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.”