My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 08 08
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2024 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2024 08 08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/27/2024 1:41:31 PM
Creation date
8/27/2024 12:35:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
8/8/2024
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Quality Check
8/27/2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 11, 2024 <br />Page 4of6 <br />Baskett noted that this would be a lot of work for staff to take on. She asked about the <br />bill to eliminate occupancy limits that was before the State Legislature, and how it was <br />progressing. <br />Hirt said that it was still in committee. <br />Baskett asked about the commercial linkage fee, and suggested that it could be counter <br />to the City's economic vitality strategy. She wondered if there were other cities in Boulder <br />County that also had one. <br />Zuccaro said City of Boulder had one, but that it had only been adopted recently. <br />Baskett said that she really liked report, and that it was well organized and well - <br />articulated. <br />Hunt concurred, and added that she appreciated the thoroughness and creativity of the <br />recommendations. <br />Baskett added that the suggestion to remove some of the strict requirements for mixed <br />use buildings would be really helpful. <br />Hunt was interested to see whether this kind of development in downtown Superior would <br />be successful. <br />Mihaly asked whether a long term residency requirement had been considered for deed - <br />restricted affordable housing. <br />Zuccaro said that it could be considered. <br />Mihaly felt that it was a discussion worth having. <br />Hirt said that resort communities would provide a model for this. He also noted that the <br />Plan also suggested raising the AMI threshold for the inclusionary housing ordinance. <br />Mihaly said that while a raised AMI threshold may cover more people, it would still be <br />worth considering a residency requirement. <br />Choi asked how staff were feeling about the level of specificity for the goals. <br />Hirt said that they were all measurable and had trackable data points. Even though they <br />were broad, they were still meaningful and usable. <br />Choi asked whether the first goal would allow for increasing appropriate residential <br />development and or increasing residential development opportunities, and whether these <br />were mutually exclusive. <br />Hirt felt that the need for contextually appropriate development was present in the goals. <br />Choi said that he wanted to ensure that the language of the recommendations would <br />properly inform Staff's work plan. <br />Hirt suggested that they could add a few words like "appropriate context sensitive" to the <br />goals. <br />Brauneis said that this would potentially make the document more palatable to residents. <br />Zuccaro said that housing unit growth was much higher between 2010 and 2017, where <br />the City was building well over one hundred units each year. It then dropped to around <br />30 units per year between 2017 and 2021. He said that the 2010 to 2017 figures were in <br />line with the projections in the Housing Plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.