03.22.23 HAB Packet
CITY OF BOULDER
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA
DATE: March 22, 2023
TIME: 6 PM
LOCATION: Hybrid Meeting – HAB Members will meet at the
Brenton Building at 1136 Alpine Avenue – Public will
access the meeting via a link posted the day of meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL / 6:00 p.m.
2. WELCOME NEW HAB MEMBERS
3. AGENDA REVIEW
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. February 22, 2023 – See attached
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION / 6:05 p.m.
a. Open comment
6. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD / 6:10 p.m.
a. ADU Code Update (Recommendation) – See attached
o Staff presentation – Lisa Houde, P&DS
o Public comment
o Board questions, discussion and recommendation
b. Zoning for Affordable Housing, continued (Feedback) – See attached
o Karl Guiler, P&DS
7. MATTERS FROM STAFF / 8:40 p.m.
8. DEBRIEF MEETING AND CALENDAR CHECK / 8:50 p.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT / 9:00 p.m.
Informational Item: Updates and education; no action to be taken
Feedback: Discussion of board processes and items of interest; may result in action
Input: Discussion and comments to shape staff work on housing issues, projects, and policies; no action taken
Decision: Vote on board processes, work plan, agenda items, etc.
Recommendation: Vote on the board’s input to city council
For more information, please contact the HAB Secretary at 303.441.3097, or via email at
bollert@bouldercolorado.gov. Board agendas are available online at: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-
commissions/housing-advisory-board. Please note agenda item times are approximate.
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD
Summary Minutes: 02/22/2023
Virtual (Zoom)
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Leccese, Chair
Daniel Teodoru, Vice Chair
Philip Ogren
Julianne Ramsey
Terry Palmos
John Gerstle, Planning Board Liaison
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Jay Sugnet
Tiffany Boller
Hollie Hendrikson
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL / 6:01 p.m.
2. AGENDA REVIEW 6:06pm
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. January 25, 2023 – Palmos moves to approve, Ogren seconds. Approved 4-0
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION / 6:10 p.m.
a. Open comment
i. Lynn Segal
ii. Hannah George
5. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD / 6:18 p.m.
a. Middle Income Down Payment Pilot
i. Hollie Hendrickson, HHS presented the current iteration of the Pilot
1. Ogren – curious about Land Trusts or building coalitions using the DPA program
2. Teodoru – clarifying how this affects multi-family units
3. Teodoru – hypothetically what happens if property values decrease in Boulder
and the pay back of DPA causes a net loss
4. Ogren – supports the Pilot because it is innovative but has reservations
5. Gerstle – concerned with the impact of infusing $10M into the housing
market and questions having a different appreciation rate from moderate
income homes
6. Palmos – suggests checking the math on the cost to the city
b. Polis’ Housing Agenda
i. Teodoru – Supports the approach council is taking
c. Zoning for Affordable Housing discussion continued
i. Leccese – would like to come up with a strong recommendation for Council in the
coming months
ii. Leccese – would like to discuss with contractors/builders to better understand policy
iii. Palmos – if you are able to subdivide a lot you can get three $1.5mil homes instead of
one $3M home. Doesn’t create affordable homes but slightly more affordable
iv. Leccese – “Neighborhood Character” could be an interesting topic to discuss
v. Leccese – would like to continue conversation for March meeting, please come with
zoning ideas
6. MATTERS FROM STAFF / 8:08 p.m. a. HAB applicant interview schedule
a. Liaison to Airport community conversation working group
i. Ogren – volunteers to be Liaison – all in support
b. HAB Interviews have been completed. All interviews have been posted online for rev iew.
i. March 16 City Council will appoint the two new members
c. Sugnet – will bring an update on current city developments and building projects in March
d. March 22 – Karl Guiler will return to discuss Zoning for Affordable Housing and Lisa Houde
will return with a proposal to update the ADU regulations.
e. Board will start to consider retreat time frame and topics in April.
7. DEBRIEF MEETING AND CALENDAR CHECK / 8:15 p.m.
a. March 22nd is next HAB meeting – 6pm
8. ADJOURNMENT / 8:18 p.m.
a. Teodoru motions to adjourn – Ogren seconds – 5-0 approve
APPROVED BY
_________________________________
Board Chair
_________________________________
DATE
1
CITY OF BOULDER
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: March 22, 2023
AGENDA TITLE
Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Ordinance
8571, amending Section 4-20-18, “Rental License Fee,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and
Title 10 “Structures,” B.R.C. 1981, to update the regulations for accessory dwelling
units.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS
Planning & Development Services
Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services
Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager
Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor
Lisa Houde, Senior City Planner
OBJECTIVE
Define the steps for Housing Advisory Board consideration of this request:
1. Hear staff presentation.
2. Hold public hearing.
3. Housing Advisory Board discussion.
4. Housing Advisory Board recommendation to City Council.
KEY ISSUES
Staff has identified the following key issues to help guide the board’s discussion:
2
1. Does the Housing Advisory Board find that the proposed ordinance
implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan?
2. Does the Housing Advisory Board recommend any modifications to the
draft ordinance?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff provided an introduction to the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulation update as
a matters item at the Housing Advisory Board on January 25. Staff also received
feedback from the City Council at the January 26 study session, the Planning Board on
January 17, and the Board of Zoning Adjustment on February 14.
City Council identified updating the ADU regulations to increase their allowance in the
community as one of their top work program priorities for 2022-2023. The scope of this
project is limited to regulations related to the ADU saturation limit, size limits, as well as
code simplification and clarification. In addition, the code changes will facilitate process
improvements to further simplify the administration of ADU applications.
A summary of the proposed changes can be found in Attachment A, and draft Ordinance
8571 is provided in Attachment B. In addition to the descriptions and analysis provided
in this memo, the attached annotated ordinance in Attachment C includes detailed
footnotes describing each proposed change.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests Housing Advisory Board consideration of this matter and action in the
form of the following motion:
Suggested Motion Language:
The Housing Advisory Board recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance 8571,
amending Section 4-20-18, “Rental License Fee,” Title 9, “Land Use Code,” and Title
10 “Structures,” B.R.C. 1981, to update the regulations for accessory dwelling units.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
City Council recommended a “consult” level of engagement for this project, which
focused on targeted engagement using existing advisory board processes and results of
the significant engagement done at the time of the last ADU regulation update in 2018. A
detailed summary of previous feedback received in 2016-2018 can be found in
Attachment J and specific feedback is briefly summarized within each main topic in the
Analysis section of this memo.
General Public
In addition to the input received through the advisory board processes and reviewing
results of the previous engagement efforts, additional public input has been received over
the last several months.
3
Staff developed a new page for the ADU regulation update on Be Heard Boulder, the
city’s online engagement site. This page included an open comment “ideas” board where
visitors have been asked to share their thoughts on ADUs, including experiences with
existing ADUs and input on potential code changes. As of March 15, 30 ideas had been
posted on the board. A range of opinions expressing concern about proposed changes to
support of the changes have been shared. All comments that have been posted are
available at this link.
Open public comment was held during the public participation portions of the January 17
Planning Board meeting and January 25 Housing Advisory Board meeting. Written
public comments were also sent to the boards and City Council and are included in
Attachment K of this memo.
• Nine speakers shared their thoughts about ADUs with the Planning Board. Some
of the topics expressed by commenters included support for allowing height
flexibility for existing structures, general support for ADUs, and requests to go
further with ordinance changes including eliminating the parking requirement and
minimum lot size and reviewing planned unit developments. Other commenters
expressed concerns about increased density, impacts in areas with high occupancy
such as the University Hill neighborhood, concerns about ADUs impacting the
integrity of existing neighborhoods, and concerns that ADUs will be expensive
housing.
• One speaker shared thoughts about ADUs with the Housing Advisory Board
regarding concerns about eliminating the saturation limit in the University Hill
neighborhood.
On February 22, staff from Planning & Development Services and Housing & Human
Services hosted a “Planning for Affordable Housing” virtual community meeting on
several upcoming City Council work program priority projects, including the ADU
regulation update. About 25 community members, including representatives of several
neighborhood organizations, the University of Colorado, and other advocacy groups
participated. After staff provided introductions to each of the projects and explained
project timelines and opportunities for public input, the group divided into several small
groups to discuss the issues and opportunities related to these projects. Participants
expressed both support for the ADU changes, a desire to go further with changes, and
concerns about ADUs not being rented out, not being truly affordable, or not being an
adequate solution to the housing issues in Boulder.
City Council
City Council discussed the ADU regulation update at their January 26 study session. Key
takeaways from the study session discussion were:
• Saturation Limits: City Council supported elimination of the saturation limit.
• Size Limits: City Council supported increasing size limits and updating the
method of floor area measurement.
• Code Clarification and Process Improvements: City Council agreed with
staff’s recommended changes to clarify the code. Council was open to ADUs
4
being owned by LLCs as long as there is a clear process to prove owner
occupancy.
The full summary of council questions and comments is available at this link.
Planning Board
Staff introduced the project at the January 17 Planning Board meeting. The Planning
Board was generally supportive of the proposed changes, but expressed concerns about
eliminating the saturation limit, particularly in neighborhoods that are near the university.
The board also raised questions about the results of the ADU owner survey which
showed that a smaller percentage of ADU owners were using their ADU for a long-term
rental, and whether ADUs are truly providing additional housing in the community. The
board was generally supportive of the changes to simplify and clarify the code, but were
concerned about potentially eliminating the public notice requirement and wanted to
ensure that the owner occupancy requirement would remain.
Concerns were also raised about ADU construction potentially increasing property
values. Planning Board requested additional information about the impact of ADUs on
property values. Results of that research are detailed below.
The Boulder County Assessor’s Office models accessory dwelling data for each
reappraisal cycle. Based upon their statistical analysis of market sales studied for the
2021 reappraisal and their initial analysis for the 2023 reappraisal, the data do not support
an adjustment to the value for City of Boulder residential properties with an accessory
dwelling unit. In the City of Boulder, there is not a statistically significant difference in
property values for properties with accessory dwelling units.
Some sources, like Realtor Magazine and Porch Research, indicate that homes with
ADUs in Boulder sold for 19% higher prices than homes without an ADU, based upon a
sample of 12 listings of properties with ADUs. No response was received from the
researchers upon request for additional information on the research methodology.
Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, recently released a
consumer research brief on ADUs that noted that ADUs were “valued at less than one-
third the price of traditional primary residences.” Additional information is also available
in a 2020 Freddie Mac Economic & Housing Research Insight.
Housing Advisory Board
Staff met with the Housing Advisory Board (HAB) to discuss the changes at their
January 25 meeting. HAB was supportive of the proposals to clarify the ordinance and
streamline processes to eliminate barriers to ADUs. HAB was supportive of eliminating
saturation limit, and discussed concerns near university but potentially as issues of
nuisance enforcement, noting that ADUs may have limited overall density impact in
already dense neighborhoods. HAB was also supportive of increasing allowable ADU
size as a way to provide housing options for more types of households, but wanted to
ensure that ADUs are not too large to counteract the inherent affordability of smaller
units. Finally, the board supported clarifying the requirements for owner occupancy and
allowing LLCs that can prove owner occupancy to have ADUs.
5
Board of Zoning Adjustment
Staff met with the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) on February 14, to provide an
overview of the current ADU approval process and discuss the potential code changes.
The Board of Zoning Adjustment was supportive of removing the saturation limit,
increasing the size limits, and all of the code clarification and process improvements.
The discussion focused primarily on the changes to size limits as BOZA reviews floor
area variances for ADUs. Board members agreed that having a different way of
measuring floor area for ADUs was overly confusing. BOZA discussed whether there are
potential unintended consequences of increasing the size limits and some members noted
that flexibility for existing structures makes more sense in granting variances than
building new. BOZA members supported consolidating the process, as long as the ADU
is more clearly allowed when applicants are making significant investments to submit a
building permit application. Overall BOZA noted no major concerns and considered the
changes to have minimal impact to BOZA.
Community Connectors-in-Residence
Staff met with the Community Connectors-In-Residence on January 13 to discuss the
potential changes and better understand the potential impacts on underrepresented
communities. The Community Connectors-In-Residence support the voices and build
power of underrepresented communities by reducing barriers to community engagement,
advancing racial equity, and surfacing the ideas, concerns, and dreams of community
members.
Focus of the discussion was centered around the potential benefits and burdens of ADU
code changes. Generally, the community connectors were supportive of the proposed
changes to the saturation limit and size limits of ADUs. The importance of ensuring
ADUs are truly being used for housing for Boulder residents who need it was
emphasized. The group also suggested looking into several programmatic changes, such
as a program that could assist first-time homebuyers, people of color, or economically
disadvantaged residents in their home purchase or ADU construction. A more detailed
summary of their comments is provided in Attachment K.
ADU Owner Survey
In 2022, HHS and P&DS staff conducted a survey about ADUs within the city. The
purpose of the survey was to help understand how these units contribute to housing
opportunities within the city and also to determine how the program might be improved.
A similar survey was conducted both in 2012 and 2017, so changes in the uses of ADUs,
attitudes about them, and major barriers can be assessed over time.
All 439 households in the City’s records shown to maintain an ADU in 2022 received the
survey. Of the 439 households, 212 households responded to the survey, for a 48%
response rate. A summary of the survey results can be found in the ADU evaluation in
Attachment E.
6
BACKGROUND
Accessory dwelling units have been discussed as one tool to address Boulder’s housing
challenges over the past decade or more to help provide a diversity of housing types and
price ranges, which is a core value of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Boulder
has had ADU regulations in place since 1983. A map of all approved ADUs in the city is
available in Attachment D.
In 2022, Planning & Development Services (P&DS) and Housing & Human Services
(HHS) staff completed a detailed evaluation of the most recent updates, which went into
effect in 2019. This evaluation is intended to inform future changes to the ADU
regulations and is available in Attachment E.
During the 2022 annual retreat, City Council had identified accessory dwelling unit
regulation updates as a key priority for the 2022-2023 council term. The objective of this
council priority was originally to consider an ordinance to remove saturation limits for
accessory dwelling units within a certain radius and to allow for attached or detached
ADUs wherever existing requirements are met. However, at a study session on November
10, the City Council supported staff’s recommendation to focus the scope of the project
to:
• Eliminating saturation limit
• Considering changes to size limits
• Code clarification improvements
• Process improvements
City Council also supported an engagement level of “consult,” focusing on utilizing
public input opportunities at existing board and council meetings and incorporating the
results of relevant past engagement on ADUs. The council also requested that a list of
potential future changes to ADU regulations that would further eliminate barriers be
retained for future councils to consider at a later time. A summary of the City Council
comments can be found here. Staff has developed a draft project charter for this scope of
work which is available in Attachment I.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE 8571
The following sections provide background and summarize major topics related to the
draft ordinance. A summary handout is also available in Attachment A.
• Eliminating saturation limit
• Considering changes to size limits
• Clarifying and simplifying the code
• Extend approval expiration period
• Flexibility for height of existing structures
• Lockable separation of attached ADUs
• Limited accessory units
• Owner occupancy – LLCs and temporary rental exemptions
• Public notice requirement
7
• Improving the process
• One-step review
• Addressing
• Declarations of use
• Self-service handouts/videos
Saturation Limit
Background
The current regulations limit the percentage of ADUs within a 300-foot radius in the RL-
1 and RL-2 zoning districts (a “saturation limit”) and staff maintains a waiting list for
properties that are in areas that have reached their saturation limit. There are currently 12
properties on the waiting list, as well as other properties that have never pursued an ADU
application due to the saturation limit but did not choose to join the waitlist.
The saturation limit has been in place since the original ADU regulations were adopted in
Boulder in 1983. Boulder was on the forefront of the zoning relegalization of ADUs (in
most cities, accessory units were common historically before the introduction of single-
family zoning in the mid-20th century). In 1983, when Boulder’s initial ADU regulations
were put into place with the saturation limit, the reintroduction of ADUs was a new
planning and zoning concept and understandably, the potential impacts of ADUs on
existing neighborhoods were relatively unknown. After 40 years of regulating ADUs and
with over 450 approved ADUs in the city, the real impacts are significantly better
understood in Boulder and there are other methods of zoning control that can successfully
mitigate any impacts.
Comparable Cities
Only one other city in the country, a small town in Connecticut, has been found in staff
research to use a saturation limit for ADUs. The City of Seattle had a saturation limit in
place for a few years when ADU regulations were first adopted in the city, but Seattle
removed the limit quickly afterwards in the late 1990s. A matrix summarizing the ADU
regulations of more than 30 comparable cities around the country is available in
Attachment G, and Boulder is the only city of this group that limits the saturation of
ADUs. These cities are comparable along a range of different characteristics and metrics:
homes to large universities, similar population size and some with similar density, some
with similar housing prices, and other factors.
Within the last decade particularly, many cities throughout the country have been
undertaking zoning updates to more liberally allow ADUs, recognizing that ADUs
provide an important housing option with impacts that can be readily mitigated through
common zoning standards. Like Boulder, cities have been trying to understand which of
their regulations may be acting as barriers to ADU development. There have been a
number of resources developed, such as the AARP’s “ABCs of ADUs,” which is an
introductory best practices guide that promotes ADUs as a successful method of
expanding housing choice. Importantly, one of the main examples provided of “rules that
8
discourage ADUs” in this document include “restrictions that limit ADUs to certain
areas.”
Evaluation Results
In the evaluation completed last year, it was clear that the saturation limit continues to
present a significant procedural and perceived barrier to the development of ADUs in
Boulder. As noted in Attachment E, the frequency of ADU public inquiries related to
saturation limits suggests that it is something that is not well understood by the public,
and the measurement is available only to staff, necessitating significant staff time to
confirm saturation limits. Because saturation limits are the most common inquiry made to
city staff regarding ADUs, and because the incremental increase of the limit from 10% to
20% did allow for additional ADUs to be constructed, elimination of the saturation limit
is recommended to eliminate both perceived and actual barriers to ADUs. Eliminating the
saturation limit would have a significant impact on initial public understanding of
whether an ADU would be permitted on their property.
Analysis
The original intent in the early 1980s was to mitigate potential impacts of ADUs by
limiting the number allowed in any particular area. This was when ADUs were a
relatively new and little understood concept at the time. Forty years later, rather than
using a saturation limit, other cities in the state and around the country rely on their
existing zoning standards and other ADU requirements to mitigate potential impacts of
ADUs on neighborhoods. As noted previously, only one other example in the country
was found to utilize a similar saturation limit for ADUs.
In Boulder, there are now extensive form and bulk standards for principal and accessory
buildings, as well as detailed compatible design standards that ensure compatibility of the
design or location of ADUs, that did not exist in the 1980s. A summary graphic of the
many zoning standards that apply to the design and location of ADUs is available in
Attachment F.
Additionally, Boulder’s requirements for ADUs related to parking, occupancy limits, and
owner occupancy further mitigate any potential impacts. Market rate ADUs are required
to provide two parking spaces on their property, which ensures that the ADU does not
contribute to on-street parking demand. The occupancy limit, or number of unrelated
people that can live on a property, is not higher for properties with ADUs (aside from
some flexibility about dependents), so there are not more adults living on a property with
an ADU than would be allowed in a typical single-family home. ADUs also uniquely
require owner occupancy, which ensures that the owner is living on site and addressing
any issues that may arise, unlike all other residential properties in the city that do not
have owner occupancy restrictions.
The city currently has over 450 approved ADUs. While most of these ADUs (73 percent)
are located in the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts which have a saturation limit, 27
percent are located in districts without a saturation limit. The districts without saturation
limits do not appear to report more negative externalities from ADUs. In the 2022 survey
of ADU owners, only 3 percent of all ADU owners reported any occasional complaints
9
from neighbors about their ADU. This metric was essentially unchanged compared to a
2017 survey after increasing the saturation limit from 10% to 20% in 2019.
Past Public Input
In 2018, the incremental changes made to the ADU regulations included an increase in
the saturation limit from 10 to 20 percent. The public input received at the time of those
updates is generally relevant to these changes as well. In Attachment J, a summary of
the input received at that time reveals mixed opinions about the saturation limit. While
many residents who participated in the public engagement opportunities at the time
disagreed with changing the saturation limit, many residents who were supportive of the
increase indicated specifically that they would support eliminating it entirely.
Proposed Code Change: The draft ordinance removes the current saturation limit of
20 percent for properties within a 300 feet radius in the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning
district.
Size Limits
Background
The City Council’s objective for the ADU regulation update work program priority is to
increase the allowance of ADUs in the community. In the evaluation of the most recent
changes, it was concluded that increasing the allowed size of detached ADUs from 450
square feet to 550 square feet had a significant impact on the ADUs created since the
most recent code updates. No change was made to the allowable size of attached ADUs
in the previous update.
The AARP’s “ABCs of ADUs” notes that “caps on square footage relative to the primary
house that make it easy to add an ADU to a large home but hard or impossible to add one
to a small home” is another example of rules that discourage ADUs.
Comparable Cities
There is significant variability among cities that limit the size of ADUs (see summary
matrix in Attachment G). Generally, a typical maximum size is about 800 square feet.
Maximum sizes tend to be smaller in Colorado cities, however, although still range
between about 500 and 1,000 square feet.
Evaluation Results
Over three-quarters of the detached ADUs that were constructed since 2019 would not
have previously been permitted due to maximum floor area. Modifying the allowed
square footage by only 100 square feet made arguably the most significant change in the
number of ADUs allowed. These ADUs were still subject to all of the typical zoning
requirements that ensure compatible residential development, such as solar access,
interior side wall articulation, bulk plane, and building coverage requirements (see
Attachment F). Many of these standards vary based on the lot size, as well, which also
impact the allowable size of an ADU.
10
In addition, while completing the evaluation, the measurement of ADU floor area was
one of the most frequently cited issues and least clear parts of the current code language.
Removing the unique method of measuring floor area for ADUs from the code would
significantly reduce review time and increase clarity for both applicants and city staff.
Analysis
Further increasing the allowed floor area of ADUs could allow for more ADUs to be
constructed in Boulder as there may be greater demand for slightly larger ADUs and
potentially greater return on investment for property owners. As noted in some of the
public input received, an increased size could also allow for additional types of
households, such as small families, to find ADUs an appealing housing choice.
The original intent of the size limit for attached ADUs was to ensure that the accessory
dwelling unit is smaller in size and therefore subordinate to the main home. The current
requirement of 1/3 of the principal structure presents challenges for people with homes
smaller than 3,000 square feet. The size restrictions in some cases leads to impractical
and costly remodeling work such as walling off portions of a basement to meet the size
limit. A limit of 1/2 or 1,000 square feet would still ensure that the ADU remains smaller
than the principal structure, but would provide more flexibility for adaptive reuse of
smaller homes.
Correspondingly, the maximum size of affordable ADUs would also need to be increased
in order to preserve the existing incentive for owners to pursue affordable units (up to
1,000 for detached, and two-thirds or 1,200 for attached). In the 2022 survey of ADU
owners, about one-quarter of owners who pursued an affordable ADU stated that they did
so due to the incentive allowing a larger ADU.
Past Public Input
The initial staff recommendation during the 2018 ADU update was to increase the
permitted size of detached ADUs from 450 square feet to 800 square feet. Ultimately, the
size of detached ADUs was increased to 550 square feet. For attached ADUs, the original
proposal in 2018 was to increase the size limit from 1/3 of the principal structure or 1,000
square feet to 1/2 of the principal structure or 1,000 square feet. This change was not
ultimately adopted, and the limit remains 1/3 of the principal structure or 1,000 square
feet for attached ADUs. However, in a questionnaire of nearly 200 residents at the time
of the 2018 update, a majority of respondents (62%) supported the change, and about
one-quarter of those respondents indicated they would support increasing the limit even
further.
To help visualize the size differences, staff compiled photos of a variety of the ADUs that
have been approved and constructed since 2019 in Attachment H. These photos include
several ADUs that were approved around 800 square feet for detached ADUs and
between 1,000 and 1,200 for attached ADUs, by either utilizing the increased size limit
incentive for affordable ADUs or by receiving a variance approval from the Board of
Zoning Adjustment.
11
Proposed Code Change: The draft ordinance modifies the maximum size of ADUs as
shown in the following table:
ADU Type Current Size Limit Proposed Size Limit
Attached 1/3 of principal unit or 1,000
square feet, whichever is less
1/2 of principal unit or 1,000
square feet, whichever is less
Detached 550 square feet 800 square feet
Affordable
Attached
1/2 of principal unit or 1,000
square feet, whichever is less
2/3 of principal unit or 1,200
square feet
Affordable
Detached 800 square feet 1,000 square feet
Historic
Attached
1/2 of principal unit or 1,000
square feet, whichever is less
2/3 of principal unit or 1,200
square feet
Historic
Detached 1,000 square feet 1,000 square feet
Clarification and Simplification
The changes detailed below would improve clarity of the ADU regulations for common
issues, as well as general simplification and redrafting of language within the regulations.
Extend Approval Expiration Period
A commonly raised issue by both applicants and staff was the requirement to establish
the ADU within one year of approval. Based on construction delays and permit review
times, this is often challenging for applicants to meet. A longer expiration period could be
explored to provide additional flexibility.
Proposed Code Change: The ordinance makes an ADU an allowed use, subject to
specific use standards, rather than a conditional use. The one-year limitation applies
only to conditional uses. Since ADUs would now be reviewed at the same time as
building permits, they would be subject to only the typical timelines of any building
permit (180 days with the ability to request an extension). Since the administrative
approval expiration period was the issue identified, this should provide the needed
flexibility and will include a consistent expiration period with all other building
permits.
Flexibility for Height of Existing Structures
One issue with the code that has been raised through recent applications is the lack of
flexibility to adapt existing structures for ADUs due to code language regarding height.
This issue could be addressed by providing a variance or modification to clearly allow
existing structures to be adapted into ADUs. This would allow for limited cases that
12
could encourage the adaptive reuse of existing structures that are not increasing current
height of structures.
Proposed Code Change: The ordinance clarifies the design standard language for
maximum height of detached ADUs. It eliminates a rarely used provision related to
roof pitch and clearly states that the height of existing structures can be modified by
staff for existing structures, as long as the height, size, and roof form are not
changing.
Lockable Separation of Attached ADUs
A frequent misunderstanding in reviewing attached ADU applications is the requirement
for lockable separation between the ADU and principal structure. This requirement
comes from the definition of “dwelling unit” and is not listed within the ADU regulations
themselves, causing confusion for applicants. Several applicants of withdrawn ADU
applications noted this issue as one of the reasons to withdraw their application. More
clarity about the requirements for separation would be helpful.
Proposed Code Change: Language specifying the requirement for “physical, lockable
separation” has been integrated into the design standards for attached ADUs.
Limited Accessory Units
Only one unit exists in the city that is classified as this type of ADU, yet additional
standards complicate the ADU standards. These specific standards could be removed and
the city could work to determine the appropriate status of the single remaining property
with this type of ADU.
Proposed Code Change: The standards for limited accessory units have been
removed from the land use code. The single limited accessory unit in the city meets
all of the standards for an attached ADU, should the ordinance pass.
Owner Occupancy Clarification – LLC Ownership and Temporary Rental
Exemptions
The issue of owner occupancy came up in many avenues while developing the
evaluation. In particular, confusion about whether and how LLCs can prove owner
occupancy has been raised many times.
Additionally, there is not clear guidance about whether owners of ADUs should be
permitted to obtain a temporary rental license exemption, which allows them to rent their
property for up to 12 months without a rental license if they are temporarily living
outside of Boulder County and will re-occupy the property after their absence.
Proposed Code Change: The definition of “owner-occupied” has been clarified to
include members who own at least 50 percent of an LLC. In addition, more specific
language about the documentation needed to prove owner occupancy has been added
to the general standards for ADUs. Clarification about the process to allow temporary
rental license exemptions has been incorporated as well.
13
Public Notice Requirement
ADU applications, unlike all other administrative applications except solar access
exceptions, require public notice to be sent to adjacent neighbors and posted on the
property. Neighbors are often confused and frustrated about why they are being notified
if there is not a public hearing or opportunity to provide input on the outcome.
Additionally, the public notice adds administrative time, expense, and several steps to the
ADU application process.
Proposed Code Change: By changing ADUs from a conditional use or [C] in the use
table to an [A] or allowed use subject to specific use standards, ADUs would no
longer require a separate administrative review process prior to building permit.
Allowed uses do not require public notice, and to facilitate an efficient one-step
review process of ADUs, the public notice requirement has been removed from the
ADU standards.
Process Improvements
The following additional process changes can also be made to improve procedural issues
identified during the 2022 evaluation.
One-Step Review
ADUs are currently reviewed as a separate administrative application prior to building
permit review. Based on discussions with staff, it appears that the level of detail required
for the ADU application often leads applicants to assume that no issues would arrive at
the point of later submitting a building permit. However, the building permit is a much
more detailed review of building code compliance and often a more detailed review of
zoning requirements, and applicants sometimes run into unforeseen issues at that stage.
This is understandably frustrating and confusing for ADU applicants. If some of the other
initial barriers to ADUs such as saturation limits were to be removed, the ADU process
could be more seamlessly integrated into the building permit process and eliminate the
need for a two-step process.
Proposed Code & Process Changes: As noted above, to facilitate a one-step review
process, ADUs have been changed from a conditional use or [C] in the use table to an
[A] or allowed use subject to specific use standards, and the public notice requirement
has been removed from the standards. Procedurally, modifications to the building
permit application requirements and EnerGov permit review system would be
required to implement the change to a one-step review.
Addressing
Currently, properties are given “Unit A” and “Unit B” addresses immediately after ADU
approval. This has caused numerous issues for applicants and is difficult to undo if the
ADU is not ultimately constructed. This step should instead occur upon the letter of
completion for the building permit or change of use approval.
Proposed Code & Process Changes: The change to a one-step review process where
ADUs are approved through the building permit process will solve this issue.
14
Procedurally, address changes will occur upon the letter of completion for the
building permit instead.
Declarations of Use
All ADUs are required to record a declaration of use for their property when the ADU
application is approved. These declarations of use reference current code requirements.
However, as the regulations change, the recorded declarations of use become out of date.
Properties are subject to current regulations as they change regardless of the recorded
declaration of use.
Proposed Code & Process Changes: The standard declaration of use template used
for recording will be updated to reflect any new regulations and to ensure it
adequately covers compliance with any future code changes as well.
Self-Service Handouts/Videos
While the City of Boulder website currently includes a thorough explanation of the ADU
process and requirements, residents frequently contact the city when they have trouble
understanding where an ADU would be allowed and what the requirements might be.
Updates could potentially be made to handout and application materials to clarify
commonly misunderstood information. In addition, there may be opportunities to develop
video explanations to further assist residents in understanding the requirements.
Proposed Code & Process Changes: The proposed ordinance changes will facilitate a
simpler review process with more straightforward standards. While this will
significantly help public understanding of the application requirements, additional
work to create handouts and videos for the City website will be completed upon
adoption of the ordinance.
ANALYSIS
Staff has identified the following key issues for the Housing Advisory Board’s
consideration:
1. Does the Housing Advisory Board find that the proposed ordinance
implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan?
2. Does the Housing Advisory Board recommend any modifications to the
draft ordinance?
Staff finds that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the
comprehensive plan. The following analysis is provided to demonstrate how the project
objective is met through the proposed ordinance.
What is the reason for the ordinance and what public purpose will be served?
City Council identified updating the ADU regulations as a priority project for the 2022-
2023 council term, with the express objective of increasing the number of ADUs in the
community. This ordinance updates the ADU regulations based upon a thorough review
15
of the most recent significant changes to the ADU regulations adopted in 2018 and an
understanding of the changes that would be most impactful at reducing barriers to ADUs
in Boulder. The public purpose of increasing housing options for households of all types,
ages, and incomes, is served by this ordinance.
How is the ordinance consistent with the purpose of the zoning districts or code
chapters being amended?
With this ordinance, ADUs would be allowed uses, subject to specific use standards, in
the same districts where they are currently allowed as a conditional use: RR (Residential
– Rural), RE (Residential – Estate), RL (Residential – Low), RM-2 (Residential –
Medium 2), RMX (Residential – Mixed), P (Public), and A (Agricultural). The purposes
of the residential districts are stated in Section 9-5-2 and designate residential uses of
varying densities. Many residential uses are permitted by use review in the Public district
and single-family homes are allowed with use review in the Agricultural district. The
ordinance is consistent with the residential purpose of the residential districts and
provides opportunities for single-family homes in the P and A districts to incorporate an
ADU.
Are there consequences in denying this ordinance?
The consequence of denying this ordinance is that existing ADU regulations that have
been found to be barriers to ADU construction in Boulder would remain in place. The
inefficient and frustrating two-step process for ADU approval would be maintained.
ADUs would continue to be limited in size and therefore provide housing options for
limited household types. Frequent issues of interpretation and needed clarification would
not be improved in the code.
What adverse effects may result with the adoption of this ordinance?
Staff does not anticipate that adverse effects may result with the adoption of this
ordinance. Cities around the country allow ADUs without saturation limits and the recent
trend in most cities is to further liberalize restrictions on ADUs, as many see ADUs as
one solution to address housing shortages.
Boulder has a robust and detailed land use code with many requirements that ensure the
compatibility of new structures, such as building coverage, floor area ratio requirements,
setbacks, height, side wall articulation standards, solar requirements, bulk planes, and
more which are expressly intended to ensure compatibility. In addition, the size limits,
parking requirements, and owner-occupancy requirement further mitigate potential
adverse effects of additional ADUs.
Lots with ADUs are not allowed additional occupancy (number of unrelated people living
on-site) beyond a typical single-family home except for additional dependents, so the lots
with an ADU would not be expected to have any increase in additional adults on site
compared to what is permitted for any single-family home.
16
What factors are influencing the timing of the proposed ordinance? Why?
City Council identified updating the ADU regulations as a priority project for the 2022-
2023 council term, with the express objective of increasing the number of ADUs in the
community. The goal is to complete the project in the second quarter of 2023.
How does the ordinance compare to practices in other cities?
A detailed analysis was completed of the ADU regulations of over 30 comparable cities
around the country (see Attachment G for a summary matrix), several of which have
recently undertaken updates to their ADU regulations. These cities were primarily
communities with large universities, less than 100 square miles of land area, below
200,000 people, as well as a similar population density and household size to Boulder.
The cities had a range of median housing prices. Several Colorado examples were
included for geographic comparability. The analysis resulted in the following key
takeaways:
• None of the comparable cities have a saturation limit for ADUs
• Only a few have a minimum lot size
• Almost all cities limit 1 ADU per lot
• Boulder’s maximum size of detached ADUs smaller than most cities (though
many cities in Colorado tend to be lower than other states, 600-1,000 sf).
Maximum size is typically around 800 sf or a % of principal structure
• Variation on parking requirements – 0 or 1, some cities waive requirements if
located close to transit
• Almost all say ADU cannot be sold separately
• About half require owner occupancy
Further, staff researched the approval procedures for these cities and found that most of
these cities review ADUs through a one-step building permit process. Many require proof
of owner occupancy at the time of building permit, as Boulder currently requires during
the administrative conditional use application. Only a few of the cities consider ADUs a
conditional use (or similar discretionary review) as Boulder does currently and only a few
of the communities require public notice of ADU applications.
How will this ordinance implement the comprehensive plan?
This project implements several relevant policies noted below.
Reducing barriers to ADUs through the proposed code changes will increase workforce
and long-term rental housing options in single-family residential neighborhoods by
providing ADUs as a more viable housing option. Neighborhood character will continue
to be protected and enhanced through existing zoning standards such as the compatible
design standards, building coverage and floor area ratio requirements, as well as ADU-
specific standards such as parking requirements, size limits, and the owner-occupancy
requirement. Procedurally, the changes will simplify the approval process for ADUs in
Boulder and better ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and quality customer service.
By providing options for affordable ADUs to reduce their parking requirement and
increase size, incentives remain in place to ensure that many ADUs are kept at an
17
affordable rental level in perpetuity, furthering the city’s affordable housing goals. In
addition, the evaluation of ADUs in Boulder noted that rental prices even of the market-
rate ADUs tend to be more affordable to middle-income households. In addition,
reducing barriers to ADUs may help to preserve existing housing stock by allowing
homeowners to age in place in their homes and provide income potential. Increasing
housing also supports a balance between housing supply and employment base in
Boulder.
The increased size limits for ADUs will allow for housing for a greater range of
households, including young families, who may find the current size limits infeasible. At
the proposed size, ADUs can provide housing options for singles, couples, families with
children and other dependents, extended families, non-traditional households, and older
adults.
Built Environment Policy 2.10: Preservation & Support for Residential Neighborhoods
The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and
livability and preserve the relative affordability of existing housing stock. The city will also
work with neighborhoods to identify areas for additional housing, libraries, recreation centers,
parks, open space or small retail uses that could be integrated into and supportive of
neighborhoods. The city will seek appropriate building scale and compatible character in new
development or redevelopment, appropriately sized and sensitively designed streets and desired
public facilities and mixed commercial uses. The city will also encourage neighborhood
schools and safe routes to school.
Built Environment Policy 2.11: Accessory Units
Consistent with existing neighborhood character, accessory units (e.g., granny flats, alley
houses, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and owner’s accessory units (OAUs)) will be
encouraged by the city to increase workforce and long-term rental housing options in single-
family residential neighborhoods. Regulations developed to implement this policy will address
potential cumulative negative impacts on the neighborhood. Accessory units will be reviewed
based on the characteristics of the lot, including size, configuration, parking availability,
privacy and alley access.
Housing Policy 7.01: Local Solutions to Affordable Housing
The city and county will employ local regulations, policies and programs to meet the housing
needs of low, moderate and middle-income households. Appropriate federal, state and local
programs and resources will be used locally and in collaboration with other jurisdictions. The
city and county recognize that affordable housing provides a significant community benefit and
will continually monitor and evaluate policies, processes, programs and regulations to further
the region’s affordable housing goals. The city and county will work to integrate effective
community engagement with funding and development requirements and other processes to
achieve effective local solutions.
Housing Policy 7.07: Mixture of Housing Types
The city and county, through their land use regulations and housing policies, will encourage the
private sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied prices, sizes and
densities to meet the housing needs of the low-, moderate- and middle-income households of
the Boulder Valley population. The city will encourage property owners to provide a mix of
housing types, as appropriate. This may include support for ADUs/OAUs, alley houses, cottage
courts and building multiple small units rather than one large house on a lot.
18
Housing Policy 7.08: Preserve Existing Housing Stock
The city and county, recognizing the value of their existing housing stock, will encourage its
preservation and rehabilitation through land use policies and regulations. Special efforts will be
made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income
households. Special efforts will also be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing
serving low-, moderate- and middle-income households and to promote a net gain in affordable
and middle-income housing.
Housing Policy 7.10: Housing for a Full Range of Households
The city and county will encourage preservation and development of housing attractive to
current and future households, persons at all stages of life and abilities, and to a variety of
household incomes and configurations. This includes singles, couples, families with children
and other dependents, extended families, non-traditional households and seniors.
Housing Policy 7.11: Balancing Housing Supply with Employment Base
The Boulder Valley housing supply should reflect, to the extent possible, employer workforce
housing needs, locations and salary ranges. Key considerations include housing type, mix and
affordability. The city will explore policies and programs to increase housing for Boulder
workers and their families by fostering mixed-use and multi-family development in proximity
to transit, employment or services and by considering the conversion of commercial- and
industrial-zoned or -designated land to allow future residential use.
Housing Policy 7.17: Market Affordability
The city will encourage and support efforts to provide market rate housing priced to be more
affordable to middle-income households by identifying opportunities to incentivize moderately
sized and priced homes.
Local Governance & Community Engagement Policy 10.01: High-Performing
Government
The city and county strive for continuous improvement in stewardship and sustainability of
financial, human, information and physical assets. In all business, the city and county seek to
enhance and facilitate transparency, accuracy, efficiency, effectiveness and quality customer
service. The city and county support strategic decision-making with timely, reliable and
accurate data and analysis.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance 8571 Summary
Attachment B: Draft Ordinance 8571
Attachment C: Annotated Ordinance
Attachment D: Map of Approved ADUs
Attachment E: ADU Update Evaluation: 2019-2022
Attachment F: Graphic of Regulations Impacting ADU Design and Location
Attachment G: Comparable City Research Matrix
Attachment H: Photos of Recent ADUs in Boulder
Attachment I: ADU Update Project Charter
Attachment J: 2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary
Attachment K: CCR Summary and Public Comments Received
Ordinance 8571 Summary
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS
Background
The City Council identified updating the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulations as one of their top work program
priorities for 2022-2023. The objective of the project is to increase the allowance of ADUs in the community. The scope of the
project includes:
• Eliminating the saturation limit in the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts
• Considering changes to the ADU size limits
• Clarifying and simplifying the code
• Improving the approval process
Saturation Limit
Remove the current restriction that limits ADUs in the RL-
1 and RL-2 zoning districts to only 20% of properties
within a 300 foot radius.
Clarification & Simplification
Staff completed an evaluation of the most recent update
to the ADU regulations and identified several
opportunities for clarification and simplification of the
ADU regulations, including:
• Facilitate a one-step review of ADUs at time of
building permit by changing ADUs from a conditional
use to an allowed use subject to specific use
standards
• Expedite review by removing required notice to
adjacent properties
• Provide flexibility of height requirement for existing
structures to be adaptively reused as an ADU
• Clarify need for lockable separation of attached ADUs
• Remove underutilized limited accessory unit type
• Clarify requirements for owner occupancy regarding
limited liability companies and temporary rental
license exemptions
Size Limits
Increase the allowable size of ADUs and remove the
unique floor area definition for ADUs. The new size limits
would be:
• Detached: 800 square feet.
• Attached: 1/2 of the principal structure or 1,000
square feet, whichever is less.
• Affordable or Historic Detached: 1,000 square feet.
• Affordable or Historic Attached: 2/3 of the principal
structure or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less.
Process Improvements
Aside from revised ordinance changes, additional
improvements to the process will be implemented. These
procedural changes will facilitate the one-step review
made possible through the code changes, as well as the
timing of address changes, and creating helpful self-
service handouts and videos for the city website.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE 8571
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4-20-18, “RENTAL
LICENSE FEE,” TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” AND TITLE 10
“STRUCTURES,” B.R.C. 1981, TO UPDATE THE
REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS; AND
SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 4-20-18, “Rental License Fee,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as
follows:
The following fees shall be paid before the city manager may issue a rental license or
renew a rental license:
(a) Dwelling and Rooming Units: $190 per building.
(b) Accessory Dwelling Units: $190 per unit.
. . .
Section 2. Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to
read as follows:
. . .
(d) Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA): The BOZA may grant variances from the
requirements of:
. . .
(6) The size requirements for accessory dwelling units of Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C.
1981;
. . .
(i) Floor Area Variances for Accessory Dwelling Units: The BOZA may grant a variance to
the maximum floor area allowed for an attached accessory dwelling unit or for a detached
accessory dwelling unit under Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C. 1981, only if it finds that the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
application satisfies all of the following applicable requirements of either Subparagraph
(i)(1) or (i)(2):
. . .
(2) Unusual Physical Conditions:
(A) That there are unusual physical circumstances or conditions in the design
of the existing structure the accessory dwelling unit would be in, including
without limitation the thickness of exterior walls or framing, that affect the
total allowed interior floor area of the accessory dwelling unit;
. . .
(E) That the accessory dwelling unit would be clearly incidental to the
principal dwelling unit.
. . .
Section 3. Line 4 in Table 4-2: Public Notice Options in Section 9-4-3, “Public Notice
Requirements,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
(a) Process and Options: When a process or procedure identified in this title requires public
notice, the city manager shall provide such notice according to Table 4-2 of this section.
If a code section does not reference a specific method, the city manager shall determine
the most appropriate notification method to be used.
TABLE 4-2: PUBLIC NOTICE OPTIONS
Public
Notice
Type
Type of Application, Meeting or
Hearing
Mailed Notice Posted Notice
4 Solar exceptions, solar access permits,
accessory units
To adjacent property owners a
minimum of 10 days before final
action
Post property a minimum of 10
days from receipt of application
and prior to final action or any
hearing
. . .
Section 4. The Accessory dwelling unit line in Table 6-1: Use Table in Section 9-6-1,
“Schedule of Permitted Land Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
The schedule in Table 6-1 shows the uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted,
prohibited, or that may be permitted through use review.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . .
TABLE 6-1: USE TABLE
A = Allowed | C = Conditional Use | U = Use Review | [ ] = Specific Use Standards Apply | - = Prohibited
Zoning District RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1 RL-2, RM-2 RM-1, RM-3 RMX-1 RMX-2 RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, RH-5 RH-3, RH-7 RH-6 MH MU-3 MU-1 MU-2 MU-4 BT-1, BT-2 BMS BC-1, BC-2 BCS BR-1, BR-2 DT-4 DT-5 DT-1, DT-2, DT-3 IS-1, IS-2 IG IM IMS P A Specific Use
Standards Use Module R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 MH M1 M2 M3 M4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 D1 D2 D3 I1 I2 I3 I4 P A
RESIDENTIAL USES
Residential Accessory
Accessory dwelling unit [CA] [CA] - [CA] [CA] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [CA] [CA] 9-6-3(n)
. . .
Section 5. Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards - Residential Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) Residential Uses:
. . .
(n) Accessory Dwelling Unit:
(1) General Requirements: Three types of accessory units may be approved as
conditional uses: Attached accessory dwelling units, detached accessory dwelling
units, and limited accessory units. The following standards apply to all three types
of an accessory dwelling unit:
(A) General Standards: An accessory dwelling unit shall meet the following
standards:
(i) Lot Limitations: An accessory dwelling unit may be created on a
lot of 5,000 square feet or more with a detached dwelling unit. One
accessory dwelling unit may be located on a lot.
(ii) Maximum Floor Area: The accessory dwelling unit shall be limited
to the floor area in Table 6-3. The board of zoning adjustment may
grant a variance to this floor area requirement pursuant to Section
9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981.
(ii) Occupancy Requirement: For purposes of determining occupancy
requirements under Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling
Units,” B.R.C. 1981, the principal dwelling unit and accessory unit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
shall be considered one dwelling unit. The occupancy of the
principal dwelling unit together with the occupancy of any
accessory unit shall not exceed the occupancy requirements set
forth in Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,” B.R.C.
1981, for one dwelling unit; provided, however, for purposes of
this section only, any occupant and his or her dependents shall be
counted as one person. The floor area limitation for quarters used
by roomers under Paragraph 9-8-5(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981, shall not
apply to an accessory unit.
Table 6-3: Maximum Floor Area
Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Affordable
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Designated
Historic
Property
Attached One-half of the total
floor area of the
principal structure or
1,000 square feet,
whichever is less.
Two-thirds of the total floor
area of the principal structure or
1,200 square feet, whichever is
less.
Detached 800 sq. ft. 1,000 sq. ft.
(iii) Off-Street Parking: The minimum number of off-street parking
spaces shall be provided on the lot or parcel as required by Table
6-4. The required parking spaces shall meet at least the minimum
dimensional requirements in Table 9-6, “Small Car Parking
Dimension Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, and may be located in a
required landscaped setback abutting the street.
Table 6-4: Off-Street Parking Requirement
(iiv) Owner-Occupied: The principal dwelling unit or accessory
dwelling unit on the parcel or lot must be owner-occupied. The
applicant shall provide evidence to the city manager to
demonstrate compliance with this requirement at the time of
application or any time thereafter. For entities that are similar to
ownership by a person, such evidence may include without
limitation declaration of trust ownership, articles of organization,
Accessory Dwelling Unit The number of off-street parking spaces
required in the zoning district for the
principal dwelling unit and one
additional off-street parking space
Affordable Accessory
Dwelling Unit
The parking required in the zoning
district for the principal dwelling unit.
Designated Historic
Property
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
operating agreement, or similar documentation. The city manager
may approve a temporary absence of the owner-occupant for less
than one year with an affidavit of exemption pursuant to the
procedures for temporary rental license exemptions in Section 10-
3-2, “Rental License Required Before Occupancy and License
Exemptions,” B.R.C. 1981.
(iiiv) Rental License: No owner of the property shall allow, or offer to
allow through advertisement or otherwise, any person to occupy
the accessory dwelling unit or the principal dwelling unit as a
tenant or lessee or otherwise for a valuable consideration unless
such rented unit has been issued a valid rental license by the city
manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3, “Rental
Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981.
(ivvi) Short-Term Rental: Short-term rental of an accessory dwelling unit
and short-term rental of a principal dwelling unit on a lot or parcel
with an accessory dwelling unit are prohibited except as
specifically authorized in Section 10-3-19, “Short-Term Rentals,”
B.R.C. 1981.
(vvii) No Independent Conveyance: No person shall convey an accessory
dwelling unit independently of the principal dwelling unit on the
lot or parcel.
(B) Application: All applicants shall apply on forms provided by the city
manager showing how and in what manner the criteria of this subsection
are met, provide a statement of current ownership and a legal description
of the property, pay the application fee prescribed by Section 4-20-43,
“Development Application Fees,” B.R.C. 1981, and submit plans as may
be required by the manager.
(C) Public Notice: Notice of the application shall be provided consistent with
“Public Notice Type 4,” as defined by Subsection 9-4-3(a), B.R.C. 1981.
(D) Review and Approval: All applications for accessory units shall be
reviewed under the procedures of Section 9-2-2, “Administrative Review
Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981.
(Eviii) Declaration of Use Required: Before obtaining approval, all
owners shall sign a declaration of use, including all the conditions
standards for continued use, to be recorded in the office of the
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder to serve as actual and
constructive notice of the legal status of the owner’s property. If
the unit is to be an affordable accessory dwelling unit, the
declaration shall include a sworn certification that the unit will
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
meet the affordability standard and a statement of the number of
bedrooms.
(Fix) Amendments: The owner of an accessory dwelling unit may
amend the approved size, affordability status, or other
characteristics of an approved accessory dwelling unit by filing a
building permit application that demonstrates compliance with
applicable accessory dwelling unit standards. Prior to approval the
owner must sign an updated declaration of use to be recorded in
the office of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder. The site plan
for an accessory unit may be modified and an affordable accessory
unit may be converted to an accessory unit that is not an affordable
accessory unit provided that an application is filed and reviewed by
the manager under the procedures of Section 9-2-2,
“Administrative Review Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981. The
application must demonstrate that the proposed accessory unit
meets the requirements of this section except that it shall not be
subject to the saturation limitations of Subparagraphs (m)(2)(A)
and (E) and (m)(3)(A) and (E).
(G) Floor Area: For the purpose of calculating the floor area of an attached
accessory unit or detached accessory unit under this subsection (m), floor
area shall mean the total square footage of all levels measured to the
outside surface of the exterior framing, to six inches beyond the interior
wall on an exterior wall, or to the outside surface of the exterior walls if
there is no exterior framing, of a building or portion thereof, which
includes stairways, elevators, the portions of all exterior elevated above
grade corridors, balconies, and walkways that are required for primary or
secondary egress by Chapter 10-5, “Building Code,” B.R.C. 1981, storage
and mechanical rooms, whether internal or external to the structure, but
excluding an atrium on the interior of a building where no floor exists, a
courtyard, the stairway opening at the uppermost floor of a building, and
floor area that meets the definition of uninhabitable space.
(2) Attached Accessory Dwelling Units: In addition to the general accessory unit
standards in Paragraph (mn)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to
attached accessory dwelling units. The owner or the owners of a lot or parcel with
a single-family dwelling unit may establish and maintain an attached accessory
dwelling unit within the principal structure of a detached dwelling unit in the RR,
RE, RL, RMX, A, or P districts if all of the following conditions are met and
continue to be met during the life of the attached accessory dwelling unit:
(A) Neighborhood Area: In the RL-1 or RL-2 zoning districts, no more than
twenty percent of the lots or parcels in a neighborhood area contain an
accessory unit. For the purpose of this subparagraph:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(i) The “neighborhood area” in RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts is the
area circumscribed by a line three hundred feet from the perimeter
of the lot line within which any accessory unit will be located.
Within the “neighborhood area” only accessory units within the
RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts are counted towards the twenty
percent limitation factor.
(ii) For the purpose of calculating the twenty percent limitation factor,
the following shall apply:
a. A legal, nonconforming structure containing two or more
dwelling units is counted as an accessory unit;
b. A cooperative housing unit is counted as an accessory unit;
c. An accessory unit that is licensed as part of a cooperative
housing unit and said cooperative housing unit shall be
counted together as one accessory unit; and
d. The manager may promulgate regulations defining
additional methods to be used in calculating the twenty
percent limitation factor and the neighborhood area.
(iii) If an application for an accessory unit exceeds the twenty percent
requirement set forth in this Subparagraph (m)(2)(A), the manager
will place the applicant on a waiting list for the neighborhood area.
At such time as there is room for an additional accessory unit within a
neighborhood area, the manager will notify the first eligible person on the
waiting list. Such person on the waiting list shall be required to provide
notice of intent to file an application within thirty days and file an
application within sixty days of such notice.
(B) Parking: The attached accessory dwelling unit shall have the following
off-street parking:
(i) The number of off-street parking spaces required in the zoning
district for the principal dwelling unit; and
(ii) One additional off-street parking space on the lot or parcel upon
which the detached dwelling unit is located; and
(iii) The parking spaces required under this Subparagraph (m)(2)(B)
shall not be required to meet the setback requirements of Section
9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,” B.R.C. 1981,
provided that the parking spaces are not located in the public right-
of-way.
