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.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
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).
Economy vs McMansion
People will need to decide if they want to slow down the economy by limiting homes sizes or
if they just get along with their neighbors and help create a healthy economy.
Economists caution limiting house sizes may limit Boulder
By Heath Urie (Contact)Thursday, April 3, 2008
Regulating house sizes in Boulder would have economic consequences ranging from potentially lower property-tax revenues to decreased demand for housing in an already-struggling market, economists said Wednesday.
The Boulder Planning Board will meet at 5 p.m. today to make recommendations to the City Council about what provisions an interim ordinance should contain to restrict the "floor-area ratio" of new houses or residential redevelopment.
The council has directed its staff to seek feedback from the Planning Board before it drafts an interim ordinance, which is scheduled for a first reading at the council's April 15 meeting.
City officials have said such an ordinance would address the increasing number of "pops and scrapes" in Boulder, possibly by limiting the floor-area ratio of those projects -- or the amount of finished square footage on all levels of the house.
Members of the City Council have heard complaints from people across Boulder upset when small homes are razed and replaced with many-thousand-square-foot homes.Economists say there is cause for everyone in the city to pay attention to the council's actions on the matter.
Byron Koste, executive director of the Real Estate Center at the University of Colorado's Leeds School of Business, said any city ordinance that limits variety of house size and choice could ultimately end up hurting the local economy.
"If the demand shrinks because people who want a bigger home no longer can come to a certain area ... that will decrease the competition and hurt the upside on the economic scale," Koste said. "The great cities of the world have chosen not to do this. I'm not sure why we are choosing to do this."
Gary Horvath, a research assistant at CU's Business Research Division, said property taxes could be affected by tightening building restrictions, but there is a potential upside, too.
"It could attract people to the area because they think the area is more responsible socially," Horvath said. "There are certain people who feel that would be an advantage and would want to live here."
Among the staff recommendations the Planning Board will consider today is to make an interim ordinance -- in whatever form the City Council decides -- effective beginning April 16. The staff also is recommending the ordinance remain in effect until at least March 2009, rather than the six-month time frame that was initially suggested, to allow more time for the city to draft permanent regulations.
The staff proposal also suggests that the council take one of two approaches to an interim ordinance: that it either enact a "simple" floor-area ratio limit by zone district, or a "sliding-scale" floor-area ratio limit based on lot size.
The first approach would set a maximum ratio and also would include a maximum square-footage limit and a minimum square-footage amount allowed, irrespective of lot size. The sliding-scale approach would set a ratio for a specified lot size, and the ratio would then increase as the lot size decreases.
An interim ordinance also would address the types of zoning districts affected, whether high ceilings, basements or garages are included in floor-area ratio calculations, a variance or appeals process and rules for grandfathering existing plans and structures.
Philip Shull, a member of the Planning Board since 2004, said he's looking forward to taking up the issue.
"I think there's a lot of interest in the discussion," Shull said. "I think it's the only real occasion we'll have to help shape the language."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Heath Urie at 303-473-1328 or urieh@dailycamera.com
if they just get along with their neighbors and help create a healthy economy.
Economists caution limiting house sizes may limit Boulder
By Heath Urie (Contact)Thursday, April 3, 2008
Regulating house sizes in Boulder would have economic consequences ranging from potentially lower property-tax revenues to decreased demand for housing in an already-struggling market, economists said Wednesday.
The Boulder Planning Board will meet at 5 p.m. today to make recommendations to the City Council about what provisions an interim ordinance should contain to restrict the "floor-area ratio" of new houses or residential redevelopment.
The council has directed its staff to seek feedback from the Planning Board before it drafts an interim ordinance, which is scheduled for a first reading at the council's April 15 meeting.
City officials have said such an ordinance would address the increasing number of "pops and scrapes" in Boulder, possibly by limiting the floor-area ratio of those projects -- or the amount of finished square footage on all levels of the house.
Members of the City Council have heard complaints from people across Boulder upset when small homes are razed and replaced with many-thousand-square-foot homes.Economists say there is cause for everyone in the city to pay attention to the council's actions on the matter.
Byron Koste, executive director of the Real Estate Center at the University of Colorado's Leeds School of Business, said any city ordinance that limits variety of house size and choice could ultimately end up hurting the local economy.
"If the demand shrinks because people who want a bigger home no longer can come to a certain area ... that will decrease the competition and hurt the upside on the economic scale," Koste said. "The great cities of the world have chosen not to do this. I'm not sure why we are choosing to do this."
Gary Horvath, a research assistant at CU's Business Research Division, said property taxes could be affected by tightening building restrictions, but there is a potential upside, too.
"It could attract people to the area because they think the area is more responsible socially," Horvath said. "There are certain people who feel that would be an advantage and would want to live here."
Among the staff recommendations the Planning Board will consider today is to make an interim ordinance -- in whatever form the City Council decides -- effective beginning April 16. The staff also is recommending the ordinance remain in effect until at least March 2009, rather than the six-month time frame that was initially suggested, to allow more time for the city to draft permanent regulations.
The staff proposal also suggests that the council take one of two approaches to an interim ordinance: that it either enact a "simple" floor-area ratio limit by zone district, or a "sliding-scale" floor-area ratio limit based on lot size.
The first approach would set a maximum ratio and also would include a maximum square-footage limit and a minimum square-footage amount allowed, irrespective of lot size. The sliding-scale approach would set a ratio for a specified lot size, and the ratio would then increase as the lot size decreases.
An interim ordinance also would address the types of zoning districts affected, whether high ceilings, basements or garages are included in floor-area ratio calculations, a variance or appeals process and rules for grandfathering existing plans and structures.
