Loading...
Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable HousingCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: August 22, 2023 AGENDA TITLE Public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding proposed Ordinance 8599, to amend Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, related to the site review process and intensity, form and bulk, use, parking, and subdivision standards, concerning affordable and modest-sized housing; and setting forth related details. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT / PRESENTERS Planning & Development Services Brad Mueller, Director of Planning & Development Services Charles Ferro, Senior Planning Manager Karl Guiler, Senior Policy Advisor Housing & Human Services Sloane Walbert, Inclusionary Housing Program Manager OBJECTIVE Define the steps for Planning Board consideration of this request: 1.Hear staff presentation. 2.Hold public hearing. 3. Planning Board discussion. 4. Planning Board recommendation to City Council. Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing KEY ISSUES Staff has identified the following key issues to help guide the board’s discussion: 1. Does the Planning Board find that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the ordinance? EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is for Planning Board to make a recommendation to City Council on an ordinance to amend the Land Use Code to remove regulatory barriers to affordable or modest-sized housing through changes to the site review process, intensity, form and bulk, use, parking, and subdivision standards. The draft ordinance is found in Attachment A. An annotated ordinance is found Attachment E. This project is part of a larger effort to address the current housing crisis by expanding housing supply and diversity of available housing types, and in turn reduce housing costs and limit displacement. In recent years land use policies combined with labor and material costs have made it harder and more expensive to build residential development in the city. Other projects to address these housing challenges include loosening regulations on accessory dwelling units (ADUs), occupancy reform, and inclusionary housing changes. City Council identified updating the Land Use Code 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” as one of their top work program priorities for 2022-2023. Staff discussed the project in detail with City Council on Mar. 23, Planning Board on Apr. 18 and again, with City Council on Jun. 15 to receive specific direction. Summaries of community feedback on this project can be found in Attachment B and Attachment C. Staff plans to complete the project by September 2023. The proposed ordinance is scheduled for first reading before City Council on Sep. 7 and second reading on Sep. 21. This effort is being considered in tandem with the update to the Inclusionary Housing ordinance, which is scheduled as an update for Planning Board on Sep. 5 and council on Sep. 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requests Planning Board consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion: Suggested Motion Language: Planning Board recommends that City Council adopt Ordinance 8599, to amend Title 9, “Land Use Code,” B.R.C. 1981, related to the site review process and intensity, form and bulk, use, parking, and subdivision standards, concerning affordable and modest-sized housing; and setting forth related details. Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing PUBLIC FEEDBACK The City Council memo contains public feedback received up to the City Council discussion on Mar. 23. Since that discussion, staff has used a variety of methods to engage the public including but not limited to meetings with neighborhoods, interest groups and individuals, outreach to students, renters and others in need of affordable housing options, conducting virtual and drop-in “office hours,” hearing comments at board public hearings, and a Be Heard Boulder questionnaire. Diverse feedback has been collected on both the occupancy reform and zoning for affordable housing projects with support and opposition being relatively even and crossing all range of perspectives. Detailed summaries of the feedback received through each outreach method or event are found in Attachment B. Attachment C contains the results of the Be Heard Boulder questionnaire which includes over 2,000 responses and over 1,000 written comments. Attachment D contains other written comments specifically on occupancy received in recent months. While Be Heard Boulder is only one tool of public engagement, it is not viewed with the same weight as a statistically valid survey (the limitations of Be Heard Boulder are discussed in Attachment C). However, specific feedback obtained through the Be Heard Boulder questionnaire is helpful to understand broad community sentiments. The results, while not necessarily a cross-section of the whole community, are provided below for consideration: • Support shown for allowing additional housing units in commercial areas and neighborhood centers (nearly 60% for) and about 40% against. • Nearly 55% of respondents supported allowing duplexes and triplexes in single- family neighborhoods while around 45% were against. • Reducing parking requirements received a roughly 50-50 split between support and non-support. • Most participants in the questionnaire were property/homeowners. • Renters represented nearly 30% of participants. • The responses showed significantly more support for changes among renters and younger participants. BACKGROUND Colorado is experiencing a housing crisis where the supply of housing has fallen well short of demand. According to the U.S. Census Bureau the population of the state has grown 19% since 2010 with housing not keeping the same pace. 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 revising density Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing calculations, reducing parking restrictions and looking at other zoning amendments that could better incentive smaller, more affordable housing.” Some council members felt that the project should include the option to 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 could delay the completion of this project, especially if changes to the BVCP were necessary to implement this change. A summary of the City Council comments can be found here. For the purposes of this initiative, staff refers to the “smaller, more affordable housing” defined in the council priority as “missing middle housing”. Missing middle refers to a building type (e.g., duplexes, fourplexes, and bungalow courts), in contrast to what the housing market has mostly provided post World War II (e.g., single-family housing, and larger apartments, or condo buildings). Refer to Figure 1 below. Missing middle housing are typically buildings with multiple units that are designed to be compatible in mass, scale, and form with detached single family homes. Figure 1: Missing Middle Housing Types On Mar. 23, 2023, staff presented an overview of the project including the background, scope and timeline, community engagement received thus far, information on how the city regulates density (number of dwelling units per acre), and suggested potential options for council to provide feedback. The potential options relate to changes to density calculations, allowance of more housing types in areas where they are currently restricted, and flexibility in parking regulations. For reference, the city’s intensity regulations can be found at this link and the city’s parking regulations at this link. A full description of City Council feedback is provided below. In summary, council directed staff to: • Revise density calculations (1,600 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit and 1,200 sq. ft. of open space per dwelling) and set a FAR limit in the following zoning districts: BR-1, RH-5, BC-1, BC-2, IG and/or IM. Look at additional high density residential (RH) zones as well for similar changes to enable more housing. Eliminate Use Review requirement for efficiency living units (ELUs) (units that are 475 sq. ft. or smaller). • Revise the current parking requirement of 1.25 parking spaces for one-bedroom units to one per unit in projects with more than 60% one-bedrooms. Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing • Allow Residential Parking Reductions up to 25% through an Administrative Review (Staff level) process. Currently all residential parking reductions require Site Review. Consider allowing an administrative review for parking reductions for a higher percentage than 25% for both residential and non-residential projects. For a full background on the project and all the potential options presented to City Council, see the Mar. 23 memorandum at this link. Recent efforts on the projects have focused on further analysis of the options, community outreach and obtaining feedback from Planning Board and the Housing Advisory Board (HAB). Feedback from the community, boards, and council are summarized below. City Council – Mar. 23, 2023 Study Session City Council feedback on the project can be reviewed in the Apr. 20, 2023 Study Session summary memorandum at this link. Planning Board – Apr. 18, 2023 Staff presented the zoning for affordable housing project and the preferred options to the Planning Board on Apr. 18, 2023. Most of the board supported the staff recommended options. Also, most of the board members supported more flexibility in parking reductions and three noted that any reductions should be linked to robust transportation demand management (TDM) plans. Three board members supported allowing duplexes and triplexes in traditionally single-family neighborhoods with one board member finding that the staff proposal does not go far enough. Two board members were more cautious of the changes citing the following: • There is no data to support the changes in response to in-commuter housing needs; and new FAR limits should only be supported if linked to getting more missing middle housing types. • Additional rentals in the community is a concern and there should be more efforts focused on homeownership. • Open space requirements should not be reduced. • There is a growing concern about the increasing number of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and how that may impact parking availability. • Duplexes and triplexes should not be allowed in single-family neighborhoods where owners bought into the neighborhood with the expectation that the neighborhood would not change in such a manner. Housing Advisory Board – Mar. 22, 2023 On Mar. 22, HAB supported the potential options presented by staff, expressed some disappointment that the scope could not include more missing middle housing and neighborhood infill in single family neighborhoods, but supported including missing middle housing and neighborhood infill as a key part of the next Boulder Valley Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) update. HAB also felt that more aggressive parking-related changes should be done to encourage more affordable housing. City Council – Jun. 15, 2023 Check-in Staff provided an update on the project to City Council on Jun. 15, including results of community engagement, further pros and cons analysis of the options, feedback from Planning Board and HAB, and questions on whether to increase the scope of the project to include more high-density residential zones and to allow duplexes and triplexes in low density residential zones. The detailed memorandum to council can be accessed at this link. The council supported the staff recommended changes to the Business Regional (BR), Business Community (BC), and Industrial (I) zones, as well as the proposed changes to the high density residential (RH) zones (e.g., replacing lot area or open space per dwelling unit with floor area ratio (FAR) and site wide open space requirements), which was a specific request from council’s March discussion. Because of interest on the council to explore the possibility of allowing duplexes and triplexes in areas that only allow single-family homes, staff proposed changes that would permit duplexes and triplexes if properties were already eligible to add single-family homes by subdivision if the minimum land area density requirements were met. Most council members expressed support for these changes to the low-density residential zoning districts (i.e., Residential Rural (RR), Residential Estate (RE), and Residential Low (RL). Council largely also agreed with changes to the Site Review process that exempt projects from the process that supply missing middle housing that do not require any code modifications to setbacks or height or any other allowable land use modifications in the Site Review process. Staff has incorporated these changes into Ordinance 8599. The details of the ordinance are found on page 7. SUMMARY OF CURRENT REGULATIONS 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 underlying land use designation in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The Mar. 23 memo to council details how the city calculates density (dwelling units per acre) by zoning district and how some changes would require updates to the BVCP. 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 all new residential development in projects with five or more dwelling units provide 25% of the units as permanently affordable housing. Any development containing one to four dwelling units must include at least 20% of the units as permanently affordable. Such units must either be built on-site, off-site, or the requirement must be fulfilled through cash in-lieu fees or land dedication. 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. Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing The city continues to work to support more affordable housing and preserve existing affordable housing on an ongoing basis. Some recent Land Use Code changes that illustrate this effort are: 1. 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); 2. 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)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981); 3. The opportunity zone overlay which prohibits demolition of any residential units in the opportunity zone during the duration of the federal program, which are more affordable market rate units. Recent development projects like Diagonal Plaza have brought to light some opportunities to update zoning. The existing zoning regulations incentivized suburban design and density as well as fewer larger units rather than a larger number of smaller units inconsistent with some of the city’s current housing and redevelopment goals. PROPOSED UPDATES Per the direction of City Council from Mar. 23 and Jun. 15 discussed on page 6 above, staff has prepared a draft ordinance (Attachment A) that includes the following updates: 1. Review Process, Intensity, & Form and Bulk Standards Site Review thresholds and process changes to encourage middle housing and more units. Staff considers duplexes, townhouses, three- and fourplexes middle housing.  Exempts projects that build 100% as middle housing from the Site Review process. This is intended to encourage more middle housing in Boulder, where the city currently only has roughly 9% of its housing as middle housing. Site Review would still be required for setback or height modifications, and for projects that do not provide 100% as middle housing if the project is larger than 20 units or on a lot size over two acres (the current threshold).  Eliminates the automatic Planning Board review requirement for requests for additional units and allows that density limit by-right (without mandatory Planning Board review) for the following zones: RH-1, RH-2, RH-3, and RH-7 (RH: Residential High zones).  Revises form and bulk standards to allow townhouses by-right at zero setback between townhouse units without having to go through Site Review. Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 2. Use Standards Housing use type allowances to get more middle housing and more units  Allows duplexes and triplexes by-right in RL, RR and RE zones in the Use Table with no change to density (only allows additional units if minimum lot area per unit is met on a lot, e.g., 7,000 sq. ft. in RL-1, 7,500 sq. ft. in RE, and 30,000 sq. ft. in RR).  Eliminates Use Review requirement for efficiency living units (ELUs) (units that are 475 sq. ft. or smaller). Current requirement is that projects with 40% ELUs require Use Review. Site Review already requires a diversity of housing types. 3. Intensity Standards Revisions to density calculations to obtain more housing, including more deed restricted affordable housing  Revises density calculation requirements to allow more housing and removes incentives to develop larger sized units. Replaces lot area per dwelling unit and open space per dwelling calculations with a floor area ratio (FAR) limits for each of the following zones: o BR-1: 1,600 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit removed, 2.0 FAR already set in code; o BC-1: 1,200 sq. ft. of open space per dwelling unit replaced with 1.5 FAR and 15% open space per lot requirement; o BC-2: 1,600 sq. ft. lot area per dwelling unit replaced with 1.5 FAR and 15% open space per lot requirement; o IG and IM: 1,600 sq. ft. lot area per dwelling unit replaced with 1.5 and 1.4 FAR respectively. o BT-1: Similar to RH-4 below which is in the same intensity module, the 1,200 sq. ft. of open space per unit requirement would be replaced with a 1.0 FAR limit per lot and 30% open space per lot requirement.  Revises density calculations in the Residential High (RH) zoning districts and removes incentives to develop larger sized units. Replaces density calculations for the following zones using open space to determine density with a FAR limit for each: o RH-1 and RH-2: Simplify the RH-1 and RH-2 zoning districts by:  Combines the zones into the same intensity module (see below) given the similar scale and context of the two zones;  Eliminates the 1,600 sq. ft. of open space requirement for RH-1 and 3,000 sq. ft. of lot area per unit requirement in RH-2 and replace both with a 0.67 FAR limit and 40% open space per lot requirement; Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing  Eliminates the current requirements for floor area measurement in the RH-1 zone which are different from all other zones, and  Removes the 27 dwelling units per acre limit in the RH-2 zone. o RH-3: Modified to have a 30% open space per lot requirement, which is the current requirement if approved by Planning Board. o RH-4: Replaces the 1,200 sq. ft. of open space per unit requirement with a 1.0 FAR limit per lot and 30% open space per lot requirement. o RH-5: Replaces the 1,600 sq. ft. of lot area per unit with a 1.5 FAR limit per lot and 15% open space per lot requirement. Note: Per existing code requirements, any developments with buildings over 45 feet must provide at least 20% open space on the site in all zones. This requirement is not proposed to change. 4. Parking Standards Relaxes some parking standards to remove potential barriers to construction of more housing units  Eliminates the current parking requirement of 1.25 parking spaces for one-bedroom units and applies a 1 space per unit standard.  Allows Residential Parking Reductions up to 25% through an Administrative Review (staff level) process, where currently all residential parking reductions require Site Review.  Updates parking reduction criteria to have stronger Transportation Demand Management requirements.  Reorganizes parking reduction criteria to be clearer and better organized by land use. 5. Subdivision Standards Modifies subdivision requirements to allow more flexible lot standards for townhouse projects  Allows the creation of townhouse lots to be less than the minimum width of 30 feet, down to 15 feet for lots that have one townhouse unit without any waivers to the subdivision requirements. ANALYSIS Staff has identified the following key issues for the Planning Board’s consideration: 1. Does the Planning Board find that the proposed ordinance implements the adopted policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP)? 2. Does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the ordinance? Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 zoning requirements to remove barriers to more affordable housing and modest size housing as a priority project for the 2022-2023 council term. Council requested a simple solution by ordinance in the quickest possible timeframe to address the housing crisis. The city is undertaking the project to increase housing options in Boulder to mitigate the rising costs of housing and add more housing opportunities for people in a greater diversity and more affordable ranges. The problem statement, project purpose statement and goals, and objectives of the project that were supported by City Council are provided below: Problem Statement: Boulder housing is increasingly more costly to rent or own making it ever more challenging for some to afford to live or stay in Boulder. Occupancy limitations and other zoning regulations may make such challenges more pronounced. 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. Communities around the nation have been updating their zoning regulations to enable more opportunities for housing, since many studies have linked restricted zoning regulations as a major factor in the ever-increasing housing prices in communities as supply has not been able to keep up with demand. Studies with these findings can be found in the Jun. 15 memo to City Council. The city has been undertaking these changes also to further the goals of the city’s Racial Equity Plan. 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 two-pronged approach to encourage more affordable housing within the city limits Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 both more deed restricted permanently affordable housing and generally smaller, less expensive housing (“middle housing”). Some zoning regulations, particularly the intensity standards that specify maximum density, were developed decades ago, and predate the housing crisis. These regulations 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 the outcome is typically larger floor area units to meet the density requirements within the allowable floor area. This outcome is 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 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. In many instances, the payment of a cash-in-lieu contribution is preferable to on-site affordable units. This is because local funding produced through cash-in-lieu contributions generates more affordable housing in a greater diversity of housing types, in a variety of affordability ranges, and dispersed throughout the city. Local funding can be leveraged two to three times with state and funding to produce more affordable housing than could be produced on-site. Figure 2: Housing Outcomes Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing How does the ordinance compare to practices in other cities? The states of Oregon and Washington have passed legislation requiring communities to allow a variety of housing types within areas that are zoned for traditionally single-family housing. Staff has discussed these practices with the cities of Bend, OR; Eugene, OR; and Olympia, WA. As Oregon passed legislation first, the Oregon communities have already made zoning changes to come into compliance with these new state laws, whereas Washington communities are still in the process of implementation. Eugene has a detailed website on the different desired housing types at this link and has already seen an increase in middle housing in their city. As these changes are state mandated, communities have been required to make these updates. Colorado Senate Bill SB23-213 included similar zoning changes but did not pass in the state legislature. Broader code changes than proposed in Ordinance 8599 and analogous to those discussed above would require changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) under the current policies and practice of the city. Specifically, they require changes to the land use designations in predominately low-density residential areas. Thus, staff has recommended only changes within Ordinance 8599 that do not require changes to the BVCP to move forward. Are there consequences in not adopting this ordinance? The consequence of not adopting this ordinance is that existing code standards would not be updated and existing zoning standards that may limit creation of more housing opportunities in the community would remain in place. The purpose behind the proposed ordinance is to add additional tools to the city’s “toolkit” which support the creation of additional desired housing. Other tools include additional accessory dwelling units (ADUs), occupancy reform, and other inclusionary housing changes that are intended to increase the housing supply, help reduce housing costs, and increase housing opportunities for those most in need of housing. What adverse effects may result with the adoption of this ordinance? The allowance of more dwelling units in projects has the potential of creating parking impacts, but as the land use code already has requirements for parking on a per-dwelling- unit basis, such parking requirements would need to be met on sites whether for duplexes and triplexes in low density areas or multi-family in other areas. If reduced parking were requested through a parking reduction, the request would have to be looked at on a case- by-case basis for whether the parking needs of the use will be adequately accommodated. While there is concern that allowing duplexes and triplexes in low density areas may impact the existing character of these areas, Ordinance 8599 would require the same form and bulk requirements as those that would apply to single-family homes and therefore, staff anticipates minimal impact to character as a result of allowing these housing types. This is especially since the incidence of duplexes and triplexes would be less than the occurrences of single-family zones. This would be consistent with the language in the Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing ordinance that indicates that these areas would remain predominately single-family character. Ordinance 8599 also includes provisions that will exempt residential projects over 20 dwelling units from the Site Review process if such project includes the provision of 100% middle housing (if there are no land use modifications). Presently, city estimates that the amount of middle housing is only 9% of the housing units in the city and allowing middle housing by-right could encourage more. Middle housing is proposed to be defined as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes. There is a risk that the quality level of projects that would have previously required Site Review may not be of the level of quality previously achieved through Site Review. Staff is less concerned about this since the scale of buildings would be less (fourplex or less per building) and most of the concerns related to the quality and scale of buildings are focused on larger scale multi- family residential, mixed-use or commercial/industrial projects, which would continue to be reviewed through Site Review if the Site Review threshold are met. See Table 2-2 within the Land Use Code for the zoning district thresholds. What factors are influencing the timing of the proposed ordinance? Why? City Council identified updating the land use code to remove zoning barriers to housing as a priority project for the 2022-2023 council term. Council has expressed that the project should be completed as soon as possible to address the housing crisis and no later than the third quarter of 2023. This effort is being considered in tandem with the update to the Inclusionary Housing ordinance, which is scheduled for Planning Board consideration on Sep. 5 and council consideration on Sep. 7. How will this ordinance implement the comprehensive plan? This project implements several relevant policies noted below and is consistent with Core Values and Focus Areas of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). Three Core Values of the BVCP are being a “welcoming, inclusive and diverse community”, “Compact, contiguous development and infill that supports evolution to a more sustainable urban form” and providing a “diversity of housing types and price ranges.” Further, one of the focus areas of the BVCP is Housing Affordability and Diversity. See page 17 of the BVCP for these focus areas. ‘Housing Affordability & Diversity’ is listed in the BVCP as a top focus area, as follows: “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. 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 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing benefit policy is also located in Sec. 1. The accompanying action plan identifies regulatory changes and programmatic next steps to accomplish these housing aims.” Addressing the jobs: housing imbalance is also a major focus area and is emphasized in ‘Growth—Balance of Future Jobs & Housing’ as follows: “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.” Removing barriers to additional housing for people is one way the BVCP notes that the city could address rising housing costs and mitigate the jobs: housing imbalance. Increasing housing options within the city would enable more workforce housing in the city and reduce the need for in-commuting which increases greenhouse gas emissions and a burden for in-commuters and residents alike. More housing on sites also would proportionally increase the amount of deed restricted permanently affordable housing in the city as discussed in this memorandum and as illustrated in the example below, which was discussed with Planning Board at the April 16 update: Figure 3- Density vs. Intensity Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing The table illustrates (see the first row versus the third row) that removing the 1,600 sq. ft. of lot area per dwelling unit requirement or the 1,200 sq. ft. of open space per dwelling unit requirement and replacing it with a floor area ratio (FAR) and site wide open space requirement would greatly simplify the land use code but more importantly enable the potential number of units to be increased. This is what was done by the special ordinance applied to the Diagonal Plaza site and would also be possible with the changes proposed in Ordinance 8599. As shown in the table above, the Diagonal Plaza project was permitted 282 dwelling units as opposed to the estimated 120 units in the Business Community – 1 (BC-1) zoning. The key takeaway with this is that the allowance increase in housing increases the amount of deed restricted permanently affordable units from 30 units to 70 units, an increase of 40 units on one project site that is roughly 5 acres. The proposed changes in Ordinance 8599 would enable such changes on a variety of zones from BR to RH zones throughout the city that current have density based on open space or lot area per unit. Further, the allowance for duplexes and triplexes in low density areas of the city has the potential for adding roughly 1,600 dwelling units to the city (over time if property owners elected to add units and if their land met the existing density requirements). Some members in the community have expressed concern that the density and housing unit allowances in Ordinance 8599 would not have guaranteed affordability associated with the increases and that any increases afforded by the ordinance should be only on a condition of required permanent affordability. This concern appears to be focused on the low-density residential areas proposed for duplexes and triplexes. Reducing parking minimums and allowing for administrative parking reductions reduces the cost of developing housing, since providing extraneous parking spaces drives up the cost of housing for developers, and later residents. The required site review process for residential parking reductions makes it expensive and time-consuming for residential developers to get approvals and start construction. Staff is not recommending deed restriction for affordability to the potential units that could be added to the city through the changes in Ordinance 8599 because it would create a significantly complex administrative application and tracking process for every request. Such a process would be a deterrent for many from creating additional units, would be an additional administrative burden on staff and would be inconsistent with the stated goals of removing zoning barriers to more housing in the city. For instance, if required for duplexes and triplexes in low density residential areas, property owners would likely avoid such administrative process and just move forward with a subdivision to enable new single-family homes that would not be subject to such a deed restriction. Property owners will already have to contribute money to the city’s affordable housing program when adding units. Community benefit requirements already exists for any bigger projects seeking a fourth or fourth and fifth story and not meeting other standards that would allow a height modification. Staff finds that Ordinance 8599 would implement the BVCP policies listed below. More specifically, the following policies are consistent with the changes allowing more housing Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing units in commercially and industrially zoned growth areas: Policy 2.16, Mixed Use & Higher-Density Development, Policy 2.21, Light Industrial Areas, Policy 2.34, Design of Newly Developing Areas and Policy 4.07, Energy-Efficient Land Use. With respect to allowing more housing types in low density residential areas, applying the same form, bulk and intensity requirements for duplexes and triplexes as single-family homes and encouraging internal conversion of existing housing units to achieve more housing opportunities is consistent with Policy 2.10, Preservation & Support for Residential Neighborhoods, Policy 7.07, Mixture of Housing Types, and Policy 7.08, Preserve Existing Housing Stock. Growth Management Policy 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. Built Environment Policy 2.03 Compact Development Pattern The city and county will, by implementing the comprehensive plan (as guided by the Land Use Designation Map and Planning Areas I, II, III Map), ensure that development will take place in an orderly fashion, take advantage of existing urban services, and avoid, insofar as possible, patterns of leapfrog, noncontiguous, scattered development within the Boulder Valley. The city prefers redevelopment and infill as compared to development in an expanded Service Area to prevent urban sprawl and create a compact community. 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 2.16 Mixed Use & Higher-Density Development The city will encourage well-designed mixed use and higher-density development that incorporates a substantial amount of affordable housing in appropriate locations, including in some commercial centers and industrial areas and in proximity to multimodal corridors and transit centers. The city will provide incentives and remove regulatory barriers to encourage mixed use development where and when appropriate. This could include public-private partnerships for planning, design or development, new zoning districts, and the review and revision of floor area ratio, open space and parking requirements. Built Environment Policy 2.19 Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood centers often contain the economic, social and cultural opportunities that allow neighborhoods to thrive Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing and for people to come together. The city will encourage neighborhood centers to provide pedestrian-friendly and welcoming environments with a mix of land uses. The city acknowledges and respects the diversity of character and needs of its neighborhood centers and will pursue area planning efforts to support evolution of these centers to become mixed-use places and strive to accomplish the guiding principles noted below. Built Environment Policy 2.21 Light Industrial Areas The city supports its light industrial areas, which contain a variety of uses, including technical offices, research and light manufacturing. The city will preserve existing industrial areas as places for industry and innovation and will pursue regulatory changes to better allow for housing and retail infill. The city will encourage redevelopment and infill to contribute to placemaking and better achieve sustainable urban form as defined in this chapter. Housing should occur in a logical pattern and in proximity to existing and planned amenities, including retail services and transit. Analysis will guide appropriate places for housing infill within areas zoned Industrial General (IG) (not those zoned for manufacturing or service uses) that minimize the potential mutual impacts of residential and industrial uses in proximity to one another. Built Environment Policy 2.34 Design of Newly Developing Areas The city will encourage a neighborhood concept for new development that includes a variety of residential densities, housing types, sizes and prices, opportunities for shopping, nearby support services and conveniently sited public facilities, including roads and pedestrian connections, parks, libraries and schools. Energy Policy 4.07 Energy-Efficient Land Use The city and county will encourage energy efficiency and conservation through land use policies and regulations governing placement and orientation of land uses to minimize energy use, including an increase in mixed-use development and compact, contiguous development surrounded by open space. 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. 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 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Ordinance 8599 Attachment B: Summary of Community Outreach efforts and feedback Attachment C: Be Heard Boulder Questionnaire Summary Attachment D: Public comments Attachment E: Annotated ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 8599 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981 RELATED TO THE SITE REVIEW PROCESS AND INTENSITY, FORM AND BULK, USE, PARKING, AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS, CONCERNING AFFORDABLE AND MODEST SIZED HOUSING; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: . . . TABLE 2-2: SITE REVIEW THRESHOLD TABLE Zoning District Abbreviation Use Form Intensity Minimum Size for Site Review Concept Plan and Site Review Required (a) A A a 1 2 acres - BC-1 B3 f 15 19 1 acre 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BC-2 B3 f 19 1 acre 2 acres or 25,000 square feet of floor area or any site in BVRC BCS B4 m 28 1 acre 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BMS B2 o 17 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BR-1 B5 f 23 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BR-2 B5 f 16 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BT-1 B1 f 15 1 acre 2 acres or 30,000 square feet of floor area BT-2 B1 e 21 0 2 acres or 30,000 square feet of floor area Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 DT-1 D3 p 25 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area DT-2 D3 p 26 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area DT-3 D3 p 27 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area DT-4 D1 q 27 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area DT-5 D2 p 27 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area IG I2 f 22 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area IM I3 f 20 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area IMS I4 r 18 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area IS-1 I1 f 11 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area IS-2 I1 f 10 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area MH MH s - 5 or more units are permitted on the property - MU-1 M2 i 18 0 1 acre or 20 dwelling units MU-2 M3 r 18 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area MU-3 M1 n 24 5 or more units are permitted on the property 1 acre or 20 dwelling units or 20,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area MU-4 M4 o 24.5 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area P P c 5 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area RE R1 b 3 5 or more units are permitted on the property - Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 RH-1 R6 j 12 0 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-2 R6 c 12.5 0 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-3 R7 l 14 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-4 R6 h 15 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-5 R6 c 19 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-6 R8 j 17.5 5 or more units are permitted on the property 3 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-7 R7 i 14.5 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RL-1 R1 d 4 5 or more units are permitted on the property 3 acres or 18 dwelling units RL-2 R2 g 6 5 or more units are permitted on the property 3 acres or 18 dwelling units RM-1 R3 g 9 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RM-2 R2 d 13 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RM-3 R3 j 13 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RMX-1 R4 d 7 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RMX-2 R5 k 8 0 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RR-1 R1 a 2 5 or more units are permitted on the property - RR-2 R1 b 2 5 or more units are permitted on the property - Footnote to Table 2-2, Site Review Threshold Table: (a) See Section 9-2-14(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981, for development projects that are exempt from the Concept Plan and Site Review Required threshold. . . . Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (3) Exceptions: The following developments that exceed the minimum site review thresholds set forth in this section shall not be required to complete a site review: (A) Minor modifications and amendments under this section to approved development review applications; (B) Building permits for additions to existing structures that do not exceed a cumulative total, over the life of the building, of twenty-five percent of the size of the building on which the addition is proposed and that do not alter the basic intent of an approved development; (C) Subdivisions solely for the purpose of amalgamating lots or parcels of land; (D) Subdivisions solely for the purpose of conveying property to the City; (E) Residential projects where no modifications to development standards are requested and all dwelling units are townhouses or located in buildings with no more than four dwelling units; (EF) City of Boulder public projects that are otherwise required to complete a public review process; and (FG) Projects located in areas defined by Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," that are required to complete form-based code review pursuant to Section 9-2-16, "Form-Based Code Review," B.R.C 1981. . . . (d) Application Requirements: An application for approval of a site plan may be filed by any person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a site review on a form provided by the city manager that includes, without limitation: (1) All materials and information required by Subsection 9-2-6(a), B.R.C. 1981; … (21) A transportation demand management (TDM) plan. which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and measures that the development will implement to promote alternate modes of travel, in accordance with Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(A), B.R.C. 1981, and Section 2.03(I) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. … (g) Review and Recommendation: The city manager will review and decide an application for a site review in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-2-6, "Development Review Application," B.R.C. 1981, except for an application involving the following, which the city manager will refer with a recommendation to the planning board for its action: (1) A reduction in off-street parking of more than fifty percent subject to compliance with the standards of Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981. (2) A reduction of the open space or lot area requirements allowed by Subparagraph (h)(6) of this section. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (3) An application for any principal or accessory building above the permitted height for principal buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (4) An increase in density in the RH-1, RH-2 and RH-3 districts consistent with Section 9- 8-3, "Density in the RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and RH-7 Districts," B.R.C. 1981. (h) Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: . . . (6) Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications: Modifications to minimum open space on lots, floor area ratio (FAR), maximum height, and number of dwelling units per acre requirements will be approved pursuant to the standards of this subparagraph: . . . (B) Land Use Intensity and Density Modifications with Height Bonus: In the BMS, BR-1, IMS, IS, MU-1, and MU-2 zoning districts if associated with a request for a height bonus, the density and floor area of a building may be increased above the maximum allowed in Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, as follows, provided the building meets the requirements for a height bonus under Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981: (i) In the BMS zoning district outside a general improvement district providing off-street parking, and in the IMS, IS, MU-1, and MU-2 zoning districts, the base floor area ratio (FAR) in Table 8-2, Section 9-8-2, "Floor Area Ratio Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by up to 0.5 FAR. (ii) In the BR-1 zoning district, the allowed number of dwelling units per acre in Table 8-1, Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by up to fifty percent and the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) may be increased up to a 3.0 FAR. (7) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions: The applicant demonstrates and the approving authority finds, that any reduced parking on the site, if applicable, meets The off-street parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified the parking reduction criteria outlined in Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981.as follows: (A) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. (B) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981 (see Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if it finds that: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated; (ii) The parking needs of any nonresidential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking; (iii)A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; (iv) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and (v) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. (8) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if the following conditions are met: (A) The lots are held in common ownership; (B) The separate lot is in the same zoning district and located within three hundred feet of the lot that it serves; and (C) The property used for off-site parking under this subparagraph continues under common ownership or control. . . . (l) Minor Amendments to Approved Site Plans: . . . (2) Amendments to the Site Review Approval Process: Applications for minor amendment shall be approved according to the procedures prescribed by this section for site review approval, except: (A) If an applicant requests approval of a minor amendment to an approved site review, the city manager will determine which properties within the development would be affected by the proposed change. The manager will provide notice pursuant to Subsection 9-4-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, of the proposed change to all property owners so determined to be affected, and to all property owners within a radius of 600 feet of the subject property. (B) Only the owners of the subject property shall be required to sign the application. (C) The minor amendment shall be found to comply with the review criteria of Subparagraphs (h)(2), and (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this section. (D) The minor amendment shall be substantially consistent with the intent of the original approval, including conditions of approval, the intended design character, and site arrangement of the development, and specific limitations on additions or total size of the building which were required to keep the building in general proportion to others in the surrounding area or minimize visual impacts. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (E) The city manager may amend, waive, or create a development agreement. Section 2. Section 9-5-2, “Zoning Districts” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Classification: Zoning districts are classified according to the following classifications based on the predominant character of development and current or intended use in an area of the community: . . . (b) Zoning Districts: Under the classifications defined in Subsection (a) of this section, the particular zoning districts established for the city are as in table 5-1 of this section: TABLE 5-1: ZONING DISTRICTS Classification Zoning District (Abbreviation) Use Module Form Module Intensity Module Former Zoning District Abbreviation Residential Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) R1 a 2 RR-E Residential - Rural 2 (RR-2) R1 b 2 RR1-E Residential - Estate (RE) R1 b 3 ER-E Residential - Low 1 (RL-1) R1 d 4 LR-E Residential - Low 2 (RL-2) R2 g 6 LR-D Residential - Medium 1 (RM-1) R3 g 9 MR-D Residential - Medium 2 (RM-2) R2 d 13 MR-E Residential - Medium 3 (RM-3) R3 j 13 MR-X Residential - Mixed 1 (RMX-1) R4 d 7 MXR-E Residential - Mixed 2 (RMX-2) R5 k 8 MXR-D Residential - High 1 (RH-1) R6 j 12 HR-X Residential - High 2 (RH-2) R6 c 12.5 HZ-E Residential - High 3 (RH-3) R7 l 14 HR1-X Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Residential - High 4 (RH-4) R6 h 15 HR-D Residential - High 5 (RH-5) R6 c 19 HR-E Residential - High 6 (RH-6) R8 j 17.5 - Residential - High 7 (RH-7) R7 l 14.5 - Mobile Home (MH) MH s - MH-E Mixed Use Mixed Use 1 (MU-1) M2 i 18 MU-D Mixed Use 2 (MU-2) M3 r 18 RMS-X Mixed Use 3 (MU-3) M1 n 24 MU-X Mixed Use 4 (MU-4) M4 o 24.5 - Business Business - Transitional 1 (BT-1) B1 f 15 TB-D Business - Transitional 2 (BT-2) B1 e 21 TB-E Business - Main Street (BMS) B2 o 17 BMS-X Business - Community 1 (BC-1) B3 f 15 19 CB-D Business - Community 2 (BC-2) B3 f 19 CB-E Business - Commercial Services (BCS) B4 m 28 CS-E Business - Regional 1 (BR-1) B5 f 23 RB-E Business - Regional 2 (BR-2) B5 f 16 RB-D Downtown Downtown 1 (DT-1) D3 p 25 RB3-X/E Downtown 2 (DT-2) D3 p 26 RB2-X Downtown 3 (DT-3) D3 p 27 RB2-E Downtown 4 (DT-4) D1 q 27 RB1-E Downtown 5 (DT-5) D2 p 27 RB1-X Industrial Industrial - Service 1 (IS-1) I1 f 11 IS-E Industrial - Service 2 (IS-2) I1 f 10 IS-D Industrial - General (IG) I2 f 22 IG-E/D Industrial - Manufacturing (IM) I3 f 20 IM-E/D Industrial - Mixed Services (IMS) I4 r 18 IMS-X Public Public (P) P c 5 P-E Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Agricultural Agricultural (A) A a 1 A-E Flex District Flex (F) TBD TBD TBD n/a (c) Zoning District Purposes: (1) Residential Districts and Complementary Uses: (A) Residential - Rural 1, Residential - Rural 2, Residential - Estate, and Residential - Low 1: Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. Primarily single-family detached dwelling units with some duplexes and attached dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. (B) Residential - Low 2, and Residential - Medium 2: Medium density residential areas primarily used for small-lot residential development, including without limitation, duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level. (C) Residential - Medium 1, and Residential - Medium 3: Medium density residential areas which have been or are to be primarily used for attached residential development, where each unit generally has direct access to ground level, and where complementary uses may be permitted under certain conditions. . . . Section 3. 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. (a) Explanation of Table Abbreviations: The abbreviations and symbols used in Table 6-1 of this section have the following meanings: (1) Allowed Uses: An "A" in a cell indicates that the use type is permitted by right in that zoning district, subject to compliance with any applicable specific use standards set forth in this chapter. (2) Conditional Uses: A "C" in a cell indicates that the use type will be reviewed in accordance with the procedures established in Section 9-2-2, "Administrative Review Procedures," B.R.C. 1981. Conditional use applications shall also meet any applicable specific use standards set forth in this chapter. (3) Use Review Uses: A "U" in a cell indicates that the use type will be reviewed in accordance with the procedures established in Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981. Use review applications shall also meet any applicable specific use standards set forth in this chapter. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (4) Prohibited Uses: A hyphen ("-") in a cell indicates that the use type is prohibited in that zoning district. (5) Specific Use Standards: Cells containing bracket symbols ("[ ]") indicate that there are specific use standards associated with the use type in that district that must be complied with. Regardless of whether or not a use is allowed by right, conditional use, or use review, specific use standards may apply. The standards may require a different review process or impose certain limitations. The applicable specific use standards are identified and cross-referenced in the right-most column of Table 6-1. Several specific use standards may apply to a use type. If there is any inconsistency between the bracket designation in Table 6-1 and the specific use standards in Chapter 9-6, the specific use standards shall control. (b) Additional Standards: (1) Uses are also subject to all other applicable requirements of this title. (2) Additional Use Standards in Form-Based Code Areas or Overlay Districts: (A) Uses in Form-Based Code Areas: Uses located on a lot or parcel designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," are subject to the requirements of this chapter, but may also be subject to additional use standards pursuant to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." (B) Uses in Overlay Districts: Uses located on a lot or parcel located within an overlay district designated in Chapter 9-3, "Overlay Districts," B.R.C. 1981, are subject to the requirements of this chapter, but may also be subject to additional use standards pursuant to the overlay district standards described in that chapter. (c) Structure of the Use Classification System: Land uses are organized according to a three- tiered hierarchy consisting of use classifications, use categories, and use types. This classification system is intended to provide a structure that groups similar uses together for ease in locating or identifying a use and to simplify the classification of new uses. (1) Use Classifications: Each use is grouped under one of these seven broad use classifications: Residential Uses; Public, Institutional, and Community Uses; Commercial Uses; Industrial Uses; Agricultural and Natural Resource Uses. (2) Use Categories: Use categories are subgroups of uses in each classification that have common functional or physical characteristics, such as the type and amount of activity, types of goods, services, occupants or users/customers, or operational characteristics. (3) Use Types: Use types are the specific land uses that can be established in a zoning district, such as duplex, restaurant, or building material sales. (d) Interpretation: The city manager may decide questions of interpretation as to which use type that a use not specifically listed in Table 6-1 is properly assigned to, based on precedents, similar situations, and relative impacts. Upon written application, a city manager interpretation as to which use type a use not specifically listed is properly assigned to may be appealed to the BOZA pursuant to Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981. Any use not specifically listed in Table 6-1 of this section is not allowed unless it is determined to be included in a use type as provided by this section. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (e) Multiple Uses of Land Permitted and Accessory Uses: Allowed uses, conditional uses, and uses permitted by use review may be located in the same building or upon the same lot. Any use may be allowed as an accessory use if it meets the definition of an accessory use. 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 Specif ic Use Stand ards Use Module R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 M H M1 M2 M3 M4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 D1 D2 D3 I1 I2 I3 I4 P A RESIDENTIAL USES Household Living Duplex - A A A A [A ] A A - - [C] A A A [A] - [A] - [A] A A A - [U] [U] [A] U - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (c) 9-6- 2(c) Dwelling unit, attached - [A] A A A [A ] A A [A ] - [C] A A A [A] [A] [A] - [A] A A A - [U] [U] [A] U - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (d) 9-6- 2(c) Dwelling unit, detached [A] [A] A A [A ] [A] [A ] - - [C] [A] [A] [A] [A] - [A] - [A] A A A - [U] [U] - [U] [U] 9-6- 3(a), (b), (e) 9-6- 2(c) Efficiency living unit - - - - [U ]A [A] A A - - [A] A A [A] A [A] A [A] [A] - [A] [A] A [A] A [A] A - [U] [U] [A] U - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (f) 9-6- 2(c) Live-work unit - - - - - [A] [A ] - - [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] - - - - - U [U] [U] A - - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (g) Mobile home park - U U - U U - - A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Townhous e - A A A [A ] A A A - [C] A A A [A] - [A] - [A] A A A - [U] [U] [A] U - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (h) 9-6- 2(c) Group Living Boarding house - - U U A A A - - U A A [A] [A] [A] [A] - [A] - - A - [U] [U] - - - 9-6- 3(i) 9-6- 2(c) Congregat e care facility - - [C ] [C ] [C ] [C] [C ] [C ] - [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] - [C] [C] [C] [C] - [U] [U] - [U] - 9-6- 3(j) Custodial care facility - - [U ] [U ] [U ] [U] [U ] [U ] - [U] [U] [U] - [U] - [U] - [U] - [U] [U] - [U] [U] - - - 9-6- 3(j) Fraternity, sorority, and dormitory - - - - - A A - - U - - - [A] [A] [A] - [A] - - A - [U] [U] - - - 9-6- 3(k) 9-6- 2(c) Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Group home facility [C] [C] [C ] [C ] [C ] [C] [C ] [C ] - [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] - [C] [C] [C] [C] - - - - - - 9-6- 3(l) Residentia l care facility - - [C ] [C ] [C ] [C] [C ] [C ] - [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] - [C] [C] [C] [C] - [U] [U] - - - 9-6- 3(j) Transition al housing [C] [C] [C ] [C ] [C ] [C] [C ] [C ] - [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] - [C] [C] [C] [C] - 9-6- 3(m) Residential Accessory Accessory dwelling unit [C] [C] - [C ] [C ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [C] [C] 9-6- 3(n) Caretaker dwelling unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A A A A A A Home occupatio n [A] [A] [A ] [A ] [A ] [A] [A ] [A ] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] - [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] 9-6- 3(o) Section 4. Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards – Residential Uses” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Residential Uses: (1) This Subsection (a) sets forth standards for uses in the residential use classification that are subject to specific use standards pursuant to Table 6-1, Use Table. (2) Residential Uses in the IG and IM Zoning Districts: The following standards apply in the IG and IM zoning districts to residential uses that may be approved pursuant to a use review: (A) Location: Dwelling units may be constructed only on a lot or parcel that meets one or more of the following requirements (i), (ii), or (iii). If a lot or parcel meets this location standard, the approving authority shall presume that the standard in Paragraph 9-2-15(e)(5), B.R.C. 1981, has been met. (i) The residential use is consistent with the land use plan or map in an adopted subcommunity or area plan; or (ii) The lot or parcel is located within one-quarter mile of the Boulder Junction transit station. Distance shall be measured by the city manager on official maps as the radius from the closest point on the perimeter of the applicant's lot or parcel to the closest point on the transit station lot; or (iii) At least one-sixth of the perimeter of the lot or parcel is contiguous with a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units, a residential zoning district, or a city- or county-owned park or open space. Contiguity shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, or a public or private transportation right-of-way or area. (B) Floor Area Ratios (FAR): The floor area regulations for the underlying zoning district classification shall only apply to the nonresidential floor area on the site. Residential floor area is limited to a 1.0 FAR on a lot or parcel and non-residential floor area is limited to a 0.5 FAR in the IG zone and 0.4 FAR in the IM zone. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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) Dwelling Unit, Attached: (1) In the RH-6 Zoning District: (A) In the RH-6 zoning district, attached dwelling units shall be located in a development that includes townhouse dwelling units. Attached dwelling units may only be located on a corner that has street frontage on two sides. (2) In the BT-1, BT-2, IS-1, and IS-2 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the BT-1, BT-2, IS-1, and IS-2 zoning districts, attached dwelling units are allowed by right if the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (3) In the BMS Zoning District: (A) Review Process Outside UHGID: Attached dwelling units located in the BMS zoning district and outside the University Hill general improvement district are allowed by right if the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (B) Review Process Within UHGID: Attached dwelling units located in the BMS zoning district and within the University Hill general improvement district are subject to the following review process: (i) Conditional Use: Attached dwelling units may be approved as a conditional use if the units meet the following standards: a. The units are all permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981; and b. With the exception of minimum necessary ground level access, the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street. (ii) Use Review: Attached dwelling units that may not be approved as a conditional use may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (4) In the BR-1 and BR-2 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the BR-1 and BR-2 zoning districts, the following review process applies to attached dwelling units: (i) Allowed Use: Attached dwelling units are allowed by right if the use meets the following standards: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 a. All units on the lot or parcel are permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981; or b. The use is not located on the ground floor along a major street, as defined by Appendix A, "Major Streets," B.R.C. 1981, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. The limitation on ground floor use along a major street applies to a depth of 30 feet measured from the building's major street facing façade. (ii) Use Review: Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (5) In the IMS Zoning District: (A) Review Process: In the IMS zoning district, attached dwelling units are allowed by right if at least fifty percent of the floor area of the building is for nonresidential use. Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (6) In the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 Zoning Districts: (A) In the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 zoning districts, attached dwelling units are allowed by right provided that no lot exceeds three dwelling units and are otherwise prohibited. . . . (f) Efficiency Living Unit: (1) In the RMX-2 Zoning District: (A) In the RMX-2 zoning district, efficiency living units shall not exceed 40 percent of total units in a building. (2) In the RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, RH-5, MU-4, BT-1, BT-2, DT-4, DT-5, DT-1, DT-2, and DT-3 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, RH-5, MU-4, BT-1, BT-2, DT-4, DT- 5, DT-1, DT-2, and DT-3 zoning districts, efficiency living units are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units. Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (3) In the MU-3 Zoning District: (A) Review Process: In the MU-3 zoning district, the following review process applies to efficiency living units: (i) Allowed Use: Efficiency living units are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units, at least fifty Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 percent of the floor area of the building is for residential uses, and the total floor area of nonresidential uses in the building is less than 7,000 square feet. (ii) Use Review: Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (41) In the BMS Zoning District: (A) Review Process Outside UHGID: Efficiency living units located in the BMS zoning district and outside the University Hill general improvement district are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units and the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (B) Review Process Within UHGID: The following review process applies to efficiency living units located in the BMS zoning district and within the University Hill general improvement district: (i) Conditional Use: Efficiency living units may be approved as a conditional use if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units, the units are permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981, and the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street. (ii) Use Review: Efficiency living units that may not be approved as a conditional use may be approved only pursuant to a use review. In addition to meeting the use review criteria, the units must be permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981. (5) In the BC-1 and BC-2 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the BC-1 and BC-2 zoning districts, efficiency living units are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units. Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (62) In the BR-1 and BR-2 Zoning District: (A) Review Process: In the BR-1 and BR-2 zoning districts, the following review process applies to efficiency living units: (i) Allowed Use: Efficiency living units are allowed by right if the use meets the following standards: a. Less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units and: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 1.a All units on the lot or parcel are permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981; or 2b. The use is not located on the ground floor along a major street, as defined by Appendix A, "Major Streets," B.R.C. 1981, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. The limitation on ground floor use along a major street applies to a depth of 30 feet measured from the building's major street facing façade. (ii) Use Review: Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. . . . Section 5. Section 9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the requirements for lot dimensions and building form, bulk, location and height for all types of development. All primary and accessory structures are subject to the dimensional standards set forth in Table 7-1 of this section with the exception of structures located in an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." No person shall use any land within the City authorized by Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except according to the following form and bulk requirements unless modified through a use review under Section 9- 2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or granted a variance under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or as approved under the provisions of Section 9-2-16, "Form-based code review," B.R.C. 1981. TABLE 7-1: FORM AND BULK STANDARDS Zoning District A RR- 1 RR- 2 RE RH- 2 RH- 5 P RL-1 RM-2 RMX- 1 BT- 2 BT- 1 BC BR IS- 1 IS- 2 IG IM RL-2 RM-1 RH-4 MU-1 RM-3 RH-1 RH-6 RMX-2 RH-3 RH-7 BCS MU- 3 BMS MU-4 DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-5 DT-4 MU-2 IMS MH Form module a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s SETBACK AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS(n) Principal Buildings and Uses(n) Minimum front yard landscaped setback (e), (h) 25' (k) 20' 15' 10' 0' (k) See section 9-7-13 Minimum front yard setback for all covered and uncovered 25' (k) 20' 20' 20' 10' 20' (k) See section 9-7-13 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 parking areas Maximum front yard landscaped setback for corner lots and side yards adjacent a street n/a n/a n/a 10' n/a n/a 10' 15' (k) n/a 10' n/a Maximum front yard landscaped setback for an interior lot n/a n/a n/a 15' n/a n/a 15' 15' n/a 15' n/a Minimum side yard landscaped setback from a street (a) 25' 12.5' (k) 15' 10' 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 0' or 5' (b) 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 0' (attached DUs); 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 5' min. (detached DUs) (i) 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 10' 0' for first and second stories 12' for third story and above 0' (k) 0' 0' n/a Minimum side yard setback from an interior lot line (b) 15' 10' 5' 10' 0' or 12' 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 5' min. (i) 0' or 5' 0' or 3' 0' (attached DUs); 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 5' min. (detached DUs) (i) 1' per 3' of bldg. height, 5' min. (i) 0' or 12' 0' or 5' 0' or 5' 0' or 12' 0' or 12' 0' or 5' See section 9-7-13 Minimum total for both side yard setbacks 40' 25' 20' 15' 20' n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum rear yard setback (f) 25' 25' 20' 10' 15' 20' 15' 20' 15' 0' 15' 15' 10' See section 9-7-13 Minimum side yard bulk plane See Section 9-7-9 n/a Minimum front yard setback from a street for all principal buildings and uses for third story and above n/a n/a n/a n/a 20' 15' (m) 15' 20' 20' Accessory Buildings and Uses(n) Minimum front yard setback uses (e) 55' 55' Behind rear wall of principal structure 55' Behind rear wall of principal structure Behind rear wall of principal structure 55' 55' Behind rear wall of principal structure 55' 55' Behind rear wall of principal structure See Section 9-7-13 Minimum side yard landscaped setback 25' 12.5' (k) 15' 10' 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' 0' or 5'(b) 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' 0' (attached DUs); 1' per 2' of bldg. 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 10' 0' 0' (k) 0' 0' n/a Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 from a street (a) min. (i) min. (i) height, 5' min. (detached DUs) (i) Minimum side yard setback from an interior lot line 15' 10' 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See Section 9-7-13 Minimum rear yard setback (f) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See Section 9-7-13 Minimum separation between accessory buildings and any other building 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' BUILDING SIZE AND COVERAGE LIMITATION (Accessory and Principal Buildings)(n) Maximum floor area of any principal building permitted by Chapter 9-8 See Section 9-8-2 (FAR Requirements) 15,000 sq. ft. See Section 9-8-2 (FAR Requirements) 15,000 sq. ft. See Section 9- 8-2 (FAR Requirements) 15,000 sq. ft. n/a Maximum accessory building coverage within principal building rear yard setback (9- 7-8) 500 sq. ft. n/a 500 sq. ft. n/a 500 sq. ft. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Maximum cumulative coverage of all accessory buildings regardless of location (m) For residential uses - no greater than coverage of the principal building Maximum total building coverage See Section 9-7-11 n/a See Section 9-7-11 n/a See Section 9-7-11 n/a PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT(n) Maximum height for principal buildings and uses (c), (d), (l) 35' 35'; 40' (in I- zones) 35' 35' 40' 35' 38' 38' 35' 35' Conditional height for principal buildings and uses See Section 9-7-6 for conditional height standards Maximum number of 3 3 n/a n/a 2 3 3 2 3 2 (3 on DT-5 2 3 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 stories for a building corner lots) Maximum wall height for detached dwelling units at zero lot line setback (9- 7-2(b)(3)) 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' n/a Maximum height for all accessory buildings, structures and uses (g) 20' (30' in agricultural zone) 20' (25' in industrial zones) 20' 20' 20' 20' FENCES, HEDGES and WALLS (for additional standards see Section 9-9-15 Maximum height of fences, hedges, or walls 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' Minimum height of fence on top of retaining wall 42" 42" 42" 42" 42" 42" Maximum combined height of fence/ retaining wall in side yard within 3' of lot line with neighbor approval 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS(n) Minimum ground floor window area facing a public street (9-9- 3) n/a n/a n/a n/a 60% 60% n/a n/a Primary building entrance location facing street n/a n/a yes yes yes yes n/a yes yes yes n/a Minimum percent of lot frontage that must contain a building or buildings n/a n/a n/a n/a 70% 70% 50% n/a Maximum % of 3rd story floor area that n/a n/a n/a 70% (j) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 can be in a 4th story Wall length articulation standards for side walls over 14' in height within 20' of side property line See Section 9-7-10 n/a See Section 9-7-10 n/a See Section 9-7-10 n/a Footnotes to Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards: In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city: (a) On corner lots, use principal building front yard setback where adjacent lot fronts upon the street. (b) For zero lot line development, including side yard setbacks from interior lot lines for townhouses, see Subsection 9-7-2(b), B.R.C. 1981. (c) The permitted height limit may be modified only in certain areas and only under the standards and procedures provided in Sections 9-2-14, "Site Review," and 9-7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981. (d) For buildings over 25 feet in height, see Subsection 9-9-11(c), B.R.C. 1981. (e) For other setback standards regarding garages, open parking areas, and flagpoles, see Paragraph 9-7-2(b)(8), B.R.C. 1981. (f) Where a rear yard backs on a street, see Paragraph 9-7-2(b)(7), B.R.C. 1981. (g) This maximum height limit applies to poles that are light poles at government-owned recreation facilities but not to other poles. Other poles have a maximum height of 55 feet in all zones. For additional criteria regarding poles, see Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (h) For front yard setback reductions, see Subsection 9-7-2(a), B.R.C. 1981. (i) For side yard setback requirements based on building height, see Appendix B, "Setback Relative to Building Height," of this title. (j) The maximum percentage of the third floor area that can be in a fourth story standard may not be modified as part of a site review. (k) For properties located in the DT-5 and P zoning districts and shown in Appendix I, the minimum setback shall be as required by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards or sixty-five feet measured from the centerline of Canyon Boulevard right-of-way. (l) For buildings on nonstandard lots within the RMX-1, RL-1, RE, RR-1, and RR-2 zoning districts, refer to Table 10-1, Maximum Height Formulas, within Section 9-10-3, "Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures and Lots and Nonconforming Uses." Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (m) For setback requirements on corner lots in the DT-5 zoning district, refer to Subsection 9-7- 6(c), B.R.C 1981. (n) For principal and accessory buildings or structures located on a lot or parcel designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," refer to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," for design standards applicable to such lot or parcel. With the exception of Charter Section 84, "Height limit," and Sections 9-7-3, "Setback Encroachments," and 9-7-5, "Building Heights," 9-7-7, "Building Height, Appurtenances," B.R.C. 1981, the form and bulk standards of this chapter are superseded by the requirements of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." Building heights in areas designated in Appendix L are not subject to the height limits of Table 9-7, Form and Bulk Standards. Section 6. Section 9-7-2, “Setback Standards” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Front Yard Setback Reductions: The front yard setback required in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced for a principal structure on any lot if more than fifty percent of the principal buildings on the same block face or street face do not meet the required front yard setback. The setback for the adjacent buildings and other buildings on the block face shall be measured from the property line to the bulk of the building, excluding, without limitation, any unenclosed porches, decks, patios or steps. The bulk of the building setback shall not be less than the average bulk of the building setback for the principal buildings on the two adjacent lots. Where there is only one adjacent lot, the front yard setback reduction shall be based on the average of the principal building setbacks on the two closest lots on the same block face. (See Figure 7-1 of this section.) Figure 7-1: Setback Averaging Example ______________________________________________________________________________ Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 In this example, lots "B" through "F" are the face block. Lot "A" is not included in the face block, as the front of this lot is on a different street. Setback averaging is measured to the bulk of the buildings and does not include porches. Assuming this block is zoned RL-1, the minimum required front yard setback would be twenty-five feet. The block face shown would qualify for setback averaging, as more than fifty percent of the principal buildings do not meet the required front yard setback. An addition to the front of lot "E" would require the averaging of the setbacks of lots "D" and "F", the two closest buildings on the same block face. In this example the resulting setback would be 20 feet - the average of lot "D" (fifteen feet) and lot "F" (twenty-five feet). An addition to the front of lot "F" would be based on the average of the two closest buildings on the same block face; in this case, lots "D" and "E." (b) Side Yard Setback Standards: (1) Setbacks for Upper Floors in Non-Residential Zoning Districts: A principal building constructed with a side yard setback of zero for the first story above grade in the BC-2, BR-1, DT-1, DT-2, DT-3, DT-4, DT-5, IS-1, IG or IM zoning districts, where the side yard setback is noted as "0 or 12," will be allowed to set back stories above the first story that is at or above the finished grade the greater of five feet or the distance required by Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981. (2) Maintenance Easements Required in Residential Zoning Districts: In residential zoning districts that allow a zero side yard or rear yard setback, the applicant shall be required to secure a recorded maintenance easement from the adjoining property owner if the zero setback side is not attached to another structure. The easement shall be effective for the life of the building. The easement shall not be less than three feet in width measured parallel to that portion of the building at zero setback. (3) Wall Height for Residential Zero Lot Line: The maximum wall height for detached dwelling units at the zero setback property line shall be twelve feet. Townhouses, consistent with Paragraph (7), below, are not subject to this restriction. (4) Calculating Residential Zero Lot Line Side Yard Setbacks: For detached dwelling units, the side yard setback opposite the zero setback property line shall be the sum of both side yards for the district. (5) Combined Side Yard Setbacks: When combined side yard setbacks are required by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, the resulting structure, including the existing structure and any addition, must meet the combined side yard setback requirements. (See Figure 7-2 of this section for compliant and noncompliant examples.) Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Figure 7-2: Combined Side Yard Setbacks ______________________________________________________________________________ Example: In the RL-1 district, the combination of side yard setbacks must be no less than fifteen feet, with a minimum of five feet. Both existing structures and additions (hatched) are included in the calculation. (6) Existing Nonstandard Side Yard Setbacks for Existing Single-Family Detached Dwelling Units: A second story addition that does not comply with the minimum interior or combined side yard setbacks may be added to an existing single family detached dwelling unit subject to the following: (A) The interior side yard setback for the existing single family detached dwelling unit complied with the setback requirements in existence at the time of initial construction and was not created by a variance or other procedure; (B) The resulting interior side yard setback will not be less than five feet and combined side yard setbacks will not be less than ten feet; (C) That portion of the building in the side yard setback shall vertically align with the existing first story wall. (7) Townhouses: There is no minimum side yard setback from an interior lot line between one townhouse and an adjoining townhouse. (c) Rear Yard Setbacks: Where a rear yard backs on a street, the rear yard shall have a minimum landscaped setback equal to the minimum front yard landscaped setback from a street for all buildings and uses required for that zone. (d) Open Parking Areas, Flagpoles, and Detached Garages and Carports: Open parking areas, flagpoles, and detached garages and carports may be located in compliance with either the required principal building setbacks or accessory building setbacks. (e) Swimming Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs: Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs shall be located according to the applicable accessory structure setbacks on a lot except that pools, spas, or hot tubs may be located in compliance with the required front yard principal building setback. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 7. Section 9-7-10, “Side Yard Wall Articulation” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Purpose: Buildings with tall side walls may impact privacy, views or visual access to the sky on neighboring properties. The purpose of the side yard wall articulation standard is to reduce the perceived mass of a building by dividing it into smaller components, or to step down the wall height in order to enhance privacy, preserve views and visual access to the sky for lots or parcels that are adjacent to new development. (b) Scope: All construction related to principal and accessory buildings shall comply with the side yard wall length articulation requirements of this section. This section applies to all construction related to buildings, including new construction, expansion or modification of existing buildings as follows: (1) All residential buildings in the RR-1, RR-2, RE and RL-1 zoning districts, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments and planned unit developments. (2) All buildings that are used as a detached single family land use in the RMX-1 zoning district, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments and planned unit developments. (3) In the RL-2 zoning district, the side yard wall articulation requirements shall apply to lots that are eight thousand square feet or larger, used for detached single family land use that are not within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development, planned unit development or an approved site review. (4) In the RL-2 zoning district, the requirements shall apply to all lots and parcels used for detached single family land use that are within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development and planned unit development that are shown on Appendix H of this title. (c) Side Yard Wall Standards: Along each side yard property line, the cumulative length of any walls that exceed a height of fourteen feet shall not exceed forty feet in length, unless they are set back at least fourteen feet from the side property line (see Figure 7-14). For the purposes of this section, wall height shall be measured from finished grade as follows: (1) Sloped roofs shall be measured from adjacent finished grade to the point where the vertical wall intersects with the sloped roof. (2) Flat roofs shall be measured from adjacent finished grade to the top of the parapet. (3) Window wells or door wells as described under Subparagraph 9-8-2(e)(1)(D) shall not be counted as part of the wall height. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Figure 7-14: Side Yard Wall Length Articulation Examples ______________________________________________________________________________ After the maximum 40 feet cumulative wall length, the wall must either be set back from the side property line by a minimum of fourteen feet (top image) or the height of the wall must re duce to fourteen feet or less (bottom image). (d) Exemptions: (1) Individual Landmarks and Buildings Within Historic Districts. No wall shall be constructed or maintained in excess of the required wall articulation standards of this section except for any construction approved pursuant to Section 9-11-12, "Landmark Alteration Certificate Required," B.R.C. 1981, for an individual landmark or for a property within a historic district. (2) Lots with an average width less than forty-five linear feet. Width measurements would be taken at the front yard setback, midpoint of the lot and rear yard setback to determine the average lot width. (3) Lots that have less than four thousand square feet. (4) The side yard wall articulation standards shall not apply to an interior side yard of a lot that is adjacent to a lot that includes either only a nonresidential principal land use. or a lot that includes two or more dwelling units within twenty feet of the property line for the length of the nonresidential building or the principal building of such dwelling units. Section 8. Section 9-7-1, “Maximum Building Coverage” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Purpose: The purposes of the building coverage standards are to establish the maximum percentage of lot surface that may be covered by principal and accessory buildings to preserve open space on the lot, and to preserve some views and visual access to the sky and enhance privacy for residences that are adjacent to new development. (b) Scope: All construction related to principal and accessory buildings shall comply with the building coverage requirements of this section. This section applies to all construction Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 related to residential buildings, including new construction, building additions or modification of existing buildings as follows: (1) All residential and principal and accessory buildings in the RR-1, RR-2, RE and RL-1 zoning districts, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments and planned unit developments. (2) All principal and accessory buildings that are used as a detached single family land use in the RMX-1 zoning district, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments and planned unit developments. (3) In the RL-2 zoning district, the building coverage requirements shall apply to lots that are eight thousand square feet or larger, used for detached single family land uses that are not within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development, planned unit development or an approved site review. (4) In the RL-2 zoning district, the requirements shall apply to all lots and parcels used for detached single family land use that are within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development and planned unit development that are shown on Appendix H of this title. (c) Maximum Building Coverage: All principal and accessory buildings shall be constructed in a manner that does not exceed the maximum building coverage in Table 7-2 below. For projects subject to site review in Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, the building coverage calculation shall be based upon each dwelling unit that is proposed for the property. TABLE 7-2: MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Lot Size: < 5,000 SF 5,000 to 10,000 SF 10,001 to 22,500 SF > 22,500 SF RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, RL-2 and RMX-1 Lot Size x 0.41 (Lot Size x 0.2) + 1,050 (Lot Size x 0.116) + 1,890 Lot Size x 0.20 (d) Encroachments: No building or portion thereof shall be constructed or maintained in violation of the building coverage requirements of this section, except for any construction approved pursuant to Section 9-11-12, "Landmark Alteration Certificate Required," B.R.C. 1981, for an individual landmark or within a historic district. Section 9. Section 9-8-1, “Scheduled of Intensity Standards” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the requirements for the allowed intensity of all types of development, including maximum density for residential developments based on allowed number of units and occupancy. All primary and accessory structures are subject to the standards set forth in Table 8-1 of this section except that developments within an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards or Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," are exempt from Table 8-1 and Sections 9-8-1 through 9-8-4, B.R.C. 1981. Developments within an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards or Appendix M, "Form-Based Code ," are subject to the standards of Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Sections 9-8-5, "Occupancy of Dwelling Units," 9-8-6, "Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences," and 9-8-7, "Density and Occupancy of Efficiency Living Units," B.R.C. 1981. No person shall use any land within the city authorized by Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except according to the following requirements unless modified through a use review under Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or granted a variance under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or approved through a form-based code review under Section 9-2- 16, "Form-Based Code Review," B.R.C. 1981. TABLE 8-1: INTENSITY STANDARDS Zoning District Intensity Module Mini mum Lot Area (in squar e feet unles s other wise noted ) Minim um Lot Area Per Dwellin g Unit (square feet)(cb) Num ber of Dwell ing Units Per Acre(c ) Minimu m Open Space Per Dwelling Unit (square feet)(cb) Minimu m Open Space on Lots (Reside ntial Uses)(cb) Minimum Open Space on Lots (Nonresid ential Uses)(a), (cb) Minimu m Private Open Space (Reside ntial Uses) (square feet)(cb) Maxi mum Floor Area Ratio( cb) Mixed-use developments require the greater amount of the residential or nonresidential standard for open space. See Section 9-9-11 for additional open space requirements. A 1 5 acres 5 acres 0.2 - - 10-20% - - RR-1, RR-2 2 30,00 0 30,000 1.4 - - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 RE 3 15,00 0 15,000 7,500 2.9- - - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 RL-1 4 7,000 7,000 6.2 - - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 P 5 7,000 7,000 6.2 - - 10-20% - - RL-2 6 - - - 6,000 - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 RMX-1 7 6,000 6,000 7.3 600 - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 RMX-2 (e) 8 - - See footnot e (e) 10 (up to 20 by site revie w) - 15% 15% 60 - Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 RM-1 9 - - 3,000 - 10-20% - - IS-2 10 - - - 600 - 10-20% 60 0.5:1 IS-1 11 7,000 - - - - 10-20% 60 0.5:1 RH-1, RH-2 12 - - - 1,600- - 10-2040% - - 0.67 RH-2 12.5 6,000 3,000 (down to 1,600 by Site revie w) 14 (up to 27.2 by site review) 600 - 10-20% - - RM-2, RM- 3 13 6,000 3,500 12.4 - - 10-20% - - RH-3, RH-7 14 - - - - 6030%(b ) 6030%(b) 60 - RH-7 14.5 - - - 60% (d) 60%(d) 60 - RH-4, BT-1, BC-1 15 - - - 1,200 - 10-2030% - - 1.0 BR-2 16 - - - - 40%(dc) 10-20%(dc) 60 - BMS 17 - - - - 15%(dc) 15%(dc) 60 0.67 (1.85 if withi n CAGI D or UHGI D)(dc) RH-6 17.5 - 1,800 - 600 - - - - MU-1, MU- 2, IMS 18 - - - - 15%(dc) 15%(dc) 60 0.6:1 RH-5, BC-1, BC-2 19 6,000 1,600(d) - 27.2 - 600 (400 by site review if in a mixed use develop ment)- - 10-2015% - - 1.5 IM 20 7,000 1,600 - 27.2 - 600 - 10-20% 60 0.4:1 BT-2 21 6,000 1,600 27.2 600 - 10-20% - 0.5:1 IG 22 7,000 1,600 - 27.2 - 600 - 10-20% 60 0.5:1 BR-1 23 6,000 1,600 - 27.2(d ) - - - 10-20% - 2.0 :1(dc) MU-3 24 - - - - 15%(dc) 15%(dc) 60 1.0:1 MU-4 24.5 - - - - 15% 15% 60 2.0 DT-1 25 - - - - - 10-20%(dc) 60 1.0:1 DT-2 26 - - - - - 10-20%(dc) 60 1.5:1 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 DT-3, DT-4, DT-5 27 - - - - - 10-20%(dc) 60 1.7:1 BCS 28 - - - - - 10-20% - - Footnotes: (a) This requirement may increase based on building height pursuant to Subsection 9-9-11(c), B.R.C. 1981. (b) Open space may be reduced using the standards in Sections 9-8-3, "Density in the RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and RH-7 Districts," and 9-9-11, "Useable Open Space," B.R.C. 1981. (c) For properties within an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," the footnoted requirement is not applicable. Refer to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," for specific form, bulk, intensity, and outdoor space requirements. (dc) This requirement may be modified pursuant to Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981, for specified zoning districts. (d) Open space per lot in the RH-7 zoning district may be reduced from sixty percent to thirty percent of the lot as part of a site review if at least half of the open space provided meets the open space requirements of Paragraph 9-9-11(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981. (e) Dwelling units per acre on a lot or parcel in the RMX-2 zone are limited to 10 dwelling units per acre. This limitation may be modified up to 20 dwelling units per acre pursuant to a site review. (-) No standard. Section 10. Section 9-8-2, “Floor Area Ratio Requirements” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Purpose: The purpose of the floor area ratio requirements is to limit the impacts of the use that result from increased building size. (b) Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The maximum floor area ratio on a lot or parcel shall be the greatest of the following: (1) The floor area set forth in this section; (2) The floor area approved prior to June 3, 1997, as part of a valid existing or unexpired planned development (PD), planned residential development (PRD), planned unit development (PUD), or a site review; or (3) The floor area on the lot or parcel on June 3, 1997. (c) Registration and Calculation or FAR for Existing Buildings: Building floor area on a lot or parcel that exceeds the floor area ratio set forth in this section may be registered with the city manager by June 16, 1998. The manager shall determine the type of information necessary to verify the floor area. If such floor area is not registered within one year, the floor area of the lot or parcel shall be the greater of the following: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (1) The floor area ratios for the underlying zoning district; (2) The floor area on the lot or parcel on June 3, 1997, according to city building records or county assessor records. Upon a determination that an error exists in the calculation of the floor area under Paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the city manager will correct such error. (dc) Calculating Floor Area Ratios and Floor Area Ratio Additions: The floor area ratio shall be calculated based on all buildings on a lot according to the definitions in Chapter 9-16, B.R.C., 1981, "Floor Area," "Floor Area Ratio," "Uninhabitable Space," and "Basement". In addition to the floor area ratio limitations set forth in Table 8-1, Intensity Standards, B.R.C. 1981, floor area ratio additions may be added above the base floor area ratio and certain floor areas may be excluded from the floor area calculations as set forth in Table 8-2 of this section. TABLE 8-2: FLOOR AREA RATIO ADDITIONS DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 MU- 1(c) MU- 2(c) MU-3 BT-2 BMS(c ) IS-1, IS-2(c) IG IM IMS( c) BR-1(c) RH-1, RH-2 RH-4 RH-5, BC-1, BC-2 Base FAR 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.67(a) 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 - 2.0 0.67 1.0 1.5 Maximum total FAR additions (FAR)(d) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.07 - - - 0.33 - - 1.0 - 1.0 - - - - FAR additional components: 1) Residenti al floor area (FAR) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0(b) - - - - - - Not count ed1.0( e) Not counted- 1.0(e) - - - - - 2) Residenti al floor area if at least 35% of units are permane ntly affordabl e and at least 50% of total floor area is residentia l (FAR) - - - - - 0.