(C) Standards: The attached accessory dwelling unit is clearly incidental to the
principal dwelling unit and meets the following standards:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(i) The attached accessory dwelling unit is created only in a single-
family detached dwelling unit on a lot of five thousand square feet
or more.
(ii) The attached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed one-third of
the total floor area of the principal structure or one thousand square
feet, whichever is less, unless a variance is granted pursuant to
Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981.
(A) (iii) Interior Connections: All attached accessory dwelling units shall
be separated by a lockable, physical separation. If there is an interior
connection between the attached accessory dwelling unit and the principal
dwelling prior to the creation of the attached accessory dwelling unit, the
connection together with the lockable, physical separation shall be
maintained for the duration during the life of the attached accessory
dwelling unit.
(B) (iv) Side Entrances: Any additional entrance resulting from the creation
of an attached accessory dwelling unit may face the side of the lot fronting
on the street only if such entrance is adequately and appropriately
screened in a manner that does not detract from the single-family
appearance of the principal dwelling unit.
(3) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: In addition to the general standards in
Paragraph (n)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to detached
accessory dwelling units.
(A) Maximum Height: The maximum height of accessory buildings with a
detached accessory dwelling unit shall not be greater than twenty feet. The
city manager may modify this height standard for a legal existing
accessory building that is being converted to a detached accessory
dwelling unit to the extent that no changes are proposed to the existing
accessory building’s height, size, or roof form.
(B) Private Open Space: A detached accessory dwelling unit shall have a
minimum of sixty square feet of private open space provided for the
exclusive use of the occupants of the detached accessory dwelling unit.
Private open space may include porches, balconies, or patio areas.
(D) Affordable Accessory Units: If the attached accessory dwelling unit is
licensed as an affordable accessory unit, the following standards apply:
(i) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in
the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit.
(ii) The unit may be more than one-third of the total floor area of the
principal structure but shall not exceed one-half of the floor area of
the principal structure or one thousand square feet, whichever is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
less. The BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement
pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C.
1981.
(iii) If the unit is or will be offered for rental for compensation, the
owner must obtain and at all times thereafter maintain a valid
rental license for an affordable accessory unit issued by the
manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3, “Rental
Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981.
(E) Designated Historic Property: If the attached accessory dwelling unit is
located within a principal structure that is designated as an individual
landmark or recognized as contributing to a designated historic district
under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, the following
modifications to the standards of this Paragraph (m)(2) apply:
(i) In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning district, the unit is not subject to the
twenty percent limitation factor of Subparagraph (m)(2)(A)
provided that no more than thirty percent of the lots or parcels in
the neighborhood area contain an accessory unit;
(ii) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in
the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit; and
(iii) The unit may be more than one-third of the total floor area of the
principal structure but shall not exceed one-half of the floor area of
the principal structure or one thousand square feet, whichever is
less. The BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement
pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C.
1981.
(3) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: In addition to the general accessory unit
standards in Paragraph (m)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to
detached accessory dwelling units. An owner or the owners of a lot or parcel with
a single-family detached dwelling unit may establish and maintain a detached
accessory dwelling unit within an accessory structure meeting the size restrictions
described below, on a lot or parcel in the RR, RE, RL, RMX, A, and P districts if
all of the following conditions are met and continue to be met during the life of
the detached accessory dwelling unit:
(A) Neighborhood Area: In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts, no more than
twenty percent of the lots or parcels in a neighborhood area contain an
accessory unit. For the purpose of this subparagraph:
(i) The “neighborhood area” in RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts is the
area circumscribed by a line three hundred feet from the perimeter
of the lot line within which an accessory unit will be located.
Within the “neighborhood area” only accessory units within the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts are counted towards the twenty
percent limitation factor.
(ii) For the purpose of calculating the twenty percent limitation factor,
the following shall apply:
a. A legal, nonconforming structure containing two or more
dwelling units is counted as an accessory unit;
b. A cooperative housing unit is counted as an accessory unit;
c. An accessory unit that is licensed as part of a cooperative
housing unit and said cooperative housing unit shall be
counted together as one accessory unit; and
d. The manager may promulgate regulations defining
additional methods to be used in calculating the twenty
percent limitation factor and the neighborhood area.
(iii) If an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit exceeds
the twenty percent requirement set forth in Subparagraph
(m)(3)(A), the manager will place the applicant on a waiting list
for the neighborhood area. At such time as there is room for an
additional accessory unit within the neighborhood area, the
manager will notify the first eligible person on the waiting list.
Such person on the waiting list shall be required to provide notice
of intent to file an application within thirty days and file an
application within sixty days of such notice.
(B) Parking: The detached accessory dwelling unit shall have the following
parking:
(i) The number of off-street parking spaces required in the zoning
district for the principal dwelling unit; and
(ii) One additional off-street parking space on the lot or parcel upon
which the detached dwelling unit is located;
(iii) The parking spaces required under this Subparagraph (m)(3)(B)
shall not be required to meet the setback requirements of Section
9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,” B.R.C. 1981,
provided that the parking spaces are not located in the public right-
of-way. To the extent practical, any additional off-street parking
that is constructed in the RR or RE zoning district required for the
detached accessory dwelling unit shall be screened from the view
of properties that directly abut a property line of the detached
accessory dwelling unit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(C) Incidental to Principal Dwelling Unit: The detached accessory dwelling
unit is clearly incidental to the principal dwelling unit and meets the
following standards:
(i) The detached accessory dwelling unit is created on a lot of five
thousand square feet or larger.
(ii) The detached accessory dwelling unit’s floor area does not exceed
five hundred and fifty square feet, unless a variance is granted
pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C.
1981.
(iii) The following design standards apply to detached accessory
dwelling units:
a. Maximum height of accessory buildings with a detached
accessory dwelling unit shall not be greater than twenty
feet unless the roof pitch is greater than 8:12 and the
resulting ratio of the height of the roof (measured from the
eave line to the top of the roof) to the height of the side
walls (measured from the low point of grade to the eave
line) is less than a 1:2 ratio. The city manager may modify
this height standard for a legal existing accessory building
that is being converted to a detached accessory dwelling
unit to the extent that the existing accessory building's
height and size is not proposed to be modified. In no case
may a building height exceed twenty-five feet.
b. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall have a minimum
of sixty square feet of private open space provided for the
exclusive use of the occupants of the detached accessory
dwelling unit. Private open space may include porches,
balconies, or patio areas. Decks, porches, patios, terraces,
and stairways, located at a height greater than thirty inches
above grade, shall be considered part of the building
coverage.
c. Setbacks shall comply with accessory building setbacks.
Where the rear yard of a property in the RR or RE zoning
district directly abuts an RL zoning district, the rear yard
accessory building setback shall be the same as the side
yard setback for accessory buildings for applicable RR or
RE zoning districts.
(D) Affordable Accessory Units: If the detached accessory dwelling unit is
licensed as an affordable accessory unit, the following standards apply:
(i) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in
the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(ii) The unit’s floor area may be up to eight hundred square feet. The
BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement pursuant to
Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981.
(iii) If the unit is or will be offered for rental for compensation, the
owner must obtain and at all times thereafter maintain a valid
rental license for an affordable accessory unit issued by the
manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3, “Rental
Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981.
(E) Designated Historic Property: If either the accessory structure the
detached accessory dwelling unit is located in or the principal structure on
the lot or parcel is designated as an individual landmark or recognized as
contributing to a designated historic district under Chapter 9-11, “Historic
Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, the following modifications to the standards
of this Paragraph (m)(3) apply:
(i) In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning district, the unit is not subject to the
twenty percent limitation factor of Subparagraph (m)(3)(A)
provided that no more than thirty percent of the lots or parcels in
the neighborhood area contain an accessory unit;
(ii) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in
the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit; and
(iii) The unit’s floor area may be up to one thousand square feet. The
BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement pursuant to
Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981.
(4) Limited Accessory Units: In addition to the general accessory unit standards in
Paragraph (m)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to limited
accessory units that may be approved as a conditional use in the RR-1, RR-2, RE,
and RL-1 Zoning Districts only. An existing nonconforming duplex or two
detached dwelling units located on the same lot and within the R1 use module
may be converted to limited accessory dwelling units. A limited accessory
dwelling unit may be modified and expanded as a conditional use. Conversion to
a limited accessory dwelling unit is subject to compliance with all of the
following standards:
(A) Applicability: This Subparagraph (m)(4) is only applicable to dwelling
units that legally existed, were actively used as multiple dwelling units,
and had a valid rental license on January 1, 2005.
(B) Expansion Limitation: The cumulative total of any expansion shall not
exceed twenty percent of the total floor area that was documented at the
time of the initial expansion. Any expansion of the restricted accessory
unit shall not exceed ten percent. In no case shall any expansion cause the
cumulative size of the restricted dwelling units to exceed the maximum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
allowable floor area ratio of the underlying zoning district as set forth in
Section 9-8-1, “Schedule of Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981.
(C) Parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall not be
less than three spaces. All parking shall comply with the design and access
requirements set forth in Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981.
A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be available for use by
the restricted accessory dwelling unit.
(D) Loss of Prior Nonconforming Status: If a nonconforming duplex or two
detached dwelling units are converted to limited accessory units through
the conditional use process, any prior nonconforming status is lost.
(o) Home Occupation:
(1) A home occupation is allowed by right if the accessory use meets the following
standards:
…
(D) Prohibitions: No person shall engage in a home occupation except in
conformance with all of the requirements of Paragraph (no)(1)(A) of this
section, except as provided in Paragraph (no)(1)(B) of this section.
Section 6. Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to
read as follows:
. . .
(b) Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit:, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, or Limited
Accessory Dwelling Unit: The occupancy of an attached accessory dwelling unit,
detached accessory dwelling unit, or limited accessory dwelling unit must meet the
requirements of Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C. 1981. The principal dwelling unit and
accessory dwelling unit shall be considered one dwelling unit. The occupancy of the
principal dwelling unit together with the occupancy of any accessory dwelling unit shall
not exceed the occupancy requirements set forth in this section for one dwelling unit;
provided, however, for purposes of this subsection only, any occupant and his or her
dependents shall be counted as one person. The floor area limitation for quarters used by
roomers under Paragraph 9-8-5(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981, shall not apply to an accessory
dwelling unit.
. . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(d) Cooperative Housing License: A dwelling unit licensed as a cooperative housing unit
pursuant to Section 10-11-3, “Cooperative Housing Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981, shall not be
subject to the occupancy limits or any exceptions as set forth in this section; and an
attached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit licensed with such
dwelling unit as a cooperative housing unit shall not be subject to the occupancy
standards of SubpParagraph 9-6-3(n)(1)(A)(ii), “Occupancy Requirement”9-8-5(b),
“Accessory Dwelling Unit,” B.R.C. 1981. All such dwelling units together with any
attached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit so licensed shall be
limited to no fewer than four occupants with the maximum number of occupants, without
regard to whether the occupants are related or not, as follows:
. . .
Section 7. Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as
follows:
(a) Rationale: The intent of this section is to provide adequate off -street parking for
all uses, to prevent undue congestion and interference with the traffic carrying capacity of city
streets, and to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of excessive parking lot paving.
. . .
TABLE 9-2: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES
Use Parking Requirement
Attached aAccessory dwelling unit, detached accessory
dwelling unit
The off-street parking requirement for the principal DU
must be met, plus any parking space required for the
accessory dwelling unit, see Subsection 9-6-3(n),
B.R.C. 1981
. . .
(g) Bicycle Parking:
(1) Required Bicycle Spaces: Bicycle parking spaces must be provided as required by
Table 9-8 of this section.
TABLE 9-8: OFF-STREET BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Type (based on Table 6-1 of
Section 9-6-1
Minimum Number of Off-Street
Bicycle Spaces
Long-Term Short-Term
Residential Uses
Accessory dwelling units no requirement n/a n/a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . .
Section 8. Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as
follows:
(a) The definitions contained in Chapter 1-2, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, apply to this title
unless a term is defined differently in this chapter.
. . .
(c) The following terms as used in this title have the following meanings unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
. . .
Accessory dwelling unit means a separate and complete single housekeeping unit within a
detached dwelling unit or within an accessory structure to the principal dwelling unit of
the lot or parcel upon which the unit is located, permitted under the provisions of
Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
Affordable accessory dwelling unit means a unit for which the rents meet the affordability
standard.
. . .
Attached accessory dwelling unit means a separate and complete single housekeeping
unit within a detached dwelling unit, permitted under the provisions of Subsection 9-6-
3(m), B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
Designated historic property means a property with a building designated as an
individual landmark or recognized as contributing to a designated historic district under
Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
Detached accessory dwelling unit means a separate and complete single housekeeping
unit within an accessory structure to the principal dwelling unit of the lot or parcel upon
which the unit is located that is permitted under the provisions of Paragraph 9-6-3(n)(3),
B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Limited accessory unit means an existing nonconforming duplex or two detached
dwelling units located on the same lot and within the R1 use module that has been
approved in compliance with the standards in Section 9-6-3(n)(4).
. . .
Owner-occupied means a dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit that is the principal
residence of at least one owner of record of the lot or parcel upon which the dwelling unit
or accessory dwelling unit is located, who possesses at least an estate for life, or a fifty
percent fee simple ownership interest, or is the trustor of a revocable living trust., or is
the member that owns 50 percent or more of a limited liability company, or is the partner
that owns 50 percent or more of a partnership or limited liability partnership, or similar
entity.
. . .
Section 9. Section 10-1-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
(a) The following terms used in this title have the following meanings unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
. . .
Accessory dwelling unit means an accessory dwelling unit permitted under Section 9-6-
3(n), “Accessory Dwelling Units,” B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
Section 10. Section 10-3-6, “License Application Procedure for Buildings Converted to
Rental Property,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
Every operator converting a property to rental property shall follow the procedures in this
section for procuring a rental license:
(a) Submit to the city manager a complete application packet, on forms provided by the
manager, at least thirty days before rental of the property including:
(1) A rental housing inspector’s certification of rental inspection dated within twelve
months before the application. The operator shall make a copy of the inspection
form available to city staff and tenants of inspected units within fourteen days of a
request;
. . .
(4) If the unit is an affordable accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 9-16-1,
“Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, a sworn certification that the unit will meet the rental
affordability standard as defined in Section 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . .
Section 11. Section 10-3-7, “License Renewal Procedure for Buildings Occupied as
Rental Property,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows:
Every operator of a rental property shall follow the procedures in this section when
renewing an unexpired license:
(a) Submit to the city manager a complete application packet, on forms provided by the
manager including:
(1) A rental housing inspector’s certification of rental inspection dated within twelve
months before the application. The operator shall make a copy of the inspection
form available to city staff and tenants of inspected units within fourteen days of a
request;
. . .
(4) If the unit is an affordable accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 9-16-1,
"Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, a sworn certification that the unit will meet the rental
affordability standard as defined in Section 9-16-1, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
Section 12. Section 10-3-16, “Administrative Remedy,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read
as follows:
(a) If the city manager finds that a violation of any provision of this chapter or Chapter 10-2,
“Property Maintenance Code,” B.R.C. 1981, exists, the manager, after notice to the
operator and an opportunity for hearing under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1-3,
“Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981, may take any one or more of the following
actions to remedy the violation:
(1) Impose a civil penalty according to the following schedule:
(A) For any violation in the following areas or of affordability standards: The
area south of Arapahoe Avenue, north of Baseline Road, east of 6th Street
and west of Broadway, the area south of Baseline Road, north of Table
Mesa Drive, east of Broadway and west of U.S. Route 36 and the area
south of Canyon Boulevard, north of Arapahoe Avenue, west of Folsom
Street and east of 15th Street or for any violation of affordability standards
for an affordable accessory dwelling unit approved under Subsection 9-6-
3(n), B.R.C. 1981:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
. . .
(b) If the city manager finds that an affordable accessory dwelling unit was advertised,
offered for rent or rented for an amount in excess of the affordability standard, in addition
to the actions the manager may take under subsection (a), the manager shall impose a
penalty equal to the amount charged in excess of the affordability standard during the
term of the license, plus interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum, and shall pay
such funds collected to the tenant who was charged in excess of the affordability
standard.
. . .
Section 13. Section 10-3-19, “Short-Term Rentals,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as
follows:
(a) Short-term rentals are prohibited unless the city manager has issued a valid short -term
rental license for the property.
. . .
(o) An accessory dwelling unit or a principal dwelling unit on a single-family lot or parcel
with an accessory unit may not be rented as a short-term rental unless all the following
requirements are met:
(1) Both the accessory dwelling unit and the principal dwelling unit were legally
established on the effective date of Ordinance No. 8256February 1, 2019;
(2) A current and valid short-term rental license exists for the unit;
(3) If the accessory dwelling unit is licensed for short-term rental, only the accessory
dwelling unit and not any other dwelling unit on the same property may be
licensed or used as a rental;
(4) If a principal dwelling unit is licensed for short-term rental, then no accessory
dwelling unit on the same property may be licensed or used as a rental;
(5) An accessory dwelling unit may not be rented as a short-term rental for more than
one hundred twenty days in any calendar year;
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (i), the occupancy of the accessory
dwelling unit and the principal dwelling unit must meet the requirements of
Subsection 9-68-35(nb)(1), B.R.C. 1981; and
(7) Licensing Limitations and Requirements:
(A) After February 1, 2019, Nno application for a new short-term rental
license shall may be accepted on or after the effective date of Ordinance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. 8256. On or after the effective date of Ordinance No. 8256, a new
short-term rental license may be issued only for complete applications
received by the city manager on or before the effective date of Ordinance
No. 8256. On or after the effective date of Ordinance No. 8256, the The
city manager may renew unexpired short-term rental licenses pursuant to
Section 10-3-7, "License Renewal Procedures," B.R.C. 1981. A license for
which a complete renewal application is not filed within ninety days from
the expiration date shall be considered expired.
. . .
Section 14. Section 10-11-3, “Cooperative Housing Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended
to read as follows:
(a) License terms shall be as follows:
. . .
(l) Any attached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit to a dwelling
unit that is licensed pursuant to this chapter shall be part of the licensed cooperative
housing unit and subject to the standards of this chapter. The occupants of the dwelling
unit and accessory unit shall all be members of the cooperative. While such units are
licensed as a cooperative housing unit under this chapter, neither the principal dwelling
unit nor the accessory dwelling unit shall be required to be owner-occupied as would
otherwise be required under Subparagraph 9-6-3(n)(1)(A)(iv), “Owner-Occupied,”
B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
Section 15. Tables 6-3 and 6-4 are added to Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards –
Residential Uses,” B.R.C. 1981, by this ordinance. The city council amends the Boulder Revised
code by renumbering the subsequent tables in Chapter 9-6, “Use Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, together
with all associated references and cross references to the renumbered tables in the Boulder Revised
Code.
Section 16. This ordinance shall apply to any building permit, conditional use, use review,
and site review applied for on or after September 1, 2023. Any project for which a complete
building permit, site review, use review, or conditional use application has been submitted to the
city or which has received a site review, use review, or conditional use approval prior to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
effective date of this ordinance for a use inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance will be
permitted to establish the proposed use under the use standards of Chapter 9 -6, “Use Standards,”
B.R.C. 1981, in effect at the time the building permit, site review, use review, or conditional use
application was submitted to the city. Such applicants shall be required to pursue such development
approvals and meet all requirements deadlines set by the city manager and the Boulder Revised
Code necessary to establish the proposed use. The applications for such project shall demonstrate
compliance with all applicable laws. Any failure to meet requirements of the city manager or this
section of this ordinance will result in a denial of such application. Any subsequent application
shall meet the requirements in place at the time of such subsequent application.
Section 17. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this ordinance shall for any
reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, such decision shall not affect any of the remaining
provisions of this ordinance.
Section 18. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the city and covers matters of local concern.
Section 19. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this 20th day of April 2023.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
______________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
________________________________
City Clerk
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of May 2023.
_____________________________
Aaron Brockett,
Mayor
_______________________________
City Clerk
ANNOTATED ORDINANCE 8571
NOTE: This version of the draft ordinance includes footnotes that help to describe all of the
proposed changes as well as the redlined tracked changes to existing code language.
Section 4-20-18, “Rental License Fee”1
The following fees shall be paid before the city manager may issue a rental license or
renew a rental license:
(a) Dwelling and Rooming Units: $190 per building.
(b) Accessory Dwelling Units: $190 per unit.
. . .
Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations”2
. . .
(d) Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA): The BOZA may grant variances from the
requirements of:
. . .
(6) The size requirements for accessory dwelling units of Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C.
1981;
. . .
(i) Floor Area Variances for Accessory Dwelling Units: The BOZA may grant a variance to
the maximum floor area allowed for an attached accessory dwelling unit or for a
detached accessory dwelling unit under Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C. 1981, only if it finds
that the application satisfies all of the following applicable requirements of either
Subparagraph (i)(1) or (i)(2):
. . .
(2) Unusual Physical Conditions:
(A) That there are unusual physical circumstances or conditions in the design
of the existing structure the accessory dwelling unit would be in,
including without limitation the thickness of exterior walls or framing,
1 Updating “accessory unit” to “accessory dwelling unit” for consistency.
2 Updating “accessory unit” to “accessory dwelling unit” for consistency.
that affect the total allowed interior floor area of the accessory dwelling
unit;
. . .
(E) That the accessory dwelling unit would be clearly incidental to the
principal dwelling unit.
. . .
Section 9-4-3, “Public Notice Requirements”
(a) Process and Options: When a process or procedure identified in this title requires public
notice, the city manager shall provide such notice according to Table 4 -2 of this section.
If a code section does not reference a specific method, the city manager shall determine
the most appropriate notification method to be used.
TABLE 4-2: PUBLIC NOTICE OPTIONS
Public
Notice
Type
Type of Application, Meeting or
Hearing
Mailed Notice Posted Notice
4 Solar exceptions, solar access permits,
accessory units3
To adjacent property owners a
minimum of 10 days before final
action
Post property a minimum of 10
days from receipt of application
and prior to final action or any
hearing
. . .
Section 9-6-1, “Schedule of Permitted Land Uses”
The schedule in Table 6-1 shows the uses that are permitted, conditionally permitted,
prohibited, or that may be permitted through use review.
. . .
TABLE 6-1: USE TABLE
A = Allowed | C = Conditional Use | U = Use Review | [ ] = Specific Use Standards Apply | - = Prohibited
Zoning District RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1 RL-2, RM-2 RM-1, RM-3 RMX-1 RMX-2 RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, RH-5 RH-3, RH-7 RH-6 MH MU-3 MU-1 MU-2 MU-4 BT-1, BT-2 BMS BC-1, BC-2 BCS BR-1, BR-2 DT-4 DT-5 DT-1, DT-2, DT-3 IS-1, IS-2 IG IM IMS P A Specific Use
Standards Use Module R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 MH M1 M2 M3 M4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 D1 D2 D3 I1 I2 I3 I4 P A
RESIDENTIAL USES
Residential Accessory
Accessory dwelling unit4 [C
A]
[C
A] - [CA
]
[C
A] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [C
A]
[C
A] 9-6-3(n)
. . .
3 This has been removed as ADUs are proposed to be an [A] use in the table, which would no longer be an administrative
application that requires public notice.
4 Review process has changed from a conditional use to an allowed use subject to specific use standards, to more efficiently
process ADU applications in a one-step review rather than two-step.
Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards – Residential Uses”
(a) Residential Uses:
. . .
(n) Accessory Dwelling Unit:
(1) General Requirements: Three types of accessory units may be approved as
conditional uses: Attached accessory dwelling units, detached accessory dwelling
units, and limited accessory units. The following standards apply to all three
types of an accessory dwelling unit:5
(A) General Standards: An accessory dwelling unit shall meet the following
standards:6
(i) Lot Limitations: An accessory dwelling unit may be created on a
lot of 5,000 square feet or more with a detached dwelling unit.
One accessory dwelling unit may be located on a lot.7
(ii) Maximum Floor Area: The accessory dwelling unit shall be limited
to the floor area in Table 6-3.8 The board of zoning adjustment
may grant a variance to this floor area requirement pursuant to
Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981.
(ii) Occupancy Requirement: For purposes of determining occupancy
requirements under Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,”
B.R.C. 1981, the principal dwelling unit and accessory unit shall be
considered one dwelling unit. The occupancy of the principal
dwelling unit together with the occupancy of any accessory unit
shall not exceed the occupancy requirements set forth in Sect ion
9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,” B.R.C. 1981, for one
dwelling unit; provided, however, for purposes of this section
only, any occupant and his or her dependents shall be counted as
one person. The floor area limitation for quarters used by
roomers under Paragraph 9-8-5(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981, shall not apply
to an accessory unit. 9
5 Shorter language consistent with reorganization and rewording of Chapter 9-6 during Module One of the use table project.
The use table has been updated to make ADUs an “[A]” allowed use subject to specific use standards, rather than require a
conditional use application, to expedite permit reviews.
6 Inserted for consistency with similar language elsewhere in Chapter 9-6.
7 This requirement is pulled from current (n)(2)(C)(i) and (n)(3)(C)(i). Additional clarification added of only one ADU per lot.
8 Rather than repeating similar standards in sections (n)(2) and (n)(3), the maximum floor area for both ADU types have been
consolidated here.
9 Occupancy standards for ADUs have not been changed but have been moved to Section 9-8-5 with all of the other occupancy
standards.
Table 6-3: Maximum Floor Area
Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Affordable
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Designated
Historic
Property
Attached One-half of the total
floor area of the
principal structure or
1,000 square feet,
whichever is less.10
Two-thirds of the total floor
area of the principal structure
or 1,200 square feet,
whichever is less.11
Detached 800 sq. ft.12 1,000 sq. ft.13
(iii) Off-Street Parking: The minimum number of off-street parking
spaces shall be provided on the lot or parcel as required by Table
6-4. The required parking spaces shall meet at least the minimum
dimensional requirements in Table 9-6, “Small Car Parking
Dimension Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, and may be located in a
required landscaped setback abutting the street.14
Table 6-4: Off-Street Parking Requirement
(iiv) Owner-Occupied: The principal dwelling unit or accessory
dwelling unit on the parcel or lot must be owner-occupied. The
applicant shall provide evidence to the city manager to
demonstrate compliance with this requirement at the time of
application or any time thereafter. For entities that are similar to
10 This requirement for attached ADUs has been increased from one-third or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
11 This requirement for affordable/historic attached ADUs has been increased from one-half to two-thirds and from 1,000 to
1,200 square feet.
12 This requirement for detached ADUs has been increased from 550 square feet.
13 This requirement for affordable detached ADUs has been increased from 800 square feet to 1,000 square feet, which is the
current maximum for historic ADUs.
14 Rather than repeating similar standards in sections (n)(2) and (n)(3), the parking requirements have been consolidated here.
Parking requirements remain the same, with some additional flexibility added for the required parking spaces to meet small car
standards rather than standard size parking standards. Removed clause about spaces in public right-of-way (unnecessary as it is
specified as off-street parking).
Accessory Dwelling Unit The number of off-street parking spaces
required in the zoning district for the
principal dwelling unit and one
additional off-street parking space
Affordable Accessory
Dwelling Unit
The parking required in the zoning
district for the principal dwelling unit.
Designated Historic
Property
ownership by a person, such evidence may include without
limitation declaration of trust ownership, articles of organization,
operating agreement, or similar documentation.15 The city
manager may approve a temporary absence of the owner-
occupant for less than one year with an affidavit of exemption
pursuant to the procedures for temporary rental license
exemptions in Section 10-3-2, “Rental License Required Before
Occupancy and License Exemptions,” B.R.C. 1981.16
(iiiv) Rental License: No owner of the property shall allow, or offer to
allow through advertisement or otherwise, any person to occupy
the accessory dwelling unit or the principal dwelling unit as a
tenant or lessee or otherwise for a valuable consideration unless
such rented unit has been issued a valid rental license by the city
manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3,
“Rental Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981.
(ivvi) Short-Term Rental: Short-term rental of an accessory dwelling
unit and short-term rental of a principal dwelling unit on a lot or
parcel with an accessory dwelling unit are prohibited except as
specifically authorized in Section 10-3-19, “Short-Term Rentals,”
B.R.C. 1981.
(vvii) No Independent Conveyance: No person shall convey an
accessory dwelling unit independently of the principal dwelling
unit on the lot or parcel.
(B) Application: All applicants shall apply on forms provided by the city
manager showing how and in what manner the criteria of this subsection
are met, provide a statement of current ownership and a legal
description of the property, pay the application fee prescribed by Section
4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” B.R.C. 1981, and submit plans
as may be required by the manager.17
(C) Public Notice: Notice of the application shall be provided consistent with
“Public Notice Type 4,” as defined by Subsection 9-4-3(a), B.R.C. 1981.18
15 This language has been added to clarify how other entities are required to prove owner occupancy.
16 Clarity added that property owners may temporarily live elsewhere outside of Boulder County, such as a sabbatical, and rent
the principal dwelling unit as well, provided they receive a temporary rental license exemption, which stipulates that the owner
is not gone for more than one year and the owner will re-occupy the property.
17 This has been deleted as it is already covered by application requirement language in Chapter 9-2.
18 Removed as noted above, ADUs are now an [A] in the use table, which does not require public notice.
(D) Review and Approval: All applications for accessory units shall be
reviewed under the procedures of Section 9 -2-2, “Administrative Review
Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981.
(Eviii) Declaration of Use Required: Before obtaining approval, all
owners shall sign a declaration of use, including all the conditions
standards for continued use, to be recorded in the office of the
Boulder County Clerk and Recorder to serve as actual and
constructive notice of the legal status of the owner’s property. If
the unit is to be an affordable accessory dwelling unit, the
declaration shall include a sworn certification that the unit will
meet the affordability standard and a statement of the number of
bedrooms.
(Fix) Amendments: The owner of an accessory dwelling unit may
amend the approved size, affordability status, or other
characteristics of an approved accessory dwelling unit by filing a
building permit application that demonstrates compliance with
applicable accessory dwelling unit standards. Prior to approval the
owner must sign an updated declaration of use to be recorded in
the office of the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder.19 The site
plan for an accessory unit may be modified and an affordable
accessory unit may be converted to an accessory unit that is not
an affordable accessory unit provided that an application is filed
and reviewed by the manager under the procedures of Section 9-
2-2, “Administrative Review Procedures,” B.R.C. 1981. The
application must demonstrate that the proposed accessory unit
meets the requirements of this section except that it shall not be
subject to the saturation limitations of Subparagraphs (m)(2)(A)
and (E) and (m)(3)(A) and (E).20
(G) Floor Area: For the purpose of calculating the floor area of an attached
accessory unit or detached accessory unit under this subsection (m), floor
area shall mean the total square footage of all levels measured to the
outside surface of the exterior framing, to six inches beyond the interior
wall on an exterior wall, or to the outside surface of the exterior walls if
there is no exterior framing, of a building or portion thereof, which
includes stairways, elevators, the portions of all exterior elevated above
grade corridors, balconies, and walkways that are required for primary or
secondary egress by Chapter 10-5, “Building Code,” B.R.C. 1981, storage
and mechanical rooms, whether internal or external to the structure, but
excluding an atrium on the interior of a building where no floor exists, a
19 These changes are intended to more broadly address future modifications to ADUs that comply with updated standards.
20 This final sentence has been removed as it is unnecessary with the elimination of the saturation limits.
courtyard, the stairway opening at the uppermost floor of a building, and
floor area that meets the definition of uninhabitable space.21
(2) Attached Accessory Dwelling Units: In addition to the general accessory unit
standards in Paragraph (mn)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to
attached accessory dwelling units. The owner or the owners of a lot or parcel
with a single-family dwelling unit may establish and maintain an attached
accessory dwelling unit within the principal structure of a detached dwelling unit
in the RR, RE, RL, RMX, A, or P districts if all of the following conditions are met
and continue to be met during the life of the attached accessory dwelling unit:
(A) Neighborhood Area: In the RL-1 or RL-2 zoning districts, no more than
twenty percent of the lots or parcels in a neighborhood area contain an
accessory unit. For the purpose of this subparagraph:22
(i) The “neighborhood area” in RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts is the
area circumscribed by a line three hundred feet from the
perimeter of the lot line within which any accessory unit will be
located. Within the “neighborhood area” only accessory units
within the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts are counted towards the
twenty percent limitation factor.
(ii) For the purpose of calculating the twenty percent limitation
factor, the following shall apply:
a. A legal, nonconforming structure containing two or more
dwelling units is counted as an accessory unit;
b. A cooperative housing unit is counted as an accessory unit;
c. An accessory unit that is licensed as part of a cooperative
housing unit and said cooperative housing unit shall be
counted together as one accessory unit; and
d. The manager may promulgate regulations defining
additional methods to be used in calculating the twenty
percent limitation factor and the neighborhood area.
(iii) If an application for an accessory unit exceeds the twenty percent
requirement set forth in this Subparagraph (m)(2)(A), the
manager will place the applicant on a waiting list for the
neighborhood area.
At such time as there is room for an additional accessory unit within a
neighborhood area, the manager will notify the first eligible person on
the waiting list. Such person on the waiting list shall be required to
21 This unique definition of floor area has been removed. The typical definition of floor area in Chapter 9-16 will apply to ADUs
to ensure greater consistency and clarity.
22 The saturation limit for properties within the RL-1 and RL-2 districts has been removed.
provide notice of intent to file an application within thirty days and file an
application within sixty days of such notice.
(B) Parking: The attached accessory dwelling unit shall have the following
off-street parking:23
(i) The number of off-street parking spaces required in the zoning
district for the principal dwelling unit; and
(ii) One additional off-street parking space on the lot or parcel upon
which the detached dwelling unit is located; and
(iii) The parking spaces required under this Subparagraph (m)(2)(B)
shall not be required to meet the setback requirements of Section
9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,” B.R.C. 1981,
provided that the parking spaces are not located in the public
right-of-way.
(C) Standards: The attached accessory dwelling unit is clearly incidental to
the principal dwelling unit and meets the following standards:
(i) The attached accessory dwelling unit is created only in a single-
family detached dwelling unit on a lot of five thousand square
feet or more.24
(ii) The attached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed one-third of
the total floor area of the principal structure or one thousand
square feet, whichever is less, unless a variance is granted
pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C.
1981.25
(A) (iii) Interior Connections: All attached accessory dwelling units shall
be separated by a lockable, physical separation. If there is an interior
connection between the attached accessory dwelling unit and the
principal dwelling prior to the creation of the attached accessory dwelling
unit, the connection together with the lockable, physical separation shall
be maintained for the duration during the life of the attached accessory
dwelling unit.26
23 Parking requirements have been consolidated into the general standards in (n)(1) instead.
24 This standard has been consolidated into the general standards in (n)(1)(A)(i) instead.
25 Maximum floor area has been consolidated into the general standards in (n)(1)(A)(ii) instead. Maximum floor area for
attached ADUs has been increased to one-half of the principal structure or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less.
26 The “lockable, physical separation” language is pulled from the definition of “dwelling unit” in Chapter 9-16 and intended to
clarify something that is a commonly misunderstood requirement during the ADU application.
(B) (iv) Side Entrances: Any additional entrance resulting from the
creation of an attached accessory dwelling unit may face the side of the
lot fronting on the street only if such entrance is adequately and
appropriately screened in a manner that does not detract from the
single-family appearance of the principal dwelling unit.
(3) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: In addition to the general standards in
Paragraph (n)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to detached
accessory dwelling units.27
(A) Maximum Height: The maximum height of accessory buildings with a
detached accessory dwelling unit shall not be greater than twenty feet .
The city manager may modify this height standard for a legal existing
accessory building that is being converted to a detached accessory
dwelling unit to the extent that no changes are proposed to the existing
accessory building’s height, size, or roof form.28
(B) Private Open Space: A detached accessory dwelling unit shall have a
minimum of sixty square feet of private open space provided for the
exclusive use of the occupants of the detached accessory dwelling unit.
Private open space may include porches, balconies, or patio areas.29
(D) Affordable Accessory Units: If the attached accessory dwelling unit is
licensed as an affordable accessory unit, the following standards apply:
(i) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in
the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit.30
(ii) The unit may be more than one-third of the total floor area of the
principal structure but shall not exceed one-half of the floor area
of the principal structure or one thousand square feet, whichever
is less. The BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement
pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C.
1981.31
(iii) If the unit is or will be offered for rental for compensation, the
owner must obtain and at all times thereafter maintain a valid
27 The design standards for detached ADUs currently in (n)(3)(C) have been relocated here to follow the section on attached
ADUs.
28 The previous wording of this standard in (n)(3)(C)(iii) set a 25 foot absolute limit for existing structures. This instead provides
flexibility to existing structures and staff may modify the height standard as long as the building is not changing in height, size,
or roof form. Previous complex requirements, which are rarely used, for roof pitches have also been removed.
29 This is the existing standard for private open space (n)(3)(C)(iii)b. The final sentence “Decks, porches, patios, terraces, and
stairways, located at a height greater than thirty inches above grade, shall be considered part of the building coverage” has
been removed because it is duplicative of the definition of building coverage in 9-16.
30 This has been incorporated in the general standards for parking above.
31 This has been incorporated in the general standards for floor area above.
rental license for an affordable accessory unit issued by the
manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3,
“Rental Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981.32
(E) Designated Historic Property: If the attached accessory dwelling unit is
located within a principal structure that is designated as an individual
landmark or recognized as contributing to a designated historic district
under Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, the following
modifications to the standards of this Paragraph (m)(2) apply:
(i) In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning district, the unit is not subject to the
twenty percent limitation factor of Subparagraph (m)(2)(A)
provided that no more than thirty percent of the lots or parcels in
the neighborhood area contain an accessory unit;33
(ii) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in
the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit; and34
(iii) The unit may be more than one-third of the total floor area of the
principal structure but shall not exceed one-half of the floor area
of the principal structure or one thousand square feet, whichever
is less. The BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement
pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C.
1981.35
(3) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units: In addition to the general accessory unit
standards in Paragraph (m)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to
detached accessory dwelling units. An owner or the owners of a lot or parcel
with a single-family detached dwelling unit may establish and maintain a
detached accessory dwelling unit within an accessory structure meeting the size
restrictions described below, on a lot or parcel in the RR, RE, RL, RMX, A, and P
districts if all of the following conditions are met and continue to be met during
the life of the detached accessory dwelling unit:36
(A) Neighborhood Area: In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts, no more than
twenty percent of the lots or parcels in a neighborhood area contain an
accessory unit. For the purpose of this subparagraph:37
(i) The “neighborhood area” in RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts is the
area circumscribed by a line three hundred feet from the
32 This language has been removed as it is covered by the general standard related to rental licenses.
33 The saturation limit has been removed, so this incentive has been accordingly removed.
34 This has been incorporated in the general standards for parking above.
35 This has been incorporated in the general standards for floor area above.
36 Standards for detached units are now located above in (n)(3).
37 Saturation limit in RL-1 and RL-2 has been removed.
perimeter of the lot line within which an accessory unit will be
located. Within the “neighborhood area” only accessory units
within the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning districts are counted towards the
twenty percent limitation factor.
(ii) For the purpose of calculating the twenty percent limitation
factor, the following shall apply:
a. A legal, nonconforming structure containing two or more
dwelling units is counted as an accessory unit;
b. A cooperative housing unit is counted as an accessory unit;
c. An accessory unit that is licensed as part of a cooperative
housing unit and said cooperative housing unit shall be
counted together as one accessory unit; and
d. The manager may promulgate regulations defining
additional methods to be used in calculating the twenty
percent limitation factor and the neighborhood area.
(iii) If an application for a detached accessory dwelling unit exceeds
the twenty percent requirement set forth in Subparagraph
(m)(3)(A), the manager will place the applicant on a waiting list for
the neighborhood area. At such time as there is room for an
additional accessory unit within the neighborhood area, the
manager will notify the first eligible person on the waiting list.
Such person on the waiting list shall be required to provide notice
of intent to file an application within thirty days and file an
application within sixty days of such notice.
(B) Parking: The detached accessory dwelling unit shall have the following
parking:
(i) The number of off-street parking spaces required in the zoning
district for the principal dwelling unit; and38
(ii) One additional off-street parking space on the lot or parcel upon
which the detached dwelling unit is located;
(iii) The parking spaces required under this Subparagraph (m)(3)(B)
shall not be required to meet the setback requirements of Section
9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards,” B.R.C. 1981,
provided that the parking spaces are not located in the public
right-of-way. To the extent practical, any additional off-street
38 Parking standards have been consolidated above in the general standards. Specific screening requirements in RR and RE have
not been carried forward to make standards more consistent across districts.
parking that is constructed in the RR or RE zoning district required
for the detached accessory dwelling unit shall be screened from
the view of properties that directly abut a property line of the
detached accessory dwelling unit.
(C) Incidental to Principal Dwelling Unit: The detached accessory dwelling
unit is clearly incidental to the principal dwelling unit and meets the
following standards:
(i) The detached accessory dwelling unit is created on a lot of five
thousand square feet or larger.39
(ii) The detached accessory dwelling unit’s floor area does not exceed
five hundred and fifty square feet, unless a variance is granted
pursuant to Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C.
1981.40
(iii) The following design standards apply to detached accessory
dwelling units:41
a. Maximum height of accessory buildings with a detached
accessory dwelling unit shall not be greater than twenty
feet unless the roof pitch is greater than 8:12 and the
resulting ratio of the height of the roof (measured from
the eave line to the top of the roof) to the height of the
side walls (measured from the low point of grade to the
eave line) is less than a 1:2 ratio. The city manager may
modify this height standard for a legal existing accessory
building that is being converted to a detached accessory
dwelling unit to the extent that the existing accessory
building's height and size is not proposed to be modified.
In no case may a building height exceed twenty-five feet.
b. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall have a minimum
of sixty square feet of private open space provided for the
exclusive use of the occupants of the detached accessory
dwelling unit. Private open space may include porches,
balconies, or patio areas. Decks, porches, patios, terraces,
and stairways, located at a height greater than thirty
inches above grade, shall be considered part of the
building coverage.
39 The minimum lot size has been consolidated into the general standards above.
40 Maximum floor area is consolidated into the general standards above and the maximum for detached ADUs has been
increased to 800 square feet.
41 The standards related to height and private open space have been moved above to detached ADU design standard section in
(n)(3). Language about specific roof pitch has not been carried forward as it was rarely utilized and overly complex.
c. Setbacks shall comply with accessory building setbacks.
Where the rear yard of a property in the RR or RE zoning
district directly abuts an RL zoning district, the rear yard
accessory building setback shall be the same as the side
yard setback for accessory buildings for applicable RR or
RE zoning districts.42
(D) Affordable Accessory Units: If the detached accessory dwelling unit is
licensed as an affordable accessory unit, the following standards apply:
(i) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in
the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit.
(ii) The unit’s floor area may be up to eight hundred square feet. The
BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement pursuant to
Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981.
(iii) If the unit is or will be offered for rental for compensation, the
owner must obtain and at all times thereafter maintain a valid
rental license for an affordable accessory unit issued by the
manager consistent with the requirements of Chapter 10-3,
“Rental Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981.43
(E) Designated Historic Property: If either the accessory structure the
detached accessory dwelling unit is located in or the principal structure
on the lot or parcel is designated as an individual landmark or recognized
as contributing to a designated historic district under Chapter 9-11,
“Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981, the following modifications to the
standards of this Paragraph (m)(3) apply:
(i) In the RL-1 and RL-2 zoning district, the unit is not subject to the
twenty percent limitation factor of Subparagraph (m)(3)(A)
provided that no more than thirty percent of the lots or parcels in
the neighborhood area contain an accessory unit;
(ii) The unit shall only be required to provide the parking required in
the zoning district for the principal dwelling unit; and
(iii) The unit’s floor area may be up to one thousand square feet. The
BOZA may grant a variance to this size requirement pursuant to
Section 9-2-3, “Variances and Interpretations,” B.R.C. 1981.
42 This unique setback standard for RR and RE has not been carried forward. This has led to several variance applications
through BOZA which have all been consistently approved. Section 9-10-3 provides flexibility for nonconforming setbacks
provided the size is not changed.
43 These standards have been consolidated into the general standards tables for parking and floor area above.
(4) Limited Accessory Units: In addition to the general accessory unit standards in
Paragraph (m)(1) of this section, the following standards apply to limited
accessory units that may be approved as a conditional use in the RR-1, RR-2, RE,
and RL-1 Zoning Districts only. An existing nonconforming duplex or two
detached dwelling units located on the same lot and within the R1 use module
may be converted to limited accessory dwelling units. A limited accessory
dwelling unit may be modified and expanded as a conditional use. Conversion to
a limited accessory dwelling unit is subject to compliance with all of the
following standards:44
(A) Applicability: This Subparagraph (m)(4) is only applicable to dwelling units
that legally existed, were actively used as multiple dwelling units, and had
a valid rental license on January 1, 2005.
(B) Expansion Limitation: The cumulative total of any expansion shall not
exceed twenty percent of the total floor area that was documented at
the time of the initial expansion. Any expansion of the restricted
accessory unit shall not exceed ten percent. In no case shall any
expansion cause the cumulative size of the restricted dwelling units to
exceed the maximum allowable floor area ratio of the underlying zoning
district as set forth in Section 9-8-1, “Schedule of Intensity Standards,”
B.R.C. 1981.
(C) Parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces shall not be
less than three spaces. All parking shall comply with the design and
access requirements set forth in Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,”
B.R.C. 1981. A minimum of one off-street parking space shall be available
for use by the restricted accessory dwelling unit.
(D) Loss of Prior Nonconforming Status: If a nonconforming duplex or two
detached dwelling units are converted to limited accessory units through
the conditional use process, any prior nonconforming status is lost.
Section 9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units”
. . .
(b) Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit:, Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, or Limited
Accessory Dwelling Unit: The occupancy of an attached accessory dwelling unit,
detached accessory dwelling unit, or limited accessory dwelling unit must meet the
requirements of Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C. 1981. The principal dwelling unit and
accessory dwelling unit shall be considered one dwelling unit. The occupancy of the
44 The Limited Accessory Unit type has been removed as there was only one remaining in the city and it is very similar to an
attached ADU.
principal dwelling unit together with the occupancy of any accessory dwelling unit shall
not exceed the occupancy requirements set forth in this section for one dwelling unit;
provided, however, for purposes of this subsection only, any occupant and his or her
dependents shall be counted as one person. The floor area limitation for qua rters used
by roomers under Paragraph 9-8-5(a)(1), B.R.C. 1981, shall not apply to an accessory
dwelling unit.45
. . .
(d) Cooperative Housing License: A dwelling unit licensed as a cooperative housing unit
pursuant to Section 10-11-3, “Cooperative Housing Licenses,” B.R.C. 1981, shall not be
subject to the occupancy limits or any exceptions as set forth in this section; and an
attached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit licensed with such
dwelling unit as a cooperative housing unit shall not be subject to the occupancy
standards of SubpParagraph 9-6-3(n)(1)(A)(ii), “Occupancy Requirement”9-8-5(b),
“Accessory Dwelling Unit,” B.R.C. 1981. All such dwelling units together with any
attached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit so licensed shall
be limited to no fewer than four occupants with the maximum number of occupants,
without regard to whether the occupants are related or not, as follows:
. . .
Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards”46
(a) Rationale: The intent of this section is to provide adequate off -street parking
for all uses, to prevent undue congestion and interference with the traffic carrying capacity of
city streets, and to minimize the visual and environmental impacts of excessive parking lot
paving.
. . .
TABLE 9-2: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES
IN ALL ZONES
Use Parking Requirement
Attached aAccessory dwelling unit, detached
accessory dwelling unit
The off-street parking requirement for the principal
DU must be met, plus any parking space required for
the accessory dwelling unit, see Subsection 9-6-3(n),
B.R.C. 1981
. . .
(g) Bicycle Parking:
(1) Required Bicycle Spaces: Bicycle parking spaces must be provided as required by
Table 9-8 of this section.
45 This language has not been changed but has been relocated from the ADU standards.
46 Updated terms to consistently reference “accessory dwelling unit.”
TABLE 9-8: OFF-STREET BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Use Type (based on Table 6-1 of
Section 9-6-1
Minimum Number of Off-Street Bicycle
Spaces
Long-Term Short-Term
Residential Uses
Accessory dwelling units no requirement n/a n/a
. . .
Section 9-16-1, “General Definitions”
(a) The definitions contained in Chapter 1-2, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, apply to this title
unless a term is defined differently in this chapter.
. . .
(c) The following terms as used in this title have the following meanings unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
. . .
Accessory dwelling unit means a separate and complete single housekeeping unit within
a detached dwelling unit or within an accessory structure to the principal dwelling unit
of the lot or parcel upon which the unit is located , permitted under the provisions of
Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C. 1981.47
. . .
Affordable accessory dwelling unit means a unit for which the rents meet the
affordability standard.
. . .
Attached accessory dwelling unit means a separate and complete single housekeeping
unit within a detached dwelling unit, permitted under the provisions of Subsection 9-6-
3(m), B.R.C. 1981.48
. . .
Designated historic property means a property with a building designated as an
individual landmark or recognized as contributing to a designated historic district under
Chapter 9-11, “Historic Preservation,” B.R.C. 1981.49
. . .
47 Removed unnecessary cross-reference.
48 Removed unnecessary cross-reference.
49 This definition was previously included within the ADU standards. To facilitate the consolidation of floor area and parking
standards into tables, the definition is added here instead.
Detached accessory dwelling unit means a separate and complete single housekeeping
unit within an accessory structure to the principal dwelling unit of the lot or parcel upon
which the unit is located that is permitted under the provisions of Paragraph 9-6-3(n)(3),
B.R.C. 1981.50
. . .
Limited accessory unit means an existing nonconforming duplex or two detached
dwelling units located on the same lot and within the R1 use module that has been
approved in compliance with the standards in Section 9-6-3(n)(4).51
. . .
Owner-occupied means a dwelling unit or accessory dwelling unit that is the principal
residence of at least one owner of record of the lot or parcel upon which the dwelling
unit or accessory dwelling unit is located, who possesses at least an estate for life, or a
fifty percent fee simple ownership interest, or is the trustor of a revocable living trust.,
or is the member that owns 50 percent or more of a limited liability company, or is the
partner that owns 50 percent or more of a partnership or limited liability partnership, or
similar entity.52
. . .
Section 10-1-1, “Definitions”
(a) The following terms used in this title have the following meanings unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise:
. . .
Accessory dwelling unit means an accessory dwelling unit permitted under Section 9-6-
3(n), “Accessory Dwelling Units,” B.R.C. 1981.53
. . .
Section 10-3-6, “License Application Procedure for Buildings Converted to Rental
Property”54
Every operator converting a property to rental property shall follow the procedures in
this section for procuring a rental license:
50 Removed unnecessary cross-reference.
51 Removed as Limited Accessory Unit type has been removed.
52 Added clarity about LLC and LLP ownership.
53 Consistency of “accessory dwelling unit” term.
54 Consistency of “accessory dwelling unit” term.
(a) Submit to the city manager a complete application packet, on forms provided by the
manager, at least thirty days before rental of the property including:
(1) A rental housing inspector’s certification of rental inspection dated within twelve
months before the application. The operator shall make a copy of the inspection
form available to city staff and tenants of inspected units within fourteen days of
a request;
. . .
(4) If the unit is an affordable accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 9-16-1,
“Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981, a sworn certification that the unit will meet the rental
affordability standard as defined in Section 9-16-1, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
Section 10-3-7, “License Renewal Procedure for Buildings Occupied as Rental
Property”55
Every operator of a rental property shall follow the procedures in this section when
renewing an unexpired license:
(a) Submit to the city manager a complete application packet, on forms provide d by the
manager including:
(1) A rental housing inspector’s certification of rental inspection dated within twelve
months before the application. The operator shall make a copy of the inspection
form available to city staff and tenants of inspected units within fourteen days of
a request;
. . .
(4) If the unit is an affordable accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 9-16-1,
"Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, a sworn certification that the unit will meet the rental
affordability standard as defined in Section 9-16-1, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981.
. . .
Section 10-3-16, “Administrative Remedy”56
(a) If the city manager finds that a violation of any provision of this chapter or Chapter 10 -2,
“Property Maintenance Code,” B.R.C. 1981, exists, the manager, after notice to the
operator and an opportunity for hearing under the procedures prescribed by Chapt er 1-
55 Consistency of “accessory dwelling unit” term.
56 Consistency of “accessory dwelling unit” term.
3, “Quasi-Judicial Hearings,” B.R.C. 1981, may take any one or more of the following
actions to remedy the violation:
(1) Impose a civil penalty according to the following schedule:
(A) For any violation in the following areas or of affordability standards: The
area south of Arapahoe Avenue, north of Baseline Road, east of 6th
Street and west of Broadway, the area south of Baseline Road, north of
Table Mesa Drive, east of Broadway and west of U.S. Route 36 and the
area south of Canyon Boulevard, north of Arapahoe Avenue, west of
Folsom Street and east of 15th Street or for any violation of affordability
standards for an affordable accessory dwelling unit approved under
Subsection 9-6-3(n), B.R.C. 1981:
. . .
(b) If the city manager finds that an affordable accessory dwelling unit was advertised,
offered for rent or rented for an amount in excess of the affordability standard, in
addition to the actions the manager may take under subsection (a), the manager shall
impose a penalty equal to the amount charged in excess of the affordability standard
during the term of the license, plus interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum,
and shall pay such funds collected to the tenant who was charged in excess of the
affordability standard.
