February 14, 2023 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] You let me know when you're waiting. Okay, this is a meeting of the Board of Zoning adjustments. and tonight we don't have any matters to rule upon. So what we're gonna do is we're going to approve or disapprove whatever the minutes from last meeting vote on those meet minutes, and then we'll have a presentation from city staff about the status of a to use, because that my understanding is not nothing's final yet. So I don't have to go into the voting rules. We will not have dockets. but I will ask Robbie. Is there anything you need to say about the minutes? Or should I just jump in. As you say. I have nothing about the minutes, but I do have a couple of quick things once you're done with the minutes before we get into the presentation item. So I I Most everybody probably had a chance to review the minutes. I don't there are any corrections, and so can I please have a motion to approve the minutes?

[1:02] Anybody. So you Oh, go ahead. Somebody who is unmuted probably has to do that. and then have a second second. Thank you. All those in favor in order, Jack I. Vicki, Hi. and i'll give I. So the minutes are approved with one who is absent, not voting on the the minutes. Okay, Robby, return to you to address a couple of matters that you have. Aaron has already. Well, Aaron, we'll probably ask you, and you can make a record. Thank you. hey? Just a real couple of quick updates. The application deadline for the March Boson meeting was yesterday, and we're still processing applications. But it does appear we have a couple that were submitted. So

[2:03] March fourteenth is the next meeting. Just let me know attendance information. If you don't think you can make it, just let me know as soon as possible. But we'd love to see you there as always. So that's update Number One update number 2 is, we are actively going through the Bosa applicant. We just had Katie Sign in. Hello! So update on the Bosa applicants. We have a couple of applicants, and interviews are going on this week and next week. so hopefully, by the next Bose, a meeting, we will have an update for you regarding either a returning or a new bosa member. and Jack's term ends, I believe, in March or April, so it'll be either a returning member or a new member. So stay tuned on that. But we do have 2 applicants, and we're actively going through those interviews

[3:00] this weekend. Next. I have a question on that. Okay, this looks like she does, too. Do you want to go ahead. Don't. We try to wait for him? We we know that happens to people so no worries. Thanks for letting us know, though, appreciate the apology. So I just was curious. I know that when I came on the board. There was an idea at that time, or a requirement. I don't know which it is that there' be a builder, an architect. and other design representative, maybe, and then citizens of the community. And i'm wondering if that still holds, or if that was ever formal or just an informal thing. Robbie, I don't know if you know, because I, as of right now, I don't think there is a must be this, that and this I know. They're trying t0 0pen it up to more applicants at this time.

[4:07] But I can tell you that this year seems a little different than that they're reaching out to staff and asking us to possibly ask questions and things like that. So I know there is some staff, input but specific to whether or not they're going to require certain traits or job titles. I don't believe so. So they're still keeping that pretty open. They want to bring in more applicants, but at the same time They're also asking that staff maybe partake a little more than in the past. When it comes to the interview process. I think I can. I can say this on the questionnaire. There is one line about what is your experience with construction structural issues on and on, you know, just like that. It's very informal, but it it's a leading question on the interview. Okay. thank you.

[5:01] and that's all for me. I guess that's it for staff updates. So if we want to go into the next item, we can hand it over to Lisa Head. Yeah, Lisa, Are you going to be the leader? I am. Yes, so i'd be happy to turn it over to you. Thank you. Okay, Great thanks, Sharon. Let me share my screen. Good afternoon, Bozo. Members. I'm looking forward to chatting with you today about accessory dwelling units. I'm gonna prepare you that this is quite a lengthy presentation, but it is divided into kind of different sections, and we'll stop and have discussion throughout. So, but I just wanted to get you ready for your valentines of accessory drawing. You know something I have to leave for at 6 30. Do you think that? So when you say lengthy, it's 4 0'clock. Can you give us an idea of what you're talking about? Well, I mean, if you're the planning board they would talk for 6 h. So it depends on how much you guys want to discuss. But I would say I have about half an hour of presentation. I'm: sure we can probably manage that. Thank you. Yeah, I would. I'm: just gonna also Second Jill. I I need to head out it. I was gonna say 6 32, so that that works

[6:15] perfect. Well, we will try to exceed or be even faster than that. But we will all get started with the accessory doing it. So yeah, that's a great idea. So sure Hi, everyone i'm. Carl Giler. I'm senior policy adviser with the city. I work with Lisa on code amendments t0 0ur land Use code.

[7:11] Keep my contributions limited tonight, but if you see me drop off, that's Why. thanks, Charles, thanks for being here, even though you're sick. And, Alex, you want to introduce yourself. Oh, we can't hear you, or I can't hear you. If if not so, you have the right status to be able to speak. Yeah. So, Alex, you should be able to go ahead and talk. There.

[8:02] Let me check something real fast. It might be his own mic settings in. Zoom. Okay. If not, I can. I can try to introduce him. This is Alex Berger. He just started is the Senior Zoning plans. Examiner works immediately with Brian Holmes and myself. But we're all part of the larger umbrella with Charles and everybody else that you see today. So sorry, Alex, that you're unable to speak. But we can see you. So if you want to wave. But yeah, you might be seeing Alex in the near future working with those that are variances or whatnot. So that's Alex.

[9:01] All right, is that everybody? I think that's our whole big team that's here tonight or this afternoon. All right, so i'll get started with our eightyu presentation. So let me get up there. So the purpose of this presentation. Today we heard that you were interested in hearing some background just overall on a to use, and how they're processed right now in Boulder, so I have some slides on that, and can happy to answer any questions there. But kind of the original intent was to give an overview of the potential code changes that are coming up to a to use. obviously as a board, you all review the variances to the size, the maximum size of a to use. So you kind of touch a to use in a way that other boards don't Necessarily. So that's why I wanted to make sure to give you an overview of how the ordinance might be changing in coming months. And so you can anticipate how that might impact upcoming up applications for you as Well. we've been to the Housing Advisory Board planning Board and City Council with a very similar presentation kind of split int0 3 main questions, as was in the memo that you were provided. So I have it kind of split up with that main section about the background. And then the 3 questions where we can kind of stop and talk and have

[10:13] a discussion, and then your guidance and input will help shape the ordinance as we're drafting it over the next couple of months. So starting off with just this background on how a to use our accessory drawing units work in boulder. The absolute basic is what is an edu and our accessory dwelling it. I'm going to keep saying a to use because it's much easier to and accessory drawing unit. But basically the graphic on the right side. Everything that's in blue could be an 80, so it could be something that's internal to a house. whether that's an attic apartment or basement apartment or an addition a lot of times we'll see it as a detached day to you, which means it's in a separate structure, so it might be a conversion of a garage or an apartment above a garage something like that, but really an 80. You it's just a small residence that shares its lot with a larger main house, and that's what makes it access read.

