|
-a
<br />1
<br />rn
<br />0
<br />2
<br />0
<br />0
<br />a
<br />a
<br />E
<br />m
<br />a
<br />0
<br />V
<br />m
<br />0
<br />CO
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />State level constraints on housing production are minimal.
<br />Depending on the location of a proposed housing development,
<br />connectivity issues with State Highway right of ways could be
<br />problematic. In some cases, the Colorado Department of
<br />Transportation requires developers to provide access lanes to
<br />adjoining parcels so that cars traveling on state highways are
<br />not impacted by cars entering or turning of off state right of
<br />ways. These acceleration and deceleration lanes can be costly
<br />and add considerably to the development costs of residential
<br />units.
<br />Local Level
<br />Local government comprehensive plans, land use rules, build-
<br />ing codes and zoning codes all influence the ability of the market
<br />to produce needed housing in a timely and cost effective manner.
<br />CSI conducted a general review of municipal and Boulder
<br />County comprehensive plans, land use regulations, zoning
<br />classifications and other regulations that define the built envi-
<br />ronment in Boulder County communities. Comprehensive
<br />Plans form the basic vision and context for defining both the
<br />physical and social functionality of a community. Comprehen-
<br />sive Plans touch on a wide variety of elements and for purpos-
<br />es of this review, the focus was placed on the housing elements
<br />of those Comprehensive Plans.
<br />The general Comprehensive Plan review covered the plans of
<br />the following municipalities: City of Boulder, Lafayette, Long-
<br />mont, Louisville, Lyons, Superior and Boulder County.
<br />The general impression of the housing element of these plans
<br />is that they all lack much detailed comment on affordable
<br />housing and there is in general, a lack of any substantive com-
<br />mentary relating to homeless housing needs, or the needs and
<br />issues surrounding PSH for chronically homeless populations.
<br />The housing elements in general do not reflect the substantive
<br />challenges facing Boulder County housing consumers in ob-
<br />taining a decent dwelling that is affordable. The City of Boulder
<br />has adopted the most detailed housing element and that plan
<br />does address some of the critical aspects of housing affordabil-
<br />ity, but does not provide a comprehensive description of all the
<br />actions that are needed. The City of Boulder and Boulder
<br />County both utilize the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
<br />The County generally has a low key role in housing regulation
<br />and encourages multifamily development to be sited in munic-
<br />ipalities that are served by city utilities and other services pro-
<br />vided by the municipalities.
<br />Formulating a community wide, detailed housing element, is
<br />important because the Comprehensive Plan is a foundational
<br />document that should inform other policies and actions that
<br />relate to housing and also serves as a testament to the priorities
<br />the community will pursue. Since the Comprehensive Plan is
<br />the overriding policy document that represents the collective
<br />vision for the future of the communities, if it is lacking any
<br />detailed discussion of housing affordability and how the com-
<br />munity intends to deal with the stated challenges, community
<br />stakeholders cannot fully grasp the critical importance of housing
<br />affordability. A more robust housing element in the Compre-
<br />hensive Plans could also be an effective educational tool to move
<br />public opinion to a more favorable outlook on efforts to address
<br />the housing gaps in the community. Neighborhood resistance
<br />to affordable developments was highlighted by key informants
<br />as a significant constraint in moving projects and programs
<br />through the review system in a timely and cost effective manner.
<br />The housing element of the plans reviewed could be improved
<br />by addressing the following concepts:
<br />Include summaries of housing need assessments, and
<br />market analyses completed including information from
<br />the Boulder County Housing Consortium Consolidated
<br />Plan document.
<br />Use market information and stakeholder input to iden-
<br />tify priorities.
<br />Include basic implementation strategies to address pri-
<br />ority needs.
<br />Set measureable goals to address the countywide need
<br />for affordable housing and housing for special populations
<br />such as chronically homeless.
<br />Support and describe the role and work of community
<br />organizations and other municipal agencies which address
<br />both the housing and service needs of low income pop-
<br />ulations
<br />List and promote development incentives (both cash and
<br />non-cash) the jurisdiction is willing to provide. Include
<br />regulatory concessions such as fast tracking of develop-
<br />ment proposals, density increases, reductions in parking
<br />and open space requirements.
<br />Promote and describe a wide range of special needs
<br />housing particularly for homeless, disabled persons and
<br />those facing challenges of living independently.
<br />Describe the coordination of housing for special needs
<br />with human service programs which provide essential
<br />services for independent living in the community.
<br />Describe the efforts to address needs countywide and
<br />how the municipal effort will contribute its fair share to
<br />county needs.
<br />Encourage and describe participation in countywide
<br />organizations to address priority needs and to better
<br />coordinate and share resources.
<br />The Comprehensive Plans provide the framework for the pol-
<br />icies and guidelines that are included in other regulatory doc-
<br />uments such as land use guidelines, zoning codes and building
<br />codes. CSI made a general review of those regulatory items
<br />and for purposes of simplicity and compactness of this report,
<br />general planning factors will be discussed with some commen-
<br />tary referencing specific municipal policies. Communities
<br />included in this review of regulatory documents include: City
<br />of Boulder, Lafayette, Longmont, Louisville, Lyons, Superior
<br />and Boulder County. Areas of review include: (a) zoning
<br />classifications, (b) density/building height limitations, (c) mixed
<br />use zoning, (d) permission for diverse housing types, (e) de-
<br />velopment incentives for affordable products, (f) review and
<br />permitting processes, (g) building regulations (h) accommoda-
<br />tion for group care homes.
