►
From YouTube: City of Boulder City Council Study Session 5-28-19
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Should
it
be
excluded
from
further
consideration
from
the
project?
So
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
and
then
secondarily,
what
is
City
Council's
feedback
on
the
proposed
phase,
2,
which
includes
options
B,
E
and
F,
which
will
go
into
detail
on
through
the
presentation.
The
third
question
is:
should
a
statistically
valid
survey
be
conducted
based
on
whatever
options
council
advises
to
move
forward,
so
real
quick?
We
have
two
phases
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
tonight.
A
The
phase
two
options
are
real.
Quick
generally
involve
more
of
a
subdivision
solution
where
we're
looking
at
a
higher
number
of
units,
potentially
more
smaller
units,
again
making
clear
that
none
of
these
options
would
have
more
floor
area
than
is
currently
permitted
on
these
Lots.
We're
also
looking
to
talk
about
the
possibility
of
new
duplex
or
tribe
triplex
units
in
these
zones.
So
again
we'll
go
into
more
detail
on
those
options.
So,
as
we
get
into
the
background,
I'm
gonna
turn
it
over
to
Andrew
to
walk
you
through
that,
and
the
community
outreach
portion.
B
The
council
state
project
purpose
has
been
to
require
more
smaller
homes
in
residential
zones
that
are
consistent
with
the
character
of
the
existing
neighborhoods
and
that
advance
the
city's
energy
efficiency,
climate
sustainability
and
housing,
affordability,
goals
and
policies.
This
is
the
full
project,
wise
statement
he's
shown
here
on
the
screen.
I
will
just
read
it
quickly.
The
city's
residential
neighborhoods
are
experiencing
a
dramatic
demographic
and
economic
shift,
with
the
replacement
of
modest,
more
affordable
homes,
larger
and
more
expensive
homes.
B
Again,
these
are
the
purpose
and
why
statements
as
established
by
council
in
December,
it's
a
December
study
session.
The
purpose
statement,
then,
is
consistent
with
the
BBC
staff
memento
and
code
to
require
smaller
homes
and
residential
zones
consistent
with
the
character
of
existing
neighborhoods.
This
includes
creative
solutions
for
both
the
preservation
of
existing
homes
and
the
development
of
more
small
homes,
rather
than
fewer
large
houses
in
these
zones.
B
B
C
D
In
1960s
there
was
a
zoning
that
required
only
10,000
square
feet
of
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit.
A
lot
of
neighborhoods
were
built
with
that
standard
in
1971
there
was
a
comprehensive
rezoning
of
the
city
and
that's
where
the
re
zoning
was
established
and
they
broke
it
out
between
7,000
and
15,000,
and
those
old
I
can't
assess
are
something
but
those
old,
10,000
square
foot
ones
as
I
guess
as
a
matter
of
policy
were
put
into
the
ER
bucket
of
zoning.
So
it
was
a
decision
that
was
made
in
the
early
70s.
Okay.
C
A
So
when
the
compatible
infill
development
project
was
initiated
and
then
completed,
it
lowered
that
fa
are
in
RL,
1
and
also
addressed
properties
outside
of
peds
and
site
reviews
in
RL
2,
and
then
it
also
applied
FA
our
on
to
the
RR
and
our
ease
owns,
which
did
not
have
floor
area
caps
or
limitations
before
that
time.
So.
A
F
So
each
zone
has
a
different
like
step
back
and
so
like
the
r
isse,
when
you
mentioned
that
they
came
into
effect
sometime,
maybe
in
the
early
70s,
it's
25
25
and
then
a
combination
of
25
for
sides,
but
that
would
be
very
different
if
you
had
a
7,000
square
foot
lat.
That's.
F
A
Thing
also
point
out
too:
that's
of
interest
is
that
when
you
have
a
non-standard
lot,
so
a
lot
that's
smaller
than
the
minimum
lot
size.
The
non-conforming
regulations
actually
require
the
height
of
the
building
that
come
down
incrementally
based
on
its
size,
so
some
houses
have
to
not
go
over
25
feet,
for
instance,
if
the
lot
is
small
enough.
B
Okay,
so
the
council's
broad
goals
for
the
project
in
December
of
2018
have
were
to
study
and
consider
the
following
elements.
So
creative
solutions
to
potentially
allowing
the
fillery
development
of
large
into
two
or
more
houses
or
units
we're
appropriate
there
are
more
affordable
and
designed
in
such
a
way
has
to
be
sensitive
to
the
neighborhood
context.
To
study.
B
So
this
year
we
conducted
a
series
of
three
open
houses
that
included
engagement.
Events,
exercises
background
materials
and
presentations.
This
was
coupled
with
our
other
code
amendment
projects
used
table
project
and
the
community
benefit
project.
We
also
had
the
online
the
city's
engagement
platform
and
be
heard
bouldering
that
org
or
the
engagement
questionnaire
over
300
respondents.
B
We
went
to
the
what's
up
Boulder
event
in
April
and
then
had
some
neighborhood
office
hours,
also
in
March
and
April
across
the
city,
and
then
we
conducted
two
stakeholder
group
meetings
which
served
as
kind
of
listening
sessions
more
of
a
focus
group
forum
at
the
open
house
and
early
May
a
few.
A
couple
weeks
ago
in
North
Boulder,
we
sent
out
direct
mailings
to
all
the
properties,
sound
re
in
RR,
and
we
had
over
a
hundred
first
n
DS
at
that
meeting.
I
will
touch
on
these
with
some
results.
B
Coming
up
here,
open
house
meetings,
we
had
a
series
of
boards
with
some
questions
and
prompts
and
some
graphics,
and
we
asked
the
participants
to
Don
some
questions
of
what
they
liked
or
didn't
like,
and
so
basically
we
heard
at
a
high-level
was
some
sports
sentiments.
Majority
of
the
participants
were
not
in
support
of
further
restricting
that
failure,
or
a
cap
on
single
family
home
size.
B
We
present
some
more
scenario,
options
and
graphics
that
carl's
gonna
touch
on
coming
up,
and
that
was
in
your
council
memo
in
the
packet.
So
these
did
some
scenarios
for
accessory
unit.
2
boxes
tried
boxes,
pocket,
neighborhoods
and
simply
tell
us
with
sticky
notes.
You
know
what
they
liked,
what
they
didn't
like
in
other
comments.
B
The
options
were
that
they
were
property
values.
They
were
concerned
about,
impacts
to
neighborhoods
and
infrastructure
in
the
neighborhoods,
changing
the
character,
and
they
felt
that
the
density
was
not
wanted
in
their
neighborhoods
was
that
some
felt
a
cap
on
home
size
should
be
tied
to
allowing
more
flexibility
for
additional
units.
Others
felt
that
this
will
change
a
character
whether
neighborhood
some
felt
that
the
RL
wines
own
should
not
be
part
of
the
scope
project.
Again,
some
felt
that
more
housing
choice
was
appropriate
for
a
variety
people.
B
B
B
B
Similarly,
when
we
asked
watch
that
show
the
FAO
to
today's
regulations,
a
large
majority
say
no,
we
actually
encourage
more
smaller
homes
on
one
lock
versus
one
large
home.
They
were
about
sentiments.
Half
of
the
respondents
said
yes,
when
we
allow
housing
types
on
the
our
own
zones,
a
majority
of
the
respondents
did
say
yes
and
finally
tiny
homes
as
housing
type
in
the
residential
zone.
B
A
So
last
we
talked
to
council
about
this
in
December
we
had
set
up
the
timeline
and
that
specified
the
first
part
of
2019,
where
we
would
focus
on
community
engagement
as
well
as
the
formulation
of
options.
So
that's
what
we've
done
over
the
last
few
months.
So
you
can
see
here.
We
have
six
different
options
that
we're
going
to
talk
about.
That
council
requested
be
broken
into
two
phases,
one
that
could
potentially
be
implemented
by
the
fall
of
this
year
and
then
one
that
would
go
on
later.
A
So
I'm
going
to
talk
about
each
of
these
different
options.
The
options
are
basically
based
on
the
goals
that
we
talked
about
for
this
project,
as
well
as
taking
the
initial
suggestions
of
City
Council
into
account.
Poplar
place
has
been
brought
up
as
a
as
kind
of
like
a
model
to
look
at,
and
so
this,
the
visuals
we
thought
would
be
helpful
so
that
you
could
see
kind
of
the
range
of
different
development,
ranging
from
one
single
family
house
in
breaking
that
square
footage
down
into
multiple
units
on
a
similar
size
a
lot.
A
A
We
wanted
to
show
the
different
options
on
a
characteristic
lot,
so
we
had
chosen
a
twenty-three
thousand
square
foot
lot,
which
is
typical
of
the
re
and
the
RR
zones,
but
we
also
included
an
attachment
that
shows
a
conforming
re
lot
at
fifteen
thousand
and
a
conforming
RR
lot
at
thirty
thousand
square
feet.
We
also
assumed
a
cap
in
this
case
of
3,500
square
feet.
This
is
just
a
visual,
it
is
adjustable,
but
it's
basically
based
on
the
maximum
size
of
a
house.
A
C
Pause
right
now
and
we'll
go
back
to
something
you
said
on
a
so
the
3500
came
from.
So
we
have
these
re
and
RR
lots
that
are
some
of
which
are
below
the
15,000
minimum,
but
some
of
them
are
above
right,
and
so
we're
basically
saying
what
we'd
be
saying
on
this
cap
is,
regardless
of
the
size
of
your
lot
and
the
regardless
of
the
character
of
your
neighborhood.
You
can't
have
a
house
that's
bigger
than
what's
allowed
in
the
RL
who's
own
wishes.
Different
neighborhoods
is
that
right?
It's.
A
Just
as
a
starting
point,
cuz
I
think
what
we're
thinking
is
that
you
know
beyond
a
7,000
square
foot
lot,
that's
where
you
start
getting
into
a
large
lot
territory,
and
that
may
be
you
it
could
be
applied.
Similarly,
across
the
zones
the
rl1
zone,
re
and
the
AR
are
zones
already
have
the
same
sliding
scale.
Fa
are
today.
So
if
you
go
above
a
7,000
square
foot
lot,
that
extra
square
footage
could
be
used
in
different
ways.
I
think
that's
the
way
we
looked
at
it.
So.
A
C
There
any
I
guess
there's
not
there's
any
variability
for
what
the
neighborhood
is
currently
bearing.
In
other
words,
some
neighborhoods
have
larger
houses,
some
re
neighborhoods
have
larger
houses
and
other
re
neighborhoods,
and
so
there's
no
consideration
of
what
types
of
houses
already
exist
within
the
proximity
of
the
target
house.
In.
A
We
have
we've
driven
around
the
city
and
looked
at
the
different
neighborhoods.
There
are
certainly
you
know
certain
differences
between
the
contexts
of
the
different
neighborhoods,
so
there
were
certain
things
related
to
neighborhood
character
and
massing.
You
know
that
we
talked
about
like
where
it
might
be
more
of
an
issue
in
one
part
of
the
city
versus
another,
but
then,
when
looking
at
the
other
components
of
the
goals
like
the
energy
efficiency
piece
or
the
affordability
piece,
that's
a
citywide
citywide
issue.
F
A
F
A
A
Can
go
through
each
of
the
options
and
then,
if
you
feel
free
to
jump
in
so
I
think
just
as
a
starting
point.
If
you
look
on
the
lower
right
that
shows
a
23,000
square
foot
lot
under
today's
regulations,
you
can
build
almost
a
6,000
square
foot
home,
so
it's
5,000
750
square
feet
and
that's
what
that's
showing
mm-hmm.
So
I'm
gonna
just
talk
about
the
phase,
one
options,
and
we
were
thinking
that
we
could
stop
at
the
end
of
this
and
talk
about
that
and
then
move
on
to
Phase
two,
but
it
certainly
flexible.
A
So
these
are
the
three
phase,
one
options
that
were
proposing
so
option.
A
talks
about
a
cap
B
looks
at
the
ability
to
allow
an
existing
single-family
home
to
be
broken
up
into
it
into
duplex
or
triplex
units,
and
then
D
looks
at
going
beyond
the
cap
and
using
that
extra
square
footage
for
accessory
dwelling
units,
so
I'll
go
into
each
of
these
right
now.
So
this
is
option
A.
A
So
this
is
just
if
the
city
were
to
apply
a
cap
and
in
this
case,
for
instance,
we
have
3,500
as
an
example
option
A
one
shows
3,500
square
feet
as
a
cap.
So
that's
based
on
the
on
a
7,000
square
foot
lot
option
a
2
is.
If
you
took
a
10,000
square
foot
lot,
you
could
get
up
to
40
100
square
feet.
So
that's
an
option
that
could
be
applied.
You
know
across
all
lots
or
it
could.
A
C
Have
the
the
side-by-side
comparisons
to
what
the
F
ers
allow
on
those
lot
sizes
little
birds?
What
does
the
FA
are?
A
lot
allow
it
today
and
a
seven
thousand
square
foot
lot.
I
mean.
C
A
C
A
A
C
A
G
A
A
H
Options-
and
they
also
mm,
would
limit
anything
between
ten
thousand
square
foot
lot
and
a
15,000
square
foot
lot
would
be
limited
to
the
lower
end
of
that
range.
We
taking
away
the
sliding
scale
yeah
taking
away
the
sliding
scale,
so
it's
capping
it
at
the
low
end
of
the
range
for
each
of
those
I
believe
so.
A
When
we
get
to
option
D,
it
might
make
a
little
bit
more
sense
of
why
we're
we're
suggesting
this
so
option
B
is,
is
getting
at
the
the
goal
of
trying
to
preserve,
or
you
know,
avoid
demolition
of
existing
single-family
homes
by
enabling
the
possibility
of
converting
them
to
duplexes
and
my
plexus
so
again
emphasizing
that
this
is
conversion.
Sorry,
this
is
conversion,
and
in
this
op
that
phase
one
scenario
has.
H
A
question
about
this:
there
are
many
of
these
in
our
MX
sones
and
we're
those
allowed
I
mean
I,
don't
know
if
they
were
grandfathered
in
because
it
looked
like
they
were
converted
and
I'm
thinking
in
an
area
of
like
Pine,
Street
and
17th
in
that
area.
There's
a
whole
lot
of
homes
that
have
obviously
had
this
done
to
them,
and
so
was
that
allowed
previous
to
the
rmx
ones
own
in
or
is
it
allowed
underarm
x
one's
own.
A
Leave
it
was
allowed
previous
to
our
MX.
Owning
david
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
believe
there
were
high
density
residential
zones
around
the
downtown.
It
was
called
hrx
back
in
the
day,
so
it
allowed
high
density
and
then
it
was
effectively
down
zoned
in
a
way
where
the
minimum
lot
size
was
adjusted
and
the
the
density
was
capped,
but
it
was
a
you
were
allowed
to
maintain
the
density.
That's
in
that
zone.