Philip Shull, a member of the Planning Board since 2004, said he's looking forward to taking up the issue.
"I think there's a lot of interest in the discussion," Shull said. "I think it's the only real occasion we'll have to help shape the language."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Heath Urie at 303-473-1328 or urieh@dailycamera.com
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Family Matters
As a working mom I always get excited when I run across great sites to help me make my life easier and more organized with kids. So with this in mind, every time I run into one, I will try to place it on my blog. Here is a good one that I found when I was trying to find a fun new activity for a birthday party.
www.coloradokids.com
www.coloradokids.com
City of Boulder Looking to Limit House Size to 2500 Square Feet
Council may scrap 'scrapes'
Boulder leaders consider limits on razing old houses to replace with larger ones
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A few of Boulder's elected and appointed leaders will sit down Thursday night to ponder the best way to keep "mega" houses from being built on the remains of more modest ones.
The question of whether "pop-and-scrape" residential redevelopments should be limited is just one of several land-use issues the members of the City Council and Planning Board will discuss at Thursday's meeting, Mayor Shaun McGrath said.
McGrath said members of the City Council have heard lots of complaints from people across Boulder upset when small homes are razed and replaced with many-thousand-square-foot homes. One City Council member is even proposing a maximum size of 2,500 square feet for rebuilt homes, prompting debate among leaders.
"We've heard from a lot of people who have worried about how scrapesin particular are changing the character of neighborhoods," McGrath said. "I don't know what the end policy might look like, but we certainly want to have a conversation with the community."
Critics say big, new homes in older neighborhoods -- such as the Newlands in north-central Boulder -- are an environmentally destructive, aesthetic assault. They're particularly upset by new homes that spread from one end of a housing lot to the other, crowding their neighbors.
This isn't the first time members of the City Council have expressed an interest in possibly limiting residential redevelopment -- but Thursday's meeting could be the first step toward putting an ordinance in place.
Two years ago, City Councilwoman Crystal Gray tried to bring up the issue, but it didn't gather much momentum. That's changed, said Gray, who's now the city's deputy mayor.
"I just think that the pace of redevelopment has really picked up and spread to all areas of the city," she said, so an issue that only raised eyebrows in a few neighborhoods a few years ago now has broader resonance.
Many cities have enacted measures limiting house sizes, and Gray said Boulder has plenty of new regulatory options from which to choose. The City Council could tighten existing caps on "floor-area ratios" for homes -- that is, the percentage of a property that's covered with finished square footage.
They could examine more subtle and flexible "building envelope" limits, or even "character guidelines," which would be more labor-intensive to enforce.
Policy-makers often use the shorthand term "pops and scrapes" when talking about the issue. But both Gray and McGrath said they're more concerned with scrapes -- the practice of demolishing a home and replacing it with something much bigger -- than pops, which just expand the size of existing homes.
Any proposal is likely to be controversial. Susan Graf, president of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, said people in the city's business and residential community are nervous.
"I would hope that the City Council and the Planning Board would clearly identify the problem they're trying to solve," she said. "They point to a few specific examples of big houses or ugly houses, and I don't know that that constitutes a problem. ... I'd be worried they're trying to hit a fly with a sledgehammer."
And elected leaders will likely disagree about the best way to go forward. City Councilman Ken Wilson delivered a rebuke Monday to a proposal from City Councilwoman Lisa Morzel on the City Council's "hot line," a public e-mail list officials use to communicate.
In a post to the e-mail list, Morzel wrote that she'd "strongly suggest our building size maximums start at 2,500 (square feet) for the main structure/house, allowing 450 (square feet) for garages."
To which Wilson replied, "I guess I will need to tear down a third of my home. I will not support regulations that limit my neighbors building something smaller than the home I live in, or a (floor-area ratio) less than mine -- which has been at its current size since the mid-1920s."
Wilson said he'd consider asking the city's staff to assemble a list of the sizes and floor-area ratios of City Council members' houses.
"I think it is only fair to see where our homes fall into this mix," he said.
That drew a reply from City Councilman Macon Cowles, who said the city has a duty to maintain the supply of affordable and reasonably sized housing, protect existing neighborhoods and address the environmental impacts of new construction.
"The council has a fiduciary obligation with respect to each of these three things, and the route forward cannot be determined by using the house sizes of individual people as a yardstick with which to measure an appropriate response for the city," he wrote.
Boulder leaders consider limits on razing old houses to replace with larger ones
By Ryan Morgan (Contact)Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A few of Boulder's elected and appointed leaders will sit down Thursday night to ponder the best way to keep "mega" houses from being built on the remains of more modest ones.
The question of whether "pop-and-scrape" residential redevelopments should be limited is just one of several land-use issues the members of the City Council and Planning Board will discuss at Thursday's meeting, Mayor Shaun McGrath said.
McGrath said members of the City Council have heard lots of complaints from people across Boulder upset when small homes are razed and replaced with many-thousand-square-foot homes. One City Council member is even proposing a maximum size of 2,500 square feet for rebuilt homes, prompting debate among leaders.
"We've heard from a lot of people who have worried about how scrapesin particular are changing the character of neighborhoods," McGrath said. "I don't know what the end policy might look like, but we certainly want to have a conversation with the community."
Critics say big, new homes in older neighborhoods -- such as the Newlands in north-central Boulder -- are an environmentally destructive, aesthetic assault. They're particularly upset by new homes that spread from one end of a housing lot to the other, crowding their neighbors.
This isn't the first time members of the City Council have expressed an interest in possibly limiting residential redevelopment -- but Thursday's meeting could be the first step toward putting an ordinance in place.
Two years ago, City Councilwoman Crystal Gray tried to bring up the issue, but it didn't gather much momentum. That's changed, said Gray, who's now the city's deputy mayor.
