January 25, 2023 — Housing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:23] And we have a really cool agenda tonight, and some good guest speakers, but we will start by calling, just needing to wonder. And having a roll call. So board Member Terry Palmos, you're Hello! Over in here? And he'd say a door road. I'm here. But on his way, and we have a quorum, so we will. Get started. I'll remind everybody of our roles of public comment we're grateful for everyone who's attending, and we want to keep this meeting fully transparent or required to do even their virtual meeting.

[1:07] Remind you that the chat but can only be used as the host. Technical questions about the Zoom Platform. Please refrain from chatting to staff or board members about content with the meeting. If there is a disruption of being, we, if people will, our guests will be warned, and we, you know, we're in a big step of removing anyone from the beginning. So with that rule review. Thank you. I will be approving the minutes. We'll have public participation in just a minute or 2 with open comment. Within the 3 min matters from the board will be getting an update on 80 use? With the study session memo that's attached, and they pack it. We'll be hearing from Lisa Hood, our seniors today, Planner, on this topic, we'll have a board member discussion behind voting for portable housing. Sort of a new topic for us, a big one, and then we'll.

[2:01] This will basically be a brainstorming session. With feedback, and I don't think we'll be voting on any recommendation or any matter that we'll have a good discussion on that. And then we'll be continuing to assess the ideas for listening sessions that we would like to get back to, hoping probably in person in twenty-five-three. Okay. That's mattered from the board. I am 5, madam, 6. Item, 6. Matters from staff will be hearing. A preview of next week's joint meeting with a funding board on inclusionary Housing. One, but do a debrief close to 90'clock, and a calendar check, and then join. During the meeting at 9. Yeah. So with that, any questions before I ask for a motion to approve the way 22 meetings I got a motion on that, hey? Okay, all in favor.

[3:03] Alright, minutes, of December or group. Do we have any members of the public consuming end would like to take time to comment to the board. Yep, there's several. Yeah. Also, Michael, if you could just let the public know that the chat function is disabled. Oh, but the Q. A. Is available to communicate with Q. A is that on zoom also yes, I'm taking care of the team. Okay? So our chat function is disabled. I assume that's a technical issue that we're not able to sell right away. There is a Q a function also in the zoom that is available, and of course, people can comment, live. But now, if we have anybody in the waiting room that would like to, comments, Yup. So first of we have ring And when bottom line Of course I am curious that I was ejected from the last meeting. I want to let you know that I don't have a video window to activate tonight, Michael.

[4:05] I do not have one when I go to 5 or 10 zooms a day, and I activate my video all the time, except in the winter, because I'm 40 degrees. I'm very cold in my home because, or excel excessive right case, and so it's tough for me when I'm ejected from a meeting when I'm trying to cover phone meetings at the same time. Or maybe it was 3 other me 3 or 4, I'm jumping between meetings. I depend for one on being able to access the meeting at all, which I couldn't for the previous hour, and I detailed, and I put everything. I spent hours and hours detailing every minute of everything that happened, and and watched the meeting afterwards, and I heard the Elizabeth, or whatever her name was, ask, oh, Lynn has a question, and you, Michael, totally ignored totally ignored her, and one, on to say if you ever want to come to

[5:08] Boulder, you know. You can see what affordable housing is like here, and boy blah! Blah! Blah! You didn't even listen to your own presenter, and I get it that maybe you just don't like me over the years. Or what have you? But you can't express yourself. Your dislike for me in this way. You cannot do that, not with my approval, and I hope the public's approval also, because I didn't see anything that said I can't turn my video window on, or I will be. Ejected from the meeting without warning. That is so. Not okay. My timer. I'm getting more and more time. That's great, because I didn't get any time last time, and and and then I was told, oh, she oh, at 1 point in the meeting he said, oh, that's when you know you kind of talk to Jane.

[6:04] Well, she missed public comment. No, I didn't miss public comment. You never had public comment because you didn't have the public there for the first hour of the meeting. You did not have them there. Well, this is a big deal, because housing is everything. All over the world. Housing is everything, and right now with Papelios it's a disaster. What's gonna happen there? And it was just rezoned to M. U. 3, which allows them a pentouts, 4 stories, and a swimming pool that none of the affordable housing people can swim in right well. I have a friend that that works with me on plutonium issues, and he happens to live in, Hayden Apartments or Hayden Place, or something, and he's living in a hotel right now.

[7:01] Courtesy of me and the city of Boulder, because the person in the downstairs of this bolder housing partners facility, had diapers from years and years left, and the place had had to be evacuated because of feces this is what boulder housing partners Produce you know, and Aaron Brockett, goes and says, Oh, geez! Our. We don't. We are not segregated. Community. We're integrated all over, you know the the the disk thirtieth and pearl. And all this is all integrately related to the rest of Boulder. No, it's not there. People, and I've heard hours and hours over the over, you know a long period of time of people testifying of how miserable their existence is in some of this quote, unquote affordable housing in boulder how they don't feel safe how their kids are not Safe, etc. And the more you have a wealth inequity in this community, the worse this problem.

[8:06] Skin again. So some needs to change I'm sorry, Lena. I think your your time is up now. Okay, and what you need to do is stop funding. The developers stop subsidizing them. Sorry about that to Kerry, but that's the way it is. It's all. When we all do better, we all do better done Well, well, thank you for your comments. I assure you that it's nothing personal to your comment and but we always appreciate it when you were able to come in and off your ideas to yeah. So thank you. Sure, Clinton, can you hear me? She can hear you happy New Yearland Next we have mark. Barn. Fear. Would you like to take your premise for public comment? Welcome to our admin

[9:05] Yes, thank you. Are you able to hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Okay. Good. Well, happy moving a New year to you all. I I wasn't gonna participate tonight. Some of you may recall that I have spoken several times to have before on the subject of print control, and but honestly, I've been hoping hopeless about the issue until lately, and in fact, I just got done reading an article in Denver post About the repeal of rent control legislation being introduced in in the House, Colorado House and it sounds like it has a good chance of of passage in the article that I read in the Denver Post. It said that the Colorado Municipal League had not received any comment from any city supporting this issue of repealing brain control, which, repeating the ban on rent control, I should say, and it surprises me because my understanding is that the city of boulder has

[10:16] Supported at least several times in the past to repeal that ban. Now I don't know if that has been going through Colorado. Me. I know this city has a person who's a liaison with the Cml. But at the very least and that's why I'm on here tonight. I would really like to urge ha! To advise the city Council to strongly lobby or support Cmls. Efforts to support this repeal of the rent control, and I could talk a lot more about ring control in general. But that's my main message tonight. If I would love to see. Have, take a more active position on on supporting tenant issues.

[11:11] I I'm certainly aware that you support affordable housing, and I really appreciate that. And I work with the Resident Representative Council of Bhp. And in I really appreciate the city's commitment to affordable housing. But ring control is the ultimate and best way to support all renters in boulder. And I I I would really like to see hab again advise the City Council to please and make it clear to Seeml that they do support this. Repeal this into this legislation for repealing it, and I'll I'll leave it there for now, unless you have any questions Colorado means What's with? Cml, again? Thank you for the comments I can provide.

[12:02] A quick update so Mark, thanks for bringing that up. So this is, I just started out of the for the first time, and I know that council is gonna discuss it tomorrow part of their own legislative agenda. So the reason you haven't heard much is because it is so new. But I was gonna share that with the rest of the hat. Later on as well. Great Mark! I appreciate your comments. Have, does have a work plan that is largely focused on missing middle income housing. But I'm not to say that other. How they use are important, that we okay so much time. We did that to focus on something important. We did address a a segment of the rental issue by supporting, hey, you reform that would allow really increased. We think, and the availability they use, which are that's been shown.

[13:01] But specifically to be a affordable housing type that we're going to easily provide. So we could possibly do a listing section on the issue of rentals and rental we're gonna we have it on the talk about future listening sessions tonight. And we can Google break that up. So thank you. We have recess folding Hey? What's your name? Oh, Lisa's building? Welcome. Lisa Spalding, representing University Hill Neighborhood Association on Adu. Reform University Hill has a complicated zoning history that most people are unaware of it impacts adequate balance between permanent residents who have been raising their families on the hill for generations, and students who occupy the many Reynolds dispersed throughout the Neighborhood, permanent residents create stability and ensure a measure of safety for students who are living on their own.

[14:01] For the first time in their lives, when zoning was introduced in Boulder in 1,928, the block south of Aurora were zone, single family, residential, and they have remained that way ever since despite a number of subdivided single family balance Slipping past the city staff in the mid 19 seventies. Medium density blocks of the hill south of college and west of Sixteenth were down zone to low density, and an effort to guarantee a balance between family homes and student rentals. Unfortunately, the city grandfathered everything in without a sunset, and investors have taken advantage of the very loose enforcement of the use it or lose its stipulation non-conforming uses count toward the aidu saturation limit and the large number of legal long-termforming properties on the Hill already places a huge strain on many blocks. For example, the 800 block of Eleventh Street has a sorority with an occupancy of a 109, a triplex across the street from it, with 9 legal residents, and the soon to be completed high-end student apartment complex across

[15:06] The alley from the sorority which will have an occupancy of 48. The population, Density of the hill is much higher than it appears on a zoning map, and the so saturation limit is the only tool boulder has that prevents adverse effects. That could overwhelm our already dense neighborhood. We won't quibble with the assertion that Boulder is the only city in the country with limits on the number of AD use, although we have found other examples, because the pertinent fact is that if the tool is eliminated it must be replaced with something else that will preclude population growth that exceeds the carrying capacity of our neighborhood. The city has stated that the code Enforcement Division is currently fully staffed, but they are only investing over occupancy when it evolves involves violations that threaten health and safety of renters is saturation limits are lifted.

[16:00] We doubt that the current staff will be able to proactively enforce the proper use of AD use. Student Reynolds are extremely lucrative, and investors are adept at skirting rules. We do not object to a to use, but we share concerns about the proposed changes with other neighborhoods surrounding the university, and hope to meet with staff, to discuss alternatives to the one size fits all approach before a final draft ordinance is written we would also like to thank the chair. For his kind reply to our email. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. I I think everyone saw the letter from the University of old Neighborhood it was very well stated. We appreciate you sending it, hey? I understand the problem. On the hill. I have friends that live up there and visit often. How I I agree. There's some problems that need to be solved. There issue for council to grapple with, but they come to terms with Edu. Report. How do you work? How is it possible? To exempt areas that have certain stresses I don't know the answer to that.

[17:07] You know it could be. Could open the gates to unintended consequences. When you do that, you know everybody wants to exemption in every neighborhood. For example, so I'm hoping that our political leaders is, say, ours, our recommendations. If they do indeed, enacted reform will be able to do something that will help improve the situation. On the hill. They get a more lovable and again but I'm just like, say, we hear you and I. I don't really know what the answers are, but the points you're raised very well on slide point of fireification is, I don't think anyone would ever say there were no communities with that tradition limits. It was just the peers to the study groups that city staff presented I believe it was 30 poor communities, but it was interesting to have that brought to our attention. So thank you for doing that

[18:06] Okay, you have any other members of the public who would like to comment There's no other answers Great I am. We appreciate members of the public I think, to see other ideas that brings us to item 5 matters from the board. We're gonna get an update from Lisa. That's correct. Okay, good. And the Edu regulations update very burden to our last comment. So that I think I kind turn it over to Lisa. She will give us some information Alright! Thank you. Chair, thanks for the correct pronunciation. It's often often mispronounced. So, Jesse, I think I got it with jazz Good mind. What is it? But Chasey? Okay, well, yeah.

[19:08] Oh, okay. Mine's French, so it'd be good technically, but alright. Well, it's nice to see you all. I'm really sorry that I can't be there in person. I was really looking forward to it, but I am fighting off a cold, and figured no one really wanted me around them with this cold, so I will try to make the best of this hybrid environment, and glad to have this opportunity to still be able to speak with you about accessory. Dualing units. So we were last year back in September, and chatted with you about the evaluation we were working on. The eightyu survey that we had done, and since then back in November, we met with council, and really determined what the scope of this adu change and code Update is going to be. So the focus tonight is to talk about those that those items on the scope of work that count approved just some basics when we're talking about Atus. I know you guys are very familiar, but for anyone else who might be listening when we talk about a to use in Boulder, it's a really a small residence sharing a lot with a larger main house.

[20:09] So these graphics I think, are helpful to show that we have both an attached Abu style which could be like an apartment unit in a attic or basement, or attached to the house or the detached 80, which is always in a separate structure but it's important to know that An eightyu is an independent and self-contained living space, so it always has a kitchen and bathroom things like that. We talked at great length, I gave you a lot of data points back in September, so I won't go through all of those again. But just some of the main points that AD use have been allowed in Boulder since 1983. So we're at our 40 year anniversary now. They have to be located on a lot with an owner occupied single family homes, or that yeah, single family home, so that the owner can live either in the Abu or the main house, but they do have to live on the lot. We have about 458 use in the city right now, and as we talked about in September, we did a study from the point when the last major Update was went into effect, which was early 2019 through kind of made last year on the size type and affordability of eightyus and what we saw was

[21:17] We had 280 use get appropriate in that time. About two-thirds were that detach style, the third being that attached the average size is about 640 square feet and you can see it differs based on detached and attached style, and then in those last updates, we also introduced a new concept of an affordable atu so that's an Acu, that is rented for no more than 75% of the area Median income. And of those 200 applications we saw about a third of those applications come in as the affordable a. To use, and the affordable units get some flexibility in size and parking. So that was part of the Eightyu regulations. Update back in 2,018

[22:03] Oh, yeah. I have a question. Okay? Do you want us asking questions as we go? Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Or, yeah, can you go back? One slide so that 67 affordable that's that's affordable designated So with, yeah, it's meaning that limit that we set of 75% area Median income. And they they have to attest to it, being affordable in the declaration of use, with the accessory dwelling unit. So that's how we confirm that it's an affordable unit Okay, do you know how many of the 133 market rate would would qualify as affordable or or are kind of, in fact, market rate of force Yeah, that was interesting. So part of that survey which you can dig into in the packet. We asked the Au owners to say what they were renting. Their 80 used for, and the average rent, both market rate and affordable combined, was about 1,600. So that's you can see this small text on the bottom that the 75% ami for a one bedroom would be 1,700.

[23:05] So regardless of being officially affordable or not, we're seeing those those runs being lower than that affordable limit So more than half cool. Oh. You know the the data? Yeah. The data wasn't perfect but not at you. On our survey because not all of them answered that question. So I don't know that I rely on that data perfectly, but I think it gives us a good idea, just as an average Yeah, okay, so Lisa, in terms of that average. That was for just for one bedrooms you're looking at, I mean, are there? Imagine there's probably not too many 2 bedrooms, but Yeah, we'd actually didn't define by bedroom. So, but I don't think there are very many, 2 bedroom may to use because of the sides limit. Okay. Yeah, yeah, there's some limitations to the survey. It's been helpful because we've done it. 2012, 27, and 22 to have those same questions. But obviously, as our 80 regulations have gotten more refined, the survey isn't quite as refined anymore.

