►
From YouTube: Boulder Planning Board Meeting 1-23-20
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
Okay
good
evening,
everybody
welcome
to
the
public
I
call
to
order
the
January
23rd
city
of
Boulder
planning
board
meeting
we've
got
everyone
here
tonight
which
is
exciting,
and
the
first
thing
on
our
agenda
is
the
approve
of
me
meeting
minutes.
We've
got
two
sets
from
November
21st
and
December
5th
that
have
been
modified,
possibly
through
email
back
and
forth.
Does
anyone
have
any
further
comments
on
those
they're
gonna
make
a
motion.
C
A
A
So
we
are
on
to
item
5,
which
is
a
public
hearing
item
which
is
a
public
hearing
and
consideration
of
a
recommendation
to
City
Council.
Regarding
amendments
to
the
medium-density
overlay
zone,
we'll
start
off
with
a
presentation
by
staff
questions
from
Planning
Board
to
staff,
public
comments
and
then
deliberation
by
Planning
Board's.
Take
it
away,
Chris
great.
D
Thank
you
Brian
good
evening
board
members,
Christmas,
chuck
interim
planning,
director
and
I
volunteered
to
help
support
this
one.
So
you
get
tonight
on
this
one,
so
we're
here
tonight
to
discuss
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
regarding
an
amendment
to
title
9,
which
is
the
land-use
code
to
eliminate
the
medium
density
overlay
zone
from
one
geographic
part
of
the
community.
D
This
request
came
up
and
there
was
a
request
from
the
City
Council
to
explore
whether
to
eliminate
this
medium
density
overlay
zone
I'll
walk
through
a
little
bit
of
the
kind
of
context
in
history
of
how
the
request
came
up
a
little
bit
of
what
the
overlay
zone
is
where
it
came
from,
and
then
what?
What
would
the
impact
be
if
we
were
to
get
rid
of
the
overlay
zone?
So
it
was
originally
created
in
1995
and,
as
you
can
see
on,
the
screen
here.
D
Kind
of
areas
that
are
in
solid
black
shading
are
the
areas
that
the
overlay
zone
applied
to
this
was
created
actually
as
an
outcome
after
a
development
moratorium
in
the
early
90s
and
was
really
in
response
to
concerns
about
several
parts
of
our
community
that
had
been
zoned
in
a
more
single-family
use
and
then
had
been
reasoned
or
up
zone
to
a
higher
density
and
evolution
of
the
character
of
those
neighborhoods
wasn't
really
consistent
with
what
folks
were
looking
for,
and
that's
what?
What
really
drove
the
moratorium?
D
The
overlay
zone
was
really
in
response
as
a
way
to
how
do
we
respond
to
this
as
quickly
as
possible?
Then
what
happened
was
we
began
an
effort
throughout
the
city
in
1996,
into
1997
to
examine
and
rezone
significant
portions
of
our
community,
it's
commonly
known
as
the
97
rezoning
these
areas
here
that
are
now
circled
on
the
screen,
those
areas
we
actually
rewrote
the
zoning
districts
and
rezone
those
parts
of
the
community,
and
we
got
rid
of
the
overlay
zone
in
those
areas
because
we
wrote
new
zoning.
D
That
was
really
to
get
the
outcome
that
we
wanted
for
those
areas.
As
a
result,
then
there
were
several
areas
left
with
this
medium
density
overlay
zone
and
still
exists
today.
So
this
is
just
a
modern
version
of
our
zoning
map,
and
the
areas
outlined
in
black
with
the
shading
is
where
those
overlay
zones
exist.
D
It
basically
ranges
from
Aurora
on
the
north
to
baseline
on
the
south
17th
Street
to
19th
Street.
It's
an
area
that
has
zoning
of
medium
density,
residential
or
rm2.
But
then
the
overlay
zone
is
on
top
of
it
and
what
the
overlay
zone
essentially
does
is
it
says
the
only
thing
you
can
use
the
these
parcels
for
is
single-family
detached
development,
regardless
of
what
your
whatever
the
base
zoning
allows
for.
D
If
it's
a
new
structure
in
this
area,
if
we
start
to
look
at
what
are
the
characteristics,
there's
a
hundred
and
thirty-two
parcels
within
the
overlay
zone
in
this
area
and
on
those
hundred
and
thirty-two
parcels,
are
a
total
of
two
hundred
and
eighty
Welling
units.
So
the
character
of
this
existing
area
now
is
a
mixture
of
single-family,
duplex
and
triplexes,
mostly
and
many
of
which
were
built
as
either
duplexes
or
triplexes
from
the
mid
to
late
30s
into
the
1940s.
There
have
been
some
conversions
over
time
as
well.
D
D
So
that's
kind
of
what
brings
us
to
today.
So
the
analysis
that
we
did
as
a
staff
was
really
to
understand.
If
we
were
to
eliminate
the
overlay
zone.
What
would
that
mean
for
for
this
area,
and
so
the
first
thing
we
did
is
we
looked
at
how
many
of
the
parcels
based
on
the
zoning
could
have
more
than
one
dwelling
unit
and
the
way
we
calculate
density
in
in
this
zoning
district?
Is
it's
a
minimum
parcel
size,
her
dwelling
unit,
and
so
we
did
the
math
of
how
many,
based
on
the
parcel
size?
D
How
many
parcels
could
you
build
more
than
one
dwelling
unit
on
and
the
result
of
that
is.
There
are
thirty
of
the
hundred
and
thirty-two
parcels
that
you
could
build
more
than
one
dwelling
unit
on.
So
then,
after
that,
we
looked
at
well
how
many
dwelling
units
are
on
each
of
those
parcels
today?
In
other
words,
how
much
change
potential
is
there
for
this
area,
and
so
when
we
did
that
analysis,
it's
for
four
of
the
thirty
out
of
the
hundred
and
thirty-two
and
for
those
four
parcels.
D
What
the
result
of
that
would
be
is
the
potential
of
up
to
six
additional
housing
unit.
So
if
we
kind
of
break
those
down
and
I'll
start
in
the
top
left,
the
the
parcel
at
7:56,
18th
Street,
which
is
the
vacant
parcel,
is
the
one
that
could
have
a
triplex.
So
that's
three
out
of
the
six
units
there
and
then
there's
another
parcel
on
17th
Street.