"I just think that the pace of redevelopment has really picked up and spread to all areas of the city," she said, so an issue that only raised eyebrows in a few neighborhoods a few years ago now has broader resonance.
Many cities have enacted measures limiting house sizes, and Gray said Boulder has plenty of new regulatory options from which to choose. The City Council could tighten existing caps on "floor-area ratios" for homes -- that is, the percentage of a property that's covered with finished square footage.
They could examine more subtle and flexible "building envelope" limits, or even "character guidelines," which would be more labor-intensive to enforce.
Policy-makers often use the shorthand term "pops and scrapes" when talking about the issue. But both Gray and McGrath said they're more concerned with scrapes -- the practice of demolishing a home and replacing it with something much bigger -- than pops, which just expand the size of existing homes.
Any proposal is likely to be controversial. Susan Graf, president of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, said people in the city's business and residential community are nervous.
"I would hope that the City Council and the Planning Board would clearly identify the problem they're trying to solve," she said. "They point to a few specific examples of big houses or ugly houses, and I don't know that that constitutes a problem. ... I'd be worried they're trying to hit a fly with a sledgehammer."
And elected leaders will likely disagree about the best way to go forward. City Councilman Ken Wilson delivered a rebuke Monday to a proposal from City Councilwoman Lisa Morzel on the City Council's "hot line," a public e-mail list officials use to communicate.
In a post to the e-mail list, Morzel wrote that she'd "strongly suggest our building size maximums start at 2,500 (square feet) for the main structure/house, allowing 450 (square feet) for garages."
To which Wilson replied, "I guess I will need to tear down a third of my home. I will not support regulations that limit my neighbors building something smaller than the home I live in, or a (floor-area ratio) less than mine -- which has been at its current size since the mid-1920s."
Wilson said he'd consider asking the city's staff to assemble a list of the sizes and floor-area ratios of City Council members' houses.
"I think it is only fair to see where our homes fall into this mix," he said.
That drew a reply from City Councilman Macon Cowles, who said the city has a duty to maintain the supply of affordable and reasonably sized housing, protect existing neighborhoods and address the environmental impacts of new construction.
"The council has a fiduciary obligation with respect to each of these three things, and the route forward cannot be determined by using the house sizes of individual people as a yardstick with which to measure an appropriate response for the city," he wrote.
Boulder County House Size Restrictions
House-size proposals tweaked
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
BOULDER — Restrictions and conditions should be imposed on new rural Boulder County homes that would exceed county-set size thresholds, the Board of County Commissioners has tentatively decided.
Commissioners Ben Pearlman, Will Toor and Cindy Domenico unveiled their latest version of proposed structure-size regulations at a Monday evening study session.
Under the commissioners’ currently favored scenario, an applicant would have to buy development rights before being allowed to proceed with building a house and related structures totaling more than 3,000 square feet of above-ground floor area — regardless of whether that residence is to be located in the mountains or on the plains.
Subterranean basements of any size, whether finished or unfinished, would not count against that 3,000 square-foot total. But walk-in basements would.
The developer could have up to 500 square feet of detached or attached garage space — enough to house two vehicles, county officials said — that also would be exempt from the 3,000 square-foot threshold. But any additional garage space would count against the limit.
The project could include up to 500 feet of detached storage sheds and other outbuildings that wouldn’t count against the 3,000 square-foot calculation. But any additional outbuildings would be factored into the floor-area totals.
By not counting below-grade basements, 500 square feet of garage space and 500 square feet of outbuildings, the resulting overall project could actually wind up being several thousand square feet larger than the 3,000 square-foot threshold, Pearlman said.
“We are talking about very large houses” that still could be built, Pearlman said — if the applications pass other county tests, such as clearer site-plan review criteria about whether the project would be compatible with other homes in its county-defined neighborhood.
Under the latest proposal, “you really do have to be building a giant structure before it affects you,” Pearlman said. The development rights that a large-house applicant would have to buy in order to exceed the 3,000 square-foot threshold would be made available when owners of property elsewhere in Boulder County sell building rights after deciding not to develop their own land to its full county-set potential. That, county commissioners said, should help preserve open areas and maintain a mixture of small, medium-size and larger houses in unincorporated Boulder County.
On Feb. 20, the Boulder County Planning Commission recommended against proceeding with the structure-size thresholds and development-rights transfer program under consideration at that point. Pearlman noted on Monday, however, that the planning advisory panel also endorsed the general concept of using such a program to offset the impacts of large-scale houses.
Commissioners directed Monday that the county staff prepare another draft of the program, based on the commissioners’ study-session positions — a revised draft that may be ready for further consideration and possible board action as early as next Tuesday.
The earlier version of the proposed program drew more than 60 speakers to a three-hour-long public hearing last Thursday night.
When Pearlman was asked after Monday’s study session whether there would be another hearing on the revisions the commissioners have ordered before they take final action, he said, “I don’t know that we need another public hearing.” Commissioner Will Toor suggested that before scheduling any more hearings, he and his colleagues first have to see how substantively their study-session directives changed the draft program published before last week.
During Monday’s study session, Commissioner Cindy Domenico said there will be many chances in the months and years ahead to modify the house-size and development-rights transfer program, if that proves necessary. “There’s always an opportunity to fine-tune a program as you move forward into the future,” Domenico said.
Commissioners said they’ve decided to drop a proposal to designate such unincorporated communities as Allenspark, Raymond, Riverside and Hygiene as “special character areas.” Instead, the county will work with residents and property owners on possible plans and guidelines for future development in those communities.
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.
By John Fryar Longmont Times-Call
BOULDER — Restrictions and conditions should be imposed on new rural Boulder County homes that would exceed county-set size thresholds, the Board of County Commissioners has tentatively decided.