. . .
Section 10-3-19, “Short-Term Rentals”57
(a) Short-term rentals are prohibited unless the city manager has issued a valid short -
term rental license for the property.
. . .
(o) An accessory dwelling unit or a principal dwelling unit on a single-family lot or parcel
with an accessory unit may not be rented as a short-term rental unless all the following
requirements are met:
(1) Both the accessory dwelling unit and the principal dwelling unit were legally
established on the effective date of Ordinance No. 8256February 1, 2019;
(2) A current and valid short-term rental license exists for the unit;
57 Consistency of “accessory dwelling unit” term. Updated references to Ordinance 8256 to February 1, 2019, instead, to be
more consistent with practice throughout code.
(3) If the accessory dwelling unit is licensed for short-term rental, only the accessory
dwelling unit and not any other dwelling unit on the same property may be
licensed or used as a rental;
(4) If a principal dwelling unit is licensed for short-term rental, then no accessory
dwelling unit on the same property may be licensed or used as a rental;
(5) An accessory dwelling unit may not be rented as a short-term rental for more
than one hundred twenty days in any calendar year;
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (i), the occupancy of the accessory
dwelling unit and the principal dwelling unit must meet the requirements of
Subsection 9-68-35(nb)(1), B.R.C. 1981; and
(7) Licensing Limitations and Requirements:
(A) After February 1, 2019, Nno application for a new short-term rental
license shall may be accepted on or after the effective date of Ordinance
No. 8256. On or after the effective date of Ordinance No. 8256, a new
short-term rental license may be issued only for complete applications
received by the city manager on or before the effective date of Ordinance
No. 8256. On or after the effective date of Ordinance No. 8256, the The
city manager may renew unexpired short-term rental licenses pursuant
to Section 10-3-7, "License Renewal Procedures," B.R.C. 1981. A license
for which a complete renewal application is not filed within ninety days
from the expiration date shall be considered expired.
. . .
Section 10-11-3, “Cooperative Housing Licenses” 58
. . .
(l) Any attached accessory dwelling unit or detached accessory dwelling unit to a dwelling
unit that is licensed pursuant to this chapter shall be part of the licensed cooperative
housing unit and subject to the standards of this chapter. The occupants of the dwelling
unit and accessory unit shall all be members of the cooperative. While such units are
licensed as a cooperative housing unit under this chapter, neither the principal dwelling
unit nor the accessory dwelling unit shall be required to be owner-occupied as would
otherwise be required under Subparagraph 9-6-3(n)(1)(A)(iv), “Owner-Occupied,” B.R.C.
1981.
. . .
58 Consistency of “accessory dwelling unit” term.
Accessory Dwelling Units by Type
ADU by Type and Approval Date
Pre-Feb 2019 (247)
Attached, Post-Feb 2019 (106)
Detached, Post-Feb 2019 (126)
City Limits
Parcels (city parcel data)
¯0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles
The City of Boulder has provided the data as a public
service and offers no guarantees or warranties,
expressed or implied, as to the accuracy and/or
completeness of the information contained herein. The
City of Boulder makes no warranties about the datasets
and disclaims liability for all uses of the datasets, to the
fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
Name: AUR Mapping Lisa Houde 20220907
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 1
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
UPDATE EVALUATION
2019 - 2022
PURPOSE
The most recent changes to Boulder’s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations were adopted in
Ordinance 8256 on December 4, 2018 and went into effect on February 1, 2019. The intent of this
document is to evaluate how the ADU update met the desired outcomes of the code change project,
and to inform future updates.
2018 Project Purpose Statement
The city, with the community, will craft a proposal for incremental changes to the relevant regulations
addressing accessory units to simplify the regulations and remove apparent barriers to the
construction of this housing type in ways that are compatible with neighborhoods.
The ADU Update project was intended to achieve the following:
• Provide additional flexibility to homeowners to stay in their homes by allowing for options that
may either create supplemental revenue sources or allow for aging in place on the property.
• Increase workforce and long-term rental housing opportunities while balancing potential
impacts to existing neighborhoods.
SUMMARY OF 2018 CHANGES
City Council adopted the following changes in Ordinance 8256:
Changes to types of ADUs and where they are allowed
• Established “detached accessory dwelling unit” and “attached accessory dwelling unit” terms
instead of “owner accessory dwelling unit” and “accessory dwelling unit,” respectively.
• Allowed attached ADUs in RMX-1 and RMX-2 as a conditional use, where previously prohibited,
and allowed detached ADUs in the RL-2, RM-2, RMX-2, P, and A districts, where previously
prohibited.
• Increased the saturation limit for properties in the RL-1 and RL-2 district from 10 percent to 20
percent. Removed the specific saturation limit for the RE, RR-1, RR-2, and A zoning districts.
Included cooperative housing units in the calculation of saturation.
• Removed requirement that the principal structure must be at least five years old before an ADU
can be approved.
Changes to licensing or occupancy requirements
• Modified occupancy standard from two person maximum to a combined maximum occupancy
with principal structure, excluding dependents.
• Clarified rental license requirement for long-term rentals.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 2
• Prohibited short-term rental of either principal dwelling unit or ADU.
• Removed automatic expiration if ADU not established with rental license within 180 days.
• Removed specifications for removing or transferring an ADU.
Changes to size or design of ADUs
• Established unique method of measurement and definition of floor area for ADUs.
• Allowed flexibility for required parking to not meet the typical setback and paving
requirements.
• Reduced minimum lot size required for ADUs from 6,000 to 5,000 square feet.
• Removed minimum size of attached ADU.
• Removed requirement to share utility hookups and meters with principal unit.
• Allowed greater flexibility for attached units to be created in other forms than internal
conversion, such as additions.
• Incorporated new flexibility for affordable ADUs to reduce parking requirements and increase
the size of the ADU.
• Incorporated new flexibility for designated historic properties to reduce parking requirements,
increase size, and an increased saturation limit of 30%.
• Established size limit of 550 square feet for detached ADUs, where the previous requirement
was 450 square feet.
• Removed some design requirements for detached ADUs including garage door design,
architectural consistency with principal structure, and maximum building coverage of 500
square feet.
ADUS BY THE NUMBERS
Number of approved applications
Accessory dwelling units have been allowed in Boulder since 1983. 441 accessory dwelling units are
currently approved in the city. A total of 200 ADU applications were approved between February 1, 2019
and July 31, 2022. Of these, 96 have completed construction as of July 31, 2022. 44 have been issued a
building permit, and 32 have building permits at some stage in the building permit review process. See
chart below for the number of applications approved each year since the 2018 ordinance went into
effect. A chart with the number of application approved since 1983 is available in the appendix.
80
61
46
12
2019 2020 2021 2022
Figure 1. ADU Applications Approved
31 in process
12 approved
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 3
ADU types
Approximately 42% (83) of approved ADUs
between February 1, 2019 and July 31, 2022
were attached and 58% (117) were detached.
The adopted code changes also provided
flexibility for the size and parking
requirements for affordable ADUs.
Since the changes were adopted, 127 ADUs
approved during this time are market-rate
units and 73 are affordable ADUs.
Zoning district location and lot size
The 2018 changes to the ADU regulations
expanded the zoning districts where ADUs
are allowed. The majority (72%) of ADUs
that were permitted during this time were
in the RL-1 zoning district, which already
permitted both attached and detached
ADUs prior to the changes. About 10% of
recently approved ADUs were in the RE
district, 9% in RMX-1, 6% in RL-2, 2% in RR-
2, 1% in RR-1, and less than 1% in RM-1.
Despite allowing ADUs in the RMX-2, A, and
P districts, none were approved in these
areas between 2019 and 2022.
The average lot size of properties approved
with an ADU during this time is 10,298
square feet and the median is 7,899 square
feet. The 2018 changes reduced the minimum
lot size from 6,000 to 5,000 square feet, which
allowed 12 properties with lot sizes smaller
than 6,000 square feet to develop an ADU.
83
117
Figure 2. Types of Approved ADUs
DETACHED
ATTACHED
RR-2
2%RL-2
6%
RMX-1
9%
RE
10%RL-1
72%
RM-1
0%
RR-1
1%
Figure 3. Approved ADUs Zoning District Locations
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 4
ADU size
The 2018 changes increased the allowable size of detached ADUs from 450 square feet to 550 square
feet, but did not modify the allowable size of attached ADUs (1/3 of the structure or 1,000 square feet).
The average size of approved ADUs between 2019 and 2022 was 640 square feet. The average size of
detached ADUs during this time was 547 square feet and the average size of attached ADUs was 773
square feet. Detached market-rate ADUs were an average of 492 square feet and detached affordable
ADUs averaged 634 square feet. For attached ADUs, market-rate units were an average of 763 square
feet and affordable units were 796 square feet.
Figure 4. ADU Sizes
ADU size (sf)
MEDIAN: 582
AVERAGE: 640
Detached ADU size (sf)
Average: 547
Average affordable: 634
Average market-rate: 492
Attached ADU size (sf)
Average: 773
Average affordable: 796
Average market-rate: 763
Allowed:
Market rate – 550 sf
Affordable – 800 sf
Historic – 1,000 sf
Allowed:
Market rate - lesser of 1/3 or 1,000 sf
Affordable/Historic – lesser of 1/2 or 1,000 sf
Saturation limits
The updated regulations modified the applicability of the saturation limit to only the RL-1 and RL-2
zoning districts and increased the limit from 10 to 20%. As of July 31, 2022, 15 properties remain on the
waiting list because the saturation limit of their neighborhood area exceeds the limit of 20%. Of the 200
ADU applications approved since 2019, 41 of them exceeded the previous saturation limit of 10% and
therefore would have not been allowed prior to the changes. However, 55% of applications had a
saturation limit less than 10%, the previous limit, and 25% of applications do not have an applicable
saturation limit due to their zoning district.
49, 25%
109, 55%
41, 20%
Figure 5. Approved ADU Saturation Limits
Districts with no
saturation limit
10% and under
10.1% - 20%
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 5
ADU variances
The code changes eliminated a variance option for a building coverage limit that was removed and
maintained an existing variance option for floor area. Four ADUs applied for variances and received
unanimous approval from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Each of these variances was requested to
increase floor area of an attached ADU in an existing basement. The sizes of these requests ranged
from 1,027 to 1,500 square feet.
POTENTIAL OR WITHDRAWN ADU APPLICATIONS
In addition to reviewing data related to approved ADU applications, it is also important to understand
what barriers may still exist for residents interested in establishing an ADU, as well as what issues
commonly cause applicants to withdraw an ADU application that they have submitted to the city.
ADU inquiries
Inquire Boulder is the city’s online customer service portal used by members of the public to submit
issues or questions. Staff looked at questions submitted to the Planning & Development Services
department in the Inquire Boulder system related to ADUs to better understand what initial questions
are most frequent for people interested in building an ADU. From January 1 through September 15,
2022 a total of 218 tickets were received related to ADUs. The inquiries were tagged by general topic
and the following lists the frequency of each topic.
• Saturation rate (39)
• Is an ADU allowed
(29)
• General (19)
• Building code (18)
• Size (16)
• Existing application
(15)
• Setbacks (13)
• Owner occupancy
(9)
• Building coverage (6)
• Flood (6)
• Process (6)
• Short term rental (6)
• Height (5)
• Removal (5)
• Survey (5)
• Application
requirements (3)
• Compatible
development (3)
• Neighbor concern (3)
• Parking (3)
• Solar (3)
• Access (2)
• Affordable (1)
• Building permit fee
(1)
• Interior connection
(1)
• Open space (1)
Discussions with applicants who withdrew their ADU application
City staff also contacted all households that withdrew an ADU application from the city’s permitting
system since February 1, 2019. Feedback from these households was varied. One architect described
the owner occupancy requirement being a challenge for properties that are simultaneously remodeling
a main living area and building an ADU. “We needed to renovate the main house as it was
uninhabitable. But we couldn’t show owner occupancy because we couldn’t live in it. Even if we were
planning on occupying as a main home, we could not live there during renovations.” Other households
identified the following variables as a reason to withdraw an ADU application:
• One year time limit from ADU permit to complete building permit
• Need of a lockable separation for the unit
• HOA disapproval of building an ADU
• The complexity of the process and requirements for building an ADU
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 6
SURVEY RESULTS
Survey background
In 2022, the City of Boulder’s Housing and Human Services Department, in partnership with the
Planning and Development Services Department, conducted a survey about accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) within the city. The purpose of the survey was to understand how these units contribute to
housing opportunities within the city and to determine how the program might be improved. A similar
survey was conducted both in 2012 and 2017, so changes in the uses of ADUs, attitudes about them,
and major barriers can be assessed over time.
Immediately following the implementation of the regulatory changes in 2019, there was a
corresponding spike in ADU applications. As a result, the 2022 version of this survey was sent to 439
households, a 47% increase in households surveyed compared to the 2017 survey.
The 2017 survey instrument was used as the starting point for the 2022 survey, with a few changes
made to reflect the 2019 regulatory updates. All 439 households in the City’s records shown to maintain
an ADU in 2022 were selected to receive the survey. These households were mailed a survey packet
which included the survey, a cover letter explaining the survey, and a postage-paid pre-addressed
envelope in which to return the completed paper survey. In contrast to previous survey instruments,
the 2022 survey included a QR Code and URL to allow households to complete the survey online. A
reminder postcard was also sent to all 439 households. This postcard included the original QR Code
and URL. Of the 439 households to which a survey was mailed, 212 households responded to the
survey, for a 48% response rate.1
Highlights of the survey results
While two-thirds of respondents (68%) report that supplemental income through rental of ADU
was the primary benefit of maintaining an ADU, the overall proportion of those identifying
supplemental income as the primary benefit has decreased by 20% since 2017.
Figure 6. What do you consider to be the primary benefits of maintaining an ADU?
1 Initial mailing sent August 31. Postcard reminder sent September 17. Survey closed October 10.
87%
23%24%21%18%
68%
33%40%
12%19%
Supplemental income Space for visitors Space for relatives Security/
companionship of a
tenant
Other
2017 2022
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 7
The proportion of survey respondents currently renting their ADU to long-term paying tenants
has decreased by 29% since 2012. Using ADUs as housing for relatives, visitors, or simply extra space,
all increased since previous surveys.
Figure 7. Current Use of the ADU (How do you currently use your ADU?)
46%
1%
15%
9%
11%
6%
12%
64%
1%
5%
6%
3%
0%
5%
75%
1%
5%
4%
5%
0%
7%
Long-term rental to paying tenants
Long-term rental in return for other services
(e.g., childcare, yard work, etc.)
Housing for relatives
Housing for visitors
Extra space
I live in the ADU and rent the main house
Other
2022
2017
2012
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 8
Between 2017 and 2022, average reported rents among ADU owners have risen by 21% from
$1,349 in 2017 to $1,626 in 2022. Average rents for ADUs have remained lower than the Affordable
ADU maximum rents, as defined by the City of Boulder. Conversely, average rents for all types of
housing have increased by 27% throughout Colorado, according to data collected by Apartment List.
Figure 8. Average Reported Rents among ADU Survey Respondents and Affordable ADU Rent Maximum (set by
City of Boulder at 75% Area Median Income), 2017 and 2022
Among those survey respondents who pursued an affordable ADU, 40% did so primarily because
of the lower parking requirement allowed for an affordable rental. Thirty-four percent (34%) of
respondents with an Affordable ADU pursued this designation because of a desire to provide long-term
affordable housing in the city. As noted above in this evaluation, the 2018 regulatory changes allowed a
lower parking requirement and larger unit size for Affordable ADUs.
Figure 9. What was the primary reason for pursuing an Affordable ADU?
$1,349 $1,626
$1,528
$1,746
2017 2022
Affordable ADU Rent
Maximum (75% AMI)
Lower parking
requirement
40%
Larger unit size
allowed
26%
Desire to
provide
affordable
housing
34%
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 9
Strongly
support
40%
Somewhat
support
28%
Somewhat
oppose
11%
Strongly
oppose
14%
No
opinion
7%
Figure 11. Support eliminating the saturation
limit?
Very few survey respondents report neighbor disapproval or complaints of ADUs. 93% reported
neighbors generally approving or not mentioning the existing ADUs. This rate of approval is essentially
unchanged since 2017.
A majority of survey respondents support the elimination of the off-street parking requirements
(55%) and for removing the saturation limit (68%) for ADUs. Since 2017, opinions about both ADU
ordinance changes have remained similar.
Over three-quarters of survey respondents (77%) would not be interested in developing an
additional ADU if permitted.
Figure 12. Would you develop an additional ADU if permitted?
Strongly
support
42%
Somewhat
support
13%
Somewhat
oppose
13%
Strongly
oppose
16%
No
opinion
16%
Figure 10. Support eliminating the off-street
parking requirement?
No, not
interested
77%
Yes, I/we
would
pursue an
additional
ADU
23%
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 10
Summary of qualitative survey feedback
The final question of the survey asked survey respondents to share details or additional information
about their “ADU Experience.”
Many respondents described the importance of having an ADU as a source of supplemental income. As
one respondent described, “the supplemental income from my long-term tenant in my ADU helped me
afford to have my child and I stay in our home following my divorce.” Another respondent described
the ability to move from the City’s affordable housing program to market rate homeownership because
of the supplemental income from an ADU. “My wife and I are teachers, we moved to our house from the
city’s affordable housing program. If we didn’t have an ADU, we could not afford our home.”
Other survey respondents described the ability to flexibly use the ADU over time, either for growing or
changing families, or to be able to “age in place.” As one participant describes, “choosing to have an
ADU seemed a practical solution for a large house with good separation of space…It makes so much
sense, to respectfully create a few more separate and independent living spaces within the City of
Boulder.”
Most of the disapproving or complaints surrounded the actual process of applying for a permit. Several
respondents described challenges with the ADU permitting process. “The planning process is
byzantine in this town.” Others voiced concerns about the concept of using ADUs in Boulder as a
solution for affordable housing. One respondent described the cost of building an ADU as a barrier
mostly to enter. “Excessive costs make building an ADU very inaccessible for the majority of
homeowners in Boulder.”
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER INPUT
To further inform this evaluation, planners, zoning staff, housing staff, project specialists, and licensing
staff met to discuss the ADU process and regulations. Key issues identified by internal staff included:
• Saturation limit: This is a significant barrier for people trying to understand whether they can
build an ADU. It is the most frequently asked question related to ADUs by members of the
public. It is also an administrative burden for staff to calculate each time it is requested.
• One year approval expiration: The requirement to establish the ADU within one year
frequently causes issues. Staff recommended increasing the expiration time to 3 years, like
most other approvals.
• Process: Issues frequently arise due to the two-step process of ADU approval followed by
building permit approval. Although there is a desire to make the ADU process simple,
homeowners often run into problems they were unaware of when they get to the building
permit stage. There is a disconnect in the process and a perception that the ADU application
can be relatively informal, but then applicants run into bigger surprises and that causes even
more frustration at building permit. With the increased number of applications, additional staff
is needed to support ADU review as staff is already under-resourced for the number of ADU
applications coming in.
• Design standards: This is often where projects run into issues, and where the bulk of
application requirements stem from (for instance, needing floor plans of the entire house or
elevations to determine zoning compliance). Perhaps eliminate unique design standards for
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 11
ADUs and use compatible development standards only and review the same way any accessory
building would be reviewed.
• Parking: The 2018 code changes improved this issue, but some properties still run into issues
providing ADU parking. Some applicants have chosen to build affordable ADU to eliminate the
parking requirement, but many do not know about that option or are resistant to it. Parking
requirements are not well communicated, as many applicants do not show parking spaces on
their applications initially.
• Size: The maximum floor area is a common issue. Applicants almost always measure floor area
incorrectly. The measurement should be made consistent with the rest of the code. If ADU
regulations were not so specialized and were more uniform with other code standards,
processing time would be reduced.
• Height: Potentially allow for variance option.
• Addressing: The addressing assignment of Unit A and Unit B is happening too early in the
process. This can cause issues and needs to happen at building permit completion instead.
• Owner occupancy: Need additional code clarity about when the verification of owner
occupancy happens, whether ownership by an LLC is permissible, what to do in case of people
renovating the main house and building an ADU at the same time so no one is living on-site,
align principal residence definition with licensing definitions.
• Rental licensing: Owner occupancy requirements can be challenging for applicants who move
out for one year and have to entirely disassemble their ADU. Homeowners can run into
licensing issues after an ADU is approved through both planning and building permit.
• Declarations of use: Since 2018 updates no longer require transfer of ownership, many owners
have outdated declarations of use, and some are hesitant to sign a new one because now it
says they cannot do short term rentals in their ADU.
• Contractor licensing: In building permit process, if someone has the intent to rent an ADU
they must use a licensed contractor, but this is not very clear. Many homeowner contractor
licenses need clarification on how much can be done with a homeowner permit.
• Language updates: The term “incidental” is ambiguous (ADU must be incidental to the
principal residence) and has required interpretation, need to clarify this. Remove reference to
“amendments” as the process is just to submit another application.
• Short term rentals: Enforcement issue once an ADU is approved, notification should be
alerted that short term rental license is forfeited.
• Public notice: ADU applications, unlike all other administrative applications except solar
access exceptions, require public notice to be sent to adjacent neighbors and posted on the
property. Neighbors are often confused why they are being notified if there is not a public
hearing or opportunity to provide input on the outcome.
• After-the-fact approvals: Some clarification for applicants on these approvals would be
helpful.
• Other challenges: There are several challenges with energy code and fire code compliance
that land use code changes for ADUs will not be able to fix.
• Other improvements: Could create video tutorials or handouts for the website that answer
frequent questions.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 12
EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS
Did the 2018 updates remove apparent barriers to ADU construction?
There appear to have been several changes that had an impact on the number of ADUs approved.
Based on the number of ADU applications approved before and after the changes, it does appear that
the 2018 update removed several barriers that were present in the previous regulations.
•Saturation limit: Increasing the saturation limit from 10% to 20% allowed the construction of
41 ADUs that would not have previously been permitted.
•Maximum size: About three-quarters (87) of 117 detached ADUs approved are larger than the
previous 450 square foot limit, which was increased to 550 square feet in 2018, with additional
flexibility for unit size up to 800 square feet for affordable ADUs, or 1,000 square feet for historic
properties.
•Minimum lot size: Reducing the minimum lot size seems to have had a more limited impact,
with 12 properties under 6,000 square feet approved since the requirement was reduced to
5,000 square feet.
•Zoning districts: Allowing ADUs in additional zoning districts had a small impact. Two
detached ADUs were approved in the RL-2 district, where they were previously prohibited.
In addition to these methods that can be enumerated through data points, several changes were
mentioned in survey results or stakeholder interviews that appear to have removed barriers to ADUs.
For instance, staff noted that parking restrictions had become a less frequent issue after the code
changes went into effect which provided flexibility on the location of the required ADU parking space.
Are there other improvements that could be made?
Despite the impact that the 2018 ADU regulation changes had on the number of ADUs in Boulder, the
analysis in this evaluation has illuminated several additional improvements that could be made to
both the regulations and the process.
Eliminate saturation limits. Because saturation limits are the most frequent inquiry made to city staff
regarding ADUs, and because the incremental increase from 10% to 20% did allow for additional ADUs
to be constructed, elimination of the saturation limit is recommended to eliminate both perceived and
actual barriers to ADUs. Eliminating the saturation limit would have a significant impact on initial
public understanding of whether an ADU would be permitted on their property. In addition, the
administrative burden of calculating the saturation limit for all of these inquiries is frequently cited by
both the public and staff as a major issue related to ADUs.
Reconsider floor area maximum and method of measurement. Over three-quarters of the detached
ADUs that were constructed since 2019 would not have previously been permitted due to maximum
floor area. Modifying the allowed square footage by only 100 square feet made arguably the most
significant change in the number of ADUs allowed. These ADUs were still subject to all of the typical
zoning requirements that ensure compatible residential development, such as solar access, interior
side wall articulation, bulk plane, and building coverage requirements. Further increasing the allowed
floor area of ADUs could allow for more ADUs to be constructed in Boulder. In addition, the
measurement of ADU floor area was one of the most frequently cited issues and least clear parts of the
code. Removing the unique method of measuring floor area from the code would significantly reduce
review time and increase clarity for both applicants and city staff.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 13
Extend approval expiration period. A commonly raised issue by both applicants and staff was the
requirement to establish the ADU within one year of approval. Based on construction delays and
permit review times, this is often challenging for applicants to meet. A longer expiration period could
be explored to provide additional flexibility.
Variance option for height. One issue with the code that has been raised by recent applications is the
lack of flexibility to adapt existing structures for ADUs due to code language regarding height. This
issue could be addressed by simply adding an option for applicants to pursue a variance to exceed 25
feet in height for existing structures. This would allow for limited cases that could encourage the
adaptive reuse of existing structures through an established public process.
Code clarification. Numerous aspects of the regulations came up repeatedly in both internal and
public discussions of issues with the ADU rules. In addition, the ADU standards in the land use code are
lengthy, repetitive, and difficult to understand. Simple language changes would greatly improve the
user-friendliness of the code and increase efficiency in the ADU application process. In addition to
generally reorganizing the standards, some specific changes could add clarity:
• Separation between attached units: A frequent misunderstanding in reviewing attached ADU
applications is the requirement for lockable separation between the ADU and principal
structure. This requirement comes from the definition of “dwelling unit” and is not listed within
the ADU regulations themselves, causing confusion for applicants. Several of the withdrawn
applications noted this issue as one of the reasons to withdraw their application. More clarity
about the requirements for separation would be helpful.
• Limited accessory units: Only one unit exists in the city that is classified as this type of ADU,
yet additional standards complicate the ADU standards. These specific standards could be
removed and the city could work to determine the appropriate status of the single remaining
property with this type of ADU.
• Owner occupancy: The issue of owner occupancy came up in many avenues while developing
this evaluation. In particular, confusion about whether and how LLCs can prove owner
occupancy has been raised many times. This issue should be clarified in the code language.
Process improvements. Aside from changes to the land use code, based on the internal stakeholder
interviews, survey results, and city inquiries, it is clear that several potential improvements could be
made to the city’s process of approving ADUs.
• One-step review: Currently, ADUs are reviewed as a separate administrative application prior
to building permit review. Based on discussions with staff, it appears that the level of detail
required for the ADU application often leads applicants to assume that no issues would arrive
at the point of later submitting a building permit. However, the building permit is a much more
detailed review of building code compliance and often a more detailed review of zoning
requirements, and applicants sometimes run into unforeseen issues at that stage. This is
understandably frustrating and confusing for ADU applicants. If some of the other initial
barriers to ADUs such as saturation limits were to be removed, the ADU process could be more
seamlessly integrated into the building permit process and eliminate the need for a two-step
process. Consider combining the ADU review with the building permit review.
• Addressing: Currently, properties are given a “Unit A” and “Unit B” address immediately after
ADU approval. This has caused numerous issues for applicants and is difficult to undo if the
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 14
ADU is not ultimately constructed. This step should instead occur upon the letter of completion
for the building permit or change of use approval.
• Declaration of use: Currently, all ADUs are required to record a declaration of use for their
property when the ADU application is approved. These declarations of use reference current
code requirements. However, as the regulations change, the recorded declarations of use
become obsolete. Properties are subject to current regulations as they change regardless of
the recorded declaration of use. Changes to this process should be considered.
• Self-service handouts or videos: While the City of Boulder website currently includes a
thorough explanation of the ADU process and requirements, residents frequently contact the
city when they have trouble understanding where an ADU would be allowed and what the
requirements might be. Updates could potentially be made to handout and application
materials to clarify commonly misunderstood information. In addition, there may be
opportunities to develop video explanations to further assist residents in understanding the
requirements.
Accessory Dwelling Unit Evaluation 2019-2022 | Page 15
APPENDIX: ADUS APPROVED SINCE 1983
Note: 2022 data is through July 31, 2022.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Accessory Dwelling Units Approved and Regulatory Changes 1983-2022
1983: First ADU
ordinance adopted
Late 80s: First amendments,
required 5 year minimum
1995: Allowed in garage or carriage
house. Require new owner DOU.
Waitlist established.
1997/1998: Allowed in
RMX-1, licensing reqts
1999: Min. size, reduced
notification, allow
homeowner transfer
2018: Incremental ADU
updates adopted
Accessory: Minimum separation
from other buildings (6’)
Accessory:
Rear yard
setback (3’)
Accessory:
Interior
side yard
setback (3’)
Principal: Front yard
setback (25’)
Principal: Interior
side yard setback
(5’ min, 15’ total)
Accessory:
Interior
side yard
setback (3’)
Accessory: Front yard setback (55’)
Accessory: Maximum
building coverage
within rear yard setback
(500 sf)
Principal: Rear yard
setback (25’)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio (3,500 sf)
Accessory: Coverage no greater
than principal building
Regulations Impacting ADU Design and Location
Form and Bulk, Compatible Design, and ADU Standards
Example: 7,000 square foot lot in RL-1 district - Market Rate ADU
Maximum building coverage (2,450 sf)Principal: Maximum height (35’)
Accessory: Maximum height
(20’), ADU up to 25’
Maximum number of stories (3)
Maximum cumulative wall length
without articulation (40’)
Minimum side yard bulk plane: 12’
above side lot lines at 45 degree
angle to permitted height
Maximum cumulative wall length
without articulation (40’)
ADU: Maximum sizeADU: Parking required (2)
ADU: Owner occupancy required
ADU: Occupancy limit same as for
one dwelling unit
ADU: Minimum lot size (5,000 sf)
Attached ADU: Maintain interior
connection
Attached ADU: Screen side
entrance
Detached ADU: Minimum private
open space (60 sf)
Principal: Interior
side yard setback
(5’ min, 15’ total)
Applies to principal
Applies to principal and accessory
Applies to accessory
Minimum side yard bulk plane:
12’ above side lot lines at 45
degree angle to permitted height
Comparable City Research: Accessory Dwelling Units
City Where Saturation
Limit Number Size Parking Height Occupancy Ownership Owner-
occupancy
Minimum Lot
Size
BOULDER
Some
residential
districts, A/P
RL-1 or RL-2:
20%
*affordable or
historic exempt
Not specified
Attached: 1,000 sf or 33% of principal
dwelling, whichever less
*affordable or historic – 50% or
1,000
Detached: 550 sf *affordable – 800 sf,
historic –1,000 sf
1
*affordable or
historic exempt
20 ft (25 ft if
existing steep
roof)
Same as typical,
except dependents
not counted
Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
Attached or
Detached: 5,000 sf
ANN ARBOR, MI
Most
residential
districts
None 1 per sf
dwelling
Lot under 7,200 – 600 sf
Lot over 7,200 – 800 sf 0 Detached: 21 ft
Attached: 30 ft
2 persons and their
offspring / max 4
plus offspring
combined principal
and ADU
Not addressed None None
ARVADA, CO
All residential
districts and
some mixed-
use
None 1 per lot
Max 2BR
Detached: 40% of principal building
or Lot under 6,000 – 600 sf
Lot between 6,000-12,500 – 850 sf
Lot between 12,500-1 acre – 1,000 sf
Over 1 acre- 1,200 sf
Attached: 50% principal dwelling
1 Not addressed Not addressed Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
None
BERKELEY, CA
Most
residential
districts
None 1-2 per lot 850 sf, 1000 sf for 2+ bdrms
*800sf in HOD 0 *except 1 in HOD 16-20 ft Not addressed
Cannot be sold
separately
*except
affordable
Only JADUs must
be owner occupied None
BLOOMINGTON, IN
All residential
districts,
most mixed-
use districts
None 1 per lot Attached: 840 sf
Detached 840 sf 0 Detached: 25 ft Not addressed One family in
ADU
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
None
BOISE, ID All residential
districts None 1 per lot 700 sf or 10% of lot size, whichever
smaller, 2 bedroom max 0; 1 reqd if 2BR District height Not addressed Not addressed
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
None
BOZEMAN, MT
Most
residential
districts
None 1 per lot 600 sf, 1 bedroom 0 Detached: 22 ft 2 person max Not addressed
In lowest density
districts, owner-
occupancy
required
5,000 sf
BROOMFIELD, CO All residential
districts None 1 per lot 800 sf or 50% of principal bldg.,
whichever is less 1 Not addressed 2 person maximum Not addressed
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
None
CAMBRIDGE, MA All districts None 1 per lot Primary bldg must be 1,800 sf; max
900 sf or 35%, whichever less 0 Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed None
CHAMPAIGN, IL All residential
districts None 1 per lot Lot under 7,200 – 600 sf
Lot over 7,200 – 800 sf 0
Detached: 24 ft
Attached: district
height
Max – 2 unrelated
in ADU
Cannot be sold
separately Not addressed None
COLORADO
SPRINGS, CO
Some
residential
districts,
some mixed
use
None
Detached: 1250 sf or 50%, whichever
less
Attached: 50% of principal dwelling
1
Detached: 25 or
28 ft depending
on roof pitch
Attached: 30 ft
Up to 5 unrelated
in each unit
Detached:
Subdivision
permitted
Attached:
Cannot be sold
separately
Detached: None
Attached: Either
principal or ADU
must be owner-
occupied
Same size required
for a single family
home in the zone
district
City Where Saturation
Limit Number Size Parking Height Occupancy Ownership Owner-
occupancy
Minimum Lot
Size
COLUMBIA, MO
Some
residential
districts
None 1 per
property
75% of sf principal dwelling or 800 sf,
whichever less
1 only if 3
bedrooms in ADU 24 ft (detached) Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed 5,000 sf
DENVER, CO
Some
residential
and mixed-
use
commercial
districts
None 1 per lot Varies by district and lot size – 650-
1,000
0; 1 in campus
context
Varies by district,
typically 24 ft 1 per 200 sf Not addressed
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
None
DURANGO, CO
Most
residential
some mixed-
use
None 1 per parcel 550 sf 1
18 or 20 ft
depending on
district
Not addressed Not addressed
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
5,000 or 7,000 in
some districts;
none otherwise
EUGENE, OR
Most
residential
districts
None 1 per lot 800 sf or 10% of lot area, whichever
less 0 Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not required None
FAYETTEVILLE, AR
All residential
districts,
some mixed-
use and
commercial
districts
None
1 detached
and 1
attached (2
total)
1200 sf 1 if ADU is >800 sf Detached: 2
stories
2 person max per
ADU; more if
related to primary
house
Not addressed None None
FLAGSTAFF, AZ
Most
residential
transects
None 1 per lot
Lot under 1 acre – 800 sf
Lot over 1 acre – 1,000 sf (some
smaller)
1
Detached: 24 ft
Attached: zoning
district height
2 person max Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
Detached: 6,000 sf
FORT COLLINS, CO
Some
residential
districts
None 1 per
property No specific limit
1.5- 3 depending
on total #
bedrooms
24 ft Same as typical Not addressed Not addressed NCL – 12,000
NCM – 10,000
GAINESVILLE, FL
All transects,
residential
districts,
most mixed-
use and non-
residential
districts
None
1 detached
and 1
attached (2
total)
850 sf 0 Not addressed Not addressed Cannot be sold
separately None None
GOLDEN, CO All residential
districts None 1 per lot
If principal is more than 1,000 sf -
50% of principal bldg. or 800 sf,
whichever smaller; if principal is
smaller than 1000 sf, max 500 sf
1 Not addressed 3 person max Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
7000 sf
HONOLULU, HI All residential
districts None 1 per lot Lot under 5,000 – 400 sf
Lot over 5,000 – 800 sf
1 * waived if within
½ mile of rail
transit station
Not addressed Not addressed Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
3,500 sf
LAWRENCE, KS
Some
residential
districts
None Not
addressed
33% of principal bldg. or 960 sf,
whichever less
2 total for lot plus
1 potentially
additional based
on street
classification
Not addressed
One additional
beyond typical
occupancy limits
for principal bdg
Not addressed
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied in
single-dwelling
districts
None
LEXINGTON, KY All residential
districts None 1 per lot Max 800 sf 0
Zoning district,
cannot exceed
height of
principal bldg
Max 2 persons plus
related children Not addressed
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
None
LONGMONT, CO
Most
residential
and some
mixed-use
None 1 per lot 50% of principal building 1
May not exceed
height of
principal unit
Not addressed Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
None
City Where Saturation
Limit Number Size Parking Height Occupancy Ownership Owner-
occupancy
Minimum Lot
Size
and non-
residential
districts
MADISON, WI
All residential
districts,
some mixed
use,
commercial,
downtown
None 1 per lot 900 sf; 2 bedroom max 0 25 ft 2 unrelated max Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
5,000 in one
district; none
otherwise
MINNEAPOLIS, MN All districts None 1 per lot
Internal: 800 sf
Attached: 800 sf
Detached:
1300 sf or 16% of lot area, whichever
less
0 Detached: 21 ft Not addressed
Cannot be
separate tax
parcel
Internal: either
must be owner-
occupied
None
PASADENA, CA All residential
districts None 1 per lot
Lot under 10,000 – 800 sf or 50%,
whichever less
Lot over 10,000 – 1200 sf or 50%,
whichever less Attached: 800 sf or
50% of main dwelling, whichever
greater
*affordable, 75%
1 * waived if within
½ mile of transit
stop, car share
proximity, existing
building, no on-
street parking
permit
Detached: 17 ft
Attached: 2
stories if primary
bldg is 2 stories
Not addressed Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
In Single-family
districts: 7,200;
none otherwise
PORTLAND, OR All residential
districts None
1 per lot *2 if
meets higher
minimum lot
area
75% of primary bldg. or 800 sf,
whichever less 0 Detached: 20 ft Not addressed Not addressed None Varies 1,500-10,000
based on district
RALEIGH, NC
Most
residential
districts and
most mixed-
use districts
None 1 per lot Lot under 40,000 sf – 800 sf
Lot over 40,000 – 1,000 sf 0 26 ft Not addressed Cannot be sold
separately None None
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Permitted
most
residential,
conditional
in some
None 1 per lot 650 sf or 50% of principal bldg.,
whichever less
1 *waived if within
¼ miles transit
stop or bike blvd,
can be on-street
parking
Detached: 17 ft or
height of home,
whichever less
Attached: height
of zoning district
1 family in ADU (3
unrelated max)
Cannot be sold
separately
Either principal or
ADU must be
owner-occupied
*some exceptions
None
SAVANNAH, GA
Most
residential
districts
None 1 per lot
40% of principal dwelling. In some
districts, 40% or 1,000 sf, whichever
less
0 Same as district Not addressed Not addressed None
For most districts,
200% of minimum
lot area
SEATTLE, WA All residential
districts None
1 *2 if one is
affordable in
some
districts
1,000 sf 0 14/18 depending
on lot width
8 if one ADU, 12 if
two ADUs Not addressed None Detached: 3,200
TEMPE, AZ Multi-family
Districts None 1 per lot 800 sf, 2 bedroom 0 Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed Not addressed None
TUCSON, AZ All residential
districts None 1 per lot
Lot under 6,500 – 650 sf
Lot over 6,500 – 10% of lot size, max
1,000 sf
1 *waived if within
¼ miles transit
stop or bike blvd,
can be on-street
parking
12’ or height of
primary
structure,
whichever
greater
Maximum 5
unrelated on the
lot
Not addressed None None
Characteristics of Comparable Cities
Population Persons/
HH
Land
Area
Population/
Sq. Mile
University Size Median Rent Median Value
of Housing
Units
Boulder 104,175 2.26 26.33 4,112 University of Colorado: 30k $1588 736k
Ann Arbor, MI 121,536 2.25 28.2 4,094 University of Michigan: 45k $1299 347k
Arvada, CO 123,436 2.55 38.91 3,028 N/A $1444 424k
Berkeley, CA 117,145 2.4 10.43 10,752 UC-Berkeley 45k $1767 1.06 million
Bloomington, IN 79,968 2.18 23.23 3,472 Indiana University: 32k $946 219k
Boise, ID 237,446 2.38 84.03 2,591 Boise State University: 22k $1009 283k
Bozeman, MT 54,539 2.17 20.6 1950 Montana State University: 17k $1145 413k
Broomfield, CO 75,325 2.54 32.97 1,692 N/A $1711 451k
Cambridge, MA 117,090 2.13 6.39 16,469 Harvard:6k, MIT: 12k $2293 843k
Champaign, IL 89,114 2.3 22.93 3,613 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign: 33k $922 167k
Colorado Springs,
CO
483,956 2.51 195.4 2,140 University of Colorado at Colorado Springs: 13k, Colorado College: 2k $1196 295k
Columbia, MO 126,853 2.31 66.54 1,720.1 University of Missouri: 30k $890 208k
Denver, CO 711,463 2.44 153.08 3,922.6 University of Denver: 12k; University Colorado Denver: 19k; Metro State: 20k $1397 428k
Durango, CO 19,223 2.3 14.71 1,701 Fort Lewis College: 4k $1297 473k
Eugene, OR 175,096 2.29 44.18 3,572.2 University of Oregon: 23k $1075 305k
Fayetteville, AR 95,230 2.23 54.14 1,366 University of Arkansas: 27k $837 232k
Flagstaff, AZ 76,989 2.45 66.03 1,031.3 Northern Arizona University: 25k $1286 363k
Fort Collins, CO 168,538 2.56 57.21 2,653 Colorado State University: 23k $1373 399k
Gainesville, FL 140,398 2.33 63.15 2,028 University of Florida: 34k $965 180k
Golden, CO 19,871 2.4 9.63 1,901 Colorado School of Mines: 7k $1495 541k
Honolulu, HI 1 million 2.98 600.63 1,586 University of Hawaii: 13k $1779 702k
Lawrence, KS 95,256 2.28 34.15 2,611.2 University of Kansas: 28k $953 205k
Lexington, KY 321,793 2.36 283.64 1042 University of Kentucky: 30k $920 201k
Longmont, CO 100,758 2.59 28.78 3,294 N/A $1437 396k
Madison, WI 269,196 2.2 79.57 3,037 University of Wisconsin: 44k $1147 262k
Minneapolis, MN 425,336 2.28 54 7,088 University of Minnesota: 51k $1078 268k
Pasadena, CA 135,732 2.44 22.96 5,969 Cal Tech: 3k $1787 822k
Portland 641,162 2.29 133.45 4,375 Portland State University: 17k $1325 439k
Raleigh, NC 469,124 2.4 147.12 2,826 North Carolina State University: 25k $1175 267k
Salt Lake City, UT 200,478 2.37 110.34 1,678 University of Utah: 33k $1050 346k
Savannah, GA 147,088 2.55 106.85 1,321.2 Savannah College of Art & Design: 12k $1049 162k
Seattle 733,919 2.08 83.83 7,251 University of Washington: 46k $1702 714k
Tempe, AZ 184,118 2.37 39.94 4,050 Arizona State University: 75k $1230 288k
Tucson, AZ 543,242 2.4 241 2,294 University of Arizona: 45k $861 167k
Accessory Dwelling Units in Boulder
Examples of ADUs Approved Since 2019
Detached
Street and alley views: Lots with alley access
721 Concord Ave | RL-1 | 8,689 sf lot
718 sf
717 University Ave | RL-1 | 12,765 sf lot
800 sf
2875 6th St | RL-1 | 6,173 sf lot
516 sf
750 14th St | RL-1 | 6,227 sf lot
835 sf
903 Pine St | RL-1 | 10,107 sf lot
800 sf
2610 Pine St | RMX-1 | 7,000 sf lot
681 sf
3225 6th St | RL-1 | 9,837 sf lot
800 sf
835 Pine St | RL-1 | 9,807 sf lot
500 sf
This document is intended to show a variety of sizes and styles of recently approved and constructed ADUs.
Detached
Street views: Lots without alley access
1290 Hartford Dr | RL-1 | 7,082 sf lot
835 sf
Attached
Street views
2266 Edgewood Dr | RL-1 | 7,715 sf lot
563 sf
431 Arapahoe Ave | RL-1 | 10,462 sf lot
669 sf
5045 Cascade Ave | RE | 17,686 sf lot
800 sf
660 Juniper Ave | RR-2 | 15,050 sf lot
799 sf
880 35th St | RL-1 | 7,562 sf lot
480 sf
3530 Everett Dr | RL-1 | 7,480 sf lot
1200 sf*
720 Willowbrook Rd | RE | 11,630 sf lot
1550 sf*
300 19th St | RL-1 | 7,396 sf lot
769 sf
3560 19th St | RL-1 | 5,477 sf lot
1062 sf*
3875 Cloverleaf Dr | RE | 10,711 sf lot
695 sf
450 S 41st St | RL-1 | 6,827 sf lot
812 sf
* Floor area variance approved by Board of Zoning Adjustment
1 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Update
Land Use Cod e Amendment
Project Charter – Working D raft
Project Purpose & Goals ........................................................................................................................... 2
Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Problem/Issue Statement .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Project Purpose Statement .................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Guiding BVCP Policies .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Project Timeline ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Background Research | Q3 2022 | Planning ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Project Scoping and Initial Drafts | Q4 2022 – Q1 2023 | Shared Learning & Options ..................................................................... 4
Draft Ordinance and Adoption | Q1-Q2 2023 | Decision ..................................................................................................................... 5
Engagement & Communication ................................................................................................................ 5
Level of Engagement ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Who Will be Impacted by Decision/Anticipated Interest Area .......................................................................................................... 5
Overall Engagement Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Engagement Timeline .......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Engagement Strategies ........................................................................................................................................................................ 6
Language Access ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Roles ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Translation and Interpretation services ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Project Team & Roles ............................................................................................................................... 9
Team Goals ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Critical Success Factors ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Expectations .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Potential Challenges/Risks .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Administrative Procedures .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Project Costs/Budget .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Decision-Makers .................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Boards & Commissions ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix: Engagement Framework ........................................................................................................ 12
2 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
Project Purpose & Goals
Background
During their 2022 annual retreat, City Council identified accessory dwelling unit (ADU) updates as a key
priority for the 2022-2023 council term. The current regulations limit the percentage of ADUs within a
certain radius in some zoning districts (a “saturation limit”) and establishes a waiting list for properties
that are in areas that have reached their saturation limit. The objective of this council priority is to
consider an ordinance to remove saturation limits for accessory dwelling units and to allow for
attached or detached ADUs wherever existing requirements are met.
Accessory dwelling units have been discussed as one tool to address Boulder’s housing challenges over
the past decade or more to help provide “a diversity of housing types and price ranges,” which is a core
value of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Problem/Issue Statement
The regulations for accessory dwelling units, currently found in Section 9-6-3(m) of the Land Use Code,
can be further simplified to alleviate issues and barriers with establishing these housing units in the
community. Several administrative barriers make the process confusing for prospective applicants and
neighbors. In particular, the saturation limit establishes a significant perceived barrier to entry that
dissuades and confuses potential applicants and is inherently not easily trackable by the public
making it difficult and time consuming to determine eligibility. Only a few properties in the city are
included on the waiting list established for neighborhoods that do not currently meet the saturation
limit and yet, can deter people from pursuing accessory dwelling units. In addition, research of best
practices in comparable cities around the country find that Boulder appears to be the only city in the
country with a saturation limit on ADUs.
In Boulder, other limits like maximum size, limitations on the zoning districts in which ADUs are
allowed, as well as compliance with the typical zoning development standards that ensure compatible
development in any other kind of residential construction, adequately ensure that there will not be an
incompatible proliferation of ADUs. The saturation limit is challenging to implement and represents a
significant initial hurdle for residents to understand if they can have an ADU on their property.
Project Purpose Statement
Analyze the impacts of the most recent code updates from 2018 and update the standards for
Accessory Dwelling Units to simplify language, improve consistency with other parts of the code, and
establish streamlined processes to reduce barriers to ADUs, both actual and perceived, and more
effectively support the housing goals of the BVCP.
Guiding BVCP Policies
The project is guided by several key BVCP policies:
2.10 Preservation & Support for Residential Neighborhoods
3 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability
and preserve the relative affordability of existing housing stock. The city will also work with
neighborhoods to identify areas for additional housing, libraries, recreation centers, parks, open space
or small retail uses that could be integrated into and supportive of neighborhoods. The city will seek
appropriate building scale and compatible character in new development or redevelopment,
appropriately sized and sensitively designed streets and desired public facilities and mixed commercial
uses. The city will also encourage neighborhood schools and safe routes to school
2.11 Accessory Units
Consistent with existing neighborhood character, accessory units (e.g., granny flats, alley houses,
accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and owner’s accessory units (OAUs)) will be encouraged by the city to
increase workforce and long-term rental housing options in single family residential neighborhoods.
Regulations developed to implement this policy will address potential cumulative negative impacts on
the neighborhood. Accessory units will be reviewed based on the characteristics of the lot, including
size, configuration, parking availability, privacy and alley access.
7.07 Mixture of Housing Types
The city and county, through their land use regulations and housing policies, will encourage the private
sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied prices, sizes and densities to
meet the housing needs of the low-, moderate- and middle-income households of the Boulder Valley
population. The city will encourage property owners to provide a mix of housing types, as appropriate.
This may include support for ADUs/OAUs, alley houses, cottage courts and building multiple small
units rather than one large house on a lot.
7.10 Housing for a Full Range of Households
The city and county will encourage preservation and development of housing attractive to current and
future households, persons at all stages of life and abilities, and to a variety of household incomes and
configurations. This includes singles, couples, families with children and other dependents, extended
families, non-traditional households and seniors.
7.17 Market Affordability
The city will encourage and support efforts to provide market rate housing priced to be more
affordable to middle-income households by identifying opportunities to incentivize moderately sized
and priced homes.
10.01 High-Performing Government
The city and county strive for continuous improvement in stewardship and sustainability of financial,
human, information and physical assets. In all business, the city and county seek to enhance and
facilitate transparency, accuracy, efficiency, effectiveness and quality customer service. The city and
county support strategic decision-making with timely, reliable and accurate data and analysis.
4 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
Project Timeline
Background Research | Q3 2022 | Planning
• Develop initial scope of work for ADU updates based on council work program direction
• Interview internal stakeholders to identify issues and opportunities for ADU updates: planners,
project specialists, rental licensing staff
• Work with Housing & Human Services to release updated survey of ADU owners, using similar
questions as 2017 survey for a more longitudinal study
• Work with HHS staff to interview applicants who withdrew their ADU application to understand
potential barriers
• Analyze ADU applications since 2018 changes: total number, average size, location,
affordable/market rate
• Map locations of approved ADUs
• Review ADU regulations in comparable cities and best practices reports
• Meet with interested stakeholders as requested
Deliverables
o Project charter
o ADU 2018 changes evaluation
o Survey ADU owners – Results summary
o Map of approved ADUs
o Matrix of peer city ADU regulation research
o Update website
Project Scoping and Initial Drafts | Q4 2022 – Q1 2023 | Shared Learning &
Options
• Present evaluation report and peer city research to City Council in November
• Refine scope of project with City Council in November
• Develop community engagement plan
• Present evaluation to Housing Advisory Board
• Continued internal staff stakeholder engagement
• Review results of 2018 engagement, create summary
• Begin drafting changes
Deliverables
o City Council study session memo
o Community engagement plan
o Memos for HAB, BOZA, PB
o Summary of past engagement
5 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
Draft Ordinance and Adoption | Q1-Q2 2023 | Decision
• Present evaluation to Board of Zoning Adjustment and Planning Board
• Check in with Housing Advisory Board
• Draft ordinance of ADU changes
• Engagement – feedback on draft ordinance
• Public hearings at Planning Board and City Council
Deliverables
o Draft ordinance
o Planning Board memo
o City Council memos
Engagement & Communication
Level of Engagement
The City of Boulder has committed to considering four possible levels when designing future public
engagement opportunities (see chart in the appendix). For this project, the public will be Consulted on
any proposed changes to the ADU standards. Public feedback will be obtained on several changes to
simplify the ADU regulations and eliminate barriers.
Who Will be Impacted by Decision/Anticipated Interest Area
• Residents and neighborhoods who may be impacted from changes to ADU standards in the
neighborhoods where they live/work/play.
• Under-represented groups that may have an interest in ADUs but may be unfamiliar with the
methods to offer input.
• City staff, City boards, and City Council who will administer any amended ADU standards and
implement ADU approval processes.
Overall Engagement Objectives
• Model the engagement framework by using the city’s decision-making wheel, levels of
engagement and inclusive participation.
• Involve people who are affected by or interested in the outcomes of this project.
• Be clear about how the public’s input influences outcomes to inform decision-makers.
• Provide engagement options.
• Remain open to new and innovative approaches to engaging the community.
• Provide necessary background information in advance to facilitate meaningful participation.
• Be efficient with the public’s time.
• Show why ideas were or were not included in the staff recommendation.
6 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
Engagement Timeline
jan feb mar apr
Week 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1
Board/ Public Feedback
Be Heard Boulder ideas
Virtual office hours
Community Connectors In
Residence 1/13
BOZA 1/10
PB 1/17
HAB 1/25
City Council 1/26
Ordinance Review
PB – Public Hearing 2/21
City Council – 1st Reading 3/16
City Council – Public Hearing 4/6
Engagement Strategies
Significant public engagement was undertaken when the most recent code changes were adopted in
2018. Additionally, the city administered a survey of ADU owners this year, and additional feedback on
ADUs have been provided in recent communitywide surveys. This engagement will help to inform the
targeted changes as a part of this project and will be supplemented by focused engagement utilizing
the city’s existing boards, the Board of Zoning Adjustment, Housing Advisory Board, and the Planning
Board, as well as the formal adoption process through City Council.
