May 28, 2019 — City Council Study Session

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:03] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[1:04] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[2:07] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[3:01] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[4:01] [Music] council in late 2018 in September October in December and the purpose of tonight is basically to get specific guidance on what staff is proposing as phase one options to enable us to move forward with some code drafting that we could have complete by the end of the summer beginning of the fall and to also get some preliminary feedback on what we're tabulating as phase two options we'll also talk about a little bit of will touch on the project background go into some of the community engagement and feedback that we've heard the last few months since we commenced the community engagement in February and

[5:00] then we'll talk about the specific land use code options with some questions posed for Council so the questions that we have real quick are does council agree with the approach to phase one to include options a B and D to be completed by the fall of this year and should our mx1 continue - should it be excluded from further consideration from the project so we'll talk a little bit about that and then secondarily what is City Council's feedback on the proposed phase 2 which includes options B E and F which will go into detail on through the presentation the third question is should a statistically valid survey be conducted based on whatever options council advises to move forward so real quick we have two phases that we're going to talk about tonight I'll talk about it here really high level and then we'll get into the details later in the presentation but basically phase one we're looking at the option of potentially doing some sort of square

[6:00] footage cap on single-family homes and or allowing additional square footage above that cap to be used in the form of accessory dwelling units and a third option that we have posed is enabling single-family homes in certain residential zones to be converted to duplexes or triplexes the phase two options are real quick generally involve more of a subdivision solution where we're looking at a higher number of units potentially more smaller units again making clear that none of these options would have more floor area than is currently permitted on these Lots we're also looking to talk about the possibility of new duplex or tribe triplex units in these zones so again we'll go into more detail on those options so as we get into the background I'm gonna turn it over to Andrew to walk you through that and the community good evening

[7:01] Council so just briefly here we have some background on the project as a refresher so the project was a work plan priority item for planning in 2018 and the follow up this past year in December the council worked to establish the project scope goals and purpose and then in February of this year through early May we have conducted the primary Community Engagement phase the council state project purpose has been to require more smaller homes in residential zones that are consistent with the character of the existing neighborhoods and that advance the city's energy efficiency climate sustainability and housing affordability goals and policies this is the full project wise statement he's shown here on the screen I will just read it quickly the city's residential neighborhoods are experiencing a dramatic demographic and economic shift with the replacement of modest more affordable homes larger and more expensive homes these large homes are often inconsistent with the existing

[8:01] character of the neighborhoods and have are an inefficient use of land that has exacerbated the city's housing jobs balance and the high cost of housing in addition the large homes do not align with the city's energy conservation goals and policies as they consume greater amounts of energy both in operation and construction than more modest-sized homes again these are the purpose and why statements as established by council in December it's a December study session the purpose statement then is consistent with the BBC staff memento and code to require smaller homes and residential zones consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods this includes creative solutions for both the preservation of existing homes and the development of more small homes rather than fewer large houses in these zones the guiding comprehensive plan policies include section 2 built environment including preservation and support for residential neighborhoods accessory

[9:00] units mix of complimentary land uses and redevelopment as well all section 4 energy climate waste policies such as energy efficient land use and building design also section 7 Housing Policy 7.06 mixture of housing types actually speaks specifically to this project as well as other policies such as preserving housing stock housing for a full range of households affordable housing for additional intensity and market affordability at the project scope as established by Council has been primarily focused on the re zones residential rural residential estate as well as the districts this map here shows has approximately 11,000 Lots by

[10:10] its so idea the scope and scale this is a probably more an education question for me when it says re requires a minimum of a lot area of 15,000 feet does that mean that if a new re lot were to be created it must have 15,000 feet yes because 60% of our re laws right now or less than non-conforming non-standard when didn't like in history did that minimum come in like I'm trying to get my head around with like how we say there's a minimum yet 60 percent of the things don't meet the minimum was that like a minimum that came in after something was already designated as re their grandfather or so in 1960s there

[11:05] was a zoning that required only 10,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit a lot of neighborhoods were built with that standard in 1971 there was a comprehensive rezoning of the city and that's where the re zoning was established and they broke it out between 7,000 and 15,000 and those old I can't assess are something but those old 10,000 square foot ones as I guess as a matter of policy were put into the ER bucket of zoning so it was a decision that was made in the early 70s okay and so those presumably those roughly 900 of the 1500 re the laws that are below 15 though they're kind of like grandfather David exist to be 471 and that's correct that's correct and we have non-standard zoning regulations that kind of guide how development on that size a lot would

[12:00] occur so because we have a lot of we have a lot of our ease that are like six to seven thousand feet right which the fa ours would then limit those house sizes to two or three thousand feet or whatever the math comes out on that is that right okay when did fa ours come into the picture I'll let Carl answer that because that it's been in the recent past but I don't remember the exact dates so the RL ones own about more than about 15 years ago and further back had a point 8 fa r and so we were seeing a lot of fairly very large homes being built in the RL one zone and that I think prompted the compatible infill development project based on the concerns of the size of those homes so when the compatible infill development project was initiated and then completed it lowered that fa are in RL 1 and also addressed properties outside of peds and site

[13:02] reviews in RL 2 and then it also applied FA our on to the RR and our ease owns which did not have floor area caps or limitations before that time so before that time you could have a lot line to lot line so that was the limiting factor the center that's right we're cippec's changed at that point in time I don't believe they were now so so each zone has a different like step back mmm and so like the r isse when you mentioned that they came into effect sometime maybe in the early 70s it's 25 25 and then a combination of 25 for sides but that would be very different if you had a 7,000 square foot lat that's right yeah so RL one for instance has a combined setback of 15 yeah but

[14:01] it's like minimum 5 yeah so were those setbacks introduced at that point in time so prior to 1971 in a lot of the lower density residential zoning districts the side yard setback was just 5 feet and when they did the 71 rezoning they changed that to the it has to be a minimum of 5 feet but a total of both sides 415 one thing also point out too that's of interest is that when you have a non-standard lot so a lot that's smaller than the minimum lot size the non-conforming regulations actually require the height of the building that come down incrementally based on its size so some houses have to not go over 25 feet for instance if the lot is small enough okay so the council's broad goals

[15:04] for the project in December of 2018 have were to study and consider the following elements so creative solutions to potentially allowing the fillery development of large into two or more houses or units we're appropriate there are more affordable and designed in such a way has to be sensitive to the neighborhood context to study consider a potential hard cap on floor area for single-family development as well as incentives and disincentives for preserving existing housing stock and creative and fill solutions that are affordable and also looking at potential strategies and phasing for adjusting the land use code standards to perform in bulk as well as updates to the Energy Conservation code moving forward so moving on to the community engagement we've done so far this year there's a list on the screen of some of the outreach I've heard some channels we've utilized concluding some direct mailings online next door posts and tweets as well as our online project webpages and

[16:00] utility bill mailers to get the word out about the open houses in the project in that questionnaire in general so this year we conducted a series of three open houses that included engagement events exercises background materials and presentations this was coupled with our other code amendment projects used table project and the community benefit project we also had the online the city's engagement platform and be heard bouldering that org or the engagement questionnaire over 300 respondents we went to the what's up Boulder event in April and then had some neighborhood office hours also in March and April across the city and then we conducted two stakeholder group meetings which served as kind of listening sessions more of a focus group forum at the open house and early May a few a couple weeks ago in North Boulder we sent out direct mailings to all the properties sound re

[17:00] in RR and we had over a hundred first n DS at that meeting I will touch on these with some results coming up here open house meetings we had a series of boards with some questions and prompts and some graphics and we asked the participants to Don some questions of what they liked or didn't like and so basically we heard at a high-level was some sports sentiments majority of the participants were not in support of further restricting that failure or a cap on single family home size there was a slight majority at these heavy ye open houses in favor of encouraging more smaller homes instead of one large home among these large Lots again a slight majority was not in favor of allowing tiny homes and the residential zones and the question of allowing and the R&R zones some more housing types such as subdivisions of Lots into less than 30,000 square feet or duplexes cottages tiny houses majority was in favor of

[18:03] allowing some of those options in those zones so fast forwarding to the most recent open house in North Boulder we present some more scenario options and graphics that carl's gonna touch on coming up and that was in your council memo in the packet so these did some scenarios for accessory unit 2 boxes tried boxes pocket neighborhoods and simply tell us with sticky notes you know what they liked what they didn't like in other comments having homes some thought they were too big today like the flexibility of allowing more ad years and more variety of housing choices some felt that more density created more walkability and provide more choices for young adults or Aging in Place the

[19:02] options were that they were property values they were concerned about impacts to neighborhoods and infrastructure in the neighborhoods changing the character and they felt that the density was not wanted in their neighborhoods was that some felt a cap on home size should be tied to allowing more flexibility for additional units others felt that this will change a character whether neighborhood some felt that the RL wines own should not be part of the scope project again some felt that more housing choice was appropriate for a variety people others felt that the proposed options or energy on their own closed its potential options respondents

[20:27] [Music] [Music] with the right size just they were too

[21:00] large a second question asks should house size before the restricted in this city to further the project's goals just over half of the respondents said no some support sentiments on these questions implements the majority of respondents with 4,000 square feet receiving the most sponses similarly when we asked watch that show the FAO to today's regulations a large majority say no we actually encourage more smaller homes on one lock versus one large home they were about

[22:03] sentiments half of the respondents said yes when we allow housing types on the our own zones a majority of the respondents did say yes and finally tiny homes as housing type in the residential zone saying yes [Music] consensus on anything but simply listening session for us to hear to find

[23:03] some common themes or common concerns [Music] could be changed they didn't want to be punished they were concerns about property values and that they thought the any changes should be strategic as well and new large homes are ready to be energy efficient some of the general comments and themes of those in support us the concepts portunities for housing diversity and choices including a to use and cottages and duplexes structure

[24:01] development over time it wouldn't be you know we develop all these properties at once then there were concerns that some of these neighborhoods either had real perceived discrimination against economic reports and they also vision for mixed housing from the community the past few months so without hand it back to Carl to go over some of the land use options so last we talked to council about this in December we had set up the timeline and that specified the first part of 2019 where we would focus on community engagement as well as the formulation of options so that's what we've done over the last few months so

[25:02] you can see here we have six different options that we're going to talk about that council requested be broken into two phases one that could potentially be implemented by the fall of this year and then one that would go on later so I'm going to talk about each of these different options the options are basically based on the goals that we talked about for this project as well as taking the initial suggestions of City Council into account poplar place has been brought up as a as kind of like a model to look at and so this the visuals we thought would be helpful so that you could see kind of the range of different development ranging from one single family house in breaking that square footage down into multiple units on a similar size a lot so we wanted to show that we did take some assumptions into account rl1 has a six dwelling units per

[26:01] acre maximum so we didn't want to do any options that would exceed that amount we wanted to show the different options on a characteristic lot so we had chosen a twenty-three thousand square foot lot which is typical of the re and the RR zones but we also included an attachment that shows a conforming re lot at fifteen thousand and a conforming RR lot at thirty thousand square feet we also assumed a cap in this case of 3,500 square feet this is just a visual it is adjustable but it's basically based on the maximum size of a house you can get on a conforming rl1 lot today based on the fer which is like around a point five FA R so this slide basically shows again the evolution from single-family to like a cottage cork design where you have subdivision and I'll go through each of those that pause right now and we'll go back to something you said on a

[27:00] so the 3500 came from so we have these re and RR lots that are some of which are below the 15,000 minimum but some of them are above right and so we're basically saying what we'd be saying on this cap is regardless of the size of your lot and the regardless of the character of your neighborhood you can't have a house that's bigger than what's allowed in the RL who's own wishes different neighborhoods is that right it's just as a starting point cuz I think what we're thinking is that you know beyond a 7,000 square foot lot that's where you start getting into a large lot territory and that may be you it could be applied similarly across the zones the rl1 zone re and the AR are zones already have the same sliding scale FA are today so if you go above a 7,000 square foot lot that extra square footage could be used in different ways I think that's the way we looked at it so like put it another way in this example you were assuming a lot

[28:00] of size and if it was a much larger lot with the cap be larger - in your proposal it could be I mean that's that's what we're gonna it could be a hard cap or it could be incremental based on lot size so that's some of the different options that we've outlined in option a is there any I guess there's not there's any variability for what the neighborhood is currently bearing in other words some neighborhoods have larger houses some re neighborhoods have larger houses and other re neighborhoods and so there's no consideration of what types of houses already exist within the proximity of the target house in this case it's based on lot size just varying lot sizes Bob's question question actually prompts a follow-up for me which is have we looked at the problem of the large houses contextually so that

[29:03] is to say the a large house along kaptur road for example may not stand out the way a large house in North Boulder does have we taken a look at those differences contextually we have we've driven around the city and looked at the different neighborhoods there are certainly you know certain differences between the contexts of the different neighborhoods so there were certain things related to neighborhood character and massing you know that we talked about like where it might be more of an issue in one part of the city versus another but then when looking at the other components of the goals like the energy efficiency piece or the affordability piece that's a citywide citywide issue okay and what's then there somewhere in the memo you guys talked about 3504 LR and Ferrari it was

[30:04] like 41 something for a capsule could potentially be like a you know if you go up to a larger lot size that cap might be larger right but this diagram everything is the same here so the lot each lot is 22,000 3,500 square-foot house one and then it broken up and if you added each one of those structures on each lot it would add up to 3,500 is that correct no not with the cottage I can go through each of the options and then if you feel free to jump in so I think just as a starting point if you look on the lower right that shows a 23,000 square foot lot under today's regulations you can build almost a 6,000 square foot home so it's 5,000 750 square feet and that's what

[31:01] that's showing mm-hmm so I'm gonna just talk about the phase one options and we were thinking that we could stop at the end of this and talk about that and then move on to Phase two but it certainly flexible so these are the three phase one options that were proposing so option a talks about a cap B looks at the ability to allow an existing single-family home to be broken up into it into duplex or triplex units and then D looks at going beyond the cap and using that extra square footage for accessory dwelling units so I'll go into each of these right now so this is option A so this is just if the city were to apply a cap and in this case for instance we have 3,500 as an example option A one shows 3,500 square feet as a cap so that's based on the on a 7,000

[32:01] square foot lot option a 2 is if you took a 10,000 square foot lot you could get up to 40 100 square feet so that's an option that could be applied you know across all lots or it could it could jump up with a larger lot size in the same for a 15,000 square foot a lot it could be forty forty seven ten you have the um the side-by-side comparisons to what the F ers allow on those lot sizes little birds what does the FA are a lot allow it today and a seven thousand square foot lot I mean it can't wait Stu about a point five FA are but its sliding scale so it about seven thousand feet yeah a lot is roughly allows a 3,500 square-foot is that right that's right so that would be no change there's effectively already cap because of the FA are right I mean again if we could be applied to our R&R he for larger Lots it could be capped at your primary

[33:00] single-family residence could be capped at a certain size that's a sense for how much these proposed caps are below the current FA our allotment so it sounds like on a1 the answer is it's not it's the same as what the FA are would allow when you get above 7,000 square feet was starting to get let's go there so what would a 10,000 screw up a lot and re what does it currently up er allow what they're doing is proposing caps that are related to existing FA are you choose to apply them across all size Lots okay so what you're saying is this is what the FA are allows not proposed calves I think where this is different than the current regs is that if you had a lot that goes above 10,000 square feet under today's regs that 4100 would continue to grow in this scenario it would be capped at that 10,000 square foot benchmark so