H
A
H
I
A
A
C
Much
of
this
has
actually
happened
in
real
life
over
the
last
10
or
15
years,
since
this
is
prohibited
in
some
zones,
and
you
mentioned
that
the
zones
that
spray
permitted
in
oftentimes
it
can
be
done
because
of
lot
of
size
enough.
They
are
I
mean.
Does
this
happen
like
10
times
a
year
or
a
hundred
times
a
year,
I.
F
G
A
I
mean
it's:
it's
encouraging
the
adaptive
reuse
of
existing
units
in
these
neighborhoods
I
think
we
also
at
least
when
you
have
an
existing
unit
there.
It
already
looks
like
a
single-family
home.
So
that's
that's
already
a
feather
in
the
cap
or
as
I.
Think.
If
we're
talking
about
new
construction
I
think
we
then
have
to
be
more
sensitive
about
the
design
and
making
sure
that
it
does
appear
like
a
single-family
home
and
that's
gonna.
That's
why
we've
put
that
in
the
Phase
two
category.
A
So
just
expanding
on
the
cap
idea
and
incentivizing
different
types
of
units
option
D
basically
takes
the
premise
of
you
cap
the
primary
structure
in
this
case
3,500
square
feet.
It
could
be
a
different
number,
but
you
could
allow
up
to
the
current
maximum.
Fa
are
if
you
use
that
Floria
over
the
cap
in
different
ways,
so
in
this
case
we're
suggesting
accessory
dwelling
units.
A
So
this
example
shows
a
house
capped
at
3,500
square
feet,
but
the
additional
square
footage
up
to
the
5750
is
used
as
accessory
dwelling
unit,
so
we
felt
that
that
could
create
an
incentive
for
those
types
of
units.
One
thing
we
wanted
to
point
out,
though,
is
in
doing
this.
You
know,
obviously,
there's
no
subdivision
involved
in
this
ad
user
looked
at
a
little
bit
differently
than
traditional
dwelling
units.
If
you
get
into
the
larger,
you
know
lot
sizes
out
there
and
you
use
this
premise.
There
could
be
quite
a
few
80
ad
use.
A
You
know
seven
or
more
so
it'd
be
something
we
want
to
hear
from
the
council
about
that.
You
know.
Potentially
we
need
to
cap
the
number
of
ad
use.
If
we
were
to
move
forward
with
this
and
again
getting
back
to
that
graduated
cap
idea,
if
you
have
different
caps
for
different
sizes,
that
would
impact
how
many
ad
use
would
be
possible
on
the
larger
Lots
as
well.
Just
get
a
couple
questions.
I
A
A
I
A
So
this
is
just
a
summary
of
staff's
recommendation
for
phase
one,
so
we're
recommending
as
part
of
phase
one
that
include
options,
a
1,
2
or
3
option.
B
1
means
the
allowing
the
conversion
of
the
existing
single-family
and
option
D
means
ad
use,
we're
recommending
that
it
applied
to
the
RR
and
our
E's
owns.
There's
not
a
lot
of
ad
use
in
those
zones
today.
A
May
they
have
more
land
to
accommodate
parking
and
potentially
accessory
units
with
less
impact
on
on
neighbors,
so
those
zones
are
included
are
l1,
would
you
know,
stay
the
same
and
that
there'd
be
saturation
requirements?
The
20%
we're
not
recommending
that
our
mx1
be
included
at
this
time,
just
because
it
has
a
different
nature
associated
with
it
in
being
around
the
downtown.
Where
you
expect
more
intensity,
it
already
has
a
different
FA,
our
calculation
there's,
not
a
high
number
of
our
mx1
Lots
there.
A
What
you've
shown
so
again
might
need
to
talk
about
kind
of
capping
that
and
then,
in
the
gray.
We
have
the
cottage
units
which
we're
talking
about
like
a
restricted
size,
cottage
enos.
This
would
be
like
more
of
a
Phase
two
option,
so
we
look
at
restricted
size.
Cottages
is
like
double
the
size
of
an
Adu,
a
detached
a
to
you,
so
could
be
up
to
like
1500
square
feet.
So
this
gives
you
an
example
of
how
many
of
those
you
could
get
based
on
this
idea.
A
C
Okay,
go
back
to
the
table
table
for
I,
just
want
make
sure
I
understand,
table
4.
So
let's
just
take
our
r1.
Go
all
the
way
over
to
4,700
square
feet.
Is
this
the
percentage
of
houses
25%
of
the
houses
in
RR
one
would
be
non-conforming,
that
is,
that
they're
already
more
25%
of
the
houses
in
our
r1
or
already
about
4,700
feet.
C
C
C
Guess
I
could
do
the
math
here
with
you
less
than
3,500
square
feet,
so
I'm
going
to
be
fair
to
say
that
53%
of
the
houses
and
rr1
are
currently
less
than
3,500
feet,
I'm
just
trying
to
get
an
idea
of
like
what's
the
potential
for
scrapes
right
cuz!
That's
the
problem
that's
been
proposed
by
some
people
is
that
small
houses
against
rape
and
replaced
by
big
houses
try
to
understand
how
many
small
houses
there
still
are
on
these
laws.
F
C
H
C
G
F
So
I
was
wondering
you
talked
about
the
Adu
saturation
in
our
l1
and
that
right
now
is
20%,
but
in
our
R
and
re
there
is
zero
percent
saturation
I'm
just
curious.
If
you
were
able
to
figure
out
what
percent
of
the
are
ELLs
and
I
mean
our
ease
and
our
RS
have
ad
use
or
Oh
a
use
in
them,
and
if
not,
we
can
figure
that
out
later,
but
yeah.
A
F
B
F
C
E
E
A
E
E
A
H
I'll
just
make
a
comment
here,
since
you
brought
it
up.
I
think
that's
a
really
good
reason
not
to
do
our
L
bone
right
now,
because
our
l1
is
found
across
every
set
community.
Some
of
these
owned
or
some
of
these
zone
districts
are
much
more
concentrated
in
particular
areas,
and
indeed
some
of
them
are
in
I
think
the
area
that
we
might
be
doing
the
East
Butler
sub
community
plan.
So
that
would
be
an
opportunity
to
talk
about
how
many
changes
were
perceived
and
now
phase
2
might
be
perceived
in
that
sub
community.
G
E
So
I've
been
thinking
about
how
we
got
to
here
and
how
this
started,
and
it
started
with
folks
that
live
up
in
North
Boulder
that
were
basically
being
assaulted
by
demolitions
and
and
the
large
houses
that
were
replacing
them.
And
then
I
got
to
thinking.
Looking
at
the
map
of
where
all
the
our
hours
and
our
ease
are
that,
perhaps
if
something
like
what
was
going
is
going
on
in
North,
Boulder
were
happening
out
and
say
on
Kaptur
Road.
E
I
actually
would
like
to
see
more
information
and
I.
Don't
know
that
we
can
have
it
by
phase
one,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
the
problem
originated
in
North
Boulder
and
we
really
haven't
heard
from
other
areas
of
town
that
are
seeing
having
this
issue
and
it
may
be
because
the
houses
are
already
big
there.
I
don't
know,
but
that's
why
I'm
thinking
that
the
r
r
and
r
e
be
included,
but
only
in
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
and
we'll
be
talking
later
about
the
survey
I
think
it
would
affect.
E
Then
we
would
survey
and
just
taking
advantage
of
the
fact
that
there
is
a
sub
community
there
and
it's
got
a
plan
and
it's
got
a
pretty
defined
area
and
a
population
that
could
be
surveyed
and
so
there's
some
advantages
there
and,
as
Sam
said,
we're
gonna
be
doing
the
East
Boulder
plan,
and
then
this
can
be.
This
conversation
can
be
rolled
into
that
that
discussion.
But
when
you
look
at
the
map,
the
vast
majority
of
those
lots
are
in
North
Boulder
sub
community.
E
So
that's
my
comment
and
I'll
I
want
to
hear
the
discussion
on
caps
versus
no
caps
and
ad
use.
But
it
seems
to
me
that
the
other
piece
of
information,
that
and
and
and
please
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong-
do
we
know
of
the
the
ones
that
have
been
demolished.
How
many
are
speculative
or
done
by
by
developers
and
how
many
are
private
people
doing
this?
G
Okay
can
I
just
throw
out
there
for
sake
of
discussion,
but
it
seems
to
me
that
thinking
about
our
purpose
for
this
project
is
important
and
so
I
think
it's
good
to
pause
and
I
guess
I
think.
Every
time
we
build
a
big
big
house
instead
of
smaller
units,
we
are
constricting
our
future
choices
and
so
to
me,
I
guess:
I'm
more
interested
in
exploring
broader
implications
than
just
a
certain
place
in
town
and
I
know.
This
gets
into
the
whole
issue
of
growth
and
I
know
that's
a
sticky
wicket
and
you
know.
G
If
we're
going
to
address
affordability
and
having
a
diverse
population,
so
I
guess
I'll
just
saw
that
out
there
for
our
discussion,
that
I
think
a
pry
applying
some
of
these
rules
more
broadly
and
I.
Think
we
have
to
do
it
at
a
rate
of
change.
That's
acceptable,
but
I
still
think
that's
where
we
need
to
head
as
a
city
with
kind
of
every
neighborhood,
putting
a
little
skin
in
the
game,
so
I'm
just
gonna,
throw
that
out
there
as
where
I'm
kind
of
coming
to
this
issue
from
the
spur
conversation.
G
C
Building
on
what
Mary's
says
you
know
not
only
is
most
of
the
concern
and
most
of
the
large
house
building
happening
in
North
older.
The
concern
I
think
is
in
some
neighborhoods
in
North
Boulder
and
not
in
other
neighborhoods
in
North,
Boulder,
so
I
think
it's
even
more
granular.
With
respect
to
your
comment
about.
Wouldn't
it
be
great
if
we
had
a
more
small
house
as
the
answers
yeah,
it
would
be
great
and
I
think
we
do
a
lot
of
things
to
develop
that.
C
But
if
we
impose
an
arbitrary
cap
of
say,
3,500
square
feet
and-
and
we
force
someone
who
otherwise
could
have
built
a
7,000
square
foot
house
in
effectively
through
this
cap,
we
force
them
to
build
to
3,500
square
foot
houses,
those
to
3,500
square
feet.
Houses
are
still
2
million
dollars
each,
so
we
may
have
made
it
attainable
for
a
pretty
rich
person,
but
we
haven't
made
it
attainable
for
the
middle
income
or
the
moderate
income
person.
So
I'm
not
sure
that
this
is
a
good
tool
of
affordability.
C
This
may
be
a
good
tool
to
stop
people
billion
people,
people
from
building
large
houses.
If
that's
our
number
one
objective
I
think
we
have
higher
priorities
in
that
in
front
of
us
right
now,
but
I
don't
think
this
is
gonna
I,
don't
think
this
is
gonna
create
affordability.
This
project
is
not
going
to
create
affordability.
We
have
interesting
discussion
around
a
to
use
and
maybe
that's
what
we're
where
we
should
take
this,
but
I
don't
think
putting
an
arbitrary
cap
is
gonna.
C
Don't
support
a
cap
I,
certainly
for
the
reasons
that
have
been
stated.
Maybe
will
continue
to
be
stated
this
evening.
I
think
we
could
have
an
interesting
discussion
around
relaxing
our
ATI
recently
enacted
ad
use
rules
a
little
reluctant
even
go
there,
because
those
rules
were
just
enacted
within
the
past
year
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
test
those
yet
either,
but
if
we
were
to
do,
we
were
if
we
were
forced
to
do
one
thing
among
all
the
things
I've
seen
up
there.
The
one
thing
that
I
guess
I
would
be
willing
to.
C
Reluctantly
willing
to
explore
is
relaxing
the
ATU
rules.
I,
wouldn't
certainly
wouldn't
put
in
7a
to
use
on
a
lot
I'm
from
Nebraska
there's
towns
that
don't
have
that
many
people
in
them
so,
but
but
there
may
be
certain
places
where
280
use
will
do
when
we
have
to
deal
with
parking
and
access.
Is
there
and
started
to
talk
about?
Well,
we
could
talk
about
larger
ad
use.
You
know
instead
of
800
feet.
C
I
So
there's
like
mature
neighborhoods,
like
in
the
Fraser
Meadows
area,
where
there's
not
a
lot
of
pups
and
not
a
lot
of
scrapes,
going
on
as
opposed
to
the
North
Boulder
neighborhoods
that
Lisa
and
I
live
near.
Where
there's
a
great
deal
than
going
on
so
I
think
we're
hearing
you
know.
They're
these.
These
same
zones
in
some
cases
are
exist
in
very
mature
neighborhoods
that
aren't
experiencing
a
lot
of
change.
In
other
places,
places
that
are
so
I
I
think
in
in
terms
of
a
phase.
I
One
approach,
it
seems
to
me,
like
the
Adu
options,
is
a
great
way
to
go
because
I
think
that
gets
to
the
providing
of
smaller,
more
affordable
living
spaces
for
people
in
town.
You
know
in
a
way
that
liked
per
Bob's
example
like,
if
you
just
said
well,
instead
one
7,000
square
feet
house
you
to
3,500
square-foot
houses
that
doesn't
give
you
affordability
for
his
his
point,
but
I.
Think
if
you
have
a
you
know
a
backyard
cottage,
that's
600
square
feet
and
somebody's
able
to
rent
that
I.
I
Think
that
does
give
you
another
living
option
and
I
think
it
does
it
in
a
way.
That's
really
has
minimal
impact
to
the
neighborhood,
and
you
know
we've
heard
from
some
of
the
more
mature
neighborhoods
that
they're
worried
about
subdivisions
and
things
like
that
which
we
don't
have
to
tackle
right
now.
So
I'd
love
to
see
this.
This
ad
you
option
explored
and
the
the
the
allowing
a
conversion
of
an
existing
unit.
Duplex
triplex
is
interesting.
I
look
forward
to
hearing
other
people's
thoughts
on
that
I.
I
G
E
Just
have
a
question
about
the
option:
B
is
that
for
so
I
guess
it's
a
question
for
staff.
Is
that
for
a
big
house
that's
already
been
built,
it
could
be
so.
Was
there
any
discussion
about
that
being
something
like
for
the
future
I
mean
in
the
future
I?
My
guess
is.
Nobody
would
want
to
do
it
immediately
on
a
big
house.
That's
just
been
built,
but
in
the
future
they
might
so
was
there
any
discussion
about
that
notice.
A
We
thought
that
again,
you
know
if
the
building
is
already
built
and
we're
trying
to
like
follow
the
goals
of
getting
more
smaller
units.
You
know
it's
already
there.
The
visual
impact
is
there,
but
it
would
be
a
better
use
potentially
if
it
was
broken
up
into
smaller
units,
and
that
could
happen
next
year
or
it
could
happen
seven
years
from
now,
I
think
we
just
it's
just
opening
up
that
possibility.