COMMUNITY CONNECTORS-IN-RESIDENCE
Community Connectors-in-Residence (CC-in-R) evolve a stronger relationship between historically-
excluded community and city government, identify barriers to community engagement, advance racial
equity, and serve as a bridge for continuing dialogue by surfacing the ideas, concerns, and dreams of
community members.
Members of the CC-in-R team belong to an array of communities and bring lived experience, including
immigrant and mixed-status families, Black, Latinx, Nepali, Indigenous and Arapahoe, low-income,
older adults, neurodivergent, artists, business owners, students, individuals of varying levels of
education, and multigenerational families. While there are some intersectionalities, the view of
connectors does not serve as a whole representation of the communities they belong to.
City staff will seek the input of the Community Connectors-In-Residence at their meeting on January
13, 2023 to provide a summary of the potential ADU code changes, receive feedback, help to identify
potential negative unintended consequences, and receive input on additional engagement
opportunities.
7 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
PLANNING BOARD, HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD, AND CITY COUNCIL
Both the Housing Advisory Board and Planning Board will be involved in the development of options
for the ADU regulations. Planning Board is required to provide a recommendation on any code change
to the City Council. The Housing Advisory Board is tasked with advising council on housing issues and
strategies. As both boards’ meetings are open to the public and have open public comment
opportunities, these board meetings also provide an opportunity for the public to share their thoughts
with the board members and with staff during the process of option development. These opportunities
will be promoted through the Planning Newsletter, website, and social media.
BE HEARD BOULDER
A simple Be Heard Boulder page will be developed as an engagement landing page for the ADU
updates, with a summary of past engagement heard over the last few years and the “ideas” tool used
to collect ideas from community members for several weeks. Since several relevant questions were
included in a questionnaire for the previous ADU changes, another questionnaire is not planned for this
project. Any “ideas” noted by residents on the Be Heard Boulder will be summarized and shared with
the boards and City Council.
VIRTUAL OFFICE HOURS
Planning staff will be available for virtual office hours to discuss concerns or questions from the
community about ADUs in late January and early February as options are finalized. These office hour
opportunities will be posted on the city project website and calendar.
PLANNING NEWSLETTER
City staff sends out a monthly newsletter to keep interested residents informed of upcoming projects
and engagement opportunities. Monthly updates on the ADU update project will be included from
January through April.
WEBSITE
City staff will regularly update the project website with opportunities to provide input on the project
and all steps.
SOCIAL MEDIA
To get the word out about opportunities to weigh in on changes, staff will post on social media sites
such as Nextdoor, Facebook, and Twitter to ensure residents are aware of opportunities to participate.
Language Access
The City of Boulder recognizes that effective and accurate communication between city staff members
and the communities they serve is critical to ensuring understanding and empowering community
members to leverage all the resources of and participate fully in local government. The ADU update
project will follow this project-specific language access plan which is aligned with the city’s Language
Access Plan.
8 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
The city’s current data indicates that only Spanish has reached the Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Safe Harbor Threshold (5% or 1,000 people of the population) and therefore Spanish will be the sole
primary language for document translation and for simultaneous translation for the project, in
addition to American Sign Language if needed.
Roles
The project team will consult the city’s Language Access Manager on translation and interpretation
needs and together consider the cost of the services required. The Language Access Manager will also
help with quality control of materials translated as capacity allows; in addition to the Planning
Engagement Strategist who will help ensure that the technical aspects such as zoning and land use are
explained correctly.
Translation and Interpretation services
Any summary documents created for the project will be translated to Spanish and interpretation will
be available by request for non-English language testimony. If videos are created for the project,
Spanish language videos will also be developed. In addition, the following guidelines will be followed
for all translation and interpretation services for this project:
• Translators and interpreters hired on this project shall be on the City of Boulder’s list of
approved interpreters and be familiar with the language variants, customs, and history of the
Spanish speaking LEP community in Boulder.
• The project team will provide translator(s) and interpreter(s) a list of preferred planning
terminologies in Spanish to help ensure consistency throughout the project. Community
connectors will be consulted on preferred translations in Spanish for their respective
communities where there are options or where comprehension is envisaged to be difficult.
• The project team together with the city’s Language Access Manager will determine when the
need for non-English language testimony and participation shall be anticipated in order to
arrange for interpretation services. The following factors will be considered: (i) impacts on LEP
Boulder residents, (ii) interest in the project demonstrated by LEP Boulder residents and their
community or advocacy groups to date, and (iii) advice from community connectors on
anticipated participation of LEP Boulder residents in meetings, including public hearings.
Notices of engagement events in Spanish language will also include a phone number to call to
request for interpretation in that meeting.
• Spanish social media sites such as Facebook shall be utilized for sharing key milestones and
information on engagement events and summarizing outcomes
• Community leaders will be hired as Community Connectors for intermittent support
throughout the project on outreach to underrepresented communities, including Spanish
speakers. At least one Community Connector shall be a native Spanish speaker.
• The Language Access Manager will help determine the need to translate high-profile
communications such as press releases (or repackage and summarize them) and translate
them directly, if capacity allows
• Video translations shall be done with a voice over and not subtitles as the LEP communities are
more likely to listen to then to read project materials.
9 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
• Language Access Manager and the Project Engagement Specialist will identify and fix major
translation errors on the project webpage when using G Translate
• Project information and updates can be shared through the city’s Spanish language podcast
Somos Boulder.
Project Team & Roles
Team Goals
• Follow City Council and Planning Board direction regarding changes to the ADU regulations and
application processes and the level of engagement to be used.
• Seek community feedback on proposed standards or criteria and incorporate relevant ideas
following a Public Engagement Plan.
• Solution must be legal, directly address the purpose and issue statement, and must have
application citywide.
Critical Success Factors
• Conduct a successful public engagement process.
• Address the goals related to supporting a variety of housing types.
Expectations
Each member is an active participant by committing to attend meetings; communicate the team’s
activities to members of the departments not included on the team; and demonstrate candor,
openness, and honesty. Members will respect the process and one another by considering all ideas
expressed, being thoroughly prepared for each meeting, and respecting information requests and
deadlines.
Potential Challenges/Risks
The primary challenge of this project is making sure that proposed code changes minimize land use
impact on other uses, unintended consequences, and over-complication of the code.
Administrative Procedures
The core team will meet regularly throughout the duration of the project. An agenda will be set prior to
each meeting and will be distributed to all team members. Meeting notes will be taken and will be
distributed to all team members after each meeting.
CORE TEAM
Executive Sponsor Brad Mueller
Executive Team Brad Mueller, Charles Ferro, Karl Guiler, Jay Sugnet
Project Leads
Project Manager Lisa Houde
10 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
Other Department Assistance
Legal Hella Pannewig & Elliott Browning
Housing Hollie Hendrickson
Comprehensive Planning Kathleen King Principal planner
Communications Cate Stanek Communications specialist
I.R. Sean Metrick Mapping analysis assistance
Public Engagement Vivian Castro-Wooldridge Engagement strategist
Executive Sponsor: The executive sponsor provides executive support and strategic direction. The
executive sponsor and project manager coordinates and communicates with the executive team on
the status of the project, and communicate and share with the core team feedback and direction from
the executive team.
Project Manager: The project manager oversees the development of the Land Use Code amendment.
The project manager coordinates the core team and provides overall project management. The project
manager will be responsible for preparing (or coordinating) agendas and notes for the core team
meetings, coordinating with team members on the project, and coordinating public outreach and the
working group. The project manager coordinates the preparation and editing of all
council/board/public outreach materials for the project, including deadlines for materials.
Other Department Assistance: Staff from other departments coordinate with the project manager on
the work efforts and products. These staff members will assist in the preparation and editing of all
council/board/public outreach materials including code updates as needed.
Project Costs/Budget
No consultant costs have been identified for this project at this time. The project will be undertaken by
P&DS staff.
Decision-Makers
• City Council: Decision-making body.
• Planning Board: Will provide input throughout the process, and make a recommendation to
council that will be informed by other boards and commissions.
• City Boards and Commissions: Will provide input throughout process and ultimately, a
recommendation to council around their area of focus.
Boards & Commissions
City Council – Will be kept informed about project progress and issues; periodic check-ins to receive
policy guidance; invited to public events along with other boards and commissions. Will ultimately
decide on the final code changes.
Planning Board – Provides key direction on the development of options periodically. Will make a
recommendation to City Council on the final code changes.
Advisory Boards: Identify and resolves issues in specific areas by working with the following
boards/commissions:
11 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
• Housing Advisory Board
• Board of Zoning Appeals
12 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
Appendix: Engagement Framework
City of Boulder Engagement Strategic Framework
13 | DRAFT: December 27, 2022
Boulder’s Decision Making Process
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 1
2016-2018
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
Background
This document summarizes public feedback on accessory dwelling units (ADUs) since 2016 to help
inform the 2023 ADU regulation update project. Summaries are provided and specific feedback
relevant to the scope of work in the 2023 project have been included.
2018 Incremental ADU Updates
The most recent updates to the accessory dwelling unit regulations were adopted in late 2018.
Significant public engagement was undertaken in 2017-2018. As many of the topics discussed during
these engagement opportunities relate to potential changes in 2023, staff is reviewing the results of
this previous input to inform future changes as well.
2017-2018 Engagement Efforts
The following strategies were used to obtain input from the public during the 2018 code update:
• 250 people “shared their ADU story”.
• 216 people attended open houses in 2017-2018 with staff presentations, Q&A, feedback forms.
• 194 people took the Be Heard Boulder online questionnaire.
• 26 individuals spoke to Planning Board and the Housing Advisory Board.
• 10 meetings with groups and city boards, and numerous meetings with individuals.
• 6 ordinance readings for City Council adoption.
Summary of Key Community Concerns in 2017-2018
Community members involved in the engagement efforts for the 2018 update identified the following
key concerns:
• Neighborhood nuisances – while most residents appreciated and enjoyed their
neighborhoods and neighbors, many were concerned with current rentals and associated
nuisances (parking, trash, noise, etc.).
• Over occupancy – although occupancy limits are the same for a home with an accessory unit
and a home without, many in the community were concerned that the city is not adequately
enforcing current regulations in other rental situations.
• Owner occupancy – overwhelming support for this provision.
• Illegal rentals – concern that illegal rentals throughout the city should be addressed prior to
allowing any additional ADUs.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 2
• Saturation – while most feedback was supportive of increasing the saturation rate, there
continued to be concerns voiced about additional rental properties in single-family
neighborhoods.
• Affordability – concern was expressed for both accessory unit rents charged and the future
appreciation of the accessory unit property and impact on surrounding properties.
“Share Your ADU Story” Responses
The city sent requests for members of the community to share their experiences with ADUs through
various means (City Planning email list, NextDoor notices, ads in the Daily Camera, postcards to 10,973
households living within 300 feet of existing legal accessory units, and a survey to 230 ADU
owners). Residents submitted over 270 stories on the ADU update website between Nov. 10, 2017 and
Mar. 21, 2018. Common themes from the input received included:
• Did not know ADU existed: Many neighbors of ADUs who received a postcard reported not
being aware that one or more ADUs existed in their neighborhood.
• ADU as tool for housing affordability: Respondents showed overall strong support for ADUs
as one tool to address Boulder’s housing affordability challenges.
• Rental housing concerns: People expressed concerns with ADUs as rentals and rental housing
in general. Many perceive rentals, generally, as a root problem of neighborhood nuisances
(noise, parking, trash, etc.). Many believe the city is not doing enough to address these
nuisances.
• Importance of ADUs: Stories illustrated how important ADUs are to households as housing for
family members with special needs, additional income enabling them to stay in Boulder amid
rising living costs, providing an option for aging in place, providing socio-economic diversity in
the community, etc.
Open Houses
Two open houses were held in November 2017, December 2017, and May 2018, and were attended by
216 people. General themes expressed by the attendees at the open houses included:
• Support for simplifying the regulations: General support for 2018 proposed changes to ADU
regulations to create additional diversity in the community, to allow empty nesters to age in
place, to provide housing for family members, and to provide additional affordable rental
opportunities.
• Desire to retain owner occupancy requirement: Support for keeping in place current
requirements regarding owner occupancy.
• Support changes to saturation and size limits: Support for increasing saturation limit and
size limits to provide more flexibility, with many suggesting that the saturation limit should be
increased beyond 20 percent or eliminated entirely.
• Rental housing concerns: Concern with potential impacts of additional housing units in terms
of nuisances that many associate with rentals (trash, noise, parking, etc.).
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 3
Be Heard Boulder Questionnaire
A questionnaire was created to gather community input on the staff recommendations for regulatory
changes. A summary of the feedback is provided below, as well as verbatim responses. Three questions
that were posed at the time are directly relevant to the 2023 scope of work.
SATURATION LIMIT
In 2018, the changes proposed at the time would increase the saturation limit from 10 to 20 percent.
Respondents indicated their support through a multiple-choice question and then provided
explanations for their choice. The increased 20 percent limit was ultimately adopted in the 2018
amendment.
The questionnaire also included themes of feedback from other engagement efforts related to
potential changes to the saturation limit:
• The current saturation rate discourages individuals from applying for permits altogether and
may instead encourage the creation of illegal units.
• The saturation rate should be higher than 20% or removed completely.
• No additional accessory units should be allowed in the city due to the potential impacts (e.g.,
parking, noise, litter, etc.) of additional rentals.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 4
Questionnaire comments have been sorted by those that generally indication support of the increased
saturation limit (90, 58%), those that expressed concerns (53, 34%), and general comments (12, 7%).
Note that of the 90 respondents who indicated support for the proposal at the time to increase the
saturation limit from 10 to 20 percent, 35 respondents (22%) specifically noted that they believed the
limit should be increased even further or completely eliminated.
2018 support for increasing saturation limit (beyond 20% or eliminate)
• Boulder has a housing crisis and this limited, incremental approach is far too conservative to
help ease the situation.
• Increasing the saturation limit seems like a good idea, but I would also increase the range
because the narrow 300-ft range would create barriers. The idea of saturation limits in general
assumes that ADUs are bad things that should be spread around so that the bad impacts are
evenly burdened. I just don't see ADUs as a negative thing.
• I agree with increasing the saturation rate citywide. I believe that the city should move toward
at least a 40% saturation rate, which still implies a small increase in housing units citywide. I
disagree with the proposal to decentralize decision-making to subcommunity planning efforts.
These decisions should be made citywide and not privilege the affluent, incumbent
homeowners in particular neighborhoods.
• Eliminate the barriers and the saturation limits
• There should be no saturation rate. It is frankly a silly concept that limits the ability of Boulder
to address its housing shortage.
• There should be no saturation requirement - ADU-OAUs should be allowed by right in every
single family lot in the city. Evidence and national data shows that even in the most liberal
policies ADUs impact less than 1% of the housing stock. Whatever are we protecting by limiting
the places where ADUs can be built?
• Incremental change is not what we need with the affordable housing crisis we have. This town
is full of wealthy people because they are the primary type of people who can live here and
they keep flooding in. Sad to not see more of a bold vision from the city that invented open
space and other unique things. We are watching people leave this town because of this and it
is sad.
• I definitely agree that we should increase the saturation rate for ADUs. The only reason I didn't
do "strongly agree" is that I think the restrictions on now allowing owners to include ADUs if
they are within a certain distance from a property that has one is still very detrimental, and I
would like to see the city move away from this policy too.
• A property-owner should not be denied the right to create an ADU just because their neighbor
built one first. I support raising the limit gradually, with the rate eventually removed.
• The saturation rate should be removed entirely to promote optimum housing flexibility. 20% is
a vast and welcome improvement, but I am against the idea to set neighborhood by
neighborhood increases as this unnecessarily complicates the regulations and causes
confusion about what is allowed where. Further I would like to see apartments, duplexes etc
removed from the saturation calculation.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 5
• I would look to even greater saturation with areas that handle more capacity such as where
there are larger lots
• I support increasing the saturation rate, but I'm concerned that 20% will soon also be too low.
Maybe it should increase gradually and continually over time?
• There should be no saturation requirement
• I agree with increasing the saturation rate from 10 to 20%, but I think this does not go far
enough. 40% or even higher would have a stronger impact in terms of creating more units and I
don't believe it would not negatively affect the fabric of the neighborhoods. If anything, I think
it would allow neighborhoods to become more diverse, interesting and vibrant.
• No limit on saturation should be imposed. Thornton allows all single family lots an ADU. This
does not mean a doubling of density as the distribution of density varies according to factors
such as transit and commercial proximity. See also the example of Berkeley where saturation
increases near BART.
• I'd prefer to have a much higher saturation rate, but 20% is better than 10%.
• Saturation rate is completely unfair and penalizes new homeowners in any neighborhood. You
should be incentivizing ADUs like Denver is, and removing any caps whatsoever.
• I think this does too little. There should be no saturation requirement--it should be removed
altogether. All residents of a neighborhood should have equal access the to opportunity to
have an ADU
• I actually think saturation limits should be eliminated as I do not think we will be "overrun" by
ADUs. Based on personal experience, having owned and lived in my home here for 42 years,
that potential benefits of flexible use of owner-occupied homes far outweighs the downsides.
• I think the number should be higher than 20%.
• saturation rate should be increased to 20%, but I believe it should be dropped altogether.
There will be so many obstacles to ADU's (cost, finding contractor/workers, time for project)
that a non regulated selection process will be present.
• I think it should go even higher. I would like to make housing in Boulder more affordable
without damaging our open space, and the additional tax revenue of more people living here
should help with litter, use, etc.
• You need to remove this requirement completely not just increase the saturation rate. It is not
fair if your neighbor gets the permit a week before you so now you are not allowed the same
zoning rights as your neighbor. I believe there will be a lawsuit in the future if this restriction is
kept in place. ADUs/OAUs are expensive to build. I do not believe Boulder will suddenly see
every house building one as people fear.
• There should be NO saturation limit!
• I would prefer there be no limit. This rewards some homeowners over others.
• I think the saturation rate should be removed. ADUs are important for increasing the
availability of housing and reducing how far people commute.
• I do not think there should be any limits on saturation rates. Other cities do not have this
limitation, and saturation rates have remained low in those places. There are a limited number
of folks who want to build an ADU/OAU. It is self-limiting. However, it is not equitable that I
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 6
cannot have my mother live with me in an independent unit simply because someone nearby
has already built an ADU.
• I think it should be increased even more, at 40%, so I'll support the 20% rate if that's the best
we can get.
• I support increasing, but would support even more just doing away with the limit. No other
community feels the need for such a restriction. I would love to see many more ADUs and
OAUs.
• I don't feel this is a reasonable rule. With this, only 20% of homeowners in an area are able to
realize the potential value of an ADU. ADU's allow for homeowners to earn an additional source
of monthly income, and I feel it is unfair for someone to be unable to build an ADU because it
took them longer to acquire financing or funding. Rather than basing it on how many
neighbors have them already, it should be more based on lot coverage, density of a
neighborhood, zoning, or something where a potential home buyer is able to understand the
rules when they are going out looking for places they are looking to buy.
• As I support an unlimited number of ADUs, increasing from 10-20% is a step in the right
direction.
• I would be in favor of raising the saturation rate to 30 or 40%, but the 20% limit at least
addresses some problems of the current saturation rate (discouraging people from considering
the ADU option/illegal units). Single-family homes are such a sacred cow in Boulder, despite
the fact that many families aren't so typical any more.
• I agree that the saturation limit should be raised, but not to 20%, to 100%. There is no reason
why my neighbors' houses should have an impact on what I can do with my house.
• I am a strong supporter of the diversity that comes from ADU's. 20 % seems better than 10%.
Honestly, I think that anyone who wants one should be able to have one if they meet all the
other requirements. So , I support any liberalization at all.
2018 support to increase saturation limit to 20 percent
• I believe that Boulder needs to find creative ways to tackle its housing situation. Increasing the
ADU saturation rate to 20% is a good option.
• I want denser housing, I want 4 story apartment blocks everywhere in certain parts of the city.
• 10% has always seemed arbitrary. Start with 20% and see how it goes.
• Again I feel on site parking is essential. Also visual and architectural suitability must be
considered.
• We need more housing options in Boulder.
• More ADUs is better all around. More options
• Makes the most sense
• Higher density will support a middle class
• I don't think that we'll ever get to 20%, but I support increasing flexibility so that people who
are able to and interested in creating an ADU are able to. Just because your neighbors got
there first doesn't mean you should miss out on your chance - restricting it too much would
limit it to current homeowners, and future homeowners with an interest in building an ADU
would not be able to do so.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 7
• It may even be 'illegal' to discriminate against any property owner that applies for an ADU.
• I am a firm believer in incremental changes that allow us to test the consequences that are
voiced as both positive and negative impacts. This could be safely done without much overall
effect and would allow data to be gathered for moving forwards.
• It’s my understanding that cities, like Portland, have no minimal restrictions on the % and the
number is still under 20%. It seems like boulder is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. This
is if the adu’s are owner occupied.
• 20% looks like it would not have any drastic negative effects.
• I would support higher saturation limits, we need density to bring down housing costs.
• Again, as long as there is sufficient off street parking for the ADU's, saturation in not a concern.
• We need to increased the population density of Boulder to preserve open space and keep the
economy growing. ADUs and OAUs do not drastically alter the character of the neighborhoods
nearly as much as scraping and building huge single family dwellings. Young and old alike want
smaller housing options, regardless of their income level. If we continue as is, we're
subburbanizing the city, rather than urbanizing it.
• Boulder (and the Front Range) are in an affordable housing crisis. I think the city should remove
as many barriers as possible to allowing ADUs on owner-occupied parcels.
• Greater density will help Boulder better use the space available.
• As long as the units are only in homes where the homeowners are living, which is what I
understood from above, I feel the impact to neighbors won’t be too bad.
• Boulder needs more housing, and allowing homeowners to create ADU's will be mutually
beneficial for everyone.
• It's the fair way to go.
• I would love to see more affordable housing in Boulder and I also want to see more people who
came to Boulder years a go be able to stay and adding an ADU/OAU can can make it easier.
• Increased density is a reality in Boulder. Gotta put people somewhere. It also provides
additional income to homeowners which broadens the income levels needed to own in
Boulder.
• I live in a Goss-Grove, a neighborhood with a high concentration of ADUs and it's fine and adds
a lot to the neighborhood character, plus mitigates the rent in an area that's extremely close to
downtown (at least compared to other downtown-adjacent neighborhoods that have fewer
ADUs). The more the merrier!
• I don't feel like the ADU impact a neighborhood, my neighborhood, in a negative manner
• I live near several ADUs and their impact is minimal. I'd be very surprised if it's only 10% in my
neighborhood today.
• If Boulder truly wants to have more affordable housing options available to seniors, low-
income residents, and students, then increasing the saturation rate is a great step.
• Can’t determine who will want to build an ADU, so it is unfair to prevent some people just
because someone else nearby did it first.
• There is a lack of affordable housing in Boulder and homeowners should have the option for
additional income given the expensive housing market.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 8
• We need more housing in Boulder. This is the low-hanging fruit solution.
• It seems to make only a minor difference. There are already varying numbers of people living in
each home. Some families have 5 children at home, some couples live alone without children.
This change doesn't seem to significantly change what is already happening with varying
density.
• Given the higher cost of living and drowinging out of affordable housing in Boulder, I'd support
bumping the saturation to 20%.
• It seems of a minimal impact and allows more affordable housing
• I don't believe the city would reach this limit as not that many people want an ADU. I also
believe that higher density is good to a certain degree.
• So long as the owner-occupancy requirement remains (and is enforced), this measure would
increase housing affordability for more people. That result is one that I want to see.
• If there aren't any parking impacts, why does this need to be regulated???
• Most homeowners will make responsible choices to improve their quality of life: to keep a
loved one closer to them. Some may offer units for rent, but Boulder residents are educated
and will not make poor choices.
• Given the challenges to create and license an ADU, and respecting the rights of homeowners to
use their property the best way they can to stay in place, we should allow them everywhere.
• The very high need for more affordable housing and transportation choice in Boulder is far
greater than the relatively minor negative impacts to neighborhoods associated with even a
high percentage of homes with ADUs.
• 10% seems very low.
• I think the saturation limit should be higher.
• I agree the change would small, since it’s obvious that not everyone who is eligible can, or
wants, to build.
• Shouldn’t impact neighbors
• Adus provide needed density of housing while benefiting existing owners. More saturation will
make for a more interesting and vibrant town
• if city won't build vertically then adding density is only option
• Boulder has such a low level of housing at this point and I don't want to see more commuters
coming into town.
• I'm in agreement with ADUs as one in a suite of options for creating more housing, enabling the
elderly to stay in their increasingly expensive and unaffordable homes, and allowing families to
move their elderly parents onto their properties. I am unconcerned about the whacked out,
sky-is-falling hyperbole of my neighbors who are against additional density. I do strongly
believe that the additional 10% of ADU permits should be rent controlled. IOW, that those
constructing ADUs not be allowed to price them as luxury units with sky high rents.
• I agree with the information in the recommendation
• Again, I am 100% for having an OAU myself, and so the saturation is no problem for me.
• More urban infill, less displacement.
• This sounds like a reasonable target for Boulder.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 9
• I would like to add an ADU to our home but the area has reached it's saturation limit. I do not
mind the increased density, in fact it seems like a good way to increase housing while
preserving open space.
• Agree, but neighborhoods should also be given the option of having a *lower* limit too.
• Housing more people is a good thing.
• Need to solve the housing crisis people!
• I believe many residents have faulty assumptions about the renters of ADUs based on prejudice
and classism. We are very grateful that the ADU provides the opportunity to afford living in an
actual neighborhood instead of an apartment complex, and we do not contribute extra
parking, noise, or litter. In fact, we routinely PICK UP litter around the neighborhood while
walking our dog, and do our best to make positive contributions to the neighborhood and
community.
2018 concerns about increasing saturation limit
• I think no additional accessory units should be allowed in the city due to the potential impacts
(e.g., parking, noise, litter, etc.) of additional rentals.
• Having lived in the Whittier neighborhood when alley houses were all the rage, and seen both
the drawbacks and the limited impact it made on affordable housing, I do not support
increasing ADUs in single family home neighborhoods.
• The obvious...parking, noise, dogs barking...stated above.
• Because I live where there is already 10% saturation of grandfathered units in a
RLneighborhood and it makes an enormous impact, especially where lot size is smaller than
average or even standard for legal construction there are few off street spaces. No
neighborhood should go higher than 10% and all existing grandfathered non-conforming uses
need to be counted!
• Start out with 10% and then ask the community if they want 20%
• Not enough infrastructure to support all those additional units. It will force existing residents to
pay for upgrades to schools and utilities.
• No. Leave the saturation at 5%. It’s bad enough my property taxes will go up with more ADU’s
but creating more saturation will force more longtime residents like myself out of Boulder that
can’t or have no desire to build ADU’s. It’s already happening. I ask you to consider the
following, How many ADU applications have actually been denied because of the 10% rule?
Staff should plot all the ADUs and OAUs in the city, and all the 300’ radii around them, and
show how many times, and where, the presence of one ADU/OAU has prevented a second
application within radii.
• The infill in the city is making it unlivable. Too many people filling every open spot. Yes our city
is desirable to live in and that makes it expensive to live in, but we shouldn't build in every
open spot to encourage more people. We are not a big city and the desire to make it seem like
one and undesirable.
• Saturation rates should be equal in all neighborhoods for equal distribution of unit mixes
parking and traffic flow.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 10
• I think a few more would not be a problem, as long as they are small, not up to half of the
house. BUT, the unlimited saturation of OAU's is frightening. I think everyone is overlooking
this potential impact.
• I think people will monetize this policy unless it is linked to permanently affordable housing.
We don't need more market rate housing and I don't think that the potential disruption to SF
neighborhoods (that increasing density through ADUs may create) is warranted unless there is
a benefit to lower and middle income residents.
• The assumption that illegal rentals will convert to ADUs or become licensed rentals is false.
Illegal rentals are not unilaterally investigated and shut down by the city, so they will continue
to proliferate in addition to any increased ADU saturation rate, worsening density and quality
of life for everybody except for the transient student population that has no vested interest in
neighborhood character or Boulder in the long term.
• 2. Before increasing the saturation rate from 10%, we suggest that Council probe the extent to
which the 10% saturation limitation actually contributes to low numbers of ADUs. How many
ADU applications have actually been denied because of the 10% rule? Staff should plot all the
ADUs and OAUs in the city, and all the 300’ radii around them, and show how many times, and
where, the presence of one ADU/OAU has prevented a second application within radii.
• It may be true that the 10% saturation ceiling is very rarely the limiting factor. If that’s the case,
we recommend that first Boulder fully (or at least, more fully) tap the 10% saturation, before
considering doubling it.
• Alternative: Allow different saturations in different neighborhoods. Keep saturations to 10% in
neighborhoods already known to be experiencing disproportionate amounts of impacts and
challenges from growth. There are a number of relatively stable neighborhoods, further from
CU, that don’t struggle under as many impacts. Perhaps they could absorb an increase in
concentration without it becoming a “tipping point” issue. Further, In the staff analysis of
saturation, they comment that only 15% of eligible properties have an accessory unit. And they
follow that with reasoning that increases in saturation would have a similar uptake. But that
doesn't mean that a much higher percentage wouldn't actually be built in the future. We've
seen this in recent times with commercial development. When the slow growth initiatives were
passed in the '70s only residential was affected - and for 40 years not much happened - until
the recent commercial growth spurt. We should learn from our mistakes. Last: any increases
to saturation should be done in a sub-community plan, and then, only if and when it can be
proved that the 10% saturation limit is actually the culprit of why Boulder doesn’t have more
ADUs.
• That will allow for too many units and turn single family house zoning into duplexes.
• The new rule last summer for co-ops was supposed to be city wide also and only one is in north
Boulder and one is on Uni Hill and four are in Martin Acres. This is only the legal ones that have
registered. The over crowding is making Martin Acres a place where families are being forced
out due to no parking, no room on trails and in the park, and crowded Table Mesa restaurants.
Too many parties every night of the week so kids can't sleep at 8:30 at night. I don't trust the
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 11
city to make anything city wide because of rich people and neighborhoods with their own
HOA's.
• I would be ok increasing it up to 50%
• I support the 10% saturation with a review when we get close to that number. Why move
directly to 20% which is over 4X the current level when staff itself admits that it won't have a
significant effect on the total number of ADUs. This caution would be especially prudent if the
parking restrictions get lifted.
• Again, staff is here presenting a highly questionable, and potentially very inaccurate, guess.
First of all, staff is basing much of the entire ADU project on a notion of the number of ADUs
currently in the city. However, staff's number only includes the number of LEGAL ADU's. There
are many more ILLEGAL ADUs. Virtually every neighbor on every street in certain
neighborhoods knows of an illegal ADU on their street. The City's woefully inadequate
enforcement staff has no concept of how many illegal units are out there. I'm not faulting the
enforcement staff. I'm faulting the fact that there are exactly 1.5 FTE field enforcement officers,
charged with field enforcement of these type of infractions, with 20,000 rental units to cover.
• Before anything happens, the community deserves to see a solid action plan from the City
regarding how they intend to quantify, and bring into licensure, all the illegal, unlicensed ADUs.
Then, re-tally the TOTAL number of ADUs in the City, and only then chart a policy course.
Because at least then, you'll be working from true and accurate numbers. Then, there's the
further, vital question of whether the 10% saturation limit is really the limiting factor? Before
increasing the saturation rate from 10%, Council should probe the extent to which the 10%
saturation limitation actually contributes to low numbers of ADUs. How many ADU
applications have actually been denied because of the 10% rule? Staff should plot all the ADUs
and OAUs in the city, and all the 300’ radii around them, so we can actually see the extent to
which the current saturation is fully utilized (or not), and show how many times, and where, the
presence of one ADU/OAU has prevented a second application within radii. And I mean a real
map, with real plotting, not the fake video game illustration provided here by staff. It's meant
to convince people, but has absolutely no basis in actual current ADU saturation/locations and
whether or not the 10% limiting factor is what's actually discouraging more ADU deployment.
Further, the animated model provided here is a fictitious rendering of the results of increases in
saturation. The truth is, staff has no idea how many ADUs will result from an increase in
saturation levels.
• We may find that the 10% saturation ceiling is very rarely the limiting factor. If that’s the case,
we recommend that first Boulder fully (or at least, more fully) tap the 10% saturation, before
considering doubling it.
• I disagree with densification. I value protecting the character and lifestyle of the
neighborhoods.
• go with 10%, can always change to 20% later if 10% ends up being to little, impossible to lower
• Areas with dense population should not be increased by right.
• ADU's financially benefit the owner and increase the selling price when sold. The impacts are
felt by the neighbors
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 12
• This adding of inventory flies in the face of the master planning of the city, and creates
additional strain on infrastructure that is already crumbling.
• Not sure we should allow as high at 10-20%
• Too much density
• THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT and therefore you don't even know what the rate is in Boulder!
And THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT unless you rat on your neighbor. Until this situation is
remedied, you should not be adding to our problems.
• Is this only known, legal ADUs? There many unknown and therefore illegal ADUs? I think the
city probably has no idea how many illegal ADUS are out there. What is the plan to FIRST bring
the illegal ADUs into the fold-- and then decide. There are probably many more opportunities
to still work within the existing 10% saturation limit that have not been utilized-- because we
don't even really know how fully that 10% limit has been pushed. Has the city actually turned
down ADU applicants due to the 10% saturation limit so far? If this is not a barrier today, why
would we change it?
• It seems to me, having now read the report to the city council, that you want to open up every
part of the city to accessory units. I disagree with this approach. Therefore, I don't want to see
the saturation rate go up - because you're not just proposing increasing the saturation rate in
zones currently open to accessory units, you're recommending 20% saturation rates in almost
all zones, including those that don't currently allow for accessory units of various types.
• ADU will provide a small fraction of affordable housing. By building new affordable units
money will be spent more wisely and efficiently. ADU's are not the "big answer".
• This change should not be pursued by the City of Boulder. The City can't even enforce the
many illegal ADU's. Why should we trust the City to be able to monitor the legal ones! Do not
double the saturation rate until the City understands the true situation. Double or triple your
current 1.5 field enforcement officers first.
• Twenty percent is too high a concentration in already built-out neighborhoods.
• There are NO humans whom do not prefer to live in a beautiful, natural setting. Human
population density is the very plague though that will permanently ruin the very ecosystem
that makes this (& many other places) so appealing.
• our single family areas are already overcrowded
• You have completely ignored the number of unregistered ADUs, which are apartments, some
very old, that already exist in homes on the Hill but are not registered for reasons other than
the 10% saturation. A system for dealing with these units must be developed before granting
permission for new units. I believe the saturation rate for existing unregistered ADUs, some of
which are used illegally but many of which are not, would far surpass a 20% saturation. I
suggest you work with the neighborhood to create criteria that would guide who is permitted
in what order. Your map shows three registered ADUs in the core Hill neighborhood. This is a
joke.
• Solutions to lack of affordable housing need to be looked at in a broader context. The City is
proposing piecemeal solutions which will later preclude other, perhaps better solutions.
Creating evermore rentals (there are already so many corporate-owned apartments) should
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 13
not be the future of Boulder. Additionally, once again, assessing the impact by neighborhood --
"sub-community plans" -- is the first step. The City has no idea how many ADUs already exist. I
know of a number of unlicensed ADUs near my home. So these numbers are not factually
correct. And -- a distinction should be made between ADUs that involve construction and ADUs
that would mostly entail adding a stove to an existing unit (in-house rental). The environmental
impact of more construction within the neighborhoods is not addressed at all.
• WE have this same situation and it is a mess on our street.
• This is NOT an incremental change. I think Staff's calculations are faulty in that they do not
know exactly how many illegal ADUs are already out there. I know of several people who rent
out space in their homes without the City's knowledge. So, the current saturation is an
unknown number to Staff. I also don't think the demand for ADUs is what the City would like to
think - it's far less.
• 15% a better number
• The recommendation will increase density that is destroying our quality of life.
• The City's recommendation permits more growth that has destroyed our Environment and the
quality of life that we have previously enjoyed in Boulder
• 20% is way too high a saturation rate as evidenced by the graphic
• There should not be an increase over the current 10% unless a sub-community plan, written by
residents in the given sub-community determines, that there should be a higher saturation.
• Saturation rate should only be increased if the ADUs are required to be PERMANENTLY
AFFORDABLE. That should be a requirement with any ADU. Otherwise the ADU will become too
expensive for low- to medium-income people. Increasing density can still mean super
expensive--look at San Francisco and New York City.
• An increase in saturation may work in some neighborhoods, but will not work in others. A city
wide increase will cause problems in some neighborhoods. ADU density needs to be evaluated
neighborhood by neighborhood with final say given to the neighbors, not city planners.
• If a neighborhood wishes to increase saturation it is appropriate that their wishes be addressed
in a sub-community planning process rather than increasing saturation city wide.
• If we haven’t met the 10% saturation, why does it need to be expanded?
• I worry about density, cars, traffic, etc. where I live.
• You don't even know how many ADU's are out there currently. I say, I say, Slow down!
• 20% is way too high. It's a terrible strain on a neighborhood when someone does what
happened here recently: razes a moderately sized home, wipes out several large and beautiful
trees and a garden, builds a main unit at least twice as large as the one before *and adds a
substantial OAU. Suddenly space and beauty and views are markedly reduced and the whole
neighborhood feels crowded, since we already had a duplex, two large fourplexes, and a big
house and OAU immediately surrounding. The area feels like the center of a city block, built up
with buildings wherever one looks, and the feeling of nature almost nonexistent (and studies
show that some exposure to nature has a big positive and necessary effect on the psyche). If
that big unit and destruction of all the trees and almost all the yard space could be allowed
under the present regulations, we definitely should *not be *doubling! that saturation rate. It
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 14
all feels like a heartrending violation of nature, neighborhood and psychological space as it is. I
also felt that way just looking at the representation offered here. Thank you for that and the
clarity it provided. 20% is wa-a-ay too much to allow
2018 general comments: saturation limit
• More over regulation. Really a 5000 sq ft lot restriction ? You are missing house that can easily
have an addition without having to build on the lost. For instance, I have a 900 sq ft addition on
my house, and need no new building. I only have to put a stove in and I have an ADU. Less
reguation is needed not more
• With legal non-conforming structures included, it becomes impossible to not have 10%
saturation. In my neighborhood which is low density and older homes, there are several
nonconforming structures that aren't rentals and don't involve parking issues.
• Doubling the number of ADU's isn't significant?
• "Saturation?" - the word itself is self explanatory.
• Due to the unknown costs and difficulty navigating the process to build an ADU, we cannot
predict that the homeowners who have interest and resources to follow through are
distributed evenly throughout the city.
• Historically middle class neighborhoods are more likely to face similar challenges today in
terms of affordability, property taxes on increasing values and fixed income, and desires to age
in place. This indicates that homeowners seeking ADUs may be geographically close to one
another, while other sections of the city have no need to augment their income nor desire to
help others.
• If neighborhoods controlled by an HOA wished to mandate it, that seems fair. However, lacking
any engineering challenges (sewer + water pipes, etc.), 20% still seems like an arbitrary
number.
• I'm not sure what the actual number of ADUs is; what is the current number, both legal and
illegal?
• I'm a bit on the outskirts of Boulder and am not sure how to comment.
• Let each neighborhood decide on their saturation limit.
• ADUs in some neighborhoods might have more impact due to resident type (e.g., Goss Grove,
Univ Hill with students), but my experience is that these kinds of units encourage younger
working-age residents to move into and work in Boulder.
• I'm not opposed to some more ADUs, but it totally depends on the conditions under which they
are allowed. If people can expand their building's footprint, or convert their garage so that
what they have is essentially a duplex, then I'm totally against allowing more. But if they stay
within the existing building's footprint, and envelope, then I'm OK with a few more.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 15
ATTACHED ADUS: INCREASE SIZE LIMITS
The questionnaire asked whether respondents supported the staff recommendation at the time to
increase the size limit for attached ADUs from 1/3 of the principal structure or 1,000 square feet to 1/2
of the principal structure or 1,000 square feet. This change was not ultimately adopted, and the limit
remains 1/3 of the principal structure or 1,000 square feet for attached ADUs.
The questionnaire also detailed the following themes of feedback from other engagement efforts prior
to the questionnaire related to size limit changes:
• The 1/3 size limit is a constraint in smaller homes and sometimes requires sections of
basements to be walled off for no practical reason.
• There should be a consistent limit on ADU size of 800 sq. ft. regardless of the size of the primary
dwelling to help keep the units affordable in the future.
• The size of the unit should depend entirely on the size of the primary unit and there should not
be an upper limit to provide additional flexibility.
The majority of respondents (62%) indicated support for the change at the time, with about 33%
opposed.
After indicating their agreement or disagreement, respondents were asked to provide further
explanation of their selection. Comments below have been sorted by those that generally indication
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 16
support of the increased size limit for attached units (58, 53%), those that expressed concerns (29,
27%), and general comments (21, 19%). Note that of the 58 respondents who indicated support for the
proposal at the time to increase the size limit from 1/2 to 1/3 of the principal structure, 14 respondents
(35, 22%) specifically noted that they believed the limit should be increased even further.
2018 support for increasing the size limit for attached ADUs beyond 1/2
• I don’t think it goes far enough, if someone has a large lot, existing structures, etc. change it to
half for all homes, but include it in general lot area coverage restrictions. If I understand this
recommendation correctly, if someone has a 2100 sq ft house they couldn’t build an oau/adu
as large as someone with a 2000 sqft house could, and I don’t see how it makes sense or
operates in the community’s best interest.
• Again, over regulation. I only agreed because these limits are ridiculous. What does it matter if
the ADU is bigger than the main house? In my case, I am retired, only the wife and I, and we do
not need a large place. We want the ADU to be large so we can rent to a family. Again, My
proposed ADU was just, and get this, just bigger than the the 1/3 requirement by 30 FEET....
again, the plannning and development department would not come out and look at the place.
I said I could easily wall off an existing mud room. The planning and development required me
to spend $1000s of dollars to submit a professional blue print, instead of just coming and see
the place. I was not allowed to submit the blue prints myself
• So 1/3 still applies to house of say 2,200 sq feet? How does that make sense? Size should be
1,000 square feet for all ADU or OAR structures, or better yet, why the size limit at all? Aren't
other limits like FAR and the multiple layers of other Boulder rules like in the historic zones
enough? Surely you see why it is so hard for someone to navigate this stuff and it adds cost to
the project, further increasing housing costs.
• What difference does this % make? The home can look the same from the outside regardless of
the inside lay out and the neighborhood impact won’t change. Why is any regulation
necessary? Who cares if the adu is bigger than the rest of the house? I just can’t see a reason
for this regulation.
• Proscribing square footage alone won't make properties more affordable! It's all about supply
+ demand = more supply of rental units, will mean more affordable rents. And I agree that if a
principal dwelling is small but has a large plot of land, the owner should absolutely be allowed
to build a larger ADU as they see fit.
• The ADU/OAU size limit shouldn't depend on the size of the house. I'd rather see just a hard
size limit (and maybe something below 1000 sq ft).
• I think 1/2 is still too low, but this is an improvement from 1/3.
• I think the restriction should be removed altogether, but at least this makes it a little easier for
a few people to build ADUs or OAUs.
• But hey, come on, this is arbitrary. Let people build withing the existing FAR and setback codes,
then get out of the way. Just like you do for these awful giant homes people are allowed to
build.
• Make it even smaller! I lived in 300 and 400 square foot apartments for a few years. If people
want to live in them, they should be allowed to.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 17
• I think 800 square feet is appropriate for detached ADUs. I think there should be no size
restrictions for "interior" ADUs.
• Not sure why subordinate size is relevant at all.
• Too small
• I would go further and say that the limit should be fixed at 800 or 1000 sq ft and not be based
on the size of the house. If it is based on the size of the house, lower income folks who live in
smaller houses will have less options than wealthier people living in larger homes. This seems
classist and against Boulder values.
2018 support for increasing size limit for attached ADUs to 1/2 of principal structure
• Remove as many barriers as possible, as soon as possible.
• This makes sense.
• However perhaps 1,500 sf would be a better number. 2,000 sf is not a small home and 750 sf is
more than sufficient for a granny apartment.
• Need more flexibility for ADUs
• Makes the most sense
• There are too many restrictions on ADU/OAUs and this is certainly one of them. 1000 ft should
be allowed for every ADU/OAU
• I agree in principle, however someone isn't considering the implicit non-linearity this wording
defines. While the analysis cites the irrelevance of homes ""less than 3,000 sq. ft."", the
recommendation expresses ""less than 2,000 sq. ft."
• Higher density will support a middle class. My family and parents could afford to live in and
contribute to the city of Boulder.
• If part of the point of ADUs and OAUs is to help ensure long-term affordability for existing
homeowners of modest means, I don't think we want to punish people for living in modestly
sized homes. I feel like the current requirements would create an incentive for people to
expand their own living space as well as the ADU, which has negative environmental
implications (heating a larger space!). It's especially counterproductive if the existing
homeowners are older people without children living at home - their homes are likely already
underoccupied. Don't create an incentive for them to expand their homes!
• In terms of increasing affordable housing in Boulder, it would be best to be able to create an
ADU that would accommodate a parent(s) and a child. This would increase the affordable
housing stock to more tenants. How you do that in 500 square feet is what the City policy will
force homeowners to grapple with.
• Smaller homes need the flexibility.
• I agree with the analysis. People should not be penalized for living in smaller homes. An
increasing number of people want smaller homes, but commercial developers don't want to
build them, so it's up to owners of older and smaller homes investing to continue making them
viable. Any disincentive for doing so should be removed.
• Good move!
• Agree with everything that increases flexibility around ADU and OAU construction.
• Smaller, means more affordable units so I am supportive
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 18
• There are a lot of 1,000 sq ft houses on largish lots in the city which would benefit by this (I
would actually cap the units to 750 sw ft).
• I agree that the current law discriminates against people with smaller homes.
• The current limits hamstrings homeowners of small houses! If you have a 1,000 sqft ranch,
your ADU would have to be 333 sqft which is too small to make any sense.
• To give smaller home owners better options.
• I don't have a problem with property owners having ADU's or OAU's
• As long as the ADU/OAU meets the city's codes for square footage per occupant, then that is all
that should matter.
• This is such an easy answer to adding more housing to Boulder.
• This seems like it may create problems if small homes are also on small lots, but I presume set
backs and other rules would protect from too much crowding. This seems reasonable.
• the argument/analysis put forward makes total sense to me.
• Limit the impact and construction needed so people can live efficiently and affordably
• Promoting more housing options is a positive step for our community
• This makes sense...
• Homeowners living in smaller homes are more likely to need additional income support. There
is no reason to arbitrarily limit the size of an internal apartment that does not change the
exterior footprint. How homeowners and tenants divide their living space inside is up to them
and no business of their neighbors.
• The current rules totally favor people with big houses, who tend to be more affluent. People in
smaller homes should be able to create additional housing options.
• I believe that the size limit is an improvement, but it still penalizes those who choose to live in a
small-footprint house themselves. Given that housing footprint is linearly related to carbon
footprint, having a restriction seems out of place with Boulder's goals.
• Smaller homes should have the opportunity for adus
• Same as before; allow residents who might otherwise be priced out of their neighborhood to
have an additional property, and increase housing stock for both young people starting out
and expanding aging population looking to downsize but stay in the community.
• We need more housing in the city.
• My home is only 1200 square feet WITH an internal conversion of the attached garage into main
living space, and only 1000 sf without the garage conversion, (along with MANY homes in Martin
Acres and Aurora neighborhoods, which have large lots and plenty of room for an OAU). An
OAU of just 600 sf is tiny and might not even be worth the expense of doing so. I think this
provision should be 800 sf for all ADUs or OAUS that are added on, regardless of the size of the
existing home.
• Perhaps this would allow more smaller homes to remain standing and stop the influx of 38,000
square houses from being built in areas with small lots.
• the current laws are complicated - simplify.
• Makes sense!
• Many (most?) ADUs *are* basements, so this must be a very common problem...
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 19
• Just make the limit a fixed square footage and move on for the love of God. This forces it to be
subordinate for all larger homes. If I own a small home of 1,600 ft, and I want to live in 600 feet
and rent 1000, what's the problem. This may allow more people to afford homes in boulder.
• I prefer flexibility and diversity. Boulder has adequately strict lot coverage requirements and I
don't believe that additional limits are needed
• It is not practical to modify a small building to have an ADU and meet current guidelines.
• More density and and more infill. See #3.
• I think 1000 square feet is too big and would prefer a consistent limit of 800 feet, regardless of
whether the main house is no more than 2000 feet. I do agree that we shouldn't penalize
smaller houses and potentially induce the owners to make them larger (as the ones near me
did) in order to have a larger OAU.
• Its a silly rule
2018 concerns about increasing the size limit of attached ADUs
• Smaller is more affordable.
• No. A de facto duplex rather than a main and subordinate set of units operate very differently in
a neighborhood. Those of us already dealing with these in our current neighborhood should be
heard as experts in,practice, not the on paper analyst by supporters in theory.
• "Note that staff particularly targets neighborhoods with this idea, when they write: “This
requirement presents challenges for people with smaller homes.” The problem is,
neighborhoods with smaller homes are generally already under more stresses from impacts
than most areas. Further, homes are more closely spaced in neighborhoods with smaller
houses. So impacts from ADUs and OAUs will be felt more keenly, due to the closer proximity
of properties. The point is, 1/3 of the principal structure is plenty of space in Boulder’s more
affluent neighborhoods with larger houses. This change is specifically designed to increase
ADUs in Boulder’s most modest, least affluent neighborhoods. However, these are the very
same neighborhoods that are already struggling much more disproportionately from impacts
of growth, as it is. The goal should be adding diversity and inclusivity to exclusive
neighborhoods. (A progressive policy.) This particular item will simply target the
neighborhoods that are already that. So it will in fact be a regressive policy. Keeping the 1/3
limit as it is incentivizes ADUs in Boulder neighborhoods that don’t participate in change,
inclusivity, and diversity to as high a degree. So I strongly recommend keeping the 1/3 sq. ft.
limit."
• I believe increasing the size to half the size of the house in effect converts it to a duplex, and is
an end run around single family zoning.
• Smaller properties can't be "subdivided" for rental purposes (legal or illegal) without
increasing density, introducing non-vested transients, and destroying the character of single-
family neighborhoods.
• Note that staff particularly targets certain neighborhoods with this idea, when they write: “This
requirement presents challenges for people with smaller homes.” The problem is,
neighborhoods with smaller homes are generally already under more stresses from impacts
than most areas. Further, homes are more closely spaced in neighborhoods with smaller
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 20
houses. So impacts from ADUs and OAUs will be felt more keenly, due to the closer proximity
of properties. And areas with smaller homes not only have smaller lots, they also typically have
narrower streets, compounding the problem even further. The point is, 1/3 of the principal
structure is plenty of space in Boulder’s more affluent neighborhoods with larger houses. This
change is specifically designed to increase ADUs in Boulder’s most modest, least affluent
neighborhoods. However, these are the very same neighborhoods that are already struggling
much more disproportionately from impacts of growth, as it is. The goal should be adding
diversity and inclusivity to exclusive neighborhoods. (A progressive policy.) This particular
item will simply target the neighborhoods that are already that. So it will in fact be a regressive
policy. Keeping the 1/3 limit as it is incentivizes ADUs in Boulder neighborhoods that don’t
participate in change, inclusivity, and diversity to as high a degree. So we strongly recommend
keeping the 1/3 sq. ft. limit.
• Size should be consistent with the original house. The lot size would matter, and smaller
houses are generally (although not entirely) on smaller lots.
• Again, density issues, combined with essentially ignoring the purpose of zoning.
• This is very bad as their was a good reason why the original house was small. Many are on small
lots
• They need to be kept small and smaller than the main house.
• According to your own statements-- aren't Boulder's more wealthy, exclusive neighborhoods
the ones who need to change? That is where the larger homes are. Keeping the 1/3 Sq ft means
that they are more likely to be able-- rightfully so- to do ADUs. More modest neighborhoods are
already under pressure. Increasing ADU size to 1/2 of the main unit will just sledgehammer our
modest already struggling neighborhoods even more.
• I feel the current size limit is adequate.
• 1000 square feet is plenty big for an ADU, especially given the size of smaller homes. An ADU is
supposed to be small!
• ridiculous
• OAUs are not subject to any concentration/saturation limits because the current zones where
they’re allowed are characterized by extremely large yards: Residential Rural (30,000 sq ft lot)
and Residential Estate (15,000 sq ft lot ). But allowing OAUs in all other zones, with no
saturation limits could, theoretically, result in an OAU in every back yard of every house. It
would be incredibly careless for the City to go forward with this change, with absolutely no
saturation limits.
• Areas with smaller homes also have smaller lot sizes. ADUs would have disproportionate
impact on neighborhoods with smaller lots.
• The size of the unit should depend entirely on the size of the primary unit and there should not
be an upper limit to provide additional flexibility.
• By making this change your are, again, creating more saturation in neighborhoods than what
was intended for the established neighborhoods. You are trying to find ways to cram more
people into designated areas where the areas are already over-saturated due to the high use
of single family homes as rental units.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 21
• There isn't even enough viable options to preserve the natural spaces we have maintained to
now (for example the endangered tall grass prairie habitat surrounding the CU South
property). WHY -pray tell- are we trying to stuff more beings into an ecosystem that has far-
surpassed scientifically proven environmental carrying capacities? It just doesn't even make
survival sense as a species!
