5B - Analysis of Downtown Residential Bonuses CITYOF BUUI,DER
PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 4, 2008
AGENDA TITLE: Analysis of the Downtown Residential Bonuses.
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Platuling Director
Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Charlie 'Zucker, Senior Urban Designer
Michelle Allen, Mousing and Human Services
Suzy Riley, Planning Intern
OVERVIEW:
'Phis report was prepared in response to issues raised by council about the type and nature
of residential development that has emerged as a result of the downtown residential
density bonuses. In its May 6, 2008 council meeting agenda, staff presented an outline of
how an Analysis of the FAR .Bonuses for Residential in the Downtown may proceed. That
presentation can be summarized by the following two questions:
A. As suggested anecdotally, have the residential bonuses produced large, costly housing
units that are potentially used as second homes?
B. Has the community gained an acceptable affordable housing benefit in downtown
through the bonus strategy?
To address these two questions, this memo is organized in the following manner:
I. Staff Findings
II. Staff Recommendations and Options
III. Background
IV. Analysis
AGENDA I'T1?'M #SB Pa;;e 1
I. STAFF FINDINGS
A. As suggested anecdotally, have the residential bonuses produced large, costly
housing units that are potentially used as second homes?
1. The Size of Residential Units
Built Since 2000
There are approximately 147 residential units currently located in downtown (DT-
1 thru DT-S zoning districts). 34 units were constructed before implementation of
the residential bonuses, and 3 are permanently affordable units located at One
Boulder Plaza. That leaves a remaining total oI~ 110 market rate residential units
constructed after implementation of the residential bonuses. Based on an analysis
of the 110 units it has been found that the downtown has a diversity of unit sizes
that is weighted heavily toward units that are less than 2,000 square feet. The
average size of existing units is 1,654 square feet.
It is also anticipated that the trend toward an average unit size of less than 2,000
square feet will likely continue in the future. This will likely be due to
households that favor downtown living such as young professionals, empty
nesters and retirees, rather than families with children who may require units with
more than two bedrooms (the majority of downtown units are two bedrooms or
less).
Units under Construction or in the Development Review Process
In addition to the 113 residential units constructed since 2000 (110 market rate
and 3 affordable), there are currently 124 units under construction or in a city
review process. The average size of the units under construction is 1,607 square
feet which is consistent with the average size of existing units, 1,654 square feet.
This finding would seem to confirm the observation that the size of unuts
developed in the future will likely not change significantly.
Projection of Potential Build-out 2008 Into the Future
Numerous parcels in the downtown have not built-out to their maximum
allowable PAR. Determining the theoretical maximum build-out is at best based
on assumptions such as the longevity of existing uses, an expanding or
contracting economy, and the continued attractiveness of the downtown-issues
that may change in future years: For example, the 1992 Downtown Plan
predicted that build-out would take SO years, and the ].997 Downtown Alliance
Report predicted that its build-out projections would take 20 years to construct.
Between 2000 and 2008, in addition to the 110 market rate units, 3 affordable
units, our analysis identified that approximately 88S,S00 square feet of non-
residential space had been constructed-this number includes approximately
196,542 square feet in the St. Julian Hotel, and approximately 263,100 square feet
at One Boulder Plaza.
AGENDA ITEM #SB Pat?e 2
For the purposes of this report, maximum build-out possibilities were developed
to provide food for thought about the future of residential uses in the downtown
from 2008 into the future. All scenarios use the average unit size of 1,650 square
feet to determine the number of units within each scenario.
Three Scenarios: Potential Maximum Build-out 2008 into the future
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
75% residential/25% 50% residential/50% 25% residential/75%
935,647 of additional gross non-residential non-residential non-residential
square feet may potentially be
created if all underdeveloped 'T'otal # add'1 Approx. Total # add'! Approx. 'total # Approx.
parcels, identified in this analysis, Units @ 1,650 new Non- Units new Non- add'I rJnits new
were to build-out to their s.f. Res s.f. 1.650 s.f. Res s.f. (u7 1,650 s.f. Non- Res s.f.
maximum allowable FAR
355 233,909 233 new 467,891 113 new 701,737
new units new s.f. units new s.f. units new s.f.
2. The Cost of Residential Units
Bath property owners and developers note that, with the obvious exception of the
three on-site affordable units, sale prices are a direct result of market demand and
the highly desirable downtown location. It is likely that the number of multi-
million dollar units will likely increase as new units currently under construction
come on-line.
