These study sessions and public hearings will be web cast. To view the web cast, please go to <http://www.bouldercounty.org/stream/index.htm%3E . If you have additional questions, please contact Michelle Krezek at 720-564-2623 or mkrezek@bouldercounty.org
Boulder TDR House Size Limitations
It appears that Boulder's County Commissioners are set on taking peoples private property rights through the TDR Program. I feel sorry for those people who have not added on to their homes yet or who have vacant land properties!
Boulder County's house-size battle nears an end
Opponents worry their voices will be ignored
By Laura Snider (Contact)Tuesday, March 4, 2008
If you go
What: County commissioners review the "expanded transfer of development rights," or TDR, program. The measures seek to offset the effects of large house sizes in unincorporated Boulder County.
When: At 4 p.m. today, the commissioners will have a study session to review the proposals. The meeting is open to the public, but no public testimony will be taken.
At 5:30 p.m. Thursday, the commissioners will listen to public testimony on the program.
At 5 p.m. Monday, the commissioners will have another study session when they will likely give direction to the staff on what the final program will look like.
Where: All meetings will be on the third floor of the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl St.
For more information: Visit www.bouldercounty.org/lu or call Michelle Krezek at 720-564-2623.
Katrina Peterson doesn't think Boulder County should limit house sizes. She's said it at public meetings, she's written it in letters and she's called the land use department to express her concerns.
And even with a landslide of public opinion on her side -- or at least the vast majority of people who show up at public meetings on her side -- she's worried her voice isn't being heard.
Starting today, the county commissioners will hold three public meetings to discuss the county's controversial proposal to limit house sizes in unincorporated Boulder County. On Monday, it's likely the commissioners will decide on the final form of the regulations.
"I won't be surprised if they put it in place," said Peterson, who owns a house in the mountains and worries her property value will be damaged by the program. "It'll be pretty discouraging."
For many county residents doggedly following the house-size debate, the issue has laid bare a much more basic question than whether house sizes should be restricted. It has people pondering how elected officials should go about determining what their constituents really want.
"It's pretty hard to understand when (Commissioner Will Toor) says there's a lot of people out there who support it -- how do they know? How do they know when they don't show up?" Peterson said. "The staff and the county commissioners say there is a silent majority out there, and we're going to interpret that to mean they're OK with it."
More than 100 people wrote letters or e-mails to the land use department opposing at least some part of the program, compared with fewer than 40 supporting it.
And the county's Planning Commission, which is charged with advising the county commissioners on land-use issues, announced last month that it doesn't recommend house-size limits in the form of the "transfer of development rights" program, which would allow developers to build houses above set limits if they buy extra development rights.
Even so, there is evidence that county residents do support some form of house-size limits, and Toor says it's his responsibility to make a decision that's best for the entire community — now and in the future.
Toor points to a 2006 survey of Boulder County registered voters in which people were asked "whether respondents agree or disagree that if a house would be larger than, say, 4,000 or 5,000 square feet the county should require mitigation to the land such as buying open land and leaving it open ..." Seventy-three percent of people agreed.
"Having spent years in public office on the City Council and now on the county commission, I've learned the people who show up to testify on particular issues are not a representative sample of the population at large," Toor said. "We need to listen and understand those concerns, but I think there is a much broader public interest out there."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Laura Snider at 303-473-1327 or sniderl@dailycamera.com.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOUSE-SIZE LIMITS
The proposal that the county commissioners will review in the next week can be broken down into three pieces:
Expanded transfer of development rights
This is the part of the program that would set thresholds for house sizes. Most recently, the Planning Commission decided not to recommend such a program. However, the county commissioners still have the power to pass the program.
The last numbers used by the Planning Commission set a limit of 5,500 square feet for houses built in the plains and 3,500 square feet for houses built in the mountains. If a developer wants to build a larger house, he or she would need to buy extra development rights from owners of land that has not been developed or smaller houses that have not used all the square footage allowed.
Site-plan review
Now, anyone who wants to build a house in unincorporated Boulder County must go through a stringent site-plan review process to determine if the planned house would be in "harmony" with its neighborhood. The proposed amendments to the review would clarify what defines a neighborhood and create a clearer rule of thumb for what size house can expect to clear the review.
