City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. This compliment right now is not gratuitous. I've lived in Boulder, I've lived in Gumbear, I've lived in Lewis, I've lived in Longmont, unincorporated Boulder County, and my wife and I, our joke is that it only happens in Louisville, meaning that every time we call somebody in the city for something, we get a call back. So I want to compliment you, first of all, for that, and I hope that continues as we talk about Pachi a little bit. I'm a player. I play every week, most weeks. and my son who special needs adult son he plays when he can and it's just become part of our life and While we are happy to do we can keep the courts playable That's all we're doing was we're keeping them playable. We're not we're not really making improvements. In fact, there are some areas that are just flat-out dangerous I fell this week at the tournament, two weeks ago at the tournament in Louisville, on a little tricky hilly area that doesn't have good traction. And my friend has done the same a few months ago, too. And these were hard falls. These were not just a slip and trip. No injuries. But it just, I think, symbolizes... that there's work to be done to make these courts playable to keep them safe and to uh... and to make them something that Louisville can be proud of. I'm married to an Italian, and I've learned long ago that you always listen to Italians, so there's a lot of Italians at play. And I think it would be great to help everybody support the heritage that I know is in this town for Italian-Americans. I think that's it. It's become a part of our life, and we're very, very happy to be in a town that has bocce. It's, I don't think, a common thing. I think it's unique. I think it's something that is special. When we play, people gather. We have little kids or something about bocce that makes little kids, they get hypnotized. They stand and watch us play. The parents watch. People walking by Memory Square, which is where we play most of our games, stop and watch. And it is truly a community experience. A lot of interaction, a lot of fun, and a very uplifting, I think, place to be on Sundays. So with that, thank you, Council. We appreciate it. Four seconds left. Thank you, Keith. I appreciate it.

Next, I have John Wagner, followed by Jan de Bruyn-Kops.

Hello, I'm John Wagner, and I'm a resident here in Louisville for the past 24 years. Can everyone hear me? OK, good. I like this enhancement. Can I take it? Actually, I, too, am here to talk about bocce, oddly enough. I've played in courts in Monterey and in Oregon and in Los Angeles and also in Denver. And all of them have been in better shapes than the ones here at Memory Square. I know there are three courts at the community park which do not provide any shade. And you need it in this climate, at least during the summer. And it's nice to play in the cool of the evening, which I did in Roseburg just last, two nights ago. just a small string of lights. And their cords were bigger than ours, and they had some turf on them, which plays pretty well, too, if it's maintained properly. And I know that there's a few guys that play bocce that would be willing to do some work to use the materials that you provide. And it doesn't have to be a lot. Five to 20,000 could do a lot. And I know you spend that much on stuff that doesn't even get used. Because I see it. You know, you go to many of the parks are not used. So what else? And also, I agree with the historical importance of a sport that is, you know, it's not exhausting, but it's fun. It requires a lot of skill. And the youth may pick up on it and have some activities other than what they currently do. Let's see. Yeah, that's about it for me. Somebody else has got my 45 seconds. Thanks, John.

Next up, I have Yonda Broom-Cops, followed by Haley Fitzpatrick.

Jan Willem de Bruynkops, in Dutch we would say Jan Willem de Bruynkops, but it doesn't really matter. Ward 2, proud Louisville resident since 2011. Judy, Caleb, Deb, Chris, Josh, Dietrich, and Barbara, if you're out there. I don't have three things tonight, but I'm just going to be talking about bocce tonight. I guess my first question to you all, and George told me that you can't answer the question, so when you think about Louisville, the history of Louisville, probably one of the first things that comes to mind, or hopefully the first thing that comes to mind is kind of Italian heritage. We have been lucky enough, George and I played in the last couple of years in the Labor Day tournament. George, we got on the podium last year, third place. There's a couple ringers they bring in from Denver that we've got to talk to Angelo and Lenny about it, maybe keep them in Denver, but anyway. Needless to say, it's an enjoyable sport. La Festa, I wasn't able to make it for that, but that had a great turnout as well. I believe the tournament, as they mentioned, sold out in a matter of minutes if we had just a little bit more space. But kind of to get to me and Bachi, these gentlemen have done an exceptional job of explaining things that we potentially need that could make it better. Lenny showed me courts from, is it Ohio? Courts in Ohio covered, perfect surfaces, fenced in, basically bocce all year round. Sadly, well, I don't know if it's sadly. I mean, Lenny does a great job maintaining the courts. But, you know, the other day I drove up and he's like bent down, scraping courts, getting the surface ready. Because if not, what ends up happening is you throw the ball straight down the court, And it goes, you know, maybe almost 90 degrees left or right. You know, the court dries out. So to say that without Lenny and I think Angelo and maybe a few other gentlemen put their heart and time, they're basically unplayable. So thinking about playing tennis or, you know, everyone's talking about pickleball is a hot topic now. Think about like the ball just, it was supposed to bounce right and now it's going to bounce left, right? I don't think anybody would actually show up and play on those courts. So, you know, essentially not much to add because these gentlemen have done such a great job. I would like to invite you all, you know, to come out and play some bocce. It is a lot of fun. It just requires, you know, four balls per team, the Polino. If you're thirsty, a non-alcoholic or an alcoholic beverage, it pairs very well with the game. But usually Sunday mornings, I know you can find Lenny and his friends, and we kind of just try to sprinkle in, we try to respect them. you know, the original, the OGs. But other than that, I don't really have much to say. Just that I would definitely consider spending a little bit of money on bocce, and hopefully we can make some courts that are playable all year round, and maybe even at nighttime. Thank you so much. Sorry for the unorthodox speech.