[24:05] Please. I have a question relates to the earlier comment about rent control affordable to use is, would that be an example of what you might call voluntary brain control? Because I'm wondering to do it. Yeah, I'd probably look to Jay as the housing expert to answer that one. But Yes, absolutely. Yeah. So the fact that they're agreeing to it voluntarily means it's not a requirement, right? So they're getting something in exchange for that which is typically the larger size, not having to provide a parking space. Things like that. And the private developer doing a tax credit project. Is that also an example of what you might call voluntary brain control? Absolutely agreeing to stabilize the rates for a period of time. Right, I would say. That's more regulatory because I say, to be honest before the tax credits they must follow. They they! Will lose their tax credit deal if they don't right rent at the rents that they promise who is effectively rent control of distance and apply for us exactly if you want tax credits.

[25:10] Yes, you right must follow their rules. Okay, decide. Raise the point that there are print, control departments in Boulder. Just maybe not as many as we'd like. At least I got it. I'm sorry Okay. No. Worries. Yeah. Feel free to interrupt. There's I have quite a few background slides. So if you have any questions, and then I've kind of organized the rest of the presentation by the questions in the memo. So that's kind of what's in store for you. The the rest of this. So the next slide I just wanted to kind of compare and bring you through the process of how the scope of work for this project. So city council originally identified this as one of their priority projects for their work plan last year, and with the objective to increase the allowance of 80 us in the community, the initial direction that staff got was to look at removing the saturation limit look at allowing both an attached and

[26:06] Detailed Edu on one lot and then to do this analysis of the potential barriers to construction, and so that really led into that evaluation that I was talking about where we did data analysis, internal stakeholder interviews. The survey I mentioned. And even interviewed the applicants who withdrew their applications for Eightyus. When we, after we talked to you all in September, you submitted a recommendation to city council for these 6 items, which some of it overlap. So eliminating the saturation limit, but also eliminating parking requirements and minimum wage sizes, as well as revising. Adu. Size limits, creating the pre-approved floor plans and streamlining. The adversary process, and after we went through the entire evaluation just based on. And I'll talk about this in later slides, too, but based on what we saw, made a significant impact over the last few years. This is what Staff recommended to city council, and they agreed with to focus on for these eightyu changes with the caveat that we would maintain a list of future changes to 80 use future amendments that could be made to further reduce barriers but for this discrete project focusing

[27:18] On these 4 items. So eliminating the saturation limit, modifying the size limits as you all had recommended, and then also, perhaps, the method of measurement, which is something that you ran into with the evaluation. Okay. And then also one of your recommendations. That clarifying and simplifying the regulations and improving the overall processes. So at this time part of the scope doesn't include the parking requirements or minimum lot size that you all had recommended. But it's definitely on the list for future. Adu. Reform for us to consider The plan for engagement for this project. We're trying to rely a lot on the engagement that was done with the last update because there was a significant amount of engagement done at that time which talked about a lot of these similar issues so there's a lot there that we can still use to inform

[28:10] These future changes, so we asked questions. At that time in 2018, about saturation in size, and I'll get into those on later slides as well. What we heard, but it's still a lot of really helpful and relevant info. We also went to our community connectors and residents program. That's a really great group of people that are kind of representing underrepresented groups in Boler and providing a diverse variety of perspectives on issues. So we had a great conversation with them about 80 use, which I'll also talk about later. We went to planning board last week. Get asterisk on the slide indicated. That's somewhere where there's an open comment period where people are able to provide public comment verbally, and then we're here tonight at housing advisory Board had our open comment right before this we will go to City Council for a study session. Tomorrow.

[29:02] Take their input they're actually going to get the exact same presentation that you're getting tonight. So, that's what we'll be doing tomorrow, and then we'll go to the Board of Zoning Adjustment next month as well. We hosted a be heard. Boulder Page. That's our online public engagement site. Where people can submit feedback virtually about how to AD user working currently, and any input on the changes as well as just a clearing house for where people can find information about how to provide their information. We'll also do staff office hours where our staff is available for questions and answers with members of the public through February and March, and then we'll move into the actual Ordinance Review and the public hearings that go on with that in April and May and so with all of this, we think that meets the consult level of engagement from our engagement plan And I mentioned that we were looking at this engagement back from 26 to 2,018. This is just a summary of all of the kind of a quantitative summary of all the engagement done at that time.

[30:06] Some of the key community concerns that were heard at that time, which I think we've been hearing in some of the public comment that you would have seen in your attachments as well. Oh, no. Neighborhood nuances over occupancy, owner, occupancy, illegal rentals, saturation and affordability Specifically related to that engagement. We did a questionnaire back in 2,018 regarding per Co. Proposed changes at the time, and so at the time the proposal for the saturation limit was the increase from 10% to 20 for the saturation limit, and there are mixed opinions about whether that increase from 10% or 20% was supported so about a third of people disagreed with raging. The saturation limit. But, on the other hand, there were many residents who were supportive of the increase, and even a percentage of those within the questionnaire support. It indicated that they'd be supportive, going even further and eliminating the saturation limit.

[31:00] So if you're curious, there's a lot more in the packet provided with your agenda tonight, with all of those the public input that was given at the time. There was another question about the size limit at that time. So in 2,018, the original proposal was to change the allowable maximum size of a to use from 450 square feet to 800 square feet for detached and then to change it from a third or a 1,000 square feet For an attached unit to a half, and at that time a majority of the respondents were actually supportive of the change to half or 1,000 square feet for a attached. But that wasn't ultimately adopted. So the attached unit is still limited to third or 1,000, and then the detached was only increased to 550. At that time. We also had a community survey associated with the Boulder Valley Comp Plan in 2,016, where we asked 3 it was a statistically valid survey, where we asked 3 questions about kind of people support for 80 use in existing established neighborhoods and all

[32:12] 3 of those questions received majority support for allowing more Atus at 62 I mentioned, we went to the community connectors in residence, and this is just a high level summary of the feedback. There's a more detailed summary in your packet as well, but our conversation really focused on the benefits and burdens of a to use, which is a one of the steps of the racial equity plan that boulder has and the community connectors were generally supportive of Eliminating the saturation limit and increasing the size limit. But did want to make sure that this is that 80 user truly providing housing for the people that need them. And that they would remain affordable for people in the city. They also had some great programmatic ideas related to section 8. Housing vouchers, programs, that kind of provide funding assistance for first time home buyers, people of color economically disadvantaged folks to have assistance to construct an Au so that more people are able to benefit from an au as well as potentially reducing

[33:14] Fees and things like that for 8 years, and they also noted that increasing the size limit of eightys would make these types of unit housing units more suitable for families We went to like I mentioned. We went to planning board last week, and also went over these kind of main changes. Planning board was generally supportive of the changes to simplify and clarify the code, and they were generally supportive of removing the saturation limit. But wanted to make sure that there were other ways to control the externalities of A to use without a saturation limit, especially in the areas near the university. So those externalities would be things like parking, trash noise. We also talked a bit about some concerns, about 80 is actually raising the property values for those properties that have an 80.

[34:04] You on them, and then there were some concerns raised that a smaller percentage of eightyu owners are using the Atu for a long term rental, which is something that we did see in the eightyu owner survey results. And then there were also concerns about potentially eliminating the public notice for au application I can get into that more when we get into those specifics about the changes, but and then the planning board was also open to some changes to the size. Limit, but wanted there to be a logical reason for what that limit is. So that's kind of that's the background that I have for you. I mentioned that I'll split this presentation up into these 3 questions that we had in the memo. So it's that kind of size limit saturation limits. And then all the other clarification and simplification items. So I'll just jump into a little bit more summary about the evaluation before we get into the saturation limits.

[35:07] But if you remember talking about this in the 40 year history of A, to use over time, this chart shows how many 80 use were approved each year since 1,983, you can see that big jump in 2019 when we when after we last changed the 80 regulation, so it's Really those 4 years past that that we were analyzing to understand through the evaluation and the evaluation conclusions, basically, were that the changes that were made in 2,018 that we thought really reduced barriers for eightyus was the increase in saturation limit the increase in maximum Size, the decreased minimum lot size, and then the increased number of zoning districts and of those saturation limit and maximum size actually had the most impact. We thought, and then there are a number of other changes that we identified through the evaluation, and all the work that we did, such as extending the approval, expiration, providing some flexibility for height, and then general code clarification and process improvements that we thought would

[36:14] Further, reduce barrier state use that came up during that evaluation process. So that's what really informed the recommended scope for the city council that we talked with them about in November we talked a bit about this Atu owners survey already, and the fact that it's a comparable survey over time 22 and 27, as well. We had about half of owners. Respond, which is great. Some of the highlights which I know our housing team can add to as well, but a greater person we are seeing a greater percentage of 80 use being used as space for either visitors or relatives rather than a space used as a long term rental we ask people this is a new question, since at affordable 80 user, a new concept.

[37:00] But we ask people of those if you chose to do an affordable au! What was the reason for it? And about 40% of owners chose to do that to reduce the parking requirement, because that's an incentive offered for affordable eighties. And then, because that original scope with City Council had had contemplated the idea of a second 80, we asked if people would be interested in a second eightyu and over 3 quarters, so that they wouldn't be interested in pursuing that Michael, you already talked about this comparable city research. So thanks for teaing this up but we did also, as part of the evaluation and the research we've been doing to lead up into these Co changes is looked at 34 different cities around the country that are comparable in some way whether it's being a university city some similar population Size, smaller Population. Density, housing, prices, things like that. And these are all cities, that have adeu regulations.

[38:00] So there are also several that have commonly are recently updated. Their 80 regulations, but these are kind of the takeaways from that. None of these cities. The 34 cities have a saturation limit for 80 use. This has been a little bit of a sticking point we've been trying to find another city around the country that has a similar saturation limit. Certainly there are different ways that people are that city's will limit abus. Whether that means completely prohibiting a to use, or only allowing them in certain zoning districts, and not other districts. But this idea of a saturation limit in the way that folder does it is definitely quite unique. We actually just yesterday found one other town in the city or in the country that has it. It's a 20,000 person town in Connecticut, and then I did find some research that Seattle used to have a saturation limit. But repealed it at least in the nineties, so it's something that not many cities have in the same way that Boulder has.

[39:07] And then of those comparable cities have, and also with those 34 cities, only a few of them actually have a minimum Watt size requirement. Almost all of these cities limit it to 1 80 per lot, and boulders maximum size of detached data use in particular is smaller than most cities, Colorado tends to be on the smaller side, but it's still usually about 600 to a 1,000. So, since we only allow 550. That's even on the small side for Colorado, around the country, probably more typical, is about 800 square feet for a detached au or a percentage of the principal structure regarding parking requirements it's a bit more varied Often it's either 0 or one parking space required. Some cities will wave it if it. The location is close to transit almost all of the comparable cities. Say that the 80 you cannot be sold separately, and about half and half require owner, occupancy where the owner has to live on site.

[40:05] So we've you have. We've been using this to inform our future changes as well this wasn't in your memo, but just because of the timeliness of Governor Polis's state of the State speech last week, where he talked a lot about housing priorities and we had a Planning board member. Request that this be included in the presentation. There are a number of States that have adequation, especially a lot of changes in the last few years, so you may have heard of these, but California has been incompletely removing barriers and trying to streamline processes to expand potential capacity. Washington requires cities over a certain size to allow 80 use same with Vermont, New Hampshire, Oregon, Orient. Interesting. Recently they they eliminated, they said that cities cannot have an owner occupancy, requirement, or off street parking requirements for 80 use.

[41:00] Connecticut and Utah, but both have mandates to allow by right, but then allow cities to exempt either portions of their city or fully opt out of allowing eightyus, but we haven't looked at every single State. But this is just an idea, just because this is on the topic of housing this is what's been going on in other states around the country. Recently Alright. So the finally, these focus areas think I promised I was done with background, and then I had some more background. Sorry about that. Alright again. The scope that's the Council test us with, or saturation limit, size limits, clarifying and approval processes so the saturation, limit I've already mentioned several times, and I believe that you we talked about it last time. So you probably have an understanding, but the saturation limit that we have in Boulder only applies to the Rl. One and Rl. 2 zoning districts. Those are our load on zoom. Residential zoning districts, and as I mentioned, the limit was increased from 10% to 20 back in 2018 went into effect in 2019, but essentially at its most simplest, most simple explanation is that you draw a lot radius 300 feet around a property and only 20% of those

[42:15] Properties can have an adu, a non-continforming duplex co-OP things like that. So we really simplified and said there were 10 properties in that 300 foot radius. Only 2 of those properties can have an eightyu. So if you are the third owner in that area to want to do an Atu, you are not able to apply for or receive an adu approval, we do maintain a waiting list for people that would want to develop an atu if A neighbor were to remove their adu. We have 12 properties on that list, and I don't believe we've had any 80 use removed in that time. That those have been on there so the saturation limit has been in place since 1983.

[43:05] It was in the original eighty- regulation, so understandably at the time Boulder was on kind of the forefront of Atus being reintroduced into cities. They were certainly something that existed historically before single-family zoning. But around the eighties that he started to re-legalize Atus and Boulder was one of the early adopters of that, and so I think understandably at the time there were concerns about what the impacts of allowing a to use would be on established neighborhoods but we're now 40 years into allowing a to use. We have over 450 AD. Use in the community. So we better understand what impacts and externalities the Atus might have, and how we can mitigate those most cities. As I mentioned. It's relatively rare to have a saturation limit like this. Most cities rely on their existing zoning standards.

[44:00] Related to form and bulk and design and location, and things like that, to mitigate any concerns about compatibility or impact. In the evaluation since I mentioned, we increased the saturation limit from 10 to 20. We also tried to understand how many a to use actually benefited from that increase, and of the 200 eightys that we saw appropriate between 2,019 and 2,02241, of those so that light green part of the pie they actually had a saturation limit that was Larger than 10. So those 41 eightys would not have previously been approved before those changes. But it's interesting to note that over 3 quarters of the 80 use that were approved either are in a district that don't have a saturation limit. Our higher density of Presidential districts don't have any saturation limit, for instance, or they were already below 10% saturation.

[45:00] So it would have met the original regulation from before 2,018, as well Is that saturation limit is a challenge procedurally for both staff and the public to understand these are, and I can't remember if I had these compiled by the time I saw you in September. But these are just some examples, verbatim from our enquirer, boulder, customer service portal of people asking about their saturation limit. It's something that the public or an applicant is not able to calculate for themselves. And so Staff has to calculate those all individually, and what's unique about the saturation limit compared to most other zoning standards, is that this? It can change over time. So someone can ask. Could have asked a week ago if they met their saturation limit, and they were fine. But if they're neighbor gets their Atu approved, and suddenly they're over the saturation limit. Then they're prohibited from having an Atu. So it's it's something that's kind of a moving target.

[46:02] We also as part of that evaluation, we analyzed the hundreds of tickets that come in, related to 80 use, and the majority of those are related to saturation limits. So I think it's something that is very confusing for the public to understand what that rule is, and how it applies to their property. And just kind of a good example is that top right? One that we would like to consider an au over the garage of our home. But we need to confirm that the location is not saturated first. How do we do that without submitting a whole application and paying for the fee? Now we get so many of those questions throughout the year with people inquiring about this operation limit I mentioned that a lot of other cities rely on on those kind of form and bulk standards. Design standards to ensure that Eightyus can fit into an existing neighborhood. And this is just a graphic that shows you all of the different standards that apply to an Atu in Boulder they're kind of broken into what applies to the principal structure versus the accessory structure versus both.

