So the cleanup would allow them to go up to 25 feet in height for sloped roofs
Planning Board recommended allowing that if all residents are members of the co-op and occupancy limits are respected for the property as a whole
Handful of applications have been received, staff says. Unsure how many more might be impacted.
Yes, per one of the options before council. But there's another version they could pass to NOT require matching design.
Staff: There were folks who came to speak to Planning Board. For and against.
8, and 3 non-conforming. No pending applications.
Staff: They're grandfathered in. They would not be impacted.
Staff: That's correct. Of 8 co-ops, none of them have an ADU on their property. Though some have expressed interest; that's why we're addressing this.
7 of 8 are rental; one is nonprofit
BUT if they added an (non-affordable) ADU, they'd have to add a parking spot.
Staff: The intent of ADUs was to keep them secondary to main houses; not to be their own home.
Probably not, assistant city attorney David Gehr.
Wallach: Couldn't we just prevent subdivision?
Gehr: That's already prohibited by zoning. This would place the same restriction in the case of creating a condo.
Gehr: Correct. But under our zoning, we would not allow a lot split.
I'm *slightly* confused, but we're going to public hearing. 11 speakers.
Budd: No. This is more thinking outside the current co-ops and seeing that it could work elsewhere.
Pitts: Almost a dozen individuals; a number of ppl have backed out of projects due to restrictions in neighborhood (saturation limits)
"There are many ppl in Boulder who want ADUs."
"We have an urgent housing crisis in the city. This is a beautiful way" to create more housing and affordability.
Wants ADUs to be allowed on co-op lots, as a way to attract small families or single parents.
Or like a co-op for Midwesterners, where we live together but don't have to talk about our feelings.
Either way, overwhelming support.
Gehr: I don't think so.
No, staff says.
Friend: Maybe there's a way to prevent that.
Friend: It would still have an owner. The new owner could live there.
Guiler: They could. But when you allow the sale of that unit, it's more of a principal DU.
Yes, staff says.
Guilder: We don't apply criterion strictly enough. And it would have to be compliant with energy codes.
Wallach: This change may be entirely benign and even positive. But I have no idea. We haven't seen analysis. This may be fine, but I just think it's a little premature from a process POV.
"There's only the opportunity for more housing flexibility."
(Actually all were existing but illegal already, pretty sure.)
Yates: Co-op reviews are very extensive already.
Brockett: There will be outreach for that ADU update.
This will go to third reading for a final vote, but still, pretty done deal.
@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!