Thanks very much.

Appreciate it.

Next up, Haley Fitzpatrick.

Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Hallie Fitzpatrick. I'm a Louisville resident. I've lived here for seven years now. When I first moved here, I rented a house just off Buchanan Court. Right behind that court is a Montessori school, and there are four bocce-shaped sand pits there. I was looking forward to playing bocce, and they're really un- You could probably play different games there, but not really bocce. And since then, despite that, I fell in love with Louisville, and we bought a house. And I later learned that there's other courts that are in much better shape, like the ones in Memory Square. And a big reason I think they're in better shape is from people like Lenny and others that are actually doing some maintenance. I wouldn't be surprised if Louisville did maybe a little bit better maintenance on that, too. But I don't know. But the Montessori example is a good example of how neglect of the courts basically makes them unusable, and it's a waste of resources. I don't think I've ever seen people playing bocce there. Never seen someone play two games there, that's for sure. So I've been enjoying playing. I really appreciate the support of some folks that are maintaining it and here to just echo the voices that have already came before me and say I would implore you to give these courts the respect that they deserve. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Appreciate that, and as always, as it was mentioned, we can't respond because, of course, the items are not on the agenda, but rest assured that we are taking your emails to heart and what you said tonight. All right, next is the city manager's report, which is the acting city manager. Take it away, Sam Fox.

Sorry about that.

Just jumping ahead, trying to move us through, right? All right, can we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So moved.

Second. Any comments? All right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Now, Councilmember, informational comments and committee reports. And let's see. I want to start this one because I just came a few minutes ago from the opening, as did Councilmember Fahey and Councilmember Kern, from a terrific opening. And I'm just trying to find my—yeah. We saw the opening in the old GHX building, which, as you probably know, is at the very, very top point or the highest point in Louisville. It's down over the city. It looks out on Davidson Mesa. It looks out on the Flatirons. And America's Quantum Peak is there now, which is going to be a... center for providing services and all kinds of connections and research and inclined to shoot lasers at atoms. I'm not a science guy, but that's what they said over and over, and I believe them. It's a technology that is going to be very revolutionary in a lot of different areas, including human rights, including health care and defense, and all sorts of things. And you'll hear a lot from them. It's really amazing and really thrilling. And I had to heed my mother's old comment, which is, Chris, don't touch when I was out there, because we were dealing with lasers and so forth. But anyway, I really want to welcome them to Louisville and appreciate their contributions in advance. And you'll be seeing probably plenty of stuff on the news and in papers about it, because about everybody, if there was anybody, was there. I was privileged to be able to be there. All right, others? Yes, Council Member Fee.

I will also echo that this is going to be a wonderful addition to the City of Louisville. And I want to mention I was at the Consortium of Cities meeting this past week and their topic of conversation was the drought. And they've come up with some interesting information. We had first a presentation from Russ from Colorado Climate Center. uh... explained what the situation was and how dire it really is for the whole state be being part of that state uh... and also then there was a presentation by adam quick land from the grand county they have come up with the county wide uh... drought preparedness program it's incorporating every community and every portion of the county so everyone in grand county is working together and they emphasize how important that was for everyone in the community to work together to come up with a solution and a lot of it was information and education of the public. This is how you can help to eliminate the effects of the drought. So I would like us to become more participatory in drought mitigation. Thank you.

Other council comments? One other thing I just mentioned, I'm part of the Northwest Mayors and County Commissioners Coalition, which is a group of mayors, as you can imagine, along the 36 corridor from Westminster on up to Boulder and on up to Erie and In Longmont, we are in the process of kind of reworking our kind of rules of engagement for the efforts that the group has in the state legislature, trying to provide some needed input. As a community, it's been a very, very successful group at providing that lobbying support on different forms of state and then federal legislation on transportation, both ground transportation and now air transportation, at least with respect to RMMA. So I just wanted to put that out there. That's something that I'm gonna be leading a workshop on how we are evolving. I think this is the best way to put it. So anything else? All right, let's move on. Do we have a acting city manager's report?

Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. So I just want to highlight our new website has launched. It launched just this week. We thank you for your feedback. This is going to continue to evolve and improve, so please do keep pressing that website feedback button and sending us feedback. I also want to highlight how huge of an achievement this is and what a testament of the work to all of our staff to be able to launch this new and much improved website. I particularly want to shout out Grace Johnson, who's our communications manager who led this team, and the core team, including Derek Cosson, Ginger Cross, and Erin Owen, who really took a heavy lift in all of these website updates. So if you see them, please thank them. And thank you all for our new website. Our Marshall Fire refunds are going. We have about 180, maybe 200 received after mail today. We'll see. We're still working through all of those to diligently vet them and get that processing continuing. No one has opted out to date. I want to highlight that Boulder Valley School District has announced their enrollment impacts presentation to the BVSD board coming up on Tuesday, 825 at 3 p.m. You may want to watch their board meeting and stay tuned for the announcement of those impacts. And then the last thing I'll highlight is that tomorrow night at 6 p.m., we have the mayor's community meeting in the library in the first floor meeting room. Thank you.

Thank you. The next item is our regular business, and we've got a number of items tonight. First is resolution number 77, series 2026, resolution designating the residence located at 1013 Lafarge Avenue as a historic landmark to be named the Giorzelli House. I think I'm pronouncing that right. If I'm not, please correct me. And approving a historic preservation fund grant. And do we have a staff presentation?