I
Can
I
just
add
one
yeah
and
just
part
of
my
thinking,
there's
I
asked
that
question
about
driveways
and
things
like
that
that
one
nice
thing
about
adding
another
the
option
to
have
like
a
little
backyard
cottage
is
that
it
doesn't
require
a
lot
of
extra
pavement
or
impact
to
the
whatever
vegetation.
You
have
growing
there
right
that.
So
it
feels
like
a
much
lower
impact
thing
to
do
overall,
a
way
that
wouldn't
change,
neighborhood
character
or
vegetation
trees.
Things
like
that
much
Cindy.
K
Density
is
a
big
issue
in
this
town,
and
there
is
one
group
of
people
who
think
that
density
is
good
wherever
it
goes,
and
then
there's
the
larger
community
and
until
we
start
hearing
that
is
a
real
solid
from
the
larger
community.
I.
Don't
think
that
increases
in
density
of
this
kind
really
are
gonna
fly.
The
ad
use
are
something
that
are
interesting
to
look
at,
but
again
the
fact
that
there
are
only
so
few
2.6
percent
or
whatever
in
these
zones
existing
now
seems
to
say
that
folks
don't
want
those
either.
A
K
I
haven't
been
in
these
neighborhoods
for
a
while,
because
there
isn't
really
any
reason
to
go
through
them,
but
I
was
surprised
to
see
how
many
big
houses
there
are
they're
there
and
they
seem
to
be
quite
contentedly,
so
I
mean
they
filled
out
and
I
didn't
see
that
many
empty
lots
so,
except
in
again
in
the
North
Boulder
area.
That
would
be
the
exception,
but
in
terms
of
restrictions,
I
think
that
horse
left
the
barn
a
long
time
ago
and
is
way
headed
east
on
sizes.
K
L
Jump
on
with
Mary
Bob
and
Cindy
Mary
I
think
you
bring
up
an
excellent
point
and
that's
I
guess
where
I
originally
thought
this
discussion
was
going
and
it
seems
to
have
gotten
a
little
larger
than
I
think
what
I
originally
had
wanted
to
see.
I
think
the
biggest
thing
is
was
seeing
the
amount
of
emails
we've
had
come
in
that
opposed
this.
That,
for
me,
is
a
big
red
flag.
I
understand
we
did
the
heads-up
Boulder,
what
what's
it
yeah?
G
H
So
this
is
very
interesting.
Discussion
and
I
want
to
compliment
staff
for
giving
us
a
ton
of
relevant
information
to
be
able
to
look
at
and
think
about,
and
talk
through
and
and
the
visualization
of
the
options
also
is
very
helpful
to
understand
what
that
would
look
like
and
what
it
would
perhaps
feel
like.
H
I
want
to
start
with
kind
of
a
high
level
look
at
zoning
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
on
in
any
detail,
but
this
is
just
about
the
density
of
the
Lots
per
square
mile
in
Boulder,
and
so
staff
gave
us
this
good
information,
and
so
our
m
x1,
which
is
near
downtown,
has
about
6,000
watts
per
square
mile.
It's
only
a
half
square
mile,
but
it's
6,000
watts
within
that
half
square
mile.
Our
l1
is
about
2200
watts
per
square
mile.
So
that's
about
a
third.
H
H
You
know
I
also
don't
support
a
cap,
my
reasons
a
little
different
I
think
then
then,
a
libertarian
type
reason,
even
though
there's
that
leaning
as
well
but
I
think
we've
done
our
energy
code
work
and
we've
done
a
good
job
at
that.
We
recently
adopted
in
April
and
I
think
staff
said
would
be
implemented
in
October
the
requirement
for
Net
Zero
below
Carl.
You
want
to
help
me
here
what
$3,000?
Okay,
thanks!
So
that's
a
significant
step
forward.
We
accelerated
that
transition.
H
I
realize
there's
some
embodied
energy,
but
it's
at
least
incenting
in
the
correct
way
in
the
right
direction
and
I
think
we
need
to
see
what
that
does.
What
impact
that
has
and
so
I
won't
be
supportive
of
a
hard
cap
or
a
sliding
cap.
We
have
far2
do
that
and
in
sub
Community
Planning
we
can
go
review
at
they
are
and
how
it
works
there.
So,
on
the
other
hand,
I
think
that
these
lot
sizes
are
generally
pretty
big.
H
H
The
ability
to
put
in
additional
80
years,
I
mean
going
to
to
the
idea
here,
is
that
we
would
want
to
and
set
the
homeowners
to
do
this,
instead
of
a
scrape
or
and
or
instead
of
some
other
thing,
which
is
more
energy
intensive
and
doesn't
produce
affordable
housing,
which
is
why
I
agree
with
Bob
that
having
to
3500
square
foot,
homes
is
not
necessarily
going
to
be
an
affordable
outcome,
but
having
to
ad
use
that
are
a
thousand
square
feet
is
much
more
likely
to
be
affordable.
So
that's
my
take
on
that.
H
I
very
much
want
to
support.
Looking
at
that,
I
think
the
duplex
and
triplex
conversion
of
existing
homes,
I
mean
we've
seen
a
lot
of
that
and
it
doesn't
change
the
look
and
feel
of
the
neighborhood.
It
does
have
potential
number
of
people
and
so
a
number
of
cars
impact.
So
there's
a
parking
question
that
comes
up
and
staff
addressed
that
by
requiring
the
parking
space
and
on
these
lot
sizes
I
think
it's
easier
to
be
able
to
do
that
than
it
is.
H
This
would
give
us
the
kind
of
information
to
try
and
balance
the
interest
properly.
I,
don't
think
I
mean
you
know.
Neighborhood
right
to
vote
could
not
pass
and
so
I
think
citywide.
We
don't
believe
that
that
neighborhood
should
have
some
kind
of
veto
power,
but
I
do
agree
that
their
opinions
matter,
because
it's
their
neighborhood,
so
I
I
would
like
to
see
a
survey
done,
but
one
which
we
can
look
at
these
are
the
folks
who
would
be
affected
and
what
they
think-
and
this
is
generally
what
the
city
would
like
to
see
evolve.
H
And
this
is
just
an
evolution.
No
one
has
to
take
advantage
of
any
of
these
things
we
allow
right.
This
is
not
like
we're
coming
in
and
saying
we're
gonna
put
a
to
use
in
all
these
backyards.
It's
this
is
an
additional
choice
that
you
can
make
if
you
want
to
age
in
place
or
if
you
want
to
enjoy
the
advantages
of
an
a
to
you
so
I'll
stop
there,
but
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
promise
here
and
we
should
dig
to
find
the
promising
parts
into
this
forward.
F
So
I'll
start
off
by
agreeing
much
of
what
Sam
and
Suzanne
have
said
in
an
errand
and
I
personally
would
like
to
see
a
house
size
cap,
but
I
can
also
count
around
here
and
it's
not
dictating
what
people
can
or
can't.
But
maybe
it
is
because,
at
some
point
with
the
climate
change
and
with
the
change
in
consumption,
we
have
got
to
quit
consuming
so
much
and
we
have
there,
regardless
of
what
the
these
large
houses,
regardless
of
how
NetZero
they
are.
F
But
it's
not
it's
a
couple
who
lives
there.
So
I
and
I
appreciate
Sam's
comments
on
Zoning
I.
Don't
want
to
look
at
this
as
just
a
North,
Boulder
issue
I
think
it's
not
just
a
North
Boulder
issue,
even
though
it's
happening
in
North
Boulder
I've
certainly
run
into
quite
a
few
people
who
live
in
rl1,
who
say
I
wish.
F
We
could
do
that
here,
because
the
houses
are
big
in
some
of
the
rl1
Lots
because,
as
you
guys
have
shown
with
your
research,
we
have
some
very
large
houses
at
large
Lots
in
those
RL
ones.
I
think
just
like
you
know
much
of
Boulder
residents.
Do
we
need
to
think
intentionally
about
what
we're
doing
and
I
couldn't
agree
more
with
Susanne
about
we're,
making
future
choices
and
what,
by
continuing
to
do
nothing,
we're
constricting
the
future
of
our
children
and
our
children's
children
in
the
future
of
our
community.
F
We
have
out
of
balance
situation
and
I.
Don't
think
this
one
project
is
going
to
resolve
it
all
in
terms
of
jobs,
housing
but
I
think
it
certainly
could
add
more
housing
and
make
a
fair
stab
at
it.
I
I
think
the
city
has
made
deliberate
choices.
In
the
past.
We
deliberately
bought
open
space
I'm
very
happy.
F
We
bought
open
space
I
think
it
was
a
good
thing
for
us
and
it
has
been
a
great
urban
shaper,
but
how
we
move
forward
in
the
next
10
some
people
say
we
only
have
12
years
before
dudu
starts
hitting
the
fan,
so
you
know
I'm
looking
at
you
know:
10
20,
10,
20,
30,
40,
50
years
already,
people's
children
can't
live
here
anymore.
Already
a
huge
amount
of
our
workforce
can't
live
here
anymore,
we're
creating
barbells.
F
So
we
have
the
very
wealthy
and
the
very
poor-
and
this
is
what's
in
between
so
I-
think
anything
we
can
do
to
help.
That
problem
is
significant
and
I
live
in
the
middle
of
all
of
this,
where
these
houses
are
replaced,
placing
changing
our
taxes
and
it's
not
just
the
county
changing
to
taxes.
But
when
you
have
1400
square
foot
house
that
is
taken
down
and
then
a
7,000
8,000
square
foot
house
is
put
up
next
to
you.
That
has
a
big
impact.
F
I
personally
want
to
see
a
lot
smaller
houses
with
respect
to
the
ad
use.
I
am
fine,
adding
the
ad
additional
ad
use,
but
I
want
to
do
much
more
than
that.
I'm
interested
I
really
like
the
idea
in
be
of
being
able
to
take
your
house
and
being
able
to
convert
it
up
to
a
triplex
or
even
a
four-plex
I.
F
F
Don't
think
as
as
that,
my
question,
the
response
to
my
question
on
number
of
ad
use
or
OE
use
in
the
are
ours
and
our
East.
It's
not
like
everybody's
going
out
and
doing
this
I
think
the
impact
I
think
people
have
really
created
a
much
bigger
storm,
then
I
think
is
is
going
to
happen.
I
can
point
out
certain
places
that
people
would
like
to
build.
A
triplex
I
mean
I
would
like
people
to
have
and
I
know.
F
We
have
problems
with
the
Boulder
Valley
comp
plan
or
some
issues
that
we
need
to
iron
now,
but
I
would
like
to
see
the
option
of
people
being
able
to
construct
duplexes
triplexes
and
for
plexus
now
in
new
housing.
Instead
of
just
waiting
for
that
to
change.
For
me,
it's
you
know
to
3,500
square
foot.
Houses
are
going
to
be
expensive
as
Bob
points
out,
but
if
you
can
have
smaller
houses
that
are
up
to
1,500
2,000
square
feet,
the
price
point
would
be
much
lower.
F
I
think
this
so
I,
don't
think
everybody's
going
to
come
out
and
do
these
right
away
so
I'm
hoping
we
can
move
forward
with
multiple
ad
use
and
I'm,
certainly
hoping
we
can
move
forward
with
people's
ability
to
convert
to
duplexes
or
triplexes
or
even
for
plexus.
If,
if
they
want
to
I
mean
we
have
these
eight
thousand
square
foot
houses,
they
could
be
divided
in
four
ways.
Okay,.
G
I'm
gonna
jump
in
and
give
my
opinion,
and
then
it
sounds
like
a
few.
Other
people
want
to
talk
and
then
we're
gonna
decide
we'll
get
some
guidance.
Okay,
so
I
guess
I'm
a
little
surprised
by
us.
I
thought
we
were
going
to
do
a
little
more
here
and
we
could
have
saved
them
a
lot
of
work
and
just
so
I
guess
I'm
alone,
but
I
absolutely
think
it
is.
It
falls
on
us
to
make
the
decisions
the
shape
to
shoot
the
future.
So
when
people
say
well,
the
ship
sailed,
big
houses
are
foregone
conclusion.
G
G
I
think
it's
because
I
mean
compatible
development,
they
tried
it.
It
did
have
some
impacts,
but
not
enough.
It
falls
on
us
to
do
some
more
tweaking
and
so
I
guess.
The
future
is
upon
us
and
it's
up
to
us
to
make
some
decisions
so
anyhow,
I've
to
would
do
all
a
BD,
a
DB
and
I
thought
we
were
going
to
so
I'll.
Just
throw
that
out
there.
I
too
can
count.
G
So
it
sounds
like
we'll
do
another
quick
round
here,
because
three
people
raised
their
hand
and
then
it
looks
like
I
absolutely
think
we
should
do
a
citywide
survey
and
I
think
that
T's
us
up
well
for
Phase,
two
too
and
and
then
I'd
be
interested
in
where
there's
enough
of
their
there,
which
it
sounds
like
ad
use
and
maybe
conversions.
We
should
get
more
specific.
Okay,
I
have
Aaron
Mary
Cindy
and
then
back
to
you,
Bob.
I
I
You
know
a
built
from
scratch:
triplex
that
pairing
that,
with
a
lowering
of
the
total
allowed
amount,
so
that
there's
more
of
an
incentive
for
it
so
sort
of
giving
a
takeaway
options
so
I
wouldn't
abandon
that
idea
entirely,
but
I
would
move
it
to
face
two.
So
that's
my
my
thought,
I
just
wouldn't
do
it
I
wouldn't
do
it
now
I
mean
a
survey
is
always
useful.
I
mean
we
did
do
a
statistically
valid
survey
on
exactly
these
concepts
in
the
comprehensive
plan.
I
Survey
was
just
three
years
ago
and
I'm
going
to
throw
out
a
few
numbers
here.
Real
quick
because
I
have
been
in
front
of
me
that
there
was
a
question
about
whether
people
would
support
attach
to
detach
280
use,
and
this
is
all
in
established,
single-family
neighborhoods
and
there
were
62
percent
who
strongly
or
somewhat
supported
that
and
27
percent
who
strongly
or
somewhat
opposed
it
in
the
duplex
or
duplex
conversion
in
a
single-family
neighborhood
had
71
percent
support,
17
percent
opposed
and
then
the
cottage
court
which
we
couldn't
can
look
at
in
Phase.
I
Two
at
73
percent
support
in
15
percent
opposed
so
I
think
we
found
in
that
comprehensive
plan
survey
strong
support
for
these
ideas
across
the
city,
so
I
think
you
know
more
information,
fresher
information,
always
good,
but
I
think
we
that
to
me
was
a
really
strong
indication
that
that
the
the
city
felt
like
these
sorts
of
ideas
were
worth
exploring.
So
I
think
we
can
move
forward
and-
and
so
I
would
like
to
see
us
do
the
B
and
D,
and
that,
with
the
with
the
conversion
thing,
I
just
have
staff.