[47:07] But we have maximum height setbacks, floor, air ratios, building coverage. We have a side yard bulk plane, which is essentially a line that comes up from the setback and then goes in at an angle and the building can't protrude through that. We have a maximum length of a wall before we articulated all of these things that are part of our compatible design standards. Then everything in yellow is related to an accessory structure or an adu. So more setback, separation. The maximum building, coverage, and a rear yard. How it relates to the principal size, or the principal coverage maximum height for 80 use minimum wage, size, owner, occupancy. The occupancy limits, and attached unit has to have a screen side entrance. Open space is required for a detached 80, you maintaining the interior connections, all of these to say that we have a number of existing zoning standards.

[48:06] That are intended to ensure that the eightys are compatible with their neighboring properties and neighborhood. Okay. Alright now I'm finally done. First. First question is related to for you all to discuss and and I'm happy to also answer any questions that you might have of me at this point. But the first question is whether you have any comments related to the elimination, the proposed elimination of the 20% saturation limit in throughout one and Rl. 2 zoning districts These are comments from individuals and of had I'm a 100% behind the elimination of the saturation require requirements.

[49:00] I I think it's entirely arbitrary with the 300 feet, and where something's located and they're gonna be some communities where any user or more welcome, or work better for for the people in my community to have that sort of arbitrary constraint I think is just bad policy. I am interested in the whole notion of how we regulate the externalities, and and I appreciate, you know, the the plan work bringing that up. And I think that's probably a concern from the community that that you know can be addressed. I think you gotta be very careful that you don't. You know, 601 half does the other, and start talking about the externalities in terms of the saturation limit, you know. But that's that. I think they're a lot better ways to deal with. Overuse and particularly abuse, I mean a lot of what I hear about the concerns of the abus, and I guess is a little bit of a and gentle, but deal with the the the abuse, or when they're not used appropriately, and that's something we're certainly

[50:11] I think regulations could be been placed. The deal with that particular issue rather than you know. Put a a block in place for having them established. You know, you can make sure that things are done appropriately. Once they are established, some absolutely absolutely and supporting, eliminating the saturation that I have dealt with many jurisdictions, including, when I work for local government. Ities where we've actually removed the saturation limit. Some account we had a pretty significant saturation. When we removed it, because what would happen is just like I was saying, there were certain communities where a lot of people wanted to have any use. And it's a good. It's good for the hallmark to a lot of times, because it helps them carry the cost of very expensive housing, taxes, etc. So we remove that because it really wasn't accomplishing. We wanted to accomplish and yield it as a unfortunate sorting along the circumstances so I'm I'm all for taking them out.

[51:10] Just so. I understand we're talking about eliminating the 20 so there's no saturation limit or increasing it. No, it'd be eliminating it entirely Okay. Everything. Damage it. Thank you, Joanne, Lisa. One of my questions was earlier in your presentation. You mentioned that. Seattle had repealed other saturation. Limited. Do you have any statistics or ideas of how that went afterwards? No, I need to do some further digging. I I just found that this afternoon. So yeah, I need to. I was gonna reach out to their staff and see if there's any history that I can find about that Okay, cool. As for that, I'm behind it. The only thing I'm worried about is the cause. The last time you changed the saturation limit. It was only a 10% hike.

[52:02] And now you're taking like a whole 80% and giving that to the community. I'm wondering if that's gonna like really hike up the Atu. I guess production development, or is it going to be more gradual and say probably more gradual, since there's still a few things to work around? But I guess that was my first thought, and from increasing from 20% to 100. Well, otherwise I am for it Cool. You have a comment or a question. Oh, I I hope that eliminating the saturation limit will massively hike up the amount of baby use that are that are built in the city, so that's not a concern of mine. But the thing, the thing that I've been kind of mulling over is the comment from the public. Lisa's followings comment about the specific neighborhoods near the University being I virtually affected by this, and I I remember there was.

[53:04] There's been a few letters from a couple of those neighborhood associations. I'm I'm blanking on the name of one of the ones that we saw this last fall. But one of the things that was curious to me about this argument is what I remember from the presentation in September, and looking at the map of where the ads were, it looked like they were actually very few at use listed in Goss Grove and in Martin Acres and on University Hill, and so I was kinda like, I maybe this concern about a to use, you know, already remaining things is is overblown, and but then at least the Spalding brought up. I I think she said something about the fact that there's some Nonconforming bills that are counted with their in into the calculation of saturation limits, and I didn't.

[54:04] I didn't quite follow all of that. It's are there more a to use than what the map? It is, or is there actually just very few a to use in these 3 neighborhoods? So the just on the point of the nonconforming uses. So in the saturation limit, when we do the calculation, it includes other abus, but also, if there's like a non-conforming duplex or any kind of non-conforming structure that also counts towards that, or a co-OP so that I think and especially in the university. Hill area. There are nonconforming structures. That's the commenter mentioned and so that plays it into the saturation limit. There, and I think we did some analysis and most of the properties that are in the on the waiting list are actually in the University Hill area. They're blocked by this documentation And so if you had, if you had a non confirming duplex, I mean the likelihood that someone would actually like apply for an Abu, for that property.

[55:06] Well. Seems like it would just get rejected right? So if you'd still have to like, if this eliminate, if this saturation limit is eliminated, you're still gonna have to have a single family home with a lot that everything complies yeah. Yeah, exactly. So you can only have an AD, you on a single family home. So those nonconforming duplexes would not be allowed to add an extra unit through adding an au one other kind of interesting quirk is that in our house density districts where we have higher density, there's actually not a saturation. Limit Oh, so this university hell have a saturation limit now. Well, it does in the areas that are low density. I see. But there are parts of University Hill that have higher density, and then they don't have that saturation limit Okay, yeah. So I mean to me, the the thought experiment that I have is like, okay up for those low density areas that the saturation limit would be removed from what's you know from Lisa spelling's point of view what's the worst case scenario of the you

[56:11] Know the number of eightys that get built, and would that be anything comparable to the the sort of density she was talking about on the 800 block? Of Eleventh Street? Or is she just kind of kicking, kicking the cat, so to speak. I I mean, I think that it's definitely a valid concern, and I understand where they're coming where she's coming from and where the group is coming from. And where the group is coming from, we'd probably have to do some analysis on how many single family parcels there are in those neighborhoods that would be eligible for an Atu and, like how many units that would actually add certainly if it's a block with already a 100 Occupancy, or something like that. The 2 people in an eightyu, perhaps, might not be as much of an impact as it might be. In other places. But we could. We could do some data analysis to try to understand how many properties would actually be eligible for an eightyu with if we eliminated the saturation level

[57:14] I'm I'm just trying not to be tone deaf to her, to her complaint, but it it falls pretty flat for me that that that this is gonna be a major negative impact on on those neighborhoods. But otherwise I just wanna say I'm super excited about the saturation limit being eliminated. Seems oh, I one thing is, if if you were going to carve out specific neighborhoods to not lift the saturation limit, it seems to me that maybe it's possible to cook up the saturation limit, that is is easily calculated in your in your home office, rather than having to go through city staff I mean, I can imagine that instead of having a 300 foot radius, it might be worded in in and and language of like of the 10 nearest houses, or something where you could actually just pencil it out and have confidence that you you would know, if the saturation limit was

[58:19] Hit in for your abu, so to me it seems like if you're gonna carve out neighborhoods, let's let's at least not eliminate. Let's still go ahead and eliminate the perceived hey, that that's been discussed so many times Thank you. Okay, Lisa, if you and the study of the peer community to 34 communities that don't have saturation limits. But any of those exempt neighbor, and so it might be, feeling stress from, you know, and neighbors.

[59:00] No parking what? All the usual suspect. So things that can go wrong. It can be, you know, annoying, and make a neighbor next less lovable. Those are all real, but any any community that generally allow us, has no saturation limits with exemptions for certain areas. Have you seen that at all Going through the matrix trying to refresh my memory. But I don't remember any specific neighborhoods being carved out. Certainly there are cities that like like Boulder, does. We only allow it in some residential districts, but not all. So there's some limitations that way. But I don't remember seeing like specific neighborhoods, but we could dig back in and see. If maybe there was some nuance there that wasn't put into the matrix I'm I'm sure the folks in the neighborhood have concerns with like to hear that information, if it can be made available.

[60:00] Yeah. So thank you. And then another issue that came up. This is not strictly about saturation potential abuses, you know. I've heard that several public meetings will say, Oh, good! You are gonna become a corporate entity and covered by Lcs for profit. And you know I've never heard of that happening. I'm wondering if there were any actual instances of this being reported or discovered in Boulder, especially We've definitely been receiving public comments with concerns about Llcs, and I think there are what we actually have this on a later slide, and it is one of the clarification items that we want to take care of with this update. There are some definitely, some opportunities to clarify whether an au can, or whether an Llc. Can prove owner, occupancy, or how they can prove owner, occupancy, but it's not something that I'm aware of. Any enforcement issues or specific. I can enforcement enforcement action that's been taken.

[61:03] But I definitely think that there are opportunities to clarify the code about what what we want to allow, or just allow I, I actually need help understand that whole issue. Maybe I'm over. You can help. So I guess people. Some people are saying that it'd be possible for corporate entities to buy homes that included aus, you know. Run them the way like I read would run their apartment. Complex. Thanks for profit, and circumvent the requirement. 5 technically qualified. No, that's not the case. I mean, does this happen? Does this exist? Is this real problem in any way good Like again, there aren't any enforcement issues that I'm aware of right now. That we do allow. If the if the owner can prove, because it's it's common for property to to be owned by an Llc.

[62:00] Property, owners of all types can own a property in an Llc. To limit their liability, whether they rent something or not. So we do have properties that are owned by Llcs that apply for 80 use. But we require them to prove owner occupancy through articles of incorporation or other other legal documents that prove that the owner that lives on site is part of that Llc. We have a similar process for properties that are owned by trust, or like revocable trust. Things like that where they just have to prove that they are. I think the actual wording is simple owners of at least 50% of that trust, or something like that. So that's how we ensure that. But I think that the issue has been raised by the public. Am I seeing hands up? I can't tell it, cause you guys are tiny. I'm sorry Yeah, no, I I can say that in in planning board that concern was raised also.

[63:00] But the but the real issue was to demonstrate owner occupancy, not the form of ownership. So I I think planning board came to the same conclusion that Staff did on that topic, and I guess so I I recommend adding, client that comes to me. If they're renting property to establish, and I'll see. To begin with, right? Even if you're just one individual, etc. There are a lot of different circles where you have to pierce the corporate veil, so to speak, in terms of ownership or transfer attacks. Exemptions from transfer tax list goes on and on where it's pretty easy to do because you make an affirmative on the on the entity to show that the other point I want to make regarding just corporate ownership. Analysis as well is like we talked about the fact that, despite not having restrictions on them, what we just saw is that the actual average price for the Edu is less than the designated price of the affordable it use, and so really, underscores the point that hey whoever's doing an

[64:13] Edu. It's creating a housing supply that would not otherwise be there, and I'd love to see it. And again, I'm gonna go back to the whole notion. I just wanted to jump in on this because I wanted to pivot off Phillips points. And so Miss Baldwin's concerns, which is, you know, we have 2 different things here, and I think it's really fundamental to take a look at those one is making the supply available, and the other is proper enforcement of the supply that's available, and that it's not Abused, and and you know, I think the hills probably a good example, because anybody spend any time up there, and I I I didn't go undergrad here with the law School here, but you know we could add 27 people living in a house. And I think miss falling talk about the fact. There's like a 100. And then people, one house, etc., right? And so really, that comes down to occupancy, enforcement as much as it does the the whole notion of an 80 you and it really underscores the point that a saturation limit like I was saying that's something that just blocks you from having

[65:12] The opportunity to build one on the flip side. You can have enforcement up, and then the best analogy that I can throw out to anybody is that every single mountain community, right now has wrestled with short term rentals and unlike boulder they can't really just eliminate them Because it's part of their fundamental economy, but what they've all done to to an entity, I mean what they've all done is up the enforcement obligations on the backside, because a lot of the things that we talk about with those externalities and that's why I brought that up garbage noise parking. It's etc. Those are real issues, bigger issues really with short term rentals, because those people don't live there. They're there for 2 days, and they are like a tornado that comes in and leaves a whole bunch of mets in their wake.

[66:03] But you have them. Obligation that if you want to continue with the benefit of what you've been allowed in this case, an AD. In that case, short term rentals. Then you have to show that you're responsible for it. You have to have a designate entity that can respond within x amount of hours to whatever concerns are there. The list goes on, and on. And so I really just want to underscore the whole notion that cause, I think they'll tap right in on it. Which is that if you, if you look at the hill, is it? Is it crowded, or there are a lot of issues there. Yeah. But most of that's enforcement. I don't think it's the AD user causing those issues I don't think the AD user gonna exacerbate those issues. What will our abuses, of what your property allowances are, no matter what the configuration is. If you have an illegal duplex, and then you have both sides or occupied. You have 17 cars, there's going to be issues. Whether or not, you know, it's got the lower glacier, and Nbu, etc. So I just wanted to make that point. So in terms of you know, if if they have the same restrictions as everybody else, and they're enforced the same way, terrific

[67:08] I think also pract practical matter. The idea of some big, bad corporate entity coming in and buying up a whole bunch of houses and puller just to put AD use and rent them for 1,600. But I mean it's not very practical. No better ways to to to try to make a profit, you, you know, so I just think of a practical matter, you know, being able to prove those there, whether it's an l see? That's titled to it or not is is perfectly acceptable and I think that's that's just not I guess there's some conflation of issues going on. There is a national, an unfortunate trend or corporation corporate entities buying single family homes, and then with rental property, and taking.

[68:00] But that's and they buy cheap houses it's it's it's again, from a practical perspective. They're coming to pull it all out on pay 2 million dollars for house and rent it, for you know, 5 those numbers don't they're not great. Just one of their point of collaboration. I believe that home reference to building reference with a 110 residents. I think it's not. And, by the way, I said 3 kids through to see you, and they ran a property. From the middle, and I was still with Paul by plan. Board just the way that the buildings were managed a lack of enforcement. So I really do empathize with what's going on. If they're Purview. Hear that. But you know, I can see there's some real issues there I I think I think it's just a good question to ask might be how many complaints do we get? From legal Aidus boulder. Probably not your question.

[69:03] I will. I would like to ask that question Yeah. So I talked to their Enforcement folks and we don't have any enforcement or enforcement. Cases in the last few years related to Oh, and the legal adu. The enforcement related to 80 use are illegal units that haven't received approval, or people using an Atu for a short term rental, which is prohibited. Okay. So so the like an enforcement of a parking issue or a noise issue, or something like that related to an actual legal abu. Our Enforcement folks didn't have any data for that. Or didn't have any, that any history of that I'm glad I asked that question. Again. There's some track ofality that needs to be applied to things. I've never been here. 2 things.

