There are some Special Interest Groups that would like to see real estate take a plummet. They would like to see deflation as the order of the day and possibly undermine the health and wealth of our state. Or they have a poor basic understanding of what Realtors do on a daily basis. Realtors have individual businesses with individual expenses and overheard. Great Realtors absorb expenses for web sites, written advertising, staff, gas etc on the success of a sale in the future. A lot of risk is taken on our part. If an initiative like this gets any traction then sellers and buyers will need to be ready to get their check books out to pay hourly rates plus itemized expenses. It also seems crazy that someone with a higher priced home in this initiative will have to pay less than someone who owns a lower priced home. It leads me to believe that the people behind this measure own a home higher than $500,000.00 .
If the general trend is still to believe that Realtors get paid to much...then maybe those folks should get there license and start selling!
Ballot Initiative Update
There are now three active initiatives that have been filed which address real estate transfer taxes – all brought forward by the same groups. To address flaws existing in the current initiative, the proponents submitted the two additional proposals this week. CAR remains actively engaged in this process and will continue to intervene on behalf of REALTOR® interests.
In addition to the transfer tax proposals, initiative #109 was filed this week concerning the restriction of earned real estate broker fees. In a nutshell, a six percent cap would be placed on transactions up to $250,000; three percent for $250,000 – $500,000; and one percent for transactions above $500,000 (but no more than $500 per hour).
In reaction to initiative #109, CAR has released the following press statement:
First the Colorado Association of REALTORS® believes the ballot initiative process is an unproductive way to deal with consumer and business issues. Second we believe this proposed ballot initiative specifically is bad for consumers. It changes the relationship between the consumer and the real estate agent/REALTOR® by mandating a fixed price whereas, current commission rates are negotiable regardless of the selling price of a property.
The sliding scale is patently unfair, particularly to the majority of buyers who are purchasing homes on the lower dollar value of this scale. For example, using the proposed ballot initiative scale, a family purchasing a $200,000 home would be required to pay a $12,000 commission. A family purchasing a $500,000 home would only pay a $5,000 commission based on the 1 percent mandated rate.
Our current system encourages innovative business models that clearly benefit the consumer. As an association, our desire is to encourage and support our varied professionals in being creative for the consumer and providing diverse solutions to their real estate needs.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Ritter approves 'land grab' bill
Ritter approves 'land grab' bill
Adverse possession law set to change
By Heath Urie (Contact)Saturday, April 26, 2008
Beginning July 1, people hoping to use "adverse possession" to take control of another person's land had better be prepared to pay for it, thanks to a bill signed into law Friday by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Ritter gave final approval to House Bill 1148, which modifies the longtime legal concept that allows trespassers to claim another's land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
The bill, which garnered wide bipartisan support among state lawmakers, requires that an adverse possessor believe in "good faith" that the land is actually his or her own. It also raises the burden of proof in an adverse-possession case and gives judges the power to make plaintiffs payfor any land they are awarded.
Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Evergreen, and Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, co-sponsored the bill, which was crafted in the wake of a controversial Boulder land dispute.
Richard McLean and Edith Stevens sued neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin in 2006 using adverse possession. In October, the former district court judge and attorney won their case -- and 34 percent of the Kirlins' vacant, next-door lot.
"I'm just so impressed and happy with the Colorado Legislature," Don Kirlin said. "The fact that they were able to change a law so that no one would have to endure what we went through ... is pretty monumental."
Witwer on Friday said the bill is a victory for property owners.
"This will make it harder to abuse adverse-possession law," he said. "Frankly, it should have been done decades ago. But it's better late than never."
Earlier this month, Ritter signed a bill sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, which -- beginning Aug. 6 -- will require Colorado district and county court judges to step down from cases involving other current or former judges within the same district when requested.
Levy said she sponsored her bill in reaction to the Kirlin case.
Adverse possession law set to change
By Heath Urie (Contact)Saturday, April 26, 2008
Beginning July 1, people hoping to use "adverse possession" to take control of another person's land had better be prepared to pay for it, thanks to a bill signed into law Friday by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Ritter gave final approval to House Bill 1148, which modifies the longtime legal concept that allows trespassers to claim another's land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
The bill, which garnered wide bipartisan support among state lawmakers, requires that an adverse possessor believe in "good faith" that the land is actually his or her own. It also raises the burden of proof in an adverse-possession case and gives judges the power to make plaintiffs payfor any land they are awarded.
Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Evergreen, and Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, co-sponsored the bill, which was crafted in the wake of a controversial Boulder land dispute.
Richard McLean and Edith Stevens sued neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin in 2006 using adverse possession. In October, the former district court judge and attorney won their case -- and 34 percent of the Kirlins' vacant, next-door lot.
"I'm just so impressed and happy with the Colorado Legislature," Don Kirlin said. "The fact that they were able to change a law so that no one would have to endure what we went through ... is pretty monumental."
Witwer on Friday said the bill is a victory for property owners.
"This will make it harder to abuse adverse-possession law," he said. "Frankly, it should have been done decades ago. But it's better late than never."
Earlier this month, Ritter signed a bill sponsored by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, which -- beginning Aug. 6 -- will require Colorado district and county court judges to step down from cases involving other current or former judges within the same district when requested.
Levy said she sponsored her bill in reaction to the Kirlin case.
Friday, April 18, 2008
2008 Short Term Freddie Mac Rules
Update on Purchases of Conforming Jumbo MortgagesUpdated April 17, 2008
On February 13, the President signed into law the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 that includes a temporary increase in Freddie Mac's conforming loan limits in high cost areas, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Freddie Mac believes the temporary increase in conforming loan limits will allow us to provide much-needed liquidity and stability to the jumbo portion of the residential mortgage market, and is in the best interest of the economy and consumers.
We are using the descriptive term “conforming jumbo” mortgages to distinguish Freddie Mac-eligible jumbo mortgages from other jumbo mortgages that are ineligible for purchase by Freddie Mac and from eligible conventional, conforming mortgages.
New Loan Limits
The new loan limits are applicable to high cost areas only and are the higher of the 2008 conforming loan limit ($417,000) or 125% of the area median house price, not to exceed $729,750 for a 1-unit property. The law also allows the purchase of eligible loans originated with note dates between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008.
HUD has published the list of high cost Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and applicable loan limits per number of units. This information is available on:
HUD's website. HUD offers a user-friendly, look-up tool that provides loan limits for all MSAs and counties.
OFHEO's website [PDF]. This list provides only the high cost counties and MSAs affected by the new loan limits.
New Originations of Conforming Jumbo Mortgages
For deliveries beginning June 1, we will offer Guarantor contracts for newly originated conforming jumbos for delivery through our selling system. We consider newly originated mortgages to be originations with note dates on or after March 1, 2008 up to and including December 31, 2008. Below are our requirements for originating conforming jumbo mortgages.
The ability to sell conforming jumbo mortgages to Freddie Mac is available on a limited, negotiated basis. We are offering the ability to sell these mortgages in a phased approach to eligible Guarantor customers. Freddie Mac Account Managers will contact eligible Guarantor customers to begin contracting discussions.
For all other customers, we recommend you contact a lender that you have a wholesale relationship with and who is offering conforming jumbo loans. If you don't currently have a relationship with a wholesaler, or if you are unsure if your wholesaler is currently selling conforming jumbo mortgages to us, please contact your Freddie Mac Account Manager or representative. We will assist you whenever possible to determine a wholesale relationship.
Requirements for New Originations
We've defined specific credit and pricing requirements for conforming jumbo mortgages that will be different from our current conforming mortgages requirements. At this time, our credit and underwriting requirements for originations with note dates on or after March 1, 2008 up to and including December 31, 2008, include the following:
General Eligibility
Please note, where the requirements below are silent, conforming jumbos mortgages must comply with all other requirements in the Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide.
Eligible Products, Purpose and Occupancy Requirements
Products
15-, 20-, 30- and 40-year fixed-rate, fully amortizing mortgages (no balloons)
30-year fixed-rate mortgages with 10-year interest-only periods
Fully amortizing 5/1 adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs)
5/1 ARMs with 10-year interest-only periods
Purpose
Purchase
No cash-out refinance
Cash-out refinances for primary residence only
Occupancy
1-unit primary residences, including condos and PUDs
1-unit second homes
1-unit investment properties
Maximum Loan-to-Value (LTV) and Total Loan-to-Value (TLTV) Ratios
The following chart outlines the maximum LTV and TLTV ratio requirements for conforming jumbo mortgages:
Loan Purpose
LTV/TLTV
Minimum Indicator Score
Primary Residence
Purchase
90%
LTV >75%: 700LTV <75%: 660
No cash-out refinance
90%
LTV >75%: 700LTV <75%: 660
Cash-out refinance
75%
720
Second Home and Investment Property
Purchase
60%
660
No cash-out refinance
60%
660
Cash-out refinance
N/A
N/A
Eligibility for New Originations
Loan Characteristic
Requirement
Reserves
Primary residence: 2 months verified
Second home and investment property: 6 months verified
Maximum Cash-Out Amount
Per Guide requirements, including mortgage proceeds to the borrower or any other payee may not exceed $100,000
Maximum Seller Contributions
Maximum of 3% is permitted for primary residence and second homes regardless of LTV
Maximum of 2% is permitted for investment properties
Required Documentation
All Loan Prospector® documentation classes apply, including Accept Plus
Full documentation requirements apply for all other mortgages
Housing Payment History
No 30-day late housing payments within the last 12 months
Nontraditional Credit
Not permitted
Debt-to-Income Ratio
45% maximum
Appraisals
Full URAR - interior and exterior inspection required
In addition, a field review (Form 1032) is required if the LTV/TLTV > 75% and the value is > $1,000,000
The person performing the appraisal must be qualified to perform appraisals without oversight or supervision by a "supervisory" or "review" appraiser
Freddie Mac's Declining Markets requirements apply. If the appraiser or Seller has determined that a property is located in a declining market, maximum financing must be reduced. Section 23.5 of the Guide provides that a lender must not offer financing to the maximum LTV/TLTV ratio in any instance in which property values are declining.
Age of Documents
120 days
Mortgage Insurance
Standard mortgage insurance (check with your MI provider to obtain its eligibility requirements)
Financed MI not permitted
Eligible Underwriting Path
For loan amounts less than $1 million
Loan Prospector Accept Plus and Accept
In addition to the Loan Prospector assessment, you will need to ensure that the loan meets our credit requirements for conforming jumbos
Manually underwritten mortgages
Settlement Cycle
5-day minimum settlement cycle
Ineligible Products and Features
Balloon Mortgages
FHA Mortgages
Financed MI
Streamlined refinances
Special purpose cash-out refinances
Second liens
Manufactured homes
Cooperative units
Temporary subsidy buydowns
Home Possible® Mortgages or other lender-branded affordable programs
2- to 4-unit properties
Servicing
There are no special servicing requirements related to the servicing of conforming jumbo mortgages. The minimum servicing spread will be 25 basis points.
Securitization
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) indicated that conforming jumbos will be traded as non-TBA securities:
30-year fixed-rate mortgages will be pooled in a separate prefix and trade non-TBA.
ARMs will be pooled in specific conforming jumbo pools using existing non-TBA prefixes. Co-mingling will not be allowed.
Pricing
Our pricing for conforming jumbos will be as follows:
Your standard guarantee-fee
Plus, current Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide Exhibit 19 delivery fees
Plus, unique conforming jumbo mortgage postsettlement delivery fees. To determine the delivery fee, take the standard delivery fee rate and apply all applicable delivery fee rate adjustors, as defined in the tables below.
Fixed Rate Mortgage Standard Delivery Fee Rate
Product Type
Delivery Fee
Fixed Rate
0.25%
Fixed Rate Mortgage Delivery Fee Rate Adjusters
Product Type
Purpose Type
LTV/TLTV
Delivery Fee
Fixed Rate
No Cash-Out Refinance
> 75%
0.50%
Cash-Out Refinances
All eligible LTV/TLTVs
1.00%
Fixed-Rate 10-year Initial Interest
All purpose types
All eligible LTV/TLTVs
0.25%
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Standard Delivery Fee Rate
Product Type
Delivery Fee
ARM < 80% LTV/TLTV
0.75%
ARM > 80% LTV/TLTV
1.50%
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Delivery Fee Rate Adjusters
Product Type
Purpose Type
LTV/TLTV
Delivery Fee
ARM
No Cash-Out Refinance
> 75%
0.50%
Cash-Out Refinances
All eligible LTV/TLTVs
1.00%
Please contact your Freddie Mac Account Manager or representative if you have any questions regarding our offering for new originations.
Existing Portfolios of Eligible Mortgages
In addition to purchasing new originations, we are purchasing existing lender-held portfolios of qualifying loans with note dates on or after July 1, 2007, and up to and including February 29, 2008, through our bulk transaction path. This is a negotiated offering available to lenders experienced in selling through our bulk process. A broader product set may be available for this option. If you are interested in selling a qualifying portfolio to Freddie Mac, please contact your Freddie Mac Account Manager or representative.
© 2008 Freddie Mac
On February 13, the President signed into law the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 that includes a temporary increase in Freddie Mac's conforming loan limits in high cost areas, as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Freddie Mac believes the temporary increase in conforming loan limits will allow us to provide much-needed liquidity and stability to the jumbo portion of the residential mortgage market, and is in the best interest of the economy and consumers.
We are using the descriptive term “conforming jumbo” mortgages to distinguish Freddie Mac-eligible jumbo mortgages from other jumbo mortgages that are ineligible for purchase by Freddie Mac and from eligible conventional, conforming mortgages.
New Loan Limits
The new loan limits are applicable to high cost areas only and are the higher of the 2008 conforming loan limit ($417,000) or 125% of the area median house price, not to exceed $729,750 for a 1-unit property. The law also allows the purchase of eligible loans originated with note dates between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008.
HUD has published the list of high cost Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and applicable loan limits per number of units. This information is available on:
HUD's website. HUD offers a user-friendly, look-up tool that provides loan limits for all MSAs and counties.
OFHEO's website [PDF]. This list provides only the high cost counties and MSAs affected by the new loan limits.
New Originations of Conforming Jumbo Mortgages
For deliveries beginning June 1, we will offer Guarantor contracts for newly originated conforming jumbos for delivery through our selling system. We consider newly originated mortgages to be originations with note dates on or after March 1, 2008 up to and including December 31, 2008. Below are our requirements for originating conforming jumbo mortgages.
The ability to sell conforming jumbo mortgages to Freddie Mac is available on a limited, negotiated basis. We are offering the ability to sell these mortgages in a phased approach to eligible Guarantor customers. Freddie Mac Account Managers will contact eligible Guarantor customers to begin contracting discussions.
For all other customers, we recommend you contact a lender that you have a wholesale relationship with and who is offering conforming jumbo loans. If you don't currently have a relationship with a wholesaler, or if you are unsure if your wholesaler is currently selling conforming jumbo mortgages to us, please contact your Freddie Mac Account Manager or representative. We will assist you whenever possible to determine a wholesale relationship.
Requirements for New Originations
We've defined specific credit and pricing requirements for conforming jumbo mortgages that will be different from our current conforming mortgages requirements. At this time, our credit and underwriting requirements for originations with note dates on or after March 1, 2008 up to and including December 31, 2008, include the following:
General Eligibility
Please note, where the requirements below are silent, conforming jumbos mortgages must comply with all other requirements in the Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide.
Eligible Products, Purpose and Occupancy Requirements
Products
15-, 20-, 30- and 40-year fixed-rate, fully amortizing mortgages (no balloons)
30-year fixed-rate mortgages with 10-year interest-only periods
Fully amortizing 5/1 adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs)
5/1 ARMs with 10-year interest-only periods
Purpose
Purchase
No cash-out refinance
Cash-out refinances for primary residence only
Occupancy
1-unit primary residences, including condos and PUDs
1-unit second homes
1-unit investment properties
Maximum Loan-to-Value (LTV) and Total Loan-to-Value (TLTV) Ratios
The following chart outlines the maximum LTV and TLTV ratio requirements for conforming jumbo mortgages:
Loan Purpose
LTV/TLTV
Minimum Indicator Score
Primary Residence
Purchase
90%
LTV >75%: 700LTV <75%: 660
No cash-out refinance
90%
LTV >75%: 700LTV <75%: 660
Cash-out refinance
75%
720
Second Home and Investment Property
Purchase
60%
660
No cash-out refinance
60%
660
Cash-out refinance
N/A
N/A
Eligibility for New Originations
Loan Characteristic
Requirement
Reserves
Primary residence: 2 months verified
Second home and investment property: 6 months verified
Maximum Cash-Out Amount
Per Guide requirements, including mortgage proceeds to the borrower or any other payee may not exceed $100,000
Maximum Seller Contributions
Maximum of 3% is permitted for primary residence and second homes regardless of LTV
Maximum of 2% is permitted for investment properties
Required Documentation
All Loan Prospector® documentation classes apply, including Accept Plus
Full documentation requirements apply for all other mortgages
Housing Payment History
No 30-day late housing payments within the last 12 months
Nontraditional Credit
Not permitted
Debt-to-Income Ratio
45% maximum
Appraisals
Full URAR - interior and exterior inspection required
In addition, a field review (Form 1032) is required if the LTV/TLTV > 75% and the value is > $1,000,000
The person performing the appraisal must be qualified to perform appraisals without oversight or supervision by a "supervisory" or "review" appraiser
Freddie Mac's Declining Markets requirements apply. If the appraiser or Seller has determined that a property is located in a declining market, maximum financing must be reduced. Section 23.5 of the Guide provides that a lender must not offer financing to the maximum LTV/TLTV ratio in any instance in which property values are declining.