• as above don't destroy present housing zoning
• The ADUs and OAUs would be too large for small homes typically on smaller lots.
• Smaller homes are typically on smaller lots. Thus, the current restriction makes sense. Smaller
homes, smaller lots, less parking, already higher density. NO on this. I absolutely, strongly
disagree.
• The recommendation will increase density that is destroying our quality of life. It will permit
more dwellings to qualify for the ADU.
• The City's recommendation permits more growth that has destroyed our Environment and the
quality of life that we have previously enjoyed in Boulder
• It would be almost like 2 houses on one lot.
• This should only be allowed if the ADUs are required to be PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE. That
should be a requirement with any ADU. Otherwise the ADU will become too expensive for low-
to medium-income people. Increasing density can still mean super expensive--look at San
Francisco and New York City.
• I think the original regulations make sense.
• I worry about density, cars, traffic, etc. where I live.
• Again; proportion. Don't want to recreate what happened to Whittier in the early '90's where
huge homes where built in backyards.
• Note that staff particularly target certain neighborhoods with this idea, when they write: “This
requirement presents challenges for people with smaller homes.” The problem is,
neighborhoods with smaller homes are generally already under more stresses from impacts
than most areas. Look at the neighborhoods in Boulder struggling under impact. They tend to
be neighborhoods with smaller houses. Further, homes are more closely spaced in
neighborhoods with smaller houses. So impacts from ADUs and OAUs will be felt far more
keenly, due to the closer proximity of properties. I wish the staff analysis would have
mentioned this demonstrable reality. And areas with smaller homes not only have smaller lots,
they also typically have narrower streets, compounding the problem even further. The point is,
1/3 of the principal structure is plenty of space in Boulder’s more affluent neighborhoods with
larger houses. Increasing the square foot limit to 1/2 the principal unit is specifically designed
to increase ADUs in Boulder’s most modest, least affluent neighborhoods. However, these are
the very same neighborhoods that are already struggling much more disproportionately from
impacts of growth, as it is. The goal should be adding diversity and inclusivity to exclusive
neighborhoods. (A progressive policy.) This particular item will simply target the
neighborhoods that are already that. So it will in fact be a regressive policy. Keeping the 1/3
limit as it is incentivizes ADUs in Boulder neighborhoods that don’t participate in change,
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 22
inclusivity, and diversity to as high a degree. So I strongly recommend keeping the 1/3 sq. ft.
limit.
2018 general comments: attached ADU size limits
• It seems more fair. I would actually be more in favor of granting planning officials a 20%-30%
leeway to grant additional space above the 1/3 of principal dwelling unit if that helped for
space to be used efficiently and consciously.
• For exterior OAUs, there should be considerations other than just size of principal home in
• Smaller homes are more ecological.
• The allowable size of ADUs or OAUs should not be contingent on the size of the principal
dwelling. The background notes that the original intent was to "ensure that the accessory unit
is smaller in size and therefore subordinate to the main home," but it does not provide a
rationale for this constraint.
• What happens to homes between 2000 and 3000sq.ft? They’d be limited by 1/3 whilst everyone
else is allowed 1000sq.ft regardless..
• Is it really the intention of the recommendation that homes 2,000-2,997 sqft have a more
restrictive ratio than those <2,000 sq. ft.? For example, a home which is 1,998 sq. ft. might be
allowed a 999 sq. ft. OAU, however a homeowner whose principal dwelling is 2,001 sqft is
restricted to 667 sq. ft.?"
• The ADU size limit should be determined by a formula for the complete lot including a
requirement to limit pervious pavement.
• Anything over 200 sf is livable for a single person. People who are rich overestimate what
people actually need to be warm, dry, and comfortable.
• I think there should be practical flexibility but I also think part of what makes these units
affordable is the size therefore the size should be limited.
• I live in a smaller home.
• I own a home in East Aurora (purchased in 2015, after 35 years renting in Boulder). My house -
like nearly every un-remodeled home in my neighborhood is only 1,061 sq ft to begin with. A
max of 800 sq ft makes way more sense than a randomly applied 1/3. Otherwise you're
penalizing homeowners who own reasonably sized homes (we have a family of 4 in 1,000 sq ft).
• Repeat of answer: We have more important work for city's brilliant people than to be policing
homes and acting like dictators, which they don't want to be.
• They need to be big enough to make sense as a livable space. I would make all of them have a
limit of 800 square feet regardless of the size of the main house.
• How we measure square footage also needs to be considered. In Boulder, we measure sq.
footage to the outside perimeter of the building we are measuring. When measuring small
spaces and taking into account that modern construction requires 6" walls to get higher R-
values and less air infiltration, that way of measuring (to the outside of the wall) leads to
overstating the usable sq. footage. For example, in our 16" X 19" 2-story studio accessory unit,
the gross sq. footage is 773 sq. ft but the sq. footage inside the perimeter walls is only 680 sq. ft.
• I own a 2100 sq. ft. home.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 23
• Again, people don't always need to live in large places. Think Japan. They have small
apartments and living places.
• I feel size should not be an issue governed by council. If you're going to allow development
then allow it freely.
• Not sure what I think of this yet.
• I think having a consistent limit, like 800 sq ft, makes much more sense. That way the number
of occupants is limited by the space, and avoids the temptation for people to in effect turn their
house into a duplex.
• See my previous answer.
• Same answer as before.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 24
DETACHED ADUS: INCREASE SIZE LIMIT TO 800 SQUARE FEET
The initial staff recommendation during the 2018 ADU update was to increase the permitted size of
detached ADUs from 450 square feet to 800 square feet. Ultimately, the size was increased to 550
square feet. Respondents indicated their level of support for the increase to 800 square feet through a
multiple-choice question and then provided explanations for their choice.
The questionnaire also described the following themes of feedback from other engagement efforts
prior to the questionnaire:
• The current size limit is too restrictive, prevents good design, and does not provide sufficient
living space to keep “a married couple married” as stated by an open house participant.
• There should be a consistent limit on ADU and OAU size of 800 sq. ft. regardless of the size of
the primary dwelling to help keep the units affordable in the future.
• The size of the unit should depend entirely on the size of the primary unit and there should be
additional flexibility to build larger than 1,000 sq. ft.
Questionnaire comments have been sorted by those that generally indication support of the increased
saturation limit (52, 55%), those that expressed concerns (29, 31%), and general comments (13, 14%).
Note that of the 52 respondents who indicated support for the proposal at the time to increase the size
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 25
limit to 800 square feet, 10 respondents (11%) specifically noted that they believed the limit should be
increased even further.
2018 support for increasing the detached ADU size limit beyond 800 square feet
• REMOVE ALL BARRIERS. How will you deal with homeowners who have garages already built to
3 ft. rear setbacks or 0 lot line rear, interior lot line setbacks.
• Again, doesn’t go quite far enough, oau and ADU should just be considered the thing, 1000sqft-
ish isn’t unreasonable if there is space on the lot or an existing structure
• I agree with increasing the size, but you are still over regulating. The new regulations will be
applied on top of these Height and setback regulations which are draconian also
• The current regulations are extremely constraining and make OAUs largely unsuitable for
families with children. The size limit should be increased to at least 1,000 sq. ft.
• Be bolder! OAU size should not be limited except by building requirements of the lot size.
• Make it larger than 800
• My husband and I would like to build an OAU for us to live in and rent out our larger home to a
family. 800SF seems do able, though I'd prefer a little more space to live in. If you could bump
that up to a nice round number like 1000 SF, I'd appreciate it.
• If it fits on the lot and meets city code, then let them build.
• This is a reasonable size for more than one person to live comfortably. Not sure that there
shouldn’t be a larger limit
• But also suggest removing the 300 foot minimum to allow tiny houses to qualify.
2018 support for increasing the size limit of detached ADUs to 800 square feet
• 500 is too small more often than not.
• This makes sense except if the unit is a garage conversion then again on site parking sufficient
for all potential residents, both now and future residents, must be provided. Receiving a
variance now because “granny no longer drives” does not mean that a young couple who both
have cars might not be future tenants.
• 600sq ft may be a compromise making more sense, but absolutely must meet setbacks and
FAR. If you claim coops can live in 200sq ft per person, than a couple can stay married in 600.
• Boulder needs more housing options.
• Need more flexibility
• The staff recommendation is logical.
• I do agree however that existing garages over 450 SF should be allowed. In fact it makes sense
to allow an existing garage up to 800 SF to be converted to an OAU IF there is a regulation
change. Converting an existing structure vs. building a new structure is preferable to adjacent
neighbors.
• 450 sq ft is very small! And I would argue that converting existing spaces (such as garages that
may be larger than 450) has a much smaller impact on neighbors than building a new <450 sq ft
home.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 26
• Again - do we not trust the zoning regulations and FAR to provide good outcomes? It seems to
me that the ADU policy should deal with those nuances that the overarching codes and
regulations do not. Simplify is better in this case.
• I think that increasing to size 800 ft2, with quick permitting up to the maximum, actually will
increase the availability of desirable affordable housing here in the city of Boulder.
• Again, why the limit on size? Doesn't the zoning code in other places and things like historic
district regs adequate address this kind of issue?
• This seems totally reasonable and the right type of policy.
• Smaller than 800 sq. ft. is not worth the expense and trouble to build.
• This change should be a no-brainer.
• Sensible change to simplify the code.
• 450 sq ft is too small for a family. 800 sq ft is reasonable and works well elsewhere.
• makes sense
• These should be big enough for people to retire into once kids move out; not just for 1 grad
student to rent.
• Fine, but at the risk of repeating myself, this will regulate itself based on the size of the existing
house, and the existing FAR codes. Get rid of it. Simplify.
• Makes sense per comments above.
• Again, I think that % of lot coverage/built footprint more relevant and more equitable that an
absolute nujmber...more flexibility while restraining overbuilding on a lot.
• People would be more likely to live in an OAU without this size constriction.
• It just makes sense -
• 800 for the ADU and 800 for the garage is a pretty good maximum size. The maximum should be
at least 650 square feet and certainly no bigger than 800 square feet. The 450 on top of 500
requirement was "silly".
• Your last sentence says what I would say. Seems fine.
• analysis makes total sense...
• That seems like a reasonable size for a couple or single person to live in.
• Again more options for more affordable housing
• It works in Portland very well. It is a decent amount of space for two people
• I'd like to be able to convert half of my garage into an OAU.
• I feel that this would go far in providing homeowners with flexibility on how they provide
affordable options.
• The current size limit is too restrictive, prevents good design, and does not provide sufficient
living space to keep “a married couple married” as stated by an open house participant.
• Same as before - need more mixed size and mixed income properties.
• It is an adequate size for 2 people if the lot size and the primary residence size can
accommodate on-site parking for renters.
• This would provide a comfortable living space for one or two people
• This makes sense!
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 27
• 800 is actually larger than necessary (650 would be more appropriate, I think), but the current
450 limit is ridiculously and unworkably small (it doesn't allow for ADA-compliance or even for
high-efficiency design (e.g., thick high-R-value walls)).
• Over-garage ODUs are a fantastic way of expanding affordable housing options in Boulder. This
choice opens up that option for many homeowners.
• Cuz an 800 sq ft OAU would be awesome and could house a larger family.
• We need to increase the amount of housing in Boulder to get out of the affordability crisis. 800
sq ft seems like a good size for an apt for a couple. 450 sq ft is probably only big enough for one
person. Housing more people will bring down the cost of living.
• I am an architect and 800sf is a really useful small home size.
• "I completely agree with this: The current size limit is too restrictive, prevents good design, and
does not provide sufficient living space to keep “a married couple married” as stated by an
open house participant."
2018 concerns about increasing the size limit of detached ADUs
• 800 sqft is a quite a large increase from 450sqft. If one of the goals is to preserve affordability,
800 sq ft is large enough to demand considerable rent.
• "I disagree with the staff recommendation to increase the size to 800 sq. ft. That is the size of
entire 2 bdrm houses in many of Boulder’s more modest neighborhoods. Allowing OAUs to be
that size will effectively be adding second houses to lots. This is a major concern."
• Increasing the size and coverage limitations to 800 sq. ft. effectively subdivides properties in
single-family neighborhoods, permanently increasing density and destroying the character of
single-family neighborhoods.
• "We disagree with the staff recommendation to increase the size to 800 sq. ft. That is the size of
entire 2 bdrm houses in many of Boulder’s more modest neighborhoods. Allowing OAUs to be
that size will effectively be adding second houses to lots. This is a major concern."
• It is too big a structure.
• Way too big. Even for three people, 600 sf is plenty. Our first home was 320 sf and we moved
when we had the second kid (it was a trailer house south of town in 1983).
• "800 square feet is the size of entire 2 bdrm houses in many of Boulder’s more modest
neighborhoods. Allowing OAUs to be that size will effectively be adding second houses to lots.
That is a terrible idea. Again, the staff illustration here is very deceiving. The only reason their
illustration ""works,"" if it can be called that, is that they've drawn a giant McMansion principal
dwelling unit. Imagine an entire neighborhood of principal dwelling unit houses roughly the
size of the OAU staff illustrates here, with the purple shading. That's closer to reality in many
neighborhoods. So this proposed change is essentially a proposal to add two houses on lots. If
it were presented to the public that way, accurately, and in keeping with reality as opposed to
fictitious drawings, I believe the public would feel differently. Again, the public has a right to
non-biased presentation of information. That is not what staff has done here. "
• "Or hey, why not just split the lots and build more houses! /sarcasm I don't like to use the
""character of the neighborhood"" argument, but it really does apply here."
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 28
• Too much density. A family of four or more can live in 800 ft.² you’re doubling the number of
families on the lot
• 800 sq. feet on a 5000sq ft lot is too much. Another "incremental" change?
• This is the size of a modest house-- many of which still exist in my neighborhood. Why are we
adding two houses on one lot? That is not an ADU. That is a house.
• How is this very different from the "house behind a house" approach which has largely
destroyed the character of Whittier?
• This highly concerning change should not be pursued by the City of Boulder. 800 square feet is
the size of entire 2 bdrm houses in many of Boulder’s more modest neighborhoods. Allowing
OAUs to be that size will effectively add second houses to lots. It will fundamentally and forever
eliminate the neighborhood character in most parts of Boulder.
• 800 sq ft seems too big; in some neighborhoods 800 sq ft approaches the size of a 2 bedroom
house.
• 800 sq ft seems large, that's as big as our house
• this makes a bad idea worse
• This would be too large, especially if OAUs are permitted in currently prohibited low density
zones and lot sizes are reduced.
• You need to face up to the fact that people did NOT buy into a duplex neighborhood. They
bought into a SF neighborhood. If you want to turn one into the other, give the neighbors a
vote on what they want. This should NOT be up to the city council, but up to the residents who
will have to deal with the impacts on their quality of life.
• Once again: you will be increasing the value of the land, substantially, driving up housing
prices, without impacting the rental market. There is no evidence that Boulder needs a few
hundred more rental units. As of last year, the apartment vacancy rate was quite high. The
problem is the rates -- and you are not addressing that. What you are doing is making home
purchases even less affordable!!!
• We have three of these and they look terrible in the neighborhood. Also they block the views of
the neighbors of the mountains. Boulder is no longer Boulder.
• Staff's depiction of the OAU is fundamentally what the majority of principle dwellings/homes in
Boulder already look like. This is a skewed representation, as usual. Increasing to 800 SF would
fundamentally change the character and livability of certain neighborhoods on Boulder
permanently. Extremely bad idea.
• The recommendation will increase density that is destroying our quality of life. It will permit
more dwellings to qualify for the ADU.
• The City's recommendation permits more growth that has destroyed our Environment and the
quality of life that we have previously enjoyed in Boulder
• It should remain as it is.
• That is a huge increase. It should only be increased if the ADUs are required to be
PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE. That should be a requirement with any ADU. Otherwise the ADU
will become too expensive for low- to medium-income people. Increasing density can still
mean super expensive--look at San Francisco and New York City.
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 29
• A better way to allow for increased OAU size is to allow it by variance, ONLY IF nearby neighbors
sign off on it. If someone is a great neighbor and wants to do a responsible larger OAU, I would
not have a problem with it. If a bad neighbor wants to expand his property, I would not want
that. The city seems to eager to grant people the ability to do what staff wants, rather than
what neighbors want.
• Way too big, almost amounts to a second house on the lot
• The way it is written now is good. Don't change it. Again; proportion!!!
• "Maybe other limitations would have affected the situation, but the OAU next door to me was
built within the existing regulations, and it feels huge and, along with doubly the original
house, has completely changed the feeling of the neighborhood. I can't imagine having
allowed it to be even bigger. However, there may be other requirements that would have
limited this. If so, that could be a different situation, though it already feels too large."
2018 general comments: detached ADU size limits
• 800 sqft is equal to a 4 car garage!
• The sketch describes why. It is a second unit on a single family house. There is so much
involved in making a detached garage into a habitable unit, using less than the whole structure
is irrelevant. These OAU's are not supposed to be for entire families, and something smaller
than 800 sq. ft. should be enough for a single person or even a young couple. 800 sq. ft. would
be OK if the existing limit on the number of people is retained.
• Make it the same as current 500 sq foot of building coverage for now.
• "Needs to be related to lot size 100 sq ft for each 1000 sq ft of lot size would make teh most
sense and allow larger OAU's on large lots"
• Has to be determined by the size of the lot --
• I am tired of the reading the details in this survey. Why don't you try hiring a writer who
specializes in mass communications? Geez.
• Empower citizens and city staff to focus on the right priorities.
• Not everyone lives with someone else. Make some dwellings be smaller for people to live
alone. What are you thinking? Only creating living spaces for couples. :o(
• see other answers
• I think 600 Sq feet is a reasonable size for a detached unit.
• For the myriad reasons described in other sections of my submission
• Increase size limit to 500 sqft. Increasing to 800 sqft is the size of entire 2 bedroom houses in
many of Boulder’s more modest neighborhoods. Allowing OAUs to be that size will effectively
be adding second houses to lots.
• Increasing the size only if occupancy is controlled
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 30
2016 BVCP Community Survey
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan 2016 Community Survey was intended to help guide and
inform the 2015/16 update of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP).
The 2016 BVCP Community Survey addressed a variety of topic areas that are important focus areas for
the BVCP update, including reaction to potential land use plan changes for residential infill and non-
residential, options for future housing choices, feedback on building heights, desired neighborhood
improvements, developer requirements, and other related topics.
As implied by its name, the random sample survey was conducted among a random sample of Boulder
Valley residents, using a postcard invitation to take an online survey, with a one-time use password
printed on the postcard to ensure data integrity. Out of 6,000 survey invitations mailed, 382 were
returned as undeliverable, while 5,618 were presumed delivered. A total of 623 surveys were completed
in full or part. The net response rate (after excluding undeliverable surveys) was 11.1 percent. The
margin of error at the 95 percent confidence interval is approximately +/-3.9 percentage points.
The raw survey data were weighted to match the demographic profile of the adult household
population in the Boulder Valley by age and housing tenure (own vs. rent), based on 2010 Decennial
Census and 2009-14 American Community Survey data. The objective of the weighting was to ensure
that the results are representative of the Boulder Valley population on key demographic
characteristics, and are intended to fine-tune the specific answers to the survey.
The survey report includes several responses relevant to accessory dwelling unit regulations:
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION FOR LAND USE CHANGES TO ALLOW FOR MORE HOUSING
Allow options for residential infill such as accessory dwelling units and small detached homes in
some single-family Residential Neighborhoods. The majority of respondents supported it (62
percent). Twenty-nine percent opposed residential infill and 9 percent was neutral. Greater support
was observed for residents of Central Boulder-North of Arapahoe (73 percent support) and East
Boulder (71 percent). Greater opposition is noted among residents of Central Boulder-South of
Arapahoe (46 percent oppose), North Boulder (43 percent oppose), and Gunbarrel (36 percent oppose).
2016-2018 ADU Public Engagement Summary | 31
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION FOR RESIDENTIAL INFILL OPTIONS IN ESTABLISHED SINGLE-
FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS
Either Attached or Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU - a unit located on an existing single
family lot, either attached to the primary unit or detached). Reaction to this option was
somewhat supportive (62 percent), with 27 percent of survey participants opposed and 10 percent
neutral. Greater support is observed for residents of East Boulder (77 percent support) and
Southeast Boulder (75 percent). Greater opposition is noted among residents of North Boulder (44
percent opposed).
Detached alley house or small lot detached home on an existing single family lot (a separate unit
on a single lot), not increasing overall amount of square footage allowed. The response to this
scenario showed a fairly similar reaction to ADUs, with 62 percent in support and 30 percent in
opposition (9 percent neutral). Greater support is observed for residents of East Boulder (75
percent support), Central Boulder-North of Arapahoe (75 percent), and Southeast Boulder (71
percent). Greater opposition is noted among residents of Gunbarrel (45 percent opposed) and
North Boulder (44 percent).
Community Connectors-In-Residence: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
January 13, 2023
• What are the requirements for ADUs to have a bathroom and kitchen? (Staff response: ADUs have their own separate
bathroom and kitchen to count as an ADU)
• Support the change to remove the saturation limit, remember when that rule was passed and it was mostly “NIMBY”
people at the time.
• Support for increasing the size limit of ADUs.
• Suggest looking into benefits for first-time homeowners, people of color, economically disadvantaged. Maybe a
program that assists them in their purchase or ADU construction.
• Support ADUs over large McMansions being built that only provide housing for 2 people.
• Also suggest looking into allowing more duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes based on a size limit.
• Concern that ADUs like a nanny unit above a garage only benefit that private owner, not beneficial overall to
providing housing to the Boulder population.
• Support anything that creates more housing units.
• In terms of income and wealth-building, only really benefits homeowners. But if there was a program to allow people
within the affordable housing program to building an ADU, that would be a benefit.
• Concern that because owners choose tenants, there might be discrimination, owners may not be open to everyone in
the community.
• Consider requiring owners of ADUs to take classes to understand Section 8 vouchers, make sure that ADU owners can
accept section 8 vouchers. That would help successful transition to self-sufficiency.
• Landlords do have to comply with non-discrimination laws, but it can be hard to ensure that they really are not
discriminating.
• Concern that there is competition with CU students for these housing units. How can we ensure that ADUs really
support housing for low-income, or simply affordable housing, rather than creating more dorms for students. ADUs
should not just support wealthy students.
• Questions about mobile homes with ADUs on county land (staff will provide contact information for county planners)
• Potential to reduce fees for permits based on a tier or qualification – lower or waive fee for low income. This might
allow more people to build ADUs and benefit from ADUs.
• Boulder cost of living has become much more expensive, but people do not want to leave Boulder. On paper, people’s
incomes might be too high to meet the limit for affordable housing. Consider reviewing the income ceilings to make
sure people can stay in Boulder.
• Income limits should not be a hard limit but should link to the cost of living.
• Support for a program that supports students on scholarships living in ADUs.
• Look into changes to Section 8 voucher program to allow people to use vouchers to live in ADUs. Reduce the barrier
for people using vouchers to live in ADUs.
• Increase the size limit to allow for sizes that are suitable housing for families.
• Consider removing requirement for owner-occupancy.
• Make sure ADUs are not used for AirBnb because that does not solve the housing problem.
• Support tiered licensing discounts for severely economically disadvantaged, support first time homeowners, low
income, permanently affordable housing.
• Oppose idea to remove owner occupancy requirement because companies will just profit from them and they will
cause more issues.
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Huntley, Sarah
Sent:Thursday, October 6, 2022 10:35 AM
To:Housing Advisory Board Group; Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU's
Forwarding from Lynn Segal.
From: Lynn Segal <lynnsegal7@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 11:13 PM
To: Housing Advisory Board Group <HousingAdvisoryBoardGroup@bouldercolorado.gov>; Houde, Lisa
<HoudeL@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: alexia parks <alexiaparks@gmail.com>
Subject: Fw: ADU's
External Sender
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 7:07 PM
To: Housing Advisory Board Group <HousingAdvisoryBoardGroup@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Houde, Lisa <HoudeL@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU's
Subsidize ADU'S. Why would I hook up the infrastructure for water in my outbuilding? I would have an
instant demand for conditioning the space and constantly having someone in there. I already burst my pipes
trying an evaporative cooler that didn't work anyway. I got turned off after spending $30,000 for
infrastructure on my outbuilding when I put in a water spigot and the city made me remove it. I guess they
figured I would miss‐use it for a shower in the winter. I had to choose from only a toilet and 2 faucets. You
decide. So, five years now, and no use of my space. My recommendation is to offer me a subsidy!
Stop the hemorrhaging of affordability into Boulder resulting from developer subsidies. I heard of yet another
one from WW Reynolds today at Landmarks Design Review Committee, the Lazy Dog should be developed
into an ugly contemporary with the cornice removed ("it's out of character") so that he can "breathe life" into
this space no one can afford now. The cornice was the only element WITH character. How about he brings
the rent down to earth so renters CAN afford it? Any idea what kind of return Reynolds got on Liquor
Mart? Flipped it from $9 to $16 M from 2018‐ 2020. How about at the Life Sciences Google space @33rd/
Walnut where he doubled his hundreds of millions, in short order. I'd tell you to hear Jeff Wingert's argument
on behalf of Reynolds for yourself at LDRC today, but it is not recorded. Shameless begging. Why does HAB
not stop the bleeding of unaffordability before applying solutions? Make the developer pay. You can advise
council. LDRC held up a 73 yo.historic preservationist/artist for cold windows replacement on her house. She
has a heating bill of $400/per month in Floral Park and LDRC pushed it up to Landmarks Board. As a result, she
won't get an audience until Dec. Bill Jellick cut her off in mid‐sentence. And she found a resource for the
identical windows for $30,000 she was willing to pay. It's slash and burn at Landmarks. It is inefficient and
burdensome for equity. Where is HAB for this woman? Advise council to treat folks right at Landmarks
Board.
2
CarShare/Uber for the block is an option for ADU's I have a van I haven't used in 3 yrs. in my garage.
Guess what, when I used to do Airbnb short term, there was NO parking demand. Tourists or visiting
scientists don't use cars. Tourists in Cuba stay in local houses, not hotels. Family housing is being speculated
for dividing up to separate bedroom rentals. $$$$
When Hill developer John Kirkwood can turn communal Marpa House into 16 separate units with 3 bedrooms
each and then rent by the bedroom, what happens to the rent?
The low‐income demographic needs cars/trucks for their service jobs. THEY need the parking for their
landscaping gear. But a parking space is $200,000. How is this perk for rent reduction in exchange for no cars
going to help hard laborers?
Yay, Terry another 3 ft. deeper below grade and you get an 8 ft. ceiling. Basements YES! It should not count
against the sf. That is a no brainer. Why spend 2 min. talking about it? JUST DO IT.
I agree Terry, HAB thinks the hour is getting late? PB, OSBT, TAB, WRAB, LB ‐ they are all going strong at 9
P. And this board has the most challenging work to do.
770 Circle got a demolition passed @LDRC 21 Sept. Ask council to call it up. 8K sf. $6.1M estate that is
fireproof flagstone and stucco. probably $5M to landfill it. Built in 1941, it is beautifully restored. This
demolition is a human rights violation and the classic case for the mechanism of inflated value resulting in the
cycle of despair of housing unaffordability that bleeds into inflating and upvaluing the whole community. And
making your job harder.
Lynn
1
Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Nov 10 study session items -- correspondence: FW: Elisabeth Patterson :- Planning
and Development Services
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 10:16 PM
To: Mueller, Bradford <MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Elisabeth Patterson :- Planning and Development Services
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Elisabeth Patterson
Organization (optional): Better Boulder
Email: info@betterboulder.com
Phone (optional): (303) 931-8331
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Planning and Development
Services
Direct my submission to: Staff and Council
Comment, question or feedback: November 7, 2022
Re: Council and Planning & Development Services Priorities
Dear Mayor Brockett and Members of Boulder City Council:
In advance of the November 10 Study Session, Better Boulder offers the following input on projects to be discussed. You
may notice an ongoing theme in our remarks as we urge you to act swiftly and boldly to continue to make Boulder
better.
A. ADUs
Only 439 ADUs have been built in Boulder since the 1983 inception of the program. This lack of uptake of ADU
construction is attributable to the city’s over-regulation designed to limit density, as well as regulatory complexity and
other barriers.
Better Boulder has been deeply involved in ADUs since our inception. In 2018, we hosted an ADU Summit with hopes
that regulations would be updated in a comprehensive manner. While that proposed overhaul did not happen, today, in
order to make Boulder more accessible and livable and to promote middle income and missing middle housing, City
Council should set a goal of 10% of single family housing units having an ADU and set policy, procedures, and
communications to encourage ADUs. ADUs are exceptionally equitable housing types, with benefits to existing
homeowners and the potential ADU occupants.
2
Better Boulder encourages Council to take an aggressive and positive position and direct the city manager and P&DS to
move quickly. The City has performed many years of community engagement since 2015, and surveys have always
shown broad support for ADUs. 93% of all ADU owners surveyed report that neighbors are generally approving or not
mentioning existing ADUs. As such, Better Boulder would revise the City staff’s recommended approach to more of an
“inform” level of engagement with the target date of Q2, 2023 for completion of all the recommendations developed by
the Housing Advisory Board. In addition, we recommend a streamlined level of engagement performed through HAB and
Planning Board for:
• Elimination of saturation limits.
• Elimination of parking requirements.
• Elimination of minimum lot sizes for ADUs.
• Revision of ADU size limits.
• Creation of pre-approved ADU plans.
• Streamlining of the entitlement process, code clarification, and process improvements.
B. Missing-Middle Housing - Duplexes and Additional Units as of Right if Deed Restricted Units Created on Site
1. Better Boulder has heard interest from Council in allowing duplexes to be built “by right” on all lots currently zoned
for single-family housing, and we wholeheartedly endorse this proposal to create missing-middle housing. This proposal
is now the law of the land in all of California and in Minneapolis. There is no reason a thought-leading city like Boulder
should not adopt this urgently-needed housing reform to do our part to address the crippling undersupply of housing
nationally that has had such devastating consequences for affordability in our community and around the nation. To
facilitate construction of duplexes, code revisions are required including allowing for condo-ization of single family lots,
changes to parking requirements, standard designs that are pre-approved by P&DS, and others. In light of current
concerns from P&DS about workload, Better Boulder is willing to assist in an effort to draft specific ordinance language
to achieve this change. An expedited study should be undertaken to determine whether a requirement for deed
restriction as part of a duplex proposal will increase housing availability, or whether it will essentially act as a poison pill
largely eliminating construction of newly-authorized duplexes altogether.
2. Lauren Folkerts recently proposed through a Hotline post that the City allow one additional unit by right in any zoning
area beyond what is currently authorized for every deed-restricted unit created on-site. This modest-yet-powerful
proposal, combined with incentives such as waivers of all City fees for the construction of deed-restricted units, would
be an important step to increase missing-middle and workforce housing in Boulder, and again it is one that Better
Boulder supports. As with the duplex proposal, in light of the staff workload capacity issues expressed by P&DS, Better
Boulder is willing to assist in this effort by drafting specific ordinance language to achieve this change.
3. Local housing experts have suggested that for larger projects there could be simple code revisions such as changing
the open space requirement to 15% from the current 6000 SF per unit requirement in some zones for example, which is
a barrier to providing on site units.
4. Incentives for on-site affordability, such as waiving the Site Plan Review process when on site affordability is provided
could offset the loss that developers experience when providing on site affordable units.
C. Occupancy Reform.
Boulder City Council has a number of housing priorities. Given the robust conversation and campaigns around occupancy
limits over the past few years, and desire for reforms, the council should quickly move to adopt changes in line with peer
cities such as Denver. Council should look at a community process that takes 2-3 months and engages the people who
3
are most harmed by the city's current occupancy limits and those who have had concerns with occupancy changes.
D. Boulder Junction Phase 2
Phase 2 of Boulder Junction represents the single largest opportunity for the City to advance its housing, climate, social
equity, cultural and transportation goals.
1. Better Boulder supports the recommended staff process outlined in the November 10th Study Session Memorandum
on the proposed scope of work, public engagement plan, and schedule for the Boulder Junction Phase 2, including the
consolidation of tasks and sequencing the project in a way that distinguishes the ‘planning’ updates from the
‘implementation’ steps.
2. For the sake of process continuity, Better Boulder recommends that Task 3 – Plan Amendment Adoption & BVCP Land
Use Updates, be implemented at the end of Q3 and before the City Council election in Q4.
3. Better Boulder celebrates and supports the heavy emphasis on placemaking and mobility and protected bike lanes
and pedestrian connectivity within not only Boulder Junction II, but a robust connectivity between Boulder Junction I
and Boulder Junction II and the rest of the city-wide bike trail system as part of the re-evaluation of Boulder Junction
Phase II. The goal is to create an extension of the existing Boulder Junction I, 15-minute neighborhood.
4. In the initial TVAP plans from 2007, there was a “Mixed Use Industrial” (IMU) zone that was proposed for a large
portion of Boulder Junction II. Better Boulder thinks this should no longer have industrial uses as a primary use but a
potential complementary one. The land for Boulder Junction II is next to transit and should be used for housing first and
other complementary uses to housing. Instead of Industrial Mixed Use, we think this should mimic the East Boulder Area
Plan's land use that was designated Mixed Use TOD. This allows mixed uses, but would be “predominantly residential,”
promoting greater social equity and housing diversity within walking distance to a multimodal transit hub and bike
connectivity. With higher housing densities, the Mixed Use TOD zoning will allow for higher densities, helping to reduce
the jobs-housing imbalance within the core of the city.
5. Flood protection for the community and surrounding businesses is critical for the success of this next phase.
Infrastructure and flood mitigation projects, including the Boulder Slough, must be solved concurrently while the plan
gets adopted and implemented. No residential project is allowed to be built in the current 100-year flood plain.
6. Better Boulder recommends that the city analyze the lessons learned from Phase I, by consulting the developers,
architects, planners and others and understand what could be improved on Phase II.
7. Better Boulder recommends that the city engage a retail and food beverage district consultant during the process to
better understand the opportunities and constraints, the right locations, for retail and food and beverage rich nodes
that can contribute to a vibrant street experience.
8. Better Boulder supports a more permissive and aspirational form-based code that will render more interesting
buildings and encourage architectural creativity and variety in service to a vibrant, vital, healthy, and beautiful public
realm.
E. Site Review Criteria Update
Better Boulder recognizes that this work has been years in the making by staff, many individuals, boards, and other
groups and is nearing the completion/approval phase. We agree with the latest direction by council that the form-based
code needs built-in flexibility to allow for creativity and innovation in design. Better Boulder also agrees that the
greenhouse gas emission reductions should be a part of the discussion for the Energy code updates and kept separate
from the Site Review Criteria.
F. Use Table & Standards
In December, City Council will consider an ordinance for Module Two (Industrial Areas) of zoning code changes. This
ordinance - which Planning Board recommended with minimal changes in October - would result in long-overdue and
considerable changes and updates to the allowed uses, standards, and use definitions in all industrial areas. Better
Boulder supports these changes implementing the 2017 BVCP policies that envision more services, uses, and amenities
(e.g., restaurants, limited retail uses/personal services, gyms) to serve industrial zone users and employees. This will
4
result in fewer lunchtime and after work vehicular trips and help make the industrial areas more of a community.
Given that this ordinance affects the zoning of every property in every industrial zone, please note that the draft
ordinance was posted online less than a week before the Planning Board meeting. It is likely that many property owners
still are not aware of or do not understand the broad implications of the changes - on existing properties, tenants, or
planned improvements. As an example, the consolidation of the office categories is a great improvement, but the
proposed code results in a new size limit (50,000 sq. ft.) to all previously defined “technical offices” (a common current
use category). Better Boulder urges City Council to seek a more robust outreach effort that engages impacted property
owners.
G. Zoning for Affordable Housing
If we’ve learned anything from recent research, it is that zoning has real-world impacts on the provision of housing,
often by favoring the few and excluding the working poor and middle class. A recent study shows that “first-time and
repeat homebuyers are now the oldest on record, and the proportion of purchases by Black, Asian and Pacific Island
Americans is the lowest since 1997.” DC, 11/4/2022, At Home at H17. These national numbers are very likely to be much
worse in Boulder. The facts are incontrovertible, and the steps Boulder has taken to remedy the imbalance are too few
and do not meet the critical needs of the moment.
To address the magnitude of the affordable housing need, there are many steps City Council should be taking.
Occupancy limitations should be reconsidered in favor of a “household living together” standard (as opposed to relying
upon blood or marriage relationships). Single family zoning should be reconsidered, as discussed above. Owner-occupied
Accessory Dwelling Units should be positively encouraged as discussed above - a city staff member should be assigned to
assist with any and all such applications, since housing more people within our existing structures should be Boulder’s
highest priority. Among Boulder’s most “wasted” assets are the empty bedrooms found everywhere within our single
family zone districts.
H. Civic Area Downtown Planning
The City needs to evaluate the extent to which Downtown has recovered from COVID-19’s worst effects, including the
health of its restaurants, the occupancy of its office space and the availability of employees to fill all the positions open
in these very different commercial uses. What effects have been mitigated, which are likely to be long-term challenges
that can eventually be met, and which represent permanent change that create opportunities to do things differently
and change or reconfigure how downtown is used as part of the constantly-evolving process that thriving urban areas go
through with each new decade and each new generation.
Questions we should be asking ourselves are as follows: Are there opportunities in the neighborhoods surrounding the
Downtown area where the possibility for development of transit-friendly workforce housing may still exist, and, if so,
where? What are the barriers to development of shared housing, cooperatives and other types of affordable workforce
dwelling units close to Downtown? What current conditions in and around Downtown may be discouraging Boulder
residents from visiting, dining, and shopping Downtown? Does downtown meet the pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-
friendly challenges of today? How can visitors to CU’s conference Center and the new hotels proposed on The Hill be
enticed/assisted to support Downtown businesses (what are the barriers needing to be overcome)? A renewed and
reinvigorated downtown planning process is needed now as we move past COVID lockdowns into a new reality for the
use of this public realm.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service,
The Better Boulder Board of Directors
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Bradford
Sent:Sunday, November 20, 2022 7:28 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Harry Ross :- Planning and Development Services
For the correspondence file.
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 5:50 AM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Bradford
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Pannewig, Hella <Pannewigh@bouldercolorado.gov>; Ferro, Charles
<FerroC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Stafford, Edward <StaffordE@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer
<JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Causa, Julie <CausaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Harry Ross :- Planning and Development Services
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Harry Ross
Organization (optional):
Email: harryrosstemp@gmail.com
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Planning and Development
Services
Direct my submission to: Staff and Council
Comment, question or feedback: I am opposed to expanding ADU's in Boulder. I already live next to an ADU and it is
very problematic. Expanding further will ruin neighborhoods.
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1036171231
Compose a Response to this Email
Dear Boulder City Council,
We write to express concerns we've heard from our neighborhood residents about the
proposed elimination of ADU regulations. Allowing density to increase from one to three, or
even two, dwelling units per lot will have very negative consequences in the four CU-adjacent
neighborhoods. Ditto for eliminating the off-street parking requirements.
The Double Irony:
A very poorly-understood double irony exists in Boulder. We’re not sure whether Council
understands this. This double irony consistently produces very disproportionate, negative
consequences for Boulder’s four CU-adjacent neighborhoods.
We’re not sure if Council fully appreciates how much more challenging day-to-day life already
is, in our four neighborhoods (Martin Acres, Uni Hill, Goss Grove, East Aurora). Due to our
proximity to CU, our neighborhoods have very high percentages of rentals, particularly student
rentals.
Even without this proposed ADU density increase, we already struggle with exponentially more
daily quality of life issues: noise, congestion, much greater daily churn (loud comings and
goings at all hours of the day and night), trash, and parking issues. Until you have lived in a
predominately student-rental neighborhood, you likely under-appreciate how many more issues
we struggle with, daily.
We’re familiar with many quiet, stable, tranquil Boulder neighborhoods in which perhaps 5% to
10% of the homes are rentals, and those rentals tend to be families and professionals. Such
neighborhoods might be able to withstand more infill and density-related stress, without being
pushed past a tipping point. That’s not the case for us.
The second part of the double irony is this: Every time the City rolls out a new “city-wide”
housing experiment, in actual fact the true deployments of said experiments are not city-wide.
In reality, they consistently coagulate and concentrate in our four neighborhoods that,
ironically, are least able to withstand more stress and quality of life pressures.
Our neighborhoods are widely known as “targets of opportunity.”Investors know they’ll have
high demand for whatever they develop here, due to our proximity to CU, and they’ll reap large
profits as a result. So we’re always first in line, and we’re often (almost exclusively) the
deployment ground for the City’s densification plans like ADUs, co-ops, etc.
Ironically, the neighborhoods least able to withstand more quality of life stressors and
pressures wind up with most of the City’s new housing experiments. Our neighborhood, for
example, received a very disproportionate number of 12-person co-ops after the City loosened
co-op rules. While many neighborhoods saw no new co-ops, we received far more than a
proportional share, for a neighborhood that is just 1.5% of Boulder. Meanwhile, the majority of
Boulder’s most stable, quiet neighborhoods that could absorb more change and impacts…saw
no new deployment from the co-op ordinance.
Council, please recognize that if you don’t take steps to guarantee new policies will be
city-wide, they won’t be. The ADU ordinance, like others before it, will take the form of
additional "piling on" to the neighborhoods least able to handle more impacts. We have some
specific suggestions to accomplish that, below.
First, there are better ways of creating affordable housing; please utilize them instead.We feel
that Council should not approve the proposed eliminations of ADU rules, at least not for the
four CU-adjacent neighborhoods that already experience so much impact, as is. We strongly
feel that Council should instead:
*Increase the required percentages of inclusionary housing in new residential developments,
and
*Increase linkage fees for new commercial developments.
Both policies above directly and irrefutably create true affordable housing, while ADUs don’t,
particularly at the unaffordable rates by which you define affordable ADUs. We don’t
understand why you would ignore the indisputably successful, surgical tools you have to create
affordability, while instead further compromising neighborhoods that are already near the
tipping point.
Our request: Maintain ADU limits in our four CU-adjacent neighborhoods via a regulatory
carve-out for our neighborhoods, in which a saturation limit of one (not two) ADU projects every
200 feet be maintained. That’s conceding some density. But then please resurrect the “Carr
Amendment” which was proposed during the co-op ordinance. Former City Attorney Tom Carr
proposed to have special restrictions in our four neighborhoods, in recognition that we’re
already under much greater quality of life pressures as is, and b) we’re always the first “targets
of opportunity.”
We also request that the off-street parking requirement be maintained because of parking
problems that many parts of our neighborhoods already experience.
Further, 800 to 900 square foot ADUs are far too large for neighborhoods like ours, where many
principal dwelling units are 800 sf two-bedroom homes.
Understand this is not a NIMBY request. Picture our request as a way of ensuring that your
ADU roll-out will actually be city-wide. Without any restrictions for our four “usual suspect”
neighborhoods, you won’t see city-wide deployment, you’ll just see most of the new ADUs end
up in our four neighborhoods.
Additionally, we respectfully request that Councilmembers not blithely suggest that if we have
issues with noise, trash and parking, that we “just call Code Enforcement.” For those of you
who aren’t cast into the unfortunate position of having to regularly utilize enforcement, allow us
to explain:
Contacting Code Enforcement is almost totally ineffective. We realize many on Council believe
that if there’s a noise problem, one simply calls the police or code enforcement, and their
problem is solved. While that’s a picturesque, appealing idea...reality is quite different. Not only
are there far too few code enforcement officers for the size of the problem, Boulder’s deeply
flawed “complaint-based system” forces the burden of proof onto the victims. We are told that
we must document, photograph, find the source of noise ourselves, create logs of incidents,
etc. None of us wish to spend our lives that way. We are not (nor do we wish to become)
investigators, detectives or prosecutors.
Instead, a far better strategy would be to maintain guardrails to prevent problems where you
can practically guarantee they'll occur (our neighborhoods), rather than “designing for
problems,” as we believe this ADU proposal to be, and then leaving residents to attempt in vain
to fix problems on the back end.
Here’s another of Boulder’s least-understood problems with the City’s and BPD’s new, totally
data-based system that relies exclusively, and erroneously on actual reported violations: The
truth is that many violations go unreported, because many residents fear retaliation from the
perpetrators in the offending properties. So your data maps and call logs, in reality, vastly
under-count the actual number of issues. In short, Council’s perceived solution to quality of life
challenges (calling code enforcement) is actually an ineffective, exceptionally difficult, time
consuming process.
In closing: We offer a sobering, cautionary tale from the City of Austin, TX:
Around the year 2010, Austin, TX passed a “city-wide” law known as the High Occupancy Unit
(HOU) ordinance. As the following summary shows, actual HOU deployment wasn’t anything
approaching city-wide. HOUs coagulated and concentrated in the already-beleaguered
neighborhoods closest to the University of Texas. The effects on those neighborhoods were
devastating, leading Austin to repeal its HOU ordinance just a few years later.Can Boulder
learn from history, and other cities’ mistakes, or are we condemned to repeat those mistakes?
In particular, Austin's experience regarding loss of families (which we're also seeing in
Martin Acres, as quality of life deteriorates each year) speaks directly to Councilman Benjamin’s
publicly-stated concern over decreasing BVSD enrollment in South Boulder. To quote the
Austin report:
https://centralaustincdc.org/fair_affordable_housing/Family_Displacement_in_Central_Austin.p
df
(Austin report): “…today,our community is losing a most important component of that
diversity: its families. This loss is already complete in areas zoned and thought protected
for single-family use. It may be irreversible, and many areas have reached the tipping
point. The trend began near the campus…”
“Single family uses in the 78751 zip code, most particularly the Northfield Neighborhood, have
been devastated.HOU’s have placed many of their blocks beyond the tipping point of
recovery. Northfield has experienced the brunt of conversions of buildings to High-Occupancy
Units (HOU), and the disappearance of families, long term renters, and the historically
contributing structures they once lived in.”
“Based on rents published in listings,HOU’s have not created household affordability for
the people who rent them, nor as a class, have they delivered meaningful supply to the
market to reduce rents elsewhere. Conversely, HOU’s have increased the prevailing rents
on a per-person basis, compared to rents in denser multi-family uses and less restrictive
zoning districts.”
“When HOU structures reach a tipping point in an area,family flight accelerates. These
areas become a street with yards that are not maintained, parking that is inadequate, and
a monoculture that lacks social cohesion and continuity.”
Thank you for considering our earnest requests and deep concerns regarding ADU
de-regulation.
The Martin Acres Neighborhood Association steering committee
Jan Trussell
Bob Porath
Dorothy Cohen
Bennett Scharf
Mike Marsh
Ron DePugh
Lisa Harris
1
Houde, Lisa
From:No Reply
Sent:Wednesday, November 9, 2022 12:15 PM
To:Council; ContactCoB
Subject:Jan Burton :- Feedback on pending council action
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Jan Burton
Organization (optional):
Email: jan.burton111@yahoo.com
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Feedback on pending council
action
Direct my submission to: Council
Comment, question or feedback: In August my cousin and his wife sold their home in Kansas City and moved to
Morrison, Colorado to live in what they call a “house within a house” with their daughter, son-in-law, and two young
grandchildren. This multigenerational family housing arrangement not only benefits both families financially, but it helps
my cousin and his wife “age in place”, even more important because he has Parkinson’s disease. It also supports their
daughter and her young family who often need childcare. This wouldn’t be possible in Boulder.
The City has performed many years of community engagement since 2015, and surveys have always shown broad
support for ADUs. 93% of all ADU owners surveyed report that neighbors generally approve of existing ADUs. I
remember the comprehensive survey supporting the last Boulder Valley Comp plan had 80%+ support for ADUs. The
Drake Research study done in May, 2021 showed 68% support for ADUs, duplexes and triplexes in single family
neighborhoods. Without duplexes and triplexes, I feel the ADU support would be 80%+.
Clearly, there will be a need for comprehensive community engagement around occupancy limits. But you should move
forward with the HAB recommendations with limited community engagement (because we’ve done it time and time
again). Please ask staff to implement the following as quickly as possible:
Elimination of saturation limits.
Elimination of parking requirements.
Elimination of minimum lot sizes for ADUs.
Revision of ADU size limits.
Creation of pre-approved ADU plans (see Eugene, Ore efforts. https://www.eugene-or.gov/4707/Pre-Approved-ADU-
Plans)
Streamlining of the entitlement process, code clarification, and process improvements.
Thanks for your consideration. Jan
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1031732653
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Macon Cowles <macon.cowles@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 9, 2022 11:01 PM
To:Folkerts, Lauren; Bob Yates; Joseph, Junie; Winer, Tara; Brockett, Aaron; Benjamin, Matt;
Friend, Rachel; Wallach, Mark; Speer, Nicole
Cc:Sugnet, Jay; Houde, Lisa; Hollie Hendrickson
Subject:ADU Work proposed by Staff
External Sender
Dear Council:
I have reviewed the staff memo for your 11/10 Study Session and I have these comments.
Boulder still has the most restrictive ADU ordinance in the country. This is evident from looking at staff’s comparison of
our requirements with the 30 other cities that is set forth on Packet P. 28/92. And yet only two modest proposals are
suggested by staff to be investigated in response to the Council priority on ADUs:
1) eliminate saturation limit, and
2) increase permitted size of the ADU. Packet p. 29/92.
This response falls far short of what is needed to get more ADUs. The HAB has suggested to Council a menu of other
changes required. Packet p. 72/92.
But if Council goes with only those 2 proposals, there is no need for staff to run an engagement process. THAT was
already done for three years from 2015-2018 in the earlier iteration of ADU reform. Instead, all that is needed is public
hearings by HAB, Planning Board and Council, and then a vote on the ordinance changes. Running a process will not
result in different information. Action is called for.
Eliminating lot size restriction can be done without a process. Why? Because the Compatible Development standards
already limit the coverage and the mass and scale of any residential construction. Compatible Development restrictions
are on a sliding scale, directly related to lot size. So there i s already a whole portion of our land use code that would limit
the mass, scale and coverage of the 5,000 sq. ft. lot size is eliminated as a requirement for an ADU.
And please, look at the parking requirement. We are not going to make sizable gains in Housing and planning until we
act. Actions are frustrated in Boulder planning because our requirements and regulations are so burdensome:
burdensome on staff to administer and burdensome on the community that has to move projects through regulations
like cheese through a grater. To think and act big, take on the parking issue, consider reducing the parking requirement
to zero. That was identified in staff’s survey as the biggest obstacle to doing ADUs. So let’s have a public hearing before
HAB, PB and CC at which we consider the elimination of the requirement. Then vote on it, and you can move on to the
next priority.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. And thank you for your service to the community.
Best wishes.
Macon Cowles
1726 Mapleton Ave.
Boulder, Colorado 80304
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Thursday, November 10, 2022 3:36 PM
To:Ferro, Charles; Houde, Lisa; Guiler, Karl; Cawrse, Sarah; Johnson, Kristofer
Subject:FW: Progressive Win-Win on housing data gathering
Attachments:BVCP Midterm Update Housing PIlot staff recommendation (1).pdf
One more
From: David Adamson <david@goosecreekclt.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 3:28 PM
To: Rachel Friend <rachelkfriend@gmail.com>
Cc: Brockett, Aaron <brocketta@bouldercolorado.gov>; Speer, Nicole <speern@bouldercolorado.gov>; Folkerts, Lauren
<folkertsl@bouldercolorado.gov>; Benjamin, Matt <benjaminm@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<muellerb@bouldercolorado.gov>; Firnhaber, Kurt <FirnhaberK@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Progressive Win-Win on housing data gathering
External Sender
Rachel and my dear courageous COB public servants:
Please ask for this information tonight so we can inspire the world with a bold win-win on housing/climate/economic
and racial justice/business vitality/health/beauty (as Goose Creek/Back Porch group has demonstrated since 2018:
1. For each year since goal was set for MIHS, how many units have been added?
2. Please post this on Boulder measures housing
3. Please also track net loss of affordable housing per BHP 2014 strategic plan
Please reverse this collapse. It can be done to everyone’s benefit with true community benefit zoning. Unless YOU
shape the market for land away from luxury only, we will just keep losing our true wealth: diverse people! We can
IMPROVE single family neighborhood community character! Start with Pilots. If you had agreed during BVCP Midterm
Update, first pilots would be rolling out now and we would be showing everyone else how to do it.
2
I predict that further focusing on liberalizing ADU’s will again add precious few additional affordable units and 0 for sale
attainable housing which is what we need. Influential housing folks argue at least its doable, not a bad argument if that
3
was all we could actually achieve as momentum is the key to social movement growth. BUT everyone wins from doing so
much more!
Again, please ask how many units through ADU liberalization have been created and after new reform, how many more?
We have plenty of staff to help create monstrous net zero luxury homes and remodels but none for our #1 priority!
Links: net shed rate: https://boulderhousing.org/news/2014-strategic-plan White Paper:
http://goosecreekclt.org/back-porch-consensus-suggestions-on-affordable-housing/
Respectfully,
David Adamson
815 North St. Boulder, CO 80304
(303) 545-6255 www.goosecreekclt.org
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Sugnet, Jay
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2022 8:50 AM
To:John Garnett
Cc:Housing Advisory Board Group; Houde, Lisa; Guiler, Karl; Hendrikson, Hollie
Subject:RE: Proposed ADU changes
Hi John,
Thanks so much for sharing your feedback! I am sharing this with the city staff working on the update.