[70:03] One is, you know, that is illegal. And I don't have an Lc. And the other thing is, we've actually, you know, everyone knows we voted on this. And it's like the remote centurion limit. So I'm not expecting to entertain a motion to repeal that recommend. So yeah, we're all we're all for it. And recognizing that you know anything that is enacted can have some downsides, and we hope those can be mitigated. Good morning. Good question, too. Is there any other comments may I have a offer? Just a another common I have some money, for, you know, considered it. They. We're very interested in the possibility of some sort of zoning overlays in certain neighborhoods, and I think I think you've mentioned that as as a consideration, what kind of zoning overlays could you the weather atus would border wouldn't

[71:08] be allowed? No, in those zoning overlay and which would possibly be great type of intentions. I mean, talked about tonight. I I just wanted to say that that was something that I'm not calling. You know what's the thing that there could be, and this would be a matter for Staff to. And perhaps you're going to talk about it later tonight. I don't know. Yeah, I think what we talked about was, you know, there could be like an overlay that could freeze certain areas of the city from any kind of change to the 80 Regs. It could be like that. Certain areas are subject to a saturation limit because of the impacts that are on those neighborhoods and that other areas of the city would ha would see no saturation limit again, you know, it's it's just depends on what the policy. Direction is from council, you know, and moving forward on the sewing tourists.

[72:08] Do you envision that is possibly being blocked by block, neighborhood by neighborhood like a microphone? Or Macro might overlay B. I mean it. Really, it could be like neighborhood boundaries. It might be something that has to be mapped and put in the code. I mean the reason we just mentioned. It is just because there Lisa and I ended up talking to a a representative planner from Austin, Texas, on the issue of occupancy. So there were some neighborhoods that were around the university, that basically those particular zoning districts that were for those specific neighborhoods didn't see an increase in the allowable occupancy when they made the change. They kind of froze those neighborhoods. So that's where the idea came up with that certain areas could be treated differently. If need be, in the to the whole tap, except for in these areas it could be that that's an option, or that's something that council is gonna and some of you guys plenty more, suggested yeah, I think we just convey that to city.

[73:12] Council, if that has traction, something we can look into carving out some neighborhoods, basically. Yeah. An idea for study. Got it? Great. We wanna go to? How many? On? Question? 2, yeah. Sure. So have a couple just background slides related to size women. So just to tee this up. So going back to this graphic and just cause, it's a little con convoluted because there's different roles for different types. But right now are attached the the limit for attached day to use for market rate or that the attached student has to be one-third of the size of the main house, or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less so, an example here is if you have a 15,000 square, foot

[74:00] House, you can only have a 500 square foot eightu if it's attached. Obviously, if you're over 3,000, then you can get that 1,000 square feet and then a detached adu at the maximum right now is 550 square feet. This chart. Just I think I showed this to you in September. But this is just going back to what we looked at in this evaluation of that average size being 640 square feet and then you can kind of see the differentiation in detached for affordable and market rate, because we're allowing a larger unit. If it's an affordable unit, so that bottom road shows the different allowances. So market rate, like I said, is 5, 50. If it's affordable, it can be 800. If it's a designated historic property, it can be a 1,000 if that's detached and then attached. It's a third or a 1,000, and then, if it's affordable or historic, it can be the half or 1,000. But what we saw in the last 4 years of data was that the detached au for the the average size of the affordable so the ones.

[75:08] That were taking advantage of that larger limit was 634. So, not even maxing out to that 800 that they were allowed, and then the average size of market rate was just under 500. And then for attached, there's not quite as much differentiation right around 800 square feet for average, both of affordable and market rate. Attached. Some. I'm sorry. Our group, if it's in the garage, is that considered detached or attacked, detached? Okay. Yeah, thanks for that clarification. And then one of the other parts that I think we talked about in September is that there's a unique definition of floor area for 80 use, which trips up a lot of people. So there's a lot of back and forth when people are applying for an Atu of how they're supposed to measure their floor area.

[76:00] So this is an example of an above garage. Adeu! It's right. At 550 square feet. But essentially this top, this image in the top right, is all the different ways that you could measure a floor area. And it actually makes a pretty significant difference when you've got these limits like this. So whether you measure to the interior wall or 6 inches beyond which is the current eightyu specification, or use that X exterior wall, it changes the overall floor area that we use so it's pretty. Zoning monkey about this, but essentially the more different ways that we have to measure floor area, the more confusing it is for everybody. And so one of the things that came up constantly throughout the evaluation was trying to make this more consistent, and that would help both on the administration side of it. And also the applicant side and one of the other things to consider related to the floor area is that our definition of floor area includes the egress path to the unit.

[77:02] So for like this unit is above a garage, and so the walkway up to their unit has to be included in their floor area as well, so that just adds some additional limits to these floor area that we think we could clarify and clean up regardless of the size limit we think that this Is something that should be addressed with these eightyu updates. And then another point. We looked into the variances. So you can apply for a variance of that maximum floor area. It's the only variance you can apply for related data to use. And we had 4 of those go to Nope Boza, board of Zoning adjustment, and all 4 of those were approved. They actually all 4 had very similar situations where it was an existing basement that was, they were trying to convert into an au.

[78:01] You can see the sizes range from just over a 1,000 to 1,500, and those are approved. All 4 of those variances We have some initial ideas for what the potential size limit could be increased to. We're kind of just going back to the proposal from 2018. But this is what I'm curious to hear feedback about what I know. We all had recommended revising the size limit. So just feedback on that actual limit. But we're proposing detached at 800 square feet. As I mentioned, that was really a typical size limit in the cities that we looked at and then an attached of just a 1,000 square feet straight one of the main points when that was proposed in the previous updates was that I could see from that example someone with a 1,500 square foot. It's pretty limited by that percentage and you're only really able to take full advantage. If you have an over 3,000 square foot house, so in order to kind of lift, level the playing field for the different sizes, just a 1,000 square feet for attached units, and the reason for the differentiation is that the perception that the attached units have less probably less of an

[79:18] Impact neighbors because they're within an and its own structure. Okay. It's not its own structure, so that's why a lot of cities will differentiate between detached and attached. One thing to consider what the potential size limit increase is that as we've mentioned before, there is an incentive for people to do an affordable Atu because they are allowed to do a larger size and so, if we were to increase the size the market rate size, we would and and if we want to keep That incentive for affordable to use. We'd want to also increase the size for a affordable to use. So that would be maybe a corresponding increase of up to a 1,000, for detached in 1,200 for attached.

[80:01] So those are my only backgrounds. Kind of framing slides for that question. But yeah, happy to hear any questions or comments about increasing the size limit. What that? What you think an appropriate limit might be anything along those lines Remind me again, Lisa. I know we talked about this before, but on the detached AD use of 800 square feet is a basement space count. In that or not. Yeah. In the detached. Oh, yeah, we did talk about. And I forgot the answer. I. I remember that. Yeah. So if the detached, if it's above, how's that word at Karl? It's like, if it's above 3 feet coming out of the ground more than 3 feet in that country, yeah. Oh, as far as how the floor areas calculated, I mean, I think you're talking about the 80 you itself. Yeah, I mean, I think the here's the house. Here's the undergraduate, an Abu is concerned. The flurry is going to be what is within the unit for them. So, including the base. So I think it would include the basement, the exemption for the basement in terms of Florida is more of a bulk.

[81:09] Calculation for the how big the houses, but I don't think that's that's that wouldn't be the same way that you. It would work with an adu. That's my question. If you're building a house, if it's underground. The basements underground not above 3 feet. It doesn't count right? Typically if you're that's does that apply to a use as well? Or it sounds like it doesn't. It does not so soon Yeah. So if you have. So if you have like a common example, a common example, those properties that went to Bosa, so they were about a 1,000 square feet basement first 4 s floor. So they were at 3,000 square feet. And they their but their basement was like a 1,025 or something. So, yeah, we were counting the basement in that overall floor area So the other comment so that to me I I I don't think basement should count an AD you, for I don't know for for specifically for the detached to the detached.

[82:00] Adu cause. If you come over you go build an 800 square foot detached AD you above ground. You have 800 square feet, and you put an 800 square foot basement below it. Then you have 1,600 square feet, but it's still only 800 square feet above ground. I think that's a good thing. It's still got the 3 foot high limit for the above ground part of the basement. Yeah, so it's not like, it's like, it's, anyway. So that's my thought on that. And then, with respect to the attached thousands worth what limit in my mind, I'm just thinking, you know, if you have a basement right? That's 1,200 per feet or 1,500 per feet. And you want to turn that in on 80 years you're not adding any space. You're not adding any square footage to the existing house. You're just taking it and re reallocating it right? So, I mean to me like, if you have a wherever it is, 4,500 square feet of into the basement. 1,500 square feet of it in the basement. Why? About a 1,000 to make it an a to you? Then you have. You know what I'm saying that to me doesn't make sense.

[83:01] If it's already there. The building's already there, and square footage is already there. And you're just one moving it around a little bit. Why limited to a 1,000 square feet if you're adding on something outside different discussion, do we meet that? Are you guys, council I don't just say it should just be happy right just to say it should be half should be the maximum that we don't have to carve off a portion of that basement. So let's say it's not part of your view. So accounts basically said, well, if we did that, we want something in exchange which is the affordable idea. Yeah, I like that my my concern would be, you know. So it's the standards for a variance, right? So it's a peculiar difficulty or undue hardship of having a large basement. There really is no so so granting a variance really, is it as legally defensible as saying, Hey, if it's there, great and and yeah, we'll let you use it.

[84:07] It's got to have an effectability designation, I think all the better right. But I mean really, that would be something where it's a little more nuance. But you said you say exactly what you're saying. If it's existing square footage that you're utilizing and converting great that you don't have a limit I'm supportive of the I'm supportive of the increase in the size limits. My my only concern would be not for talking about like 1,200 square feet as far as a build on that's the kind of stuff that might get a Jason property or his own glued right? We're getting to a pretty high level, and I'm not sure how to thread that needle. I understand the rationale for the incentive, but I I I think maybe some new on stuff the size would be great, but I I really, you know, somebody brought it up, and I think it's just something that you know, you kind of really think about to hear it. Which is the fact that yeah, if you want AD use to accommodate families, we're gonna keep talking about like, you know, working families in Boulder.

[85:07] Yeah, I I grew up in the 500 square apartment for Family 5. It wasn't fun, right. So you know, having a second bedroom to be aces. So I think, yeah, the whole notion of having some flexibility there, so that you do have a housing stock. That working families can live in is really what we're talking about here. Right? So the whole notion is not having some of the short-term rails not having guest quarters, not having any like that, having practical housing stock, in an area that's, you know, somewhat unpacked, because everything else is is you know, so arduous and expensive right? And so from that perspective, that's why I'm supportive of the size limits. I think they're does need to be some new ones, but the that news goes both ways. If it's in the basement, great, bigger super, who cares? Right? Come around. You have a separate entrance. Whether it's 800 feet, 1,100 feet it doesn't matter.

[86:00] You're in the basement, and it's already there, but yeah, on the flip side, you don't want somebody to build a 2,000 square foot in addition to a 4 day high so I think there's some newest there. But I'm all for increasing the Sidelines, and again stopping the arbitrary constraints, and just making sure that things are utilized appropriately. Those are the 2 sides of the back. So One thing, I could just make the point in the in the planning board discussion of this, I think Lisa made the very interesting point that all of the exemptions that were granted by Bosa for larger sizes, or to take full advantage of a basement, and to avoid building those artificial walls that we're at right talking about. So so the logic is because if somebody hired me, it's like we legally challenges that. Say, hell, yeah, right? It's like, all your basements, too big.

[87:02] So but on the Flip side, who cares about big? The basement is, if it's there. Alright! Sounds like the variance is pretty pretty, you know. It's it's used. Alright, yeah. So it's a hardship, because they like you arbitrarily make them have to build a wall in their existence space. So I think that's the finding I like direction. Al we don't need to go there. So my comment on this is very non tattoo group. I don't understand this at all, but technically minded about these sorts of ratios. But I like the idea of increasing the allowable size because it diversified the use of the baby use, and one of our as a board has been done. Look for opportunities for people. I will maybe send kids to school to live in Boulder that afternoon today.

[88:04] So I think an AD you is a a small apartment for a single person, but if it could be more than that, if it could be the single parent with their kid who goes to Kt. The folks who are forming households, then we're doing something to increase the diversity of housing stock in Boulder for quote families, to find that as broadly if you want to. And that would be a very positive thing, as far as Hey it's potentially adding those ties of the existing homes. I can see how that could raise some eyebrows, and my neighbors were right. Now your neighbor can tear down the house and put up working, you know. Jail. Yeah, and what I guess 1 one clarification based on that point is just cause we did talk about this with planning board quite a bit. Was that it's not like the Eightyu exempts you from all of those other regulations that any you know like, if you could build a 1,200 square foot addition under all of those other rules from that graphic I showed then you can you know.

[89:03] It's not any different than a 1,200 square foot. LED you in terms of phone Yeah, well, and I, you know I have several neighbors who torn down 900 square foot homes and put a 4,000 square foot off But how? How do we? We come in on not counting the basement based? Is that a way to we? We make a vote on that that's why I was asking earlier about individual. That's different. Yeah, detached 80. You basement space. I wonder? Common is the outcome, and does it detach a you building out basement? Probably right now no sense in putting that in the basement, but if we bump it to 800 square feet, then you can put an 800 perple basement.

[90:15] Also, you got 1,600 per minute. You that can house a panel. What happens if you have a garage, you can bear don A to you, and added, story like, How do you calculate the it's the same thing, in a way, because you and the pop up is a new space. So that's the I was that regular where? Yeah? You calculate the square footage which is, what are my concerns too? And this this goes to something that we all talked about. You know we all brought up, and and we realized it was a little bit complex to get there, but the whole notion that, hey, if there are certain set designs you said this is already, like almost like 3 approved pre stamp remember we have

[91:02] That one of the reasons why I understand why that's not, you know. Council's not as Gung hell on that, as some of the other things. One of the reasons why we said, that goes to Lisa. Your point that you were making regarding the square footage space, which is that you know we we have a lot of people that have some involvement one way or another, or some of these things. You know. At some point in their life, and still somebody who's trying to figure out same thing as the 300 square foot thing. If you're trying to figure out, where is my square footage? Where is it? Not as the stairway that do I narrow the stairway, but then, and I think just simplifying those calculations which I think is one of the directions that you have. I think that's wonderful. So it should be, you know. Here's my square. Yeah, that fits, or whatever. You know, just make it the exterior wall for everybody. Make it whatever you need to make it to to make that simplified so that it's really easy for somebody to do this without having to hire lawyers.