[11:05] But it really is an independent and self contained living space. So it has to have a kitchen, bathroom, bedrooms. Things like that to make it really a housing unit the current housing require, or the current AD you requirements in boulder are listed on this slide, s0 0nly certain properties in the city are eligible. Not every property can have an 80. You have to have a minimum lot size of at least 5,000 square feet. We have a saturation limit which I'll talk about a lot more in detail on later slides, but essentially in a neighborhood area. There can only be 20 0f those properties can have an eightyu. and it has to be on a lot with a single family home, so you can't have an 80. You be accessory to a duplex or anything else it has to be with a single family home. and they're only allowed in certain zoning districts, so you can see the zoning district map on the right hand side of this slide. Essentially it's kind of the areas with the lighter yellow, but those are the districts where an 80 would be allowed

[12:01] maximum size. I mentioned. This is the type of variance that bos all looks at, so there's a maximum size for a detached unit or an attached unit, and i'll get into that later as well. There's parking requirements. We have to provide parking for the main house, and also the Atu. The lot has to be owner occupied, so the owner of the property has to either live in the main house or the at you. in order to get an 80. You approval. and the 80 You can't be sold separately, so it's always part of the same lot as the main house, and these 80 user not allowed to be a short term rental, so they can't be used for an airbnb or things like that we also have a number of other zoning standards that regulate the design and location of a to use. So this graphic kind of shows things that you probably hear a lot about. So setbacks are things like that. But all of these different standards that are in our land use code that apply to a. To so

[13:00] height, far step back separation. There are a number of different things that regulate where an eightyu can be located on a lot. In addition to kind of those general requirements. We also have some standards for affordable a to use, so those are capped at a maximum rent level, or ads that are located on a lot that's historically designated. So in those circumstances the eighties are allowed to be a larger size, so a detach unit, which would usually at market rate, only get 550 square feet, can go up t0 800 if it's affordable, or a 1,000 if it's a on a historic property. and then attached also gets a greater size as well. Also, if it's an affordable unit or on a historic property, they don't have to provide an additional parking space, and there's some flexibility on the saturation limit. So there are kind of incentives built in for a to to be affordable. These are just a few slides on the 80, you approval process. So there are a couple of steps to getting an 80. You approved. If a homeowner wants to add an accessory to all in it to their lot. They have to first start with an administrative review application. So an accessory drawing unit is called a conditional use in our land use code. So they have to go through an administrative review.

[14:18] That means that there's a public notice that sent out to the adjacent property owners within 10 days of the application being filed, and then from the staff side it's reviewed by the planners and the building code reviewers do a initial cursory review, and engineers all look at it. and that that consists of the Administrative Review. Now, your place in this actually comes before that, because if it's identified that they need a variance in the maximum floor area of that 80 you they have to come to you for approval first, and so that's before they would even get to go through the administrative review application. But if they've gone through that and the administrative review application, and it gets approved, they are required to record a declaration of use, which is a legal document that's like recorded with the property with the county that says that they agree to all the rules that come along with having an eightyu, and they've signed that, and it stays with the property

[15:14] that isn't the end, because then they have to get a second application approved, which is either a building permit or a change of use, application depending on the situation it's usually a building permit. and then the application goes again through a full review by our zoning staff. Our building code reviewers do their full review of the whole building code, and then the engineers review it for compliance as well. So typical building permit. They go through inspections. Things like that get their letter of completion when they've completed all of their work. They're still not done after the second application. Because if you want to rent the AD, you have to also get a long term rental license, so that would be the last step in the city approval process for an 80. That's being rented. So that's a lot that's just the basics of the rules that apply to a to use now and then the processes. I did want to stop here and see if anyone had any questions or clarifications or anything before I kind of get into the changes to the ordinance that are being proposed.

[16:18] I don't have any questions anyone else. I just have one question, how how long? What's the time? Period? Usually between the first application and the second application between the approval of the first application, or like how long the first application takes. Yeah, like, how long does first application like? How if i'm applying? And I do my first application about how much longer, what period of time Can I expect to elapse before the second application?

[17:06] Okay, I have to ask, interrupt, and and ask a question. I've never heard of anybody getting it done in 3 weeks. I've only heard people saying it takes months and months and months, so is that the city, or is that them, or is that the lack of clarity? I think it could be all of this. Okay, yeah, there could be many factors, but it's a complex process. We can agree on that. Thank you. Yep. Any other questions. All right. We'll jump into these focus areas for the regulation update that we're working on this year. So this has been set as a city council priority project, s0 0ne of their main priorities for this 2 year, 22 t0 2023 period that they wanted staff to work on, they have the objective is laid out to increase the allowance of a to use in the community. and we've worked on, the scope of the project being kind of limited to these 4 things. The first is eliminating the saturation limit that I mentioned.

[18:06] the second, which really relates to what those are reviews is modifying the eightyu size limits what those would be, and then also the method of measurement clarifying that. and then the bottom 2 are kind of more general PET, all trying to clarify and simplify the regulations as we have them now, and also improving the approval process. So kind of what we touched on on the last slide. So it's those 4 things that we're going to be focused on with these upcoming ordinance updates. This is just an overview of the plan for public engagement that we're doing this Year Council really wanted us to focus on getting input from our the appointed board. So we've been like, I said, to planning board and housing Advisory Board. We're here with you tonight, and then we also had a study session just a couple of weeks ago with city council. We also have virtual engagement going on on our be be heard. Boulder. Virtual engagement site. We'll have office hours, and then we'll have the full public hearing process

[19:00] that will happen in April and May. So that's kind of the plan for public engagement on this, as well as reviewing the engagement that occurred with the last major update of the eightyu regulations which happened back in 2,018. So we're using a lot of that engagement that was done at that time to help inform these ordinance changes, because there's a lot of similarities and some and similar topics that we're talking about. So we're using those, and a lot of great work was done then. So we're using that understanding of the key community concerns that we heard at that time we had a questionnaire that even asks specific questions about the saturation, limit and size limits. For instance, for the size limits in the questionnaire in 2,018. There was actually a lot of support for increasing the size limits, but that wasn't ultimately adopted in 2,018. So we're kind of using that outreach that we got then to help inform these these attack. These changes this time, too. we also had a community survey in 2,016 related to the comprehensive plan that expressed support for the to use. So we're looking at a lot of the different things to inform these changes.

[20:08] as far as the input that we've been getting this year. We went t0 0ur community connectors in Residence group, which is really great group. If you haven't heard of it that the city it's a group of community connectors, that kind of represent the underrepresented groups in boulder and give input on city policies and initiatives kind of the benefits and burdens of those projects. So we had a great discussion last month about a to use with them. They supported the and elimination of the saturation limit and increasing the size limit, especially noting that that would help provide housing options for families if they could be a little bit larger units. but also making sure that ads are really being used for housing for the people that really need it. They also gave some great po programmatic suggestions and things that could be improved like perhaps reduced fees for lower income folks just to make sure that the people that are benefiting from a to use that there's widespread benefit around the city from a, to use being more permissive.

[21:04] We talked to with planning board. They also supported, eliminating the saturation limits and increasing the size limits, as well as the clarification changes. They did express. Some concerns about kind of the potential externalities of a to use. If we didn't have a saturation limit. So we discussed that. and then we also discussed concerns that they had about property values being increased with a to use on them on the property, and whether a to use are really being used for housing. Finally we went to the housing advisory board, which also supported eliminating saturation, limit, increasing size, limits, and color for clarifying parts of the code. and then related to the size limits. There was just some concern that if we increase the size limit too much that that might counteract the kind of inherent affordability of a to use because they are smaller. So interesting discussions all around with all of these different groups, just like I'm. Sure, we'll have tonight with you all.

[22:00] We also, as I mentioned, went to City council and City Council, so supported the elimination of the saturation limits, increasing size limits. And then also the code clarification and process improvements. So that's that really kind of nailed down the scope that we're going to be working on with this ordinance. And that's why we're here with you tonight to kind of talk about all of those different changes. So the part of the application or the memo that you all got the long packet was an evaluation that we completed last year. As I mentioned the last major update to the 80 regulations was adopted in 2,018 put into place, or put into effect in early 2,019. So the plan was always to take a few years to look at how those changes affected a to use in boulder and try to understand which changes have the greatest impact on reducing barriers to a to use. So there's the whole evaluation report in your packet if you want to look at it. But i've got a really quick summary on these next couple of slides.