[34:00] he's giving you options we could apply them such they apply to all lot sizes their options and they also mm would limit anything between ten thousand square foot lot and a 15,000 square foot lot would be limited to the lower end of that range we taking away the sliding scale yeah taking away the sliding scale so it's capping it at the low end of the range for each of those I believe so this is to provoke a conversation about what caps we might want to look like if we decide to do okay what yeah I think when we get to option D it might make a little bit more sense of why we're we're suggesting this so option B is is getting at the the goal of trying to preserve or you know avoid demolition of existing single-family homes by enabling the possibility of converting them to duplexes and my plexus so again emphasizing that this is conversion sorry

[35:01] this is conversion and in this op that phase one scenario has a question about this there are many of these in our MX sones and we're those allowed I mean I don't know if they were grandfathered in because it looked like they were converted and I'm thinking in an area of like Pine Street and 17th in that area there's a whole lot of homes that have obviously had this done to them and so was that allowed previous to the rmx ones own in or is it allowed underarm x one's own leave it was allowed previous to our MX owning david can correct me if i'm wrong but i believe there were high density residential zones around the downtown it was called hrx back in the day so it allowed high density and then it was effectively down zoned in a way where the minimum lot size was adjusted and the the density was capped but it was a you were allowed to maintain the density that's in that zone I'm sorry I

[36:07] just wanted to understand can this be done mm-hmm in in his own district right now just out of curiosity can you take an existing dwelling unit and demise it into multiple dwelling units not in the RR re or RL one in RL two if you have enough open space you could and in RM X you can attached units are permitted as long as you have the lot area the problem is a lot of those properties don't have the lot area a lot of them are non-conforming now right and I mean I've walked with crystal gray and heard some of the history of how those those changes happened in response to the way development was being implemented but so there are a few zone districts in town where this is currently permitted okay thank you so question here your language

[37:01] says allow Florek allow floor area up to 50 750 square feet if it's broken up but allow isn't probably what you mean right because it's conversion so this would only be a you would allow an existing building to be broken up well I mean I think again to incentivize it perhaps they could build up to the current FA our maximum if they're converting to other units so you would contemplate a potential allowed expansion possibly yeah I think that would fit under this to put a point on that so if somebody has let's say now a 4,000 square-foot house and they want to convert that into triplex they could add another 1,700 square feet onto that existing house or would that be a face to type I think we're thinking that that could fit under this this option again that's a devising you know preservation of the existing you know how much of

[38:00] this has actually happened in real life over the last 10 or 15 years since this is prohibited in some zones and you mentioned that the zones that spray permitted in oftentimes it can be done because of lot of size enough they are I mean does this happen like 10 times a year or a hundred times a year I it's not that prevalent we don't if we saw five over my ear okay we do we do have some large lots that have new houses on them and that have duplexes built on those so those have happened recently oh so okay on the hill a bunch of things were converted back in the day all right you are making a big distinction about I'm changing subjects converting versus building a new triplex can you talk to

[39:04] us a little bit about some of these other options in phase one new construction yeah I mean it's it's encouraging the adaptive reuse of existing units in these neighborhoods I think we also at least when you have an existing unit there it already looks like a single-family home so that's that's already a feather in the cap or as I think if we're talking about new construction I think we then have to be more sensitive about the design and making sure that it does appear like a single-family home and that's gonna that's why we've put that in the Phase two category so just expanding on the cap idea and incentivizing different types of units option D basically takes the premise of you cap the primary structure in this case 3,500 square feet it could be a different number but you could allow up

[40:01] to the current maximum FA are if you use that Floria over the cap in different ways so in this case we're suggesting accessory dwelling units so this example shows a house capped at 3,500 square feet but the additional square footage up to the 5750 is used as accessory dwelling unit so we felt that that could create an incentive for those types of units one thing we wanted to point out though is in doing this you know obviously there's no subdivision involved in this ad user looked at a little bit differently than traditional dwelling units if you get into the larger you know lot sizes out there and you use this premise there could be quite a few 80 ad use you know seven or more so it'd be something we want to hear from the council about that you know potentially we need to cap the number of ad use if we were to move forward with this and again getting back to that graduated cap idea if you have

[41:01] different caps for different sizes that would impact how many ad use would be possible on the larger Lots as well just get a couple questions here so one is like are there access standards for ad use like car access or like if you have a larger lot and you you put an accessory drilling you know in a corner there any rules about you have a driveway or a walkway or no there's no standards of that nature you do have to have a parking space for that unit on the property yeah it's so just it's just a parking requirement and then in terms of rentals I think do we allow more than one rental license on a parcel yeah we're gonna have to check that okay maybe get me today obviously we're emphasizing that under today's standards you can only have one Adu per lot so this change would be allowing more than one understood yes so

[42:01] currently it doesn't wouldn't necessarily come up but like I mean if we do if we were to contemplate something where somebody gonna have two backyard ad Hughes would they be allowed to run out both of them I guess is that's the question really okay yeah we'll have to look into that so this is just a summary of staff's recommendation for phase one so we're recommending as part of phase one that include options a 1 2 or 3 option B 1 means the allowing the conversion of the existing single-family and option D means ad use we're recommending that it applied to the RR and our E's owns there's not a lot of ad use in those zones today may they have more land to accommodate parking and potentially accessory units with less impact on on neighbors so those zones

[43:01] are included are l1 would you know stay the same and that there'd be saturation requirements the 20% we're not recommending that our mx1 be included at this time just because it has a different nature associated with it in being around the downtown where you expect more intensity it already has a different FA our calculation there's not a high number of our mx1 Lots there you know a lot of the lot sizes tend to float around 6000 square feet but this slide is to basically give the council an idea of what would happen if the different caps were instituted and how many Lots in each of these zones would become non-conforming so we included that in the memo for your review table five shows an example of if we allowed square footage above a cap to be used for ad use how many potentially a to use could you get on different size Lots so on a conforming 7,000 square foot lot

[44:02] like a typical RL one lot you'd only have one potential when you get up to 10,000 or 15,000 you could have up to 280 use per lot and then when you get up in the range of 30,000 you could potentially have seven what you've shown so again might need to talk about kind of capping that and then in the gray we have the cottage units which we're talking about like a restricted size cottage enos this would be like more of a Phase two option so we look at restricted size cottages is like double the size of an Adu a detached a to you so could be up to like 1500 square feet so this gives you an example of how many of those you could get based on this idea correct so we thought we could have a discussion about these phase 1 options unless the council wanted us to move forward with the questions first okay go

[45:00] back to the table table for I just want make sure I understand table 4 so let's just take our r1 go all the way over to 4,700 square feet is this the percentage of houses 25% of the houses in RR one would be non-conforming that is that they're already more 25% of the houses in our r1 or already about 4,700 feet [Music] for our one second row all the way to the right 4710 square-foot maximum right and the heading is is percentage of Lots that would become non comatose and it is a percentage of houses non-conforming are Halasz how does a lot not good for me well it'd be it'd be houses so you went out and counted and if the cap was 47 10 there's 33 houses on our r1 that are already more than 4,700 feet is that what you're saying that's right Oh

[46:00] okay did you do the other other math of how many houses on are on each of these re and RR zones are currently I guess I could do the math here with you less than 3,500 square feet so I'm going to be fair to say that 53% of the houses and rr1 are currently less than 3,500 feet I'm just trying to get an idea of like what's the potential for scrapes right cuz that's the problem that's been proposed by some people is that small houses against rape and replaced by big houses try to understand how many small houses there still are on these laws you had a table in our memo where we look you looked at amount of demolition in the size of those houses that were demolished and then what replaced them and the Delta is like four to five thousand square feet yeah my question is a little different which is how many small houses are left we have to define

[47:00] what small is well I think I think you've answered your question in a way if you define 3,500 is small and a left column then it's the balance so 53% of the houses in our r1 are some currently smaller than 3,500 square feet is that right right did you take that down then two different sizes 2500 or 1,500 or 2,000 you kind of stopped at 3,500 okay so I was wondering you talked about the Adu saturation in our l1 and that right now is 20% but in our R and re there is zero percent saturation I'm just curious if

[48:01] you were able to figure out what percent of the are ELLs and I mean our ease and our RS have ad use or Oh a use in them and if not we can figure that out later but yeah we we did get some some data even after communicating about the numbers we don't have a percentage but obviously smaller numbers and we see in our l1 so Ari right now looks like we have 29 ad use in that zone - or considered pending at this point RR 1 there's 2 + RR 2 there's 629 6 & 2 2 & 6 so 37 you know so it's not like people

[49:02] are jumping out of windows to come and get a Adu or oau if they have re right those percentages compared to other zoning districts in other words what you say about 2 percent of the houses of the Lots in our in our ear I've gone to a to use what percentage and the other zoning districts is it higher than 2% he's got more yeah I don't think we have that percentage so my question is on this slide as well with the apply to our re or our l1 has there been any consideration given to applying it by sub community since we have sub community planning going on was there any consideration to doing that why why

[50:02] not I mean I think we've thought about it it's just if there is initiative to try to you know complete this project this year obviously sub committee plans can drag on for a number of years that's certainly an option so some of these changes would have to be done within the context of existing sub community plans is that correct they could be yeah so I guess what I'm asking to do some of this would it need require amending sub consists of cami North Boulder sub community plan specifically I don't believe that the phase 1 options here would require that I think when we get into phase 2 that's where we have concerns about you know consistency with with subcommittee plans and the comp plan I'll just make a comment here since you brought it up I think that's a really good reason not to do our L bone right now because our l1 is found across

[51:01] every set community some of these owned or some of these zone districts are much more concentrated in particular areas and indeed some of them are in I think the area that we might be doing the East Butler sub community plan so that would be an opportunity to talk about how many changes were perceived and now phase 2 might be perceived in that sub community so I would like to see our l1 held back on even phase 1 changes until we get a chance to do some community planning but I think re n RR we're talking about now okay in terms of process we could pause and give our opinions on phase 1 that's what we were thinking and then have a presentation on Phase two which gets into subdividing which is more something that we'd give direction to staff on knowing that the next council

[52:00] would be dealing with that so do we want to pause and give our opinions on this okay open floor so I've been thinking about how we got to here and how this started and it started with folks that live up in North Boulder that were basically being assaulted by demolitions and and the large houses that were replacing them and then I got to thinking looking at the map of where all the our hours and our ease are that perhaps if something like what was going is going on in North Boulder were happening out and say on Kaptur Road nobody would complain because what is

[53:01] going up is comparable to what's already there so which is why I was asking about sub communities and I I actually would like to see more information and I don't know that we can have it by phase one but it seems to me that the problem originated in North Boulder and we really haven't heard from other areas of town that are seeing having this issue and it may be because the houses are already big there I don't know but that's why I'm thinking that the r r and r e be included but only in the North Boulder sub community and we'll be talking later about the survey I think it would affect then we would survey and just taking

[54:03] advantage of the fact that there is a sub community there and it's got a plan and it's got a pretty defined area and a population that could be surveyed and so there's some advantages there and as Sam said we're gonna be doing the East Boulder plan and then this can be this conversation can be rolled into that that discussion but when you look at the map the vast majority of those lots are in North Boulder sub community so that's my comment and I'll I want to hear the discussion on caps versus no caps and ad use but it seems to me that the other piece of information that and and and please tell me if I'm wrong do we know

[55:00] of the the ones that have been demolished how many are speculative or done by by developers and how many are private people doing this because it seems to me that the the options that were being presented here in phase one might be more appealing to a speculative demolition than it would be to a private person that bought it and demolishes it and builds their own house okay can I just throw out there for sake of discussion but it seems to me that [Music] thinking about our purpose for this project is important and so I think it's good to pause and I guess I think every time we build a big big house instead of

[56:00] smaller units we are constricting our future choices and so to me I guess I'm more interested in exploring broader implications than just a certain place in town and I know this gets into the whole issue of growth and I know that's a sticky wicket and you know maybe all of us wish that Colorado's population wasn't booming and the world wasn't being overpopulated but be that as it may it seems to me that every time yeah that one things I'd like to do is to be setting rules for the future that are taking into account that context that we want more smaller houses rather than fewer large houses and I think that

[57:01] that is a choice that may not be popular everywhere in town but it's also kind of the reality of the the age we live in if we're going to address affordability and having a diverse population so I guess I'll just saw that out there for our discussion that I think a pry applying some of these rules more broadly and I think we have to do it at a rate of change that's acceptable but I still think that's where we need to head as a city with kind of every neighborhood putting a little skin in the game so I'm just gonna throw that out there as where I'm kind of coming to this issue from the spur conversation so let me react to things of both Mary Ann's and said first of all I agree with Mary that context matters and and even taking Mary's observation about North Boulder and taking it even more granular we have different neighborhoods in North

[58:01] Boulder so for example Caroline Heights which is near my neighborhood to the east of 19th Street has lots of really big houses in it and so when somebody feels a big house it's not out of context in that neighborhood people and that neighborhood don't complain about big houses because most of the houses the neighborhood are already big and a cap in that neighborhood would be absolutely artificial arbitrary-capricious and out of context with that neighborhood and so I guess I'm building on what Mary's says you know not only is most of the concern and most of the large house building happening in North older the concern I think is in some neighborhoods in North Boulder and not in other neighborhoods in North Boulder so I think it's even more granular with respect to your comment about wouldn't it be great if we had a more small house as the answers yeah it would be great and I think we do a lot of things to develop that but if we impose an arbitrary cap of say 3,500 square feet and and we force someone who otherwise could have built a 7,000 square foot house in effectively through this cap we

[59:01] force them to build to 3,500 square foot houses those to 3,500 square feet houses are still 2 million dollars each so we may have made it attainable for a pretty rich person but we haven't made it attainable for the middle income or the moderate income person so I'm not sure that this is a good tool of affordability this may be a good tool to stop people billion people people from building large houses if that's our number one objective I think we have higher priorities in that in front of us right now but I don't think this is gonna I don't think this is gonna create affordability this project is not going to create affordability we have interesting discussion around a to use and maybe that's what we're where we should take this but I don't think putting an arbitrary cap is gonna it certainly not 3500 feet is gonna create affordability for our community I think we have two different ways so I guess can I encourage you to say so the kinds of things that you would support or the

[60:02] ad you go ahead and say what you do support well I don't support a cap I certainly for the reasons that have been stated maybe will continue to be stated this evening I think we could have an interesting discussion around relaxing our ATI recently enacted ad use rules a little reluctant even go there because those rules were just enacted within the past year we haven't had a chance to test those yet either but if we were to do we were if we were forced to do one thing among all the things I've seen up there the one thing that I guess I would be willing to reluctantly willing to explore is relaxing the ATU rules I wouldn't certainly wouldn't put in 7a to use on a lot I'm from Nebraska there's towns that don't have that many people in them so but but there may be certain places where 280 use will do when we have to deal with parking and access is there and started to talk about well we could talk about larger ad use you know instead of 800 feet maybe it goes up to a larger number I think

[61:01] that would be a fine exercise for staff and the community to engage in but if actually I wouldn't do any of these things to sort answer your questions and I kind of I was forced to do one I would probably explore the ad you option Erin saying I appreciate you teeing up our purpose and our goals here because I think I think the to me that this project is an interesting one if we can get some smaller more affordable or attainable genuinely attainable housing for folks in town and not just a really large really really expensive homes so I think some of those interesting possibilities are in in phase two so and where we'll talk about what we might keep on the table for that I think one of the things that's become really clear from the feedback we've gotten from the community is that there there are as other folks have talked about different parts of town and they're experiencing

[62:01] they're having very different experiences so there's like mature neighborhoods like in the Fraser Meadows area where there's not a lot of pups and not a lot of scrapes going on as opposed to the North Boulder neighborhoods that Lisa and I live near where there's a great deal than going on so I think we're hearing you know they're these these same zones in some cases are exist in very mature neighborhoods that aren't experiencing a lot of change in other places places that are so I I think in in terms of a phase one approach it seems to me like the Adu options is a great way to go because I think that gets to the providing of smaller more affordable living spaces for people in town you know in a way that liked per Bob's example like if you just said well instead one 7,000 square feet house you to 3,500 square-foot houses that doesn't give you affordability for his his point but I think if you have a you know a backyard cottage that's 600 square feet