There we go, okay. Thanks for your patience with those technical difficulties. Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Jess Daniels, senior planner. This item is resolution number 77, designating 1013 Lafarge Avenue a historic landmark and approval of a historic preservation fund grant. So the applicant is requesting landmark designation and a grant of up to $128,300, which includes extraordinary circumstances grant funding. Staff are recommending approval of this request with the home to be named the Drizzelli House, a landmark incentive bonus of $7,700 and a grant of up to $128,300 corresponding to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 grant categories as outlined in the current Historic Preservation Fund Resolution. And these categories will be discussed in the following slides. So 1013 Lafarge is located at the intersection of Lafarge Avenue and South Street. This home has remained in very good condition over time as demonstrated by the photo from 1948 on the left and a recent image on the right. The city's architectural survey, stories, and places identifies this home as a distinctive type in the Barclay Place subdivision. It's a pure middle-hipped roof cottage with a small gabled front projection on the side. There are four of these types of homes located on the same block on Lafarge listed on the slide here. A historic structure assessment was recently completed, which found that the building does have the potential to be restored to a high degree of historic integrity. However, there is extensive foundation work required to repair and replace the foundations related to this grant request. So in looking at the landmark criteria, in order to receive a landmark, landmarks must be at least 50 years old and meet one or more criteria for architectural, social, geographical, and environmental significance as outlined in the Louisville Municipal Code. So 1013 Lafarge Avenue meets these criteria. It meets the age criteria as it was constructed in 1906 and is around 120 years old. It meets the social significance criteria. It has association with Italian immigrant history, in particular, the ownership of two prominent Louisville families over most of the lifetime of the home, and these are the Di Franchia and Girozzelli family. This home is also one of several houses built on the block, as mentioned previously, by E.J. Di Franchia as dowries for his daughters, so he built four homes for dowries. It also has high architectural integrity due to its distinctive pyramidal and hipped roof cottage and small gabled front style. And lastly, it meets the physical criteria as it's noted for its high integrity in the city's architectural surveys and has some original siding and has also maintained its historic footprint. So the high-level scope of work associated with the grant request includes improving the site grading and drainage, temporarily moving the home to move it over the new foundation that will be part of the grant request, foundation framing associated with that work, replacing the siding to match the historic siding, repairing and replacing the covered porch elements, including the roof columns and floor, new roofing and waterproofing, including gutters, new electrical paneling, so a new 200 amp panel and wiring, new historically accurate windows and doors, replacing the soffits and fascia, demolition and removal of the materials associated with all of this work, and then finally a new single story addition located at the rear of the home. So this table shows the maximum grant amounts under the current historic preservation fund resolution. That's resolution number 102 series 2025. So the applicant is requesting the maximum allowable grant under both the tier one and tier two categories. And I'll go through each of these in detail. So the first subcategory under Tier 1 is a $63,000 matching base grant for eligible preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation expenses. The applicant's expenses under this category are listed in the table and detailed in the staff report, which include the site grading, drainage, electrical improvements, and other exterior alterations to complement and match the historic aspects of the home. All of these items are eligible for a total cost of $235,882, and half of those eligible expenses are $117,940. So these expenses do exceed the maximum matching grant amount of $63,000 as permitted by this tier. Applicant is intending to construct a new one-story rear addition, which would be a total cost of $855,000. The city has a subgrant for new construction that respects the massing size and scale of the historic property. And the applicant is requesting the maximum new construction grant amount, which is $23,000. And some elevations are included in the slide showing that rear addition. The last subcategory of Tier 1 is a structural grant for residential properties that require extensive stabilization work that exceeds the base residential grant amount. So the new foundation and House Move as part of this project are qualifying expenses under this category, and those expenses total $141,167. Half of those expenses are around $70,000. However, the maximum structural grant available is $20,000. As additional funding is needed for structural work, this triggers consideration under the Tier 2 grant category for extraordinary circumstances. And extraordinary circumstances is defined as vital structural work and building code compliance work that exceed Tier 1 grant amounts if identified in an approved historic structure assessment. The maximum cap on extraordinary circumstances is $22,300. And in this case, the approved HSA did identify extensive foundation repair and replacement. So in considering the grant request, staff found that there are enough eligible expenses that meet and exceed the maximum Tier 1 grant amounts. This includes the base grant amount for preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation expenses. This also included the new construction grant for the proposed one-story addition, as well as the structural grant for the additional structural work for the house move and the new foundation. applicant had remaining expenses not covered by tier one amounts associated with the new foundation which triggered um extraordinary circumstances grant funding and staff found that the applicant was eligible for this funding as it is in the approved hsa At their July 20th meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission approved an alteration certificate for this work and recommended that City Council approve the request, including a $7,700 landmark bonus and a total grant of $128,300 and that the structure be named the Gerizelli House. As the request meets the landmark designation criteria and the historic preservation funding resolution, staff recommend approval of resolution 77, approving the landmark designation, the landmark incentive bonus of $7,700, naming the structure the Drizzelli House, and approval of the grant of up to $128,300 as per the following grant categories. So $63,000 for the residential grant, $20,000 for the structural sub-grant, $23,000 for the new construction grant, and $22,300 for the extraordinary circumstances grant. That concludes the staff presentation. If there are any questions. There is not an applicant presentation tonight, but they did want to express their gratitude that Council's considering the request. They weren't able to attend due to some extentuating circumstances.

Thank you.

Council, any questions about this proposal?

Okay. Okay. Do we have a motion? Oh, we need some public comment. Do we have any public comment on this?

There's no public comment.