That
has
one
dwelling
unit
that,
according
to
the
math
of
the
zoning
you
could,
you
could
potentially
add
one
more
dwelling
unit
there
and
then
along
19th
Street.
D
There
are
two
properties,
one
of
which
is
a
duplex
that,
according
to
parcel
size,
you
could
add
one
additional
dwelling
unit
and
then
one
that
has
a
single
family
home.
Now
that
you
could
potentially
add
one
more
dwelling
unit
to
so
that
was
the
analysis
that
we
did
just
to
try
and
understand.
If
this
overlay
zone
were
to
be
eliminated,
what
would
the
potential
change
be
in
the
neighborhood
and
that's?
A
D
C
D
So
those
additional
areas-
the
largest
area
there
on
the
top
right
of
the
the
map,
is
on
the
Whittier
neighborhood.
But
then
you
can
see
there's
an
area
of
kind
of
Grand
View
near
the
Columbia
Cemetery
and
then
some
areas
on
the
kind
of
the
north
end
of
Mapleton
Hill
southern
end
of
the
Newlands
neighborhood.
So
each
of
those
areas,
the
process
of
removing
the
overlay
zone
was
actually
done
through
that
1997
rezoning
project.
D
Where
we,
we
actually
wrote
a
brand-new
zoning
district
for
those
areas
and
changed
the
zoning
for
those
neighborhoods,
and
that
analysis
was
really
for
some
of
those
areas.
It
was
the
up.
Zoning
we
had
done
was
a
bit
of
what
a
lot
of
folks
know
is
the
house
behind
a
house
policy
where
we
were
able
to
take.
You
were
able
to
take
kind
of
a
traditional
lot
and
split
it
into
two
and
that
character.
D
Change
in
the
neighborhood
was
what
really
raised
a
lot
of
the
concerns,
and
so
we
rewrote
the
zoning
in
those
neighborhoods
to
really
reflect
the
existing
mixed
density
character,
but
essentially
kind
of
keep
it
at
the
point
that
it
is
was
at
that
point,
and
so
the
zoning
kind
of
keeps
that
mixed
density,
but
doesn't
allow
additional
density
to
be
added,
and
so
that's
really
what
the
outcome
was
of
those
are.
Their
geographic
areas
was.
D
E
A
B
D
And
in
reviewing
all
of
the
materials
from
from
then
it
looks
like
originally
the
proposal
for
where
the
medium
density
overlay
zone
would
be
actually
did
not
include
this
University
Hill
area,
and
it
was
added
during
the
adoption
process
there.
There
is
a
lot
of
history
written
history
of
exactly
how
that
played
out.
So
I
don't
know
if
there
was
any
analysis
done
of
the
potential
impact
or
what
the
level
of
potential
future
development
would
be
or
not
be
at
that
time,
in
95.
E
D
When
we
stepped
back
and
looked
at
applying
this
change
and
how
does
that
meet
or
not
meet
our
current
comprehensive
plan
goals?
There
are
a
wide
variety
of
goals
related
to
housing
in
our
community
and
neighborhoods,
and
two
of
the
key
primary
policies
relate
to.
The
preservation
of
existing
neighborhoods
is
an
important
community
policy
that
we
have
recognising
the
importance
of
our
different
neighborhoods
in
the
community
and
and
ensuring
that
we're
we're
caring
for
our
existing
neighborhoods.
Another
key
policy
is
around
the
diversity
of
housing
types.
D
We've
had
a
lot
of
conversation
in
the
community
about
being
able
to
provide
a
diversity
of
housing
types,
everything
ranging
from
single-family
detached
homes
to
duplexes
and
triplexes,
to
town
homes
and
condominiums
to
apartments
and
kind
of
multi
multifamily
dwellings.
And
it
was
when
we
kind
of
looked
at
that
range
that
we
felt
that
if
we
were
to
eliminate
the
overlay
zone
in
this
area,
we're
balancing
those
policies
and
that
we're
still
meeting
the
objectives
of
preservation
of
existing
neighborhoods
and
neighborhood
character,
while
also
recognizing
that
there's
a
desire
for
a
diversity
of
housing
types.
D
E
Another
question
pertains
to
what
a
triplex
is
a
piece
of
e,
a
duplex
or
two
single-family
houses.
Is
it
by
definition,
a
single
structure
that
is
divided
into
three
living
units,
or
could
it
result
in
three
separate
structures
in,
for
example,
in
this,
the
fellow
who
is
now
applying
for
a
building
permit
in.
D
A
G
D
Within
this
zoning
district,
really
what
or
the
scope
of
this
analysis
was
really
should
we
keep
the
overlay
zone
or
not
keep
the
overlay
zone?
So
it's
really
do
we,
then
let
that
base
our
m2
zoning
apply
or
do
we
keep
the
restrictions
of
the
overlay
zone?
So
there
isn't
any
kind
of
affordability
requirement
related
to
the
overlay
zone.
Today,
anecdotally,
triplexes
or
attached
dwelling
units
typically
do
have
a
lower
price
point
if
they
were
for
sale,
units
versus
single-family
detached.
D
That's
again,
there's
there's
a
wide
variety
of
housing
prices
within
the
market.
That's
also
not
something
that
that
we
directly
have
control
over
other
than
our
inclusionary
housing
requirements
that
are
in
the
zoning
code.
So
we
didn't
do
a
specific
analysis
about
which
which
option
would
would
result
in
what
kind
of
housing
price
if
they
were
for
sale
units,
we
really
looked
at
what
would
the
impact
be
if
we
kept
or
did
not
keep
the
overlay
zone
jump.
A
D
G
Continuing
the
issue
of
density
when
I
was
reading
through
the
paperwork,
especially
the
one
coming
from
you,
know
the
attachment
C
from
coming
from
95,
where
this
came
up
and
the
argument
timing
seems
like
they're.
The
overlay
came
up,
not
necessarily
because
of
density
issues
more
so
than
the
character
of
the
community.
So
going
back
to
now
worried
about
so
much
the
density,
because
it
will
go
up
with
this.
That
means
we
shouldn't
be
concerned
about
that.
It's
still
not
a
concern
is
that
I.
D
Think
a
way
to
think
about
it
today
would
be
around
still
that
that
issue
of
the
neighborhood
character
and
if,
if
the
overlay
zone
were
to
go
away,
how
would
the
neighborhood
character
potentially
change
and
for
the
the
current
vacant
parcel
it's
a
vacant
parcel
it
used
to
have
a
duplex.