[23:03] but just generally, for general knowledge, 80 s have been allowed in boulder since 1983. We have about a slightly over 450 0f those 80 S. Exist in the city, and then the evaluation went through the size and type and affordabilities, that of the eighties that have been approved in that time. So what we saw was about 2 thirds of a to use between 2019 and 22 for the detached style, so in a separate structure, and about a third were attached the average size of a to use in that time with 640 square feet. Since we allow a different size for detouching attached. You can see that that's different so detached average was 5 50 attached, with 7 75 ish. and then I mentioned the difference between the affordable and market rate eighty-s. So we actually saw about a third of applications come forward as the affordable Edu type, and then 2 thirds as the market rate.

[24:01] This is just a graph that shows you, as I mentioned, that we've been allowing 80 you since 1,983. But you can kind of see how the regulatory changes over time have impacted. The number of eighty-s that were approved each year, so you can see there were not a not many a to use up until at least 2,000, and then we started, seeing increases. But the big thing to see is what happened in 2019, with the most recent. After the most recent changes, a really significant jump in the number of eighty-s. It's taken, you know. It's come back down. Since then it was kind of built up. Demand as those changes were coming into place. but also eighties have just become more popular and widespread in many communities around the country. Over the last decade or so so we're, seeing that as well in boulder. so that evaluation that I mentioned is in your packet. But kind of a summary of what we found in that evaluation was that the changes from 2,018 that really seemed to reduce the barriers to a to use was an increase. We increase the saturation limit from 10 t0 20%,

[25:05] and that allowed, I think, about 40. We'll get to another slide about 40 additional 80 to be built, increasing the maximum size. Many of the 80 S. That came through took advantage of the larger size we in. We decrease the minimum W size requirement, which allowed a few more 80 to be built. and then also allowed it in a few more zoning districts. So we saw that those changes have really impacted or reduced barriers to a to use. And then we also found these potential other improvements that are now kind of worked into the scope of these upcoming changes, so eliminating the saturation limit, reconsidering floor area and then some other things like extending approval, expirations giving an option, or for flexibility of height. and then other code, clarification and process improvements. And i'll kind of go into those, and how they relate to the scope on a later slide. But this was really the conclusion of that evaluation report that we did.

[26:01] and the evaluation. It was composed of both that data analysis where we looked at all those 80 us we talked to, we did interviews of people that had withdrawn their eightyu applications, and you'll see on a couple of later slides. We looked at all of the Inquire Boulder, which is our customer service portal. We looked at all of those tickets to try to understand. Maybe the people that never start the process. What barriers are they running into? So we really did try to see from a variety of different perspectives what the bar bar barriers might be to a to use. We also interview, or we did a survey of all of the eightyu owners. It's something that we've done in 20122017 and then 2022. So it's nice because we're able to compare that over time the responses. So we worked with our colleagues at housing and human services to send out a survey. We got 212, with responses, which is almost a 50% response rate. and some of the there. This is all in the evaluation as well. But some of the highlights. For that a greater percent percentage of eighty-s are being used as space for visitors and relatives compared to previous years.

[27:09] and that 40% of owners who are choosing the 80, you the affordable 80, you route. We're doing so because it because of the incentive to reduce the parking requirement. One of the things that Council wanted us to look into from the outside of this project was whether we should allow more than 1 80 you per lot, and that survey actually showed that over 3 quarters of people that own an 80 you would not be interested in a second a to use. So that was a helpful Tibet that came out of that survey as well. We also have been doing a bunch of comparable city research over the last several months while we were doing the evaluation, just trying to understand the regulations of other cities and cities that maybe our similar population size, or also have a university or things like that. There's a number of ways that we are comparable with these cities, but some of the takeaways from looking at the 34 cities

[28:04] is that none of the other cities have a saturation limit for a to use. Only a few still have a minimum lot size. That's something that's been recently. Oh, Nikki, I just saw your hand raised. Sorry. Click. Please continue with this slide. It's on the slide. So please go ahead and continue with this. Okay, all right. Sorry. It just popped up for some reason, right? Then. So and then only a few of the cities have a minimum lot size and almost all cities limit t0 0nly 1 80, you per lot, and in terms of maximum size, Boulder is actually smaller than most cities. What we allow. although it seems that in Colorado it tends to be on the the smaller size, but it's still usually 600 to a 1,000, and we only allow 550 for a detached units around the country. It's typically closer to about 800, I would say, is a typical maximum. There's variation on parking requirements either 0 0r one.

[29:00] Almost all cities say that the 80 you can't be sold separately in about half and half require the owner to live on site or not. So that's kind of the feedback that or the the in what we saw from the comparable cities research as well. Thank you. Did you want me to go back to the last slide about this, if you could. If you decide to build an affordable AD you, what does that mean to the road parking requirement. And I guess the reason why I'm asking that is because we do deal with parking setbacks. And so i'm just trying to understand what the relationship is between partner requirements and setbacks. Yeah, sure. S0 0ne unique thing about a to use is that the parking doesn't have to abide by the setback, so it doesn't have to comply with the typical setbacks. so as long as they can accommodate the proper size of parking, they can still be in the landscape setback, but because we require both a space for the the principal unit and the space for the 80 unit unit.

[30:06] That's where people, if they aren't able to meet those 2 parking spaces on site, they can go the affordable route, and they only have to provide one parking space. So we were trying to understand the intent of the people that were choosing the affordable to you, and we saw that 40% of them were doing it to eliminate that parking requirement. Thank you. And if i'm off base, let me know. So can a homeowner who is providing a market rate at you. apply for any type of parking variance. No, they cannot. So the only variance that is available for a to us is that maximum size. Thank you. Right? Yeah. So the affordability is the only flexibility really for for parking. Thanks for those questions. Those are helpful.

[31:01] So I talked about the comparable cities, and how that has informed us our planning Board, one of our planning Board members wanted to make sure that we were including this State kind of context for State legislation, that there are many cities. are many states around the country that, especially in recent years, have been passing legislation related to a, to use either requiring cities to allow a to use or kind of along the lines of that or even organ doesn't allow owner occupancy, or off street parking requirements. So kind of runs the gamut, but definitely something that's been coming up at the State level as well, and Governor Polis and his state of the State address just last month identified housing as one of his main priorities. So we're kind of anticipating to hear more to see if Colorado takes any steps related t0 80 with legislation. As some of these other states have. Alright, so I mentioned that this presentation split int0 3 main questions, which we're also in your memo. So that's kind of how I've organized it. So we'll start with saturation limits and get into size limits. Then the kind of general clarification and simplification things.

[32:08] So these are areas of focus like I already showed you on this slide. Those 4 items we'll start with the saturation limit. I know I've mentioned it already a couple of times. But just to explain what the saturation limit is, it's actually something that's been in place in the 80 regulations since they were first adopted in 1,983 accessory dwelling units. May, we're common historically in many cities before single family zoning came to be but once single Family zoning came in. You couldn't have more than one housing unit on a single family property. S0 80 user of essentially outlawed for many decades, and then about in the early eighties. Many cities, including Boulder, started to re-allow or re-legalize accessory dwelling units so in 1983, when it when boulder adopted their first aid you regulations. Understandably it was kind of a new thing, and people weren't sure how the eighties were going to impact

[33:05] neighborhoods. And so the saturation was limit was included as kind of a way to make sure that any impacts were mitigated, or things like that with this new type of use. And so what it does is in the Rl. One and Rl. 2, which are a lower density zoning district. It caps the number of properties that can have an 80 t0 20. So in this very overly simplified graphic. Say, there's 10 properties within 300 feet of your property. Only 2 0f those are 20 can have an 80 you. S0 0nce those 2 property owners have the 80, you, the third property owner, has n0 0ption to do an eightyu unless one of their neighbors ever remove, like fully removes their adu. We do have a waiting list for people, but there hasn't been any movement on the waiting list. So there's this kind of 12 properties waiting for their neighbors to remove a, to to be able to do an 80 0n their property. So.