42 units sold for over one million dollars. The average price of a residential unit
in the downtown is $596 per square foot, and the median price is $576. 69% of
the units sold for over $700,000.
In conversations with developers our analysis revealed that while the price of
units lnay be high, relative to surrounding communities, the cost of construction
for mixed-use buildings in the downtown area is also high. Construction costs
can range from approximately $400 to $550 per square foot. Tn short, a unit's
selling pl-ice may not be a good indicator of value gained by the property owner or
developer.
3. Absentee Owners and Second Homes
Of the 110 residential units constructed after the bonus density, the analysis found
That 14 units are potentially second homes with an owner's address located
outside of downtown Boulder.l Of the 14 units that were identified as second
homes, 6 of these are rented out.2 The data shows that a least 8 units or 7% of all
~ Based on county assessor's data where the owner's primary address, the address where their property tax
bill is sent, is different from the address of the downtown units.
z Based on the~City's Rental Housing Database showing the number of condo units listed.
AGENDA ITEM #SB Pale 3
of the residential units downtown maybe left vacant at some point during the
year. Data is not available to indicate how many downtown owners have second
homes in other places.
4. A Question of Scale and Bulk
Although the average size of residential units in the downtown is approximately
1,650 square feet, the perception that many more large units exist can raise the
question of fulfilling the 1997 Downtown Alliance goals for creating a living
downtown. For example, it might be reasoned that more small units would allow
snore people to live downtown, thereby putting more people on the street.
Ilowever, since smaller units seem to be more attractive than very larger units, a
trend that may likely continue in the future, the issue of unit size may not be as
important as it first appeared.
Perhaps of greater public concern is the notion that building size, as anecdotally
suggested by the perceived large size of residential ututs, is considered to be too
large. T}iis notion maybe especially sharp in azeas adjacent to smaller scale
residential neighborhoods, as recently experienced in several downtown locations.
Possibly, the anecdotal concern over large residential shadows a greater concern
for large buildings and their potential impact on adjacent residential areas.
While the 1997 Downtown Alliance goals identified the need for new micro-
~ones that would encourage the most density toward the center of downtown,
especially between Canyon Boulevard and Walnut Street, and lesser density at the
downtown edges, it is the zoning disfict standards in the I3ozilde~• Land Use Code,
in concert with the 2002 Downtown urban Design Guidelines, that guide the
scale and bulk of both by-right projects and projects in site review.
However, while the guidelines say "The Interface Area is composed of the blocks
that link the core of the downtown to the surrounding residential
neighborhoods...requires special design sensitivities that must be addressed when
commercial buildings are located adjacent to residential areas", the Code says that
it is possible to develop from 2.0 FAR in the DT-1 and DT-2 zones and up to 2.7
FAR in the DT-3 zone.
The difficulty arises in the process of interpreting or deciphering these documents
to find a proper balance between what maybe considered most desirable in form
and function, and what maybe deemed discretionary. Theoretically, the vision
established in the Downtown Guidelines should be codified in the language of the
Code. However, many, if not most, projects submitted for site review, as well as
projects considered by-right, are submitted at or near the maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) allowable in their respective zones.
While this is understandable in the core area of downtown, where greater density
has been encouraged, it is more difficult to understandable at the edges of
AGENDA ITEM #5B Page 4
downtown where a balance is required between the highest and best use and the
desire to create a transition between the core area and surroundli`ng neighborhoods.
1'*~ f li S 1 ' ~:3 ` - 1,. psi A r, f4.- ~S•'1:~~ e0'S
+ t ~;'r r i s ` ~M ~ f ry Sri , .r.
_ ~ , L~ ,~ti14j ,
_ .ter ~ 4i'.,+~.1 ~rt~a 1 t ~ r 1, ti,. ,
n
t 4 S l
r ~ .1JT-2 T jai
i~`:ra f ff .r , ~ i * . ~
i ---Wit.---
Interface Zones
Areas South of (:anyon Boulevard ?
nor~h
(nu scale)
Given the limited amount of land left in the downtown, it is understazldable that
property owners and developers would wish to gain as much benefit as possible
from each remaining parcel. However, this presents a potential discozulect
between what the Land Use Code currently allows and the vision presented in
design guidelines for areas of the downtown that require sensitive design
treatment. In effect, does the Code and Guidelines, which are necessary in
shaping the form and function of our downtown, provide the level of knowledge
or understanding needed to guide development at the edges of downtown in
today's development environment? And, if not, what level of information is
needed that would provide better direction for developers and property owners on
the one hand, and on the other, for staff and officials in the development review
process?