M
E
A
lot
of
places
downtown
have
these
large
houses
that
were
converted
to
multiple
apartments,
so
I
think
that,
as
Ann
said
for
the
future,
I
think
that's
that
would
be
a
great
option
and
the
the
the
ad
use
the
extra
ad
use
I
would
support.
I
think
I
agree
with
Sam.
The
the
energy
code
has
kind
of
taken
care
of
a
as
far
as
the
Phase
two
I
think.
That's
where
it's
gonna
get
really
interesting
about
what
we
can
do.
E
So
that's
it
for
phase
one
I
I
still
would
like
to
see
the
survey
and
to
drill
down
into
specifics
like
the
drawings
that
we
have
here
and
then
I
still
would
like
to
see
it
split
out
between
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
and
the
entire
city,
because
I
maintain
that
the
the
context
matters
and
where
folks
aren't
being
assaulted,
like
they
were
in
North
Boulder,
then
perhaps
it's
not
necessary
yet,
but
I
think
that
if
we
do
it
citywide,
where
we
do
these
options,
B
and
D,
it's
something
for
the
future.
So.
H
Can
I
ask
a
clarifying
question
because
it
just
occurred
to
me
where
you
were
supporting
the
survey
I
think
it
would
be
most
useful
to
do
the
survey
to
inform
phase
2
I
think
these
things
we
might
be
able
to
move
forward
with
sooner.
Were
you
thinking
of
a
survey
before
we
move
forward
with
phase
1,
because
I
think.
H
K
I
just
wanted
to
say,
if
we,
this
council,
we're
going
to
do
any
one
thing
to
address
the
sort
of
overwhelming
issues
that
we
are
dealing
with
in
terms
of
affordability,
density,
traffic,
congestion.
We
would
change
the
zoning
so
that
we
don't
have
so
much
commercial
space
as
long
as
we
continue
to
be
filling
up
the
commercial
space
with
those
moving
into
the
community
or
moving
from
places
which
are
much
more
expensive
than
this
one
and
they're
driving
up
the
prices.
K
That's
what's
driving
up
the
affordability
issues
and
it's
also
driving
up
now
the
density
so
that,
in
terms
of
livability,
as
long
as
we're
allowing
these
kinds
of
jobs
and
these
kinds
of
numbers
to
keep
coming
in
we're
never
going
to
make
it
we,
we
can't
catch
up
to
that
kind
of
thing.
And
so,
if
we
were
to
deal
with
dealing
with
commercial
growth
in
this
community,
that
would
be
a
real
thing
to
do.
K
And
that's
the
thing
that
wasn't
done
around
2001
2002
when
the
last
task
force
I,
believe
convened
on
that
and
it
was
predicted,
then
that
we
would
be
where
we
are
now.
If
we
didn't
act,
then
so
here
we
are
and
we're
talking
about
doing
these
kinds
of
to
some
extent
for
the
people
who
live
there
draconian
measures.
K
My
fear
is
that
the
developers
are
going
to
grab
this
and
they're
gonna
be
the
ones
who
are
doing
this
kind
of
thing
rather
than
the
people
who
live
on
the
ground
and
that
they'll
come
in
they'll
say:
oh,
let's
do
this.
Let's
split
up
this
one
house
into
these
three
or
let's
build
a
house
knowing
that
we
can
build
280
use
behind
it
and
they'll
come
in
they'll.
K
Do
this
again
to
the
neighborhoods,
rather
than
it
being
organically
happening
from
within
the
neighborhood
itself,
and
so
that's
my
big
fear
on
kind
of
moving
forward
with
this,
and
why
I
really
want
to
hear
the
people
where
they
live
and
I
would
also
focus
with
Mary
on
the
north.
Coming
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
area.
G
E
No
I
was
just
gonna.
Add
one
more
comment
to
my
thoughts
regarding
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
as
well.
It's
it
does
have.
It
is
closer
to
a
lot
of
amenities
and
it's
got
the
transit
and
so
I
think
that
that's
why
it's
been
happening
there
and
not
in
the
other
places
or
as
well
as
the
the
whole
idea
of
it's
different
contextually
in
the
other
parts
of
town.
So,
ok,
we
have
Bob
than
Lisa.
G
C
You
know,
I
think
we
heard
staff
say
that
in
our
RN
re
neighborhoods,
roughly
2
percent
of
the
houses
had
taken
advantage
of
80
use.
I
don't
know
sounds
like
Steph
doesn't
know
how
many,
what
percentage
of
all
of
our
housing
units
citywide
has
taken
advantage
of
it.
When
we
modified
our
ad
you
rules
back
in
August,
it
was
1%,
was
231
units
had
about
23,000
single
family
units?
Now
maybe
we've
had
a
big
bow
wave
we've
gone
from
1%
to
4%,
but
I'm
guessing
we
probably
haven't
gotten
there.
C
I
would
like
to
give
it
some
time
to
proceed
and
see
how
the
guesses
that
we
made
last
August.
Are
they
pan
out?
We
probably
got
some
of
it
wrong.
We
don't
know
yet
and
I
look
at
our
calendar.
I
mean
this
council
is
only
be
together
for
another
5
months
and
I.
Look
at
our
calendar.
We've
got
all
pine
balls
so
much
we
got
to
deal
with.
You
guys
see
you
south,
which
we
definitely
have
to
deal
with.
You
got
community
benefits
which
we
put
on
ourselves.
C
H
C
H
C
G
C
F
All
right
so
I
just
wanted
to
colloquy
comment
that
Mary
made
about
why
in
North
Boulder,
all
the
demolitions
are
happening
and
I
had
asked
Karl
and
Andrew
about
that
at
some
point
when
they
were
first
beginning
to
look
at
that
and
I.
Think
part
of
the
reason
is
that
the
houses
in
North
Boulder
that
are
being
demolished
are
mostly
older
than
the
ones
like
in
Frazier,
Meadows
or
Southeast
folders.
F
Don't
know
exactly
how
we
would
go
about
getting
workers
comments,
but
I
would
like
to
know
that,
and
we
kind
of
already
did
that
we
did
that
survey
asking
people
if
they
would
want
to
live
here
and
then
what
types
so
I
think
we
just
need
that
brought
back
up,
and
so
we
can
look
at
that.
But
I
think
it's
really
important.
F
I
I
think
the
process
that
you've
gone
through
so
far
has
been
great
and
that
it
has
really
engaged
people,
and
it
has
really
gotten
people
talking
about
this,
and
that,
for
me,
was
the
point-
is
to
get
people
talking
about
what
is
our
future
and
are
we
going
to
just
stay
stuck
in
our
ways
and
and
in
terms
of
the
IP
peace?
Indeed,
that
was
back
in
the
integrative
planning
project.
F
F
There
are
special
cases
and
I'm
not
sure
how
how
we
address
those
but
we're
people
who
live
in
North
Boulder,
who
have
really
large
lots,
would
really
like
to
do
something
other
than
escape
and
build
a
giant
house
and
right
now,
that's
not
permissible
for
these
individuals
and
heard
from
them
in
emails.
Okay,
so
just
time.
G
Check
we
haven't
done
phase
two,
we
haven't
finished
keeping
guidance
and
we
were
supposed
to
be
done
with
this
in
20
minutes.
So
I
guess,
straw
poll,
two
things
I
think
are
on
the
table
because
the
survey
I
think
has
to
do
with
phase
two.
So
we'll
talk
about
that
in
a
minute,
I
guess
just
straw
polls.
If
people
are
interested
in
pursuing
phase
one
conversions,
two
duplexes
and
triplexes
I
want
to
see
if
we
have
five
one
two,
oh
sorry,
okay
and
then
more
ad
use
in
phase
one.
F
G
H
It
seemed
to
me
that
what
staff
had
proposed
was,
if
you
have
remaining
FA,
are
on
a
lot
you
can
put
in
multiple
a
to
use.
I
would
suggest
we
just
cap
it
it
to
and
say
you
can
do
as
much
as
the
far
will
allow
up
to
two,
and
that
could
be
one
internal
and
one
cottage
or
it
could
be
two
cottages
or
two
internals.
H
But,
however,
it
looks
I
think
the
far
limit
is
kind
of
the
first
step
and
if
you
have
far
left
that
would
allow
you
to
build
an
a
to
you
or
to
a
to
use.
You
should
be
able
to
use
it,
but
I
would
cap
it
it
to
for
now,
but
I
don't
think
people
are
gonna
want
your
de
facto
college
courts
and
their
neighbours
backyard
right
now.
So,
like
you
say,
the
pace
of
change
that
might
be
digestible,
I
think
a
cap
will
make
a
little
more
certainty.
H
G
G
H
I
C
M
A
H
But
I
think
what
Cindy's
referencing
is.
Isn't
there
you
have
to
live
there,
there's
a
residency
requirement,
that's
part
of
it
and
then
there
had
been
I
can't
remember
what
we
did
with
this,
but
there
had
been
a
requirement
that
primary
home
be
in
existence
for
a
certain
amount
of
time
before
the
ad
use
built.
K
H
The
other
thing
I'll
say
about
it
as
far
as
resource
efficiency.
Is
it's
clear
that
it's
cheaper
and
somewhat
less
resource-intensive
to
do
it
in
one
fell
swoop.
So
if
you're
building
a
mother-in-law
suite
into
a
home,
that's
a
new
build,
then
you
don't
have
to
build
it
without
the
kitchen
and
then
go
back
in
and
convert
it.
So
there's
some!
You
know
argument
from
the
standpoint
of
efficiency
that
it's
okay
to
do
them.
At
the
same
time,
I.
L
Guess
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
from
a
logic
point
if
we're
gonna
spend
our
valuable
time
doing.
This
I
would
hope
that
we're
making
an
impact
and,
if
you're,
stating
that
that's
2%
of
the
homes
up
there
that
are
doing
this.
That
to
me,
is
not
a
huge
number.
So
are
we
I
guess
the
premise
for
me:
is
that
we're
doing
this
in
order
to
create
affordable,
--I
tea,
but
if
people
aren't
doing
it,
we're
we're
spending
our
time
to
create
something
people
don't
want
to
use.
L
So
are
you
doing
this
strictly
for
the
future
or
I
mean
I?
Guess
if
you're
trying
to
make
a
direct
impact
now
I
just
think
our
time
is
better
spent
on
focusing
on
affordable
housing
in
areas
where
again,
we
can
do
more,
dense
and
more
transit
oriented
areas,
but
I,
guess
I'm
trying
it's
a
question
to
council
I.
Think.
G
Also,
the
two
things
we're
talking
about
is,
if
you
were
thinking
about
scaping
our
house
to
build
a
bigger
one.
This
also
says,
instead
of
doing
that,
you
could
build
an
internal
or
external
ATU
or
two,
so
it
might
also
be
relevant
to
existing
okay
and
the
conversions
only
apply
to
existing,
so
that.
I
N
I
G
The
idea
is,
for
we
are
providing
more
choices
right
now,
we're
not
taking
anything
away,
we're
just
adding
more
options
for
people
that
would
enable
them
to
to
add
on
to
existing
and
maybe
afford
to
stay
there
to
have
their
mother-in-law
quarter
or
that
sort
of
thing
or
to
convert
existing
to
multiple
units.
So
I
think
we
just
give
me
a
choices.
Yeah.
H
I
think
these
choices
are
useful
because
somebody,
you
know,
might
build
a
home
with
an
ad
you
intended
as
a
home
office.
So
it's
a
separate
cottage
and
lots
of
people
like
to
do
that
separate
their
their
workspace
from
their
home
space,
and
then
they
sell
after
their
7
years
and
now,
whoever
buys
it
next
has
the
option
of
oh
I'll:
buy
this
property
and
rent
that
out
to
help
me
make
the
mortgage
payment
I!
Think
there's!
You
know
everything
doesn't
happen
in
one
step
and
I
guess
to
your
point
about
the
percentage
like
zanza.
H
These
are
options
and
we
are
trying
to
entice
folks
to
think
differently
than
the
single
large
home
that
maxes
out
the
far
because
it
maxes
out
the
value,
and
this
is
at
least
giving
alternative
value
streams
to
homes.
And
so,
if
we
were
going
in
and
saying
you
all
have
to
put
80
years
here,
that
would
be
very
different
than
you
may
choose
to
put
an
Adu
here.
If
you
would
like.
G
Okay,
so-
and
it
sounds
like
conversions,
do
we
need
to
give
you
more
feedback
on
that
idea?
I,
don't
think
so.
Okay,
all
right!
So
those
two
ideas
we're
giving
direction
some
people
somewhat
reluctantly,
but
none
of
what
directions
of
staff
to
work
up
those
proposals
and
get
public
feedback
and
they
come
back
sometime
in
the
fall.
So.
L
A
G
A
When
we
go
into
potential
subdivision,
obviously
it
raises
some
issues
of
density
which
we're
gonna
I'm
gonna
talk
about,
and
we've
already
kind
of
talked
about,
new
construction
of
duplexes
and
triplexes.
This
would
be
a
little
bit
more.
There
would
have
to
be
a
little
bit
more
effort
put
into
you
know,
design
standards
which
I
talked
about
before
for
this
for
a
corona
construction,
duplexes
and
triplexes,
but
this
is
where
it
gets
where
we
need
some
more
feedback.
So
when
we
get
into
land
use
option
II.
A
This
is
if
we're
trying
to
get
into
it's
similar
to
the
Adu
idea,
where
there'd
be
a
capped
primary
residence
and
then
that
additional
square
footage
could
go
into
one
or
more
cottage
size,
homes
that
would
be
on
their
own
Lots
and
that
those
Lots
could
be
restricted
in
size.
It
could
be
like
thirty
five
hundred
square
feet
and
the
homes
upon
them
could
be
like
captive,
like
1,500
square
feet.
If
we're
trying
to
get
more
smaller
homes.
A
We
have
also
a
proposal
in
the
memo
that,
if
there
were
concerns
about
the
number
of
units
that
are
possible
in
these
areas,
it
could
be,
you
know,
allowed
it
potentially
just
one
cottage
per
per
law
and
that
gets
a
councilmember
brockett's
idea
like
the
backyard
kind
of
cottage
idea
and
then
moving
into
a
bigger
scale
site.
This
is
looking
at
a
larger
property
that
could
accommodate
more
units.
A
This
is
where
you
get
to
the
pablor
place,
idea
where
the
square
footage
gets
broken
down
into
potentially
in
this
case
six
six
units,
but
it
does
beg
the
question
of
what
level
of
additional
density
in
these
areas
of
the
city
is
appropriate
and
what
should
we
be
putting
our
energy
towards?
So
we've
broken
down
the
option
F
into
three
different
options.
A
So
if
we
stayed
with
the
current
density,
as
prescribed
by
the
Boulder
Valley
Conference
a
plan
to
be
two
dwelling
units
per
acre
in
the
RR
zone,
our
II,
though
nning
is,
has
the
same
land
use
designation
as
our
l1.