The Planning Commission recommended that the default "neighborhood" be set to 1,500 feet in all directions and the default house size be set to 125 percent of the median size of homes in that neighborhood. The definition of neighborhood or the size allowed could change with negotiation.
Special character areas
This designation would exempt unincorporated communities from the program, including Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Hygiene, Gold Hill, Allenspark, Raymond and Riverside. The program would also create a Peak-to-Peak scenic corridor. In all these designated areas, residents would work with the land use department to create codes that fit their individual communities and that would preserve the unique character of the area.
Boulder County's house-size battle nears an end
Opponents worry their voices will be ignored
By Laura Snider (Contact)Tuesday, March 4, 2008
If you go
What: County commissioners review the "expanded transfer of development rights," or TDR, program. The measures seek to offset the effects of large house sizes in unincorporated Boulder County.
When: At 4 p.m. today, the commissioners will have a study session to review the proposals. The meeting is open to the public, but no public testimony will be taken.
At 5:30 p.m. Thursday, the commissioners will listen to public testimony on the program.
At 5 p.m. Monday, the commissioners will have another study session when they will likely give direction to the staff on what the final program will look like.
Where: All meetings will be on the third floor of the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl St.
For more information: Visit www.bouldercounty.org/lu or call Michelle Krezek at 720-564-2623.
Katrina Peterson doesn't think Boulder County should limit house sizes. She's said it at public meetings, she's written it in letters and she's called the land use department to express her concerns.
And even with a landslide of public opinion on her side -- or at least the vast majority of people who show up at public meetings on her side -- she's worried her voice isn't being heard.
Starting today, the county commissioners will hold three public meetings to discuss the county's controversial proposal to limit house sizes in unincorporated Boulder County. On Monday, it's likely the commissioners will decide on the final form of the regulations.
"I won't be surprised if they put it in place," said Peterson, who owns a house in the mountains and worries her property value will be damaged by the program. "It'll be pretty discouraging."
For many county residents doggedly following the house-size debate, the issue has laid bare a much more basic question than whether house sizes should be restricted. It has people pondering how elected officials should go about determining what their constituents really want.
"It's pretty hard to understand when (Commissioner Will Toor) says there's a lot of people out there who support it -- how do they know? How do they know when they don't show up?" Peterson said. "The staff and the county commissioners say there is a silent majority out there, and we're going to interpret that to mean they're OK with it."
More than 100 people wrote letters or e-mails to the land use department opposing at least some part of the program, compared with fewer than 40 supporting it.
And the county's Planning Commission, which is charged with advising the county commissioners on land-use issues, announced last month that it doesn't recommend house-size limits in the form of the "transfer of development rights" program, which would allow developers to build houses above set limits if they buy extra development rights.
Even so, there is evidence that county residents do support some form of house-size limits, and Toor says it's his responsibility to make a decision that's best for the entire community — now and in the future.
Toor points to a 2006 survey of Boulder County registered voters in which people were asked "whether respondents agree or disagree that if a house would be larger than, say, 4,000 or 5,000 square feet the county should require mitigation to the land such as buying open land and leaving it open ..." Seventy-three percent of people agreed.
"Having spent years in public office on the City Council and now on the county commission, I've learned the people who show up to testify on particular issues are not a representative sample of the population at large," Toor said. "We need to listen and understand those concerns, but I think there is a much broader public interest out there."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Laura Snider at 303-473-1327 or sniderl@dailycamera.com.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOUSE-SIZE LIMITS
The proposal that the county commissioners will review in the next week can be broken down into three pieces:
Expanded transfer of development rights
This is the part of the program that would set thresholds for house sizes. Most recently, the Planning Commission decided not to recommend such a program. However, the county commissioners still have the power to pass the program.
The last numbers used by the Planning Commission set a limit of 5,500 square feet for houses built in the plains and 3,500 square feet for houses built in the mountains. If a developer wants to build a larger house, he or she would need to buy extra development rights from owners of land that has not been developed or smaller houses that have not used all the square footage allowed.