There
would
be
a
one
new
structure
built
there
if
the
overlay
zone
goes
away
or
if
it
doesn't
go
away.
Potentially
you
could
have
two
new
structures
there,
but
other
than
then
potentially
adding
an
additional
unit
to
a
few
other
parcels.
E
Thanks
I'm,
just
thinking
about
your
comments
about
neighborhood
character,
if
I
understand
correctly
from
the
material
we
have
seen,
it
was
neighborhood
character.
That
was
the
incentive
for
implementing
this
in
1995,
and
now
the
if
I
understand
correctly
staff
doesn't
think
that
this
will
have
any
major
impact
on
neighborhood
character
today.
D
So
the
way
the
character
along
like
Canyon
has
changed.
That's
really
what
I
think
of
when
I
think
of
the
how
the
character
was
changing
and
then
in
the
neighborhood.
What
we
don't
have
good
records
on
is
I,
don't
know
what
the
number
of
dwelling
units
per
parcel
were
in
this
geographic
area
of
University
Hill
back
in
1995.
So
what
I
don't
know
is
has
how
much
has
changed
or
what
has
changed
in
that
area.
D
But
in
looking
at
how
we've
addressed
this
overlay
zone
and
other
parts
of
the
community
with
changing
the
way
the
zoning
districts
operate,
that
that
I
think
was
one
way
to
address
that
character
in
this
area.
I,
don't
have
a
good
picture
of
exactly
what
the
concern
was
why
the
overlay
zone
was
applied
and
so
we're
just
operating
on
on.
What's
what's
the
potential
change
if
it
were
to
go
away
today,
thank
you.
G
One
last
question
had
to
do
with
I
know
that
this
other
zones
that
are
in
the
red,
ovals
and
circles
have
gone
away,
but
in
the
latest
version
that
we
have,
there
were
four
zones
and
now
we're
talking
about
one
of
them
going
away
so
the
planned,
if
I
get
it
right,
it's
remain.
They
have
the
overlay,
and
these
are
the
three
zones
and
I
guess
wait
until
the
need
arises
to
maybe
go
through
this
process
again
or
is
there
some
plan
in
advance
that
you
may
be
considering
yeah.
D
That's
a
great
question,
too.
The
plan
would
be
that
this
kind
of
the
scope
of
this
change
would
only
be
for
this
area
on
University
Hill,
so
the
area
of
Grandview
Terrace
and
then
around
ideal
Plaza
idea,
market
community
Plaza,
would
remain
those
two
would
remain
as
well.
Mister
they
would
stay
I
think
it
would.
It
would
be
analysis
and
neighborhood
outreach
as
well
in
those
areas
if
we
were
to
or
any
changes.
D
Obviously,
the
Grand
View
Terrace
neighborhood
has
changed
in
the
fact
that
the
university
owns
most
of
that
property.
Now,
so
it
actually
won't.
Our
zoning
code
won't
even
apply
in
those
areas,
and
so
there
is
probably
a
future
project
to
explore
those
other
areas.
But
it's
not
something.
That's
currently
on
the
work
plan.
G
The
previous
slide,
when
you
were
showing
the
potential
gains
by
removing
the
overlay
and
that
and
yeah,
and
this
personal,
is
that
you
plan
or
a
plan
to
made
potential
three
other
parcels
where
you
can
get
the
three
extra
units
be
aware
that
they
are
now
free
to
do
that.
Where
were
these
to
be
approved?
Is
that
something
that
the
city
does,
or
is
this
potential?
Yet
the
people
in
charge
of
it
will
not
know
last
they
decide
that
they
want
to
move
forward
with
that
and
I
mean.
G
D
We
we've
already
sent
a
letter
to
all
of
the
the
current
properties
if
it's
approved.
Typically,
we
would
want
to
notify
all
those
properties
again
that
this
this
ordinance
was
approved.
It's
a
it's
a
more
contained
enough
geographic
area.
That
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
give
direct
notification
whether
any
of
those
property
owners
would
choose
to
do
anything
with
their
property,
if
they're
able
to
add
an
additional
dwelling
unit
or
not,
that
would
be
their
choice
whether
they
would
want
to
do
that
or
not.
D
There's
also
there's
other
detailed
factors
that
we
we
didn't
examine.
As
a
part
of
this,
we
primarily
looked
at
parcel
size
just
for
potential
dwelling
units,
but
there's
lots
of
items
related
to
parking
setbacks,
solar
access
that
would
drive
whether
you
could
actually
achieve
an
additional
dwelling
unit
and
those
existing
structures
or
not
so
a
property
owner
would
need
to
go
through
that
analysis
to
decide
and
determine
whether
they
could
actually
add
a
dwelling
unit
or
not.
Okay,.
G
D
We
don't
do
that
sort
of
direct
notification
of
hey.
You
might
be
able
to
develop
your
property
in
the
following
way.
We
typically
don't
do
that
only
because
there
are
so
many
other
factors
that
we
don't
want
to
mislead
any
property
owner
to
what
they
can
or
can't
do.
In
this
case,
we
could
say
you
know,
based
on
your
parcel
size,
you
may
be
eligible
to
add
an
additional
dwelling
unit
to
your
parcel,
but
you'd
need
to
do
more
analysis.
We
could
always
say
something
like
that
to
them.
I
just.
A
H
I
Thanks
Chris
John,
you
asked
about
what
may
have
been
going
on
at
the
time
and
the
packet
goes
over
some
information
on
the
architectural
character
being
the
primary
driver
of
concerned
that
was
going
to
deteriorate.
The
MRR
zones,
not
density,
and
we
is
it
fair
to
say
that
we
have
stronger
architectural
review
guidelines
now
than
we
did
in
1895
forever.
If
someone
were
to
do
a
triplex
in
this
area,
what
architectural
design
steps
would
they
go
through.
D
D
I
Thanks,
it
just
seemed
to
answer
the
question.