I;. Ilas the community gained an acceptable affordable housing benefit in
downtown through the bonus strategy'?
Since 2000 when both the downtown density bonus and inclusionary zoning were
adopted, 110 of housing units were built in the downtown area. Twelve of these
replaced existing units and as such had no affordable housing requirement. In
compliance with the Inclusionary Zoning ordinance One Boulder Plaza built three
permanently affordable residential units on-site, and acquired tiuee permanently
AGENDA ITEM #SB Page 5
affordable single-family homes off-site which, due to the desirability and cost of
single family homes amounted to "additional affordable housing benefit". The
project also paid cash-in-lieu of the remaining units required. The project at 1637
Pearl Street built the one required permanently affordable unit on-site. The
proposed Eldridge building has proposed paying additional cash-in-lieu over that
required; the cash equivalent of one full unit to meet a requirement of about two
thirds of that. All other downtown projects have elected to pay the cash-in-lieu
plus an additiona150% on the second half to meet the inclusionary zoning
requirement.
When the downtown density bonus was put in place council understood and
approved the options available for meeting the inclusionary zoning requirements.
These options include providing affordable on-site units, off-site existing units,
vacant land or cash-in-lieu. Given the high market prices for downtown units, it is
not surprising that a good portion of the downtown development would choose to
pay cash-in-lieu of units rather than provide them on-site.
Downtown Boulder market rate units are not affordable. More than half of the
residential units in the downtown are valued at over $700,000. County assessor
information of the most recent selling price of the downtown residential units
shows that the average price, soldwithin the last ten years, as $1,092,244 and the
median as $834,550.
AGENDA ITEM #5S Page 6
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPTIONS:
A. As suggested anecdotally, have the residential bonuses produced large, costly
housing units that are potentially used as second homes?
1. The Size of Residential Units
Built Since 2000
Staff believes that no action is necessary regarding the size of residential units
constructed as a result of the residential bonus density. A mixed-use environment
has been created in the core area of the downtown, a vibrant street life exists in
areas surrounding the centrally located Boulder Mall, and the size of units
developed after 2000, in response to market demand, average 1,650 square feet.
Units under Construction or in the Development Review Process
The average size of the units under construction, 1,607 square feet, is consistent
with the average size of existing units, 1,654 square feet. Tlus finding would
seem to confirm the observation that the size of units developed in the future will
likely txend toward smaller rather than larger units. No action should be required
regarding the size of units.
Projection of Potential Maximum Build-out 2008 into the Future
Staff believes that consideration of how downtown may build-out from 2008 into
the future should be considered under Item 2 above- A Question of Scale and
Bulk. In general, staff believes that the goals created by the Downtown Alliance
in 1997 should continue to guide further analysis or new policies that may
influence future development.
2. The Cost of Residential Units
Both property owners and developers note that, with the obvious exception of the
on-site affordable units, sale prices are a direct result of market demand and the
highly desirable downtown location. This is not a condition that will likely be
influenced by a) the addition of more density, which is not realistic under existing
zoning; b) cheaper land, which is also not likely since downtown Boulder is
becoming more land constrained; or c) less expensive financing, which is at Least
far the foreseeable future snore difficult to attain.
The general attractiveness of downtown Boulder, and the limited amount of land,
will likely keep land and residential prices high. The degree to which on-site
affordable housing and Inclusionary zoning may influence the affordability mix in
downtown, and its impact on housing production in the marketplace, should be
outlined in the city-wide review of the Affordable Housing Program.
3. Absentee Owners and Second Homes
This analysis has shown that approximately 8 units or 7% of the 110 market-rate
units downtown maybe left vacant at some point during the year. While our data
AGENDA ITEM #5B Pa~c 7
does not directly indicate how many downtown owners have second homes in
other places, staff believes that this is not an issue that requires fiirther
consideration.
4. A Question of Scale and Bulk
Staff recozTUnen.ds that Planning F~oard consider the following options for
updating the requirements and guidelines for development within the downtown
Interface Areas and for areas south of Canyon Boulevard.
Option 1: Update the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines to strengthen and
clarify the vision intended for each zone with special attention to the interface
areas and the area south of Canyon Boulevard. Tlus may include the inclusion of
additional graphic examples to illustrate appropriate scale and bulk.
Option 2: Update the Boulder Land Use Code to better align its requirements
with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. This may include developing
language to create a more direct link to the downtown guidelines and illustrative
examples, and consideration of changes to the bulk standards to better reflect
downtown guideline intentions.