Age of Documents
120 days
Mortgage Insurance
Standard mortgage insurance (check with your MI provider to obtain its eligibility requirements)
Financed MI not permitted
Eligible Underwriting Path
For loan amounts less than $1 million
Loan Prospector Accept Plus and Accept
In addition to the Loan Prospector assessment, you will need to ensure that the loan meets our credit requirements for conforming jumbos
Manually underwritten mortgages
Settlement Cycle
5-day minimum settlement cycle
Ineligible Products and Features
Balloon Mortgages
FHA Mortgages
Financed MI
Streamlined refinances
Special purpose cash-out refinances
Second liens
Manufactured homes
Cooperative units
Temporary subsidy buydowns
Home Possible® Mortgages or other lender-branded affordable programs
2- to 4-unit properties
Servicing
There are no special servicing requirements related to the servicing of conforming jumbo mortgages. The minimum servicing spread will be 25 basis points.
Securitization
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) indicated that conforming jumbos will be traded as non-TBA securities:
30-year fixed-rate mortgages will be pooled in a separate prefix and trade non-TBA.
ARMs will be pooled in specific conforming jumbo pools using existing non-TBA prefixes. Co-mingling will not be allowed.
Pricing
Our pricing for conforming jumbos will be as follows:
Your standard guarantee-fee
Plus, current Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide Exhibit 19 delivery fees
Plus, unique conforming jumbo mortgage postsettlement delivery fees. To determine the delivery fee, take the standard delivery fee rate and apply all applicable delivery fee rate adjustors, as defined in the tables below.
Fixed Rate Mortgage Standard Delivery Fee Rate
Product Type
Delivery Fee
Fixed Rate
0.25%
Fixed Rate Mortgage Delivery Fee Rate Adjusters
Product Type
Purpose Type
LTV/TLTV
Delivery Fee
Fixed Rate
No Cash-Out Refinance
> 75%
0.50%
Cash-Out Refinances
All eligible LTV/TLTVs
1.00%
Fixed-Rate 10-year Initial Interest
All purpose types
All eligible LTV/TLTVs
0.25%
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Standard Delivery Fee Rate
Product Type
Delivery Fee
ARM < 80% LTV/TLTV
0.75%
ARM > 80% LTV/TLTV
1.50%
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Delivery Fee Rate Adjusters
Product Type
Purpose Type
LTV/TLTV
Delivery Fee
ARM
No Cash-Out Refinance
> 75%
0.50%
Cash-Out Refinances
All eligible LTV/TLTVs
1.00%
Please contact your Freddie Mac Account Manager or representative if you have any questions regarding our offering for new originations.
Existing Portfolios of Eligible Mortgages
In addition to purchasing new originations, we are purchasing existing lender-held portfolios of qualifying loans with note dates on or after July 1, 2007, and up to and including February 29, 2008, through our bulk transaction path. This is a negotiated offering available to lenders experienced in selling through our bulk process. A broader product set may be available for this option. If you are interested in selling a qualifying portfolio to Freddie Mac, please contact your Freddie Mac Account Manager or representative.
© 2008 Freddie Mac
FREDDIE MAC TO BUY CONFORMING JUMBO MORTGAGES IN HIGH COST MARKETS FROM WELLS FARGO, CHASE, CITIMORTGAGE, WAMU
FREDDIE MAC TO BUY CONFORMING JUMBO MORTGAGES IN HIGH COST MARKETS FROM WELLS FARGO, CHASE, CITIMORTGAGE, WAMU
Temporary Stimulus Act Authority May Add $10-$15 Billion in Mortgage Sales This Year
McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) has agreed to purchase billions of dollars of new conforming jumbo mortgages with original loan amounts up to $729,750 from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Chase, CitiMortgage and WaMu. Freddie Mac conforming jumbo mortgages can be used to finance properties in hundreds of high cost markets designated in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 President Bush signed on February 13.
Today's announcement marks the first large-scale effort to jump-start the stalled jumbo mortgage market under the Economic Stimulus Act, which temporarily raised Freddie Mac's conforming loan limit from $417,000 to as much as $729,750 through December 31, 2008. Freddie Mac's purchase of conforming jumbo mortgages is restricted to 224 high cost markets where median home prices exceed Freddie Mac's $417,000 loan limit.
As a result, qualified borrowers can now apply for an array of fixed-rate or adjustable rate conforming jumbo mortgages that will be less expensive than non-conforming jumbo loans in high cost markets. Borrowers can use Freddie Mac conforming jumbo mortgages to finance up to 90% of a property's value.
Because Freddie Mac is buying the new conforming jumbo mortgages for its portfolio, Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiMortgage and WaMu will have instant liquidity and can offer a stable jumbo market rate to qualified borrowers. By working with Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiMortgage, WaMu and other national lenders, Freddie Mac expects to finance between $10 and $15 billion in new jumbo mortgages in 2008.
"Purchasing conforming jumbo mortgages for our portfolio shows how we can bring new liquidity to markets other investors have all but abandoned and make full use of the new tools Congress gave us to help restore stability during the current housing crisis," said Freddie Mac Chairman and CEO Richard Syron. "We initially expect conforming jumbo mortgages to have rates that are as much as half a percentage point below the jumbo market rate in many of these high cost markets."
"I want to thank Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiMortgage and WaMu for working with us and enabling us, in a new way, to fulfill our public mission to America's lenders and borrowers," Syron added.
"CitiMortgage applauds Freddie Mac for agreeing to buy loans for these qualifying borrowers, and we are looking forward to working with Freddie and borrowers to improve housing affordability in these higher cost markets," said Bill Beckmann, CitiMortgage president.
"These new conforming jumbo mortgages will reduce homeownership costs for families in high-cost areas," said Dave Lowman, CEO of Chase Home Lending. "Freddie Mac's involvement will help increase availability."
"We value our relationship with Freddie Mac which enables us to collectively do great things for consumers," said Mike Heid, co-president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. "While Wells Fargo has offered jumbo loans directly to consumers throughout the current market correction, this important agreement provides a reliable investor for loans in high-cost areas which, in turn, further broadens our ability to serve these customers."
While specific product availability may vary by lender, Freddie Mac has said it will buy 15-, 20-, 30- and 40-year fixed-rate, fully amortizing conforming jumbo mortgages; 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with 10-year interest-only periods; fully amortizing 5/1 adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and 5/1 ARMs with 10-year interest-only periods. Qualified borrowers can also obtain cash-out refinance conforming jumbo mortgages that provide a maximum cash-out of $100,000.
For more information on Freddie Mac conforming jumbo mortgage products, visit www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/increased_limits.html.
Freddie Mac is a stockholder-owned corporation established by Congress in 1970 to support homeownership and rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases single-family and multifamily residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible more than 50 million times, ensuring financing for one in six homebuyers and more than four million renters.
Temporary Stimulus Act Authority May Add $10-$15 Billion in Mortgage Sales This Year
McLean, VA – Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) has agreed to purchase billions of dollars of new conforming jumbo mortgages with original loan amounts up to $729,750 from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Chase, CitiMortgage and WaMu. Freddie Mac conforming jumbo mortgages can be used to finance properties in hundreds of high cost markets designated in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 President Bush signed on February 13.
Today's announcement marks the first large-scale effort to jump-start the stalled jumbo mortgage market under the Economic Stimulus Act, which temporarily raised Freddie Mac's conforming loan limit from $417,000 to as much as $729,750 through December 31, 2008. Freddie Mac's purchase of conforming jumbo mortgages is restricted to 224 high cost markets where median home prices exceed Freddie Mac's $417,000 loan limit.
As a result, qualified borrowers can now apply for an array of fixed-rate or adjustable rate conforming jumbo mortgages that will be less expensive than non-conforming jumbo loans in high cost markets. Borrowers can use Freddie Mac conforming jumbo mortgages to finance up to 90% of a property's value.
Because Freddie Mac is buying the new conforming jumbo mortgages for its portfolio, Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiMortgage and WaMu will have instant liquidity and can offer a stable jumbo market rate to qualified borrowers. By working with Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiMortgage, WaMu and other national lenders, Freddie Mac expects to finance between $10 and $15 billion in new jumbo mortgages in 2008.
"Purchasing conforming jumbo mortgages for our portfolio shows how we can bring new liquidity to markets other investors have all but abandoned and make full use of the new tools Congress gave us to help restore stability during the current housing crisis," said Freddie Mac Chairman and CEO Richard Syron. "We initially expect conforming jumbo mortgages to have rates that are as much as half a percentage point below the jumbo market rate in many of these high cost markets."
"I want to thank Wells Fargo, Chase, CitiMortgage and WaMu for working with us and enabling us, in a new way, to fulfill our public mission to America's lenders and borrowers," Syron added.
"CitiMortgage applauds Freddie Mac for agreeing to buy loans for these qualifying borrowers, and we are looking forward to working with Freddie and borrowers to improve housing affordability in these higher cost markets," said Bill Beckmann, CitiMortgage president.
"These new conforming jumbo mortgages will reduce homeownership costs for families in high-cost areas," said Dave Lowman, CEO of Chase Home Lending. "Freddie Mac's involvement will help increase availability."
"We value our relationship with Freddie Mac which enables us to collectively do great things for consumers," said Mike Heid, co-president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. "While Wells Fargo has offered jumbo loans directly to consumers throughout the current market correction, this important agreement provides a reliable investor for loans in high-cost areas which, in turn, further broadens our ability to serve these customers."
While specific product availability may vary by lender, Freddie Mac has said it will buy 15-, 20-, 30- and 40-year fixed-rate, fully amortizing conforming jumbo mortgages; 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with 10-year interest-only periods; fully amortizing 5/1 adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) and 5/1 ARMs with 10-year interest-only periods. Qualified borrowers can also obtain cash-out refinance conforming jumbo mortgages that provide a maximum cash-out of $100,000.
For more information on Freddie Mac conforming jumbo mortgage products, visit www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/increased_limits.html.
Freddie Mac is a stockholder-owned corporation established by Congress in 1970 to support homeownership and rental housing. Freddie Mac purchases single-family and multifamily residential mortgages and mortgage-related securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets. Over the years, Freddie Mac has made home possible more than 50 million times, ensuring financing for one in six homebuyers and more than four million renters.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Defining house-size problem
My definition of loss of character occurs when regulations overly restrict the creative tools necessary to establish an interesting achitecture or genre`. What we are otherwise left with when restrictions are too limiting are homes that look like boxes so that every allowable square foot is useable space. It is a "loss of character" when porticos, carriage homes, gazebos, covered patios, dog houses, doll houses, sheds, green houses, studios and more are detered by regulations that define "loss of character" by house size or FAR (Floor Area Ratios).
Defining house-size problem
Boulder leaders address what exactly amounts to 'loss of character'
By Heath Urie (Contact)Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Boulder's leaders Tuesday night began formally discussing a problem involving large houses replacing smaller ones in established neighborhoods.
But they struggled for hours to define exactly what the problem is — or if there is one.
Boulder City Council members have said some new and remodeled homes are affecting "neighborhood character."
The council began an initial conversation Tuesday about how to move forward limiting "pops and scrapes," or smaller homes that are demolished and replaced with homes many thousands of square feet in size.
A proposal to temporarily limit house sizes was put on hold last week following public outcry and a recommendation by the Planning Board not to move forward with it.
After an extended debate that stretched into the late night, City Councilman Macon Cowles helped piece together a definition of the problem that leaders want to address.
It defined the goal, in part, as fixing the "loss of character of established single-family neighborhoods by assuring that new construction and additions are compatible" with existing neighborhoods.
It also included directing city staffers to include "due consideration" of house size, open space, mass, loss of space between houses, views, lot coverage, blank walls, setbacks, height and the visual character of individual areas when considering how to move forward with an ordinance.
The council also asked staffers to consider the loss of mature trees, older homes and how the city's solar-access ordinance affects the shape of houses.
"I do think that we've got to get more precise about what the problem is," Councilwoman Suzy Ageton said. "We're not clear yet. We need to start defining what it is that makes people feel that what's next to them is a mega-mansion."
Councilwoman Angelique Espinoza said the group might need to change how it's handling the matter completely, but she agreed with Cowles' definition.
"I would prefer, myself, to change the approach altogether," she said.
Espinoza said she wants to convene another "brainstorming" session where council members can perform a "gut check" about whether to go on spending money and time examining the issue of large houses.
"Some of these things it is our business to regulate, and some of these things I think may not be," Espinoza said.
The council also reached a general agreement that any ordinance aimed at limiting house sizes should focus on low-density residential zones, that it should not include affordable housing projects and should include an appeals process to address “unintended consequences.”
While they didn’t set a firm timeline for moving forward, most of the council agreed the issue should be resolved before the end of the year, although there was some concern about a lack of staff resources available to work on the project.
The city's Planning and Development Services division asked the council to answer some other basic questions, including whether it's worth spending between $80,000 to $100,000 to hire a consultant to study the issue further.
The council didn’t specifically address the issue, but gave an initial nod to using “consultants as needed.”
The first real move by the Boulder City Council on the topic of limiting large, "out-of-scale" houses could come at a May 6 meeting, when city planners will return after considering the council's Tuesday discussion.
Ruth McHeyser, acting planning director for the city, said she appreciates the council pausing from its first approach of pursuing a fast-track temporary ordinance.
"I think people are appreciating a little bit of our stepping back," she said.
One thing most of the council members agreed on with little debate was that moving forward with an interim ordinance to limit house sizes isn’t a good idea.
“One of the things we gained by stepping back was giving people some breathing space,” Ageton said. “I will not be supporting that kind of proposal.”
Defining house-size problem
Boulder leaders address what exactly amounts to 'loss of character'
By Heath Urie (Contact)Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Boulder's leaders Tuesday night began formally discussing a problem involving large houses replacing smaller ones in established neighborhoods.
But they struggled for hours to define exactly what the problem is — or if there is one.
Boulder City Council members have said some new and remodeled homes are affecting "neighborhood character."
The council began an initial conversation Tuesday about how to move forward limiting "pops and scrapes," or smaller homes that are demolished and replaced with homes many thousands of square feet in size.
A proposal to temporarily limit house sizes was put on hold last week following public outcry and a recommendation by the Planning Board not to move forward with it.
After an extended debate that stretched into the late night, City Councilman Macon Cowles helped piece together a definition of the problem that leaders want to address.
It defined the goal, in part, as fixing the "loss of character of established single-family neighborhoods by assuring that new construction and additions are compatible" with existing neighborhoods.
It also included directing city staffers to include "due consideration" of house size, open space, mass, loss of space between houses, views, lot coverage, blank walls, setbacks, height and the visual character of individual areas when considering how to move forward with an ordinance.
The council also asked staffers to consider the loss of mature trees, older homes and how the city's solar-access ordinance affects the shape of houses.
"I do think that we've got to get more precise about what the problem is," Councilwoman Suzy Ageton said. "We're not clear yet. We need to start defining what it is that makes people feel that what's next to them is a mega-mansion."
Councilwoman Angelique Espinoza said the group might need to change how it's handling the matter completely, but she agreed with Cowles' definition.
"I would prefer, myself, to change the approach altogether," she said.
Espinoza said she wants to convene another "brainstorming" session where council members can perform a "gut check" about whether to go on spending money and time examining the issue of large houses.
"Some of these things it is our business to regulate, and some of these things I think may not be," Espinoza said.
The council also reached a general agreement that any ordinance aimed at limiting house sizes should focus on low-density residential zones, that it should not include affordable housing projects and should include an appeals process to address “unintended consequences.”
While they didn’t set a firm timeline for moving forward, most of the council agreed the issue should be resolved before the end of the year, although there was some concern about a lack of staff resources available to work on the project.
The city's Planning and Development Services division asked the council to answer some other basic questions, including whether it's worth spending between $80,000 to $100,000 to hire a consultant to study the issue further.
The council didn’t specifically address the issue, but gave an initial nod to using “consultants as needed.”
The first real move by the Boulder City Council on the topic of limiting large, "out-of-scale" houses could come at a May 6 meeting, when city planners will return after considering the council's Tuesday discussion.
Ruth McHeyser, acting planning director for the city, said she appreciates the council pausing from its first approach of pursuing a fast-track temporary ordinance.
"I think people are appreciating a little bit of our stepping back," she said.
One thing most of the council members agreed on with little debate was that moving forward with an interim ordinance to limit house sizes isn’t a good idea.
“One of the things we gained by stepping back was giving people some breathing space,” Ageton said. “I will not be supporting that kind of proposal.”
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
ConocoPhillips will bolster local economy, green movement
ConocoPhillips will bolster local economy, green movement
By Shannon CoeSaturday, April 12, 2008
Who would have thought oil would seep its way into our green backyard? ConocoPhillips' purchase of the former StorageTek campus in Louisville is proving to be one of the more dramatic changes in our green community.