[63:01] and somebody's able to rent that I think that does give you another living option and I think it does it in a way that's really has minimal impact to the neighborhood and you know we've heard from some of the more mature neighborhoods that they're worried about subdivisions and things like that which we don't have to tackle right now so I'd love to see this this ad you option explored and the the the allowing a conversion of an existing unit duplex triplex is interesting I look forward to hearing other people's thoughts on that I don't know how many people would do that and if it's a reason to nearly scrape a home to expand it maybe that's a little if you're but I think definitely in it is a phase one kind of approach I'd love to see the liberalisation they give you options I just have a question about the option B is that for so I guess it's a question for staff is that for a big house that's

[64:02] already been built it could be so was there any discussion about that being something like for the future I mean in the future I my guess is nobody would want to do it immediately on a big house that's just been built but in the future they might so was there any discussion about that notice we thought that again you know if the building is already built and we're trying to like follow the goals of getting more smaller units you know it's already there the visual impact is there but it would be a better use potentially if it was broken up into smaller units and that could happen next year or it could happen seven years from now I think we just it's just opening up that possibility can I just add one yeah and just part of my thinking there's I asked that question about driveways and things like that that one nice thing about adding another the option to have like a

[65:00] little backyard cottage is that it doesn't require a lot of extra pavement or impact to the whatever vegetation you have growing there right that so it feels like a much lower impact thing to do overall a way that wouldn't change neighborhood character or vegetation trees things like that much Cindy so I think Mary's observation is a good one about where the issue is happening and I agree that sub community planning would be the optimal place to be looking at this and I agree with Bob I'm not in favor of any caps either I'm very concerned that the people who live in these areas are as concerned as they are with what may be happening to them when they thought that they were probably in a pretty stable place and so I would really like to hear us have us hear from the neighborhood's the neighborhood and

[66:00] I'm thinking North Boulder community the same area that Mary was mentioning and here with the people there think about what's happening within their neighborhood with their sub community planning before we start thinking that we should be telling people how many square footage they should be living in I have some real problems with that I understand what zan is saying but it seems to me that that doesn't deal with affordability density is a big issue in this town and there is one group of people who think that density is good wherever it goes and then there's the larger community and until we start hearing that is a real solid from the larger community I don't think that increases in density of this kind really are gonna fly the ad use are something that are interesting to look at but again the fact that there are only so few 2.6 percent or whatever in these zones existing now seems to say that

[67:02] folks don't want those either so I would really like to hear from the people who live in the area and what it is they they would like and how many demolitions have happened up there in the past say five years even gave you and I think when we talked about this in December we had that graphic that showed the concentration of full demos and full rebuilds and a lot of it was in North Boulder and were those again I think it was Mary who mentioned the spec aspect of what's happening in in these areas and of course we don't have much say about that either but I'd been driving around I went yesterday driving and in the area that Bob was mentioning I haven't been in these neighborhoods for a while because there isn't really any reason to go through them but I was surprised to see how many big houses there are

[68:00] they're there and they seem to be quite contentedly so I mean they filled out and I didn't see that many empty lots so except in again in the North Boulder area that would be the exception but in terms of restrictions I think that horse left the barn a long time ago and is way headed east on sizes so jump on with Mary Bob and Cindy Mary I think you bring up an excellent point and that's I guess where I originally thought this discussion was going and it seems to have gotten a little larger than I think what I originally had wanted to see I think the biggest thing is was seeing the amount of emails we've had come in that opposed this that for me is a big red flag I understand we did the heads-up Boulder what what's it

[69:02] yeah the be sorry be heard Boulder and again but you know it's a not a statistically valid survey and for me one of the biggest things is seeing statistically valid surveys because for me that's what counts and so to hear what the people living in those areas experience on a day-to-day basis and what they want because this is what they bought into this is their hard-earned money their blood sweat and tears for what they invested into is something I have to honor because we each have that right and so if it was up to me I don't want to support any of this and as for the ad is we just loosened the regulations so we allowed one ATO per house and so I'd like to see how that plays out prior to loosening it even further I think that's only fair to the policies that we've spent the time working on so I think that if we had wanted to limit cap size on a house we should have done it 15 years ago I think the ship has sailed I mean again I drove around as well and

[70:01] there's a lot of big houses up there and that's just the fact and it's I mean it's unfortunate in terms of the fact that yeah I guess we lost the sweet little homes that were there but it is what it is now and I mean I think we looked at those numbers what the one of the last study sessions and saw that it was like 25 per year so I mean it's not a mad rush but it's happening slowly and it has happened so that's kind of where I'm sitting right now if we do anything I'd like to hear more clearly from the residents who live there Sam Lisa so this is very interesting discussion and I want to compliment staff for giving us a ton of relevant information to be able to look at and think about and talk through and and the visualization of the options also is very helpful to understand what that would look like and what it would perhaps feel like I want to start with kind of a high level look at zoning and I'm not going to go on in any detail but this is just about the

[71:02] density of the Lots per square mile in Boulder and so staff gave us this good information and so our m x1 which is near downtown has about 6,000 watts per square mile it's only a half square mile but it's 6,000 watts within that half square mile our l1 is about 2200 watts per square mile so that's about a third the density of our MX REE is about 1,100 I'm sorry Lots per square mile so again half of what our l1 is an RR is about 800 watts per square mile so I thought that was interesting just to think about you know we're supposed to represent the whole city and that includes people who are currently renters who might want to own at some point or people who are have moved here and can't find housing and I've heard from a few people who have moved here relatively lower income and have really

[72:02] struggled to find even rentals that they could get into and afford so that's the context we live in I think it's important that we think about this kind of from the whole city view to start with and then we focus in on the areas that we're talking about now you know I also don't support a cap my reasons a little different I think then then a libertarian type reason even though there's that leaning as well but I think we've done our energy code work and we've done a good job at that we recently adopted in April and I think staff said would be implemented in October the requirement for Net Zero below Carl you want to help me here what $3,000 okay thanks so that's a significant step forward we accelerated that transition I realize there's some embodied energy but it's at least incenting in the correct way in the right direction and I think we need to see what that does what impact that has

[73:01] and so I won't be supportive of a hard cap or a sliding cap we have far2 do that and in sub Community Planning we can go review at they are and how it works there so on the other hand I think that these lot sizes are generally pretty big you know 10,000 to 30,000 square feet can bear a little more intensity and you know our view density as a tool and only a tool it's neither good nor bad by itself it's what you get out of what you do with what you've got that matters and so I think the idea of having more than one Adu on these larger size Lots is something that will both be very low impact to the neighborhood and will not very much change the neighborhood character but will by definition the cheaper to rent than a 3,500 square foot house or a room in a 3,500 square-foot house so I'm very much in

[74:00] favor of continuing to explore in these zone districts the ability to put in additional 80 years I mean going to to the idea here is that we would want to and set the homeowners to do this instead of a scrape or and or instead of some other thing which is more energy intensive and doesn't produce affordable housing which is why I agree with Bob that having to 3500 square foot homes is not necessarily going to be an affordable outcome but having to ad use that are a thousand square feet is much more likely to be affordable so that's my take on that I very much want to support looking at that I think the duplex and triplex conversion of existing homes I mean we've seen a lot of that and it doesn't change the look and feel of the neighborhood it does have potential number of people and so a number of cars impact so there's a parking question that comes up and staff addressed that by requiring the parking

[75:01] space and on these lot sizes I think it's easier to be able to do that than it is you know in a constrained rl1 or rmx situation where you're trying to put in an 80-year and we dealt with that I thought nicely when we did the ad use so I would like us to continue my support is for additional ad use and for these conversions of existing and everything else we can punt to phase 2 I also like the survey idea but it cannot just be the local residents so a statistically valid survey where we concentrated enough on the local residents that we could get statistically meaningful results Matt but also asked the same question citywide in a statistically significant way because we have to represent the entire city and so being able to hear here's what the neighbors respond and want and here's what the whole city thinks about this would give us the kind of information to try and balance the interest properly I don't

[76:01] think I mean you know neighborhood right to vote could not pass and so I think citywide we don't believe that that neighborhood should have some kind of veto power but I do agree that their opinions matter because it's their neighborhood so I I would like to see a survey done but one which we can look at these are the folks who would be affected and what they think and this is generally what the city would like to see evolve and this is just an evolution no one has to take advantage of any of these things we allow right this is not like we're coming in and saying we're gonna put a to use in all these backyards it's this is an additional choice that you can make if you want to age in place or if you want to enjoy the advantages of an a to you so I'll stop there but I think there's a lot of promise here and we should dig to find the promising parts into this forward so I'll start off by agreeing much of what

[77:03] Sam and Suzanne have said in an errand and I personally would like to see a house size cap but I can also count around here and it's not dictating what people can or can't but maybe it is because at some point with the climate change and with the change in consumption we have got to quit consuming so much and we have there regardless of what the these large houses regardless of how NetZero they are they still require huge amounts of embodied energy in order to build them and they're not using recycled materials and all their materials are going to the landfill so I would have supported all a

[78:00] B and D I agree with Sam that it we shouldn't just pick on North Boulder even though I live in the middle of all of this and the houses and the house size changes are ridiculous where you had 1500 square foot houses being replaced by 8,000 square foot houses 8 bathrooms 8 bedrooms would be fine with me if this was a co-op or something but it's not it's a couple who lives there so I and I appreciate Sam's comments on Zoning I don't want to look at this as just a North Boulder issue I think it's not just a North Boulder issue even though it's happening in North Boulder I've certainly run into quite a few people who live in rl1 who say I wish we could do that here because the houses are big

[79:01] in some of the rl1 Lots because as you guys have shown with your research we have some very large houses at large Lots in those RL ones I think just like you know much of Boulder residents do we need to think intentionally about what we're doing and I couldn't agree more with Susanne about we're making future choices and what by continuing to do nothing we're constricting the future of our children and our children's children in the future of our community we have out of balance situation and I don't think this one project is going to resolve it all in terms of jobs housing but I think it certainly could add more housing and make a fair stab at it I I

[80:07] think the city has made deliberate choices in the past we deliberately bought open space I'm very happy we bought open space I think it was a good thing for us and it has been a great urban shaper but how we move forward in the next 10 some people say we only have 12 years before dudu starts hitting the fan so you know I'm looking at you know 10 20 10 20 30 40 50 years already people's children can't live here anymore already a huge amount of our workforce can't live here anymore we're creating barbells so we have the very wealthy and the very poor and this

[81:01] is what's in between so I think anything we can do to help that problem is significant and I live in the middle of all of this where these houses are replaced placing changing our taxes and it's not just the county changing to taxes but when you have 1400 square foot house that is taken down and then a 7,000 8,000 square foot house is put up next to you that has a big impact I personally want to see a lot smaller houses with respect to the ad use I am fine adding the ad additional ad use but I want to do much more than that I'm interested I really like the idea in be of being able to take your house and

[82:00] being able to convert it up to a triplex or even a four-plex I don't think that changes the nature of the of the community we probably have some of the biggest houses now in North Boulder and they could be subdivided it was very little impact and with very little change to the neighborhood I don't think as as that my question the response to my question on number of ad use or OE use in the are ours and our East it's not like everybody's going out and doing this I think the impact I think people have really created a much bigger storm then I think is is going to happen I can point out certain places that people would like to build a triplex I mean I

[83:01] would like people to have and I know we have problems with the Boulder Valley comp plan or some issues that we need to iron now but I would like to see the option of people being able to construct duplexes triplexes and for plexus now in new housing instead of just waiting for that to change for me it's you know to 3,500 square foot houses are going to be expensive as Bob points out but if you can have smaller houses that are up to 1,500 2,000 square feet the price point would be much lower I think this so I don't think everybody's going to come out and do these right away so I'm hoping we can move forward with multiple ad use and I'm certainly hoping we can move forward

[84:02] with people's ability to convert to duplexes or triplexes or even for plexus if if they want to I mean we have these eight thousand square foot houses they could be divided in four ways okay I'm gonna jump in and give my opinion and then it sounds like a few other people want to talk and then we're gonna decide we'll get some guidance okay so I guess I'm a little surprised by us I thought we were going to do a little more here and we could have saved them a lot of work and just so I guess I'm alone but I absolutely think it is it falls on us to make the decisions the shape to shoot the future so when people say well the ship sailed big houses are foregone conclusion I guess I think it's because I mean compatible development they tried it it did have some impacts but not enough it falls on us to do some more tweaking and so I

[85:01] guess the future is upon us and it's up to us to make some decisions so anyhow I've to would do all a BD a DB and I thought we were going to so I'll just throw that out there I too can count so it sounds like we'll do another quick round here because three people raised their hand and then it looks like I absolutely think we should do a citywide survey and I think that T's us up well for Phase two too and and then I'd be interested in where there's enough of their there which it sounds like ad use and maybe conversions we should get more specific okay I have Aaron Mary Cindy and then back to you Bob yeah thinks and I didn't speak to the the cap idea I mean I think the my interest in in potential caps would go along with if we consider some of the more the bigger steps in phase two that that's where I

[86:00] would look at is if is if you're gonna allow you know a built from scratch triplex that pairing that with a lowering of the total allowed amount so that there's more of an incentive for it so sort of giving a takeaway options so I wouldn't abandon that idea entirely but I would move it to face two so that's my my thought I just wouldn't do it I wouldn't do it now I mean a survey is always useful I mean we did do a statistically valid survey on exactly these concepts in the comprehensive plan survey was just three years ago and I'm going to throw out a few numbers here real quick because I have been in front of me that there was a question about whether people would support attach to detach 280 use and this is all in established single-family neighborhoods and there were 62 percent who strongly or somewhat supported that and 27 percent who strongly or somewhat opposed it in the duplex or duplex conversion in a single-family neighborhood had 71 percent support 17 percent opposed and then the cottage court

[87:02] which we couldn't can look at in Phase two at 73 percent support in 15 percent opposed so I think we found in that comprehensive plan survey strong support for these ideas across the city so I think you know more information fresher information always good but I think we that to me was a really strong indication that that the the city felt like these sorts of ideas were worth exploring so I think we can move forward and and so I would like to see us do the B and D and that with the with the conversion thing I just have staff if we do have support for moving that forward to just look at the how we might tune that so that you you couldn't essentially just build it really well I mean I know I mean a new triplex could be a valuable thing but you know it's just if you're essentially scraping a 1,500 square foot at home to build something 5,000 you know maybe it's only

[88:00] certains the size of addition that would be allowed for this I mean not sure exactly what the best course is but we might want to look at options about what really makes a conversion versus something new very I didn't say earlier about what I would support what I wouldn't support and I do like the idea of the the splitting the option B where you already have the big house and I actually think that that would be something that would be great all over the city because that's something that's happened in the past a lot of places downtown have these large houses that were converted to multiple apartments so I think that as Ann said for the future I think that's that would be a great option and the the the ad use the extra ad use I would support I think I agree with Sam the the energy code has kind of taken care of a as far as the Phase two

[89:06] I think that's where it's gonna get really interesting about what we can do so that's it for phase one I I still would like to see the survey and to drill down into specifics like the drawings that we have here and then I still would like to see it split out between the North Boulder sub community and the entire city because I maintain that the the context matters and where folks aren't being assaulted like they were in North Boulder then perhaps it's not necessary yet but I think that if we do it citywide where we do these options