All right. Any council discussion? Further discussion? Motion? Anybody want to make a motion?

i move to approve resolution number 77 series 2026 a resolution designating the residence located at 1013 lafarge avenue a historic landmark to be named for the jeer zeli house and approving a historic preservation fund grant second okay any further discussion all in favor aye aye aye any opposed very good next is ordinance number 1936 series

2026 an ordinance amending tile 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code regarding inclusionary housing. This is on for second reading so the public hearing was announced on the city of Louisville's website and July 31st, 2026. Going to open the public hearing and ask for any disclosures we have. Seeing none. Before we do the staff presentation, looks like they're getting some things together. This initial discussion, not the initial first reading, but the initial discussion happened a year ago, I think in we provided some direction and uh... discussion we received several weeks ago draft that we had first reading on and tonight we're here to hear both presentation and have a public hearing on this there will be two rounds of public comment tonight uh... and this is uh... i just want to kind of frame this as this is not a uh... discussion of wider issues of housing in Louisville. It is a subset of that. We've got a rewrite of our development code that's coming and this is in a category of items that we really are trying to do independent or parallel to that effort in an effort I think to fix, improve what we have. So with that in mind, I'll leave it to Jeff Hurt to take us through the presentation.

Thank you. Yes, so this is the intent of this ordinance is for targeted updates to the inclusionary housing ordinance with kind of the overarching purpose of making it better. In the near term, ahead of a broader development code update, I'm going to share some more information about that broader development code update and kind of how this fits into that. In terms of what making it better means, it's really about Increasing the likelihood of affordable housing units actually being built that's kind of the overarching purpose of this Code amendment so the topics I'm gonna walk through and I'll try to get through this and be concise But there's a lot of content to cover first some context in terms of policy foundation what our current regulations say Then a summary of the proposal that's on the table tonight in terms of the ordinance in your packet and then to summarize some potential amendments for council consideration based on the questions that were raised during first reading So I think most of us are well aware of our affordability problem. It's well documented in our housing plan. So I won't get into the numbers. Happy to circle back to this if you would like. But it is certainly called out in the housing plan and the comprehensive plan to address our inclusionary housing ordinance as an action item. So we did adopt the housing plan in 2024 and the comp plan in 2026. Both of those documents really explicitly call for updating this ordinance. to address this issue among a broader set of housing issues. And there's some other policy contexts that are certainly driving this discussion. We did want to share a little bit more information about the development code update, sort of how this fits in that trajectory. So this graphic here is an attempt to kind of show how we started with our policy foundation and we're evolving into our broader development code update. So 2024, we adopted the housing plan. The comprehensive plan is intended to sort of build off of that in terms of identifying areas where residential may be appropriate to address some of our affordability issues. I did want to highlight that we are beginning the development code update very soon here. And one specific thing that was important to note, within that development code update overall budget, which is about a million dollars, we, as a reminder, and we brought this to council earlier this year, we have about a $200,000 grant from the State Department of Local Affairs to specifically address housing affordability within the code update. So it is fairly well resourced to not only take a deep dive into the inclusionary ordinance, but just more broadly look at all the sort of housing levers within our code that can be addressed. And so we do have, we're confident we're going to have housing policy experts on our consultant team that are, this is kind of their wheelhouse and they will be dissecting this ordinance and the rest of the code for that purpose. A little bit more context, we will be coming to council very soon with a consideration of a contract and a scope of work. We are actively working on that right now. And as part of the scoping we've been working on, did want to kind of reiterate to council that there'll be a lot of opportunities for council input and planning commission input and community input sort of early and often and throughout. So for example, at the beginning of the project, there'll be check-ins with council with regards to sort of the overall work plan, the scope, the framework, the governance structure of the project. So there'll be more to come on that front, but we did want to make it clear that this is intended to be targeted for tonight, but there is a broader effort underway and happy to talk more about what that scope might look like, but you'll be seeing that very soon. So getting into our current inclusionary framework as a reminder, so essentially our code today says for all new residential development, the developer has to set aside 12% of those units as permanently affordable, and of those 12% of the units, half need to be affordable to households earning less than 80% of area median income, the other half less than 60% of area median income, and there are alternative compliance options. I'm oversimplifying our current ordinance here, but that's the overall sort of framework. We do have some new data for council to reflect the first reading questions. We pulled some data showing what our percent of overall units is that is deed restricted. So we're kind of in the middle of the pack among our peer cities in Boulder County. About 4% of our housing stock is permanently affordable deed restricted, which is slightly less from some other cities, slightly more. As a reminder, our overall goal is working toward 12% deed restricted affordable by 2035. In terms of why we're updating the ordinance now, we have not seen a single deed-restricted affordable housing unit in the five-year history of this ordinance. That's one reason. The ordinance is not necessarily completely at fault. There's a lot of other factors in terms of land use policy and whatnot, but certainly points to a need to update this ordinance. With the comprehensive plan calling for additional residential development in certain areas or supporting it I feel like now is an opportune time to sort of get ahead of that And address the ordinance more in the near term ahead of the broader code update So I'm gonna walk through the proposal that is in the ordinance before you tonight and then we'll get into the potential amendments to supplement or replace some of this for discussion So the first major component of the ordinance update relates to the area median income threshold. So current ordinance, again, is 60% AMI, 80% AMI. The proposed ordinance before you tonight would increase that range, all with the goal of increasing the feasibility of these projects from a developer standpoint and address sort of the gap between what a market rate unit would sell a rent for and what a deed-restricted unit would sell a rent for. So area median income is one of the most powerful levers there. So the proposal is to divvy up the AMIs by tenure, so unit type, as opposed to just a broad half and half. And the proposal is for 12% of rental units to be affordable to 80% or less AMI households for rental units. And for ownership units, 12% of those units would be up to 120% area median income. That reflects more closely current market conditions, what household incomes can afford at certain price points. There's some additional information in your packet that's kind of more updated and more robust in terms of what price points go with different area median income ranges, even different salaries in Boulder County and how they relate to AMIs that is informing this. Another sort of lever in the proposed ordinance relates to density. So there is a proposed residential density bonus where you could get an increase of 20% of the allowed residential units for providing on-site affordable housing in compliance with the IHO. And also an increase in 20% of 20% of the lot coverage. These are all things that can be combined or taken one or two sort of individually. The ordinance does have an enhanced density bonus for projects that have 100% on-site affordable for rental that have a sort of a deeper affordability threshold and happy to talk more about that. And we're going to be discussing that. Related to the density bonus, this is all about, again, improving project feasibility. It is an explicit sort of component of the IHO called out in the housing plan and the comp plan as one of the most effective tools to promote our goals here. It is important also to note that this doesn't supersede us as a city evaluating projects holistically based on a range of other factors. So if the density bonus is allowed, the city also looks at other impacts in terms of traffic, infrastructure, all of that. So the density bonus isn't a given. It doesn't override those other things that need to be looked at as well. So this is sort of a simple kind of rudimentary example of how a density bonus would apply for a project that is currently entitled to, say, 100 units. So the current ordinance would essentially say that if you have a 100-unit project, 12 of those units need to be de-districted affordable, and then it would be about 88 of those units would be market rate. Under the density bonus, that would bump up the unit count to 120 units. if you got the 20%, which would increase the number of affordable units that the city would get by about three. But also importantly, it would increase the number of market rate units that the developer could get to further address that feasibility issue. So about 17 more market rate units in this hypothetical scenario would be allowed if the density bonus was granted. And this is in May, currently may be