The Houston-based company will tear down most of the buildings on the 432-acre campus to build a global training center and global technology center, which will teach employees from more than 40 countries. The company made the $58.5 million purchase in January from Sun Microsystems, which is leasing the campus until the end of 2008 when development will begin for ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips is the powerhouse that will put Colorado in the lead for alternative renewable energy sources with the development of the new training campus that will have a high economic impact, especially in the Louisville community. It is a great addition to the area.
The company has a large portfolio of assets and is a well-established global company, with $194.5 billion in revenue in 2007. The original Conoco, Continental Oil Company, located its headquarters in Denver in the 1870s. ConocoPhillips has 600 employees currently in Colorado. It has a large gas line storage terminal in Commerce City, oil and gas production in Garfield County and a gas pipeline from Colorado to Texas. The number of permanent employees is not known, but the training facility will attract thousands of ConocoPhillips employees annually. The estimated number of permanent jobs is 10,000, which will create another 18,000; this will contribute $1.7 billion a year to the Louisville economy.
The development of the Louisville campus also will help aid Colorado's real estate sector. CB Richard Ellis, the potential developer, estimates construction on over 4.7 million square feet of building on the campus.
And ConocoPhillips is committed to contributing to renewable energy and carbon-fuel recovery. Its investment in renewable energy in 2007 was $150 million. ConocoPhillips is using this location for research and development for renewable energy. Fear-driven environmentalists are scared this will be a center for toxic waste. It will not only foster sharing of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, but it will certainly provide flexibility and alternatives for the ever-changing energy market.
ConocoPhillips' move also will establish Colorado as leading state for renewable energy. It will further legislation to require energy alternatives and support Colorado's $7 million dollar clean energy fund. Gov. Bill Ritter stated at a new conference announcing the deal, "They are building a bridge to the future by investing in new, cleaner technologies and in renewable energy."
Environmentalists, businesses, lawmakers and residents alike will be pleased with the changes big oil-tycoons, such as ConocoPhillips has made with their advanced efforts in the Green Movement. Check it out greenies, oil is in the cause!
Shannon Coe is from Boulder
By Shannon CoeSaturday, April 12, 2008
Who would have thought oil would seep its way into our green backyard? ConocoPhillips' purchase of the former StorageTek campus in Louisville is proving to be one of the more dramatic changes in our green community.
The Houston-based company will tear down most of the buildings on the 432-acre campus to build a global training center and global technology center, which will teach employees from more than 40 countries. The company made the $58.5 million purchase in January from Sun Microsystems, which is leasing the campus until the end of 2008 when development will begin for ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips is the powerhouse that will put Colorado in the lead for alternative renewable energy sources with the development of the new training campus that will have a high economic impact, especially in the Louisville community. It is a great addition to the area.
The company has a large portfolio of assets and is a well-established global company, with $194.5 billion in revenue in 2007. The original Conoco, Continental Oil Company, located its headquarters in Denver in the 1870s. ConocoPhillips has 600 employees currently in Colorado. It has a large gas line storage terminal in Commerce City, oil and gas production in Garfield County and a gas pipeline from Colorado to Texas. The number of permanent employees is not known, but the training facility will attract thousands of ConocoPhillips employees annually. The estimated number of permanent jobs is 10,000, which will create another 18,000; this will contribute $1.7 billion a year to the Louisville economy.
The development of the Louisville campus also will help aid Colorado's real estate sector. CB Richard Ellis, the potential developer, estimates construction on over 4.7 million square feet of building on the campus.
And ConocoPhillips is committed to contributing to renewable energy and carbon-fuel recovery. Its investment in renewable energy in 2007 was $150 million. ConocoPhillips is using this location for research and development for renewable energy. Fear-driven environmentalists are scared this will be a center for toxic waste. It will not only foster sharing of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, but it will certainly provide flexibility and alternatives for the ever-changing energy market.
ConocoPhillips' move also will establish Colorado as leading state for renewable energy. It will further legislation to require energy alternatives and support Colorado's $7 million dollar clean energy fund. Gov. Bill Ritter stated at a new conference announcing the deal, "They are building a bridge to the future by investing in new, cleaner technologies and in renewable energy."
Environmentalists, businesses, lawmakers and residents alike will be pleased with the changes big oil-tycoons, such as ConocoPhillips has made with their advanced efforts in the Green Movement. Check it out greenies, oil is in the cause!
Shannon Coe is from Boulder
Public Input on Judge Klein Due
Public input sought on judge in 'land grab'
Hearing for judges up for retention set for Thursday
Camera staffOriginally published 07:56 a.m., April 16, 2008Updated 07:56 a.m., April 16, 2008
The Colorado Judicial Commission will hold a public hearing from 5 to 6:30 p.m. Thursday seeking input on six judges in the 20th Judicial District up for retention this fall.
The judges who will be on the November ballot include District Judge James Klein, who has drawn intense criticism for his decision to award one-third of a south Boulder couple's vacant lot to their neighbors.
Also up for retention are district judges Roxanne Bailin, Maria Berkenkotter and Gwyn Whalen, and county court judges John Stavely and Thomas Reed.
The hearing will be held in Courtroom F of the Boulder County Justice Center at Sixth Street and Canyon Boulevard in Boulder.
The commission will accept public input, either written or in person, from anyone who has had matters before those judges since Jan. 1, 2007.
Since 1990, judges in Colorado must have their names appear on the ballot every four or six years. Voters can choose to either keep the judges on the bench or kick them off.
The Colorado Judicial Commission issues recommendations in the "blue books" that are distributed to voters every election.
Letters also may be sent to William Eckert, 20th Judicial District Judicial Performance Commission, 5431 Omaha Place, Boulder, CO 80303.
Letters must include the name and address of the person submitting the comments, and the judge will receive an anonymous copy of the letter.
Hearing for judges up for retention set for Thursday
Camera staffOriginally published 07:56 a.m., April 16, 2008Updated 07:56 a.m., April 16, 2008
The Colorado Judicial Commission will hold a public hearing from 5 to 6:30 p.m. Thursday seeking input on six judges in the 20th Judicial District up for retention this fall.
The judges who will be on the November ballot include District Judge James Klein, who has drawn intense criticism for his decision to award one-third of a south Boulder couple's vacant lot to their neighbors.
Also up for retention are district judges Roxanne Bailin, Maria Berkenkotter and Gwyn Whalen, and county court judges John Stavely and Thomas Reed.
The hearing will be held in Courtroom F of the Boulder County Justice Center at Sixth Street and Canyon Boulevard in Boulder.
The commission will accept public input, either written or in person, from anyone who has had matters before those judges since Jan. 1, 2007.
Since 1990, judges in Colorado must have their names appear on the ballot every four or six years. Voters can choose to either keep the judges on the bench or kick them off.
The Colorado Judicial Commission issues recommendations in the "blue books" that are distributed to voters every election.
Letters also may be sent to William Eckert, 20th Judicial District Judicial Performance Commission, 5431 Omaha Place, Boulder, CO 80303.
Letters must include the name and address of the person submitting the comments, and the judge will receive an anonymous copy of the letter.
McLean, Stevens deny path was recently fabricated
Judge nears 'land grab' rehearing
By Heath Urie (Contact)Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Courtesy Don and Susie Kirlin
This photo taken one day after Richard McLean and Edith Stevens filed a lawsuit seeking a portion of the Kirlins' lot in October 2006 shows no visible path on the lot, according to the Kirlins.
Courtesy Don and Susie Kirlin
This photo, taken by Don Kirlin in November 2007, shows a section of an 80-foot walkway that cuts across the Kirlin property on Hardscrabble Drive in south Boulder. The path arches around three pine trees and back toward the street down a small hill.
A Boulder County District Court judge charged with revisiting a controversial land dispute should not consider "outrageous" claims that Richard McLean and Edith Stevens lied to win their case, according to the couple's attorney.
In court documents submitted Tuesday, Boulder attorney Kim Hult responded pointedly to accusations made by Don and Susie Kirlin that their neighbors fabricated a path across their Hardscrabble Drive vacant lot.
The thin dirt trail, which has come to be known as "Edie's Path," was a critical piece of evidence that in part led Judge James C. Klein last fall to award about a third of one of the Kirlins' lots to McLean and Stevens under the longtime legal concept of "adverse possession."
The path, McLean and Stevens successfully argued at trial, represented more than the 18 years ofcontinuous use required by state law in order to assert the squatter's-rights law.
However, the Colorado Court of Appeals earlier this month granted a request by the Kirlins to send the case back to Klein based on "new evidence" that, they say, indicates the path was faked.
The Kirlins are asking Klein to overturn his trial court decision based on aerial and ground photographs of the disputed property and sworn affidavits of neighbors who say the path was a recent creation -- not the result of longtime use.
Hult's response to the Kirlins' package of evidence included an argument that Klein is under no obligation to find in favor of the Kirlins because they knew about, but failed to use, certain evidence in the original trial.
"In the apparent hope that the negative publicity garnered about the court's judgment will produce a new result on remand, Kirlin seeks to retry this case with long-available evidence to support arguments he made at trial," Hult wrote.
She said the Kirlins' evidence does not point to misconduct on the part of her clients.
"(The Kirlins') 'new' evidence proves little, other than that his witness cannot agree about when Edie's Path was allegedly 'fabricated,'" she wrote. "(They) further misunderstand the significance of the path, which was evidence of but one of McLean's many uses of the disputed property proved at trial."
She argued that the path, by itself, did not win the trial for McLean and Stevens.
"Kirlin, therefore, fails to prove -- by clear and convincing evidence -- that the alleged 'fabrication' of the path would have altered the outcome at trial had he chosen to introduce his 'new' evidence then," Hult wrote.
Hult's filing also includes more than 10 sworn affidavits in support of McLean and Stevens -- including two signed by McLean and Stevens themselves.
"My wife, Edie Stevens, and I have not taken any action to alter the condition of Edie's Path or to 'fabricate' that path after the filing of this case," McLean wrote.
Other witnesses include several former law clerks for McLean -- a former Boulder district judge -- who wrote that they recalled attending parties at the couple's home in which a nearby path was used.
On Tuesday, McLean said the paperwork "says it all" and declined to talk about the pending case.
Susie Kirlin said she hadn't seen the response Tuesday night and didn't want to comment except to say she feels she and her husband have a "strong case."
Both of the attorneys involved in the case said it would be inappropriate to comment.
Andy Low, the Kirlins' attorney, has until April 24 to file a response to Hult's brief.
Klein has been urged by the Colorado Court of Appeals to act quickly to resolve the Kirlins' request. The judge has the option to hold a limited hearing with each side, a full hearing complete with witnesses or to make a decision about the case after reviewing the written arguments.
The Kirlins have said they plan to continue the appeals process if Klein rules against them again.
Judge nears 'land grab' rehearing
By Heath Urie (Contact)Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Courtesy Don and Susie Kirlin
This photo taken one day after Richard McLean and Edith Stevens filed a lawsuit seeking a portion of the Kirlins' lot in October 2006 shows no visible path on the lot, according to the Kirlins.
Courtesy Don and Susie Kirlin
This photo, taken by Don Kirlin in November 2007, shows a section of an 80-foot walkway that cuts across the Kirlin property on Hardscrabble Drive in south Boulder. The path arches around three pine trees and back toward the street down a small hill.
A Boulder County District Court judge charged with revisiting a controversial land dispute should not consider "outrageous" claims that Richard McLean and Edith Stevens lied to win their case, according to the couple's attorney.
In court documents submitted Tuesday, Boulder attorney Kim Hult responded pointedly to accusations made by Don and Susie Kirlin that their neighbors fabricated a path across their Hardscrabble Drive vacant lot.
The thin dirt trail, which has come to be known as "Edie's Path," was a critical piece of evidence that in part led Judge James C. Klein last fall to award about a third of one of the Kirlins' lots to McLean and Stevens under the longtime legal concept of "adverse possession."
The path, McLean and Stevens successfully argued at trial, represented more than the 18 years ofcontinuous use required by state law in order to assert the squatter's-rights law.
However, the Colorado Court of Appeals earlier this month granted a request by the Kirlins to send the case back to Klein based on "new evidence" that, they say, indicates the path was faked.
The Kirlins are asking Klein to overturn his trial court decision based on aerial and ground photographs of the disputed property and sworn affidavits of neighbors who say the path was a recent creation -- not the result of longtime use.
Hult's response to the Kirlins' package of evidence included an argument that Klein is under no obligation to find in favor of the Kirlins because they knew about, but failed to use, certain evidence in the original trial.
"In the apparent hope that the negative publicity garnered about the court's judgment will produce a new result on remand, Kirlin seeks to retry this case with long-available evidence to support arguments he made at trial," Hult wrote.
She said the Kirlins' evidence does not point to misconduct on the part of her clients.
"(The Kirlins') 'new' evidence proves little, other than that his witness cannot agree about when Edie's Path was allegedly 'fabricated,'" she wrote. "(They) further misunderstand the significance of the path, which was evidence of but one of McLean's many uses of the disputed property proved at trial."
She argued that the path, by itself, did not win the trial for McLean and Stevens.
"Kirlin, therefore, fails to prove -- by clear and convincing evidence -- that the alleged 'fabrication' of the path would have altered the outcome at trial had he chosen to introduce his 'new' evidence then," Hult wrote.
Hult's filing also includes more than 10 sworn affidavits in support of McLean and Stevens -- including two signed by McLean and Stevens themselves.
"My wife, Edie Stevens, and I have not taken any action to alter the condition of Edie's Path or to 'fabricate' that path after the filing of this case," McLean wrote.
Other witnesses include several former law clerks for McLean -- a former Boulder district judge -- who wrote that they recalled attending parties at the couple's home in which a nearby path was used.
On Tuesday, McLean said the paperwork "says it all" and declined to talk about the pending case.
Susie Kirlin said she hadn't seen the response Tuesday night and didn't want to comment except to say she feels she and her husband have a "strong case."
Both of the attorneys involved in the case said it would be inappropriate to comment.
Andy Low, the Kirlins' attorney, has until April 24 to file a response to Hult's brief.
Klein has been urged by the Colorado Court of Appeals to act quickly to resolve the Kirlins' request. The judge has the option to hold a limited hearing with each side, a full hearing complete with witnesses or to make a decision about the case after reviewing the written arguments.
The Kirlins have said they plan to continue the appeals process if Klein rules against them again.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Top 10 Best Cities for Home Sellers and Buyers
Daily Real Estate News April 10, 2008
Top 10 Best Cities for Home Sellers Four factors are widely seen as affecting whether a housing market is a good one for sellers: job growth, amount of new construction, vacancy rates, and credit availability. Forbes magazine used a variety of resources to determine how the country’s 40 largest metro areas fared according to these measures. The result is this list of top 10 cities for sellers.
San Jose, Calif. Because of a tough regulatory environment, new home construction dropped 63 percent last year.San Francisco. When the conforming loan limit recently jumped from $417,000 to the maximum $729,750, that made credit much easier to get for many of the city's homebuyers.
Salt Lake City. The 3 percent annual job growth rate, paired with a declining inventory of existing homes and one of the nation’s sharpest declines in construction made this market a good one for sellers.
Austin, Texas . Texas is very affordable, plus the city has the nation’s fastest job growth at 4.1 percent.
Kansas City, Mo. The number of unsold, vacant houses dropped by 40 percent last year.
San Antonio, Texas . Jobs are growing by 3 percent and construction starts have dropped by 42 percent.
Denver. The 49 percent drop in construction starts paired with the 2 percent rise in new jobs are good news for sellers.
Providence, R.I. Vacancy rates at 1.6 percent combined with a 42 percent cut in inventory help sellers.
Charlotte, N.C. Moderate prices and strong job growth bode well for sellers.Seattle, Wash. Strong job growth and a 42 percent decrease in new home construction are good news for sellers.
Source: Forbes, Matt Woolsey (04/07/2008)
Top 10 Best Cities for Home Sellers Four factors are widely seen as affecting whether a housing market is a good one for sellers: job growth, amount of new construction, vacancy rates, and credit availability. Forbes magazine used a variety of resources to determine how the country’s 40 largest metro areas fared according to these measures. The result is this list of top 10 cities for sellers.
San Jose, Calif. Because of a tough regulatory environment, new home construction dropped 63 percent last year.San Francisco. When the conforming loan limit recently jumped from $417,000 to the maximum $729,750, that made credit much easier to get for many of the city's homebuyers.
Salt Lake City. The 3 percent annual job growth rate, paired with a declining inventory of existing homes and one of the nation’s sharpest declines in construction made this market a good one for sellers.
Austin, Texas . Texas is very affordable, plus the city has the nation’s fastest job growth at 4.1 percent.
Kansas City, Mo. The number of unsold, vacant houses dropped by 40 percent last year.
San Antonio, Texas . Jobs are growing by 3 percent and construction starts have dropped by 42 percent.
Denver. The 49 percent drop in construction starts paired with the 2 percent rise in new jobs are good news for sellers.
Providence, R.I. Vacancy rates at 1.6 percent combined with a 42 percent cut in inventory help sellers.
Charlotte, N.C. Moderate prices and strong job growth bode well for sellers.Seattle, Wash. Strong job growth and a 42 percent decrease in new home construction are good news for sellers.