Option 3: Address how review bodies may better coordinate their analyses and
recommendations. This may entail the development of a short report listing the
relevant guidelines and code requirements.
Option 4: Some combination or all of the above
Any, or all, of the four options will require additional project scope and staff
work-load consideration.
B. Has the community gained an acceptable affordable housing benefit in
downtown through the bonus strategy?
Staff recommends that the Planning Board supports the completion of the city-
wide review of the Affordable Housing Program. The city is currently engaged in
a review of the city-wide affordable housing protnam. Among other issues,
council has requested that staff look at the current cash-in-lieu amount and azulual
cash-in-lieu adjustment, on-site requirement and options for electing off-site
options, and application of inclusionary zoning to redevelopment all of which
could impact the amount of community benef t realized from downtown housing
construction. Staff expects the review to be completed in early 2009.
To date inclusionary zoning has been applied equally to all development
throughout the city. This city-wide approach was adopted as the most defensible
structure for the inclusionary zoning ordinance should it be challenged in court.
AGENDA ITEM #SB Page g
III. BACKGROUND
A. In 1997 the Downtown Alliance Proposed New Policy for Residential Bonuses
and Zoning Changes
In September 1997 a report titled A Proposal for the Downtown Central Business
District was presented to the City Council by the Downtown Alliance with a clear
goal for encouraging downtown residential development. At the time, with
affordable and attractive residential neighborhoods within easy walking distance,
few people actually lived downtown. The Alliance reasoned that in order to better
position the downtown economically that it should create a "living downtown"
where people live as well as work. Over a nine month long process the Alliance
reached consensus on the following goals that are relevant to this analysis3:
• The historic quality of the downtown should be preserved and enhanced
The Alliance recognized that the economic and social success of downtown
depends largely on its historic character and ambiance. It supported the
creation of a historic district, revising the Downtown Urban Design
Guidelines, and. recasting the downtown design review processes.
• Downtown is not one mace but several distinct places, each with its own
special character
Six distinct zoning districts were reconunended, in recoglution of the different
downtown areas, to replace the one large zone that existed at the time.
• Residential uses should be encouraged downtown
The alliance recognized the need for residential uses that would help create a
24-hour living downtown, improve safety, and ideally encourage smaller
scale, service-based (residential service) businesses.
• Bxisting Floor Area Ratio bonuses need to be changed
In order to better shape the bulk and intensity of development, the Alliance
located the most intense development toward the center, especially along the
Canyon and Walnut Street corridor and located less density where the edges
of downtown meet surrounding residential neighborhoods.
• The physical vision for the character of downtown is predominately 1 to 3
story buildings
The Alliance envisioned the downtown as a rnix of building types and sizes.
• The Alliance encourages reject aiid.preservation of the adiacent residential
neighborhoods
a The Downtown Alliance, "A Proposal for the Downtown Central Business District: Creating the Vision, Managing the Vision",
Boulder, Colorado, September, 1997.
AGENDA ITEM #SB Page 9
In its concern for how the edges of downtown would interface with
surrounding residential areas, the Alliance noted that the residential style of
architecture in transitional areas should be respected and maintained.
Changes to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and zoning districts were
subsequently incorporated, in total, in the T3oulder Land Use Code as shown in
the following chart and downtown zoning map:
Boulder Land lise Code
Downtown Zoning Areas DT-1 DT-2 DT-3 ll'I'-4 DT-S
Base FAR 1.0 1.5 1J 1.7 l.7
Maximum total FAR additions 1.0 0.5 1.0 O.S t.0
(BAR)
FAR addition components 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 O.S (b)
1} Residential floor area (BAR)
2) Residential floor area if at least
3S°/n of units are permanently
aftordable and at least SO% of 0 0 0 0 0
total floor area is residential
FAR)
3) Residential floor area for a
pro,{ect NO'1" located in a general 0 0 0 0 0
improvement district that provides
oft=street arkin
4) On-site parking provided
entirely within the principal Atl, to max. All, to max. All, to max. 0 All, to max.
structure , or above grade parking of 0.5 FAR of 0.5 FAR of 0.5 FAR of OS FAK
structure
5) Below grade area used for >0% below 50% below SO% below 50°lo below 50% below
occu~ancv rade rade rade rade r*rade
Maximum aliowabte FAR (sum
of base plus all available 2.0 2.U 2.7 2.2 2.7
additions) '
'u r i? r is ~:~s;, ~ 'C
~,~-~~;1 is ,t~~'i)T-3_ s~ ~'D~T 2~=°.