An
appropriate
structure
and
impact
was
the
primary
source
of
concern
and
appropriateness
of
design,
rather
than
density
has
been
cited
as
a
source
of
concern
and
then
elsewhere
at
same
page
on
that
in
the
packet
from
the
95
direction
to
staff
council,
it
says
that
the
solution-
codification
of
the
moratorium
is
the
appropriate
solution
as
an
interim
step
in
preventing
further
deterioration,
development
of
sophisticated
design
approaches
to
address
developing
concerns
as
a
major
undertaking,
which
did
not
happen
independently
of
other
projects.
I
D
G
As
you
remember
the
discussions
or
your
meetings
with
them,
what
was
the
consensus
that
went
away
moving
forward?
Was
there
some
concerns
that
you
are
aware
of?
Is
there
anything
you
can
add?
So
you
may
remember
from
that.
We
did
receive
at
least
one
email
about
from
that
group
and
I'd
like
to
know
from
from
where
you
guys
stand.
What
why
your
sense
is
from
what
there's
you
know.
Their
opinion
is
sure.
D
E
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
the
what
the
consequences
of
a
change
like
this
would
be
on
the
value
and
I.
Don't
expect
you
to
quantify
it
or
anything,
but
does
this
mean
that
for
at
least
those
Lots
that
have
been
identified
as
having
additional
development
potential,
that
their
value
will
go
up,
resulting
in
some
crease
in
the
overall.
D
City,
and
so
it's
not
uncommon
that
you
have
a
situation
like
that,
where
you
may
have
a
property
that
based
on
parcel
size
theoretically,
could
be
subdivided
or
it
could
be
developed
with
multiple
dwelling
units
a
lot
of
times.
The
current
owner
is
not
interested
in
that
or
maybe
the
house
is
located
in
the
middle
of
the
lot.
D
That
would
require
removing
the
house
if
you
wanted
to
subdivide
it,
and
so
that
potential
is
never
realized,
so
I
think
the
potential
of
elimination
of
the
overlay
zone
in
this
area
isn't
in
any
change
that
is
significantly
different
from
conditions
that
we
have
in
many
of
our
zoning
districts
throughout
the
city.
Thank.
A
J
1135
J,
Street
and
I'm
here
representing
the
University
Hill
neighborhood
associations,
Executive
Committee
University
Hill
is
a
neighborhood
in
crisis.
The
conversion
of
family
homes
to
high
priced
student
Reynolds
has
escalated,
threatening
blocks
of
beautiful
old
homes
cared
for
by
long
term
residents
and
jeopardizing
the
future
of
historically
important
buildings
like
marpa
house.
The
proliferation
of
these
expensive
student
rentals
has
seriously
affected
diversity
on
the
hill
faculty
and
staff
can
no
longer
afford
to
rent
or
buy
on
the
hill
and
graduate
students
trying
to
support
families
on
a
teaching.
J
A
research
assistant
salary
have
been
shut
out
of
a
neighborhood
that
could
offer
them
two
excellent
public
schools
for
their
children
and
the
ability
to
walk
to
work.
Although
undergraduates
with
need-based
financial
aid
deserve
to
live
within,
walking
distance
of
their
classes,
libraries
and
labs
exorbitant
rents
forced
them
to
commute
long
hours
by
bus
or
car.
As
a
result,
this
prime
location
is
filled
with
privileged
students,
who
are
often
more
interested
in
partying
than
studying
the
University
Hill
neighborhood
associations.
J
Executive
Committee
has
been
working
on
ways
to
use
the
city's
planning
process
to
address
these
equity
issues
for
faculty
staff
and
students
and
to
make
the
hill
more
environmentally,
socially
and
financially
sustainable
award.
Affordable
housing
is
crucial
to
our
efforts
and
when
we
learned
that
the
city
has
proposed
eliminating
the
medium-density
overlay
zones
so
that
one
developer
can
build
a
triplex
where
a
duplex
burned
down.
We
realized
that
the
city
is
missing
an
important
opportunity
to
increase,
affordable
housing
and
help
stabilize
our
neighborhood.
J
If
the
overlay
zone
is
eliminated,
the
city
hands
a
major
entitlement
to
developers,
but
the
community
derives
no
benefit.
We
propose
instead
an
amendment
to
the
overlay
zone
that
would
allow
enough
flexibility
for
the
developer
to
build
his
triplex,
which
is
a
significant
expansion
of
his
property
rights
and
in
exchange
the
third
unit
would
be
permanently
affordable.
We
also
propose
that
the
three
other
properties
that
could
add
units
meet
the
same
requirement
if
they
choose
to
build.
J
We
understand
that
requiring
permanently
affordable
units
may
be
too
complicated
under
present
conditions,
but
cash
in
lieu
for
the
affordable
unit
would
be
an
acceptable
alternative.
As
long
as
the
funds
are
invested
in
affordable
housing
for
our
neighborhood,
we
hope
to
develop
a
model
based
on
this
concept
that
would
serve
us
and
our
future
efforts
to
create
enough
affordable
housing
to
bring
about
a
more
diverse,
equitable
and
stable
neighborhood
building
more
expensive
student.
J
Rentals
will
only
exacerbate
the
problems
we
face
and
the
argument
the
more
housing
equals
cheaper,
cheaper
housing
carries
no
weight
and
unique
market
like
the
hill.
For
these
reasons,
we
ask
that
you
not
recommend
eliminating
the
medium
density
overlay
zone.
Please
table
the
proposal
and
work
with
us
on
a
creative
way
to
use
the
overlay
zone
to
improve
our
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
A
D
D
Understanding
of
kind
of
what
the
idea
would
be,
you
would
be
keep
the
overlay
zone
with
the
intention
that,
basically,
the
additional
units
that
you
could
have
or
that
you
you
could
get
if
the
overlay
zone
went
away,
figure
out
a
way
to
make
those
permanently
affordable
and
there's
a
couple
of
different
routes
forward
on
that.
One
is
if
we
assume
that
these
are
for
sale
units
I,
think
it's
important
to
look
at
how
it
inclusionary
housing
apply
to
these
parcels.
D
G
G
Do
you
see
what
I'm
going
with
it
I'm
wondering,
because
if
they
have
done
some
thinking,
that's
what
I
was
hoping
earlier,
that
you
have
had
more
extensive
discussions
with
this
particular
group
so
that
maybe
they
have
shared
with
you
what
this
other
alternatives
may
be,
so
that
we
can
get
a
sense
of
you
know
where
they're
going
with
this
in
terms
of
their
role
to
improve,
affordable
housing
in
this
area.