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - 3) Residenti al floor area for a project NOT located in a general improvem ent district that provides - - - - - - - - - 0.33 - - - - - - - - - Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 off-street parking 4) Floor area used as off- street parking and vehicular circulatio n that is above grade and provided entirely within the structure 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed - Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed Not counted Not cou nted - Not count ed Not counted Not count ed Not count ed 5) Below grade area used for occupanc y Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed - - - Not count ed Not count ed - - - - - - - - 6) Nonresid ential floor area (FAR) (see Paragraph 9-8- 2(ed)(3) and Section 4- 20-62, Table 4) - - - - 1.0(b) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Maximum allowable FAR (sum of base plus all available additions) 2.0 + row 5 2.0 + row 5 2.7 + row 5 2.2 + row 5 2.7 + row 5 0.67. + row 4 above + row 4 above 1.0 + row 4 above 0.5 + row 5 above 1.0 + rows 4 and 5 above 0.5 + row 4 above 0.5 + rows 1 and 4 above 0.4 + rows 1 and 4 above 0.6 + row 4 abo ve 32.0(c) + row 4 above 0.67 + row 4 above 1.0 + row 4 above 1.5 + row 4 above Footnotes: (a) FAR up to 1.85:1 if property is located in a general improvement district providing off- street parking. (b) The maximum additional FAR component is 1.0. FAR additional components may be combined, but shall not exceed the 1.0 maximum total floor are ratio limit. (c) See Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(6)(CB), B.R.C. 1981. (d) For properties located in an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," the floor area and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements do not apply. Refer to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," for specific form, bulk, intensity, and outdoor space requirements. (e) See Subsection 9-6-3(a)(2), B.R.C. 1981. (-) Not applicable. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (ed) District-Specific Standards: (1) Maximum Floor Area in the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, RL-2, and RMX-1 Zoning Districts: (A) Purpose: The purpose of a floor area ratio standard is to address the proportionality of building size to lot size and allow variation in building form within the established building envelope. (B) Scope: All construction related to principal and accessory buildings shall comply with the floor area ratio requirements of this section. This section applies to all construction related to residence residential buildings, including new construction, building additions, or modification of existing buildings as follows: (i) All residential and principal and accessory buildings in the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 zoning districts, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments, and planned unit developments. (ii) All principal and accessory buildings that are used as a detached single- family land use in the RMX-1 zoning district, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments, and planned unit developments. (iii) In the RL-2 zoning district, the floor area ratio requirements shall apply to lots that are 8,000 square feet or larger, used for detached single-family land uses that are not within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development, planned unit development, or an approved site review. (iv) In the RL-2 zoning district, the floor area ratio requirements shall apply to all lots and parcels used for detached single-family land use that are within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development, and planned unit development that are shown on Appendix H to this title. (v) For projects subject to site review in Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, the floor area shall be calculated based upon each dwelling unit that is proposed for the propertylot or parcel. Each dwelling unit within a development shall not exceed the floor area ratio that is specifically associated with the land area for such dwelling unit as part of a site review. (C) Maximum Floor Area Permitted: The maximum floor area shall be the floor area that is in Table 8-3, "Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Residential Land Uses." TABLE 8-3: MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Lot Size: < 5,000 SF 5,000 to 10,000 SF 10,001 to 22,500 SF > 22,500 SF RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1 and RL-2 0.62:1 (Lot Size x 0.2) + 2,100 (Lot Size x 0.122) + 2,880 0.25:1 Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Lot Size: < 4,000 SF 4,000 to 4,999 SF 5,000 to 6,499 SF 6,500 to 10,000 SF > 10,000 SF RMX-1 0.74:1 (Lot Size x 0.20) + 2,150 (Lot Size x 0.20) + 2,320 (Lot Size x 0.195) + 2,450 0.42:1 (D) Floor Area Counted: The maximum floor area allowed includes the floor area of all levels. (i) The amount of contributing floor area of the lowest level shall be calculated as follows: (Length of the perimeter of the wall that is exposed more than 3 feet above adjacent finished grade) ÷ (Total length of the perimeter of the wall) = (the percentage of the floor area that is counted on lowest level). See Figure 8- 1. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Window wells or door wells shall not be considered an exposed wall if the following standards are met: distance of the opening of the well is no more than four feet, measured perpendicular to the wall; the well does not exceed five feet in length measured parallel to the wall; and the cumulative length of all wells along any front, rear, or side yard does not exceed twenty feet in length for each such yard. Figure 8-1: Floor Area Ratio Calculation for Lowest Level Floor with Totally or Partially Exposed Walls Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Wall area A is partially exposed above grade by three feet or less. Wall area B is exposed above grade by more than three feet. For example: (Length of wall B) / (Length of wall A + B) = The percent of floor area calculated towards FAR. (ii) The floor area of a high volume space where the distance between any floor and the bottom of the framed ceiling directly above it is sixteen feet or more shall be counted twice. If the distance between any floor and the bottom of the framed ceiling above it is twenty-six feet or more, the floor area shall be counted three times. Up to 150 square feet of a stairwell shall not be considered a high volume space subject to the requirements of this paragraph. High Volume Spaces (E) Floor Area Exempt for Accessory Buildings in Historic Districts and associated with Individual Landmarks: Floor area for accessory buildings may be exempted from the maximum floor area permitted if the following standards are met: (i) The accessory building contributes to the historic significance of an individual landmark or a historic district; (ii) The accessory building was built during the individual landmark or historic district's period of significance; (iii) Only that portion of the accessory building built during the period of significance is eligible for an exemption; and (iv) The floor area subject to this exemption is added to another principal or accessory building on the same property and approved as part of a landmark Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 alteration certificate pursuant to Section 9-11-12, "Landmark Alteration Certificate Required," B.R.C. 1981. (2) Below-Grade Area Used for Occupancy in the DT Zoning Districts. Any below-grade area used for occupancy in the DT zoning districts will not be counted towards the maximum floor area permitted on the property. For the purposes of this paragraph, below-grade areas are those areas that are completely below grade on the side of the building to which the front yard setback standards apply or the side the approving authority determines is the predominant frontage of pedestrian access from the public right-of-way for the block face. (32) Maximum Additional Floor Area: (A) In the DT-2 district, the maximum FAR additional components floor area consisting of either residential floor area, parking within the principal building or detached garages that is not included in the FAR calculation is 0.5 FAR. (B) In the DT-5 district, the maximum FAR additional components that can be added to the base FAR in Table 8-2 shall be a floor area ratio of 1.0. Each component of the additional FAR shall not exceed the maximum FAR additional components listed in Table 8-2. To be eligible for the nonresidential floor area, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the housing linkage fee in Section 4-20-62, "Capital Facility Impact Fee," B.R.C. 1981, for each square foot of additional floor area above the base floor area ratio for which the addition is requested. (43) Floor Area Transfers in the DT-5 Zoning Districts: In the DT-5 district, floor area may be transferred from one lot or parcel to another lot or parcel, as provided for by this paragraph. Approval of a floor area transfer shall permit the transfer of all of the supplemental floor area permitted by Table 8-2 of this section to another lot or parcel and permit the same amount of unrestricted floor area to be constructed on the parcel from which the bonus floor area was sent. A floor area transfer will be approved if the approving authority finds that the following criteria have been met as a part of a site review approval pursuant to Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981: (A) The lot or parcel from which the floor area is transferred is adjacent to, with a common boundary between, the two lots or parcels. Adjacency shall not be affected by the existence of a public right-of-way; (B) Both the sending and receiving lots or parcels are located in the same zoning district as the lot that will receive the additional floor area; (C) The floor area on either lot or parcel does not exceed the floor area allowed, with floor area bonuses for each lot or parcel; and (D) A phasing plan that addresses the timing of the construction of all of the floor area is approved that ensures that the bonus floor area will be constructed prior to or concurrent with any unrestricted floor area that is transferred to another lot or parcel. (5) Floor Area Transfers in the MU-1 District: In an MU-1 zoning district, the floor area permitted by Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and this Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 may be transferred from one lot or parcel to another lot or parcel, in excess of the single lot requirements, if the approving authority finds that such transfer meets the site design criteria and is approved as part of a single site review application under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (64) General Improvement Districts Providing Off-Street Parking: In the BMS district, the FAR may be increased up to 1.85 if the property is located in a general improvement district providing off-street parking. (75) BR-1 Districts: In the BR-1 district, the FARLand Use Intensity and Height Modifications: The floor area ratio in select zoning districts may be increased pursuant to Section 9-2-14(h)(6), "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (8) Floor Area Transfers in the IG, IM, or IS Zoning Districts: In an IG, IM, or IS zoning district, floor area may be transferred to a lot or parcel in excess of the maximum floor area ratio set forth in Table 8-2 of this section if the approving authority finds that the following criteria have been met as a part of a site review approval pursuant to Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981: (A) The lot or parcel from which the floor area is transferred is adjacent to and in the same zoning district as the lot that will receive the additional floor area; and (B) The lot or parcel from which the floor area is transferred is vacant. Section 11. Section 9-8-3, “Density in the RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and RH-7 Districts” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Additional Density in the RH-1 District: In the RH-1 zoning district, the planning board may reduce the minimum open space per dwelling unit of 1,600 square feet per dwelling unit to 800 square feet of open space per dwelling unit pursuant to site review approval. (b) Additional Density in the RH-2 District: In the RH-2 zoning district, the planning board may reduce the minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit to 1,600 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit pursuant to site review approval. (c) Maximum Floor Area: In the RH-1 zoning district, 800 square feet of floor area will be permitted for each dwelling unit in a development: (1) The floor area shall include all habitable area within the dwelling unit that is designed for or intended to be used for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, laundry, or personal storage. (2) The floor area does not include garages and common facilities. Common facilities are elements routinely used in multi-family projects which include, without limitation, hallways, stairs, and utility rooms that are shared by all occupants of a development. (3) The total floor area permitted in a development is the product of the number of allowed dwelling units multiplied by 800, and such dwelling units and square footage may be configured in any way which produces a number equal to or less than such product. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1-1-22, "Rounding Rule," B.R.C. 1981, a fraction of a permitted unit allowed by the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement may be included in calculating the allowable floor area. (da) Additional Density in the RH-3 and RH-7 Districts: In the RH-3 and RH-7 zoning districts, the open space per lot may be reduced from sixty percent to thirty percent of the lot if at least half of the open space provided meets the open space requirements of Paragraph 9-9- 11(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981. (eb) Minimum Lot Area for Two Dwelling Units in the RH-1 and RH-2 zoning districts: Two attached units may be developed on a lot in the RH-1 and RH-2 districts without a site review if the lot is a minimum of five thousand square feet in area and the structures meet the setback requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, or the requirements of Section 9-7-12, "Two Detached Dwellings on a Single Lot," B.R.C. 1981, are met. (f) Exemption for Existing Single-Family Dwellings: Single-family dwellings in the RH-1 and RH-2 districts constructed prior to September 2, 1993, may be increased in size without planning board review and shall be exempt from the parking requirements of table 9-1, Subsection 9-9-6(b), B.R.C. 1981, if the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner of the property executes a declaration of use, in a form acceptable to the city manager, stating that the dwelling will continue to be used as a single-family dwelling; (2) The dwelling contains no more than one kitchen; and (3) At least one off-street parking space, in compliance with city standards, is provided. Section 12. Section 9-7-10, “Parking Standards” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: . . . (2) Use Specific Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements for Residential Uses: TABLE 9-2: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES Use Parking Requirement Roomers within a single-unit dwelling 1 space per 2 roomers Residential developments in which 1-bedroom units are 60 percent or more of the total 1.25 spaces per 1-bedroom unit Rooming house, boarding house, fraternity, sorority, group living and hostels 2 spaces per 3 occupants Efficiency units, transitional housing 1 space per DU Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Bed and breakfast 1 space per guest room + 1 space for operator or owner's DU within building Attached accessory 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 unit, see Subsection 9-6- 3(n), B.R.C. 1981 Group homes: residential, custodial or congregate care Off-street parking appropriate to use and needs of the facility and the number of vehicles used by its occupants, as determined through review Overnight shelter 1 space for each 20 occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility, plus 1 space for each employee or volunteer that may be on site at any given time computed on the basis of the maximum numbers of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time Day shelter Use the same ratio as general nonresidential uses in the zone Emergency shelter 1 space for each 20 occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility, plus 1 space for each employee or volunteer that may be on site at any given time computed on the basis of the maximum numbers of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time, plus 1 space for each attached type dwelling unit DExisting duplexes or attached multi-family dwelling units in the RR, RE and RL-1 zoning districts Greater of 1.5 spaces per unit or number of spaces required when units were established 1 per unit . . . (e) Motor Vehicle Parking Deferrals: (1) Criteria for Parking Deferral: The city manager may defer the construction and provision of up to ninety percent of the off-street parking spaces required by this section, in an industrial district, thirty-five percent in a commercial district, and twenty percent in any other district if an applicant demonstrates that: (A) The character of the use lowers the anticipated need for off-street parking, and data from similar uses establishes that there is not a present need for the parking; (B) The use is immediately proximate to public transportation that serves a significant proportion of residents, employees, or customers; (C) There is an effective private or company car pool, van pool, bus, or similar group transportation program; or (D) The deferred percentage of residents, employees, and customers regularly walk or use bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicular forms of transportation. (2) Parking Deferral With a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a public hearing, the city manager will make a recommendation to the approving agency to approve, modify and approve, or deny the parking deferral as part of the use review approval. a parking deferral pursuant to this subsection, the parking deferral shall be considered in conjunction with the use review decision and not before. The approving authority and process for the parking deferral shall be the same as the use review. … (f) Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions: Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (1) Parking Reduction Process: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the requirements of this subsection are met. The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed twenty-five percent of the required parking. Parking reductions greater than twenty-five percent may be granted as part of a site review approval under Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. The city manager may grant a parking reduction for commercial developments, industrial developments and mixed use developments to allow the reduction of at least one parking space, with the total reduction not to exceed twenty- five percent of the required parking, if the manager finds that the requirements of Paragraph (f)(3) below are met. The city manager may grant a parking reduction exceeding twenty-five percent for those uses that are nonconforming only as to parking, if the manager finds that the requirements of Subparagraph (f)(1)(B) of this section have been met. Parking reductions are approved based on the operating characteristics of a specific use. No person shall change a use of land that is subject to a parking reduction except in compliance with the provisions of this subsection. For any parking reductions exceeding ten percent or if the parking reduction is being reviewed in conjunction with a site review, the applicant shall provide a parking study and transportation demand management (TDM) plan. Alternative administrative parking reductions (to the process set forth in this paragraph (f)(1) and the criteria of paragraph (f)(2)) by land use are found in paragraph (f)(3) and for standards related to nonconforming uses are found in paragraph (f)(4). (A) Parking Reduction for Housing for the Elderly: The city manager may reduce by up to seventy percent the number of parking spaces required by this chapter for governmentally sponsored housing projects for the elderly. (B) Uses With Nonconforming Parking: The city manager is authorized to approve a parking reduction to allow an existing nonresidential use that does not meet the current off-street parking requirements of subsection (b) of this section, to be replaced or expanded subject to compliance with the following standards: (i) An existing permitted nonresidential use in an existing building may be replaced by another permitted nonresidential use if the new use has the same or lesser parking requirement as the use being replaced. (ii) A nonconforming nonresidential use in an existing building may be replaced by a conforming nonresidential use or another nonconforming nonresidential use, pursuant to Subsection 9-10-3(c), B.R.C. 1981, if the permitted or nonconforming replacement use has the same or lesser parking requirement as the use being replaced. (iii) An existing or replacement nonresidential use, whether conforming or nonconforming, that does not meet current parking requirements, shall not be expanded in floor area or seating or be replaced by a use that has an increased parking requirement unless a use review pursuant to Section 9-2- 15“, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a corresponding parking reduction pursuant to this subsection (f) are approved. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (iv) Before approving a parking reduction pursuant to this subsection, the city manager shall evaluate the existing parking arrangement to determine whether it can accommodate additional parking or be rearranged to accommodate additional parking in compliance with the design requirements of subsection (d) of this section. If the city manager finds that additional parking can reasonably be provided, the provision of such parking shall be a condition of approval of the requested reduction. (v) A nonconforming use shall not be replaced with a use, whether conforming or nonconforming, that generates a need for more parking. (2) Residential Parking Reductions: Parking reductions for residential projects may be granted as part of a site review approval under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (3) Parking Reduction Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, Tthe city managerapproving authority may approve reductions of up to and including twenty-five percent ofreduce the parking requirements of this section (see Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if the managerit finds that the parking needs of all uses in the project will be adequately accommodated. In making this determination, the approving authority shall consider without limitation: (A) The parking needs of the use will be adequately served through on-street parking or off-street parking; (B) A mix of residential uses with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; (C) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; or (D) The applicant provides an acceptable proposal for an alternate modes of transportation program, including a description of existing and proposed facilities, proximity to existing transit lines, and assurances that the use of alternate modes of transportation will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis. (A) Whether the probable number of all motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwelling units in the project will be adequately accommodated; (B) The availability of off-street and nearby on-street parking; (C) Whether any proposed shared parking can adequately accommodate the parking needs of different uses of the project considering daytime and nighttime variability of the parking needs of uses; (D) The effectiveness of any multimodal transportation program that is proposed at reducing the parking needs of the project. Applications including such programs shall describe any existing or proposed facilities and proximity to transit lines and Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 demonstrate that use of multimodal transportation options will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis; and (E) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, whether the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. (43) Alternative administrative parking reductions by land use: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. The reductions under this paragraph shall not be permitted to be combined with the parking reductions available in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(4) of this section. (A) Housing for Older Adults: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking by up to seventy percent for governmentally sponsored housing projects for adults 65 and over. (B) Alternative Parking Reduction Standards for Mixed Use Developments: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. These standards shall not be permitted to be combined with the parking reduction standards in Paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(5) of this section, unless approved as part of a site review pursuant to Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. A mixed use development may reduce that The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking in a mixed-use development by up to ten percent in the BMS, IMS, MU-1, MU-2, MU-3 and MX-2 zoning districts, or in all other nonresidential zoning districts in Section 9- 5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981 by up to twenty-five percent, a twenty-five- percent parking reduction if the following requirements are met: (Ai) The project is a mixed use development that includes, as part of an integrated development plan, both residential and nonresidential uses. Residential uses shall comprise at least thirty-three percent of the floor area of the development; and (Bii) The property is within a quarter of a mile walking distance to a high frequency transit route that provides service intervals of fifteen minutes or less during peak periods. This measurement shall be made along standard pedestrian routes from the property. (C) Religious Assemblies: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking to permit additional floor area within the assembly area of a religious assembly which is located within three hundred feet of the Central Area General Improvement District if the applicant has made arrangements to use public parking within close proximity of the use and that the building modifications proposed are primarily for the weekend and evening activities when there is less demand for use of public parking areas. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (4) Uses With Nonconforming Parking: The city manager is authorized to approve a parking reduction to allow an existing nonresidential use that does not meet the current off-street parking requirements of subsection (b) of this section, to be replaced or expanded subject to compliance with the following standards: (A) The use may be replaced by another permitted nonresidential use if the new use has the same or lesser parking requirement as the use being replaced. (B) The use may be replaced by a conforming nonresidential use or another nonconforming nonresidential use, pursuant to Subsection 9-10-3(c), B.R.C. 1981, if the permitted or nonconforming replacement use has the same or lesser parking requirement as the use being replaced. (C) An existing or replacement nonresidential use, whether conforming or nonconforming, that does not meet current parking requirements, shall not be expanded in floor area or seating or be replaced by a use that has an increased parking requirement unless a use review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a corresponding parking reduction pursuant to this subsection (f) are approved. (D) Before approving a parking reduction pursuant to this subsection, the city manager shall evaluate the existing parking arrangement to determine whether it can accommodate additional parking or be rearranged to accommodate additional parking in compliance with the design requirements of subsection (d) of this section. If the city manager finds that additional parking can reasonably be provided, the provision of such parking shall be a condition of approval of the requested reduction. (E) The use shall not be replaced with a use, whether conforming or nonconforming, that generates a need for more parking. (5) Limiting Factors for Parking Reductions: The city manager will consider the following additional factors to determine whether a parking reduction under this section may be appropriate for a given use: (A) A parking deferral pursuant to subsection (e) of this section is not practical or feasible for the property. (B) The operating characteristics of the proposed use are such that granting the parking reduction will not cause unreasonable negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. (C) The parking reduction will not limit the use of the property for other uses that would otherwise be permitted on the property. (6) Parking Reduction With a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a public hearing, the city manager will make a recommendation to the approving agency to approve, modify and approve, or deny the parking reduction as part of the use review approval. a parking reduction pursuant to this subsection, the parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with the use review decision and not before. The approving authority and process for the parking reduction shall be the same as for the use review. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 (7) No Changes to Use: No person benefiting from a parking reduction shall make any changes to the use that would increase parking. (8) Parking Reductions for Religious Assemblies: The city manager will grant a parking reduction to permit additional floor area within the assembly area of a religious assembly which is located within three hundred feet of the Central Area General Improvement District if the applicant can demonstrate that it has made arrangements to use public parking within close proximity of the use and that the building modifications proposed are primarily for the weekend and evening activities when there is less demand for use of public parking areas. . . . Section 13. Section 9-12-12, “Standards for Lots and Public Improvements” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Conditions Required: Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, subdivision plats shall comply with Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981, and meet the following conditions: (1) Standards for Lots: Lots meet the following conditions: (A) Each lot has access to a public street. (B) Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, eEach lot has at least thirty feet of frontage on a public street. (C) Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, nNo portion of a lot is narrower than thirty feet. (D) Each townhouse lot has at least fifteen feet of frontage on a public street, and no portion of a townhouse lot is narrower than fifteen feet. Townhouse lots that do not meet the standards of paragraphs (B) or (C) above shall be used solely for townhouses. (DE)Lots and existing structures meet all applicable zoning requirements of this title and Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. (EF) Lots with double frontage are avoided, except where necessary to provide separation from major arterials or incompatible land uses or because of the slope of the lot. (FG)Side lot lines are substantially at right angles or radial to the centerline of streets, whenever feasible. (GH)Corner lots are larger than other lots to accommodate setback requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (HI) Residential lots are shaped so as to accommodate a dwelling unit within the setbacks prescribed by the zoning district. (IJ) Lots shall not be platted on land with a ten percent or greater slope, unstable land or land with inadequate drainage unless each platted lot has at least one thousand square feet of buildable area, with a minimum dimension of twenty-five feet. The city manager may approve the platting of such land upon finding that acceptable Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 measures, submitted by a registered engineer qualified in the particular field, eliminate or control the problems of instability or inadequate drainage. (JK) Where a subdivision borders an airport, a railroad right-of-way, a freeway, a major street or any other major source of noise, the subdivision is designed to reduce noise in residential lots to a reasonable level and to retain limited access to such facilities by such measures as a parallel street, a landscaped buffer area or lots with increased setbacks. (KL)Each lot contains at least one deciduous street tree of two-inch caliper in residential subdivisions, and each corner lot contains at least one tree for each street upon which the lot fronts, located so as not to interfere with sight distance at driveways and chosen from the list of acceptable trees established by the city manager, unless the subdivision agreement provides that the subdivider will obtain written commitments from subsequent purchasers to plant the required trees. (LM)The subdivider provides permanent survey monuments, range points and lot pins placed by a Colorado registered land surveyor. (MN)Where an irrigation ditch or channel, natural creek, stream or other drainage way crosses a subdivision, the subdivider provides an easement sufficient for drainage and maintenance. (NO)Lots are assigned street numbers by the city manager under the City's established house numbering system, and before final building inspection, the subdivider installs numbers clearly visible and made of durable material. . . . Section 14. 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. . . . A-E . . . Dwelling unit, attached means three or more dwelling units within a structure. . . . K-O . . . Micromobility station means a designated location of micromobility parking or docking infrastructure. Micromobility transportation includes lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters. Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 . . . P-T Townhouse means an attached single -family dwelling unit located or capable of being located on its own lot, and is separated from adjoining dwelling units by a wall extending from the foundation through the roof which is structurally independent of the corresponding wall of the adjoining unit. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan means a document that outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by a development or use and measures that the development or use will implement to promote alternate modes of travel to the single-occupant vehicle consistent with Section 2.03(I) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Such measures may include, without limitation, car share programs, bicycle parking, access to transit, pedestrian and bicycles connections, educational programs for multimodal transportation options, transit pass benefits, unbundled parking, micromobility stations and membership benefits, and van-and carpool programs. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this ____ day of ______________ 2023. __________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: _________________________________ City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _______________ 2023. _________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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 Attest: __________________________________ City Clerk Attachment A - Draft Ordinance 8599 Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing ATTACHMENT B SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH EFFORTS AND FEEDBACK The March study session memos linked below contain public feedback on both projects received up to the City Council discussion. This memo details public feedback received since the March study sessions. Occupancy Reform Zoning for Affordable Housing P&DS has used a variety of ways to engage the public on these projects including but not limited to meetings with neighborhoods, interest groups and individuals, outreach to students, renters and others in need of affordable housing options, conducting virtual and drop-in “office hours”, hearing comments at board public hearings and a Be Heard Boulder questionnaire. Results of this outreach are summarized below: Meetings with neighborhoods, interest groups and individuals: University-adjacent and single-family neighborhoods could be the most impacted by changes to occupancy limits and zoning types. Therefore, staff has continued outreach to neighborhood groups like the University Hill Neighborhood Association (UHNA), Martin Acres Neighborhood association (MANA) and others. In addition to meeting with individuals, staff has walked through University Hill with concerned neighborhood residents, met with PLAN Boulder and the Hill Revitalization Working Group and attended a block party event in Aurora East to spread the word about the projects and receive feedback. These conversations are summarized below: o University-adjacent neighborhoods – Many neighborhood residents, particularly those living in university adjacent neighborhoods like University Hill and Martin Acres, are concerned of what the changes will do to their neighborhoods with respect to parking impacts, increased noise, and overcrowding that could happen if occupancy is increased in areas that already have nonconforming density. Here are some of the points heard: Skepticism about the option of increasing occupancy and allowing more housing types because it will only negatively impact their neighborhoods without actually solving the housing crisis problem. Changes will drive out families as they create a market that is beneficial to commercial/rental property owners instead. Landlords will enable more people to live in their units and charge a higher rent to increase their profits. Impacts in university-adjacent neighborhoods will increase by allowing even more people into units that already exceed current zoning limits. One resident has given a firsthand account of how parties, disorder and other nuisances necessitated their move from the neighborhood and ultimately the city due to impacts. The options will not help the homeless problem. Attachment B - Public Feedback Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing o Aurora East –The Aurora East block party was on Apr. 29 and included a mix of student renters and property owners. Opinions expressed at that meeting included:  Students felt that increased occupancy limits made sense.  Owners expressed that they weren’t necessarily against more people living in each home but did have concerns about parking. Street parking in the Aurora East neighborhood is often filled by students that live in Williams Village and cannot afford parking passes or drive into Boulder and park in the neighborhood to take transit or walk to campus.  Some noted that if occupancy is increased, parking enforcement should also be increased. They also expressed a desire for CU to accommodate more on-campus parking for students. o PLAN Boulder – PLAN Boulder expressed the following viewpoints:  Changes will impact neighborhoods and questioned when the zoning changes to the neighborhoods would end. For example, when will the city say that the goals have been reached and neighborhoods won’t have to get the brunt of the changes?  Additional housing will not be affordable unless it is deed restricted. Occupancy should be tied to affordability.  Enforcement against nuisances has not been effective.  The city cannot build its way out of the housing crisis and the jobs/housing imbalance but rather should limit both jobs and housing to work towards balance. o Hill Revitalization Working Group – The Hill Revitalization Working Group is composed of property owners as well as students and University officials. We heard:  Some in the group were supportive of the changes to occupancy given the cost and leasing challenges for students and felt that student voices should be heard by City Council. With most units being 3 or 4 bedrooms, there are opportunities for those bedrooms to be occupied and this should reduce costs for students.  Some fear that the apartment rent will reflect the same cost per-room, effectively resulting in the same amount of rent for each person instead of lowering costs.  Another viewpoint was that increased occupancy should be directly tied to affordability (i.e., a landlord that wants to have an occupancy of 5 would have to agree to rent caps). Outreach to students, renters and others in need of housing: In response to City Council’s request to expand the level of outreach to those that are typically not involved in the land use code change amendment process and those that are most vulnerable to the cost and reduced availability of housing, staff targeted additional outreach to include more students, renters, and organizations. Notice of the projects has been sent to student organizations prior to the end of the semester including but not limited to the University of Colorado (CU) student government, CU Black Student Alliance, and the CU Basic Needs Center. Staff met with the Dean’s Leadership and Values Committee and has also reached out to organizations like Out Boulder County, Attachment B - Public Feedback Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Emergency Family Assistance Association (EFAA), NAACP Boulder County, El Centro Amistad, UMAS y MEXA, and the Indian Peaks Group. Consistent with the city’s Racial Equity goals, staff also presented to the Community Connectors-in-Residence (CC-in-Rs) to gain their perspective. Summaries are provided below: o Dean’s Leadership and Values Committee – On Apr. 27, staff met with the Dean’s Leadership and Values Committee which is composed of the Dean of Students and student government members. Students in the meeting expressed the following:  Boulder is super unaffordable and thus, many find it challenging to live in Boulder and there are many that break the occupancy rules.  Addressing the issue will increase the level of affordability and decrease the number of violations.  Many are working extra to pay for housing and even then, the price of housing is out of control and compounded with expensive tuition.  The group expressed that many students are too busy with schoolwork and jobs to attend council meetings to get these points across, but that many share these concerns and feel that the issue should be addressed as soon as possible. o Community Connectors in Residence – The purpose of the Community Connectors-in- Residence (CC-in-R) group is to “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.” Community Connectors 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. Community Connectors indicated general support for increasing occupancy limits and creating inexpensive housing options but expressed skepticism around allowing more “cheap” housing and concentrating smaller sized housing as expressed in the sentiments below:  Occupancy limits and other policies were put into place to restrict who is able to live in Boulder, effectively keeping BIPOC populations out. We need to be transparent about this and clean up our language in the conversation.  Affordable housing is a dialogue happening all across the country. 85% of land in the US is owned by white people. Why is there not consideration for the indigenous community who has lived here for generations?  Zoning regulations in general seem to be limiting and targeted to specific people.  Younger generations are not able to obtain the “American Dream” and many can only afford to rent.  Concern that adding more smaller units may create future “ghettos”.  Do people really want to live in such a small space? Attachment B - Public Feedback Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing  Taking away parking from affordable units doesn’t seem logical.  Larger concerns around state of economy and mental health from crowding people into smaller spaces.  Have lived in public housing, you take away culture of people of color, we like to gather, see our elders, eat together, we cannot congregate in small units, white culture is not understanding of our communal practices, smaller units are seeding mental health issues.  Concern about investment companies or people with money buying up properties to take advantage of the increased density.  Many community members need affordable housing but do not qualify for affordable housing because of their income is higher from working 2-3 jobs, they are needing to leave Boulder if they are in-between rich and poor; may necessitate quitting a job to qualify, but then can’t support their family. o Community leaders’ conversations –Staff has reached out to neighborhoods and the following groups to host meetings where people can ask questions and provide feedback: Better Boulder, Boulder Chamber of Commerce, Boulder Housing Network, Boulder Area Rental Housing Association (BARHA). Viewpoints heard were:  One attendee supported increasing the occupancy limit to five people and described their experience with being in the middle of the eviction process due to complaints of over-occupancy where they lived. They noted that students, especially international students, are vulnerable and have an even harder time finding housing. Emphasis should be on enforcement of nuisances, not how many people live in a unit and their relation to one another.  Another attendee supported a uniform occupancy limit citywide rather than the two tiers (i.e., 3 and 4) that currently exist. There was some concern about making it 5 unrelated as 5 may be too many people for smaller units.  Two attendees did not support an increase in occupancy or duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods and noted that families will be pushed out and parking impacts will increase. There should be an overlay zone that exempts out university-adjacent neighborhoods. Office hours: Staff has also held two office hour meetings where members of the public met with staff with their questions and comments on proposed code changes. Most of the attendees were supportive of the proposed options, finding that occupancy was discriminatory against students and that changes to zoning make sense to allow more housing. One attendee supported communal housing from an efficiency standpoint of shared kitchens and facilities, but not more housing as they believe it will only drive up costs and add to the population which should be controlled. HAB and Planning Board public hearings: One member of the public spoke to HAB at its Mar. 22 meeting and indicated support of the proposed changes saying that the changes would Attachment B - Public Feedback Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing support more middle-income housing in the city and that there should be a limit on luxury housing in Boulder. The commenter noted that people should be more against cars than people. Six people expressed opposition to the proposed changes at the Apr. 18 Planning Board meeting. There were concerns expressed that the number of rentals will increase, there will be more student “ghettos,” and that neighborhoods like University Hill and Martin Acres will be crippled by the changes. Some indicated that enforcement needs to be increased. Commenters also supported exempting University adjacent neighborhoods from any changes to zoning. Be Heard Boulder questionnaire: The City of Boulder hosted an online questionnaire to gather input from the public on several high-level questions to help inform the development of ordinances for both the Occupancy Reform and Zoning for Affordable Housing projects. The questions were designed to gauge support on several potential options for land use code changes and to solicit additional ideas and feedback from interested residents. The questionnaire was promoted by reaching out to key stakeholders, contacting all the organizations and groups referenced in this section, via NextDoor and other social media platforms, and including links to the questionnaire in public presentations. Between Apr. 27 and May 26, 2023, 2,187 responses were submitted to the questionnaire. The questionnaire is an engagement tool for collecting feedback from the public; it is not intended to express a scientific, statistically valid representation of all of the city’s residents. In addition, staff is not interpreting the feedback as “votes” for or against proposed changes. The Be Heard Boulder questionnaire is just one of the tools the city uses to solicit input and the city acknowledges the limitations with this type of questionnaire. Nevertheless, it is a useful engagement tool to help identify trends and potential areas of commonality in the community’s opinions on the subject and as a channel for people to provide anonymous feedback without attending a meeting. Attachment C contains the detailed results of the questionnaire including specific comments submitted by the public. Attachment C also includes an acknowledgement that some people may have completed the questionnaire multiple times. Records indicate there are over 300 responses that came from the same computer, some of which may be persons from the same family or facility (which is why we do not restrict this type of access,) and may also be an indication of multiple responses from a single person. Many common themes emerged from the feedback provided through Be Heard Boulder, which aligns somewhat with what has been heard throughout this process and often with opposing viewpoints as shown below. More detailed comments are found in Attachment B. • Residents are struggling with the cost of housing in Boulder. • Zoning changes will only help investors and developers. It will not lead to more affordable housing. • Increasing housing supply by removing zoning restrictions will improve housing affordability. • Occupancy restrictions should be loosened to improve housing affordability. • Increasing occupancy will not improve affordability. It will benefit property owners who will increase rental rates. Attachment B - Public Feedback Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing • CU needs to build more housing for its students. • Density changes need to be accompanied by transportation options and parking. • Different areas of the city should not be treated the same. • Amending parking requirements is supported. • Density can impact pollution and climate change. The following takeaways from the results are interesting to review:  More support shown for 4 unrelated than 5 unrelated citywide with a slight majority indicating “Strongly Support” or “Somewhat Support”. Increasing to 5 unrelated saw more evenly spread support and concern, as well a higher level of “Definitely Do Not Support” responses among those who do not support the change.  There is less support for removing occupancy limits entirely with 57% of the responses as “Definitely Do Not Support” and “Somewhat Do Not Support”.  More than half the respondents felt that the city should not leave the requirements as they are.  Support shown for allowing additional housing units in commercial areas and neighborhood centers (nearly 60%) and about 40% against. Nearly 55% of respondents supported allowing duplexes and triplexes in single-family neighborhoods while around 45% were against that.  Reducing parking requirements received a roughly 50-50 split between support and non- support.  Most participants in the questionnaire were property/homeowners  Renters represent nearly 30% of participants.  The responses showed significantly more support for changes among renters and younger participants. Other written comments received on the projects can be found in Attachment H. Attachment B - Public Feedback Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Be Heard Boulder Questionnaire Response Summary Background. The City of Boulder hosted an online questionnaire on Be Heard Boulder to gather input from the public to help inform City Council’s decisions about the development of ordinances for the Occupancy Reform and Zoning for Affordable Housing projects. The questions were designed to gauge support on several potential options for land use code changes and to solicit additional ideas and feedback from the community. Between April 27 and May 26, 2023, 2,187 responses were submitted to the questionnaire. Limitations. This questionnaire is an engagement tool for collecting feedback from the public; it is not intended to express a scientific, statistically valid representation of all the city’s residents. As an engagement tool rather than a survey, there are important limitations to this questionnaire that must be acknowledged while reviewing the results. The Be Heard Boulder platform does not restrict multiple submissions from the same IP address. This is because site registration, which can deter responses from those not already registered, was not required to submit a response. However, the platform does use cookies to identify each response with a unique User ID. For this questionnaire, there were approximately 113 duplicate User IDs associated with 371 responses, which can occur when different people use the same device, such as in a library or workplace or where a family shares a single computer. As there is no way of determining whether duplicates are different people using the same device or the same person, responses from duplicate User IDs were not removed from the data set. For example, 97 responses were associated with only two User IDs, which gave almost identical responses to each question and similar comments in the open-ended questions but provided different answers to the demographic questions. Demographics. Understanding the demographics of respondents through the optional questions helps us determine whether we need to use additional methods in the future to hear from a wider range of people in the city. While some demographic characteristics of respondents have been included in this summary, all responses to demographic questions were optional. An overview of the demographics of respondents is included in the following pages. Communications. The questionnaire was promoted through various channels, including the city-wide e- newsletter, Planning and Development Services, Housing and Human Services and Transportation and Mobility department newsletters, the project website, the city’s social media accounts (Facebook, Nextdoor and Twitter) and direct emails to community members and organizations that are active in housing and occupancy policy discussions, including students, neighborhoods, nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups. A QR code and link to the questionnaire was also included in presentations. The remainder of this report documents the results of the questionnaire and provides observations about the responses, highlighting some of the variations in responses by different demographics of respondents by both percentage and number of responses. The responses from this questionnaire and other engagement strategies will be used to inform the development of ordinances for the two projects. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 2 Respondent Demographics The questionnaire included several optional demographic questions; most respondents provided information for some of the questions. Overall, the respondents represent a wide variety of housing situations, incomes, race and ethnicity, ages and geographic locations in the city. Note: all charts in this document display both number of responses and percentage (#, %). Do you own or rent your home? Which race or ethnicity do you identify with most? What is your household income range? What is your age range? No response, 126, 6% Own, 1294, 59% Rent, 600, 27% Other, 34, 2% I do not have stable housing right now, 16, 1% I prefer not to say, 117, 5% No response, 156, 7% White, 1357, 62%Hispanic or Latino/a, 72, 3%Asian, 49, 2% Black or African- American, 27, 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, 9, 1% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 4, 0% Two or more races, 80, 4% I prefer not to say, 417, 19% Other (please describe), 16, 1% No response, 141, 6% Less than $25,000 a year, 105, 5% $25,000 to $49,999 a year, 265, 12% $50,000 to $99,999 a year, 400, 18% $100,000 to $149,999 a year, 305, 14% $150,000 a year or more, 480, 22% I prefer not to say, 491, 23% No response, 130, 6% Under 18, 2, 0% 18 to 24, 125, 6% 25 to 34, 440, 20% 35 to 54, 549, 25% 55 to 64, 283, 13% 65 and over, 366, 17% I prefer not to say, 292, 13% Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 3 In which zip code do you live? Other zip codes represented: 02 80020 80030 80204 80221 80310 80393 80424 80504 81625 35763 80021 802 80205 80306 80340 80394 80466 80516 8304 78758 80026 80202 80214 80307 80343 80395 80501 80526 89305 80003 80027 80203 80220 80309 80392 80403 80503 80544 249 464 279 509 406 80301 80302 80303 80304 80305 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 4 Occupancy Reform Rate your level of support for the following potential changes to occupancy regulations citywide: 1. Increasing occupancy limits to 4 unrelated people per home or apartment Observations: • 55% (1,202) of respondents either strongly or somewhat supported increasing occupancy to four unrelated people. 42% (923) definitely or somewhat did not support the change. • 80% (484) of respondents who identified as renters supported the change. 47% (610) of respondents who identified as homeowners supported the change. • Older respondents expressed less support for increasing the occupancy limits to four unrelated people, with about 85% (817) of respondents 34 or under expressing support, compared to about 40% (148) of respondents 65 and over expressing support. • Respondents in zip code 80302 (generally south of Mapleton, west of 28th Street, and north of Dartmouth) expressed the least support for the change, with about 42% (196) support. Strongly support, 796, 36% Somewhat support, 406, 19%No opinion, 62, 3% Somewhat do not support, 174, 8% Definitely do not support, 749, 34% Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 5 2. Increasing occupancy limits to 5 unrelated people per home or apartment Observations: • 50% (1,097) of respondents strongly or somewhat did not support increasing occupancy to five unrelated people, and 48% (1,041) of respondents strongly or somewhat supported the change. • 79% (475) of respondents who identified as renters supported the change. 37% (472) of respondents who identified as homeowners supported the change. • 83% (481) of people ages 34 and under expressed support. 25% (94) of people 65 and older expressed support. • Respondents from the 80302 zip code expressed the lowest (37%, 172) percentage of support for the change. Strongly support, 781, 36% Somewhat support, 260, 12% No opinion, 49, 2% Somewhat do not support, 110, 5% Definitely do not support, 987, 45% Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 6 3. Removal of occupancy requirements entirely Observations: • 57% (1,246) of respondents to the questionnaire did not support removing occupancy requirements entirely. 39% (860) either strongly or somewhat supported the removal. • Of the respondents who identified as renters, 71% (424) supported the removal. Of the respondents who identified as homeowners, 27% (356) of respondents supported the removal. • 76% (432) of respondents 34 or under expressed support for removal. 18% (68) of respondents 65 and over expressed support for removal. • Respondents from the 80302 zip code expressed the lowest percentage (30%, 138) support of removing occupancy requirements entirely. Strongly support, 692, 31% Somewhat support, 168, 8% No opinion, 81, 4% Somewhat do not support, 114, 5% Definitely do not support, 1132, 52% Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 7 4. No change to current occupancy requirements Observations: • Slightly over half (52%, 1,148) of respondents did not support maintaining the current occupancy requirements. 43% (931) of respondents supported maintaining the current requirements. • Of the respondents who identified as renters, 83% (499) did not support maintaining the current requirements. Of the respondents who identified as homeowners, 42% (543) of respondents did not support maintaining the current requirements. • 58% (211) of respondents 65 or older expressed support for maintaining the current occupancy requirements. 5% (7) of 18 to 24 year olds and 11% (47) of 25 to 34 year olds supported maintaining the current requirements. • The greatest percentage of support (53%, 249) for maintaining the current requirements came from respondents in the 80302 zip code. Strongly support, 733, 34% Somewhat support, 198, 9% No opinion, 108, 5%Somewhat do not support, 142, 6% Definitely do not support, 1006, 46% Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 8 Zoning for Affordable Housing Rate your level of agreement with the following statements related to zoning for affordable housing: 5. Boulder should eliminate zoning standards that are barriers to building additional places to live in commercial areas and neighborhood centers. Observations: • 57% (1,242) of respondents indicated they either definitely or somewhat agreed with the statement, compared to 39% (865) of respondents who definitely or somewhat did not agree. • Of the respondents who identified as renters, 81% (486) agreed with the statement. Of the respondents who identified as homeowners, 49% (638) of respondents agreed with the statement. • Similar to the occupancy-related questions, responses varied among respondents who identified their age. 88% (499) of respondents 18 to 34 agreed with the statement. 42% (153) of respondents 65 and older agreed with the statement. Definitely agree, 865, 40% Somewhat agree, 377, 17%No opinion, 80, 4% Somewhat do not agree, 197, 9% Definitely do not agree, 668, 30% Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 9 6. Boulder should allow duplexes and triplexes in areas that currently only allow single-family homes. Observations: • Slightly over half (54%, 1,170) of respondents either definitely or somewhat agreed with this statement, compared to 44% (966) who definitely or somewhat did not agree. • 81% (488) of respondents who identified as renters expressed agreement. 45% (580) of respondents who identified as homeowners expressed agreement. • 86% (489) of respondents 34 or younger supported the statement. 38% (137) of respondents 65 and older supported the statement. Definitely agree, 912, 42% Somewhat agree, 258, 12%No opinion, 51, 2% Somewhat do not agree, 173, 8% Definitely do not agree, 793, 36% Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 10 7. Boulder should reduce parking requirements for residential projects to encourage lower housing costs. Observations: • About half of respondents (49%, 1,069) either definitely or somewhat agreed with this statement, and 45% (994) definitely or somewhat did not agree. • 76% (456) of respondents who identified as renters expressed agreement. 40% (519) of respondents who identified as homeowners expressed agreement. • 80% (455) of respondents 34 and younger agreed with the statement. 31% (112) of respondents 65 and older agreed with the statement. • 80302 and 80305 (the area generally southwest of US-36) residents had the lowest levels of agreement with this statement (about 42%, 365). Definitely agree, 816, 37% Somewhat agree, 253, 12%No opinion, 124, 6% Somewhat do not agree, 184, 8% Definitely do not agree, 810, 37% Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 11 Do you have any other thoughts or ideas to share related to housing affordability in Boulder? 1,021 respondents provided additional thoughts and ideas in the final open -ended question. Many themes emerged from the feedback, representing different and sometimes conflicting viewpoints. The most common themes are listed below. Samples of verbatim feedback for each theme are also provided below. Common themes • Residents are struggling with the cost of housing in Boulder. • Zoning changes will only help investors and developers. It will not lead to more affordable hous ing. • Increasing housing supply by removing zoning restrictions will improve housing affordability. • Occupancy restrictions should be loosened to improve housing affordability. • Increasing occupancy will not improve affordability. It will benefit property owners who will increase rental rates. • CU needs to build more housing for its students. • Density changes need to be accompanied by transportation options and parking. • Different areas of the city should not be treated the same. • Amending parking requirements is supported. • Density can impact pollution and climate change. Residents are struggling with the cost of housing in Boulder “My partner and I make a solid 6 figure salary combined. We both have jobs in Boulder. We have no children. We can’t even consider living in Boulder because of the insane costs.” “I've lived in Boulder for 35 years, and have seen our housing pricing escalate into a situation where it is completely impossible for middle- income residents to become established here. Without addressing this issue, Boulder is not going to be able to maintain the culture that makes it so desirable to live to begin with. It'll become a calcified retreat for the wealthy (ala several of CO's mountain towns like Aspen where the billionaires have pushed out the millionaires), and will add an unacceptable environmental burden to the environment as it drives up regional commuting and car traffic in and out of town.” “We need to make it so people can actually AFFORD to live in this wonderful city! Whether that's rent control, tying rent directly to income or another method we have got to make it so living here is not restricted to the wealthy.” “We need all of these changes. I am a 31 year old renter with limited housing options inside my budget. We really really need occupancy limit reform, more housing development, and parking reform to make Boulder a welcoming community. (Have you read the high cost of free parking by don shoup?)” “As a lifelong resident who is close to being forced to leave the city because of rising rents and housing prices, I strongly support ANY options for increasing affordability of housing in Boulder! Including at the middle-income level.” “Paradise isn't paradise if locals can't afford to live there.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 12 Zoning changes will only help investors and developers. It will not lead to more affordable housing. “Housing affordability is not being driven by the shortage of supply. We have a very desirable community and an increase in housing affordability will just attract additional residents. Affordability and equity issues must be addressed as a regional issue.” “People keep proposing extreme occupancy/density changes as if one-size-fits-all neighborhoods. No. No. No. Density will not bring housing and rent prices down.” “High density/affordable/low income housing is clearly the agenda here. While perhaps appropriate in certain areas of the city, the continuing crusade to make residing in Boulder a "right" should not dominate the discussion.” “The big problem that few people in Boulder seem to understand (other than economists) is that we have an infinite demand, inelastic demand housing market. Because of that, the measures you propose will do nothing to increase affordability. Supply increases in inelastic markets do not lower prices. The city would study atypical inelastic markets much more thoroughly.” “None of these proposals will have any effect on housing prices or affordability in Boulder. City voters rejected the misguided Bedrooms proposal. Don't overturn that vote.” “Don’t ruin our city by trying to turn it into Manhattan, it’s already too dense.” “Unless the city facilitates more rental, income qualifying rental property OR deed restricted income qualifying for sale property the city WILL NOT have more affordability because the investment community will drive rents based on the desirability of Boulder. US News and World Report last week listed Boulder as #4 nationally on Desireability as a place to live in the entire US. We need RESTRICTIONS on new housing in order to serve the population the city is trying to serve.” “I feel like all of these changes will only benefit landlords and developers. If you can split the rent five ways then the rent will just go up making homes more valuable for landlords but also prohibition expensive for people wanting to buy their home. These plans are short sighted - any gains for affordable housing will be lost to market forces within a year or two. Affordable housing efforts needs to be focused on our seniors and our first responders and our teachers. We should not be creating more housing so more people can move here and ultimately make housing more expensive again.” “I thought we already voted on this -? Why is city council trying to ignore their constituents? I am opposed to any increase in housing density. Affordability has always been an issue here (I was born here and my parents struggled with it). I think any increase to density will only make Boulder less desirable.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 13 Increasing housing supply by removing zoning restrictions will improve housing affordability. “The only way to actually increase affordability is to dramatically increase construction and population density to provide a larger supply of housing to meet the demand. Almost everything in the Land Use Code, from single-family zoning to occupancy requirements to parking minimums to the height restriction works contrary to this goal.” “I am a single family homeowner and change is scary. But we are experiencing a housing crisis that cannot continue to be ignored.” “Look, y'all on city council and whoever else reads this know: We have a problem with building space in Boulder. You know we can't build north/south/east because of open space, can't build west because of lack of utility access, can't build up because of views. What remains? HIGHER DENSITY. Should we try to enable Boulder to support a population of 1 million without growing the bounds of the town? No, that's insane. Should we try to do everything we can to increase housing availability at multiple price points to support the existing students and low-wage workers? Yes!” “Please develop more mixed use housing development; please designate more housing as affordable. The demand for housing is here, but the supply is limited and it is crippling boulder. help!!!!” “Single-family zoning should be eliminated in favor of high density housing throughout the City of Boulder. Affordable housing and high density development should be highly prioritized and large square-footage single residences should be heavily taxed and scrutinized as they are a waste of land. Also the permitting and review process needs to be simplified and streamlined and lawsuits to delay and prevent development need to be made unlawful. Local NIMBYs are destroying the ability of younger, diverse people to make a home in Boulder or raise a family here.” “I realize that allowing more housing in my single family neighborhood may be a difficult adjustment, but it is needed.” “As a single family home owner in a very traditional neighborhood, I strongly encourage us opening up our neighborhoods to people. That means denser neighborhoods with more people and more creative answers to personal and shared motorized transport options.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 14 Occupancy restrictions should be loosened to improve housing affordability. “As a 26 year old living in Boulder, housing affordability is very close to my heart. I wish I didn’t have to break the law in order to live with roommates and afford rent. I’d like to be able to stay in Boulder for a long time and the measures discussed in this survey would be a huge step in the right direction.” “Boulder’s current occupancy limits and definition of family are inherently discriminatory. They do not allow for polyamorous families or other modern familial relationships. To the extent that Boulder maintains any form of occupancy limit, it should apply equally to all persons and not be subjective to a government-controlled definition of family.” “Allow 55+ people to live together as we age. I have many friends (all old time Boulder natives) that are reaching retirement and we all want to get out of our large single family homes and live in a co-housing situation. Shared housing for the aging community. I understand not allowing college age kids to pack a house but I never hear about options for the aging community.” “It is discriminatory to tie any occupancy to family status. Not every adult wants or is able to get married. I plan to live as a senior citizen in a Boulder home with 4 or more other senior citizens when I retire. Family status is irrelevant” “I bought my home in 2016. Taxes were 4400. 2022, taxes were 7800. Insurance costs have risen. Why can’t I have more than 2 roommates in my 5 bedroom house to help me cover the rising costs of being alive?” “A 5 person occupancy limit would be fantastic! There are 4 and 5 bedroom houses all over Boulder that could safely allow for this, and allow house sharing to be a viable option for those who cannot afford $1200+ rental prices per month.” “In my opinion the current occupancy limits discriminate against single people. It makes no sense to say that a family with seven children including four who drive, like my niece's, should be allowed to live in a house while four single adults cannot. Lifestyles should not be regulated. The related vs unrelated criterion should be removed from any future regulation. Doing so will be the progressive thing to do.” “Everyone who lives in a college town and complains about college students would do well to remember that 1) You chose to live here, or choose to remain, and 2) it's not just college students trying to live here on low incomes. It's your hairdresser, your waiter at brunch, your car mechanic, not to mention grad students and other academics who literally carry half the Boulder economy on their backs and have very little choice about living here or not (their grad school choice is largely determined by where they get in). So, if you want to have a vibrant, diverse town, we need to reform occupancy limits to at least be on par with other similarly-sized college towns that are not having this conversation constantly. If you want a retirement community where the people serving you are constantly stressed because they can't afford to live here (encouraging workers to come in sick to work to not miss out on money, or to quit and drive constant staff turnover), then by all means, keep the limits where they are.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 15 Increasing occupancy will not improve affordability. It will benefit property owners who will increase rental rates. “The NUMBER of people allowed/housing unit does NOT determine the affordability of renting or buying that housing unit. There MUST be regulations that address COST.” “Increased occupancy mostly benefits students and will just push renting families out of Boulder. Landlords will just charge more rent in a "per room" system that will favor students and hurt families. Students would also be more likely to rent a 4-5 bedroom house with one in each room if occupancy is increased which will again make it harder for families who truly need the 4-5 bedrooms. Please don't change the occupancy, it will really hurt the community of our neighborhoods.” “I have seen no evidence that increasing occupancy limits would lead to lower housing costs. Landlords are in a profit-making business and have no incentive to lower rents if more renters occupy their properties -- indeed, raising occupancy levels would merely increase their bottom lines. Absent solid proof that more people = lower rents, you should do nothing to alter current zoning that will only destroy our neighborhoods and increase cars, noise, pollution, and trash.” “Occupancy reform will lead to students living in crowded and hazardous conditions while doing little address the restrictions that have been preventing supply from meeting demand. We need SUPPLY-SIDED housing reform for to reach long-term affordability goals.” “A house renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 will just rent to 4 unrelated people for $6000, or 5 people for $7500. No affordability gain at all. Meanwhile, you make that rental too expensive for a family to afford. We're already losing many families from Boulder, and you'll just accelerate our declining local school enrollment.” “It’s the same all over the country. Housing prices are going up. Allowing additional unrelated people in a home will only benefit the landlords. My neighbor just added a bedroom in his rental property in anticipation of the law changing, and him being able to charge an addition $1000 for a bedroom.” “Landlords will continue to charge the same amount of rent per bedroom/person, so their profits will dramatically increase but savings and affordability won't be passed onto renters. In addition, parking availability and noise in residential neighborhoods (such as University Hill) will only get worse.” “Changing occupancy limits does not help teachers, firefighters, police, early-in-career professionals, or young families. It serves, almost exclusively, landlords. Please focus on the population that you're aiming to enfranchise.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 16 CU needs to build more housing for its students. “Why doesn’t the City force CU to start providing housing for more of their students instead of forcing the tax payers to build more affordable housing due to a housing shortage that’s created by CU not providing enough housing for their students? My understanding is that CU only provides housing for a small portion of their student population, mostly just for Freshman. If CU just provided an additional 10,000 beds that would open up 10,000 beds in the City, which would ultimately lower the cost of rent due to the increase in supply.” “During my lifetime, Boulder has always been unaffordable for some people. I see Council's solutions just a way to shoehorn people into a space that will create an ugly crowded town. Require CU to build more affordable housing for its students instead of the City doing all the heavy lifting.” “Please look to CU to solve this, not the Hill residents to take on the burden.” “Students should be on campus and residential areas for families” “Manage investors better and cap CU growth rates, or reduce CU populations!” “Boulder's huge problem is the jobs/housing imbalance. Boulder isn't able to keep bringing in new industries. Secondly, the CU 's mission to get bigger and bigger, causing an extreme housing shortage. CU tells Boulder: we'll grow as big as we want; the city can deal with the ever increasing housing shortage. The city well knows there are many dwellings with occupancies of many students, not 3, not 4. Those dwellings are often not taken care of, and there are often loud goings on that disturb neighbors.” “1. The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. 2. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. 3. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. 4. Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 17 Density changes need to be accompanied by transportation options and parking. “Most up zoning would be fine with residents if it didn't cause parking problems. I would love to see something that didn't allow dense developments to offload their parking. With that in place I think we could add a lot of density without making residents angry.” “Likewise, I worry about what reducing parking requirements will do - our public transport is still not good enough that people simply won't have cars - so, if you're going to reduce parking, you need to increase/improve options for public transport.” “I live in a single family home area. My next door neighbors are 4 unrelated people. It's not the number of people in the house that is an issue; the issue is the number of cars from the residents and their guests that our streets are not designed to handle. For each of the 4 residents, there are also guest cars. That is sometimes 8 cars for one house. So, my primary objection to increasing the number of people allowed to live in each house is the number of cars that will clog the neighborhood (and block mailboxes and sidewalk ramps, which happens often).” “Reducing parking requirements MUST coincide with improving access to public transit and making roads safer for bikers & pedestrians.” “Reduction of parking requirements will be an incredibly important tool (I'm strongly supportive!) but must be planned accordingly with a comprehensive vision of transportation system improvements--namely more frequent and geographically distributed public transit. Think big! :)” “Please stop trying to make Boulder into a large, over populated, place with so many people crammed in that the quality of life deteriorates. Traffic is already more than our roads can handle.” “I'm all for duplexes & triplexes in appropriate locations, but definitely not in single-family home areas. Parking is already a nightmare on many residential streets in single-family areas, and the problems would only intensify with more density. With the limited available land in the city, there probably are very few 'appropriate locations' for this type of housing.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 18 Different areas of the city should not be treated the same. “Occupancy limits and affordable housing policies need to be tailored to specific circumstances in specific areas of Boulder. For example, in areas where new development could take place, density that would lead to lower housing costs makes sense. In other neighborhoods, such as University Hill, policies that increased occupancy limits would not necessarily lead to lower housing costs--rather, it would enable landlords to make more money without lowering the rental cost per student renter. In general, I think we need to proceed slowing and thoughtfully as we implement policies that aim to lower costs by increasing density--the policies we implement could have negative unintended consequences that do not, in fact, lead to more affordable housing.” “We need to work towards more students living on campus. The Hill neighborhood is reaching a tipping point where it is either going to be sustained as a Boulder treasure with families, students, and faculty alike. Or, it will become so rundown by student-disturbances that result in families (like mine) fleeing the broken glass, fireworks, and 2am disruptions for the Hill to end up a landlord’s cash cow and wasteland. “ “Preserve single family neighborhoods zoning. Under no circumstances increase housing occupancy on the Hill or Goss Grove.” “Yes, neighborhoods such as Goss-Grove, Uni-hill and Martin Acres should be exempt due to their current overcrowding and related demise of their quality of life due to student rentals which out- number owner occupied residences.” “Parking needs to be done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. I live on UniHill - we cannot handle any more cars. But there are certainly neighborhoods within Boulder where the parking requirement might work. It is hard. as I find it impossible to visit any of the commercial establishments around the 30th and Pearl developments because there is no where to park. Those establishments will survive only if enough people living in the area support them. Also - CU needs to take greater responsibility for housing its students and low income workers. I don't know how you make them do that - but their commitment to growth, i.e. more students, just hammers us on the Hill.” “People keep proposing extreme occupancy/density changes as if one-size-fits-all neighborhoods. No. No. No. Density will not bring housing and rent prices down.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 19 Amending parking requirements is supported. “It’s time to end exclusionary zoning and parking requirements that work against Boulder’s equity, climate, transportation, and livability goals. Thank you for taking this on.” “I believe eliminating parking minimums is one of the best things (and among the lowest lifts) we can do for our community and to curb the affordable housing crisis. Eliminating single- family zoning is also key, as is adopting a strong equity-focused infill strategy.” “We have enough cars! No more mandated parking!” “In addition to reducing parking requirements across the board to encourage lower housing costs, consider parking maximums or other reduced parking requirements, especially along corridors with frequent transit service and bicycle connectivity.” Density can impact pollution and climate change. “Housing policy IS climate policy! R-1 Zoning must be repealed, period. It is responsible for the car culture and a terrible housing crisis.” “I believe a denser Boulder will help to reduce traffic and pollution.” “Opponents to these reforms need to answer to the pollution impacts when more and more Boulder workers are forced to commute by car because they cannot afford to live where they work. It is not a neutral decision to do nothing.” “Higher density housing will also address the City's social justice, equity, as well as climate change goals.” “Boulder's economy relies on service sectors workers and the university, but a lot of workers and students need to commute in from outside communities, driving up emissions and taking a time and financial toll on two groups who are strapped for cash and time. Allowing more residences in the city would help with this problem.” Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 20 Other frequent topics: Several respondents shared additional ideas and concerns on related topics. • Affordability is impacted by the increase in property prices with employers such as Google coming to town • Need to ensure that landlords are responsible for tenant behavior • Need to focus on enforcing nuisance rather than number of people • Concerned about impacts of parking or noise • Supportive of greater densities along transit corridors/commercial centers for more walkable neighborhoods • Support increasing density within ¼ mile of transit corridors or east of 28th street • Add occupancy/density in areas zoned for density (not single-family housing zones) • Duplexes and triplexes are great for seniors to downsize and stay in town; and good for families too • Moving too fast will lead to unintended consequences • People living in affordable housing are the ones that need their cars the most – don’t reduce/make parking stringent for these community members • Concerned about allowing cash-in-lieu affordable housing instead of on-site units • Interest in rent control option to improve affordability • Incentivize developers to build more missing middle housing • Convert office space to affordable housing • Build affordable housing at the airport • Tax absentee homeowners with vacant homes • Concerned with the increase in AirBnBs/VRBOs • Need to simplify zoning • Frustrated that this is being considered again after the Bedrooms are for People vote Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 21 All written responses received: • Construction of new market rate housing resulting in densification of Boukder will never result in affordable housing. Developers are driven by the profit motive and will build luxury housing to maximize their return on investment and landlords will charge the highest rent possible. Government subsidy of affordable housing is the only way to provide it. The best way to achieve this goal is for the City to purchase declining multi family housing, renovate it and add to the affordable housing stock managed by BHP. This should be funded through commercial development fees so that residents do not have to pay for the oversupply of jobs in Boulder which is the cause of the lack of affordable housing. • ADUs, tiny homes - let's consider ALL the options to increase housing density! • The most important problem is cars and other vehicles, not people. Ignoring this will deteriorate our neighborhoods. • Parking is the largest problem created by loosening housing standards. • I believe that current requirement for 25% permanently affordable housing in new development is good, but affordable units should be included in the development. Buy-out fees should be allowed only occasionally and at much higher cost. • I would be OK with eliminating single family zoning for new developments. I live in an old neighborhood with duplexes, triplexes and some larger homes with 5-6 units--all converted when there was no zoning. It is considered one of the most desirable 'hoods in Boulder. Maintaining "single family" preserves the status quo and minimizes disruption in an established neighborhood. We actively down-zoned a portion of the neighborhood when developers with deep pockets started buying any old house that came on the market and demolishing them. Now we have the opposite problem with deep pocketed developers buying and gutting the conversions often returning them to single family for new, absentee owners. • Please stop destroying my hometown with your endless building. Boulder cannot support that growth due to water and infrastructure issues. Triple linkage fees! Stop City officials from inviting more and more (tech) companies to locate here! • Boulder is adding huge amounts of dense housing in pockets around the city (such as Steelyards). The problem is, TRAFFIC. People don't walk unless their amenities are right near where they live. That requires enough vertical density in a small area to support businesses. All around 29th St Mall there are condos, but most people don't walk to shops from there. The answer WOULD be to have residential above retail/commercial, but 29th St. is just another mall. Everyone drives everywhere, and the roads can't handle more density, even if the housing came. • Increasing density is a very bad idea when we are facing very poor air quality and potential water shortages. You should be focusing on clean transportation and land preservation. • Don't Be Dense, Boulder. • I would like to see much more transparency around the funds that are and have been collected and distributed when a builder ops out of building in affordable / low income units and pays into the city coffers for affordable housing. Where has and does this money go and who decides how it is to be spent? • Admirable to try to address housing inequities in Boulder, but these proposals will lessen quality of life here and fall short of lowering costs. A very bad idea. • Include density bonuses to create incentives for more on-site affordable housing • Affordable housing is the single most important issue facing Coloradans today. The recent failure of state-level measures for affordable housing is incredibly disappointing to me, but it's a great opportunity for municipalities to step up. If the argument is that zoning and affordability should be handled at the local level rather than the state level: let's prove it! • Duplexs and Triplexs can be converted historic buildings, or new builds, and often allow for more housing without any neighborhood disruption. There is not enough awareness of what neighborhoods that utilize this look like and that's where mis-information can stem from. I highly recommend the public, council, and whomever it concerns visit areas where historic buildings have been converted to multi-house units and ask neighbors/residents about their opinions on how it is to live in that community. • Duplexes might make sense in single-family zones. Triplexes might be too much. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 22 • Boulder is so unaffordable at this point from a lack of making any change over the past 50 years that Boulder needs to allow a lot more than triplexes to get back on track. • These changes make sense. Our community desperately needs them. • Limit office space and employment opportunities within the City of Boulder in order to reduce the demand for housing. Convert some office space to high density apartments and affordable housing. Reduce the square footage limits for single-family homes. • more density in boulder. allow for adu's. we can't do all of the following: keep open space, keep low density housing, make more affordable housing. So if we want to keep open space we need more density! we can't say we care about the climate as a city if 60k people have to commute into boulder for work because they can't afford to live here • Infill of existing areas with ADUs and permitting duplexes and triplexes that are not out of step with the bulk of buildings in the neighborhood are important ways Boulder can develop more, and more affordable, housing. • 1) We need more permanently affordable housing for families. 2) Increasing density will not make housing more affordable unless the housing put in place is permanently affordable. 3) We still need zoning on occupancy for homes because of the student population. We need to protect neighborhoods from developers buying up homes and renting them to large numbers of students. Places like martin acres need to have some control of this... • To make rezoning palatable, encourage that permitting these housing options across neighborhoods would allow more neighborhoods that look like W Pearl St. That area is already home to many multiplexes and still looks tasteful, maintains city character that suburban Boulderites could find satisfactory. • I live in a single family neighborhood (Martin Acres) and I fully support allowing duplexes or triplexes so long as new projects meet the FAR requirements and solar shadow regulations. • Public transit also needs to increase if housing increases • Yes. Start telling the truth. Eliminating relatedness requirements will de facto allow SF houses to be torn down and dormitories built. Reducing parking requirements will just allow more development, but not necessarily cheaper to the occupants. Same with duplexes and triplexes. • Save our neighborhood character! • I'd like to see Boulder change its building height restrictions, so that we can built up and not out, especially along major corridors. This will help preserve our surrounding open space, which is why we are all here in the first place. • I don't think that the present definition of "related" (marital or other kinship ties) serves the community very well. It excludes many kinds of partnership, cooperation, and mutual care, and it is easily abused (for example, I know two straight men who say they lied about being a couple, claiming a common-law marriage, to fit four friends into a single-family dwelling). • more apartments of all sizes, fewer parking spaces. Require new hotels to have a certain number of rooms dedicated to long time residency. • Reduce the allowable size of detached houses, to encourage duplexes etc. Require higher energy efficiency standards for detached houses Eliminate parking requirements for affordable housing Also make permitting affordable housing easier • Bike paths for people over more streets. • I know many working young people who have been priced out of Boulder already; increased housing stock and occupancy limits are the only viable way out of this situation. Any efforts that continue to restrict Boulder to the wealthy on behalf of NIMBYs are hypocritical (and frankly, shameful) from the city's ostensibly liberal leadership. • Reducing parking requirements MUST coincide with improving access to public transit and making roads safer for bikers &amp; pedestrians. • This ecosystem cannot support the volume of humans being proposed by these changes! Where has sensibility escaped to?? • I would like to see the complete removal of occupancy limits for Boulder City and Boulder County. I also think Boulder should remove its restrictive zoning laws that make it difficult for people to build ADUs and other housing options that increase density. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 23 • Loosening occupancy limits will not lower rents. I am a low income renter and I see zero gain from this. • More should be done to allow ADUs, and the City should buy some of them down on an optional basis into affordable programs. • Group houses are a great way for people to live In community in expensive areas. I strongly support increasing the options for people who want to live with others who are not relatives. Boulder is aging rapidly and we need to look for ways to keep Boulder vibrant. • Remove/Lower side and front setback requirements citywide, as long as the property would still meet fire/safety requirements. Decrease minimum lot size, potentially to around 1400 sq ft. Implement a progressive transfer tax to fund more affordable housing/transportation &amp; planning staff/resources. • Continue to Lobby for State zoning bill • Possibly offer financial or other incentives for smaller housing units to people without cars (free RTD pass, etc.). More E-bikes and bike safe storage in or near apartment/condo complexes. EV charging stations need to be boosted city-wide to make them faster - at least 50 amps - and have them adjacent/accessible to all affordable and middle income housing. • I am stunned that I came up against the limits to unrelated people living in a house when I was a student and this standard has still not changed. We need way more flexibility in housing options - from multiple adults able to share a house, or people able to turn a single family house into two dwelling units. The people who want these options are valuable members of our community. It should tell the city A LOT that 80% of city staff do not live within city limits. How are we to feel we are a community when city and emergency staff can't live within the city. I'm now approaching retirement age and the option that I see available, rather than moving closer to city services and being able to live without a car, I need to live farther away or move from the region altogether. It's important to remember that while some members of our community fear density, many of us recognize that a degree of additional density adds efficiency of use of resources and encourages use of bikes and transit and other modes that can reduce our carbon footprint! • Middle housing up-zones that were part of the Governor's land use/housing bill were a good idea and we shouldn't wait for the state to do them. Plexes and small apartments should be allowed by-right in all residential zones. Start charging for parking in the public right-of-way to deal with parking issues. • Density does not equal affordability. The city should stop pretending it does. • Boulder's housing situation is completely untenable for young adults. I have a PhD and am a professional scientist but live with roommates because I can't afford to live alone. I am not planning to stay in Boulder long-term (even though I love living here) because I don't see it as a place where I can afford to have a family. • People who work in Boulder should be able to live in Boulder. • Boulder is not full... at all. Loosen the zoning and let Boulder become a true model for how an American city should adapt to the climate crisis. Dense, walkable, and transit-oriented, city-wide. Also, affordable housing stock loss prevention? I am continuously frustrated by average sized single-family homes in my transit-adjacent neighborhood getting replaced by inhuman mcmansions that cost 2 or 3 times more than the houses next door. No sfh demolition/expansion should be approved without unit increases. I would love it if these houses were being replaced with duplexes or triplexes, not just seasonal mansions for the rich. • Leave single family zoning alone please. • The market is not going to create affordable housing in single-family areas, increasing density will just mean there will be more unaffordable places and not satisfy the housing needs of those that already live here. • I wish we had trained economists on Council. Council might then realize that Boulder is a textbook inelastic demand housing market. Adding supply doesn't lower price in inelastic markets. Ask any PhD economist. Without affordability requirements, merely adding supply and/or permitting more units such as Council desires, will merely result in lots more expensive units (in this inelastic market), which will also open the door for national real investment company speculators. Sadly, Council is ignoring the proven tools it already has, that do actually work in inelastic markets: increasing commercial linkage fees for affordable housing, and increasing inclusionary housing percentage requirements. Very frustrated that Council totally ignores tools that do work, and only focuses on ill-conceived supply side increases that won't work in our inelastic market. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 24 But here's what you will get, after you eliminate all ceiling limits to profit potential on formerly limited properties: National real estate investment firms like "Invitation Homes" are buying up most of the residential properties in highly-in-demand housing markets like Charlotte, NC...and soon, Boulder. They make cash offers $100K above the asking price. Read up about that. Please. The zoning and occupancy limits you decry have actually helped keep speculators at bay. But they can't WAIT for you to make this blundering error. They certainly won't be your friend in keeping prices down. Prices will skyrocket. You’re about to create disastrous, unintended consequences. How ironic that Boulder's Council majority are now Reaganomic supply-siders favoring total deregulation, straight from the Republican playbook. History proved Reagan's deregulations to be disastrous, and his trickle down theories to be total failures. But the rich sure got richer, as will Boulder developers, landlords and national real estate investment speculator firms, in our soon-to-be totally deregulated market. It's incredible that our Council doesn't understand that. • We need more housing and higher-density housing, but it only works with a simultaneous commitment to mass transit and a (safely) walkable city. I don't see any commitment to transit and pedestrian dignity from the city. Also? With higher density housing, square footage is often smaller than needed, but building amenities are often focused on a single demographic. Give us maker spaces, library offshoots, things that appeal to all ages. • The housing crisis is the cause of exclusive single family zoning. More people will come regardless of what action is taken and we MUST support all citizens if you want school teachers etc to thrive • any changes to parking requirements should not be done across the board - they need to take into account the width of roads and what makes sense for each development. Very concerned about emergency vehicles being able to navigate some of the roads in town if more cars are parked on the sides of the roads (currently difficult for regular cars to navigate down some roads when cars are parked on both sides). Also, feel less safe biking/walking on many streets that have more cars parked (cars pulling in/out. Adding affordable housing is important but it needs to be cost effective - the amount being paid (when land cost is figured in) per person housed at the development at Alpine Hospital site is ridiculous. Much more housing could have been built on lower cost land. Too many projects are evaluated based on how many units are built, not how many bedrooms, which is creating a push towards more efficiency units rather than 2BR+ which is needed by families. • Boulder needs to focus more on design quality that generates livability and neighborhood ambiance and less on density, occupancy, and zoning • I have several:1) There are few decisions that are more private and personal than the voice of who you choose to live with. Local government should not be regulating occupancy, distinguishing between friends, nontraditional families, and traditional families. Please remove occupancy limits. 2) Our neighborhoods would be improved by allowing duplexes, triplexes, and 4-plexes on existing lots, as a use by right. Currently, we are on a pathway where existing modest homes get craped and replaced by multimillion dollar large homes. Allowing mu ltiplexes will create housing that is much less expensive than the alternative, and will allow more people to live near work and school. 3) If the city is serious about its climate goals, allowing more housing is probably the single largest action not can take to reduce emissions. 4) We should allow substantially higher densities along our high frequency bus lines like the Skip, as well as around our commercial areas. • IPCC, and environmental organizations have been clear density is a necessary climate justice tool. Continuing the long standing commitment to get Boulderites out of their cars is so vital and goes hand in hand with density. Diversity in housing will help us in the 22nd century. • We can't build our way out of whatever problem you try to solve by building. • We need to stop building square uninteresting buildings all over town - like those in Boulder Junction. They are hideous and take away views, do not offer street level interest which is proven to ruin the pedestrian nature of a city. We need to be smarter about what we are building. Don't ruin the city just to add housing. Find another a way to build that is in likeness to what we have. it is what makes Boulder special. The current architecture trend will ruin the city and then we won't have a housing problem. • Empty parking lots should be fast forwarded to housing Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 25 • Boulder is a great place to live and we should be doing everything we can to let more people do just that. • Stop creating new jobs at the speed of light. Require CU to provide housing for undergraduate students. • It’s the same all over the country. Housing prices are going up. Allowing additional unrelated people in a home will only benefit the landlords. My neighbor just added a bedroom in his rental property in anticipation of the law changing, and him being able to charge an addition $1000 for a bedroom. • We have enough cars! No more mandated parking! • I bet I have to move from boulder in the next three years due to rent increases. Not enough places to live so landlords can gouge us for whatever they want. • Vacancy tax for property owners who don't occupy or rent out their unit. • HOAs and PUDs are a huge problem for affordability and for the climate. • We need more housing, more affordable housing, and for people to actually be able to live in the housing that exists! The current housing model is outdated and only works for the richest of the rich. • Please ensure you are sharing this survey with a diversity of populations, not just homeowners. Share with people who rent in Boulder and people who commute to Boulder because they can't afford to live here. • STRONGLY SUPPORT ADUs including less bureaucracy • I realize that allowing more housing in my single family neighborhood may be a difficult adjustment, but it is needed • Please allow more housing in Boulder so not as many people have to drive in from neighboring communities. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion through this survey. • Boulder needs to change. It is ridiculous how much land a rich family can get here, but the middle class to low income people who make the city work can't afford even an apartment. No one who grew up here can afford to live here. It is a tragedy that is slowly choking anything interesting out of Boulder. • Please have serious, provable metrics in place that a change will actually lead to affordability befor e enacting it. Then be serious about consequences of changes, intended or unintended. This poll seems to suggest to respondents that these proposals will work, which is potentially misleading. Or worse, leading - like a leading question. • Provide direct support or subsidies for housing cooperatives • Build affordable housing developments and stop forcing in-fill and removal of occupancy limits for single family neighborhoods. You cannot just continue to try to shove more people into SFN and become a de facto CU dorm. This is against public will. Even these surveys are unbalanced and don’t reach the same voters that continue to reject this agenda. Perhaps permit 4 unrelated in non-CU neighborhoods for individuals over 24 years of age and working in Boulder. This will insure students don’t overrun neighborhoods, raising rents and pushing out low/ middle income families. Also you must remove all HOA restrictions so that only non HOA’s get flooded. Stop destroying SFN and letting developers buy out of affordability requirements. Start building smart density in non SFNs • Please move fast on removing zoning restrictions, the price of housing is out of control and current laws serve to enrich current home owners at the expense of the rest of us • Just build higher, and build more duplexes. A lot of e.g. graduate students do not own/need cars, so don't need parking requirements. • open up zoning but don't let every building be demolished. there needs to be a middle ground • Boulders current occupancy limits and definition of family are inherently discriminatory. They do not allow for polyamorous families or other modern familial relationships. To the extent that Boulder maintains any form of occupancy limit, it should apply equally to all persons and not be subjective to a government-controlled definition of family. • Rental caps are a form of Affordable Housing for families with 1 or 2 incomes vs. say, 5 Workers or 5 Students with 5 Incomes or 5 parents footing the bill. Rental Caps limit $$$ a landlord can otherwise make on a rental. More occupancy does not = savings or much savings for tenants - but definitely makes more $$ for landlords &amp; increases value of housing that can produce higher revenue via more occupancy. So some or many housing prices would go higher at least by a bit. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 26 • The issue is more housing AND diversity? then we need to STOP building more expensive apartments and build only for need - more permanently affordable housing. As we pack our busy streets with tall apartments we lack infrastructure to support quality of living meaning we need more parks for kids, more walkable grocery stores, more recreation centers - more pools, more tennis courts etc. We cannot sustain a high quality of life iwe were accustomed to in Boulder if we don't balance our land use. • Don’t ruin our city by trying to turn it into Manhattan, it’s already too dense • Make the changes truly meaningful, not just a windfall to developers. Ensure that the changes force affordable housing. For example, tie the additional density to rent caps, or allow it only for subsidized housing. We have enough high-end housing. The additional housing that has been going up is not affordable for most people—it is a huge disappointment. Please educate the city’s leaders that so far, the zoning changes have not brought us affordable housing. • I support co-housing. I also believe it's important have a parking permit system to help communities manage increased occupancy and density. • Boulder should introduce parking maximums and charge for street parking. • Boulder should work with surrounding cities to create wrap around services for unhoused people and those with intermittent housing. • I have had exceptional opportunities in life that have allowed me to live in Boulder. People’s ability to live somewhere should not be predicated on good luck. • Rent control and all disincentives for the greedy investors and landlords ruining young people's lives • Building affordable housing in commercial areas is a good solution but it impacts nearby residents so it should be carefully planned and approved and not just eliminate zoning completely. • Paradise isn't paradise if locals can't afford to live there. • I feel that eliminating occupancy limits and zoning standards does nothing to ensure that housing becomes more affordable in Boulder. It'll cram more folks in, yes. Look at places like New York etc. TONS of people, TONS of housing (even super tiny closet sized apartments for the sake of adding housing) but it's still outrageously expensive to live there. Landlords will not charge the same for 4+ unrelated folks as they would for 3 to live in a rental. It's not rocket science. All of the new building that's happening in Boulder are insanely expensive apartments and condos. WHY? Why not require more affordable apartment, condo and homes to be built? • Council members please get in touch with the people you represent • Give all residents who live somewhere the option to park around their homes for free even if the driveway doesn't have space for the number of residents. Generally, increase the maximum number of occupants to the number of bedrooms available. Make it clear to landlords what the safety standard requirements are so that they have no opportunity to bring unnecessary safety risk to the tenants. Have a limit on reasonable rent prices. Apartments are especially expensive in Boulder and the difference within one year can be $400 more per month. • Experience in many cities has shown that building more and denser housing generally does not lower housing costs. • Boulder is a relatively hence city as is. The infrastructure does not support more density. CU needs to have more housing for its student or institute a student enrollment cap. • Housing affordability is not being driven by the shortage of supply. We have a very desirable community and an increase in housing affordability will just attract additional residents. Affordability and equity issues must be addressed as a regional issue. • Eliminate single family zoning, allow for multi use residential -light commercial, eliminate minimum parking for not just residential but also commercial • I believe a denser Boulder will help to reduce traffic and pollution. • Changes to zoning should be done by ballot measure ... NOT be unilateral action by City Council. • As a single family home owner in a very traditional neighbor hood, I strongly encourage us opening up our neighborhoods to people. That means denser neighborhoods with more people and more creative answers to personal and shared motorized transport options. • Rent cap Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 27 • Increasing the number of unrelated people allowed to live together by one or two people accomplishes NOTHING. • Relax zoning to allow for redevelopment of commercial buildings into housing • The City should buy current multifamily housing buildings, renovate and rent out units themselves (not contract out) at affordable housing prices rather than relying on new development and density to lower prices. The City has been allowing many new developments over years - has it reduced prices? It has NOT, prices have continued to rise. Do you even have a target number where prices would plateau? Relying on third parties to supply affordable housing has already shown not to work. Why continue to do more of the same? It's the definition of insanity - keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. There are plenty of older multifamily housing buildings the City can buy, renovate, and rent out at TRULY affordable rates. Whatever excuse the City may throw out to negate this possibility, just remember this same City thought they could run their own utility company. Think outside the box instead of doing same old same old - that's hardly progressive. FWIW, I am a low income renter and do not buy this silly idea that building even more units will reduce prices. The only people this helps is developers and landlords who will purchase and rent the new units, who have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to reduce rents. This is a no-brainer! Also, what was ever the point in the code requiring X number of parking spaces per units based on occupancy, only to allow more occupants (but no new parking), forcing those new people to park on the streets? There is no data to back up the strategy of providing occupants with eco passes as a method to reduce cars. You're kidding yourself and trying to kid Boulder residents that providing eco passes for a couple years makes people not buy (and park) a car. Also, I would wholly support a % of affordable housing to go to police officers and first responders. They deserve to live in the city they are protecting and this would also encourage applicants in a country where there are police shortages everywhere. They would also be more likely to enforce basic codes and laws in the city if they actually live in those same neighborhoods. Thx • I strongly believe that Boulder, Colorado's housing policy should reduce zoning restrictions and occupancy limits to make it easier to build and find housing in Boulder. Boulder is facing a severe housing shortage, which has led to skyrocketing home prices and rents, making it increasingly difficult for middle and low-income families to find affordable housing. By increasing access to a wider range of housing options, Boulder can start addressing the housing crisis in our own back yard. Zoning restrictions that limit the density and type of housing that can be built contribute to the housing shortage by limiting the supply of new housing. We're in the midst of a housing and climate crisis, and the best way to address both is by building denser, more walkable cities. By allowing more housing units to be built in a city where people work (over half of Boulder's workers have to commute in!), we can help to reduce traffic congestion and promote sustainable development. Overall, reducing zoning restrictions is a necessary step for Boulder to take if it wants to address its housing crisis and create a more equitable and sustainable city. If we want to live up to our values, we must increase access to housing. • We need more housing! More high rises away from the mountains would be great • Boulder's economy relies on service sectors workers and the university, but a lot of workers and students need to commute in from outside communities, driving up emissions and taking a time and financial toll on two groups who are strapped for cash and time. Allowing more residences in the city would help with this problem. • We should repeal single family zoning city wide so that our housing stock can grow to meet population growth without pricing existing residents out or contributing to sprawl. A good model of this if more of the city looked like the North Holiday neighborhood in NoBo. • Increasing occupancy limits and eliminating zoning requirements is not going to result in more affordable housing. If we want more affordable housing, we should build more affordable housing. And in our limited space, we should not be entertaining projects like the one at 2700 Baseline that will build "boutique, high-end" student housing units. Destroying neighborhood quality of life with increased occupancy limits all while giving developers projects like 2700 Baseline....way to go planners! • It’s time to end exclusionary zoning and parking requirements that work against Boulder’s equity, climate, transportation, and livability goals. Thank you for taking this on. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 28 • Strong enforcement of trash, noise &amp; nuisance properties. • Boulder needs to be way more dense and way more mixed use. Design the city around walking and bikes. Cars should be 4 or 5 on the list • Zone for what you want - and I want more affordable housing. On the balance, I care more about new market rate and affordable housing than I care about parking requirements, or development regulations. • Please consider whom you need to serve here. City council does not pay for this, property owners do. The way this has been handled shows no consideration to people that sacrificed salary levels and a lower cost of living to making Boulder their home. Not everyone is wealthy here. Please give respect to those that have managed to give up things to live here, not those that just think it would be great to live here, and then make it into something it wasn’t when they arrived. Including those on city council. • Boulder is entirely unaffordable. I work 3 jobs and am moving out of Boulder in 2 months so I can afford to make enough to live and save towards my future. • we need more affordable housing, but we also need to cap the % of rental increases allowed. Landlords will increase the rent for their homes to match the market, but their mortgages aren't going up and each house/unit is not requiring an extra $100/month or more for routine maintenance. So many emergency fund programs in Boulder are running out of funds because more and more people are applying for rental assistance. • So many home owners rent out individual rooms. Is that accounted for when you ask for household income? E.g., I rent a room from a couple who make a combined $300k or more per year, but I only make $36k/year. Wages in Boulder should be set to match median rents and house/apartment/condo costs. Boulders workforce should be populated by Boulderites. • I think CU needs to provide more on campus housing and require freshman and sophomores to live on campus. • Plenty of space on north side. Don't ruin neighborhoods of your voters just to score points. • Fix the planning team. It is much too expensive and way too long to get permits even for basic remodels. • Allowing more types of housing throughout all residential zones relieves pressure to maximize building size along arterials ; integrates more economic diversity in our neighborhoods. If you only allow large apartment blocks in East Boulder, then it will self-reinforce the opinion that change always has to be “drastic”. • Housing is not affordable (to rent or to own) In Boulder. Reducing parking minimums and allowing mixed-use, denser housing is essential to allowing more people to live in Boulder and to combat GHG emissions on a regional scale. We need to be building dense, mixed-use, walkable and bikeable communities for people and planet. We should not be prioritizing single family homes and private automobile parking. If Boulder wants to walk the walk and truly be a role model for equity and environmental justice, Boulder should do away with single family home zoning, occupancy limits, and parking minimums. • Reduce parking requirements for new construction, require NPP for the area, and don't allow (or overcharge) residents of the new below-parking-capacity construction to apply for parking permits. • Implement the failed State land use bill on the Boulder side so that the bill can fare better next session. • End the cash in lieu program. Make them include actual affordable housing. • Please improve our housing affordability and allow for growth in our city. Our planet and our most vulnerable neighbors need it! It will make Boulder an even better place to live. • Government restrictions designed to limit housing supply are done for two reasons. The first is to inflate housing prices, where it acts as a tax paid by poor people, students, and renters to wealthy homeowners, real estate speculators, and corporate landlords. If corporations collude to limit the supply of some product to increase prices that would be illegal pricefixing, punishable by 3x damages and criminal prosecution under the Sherman antitrust act. So why is it completely legal for property owners to do the same through local government? The second reason for these restrictions is to keep out undesirable people, which has a long and racist history in Boulder. I would direct who ever is reading this to the recent documentary on the topic for more. Research overwhelming shows that unaffordable housing drives poverty and homelessness. These restrictions, in Boulder and across the country, are stifling our nation’s economic productivity, causing mass despair and misery, Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 29 and contributing to an acute cost of living crisis, and for what? I have to fork over half of my grad student stipend to a corporate landlord every month just because homeowners have rigged the system? Personally I would support abolishing all housing restrictions and zoning laws in the city of Boulder effective immediately, so we can all cheer as housing prices and rents fall out of the sky like Icarus. • I think there could be more infill in areas around Gunbarrel and east of 47th. West of 47th is getting too de nse. I could see a city owned RV/Tent living area with bathroom and shower facilities for people who don't want to go into shelters. Maybe allow for tiny homes there. Again, the area around the airport or toward Gunbarrel would be great. • I live with a polyamorous family. Although we do not meet Boulder's definition of "family", there are other progressive cities (e.g. Cambridge, Mass) that recognize this legitimate, committed family structure. I call for Boulder to do the same. In general: families are important, in all their forms. Allowing a "family" of 4 or 5 to live together, whether they are polyamorous, registered domestic partners, or even just close friends/housemates... is a huge positive for our society. More reliance on family structure = less reliance on the state. And will make Boulder a more affordable place to live for artists, musicians, and people who make this city vibrant and alive. • Build more houses that create more density ASAP • I know we love our quality of life but the community health is more important to me than having a parking spot on demand and or dealing with more traffic. maybe it will reduce traffic when people live close enough to get to work by bus and bike! there are many of us that believe in growth and affordable housing for our neighbor's, we are just quieted by all of the NIMBY bullies...its a bit scary really how fervent they are! • The clash I hear is between single moms with kids worried college students will price them out of existing options if standards change. That’s a real concern I hope will be considered. • I'm not a single issue voter, but increased access to housing and increased affordability are my top issues when choosing what candidates to vote for. • I couldn’t find a decent place to buy in my price range circa 2018 when my wife and I were planning on children. Moved to Nederland where we could afford a SFH. Would have loved a place that was affordable for us in the city; now we commute all over the place. • Zoning changes are necessary or fewer and fewer people that make the city run will be able to live within city limits. 60k plus people commuting in and out every day in cars is not good for us either. • Because of zoning laws and occupancy limits, I can’t afford to live in Boulder. I am a 28 year old transfer student at CU Boulder and Colorado is my home. I have to live and commute by bus from Longmont to Boulder every day which is unreliable and takes hours of time out of my day and schedule to get to class. If Boulder had more affordable housing, I would have more time to enjoy life outside of work and school and could live where I work. • There should be a limit on how many rental properties one person/family or company can own • Mixed zoning. Allow people to live where they work and shop and recreate. Results in denser, walkable, sustainable communities • In Madison, WI houses and some single story businesses were purchased (in city-block sections) to allow denser, higher rise apartments &amp; private dorms near the university and state street areas to limit students taking over neighborhood housing. These dwellings were safer for the students and better managed. Might be worth considering in Boulder where tensions run high between CU and it’s neighbors. Keeping single family housing stock available for families can also help with affordability &amp; school enrollment. • As a 26 year old living in Boulder, housing affordability is very close to my heart. I wish I didn’t have to break the law in order to live with roommates and afford rent. I’d like to be able to stay in Boulder for a long time and the measures discussed in this survey would be a huge step in the right direction. • Rent control. CU capping enrollment until it builds more housing. • I feel like all of these changes will only benefit landlords and developers. If you can split the rent five ways then the rent will just go up making homes more valuable for landlords but also prohibition expensive for people wanting to buy their home. These plans are short sighted - any gains for affordable housing will be lost to market forces within a year or two. Affordable housing efforts needs to be focused on our seniors and our first responders and Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 30 our teachers. We should not be creating more housing so more people can move here and ultimately make housing more expensive again. • Please stop spending tax payer dollars on this wasted effort. Boulder needs to be protected like a national park. Stop wasting money on affordable housing projects. Why don’t you start with downsizing the city government, lower sale taxes, and lower property taxes. This will make Boulder more affordable. • Economists have proven repeatedly, rent control does not work • I'm not comprehensively familiar with current code, but my understanding is that currently, developers are incentivized to build units which are smaller in number but larger in square footage. I'd like to see this change. • Always make sure infrastructure (services, roads) can adequately support any future development. Infrastructure already stressed or failing in areas. • In neighborhoods around CU the complete elimination of occupancy limits could result in homes being turned into de facto dorms: with many rooms crammed into a ranch with a basement, or maybe a second floor put on top. A 1400 sqft ranch with a basement and popped top could contain 12-14 rooms and bring in $200,000 in revenue annually. This would be very bad for the city since these homes are most accessible to young families - which are being priced out of the city. It would additionally, eliminate cheaper shared housing - which is exactly what people want higher occupancy limits to support. • Use existing zoning for increasing housing. Propose specfic zone changes to those area that fit with the neighborhood (ie near shopping/downtown, multi-plex already in the area) Lift height restrictions east of foots to allow 5 - 8 floor apartment buildings. Consider east Boulder open space for public housing. • Please stop spending public funds on any affordable housing items in Boulder. The City of Boulder Housing and Human Services Department needs to be completely defunded immediately. Housing prices are driven by supply and demand in the open market. Recently housing prices are dropping in Boulder which will help affordability. The City should not be involved in housing by building cheap, crappy and poorly built housing that is affordable. • I would also support allowing fourplexes on all single-family lots. All commercial and mixed-use areas should allow much higher levels of density, like large apartment buildings, to encourage walking, biking, and transit use and lower vehicle miles traveled. • Ban investment groups and housing management groups from buying housing in Boulder. Even go so far as to require existing companies to sell their properties within 5 yrs time. Housing is for living, not for profit. Housing should go to people who own no more than 2 other properties, but really meant for those who own nothing and want to live there full time. Demand is endless because housing is a necessity. Younger generations such as myself are facing real homelessness because we can never save up because we are forced to spend half of our income on someone else's passive income. The market will never correct if it's monopolized, and we are competing with firms backed by millions who pay inflated housing prices because land is a limited resource and it will always pay off. Neighbors also benefit from people who can, and want to, maintain their own properties, than slumlords who let aging housing go to neglect. • There should be affordable housing in Boulder…. But it should not be in areas zoned for single family homes. Occupancy for unrelated individuals in areas zoned for single family homes should not exceed two individuals. • Any change to occupancy limits needs to factor in infrastructure. Without adequate water, sewage, drainage, road capacity, electricity, gas, internet, and public transit, adding more people will just increase traffic, congestion, crowding, noise, pollution, and will endanger public health. It’s not realistic to imagine that everything will magically run on electric power given the constraints of our infrastructure. • I've lived in Boulder since 1986. Became a homeowner in 1994, and have *always* thought the occupancy limit of 3 unrelated people was NUTS. Occupancy should be based on safety and public health regulations, and that's all. • 1. Reducing parking requirements is not a "one size fits all" solution to provide more affordable housing. Some areas/neighborhoods have wide streets and can handle more on-street parking. But many neighborhoods do not. Where I live, if a standard American made pickup is parked across from another pick-up truck, the street is reduced to one lane. Many times a vehicle that is larger than a standard pick-up occupies an on-street parking space and then drivers have to take turns to continue on their way. FedEx, UPS and other delivery trucks frequently do this Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 31 now. If the entire street had cars parked on both sides, it would have to be turned into a one-way street! Add a delivery truck to this situation and you have a no-way street! Firetrucks, school buses and ambulances would be at a standstill. 2. Allowing duplexes and triplexes in established, i.e. built-out, single family neighborhoods will only encourage any marginally affordable houses to be bought up by real estate developers. Those lots will be scraped and multi- family rentals will be built; these rentals will command higher rates as they will be more desirable because of their location. More rentals only widens the wealth gap in this town, unless they are rent-controlled to be permanently affordable. • If we want to more affordable housing, we need to have MORE housing. In addition to building more housing we need to have more space for people and less for cars, this means eliminating parking spaces and narrowing multi - lane roads. • Continued growth is ruining the city. • Pass reasonable protections for renters that more explicitly prohibits unreasonable late fees, fees for unwanted services, and utilities associate with unoccupied units. • Adding the number of people who can live in a house will not increase affordability UNLESS YOU HAVE RENT CONTROL. Without rent control it will just result in fewer single family homes since families cannot compete with investors buying houses. My neighbor's house (family lived there since 1956) just went on the market and the first two offers were sight-unseen from out of state investors! They would likely would love to see an increase in the legal number of tenants they could rent to. This has the potential to destroy neighborhoods unless you add rent control. Landlords will not voluntarily keep prices low. Thank you. • Allow homes sold to be demolished and replaced with small apartment buildings / light mixed use development areas. Will encourage less commuting and more sustainability • Allow the construction of ADU's on all single family lots. • increase affordable housing!! • The affordable housing issue is more complex than the simple-minded fixes being proposed. Ideology and wishful thinking will not get us where we want to go. Examples: -Ideology- density increases will provide affordable housing; the truth is that density increases only create density increases unless there are regulatory restrictions requiring affordability. Boulder is already denser than many major US cities (Phoenix, Atlanta, Salt Lake City) -Wishful thinking- simply adding more dwelling units will provide affordable housing; the truth is that without implementing regulatory restrictions and/or demand-side strategies, expanding the supply of missing middle MARKET-RATE housing will not be able to offset the intense demand for Boulder housing, and will ultimately fail to create anything affordable. We are well aware of how doing the same thing over and over again (ie. building market rate housing and expecting it to magically be affordable) and expecting different results has been diagnosed. The same wishful thinking is exhibited by increasing occupancy limits and assuming that somehow the rent will stay the same, thus spreading a fixed cost over more tenants. Again, without intervention in the market, the rents will increase and affordability will only be a fiction of the imagination. It's long past time to keep looking for simple fixes in magical thinking and instead get down to the real work of crating affordability!!!! • So much wasted interior space in single family homes throughout much of Boulder, esp. in aging neighborhoods where 1 or 2 older people live in a house. • Require CU to house its students rather than crowding the city with them • Boulder needs to support attainable housing and stop with the NIMBYS who are only concerned about their perceived house values. If we want teachers, workers, servers, etc. to be part of our community, they deserve to live here. In the current climate crisis we can not keep demanding workers commute into Boulder because it's too expensive to live. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 32 • Remove the height limit. Stop relying on community input systems which advantage the retired and wealthy, which encourage inequity in community planning. • more density will not lower housing costs. Boulder is desirable and will attract people with means to live here. Family assistance and transfer of wealth allow affluence to continue without diversity. Maids, bartenders, retail clerks, trades people, roofers, grounds keepers, etc al. , will not live in Boulder except in subsidized housing. City should buy apartment buildings and provide subsidized housing. • New housing in Boulder will not be affordable unless there are specific requirements for permanent affordability, as is the case for some homes. I understand that new developments which have been approved contingent upon a certain percentage being affordable have not had that affordability requirement enforced, so I am wary of such arrangements. Regardless of how many units are built, there will be people who will buy them at a high price. A stunning number of people have huge incomes and choose to live here. So lots of new construction will not lead to housing available to people making average wages. It just won't. It will not solve the issue of people in - commuting to Boulder to work. It will just lead to a larger quantity of expensive housing, more congestion and more load on natural resources and more money for developers. Boulder has ALWAYS been expensive compared to neighboring communities. Many homeowners stretched to purchase here because of the 1% new construction limit. We chose open space; we chose less crowded streets; we chose a more livable city. And we paid much more for that than what a home would have cost elsewhere. As for parking, we need housing to include that because for better or worse people will have cars. The rental do wn the street has 6-8 unrelated people living in it. They park on the sidewalk regularly. My whole street in this single family neighborhood is mostly parked up. Reducing parking requirements? That would make Boulder more like a big city where parking is difficult to come by but people find a way to park somewhere. • I do not oppose reduction of restrictions on ADUs. I strongly support starting with those. and gradually reducing restrictions, with off-ramp if it doesn't help. Occupancy to 4 unrelated people is the place to start. If that doesn't reduce costs, take another approach. I strongly support rent stabilization. Use that with leverage at State House as that works and they are not loosening restrictions on that because they are co-opted by the real estate development lobby. Make them answer for that unfair position. • We will never make Boulder “affordable.” Higher density should be consolidated in areas like Boulder Transit Center (ha) where services can be located. Also note, a higher population in a closed area like Boulder will lower the quality of life: trails too crowded, more traffic, more cars, and based on our shared experience- more crime. • CU needs top stop increasing student enrollment. We will never have enough housing if CU keeps increasing enrollment. We have to get light rail from Boulder to Longmont, Lousville etc... WE need to stop encouraging business like Google moving in and then forcing increased density in low density neighborhoods! WE need to stop in lieu payment for affordable housing. Every development needs to include affordable housing period. • 1. houses must be occupied. No second homes and pied-a-terre. If not using home, must rent it out or face sizeable fines. See how the city of Copenhagen manages this concept. Works well for everyone, even property owners. 2. No investment purchases of residential real estate. To purchase you must intend to live in the residence. The city should not allow corporate or even smaller multiple-dwelling landlords to compete against normal citizens who view real estate as a place to live or raise a family. Do we want a city or a REIT? 3. Just eliminate parking requirements altogether. What is the actual purpose? Its ugly, discourages public transport and a waste of space in a small city like Boulder. Long-term growth in pedestrian and bike traffic is simple to manage compared to cars. These are common sense ideas. Many cities in Europe have stronger real estate markets, a much better supply of housing and of significantly higher quality (not luxury junk) than Boulder and they already follow versi ons of these ideas. • Increasing occupancy only benefits the landlords to make add income. Our neighbor current rents his 4 bedroom condo for $4,000 month. He made a comment in an HOA meeting about if the occupancy level is increased, he would have no problem allowing 5 people live in his unit and charge $5,000 a month. We live off Tenino and Manhattan. We have very limited parking in our complex. Each unit has a two car garage. All others are required to park on Manhattan, which is already full. Manhattan Middle School often has soccer, lacrosse practice and games. The streets in the area are full. I see this becoming a nightmare, with no benefits to renters looking for lower price rents. Landlords will be the winners. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 33 • I thought we already voted on this -? Why is city council trying to ignore their constituents? I am opposed to any increase in housing density. Affordability has always been an issue here (I was born here and my parents struggled with it). I think any increase to density will only make Boulder less desirable. • Please consider the realities of water limitations, our infrastructure, and negative environmental impacts of unrestricted density. People will have cars whether Boulder wants them to or not. Boulder folks love getting to the mountains, skiing, camping, etc. and they use cars to access those recreational opportunities. Further, our bus system in most areas of the city is not adequate for most people to not have cars. It doesn't run on weekends in my neighborhood. It's unrealistic to think otherwise. We can't build our way into affordability. • Affordable housing is a serious problem in Boulder. Developers buy out their comitment to afforable by giving $ in lieu which will never solve the problem or be enough $. What is difficult is the wealthy owning 2or 3 or more homes which are taking homes out of the market that is competitive to affordability. I'd like to know how many apartments are being built and if their count is in the formula of affordable availability... There seems to be a lot of development of apartments in Boulder, not permanent afforable housing. An example also is a developer who wants to make Boutique apartments for CU students off of Table Mesa and South Boulder Rd, as if CU isn't building enough in South Boulder....It's confusing and contradictory actually and not transparent. • Less wasted space on empty parking lots = more space for humans • Leave our single family residential zoning alone. We bought where we did because we wanted to live in that zoning. You have a lot of gall deciding that what you want should take precedence. Remember BOFP was defeated!!! • Boulder's huge problem is the jobs/housing imbalance. Boulder isn't able to keep bringing in new industries. Secondly, the CU 's mission to get bigger and bigger, causing an extreme housing shortage. CU tells Boulder: we'll grow as big as we want; the city can deal with the ever increasing housing shortage. The city well knows there are many dwellings with occupancies of many students, not 3, not 4. Those dwellings are often not taken care of, and there are often loud goings on that disturb neighbors. • I’m concerned about increased density in areas of higher flood or fire risk. • Loosened restrictions on parking minimums means that the city needs to get better about transit, cycling, and pedestrian access to things people need. While removing parking minimums for businesses, bike parking minimums need to be raised. • Work to repeal the prohibition on rent control • Listen to the voters - there’s a new concept for all of you! • Please look at removing or significantly reducing parking requirements; these requirements make no sense for the current needs of the town and make by-right projects for middle income /attainable housing infeasible. • Require designs that blend with a neighborhood despite being multi-family Explore underground parking in new construction • Thanks for asking. I am concerned with your questions because they don't seem to grasp the real issues. Occupancy shouldn't be based whether or not people are related, certainly, but it should be determined by the number of bedrooms as indicated in the county assessor's office. Subdividing for more bedrooms should not be allowed without a process and without making those changes to the county assessors office. It is easy to manage and fair to "families", "roommates" and neighbors. Some neighborhoods, like mine, could have an accessory unit on every property and it would not be a problem. However, it would be a huge problem in certain neighborhoods. This is a neighborhood by neighborhood issue. Limiting parking is simply not viable until public transportation is easier with small vans and buses within neighborhoods feeding into larger buses. It is obvious that developers would like to limit parking because they can build more and make a greater profit, but it doesn't address housing costs and it looks awful. It also eliminates open spaces and fills them with concrete. The overall issues need to be revisited with healthy and respectful give-and-take dialogue to seek common ground Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 34 and develop better options. While lower and middle income housing needs to be preserved in Boulder, the size does not need to be greatly increased. The population of Boulder County is not growing. The issue is housing for more lower and middle income residents. The reason why so many commuters drive into Boulder is because they want to live in affordable houses, not condos or apartments. The middle-income housing programs are great and need to be expanded. The efforts to provide services for unhoused people need to be expanded (as you seem to be trying to do), but you do not need to change zoning or change occupancy in the manner you are envisioning. While they seem like good solutions, they only make the situation worse and don't really address affordability while they do make our lovely city look ugly. If you continue down this road, you will turn all of Boulder into a place that looks like 30th street. If you increase ADUs without careful planning, you will simply have developers buy houses, build more, and sell them for a great profit for developers but not for the middle-class. • Cost of housing hasn’t increased here as much as other cities since the pandemic. Median home price to income disparity isn’t even a national top 10. Boulders protection of open space and and density has made it desirable, now people are saying that’s unfair and will ruin the thing that made it desirable. • Please consider capping the % that rent can be raised in a given year, require 90 days' notice for rent increases to current tenants (to allow time to relocate if needed), and limit the number of rental properties that can be owned or managed by individuals or corporations. • The NUMBER of people allowed/housing unit does NOT determine the affordability of renting or buying that housing unit. There MUST be regulations that address COST. • stop trying to push your densification agenda. It is not ours. No densification until we feel safe in public. Send folks arrested with meth/fentenyl to 8 days of detox, mandatory. • This is a BAFP redux • Increased taxes on people/companies that own multiple properties in Boulder. I feel like part of the reason rent is so high is because there’s only a few property companies that dominate in Boulder, so they kind of control rental demand. • The businesses along 28th should become a new mixed use zoned neighborhood • Improving transit/bike options enables higher density and improves housing availability! • Instead of parking, why not put in bike lanes instead, or use the extra space for the units in question. At least with the bike lane, you're encouraging the new density to use more environmentally and healthy modes of transportation. Just a thought. As long as there are less cars and more public transit. • Housing should be allowed above businesses. There are lots of vacant and empty spaces that could be filled with affordable housing. Also, all new housing developments should allocate an appropriate amount of units to be rented at fixed and an affordable rate for lower income resident's of Boulder. Increasing taxes of the ultra rich would also help to subsidize low income housing development. • Remove parking minimums and focus on more transit oriented development • You must have parking requirements in place! Ok to add ADUs, but don’t increase capacity in houses too much. • Do not cater to the Boulder Chamber of Commerce and developers who want to maximize profits by increasing density. • Cash in lu seems broken, developers aren't building affordable housing in these massive complexes in town but on the edges. Are you pushing people out?? • Consider the fact that Boulder is routinely ranked as one of the most highly desirable cities in which to live in the US. Then consider Boulder’s existing zoning, especially it’s low-density residential zoning that has yielded the most livable and desirable residential neighborhoods in Boulder. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 35 Then consider Boulder residents’ historic votes to limit unsustainable growth as embodied in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the Blue Line, building height limitations, City and County Open Space programs (including BoCo agricultural land purchases). Then consider urban planning recommendations made to the City of Boulder nearly a century ago by renowned urban park planner Frederick Law Olmstead. Then connect the dots. Thank you for conducting this survey. • Boulder is a desirable city. It is not the taxpayer job to make sure all can live here. • NO MORE DENSITY!! TOO MANY PEOPLE ALREADY! • (sharply) Increase tax on unoccupied properties. • Stop building all the cheap and unused affordable housing. Considering you have unused units at market rate all around Boulder that have sat empty for months even years • Increase properties in affordable housing program and start an HOA assistance program to keep people in the affordable housing. The HOA fees are ver expensive (like $500) a month • Higher density, even though it brings lower pollution per Capita at NYC and Chicago densities, does not bring the same benefits with less than maximal urban density. Lots of data on this. And regardless of impact per capita, it still brings higher overall pollution exposure levels to every resident, in absolutely every city measured, and that pollution exposure is directly related to population density. This pollution and other densification effects are directly related to mortality and morbidity increases in densely populated areas in the US and beyond compared to less density. • Please allow more types of housing in Boulder, but especially around high demand areas. Areas around Pearl and Spruce should not have single family homes. They should have apartments and stores abbe things that make the city more affordable and interesting, not just a bunch of decrepit homes that still rent for huge amounts. • These ideas are so great • Reduce demand or have people accept that classic boulder simply will not exist in the future. • The city should develop city owned land like the airport and planning reserve land with affordable housing. The city should increase the fees on developers and to fund more housing and increase the number of affordable units required in each new mult-unit building. • Being from Berkeley, CA my experience is that density DOES NOT produce more affordable housing. Boulder already has more density than has been documented because of unpermitted ADU's and duplexes, and violations of number of residents per dwelling. City Council and Planning Board should not be re-zoning for density in single family neighborhoods. I'd recommend taking a look at the golf course for development if the City of Boulder wants to use the Affordable Housing funds to develop middle income housing. Affordable Housing funds could also be used to support the mobile home parks in Boulder. • The city should work closely with CU to build more student housing on campus, which has lots of unused space and lawns that require lots of water. Undergrad students should be required to live on campus. Moving students to the campus would free up lots of housing for more permanent residents. It would also be a better way to address water resources and climate change. In addition, it would reduce the additional strain on BPD to respond to issues related to student disruptions to the Boulder community. • Rent doesn’t need to be 3,000 for a 2b/1b. That’s fucking bananas. People who WORK IN BOULDER should be able to LIVE IN BOULDER. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. • Simplify the ADU approval process and allow them everywhere if not already. • Limits on investment properties in Boulder County • Increasing occupancy limits will have NO effect on affordability. The average price per room will remain the same and density will increase. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 36 • Get a good education, work hard, save your money, and then buy a house you can afford and pay it off as quickly as you can. Forego the ski passes, manicures, concerts, expensive coffe’s/meals out, and then you’ll have money for your house payment. • The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. • Increasing occupancy will increase affordability. Boulder landlords are not stupid, rental rates will go up proportionally to the number of potential renters. The result will be renters living in more crowded conditions for the exact same rent. • Possibly use the Chambers Farm land for affordable housing. • The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that mor e undergrad students live on campus. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change. • Stop building apartments and homes. There is a shortage of water and many transportation issues already, why add to the current problems without fixing those first? If any homes should be added they should be condos or townhomes, there are not enough of those. Boulder county was nice with plenty of open space - do not become what Broomfield is now - a congested ugly mess of traffic and homes crunched together. We dont need more people in Colorado • Stop trying to densify Boulder. • Density alone is not the answer. Think about what makes people want to live here, not just visit. Plan for what kind of residents (commuters, students, long-term, families, young, old, etc.) and what kind of neighborhoods (walkable, drivable, busy, quiet, etc.) you want, and make sure they're sustainable, e.g. no food deserts or traffic nightmares. Try to have 2 and 3-story buildings with resident-serving shops (especially everyday food &amp; supply sources) below, apartments above. Utilize more land to the east and north for denser, family-friendly housing, NoBo/Stapleton style. Respect the character &amp; history of neighborhoods like Goss-Grove which have an enticing mix of housing types &amp; residents already; they can be improved without wiping out. Put a cap on rent increases to retain a healthy percentage of long-term residents. • None of these proposals should be a blanket city wide policy. Certain areas should be exempt especially University Hill. The high rentals in homes meant for single families under this proposal opens a door to serious occupancy problems and abuse of the system. Current ordinances are not being enforced due to lack of staffing and this will open a serious Pandora's Box that will make areas such as The Hill an unpleasant place to live for long term residents. • We need more housing for regular working people, not more mansions for trust funders. Seriously, no more massive houses, limit square footage or charge a premium for footage beyond 3k square feet. • The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents, helping this issue and others tremendously. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 37 • I believe eliminating parking minimums is one of the best things (and among the lowest lifts) we can do for our community and to curb the affordable housing crisis. Eliminating single-family zoning is also key, as is adopting a strong equity-focused infill strategy. • It’s ok if Boulder is different. If you want to fix housing, make it so that no one wants to live here. • Adding unlimited duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes to my neighborhood while simultaneously lifting all density limits on ADUs will completely destroy my neighborhood. It is already hard enough to find a parking place. I live in the "cheap seats" in Boulder, Martin Acres, where developers are hungry for profits. If the city is that committed to undermining our family-oriented and gladly-shared-with-students neighborhood (gladly, that is, given current occupancy limits) then you might as well just raze all of Martin Acres and put up apartment and condos in the entire swath of land. I was attracted to Boulder in the first place because of its commitment to publicly accessible open space, limited growth, and limited build-out. Apparently that vision has been abandoned. I am dismayed and disheartened by this proposal, following on the heels of last year telling me that my taxes will go up because of "improvements" that will come from adding 100,000 or more vehicle trips per day to the soon to be built South Campus - another change that lowers our quality of life in this neighborhood while forcing greater density and traffic upon us. I do feel like Martin Acres is being thrown under the bus. • Please do not take steps to reduce housing costs by reducing the quality of living (and therefore desirability). Concepts like higher occupancy rates and tossing parking restrictions out the door will only serve to reduce the quality of living for people who invested in residential living when they purchased. Focus attention on density near transit centers instead. Thank you. • Preserve single family neighborhoods zoning. Under no circumstances increase housing occupancy on the Hill or Goss Grove • Let’s build more long-term housing for folks coming out of homelessness and not include rules about substance abuse. I also support banning camping in city limits, but not until we have housing and emergency housing for all homeless folks. • The primary pain we experience living on The Hill relates to the spill over of students from the lack of housing CU provides. Trash, loud parties, fireworks and the degradation of the older homes in our community. To that end, we would like to see the following: 1. The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. 2. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. 3. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. • Our current zoning only favors one group in our community - single family homeowners. It's well past the time that our policies address the obvious need for urban density in Boulder. By encouraging business development like the Google campus in a city that was already housing-strained, we've created a disparate community and lost so much of what made boulder special - it's people. • The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change. • Require any density increases to have a mandated and enforced permanent affordability factor. ADUs being added to increase density must follow standards for shade and view disruptions for adjacent properties. Continuing to use shad/sun standard for solar access of neighbor homes. • Higher density in the Hill neighborhood (where I live) will not equal affordability. Landlords charge by the person, so this would mainly benefit landlords/investors. In addition, there isn't enough parking currently so parking would become untenable for renters, families with small children, and the elderly. Do not increase density on the Hill but look elsehwere where the infrastructure can support higher density (driveways for each home, more land, Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 38 etc.). The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents, reduce pressure on the police responding to disturbance calls, and support climate change. Please look to CU to solve this, not the Hill residents to take on the burden. • Impress upon CU the need to increase student housing on or near campus • Also allow ADUs • If the university increases enrollment, it should increase student housing. Increasing enrollment without building a similar amount of new student housing creates pressure on local rental markets. The city should also encourage the construction of more 3-4 bedroom units for families with kids. Not doing so forces families out of the city and creates more vehicular traffic and dependency on cars as well as pressure to build new schools in eastern Boulder County. • The parking requirement is tough. As an rep for an apartment owner in Boulder our experience is that everyone has at least one car and generally a big one to fit their recreational needs. Boulder itself is very walk able, but it doesn't deter all the sports enthusiasts from still needing a vehicle to haul bikes, go skiing, camping, etc... Add to that, that most units have more than one vehicle. You combine reduced parking requirements with more occupancy from the previous topic and what you're going to wind up with is a parking shortage, a bunch of NIMBY neighbors complaining about parking and a fee for guaranteed parking. If there is a way to lower costs to encourage development without sacrificing parking you might strike a better balance. • Find incentives for landlords to keep rent reasonable. • Simply increasing density will not lower rent or housing costs. This will provide more profit to "investors" who are already a large part of the problem with increasing costs. I do agree with supporting smaller living spaces with perhaps duplexes rather than large luxury homes replacing scraped smaller homes. Perhaps "investors" who do not live on the property they own, or own more than one property should pay higher taxes --thus allowing affordability for people who just want to live and work in the same place. • The Hill *was* a beautiful and historic neighborhood, located in the PRIME downtown area with 2 schools (University Hill and Flatirons) both are now struggling with numbers due to a lack of families with children and is unbalanced compared to the demand in SOBO, NOBO which are packed with families. We need new housing policies which make it attractive for FAMILIES looking for homes in Boulder to purchase and renovate these dilapidated and poorly maintained properties on the Hill. We all want to see fewer cars parked on the hill, fewer trashed homes, and more renovation and investment to bring these family homes and streets back to life. We are homeowners and live next door to a house with 4xoccupancy on the Hill and we experience weekly distu rbances mainly caused by the flow of so many people (and their guests) such as drunk shouting, loud music, car alarms, ubers arriving, offensive chalking, bad language, smoking weed in back garden at 2-4 am etc. The solution is building more apartments/units ALL OVER Boulder, so we can disperse the student population among the community. Boulder has a terrible reputation for being a student party town and we should create housing policies that reduce the student ghetto (and the landlords who are profiting) and encourage more families who will live respectfully with their neighbors. • A 5 person occupancy limit would be fantastic! There are 4 and 5 bedroom houses all over Boulder that could safely allow for this, and allow house sharing to be a viable option for those who cannot afford $1200+ rental prices per month. • I am against changes that impinge upon solar access of neighboring access. I am against changes that increase density and therefore decrease the quality of living in neighborhoods. • Boulder cannot be Denver or any other high rise area. It's already ruined from the cute small town it was - it looks ridiculous along 36 and Canyon. The mountains must preserved at all cost!! There's plenty of attrition that happens here and everywhere else for people who want to move in. Boulder is NFS!! Where there have been high rises built, they should have been duplexes or more-plexes. With environment getting worse rather than better anytime soon, we cannot turn a blind eye to using up all our natural resources for the "more/bigger" mentality. It's not that more is cheaper, nor more affordable - that's being used as an excuse for the developers. We are Boulder, let's keep it Boulder! Work around keeping Boulder bolder!!!! Let's bring our small businesses back as well and Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 39 support the small businesses that are left NOW - which help affordability for everyone living here! People are healthier living with some space - not like sardines! • Increased occupancy does not necessarily lead to cheaper living, unless the City plans to simultaneously implement a restraint on the cost of rent and/or cost of housing. Simply put, with the current model, more people in a dwelling will lead to more money to the landlord. As a landlord my goal is to maximize profits, so more people equals increased wear on a property, thus requesting higher rents for the property as a whole. Keep in mind, the type of person/household that lives in an apartment is different than the type who lives in a house. Families tend to go the route of a home with a yard (added privacy). The way it stands presently, people move to Boulder to check it out. Those who wish to stay longterm and have families, tend to move to the surrounding communities where a home can be obtained for less money. Increasing occupancy limits within Boulder will not fix this loss of families, and families, both nuclear and compound, are what shape the greater part of a community. • Build an affordable, human-scale city. Just do it. The NIMBYs will learn to love it or move. We have nothing to lose but our hypocrisy • In my opinion the current occupancy limits discriminate against single people. It makes no sense to say that a family with seven children including four who drive, like my niece's, should be allowed to live in a house while four single adults cannot. Lifestyles should not be regulated. The related vs unrelated criterion should be removed from any future regulation. Doing so will be the progressive thing to do. • increase sales tax to reduce private property tax and afford government expenses • Boulder needs to provide more housing options to our students. Unless we only want the super rich students, far too many are sacrificing their financial future to go to college and live in Boulder. • Boulder is growing, yet it cannot expand upward, to the north, east, south, or west. It is time to take serious steps to improve housing availability • My problem with solutions to the lack of affordable housing is nearly always in the details. For example, more people in my neighborhood means we need a plan for the increase in traffic and parking. And if you plan to build up the infrastructure, then be honest about how we will pay for it. • Affordable housing and diverse housing options support our community's essential services, creative spirit, and overall vibrancy. As a homeowner and Boulder resident, I *strongly* support these proposed zoning updates. • The city voted last fall about this very issue (Bedrooms are 4 People) and turned it down. Now city council wants to end-run the voters. Not cool. I don't object to, say, two single moms with kids sharing one house; I do object to every house in Boulder becoming a flop house filled with too many renters. Long ago, I lived on Uni Hill when it was purely student ghetto, and it was hell. I chose my neighborhood for calm and quiet and fewer cars. • I think increasing occupancy limits will be enough, no need to change zoning or parking requirements. • Freeze class A office development, pressure CU to build dorms to house their students. Focus on root cause of demand rather than just supply. • The impact of these changes will not be the same in every neighborhood of Boulder, therefor the application of any changes should not apply universally. In student-heavy areas, changes in occupancy will not result in any change in housing costs; they will simply increase the profits of landlords, and increase problems related to crowding, noise, dangerous driving, etc. These are things that our current enforcement capacities can't keep up with at current occupancy limits. I am also curious to know how much effort has been put into understanding the capacity of resources including infrastructure, water, and law enforcement. Further, if there is a plan to densify, then what is the corresponding plan to assure that evacuation routes can handle the extra capacity. As recently as the NCAR fire, roads were at a standstill filled with people who were told to evacuate at-risk areas. Fire and flood risk is not decreasing. Increasing the population of Boulder means more people need to get out on the same roads that can't handle current evacuation traffic. And if the intention is to create more car-less options, then what is the plan to aid the car-less during evacuations? We have several problems that have gone un-addressed for years related to the impact of the student population, absentee landlords with no accountability, and appropriate management of the unhoused. Show the citizens of Boulder that you have real plans to manage a larger population appropriately, and then bring Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 40 it back to the ballot for a proper vote. Until then I do not support any changes that only benefit wealthy property owners, and council members personal aspirations of do-goodery. • Not everyone can live where they want to. A home is one of the greater investments. To buy a single fam ily home and then have an ADU or duplex built next door is not something the home owner should have to deal with. They bought a home in a specific area to accommodate their needs, and then someone who does not live in that area decides the neighborhood should have drastic change. Don't think so. • The city is denying the reality of climate change by ignoring the need to address water issues BEFORE considering any increases in population growth. There is nothing in the proposed increases in occupancy that will create affordable housing, and thus there will be absolutely no social justice benefit. The only effect will be to increase the fraction of available housing that is occupied by students, thus reducing the housing for non-students. This will inevitably result in GREATER commuting be long-term residents and greater development of low-density housing outside of Boulder, exactly the opposite of the desired outcome. The University of Colorado has the available land and resources to build efficient, high-density housing for undergraduates and to require greater on- campus residency. The city should use its policies to shift student housing to on-campus not off-campus, which these proposed occupancy increases will achieve. The proposal to reduce parking requirements is able-ist and elitist. Low-income people and people with reduced mobility have at least as much need to drive as other residents, and reducing parking favors only the most physically fit and those who can telecommute - not service workers. • Open up ADU and tiny house permits! • I live in a single family home area. My next door neighbors are 4 unrelated people. It's not the number of people in the house that is an issue; the issue is the number of cars from the residents and their guests that our streets are not designed to handle. For each of the 4 residents, there are also guest cars. That is sometimes 8 cars for one house. So, my primary objection to increasing the number of people allowed to live in each house house is the number of cars that will clog the neighborhood (and block mailboxes and sidewalk ramps, which happens often). • Occupancy total allowed should depend on size of house, number of bedrooms, and amount of parking (on street as well as garage/driveway) not a general number for all. • The affordable housing program (rent or buy) does nothing for someone in my position. I earn less than 40% of the AMI, but have an amount of assets (retirement, savings, and investment) that discludes me from qualifying. I don't understand why being financially responsible counts against me, or why there would be an expectation that I would drain my savings or retirement in order to make a rent payment. Under the current rules for affordable housing, there's no upward mobility for me. I'm "too wealthy" to qualify, but too poor to rent a decent apartment or ever own property here. • My perspective is that with ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT that is happening in Boulder there is nary an option that includes affordable housing. You guys missed the boat by not requiring all of these developers to include affordable options. Now, you want to further encroach on our space by further densifying our land by allowing more people to come here. You are crazy! You cannot keep up with the roads and crime as it is ... and you want to cram even more people into here. No way! Let the occupancy of the current builds tell the story. You need to pause and wait and see in another 18 months when all of these projects are full - what that does to our community before you add one more single person into this overpacked city. You keep allowing for more and more dense development and you continue to erode the quality of living. On top of which ... NOT ONE SINGLE development project in this community is about single family homes - market rate or affordable housing. The fact that you cannot build a single family home like the Holiday Neighborhood in any of these other areas blows my mind. Where are all of these condo living people supposed to go when they are ready to have a family? I'm never moving from my home because I cannot afford to ... and I'm not the only one in this predicament. And that means nobody can move into my single family home. So what is this condo loving generation going to do next? They'll take their families outside of the community which then erodes BVSDs enrollment and has huge implications on other facets of our community. There will be no diversity of young families anymore in Boulder. You are so thinking short term it blows my mind. There are PLENTY PLENTY PLENTY of new condo options in this community. It's time to think about affordable options for families. Forget about allowing for more single people to move in together. You missed the boat in making sure affordable clauses were included in new development. • Rather than eliminating zoning, why not create new zones that better capture the intended use? E.g., a new zone for singe family or duplex. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 41 • Reduction of parking requirements will be an incredibly important tool (I'm strongly supportive!) but must be planned accordingly with a comprehensive vision of transportation system improvements--namely more frequent and geographically distributed public transit. Think big! :) • All of these density-creating measures are just going to drive up rents, and land/home costs. You are going to create an investor's dream and forces the rest of us moderate and low income people-- especially those of us with families to compete with house loads of students or young professionals (who can all pay more than we can) for places to live. This density is not tied to affordability and it will force us out of Boulder. Did Council note the recent scientific Rasmussen poll that showed 92% of Coloradans oppose more growth? THAT is a poll you can hang your hat on, because it was done scientifically. Unlike this goofy self-selected, non-scientific Be Heard survey. Any statistician will tell you how easily Be Heard can be gamed, and it's therefore worthless. Do a real scientific survey of randomly selected (not self-selected) residents, That will guarantee balance of all relevant demographic and socio-economic factors. Your survey here only asks for optional, non-verified self reporting. That ain't the same, which you'd know if you ever consulted people who actually know this stuff. The silent majority of residents who have no idea this survey exists,. Even if they did, they're too busy raising families, working, cooking meals, etc. It's THEM you need to hear from. • Existing capacity of the infrastructure (power supply, water, sewer, gas services) should be a high priority in determining zoning. Increasing housing options is great... so long as the City need not have to drastically upgrade the basic services to do so. Given the higher density scenarios reduce environmental concerns of long automotive commutes and better access to public transportation, bike and walking paths, could some of the current build requirements (electric car charger capacity in new builds) be eliminated in order to keep the cost of building these deed restricted buildings lower? • Zoning restrictions on protected homes (i.e. the huge number of unsightly, falling-apart, "landmark" homes) and light commercial (i.e. zoning ordinances against small shops in "housing" neighborhoods) should be relaxed. While there are some reasons for protecting specifically notable homes and for ensuring that commercial doesn't entirely overtake residential neighborhoods, both of these zoning laws have reduced the walkability of neighborhoods in Boulder. 1. Allow people to live in homes. Occupancy laws are secondary laws that are unnecessarily duplicating the laws people actually want enforced against excess noise, trash, home upkeep etc. Remove occupancy limits and enforce only the laws that actual impact neighbors. 2. Allow small commercial in residential neighborhoods so that we can have mom and pop shops, small cafes and markets, salons, etc. This would allow more commercial and job opportunities and increase the number of people walking in town. 3. Re-assess the number of landmarked buildings and the restrictions on them. While certain buildings deserve to be protected, many homes are simply old but not necessarily contributing more to their neighborhood than an updated, more energy efficient, nicer, and more matched with current needs home might be. Landmark restrictions should serve the needs of the city overall, not just the needs of a few surrounding neighbors who currently live there and have concerns about their own property value but minimal concerns about the long-term viability of Boulder's community, affordability, and neighborhoods. • I think it's important to remember that when you remove these requirements it opens an even wider window for landlords to exploit them. The profit motive undeniably exists and the city of Boulder doesn't do a good job of enforcing the regulations it has. I live in the Goss-Grove neighborhood, which has become a hotbed for outside nonresident investors who charge exorbitant rents. We also have CU parents who create LLCs and name their students as the resident-occupants. This situation also does not offer affordable rents to anyone; instead party houses are created, leaving trails of red Solo cups and airplane liquor bottles in their wake. Additionally, we recently had an ADU built to provide "affordable housing" on Goss Street. Who is living in the affordable unit? The owner, who had the capital to remodel the existing house and build the ADU. The original house, a one-bedroom, is currently listed for $4,200 a month on Zillow. • Boulder is so expensive because of our myriad unreasonable throttles on building appropriate housing types and amounts. Our neighborhoods will be changing with or without reform to occupancy and zoning standards. If we keep the standards we have, we'll get more of what we are currently getting, which is replacement of older Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 42 modest-sized homes with very large, expensive single-family homes and no affordability for middle class working people and families. That type of luxury neighborhood is not Boulder's history or tradition. If we want affordability for families and middle class workers, we need these reforms and more! • I live in an affordable housing 4-plex in Northfield Village in Boulder. This neighborhood should be a model for future growth as it contains single-family homes and attached dwellings, has a small park, and is a terrific example of having wonderful neighbors and diversity. Additionally, Northfield Commons is a similar example and another great role model. More of these neighborhoods, that are well-maintained as these are, would be welcomed by residents, I should think. They are wonderful neighborhoods. • Please listen to us as a democracy. We’ve already VOTED on this. Our collective voices were heard. • Reducing parking requirements is crazy thinking. Everyone in this town seems to have at least one car per household, if not three. Increasing occupancy limits will mean increasing cars. Parking requirement must not go away in any of the zoning categories. This is Colorado, people own vehicles to travel to the mountains to ski and camp and fish and hike. In the single-family areas with a 50 foot or 65 foot or 75 foot lot width, it’s very hard to park more than two or three cars in the street. Not all lots have off street parking becau se not all lots conform to the zoning code. The city enacted a zoning rule about occupancy years ago because this is a college town. We have a large university with a plan to increase student enrollment. The university does not house all of it’s studen ts. Because of this, Boulder is one of the top 3 real estate investment locations for rental housing in the entire nation; we are a very profitable location. Boulder also has a run away ( not well enforced by the City) Airbnb industry, which reduces our housing stock available for long term rentals. Please do not make it easier or more profitable for investors to earn money here. You will inflate the housing costs even more than they already are. Please wake up. • Boulder has become overcrowded and unpleasant. The city council should not try to overturn the will of the voters on the occupancy issue. Rather it should leave the current laws in place. That is how democracy works b • Let people camp outside or have truly affordable housing • More density, affordability and diversity - while preserving our open space - please! It's not rocket science, we know how to do this, but it involves ignoring the protests of a vocal minority of anti-change homeowners. Speaking as a homeowner whose property value has appreciated 45% in in 4 years, I think that we need to prioritize affordability even if (and I think it's a big if) increasing density and affordability hurts our property values a little bit. • CU needs to build more student housing and have more extensive requirements for students to live in that housing. • *The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. *Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. *Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. *Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change. • Home-rule city • In Arizona there are a couple of bills being debated that will allow housing options to be increased based on income levels - I think you could expand the income limits (that are currently used with Boulder Housing Partners) to homes - such as: if you are under x dollar amount you can have up to 4 people in a home (max 2 people in a room) - and also include an age clause such as if you are over 65 you can also have an increase of people in a home. I think there should be a limit to the number of duplexes/triplexes in each neighborhood - some how we have to combat these folks who can afford to buy multiple houses and then rent to a ridiculous fee - If your average city employee income is around 60k (for one person) there should be adequate housing that can be found in the 1500 range. This is NOT the case - how can you fight for equity when your own employees have to live out of the city in order to afford to work for the city? Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 43 There should also be housing programs for veterans - anyone with a DD214 - we should consider how to support them. The housing programs for veterans focus on BUYING houses, yet most suffer from ptsd and cannot work full time and/or are trying to get qualified for disability - you shouldn't have to be disabled to get those benefits. Boulder would be a shining example of patriotism if they could figure out a program that allows a dd214 to be used for some sort of housing benefit for renting. • Boulder's density is already out of control - we voted against all these changes you are proposing and now you want to go outside the vote and force single family neighborhoods to densify - add congestion, parking woes, carbon footprint, noise lighting pollution and everything else that goes with densification just because "we want to pay less and live in Boulder" NO!!@@!! • I am all for increasing density but not in current single family residential areas. Density works well when it is planned for and the appropriate infrastructure can be put in place, i.e, water, parking, roads, sewer, etc. To try to force density into single family residential areas where the infrastructure is not in place will cause problems such as road congestion, lack of parking and sadly, reduction of home values. Please let’s not sacrifice our neighborhood communities for the sake of density where it is not wanted and not practically functional. • When ever the City increases entitlements for property (ie upzoning, occupancy) it should leverage permanently affordable housing including permanently affordable home ownership and also leverage the City's climate goals and initiatives. Examples for leveraging Landuse changes could be additional units on single family lots were allowed if 50% (pick a %) were permanently affordable -and any occupancy changes would include a way to make sure that adding additional people actually reduces the rent per person. With all the corporate and private equity involvement in housing the City should not rely on the public sector to provide affordable housing unless the City regulates for the out come they want to see happen which should be adding more permanently affordable housing. It simply is not equitable to expand housing opportunities if it does not address opportunities for low to middle income residents. Examples for leveraging climate goals would include all new housing on single family zoned lots, including ADUs, would be served only by electricity and not gas. Another example would be any reduction in parking would leverage more planting areas including green rooftops. Add a criteria to the site review code to meet certain climate initiatives in site design. All of these suggestions should also apply to area plans as well as sub area plans. • Boulder is special because of its open space to population ratio. Do not ruin that by increasing the population. Don't San Fran Boulder. • The idea that upzoning our RL-1 neighborhoods will solve a middle and low income housing shortage doesnt make sense. I will simply be a windfall for speculative development and additional high end housing. • Please, can we stop thinking that restricting occupancy and density will solve the problems of parking, noise, and trash, etc.. We need to police behavior that impacts others, not the act of being, not the act of seeking shelter. • There are racial justice and labor justice components to this. For instance, graduate workers at CU Boulder (who teach classes, do research, and keep the university running --- a very different demographic from the undergraduate students) are among the most diverse workers in the city, coming from all over the world, yet are often priced out of living in Boulder. • Solutions should apply to entire city regardless of zoning. We don't want to create a segregated Boulder by only having affordable housing located along transit corridors. There should be a question about ADUs on this questionnaire. ADUs should be allowed by right. • You must have actual mechanisms to afford affordability, not pretend the magic market will do it. These could include more commercial development linkage fees, rent control, etc. • We should focus on converting existing housing stock to affordable. Adding new units or increasing occupancy will not increase affordability until demand to live in Boulder declines due to a lower quality of life. Additionally, landlords will earn more income from renting 4 bedrooms than three and the second order effect of this is simple - rental house will sell for a higher price and price is a reflection of rental income. Ideally there are programs in other communities where affordability is increased with increasing population in a way that stresses infrastructure (schools, water, parks, libraries, etc.) and the quality of life for the residents. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 44 Adding more population thru density adds more service jobs and we just keep chasing our tail w/o making progress on the affordability question. • Current zoning and occupancy laws are blatantly protections for Boulder's richest m embers and can be used as-is for selective enforcement driven by prejudice or "nuisances" as determined by those with power and money. • Properties with increased occupancy limits should be owner-occupied and should have parking requirements. • I'd like to see different levels of affordable housing options, based on one's income and assets. I am in the process of divorce but after divorce will not qualify for affordable housing in Boulder and cannot afford to live in Boulder as a single person yet I have lived in Boulder County since 1995. • Please examine and gain insight from evidenced based research in similar cities to see what worked there before making so many assumptions about what measures will lead more affordable housing. There is much debate about this and important decisions should not be based on just assumptions. Thanks! • More infill development is ok but the scale of projects currently are a blight. Zero set backs. No realistic tree canopy. Huge traffic increases. Truly ruining Boulder. • Please keep Boulder a community for families and increase single-family home building. Encourage the building of small, starter homes rather than tall, ugly condos that block the view of the Flatirons and increase pollution and stress on our infrastructure systems. • Restricting housing development during a housing shortage is like banning bakers during a famine. Let’s be realistic and liberalize our zoning and development rules so that developers can build more homes. I believe in giving people housing choices. • More community oriented housing options should be allowed, like cohousing, coops, and coliving. If 50% of our population can't afford to buy a home, they should have sustainable high quality environments in which to live. • We often hear from upset homeowners who don't want their neighborhoods to change. Increased density is the only equitable way forward. • Parking needs to be done on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. I live on UniHill - we cannot handle any more cars. But there are certainly neighborhoods within Boulder where the parking requirement might work. It is hard. as I find it impossible to visit any of the commercial establishments around the 30th and Pearl developments because there is no where to park. Those establishments will survive only if enough people living in the area support them. Also - CU needs to take greater responsibility for housing its students and low income workers. I don't know how you make them do that - but their commitment to growth, i.e. more students, just hammers us on the Hill. • We and our neighbors already experience over crowded streets, parking and noise issues. • The Residential area of the Hill should not have increased occupancy. The Hill commercial area should have increase occupancy by 1. • affordable housing should be near or close to public transit • We should do everything we can to make Boulder a more affordable place for ALL families and not just try to preserve a sanctuary for those who can afford single family homes. We should prioritize people over cars and get rid of antiquated parking requirements and encourage other modes of transportation. • 1) Allow existing ADUs to be converted to separate units and allow newly created 2nd unit to have its own utility address/connections, allow 2nd unit to be rented without the requirement of primary owner to live in one of the units and allow for sale, helping struggling homeowners to capitalize on part of the property without having to sell the entire asset. • Subsidize rent for students and families. • We need more housing and the ability to live in Boulder if we work in Boulder. As a preschool tea cher, for about 8 years I lived with a group of other preschool teachers. There were 4 of us in a four bedroom house in Martin Acres- meaning we were living illegally and secretly in order to afford to live in the town where we worked. Never once did it bother any neighbors and never once did it cause any problems at all except that we had to hide it. Not all low income people who need higher density housing in Boulder are rowdy college kids. MANY of us are doing important work for the community that is not paid what the work is worth. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 45 • Why are more high end student housing projects being allowed over affordable housing? Maybe the city should look at the projects that it’s approving instead of trying to force non-single family homes into neighborhoods that people bought into years ago, with the understanding that they were single family homes. • I work in Boulder and am seriously considering leaving my job and moving out of the region, a decsion that is heavily influenced by housing costs. Better public transit options would give me more housing options in the area • Please consider the impact on existing, historic family neighborhoods before changing the rules. Enforcement of existing rules would quickly bring about improvements, then affordability can be addressed. Destroying existing neighborhoods is not a solution. • We really need a larger stock of affordable options, and to be able to use our existing single family homes in more flexible ways. • Reduce the building requirements for ADU's. I have waited seven months for a building permit on a finished existing unit that needed a shower and kitchen sink. I will spend $35,000 on fire sprinklers, plumbing, and electrical work to add a kitchenette and shower. I had to pay an architect to navigate the system, and the City required CAD drawings of the main house and ADU which was another $3500. So much for affordable housing! This is a 420-square-foot building! I will need to charge more rent to try and pay off the expenses to meet the requirements. • Higher occupancy is a bad idea, good luck with parking • Reducing parking requirements doesn’t reduce cars. It just makes those cars everyone’s problem. • I strongly oppose increasing the occupancy limits for single family homes and apartments, as I do not think this will increase affordability for residents in the least. Landlords will continue to charge the same amount of rent per bedroom/person, so their profits will dramatically increase but savings and affordability won't be passed onto renters. In addition, parking availability and noise in residential neighborhoods (such as University Hill) will only get worse. • Boulder should permit the addition of ADUs on residential housing lots. Boulder should increase and improve transportation options to encourage denser housing without adding traffic (adding bike/ped infrastructure, increase the availability of low/no cost bus passes for students and seniors, deeply disincentivize parent drop off and pick up of students from schools and/or incentivize carpooling, public and school bus usage, and biking and walking. • cu should provide more on campus housing • I think square footage (not bedrooms) and perhaps the number of bathrooms should be considered when applying rules about number of occupants. A big house could have five unrelated people living happily, while a small house or apartment would be uncomfortably cramped. We have 4 people in our 1000-sq-ft, 1-bathroom house (we're a family) and there are constant bathroom negotiations going on and fights over the space and noise. Regarding parking, 10 years from now people may have significantly fewer cars, but right now (in my neighborhood) parking is really a problem and reducing parking requirements for apartment complexes just makes it harder on everyone else, because the tenants just park on the street in front of someone else's house. • Invoke high per-employee taxes upon businesses to encourage them to leave the city. Require companies to pay all employees a wage high enough to live near them. Both of these would help reduce employment in Boulder, thereby reducing housing demand. • remove ADU certification standard, Short term rental license certs, long term rental license certs • There are so many huge empty parking lots along arapahoe and along 28th among others. It’s so depressing. Would love to see this land utilized. • I do not mind the idea of the number of students in a house going to 4 BUT the number of people in the house needs to match the number of parking spaces. Martin acres is out of control. It must be required that a landlord (and I have been a landlord) increase the driveway size to for more than one car. Two cars on street, two cars in driveway. • The mixed density zoning areas are practically single family zoning districts since the lot size constraints are very strict. These districts could be a good place to test the effect of less strict zoning laws. • Give out free bus passes so that people who work in Boulder can commute in without adding to the air pollution. We don't have infrastructure for more people - rec centers, hiking and trailheads, swimming pools, schools, roads. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 46 It is too crowded and growth does not pay its own way. If it did, it would not be so profitable for developers. I would also like to see a 1-2% transfer tax payable by the seller on all real estate. • Higher density housing will also address the City's social justice, equity, as well as climate change goals. • It is very important that some significant change happen. A change has been needed ever since I started working on this like 25 years ago when I had to go to court for having 4 people in my North Boulder home. • Housing is a complex issue in Boulder and I look forward to seeing how it is addressed. I think in areas where it makes sense there should be higher density but I also think there needs to be more public transportation options to address traffic, protected stream corridors, and open space. The entire 75th Street neighborhoods (heatherwood, Gunbarrel areas along 75th) were cut off from easily accessible public transportation during COVID. I am still a fan of limitations on square footage of new construction/reconstruction for single family homes to something reasonable (3000/3500 ft2) that do not have actively rented ADUs or other living spaces. • I would really love to be able to afford housing in Boulder. If I could afford housing in Boulder, I would not need my car as much and would mostly use my bike and buses to get around. • The city should invert parking policy to set a maximum parking allowance for new developments rather than a minimum requirement, similar to Minneapolis. This would be in line with the TMP, promote sustainable modes of transport, create more livable public space, and be a big step towards meeting the city's mode share, VMT, and climate goals. • The 3 bedroom no basement houses in my neighborhood are never a rental issue. It's the "as many bedrooms as can be shoehorned in the basement" houses that are a problem (and most of the bedrooms are not conforming). This will only impact certain neighborhoods. 4th street, Mapleton, Bear Creek, Devil's Thumb etc. won't be affected. Buying a $3 million dollar house to rent to 5 people is going to stay unusual. Neighborhoods with families, like Martin Acres, Majestic Heights, Table Mesa will see even more financial pressure on renting. A number of houses in the neighborhood have gone from a house rental price to a per bedroom rental price. More bedrooms, more rent. Families with children used to rent next door - the last family with kids moved out 5 years ago because they could no longer afford it. In 3 years, 15 different people lived next door (based on cars that were parked for more than 30 days). People were moving in and out every few months. How do you build a relationship to fix issues (noise, open fire pits, flood light violations of the dark skies ordinance) when everyone is temporary? Constantly filing complaints with the city is no win, things got better temporarily until the entire house population turned over in a ~12 months. A couple of years ago a couple and 2 friends moved in and it's been stable and quiet. Essentially lifting occupancy limits means areas like Mapleton remain exclusive and areas like Martin Acres disappear as family neighborhoods and become like Austin where "stealth dorm" neighborhoods have virtually zero permanent residents. Austin actually implemented an occupancy limit to address the issue. Or like silicon valley where you have bedrooms full of bunk beds with everyone paying by the bed (young high tech workers). Not to mention that without occupancy limits Boulder becomes much more attractive to private equity rental companies snapping up houses because the rate of return on the investment goes way up. The end result is incredibly unlikely to be cheaper rent. Gee - if I pop the top on my modest ranch w/ basement I could get 10 bedrooms in my ranch w/ basement. At $800-$1000 per bedroom..... I could move out of Boulder and more than over the mortgage on a new house with the rent, further destabilizing my neighborhood, which I never expected to love and become as committed to as I have (I have 2 degrees from CU and opted to stay over going to Silicon Valley back before Boulder was as full of high tech companies) - despite the continual stream of proposals that would undermine it. And that's not even addressing how much of Boulder's urban canopy is space around houses which supports our treasured urban wildlife - songbirds, bobcats, foxes, hawks, even the rabbits and raccoons etc. that will disappear if it's all paved over for backyard tiny homes. If I wanted to live in Venice Beach (where damn near every bit of space is a concreted ADU), San Jose (with bunk beds at $1200 a month) Austin neighborhoods with 100% turnover etc. I would live there rather than turn Boulder into them. I regard this as a make landlords even richer proposition, and I start to think - if I can't beat them join them - why continue a futile fight to keep my neighborhood a mixed community of long term and shorter term retired, renters, professionals, students, singles and families. Just give up the ghost, take the money and find an existing community elsewhere. Why is no one looking at redeveloping underutilized commercial space (post COVID) or upzone 30th street with larger apartment buildings between Arapahoe and Baseline? Better yet - do what Denver has done with Speer and Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 47 a chunk of I70 - underground US 36 between Table Mesa and Broadway for intermediate housing and green space. That would create more housing, not increase financial pressure on families with children, and it's an area that already has commercial development, is Will Vill adjacent, has lots of bus service, the new underpass at Colorado and connects to grocery stores, services, etc. in a short distance. Why is the answer cramming as many people as possible in a few neighborhoods without any regard to maintaining a balance of residents, lifestyles, and the things that still make Boulder different than so many other high tech towns? References: https://centralaustincdc.org/fair_affordable _housing/Family_Displacement_in_Central_Austin.pdf https://truthout.org/articles/developers-aren-t-going-to-solve-the-housing-crisis-in-san-francisco-the-definitive- response-to-supply-side-solutionists/ https://truthout.org/articles/yimbys-the-alt-right-darlings-of-the-real-estate-industry/ https://303magazine.com/2021/05/colorado-central-70-project-update-viaduct/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/silicon-valleys-answer-to-the-housing-crises-charging- 1200-for-a-bunk-bed-in-a-shared-house • I do not want to implement any changes before November. I do not trust the current City Council majority with any sort of long term planning. This is an abrupt change to my normal trust in our leadership because I have witnessed the Council majority behave in a flagrantly negligent fashion when it comes to managing our community's resources. They cannot be trusted to act in the interest of the community. They are currently robbing resources from those in need of affordable housing to subsidize the unsustainable habits of people with significant mental health problems. • We live in Boulder due to the quality of life. If you decrease that, it will lead to Boulder losing it's actual charm and quality and becoming just another suburban city. • I appreciate zoning reform that reflects the importance of making communities where things are within reach, instead of large suburbs where you need to drive a car to reach a store. I like the proposal to remove barriers to building more homes in commercial areas and neighborhood centers. Reducing parking requirements is also good. If someone needs a place to live with parking, they can find a place with parking, but anything that can discourage usage of cars is a benefit in my opinion. And if removing occupancy restrictions can help Boulder become more affordable, I think that's great. I don't necessarily want people to live in cramped spaces, but I definitely don't want people to be homeless because they can't afford to live in a Boulder apartment or house. It's better for someone to be in a cramped house than in no house at all. • Encourage CU to support students by building more on campus living and requiring more students to live on campus It would free up housing for people who are working here in Boulder. The number of incidents of police having to respond to noise issues in residential areas might decrease. • Mixed zoning using like in Boulder Junction! • Explore housing cooperatives! Projects that encourage people to live an interact as a community living together rather than as homeowners or renters or landlords. • Annoyed that this topic has been voted on and rejected and YET here it is again. Does the City think we are Ok with being hounded until they get their way? Move on!!! • Occupancy reform will lead to students living in crowded and hazardous conditions while doing little address the restrictions that have been preventing supply from meeting demand. We need SUPPLY-SIDED housing reform for to reach long-term affordability goals. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 48 • I would love to see the reclassification of tiny houses on wheels as legal homes, as well as the legalization of renting a driveway or property from landowners/homeowners to park them on. • People in Boulder want their green spaces and parks. But they don't want higher density. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Most importantly, it's all about the DESIGN. Changes the zoning but beef up the Design Review Process. • It should be obvious that the growth of CU is the problem. Time to grow CU in other cities that need the revenue. • The exclusionary zoning Boulder implemented in the 1970s is the reason Boulder is so lacking in economic and racial diversity. With detached single family homes averaging over $1.5 M only the very wealthiest percentage of US population can afford to buy. Yet 80+% percent of Boulder residential land area is zoned exclusively and only for single family residential. Low density single family zoning is inherently car dependent since origins and destinations are required to be far apart because they are sprawled out by parking requirements, floor area ratio limits, setbacks, residential single use mandates, height limits, etc. If Boulder is serious about addressing climate change and allowing working people to live in town, then single family zoning in Boulder must be replaced with flexible multi-use multifamily zoning that allows a diverse range of building types and usages. Allowing a diversity of building types will allow a diversity of inhabitants (and of course the converse is also true). • Please consider a visionary design approach to housing. So much of this policy feels reactive and driven by property developers more than designers. It would be much easier to strongly agree with these propositions if there was a systems approach that considers impacts on multi-modal transportation, environment (especially water use), and the impact on the broader urban fabric. I have seen so many cities lose their character by rapidly adding poorly made new urbanist developments and letting property developers drive the future vision. • Changing occupancy rules would be a slap in the face of the voters who turned this down when it was on the ballot. • To think that increasing occupancy in existing homes will provide more affordable housing is a pipe dream. All you will do is increase the cash flow to rental owners. To assume they will reduce the rents per occupant because they can have more occupants is nuts in a non-competitive housing market like Boulder. In addition, all you are doing is removing CU from the responsible of providing on campus housing for students. You need to put pressure on them to build more on campus housing. • Build baby build. • During my lifetime, Boulder has always been unaffordable for some people. I see Council's solutio ns just a way to shoehorn people into a space that will create an ugly crowded town. Require CU to build more affordable housing for its students instead of the City doing all the heavy lifting. • Relaxing restrictions only creates more congestion. People will always keep coming until it becomes chaotic LA or San Fran and then boulder will be ruined. Right now people want to come here!!! Keep it that way. Not everyone can live in a city. Not everyone can live in Honolulu. At some point boulder needs to stop adding more housing. Keep it desirable • Increasing density will turn Boulder into another big city. Many of us choose to live in Boulder over big cities because the lower density. • For a change, Council should consider measures to help homeowners. It focuses too much on affordability instead of developing safe neighborhoods that have easy access to a decent transportation infrastructure. The council seems obsessed retrofitting neighborhoods to add more people. When will they be satisfied that boulder has enough residents. • there should be an additional city credit to university students and employees who qualify for affordable housing. • Research has shown that high density living increases crime and decrease quality of life....and increases issues / problems about parking density, noise, crowding, barking dogs, and marijuana smoke that often accompany dense living. • RTD seems underutilized. More people doesn't have to mean more cars, and more working-class people will work in Boulder and use transit. (Non car owner talking) • Reduce minimum lot sizes in RL1 for small single family homes Revise or eliminate solar access ordinance - most solar is on the roof anyway Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 49 • I strongly support eliminating the ADU saturation limit and other rules that restrict the construction of ADUs, especially in areas like University Hill (where I live) that have excellent access to public transportation. • Housing affordability is like the weather. Humans can't control either one. Governmental standards and requirements should put quality of life for current residents (those living in buildings, not tents) first. More people use more water, air, and space resulting in congestion and environmental stress. • The county ought to impose strict regulations 1) limiting the number of properties owned by landlords (both corporate and private) and 2) capping rent at x% based on assessed property value. This is an issue of supply and demand, wherein the supply is directly limited by property hoarding and indirectly limited by landlords pricing out "undesirable" populations in the name of profit. Both forms of limiting are gouging, plain and simple. It would also be worth investigating potential regulations on property investors at large (not simply residential) who own idle property for the sake of long-term speculation as opposed to productive property utilization. • It would be beneficial for there to be more public access to resources and parameters for affordable housing particularly for one-bedroom or studio apartments which often cost the same as a two-bedroom apartment. • Please develop more mixed use housing development; please designate more housing as affordable. The demand for housing is here, but the supply is limited and it is crippling boulder. help!!!! • Students should be on campus and residential areas for families • Single-family zoning should be eliminated in favor of high density housing throughout the City of Boulder. Affordable housing and high density development should be highly prioritized and large square-footage single residences should be heavily taxed and scrutinized as they are a waste of land. Also the permitting and review process needs to be simplified and streamlined and lawsuits to delay and prevent development need to be made unlawful. Local NIMBYs are destroying the ability of younger, diverse people to make a home in Boulder or raise a family here. • I have seen no evidence that increasing occupancy limits would lead to lower housing costs. Landlords are in a profit-making business and have no incentive to lower rents if more renters occupy their properties -- indeed, raising occupancy levels would merely increase their bottom lines. Absent solid proof that more people = lower rents, you should do nothing to alter current zoning that will only destroy our neighborhoods and increase cars, noise, pollution, and trash. • As a lifelong resident who is close to being forced to leave the city because of rising rents and housing prices, I strongly support ANY options for increasing affordability of housing in Boulder! Including at the middle-income level. • The only direction that increased occupancy will go to create more affordability is directly into the landlord's pocket. • I hope that you are ensuring a good sampling of renters in your data. I'm a renter and this market is rough. Please don't let the homeowners dictate whether we can live here • Allow more development east in the industrial areas as has been discussed previously. Do not require so much mixed use with retail on the bottom floor. Retail stores are dying! Not good use of the space and killer for the developers • I haven't worked 40 years of my life to have a home in a peaceful neighborhood so the city can destroy it!!! DO NOT CHANGE OCCUPANCY zoning or numbers. This will only benefit the developers (and city council in their pockets) and will destroy this town as we know it. If you like LODO so much, please move there. • I would love to see single family zoning eliminated altogether and have it lumped into a residential zoning category that allows up to three or four units per lot (duplexes, triple deckers, look to Cambridge or Somerville for housing styles that don’t scream density, work for families (still get a backyard, etc.), and blend into current single family neighborhoods). I also think that there seems to be a bit of room for infill development and allowing housing in commercially zoned areas. We can’t keep growing the city’s employment areas and jobs without building enough housing for the people who work here. • Boulder land is expensive, thus cannot make affordable housing - see Aspen example. Affordable housing is in Erie = cheap land. Run a bus line like the Roaring Fork Valley. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 50 • Charge tolls on Diagonal and increase toll on I-36. Increase parking costs for out of Boulder city drivers. Residents of Boulder with approved address get discounted parking fees. • Individuals who are needing housed can't always live with other tenants due to mental illness, addiction, etc. These people are interested in leaving this part of their life behind and housing them with other individuals who are experiencing homeless might make it extra difficult for them to move forward in their life. When building affordable housing, consider that these people needing affordable housing don't typically have transportation, so consider housing in places where there's grocery stores, etc. If we are concerned about land and property here in Boulder, wouldn't take up less space if we considered building tiny homes. Recently a affordable tiny home community was built in Longmont for veterans. Maybe that's something to consider. • discourage rentals for homeowners who don't own the home they rent, incentivize home owner rentals if living in the same house, low-occupancy tax (big house, small number of residence) and use that tax $ to provide rental control • The Bedrooms are for People initiative was not passed by Boulder voter. These zoning proposals seem like a work around the community's vote. • Another approach to occupancy limits that is used in other jurisdictions is 2 people per legal bedroom +1. Meaning a 3 bedroom house could legally have 7 people. • Incentives for landlords to rent at lower rates than the average rental rates in Boulder. A fee on home sales (based on appreciation?) to fund affordable housing. Allow more density (if developers agree to provide affordable housing) along main transportation arteries and commercial areas. • Density bonus for affordable housing, the lower the AMI the higher the bonus. Rezone office park zoning, its the worst in America, all areas are live work. Eliminate growth and height restrictions. Eliminate single family zoning. Go further on ADU's no restrictions, off the shelf preapproved building plans for ADU's. • As a former CU Boulder student who is currently working in Boulder, it has been a struggle for me to find suitable and affordable housing within city limits both during my time as a student and afterwards. I work full-time in the medical field and it is difficult to find housing that is within commuting distance and fairly priced. I strongly support removing unrelated occupancy requirements in Boulder, as the current legislation hinders diversity within the city and makes it inaccessible to lower-income occupants and minority populations. Boulder cannot both claim to support diversity and inclusion in the city and continue to uphold these rules that make it impossible for more marginalized groups to find housing. Thank you for your consideration! • Drake poll in '21 showed 3/4s support for BAFP measure. It only failed because an odd year electorate was voting on it. • Bedrooms for people is so much better, I'm worried this will lead to unsafe crowding. Also, no duplexes/triplexes in single family areas!!! • Increasing occupancy will primarily help landlords to make more money from a house they own. That will also increase the prices for single family homes by forcing families to compete with landlords making Boulder even less affordable to families. Boulder has allowed developers to fill the central area with luxury apartments and condos. Require all future housing that is built to be affordable until the balance of affordable vs luxury housing is restored. • How can the city be affordable when transplants to Boulder buy $2.8 million dollar houses, tear them down, and replace them with $8 million dollar houses or more? The planning board is complicit in creating the extreme of large, wealthy houses for a select few and then citizens who have been here for a long time and aren't wealthy are the ones who are going to have to live with houses that are over crowded, possibly a triplex put in next door to them? The CC loves throwing out the word "equity" but the city is really creating an uber wealthy class structure here in Boulder. • Increasing occupancy limits will NOT increase affordable housing in Boulder's non-competitive rental market. All it will do is increase the cash flow to existing rental owners. To assume that landlords will suddenly see the "light " and reduce their per occupancy rental prices is nonsense. Unfortunately, landlords will always maximize cash flow Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 51 and this proposal will only add to their profits. Also, this proposal removes CU's responsibility to provide housing for increasing enrollments. It is time to force CU to provide adequate housing for ALL students. Imagine the beautiful impact to The Hill if the majority of homes we owner occupied. The improvements from owner occupied homes would once again make The Hill a neighborhood, instead of a ghetto. • The idea of allowing additional buildings to lots that are now single residences will increase fire danger. • Dialogue with CU to encourage the University to provide more student housing on campus and obligate students to use it. • Demand CU provides more on campus housing. No increase in student population that cannot be housed on campus • 1) The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. 2) Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. 3) Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. 4) Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change. 5) Make exceptions to height restrictions for new developments in commercial areas of east Boulder. There are many locations where increased height of buildings would not impinge on nearby residents. 6) Changing zoning rules in a way that negatively impacts neighborhoods is a form of theft by the city. If I buy a home where a certain zoning is in effect I expect it to remain that way and not have my quality of life or home value reduced by decisions made by city council unless I am compensated. 7) There is plenty of undeveloped vacant and commercial property in east Boulder that can be developed into high density housing. Allow variances to height restrictions so that taller structures can be built. This is more economical and reduces the carbon footprint per housing unit. New retail centers can be created along with these higher density housing units. 8) The city council should also consider that it's not a requirement that the city create affordable housing everywhere in the city when there is more affordable housing available in the communities east of Boulder. For example, when I worked on Park Avenue in NYC I didn't ridiculously assume that it was my right to have a home on Park Avenue, I commuted an hour by train where I could afford the housing. So don't make policies that will destroy existing neighborhoods, make policies that will develop undeveloped areas or underutilized commercial areas into new vibrant neighborhoods. Then it's a win-win for everyone. 9) The fabric of the existing neighborhoods that have developed over the last century should be valued and are part of what makes Boulder an attractive place to live. Please don't unnecessarily destroy that value. There are plenty of good options besides changing occupancy rules and zoning of existing residential neighborhoods. • Rent control • Start representing people who have worked long and hard for years to live here. We’re not rich, privileged, left or progressive. Work to assure people are paid enough to make their own decisions about where and how to live. • The current definition of 'family' is limiting and inherently discriminatory. Additionally, this limitation of housing availability goes against Boulder's claims to both equity and climate action, and should be eliminated as counter- productive to Boulder's goals. These are the topics on which I choose how and who I vote for in Boulder politics. • Adding occupants will help landlords and not reduce rents..... • The idea that increasing occupancy limits will reduce the cost of rent or home ownership in Boulder is illusory. Google "inelastic demand." • 1. The new CU South campus should be a car-free zone with only loading and unloading zones. 2. Boulder should build more apartment buildings, preferably with onsite managers, instead of dividing up single - family homes rented out by absent landlords. 3. CU should take responsibility for housing more of its students. Palo Alto has become so expensive that Stanford has built a lot of graduate housing. It was already housing all of its undergrads. CU should, at a minimum, provide Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 52 housing for all its undergrads. 4. I'm in favor of owner-occupied duplexes or triplexes. • Tiny houses to gradually replace old trailers should be considered, as well as adding more cooperative housing. Those low income living and working in boulder for a certain number of years should have priority for housing. I don’t know any millennials who can afford a house in boulder, meanwhile you have elders who are isolating and living alone. • We shouldn't make blanket changes but make considered changes on case by case basis. • Manage investors better and cap CU growth rates, or reduce CU populations! • Last time the occupancy limit was increased it resulted in no increase in affordability. The landlord simple divided the rent by the old number of occupants and used that as a 'per occupant' rent, i.e. $3,000/mo for 3 people went to $4,000/mo for 4 people. This resulted in benefit to the landlord and not the community. • The Planning department needs to review what happened at Goss Grove neighborhood when zoning was allowed to include apartment buildings. The neighborhood was changed into a very noise and trashy place. If we increase density we must provide for safety, cleanliness , health and quiet. How about allowing housing on a limited basis on land zoned for commercial or industrial? How about eliminating the estate zone? How about reducing the setbacks ? To address parking how about allowing driveways again? How about incentives for developers to build small townhomes like the affordable houses that were built on Valmont? Finally CU must be stopped from increasing their enrollment. Since 2000 they have added 15,000 students. They have not provided nearly enough housing for their students. Students are suffering. • Living in my car. • Identify some discrete areas, including commercial areas, that can be better used for high density residential and open to developers to build more total number of units so that the results of the total number of below market units is increased, allow even higher density if the developer provides more than the currently required ratio of below market; define affordable so we tax payers can understand whether building affordable housing is even possible, or at what subsidies • Changing occupancy limits will not make Boulder more affordable. It will enrich more investors and destroy any hopes for families to purchase homes in lower density neighborhoods. CU needs to build more housing for students to take pressure off working families and people to afford a home. I am absolutely against any changes in occupancy limits. Have lived on the Hill for many years and this would ruin the Hill for future families. • Not sure why you would reduce parking requirements. Boulder is NOT a city anymore where most don't have cars. So, where would all those cars be parking??? • Allow more affordable homes to be built especially on transit lines near buses and bike paths. For example, the Broadway Iris new town houses should be a big building of more afford apartments verse luxury condos. • As we go for more density in our city, I would like to see the data that shows that increased density leads to more affordable housing for our particular context. I am committed to more affordable housing in Boulder, however I am not convinced that more density has a direct link to more affordable housing in our context. I think more denisity benifits developers more than it benefits our community and people in need of housing. Here is an example, For rent, after a full renovation, for $10,800 to students close to 17th and Baseline: "Fully Leased for Fall 2018 with options for following school years. Beautiful new home, luxury student housing on the South Hill, 6 private suites, each suite comes with its own full bath, flex space for an office. Wood floors, open floor plan, over-sized kitchen, deck area with views, garage and plenty of parking. Zoned RM2 4 unrelated occupants as rental. License # RHL201700836. Current lease with 4 students and 4 parents as cosigners" I see many properties being developed for the wealthy, not for the working folk. How do we get developers on our side, so that they will develop for us regular people? Unitil then, I am watching the density bandwagon skeptically. We want affordability, inclusivity, and community, so lets move to the conversation there. • You have to show evidence that these proposals serve our goals of increasing affordable housing. From all i have read, they do not have that effect they definitely increase real estate investor profits. With lots of negative climate Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 53 and other impacts No wonder Polis was surrounded by real estate /dev. moguls when he unveiled similar plans at the State level. Give us evidence?l Not hype/empty promises, please. We all want solutions Why isn’t Boulder lobbying for rent stabilization??? It works. Look who the nay-sayers are: real estate moguls! Renters deserve better. • Possibly open to supporting some changes if Unihill, Martin Park and Aurora East neighborhoods are excluded • Adjust zoning to disallow McMansions and outlaw new lawn seeding and leave native plant borders untouched for use by pollinators. Allow Xeriscaping with restrictions on planting invasive species. Save land and water for more vital uses • Build out Area III to your liking then ask me these questions. Until then, leave us alone. Thank you very much. • The questions are leading. There are a lot of ways the City can increase density without these zoning changes. Increasing occupancy does not decrease rent. Real life examples abound. Hill is a perfect example of what happens when occupancy is increased (rent increases, affordability does not improve). There are great places in Boulder for dense growth - allow taller buildings in central areas (downtown, Basemar, 29th street) - but if Boulder wants to have diversity in terms of resident (young, old, families, etc.), maintaining zones that are low density, single family homes is needed. In-fill with duplexes in places like 29th street, Basemar, etc. make good sense - but not gutting existing low density zones by allowing a mish mash of high density next to low density. The way the city is looking at this is as if increasing occupancy in low-density areas is what will make a difference in affordability - that's just not true. There are a lot of ways to increase density without gutting variety of character of city -- that includes low density zones. Lastly: CU should be required to provide more on-campus student housing. CU should have to house the increase in students population over the past 30 years -- such a requirement would free up housing for people that work in Boulder but have been priced out due to student rentals. CU Population 2022 = 36,000. "Enrollment and Graduation Rates - CU Boulder's fall 2022 enrollment was 36,122. The undergraduate enrollment was 29,583 of which 7,106 were entering first-year students. The number of new undergraduate transfer students who enrolled in fall 2022 was 1,422." See https://catalog.colorado.edu/about -cu- boulder/#:~:text=Enrollment%20and%20Graduation%20Rates,in%20fall%202022%20was%201%2C422. CU Boulder Population 1990 = 24,000 - see: https://www.colorado.edu/registrar/sites/default/files/attached- files/ucb_1990-91_catalog.pdf. CU Should have to be required to build hosing for the 12,000 additional students that have resulted in the loss of neighborhoods. CU should further be required to provide housing for all new University growth. • Please allow for more ADU or apartments to be added to existing single family houses. • We have houses in our neighborhood that consistently rent to seven or more people in a single family home. Parking in the neighborhood is becoming difficult. Code enforcement hasn't done anything on my street to slow this down, either. I've lived in this neighborhood for over 50 years and it's sad to see so many crowded rental houses that are not maintained by the landlords. So if the City increases occupancy in the city are they going to increase the water and sewer lines to serve the Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 54 additional people in the neighborhoods? Thank you! • When Kate Raworth spoke at the City of Boulder’s Forum on Economy, Community and Climate, she spo ke to denser housing in a beautiful way. I’d love that to get shared around when talking about these issues. Prioritizing housing and affordability is essential. Make it harder for developers to scrape houses!! Prioritize people who are going to live in houses buying them, not developers. Include Indigenous land tax as part of reparations for the stolen land we’re all living on here. Thank you for your efforts! • Parking requirements go against Boulder’s sustainability goals. They are outdated and should be removed entirely. • None of these proposals will have any effect on housing prices or affordability in Boulder. City voters rejected the misguided Bedrooms proposal. Don't overturn that vote. • Abolish cash in lieu. It does nothing towards affordable housing. All that empty office space could be converted into affordable housing or whatever is considered “affordable” in Boulder. • The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change. • Limit new employers moving/expanding in Boulder; focus on rezoning of business/office zoned land to residential uses. Focus on family friendly permanently affordable housing. • We need to work towards more students living on campus. The Hill neighborhood is reaching a tipping point where it is either going to be sustained as a Boulder treasure with families, students, and faculty alike. Or, it will become so rundown by student-disturbances that result in families (like mine) fleeing the broken glass, fireworks, and 2am disruptions for the Hill to end up a landlord’s cash cow and wasteland. • Eliminating zoning no matter if the area is commercial or residential is a dangerous idea. I wonder what the city council envisions commercial areas will become if all zoning is eliminated. • I am a fan of gentle upzoning on larger and busier streets, at larger and busier intersections, and in some cases near transit stops and corridors. I’m less supportive of upzoning across an entire current sf neighborhood, generally. I like ADUs by right, including larger ones. I like a mix of low-intensity housing types in residential areas and small convenience stores/breakfast places. I like subdividing giant lots for more, smaller middle income homes or duplexes or townhomes. • Along with this, let's get mass transit working. RTD pass for all residents. • There are a few single-family zoned areas that would be obvious areas to increase density, like University Heights and the area just west of Scott Carpenter Park. • Force CU to build more student housing so that more housing in the community is available to people working in the community. Increasing occupancy is a giveaway to developers and investor owners who will profit massively. It will not lower rents. It will increase density of students in neighborhoods leading to increased law enforcement costs, increased traffic and parking problems for existing residents. Cars will remain the primary transportation in Boulder. Only when the city has a mass transit system as extensive as NYC will you get people out of cars. So stop allowing developers to not have the required parking per unit. • We should be building more moderately priced housing, a lot of the current housing being built is very expensive, so it adds to congestion and does not help the housing crisis at all. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 55 • Lower all city fees associated the development of all new housing and the improvement of existing multifamily housing. • 1. The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. 2. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. 3. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. 4. Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change. • Quit meddling with what people voted for. There is never going to be enough housing for everyone to live in Boulder. Rezoning only makes people more crowded, thus making them angrier! This council is so slanted against single family homes, which is what people really want. • Unless mass transit improves, increasing density is a horrible idea, and only serves the real estate agents and profiteers. Transit keeps getting WORSE and has for decades now -- fix that first! Also, the idea that if we add thousands of housing spaces it would reduce in-commuters by the same number? It's naive (some would say: lies by profiteers) - that only reduces commuting if EVERYONE works/schools in Boulder. • Give more attention to calming down student party houses. • Incentives to discourage car ownership in favor of public transit, bikes, scooters, ride share. Forced purchase of bus pass. Allow scooters west of 30th. Etc • People still want cars even if they only use them on weekends. We need permeable surfaces to absorb water. People need quiet; the more people the more noise and light stress which negatively impacts health. Thank you for considering these points • What a piece of deceit this push poll is! I guess you just want to lead survey takers down the development path. I guess that's what you want to hear. • Regional coooeration and coordination is essential to effectively address the affordable housing/transportation challenge. Boulder can't do this alone or by focusing within our own city limits. • The stated objective for reducing/eliminating occupancy and zoning restrictions is to lower housing costs. There is no reason to believe these proposals will have the desired effect. I think the proposed changes would make single family homes unaffordable, change the character of our neighborhoods and have severe, negative impacts on quality of life. Rental prices for houses and apartments would not go down. The only result of allowing higher density and unrestricted growth is higher density and unrestricted growth. It won't magically reduce commuters on 36, lower rental rates, reduce cars/traffic/parking issues, or create low-income housing. It won't result in housing for the homeless or create programs to treat the mental health and substance abuse problems that affect our community. • Increasing occupancy will not make Boulder more affordable. It will just increase landlords profit margins &amp; allowing more affluent people to move in. If you want affordable housing build it, manage it or have rent control. • Where to begin? Sacrificing quality of life in the name of density based on specious arguments having to do with supposedly increasing affordable housing supply is a shopworn subject. Look around. What we get are hideous housing projects that are unappealing to most everyone and are certainly not affordable. (Never mind the monster spec homes popping up in North Boulder and elsewhere) I don't buy that people are ditching their cars or clamoring to move the family and dog into an efficiency unit at 30th and Pearl or Old Tale and Arapahoe. ( And count me as one who was recently run down on my bicycle by a motorist while using a crosswalk to cross Arapahoe at 13th). Tampering with zoning is a bad idea. We all know that no amount of development will ameliorate the perceived housing problems in Boulder. If you choose to do only one thing, get serious about the in-commuting problem and excessive automobile use in general that results in great harm to the livability of our community and recognize that what you are suggesting by way of solutions will likely do nothing (And has done little in the past) to address this fundamental problem. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 56 • Boulder has a housing crisis. To reduce emissions, increase the diversity of our community, and improve the long term viability of Boulder, we need to rapidly increase our housing stock. We can do this without reducing our quality of life. In fact, I believe a more diverse community will make Boulder a more fun place to live. So please prioritize increasing density in our beautiful city so we can share it with more neighbors. • The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. Moving students to campus is also a good move for responding to climate change. For example, it reduces the need to tear down our current structures with all of their embodied carbon and add strain to current infrastructure and resources that are already under stress from climate change. • Require CU to build housing for it's students. Prohibit student rentals in single family zones,. That would make thousands of properties available for workforce rentals or families to purchase. Prohibit short term rentals in single family zones. • Increased density will negatively impact infrastructure and utilities as well as increase traffic and noise. There are already too many cars and trucks on our roads and current restrictions are not being enforced, for example, semi and box trucks on 55th Ave between Arapahoe and Baseline that has a pound per vehicle limit and trucking companies are using 55th to avoid the traffic on Foothills. Road damage and noise and air pollution! • Please stop trying to make Boulder into a large, over populated, place with so many people crammed in that the quality of life deteriorates. Traffic is already more than our roads can handle. • Parking will be a challenge for incremental residents. We count on tourism for much of our revenue and in the Pearl St. Area. If People cannot access and park easily, they will not come. • This issue was voted on. The citizens of Boulder said no increase on occupancy. What don't you get about NO more than 3 unrelated occupants living togeather. • Housing shortage is in part due to the practice of enticing busineeses to locate in Boulder. Stop enticing businesses to move to town bringing more employees lacking housing &amp; concentrate on the housing imbalance created by short sighted growth in the commercial sector. Required builders to actually build affordable housing &amp; end in lieu contributions that don't always go towards creating additional affordable housing, or make them so high that it becomes the less attractive/affordable option to the builders. • One story commercial units, eg. Pearl St., should be allowed to have a second story added on as rental units. That would add some additional units. Lower real estate taxes so that renters can lower there rents .. making it less expensive for those with low incomes. • I get it! This is designed to support the preconceptions of the 'progressives.' Who knew Karl was such a skewed mind that he could foist this on the public as a legitimate poll. • What a deceitful push poll--you ought to be ashamed! • I specifically choose to live in a low density neighborhood and in general avoid crowds and crowded areas for my own emotional health. Why are my needs for low density living not respected at least as much as others' preferences for high density? Why is it acceptable to sacrifice my lifestyle and CHANGE where I have chosen to live as well as, in all likelihood, reduce the value of my home which I have worked hard to afford and maintain? This essentially takes away from savings meant to sustain me in older age. Where will the cars go with no parking requirements? It it NOT realistic to expect that more people will not bring more cars. Where high density developments have been allowed with no parking requirements, such as in the area of 55th/Arapahoe, the existing neighborhoods have been taken over by cars from the apartment complexes. I'd like for my family and friends to be able to visit without circling for blocks looking for parking. My street will not accommodate cars parked on both sides as that leaves only one lane for traffic. Our neighborhood streets were not built for high density. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 57 I have grave concerns about the availability of water and other resources, as well as infrastructure, in transitioning from low- to high-density. Speaking from personal experience, renters as a general rule (as well as non-local landlords) do not have the same interest in maintaining neighborhoods as do long-term residents and homeowners. Allowing high-density building in single-family neighborhoods sacrifices the interests of long-term residents in favor of people with little or no interest in the long-term health of the neighborhood. Boulder is in the process of permanently ruining what makes it such a special place to begin with. There are now many places in town where the foothills are no longer visible due to buildings that seem to violate the height restrictions. The entire community is being permanently degraded. Are you going to make the same terrible changes in residential areas that can not be reversed? Your proposed changes will impact those of us currently in the middle economically because we can not afford to insulate ourselves in the same way the wealthy can, essentially increasing the wealth/lifestyle gap for those of us in the middle. I have worked hard throughout my life and tried to save responsibly while contributing to the community. WHO IN CITY GOVERNMENT IS ADVOCATING FOR ME? • I am fully opposed to LARGE ADU construction in residential lots. These will obstruct views, encourage overcrowding, and destroy the quality of life in residential neighborhoods. A very small ADU might not be disruptive, and appropriate for a mother-in-law or older parent type of residency, but an 800 square feet ADU is almost as big as many homes. • Do not allow Boulder to turn into a megalopolis with Denver and surrounds. What has made Boulder so unique is its controlled growth and neighborhoods. Do not destroy this feature! If housing is an issue, figure it out some other way but do not change zoning or occupancy laws. • Can you rewrite the survey to provide evidence for and against so we can respond on the basis of the evidence?? These approaches haven’t really worked in other areas, from what I Re read and all rmtvr community voices we heard during Bedrooms campaign. Those opinions of people of color for instance. Though these proposals are different, I think they apply for similar reasons. These will help housing providers but only add to the burdens if people who want to live here. Apply some of them I. Commercial corridors as a test. In not opposed to some there but you have lumped everything into the questions and that seems to be insufficient. Makes people feel you don’t really want Boulderites to BeHeard. Sad state of affairs, indeed. Discouraging trust in our institutions. • Boulder's density is good as is. • Seems to me you have a preconceived answer and are just trying to lead me into your way of thinking. This is not a legitimate poll in any sense. What's wrong with you? • Push polling at its finest! How can you pretend this is an actual opinion survey? It's pure bs. • I resisted your effort to lead me down the development path. I guess you want only to confirm what CC members want to hear. Worthless polling. • The City should make it dramatically easier and cheaper to build modest homes e.g. 800-2000 sq ft, not just efficienies. Most new SF builds are absurdly large. Roads are far too wide and way too much land is dedicated to parking lots and car based infrastructure. Tighter, walkable mixed use areas with green space are vastly superior to parking lots. • The problem with occupancy limits are the profit motive currently driving student boarding houses. So I would like to amend the limits with an 'owner occupied' condition which would allow some controlled boarding house instances without eliminating the upsides of increasing density through occupancy. I understand the obstacle may be enforcement, but I think stiff penalties would remedy that situation: the threat of high costs for violations would curtail 'gaming the system'. • These measure should at LEAST be considered on a neighborhood basis. I currently live on University Hill, and more occupancy in this area will be disasterous. Student living rental costs are inelastic, so if occupancy limits are increased it will ONLY benefit out of town/state rental property owners as they will just add more people to a house, charge the same (or more!) per person and Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 58 get wealthier. The neighbors and the city will pay the costs for that increased occupancy. More parties, fireworks at night, trash outside, etc. More police calls. More cars, etc. And why? Just to enrich rental property owners who don't live here? If the goal is to create more affordable housing options, then more students (esp undergrad) that can live ON campus would solve many of these issues. It could potentially allow for non-students to afford to live in those now vacated rentals, working closely with CU on this kind of initiative seems most likely to reduce housing costs and not drive up the costs of everyone else dealing with more students. • DO not let the Boulder or the University ruin our single home neighborhoods near the University. This is unequatible! as other neighborhoods in Boulder will not be as dramatically impacted. Modest neighborhoods in proximity to CU will suffer! CU must cap enrollment in Boulder- as they cannot house the students in Boulder already. They know there is a shortage of student housing - so why compound a problem that already exists. Students also squeeze out modest income workers who must live elsewhere and communte. Stop trying to attract more business - like you did with Google - those who do want to be here must pay for their inpact on schools, services, schools with the increase of people moving here - causing housing cost to rise. Just stop it • The existing infrastructure (electric, sewer, etc) is old and inadequate in many parts of Boulder. Adding more stress without proper infrastructure is irresponsible. Also, we already have small streets clogged with cars; adding density and changing zoning will reduce livability. We already don’t drive thru U hill due to overcrowded streets and glass bottles broken—the overcrowded hill area is dangerous. • Why the push poll? I take it you really don't want people's opinions unless they coincide with yours. How autocratic! • Current utility infrastructure is outdated and will not support growth in current neighborhoods. This is not an urban center where a majority of residents can both live and recreate without cars and parking. Boulder has been historically special for a reason…. Keep Boulder unique. • Experiments that down-grading zoning space and parking requirements have not done so well. In addition, there is no feedback pointing to the long-term success of affordability as a result of removing or drastically altering current zoning ordinances. • I like the idea of duplexes and triplexes in addition to relaxing occupancy limits, because duplexes and triplexes are typically more attractive to families than roommate situations. Also good for seniors who want to downsize but stay in town. I live in a neighborhood (east aurora) with a lot of student rentals. Most students are great neighbors, but many years there have been groups of students that threw parties several nights a week, consistently left bottles and fast food wrappers on the curb, etc. I also worry about SFH becoming an even better investment if you can put more people in one house, making homeownership even more unattainable. Here's what I'd like to see in increasing occupancy: * Keep on the path of greater accountability from landlords and management companies. From what I've seen, the landlord and the management company have a big impact on how neighborly the tenants are. Thoughtful landlords seem to have thoughtful tenants. If your landlord doesn't really care, you get the message that there's no need to respect your surroundings. * CU doing more education around how to live on your own and be a good neighbor. As a mom-friend who moved out of the neighborhood said, "it's like freshman orientation every year." That's not the neighbors' job. * Disincentives (high taxes/fees?) for wealthy individuals or companies to own several rental properties. This goes back to having thoughtful landlords, and also keeping homeownership in neighborhoods like mine a possibility for people who aren't already multimillionaires. • The City build affordable housing. Developers will only do it if they can build market-rate and above units so they can make a profit. Eliminate cash-in-lieu; make developers build affordable housing. Make developers pay for their impacts with higher linkage fees. Rent control. Permanent affordability. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 59 • Stop ruining Boulder • How will Boulder ensure that affordable units are indeed leased to people who need them rather that get rented out as VRBOs? • Pretty shocking (not) that this is being pushed again by the likes of the "progressive" majority on council. We already voted on BAFP- and don't tell me this is different. How to improve housing affordability? Stop the growth of high tech/ high paid employees in this city- that is the root of this. Tell Polis enough is enough with tax incentives for companies to come to CO. Make it very expensive for any company who wants to establish itself here- should have been done esp with the Google campus. • The city is already inundated with plenty of apartments. The coty taking cash in leu of forcing developers to include affordable apartments was a huge mistake. There could have been units but cash seemed to be the answer. Cash isn't housing anyone and it is getting more and more expensive to buy up and build or remodel for affordable housing. Also, the cash in lieu has not created diversity in these new developments. The city wants to stick all affordable housing in one building/ area. This makes for a financially homogenous area. Neighborhoods used to be filled with people of various wealth where I grew up and we all got along. Now the city is separating. • Enforce the noise ordinance better n these areas &amp; require public space in new higher density areas! • More density does not guarantee affordability. It is obvious that more housing leads to more investors, many from out of state, paying what the market can bear; more Air BNBs (that are not monitored for compliance) so that the already-wealthy can have more income; more empty units because residents own homes in multiple locations (currently have 3 such homes on our block). Real estate in Boulder is a safe investment for the "haves"...and will continue to be just that without other controls, like rent control and deed-restrictions. • Consider ways to encourage developers to build for middle and low income, and seniors needing smaller places to live. Encourage CU to house all undergrads on campus, maybe allow seniors to move out of CU housing. This would free up a ton of housing in Boulder for residents. Further, limit CU growth, they are an ever bigger proportion of our community. • Affordable housing won't happen all by itself. Developers will simply rush in to fill the void if limits are lifted. I would welcome affordable housing for families or young professionals, or CU staff, on the Hill, but not more apartments for party animals (the serious students by and large leave the Hill for North Boulder and other places). A lot of our traffic problems would be solved if students could have housing on campus built by CU. Strengthen our transportation, build protected bike lanes where you don't have to risk your life to cross an intersection. • Ask more pointed questions so actual opinions on the issues can be easily expressed. • We need to remove single family housing across the state, now. This is one of the fastest ways to stabilize rental costs and create additional housing. It does not require any person who wants their house to stay single family to change. • Boulder voters expressed their opposition in the last election cycle. City council should absolutely not try an end run to the defeat of this issue. • Did we not go through this in the last election when BAFP was voted down? WHY ARE YOU AGAIN TRYING TO PUSH THIS THROUGH IN SPITE OF THE WILL OF THE CITIZENS OF BOULDER? • Boulder is at max capacity. Boulder has 4,000+ residents per square mile and that doesn’t include the homeless encampments. Maybe your efforts would better placed in making Boulder a safe place again for those of us that already live here. • Do not build on open space. In the last few decades there have been waves of infilling houses. For instance Bluff street near Folsom does not look anything like it used to with houses build behind and between. Newcomers to Boulder do not appreciate how much infill has already happened, so please do not approve more infill. How are you going to enforce occupancy limits?? Of course there are already plenty of “illegal” 4-5 unrelated people houses here, so you don’t need to raise limit it’s already effectively here. • What made Boulder special is its tight controls on growth to protect this beautiful natural environment. If Boulder is to remain special, it needs to stay that course. • Increase unit count/ acre within 1/4 mile of major transit routes. • Rent cap ? Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 60 • City Council- the people have voted on keeping zoning and occupancy the same. Why do you insist on trying to subvert the voting process? This is undemocratic and makes me think you are taking hand outs from developers. Stop trying to manipulate the voters of the city. • Recognize that the neighborhood objections arising from higher occupancy in single family homes are (1) excessive noise and (2) street crowding due to excessive cars not excess people. Remedies: area permits for cars like downtown area and more vigorous noise response teams from the city. Create a process that allows people who have excess parking permits to easily license them to those who need them/ want them and allow the people who are transferring them to charge the people receiving them. • Parking should be decoupled from housing so that people who live without cars are not subsidizing people who do not and to avoid over building parking infrastructure. It is better to have too little parking than too much parking to incentivize decreased car usage and storage. The city needs to think creatively about how to manage parking as it allows denser configurations in single family zones. There are good reasons not to increase the number of cars parked in our neighborhoods. • Housing affordability (or unaffordability) is a function of how popular an area is to live. Unfortunately everyone can live in one place. Adding more housing units will likely have a negligible impact on demand and prices may not fall - look at New York City. My feeling is that if people want to live somewhere with higher density they should consider living elsewhere. I love my quiet neighborhood. Making it busier won't make it less expensive, but it will make it busier. • Boulder housing is seen as an investment for non-resident buyers and so many houses and apartments remain unoccupied while residents have a more difficult time finding affordable places to live. I suggest instituting a substantial vacancy tax to encourage the sale or renting of these unoccupied housing options. • Keep “single family “ areas off limits to rezoning. Create higher density areas on the outside perimeter of town. • Loosening occupancy restrictions will have no impact on affordability. Particularly in areas adjacent to the University, where there is no question that rents are based on a per bedroom rate. Adding additional units in existing single-family areas is highly unlikely to increase affordability as well due to the fact that demand for housing in our community is essentially unlimited, it is insatiable. Allowing more dense residential units in existing commercial areas or neighborhood. Shopping centers would help densify at areas, supported with public transportation and would not have a negative impact on existing single-family communities for the most part however, affordability will only be solved by providing subsidized affordable units. • Reducing parking areas to lower the prices of affordable housing should only ensue IF more and more variable types of public transportation are made available as part of the building agreement, and/or if the new development comes with a number of shared vehicles for residents. The transportation piece must be part and parcel with the land and building development piece and be put in a binding agreement before building. My family and I live in Keewaden Meadows, which is single family housing that abuts condos and rental buildings along Manhattan St. There are no issues with this intermingling of types and pricing of housing. We meet one another in the local parks, at the school and walking in the neighborhood • Existing multi-unit houses on the Hill produce trash, noise, loose dogs, cars parked across sidewalks, ... A complete mess. No more, no more! • Duplexes, probably ok, triplex too much in single family zoning. We have seen what happens to our neighborhoods when there is not enough open space on a lot. It’s ridiculous how big some single family houses are. It’s sad when a big house takes the entire lot - there goes our view of the sky. I’m very concerned new zoning won’t apply to HOA’s. Please don’t let this happen. • Increasing density by increasing occupancy will never lower the cost of housing or increase the availability of affordable housing. Increasing occupancy will only raise the price an investor is willing to pay for a property based since the gross income will increase proportionately and therefore price out families and permanent residents wanting to purchase a home for owner occupancy. Only predominately owner occupancy will ensure the long term liveabity of a neighborhood. These are givens. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 61 • Start giving Meth addicts housing and you'll be remediating meth contamination forever! • I fully support making ADUs easy in single family but density of multiplexes should be measured with volume of cars taken into account • Opponents to these reforms need to answer to the pollution impacts when more and more Boulder workers are forced to commute by car because they cannot afford to live where they work. It is not a neutral decision to do nothing. • Sadly, adding more housing is not going to make it more affordable. I think you would be better off controlling rent on properties that are owned by the city (and built by the city). • Boulder has a TON of housing. However, it's in Boulder, which has been and always will be unaffordable for most people. There's no changing that, and the Bldr Chamber of Commerce is the entity to thank for it. • Utilize unused office space by converting it to affordable apartments. • Affordable housing is a laudable goal, however, adding density will have no impact on the cost per renter in Boulder. This is a case where increasing supply will have no impact on demand or rental costs! • The neighborhoods boarding cu should be excerpt from the two measure. These changes would only allow landlords to take advantage of students and not really reach any more affordability goals • Occupancy limits and affordable housing policies need to be tailored to specific circumstances in specific areas of Boulder. For example, in areas where new development could take place, density that would lead to lower housing costs makes sense. In other neighborhoods, such as University Hill, policies that increased occupancy limits would not necessarily lead to lower housing costs--rather, it would enable landlords to make more money without lowering the rental cost per student renter. In general, I think we need to proceed slowing and thoughtfully as we implement policies that aim to lower costs by increasing density--the policies we implement could have negative unintended consequences that do not, in fact, lead to more affordable housing. • Instead of changing the zoning for entire neighborhoods, which is likely to get a lot of pushback, might want to consider allowing increased occupancy and/or duplexes/triplexes only along busier streets such as 9th, Baseline, Broadway, Arapahoe, and Canyon. The argument about more traffic and noise doesn't really apply to streets that already have a lot of traffic, so this would be a middle ground option that would allow some gradual infill. Also, there are already duplex/triplexes along most/all of those streets, so there's a precedence for it. • Increased density in established neighborhoods changes character and livability for current residents. Increased number of people raises noise level and decreases comfort in hanging out in your yard. I'm a landlord AND a longtime resident in a neighborhood with student rentals. I know for a fact increasing units on a lot or increasing occupancy per unit will not lower rents per person. Four unrelated persons per unit in any part of town makes sense. • Where would those people park their cars? Please leave all this ALONE. We voted on it and it was decided to leave everything the way it is. • Leave the rules as they are. I can't afford to live in Aspen or Hawaiian beaches and I don't bitch about it and scream that I am entitled to live in those desirable places. If you start allowing triplexes or more on tiny single family lots in Newlands or Old North or SOBO, the price of what gets built on them is still going to be FAR beyond affordable limits. You all were nuts about the municipal power crap, and you all are completely nuts that cranking up occupancy limits will do anything but make developers and landlords a crap ton of money. And if you hadn't wasted 20 million+ on the municipal power crap and then reframed the outcome to "declare success" you would have had 20 million to spend on affordable housing. I do not trust city of Boulder and county of Boulder government at all. And you really need to explain to the uber-progressives on council and county commissioners that they are not helping. They are hurting Boulder. They have allowed the decline in living standard and the increase in drugs and crime. They have made it unsafe to walk and bike the bike path network. They have made Boulder public spaces crappy to hang out in for folks who are not criminals or druggies. They all need to be removed from office ASAP. There is going to be a wave that removes you all, get ready for it you incompetent cult members. You all are as bad as MAGA on the other end of the spectrum and you don't have any sense that you are just as cultish and bad actors. And reasonable normal people in the community see through all your crap. • WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PERIOD. I shouldn't have to live with 6 people to have affordable rent! This place has already turned into a super upper class, white population and have driven out people that have lived here for way longer than we've been here. We need affordable housing so BIPOC and lower socioeconomic status people Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 62 can actually live here~~!!!! It's almost impossible to rent here as a student unless you have student loans or rich parents~! • The current affordability crisis harms so many people. I want the city to change zoning laws to legalize denser housing projects, remove parking minimums, and make it easier to permit ADUs. • 1. Increasing unrelated occupancy limits (especially in areas of heavy student housing, eg, the Hill, etc) will not result in lower cost to students. Landlords will simply crowd more students in a unit and continue to charge high rates for sub-par conditions. 