,~4~rk ~ Y^'
~j ; _ 1` :
! DT .4 _ pmt
- ~ r• ~ ~ ~ may: - - ~ ~~1 ~ ~J ~~~•r• ' i
_ _ ~ ~ _
. - --r-
t
= - ~ ~
Donmtown 7.oning Districts
(no scale) ~ ~F
AGENDA ITEM #SB Page 10
B. Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary zoning requires that new residential development contribute at least
20% of the total units as permanently affordable housing. Redevelopment that
replaces existing units with new units does not have any affordable housing
requirement. For new development with an affordable housing requirement, the
city's preference is for on-site units. However, there is flexibility in how the
contribution maybe met. Options include that the developer provide affordable
on-site units, off-site existing units, vacant land or cash-in-lieu. For-sale projects
are encouraged to provide at least half of the required permanently affordable
units on-site. Due to a state prohibition vn rent control, rental projects may choose
to fulfill the Inclusionary zoning requirement with for-sale only units, on- or off-
site.
A developer may prvvide more than 50% of the required units off-site if there is
an additional affordable housing benefit for the city. For cash-in-lieu this
"additional affordable housing benefit" can be accomplished by paying a
premium of 50% more per unit for those units that would be expected to be
provided. on-site. For aff--site existing units, single family homes in lieu of
attached condominiums can also meet this higher standard. Developers may
choose to provide less than 50% of the required affordable units on-site as long as
the "additional affordable housing benefit" requirement is met.
The amount of cash-in-lieu is determined by the number of units and unit sizes in
a development and is structured to encourage unit sizes of 1,200 square feet or
less. It is problematic to tie the amount of cash-in-lieu of units to the sales price of
market rate units in a project as this could be construed as a tax rather than a fee
triggering TABOR limitations.
Cash-in-lieu amounts were originally set in 2000 at $60,000 per affordable
attached unit and $66,000 per affordable detached unit. These amounts are
adjusted annually, based upon the percent change in the previous year's median
sale prices for detached and attached housing. For the calendar year 2008, this
equates to $106.149.47 per affordable attached unit and 123,133.78 per affordable
detached uiut4.
Cash-in-lieu payments are deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund and used
to support city llousing Division activities such as assisting local non-profit
housing agencies to acquire, rehabilitate and/or construct affordable units,
assisting affordable home buyers with down-payments, supporting capital
investment in special needs housing such as the shelter for the homeless,
transitional housing and housing for people with disabilities.
' In projects where rnarket rate units average 1,200 square feet or more.
AGENDA ITEM #5B Page 11
A Illaxlnltlnl allowable sales price for each inchlsionary zoning on-sits unit is set
by the city Housing Division formula that includes a variety of factors and is
based on unit size targeting households at or below 80.7% of the Area Median
Income (AMI). This percentage is based on the HUD low-income limit plus 10%.
(See Yages 17 and l 8 for detailed methodology used to set the maximum
allowable sales price and the current sales price table).
IV. r1NALYSIS
A. The Size of Residential Units
Built since 2000
Using the city's parcel information and county assessor's parcel information, as
well as information gathered directly from downtown developers and property
owners, the analysis revealed that of the 110 market rate units constructed after
the bonus density, approximately 6% are more than 3,000 square feet while 82%
are 2,000 square feet or less.
r. ~ ~ r ~l S' 1'
(;~1~v), ~71 ,`1~L,11 1iYi ~ ,(1-,r~~'\a{~ 1 ~ ~j'n`~
lLs~l ~~t 1r~-'.~' } 1 .,1 4 _ "4~ ~ 11 if ~_i f'~ L`' l(~ ~ y ~ -
~S r 1 \ _r+`t.~ ~ ~ u 1 fit-
~T``?~ f
~~~~~~''Y_ i`t 1~• l S 5~c+` ~ G~I
~ 1~+~'r` CC1-• =-•c1~r- ~ ~ _
i (n? t Jr .Y•\ K iJ ~~~1 ~II•-1- 4`J!f_T ~j ' l:J
~ ~ ~ r ~ l ~ ~ _ `.-III ~rt
f~' 1,~ l~ ' - ~ ~t
Vii'!=;r~ Lt
r r~ -
BouMrr, CsMnAo
Existing Downtown Residential Units I to rc~~ kr.~y o, r n~ .nrr ec,,~ e.,;~ ,
Developed ARer Bonus Density g Q ,
e i,,...