granted at city council's discretion. And so this would assume that that bonus was granted by council. Other incentives built into the ordinance relate to parking reduction, so there's an elimination of parking requirements for affordable projects. It goes beyond our current requirements to eliminate those. I'm happy to talk more about that. There's a waiver to development review fees, which helps. And the analysis is, again, about increasing the feasibility of these projects. The fee-in-lieu, the proposal is to not reopen the actual methodology for the fee-in-lieu, but essentially update the inputs into the fee-in-lieu, so the market data in terms of price points and incomes was updated, and that reflects an increase of barely anything for the rental units, actually, and that just sort of reflects the current market conditions, but it is a more than double increase. increase in the fee-in-lieu for owner-occupied units. And this is what the model that we ran and reran basically spits out for us in terms of the fee-in-lieu. I mean, I didn't mean to gloss over the fact that a couple of important points here. So one, the proposal is for the rental fee in lieu to be calibrated to 60% area median income. And we'll get into the, we may get into this, but essentially the model tells us in part that at 80% area median income, Market rates for rental units are actually pretty closely aligned in Boulder County currently This is something that we've learned recently and our peer cities have learned recently in Boulder County. It's new information So the proposal is to keep the field new calibrated to 60% AMI and to allow more discretion for the city manager to update the fees without needing to come back to Council for an ordinance So one of the questions that came up regarding the fee in lieu, of course, is with these additional fees, how does that get passed down to these units and the market rate units? Does it make the market rate units less affordable? And the answer is nuance, but I guess the quick answer is, Minimally, from staff's perspective, does that actually get passed down to the market rate units? It typically gets spread out among other factors like value engineering, you know, reduced cost of finishing, different maintenance structures, things like that, reduced profits. So from staff's kind of analysis and perspective, the pass down to future tenants is partial. Another incentive in the ordinance is for building heights, a building height increase of up to one story or 15 feet, whichever is less, if the developer provides the units, the affordable units on site in compliance with the IHO. And there's a lot of other sort of backstops to this in terms of like comprehensive plan and the height guidance and things like that and other considerations. So it wouldn't certainly be a given. This is again a may that council may approve. So there's lots of other factors at play. I've got a couple slides here. illustrating where those height increases would be eligible potentially. Again, this is about increasing development feasibility. So a couple maps here showing where the height increase could apply. So starting first with downtown. So this is a map of downtown. The dotted line shows all of downtown Louisville, and the area in crosshatch red are called the transition areas of downtown. Those are essentially the edge areas of downtown. The ordinance would allow at council's discretion an increase of one story or 15 feet in those transition areas on the periphery of downtown, but not in the quarry area, so not in the rest of downtown. No height increase eligible there. And then this is actually a citywide map, which I know is hard to read. We could come back to it if you'd like, but it's essentially showing all of the areas of the city where multifamily housing is permitted as a use by right. There's a lot of granularity here. There's individual sites that may not have the lot area or whatever, but in general, this shows sort of the pockets of the community where multifamily would be allowed and therefore more likely to be eligible for that height increase. So happy to come back to this. Planning Commission did unanimously recommend approval of the ordinance with no conditions back in May with a couple of suggestions for some updates that we have generally incorporated. And so bear with me here. So these are the potential amendments that are based on the first reading questions from council. So I'm gonna go through each one of them, one slide for each one of them. We have a total of seven actually that we're putting on the table for council discussion tonight. So the first one regarding the like for like provision in the ordinance, that's essentially where the ordinance says that any of the deed restricted affordable units have to have the same design and materials and the same quality as the market rate units. That's been a subject of discussion related to sort of overall project cost and feasibility. Are we talking about the same countertops, the same appliances, things like that. And so if you read it really rigidly, I think some folks see that as a problem. And so from staff's perspective, you know, we're definitely open and flexible to modifying that language, but some potential amendments to address that specific concern are adjusting the language to be more about exterior compatibility, durability, things of that nature and explicitly excluding things like finishes and materials and things like that. Those are not things that we as staff are actually reviewing with a project. We're not looking at countertops. We're obviously not looking at appliances like at the PUD level, but it could be an issue certainly and we want to address that. Another component of a potential amendment could be in the like-for-like in terms of the unit mix. So if they're all two bedroom units, Should the deed restricted units be also two bedroom units? Things of that nature. We could also look at language for that. We think there's definitely some options there. The second potential amendment regarding the enhanced density bonus. So that was a question during first reading. The current proposal basically allows an enhanced density bonus of up to 30% if you do 100% on site. affordable at a sort of a deeper affordability level. The potential amendments that we're kind of putting on the table for discussion are to kind of loosen that up a bit in the sense of potentially doing an enhanced bonus for projects that just simply exceed the IHO. So instead of it being 100% on-site affordable, maybe it's 20%, maybe it's 30%. Also potentially having that enhanced density bonus for deeper affordability projects. There was some question from council at first reading about the current proposal has basically would say all the units have to be under 80% AMI for it to be eligible for the bonus. One option would be just to make it an average of 60% AMI. So some of the units could be up to 100, 120. That's certainly an option on the table. And to allow it for both ownership and rental. So we see an opportunity for amendments to broaden the enhanced density bonus with a couple of components here. The third potential amendment is to more explicitly call out that affordable housing projects could be eligible for expedited PUD review. A lot of these projects, these hypothetical projects, may already be eligible for that, but to more explicitly call it out could be a helpful lever within this broader code amendment. I'm happy to talk about Prop 120 and 23 and fast track requirements as well on that. Fourth potential amendment is to essentially say that the fee in lieu at the time of approval of the entitlement of the PUD is locked in at that moment as opposed to at the time of permit. The current ordinance and what we've had in place for the whole time is that it's the fee in lieu at the time of permit. So there is one project that this is problematic for, the East Street Village. So that's an option that can be... I think fairly easily put in the ordinance to lock that in at the time of PUD. PUDs expire after three years, so there is a duration on that that could be locked in. Fifth potential amendment is to look at the area median income. So in recognition that our analysis shows that 80% area median income household market rate rental units are pretty closely aligned now and our analysis is showing that and other communities are finding that in Boulder County as well. And so it's a question for council consideration if we want to look at lowering the AMI to 60% for rental units. Not something we're necessarily recommending. It certainly would affect the feasibility of some of these projects, but just because the numbers show that they're so closely aligned we did want to put that on the table for consideration. Six of seven potential amendments is essentially for the incentives, clarifying that they're more of a shall and a given than a may at council's discretion. So the way the ordinance is structured now, it's really up to council to decide if the density bonus should be allowed, if the height bonus should be allowed. That creates uncertainty and unpredictability for the development community, understandably. So there are ways in the ordinance that we can make it more of a shall, and so we're open to that as well. SEVENTH FINAL POTENTIAL AMENDMENT, AND THIS IS A NEW ONE, NOT IN THE STAFF PACKET. THAT JUST KIND OF CAME TO LIGHT THE LAST FEW DAYS. WE DID LOOK CLOSELY AT THE ORDINANCE AND REALIZE THAT THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN CURRENTLY, ANY PROJECT THAT REQUIRES A PUD, SO THAT'S ANY PROJECT OVER SIX UNITS IS THE THRESHOLD, REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE. THAT ISN'T SO MUCH OF THE ISSUE AS THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT SAYS ORF HAS A FINAL PLAT. So you could narrowly look at that and say that a project that has less than six units but requires a final plat has to comply. That's potentially problematic and something that we could easily address through a code amendment, but we want to put it on the table for council discussion to not overly burden the smaller projects inadvertently. So the options for council are essentially adopt the ordinance as is, adopt the ordinance with amendments, or certainly could defer the ordinance for consideration as part of the broader development code update. And staff is recommending approval of the ordinance to advance our policy objectives. Happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Council questions?