Jay
From: John Garnett <johne.garnett@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 8:30 PM
To: Housing Advisory Board Group <housingadvisoryboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: John Garnett <johne.garnett@gmail.com>
Subject: Proposed ADU changes
External Sender
Hi,
We have been evaluating an ADU on our property for our working kids for a couple of years. They both work in Boulder
from home based businesses.
First, the recommendations being proposed are great. Some clarifications, simplifications, and easing of restrictions will
help encourage ADU development.
My recommendations would be as follows:
Make the maximum detached ADU size proportional to the lot size. Much like the FAR. 900 sq ft is really small for a
larger family. I don’t understand why an attached ADU can be so much larger.
Measure the square footage from inside the framing. 900 sq ft is still only 840 sq ft after a 6” wall is subtracted. Wall
thickness adds insulation but it reduces the square footage. It encourages builders to limit the insulation. ?
We live in a 2700 sq ft house on almost a full acre. Address: 858 Gapter Road. We Would like to build an ADU for our
kids to live in. They could live there, run their businesses, and help assist us as we age in place. A detached ADU makes
more sense for us, but 900 square feet looks like a postage stamp on our lot.
Lastly, the cost of a home in Boulder is very high and the cost per square foot is higher for a smaller home. We had an
800 sq ft ADU quoted at $700,000( and that was before the Marshall fire.) Any change that can make it easier or less
expensive to build in Boulder would be welcome.
That’s my input. I believe you are moving in the right direction.
Cheers,
John
Cheers,
John
October 19, 2022
Members of Boulder Housing Advisory Board,
Members of the Goss Grove Neighborhood Association, University Hill Neighborhood
Association and Martin Acres Neighborhood Association met to discuss the proposed changes to
several of the aspects of the ADU ordinance that were on the agenda at the September 28, 2022
HAB meeting.
Everyone present at this meeting agreed that availability of affordable housing is an important
issue in Boulder. Providing affordable options for residents in all parts of Boulder is crucial.
Strengthening the current ordinances in Boulder that address the affordability of units should be
a goal. One of the specific suggestion from the group is that the metrics attached to the pricing
of affordable ADU units should be revised to provide even lower cost living opportunities in
these units.
This group also appreciates the ADU opportunity in Boulder as an important addition to the
options homeowners have to best utilize their home for their future.
This group is taking a survey of neighbors in order to get more citizen feedback on the HAB
agenda items. The wider survey that is being gathered may not be available before the HAB
October 26th meeting but that citizen feedback will be included in future discussions.
The consensus of this group so far is that the “one size fits all” approach that HAB is considering
is not a good fit for the varied specific circumstances present in different neighborhoods, or
sections of neighborhoods, particularly those adjacent to CU campuses and/or where investors
are the primary motivators. In fact, other cities like Austin have had experience with ADUs1.
The consensus of this group was that any changes to the ADU requirements should be
neighborhood specific to fit with the zoning, parking district, density, and nature of the varied
neighborhoods in Boulder.
The specific issues discussed consisted of the 6 items from the HAB agenda of September.
Here are the results of this group’s discussions during the meeting.
● Eliminate saturation limits—the consensus of the group was not to eliminate saturation
limits but rather work with different neighborhoods to establish a reasonable saturation
1 , https://centralaustincdc.org/fair_affordable_housing/Family_Displacement_in_Central_Austin.pdf
limit depending on the circumstances and preferences of the neighborhood. These
neighborhoods already have a high number of renters and non-ownership tenants.
● Eliminate parking requirements for an ADU or triggered by ADU construction—the
consensus was to not eliminate these requirements but to make any future changes by the
specific neighborhood, zoning, parking district, density etc.
● Eliminate lot size minimums for ADUs—the consensus was to not eliminate lot size
minimums. Full lots, not legally subdivided lots, in GG for instance are as small as 3600
sq. ft.
● Increase ADU size limits—the consensus was not to increase ADU size limits in the
attached and detached units in both the market rate or affordable units.
● Allow one attached and one detached, or two detached, ADUs per parcel—the
consensus was that the number of ADUs should depend on the lot size, neighborhood
conditions, saturation, zoning, and inputs from the specific neighborhood.
● Allow ADU permitting before or at the same time as house permitting—the group
had several suggestions to qualify this provision. These include new construction of both
the main house and ADU would be less disruptive for the neighbors by being
accomplished simultaneously. One dwelling is therefore not required to wait for
construction of the other. The previous city policy of ‘3 year stagger’ was discussed as a
way to improve compliance with the residency requirement for ADU properties. Ensuring
the residency requirement of the property when both units are complete was a concern of
the group.
Thank you for your time and careful attention as you consider these suggestions and responses to
proposed changes to the ADU regulations.
Regards,
Deb Crowell, Susan Iott, Michele Bishop, Lisa Spalding, Valerie Stoyva Yavuz, and Jan Trussell
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Sugnet, Jay
Sent:Friday, September 16, 2022 10:22 AM
To:Houde, Lisa; Guiler, Karl; Hendrikson, Hollie
Subject:FW: Housing advocacy groups’ recommendations for ADU reform
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
fyi
From: Kurt Nordback <knordback@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2022 9:20 AM
To: Housing Advisory Board Group <housingadvisoryboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Housing advocacy groups’ recommendations for ADU reform
External Sender
Dear Housing Advisory Board,
We, the undersigned, are members of organizations dedicated to addressing Boulder's housing crisis: Better
Boulder, Boulder Is For People, and Boulder Housing Network. Like many problems, the housing crisis does
not have a single solution. However, we firmly believe that there are many policy changes that can individually
make small contributions to alleviating the crisis, and if combined, could significantly improve the availability
and affordability of housing in Boulder. A couple of us testified at your August 28 meeting about ADUs, and
Board members invited us to present our ideas about ADUs in writing before your next meeting.
We have been meeting to discuss one such policy tool: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). We chose to tackle
ADU policy first because, although it may not be the most impactful of potential tools, reform of Boulder's ADU
rules is on the city staff work plan for this fall, and because we feel many of the potential reforms are relatively
simple code changes.
We have reached consensus on six changes that could be quick to implement, simple, and require no
significant funding. We have also discussed longer-term, more challenging, or more costly changes, and we
may be bringing some of those forward in the future. But for now, these are the quick-fix code and policy
changes we recommend:
1. Eliminate saturation limits.
Current rules limit the fraction of properties with ADUs within a given area. For instance, in the city's largest
residential zone district, RL-1, only 20% of properties within a 300-foot radius are allowed to have ADUs.
A saturation limit was put in place originally to alleviate fears of an overabundance of ADUs. The limit was
raised as part of the 2019 ADU code revisions, but it remains an obstacle to creating more ADUs in some
areas of town, particularly since nonconforming properties such as duplexes are also included in the
calculation. Perhaps just as important, it is an opaque and confusing metric that may deter would-be ADU
developers, and it slows the ADU permitting process. It's impractical for a property owner to determine on their
2
own whether their property meets the limits. Only city staff have the data and tools to do the calculation, and it
must be done by hand (the city's GIS software can't do it automatically). Last and perhaps least, this provision
significantly complicates the ADU code in the Boulder Revised Code.
2. Eliminate parking requirements for an ADU, or triggered by ADU construction.
The ADU rules currently require one off-street parking space for a market-rate ADU. Moreover, they require
that in order to build a market-rate ADU on a parcel that does not have the required one off-street space for the
primary house, two parking spaces (one for the house and one for the ADU) must be provided.
The parking requirement is a significant impediment on constrained lots, or those with limited street access. It
is also contrary to Boulder's efforts to reduce incentives for motor vehicles and to create a less car-dependent
urban form. And private land that is valuable for environmental, social, and health purposes — for trees,
gardens, recreation, gathering, and open space — should not be required to be paved to park vehicles.
3. Eliminate lot-size minimum for ADUs.
Current rules do not allow an ADU on any lot smaller than 5,000 square feet. While such lots are fairly rare in
Boulder, this restriction seems unnecessary and arbitrary.
4. Increase ADU size limits.
The following table shows the current ADU size limits:
Market-rate Affordable
Attached 1/3 dwelling size or 1000 sq ft,
whichever is less
½ dwelling size or 1000 sq ft,
whichever is less
Detached 550 sq ft 800 sq ft
We recommend increasing the size limits so that the square footage of the ADU can be half the area of the
principal structure, even for market rate ADUs.. This allows a property owner to create an ADU on one floor of
a house without having to wall off a portion of that floor in order to meet the limitations noted above. We also
suggest increasing the detached ADU size limits to 650 square feer (market-rate) and 900 square feet
(affordable), to allow them to be more suitable for families. Alternatively or in addition, the size-limit exception
process could be changed from one requiring a hearing at BOZA (Board of Zoning Adjustment) to a simpler
administrative process.
5. Allow one attached and one detached, or two detached, ADUs per parcel.
The existing rules do not explicitly limit a property to a single ADU, though some may argue that that is implied.
Based on a suggestion from City Council, we recommend explicitly allowing one attached and one detached
ADU, or two attached ADUs, per parcel. Many property owners are not able to or interested in providing an
ADU. Allowing those who are able and interested to create a second ADU would help to meet our housing
needs.
6. Allow ADU permitting before or at the same time as house permitting.
3
Although not specified so in the city code, the administrative convention has been to only allow an ADU
application for parcels where a primary house exists or construction permits have been issued.
This results in an inefficient and unduly costly process when attempting to build a house and ADU at the same
time. It requires an applicant to submit sequentially for the house and ADU permits, and given the protracted
time period for issuance of the permits, it means that construction also happens sequentially. Therefore crews
for excavation, foundation, framing, etc. do their work for the house, and then must return -- months later -- to
do similar work for the ADU. With delayed permitting, rising costs, and supply-chain issues for materials and
construction, the current system can lead to canceling plans for an ADU.
It also means that an owner of any empty lot who wishes to build and perhaps live in an ADU first, before
building the house, is not allowed to do so. This administrative restriction seems unnecessary and
counterproductive to easing our housing crisis.
Thank you for considering our suggestions, and thank you for your service to our community on HAB.
Eric Budd
Jan Burton
Jake Brady
Ed Byrne
Chelsea Castellano
Macon Cowles
Rosie Fivian
Lisa Wade
Kathleen McCormick
Kurt Nordback
1
Houde, Lisa
From:No Reply
Sent:Sunday, November 6, 2022 5:29 AM
To:Council; ContactCoB
Subject:james martin :- Feedback on pending council action
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: james martin
Organization (optional):
Email: jimmymartin@comcast.net
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Feedback on pending council
action
Direct my submission to: Council
Comment, question or feedback: I am writing to ask that you NOT adopt the recommendations of the HAB regarding
ADUs. This is an attempt to eliminate single family zoning in the city and I am opposed to that.
I have reviewed the HAB Agenda and record dated October 26, 2022. It is appalling that the HAB only referenced the
recommendations of an activist group called Boulder Housing Network. BHN 's ultimate goal is to eliminate single family
zoning and upend Boulder's unique neighborhoods.
No to eliminating saturation limits and parking requirements.
No to increasing ADU size limits (increases to 650 or 950 sq. ft.).
Two recommendations make some sense:
1. Creating pre-approved ADU plans;
2. Streamline the entitlement process.
Thank you.
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1030326661
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:No Reply
Sent:Thursday, November 10, 2022 1:56 PM
To:Council; ContactCoB
Subject:Kathleen McCormick :- Feedback on pending council action
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Kathleen McCormick
Organization (optional):
Email: fonthead1@gmail.com
Phone (optional): (303) 817-2088
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Feedback on pending council
action
Direct my submission to: Council
Comment, question or feedback: Dear City Council Members,
In your study session this evening, please support revisions to the ADU regulations that have been recommended by the
Boulder Housing Advisory Board, as well as Better Boulder, the Boulder Housing Network, and Boulder is for People,
with whom I participated in an ad-hoc ADU policy group. I’m a member of the Boulder Arts Commission, the Better
Boulder Board, and an editor for the Boulder Housing Network, and I’m also married to HAB chair Michael Leccese,
though I write here for myself.
Michael and I built a licensed attached ADU studio apartment in our house six years ago, and since then have rented it to
a series of young Boulder professionals and graduate students at an affordable rate. These have included a middle-
school math teacher/graduate student, a CU administrator/graduate student, a staff member for an environmental
conservation organization, and a nanny/graduate nursing student. All of them have been quiet, respectful, and grateful
to live in a convenient neighborhood at a reasonable rent. These are next-generation Boulderites who are contributing
to our community and otherwise would have been living in over-occupied housing or driving into Boulder daily from
surrounding less-expensive communities.
I respectfully ask City Council to make ADU changes a priority now to allow more Boulder homeowners to offer similar
opportunities to people who work and attend school in Boulder and can’t afford the rents. ADUs offer low-hanging fruit
for expediting an increase in the supply of gentle-infill housing in single-family neighborhoods, at the expense of
homeowners. Eighty percent of residents support ADUs, and the City’s recent ADU survey showed that the vast majority
of ADUs are in the affordable range. ADUs provide income for homeowners and more diverse housing options to
accommodate multiple generations of family, caregivers, caretakers, and others.
The City has done extensive community engagement for ADUs, and we know the factors that make them a successful
housing option for many U.S. cities, so staff does not need to conduct further engagement. From many discussions with
neighbors and other Boulder residents, the ADU recommendations I think are most important are to eliminate the
saturation limits, the off-street parking requirements, and the lot-size restrictions to allow homeowners with small er lots
and more modest homes to benefit from ADU ownership.
2
Let’s encourage greater diversity and economic inclusion by making key ADU revisions now. I appreciate your
consideration and all your efforts to promote more and more equitable housing in Boulder.
Kind regards,
Kathleen McCormick
3055 11th Street, Boulder CO 80304
303.817.2088; fonthead1@gmail.com
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1032340994
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Monday, December 5, 2022 9:46 AM
To:Guiler, Karl; Houde, Lisa; Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Jessica Murdzek :- Planning and Development Services
FYI
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2022 6:46 AM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Pannewig, Hella <Pannewigh@bouldercolorado.gov>; Ferro, Charles
<FerroC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Stafford, Edward <StaffordE@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer
<JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Causa, Julie <CausaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Jessica Murdzek :- Planning and Development Services
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Jessica Murdzek
Organization (optional):
Email: jessica.murd.123@gmail.com
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Planning and Development
Services
Direct my submission to: Staff and Council
Comment, question or feedback: Hi City Council folks,
I know y'all have quite a few items on your list regarding increasing affordable housing in Boulder. I'd like to encourage
you to lower restrictions on ADUs, remove parking minimums for all new structures, and allow densification in the
current city limits. I'm currently being priced out of Boulder, and I'm sad to leave. You need to allow more housing stock
to be created ASAP. The single family zoning areas must be changed to allow for more dense zoning. Incremental change
will be key.
I'd also like to encourage you all to learn about the Strong Towns approach (from Chuck Marohn). He focuses on making
a city financially sustainable.
Thanks for all the work you're doing! Please remember there are a lot of low income folks who don't have time to email
you but still need your help. Please think of what would be best for them, don't only take into account the noisy
neighborhood groups.
1
Houde, Lisa
From:No Reply
Sent:Monday, November 7, 2022 4:36 PM
To:Council; ContactCoB
Subject:Kurt Nordback :- Feedback on pending council action
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Kurt Nordback
Organization (optional):
Email: knordback@yahoo.com
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Feedback on pending council
action
Direct my submission to: Council
Comment, question or feedback: I'm writing in regards to your upcoming discussion of ADUs. I'd like to underscore the
thoughtful and well-considered recommendations from HAB, which would address many of the most significant
restrictions in our current ADU policy while still being an evolutionary change from the 2018 reforms.
I'd also like to raise a couple of additional points for your consideration.
1. Condominium conversion
As you know, although rentals in Boulder are expensive, our greatest affordability challenge is in homeownership. This
was highlighted in the Middle Income Housing Strategy, and was repeated in the Staff memo for your recent study
session on affordable housing:
"In 2016, middle income households were able to afford 99% of the city’s rentals, but only 17% of detached for-sale
homes. Affordable ownership remains the challenge for renters looking to buy a home in Boulder."
I would therefore urge you to consider recommending that condo conversion (separate conveyance) of ADUs be
allowed. Condo conversion of a house plus ADU allows each to be purchased independently of the other, and it replaces
property that is held under one title (that in almost all cases is unaffordable to the middle class) with more affordable
pieces held under separate titles. Unlike subdivision, with which it is sometimes conflated, condo conversion doesn't
affect what's allowed in terms of density or physical form in any way; it simply allows for independent ownership of
parts of a single property. As I see it, this is completely consistent with the goals of the Middle Income Housing Strategy
and other city housing objectives. Condo conversion was only prohibited as an afterthought to the 2018 ADU update,
and it's my perception that it was prohibited not because there was any identified problem with it, but simply because it
hadn't been considered. I would suggest that now is the time to consider it.
2. Owner occupancy
As Staff pointed out to HAB during their discussion, if we really want more of the desperately-needed moderate-cost
2
housing provided by ADUs, we'll need to remove the owner-occupancy requirement. The main reason is that many
homeowners aren't comfortable being landlords, or are unaccustomed to sharing space with another family unit. Even
when a homeowner wants an ADU, financing can be a challenge.
So I'd like to encourage you to consider how we could relax the owner-occupancy requirement in a way that would be
politically feasible. I would propose that we permit non-owner-occupied ADUs other than in the Hill neighborhood, and
with a 20% saturation limit for non-owner-occupied ADUs (assuming the general saturation limit is removed). This of
course is not necessarily the "right" answer, but I do feel we should be creative in coming up with a way to allow for
more of the ADUs we need so much, including in select cases on non-owner-occupied properties, in a way that will be
politically acceptable.
Thank you.
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1030940696
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:No Reply
Sent:Wednesday, November 9, 2022 8:59 PM
To:Council; ContactCoB
Subject:Francoise Poinsatte :- Housing and Human Services
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Francoise Poinsatte
Organization (optional):
Email: fmpoinsatte@msn.com
Phone (optional): (720) 210-8802
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Housing and Human Services
Direct my submission to: Council
Comment, question or feedback: Dear Council members,
I urge you to prioritize ADU policy revisions at tomorrow night's Study Session. The HAB suggested a list of very needed
ADU reforms that Better Boulder supports as well. These include elimination of saturation rate, parking requirements
and minimum lot sizes, in addition to the City offering pre-approved plans and stream lined processes for City approval.
All these revisions are common sense and would do a lot to promote ADUs as a much needed supply of housing
beneficial to both homeowners and renters alike.
Please request staff to minimize public process in adopting these revisions. The City went through an exhaustive process
in 2018, and shouldn't have to repeat this. ADUs enjoy public support and these changes are simply revisions designed
to simplify and encourage creations of ADUs.
Reducing process, and looking at what other communities have done successfully, will greatly reduce work load on staff.
These revisions ought to have been included in the work done on ADUs in 2018. It's time to adopt them now as a
priority.
Thank you for your hard work!
Françoise Poinsatte
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1031932064
Compose a Response to this Email
Results of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) Survey 11/9/22
To: City Council
From: Goss Grove, Martin Acres, and University Hill Neighbors
Date: Nov. 9, 2022
Subject: Input on changes to ADU regulations
As the neighborhoods closest to the University and downtown, we already feel the impacts of
dense, rental housing. All of the Goss Grove neighborhood, the northern and eastern parts of
University Hill, and the core of Boulder from Alpine south to Baseline, including many areas to
the east of campus, are zoned to have 4 unrelated occupants per rental unit. We are aware of
efforts by the city to update its ADU policy and would like to provide the results of a Google
Questionnaire distributed city-wide to our neighbors via Next Door and through neighborhood
association lists. In general, we support more affordable housing in Boulder and live in areas
that provide it. We ask that our neighborhoods be carved out of policies that might encourage
ADUs in less dense, yet accessible neighborhoods.
For these reasons, most of the neighbors don’t agree that raising saturation limits, lowering lot
size requirements, eliminating parking requirements, and allowing more ADUs per lot will help
the city achieve affordable housing goals–at least in our experience in our neighborhoods. See
response summaries and graphs below.
Responses from around the four neighborhoods surrounding downtown
and CU
Questions were provided through a Google Survey document. We received 13 responses from
Martin Acres, 9 from Goss Grove, 8 from Whittier, 6 from University Hill, 3 from the Community
Gardens, 4 from Table Mesa, and a few unlabeled responses.
Summary of Results: Increase saturation limits?
Comments included: A lot of thought went into the saturation limits so don’t change them. This
will lead to a loss of trees, vegetation, privacy, and community. It will increase noise, parking,
tension, and problems. This is a back-door way to change the single-family zoning category to
allow more housing–don’t do it. City Council asks for more affordable housing but they miss
opportunities to provide housing and instead allow increased expensive student housing.
Summary of Results: Eliminate parking requirements?
Comments include: Parking is already too hard in many high density neighborhoods. Lifting the
parking restrictions may be well intended–e.g., reducing gas and emissions–that backfires.
People drive and will want to have cars. Restricting cars is a disingenuous appeal to
eco-minded people but in reality just creates worse problems.
Summary of Results: Eliminate lot size minimum?
Comments included: The size of houses to lots needs to be controlled. There is such a thing as
too much density. This will affect heating and flooding and with increased climate change, these
things will be worse. There will be no yards and all will be concrete.
Some said the limits seem arbitrary. But if building occurs, measures need to be taken to limit
the impact on neighbors by controlling size and proximity to neighbors–such as location on the
lot.
Summary of Results: Increase ADU size limits?
Comments included: This is as large as some of the older homes in Boulder and is against the
spirit of the “granny-flat.” Larger ADUs won’t help affordability–affordable level is already too
high and more space will make it higher. One comment said that the larger size will allow more
renters and more money.
One said that increased size would remove regulations, another said that it would be okay if it
was an owner and related party (to prevent the problems of unknown renters).
Summary of Results: Allow 1 attached and 1 detached or 2 detached
ADUs?
Comments included: This would change single family zoning and compounds the problems
described above. People purchased their homes in these areas to retain some land and privacy
and taking that away impacts their lives and investments.
Some said this depends on the size of the lot, the flood plain, and location. One person in favor
of ADUs generally said that having 1 ADU per lot helps to keep it owner occupied.
Summary of Results: Allow house and ADU to be built at the same time
Comments included: Get the noise, lack of privacy and dust done all at the same time; it is an
inhumane inconvenience for those that live next door! The neighbors do recognize, from
experience, the hassle of having a house and ADU built separately. If an ADU is approved, any
work on both the house and ADU should be allowed to go ahead at the same time
Those not in favor said that simultaneous building benefits the contractor, not the neighbors.
And building one house might reduce the frenzied home-building activity that is occurring.
Summary of Results: Should LLC’s have the same rights as Individual
home owners with respect to ADU ownership, and owner occupancy rules?
Comments Included: Neighbors have experienced Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs) buying
houses in the neighborhood and charging more to rent them either to long-term or short-term
tenants. This doesn’t support affordable housing or an increase in housing. LLCs add a renter to
their corporation and allow them to live on site as an “owner,” thus meeting the city rules that an
owner occupy the site where an ADU is built.LLC's are not real people. The distinction of who
the owner occupant is is a slippery slope allowing for many loop-hoops. Therefore LLC's should
not have the same privileges as individual home owners that care about the community that
they live in..
Most of the neighbors do not support LLCs being able to get around the city’s rules. Comments
included that the LLCs are interested in profit and not the character of the neighborhood and
that they do not contribute to the community. Typically the “Owner-Occupant” representative is
not invested in being a long term resident. The floor plans being built by LLC’s are made for
renters not long term occupants. They in fact take away from the community by causing
problems with additional trash and noise. Neighbors commented that allowing LLCs to build
ADUs doesn’t support the intent of the rules. Many commented that the city can’t build its way to
affordability–prices just keep going up because people want to move to Boulder.
Those who support ADUs said that they should be owner-occupied for the long-term to ensure
affordable housing is provided. Most neighbors understand that these LLCs are not contributing
to affordable housing.If, LLC's are going to be allowed to par ticipate in ADU ownership,
owner-occupant representatives should not be allowed to live in the affordable unit since this
does nothing to contribute to affordable housing.
In summary, General Survey Theme: A request for “THOUGHTFUL
Development”
A common thread in discussions and input generated by this survey was what could be
summarized as a request for “Thoughtful Development.” Those who replied “maybe” to the
questions consistently stated “it depends on the neighborhood.” Some have tons of parking, for
example, and some have none. Some have huge yards and others have none. As a result, we
ask whether codes, and development, can be thoughtful towards maintaining community. If an
ADU is going to be built, is it going to foster a neighbor and keep existing neighbors in doing so?
Should new builds be allowed to put windows, stairways etc. only 3 feet away from the fence of
an existing and established neighbor? That is, a general lifting of all restrictions, unchecked
with respect to the needs and different neighborhoods throughout the city is not going to get us
to a place of more housing, and even more affordable housing, all the while maintaining
community, liveability and character. Already people are moving away from Boulder because it
is losing its community. Let’s add ADU’s, and affordable ADU’s thoughtfully.
Thank you for considering the input put forth by Boulder residents that spent the time to
complete this survey in light of the proposed code changes and allowances that are
presently given to LLC’s and private investors.
December 12, 2022
Dear Members of the Boulder City Council,
The proposed changes to ADU regulations discussed at your November 10, 2022 study session raised concerns for
the University Hill Neighborhood Association due to the current impacts of the high population density in our
neighborhood. We object to the one size fits all approach of eliminating saturation limits and increasing ADU size
limits for neighborhoods of vastly different needs, desires, and carrying capacities. We share these concerns with
other neighborhoods surrounding the university and hope to discuss alternatives with staff before your study session
next year.
The assertion that no other city in the country has saturation limits has been taken up as a rallying cry for
deregulation, but three of the five zones in Chicago that allow ADUs have an annual limit of two per block. This
allows the city to judge the effects of a gradual population increase. Utah’s new law allowing ADUs in any
residential zone statewide and stipulating that cities may not regulate or restrict them went into effect in October
2021. However, a provision of the law allows cities to prohibit ADUs in a percentage of their residential areas,
which ranges from 25% in most cities to 67% in cities with large universities. Provo, home to Brigham Young
University and comparable in population to Boulder, passed a code change that permitted the exemption of up to
67% of its residential areas.
There are other examples of cities with saturation limits, but many cities use other tools to guard against adverse
impacts on neighborhoods, like special permits that include a public hearing. Dallas requires an appeal for a special
exception to single-family regulations adjudicated at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustments. The board
may “not consider how the appeal may benefit the applicant” and can grant the exception only if it will not
adversely affect neighboring property.
The saturation limit is the only tool Boulder has that prevents adverse effects from population increases that could
overwhelm our neighborhoods. The number of legal nonconforming properties on University Hill places a strain on
many blocks. For example, the 800 block of 11th Street has a sorority with an occupancy of 109, a triplex across the
street with 9 legal residents, and the soon to be completed apartment complex across the alley, which will have an
occupancy of 48.
We ask that representatives of the University Hill Neighborhood Association, the Martin Acres Neighborhood
Association, the Goss Grove Neighborhood Association, and representatives of the East Aurora neighborhood be
given the time to discuss with staff how best to accommodate our neighborhoods if changes to our current ADU
regulations are going to occur.
Daniel Hopkins, Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, determined that Americans’
strongest connections are to their neighborhoods, not their states, cities, or towns. Please respect our connection to
our neighborhoods and trust our ability to advise on what is best for them. Do not rush through an irreversible
change that will affect the entire city without considering whether the change is appropriate for specific
neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
University Hill Neighborhood Association – Executive Committee
Nancy Blackwood
Stephen Clark
Mary Cooper Ellis
Valerie Stoyva
Lisa Spalding
Jyotsna Raj
Scott Thomas
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 9:21 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: In support of relaxing ADU regulations
From: Ryan Bonick <ryan.bonick@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 5:14 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: In support of relaxing ADU regulations
External Sender
Hi,
I am writing as I am unable to attend tomorrow's planning board meeting, but wanted to make my thoughts on ADUs
known in advance of the vote tomorrow.
I do not believe ADUs will singlehandedly solve Boulder's affordability problems. However, I do believe they are an
incredibly valuable tool in the city's arsenal, and relaxing the regulations around it will be a good thing. Boulder's
Housing Advisory Board agrees with me.
I would also like to see modifications to occupancy calculations and parking requirements, but those are sadly not on the
docket tomorrow.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Bonick
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:22 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Buzz Burrell <buzzburrell@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:36 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform
External Sender
Dear Planning Board:
ADU’s are a Win‐Win‐Win. For zero cost to anyone except the person constructing one, this is the easy button for
affordable housing.
Just drop all regulations, except maximum size. There are no problems. Stop sweating the easy stuff.
I constructed an ADU 12 years ago. Going through the red tape was extremely difficult, dissuades many from attempting
it, and protects or accomplishes nothing.
In the ensuing 12 years, my two units have been fabulously successful. My son and his family of 4 live in the main unit,
and my wife and I live in the accessory unit. Our combined electric, gas, and water bills are significantly lower than for
the average single family home. Two families are living in one structure, taking up far less space, having less impact, and
with excellent affordability as this house with ADU has the same Appraised Value as this house without the ADU.
JUST DO IT. Boulder likes to think of itself as being progressive, when in fact, it has become remarkably regressive. Let’s
walk our talk.
Buzz Burrell
1290 Chambers Dr
Boulder Co
80305
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 10:02 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Saturation Limit: where one neighbor can get it, another cannot
Attachments:180226 300 ft. of 1726 Mapleton.pdf; 180226 300 ft. of 1735 Mapleton.pdf
From: Macon Cowles <macon.cowles@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:33 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Saturation Limit: where one neighbor can get it, another cannot
External Sender
PB, tonight I spoke of my cross the street neighbor who had to move her historic garage on the alley 3 feet from the
alley because as built in the 19th c., it extended 3” into the alley. Moving the building 3 ft, it then violated the height
ordinance. Sinking the historic structure in order to get a building permit for the studio-ADU cost them $30,000. The
cross the street neighbor is Beth Helgans, at 1735 Mapleton.
I wanted to let you know also that when the saturation rate was raised to 20%, Beth and I lined up at 7:30 the first
morning so we would not be barred by the saturation limit. But we agreed that I would be in front of her in line. I could
only get an ADU that complied with the 20% saturation limit if I were first in line. Because if Beth got hers first, hers
would count toward the 20% and our house would not qualify. But my getting approved first did NOT bar her. That is
because each of our houses had a different radius, and therefore a different number of non-conforming structures
within that 300 feet.
If you want an idea about the counting difficulties, I am attaching the two charts made for us by City staff in 2018 to
count the number of units that would be counted to apply the saturation limit.
FYI, we have a 1650 main house and a 700 sq. ft. affordable ADU. It is used for 1) long term rental, 2) our niece to live in
while she attends CU, and 3) for caretakers to live in when Regina and I need help as we age.
Macon Cowles
1726 Mapleton Ave.
Boulder, Colorado 80304
macon.cowles@gmail.com
(303) 447-3062
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Macon Cowles <macon.cowles@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 26, 2023 11:01 AM
To:Matt Benjamin; Aaron Brockett; Lauren Folkerts; Friend, Rachel; Junie Joseph; Nicole
Speer; Wallach, Mark; Tara Winer; Bob Yates
Cc:Houde, Lisa; Mueller, Brad
Subject:Please eliminate saturation and parking requirements for ADUs
External Sender
Dear Council:
The sign announcing it had taken 408 days to get a building permit
from the City of Boulder arrived the same week as a postcard
offering a small lot on Bluff St., described as “Nestled Bliss,” for
$1,700,000. (See image below.) The two counterpoints are
emblematic of the crisis of planning in our beloved city.
Our processes are so lengthy and difficult that dreams of
opening a business or making a home are turned to dust by the
planning machinery. Planners are so busy administering the
machinery that we cannot timely make the changes we must to make this vibrant city available to the
young and different. If action is deferred, it will be too late.
The only projects that survive are those sponsored by and for the very rich, like the lot on
Bluff. An ambitious builder will apply the rule of thumb: spend twice as much on the home as you
spent on the lot. There will soon be another $4 million home in the neighborhood.
Our code has secured the primacy of the very expensive single family home. “$13 million sale of Boulder
estate shatters county record for home sales” is the headline of a January 24, 2023 Denver Post article documenting
that the three priciest homes in the entire County are in Central Boulder. It is stunning that in the face of
placemaking for the rich, we cannot take simple steps to make room for others: such as eliminating the
saturation and parking requirements for ADUs. We must act quickly, lest we turn away so many people
that our beloved City becomes a wealthy shell.
Macon Cowles
1726 Mapleton Ave.
Boulder, Colorado 80304
macon.cowles@gmail.com
(303) 447-3062
2
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Deb Crowell <DebCrowell@live.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 25, 2023 6:38 AM
To:Houde, Lisa; Guiler, Karl; Mueller, Brad; Meschuk, Chris; Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria;
Winer, Tara; Sugnet, Jay
Subject:ADU's Developed/Owned by LLC's: A Case Example
External Sender
To the members of City Council and the Planning Department,
Having lived in our house for 30+ years, we expected that someday someone would build an ADU next to our
backyard. In that there are only two owner-occupants at our end of the neighborhood, the prospect of
having a new permanent neighbor, invested in living in our neighborhood was exciting. While we continue
to see the value of increasing housing in Boulder, we have come to realize from our first-hand experience,
that some of the present codes and allowances, especially with respect to LLC ownership and development
1) defeat the purpose of the city’s attempt to increase affordable housing and 2) threaten the quality of
community cohesiveness of our neighborhoods. In light of the upcoming focus on ADU revisions that are
under consideration, we would like to share our observations based on our personal experience with regards
to an “Affordable ADU” that is nearing completion this month. They are as follows:
1. The extremely flexible definition of the “owner occupant” in the case of an LLC owning an ADU
provides loop holes that create opportunities for development groups that are solely aimed at
financial gain. There are several case examples in our neighborhood where the definition of an
“owner occupant” is blatantly non-existent such that it is clear that there is no real person that is
truly living in the neighborhood and therefore there is no on-site management of the property. We
suspect that the LLC “owner-occupant” representative, soon to move in next door, is a puppet who
will not last more than a few years before his LLC takes advantage of the transferable definition of an
owner occupant for LLC’s. If there is no enforcement by the city, this scenario will continue to grow,
as we have seen in the Goss-Grove neighborhood in the last few years. We want ADU’s to create
neighborhoods filled with invested neighbors, not investment development groups.
Bottom line: If LLC’s are allowed to build ADU’s the result is not consistent with the city’s goal of
creating affordable housing
2. We are specifically aghast at the fact that LLC’s are allowed the same building privileges as an
individual owner (increased square footage and parking-exempt) when building an “affordable ADU”
in which the said “owner occupant” of the LLC is then allowed to then occupy, meanwhile, renting
the primary house for market rate. If the owner is living in the affordable unit, how does that make it
an affordable ADU? How can the owner occupant also double as one that qualifies for affordable
housing?
Additionally, in a neighborhood rife with parking problems we wonder why off-street parking, even
for an affordable ADU, is waived? One would think that additional parking be the responsibility of
the party that is adding density to our neighborhood and also profiting from increasing density? As it
is in our case example next door, the second inhabitant(s) have yet to move into the front house and
2
the “owner occupant” (living in the “affordable” ADU) has yet to park in his (long and skinny)
driveway. He clearly prefers the convenience of parking in the street. So, where will the tenant for
the primary house park I wonder? Very likely on the street as well. I hope, as the city seems to hope,
that that person will not have a car, but our neighborhood can’t take that risk.
Bottom line: if LLC’s are allowed to build affordable ADU’s and the owner occupant representative is
allowed to live in the affordable unit, then they are being granted privileges that do not meet the
city’s goal of creating affordable housing, meanwhile creating a public burden with regards to parking
availability on the street.
3. In our case example, it is our experience that the larger the ADU (and corresponding expansion of the
front house in order to maximize the allowable build size), the more the development affects the
quality of life of those on neighboring lots. With the present codes that already allow for
maximization of every square footage of a lot (in our neighborhood), there is no consideration for the
livability, and privacy of the existing houses surrounding the lot. Nor are there any mediation
services in place by the city to protect existing neighbor’s privacy during the planning process. In our
case, 5 properties were affected. That is, the onus was on us to try and negotiate the rearrangement
of stairways and request that windows be frosted that run along the scant 3-foot side-yard set-back
allowances. We now look at, hear and smell the HVAC system that is no more than 5 feet away from
our very small and intimate backyard. As it was, property line disputes, and other unneighborly
negotiations ensued during construction. We would suspect that, if the lot next door were being
developed by a true owner-occupant, rather than an LLC, more polite considerations negotiations
would be taken with respect to how the floor plans would affect existing neighbors.
Bottom line: if this project were that of a private home owner, wanting to become an integral part of
our neighborhood, we suspect that the development of the lot would have progressed far more
amicably. If the city wants to increase housing and maintain quality of community living, then
mediation and code protections should be in place such that everyone can continue to experience a
quality of life under increased and imposed high density regulations as well as during the
construction phases.
4. Finally, if the city continues to allow an entity to a) purchase land b) immediately expand the front
house in order to build an ADU to maximum size which is contingent on the front house and then c)
break ground on the ADU only several months later, we would suggest and are in agreement with
HAB’s proposal that all construction occurs as one project instead of two separate, staggered
projects.
Bottom Line: While we see many advantages of the now extinct 3-year clause requiring an owner to
inhabit the property before building (this would be a barrier to LLC investors), if the city’s goal is to
support unchecked growth than please take bordering neighbors (sometimes up to a block away) out
of their misery and get all the construction done at once, in the shortest turnaround time as
possible. It has been a painful and disruptive year of blow-by-blow surprises, noise, dirt and privacy
violations.
5. What will happen to Boulder’s neighborhoods if the goal of increasing housing supersedes
community planning? With only one other permanent owner occupant within the Goss & Grove 21st
and 22nd blocks of high-density housing, we have been crucial anchors to keeping our end of the
neighborhood in check as a safe, aesthetic and livable neighborhood and not a student slum. We pick
3
up glass and trash on the street, shovel the walks, maintain our lawns, trim the city trees and
maintain amicable relationships with the managers of the rental properties on our street. We are
frequent users of the city's 303-441-3333 number to report back yard open fires, broken median
sprinklers, noise ordinance violations and other concerning neighborhood issues using the Inquire
Boulder site. (I myself have been the eco-cycle neighborhood representative, and have been an active
chair and member of the Goss Grove Neighborhood Association where I was involved in formulating
the 6-day (trash) review as well as serving as an integral member on the parking permit program
committee.) We have worked to create cohesiveness in our very diverse community; we built a
community garden on old 23 between Goss and Grove, we have an annual cook-out/lawn game party
every fall to welcome the new residents, and have held summer yard sales which have generated the
result of building community cohesion between our diverse residents on our block. We know that
students and young professionals renew their rental agreements on our street because, to quote a
student on move-in day, "it's a real neighborhood, and that's cool".
After all of the work we have invested in this end of the neighborhood, we did not want to have to
move, rent or sell our property. However, our back yard will no longer be a sunny and private living
space due to the two story ADU with windows towering over our yard and 3 feet from our hot tub.
Every time we smell and hear the whir of the HVAC motor, we are reminded of what looms above our
yard. We can hear the heat pump in the winter with our bedroom windows shut so we know that
sitting in our back yard in the summer while our neighbor runs his air conditioner will be
unpleasant. It didn’t have to be this way had we had mediation and protections in place that
represented the needs of those that lived on both sides of the fence.
Bottom Line: As a result, we are moving out of Boulder and will add our house to the rental fleet until
we sell our home. We don’t think we are alone in making this move. There will be only one true
owner-occupant left on our block. We know that we are not alone; there is an exodus of people
leaving the city. The city needs to look at the big (community) picture if they are going to accelerate
plans to increase housing density and further lift restrictions.
To conclude: We are not against affordable housing nor are we against an increase in density in order to
create more housing. We share our story in hopes the city is able to accomplish its goals by offering:
Careful consideration that ADU ownership and development by LLC’s is a threat to the city’s best
intentions with regards to creating housing, especially with respect to the privileges granted and
loop-holes created to benefit LLC development groups.
Thoughtful code revisions for all parties involved
Mediation, open plans and discussions for all members involved in ADU development (on all sides of
the fence)
Strict and dedicated enforcement of owner occupancy requirements
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Deb Crowell
2276 Goss Circle
4
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 9:21 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
From: Diane Dvorin <diane@bayhillsgroup.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 5:38 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform
External Sender
Dear Planning Board:
My husband and I strongly support the 6 recommendations you have before you regarding regulation of ADUs. We
know from personal experience that this type of housing is an important part of diversifying the housing choices in
our community and a gentle way of increasing density in our neighborhoods as we move into a very different future
on many fronts.
We are long‐time Boulder residents, still living in the same house I bought here in 1976. When purchased, the property
already included a bare‐bones "mother‐in‐law unit," converted from what had previously been an alley garage. Over the
years, we significantly improved our "Little House," tracking with the permitting and rental licensing requirements as
they changed over time. Unequivocally, over these 47 years, this flexible ADU format has served both our family and our
neighbors in many significant ways. We expect this will be the case going forward as well, making it more possible to for
us now to age in place and continue to enjoy the neighborhood and City that we love.
Thank for your work on behalf of our community.
Sincerely,‐‐
Diane Dvorin & Bill Butler
3232 Sixth St
Boulder, CO 80304
Mobile 303‐641‐6478
Home/Office 303‐449‐0981
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:35 AM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU’s
From: Emily Reynolds <emily2reynolds@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 11:27 AM
To: Barbara Fahey <barbara.s.fahey@gmail.com>
Cc: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Re: ADU’s
External Sender
Love it! Awesome m’dear!!
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 11:22 AM Barbara Fahey <barbara.s.fahey@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Planning Board,
Many years ago I lived on University Hill for a number of years. Due to the continuous noise, accessibility, trash and
traffic issues there, I embarked on an aggressive savings program for many years so I could afford to buy a less than
1000 square ft home in a single family Boulder neighborhood in 1981. We‘re retired now after a 40+ year career as
public servants and still live on the same street.
Now we hear plans are afoot to turn our quiet and accessible neighborhood into University Hill by adding the potential
of ADU’s in every single family neighborhood. We feel this is a slap in the face to those of us who sacrificed much to be
able to live in a peaceful place. Please vote this down and instead recommend that the City subsidize more and free
express buses from Longmont, Denver, Broomfield and Golden.
There’s a certain subset of people who will always choose to live in cheaper housing in less desirable areas no matter
how much housing we provide in Boulder. Fast and free buses will allow them to get here in a more environmentally
sound way.
Missoula, Montana has a bus system that generated huge ridership once it became free and now it’s mostly electric.
They accomplished this through a combination of federal grants and local business and government subsidies. Their
surprising environmental success is worth a look.
Sincerely,
Barbara and Mark Fahey
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 5:57 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Yes to ADUs
-----Original Message-----
From: k. f . <kartzner@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 5:18 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Yes to ADUs
External Sender
Hi board,
Sorry I’m late to this, but just wanted to send a note to encourage this board to support measures like legalizing ADUs
and anctively exploring other ways to make Boulder equitable and more affordable for folks. Thanks!
Katie Farnan
Sent from my iPhone
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 6:27 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Make ADUs as easy to build as possible
From: Adrian Fine <adrianfine@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 6:20 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Make ADUs as easy to build as possible
External Sender
Dear Planning Board,
You're probably getting a ton of emails saying "go slow on ADUs we don't know their impacts" and a bunch of emails
saying "change the saturation limit to X, reduce sideyard requirement to Y".
I won't go into all the details of the ordinances you are updating, but I encourage you to make it as easy as possible for
as many people as possible to build an ADU. If we're interested in seeing more housing, then ADUs are part of the
equation, and I encourage you to do everything you can to make it easy to plan, permit, construct and inhabit an ADU.
Thanks,
Adrian Fine
--
Adrian Fine
adrianfine@gmail.com | 650-468-6331
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adrianfine/
1
Houde, Lisa
To:Mueller, Brad
Subject:RE: ADUs
From: Nicholas Fiore <nick@flowerarchitecture.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 9:40 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADUs
External Sender
Hello PB -
I've applied for many ADUs in the city, and I built one myself at my house in TMesa. The rules are arbitrary and
capricious, to say the least. It's embarrassing, the state of zoning and housing rules in this highly conservative
'progressive' bastion of a city. We're not even the most progressive city in Boulder County, on the issue of housing. You
likely know this.
For ADUs - there are many rules that need to change:
No saturation limit
Adjust height limit calculations or raise the height (the 25' rule was designed to hamstring buildings in a hilly
town... if you don't know what I mean by this, then you, like 99.9% of Buolderites, don't know how the code
defines height)
Market rate vs affordable limited - trash this distinction; only city politicos and city staff cares. Build ADUs
dont argue about definitions
Size limits: a bit larger is ok, IMHO
'COMPATIBILITY' language in the code. DELETE. There is NO good reason that a city staffer, new to town, not a
resident nor neighbor, etc., should have ANY say on 'compatibility' of the design. Credential? Experience in
design? Why this is in the code escapes me, other than a NIMBY instinct in past CCs. Even (honest) staff
understand this is silly.
o Note - I served on the Landmarks Board, and I understand the big fat juicy instinct to 'shape' or have a
say in design of structures that you neight pay for nor live in. Resist this instinct. Let owners/architects do
their thing. Great stuff comes with meh stuff, that's life.
Energy Code: This is an aside, but we are at the point where the energy code is a real reason that we are a fully
'wealthy only' town. We can pretend it adds only 2-3% or whatever b.s. staff will tell you, but it's not true. I'm in
favor, but the city should be subsidizing this, PV for example.
Cheers
Nick
_________
Nicholas Fiore AIA (he:him)
Desk 720 515 7749
Mobile 434 531 6837
nick@flowerarchitecture.com
FLOWER
1100 Spruce Street Suite 104
Boulder, CO 80302
flowerarchitecture.com
@flowerarchitecture (insta)
A Curiosity Shoppe
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Sugnet, Jay
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2023 4:57 PM
To:Housing Advisory Board Group
Cc:John Garnett; Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: John Garnett :- Housing and Human Services
Dear HAB,
Below is an email we received through the city’s online portal. It is directed to you.
Jay
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:47 PM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Firnhaber, Kurt
<FirnhaberK@bouldercolorado.gov>; Crowe, Elizabeth <CroweE@bouldercolorado.gov>; Sugnet, Jay
<sugnj1@bouldercolorado.gov>; Morse-Casillas, Lyndsy <morsecasillasl@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: John Garnett :- Housing and Human Services
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: John Garnett
Organization (optional):
Email: johne..garnett@gmail.ocm
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Housing and Human Services
Comment, question or feedback: My comments are directed towards the Housing Advisory Board recommendations. I
support those proposed changes but have the following comments.
My perspective is that of a home owner who wishes to build a detached ADU to allow our son’s family to live near us
while we age in place. Currently, our son and his partner commute into Boulder to work.
Comments:
1. The HAB recommends increasing the allowed size of detached ADU’s. I agree and suggest that “there be a relationship
between lot size and ADU, particularly for larger lots.” A 1000 sq ft detached ADU on a 39,000 sq ft lot is very reasonable
and can house a family.
—Based on FAR we could build a 10,000sq ft home on our nearly one acre lot
—It’s common in other cities to allow larger ADU’s on larger lots
—All sizes of ADU’s are needed to house a diverse population
2. HAB recommends simplifying the measurement of allowed square footage. I agree, and want to point out that the
current regulations result in a 7-9% reduction of the actual living space. Measuring from the outside walls and counting
mechanical rooms as living space further reduce the allowable living space.
2
3. Simplify the process for ADU approval it adds complexity to the already burdensome rules for building in Boulder.
That results in additional cost and time to build. Currently, A nice, small ADU in Boulder would cost $700 per sq/ft or
more. That is prohibitive for many.
Bottom line, increase the size of allowed ADU’s and simplify the process if you wish to expand the stock of this type of
housing.
Thank you
John Garnett
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1060645441
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:33 AM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: a comment regarding proposed changes to ADU's
-----Original Message-----
From: Molly Greacen <mollygreacen@womanmedicine.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 10:11 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: a comment regarding proposed changes to ADU's
External Sender
Hello friends on planning board,
Thank you for your service to our city.
I am writing to let you know that as a resident of Boulder for 45 years, I am strongly against city council's proposed
changes and deregulation of ADU's. I have seen what it does in the Table Mesa neighborhood, a two story ADU looming
over the backyard of my long time friends. For them, it is a disaster. The proposal would allow not just one, but two
ADU's of 800 sq ft in single family low density zoned neighborhoods like mine in north Boulder. This type of increased
density would make us more vulnerable to flooding and wildfires, not to mention destroying the peace and quiet of my
neighborhood.
Please build multistory residential dwellings in the new East Boulder industrial area around 55th street. Leave the
neighborhoods alone.
Thank you,
Molly Greacen
Conifer ct in north Boulder
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:48 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU's
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathleen Hancock <khancock@khancock.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:14 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU's
External Sender
Dear Planning Board,
I am writing to encourage you to take a moderate approach to considering how to expand ADU development in Boulder.
I am sympathetic to the goal of increasing affordable housing in Boulder. However, I also understand market rates are
high in Boulder and that the best/only way to increase access to affordable housing is to require that that housing be
reserved for those who meet affordable housing income requirements. Simply adding more housing, particularly in
many of the highly desirable and thus expensive neighborhoods that have been zoned to be single family homes, will not
bring down prices. It will increase density, create parking challenges, add traffic congestion and probably more
accidents between cars and bikes, and otherwise change the neighborhoods in which people have invested hard earned
income.
I note that the survey consisted entirely of (200) people who already have ADUs. While this is an important
demographic to sample, it leaves out all the neighbors who might well have different opinions of how existing ADUs
have worked and whether they really want to go from 20% saturation to no limit on saturation. The vote on Bedrooms
are for People asked the entire city for their opinion; it was voted down. This must be taken seriously and not simply
over-ridden because some elected officials had hoped for a different result.
Given the above, I would support Planning Board and then City Council approving a limited increase in ADUs - from 20 to
25% - keeping the current parking restrictions, and making some improvements to the process (such as extending the
approval expiration period and removing the Unit A and Unit B addressing). I oppose the height increases; these have
been a mainstay of Boulder and help keep Boulder the attractive city it is for so many. In addition, these new ADUs
should be required to meet the affordable housing requirements; otherwise, you are just adding more expensive
housing to Boulder.
Thank you for your consideration.
~ Kathleen Hancock
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:20 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
From: Betsy <bjhandco@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:06 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform
External Sender
Dear Planning Board:
I strongly support reforming ADU regulations that make it easier for residents to create these apartments. We
desperately need more housing in Boulder. We know that is true. Planning Board can help make it happen. These
reforms will help (I eliminated the height variance recommendation because I’m afraid that might jeopardise the rest of
the reforms):
1. Remove the saturation limit, so that ADUs are not limited to the first 20% of homeowners
within a 300 foot radius.
2. Increase the permitted maximum size of ADUs, which for detached market rate units is now
limited to 500 sq. ft.
3. Give owners more time than one year after a permit is issued to actually complete construction
4.
5. Simplify the code sections on ADUs to eliminate repetitive, wordy and confusing language.
6. Improve the process, getting rid of red tape. For example, permit a property owner to apply for
an ADU permit AND a building permit at the same time
Betsy Hand
880 6th Street
Boulder
303 447-87073
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:22 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
From: Nina Handler <ninaasnes@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 11:16 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform
External Sender
Dear Planning Board:
I hear that you are looking into ADU reforms. I live in North Boulder and would like to add my opinion.
Please remove the saturation limit. That seems unfair and also limits the amount of housing available.
Please increase the maximum square footage which is now limited to 500 square feet. I think 1200 would be a more
reasonable number.
Please remove any laws that base the size of the ADU on the size of the main house. If this is true, it is totally inequitable.
For example, my nextdoor neighbor has a 5000 square ft house and is allowed to build up to an additional 750 square foot
detached garage with the same amount of land. My house is only 1790 square feet and I shouldn’t be penalized for
having a smaller house.
Thank you for your help in changing these outdated policies for our city.
Best regards,
Nina Handler Asnes
1734 Sumac Ave, Boulder, CO 80304
303-807-1963
Nina Handler
ninaasnes@comcast.net
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:28 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Cc:Ferro, Charles
Subject:FW: Kimman Harmon :- Feedback on pending council action
Probably an ADU comment.
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:15 PM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Meschuk, Chris <MeschukC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Davis, Pam
<DavisP@bouldercolorado.gov>; Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria <Rivera-VandermydeN@bouldercolorado.gov>; Huntley,
Sarah <Huntleys@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Kimman Harmon :- Feedback on pending council action
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Kimman Harmon
Organization (optional):
Email: kimman@kimmanharmon.com
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Feedback on pending council
action
Direct my submission to: Staff and Council
Comment, question or feedback: Under the category of anything that can be done can be over done; please consider
what you are proposing.
Could you start a little lighter?
And be a little smarter?
You want to cover every square inch of a property with buildings? Where will the moisture go?
Let’s be a lot smarter about all of this.
Slow down and think about who will truly benefit from all this….not the renter, that’s for sure.