• 15% less than 1,000 square feet
• 65% between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet
• 15% between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet
• 4% between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet
• 1.5% over 4,000 square feet.
AGENDA ITF,M #5B Page 12
Existing Unit Size Breakdown in the Downtown
40~
35
30
25
20-
15
10 it - - -
5
0 ~
500- 1000- 1500- 2000- 2500- 3000- 3500- 4000 s.f.
1,000 s.f. 1500 s.f. 2000 s.f. 2500 s.f. 3000 s.f. 3500 s.f. 4000 s.f. +
Unit Size
One Boulder Plaza, which includes buildings at 1360 Walnut Street, 1301 Canyon
Street, and 11 SS Canyon Street, accounts for approximately 70% of the 110
market rate units. The two largest units within the downtown, 4,200 and 5,282
square feet, also exist within One Boulder Plaza. However, the average size of
the remaining units is less than 2,000 square feet. The other 30% of downtown
units are located at 1 SOS Pearl Street, 900 Pearl, 171 S 1 S`'' Street., and 1637 Pearl
Street.
Units in Construction or Currently in the Development Review Process
`T'here are currently 124 units under constnzction or in a city review process in
downtown Boulder. These units are located at 1095 and 1580 Canyon Blvd., 1437
Arapahoe Ave., 1725 l Stf' Street, 16SS Walnut Street and 91 S Pearl Street which
is currently under review. The difference in average unit size between existing
units and those under construction differs very little, indicating the assumption
that the trend for larger units is growing is actually not true.
The current average unit size in the downtown is I ,654 square feet. Looking at the
unit sizes for 16SS Walnut, 1580 Canyon and 1437 Arapahoe, all under
construction, the average unit size is 1,607 square feet If you include the unit
sizes recently proposed for 91 S Pearl Street, and 1707 Walnut, which are
currently in the review process, the average unit size becomes 1,677 square feet.
AGENDA ITEM #SB Page 13
r Rl~ti:r~::t=•1~ -1 4.~;.r..~: t:::n. ..,y >r rr1 r.-{_ ".l L"1~` t~y~c--~ JYL'i~u
milli Y ~ ~ ~r~ ~ _~-~j~ C ~~~V,~ , r--`(~~ ~ {iO C-~Y.,1[~, ~5~;
S~ 11n 5tit~ i'_J ~ ~ ti y~~ ' _ ~ j l}t{ ~:S i'~ 1 ~ 1ti ~1 r
~y~_'.,~} ..ii ~~'Tr"1.~ ~i
~bc
'~r 5 T 5 .S 1 ~ `,1 J1[~" ~ ~ [ ~ f ^ 71~ fir' 1
~ Ty7 ll t _•~r ~ '~~.Y 1 L%- ~ ~ 3Liy~ t i' ~5~.~.
' L' ~ Ci
~~1~~`~r.- i y ,fir t r _ ~ - Lam,,, 1 L ' ~l
~ i D~ ;l~ 1 I''
[ ~ ~ .
~s- i1" X yS.y+y~~4 ti t-c i4
~~~''YIIF~yS 51r. ,S. F G [[Ll' 1 y- ~ \I~~H'~~1J
-,~_L~
Lit y. y5 c _ .y- .1~i. I~.tr.
-
_ - _ -
_
_ r~' 1 5 Ss_ U
~ r ~
s
Boulder, Colorado ~ 124 Rcsidrrninl ultils ucjc; :cro~nu~i~m nr rcvew
Downtown Residential Units Under ~
Construction nr Review p r'
:lid b :jazard lallc
Projection of Potential Build-out 2008 and Beyond
As illustrated in the map below, the parcels in blue are locations that maybe
redeveloped in the future. When calculated for their maximum FAR the
remaining available area for redevelopment is approximately 935,647 square feet.
For the purposes of this analysis, three scenarios have been developed that
provide food for thought about the future of our downtown. All scenarios use the
average approximate unit size of 1,650 square feet to determine the number of
units within each scenario.
The first scenario assumes that all future development parcels will build-out to
their FAR maximum in which 7S% of the FAR will be constructed as residential
and the remaining 2S%, or the ground floor level., will be constructed for non-
residential uses. The second scenario assumes a mix of SO% residential and SO%
non-residential, and the third scenario assumes a mix of 2S% residential and 7S%
non-residential. In all scenarios, the potential square feet for development is based
on the maximum allowable FAR for parcels within their respective zoning
districts.