So
it
allows
two
to
six
dwelling
units
per
acre,
but
it's
a
little
more
problematic
in
RR.
A
So
that's
what's
shown
here.
So
as
part
of
this
project,
we
looked
at
these
particular
projects,
in
particular
the
poplar
place
project,
which
has
14
units
on
an
area
slightly
more
than
an
acre,
but
it
achieved
that
density
through
being
part
of
a
larger
PUD.
That's
actually
several
acres.
Excuse
me.
A
Another
project
we
looked
at
just
from
a
aesthetic
standpoint
and
and
similar
kind
of
density
is
Toby's
Lane,
which
is
off
of
55th,
but
there's
eight
dwelling
units
on
an
acre
there,
so
we're
in
actually
the
medium
density
range,
but
it
does
have
home
sizes
that
are
around
1200
or
even
a
thousand
square
feet
that
provide
a
visual
reference.
The
thing
about
these
particular
subdivisions
is
obviously,
when
you
get
to
this
level
of
units,
there
has
to
be
access.
A
There's
access
lanes,
there's
more
impervious
surface,
there's
storm
water
detention
requirements
that
kick
in
through
the
subdivision.
So
these
are
things
just
to
know
and
obviously,
if
we're
looking
at
doing,
they
get
more
of
a
six
dwelling
units
per
acre.
Those
types
of
neighborhoods
tend
to
have
higher
levels
of
infrastructure.
In
terms
of
you
know,
sidewalks
kerbin
gutter
to
handle
the
stormwater
things
of
that
nature.
A
So
we
have
to
understand
from
Council
what
level
of
change
would
we
be
looking
at
if
we
were
to
move
in
this
direction,
whether
the
cross-sections,
the
street
cross-sections
in
these
areas,
would
have
to
be
changed
from
the
kind
of
rural
cross-section,
whether
on
street
parking
would
have
to
be
included.
So
these
are
the
questions
that
that
phase
two
raises.
I
have.
A
We
did
meet
with
our
fire
department.
We
did
me
with
Public
Works
in
terms
of
water
and
wastewater
we've,
given
them
some
of
the
data
that
we
have,
they
were
fairly
comfortable
and
obviously
there
ought
to
be
more
research
done,
but
that
that
the
systems
could
handle
in
terms
of
water
and
wastewater.
It
was
more
of
the
stormwater
that
raised
kind
of
more
concerns
with
the
engineers
I
mean.
Obviously,
when
additional
density
is
added,
there's
there's
additional
trips.
You
know
from
the
additional
units
and.
K
A
Yeah
we
we
have
a
slide
here.
That
shows
you
know
if
we
use
the
assumptions
of
two
dwellings
per
acre
for
dwelling
units
per
acre
or
six
dwelling
units
per
acre.
This
table
shows
the
potential
for
new
units
again
if
this
is
applied
broadly-
and
we
just
wanted
this-
you
know
to
the
council
to
be
aware
of
the
number
of
units
that
are
that
could
be
possible.
A
So
in
this
case,
if
we
were
to
go
with
the
current
density,
our
zone
is
the
only
one
that
could
potentially
add
units
so
you'd
be
looking
at
250
new
units.
If
we
use
the
current
assumption,
if
we
were
to
change
the
land
use
plan
and
increase
the
density,
then
it's
like
I,
say:
four
dwelling:
it's
per
acres.
A
You
get
up
of
a
thousand
units
for
both
the
RR
and
re
zone
and
again,
if
you
want
to
six
dwelling
units
per
acre,
which
is
like
our
l1
zoning
you'd
be
looking
at
the
potential
for
3,000
additional
units.
One
thing
we
want
to
point
out
is
obviously
because
our
l1
is
already
sixth
Williams
per
acre
that
two
thousand
number
there
is
already
current.
You
know
how
it
is
today
as
far
as
potential
we
wanted
to
show
potential
number
of
new
units,
another
option
that
we
wanted
to
put
out
there.
G
A
H
H
A
A
Other
thing
we
wanted
to
add
is
like
a
fourth
option,
and
if
this
is,
this
is
almost
like
an
iterative
option.
If
counsel
was
concerned
about
that
intensity
or
a
number
of
units,
another
option
would
be.
You
know
almost
like
allowing
one
cottage
per
one,
each
standard
lot
in
these
zones
instead
of
allowing
a
breakdown
that
could
lower
the
number
of
units,
but
even
then
that
that
would
still
permit
almost
800
units
if
we
were
to
move
forward
with
that.
So
we're
putting
this
out,
for
you
know,
discussion
purposes
just.
H
To
remind
people
who
might
be
watching
this
is
in
addition
to
the
20,000
single
family
units
that
we
have
now
right.
Is
that
yes,
so
this
is
looking
at
somewhere
between?
You
know
1
percent
and
10
percent
of
addition,
so
it
1
percent
and
15
percent,
so
just
to
put
it
in
context.
You
know
these.
This
is
in
the
context
of
20,000
or
so
single-family
residential
better
than
now.
F
So
did
you
look
at
maybe
allowing
like
an
overlay
zone
or
something
like
that,
because
to
do
something
like
the
poplar
project?
You
need
the
land
to
do
that
and-
and
there
isn't
that
much
land
to
do
that,
but
I
could
see
doing
these
pocket
neighborhoods
in
kind
of
a
sparing
way
in
these
large
RR
and
re-type
neighborhoods.
The
poplar
project
doesn't
seem
to
create
any
problems,
poplar
and-
and
it
seems
to
still
have
a
lot
of
pervious
area
just
how
they
designed
the
houses
and
how
the
little
access
is
around
the
house.
F
So
not
every
house
has
their
own
driveway,
so
you
can
get
away
from
some
of
those
concerns
I
think
by
the
design.
But
did
you
consider
like
overlay
zones
where
somebody
might
come
in
and
say
I'd
like
to
apply
for
an
overlay
zone,
because
I
want
to
do
a
cottage
court
here
and
then
that
would
be
taken
and
you
probably
couldn't
do
another
one
in
maybe
another
two
blocks
or
something
like
that.
We.
A
A
I
A
Away,
yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
reminder
for
that.
I
actually
wrote
that
in
my
notes
here
so
yeah
we,
we
also
did
look
at
what.
If
just
hypothetically,
we
were
allowing
subdivision
of
those
zones
in
an
rl1
nature
and
just
allowed
buildings
to
be
built
on
it.
Meeting
up
being
built
up
to
the
current
FA
are
or
the
proposed
cap,
and
we're
we're
recommending
that
that
option
not
move
forward,
because,
basically,
if
you're
looking
at
and
what
we're
saying,
is
that
you
have
to
tie
the
fa
r
to
the
existing
lot.
A
I
Move
forward
thing
thanks
for
explaining
that
and
and
I
support
that
that
makes
sense
to
me
that
that
just
kind
of
simple
subdivision,
it's
not
going
to
get
us
to
our
affordability
goals.
So
it's
an
Casca
kind
of
a
process
question
here,
so
so
this
is
next
year
right
somewhere
between
two
and
six
of
us
will
no
longer
be
sitting
at
these
tables
when
this
gets
taken
up
so
like
how
specific
should
we
be
getting
here,
because
it's
gonna
be
a
different
crowd.
That's
working
on
this
next
year.
It's.
G
G
H
G
O
A
A
G
A
That's
another
way
to
answer
cuz
I'm
over
brockett's
question
is
that
it
could
also
inform
what
we
have
our
economists
look
at
right.
Now
we
have
a
proposal
pretty
much
ready
to
move
forward
based
on
council
feedback.
We
have
the
proposal
based
on
the
options
that
have
been
developed
so
that
they
could
look
at
that
and
determine
what
the
feasibility
of
all
the
different
options
would
be,
but
also
what
the
possibility
would
be
to
have
enable
deed
restricting
for
permanent
affordability
it
might
be
like.
Would
there
be
incentive?
A
H
Okay,
so
when,
when
we
were
looking
at
the
ATU
regulations-
and
we
said,
if
you
want
one-
that's
beyond
buy
right
and
we'll
have
deed,
restricted,
affordability,
and
what
does
that
look
like?
It
was
really
helpful
to
be
able
to
compare
what
the
pure
market
impact
is
as
far
as
the
return
to
the
developer
and
then,
if
something
is
deed,
restricted
what
the
rate
of
return
is
mixing
in
the
market,
plus
the
lead
restricted,
because
a
lot
of
times,
depending
on
the
assumptions,
it's
not
that
negative
of
an
impact.
H
It
might
take
five
points
off,
but
still
be.
You
know
well
above
the
hurdle
rate,
so
I
just
would
want
to
ask
that
we
see
that
Harrison
any
word
that
deed,
restricted
affordability
comes
in
that
we
see
what
it
would
be
like
if
the
deed
wasn't
there,
both
on
the
rent
rates
or
the
sale
price
versus
if
it
were
pure
market
mm-hm.
Great.
K
G
A
H
A
C
A
A
H
So
I
think
this
would
be
a
retreat
discussion
for
the
new
council
right.
It's
like
we've
done
this
much
work
we're
this
far
along.
We
have
survey
results
want
to
put
it
on
to
understand
what
we've
done.
There's
a
study
session
or
you
know,
I
think
this
will
make
a
great
deal
because
it's
something
that's
partially
done
and
there
will
be
other
things
that
are
like
that,
like
I,
think
community
benefit
will
be
in
that
same
state,
so
the
new
council
can
look
at
stuff.
That's
maybe
partially
baked
and
say.
G
G
I
I
Could
you,
if
you
did
some
kind
of
Cordy
kind
of
thing,
could
you
have
a
little
bit
of
shared
parking
area
and
people
walk
to
a
to
a
house?
You
know
something
like
that.
So,
and
and
do
you
necessarily
have
to
subdivide
to
do
a
cottage
court?
Or
can
you
do
you
know
one
parcel?
You
know
to
explore
some
of
those
approaches,
the
ways
that
you
might
take
to
make
them
think
aynd
of
more
livable,
but
also
lighter
impact
on
the
land
and
on
the
neighborhood.
G
H
Agree
on
that
I,
don't
know
how
like
Nomad,
cohousing
and
wild
sage,
how
they
might
be
different
than
a
cottage
court,
but
that
would
be
another
thing
to
bring
back
as
because
those
are
similar
in
nature.
I,
don't
they're
both
have
their
own
character
but
how
they
fit
into
the
college.
Court
idea
how
cohousing
fits
in
or
not.
G
M
I
G
E
H
I'll
just
say
in
response
to
Bob
phase
two
will
be
at
the
will
of
the
next
council
and
so
having
detail
about
what
there
looking
at
is
I
think
helpful
to
them
when
they
decide
what
they
want
to
do
with
it,
and
I
would
bet
that
there
are
a
couple
incumbents
who
might
run
a
race
who
will
see
back
again
as
well.
So.
G
A
So,
moving
on
our
our
second
topic
tonight
is
a
discussion
about
the
hue
standards
and
table
project,
which
also
includes
a
discussion
about
the
opportunity
zone,
which
is
a
component
of
that.
So
as
far
as
part
of
this
discussion
tonight,
we
have
basically
it
broken
into
two
pieces.
The
first
piece
would
focus
just
on
the
overall,
broader
aspects
of
the
project,
with
respect
to
the
project
scope,
the
Y
and
purpose
statement,
the
goals
and
reporting
back
on
the
community
engagement.
A
This
is
something
that's
been
in
process
for
some
time
now
and
that
we've
been
working
with
our
Planning
Board
subcommittee
on,
but
we
wanted
to
talk
to
Council
about
the
broader
aspects.
The
second
piece
of
it
will
be
focusing
on
the
specific
changes
to
the
opportunity
zone.
So
this
is
basically
a
follow
up
from
our
discussion
on
April,
2nd.
A
So
the
first
question
just
to
tee
it
up
and
we'll
get
back
to
this
is
what
feedback
does
City
Council
have
regarding
the
subcommittee's
project
scope?
Why
in
purpose
statements
the
timeline
goals
and
areas
of
consideration?
So
basically,
we
want
to
learn
from
Council
tonight
is:
are
there
any
pieces
of
it
that
are
missing?
Are
there
any
considerations
or
pieces
of
the
project
that
should
be
modified
or
removed
and
are
fifteen-minute
neighborhoods
a
priority
area
of
consideration
for
this
project
and
then
the
second
piece
again?
A
This
question
relates
to
what
feedback
does
Council
have
regarding
the
proposed
use
table
changes
to
address
concerns
about
future
development
within
the
opportunity
zone,
so
there's
basically
seven
top
so
that
we've
outlined
in
the
memo
that
we
want
to
discuss
and
I'll
get
back
to
this
later.
So
we
have.
The
near-term
part
of
this
project
is
to
really
focus
on
those
opportunities.
Own
changes
with
the
goal
of
bringing
an
ordinance
back
sometime
this
summer
for
council
consideration
and
then
the
second
piece
would
be
the
longer
term
going
into
next
year.
A
B
Thanks
Carly,
if
you
have
any
questions
or
if
you
just
speed
up
or
slow
down
as
well,
so
first
part
touched
on
the
overall
project
and
the
subcommittee
work
thus
far,
and
so
this
project
initially
was
identified
by
the
Planning
Board
and
City
Council.
As
I
worked
by
an
item
for
2018,
there
was
a
subcommittee
formed
which
is
three
board
members
appointed
by
the.
B
B
Members
serves
to
guide
the
project
and
make
recommendations
yeah
as
a
sounding
board
for
ideas
and
help
to
engage
with
the
public.
We
held
seven
subcommittee
meetings
thus
far
since
this
summer
and
they
are
advertised
and
open
to
the
public
to
attend,
to
provide
feedback
on
and
really
the
subcommittee
has
established,
the
scope
and
goals
and
what
we're
calling
the
initial
areas
of
consideration
or
topics
for
further
study
moving
forward.
It
don't
look
that
the
opportunity's
own
changes
that
crowd
will
have,
and
second
prior
this
presentation.
B
So
briefly,
the
project
seeks
to
look
and
inline
the
table
of
a
land
use
code
with
the
BBC
P
policies
that
looks
to
do
looks
to
do
two
things.
Specifically,
one
is
structural
and
technical
changes.
It's
the
East
able
to
help
make
it
more
legible
and
understandable,
and
secondly,
as
Carl
touched
on
they
to
explore
some
of
these
broader
planning
concepts
such
as
15-minute
neighborhoods,
and
how
some
tweaks
to
the
tables
may
help
to
encourage
some
positive
changes
at
the
Boulder
Valley,
comprehensive
plan
envisions
and
well.
B
The
part
two
of
the
artwork
will
probably
sell
into
other
projects
such
as
you
know.
The
sub
community
planning
efforts
as
well
so
really
quick
here
at
the
scope
of
the
projects,
is
only
limited
to
chapter
nine
six
few
standards,
which
includes
the
actual
table
itself,
as
well
as
any
specific
you
standards
and
ancillary
sections,
such
as
definitions.