2. Re-zone some commercial buildings near mass transit to allow affordable housing near resources or access to resources. This would help eliminate food deserts, and would increase access to health and recreation resources as well as provide an opportunity for resident's to decrease our carbon footprint through increased utilization of mass transit for work and recreation purposes. • Please do not allow further densification of areas of the city where it is very difficult to park (e.g., downtown). • Exempt properties in CU-adjacent neighborhoods from any discussion of increased density. • Take some time to read about the unhoused community and people already in low income housibg • Keep current zoning! • We should look to other cities that have had success with their College and implement some of their standards to have set up better situations with the school and city for student housing. This will create more situations for others to be housed. The city should work with CU to build more student housing on campus and require that more undergrad students live on campus. At least 2 years would be smart. Moving students to campus would free up lots of housing for other residents. Moving students to campus would also relieve pressure on Boulder police who are constantly responding to disturbances from students. • I would like to see CU provide more housing for students which would free up existing housing • I am also in favour of exploring options to change the height limit (perhaps especially in east Boulder) and am *especially* in favour of lots of public housing! • We need to do everything we can to make it more affordable to live here • Building has boomed over the years with this claim to reduce costs, has not worked. It has driven out so many people and now caters to those with money. It has not worked and it won’t work. This boom has made developers and investors very happy and rich. • Housing here will never be reasonable, but increasing density WITH increasing patrol and control might reduce homelessness for those who have been gentrified out of lower-cost housing. It seems especially desirable to help with stability and proximity for city and county employees. • Stop putting up all the apartments. It’s awful what has happened with the densification. Stop!!! • I'm sorry but bottomline is we can't keep destroying our city to try to be all things to all people. There will never be enough housing/affordable housing to meet everyone's needs. Radical accpentance sometimes needed instead of grow baby grow, build baby build. I'm not going to move to CA bc I can't afford it and wouldn't expect a home to be built for me so I can live there. I live where I can afford and thankfully moved to Boulder decades ago. On a public educators salary. And I keep watching the sprawl and now density growth year after year. Yet when the building and growing is all over and done with (which is never) and no one no longer wants to live here because of it, we will still be left with the same problem, in the same place. We will never have enough housing to meet the desires/needs. But we keep doing it anyway. Other solutions please. Increased incomes so people can affor to live here? Let's use what we already have in place. And use it wisely. • I strongly disagree with densification of Boulder. Use current housing and stop increasing size and density of new buildings. Especially west of Foothills. You are ruining Boulder. More isn’t the same as more affor dable. Look at NYC. People who call themselves “progressive “ in Boulder are in bed with the developers. Keep investing in subsidized housing. • Stupid zoning requirements got us a new 4400 sq ft house in Goss-Grove. It is completely out of place in Central Boulder. This should have been a 4 plex or 4 separate 1100 sq ft townhouses. Eliminate Single Family Zoning. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 63 • Mixed housing builds a diverse, local community while encouraging the local economy. Most people will gladly walk to a local store versus drive out somewhere. • I'm all for density, including modest sized dwellings to give people more options. In my opinion, the cars are more of a problem than people so don't require parking spaces. Owning a car in the city should be expensive. Plus, everyone needs access to green &amp; quiet spaces nearby. Thankfully we have many wonderful bike paths &amp; parks. • Do not reduce parking- if anything, the people who need affordable housing, need their cars more specifically - for work which they actually go to, then do people like us who write or participate in these surveys. if anything you need to put more parking into new developments particularly if they include affordable housing • I support adding a format and standard for including cooperative housing category in the inclusionary housing standards. (s.a. micro-units that have shared living, outdoor and cooking spaces in one building). This would pair well with allowing the increases in number of un-related people in a home. • It is not a legitimate objective of government to make it affordable for a person who wants to live in an expensive place to live in that expensive place. I want to live in Aspen, but I accept the fact that I cannot afford to do so. Therefore, I must compromise and live elsewhere. This is a fact of life. Instead of destroying existing beautiful communities, the solution has always been to create new beautiful communities. A percentage of workers in Boulder commute into Boulder to work, due in part to incentives provided by the public sector to create jobs in Boulder. I suggest that Council consider these incentives. Also, look at the percentage of workers that commute into all cities in the Metro area, for perspective. • zoning change to allow for 15 minute neighborhoods (eg small shops) so people dont need to own and pay for a car. • Fees should be increased on construction of large inappropriate trophy homes. • Not sure what you meant by “neighborhood center “. This question really should be separated into two. • Please do not try to overturn matters already decided by elections. • We need to reduce the single-family home zones in Boulder. I am a Boulder native and the home prices and restrictive and exclusive policies of the town right now are not the policies that I remember of the town I grew up in. We need to create a more affordable and dynamic place to live, stop prioritizing cars and single-family homes, and recognize that our current policies only benefit the uber-wealthy. Occupancy limits, parking requirements, and single-family zoning need to go. • Obviously there is a lot of nuance to the “how” for changing zoning to allow duplexes, more adu’s etc. so my somewhat agree could become definitely agree if I saw the actual policy. • Why bother with the survey when the BAFP council members are going to ignore it anyway since they're so sure they know better than everyone else? • Every effort across all aspects of governance should be made to allow people to live in places they can largely operate their daily lives (live/work/play) without the need for a motor vehicle. The built environment directly influences these choices people make, and as long as we prioritize cars (and single family zoning that forces people to live distances from work and play that require cars to get around), Boulder’s traffic and the climate crisis will continue to get worse. • The City should work towards encouraging a developer to annex land north of 28th Street (36) in the planning area. To solve the affordable housing and jobs to housing imbalance the City needs to approve hundreds of new lots in new subdivisions, not trying to change existing single-family zoning to allow duplexes and triplexes, which won't fit on single-family sized lots. The City can then approve larger lots for duplexes and triplexes in the Planning Area as the Boulder Vallely Comprehensive Plan suggests annexation is appropriate. I don't want to see three-story tall triplexes next to my single-story single-family home. The City already doesn't enforce occupancy limits so that's a waste of time and won't help provide more affordable housing, it will just allow slum lords to pack in college students legally in houses that then don't have enough parking. In most cases, every college kid at CU has a vehicle, so you can't fit five kids and five cars in a single-family residence. • Make more affordable to live in the city by all means Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 64 • Start representing the people. You are way too far left. People should live where they can afford to. Like we did 45 years ago. • Owner occupied homes should have occupancy limits removed. Any and all developer owned residential homes should continue to have limits on occupancy. It has been shown that developers will continue to charge exorbitant rates per room regardless of how many rooms there are. Whereas if the owner lives in the home then they should be able to buy a 6 bedroom house and rent out 5 of the rooms while living in the 6th to keep costs down. • The fact that Boulder is a university town complicates everything. We don’t want the unintended consequence of changes to be greedy landlords taking advantage of students desperate for housing. We have rentals in our neighborhood that families just starting out can rent. If the occupancy laws were to change to allow a landlord to put even more people in such a house, they may turn their rental into a student rental just to capture all the extra income potential. This has already happened to a few of the rentals but could happen to more. I love the diversity these rentals bring to the neighborhood. This diversity would be lost as the students (even if diverse) stick to themselves more and don’t interact with the neighborhood as much as families do. Also landlords already allow 4 unrelated people in one house, if this were to change, the landlords would then allow 5 or 6. Getting CU to invest in housing is probably the best thing you could do for this town. Also, one question you should ask in this survey is “are you or do you plan to become a landlord,” • With all the huge apartment buildings being built, if the city is not meeting their affordability goals, they are being stupid. No more cash in exchange. Withhold certificate of occupancy if developers squelch on their commitments, mapleton academy, for example • In addition to reducing parking requirements across the board to encourage lower housing costs, consider parking maximums or other reduced parking requirements, especially along corridors with frequent transit service and bicycle connectivity. • High density housing at the junction and expanding east (like the proposed build at 28th/Iris) seem reasonable. Rezoning, or adding high density housing, west of 28th will likely cause more issues ecologically and between neighbors than we have now. • You won't solve more affordable housing by increasing the occupancy based on the number of bedrooms in a residence. Especially on the Hill. Most rentals are owned by out of towners and they could care less about the added stress to the area; the noise, pollution, parking, parties etc... for them it is just another 1500$ per month income stream. In the current model, there is almost no re-enforcement of breaking the occupancy requirements. We never hear about folks breaking the law and the repercussions. Taking away occupancy requirements will be the last resort where us, regular citizens feel we can still legally do something ( even though it is minimally enforced _) . From a creative point of view, there seems to be a growing number of empty office space and every 2nd floor on pearl street mall once was residential and now is either an office, empty office or storage... Make areas in Boulder more mixed use and allow for living and working in the same zone at more locations. This will increase safety ( no dead after hours office buildings ) and promotes multi use of parking ( spread out over 24 hours instead of 8 hours) lower commute traffic and increases the standard of living and community as a whole. • I would love to see minimum lot sizes decreased or eliminated! • The current zoning code is entirely too complicated. Because of the way requirements are written, the only thing that is easy to build in this city is single family housing for wealthy individuals. Zoning code needs to be revised so that more affordable housing options are easy to build, and single family mansions are hard to build. Currently the City excessively taxes affordable options and subsidizes wealthy options due to the difficulty of navigating the process of getting permits. • Areas such as the west of 30th street are already providing lots of new apartments. If there are concentrated areas of apartments &amp; new developments on land such as near the diagonal &amp; CU South won’t that suffice? I don’t see the need to add density to single family home neighborhoods. We already see what it looks like when multiple people share a house in areas such as the Hill with student housing: difficulty parking, lots of trash, noisy parties &amp; negligible attention paid to the outside of the houses &amp; yards by landlords. People who care for their properties in other parts of town don’t want that right next door. Who exactly are we trying to help with these initiatives? Young people with families don’t want to live sharing houses. So, they go live in mor e affordable places in east county. If the idea behind these measures is that getting more people in existing houses will help the unhoused; I doubt that. They need more addiction rehab centers &amp; counseling. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 65 • As it is, occupancy rules are not followed in so many cases. There are certainly more than 3 or 4 unrelated persons in many residences, i.e., many more students in a rental. Many rentals are not maintained with trash, weeds, many vehicles, etc. • Please take a drive on Eisenhower just south of Arapahoe to see the effect of already reduced parking requirements for residential projects. Instant congestion. • First off, the Boulder City Council ahould stop trying to attract corporations from establishing major centers here without a plan in place to build more affordable housing. Second, when outside real estate interests and hedge funds want to buy up residential properties for multi-unit dwellings, they should be required to ser aside a greater percentage than the current 25% for affordable housing. Finally, building more office space without a corresponding plan to build more affordable housing is a losing game. Why not try to build complexes that include office, retail, and housing co-located so at least some people can live within walking distance to their work? • Boulder is way too expensive and something has to be done so people can afford to live here again. • If the council pushes through plan to put duplex and triplex plus allows increased occupancy I will support removing current members from their positions ! Also do not rot do not increase property taxes more than 5%! • I support building more housing in urban corridors, Broadway, 28th, 30th with the existing height limit. I think extending density to single-family home neighborhoods will ruin Boulder's character. There's more we can do to have more people live in Boulder. For example, restrict AirB&amp;Bs and turn them into ADUs with full-time residents. Require full-time residency as part of ownership, or charge and extra tax that would go toward an affordable housing fund if the owner does not live in the unit full time. I notice many new condos are only occupied as vacation homes for part of the year. Also, you can't throw a stick in our neighborhood without hitting an AirB&amp;B. These units are taking away from the housing stock in Boulder. • I have seen houses with 5-6 bedrooms being zoned for less people than there even are bedrooms and houses that have 3 bedrooms only being zoned for 3 unrelated people, etc. The list goes on. There are empty bedrooms where people legally aren't allowed to live or people breaking the rules and fearing eviction just so they can afford their rent... I went to college in Boulder and struggled to pay rent with these zoning restrictions. I feel like they push Boulder to become even more for only the super wealthy and strongly takes advantage of college students/young people especially. It seems like these rules expect student's families to front their rent for them, but there are many people like me who were forced to work practically full time while being a full time student just to keep up because of these ridiculous zoning laws and the ridiculous rent prices. I am especially strongly in favor of getting rid of occupancy in general because it isn't anyone's business how many people live with them. If that's what they need to do to afford the rent prices here, I feel like that is only fair and is inclusive to people's differing situations. • The college housing is crazy and I am confused as to how the current laws even apply to people who rent to college kids. We are turning a blind eye to housing and CU just keeps admitting more students and there is a crisis. Additionally, the housing in this county is SO EXPENSIVE, young families can not afford to live here. This is shrinking the school age population which impacts school funding. Housing issues also create problems for lower wage workers living and working in our town - they leave. I envision managing housing as being a catalyst for improvement for many of Boulderś systems. • I think we need to figure out housing options for individuals that have a hard time living in apartment situations... people with mental disorders that may disturb the neighbors. Please have some regulations around dogs (or just sounds in general) being loud in apartment buildings. • Please tell us how many people should live in the city when built out! Have your teeth to drive around town recently? • Please, do not over densify our neighborhoods! We implemented the 3 unrelated rule because neighborhoods couldn’t handle both the density, but also all the parking. Our Colorado lifestyle IS CAR DEPENDENT. We love the mountains, and everyone needs a vehicle to get there. You’re dreaming if you think mountain lovers are going to go carless. EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST 1 VEHICLE, if not more. AND, if you simply increase density without deed restrictions, you’ll just get more market rate development…. and AirB&amp;B’s…. that’’ll never be affordable! Not Rocket Science… it’s just good old capitalism at its best. • Boulder should require a higher real estate tax rate for non primary residence dwellings, and provide tax reductions for these properties if they are rented out at reasonable prices. We've seen affluent people purchase houses and only come to Boulder occasionally, leaving their houses empty most of the time. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 66 We've also seen apartments going up such as the one at the northwest corner of Broadway and Balsam, but the prices of each (of the 5) unit (~ $3 million) does nothing to help alleviate the affordability issue. It is plainly a supply and demand imbalance that is at the root of the housing problem. Boulder needs to limit growth and put more thoughts and effort into moving toward an equilibrium state with what the society, economy, environment, and natural resources could support. • We can't build ourselves out out of this problem. We could build skyscrapers and increase density until we become New York City and guess what? NYC is unaffordable and so would Boulder be. We CAN put more pressure on CU to stop expanding until they can house more of their students. • The people voted on whether to increase occupancy in 2021 - nothing has changed. This is just an end run against the popular will and should not happen. • Please take into consideration that more people means more congestion, more demands on water and infrastructure, more wear and tear on road, and in general puts more strain on Boulder County Resources. As a result, next thing we know you'll want to raise property taxes (again!) to support all these people's housing who can't afford to live her otherwise. Many of us have lived her for decades -- in my case, 50 years -- and have contribute to this County through hard work and effort. I do not see why you want to change our vibrant community into something different. People want to come here because of what it is but this plan will turn Boulder into something more like Denver, Lafayette, Louisville, Broomfield, ARvada. There are plenty of places for people to access "affordable" housing not too far from our area. Please reconsider making these suggested changes. • Density needs to be considered in terms of water usage, trash generation, street congestion, noise, preservation of neighborhood character, and a host of like considerations. Don't just "change the rules" on those who paid $$$$ to buy into single-family neighborhoods. Here's an idea: sharply reduce VRBO-type types of licenses; communities like Telluride are already doing this. Many folks who have extra rooms (or in some cases who bought entire houses) are now "renting" those accommodations to tourists via VRBO or AirBnB or the like, whereas they used to take in full-time renters. Seems like zero consideration has been given to this phenomenon. • Utopia is not possible…even in Boulder. • Most up zoning would be fine with residents if it didn't cause parking problems. I would love to see something that didn't allow dense developments to offload their parking. With that in place I think we could add a lot of density without making residents angry. • Instead of policing occupancy limits, increase enforcement of existing rules on noise and nuisance issues. The problem are not extra people, the problem is bad behavior that goes unpunished. • Why doesn’t the City force CU to start providing housing for more of their students instead of forcing the the tax payers to build more affordable housing due to a housing shortage that’s created by CU not providing enough housing for their students? My understanding is that CU only provides housing for a small portion of their student population, mostly just for Freshman. If CU just provided an additional 10,000 beds that would open up 10,000 beds in the City, which would ultimately lower the cost of rent due to the increase in supply. Boulder is too dense with 4,000+ residents per sq mile. Not to mention the increase in crime. Does the City have a plan to create a safe living environment again? And does the City have a plan to ensure public safety with the increase in population with this additional development the City is proposing. Perhaps the City’s time and my tax dollars could be better utilized on taking better care of the residents that currently call Boulder home instead of fattening Developers’ wallets w/ unnecessary builds. • The email preamble to this survey to students and landlords was very biased, and full of misinformation. Students will not see a reduction in the cost of living by eliminating occupancy limits, landlords will simply increase number of persons in a house/apt and still charge the same or more per month for rent. Changing occupancy in a college town does not lead to affordability. This is a totally false assumption and has been proven in other college towns. It will only drive out more families from the neighborhoods surrounding the university, especially mid-income families in neighborhoods like Martin Acres. Requiring CU to add more housing would be better for students. The University Hill neighborhood already has a wide diversity of housing and this has not led to affordability! Other approaches have to be taken. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 67 • Housing affordability is not something that can be achieved with market solutions in a place like Boulder where demand is insatiable. It seems Council wants its cake and eat it too; more housing and preserve investors'/property owners' ability to maximize returns. That is a formula that will never result in affordability. Why is that so hard for Council to absorb? A landlord neighbor of mine enthusiastically supports occupancy limit increases and she declares she wants to see housing affordability. Even so, she admits she would not decrease the rent paid by current tenants if she could add a tenant. Instead she would pocket another $1000. This is a common perspective of landlords I hear from friends with landlord friends. If my neighbors and I wanted to live in higher density we would doing that already. There are many places in Boulder (without touching the Planning Reserves) that have not maximized density. There are many areas outside single family zones where increasing density is more appropriate, for example, along transit corridors. Why then is Council so eager to jump on single family zones? Council needs to back up, put the horse back in front of the cart. Has Council answered the questio ns - Why accommodate people who aren't here yet at the cost of disrupting the lives of people who are already here? How large do voters want Boulder's population to be? How large can it be before resources, such as water, are stretched too thin? There has been study after study showing, given a choice people prefer to live with a bit of space, a yard, between them and neighbors. Mental health is better when people are not crowded together. What happened in dense cities during Covid? People who could left cities for suburban and rural areas. Is Council fearful of being called rude names because these days there is a popular fallacy that zoning is bad, single family zoning is racist? Yes, in some places zoning was used to control people considered undesirable. However, if you ask black families what kind of setting they would like to live in, the most common reply would likely be in a detached house with a yard, like everyone else. Most of the time in modern times zoning has been used for the greater good, to keep toxic industry away from housing, dangers away from children in schools, collect services and retail for convenience and economic vitality,... If Council members feel Boulder's zoning is so deficient why do they live in Boulder, why not move to Houston where there is no zoning, your single family house can be next to a high rise, and council members can save huge amounts of time not trying to change a place where most people like it the way it is? • I don't have any problem with increasing occupancy limits, although I hesitate to support any blanket number, because it depends on so many factors, including the size of the house and the lot. (and the existing density of the neighborhood.). I do STRONGLY feel like any increase in occupancy limits MUST be accompanied by much stronger efforts to advocate for tenant rights, in order to avoid an increase in predatory landlording practices. Having lived in two other major "college towns" (Iowa City, IA, and Madison, WI), I am very concerned that unrestricted landlords will turn the neighborhoods closest to campus into "student slums" - where students have little choice but to pay too much to live in unpleasant and unsafe conditions. Given the current fight, statewide, making it difficult to advocate for renters, I hope the city doesn't rush into only half of the solution, ignoring the important other half. • Our condo area already tight on parking and the adjoining public street is very often full. People forced to park illegally on yellow curbs which reduces visibility and safety coming on to the street which also has a feeder path with no crosswalk! Crazy unsafe. See juniper avenue by willow springs. Imported progressive ideals have taken over Boulder. One mandated solution can destroy what is already a stressed community. Annex more land and build out. Why does everyone have to live near Pearl Street? Enforce parking laws. We almost never see police drive by to check out the situation! • I don't think that any of housing developments in recent years have improved the housing options for lower and middle class folks, and I don't think that any of the above will either. Developers always find a way to build low- quality and high cost housing. • I strongly support more affordable housing and believe that easier access to housing is one of the key ways we can bring in diversity to Boulder, support more demographics, and reduce homelessness. I am 30 years old and am very saddened by the attitudes of those who bought houses when they were more affordable and now want to restrict those opportunities for those around them now. • I hope the legislature makes the occupancy element of this survey irrelevant. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 68 • Boulder is outgrowing itself and is becoming way too crowded. The roads are not built to handle the massive developments that keep getting approved. And the condition of the roads is deplorable - potholes everywhere. Boulder is changing and NOT for the better. I do NOT support more massive, high density developments to pack in more people. • Boulder cannot accommodate everyone but their efforts could be increased to help more folks. I've lived here since the 70's and it's always been expensive. • Why is City Council discussing unilaterally changing occupancy standards? I'll be surprised if you guys aren't sued. Also the BAFP people are insufferable. Don't they all have jobs? • Boulder city Council is trying to change something that the voters voted down. This is no t good representation of citizens' votes. The City of Boulder is naive if it believes that adding numbers of or reducing zoning on "granny flats", duplexes/triplexes in single family neighborhoods is going to increase the availability of affordable housin g. Has the City, City Council or Staff studied the density of short term rentals (not all legal) in the neighborhoods the City is trying so desperately to fill with "affordable" housing? If this had been studied, the City would see that in some areas, Whittier for example, some blocks are made up of up to 50% short term rentals. Putting granny flats in those areas is only going to increase the number of short term rentals. Same for adding duplexes and triplexes. They will be bought up by investors before the middle income, diverse citizens Boulder seeks. This reality is driven by an already extremely productive way to make money---more money that long term rental or even selling to a "family" could ever achieve. I don't understand how the City, City Council and Staff don't see this for the reality it is. • Id like to see more varied housing including smaller homes (1,200-1,800 sf) which is suited to 1st time home buyers, and empty nester/move down buyers • Please do not change the character of existing neighborhoods. Despite best intentions, people do not ride bikes and houses are overcrowded in single family home neighborhoods • There needs to be senior housing, so seniors can sell their homes! • Density will not improve affordability. It will clog roads, even more so if there is limited parking where the housing is Look at the whole picture! • Part of what is making Boulder so expensive is the building code and requirements. Simplify and make them the bare minimum required for safety. It is also a travesty that the National Association of Realtors has become essentially a monopoly and our city is not exempt from it. Every house sold has to be %6 more to pay for realtors - think about that. I would like to see more cities fighting against NAR's monopoly on the real estate market- they are driving up prices for little value add. Also- I think we need to expand more affordable housing to East Boulder and other parts of Boulder. Lastly, while I hate the high costs of living here, I also don't think it is up to Boulder tax payers to solve this problem. Not every place can have a lot of affordable homes. Not everyone that wants to live here can afford it. There are more affordable options 20 minutes east of Boulder. I think what should happen is employers here should pay more for employees to commute in but stop trying to force affordable homes in a market that doesn't support it. • Encourage ADU's by incentives in the code and permit process • Why is this survey so biased? Really couldn't be more obvious. • Require developers to build a higher percentage of affordable housing to bexallowed to build at all. • I believe the current regulations benefit landlords at the expense of the renters. Low income housing on bus routes is helpful but developers should be able to build affordable housing and increase traffic without providing needed parking. • Something has to be done. More flexibility is needed for more housing for more people. The same people who don't want to expand the parameters of housing availability and location, occupancy, etc. They are the same people complaining about homeless individuals. Well you can't have it both ways. • Why are neighborhoods, such as the Hill, asked to bear the brunt of the student housing problem? The University fails to build student housing and the City fails to protect us from this failure. For years I've watched the Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 69 neighborhood degrade and now these regulations would decimate what is left of the Hill. How can a city, in good conscience, do this? • We already voted on this. No change to occupancy limits. Put limits on enrollment at CU instead. • Explore the idea of requiring builders/developers to include affordable housing in their projects rather than “cash in leu”. Get the Mapleton developers to work on their promised affordable housing at the Fruehauf site. • Boulder is so inhabitable by anyone other than people in upper middle class which is a significant detriment to the culture and community of Boulder. Not to mention the way it is impacting our public school system. • Allow more ADUs than currently allowed, allow legal ADUs in zoning areas where they are not currently allowed. • Utilize existing structures for housing. Boulder Community Hospital on Broadway and Balsam as well as The Millennium Harvest House would have been perfect solutions for housing hundreds of people. Instead both will be torn down so developers can spend millions to create either offices or housing that is WAY out of affordable range for 99% of hard working folks. Congratulations!! • This survey is unnecessary. The voters already spoke on the issue of occupancy changes and voted it down. This City Coucil needs to listen to the public and stop waisting city resources to fulfill an agenda that is not the voters will. • Yes thank you so so much! This all should have been done years ago! There is no reason boulder should be zoned in such an exclusionary manner. Why do people want to make the city a retirement home for wealthy white people rather than a thriving place with families and a diversity of ages, incomes, and backgrounds? We could be the Innsbruck of the US but instead we're a big low density retirement community that happens to be in a nice spot. We should eliminate parking requirements entirely and also allow small scale commercial use by right on any lot: coffee shops, small restaurants that close by 10pm or something, offices for less than three people etc. You know what I mean. Dense walkable mixed use neighborhoods are better for everyone. • Stop trying to make Boulder into a mini LA. Jambing ADU's in neighborhoods that were meant for single family living will only help destroy the flavor that was Boulder. Developers will scarf up the available properties and build as many units as possible and then, charge premium prices to rent or purchase. This will not help the people working in Boulder to afford one of these units and thus live in Boulder, but only enrich the people that are already wealthy enough to own large chucks of Boulder and prevent any of their properties be zoned for ADU additions. It only helps the rich! Wish I had a better idea, perhaps stop building million $$ condos, but something more reasonably priced around the areas where construction of places like Pelaton (sp?) are being built. Stop the money grab in Boulder! • The objective of the study is completely bogus, non scientific and worst of all it is against the will of voters. There was a referendum and it was voted down • This survey is a joke because it can be taken an unlimited number of times. • We specifically moved to Boulder to live in a single family house neighborhood. We will move out if the density of occupants increases. • This is a huge proposed change and I don’t agree with almost all aspects of it. The local government and people should decide what happens to their community. • Removing parking requirements is way to optimistic about people using public transit; most people still have cars even if they don’t use them daily • More affordable housing and options for non traditional units is essential to maintain a vibrant community in Boulder. • Be radical, think and act for long-term benefits, do not let NIMBYs dominate the public realm, get out there and educate the community on affordable housing, find a way to reach parents and young professionals who typically aren't involved in the conversation • I don't think the answer is to change the character of existing neighborhoods. • The biggest question about whether Boulder can or should accommodate more people is the water resource and the environmental impact. Is there enough water resource? Can this environment take the hike in population? My personal opinion is NO. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 70 • Add density in occupancy and multiple dwellings in areas zoned for density. Pro-actively acknowledge deed covenants. • How is increasing the number of people allowed going to create affordable housing? No one is regulating what landlords can charge. My neighbor has illegally been renting rooms in her home for years, charging up to $2,500 per room rental. The price of the housing should be legislated, otherwise, this is an exercise in futility and angering people who live in single-family neighborhoods. • Parking is an issue in single family home neighborhoods that include a large percentage of student housing. 5 unrelated people sharing housing with 5 cars add up real quick. • Quit building apartment buildings, condo units all over town. What's happened to Boulder is ridiculous and a shameful ruin to a beautiful place! • I live in Aurora 7, a neighborhood surrounded on 3 sides by CU. While I actually do support ADUs and even duplexes, I do not support the blanket ideas in this survey because we already have par king issues with zoning as it stands now, as well as frequent noise issues from loud parties. Houses in our neighborhood currently rent at ~$1200 per bedroom, which is fine for students/childless folks who are subsidized by their parents or who each have jobs, but it's driving families with kids out of Boulder because who can pay 3600/month or more on rent, not even an investment, on just one or two incomes?. I would hope that council could consider the concerns of each neighborhood separately, and come up with not a blanket solution, but one that addresses the unique issues each neighborhood faces. We often hear that the Hill and Martin Acres will suffer from these proposals - so will Aurora 7. I would personally support more ADUs and duplexes with designated parking on owner-occupied properties and also a return of the neighborhood parking passes. I do not support turning our neighborhoods to investor paradises, which is what increased occupancy and duplexes/triplexes does without additional boundaries. Our schools are losing students because the single family housing is being snapped up by investors and turned to expensive rentals! I would like to see solutions that prioritize affordability for all, but these proposals seem like a handout to investors and CU housing. • Despicable that the city council seeks to change what the voters made clear as it relates to occupancy levels. • Changing occupancy limits does not help teachers, firefighters, police, early-in-career professionals, or young families. It serves, almost exclusively, landlords. Please focus on the population that you're aiming to enfranchise. • Single-family-home ONLY zoning is discriminatory and should be eliminated throughout the entire city. • Reduce parking; encourage biking on Boulder's best-in-class bike paths. • Consider allowing backyard homes. • Allow increased occupancy based upon a sensible metric like house square footage and number of bathrooms. Increasing occupancy regardless of square footage leads to tenament housing. • Don’t make it look like the recent ballot issue results concerning this topic are being ignored by the current City Council • Make the tough decisions needed for current property owners/residents. Do not crowd our homes nor exacerbate the significant parking problems which currently exists. Stop building expensive housing!!!! If land exists, insist on affordable housing, not enrich developers’ pockets. • Put a restriction on the number of homes an individual or corporation own in Boulder. If you are a Boulder resident, meaning you actually live in your home 7 months out of the year, you can own two additional rental homes. Corporations can own only two single family homes and unlimited apartment buildings. This would put more single family homes on the market to house Boulder's workforce. • There are difficult tradeoffs to consider no matter the option. • The voters already made our voice clear. Why does the City keep pushing a non-issue? Take changes to the ballot, not the sanctimonious lying City Council. • It is discriminatory to tie any occupancy to family status. Not every adult wants or is able to get married. I plan to live as a senior citizen in a Boulder home with 4 or more other senior citizens when I retire. Family status is irrelevant • The requirements surrounding affordable housing are difficult to understand. There are also certain seasonal positions that make more than the qualifications for affordable housing but have difficulty through the rest of the year. I don't know if increasing the number of occupants in a household will help with affordable opportunities Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 71 fully. With the increased cost of living and demand in the area it might help to look into other options for finding housing for seasonal employees or shortening lease requirements. There could also be a waiver for breaking a lease for term employment specifically. • The only proposal with some potential for reducing living cost might be allowing duplexes and triplexes • Without a mandated affordability requirement, most of these efforts will it reduce the cost of housing. In fact, they most will only increase the cost of housing. • Dear Comrade - We voted on this during previous election cycle, and the increased occupancy constraints were “defeated”! For the city council and staff thinking they can consider that vote as non binding guidance, or whatever justification language being used, is Wholly Non-Democratic. I’m thinking the council should be renamed Politburo. At some point, if these manipulative techniques persist, there will be natural political impacts (and constraints) formalized against the city bureaucracy and the council (aka referendums) as the only civil response left. Please stop, let the citizens lead peaceful lives! • There are two really significant issues that impact affordable housing that aren't being addressed. CUBoulder has to build student housing. The wealthy parents that will always pay whatever they need to so their kids can go to CU have been a major factor for decades in Boulder having unaffordable rents and purchase prices. Then, as airbnb became popular in Boulder that eliminated a ton of housing stock from landlords who previously wouldn't have rented to students because they wanted tenants that would take better care of their property. When a landlord can get $12,000 a month from airbnb or $6500 a month from students or rent long term to a family or young professionals for $3500 the financial incentives are just too strong for them to rent reasonably. There are no limits on airbnb permits, and CU has been allowed by the city for decades to not offer enough housing to their own students. Until these issues are fixed we will continue to have unaffordable housing. If you are seeking solutions to affordability and increasing housing stock, please do so in a multi layered approach, not only increasing occupancy. Downtown commercial real estate (that is massively empty) would be amazing as residential especially since being downtown eliminates some car usage and won't negatively impact traffic as much. There are so many extra large homes in west and north Boulder that could be turned into duplexes with a minimum size (like 600 sq ft as an example) to increase 1 to 2 bedroom properties in Boulder for young professionals, small families, couples (who often can't find great housing in town), and please let people build ADUs and enforce long term rental permits for them. Increasing density in neighborhoods strategically would be awesome. As an example, cars pack the streets of the Hill, Goss Grove, downtown, around north Boulder park, and west and east Pearl, but other neighborhoods - east, north, west of 9th, and south boulder have loads of parking space. Point being is that those neighborhoods could be better areas to specifically increase density and leave some of the other neighborhoods out because they're already maxed out (often because students are already living over occupancy in the former neighborhoods I mentioned). With how business dense Boulder is already, any commercial space could be transitioned to residential and Boulder businesses would still easily thrive. Sorry for the lengthy message! I just want to illustrate that housing could be hugely improved by making changes in multiple areas, whereas only increasing occupancy won't really solve the problem long term. Thank you! • Please embrace democracy; represent the constituents that elected you: 52% do NOT want you to destroy family neighborhoods. • If any zoniung changes were to occur, I ask that special consideration (overlay) be given to neighborhoods surrounding CU as they already carry a heavy burden of unaffordable housing. In these areas, CU Students fall victim to low living standards, safety concerns, and more times that not, outrageous rent. Investors around CU have figured out Students are willing to pay $1500-2000 per bedroom in a shared housing setup. When multiplied out across a 4 bedroom home the total rent is staggering $6000-8000. There is no way a long term resident would consider these rates for themselves nor for a family. Here are several examples on Uni Hill where the property is rented at exclusionary cost levels. Increasing the allowable occupancy will only make this disparity worse. Visit Zillow to see the Rental history. 889 14th Street Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 72 4 bd / 3 ba Listed for rent $7,500 944 13th street 5bd / 3.5 ba Listed for rent $6000 877 13th Street 4bd/ 2 ba Listed for rent $5,200 927 12th street 6bd / 2 ba Listed for rent $7400 1040 10th Street 6bd/4ba Listed for rent $11,600 • Boulder is a demand driven, supply inelastic housing market. It will always be a relatively expensive place to live. Basic economics 101. • DIDN'T we already VOTE for the housing occupancy levels? Why is the City pushing for us to agree to increase the levels? AND it should NOT be done without the City resident's approval (not just the City Council voting on it). The call to make housing affordable isn't by way of increasing the occupancy levels. Residential areas and the increase of commercial and condo/apartment projects around the ENTIRE city will put a strain on the quality of life due to more traffic, and more cars wanting to park (there is limited parking as it is). There is a SHORTAGE of parking for residents and people coming into the City. The increase of Williams Village complex that increased students, thus increased cars coming in and out of this area is too much! The students either don't want to pay for parking or if there isn't enough parking available park in the adjoining neighborhood Aurora 7 and take parking spots for the residents that actually live on these blocks. CU needs to step up and take responsibility for their students and provide adequate parking for them, not have the long-time residents feel the strain of all the students. So, the increase in the number of people living in one place will ONLY enhance the shortage of parking!!! As a person living in a single-family home, I don't want to have an apartment building adding density, people, cars, and noise disturbing my quality of life! Right now, if I have guests come to my home, there is limited parking for them. What do I pay taxes for anyway? I have worked, shopped, and lived in this community for over 14 years and all I see is growth and not more services! CU needs to pay its share of the added. Adding more occupants in a dwelling will just give more students a place to live and NOT necessarily single people or families. We have a shortage of workers and businesses suffer. I believe that most high school and college students aren't looking to work and don't NEED to, the families pay their way. I think increasing the limits will only generate MORE headaches for the people already living here and provide CU to grow, grow, grow AND not have affordable housing for NON-students. We have bigger fish to fry than increasing occupancy levels - substance abuse, mental illness, and non-working homeless people that couldn't afford ANY type of housing in Boulder, nor do they want to be confined in an apartment. How about putting money toward mental health and substance abuse facilities NOT creating more space for CU to increase their enrollment? I am opposed to City Council passing any kind of ordinance without a VOTE from the residents! STOP letting CU do whatever they want AND STOP the developments. SLOWER growth, not this madness of build, build, build. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 73 • The market will not create affordable housing. All new housing should be 50% affordable or cash in lieu at a high level. • Make affordable housing a higher priority! Sick of luxury developers paying their way out of providing affordable units. • Allow way less commercial building to happen in Boulder and convert some of it to housing. • I haven't seen any of the current initiatives substantially reduce costs for new Boulderites, only the development of a lot of very expensive housing. Is it even possible? • Have city require that developers build low-rent apartments with parking garages • Incentivize home-owners, not developers or investment funds, to convert their very large single family residence into a conforming duplex. We have lots of large homes w/ 2-3 folks living in them. Subsidize the cost of the process &amp; remain flex on codes in order for large houses to be divided into duplexes. • Open space defines boundaries of boulder city. Current rate of rampant growth needs to take into consideration infrastructural and resource needs commensurate with that growth. I live in the Holiday neighborhood in N. Boulder where housing density and affordable/moderate priced housing was played with when built. The noise, light at night, congestion, disruption, traffic makes for frustration, anger, defensive behavior and acting out (always escalating in subtle and not so subtle ways), devisiveness and reduction of safety. You can only smash so many people into a neighborhood area because beyond the tipping point is a misery for everyone. Lots of police activity here. • Some neighborhoods can take some gentle infill and some can't. Some will see nothing but negative impacts from more density. Yet people keep proposing extreme occupancy/density changes as if one-size-fits-all neighborhoods. No. No. No. Density will not bring housing and rent prices down. • The city's stated goals of inclusivity, vision zero, and environmental friendliness are starkly at odds with the city's actions -- bending over backwards to protect antiquated, exclusionary, and environmentally disastrous zoning, particularly single family housing. The affordability crisis in Boulder right now is just the beginning of the chickens coming home to roost. You need to allow for more housing. I always vote and this is the most important issue to me. • I greatly encourage this Council to eliminate occupancy limits based on family status as they are fundamentally discriminatory. I strongly support elimination of parking minimums - our priority should be housing people not cars. ADUs and 2-4 unit buildings should be allowed in all zones currently restricted to single-family detached housing. Having grown up here I despair of my children being able to live here and we must create substantially more housing to avoid being a town for the rich and students. • Boulder needs to institute rent controls and enforce habitability standards for rentals. Boulder should also limit the number of rental units a single owner or corporation can control with the city providing a public housing option. • ADU regulation should be more flexible • I'm in favor of adding more housing, as long as the current rural areas are kept in Boulder. • Areas near campus should be zoned for Student housing with lighter restrictions on unrelated people and parking requirements. • Boulder should set up an expedited approval process for standard designs in ADU's, duplexes and triplexes seeking city permits. • It’s so sad that City of Boulder lacks the transparency to make surveys like this widely available and visible to the people that live here. Lack of transparency gives the impression that major decisions around planning and zoning will not take public opinion into account at all. • Please save Martin Acres. • People don't always want little tiny apartments. We need more duplexes, townhomes and single family space with some yard. • It’s all bs I live in a trailer park in north Boulder and the Hispanic community there has up to 10 people living in a Mobil home Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 74 • How about stop allow permits for building more affordable housing for the rich. Stop taking money in Lou of actually incorporating affordable housing. The proper infrastructure (water supply, roads &amp; maintenance, safe public transportation, electrical grid updates, sewer, pedestrian friendly parking lots, neighborhood sidewalks, etc.) needs to be in place BEFORE allowing even more citizens to live in the city of Boulder. Also, stop building where the view of the mountains are being blocked. What kept Boulder sane for so long (before 2000) was the ability to have a clear view of the mountains by anyone almost anywhere around Boulder from the ground level. Now we are just being forced to look at roof tops and not mountain tops. The collective psyche is becoming damaged and going down a dark path deprived of the healing view of nature. • Longmont has just changed to eliminate all parking minimums. Other cities have eliminated single-family zoning altogether. • Impose sanctions and growth caps on the university. • It is very urgent that we make it easier to build affordable housing in Boulder. In my neighborhood, old (small) houses get demolished and replaced by multi-million dollar single-family, large buildings. There are also new building lots that were created when our neighborhood got annexed several years ago. Those are being bought by spec builders, who construct large single-family structures that sell for between $2.5 and $3.2 Million. Not only low-income, but also middle-income families get totally priced out of the market. I am concerned that Boulder is rapidly losing its character as a fun, diverse, and semi-affordable community, and instead becoming a collection of investment properties for the ultra-rich. The pressure to achieve maximum profit is permanently changing our neighborhood. If we don’t take every opportunity to preserve and create more affordable housing, we will get buried under an avalanche of unattractive mansions. • I have heard that there are discussion about redeveloping the airport for affordable housing units. I think this is a terrific idea and should be pursued immediately. • Something needs to be done about the real estate costs skyrocketing making it hard for middle-class families and young people to afford to live in Boulder. I guess this goes back to the economics of supply and demand in our capitalist market. A more comprehensive well thought long-term plan needs to be created. We all need to just take not too much but not too little. It's impacting our schools and community. This idea of affordability in Boulder needs to be addressed on a spectrum of needs within the community. Teachers, firefighters, the police, employees of the city, etc. all need to be able to afford to live here. People need to be able to afford to buy here and not just rent from the landlords. Having housing for 4-5 unrelated people isn't going to solve the cost of living issues for people with families and then what about the quality of life for these 4-5 people that aren't related all having to live together? What if they meet someone and want to start a family and then are forced out of Boulder due to its costs? How is cramming more people into a home or apartment considered affordable? This just seems like a band-aid on a much bigger issue that is happening all over the US. I come to you more with concern than a share on how to solve this issue. I just don't see this as the way to solve the affordability in Boulder. • This poll seems very biased for the build, build, build crowed. How about another poll that is biased toward long - term residents, retirees, non-students? • Yes. Single-family and larger residences are preferred by almost everyone for many reasons, but a few of them are (1) space &amp; privacy, (2) security, and (3) affordability. If we can preserve those elements in making allowances for new high-density housing options, I think you'll have a happier community and people that actually want to live in them, rather than seeing them as a last-resort potentially run by a slum-lord. (1) Space and privacy: Housing allowances should go by square footage per person, or by number of bedrooms. There's a balance between available space in a home and how many people live in those spaces. We don't want to enable predatory landlords who have two leases per room, trying to fill each bedroom with multiple people, which might occur in a 2 bedroom house with the 4 or 5 unrelated persons rule. If duplexes/triplexes are allowed, then building codes should stipulate sound/privacy levels between units. Older single family homes tend to have hollow/thin walls/floors that let sound transmit pretty easily. This is usually not an issue with a single family unit or people who have all signed a lease together. But when a single family house is modified into a du-/triplex, those issues aren't fixed and tenants in each unit have less privacy. Each bedroom should have its own lease if it's a house/room rental to ensure multiple leases aren't levied upon vulnerable populations. It also acknowledges that families require (rightly so) reasonable space for all family members. It's been shown several times over that Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 75 crowded living spaces are a detriment to a child's ability to learn, study, and succeed in school. Space and privacy allowances must be considered in high-density housing options. (2) Security: people have cars, bikes, and/or other modes of transportation. Boulder also has a massive bike theft problem. Boulder is also trying to reduce dependence on cars. If higher density housing is allowed, which it absolutely should, tenants deserve some amount of safe storage space for their non-car transportation. This can either be locked/enclosed storage spaces with enough room for each tenant to have a bike(s) and others, or enough space inside the residence for bikes(s) etc. But, this means that the minimum square footage required per tenant needs to be higher to reasonably accommodate them. (3) affordability and cost. Housing is not a luxury one can choose to purchase to enhance their life, it's an absolute necessity and human right. Rents in Boulder sky-rocketed, but most mortgages don't go up at those rates and the rent increases are higher than what's necessary for maintenance, even with inflation. Landlords who are renting out second, third, or more homes as an additional source of income need to have the amount of rent they charge capped to some % of the mortgage plus reasonable deposits for wear and tear. With housing becoming so sparse and in such high demand, it cannot be a source of profit anymore. Homeowners with multiple homes are already way ahead of the game and are building equity just by the fact that they own multiple homes. Rental increases must also be capped. There has to be a greater level of control over the housing market because safe and affordable housing is a *right* and *necessity*. In short, I don't think it's enough just to increase the number of units. Renter protections have to be put in place to prevent poor, crowded, unsafe living conditions, and to prevent landlords from profiteering. • I am filling this out again because I think you need more/different questions in your demographics section. They do not provide enough nuance to this issue. (1) You ask if I rent/own my home. I rent a room in a home. Many people rent single bedrooms from homeowners and I think that's an important distinction to be made about the true diversity of housing in Boulder. (2) You ask what the combined household income is. My landlords make a combined $500k or more per year. I make $40k/year. Their mortgage is $1700/month and I pay $850/month in rent. I pay half of their mortgage while making less than 10% of what they do. While that rent is below market rate in Boulder, isn't it crazy th at these very wealthy (well, middle-class for Boulder) people are able to pay half their mortgage just from a renter? Anyway, my larger point is that combined household income is not a good marker of affordability in the context of rent vs own. • As a wheelchair user, and non-car owner, zoning negatively impacts my ability to live close to areas I need to get to easily. I would like to see more housing options closer to stores and businesses. I strongly support reducing parking requirements for residential projects. I believe this aligns with the overall transit centered focus of our city. • Some of the things you think will make housing affordable don't work out as intended. When my daughter went to college here, there were 10 unrelated people living in a small house on the hill. The landlord made a boatload of money, but it did not reduce the cost to the renters. Her room appeared to be a converted mud room. There was barely room for the twin mattress, there was no room for a dresser or desk. Based on what we paid for that room, the landlord was getting about $10K/month back in 2001. Increased density does not equal affordability. The fact is that more people want to live in Boulder than can ever live in Boulder. Do not undo zoning standards; they are in place for good reason. Please do not ruin neighborhoods in Boulder by making changes to increase density. Do not allow housing without parking. Please do not destroy what makes Boulder a place that everyone wants to live. Most of my life I could not afford to live in the towns I'd like to live in. That is life. There are nearby towns that make very nice homes. Housing affordability is complex with many unintended consequences. Where we lived in the past, the city increased building heights to allow greater density and it was a disaster. The apartments and condos were still unaffordable and blocked out the sun to the streets below. Builders who promised to include affordable units in exchange for all the things developers love, included a few units that made no differrence on the issue of affordability but made our town a worse place for all, including increases in traffic. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 76 • About 60,000 persons commute to Boulder and most of those live with other persons. That's far more than the number of existing housing units in Boulder. So even if we doubled the number of housing units in Boulder, destroying Boulder as we know it, there would still be unsatisfied demand and upward price pressure. The one single measure that would make the most difference is to demand that CU limit the student census to 60% of the number of students can can live in CU housing. If these densification measures are passed, there will be a conservation revolution against the current Boulder government. • Please, please allow us as tax paying members of Boulder to VOTE on this matter again. Please do not take away our democratic rights in Boulder. • Every neighborhood in Boulder should feature some affordable housing, and there should be more opportunities for middle-class families to own homes in Boulder, especially if the head of household has lived and worked and raised his or her children in Boulder for at least five years. • occupancy limits are bad bc they prevent roommates from sharing rent costs, but good because landlords could bump rent higher since theoretically 10 people could cram and share rent costs. i think we need some form of rent control or bedroom-number-based occupancy rules to prevent the latter case. • Parking requirements and single-family zoning are significant barriers to Boulder’s climate goals and reduce the quality of life in our city. I feel very strongly that Boulder needs to make these changes to achieve a sustainable future. • I work at CU Boulder and housing affordability is a real barrier for us to become a more inclusive University. ANY help with moderately priced housing will be better for the community and the University. • It's appalling that Boulder's leaders fought to have Boulder carved out from SB 213's occupancy limit reform. I'm beyond disappointed, and that move signals to me that the city cares more about the small, wealthy, vocal minority in Boulder rather than what is best for all in Boulder and along the Front Range. • Please increase the occupancy limit. 3 unrelated people is very limiting to those of us who need to live with roommates to be able to afford Boulder at this point. For the vast majority of us young professionals, we are not going to throw loud parties. We are just trying to live our lives in an affordable manner. • Make tiny houses on wheels legal as accessory dwelling units and full-time residences! • Duplexes - Not triplexes - let's start out slowly with Duplexes only to avoid citizen anger or abrupt change. Definitely try to change the Unrelated adults from Family (2 adults with or without 1 - 5+ kids) who can legally have 2 more roommates. Makes no common sense. Taking out parking requirements will just increase the price of the land to build whatever anyway. Whoever doesn't see this has no common sense. • Boulder should improve bike and walk infrastructure, and deprecate car infrastructure, in conjunction with increased density, to reduce in-commuting and city traffic. • Plenty of underdeveloped commercial/industrial areas that could accommodate more residential. Would be especially interested in focusing on centers/corridors where we could eliminate parking requirements and focus on transit/walking/biking mobility. • I live in Martin Acres, and this plan will negatively impact me and all other homeowners. Currently most student rental houses already are illegally over-occupied and nothing gets done when reports are made. Why should we expect city council to act when 7,8,9 students cram into a house? They park on the yards since there is not enough parking, making our neighborhood looks like the slums when houses are close to a million dollars. What about the fact that landlords will just raise rent, so it’s not actually affordable? I realize you feel the need to make good on some campaign promises, but this is not really taking action. It’s reducing quality of life for people who have spent years and their savings in this town. What about the environmental impact? Sewer lines that haven’t been updated, original energy-sucking fixtures, and now you want to add more people to a 5 gallon flush toilet? Will you do anything at all to make improvements to the neighborhood, such as filling potholes? Speed enforcement? People drive 40-50 miles an hour down Moorhead Ave, including non-emergent police cars. A photo radar car once a month during 8-5 is not going to stop the evening racers. When will you show you value us as citizens and neighbors? Will you let 5 or more students live next to you on both sides, across the street, and the house behind? Would that affect your quality of life if they started parking on the yards by you, leaving garbage cans out to Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 77 become ground missiles on windy days? Think of us as people, too. You delegate some of us as less worthy of what we have worked for just to make it look like you are working on your campaign promises. Do something real. • Why is the city totaling disregarding the votes against the bedrooms for people initiative? • I’m strongly opposed to treating higher density in single family neighborhoods and increasing the number of people occupying a single family house. One of the proposed is just making us re-vote on Bedrooms Are for People, which feels illegal. Seriously, I have too many college students in my single family neighborhood and am not interested in more density in south Boulder. As a homeowner and a Boulder voter, stop wasting your time with trying to make Boulder bigger. No Boulder homeowner I know want more people here. Keep the slow growth strategy and stop trying to defy the laws of economics. • I grew up in Boulder. So I have lived here on and off for 40 years. The building and development I have seen in the last ten years is high density, uncreative and frankly short sighted. If I had confidence that changing these zoning rules the character and integrity of Boulder’s nature and family friendly neighborhoods would be maintained I might be open to zoning changes. However all the development and cement jungkes I’ve seen built in the last 5-10 years do not provide me with that confidence. So I remain againt lifting zoning laws and restrictions. Boulder is special because of the green belt and height limits. If you disregard what makes Boulder special in favor of increasing city occupancy you run the risk of losing what is special and unique about Boulder. At some point the reality of a smaller town/city like Boulder does reach capacity. The population has grown so much in the last decade. If you don’t continue with thoughtful city planning, I fear that what has made Boulder special for decades will disappear. Boulder is jot a big city. It can’t be unless you infeinge on nature, height limits, and population density. If you change those foundational characteristics of Boulder you will have marred what has always been integral to the character of the landscape and people who want to live here; forward thinking, environmentally conscious, local community minded residents and developers. • Many people who comment about this issue on the internet seem to be concerned that landlords will somehow add 10 bedrooms to existing houses, rent them out to unsuspecting students, and thus fill neighborhoods with cars and trash. I really don't think this argument holds any water. The number of people that would actually want to live in such conditions is not some unbounded value, it's finite, and I would guess it's much smaller than these people think. Even if landlords went ham and somehow were able to add tons of bedrooms to existing houses, despite the natural restrictions imposed by their property size and the price of building materials right now, they would only be filled by people willing to live with a huge number of people, which as I postulate, isn't large. This is one instance in which I do think the "market" will be somewhat self-correcting. Furthermore, Boulder homeowners seem to imagine that upping the occupancy limit to 4-5 from 3 will be the end of days. All they have to do is simply look at any other college town in the country to see what the result is. I come from the Pacific Northwest where a lot of occupancy limits are around 5. Several points about this: 1) I lived in Eugene, OR for 11 years, as a college student, worker, and then student again from 2006-2017, and never, not once, did I hear anyone complain about occupancy limits, so it seems that 4-5 is a good value that will meet the needs of the vast majority of people. For those it doesn't, co-op living exists in Eugene as it does in Boulder. 2) Is Eugene a trash-ridden hellhole, a wasteland of cars cluttering streets and raging parties? No. It is a normal college town (in fact, homeowners complain about the homeless population less than those in Boulder, despite the problem being arguably worse in the Eugene/Portland area). The amount of college-student-driven-mayhem is a direct function of the character of the students, not their density. Shitheads gonna be shitheads whether they live 3 or 5 or 10 to a house. Look, y'all on city council and whoever else reads this know: We have a problem with building space in Boulder. You know we can't build north/south/east because of open space, can't build west because of lack of utility access, can't build up because of views. What remains? HIGHER DENSITY. Should we try to enable Boulder to support a population of 1 million without growing the bounds of the town? No, that's insane. Should we try to do everything we can to increase housing availability at multiple price points to support the existing students and low-wage workers? Yes! P.S. Everyone who lives in a college town and complains about college students would do well to remember that 1) You chose to live here, or choose to remain, and 2) it's not just college students trying to live here on low incomes. It's your hair dresser, your waiter at brunch, your car mechanic, not to mention grad students and other academics who literally carry half the Boulder economy on their backs and have very little choice about living here or not Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 78 (their grad school choice is largely determined by where they get in). So, if you want to have a vibrant, diverse town, we need to reform occupancy limits to at least be on par with other similarly-sized college towns that are not having this conversation constantly. If you want a retirement community where the people serving you are constantly stressed because they can't afford to live here (encouraging workers to come in sick to work to not miss out on money, or to quit and drive constant staff turnover), then by all means, keep the limits where they are. P.P.S. Enough with the giant luxury high-rises to support Google workers. Do homeowners and city council people even know how much e.g. students are making? I just got my PhD in the best-paid department at CU (Astrophysical &amp; Planetary Sciences). By the end of the degree I made gross $45k a year, which is about HALF the MEDIAN income. Other grads and undergrads (that aren't on their parent's dime, anyway) are suffering far worse, not to mention untipped service workers. We need more affordable housing!! • Relax ADU easement requirements and provide tax incentives to existing homeowners to encourage them to contribute more affordable housing inventory. ADUs can ensure Boulder character of neighborhoods while alleviating some of the housing pressure, and reduce drastic measures like rezoning. • My partner and I make a solid 6 figure salary combined. We both have jobs in Boulder. We have no children. We can’t even consider living in Boulder because of the insane costs. • Allowing duplexes and triplexes and ADU's in areas that currently only allow single-family homes is really important to built up medium density housing. Living with 4 roommates because that's all you can afford should not be illegal. • While I could afford housing a few years ago I am close to being priced out of boulder entirely and having to move even though my job and friends are here. It has gotten so difficult and something needs to change. In addition I think you should consider changing the retirements for affordable housing since most people I know who are struggling actually don't make enough to qualify for affordable housing, even though they always pay rent on time and have good credit. • Start taking action. We need more housing options for people who can’t buy a $1M+ home!!! • The City continues to redevelop and rezone areas resulting in rents increasing and industries that pay lower wages to leave town, think steel yards. Google and Microsoft move in and Ball expands after threatening the city to leave if their expansion wasn’t approved. High paying jobs especially bringing in employees from real estate rich area like the Silicon Valley drives housing threw the roof. This current approach of rezone and develop out of high housing costs hasn’t worked and will never work to bring housing prices down. Instead long-time residents are getting run out of town by increasing property values and their associated taxes. I suggest the City start thinking about the people who live here now and not providing opportunities for more people to live here at the cost to the existing residents. • High density/affordable/low income housing is clearly the agenda here. While perhaps appropriate in certain areas of the city, the continuing crusade to make residing in Boulder a "right" should not dominate the discussion. • My main concern with changing occupancy limits is how the city wil address the additional demand for infrastructure (water demand, power, etc). • Increased occupancy mostly benefits students and will just push renting families out of Boulder. Landlords will just charge more rent in a "per room" system that will favor students and hurt families. Students would also be more likely to rent a 4-5 bedroom house with one in each room if occupancy is increased which will again make it harder for families who truly need the 4-5 bedrooms. Please don't change the occupancy, it will really hurt the community of our neighborhoods. • I am definitely in favor of increasing affordable housing in Boulder for all. It would be great to support the expansion of the Boulder permanent affordable housing program. It is non sense to make housing a profit activity. Everyone should have access to a home/intimacy/comfortable space on their own that is affordable. We are talking about human need and right, not about privilege. Thank you. • I bought single family housing in what I thought was a democratic not socialist community. Please protect the hard earned single family home property values and financial foundations of families, maintain single family zoning. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 79 If you wonder why Boulder population versus other towns and cities is not growing you need only look at your socialism based housing agendas. It is about democratic choice, not unfavorable zoning decisions forced upon others after they have bought into the city and their neighborhoods of choice. City Council and the Planning and Development agendas are quite simply driving property owners out of Boulder at the expense of those who do not live here and think they are Entitled to live here at others’ expense without earning their way in like those who saved for 10-20 years to do so and have. Wake up and be responsive to the people who actually live here and pay the majority of the taxes! The massive state wide opposition to bill 23-213 should be evidence enough. This is NOT what voters want here or anywhere in the state. • It’s discriminatory. Don’t be an outlier in the state. Remove occupancy limits. If a house has 6 bedrooms, 6-7 people should be able to live there. • Stop the Robin Hood housing policy economics of stealing property value at the literal life financial expense of those who have worked hard, sacrificed, and saved to have a home of their own to create housing for others who have not earned their way into already established single family neighborhoods and communities. Boulder is and has been building 25% of all new large scale housing developments for 20 years now with low income housing? What percentage is low and moderate income housing NOW on a unit percentage basis of total cumulative housing? Forcing neighborhood disruptive short term rental ADU’s with no parking and low income duplexes/townhouses into existing moderate and higher value single family neighborhoods destroying single family property values does make a dent in addressing low income housing scale issues, IF we even need a higher percentage. Has anyone calculated the total cumulative current percentage of low and moderate income total housing community wide. Let’s determine and assess this question first! Thought I lived in a city of democratic choice not imposed socialism. No wonder lots of people are leaving Boulder. • Increased occupancy for existing dwellings or via ADUs for existing lots encourages absentee investors to pump up housing costs and decrease owner oversight of property/tenants, degrading quality of life for Boulder renters and homeowners alike. • Exempt CU-adjacent neighborhoods from any increase in occupancy. • Care should be made to not make traffic worse - e.g., clogging up Arapahoe eastbound, which is already a nightmare at certain hours. • Make the permitting process smoother and faster for those that want to build new housing or renovate existing housing. “Time to approval” should be a metric that is published daily so we (the citizens) can see how quickly people are getting their permits to build. • I am a single family homeowner and change is scary. But we are experiencing a housing crisis that cannot continue to be ignored. • Housing regulations are already not enforced. The rental next door is to allow only 3 unrelated people in front house and 3 unrelated in small ADU that was grandfathered in as a separate address. The front house always has 5 to 10 unrelated people in it (4 bedrooms &amp; a basement that has been used as an apartment). If the city is able to inspect it, with the 3 to 5 day notice given, the renters pull out all extra mattresses &amp; lie to the city regarding occupancy because the property management (four star) threatens to hold their deposit if they make them look bad to the city. This was told to me by the renters who felt bad about lying to the city. If changes were made to occupancy, how many renters would get crammed in to support the high rent for the property? • “Last one in shut the door” policy in Boulder. What’s with you people? So entitled. • Thank you for considering these steps to create more housing and help make Boulder more affordable to live in. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 80 • Wake up, smell the coffee city council and land use planning department your voters who actually live here and own property here do NOT support your aggressive goals to create neighborhood disharmony, add more crime, and lower single family home owners property values in neighborhoods they have invested in and built financial equity in. • Housing units in Boulder vary widely in capacity. Number of occupants in a home should *only* be related to home size, expressed either as number of bedrooms or as square footage of the unit. Using a single number regardless of size has always been nonsensical. As for parking requirements, I’d suggest offering transit passes in lieu of parking spaces. There’s an innovative new neighborhood in Phoenix that has no on-site parking but provides walk/bike/transit options. This is the sort of thing that Boulder should be doing! • Too much density impacts quality of life and finite natural resources. All systems have carrying capacity. Overcrowding in Boulder just because people want to live here affects the entire state and beyond - air, dimishing water, traffic and ridiculous crowding and irresponsible use of backcountry and trails. Please address job/housing imbalance - no more incentives for companies to move here. Developers and wealthy must pay their fair share. • Real Estate Taxes on residences are already too high, as well as other taxes in Boulder. Therefore, I am outraged at the Boulder City Council members who expect responsible persons like me, on relatively lower incomes, to subsidize those whose income is much higher. I MADE NUMEROUS SACRIFICES TO PURCHASE MY MODEST CONDO IN SOUTH BOULDER. LIKEWISE, THOSE DEMANDING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING CAN DO THE SAME. FORGET ANNUAL VACATIONS, MULTIPLE VEHICLE OWNERSHIP, IMBIBING ALCOHOL &amp; USING MARIJUANA PRODUCTS, ETC. MOST OF THE PERSONS DEMANDING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ARE IRRESPONSIBLE. AND THE BOULDER CITY COUNCIL IS ALWAYS ENCOURAGING THAT IRRESPONSIBLE CONDUCT!!!!!! • I believe the move to mass transit and more sustainable transportation is the future. Increasing density either people or cars in established communities removes, temporarily, a pressing transportation need housing is plentiful in surrounding areas at value prices for home ownership. This should be our goal as a community access through affordable sustainable transportation to affordable housing options. This is Colorado not a sardine can like NYC or SF. • I understand the development called Mapleton Academy recently declared they could not meet their affordable housing OBLIGATION and was ALLOWED to take a buy out. That kind of allowance by the City is EXACTLY why we dont have enough affordable housing. STOP THE BUY OUT and force these deep pocket developers to honor their obligation. • Should allow adu’s • Remove requirement that owner must live in house with ADU • Why are there only options to build, build, build???? • Seems like you already know the answers you want to see. Bias much? • If people can't afford to live in Boulder, they can't afford it. • Eliminate the building height restriction east of Foothills Parkway. Three over One framed buildings (three floors above a single concrete podium for ground-level commercial and vehicular parking; and which fit within the City's 55ft height limit) are difficult to make financially feasible due to high construction costs. If a developer chooses this construction method then the outcome must be rental housing. This is because the developer will be more willing to hold the project to just beyond the 8-year Colorado construction defects statute to avoid a class-action lawsuit. In order to build more for-sale residential condominiums (smaller and less expensive) a developer must use light- steel framing (Infinity System, etc.) which is a superior and more robust framing method than light-wood framing. The steel framing reduces the chances of a construction defects lawsuit. Stop requiring new residential developments from having to pay inclusionary housing fees. This only makes housing more expensive as the costs are simply passed on to buyers. Affordable housing is a necessity for everyone living in the City of Boulder and thus inclusionary housing fees (actually an affordable housing tax) should be paid from property taxes of all property types in the city. Allow much greater housing density along Walnut, Pearl, and Spruce Streets (the City's core) to allow more residents to choose between walking and/or bicycles for ease of mobility. These housing units should be kept small (not greater than 800 SF) and have no parking requirement in order to serve the employees who Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 81 work in downtown Boulder. Given the high cost of housing in Boulder, there should not be any single -story structures in the city except those existing in single-family residential zoning and structures that have regulated hazardous materials (gas stations, automotive-related businesses, chemical-related businesses, hospitals, etc.). For-profit developers can not build affordable housing at current HUD-determined sales prices without being given subsidies. Affordable housing can be built by non-profit developers. There are some fantastic groups in the City with excellent abilities to add affordable housing units. They have a lower cost of capital than for-profit developers. They should be given reduced building permit fees and expedited permit reviews. The time to get building plans reviewed and approved in the City is far too long. Time equals money spent (carrying costs in a project) and reducing the time for building permit approvals will reduce housing costs. Build housing above grocery stores and stop requiring residents to drive automobiles to grocery stores. Significantly reduce student rentals on The Hill. Additional owner-occupied housing units can be reclaimed by forcing CU to manage its own housing needs on its own property. The city is effectively giving CU free land to house students. Eliminate any future historic preservation designations. The City has several excellent historic districts. These should be preserved and respected. However, the age of a building does not justify a historic review. The City does not need a historic " Martin Acres" in order to preserve the single-level ranch archetype. Instead, this neighborhood is an example of promoting more duplexes and triplexes. How many more free ideas do you need? • Parking requirements in public transit corridors should be reduced. In car-dependent areas the amount of available street parking should be taken into consideration. • Boulder should adopt occupancy as in 213--so-called unrelated people or definition of family should be eliminated (it is from gender discrimination "blue laws " of the last century, ethnically, racially and FULLY intended for discrimination) and if there is an occupancy limit, it is applied to all individuals. Family of 5, 3 children 2 adults be treated the same as other individuals. Current restriction is preposterous in a University town where single-family dwellers are trying to make money off of their properties with the college, and not let the students have affordable housing to live there. • The number of unrelated people in a house should be at minimum the number of bedrooms in the house. • Affordability is a function of supply and demand. The cost of real estate in Boulder is a clear reflection of supply and demand. Only when the amount developable land exceeds the demand for same will we see land prices reflect this in balance. • Please re-offer the questionnaire with separation of un-like proposals so people can actually respond meaningfully. Many people here support changes in commercial areas (as long as neighborhood commerce is preserved for walkable neighborhoods!) and transportation corridors. I do not like seeing these ideas lumped with changes in single-family neighborhoods. The concerns in these zones differ radically and this feels like a useless poll if our goals are actually as stated -- to increase affordable housing and not just enrich real estate developers, landlords, banks . The latter undesirable results are all that I've seen studies show. Along with other results that conflict with our community's shared values. Let's follow the data. This is a plea to improve your community input / engagement methods so that all can Be Heard and Council's actions can actually help us move toward solutions. We will all benefit from that. • I guess you know the answers you want. • Some duplexes in R-1 SF zone districts are OK. ADUs should be allowed on all SF lots if the lot coverage does not exceed what is permitted now. • This is a battle I am not sure we can win and in the end some people won't be able to live here. We have limited space, zoning height rules, open space, etc. There isn't enough room for everyone. Forcing changes on to current residents which will make their homes now in the middle of over-built, over-developed neighborhoods doesn't seem like a fair answer either. • OCCUPANCY: Boulder's current rules are stupid: four unrelated can legally share an apartment but if they want to move that same household to a detached house (that's probably at least twice the size), that is illegal in most of Boulder; current rules also discriminate against single resident owners with respect to total occupancy allowed. Adams County rejected occupancy rules because they determined that they were racially discriminatory (different cultural standards). ZONING: I've spent over two decades trying to get my neighborhood directly between and virtually adjacent to both Main and East CU Boulder campuses rezoned for higher density but have been unsuccessful at City Council level; former CC member Lisa Morzel who used to live here says it's the one neighborhood in Boulder that should probably be upzoned given its proximity to both CU Boulder academic Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 82 campuses (it's mostly student residents). PARKING: Current rules don't count parking spaces within front yard setbacks toward required parking places even though in practice they are used by residents; changing rules to count these toward required parking spaces would increase reported parking spaces more than any other single change to the rules (we have NPP Neighborhood Parking Permit Program in my neighborhood adjacent to both CU Boulder academic campuses). • destroying single family neighborhoods by allowing high density building will not make Boulder more affordable unless you increase the density to the point that the quality of life declines and no one wants to live here. I saw how well high density affordable housing apartment complexes worked in Detroit, MI when they beca me slums that no-one wanted to live in and eventually were torn down. • Changes increasing density should not be applied city wide. Only do it in areas that truly can support it. Leave single family zoning alone. Repeal the recent loosening of ADU rules in single family neighborhoods. • We do not needs to make it more affordable. • Just wanted to make sure that any changes can impact the house next-door to anybody that sits on city council • Increasing occupancy allowances will not lead to greater affordability in Boulder, a city in which demand for housing is inelastic. It will only crowd out families and encourage real estate investors to maximize rents. • I think the mandate of a fixed percentage of new construction be designated into the affordable program (homes selling for less than market rate) has a short term gain, longer term pain affect and should be eliminated. My opinion is these programs do not afford lower income people to gain wealth and keeps them poor. • I'm not sure I've understood the first part of question 2 correctly. By answering "definitely do not agree," I mean to indicate that: 1) historic neighborhoods should remain intact and not be subject to redevelopment, and 2) zoning restrictions such as the height limit on buildings in the downtown area should remain in place. • Reduce environmental requirements for new builds to encourage lower housing costs. Rework flood zone maps and flood insurance requirements to reduce costs. • Developments without parking should be prioritized along major bus routes (such as the SKIP and 205). Road and parking congestion problems are also public transportation availability problems, not simply housing. It makes no sense to change zoning requirements without taking into account the size of the dwelling and the septic system allowances. 