Yes, Councilmember Heffner and then Councilmember... Just on the last piece, on the final plat, I mean, is there another way to construe it other than strictly?

Well, I think we... It's not something that's surfaced as an issue. I don't know that this has been an issue because most developments have required a PUD. We don't have a lot of three and four unit projects.

Is there a world in which we can keep the language we have and a five unit development? is not subject to this ordinance?

A five-unit development that requires a final plat, I think, I mean, it's a fair point that strictly applied, yes, they would need to comply with the IHO.

Okay. And I assume we strictly apply? I mean, that's not like a choice, right?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, there's, you know, there's a lot of code language with a lot of ambiguity. This is pretty clear. But we just haven't had a specific example of this being a problem other than just looking at the language and realizing it could be a problem.

Okay. Thanks.

First question, you had a table up there with that example of 100-unit development. It looked like you rounded up for the number of affordable units. Is that written into the code?

Yeah, this is very high-level rudimentary, and I believe we did round up with this just to make it more even numbers. So I forget if it was 0.4 or 0.5 is what the number comes out to, but we did round it up, yeah, just for illustrative purposes.

Okay. I'm just curious, like, it doesn't say in our code whether you should round up or round down. I don't know. It's not a big deal. It's just, anyway.

No, that's fair.

Yeah. Fine. Okay. Okay, another question. Could you say a little bit more about why at the moment we're excluding the downtown and the old town areas for the height incentive?

Yeah, I mean, I think that trying to get my head into the downtown standards, but I think it's more about seeing the peripheral areas and transition areas, just seeing them, I think the downtown design handbook.

Yeah, and I think the, so when you look at the downtown design requirements, the core area, you can do up to three stories. The transition area, you can only do up to two stories. So by including the transition area, we would allow potentially up to three stories in the transition area, but not allow four stories in the core area because of the historic character.