[90:00] B and D it's something for the future so can I ask a clarifying question because it just occurred to me where you were supporting the survey I think it would be most useful to do the survey to inform phase 2 I think these things we might be able to move forward with sooner were you thinking of a survey before we move forward with phase 1 because I think we have time to do phase 1 so it would be phase 2 and that's where I said like I said it would be it's gonna get really interesting there because that's where you could get affordability I am not so sure that likes like has been said here earlier that adding an ad you that there's gonna be that many people jumping on it but but in the future I mean I was I was persuaded by the let's think 50 years from now and that subdivision of a big

[91:00] house makes a lot of sense for the future and it would be a pleasant surprise if people did do it now but I kind of doubt it anyway that's all I have Cindy Bob and Lisa and then see what we do agree on hey I just wanted to say if we this council we're going to do any one thing to address the sort of overwhelming issues that we are dealing with in terms of affordability density traffic congestion we would change the zoning so that we don't have so much commercial space as long as we continue to be filling up the commercial space with those moving into the community or moving from places which are much more expensive than this one and they're driving up the prices that's what's driving up the affordability issues and it's also driving up now the density so that in terms of livability as long as

[92:02] we're allowing these kinds of jobs and these kinds of numbers to keep coming in we're never going to make it we we can't catch up to that kind of thing and so if we were to deal with dealing with commercial growth in this community that would be a real thing to do and that's the thing that wasn't done around 2001 2002 when the last task force I believe convened on that and it was predicted then that we would be where we are now if we didn't act then so here we are and we're talking about doing these kinds of to some extent for the people who live there draconian measures my fear is that the developers are going to grab this and they're gonna be the ones who are doing this kind of thing rather than the people who live on the ground and that they'll come in they'll say oh let's do this let's split up this one house into these three or let's build a

[93:00] house knowing that we can build 280 use behind it and they'll come in they'll do this again to the neighborhoods rather than it being organically happening from within the neighborhood itself and so that's my big fear on kind of moving forward with this and why I really want to hear the people where they live and I would also focus with Mary on the north coming the North Boulder sub community area well no I was just gonna add one more comment to my thoughts regarding the North Boulder sub community as well it's it does have it is closer to a lot of amenities and it's got the transit and so I think that that's why it's been happening there and not in the other places or as well as the the whole idea of it's different contextually in the other parts of town so ok we have

[94:00] Bob than Lisa okay I guess my comment is gonna be more a process and timing question on on a to use you know I think we heard staff say that in our RN re neighborhoods roughly 2 percent of the houses had taken advantage of 80 use I don't know sounds like Steph doesn't know how many what percentage of all of our housing units citywide has taken advantage of it when we modified our ad you rules back in August it was 1% was 231 units had about 23,000 single family units now maybe we've had a big bow wave we've gone from 1% to 4% but I'm guessing we probably haven't gotten there yet so I guess the observation I would make is people and our R and re neighborhoods seemed to be adopting a to use at roughly the same pace as people in other parts of town maybe even a little bit more maybe a little less but I guess my question I'm gonna come back to what Mary by said and I think Mary

[95:00] started to say at 2 we only adopted the ad rules and we pretty significantly liberalized them less than a year ago and we're still processing the first batches of people who applying for this and while I think it would be an interesting discussion to have at some point in time about whether we should further liberalize ATU rules in these districts or maybe citywide I would like to give it some time to proceed and see how the guesses that we made last August are they pan out we probably got some of it wrong we don't know yet and I look at our calendar I mean this council is only be together for another 5 months and I look at our calendar we've got all pine balls so much we got to deal with you guys see you south which we definitely have to deal with you got community benefits which we put on ourselves we've got two big open space and transportation master plan to deal with we got used tables which we're gonna start tackling tonight we got to do our annual budget and we have to put the ballot together we got a lot of work to do in the next five months and I guess I would say that if someone

[96:03] to ask me is liberalized further liberalizing Adu rules that we passed last year on your top ten list Bob or even your top 20 list might say no be something to visit and maybe in two or three years but I don't think we need to visit them nine months after we asked them and so while an Adu discussion might be interesting I wouldn't do it in 2019 okay we have Lisa and there we're gonna clarifying question Bob so if I were to interpret what you said which is no a no D and you haven't spoken on B it would seem to me like you're basically saying your your opinion is to move this all on the face - yes I've been on Phase two and I'd say the same thing I'd be I mean I heard that we're doing less than five a year on this thing so it doesn't seem to be something that people are really interested in but it's also not allowed in most places and now I'm not saying that it will be a silver bullet solution it's just something in the toolbox that people can use but I'm just

[97:01] trying to interpret you're basically saying Punk this two-faced - well I would say I wouldn't do it well that's what you said I wouldn't do any of it but again if we're gonna have a Phase two put B and D in Phase two but I wouldn't do Phase two in 2019 we have too much to do already face choose for the next guy that's like so we're saying the same thing when the next council takes on Phase two sure throw B and D in there as interesting discussion okay so do nothing Lisa all right so I just wanted to colloquy comment that Mary made about why in North Boulder all the demolitions are happening and I had asked Karl and Andrew about that at some point when they were first beginning to look at that and I think part of the reason is that the houses in North Boulder that are being demolished are mostly older than the ones like in Frazier Meadows or Southeast folders so southeast Boulder

[98:03] has developed more recently so I think that's part of the reason with regard I'm fine with the with the survey but I want to make sure that that we are able to get renters comments and also workers comments and I don't know exactly how we would go about getting workers comments but I would like to know that and we kind of already did that we did that survey asking people if they would want to live here and then what types so I think we just need that brought back up and so we can look at that but I think it's really important I I think the process that you've gone through so far has been great and that it has really

[99:00] engaged people and it has really gotten people talking about this and that for me was the point is to get people talking about what is our future and are we going to just stay stuck in our ways and and in terms of the IP peace indeed that was back in the integrative planning project I guess that was in the early 90s and then we did jobs housing in the early 2000s and you know I was in the same place I am now trying to change commercial though in the housing and didn't have enough support on council to do that so we just continue to go down the road and there are special cases and I'm not sure how how we address those but we're people who live in North Boulder who have really large lots would

[100:00] really like to do something other than escape and build a giant house and right now that's not permissible for these individuals and heard from them in emails okay so just time check we haven't done phase two we haven't finished keeping guidance and we were supposed to be done with this in 20 minutes so I guess straw poll two things I think are on the table because the survey I think has to do with phase two so we'll talk about that in a minute I guess just straw polls if people are interested in pursuing phase one conversions two duplexes and triplexes I want to see if we have five one two oh sorry okay and then more ad use in phase one do we also have five for that okay so can you turn to those to ask about the a and as Erin pointed out in phase

[101:03] two that he would be okay with a cap size of house if it added some other things to it yeah it's a conversation I'm interested right yeah okay so yeah as soon as we talk about phase two okay so on ad used yep what's your question I'm sorry well I don't know you look like you wanted to say something no it sounded like you wanted to go back to look at the visuals but I just wanted to think about maybe it's just the chart about a to use in terms of what we want to bite off here and phase one do we want to allow how many more or per lot size or what do we think what kind of direction do we want to give so it seemed to me that what staff had proposed was if you have remaining FA are on a lot you can put in multiple a to use I would suggest we just cap it it

[102:02] to and say you can do as much as the far will allow up to two and that could be one internal and one cottage or it could be two cottages or two internals but however it looks I think the far limit is kind of the first step and if you have far left that would allow you to build an a to you or to a to use you should be able to use it but I would cap it it to for now but I don't think people are gonna want your de facto college courts and their neighbours backyard right now so like you say the pace of change that might be digestible I think a cap will make a little more certainty does that resonate with people if you allow six you're basically to the cottage court will talk about in phase two so I write there's a bunch of numbers between two and six there are but two I think to some has an incremental step so we're not we're not agreeing anything tonight because because we got do community engagement around that right

[103:01] okay anybody so in terms of directions of staff to develop a proposal to get public feedback all we're doing is allowing one extra eighty year this is not revolutionary stuff I don't think we're gonna have a low back if we do this so I so I'm guessing - sounds like a reasonable number that and then in terms of conversions again this is just directions of staff go to develop a proposal and shop it out to the public allow conversions to duplexes and triplexes within existing buildings you wanted to add a tweak on there about size of additions you just think about maybe capping a size of an addition and

[104:00] is part of allowing this I think that's a very good idea I mean because I don't think what we want people to do is take a fifteen hundred square foot home and turn it into a forty five hundred square foot triplex so I agree with that and staff can figure out in terms this is an incremental step if you're talking a conversion it should be a conversion although I have to say if they were gonna scrape it and build a big house I'd rather them do that so I think trying to figure out where that Suites one is I just have a question so I guess of my colleagues so these two things which I'm not a big fan of or at least not a big fan of right away do you guys want to do this the next five months you want to do these two things the next five months I mean yes it's in our tits in our work plan it's on our schedule by this do you mean do you mean doing the survey or do you mean they hadn't putting in the phase so with the ad used we don't we have limits on how long

[105:02] people are supposed to be there before they start applying for one was that just somewhere in the in our l1 there's there's the concentration requirement so no more than 20% in our all one but that does not saturation it doesn't apply in our our and our II but I think what Cindy's referencing is isn't there you have to live there there's a residency requirement that's part of it and then there had been I can't remember what we did with this but there had been a requirement that primary home be in existence for a certain amount of time before the ad use built my understanding is we got rid of that and that now you can build a new house with an ad you and you can be fine and so again mine is my concern is with speculate speculative building right but I hear you but again

[106:02] instead of getting a 5750 mansion maybe you'll get a 4,000 foot house with 280 use hey that even if that was a speculator house that would be better than a big mansion well the other thing I'll say about it as far as resource efficiency is it's clear that it's cheaper and somewhat less resource-intensive to do it in one fell swoop so if you're building a mother-in-law suite into a home that's a new build then you don't have to build it without the kitchen and then go back in and convert it so there's some you know argument from the standpoint of efficiency that it's okay to do them at the same time I guess I'm just trying to understand from a logic point if we're gonna spend our valuable time doing this I would hope that we're making an impact and if

[107:00] you're stating that that's 2% of the homes up there that are doing this that to me is not a huge number so are we I guess the premise for me is that we're doing this in order to create affordable --i tea but if people aren't doing it we're we're spending our time to create something people don't want to use so are you doing this strictly for the future or I mean I guess if you're trying to make a direct impact now I just think our time is better spent on focusing on affordable housing in areas where again we can do more dense and more transit oriented areas but I guess I'm trying it's a question to council I think also the two things we're talking about is if you were thinking about scaping our house to build a bigger one this also says instead of doing that you could build an internal or external ATU or two so it might also be relevant to existing okay and the conversions only apply to existing so that makes sense

[108:03] it's not you I'm sorry I'm I'm just trying to understand the fact that people aren't doing it you're hoping that if people move in or scrape and build something new that they will do it I'm not hoping anybody screams well if they're going to scrape you're hoping that they'll instead build something with a smaller F AR and then - I think it's in direct response to the number of scrapes in the building of very large houses and cyndi to your point there's been a lot of that that's been speculatively driven so we're getting those scrapes and those enormous houses anyway in the hope is that we can offer some alternatives here and so that maybe you keep the smaller house and build a cottage in back because now you have an option to you know keep you in your house and provide a little bit more income or you know if or if there is yes or if there is a scrape which hopefully there wouldn't be that what comes back has some affordable living and not just one huge mansion so I think you have the potential of preventing scrapes and you

[109:01] have the potential of adding some additional more affordable living units and I think the hope is that people would you take advantage of some of this it's not I don't think there's any assumption it wouldn't happen well the idea is for we are providing more choices right now we're not taking anything away we're just adding more options for people that would enable them to to add on to existing and maybe afford to stay there to have their mother-in-law quarter or that sort of thing or to convert existing to multiple units so I think we just give me a choices yeah I think these choices are useful because somebody you know might build a home with an ad you intended as a home office so it's a separate cottage and lots of people like to do that separate their their workspace from their home space and then they sell after their 7 years and now whoever buys it next has the option of oh I'll buy this property and rent that out to help me make the mortgage payment I think there's you know everything doesn't happen in one step and I guess to your point about the percentage like zanza these are options

[110:02] and we are trying to entice folks to think differently than the single large home that maxes out the far because it maxes out the value and this is at least giving alternative value streams to homes and so if we were going in and saying you all have to put 80 years here that would be very different than you may choose to put an Adu here if you would like okay so and it sounds like conversions do we need to give you more feedback on that idea I don't think so okay all right so those two ideas we're giving direction some people somewhat reluctantly but none of what directions of staff to work up those proposals and get public feedback and they come back sometime in the fall so then when I mean just on a process question you guys are

[111:01] gonna take to get what we've said tonight put it together and then this is gonna go out as a statistically valid survey to the neighborhoods and the city year no just I think the statistically valid survey is for phase two only phase two so this is gonna happen regardless of no we're gonna go ahead yeah I think we would end up drafting up ordinance language and then having open houses so that people can read the language and learn to understand it and there will be a public hearing all right so we will get to hear from the public not only in the emails and through these channels but there will be a public hearing where people will come to us I just want it out there so that anyone who's watching can hear this right now and hear what's going to be happening so great okay and then let's turn to face to you and again this is for the future like next council so this is helping staff think about what they might want to tee up for the future around I guess subdivisions whatever okay just to be clear so when

[112:04] we go into potential subdivision obviously it raises some issues of density which we're gonna I'm gonna talk about and we've already kind of talked about new construction of duplexes and triplexes this would be a little bit more there would have to be a little bit more effort put into you know design standards which I talked about before for this for a corona construction duplexes and triplexes but this is where it gets where we need some more feedback so when we get into land use option II this is if we're trying to get into it's similar to the Adu idea where there'd be a capped primary residence and then that additional square footage could go into one or more cottage size homes that would be on their own Lots and that those Lots could be restricted in size it could be like thirty five hundred square feet and the homes upon them could be like captive like 1,500 square

[113:02] feet if we're trying to get more smaller homes we have also a proposal in the memo that if there were concerns about the number of units that are possible in these areas it could be you know allowed it potentially just one cottage per per law and that gets a councilmember brockett's idea like the backyard kind of cottage idea and then moving into a bigger scale site this is looking at a larger property that could accommodate more units this is where you get to the pablor place idea where the square footage gets broken down into potentially in this case six six units but it does beg the question of what level of additional density in these areas of the city is appropriate and what should we be putting our energy towards so we've broken down the option F into three different options so if we stayed with the current density as

[114:01] prescribed by the Boulder Valley Conference a plan to be two dwelling units per acre in the RR zone our II though nning is has the same land use designation as our l1 so it allows two to six dwelling units per acre but it's a little more problematic in RR because of that two dwelling units per acre and that's said pretty explicitly and in the comp plan another option would be option F 2 which would be looking at a new land use designation potentially to allow for dwelling units per acre or actually changing those areas to the same land use designation as our l1 so that's what's shown here so as part of this project we looked at these particular projects in particular the poplar place project which has 14 units on an area slightly more than an acre but it achieved that density through being part of a larger PUD that's actually several

[115:01] acres excuse me another project we looked at just from a aesthetic standpoint and and similar kind of density is Toby's Lane which is off of 55th but there's eight dwelling units on an acre there so we're in actually the medium density range but it does have home sizes that are around 1200 or even a thousand square feet that provide a visual reference the thing about these particular subdivisions is obviously when you get to this level of units there has to be access there's access lanes there's more impervious surface there's storm water detention requirements that kick in through the subdivision so these are things just to know and obviously if we're looking at doing they get more of a six dwelling units per acre those types of neighborhoods tend to have higher levels of infrastructure in terms of you know sidewalks kerbin gutter to handle the stormwater things of that nature so we

