Option B: Allow duplex or triplex (5,750 sq ft total; conversion or new construction)
Option C: Allow lot subdivisions in RR and RE
Option D: Permit more than one ADU per lot (3,500 sq ft cap of main home; 5,750 total)
Option F: Allow Cottage courts (like Poplar Place and Toby's Lane)
respectively, of the residential zones. But, as Bob Yates, points out, half or less than half of RE, RR lots meet those minimums, which were imposed in the 1970s.
RL-1: 10,946 lots in total; 20% (2,145) are over 10,000 sq ft
RL-2: 5,216 lots; 17% (893) over 10,000 sq ft
RMX-1: 1,711 lots; 9% (158) over 10,000 sq ft
(may be included in this, but may not)
RE: 1,536 lots; 87% (1,328) over 10,000 sq ft
RR-1: 130 lots; all over 10,000 sq ft
RR-2: 250 lots; 82% (206) over 10,000 sq ft
Major results are that more than half of respondents don't support limiting the size of homes. BUT more than half *do* support the idea of more, smaller homes in Boulder. (but not tiny homes, which got minority support)
Phase 1 could wrap this fall, with Phase 2 in 2020+.
3,500 sq ft on a 7,000-square-foot lot
4,100 sq ft on a 10,000-square-foot lot
4,710 sq ft on a 15,000-square-foot lot
Allow more square footage if it’s used for extra ADUs (Option D)
Allow existing single-family homes to convert to duplexes/triplexes if parking requirements met
2, 4, or 6 dwelling units per acre (size would be capped)
Allow one size-restricted cottage per lot
Allow duplexes/triplexes compatible with the character of the neighborhood
Weaver q: There are a few zoning districts where this is allowed in the city, right?
Yes, Guiller says.
Guiler: We thought about it, but subcommunity plans drag on. This was something you wanted to get done this year.
RL-1 is by far the biggest zoning district of any of these: 10,946 lots.
Project has "gotten a little larger than I originally wanted to see." The amount of emails we get that oppose this "is a big red flag"
"For me, that's what counts."
"It's incenting in the correct way, in the right direction."
"I view density as a tool; it's neither good nor bad."
Needs to be citywide "bc we have to represent the entire city."
Supports ALL staff's options.
Wants the project to extend to RL-1 zones.
71% supported duplex conversion
We only adopted the ADU rules less than a year ago; we're still processing applications.
Yes, say the 5-member majority
Jones: It's in our workplan.
Weaver: These choices are useful.
A statistically valid survey will be saved for Phase 2.
They're right. Please freaking vote, ppl.
But they're also wrong, bc there are many barriers to participation in our democracy. Those who govern, govern everybody, not just ppl who voted for them.
Guiler: We'll check in with the next council, perhaps.
Jones: It's not baked at all.
Weaver: Well, it's kinda... they've got guidelines and parameters, structure, etc.
This is related to the opportunity zone moratorium; the first part of the project is for zoning districts in that area, and will wrap this summer.
Last review was in the 90s, apparently.
RR, RE zones are not 15-min walkable neighborhoods. It might take you 15 min to walk one street with 7 houses.
If more than 20% in the project are ELUs (under 475 sq ft), it triggers a use review.
Staff suggested making ELUs an allowable use.
Guiler: 2 ELUs count as one dwelling unit, bc they are so small. So number is dictated by density of the zoning district.
They are currently allowed.
Staff originally suggested prohibiting them.
Now they are suggesting making them subject to Use Review.
They currently are, but staff is recommending that 75% of the ground floor area of buildings in those zones can be residential.
Weaver OK with making it conditional. Condition could be street-facing retail, Brockett suggests.
Carlisle suggest doing a subcommunity plan here instead of use table changes.
Right now, they're a Conditional use. Can't be over 2,000 sq ft, but also they can't be on major streets, which is the big factor.
"A long time ago," Morzel says, "we didn't allow signage on restaurants in industrial zones." WHAT? Why??
Brockett: Then I'd recommend crafting something specifically aimed at conversions. There may be new neighborhoods that get built that may want to include some office space.
Jones: But we don't need any more.
Brockett: Yes, kinda, but ... I'd like to hear from my colleagues, I guess.
Weaver: To me, this is a necessary step to get what we want. Otherwise we might be filled up with offices, which are the most (cost efficient) thing to build. Why have a plan if we're not going to implement it?
Jones: No, bc you can replace them with 50% office space.
Guiler: That's out of the scope of this problem.
Yates: So by June 2020, why don't we just do a citywide demolition land use adjustment?
Chris Meschuk: Rather than trying to achieve that through a regulatory tool, let's just be really clear about what we're looking for.