[92:01] Architects, etc. Except where they absolutely need them. A little too far. There, no architect, not a lawyer. Right? Okay, you know, it's made a lot of different comments. If I could attempt to paraphrase, you know, we're definitely on board with increasing the level size we use in simplifying the process. I still have a common, actually. So, one of the things I like about the current sizes is that there's a bunch of that are designated affordable. And there's a bunch that are market rate, and of those that are market right? Seems like a very large percentage of those are affordable, and as we constantly increasing those sizes, you, you, there could be an inflection point where you know this sort of like takes off, like other housing prices do and so that's that's a concern

[93:09] That, I think is real. What you're saying. If it gets too big it could turn into a luxury apartment yeah, an 800 foot square foot 1,000 square foot to test unit might come in a lot higher on the flip side. That's your point about. You know the the kinds of expanded uses instead of just a single person or 2. Typically, more more family type scenarios can can take advantage of larger units. And so that actually expand supply for for those other folks in the market. And could be really helpful. So any anyways, I think I think it's important just to to keep in mind that increased square footage can increase prices

[94:07] One thought I had about. Oh, go ahead, Danny, I think you're absolutely right. Okay. Yeah. I'm I'm inclined to risk it because I just want more middle housing, right? For, for, and and then you do have incentives in place for a portable one. Incentive that I just want on like proposed as something to write down for your list of future things, or maybe maybe go in. Just to just follow up with Terry's point. That that the basement, not counting the basement, might be a great incentive for affordable designation. So, but and so I think that's and that's kinda what I was alluding to is like. So if you have a whole basement 1,400 square feet, you get that whole beast. You don't have to go through the variance process which is kind of tortured legally and and but it's got to be affordable.

[95:00] If you want to build a basin on your standalone, it's got to be affordable. If you want a certain size, dispensate dispensation, it's got to be affordable right, and that gives you more tools and toolbox to incentivize people, to designate them as affordable, particularly they get larger, because I think you're absolutely right all of a sudden. People are like, Hey, you know, nice but I think if if those things are in place, I mean, I think, and I think so in terms of I it'd be nice to just throw it on the floor for everybody, I think I think we're saying it or 2 things we support increase flexibility For basement use, either attached or detached, increasing the the tight restriction of the size restrictions, streamlining the measurement of the size, restrictions, and with all that, the whole notion that affordability should be the tool that's utilized you know that these

[96:00] Things can be utilized as a sense, or at least to go towards the affordability direction. That would be my suggestion in terms of kinda what we're all saying. But that's just that's just me. Alright agree with that Rebound on that. I guess you're just providing feedback to staff feedback. This is right now down. So it's Carl they'll characterize. Okay. They don't choose right. You may have a really long meeting here Alright. So. Question 3 is related to these clarification items. So these are things that came up throughout that evaluation as items that we would want to clarify, or there's an opportunity that these would clarify and eliminate barriers related to eightys. So I'll just say a few sentences on each one of these on the slide.

[97:00] We actually already got into a couple of them. But just to explain those, and then, if you see any that seem like red flags or anything like that, we can talk about those. But we don't have to talk about every single one. If you don't want to, I guess is what I'm trying to get after. So the first is extending the approval expiration period. So right now AD use are required to establish within one year, most land uses have 3 years to establish, and it's just something that comes up a lot with applicants being concerned, especially in the last couple years. But through the pandemic and everything of just being able to secure, get through the application process, get through the permitting process, secure a general contractor, and do all of that within a year to have it constructed that people just really feel that that's a pit for a year So we think that that would be easily solved by just expanding that to the 3 year expiration period that we have for most other applications that would just provide some flexibility for people to be able to to fully realize that at U after the application was approved secondly is some

[98:10] Flexibility for the height of existing structures, so kind of similar to your discussion about basements. We've run into a few situations, especially recently, of existing structures that would like to convert like, say, a garage into an adu. And while there is some flexibility that a an 80, you can go up to 25 feet, where most accessory structures have to be at 20 feet, there is no option. If you're above 25 feet, there's no method of flexibility, so that really shuts down any. There's just no avenue for them to seek relief. There's no, that variance, there's no modification. It's 25 feet or nothing, and we do think that adaptive reuse of existing structures is probably the a very low impact to a neighbor, because it's an existing structure that's already there.

[99:03] So we think that it would reduce some barriers to eliminate or to to provide some kind of flexibility for those existing structures to be adapted into an au rather than you know, requiring them to tear something down and build a new building that meets that 25 Foot. So that's another one of the code clarification items. We get a lot of questions. We require that attached to you so like a basement unit to be separated by a lock, and it just creates a lot of back and forth between applicants. And actually several of the withdrawn applications. It was related to this standard. So we just think there's some opportunities to clarify the language there. It's kind of like 3 steps buried in several definitions in the code, but wouldn't have like a substantive impact. Just clarifying the code. Limited accessory units. So I talked about their being detached and attached accessory units. We actually also have a third type of adu called the Limited Accessory unit, and essentially, it's a legal, nonconforming duplex.

[100:08] But it was kind of an avenue that was added. We only have one property that's classified as that. And so we can work to figure out what that can be classified as instead. But it just adds code text, and it's not an option that anyone but this one property has taken advantage of. So that's a code cleanup. That would be getting rid of that option. And then these last 2 points. These are the ones that planning board talked about the most, and we've already talked about the 80 or the Llc. Issue, but also related to owner occupancy. There's some clarity that would be helpful about temporary rental exemption. So right now, if you want to go on, sabbatical to Germany for a year or something er anywhere outside of Boulder County, you're actually you. Typically if to rent out you, how your house you need to rental license. But if you're going to be gone for less than a year and rent it out, you can get this temporary rental exemption where you don't have to get a rental

[101:06] License and it just isn't clear right now in the code, whether that's something that an adu owner can do, because the 8, the owner occupancy, requires the owner to live on site for at least half of the year so I think there's kind of policy direction that can go Either way, and we could clarify, and so I think it question for you. All is a group is whether I think it's appropriate in light of having an owner, occupancy, requirement, is it appropriate for someone like the owner to be gone on Sabbatical for just under a year and still be able to rent out the main property while holding on to Their eightyu rental, like containing to rent the Atu so technically, for under that year that owner is not on site, but they are returning within that year, and then, finally, the public notice requirement. So 80 use have a somewhat unique public notice requirement. The only other application that has something like this is our solar access exemption.

[102:04] But essentially adjacent neighbors do receive a public notice that there is an adu. Application being reviewed by the city, they don't have a way to submit comment. It's an admin administrative application, so there's nothing they can necessarily do about that. They can, and often I have our staff planners. They set about maybe 15% of oh of applications have somebody reach out to them with questions. But often it's just questions about what's happening. But the idea of like public engagement being meaningful there's not really a an avenue for them to submit comments. Necessarily that would impact the the application. So we're just questioning whether the benefit of that a. A is in line with the procedural impact that it has because it does require multiple steps to the application process increases timelines, increases fees.

[103:03] Things like that for us to have that public notice. So yeah, curious to hear any thoughts on any of these. But especially those bottom 2, I think, on the on the slide Yeah, mainly clarification questions for me, lockable separation of a niche and use with it currently required Yeah. So the the definition of dwelling unit means that it has to be separated. Hmm. Lock of like. Have a lock to separate them, so we'll often have to have people revise their plans to show like where the adu lock is, because it's deep in the definition of dwelling unit. So, yeah, just putting that in the actual eightyu regulations, we think would be helpful It's not there. Now this is a proposal

[104:01] Oh, got it! It is in the definition of dwelling unit. So if you yeah, it, that's why I was saying, it's like 3 layers. Because and that's why people don't know about it. Because you have to go to the definition of accessory, dwelling unit, which means a dwelling unit. Then you have to go to dwelling unit, and then dwelling unit means you have to have a lockable separation. So it's a bit complicated in the code I see, I see, and then owner accuracy, and Reynolds, you know you have a rental license. If you have an AD, you. If you did that 6 months at Sabbatical, you would be an additional rental license. Just what were you saying No, so I it exempts them from having to have another rental license. But it's just an issue that's come up with our rental licensing folks of. Are they allowed to get that temporary rental exemption and rent out their main house without a license, while also keeping the atu as a result? Hmm! So what's what's existing? And was proposed in this regard. Okay. It's unclear it's unclear right now.

[105:00] How to interpret that. I think right now they would be allowed to, as how we interpret the code. They would be allowed to. But we're trying to get some policy clarity on whether that's actually what we want to be happening. With that on our occupancy And then more more generally. There are any of these code issues affect the production or existence of any use any way, or they is really about technical requirements for homeowners. Well, these are all. These are all items that came up as issues in the evaluation, either just that we heard through applicants or through staff, that we're reasons like some people don't apply for the Atu because they have the one year expiration period in their we can't do Hmm. That or they. We had several people withdraw their application because of the lockable, or like trying to figure out the lockable separation, and there were too many back and forth about that. Okay. We've had several a to use not go forward because they're too. You know.

[106:02] It's an existing structure above 25 units. Limited accessory unit is not a barrier to 80 use. It's just extra code language. That would be nice to clean up. Right. And then the owner, occupancy, I think, is just a clarification issue that's been coming up a lot, and public comments and things like that. The public notice, I think, impacts the the timing of the application which I think that that can dissuade applicant ado applicants because it it adds time and bureaucratic process by having that step Could have an effect of suppressing new he used. Right? Yeah, that's And then you discovered this through surveys Yeah, so this is like these, all came through that evaluation report that was attached to the memo. So this was the result of looking at the data. Looking at. We did internal interviews of all of our staff that deal with a tou applications.

[107:00] Looking through all that? Inquired boulder tickets, those pup, the customer service portal and questions we get interviewing the people that had withdrawn their eightyu applications. These were the issues that kind of rose to the top as what was still existing as a barrier to eighties And also to streamline the process, you know, like, if we can eliminate a common comment that comes from staff about why you're permit isn't ready to issue yet, you know, that's gonna save time and money. Great. So I'm in favor of screen lining and removing any barriers. That's practical. You, too. Yeah, got it? Yeah, I I can just summarize that. I think planning board thought these. These were all reasonable thanks to people with the the only hesitation was on the public notice requirement. And that wasn't because they thought that. Oh, there, there should be a bigger process.

[108:05] But the the idea was just that it's good to let your neighbors know what's going on. And so you know anything that improves neighborhood communications is is good. So that was, I think, the only reason for the hesitation on the public notice. Requirement, and I'd say, in terms of the extension of approval, I think that's huge. It took me over a month to get somebody to get a guy into, put in a ceiling fan, so I mean, it's right now. Like last month, so you know, it's one of those things, you know. There's a reason why we have best rights. If if if they've gone through this whole process, we want them to build it. That gotten approved. So I absolutely agree with that one. I think that's the most important one. I I agree with you on, on the public notice. This is where I kind of lurched the other direction, which is that for dealing with public process, for 25 years, giving somebody to notice, and the opportunity to be heard without increasing the procedure without having hearings, etc but having somebody have an ability to write something in

[109:16] Writing a comment, and if somebody says, Well, you know they're cooking math. And in the Abu you might want to know, and just having a a a means of you know, having that articulated right. And then, if somebody wants to, if they want to appeal, they want to do whatever else they can find. But you're not not increasing the process as much as saying we're preserving the opportunity for public notice. Who knows what you have to say, and might be able lot of the same things. It might be a lot of the, you know, not in my backyard kind of things. There could be something salient there, and I think that that part is important, and that's what I just be. I cautiously guard the public notice process, because I think that's what makes for good neighbors, and we're all gone, and they're still living next door to each other. So outside of that, I think, is all great extended 6 years.

[110:08] If you need to, for the approval but they all the rest of it all sounds great and I would definitely want to lock if I had somebody. Jay. And I don't. Oh, go ahead! We're probably gonna say the same thing. Go j Oh! And not I was just bringing a baggage from 2018 public notice issue, because, you know, I tried to make Council's not gonna go for it. They even this council. But I do push back on it, because I think it was stuff and I difficult position, because it gives creates this expectation that a neighbor can have some influence on the office, and they can. It's basic, a typically project, any project that has a public notice. They usually have an appeal, an option, or they can present comments to a board.

[111:01] You know, to call it up, and in this case they don't. So they kind of has. That's the one rough part about it. My suggestion would be because I absolutely agree with that, and I sympathize, empathize. But I would say written comment always. It's in the record, whatever you want to do that you know, you have a chance to give a written comment, put in the record, etc. And and and that's all there is to it. Right clarify exactly what it is. If you want to put in a written comment, here's here's the email. Whatever. Yeah. Have a knock us one adeu.gmail.com, or whatever not. Really the only thing I'd say, because I do agree with your point, you know, and and it it it can become very owners on staff, just like having staff out for 300. Be let along. The property are, but I think just having it this one I've seen. If you don't have a public notice process, then that's when people usually, you know, are going to carry you more of a grudge. Are, gonna you know. Say, well, I want I want to see somebody anybody wants to the city.

[112:06] I want to see the name, or whatever. So I just think having some macination. So just to be a dead horse here, I think it actually as the helps. In fact, it doesn't create good neighbors. We're talking to people who went through the process. Actually, several different neighbors told me that it created this, and during tension with their neighbor because they submit a comments, and they weren't incorporated. They never forgive him, and there wasn't that an actual way to do it? So, I don't know there's not a piece. But anyway, sorry you can tell that public notice is what we're saying. Public notice is going to keep having it. It is. I don't think it's a good idea, but it's gonna continue. So any other comments on Clone right?

[113:12] What's next? Good! Alright, and I did just want to note that we already talked about the Llc. Issue. So that's why I didn't. That one, since we covered it at the beginning of the meeting Right forward to the corporate readers. Yes, we're good Alright, so we'll move on. I think this is maybe the last slide. So this is outside of the actual ordinance updates. But these are changes to the process that could make some improvements, and I think we talked about this a bit in September. But an 80 Us. A separate application. So you have to apply for the Atu some fairly detailed plans. But that's not your last step. So you have to then submit for the building. Permit, which is a whole different round of review, with more reviewers and more detail about building code and things like that, and applicants often get confused thinking that that first step is all that they needed wired why do I need to include more detail or they run into an issue?

[114:07] That they didn't realized was gonna Be you know, cost prohibitive about actually building this au. So we think that by consolidating those reviews that can eliminate a lot of the confusion, the improve, the timeliness, things like that. So that's something we'd be moving towards in the implementation phase. So once we make those code change updates make these changes internally to our processes and how we accept applications and things like that similar that somehow will. Similarly, it's getting late in the night. Addressing is something that came up a lot. I I won't get too much in the Zoo into the details, but eighties have to be addressed as a unit, A and unit B, and it's happening too early in the process right now. So fixing that, and then a declaration of uses will legal document that people have to record with the county that says I have an au. It's this size, and these are the rules that I'm subject to. And it stays with the property for future owners. But just making sure we just have some things to make sure with those that those are as we update the AD regulations over time, that those are still working accurately.