Site-plan review
Now, anyone who wants to build a house in unincorporated Boulder County must go through a stringent site-plan review process to determine if the planned house would be in "harmony" with its neighborhood. The proposed amendments to the review would clarify what defines a neighborhood and create a clearer rule of thumb for what size house can expect to clear the review.
The Planning Commission recommended that the default "neighborhood" be set to 1,500 feet in all directions and the default house size be set to 125 percent of the median size of homes in that neighborhood. The definition of neighborhood or the size allowed could change with negotiation.
Special character areas
This designation would exempt unincorporated communities from the program, including Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Hygiene, Gold Hill, Allenspark, Raymond and Riverside. The program would also create a Peak-to-Peak scenic corridor. In all these designated areas, residents would work with the land use department to create codes that fit their individual communities and that would preserve the unique character of the area.
Adverse Possession in Colorado
Adverse possession bill set for Senate committee
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:43 p.m., March 4, 2008Updated 08:00 p.m., March 4, 2008
A bill that seeks to change a controversial land law that has locked two Boulder couples in a bitter legal dispute for years is set to be heard next week by the Colorado Senate.
House Bill 1148, which would overhaul the law of adverse possession, is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee at 1:30 p.m. March 12. The hearing, originally set for March 5, has been delayed.
The state law now allows trespassers to claim land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
The law caught the attention of several lawmakers last fall after a Boulder District Court judge awarded a portion of one of Don and Susie Kirlin’s vacant lots on Hardscrabble Drive to neighbors Dick McLean and Edith Stevens.
McLean, a former district court judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens, an attorney and Democratic activist, sued the Kirlins using the law of adverse possession.
The bill, which would add a “good faith” provision and other requirements to the longtime legal doctrine, gained initial approval last month by a House vote of 63-1.
If approved Wednesday, the bill will move to the full Senate for consideration and would require final approval by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Adverse possession bill set for Senate committee
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:43 p.m., March 4, 2008Updated 08:00 p.m., March 4, 2008
VIDEO: Nov. 18 protest picnic in support of the Kirlins. WATCH »
VIDEO: Take a look at Don and Susie Kirlin's land and hear them speak about the case. WATCH »
MAP: Satellite image Google map of Hardscrabble Drive.
AUDIO: Listen to NPR's report on the case.
AUDIO: Local singer Don Wrege composed several songs about the land dispute.
1. Stealing Land From Our Neighbor
2. This Land Belongs to Don & Susie
3. Edie & Dick (The Grinch Theme)
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:43 p.m., March 4, 2008Updated 08:00 p.m., March 4, 2008
A bill that seeks to change a controversial land law that has locked two Boulder couples in a bitter legal dispute for years is set to be heard next week by the Colorado Senate.
House Bill 1148, which would overhaul the law of adverse possession, is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee at 1:30 p.m. March 12. The hearing, originally set for March 5, has been delayed.
The state law now allows trespassers to claim land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
The law caught the attention of several lawmakers last fall after a Boulder District Court judge awarded a portion of one of Don and Susie Kirlin’s vacant lots on Hardscrabble Drive to neighbors Dick McLean and Edith Stevens.
McLean, a former district court judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens, an attorney and Democratic activist, sued the Kirlins using the law of adverse possession.
The bill, which would add a “good faith” provision and other requirements to the longtime legal doctrine, gained initial approval last month by a House vote of 63-1.
If approved Wednesday, the bill will move to the full Senate for consideration and would require final approval by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Adverse possession bill set for Senate committee
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:43 p.m., March 4, 2008Updated 08:00 p.m., March 4, 2008
VIDEO: Nov. 18 protest picnic in support of the Kirlins. WATCH »
VIDEO: Take a look at Don and Susie Kirlin's land and hear them speak about the case. WATCH »
MAP: Satellite image Google map of Hardscrabble Drive.
AUDIO: Listen to NPR's report on the case.
AUDIO: Local singer Don Wrege composed several songs about the land dispute.
1. Stealing Land From Our Neighbor
2. This Land Belongs to Don & Susie
3. Edie & Dick (The Grinch Theme)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)