[116:00] have to understand from Council what level of change would we be looking at if we were to move in this direction whether the cross-sections the street cross-sections in these areas would have to be changed from the kind of rural cross-section whether on street parking would have to be included so these are the questions that that phase two raises I have a question there whether or not you've actually looked at the wider infrastructure costs police fire water sewer we did meet with our fire department we did me with Public Works in terms of water and wastewater we've given them some of the data that we have they were fairly comfortable and obviously there ought to be more research done but that that the systems could handle in terms of water and wastewater it was more of the stormwater that raised kind of more concerns with the engineers I mean obviously when additional density is added there's there's additional trips you know from the additional units and and did you in

[117:01] looking at the larger infrastructure costs did you also figure out sort of what kinds of densities we might look be looking at if this came to build out well yeah we we have a slide here that shows you know if we use the assumptions of two dwellings per acre for dwelling units per acre or six dwelling units per acre this table shows the potential for new units again if this is applied broadly and we just wanted this you know to the council to be aware of the number of units that are that could be possible so in this case if we were to go with the current density our zone is the only one that could potentially add units so you'd be looking at 250 new units if we use the current assumption if we were to change the land use plan and increase the density then it's like I say four dwelling it's per acres you get up

[118:00] of a thousand units for both the RR and re zone and again if you want to six dwelling units per acre which is like our l1 zoning you'd be looking at the potential for 3,000 additional units one thing we want to point out is obviously because our l1 is already sixth Williams per acre that two thousand number there is already current you know how it is today as far as potential we wanted to show potential number of new units another option that we wanted to put out there if council was concerned I'm sorry I'm just sorry I just want to understand the sentence oh you just said in the chart the to just say that again l1 based on the number of lots that are over 14,000 square feet that have subdivision potential there are over a potentially potential for to over 2,000 units in our o1 currently without any changes like it with no changes but

[119:04] that's already a lot okay yes it's just what's remaining in our l1 based on current correct okay and that's a if these were adopted if everybody did them lots of ifs okay one other thing we wanted to add is like a fourth option and if this is this is almost like an iterative option if counsel was concerned about that intensity or a number of units another option would be you know almost like allowing one cottage per one each standard lot in these zones instead of allowing a breakdown that could lower the number of units but even then that that would still permit almost 800 units if we were to move forward with that so we're putting this out for you know discussion purposes just to remind people who might be watching this is in addition to the 20,000 single family units that we have

[120:01] now right is that yes so this is looking at somewhere between you know 1 percent and 10 percent of addition so it 1 percent and 15 percent so just to put it in context you know these this is in the context of 20,000 or so single-family residential better than now so did you look at maybe allowing like an overlay zone or something like that because to do something like the poplar project you need the land to do that and and there isn't that much land to do that but I could see doing these pocket neighborhoods in kind of a sparing way in these large RR and re-type neighborhoods the poplar project doesn't seem to create any problems poplar and

[121:00] and it seems to still have a lot of pervious area just how they designed the houses and how the little access is around the house so not every house has their own driveway so you can get away from some of those concerns I think by the design but did you consider like overlay zones where somebody might come in and say I'd like to apply for an overlay zone because I want to do a cottage court here and then that would be taken and you probably couldn't do another one in maybe another two blocks or something like that we thought about that I mean obviously we'd have to figure out what the limiting factors would be to you know have it not be so pervasive enough that it can happen in certain areas I think we'd have to understand more what those limiting factors would be and where it would gain support I mean I think that's an option and we don't normally do you know

[122:01] overlay zones but it might be kind of a criteria based thing where if you you know are certain distance from a multi-modal corridor you know something of that nature where you could right right I mean poplars on the Skip on the - Oh for groceries all that okay you yeah I mean that's that's basically overview so bringing it back to the last two questions we've already talked a bit about question number three so okay yep question hey I don't believe you did you mention it Carl but I think in the memo you said that just a strict simple subdivision you were taking off the table you were not recommending that approach did you to to dress option c went away yes thank you thank you for the reminder for that I actually wrote that in my notes here so yeah we we also did look at what if just hypothetically we were allowing subdivision of those zones in an rl1 nature and just allowed

[123:01] buildings to be built on it meeting up being built up to the current FA are or the proposed cap and we're we're recommending that that option not move forward because basically if you're looking at and what we're saying is that you have to tie the fa r to the existing lot we don't want the fa r to be more than let's committed on the existing lot that's been the part of the assumptions so with option C if we were to allow that you would end up with almost double the amount of floor area on that same area so that's why we're recommending that that not move forward thing thanks for explaining that and and I support that that makes sense to me that that just kind of simple subdivision it's not going to get us to our affordability goals so it's an Casca kind of a process question here so so this is next year right somewhere between two and six of us will no longer be sitting at these tables when this gets taken up so like how specific should we be getting here because it's gonna be a different crowd that's working on this next year it's a

[124:01] fine question but given that things will shift how community he'll be being specific and enough to inform a statistical survey that we you know work on to get public feedback well I'm Plus there'll be election in there so it may be that framing up it could be the election is also a way of people giving feedback but it's the ultimate I guess I have a question that wasn't addressed there up well we haven't addressed them I'm not sure we addressed your question what was your answer just another Z no just it was enough to give us do a survey yeah okay I have one more question which is affordability one of the things that was kind of you mentioned in the memo we could include or not include is the notion of permanent affordability is an

[125:00] extra carrot for some of these options and I'm just wondering what that might look like perfect and that's another way to answer cuz I'm over brockett's question is that it could also inform what we have our economists look at right now we have a proposal pretty much ready to move forward based on council feedback we have the proposal based on the options that have been developed so that they could look at that and determine what the feasibility of all the different options would be but also what the possibility would be to have enable deed restricting for permanent affordability it might be like would there be incentive if say you know we were to move forward with the what we're calling the +1 option you know allow standard Lots one additional cottage would there be an incentive to deep restrict that so we have that in their proposal to look at okay so when when we were looking at the ATU regulations and

[126:02] we said if you want one that's beyond buy right and we'll have deed restricted affordability and what does that look like it was really helpful to be able to compare what the pure market impact is as far as the return to the developer and then if something is deed restricted what the rate of return is mixing in the market plus the lead restricted because a lot of times depending on the assumptions it's not that negative of an impact it might take five points off but still be you know well above the hurdle rate so I just would want to ask that we see that Harrison any word that deed restricted affordability comes in that we see what it would be like if the deed wasn't there both on the rent rates or the sale price versus if it were pure market mm-hm great thanks most people grew up on that I wondered if you have any

[127:01] numbers on how many of the in the current edu regs how many of proposals are for affordable units none nobody's taking us up on it yet okay good to know okay so anything so right now you're prepared to do a survey that touches on all these options and you want us to narrow it down or just say if anything we should take off the table that's where we would need feedback I don't think we're gonna suggest that option C be analyzed in any way but if there's anything else that should be taken off the table it would be helpful I'm supportive of all three personally just getting to the next level where we have some analysis and then getting feedback from the community in the form of a survey that gives them enough information to see impacts getting back to Erin's very good question what's your timing on this I mean when you are you talking about doing some of this work this year and then presenting it to the

[128:00] next council yeah I mean I think we're ready to work with the economists this summer because they're gonna be a you know advising on phase one options as well I think we're just gonna keep working on this until told otherwise we never do that but when would the survey go out when would the survey go out we talking about in the fall we'll be talking about next spring oh you don't have a timeline yet I mean I think we we'd have to kind of see we'll check in with the next council perhaps on on it and then move forward and we wanted to get councils feedback tonight before we moved forward with scheduling okay so I think this would be a retreat discussion for the new council right it's like we've done this much work we're this far along we have survey results want to put it on to understand what we've done there's a study session or you know I think this will make a great

[129:00] deal because it's something that's partially done and there will be other things that are like that like I think community benefit will be in that same state so the new council can look at stuff that's maybe partially baked and say is that something we want to keep moving with but we do want them to do the survey before the retreat or after the retreat okay so it's it's not baked at all it's mostly just its baked in the sense that they have the modeling and you know okay can you answer questions I think counsel okay does that sound right to people is is to work with the economist to figure out what are some of the better solutions and then give it to the next council and then worry about a survey then yeah I agree with that and it's a good approach just one the one thing I wanted to ask y'all to look into as you're talking about this I agree with the sama in terms of looking at deed restriction as a as an option how that

[130:01] affects things but also and lisas point about about how you might like if we were to allow cottage courts you you probably don't want them in every single lot you know and so what that might look like in terms of saturation or whatever something like that but but also if there's any possibility to very are some of our standards like driveways and things like that because as to my earlier question I thought that was one of the appeals of the ATU approaches that you don't have a lot of additional impervious surfaces could you if you did some kind of Cordy kind of thing could you have a little bit of shared parking area and people walk to a to a house you know something like that so and and do you necessarily have to subdivide to do a cottage court or can you do you know one parcel you know to explore some of those approaches the ways that you might take to make them think aynd of more livable but also lighter impact on the land and on the neighborhood agree with that because I generally think popular

[131:01] place is this great model again you may want them everywhere what do you want more of them I would think to make them possible so how would you do that calm agree on that I don't know how like Nomad cohousing and wild sage how they might be different than a cottage court but that would be another thing to bring back as because those are similar in nature I don't they're both have their own character but how they fit into the college Court idea how cohousing fits in or not yeah okay and then anything else I guess Aaron's idea about the cap as an incentive I know maybe you want to say that better than I just did well to throw that into the mix because I think you know maybe you're gonna be more likely to get some of these smaller outcomes if you pair them with a

[132:01] reduction in allowed square footage some some like well if you want to be build one big house it can't be that big but if you want to make it a something with a couple a to use or a triplex maybe it can be a little bigger but never exceeding the original allowed square footage folks agrees that mmm-hmm okay there's some dissenters here yeah well I agree with exploring that in a survey you and I'm by no means saying that's what we should do I'm just saying these are items for discussion I think the only people that get votes are Sam Mary and Mirabai because every loans were definitely gonna be here next year Mary so one just comment on the cottage courts in terms of where they could be if we're talking about they're not going to be everywhere they're only gonna be in some places putting them closer to transit lines might be one thing that we

[133:01] consider okay anything else on this I guess I'll just say in response to Bob phase two will be at the will of the next council and so having detail about what there looking at is I think helpful to them when they decide what they want to do with it and I would bet that there are a couple incumbents who might run a race who will see back again as well so okay then on that note let's move to something really exciting but thank you for yeah for all the good work yes gonna say actually the illustrations the way you did that really really helps clarify and I like the way you organize things with the little yellow box

[134:32] you guys ready to roll okay shall we begin yep okay so moving on our our second topic tonight is a discussion about the hue standards and table project which also includes a discussion about the

[135:00] opportunity zone which is a component of that so as far as part of this discussion tonight we have basically it broken into two pieces the first piece would focus just on the overall broader aspects of the project with respect to the project scope the Y and purpose statement the goals and reporting back on the community engagement this is something that's been in process for some time now and that we've been working with our Planning Board subcommittee on but we wanted to talk to Council about the broader aspects the second piece of it will be focusing on the specific changes to the opportunity zone so this is basically a follow up from our discussion on April 2nd so the first question just to tee it up and we'll get back to this is what feedback does City Council have regarding the subcommittee's project scope why in purpose statements the timeline goals and areas of consideration so basically we want to

[136:00] learn from Council tonight is are there any pieces of it that are missing are there any considerations or pieces of the project that should be modified or removed and are fifteen-minute neighborhoods a priority area of consideration for this project and then the second piece again this question relates to what feedback does Council have regarding the proposed use table changes to address concerns about future development within the opportunity zone so there's basically seven top so that we've outlined in the memo that we want to discuss and I'll get back to this later so we have the near-term part of this project is to really focus on those opportunities own changes with the goal of bringing an ordinance back sometime this summer for council consideration and then the second piece would be the longer term going into next year the longer term discussion with the community about potential changes to the use tables in different parts of the city so with that I'm gonna turn it back to Andrew to give you some of the

[137:01] background and and report back on community engagement thanks Carly if you have any questions or if you just speed up or slow down as well so first part touched on the overall project and the subcommittee work thus far and so this project initially was identified by the Planning Board and City Council as I worked by an item for 2018 there was a subcommittee formed which is three board members appointed by the land use code to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and NFI areas what could be out of alignment and how is it potentially fix that members serves to guide the project and make recommendations yeah as a sounding board for ideas and help to engage with the public we held seven subcommittee meetings thus far since this summer and they are advertised and

[138:00] open to the public to attend to provide feedback on and really the subcommittee has established the scope and goals and what we're calling the initial areas of consideration or topics for further study moving forward it don't look that the opportunity's own changes that crowd will have and second prior this presentation so briefly the project seeks to look and inline the table of a land use code with the BBC P policies that looks to do looks to do two things specifically one is structural and technical changes it's the East able to help make it more legible and understandable and secondly as Carl touched on they to explore some of these broader planning concepts such as 15-minute neighborhoods and how some tweaks to the tables may help to encourage some positive changes at the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan envisions and well the part two of the artwork will probably sell into other projects such as you know the sub community planning

[139:01] efforts as well so really quick here at the scope of the projects is only limited to chapter nine six few standards which includes the actual table itself as well as any specific you standards and ancillary sections such as definitions it does not include any form bulk or intensity chapters of the land-use code so no floor area no setbacks etc I can the purpose is to align the chapter nine six of the land-use code with a boulder valley comprehensive plan and to help enable the desired development outcomes and envisions so subcommittee identified a series of broad goals for the project and you're gonna get your feedback on these as well so the first is to simplify the use table and to streamline the regulations where possible a second is to create more predictability and certainty in Chapter nine six they also want to identify any community desired

[140:00] land-use gaps such as computing Community Supported Agriculture others to live work things like that the might not be currently addressed and the table itself and also to address things where the current list of uses may not have resulted in the most desirable outcomes or I had unintended consequences they also want to look at ways the use table can better in line with the city's energy climbing waist goals as well so we talked about a little bit before they are interested in the exploration of 15min neighborhoods looking at home occupations and how that land-use could be treated to allow more flexibility live work units looking at whether those are actually from as its envisioned in the comprehensive plan other opportunities to make tweaks

[141:01] looking at maker spaces do we have a used category that captures what we're seeing now with some of the 21st century kind of economy and businesses as well as co-working spaces which may not fit into our current office land use designations some people seemed looking at that also update our office space categories is that something totally different cuz people some have said that we need to modernize them yeah I think our office uses and definitions as well as potentially with a opportunity's own work as well yes for sure and so the engagement with this has just he backed on to the land you the large homes and lots events so we had again open houses in February and then an online questionnaire as well so yes just

[142:02] broad high-level feedback at these events we asked people to dot though with on some boards on there whether they agree or disagree with the subcommittee's areas of consideration and goals then also to tell us you know where they live work and play on a big map then identify what land uses they had more of or less of nearby and the online questionnaire asked the same questions get some high-level feedback so in general what we heard from the community was that the greatest agreement they had with these subcommittees in projects areas of consideration were to update outdated used categories there's also support for changing uses to use reviews where certain uses may be warranted things like coffee shops or local grocery stores that were more walkable or of interest opportunities for more mixed-use then also looking at getting more diverse uses in your non residential or industrial areas people

[143:03] were in agreement with changes to the user view criteria serve walkability inside design goals of the city then also diversifying housing types of use table changes and then studying and exploring changes to incentivize more opinionated neighborhoods as well also some level of agreement to further explore some changes to the light industrial zones into the future least amount of agreement with the areas of consideration ten is it centered around increasing development design standards changing the amounts of required land uses for certain residential non-residential percentages we have now sort of things we might might require let's say 25 percent ground floor uses talking those numbers there was less support for those types of tweaks and then also less levels of agreement for creating new use definitions as well as