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1058477348
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Wednesday, January 25, 2023 8:45 AM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU changes
From: rmheg@aol.com <rmheg@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 8:23 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU changes
External Sender
I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes to ADU's in city of Boulder. I am concerned with the huge size of
ADU's and multiple ADU's being allowed on one property. Deeply concerned with the removal of current requirements for
maintaining percentage of property not being developed vs buildings allowed. The current size of ADU's proposed are
the size of my house!!! Not an ADU! My house!!! What is going to happen with flooding? wildfires ?? with these densely
packed neighborhoods? Look at Lousville and Superior!! My neighborhood is already densely packed. It cant handle
any more. It cant handle more cares, more noise, more pollution. Boulders solution to pack our neighborhoods while
ignoring housing projects such as Millennium which would have been a great mixed housing for affordable/seniors etc but
was sold and approved for CU high end non affordable housing is so disappointing. Boulder will only ruin itself if we keep
packing people it, but have no cap on CU students- we build more housing and CU will keep filling it up... Why dont we
have any talks about mass transit. We have missed so many opportunities - letting developers pay in lieu vs building
affordable housing! These changes are just more pieces leading to destruction of any quality of living in Boulder.
Rosemary Hegarty PT, APT,CCRT
303-499-4602 office
rmheg@aol.com
www.rosemaryhegarty.com
1.16.2023
Dear Planning Board Members,
I am writing in support of changes to the current ADU policies. ADU provide an opportunity for
more affordable housing and we need more housing opportunities in Boulder. I have lived and
worked in Boulder for the last 53 years and have seen many changes. The one issue that
continues to be a problem is affordable housing. I have many friends who have moved out of
Boulder because they couldn’t afford it. The majority of my friends who had to move are people
of color, thus making Boulder an even “whiter” community. This makes me very sad. There are
solutions to these problems.
I live in and own a duplex that is an older house. I would love to be able to apply for an ADU. It is
my understanding under the current rules, I am not allowed to build an ADU. I have a sufficient
size lot and should be able to build an ADU. I think we need to eliminate the saturation level for a
neighborhood to have ADU’s. I realize initially people were concerned about everyone wanting
to add an ADU but that hasn’t turned out to be the case.
It would be nice if the City of Boulder could eliminate some of the red tape in applying for an
ADU. The code could eliminate repetitive wording, confusing language. I don’t see any good
reason why an applicant couldn’t apply for an ADU and a building permit at the same time. It
would make it so much simpler.
In addition, I think it would be good to be able to build more than 500 sq. ft. in an ADU. I would
suggest up to 1000 sq. ft. per unit. If you wanted to differentiate between a market rate and a
unit that is affordable, you could make the market rate one under 1000 sq. ft. I don’t believe
there needs to be a limit on the lot size to build an ADU.
These are simple changes to the current rules that would make it easier to build an ADU and
help ensure more affordable housing. I appreciate your consideration of changing the rules to
make more opportunities for affordable housing.
With appreciation,
Janet Heimer
2216 Bluff St.
Boulder, CO
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:24 AM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
From: JONATHAN HONDORF <jonathanhondorf@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:43 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Fwd: ADU Reform
External Sender
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: JONATHAN HONDORF <jonathanhondorf@aol.com>
Date: January 16, 2023 at 10:50:48 AM MST
To: planningboard@bouldercolorado.gov
Subject: ADU Reform
Dear Planning Board:
Thank you for reviewing our draconian ADU code.
I have studied the ADU codes in LA and ours are
In need of a change.
I was the last to receive an ADU on my area and let me tell you this has not been an easy process.
People harass me because
1. They can’t get one in
2. I rent to minorities
3. I’m elderly
There should be no restrictions on the amount in neighborhoods allowed.
1. So people don’t get harassed
2. There’s a housing crisis
3. It’s more sanitary due to Covid to have separate kitchens baths and units.
4. Allow More than 3 unrelated to live together
A. Because since birth control big families dont
Live in our ridiculous fifties housing stock. While during the 50”s most homes had 5‐6 persons mine
had 7. My neighbors had 9. Our infrastructure can handle this.
5. ADU’s allow homes to be repurposed ,upgraded to the new Energy efficient IBC codes
6. Allow affordable rent units priority.
7. Promote minority rentals .
2
8. Allow more than one year to build the ADU because it’s a confusing expensive process and most
contractors are very busy.
9. Combine the permitting with the ADU approval process and the rental licensing . I think this will help
staff and the applicants.
I’m excited that you are reviewing this.
Finally use it or lose it! If the applicants hoard the ADUs and don’t use them they forfeit the unit.
Because many are not even using the ADUs they are hoarding them to create value in their homes
Thank you
Elizabeth Hondorf
Former BOZA chair
Sent from my iPhone
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Elizabeth Kois <lizrobb@me.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:34 AM
To:boulderplanningboard
Subject:ADU’s
External Sender
I am writing this letter opposing the idea of Boulder allowing 3 ADU’s per household lot. This is way too big an allowance
and feels much like throwing gas on a fire. Allowing one ADU per owner is reasonable. However, not a cart blanc! Clear
rules on setback specifications, height restrictions and architectural lighting and asthetic considerations required.
Tripling the allowance would negatively impact Boulder in ways that the city nor county of boulder is prepared nor
equipped to handle. We will trade out walkable, welcoming neighborhoods where natural landscapes and greenery
meet the eye for a landscape of parked cars, built out spaces,clogged roads, noise and neighbor stress and conflict. THe
idea that this huge increase will help low income housing is unfounded. ADU’s will not house low income families, nor
any of the homeless addicts on the street. They will become an income boost for the property owners who will prefer to
house new hires of high paying tech jobs and college students who’s parents will pay rediculously high rents. Remember
the majority of these students won’t be paying taxes nor voting for all of the trickle down issues and expenses generated
by a surge of population.
Slow, controlled growth is the intelligent way to handle the housing issue. There is a reason this is a desirable place to
live. I suggest that the entire board as well as the entirety of city council be required to read Paul Danish’s proposals and
plan I am very thankful for the forward thinkers that saw what would be lost and never recovered if conservative
parameters were not established. Your leadership must bear wisdom and grit and hold our ground so to not destroy all
the reasons we all live here. I am not an elitist. I am for a Healthy community that blends all ages, incomes, professions,
ethnicities and families. As I drive into Boulder via east Pearl, I feel angry by the ugly, cheap, un‐welcoming hard scape
that greets us now. My God, they blocked the flatirons view from Pearl Street ?! This town has been hijacked by outside
money and it’s greed. How can any of those who were elected to be gaurdians for this paradise look in the mirror? I am
heartbroken by the direction this council has moved. I hope and pray that you all will fight for ideas that help balance
the population. And that you will keep your focus on being good stewards of this beautiful place Encourage creativity in
the process and fight the temptation to “take‐ the‐money” way out.
Back to the main point of this letter, Let’s all experience the implications of “just One” ADU. I know we will all be very
glad we held the reins.
PS‐ let’s clean up our town! More pressure on the state to provide a treatment/rehab center for addicts! You don’t fix
that problem, we won’t need more housing.
Sincerely,
Liz Kois
Sent from my iPhone
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:19 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
From: Bogdan Lita <optoengineer@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 9:44 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform
External Sender
Dear Planning Board:
I support increasing the density of allowed ADU for each neighbourhood, allowing the parking on the street and allowing
mods to the building code to enable taller units.
I also think the city should partner with one of the prefab manufacturers so that owner cost will be decreased and the
building permit is simplified. For example, Simple Homes or any others.
Regards,
Bogdan Lita
5477 Blackhawk Rd.
Boulder
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2023 1:11 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Andrew Lowell :- Planning and Development Services
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2023 12:46 PM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Pannewig, Hella <Pannewigh@bouldercolorado.gov>; Ferro, Charles
<FerroC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Stafford, Edward <StaffordE@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer
<JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Causa, Julie <CausaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Andrew Lowell :‐ Planning and Development Services
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Andrew Lowell
Organization (optional):
Email: andrewclowell@gmail.com
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Planning and Development
Services
Comment, question or feedback: ADU Study Session
I see that the council will engage in a study session this week around decreasing ADU densities in neighborhoods as well
as increasing size limits and occupancy of these ADUs.
I have been a resident of Martin Acres for 15 years now and I purchased my home because of the low density zoning in
the neighborhood. I am protesting the idea of more density within our neighborhoods, they are not built for this. As city
council, you are constantly forgetting about residents that have lived here for a long time and are only focusing on how
you can jam more people into this town and drive all current residents out with increased taxes.
Again, I formally protest any changes to ADU laws and zoning changes within my neighborhood, Martin Acres. The
people spoke with voting down "Bedrooms for people" and you seem to have not listened to them and are just looking
at other back door methods to get the same thing. Stop. You are only inviting more crime, higher taxes, and decreases in
quality of life for all residents.
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1060542351
2
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 9:24 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Concerns about eliminating ADU regulations
From: MANA Steering Committee <manasteeringcommittee@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 7:19 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Cc: Jan <janalan80305@gmail.com>; porath005@earthlink.net; Bennett Scharf <bjscharf@centurylink.net>; Dorothy
Cohen <dorothy_cohen@q.com>; Mike Marsh <mgmarsh1@juno.com>; ronma <ronma@rockymountainmoggers.com>;
LisaMarie Harris <lisamarieharris@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Concerns about eliminating ADU regulations
External Sender
Dear Boulder Planning Board:
In advance of your Jan. 17 meeting, we're sharing the concerns we've heard from our neighborhood residents about the
proposed de‐regulation of ADUs. Allowing density to increase from one to three (or even two) dwelling units per lot will
have very negative consequences in the four CU‐adjacent neighborhoods of Martin Acres, Uni Hill, Goss Grove, and East
Aurora. Ditto for eliminating the off‐street parking requirements. That's because our four neighborhoods are already
under much greater strain than many parts of the city, due to our very high percentage of student rental houses.
Our comments can be summarized under five major headings:
1. Boulder's four CU‐adjacent neighboroods are already under much more impact than most of Boulder, due to our very
high percentage of student rental houses. We are close to the tipping point of livability, as is. This ADU proposal may
well push us past the tipping point. As such, we request specific carve outs for the four CU‐adjacent neighborhoods.
Specifically, that current ADU saturation limits are maintained for our four neighborhoods. If City leaders don't
understand why we're asking this, they might consider trying to live in one of our neighborhoods for a month, preferably
at beginning of a semester, when nightly student parties are at a maximum. One wll understand then. In addition, 800 to
900 sq ft ADUs are larger than many of the original houses in our neighborhoods.(It's not an accessory unit, when it's
larger than the principal unit.)
2. Boulder already has much better ways of creating affordable housing. Increase those. $1650/month for an
"affordable" ADU is a falsehood, when the average going monthly rent per bedroom is $1,000/month for shared rental
houses...which is, by far, the normative case for Boulder renters. Nearly every renter we know, including ourselves
earlier in life, lived in shared rental houses in Boulder. We know of no one who could afford the privilege of a private
apartment with a private kitchen and private bathroom. So we ask: Why is $1650/month considered affordable, when
the actual experience for 98% of Boulder's renters is shared rental houses or apartments, at $1,000 per bedroom?
3. Increased risk of flooding: Three, or even two, ADUs per lot will greatly exceed Boulder's current "maximum surface
coverage" law that dictates that roughly 75% of a residential lot cannot be built on, but instead must be maintained as
"permeable surface" to absorb extreme rainfall and flood risk events. We are very surprised the City would be seriously
considering increasing flood risk by decreasing our permeable surfaces. Houston, TX flooded so badly because, in the
2
face of little to no building regulations...practically every surface was built on, with virtually no remaining permeable
surfaces. Why woudl Boudler go downt that same road?
4. Increased risk of urban wildfires: Housing density was cited as a main reason for the severity of the Marshal fire, both
in terms of how quickly it spread, and the damage to property and life. Again, we are very surprised that the City of
Boulder would be considering a change that could potential triple or double Boulder's residential density. We are even
more vulnerable than Superior and Louisville, because unlike those cities, our residential areas directly abut the foothills
forests. Why would Boudler increase its risk of urban wildfires?
5. Consider that Austin, TX, passed a high occupancy unit (HOU) law that greatly increased neighborhood density. It
pushed neigbhorhoods, particularly those near the University of Texas "past the tipping point" (quoting from Austin's
report, to which we give you a link, below). Austin saw a mass exodus of families from neighborhoods, something that in
Boulder will further erode our already diminishing public schools. Families with children don't want strangers living in
their backyard. If you want to preserve public school enrollment and keep Boulder's families, you need to make
neighborhoods more family‐friendly. This ADU law is the opposite of family friendly. It's landlord and developer‐
friendly...not so much for families which typically want privacy in their living arrangements. Note that Austin quickly
repealed its HOU law, because of all the unforseen problems and unintended consequences it created. Can Boulder
learn from the failed experiments of other cities, or will it repeat them?
Please see below, for elaborations on these points.
1. Boulder's four CU‐adjacent neighborhoods:
We’re not sure if the City fully appreciates how much more challenging day‐to‐day life already is, in our four
neighborhoods (Martin Acres, Uni Hill, Goss Grove, East Aurora). Due to our proximity to CU, our neighborhoods have
very high percentages of rentals, particularly student rentals.
Even without this proposed ADU density increase, we already struggle with exponentially more daily quality of life
issues: noise, congestion, much greater daily churn (loud comings and goings at all hours of the day and night), trash,
and parking issues. Until you have lived in a predominately student‐rental neighborhood, you likely under‐appreciate
how many more issues we struggle with, daily.
We’re familiar with many quiet, stable Boulder neighborhoods in which perhaps only 5% to 10% of the homes are
rentals, and those rentals tend to be families and professionals rather than students. Such Boulder neighborhoods might
be able to withstand more infill and density‐related stress, without being pushed past a tipping point. That’s not the case
for us.
Our neighborhoods are widely known as “targets of opportunity.” So investors know they’ll have high demand for
whatever they develop here, due to our proximity to CU, and they’ll reap large profits as a result. So we’re always first in
line, and we’re often (almost exclusively) the deployment ground for the City’s densification plans like ADUs, co‐ops, etc.
Our request: Maintain ADU limits in the four CU‐adjacent neighborhoods:
We request in the strongest possible terms a regulatory carve‐out for our four neighborhoods, in which a saturation
limit of one (not two) ADU projects every 200 feet be maintained. That’s conceding some density. We also request that
the off‐street parking requirement be maintained because of parking problems many parts of our neighborhoods
already experience.
Additionally, we respectfully request that the City not suggest that if we have issues with noise, trash and parking, that
we “just call Code Enforcement.” For those of you who aren’t cast into the unfortunate position of having to regularly
utilize enforcement, we assure you that is not at all a successful or satisfactory option. That is a myth. Contacting Code
Enforcement is almost totally ineffective. Boulder’s deeply flawed “complaint‐based system” forces the burden of proof
3
onto the victims. We are told that we must document, photograph, find the source of noise ourselves, create logs of
incidents, etc. None of us wish to spend our lives that way. We are not (nor do we wish to become) investigators,
detectives or prosecutors, such as Boulder's current complaint based code enforcement requires.
Instead, a far better strategy would be to maintain guardrails to prevent problems from developing in the first place,
rather than trying in vain to fix them on the back end. Please recognize that if you don’t take steps to prevent it, the ADU
ordinance, like others before it, will take the form of additional "piling on" to the neighborhoods least able to handle
more impacts.
2. There are better ways of creating affordable housing; please utilize them instead.
We feel that ADUs do not represent a significant increase for affordable housing, at $1,650/month when 98% of Boulder
renters are paying $1,000/month per bedroom in shared rental houses or apartments. We strongly feel that the City
should instead increase the required percentages of inclusionary housing in new residential developments, and
increase linkage fees for new commercial developments. Both policies directly and irrefutably create true affordable
housing, while ADUs don’t. We don’t understand why ythe City would ignore these indisputably successful, surgical
tools, but instead be so eager to further compromise neighborhoods that are already near the tipping point.
$1650/month rent for an "affordable ADU" is not at all affordable, compared to the $1,000 per bedroom average going
monthly rent in shared rental houses. A quick craigslist search reveals many 3 bedroom rental houses in Boudler renting
for around $3,000/month, or $1,000 per person. We, and everyone we know in Boulder, lived in shared rental houses
earlier in our lives. We don't know anyone who had the money to enjoy the privlege of private kitchens and bathroosm,
such as a private ADUs and private apartments provide. So we don't understand why $1650/month is considered
affordable,and the City is prepared to grant concession after concession for them, when the normative renter
experience in Boulder (by far) is $1000 per bedroom.
3. Conflict with Boulder's "maximum surface coverage" law:
Boulder currently has a very worthy, intelligent requirement that only approxmately 25% of the surface area of a
residential lot can be built upon. This is so that 75% of the yard is maintained as "permeable surface" that can absorb
water from severe rainstorms and potential flood events. Already, a 1,000 sq ft house + a driveway + a backyard shed or
two + a backyard patio = about 25% of the lot. How will 3 houses on a lot not vastly exceed Boulder's current maximum
surface coverage law?
4. Increased risk of urban wildfires:
Recall that the Superior Fire Marshall attributed "housing density" as one of the leading causes for the Marshall "urban
wildfire" ‐ both its severity, and how quickly it spread. As such, it seems foolish to allow, as this ADU proposal would, a
tripling of density in all neighborhoods in Boulder ‐ a town with much more of an urban/forest foothills interface,
compared to Superior and Louisville.
In closing: A sobering, cautionary tale from the City of Austin, TX:
Around the year 2010, Austin, TX passed a “city‐wide” law known as the High Occupancy Unit (HOU) ordinance. As the
following summary shows, actual HOU deployment wasn’t anything approaching city‐wide. HOUs coagulated and
concentrated in the already‐beleaguered neighborhoods closest to the University of Texas. The effects on those
neighborhoods were devastating, leading Austin to repeal its HOU ordinance just a few years later. Can Boulder learn
from history, and other cities’ mistakes, or are we condemned to repeat those mistakes?
In particular, Austin's experience regarding loss of families (which we're also seeing in Martin Acres, as quality of life
deteriorates each year) speaks directly to Councilman Benjamin’s publicly‐stated concern over decreasing BVSD
enrollment in South Boulder. To quote the Austin report:
4
(Austin report): “…today, our community is losing a most important component of that diversity: its families. This loss
is already complete in areas zoned and thought protected for single‐family use. It may be irreversible, and many areas
have reached the tipping point. The trend began near the campus…”
“Single family uses in the 78751 zip code, most particularly the Northfield Neighborhood, have been devastated. HOU’s
have placed many of their blocks beyond the tipping point of recovery. Northfield has experienced the brunt of
conversions of buildings to High‐Occupancy Units (HOU), and the disappearance of families, long term renters, and the
historically contributing structures they once lived in.”
“Based on rents published in listings, HOU’s have not created household affordability for the people who rent them,
nor as a class, have they delivered meaningful supply to the market to reduce rents elsewhere. Conversely, HOU’s have
increased the prevailing rents on a per‐person basis, compared to rents in denser multi‐family uses and less restrictive
zoning districts.”
“When HOU structures reach a tipping point in an area, family flight accelerates. These areas become a street with
yards that are not maintained, parking that is inadequate, and a monoculture that lacks social cohesion and
continuity.”
Link to the full Austin report is here:
https://centralaustincdc.org/fair_affordable_housing/Family_Displacement_in_Central_Austin.pdf
Thank you for considering our earnest requests and deep concerns regarding ADU de‐regulation.
The Martin Acres Neighborhood Association steering committee
Jan Trussell
Bob Porath
Dorothy Cohen
Bennett Scharf
Mike Marsh
Ron DePugh
Lisa Harris
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:22 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU update
From: Kurt Nordback <knordback@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:55 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU update
External Sender
Dear Planning Board,
I'm writing in regards to your discussion tomorrow night of proposed changes to the city's ADU
regulations. As you see in your memo, at a series of meetings HAB has discussed extensively how to
encourage more ADUs. HAB's proposal is a well-thought-out suite of reforms that would make it
easier and cheaper for Boulderites to create ADUs, which would increase our supply of moderate-
price housing at zero cost to the city and simultaneously make it easier for homeowners to afford
rising taxes and insurance.
On Staff's recommendation, City Council elected not to include HAB's full set of proposals in this
phase of the project. I want to encourage you to recommend that all of the HAB proposals be
incorporated into these reforms. The proposed code changes (eliminating the parking requirement,
eliminating the lot-size minimum, and modestly increasing allowable ADU sizes) are straightforward
and don't require any additional study. Creating pre-approved plans obviously would take some time,
but we should start on it now.
There's no good reason to delay. Please urge Council to incorporate all of HAB's -- really very modest
-- suggestions into this project.
Thank you.
Kurt Nordback
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Emily Reynolds <emily2reynolds@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:39 AM
To:boulderplanningboard
Subject:ADUs NO!
Attachments:IMG_0512.JPG; IMG_0933.jpeg
External Sender
Hello Planning Board,
Presto change-o! Cha ching! Your view and mine can be taken over this same way. No view of the
weather coming in, no mountain views, no afternoon sunshine in one of Boulder's earliest solar
homes.
A worker on the monstrosity to the west asked if he could work from my side of the fence during
construction because he couldn't open his ladder in the 3-foot space left. Of course the owner (from
Pennsylvania) installed a toilet before that was legal. Of course he pretended it was an office when
that was the only allowed use. Of course he lied to neighbors saying he was building a 10 x 12 shed.
Of course he doesn't live on the property. And of course he has made radical changes to the
appearance of the historic home on the lot altho that too is illegal.
Please check the attached pix to get an idea of the wanton destruction caused by people
like your own ml robles, who clearly represents a conflict of interest.
Can you guess which attached picture was before and which one was after?
Before ADU:
After ADU:
So sad what Boulder has become! How sad that Planning Board won't protect Boulderites from out-
of-state, out-of-mind developers!
Sincerely, Emily
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 9:34 AM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Destruction of Neighborhoods via ADUs
From: Emily Reynolds <emily2reynolds@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 8:21 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Destruction of Neighborhoods via ADUs
External Sender
Dear Planning Board,
I am writing today about the destructive move to densify every neighborhood in Boulder with more and more and more
ADUs. I am adamantly opposed to this move. You got all that nasty stuff at 30th & Google and countless massive new
developments all around town. Now you need to further degrade our established neighborhoods in search of more
money for developers and greedy landlords, along with higher housing prices? Let's not pretend this will help chip away
at Colorado's housing shortage. In case you missed it, this would be the third and most ghastly relaxing of regs for ADUs
within a few years. Please do not allow this!
Also, it is critical to note that Board member ml robles has a clear and obvious CONFLICT OF INTEREST being a developer
of ADUs and should NOT be allowed to vote on an issue that clearly benefits them personally. Please do not allow this
travesty!
Please do the right thing instead of mindlessly approving yet more development. You're destroying what used to make
Boulder special.
Thank you, Emily
Emily Reynolds
2030 Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80304
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:21 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
From: Paul Anthony Saporito <saporitoarchitects@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:20 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform
External Sender
Dear Planning Board:
I write in support of proposed modifications to the current ADU regulations. These reforms will address the inequities
and challenges facing the supply of available housing within the city, and create alternatives to continued suburban
sprawl.
To those concerned about the negative perception of greater densities, please consider linking additional units with
meaningful urban spaces, the courts and semi private yards at the interior of blocks. As shown in the attached image, 2,3
or even 4 units on a lot can contain such spaces. You might also refer to the book “Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles “
by Tice, Sherwood, and Polyzoides.
Thanks for your consideration,
Paul Saporito
2
Sent from my iPhone
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:20 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: 8 Benfits of updating ALL staff recommended ADU changes
From: Jerry Shapins <jshapins1@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:04 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: 8 Benfits of updating ALL staff recommended ADU changes
External Sender
Dear Planning Board:
Of coarse you should approve ALL of the recommended changes to the ADU regs. Why?
1. To strengthen and deepen the demographic , neighborhood and housing complexity and supply throughout the city.
2. To provide and encourage more affordable, smaller and more sustainable housing choices.
3. To reduce wasted urban land.
4. To provide citizen a means to additional personal income.
5. To encourage more rapid implementation of increased housing supply.
6. To offer a way for seniors to age in place by allowing a place to build a ground level bedroom, a caregivers bedroom,
or a temp home for relatives.
7. To reduce the frustration and costs of using the existing regs.
8. To encourage creative and surgical land development.
9. To make the ADU regs proactive!
Thank you so much for considering these ideas!
With Appreciation,
Jerry Shapins
‐‐
Jerry Shapins, ASLA Emeritus 644 Dewey Avenue Boulder, Colorado 80304 Tel 7208396280
www.jerryshapins.tumblr.com Art /Design /Advocacy
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:17 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
-----Original Message-----
From: Ellen Stark <starkellen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 3:44 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform
External Sender
Dear Planning Board: i support A.D.U’s. First because it can provide affordable housing for people within established
neighborhoods. Secondly, because it ennables people whose children have moved out to be able to remain in their
homes. It has been wonderful for me and there has been no complaints from neighbors and the young couple living in
the ADU are very happy.
Yes to ADU’s.
Thank you,
Ellen Stark
Sent from my iPad
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:20 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Isaac Stokes <isaacstokes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:00 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform
External Sender
Dear Planning Board:
Please adopt all 6 of the potential measures to loosen and encourage more ADUs.
Meet need more housing. Period.
Thank you,
Isaac Stokes
457 Pearl St
Sent from my iPhone
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mueller, Brad
Sent:Monday, January 16, 2023 7:20 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: ADU Reform - Support the quickest, most comprehensive changes possible
From: Vida Verbena <islandlark@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 10:17 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: ADU Reform ‐ Support the quickest, most comprehensive changes possible
External Sender
Dear Planning Board,
Greetings and thank you for your service! I wanted you to hear from someone who is:
— from Boulder (born and raised)
— rented over 20 houses and apartments here (including ADUs) between 1980‐2009
— owned a mobile home/rented land here 2009‐2015
— now owns a single family home (without an ADU) in East Aurora, one of the few neighborhoods with a healthy mix of
family, student rental, and elderly homeowners in Boulder.
— is supporting aging parents in Boulder, who would benefit from being able to move into an ADU (ours or another)
— would love to have an ADU that we could earn rent from to supplement the insane costs of homeownership
We would heartily support our neighbors or us — every house on the block, even! — to be able to build ADUs of any size
that fits on their lot (not limited to 500 sq ft).
Please do:
1. Remove the saturation limit, so that ADUs are not limited to the first 20% of homeowners
within a 300 foot radius.
2. Increase the permitted maximum size of ADUs, which for detached market rate units is now
limited to 500 sq. ft.
3. Give owners more time than one year after a permit is issued to actually complete construction
4. Provide a route by which a property owner can get a height variance on an ADU if there is a
difficult condition or lot.
5. Simplify the code sections on ADUs to eliminate repetitive, wordy and confusing language.
6. Improve the process, getting rid of red tape. For example, permit a property owner to apply for
an ADU permit AND a building permit at the same time
Thank you!
E & B
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mike Marsh <mgmarsh1@juno.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:04 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:ADUs
External Sender
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for your note. First, I should clarify: My predominate interest is simply having a good, accurate, non-biased 360
degree perspective on the ADU question, before the community dives into it. I always believe in this, whether I am for or
against something. I am not so much taking a position about ADU saturation limits (I’m still evolving thoughts about it),
as much as I’m just wanting us to start from an accurate, unbiased reference point.
I remain curious why you don’t mention all the U.S. local jurisdictions that don’t allow any ADUs at all. There are literally
hundreds of towns across broad stretches of the U.S. that take single family zoning very seriously, and its definition of
one dwelling unit per lot. Your email below asks about cities that have limitations on ADUs. My answer is that there are
hundreds of such communities that have a 100% limitation on ADUs…that is, they allow none. That is a very strict
limitation on ADUs. I don’t advocate, or agree with, totally banning ADUs, but it’s factual to say that such a limitation
exists in many US communities. Why you totally omit this fact, has become a curiosity to many. It doesn’t feel like good
science to selectively omit relevant facts.
I, and many others I’ve spoken with, feel that your introductory slide, whether consciously or not, produced a
“sensationalist, screaming headline” via the opening bullet point that no other community has ADU saturation limits.
The truth is, most of the lay public doesn’t track this stuff closely. So your opening slide very likely produced a false
perception that Boulder is some type of extreme outlier…perhaps that no other community in the U.S. limits ADUs, or
has such a discriminatory policy against ADUs.
And that’s far from the truth. Many other communities have other ways of limiting ADUs. And hundreds don’t allow
them at all. So the truth is, Boulder is somewhere in the middle to progressive end of the ADU spectrum, because we do
allow them. But the lay public would never know that, from your opening slide. That’s why people are concerned about
it.
You can see the fallacy of the way the search has worked so far: When you google “ADU saturation limits,” your search
by definition only includes cities that allow ADUs, but restrict them in some way. However, that’s not what you write
below. You ask us to find cities that have limitations on ADUs…and the answer is there are literally hundreds of
communities which limit ADUs so severely that none are allowed at all. That still comports with the definition you have
stated - a limitation on ADUs. Other have annualized saturation limits. Being transparent to the public about these
points would get our city out of this counterproductive hair splitting, in which many residents are unfortunately being
led to believe that no other cities limit ADUs.
For example, I think it would serve the community much better, and it would be far more accurate, for the opening slide
to say something like this:
Some cities limit ADUs in various ways. We’ll explore some of those.
Some cities and towns don’t allow any ADUs at all.
While we couldn’t find an exact replica of Boulder’s ADU saturation limit, we found several examples of
annualized saturation limits.
2
The above would produce the following benefits: 1) It’s accurate and provides a more 360 degree perspective on the
question. 2) It doesn’t put a “spin” on the ADU question…a conscious or unconscious effort to “set up” the community
to be “outraged:” about Boulder’s "outrageous and unparalleled” anti-ADU policies, and 3) It would inform the public
that there’s a spectrum on how communities treat ADUs, we’re somewhere in the middle, given that many communities
don’t allow any ADUs.
I believe that we are getting hung up on semantics, and staff are unnecessarily splitting hairs by restricting analogies to
the the strictest definition possible. For example, your team seems to feel there’s an incredibly significant difference
between “annualized” saturation limits (# per year) and an “absolute, gross total #) saturation limit. But I don’t think the
community sees a huge difference. The people I’ve spoken with look at a city with an “annual” saturation limit and say,
yes, that’s a saturation limit, and we’d be interested in it. Psychologists say that one of humans’ problems with change is
not just the size, scale and appearance of change…but also the pace of change, i.e., how quickly it’s happening. An
annualized saturation limit allows ADUs, it simply manages the pace at which they’re built. Which in turn doesn’t
overwhelm people with the rate or pace of change.
I and many others feel it’s really splitting hairs, and rather opportunistic or even deceiving, to say there are no
comparable examples, simply because they don’t precisely match Boulder’s. That’s not the interest of most people.
Most (understandably) simply seek something to manage the pace of change so that it’s not too much, too soon. When
we see an annual saturation limit, we still consider that a saturation limit.
By the way, the “Carr Amendment” that previous Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr proposed for the 2015 or 2016 co-op
ordinance would have limited the number of new co-ops per year, in the four CU-adjacent neighborhoods. We were
supportive of that annualized saturation limit. I don’t know anyone who split hairs and complained that it was an
annualized saturation limit rather than a gross total saturation limit. So we don’t understand why City staff now refuse
to consider an annualized saturation limit to be a saturation limit. It absolutely is…just on an annualized basis.
Thanks,
Mike
On Jan 18, 2023, at 12:03 PM, Houde, Lisa <HoudeL@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote:
Mike,
Thank you for reaching out with these concerns. While certainly there are many ways that cities choose
to regulate ADUs, we have been unable to find any other city that uses a saturation limit for ADUs in the
same way that Boulder does. We very much appreciate the work that yourself and others have done to
find other cities with the same type of limit, but the examples provided differ in important ways as
outlined below. If you discover other cities that have limitations on ADUs, either similar or dissimilar to
Boulder’s saturation, please let us know. We will also continue our research as well.
Boulder's saturation limit sets a radius of 300 feet from the subject parcel in the RL-1 and RL-2 districts,
within which only 20% of properties may have an ADU, coop, or nonconforming multi-unit property. This
saturation limit exists in perpetuity unless a neighbor officially removes their ADU and thus the
saturation of the neighborhood is reduced. If an area exceeds the saturation limit, an owner may choose
to be placed on a waiting list in case a neighbor ever removes their ADU, coop, or nonconforming multi-
unit property. Below are the other examples we’ve investigated that have been cited by community
members:
3
1. Chicago - Chicago only recently adopted ADU regulations and is currently in a pilot program that
began in 2021. For this pilot program, they've identified 5 different areas of the city that they
are initially allowing ADUs within. In three of those zones, they are indeed allowing 2 ADU
permits per block, per year. The important difference here is that the limit is reset every year, so
it is not a saturation limit like Boulder’s but rather a limit of the number of permits that can be
issued per year. Owners would need to only wait until the next year to apply for an ADU; they
would not be precluded in perpetuity from pursuing an ADU based on their neighbors’ status.
Additionally, this is a temporary pilot program as this is Chicago’s first attempt at allowing ADUs,
while Boulder has allowed ADUs since 1983. A few other notes about Chicago’s ADU ordinance:
Chicago actually allows more than one ADU per lot (while Boulder limits to only 1/lot), and
allows ADUs to be established on lots with more than one parcel (where in Boulder an ADU may
only be placed on a lot with a single-family home). Chicago does not require any additional
parking for new ADUs, where Boulder requires 1 space for the ADU plus the requirement for the
principal home.
2. Provo, Utah – This is quite different as it is a district-level exemption in response to state-
mandated requirements to allow ADUs. While the state mandates that all Utah cities must allow
ADUs, in college towns with large student populations, cities may prohibit ADUs in up to 67% of
the land area zoned for residential use. While this is a restriction on where ADUs may be
located, it is not a saturation limit. There is no maximum number of ADUs within a specific
radius – in the 33% of land zoned to allow ADUs, there is not a set limit on the number of ADUs
that may be established within a specific area. In that way, it is quite different from Boulder’s
saturation limit.
Thanks again for the input and please let us know if you find other examples. City Council has directed
our department to make changes to the ADU regulations to encourage more housing options and solicit
feedback on the ideas to change the code. We understand that some residents are opposed to
additional ADUs or oppose the removal of the saturation limit, so we will convey that feedback to City
Council at our study session next week and throughout the duration of the project.
Lisa Houde, AICP
Senior City Planner
<image001.png>
O: 303-441-4234
houdel@bouldercolorado.gov
Planning & Development Services Department
1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Boulder CO 80306
bouldercolorado.gov
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mike Marsh <mgmarsh1@juno.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2023 4:56 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:Other cities' examples of ADU policy
External Sender
HI Lisa,
To answer your question, below are some examples that people I’ve worked with have found. Understand…this is not
our profession. We have professional responsibilities totally unrelated to these things. But when many of us first heard
you make the sweeping statement that saturation limits don’t exist anywhere else in the U.S., there was the instant
realization that sweeping statements such as that generally aren’t accurate. And sure enough, further research
confirmed it. Annualized saturation limits are saturation limits in most people’s minds. We also feel that, given enough
time and resources, we could find more examples of saturation limits, annual saturation limits, or other limits. But
there’s only so much time we can throw at this.
Here are just a few examples that popped up in fairly quick searches:
Chicago limits the number of ADUs on an annualized basis. I think many Boulder residents might be
interested in this method, too, so it absolutely should be included as an example of what other cities are
doing. Especially if, as I recommend, you broadened your narrow definition to instead use the more on-
point phrase “ADU limitations.” The fact that Chicago’s is a pilot program is irrelevant. You didn’t
handicap or qualify your statement as such. Your bullet point wasn’t “Boulder is the only example of
non-pilot program ADU saturation limits.” Nor did it say, “Boulder is the only example of gross total ADU
saturation limits vs. annualized saturation limits.” Since your bullet point was broad and sweeping in its
statement, Chicago should be included, as should other cities that have annualized saturation limits.
Traverse City, MI, has saturation limits on at least an annual basis. That is a type of saturation limit.
Dallas, TX policy says ADUs can’t be used for rentals. That supports the “family and relatives” use for
ADUs. But the proponent still has the burden of proof to show it won’t negatively impact the
neighborhood. I think many in Boulder would be interested in this, so it should be included.
Fairfax, VA says either the ADU occupant or owner has to be at least 55 years old. That’s something that
I believe would be of interest because it addresses at least two oft-stated concerns: people being able to
age in place, and concerns about ADUs adding to overall noise and general craziness in neighborhoods.
Older adults are often more respectful and quiet.
Newcastle County, Delaware issues building permits for ADUs up to 0.4% of the number of single family
detached homes in the county, annually.
Provo, Utah has exclusion zones. While not a saturation limit per se, I think it might still be of great
interest to residents in Boulder’s four CU-adjacent neighborhoods, which are already under much
greater stress and impacts than other neighborhoods. I’ve heard many of my neighbors, Uni Hill, and
Goss Grove neighbors say they think our four neighborhoods should be an exclusion zone in which
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Mike Marsh <mgmarsh1@juno.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 17, 2023 7:32 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:Why are you saying no other cities have ADU saturation limits?
External Sender
Hi Lisa,
Numerous residents have delivered to the City multiple examples of U.S. cities that have ADU saturation limits.
Why are you continuing to promulgate the mis-truth that “no other U.S. cities have ADU saturation limits?”
That’s a demonstrably false statement.
In addition, keep in mind that hundreds of cities across the U.S. allow no ADU’s. That’s an ADU saturation limit that
allows none. But it’s the most extreme example of a saturation limit, nevertheless. Any honest count of saturation limits
must surely include the hundreds of communities that allow none.
I’m very concerned that you’re ignoring the lists of U.S. cities that have ADU saturation limits, that our MANA board, and
the UHNA board, have sent to the City.
We can all have discussions about ADUs, but to start the discussion off with falsehoods such as you’re promulgating, is
not helpful at all.
We can, and will, publish our findings of several U.S. communities with saturation limits. That will simply expose staff’s
falsehoods. It’s unfortunate that staff couldn’t have simply included the examples of ADU saturation limits that we sent.
In disappointment,
Mike Marsh
Martin Acres Neighborhood Association (MANA) steering committee member
2
current ADU saturation limits are maintained, because they feel like they’re literally at the tipping point,
as is. Some neighborhoods are literally teetering on the brink and don’t have the resiliency to absorb
any more impacts.
Our neighborhood, for example, is roughly 50% rentals, many are student rentals. Long-term residents have steadily
sought to increase the percentage of owner-occupied dwelling units, simply because every neighborhood needs enough
long term residents to work for long term neighborhood improvements. When most of a neighborhood is short term
residents who rent for a year or two, and move on, they (understandably) don’t have much interest in long-term
neighborhood improvements. Adding more ADUs is adding more short term residents. Balance in all things…and some
neighborhoods are significantly out of balance with regard to the number of short-term vs. long-term residents, and this
imbalance manifests in obvious ways, including lack of care and concern which presents significant challenges. In
contrast, many other Boulder neighborhoods are 95% owner-occupied. Adding ADU rentals there would help them
create more balance. I don’t believe in neighborhoods being all, or nearly all, owner-occupied, either. Balance is the key,
and having carve-outs for the four CU-adjacent neighborhoods would provide it.
Thanks
Mike
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Sonnet Grant <sonnetcg@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:02 AM
To:Housing Advisory Board Group; Houde, Lisa
Subject:ADU regulations - please consider
External Sender
Hi,
Thank you for revisiting the ADU rules in your upcoming meetings. Clearly the most recent changes helped increase in
the number of ADU’s being built in Boulder which is a much needed housing source!
Please consider supporting the following changes to help accommodate more diverse living situations and
provide additional housing options in Boulder. Not only to students and young people just getting into a rental but to
middle class mature adults that are looking for long term alternative ways to live and thrive in Boulder.
1. Increase allowed square footage so that people can actually build livable homes that can accommodate many types of
families and also support those wishing to age in place. With care homes closing and the elderly being unhoused ADU’s
with decent sized living spaces could take up some of the slack. Maximum ADU size should have a relationship to lot size
as is allowed in Denver and other cities. Please consider guidelines that don’t unfairly disadvantage those with small or
large lots.
2. Change how ADU square footage is calculated and what’s included in that calculation. The current rules are confusing
and make no logical sense. Outdoor space, entryways, walls and stairways are not living space. These rules make already
tiny homes even smaller and the building process unnecessarily complicated.
3. Get rid of the size difference for attached/detached - this rule only confuses things further. Someone should be
allowed to build the same size ADU regardless of it being attached or detached. Allowable building size should be
proportional to lot size instead.
4. Follow recommendations to eliminate saturation limits and parking requirements. This will help remove additional
barriers to ADU building.
Thank you for your consideration!
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Jessica Dion <jessdion@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 26, 2023 4:12 PM
To:boulderplanningboard; Houde, Lisa
Subject:NO to changes in ADU
External Sender
Dear Planning Board,
I am writing today against the loosening of the rules regarding development of ADUs in the City
of Boulder. It is another flawed idea that will again line the pockets of developers while
degrading the quality of life of the residents. Refer to what happened in Austin. The resident of
Goss Grove.
I am not against ADUs but there need to be stronger rules around LLCs, size, off street parking.
This will not make housing costs more affordable. If you are serious about affordable housing:
- enrollment of CU students needs to be capped
- stop inviting tech companies (and their high paid employees) to set up in the city
- tax property investors higher rates if they own more than 2 homes as they do in some
European countries
- manage job/ housing imbalance
Please look at housing demand instead of focusing on supply- it takes both and even then,
Boulder will always be expensive
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Thursday, January 26, 2023 5:36 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Saturation Limit: where one neighbor can get it, another cannot
Attachments:180226 300 ft. of 1726 Mapleton.pdf; 180226 300 ft. of 1735 Mapleton.pdf
From: Macon Cowles <macon.cowles@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2023 5:32 PM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Saturation Limit: where one neighbor can get it, another cannot
External Sender
PB, tonight I spoke of my cross the street neighbor who had to move her historic garage on the alley 3 feet from the
alley because as built in the 19th c., it extended 3” into the alley. Moving the building 3 ft, it then violated the height
ordinance. Sinking the historic structure in order to get a building permit for the studio-ADU cost them $30,000. The
cross the street neighbor is Beth Helgans, at 1735 Mapleton.
I wanted to let you know also that when the saturation rate was raised to 20%, Beth and I lined up at 7:30 the first
morning so we would not be barred by the saturation limit. But we agreed that I would be in front of her in line. I could
only get an ADU that complied with the 20% saturation limit if I were first in line. Because if Beth got hers first, hers
would count toward the 20% and our house would not qualify. But my getting approved first did NOT bar her. That is
because each of our houses had a different radius, and therefore a different number of non-conforming structures
within that 300 feet.
If you want an idea about the counting difficulties, I am attaching the two charts made for us by City staff in 2018 to
count the number of units that would be counted to apply the saturation limit.
FYI, we have a 1650 main house and a 700 sq. ft. affordable ADU. It is used for 1) long term rental, 2) our niece to live in
while she attends CU, and 3) for caretakers to live in when Regina and I need help as we age.
Macon Cowles
1726 Mapleton Ave.
Boulder, Colorado 80304
macon.cowles@gmail.com
(303) 447-3062
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Guiler, Karl
Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2023 9:45 AM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Tamar Larsen :- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: Ferro, Charles <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 8:08 AM
To: Guiler, Karl <GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: FW: Tamar Larsen :‐ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 5:08 PM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Stanek, Cate <StanekC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Causa, Julie
<CausaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Ferro, Charles
<ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Tamar Larsen :‐ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Tamar Larsen
Organization (optional):
Email: tamarlarsen@yahoo.com
Phone (optional): (510) 717‐2836
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Comment, question or feedback: Lower Chautauqua/Upper Hill already experiencing a huge problem with
disrespectful, loud, partying students. DO NOT INCREASE amount of people allowed on a single property with ADUs! This
will only mean there are more students packed onto each property (to lower the rent per student), and create a worse
living environment for the neighborhoods near campus. I am asking City Council Members to vote NO to ADU's added to
properties and No to allowing more than 3 unrelated people per dwelling unit.
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1079043608
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Guiler, Karl
Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2023 9:43 AM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Jane Dixon :- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: Ferro, Charles <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 9:11 AM
To: Guiler, Karl <GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: FW: Jane Dixon :‐ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 8:59 AM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Stanek, Cate <StanekC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Causa, Julie
<CausaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Ferro, Charles
<ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Jane Dixon :‐ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Jane Dixon
Organization (optional):
Email: jdixonweber@comcast.net
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Comment, question or feedback: No to ‐‐
De‐regulating the construction of ADUs with construction up to 900 sq ft (that’s the size of many Martin Acres houses!)
and removing limits on number of ADUs per block.
Put these kinds of "ideas" to the vote of the people.
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1079265990
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Guiler, Karl
Sent:Tuesday, March 14, 2023 9:49 AM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Mary Sznewajs :- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: Ferro, Charles <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 8:07 AM
To: Guiler, Karl <GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: FW: Mary Sznewajs :‐ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 6:05 PM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Stanek, Cate <StanekC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Causa, Julie
<CausaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Ferro, Charles
<ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Mary Sznewajs :‐ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Mary Sznewajs
Organization (optional):
Email: msznewajs@comcast.net
Phone (optional):
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Comment, question or feedback: I am opposed to raising occupancy and allowing more/bigger ADUs in single family
home neighborhoods.
Why is it not a priority to make boulder appealing to families? We already have an aging population and our schools are
shrinking. Do you think by adding more ADUs, condos, increasing non‐familiar occupancy we will attract families to this
city? I raised 4 kids here and the only growth I see is condos and apartments, no single family homes. That is totally
unappealing for families.
The city VOTED against BAFP already, so why does the city council not respect our votes? Why can't the council address
crime in our city, which is totally out of control, instead of revisiting what the voters have already decided is NOT in the
best interest of our communities?
2
Mary Sznewajs
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1079061820
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:chris.alaimo@yahoo.com
Sent:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 7:55 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:I support eliminating the ADU saturation limit
External Sender
Lisa -- I am writing to voice my support for removing barriers to building more ADUs in the city of Boulder, and specifically
eliminating the ADU saturation limit. My wife and I are long-time homeowners in Boulder, and feel very lucky to live
here. However, we are concerned about the lack of diversity, and believe that building more affordable housing will have
a positive effect on the community. With a shortage of housing at the national and local level, it seems reasonable to
build more units in cities like ours that already have the infrastructure to support more people.
In our specific situation, we live in the University Hill neighborhood / RL-1 district, and our block is fairly well saturated with
rental units. A developer is currently constructing an apartment building across the street (former Marpa House), and its
clear that the surrounding area can support denser housing. We would be happy to convert our detached garage into an
ADU to provide another rental unit to help combat the housing shortage. However, the ADU saturation rate for our
property is 42%, which is above the 20% limit for new construction, and we are not permitted to build (I believe).
From my standpoint, the 20% limit seems arbitrary, especially considering that more than half of the block is rentals, and
many homeowners are already renting unregistered units that do not count against the saturation rate.
I recently found some materials on the city's website that indicate that the city is planning to reconsider some of the
restrictions against new ADU construction. As a supporter of affordable housing, I lend my support to any efforts to
increase the density of ADUs in the city.
Thank you for your work on this important issue.
Chris Alaimo
916 11th St, Boulder, CO
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 2:00 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Proposed ADU ordinance modifications to increase citywide density in single
family neighborhoods
From: Diane Curlette <dcurlette25@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2023 10:24 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Proposed ADU ordinance modifications to increase citywide density in single family neighborhoods
External Sender
Dear City Planing Board Members,
For more than a decade, the leadership of the City of Boulder has ignored and refused to confront the jobs and housing imbalance
created by importation of too many jobs and a dearth of housing for those employees, combined with uncontrolled enrollment
growth at CU which also refuses to house its students, dumping the burden on existing neighborhoods.
Squeezing these extra residents into a tightly limited land area has forced residential rents and housing ownership costs to
stratospheric levels and drawn focused attention from national and local property developers and hedge funds seeking to cash in on
the bounty.
City leaders have also refused to seriously study developing housing in city owned lands, such as the Planning Reserve 3 or the
Boulder airport property — each of which could house thousands of new homes — and focus instead almost exclusively on forcing
increased density on existing single family neighborhoods.
In recent years voters defeated an attempt to remove Single Family zoning, thus preserving the tacit agreement between the city
and a home buyer assuring the buyer that his/her major monetary investment would be protected from increased density.
While considering proposed changes the City is considering to ADU ordinances, please consider these facts:
1). Neighborhoods are a wonderful resource that helps make Boulder a good place to live and should be respected and
preserved. The city’s focus on an individual property only, and not the impact on neighbors and the neighborhood as a whole,
smack of developer convenience, not residents needs.
2). Neighborhoods vary so much in lot size, housing style, percentage of owner-occupation, parking availability, auto and pedestrian
traffic, noise patterns, household privacy, and view sheds, among other factors. Therefore, some are more able than others to
accept infill such as ADU’s.
Summarily downzoning neighborhoods is unfair to homeowners whose family wealth and enjoyment is centered in their
homes. The investment in a home is usually the largest of a lifetime, and made with the understanding that the zoning of the
property and the ones around it will not be summarily altered by their city government to negatively affect the enjoyment of that
property. These homeowners are the tax paying backbone of the city, whose payments make possible the city government and
whose property rights and interests should be respected. The current ADU ordinance recognizes and protects these rights to some
degree. The city would be wise to recognize and protect this diversity, supporting existing neighborhood assets and promoting
improvements in qualities of life where possible. The city’s social fabric is only as healthy as its’ most stressed neighborhoods. This
is further reason to prudently tailor efforts to increase housing density to the local conditions in the neighborhoods.
2
3). Decisions about neighborhood density should be made by the citizens and homeowners of that neighborhood, working with the
city. There is strong support for neighborhood planning to make these changes. Developers reject this effort as too time consuming
— but also maybe too democratic?
The City Council has so far refused to consider neighborhood planning as a solution to planning infill via ADUs.
Please help protect Boulder’s neighborhoods through neighborhood planning and efforts to gracefully include more denisty via
ADU’s tailored to neighborhood capabilities.
Housing policy affects NEIGHBORS and NEIGHBORHOODS not just ADU owners. This is an actual ADU being constructed under
current permits. Proposed ADU regulations changes would repeat this scene citywide. Please help do a good job of planning for the
future of our city and stop the commodification of housing in our neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration of these important changes.
Diane Curlette
Boulder
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Wednesday, February 22, 2023 2:00 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Proposed changes in ADU regulations to increase residential density in single family
neighborhoods
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Curlette <dcurlette25@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2023 9:51 AM
To: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Proposed changes in ADU regulations to increase residential density in single family neighborhoods
External Sender
Dear Planning Board Members,
Proposed changes to ADU regulations will have a serious detrimental, and potentially life threatening impact on
Boulders neighborhoods — a major asset of this community whose viability must be protected.
Three important points we should keep in mind regarding relaxing the ADU regulations to induce increased density
throughout the City of Boulder.
Creating more intense housing density in our existing neighborhoods is unwise because it increases the likelihood of
structure infernos during wildfires, it reduces the ability of residents to create defensible space around dwellings, as
requested by our wildland firefighters, and it increases the summer temperatures and creates heat islands by reducing
the amount of green spaces and shade in residential areas, counter to our environmental goals for the city.
1. The total loss of the Sagamore neighborhood in the Marshall fire was partly due to the dwellings being too close
together, according to the experts. In many existing Boulder neighborhoods (like mine in Table Mesa), our homes are
only about 15 feet apart at present. We won’t benefit by increasing that danger.
2. Using the diagrams for defensible space in the fire prevention materials it is obvious that there will not be sufficient
defensible space between dwellings to reduce structural fire infernos. Screening ADU’s with shrubbery or trees to
create private spaces for both dwellings will violate the defensible space rules on most city lots. And perhaps prevent
adjacent neighbors from attaining defensible space as well.
3. When the city recently released their recent study of heat islands in Boulder — areas where paved areas, roofs and
congestion predominated were hottest. Coolest areas were the single family neighborhoods. Conclusion was to plant
more trees, and create more green spaces in the congested areas. Densifying existing green cooler spaces works against
this goal.
So we simultaneously have two city agencies — fire and climate change — advocating for more defensible space and
more greenery while the housing staff are pushing an opposite agenda — unlimited density of housing in existing single
family neighborhoods — even near open space. Such folly!
2
Added to this are the still valid concerns about parking density, noise, crowding, barking dogs, and marijuana smoke that
often accompany dense living and which many of us paid dearly to avoid.
And I see no action by the city to improve the wildfire evacuation routes in the city to accommodate the increased
projected population due to density. Evacuation via Table Mesa during the NCAR fire took several hours in bumper to
bumper traffic. As one resident caught in the huge linear parking lot observed, “Good thing they put that fire out so
fast. We would have burned to death in our cars if they hadn’t.” And that was only evacuating the current population.
Please recommend that any changes to the current ADU regulations be considered on a neighborhood by neighborhood
basis, with input from those residents. Neighborhoods vary greatly in individual characteristics and ability to gracefully
absorb various amounts of increased density.
Thank you for your consideration.