Source: Forbes, Matt Woolsey (04/07/2008)
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Govenor Ritter To Receive Adverse Possession Bill
Ritter receives 'adverse-possession' bill for approval
By Heath Urie Originally published 03:40 p.m., April 3, 2008Updated 03:23 p.m., April 3, 2008
STORY TOOLS
A bill that would change the longtime legal concept of “adverse possession” gained final approval from the Colorado General Assembly today and is on its way to Gov. Ritter’s desk.
Evergreen Republican Rep. Rob Witwer and Boulder Democrat Sen. Ron Tupa are co-sponsoring House Bill 1148, which the pair crafted in the wake of a controversial Boulder land dispute.
McLean and Stevens sued neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin in 2006, using the long-standing doctrine — essentially a squatters’ rights law — to claim the land next door.
Ritter has 30 days to either approve or veto the bill, which has garnered overwhelming support among state lawmakers.
If he approves it, a “good faith” provision and other requirements would be added to the law of adverse possession, which now allows trespassers to claim land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
Witwer said the bill is a victory for property owners.
“It’s a great day for private-property rights,” he said. “I only wish we could have done it sooner.”
Tupa has said the bill will likely become “one of the strongest adverse-possession laws in the country.”
House Bill 1193, introduced by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, also is awaiting Ritter’s final approval.
If Ritter signs that bill, Colorado judges would be barred from presiding over cases involving other current or former judges within the same jurisdiction.
Levy said she sponsored the bill in reaction to the Kirlin case.
© 2006 Daily Camera and Boulder Publishing, LLC
By Heath Urie Originally published 03:40 p.m., April 3, 2008Updated 03:23 p.m., April 3, 2008
STORY TOOLS
A bill that would change the longtime legal concept of “adverse possession” gained final approval from the Colorado General Assembly today and is on its way to Gov. Ritter’s desk.
Evergreen Republican Rep. Rob Witwer and Boulder Democrat Sen. Ron Tupa are co-sponsoring House Bill 1148, which the pair crafted in the wake of a controversial Boulder land dispute.
McLean and Stevens sued neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin in 2006, using the long-standing doctrine — essentially a squatters’ rights law — to claim the land next door.
Ritter has 30 days to either approve or veto the bill, which has garnered overwhelming support among state lawmakers.
If he approves it, a “good faith” provision and other requirements would be added to the law of adverse possession, which now allows trespassers to claim land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
Witwer said the bill is a victory for property owners.
“It’s a great day for private-property rights,” he said. “I only wish we could have done it sooner.”
Tupa has said the bill will likely become “one of the strongest adverse-possession laws in the country.”
House Bill 1193, introduced by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, also is awaiting Ritter’s final approval.
If Ritter signs that bill, Colorado judges would be barred from presiding over cases involving other current or former judges within the same jurisdiction.
Levy said she sponsored the bill in reaction to the Kirlin case.
© 2006 Daily Camera and Boulder Publishing, LLC
Boulder City Council agrees to hold off on home-size regulations
Boulder City Council agrees to hold off on home-size regulations
Wilson: 'I think we need to step back'
By Heath Urie Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Public outcry and a recommendation by the Boulder Planning Board not to move forward with a temporary ordinance limiting house sizes prompted the City Council to put the issue on hold late Tuesday night.
In a surprise move after 10 p.m., the council voted unanimously not to hear a first reading of an interim ordinance on the matter, which had been scheduled for its April 15 meeting.
Instead, the council will hold a discussion at next week's public meeting about the possible options for crafting such an ordinance. It will not consider any formal plan.
Mayor Shaun McGrath proposed holding off on the matter at the end of a special meeting in which the council appointed Jerry Gordon as city attorney.
McGrath said he's simply heard too many negative responses about the ordinance, which the entire council previously indicated would be a positive step toward eliminating "pops and scrapes," or huge homes built on the lots of demolished smaller ones.
"It's my belief that, given the input we received from the Planning Board, the direction we gave focused on (floor-area ratios) ... may not really work in a lot of ways," McGrath said.
The Planning Board last week agreed that using a proposed "floor-area ratio" calculation -- or the percentage of a lot covered in finished square footage of a house on all levels -- to tell people how big a house can be is a "blunt tool" that does not achieve the council's goals of controlling the largest homes and preserving neighborhood character.
Many of the board members said they were concerned the City Council would act to draft a short-term ordinance regardless of the board's recommendation.
Opponents of the measure also say it would violate personal property rights and could harm the local economy.
On Tuesday, Councilman Ken Wilson supported McGrath's call for a slowdown in the face of mounting opposition to the plan.
"I think we need to step back and think about the process," he said.
Wilson said, based on the sliding national economy and tightening credit market, an increase in so-called speculation homes in Boulder isn't likely to be an immediate concern.
Councilwoman Susan Osborne said she's received more than 1,100 e-mails about the proposed ordinance and that the community is feeling disengaged from the process in general.
"We need to take the time to think about how we have that discussion," Osborne said. "I think the bigger shame would be having a large sector of our community feeling like we didn't listen ... that we didn't get it that their values and issues weren't being addressed.
"I think it makes a lot of sense to take some time with our staff to figure out how we go forward."
The matter will be placed on the council's April 15 agenda under the title, "discussion of options to address remodels and demolition rebuilds that greatly impact established neighborhoods."
The public will be allowed to speak for 45 minutes during public participation time.
© 2006 Daily Camera and Boulder Publishing, LLC.
Wilson: 'I think we need to step back'
By Heath Urie Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Public outcry and a recommendation by the Boulder Planning Board not to move forward with a temporary ordinance limiting house sizes prompted the City Council to put the issue on hold late Tuesday night.
In a surprise move after 10 p.m., the council voted unanimously not to hear a first reading of an interim ordinance on the matter, which had been scheduled for its April 15 meeting.
Instead, the council will hold a discussion at next week's public meeting about the possible options for crafting such an ordinance. It will not consider any formal plan.
Mayor Shaun McGrath proposed holding off on the matter at the end of a special meeting in which the council appointed Jerry Gordon as city attorney.
McGrath said he's simply heard too many negative responses about the ordinance, which the entire council previously indicated would be a positive step toward eliminating "pops and scrapes," or huge homes built on the lots of demolished smaller ones.
"It's my belief that, given the input we received from the Planning Board, the direction we gave focused on (floor-area ratios) ... may not really work in a lot of ways," McGrath said.
The Planning Board last week agreed that using a proposed "floor-area ratio" calculation -- or the percentage of a lot covered in finished square footage of a house on all levels -- to tell people how big a house can be is a "blunt tool" that does not achieve the council's goals of controlling the largest homes and preserving neighborhood character.
Many of the board members said they were concerned the City Council would act to draft a short-term ordinance regardless of the board's recommendation.
Opponents of the measure also say it would violate personal property rights and could harm the local economy.
On Tuesday, Councilman Ken Wilson supported McGrath's call for a slowdown in the face of mounting opposition to the plan.
"I think we need to step back and think about the process," he said.
Wilson said, based on the sliding national economy and tightening credit market, an increase in so-called speculation homes in Boulder isn't likely to be an immediate concern.
Councilwoman Susan Osborne said she's received more than 1,100 e-mails about the proposed ordinance and that the community is feeling disengaged from the process in general.
"We need to take the time to think about how we have that discussion," Osborne said. "I think the bigger shame would be having a large sector of our community feeling like we didn't listen ... that we didn't get it that their values and issues weren't being addressed.
"I think it makes a lot of sense to take some time with our staff to figure out how we go forward."
The matter will be placed on the council's April 15 agenda under the title, "discussion of options to address remodels and demolition rebuilds that greatly impact established neighborhoods."
The public will be allowed to speak for 45 minutes during public participation time.
© 2006 Daily Camera and Boulder Publishing, LLC.
Commissioners OK green-building code
Commissioners OK green-building codeOfficials delay acting on county house-size limits
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
BOULDER — Starting with building permits issued on or after May 1, any new houses constructed in unincorporated Boulder County will have to conform to “green” standards.
On Tuesday night, County Commissioners Ben Pearlman, Cindy Domenico and Will Toor approved requiring energy efficiency and waste reduction in new-home design and construction by adding “Boulder County BuildSmart” standards to Boulder County’s building code.
The new code provisions will apply to all work on new residential construction requiring a county building permit, including new houses, renovation and remodeling projects, and additions to existing homes.
Boulder County’s green-building requirements will escalate with the size of the residential construction project, with stiffer standards applied to larger houses in an effort to reduce both energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions.
County commissioners on Tuesday did not, however, complete work on a separate program that could affect the sizes of future houses built in rural Boulder County.
That program proposes to set square-footage thresholds on new homes constructed in unincorporated areas. It would also require applicants to buy development rights before the county would allow them to proceed with construction of houses larger than those thresholds.
Commissioners did tentatively decide that 3,500 square feet of floor area should be the countywide house-size threshold that would trigger the development-rights purchase requirement.
Subterranean basements of any size would not count against that threshold, but walk-in basements would. Also not counting against the 3,500 square-foot total would be up to 1,000 square feet of garage space and storage areas.
Pearlman said that by not including those basements, garages and storage sheds in the square-footage tally, “we’re still talking about very large structures” that could be built without first having to buy development rights.
Commissioners are expected to resume their consideration of proposed Boulder County house-size restrictions, and conditions for exceeding those limits, on May 6.
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.
ts
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
BOULDER — Starting with building permits issued on or after May 1, any new houses constructed in unincorporated Boulder County will have to conform to “green” standards.
On Tuesday night, County Commissioners Ben Pearlman, Cindy Domenico and Will Toor approved requiring energy efficiency and waste reduction in new-home design and construction by adding “Boulder County BuildSmart” standards to Boulder County’s building code.
The new code provisions will apply to all work on new residential construction requiring a county building permit, including new houses, renovation and remodeling projects, and additions to existing homes.
Boulder County’s green-building requirements will escalate with the size of the residential construction project, with stiffer standards applied to larger houses in an effort to reduce both energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions.
County commissioners on Tuesday did not, however, complete work on a separate program that could affect the sizes of future houses built in rural Boulder County.
That program proposes to set square-footage thresholds on new homes constructed in unincorporated areas. It would also require applicants to buy development rights before the county would allow them to proceed with construction of houses larger than those thresholds.
Commissioners did tentatively decide that 3,500 square feet of floor area should be the countywide house-size threshold that would trigger the development-rights purchase requirement.
Subterranean basements of any size would not count against that threshold, but walk-in basements would. Also not counting against the 3,500 square-foot total would be up to 1,000 square feet of garage space and storage areas.
Pearlman said that by not including those basements, garages and storage sheds in the square-footage tally, “we’re still talking about very large structures” that could be built without first having to buy development rights.
Commissioners are expected to resume their consideration of proposed Boulder County house-size restrictions, and conditions for exceeding those limits, on May 6.
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.
ts
Austin vs Boulder FAR Home Size Limits
It is my opinion that we will need to wait a few more years for the negative fall out. The little old lady has been effected but we still have to wait for the data to come in and for those looking at this issue to ask the right questions.
The data will show that the suburban areas will appreciate now at a much higher rate than the urban area. Car traffic will incease, the area will have gentrification as families move out of town....this is all short sighted. I believe whole heartedly in incentives...if this is what the town and people want...then the people need to create a "green" fund just as we have our open space fund to create programs to buy valuable lots, provide access to "green" technology and items, etc. Over regulating is never the solution.
Just my opinion. I am a democrat and I believe in protecting our environment but being the first in the door and closing it off to those others is wrong and also some of our beautiful Boulder Historic Treasures (mapleton hill homes for example) could not be built today with the regulations that we have already... Our Council is also being hypocritical by living in "mcmansions" by current views! I also find that a lot of people that want this have small to families of one...With the way our laws are today parents need to keep a watchful eye on their kids inside of our house for fear of someone complaining that we are not watchful enough or the kids getting hurt on some swing or tree and we are not around...I remember in my youth I would be outside and gone for hours without my parents knowing where I was, etc. It was freeing and creative! I rode horses, went for hikes, road bikes, knocked on my friends doors, played golf, road skates and skate boards, ran...! A very good experience for me. We are doing more and more out of our homes...working, playing, entertaining...
A paradigm shift needs to happen in Boulder. It seems that right now it is my view, my home and it includes my abililty to access this view through your home, your view... People should go back to the days of buying lots together to save it...or once again through a "green" fund created through taxes. The burden should not always be placed on the individual property owners or "developers" as some would like to say.
Austin city limits: A home-size example
Texas city imposed restrictions in 2006; observers split on outcome
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)Sunday, April 6, 2008
Regulations here and there
The measure limiting home sizes that the city of Austin imposed in 2006 is similar to proposals Boulder's elected leaders are considering. Both target "floor-area ratio" -- that is, the percentage of a homeowner's lot that's covered by square footage, including garages and outbuildings.
Austin's ordinance limits floor-area ratios to 0.4 and also restricts building to an "envelope" meant to protect nearby houses from being crowded. The measure guarantees homeowners on smaller lots that they'll be able to build a house of at least 2,300 square feet.
Boulder's officials have aired several possible floor-area ratio restrictions. Last month, City Councilman Macon Cowles suggested a temporary limit of 0.35 while officials debated a permanent measure. But he and other council members have since backed away from that number.
As Boulder's elected leaders consider whether to impose limits on large houses, they can look 1,000 miles to the south for a how-to guide.
The City Council of Austin, Texas, in 2006 passed an ordinance to limit the size of new houses after residents complained that "McMansions" were threatening the character of the city's older, "core" neighborhoods. Two years later, the ordinance gets mixed reviews.
Proponents say it's working well, while critics in real estate say it's needlessly complicated and threatens home prices.
The Austin ordinance limits "floor-area ratios" of new homes -- that is, the percentage of the lot that's covered by square footage -- to 0.4, but it gives the owners of small lots a minimum of 2,300 square feet to work with. The measure also requires new building to fit within an "envelope" meant to keep new construction from crowding its neighbors.
As in Austin, Boulder's officials are considering placing limits on floor-area ratios, although critics -- including some Planning Board members -- say those limits are too crude.
Danette Chimenti, an Austin resident who served on a task force that delivered the ordinance to the City Council, said she's happy with what it produced. The measure was a compromise, she said, so it wasn't as restrictive as some "McMansion" critics would have liked.
"I think the general feeling, and my personal opinion, is that it has helped some," Chimenti said. "It hasn't been a cure-all. It hasn't totally stopped some of the out-of-scale development that was happening in neighborhoods."
But Chimenti said the ordinance also is notable for what it hasn't done: destroy Austin's housing market, as critics feared. Homeowners, real estate agents and builders in Boulder have voiced similar concerns."In Austin, the real estate market is still pretty strong," Chimenti said. "No little old ladies lost their nest eggs, and all the dire stuff. There have been no negative consequences in that realm."
Building activity actually increased in 2007 and into this year, although it has since slowed slightly. But Harry Savio, vice president of the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin, said it's hard to tell what would have happened without the ordinance.
Savio's organization unsuccessfully tried to keep the measure from passing. He said he's been flooded with complaints from builders about it.
"There's been some decline in the demand for this kind of housing, but it's hard to distinguish between how much of that is caused by the ordinance and how much has been because of national declines in housing," Savio said.
The real problem with the ordinance, Savio said, is that it's complicated and "draconian." And its impact may not be felt for years, as the real estate market picks up and consumer demand for larger houses returns, he said.
"You can't tell by looking at Austin today -- it's going to be five, 10 years from now for us to see results," he said. "My forecast is that instead of coming back in and going into the core of the city, it's just going to strengthen the suburban high-end subdivisions," which don't put caps on home sizes.
Savio said he couldn't defeat the ordinance, but he did encourage builders and homeowners to rush their building plans down to the city's planning department before the City Council imposed any limits.
"When we knew the ordinance was coming down the pike, we got the word out to our members and encouraged anyone who had a plan on the boards to get it finished up quickly and get it to the city," he said. "I told people, 'If you have anything at all, hard-line it and get it in.'"
So far, that rush hasn't happened in Boulder: The city's planning department said the number of permits requested so far this year trails those issued last year.
Karen McGraw, an architect who helped draft the Austin ordinance, said it's flexible enough to give people the space they need. For example, the square footage of many basements and attics doesn't count toward limits.
The ordinance's goal -- which McGraw thinks has succeeded -- is to keep new homes from towering their neighbors.
"We are a city of many one-story homes and many modest homes, so the relationship to existing development is really the most important thing," she said.
The data will show that the suburban areas will appreciate now at a much higher rate than the urban area. Car traffic will incease, the area will have gentrification as families move out of town....this is all short sighted. I believe whole heartedly in incentives...if this is what the town and people want...then the people need to create a "green" fund just as we have our open space fund to create programs to buy valuable lots, provide access to "green" technology and items, etc. Over regulating is never the solution.
Just my opinion. I am a democrat and I believe in protecting our environment but being the first in the door and closing it off to those others is wrong and also some of our beautiful Boulder Historic Treasures (mapleton hill homes for example) could not be built today with the regulations that we have already... Our Council is also being hypocritical by living in "mcmansions" by current views! I also find that a lot of people that want this have small to families of one...With the way our laws are today parents need to keep a watchful eye on their kids inside of our house for fear of someone complaining that we are not watchful enough or the kids getting hurt on some swing or tree and we are not around...I remember in my youth I would be outside and gone for hours without my parents knowing where I was, etc. It was freeing and creative! I rode horses, went for hikes, road bikes, knocked on my friends doors, played golf, road skates and skate boards, ran...! A very good experience for me. We are doing more and more out of our homes...working, playing, entertaining...