[144:02] allowing active or retail uses in public zones I have a question so when you say there was more agreement with the following areas of consideration and then leased agreement these are across different types of respondents would you say for instance I can see the first two bullet points being something that the business community in general would have a hard time with and so would you I mean do you know do you have any idea when you had agreement was it mostly agreement between residents and business community and when there was a disagreement it was more of a split like that or can you describe it for sure yeah it's more looking at simply to stop voting how many dots were place links to each of these areas of consideration so it's not broken down by any specific detailed information an online survey we had them I believe choose neutral agree

[145:00] somewhat you know agree greatly or disagree greatly and that also helped to wade out their level of agreement but it's not broken down by different you know business communities versus residential citizens right thank you yeah in high-level feedback just to kind of open up a discussion with the community about 15 minutes we had them identify on a map where they live and then tell us what land uses they wish they had more of or less of nearby and same where they work and where they play or dining eat generally speaking it's all very similar more mixed to mix of uses more access to restaurants and shops and transit in green space we heard they wanted less the question do you have a map showing where 15-minute neighborhoods might be so we're working with our transportation planning team and they are developing with a new TMP update on that so this is my feed into you that moving forward

[146:00] that's kind of our hope to kind of spin off and kind of work with them on that typical things you might hear so they want people want less traffic less less density in some cases less fuel stations drive throughs those sorts of things so the first question we have for Council and on part one is really is there any additional feedback on the project scope why in purpose statements timeline is there anything that's missing anything you else you want to add as well I have a really lame one which is under your wise statement it says we may need to align things I think that we know things are out of alignment that's why we're doing it so I wouldn't make it so but that's really minor I mean when's the

[147:00] last time these were reviewed it's been a while right since a comprehensive review was done nineties I would guess right and that alone is a reason to go look at it is to make sure that use tables evolved to be you know where the current community needs are because I think if it was the 90s things have changed a lot since then right we know they need updated yeah yep I have just a little comment on office space and well you know we certainly I don't want to encourage lots of large new jobs coming in to Boulder we do have small homegrown businesses and I want to make sure that we do accommodate those and I know in in like some neighborhoods where they have neighborhood centers and

[148:00] and offices they I don't have it in front of me but there's a term that says you know it needs to be whoever's in that office needs to be serving a neighborhood use and so I have you know a story from the 90s where I had some friends who were working at one of these neighborhood shopping centers but they sold books or they made books kind of nationally and internationally and while they could walk to work and it was a small office the city closed him down because they didn't serve necessarily just neighborhood purpose but it was a good thing for them in the sense that they could walk to work and so I guess I'd like some flexibility in there so that we're not so hardcore on everything in the topic 5 his office and

[149:01] residential zones right so we're going to talk about that in a minute so any other considerations on why purpose scope goals areas of consideration well I think there's a question that I think they're solid you just have this additional question about our 15-minute neighborhoods a priority or consideration I would say yes to the extent that we can work into this project that we can get more you know walkable live-work-play neighborhoods please does everybody agree with that ok yes I would just add that it doesn't always have to be shopping but they used neighborhoods these 15-minute neighborhoods could be parks could be some amenity that doesn't necessarily involve commerce great point I mean I thought that to that end the places that the subcommittee the planning board

[150:00] subcommittee chose for their meetings were awesome in you know moving around to different areas that were like the Alpine market up on whatever night and college 19 University anyway I just thought that was nice and that kind of emphasized and led a flavor to focusing on that and so I agree okay should we dive into some more details in anything else on the broader aspects of the project are we ready to jump into opportunity zone okay all right so the second part is really to discuss the potential code amendments that we're working on that we talked about on April 2nd so this is a follow up so obviously our focus and going through the use table was to look at ways to change the huge table in ways that could increase

[151:01] housing capacity reduce non-residential capacity relative to like office uses to offset the jobs housing and balance and also maintain the potential for retail uses so a real quick summary this is the opportunity zone bounded by Arapahoe 28th Street Airport Road 55th and the diagonal these are the zoning districts that are in the opportunity zone so just to follow up you know we we talked about this before we went through the use table and we presented to Council a number of different changes that we thought could work towards those those goals we feel that at the April 2nd meeting City Council was generally in support of a lot of those changes we've talked about the the limited use option where we would try to collapse portions of the youth table and pull some of those pieces out into limited use categories so that we could

[152:00] have something between an allowed use and a conditional use that would have a one-line unique land use characteristics so we're still working on that it's still a work in progress but this slide kind of gives you an idea of what that's looking like you more will be bringing that back so just to be clear because we did get some email on this the L designation there non-substantive correct well some some other ones that we're gonna talk about tonight would be changes beyond what's shown up here on this slide and that's where we need to get more feedback from the council most of this of the L stuff is definitely non subset if it's really a restructuring pulling things out of the used table that are a little confusing and putting it all in one place where there's one line land use restrictions mm-hmm so the question that we have for Council tonight is what feedback does Council have regarding the proposed

[153:00] changes with respect to these seven items so we've broken the presentation down into seven topics these are the areas where we didn't really sense consensus on the council that we needed more feedback on so I could go one by one and we could have a discussion and we have a matrix in front of you that goes through each of these do you want to do one by one or should I just run through all of them okay all right so the first one is efficiency living units so one thing that staff had suggested was in the requirements in the code basically say there are an allowable use in in most zones up to the point where if they're more than 20% of the on-site units it becomes a use review and we felt that if the city is trying to encourage or incentivize smaller units that perhaps maybe that threshold should be removed and they should just be allowable at any percentage so that's what we had recommended last time there was a

[154:02] discussion that perhaps we should look at some sort of deep restriction to to any percentage of above a certain point so we've added an option C which we've basically proposed that if you have any eel use in a project that are over 50% that then those units over fifty percent would be deed restricted so that's what was a council suggestion we're continuing to recommend option B which is just to make them allowable we're trying to look at ways of an cent of izing this where we're concerned that option C may disincentivize more al use but we wanted to put that out for discussion so goodnight so how many al use do we have in the city right now we don't have that figure here tonight it's not a lot and so this would be basically to get their 450 or for 70 or 75 is the

[155:01] max yeah yeah I don't know I would go with B and go with your recommendation everybody caught that seems like smaller units there's a good thing yeah Cindy I I have concerns about how many units in one particular building could be built I mean I mean it depends on the zoning district and there's a two to one allowance Friel used because of their size say that again there's a - like so - efficiency living units count as one dwelling unit just cuz okay yeah so if you could have

[156:02] 30 you to have 60 if they and they were allowable across-the-board I'd have to know the maximum sizes before I'd be okay with that that's what I can say okay maximum size number right number of units thank you all right I think everybody else gave up thumbs up that right okay but it's something worth thinking about but I think yeah I'm concerned about just having just just a maximum it depends on the zoning district and there's a whole lot of units ago so the site review and people say things like hey how about a variety of units right so there you go Cindy it's a whole lot it goes through site review more than but not there's a specific zone but yeah I think a lot of

[157:00] larger projects which are safer view okay that makes me more comfortable okay so another thing we brought forward to council was looking at single family homes in high density residential zone so how do we get how do we incentivize attached housing in those zones we had originally an option B proposed prohibiting single-family zone single family units and the rh zones the high density zones looking at this further we did get some data back so there's about almost 13,000 units in the high density zones 321 of them are single-family homes we've changed our recommendation to option C we want to get some feedback from Council on it we're proposing that you just change it to use review and the reason we're suggesting this is because the concern

[158:00] about prohibiting them is that we might end up incentivizing a developer to scrape you know may potentially historic single-family homes and replace with larger structures and that it might be better to just encourage that they keep that structure but convert it so that you could do a single-family home through use review so it would disincentivize the single-family use but would still allow the flexibility of having a single family unit without trying without doing something that could potentially have unintended consequences so we're recommending option C so could people take a single-family house and convert it into triplex today yeah thank you so would you craft a criteria around that for the purposes of the use review I don't think we we didn't think that this one particularly needed additional criteria we followed

[159:02] the approach of the mixed use zones so when the mixed use zones were crafted they wanted to disincentivize single-family and they did that through you serve you so we're basically just applying that logic to the in I density zones I mean are there are there criteria in for that case no it's just the regular use review regular use for you and would you be able to take advantage of that for building new as well as for like say an expansion of a yeah it would be a new single-family home or an expansion would have to go through you serve you so I guess my feedback on this is I mean I'm generally supportive I don't feel like we need to make all the existing ones non-conforming like I don't like that that idea but and so reuse review gives a bit of an out to that but I guess I don't I don't feel like a lot of single-family homes is the best use of high-density residential and you might have a case where that somebody might spend a lot of money and build a single-family home so I might think about putting in a little footnote in

[160:01] there somewhere to think about some some criteria that for new for building me I was just gonna can I just can it be for new ones and not existing right I mean yeah it would be a single-family home in an RH zona be through you serve you would it affect existing you said it would if they were to expand oh well I guess that's that's the distinction is expanding on an existing one to be is different than trying to disincentivize more it is yeah and so I'm just looking for some finesse then to what you come up with address that and that because I think generally the the use review criteria single-family I wouldn't probably leap through those really easily because you don't have a huge impact on your neighbors and things like that so some sort of criterion specific

[161:00] to that and again that's why we're suggesting that the limited uses because you could add an L and say that this requires you serve you and it's subject to this special use review criteria yeah and I mean it could be something like you know you have an odd parcel that wouldn't fit in an apartment building and so you there it's kind of the only thing you could do there or something like that so that's what I was gonna ask is for those 300 that you've got out of thirteen thousand units or whatever are those typically on odd parcels or were built before the zoning became our era built before it was alright zoning right so their lot size probably isn't conducive to an apartment building generally is that right yeah yeah so it seems like many of these Lots will be built with an existing non-conforming single-family there so I think this suggestion needly finesses all of that and i don't think you should say new builder existing because almost all of them are existing and so the time that you would have a chance to intervene would be if there was going to be

[162:00] scraped for instance right if somebody was proposing to scrape one they would go through you serve you at that point and then there would be some influence of the city over kind of what went there or if it was big enough that there could be RH and presumably staff would look at multi-unit there is it so just a question make it what level of change would require a use review for an existing any kind of expansion so expansion of square footage you don't get ten percent for free no but it wouldn't be limited to ten percent perhaps that's something that we could put as a criteria yeah it triggers use review if it's an expansion of more than X we should just think about some sort of de minimis exception yeah that makes sense to folks but otherwise everybody

[163:00] okay we'll see okay topic 3 ok so the next topic is residential in the business regional zones so currently residential is allowed on the ground floor staff raised this issue with council that you know perhaps we might want to look at doing something similar to the business community zones where we require that the residential be brought off the ground floor that was our original suggestion one council member suggested maybe we look at just a cap on the percentage of residential on the ground floor and 75 percent was suggested we feel like we can agree with that so we're recommending option C some folks wrote us and said yeah but what about 29 north or whatever but so they can throw a coffee shop on the bottom floor and color did right

[164:03] so so modified used table to allow up to 75% of the ground floor of buildings to be residential right in the BR so what the staff think about 75% I mean it seems like business regional is intended to be mostly community serving businesses is that right it's actually our most intensive so it's not like a personal service so it's really designed to support you know large floorplate users office base retail large retailer users large retail users so this is this the boulder valley regional center mostly yeah yeah so 75% of the ground floor of buildings to be residential I

[165:03] mean I understand the to nine North counter example but that number seems high to me seventy five percent seems like an awful lot in a business district what was I don't know who came up with that or what the rationale was I think it was me and I thought that I had suggested that if it were affordable housing I think it's mostly we're trying to preserve ground-floor retail and commercial activity but it could be apartments above all right that's the goal here Aaron yeah I mean I mean I think I was the one the one council member who brought this up originally and I think maybe you threw in the 75% maybe but I mean I think the idea is that we need more housing and and so if we if we place if you have a decent sized parcel I mean then making the whole ground floor need to be retail is I think a restrictive it restricts your

[166:01] ability to do housing so the seventy five percent seems like a reasonable amount to me because then you get some retail I mean if you look at a decent sized parcel that's probably about what you need to front the street there's about 25 percent you know not a bigger parcel so that that's I think it makes a certain amount of sense I think once you get have much much less than that you're gonna require you you're getting disincentivize residential away that I don't think is a great idea could we change it and write it more like how we did with other grounds or zoning where you see wanted BC went into where we talked about where it did actually front the street and then around the back we could allow it I think we had kind of done it that way in it everyone seemed to be pretty happy with it yeah I was gonna follow up with that I I agree with that and I think what we need to do here is have this be a use review because you know it depends

[167:01] on how the building is configured what the number might be right if it's on the corner for instance you might be able to do retail on you know the street front on both corners and then it would make sense to put the residential on the ground floor behind that and so it seems like it's context-dependent to me and so I think this one maybe should be a used review to be able to get the planning department since you know the intentions of what we're trying to do in the zone district to shape the project so that we get that and that would be another way to do that but the goal is you know what the goal is and I think it's most so so do that or if you have a better suggestion I think I'm open to it I think it mostly comes up when we imagined redeveloping a strip mall where suddenly you're taking over surface parking then seventy-five percent number requiring it the whole downstairs

[168:00] doesn't make sense but for most places I think 75 percent does so anyhow I don't know if you serve you isn't too restrictive and owners and just to clarify I think you might be alluding to conditional use review like the staff level like a see in the used table yes and if it's a conditional use review can that be called up by Planning Board okay but used for the yes but if it's really big it's gonna require a site plan review probably anyway so okay I think I mean I think I've conditionals fine with me just so long as staff has a look at it and it's not just a number because that numbers you know context-dependent probably and you could write in those conditions and to address the concerns right that you're getting street frontage yeah so would this include any

[169:01] permanent affordability we did not propose that and is there reason why not I mean again it's trying to propose something that might that we didn't sent Pisa Bowl yeah yeah yeah my only concern and I'm fine with this but my only concern is a lot of the new apartments that we're getting that are for rent are incredibly expensive so if you would someone mentioned the park but used to be just look on their website yeah yeah just look at their at their rentals and I think I saw one of them over ten thousand dollars a month so I would rather have some kind of housing that is

[170:00] permanent that is maybe deed restricted or affordable I don't think we need any more super high-end apartment complexes so it's just a concern I have so I guess I would like to see some permanent affordability in this somehow so Carl can I ask you are we going to see office and be our zones as well thank you hmm every time with this one we're talking about an opportunity zones how do we see how to maximize the public benefit or increase the public benefit in the form of a portable housing that might be different than this exercise or is this where we would make that happen I mean we didn't expect that these changes would you know wholly meet all the

[171:01] different goals it would it would help towards moving towards those goals I think we're looking at future changes that might come out of the East Boulder or sub Community Plan that would also address that as well but just as targeted changes this is what we're proposing one more question and then when we do these changes would the moratorium then be lifted or after east boulders finished after these changes are initiated okay so we might need to circle back to affordable housing I was gonna pick up with that Xan I have heard from people in the community who have suggested I don't know how they would dare do this that perhaps we should be doing a sub community or a sub community type plan on this area before then doing these zoning changes so that we actually know what we want to get that kind of community benefit at the outset but

[172:02] there were three value three things that we were looking at from the opportunity's own to extract the value from it and get public benefit not lose any of the affordable and no excess office so in terms of addressing all of this I'm it feels like we're doing it kind of piecemeal and it has been suggested it's sort of a cart before the horse and it's since it goes across the whole city there may be unintended consequences that we're not able to see right now so I've just raising those concerns and maybe staff has something to say about that or we have something to say about that well how about this two of those three are gonna be coming up here in these topic areas so now we could finish going to this list and then we can circle back to affordable housing hema okay that works offices coming up and preservation of existing is coming up okay so the next