Commissioners Ben Pearlman, Will Toor and Cindy Domenico unveiled their latest version of proposed structure-size regulations at a Monday evening study session.
Under the commissioners’ currently favored scenario, an applicant would have to buy development rights before being allowed to proceed with building a house and related structures totaling more than 3,000 square feet of above-ground floor area — regardless of whether that residence is to be located in the mountains or on the plains.
Subterranean basements of any size, whether finished or unfinished, would not count against that 3,000 square-foot total. But walk-in basements would.
The developer could have up to 500 square feet of detached or attached garage space — enough to house two vehicles, county officials said — that also would be exempt from the 3,000 square-foot threshold. But any additional garage space would count against the limit.
The project could include up to 500 feet of detached storage sheds and other outbuildings that wouldn’t count against the 3,000 square-foot calculation. But any additional outbuildings would be factored into the floor-area totals.
By not counting below-grade basements, 500 square feet of garage space and 500 square feet of outbuildings, the resulting overall project could actually wind up being several thousand square feet larger than the 3,000 square-foot threshold, Pearlman said.
“We are talking about very large houses” that still could be built, Pearlman said — if the applications pass other county tests, such as clearer site-plan review criteria about whether the project would be compatible with other homes in its county-defined neighborhood.
Under the latest proposal, “you really do have to be building a giant structure before it affects you,” Pearlman said. The development rights that a large-house applicant would have to buy in order to exceed the 3,000 square-foot threshold would be made available when owners of property elsewhere in Boulder County sell building rights after deciding not to develop their own land to its full county-set potential. That, county commissioners said, should help preserve open areas and maintain a mixture of small, medium-size and larger houses in unincorporated Boulder County.
On Feb. 20, the Boulder County Planning Commission recommended against proceeding with the structure-size thresholds and development-rights transfer program under consideration at that point. Pearlman noted on Monday, however, that the planning advisory panel also endorsed the general concept of using such a program to offset the impacts of large-scale houses.
Commissioners directed Monday that the county staff prepare another draft of the program, based on the commissioners’ study-session positions — a revised draft that may be ready for further consideration and possible board action as early as next Tuesday.
The earlier version of the proposed program drew more than 60 speakers to a three-hour-long public hearing last Thursday night.
When Pearlman was asked after Monday’s study session whether there would be another hearing on the revisions the commissioners have ordered before they take final action, he said, “I don’t know that we need another public hearing.” Commissioner Will Toor suggested that before scheduling any more hearings, he and his colleagues first have to see how substantively their study-session directives changed the draft program published before last week.
During Monday’s study session, Commissioner Cindy Domenico said there will be many chances in the months and years ahead to modify the house-size and development-rights transfer program, if that proves necessary. “There’s always an opportunity to fine-tune a program as you move forward into the future,” Domenico said.
Commissioners said they’ve decided to drop a proposal to designate such unincorporated communities as Allenspark, Raymond, Riverside and Hygiene as “special character areas.” Instead, the county will work with residents and property owners on possible plans and guidelines for future development in those communities.
John Fryar can be reached at 303-684-5211 or jfryar@times-call.com.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
2965 Moorhead
2965 Moorhead
LOWEST PRICED HOME IN CITY OF BOULDER! This Highland 
Park home has been tastefully updated: remodeled kitchen & bath.oak cabinets, granite tile counters, 2-tone paint, vinyl replacement windows, & 6 panel colonist doors. Third bdrm. with outside entrance. Great for student rental property. Close to CU & public transportation.
Park home has been tastefully updated: remodeled kitchen & bath.oak cabinets, granite tile counters, 2-tone paint, vinyl replacement windows, & 6 panel colonist doors. Third bdrm. with outside entrance. Great for student rental property. Close to CU & public transportation.
8500 Sugar Loaf Rd
Pristine Mountain Property! Build your dream home on 9+ acres of privacy! Surrounded by
forest service land. 360 degree views of Back Range, Peewink, Comforter & Sugar Loaf mountains & plains! Only 30 minutes to Boulder. Rock Outcroppings, Ponderosa Pines, Douglas Fir & Native Grass Meadows on slopping terrain. Complete Privacy...
Own 9.12 acres - feels like 9,000! Unrecorded physical access via open forest service road.
forest service land. 360 degree views of Back Range, Peewink, Comforter & Sugar Loaf mountains & plains! Only 30 minutes to Boulder. Rock Outcroppings, Ponderosa Pines, Douglas Fir & Native Grass Meadows on slopping terrain. Complete Privacy...
Own 9.12 acres - feels like 9,000! Unrecorded physical access via open forest service road.
900 Cleveland Ct. Louisville
Beautifully updated Four level contemporary home on a quiet cul-de-sac*** Open floor plan with an eat-in kitchen, Brazilian Cherry Hardwood floors, Granite Counter Tops in Kitchen, Master bath and Hall bath***Stainless steele Dishwasher!! Double Sink in the Master Separate dining room, family room and lower level rec room, bedroom & study/office. Close to Downtown Louisville, Memorial Pool, Louisville Rec Center** Backs to green belt from fenced yard.
2880 Sundown #308
Gold Run Condo. This quiet and spacious top floor unit with vaulted ceilings, is just minutes away from CU. The property is popular not only for students but also for those individuals that love the proximity to all the wonderful experiences that Boulder has to offer. The Boulder Bike path and Boulder Creek offer visually pleasing areas and with 29th St. A car is not necessary to enjoy fine dining and shopping. The rare and fabulous club house includes racquetball, tennis, volleyball, indoor pool, indoor and outdoor hot tub, exercise equipment & so much more!! This is a lifestyle of education, fitness and beauty that can not be replicated anywhere else!