A paradigm shift needs to happen in Boulder. It seems that right now it is my view, my home and it includes my abililty to access this view through your home, your view... People should go back to the days of buying lots together to save it...or once again through a "green" fund created through taxes. The burden should not always be placed on the individual property owners or "developers" as some would like to say.
Austin city limits: A home-size example
Texas city imposed restrictions in 2006; observers split on outcome
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)Sunday, April 6, 2008
Regulations here and there
The measure limiting home sizes that the city of Austin imposed in 2006 is similar to proposals Boulder's elected leaders are considering. Both target "floor-area ratio" -- that is, the percentage of a homeowner's lot that's covered by square footage, including garages and outbuildings.
Austin's ordinance limits floor-area ratios to 0.4 and also restricts building to an "envelope" meant to protect nearby houses from being crowded. The measure guarantees homeowners on smaller lots that they'll be able to build a house of at least 2,300 square feet.
Boulder's officials have aired several possible floor-area ratio restrictions. Last month, City Councilman Macon Cowles suggested a temporary limit of 0.35 while officials debated a permanent measure. But he and other council members have since backed away from that number.
As Boulder's elected leaders consider whether to impose limits on large houses, they can look 1,000 miles to the south for a how-to guide.
The City Council of Austin, Texas, in 2006 passed an ordinance to limit the size of new houses after residents complained that "McMansions" were threatening the character of the city's older, "core" neighborhoods. Two years later, the ordinance gets mixed reviews.
Proponents say it's working well, while critics in real estate say it's needlessly complicated and threatens home prices.
The Austin ordinance limits "floor-area ratios" of new homes -- that is, the percentage of the lot that's covered by square footage -- to 0.4, but it gives the owners of small lots a minimum of 2,300 square feet to work with. The measure also requires new building to fit within an "envelope" meant to keep new construction from crowding its neighbors.
As in Austin, Boulder's officials are considering placing limits on floor-area ratios, although critics -- including some Planning Board members -- say those limits are too crude.
Danette Chimenti, an Austin resident who served on a task force that delivered the ordinance to the City Council, said she's happy with what it produced. The measure was a compromise, she said, so it wasn't as restrictive as some "McMansion" critics would have liked.
"I think the general feeling, and my personal opinion, is that it has helped some," Chimenti said. "It hasn't been a cure-all. It hasn't totally stopped some of the out-of-scale development that was happening in neighborhoods."
But Chimenti said the ordinance also is notable for what it hasn't done: destroy Austin's housing market, as critics feared. Homeowners, real estate agents and builders in Boulder have voiced similar concerns."In Austin, the real estate market is still pretty strong," Chimenti said. "No little old ladies lost their nest eggs, and all the dire stuff. There have been no negative consequences in that realm."
Building activity actually increased in 2007 and into this year, although it has since slowed slightly. But Harry Savio, vice president of the Home Builders Association of Greater Austin, said it's hard to tell what would have happened without the ordinance.
Savio's organization unsuccessfully tried to keep the measure from passing. He said he's been flooded with complaints from builders about it.
"There's been some decline in the demand for this kind of housing, but it's hard to distinguish between how much of that is caused by the ordinance and how much has been because of national declines in housing," Savio said.
The real problem with the ordinance, Savio said, is that it's complicated and "draconian." And its impact may not be felt for years, as the real estate market picks up and consumer demand for larger houses returns, he said.
"You can't tell by looking at Austin today -- it's going to be five, 10 years from now for us to see results," he said. "My forecast is that instead of coming back in and going into the core of the city, it's just going to strengthen the suburban high-end subdivisions," which don't put caps on home sizes.
Savio said he couldn't defeat the ordinance, but he did encourage builders and homeowners to rush their building plans down to the city's planning department before the City Council imposed any limits.
"When we knew the ordinance was coming down the pike, we got the word out to our members and encouraged anyone who had a plan on the boards to get it finished up quickly and get it to the city," he said. "I told people, 'If you have anything at all, hard-line it and get it in.'"
So far, that rush hasn't happened in Boulder: The city's planning department said the number of permits requested so far this year trails those issued last year.
Karen McGraw, an architect who helped draft the Austin ordinance, said it's flexible enough to give people the space they need. For example, the square footage of many basements and attics doesn't count toward limits.
The ordinance's goal -- which McGraw thinks has succeeded -- is to keep new homes from towering their neighbors.
"We are a city of many one-story homes and many modest homes, so the relationship to existing development is really the most important thing," she said.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Property Rights is the Core to Individual Freedom
As one of the few moderate Democrats out there I really have struggled with the issue of rights in general. Whether it is my right as a woman to work outside of the home, my right to walk next to if not in front of my spouse, the right to voice my opionion as a woman and have it respected, the right to decide what happens to my body and to seek great health care...these rights are very treasured to me.... So this video clip helped me see even more of a relationship between private property and our individual freedoms. I hope it gives you pause to think about the relationship between all of our private property; whether it is real estate or not, and our individual freedoms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87-W7NO5E3E
Don't give your freedoms away or allow regulations to take your neighbors private property away. It will only serve to hurt your individual freedoms!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87-W7NO5E3E
Don't give your freedoms away or allow regulations to take your neighbors private property away. It will only serve to hurt your individual freedoms!
This is at least one less thing that private property owners have to worry about in Colorado but there is still some concern about when this law takes effect! (18 years ago from the start of the adverse possession or on this year being the first year for the start of adverse possession). Hopefully Governor Ritter will sign this!
Ritter receives 'adverse-possession' bill for approval
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:40 p.m., April 3, 2008Updated 03:23 p.m., April 3, 2008
STORY TOOLS
A bill that would change the longtime legal concept of “adverse possession” gained final approval from the Colorado General Assembly today and is on its way to Gov. Ritter’s desk.
Evergreen Republican Rep. Rob Witwer and Boulder Democrat Sen. Ron Tupa are co-sponsoring House Bill 1148, which the pair crafted in the wake of a controversial Boulder land dispute.
McLean and Stevens sued neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin in 2006, using the long-standing doctrine — essentially a squatters’ rights law — to claim the land next door.
Ritter has 30 days to either approve or veto the bill, which has garnered overwhelming support among state lawmakers.
If he approves it, a “good faith” provision and other requirements would be added to the law of adverse possession, which now allows trespassers to claim land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
Witwer said the bill is a victory for property owners.
“It’s a great day for private-property rights,” he said. “I only wish we could have done it sooner.”
Tupa has said the bill will likely become “one of the strongest adverse-possession laws in the country.”
House Bill 1193, introduced by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, also is awaiting Ritter’s final approval.
If Ritter signs that bill, Colorado judges would be barred from presiding over cases involving other current or former judges within the same jurisdiction.
Levy said she sponsored the bill in reaction to the Kirlin case.
Ritter receives 'adverse-possession' bill for approval
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:40 p.m., April 3, 2008Updated 03:23 p.m., April 3, 2008
STORY TOOLS
A bill that would change the longtime legal concept of “adverse possession” gained final approval from the Colorado General Assembly today and is on its way to Gov. Ritter’s desk.
Evergreen Republican Rep. Rob Witwer and Boulder Democrat Sen. Ron Tupa are co-sponsoring House Bill 1148, which the pair crafted in the wake of a controversial Boulder land dispute.
McLean and Stevens sued neighbors Don and Susie Kirlin in 2006, using the long-standing doctrine — essentially a squatters’ rights law — to claim the land next door.
Ritter has 30 days to either approve or veto the bill, which has garnered overwhelming support among state lawmakers.
If he approves it, a “good faith” provision and other requirements would be added to the law of adverse possession, which now allows trespassers to claim land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
Witwer said the bill is a victory for property owners.
“It’s a great day for private-property rights,” he said. “I only wish we could have done it sooner.”
Tupa has said the bill will likely become “one of the strongest adverse-possession laws in the country.”
House Bill 1193, introduced by Rep. Claire Levy, D-Boulder, also is awaiting Ritter’s final approval.
If Ritter signs that bill, Colorado judges would be barred from presiding over cases involving other current or former judges within the same jurisdiction.
Levy said she sponsored the bill in reaction to the Kirlin case.
Details and Drafts of Boulder County Expanded TDR Including Structure Size Threshold
2nd draft for April 8, 2008
4-1300 – Expanded TDR Program and Structure Size Thresholds for Single Family Uses
Introduction and Purposes
1. This Section 4-1300 establishes structure size thresholds for single family residences, above which additional Development Credits must be obtained to offset the impacts of larger scale homes, and below which Development or Credits can be sold to preserve a supply of smaller scale homes. These regulations also provide for the transfer of Development Credits to maintain rural character through the preservation of vacant land.
2. These regulations are adopted to implement the goals and policies in the Sustainability Element of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. Those goals and policies include:
a. Preserving the rural character of unincorporated Boulder County, especially those areas with particular historic or contextual character;
b. Promoting more sustainable development through incentives, education and regulation;
c. Allowing for the impacts of larger scale home development to be offset through the preservation of vacant land and smaller scale residential development elsewhere in the County;
d. Providing flexibility for property owners to build and keep smaller scale homes which will help provide a diversity of housing stock in unincorporated Boulder County; and
e. Promoting and preserving vacant land by creating incentives for property owners to leave land undeveloped.
4-1301 – Division of the County into Geographic Areas
For purposes of this article 4-1300, unincorporated Boulder County is divided into the following two geographic areas:
1. Mountain Area – The Mountain Area includes the mountainous areas of the County as defined in the Land Use Code Section 18-178A (the area west of CO 93 from its intersection with the south county line to the City of Boulder, west of the City of Boulder city limits, west of US 36 from the City of Boulder to CO 66, and west of the St. Vrain Supply Canal from CO 66 to its intersection with the north county line),
2. Plains Area – The Plains Area includes all areas of the County that are not included in the Mountain Area.
a.
4-1302 – Single Family Size Threshold
A. The Size Threshold is the measure of single family residential floor area that is allowed on a legal building lot without having to purchase Development Credits, as further provided below. Building lots with residential floor area at a specified level less than the Size Threshold may sell Development Credits, as further provided below.
1. Size Threshold to be applied county-wide
·
a. Total residential floor area equal to X,XXX square feet, excluding the following floor area:
i. subterranean basements as defined in Article 18,
ii. up to 500 square feet of attached or detached garage floor area,
iii. up to 500 square feet of detached unconditioned storage floor area, such as a storage shed, and
iv. up to 500 square feet of covered porches or decks.
b. This total floor area includes all other residential accessory structures including but not limited to studios and home offices.
·
B. Structures exempt from the Size Threshold are manufactured homes located in a zoned Manufactured Home Park; nonresidential structures including agricultural accessory structures such as barns and loafing sheds; and Agricultural, Family Care and Historic Accessory Dwelling Units that are approved though a special review process.
1.
a.
1.
4-1303 –Conveyance and Severance of Development Credits
A. Development Credits may be conveyed either in a private market transaction or through the County Clearinghouse (see Section 4-1305, below).
1. For Development Credits conveyed through private market transactions, the parties must obtain Development Credit Certificates from the County Clearinghouse in advance of conveyance.
a. Adequate documentation of private transactions, such as purchase agreements or bills of sale, must be submitted to the County Clearinghouse within five business days after the closing of the transaction, for registration purposes.
b. The County Clearinghouse may request information as necessary to provide adequate evidence of the private transaction.
2. Boulder County may sell or donate Development Credits to the County Clearinghouse from properties purchased by the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department under the rules and policies governing the operation of the Clearinghouse, contained in Section 4-1306, below, and the purchase of properties by the Parks and Open Space Department.
B. Conveyance of Development Credits from Vacant Building Lots
1. Development Credits may be conveyed from vacant building lots, and any future development potential removed from the subject parcel, based on the following :
a. In the Plains Area
i. The parcel must be a building lot.
ii. The building lot must have legal access.
iii. The property owner may offer to grant a conservation easement, or other preservation instrument, on the property to either the County or another land preservation entity approved by the County, keeping the property vacant in perpetuity. If such offer is accepted, the property owner retains fee title to the lot and will receive ten Development Credits, which may then be held by the property owner or sold to either the County Clearinghouse or on the private market.
iv. The property owner may offer to sell the lot in fee to either the County or another land preservation entity approved by the County. If such offer is accepted, the property owner will receive twelve Development Credits, which may then be held by the property owner or sold to either the County Clearinghouse or on the private market.
b. In the Mountain Area
i. The parcel must be a building lot.
ii. The building lot must have legal access.
iii. The property owner may offer to grant a conservation easement, or other preservation instrument, on the property to either the County or another land preservation entity approved by the County, keeping the property vacant in perpetuity. If such offer is accepted, the property owner retains fee title to the lot and will receive five Development Credits which may then be held by the property owner or sold to either the County Clearinghouse or on the private market.
iv. The property owner may offer to sell the lot in fee to either the County or another land preservation entity approved by the County. If such offer is accepted, the property owner will receive seven Development Credits, which may then be held by the property owner or sold to either the County Clearinghouse or on the private market.
(a) c.
C. Severance of Development Credits from Vacant or Developed Building Lots where development is to be restrictred
1. Development Credits may be severed from either vacant or developed building lots, and any future development restricted on the subject lot, based on the following:
a. The parcel must be a building lot.
b. The building lot must have legal access.
c. For Developed Building Lots, only detached single family residential floor area is eligible for these size restriction.
d. The property owner must restrict their property to the size, measured in square feet of residential floor area as calculated in Section 4-1302.A.1a., above, noted below and receive the designated Development Credits specified below:
i. Development restricted to 2,000 square feet of residential floor area and may receive two Development Credits.
ii. Development restricted to 1,500 square feet of residential floor area and may receive three Development Credits.
iii. Development restricted to 1,000 square feet of residential floor area and may receive four Development Credits.
2. The owners of eligible lots shall receive the authorized number of Development Credits upon the granting of a restrictive covenant or other county approved preservation instrument to assure that the restriction imposed on the size of future development will run with the property in perpetuity.
3. A developed lot, whose owner restricts the size of development on that property under this Section, may redevelop to the maximum size included in that deed restriction.
i.
D. Additional Development Credits may be awarded for either vacant or developed building lots from which Development Credits are conveyed, as a bonus for significant conservation values found to exist on such lots, subject to the provisions of this subsection. Vacant property purchased by the Boulder County Parks and Open Space is not eligible for Bonus Development Credits.
i. Bonus Development Credits may be awarded to a particular lot based on a site-specific assessment of the parcel by the County Parks and Open Space Department.
(a) The availability of Bonus Development Credits will be based on the number and extent of significant conservation values which the Parks and Open Space Department in its sole discretion finds associated with the specific building lot.
(b) Such review will be undertaken upon request of the building lot owner.
(c) The award of Bonus Development Credits is limited to a maximum of five Development Credits per building lot.
ii. Significant conservation values based on which the County Parks and Open Space Department may award Bonus Development Credits include:
(b) Preservation of Resources – The lot(s) contains natural, cultural or ecological resources as outlined in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan that will be preserved thorough a restriction on development on the lot, such as critical ecosystems (riparian habitat, natural areas or landmarks, scenic vistas or view corridors, wildlife habitat and migration corridors) historic or archaeological areas, or cultural resources.
(c) Urban Shaping – The lot(s) helps to create significant buffer zones between communities or between residential and nonresidential uses, including but not limited to rural preservation areas specified in County intergovernmental comprehensive planning agreements with municipalities.
(d) Other Open Space Benefits – The lot(s) offers linkages to trails or other open space properties, provides access to public lakes, streams or other usable open space properties, eliminates private property enclaves, or expands current pubic land holdings.
(e) Agricultural Water Rights – The lot(s) have agricultural water for irrigation tied to the land to be preserved in accordance with Parks and Open Space policy.
E. Limitations on the Use of Development Credits on Preserved Lots
1. Once a property owner has severed the Development Credits from a vacant lot under Section 4-1303.B, above, Development Credits may not be repurchased to allow development on that lot.
2. Once a property owner has severed Development Credits from a lot where development has been restricted under Section 4-1303.C.., above, the preservation instrument restricting development on that lot may be amended to allow the purchase and use of Development Credits to increase the floor area allowed on that lot up to a maximum of 2,000 square feet.
a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the allowed increase in floor area, the owner must execute and record an amended preservation instrument approved by the Clearinghouse to memorialize the new restricted floor area.
b. The property owner shall submit the required Development Credit Certificates along with building permit application for construction of the additional square footage.
4-1304 – Acquisition and Use of Development Credits for Construction of Residential Floor Area
A. Requirement for acquisition of Development Credits – For residential floor area approved through the Site Plan Review process or other applicable County review process, which exceeds the Size Threshold in Section 4-1302, above, Development Rights or Credits must be acquired prior to the issuance of a building permit for the approved development.
B. Development Credits must be obtained for development of floor area greater than the Size Thresholds according to the following table.
.