[34:03] as I mentioned, this is a relatively unique standard to have. There are some cities that, like Seattle, had a saturation limit for their first couple of years. It's 80 regulations. They removed it after a few years. But we're now on our fortieth year of having the saturation limit with our regulations we did study, as I mentioned, the last main change to the a to use or the edu regulations increases saturation from from 10% t0 20%. And so we studied in the evaluation what impact that had. And you can kind of see in the light green part of this pie chart there's these 41 properties or 21 0r 20% of the 80 you applications in that time exceeded the previous 10% limit. But it's kind of interesting to see that almost or over 3 quarters either are located in a district that doesn't have a saturation limit, or they would have met the 10% limit. Anyway.

[35:01] But those 41 units would have had n0 0ption to move forward with an 80 you at that 10 saturation limit. As I mentioned, part of the evaluation, was looking through our inquire Boulder tickets, which is our customer service portal. And just in looking at several months of inquiries that we get the hundreds of inquiries, we do get a lot of inquiries about a, to use. The majority of them are about saturation limits, so it's something that's really poorly understood by the general public. It's something that you can't. As a property owner. You can't calculate it yourself. So you have to ask the city to look it up. And another thing that's unique about the saturation limit is that it changes over time. So you might ask. The city is my neighborhood saturated, or like? Is my property overly saturated with a to use in January. You don't get your application until March. Your neighbors already put in their application, and now you don't need the saturation limit, so that's unusual for most zoning standards to have that kind of change over time.

[36:03] S0 0n it's understandably a really challenging provision to implement, and that these are just all verbatim quotes from inquiries that we get that. I thought we're kind of representative, but I think that top right one really helps. We we would like to consider having an 80 0ver the garage of our home. But we need to confirm that the location isn't saturated. How do we do that without going through the whole application, paying the fee, going through all of that, because it really is kind of the initial barrier for all of these 80 use. like I said the saturation limit was of good intention when the first regulations were adopted in the eighties. But we now have a number of zoning code standards that help to regulate the design and location and potential impact of a to use just going back to the same graphic. You all are very familiar with all of these different things that regulate how houses can be built in a, to use can be located on those properties.

[37:02] So this brings us t0 0ur first question. I am hoping to just have a discussion with you all, or if you have any comments or questions about the proposed elimination, so we'd be eliminating the 20 saturation limit, so there would no longer be any saturation limit for those properties in the Rl. One and Rl. 2 districts so happy to answer questions or just hear your discussion. People just jumped in because I can't see everybody with her sharing screen. So if you want to talk, you just have to see if anybody else. There we go. Thank you. I don't see any hands raised. I don't know if we yeah, we g0 0kay, go ahead. I was just gonna say so. You mentioned You had 12 properties on the wait list currently. And so you're proposing just entirely eliminating the saturation limits. S0 0bviously you probably you know not. Everybody is gonna all of a sudden apply. But those 12 would get cleared, and and it might attract more. Have you guys sort of done any internal

[38:16] estimates of how many you might expect. You know sort of applications once you publicize the changes, etc., etc. I mean, do you? Do you anticipate that? It's really going to spark a whole bunch of interest that Hasn't already been there? Yeah, I think. Well, I think what was interesting about looking at that. The saturation limit was that the vast majority wouldn't, you know, exceed the 20%, anyway. So they would have met the saturation limit even previously. So I don't think we expect massive deluge. But I do think that as you saw in the chart when we made the last changes kind of every time we make a change there is an increase, and that that was our record year. We got 80 applications, but now it's back down to. I think we had

[39:00] less than 40 this year, so I think maybe you know that the year we adopt it we might get another bump like that. But I wouldn't anticipate, you know, really significant increase more than more than the interest that we're already getting. Thanks, Lisa. Also, you know, being sort of intimately involved with this process as I was, and am. you know, the desire to have an AD you, or deal with an ado because they both sides of the coin isn't for everybody. So I don't I doubt we would ever see a 100% saturation just from my experience being here in boulder. It means sharing your basement, or sharing part of your house or building another structure which is very expensive. or repurposing another structure. So probably we that's probably. Why, you don't see you see so many cities without saturation limits because it just isn't something everybody wants.

[40:01] But that's just my anecdotal observation. Yeah, that's helpful things. Anyone else? Questions. Yeah, Nicki, please. Thank you, Lisa. I was very confused by the chart on it's page 51 0f our packet, but I think it was the second page of your presentation that had the the lines and the green and the blue and the yellow, and it it talked about the I guess the regulations that are in place that limit. 80 is just as a person who didn't understand that chart. When I first saw it until your presentation. I would suggest. maybe communicating that in a different way, because talking about saturation limit, I think the general public think, thinks that there's going to be this deluge of you know, every every house is now going to have an edu, but I think, explaining properly that there are regulations in place, that even if we do eliminate the saturation limit

[41:10] that paid that Charl on page 51 shows how not every single house on your street is going to have an AD you so just as a person who read that page. It was very confusing to me, and I know, like 2 0f the words on that chart just from being on the both of those a board. So if you all can put that in a more readable fashion for a lay person, I think that you'll have a better chance of communicating to the public that it's not going to be an 80. You in everyone's backyard. Yeah, thank you. That's very helpful. I think part of the part of the intent of that is to show how complex it is, so i'm glad that's coming across. But I think we can communicate kind of the tie together better.

[42:03] I had a question. Do you have account of the number of lots in boulder that are more than 5,000 square feet. Yeah, actually, our data folks are doing that right now. So they're They're analyzing how many we have that are in the right district, and also the right size. So we should have that number soon. So potentially. You don't have a even the range, or potentially how many it to use could be added in boulder. Is it in the 1,000 range, or is it in the I don't know 20,000? Yeah, i'm not sure. I don't want to speculate on what they would be, but we are looking into it. Okay. Thank you. Question. Is there a point of time in the future that that you would call time to look back and see if these processes are working? I mean it will. Are you working that into the system? Is it? One year, 2 years, 3 years.

[43:01] in order to to give you some hard feedback. Yeah, I think that that that was really helpful about doing this evaluation this time, so we did it in. The rules were adopted in 2,018 put into place in 2,019. I think the intent was to try to do it after 2 years, but because of Covid it just kind of took longer. So it was 3 years. But I think absolutely any future code changes, you know it's always helpful to look back, and I think that this evaluation that has really informed these next steps of what actually makes a difference. So we'll definitely be working that into the process after these these ordinance, or after this ordinance process goes through great. Thank you. Thanks. So it looks like that's our question on this portion. I'm sure we'll have more unless you you're yeah, you've taken your hand down. Thanks, Marine. So if you want to start with next question. Please go ahead. Yeah. Okay. So now i'm talking about size limits. So these are you as we've talked about already. You see these 4 area variances, but just going back because they're it's a little confusing because they're different for different things. But the attached unit has to be either one third the size of the main house, or a 1,000 square feet, whichever is less

[44:17] so. An example of that is, if you have a 1,500 square foot house. The maximum size of an 80 that you can have is 500 square feet. So you, you don't get to take advantage of the full 1,000, unless your house is over 3 3000 square feet. and then for the detached or a separate unit. The maximum size is 550 square feet. So from the eighties until 2,018, the maximum size was 450. They increased it t0 5 50 in 2,018, and then the attached has remained pretty much the same since the eighties. And can I make it common so again, referencing back to that time of that Council meeting. I just want people to know that the 550 square feet was completely arbitrary from the perspective of the people that worked it through the system. It was something that a Council member brought up, and that's what got passed. It was not what was recommended

[45:10] by the research that Jay had done jay Segment had done at that time. So I I I want to caution people to getting to attached t0 550, because it it doesn't have us there's not an analysis that I know of. That goes with it. Thanks. Lisa. Thanks. Jo: yeah. The original recommendation in 2,018 was by 800 square feet. So then, so in that evaluation we looked at, I kind of gave a brief summary of this. But if you just digging down into even more details, so the average size, like I said, is 640. But it's kind of interesting to look at the detached and attached, and how that affected the sizes based on affordable and market rate. So, like I said, detach unit maximum is 550. We saw that average right at 550. But again, those affordable units can be a little bit bigger. They can be up t0 800 square feet, so the actual average for affordable units, so the people that were taking advantage of the larger size was 634 square feet, so still, not Maxing out at 800,

[46:13] and then the average market rate was just under 500. The attached to us are less. There's less differentiation between affordable and market rate still around 770 either way affordable or market rate. One thing that came up a lot in our interviews of staff interviews of people that have applied was that the way that floor area is measured for a to use is really confusing, because it's different than any other building in our land use code. So if you look at that top, right, this is kind of this is actually an exactly 550 square foot detached day to you. Floor plan. But if you look in that kind of inset picture on the right, there's actually really it. It's more significant than you would think. Difference between whether you measure from the inside wall or the ex exterior wall, or how 80 us are written. It can be 6 inches from the interior wall.