[115:15] And then finally, the fun stuff of just improving our handouts and things self-service stuff on our website. As I've been looking through all these comparable cities, there's a lot of great examples where graphics and videos and things like that can be used to help people understand what the 80 rules are that apply to them. We think what some of those other simplification and clarification and elimination of saturation limit just the overall understanding of abuse will be a lot simpler, and we'll be able to explain that a lot you know, more self-service nature than we currently are Using. So any comments on process improvements. Yeah, make them. I think it's great. Maybe get rid of public notice. , but I think it's great

[116:11] Okay, great. Yeah. Those are. Those aren't technically ordinance changes. But we still want to be informed by the boards of what process changes we think would be helpful I think this one step review is nice, but that's as long as the person knows exactly what they need to do, because I feel like it probably gets complicated after the first submission of everything, and then they might have some, you know, revisions to make so that's if we're really clear about exactly what is required. Of the accessory dwelling unit. Otherwise, I think it's a good idea Okay. Great. Good handouts. Oh, quick question, Lisa. These have to be fully engineered plans right for a detached Yeah, I mean, they they have to meet all the same building code requirements as any other

[117:03] Yeah, so so it's you have a, you have an architectural team to put this together to submit it right? Architects, engineers, structural. All that stuff is part of this. Right. And are you approved to build an A to you before you do all of that? No. So that's that's one of the issues that's one of the issues. Is that because we have that 2 step Review people think that you know they get the the adu approval for the Atu application. But they haven't gone through all of that engineering and building permit, and things like that. So there will be there. There are often issues that come up that they weren't aware of, and it that can be understandably, extremely frustrating for applicants when they think that they've got something that's approvable. Hmm. But it runs into different rules. Once they get further down the line Get a good design team. Yeah, for someone, someone creating an at you by carving it out of existing structure, you know.

[118:01] Are there dwelling unit? It seems like obviously, they got to meet the standards, but it may not be a very elaborate approval, like, for example, you know, that seems pretty simple and straightforward, certainly was for us. Right. You know, we had to figure out where to put the door, and you know the fire codes and things like that laid out for folks when they go into prepare to make an application Yeah, I think so. I I think for a building permit, it's fairly clear what they need to have. I think it's that it's the split between the adu and the building permit, because the Atu application is a little more vague about like we don't need quite as much information, because all we're checking is for the eightyu standards, and so that's where the disconnect happens Good. Yeah. One of the things that I think is also used to be very clear about the obligations for someone building an Edu, whether how they deal with utilities and metering tap cap fees and power supply and heating and stuff like that whether there has to be a separate earnest or an adeu.

[119:29] Yeah, that. and and all of those utilities that I think are often there's a lot of confusion about those aspects. Make a number of upgrades, or at least consistency in your part of that you live in right smoke. Alarms to important did did you have? Did you have to buy paper tapes inside of your house? No, no, we have already had a bathroom with water, and what we didn't install a new kitchen thing. But I recall paying for texting.

[120:09] Most cities. You're gonna pay a lot and and system development charges water. Answer. Well. So I think I think, John, that's an important point just to make about like there's so many complexities of the building permit review that they don't even get to after they've already designed their whole eighty-u so by putting them into that process initially they understand the full implications of what Needs to be done to bring that property either up to code or to build it to code. So they really know what they're getting into by building the Atu rather than going through the whole process of the eightyu application, only to be denied for the actual building permit. And I think that that's where a lot of the simplification, and especially that first initial barrier of the saturation limit. If we didn't have that, then it would be a lot easier to do the one step review

[121:02] Yeah. Yeah. Hmm. And then one other thing that just to add, I mean, so keep in mind we don't want to get the impression that this is a super simple process that any homeowner can just do on the room. You know, it's like building out you wouldn't expect at Homeowner with no experience to be able to do that. But we've almost created the expectation for you to use, and we just we're trying to be super clear that. That isn't the case. You do need to hire expert to help you with it. Regarding not a question. If it's detached right, that's just like building on the house right? But even an enter or an attached to you that does require a lot of technical assistance, and then we can't just basically take what you submit on the back. Of napkin, and basically give you a permit for it. But I think that's the big thing we're having that that one step where you consolidate a little so that they understand that cause. I mean, even here we're talking about basements.

[122:01] Still gonna have to do a fair amount of things, I would imagine right to make sure, at least even just to have you know, some sign off that it is. You know, structurally safe and utilizable. That's a separate residents. It's on the. It's on the future list. We have a future list At that point we did make a recommendation to counsel that they look at very appropriate plans Yeah. So I get the floating and use it any other comments. All of you guys. And seriously, everybody and staff.

[123:04] This is a huge art of taking a lot of times. It it can help us be thankless because we're everybody who appreciates and supported their other people who think you're ruining their their neighborhood and stuff and I know the complexities of the fragility of it. All and and I just want to express my appreciation for this, because and Lisa, obviously right, person for us, because this is this is dogging stuff. But it's it's to me incredibly important, because, you know everything that we sit here for, and and pontificate once once a month. You guys are immersed in and it but it really, I believe, can have a a very significant lasting fact to this community. And so for that, I just want to save, to protect everybody. One of one of the things that's just that we should just keep repeating is that the there's always a political and balance between incumbents and newcomers, homeowners and people who would like to live here and you know, we're obviously, you know, a lot of the lot

[124:15] Of the conversation is, is around worrying about how homeowners are gonna react, or how homeowners are gonna benefit. But I just wanna just point out that there's gonna be a lot of newcomers and people who really need this housing that are gonna benefit. And so thank you for doing this hard work, and I hope that a lot of people are blessed with with the places to live here in our in our city Well, I'll pile out a little bit, but thank you for your work, and you know, as a board we're here to support the staff's work if they're when they're trying to be in innovative and move forward we're not going to rubber stamp everything you present to us but you know we're we're gonna get pretty good. Listen and support you as we as we can. So thank you for that Yeah, thanks for the great discussion

[125:02] Got it. Yeah, just to mention briefly, and this is as much to HIV is as to staff. Is you mentioned briefly at the beginning of your presentation, Lisa, that the there was some interest in what the impacts of additional a to use would be on on middle income housing and vulnerable in terms of additional supply, but also in terms of potentially increasing the the prices, of Existing housing on which AD use might be built. In this, making it more difficult for people to move into modestly priced housing, and I think that continues to be something that that is needs to be looked into, and and I think in planning board you talked about or some folks talked about checking with the property appraisers, property, managers of various types to see what the impact actually is on on pricing of of houses.

[126:03] So I think that's still important to do Yeah, John, actually, that's a timely comment, because I talked to the county assessor this afternoon and I didn't know that they could do this. But they can model all of their appraisal, appropriate appraisals, or I don't. I'm not gonna use the correct term, but but their appraisals of all of the properties in the county, and they can break it down into the city, and they based on their statistical analysis of market sales. There is no data to support an adjustment for properties with an Atu. So there's no statistical significance that, having an au in like significantly increases the property value in boulder account, and specifically in boulder. There was some difference in like Nederland up in the foothills, but not in Boulder I'm very surprised I also just like kind of fundamentally disagree with that.

[127:07] The concern, because I I just don't see that there's any path to affordable housing that that goes through. You know, single family homes that you know where, where we're gonna figure out how to make single family homes, a affordable. Again. That ship is sailed many years ago, and and we don't. I don't really feel like we need to worry about single family homes going up because in in value they they will go up and value as the land becomes more valuable. They sit on. As we increase the number of ways to use properties. You know, when we think about rezoning the making adjustments designing. So anyways, I I just I just want to state that I'm I'm kinda like persistent to this, but maybe it doesn't imply. But it's it's yeah. I said, I said, I defer to 400 units turns into 4,000 as fast as possible.

[128:12] Yeah. I have one question Oh, I don't actually know that Yeah, we can. I? I didn't pull that for the evaluation, but it'd be interesting. I could find that easily 80 square, feet Hmm, thank you. Guys, sir. Thank you. Yeah. Alright. Well, thanks everybody for the great conversation. This is all very helpful, and we can definitely we'll bring this. We'll we'll reflect your comments to council tomorrow, and obviously all of this will be reflected in the ultimate ordinance. So hopefully, it will come back to you with the ordinance in the next couple of months, can talk more Thank you. Thanks, no, thank you. Alright! Bye.

[129:00] Okay. Well, framing thoughts, introductions, just real quick cause. I realize we didn't do that earlier. I'm not sure. Everybody even knows Karl oh, okay, well, let's have our guests introduce themselves. Hi! Everyone. Far old Guyer, senior policy advisor, with plenty of development services I've been with the city for quite a while. I've been working on code changes on and off through all those years I work with Lisa. It's basically the 2 of us that make the the changes to the land use code. So I'm also working on zoning for affordable housing. It's we're kind of at the beginning stages of it. But I'm happy to kinda keep you some background if that's helpful, so be very really glad you're here. He's the authority, the planning.

[130:01] And you guys all know Holly I was I I did the this survey for the Abu. So I was. I was, in September, so here I am, or by vice chair any time, or was not here for roll. Call over to us now, present as you may have. Oh, yes, you need to do yourself. Keep going great! Let's go out there to be. And and it was completely destroyed. Yeah, premium comments, since it's a really big, great topic that I'm thinking app can dive into. And we talked about it in December, December meeting we had a really excellent guest speaker, who looked at phoning, perform largely single family zoned area has been different cities around the country and it was a very sobering presentation because not a lot of

[131:10] areas, that have undertaken it could be considered radical reform got a lot of habit that was kind of what it might take place. Matt. Minneapolis being I'm an example. When they made their changes. And I think with 2020, or 20 to 21, they got a lot of press and planning publications, and also in the general press like, Oh, my God! Minneapolis is, have one single family. It's like no one was. Gonna have a single family house anymore. I mean, you looked at the the numbers that I guess Speaker presented. They've gotten very little movement in agreement of how was on single family lots, and we found that in other cities as well. So it was so Br, and it got got me thinking, well, you know. Okay, we got a pretty good idea what's not working, but what might work. So let's start moving in that direction. And then to my Hello, pleasant surprise, I knew that Governor Polish was gonna make housing a priority he was reelected and and then he comes out with a state of the State a few days ago, when housing is too many like talks about

[132:17] housing, like, you know. Okay, not for a talk about having a lot that you really like talked about the first thing he came out of very strong. This policy. Recommendations were somewhat general, but also very pointed, and putting a direction of you know the state and kind of mandating certain requirements that more housing could be built in any locations, and you know, it's just gonna set up some really interesting tension between this call he's Already had you've seen the reaction from like the Cml. And the Colorado Association of Counties. You know, concern that local control will be taken away by a statewide mandate I think that there's actually opportunity in that regard, and that you know cool we're in a way where we're being given a call to

[133:14] Attention, but my tag to do something on our own before we're made to do it. The local level. So I think that the whole idea of toning for formal housing I'm going to disagree with a little bit, because it's like Chip is sailed on single family housing. I'm gonna be affordable. That's definitely true. If you look at, you know, Zillow, you're not gonna somehow make houses are for sale now, and both are affordable. They're ridiculously expensive. But what are the opportunities to create new new housing? Using. I was specifically singling out single family homes I know. But yeah, I know what I'm still saying. Yes, we're not gonna solve the issue of single family homes.

[134:00] They're not affordable in boulder, but we can create more affordable things for some people. Okay. That isn't the password, or certainly it's very prettyary housing, and there may be some other opportunities. That have started to come into play. So that's just kind of my background. But and then to grease the wheels on the conversation. I set you all eventually a memo this week, saying, Okay, here's some ideas we can pick about, and I think we should. I heard her back from some of you, one on one I think we should talk about some of those and see if they're worth teaching out and maybe developing recommendations. Super not clear on the timing. On this, what I heard from a member of Council is that like to start considering some ideas as soon as next month? That seems really soon to be so. It might be better to hear from expert before we start

[135:03] This zoning for a portable housing is one of the City Council priority court program priorities for planning and development services that they set out on last year. So we a year ago, at their retreat. They're like we want you to do 80 use zoning for portable housing and occupancy. So obviously, you can see 80 us has been progressed. I've not had the capacity to start the project until recently based on other responsibilities. But I'm now starting to get into this. But council the way they and I'm not trying to be discouraging. Anyway, I'm just trying to set the the frame of of what they've told us is that when it started last year in 2022, they were kind of just looking for some like quick wins in the land use code where some zoning barriers to additional housing or more affordable Housing could be easily removed from the code, so that we could see in incentives for affordable housing, and I think some of that came out of ideas that we had with our site review criteria update which is actually going to Council next week hopefully for adoption we had

[136:19] Some like density, bonuses that were in that. But there were some concerns from like planning board about the bonuses, and some concerns that we heard internally that maybe those bonuses wouldn't incentivize housing. So we kind of strip those out. So I think that's why I got on to Council's radar like maybe we should keep those and and look at those again. So that's kind of what we're doing is we're looking at those ideas for density bonuses, or maybe changes to the city's density requirements, particularly in areas where the city anticipates to see how housing like a lot of the commercial areas are meant to be more mixed use like the Boulder Valley Regional Center, for instance, like we're 20 Ninth Street is, or the village.

[137:01] Our opportunity areas for more housing or some of the neighborhood centers like base, more meadows. Really looking at those areas and seeing if the zoning could be tweaked to get more housing because some of the zoning that's set up in those areas with the far limit and the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements tend to actually drive larger units so we've we've heard from the development community that that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you're trying to get smaller units, more of that middle income or middle housing. So, that's something that we're looking at. So we're really kind of just at the beginning of that process of looking at all those parts of the code. What we can see, that there's been ariers, and then see if we can remove those and see if it would either incentivize more housing, which means more on-site affordable or more.

[138:00] In Lu going into the Housing Fund so there's a number of things we're looking at where this is helpful. If you have ideas right now, because this is the the time when I'm trying to look for options, so as far as the timeline we are looking to go to council on March twenty-third on this particular topic, and I think they want to hear, some ideas for what we could do, and Then they would give us marching orders as to what to spend some time on working on. In analysis and eventually doing an ordinance, and the timeline's pretty. From what we heard from Kelse is pretty accelerated like they want quick changes as as quickly as possible. Basically which would, it's just challenging. Just because I know that there's interest in the community to really revisit single family neighborhoods and potentially allowing more density. And that is a much more complicated discussion. So that, to me seems like something that might happen down the road.

[139:01] Maybe not not this year, but we're definitely all ears for ideas. Okay, that's great. And a good way to frame that, too, is, is, you know, any sort of change to single family. Zoning is really a comprehensive plan. Issue. And we'd have to get addressed as part of the comprehensive plan yeah. And you mentioned Minneapolis like what they did from from what I know, is that they they made changes at the policy level. It wasn't regulatory, so the policies changed, but they have yet to actually implement it through the regulations. And I think there's a lot of folks in this community that just want the regulatory changes. We actually can't do that, because the Comp plan, you know, sets the density limits for large areas of the city. And I think there's a much more holistic outreach process that would have to happen in single-family neighborhoods to get that buy in for increased density, and things like that. And there's also infrastructural things that have to be considered, which we kind of went down this road a couple of years ago.

[140:04] If you know the large homes and lots projects we were asked to do something similar and we did a lot. We did a fair amount of outreach, and that ended up. We ended up putting an ordinance together and outlining some of these constraints, but may made some bold changes in the ordinance, and it did not pass there was a lot of community resistance to it but there's also like a lot of infrastructural things that would have to Be considered if we increase the density and a lot of areas of the city, because some of those parts of town were actually developed with infrastructure that was only meant to serve single-family homes. So there we'd have to get our engineers involved and have some resources put towards like, are there like? Is there upsizing of utilities? Well, how do we approach areas of this of the city that don't have sidewalks, or proper drainage for increased density? So these are a lot of things that we have to consider. But again we're at the stage where I'd be great to hear your ideas.