Number of square feet
Number of Credits
Total Additional Square Footage
Total Credits for Additional Square Footage
1st 500
1
500
1
2nd 500
1
1000
2
3rd 500
2
1500
4
4th 500
2
2000
6
5th 500
3
2500
9
Each additional 500
3
C. Process for the acquisition of Development Credits
1. In the case of either a private transaction or purchase from the Clearinghouse, the Clearinghouse shall issue the appropriate Development Credit certificates. Certificates may be acquired in a private transaction at any time, and applicants purchasing Credits prior to a site plan review approval do so at their own risk. Certificates may not be acquired from the Clearinghouse for development exceeding the applicable size threshold until the development has received final County Site Plan Review approval.
2. Any building permit application for a single family residential structure greater than the applicable Size Threshold shall not be considered complete without the submission of the necessary Development Credit certificates and completion of any required land use process.
C. Relationship between Size Thresholds Existing Single Family Residential Structures
1. Existing single family residential structures are not subject to the Size Thresholds; however, any addition of residential floor area to an existing structure which increases the total residential floor area to a size greater than the specified size threshold, will be subject to a requirement to purchase Development Credits to offset the portion of that additional residential floor area above the threshold.
2. The number of Development Credits required will be based on the additional square footage of the addition.
4-1305 – Boulder County Development Credits Clearinghouse
A. Short Title
1. The Boulder County Development Credits Clearinghouse (also referred to as the “Clearinghouse”) shall be established to assist in the administration of this Article 4-1300.
B. Duties and Responsibilities
1. Purchase and Sale of Development Credits – The Clearinghouse will have the ability to purchase Development Credits from willing sellers, and to sell Credits to willing buyers needing additional floor area for their single family residential development.
2. Registration of the Development Credits – The Clearinghouse will maintain a registration of the Development Credits available for purchase either through private market transactions or through the Clearinghouse, and of Development Credits that have been purchased and sold.
3. Issuance of Development Credit Certificates – The Clearinghouse shall be responsible for the issuance of Development Credit Certificates to be used in both private and Clearinghouse transactions to convey or acquire Development Credits.
4. Recordation – The Clearinghouse shall oversee the recordation of the necessary approved documents to assure that development size limitations and vacant land preservation encumbrances on specific lots associated with the transfer of Development Credits are maintained as required in this Article 4-1300.
4-1306 – Application of These Regulations
A. The following development shall be exempt from compliance with the Size Thresholds outlined in Section 4-1302:
1. The specific development recognized in any land use approval granted prior to the effective date of these regulations, which is within the statutory vesting period granted under Section 3-207 of the Land Use Code (codifying Part 1 of Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S.). The applicable statutory vesting period is specified in the Commissioners’ resolution approving the subject development. Once the statutory vesting period expires, the development becomes subject to these regulations.
2. The specific development for which a complete application for a County building permit has been submitted prior to the effective date of these regulations. If any building permit issued under this subsection expires or is not lawfully pursued, the development becomes subject to these regulations.
3. The specific development approved as a site plan review under Article 4-800 of this Code (whether approved solely as a site plan review request, or as a site plan review request combined with another form of land use review), pursuant to a complete application submitted on or before September 7, 2007. This exemption lasts for the three-year period specified in Section 4-810.A., after which the site plan review approval expires and the development becomes subject to these regulations.
·
4. The specific development recognized in a Commissioners’ authorization for a firm, numerical house size to be built, under the following circumstances:
a. The house size is stated in a land use approval granted pursuant to a complete application submitted on or before September 7, 2007, for which a recorded conservation easement was required or agreed to as part of the approval. This exemption does not apply, however, where the conservation easement was anticipated or required under the general land use regulations governing the development, such as PUD, NUPUD, and TDR sending site regulations. This exemption also does not apply where the house size allowance in the subject approval is stated presumptively (as opposed to authorizing a definite size), or where the size allowance applies to multiple structures (making it difficult to determine the particular size authorized for the residence itself).
b. The house size is stated in a land use approval granted pursuant to a complete application submitted on or before September 7, 2007, for which no conservation easement was required or agreed to as part of the approval. This exemption also does not apply, however, where the house size allowance in the subject approval is stated presumptively (as opposed to authorizing a definite size), or where the size allowance applies to multiple structures (making it difficult to determine the particular size authorized for the residence itself). In addition, this exemption lasts only for three years following the date of adoption of the Commissioners’ resolution governing the subject land use approval.
5. The restoration of a structure under Section 4-802.B.3, where a structure has been damaged or destroyed by causes outside the control of the property owner or agent.
B. For purposes of interpreting the exemptions contained in Section A, above, the following additional provisions shall govern:
1. The effective date of these regulations shall be the effective date stated in the Commissioners’ resolution approving the regulations.
2. Approvals granted prior to the effective date of these regulations shall be approvals that have a final Commissioners’ vote of approval before the regulations’ effective date.
3. A requirement for a complete application to be filed, means a complete application as determined by the Director with reference to this Code’s or the Building Code’s submittal requirements for the application in question.
4. The reference to an exemption applying to the “specific development” in a submitted or approved application means the exact development in the submitted or approved application, with only minor modifications being allowed in the discretion of the Land Use Director.
C. The Land Use Director is empowered to make interpretations regarding the application of the exemptions stated in Section A., above, to specific development. In making interpretations, the Land Use Director shall consider the purposes of the regulations in this section, as well as the principles of interpretation and rules of construction contained in Article 1 of this Code. Any aggrieved party may appeal the Director’s final interpretation under this Section to the Board of County Commissioners, provided that any such appeal shall be in writing, and shall be filed with the Land Use Director no later than 30 days following the date of the Director’s final interpretation.
4-1307 – Review and Amendment of These Regulations
A. The Board of County Commissioners will undertake a review of this Article 4-1300, including the Size Thresholds and the operation of the Clearinghouse, six months after the effective date of these regulations.
B. After that initial review, the Board may establish a regular time interval for continued review of this program.
Site Plan Review Amendments
4-806 Site Plan Review Standards
All site plan review applications shall be reviewed in accordance with the following standards which the Director has determined to be applicable based on the nature and extent of the proposed development. When two or more of the standards listed below conflict, the Director shall evaluate the applicability and importance of each of the conflicting standards under the facts of the specific application and make a reasonable attempt to balance the conflicting standards in reaching a site plan decision.
1. To provide a greater measure of certainty as to the size of single family residential development which is compatible with the general character of the applicable neighborhood or surrounding area, the following presumptions definition of neighborhood or surrounding area shall be used to review proposed Site Plan Review applications:
a. For applications outside of platted subdivisions with seven or more developed lots or the townsites of the Allenspark, Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Gold Hill, Greater Allenspark, Hygiene, Raymond and Riverside Special Character Areas, the applicable defined neighborhood or surrounding area is the area within 1500 feet from the applicable parcel. The neighborhood or surrounding area shall not include any parcels inside municipal boundaries, platted subdivisions with seven or more developed lots or the townsites of Allenspark, Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Gold Hill, Raymond and Riverside.
b. For applications within inside the Allenspark, Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Gold Hill, Greater Allenspark, Hygiene, Raymond and Riverside Special Character Areas, the applicable neighborhood or surrounding area is defined as the mapped townsite. area defined as that applicable Special Character Area.
c. For applications inside platted subdivisions which have seven or more developed lots, the neighborhood or surrounding area is that platted subdivision.
2. The size of the proposed development must be compatible with the topography, vegetation, and general character of the applicable defined neighborhood or surrounding area. The height, size, location on the parcel, exterior materials, color, and lighting of proposed structures shall be compatible with the topography, vegetation, and general character of the applicable defined neighborhood or surrounding area.
a. In determining size compatibility of residential structures with the defined neighborhood, it is presumed that structures of a size within 125% of the median above grade floor area for that defined neighborhood or area are compatible with that neighborhood.
i. The Boulder County Assessor’s Records will be the source of data to determine the median above grade size within that defined neighborhood or area.
ii. Median above grade floor area will exclude subterranean basement floor area, as defined in Section 18-162.B.1.
b. Development compatible with the general character of that applicable neighborhood or area is development that is of a size within 125% of the median single family residential floor area for parcels in the defined neighborhood or area.
b. Either the applicant or the Director may demonstrate that these this presumptions does not adequately address the neighborhood size compatibility of the proposed development with the defined neighborhood.
i. Factors to be considered when determining the adequacy of these this presumptions in addressing neighborhood compatibility include:
(a) The Visibility of the proposed structure(s) from other private parcels within the defined neighborhood or areas, as well as public roads and open space both within and outside that defined neighborhood or area.
(i) To overcome this size presumption, the structure must be minimally visible other private parcels within the defined neighborhood or areas, as well as public roads and open space both within and outside that defined neighborhood or area.
(ii) Mitigation factors to be considered in determining the visibility of the proposed development include the use of topography to screen the proposed development and distance of the proposed development from other private parcels, pubic roads and open spaces;
(b) transportation routes or topographic features on or around the parcel that delineate a coherent area provide separation between the subject parcel and other parcels in the defined neighborhood;
(b) the distribution of home sizes within the defined neighborhood, taking into consideration the home sizes most closely adjacent to the subject property; and
(c) common development patterns within the defined neighborhood, including considering such features as the bulk and mass of residential structures size, structure height and location on the parcel, and lot size and lot coverage.; and
(d) boundaries of platted subdivisions or other established communities.
b. In addition to the presumed size of the proposed development, other factors to be used in determining compatibility with the defined neighborhood include the following:
i. the height, size, bulk and massing of the proposed structure;
ii. setbacks and location of development on the parcel;
iii. exterior materials, color, and exterior lighting of proposed structures shall be compatible with the topography, vegetation, and general character of the applicable defined neighborhood or surrounding area.
3. The location of existing or proposed buildings, structures, equipment, grading, or uses shall not impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure.
4. Plans for the proposed development have satisfactorily mitigated any geologic hazards, such as expansive soils, subsiding soils, questionable soils where the safe-sustaining power of the soils is in doubt, or contaminated soils, landslides, unstable slopes, rockfalls, and avalanche corridors, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, or through the site plan review process.
5. The site plan shall satisfactorily mitigate the risk of wildfire both to the subject property and those posed to neighboring properties in the surrounding area by the proposed development. In assessing the applicable wildfire risk and appropriate mitigation measures, the Director shall consider the referral comments of the County Wildfire Mitigation Coordinator and the applicable fire district, and may also consult accepted national standards as amended, such as the 2003 Urban-Wildland Interface Code; NFPA / 80A, 299, 1231; 2003 International Fire Code; and the 2003 International Building Code.
6. The proposed development shall not alter historic drainage patterns and/or flow rates or shall include acceptable mitigation measures to compensate for anticipated drainage impacts.
7. The development shall avoid significant natural ecosystems or environmental features, including but not necessarily limited to riparian corridors and wetland areas, plant communities, and wildlife habitat and migration corridors, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or through the site plan review process. Development within or affecting such areas may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
8. The development shall avoid flash flood corridors, alluvial fans, floodplains, and unique geologic, geomorphic, paleontological, or pedologic features, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or through the site plan review process. Development within or affecting such hazards may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonable necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
9. The development shall avoid agricultural lands of local, state or national significance as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or through the site plan review process. Development within or affecting such lands may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
10. The development shall avoid significant historic or archaeological resources as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or the Historic Sites Survey of Boulder County, or through the site plan review process. Development within or affecting such resources may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
11. The development shall not have a significant negative visual impact on the natural features or neighborhood character of surrounding area. Development shall avoid prominent, steeply sloped, or visually exposed portions of the property. Particular consideration shall be given to protecting views from public lands and rights-of-way, although impacts on views of or from private properties shall also be considered. Development within or affecting features or areas of visual significance may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
a. Development located within the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area shall not have a significant negative visual impact on the scenic character of the scenic corridor. In reviewing development proposals in this Scenic Corridor Area, special attention will be paid to minimizing the view of the development from the Peak-to-Peak Highway. Mitigation of visual impact may include changing structure location, reducing or relocating windows and glazing to minimize visibility, reducing structure height, changing structure orientation, requiring exterior color and materials that blend into the natural environment, and/or lighting requirements to reduce visibility at night.
12. The development location of the development shall be compatible with the natural topography and natural vegetation and the development shall not cause unnecessary or excessive site disturbance. Such disturbance may include but is not limited to long driveways, over-sized parking areas, or severe alteration of a site's topography. Driveways or grading shall have a demonstrated associated principal use.
13. Runoff, erosion, and/or sedimentation from the development shall not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area.
14. The development shall avoid Natural Landmarks and Natural Areas as designated in the Goals, Policies & Maps Element of the Comprehensive Plan and shown on the Zoning District Maps of Boulder County. The protection of Natural Landmarks and Natural Areas shall also be extended to their associated buffer zones. Development within or affecting such Landmarks or Areas may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
15. Where an existing principal structure is proposed to be replaced by a new principal structure, construction or subsequent enlargement of the new structure shall not cause significantly greater impact (with regard to the standards set forth in this Section 4-806) than the original structure.
16. The proposal shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development, and this Code.
Peak to Peak Corridor amendments
4-119 –Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area
Purpose
1. To preserve and protect the distinctive scenic values of the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor enjoyed and valued by residents of and visitors to Boulder County.
2. To establish boundaries of the Scenic Corridor Area where additional Site Plan Review Standards will reduce conflicts between new residential construction, existing development, and the natural beauty and scenic vistas along this established corridor.
General Provisions
1. The Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area shall be subject to the provisions contained in the regulations in this Section 4-119 of the Land Use Code, including a map defining the Scenic Corridor Area boundaries.
2. Residential development in the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor shall be subject to the specific standards for review included in Section 4-806, Site Plan Review Standards.
4-119A – Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area
A. Boundaries of the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area
1. For purposes of applying the Site Plan Review Standards in Section 4-806, the boundaries of the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area are as shown on the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area Map.
B. Building and Structure Requirements
1. Development in the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area must preserve the unique scenic qualities of the corridor. Site Plan Review approvals in this area will be subject to specific requirements to mitigate the visual impact of the development on the vistas and views from the Peak-to-Peak roadway.
2. Specific Site Plan Review standards for review of development proposals within the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor are included in Section 4-806.A.11.a.
Clearing House
As part of the Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program, the Board of County Commissioners authorizes the establishment of a County Clearinghouse to facilitate the administration of this program. For the first year of the program, a third-party Clearinghouse Administrator will manage the Clearinghouse. (The County put out a Request for Proposal for this work, and has entered into a contract with a third-party to act as the Clearinghouse Administrator.) It is expected that in this first year of operation, the Clearinghouse Administrator may assist in identifying any necessary changes to process or procedure needed to ensure the efficient operation of the Clearinghouse. After this initial one-year period, the Board of County Commissioners may decide to continue having a third-party administrator or may determine it is appropriate to locate the Clearinghouse within an existing County department.
The functions and duties of the Clearinghouse are outlined below; these functions and duties are broken into processing functions and administrative functions.
1. Program Processing Functions and Duties of the Clearinghouse
The primary functions associated with the processing of a County TDR Clearinghouse will be the following:
For the Sale of Development Credits to the County Clearinghouse:
Accept applications for the sale of Development Credits by property owners to the Clearinghouse; applications would include documentation from the Land Use Department as to the status of the property as a legal building lot(s) and documentation from the Transportation Department as to the legal access to the property
Send a referral to Parks and Open Space for review of applicant’s request for a determination of any Bonus Development Credits associated with the parcel
Notify property owners of the number of Rights or Credits associated with a particular property based on the regulations and any bonus determination
Coordinate with County to draft, review, execute and record required conservation easements, deed restrictions or other preservation instruments in exchange for the creation of Credits
Issue certificates memorializing the sale of Credits
Process purchase and sale agreement for Credits, and payment to the property owner for the sale
Assist, on a regular or on-going basis, determine a fair market value for which the Clearinghouse will pay for Development Credits
For the purchase of Development Credits from the County Clearinghouse
· Accept application to the Clearinghouse by an interested party to purchase Development Credits, including an approved Site Plan Review including a determination letter showing approval for a residential structure of a size greater than the size threshold.
· Coordinate appropriate documentation to memorialize the sale, including the issuance of development Credit Certificates to property owner, execution of a purchase agreement between the Clearinghouse and the purchaser, and registration of the sale of certificates
· Processing payment from Property Owner for the Credits Purchased
· Assist, on a regular or on-going basis, determine a fair market value for which the Clearinghouse will sell Development Credits
For the Repurchase of Development Credits from the Clearinghouse
· Application to Clearinghouse by Property Owner to repurchase a Development Credit for a parcel where a previous sale of Development Credits has been completed
· Coordinate appropriate documentation to memorialize the sale and increase in the allowed single family residential floor area for a particular parcel, including the issuance of Development Credit Certificates to the property owner, execution of a purchase agreement between the Clearinghouse and the purchaser, and registration of the sale of certificates, and recordation of an appropriate deed restriction with the Clerk and Recorder
For the processing of private market transactions for the sale or purchase of Development Credits
· If Credits have not been previously created, accept applications for the creation of Development Credits by property owners; Applications would include documentation from the Land Use Department as to the status of the property as a legal building lot(s) and documentation from the Transportation Department as to the legal access to the property
Send a referral to Parks and Open Space for review of applicant’s request for a determination of any bonus Credits associated with the parcel
Notify property owner of the number of Credits associated with a particular property based on the regulations and any bonus determination
Coordinate with County to draft, review, execute and record required conservation easements and deed restrictions in exchange for the creation of Credits
Issue certificates memorializing the sale of Credits
· Registration of purchases and sales through private transactions
2. Administrative Functions of the Clearinghouse
The primary administrative functions of the Clearinghouse will be the following:
· Keep appropriate records, including records of private market transactions and extinguished Rights and Credits used in County-approved development projects
· Make periodic reports of the Clearinghouse’s functions to the Board of County Commissioners
Definitions
Current Definitions, with amendments, included in Article 18 of the Land Use Code
18-100 Above Grade - Amended into and replaced by Article 18-162. See Article 18-162.