[47:11] So it's just very confusing to have a different role for a to use, and it often trips up applicants. It leads to like. We kind of mentioned that the application can take a lot longer if there's a lot of back and forth between the city or the things like that. So floor area is just something that trips basically everybody up that has to deal with it. So the recommendation that came out of the evaluation was to try to make it more consistent with how we measure floor area. you know, around the whole other, the rest of the city and all other types of buildings. So I just wanted to explain that. And then als0 0ne thing about floor areas. It has to include the walkway or the egress up to the Eightyu. So, even though this is a 550 square foot 80, you, they still have to count the stairway up, and so that's really not usable space.

[48:01] But that's just kind of one of the quarks of the floor area measurement. So that's one thing we want to address, whether we, whether we increase the side elements or not. We want to address this because it's just such a procedural issue that comes into place, or it comes into play for applicants and staff alike. Now you are featured on this slide. So those are variances. We've looked at all of the variances that were approved for maximum floor area from 29 t0 22. There were 4 variances approved. What was interesting was that All 4 were very similar situations, which you might remember depending on what time you were at the on the board, but they all exceeded 1,000 square feet, so you can see the size range from a 1,027 up t0 1500. They were all existing houses with a basement unit, that we're trying to adapt the basement unit for an 80 youth so kind of interesting to see that they were all kind of similar situations. And then all 4 were approved by

[49:01] what was that? So we looked at that, and tried to understand that as well. So the idea for the size limit increase. is essentially what the original recommendations were in 2,018, maybe detached. And this is where we're open to hearing what you all are thinking related to size limits. Since you do see those kind of larger 80 use come through, and the challenges with adapting to those size limitations. But the idea is that detached would potentially have a maximum of 800 square feet, which is much more typical to many cities around the country, and then attached would be either 1,000 square feet, or we could do the one half of the principal unit, or a 1,000 square feet, whichever's less. just to make sure that it's always smaller than the main house. One thing to consider with these size limits is that we do have that incentive for affordable a a to be larger than market rate 80. So if we increase the maximum size of the market rate we're going

[50:02] to, we would probably need to increase correspondingly the allowable size of the affordable a. To to retain that incentive. I think that's all I have on size limits, so that the question for you all is whether you have comments about increasing the allowable size or a clarification of measurement. Just you all are much more familiar with reviewing these variance cases. So i'm really interested to hear your feedback, especially on this size limit question, and I will stop sharing so that we can all see each other's face. Thank you, Lisa. who has is ready with a question or comment. Nikki: Thank you. Yeah. So i'm actually relying on my colleagues for the answer to this question. because when we get the applications, and Robbie goes through his presentation, he always says, you know, before the F. A. R. Is not exceed a certain amount.

[51:03] And so my question going through the the presentation. Well, the packet was, and again, I think this is probably more, for my colleagues is. how will eightyu variances impact variances for primary structures? So? And maybe I don't know if I ask that question correctly. So if we have the at, they are. For when we're looking at variances in our normal course of business, and we say F. AR. Does not exceed a particular amount if there's an if there's a detached AD, you, or an attached to you, how does that play into that maximum. If they are, are we go ahead, Joe. Let's have Robbie answer this question. This is actually a staff question, and I think he can clarify it better than we can. You're on to you grabbing, so it does not alter the maximum allowance for the entire property. It plays into it So, because you have an 80. You don't get a bonus or extra f AR for that property.

[52:07] Yeah. So they have to. Whether you have an 80 0r not. You have to meet the same maximum floor area ratio, but there is a additional layer of the actual Eightyu has its own size that it can only be so it can only be 550 square feet. Those 550 square feet have to fit into this allowable square footage on the lot, whether there's maybe you or not. So to clarify. And just numerically Nikki, if you're allowed through whatever the process is on your lot, let's just say 5,000 buildable square far. and you have a 2 car garage. so that 2 car garage consumes part of that 5,000 square feet. If you have an AD. That's 800 square feet, so that 5,000 is minus. say, 800 for the garage and 800 for the so. Now you're

[53:04] main house is going to be. Is it 3,400? Is that what I just did? Mathematically, because I can't do it in my head? I think it's 3,400 square feet. and so that's what your fa are after the a do, and after the garage cannot exceed. So when when we get a request to exceed F. Which we don't get very often. It's usually I and Robbie again. You might have to jump in here because I can't remember having had very many. If any of these. it would be on a smaller lot. We we have situations where we have those corner wants, you know where we have the side, your setbacks, and they make it impossible to build anything. So we're having to give a side yard variance. And again, this is probably you would probably be better at. I mean I have my personal experience with it, but I still think you the better expert to answer that question and make it really clear what we're talking about here.

[54:03] So, going back to your original your question, Nicki, is your every lot in the city of Boulder single family, for example, is allowed so much floor area to put it simply, and that's regardless of where it is like, Jill explained. Garage 80, you not 80. You you're allowed so much. When you have an 80. You there's a supplemental size requirement which is the one-third, or the no more than 1,000. That's just a general. It needs to meet this. but that's not including what the overall lot area is. So that's why I said, the size requirement for the Edu essentially just plays int0 0r ties into your maximum allowance for the lot. Because you're allowed a 1,000 square feet. Max. I'm. Just throwing a number out there for the entire lot. Your 80, you along with your house, and everything else would have to fit into that number. So they really are separate.

[55:00] But a lot of times. If you've got a property that's smaller. That means you have a smaller floor area or far ratio. which means that it's likely that your 80 is gonna be limited even more to a smaller size, because smaller a lot smaller house, smaller structures means smaller eightyu. But sometimes that's not always the case, which is Why, there's the path board for a variance to kind of go beyond that one-third or 1000 0r what not. And we also have a, and I don't want to digress, but we have a floor area variance for the general for the overall property that doesn't even tie into it. So there's kind of 2 types of floor area variances. The board can vary, but the maximum allowed for the entire lot is separate than the maximum size allowance for an 80, you. but they are connected because of how big the lot is, how big the houses and stuff like that. So I don't know if I answered your question hopefully, I did

[56:02] you? You did answer my question. I guess what I would like to explore are the unintended consequences of allowing variances above the one-third, the above the 1,000 square feet or 800 square feet. So i'll jump in and again, Jack, you know, or if if you want to add, please d0 0ur marine so historically those 4 variances that you saw, most of most of which I was on board, for i'm not sure. I remember the 1,500. These are typically basement situations where you cannot change the footprint of the basement. It is what it is, and in order to create that a usable a to you in that space the access is typically in the center. And so you cannot create, carve out a safe fire safe. And so we've had the the board, the the Fire