Sure.
D
It
does
require
that
those
be
for
sale,
housing
units
that
have
restrictions
on.
Then
you
can't
rent
that
housing
unit
as
well
and
in
in
this
area
of
town,
from
the
the
analysis
that
we
did,
the
the
vast
majority
of
the
properties
currently
have
a
rental
license.
So
I
think
the
vast
majority
of
the
properties
are
currently
rental
properties.
There
are
a
ton
of
homeowner
owned
an
occupied
dwelling
units
in
this
geographic
area,
at
least
from
there.
D
What
the
rental
licenses
tell
me,
and
so
I
think
that's
another
factor,
just
to
think
about,
doesn't
mean
that,
obviously
you
couldn't
and
properties
change
over
time
and
properties
go
from
being
rental
properties
to
being
owned
and
occupied
by
the
owner,
and
so
I
think
I.
Think
from
what
I've
heard
from
the
University
of
Neighborhood
Association
what
their
priorities
are
for
the
year
and
the
information
that
they've
sent
to
to
City
Council.
D
A
E
H
I'm
gonna
make
a
turn
from
this
particular
subject,
but
I
do
want
to
come
back
to
it.
So
I
was
struck
because
there
are
still
three
zones
in
the
city
that
have
this
overlay
zone,
but
the
ordinance
doesn't
specify
that
it's
just
this
one
area
and
I
struck
me
that
we
might
want
to
add
a
phrase
in
the
ordinance
that
specifies
this
lock
or
this
some
particular
I.
Don't
you
want
to
call
the
University
Hill
MD
Ozzie
so
that
it
doesn't
seem
it
doesn't
lift
the
moratorium
from
the
other
two
locations,
yeah.
D
D
Understand,
okay,
so
that's
the
map
that
the
ordinance
is
actually
adopting.
That's
all
the
ordinance
is,
is
adopting
a
new
map.
Okay,
all
of
the
language
about
the
medium-density
overlay
zone
remains
in
the
land-use
code
and
the
map
would
remain
with
the
other
areas
still
being
having
this
overlay
zone
apply.
Okay,
but.
F
H
B
Deliberating
when
she
was
okay,
I
will
start
deliberating
myself
out
there.
So,
as
I
read
the
history
of
this,
it
struck
me
that
you
know
27
years
ago
when
this
was
worked
on
or
26
years
ago.
B
I
couldn't
get
a
sense
of
what
the
urgency
was
of
putting
an
overlay
zone
on
this
particular
area
was,
and
I
still
don't
quite
see
that.
So,
when
we
have
these
overlay
zones-
and
we
have
these
kind
of
special
stop
gaps,
they
create
a
difficult
situation
for
property
owners
and
staff
to
try
to
work
on
an
even
playing
field
in
it.
You
know
in
a
zoning
structure
that
makes
sense
so
I
I'm,
actually
kind
of
warm
to
opportunities
to
get
rid
of
these
kinds
of
things.
B
I
think
it's
great
that
you're
looking
at
that,
but
but
I'm
not
I'm,
not
convinced
that
it
is
the
right
way
to
go
and
I
think
that
it
could
create
even
more
complexity
in
our
zoning
I.
Do
when
I
look
at
the
map
and
when
I
look
at
the
neighborhood
I
do
think
that
rm2
is
the
right
zone
designation
for
this
particular
parcel.
B
It
is
adjacent
to
high
density
residential
on
one
side
and
RL
I.
Think
it's
our
one
on
the
other.
It
kind
of
tapers
the
density
away
from
the
University
and
the
shopping
districts
near
baseline
and
Broadway,
and
the
school
that
is
nearby
so
I
think
that
it
makes
sense
and
I
think
given
the
analysis
that
shows
the
small
impact
in
terms
of
number
of
dwelling
units,
it
really
is
going
to
be
fairly
minimal
in
terms
of
the
neighborhood
character
and
these
few
blocks.
H
So
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what's
been
said,
but
just
to
respond
to
the
question
as
to
why
the
overlay
zones
I
can
speak
solely
I
can
speak
to
what
was
in
Whittier.
Was
the
back
of
houses
were
being
blown
out
and
people
were
building
three
and
four
do
quadruplex,
whatever
they
call
in
the
back,
and
it
was
radically
changing
the
neighborhood
and
the
community
that
the
neighborhood
wanted
to
have
a
breather,
and
it
sounds
like
this
was
happening
in
other
neighborhoods
and
so
I
think
it
made
a
lot
of
sense.
H
Then
it's
hard
now
to
put
ourselves
back
thirty
years.
Twenty
years
and
I
am
thrilled
that
unis
hild
neighborhood
district,
a
Neighborhood
Association,
wants
to
work
with
the
city
to
try
to
figure
out
some
of
the
affordable
housing
issues
on
the
hill,
so
that
you
do
have
a
more
diverse
neighborhood,
but
I
do
share
the
I'm,
not
sure
that
it's
possible
to
apply
that
to
just
one
or
four
parcel
owners,
but
I
think
it's
a
broader
conversation.
That
is.
This
is
a
good
place
to
start.
H
I
did
want
to
just
follow
up
on
something
that
you
read
from
the
1996
material.
That
was
that
the
/
that
one
of
the
purposes
was
of
these
moratorium
moratoria
was
to
establish
design
guidelines
for
the
areas
that
had
and
I'm
just
curious.
Did
this
particular
and
I'm
sorry
to
step
away
from
deliberations,
but
did
this
particular
area
ever
get
confirmed
design
guidelines?
H
D
Didn't
we
don't
have
design
guidelines
for
any
of
our
neighborhoods
outside
of
historic
districts?
Each
of
our
historic
districts
have
design
guidelines.
There
was
an
attempt
around
this
same
time
to
do
a
set
of
design
guidelines
for
the
Flatirons
neighborhood,
which
is
kind
of
Marine.
Street
and
ninth
is
kind
of
a
very
rough
geographic
area.
There
was
a
lot
of
work
done.
H
Stated
in
1996
was
never,
it
was
not
achieved
and
it's
not
going
to
be
achieved
as
what
I'm
hearing,
even
if
we,
but
if
even
if
we
didn't
approve
this
tonight,
we're
not
going
to
have
the
opportunity
to
try
to
explore
what
might
make
this
part
of
the
neighborhood
more
a
coherent,
I'm,
just
I'm
just
trying
to
make
sure
I
understanding,
because
there
was
something
that
peter
read,
that
just
never
happened.