18-114 Basement – Amended into and replaced by Article 18-162. See Article 18-162.
18-162 – Floor Area – The area of a building or structure, existing or new, including basements and attached garages calculated without deduction for corridors, stairways, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns, or other features as measured from the exterior face of the exterior walls. (For Residential Structures, see also Article 18-190.)
A. Above Grade Floor Area – Any Floor Area that is not Below Grade Floor Area.
Below Grade Floor Area – Any level of a building or structure where more than one half of the vertical distance between the floor and ceiling is below finished grade for more than 50% of the total perimeter of that building or structure.
1. Subterranean Basement – For the purposes of Site Plan Review and the presumptive size thresholds associated with the Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program, a Subterranean Basement is Below Grade Floor Area which includes any lower level of a structure where the finished surface of the floor above is no more than two feet above either the existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive.
18-190 – Residential Floor Area – For the purposes of Site Plan Review and the presumptive size thresholds associated with the Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program, Residential Floor Area includes all floor area (as defined in 18-162) on a parcel including principal and accessory structures used or customarily used for residential purposes.
4-1300 – Expanded TDR Program and Structure Size Thresholds for Single Family Uses
Introduction and Purposes
1. This Section 4-1300 establishes structure size thresholds for single family residences, above which additional Development Credits must be obtained to offset the impacts of larger scale homes, and below which Development or Credits can be sold to preserve a supply of smaller scale homes. These regulations also provide for the transfer of Development Credits to maintain rural character through the preservation of vacant land.
2. These regulations are adopted to implement the goals and policies in the Sustainability Element of the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan. Those goals and policies include:
a. Preserving the rural character of unincorporated Boulder County, especially those areas with particular historic or contextual character;
b. Promoting more sustainable development through incentives, education and regulation;
c. Allowing for the impacts of larger scale home development to be offset through the preservation of vacant land and smaller scale residential development elsewhere in the County;
d. Providing flexibility for property owners to build and keep smaller scale homes which will help provide a diversity of housing stock in unincorporated Boulder County; and
e. Promoting and preserving vacant land by creating incentives for property owners to leave land undeveloped.
4-1301 – Division of the County into Geographic Areas
For purposes of this article 4-1300, unincorporated Boulder County is divided into the following two geographic areas:
1. Mountain Area – The Mountain Area includes the mountainous areas of the County as defined in the Land Use Code Section 18-178A (the area west of CO 93 from its intersection with the south county line to the City of Boulder, west of the City of Boulder city limits, west of US 36 from the City of Boulder to CO 66, and west of the St. Vrain Supply Canal from CO 66 to its intersection with the north county line),
2. Plains Area – The Plains Area includes all areas of the County that are not included in the Mountain Area.
a.
4-1302 – Single Family Size Threshold
A. The Size Threshold is the measure of single family residential floor area that is allowed on a legal building lot without having to purchase Development Credits, as further provided below. Building lots with residential floor area at a specified level less than the Size Threshold may sell Development Credits, as further provided below.
1. Size Threshold to be applied county-wide
·
a. Total residential floor area equal to X,XXX square feet, excluding the following floor area:
i. subterranean basements as defined in Article 18,
ii. up to 500 square feet of attached or detached garage floor area,
iii. up to 500 square feet of detached unconditioned storage floor area, such as a storage shed, and
iv. up to 500 square feet of covered porches or decks.
b. This total floor area includes all other residential accessory structures including but not limited to studios and home offices.
·
B. Structures exempt from the Size Threshold are manufactured homes located in a zoned Manufactured Home Park; nonresidential structures including agricultural accessory structures such as barns and loafing sheds; and Agricultural, Family Care and Historic Accessory Dwelling Units that are approved though a special review process.
1.
a.
1.
4-1303 –Conveyance and Severance of Development Credits
A. Development Credits may be conveyed either in a private market transaction or through the County Clearinghouse (see Section 4-1305, below).
1. For Development Credits conveyed through private market transactions, the parties must obtain Development Credit Certificates from the County Clearinghouse in advance of conveyance.
a. Adequate documentation of private transactions, such as purchase agreements or bills of sale, must be submitted to the County Clearinghouse within five business days after the closing of the transaction, for registration purposes.
b. The County Clearinghouse may request information as necessary to provide adequate evidence of the private transaction.
2. Boulder County may sell or donate Development Credits to the County Clearinghouse from properties purchased by the Boulder County Parks and Open Space Department under the rules and policies governing the operation of the Clearinghouse, contained in Section 4-1306, below, and the purchase of properties by the Parks and Open Space Department.
B. Conveyance of Development Credits from Vacant Building Lots
1. Development Credits may be conveyed from vacant building lots, and any future development potential removed from the subject parcel, based on the following :
a. In the Plains Area
i. The parcel must be a building lot.
ii. The building lot must have legal access.
iii. The property owner may offer to grant a conservation easement, or other preservation instrument, on the property to either the County or another land preservation entity approved by the County, keeping the property vacant in perpetuity. If such offer is accepted, the property owner retains fee title to the lot and will receive ten Development Credits, which may then be held by the property owner or sold to either the County Clearinghouse or on the private market.
iv. The property owner may offer to sell the lot in fee to either the County or another land preservation entity approved by the County. If such offer is accepted, the property owner will receive twelve Development Credits, which may then be held by the property owner or sold to either the County Clearinghouse or on the private market.
b. In the Mountain Area
i. The parcel must be a building lot.
ii. The building lot must have legal access.
iii. The property owner may offer to grant a conservation easement, or other preservation instrument, on the property to either the County or another land preservation entity approved by the County, keeping the property vacant in perpetuity. If such offer is accepted, the property owner retains fee title to the lot and will receive five Development Credits which may then be held by the property owner or sold to either the County Clearinghouse or on the private market.
iv. The property owner may offer to sell the lot in fee to either the County or another land preservation entity approved by the County. If such offer is accepted, the property owner will receive seven Development Credits, which may then be held by the property owner or sold to either the County Clearinghouse or on the private market.
(a) c.
C. Severance of Development Credits from Vacant or Developed Building Lots where development is to be restrictred
1. Development Credits may be severed from either vacant or developed building lots, and any future development restricted on the subject lot, based on the following:
a. The parcel must be a building lot.
b. The building lot must have legal access.
c. For Developed Building Lots, only detached single family residential floor area is eligible for these size restriction.
d. The property owner must restrict their property to the size, measured in square feet of residential floor area as calculated in Section 4-1302.A.1a., above, noted below and receive the designated Development Credits specified below:
i. Development restricted to 2,000 square feet of residential floor area and may receive two Development Credits.
ii. Development restricted to 1,500 square feet of residential floor area and may receive three Development Credits.
iii. Development restricted to 1,000 square feet of residential floor area and may receive four Development Credits.
2. The owners of eligible lots shall receive the authorized number of Development Credits upon the granting of a restrictive covenant or other county approved preservation instrument to assure that the restriction imposed on the size of future development will run with the property in perpetuity.
3. A developed lot, whose owner restricts the size of development on that property under this Section, may redevelop to the maximum size included in that deed restriction.
i.
D. Additional Development Credits may be awarded for either vacant or developed building lots from which Development Credits are conveyed, as a bonus for significant conservation values found to exist on such lots, subject to the provisions of this subsection. Vacant property purchased by the Boulder County Parks and Open Space is not eligible for Bonus Development Credits.
i. Bonus Development Credits may be awarded to a particular lot based on a site-specific assessment of the parcel by the County Parks and Open Space Department.
(a) The availability of Bonus Development Credits will be based on the number and extent of significant conservation values which the Parks and Open Space Department in its sole discretion finds associated with the specific building lot.
(b) Such review will be undertaken upon request of the building lot owner.
(c) The award of Bonus Development Credits is limited to a maximum of five Development Credits per building lot.
ii. Significant conservation values based on which the County Parks and Open Space Department may award Bonus Development Credits include:
(b) Preservation of Resources – The lot(s) contains natural, cultural or ecological resources as outlined in the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan that will be preserved thorough a restriction on development on the lot, such as critical ecosystems (riparian habitat, natural areas or landmarks, scenic vistas or view corridors, wildlife habitat and migration corridors) historic or archaeological areas, or cultural resources.
(c) Urban Shaping – The lot(s) helps to create significant buffer zones between communities or between residential and nonresidential uses, including but not limited to rural preservation areas specified in County intergovernmental comprehensive planning agreements with municipalities.
(d) Other Open Space Benefits – The lot(s) offers linkages to trails or other open space properties, provides access to public lakes, streams or other usable open space properties, eliminates private property enclaves, or expands current pubic land holdings.
(e) Agricultural Water Rights – The lot(s) have agricultural water for irrigation tied to the land to be preserved in accordance with Parks and Open Space policy.
E. Limitations on the Use of Development Credits on Preserved Lots
1. Once a property owner has severed the Development Credits from a vacant lot under Section 4-1303.B, above, Development Credits may not be repurchased to allow development on that lot.
2. Once a property owner has severed Development Credits from a lot where development has been restricted under Section 4-1303.C.., above, the preservation instrument restricting development on that lot may be amended to allow the purchase and use of Development Credits to increase the floor area allowed on that lot up to a maximum of 2,000 square feet.
a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the allowed increase in floor area, the owner must execute and record an amended preservation instrument approved by the Clearinghouse to memorialize the new restricted floor area.
b. The property owner shall submit the required Development Credit Certificates along with building permit application for construction of the additional square footage.
4-1304 – Acquisition and Use of Development Credits for Construction of Residential Floor Area
A. Requirement for acquisition of Development Credits – For residential floor area approved through the Site Plan Review process or other applicable County review process, which exceeds the Size Threshold in Section 4-1302, above, Development Rights or Credits must be acquired prior to the issuance of a building permit for the approved development.
B. Development Credits must be obtained for development of floor area greater than the Size Thresholds according to the following table.
.
Number of square feet
Number of Credits
Total Additional Square Footage
Total Credits for Additional Square Footage
1st 500
1
500
1
2nd 500
1
1000
2
3rd 500
2
1500
4
4th 500
2
2000
6
5th 500
3
2500
9
Each additional 500
3
C. Process for the acquisition of Development Credits
1. In the case of either a private transaction or purchase from the Clearinghouse, the Clearinghouse shall issue the appropriate Development Credit certificates. Certificates may be acquired in a private transaction at any time, and applicants purchasing Credits prior to a site plan review approval do so at their own risk. Certificates may not be acquired from the Clearinghouse for development exceeding the applicable size threshold until the development has received final County Site Plan Review approval.
2. Any building permit application for a single family residential structure greater than the applicable Size Threshold shall not be considered complete without the submission of the necessary Development Credit certificates and completion of any required land use process.
C. Relationship between Size Thresholds Existing Single Family Residential Structures
1. Existing single family residential structures are not subject to the Size Thresholds; however, any addition of residential floor area to an existing structure which increases the total residential floor area to a size greater than the specified size threshold, will be subject to a requirement to purchase Development Credits to offset the portion of that additional residential floor area above the threshold.
2. The number of Development Credits required will be based on the additional square footage of the addition.
4-1305 – Boulder County Development Credits Clearinghouse
A. Short Title
1. The Boulder County Development Credits Clearinghouse (also referred to as the “Clearinghouse”) shall be established to assist in the administration of this Article 4-1300.
B. Duties and Responsibilities
1. Purchase and Sale of Development Credits – The Clearinghouse will have the ability to purchase Development Credits from willing sellers, and to sell Credits to willing buyers needing additional floor area for their single family residential development.
2. Registration of the Development Credits – The Clearinghouse will maintain a registration of the Development Credits available for purchase either through private market transactions or through the Clearinghouse, and of Development Credits that have been purchased and sold.
3. Issuance of Development Credit Certificates – The Clearinghouse shall be responsible for the issuance of Development Credit Certificates to be used in both private and Clearinghouse transactions to convey or acquire Development Credits.
4. Recordation – The Clearinghouse shall oversee the recordation of the necessary approved documents to assure that development size limitations and vacant land preservation encumbrances on specific lots associated with the transfer of Development Credits are maintained as required in this Article 4-1300.
4-1306 – Application of These Regulations
A. The following development shall be exempt from compliance with the Size Thresholds outlined in Section 4-1302:
1. The specific development recognized in any land use approval granted prior to the effective date of these regulations, which is within the statutory vesting period granted under Section 3-207 of the Land Use Code (codifying Part 1 of Article 68, Title 24, C.R.S.). The applicable statutory vesting period is specified in the Commissioners’ resolution approving the subject development. Once the statutory vesting period expires, the development becomes subject to these regulations.
2. The specific development for which a complete application for a County building permit has been submitted prior to the effective date of these regulations. If any building permit issued under this subsection expires or is not lawfully pursued, the development becomes subject to these regulations.
3. The specific development approved as a site plan review under Article 4-800 of this Code (whether approved solely as a site plan review request, or as a site plan review request combined with another form of land use review), pursuant to a complete application submitted on or before September 7, 2007. This exemption lasts for the three-year period specified in Section 4-810.A., after which the site plan review approval expires and the development becomes subject to these regulations.
·
4. The specific development recognized in a Commissioners’ authorization for a firm, numerical house size to be built, under the following circumstances:
a. The house size is stated in a land use approval granted pursuant to a complete application submitted on or before September 7, 2007, for which a recorded conservation easement was required or agreed to as part of the approval. This exemption does not apply, however, where the conservation easement was anticipated or required under the general land use regulations governing the development, such as PUD, NUPUD, and TDR sending site regulations. This exemption also does not apply where the house size allowance in the subject approval is stated presumptively (as opposed to authorizing a definite size), or where the size allowance applies to multiple structures (making it difficult to determine the particular size authorized for the residence itself).
b. The house size is stated in a land use approval granted pursuant to a complete application submitted on or before September 7, 2007, for which no conservation easement was required or agreed to as part of the approval. This exemption also does not apply, however, where the house size allowance in the subject approval is stated presumptively (as opposed to authorizing a definite size), or where the size allowance applies to multiple structures (making it difficult to determine the particular size authorized for the residence itself). In addition, this exemption lasts only for three years following the date of adoption of the Commissioners’ resolution governing the subject land use approval.
5. The restoration of a structure under Section 4-802.B.3, where a structure has been damaged or destroyed by causes outside the control of the property owner or agent.
B. For purposes of interpreting the exemptions contained in Section A, above, the following additional provisions shall govern:
1. The effective date of these regulations shall be the effective date stated in the Commissioners’ resolution approving the regulations.
2. Approvals granted prior to the effective date of these regulations shall be approvals that have a final Commissioners’ vote of approval before the regulations’ effective date.
3. A requirement for a complete application to be filed, means a complete application as determined by the Director with reference to this Code’s or the Building Code’s submittal requirements for the application in question.
4. The reference to an exemption applying to the “specific development” in a submitted or approved application means the exact development in the submitted or approved application, with only minor modifications being allowed in the discretion of the Land Use Director.
C. The Land Use Director is empowered to make interpretations regarding the application of the exemptions stated in Section A., above, to specific development. In making interpretations, the Land Use Director shall consider the purposes of the regulations in this section, as well as the principles of interpretation and rules of construction contained in Article 1 of this Code. Any aggrieved party may appeal the Director’s final interpretation under this Section to the Board of County Commissioners, provided that any such appeal shall be in writing, and shall be filed with the Land Use Director no later than 30 days following the date of the Director’s final interpretation.
4-1307 – Review and Amendment of These Regulations
A. The Board of County Commissioners will undertake a review of this Article 4-1300, including the Size Thresholds and the operation of the Clearinghouse, six months after the effective date of these regulations.
B. After that initial review, the Board may establish a regular time interval for continued review of this program.
Site Plan Review Amendments
4-806 Site Plan Review Standards
All site plan review applications shall be reviewed in accordance with the following standards which the Director has determined to be applicable based on the nature and extent of the proposed development. When two or more of the standards listed below conflict, the Director shall evaluate the applicability and importance of each of the conflicting standards under the facts of the specific application and make a reasonable attempt to balance the conflicting standards in reaching a site plan decision.
1. To provide a greater measure of certainty as to the size of single family residential development which is compatible with the general character of the applicable neighborhood or surrounding area, the following presumptions definition of neighborhood or surrounding area shall be used to review proposed Site Plan Review applications:
a. For applications outside of platted subdivisions with seven or more developed lots or the townsites of the Allenspark, Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Gold Hill, Greater Allenspark, Hygiene, Raymond and Riverside Special Character Areas, the applicable defined neighborhood or surrounding area is the area within 1500 feet from the applicable parcel. The neighborhood or surrounding area shall not include any parcels inside municipal boundaries, platted subdivisions with seven or more developed lots or the townsites of Allenspark, Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Gold Hill, Raymond and Riverside.
b. For applications within inside the Allenspark, Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Gold Hill, Greater Allenspark, Hygiene, Raymond and Riverside Special Character Areas, the applicable neighborhood or surrounding area is defined as the mapped townsite. area defined as that applicable Special Character Area.
c. For applications inside platted subdivisions which have seven or more developed lots, the neighborhood or surrounding area is that platted subdivision.