Okay. That's helpful. Um, and then, um, how to, so, um, either reference to the map or, or just otherwise, um, If someone came in to do a project in one of those areas where, I don't know, say the height incentive was allowed, I guess I'm wondering, is it well-defined in all those places currently what the allowable density is, what the allowable lock coverage is, what the allowable height is, so that it's clear what the incentive would provide? Or is there some murkiness around those things?

No, I think it's pretty clearly defined, you know, um, probably not universally, but I mean there each lot, most of these properties have a base underlying zone district that has a specific density metric. And then for those that don't, that are maybe in like a general development plan, I'd say the majority of those have a specific density maximum metric. So you would have a good baseline. So I think the answer to the question is majority of cases is clearly defined. Yeah.

Okay. That's helpful too. Um, And maybe one more question. So you don't try to put any numbers to dollars, essentially, to sort of what the different incentives might provide a developer per unit or per square foot or something like that. Is that what you say? very difficult to try to put some kind of numbers to how much we're giving people by these incentives?

Yeah, I think the best response to that is, so as part of the housing plan, there was a whole development feasibility analysis that was run by the consultant to basically figure out what the most powerful levers were. from a sort of pro forma feasibility. And, and so that baseline analysis, which we could dig up somewhere, um, heavily informed, um, basically said those are the ones that provide the most sort of financial benefit among other benefits. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, we could do it. I mean, there could be a case study done, but there's so many variables that we could show it in a case study, but we didn't do that with this. Yeah, no, that's fine.

Okay.

Um, thank you. Other council questions? Yes. Councilman Kern and then Councilmember Dickinson.

Great. Thank you. Thanks for all the work, Jeff, really, and Rob. This is, I know it was a lot to put in and try and get us all these different suggestions to help us with some of our housing issues. So just curious, on the units, so let's say it is a development that does include the 12% affordable units. If they are ownership so their deed restricted, who is managing and determining? And if it's a rental, because I know when it's a mixed rental property, it's usually the rental company or agency that's handling it. They do that. And in the rental case, how much flexibility actually is there with income? So if somebody qualified at 60%, we don't want to disincentivize them from taking promotions or increases. Does that still allow them to stay in their unit that they once qualified for? Is there flexibility? And in the ownership, once somebody qualifies and owns it, who determines? And I mean, can they just continue to own it? And then when they go to sell, it just has to sell to somebody who has 80%. And I wasn't sure who manages that for us.

Yeah, I know. It's a great question. So I think it depends on the type of project, as I understand it. So if you have a project that's funded by low-income housing tax credits, like 100% affordable, that's through the Colorado Housing Finance Agency. They're the ones that are overseeing that and checking on the income. verification and locking in the deed restriction and all that. For projects that are doing 12% on-site, that is more in the city's wheelhouse in terms of that administration. We do have an intergovernmental agreement that we need to re-up, but it recently expired with the city of Boulder, where they actually have agreed to provide that administrative support for us. Basically, they're well-equipped and they have a whole shop of people who do this type of work in terms of income verification And as part of that IGA, there's supplemental guidelines and protocols and policies that lay all of this out in terms of income qualifications, appreciation. If your income goes up, what happens? I'm not as well-versed in all those specifics, but I know that we have a partnership with them, an active partnership where they are supporting us in those situations, which we haven't come across yet. We don't have any in the hopper right now, but we do have that support available.

I was just gonna add to so generally how it works is you can qualify out of rental so if your income does increase there is some Cadence that you have to requalify and I don't know what that is. So that is possible Ownerships different if you qualify for ownership you they don't force you to sell the house if your income increases. So those are treated differently. So you can keep that. There is a limit on how much value it can increase each year. And then when it sells, it does have to qualify again.

Right. Because there's usually like 2% a year or whatever it is, is like a standard set, I think, thing for deed restricted. Right.

And our past IGA with Boulder is, you know, we would comply with their standards for those types of things. So that was part of them agreeing to manage this for the city. So we would align. I don't know that we have all the number details, but we can get that for council if they want in the future.

So there is an option then since we do need to renew to perhaps the city can set that standard for what's best for Louisville versus following exactly.

Well, that was part of our agreement with Boulder was that we would follow their standards because I don't think they want to, they were doing this IGA with multiple cities and I don't think they wanted to try to administer four or five different standards. So I don't know if they'd be agreeable to that, but we can ask them when we talk about the IGA renewal.

That'd be great. Thank you. I appreciate that. And then you had mentioned that 4.1% of the properties in Louisville currently are specifically qualified as deed-restricted or income-qualified, lower than 80% AMI. That's not taking into account the numerous properties that we have that are like naturally-accurately affordability. And so if you did that, do we have any idea what might be our affordability percentages?

I'm not sure, but to your question, yes, it's only the ones that are deed restricted. We don't have a naturally occurring affordable. Presumably, obviously, that would bump the percentage up, but the 12% goal is, I believe, for permanently affordable as well, if I recall.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate all the work and I like a lot of these amendments. I'll be happy to comment on them later. A couple questions. When it comes to like expedited PUD review, is there like concrete, like what, I just read it as like it'll be faster, but what are the concrete examples of expedited and are there different levels of expediting that can actually be accomplished?

Yeah, yeah, it's a good question. So our sort of baseline, every project over six units has to go through a PUD, right? And so our baseline PUD process is essentially four public hearings. So preliminary is one step, two public hearings, final, two public hearings. Expedited allows it to go straight to final, so you just have two public hearings is the simple way to...