[173:00] topic was a suggestion by a council member about trying to relax the regulations that we currently have in the industrial zones relative to restaurants so right now to do a restaurant and industrial zone is a conditional use I has to meet specific criteria generally the criteria talked about you know you can't go over 2,000 square feet in most of the industrial zones I believe one of the zones ims has a lower 1,000 square foot limit I think the biggest inhibiting factor might be that there's a requirement that they not be on major streets so I think a lot of restaurants you know prefer to be on major streets like a strip kind of malte velopment and it prohibits that so it's really meant to service the employers in that area so that would be probably one of the bigger things that we would have to look at to see whether we want to remove that we're we're actually

[174:01] recommending that this change be deferred just so that we can hear more from the community and the employers in that area as part of the East Boulder subcommittee plan books just so that we're approaching this correctly so that's what we've put down in an option C but we certainly could move forward with the option of taking out that major streets provision the council inclined long time ago we didn't allow restaurants to have signs on them in industrial zone but I am assuming we do now so they can have signs and so you're just suggesting that maybe we want to let them be on major streets as well yeah I mean I think it's a good idea I would like to see more restaurants there

[175:01] so people don't have to go out and drive for lunch it's being able to take scooter song hmm she said we can take a scooter scooters yeah I don't have to scooter down anyway I think it makes sense and it makes them more humane you're suggesting don't wait don't wait do them now yeah I would go ahead but I mean I it just seems like it's another obstacle and it just makes it more urban and more of a city or more I think I mean good and if a few people from outside of the industrial zone come to the restaurant I think it's not gonna kill us no it would be good for it I mean this is something I've watched because I work out in Flatiron Park and so there have been delis that have struggled in there and I've gone out of business and now there's some places

[176:01] that are extremely popular but there's not enough of them you know come to popular times they're really congested impact so I think we do need to do this but I would prefer to listen to staff on this one because I think it needs a little bit of thinking about because you don't want them necessarily displacing the industrial uses you want them venting the industrial uses so I think that's the one caveat I would put out there is and we have a few different industrial zones there's IG and is and the different ones and so I think it takes a little more thought than just making it a sudden change do we expect the results of the East Boulder plan to be what's the timeframe in a year year and a half we could probably hang on here I'd be okay with that yep I mean this was my idea to decide

[177:03] I'd move forward with it now but I mean when we talk about the East folder or sub-community plan so I know we're gonna be getting feedback that's specific to that sub community but are we looking at potentially making broader zoning changes like to all of industrial zones based on the feedback from the potentially okay so that that's on the table is something that we can do so I guess you know if we put if we put a good bookmark on it and could revisit as part of that discussion could work I would brought a question um one of the purposes of this exercise is to start to bring zoning districts out of the word tram is that right and so by deferring this decision does that mean the industrial zones to stay in the moratorium or what actions cause to them to move out the way the B C's already moved out I think we we just felt that the industrial zones are gonna require a little bit more analysis so that we avoid unintended consequences and that

[178:00] we thought that the moratorium was could still be lifted as part of these changes and we could enact future changes through the sub community plan yeah I'm cool with the time for the sub-q me play position does that does that mean that the industrial zone stay in the moratorium until the subcommittee planners pass toward it or can they come out that's not what we were proposing okay so that brings up an interesting point for me Bob um the other thing that needs to be in the mix and the industrial zones is housing you know one of the conversations we've had is can we increase housing opportunity in the industrial zones and that requires a lot of analysis and so as part of that sub community plan I think we can do these analyses together you know restaurants other uses and housing and but the the staff has cautioned us to move slowly in the industrial zone so that we get the analysis done so I'm comfortable bringing them out but I still think as part of the sub Community Plan we need

[179:01] to be looking at all that yeah will we be looking at what is one of the things we'll be looking at how much industrial we've lost as a community yep mm-hmm that would be very helpful I think okay okay so okay with holding off on the restaurants until the East Boulder Community Plan but with the big fat bookmark to try to get her down within the year I work okay alright so the next one again looking at the used tables of the lens of how do we address the jobs housing imbalance one idea that staff proposed was you know one idea you could do is prohibit offices in the residential zones so there was there was some concern about that and maybe that we should just allow smaller scale offices in the zones so have a little bit of data I think here as far as amount of office is this for the home office stuff

[180:03] no this wouldn't be home occupation this would be actual office uses so live work know which is actual offices that were called in yeah and required you serve you to be approved so we did have our our data folks kind of look at this there are basically two let's see there was some concerns about the rmx zone that perhaps we should the city should look at being more restrictive about offices in that zone based on the amount of office that's already there so just pointing out there are 29 properties up would be impacted by a change to that and there's 91 firms that are in the rmx one's own so I just wanted to put that out there also there's about 20 225 properties and in residential zones in

[181:00] total that would be impacted if there were changes to to this so if we were to move forward what what's suggested is is a still allowing use review for offices in these zones but capping it at 1,000 square feet today the current regulations don't have a square footage cap so we thought this this would be you know a way to get moderate sized offices but again with the use review process so our original recommendation was to prohibit so we've we shifted that to the option C based on suggestions from Council we could there be a max to that I mean I know it's depending on how much is allowed within the zone but capped at a thousand square feet well yeah I do thank you Sam yeah that would be is there criteria they would go with the reducer I mean it's just the typical

[182:00] user view criteria okay for those of us not on planning board they really speak to impacts and operational characteristics and how use would interface with the existing uses that are around it so it's really about impacts there is actually one specific criterion and they use four criteria that says there's a presumption against conversion of residential to office in certain areas to avoid that in around the downtown to try to keep that residential concentration downtown that was a question about the impact statistics you mentioned those are those already exist is that right that's right so when you said that they would be impacted by this how would they be when they'd be kind of grabbed for instance if there was an office that was more than a thousand square feet you know that and they wanted to expand well it was only if they changed right it'd be non-conforming used or grandfathered or

[183:00] whatever words you want to use right you they wouldn't be affected by this change only expansions or additions right what exists now Aaron and Lisa so when you talk about a thousand square foot cap would that be for the building or for the individual spaces like like if you had a office condos I think we'd be talking about the site on the site because then people could you know break up and have multiple offices at a thousand square feet that could be of more impact but when you say site is that building is that parcel is the arsal so it would be on a personal basis so of the land but there again if it's X amount of however big the parcel is this is why the saturation that I was curious about that since we do have this horrific imbalance that I was talking about earlier I don't know why we would be permitting more office in what might be

[184:02] residential do you mind if I just dance I mean I mean the reason is to have the the live work ability not in the same building but to have in the same neighborhood and so that I mean the full disclosure this is me I have an office across the street from my house because the holiday neighborhood is a mixed use neighborhood and it's like it's 650 square foot offices little thing and but I'm not the only one there are a number of people who walk to work because there are offices in the neighborhood and and it's an HOA I mean I think there's like 10 little office condos in there but I think it's shared ownership of the land so I mean it's it's only like 4,000 square feet of office but it's one parcel and I think that's a real positive thing I think it works out really well and I would I think that's positive it's just if it gets out of hand it if it gets out of hand so I that's why I wanted to know what the larger space was how much of the larger space is this like in your instance

[185:02] I mean it's preferable right to have people not to be able to work there I'm sorry so are there any restrictions on the type of office used in this particular case I think it just goes by the definitions of office it's not too specific but but each zone has allowed uses in it I mean because there are certain kinds of uses that are allowed in certain zones in offices and not in others so Aaron in your case that was purpose-built and I think what this is an attempt to do is to prevent conversions right at the end of the day of residential to office because the conditional used to be or the use for view criteria you say they have a presumption against allowing yeah I mean it's partly for that it's also just to assess impact you know of an office used in a residential context and so you know when it was

[186:00] purpose-built and planned out that assessment was all kind of part of the initial planning process and so I don't think this is an attempt to argue against that it's good to have people be able to work close to where they live but this is more of an attempt to prevent an erosion of the residential into office space which has happened on Spruce out East and Folsom it's happened it's happened down so I think if I made the to that point then I would recommend crafting something was specifically aimed at residential conversions because I agree that that we should we should prevent work towards preventing residential conversions but there will be other new neighborhoods you know or parcels or something like that that get built that may want to incorporate a little bit of office in them and I think that's positive I maybe there's a cap of percentage you know maybe it's no more than a 5% of the total space or something like that but I do not support

[187:00] this in its current form I mean I think we've had a value of creating mixed-use neighborhoods in this town for decades and I think it works out well for us so maybe an alternate approach would be a total percent and and not allowing conversions if you took that kind of approach I think it could work out so I'll just play a little planning speak here this seems like it is it says modified the code to enable request for use review for office and residential if cap hat so it seems to me like this would be a request almost for conversion by its very nature now if we want to say that its request for conversion then that's fine and so if it's new build and maybe it's not as big of a deal but I also don't want somebody somehow to find a way to try and put 10,000 square feet of office into the residential zone when if they can do that they could be building residential and so I guess I

[188:02] don't know maybe you can go back and think about this one a little more and focus it so that we're not losing opportunities for housing or that would be but that's my concern is we don't want our residential land being used for office unless it's either planned like your situation or it's not taking away housing possibility and if I made that and I agree with that approach so I mean if you were to look at it as to knit such that it was about preventing conversions and limiting the total percentage or something like that that so maybe maybe we end up with two caps one is cap for new build which would probably be a higher number and then the second would be a cap on conversions which is a lower number if we want to discourage conversions right well we want to allow to some extent in

[189:01] whether this is a thousands of square feet or whether this percentage is suggested we don't necessarily want to to eliminate those new builds up to a certain limit this is all subject use for you anyway right oh yeah it is and so I guess if we could leave it like this not put the cap on and write the criteria for the use review such that it got at that you know those desires so the criteria were how is this just gonna say that now right but you just said L with the four things I think that have a few criteria is that essentially you like this would have more than one criteria l1 for conversions in l2 for new yeah so what happens if when we get done with the neighborhood 15-minute neighborhoods or whatever we could put

[190:00] office in or small offices in those kind of centers correct and that's not a dress that's not addressed yeah I mean we could go back to it or we could just not make this change now how many we could just go with option A and defer it until we have more discussions about 15-minute neighborhoods but we're talking about this because we're talking about the opportunity zone and we have that in the opportunity zone so so I say we we send it to you and you figure out the criteria for conversions and a criteria for new and try it out on us okay how about that sounds good I mean and you guys can give them ideas if you think I'm lying so let me ask a question currently in RH zones our offices and allowed use there through use review so right now in the opportunity zone there's our H properties and so somebody

[191:01] could propose replacing a small apartment building with a Class A office building and then it would come to you and what would you do with it what criteria would you use to evaluate either just the standard use review criteria um what are they for office and RH well it's just compatibility with the surroundings consistency with the zoning but those are the main criteria so would you say you would be more or less likely to reject a office building replacing a small apartment building in in our age stone I mean it really depends on the context it'd be hard to say so I think that's why there's concern right is because I don't think we want it to be contextual I think particularly the opportunity zone what I've heard a lot of council members say is we want to prevent the possibility of losing apartments to anything or losing condos to anything so the reason this is of concern Aaron is not really on your end

[192:01] of the spectrum so much as you know what if staff not these guys but some other staff that come later we're just see an application and at a staff level make a decision at least in both of these cases it's a use review which could be called up by Planning Board correct and then further by council so the one bit of protection here for something like that is there's co-op possible these are actually automatic planning board because if you do a non-residential on a residential zone it has to go to planning okay so Suzy I mean I totally agree with it we don't want to encourage or allow something like that so I think two xan's point if we say yes please do look at one set of criteria for conversions at one for a new build and the new build included something like no more than five percent or three thousand of core you know some some something like that then we get at that good okay more office so this next one is related and

[193:02] it grows out of again the concern about the jobs housing and balance the previous suggestion and kind of drawing from suggestions that came from counsel before was restricting office uses in the business zones to no more than 25% of a building and then as a method of trying to incentivize criminally affordable on the site enable a building to go up to 50 percent office if they had permanently affordable units on the property and if they did not meet that they could go through a user view as an alternative we wanted to bring this back to Council since just we've heard some concerns and our housing staff that in most cases you know it's the developer is probably gonna go through a use review either way so maybe this would be have to be something that has to be tightened so we've revised the option to

[194:00] be like options see which would be the same as option B or cap buildings at 25% for office use and allow up to the 50 percent if affordable units are provided on the site but in this case it would be more strict in not allowing a use review and that if you had an existing office in the BR zones you could continue operation if you're over 25% you can continue operation and you would be able to if you wanted to expand you could expand through the non-conforming use of you process which would enable a 10% expansion but that new office buildings would just be capped at the 25% maximum for office again with that option of going up to 50 and if there's a permanently affordable component so we've revised it to option C really affordable what housing units

[195:01] housing units it makes you civilians what you're saying yeah I mean I would just like to raise the possibility of permanently affordable commercial space um because that might conceivably be more compatible and so maybe it could be either affordable housing or I'm the only affordable commercial I know that we're not quite there yet in the definition so maybe we can't do it at this moment or maybe you're willing to try and put it in and then you know put criteria that define that because we at least at the thirty Perl location we we have a definition and a testbed for that so I think either one might be okay okay but still a housing is a higher Ussuri

[196:01] there Zhukov and understand this correctly you're saying that with this rule then that our business zones would not allow an office building of more building to have more than 25% office so you couldn't build a an office building in our business zones is what that would come all of this I mean we've had you know the discussion about the jobs housing and ballots and how to best address that in an area where there could be a lot of potential for office in a place where we're also trying to get more housing so that's where this is coming from can I ask a follow-up I believe that this applies only to the be our BMS and BT zones is that correct that's correct okay so in like the downtown zones office would be permitted right and so this is really looking at zone districts that are intended to be more regional or local neighborhood

[197:01] serving business transition it's transitioning to the neighborhood so Erin I don't think it prevents office and all business zones well I guess the ones labeled business but the downtown would be what would be left I think I think after after you did this the probably the downtown would be the only place that you could build an office building although we don't need any more time yeah it says if affordable units whether they be commercial or housing or provided but we don't say what percentage I mean it would basically be a minimum of two affordable units just depending on how many housing units that they put on the site I think yes I think the wording as recommended by housing was like meeting half the on-site

[198:01] requirements on the property mm-hmm yeah I mean I'm just wondering how big the building could be and you know how much office you will get and then if they do the kind of slide through then you could end up with a lot of office and very little affordability if it was a giant building I'm just again it would it would it can only go up to the fifty percent okay but fifty percent of it ten thousand hundred thousand square foot buildings offices what about the replacement of existing buildings another I get the fact that some people don't want incremental offices office space incremental jobs that's the discussion for a different day but if you had a building that was had fifty offices but it was had reached the end

[199:01] of its useful life somebody want to come through and put the same building there with 50 offices did this could that get caught up in this I mean if they're doing a scrape and rebuild it would be subject to this they were generally keeping Andrey fabbing you know the the existing building they they could go through a non-conforming use review if they were expanding so so the the impact of this over the long term will be that office billions but dick degrade right in other words if we we said you can't touch your building I mean there's only so much rehab me look at the consider the buildings we have down by the creek we've already made we've made a determination that they've reached the end of their economic useful life right and we're tearing them down they're in the floodplain so we're not gonna build something back up but a commercial operator presumably tear them down and replace them not even it might incentivize a conversion to residential right just wanted to be clear on what

[200:00] that would the impact of that okay I'll just speak to it I mean I would like to see us overall change our regulations to encourage more housing in our business zones but I feel like making preventing us from ever billing in another office building and our business zones goes too far so what would you proposal be would it allow you to replace existing I mean that would be a reasonable addition to this I mean I guess I'm interested in hearing my council colleagues I'm on this one of the the things that we've talked about to address the jobs housing imbalance is to rezone commercial so this kind of gets at that and so it's