It
does
not
include
any
form
bulk
or
intensity
chapters
of
the
land-use
code,
so
no
floor
area,
no
setbacks,
etc.
I
can.
B
The
purpose
is
to
align
the
chapter
nine
six
of
the
land-use
code
with
a
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
and
to
help
enable
the
desired
development
outcomes
and
envisions
so
subcommittee
identified
a
series
of
broad
goals
for
the
project
and
you're
gonna
get
your
feedback
on
these
as
well.
So
the
first
is
to
simplify
the
use
table
and
to
streamline
the
regulations
where
possible.
A
second
is
to
create
more
predictability
and
certainty
in
Chapter
nine
six.
They
also
want
to
identify
any
community
desired.
Land-Use
gaps
such
as
computing,
Community,
Supported,
Agriculture,
others
to
live
work.
B
Things
like
that.
The
might
not
be
currently
addressed
and
the
table
itself
and
also
to
address
things
where
the
current
list
of
uses
may
not
have
resulted
in
the
most
desirable
outcomes
or
I
had
unintended
consequences.
They
also
want
to
look
at
ways.
The
use
table
can
better
in
line
with
the
city's
energy
climbing
waist
goals
as
well.
B
So
we
talked
about
a
little
bit
before
they
are
interested
in
the
exploration
of
15min
neighborhoods
looking
at
home
occupations
and
how
that
land-use
could
be
treated
to
allow
more
flexibility
live
work
units
looking
at
whether
those
are
actually
from
as
its
envisioned
in
the
comprehensive
plan
other
opportunities
to
make
tweaks
looking
at
maker
spaces.
Do
we
have
a
used
category
that
captures
what
we're
seeing
now
with
some
of
the
21st
century
kind
of
economy
and
businesses,
as
well
as
co-working
spaces
which
may
not
fit
into
our
current
office?
Land
use
designations.
G
B
I
think
our
office
uses
and
definitions,
as
well
as
potentially
with
a
opportunity's
own
work
as
well.
Yes
for
sure,
and
so
the
engagement
with
this
has
just
he
backed
on
to
the
land
you
the
large
homes
and
lots
events,
so
we
had
again
open
houses
in
February
and
then
an
online
questionnaire
as
well.
B
Questions
get
some
high-level
feedback,
so
in
general,
what
we
heard
from
the
community
was
that
the
greatest
agreement
they
had
with
these
subcommittees
in
projects
areas
of
consideration
were
to
update
outdated
used
categories.
There's
also
support
for
changing
uses
to
use
reviews
where
certain
uses
may
be
warranted.
Things
like
coffee
shops
or
local
grocery
stores
that
were
more
walkable
or
of
interest
opportunities
for
more
mixed-use,
then
also
looking
at
getting
more
diverse
uses
in
your
non
residential
or
industrial
areas.
B
People
were
in
agreement
with
changes
to
the
user
view
criteria
serve
walkability
inside
design,
goals
of
the
city,
then
also
diversifying
housing,
types
of
use,
table
changes
and
then
studying
and
exploring
changes
to
incentivize
more
opinionated
neighborhoods
as
well
also
some
level
of
agreement
to
further
explore
some
changes
to
the
light
industrial
zones
into
the
future
least
amount
of
agreement
with
the
areas
of
consideration
ten.
Is
it
centered
around
increasing
development
design
standards,
changing
the
amounts
of
required
land
uses
for
certain
residential
non-residential
percentages?
We
have
now
sort
of
things
we
might
might
require.
B
H
A
question
so
when
you
say
there
was
more
agreement
with
the
following
areas
of
consideration
and
then
leased
agreement.
These
are
across
different
types
of
respondents.
Would
you
say,
for
instance,
I
can
see
the
first
two
bullet
points
being
something
that
the
business
community
in
general
would
have
a
hard
time
with,
and
so
would
you
I
mean?
Do
you
know?
Do
you
have
any
idea
when
you
had
agreement?
B
It's
more
looking
at
simply
to
stop
voting.
How
many
dots
were
place,
links
to
each
of
these
areas
of
consideration.
So
it's
not
broken
down
by
any
specific,
detailed
information.
An
online
survey
we
had
them,
I
believe
choose
neutral,
agree
somewhat.
You
know,
agree
greatly
or
disagree
greatly
and
that
also
helped
to
wade
out
their
level
of
agreement.
But
it's
not
broken
down
by
different.
You
know:
business
communities
versus
residential
citizens.
B
In
high-level
feedback,
just
to
kind
of
open
up
a
discussion
with
the
community
about
15
minutes,
we
had
them
identify
on
a
map
where
they
live
and
then
tell
us
what
land
uses
they
wish
they
had
more
of
or
less
of
nearby
and
same
where
they
work
and
where
they
play
or
dining
eat.
Generally
speaking,
it's
all
very
similar,
more
mixed
to
mix
of
uses
more
access
to
restaurants
and
shops
and
transit
in
green
space.
We
heard
they
wanted
less.
The
question
do.
B
B
B
G
H
H
F
Yep
I
have
just
a
little
comment
on
office
space
and
well.
You
know
we
certainly
I,
don't
want
to
encourage
lots
of
large
new
jobs
coming
in
to
Boulder.
We
do
have
small
homegrown
businesses
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
accommodate
those
and
I
know
in
in,
like
some
neighborhoods,
where
they
have
neighborhood,
centers
and
and
offices.
F
They
I
don't
have
it
in
front
of
me,
but
there's
a
term
that
says
you
know
it
needs
to
be
whoever's
in
that
office
needs
to
be
serving
a
neighborhood
use
and
so
I
have.
You
know
a
story
from
the
90s,
where
I
had
some
friends
who
were
working
at
one
of
these
neighborhood
shopping
centers,
but
they
sold
books
or
they
made
books
kind
of
nationally
and
internationally,
and
while
they
could
walk
to
work-
and
it
was
a
small
office,
the
city
closed
him
down
because
they
didn't
serve
necessarily
just
neighborhood
purpose.
G
I
F
A
A
All
right,
so
the
second
part
is
really
to
discuss
the
potential
code,
amendments
that
we're
working
on
that
we
talked
about
on
April
2nd.
So
this
is
a
follow
up.
So
obviously
our
focus
and
going
through
the
use
table
was
to
look
at
ways
to
change
the
huge
table
in
ways
that
could
increase
housing
capacity,
reduce
non-residential
capacity
relative
to
like
office
uses
to
offset
the
jobs,
housing
and
balance
and
also
maintain
the
potential
for
retail
uses.
A
So
a
real
quick
summary:
this
is
the
opportunity
zone
bounded
by
Arapahoe,
28th,
Street,
Airport,
Road
55th
and
the
diagonal.
These
are
the
zoning
districts
that
are
in
the
opportunity
zone
so
just
to
follow
up.
You
know
we
we
talked
about
this
before
we
went
through
the
use
table
and
we
presented
to
Council
a
number
of
different
changes
that
we
thought
could
work
towards
those
those
goals.
We
feel
that
at
the
April
2nd
meeting,
City
Council
was
generally
in
support
of
a
lot
of
those
changes.
A
We've
talked
about
the
the
limited
use
option
where
we
would
try
to
collapse.
Portions
of
the
youth
table
and
pull
some
of
those
pieces
out
into
limited
use
categories
so
that
we
could
have
something
between
an
allowed
use
and
a
conditional
use
that
would
have
a
one-line,
unique
land
use
characteristics.
So
we're
still
working
on
that.
It's
still
a
work
in
progress,
but
this
slide
kind
of
gives
you
an
idea
of
what
that's
looking
like.
You
more
will
be,
bringing
that
back
so.
A
Some
some
other
ones
that
we're
gonna
talk
about
tonight
would
be
changes
beyond.
What's
shown
up
here
on
this
slide
and
that's
where
we
need
to
get
more
feedback
from
the
council.
Most
of
this
of
the
L
stuff
is
definitely
non
subset.
If
it's
really
a
restructuring
pulling
things
out
of
the
used
table
that
are
a
little
confusing
and
putting
it
all
in
one
place
where
there's
one
line,
land
use
restrictions,
mm-hmm.
M
A
The
question
that
we
have
for
Council
tonight
is
what
feedback
does
Council
have
regarding
the
proposed
changes
with
respect
to
these
seven
items.
So
we've
broken
the
presentation
down
into
seven
topics.
These
are
the
areas
where
we
didn't
really
sense.
Consensus
on
the
council
that
we
needed
more
feedback
on
so
I
could
go
one
by
one
and
we
could
have
a
discussion
and
we
have
a
matrix
in
front
of
you
that
goes
through
each
of
these.
Do
you
want
to
do
one
by
one
or
should
I
just
run
through
all
of
them?
Okay,
all
right.
A
So
the
first
one
is
efficiency
living
units.
So
one
thing
that
staff
had
suggested
was
in
the
requirements.
In
the
code
basically
say
there
are
an
allowable
use
in
in
most
zones
up
to
the
point
where,
if
they're
more
than
20%
of
the
on-site
units,
it
becomes
a
use
review
and
we
felt
that
if
the
city
is
trying
to
encourage
or
incentivize
smaller
units
that
perhaps
maybe
that
threshold
should
be
removed
and
they
should
just
be
allowable
at
any
percentage.
So
that's
what
we
had
recommended
last
time.
A
There
was
a
discussion
that
perhaps
we
should
look
at
some
sort
of
deep
restriction
to
to
any
percentage
of
above
a
certain
point,
so
we've
added
an
option
C,
which
we've
basically
proposed
that
if
you
have
any
eel
use
in
a
project
that
are
over
50%
that
then
those
units
over
fifty
percent
would
be
deed
restricted.
So
that's
what
was
a
council
suggestion,
we're
continuing
to
recommend
option
B,
which
is
just
to
make
them
allowable
we're,
trying
to
look
at
ways
of
an
cent
of
izing
this?
A
K
K
K
G
J
A
Another
thing
we
brought
forward
to
council
was
looking
at
single
family
homes
in
high
density
residential
zone.
So
how
do
we
get?
How
do
we
incentivize
attached
housing
in
those
zones?
We
had
originally
an
option:
B
proposed
prohibiting
single-family
zone
single
family
units
and
the
rh
zones,
the
high
density
zones.
A
A
We've
changed
our
recommendation
to
option
C.
We
want
to
get
some
feedback
from
Council
on
it,
we're
proposing
that
you
just
change
it
to
use
review
and
the
reason
we're
suggesting
this
is
because
the
concern
about
prohibiting
them
is
that
we
might
end
up
incentivizing
a
developer,
to
scrape
you
know,
may
potentially
historic,
single-family
homes
and
replace
with
larger
structures,
and
that
it
might
be
better
to
just
encourage
that
they
keep
that
structure
but
convert
it
so
that
you
could
do
a
single-family
home
through
use
review.
A
A
I
A
Think
we
we
didn't
think
that
this
one
particularly
needed
additional
criteria.
We
followed
the
approach
of
the
mixed
use
zones
so
when
the
mixed
use
zones
were
crafted,
they
wanted
to
disincentivize
single-family,
and
they
did
that
through.
You
serve
you,
so
we're
basically
just
applying
that
logic
to
the
in
I
density
zones.
I
mean.
Are
there.
I
I
guess
my
feedback
on
this
is
I
mean
I'm
generally
supportive
I
don't
feel
like.
We
need
to
make
all
the
existing
ones.
Non-Conforming
like
I.
Don't
like
that.
That
idea,
but
and
so
reuse
review
gives
a
bit
of
an
out
to
that.
But
I
guess
I,
don't
I
don't
feel
like
a
lot
of
single-family
homes
is
the
best
use
of
high-density
residential,
and
you
might
have
a
case
where
that
somebody
might
spend
a
lot
of
money
and
build
a
single-family
home.
I
G
G
I
Is
yeah
and
so
I'm
just
looking
for
some
finesse,
then
to
what
you
come
up
with
address
that
and
that
because
I
think
generally
the
the
use
review
criteria,
single-family
I,
wouldn't
probably
leap
through
those
really
easily,
because
you
don't
have
a
huge
impact
on
your
neighbors
and
things
like
that.
So.
I
H
That's
what
I
was
gonna
ask
is
for
those
300
that
you've
got
out
of
thirteen
thousand
units,
or
whatever
are
those
typically
on
odd
parcels
or
were
built
before
the
zoning
became
our
era
built
before
it
was
alright
zoning
right,
so
their
lot
size
probably
isn't
conducive
to
an
apartment.
Building
generally
is
that
right,
yeah
yeah,
so
it
seems
like
many
of
these
Lots
will
be
built
with
an
existing
non-conforming
single-family
there.
So
I
think
this
suggestion,
needly
finesses.
H
All
of
that-
and
I
don't
think
you
should
say
new
builder
existing
because
almost
all
of
them
are
existing,
and
so
the
time
that
you
would
have
a
chance
to
intervene
would
be
if
there
was
going
to
be
scraped,
for
instance
right
if
somebody
was
proposing
to
scrape
one
they
would
go
through.
You
serve
you
at
that
point,
and
then
there
would
be
some
influence
of
the
city
over
kind
of
what
went
there
or
if
it
was
big
enough
that
there
could
be
RH
and
presumably
staff
would
look
at
multi-unit
there.
H
A
So
the
next
topic
is
residential
in
the
business
regional
zones.
So
currently
residential
is
allowed
on
the
ground.
Floor
staff
raised
this
issue
with
council
that
you
know.
Perhaps
we
might
want
to
look
at
doing
something
similar
to
the
business
community
zones
where
we
require
that
the
residential
be
brought
off
the
ground
floor.
That
was
our
original
suggestion.
A
H
G
H
O
H
Large
retail
users,
so
this
is
this:
the
boulder
valley
regional
center,
mostly
yeah
yeah,
so
75%
of
the
ground
floor
of
buildings
to
be
residential,
I
mean
I,
understand
the
to
nine
North
counter
example,
but
that
number
seems
high
to
me.
Seventy
five
percent
seems
like
an
awful
lot
in
a
business
district.
What.
G
I
Yeah
I
mean
I,
mean
I.
Think
I
was
the
one
the
one
council
member
who
brought
this
up
originally
and
I.
Think
maybe
you
threw
in
the
75%,
maybe
but
I
mean
I
think
the
idea
is
that
we
need
more
housing
and-
and
so,
if
we,
if
we
place,
if
you
have
a
decent
sized
parcel
I
mean
then
making
the
whole
ground
floor
need
to
be.
Retail
is
I,
think
a
restrictive.
I
It
restricts
your
ability
to
do
housing,
so
the
seventy
five
percent
seems
like
a
reasonable
amount
to
me,
because
then
you
get
some
retail
I
mean.
If
you
look
at
a
decent
sized
parcel,
that's
probably
about
what
you
need
to
front
the
street
there's
about
25
percent.