The number of units was calculated by multiplying the FAR by the site area;
multiplying the result by the residential percentage for each scenario; multiplying
the result by 8S% to allow for hallways and related areas; and dividing the
remainder by 1,650 square feet.
AGENDA ITEM #SB Pale 14
( r tl 1 { ir'S,1 r' l1 , , ~ _ • , 'i• ~ C Y 1 f ~ i r _rS - _ , -i }4f
t-
y ; ~Tl~ It ~ 1 i t y` ~ ~.1 ' If~'.r%r- ~ 1l t' w r 7:r'"'j
ir~
~ ~ l~ .1-t^ fv ' i 4 ~ ~Y-' J ~ 1 t cart ~'T 4 J •1
1 Y- r'~ e i ~ 1'S ~ , `
t .ri t - _ s . ~ ~ ,
, i
,S _ oo _ x ,
--`Ir 4. t.,rl>;~1,-',1 _Yt~ ,~n4 }t1~1`} ~ l ~ ,~t.~,~
1J r ~:if+~.rr i ~i~ i' '~~4 i l -~:J t°:1''. - ~ .54~1'iis f 1Z.i7
- r ~ ~ rr' 1~ t.l.>>
'r=' ~ _ 1 i
~'s
' Boulder, Colorado r55 ;wfeulinl lcSldCnliil UO11t ai On aeRaLY Or 1.655[1 YyVtlre (e!f por anti
Scenario #1: Potential lfaximum Residential ® anumin~, mavmum rnidrntial build-out (N unia l,er site=parcel araa
Build Uut Assuming No Commercial FAR: 75•/. residential c RSV. rtlr bam~.>+ a >~mrs l aou ~~aara (nl l~rr ~,~,~q
Aevelopmeat Above the First Ftoor Hsgetiarirdione
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Three Redevelopment Scenarios for 2008 and Beyond 75% resl25'%n uon 50% res/50% non- 2j%res/75% non-
res res res
Max Total # Approx. Total # Approx. 'Total # Approx.
DT FAR Gross Units Non- Res Units Non- Res Units Iron- Rrs
Address LoFSq' Zon w/ Potential ~ S.F. a~ S.P. (a) S.F.
e bonus Sq. Ft. 1,650 1,650 1,650
s. f. s. f. s. t'.
dcns`.ty avo ave. avt=.
175014th 37,7.92 5 2.7 100,688 38 25'172 2S 50,344 12 75,Si6
1603 Walnut 14,021 S 2.7 37,857 l4 9,464 9 18,928 4 28,393
1480 Can on 21,118 S 2.7 57,019 22 :4,255 ]4 28,509 7 42,764
1900 - 1922 Broadway 42.616 S 2.7 115.063 44 28'766 29 57,530 14 86,297
1420Canvon 21,687. 5 2.7 58,541 22 14'63 IS 29,270 7 43'906
217.1 Broadwa 20,896 2 2 41,792 16 10'448 l0 20,896 5 3!,344
175015th 75380 5 2.7 203,526 78 50'881 52 101.763 26 152,645
1048 Pearl 40,987 S 2.7 110,664 42 27'666 28 55.332 14 82,999
1913-1921 Broadwa 22500 S 2.7 60,750 23 15'187 15 30,375 7 45,563
1501 Ara ahoe 16,805 l 2 33,610 12 8'402 g 16,E05 4 25,208
909 Walnut 6325 S 2.7 17,077 7 4'269 4 8,538 2 12,808
1301 Ara ahoe Av 22,500 1 2 45,000 17 11'250 11 22,500 S 33,750
1721 1~/alnut 14,112 2 2 28,224 I I 7'056 '7 14,112 3 21,168
1705-174714th 4,410 1 2 8.820 3 2,205 2 4,410 ! 6,615
170314th 8,507 1 2 17,014 6 4;253 4 8,807 2 12,761
935,647 355 233,909 233 467,891 113 701,737
't'otal potential S.1'. under DT coning units s.f. units s. f. units s.f.
AGENDA ITEM #SB Page 15
B. The Cost of Existing Residential Units in the Downtown
Information gained from city data, county assessor data, and directly from
property owners and developers identified the sale prices of 93 units of the 110
residential units constructed after the bonus density. Approximately 7 remain
available for sale, or are currently under contract, and 10 units for which
information was not available. The analysis revealed that the most recent selling
' price for the 93 units are distributed as follows:
• 6% sold for between $150,000-$400,000
• 25% sold for between $400,000-$700,000
• 24% sold for between $700,000-1 million
• 37% sold for between 1-2 million
• 9% sold for between $2-3 million
Most Recent Selling Price for Downtown
Residential Units
35
30
25-
20-
15-
10- -
5 _
$750,000- $400,000- $700,000- 1-2 million 2-3 million
$400,000 $700,000 1 million
Price
AGENDA ITEM #5S Pase 16
C. City of Boulder Inclusionary Zoning Sates Price Calculation Methodology
for 2008
The following methodology is used to determine the maximum allowable sales
price for new affordable homes in Boulder. Resale prices for affordable homes are
calculated on an individual basis and include the allowed appreciation, cost of
sale, and realtor costs.