5 people in a 2 bedroom apartment is very different than 5 people in a 5 bedroom house and occupancy limits should reflect that. • In general I strongly support exploring creating more affordable housing in Boulder to reduce the amount of driving done into Boulder every day. Parking policies should discourage single person car use and encourage use of mass transit and alternative modes. I would make sure the "non-affordable" projects pay for some of the affordable. Discourage more new employee generating businesses until this is under control. • Boulder desperately needs a rent stabilization board. Especially after the Marshall fire, rent gouging has been rampant. I myself experienced a 25% rent hike at 2 week’s notice, something that would be illegal in many parts of the country. At rates like this I will be priced out within the next few years. • Create affordable housing specifically for graduate students! We are not normal students and should qualify for affordable housing options! Build a tiny home community! Allow backyard tiny homes! Anything and everything to reduce housing costs for people in need that can't live too far from the city (ie. necessary workers, graduate students, etc.). • This issue has already been voted on by the citizens of boulder. • I think maintaining standards that include open space requirements is important to the character of our town, but I don't think that should stop us from updating our existing zoning standards to allow for more affordable housing options. Likewise, I worry about what reducing parking requirements will do - our public transport is still not good enough that people simply won't have cars - so, if you're going to reduce parking, you need to increase/improve options for public transport. • If Boulder wants to be an inclusive and welcoming community, there simply has to be more housing! • Fully support the idea to make occupancy equal to number of bedrooms, plus 1!! • Don't SF or PDX Boulder, please!!! Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 83 • Affordable rentals should be built and owned by the City of Boulder. • The citizens of Boulder already voted against the Bedrooms Are for People Referendum and City Council should honor the wishes of its constituents rather than find work-arounds. • We are in a housing crisis. We should be doing as much as possible as quickly as possible • Rent control, and affordable housing in different city areas to avoid "red line" systems. Livable communities. Community education. • Change zoning regulation and occupancy levels making sure that big real state companies and corporations don’t start buying single family homes to rent out. Allow zoning changes, and allow new builds only if developers are willing to add affordable, and I mean really affordable housing for rent and for sale at below market rate. Developers should incluir affordable housing for sale on their development, housing that is allowed to grow resale value at regular market rates. • While some people like to pretend that a "close" majority of roughly 52% in the BAFP vote is a "weak" majority, the legality of it is clear. The voters spoke and the Council and city staffers are obliged to honor the people's choice. This is not even a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent the vote results and may result in legal action. The Council and city staff need to quit spending time, which is tax money, on trying to defeat the will of the people. There is a large and want to be vocal part of Boulder that does not want density. The "want to be" vocal element is that those folks don't seem to be the demographic elements that the city surveys. For example, if I read it right, the majority if not the totality of households surveyed for the ADU proposal were in fact only homeowners with ADUs already in place. In another example, the survey group for the working group on the airport, which is charged with finding a way to get housing on the airport property, included homeowners in the two mobile home parks and Gunbarrel - completely and deliberately ignoring the 200 - 300+ single family and townhome/condo owners between Airport Road and 47th Street. The Council wanted "lower income" input, but equity works both ways. Single family and multi-unit housing owners should have been included. • Please do the will of the voters • This issue has been voted upon by the citizens of Boulder previously. This is a gross misuse of City Council authority to circumvent the democratic process for deciding change. • Rent in the area is extortionate. We're in Boulder, not New York or London, so why is rent so high? We need restrictions placed on property management companies regarding how often they can raise the cost of rent, how much of the rental market any one company or landlord can control, and on how soon before a tenant's lease expires a unit can be listed for "pre-leasing". The "pre-leasing" practices here, especially near the university, are ridiculous and pressure tenants to renew a lease 8-10 months before their current lease expires. • Will any potential changes be put in front of the voters of Boulder? It seems an over reach to potentially implement changes that impact tax paying citizens and not give them an opportunity to vote on the changes. The type of changes surveyed on this form were just unanimously pushed down/blocked by the state legislature. The voting citizens of Boulder need to have a voice and not just on an obscure survey. • Whew! Bias much? • Let’s call the planning and development low income and multi-unit housing agenda infill agenda for what it is: 1) Questionable on all levels as the planning commission and city council continue to claim we have a “housing crisis” while recent Boulder high density developments remain not fully rented or occupied and yet demand we allow developers to profit by building more high density housing all while these developers do not pay their way in terms of service and city infrastructure needed expansion/city impact based on a developments’ per person contribution to the population (which transfers most of this tax burden to single family and larger land tract owners). 2) Since when do we as a city need to aggressively need to compromise the property value of planned family middle income communities with low income multi-unit infill housing? How do we justify this as a housing solution when it compromises the net worth of so many families and neighborhoods for the benefit of few, which also has almost no net impact on the solution or goal. Lets call these low income infill measures what they are an aggressive agenda for commercial real estate developers to make money at every single family home owners expense cloaked in the fraudulent claim of Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 84 improving the community. What a load of bull. Maybe we should develop a city oversight committee for the planning and development department of single family home owners and voters since the department and city council continue to push agendas unwanted in the community. • Reducing or eliminating parking requirements for ADU’s reduces/obstructs emergency vehicle access, eliminates driving sight lines for playing children, adults and pets and creates neighborhood parking disputes and disharmony, all for what—--one more person to live in an ADU? Where is the community benefit here? Why can’t increased housing types remain as the ongoing goal that it already is in new development with 25% of all new development planned, as designed and being built, to accommodate a variety of housing types. Stop forcing low income multi-housing into already existing planned single family zones. Also don’t think the public is unaware or approving of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive’s plan progressive zoning creep and neighborhood “areas” re-definitions the city uses to advance a housing agenda that works to entitle commercial developers and those who do not live here versus those who do and pay the bulk of city taxes. • Boulder's stringent and time consuming approach to planning review makes everything HARDER and that is a real drag on being able to make progress on building a better community • Build more affordable housing that can be owner occupied • Reduce job growth to match housing growth. • We already had a ballot measure in the last election that was not approved to expand more residents. Listen to your voters. • Boulder is famous for its downtown near Pearl Street which has an amazing mix of both commerical and residential buildings allowing for a vibrant community. We should expand these mixed use areas and increase density to improve supply of housing in our city. There's a reason some of the most expensive housing is in walkable dense areas like Pearl. We need more of it • The overarching goal should be to address the issue of affordability when it comes to affordable housing in Boulder. I support doing almost whatever it takes to accomplish this goal. I am in complete agreement with the proposed change of increasing the total number of unrelated people living in a living space. • Rental caps, occupancy floors on residences • Remember 15 years ago when everything had to be low density and green? These proposals are no where near a “middle ground”! It’s disingenuous to frame it that way. • I think helping the unhoused, along with climate mitigation, are the most important things for the city to address. • Stop scrap-offs or remodeling of affordable homes that change them into homes that are no longer affordable. • We need to focus on wealth disparity. People with greater wealth should be paying much higher taxes. People should be paying additional taxes on luxury goods and services. • Boulder does not need to grow any larger. There are many bedroom communities close to Boulder to absorb people who wish to be close to Boulder. • Commercial development needs to be restricted in order to reduce the demand for housing. • In favor of Bedrooms are for People revision. • The giant parking lots (along 28th especially) are SUCH a waste. • Please take action on occupancy reform. You rejected BAFP because you said you want to handle it legislatively, so handle it, please. • There should be lower or no minimum lot size. Lot-size minimums effectively just exclude people who aren't rich from owning a detached house. • Do more to support co-ops, remove requirement that co-ops cannot be closer than 500 feet apart, reduce fees for co-op application, reduce length of application. Implement more programs that support the missing middle. Create additional incentives for homes to enter the permanently affordable program. Tax unoccupied or low-occupancy living space higher (i.e. two people inhabiting a 7000 sq foot home) Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 85 • une ville plus dense, avec de meilleurs transports publics et des modes de transport souples (marche, vélo, scooter) et moins de voitures, permettrait une meilleure cohésion du territoire et de ses habitants, mais aussi une meilleure utilisation de la voiture, ce qui empêche aujourd'hui les liens sociaux, l'entraide, la consommation locale et augmente le bruit, la pollution visuelle et chimique. This change also involves the affordability of housing in Boulder, which today is too individual and too expensive, with too much land use for individual and not shared happiness • I believe that the simplest solution is to limit people by the number of bedrooms. As more people age-in-place, there will be a greater need for using large houses more effectively to provide housing for caregivers, I believe...like, for example, two elderly couples and a live-in caregiver or two sharing care. Most big houses that now have families that will in time house two people, and still have 4-5 bedrooms that could be used. I now have a 7 bedroom house that can only house 3 unrelated adults! • There are many benefits to people of all socio-economic levels living near each other. City planning and policy (and developers seeking permits) should embrace more affordable housing options throughout the city. • You can not put 10 pounds of mud into a 2-pound bag. Boulder is a 2-pound bag. We need to FIRST define☆ a desirable community, then write our laws to support that. ☆Clean air ☆Clean water ☆Freedom from too long waiting lines ☆Freedom from too much ambient noise (cars, planes, people too close together, ...) ☆Freedom from too much population pressure on clean water supplies ☆Freedom from too many pets ☆Freedom fewer places to walk ☆Freedom from having to haul trash further (&amp; pay more) because close landfills are full ☆Not everybody has to live on top of my head. ☆Boulder is desirable, but not the whole world has a right to live here. We do't want to Californicate the place. ☆To hell with the Real Estate and Business Growth-Mongers. This is my home! ☆If you love NYC so much, move back there and build skyscrapers to the moon; don't come here and try to make Boulder into NYC. • Housing supply is too low. It's absurd to expect people to fill all the jobs in Boulder from their apartments in Dacono while also expecting them to walk and bike to work. Please please please start aligning the zoning and housing rules and the lofty carbon and sustainability goals with at least a little bit of reality. • As a property manager I reserve the right to impose my own occupancy limits in order to maintain quiet enjoyment, reduce wear and tear, and keep utility bills such as water usage under control. • A consideration that I don't see being addressed is that large, old trees are being destroyed by all the ADU's that are added in these old neighborhood yards. The trees stay alive for about 5 years and then die because their roots get so severely damaged and then the trees end up smothered by landscaping fabric being wrapped around the base of them, covered with several inches of gravel or stone and the tree suffocates and dry up. It is horrible!! I have lived here for more nearly 50 years and just yesterday I noted how many trees, young and old, are suffering in our neighborhood due to dwellings stuffed in next to them. Maybe the council needs to look at high density living in other neighborhoods where there is not what is basically urban old growth forest. And this is all at a time when our wonderful Climate Initiatives Programs are trying to increase tree canopy that helps with the Heat Island effect. I think our short-sighted view is going to really harm the climate and these old neighborhoods! From the 'outside' it appears that the only changes that the Council is looking at are in the neighborhoods that already carry the burden of student housing. And it is a HUGE burden. We can only rarely park in front of our home, old sewer systems back up because multi-dwelling units were built where there were once single family homes-- and sewer systems were not updated. TRASH!!!! Some of the blocks downtown do not have alleys and so there are ALWAYS overflowing trash cans in the street. Code Enforcement tries but they are severely understaffed. Money talks!! The wealthier nearby neighborhoods have dedicated parking places in front of their homes, trash is always in its place. Such inequity in priorities is unfair. Spread the pressure out and include these neighborhoods so that so much of the pressure doesn't fall on the same neighborhoods over and again. Lastly, is anyone in the City government aware of the fact that people who need this housing are not actually living Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 86 in these ADU's that are built? They are all rented out as VRBO's!! Are there not enough hotels in town? So mething feels very amiss about how all this is being handled. Thank you for listening to my point of view. • This needs to be a priority. Most people with influence in this area are being sheltered from the reality of poverty and are hence unable to make conscientious decisions. We need to stop raising the ceiling the start raising the floor. • Boulder should make public transportation cheap/free, and parking EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. Like it should cost $30 an hour any time of day to park within 2 miles of pearl Street, but boulder should ALSO provide frequent free shuttles from the park and rides, free ebikes, and something akin to Uber but only in city limits and super low cost. In my residential neighborhood, people drive in from out of town to park here for free and walk to the university. The extra cars aren't because of the people who live here, it's because of the people who can't afford to live here because of our discriminatory occupancy zoning. • provide more affordable housing. rent control/cap should be introduced (too many wealthy investors speculating on Boulder renters). require homes to be permanently occupied (someone living at the address, with proof of utility bills etc.) rather than being used as second homes and left vacant. discourage/prohibit building of single family mansions (a minimum occupancy rate by square footage would be as beneficial as the maximum occupancy rate - too many 6000 sq ft homes occupied by 1 or 2 people while there is not enough housing for lower and medium income families) • I think building affordable housing in commercial areas and industrial areas is a good idea; and, might need to also increase the number of grocery stores, hardware stores and gas stations. There was an affordable project slated for the industrial area of NE Boulder. It was shot down due to zoning for industrial use only. Building affordable units in neighborhood centers is problematic because these are already congested. • We should abolish single-family zoning entirely and focus on building social housing for low income folks and more middle class homes to reduce house prices for middle class people, as well as implementing a Land Value Tax. • A study of low and middle income housing development on City-owned property (e.g., Boulder airport or the Planning Reserve) could be explored. A public/private partnership would be one approach on achieving a fiscally responsible development to achieve an increase in this segment of of housing. • Please do the right thing and eliminate Boulder's exclusionary zoning policies. • How about anti-hoarding rules and penalties for leaving homes and land vacant? How about encouraging individuals and not corporations to own housing in Boulder? • duplexes and triplexes should be allowed in single family zoning, but all new buildings should have to meet rigorous environmental standards • As a student, it is very hard to see a future here. I would love to stay in Boulder after college but with the exclusion for lower income housing, I would have to find a high paid job that is not offered much around Boulder. • BAIT AND SWITCH: I HATE the bait and switch of changing zoning in SF residential neighborhoods. I invested in a single family home home after renting in Boulder and saving for 15 years. I liked the Danish Plan with low growth, the building height limits, and the open space. I decided to invest and live in a Boulder home and decided to buy in North Boulder after checking the North Boulder Comprehensive Plan. How do you expect people to make decisions about where they live iif Council can just ignore the city's Comprehensive Plans, on which people rely to make major life decisions? PARKING: If you add people without requiring more off-street parking spaces you make parking in neighborhoods a nightmare. The vehicles of more occupants, plus the vehicles of their visiting friends and family, sows discord between neighbors. Despite decades of encouraging people to use alternate modes of transportation, people want the convenience (and for many, the necessity) of cars. NOT WHAT PEOPLE LIVING HERE WANT: The people voted NOT to increase occupancy levels in the Bedrooms are for People Initiative. You should not be able to ignore this. IDEAS FOR MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING: How about partnering with employers to help subsidize workforce housing? How about the City and County subsidizing their employees' housing? Let's give our police, firefighters, teachers, Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 87 and others a better opportunity to live here. I would be happy if real estate taxes went to this purpose. Or perhaps there are bonds, grants, other things we can do to. Focus on increasing affordability in the areas that are not yet developed so that parking, solar access and other needs can be accommodated. Also, folks, please remember that growth cannot be infinite. If they haven't already, have planners and Council members listen to Al Barlett's oft-repeated lectures on growth. • Please consider pilots and also housing that specifically caters to people with children. I would also support zoning changes for affordability and ownership for lower income people. • Rezone SFH areas along 36 and other high traffic roads to allow row house development • PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUING IN BOULDER • Tip from an AICP-certified planner and Boulder renter currently working in affordable housing development: do not publish any visual communication/presentation to residents, council, etc. around missing middle housing that does not include pictures! It is so important to demystify "density" and show people real buildings, especially examples of duplexes, triplexes, etc. already within Boulder. If people see an example from a neighborhood they recognize, they will be more open to discussion. Here are a couple relevant articles with missing middle messaging tips from the PNW: https://www.sightline.org/2019/02/01/talking-triplexes-missing-middle-messaging-tips/ and https://www.sightline.org/2019/11/04/lessons-from-oregons-missing-middle-success/ • The people voted DOWN bedrooms are for people! • Close the airport! Change zoning to allow for small shops to neighborhood allow for 15 min neighborhoods. • Increasing density has been proved “not” to reduce affordability. Only trashes up neighborhoods. We already voted this down so go away. • Basically the voters said to keep the current occupancy level guidelines in place (although the city council did not agree with the results) in the last electionThis is a work around of those results by certain council members who control the majority of the vote This should not be allowed to proceed. • Changes should also allow neighborhood coffee shops, restaurants, and groceries but area parking should be by permit. Saturation limits should restrict the number of such shops. Co-housing should also be allowed. • I think the only way to make housing more affordable is to build more housing (either in the city or surrounding areas). Housing in other areas would reduce demand here. Occupancy law changes do not build housing. • Any new ADU regulations need clear and strict requirements to ensure affordability and not just produce speculative high-end developments. • Above all else, no greater density of any kind--whether of habitation or construction--should be allowed in the residential / rental sections of University Hill, which is already overflowing. Packing any more people or units into the University Hill area will just increase the already extant problems of noise, trash, parking, crime, vandalism, and periodic rioting. • Give up some open space for housing • You should be focused on green transportation options instead increasing density. Boulder has terrible air quality and a looming water crisis which increasing density would only exacerbate these issues. And clearly you're naive about landlords not increasing rents when more people are living under the same roof. • We've reaped what we sowed when we passed the Danish Plan, and (although I was in favor of it) now it is imperative that we fess up and move to remedy its unintended consequences. • How can our City Council ignore the voice of the people when we voted No to Bedrooms for People!!!! Irresponsible!! • I realize that you are trying to go with 4 or 5 unrelated individuals regardless of current zoning. I suggest that you move current 3 unrelated area to 4 and current 4 unrelated areas to 5. You will gain more density overall but mitigate the risk that the 5 unrelated option brings to a current 3 unrelated individual neighborhood. I am thinking Martin Acres. And I am thinking parking, noise, traffic, neighborhood character. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 88 • Changing occupancy for apartments with no qualifiers as to size of the apartments is a terrible idea. Raising the occupancy has to have s some relevance for size of house or apartment. Also, some neighborhoods. ( eg University Hill area and Martin Acres) are already full or too full of housing with lots of extra people. They should be able to vote to be excluded from the changes. My neighborhood with its huge 4,000 - 10,000 sq ft houses could easily handle more people per house as well as duplexes and triplexes. • Landlords who own homes and rent to students will not lower their rent, they would love to have more renters per home so that they can charge each occupant $1000 per bedroom. Curtail sales to investors who are buying homes to rent to students and who do not even live here. Allow neighborhoods to make decisions about how to increase density. Do not make this city wide! • in unison with these changes- we need more oversight of rentals-- simply increasing occupancy without increasing care of properties could be bad... thinking of landscaping, basic maintenance etc... • In the last election a majority of Boulder voters voted to NOT increase occupancy limits. The city council should respect this vote and not increase occupancy limits • The only way to actually increase affordability is to dramatically increase construction and population density to provide a larger supply of housing to meet the demand. Almost everything in the Land Use Code, from single- family zoning to occupancy requirements to parking minimums to the height restriction works contrary to this goal. • Even though the ballot issue was Bedrooms are for People, in truth it was a vote to increase the occupancy limits. The Boulder voters rejected the ballot issue, so why is the increase in occupancy limits being discussed again? We have lived on the Hill in a single family home with multiple rental homes behind us on 9th St. I am not sure if they were identified as SFH or other for 4 unrelated, they were invariably rented to students who probably signed their lease as 3 unrelated but then others moved in as well. Four Star Reality was especially bad about this outcome. The over occupied homes resulted in 4 or 5 cars parked where two were probably the limit, their trash containers overflowed and were never properly shut, the weekend noise was intolerable. Other the Grant Place went from a desirable street for families to one with owners dealing with uncaring renters. We even went through a court required restorative justice exercise with the renters, with Four Start sitting in on the process, and with no meaningful results or satisfaction. We advise other families to not bother with Boulder's restorative justice option when it involves over occupancy and renters. • Reducing occupancy limits means landlords and corporations will be empowered to buy up homes that would formerly have been unsuitable for roommates and then rent them at an unreasonably high rate. That takes homes off the market for individual (not corporate) buyers and makes rentals even more expensive than they already are. Cities without occupancy limits are also struggling with housing shortages because landlords and corporations then become the largest group of homeowners in town. • We already voted on this issue and determined no increase to occupancy. Please stop playing this game. • Additional housing ignores the glut of cars that accompanies multi family and increased occupancy. People who work downtown Boulder often already fill neighborhood streets during the day to the extent that you cannot see around corners. And you want to add more cars and exhaust? Biking is not an option because unless you can bring a bike inside, it will be stolen either at home or work. Use some open space for housing and parking and stop denigrating what was once a peaceful, clean city. • Having lived in Boulder since 1982 and having a significant other who lived (and now is deceased and I live) near the Academy, I have great concerns about the condition of housing that students live in in the hill area. I am a retired CU administrative staff and have walked to work and walked leisurely in that area since 1998. Definitely restricting rental housing in that area is a must. The rental agencies/families who use this for mak ing alot of money, deprive those people with families who could live there (e.g. CU faculty, staff). That area is become debased, filthy and unbecoming for our community. that includes some, mostly, fraternity housing. THE CITY NEEDS TO TAKE A HARD STAND TO KEEP THIS AREA DECENT, CLEAN, ETC. I was an undergraduate at Ohio State University from 1967-71. I lived in a sorority house that was quiet, clean and neat. Of course, some fraternities were terrible. Having been there and lived (done) in off-campus housing, I have the experience and view that what is happening in Boulder is appalling. I am also appalled at all the vehicles that students bring to campus is ridiculous. In my 4 years a OSU, I was fine without a car and when one was needed a local Columbus student/sorority sister could use her car. Talk about parking problems, driving, environmental impact on the Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 89 many, many gas guzzling vehicles who need to drive short distances....it's insane. I don't expect anything can be done but it is contributing to global warm, quality of life for anyone. I would suggest that all rentals be required to make a certain significant percentage of their units as affordable housing, first and foremost, for people who work in Boulder. I can't believe the amount of greed, etc. I would also , begin restricting the size of high end residences with the goal of living simply, so others can simply live. The privilege and greediness of Boulder, is awful. Allow only 1 car per household, and exceptions must apply and fill out a yearly form in order for them to have a second car. Wow! People would have think they are being crucified. • Single-family homes can be a good fit for certain neighborhoods but they are an extremely inefficient use of space. • Allow tiny homes in backyards • Boulder needs to increase housing access and affordability. Occupancy limits are absurd. While I recognize there's a large percentage of students, there's also a large percentage of non-student renters who should be allowed to live in 4,5,6,7+ bedroom homes (of which there are many in Boulder) without consideration of their familial relationships to limit occupancy. • Increase density in single family districts near transit corridors. • More housing along frequent transit corridors! And raise the height limit to 5-6 stories everywhere — it will still keep the building heights manageable but significantly drive down costs per unit (above this level per unit costs go up again anyway because you can’t use wood framing) • Underground parking • Expand ADUs even more than the recent changes, expedite planning applications &amp; building permits for affordable housing • Duplex's seem like they'd be ok, but triplex's seem like they'd really disrupt the feel of our neighborhoods. Duplex's seem like they might be owner occupied, triplex's seem like they'd most likely be investor owned and rented out. Owners usually care more about the neighborhood. Issues with trash, yards, noise, neighbor conflicts are more likely to come with renters than owners. I worry investors/ landlords/ developers will be the ones who benefit from new codes- and leave existing owners (and the city) with hard to solve problems of renters who don't really care. Another concern is about HOAs. We must include them in new codes and regulations. • Boulder likes to sell itself as an eco-friendly town that cares about the environment, but the environmentally friendly facade Boulder likes to put up is completely destroyed by the amount of air pollution created by the tens of thousands of people who have to commute into town for work every single day, we need more affordable housing because the number of people who commute into town is a travesty. • You are never going to make Boulder affordable for everyone. You should protect our neighborhoods instead of destroying them. If you want affordability you need build up multiple floor complexes with services and transportation availability. I would look at Hong Kong model of subsidized housing as a start. • I live in multi unit housing, that has no where near enough parking for the cars, creating conflict. I have called the police and not received support for noise concerns/partying issues (non-emergency) and do not find it remotely comparable to single-family living. I am a professional who works hard but doesn’t make six figures, and renting here is brutal. Building more luxury units and low-income housing is not making this community more livable for me. I do think we need to explore solutions, but I think they should be much more tailored so neighborhoods like mine don’t continue to get people crammed in with no parking or support. Maybe controlling % owner -occupied homes might help. I would love to own a home but will never compete with landlords here. • We need more mixed commercial and residential areas, especially more residential units in current commercial zones — to create more walkable neighborhoods. This is critical to meet climate goals and reduce energy consumption. • The question about reducing parking requirements to encourage lower housing costs doesn’t seem like that simple of an option. We also need to look at what is available near those potential sites for transit, bike/walking, or if they are in areas where it is difficult to not have a car. • I did not like question 1. I do think we need occupancy limits, but based on the size of the unit (the original BAFP proposal), not the location. It is absurd that due only to location, a Table Mesa house with 5 bedrooms is limited to 3 unrelated people and a studio apartment in a dense zone could house 4! I also think that no developer should be allowed to buy out of affordable housing--all developments should include affordable housing not money to build them elsewhere (which is where?) Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 90 • Please keep in mind affordability, accessibility and inclusion for people with IDD (Intellectual Developmental Disability). • *DITTO(USA,007,WVMHS-1970,Etc.Etc.):”OK,DONE,Etc.Etc….THANKS/NO-THANKS,AMEN…!?!?! &gt; &gt; &gt; 🇺🇸🇦🇦🇮🇱🇮🇵🇬🇦🇦🇺🔫🔫❤️🥃🤠😉🐼🙏👎👎👎✌️ • Businesses and residences have different needs (parking, security, etc.) and mixed-use projects should be carefully planned to consider these differences (speaking as one who lives in a mixed use community and finds it an ongoing hassle). Also, significantly increasing occupancy numbers changes the nature of a community (negatively, I would argue). More density, more noise, more crime, more traffic congestion--I have already seen these unpleasant changes to Boulder. I support affordable housing; but it should be done thoughtfully and without completely sacrificing the integrity of existing communities. • Leave it alone. • Increased occupancy and increased housing density do not result in lower rents or lower housing prices. The opposite has been well-documented in other US cities. • It does seem logical, both not to demand more space for cars per unit, and to reduce the numbers of cars in town. This only works if public transportation is made comprehensive enough, and is seen as safe, and "nice", i.e. not just for poor people and the homeless. Personally, I really don't care who the other passengers are, but I am finding through reading NextDoor that folks are wildly judgmental here, far more than they were pre-gentrification. I prefer not to drive; it terrifies me. • Permitting gentle mixed use development, ie coffee shop or mini-grocery, within residential neighborhoods can be extremely beneficial towards reducing VMTs and revitalizing active and engaged communities. • Stop with this affordability topic and bringing more residents to this overloaded city. I would love to have a house in Malibu, CA but I cannot afford to buy there… then I will choose somewhere else, where I can afford, and provide the best quality of life to my family. Why Boulder makes exceptions causing more traffic, places full of people plus making us live on a crowded town?!? All for showing that Boulder is an inclusive place!!!! 😂 Please….!! LOL • Boulder needs to fix their permitting and inspection process. This leads to big delays on projects. We want safety but expediency. • We’ve already voted on this. Leave it alone, please. • After living here for 40 years and seeing that the tens of thousands of commuters has remained the same, the affordable housing crisis still remains, the un-housed have increased and the ‘boxes’ of unaffordable and ugly apartments lining our roads, I don’t believe we can build or density our way out of this. Take the corner of iris and 28th and use it for affordable housing with access to groceries, laundry and transportation. Do it with the old community hospital. Do it at the boulder airport. Be bold and get some amazing neighborhoods built. Stop trying to change neighborhoods —you’re not going to get the buy in, but act now to fix the four decade backlog. We want to use our parks. We want safe walks and rides to schools. We love our community. Build the mental health facility, the rehab facility, the day center. Please act without sacrificing those of us who have paid property taxes, given lives of public service, worked our way into homes, lived here since 1983 and want to see others helped. • Allow one occupant per existing bedrooms in all residential dwellings. • Do not push out "affordable" commercial by making commercial areas more desirable for developers to develop as housing and apartments. If parking requirements are reduced and housing occupancy is increased, charge/regulate number of cars per dwelling so that traffic and congestion is not worse. Please please take in consideration the amount of water available now and in the future before over densifying Boulder. Not everyone Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 91 can live here even if all of us want to. Not everywhere needs to be a gross dense city like Denver. Take into account character and carrying capacity. • 1) Increased number of ADUs are disproportionally unfair to the lower lost neighborhoods (Martin Acres, Park East). The affluent Boulderites that live in nicer neighborhoods will never be impacted by 1000 sq foot two story ADUs in the backyards of their neighbors - which completely destroy the privacy of the 3-5 adjoining neighbors. Therefore, it is way too easy for the City Council to vote for ADUs (or far worse dublexes, triplexes replacing houses). What long term homeowner would want to live next to a corner house that has been scraped and replaced with a duplex, triplex or COOP with 6-12 renters? Not one person on the City Council I bet. 2) The homeowners who have lived in these starter home neighborhoods would like to continue to enjoy some semblance of privacy in their backyards. Also, the increase of ADUs will transform the neighborhood further from starter home single familes to more renter class lower income people that have zero long term invested interest in maintaining the quality of the houses and landscapes. If you have any doubts, visit the Martin Park and Park East neighborhoods with the highest concentration of rental houses and ADUs on that street, and see if you would ever buy a starter home there. The starter home families are being further excluded from Boulder, and the current homeowners are losing the long term community of their neighborhoods. 3) However, I do think 4 unrelated persons per house is fair. • Parking is a major issue. Houses which have no off-street parking and have older and aging residents like ourselves find it a challenge to park a block away from our house b/c parking is so limited. Loosen up the code which requires new off-street parking to be no less than 25’ within front property line setback. This way, more houses can have parking in “front” yard area • The voters made it clear in voting down bedrooms. It is WRONG to try and go around us. • On Sumac Ave in north Boulder between Broadway and 19th I don't understand how two very large new homes are being built (8,000 sq feet?). the original owner died and 3 acres were sold and on a street with much smaller houses the city allows a builder to use these 3 acres for 2 huge houses to be built - isn't that exactly going backwards. How is that possible in 2023 in Boulder? Maybe this is a good visual example of using up resources in an unsustainable manner, how many people will live on this 3 acres in the city, two families. I cry inside just looking at them being built. I hope you can get by and take some pix and use them in your education of the residence the negative impact of this on so many levels! thank you for all your hard work. • sb23-213 would destroy Boulder as we know it. it is impossible to build enough housing for everyone (60000) who might want to live here. everyone does need to live in Boulder; there is affordable housing elsewhere. We don't want to become Houston! Stop gifting/grifting real estate speculators. Limit CU census to number housed by CU. • I bought my home in 2016. Taxes were 4400. 2022, taxes were 7800. Insurance costs have risen. Why can’t I have more than 2 roommates in my 5 bedroom house to help me cover the rising costs of being alive? • I think there's a strong but unvoiced desire for housing such as the "Housing Hill" pattern (pp. 209 -214 in "A Pattern Language" by Christopher Alexander, et. al.) and the "Row Houses" pattern (pp. 204-208 in same). Both patterns create high-density, pedestrian-oriented housing in which each unit has its own outdoor green space and the possibility of having rooms with windows on more than one side. The Housing Hill pattern creates the possibility of having parking for non-polluting electric vehicles at the ground floor center of the "hill," or underground. Row Houses creates the possibility 30 homes/acre with 1200 sq. ft., two-story homes on 1300 sq. ft. of land, with each home having its own ground-level garden measuring 15x30 feet but no driveway, parking, or garage. The city of Boulder has used a number of patterns from "A Pattern Language" in past urban planning; these two patterns fit well in today's context because they offer individual green space that apartments and condos don't, and they create higher density than having individual homes surrounded by yard on all four sides. • Well, I took the survey but I don't feel it will have much impact on the outcome. It sure didn't when it came to the day shelter! I initially opposed the day shelter then realized it might be OK if placed in the right location and with strict rules because the City seemed to support it. Apparently, you are now placing it directly near residential and commercial properties which pretty much everyone opposed. • I support aggressive and innovative change to the zoning code. We have a housing crisis and an opportunity to make a more sustainable and equitable city. I would encourage the city to try a variety of measures Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 92 • We must not let statements about lack of potential parking determine building. See new book "Paved Paradise". People respond to constraints and some will choose not to have a car, some will take the bus and some will find that they don't need a car as much as they thought they did. • Rather than pushing for higher size limits for ADUs, allow for smaller ADU option (i.e. efficiency style units) which are currently hot possible. • I do not believe you can build your way to affordability without seriously (negatively) impacting congestion, air pollution, quality of life, etc. I also do not believe that new housing units will be affordable, landlords and developers will rent/sell at market value. • Thank you for reaching out like this. I really appreciate having my voice hea rd. • Boulder has added an enormous number of apartments and condos in the past few years (on the 30th St. corridor area and on Folsom)--we are hitting maximum density for a town with the infrastructure we have and for remaining a pleasant community. Not everyone can live in Boulder just because they want to. If I lived in the L.A. area, I would not expect I could afford a house in Brentwood or Malibu. Boulder has lost a lot of its character since 1971 when I came here and we can't turn back time but we need to recognize that things are on the verge of becoming unlivable due to density, traffic, downtown tourism, crime, etc. • Unless the city facilitates more rental, income qualifying rental propert OR deed restricted income qualifying for sale property the city WILL NOT have more affordability because the investment community will drive rents based on the desirability of Boulder. US News and World Report last week listed Boulder as #4 nationally on Desireability as a place to live in the entire US. We need RESTRICTIONS on new housing in order to serve the population the city is trying to serve. • The occupancy limits should 1 person per bedroom plus 1. A landlord should be allowed to rent a legal bedroom with closet and window to one person. If the home has 5 such bedrooms, 5 people should be permitted plus 1. The current standard of 3 unrelated people in certain areas of the city is causing a very restricted rental market for students and individuals in their early twenties. It also makes it more expensive for individuals as sharing is not allowed by law. • One person per bedroom plus one should be allowed. Restricting occupancy is making rents more expensive for everyone and creating a tighter rental market. • Bedrooms are for people plus one would make rents more affordable for everyone. • As a resident and parent in the area of a CU student it's incredibly difficult to find housing and expensive due to the occupancy restrictions. • Boulder is already too dense in population. Don’t add to it. Build more affordable housing. • Allow 55+ people to live together as we age. I have many friends ( all old time Boulder natives) that are reaching retirement and we all want to get out of our large single family homes and live in a co-housing situation. Shared housing for the aging community. I understand not allowing college age kids to pack a house but I never hear about options for the aging community. I can be reached at 720-234-6390. • Continued easing of ADU restrictions, consider lots of re-zoning to allow old commercial buildings to be turned into residential, or some unused retail spaces to allow for office or residential, and/or popping the top on single story strip malls to include affordable housing units • Zoning restrictions, especially occupancy maximums and parking minimums, are one of the main reasons that Boulder's fastest growing age group is 80+. It's vital to the health and safe growth of the city to reduce restrictive zoning requirements as they are a key part of why the city is so white, so old, and so deeply small-c conservative. Not to mention that high density housing and zoning is far more beneficial to environment than either a) forcing people to leave the city or b) forcing people to live in single family homes. Be an example of how growth can be a positive, climate friendly, and multi-generation change and remove zoning restrictions - A Homeowner and Disappointed Life Long Boulder Resident • Stop Growth. Save Nature. • Having more than 3 unrelated people in a home is called a commune . They were popular with the hippies in the late 60's and 70's. They were generally unorganized, too crowded, not enough bathrooms, and basically they didn't work. Why should we go back to that mentality? Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 93 • I think if we want Boulder to be any kind of a place to live we have to make living here affordable. People who work here should be able to live here. • I have heard about how to solve affordable housing in Boulder since the 80’s. Forty years plus have past and the issue continues. I have lived in areas where specific communities were not affordable. That is capitalism. Capitalism is a free market economy or free enterprise economy. If the Boulder community has housing concerns for community workers then provide housing with the position or additional pay for workers/professionals to afford living in the community or in nearby communities that could be affordable. • Ban airbnb/ short term rentals. Spend money earmarked for affordable housing for families; not drug addicts. Limit business/ commercial expansion in Boulder. Ban more high tech firms from moving here (thus their highly paid employees). • Add ADU's to single family zoning area , but restrict to two unrelated people. remove owner occupancy requirements. Add a lot coverage ratio. • I do not own a home, but hear from the Nextdoor Social App that increased property values are at the base of increased rent (higher property value = higher property tax). The dramatic increase of rental unit costs over the past three years has got to stop! Is Boulder County going to do anything about this? • The average new home built in Boulder could easily be a triplex based on its size. Its kind of crazy we make that kind of excess the only thing possible. Changes are long overdue! • How about let the number of unrelated people equal the number of legal bedrooms in a house. • Boulder needs more housing opportunities for all age groups, not just college students. • Rent controlled apartments • I feel we need to encourage density over sprawl and increased occupancy for those that decide to have more people in their home. Real action on housing in Boulder starts with removing archaic zoning barriers that are rooted in perpetuating inequality and racism. I'd much rather live in a dense, public transit oriented community that was readable access to greenspace than a sprawling area of low density and occupied single family homes. Boulder is closer to this vision than most American communities but still has a long way to go in being ideal. Please reconsider the barriers to affordable housing, as progress in this regard will also make climate and reduced commuter goals more achievable. Thanks. • I've lived in Boulder for 35 years, and have seen our housing pricing escalate into a situation where it is completely impossible for middle-income residents to become established here. Without addressing this issue, Boulder is not going to be able to maintain the culture that makes it so desirable to live to begin with. It'll become a calcified retreat for the wealthy (ala several of CO's mountain towns like Aspen where the billionaires have pushed out the millionaires), and will add an unacceptable environmental burden to the environment as it drives up regional commuting and car traffic in and out of town • A 4 bedroom home should be allowed at least 4 unrelated people. The current restiction to 3 is bad policy. I would support number of bedrooms plus one for unrelated people. • I'm all for duplexes &amp; triplexes in appropriate locations, but definitely not in single-family home areas. Parking is already a nightmare on many residential streets in single-family areas, and the problems would only intensify with more density. With the limited available land in the city, there probably are very few 'appropriate locations' for this type of housing. • I don't think you can solve the affordability issue by simply cramming more people into Boulder. I met a person that had never been to Boulder, and did not plan on working in Boulder, but he moved into an affordable unit near downtown because he heard the city was a cool place to live. I would like to live on the beach in Hawaii also, but I don't expect the people of Hawaii to subsidize me doing that. IF, and only IF, the person works in Boulder, and their income is below a certain level, (like nurse or fire fighter) am Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 94 I in favor of helping them with affordable housing. In that case, a need definitely exists. But just trying to say that anybody that wants to live in Boulder should be able to, is crazy. That appears to me to be what the city wants. • Housing policy IS climate policy! R-1 Zoning must be repealed, period. It is responsible for the car culture and a terrible housing crisis. We don't need another tax or any new regulations - just the opposite - remove these regressive regulations and let the market work. • I think adding occupancy to reduce housing costs is a great idea. I do worry about lack of parking but if we take away parking requirements in areas that have easy access to public transportation and bike trails that may help reduce the number of cars as well. I also think my biggest fear with adjusting zoning is that developers may come in to buy single family homes only to rip them down and create triplexes. I also worry about the loss of habitat if that were to happen but if provisions were put in place to prevent these things from happening I would be more likely to support adjusting the zoning. • Boulder harms low income people • The Boulder Airport land would be a good place for affordable housing along with a grocery store, gas station restaurants and a green park. • Boulder should eliminate or change the height limits of buildings east of 28th Street. The emphasis should be on quality of design rather than simply how tall the building is. • Because Boulder is SO expensive to live in, we need more affordable housing options. We also need more accessibility to alternative transportation and reduced cost for bus, trains, etc. If folks can't afford to live here how will they be able to work here, especially those in the service industry? Does Boulder want to turn into Vail, where the workers can't afford to live nearby? • Let apartments go higher than 3stories and build atop non view blocking office buildings • Occupancy limits for unrelated parties should be common sense. If the housing has 4 bedrooms, then 4 unrelated parties, 3 bedrooms-3parties. What doesn’t make sense is a 2 bedroom that allows 4 parties and a 4 bedroom with a 2 party constraint. The city council should either allow 1, 1.5 or 2 parties per bedroom. I think 1 person per room is the most common sense. • Our city needs to rebuild its missing middle! Adding density to developed regions will help preserve the open spaces we love • The zoning requirements place unnecessary burdens on renters in boulder making housing unaffordable. At a minimum, if the zoning ordinance is maintained, it should reflect the number of available rooms in a house. Too often is a house zoned for 3 but has 5 bed rooms which unnecessarily inflates costs for renters in boulder. • Transform the noisy Boulder Municipal Airport into housing, low income housing and build shopping centers parks and open space for residents. I would be kind to allow high density, affordable housing in areas zoned for industrial use. • Stop the opt out (pay to avoid) option for builders on affordable units. • Why is your only consideration how to pave over more of Boulder? Ridiculous survey! • The big problem that few people in Boulder seem to understand (other than economists) is that we have an infinite demand, inelastic demand housing market. Because of that, the measures you propose will do nothing to increase affordability. Supply increases in inelastic markets do not lower prices. The city would study atypical inelastic markets much more thoroughly. A house renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 will just rent to 4 unrelated people for $6000, or 5 peopl e for $7500. No affordability gain at all. Meanwhile, you make that rental too expensive for a family to afford. We're already losing many families from Boulder, and you'll just accelerate our declining local school enrollment. Also, if you upzone single family neighborhoods to allow duplexes or triplexes, you'll just get 2x or 3x the number of really expensive units per lot instead of one. You propose full-priced, market rate supply side solutions, which do not lower prices in inelastic markets. If you really want to increase housing affordability in a runaway inelastic market, you should increase your already- existing programs, like commercial linkage fees and inclusionary housing requirement for new residential construction, both of which actually create deed-restricted permanently affordable housing. That's the only thing Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 95 that helps affordability in this market. What you're proposing will just increase the number of expensive rooms and/or dwelling units. You propose to torpedo single family neighborhoods, for nothing - an absolute fool's errand that will not increase affordability. • It seems to me that the unrelated people issue could be handled by enforcing noise and nuisance Ordinances. If you have 5 folks in a home, and they are well behaved, more power to them. If they are messy, and loud, and drunk, they should be enforced accordingly. I think changing zoning densities in residential areas pulls the rug out from existing residences retroactively and is a bit unfair. the folks who lived there made a decision based on certain criteria, and that should be respected. • Limit CU student enrollment increases until they build commensurate student housing. Increasing occupancy will not help low income households live in Boulder. It will increase rents and increase students living en masse in single family neighborhoods Build high density in city limits out East on appropriate land • The City fails to understand that we have an infinite demand, inelastic demand housing market. As such, what you propose will do nothing to increase affordability. (Supply increases in inelastic markets do not lower prices.) Boulder houses renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 total rent will just rent to 4 unrelated for $6000, or 5 unrelated for $7500. No affordability gain at all. Meanwhile, you'll make that rental too expensive for a family. We're already losing many families from Boulder, and you will accelerate our declining local school enrollment. Also, heed your own City of Boulder survey of 60 peer college towns, which all have occupancy limits to prevent student party mayhem. 60% of them, like Boulder, limit it to 3 (or fewer) unrelated people per rental. And 38% (23 of the 60) limit it to 2 unrelated. Boulder is not an outlier, at 3 unrelated. Even that is challenging, when it's 3 nineteen year old sophomores partying every night next door. To your 2nd question: If you upzone single family neighborhoods to allow duplexes or triplexes, you'll just get 2x or 3x the number of really expensive units per lot. Boulder, astoundingly, is proposing Reaganomic, free-market, supply-side solutions to our inelastic housing market. Reaganomics failed. It merely made the rich, richer. Similarly, your proposals will just line the pockets of landlords, realtors, and builders. To increase housing affordability in our market, you should increase your already- existing programs of commercial linkage fees and inclusionary housing requirements for new residential construction. These government interventions create deed- restricted, permanently affordable housing, and are the only things that actually create affordability in Boulder. Whereas what you're proposing will just increase the number of expensive rooms and/or dwelling units. You'll torpedo single family neighborhoods for nothing - a fool's errand that will do nothing to increase affordability. • I object to the wording of these questions. The answers are not black or white. Maybe in some areas duplexes would be appropriate. Maybe in certain situations increased occupancy would be ok (in exchange for affordability). Please reconsider how these questions are presented. • (1) If you want more affordable housing, increase the stock of income capped affordable housing units. All other measures will only benefit landlords and negatively impact neighborhoods. (2) Not all neighborhoods in Boulder should be treated equally. Protect campus adjacent neighborhoods from the disproportionate impact that they will experience with increased occupancy limits. (3) Imagining that by reducing minimum parking zoning rules is wishful thinking. Such reductions will only create parking problems. • Try see is no quarantine thst any of this housing will be affordable. Unless it is built with those affordable requirements people will rent for whatever they can get. Adding stress with parking traffic noise increased water needs isn’t the answer for Boulder • This survey is completely flawed. What parking requirements encourage lower housing costs? What zoning standards are barrioers to building additional paklces to live? Without that information, the City cannot reasonably expect informed reliable responses. The only reliable measures to increase affordable housing are to work to eliminate the prohibition of rent control and for the City to own and administer affordable housing. • We have an infinite, inelastic demand housing market. As such, what is proposed will not increase affordability. (Supply increases in inelastic markets do not lower prices.) Boulder houses renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 total rent will just rent to 4 unrelated for $6000, or 5 unrelated for $7500. No affordability will be gained. Meanwhile, the rental will become too expensive for a family. We're already losing many families from Boulder. What is proposed will accelerate our Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 96 declining local school enrollment. We should heed the City's survey of 60 peer college towns, which all have occupancy limits to prevent student party mayhem. (Austin, TX, is a particularly apt comparison.) 60% of them, like Boulder, limit it to 3 (or fewer) unrelated people per rental. And 38% (23 of the 60) limit it to 2 unrelated. Boulder is not an outlier, at 3 unrelated. Even that is challenging, when it’s 3 19-year old sophomores partying every night next door. If we up-zone single family neighborhoods to allow duplexes or triplexes, we'll get 2x or 3x the number of really expensive units per lot. Boulder is proposing Reaganomic, free-market, supply-side solutions to our inelastic housing market. Reaganomics failed. It merely made the rich, richer. Similarly, the current proposals will just line the pockets of landlords, realtors, and builders. To increase housing affordability in our market, we should increase already existing programs of commercial linkage fees and inclusionary housing requirements for new residential construction. We should also eliminate cash-in-lieu; make developers actually build affordable housing as part of any development, residential or commercial. These government interventions create deed-restricted, permanently affordable housing, and are the only things that actually create affordability in Boulder. Whereas what is proposed will increase the number of expensive rooms and/or dwelling units. We'll torpedo single-family neighborhoods for nothing - a fool's errand that will do nothing to increase affordability. • City Staff MUST provide evidence and be more specific when making claims about housing costs. For example: Boulder should reduce parking requirements for residential projects to encourage lower housing costs. needs to state for whom costs will be lower: developers/buiders? home buyers? renters? AND provide data to back up such statements. My perception is that decisions are being made to lower costs for builders. I think we need to be focused on affordable housing for renters and home buyers --- and collect data on how their costs are effected using various strategies from increasing impact fees to implementing rent control (with changes in state laws) to building more permanently affordable housing. • You're barking up the wrong tree with these approaches, except perhaps for allowing some housing in existing shopping centers that are in some disuse, like the Diagonal. Boulder's housing demand is better met with a substantial increase in linkage fees which should also help offset infrastructure costs--water, wastewater, streets, police and fire, parks, etc.--how will these additional cost needs be met? Not by taxes collected on multiple dwelling units. Boulder's housing prices just keep rising, we cannot meet demand--much less affordable demand--with the measures proposed by the current council. • The city has been increasing density now for a decade, building new apartment blocks and redeveloping old ones and every time the housing becomes less affordable. And now the plan is to bring this same magic to single family neighborhoods. The results will be the same: landlords will set rent based upon the number of people in a house and rents will increase. Increasing occupancy and changing zoning to allow multiplex developments in single family neighborhoods will not reduce prices. It will increase capacity to accommodate CU's lack of willingness to build student housing and/or moderate enrollment numbers. If this passes Boulder will again have taken a suckers bet and D'oh, lose again. • Increase the jobs-housing linkage fee, increase the inclusionary zoning requirement, don't allow significantly more job growth, and get the Legislature to stop CU's expansion in Boulder. • I am middle income and rent. If you increase occupancy, the property manager will increase rents and the only people left will be student who are willing to cram into a small single family home like the one we are renting. Then where do we go?? • Build east with higher density, Stop infill and destruction of single family neighborhoods. If you do increase to 4 unrelated, put an age requirement (over 24) so that this does not become yet another situation where students just cram into small houses and drive out middle income families. Your "analysis" is so biased and changing zoning on 60 year old neighborhoods is unfair, impractical (we are on top of each other already)...and will DO Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 97 NOTHING to lower rent and create affordable housing. Those duplexes and triplexes in Denver's formerly small SFN, are selling for $1.2M each or more. You have got to be kidding me? How many city staff live in Boulder? How many Council members live in a protected HOA? • We need more AFFORDABLE housing. What you are permitting now does not help us reach our goals. Building ugly tall apartments does not meet the needs of families. WE NEED PARKS and natural places, tennis courts, pools, trees not more people. Sometime we are at buildout and will have to say "no" to more. We need to P:LAN for the future not just build • You are going against the will of the people. We voted down Bedrooms already. You may think this is different but it is not. This should be put to a vote; City Council is already overreaching!!! I feel my voice is not heard. I pay taxes and I want my voice heard. • This poll seems severely skewed to the answers you want to receive. Disgraceful! • I guess you guys really need to establish that Boulderites want more density. Sadly for you, that's not true. Densification is AWFUL I hate the destruction you've already done to Boulder. • Bogus poll • How about questions like: Boulder should INCREASE parking requirements for residential projects? Why is this poll so skewed? • The people of Boulder have already voted these ideas down. You should be listening to the people of Boulder that you are supposed to represent, instead of running ahead full speed into the destruction of what makes Boulder a great place to live. You act as if the only concern is more development. More money. More greed. • The people of Boulder voted on all this and said NO! SO, please, leave it alone. • Increasing occupancy will not guarantee affordability. In student neighborhoods, it will not increase affordability because landlords charge by the tenant. The rents went up in Goss Grove when the occupancy went up to four. • Encourage shared bedrooms for college students • Affordable housing is so important! Why are we wasting time with these proposals which don't do that? Boulder has infinite demand! This is an inelastic demand housing market. This proposal will do nothing to increase affordability. Boulder houses renting to 3 unrelated people for $4500 (total) rent will just rent to 4 unrelated for $6000, or 5 unrelated for $7500. No affordability gain at all. Who have you helped? And now, that rental will be too expensive too expensive for a family. We're already losing many families from Boulder.This will accelerate our declining local school enrollment. A survey of 60 peer college towns, which all have occupancy limits to prevent student party mayhem. Most of them-- like 60% of them, like Boulder, have limits of to 3 (or fewer) unrelated people per rental. And 38% (23 of the 60) limit it to 2 unrelated. Boulder is not an outlier, at 3 unrelated. Even that is challenging, when it’s 3 nineteen year old sophomores partying every night next door. If you up-zone single family neighborhoods to allow duplexes or triplexes, you'll just get 2x or 3x the number of really expensive units per lot. Boulder, astoundingly, is proposing a free-market, supply-side solutions to our inelastic housing market. Reaganomics failed. It made the rich, richer. Is that what we need or want? These proposals will just line the pockets of landlords, realtors, and builders. To increase housing affordability in our market, you should increase your existing programs of commercial linkage fees and inclusionary housing requirements for new residential construction. These government interventions create deed restricted, permanently affordable housing, and are the only things that actually create affordability in Boulder. You are proposing will just increase the number of expensive rooms and/or dwelling units. You’ll obliterate single family neighborhoods for nothing . I really care about affordable housing and these ideas will not give us that. Tie some affordability standard to is and maybe... • Many houses on the Hill don't currently provide parking, as far as I can tell. Are they violating code? Putting more housing on top of commercial buildings would be great, but is that what is being proposed? More detail in the questions would be appreciated. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 98 Occupancy limits should be related to the capacity of the house and whether or not the residence is owner- occupied. If the residence is owner-occupied, then having 1 or 1.5 unrelated people per bedroom would be okay. Removing parking requirements makes more sense when the residence is located near public transit. • Do not turn neighborhoods into dorms for CU Boulder. We need to reduce the number of non-related individuals in single family homes. • Do not allow neighborhoods to become de facto dorms for CU. • Do not encourage in-lieu agreements to affordable and attainable housing. Livable housing is available in Boulder County and City. Developers and investors have a long history of "specking" and turning around and selling perfectly livable homes into investment and building opportunities for making $$$ and not for making home more livable and affordable. How do you control this? This continues to create this housing and economic gap and wedge to affordability and attainability. I don't know the answer to this...It's very complicated and this has become a mecca and for investors not really interested in the issue of affordablity etc. • Don’t use your heart or personal financial agenda to write our zoning laws! Use research and evidence of what’s working in cities globally. House all of our people! My young adult life I lived with up to 6 adults in small and large spaces in San Francisco and it’s how I could afford rent. • Zoning changes would only benefit investors and landlords. Please don’t do this. • You seem to know the answers you want. Badly biased poll. • You are ruining Boulder with the densification-STOP!!! It’s starting to feel like a crowded rat situation where soon the rats will start eating each other because of too many rats crammed in a tiny space. • Yes, neighborhoods such as Goss-Grove, Uni-hill and Martin Acres should be exempt due to their current overcrowding and related demise of their quality of life due to student rentals which out-number owner occupied residences. • Why do we have to keep repeating the same information. We do not want to change the current occupancy standards • We need to recognize the historical infrastructure investments made in our existing housing stock and leverage them. For example, in places like the Hill, we have a housing infrastructure designed for families (e.g, Flatirons elementary, University Hill Elementary, New Vista/former baseline middleschool). These schools are seeing declining enrollment because so much housing is consumed by student rentals. We need to encourage family occupancy here so that we don't need to build new schools on the outskirts of town to accommodate all the new housing being built. We need balance and to use the resources we have. We need the university to build more on- campus housing for students otherwise all homes will be overrun by the demand for student rentals. I feel our housing development plans are so focused on attracting young professionals who may love to come to boulder for a while, but when it's time for them to settle down they are forced to move out of town to find affordable homes. We need more single family homes to build a long-term community, not more high density apartments to line the pockets of developers. • We need to make it so people can actually AFFORD to live in this worndeful city! Whether that's rent control, tying rent directly to income or another method we have got to make it so living here is not restricted to the wealthy. • We need to create policy to target the unsociable behaviour from students and spread this housing density across the city to encourage families to purchase the single family homes on the Hill and restore community and utilise the 2 schools in this area. The current behaviour is unacceptable and does not and should not represent Boulder. • We need to balance incremental changes with stability. Please avoid any radical changes. There will be tons of unintended consequences from significant changes. Please do not destroy single family neighborhoods. • We need an overlay zone for Uni Hill - our neighborhood is unique as we already have lots of duplex/ triplex and grandfathered "over" occupancy. Three unrelated is critical for Uni Hill. • We need all of these changes. I am a 31 year old renter with limited housing options inside my budget. We really really need occupancy limit reform, more housing development, and parking reform to make Boulder a welcoming community. (Have you read the high cost of free parking by don shoup?) • We must preserve the heritage of our unique neighborhoods in Boulder. Without them Boulder will not be Boulder. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 99 • We must have zoning guidelines in neighborhoods near CU. If not investors will merely stuff more students in and there will be no positive impact for permanent residents looking for lower rental options. This would be an absolute disaster for Uni Hill and Martin Acres. • We are building and building and building in Boulder, but I feel like this addresses the symptoms and not the problems. Many of these newer apartments sit empty because they are still too small and expensive. Families who want single family homes or larger apartments move out of Boulder. The amount of rent without option of owning apartments in Boulder doesn't equal what is needed. So these apartments draw short-term rental needs for adults without children and families move away. Mark Wallach said in a meeting that in the buildings on 30th, only 4 -7 families moved in so while we build and build, we aren't meeting the needs, school populations are dropping and we approve anything, regardless of it meeting the actual affordable housing problem. Developers constantly stretch the truth (aka lie) about their plans, the proximity to amenities and how their high end rental apartments will build community, and we just let them lie because the prevalent idea appears to be that we can build ourselves into affordable housing. We cannot. The prices continue to climb so percentage does not meet need. Density in the urban center along 28th and 30th is great, but again, high priced rental housing is treating the symptom. What about forcing the developers to come through on affordable spaces like Freuhaufs? We are as empowered as we want to be as a city. We should hold them accountable to their word. • Very tilted towards development. You really can't present an objective poll? • until higher capacity transit is available parking must be planned for • Unrelated-occupancy limits do not only impact affordability -- they also impact flexibility for people who want to live together co-operatively but are not legally related. • This questionaire uses a lof of leading (i.g., not neutral) questions that greatly reduces it's statistical validit. For example, it repeatedly frames relaxing occupancy requirements as a measure that would increase affordability, which is a dubious assumption at best. In Boulder relaxing occupancy limits likely does nothing to increase affordability and instead is likely just a windfall for landlords as they will likely keep the rent per person the same and increase the total rental income per property. This increases the value of properties and thus property taxes, ultimately putting pressure on low to middle income property owners. Net result: 1) Rental costs likely similar, 2) Taxes for owner-occupied properties increase, and 3) Absentee landlord income increases. So in the end one can't help but wonder if this is all being pushed by absentee landlords at the expense of owner occupied properties. For these reasons please do not increase occupancy. • This has been done in a number of cities in our country and it has been unsuccessful and note supported by residents living in single family homes. • This had been voted on and failed to pass. • This campaign to over-rule the clear results of the community vote results is not honest or democratic. The result of forcing through and justifying these illegal changes will cause more problems for all and greater profits for developers and non-local investors. • These proposed options are all black and white. There are many other ways to help the community adapt to increased density • There is no protection against predatory practices against renters. While living in the area for the past 10 years I've been scammed out of thousands of dollars on "application fees" &amp; "processing fees" &amp; the like while attempting to rent. Often times if you are not selected for the apartment they keep your $500+ fee. I've also had landlords &amp; apartment complexes request additional deposit money (saying it will be returned at move out) that they then claimed I never put down towards renting. This is without any damage to the property. I've also never lived in an apartment where the rent was not increased by $100+ every year. This keeps renters on the move to be able to afford where they live. It's predatory &amp; absolutely unregulated. Renters need laws &amp; services to protect them from these practices. • The use of the word barriers has a negative connotation &amp; appears to lead one to answer in favor of eliminating zoning standards "Boulder should eliminate zoning standards that are barriers to building...". The question is misleading, in my opinion. In terms of increasing non-related occupants, duplexes &amp; triplexes along with reducing parking requirements to produce more affordable housing is wholly fallacious. Boulder's inelastic real estate market, like many desirable cities, will not drive down prices. In fact, it will have the opposite effect of increasing the cost of land and Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 100 improvements, driving out families only to enrich landlords and developers. There are much more sound approaches in providing low and middle-income housing stcock. • The opposition concern about noise complaints has no validity in comparison to the racial &amp; economic disparities that have historically and presently take place in Boulder • The City cannot treat all neighborhoods the same. Increasing # of unrelated residents is not the same for professional and employed individuals as undergraduate students. Increased student housing cannot come at the expense of family housing. Find a way to distinguish between populations and encourage CU to help develop more student housing as they continue to have increased enrollment. • The changes currently proposed by City Council will do more harm than good. Unintended consequences can be difficult to reverse. • The areas adjacent to the CU campus should be treated differently than the rest of the city, since student housing does not serve the same purpose or goals as housing in the rest of the city. Housing costs to price-insensitive college students are unlikely to reduce as a result of increased occupancy limits. • Thanks for looking into ways for building more housing and letting folks legally inhabit spaces (because it's happening whether it's legal or not) • Thanks for all your outreach to students and trying to exclude neighbors! I am really angry. I want affordable housing, I don't want my neighborhood further devastated by student rentals, the process ignores residents' concerns altogether, what about excluding CU adjacent neighborhoods, but I guess that's not your plan! Sorry, but I am really mad! • Take the smallest lot size of a current single family home and allow larger lots to be subdivided to that size. Families want single family homes. • Studies show exclusionary zoning to be detrimental to the development of social capital for those who have less, making it harder for them to advance. Boulder should do all it can to end those practices that stand in the way of people's advancement. • Stop with the pro-growth, density. We have established single family neighborhoods (SFN). This will destroy the quality of life without helping low income/middle income households stay. This will only help students and property owners who will charge more at the expense of SFN. Martin Acres is a small neighborhood with small homes and modest property. We already take the brunt of students impact (trash, unkempt yards, noise, parking, parties, over occupancy). This re-zoning is an attack on Martin Acres...where else are you thinking people will go...this was the last bastion of sanity for affordable housing and now folks are being pushed out of the rental marker. Students will fill that gap. Many of Boulder's other neighborhoods will not be impacted due to HOA, restrictions, or exorbitant rental costs. No one will rent a home in NoBo that is $5M. This is going to impact Martin Acres and the Hill disproportionately. Stop it! • Stop ruining residential zoning. This survey is tricky. If it had said “In new building areas.” I might have answered yes on some of the questions. But the problem with allowing more unrelated people to live in homes in established residential areas is that in reality each one of them has a honey and you end up with 8-10 vehicles zooming in and out from each house all day long which is not pleasant. Also, nothing will reduce housing costs in Boulder as long as the University adds more and more freshmen every year. Boulder has built extensive apartments recently and costs have gone up not stabilized. • Simply putting more faces in each boulder single family home window WILL NOT MAKE HOUSING MORE AFFORDABLE. It only makes more housing at exactly the same price (or more) and will attract more investors to outbid single family buyers of single family houses even more than the OUTRAGEOUS 36% increase in valuations that we had this year!! How could a thinking person make that OUTRAGEOUSLY FALSE STATEMENT? Obviously, you are NOT thinking. Very obviously! • Put a cap on rent that can be charged • Preserve parking requirements in single family neighborhoods • Please put any changes on to ballots for citizens to vote on these adjustments to zoning and o ccupancy. Because Boulder is a college town and tourist town (with almost no maximums of airbnbs) any changes have a massive impact on long-term residents, families, and non college students. These surveys are very incomplete because they propose ideas that are not holistic enough to solve the issues. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 101 Raising occupancy will not make housing more affordable. Please consider overlay areas where an increase of occupancy won't occur, especially where there are many historic homes whose historic contribution to the character and enjoyment of the town are not allowed to be split up and have increased occupancy. Those most often become student housing and they aren't kept up and then we lose history along with housing for non students. And please please make CUBoulder provide more, much more, housing for it's students. If they provided an adequate amount of housing so many issues in the town would be solved. • Please publish data in similar cities where increasing occupancy limits has led to lower rental rates. If Boulder is going to increase occupancy, it should be accompanied by an increased number of inspectors who can ensure compliance. • Please have the political courage to move past the NIMBYs. • Please allow for ADUs, especially in rural Boulder County where there is a high need for rentals. • People love to live in walkable, quiet cities; it's why Pearl Street is loved so much. By increasing townhome construction, and decreasing parking lot requirements, Boulder can not only improve the quality of life for its citizens but make our town safer, nicer, and more affordable. Boulder should be a place where all people who work her can live here, and eliminating single family zoning and eliminating minimum parking requirements would be a step in that direction. • Occupancy laws are not being enforced and my neighborhood is packed to the gills with student houses with 4-5 students, each with a car, so I can't park on my own street, noise from parties and late night shouting wakes me and my family up at night, and in the summer there is overturned garbage in the alley every night. The Hill was not build for college students. CU needs to house their sophomores. • NOTHING mentioned in this questionnaire GUARANTEES affordability. It is all theoretical based on rudimentary economics (supply/demand). This view sadly ignores the outside influence of the City's appeal, which is being directly driven upwards by the Chamber of Commerce. There is a price to pay when the Chamber sets a goal of reaching the published Top 10 Places to Live each year, and that price is higher costs of living. Stop promoting and the demand will decrease. Increasing density does not create a solution by itself, but it does create a disruption to the community. Regarding new multiplex projects, the City should take the following steps to GUARANTEE affordable housing is created. - Increase the affordability percent required with each new project and/or - Increase Cash in Lieu Of. Presently this is a dollar per dollar of build costs. The silly thing is the cash payout does not take into account the payout money starts deflating the moment the city receives it. If the City receives 1,000,000 today, it will be worth 900K when time actually comes to build an affordable unit 2-5 years down the road. As you can see, the Cash in Lieu Of option is short changing the affordable community. • Not having adequate infrastructure, safety measures, resources, and police presence to address the impact of the additional cars, people, congestion, and noise is a significant problem. • No increase to occupancy on the hill. • Neighborhoods like Uni Hill and Martin Acres should be exempt from any occupancy rule changes. Those areas are already overcrowded and cannot possibly deal with more student rentals. Let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that allowing landlords to pack in more students, into homes in those neighborhoods wil lead to more affordable housing. Rents will not go down. Landlords will charge the same per person rate and just put more people into each house. • Need to have carve out places that a plagued by high density housing such as Uni Hill neighborhood, Martian acres and similar places. • My feeling is that if you increase occupancy, it will not result in affordability. Landlords will simply raise rents to a per-person charge and get what they can get in this market of constant demand. I expect it would maybe help CU house students (they don't provide ample housing for their ever-increasing enrollment), but for families with kids, let's say, it will push the rent out of even the realm of possibility further diluting the purpose. There should be more Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 102 emphasis on creating permanently affordable housing. The developer/linkage fees should be increase to support this directly, and should not to be diluted or negotiated away. • My boyfriend and I work in Boulder and have rented here for a long time. When our current lease is up we are moving out of Boulder because it is too expensive to live here. Anything we could afford is too small or not in very good condition and is not a good value for the money. We don't want to live with roommates, definitely not 3 extra people. I'm not sure who would want to do that except for students. I'm not sure how having more peo ple allowed will help anyone looking for more affordable housing, it doesn't seem like it will be less expensive that way, landlords will just charge more for extra people. It also seems like a bad idea in general - too crowded, too many cars in neighborhoods, etc. Maybe a better idea would be to get stricter with landlords who take advantage of people, don't maintain their properties, that kind of thing. It also seems like a terrible idea for areas with lots of students that already have tons of problems. • Multi family outskirts where more land and cheaper • Loosening requirements for ADUs and additional occupants doesn't just make housing more affordable but allows more middle class people to afford to live here in their own houses by renting out bedrooms or ADUs. As a 40-year renter and homeowner in Boulder, renting out a section of our family's house has always helped us financially and has helped I and my children to expand our community of friends. • Loosening parking requirements is an absolute necessity for maximizing potential for lower cost housing. For example not allowing parking in front yard setbacks disqualifies many people in South Boulder from converting garages to living space. Just that one simple zoning change could do a lot. Even more preferable would be eliminating parking requirements in all residential areas as every driveway takes up two street parking spots. Comprehensive parking reform is necessary to affect zoning change as well as looking at unnecessary setbacks on building envelopes. • limit HOA reach, they do a lot of harm to low income families and the climate(grass lawns and certain other requirements • Less fascism, more housing for the 50-60% of us that can’t afford to buy a single family home. • It’s too crowded now. Cramming more people into small spaces isn’t a solution • It’s obscene what rent is here. NIMBY is everyone’s anthem. I want to leave. But I know Boulder can be better. Now? It looks like a California Silicon Valley town. Enough ! Change is needed. • It would be helpful to make it more affordable for people who actually work in Boulder to be able to live here. The cost of living I.e. rental prices as well as buying options are not friendly to those of us that actually work here. • It all depends on WHERE the housing is located. I am very against what Boulder City &amp; County tried to do in Gunbarrel, which was to change the zoning (and intention) of land in order to build a massive number of apartments in an area that couldn't support that kind of traffic and was far from transit and shopping. Meanwhile, there is available land across the street from both that is sitting vacant. There are single-family neighborhoods that should not be converted to more density, while there are more urban areas that would be fine for greater density. This survey doesn't focus enough on where. One rule doesn't fit all. As well, stop having everything be built as 'luxury'. Nothing is just a regular dwelling any longer. So when the rent or sales price is set, it is already unaffordable. The biggest obstacle seems to be the developers who don't want to build if it isn't upscale, so they can make greater profits. And cash-in-lieu isn't working. Research shows that integrated-income apartment/condo neighborhoods are better for communities than segregated (like a ghetto). What happened with Diagonal Crossing was shameful. • I'm for more affordable housing options but not at the expense of open space reduction or habitat destruction (ie stop wiping out our endangered species just to build housing). • I'm being priced out of the city I love. I've been in my current home for 9 years but the landlord passed away and it feels like the world is ending because every other comparable place on the market is $1500-2500 more per month than what we were paying. It's legitimately destroying my life, and our small handmade jewelry business is being forced out to move to some other city with more affordable rent. I keep getting denied on housing applications for having too many roommates even though we only have a married couple and 2 roommates (legal in Boulder). Something has to be done :( Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 103 • I think any changes you make are going to be met with as much support as you'll find detraction. The only real answer to the housing crisis is to build more inventory but there needs to be limitations or restrictions put on who can purchase and own. Many small resort towns have deed restrictions (which are a terrible idea if they only allow small increase in values per year) or they require people to work a minimum number of hours within the city or county limits. That's a much better idea. Building more inventory doesn't help in a super wealthy area where investors have the cash to outbid the working class and buy up the properties to turn around and rent out as an investment property. Also, don't allow this conversation to get derailed by people who want to focus on the homeless population. These proposed changes are not affecting whether there is a place for a crackhead to live in a house, this needs to remained focused on the working and aging populations of Boulder and to make things more sustainable for them. • I think allowing duplexes and triplexes could be the most useful zoning change. Areas like Whittier are centrally located and well-served by public transit, but are currently forced to remain at suburban densities. Relaxing zoning to allow commercial establishments like corner stores could also greatly increase the appeal of these kinds of neighborhoods. • I support changes that encourage homeowners to build ADUs on their property • I strongly feel that lifting occupancy limits will not make rent more affordable, especially for CU students and workers. Rents will remain high and more occupants will be stuffed into an old home. We will have more congestion, especially around campus. • I live on the Hill with my wife and three kids. All my non-student neighbors strongly oppose expanded occupancy. Student overcrowding in residential areas is a major issue on the Hill, and will drive families to move away from the area. If expanding occupancy is improtant for affordable housing projects in Boulder, please include an amendment to this change for the Hill and other neighborhoods adjacent to the university that would exempt them from occupancy increases. This is crucial to the health, safety, and affordability of these neighborhoods. Otherwise, this change will destroy multiple neighborhoods, cause families to move farther out into Boulder, and put more pressure on the housing market in Boulder. Ironically, this will increase Boulder housing projects before any positive impact may actually happen. In addition, a version of this change was voted down by Boulder voters in 2021. Please add this proposal to the November ballot. To enact this, after a negative vote, directly is not a democratic way to move this issue forward and will erode trust in the Boulder City Council. Thank you • I have lived on The Hill since 1998 and I really enjoy living among students in addition to families, young professionals, and retirees. While I am in favor of the loosening of rules to allow more ADUs in owner occupied homes, I think it would be a very big mistake to make blanket increases in occupancy requirements. As I'm sure you know, there are a lot of people who profit greatly from their investments in student housing near the university. Unfortunately, many of those investors make clear by their actions that maintaining the cleanliness and livability of our neighborhood for all of its diverse inhabitants is not a concern for them. There is no reason to think that they won't increase rents along with occupancy thus eliminating the intended benefit for students, let alone permanent residents (or those who would like to be). Perhaps I and others would reconsider my opinion on occupancy limits if they come with more guardrails and CU and the city hold students to a higher standard. While many students are wonderful members of our community, there is also a significant number who behave without regard for others and there doesn't seem to be a desire by either the city of CU to hold them accountable for being decent neighbors and community members. Please reconsider changing occupancy limits at this time and, if you decide it's appropriate to go forward, please exclude The Hill and other areas surrounding CU. Sincerely, Julia Hellerman • I doubt that increasing occupancy limits will reduce the price per tenant cost in any case. I fear such an increase will simply benefit investors and increase the rental homes/owned homes ratio which is detrimental to neighborhoods. • I don't believe raising occupancy limits will increase affordability at all. I think raising occupancy limits will only benefit landlords and have negative impacts for established single family neighborhoods. I would like to see more city/CU sponsored initiatives that make Boulder more affordable for families and CU employees. I think CU needs to commit to providing more affordable student housing rather than making affordable housing for students a city responsibility. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 104 • I believe that an overlay zone for the Hill and other neighborhoods adjacent to the university that would exempt them from occupancy increases is crucial to the health, safety, and affordability of these neighborhoods. I also believe that the current city council should place on this November's ballot any increase in occupancy they propose. • I am a resident of the Hill. I do not support increasing occupancy limits in residential homes because I have seen what overcrowded tenancy does. In too many cases, revolving door tenants do not take care of the building or the garden and they do not take care of their trash. In years past we had an over occupied house near us, with six students. They had six cars, three dogs, and because they did not all share the same friends, twice the parties. At move-out, the excess furniture was left in the alley. It is not a situation that encourages the families of teachers, police officers, health care workers and other infrastructure folks to want to live nearby. Meanwhile, it is a false assumption to believe that more tenants means more affordability. In a tight, University- based housing market, landlords set rental rates per tenant, not by square footage. Thus, increasing residential occupancy simply enriches landlords by $1200 per additional tenant per month. Meanwhile, your questionnaire mis-states the reality of what is legal currently. Two families (or sets of unrelated people) can already live in our residential neighborhoods, in the case of an ADU. ADUs are much preferable to over- occupancy. An ADU must be permitted for construction. The ADU therefore is set out to appropriately address the space needs of somewhere near ten people. In our neighborhood, most ADUs are well maintained, affordable, and tend to draw longer term tenants. The original owners tend to stay, thus keeping a multigenerational community. Families are not dissuaded by the dilapidated appearance of a poorly managed rental next door. Thus the impact on the neighborhood from ADUs is entirely different from over-occupied rentals. This is true also of duplexes and triplexes on lots of appropriate size. The repurposing of single family homes on 30th Street between Bixby and Colorado is a great example of this change. One could imagine similar changes along Moorhead. There is a triplex being retrofitted out of a single family home at 9th and Cascade, right across the street from a rental home plus ADU. These are both very appropriate housing options for those corners. Multi- family housing fashioned from older homes has also been successful along Baseline at Tenth Street for decades. These are the kind of occupancy infill projects that are sensitive to the neighborhood and do not drive families away. There was an excellent article in the New York Times this week about affordable housing in Vienna. (“Vienna: Renters’ Paradise”) The article made a number of good points that smaller sized individual living spaces can be quite appealing when they are well located, are in multi-generational communities, and are well maintained. It talked about creating housing stock with limited equity options so that the market remains affordable, as is true with Boulder’s affordable ownership housing developments. I can’t figure out how to insert the link to the article but hope some of you may look at it. On another topic: in 2019, the Boulder Housing Authority issued an excellent White Paper on solutions to the issues of unhoused individuals. They proposed secure parking lots for people who live in cars or campers, tiny house villages, and dispersed campsites for tents, with sanitation provided. What has happened to those good ideas? Right now our most marginally capable folks are living in our most prominent public spaces, and instead of helping them build supportive community, our enforcement activity disrupts what might be viewed as supportive relationships. I hope Council will revisit the White Paper solutions and begin to implement them. The day center being built on Folsom is a good start, while building stand-alone, unobserved bathrooms (as at 9th and Canyon) is just an invitation to vandalism. I hope Council will take actions that will effectively address the City’s affordable housing needs while supporting the desires of many families to live in well maintained walkable multigenerational neighborhoods. Repeating the mistakes of housing on The Hill is not a good strategy. • Federally, the standard is no more than 2 people per bedroom - If it works, federally, I think it could work for Boulder. That said, no one is taking bathrooms per person into account - For my family (and most humans, I would think), bathroom access matters just as much if not more than bedroom space. Finally, I would also look into Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 105 square footage; I have read that ~170sq ft/person is the "happiness space" requirement; The Engineering Toolbox states that it is 100-400 sq ft/person. • Exempt CU-adjacent neighborhoods from any change to occupancy or parking. • Exclude CU-adjacent from any discussion of changes to occupancy or zoning. These areas are already overcrowded. Please don’t make me carry bags of groceries 2 blocks due to lack of parking. It would be nice if the city would fund enforcement of the noise, trash and occupancy ordinances. • Duplexes on SF lots only • Do not increase occupancy on The Hill. Do not reduce parking requirements. Focus changes to occupancy and affordability in areas which are suitable. Be sensible and act responsibly. • Clearly no one on the city council lives in a student area (e.g., the hill) like I do. If you did you would see what overcrowding has done to the neighborhood and would probably be concerned with what expanded occupancy would mean for the non-student residents of these area. The voters rejected increasing occupancy limits recently. THE BIGGER PROBLEM IS THE STUDENTS ARE ILLEGALLY SUBLEASING TO OTHER PEOPLE TO FILL THE HOUSE IN BLATANT DISREGARD TO THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS MEASURE IS ONLY GOING TO BENEFIT THE OPPORTUNISTIC LANDLORDS WHO DON'T LIVE IN THE HILL AND ARE "MISSING OUT" OF INCREASED RENTS NOT BEING PAID TO THEM!!! 😡😡😡😡😡😡 • Clearly no one on the city council lives in a student area (e.g., the hill) like I do. If you did you would see what overcrowding has done to the neighborhood and would probably be concerned with what expanded occupancy would mean for the non-student residents of these area. Plus, didn’t the voters reject this increase occupancy initiative in the past? Oh wait, how silly of me to think that you people care about the vote of the people you allegedly represent. Strange view of democracy if you ask me. • Boulder is going to ruin the reason people want to live here by increasing occupancy limits. Forcing CU to house their students with actual CU owned building complexes would open up the market for homes that the city of Boulder could purchase and utilize for affordable housing. • Boulder is DENSE enough... it cannot support CONTINUAL influx and increasing density at the expense of current and long time taxpayers - just because "we want to live in Boulder" • Areas near there campus are already too dense with people who have no interests in being members of the community. A short stop on their life journey, already experimenting with breaking the limits of property and neighborhood respect. • Any increase to occupancy will be exploited by landlords and rental companies on the hill and not result in lower cost of living but more bedrooms at the same price and a lower standard of living. Many renal agencies are neglectful at best and in many cases predatory. Broadly increasing occupancy is not in Boulder's best interest. • Allow ADUs without restriction • Affordability for housing is needed. However, not at the risk of compromising single family neighborhoods. This is a betrayal of the people who bought their homes with the assurance single-family zoning would persist. • ADUs should be allowed in all residential zones if the primary residence is owner occupied and if there have been no complaints filed against the address in 5 years- they should be required to be licensed every 5 years or when property ownership changes. It should be understood that while it will increase the number of rental units, the property with the ADU will become more valuable thus less affordable. • Adding housing will not make Boulder more affordable unless there are explicit affordability provisions attached to that housing. See, e.g. New York City, San Francisco, any dense city. • Add density ONLY if the changes can be concurrent with water, sewer and road/transportation needs. Eliminating parking requirements makes sense close to transit/bus lines. But adding more cars on the road with density requirements without increasing capacity on roadways will negatively impact quality of life for residents. - PS - I started studying infill housing and been a part of this discussion since 1999, beginning in Seattle. Please study and use west coast examples if affordable housing policy. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 106 • 1. Who is it other than students that would want to live 4 or 5 to a house? Certainly not most couples or families. I was there, once. Now as a senior, I would like a smaller home, but not to share. None to be found in Boulder. 2. I've lived in a home on a corner on the Hill, in theory there were 8 parking spaces, my husband and I could rarely find one nearby. 3. Let's stop building McMansions, please. So wasteful in so many ways. Give incentives to sellers to encourage splitting lots. Putting 2 or 3 cottage homes on such lots would be my suggestion. 4. Have CU house all of their undergraduates in campus housing. How many homes would that free up for working folks? It also would abate the 'student- slums'. And get rid of out of state investor mania that has harmed many neighborhoods. 5. As we learned during COVID, cramming too many people in places is harmful to all. 6. Stop promoting the very poor public transportation. Buses in a small city are difficult to access for many. If you have kids, grandkids, pets, groceries, or home projects, impossible to use. Plus, too scary to ride now. Ask the residents. A survey with proposals from city 'staff' is the worst way to engage in solutions, that are beneficial to those that live here. • *You have lumped together options that I feel differently about. So there is ambiguity in my answers (and everyone's) because of these constraints in your questionnaire. **Where is the evidence that either of these issues (occupancy, parking, duplexes, triplexes, (which your survey should be asking about with separate questions) will make housing more affordable? People in my neighborhood are already occupying above the limit and that has had absolutely no visible effect on the affordability of their housing. If you add occupants, that seems to simply increase the amount the co-housed people will pay for the same space. ***The 'no zoning' approach bombed all over the state. I suspect it would bomb here, too, if you had objective ways of collecting people's opinions. Boulder's co-opted housing dreamers, heavily funded by real estate profiteers, were a lone voice in the state-wide discussion of these issues. But the need for real evidence that these proposed changes would provide the desired result is a first step. Before you start asking people for their input, you need to do your homework and get the data. Attachment C - Questionnaire Response Summary Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing To : Boulder City Council Date: June 12, 2023 Subject: Occupancy Reform and Zoning for Affordable Housing Increasing occupancy limits or changing zoning regulations will never result in affordable housing if decisions are left to the real estate, development, and rental investment markets without government oversight and intervention to ensure permanent affordability. Boulder’s steep housing costs are the result of strong demand due to our high quality of life, as well as the imbalance between the ever-increasing number of jobs and students in Boulder and the limited availability of affordable workforce and student housing. To increase affordable housing, we must understand how much of each housing type we need, that we can build, and that we can ensure is permanently affordable. However, there is nothing in the proposals the council is considering that will ensure increased housing at prices low-, medium- and middle-income people could pay without being cost- or seriously cost-burdened. What they do ensure is unnecessary impacts that will not be offset by any greater community benefit. This entire effort could potentially have beneficial results if undertaken with more careful consideration of what will be required to achieve the desired results. Boulder needs a housing study to understand what we have, what’s on the way, and what we need. PLAN-Boulder County recommends the following actions to limit the harm the proposals you are considering could do to our city prior to undertaking a more constructive approach: Housing Study •Conduct a housing study that quantifies all housing that exists in Boulder, all housing that has received development approval, building permits or is under construction, and what housing gaps currently exist. Occupancy Reform •Apply an overlay zone prohibiting occupancy increases in neighborhoods surrounding the university, where the student housing market threatens to squeeze out long-term renters and prospective homebuyers. •Prohibit further occupancy increases for legal nonconforming properties that already allow increased occupancy. •Place your preferred Occupancy Reform ordinance on this November’s ballot so citizens can vote on it. Although the flaws in the 2021 Bedrooms Are for People ballot measure were apparent to everyone, voters also debated whether a one- size-fits-all approach to increasing occupancy limits across the entire city with no mechanism to ensure affordability was appropriate. This is the overly simplistic approach you are now considering. An opportunity to vote on the new ordinance would assure citizens that this council is not attempting to overturn the will of the voters. Zoning for Affordable Housing •Do not support staff’s suggestion that duplexes and triplexes be introduced into low density zones on lots that are large enough to subdivide, unless this entitlement is exchanged for a cap on the rent or purchase price that would make the units affordable for middle-income earners. This is supposed to be zoning for affordable housing, and without this stipulation, the result would be multimillion-dollar attached housing in exclusive low-density neighborhoods. •Maintain the current Use Review for buildings with more than 40% Efficiency Living Units (studios <475 square feet) to ensure that new construction includes housing types suitable for families, not just single people or couples who can live in ELUs. •Revise density calculations and introduce Floor Area Ratios for residential construction in Business zones only when compatible with existing structures. Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing • Revise density calculations and introduce Floor Area Ratios for residential construction in Industrial zones only when they do not present a threat to industrial businesses. • Revise density calculations and introduce Floor Area Ratios for construction in High Density zones only when the infrastructure of the area can sustain increased density and population growth. Future Reforms to Ensure Affordable and Equitable Housing Options • Support permanently affordable and family friendly housing for the middle-income bracket. • Support Boulder’s down payment assistance program to encourage homeownership that will allow more people to build generational wealth. • Maintain the current requirement that ADUs be owner occupied to ensure that ADU rental income helps make home ownership more affordable and does not increase speculation by investors, which would result in more unaffordable housing. • Support the rezoning of currently underutilized business and commercial properties to encourage affordable mixed-use developments with housing and parks that would appeal to families. The commercial space should prioritize businesses that would also serve surrounding areas, enhancing walkability. • Ensure that a mechanism to significantly increase affordability is tied to every land use change. • Enter into negotiations with CU to limit the growth of the student population unless the university can provide adequate housing and parking. Consider mechanisms to limit student growth if negotiations with CU are not successful. Respectfully, Peter Mayer Allyn Feinberg Co-Chairs, PLAN-Boulder County Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing From:Lynn Segal To:Housing Advisory Board Group; Guiler, Karl; Boller, Tiffany Subject:25 Jan. HAB Date:Wednesday, January 25, 2023 9:42:20 PM External Sender Revert Papilios to BC-2 from the MU-3 subsidy it got. Why did HAB drop the ball on the biggest development's impact on affordable housing in Boulder's history (besides CU South). From 63 to 165 units. Like your Xcel bill. Ali's laughing to the bank. And your job just got harder. But you let it! Why are stairs included in ADU sf.? Leave single family zoning alone. I like my open space. Cap population. Remember Al Bartlett. Airport, A/Balsam, ownership is a taxpayer takings. How long have residents been paying a premium for A/B with no income? Actually, COB gave our library asset away lately. Kind of counterintuitive. Wonder what that cost our bond rating? Can COB ethically add density A/B on an already constrained corridor of Broadway after Cherry, Aaron Brocket's wife was hit by a car in NOBO? Boulder cannot own Boulder and supply the kind of housing needed for diversity in an INELASTIC market. It doesn't matter what you do. A/B is probably a fraction of one percent impact on affordability. And look what COB did with Papilios! ^^^^^^^$$$$$$$$$ And you are sincerely worried about land value in the same instant? Nah. You are digging a hole 80% bigger than you are filling it, so far as incrementing affordable housing. OZ, LIHTC are federal growth schemes. Don't drink it. IH? 140% Enough already, with CU South. It has suffocated BO. Just watch. But don't be surprised. Answer every question on 7 Dec. meeting. And this communication. What don't you understand about inelastic? Lynn Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing From:R. Porath To:Brockett, Aaron; Benjamin, Matthew; Bennett Scharf; Friend, Rachel; Folkerts, Lauren; Yates, Bob; Winer, Tara; Wallach, Mark; Joseph, Junie; Speer, Nicole; Guiler, Karl Subject:Fw: Boutique Student Housing Date:Thursday, July 20, 2023 10:42:44 AM External Sender -----Forwarded Message----- From: R. Porath <porath005@earthlink.net> Sent: Jul 20, 2023 10:37 AM To: Boulder Weekly <letters@boulderweekly.com> Subject: Boutique Student Housing 2700 Baseline is a proposed "boutique" student housing project at the corner of 27th Way and Moorhead. Just what constitutes "boutique" student housing I discovered in attending a meeting at such a facility owned by the publicly- traded American Campus Solutions. In the lobby is a bank of Apple computers, multiple TV screens, and ping pong and pool tables. A swimming pool was behind the building. The meeting was intended to sway opinion in Martin Acres that the project would be a community asset in creating a park along Moorhead from Skunk Creek through the defunct carwash and Nick's Auto. Boulder Gas, Grease Monkey, the abandoned Wendy's, and Baseline Liquor would be replaced by a student dormitory with the amenities of a private club. Traffic flow for the businesses on 27th Way and Moorhead currently is surprisingly fluid with multiple entrances and exits, but access and parking look to be a nightmare for the new building. Having spent my sophomore year in the Lazy J motel on Euclid Avenue and subsequent years in a succession of rooms in private homes on the Hill, the revelation of such a cocooned campus life was startling. Student housing in Boulder is a competitive and lucrative business with "in locus parentis" carried to an extreme. The site is zoned for neighborhood friendly retail and Martin Acres is designated single family residential, but our landlord-friendly City Council and libertarian Governor Jared Polis, in pomoting unbridled development and density, are poised to run roughshod over such distinctions. Resource conservation and affordable housing are of no concern in this project. Displacing four long-standing businesses for luxury housing and a small patch of greenery does nothing positive for the neighborhood. Robert Porath 27th Street 303-499-9889 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing From:R. Porath To:Guiler, Karl Subject:Fw: Change Date:Thursday, July 20, 2023 10:58:28 AM External Sender -----Forwarded Message----- From: R. Porath <porath005@earthlink.net> Sent: Jul 17, 2023 12:44 PM To: Daily Camera <openforum@dailycamera.com> Subject: Change I can agree with Gary Garrison that Boulder needs to change, but from the view of what the city has lost in its journey into the present. The University, as an apex center of higher learning, gave body to the original spirit of Boulder. It attracted and held educated, intelligent people to live here. As Mr. Garrison notes, the natural surroundings and access to the beauty of the mountains were fortunate footholds as well. A protective love of learning and nature became the ethos and identity of the city. Commercial interests were mostly small. locally run and owned. Not fully a paradise, but certainly as an oasis in a harsher world of business enterprise, Boulder's image of being a special place grew. Property values rose and outside wealth and gentrification from both coasts poured in. While business growth was encouraged and subsidized, future housing was ignored in favor of more and more Open Space acquistions. The result, despite all good intentions, is the critical mass of commuter traffic pouring in and out of the City daily, all to the detriment of the environment we presumably love. The current city leadership. in promoting higher density and occupancy regulations, remains focussed on economic growth rather than community wellbeing. Despite apartment complexes being built all around the City, catching up with the housing shortage, again noted by Mr. Garrison, is destined to fall short. Similarly the University, as a corporate enterprise, is set on constant growth, higher enrollment, and bullying its way into nearby neighborhoods. All in all, Boulder has lost its soul to the world of commerce. Regaining it will be no easy task. Robert Porath Boulder 303-499-9889 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing From:R. Porath To:Guiler, Karl Subject:Fw: SB 123 Date:Saturday, April 29, 2023 7:31:00 AM External Sender Polis' bill is dead. Local control is important and Boulder's long history of enacting quality of life rinitiatives should be honored. Your stance here reminds me of the bandit's line in John Huston's Treasure of the Sierra Madre, "Regulations? We don't need no stinkin' regulations." -----Forwarded Message----- From: R. Porath <porath005@earthlink.net> Sent: Apr 28, 2023 1:51 PM To: <junie.joseph.house@coleg.gov> Subject: SB 123 Gov. Polis' "no regulation" pipedream would turn Boulder into a libertarian paradise. Robert Porath Martin Acres Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing From:Michael Deragisch To:Guiler, Karl Subject:Planning codes Date:Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:49:14 PM External Sender Boulder is already overgrown. We need less new development of large home in town. Some new ones have used too much of the land and Are simply bad buildings if you are concerned about environmental impacts, direct effects to neighbors and the overall "feel" of Boulder. Perhaps they are using existing code to the max, which is why the footprint of the houses in relationship to the lots' sq. Footage needs to be reduced. Furthermore, developments such as the Armory are simply to dense. Nor did this project take the increased traffic into consideration. Finally take a look at Boulder's water resources...We are already close to capacity and with the projected climate issues we are facing NOW is the time to put a brakes on development. Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing From:Steve Pomerance To:Guiler, Karl Cc:Rivera-Vandermyde, Nuria; Brockett, Aaron; Matt Benjamin; Folkerts, Lauren; Friend, Rachel; Joseph, Junie; Speer, Nicole; Mark Wallach; Winer, Tara; Bob Yates Subject:survey on occupancy and land use Date:Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:11:07 PM External Sender Hi Karl, I noticed that one of the questions posited an outcome that is not in any way guaranteed by the proposed action. The questions says: Boulder should reduce parking requirements for residential projects to encourage lower housing costs. That is nonsense. Reducing parking requirements does “encourage' one thing only — property owners will have an incentive to charge more for the land. And that creates the potential for higher profits, higher numbers of units, and more overcrowded streets. But that won’t make any difference in what landlords charge UNLESS significant other constraints are placed on the development, like rent control to a significantly higher level than the current inclusionary zoning requirements, or unless the effect of not making parking available makes the units less desirable. Telling people that this will “encourage lower housing costs” may sell the idea, but makes drawing any conclusions from the answers an exercise in handwaving. Steve Pomerance Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing How to Get Permanently Attainable “Missing Middle” Housing to Improve the Health of Every Boulder Neighborhood? Create Neighborhood Infill Housing Pilots Program and Ramp Up Best Models! Our Elevator Pitch: Experiment with the best ways to shape market forces to deliver housing projects that contribute to diverse, resilient, connected, healthy neighborhoods throughout the City. Then ramp up using lessons learned to make it easy and financially preferable to reverse the current housing trend which results in more income/racial segregation and high transportation- related toxic and carbon emissions. Perhaps best point: “Other cities are ahead of us!!!” Boulder version of Portland Rezoning: Check out the family-size 4x6…we need the ability to do these, 80-150%, with car sharing, land donation, maybe one luxury unit to sweeten it….and the market could build them as well as groups of families….duplexes and triplexes not enough…we still get more luxury units…Remember the BHP metric about Net loss of affordable housing: that’s what we should measure! Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Existing authority to do this: BVCP Neighborhood Infill Criteria p 112. How to do it: Pass Special Ordinance in City Council to authorize limited ability (X units or X projects or Y time) to vary # of kitchens if, for example, permanent affordability (via donation of land to city community land trusts) and private car dependence are restricted. The Benefits ● Permanently affordable mixed income housing-largely for sale ● Low, no subsidy ● Decarbonized mobility ● Community “upgrade” for everyone-NOT “affordable” housing ● (Politically feasible infill) ● Good investor returns ● Engages local, smaller investors, including current in-commuting workforce buyers ● Can deliver significant housing: eg 20,000-30,000 townhouse/condo units on 5,000 average to poor quality Boulder single family homes (investor and owner occupied). ● Model can work in resort areas too. An example- 750 North St From: 1957 Duplex To: 8 small condo units (or Coop) Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing The units inside the stealth single family house: Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing The Features Housing ● All for sale (no second round of apartments) ● All low, moderate, middle income (60-150+% AMI) is appreciation-moderated /shared equity. ● For this, the land is donated to city or a community land trust creating an important source of return for the developer, reducing pressure on prices ● NO market rate middle income housing which will soon appreciate to unaffordability ● Throughout: A small (15%?) amount of luxury housing (which can appreciate) can help subsidize the low income for sale (15%?) Transportation-Parking ● Mostly electric car share parking with small # of private parking AUCTIONED OFF to highest bidder among residents. (Less land and expense for cars, more land for people). ● Include car share price in unit price, very limited street parking allowed for residents ● Market exclusively to current public, non-profit employees then for-profit company employees and find other legal ways to prefer current in-commuting workers (1/3 of whom expressed interest in attached housing in Boulder here). A Better Process that Favors Innovation ● Pilots demonstrate for the public and local developers-local investors what approach is best scaled up. Neighborhood feedback is built into the front end of design process. Pilots could prove to be a business case superior to “luxury only” projects. Becomes a simple by right entitlement. More Info ● More detail about this program ● “Sharing Boulder” Video Podcast about it. ● Related British initiative ● Original “Back Porch Group” description-”Innovate for Impact!” ● 2018 Daily Camera Guest Opinion “Innovate, Don’t Gentrify” describing the idea; even more relevant today! ● 2020 BVCP Mid-Term Update application Contact: David Adamson david@goosecreekclt.org 303 545 6255 www.goosecreekclt.org Philip Ogren philip.ogren@outlook.com 720-626-1402 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Request #3: 750 North St / MXR Request #3 750 North Street / MXR Area Initiated by property owner/representative Request: The applicant submitted both a land use and policy amendment to pursue the concept of establishing “high community benefit” criteria to allow increased density for one site as a pilot. If this could be designated a Neighborhood Infill Pilot Project as described in the BVCP, it could lead to wider applicability in areas throughout the city that are designated Mixed Density Residential (MXR). The concept of “high community benefit” would provide an opportunity for resident and non-owner occupied landowners considering redevelopment to choose ways to better meet BVCP values and city goals involving: affordable housing-especially middle income-goals; offsetting neighborhood impacts; meeting or exceeding energy efficiency goals and maintaining neighborhood character. The Neighborhood Infill Pilot Planning Project was introduced in the comprehensive plan in the 2015 update process to be able to explore creative approaches to meeting city goals, especially focusing on affordable housing. The scope of such a project is not defined in the plan. If there is support to explore a path to implement the high community benefit concept, a very limited scope could likely be addressed Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Request #3: 750 North St / MXR within the mid-term update, otherwise the pilot project would need to be further explored as part of the planning department work plan in coming years. Staff Recommendation: No Staff recognizes that the Neighborhood Infill Pilot Project concept was developed and included in the comprehensive plan to explore creative ideas such as this. If there is interest by the decision-making bodies to pursue the concept, it would need to be scoped and prioritized as a project on the planning department work plan. This work is beyond the scope of the mid-term update. ANALYSIS: 1. Consistent with the purposes of the mid-term update? No. The applicant is seeking amendments to the Mixed Density Residential (MXR) land use designation to conditionally allow higher densities within this land use. The concept suggests a new policy direction for the Mixed Density Residential land use that has not been evaluated as part of a planning process. If explored through a pilot planning process, the concept would likely require zoning changes or a special ordinance as well as community engagement to consider options, assess impacts and determine appropriate applicability to other parts of mixed density residential areas. This work is beyond the scope of the mid-term update. 2. Consistent with the current policies in the BVCP or relevant subcommunity or area plans? Potentially. The BVCP includes policy direction to allow for additional intensity for permanently affordable housing in Policy 7.11, however new regulations have yet to be developed. Policy 7.11 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. Should there be interest by the Planning Board and City Council to further consider the proposed changes as a Neighborhood Planning Pilot project, staff would assess the degree to which the criteria for a Neighborhood Planning Pilot project are met and the necessary resources and scope of a potential project. Criteria include: • A high level of interest on the part of the neighborhood residents and an organization that will work with the city and sponsor the plan or project • Recent trends that have created changes in the neighborhood and identified imminence of change anticipate I the future • Desire to address neighborhood needs and /or improvements through creative solutions • Agreeableness to identify solutions for community-wide goals and challenges as well as to address local needs • Interest in addressing risk mitigation and building community capacity and the ability to be more self-sufficient and resilient; and Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Request #3: 750 North St / MXR • Demonstrated interest on the part of the neighborhood residents and organization to test and apply innovative, contextually appropriate residential infill, ...while considering area of preservation. 3. Compatible with adjacent land uses and neighborhood context? Potentially. The land use surrounding 750 North Street is Mixed Density Residential (MXR), defined as an area close to the downtown and high-frequency transit that emphasizes a mixture of housing types and densities as well as preservation of the current neighborhood character. 4. Was the proposed amendment requested or considered as part of a recent update to the Comprehensive Plan or other planning process? No. 5. Is there any change in circumstances, community needs or new information that would warrant the proposal be considered as part of this update? No. 6. Are there enough available resources to evaluate the proposed amendment (city and county staffing and budget priorities)? No. Staff recommends this type of amendment would be best considered as a discrete planning project or in conjunction with zoning code changes, when resources are available. Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing BVCP 2015 Major Update 1/4 Request for Revision BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020 MIDTERM UPDATE: REQUEST FOR REVISION – LAND USE OR OTHER MAP The general public, including property owners, may submit requests for changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as part of the mid-term update to the plan. For more information on criteria for changes during the BVCP mid-term update, please click here for the BVCP Summary Matrix. Requested changes to the BVCP require a public hearing and approval from the following bodies: TYPE OF REQUEST APPROVAL BODIES LAND USE - / MAP-RELATED Land Use Map Amendment Area I: City Planning Board and City Council with referral to County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Area II & III: City Planning Board, City Council, County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Changes to the Area II/III boundary City Planning Board, City Council, County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Service Area Contractions or Minor Changes to the Service Area boundary City Planning Board, City Council, County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Other Map Amendments By relevant jurisdiction (city or county) In order for consideration, the enclosed form (pages 2 – 4) is to be completed by anyone requesting a change to the plan. The fourth page contains a list of additional materials that should be submitted with the request. Please note, if multiple people or a group wishes to submit a change, they need not submit multiple requests for the same change. Rather, they may provide a supplemental list with contact info for all individuals who wish to submit this change. The deadline for submitting a request for proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is 5 p.m. on Monday, March 2, 2020. Completed request forms should be returned by mail or e-mail at the addresses shown on the final page of this form. Request forms and information regarding Mid-Term update procedures can be obtained from the City of Boulder Department of Planning and Development Services, 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor, and the Boulder County Land Use Department, 2045 13th Street, or online at www.bouldervalleycompplan.net. For additional information, contact BVCPchanges@bouldercolorado.gov, or contact Dana Sparks at the City of Boulder Comprehensive Planning Division at (303) 441-4219 and Alberto De Los Rios at the Boulder County Land Use Department at (720) 564-2623. Thank you for your interest in this process. 1 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing BVCP 2020 Midterm Update 2/4 Request for Revision BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020 MIDTERM UPDATE: REQUEST FOR REVISION 1)Type of Amendment (check all that apply): Land Use Map Amendment Planning Areas Map Amendment Service Area contractions or Minor Changes to the Service Area Boundary Other Map Amendment 2)Please provide the following information a.Brief description of the proposed amendment: b.Brief reason or justification for the proposed amendment: a. Brief description of location of proposed amendment (including address or approximate coordinates): b.Size of parcel: ___________________________________________________________________ 2 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing BVCP 2020 Midterm Update 3/4 Request for Revision 3)Applicant: Name: __________________________________________________________________ Address: Phone: _________________________________________________________________ 4)Owner: Name: __________________________________________________________________ Address: Phone: _________________________________________________________________ 5)Representative/Contact: Name: __________________________________________________________________ Address: Phone: _________________________________________________________________ 6)Does the applicant have a development application or some interest in a property that in any manner would be affected by this amendment proposal? (If yes, please explain): 3 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing BVCP 2020 Midterm Update 4/4 Request for Revision SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH REQUEST FORM 1.Narrative addressing the details of the proposed amendment, including: 1) reason or justification for proposal, and 2) its relationship to the goals, policies, elements, and amendment criteria of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (maximum 500 words). 2.Location map showing size and context of the area proposed for amendment, including relationship to surrounding roads, existing and planned land uses, natural features, and present Comprehensive Plan designations. Dimensions should be 8 ½” x 11” with color or grayscale contrast suitable for photocopying. Visit the City of Boulder’s interactive mapping site, maps.bouldercolorado.gov/emaplink/, to take a screenshot or print a PDF of an area proposed for amendment. After the initial review of request forms, additional information or copies of submittal materials may be required. Persons submitting request forms will be contacted as needed. SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FORMS Submit request forms by 5 p.m. on March 2, 2020. Via e-mail: BVCPchanges@bouldercolorado.gov Or by mail: City of Boulder Department of Planning and Development Services Attn: Dana Sparks P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306-0791 4 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing March 3, 2020  SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH REQUEST FORM  1. Narrative ​addressing the details of the proposed amendment, including: 1) reason or justification for proposal, and 2) its relationship to the goals, policies, elements, and amendment criteria of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (maximum 500 words). Proposed amendment to MXR Land use map description:  Mixed  Density  Residenti al (MXR)  Characteristics and Locations: ​MXR areas surround downtown in the  Pre-World War II older neighborhoods and are located in some  areas planned for new development. Additionally, in older  downtown neighborhoods that were developed with single-family  homes but for a time were zoned for higher densities, a variety of  housing types and densities are found within a single block. The  city’s goal is to preserve the current neighborhood character and  mix of housing types and not exacerbate traffic and parking  problems in those older areas. Some new housing units may be  added.  For areas designated for new development (outside of the  Pre-WWII neighborhoods), the goal is to provide a substantial  amount of affordable housing in mixed-density neighborhoods that  have a variety of housing types and densities.  Uses: ​Consists of single-family and multi-family residential units.  May include some complementary uses implemented through  zoning.  BVCP Density/Intensity: ​6 to 20 dwelling units per acre ​or additional  dwelling units per acre for projects in conformance with the  Neighborhood Planning/Infill Pilot process on page 112 of the  BVCP and that include the further specific criteria elsewhere (and  contained in the Goose Creek Community Land Trust application).  5 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing High Community Benefit Criteria for Neighborhood Planning/Infill Pilot projects  ●Located within 1/2 mile of high frequency bus transit line ●Decrease in parking/onsite cars from existing conditions (more community, less cars) ●High level of affordability -low and middle income housing and utilizes existing best practices for income qualification, asset qualification and appreciation ●Replicates existing neighborhood form and density ●Replaces outdated, energy inefficient, low performing buildings ●Meets form and bulk standards of zoning ●Meets solar shading standards ●Provide alternative transportation, fossil fuel vehicle parking restrictions, and significant trip reduction commitments (example: 3-4 shared electric pool vehicle, Ecopass per person, shared bike fleet, no private fossil fueled vehicles, parking management through lease/HOA, etc.) ●100% renewable, near net zero efficiency ●Alternative land use model (i.e. community land trust, 99-year lease, etc) ●Community housing management plan, examples include: ○Residents/Homeowners sign a land lease containing low carbon transportation commitment ○Car share program is managed and funded ○Neighborhood parking impacts are managed ○Like coop residents, homeowners receive training and support (financial, budget, conflict management, maintenance, good neighbor plans ) CHAPTER 5 - SUBCOMMUNITY AND AREA PLANNING  BVCP - Page 111-112  Area Planning   Area plans are developed for areas or corridors with special problems or  opportunities that are not adequately addressed by comprehensive planning,  subcommunity planning or existing land use regulations. Area planning is initiated as  issues or opportunities arise. Area plans are generally of a scale that allow for  developing a common understanding of the expected changes, defining desired  characteristics that should be preserved or enhanced and identifying achievable  implementation methods. While area plans generally focus on mixed-use areas of  6 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing change, they may be developed for residential neighborhoods if such areas meet  the criteria for selection below.   Criteria for Selection   The criteria for selecting the priority for the development of subcommunity and area  plans are:   Extent to which the plan implements the comprehensive plan goals;  ●Imminence of change anticipated in the area: loss of previously affordable housing/gentrification through sale/scrape/redevelopment ●Magnitude of an identified problem; over ½ of Boulder’s workforce commutes in. 2014 Housing Preference Survey indicated ⅔ of in-commuters would prefer to live near where they work ●Likelihood of addressing a recurring problem; this method creates all or nearly all deed restricted/appreciation moderated housing ●Cost and time effectiveness of doing the plan; and ●Extent to which the plan will improve land use regulations, the development review process and the quality of public and private improvements. Criteria for Determining a Neighborhood Planning/Infill Pilot Project (page 112)  Outcomes of a neighborhood infill or planning project may include, but are not  limited to, area plans, regulations, new residential building types or other outcomes.  The criteria for establishing a neighborhood planning/infill pilot include:   A high level of interest on the part of the neighborhood  residents and an organization that will work with the city  and sponsor the plan or project;   Yes, significant  neighborhood outreach  has been conducted to  date, and will continue.  Recent trends that have created changes in the  neighborhood and identified imminence of change  anticipated in the future;   Yes, see articles and BVCP  policies below   Desire to address neighborhood needs and/ or  improvements through creative solutions;   Yes, see requirements and  creative solutions above  7 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Agreeableness to identify solutions for community-wide  goals and challenges as well as to address local needs;   Yes! See Community  Benefit criteria  Interest in addressing risk mitigation (e.g., addressing  potential hazards) and in building community capacity  and the ability to be more self-sufficient and resilient; and  Yes! See Community  Benefit criteria  Demonstrated interest on the part of the neighborhood  residents and organization to test and apply innovative,  contextually appropriate residential infill, including but  not limited to ​duplex conversions,​ cottage courts,  detached alley houses, accessory dwelling units or small  mixed-use or retail projects, while considering areas of  preservation.  Yes, duplex conversion! BVCP Policies:  4.07 Energy-Efficient Land Use  The city and county will encourage energy efficiency and conservation through land  use policies and regulations governing placement and orientation of land uses to  8 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing minimize energy use, including an increase in mixed-use development and  compact, contiguous development surrounded by open space.  4.08 Energy-Efficient Building Design  The city and county will pursue efforts to improve the energy- and  resource-efficiency of new and existing buildings. The city and county will consider  the energy consumption associated with the building process (i.e., from the raw  materials through construction), improve regulations ensuring energy and resource  efficiency in new construction, remodels and renovation projects and will establish  energy efficiency requirements for existing buildings. Energy conservation programs  will be sensitive to the unique situations that involve historic preservation and  low-income homeowners and renters and will ensure that programs assisting these  groups continue.  7.02 Affordable Housing Goals  The city will study and consider substantially increasing the proportion of housing  units permanently affordable to low-, moderate- and middle-income households  beyond our current  goal of at least ten percent of the housing stock for low and moderate incomes. The  city will also increase the proportion of market-rate middle-income housing, as  described in the Middle Income Housing Strategy. These goals are achievable  through regulations, financial subsidies and other means. City resources will also be  directed toward maintaining existing permanently affordable housing units and  increasing the stock of permanent affordable housing through preservation of  existing housing.  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.  9 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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.  7.07 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.  7.09 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.  2. Location map ​showing size and context of the area proposed for amendment, including relationship to surrounding roads, existing and planned land uses, natural features, and present Comprehensive Plan designations. Dimensions should be 8 ½” x 11” with color or grayscale contrast suitable for photocopying. Visit the City of Boulder’s interactive mapping site, maps.bouldercolorado.gov/emaplink/, to take a screenshot or print a PDF of an area proposed for amendment. 10 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Proposal is for all MXR land uses in the city 11 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing BVCP 2020 Midterm Update 1/2 Request for Revision BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020 MIDTERM UPDATE: REQUEST FOR REVISION – POLICY OR TEXT The general public may submit requests for changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) as part of the mid-term update to the plan. Requested changes to the BVCP require a public hearing and approval from the following bodies: TYPE OF REQUEST APPROVAL BODIES POLICY / TEXT Policy Amendments Joint policies: City Planning Board, City Council, County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners City or county policies: By relevant jurisdiction Other Text Amendment By relevant jurisdiction (city or county) Complete this form to convey your initial ideas for BVCP policy changes. Brief descriptions of proposed changes are preferred; additional information will be requested on an as-needed basis. Additional description may be attached to this form, as needed. Please note, if multiple people or a group wishes to submit a change, they need not submit multiple requests for the same change. Rather, they may provide a supplemental list with contact info for all individuals who wish to submit this change. The deadline for submitting a request for proposed changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is 5 p.m. on Monday, March 2, 2020. Completed request forms should be returned by mail or e-mail at the addresses shown on the final page of this form. Request forms and information regarding Mid-Term update procedures can be obtained from the City of Boulder Department of Planning and Development Services, 1739 Broadway, 3rd Floor, and the Boulder County Land Use Department, 2045 13th Street, or online at www.bouldervalleycompplan.net. For additional information, contact BVCPchanges@bouldercolorado.gov, or contact Dana Sparks at the City of Boulder Comprehensive Planning Division at (303) 441-4219 and Alberto De Los Rios at the Boulder County Land Use Department at (720) 564-2623. Thank you for your interest in this process. SUBMISSION OF REQUEST FORMS Submit request forms by 5 p.m. on March 2, 2020. Via e-mail: BVCPchanges@bouldercolorado.gov Or by mail: City of Boulder Department of Planning and Development Services Attn: Dana Sparks P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306-079 1 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing BVCP 2020 Midterm Update 2/2 Request for Revision BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020 MIDTERM UPDATE: REQUEST FOR REVISION 1)Type of Amendment (check one): Policy Amendment Other Text Amendment 2)Please provide the following information a. Location of policy or text in comprehensive plan (check one): I. Introduction II.Plan Organization & Implementation III.Policies: Which section? Choose one Write in policy number: _______________________________ IV.Land Use Map Descriptions V.Subcommunity & Area Planning VI.Master Plan Summaries & Trails Map VII.Urban Service Criteria & Standards b.Page number of proposed amendment: _________________________ c.Brief description of initial ideas for proposed amendment: d.Brief reason or justification for the proposed amendment: 3)Applicant:Name: ____________________________________________________________ Address: Phone: ___________________________________________________________ 1.Intergovernmental Cooperation & Growth Management 2.Built Environment 3.Natural Environment 4.Energy, Climate & Waste 5.Economy 6.Transportation 7.Housing 8.Community Well-Being & Safety 9.Agriculture & Food 10.Local Governance & Community Engagement 2 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing March 3, 2020  SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BE SUBMITTED WITH REQUEST FORM  1. Narrative ​addressing the details of the proposed amendment, including: 1) reason or justification for proposal, and 2) its relationship to the goals, policies, elements, and amendment criteria of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (maximum 500 words). Proposed amendment to MXR Land use map description:  Mixed  Density  Residenti al (MXR)  Characteristics and Locations: ​MXR areas surround downtown in the  Pre-World War II older neighborhoods and are located in some  areas planned for new development. Additionally, in older  downtown neighborhoods that were developed with single-family  homes but for a time were zoned for higher densities, a variety of  housing types and densities are found within a single block. The  city’s goal is to preserve the current neighborhood character and  mix of housing types and not exacerbate traffic and parking  problems in those older areas. Some new housing units may be  added.  For areas designated for new development (outside of the  Pre-WWII neighborhoods), the goal is to provide a substantial  amount of affordable housing in mixed-density neighborhoods that  have a variety of housing types and densities.  Uses: ​Consists of single-family and multi-family residential units.  May include some complementary uses implemented through  zoning.  BVCP Density/Intensity: ​6 to 20 dwelling units per acre ​or additional  dwelling units per acre for projects in conformance with the  Neighborhood Planning/Infill Pilot process on page 112 of the  BVCP and that include the further specific criteria elsewhere (and  contained in the Goose Creek Community Land Trust application).  3 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing High Community Benefit Criteria for Neighborhood Planning/Infill Pilot projects  ●Located within 1/2 mile of high frequency bus transit line ●Decrease in parking/onsite cars from existing conditions (more community, less cars) ●High level of affordability -low and middle income housing and utilizes existing best practices for income qualification, asset qualification and appreciation ●Replicates existing neighborhood form and density ●Replaces outdated, energy inefficient, low performing buildings ●Meets form and bulk standards of zoning ●Meets solar shading standards ●Provide alternative transportation, fossil fuel vehicle parking restrictions, and significant trip reduction commitments (example: 3-4 shared electric pool vehicle, Ecopass per person, shared bike fleet, no private fossil fueled vehicles, parking management through lease/HOA, etc.) ●100% renewable, near net zero efficiency ●Alternative land use model (i.e. community land trust, 99-year lease, etc) ●Community housing management plan, examples include: ○Residents/Homeowners sign a land lease containing low carbon transportation commitment ○Car share program is managed and funded ○Neighborhood parking impacts are managed ○Like coop residents, homeowners receive training and support (financial, budget, conflict management, maintenance, good neighbor plans ) CHAPTER 5 - SUBCOMMUNITY AND AREA PLANNING  BVCP - Page 111-112  Area Planning   Area plans are developed for areas or corridors with special problems or  opportunities that are not adequately addressed by comprehensive planning,  subcommunity planning or existing land use regulations. Area planning is initiated as  issues or opportunities arise. Area plans are generally of a scale that allow for  developing a common understanding of the expected changes, defining desired  characteristics that should be preserved or enhanced and identifying achievable  implementation methods. While area plans generally focus on mixed-use areas of  4 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing change, they may be developed for residential neighborhoods if such areas meet  the criteria for selection below.     Criteria for Selection   The criteria for selecting the priority for the development of subcommunity and area  plans are:   Extent to which the plan implements the comprehensive plan goals;   ●Imminence of change anticipated in the area: loss of previously affordable  housing/gentrification through sale/scrape/redevelopment   ●Magnitude of an identified problem; over ½ of Boulder’s workforce commutes  in. 2014 Housing Preference Survey indicated ⅔ of in-commuters would  prefer to live near where they work  ●Likelihood of addressing a recurring problem; this method creates all or  nearly all deed restricted/appreciation moderated housing  ●Cost and time effectiveness of doing the plan; and   ●Extent to which the plan will improve land use regulations, the development  review process and the quality of public and private improvements.    Criteria for Determining a Neighborhood Planning/Infill Pilot Project (page 112)  Outcomes of a neighborhood infill or planning project may include, but are not  limited to, area plans, regulations, new residential building types or other outcomes.  The criteria for establishing a neighborhood planning/infill pilot include:     A high level of interest on the part of the neighborhood  residents and an organization that will work with the city  and sponsor the plan or project;     Yes, significant  neighborhood outreach  has been conducted to  date, and will continue.  Recent trends that have created changes in the  neighborhood and identified imminence of change  anticipated in the future;   Yes, see articles and BVCP  policies below   Desire to address neighborhood needs and/ or  improvements through creative solutions;   Yes, see requirements and  creative solutions above  5 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing   Agreeableness to identify solutions for community-wide  goals and challenges as well as to address local needs;     Yes! See Community  Benefit criteria  Interest in addressing risk mitigation (e.g., addressing  potential hazards) and in building community capacity  and the ability to be more self-sufficient and resilient; and   Yes! See Community  Benefit criteria    Demonstrated interest on the part of the neighborhood  residents and organization to test and apply innovative,  contextually appropriate residential infill, including but  not limited to ​duplex conversions,​ cottage courts,  detached alley houses, accessory dwelling units or small  mixed-use or retail projects, while considering areas of  preservation.  Yes, duplex conversion!       BVCP Policies:  4.07 Energy-Efficient Land Use  The city and county will encourage energy efficiency and conservation through land  use policies and regulations governing placement and orientation of land uses to  6 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing minimize energy use, including an increase in mixed-use development and  compact, contiguous development surrounded by open space.  4.08 Energy-Efficient Building Design  The city and county will pursue efforts to improve the energy- and  resource-efficiency of new and existing buildings. The city and county will consider  the energy consumption associated with the building process (i.e., from the raw  materials through construction), improve regulations ensuring energy and resource  efficiency in new construction, remodels and renovation projects and will establish  energy efficiency requirements for existing buildings. Energy conservation programs  will be sensitive to the unique situations that involve historic preservation and  low-income homeowners and renters and will ensure that programs assisting these  groups continue.  7.02 Affordable Housing Goals  The city will study and consider substantially increasing the proportion of housing  units permanently affordable to low-, moderate- and middle-income households  beyond our current  goal of at least ten percent of the housing stock for low and moderate incomes. The  city will also increase the proportion of market-rate middle-income housing, as  described in the Middle Income Housing Strategy. These goals are achievable  through regulations, financial subsidies and other means. City resources will also be  directed toward maintaining existing permanently affordable housing units and  increasing the stock of permanent affordable housing through preservation of  existing housing.  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 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 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.  7.07 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.  7.09 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.    2. Location map ​showing size and context of the area proposed for amendment,  including relationship to surrounding roads, existing and planned land uses, natural  features, and present Comprehensive Plan designations. Dimensions should be 8 ½”  x 11” with color or grayscale contrast suitable for photocopying. Visit the City of  Boulder’s interactive mapping site, maps.bouldercolorado.gov/emaplink/, to take a  screenshot or print a PDF of an area proposed for amendment.    8 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Proposal is for all MXR land uses in the city     9 Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing From:David Adamson To:Leccese, Michael; Guiler, Karl; Sugnet, Jay; Boller, Tiffany Cc:Annett James; David Ensign; Friend, Rachel; Aaron Brockett; philip.ogren@outlook.com; terry@palmos- development.com; jramseyhab@gmail.com; Ferro, Charles; Roger Lewis; Geof Cahoon Subject:Zoning for Affordable Housing (Discussion tonight at HAB) Date:Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:10:18 PM Attachments:BVCP Midterm Update Housing PIlot staff recommendation.pdf 11-2-22 Neighborhood Pilot Overview+Pics.pdf screencapture logo png.png External Sender Dear HAB and related Staff, Tonight in the Zoning for Affordable Housing discussion and afterwards in creating your recommendations for housing (not just affordable housing), please consider the approach taken by the "trans-IMBY" Back Porch Group as described in this Op Ed by Allyn Feinberg and Scott Holton Consider the low-risk, low investment way to kick it off developed by Scott Holton of Element Properties and national housing expert Roger Lewis: a program of housing pilots “Innovate for Impact” , a version of which was proposed for RMX-1 submitted for the BVCP Mid Term Update in 2020 developed further by Danica Powell (and afterwards given clarification by Dave Ensign of the Planning Board): and more generally described here: We have developed a draft special ordinance and other documents to implement such a program that involves broad community engagement including a “Pitch Night” for the design phase, tours and online comment during construction and at project completion and also involving an independent evaluator. This was designed to be staff-light modeled on the Boulder Energy Challenges of 2014 and 2017. As we did at Back Porch, start outside the density issue, which evokes a futile struggle unlikely to arrive at any meaningful amounts of “affordable” housing as have all our previous reforms, perhaps intentionally, have done (how many new ADU’s to date, how many COOP units, how many units at Alpine Balsam are built? How many “community benefit” units?). Instead start with ways to re-regulate the market to provide what is needed NOT only luxury housing that is not needed. We need housing for our workers, for creatives and social entrepreneurs of all ages, for our CU grads, for African American families denied GI benefits in WW 2 (and the Korean War?), for Native Americans who we cruelly and illegally displaced. Please start with an evaluation of the current racist, probably illegal zoning system which could never now be approved. It only creates ever fewer affordable units as once affordable homes are sold and redeveloped as Betsey Martens and BHP noted. As they predicted, there is now NO market housing existing or being developed for anyone that needs it. A recent conversation with a realtor involved in new condo and townhouse projects in Boulder confirmed that many (eg Whittier Corner and 27 Pine) are second homes purchased by older Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing family members who gather there part-time with other younger family members. I don’t see many lights on at night at 27 Pine and at many homes in Newlands. Check with Boulder Water for how many single family homes have no water bills. Let’s make a City for People not capital. It could be started with one special ordinance at the next City Council meeting. In community, David Adamson 815 North St. Boulder, CO 80304 (303) 545-6255 www.goosecreekclt.org Attachment D - Public Comments Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing ORDINANCE 8599 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 9, “LAND USE CODE,” B.R.C. 1981 RELATED TO THE SITE REVIEW PROCESS AND INTENSITY, FORM AND BULK, USE, PARKING, AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS, CONCERNING AFFORDABLE AND MODEST SIZED HOUSING; AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: . . . TABLE 2-2: SITE REVIEW THRESHOLD TABLE Zoning District Abbreviation Use Form Intensity Minimum Size for Site Review Concept Plan and Site Review Required (a) A A a 1 2 acres - BC-1 B3 f 15 19 1 acre 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BC-2 B3 f 19 1 acre 2 acres or 25,000 square feet of floor area or any site in BVRC 1 BCS B4 m 28 1 acre 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BMS B2 o 17 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BR-1 B5 f 23 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BR-2 B5 f 16 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area BT-1 B1 f 15 1 acre 2 acres or 30,000 square feet of floor area 1 This is a code clean up. Projects in the Bouler Valley Regional Center (BVRC) no longer automatically require Site Review since the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority (BURA) no longer exists. BURA review was why these zones previously required Site Review no matter the size. The Site Review threshold related to lot size and number of units will continue to apply. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing BT-2 B1 e 21 0 2 acres or 30,000 square feet of floor area DT-1 D3 p 25 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area DT-2 D3 p 26 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area DT-3 D3 p 27 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area DT-4 D1 q 27 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area DT-5 D2 p 27 0 1 acre or 50,000 square feet of floor area IG I2 f 22 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area IM I3 f 20 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area IMS I4 r 18 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area IS-1 I1 f 11 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area IS-2 I1 f 10 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area MH MH s - 5 or more units are permitted on the property - MU-1 M2 i 18 0 1 acre or 20 dwelling units MU-2 M3 r 18 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area MU-3 M1 n 24 5 or more units are permitted on the property 1 acre or 20 dwelling units or 20,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area MU-4 M4 o 24.5 0 3 acres or 50,000 square feet of floor area P P c 5 2 acres 5 acres or 100,000 square feet of floor area Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing RE R1 b 3 5 or more units are permitted on the property - RH-1 R6 j 12 0 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-2 R6 c 12.5 0 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-3 R7 l 14 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-4 R6 h 15 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-5 R6 c 19 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-6 R8 j 17.5 5 or more units are permitted on the property 3 acres or 20 dwelling units RH-7 R7 i 14.5 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RL-1 R1 d 4 5 or more units are permitted on the property 3 acres or 18 dwelling units RL-2 R2 g 6 5 or more units are permitted on the property 3 acres or 18 dwelling units RM-1 R3 g 9 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RM-2 R2 d 13 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RM-3 R3 j 13 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RMX-1 R4 d 7 5 or more units are permitted on the property 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RMX-2 R5 k 8 0 2 acres or 20 dwelling units RR-1 R1 a 2 5 or more units are permitted on the property - RR-2 R1 b 2 5 or more units are permitted on the property - Footnote to Table 2-2, Site Review Threshold Table: Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (a)See Section 9-2-14(b)(3), B.R.C. 1981, for development projects that are exempt from the Concept Plan and Site Review Required threshold.2 . . . (3)Exceptions: The following developments that exceed the minimum site review thresholds set forth in this section shall not be required to complete a site review: (A)Minor modifications and amendments under this section to approved development review applications; (B)Building permits for additions to existing structures that do not exceed a cumulative total, over the life of the building, of twenty-five percent of the size of the building on which the addition is proposed and that do not alter the basic intent of an approved development; (C)Subdivisions solely for the purpose of amalgamating lots or parcels of land; (D)Subdivisions solely for the purpose of conveying property to the City; (E)Residential projects where no modifications to development standards are requested and all dwelling units are townhouses or located in buildings with no more than four dwelling units;3 (EF) City of Boulder public projects that are otherwise required to complete a public review process; and (FG) Projects located in areas defined by Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," that are required to complete form-based code review pursuant to Section 9-2-16, "Form-Based Code Review," B.R.C 1981. . . . (d)Application Requirements: An application for approval of a site plan may be filed by any person having a demonstrable property interest in land to be included in a site review on a form provided by the city manager that includes, without limitation: (1)All materials and information required by Subsection 9-2-6(a), B.R.C. 1981; … (21)A transportation demand management (TDM) plan. which outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by the proposed development and measures that the development will implement to promote alternate modes of travel, in accordance with Section 9-2-14(h)(2)(A), B.R.C. 1981, and Section 2.03(I) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. 4 … 2 This new footnote alerts users to the exceptions to Site Review process. Aside from the new exception related to middle housing, no other exceptions are proposed. 3 This new section exempts projects from Site Review if they are 100% middle housing and require no modifications. 4 These existing and new requirements for TDMs are not removed from the code. Rather, they have just moved to the new TDM definition at the end of this ordinance within Chapter 9-16, “Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (g)Review and Recommendation: The city manager will review and decide an application for a site review in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-2-6, "Development Review Application," B.R.C. 1981, except for an application involving the following, which the city manager will refer with a recommendation to the planning board for its action: (1)A reduction in off-street parking of more than fifty percent subject to compliance with the standards of Subsection 9-9-6(f), B.R.C. 1981. (2)A reduction of the open space or lot area requirements allowed by Subparagraph (h)(6) of this section. (3)An application for any principal or accessory building above the permitted height for principal buildings set forth in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (4)An increase in density in the RH-1, RH-2 and RH-3 districts consistent with Section 9- 8-3, "Density in the RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and RH-7 Districts," B.R.C. 1981. 5 (h)Criteria: No site review application shall be approved unless the approving agency finds that the project is consistent with the following criteria: . . . (6)Land Use Intensity and Height Modifications: Modifications to minimum open space on lots, floor area ratio (FAR), maximum height, and number of dwelling units per acre requirements will be approved pursuant to the standards of this subparagraph: . . . (B)Land Use Intensity and Density 6Modifications with Height Bonus: In the BMS, BR-1, IMS, IS, MU-1, and MU-2 zoning districts if associated with a request for a height bonus, the density and floor area of a building may be increased above the maximum allowed in Chapter 9-8, "Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, as follows, provided the building meets the requirements for a height bonus under Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981: (i)In the BMS zoning district outside a general improvement district providing off-street parking, and in the IMS, IS, MU-1, and MU-2 zoning districts, the base floor area ratio (FAR) in Table 8-2, Section 9-8-2, "Floor Area Ratio Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by up to 0.5 FAR. (ii)In the BR-1 zoning district, the allowed number of dwelling units per acre in Table 8-1, Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be increased by up to fifty percent and the 7maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR) may be increased up to a 3.0 FAR. 5 This change removes the automatic Planning Board review in certain RH zones. RH-7 will retain the same requirement to get Site Review approval for an open space reduction as previously allowed, but will be subject to Planning Board call up instead of an automatic public hearing. 6 Density can be removed since the density requirement in the zones below are proposed to be removed. 7 With the density requirement being removed for the BR-1 district, this modification is no longer needed. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (7) Additional Criteria for Parking Reductions8: The applicant demonstrates and the approving authority finds, that any reduced parking on the site, if applicable, meets The off-street parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be modified the parking reduction criteria outlined in Section 9-9-6, “Parking Standards,” B.R.C. 1981.as follows: (A) Process: The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed fifty percent of the required parking. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. (B) Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, the approving agency may approve proposed modifications to the parking requirements of Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981 (see Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if it finds that: (i) For residential uses, the probable number of motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwellings in the project will be adequately accommodated; (ii) The parking needs of any nonresidential uses will be adequately accommodated through on-street parking or off-street parking; (iii)A mix of residential with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; (iv) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; and (v) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change. (8) Additional Criteria for Off-Site Parking: The parking required under Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be located on a separate lot if the following conditions are met: (A) The lots are held in common ownership; (B) The separate lot is in the same zoning district and located within three hundred feet of the lot that it serves; and (C) The property used for off-site parking under this subparagraph continues under common ownership or control. . . . (l) Minor Amendments to Approved Site Plans: . . . 8 The parking reduction criteria in Site Review are nearly identical to the those in Section 9-9-6. For simplicity and to remove redundancy, the criteria are updated to refer to Section 9-9-6 and all criteria are updated to be consistent and better organized for clarity. Off Site Parking is proposed for removal since the requirements are already covered through a parking reduction application. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (2) Amendments to the Site Review Approval Process: Applications for minor amendment shall be approved according to the procedures prescribed by this section for site review approval, except: (A) If an applicant requests approval of a minor amendment to an approved site review, the city manager will determine which properties within the development would be affected by the proposed change. The manager will provide notice pursuant to Subsection 9-4-3(b), B.R.C. 1981, of the proposed change to all property owners so determined to be affected, and to all property owners within a radius of 600 feet of the subject property. (B) Only the owners of the subject property shall be required to sign the application. (C) The minor amendment shall be found to comply with the review criteria of Subparagraphs (h)(2), and (h)(3), and (h)(4) 9of this section. (D) The minor amendment shall be substantially consistent with the intent of the original approval, including conditions of approval, the intended design character, and site arrangement of the development, and specific limitations on additions or total size of the building which were required to keep the building in general proportion to others in the surrounding area or minimize visual impacts. (E) The city manager may amend, waive, or create a development agreement. Section 2. Section 9-5-2, “Zoning Districts” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Classification: Zoning districts are classified according to the following classifications based on the predominant character of development and current or intended use in an area of the community: . . . (b) Zoning Districts: Under the classifications defined in Subsection (a) of this section, the particular zoning districts established for the city are as in table 5-1 of this section: TABLE 5-1: ZONING DISTRICTS Classification Zoning District (Abbreviation) Use Module Form Module Intensity Module Former Zoning District Abbreviation Residential Residential - Rural 1 (RR-1) R1 a 2 RR-E Residential - Rural 2 (RR-2) R1 b 2 RR1-E Residential - Estate (RE) R1 b 3 ER-E 9 This is a code clean up. When the proposed “Public Realm” section was shifted into the building design section during the final ordinance, this section was not updated. This change corrects the code references to be consistent with the rest of the criteria. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Residential - Low 1 (RL-1) R1 d 4 LR-E Residential - Low 2 (RL-2) R2 g 6 LR-D Residential - Medium 1 (RM-1) R3 g 9 MR-D Residential - Medium 2 (RM-2) R2 d 13 MR-E Residential - Medium 3 (RM-3) R3 j 13 MR-X Residential - Mixed 1 (RMX-1) R4 d 7 MXR-E Residential - Mixed 2 (RMX-2) R5 k 8 MXR-D Residential - High 1 (RH-1) R6 j 12 HR-X Residential - High 2 (RH-2) R6 c 12.5 HZ-E Residential - High 3 (RH-3) R7 l 14 HR1-X Residential - High 4 (RH-4) R6 h 15 HR-D Residential - High 5 (RH-5) R6 c 19 HR-E Residential - High 6 (RH-6) R8 j 17.5 - Residential - High 7 (RH-7) R7 l 14.5 - Mobile Home (MH) MH s - MH-E Mixed Use Mixed Use 1 (MU-1) M2 i 18 MU-D Mixed Use 2 (MU-2) M3 r 18 RMS-X Mixed Use 3 (MU-3) M1 n 24 MU-X Mixed Use 4 (MU-4) M4 o 24.5 - Business Business - Transitional 1 (BT-1) B1 f 15 TB-D Business - Transitional 2 (BT-2) B1 e 21 TB-E Business - Main Street (BMS) B2 o 17 BMS-X Business - Community 1 (BC-1) B3 f 15 19 CB-D Business - Community 2 (BC-2) B3 f 19 CB-E Business - Commercial Services (BCS) B4 m 28 CS-E Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Business - Regional 1 (BR-1) B5 f 23 RB-E Business - Regional 2 (BR-2) B5 f 16 RB-D Downtown Downtown 1 (DT-1) D3 p 25 RB3-X/E Downtown 2 (DT-2) D3 p 26 RB2-X Downtown 3 (DT-3) D3 p 27 RB2-E Downtown 4 (DT-4) D1 q 27 RB1-E Downtown 5 (DT-5) D2 p 27 RB1-X Industrial Industrial - Service 1 (IS-1) I1 f 11 IS-E Industrial - Service 2 (IS-2) I1 f 10 IS-D Industrial - General (IG) I2 f 22 IG-E/D Industrial - Manufacturing (IM) I3 f 20 IM-E/D Industrial - Mixed Services (IMS) I4 r 18 IMS-X Public Public (P) P c 5 P-E Agricultural Agricultural (A) A a 1 A-E Flex District Flex (F) TBD TBD TBD n/a (c) Zoning District Purposes: (1) Residential Districts and Complementary Uses: (A) Residential - Rural 1, Residential - Rural 2, Residential - Estate, and Residential - Low 1: Single-family detached residential dwelling units at low to very low residential densities. Primarily single-family detached dwelling units with some duplexes and attached dwelling units at low to very low residential densities.10 (B) Residential - Low 2, and Residential - Medium 2: Medium density residential areas primarily used for small-lot residential development, including without limitation, duplexes, triplexes, or townhouses, where each unit generally has direct access at ground level. (C) Residential - Medium 1, and Residential - Medium 3: Medium density residential areas which have been or are to be primarily used for attached residential development, where each unit generally has direct access to ground level, and where complementary uses may be permitted under certain conditions. . . . 10 This acknowledges that there would be limited scenarios where there might be duplexes and triplexes in low density zones. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Section 3. 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. (a) Explanation of Table Abbreviations: The abbreviations and symbols used in Table 6-1 of this section have the following meanings: (1) Allowed Uses: An "A" in a cell indicates that the use type is permitted by right in that zoning district, subject to compliance with any applicable specific use standards set forth in this chapter. (2) Conditional Uses: A "C" in a cell indicates that the use type will be reviewed in accordance with the procedures established in Section 9-2-2, "Administrative Review Procedures," B.R.C. 1981. Conditional use applications shall also meet any applicable specific use standards set forth in this chapter. (3) Use Review Uses: A "U" in a cell indicates that the use type will be reviewed in accordance with the procedures established in Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981. Use review applications shall also meet any applicable specific use standards set forth in this chapter. (4) Prohibited Uses: A hyphen ("-") in a cell indicates that the use type is prohibited in that zoning district. (5) Specific Use Standards: Cells containing bracket symbols ("[ ]") indicate that there are specific use standards associated with the use type in that district that must be complied with. Regardless of whether or not a use is allowed by right, conditional use, or use review, specific use standards may apply. The standards may require a different review process or impose certain limitations. The applicable specific use standards are identified and cross-referenced in the right-most column of Table 6-1. Several specific use standards may apply to a use type. If there is any inconsistency between the bracket designation in Table 6-1 and the specific use standards in Chapter 9-6, the specific use standards shall control. (b) Additional Standards: (1) Uses are also subject to all other applicable requirements of this title. (2) Additional Use Standards in Form-Based Code Areas or Overlay Districts: (A) Uses in Form-Based Code Areas: Uses located on a lot or parcel designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," are subject to the requirements of this chapter, but may also be subject to additional use standards pursuant to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." (B) Uses in Overlay Districts: Uses located on a lot or parcel located within an overlay district designated in Chapter 9-3, "Overlay Districts," B.R.C. 1981, are subject to the requirements of this chapter, but may also be subject to additional use standards pursuant to the overlay district standards described in that chapter. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (c) Structure of the Use Classification System: Land uses are organized according to a three- tiered hierarchy consisting of use classifications, use categories, and use types. This classification system is intended to provide a structure that groups similar uses together for ease in locating or identifying a use and to simplify the classification of new uses. (1) Use Classifications: Each use is grouped under one of these seven broad use classifications: Residential Uses; Public, Institutional, and Community Uses; Commercial Uses; Industrial Uses; Agricultural and Natural Resource Uses. (2) Use Categories: Use categories are subgroups of uses in each classification that have common functional or physical characteristics, such as the type and amount of activity, types of goods, services, occupants or users/customers, or operational characteristics. (3) Use Types: Use types are the specific land uses that can be established in a zoning district, such as duplex, restaurant, or building material sales. (d) Interpretation: The city manager may decide questions of interpretation as to which use type that a use not specifically listed in Table 6-1 is properly assigned to, based on precedents, similar situations, and relative impacts. Upon written application, a city manager interpretation as to which use type a use not specifically listed is properly assigned to may be appealed to the BOZA pursuant to Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981. Any use not specifically listed in Table 6-1 of this section is not allowed unless it is determined to be included in a use type as provided by this section. (e) Multiple Uses of Land Permitted and Accessory Uses: Allowed uses, conditional uses, and uses permitted by use review may be located in the same building or upon the same lot. Any use may be allowed as an accessory use if it meets the definition of an accessory use. 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 Specif ic Use Stand ards Use Module R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 M H M1 M2 M3 M4 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 D1 D2 D3 I1 I2 I3 I4 P A RESIDENTIAL USES Household Living Duplex - A11 A A A [A ] A A - - [C] A A A [A] - [A] - [A] A A A - [U] [U] [A] U - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (c) 9-6- 2(c) Dwelling unit, attached - [A] 12 A A A [A ] A A [A ] - [C] A A A [A] [A] [A] - [A] A A A - [U] [U] [A] U - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (d) 9-6- 2(c) 11 Allows duplexes in the zone as a housing type. The ability to do a duplex would be dependent on whether the Intensity Standards of Chapter 9- 8 are met. 12 The brackets indicate that it is an allowed use, but in looking at the use standards, the language clarifies that only up to a triplex (3-units) are permitted if the intensity standards are otherwise met. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Dwelling unit, detached [A] [A] A A [A ] [A] [A ] - - [C] [A] [A] [A] [A] - [A] - [A] A A A - [U] [U] - [U] [U] 9-6- 3(a), (b), (e) 9-6- 2(c) Efficiency living unit - - - - [U ]A [A] A A - - [A] A A [A] A [A] A [A] [A] - [A] [A] A [A] A [A] A - [U] [U] [A] U - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (f) 9-6- 2(c) Live-work unit - - - - - [A] [A ] - - [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] - - - - - U [U] [U] A - - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (g) Mobile home park - U U - U U - - A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Townhous e - A A A [A ] A A A - [C] A A A [A] - [A] - [A] A A A - [U] [U] [A] U - 9-6- 3(a), (b), (h) 9-6- 2(c) Group Living Boarding house - - U U A A A - - U A A [A] [A] [A] [A] - [A] - - A - [U] [U] - - - 9-6- 3(i) 9-6- 2(c) Congregat e care facility - - [C ] [C ] [C ] [C] [C ] [C ] - [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] - [C] [C] [C] [C] - [U] [U] - [U] - 9-6- 3(j) Custodial care facility - - [U ] [U ] [U ] [U] [U ] [U ] - [U] [U] [U] - [U] - [U] - [U] - [U] [U] - [U] [U] - - - 9-6- 3(j) Fraternity, sorority, and dormitory - - - - - A A - - U - - - [A] [A] [A] - [A] - - A - [U] [U] - - - 9-6- 3(k) 9-6- 2(c) Group home facility [C] [C] [C ] [C ] [C ] [C] [C ] [C ] - [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] - [C] [C] [C] [C] - - - - - - 9-6- 3(l) Residentia l care facility - - [C ] [C ] [C ] [C] [C ] [C ] - [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] - [C] [C] [C] [C] - [U] [U] - - - 9-6- 3(j) Transition al housing [C] [C] [C ] [C ] [C ] [C] [C ] [C ] - [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] [C] - [C] [C] [C] [C] - 9-6- 3(m) Residential Accessory Accessory dwelling unit [C] [C] - [C ] [C ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [C] [C] 9-6- 3(n) Caretaker dwelling unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A A A A A A Home occupatio n [A] [A] [A ] [A ] [A ] [A] [A ] [A ] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] - [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] [A] 9-6- 3(o) Section 4. Section 9-6-3, “Specific Use Standards – Residential Uses” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Residential Uses: (1) This Subsection (a) sets forth standards for uses in the residential use classification that Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing are subject to specific use standards pursuant to Table 6-1, Use Table. (2) Residential Uses in the IG and IM Zoning Districts: The following standards apply in the IG and IM zoning districts to residential uses that may be approved pursuant to a use review: (A) Location: Dwelling units may be constructed only on a lot or parcel that meets one or more of the following requirements (i), (ii), or (iii). If a lot or parcel meets this location standard, the approving authority shall presume that the standard in Paragraph 9-2-15(e)(5), B.R.C. 1981, has been met. (i) The residential use is consistent with the land use plan or map in an adopted subcommunity or area plan; or (ii) The lot or parcel is located within one-quarter mile of the Boulder Junction transit station. Distance shall be measured by the city manager on official maps as the radius from the closest point on the perimeter of the applicant's lot or parcel to the closest point on the transit station lot; or (iii) At least one-sixth of the perimeter of the lot or parcel is contiguous with a residential use that includes one or more dwelling units, a residential zoning district, or a city- or county-owned park or open space. Contiguity shall not be affected by the existence of a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way, or a public or private transportation right-of-way or area. (B) Floor Area Ratios (FAR): The floor area regulations for the underlying zoning district classification shall only apply to the nonresidential floor area on the site. Residential floor area is limited to a 1.0 FAR on a lot or parcel and non-residential floor area is limited to a 0.5 FAR in the IG zone and 0.4 FAR in the IM zone.13 . . . (d) Dwelling Unit, Attached: (1) In the RH-6 Zoning District: (A) In the RH-6 zoning district, attached dwelling units shall be located in a development that includes townhouse dwelling units. Attached dwelling units may only be located on a corner that has street frontage on two sides. (2) In the BT-1, BT-2, IS-1, and IS-2 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the BT-1, BT-2, IS-1, and IS-2 zoning districts, attached dwelling units are allowed by right if the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. 13 Applies a 1.5 FAR like the similar intensity standards of RH-5 and BC-2, but specifies that the non-residential uses are still subject to the existing 0.5 FAR limit in the IG zone and 0.4 FAR limit in the IM zone for non-residential uses. Residential is permitted up to a max of 1.0 FAR. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (3) In the BMS Zoning District: (A) Review Process Outside UHGID: Attached dwelling units located in the BMS zoning district and outside the University Hill general improvement district are allowed by right if the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (B) Review Process Within UHGID: Attached dwelling units located in the BMS zoning district and within the University Hill general improvement district are subject to the following review process: (i) Conditional Use: Attached dwelling units may be approved as a conditional use if the units meet the following standards: a. The units are all permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981; and b. With the exception of minimum necessary ground level access, the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street. (ii) Use Review: Attached dwelling units that may not be approved as a conditional use may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (4) In the BR-1 and BR-2 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the BR-1 and BR-2 zoning districts, the following review process applies to attached dwelling units: (i) Allowed Use: Attached dwelling units are allowed by right if the use meets the following standards: a. All units on the lot or parcel are permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981; or b. The use is not located on the ground floor along a major street, as defined by Appendix A, "Major Streets," B.R.C. 1981, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. The limitation on ground floor use along a major street applies to a depth of 30 feet measured from the building's major street facing façade. (ii) Use Review: Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (5) In the IMS Zoning District: (A) Review Process: In the IMS zoning district, attached dwelling units are allowed by right if at least fifty percent of the floor area of the building is for nonresidential use. Attached dwelling units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (6) In the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 Zoning Districts: (A) In the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 zoning districts, attached dwelling units are allowed by right provided that no lot exceeds three dwelling units and are otherwise prohibited.14 . . . (f) Efficiency Living Unit: (1) In the RMX-2 Zoning District: (A) In the RMX-2 zoning district, efficiency living units shall not exceed 40 percent of total units in a building. (2) In the RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, RH-5, MU-4, BT-1, BT-2, DT-4, DT-5, DT-1, DT-2, and DT-3 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the RH-1, RH-2, RH-4, RH-5, MU-4, BT-1, BT-2, DT-4, DT- 5, DT-1, DT-2, and DT-3 zoning districts, efficiency living units are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units. Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (3) In the MU-3 Zoning District: (A) Review Process: In the MU-3 zoning district, the following review process applies to efficiency living units: (i) Allowed Use: Efficiency living units are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units, at least fifty percent of the floor area of the building is for residential uses, and the total floor area of nonresidential uses in the building is less than 7,000 square feet. (ii) Use Review: Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. 15 (41) In the BMS Zoning District: (A) Review Process Outside UHGID: Efficiency living units located in the BMS zoning district and outside the University Hill general improvement district are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units and the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. 14 This corresponds to the [A] in the table referenced in footnote 12. 15 All of these changes relate to allowing ELUs without a use review as previously required. ELUs if part of a Site Review would still be subject to housing diversity criteria. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (B) Review Process Within UHGID: The following review process applies to efficiency living units located in the BMS zoning district and within the University Hill general improvement district: (i) Conditional Use: Efficiency living units may be approved as a conditional use if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units, the units are permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981, and the use is not located on the ground floor facing a street. (ii) Use Review: Efficiency living units that may not be approved as a conditional use may be approved only pursuant to a use review. In addition to meeting the use review criteria, the units must be permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981. (5) In the BC-1 and BC-2 Zoning Districts: (A) Review Process: In the BC-1 and BC-2 zoning districts, efficiency living units are allowed by right if less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units. Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. (62) In the BR-1 and BR-2 Zoning District: (A) Review Process: In the BR-1 and BR-2 zoning districts, the following review process applies to efficiency living units: (i) Allowed Use: Efficiency living units are allowed by right if the use meets the following standards: a. Less than 40 percent of total units in the building are efficiency living units and: 1.a All units on the lot or parcel are permanently affordable units meeting the requirements in Chapter 9-13, "Inclusionary Housing," B.R.C. 1981; or 2b. The use is not located on the ground floor along a major street, as defined by Appendix A, "Major Streets," B.R.C. 1981, with the exception of minimum necessary ground level access. The limitation on ground floor use along a major street applies to a depth of 30 feet measured from the building's major street facing façade. (ii) Use Review: Efficiency living units that are not allowed by right may be approved only pursuant to a use review. . . . Section 5. Section 9-7-1, “Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards” B.R.C. 1981, is Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing amended to read as follows: The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the requirements for lot dimensions and building form, bulk, location and height for all types of development. All primary and accessory structures are subject to the dimensional standards set forth in Table 7-1 of this section with the exception of structures located in an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." No person shall use any land within the City authorized by Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except according to the following form and bulk requirements unless modified through a use review under Section 9- 2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or granted a variance under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or as approved under the provisions of Section 9-2-16, "Form-based code review," B.R.C. 1981. TABLE 7-1: FORM AND BULK STANDARDS Zoning District A RR- 1 RR- 2 RE RH- 2 RH- 5 P RL-1 RM-2 RMX- 1 BT- 2 BT- 1 BC BR IS- 1 IS- 2 IG IM RL-2 RM-1 RH-4 MU-1 RM-3 RH-1 RH-6 RMX-2 RH-3 RH-7 BCS MU- 3 BMS MU-4 DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-5 DT-4 MU-2 IMS MH Form module a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s SETBACK AND SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS(n) Principal Buildings and Uses(n) Minimum front yard landscaped setback (e), (h) 25' (k) 20' 15' 10' 0' (k) See section 9-7-13 Minimum front yard setback for all covered and uncovered parking areas 25' (k) 20' 20' 20' 10' 20' (k) See section 9-7-13 Maximum front yard landscaped setback for corner lots and side yards adjacent a street n/a n/a n/a 10' n/a n/a 10' 15' (k) n/a 10' n/a Maximum front yard landscaped setback for an interior lot n/a n/a n/a 15' n/a n/a 15' 15' n/a 15' n/a Minimum side yard landscaped setback from a street (a) 25' 12.5' (k) 15' 10' 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 0' or 5' (b) 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 0' (attached DUs); 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 5' min. 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 10' 0' for first and second stories 12' for third story and above 0' (k) 0' 0' n/a Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (detached DUs) (i) Minimum side yard setback from an interior lot line (b) 15' 10' 5' 10' 0' or 12' 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 5' min. (i) 0' or 5' 0' or 3' 0' (attached DUs); 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 5' min. (detached DUs) (i) 1' per 3' of bldg. height, 5' min. (i) 0' or 12' 0' or 5' 0' or 5' 0' or 12' 0' or 12' 0' or 5' See section 9-7-13 Minimum total for both side yard setbacks 40' 25' 20' 15' 20' n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Minimum rear yard setback (f) 25' 25' 20' 10' 15' 20' 15' 20' 15' 0' 15' 15' 10' See section 9-7-13 Minimum side yard bulk plane See Section 9-7-9 n/a Minimum front yard setback from a street for all principal buildings and uses for third story and above n/a n/a n/a n/a 20' 15' (m) 15' 20' 20' Accessory Buildings and Uses(n) Minimum front yard setback uses (e) 55' 55' Behind rear wall of principal structure 55' Behind rear wall of principal structure Behind rear wall of principal structure 55' 55' Behind rear wall of principal structure 55' 55' Behind rear wall of principal structure See Section 9-7-13 Minimum side yard landscaped setback from a street (a) 25' 12.5' (k) 15' 10' 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 0' or 5'(b) 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 0' (attached DUs); 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 5' min. (detached DUs) (i) 1' per 2' of bldg. height, 10' min. (i) 10' 0' 0' (k) 0' 0' n/a Minimum side yard setback from an interior lot line 15' 10' 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See Section 9-7-13 Minimum rear yard setback (f) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) 0' or 3' (b) See Section 9-7-13 Minimum separation between accessory buildings and any other building 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' 6' BUILDING SIZE AND COVERAGE LIMITATION (Accessory and Principal Buildings)(n) Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Maximum floor area of any principal building permitted by Chapter 9-8 See Section 9-8-2 (FAR Requirements) 15,000 sq. ft. See Section 9-8-2 (FAR Requirements) 15,000 sq. ft. See Section 9- 8-2 (FAR Requirements) 15,000 sq. ft. n/a Maximum accessory building coverage within principal building rear yard setback (9- 7-8) 500 sq. ft. n/a 500 sq. ft. n/a 500 sq. ft. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Maximum cumulative coverage of all accessory buildings regardless of location (m) For residential uses - no greater than coverage of the principal building Maximum total building coverage See Section 9-7-11 n/a See Section 9-7-11 n/a See Section 9-7-11 n/a PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY BUILDING HEIGHT(n) Maximum height for principal buildings and uses (c), (d), (l) 35' 35'; 40' (in I- zones) 35' 35' 40' 35' 38' 38' 35' 35' Conditional height for principal buildings and uses See Section 9-7-6 for conditional height standards Maximum number of stories for a building 3 3 n/a n/a 2 3 3 2 3 2 (3 on DT-5 corner lots) 2 3 Maximum wall height for detached dwelling units at zero lot line setback (9- 7-2(b)(3)) 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' n/a Maximum height for all accessory buildings, structures and uses (g) 20' (30' in agricultural zone) 20' (25' in industrial zones) 20' 20' 20' 20' FENCES, HEDGES and WALLS (for additional standards see Section 9-9-15 Maximum height of fences, 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' 7' Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing hedges, or walls Minimum height of fence on top of retaining wall 42" 42" 42" 42" 42" 42" Maximum combined height of fence/ retaining wall in side yard within 3' of lot line with neighbor approval 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' 12' BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS(n) Minimum ground floor window area facing a public street (9-9- 3) n/a n/a n/a n/a 60% 60% n/a n/a Primary building entrance location facing street n/a n/a yes yes yes yes n/a yes yes yes n/a Minimum percent of lot frontage that must contain a building or buildings n/a n/a n/a n/a 70% 70% 50% n/a Maximum % of 3rd story floor area that can be in a 4th story n/a n/a n/a 70% (j) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Wall length articulation standards for side walls over 14' in height within 20' of side property line See Section 9-7-10 n/a See Section 9-7-10 n/a See Section 9-7-10 n/a Footnotes to Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards: In addition to the foregoing, the following miscellaneous form and bulk requirements apply to all development in the city: (a) On corner lots, use principal building front yard setback where adjacent lot fronts upon the street. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (b) For zero lot line development, including side yard setbacks from interior lot lines for townhouses, see Subsection 9-7-2(b), B.R.C. 1981. (c) The permitted height limit may be modified only in certain areas and only under the standards and procedures provided in Sections 9-2-14, "Site Review," and 9-7-6, "Building Height, Conditional," B.R.C. 1981. (d) For buildings over 25 feet in height, see Subsection 9-9-11(c), B.R.C. 1981. (e) For other setback standards regarding garages, open parking areas, and flagpoles, see Paragraph 9-7-2(b)(8), B.R.C. 1981. (f) Where a rear yard backs on a street, see Paragraph 9-7-2(b)(7), B.R.C. 1981. (g) This maximum height limit applies to poles that are light poles at government-owned recreation facilities but not to other poles. Other poles have a maximum height of 55 feet in all zones. For additional criteria regarding poles, see Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (h) For front yard setback reductions, see Subsection 9-7-2(a), B.R.C. 1981. (i) For side yard setback requirements based on building height, see Appendix B, "Setback Relative to Building Height," of this title. (j) The maximum percentage of the third floor area that can be in a fourth story standard may not be modified as part of a site review. (k) For properties located in the DT-5 and P zoning districts and shown in Appendix I, the minimum setback shall be as required by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, Table 7-1, Form and Bulk Standards or sixty-five feet measured from the centerline of Canyon Boulevard right-of-way. (l) For buildings on nonstandard lots within the RMX-1, RL-1, RE, RR-1, and RR-2 zoning districts, refer to Table 10-1, Maximum Height Formulas, within Section 9-10-3, "Changes to Nonstandard Buildings, Structures and Lots and Nonconforming Uses." (m) For setback requirements on corner lots in the DT-5 zoning district, refer to Subsection 9-7- 6(c), B.R.C 1981. (n) For principal and accessory buildings or structures located on a lot or parcel designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," refer to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," for design standards applicable to such lot or parcel. With the exception of Charter Section 84, "Height limit," and Sections 9-7-3, "Setback Encroachments," and 9-7-5, "Building Heights," 9-7-7, "Building Height, Appurtenances," B.R.C. 1981, the form and bulk standards of this chapter are superseded by the requirements of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code." Building heights in areas designated in Appendix L are not subject to the height limits of Table 9-7, Form and Bulk Standards. Section 6. Section 9-7-2, “Setback Standards” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing follows: (a) Front Yard Setback Reductions: The front yard setback required in Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced for a principal structure on any lot if more than fifty percent of the principal buildings on the same block face or street face do not meet the required front yard setback. The setback for the adjacent buildings and other buildings on the block face shall be measured from the property line to the bulk of the building, excluding, without limitation, any unenclosed porches, decks, patios or steps. The bulk of the building setback shall not be less than the average bulk of the building setback for the principal buildings on the two adjacent lots. Where there is only one adjacent lot, the front yard setback reduction shall be based on the average of the principal building setbacks on the two closest lots on the same block face. (See Figure 7-1 of this section.) Figure 7-1: Setback Averaging Example ______________________________________________________________________________ In this example, lots "B" through "F" are the face block. Lot "A" is not included in the face block, as the front of this lot is on a different street. Setback averaging is measured to the bulk of the buildings and does not include porches. Assuming this block is zoned RL-1, the minimum required front yard setback would be twenty-five feet. The block face shown would qualify for setback averaging, as more than fifty percent of the principal buildings do not meet the required front yard setback. An addition to the front of lot "E" would require the averaging of the setbacks of lots "D" and "F", the two closest buildings on the same block face. In this example the resulting setback would be 20 feet - the average of lot "D" (fifteen feet) and lot "F" (twenty-five feet). An addition to the front of lot "F" would be based on the average of the two closest buildings on the same block face; in this case, lots "D" and "E." (b) Side Yard Setback Standards: (1) Setbacks for Upper Floors in Non-Residential Zoning Districts: A principal building constructed with a side yard setback of zero for the first story above grade in the BC-2, BR-1, DT-1, DT-2, DT-3, DT-4, DT-5, IS-1, IG or IM zoning districts, where the side yard setback is noted as "0 or 12," will be allowed to set back stories above the first Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing story that is at or above the finished grade the greater of five feet or the distance required by Chapter 10-5, "Building Code," B.R.C. 1981. (2) Maintenance Easements Required in Residential Zoning Districts: In residential zoning districts that allow a zero side yard or rear yard setback, the applicant shall be required to secure a recorded maintenance easement from the adjoining property owner if the zero setback side is not attached to another structure. The easement shall be effective for the life of the building. The easement shall not be less than three feet in width measured parallel to that portion of the building at zero setback. (3) Wall Height for Residential Zero Lot Line: The maximum wall height for detached dwelling units at the zero setback property line shall be twelve feet. Townhouses, consistent with Paragraph (7), below, are not subject to this restriction. (4) Calculating Residential Zero Lot Line Side Yard Setbacks: For detached dwelling units, the side yard setback opposite the zero setback property line shall be the sum of both side yards for the district. (5) Combined Side Yard Setbacks: When combined side yard setbacks are required by Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, the resulting structure, including the existing structure and any addition, must meet the combined side yard setback requirements. (See Figure 7-2 of this section for compliant and noncompliant examples.) Figure 7-2: Combined Side Yard Setbacks ______________________________________________________________________________ Example: In the RL-1 district, the combination of side yard setbacks must be no less than fifteen feet, with a minimum of five feet. Both existing structures and additions (hatched) are included in the calculation. (6) Existing Nonstandard Side Yard Setbacks for Existing Single-Family Detached Dwelling Units: A second story addition that does not comply with the minimum interior or combined side yard setbacks may be added to an existing single family detached dwelling unit subject to the following: Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (A) The interior side yard setback for the existing single family detached dwelling unit complied with the setback requirements in existence at the time of initial construction and was not created by a variance or other procedure; (B) The resulting interior side yard setback will not be less than five feet and combined side yard setbacks will not be less than ten feet; (C) That portion of the building in the side yard setback shall vertically align with the existing first story wall. (7) Townhouses: There is no minimum side yard setback from an interior lot line between one townhouse and an adjoining townhouse.16 (c) Rear Yard Setbacks: Where a rear yard backs on a street, the rear yard shall have a minimum landscaped setback equal to the minimum front yard landscaped setback from a street for all buildings and uses required for that zone. (d) Open Parking Areas, Flagpoles, and Detached Garages and Carports: Open parking areas, flagpoles, and detached garages and carports may be located in compliance with either the required principal building setbacks or accessory building setbacks. (e) Swimming Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs: Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs shall be located according to the applicable accessory structure setbacks on a lot except that pools, spas, or hot tubs may be located in compliance with the required front yard principal building setback. Section 7. Section 9-7-10, “Side Yard Wall Articulation” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Purpose: Buildings with tall side walls may impact privacy, views or visual access to the sky on neighboring properties. The purpose of the side yard wall articulation standard is to reduce the perceived mass of a building by dividing it into smaller components, or to step down the wall height in order to enhance privacy, preserve views and visual access to the sky for lots or parcels that are adjacent to new development. (b) Scope: All construction related to principal and accessory buildings shall comply with the side yard wall length articulation requirements of this section. This section applies to all construction related to buildings, including new construction, expansion or modification of existing buildings as follows: (1) All residential buildings in the RR-1, RR-2, RE and RL-1 zoning districts, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments and planned unit developments. (2) All buildings that are used as a detached single family land use in the RMX-1 zoning district, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments and planned unit developments. 16 This is done to encourage townhouses which are middle housing. The current code often requires Site Review for all townhouses where there is a subdivision because they require setback modifications to be at 0 feet at property line. This makes it easier to do such a project by right. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (3) In the RL-2 zoning district, the side yard wall articulation requirements shall apply to lots that are eight thousand square feet or larger, used for detached single family land use17 that are not within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development, planned unit development or an approved site review. (4) In the RL-2 zoning district, the requirements shall apply to all lots and parcels used for detached single family land use that are within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development and planned unit development that are shown on Appendix H of this title. (c) Side Yard Wall Standards: Along each side yard property line, the cumulative length of any walls that exceed a height of fourteen feet shall not exceed forty feet in length, unless they are set back at least fourteen feet from the side property line (see Figure 7-14). For the purposes of this section, wall height shall be measured from finished grade as follows: (1) Sloped roofs shall be measured from adjacent finished grade to the point where the vertical wall intersects with the sloped roof. (2) Flat roofs shall be measured from adjacent finished grade to the top of the parapet. (3) Window wells or door wells as described under Subparagraph 9-8-2(e)(1)(D) shall not be counted as part of the wall height. Figure 7-14: Side Yard Wall Length Articulation Examples ______________________________________________________________________________ After the maximum 40 feet cumulative wall length, the wall must either be set back from the side property line by a minimum of fourteen feet (top image) or the height of the wall must reduce to fourteen feet or less (bottom image). (d) Exemptions: (1) Individual Landmarks and Buildings Within Historic Districts. No wall shall be constructed or maintained in excess of the required wall articulation standards of this section except for any construction approved pursuant to Section 9-11-12, "Landmark 17 This change is found throughout the form and bulk and intensity standards related to single-family homes. If duplexes and triplexes are allowed in low density areas, this change will ensure that all the same requirements apply to those housing types as well. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Alteration Certificate Required," B.R.C. 1981, for an individual landmark or for a property within a historic district. (2) Lots with an average width less than forty-five linear feet. Width measurements would be taken at the front yard setback, midpoint of the lot and rear yard setback to determine the average lot width. (3) Lots that have less than four thousand square feet. (4) The side yard wall articulation standards shall not apply to an interior side yard of a lot that is adjacent to a lot that includes either only a nonresidential principal land use. or a lot that includes two or more dwelling units within twenty feet of the property line for the length of the nonresidential building or the principal building of such dwelling units. 18 Section 8. Section 9-7-1, “Maximum Building Coverage” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Purpose: The purposes of the building coverage standards are to establish the maximum percentage of lot surface that may be covered by principal and accessory buildings to preserve open space on the lot, and to preserve some views and visual access to the sky and enhance privacy for residences that are adjacent to new development. (b) Scope: All construction related to principal and accessory buildings shall comply with the building coverage requirements of this section. This section applies to all construction related to residential buildings, including new construction, building additions or modification of existing buildings as follows: (1) All residential and principal and accessory buildings in the RR-1, RR-2, RE and RL-1 zoning districts, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments and planned unit developments. (2) All principal and accessory buildings that are used as a detached single family land use in the RMX-1 zoning district, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments and planned unit developments. (3) In the RL-2 zoning district, the building coverage requirements shall apply to lots that are eight thousand square feet or larger, used for detached single family land uses that are not within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development, planned unit development or an approved site review. (4) In the RL-2 zoning district, the requirements shall apply to all lots and parcels used for detached single family land use that are within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development and planned unit development that are shown on Appendix H of this title. (c) Maximum Building Coverage: All principal and accessory buildings shall be constructed in a manner that does not exceed the maximum building coverage in Table 7-2 below. For 18 This change clarifies that the form and bulk standards would still apply to residential uses adjacent to one another but need not apply if the adjacent use is nonresidential. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing projects subject to site review in Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, the building coverage calculation shall be based upon each dwelling unit that is proposed for the property. TABLE 7-2: MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Lot Size: < 5,000 SF 5,000 to 10,000 SF 10,001 to 22,500 SF > 22,500 SF RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, RL-2 and RMX-1 Lot Size x 0.41 (Lot Size x 0.2) + 1,050 (Lot Size x 0.116) + 1,890 Lot Size x 0.20 (d) Encroachments: No building or portion thereof shall be constructed or maintained in violation of the building coverage requirements of this section, except for any construction approved pursuant to Section 9-11-12, "Landmark Alteration Certificate Required," B.R.C. 1981, for an individual landmark or within a historic district. Section 9. Section 9-8-1, “Scheduled of Intensity Standards” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: The purpose of this chapter is to indicate the requirements for the allowed intensity of all types of development, including maximum density for residential developments based on allowed number of units and occupancy. All primary and accessory structures are subject to the standards set forth in Table 8-1 of this section except that developments within an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards or Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," are exempt from Table 8-1 and Sections 9-8-1 through 9-8-4, B.R.C. 1981. Developments within an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards or Appendix M, "Form-Based Code ," are subject to the standards of Sections 9-8-5, "Occupancy of Dwelling Units," 9-8-6, "Occupancy Equivalencies for Group Residences," and 9-8-7, "Density and Occupancy of Efficiency Living Units," B.R.C. 1981. No person shall use any land within the city authorized by Chapter 9-6, "Use Standards," B.R.C. 1981, except according to the following requirements unless modified through a use review under Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, or a site review under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, or granted a variance under Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or approved through a form-based code review under Section 9-2- 16, "Form-Based Code Review," B.R.C. 1981. TABLE 8-1: INTENSITY STANDARDS Zoning District Intensity Module Mini mum Lot Area (in squar e feet unles s other wise Minim um Lot Area Per Dwellin g Unit (square feet)(cb) Num ber of Dwell ing Units Per Minimu m Open Space Per Dwelling Unit (square feet)(cb) Minimu m Open Space on Lots (Reside ntial Uses)(cb) Minimum Open Space on Lots (Nonresid ential Uses)(a), (cb) Minimu m Private Open Space (Reside ntial Uses) (square feet)(cb) Maxi mum Floor Area Ratio( cb) Mixed-use developments require the greater amount of the residential or Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing noted ) Acre(c ) 19 nonresidential standard for open space. See Section 9-9-11 for additional open space requirements. A 1 5 acres 5 acres 0.2 - - 10-20% - - RR-1, RR-2 2 30,00 0 30,000 1.4 - - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 RE 3 15,00 0 15,000 7,500 20 2.9- - - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 RL-1 4 7,000 7,000 6.2 - - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 P 5 7,000 7,000 6.2 - - 10-20% - - RL-2 6 - - - 6,000 - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 RMX-1 7 6,000 6,000 7.3 600 - 10-20% - See Table 8-3 RMX-2 (e) 8 - - See footnot e (e) 10 (up to 20 by site revie w) - 15% 15% 60 - RM-1 9 - - 3,000 - 10-20% - - IS-2 10 - - - 600 - 10-20% 60 0.5:1 21 IS-1 11 7,000 - - - - 10-20% 60 0.5:1 RH-1, RH-2 12 - - - 1,600- - 10-2040% - - 0.67 RH-2 12.5 6,000 3,000 (down to 1,600 by Site revie w) 14 (up to 27.2 by site review) 600 - 10-20% - - RM-2, RM- 3 13 6,000 3,500 12.4 - - 10-20% - - RH-3, RH-7 14 - - - - 6030%(b ) 6030%(b) 60 - RH-7 14.5 - - - 60% (d) 60%(d) 60 - 19 This column is redundant to the column before it. To simplify the code, it is proposed for removal. As some footnotes go away with the intensity changes above, the footnotes are proposed to be updated. 20 This change and others in this table directly relate to the summary of changes to the zoning districts described in the staff memorandum. 21 FAR is more commonly expressed as, for instance, 1.0 instead of 1.0:1 throughout the code and in application materials and memoranda to boards and council. To create more consistency the latter (:1) is being removed. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing RH-4, BT-1, BC-1 15 - - - 1,200 - 10-2030% - - 1.0 BR-2 16 - - - - 40%(dc) 10-20%(dc) 60 - BMS 17 - - - - 15%(dc) 15%(dc) 60 0.67 (1.85 if withi n CAGI D or UHGI D)(dc) RH-6 17.5 - 1,800 - 600 - - - - MU-1, MU- 2, IMS 18 - - - - 15%(dc) 15%(dc) 60 0.6:1 RH-5, BC-1, BC-2 19 6,000 1,600(d) - 27.2 - 600 (400 by site review if in a mixed use develop ment)- - 10-2015% - - 1.5 IM 20 7,000 1,600 - 27.2 - 600 - 10-20% 60 0.4:1 BT-2 21 6,000 1,600 27.2 600 - 10-20% - 0.5:1 IG 22 7,000 1,600 - 27.2 - 600 - 10-20% 60 0.5:1 BR-1 23 6,000 1,600 - 27.2(d ) - - - 10-20% - 2.0 :1(dc) MU-3 24 - - - - 15%(dc) 15%(dc) 60 1.0:1 MU-4 24.5 - - - - 15% 15% 60 2.0 DT-1 25 - - - - - 10-20%(dc) 60 1.0:1 DT-2 26 - - - - - 10-20%(dc) 60 1.5:1 DT-3, DT-4, DT-5 27 - - - - - 10-20%(dc) 60 1.7:1 BCS 28 - - - - - 10-20% - - Footnotes: (a) This requirement may increase based on building height pursuant to Subsection 9-9-11(c), B.R.C. 1981. (b) Open space may be reduced using the standards in Sections 9-8-3, "Density in the RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and RH-7 Districts," and 9-9-11, "Useable Open Space," B.R.C. 1981. 22 (c) For properties within an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," the footnoted requirement is 22 This is removed since the requirements to go to Planning Board is eliminated to request additional density. The open space reduction for RH-7 is retained and is added as footnote (d) below. While the mandatory public hearing is eliminated for RH-7, the same requirements for reducing open space applies. Staff is not proposing to change RH-7 because it would otherwise change the RH-7 regulations mid-process for the Alpine Balsam redevelopment project. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing not applicable. Refer to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," for specific form, bulk, intensity, and outdoor space requirements. (dc) This requirement may be modified pursuant to Section 9-2-14(h)(6)(C), B.R.C. 1981, for specified zoning districts. (d) Open space per lot in the RH-7 zoning district may be reduced from sixty percent to thirty percent of the lot as part of a site review if at least half of the open space provided meets the open space requirements of Paragraph 9-9-11(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981. (e) Dwelling units per acre on a lot or parcel in the RMX-2 zone are limited to 10 dwelling units per acre. This limitation may be modified up to 20 dwelling units per acre pursuant to a site review.23 (-) No standard. Section 10. Section 9-8-2, “Floor Area Ratio Requirements” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Purpose: The purpose of the floor area ratio requirements is to limit the impacts of the use that result from increased building size. (b) Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The maximum floor area ratio on a lot or parcel shall be the greatest of the following: (1) The floor area set forth in this section; (2) The floor area approved prior to June 3, 1997, as part of a valid existing or unexpired planned development (PD), planned residential development (PRD), planned unit development (PUD), or a site review; or (3) The floor area on the lot or parcel on June 3, 1997. (c) Registration and Calculation or FAR for Existing Buildings: Building floor area on a lot or parcel that exceeds the floor area ratio set forth in this section may be registered with the city manager by June 16, 1998. The manager shall determine the type of information necessary to verify the floor area. If such floor area is not registered within one year, the floor area of the lot or parcel shall be the greater of the following: (1) The floor area ratios for the underlying zoning district; (2) The floor area on the lot or parcel on June 3, 1997, according to city building records or county assessor records. Upon a determination that an error exists in the calculation of the floor area under Paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the city manager will correct such error. 24 (dc) Calculating Floor Area Ratios and Floor Area Ratio Additions: The floor area ratio shall be calculated based on all buildings on a lot according to the definitions in Chapter 9-16, 23 This is an existing standard that shifted to the footnote from the column being removed. 24 Registration of floor area has not been done over time and is largely unnecessary since section (b) already allows the floor area that was existing and approved by the city to be allowable floor area. Future additions will just need to comply with the updated intensity standards. Floor area, when exceeding zoning district limits, is already not defined as a nonconforming use. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing B.R.C., 1981, "Floor Area," "Floor Area Ratio," "Uninhabitable Space," and "Basement". In addition to the floor area ratio limitations set forth in Table 8-1, Intensity Standards, B.R.C. 1981, floor area ratio additions may be added above the base floor area ratio and certain floor areas may be excluded from the floor area calculations as set forth in Table 8-2 of this section. TABLE 8-2: FLOOR AREA RATIO ADDITIONS DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 DT-4 DT-5 MU- 1(c) MU- 2(c) MU-3 BT-2 BMS(c ) IS-1, IS-2(c) IG IM IMS( c) BR-1(c) RH-1, RH-2 RH-4 RH-5, BC-1, BC- 225 Base FAR 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.67(a) 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 - 2.0 0.67 1.0 1.5 Maximum total FAR additions (FAR)(d) 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.07 - - - 0.33 - - 1.0 - 1.0 - - - - FAR additional components: 1) Residenti al floor area (FAR) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0(b) - - - - - - Not count ed1.0( e) Not counted- 1.0(e) - - - - - 2) Residenti al floor area if at least 35% of units are permane ntly affordabl e and at least 50% of total floor area is residentia l (FAR) - - - - - 0.07 - - - - - - - - - - - - 3) Residenti al floor area for a project NOT located in a general improvem ent district that provides off-street parking - - - - - - - - - 0.33 - - - - - - - - - 4) Floor area used as off- street parking 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed - Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed Not counted Not cou nted - Not count ed Not counted Not count ed Not count ed 25 These zones reflect the additional zones that have new FARs as proposed within the ordinance. This table clarifies that, like other zones, concealed parking within a building does not count as floor area per line (4). Concealed parking is encouraged to minimize visibility of parking. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing and vehicular 26 circulatio n that is above grade and provided entirely within the structure 5) Below grade area used for occupanc y Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed Not count ed - - - Not count ed Not count ed - - - - - - - - 6) Nonresid ential floor area (FAR) (see Paragraph 9-8- 2(ed)(3) and Section 4- 20-62, Table 4) - - - - 1.0(b) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Maximum allowable FAR (sum of base plus all available additions) 2.0 + row 5 2.0 + row 5 2.7 + row 5 2.2 + row 5 2.7 + row 5 0.67. + row 4 above + row 4 above 1.0 + row 4 above 0.5 + row 5 above 1.0 + rows 4 and 5 above 0.5 + row 4 above 0.5 + rows 1 and 4 above 0.4 + rows 1 and 4 above 0.6 + row 4 abo ve 32.0(c) + row 4 above 0.67 + row 4 above 1.0 + row 4 above 1.5 + row 4 above Footnotes: (a) FAR up to 1.85:1 if property is located in a general improvement district providing off- street parking. (b) The maximum additional FAR component is 1.0. FAR additional components may be combined, but shall not exceed the 1.0 maximum total floor are ratio limit. (c) See Subparagraph 9-2-14(h)(6)(CB), B.R.C. 1981. (d) For properties located in an area designated in Appendix L, "Form-Based Code Areas," and subject to the standards of Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," the floor area and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements do not apply. Refer to Appendix M, "Form-Based Code," for specific form, bulk, intensity, and outdoor space requirements. (e) See Subsection 9-6-3(a)(2), B.R.C. 1981. 27 (-) Not applicable. 26 Clarifies that this does not include internal circulation such as hallways in the building. The provision is meant to encourage enclosure of vehicle parking so that it is not visible from the streetscape. 27 References the residential uses in industrial zone standards. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (ed) District-Specific Standards: (1) Maximum Floor Area in the RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1, RL-2, and RMX-1 Zoning Districts: (A) Purpose: The purpose of a floor area ratio standard is to address the proportionality of building size to lot size and allow variation in building form within the established building envelope. (B) Scope: All construction related to principal and accessory buildings shall comply with the floor area ratio requirements of this section. This section applies to all construction related to residence residential buildings, including new construction, building additions, or modification of existing buildings as follows: (i) All residential and principal and accessory buildings in the RR-1, RR-2, RE, and RL-1 zoning districts, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments, and planned unit developments. (ii) All principal and accessory buildings that are used as a detached single- family land use in the RMX-1 zoning district, including lots located in planned developments, planned residential developments, and planned unit developments. (iii) In the RL-2 zoning district, the floor area ratio requirements shall apply to lots that are 8,000 square feet or larger, used for detached single-family land uses that are not within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development, planned unit development, or an approved site review. (iv) In the RL-2 zoning district, the floor area ratio requirements shall apply to all lots and parcels used for detached single-family land use that are within the boundaries of a planned development, planned residential development, and planned unit development that are shown on Appendix H to this title. (v) For projects subject to site review in Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981, the floor area shall be calculated based upon each dwelling unit that is proposed for the propertylot or parcel. Each dwelling unit within a development shall not exceed the floor area ratio that is specifically associated with the land area for such dwelling unit as part of a site review. 28 (C) Maximum Floor Area Permitted: The maximum floor area shall be the floor area that is in Table 8-3, "Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Residential Land Uses." TABLE 8-3: MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Lot Size: < 5,000 SF 5,000 to 10,000 SF 10,001 to 22,500 SF > 22,500 SF 28 This pertains largely to single-family homes on individual lots where if FAR is applicable, it is calculated on a per lot basis. Averaging across multiple lots is possible through Site Review, but would have to be called out as a modification. This is permitted per section 9-2-14(c), B.R.C. 1981. This revision is meant to make this section clearer. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing RR-1, RR-2, RE, RL-1 and RL-2 0.62:1 (Lot Size x 0.2) + 2,100 (Lot Size x 0.122) + 2,880 0.25:1 Lot Size: < 4,000 SF 4,000 to 4,999 SF 5,000 to 6,499 SF 6,500 to 10,000 SF > 10,000 SF RMX-1 0.74:1 (Lot Size x 0.20) + 2,150 (Lot Size x 0.20) + 2,320 (Lot Size x 0.195) + 2,450 0.42:1 (D) Floor Area Counted: The maximum floor area allowed includes the floor area of all levels. (i) The amount of contributing floor area of the lowest level shall be calculated as follows: (Length of the perimeter of the wall that is exposed more than 3 feet above adjacent finished grade) ÷ (Total length of the perimeter of the wall) = (the percentage of the floor area that is counted on lowest level). See Figure 8- 1. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Window wells or door wells shall not be considered an exposed wall if the following standards are met: distance of the opening of the well is no more than four feet, measured perpendicular to the wall; the well does not exceed five feet in length measured parallel to the wall; and the cumulative length of all wells along any front, rear, or side yard does not exceed twenty feet in length for each such yard. Figure 8-1: Floor Area Ratio Calculation for Lowest Level Floor with Totally or Partially Exposed Walls Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Wall area A is partially exposed above grade by three feet or less. Wall area B is exposed above grade by more than three feet. For example: (Length of wall B) / (Length of wall A + B) = The percent of floor area calculated towards FAR. (ii) The floor area of a high volume space where the distance between any floor and the bottom of the framed ceiling directly above it is sixteen feet or more shall be counted twice. If the distance between any floor and the bottom of the framed ceiling above it is twenty-six feet or more, the floor area shall be counted three times. Up to 150 square feet of a stairwell shall not be considered a high volume space subject to the requirements of this paragraph. High Volume Spaces (E) Floor Area Exempt for Accessory Buildings in Historic Districts and associated with Individual Landmarks: Floor area for accessory buildings may be exempted from the maximum floor area permitted if the following standards are met: (i) The accessory building contributes to the historic significance of an individual landmark or a historic district; (ii) The accessory building was built during the individual landmark or historic district's period of significance; (iii) Only that portion of the accessory building built during the period of significance is eligible for an exemption; and (iv) The floor area subject to this exemption is added to another principal or accessory building on the same property and approved as part of a landmark Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing alteration certificate pursuant to Section 9-11-12, "Landmark Alteration Certificate Required," B.R.C. 1981. (2) Below-Grade Area Used for Occupancy in the DT Zoning Districts. Any below-grade area used for occupancy in the DT zoning districts will not be counted towards the maximum floor area permitted on the property. For the purposes of this paragraph, below-grade areas are those areas that are completely below grade on the side of the building to which the front yard setback standards apply or the side the approving authority determines is the predominant frontage of pedestrian access from the public right-of-way for the block face. 29 (32) Maximum Additional Floor Area: (A) In the DT-2 district, the maximum FAR additional components floor area consisting of either residential floor area, parking within the principal building or detached garages that is not included in the FAR calculation is 0.5 FAR. (B) In the DT-5 district, the maximum FAR additional components that can be added to the base FAR in Table 8-2 shall be a floor area ratio of 1.0. Each component of the additional FAR shall not exceed the maximum FAR additional components listed in Table 8-2. To be eligible for the nonresidential floor area, prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay the housing linkage fee in Section 4-20-62, "Capital Facility Impact Fee," B.R.C. 1981, for each square foot of additional floor area above the base floor area ratio for which the addition is requested. (43) Floor Area Transfers in the DT-5 Zoning Districts: In the DT-5 district, floor area may be transferred from one lot or parcel to another lot or parcel, as provided for by this paragraph. Approval of a floor area transfer shall permit the transfer of all of the supplemental floor area permitted by Table 8-2 of this section to another lot or parcel and permit the same amount of unrestricted floor area to be constructed on the parcel from which the bonus floor area was sent. A floor area transfer will be approved if the approving authority finds that the following criteria have been met as a part of a site review approval pursuant to Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981: (A) The lot or parcel from which the floor area is transferred is adjacent to, with a common boundary between, the two lots or parcels. Adjacency shall not be affected by the existence of a public right-of-way; (B) Both the sending and receiving lots or parcels are located in the same zoning district as the lot that will receive the additional floor area; (C) The floor area on either lot or parcel does not exceed the floor area allowed, with floor area bonuses for each lot or parcel; and (D) A phasing plan that addresses the timing of the construction of all of the floor area is approved that ensures that the bonus floor area will be constructed prior to or concurrent with any unrestricted floor area that is transferred to another lot or parcel. 29 Table 8-1 already notes that below grade occupancy is “Not Counted” and therefore, this section is unnecessary. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (5) Floor Area Transfers in the MU-1 District: In an MU-1 zoning district, the floor area permitted by Section 9-8-1, "Schedule of Intensity Standards," B.R.C. 1981, and this section may be transferred from one lot or parcel to another lot or parcel, in excess of the single lot requirements, if the approving authority finds that such transfer meets the site design criteria and is approved as part of a single site review application under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. 30 (64) General Improvement Districts Providing Off-Street Parking: In the BMS district, the FAR may be increased up to 1.85 if the property is located in a general improvement district providing off-street parking. (75) BR-1 Districts: In the BR-1 district, the FARLand Use Intensity and Height Modifications: The floor area ratio in select zoning districts may be increased pursuant to Section 9-2-14(h)(6), "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981.31 (8) Floor Area Transfers in the IG, IM, or IS Zoning Districts: In an IG, IM, or IS zoning district, floor area may be transferred to a lot or parcel in excess of the maximum floor area ratio set forth in Table 8-2 of this section if the approving authority finds that the following criteria have been met as a part of a site review approval pursuant to Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981: 32 (A) The lot or parcel from which the floor area is transferred is adjacent to and in the same zoning district as the lot that will receive the additional floor area; and (B) The lot or parcel from which the floor area is transferred is vacant. Section 11. Section 9-8-3, “Density in the RH-1, RH-2, RH-3 and RH-7 Districts” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Additional Density in the RH-1 District: In the RH-1 zoning district, the planning board may reduce the minimum open space per dwelling unit of 1,600 square feet per dwelling unit to 800 square feet of open space per dwelling unit pursuant to site review approval. (b) Additional Density in the RH-2 District: In the RH-2 zoning district, the planning board may reduce the minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit to 1,600 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit pursuant to site review approval. (c) Maximum Floor Area: In the RH-1 zoning district, 800 square feet of floor area will be permitted for each dwelling unit in a development: (1) The floor area shall include all habitable area within the dwelling unit that is designed for or intended to be used for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, laundry, or personal storage. 30 Section 9-2-14(C) already allows averaging of floor area across lots within a Site Review. This section is unnecessary. 31 This reference update broadens the applicability of projects that can request additional FAR per the recently adopted Community Benefit regulations in Section 9-2-14(h)(6). 32 Section 9-2-14(C) already allows averaging of floor area across lots within a Site Review. This section is unnecessary. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (2) The floor area does not include garages and common facilities. Common facilities are elements routinely used in multi-family projects which include, without limitation, hallways, stairs, and utility rooms that are shared by all occupants of a development. (3) The total floor area permitted in a development is the product of the number of allowed dwelling units multiplied by 800, and such dwelling units and square footage may be configured in any way which produces a number equal to or less than such product. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 1-1-22, "Rounding Rule," B.R.C. 1981, a fraction of a permitted unit allowed by the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirement may be included in calculating the allowable floor area.33 (da) Additional Density in the RH-3 and RH-7 Districts: In the RH-3 and RH-7 zoning districts, the open space per lot may be reduced from sixty percent to thirty percent of the lot if at least half of the open space provided meets the open space requirements of Paragraph 9-9- 11(e)(3), B.R.C. 1981. (eb) Minimum Lot Area for Two Dwelling Units in the RH-1 and RH-2 zoning districts: Two attached units may be developed on a lot in the RH-1 and RH-2 districts without a site review if the lot is a minimum of five thousand square feet in area and the structures meet the setback requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981, or the requirements of Section 9-7-12, "Two Detached Dwellings on a Single Lot," B.R.C. 1981, are met. (f) Exemption for Existing Single-Family Dwellings: Single-family dwellings in the RH-1 and RH-2 districts constructed prior to September 2, 1993, may be increased in size without planning board review and shall be exempt from the parking requirements of table 9-1, Subsection 9-9-6(b), B.R.C. 1981, if the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner of the property executes a declaration of use, in a form acceptable to the city manager, stating that the dwelling will continue to be used as a single-family dwelling; (2) The dwelling contains no more than one kitchen; and (3) At least one off-street parking space, in compliance with city standards, is provided. Section 12. Section 9-7-10, “Parking Standards” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: . . . (2) Use Specific Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements for Residential Uses: TABLE 9-2: USE SPECIFIC MOTOR VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN ALL ZONES Use Parking Requirement Roomers within a single-unit dwelling 1 space per 2 roomers 33 This change and those below correlate to the already discussed changes to the intensity table 8-1. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing Residential developments in which 1-bedroom units are 60 percent or more of the total 1.25 spaces per 1-bedroom unit 34 Rooming house, boarding house, fraternity, sorority, group living and hostels 2 spaces per 3 occupants Efficiency units, transitional housing 1 space per DU Bed and breakfast 1 space per guest room + 1 space for operator or owner's DU within building Attached accessory 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 unit, see Subsection 9-6- 3(n), B.R.C. 1981 Group homes: residential, custodial or congregate care Off-street parking appropriate to use and needs of the facility and the number of vehicles used by its occupants, as determined through review Overnight shelter 1 space for each 20 occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility, plus 1 space for each employee or volunteer that may be on site at any given time computed on the basis of the maximum numbers of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time Day shelter Use the same ratio as general nonresidential uses in the zone Emergency shelter 1 space for each 20 occupants, based on the maximum occupancy of the facility, plus 1 space for each employee or volunteer that may be on site at any given time computed on the basis of the maximum numbers of employees and volunteers on the site at any given time, plus 1 space for each attached type dwelling unit DExisting duplexes or attached multi-family dwelling units in the RR, RE and RL-1 zoning districts 35 Greater of 1.5 spaces per unit or number of spaces required when units were established 1 per unit . . . (e) Motor Vehicle Parking Deferrals: (1) Criteria for Parking Deferral: The city manager may defer the construction and provision of up to ninety percent of the off-street parking spaces required by this section, in an industrial district, thirty-five percent in a commercial district, and twenty percent in any other district if an applicant demonstrates that: (A) The character of the use lowers the anticipated need for off-street parking, and data from similar uses establishes that there is not a present need for the parking; (B) The use is immediately proximate to public transportation that serves a significant proportion of residents, employees, or customers; (C) There is an effective private or company car pool, van pool, bus, or similar group transportation program; or 34 This is a previously discussed change that would require one space per unit rather than 1.25 spaces per unit for projects that have more than 60% of the units as one-bedroom. Rooming units are no longer a permitted use, so the line for that use is removed. 35 If duplexes and triplexes are allowed in single family zones, this would apply the same one space per unit requirement for those areas to avoid any instances of parking lots being proposed in low density areas. Low density lots that are large enough to accommodate a duplex or triplex will be of a size to accommodate the parking. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (D) The deferred percentage of residents, employees, and customers regularly walk or use bicycle or other nonmotorized vehicular forms of transportation. (2) Parking Deferral With a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a public hearing, the city manager will make a recommendation to the approving agency to approve, modify and approve, or deny the parking deferral as part of the use review approval. a parking deferral pursuant to this subsection, the parking deferral shall be considered in conjunction with the use review decision and not before. The approving authority and process for the parking deferral shall be the same as the use review.36 … (f) Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions: (1) Parking Reduction Process: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the requirements of this subsection are met. The city manager may grant a parking reduction not to exceed twenty-five percent of the required parking. Parking reductions greater than twenty-five percent may be granted as part of a site review approval under Section 9-2-14, “Site Review,” B.R.C. 1981. The planning board or city council may grant a reduction exceeding fifty percent. The city manager may grant a parking reduction for commercial developments, industrial developments and mixed use developments to allow the reduction of at least one parking space, with the total reduction not to exceed twenty- five percent of the required parking, if the manager finds that the requirements of Paragraph (f)(3) below are met. The city manager may grant a parking reduction exceeding twenty-five percent for those uses that are nonconforming only as to parking, if the manager finds that the requirements of Subparagraph (f)(1)(B) of this section have been met. Parking reductions are approved based on the operating characteristics of a specific use. No person shall change a use of land that is subject to a parking reduction except in compliance with the provisions of this subsection. For any parking reductions exceeding ten percent or if the parking reduction is being reviewed in conjunction with a site review, the applicant shall provide a parking study and transportation demand management (TDM) plan. Alternative administrative parking reductions (to the process set forth in this paragraph (f)(1) and the criteria of paragraph (f)(2)) by land use are found in paragraph (f)(3) and for standards related to nonconforming uses are found in paragraph (f)(4).37 (A) Parking Reduction for Housing for the Elderly: The city manager may reduce by up to seventy percent the number of parking spaces required by this chapter for governmentally sponsored housing projects for the elderly. (B) Uses With Nonconforming Parking: The city manager is authorized to approve a parking reduction to allow an existing nonresidential use that does not meet the 36 This clarifies an existing standard that is often pointed out as confusing. No change to standard is proposed. 37 The proposed changes to the parking reduction criteria below are largely reorganizing and restructuring of the section which is often pointed out as confusing. Sections are moved around for a more logical layout. Parking reduction criteria have been updated to specify when a TDM plan and parking study are required and better outlines what is necessary to prove compliance with the criteria. A strengthened set of criteria was requested by members of the Planning Board and City Council to ensure that reductions will be effective to better address residential parking reductions, which now will not automatically require Site Review, unless they are greater than 25%. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing current off-street parking requirements of subsection (b) of this section, to be replaced or expanded subject to compliance with the following standards: (i) An existing permitted nonresidential use in an existing building may be replaced by another permitted nonresidential use if the new use has the same or lesser parking requirement as the use being replaced. (ii) A nonconforming nonresidential use in an existing building may be replaced by a conforming nonresidential use or another nonconforming nonresidential use, pursuant to Subsection 9-10-3(c), B.R.C. 1981, if the permitted or nonconforming replacement use has the same or lesser parking requirement as the use being replaced. (iii) An existing or replacement nonresidential use, whether conforming or nonconforming, that does not meet current parking requirements, shall not be expanded in floor area or seating or be replaced by a use that has an increased parking requirement unless a use review pursuant to Section 9-2- 15“, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a corresponding parking reduction pursuant to this subsection (f) are approved. (iv) Before approving a parking reduction pursuant to this subsection, the city manager shall evaluate the existing parking arrangement to determine whether it can accommodate additional parking or be rearranged to accommodate additional parking in compliance with the design requirements of subsection (d) of this section. If the city manager finds that additional parking can reasonably be provided, the provision of such parking shall be a condition of approval of the requested reduction. (v) A nonconforming use shall not be replaced with a use, whether conforming or nonconforming, that generates a need for more parking. (2) Residential Parking Reductions: Parking reductions for residential projects may be granted as part of a site review approval under Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. (3) Parking Reduction Criteria: Upon submission of documentation by the applicant of how the project meets the following criteria, Tthe city managerapproving authority may approve reductions of up to and including twenty-five percent ofreduce the parking requirements of this section (see Tables 9-1, 9-2, 9-3 and 9-4), if the managerit finds that the parking needs of all uses in the project will be adequately accommodated. In making this determination, the approving authority shall consider without limitation: (A) The parking needs of the use will be adequately served through on-street parking or off-street parking; (B) A mix of residential uses with either office or retail uses is proposed, and the parking needs of all uses will be accommodated through shared parking; (C) If joint use of common parking areas is proposed, varying time periods of use will accommodate proposed parking needs; or Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (D) The applicant provides an acceptable proposal for an alternate modes of transportation program, including a description of existing and proposed facilities, proximity to existing transit lines, and assurances that the use of alternate modes of transportation will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis. (A) Whether the probable number of all motor vehicles to be owned by occupants of and visitors to dwelling units in the project will be adequately accommodated; (B) The availability of off-street and nearby on-street parking; (C) Whether any proposed shared parking can adequately accommodate the parking needs of different uses of the project considering daytime and nighttime variability of the parking needs of uses; (D) The effectiveness of any multimodal transportation program that is proposed at reducing the parking needs of the project. Applications including such programs shall describe any existing or proposed facilities and proximity to transit lines and shall demonstrate that use of multimodal transportation options will continue to reduce the need for on-site parking on an ongoing basis; and (E) If the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced because of the nature of the occupancy, whether the applicant provides assurances that the nature of the occupancy will not change.38 (43) Alternative administrative parking reductions by land use: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. The reductions under this paragraph shall not be permitted to be combined with the parking reductions available in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(4) of this section. (A) Housing for Older Adults: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking by up to seventy percent for governmentally sponsored housing projects for adults 65 and over. (B) Alternative Parking Reduction Standards for Mixed Use Developments: The parking requirements in Section 9-9-6, "Parking Standards," B.R.C. 1981, may be reduced if the following standards are met. These standards shall not be permitted to be combined with the parking reduction standards in Paragraphs (f)(3) and (f)(5) of this section, unless approved as part of a site review pursuant to Section 9-2-14, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. A mixed use development may reduce that The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking in a mixed-use development by up to ten percent in the BMS, IMS, MU-1, MU-2, MU-3 and MX-2 zoning districts, or in all other nonresidential zoning districts in Section 9- 38 These criteria combine all the criteria from Section 9-9-6 in the parking standards and in the Site Review section. The Site Review section will then be simplified to just refer to these criteria. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing 5-2, "Zoning Districts," B.R.C. 1981 by up to twenty-five percent, a twenty-five- percent parking reduction if the following requirements are met: (Ai) The project is a mixed use development that includes, as part of an integrated development plan, both residential and nonresidential uses. Residential uses shall comprise at least thirty-three percent of the floor area of the development; and (Bii) The property is within a quarter of a mile walking distance to a high frequency transit route that provides service intervals of fifteen minutes or less during peak periods. This measurement shall be made along standard pedestrian routes from the property. (C) Religious Assemblies: The city manager may reduce the amount of required parking to permit additional floor area within the assembly area of a religious assembly which is located within three hundred feet of the Central Area General Improvement District if the applicant has made arrangements to use public parking within close proximity of the use and that the building modifications proposed are primarily for the weekend and evening activities when there is less demand for use of public parking areas. (4) Uses With Nonconforming Parking: The city manager is authorized to approve a parking reduction to allow an existing nonresidential use that does not meet the current off-street parking requirements of subsection (b) of this section, to be replaced or expanded subject to compliance with the following standards: (A) The use may be replaced by another permitted nonresidential use if the new use has the same or lesser parking requirement as the use being replaced. (B) The use may be replaced by a conforming nonresidential use or another nonconforming nonresidential use, pursuant to Subsection 9-10-3(c), B.R.C. 1981, if the permitted or nonconforming replacement use has the same or lesser parking requirement as the use being replaced. (C) An existing or replacement nonresidential use, whether conforming or nonconforming, that does not meet current parking requirements, shall not be expanded in floor area or seating or be replaced by a use that has an increased parking requirement unless a use review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a corresponding parking reduction pursuant to this subsection (f) are approved. (D) Before approving a parking reduction pursuant to this subsection, the city manager shall evaluate the existing parking arrangement to determine whether it can accommodate additional parking or be rearranged to accommodate additional parking in compliance with the design requirements of subsection (d) of this section. If the city manager finds that additional parking can reasonably be provided, the provision of such parking shall be a condition of approval of the requested reduction. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (E) The use shall not be replaced with a use, whether conforming or nonconforming, that generates a need for more parking. 39 (5) Limiting Factors for Parking Reductions: The city manager will consider the following additional factors to determine whether a parking reduction under this section may be appropriate for a given use: (A) A parking deferral pursuant to subsection (e) of this section is not practical or feasible for the property. (B) The operating characteristics of the proposed use are such that granting the parking reduction will not cause unreasonable negative impacts to the surrounding property owners. (C) The parking reduction will not limit the use of the property for other uses that would otherwise be permitted on the property. (6) Parking Reduction With a Concurrent Use Review: If a proposed use requires both a review pursuant to Section 9-2-15, "Use Review," B.R.C. 1981, and a public hearing, the city manager will make a recommendation to the approving agency to approve, modify and approve, or deny the parking reduction as part of the use review approval. a parking reduction pursuant to this subsection, the parking reduction shall be considered in conjunction with the use review decision and not before. The approving authority and process for the parking reduction shall be the same as for the use review. 40 (7) No Changes to Use: No person benefiting from a parking reduction shall make any changes to the use that would increase parking. 41 (8) Parking Reductions for Religious Assemblies: The city manager will grant a parking reduction to permit additional floor area within the assembly area of a religious assembly which is located within three hundred feet of the Central Area General Improvement District if the applicant can demonstrate that it has made arrangements to use public parking within close proximity of the use and that the building modifications proposed are primarily for the weekend and evening activities when there is less demand for use of public parking areas. 42 . . . Section 13. Section 9-12-12, “Standards for Lots and Public Improvements” B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read as follows: (a) Conditions Required: Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, subdivision plats shall comply with Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981, and meet the following conditions: (1) Standards for Lots: Lots meet the following conditions: 39 All of the above are existing requirements albeit reorganized in the parking reduction section. 40 This clarifies an existing standard that is often pointed out as confusing. No change to standard is proposed. 41 This section is already stated in paragraph (a) above and is redundant. 42 This section has just been moved up to the specific land use section under (f)(3). Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (A) Each lot has access to a public street. (B) Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, eEach lot has at least thirty feet of frontage on a public street. (C) Except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, nNo portion of a lot is narrower than thirty feet. (D) Each townhouse lot has at least fifteen feet of frontage on a public street, and no portion of a townhouse lot is narrower than fifteen feet. Townhouse lots that do not meet the standards of paragraphs (B) or (C) above shall be used solely for townhouses.43 (DE)Lots and existing structures meet all applicable zoning requirements of this title and Section 9-9-17, "Solar Access," B.R.C. 1981. (EF) Lots with double frontage are avoided, except where necessary to provide separation from major arterials or incompatible land uses or because of the slope of the lot. (FG)Side lot lines are substantially at right angles or radial to the centerline of streets, whenever feasible. (GH)Corner lots are larger than other lots to accommodate setback requirements of Section 9-7-1, "Schedule of Form and Bulk Standards," B.R.C. 1981. (HI) Residential lots are shaped so as to accommodate a dwelling unit within the setbacks prescribed by the zoning district. (IJ) Lots shall not be platted on land with a ten percent or greater slope, unstable land or land with inadequate drainage unless each platted lot has at least one thousand square feet of buildable area, with a minimum dimension of twenty-five feet. The city manager may approve the platting of such land upon finding that acceptable measures, submitted by a registered engineer qualified in the particular field, eliminate or control the problems of instability or inadequate drainage. (JK) Where a subdivision borders an airport, a railroad right-of-way, a freeway, a major street or any other major source of noise, the subdivision is designed to reduce noise in residential lots to a reasonable level and to retain limited access to such facilities by such measures as a parallel street, a landscaped buffer area or lots with increased setbacks. (KL)Each lot contains at least one deciduous street tree of two-inch caliper in residential subdivisions, and each corner lot contains at least one tree for each street upon which the lot fronts, located so as not to interfere with sight distance at driveways and chosen from the list of acceptable trees established by the city manager, unless the subdivision agreement provides that the subdivider will obtain written commitments from subsequent purchasers to plant the required trees. (LM)The subdivider provides permanent survey monuments, range points and lot pins placed by a Colorado registered land surveyor. 43 Changes to the subdivision lot standards of (B), (C), and (D) are intended to remove barriers to townhouse development by allowing narrower lots for townhouse units. Without these changes, townhouses typically require waivers to subdivision standards as well as Site Review for setback modifications. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing (MN)Where an irrigation ditch or channel, natural creek, stream or other drainage way crosses a subdivision, the subdivider provides an easement sufficient for drainage and maintenance. (NO)Lots are assigned street numbers by the city manager under the City's established house numbering system, and before final building inspection, the subdivider installs numbers clearly visible and made of durable material. . . . Section 14. 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. . . . A-E . . . Dwelling unit, attached means three or more dwelling units within a structure. . . . K-O . . . Micromobility station means a designated location of micromobility parking or docking infrastructure. Micromobility transportation includes lightweight vehicles such as bicycles or scooters.44 . . . P-T Townhouse means an attached single -family dwelling unit located or capable of being located on its own lot, and is separated from adjoining dwelling units by a wall extending from the foundation through the roof which is structurally independent of the corresponding wall of the adjoining unit. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan means a document that outlines strategies to mitigate traffic impacts created by a development or use and measures that the development or use will implement to promote alternate modes of travel to the single-occupant vehicle consistent with Section 2.03(I) of the City of Boulder Design and Construction Standards. Such measures may include, without limitation, car share programs, bicycle parking, 44 Micromobility station is referenced in the TDM plan definition above and is added as a newly defined term here. Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing access to transit, pedestrian and bicycles connections, educational programs for multimodal transportation options, transit pass benefits, unbundled parking, micromobility stations and membership benefits, and van-and carpool programs. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this ____ day of ______________ 2023. __________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: _________________________________ City Clerk READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of _______________ 2023. _________________________________ Aaron Brockett, Mayor Attest: __________________________________ City Clerk Attachment E - Annotated Ordinance Item 4C - Zoning for Affordable Housing