[57:08] Chief and other people come and talk to us about this. We're not allowed to say, okay, we'll just frame off the back quarter of the basement and use it for storage. Nope. That doesn't work. You can a shared space in that basement can count with the main far. But basically, so if that person to the 1,500 is probably a house where the main floor footprint is 1,500 square feet, and the basement is accordingly 1,500 square feet, and cannot fire safe. Wise be divided into a smaller unit. That is not the intention of this is to make it in an already built structure to modify this, and certainly that's the series of questions that get asked, Did you build this house this way? Was the intention all along for this to be a separate dwelling unit. Typically, that's not the case. And so you need to understand that these are

[58:03] typically things that are coming to us in houses that are long standing in here and can't be carved up any other way. I remember the one where a guy had his daughter in there, and with a child. and it would. We went through all sorts of design machinations what we're not a design board. But we talked about everything, and there simply wasn't a safe way to do it. And so typically that's what we're dealing with. I don't from my perspective that that when you write this and you're dealing with this, and remember I do have the law background. So i'm a little bit. You know more sensitive. With that you're talking about making sure that those exceptions or variances are not created by the owner, the original owner. They're created as a function of something who design someone who wants to do it later. It other because you don't want to get permission to people to make a 1,500 square foot at you.

[59:00] So because if you're building new, you should be able to build a 1,000 square foot a to you, or 1,200, whatever ends up being, and and and make your access to the spaces, so that your common area is going to account for your to the shared square footage. Is it safe and fire safe. and the AD is on the other side? So I hope that helps a little bit. I also want to say that the this far exception actually hit me on my AD, and it's one of the reasons we didn't proceed. So I have a personal example. We're 670 square feet with the stairs. So when you take out a 150 square feet for a stairwell, and I don't know if it was exactly that or not that AD you would be 400 square feet. We did some experimenting, and I don't know. If you remember this Robbie, with 440 square foot limited living units here ll use. They were called. I don't know if anybody else remembers them that would really show how old I am. and they didn't g0 0ver very well, because it's a very small space for people to live in. So when you start to to crank them down so much, and that's why I brought up the issue of arbitrariness.

[60:13] If there's a s0 800 square feet is tied to a statistical reference for a to use across the country. 550 was arbitrary. And so when they're looking at adjusting that they're looking at adjusting it because they have data that answers the question that it prohibits people from being able to build what they'd like to build successfully providing this smaller housing unit, which was kind of the goal right? Whether it's your mother in law, whether it's your brother, whether whatever it is. So Anyway, i'm gonna stop talking. That was I. Hopefully. I'd explained that because the F. A. Our measurement ties int0 0ur stairs included, are they not included? And where. So, as a builder, I know what they're talking about, but you may not. When I want to make sure that's clear they're talking about. When the planner goes through the plans. They literally have to measure them.

[61:09] They use their computer and they measure and marine. You probably can talk about this as well, and they they. They click on one part. Then they click on the next part. And is it going to fit on the inside in the middle of the wall or on the outside, and they're all very different numbers. Marie, do you want to talk about that a little bit? Thank you. I don't have much to add. Honestly, I think you covered your experiences about as valid as what I could say, and I don't know Jack might have something to say, because as an architect, he knows what it takes to go through the plans and figure this out. Yeah, my question. It may be i'm sounding very naive. I don't understand why there's a difference between the 80 you the far and the house. Why are the

[62:02] different? It makes no sense to me. But i'm I i'd like to be enlightened. I would just have to say it kind of makes no sense to anybody. Why, it's different. I mean it was adopted as part of the ordinance. There were 6 different readings at the last 80, you ordinance. So it was kind of one of the later ones that was dropped in, but it was intended to be flexible for, or the reason why the 81 80 is different. Is it was intended to be flexible, for, like alternative building styles like building with straw bales to not penalize that kind of like thicker insulation by using just the exterior wall. So that's how we ended up with a different floor area. But in those cases that might be something that's actually they. We haven't seen Stravale 80 us since then, just to point that out. But you know that might be the exception, not the rule. And so if there was something like that, like a straw bale 80, you maybe that's something that makes sense to go through a 4 area variance

[63:04] for you all to assess whether you know that's kind of a unique circumstance, but using the typical floor area that we would use for everything else rather than having this kind of unique rule. Yeah, it is unique. And it's confusing as Well. okay. so I I did so. Thank you all for helping me understand that it was very helpful for me. I I still do have a question about the unintended consequences, so she'll thank you for explaining that when the structure already exists it makes sense to provide a variance for the Abu, because you can't carve it up. That that makes sense to me. I think what i'm interested in understanding is. if someone were to build a detached AD you and go through the requirements that we have already set up in the organ. So what is that? Our H. One H. 2 going through that and start to claim that they are

[64:03] open to a variance because they're going through all of our requirements. So I guess what i'm just trying to say is, it makes sense to me for variance or structure that already exist. How are we making sure that someone is not using this variance for a brand new building, detached building that they're building, and maybe they're already, or things in place to prevent that, and that's so excellent. Please let me know what they are, but that's what i'm trying to to understand. Yeah, I think that just the general variance findings that you all have to go through. I think Joe kind of touched on this, but I think they would be difficult to meet with a new detached debut, because the problem is kind of created by the applicant are those typical things. I don't know, Robbie, if you have more that you can add to that. But I think it would be challenging, and that's probably why the 4 that we've seen have all been existing structures, because I assume that the staff has given some direction that that's something that might be likely like findings that could be met

[65:12] where a detached, you know, if a detached came in and said, hey, we just want really want to be 1,200 square feet. That would be more challenging to get that variance. Granted, I would say. and real quick, and that's correct, and that is one thing Bosa looks at criteria specifically, which is, since you are a quasi judicial board, you have to find that the criteria is being met and specific t0 80 You size variances. You do look at stuff like. Is it existing, is it not? Also, the Board does not take into consideration finances. But you do take into consideration. Is a logical is it. you know? Is it feasible for somebody to be able to convert it back to a size that would meet the the size allowance for that properties 80, you. So the Board does very much depend on the review criteria, and the board does not set precedence. So because you did it with one property, it's going to be completely different for the next property, if there is one

[66:13] just like with any variance that Bozo looks at, it's very criteria, based hardship driven. I know. Years ago we used to have a rule that stated a to use, and I correct me if I'm wrong, Lisa 86 couldn't be in a building under 5 years of age or something. I think we got rid of that. There was a limitation. so it is possible that the board could see something like this. But one of you mentioned that we d0 0ur best to kind of have discussions prior to any application when it comes to whether or not this could be a a tough mountain to climb, getting a variance approval from Bosa. But it is ultimately their decision whether or not they want to move forward with a 80 you size variance in front of the Board of Zoning adjustment.

[67:01] and when they do that they have to meet all the criteria, and the board has to just like with any variance, has to find that it meets that criteria. So it's really hard to say that it's, you know it's setting a precedent or kind of paving the path forward for larger units, because they are all looked at very individually. based off that criteria, and I don't believe the criteria has changed much recently, but that is also something that could be considered in the future, were it to be an issue with the board, but as of right now, you know it's the board does. Look at the criteria, and if they're not being met. then there's not an approval. But the last, I think the 4 that were approved were all basement units existing conditions. The Board looked at the layout. Was it feasible for the person to close off a door and put it somewhere else to make it smaller or close off a bedroom. and all of that stuff is looked at with every application. There's only been 4 in the last 4

[68:03] years, so they're They're not very frequent. But you do look at the conditions in the existing conditions. And is it feasible to modify those conditions? And it all formulates the outcome. And in the last 4 years the 4 applications that you that the Board have seen were all approvals, because the Board felt that it did meet them. So it's they're looked at very uniquely, even though they're all kind of the same type of variance. because the properties different, the house is different, the history is different, the need is different. and the floor plans different, and the Board just has to make a decision based off the criteria. Any other comments. Thank you, Nikki, for your thoughts. I have one question again again, showing my ignorance.