You
know
not
a
bigger
parcel
so
that
that's
I
think
it
makes
a
certain
amount
of
sense.
I!
Think,
once
you
get
have
much
much
less
than
that,
you're
gonna
require
you
you're
getting
disincentivize
residential
away.
That
I,
don't
think,
is
a
great
idea.
L
Could
we
change
it
and
write
it
more
like
how
we
did
with
other
grounds
or
zoning
where
you
see
wanted
BC
went
into
where
we
talked
about
where
it
did
actually
front
the
street
and
then
around
the
back
we
could
allow
it
I
think
we
had
kind
of
done
it
that
way
in
it.
Everyone
seemed
to
be
pretty
happy
with
it.
Yeah.
H
H
You
know
the
street
front
on
both
corners
and
then
it
would
make
sense
to
put
the
residential
on
the
ground
floor
behind
that,
and
so
it
seems
like
it's
context-dependent
to
me
and
so
I
think
this
one
maybe
should
be
a
used
review
to
be
able
to
get
the
planning
department.
Since
you
know
the
intentions
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
in
the
zone
district
to
shape
the
project
so
that
we
get
that,
and
that
would
be
another
way
to
do
that.
But.
G
The
goal
is,
you
know
what
the
goal
is
and
I
think
it's
most.
So
so
do
that
or
if
you
have
a
better
suggestion,
I
think
I'm
open
to
it.
I
think
it
mostly
comes
up
when
we
imagined
redeveloping
a
strip
mall
where
suddenly
you're
taking
over
surface
parking,
then
seventy-five
percent
number
requiring
it
the
whole
downstairs
doesn't
make
sense,
but
for
most
places
I
think
75
percent
does
so
anyhow,
I,
don't
know
if
you
serve,
you
isn't
too
restrictive
and
owners
and
just
to
clarify.
A
H
And
if
it's
a
conditional
use
review,
can
that
be
called
up
by
Planning
Board,
okay,
but
used
for
the
yes?
But
if
it's
really
big,
it's
gonna
require
a
site
plan
review,
probably
anyway,
so
okay,
I,
think
I
mean
I.
Think
I've
conditionals,
fine
with
me
just
so
long
as
staff
has
a
look
at
it
and
it's
not
just
a
number,
because
that
numbers
you
know
context-dependent,
probably
and.
F
F
Look
on
their
website,
yeah
yeah,
just
look
at
their
at
their
rentals
and
I.
Think
I
saw
one
of
them
over
ten
thousand
dollars
a
month,
so
I
would
rather
have
some
kind
of
housing
that
is
permanent,
that
is,
maybe
deed,
restricted
or
affordable.
I.
Don't
think
we
need
any
more
super
high-end
apartment
complexes,
so
it's
just
a
concern.
I
have
so
I
guess.
I
would
like
to
see
some
permanent
affordability
in
this
somehow.
G
A
We
didn't
expect
that
these
changes
would,
you
know,
wholly
meet
all
the
different
goals
it
would.
It
would
help
towards
moving
towards
those
goals.
I
think
we're
looking
at
future
changes
that
might
come
out
of
the
East
Boulder
or
sub
Community
Plan.
That
would
also
address
that
as
well,
but
just
as
targeted
changes.
This
is
what
we're
proposing.
K
Before
then
doing
these
zoning
changes
so
that
we
actually
know
what
we
want
to
get
that
kind
of
community
benefit
at
the
outset,
but
there
were
three
value:
three
things
that
we
were
looking
at
from
the
opportunity's
own:
to
extract
the
value
from
it
and
get
public
benefit,
not
lose
any
of
the
affordable
and
no
excess
office.
So
in
terms
of
addressing
all
of
this
I'm,
it
feels
like
we're
doing
it
kind
of
piecemeal
and
it
has
been
suggested,
it's
sort
of
a
cart
before
the
horse,
and
it's
since
it
goes
across
the
whole
city.
K
G
A
A
Generally,
the
criteria
talked
about.
You
know
you
can't
go
over
2,000
square
feet
in
most
of
the
industrial
zones.
I
believe
one
of
the
zones
ims
has
a
lower
1,000
square
foot
limit.
I
think
the
biggest
inhibiting
factor
might
be
that
there's
a
requirement
that
they
not
be
on
major
streets,
so
I
think
a
lot
of
restaurants.
You
know
prefer
to
be
on
major
streets
like
a
strip
kind
of
malte
velopment,
and
it
prohibits
that
so
it's
really
meant
to
service
the
employers
in
that
area.
A
So
that
would
be
probably
one
of
the
bigger
things
that
we
would
have
to
look
at
to
see
whether
we
want
to
remove
that
we're
we're
actually
recommending
that
this
change
be
deferred
just
so
that
we
can
hear
more
from
the
community
and
the
employers
in
that
area
as
part
of
the
East
Boulder
subcommittee
plan
books.
Just
so
that
we're
approaching
this
correctly,
so
that's
what
we've
put
down
in
an
option
C,
but
we
certainly
could
move
forward
with
the
option
of
taking
out
that
major
streets
provision.
A
F
F
H
H
You
know
come
to
popular
times,
they're
really
congested
impact,
so
I
think
we
do
need
to
do
this,
but
I
would
prefer
to
listen
to
staff
on
this
one,
because
I
think
it
needs
a
little
bit
of
thinking
about,
because
you
don't
want
them
necessarily
displacing
the
industrial
uses.
You
want
them,
venting
the
industrial
uses,
so
I
think
that's
the
one
caveat
I
would
put
out.
H
G
I
C
I
would
brought
a
question.
One
of
the
purposes
of
this
exercise
is
to
start
to
bring
zoning
districts
out
of
the
word
tram.
Is
that
right,
and
so
by
deferring
this
decision?
Does
that
mean
the
industrial
zones
to
stay
in
the
moratorium
or
what
actions
cause
to
them
to
move
out
the
way
the
B
C's
already
moved
out,
I
think.
A
C
H
So
that
brings
up
an
interesting
point
for
me:
Bob.
The
other
thing
that
needs
to
be
in
the
mix
and
the
industrial
zones
is
housing.
You
know
one
of
the
conversations
we've
had
is:
can
we
increase
housing
opportunity
in
the
industrial
zones,
and
that
requires
a
lot
of
analysis
and
so
as
part
of
that
sub
community
plan
I
think
we
can
do
these
analyses
together.
H
M
A
Okay,
alright,
so
the
next
one
again
looking
at
the
used
tables
of
the
lens
of
how
do
we
address
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance?
One
idea
that
staff
proposed
was,
you
know.
One
idea
you
could
do
is
prohibit
offices
in
the
residential
zones.
So
there
was
there
was
some
concern
about
that,
and
maybe
that
we
should
just
allow
smaller
scale
offices
in
the
zones
so
have
a
little
bit
of
data.
I
think
here
as
far
as
amount
of
office
is.
A
And
required
you
serve
you
to
be
approved,
so
we
did
have
our
our
data
folks
kind
of
look
at
this.
There
are
basically
two.
Let's
see
there
was
some
concerns
about
the
rmx
zone,
that
perhaps
we
should.
The
city
should
look
at
being
more
restrictive
about
offices
in
that
zone
based
on
the
amount
of
office.
That's
already
there,
so
just
pointing
out
there
are
29
properties
up
would
be
impacted
by
a
change
to
that
and
there's
91
firms
that
are
in
the
rmx
one's
own.
So
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out.
A
There
also
there's
about
20,
225
properties
and
in
residential
zones
in
total.
That
would
be
impacted
if
there
were
changes
to
to
this.
So
if
we
were
to
move
forward,
what
what's
suggested
is
is
a
still
allowing
use
review
for
offices
in
these
zones,
but
capping
it
at
1,000
square
feet.
Today.
The
current
regulations
don't
have
a
square
footage
cap,
so
we
thought
this.
This
would
be.
You
know
a
way
to
get
moderate
sized
offices,
but
again
with
the
use
review
process.
So
our
original
recommendation
was
to
prohibit
so
we've.
M
O
A
C
A
C
I
K
G
N
I
I
mean
the
reason
is
to
have
the
the
live
work
ability
not
in
the
same
building
but
to
have
in
the
same
neighborhood,
and
so
that
I
mean
the
full
disclosure.
This
is
me:
I
have
an
office
across
the
street
from
my
house,
because
the
holiday
neighborhood
is
a
mixed
use,
neighborhood
and
it's
like
it's
650
square
foot
offices,
little
thing
and
but
I'm,
not
the
only
one.
I
There
are
a
number
of
people
who
walk
to
work
because
there
are
offices
in
the
neighborhood
and
and
it's
an
HOA
I
mean
I-
think
there's
like
10
little
office
condos
in
there,
but
I
think
it's
shared
ownership
of
the
land,
so
I
mean
it's.
It's
only
like
4,000
square
feet
of
office,
but
it's
one
parcel
and
I
think
that's
a
real
positive
thing.
I
think
it
works
out
really
well
and.
K
I
H
A
H
So
you
know
when
it
was
purpose-built
and
planned
out
that
assessment
was
all
kind
of
part
of
the
initial
planning
process
and
so
I
don't
think
this
is
an
attempt
to
argue
against
that.
It's
good
to
have
people
be
able
to
work
close
to
where
they
live,
but
this
is
more
of
an
attempt
to
prevent
an
erosion
of
the
residential
into
office
space,
which
has
happened
on
Spruce
out
East
and
Folsom.
It's
happened.
It's
happened
down.
I
So
I
think
if
I
made
the
to
that
point,
then
I
would
recommend
crafting
something
was
specifically
aimed
at
residential
conversions,
because
I
agree
that
that
we
should.
We
should
prevent
work
towards
preventing
residential
conversions,
but
there
will
be
other
new
neighborhoods,
you
know
or
parcels,
or
something
like
that
that
get
built
that
may
want
to
incorporate
a
little
bit
of
office
in
them
and
I.
Think
that's
positive
I,
maybe
there's
a
cap
of
percentage.
You
know,
maybe
it's
no
more
than
a
5%
of
the
total
space
or
something
like
that.
I
But
I
do
not
support
this.
In
its
current
form,
I
mean
I.
Think
we've
had
a
value
of
creating
mixed-use
neighborhoods
in
this
town
for
decades
and
I
think
it
works
out.
Well
for
us,
so
maybe
an
alternate
approach
would
be
a
total
percent
and
and
not
allowing
conversions.
If
you
took
that
kind
of
approach,
I
think
it
could
work
out
so
I'll.
H
H
Now,
if
we
want
to
say
that
its
request
for
conversion,
then
that's
fine,
and
so,
if
it's
new
build-
and
maybe
it's
not
as
big
of
a
deal
but
I
also
don't
want
somebody
somehow
to
find
a
way
to
try
and
put
10,000
square
feet
of
office
into
the
residential
zone
when
if
they
can
do
that,
they
could
be
building
residential
and
so
I
guess
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
you
can
go
back
and
think
about
this
one,
a
little
more
and
focus
it
so
that
we're
not
losing
opportunities
for
housing
or
that
would
be.
C
That
that
so
maybe
maybe
we
end
up
with
two
caps,
one
is
cap
for
new
build,
which
would
probably
be
a
higher
number
and
then
the
second
would
be
a
cap
on
conversions,
which
is
a
lower
number.
If
we
want
to
discourage
conversions
right
well,
we
want
to
allow
to
some
extent
in
whether
this
is
a
thousands
of
square
feet
or
whether
this
percentage
is
suggested.
We
don't
necessarily
want
to
to
eliminate
those
new
builds
up
to
a
certain
limit.
This
is
all
subject
use
for
you
anyway,
right.
Oh
yeah,.
H
F
A
G
H
Let
me
ask
a
question
currently
in
RH
zones,
our
offices
and
allowed
use
there
through
use
review.
So
right
now
in
the
opportunity
zone,
there's
our
H
properties,
and
so
somebody
could
propose
replacing
a
small
apartment
building
with
a
Class
A
office
building,
and
then
it
would
come
to
you
and
what
would
you
do
with
it?
What
criteria
would
you
use
to
evaluate
either.
H
Say
so,
I
think
that's
why
there's
concern
right
is
because
I
don't
think
we
want
it
to
be
contextual,
I,
think
particularly
the
opportunity
zone.
What
I've
heard
a
lot
of
council
members
say
is
we
want
to
prevent
the
possibility
of
losing
apartments
to
anything
or
losing
condos
to
anything.
So
the
reason
this
is
of
concern
Aaron,
is
not
really
on
your
end
of
the
spectrum.
H
So
much
as
you
know
what,
if
staff,
not
these
guys,
but
some
other
staff
that
come
later,
we're
just
see
an
application
and
at
a
staff
level
make
a
decision,
at
least
in
both
of
these
cases,
it's
a
use
review
which
could
be
called
up
by
Planning,
Board,
correct
and
then
further
by
council.
So
the
one
bit
of
protection
here
for
something
like
that
is
there's
co-op
possible.
A
I
So
Suzy
I
mean
I
totally
agree
with
it.
We
don't
want
to
encourage
or
allow
something
like
that.
So
I
think
two
xan's
point.
If
we
say
yes,
please
do
look
at
one
set
of
criteria
for
conversions
at
one
for
a
new
build
and
the
new
build
included,
something
like
no
more
than
five
percent
or
three
thousand
of
core.
You
know
some
some
something
like
that.
Then
we
get
at
that.
A
We
wanted
to
bring
this
back
to
Council,
since
just
we've
heard
some
concerns
and
our
housing
staff
that
in
most
cases
you
know
it's,
the
developer
is
probably
gonna
go
through
a
use
review
either
way.
So
maybe
this
would
be
have
to
be
something
that
has
to
be
tightened.
So
we've
revised
the
option
to
be
like
options,
see
which
would
be
the
same
as
option
B
or
cap
buildings
at
25%
for
office
use
and
allow
up
to
the
50
percent
if
affordable
units
are
provided
on
the
site.
A
But
in
this
case
it
would
be
more
strict
in
not
allowing
a
use
review
and
that
if
you
had
an
existing
office
in
the
BR
zones,
you
could
continue
operation
if
you're
over
25%.
You
can
continue
operation
and
you
would
be
able
to.
If
you
wanted
to
expand,
you
could
expand
through
the
non-conforming
use
of
you
process,
which
would
enable
a
10%
expansion,
but
that
new
office
buildings
would
just
be
capped
at
the
25%
maximum
for
office
again
with
that
option
of
going
up
to
50
and
if
there's
a
permanently
affordable
component.
H
I
mean
I
would
just
like
to
raise
the
possibility
of
permanently
affordable
commercial
space
because
that
might
conceivably
be
more
compatible,
and
so
maybe
it
could
be
either
affordable,
housing
or
I'm.
The
only
affordable
commercial
I
know
that
we're
not
quite
there
yet
in
the
definition.
H
M
H
I
A
H
I
ask
a
follow-up:
I
believe
that
this
applies
only
to
the
be
our
BMS
and
BT
zones.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct?