Boulder City Council Member on County TDR Program
I normally do not agree with Steve on many things but on this we are in complete agreement!
Pomerance: Expanded Transfer of Development Rights -- the wrong approach
Steve PomeranceSunday, March 2, 2008
When the Boulder County commissioners meet this week, they should abandon the ill-conceived Expanded Transfer of Development Rights proposal. The program has fundamental flaws that are not amenable to correction, would accomplish little to benefit the citizens of the county, and potentially could put the county at risk from "takings" and TABOR lawsuits.
The proposed ETDR scheme envisions setting "thresholds" for the square footage of development on a parcel, with the thresholds being lower in the mountains and higher in the plains. In general terms, and ignoring many of the details, if a property owner wants to build more than the threshold allows, he or she would have to purchase the requisite amount of square footage of "development credits" from another property owner at market price. The seller's development potential would then be restricted by an equivalent amount below their threshold.
This action in effect transfers development potential between the property owners. It also reduces the average floor area of new development, since one development's going above the threshold requires another to be below. Unfortunately, as the county Planning Commission noted, the thresholds are inevitably somewhat arbitrary.
The ETDR approach does not appear to distinguish areas the county would like to protect from areas where the commissioners have less concern. In other words, an owner in an area where the county wants less development could purchase development credits, leading to more, not less, development in those areas.
A technical difficulty with ETDR is that some properties can never be developed up to their thresholds because of the stringent nature of the Site Plan Review process. So it appears that these owners could sell credits for development that would, in fact, not be permitted under the county's review process. Thus they would be the prime sellers of development credits -- their prices would be lowest because they are giving up the least. This would remove most of the disincentive for building larger homes.
On the other hand, some property owners do not have significant Site Plan Review constraints. If such an owner sells credits, he or she can sell only the amount of square footage below their ETDR threshold. But in the process, they also apparently lose what they might have been able to build above their threshold. However, a similarly situated purchaser only needs to buy what is needed to go above their threshold. Thus the cost of these credits will be prohibitive, because the seller is giving up far more than the buyer is getting.
In Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that exactions from property owners need to have an essential nexus with the action being permitted. In layman's terms, the fix being exacted must be tied to the problem being created. But there is no real connection between, for example, the impact from building an overly large house near Niwot and the benefit from buying down development rights on properties near Ward or Raymond.
Some people will claim that the commissioners are, in effect, taxing people who build big houses to pay for a county effort to buy out development rights. This would then arguably be a county excise tax imposed without a TABOR vote, which would make it illegal on two counts. And further legal issues might be raised about the arbitrary thresholds.
The commissioners have better alternatives: They could impose a Floor Area Ratio requirement that would limit houses to, say, 3500 square feet, with each extra 100 square feet requiring the lot to be one additional acre over 35 acres. They could also set visual standards, increase set-back requirements, and so on.
In politics, many times an ill-defined problem and a "good idea" solution get so stuck together that alternatives are never examined. The commissioners have done some very good work recently on building codes and on making the whole development process more "green." They need to bring a similar level of reality-check to this process.
Steve Pomerance is a former Boulder city council member and can be reached at stevepomerance@yahoo.com
Pomerance: Expanded Transfer of Development Rights -- the wrong approach
Steve PomeranceSunday, March 2, 2008
When the Boulder County commissioners meet this week, they should abandon the ill-conceived Expanded Transfer of Development Rights proposal. The program has fundamental flaws that are not amenable to correction, would accomplish little to benefit the citizens of the county, and potentially could put the county at risk from "takings" and TABOR lawsuits.
The proposed ETDR scheme envisions setting "thresholds" for the square footage of development on a parcel, with the thresholds being lower in the mountains and higher in the plains. In general terms, and ignoring many of the details, if a property owner wants to build more than the threshold allows, he or she would have to purchase the requisite amount of square footage of "development credits" from another property owner at market price. The seller's development potential would then be restricted by an equivalent amount below their threshold.
This action in effect transfers development potential between the property owners. It also reduces the average floor area of new development, since one development's going above the threshold requires another to be below. Unfortunately, as the county Planning Commission noted, the thresholds are inevitably somewhat arbitrary.
The ETDR approach does not appear to distinguish areas the county would like to protect from areas where the commissioners have less concern. In other words, an owner in an area where the county wants less development could purchase development credits, leading to more, not less, development in those areas.
A technical difficulty with ETDR is that some properties can never be developed up to their thresholds because of the stringent nature of the Site Plan Review process. So it appears that these owners could sell credits for development that would, in fact, not be permitted under the county's review process. Thus they would be the prime sellers of development credits -- their prices would be lowest because they are giving up the least. This would remove most of the disincentive for building larger homes.
On the other hand, some property owners do not have significant Site Plan Review constraints. If such an owner sells credits, he or she can sell only the amount of square footage below their ETDR threshold. But in the process, they also apparently lose what they might have been able to build above their threshold. However, a similarly situated purchaser only needs to buy what is needed to go above their threshold. Thus the cost of these credits will be prohibitive, because the seller is giving up far more than the buyer is getting.
In Nollan vs. California Coastal Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that exactions from property owners need to have an essential nexus with the action being permitted. In layman's terms, the fix being exacted must be tied to the problem being created. But there is no real connection between, for example, the impact from building an overly large house near Niwot and the benefit from buying down development rights on properties near Ward or Raymond.
Some people will claim that the commissioners are, in effect, taxing people who build big houses to pay for a county effort to buy out development rights. This would then arguably be a county excise tax imposed without a TABOR vote, which would make it illegal on two counts. And further legal issues might be raised about the arbitrary thresholds.