Correct.
D
We
never
move
forward
with
any
kind
of
design
guideline
documents
for
for
neighborhoods.
We
have
done
design
guidelines
in
our
sub
community
in
area
plans
that
apply
to
kind
of
larger
areas
that
are
undergoing
change
over
a
period
of
time,
but
for
our
single
family
or
our
lower
density
residential
neighborhoods.
We
don't
have
any
design
guidelines
so.
H
I'm
generally
supportive-
and
it
does
concern
me
a
little
bit
just
in
general-
that
one
particular
develop
our
parcel
owners.
The
misinformation
that
he
got
from
the
city
leads
to
sort
of
a
more
broad
scale,
change.
That
seems
like
not
necessarily
the
right
way
to
go
about
doing
things,
and,
but
that's
just
a
comment.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
and.
D
Actually,
if
you
don't
mind
me
jumping
in
on
that,
there
are
many
times
where
we
have
a
property
owner,
come
forward
and
say:
I
didn't
know
about
this
regulation,
I'm
in
a
really
bad
spot.
Now
and-
and
we
try
our
best
to
try
and
get
as
much
of
that
information
out-
and
this
was
one
where
you
know-
I'm-
not
sure
what
happened
and.
D
It
really
will
take
an
act
of
the
City
Council
to
get
us
to
even
start
working
on
this,
and
it
really
wasn't
until
we
started
to
understand
what
the
potential
for
change
could
be
that
that,
then,
when
we
were
able
to
gather
this
information
and
as
a
part
of
the
city
council
conversation
of
deciding
whether
to
tell
us
to
begin
to
explore
it,
it
was
when
we
had
this
level
of
information
that
they
felt
comfortable
to
tell
us
to
proceed
with
exploring
it
further.
Thank.
H
A
Didn't
call
myself
I
there's
a
couple
funny
things
in
this
whole
process,
and
one
of
them
is
that
we're
you
know
25
years
later,
looking
at
what
do
you
do
with
an
incremental
temporary
vestigial
piece
of
some
moratorium
from
the
back
and
that
didn't
get
caught
in
the
redoing
of
the
moratorium
stuff
that
handle
all
the
other
zones?
So
maybe
we'll
get
around
to
the
other
two
or
three.
These
and
I
mean
we
got
it's
2020,
so
2045
I,
don't
know
what
the
next
one
will
be.
A
We
should
get
those
on
the
work
plans
make
sure
get
those
timed
out
properly
and
and
I
think
anything
that
we
do.
You
know
this
board
for
sure
and
staff.
Every
time
we
can
uncover
a
complexity
in
code
that
doesn't
yield
a
result
that
we
need
and
that
complexity
should
just
go
away.
That's
that's
really
how
we
should
be
doing
good
governance
and
good
land
use.
Code.
Writing
and
I
can
tell
you
as
an
applicant.
A
It's
a
total
pain
in
the
butt
when
you
show
up
in
the
office
and
you
think
you've
been
a
good
job.
You
know
reading
land-use
code
and
you
find
out
that
there's
a
landmine
in
there
like
this,
because
it
doesn't
show
up
on
parcel
summary
report,
so
it
doesn't
show
up
on
the
ways
you
would
normally
go
through
a
permitting
process.
You
have
to
find
a
different
spot
of
the
code
and
I
really.
A
It's
not
really
tied
to
this
process,
so
I
think
it's
a
much
bigger
question
and
it
really
goes
back
to
the
state
and
having
the
ability
to
do
some
level
of
rent
control.
Somehow,
because
when
in
a
series
of
blocks
like
this
are
all
rental,
the
tools
that
we
as
a
city
have
to
create
at
affordable
housing
just
totally
evaporate.
Unless
something
gets
to
be
a
parcel
that
gets
redeveloped
and
it
gets
done
by
a
Housing
Authority
or
you
know,
co-op
group
that
does
affordable
housing.
A
Those
are
the
mechanisms
we
have
and
they're,
not
gonna
impact
these
parcels
and
on
the
upside
you
know,
a
quarter
of
every
d-u
that
gets
created
in
this
city
is
affordable.
So
that
does
help
us.
So
you
know
if
a
triplex
would
be
one
of
three
affordable.
Well,
it
was
gonna,
be
25%,
affordable.
So
it's
all
you
gonna
do
all
asking
for
one.
A
Do
you
to
be
affordable
does
is
go
from
25
to
33
percent,
so
it's
not
much
of
a
increase
in
affordability,
especially
if
there's
going
to
buy
out
through
through
the
cash
in
lieu
program,
which
I
know
it's
got
a
lot
more
calculations
and
I
mean
what
kind
of
cover
here
but
I
mean
that's
just
a
I
guess
the
few
thoughts
that
I
had
but
I
basically
support
the
proposed
language
offered.
My
staff.
C
Additional
three
could
come
in
even
with
the
medium
debts,
the
overlay,
it's
large
enough
to
have
two
single-family
dwellings,
detached
single-family
dwellings
per
lot
under
nine
seven
in
our
code.
So
really
you
know
we
don't
look
at
things
when
we
think
about
density
as
planners.
We
don't
look
at
things
in
terms
of
what's
bill.
C
We
think
of
things
as
what
the
zoning
allows
and
at
this
point
this
change
would
only
allow
for
additional
units,
not
six
so
I
think
that's
that's
overstating
the
impact
and-
and
you
know,
may
be
better
to
err
on
the
side
of
caution,
but
accurately
I,
don't
think
it
makes
the
grade.
So
it's
not
really
a
huge
deal.
I
understand
that
any
additional
unit,
when
you're
feeling
the
way
that
apparently
the
uni
Hill
neighborhoods
association
is
feeling
might
cause
angst.
C
I
sympathize
with
that,
but
in
terms
of
this
notion
that
this
was
came
out
because
of
misinformation,
I
think
it
didn't
come
out
because
of
misinformation.
It
just
came
out
because
of
maybe
like
what
Brian
pointed
on
a
lack
of
information,
there's
no
no
little
asterisk
on
every
one
of
these
parcels.