[141:00] What we wanted to do is come back to have. I I think there's a a meeting that you guys have on March 20 s, which is like literally right before the Council meetings. We might be able to touch. Base, then, and then go to council. Well, that's fantastic. So I really thought Mike, we would primarily be talking about single family lots and single family neighbors. But but I wrote this moment, which is just brainstorming. What feedback I got from a lot of my colleagues. Here and have it. Let's talk about big sites. Let's talk about. You know, commercial areas in aren't doing well, but have not very well use service. Parking baseball came up. For example, Sunrise Center. I would agree that those the exciting opportunity sites and that you might run into, shall we say less community resistance? I have no idea what's going on with property ownership. At those sites, and have receptive property. Owners would be, to, you know, entertain redevelopment, for example.

[142:01] But I mean some of those sites are so well by transit and central. And they're big and they don't have a lot of flexibility to them in a way we need to get better parking lot being not a very complex piece of urban infrastructure. So I'd love to hear just more about your thinking about that, and also welcome other Board members to come in on the subject. I think I heard you right, Karl. And that the Council's basically saying, Are there some easy changes we can make to the code to incentivize More housing? That's not big, expensive house I think that's how it came out of the gates. I think when we talked about it with Council in November there were some Council members that were like trying to broaden the scope. So that's we're gonna go to when we talk to council in March. It's gonna be kind of like. Is this the right scope? Is this the right timeline? Are these the right ideas? But we're trying to just frame that single family part, you know, because that's just probably not gonna happen this year.

[143:03] Cause. When you we say housing or zoning for a for lousy, it's not zoning for inclusionary zoning out less expensive. How long is that right yeah, that's the other thing that we need clarity from calendar. That's actually a really big question to have. Because I think there's some that have the expectation that this is purely deep restricted before affordable housing. But I think there's others, the input that we got at the beginning of last year was, I think, there was an openness to just more modest sized housing. But I mean it's not getting into too much detail. There's there's typically 3 items, and most housing zones that restrict what you can do. And it's it's been a little more size. It's minimal open space. And it's far right. And those are the 3. Every zone you ever looked at. It's one of those. Get you? I have one of those makes it so. You can't do more. It's it's minimal lot size.

[144:02] So you have to have 7,000 square feet, but per dwelling unit, right? Minimum open space every year on that lot has to have 6,000 working over, and the other one is F AR. 4 area ratio. When they take the size of the lot, and they apply another percentage to it. And that's as much building as you can build. One quick example of something. To deal with like 4 days ago. Imagine this table is a lot okay within the stones. Throw it so our next one's done matter there's like 1,400 house sitting right up in front. The rest of this is like a football field. It's it's a very long, narrow line. This morning, says, the intention is to have multiple units or duplexes, or come home for more than one. That's that's the premise behind the zoom. What you have to have a minimum of 7,000 square foot per unit. Of what. So? Because it's 10,004 feet, and you have all this weighted layers. You can't have more than one house.

[145:02] What very easily in my mind this old house can either be Redone, and add something else, or it could be, and down. And you can add multiple. And the irony is when you're standing on the spot, you're looking up at 3 and 4 stories of apartments all around you, you know. One example, just 1 one example of probably thousands. But those are the 3 restrictions. And if there's an easy fix, it's it's either reducing numbers, you know, instead of 6,400 people. Who space for going unit, reducing those to allow for more housing. I think it goes long way. I understand there's political issues. I I get all that but those 3 barriers seem to pop up every time. People, I will say, maybe people look at these lots and they're like, Well, gosh! You can do so much more there. But no, you can't, you know that's my concern. That's helpful. Yeah, I think another example that we've heard is because, like the the pr zone which is like by the village and and 20 Ninth Street, so it allows up to a twofr, which is one of the highest Frs we have in the city, but it has a 1,600 square

[146:19] Foot lot area per dwelling unit requirements. So what I've heard is that if you get that maps of what can fit in that 2 F AR, and then use the density calculation divide it like it just automatically drives very large units so it's kind of toner to like what we're trying to do And obviously, you know, doing something where we're increasing density on a site. If it's specified in the Comp plan, a density limit that's gonna be more challenging to like change. That but there are a bunch of zones that don't have that density limit that are areas that the the Comp plan actually designates for more housing. So like the br zones and the BC. Zones. That's the place where we have a little bit more flexibility to make those kind of changes to get more housing.

[147:10] Unless it's like the diagonal plaza. You know, on Irish, you know, unless it's just so bad. It's really hard to take an existing shopping center and and redevelop it into a lot of housing it's hard to do that. I mean, it's not impossible. 15 numbers or something, but it's just. It's difficult to do that for for a lot of reasons. I'm not against it. I think there's a ton of parking lots all over town that could be utilized much better. But a lot of them. But it's just tough to do that. Economically, you know, the shopping centers are typically full. They typically have businesses. They're typically paying rent. The owners are probably doing fine, you know, and it takes a pretty high level of sophistication to redevelop the shopping centers into bigger.

[148:02] You know. It's it's it's it's tough. It's just some are, but but of hard. It's just like if it ain't broke them. Break it kind of thing, you know, a little bit you know what I mean. It. It's working. It's been working forever, you know. It's a generational thing. It's it's I don't know. Then I would love to see. Let me personally, I know we're all over the place here, but you know the north part of we integrate from like open Iris to me, looks like anywhere. U.S.A. You know I would love for that to be very different. And and I think those BC zonings you're talking about chronic. Will help that. That's a lot of BC zone in there. Right? Yeah, and it's also an area that has policy direction in the Comp plan that helps. But you have, over. Then you you go against well, some of these strip centers have local monopoly businesses for 20 years or 30 years, and they service in the population, and will then carry those down to build really expensive stuff like that.

[149:04] And so it just goes around. He's there. Well, I could. I could. Say, there's a lot of practical matters around that, but seems like the city could help established on vision for the insights with, you know. Maybe that's how you overcome the inertia and start working towards Shane. There have been in lots of topping centers redevelop the United States is that's right. That's an example that I came across recently to share with the board. I, how can you? 3? Okay, but I would call more efficient land use in single family neighborhoods and lots that are, you know, not very well used. And there's this project called Whittier Corner, that stumbled the mind because a friend of mine is one of the, and he told me about it, and we looked at it, hooked it up and it's 2 lots 20 seventh and pine there was one little cottage, and a

[150:09] Lot and they managed to subdivide this into 6 lives. They kept the cottage. Okay, it's actually 5 6, yeah, it's it's 4 downhones surrounding the one cottage. Okay. How many numbers wrong? Wow. Sorry in any case, put in normally. But do homes. And now it's it's 5 and I think it's a pretty creative land plan. They instead, they're doing town homes. They kind of look like homes, but they're detached. So there's no Hoa. Everyone has to be simple properties. So it's like a successful land use transition. But but no affordability, you know. Keep us property is the cottage, which is 1 44 million. Everything else is 2 to 2 and a half, I'm thinking, like we we've talked about lots of living.

[151:02] We talked about allowing town homes where they're single panel homes now, but that doesn't really get to affordability. You know. Maybe it's part of the I 8 discussion where you get to do for the people, town homes, and one deep restricted home I don't know. It's kind of an idea I'd like to put on the table discussed. Also. Get your feedback on like, how did that happen at 27 and fine yeah, I don't know the particulars that I'm trying to think of that area. There's there's a variety of different zones like there's Rna one. But there's also Rh, one zoneing in that area. I'm I'm guessing that it was probably an orange one site, because you can get a little bit higher density, but have a scale that's more like single family in that zone. But yeah, I don't know, the the details of that particular. There's no mixed use building with Condos and Co. Burns also. , there's also a Ec zone in that area which allows us a little bit more residential than a single family so this is all existing.

[152:18] Zoning is not something innovative that are Yeah, it's like, pine, right? Right? Okay? Alright. Yeah. I know exactly what you're talking about. That's actually, that's a by right project. And it's in the past. Seizo. That's why, yeah, the is there, you know. Guest calls a question like, Do we have other right? Business commercials. All right. It's typically what you see like on 20 Eighth Street, up and down we have more of those that's rezoning that that helps to hear that as a as an example, yes, maybe the new houses are a 1 million for 2 months.

[153:13] But that's not better than 1 6 million dollar house I mean. So so it's it's it's not by normal, affordable reality, but in the world of boulder. Maybe we have 3 or 4 more affordable houses than one crazy. Not a fortune. Okay, it's still good. But but I think I'm gonna rebuild that route. We need to have something to cap that, so that there's some residual portability. Right? So if you have to go from 1 4 million to. So they were playing a little bit of monopoly, right? And so I mean, I think right, but I mean I totally agree with the things that you wrote up, because I think those are some of the fundamental things which maybe don't necessitate as much comp plan revisiting stuff.

[154:07] But it does beg the question of maybe this should be a kind of plan after, to begin with, anyhow, because my experience, even the the most well, my jurisdictions, comp plans end up being more restrictive than maybe we intended them to be, or or you know it might have that Legacy, effect after after it's implemented and stuff like that. But complaints should be all that flexibility. There are never supposed to be regulatory. This full set of vision, and if you're setting a vision, you know you can have it be like, this would be great, too, and this would be great, and everything. I always said my favorite thing as a lawyer I can always any project I can always through following time on on the same complaint, right? Because I mean, there's so many different policies in there. But I I think really the fluoride ratio thing. That's a huge one, right? Because, like we talked about the bigger units get the more they're going to trend towards, you know. Feel a little more jury, and anyhow, right? So things like that that create that flexibility.

[155:06] Yeah, to to me. After all these years. It's almost like it's gone full circle, right? Because the whole notion is, I don't think a I don't think we. We have to have densely necessarily be dirty word anymore. Right, density comes in all different kinds of stations. That's one of the biggest things here is that, you know there's things that you can do with that that you can't do with other rules as far as etc. So in terms of like council, saying, Well, maybe we don't want to get rid of that city bonuses. I really think about anything that we have keeping for. Yeah, tweaking a little bit, but keeping that. Yeah, the other one that jumps at me would have seen Tonager sections do just in the past few years. Is that lot of affordable housing programs have set amis. And we talked about 75. We talked about, you know, 60% or something, etc.

[156:02] The the reality is, and and communities like Boulder in mount towns, mountain towns We're doing this, we need a 100 point. Am I average, and the whole notion is we're talking about the Miss middle, 120, am I even 140? Am I? It's still considerably part of that, Miss Middle, right? And and and and those crazy sounds. It's also very true. And so I think establishing some of that flexibility with the mindset towards how is this gonna increase the stock of of housing? That's affordable, modestly affordable, somewhat affordable, etc. You know, all the way up to Whittier like you know, we have a bunch of little mini as popping up that are all expensive, but you know, along those lines saying, What can we utilize things like density? Flexibility, and far all the you know, middle Lot size. It's a huge one, I mean, that's that's a great example. Where you know there's there's no good driving rationale for that, especially when looking at the Jason properties.

[157:07] Those are the things that to me would probably be the low line through. I think that you know a lot of policies recommendations. I'm sure you guys are aware of this, you know, so that that those town mall on the castle in Louisville, the Colds Mall. Well, I I know for fact. The multiple developers came in and said, Hey, we're really interested to do some mixed use thing there and loose feels like, why would we do that? There's no, there's still sales desk, though, right and so it's like they're finally coming to the to, the to, the to the playground, and and like 2020 or whatever right? But I think that's really the statewide initiative. I don't see that as an issue in the city, you know, people are always trying to integrate. But along those lines I think it maybe looking back at some of our innovations and saying, How can we make those more flexible to keep going down the road? We're going, you know, the other one to me. I'll probably get beat up that book to my card for this, but you know, in terms of inclusionary on so if someone's doing a full paradigm and I don't know that, it applies now right so if I buy a

[158:14] House Cell Phoenix. I said, see it all the time. Right. Some buys the, you know, 822 square foot house with the, you know, refrigerator from 1,981, and then they're not there, you know. It's a lot of times it's outside money. They're not there to move into it. It gets full bills before they ever move in there. And you know I I know that some some account we implemented a impact fee. That's not, you know, vector, r it's it's exponential. So the bigger your house gets, or where you doing, or the what per cent are you doing a tear down on right? Are you doing? You know, 40% tear down you're just building a bedroom. We don't wanna touch that right. But if you're doing a full turn down, you know, how can we extend? You know inclusion or zone to that as well. We haven't, and I don't know.

[159:01] I apologize. There is so, Danny, we're going to talk about that next week. Right, we're gonna spend 2 plus hours on that. So just to be clear so that's that's inclusionary zoning. I was talking about regular zoning. If we could tweak some of the zones and just make it a little less restrictive, you know. Reduced. Somebody opens, and I know not open space like Kelly, but open space for chromosome. A lot recurs minimum lot, size. Another thing you're talking about the 1,600 square feet I run up against that in a few spots. You know, those are easy things to do that I think you will see benefit from by changing those and not even changing it hugely. Just a little bit, you know. I mean most of our zoning districts don't have a density limit. It's really just a factor of meeting your parking and your landscaping in your open space. And your far, the ones of the density limits. You know, can deter development in certain areas where development is anticipated.

[160:01] So that's where we're looking at that. Don't have those caps in the Bbcp. And then we could actually make them like other zones. Let me take rl, 2, right minimum open space requirement, 6,000 square feet right? Now to this is a zoom that's supposed to incentivize duplexis. Town homes, role homes. But you have to have 6,000 square feet of land or every unit. What does that incentivize you to do? Build big units right? Right, and have less of them, which, typically bigger, is more to be you don't get at. Yeah. But that's the area where we butt up against that wall. And we have to. That's a much bigger process like change. The account plans for your deal, even though the complaint updates coming up fairly soon. But like, what could you do? Incrementally, especially in these areas that are more transitional, that maybe you're ready for some redevelopment like far we talked about.

[161:08] No, I was a lot more homes than had not affordable homes, but the tire place is gone. Someplace else, and the and the single family lot is now 5. Homes, and you know where we see more of that, and then maybe try to build in some affordability component without going through that. Updating compliant like stuff you could do. Quick wins, too. Yeah? And obviously, we, we need to write the zoning in a way that does incentivize either modest size units or deed restricted, affordable. So we have to work with housing to make sure that putting, you know, as proposals are gonna actually get us something. So it's it's just difficult in Boulder because of the land values. And reaching that point of that? Does this even create and set up so it's something that we gotta work together.

[162:02] We talk about rising regulations around single family lots, that people immediately go to. Oh, I live at 6 and evergreen somebody's gonna do that. There. I mean, this is like a different thing. You have these transitional zones that could maybe stand some redevelopment and increase density. And it would be actually, you know, welcome Yeah, so we're we're in like, I said, the ideas gathering stage right now. I'm trying to make a list of options, and then for those to council to say, you know, go like, do option A, B and G. You know, or something like that. But if you if something pops in your head that you didn't say tonight, just sent me an email, I'm happy to start looking at Jeff, your your finger much more closely on the pulse of all this as as as you're putting it together. I love. We could hear some of the things that you know that you're coming through, so we can kind of 2 on that right.