2. The size of the proposed development must be compatible with the topography, vegetation, and general character of the applicable defined neighborhood or surrounding area. The height, size, location on the parcel, exterior materials, color, and lighting of proposed structures shall be compatible with the topography, vegetation, and general character of the applicable defined neighborhood or surrounding area.
a. In determining size compatibility of residential structures with the defined neighborhood, it is presumed that structures of a size within 125% of the median above grade floor area for that defined neighborhood or area are compatible with that neighborhood.
i. The Boulder County Assessor’s Records will be the source of data to determine the median above grade size within that defined neighborhood or area.
ii. Median above grade floor area will exclude subterranean basement floor area, as defined in Section 18-162.B.1.
b. Development compatible with the general character of that applicable neighborhood or area is development that is of a size within 125% of the median single family residential floor area for parcels in the defined neighborhood or area.
b. Either the applicant or the Director may demonstrate that these this presumptions does not adequately address the neighborhood size compatibility of the proposed development with the defined neighborhood.
i. Factors to be considered when determining the adequacy of these this presumptions in addressing neighborhood compatibility include:
(a) The Visibility of the proposed structure(s) from other private parcels within the defined neighborhood or areas, as well as public roads and open space both within and outside that defined neighborhood or area.
(i) To overcome this size presumption, the structure must be minimally visible other private parcels within the defined neighborhood or areas, as well as public roads and open space both within and outside that defined neighborhood or area.
(ii) Mitigation factors to be considered in determining the visibility of the proposed development include the use of topography to screen the proposed development and distance of the proposed development from other private parcels, pubic roads and open spaces;
(b) transportation routes or topographic features on or around the parcel that delineate a coherent area provide separation between the subject parcel and other parcels in the defined neighborhood;
(b) the distribution of home sizes within the defined neighborhood, taking into consideration the home sizes most closely adjacent to the subject property; and
(c) common development patterns within the defined neighborhood, including considering such features as the bulk and mass of residential structures size, structure height and location on the parcel, and lot size and lot coverage.; and
(d) boundaries of platted subdivisions or other established communities.
b. In addition to the presumed size of the proposed development, other factors to be used in determining compatibility with the defined neighborhood include the following:
i. the height, size, bulk and massing of the proposed structure;
ii. setbacks and location of development on the parcel;
iii. exterior materials, color, and exterior lighting of proposed structures shall be compatible with the topography, vegetation, and general character of the applicable defined neighborhood or surrounding area.
3. The location of existing or proposed buildings, structures, equipment, grading, or uses shall not impose an undue burden on public services and infrastructure.
4. Plans for the proposed development have satisfactorily mitigated any geologic hazards, such as expansive soils, subsiding soils, questionable soils where the safe-sustaining power of the soils is in doubt, or contaminated soils, landslides, unstable slopes, rockfalls, and avalanche corridors, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, or through the site plan review process.
5. The site plan shall satisfactorily mitigate the risk of wildfire both to the subject property and those posed to neighboring properties in the surrounding area by the proposed development. In assessing the applicable wildfire risk and appropriate mitigation measures, the Director shall consider the referral comments of the County Wildfire Mitigation Coordinator and the applicable fire district, and may also consult accepted national standards as amended, such as the 2003 Urban-Wildland Interface Code; NFPA / 80A, 299, 1231; 2003 International Fire Code; and the 2003 International Building Code.
6. The proposed development shall not alter historic drainage patterns and/or flow rates or shall include acceptable mitigation measures to compensate for anticipated drainage impacts.
7. The development shall avoid significant natural ecosystems or environmental features, including but not necessarily limited to riparian corridors and wetland areas, plant communities, and wildlife habitat and migration corridors, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or through the site plan review process. Development within or affecting such areas may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
8. The development shall avoid flash flood corridors, alluvial fans, floodplains, and unique geologic, geomorphic, paleontological, or pedologic features, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or through the site plan review process. Development within or affecting such hazards may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonable necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
9. The development shall avoid agricultural lands of local, state or national significance as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or through the site plan review process. Development within or affecting such lands may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
10. The development shall avoid significant historic or archaeological resources as identified in the Comprehensive Plan or the Historic Sites Survey of Boulder County, or through the site plan review process. Development within or affecting such resources may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
11. The development shall not have a significant negative visual impact on the natural features or neighborhood character of surrounding area. Development shall avoid prominent, steeply sloped, or visually exposed portions of the property. Particular consideration shall be given to protecting views from public lands and rights-of-way, although impacts on views of or from private properties shall also be considered. Development within or affecting features or areas of visual significance may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
a. Development located within the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area shall not have a significant negative visual impact on the scenic character of the scenic corridor. In reviewing development proposals in this Scenic Corridor Area, special attention will be paid to minimizing the view of the development from the Peak-to-Peak Highway. Mitigation of visual impact may include changing structure location, reducing or relocating windows and glazing to minimize visibility, reducing structure height, changing structure orientation, requiring exterior color and materials that blend into the natural environment, and/or lighting requirements to reduce visibility at night.
12. The development location of the development shall be compatible with the natural topography and natural vegetation and the development shall not cause unnecessary or excessive site disturbance. Such disturbance may include but is not limited to long driveways, over-sized parking areas, or severe alteration of a site's topography. Driveways or grading shall have a demonstrated associated principal use.
13. Runoff, erosion, and/or sedimentation from the development shall not have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding area.
14. The development shall avoid Natural Landmarks and Natural Areas as designated in the Goals, Policies & Maps Element of the Comprehensive Plan and shown on the Zoning District Maps of Boulder County. The protection of Natural Landmarks and Natural Areas shall also be extended to their associated buffer zones. Development within or affecting such Landmarks or Areas may be approved, subject to acceptable mitigation measures and in the discretion of the Director, only if no other sites on the subject property can be reasonably developed, or only if reasonably necessary to avoid significant adverse impacts based upon other applicable site plan review criteria.
15. Where an existing principal structure is proposed to be replaced by a new principal structure, construction or subsequent enlargement of the new structure shall not cause significantly greater impact (with regard to the standards set forth in this Section 4-806) than the original structure.
16. The proposal shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, any applicable intergovernmental agreement affecting land use or development, and this Code.
Peak to Peak Corridor amendments
4-119 –Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area
Purpose
1. To preserve and protect the distinctive scenic values of the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor enjoyed and valued by residents of and visitors to Boulder County.
2. To establish boundaries of the Scenic Corridor Area where additional Site Plan Review Standards will reduce conflicts between new residential construction, existing development, and the natural beauty and scenic vistas along this established corridor.
General Provisions
1. The Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area shall be subject to the provisions contained in the regulations in this Section 4-119 of the Land Use Code, including a map defining the Scenic Corridor Area boundaries.
2. Residential development in the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor shall be subject to the specific standards for review included in Section 4-806, Site Plan Review Standards.
4-119A – Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area
A. Boundaries of the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area
1. For purposes of applying the Site Plan Review Standards in Section 4-806, the boundaries of the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area are as shown on the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area Map.
B. Building and Structure Requirements
1. Development in the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area must preserve the unique scenic qualities of the corridor. Site Plan Review approvals in this area will be subject to specific requirements to mitigate the visual impact of the development on the vistas and views from the Peak-to-Peak roadway.
2. Specific Site Plan Review standards for review of development proposals within the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor are included in Section 4-806.A.11.a.
Clearing House
As part of the Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program, the Board of County Commissioners authorizes the establishment of a County Clearinghouse to facilitate the administration of this program. For the first year of the program, a third-party Clearinghouse Administrator will manage the Clearinghouse. (The County put out a Request for Proposal for this work, and has entered into a contract with a third-party to act as the Clearinghouse Administrator.) It is expected that in this first year of operation, the Clearinghouse Administrator may assist in identifying any necessary changes to process or procedure needed to ensure the efficient operation of the Clearinghouse. After this initial one-year period, the Board of County Commissioners may decide to continue having a third-party administrator or may determine it is appropriate to locate the Clearinghouse within an existing County department.
The functions and duties of the Clearinghouse are outlined below; these functions and duties are broken into processing functions and administrative functions.
1. Program Processing Functions and Duties of the Clearinghouse
The primary functions associated with the processing of a County TDR Clearinghouse will be the following:
For the Sale of Development Credits to the County Clearinghouse:
Accept applications for the sale of Development Credits by property owners to the Clearinghouse; applications would include documentation from the Land Use Department as to the status of the property as a legal building lot(s) and documentation from the Transportation Department as to the legal access to the property
Send a referral to Parks and Open Space for review of applicant’s request for a determination of any Bonus Development Credits associated with the parcel
Notify property owners of the number of Rights or Credits associated with a particular property based on the regulations and any bonus determination
Coordinate with County to draft, review, execute and record required conservation easements, deed restrictions or other preservation instruments in exchange for the creation of Credits
Issue certificates memorializing the sale of Credits
Process purchase and sale agreement for Credits, and payment to the property owner for the sale
Assist, on a regular or on-going basis, determine a fair market value for which the Clearinghouse will pay for Development Credits
For the purchase of Development Credits from the County Clearinghouse
· Accept application to the Clearinghouse by an interested party to purchase Development Credits, including an approved Site Plan Review including a determination letter showing approval for a residential structure of a size greater than the size threshold.
· Coordinate appropriate documentation to memorialize the sale, including the issuance of development Credit Certificates to property owner, execution of a purchase agreement between the Clearinghouse and the purchaser, and registration of the sale of certificates
· Processing payment from Property Owner for the Credits Purchased
· Assist, on a regular or on-going basis, determine a fair market value for which the Clearinghouse will sell Development Credits
For the Repurchase of Development Credits from the Clearinghouse
· Application to Clearinghouse by Property Owner to repurchase a Development Credit for a parcel where a previous sale of Development Credits has been completed
· Coordinate appropriate documentation to memorialize the sale and increase in the allowed single family residential floor area for a particular parcel, including the issuance of Development Credit Certificates to the property owner, execution of a purchase agreement between the Clearinghouse and the purchaser, and registration of the sale of certificates, and recordation of an appropriate deed restriction with the Clerk and Recorder
For the processing of private market transactions for the sale or purchase of Development Credits
· If Credits have not been previously created, accept applications for the creation of Development Credits by property owners; Applications would include documentation from the Land Use Department as to the status of the property as a legal building lot(s) and documentation from the Transportation Department as to the legal access to the property
Send a referral to Parks and Open Space for review of applicant’s request for a determination of any bonus Credits associated with the parcel
Notify property owner of the number of Credits associated with a particular property based on the regulations and any bonus determination
Coordinate with County to draft, review, execute and record required conservation easements and deed restrictions in exchange for the creation of Credits
Issue certificates memorializing the sale of Credits
· Registration of purchases and sales through private transactions
2. Administrative Functions of the Clearinghouse
The primary administrative functions of the Clearinghouse will be the following:
· Keep appropriate records, including records of private market transactions and extinguished Rights and Credits used in County-approved development projects
· Make periodic reports of the Clearinghouse’s functions to the Board of County Commissioners
Definitions
Current Definitions, with amendments, included in Article 18 of the Land Use Code
18-100 Above Grade - Amended into and replaced by Article 18-162. See Article 18-162.
18-114 Basement – Amended into and replaced by Article 18-162. See Article 18-162.
18-162 – Floor Area – The area of a building or structure, existing or new, including basements and attached garages calculated without deduction for corridors, stairways, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns, or other features as measured from the exterior face of the exterior walls. (For Residential Structures, see also Article 18-190.)
A. Above Grade Floor Area – Any Floor Area that is not Below Grade Floor Area.
Below Grade Floor Area – Any level of a building or structure where more than one half of the vertical distance between the floor and ceiling is below finished grade for more than 50% of the total perimeter of that building or structure.
1. Subterranean Basement – For the purposes of Site Plan Review and the presumptive size thresholds associated with the Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program, a Subterranean Basement is Below Grade Floor Area which includes any lower level of a structure where the finished surface of the floor above is no more than two feet above either the existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive.
18-190 – Residential Floor Area – For the purposes of Site Plan Review and the presumptive size thresholds associated with the Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program, Residential Floor Area includes all floor area (as defined in 18-162) on a parcel including principal and accessory structures used or customarily used for residential purposes.
The county seems to want to charge full force with this wasteful uses of our tax dollars to make an ineffective change on global warming and carbon footprint.
Please go to this meeting to state that you oppose this uncreative regulation.
Attached please find the press release for the Board of County Commissioners’ Public Hearings on BuildSmart and the Expanded TDR Programs. The materials for these hearings are posted on the Boulder County Land Use Website at the locations noted below.
April 8 public meeting scheduled for Boulder County BuildSmart and the Expanded TDR program
The County Commissioners have scheduled a two-part public meeting on Tuesday, April 8, to take public testimony and consider final recommendations for the Boulder County BuildSmart Program and the expanded Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Time: 5:00 p.m.
What: Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing on BuildSmart, followed immediately by a Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing on the Expanded TDR program
Where: 3rd Floor Hearing Room, Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl St., Boulder.
Boulder County BuildSmart
On January 8, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Boulder County BuildSmart program. On Tuesday, April 8, the Board will take public comment and consider the final adoption of amendments to the Boulder County Building Code to implement the Boulder County BuildSmart program. Boulder County BuildSmart is a set of building code regulations whose primary purpose is to regulate the energy efficiency of the design and construction of residential buildings in unincorporated Boulder County as well as to reduce residential construction waste, conserve residential water use, and insure proper indoor air quality within energy-efficient residential structures. See the County’s Land Use web site at www.BoulderCounty.org/lu (look under “What’s new in Boulder County Land Use” on the right side of the site for the BuildSmart materials) for a complete description of the program.
For questions regarding the Boulder County BuildSmart Building Code Amendments, please contact Jeff Dwight, Boulder County Building Official, at JDwight@bouldercounty.org or 720-564-
Expanded Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program
On Tuesday, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will consider a final round of draft proposals for an expanded TDR program. In March, Land Use staff compiled a set of revisions to the last round of draft proposals based on direction they received from the BOCC at two public study sessions on March 4 and March 10, and based on input from members of the public at a public hearing on March 6.
On April 8, the BOCC will take public comments and make final recommendations on the new revisions to the proposed expanded TDR program, including amendments to the Site Plan Review standards and the designation of the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area. The expanded TDR program is intended to ensure a varied housing stock in unincorporated Boulder County by defining structure size thresholds, above which additional development rights must be obtained to offset the impacts of larger scale homes, and below which development rights may be sold to preserve smaller homes.
Materials for discussion at the April 8th meeting are available on the County’s Land Use Web site at: www.bouldercounty.org/lu (look under “What’s new in Boulder County Land Use” on the right side of the site for the Expanded TDR materials).
Please go to this meeting to state that you oppose this uncreative regulation.
Attached please find the press release for the Board of County Commissioners’ Public Hearings on BuildSmart and the Expanded TDR Programs. The materials for these hearings are posted on the Boulder County Land Use Website at the locations noted below.
April 8 public meeting scheduled for Boulder County BuildSmart and the Expanded TDR program
The County Commissioners have scheduled a two-part public meeting on Tuesday, April 8, to take public testimony and consider final recommendations for the Boulder County BuildSmart Program and the expanded Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Time: 5:00 p.m.
What: Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing on BuildSmart, followed immediately by a Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing on the Expanded TDR program
Where: 3rd Floor Hearing Room, Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl St., Boulder.
Boulder County BuildSmart
On January 8, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Boulder County BuildSmart program. On Tuesday, April 8, the Board will take public comment and consider the final adoption of amendments to the Boulder County Building Code to implement the Boulder County BuildSmart program. Boulder County BuildSmart is a set of building code regulations whose primary purpose is to regulate the energy efficiency of the design and construction of residential buildings in unincorporated Boulder County as well as to reduce residential construction waste, conserve residential water use, and insure proper indoor air quality within energy-efficient residential structures. See the County’s Land Use web site at www.BoulderCounty.org/lu (look under “What’s new in Boulder County Land Use” on the right side of the site for the BuildSmart materials) for a complete description of the program.
For questions regarding the Boulder County BuildSmart Building Code Amendments, please contact Jeff Dwight, Boulder County Building Official, at JDwight@bouldercounty.org or 720-564-
Expanded Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program
On Tuesday, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) will consider a final round of draft proposals for an expanded TDR program. In March, Land Use staff compiled a set of revisions to the last round of draft proposals based on direction they received from the BOCC at two public study sessions on March 4 and March 10, and based on input from members of the public at a public hearing on March 6.
On April 8, the BOCC will take public comments and make final recommendations on the new revisions to the proposed expanded TDR program, including amendments to the Site Plan Review standards and the designation of the Peak-to-Peak Scenic Corridor Area. The expanded TDR program is intended to ensure a varied housing stock in unincorporated Boulder County by defining structure size thresholds, above which additional development rights must be obtained to offset the impacts of larger scale homes, and below which development rights may be sold to preserve smaller homes.
Materials for discussion at the April 8th meeting are available on the County’s Land Use Web site at: www.bouldercounty.org/lu (look under “What’s new in Boulder County Land Use” on the right side of the site for the Expanded TDR materials).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)