The commissioners have better alternatives: They could impose a Floor Area Ratio requirement that would limit houses to, say, 3500 square feet, with each extra 100 square feet requiring the lot to be one additional acre over 35 acres. They could also set visual standards, increase set-back requirements, and so on.
In politics, many times an ill-defined problem and a "good idea" solution get so stuck together that alternatives are never examined. The commissioners have done some very good work recently on building codes and on making the whole development process more "green." They need to bring a similar level of reality-check to this process.
Steve Pomerance is a former Boulder city council member and can be reached at stevepomerance@yahoo.com
Transeral Development Rights Study Session Boulder County
Only two more hearings and then I am sure that the County Commissioners are going to pass this regulation!
Subject: Board of County Commissioners meetings on TDRs N Boulder County Board of County Commissioners Study Sessions and Public Hearing Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program including Structure Size Thresholds - Docket DC-05-002H Thursday, March 6, and Monday, March 10, 2008 Third Floor Hearing Room, Boulder County Courthouse 1325 Pearl Street, Boulder Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM The Boulder Board of County Commissioners will be holding a study session on the proposed Expanded Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM. The hearing will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street. The purpose of this study session is for staff to present the Planning Commission recommendations on the proposed TDR program to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board will not be taking any public testimony or any action on this program at this March 4th study session; however the public is invited to attend. Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM The Boulder Board of County Commissioners will be holding a public hearing on the proposed TDR Program on March 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM. The hearing will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street. The purpose of this hearing is to take public comment on the proposed TDR program including the draft TDR regulations, proposed amendments to the Site Plan Review Standards, interim regulations for the designated Special Character Areas, amendments to the Definitions included in the Land Use Code, and the authorization for a County-run TDR Clearinghouse. Public testimony will be limited to three minutes per person. Written comments for this public hearing may be submitted. Please e-mail comments to Michelle Krezek at mkrezek@bouldercounty.org. The Board of County Commissioners will not be taking any action at this March 6th hearing. Monday, March 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM A study session for the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the public comments given on March 6th and to give direction to staff regarding changes to the proposed TDR program will be held on Monday, March 10, 2008 beginning at 5:00 PM at the Boulder County Courthouse. This study session will be open to the public, but no public testimony will be taken on March 10th. Materials for these meetings are available on the Boulder County Land Use Department website at <http://www.bouldercounty.org/lu/code_updates/expanded_tdr/index.htm%3E . The same materials will be used for the March 4th and March 6th meetings. These study sessions and public hearings will be web cast. To view the web cast, please go to <http://www.bouldercounty.org/stream/index.htm%3E . If you have additional questions, please contact Michelle Krezek at 720-564-2623 or mkrezek@bouldercounty.org
Subject: Board of County Commissioners meetings on TDRs N Boulder County Board of County Commissioners Study Sessions and Public Hearing Expanded Transfer of Development Rights Program including Structure Size Thresholds - Docket DC-05-002H Thursday, March 6, and Monday, March 10, 2008 Third Floor Hearing Room, Boulder County Courthouse 1325 Pearl Street, Boulder Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM The Boulder Board of County Commissioners will be holding a study session on the proposed Expanded Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 at 4:00 PM. The hearing will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street. The purpose of this study session is for staff to present the Planning Commission recommendations on the proposed TDR program to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board will not be taking any public testimony or any action on this program at this March 4th study session; however the public is invited to attend. Thursday, March 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM The Boulder Board of County Commissioners will be holding a public hearing on the proposed TDR Program on March 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM. The hearing will be held in the Third Floor Hearing Room at the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl Street. The purpose of this hearing is to take public comment on the proposed TDR program including the draft TDR regulations, proposed amendments to the Site Plan Review Standards, interim regulations for the designated Special Character Areas, amendments to the Definitions included in the Land Use Code, and the authorization for a County-run TDR Clearinghouse. Public testimony will be limited to three minutes per person. Written comments for this public hearing may be submitted. Please e-mail comments to Michelle Krezek at mkrezek@bouldercounty.org. The Board of County Commissioners will not be taking any action at this March 6th hearing. Monday, March 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM A study session for the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the public comments given on March 6th and to give direction to staff regarding changes to the proposed TDR program will be held on Monday, March 10, 2008 beginning at 5:00 PM at the Boulder County Courthouse. This study session will be open to the public, but no public testimony will be taken on March 10th. Materials for these meetings are available on the Boulder County Land Use Department website at <http://www.bouldercounty.org/lu/code_updates/expanded_tdr/index.htm%3E . The same materials will be used for the March 4th and March 6th meetings. These study sessions and public hearings will be web cast. To view the web cast, please go to <http://www.bouldercounty.org/stream/index.htm%3E . If you have additional questions, please contact Michelle Krezek at 720-564-2623 or mkrezek@bouldercounty.org
Boulder TDR House Size Limitations
It appears that Boulder's County Commissioners are set on taking peoples private property rights through the TDR Program. I feel sorry for those people who have not added on to their homes yet or who have vacant land properties!
Boulder County's house-size battle nears an end
Opponents worry their voices will be ignored
By Laura Snider (Contact)Tuesday, March 4, 2008
If you go
What: County commissioners review the "expanded transfer of development rights," or TDR, program. The measures seek to offset the effects of large house sizes in unincorporated Boulder County.
When: At 4 p.m. today, the commissioners will have a study session to review the proposals. The meeting is open to the public, but no public testimony will be taken.
At 5:30 p.m. Thursday, the commissioners will listen to public testimony on the program.
At 5 p.m. Monday, the commissioners will have another study session when they will likely give direction to the staff on what the final program will look like.
Where: All meetings will be on the third floor of the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl St.