Diane Curlette
Boulder
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Ferro, Charles
Sent:Monday, February 6, 2023 10:02 AM
To:Houde, Lisa; Guiler, Karl
Subject:FW: Roz Dorf :- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 8:24 AM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Stanek, Cate <StanekC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Causa, Julie
<CausaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Ferro, Charles
<ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Roz Dorf :‐ Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Roz Dorf
Organization (optional): N/A
Email: roz.dorf@gmail.com
Phone (optional): (303) 494‐6935
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Comment, question or feedback: Water, and the lack of it, should be considered in the discussion of ADUs and raising
the density of Boulder. Here is a link from CSU regarding droughts in Colorado.
https://libguides.colostate.edu/waterhistory/drought#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Colorado%20Climate,several
%20years%20of%20severe%20drought.
During the historic flood of 2013, a representative from NOAA was on the local news and stated that Colorado is three
days from a drought. Please read the articles listed in the link.
One of my fields of expertise, as a paralegal, is water law. There are unintended consequences to density.
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1065799640
Compose a Response to this Email
1
Houde, Lisa
From:Guiler, Karl
Sent:Tuesday, March 7, 2023 5:00 PM
To:Houde, Lisa
Subject:FW: Stacey Goldfarb :- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
FYI
From: Ferro, Charles <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:49 PM
To: Guiler, Karl <GuilerK@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: FW: Stacey Goldfarb :- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
From: No Reply <noreply@bouldercolorado.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Council <Council@bouldercolorado.gov>; ContactCoB <ContactCoB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Mueller, Brad
<MuellerB@bouldercolorado.gov>; Stanek, Cate <StanekC@bouldercolorado.gov>; Causa, Julie
<CausaJ@bouldercolorado.gov>; Johnson, Kristofer <JohnsonK3@bouldercolorado.gov>; Ferro, Charles
<ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov>
Subject: Stacey Goldfarb :- Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Preferred Form Language: English / Inglés
Name: Stacey Goldfarb
Organization (optional):
Email: saufarb1@gmail.com
Phone (optional): (720) 427-8144
My question or feedback most closely relates to the following topic (please choose one):Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Comment, question or feedback: Boulder is full enough. Don't ruin our neighborhoods. Not everyone can live in
Boulder. Quit trying to squeeze too many people into our neighborhoods!
Our forefathers fought to keep Boulder a small, quaint city by buying up all the land around the City so other towns
would not merge into us. Now you want to increase the density. Are you crazy??
[[FSF080521]] Submission ID is #: 1076886353
Compose a Response to this Email
1
HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD MEMORANDUM
TO: Housing Advisory Board
FROM: Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services
Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager
Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor
DATE: March 22, 2023
SUBJECT: Zoning for Affordable Housing Update and Discussion
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item to update the Housing Advisory Board on the status of the
Zoning for Affordable Housing code change project and receive feedback on potential
options before moving forward. The board will recall that a discussion on this topic also
occurred on Jan. 25, 2023.
City Council identified updating the Land Use Code to remove regulatory barriers to
affordable housing or modest sized housing options as one of their top work program
priorities for 2022-2023. The objective of this council priority was originally to consider
an ordinance “to increase affordable housing by revising density calculations, reducing
parking restrictions and looking at other zoning amendments that could better
incentive smaller, more affordable housing.” Staff plans to complete the project in the
third quarter of 2023.
The proposed project purpose, goals and objectives, scope, and timeline of the project are
outlined in the project charter found in Attachment A. This memorandum also includes
information on how the city regulates density (number of dwelling units per acre) to
provide a foundation to the discussion of suggested potential options. The potential
options relate to changes to density calculations, allowance of housing types and parking
regulations.
This project is one of several included in the 2022-2023 City Council work program
priorities to try to address Boulder’s housing needs. Other projects currently in process
include the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) update project, the Occupancy Reform
project and work being done by Housing and Human Services (HHS) on necessary
2
updates to the Inclusionary Housing (IH) standards and program to incentivize more
affordable housing in ways that are feasible to the development community.
QUESTIONS FOR HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD
Staff is seeking input from the Housing Advisory Board to provide feedback on the scope
and direction of the project before drafting an ordinance. The following questions are
provided to guide the council discussion:
1. Which potential options should be analyzed further and be the focus of any
further outreach and ordinance development?
2. Does the board have any additional ideas for zoning changes that would remove
barriers to housing?
BACKGROUND
The city currently regulates the amount of housing units per property according to the
Intensity Standards of Chapter 9-8, “Intensity Standards,” B.R.C. 1981 of the Land Use
Code. Many zoning districts specify the allowable number of units based on lot size or
amount of open space consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP).
This is discussed further in the “Analysis” section of this memorandum.
Chapter 9-3, “Inclusionary Housing,” B.R.C. 1981 specifies how many housing units of
any development must be deed restricted permanently affordable. The city’s current
requirements are that 25% of the number of units in a development project must be deed
restricted permanently affordable. Such units must either be built on site or the
requirement must be fulfilled through cash in-lieu fees. Projects that do not contain
residential uses or are mixed-use are subject to commercial linkage fees that are paid into
the city’s Affordable Housing Fund.
The city continues to work to ensure more affordable housing and preserve existing
affordable housing on an ongoing basis. Some recent Land Use Code changes that
illustrate this are a relatively recent section being added to the city’s Nonconformance
Standards intended to create a flexible process to incentivize preserving nonconforming
uses that contain affordable units (see Section 9-10-3(c)(4), B.R.C. 1981). Another
example is the Community Benefit regulations that require an increased number of deed
restricted permanently affordable units or increased in lieu fees or commercial linkage
fees for any project proposing additional floor area above a zoning district height limit in
a 4th or 5th story or above a specified floor area maximum (see Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(K),
B.R.C. 1981). A third example is the opportunity zone overlay which prohibits
demolition of any residential unites in the opportunity zone during the duration of the
federal program, which are more affordable market rate units.
At the 2022 City Council retreat, City Council requested that staff review other housing
solutions to address the community need for more affordable housing options. These
could be either deed restricted permanently affordable housing, or simply smaller, more
modest sized housing that tends to be more affordable. The objective of this council
priority was originally to consider an ordinance “to increase affordable housing by
3
revising density calculations, reducing parking restrictions and looking at other zoning
amendments that could better incentive smaller, more affordable housing.”
Recent development projects like Diagonal Plaza have brought some of these
opportunities to update zoning to light. The Diagonal Plaza redevelopment had
challenges with the zoning regulations and fitting the project according to the underlying
zoning. Effectively, the zoning did not enable enough housing units to make the project
feasible in an area that had a strong policy goal for redevelopment with a mixed-use
development and a prime location for affordable housing. A special ordinance was
necessary to make a site-specific zoning exemptions to make the project work.
City Council discussed this work program item at a study session on Nov. 10, 2022 and
agreed with the staff recommendation with an anticipated completion of the project in Q2
or Q3 of 2023 but requested that P&DS staff prioritize the project and try to complete it
at an earlier timeline if possible. Some council members felt that a second phase of the
project should be considered which would add duplexes and triplexes to some low-
density zones as previously proposed in 2019 (the prior proposal was not adopted). It was
acknowledged that doing so would extend ultimate completion to a later date, likely 2024
or later if BVCP changes were necessary. A summary of the City Council comments can
be found here.
PROJECT SCOPE
Staff has developed a draft project charter for this scope of work which is available in
Attachment A. The project charter outlines the problem statement, purpose, goals and
objectives, scope, and timeline for the project as well as the proposed level of public
engagement. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) key focus areas on housing
initiatives and relevant policies are also included in the charter. A summary of the
purpose, goals and objectives and proposed timeline are below:
Problem Statement
Housing in Boulder is increasingly more costly to rent or own making it ever more
challenging for some to afford to live or stay in Boulder. Some zoning regulations may
make such challenges more pronounced.
Project Purpose Statement
Evaluate the land use code with the intent of removing zoning barriers to more affordable
units and smaller, modest-sized units.
Goals and Objectives
Review city standards and regulations and identify areas where zoning may
discourage affordable or modest sized dwelling units, including without
limitation, the intensity standards and parking requirements.
4
Prepare options for changes that would remove zoning barriers to such units with
a focus on housing areas that are not typically diverse, and areas of the where
additional, denser housing is anticipated.
Vet the options with the community to inform any proposed ordinance changes.
Prepare land use code amendments that provide greater opportunities to obtain
more housing affordable options.
Timeline
Completion of the project is targeted for September 2023 depending on the scope of the
project.
ANALYSIS
The following section provides information on the goals of the project and how the city
regulates density (number of dwelling units per acre) to provide a foundation to the
discussion of suggested potential options. The potential options within this section relate
to changes to density calculations, floor area limitations, allowance of housing types and
parking regulations.
Introduction
Boulder’s housing market is unaffordable to many, causing some residents to struggle to
find housing in the city and causing some to leave. Those who work in Boulder often
cannot afford to live in the city, so in-commuting is a necessity. Boulder has taken on a
multifaceted approach to encourage more affordable housing within the city limits
through the city’s inclusionary housing program and zoning regulations. While zoning
requirements have been developed to require a minimum percentage of on-site affordable
units and funding through cash in lieu fees, there is community interest in exploring
additional methods to secure more deed restricted permanently affordable housing and
generally smaller, less expensive housing. Some zoning regulations, particularly the
intensity standards that specify maximum density that were developed decades ago and
predate the problem, often discourage or prevent affordable housing opportunities.
Some maximum density requirements use a standard of calculation such as lot area per
dwelling unit or open space per dwelling unit limits that encourage provision of larger,
more expensive units. This is because in order to meet the density requirements within
the allowable floor area, the outcome is typically larger floor area units that are not
conducive with changing demographics in the community where demand is for more,
modest sized units meeting middle income needs.
One of the primary goals of the project is to remove zoning barriers that could stand in
the way of more affordable housing options. Considering the jobs housing imbalance and
concerns related to the city not having enough housing supply to keep up with the high
demand, adding more smaller, modest sized housing or enabling more housing
opportunities could mitigate these problems. Adding housing also is consistent with the
goals of obtaining up to 15% of the city’s housing stock as deed restricted affordable
housing. Effectively, the more housing that can be provided in projects, the more deed
5
restricted affordable units would be added to the city’s housing stock or the more in-lieu
fee equivalents would be added to the Affordable Housing Fund.
How does Boulder regulate density?
The quantity of housing on any lot or site within Boulder is determined by the BVCP
land use designations and then implemented through the applicable zoning. First, the
BVCP land use designations will be discussed followed by the zoning. The purpose of
this section is make it clear that in order to work towards the goals of this project within
the present scope, density can only be adjusted in zoning districts that would not conflict
with the BVCP land use designations. Staff is, therefore, proposing that density be
adjusted in zones that the BVCP already anticipates for additional housing and where any
increases in the number of units would not require BVCP land use designation changes.
The zones where this is possible are business, industrial and a few residential zones.
As shown in the excerpts from the BVCP (see page 109) below, most residential land use
designations have limitations on the number of dwelling units per acre and as most of the
low and medium density zones have already been maxed out in terms of density, there is
low potential for additional units in those areas.
6
In summary, the BVCP sets the following density (number of dwelling units per acre) as
follows:
• Very Low Density Residential [RR zones]= Less than 2 dwelling units per acre
• Low Density Residential [RE, RMX, RL zones] = 2 to 6 dwelling units per acre
• Medium Density Residential [RM, RMX zones] = 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre
• High Density Residential [RH zones] = More than 14 dwelling units per acre
Subsequent to the initial scoping of this project, some in the community have expressed
interest in allowing a greater variety of housing types in traditionally lower density
residential areas of the city. For instance, the Rural Residential (RR), Residential Estate
(RE) and the Residential Low zoning district of RL-1 do not permit any housing types
other than single-family dwelling units and accessory dwelling units. As laid out in the
potential options outlined at the end of the ‘Analysis’ section, this is a possibility in some
areas (please note that pursuing this option would broaden the initial scope of the project
and therefore the overall completion timeline, as explained in the options section), but the
actual density would not be able to be increased to enable more duplexes, triplexes,
fourplexes etc. because it would violate the BVCP land use designations above and the
underlying zoning that matches the density limits specified above. Staff also notes that an
increase in density in some of these areas would likely necessitate an infrastructure study
to determine if the areas could support additional housing units based on the sizing and
quantity of utilities that were built to serve the areas initially.
Like the zoning districts mentioned above, many residential zoning districts determine
density (the number of dwelling units per acre) by a calculation of number of units per lot
area or number of units per amount of open space. Some examples are in Table 1 as
follows:
7
TABLE 1
Zoning District Density Calculations in Residential Zones
BVCP Land Use Designation
(du/ac = dwelling units per acre)
Corresponding
Zoning districts
Zoning density calculations
Very Low Density Residential
(>2 du/ac)
RR-1 (Rural - Residential 1)
RR-2 (Rural – Residential 2)
30,000 sf of lot area per
dwelling unit
=1.452 du/ac
Low Density Residential
(2-6 du/ac)
RL-1 (Residential – Low 1)
RL-2 (Residential – Low 2)
15,000 sf of lot area per
dwelling unit
=2.904 du/ac
Mixed Density Residential
(6-20 du/ac)
RMX-1 (Residential – Mixed 1)
RMX-2 (Residential – Mixed 2)
RMX-1 = 6,000 sf of lot area
per dwelling unit
=7.26 du/ac
RMX-2 = 10 du/ac (20 du/ac
with PB approval)
Medium Density Residential
(6-14 du/ac)
RM-1 (Residential – Medium 1)
RM-2 & 3 (Residential – Medium
2 & 3)
RM-1 = 3,000 sf of open
space per dwelling unit
= Contingent on open space,
but roughly 6-14 du/ac
RM-2 & 3 = 3,500 sf of lot
area per dwelling unit
=12.445 du/ac
High Density Residential
(>14 du/ac)
RH-1 (Residential – High 1)
RH-2 (Residential – High 2)
RH-3 (Residential – High 3)
RH-4 (Residential – High 4)
RH-5 (Residential – High 5)
RH-6 (Residential – High 6)
RH-7 (Residential – High 7)
RH-1 = 1,600 sf of open space
per dwelling unit(1)
RH-2 = 3,000 sf of lot area per
dwelling unit(1)
=14.52 du/ac
RH-3 = 60% open space(1)
RH-4 = 1,200 sf of open space
per dwelling unit(2)
=36.3 du/ac
RH-5 = 1,600 sf of lot area per
dwelling unit(3)
=27.225 du/ac
RH-6 = 1,800 sf of lot area per
dwelling unit
=24.2 du/ac
RH-7 = 60% open space(1)
(1) density can be increased or open space reduced with Planning Board approval
(2) same as BC-1 zoning district which is the zoning district applicable to Diagonal Plaza
(3) same as BR-1 zoning district which is the zoning district in the Boulder Valley Regional Center (BVRC)
8
Like other cities that have explored the option of increasing density in largely single-
family neighborhoods, the effort to change the low-density residential areas would
require extensive community outreach, policy changes and subsequently rezonings which
could take years.
One example is Minneapolis, which has received significant national attention related to
their single-family zoning changes. The
first step was changing the land use policy
in their comprehensive plan, which was
adopted in 2018, followed by zoning
changes adopted in 2020. The
comprehensive plan is still currently being
legally challenged.
Because of the points above, staff is not
suggesting any potential options that would
change density contrary to the limits in the
low-density residential zones above as part
of this current initiative. The goals of the
project emphasize provision of housing in
areas that the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) anticipates
for additional housing and thus, these are
the areas of focus within the scope of this
project. Such areas are those like the
aforementioned Diagonal Plaza that are
transit rich areas intended to evolve into
more mixed-use walkable areas. Other
examples of this are the Boulder Valley
Regional Center, the East Boulder
Subcommunity Plan area, the North 28th
Street Corridor and neighborhood centers as
shown in the map of centers from the BVCP shown right:
Pages 41 through 46 of the BVCP contains policies and guidelines to encourage mixed-
use and additional housing in these key areas. Some zoning districts in these areas,
mainly the RH (Residential High), BR (Business Regional), BC (Business Community)
and IG (Industrial General) have density calculations that are prohibitive to getting more
housing despite the areas being designated for more housing growth. As stated above,
these restrictions also tend to encourage larger sized units due to the interrelation between
the density and floor area limitations.
There are also zoning districts not listed above that do not have density limitations. These
are typically business or mixed-use zoning districts. In these zones, the number of
allowable units is a factor of a project meeting the other development standards on a lot
(e.g., open space, landscaping, parking, circulation) as well as the form and bulk
standards (e.g., setbacks, height limits, floor area ratio (FAR) limitations etc.). The other
city zoning districts can be viewed within Table 8-1, Intensity Standards at this link.
Figure 1-City Structure map showing regional centers, East
Boulder and neighborhood centers
9
There is more regulatory flexibility to modify intensity standards in high density
residential zones that do not have a dwelling units per acre maximum and other
commercial and industrial zones because the BVCP does not cap the high-density
residential density like it does in other areas and thus, are suggested in the potential
options listed in the next section. As stated above, staff has recommended specific zones
for density changes which are ones that are in anticipated growth areas and not in lower
density residential zones.
What changes could be made to the city regulations to encourage more affordable
and/or modest sized housing?
Based on the analysis above and the goals of the project, staff is suggesting the following
potential options for Housing Advisory Board consideration in Table 2:
TABLE 2
Potential Options for Consideration
Option
#
Option Description & Analysis
Option A – Density Adjustments
A-1 Revise density calculation (1,600 sf of area per dwelling unit) for one or more of the
following zones and set a floor area ratio (FAR) limit: BR-1, RH-5, BC-2, IG or IM. Add a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum to regulate intensity.(1)
Pros:
- Consistent with original City Council policy
direction on project.
- Policy support for revising density
calculations to obtain more housing where
housing is anticipated by the BVCP (e.g.,
Boulder Valley Regional Center, East
Boulder, North 28th Street, neighborhood
centers).
- A simplified approach that can increase the
number of housing units which would
contribute more housing subject to the
Inclusionary Housing (IH) standards.
- Could incentivize more, modest sized
housing.
Cons:
- The city will need to look at the density and
intensity classification for the BC zoning
district as part of the next BVCP update if
these changes are made.
- Potentially less ground-level on-site open
space for residents of new developments.
A-2 Revise density calculation for BC-1 zone (1,200 sf of open space per dwelling unit), set a
floor area ratio (FAR) limit. Add a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum to regulate
intensity.(1)
10
Pros:
- Consistent with original City Council policy
direction on project.
- Policy support for revising density
calculations to obtain more housing where
housing is anticipated by the BVCP (e.g.,
Boulder Valley Regional Center, East
Boulder, North 28th Street, neighborhood
centers).
- A simplified approach that can increase the
number of housing units which would
contribute more housing subject to the
Inclusionary Housing (IH) standards.
- Could incentivize more, modest sized
housing
Cons:
- The city will need to look at the density and
intensity classification for the BC zoning
district as part of the next BVCP update if
these changes are made
- Would need to ensure developments still
have appropriate useable open space
- Potentially less on-site open space for
residents of new developments
Option B – Housing Type Allowance
B-1 Allow duplexes or attached housing types by-right in RL, RR and RE zones in Use Table
with no change to density and amendment to 9-9-2(b) allowing more than one principal
building per lot.
Pros:
- Would encourage some single-family home
conversions/partitions to more modest sized
units or construction of some smaller unit
sizes where not usually provided
- Provides additional housing units subject to
the Inclusionary Housing standards
- A simple approach to getting more housing
types (e.g, missing middle) in the city
Cons:
- Due to density limitations in the BVCP,
only a modest increase in the number of
these housing types could be possible /
limited impact on achieving goals
- To achieve more housing potential, a much
more involved process of revising BVCP
policies and land use designations to allow
higher density and subsequent rezonings
would be necessary
- Significant community opposition to adding
different housing types to traditionally
single-family neighborhoods is anticipated
based on previous reactions to the proposal
B-2
Conditionally allow duplexes or attached housing types in RL, RR and RE zones in Use
Table with no change to density and amendment to 9-9-2(b) allowing more than one
principal building per lot.
11
Pros:
- Previously unpassed ordinance already
developed
- Could increase the number of “missing
middle” type housing in Boulder
- Conditional use approval would ensure
that non-single-family homes in
traditionally single family neighborhood
would be designed to match surrounding
home and not appear as attached housing
- Would encourage some single-family
home conversions/partitions to more
modest sized units or construction of
some smaller unit sizes where not usually
provided
- Provides additional housing subject to the
Inclusionary Housing standards
Cons:
- Due to density limitations in the BVCP,
only a modest increase in the number of
these housing types could be possible /
limited impact on achieving goals
- To achieve more housing potential, a much
more involved process of revising BVCP
policies and land use designations to allow
higher density and subsequent rezonings
would be necessary
- Would add to an already growing number
of applications required by the city to
demonstrate zoning compliance
- Significant community opposition to adding
different housing types to traditionally
single-family neighborhoods is anticipated
based on previous reactions to the proposal
B-3 Eliminate Use Review requirement for efficiency living units (ELUs: units that are 475 sf
or smaller). Current requirement is > 40% requires Use Review.
Pros:
- Would encourage more modest sized
housing consistent with the goals of the
project
- Concerns about projects that are 100%
ELU would be addressed in new diversity
of housing types criterion in Site Review
- Removes the need for more process and
creates a shorter review timeline. Impacts
of large projects would already be
addressed through Site Review
Cons:
- Prior proposal for this change was
dismissed due to community opposition
Option C – Parking Modifications
C-1 Revise the current parking requirement of 1.25 parking spaces for one-bedroom units to 1
per unit in projects with more than 60% one-bedrooms.
Pros:
- Would likely encourage more housing
units consistent with the goals of the
project, as constructing parking is often a
significant part of development costs
- Eliminates a more suburban parking
requirement in the code that was based
on more vehicle use and less transit
options in the past.
- Encourages both market rate and
affordable units.
- Reduces the need for Site Review in
residential projects (currently all
Cons:
- On-street parking demand may increase if
insufficient on-site parking is provided.
12
(1) See the “Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Considerations below
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) CONSIDERATIONS
With respect to potential options A-1 and A-2 above, staff is suggesting that density
limits be removed and intensity regulated according to FAR. This is something that some
City Council members have specifically requested. While preliminary, staff is thinking
residential parking reductions require
Site Review)
- Adds more certainty to the approval
process by reducing the amount of
parking reductions.
C-2 Lower parking requirements for affordable units or projects.
Pros:
- More design flexibility to encourage
affordable units.
- Lower cost for affordable housing
projects.
- Appropriate to projects with unbundled
parking (e.g., Alpine Balsam).
Cons:
- Tying to IH program would be problematic
(e.g., what if affordable units are not
provided at later stages).
- Treats affordable units differently than
market rate units which is counter to city
goals.
- Creates equity issues of units where
affordable unit residents would not have the
same access to parking as market rate unit
residents.
- Limiting parking may present financing
issues for affordable housing projects.
- Potential for impacts on on-street parking
availability could exacerbate negative
perceptions of affordable housing projects.
C-3 Allow Residential Parking Reductions up to 25% through an Administrative Review (Staff
level) process. Currently all residential parking reductions require Site Review.
Pros:
- Would likely encourage more housing units
consistent with the goals of the project, as
constructing parking is often a significant
part of development costs
- Consistent with Non-Residential Parking
Reductions up to 25%.
- Reduces the need for Site Review in
residential projects (currently all residential
parking reductions require Site Review)
- More design flexibility to encourage
affordable units.
- Lower cost for affordable housing projects.
- Larger parking reductions (>25%) would
continue to require Site Review.
Cons:
- Removes neighborhood notification and
involvement in residential parking
reductions less than 25%.
- Makes more sense to allow smaller parking
reductions through consistent prescriptive
requirements rather than a discretionary
process.
13
that a 1.0 or 1.5 FAR would be appropriate for areas that are zoned Business Community
(e.g., Diagonal Plaza, neighborhood centers, the North 28th Street Corridor) as the scales
in those areas is intended to be more appropriate to the lower scales of the residential
neighborhoods that surround the centers and be at a lesser intensity than areas like
downtown which permit from 1.0 up to 2.7 FAR or the Boulder Valley Regional Center
(BVRC) which permits up to 2.0 FAR (or 3.0 FAR with additional community benefit).
Staff would also need to determine what appropriate FARs should be applied to industrial
areas where non-residential FAR is currently 0.5 FAR. For some example projects and
how different FARs appear for comparison is provided in Attachment B.
PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Community Engagement
Housing advocates have asserted that Colorado and Boulder in particular, is in a housing
crisis and efforts must be undertaken to allow more housing and if possible, more deed
restricted housing to address the rising costs of housing.
In his State of the State speech in January, Governor Jared Polis identified housing as one
of his major priorities, and specifically noted that “we need more flexible zoning to allow
more housing.” Lower supply only exacerbates the problem of driving up costs.
Zoning codes have been written over the past century to strictly limit density (number of
dwelling units per acre) and some communities, like Minneapolis, are beginning to
loosen those rules to enable more housing options and potentially introduce more types of
housing into traditionally single-family neighborhoods.
The term “missing middle housing” has become more prevalent in recent years as some
cities update their zoning codes to allow housing types beyond just single-family homes
in more areas. This website on missing middle housing provides additional context:
https://missingmiddlehousing.com. Further, the zoning changes necessary to achieve
these types of changes in traditionally single-family areas are discussed in this part of the
same website: https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about/how-to-enable
Another resource on potential zoning changes to allow more housing can be found at this
link prepared by Community Builders, Cascadia Partners, and the Wyoming Business
Council. It should be noted that much of the content of the “toolkit” is well beyond the
scope of this project and would require the comprehensive amendments to the BVCP and
subsequent rezonings as noted elsewhere in this memorandum. It has been included as to
inform any future policy direction of council.
Staff has also been hearing alternative perspectives from some in the community that find
that because the demand to live in Boulder is so high, adding any new housing will only
add more expensive housing, benefit landlords and present increasing noise and parking
impacts to neighborhoods while only adding a negligible amount of deed restricted
housing. Boulder has been called an inelastic housing market, which means that there are
factors beyond supply and demand that contribute to less fluctuation (less decrease due to
high demand and low supply) in housing prices compared to the national average. An
article by an independent think tank Catalyst defines elasticity as follows: “Elasticity is
14
an economic term meaning that supply keeps pace with demand; inelasticity means
supply remains below demand.” This topic is complex and is further discussed in this
article from the Center for Economics and Policy Research. Some have noted that they
believe it would be far more effective to just increase the amount of deed restricted
affordable required in development projects to well above the current 25% of the number
of units in projects in addition to raising in lieu fees and commercial linkage fees rather
than adding to the housing supply.
In addition to conversations with the public on the issue, staff has continued community
engagement on the project by including updates in the Planning and Development
Services newsletter, updating the project website, and reaching out to interested
neighborhood representatives and housing advocacy groups with an outreach event on
Feb. 22nd where occupancy, along with other housing and inclusionary housing code
change projects were discussed. A summary of the feedback from the event will be
shared with council as part of the March 23rd presentation.
Once City Council provides input on a specific option or options to analyze further, staff
intends to continue outreach efforts including meeting with the Community Connectors-
in-Residence for feedback on the proposed changes. The Community Connectors-in-
Residence support the voices and build power of underrepresented communities by
reducing barriers to community engagement, advancing racial equity, and surfacing the
ideas, concerns, and dreams of community members.
Once a draft ordinance is created, staff is planning additional public engagement
including holding open houses and/or office hour meetings to solicit community feedback
on the changes.
Board Feedback to Date
Housing Advisory Board
Staff discussed this topic with the Housing Advisory Board on Jan. 25, 2023. HAB
expressed a strong interest in zoning changes that would add to the city’s housing
inventory including exploration of allowing more housing types within the city’s
traditionally single-family neighborhoods. Staff expect to return to the Housing Advisory
Board once an ordinance is drafted and get a recommendation to City Council.
Planning Board
Once City Council and Housing Advisory Board provides input on a specific option or
options to analyze further, staff intends to present the information to the Planning Board
and obtain feedback. Planning Board will be required to make a recommendation on any
ordinance related to occupancy reform prior to City Council review and decision on an
ordinance.
15
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL OPTIONS
Option # Option Description Staff
recommendation on
moving forward as
part of this project?
A-1 Revise density calculation (1,600 sf of area per dwelling unit) for
one or more of the following zones and set a floor area ratio
(FAR) limit: BR-1, RH-5, BC-2, IG or IM. Add a Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) maximum to regulate intensity.(1)
Yes.
A-2 Revise density calculation for BC-1 zone (1,200 sf of open space
per dwelling unit), set a floor area ratio (FAR) limit. Add a Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) maximum to regulate intensity.(1)
Yes.
B-1 Allow duplexes or attached housing types by-right in RL, RR and
RE zones in Use Table with no change to density and amendment
to 9-9-2(b) allowing more than one principal building per lot.
No. There would be
little value in this
change as not many
units could be added.
More appropriate to
handle this as part of
a future project that
involves BVCP land
use changes and
subsequent rezonings
if supported by
community.
B-2 Conditionally allow duplexes or attached housing types in RL,
RR and RE zones in Use Table with no change to density and
amendment to 9-9-2(b) allowing more than one principal building
per lot.
No. Same as above.
B-3 Eliminate Use Review requirement for efficiency living units
(ELUs: units that are 475 sf or smaller). Current requirement is >
40% requires Use Review.
Yes.
C-1 Revise the current parking requirement of 1.25 parking spaces for
one-bedroom units to 1 per unit in projects with more than 60%
one-bedrooms.
Yes.
C-2 Lower parking requirements for affordable units or projects. No. This should be
done as part of a
more holistic parking
analysis to ensure no
impacts to
neighborhoods or
businesses by
reducing parking
requirements.
C-3 Allow Residential Parking Reductions up to 25% through an
Administrative Review (Staff level) process. Currently all
residential parking reductions require Site Review.
Yes.
16
NEXT STEPS
Staff will move forward with options development and refinement based on input from
the March 23, 2023 study session. As noted above, staff plans to continue community
outreach and attend meetings of Planning Board in the coming weeks to obtain feedback
on the potential options that council directs should move forward. As more feedback is
obtained and as needed for additional direction, staff is tentatively looking at returning to
City Council in June or July of this year to receive direction under matters. Tentatively, a
draft ordinance is scheduled to be brought forward to Planning Board in August and City
Council in September. The goal is to complete this project in the beginning of the third
quarter of 2023. An expanded scope of this project may impact the ability to complete the
project in this timeline.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Project Charter
Attachment B: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) visual comparisons
Zoning for Affordable Housing
Land Use Code Amendment
Project Charter – Working Draft
Project Purpose & Goals ............................................................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Purpose Statement ....................................................................................................................... 2
Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 2
BVCP Guidance and Policies ...................................................................................................................... 2
Anticipated Outcomes .............................................................................................................................. 5
Engagement & Communication .................................................................................................................... 5
Level of Engagement ................................................................................................................................. 5
Who will be impacted by decision/anticipated interest area ................................................................... 6
Overall engagement objectives ................................................................................................................ 6
Engagement strategies ............................................................................................................................. 6
Project Timeline ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Scope of Work ................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Schedule for 2022 and 2022 ................................................................................................................... 10
Project Team & Roles .................................................................................................................................. 10
Team Goals.............................................................................................................................................. 10
Critical Success Factors ........................................................................................................................... 10
Expectations ............................................................................................................................................ 10
Potential Challenges/Risks ...................................................................................................................... 10
Administrative Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 10
Project Costs/Budget .............................................................................................................................. 11
Decision-makers ...................................................................................................................................... 12
Boards & Commissions ........................................................................................................................... 12
Project Purpose & Goals
Background
Boulder’s housing market is unaffordable to many, driving some residents to struggle to find housing in
the city and driving some to leave. Those who work in Boulder often cannot afford to live in the city so
in-commuting is a necessity. Boulder has taken on a multifaceted approach to encourage more
affordable housing within the city limits through the city’s inclusionary housing program and zoning
regulations. While zoning has been developed to require a minimum percentage of on-site affordable
units and funding through in lieu fees, there is community interest in exploring additional methods to
secure more deed restricted permanently affordable housing and generally smaller, less expensive
housing. Some zoning regulations, particularly the intensity standards that specify maximum density
that were developed decades ago and predate the problem, and often discourage or prevent affordable
housing opportunities.
Some maximum density requirements use a standard of calculation such as lot area per dwelling unit or
open space per dwelling unit limits that encourage provision of larger, more expensive units since a
density yield is lower than a floor area allowance and thus when the floor area is broken up by the
allowable number of units, the outcome is typically larger floor area units that are not conducive with
changing demographics in the community where demand is for more, modest sized units meeting
middle income needs.
Problem Statement
Housing in Boulder is increasingly more costly to rent or own making it ever more challenging for some
to afford to live or stay in Boulder. Some zoning regulations may make such challenges more
pronounced.
Project Purpose Statement
Evaluate the land use code with the intent of removing zoning barriers to more affordable units and
smaller, modest-sized units.
Goals and Objectives
Review city standards and regulations and identify areas where zoning may discourage
affordable or modest sized dwelling units, including without limitation, the intensity standards
and parking requirements.
Prepare options for changes that would remove zoning barriers to such units with a focus on
housing areas that are not typically diverse, and areas of the where additional, denser housing is
anticipated.
Vet the options with the community to inform any proposed ordinance changes.
Prepare land use code amendments that provide greater opportunities to obtain more housing
affordable options.
BVCP Guidance and Policies
The following “Core Values” expressed in the BVCP relate to occupancy and housing choice:
“A welcoming, inclusive and diverse community”
“A diversity of housing types and price ranges”
Further, the following “Focus Areas” also relate to occupancy and housing choice:
Housing Affordability & Diversity
Boulder’s increasing housing affordability challenge, particularly for middle income households as well
as for low and moderate incomes, made housing a major focus of this update (i.e., 2015). Additionally,
the plan’s guidance about housing and neighborhoods defines the kind of community Boulder is and will
become. The plan includes several land use related policies to support additional housing and new types
of housing (e.g., townhomes, live-work) in certain locations such as the Boulder Valley Regional Center
and light industrial areas. The Housing section also contains new policies addressing affordability. A new
enhanced community benefit policy is also located in Section 1.
Growth—Balance of Future Jobs & Housing
For several decades, the plan has recognized Boulder’s role as a regional job center and includes policies
regarding jobs and housing balance. Boulder’s potential for non-residential growth continues to
outweigh housing and could lead to higher rates of in-commuting. Therefore, land use related policy
changes in this plan aim to reduce future imbalances by recommending additional housing in
commercial and industrial areas (and corresponding regulatory changes) and reductions of non-
residential land use potential in the Boulder Valley Regional Center. The plan further emphasizes the
importance of working toward regional solutions for transportation and housing through its policies for
a Renewed Vision for Transit, regional travel coordination and transit facilities, and regional housing
cooperation.
The “Housing” section of the BVCP outlines the challenges related to housing in Boulder:
The high cost of local housing results in many households paying a disproportionate amount of their
income for housing or finding it necessary to move farther from their work to find affordable housing
(often out of Boulder County). Households that find housing costs burdensome, or by the combined
costs of housing and transportation have less money available for other necessities, may find it difficult
to actively participate in the community. This leads to a more transient and less stable workforce, a less
culturally and socioeconomically diverse community, additional demands on supportive human services,
and to an exclusion of key community members from civic affairs.
Housing trends facing the community include:
• Continued escalation of housing costs that disproportionately impact low and moderate income
households;
• The “shed rate,” the rate at which homes are lost from the affordable range, outpacing the
current replacement rate;
• An aging population;
• Loss of middle-income households in the community;
• Diminishing diversity of housing types and price ranges;
• The University of Colorado’s anticipated continued student growth;
• The growing difficulty of providing affordable housing attractive to families with children in a
land-constrained community; and
• The need to evaluate regulations that creatively accommodate an expanding variety of
household types, including multi-generational households.
• Therefore, the policies in this section support the following city and county goals related to
housing:
• Support Community Housing Needs;
• Preserve & Enhance Housing Choices; and
• Integrate Growth & Community Housing Goals
The following BVCP policies have been identified for their relevancy to affordability and housing choice:
1.11 Jobs: Housing Balance
Boulder is a major employment center, with more jobs than housing for people who work here. This has
resulted in both positive and negative impacts, including economic prosperity, significant in-commuting
and high demand on existing housing. The city will continue to be a major employment center and will
seek opportunities to improve the balance of jobs and housing while maintaining a healthy economy.
This will be accomplished by encouraging new housing and mixed-use neighborhoods in areas close to
where people work, encouraging transit-oriented development in appropriate locations, preserving
service commercial uses, converting commercial and industrial uses to residential uses in appropriate
locations, improving regional transportation alternatives and mitigating the impacts of traffic
congestion.
2.10 Preservation & Support for Residential Neighborhoods
The city will work with neighborhoods to protect and enhance neighborhood character and livability and
preserve the relative affordability of existing housing stock. The city will also work with neighborhoods
to identify areas for additional housing, libraries, recreation centers, parks, open space or small retail
uses that could be integrated into and supportive of neighborhoods. The city will seek appropriate
building scale and compatible character in new development or redevelopment, appropriately sized and
sensitively designed streets and desired public facilities and mixed commercial uses. The city will also
encourage neighborhood schools and safe routes to school.
7.01 Local Solutions to Affordable Housing
The city and county will employ local regulations, policies and programs to meet the housing needs of
low, moderate and middle-income households. Appropriate federal, state and local programs and
resources will be used locally and in collaboration with other jurisdictions. The city and county recognize
that affordable housing provides a significant community benefit and will continually monitor and
evaluate policies, processes, programs and regulations to further the region’s affordable housing goals.
The city and county will work to integrate effective community engagement with funding and
development requirements and other processes to achieve effective local solutions.
7.06 Mixture of Housing Types
The city and county, through their land use regulations and housing policies, will encourage the private
sector to provide and maintain a mixture of housing types with varied prices, sizes and densities to meet
the housing needs of the low-, moderate- and middle-income households of the Boulder Valley
population. The city will encourage property owners to provide a mix of housing types, as appropriate.
This may include support for ADUs/OAUs, alley houses, cottage courts and building multiple small units
rather than one large house on a lot.
7.08 Preserve Existing Housing Stock
The city and county, recognizing the value of their existing housing stock, will encourage its preservation
and rehabilitation through land use policies and regulations. Special efforts will be made to preserve and
rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income households. Special efforts will
also be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing housing serving low-, moderate- and middle-income
households and to promote a net gain in affordable and middle-income housing.
7.10 Housing for a Full Range of Households
The city and county will encourage preservation and development of housing attractive to current and
future households, persons at all stages of life and abilities, and to a variety of household incomes and
configurations. This includes singles, couples, families with children and other dependents, extended
families, non-traditional households and seniors.
7.11 Balancing Housing Supply with Employment Base
The Boulder Valley housing supply should reflect, to the extent possible, employer workforce housing
needs, locations and salary ranges. Key considerations include housing type, mix and affordability. The
city will explore policies and programs to increase housing for Boulder workers and their families by
fostering mixed-use and multi-family development in proximity to transit, employment or services and
by considering the conversion of commercial- and industrial-zoned or -designated land to allow future
residential use.
7.12 Permanently Affordable Housing for Additional Intensity
The city will develop regulations and policies to ensure that when additional intensity is provided
through changes to zoning, a larger proportion of the additional development potential for the
residential use will be permanently affordable housing for low-, moderate- and middle-income
households.
10.02 Community Engagement
The city and county recognize that environmental, economic and social sustainability of the Boulder
Valley are built upon full involvement of the community. The city and county support better decision-
making and outcomes that are achieved by facilitating open and respectful dialogue and will actively and
continually pursue innovative public participation and neighborhood involvement. Efforts will be made
to: 1. Use effective technologies and techniques for public outreach and input; 2. Remove barriers to
participation; 3. Involve community members potentially affected by or interested in a decision as well
as those not usually engaged in civic life; and 4. Represent the views or interests of those less able to
actively participate in the public engagement process, especially vulnerable and traditionally under-
represented populations. Therefore, the city and county support the right of all community members to
contribute to governmental decisions through continual efforts to maintain and improve public
communication and the open, transparent conduct of business. Emphasis will be placed on notification
and engagement of the public in decisions involving large development proposals or major land use
decisions that may have significant impacts and/ or benefits to the community.
Anticipated Outcomes
Adoption of an ordinance to amend the following Title 9, Land Use Code, sections:
• Chapter 9-6, “Use Standards,” for possible changes to references to allowable housing types in
traditionally low-density areas (e.g., duplexes, triplexes etc.)
• Chapter 9-8, “Intensity Standards,” for any changes in the allowable occupancy limits per zone
or by land use
• Chapter 9-9, “Development Standards,” B.R.C. 1981, to remove any unnecessary parking related
or other zoning barriers
• Chapter 9-16, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981 if any changes necessitate new housing types.
Engagement & Communication
Level of Engagement
The City of Boulder has committed to considering four possible levels when designing future public
engagement opportunities (see below chart). For this project, the public will be Consulted on any
proposed changes to the intensity and development standards. See Appendix for the guiding Boulder
Engagement Framework.
Proposed changes to areas anticipated for additional housing will be more focused towards large
property owners and owners and management companies of retail and commercial properties where
changes would expand opportunities for mixed use and housing in areas where there is little housing
today. A broader scope of outreach to Boulder’s traditionally single-family neighborhoods would be
necessary if housing types other than detached dwelling units are proposed.
Who will be impacted by decision/anticipated interest area
• Residents and neighborhoods who may be impacted from potential use changes in traditionally
single-family neighborhoods.
• Commercial and residential property owners or firms, who own or manage properties that are
anticipated for more housing on traditionally commercial lands
• Under-represented groups that may have an interest in use changes but may be unfamiliar with
the methods to offer input.
• City staff, City boards, and City Council who will administer any amended Use Standards of the
Land Use Code, and who will render development approval decisions.
Overall engagement objectives
• Model the engagement framework by using the city’s decision-making wheel, levels of
engagement and inclusive participation.
• Involve people who are affected by or interested in the outcomes of this project, including
historically excluded communities.
• Be clear about how the public’s input influences outcomes to inform decision-makers.
• Provide engagement options.
• Remain open to new and innovative approaches to engaging the community.
• Provide necessary background information in advance to facilitate meaningful participation.
• Be efficient with the public’s time.
• Show why ideas were or were not included in the staff recommendation.
• The Planning Board subcommittee will guide and inform the project, including community
engagement strategies and project recommendations.
Engagement strategies
Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it is assumed that the majority of engagement will be
completed virtually. Where possible, staff will reconsider strategies to include in-person engagement.
Where possible, this plan and its strategies will be revised to accommodate in-person activities.
The following engagement tools and techniques will be implemented throughout the project.
WORLD CAFE MEETINGS
Purpose: Staff will plan to host one or more World Café method (in person) meetings to present code
changes that may affect certain neighborhoods and stakeholders. The World Café method of outreach is
discussed at this link. The project team will introduce, at a high level the city's multiple initiatives on
affordable housing, to help the community to understand the various projects and key dates for
engagement/decision making.
Logistics: Staff will work with key neighborhood groups and interested stakeholders. Engagement staff
and a mediator are anticipated to assist in the event.
At present, the neighborhoods that have shown strong interest in housing related topics will be
contacted and asked to attend the World Café style meetings. Neighborhood groups to consult
throughout this process are:
• University Hill Neighborhood Association (UHNA)
• Goss Grove
• Whittier
• Martin Acres Neighborhood Association (MANA)
• Park East/Aurora East
It is imperative that this project focus on targeted stakeholder outreach as well. This includes interested
groups such as PLAN Boulder, Better Boulder, the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, and the following
other focus groups:
• Hill Revitalization Working Group (HRWG)
• University of Colorado, Local Government & Community Relations, Office of Government and
Community Engagement
• Boulder Housing Network
• Boulder Area Rental Housing Association (BARHA)
• Community Connectors-in-Residence (CC-in-R)
Purpose: The existing project website will be maintained and updated throughout the remainder of the
project to inform the public of the project, provide updates, and link to any engagement opportunities.
Logistics: Work with communications staff to make updates as needed to the website.
NEWSLETTER AND EMAIL UPDATES
Purpose: Updates on the project will be provided to interested parties
Logistics: Staff will work with communications staff to draft content for the planning newsletter.
Additional email updates will be provided on an as-needed basis.
CHANNEL 8
Purpose: Channel 8 will be utilized to promote engagement opportunities and raise awareness for any
potential zoning for affordable housing changes.
Logistics: Staff will work with communications staff to create and support content for Channel 8. This
may involve creating a video that is posted on Channel 8 to inform the public about the project.
NEXTDOOR
Purpose: Nextdoor is another method to promote opportunities to provide input about the project and
raise awareness that has a wide reach that may reach people who are not otherwise involved or
engaged in planning-related topics. Neighborhoods to contact through NextDoor are:
University Hill, Martin Acres, Mapleton, Whittier, Newlands, Park East, Old North Boulder and
low-density portions of North, East and South Boulder
Logistics: Staff will work with communications staff to craft posts to promote engagement efforts.
OPEN HOUSES
Purpose: Later in the project when options are being more fully developed and analyzed, open houses
will be held virtually or in person (as evaluated based on health restrictions at the time) to provide
updates on the project, present options, and receive feedback on the options. These offer a way for the
public to hear summaries of the proposed changes, ask questions of staff, and suggest modifications
prior to the formal adoption process.
Logistics: P&DS staff will collaborate with engagement staff to set up virtual meetings and with
communications staff to promote them online.
WHAT’S UP BOULDER
• Purpose: What’s Up Boulder is a citywide community outreach event. If the the project is still
active in September, staff will plan to attend the What’s Up Boulder? event to inform the public
about the public about the project.
• Logistics: P&DS staff will confirm with communications and engagement staff about whether
this event is being held in 2023. At present, it appears the event is targeted for September 2023.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND UPDATES TO BOARDS
There will be a number of public hearings and updates provided to City Council during the duration of
the project. These are other opportunities for the public the share their thoughts and concerns about
the project.
Project Scope and Timeline
PLANNING STAGE | Q3 2022 / Q1 2023
• Check-in with City Council on the status, scope and proposed timeline of the project (Nov. 2022)
• Identify zoning barriers to affordable and other modest-sized housing units (Dec. 2022 – Feb.
2023)
• Develop a community engagement plan and increase awareness of project in the community (Dec.
2022 – Feb. 2023)
• Prepare a preliminary list of options to change the land use code to present to the community that
addresses objectives (Dec. 2022 – Feb. 2023)
Deliverables
o Memorandum to City Council on status, scope and timeline of the project
o Completion of Project Management Plan and Community Engagement Plan
o Potential options that would remove barriers to more affordable other types of modest sized
housing.
SHARED LEARNING STAGE | Q1 2023
• Identify potential options and evaluate each (Dec. 2022 – Feb. 2023)
• Solicit feedback from the community on the goals of the project and potential options for zoning
changes (Jan. - Feb. 2023)
• Meet with Community Connectors in Residence to discuss project and potential options (Jan. –
Feb. 2023)
• Study session with City Council to finalize scope of the project and provide feedback on potential
options (Mar. 2023)
Deliverables
o Summary of community feedback
o Summary of Planning Board and HAB feedback
o P&DS Study Session memorandum to City Council, and meeting materials
OPTIONS STAGE | Q2 2023
• Move forward with options analysis and refinement of preferred options based on City Council
direction (March – July 2023)
• Update Planning Board and Housing Advisory Board (HAB) of potential options and receive
feedback (March – April 2023)
• Continued consultation with the community on the preferred options (March – July 2023)
• Check-In with City Council on preferred options and summaries of community feedback (June - July
2023)
Deliverables
o Drafts of potential code changes
o City Council check-in memorandum
DECISION STAGE | Q2 & Q3 2023
• Create a draft ordinance on the preferred option (July 2023)
• Solicit additional feedback from stakeholder groups and neighborhood associations (July 2023)
• Bring forward draft ordinance to Planning Board (August 2023)
• First reading of draft ordinance at City Council (September 2023)
• Second reading of draft ordinance at City Council (September 2023)
POST ADOPTION & PROCESS ASSESSMENT STAGE | Q3 & Q4 2023
• Communicate with public and stakeholders about changes that occurred
• Debrief successes and challenges encountered
• Identify what worked and what didn’t
• Evaluate the degree adopted changes accomplished the project’s goals
Schedule for 2022 and 2022
2022 2023
Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept
Planning Stage
Shared Learning
Stage
Options Stage
Decision Stage
Project Team & Roles
Team Goals
• Follow City Council and Planning Board direction relative to changes to the code to obtain more
affordable or modest-sized housing
• Consult with the community in the formulation of new standards/criteria and incorporate relevant
ideas following a Public Engagement Plan and convey feedback to the Planning Board and City
Council.
• Solution must be legal, directly address the purpose and issue statement, and should be a simple
solution with community support.
Critical Success Factors
• Conduct a meaningful and inclusive public engagement process.
• Address the goals related to increasing housing options in the community while respecting
community character.
Expectations
Each member is an active participant by committing to attend meetings; communicate the team’s
activities to members of the departments not included on the team; and demonstrate candor,
openness, and honesty. Members will respect the process and one another by considering all ideas
expressed, being thoroughly prepared for each meeting, and respecting information requests and
deadlines.
Potential Challenges/Risks
The primary challenge of this project is making sure that proposed code changes avoid land use impact
on other uses, unintended consequences and over complication of the code.
Administrative Procedures
The core team will meet regularly throughout the duration of the project. An agenda will be set prior to
each meeting and will be distributed to all team members. Meeting notes will be taken and will be
distributed to all team members after each meeting.
CORE TEAM
Executive Sponsor Charles Ferro
Executive Team Brad Mueller, Charles Ferro, Karl Guiler
Project Leads
Project Manager Karl Guiler
Comprehensive
Planning
Kathleen King
Housing Jay Sugnet, Hollie
Hendrikson or
Sloane Walbert
Working Group
Legal Hella Pannewig
Communications Cate Stanek Strategy and tactics
I.R. Sean Metrick Mapping and land use analysis assistance
Community Vitality NA Not needed for this project
Racial Equity Aimee Kane
Public Participation
and Engagement
Vivian Castro-
Wooldridge/
Brenda Ritenour
Consulting role
Executive Sponsor: The executive sponsor provides executive support and strategic direction. The
executive sponsor and project manager coordinates and communicates with the executive team on the
status of the project, and communicate and share with the core team feedback and direction from the
executive team.
Project Manager: The project manager oversees the development of the Land Use Code amendment.
The project manager coordinates the core team, manages any necessary consultant firms, and provides
overall project management. The project manager will be responsible for preparing (or coordinating)
agendas and notes for the core team meetings, coordinating with team members and consultants on
the project, managing the project budget, and coordinating public outreach and the working group. The
project manager coordinates the preparation and editing of all council/board/public outreach materials
for the project, including deadlines for materials.
Core Team Members: Team leaders will coordinate with the project manager on the consultant work
efforts and products, and will communicate with the consultants directly as needed. Core Team
members will assist in the preparation and editing of all council/board/public outreach materials
including code updates.
Communications Specialist: The communications specialist is responsible for developing and creating
internal and external communications output such as press releases, major website updates and
additions, talking points, etc., and will provide advice about and support of public outreach. The
communications specialist works with the project managers and core team to develop a
communications plan that aligns with the project’s goals and larger outreach strategy. The
communications specialist will be responsible for promoting events through a variety of methods. The
communications specialist assists the manager and core team in advising on any public outreach
methods as well as editing and producing outreach material that makes the project accessible to
members of the public.
Project Costs/Budget
No consultant costs have been identified for this project at this time. The project will be undertaken by
P&DS staff.
Decision-makers
• City Council: Decision-making body.
• Planning Board: Will provide input throughout the process, and make a recommendation to
council that will be informed by other boards and commissions.
• City Boards and Commissions: Will provide input throughout process and ultimately, a
recommendation to council around their area of focus.
Boards & Commissions
City Council – Will be kept informed about project progress and issues; periodic check-ins to receive
policy guidance; invited to public events along with other boards and commissions. Will ultimately
decide on the final code changes.
Planning Board – Provides key direction on the development of options periodically. Will make a
recommendation to City Council on the final code changes.
Advisory Boards: Identify and resolves issues in specific areas by working with the following
boards/commissions:
• Housing Advisory Board
Appendix: Engagement Framework
City of Boulder Engagement Strategic Framework
Boulder’s Decision Making Process
ATTACHMENT B
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
visual comparisons
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) means the total amount of floor area on a site divided by the total land area.
The higher the FAR, the higher the mass and bulk of a building on a property. FAR can look differently
on a property depending on how many levels are proposed in the building and where the floor area is
proposed on the lot (e.g., along the street, setback etc.). The following images below are meant to
give a general idea of what different FARs look like. The pictures show a range of FAR from a
nonconforming example at a 5.9 FAR (approved before the much lower FAR limits) down to 0.23 FAR.
Site Name/Location FAR Picture/Rendering
Colorado Building
1919 14th Street
5.9
1301 Walnut 2.7
Two Nine North
1955 30th
2.2
Landmark Lofts II
970 28th
2.08
Diagonal Plaza
3320 28th
1.77
800 28th 1.7
The Province
950 28th
1.6
15th & Arapahoe 1.5
Lofts on the Hill
1155 13th
1.3
820 Pearl 1.28
Gunbarrel Center
5340 Gunbarrel
Center Court
1.23
Lotus Building site
900 28th
1.0
Uptown Broadway
4560 13th
1.0
Steel Yards
2500 30th
0.67
Red Oak Park
2737 Valmont
0.67
Flatiron Park
5505 Central
0.5
Safeway on Iris
3325 28th
0.23