[69:01] as I remember it's cases we come before we we didn't really approve or disapprove of those cases based on the to use, because that wasn't in our our baseball park, so to speak. we we would approve setbacks, and you know requirements that would allow for the AD you, but not for the at you per se. Am I wrong, or by my my off base on this? So what you're thinking of is for detached a. To use the board would consider the location of the hit. Usually it was a historic structure that's been there for a while, not meeting setbacks, so the Board would not review the youth the proposed use, which was an eightyu, but they would actually review the physicality of it. The setbacks of the structure which would pave the way for a detached edu. So when it comes to the size variances, i'm not sure if there were any size variances for detached Ids, but I do recall there were some setback variances.

[70:07] In that case you were not looking at the 80 you the use itself, because the board does not review use. But you were looking at the physical location. the physicality of the structure that the Edu was to be placed within. because I believe, and we still have the rule that States and 80. You must be placed within a structure that is conforming to setbacks, and we may just keep it general like that. And that's why those are sometimes considered setback variances to allow an Edu. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. I will bring my screen back up. Just have a couple of more slides on these clarification items. So i'm gonna go through each of these bullets with just a sentence or 2. These are kind of the ones that came up through the evaluation rose to the top as something that it's just a clarifying item that could make it really make a difference in reducing those barriers to a to use. So

[71:12] we don't have to talk through each one of them. But I just wanted to give you a high, level explanation of what these the ordinance might also include for these clarifications or process, improvements or simplification. So the first is extending the approval, expiration period, so an eightyu application that first step. That application is only valid for a year, and we're finding that a lot of people with the concern current construction timelines permit timelines. Things like that are finding it really challenging to complete the project in a year. Many of our land use reviews have a 3 year expiration period, so just to kind of reduce that concern about the timeliness. We would be in the ordinance, including a change where you could have 3 years to implement your atu. This one kind of similar to the work that you all do. There is currently no flexibility for the height of existing structures. So the way that the code is written, says that you can put it into an existing structure, and it can be up t0 25 feet. But there is no there's no variance option. There's nothing you can do if that building is over 25 feet

[72:18] to put an to you in there, so you can't make it legal. based on kind of what we were just talking about. So the this has a number of properties, and even just the last few months have run into this issue like a historic garage that they want to convert, or something that was originally in the county now is in the city. was built, you know, legal for the county, but not the city. So just providing this would probably be not a variance, but as a staff modification. where, if it's in an existing structure, as long as they weren't, making it taller, they could get that increased height to be able to adaptively reuse existing structures which arguably is less of an impact to your neighbor if it's a structure that's already there, and obviously environmentally, less of an impact. To use an existing structure.

[73:02] The third one is lockable separation. This is like really zoning deep in the zoning code, but we do get a lot of back and forth with people about how an attached to you has to be separated by a lock to door. It's just something that's really deep in the definitions in the land use code, and so bringing that forward to the 80. So people understand that that's a role. From the outset limited accessory units I talked about. They're being detached accessory drawing units and attached. We actually also have a third type, which is a limited accessory unit, which there's actually only one of in the entire city. It's essentially a nonconforming duplex. And so there's other avenues for that property, and it just adds additional code, language, and confusion for people. So we'd be hoping to remove that from the ordinance. and then that one property we could deal with their status. And then, finally, the last 2 bullets are kind of the ones that most of the boards and councils that we've talked to already, have kind of talked about the most. So I mentioned there's owner occupancy requirements, so the owner has to live on site. We have run into some questions recently about how, if a property is owned by an Llc. How they prove that the owner really lives there. And so I think there's additional clarity that could be added to the code that would clarify how you would prove that the Llc.

[74:20] Well, the member of the Llc. Does live there and then temporary rental exemptions. Oh, yeah, Jack, go ahead. It could be a difference in in this, if, indeed the property run by a family trust or some type of a legal instrument like that. Yeah, that's a good question. We do have a number of properties owned by a trust. And so it's more clear now about trust that you have to have it. It gets 50%. See simple ownership or something. There's more specific language about how we check that with the trust. And then that's how we do it. Similarly with the Llcs. It's just not quite as clear in the code language. So we're trying to clarify that. But you can own it in a trust as long as you can prove that owner lips there.

[75:03] Thanks for that question the temporary rental exemption. So that is something that people, if they leave like on Sabbatical for less than a year, live outside of Boulder County. They don't have to get a rental license to rent out their house while they're gone. But there's been kind of a question a few properties that come up about whether you're allowed to rent out the 80 you in the main house while you're gone. So we just try to be clear clear about that, and whether that's allowed or not. And then, finally, I mentioned that in that first application there's a public notice. So this is kind of unique, the only other application. That's an administrative review that has a public notice is like a solar exemption. and the public notice goes to your adjacent neighbors. But they neighbors have, because it's an administrative review. The neighbors have no way to influence the process or provide comments. We do have neighbors reach out to like the case manager and ask questions, but it can create some friction because you've received this notice. But there's kind of nothing you can do about it.

[76:06] and it's also unique, because it's an administrative review. And so there's no way to put your input into it. So just as a matter of cleaning up the code and clarifying and trying to improve or make our processes more efficient. That's one thing we're looking at is whether eliminating the public public notice, requirement would help to kind of speed up processes. So that's just an overview of these kind of smaller clarification items. If there's any that you see that have red flags or anything you'd like to discuss with those 6 items. Let me know. Do you want to stop share so I can see. appreciate it. Are there any questions about these items. I don't have a question about these 6 items, but I did have. I just wanted to say something about the parking variance with the affordable housing.

[77:09] 4 people have cars so, and especially if if the I'm. Assuming that you know it's probably gonna be more than one person living in that that home, and so I don't have a solution for you. But that's the take away that I got from being on that board. Poor people have cars, and not to just assume that because someone's an affordable unit, they don't need or have access to car transportation. Thanks. That's helpful. I'm not sure what that means, because the city has this plan that if we don't have garages, that people.

[78:00] we'll just have less cars, which I think if you revisited that ordinance like, we're doing this one. You would find that people just park on the street. And so it doesn't solve the problem. It's a long term issue of having adequate public transportation safety at night all those things. And so we have that with the 100, and and not to get off topic. But from my standpoint is when people are resistant to people parking on the streets. And you're now talking to a poor person or a person in affordable housing, and you're harassing them because they have their car on the street. It just continues to compound the problem. So this is not for us. This is not something that we talk about, or anything like that. But it. That's my experience from being a local or housing partners board. And so I just wanted to make sure that people who have, how decision making power can hear that. I think that I think it's very important that you you speak up and and make the the folks aware of this because it's something that could there, there could be a policy shift that could address some of these issues.

[79:10] The question is, what is the policy shift because we can't make our lots bigger. S0 0ne of the things that they did with South Fold, or was they said you could park in the front here and set back. which definitely you can't do, but technically is never enforced. So it's kind of one of these complicated things that okay, Don't put a driveway in that can accommodate 2 cars, but if you put a drive when that can accommodate 2 cars, if we nobody is going to ticket you for then you've gotten this car off the street. so it you know it. These are super complex, and i'm sure that we don't want to get in the middle of it. But it is a problem. The yeah, and there's probably no win-win available for this. So But I think I think it's important. Yeah. Marie, You want to say something or you're just showing them.