[163:04] So instead of you know, starting with this big, broad, base thing, say, you know, here's some of the things that we're looking at, because I you know. The the more we can kind of show that I think better, because I think a lot of the stuff that's great, you know. And but you know, there's definitely these room limitations. What you could do here and now, what's long term? And and stuff like that. So I I couldn't tell up the we're trying to wrap this up or number couple of things. I get a little agitated when I hear about incremental sounding changes, because we we have. We have a, you know, kept zoning so static for so many decades that we're in this problem because we haven't been responsive over over the years to to address a lot of these issues that have accrued. And I I guess, for my part, I want you to.

[164:02] I want to encourage you to go big and and go, you know. Do do something bigger than tweaks at the margins. I I like that. Ideas, and I'm not trying to undermine that. And I also understand that you have political realities. You're trying to work with. And there's also scope scoping issues around, you know, doing carefully crafted regulations, ordinances. But but in in the thing I hate about Boulder and all cities in North America is that this is No, it's actually i'm actually the opposite. I love the people in Boulder. I I hate the cars and bowler, and I hate all the spaces that we give over to cars. This is a this is a city that is handed over to cars. Most people drive everywhere for almost everything, and and honestly, I'd like to have more people in Boulder and fewer cars. Maybe 3, and both directions, and so so one of the things that's beautiful about eliminating cars is, it'll eliminates a lot of expense.

[165:17] Car ownership is expensive, infrastructure for cars is expensive. The the building that you that the stuff that you put in the parking spaces when you build a new unit is very expensive, and to save the planet, and to have more inclusive communities we need to get out of our cars. And I would just love for Bowler to be a haven, a place where people look to to say I'm willing to move to Boulder, and I'm willing to delete my car and in Looseville, or or from Field, or wherever they you know there's a wonderful Greek. Island. I forget the name but literally no cars.

[166:01] Yeah, no cars about right? Well, I really love and appreciate everything both even if he doesn't like you. I think that there's stuff, and that's these are wonderful as personal. Often we oh, short term bills. But there, I think I think we could do soon. It will make a difference. And that was what my comment was about. Not to ignore the big picture at all. I'd love it. It's people only have a driving boulder as much as they did now. That would be fantastic. I I had one other kind of comment about initially. You brought up infrastructure and density, and I I understand that you know the infrastructure that's in place can only satisfy a certain level of density. That makes total sense to me. But there's a flip side to that where density is actually a much more effective, you know, higher densities are much more efficient with respect to maintaining infrastructure, like the worst thing you can do is build suburban sprawl out

[167:10] and Gary and Brighton, that that you hope to maintain with the tax base. You know it's like it's it's not maintainable. And so I just, I just want to like, whenever you're talking about infrastructure and density there's 2 ways to frame that. And what one of the flip side is as do you have more density, that infrastructure is more efficient, easier to maintain. Your tax base is more robust, and you know, like amount of tax per mile of sewage system. For instance, that hook calculation changes as you I know I'm not trying. I shouldn't be lecturing you that you're the expert, but I just I just the way you framed it made it sound like it was sort of a negative thing. And it's there's actually a a flip. Oh, no, I I think what I was trying to say was number One. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know how all the details about the infrastructure, but you know we can't just up zone and area without the engineers looking at the actual infrastructure because of the infrastructure.

[168:08] Can't serve additional units that can't happen. So my point was more that we could do it but it's a little more longer term effort, like there's a lot of effort that's gonna have to go into assessing all these different areas of the city about how the infrastructure was built and whether it needs to be upgraded so It's not like a quick win. I think it was my point. My last point is, I have a good intentions. My New Year's resolution was to quit streaming, dumb, stupid stuff on the Internet housing policy, books in particular. And I'm I'm sticking to it. I'm reading every night I I don't know. I don't feel like I'm an expert in zoning. I wanna. I wanna read about zoning. And so I'm committed to reading about it, for whatever whatever suggestions people might have about policy books, I'm I'm alliers the entry point for me is I heard a podcast. A, podcast, called land matters. They had 2 guests at Nolan Ryan, who wrote a book called Arbitrary Lines, it's zoning, zoning how to how to reduce zoning in America so I that's a that's an order. Of my plan.

[169:18] To read that the other guest was Sarah Bronan, who has 2 projects going. There's a it's a national zoning Atlas which lets you go into different areas and see what the zoning is in different cities, which I just think is interesting. And then she's got this academic paper called Comprehensive, reselling so again comprehensive rezoning, so she's done a bunch of work and Connecticut, so they're they're trying to be on the on the cutting edge of Rethinking, zoning. So anyways, that podcast up is really good and anyways, those are my 2 rating recommendations I'm, I've been sent these to me. Listen to the podcast was good.

[170:01] I was interested to learn that they're actually 10 States. Looking at dealing with Tony in the statewide level, I refuse to read the academic paper over Ourselves, because we're none of us are experts on everything or any things in my case. But so, yeah, let's keep sharing knowledge. So I do want to turn back to the agenda. And I thought we would usually spend more time on it. Talking to the site and be trying for purple housing, because I thought time was a little bit more of the essence. But I think we have more time to do that, and we can continue this conversation so as much as I know that John never goes to bed before 20'clock playing board meeting night that we could probably wrap this up a little bit faster. So I'm gonna propose, we make this a major agenda item. Next month, keep going don't want the conversation. Care ideas with Carl and others, and move on to Item C, which is listening, session topics. Okay, with that full. We do that as a major item for next next month.

[171:07] But also give us the you know, the bumpers on the Bowling lane right just the parameters, because I don't wanna have. Why I give you whatever kind of good Phil feedback we can from this initial step, which clearly is, is going to be a little bit, you know. Narrow it until yeah. So that we're just talking about that stuff and not some of these things. And we were talking about that available for the next meeting. I think it's on February twenty-second cause that was actually a meeting nightfront that we're gonna be doing a lot of outreach for these projects. So I may not be available, but I mean you certainly can give me the variable. It's a pretty broad topic. Maybe you've got some discussion for like, how about these 3 things?

[172:14] What can we do with single time? Lives under the navy use? Which one got it that's in the back. Yes, good, right. We'll be talking about this one ready for some more suggestions. I think maybe we could do a live listening session later in the year, maybe more than one this year. But it's got ideas on. What are some good topics that we would all benefit from I don't know when, when you know, I think I've been saying it's great 3 years now, whenever whenever we have what public here again, I mean I think that's our big goal to

[173:03] kind of shoot for that. That. Remember? Yeah, we're all here, person. That's just the most effective way. To listen sessions. From by experience, but I think, the topics that we have that we've we've chewed on main, you know. Really really, Sally, and we can just kind of pick those once we have that once we have that date, I mean, we've talked about things like rental right in the rental market and stuff like that. Things like or maybe, you know, we've had a whole bunch of different options that we've discussed over the last several months. I think none of them are less important now than we were. Yeah, I can support the right form to do it. Just oh, thank you. Thanks everybody. Thank you so much for your time. Carl. Zoom's just not. Yeah, what's the practicality of that like? When can we do that?

[174:19] 7? Is it just a preference? Include? No, no, it's some of the planning staff haven't figured out how to do hybrid meetings, so live one. I've been to it 2 years, but the guidance is Still, meetings are hybrid, the public is virtual, or it can meet in person, and I haven't gotten any indication of when that's going to change

[175:00] Summer, or the warmer the water that I think would be really interesting is about the airport. Like. I haven't really given much thought to the airport. And suddenly everyone's talking about it, and it was the subject of the guess at internals last week, and you know well, I mean Denver didn't redevelop the airport. And create a lot of housing. You know, it sounds like there may be some support for decommissioning the airport eventually, and creating a housing site. There there's probably a lot of pros and cons. I think there's some costs related to that, and I'm not aware but you know that would be odd session. Good! Obviously good. And say this is going to be a major. I mean, it's almost like another planning area, too.

[176:04] Okay, I think that's an excellent idea. I was much involved in the East Boulder plan, and that was formally supposed to be included in within the boundaries of the East. Border sub community plan and and and it was a subject of a lot of contention, and, in fact, it doesn't deal with it at all. So that's very high profile land. We might approach that, too, as far as the listen session may be. What what areas? Yeah, within. So and Boulder or Jason, you know, are are, maybe you know, most appropriate for affordable housing. Right. So just kinda expand a little so that you can talk about the airport. The diagonal. Whatever else to be there, and just say, you know what's there, and and at least just get some sort of as listening session.

[177:01] Maybe there's some thoughts out of the public that you know the awareness. Maybe that's when one way to go about it. But the when treating me about it is a city property. Yeah. And even if you pay the Faa, they're 100 million or whatever like, we paid 40 million for 8 acres of that doesn't sound like such a bad deal. Maybe maybe it's not a 100 million, maybe it's less. But I mean, so the thing I I remember the pros and cons. Yeah, when when I started here, we were having those conversations regarding the counting property Huge campus, right ball fields that I could tell you, since, like football, we didn't even want to practice there, because it's like, you know.

[178:09] So 2 comments. One is, I want to push back on Danny's simmer proposal as a new board member who hasn't been to a listening session. I I just want one to happen. I think it would be cool to to do it, whether it's on Zoom or maybe it would be totally lame on Zoom. But nobody drives. I, you know, as a as a topic. This I got turned on with this through Mark Wallace. Most recent city council campaign. He he loves to. That's one of his talking points, and I I love the idea of of being able to put a much larger, comprehensive neighborhood together.

[179:08] That! Would that would, you know, meet a lot of our goals around climate and inclusion, and yeah, so anyways, I think it'd be a fun topic. I don't have. I like the idea of the single family zoning as a as a topic. I think whatever we do ought to kind of fit under that that missing middle, which is the thing you know. We're trying to to drive home this year. So we go others to. Since we're not doing anytime soon, we don't need to. The labor, this one but those 2 sound good for the summer. Okay. Next, let me know, because of would require coordination. Transportation is actually leading the community engagement. I would say, we're serious.

[180:03] Do we need to like? Sure, I move that we have a listening session sometime this year on the airport So I could ask reach out to them. No, no, just department. Yeah, like a joint thing with them. If they're doing a name could do it. I don't know what community engagement they're planning is specifically so that just let me find out because it's not. It's not planning development services, not in housing. So right. And then the other thing I'm throughout there is. I occupancies, and other is kind of council priority. But I'm not sure exactly what's gonna come out of this discussion, it's it's really to inform airport master plan.

[181:05] So before they spend a bunch of more money on airport master plan and encumber the property even more with additional Federal funds. I try to have the more information we right my loose understanding is, we have some kind of agreement with faa operated airport through 22. I don't. Yeah, I don't know the specific. I do know. That comes with lots of strings. Yeah, let's talk about that. Let's get that on the Occupancy at the airport. More people in the place.

[182:02] Yeah, let's Okay, so that'll be in the February agenda, and I think we're up to item. Okay. I'm sorry. I think we're up to an item where we're gonna talk about next next week. Rather Yeah, I think it's me 6, a right management I'll just jump in.

[183:04] Okay. So you know, we talked about it. So thirty-first Tuesday joint meeting with planning board, I think you can find it really interesting. So are you gonna get into the really nitty gritty of inclusionary housing and how it works lots and lots of detail. But I think it'll be super helpful. So the idea is, this is just for you to understand the program and ask questions. It's not about. What are we gonna change at this point? It's just getting that base as level of information. I think it'll be great in opportunity for you guys to interact with planning board, but also with our affordable housing. Technical review group so, and I'll explain who they are. That's going to be virtual. Everybody is virtual, but please do it, and the memo, I think, is quite good please do read that in advance. And if you have questions, send them to me

[184:06] For the information. It's informational. You get to ask lots of questions and but it's really for your benefit, cool we we are really looking forward to in planning board. We've asked for, for I want to also informational for us, anyway. And this could be super helpful when we do. Coming back and talk about inclusionary. Housing and restructuring how we charge cash and loo, so that we're not incentivizing modestly size. Have us to get scraped and not have to pay any. I age when you build a 4,000 square foot, Kashmir is going down We're working at right size units. I did it. A virtual meeting a week from yesterday.

[185:05] At what time? 6. Everybody able to make that. No? Well, we have 2 years in life that is over. Let's grant you to go there cool. Is there anything else you guys need from Staff? Any other questions? No, and then any agenda items for next month, other than continuing yet again to talk about listening, such missing sessions and So you're talking about single family zoning, not Carl's project. Cool. I would try to keep them separate, otherwise you're gonna get.

[186:06] I like us to start working towards given as much feedback on the things that he's actually working on, because he made it very clear there's like, you know, these are. This is the limited subset for right now, and I totally understand that. So I'm like we can have a conversation about that, so that we can keep it going so that the 20 s, if if you were to come on the 20 s for the beating on the twenty-third, we can give them really directed. And and, you know, useful feedback, whatever that may be, so they can get that out here and take an app before. Yes, we go on the 20 third, right? So so I think it it definitely varies so on agenda item, and that we can talk more broadly about what we're doing. Maybe that's a listen session in future, whatever it may be.

[187:00] We can single family zoning and rezoning large commercial but I'd like more background on Item B. There before we talk about it, and make I mean, it'd be like we got a very sketchy overview of it right yeah. And he's still formulating it, too, so I think it'll be much more. But he can't once he has something formed on paper and can share it with you, you'll have a much more meaningful conversation. Yeah, but then that I'll be to large or worry 20 s we don't need to put on the agenda. Or just whatever he could get. That's what I was saying, even if it's piecemeal that's good. That's good. Yeah. We provide something, some sort of some sort of rails right? That we can stay on just discuss it a little bit, because I think, what was it really really helpful today? Was this whole eightyu conversation, because we've had it many, many, many, many, many times previous, too. Right. And so with the Rover hit the road today, we can really kind of focus on those things. And so I think anything that can kind of help us narrow down that focus like in towards the 20. Second, you know.

[188:06] Very cool. Okay, well, there'd be public comments at Tuesday's meeting No, it's a study session, just like Council study sessions, no public comments that they're welcome to attend and listen with the planning board meeting on Tuesday. It's technically a planning board meeting Inclusionary Zone. No, it's in front of you how it works. Yeah, but it's but it's on zoom. So I don't have to share any other suggestions per agenda items for February or questions for staff

[189:04] Okay, quick debrief at the meeting that we had a good meeting. You did 3 public commenters, excellent discussion, presentation and discussion about videos. But I think generally affirmed our recommendations, launched a discussion on zoning for portable housing with Carl here to give us information that will be contained throughout some initial ideas for listening sessions that could prove productive down the road, and we learned about what we're doing next Tuesday. On January the reverse and it's play session with on any board. And our next. So we have that meeting at 6 P. M. In January 30, first by Zoom, and our next second person. Board meeting is Wednesday, February 20. Second, correct will be a hybrid meeting. Is this one? And I think we we have really good large address items it's certainly welcome to suggest more before that raised me a second great to be with you all again.

[190:13] Hope you had a good holiday. Happy New Year, and I'm under. But good at that motion for a German again, all in favor. Oh, got it first time at one