[201:02] one way to accomplish more housing so picking targeted areas and and rezoning them or like we've had this project we've talked about for years about taking the 20th and 30th Street areas and and encouraging more residential in them so you could do more residential but this is kind of flat out outlying office buildings it's when you say outline Veterans Park that's industrial general there was an office building which was a relatively low rise but office building in in my general area which is now had another three storeys and totally redone and totally revamped and employs many more people created a bunch of new jobs which is good in one sense and it creates a lot of housing demand in another sense or in comedian demand so and that's IG and so office is allowed

[202:03] in IG how we take it certain types of offices certainly typing and I shoulda said in these business zones okay well I guess the point I'm making with this is that I don't think we're outlying office buildings there's some new ones going in right around me as well and someday my building will go away and there will be a new building there but these are zones that are specifically intended as neighborhood serving and/or transition to neighborhoods and so I think they're of a particular type we're restricting the amount of office is something that we want to do if it were and and they're you know if we look at the BR zone there are offices there there's a lot of them and there's an intent to put more there and that is not at all what the plan for the Boulder Valley regional center is about and so to me this is a necessary step to get what we want otherwise the

[203:01] whole thing may end up filled with officers because it's the most lucrative thing to build and to me that seems like a negative outcome for the community you know why even have the plan if we don't intend to take steps to enforce it when we're not getting what we want I'm not interested in having it like a one on seven argument with everybody I'm just making a couple points I just it'll be 62 yeah the regional business zone is not neighborhood serving its it's it's for the entire city and and I think it's it should have a mix a rich mix of uses so I you know to me I think about I don't know how you do this but something of a you know the total amount of office should be no more than this or you know so we get plenty of housing lots of retail or something will fill on the one for one replacement here I mean because I that's the part that troubles me most is that I get the fact that people don't

[204:01] want more offices in these zones but but by by imposing this which is going to happen is over time you can have fewer and fewer and fewer offices to the point where you don't have any maybe that's the goal we should just be because they're gonna reach the end of their life and then you can't replace them with another office you can only replace them with 50% of the offices or something like that now those allow some flexibility for replacement and maybe it's just these numbers are too low maybe if we could talk about the 25 and the 50 maybe the numbers are higher then you effectively can get back to that placement I think this gets back at balancing things out so I think 50% is good yeah I'm fine staffs recommendation

[205:00] I think and I actually if we lost some jobs I think that would be okay that's tomorrow's headline yeah but I mean we are so out of balance we need more housing and we need fewer jobs okay so I think for now is what it is I think when it comes back you have a little bit of time to get creative we can play with the percentages and maybe some folks out there may make some suggestions to that end okay can we leave it there for them points noted okay so last topic is related to preservation of existing market rate affordable units in the opportunity zone so this is something that council raised as a concern something that we've looked

[206:02] at in the u stable and and honestly we we looked at it and couldn't think of a way that to prevent the demolition of the unit's there so based on that we're recommending that the moratorium be continued during the duration of the opportunity zone for the RH 4 and our m1 zones to prevent the demolition until you know some other potential outcome could prevent that but that's our suggestion tonight but that would preclude rehabilitation of the unit's right no just demolition so you could do something like what happened on 30th Street with the nest I just wonder if we should have a small unit exception here

[207:00] because if somebody's got a I get the fact that we don't want somebody turned out a hundred unit for this market rate affordable and replace it with hundred units of not market well we've just had that happen more specifically displacing all the people in those units place and all the people in those units I get the objective here there's somebody had like as small I don't know as small as two four six ten something like that unit again reaches yeah and it was you can economic life wants to replace it it's a small unit it's not displacing a lot of people but it just needs to be fixed up or rehabbed I just wonder if there should be a threshold here but then you wouldn't be demoing it well you might to rehab it that's what we're about to do with the hospital buildings my point is sometimes you have to demo to to rehab I mean you can you can't rehab in place because there's not economic I just wonder I'm just throwing that out there as a proposition these are is our small units maybe a way

[208:00] to get at it is whatever if you're gonna do something like that you've got to rebuild this or rebuild to serve the same market sector whatever you know so you take a radio instead of to scrape because you don't get to build high-end you you build to that same and it's fine unless you're one of the few people that's getting displaced no I get that I don't know is there very many small units in there that we need to be thinking about we don't have the data on the unit sizes there let me just we don't have the information I just want to plant that as a seed for people to think about when it comes back and maybe you guys can gather that if there are small units there that we want to carve out to is your talk about a long-term demolition more time rain it would be for as long as the opportunity zone is valid which is like 10 years right should we put that in the

[209:02] code yeah there was a question I mean I'm good with doing that how else are we gonna protect these things and what Lisa was just saying $10,000 for the you do sir like two thousand and then they go on up for 3-bedroom 3-bath 210 miles wells everybody agreed that this is the outcome we want is to preserve and this is the best tool you can come up with the only at the moment you know for remote viewing targeted changes to the you stable this is our suggestion okay I mean the one concern I have is that it not prevent rehab so if that we not trap buildings as Bob's concerned about in a way that they can't be redone and so I guess what I would say is if a case like that comes before planning and the you

[210:03] know it's like there's a moratorium there needs to be at least some kind of outlet so they can appeal their their their particular case because we have said that we would make exceptions and there would be a council level kind of decision so we just want to make sure that we don't trap somebody in bad conditions in inadvertently that's the one thing but otherwise if they can rehab I think this might be the right solution because there are a lot of units there they're currently market rate affordable truly like what just disappeared on a rap oh and so I'm really concerned with that particular area so the idea again that if you're gonna rehab that you're still serving the same market sector after what is that the right word market am i rinse rinse rinse is the same or close to the same as what they write somehow you want to if you're gonna re an errand yeah I agree with that and so just in talking about that rehab thing right that in our

[211:01] we're updating the demolition code to look at types of demolition rather than percent of value I think so maybe if we took that approach that it's you know it's a rehab not demolition but a rehab rehab type of project versus like no more than 10% of the building kind of thing which could catch projects unnecessarily and then just a question for you so would this be written I mean is the language in here is talking about the opportunities and specifically so would you write this specifically about the geographic area of the opportunity zone yeah I think if we were to move forward with this and assuming the other changes could be supported in an ordinance there would be an ordinance to lift the other zones out of the moratorium but keeping these particulars owns active with certain specifications just if I could just interject at some point it's no longer a moratorium it's a land use regulation so I think that we could develop land use regulations that

[212:02] put certain types of restrictions on how things are preserved or demolished we do it with historic preservation now we could do it for other valid public purposes as well general can icicle should in general don't we want to prevent these kind of conversions from happening kind of everywhere is there a way to write something more broad they get sat frowning upon conversions in order to upgrade take that into consideration that's probably outside of the scope of this particular project is it really trying to stick in the opportunity zone but well I'm just saying whatever we fix here is probably something I wanna fix everywhere so let me make suggestion since David said that this is really got to be handled separately anyway moratorium lasts till June 2020 so by June 2021 we just talk about a citywide adjustment like David talked about right that scrapes you just don't

[213:00] lift these out of the moratorium and between now and June 2020 or such other data is extended to you do this citywide demolition land-use adjustment right works for me yeah Cindy sweet and trying to get in I I just have a question about when we said we're gonna leave it as it is on topic six before we wrap anything up here where was that when we okay wait we will come back to that do everything okay we're gonna tie this one up the people okay I just want to correct myself it's not ten thousand it's only 8300 a month see it's a deal yeah it's a deal and there's studios 1-bedroom 1-bath 25 so okay does everybody like Bob suggestion I do I just I mean I very much want to prevent the the scraping of market rate affordable units when you're

[214:00] talking about preventing all demolitions citywide you need to be careful about unintended consequences so I mean that that's a bit of a bigger bite so just we'd want to have some careful analysis that we were doing something like that right so I guess I was just a man your suggestion is leave this in place for now and by June 2020 figure out a creative approach to prevent scrapes of market rate affordable for conversions to I and ya know we talked about making sure there's no less renovations maybe maybe making that for exception for small empty use for those are things we could talk about when this comes back to us yeah I mean I think having that scope of work done knows Aaron says that's a big long heavy left prior to June 2020 is probably unlikely so I would expect the new council to have to address that issue either extend the moratorium or let it expire and so I think the new council is gonna have to figure this out

[215:00] right but if this is the last thing that's left in the moratorium then maybe the extension of the moratorium becomes less controversial this is the all that's left and there's work going on it just takes a few more months and yeah okay going back to six how we left it was that most people were okay with it like is but they're gonna write it up as a proposed ordinance and we'll hear from people if they have another a better way if they want to fiddle with the percentages or give us lobbyists on other ways of looking at this and when was that going to be by it's gonna come back to us it was on the CAC calendar in yeah we're looking at August in September right so yeah so that gets time for people to think about it that works just question a process with the exception of the MH is image RH our agent or amazones we talked about a

[216:01] point number seven would this effectively lift everything outside of the mortaring yeah okay but the one thing that we want to still talk about is whether there's any way to incentivize or in the opportunity zones getting a higher percentage of affordable housing right to actually get something that we wanted out of Opportunity Zones so just want to throw that out there and have you guys thought about that well I mean we integrated it into the suggestion for the business zones and and there's also the option on the elu but we didn't have any other suggestions as part of this okay I'm just wondering if there's any way to incentivize how about how about the one that we just talked about but the demolition yeah and if some if a building in our age for RM one reaches

[217:01] the end of its life thing and the the owner wants to demo it I know they probably have a four double housing requirement anyway right isn't that true they'd have to be with our iih requirement for a new one but maybe it's I H on steroids in other words it's it's a higher percentage if they want a demo the existing market rate affordable building they have to give us a heck of a lot of affordable units more than just the normal 20 or 25 percent that I ate of course there's also diagonal Plaza to think about right because that could develop how about an overlay zone how about an overlay zone for the opportunity zone that takes into account the improved returns for office commercial and affordable and we look at what we would need to do to incentivize it and so whether that's an overlay zone that says you know any commercial built here will have a higher linkage fee and

[218:01] you know any affordable housing built here will get moved to the front of the queue and you know consideration by our housing department I'm just trying to think out of the box here about you know how do we incentivize housing over office space you know a higher linkage fees locally that accounts for the additional returns that they would get and extracts that into our affordable housing fund at a higher rate maybe it's 60 bucks a square foot you know so you know like the report recommended the point being that it's both a disincentive but if somebody moves ahead with it it brings funding in to affordable housing and that would make housing more more incentivized and so these are if they're building market rate housing and we're still getting our 25% as a result of that is isn't that helpful that they're doing more housing than they're doing office space or other

[219:01] commercial buildings because we put a higher linkage fees so that would be one suggestion or thought is that possible David I think that I would have to look into it further I can think of a few concerns I would have about it I'm sure okay how about looking at the other way how about if we want diagonal Plaza to get redeveloped with lots of housing how do we incentivize that if it's in the opportunity zone yeah I'm just saying yeah how do we actually go hey over here do that over here yeah I think I'm channeling a vet here a little bit in that I think what a lot of other communities do is they say very clearly here is what we are looking for if you are looking for an investment using opportunity's own funds here are the things that we the community are looking for so rather than try and achieve that through a regulatory tool what I think we may want to explore is let's just be really clear in terms of here is what we

[220:02] are looking for and if specially if it's related to residential maybe that's one of the things that we put into the the remainder of the opportunities on moratorium is if you're gonna propose an affordable housing project we might give you an exception for it so in other words we could we can try and kind of create that that incentive through really what we're advocating for whether it's diagonal Plaza or whether it's somewhere else in the city that might be the better way to do it the window of investment from what I remember is actually very narrow in other words people are gonna need to make their investment decisions in the next year or two in order to realize the true opportunity from the opportunity zones in terms of what that means for their capital gains and so the the invest the time period that this is really gonna matter he's gonna be pretty short I'm is my understanding so that would be my suggestion is let's do it more through a prospectus advertising sort of approach

[221:01] rather than a regulatory approach has anyone been tracking what the real-estate what's been happening with the real estate and the opportunity zone sales I have been doing that but it's um we could look into it be interesting what we're gonna track something in the oszi we are we're tracking a handful of data points I don't think real estate transactions it was one of them but I'll go back and look buddy's mind if we put out a prospectus saying hey develop here I'm just getting redevelop here in a in a diagonal Plaza that that might be a positive I don't know is there any interest in council although that I mean it's mostly a staffing so how would that work Chris you want to talk a little bit more I mean we're not gonna be Co investing except to the extent that the housing department would help support that and that lytec would help support it so what what are you thinking about

[222:00] because what if we say we want affordable housing and diagonal Plaza and somebody says that's great I can make more money on Class A and they build an office you know I think it's a it's a fair point and so I think that the choices that we have are try and create some sort of incentive or at least momentum behind that the other option would be to create restrictions land use regulations it's part of what I think we're really trying to achieve through number six here which is how do we make sure we don't get what we don't want essentially in the meantime well this opportunity zone funding is on the table and then after that we've already said that we need to do a bunch of work in the builder valley regional center around the br zones and so that work and refining how we would encourage mixed-use in those areas is still a work item to come we aren't going to solve it through this work today so I think it's really thinking

[223:01] about if there are very specific things you want to get in this very short window of time we could look at some regulations to try and achieve that we just got to think of what the repercussions might be okay I'd rather go to prospectus about so to me prospectus route says hey we want this hey we want this but then we have to give some incentives to get people to do to do so and to make it more favorable for them to do so and so you know like jumping the queue your idea okay jumping the queue is one another is accelerated approvals another is reduced review you know there seem to be things that we could do but they shouldn't jump say in front of other affordable housing thing we have the flexibility don't we with the changes

[224:01] that we made on our inclusionary housing where if somebody wants to build deed restricted middle-income housing as we define that they can get credit for that right in other words if somebody came through and rather than doing 20% plus five they could do more on the middle-income side and get credit for that so I guess that's I was getting to that too is you know if we have to make an affirmative waiver maybe it's already hardwired into the program so maybe there's a bunch of middle-income stuff there and and we we waive any low-income I'm not suggesting that we would do that I'm just saying I'm trying to think of incentives where somebody may make more money on middle income than they do on on low income and as long as we're there will indeed restricted we might be willing to waive so the low income components of that maybe we can then throw in our middle income purchase program assistance perova as a sweetener we can come up with lots ideas I think okay so we're not gonna solve this

[225:01] tonight but is there interest in maybe I mean with staff gonna do that anyhow or are we telling staff to do something I think if you said you were channeling of that I'm curious was she already planning on no and when I said that I think I was thinking more from the perspective of that's been tracking the evolution of the IRS regulations and so that's real was to go on but that's listening tonight so you know yeah the Prospectus idea is the way that most cities that have opportunities owns are approaching them they are determining what it is that they want in the opportunity zone and then they are creating a full-color perspectives that they're sending out to the different investment opportunities so this is the way that most are doing

[226:02] it and the state of Colorado is encouraging it in this fashion okay so we got this land use table stuff to make sure we don't get what we don't want I guess I'll just put on the table especially just specific to diagonal Plaza because it's been on the kind of blighted neglected I don't want to say that each wrongly but it's been neglected for a long time and it's I think on everybody's list as hey we could do some cool things here so I'll just put it out there that I think that that would be time well spent by people in the community or people on staff I don't know if there's folks out there that are jumping at the gun on this and I don't know what the process would be but if there's anything good that's going to come up the opportunity zone we might as well try to get it where we want it give it a nudge give it a nudge so I'll just it looks like we're tired

[227:00] but does everybody nodding okay so the staff you can think about that okay anything else you need from us that's it I just lost my bet to Sam but I provoked this conversation so I think I get five minutes which means I won the bet I do just want to say to staff these were both excellent memos and I really thought the way that you teed up the really complicated stuff and the use tables was very well done so thank you for the time and the clear thinking all right we are adjourned [Music]

[228:12] - Parris I'll fold like that it's more than