Saying
hey,
consult
appendix
D
in
in
you
know
in
the
code,
so
the
architect
looks
at
it
and
goes
wow
nice,
big
lot,
6,000
square
foot,
minimum
parcel
size,
3,500
acres
per
dwelling
unit,
I,
can
get
3
and
designs.
C
3
applicant
comes
in
gets
told.
Oh,
by
the
way,
did
you
look
at
appendix
T,
never
saw
that
that's
way
in
the
back
of
the
code,
so
this
is
one
of
those
kind
of
complicated
things
that
I
think
either
we
need
to
put
some
flags
now
that
we
have
computers
and
we
can
easily
flag
every
parcel
or
we
need
to
eliminate
additional
and
complexity
that
doesn't
serve
a
purpose
or
a
really
valuable
purpose.
G
Yeah
that
question:
that's
what
you
were
speaking
but
I
think
it
can
make
it
as
a
comment
with
regards
to
how
do
we
best
address
the
concerns
of
the
community?
I
agree
with
everything.
Having
said
I
think
this
makes
sense.
Less
complexity
is
better,
however,
if
we
can
find
a
way
to
recommend
for
the
unit
University
Hill,
Community,
Neighborhood,
Association
Hardin
move
forward,
not
like
the
recommendation
regards
less
direct
him
to
the
right
place
to
start
looking
into.
G
How
can
we
work
with
them
and
he
may
not
be
honest,
maybe
council
there
needs
to
work
with
them
in
terms
of
affordable
housing
in
this
particular
area.
Regarding
control,
rent,
for
example,
I
would
like
to
be
able
to
does
the
question
have
when
you
were
speaking?
Do
we
know
where
that
right
location
is
with
the
right
starting
point?
The.
B
C
But
you
know
it
is
a
conversation
it's
worth,
having
I
think
between
the
brass
at
CU
and
and
council
around.
How
do
we
handle
you
know
the
persistent
problems
that
we're
having
in
in
neighborhoods,
where
there's
a
lot
of
student
tenants-
and
you
know
that
could
have
to
do
with
you
know-
enforcing
occupancy
limits
better
that
could
have
to
do
with
enforcing
you
know,
noise
ordinance
better
or
that
could
have
to
do
with
you
know
inviting
the
university
to
build.
A
E
The
original
objective
was
to
get
in
place
architectural
guidelines
that
would
ensure
some
sort
of
preservation
of
neighborhood
character.
One
can
one
can
disagree
on
how
important
that
is,
but
I
think
we're
failing.
If
we
just
eliminate
that
requirement
by
moving
ahead
on
and
eliminating
this
overlay,
then
then
we
have
not
met
the
objective
of
1995
or
96.
I
forget
the
year
that
that
this
was
put
into
place.
E
I
am
a
big
fan
of
simplifying
the
the
code
and
requirements
for
developers
to
know
what
is
required
of
them,
but
I
I
believe
that
we
would
be
premature
to
eliminate
this
without
having
at
least
attempted
to
meet
the
original
objective
for
this
overlay
zone.
I
think
that
the
university
hill
neighborhood
associations
suggestion
is
excellent
and
I
also
note
that
unless
we
get
started
in
dealing
with
these
issues
that
they've
raised,
we
will
continue
just
to
push
it
down
the
road.
E
E
This
was
put
into
place
for
a
reason
and
we're
we're
just
eliminating
we're.
Not.
We
have
not
met
the
objective,
so
I
don't
agree
to
to
doing
that.
That
I
encourage
staff
to
take
the
University
Hill
neighborhood
associations
suggestion
and
come
with
a
proposal
that
we
that
would
move
in
some
direction
towards
accomplishing
what
is
desired
with
affordable
housing
in
the
neighborhood
and
otherwise.
I
would
be
happy
to
move
ahead
with
with
what's
being
proposed
here,
but
at
the
moment
I
I
don't
support
it.
I
John
I
think
I
have
less
of
maybe
maybe
it's
the
recent
past
on
the
knee-jerk
application
seeming
knee-jerk
application
of
moratoria.
That
has
me
believing
that
the
people
who
did
this
back
then
weren't
acting
100-person
in
a
hundred
percent,
noble
manner
and
we're
perhaps
responding
to
fear
that
exists.
I
Then.
What
we
know
is
depressing
reality
right
now
and
I,
don't
believe
that
fordable
housing
proposals
are
gonna
be
met
with
great
open
arms
by
anyone
on
the
hill
either,
and
so
because
it
represents
the
same
thing.
This
does,
which
is
a
change
from
what
was,
but
this
change
at
least
is
going
to
provide
a
few
more
beds.
I
I
That's
our
board
deal
with
in
terms
of
how
the
students
are
housed,
but
I
get
worried
about
looking
back
on
something
we
weren't
there
for
and
they're
signing
those
virtues
to
it
and
I
don't
buy
I,
don't
fall
for
the
the
whole
argument
that
neighborhood
character
is
always
code
for
some
kind
of
exclusion.
Some
kind
of
you
know
so
I
thought
about
that
at
first,
because
that
word
does.
That
expression
does
trigger
me,
because
we
have
seen
that
in
other
communities.
I
As
you
know,
we've
had
a
lot
of
things
in
our
town
itself
that
you
know
we
would
rather
not
have
now
in
terms
of
social
cultural
movements.
So
I
don't
want
to
see
the
neighborhood
get
degraded
and
I
think
this
came
up
seems
to
me
that
it
was
this
house
behind
a
house
and
all
this
things
were
getting
out
of
control
and
it
was
stopped
with
a
blunt
object
and
stayed
in
place.
E
I
respond,
you
know,
I,
guess,
gray,
hair
yeah
give
us
one
certain
background,
but
housing
in
Boulder
has
been
a
hot
topic
for
the
last.
You
know
45
50
years
we're
not
in
a
new
position.
Now
it
has
been.
The
same.
Conversation
has
been
going
on
for
a
long
time,
also
in
95
when,
when
these,
when
this
was
established,
so
I
understand
that
the
things
change,
but
in
fact
that
particular
issue
has
not
changed.
Boulder
has
always
been
very
expensive
and
very
limited
that,
not
always
but
say
in
the
last
generation
or
two.
I
A
D
So
right
now,
outside
of
a
historic
district
or
an
area
where
you'd
be
in
a
discretionary
review
process
where
something
like
a
sub
community
or
area
plan
would
apply.