[80:07] I i'm sure there must be a reason why people think that by creating less parking space. People have less cars and they there. Maybe there's a study on it. Maybe there's something that shows this. This is not been my experience after building here for 40 years. It doesn't make a difference. People just park on the street. so I you know I I I support the conversation, or figuring out. But in order for that to happen. we have to robust infrastructure for public transportation. not we. Don't have it. Okay, I think we've probably gotten off track. So I Won't Zip my look all right. Well, I just have one more kind of section of these changes, so these are actually not changes that would be in an ordinance. This would just be process improvements, but they would be informed by the ordinance changes.

[81:01] So I just wanted to go through those, because this is something, you know, there's only so much that we can do with code changes. There's also process changes that need to happen to you. Reduce barriers and improve efficiencies and things like that. S0 0ne of those is the turning it from a one t0 2 step review. So I showed you the 2 different applications to just a one step review, where the 80 user reviewed at the same time as the building permit. With the elimination of the saturation limit. This would get a lot simpler to be able to do this one step review. So that's something that we'll be looking at as well of being able to do that. I've been looking at other cities. Many other cities just do the 80 you review at the same time as the building permit. So I definitely think that it's something that can be done. but that is, that would be one of the process. Improvements there are some things with addressing, and when that happens that we need to fix, because it's happening too soon in the process. Declarations of you I mentioned. Those are the legal documents that get recorded with the Edu, just making sure that those are up to date as the rules change, and that phoneers are aware of them.

[82:04] And then, finally, the stuff that seems really minor, but actually could have a really big difference is improving our website, making some more self service handouts for a to use even videos that can help explain the process. I think, as we improve the code language and make it that simpler, it will get simpler. The process overall will get simpler, and it will be easier to explain through handouts and videos and things like that. So. even beyond the ordinance changes we'll be working on these process improvements as well. and then I guess we kind of already went through these. But if you have any comments on those we can do that, I just have one more slide with next steps for this project. So, after hearing from you all tonight, we're gonna start drafting the actual ordinance, we'll be continuing the public engagement that I talked about previously. The schedule right now is that this would go to it goes All ordinance changes have to go to planning board for their recommendation. So we and we have a public hearing, so that'll be early April and City Council in mid April for first reading. Second reading is when we have the public hearing in early May.

[83:11] and then we'd be spending the early part of summer doing it, working on those process. Improvement changes, preparations for the ordinance to go into effect anticipated. If everything stays on schedule, it'd be about midsummer effective date of the ordinance, and that's where things might start to change for you, because you might see variances related to the new ordinance or the new size limits, or you might not see any variances, because the sip limits have increased, and people don't need it anymore. But that remains to be seen, and of course we'll be doing the evaluation as we talked about earlier in about 2 years to see how whatever changes are adopted have impacted a to use. So that's the end of my presentation. Yeah, Happy to take any comments on those last few things, or continue the discussion wherever you'd like to take it.

[84:01] I did. I just had a question on public engagement, like. What sorts of things are you guys going to do to, you know, Inform the public and get feedback, etc.? Yeah. So we'll be having. I mean we'll have the typical public hearing process where people can come and get their input to planning, born and city council. But we also have our virtual public engagement page for a to use which we have kind of like a tool of that people can get their feedback on a to use. We're also having a housing event. I think it's next week with some neighborhood organizations where we're talking about a number of different housing code changes that are upcoming. and then we'll have office hours and things like that for people to ask questions of staff over the next couple of months. I I have a thought so again, having been through this myself, and knowing that we kind of hold the plug on it. i'm concerned that. And we talked about this. I think, Lisa, when we spoke a few months ago. is this issue of

[85:06] when you combine? So there's an awful lot of expense involved in having an architect Have a 2 step process, the first process being the license. Or am I allowed to do this? And the second part being, do I need a building permit, so I could see going both ways. If it is more clear upfront that you should be allowed to do this, then it's okay to combine the process. But if it is not going to be clear. and you are asking somebody to pay architectural design fees all the way through to permit when they don't even know if they can get an a to you that seems onerous and unreasonable to me. I don't know how you figured that out, but I think you would have to figure that out. Yeah, I think that's that's Why, it's a two-step review now, because that like I said, the saturation limit is constantly changing. So you could apply, and then find out that your neighbor already applied, and you can't go forward. So I think that as I said, yeah, it it's by simplifying the other parts of the code that we could improve that process and get that into a one step where people are assured that the Edu itself is approved as long as they can meet all the building permit, and typical requirements of any building permit.

[86:14] Yeah, I think, to the extent you can do that. Then it makes more sense, I think, as long as they're going to be inhibiting, and we don't know what this ordinance. Just remember everybody the process by which, and Elisa alluded to it. they so they write this ordinance in the what they think me what city council wants to do. But those City Council members are free to modify that through the process. So just because it's written the way that we anticipate it to be does not mean the final ordinance will be what is anticipated. So just something to be mindful about it. Any other comments. And then, when you say, Lisa, you're done. Is that mean you're done more alright.

[87:12] Yeah, Anybody have anything else to say, because I know this was a lot of information. and I feel like you did a very good job with it. Appreciate that. Appreciate how well you listened, because I know that I see part of what I said in what happened there, along with what I heard from other people who talked to me about the a. Do process. So it makes me feel better about getting feedback, because I know it gets listened to. I think people often feel unheard. or that it wasn't heard correctly, and I feel like that from my personal experience I want to commend that. I think this is very tricky. but I I hope that it results in an increase in the a to use. Obviously, we're not flooding the city with them. So that's my comment on things. How about anybody else? You want to add any thoughts before

[88:07] we thank the team? I I would agree with Joe. I think the consolidation of the process would be important. We get in Boz. It gets some middle packages that are 90 0r 100 pages worth of stuff for just going through the deposit process. So that's a lot of money. It's a lot of time. It's a lot of effort so consolidating that process with the I think the benefits would be pretty big. Nicki, Did you want to say something? Yeah, I just wanted to thank the team for the presentation, and as a as a board member who wasn't part of you know all of the at you. Discussions as they were, they were unfolding.

[89:05] I think I think so. I don't. I don't see any Major Major Red flags, but that's something that's just important to me. because you all you know, took the time to come t0 0ur board and ask for you know, comments that you know we as a board, feel like the the impact to those it will either be minimal or things that we are prepared to handle. Once, as you'll mentioned, the ordinance will come down, but as people start to mess with the ordinance, the different things can happen. So if if my colleagues still that you know there's minimal impact t0 0ur work as a board, or you know we have an understanding of kind of what's to come in terms of our per view. Then i'm i'm on board as well.

[90:02] I don't know if you're anticipating a response to that, because I would. I mean, I would guess I would refer to Robbie, and just say, even after the changes in 20182019. Still we did see a few. a little bit of an uptick, but then it was kind of back to the norm. So I think we'd probably see the same thing here. But I don't know. Yeah. And I just wanted t0 0ffer. If if you guys have time on an agenda. I'm happy to come back as we get the ordinance kind of more locked down, or whether, or if it's after the adoption of the ordinance, just to explain what had what happened, or what the ordinance ended up being. I'm happy to come back and spend more time with you guys. that that that would be great. We've had some confusion around that that issue. so it'd be good to see where it ends up finally. So thank you so much for putting this together for us. I know I it was interesting to read the package, and and here the the process you went through, and what you guys saw of. So thank you.

[91:03] We appreciate your time. Yeah, Thank you. Yeah, thanks. It was very so at this point I think that concludes the presentation. and we appreciate everybody's time in coming. We don't have any board variances to here tonight, and i'm glad we didn't, because we could really focus on what you had t0 0ffer us. and I think that we've already heard, and we've lost Aaron anyway. But we don't have matters from anyone that haven't been addressed, unless the board has anything. That is the one question I didn't ask. Is anyone from the board of anything you want to say? Okay. So I wish you all. Good evening. I think, Devin, you'd like me to say that this meeting is still closed. So thank you, everybody. Thank you.