For more information: Visit www.bouldercounty.org/lu or call Michelle Krezek at 720-564-2623.
Katrina Peterson doesn't think Boulder County should limit house sizes. She's said it at public meetings, she's written it in letters and she's called the land use department to express her concerns.
And even with a landslide of public opinion on her side -- or at least the vast majority of people who show up at public meetings on her side -- she's worried her voice isn't being heard.
Starting today, the county commissioners will hold three public meetings to discuss the county's controversial proposal to limit house sizes in unincorporated Boulder County. On Monday, it's likely the commissioners will decide on the final form of the regulations.
"I won't be surprised if they put it in place," said Peterson, who owns a house in the mountains and worries her property value will be damaged by the program. "It'll be pretty discouraging."
For many county residents doggedly following the house-size debate, the issue has laid bare a much more basic question than whether house sizes should be restricted. It has people pondering how elected officials should go about determining what their constituents really want.
"It's pretty hard to understand when (Commissioner Will Toor) says there's a lot of people out there who support it -- how do they know? How do they know when they don't show up?" Peterson said. "The staff and the county commissioners say there is a silent majority out there, and we're going to interpret that to mean they're OK with it."
More than 100 people wrote letters or e-mails to the land use department opposing at least some part of the program, compared with fewer than 40 supporting it.
And the county's Planning Commission, which is charged with advising the county commissioners on land-use issues, announced last month that it doesn't recommend house-size limits in the form of the "transfer of development rights" program, which would allow developers to build houses above set limits if they buy extra development rights.
Even so, there is evidence that county residents do support some form of house-size limits, and Toor says it's his responsibility to make a decision that's best for the entire community — now and in the future.
Toor points to a 2006 survey of Boulder County registered voters in which people were asked "whether respondents agree or disagree that if a house would be larger than, say, 4,000 or 5,000 square feet the county should require mitigation to the land such as buying open land and leaving it open ..." Seventy-three percent of people agreed.
"Having spent years in public office on the City Council and now on the county commission, I've learned the people who show up to testify on particular issues are not a representative sample of the population at large," Toor said. "We need to listen and understand those concerns, but I think there is a much broader public interest out there."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Laura Snider at 303-473-1327 or sniderl@dailycamera.com.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOUSE-SIZE LIMITS
The proposal that the county commissioners will review in the next week can be broken down into three pieces:
Expanded transfer of development rights
This is the part of the program that would set thresholds for house sizes. Most recently, the Planning Commission decided not to recommend such a program. However, the county commissioners still have the power to pass the program.
The last numbers used by the Planning Commission set a limit of 5,500 square feet for houses built in the plains and 3,500 square feet for houses built in the mountains. If a developer wants to build a larger house, he or she would need to buy extra development rights from owners of land that has not been developed or smaller houses that have not used all the square footage allowed.
Site-plan review
Now, anyone who wants to build a house in unincorporated Boulder County must go through a stringent site-plan review process to determine if the planned house would be in "harmony" with its neighborhood. The proposed amendments to the review would clarify what defines a neighborhood and create a clearer rule of thumb for what size house can expect to clear the review.
The Planning Commission recommended that the default "neighborhood" be set to 1,500 feet in all directions and the default house size be set to 125 percent of the median size of homes in that neighborhood. The definition of neighborhood or the size allowed could change with negotiation.
Special character areas
This designation would exempt unincorporated communities from the program, including Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Hygiene, Gold Hill, Allenspark, Raymond and Riverside. The program would also create a Peak-to-Peak scenic corridor. In all these designated areas, residents would work with the land use department to create codes that fit their individual communities and that would preserve the unique character of the area.
Boulder County's house-size battle nears an end
Opponents worry their voices will be ignored
By Laura Snider (Contact)Tuesday, March 4, 2008
If you go
What: County commissioners review the "expanded transfer of development rights," or TDR, program. The measures seek to offset the effects of large house sizes in unincorporated Boulder County.
When: At 4 p.m. today, the commissioners will have a study session to review the proposals. The meeting is open to the public, but no public testimony will be taken.
At 5:30 p.m. Thursday, the commissioners will listen to public testimony on the program.
At 5 p.m. Monday, the commissioners will have another study session when they will likely give direction to the staff on what the final program will look like.
Where: All meetings will be on the third floor of the Boulder County Courthouse, 1325 Pearl St.
For more information: Visit www.bouldercounty.org/lu or call Michelle Krezek at 720-564-2623.
Katrina Peterson doesn't think Boulder County should limit house sizes. She's said it at public meetings, she's written it in letters and she's called the land use department to express her concerns.
And even with a landslide of public opinion on her side -- or at least the vast majority of people who show up at public meetings on her side -- she's worried her voice isn't being heard.
Starting today, the county commissioners will hold three public meetings to discuss the county's controversial proposal to limit house sizes in unincorporated Boulder County. On Monday, it's likely the commissioners will decide on the final form of the regulations.
"I won't be surprised if they put it in place," said Peterson, who owns a house in the mountains and worries her property value will be damaged by the program. "It'll be pretty discouraging."
For many county residents doggedly following the house-size debate, the issue has laid bare a much more basic question than whether house sizes should be restricted. It has people pondering how elected officials should go about determining what their constituents really want.
"It's pretty hard to understand when (Commissioner Will Toor) says there's a lot of people out there who support it -- how do they know? How do they know when they don't show up?" Peterson said. "The staff and the county commissioners say there is a silent majority out there, and we're going to interpret that to mean they're OK with it."
More than 100 people wrote letters or e-mails to the land use department opposing at least some part of the program, compared with fewer than 40 supporting it.