Okay,
so
in
like
the
downtown
zones
office
would
be
permitted
right,
and
so
this
is
really
looking
at
zone
districts
that
are
intended
to
be
more
regional
or
local
neighborhood
serving
business
transition,
it's
transitioning
to
the
neighborhood,
so
Erin
I,
don't
think
it
prevents
office
and
all
business
zones
well.
I
F
A
M
F
C
About
the
replacement
of
existing
buildings,
another
I
get
the
fact
that
some
people
don't
want
incremental
offices
office,
space
incremental
jobs.
That's
the
discussion
for
a
different
day,
but
if
you
had
a
building
that
was
had
fifty
offices,
but
it
was
had
reached
the
end
of
its
useful
life.
Somebody
want
to
come
through
and
put
the
same
building
there
with
50
offices
did
this?
Could
that
get
caught
up
in
this
I
mean.
A
C
So
the
the
impact
of
this
over
the
long
term
will
be
that
office
billions,
but
dick
degrade
right.
In
other
words,
if
we
we
said
you
can't
touch
your
building,
I
mean
there's
only
so
much
rehab
me
look
at
the
consider
the
buildings
we
have
down
by
the
creek
we've
already
made.
We've
made
a
determination
that
they've
reached
the
end
of
their
economic,
useful
life
right
and
we're
tearing
them
down
they're
in
the
floodplain,
so
we're
not
gonna
build
something
back
up,
but
a
commercial
operator,
presumably
tear
them
down
and
replace
them,
not.
A
I
E
I
H
You
say
outline
Veterans
Park,
that's
industrial
general.
There
was
an
office
building
which
was
a
relatively
low
rise
but
office
building
in
in
my
general
area,
which
is
now
had
another
three
storeys
and
totally
redone
and
totally
revamped
and
employs
many
more
people
created
a
bunch
of
new
jobs
which
is
good
in
one
sense,
and
it
creates
a
lot
of
housing
demand
in
another
sense
or
in
comedian
demand
so
and
that's
IG
and
so
office
is
allowed
in
IG.
How
we
take
it
certain
types.
H
Well,
I
guess
the
point
I'm
making
with
this
is
that
I
don't
think
we're
outlying
office
buildings.
There's
some
new
ones
going
in
right
around
me
as
well
and
someday
my
building
will
go
away
and
there
will
be
a
new
building
there,
but
these
are
zones
that
are
specifically
intended
as
neighborhood
serving
and/or
transition
to
neighborhoods
and
so
I
think
they're
of
a
particular
type.
We're
restricting
the
amount
of
office
is
something
that
we
want
to
do
if
it
were
and
and
they're
you
know.
H
If
we
look
at
the
BR
zone,
there
are
offices
there
there's
a
lot
of
them
and
there's
an
intent
to
put
more
there,
and
that
is
not
at
all
what
the
plan
for
the
Boulder
Valley
regional
center
is
about,
and
so
to
me
this
is
a
necessary
step
to
get
what
we
want.
Otherwise,
the
whole
thing
may
end
up
filled
with
officers,
because
it's
the
most
lucrative
thing
to
build
and
to
me
that
seems
like
a
negative
outcome
for
the
community.
I
I'm
not
interested
in
having
it
like
a
one
on
seven
argument
with
everybody
I'm
just
making
a
couple
points:
I
just
it'll
be
62
yeah,
the
regional
business
zone
is
not
neighborhood
serving
its
it's
it's
for
the
entire
city
and
and
I
think
it's.
It
should
have
a
mix,
a
rich
mix
of
uses
so
I,
you
know
to
me
I
think
about
I.
Don't
know
how
you
do
this,
but
something
of
a
you
know.
The
total
amount
of
office
should
be
no
more
than
this
or
you
know.
C
Fill
on
the
one
for
one
replacement
here,
I
mean
because
I,
that's
the
part
that
troubles
me
most
is
that
I
get
the
fact
that
people
don't
want
more
offices
in
these
zones,
but
but
by
by
imposing
this,
which
is
going
to
happen,
is
over
time.
You
can
have
fewer
and
fewer
and
fewer
offices
to
the
point
where
you
don't
have
any,
maybe
that's
the
goal.
We
should
just
be.
G
C
F
G
G
A
So
last
topic
is
related
to
preservation
of
existing
market
rate,
affordable
units
in
the
opportunity
zone.
So
this
is
something
that
council
raised
as
a
concern,
something
that
we've
looked
at
in
the
u
stable
and
and
honestly
we
we
looked
at
it
and
couldn't
think
of
a
way
that
to
prevent
the
demolition
of
the
unit's
there
so
based
on
that,
we're
recommending
that
the
moratorium
be
continued
during
the
duration
of
the
opportunity
zone
for
the
RH
4
and
our
m1
zones
to
prevent
the
demolition.
Until
you
know,
some
other
potential
outcome
could
prevent
that.
A
C
C
Place
and
all
the
people
in
those
units
I
get
the
objective
here.
There's
somebody
had
like,
as
small
I,
don't
know
as
small
as
two
four
six
ten,
something
like
that
unit
again
reaches
yeah
and
it
was
you.
Can
economic
life
wants
to
replace
it?
It's
a
small
unit.
It's
not
displacing
a
lot
of
people,
but
it
just
needs
to
be
fixed
up
or
rehabbed
I.
Just
wonder
if
there
should
be
a
threshold
here,
but
then
you
wouldn't
be
demoing
it
well.
You
might
to
rehab.
G
G
C
G
E
G
C
F
K
A
H
Mean
the
one
concern
I
have
is
that
it
not
prevent
rehab.
So
if
that
we
not
trap
buildings
as
Bob's
concerned
about
in
a
way
that
they
can't
be
redone
and
so
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
if
a
case
like
that
comes
before
planning
and
the
you
know,
it's
like
there's
a
moratorium.
There
needs
to
be
at
least
some
kind
of
outlet,
so
they
can
appeal
their
their
their
particular
case,
because
we
have
said
that
we
would
make
exceptions
and
there
would
be
a
council
level
kind
of
decision.
H
So
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
trap
somebody
in
bad
conditions
in
inadvertently.
That's
the
one
thing,
but
otherwise,
if
they
can
rehab
I
think
this
might
be
the
right
solution,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
units
there.
They're
currently
market
rate,
affordable,
truly
like
what
just
disappeared
on
a
rap,
oh
and
so
I'm
really
concerned
with
that
particular
area.
So
the.
G
I
A
D
Just
if
I
could
just
interject
at
some
point,
it's
no
longer
a
moratorium.
It's
a
land
use
regulation,
so
I
think
that
we
could
develop
land
use
regulations
that
put
certain
types
of
restrictions
on
how
things
are
preserved
or
demolished.
We
do
it
with
historic
preservation.
Now
we
could
do
it
for
other
valid
public
purposes
as
well.
General.
G
O
C
M
C
K
G
F
I
I
just
I
mean
I
very
much
want
to
prevent
the
the
scraping
of
market
rate,
affordable
units
when
you're
talking
about
preventing
all
demolitions
citywide.
You
need
to
be
careful
about
unintended
consequences,
so
I
mean
that
that's
a
bit
of
a
bigger
bite,
so
just
we'd
want
to
have
some
careful
analysis
that
we
were
doing
something
like
that
right.
So.
G
C
H
I
mean
I
think
having
that
scope
of
work
done
knows
Aaron
says
that's
a
big
long.
Heavy
left
prior
to
June
2020
is
probably
unlikely.
So
I
would
expect
the
new
council
to
have
to
address
that
issue.
Either
extend
the
moratorium
or
let
it
expire
and
so
I
think
the
new
council
is
gonna,
have
to
figure
this
out
right.
C
C
G
Okay,
but
the
one
thing
that
we
want
to
still
talk
about
is
whether
there's
any
way
to
incentivize
or
in
the
opportunity
zones
getting
a
higher
percentage
of
affordable
housing
right
to
actually
get
something
that
we
wanted
out
of
Opportunity
Zones,
so
just
want
to
throw
that
out
there
and
have
you
guys
thought
about
that?
Well,.
A
C
About
how
about
the
one
that
we
just
talked
about,
but
the
demolition
yeah,
and
if
some,
if
a
building
in
our
age
for
RM
one
reaches
the
end
of
its
life
thing
and
the
the
owner
wants
to
demo
it
I
know
they
probably
have
a
four
double
housing
requirement
anyway,
right
isn't
that
true,
they'd
have
to
be
with
our
iih
requirement
for
a
new
one,
but
maybe
it's
I
H
on
steroids.
In
other
words,
it's
it's
a
higher
percentage.
If
they
want
a
demo,
the
existing
market
rate
affordable
building.
C
H
You
know
a
higher
linkage
fees
locally,
that
accounts
for
the
additional
returns
that
they
would
get
and
extracts
that
into
our
affordable
housing
fund
at
a
higher
rate.
Maybe
it's
60
bucks,
a
square
foot.
You
know,
so
you
know,
like
the
report,
recommended
the
point
being
that
it's
both
a
disincentive.
But
if
somebody
moves
ahead
with
it,
it
brings
funding
in
to
affordable
housing
and
that
would
make
housing
more
more
incentivized.
H
And
so
these
are,
if
they're
building
market
rate
housing
and
we're
still
getting
our
25%
as
a
result
of
that
is,
isn't
that
helpful
that
they're
doing
more
housing
than
they're
doing
office,
space
or
other
commercial
buildings,
because
we
put
a
higher
linkage
fees.
So
that
would
be
one
suggestion
or
thought
is
that
possible,
David
I
think.
D
G
P
I
think
I'm
channeling
a
vet
here
a
little
bit
in
that
I
think
what
a
lot
of
other
communities
do
is
they
say
very
clearly
here
is
what
we
are
looking
for
if
you
are
looking
for
an
investment
using
opportunity's
own
funds.
Here
are
the
things
that
we,
the
community,
are
looking
for
so
rather
than
try
and
achieve
that
through
a
regulatory
tool.
P
So,
in
other
words,
we
could
we
can
try
and
kind
of
create
that
that
incentive
through
really
what
we're
advocating
for
whether
it's
diagonal
Plaza
or
whether
it's
somewhere
else
in
the
city.
That
might
be
the
better
way
to
do
it.
The
window
of
investment
from
what
I
remember
is
actually
very
narrow.
P
In
other
words,
people
are
gonna
need
to
make
their
investment
decisions
in
the
next
year
or
two
in
order
to
realize
the
true
opportunity
from
the
opportunity
zones
in
terms
of
what
that
means
for
their
capital
gains,
and
so
the
the
invest
the
time
period,
that
this
is
really
gonna
matter,
he's
gonna,
be
pretty
short.
I'm
is
my
understanding,
so
that
would
be
my
suggestion
is:
let's
do
it
more
through
a
prospectus?
Advertising
sort
of
approach,
rather
than
a
regulatory
approach,
has.
P
Been
doing
that,
but
it's
we
could
look
into
it,
be.
P
G
H
How
would
that
work
Chris,
you
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
more
I
mean
we're
not
gonna,
be
Co
investing,
except
to
the
extent
that
the
housing
department
would
help
support
that
and
that
lytec
would
help
support
it.
So
what
what
are
you
thinking
about?
Because
what,
if
we
say,
we
want
affordable
housing
and
diagonal
Plaza
and
somebody
says
that's
great
I
can
make
more
money
on
Class
A
and
they
build
an
office.
You.
P
Know
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
fair
point
and
so
I
think
that
the
choices
that
we
have
are
try
and
create
some
sort
of
incentive,
or
at
least
momentum
behind
that
the
other
option
would
be
to
create
restrictions,
land
use
regulations.
It's
part
of
what
I
think
we're
really
trying
to
achieve
through
number
six
here,
which
is
how
do
we
make
sure
we
don't
get
what
we
don't
want
essentially
in
the
meantime.
P
Well,
this
opportunity
zone
funding
is
on
the
table
and
then,
after
that,
we've
already
said
that
we
need
to
do
a
bunch
of
work
in
the
builder
valley,
regional
center,
around
the
br
zones,
and
so
that
work
and
refining
how
we
would
encourage
mixed-use
in
those
areas
is
still
a
work
item
to
come.
We
aren't
going
to
solve
it
through
this
work
today,
so
I
think
it's
really
thinking
about.
P
H
C
Have
the
flexibility?
Don't
we
with
the
changes
that
we
made
on
our
inclusionary
housing,
where,
if
somebody
wants
to
build
deed,
restricted,
middle-income
housing
as
we
define
that
they
can
get
credit
for
that
right?
In
other
words,
if
somebody
came
through
and
rather
than
doing,
20%
plus
five,
they
could
do
more
on
the
middle-income
side
and
get
credit
for
that.
C
So
I
guess
that's
I
was
getting
to
that
too.
Is
you
know
if
we
have
to
make
an
affirmative
waiver?
Maybe
it's
already
hardwired
into
the
program,
so
maybe
there's
a
bunch
of
middle-income
stuff
there
and-
and
we
we
waive
any
low-income
I'm,
not
suggesting
that
we
would
do
that.
I'm.
Just
saying
I'm,
trying
to
think
of
incentives
where
somebody
may
make
more
money
on
middle
income
than
they
do
on
on
low
income
and
as
long
as
we're
there
will
indeed
restricted.
We
might
be
willing
to
waive
so
the
low
income
components
of
that.
G
P
P
N
Listening
tonight,
so
you
know
yeah,
the
Prospectus
idea
is
the
way
that
most
cities
that
have
opportunities
owns
are
approaching
them.
They
are
determining
what
it
is
that
they
want
in
the
opportunity
zone,
and
then
they
are
creating
a
full-color
perspectives
that
they're
sending
out
to
the
different
investment
opportunities.
So
this
is
the
way
that
most
are
doing
it
and
the
state
of
Colorado
is
encouraging
it
in
this
fashion.
Okay,.
G
So
we
got
this
land
use
table
stuff
to
make
sure
we
don't
get
what
we
don't
want.
I
guess
I'll
just
put
on
the
table,
especially
just
specific
to
diagonal
Plaza,
because
it's
been
on
the
kind
of
blighted,
neglected
I,
don't
want
to
say
that
each
wrongly,
but
it's
been
neglected
for
a
long
time
and
it's
I
think
on
everybody's
list
as
hey.
We
could
do
some
cool
things
here.
So
I'll
just
put
it
out
there
that
I
think
that
that
would
be
time
well
spent
by
people
in
the
community
or
people
on
staff.
G
I,
don't
know
if
there's
folks
out
there
that
are
jumping
at
the
gun
on
this
and
I,
don't
know
what
the
process
would
be.
But
if
there's
anything
good,
that's
going
to
come
up
the
opportunity
zone,
we
might
as
well
try
to
get
it
where
we
want
it,
give
it
a
nudge,
give
it
a
nudge.
So
I'll
just
it
looks
like
we're
tired,
but
does
everybody
nodding?