Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK, I'm still here listening to this density thing. I just want to pay attention; I'll tweet a recap when it's over.

We're adjourned. I'm going to read my notes and let you know what this density thing was all about.

Ok, so this is actually pretty interesting. The city up zoned parts of Boulder in the 70s, allowing houses behind houses and things, according to Chris Meschuk. By the 90s, residents were concerned about density.

Meschuk didn't say this, but I know it from my past reporting and work. Boulder actually grew more in the 90s in terms of population and housing units and jobs than during the most recent growth period (2012-2016 or thereabouts.

To allay neighborhood fears that the "character of their neighborhoods" was changing, Meschuk said, the city used a zoning "overlays" to prevent the density that certain areas were zoned for.

That followed a development moratorium in the early 90s.

Whittier neighborhood, Grandview and Uni Hill all got overlays. These prevented duplexes and triplexes from being built in areas that were zoned for them. All that was now allowed were single-family homes.

That brings us to where we are today: Considering the Uni Hill overlay zone. There was a older duplex there that burnt down. The property owner wanted to rebuild a triplex, but then when he went to pull a permit, found out about the overlay zone.

The property is 756 18th St. What can go there now is one big house (about 6,500 sq ft). Or it can be subdivided and made into two single-family homes.

Lifting the overlay zone will allow a triplex to be built.

There are 132 parcels in the overlay zone, and 208 dwelling units. Of those, only 4 parcels have the ability for additional homes (many already are duplexes or triplexes).

Of those four, there is the property we're talking about, which could be 3 units. The other 3 parcels could allow one additional unit.

So lifting the overlay zone could result in a grand total of 6 extra dwellings in this area.

Council gave a nod of five (a type of informal vote) for staff to start exploring lifting that overlay. They can lift it for the entire 6-block area on Uni Hill, or for just that one parcel where the owner wants to rebuild.

Weaver: I have concerns (if) we lift out just one parcel. I’m sure we’d do it in the most clever way possible, but it could be thought of as spot zoning, which we don’t do.

Other council members agreed, calling out the complexity and absurdity of overlay zones.

Jones: "That’s a little nonsensical. If it’s medium density but you have to build a SF house, that doesn’t make sense."

"Given the level of complexity to just about everything related to planning, to simplify by getting rid of an overlay zone that’s outlived its purpose, it makes a lot of sense to me to just deal with the whole thing."

Weaver said the overlay zone had "outlived its purpose." Given the prevalence of duplexes and triplexes already in the area, "things have already gotten where they’re going to get to, mostly, in terms of intensity."

Morzel: It’s a choice of a 6,500 sq ft house or three units. We don’t need any more 6,500 sq ft houses.

Brockett: We do want to do public outreach around this, of course.

And staff will, Meschuk said, talking to neighbors and property owners and bringing their input back to council.

No word on when that will be. Staff could squeeze it in for this council, but Weave and Young said that wasn't quite necessary.

Weaver: "I think the answer is going to be obvious to either this council or the next one."

OK, last one of the night. @threadreaderapp, please unroll. Thanks.