And the county's Planning Commission, which is charged with advising the county commissioners on land-use issues, announced last month that it doesn't recommend house-size limits in the form of the "transfer of development rights" program, which would allow developers to build houses above set limits if they buy extra development rights.
Even so, there is evidence that county residents do support some form of house-size limits, and Toor says it's his responsibility to make a decision that's best for the entire community — now and in the future.
Toor points to a 2006 survey of Boulder County registered voters in which people were asked "whether respondents agree or disagree that if a house would be larger than, say, 4,000 or 5,000 square feet the county should require mitigation to the land such as buying open land and leaving it open ..." Seventy-three percent of people agreed.
"Having spent years in public office on the City Council and now on the county commission, I've learned the people who show up to testify on particular issues are not a representative sample of the population at large," Toor said. "We need to listen and understand those concerns, but I think there is a much broader public interest out there."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Laura Snider at 303-473-1327 or sniderl@dailycamera.com.
THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF HOUSE-SIZE LIMITS
The proposal that the county commissioners will review in the next week can be broken down into three pieces:
Expanded transfer of development rights
This is the part of the program that would set thresholds for house sizes. Most recently, the Planning Commission decided not to recommend such a program. However, the county commissioners still have the power to pass the program.
The last numbers used by the Planning Commission set a limit of 5,500 square feet for houses built in the plains and 3,500 square feet for houses built in the mountains. If a developer wants to build a larger house, he or she would need to buy extra development rights from owners of land that has not been developed or smaller houses that have not used all the square footage allowed.
Site-plan review
Now, anyone who wants to build a house in unincorporated Boulder County must go through a stringent site-plan review process to determine if the planned house would be in "harmony" with its neighborhood. The proposed amendments to the review would clarify what defines a neighborhood and create a clearer rule of thumb for what size house can expect to clear the review.
The Planning Commission recommended that the default "neighborhood" be set to 1,500 feet in all directions and the default house size be set to 125 percent of the median size of homes in that neighborhood. The definition of neighborhood or the size allowed could change with negotiation.
Special character areas
This designation would exempt unincorporated communities from the program, including Eldora, Eldorado Springs, Hygiene, Gold Hill, Allenspark, Raymond and Riverside. The program would also create a Peak-to-Peak scenic corridor. In all these designated areas, residents would work with the land use department to create codes that fit their individual communities and that would preserve the unique character of the area.
Adverse Possession in Colorado
Adverse possession bill set for Senate committee
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:43 p.m., March 4, 2008Updated 08:00 p.m., March 4, 2008
A bill that seeks to change a controversial land law that has locked two Boulder couples in a bitter legal dispute for years is set to be heard next week by the Colorado Senate.
House Bill 1148, which would overhaul the law of adverse possession, is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee at 1:30 p.m. March 12. The hearing, originally set for March 5, has been delayed.
The state law now allows trespassers to claim land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
The law caught the attention of several lawmakers last fall after a Boulder District Court judge awarded a portion of one of Don and Susie Kirlin’s vacant lots on Hardscrabble Drive to neighbors Dick McLean and Edith Stevens.
McLean, a former district court judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens, an attorney and Democratic activist, sued the Kirlins using the law of adverse possession.
The bill, which would add a “good faith” provision and other requirements to the longtime legal doctrine, gained initial approval last month by a House vote of 63-1.
If approved Wednesday, the bill will move to the full Senate for consideration and would require final approval by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Adverse possession bill set for Senate committee
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:43 p.m., March 4, 2008Updated 08:00 p.m., March 4, 2008
VIDEO: Nov. 18 protest picnic in support of the Kirlins. WATCH »
VIDEO: Take a look at Don and Susie Kirlin's land and hear them speak about the case. WATCH »
MAP: Satellite image Google map of Hardscrabble Drive.
AUDIO: Listen to NPR's report on the case.
AUDIO: Local singer Don Wrege composed several songs about the land dispute.
1. Stealing Land From Our Neighbor
2. This Land Belongs to Don & Susie
3. Edie & Dick (The Grinch Theme)
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:43 p.m., March 4, 2008Updated 08:00 p.m., March 4, 2008
A bill that seeks to change a controversial land law that has locked two Boulder couples in a bitter legal dispute for years is set to be heard next week by the Colorado Senate.
House Bill 1148, which would overhaul the law of adverse possession, is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee at 1:30 p.m. March 12. The hearing, originally set for March 5, has been delayed.
The state law now allows trespassers to claim land after using it openly and continuously for at least 18 years.
The law caught the attention of several lawmakers last fall after a Boulder District Court judge awarded a portion of one of Don and Susie Kirlin’s vacant lots on Hardscrabble Drive to neighbors Dick McLean and Edith Stevens.
McLean, a former district court judge and Boulder mayor, and Stevens, an attorney and Democratic activist, sued the Kirlins using the law of adverse possession.
The bill, which would add a “good faith” provision and other requirements to the longtime legal doctrine, gained initial approval last month by a House vote of 63-1.
If approved Wednesday, the bill will move to the full Senate for consideration and would require final approval by Gov. Bill Ritter.
Adverse possession bill set for Senate committee
By Heath Urie (Contact)Originally published 03:43 p.m., March 4, 2008Updated 08:00 p.m., March 4, 2008
VIDEO: Nov. 18 protest picnic in support of the Kirlins. WATCH »
VIDEO: Take a look at Don and Susie Kirlin's land and hear them speak about the case. WATCH »
MAP: Satellite image Google map of Hardscrabble Drive.
AUDIO: Listen to NPR's report on the case.
AUDIO: Local singer Don Wrege composed several songs about the land dispute.
1. Stealing Land From Our Neighbor
2. This Land Belongs to Don & Susie
3. Edie & Dick (The Grinch Theme)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)