<br />(a) Zoning classifications
<br />The communities all have diverse residential zoning classifica-
<br />tion systems which designate land uses in fairly specific terms.
<br />Given the topographical features and historic development
<br />pattern in Boulder County communities, residential uses allow
<br />for a range of lot sizes and other considerations having to do
<br />with setbacks, accessory buildings, accessary dwelling units
<br />(ADU) of varying types. In general, the Boulder County land
<br />use forms have tended to be lower in density than other more
<br />urbanized communities along the Front Range. While the
<br />lower densities can create a constraint on housing affordability,
<br />the zoning rules, county -wide tend to preserve the existing land
<br />use patterns while also accommodating growing populations.
<br />Requirements and definitions vary from community to com-
<br />munity.
<br />All communities have a variety of zoning classifications that
<br />apply to multifamily uses. Generally, the multifamily zone
<br />districts are divided into classifications and allow low density
<br />for structures which can be single family homes or 2-4 unit
<br />structures. Medium density classifications generally allow for
<br />apartment buildings with densities up to 14 units per acre. In
<br />the larger communities of Boulder and Longmont, there are
<br />designations for higher density districts in some specified areas
<br />of the jurisdiction. The City of Boulder has more classifications
<br />than the other municipalities and the Boulder code describes
<br />land uses in a number of areas that allow for higher densities
<br />in those areas. In addition to the residential classifications, the
<br />Boulder code also contains mixed use and downtown zone
<br />districts that allow for higher densities and in some cases, permits
<br />the mixed use of business with residential housing in the same
<br />structure and surrounding properties. The City of Boulder has
<br />approximately 27 zone districts that could potentially accom-
<br />modate housing in some form. Not all of those residential
<br />districts permit multifamily housing. The city allows affordable
<br />multifamily housing in a range of zoning districts.
<br />The City of Longmont utilizes approximately 14 zoning clas-
<br />sifications for residential uses. Not all of those permit multi-
<br />family housing. In general, the zoning code limits multifami-
<br />ly densities to not more than 25 units per acres. In several zone
<br />districts, the zoning code has allowances for greater densities
<br />for affordable housing and complexes with other public ame-
<br />nities that may be included in a development plan. Longmont
<br />has several classifications that facilitate mixed uses including
<br />housing. The city allows affordable multifamily housing in its
<br />industrial zoned districts with certain conditions. The city has
<br />provided a positive level of flexibility in the siting of affordable
<br />product in a wide range of zone districts within the jurisdiction.
<br />The three smaller communities, Lafayette, Louisville and Su-
<br />perior have fewer zoning classifications within their land use
<br />rules. The City of Lafayette utilizes 4 multifamily code districts,
<br />a special use review procedure for certain types of multifamily
<br />housing and a Planned Unit Development designation that
<br />would allow for multifamily developments. The Lafayette zoning
<br />code uses medium and high density terminology in two of the
<br />multifamily districts but there is not a numerical value assigned
<br />to those density designations. Louisville's zoning code contains
<br />two multifamily zones, medium density for duplexes and town -
<br />homes and a high density zone that would allow apartments.
<br />There are also two other zoning designations that could accom-
<br />modate multifamily housing, Commercial Neighborhood and
<br />Planned Community. The Commercial Neighborhood allows
<br />mixed use development including commercial and multifami-
<br />ly residential. The Planned Community zone requires a parcel
<br />of at least 30 acres. Development plans would need to specify
<br />residential uses and the proposed densities. The Town of Su-
<br />perior has a restrictive zoning code in the case of multifamily
<br />dwellings. There is one residential zone which allows medium
<br />density multifamily uses up to six units per acre. This zone in
<br />practicality, would allow duplexes and depending on the size
<br />of the parcel, perhaps four plexes or a six plex. The residential
<br />multifamily zone allows multifamily apartments and attached
<br />dwellings but all development proposals are subject to a special
<br />use review. This zone district does not have specified density
<br />minimums or maximums.
<br />The Town of Lyons is in a unique planning environment because
<br />of the loss of housing caused by the recent flood. Town officials
<br />indicate that their planning and zoning policies are in flux
<br />because of the changes in terrain and the presence of the flood
<br />zone following the flood. Presently, the assessment by town
<br />representatives, is that there are not parcels zoned appropriate-
<br />ly for multi -family housing. There is a not enough available
<br />zoned land on which to replace the number of housing units
<br />that were lost in the flood. A recent proposal by the Boulder
<br />County Housing Authority, that would have utilized a portion
<br />of public land for a multifamily development, was denied by
<br />voter initiative. The town is presently developing a framework
<br />to both annex and rezone land along highway 66 east of the
<br />center of town. The plan is to create parcels with the proper
<br />zoning to accommodate both small lot single family development
<br />and multifamily apartments.
<br />w
<br />Cr)
<br />m
<br />0
<br />2
<br />•
<br />w
<br />0
<br />0.
<br />a
<br />w
<br />w
<br />ra
<br />E
<br />w
<br />a
<br />0
<br />U
<br />Ql
<br />0
<br />m
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />■
<br />24
<br />24 25
<br />
|