¦ The income limit for Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) units in 2008 is 80.7% of the
Area Median Income (AMI). The maximum IZ sales price is based on a
household earning 70.7% of the AMI, the- HUD low income level. This
"window" between the income used to price homes and the income limit
increases the range of households financially able to purchase the homes.
¦ The maximum sales price is calculated based on principal, interest, taxes,
insurance, and homeowner's association dues that do not exceed 28% of gross
monthly household income. Taxes and insurance are assumed to be 18% of
the affordable housing payment.
¦ The maximum sales price is based on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at
prevailing local interest rates. Interest rates are adjusted quarterly and
determined by using a trailing average of rates for the previous 18 months. A
5% down payment is assumed.
¦ Homeowner association dues are based on an annual survey of local HOAs.
For 2008 the factor is $295 per month per attached unit.
¦ Maximum sales prices are set assuming a set number of people per bedroom.
The actual number of persons ui a household can vary.
¦ The bold sales price on the IZ pricing sheet [insert link] is the base price for a
unit with a set number of bedrooms and bathrooms. This is the price required
per the Inclusionary 7~oning Ordinance Administrative Regulations [insert
link], Section 9.1. Adjustments to that price are made for variations in unit
size and number of bathrooms.
AGENDA ITEM #5B Pa~e_ 17
City of Boulder • Division of Housing
3rd (quarter, 2008
UMt Configuration ''C'
~Bd ~Ba <400 401-500 501-600 601-700 701-800 801-900 901-1000 1001.1100 1101-1200 1201-1300 1301-1400 1401-1500 1501•
1 1.00 532,700 5'9,9•]D Sn7,'00 534,37D 5101500
2 1.00 510~.'cC~O 5116.500 5124.9GD
_2 1.50 5109,1 DO 5122,000 5129,40 S1?-03c_D
2 1.75f2 S1'1?,+i00 5125.500 •S13"..100 5140YD •Sid•1.€QO
3 1.50 513?.h30 S7=':1.D it-t7.i07 55S?.rn)] SfE,;,?(:p
J 1.752 $142,600 5i`1 ^.0 5i>>'3.N?] S:r.-•7] X17?.EC~O
A 1.752 ••~~CCO 5179.500 :SI`-S~G~} it6~~,:00 _itPJ,~CO
4 2.753 •.~..~u~..~u . Si3cbOp •519?.500 5197000 •S2Gt.ELO
can:~nu~d. .
Ciry of Boulder -Division of Housing
3rd Quarter, 2008
DETACHED UNITS -NEW CONSTRUCTION D.ro<< D 7:ytrzoae
Unit Configuration ''p'~f'
Bd o Ba 600-700 700-800 800-900 400-1000 1000.110 1100-1200 1200.1300 1300.1400 1»00-1500 1500-1600 1600+
t L00 593,&~~ 5114,000 5L4.1G0
2 _ x.00 _ _110 t•GC $13~7~700 s1 ~5~7JD 5140.700 _ _ _
2 •1.5_0••_ 311, iCC 9134,_200 $1-04~3DU 51~1;~•OC •51c,3.8C~C _0101,600 ••~1co",6'OC
• 2 • 1.75/2 5117,tiDC $72.7700 $147,BOD 5155.3~;C 51cC.'_•GC ~195,3DG ••0170,3DC
3 1.50 $151,200 5153:2G0 5131.2C~C 51e6,2GG 3171.2GG
• 3 1.7512• 5154,700 51b22~n7 5189 TC'C 3177.200 •31°4,700
1.7_12 5171_`G~ 5191.600 DG 5204.10 52C_',1CtC~ _S214,1CD
..4 • 2.50. 5t95.1C~: 5DD 507~`CC 5212.60: ~:i7,~00
4 • 2t 3 • 519? 6GC +2~Do.1D5 5211.100 • 52io.10G 5221.10-0
Approved By:
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Planning Department
AGENDA ITEM #SB Page 18