We
have
no
construct
in
our
code
to
accommodate
design
guidelines
other
than
that
design
standards
that
we
have
like
compatible
development
so,
and
although
it
is
a
different
time
now,
we
do
know
that
our
experience
when
we
did
try
that
it
was
in
the
late
90s
did
that
didn't
go
well.
D
So
I
think
what
the
effort
would
look
like
if
we
were
to
go
that
route
today
would
be.
It
would
be
a
big
effort,
because
we
would
need
to
explore
what
what's
the
construct
we
would
put
into
the
code.
What
areas
of
the
city
would
that
apply
to,
and
then
it
would
be
about
drafting
design
guidelines
for
that
area
and
I
think
there's
been
varied
interest
over
the
years
and
potentially
exploring
that.
But
it's
not
something
that
is,
that
is
in
our
code
anywhere
today.
So
I
think
it
would
be
a
fairly
significant
work
effort.
D
H
And
what
I'm?
Also
the
subtext
of
what
you're
saying
is
that
in
1995,
when
the
original
ordinance,
the
original
moratorium
and
then
the
new
zone
was
placed,
the
City
Council
called
for
something
that
didn't
exist
then
and
still
doesn't
exist
and
we'd
have
to
create
it
just
solve
for
the
problem
that
John
I
agree
with
him
that
you
know
we
haven't
solved
the
problem
they
originally
laid
out,
but
we
also
don't
have
25
years
later,
a
tool
to
do
that.
Okay,
that's
very
helpful.
Thank
you.
David.
A
B
Just
want
to
very
quickly
and
gently
push
back
on
a
drumbeat
of
students
living
in
our
community.
Every
college
town
I've
ever
lived
in
and
I
have
lived
in
a
college
town,
my
entire
life,
many
of
them
we've
had
we've
had
students
living
in
our
community.
Yes,
there
may
be
problems
but
part
of
the
part
of
the
thing
that
makes
a
college
town.
What
it
is
is
that
we
do
mingle
with
our
college
students
and.
B
B
Had
this
happen
to
me
as
well,
where
you
know
you
have
a
house
that
maybe
isn't
what
you'd
like
it
to
be
right
near
you,
but
but
but
I
do
think
that
the
university
is
is
a
wonderful
asset
to
Boulder
and
I,
just
wanted
to
at
least
speak
up
for
that,
since
we've
made
a
lot
of
statements
on
the
other
from
the
others
perspective.
Thank
you.
A
C
I
can
be
even
half
as
diplomatic
as
as
that
was
that
was
very
impressively
done
and
I
agree
with
it
too.
I
wanted
to
talk.
I
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
this
notion
that,
because
a
council
in
1995
suggested
that
we
create
design
guidelines,
that's
some
kind
of
unrequited
task.
You
know
that's
something
that
we
were
obligated
to
do.
C
G
So
I'm
just
gonna
go
back
to
what
we
read
earlier
and
what
was
presented
and
in
the
documents
we
received
from
1995,
but
it
appears
to
me
that
the
overlay
was
put
in
place
to
deal
specifically
with
the
change
in
character
in
quotes
resulting
from
the
proliferation
of
homes
behind
homes.
However,
that
is
not
the
problem
that
we
are
facing
with
this
particular
proposed
project.
G
There
is
now
a
single
structure
proposed
and
it
is
not
an
equivalent
to
the
problem
of
1995
so
going
back
to
what
they
originally
intend
to
us
for
the
overlay
to
me
is
even
going
to
know
completely
different
direction
of
where
we
are
to
me,
there's
no
to
home
issue
going
on
here.
So
even
that
original
argument
does
not
apply
the
improvements
of
potential
improvements
are
minimal
and,
unfortunately,
the
people
who
looked
at
this
parcel
had
incomplete
information
when
they
put
forth
a
application
and
I
think
at
the
very
minimum.
G
G
Control
of
rent,
which
we
know
is
a
ongoing
problem
potential
needs
for
collaboration
or
discussions
with
the
University
of
Colorado
regarding
what
can
be
done
for
more
affordable
rental
units
in
the
area
and
so
I
think
there's
been
some
productive
discussions,
so
we
can
move
forward,
but
in
terms
of
this
particular
issue,
I
really
I'm,
not
quite
there
with
you
John,
because
I
really
don't
see
that
that
equate
from
what
it
was
originally
brought
up,
based
on
the
evidence
or
documentation.
We
have
I
just
don't
see
the
equivalence,
I
think.
F
A
D
Thank
you.
I
just
have
two
quick
items.
The
first
is
there
was
a
some
conversation
and
some
interest
amongst
council
members
to
explore
moving
the
City
Council
meeting
from
Tuesday
nights
to
Thursday
nights,
which
would
have
been
displaced,
the
Planning
Board
from
Thursday
nights.
That
is
not
a
proposal.
That's
moving
forward.
So.
D
It's
actually
interesting.
You
bring
that
up
that
that
question
came
up
at
the
council
retreat
as
well
of
just
water,
essentially
benefits
for
board
and
commission
members.
There
has
been
interest
in
the
past
of
well.
An
eco
pass
is
a
really
nice
benefit.
Many
folks
also
get
an
eco
pass,
either
from
their
employer
or
from
their
neighborhood,
and
is
that
is
that
helpful?
D
Or
is
there
anything
else
what
about
a
rec
center
pass,
and
so
there
has
been
I
think
interest
from
some
folks
to
look
into
that,
exploring
what
that
would
look
like
it
does
have
a
financial
cost
to
it.
One
of
the
things
that
that
becomes
interesting
is
the
the
rec
center
pass
is
actually
taxable
so
we'd
have
to
figure
out
a
way
to
if
you,
as
a
board
member
were
to
receive
that
benefit.
You'd
actually
have
to
pay
the
city
the
taxes
due
on
that
rec
center
passive
value,
that's
how
it
works
with
employees.
D
A
A
D
The
next
I
was
actually
the
next
item
on
my
list
as
well.
Is
that
workshop
and
and
training
we
now
have
a
vendor
that
we
can
use,
and
so
I'm
gonna
connect
the
folks
that
have
been
working
on
this
with
a
staff
member
that
is
leading
that
effort,
and
we
can
then
work
on
getting
that
that
training
scheduled
yeah
so
or
I'm
excited
any.