Okay, that's really helpful. Thanks for that. And then there's a portion here about... trying to find it, but around like fee, waiving of some fees. It's not, I didn't really see in your presentation tonight, but there's a conversation about like waiving some fees, which I think is certainly interesting, but I was wondering if, This is the time and place to potentially not not so much wave, but you know, change the way in which we do make potentially water tap fees for these kind of projects where they're paid overtime. So it's fine like if it's $120,000 water tap fee. 12,000 a year for 10 years as opposed to 120K upfront. I'm wondering if you have more concrete examples of like fee waivers or fee reductions or something like that where the fee can be paid over time.

Yeah, for sure. And to be clear, the ordinance addresses, does not address water tap fees for your water or wastewater. It's really only about like the fee pay for like a rezoning application. It adds up to several thousand dollars for a typical project. So it's not a huge amount. But in terms of anything related to infrastructure, water, wastewater, that's a bigger discussion we need to have with public works and do a lot of analysis. We would certainly, you know, any lever that helps we would support, but in the interest of getting it targeted, we didn't bring that to the table yet.

Yeah, I guess that's my question and I'm fine if that's the answer. It's like, that's a conversation for another day and it's too complicated or certainly it's too complicated for tonight. But is it the kind of thing that we should be wrapping into this?

or we should really leave it separate and deal with that in a bigger in a bigger realm you kind of said it but a clear i'm happy to step in that's a separate conversation that we can certainly have if council's interested in it but it's not part of the iho conversation

Okay, I appreciate that. I think that's all I have for now, but I will say I appreciate you. Rob has said this as well, but the like for like, we don't even look at that. We don't even evaluate it, the internal finishes, the appliances, things like that. it's not even part of the process, so of course we don't hold it to a certain standard. We don't even evaluate what countertops they're putting in. It's not part of the PUD. It's not part of their agreement when they're doing affordable units. And so I think, you know, being explicit, I think there's no harm in being explicit about what is already seemingly practiced, but I think the perception is not that. The perception is they are like-for-like units in all ways. And so I think your keen understanding of it is not translating to developers and certainly not to residents. So I appreciate you pointing that out tonight, but I think adding that explicit, you know what I mean.

I have three questions and then we can get to our first round of public comment. Can you put up the map that you showed? I just want to clarify this is mostly for folks that are watching. This is under our current regulatory framework in the city, right? Yes. This could change depending on how we adjust that. Am I right? Yeah, it certainly could always change yeah, but this is current The second question has to do with AMI eligibility restructuring You had a table In the packet and I can probably find the page, it's page 210 of the packet, financially attainable housing by household size. And I wanted to just probe that a little bit kind of practically. My understanding, just digging into that a little bit, is that 80% AMI is like $96,400 for a two-person household. That's 80% AMI. Is that roughly correct? Sorry, I don't have the table in front of me. It sounds roughly correct. And I guess my understanding is that firefighters, elementary school teachers, and mechanics are a little bit below that. Is that right? want to get some clarity on kind of who we're talking about when we're changing or not changing.

So I have the table up. If you have specific questions, I can call out the numbers for you. And you are correct that 80% two-person household is $96,400. Mechanics median salary is $57,000 per year. Elementary school teacher is $80,640. That's what we have in the tables.

I mean, it's sort of a truism, but we're going to be, as we're raising the AMI, we're potentially targeting a different group that may not include those people, right?

Yeah, I mean, that's the upper limit, right? So if you're at 60% AMI and the regulation says 80%, you're certainly within that. But yeah, 80% AMI, that sounds right, $96,000 for a two-person household.

Yeah. And I also realize that's something we did talk about previously. I just wanted to kind of bring it forward. And the last thing is really... whether staff has any recommendation with respect to the seven potential amendments or whether you're kind of waiting on us.

Yeah I mean we haven't we haven't really talked through like a specific it's more options on the table. I think you know So, I mean, off the cuff here, like number one, like for like, for example, that is a very reasonable change that can be very targeted and addresses a current practice to your point of like we're not looking at countertops with a PUD. The enhanced density bonus structure, I think we agree that the way it was presented previously is probably confusing and there's opportunities to improve that. Expedited PUD review, I think that we... There's already an opportunity to do expedited PUD review absent any change. I think we would support being more explicit about it. The previously approved projects fee-in-lieu is certainly a council decision, but understand the fairness issue there and the confusion on the part of the developer. The rental AMI completely, I think we'd be fairly neutral on that. We just want to put that on the table just because the numbers tell a certain story, just to put it on the table. The incentives by right, I think certainly that's a completely council decision in terms of should it be a shall or a may. I think we're happy to structure it either way. And then the project thresholds, the last one, that's where the

Final plot technically I don't think that was our I think we would I don't know Yeah, I think it's you could have really small projects So I think it makes sense to align it with the PUD standards at least We don't have a lot of really small projects so I think getting rid of the final plat threshold and being more explicit that it's You know greater than six units makes more sense I mean, there's always two sides to these arguments, too. Even if somebody's building three or four units and we get fee and lieu, that's money for affordable housing also, and it's proportional to the number of units they're building. So there's two sides of the coin, so I don't think any of these are completely obvious. I think the only one I'd expand on is the like-for-like standards. is is that you know a fundamental part of inclusionary housing is to try to get the same types of units at the very least if not the same units as the greater neighborhood so certainly what we don't want is you know not having any definition of the types of units, because then you might exclude the types of units that would support families, for example, because if everybody's building one-bedroom units or studios when the rest of the development maybe averages two or three bedrooms, you're really not going to provide, you know, the housing that we're trying to get for the whole range of residents that we're trying to attract to the community.

Good, I appreciate that. I guess I thought of one other question that I didn't ask, so it's four. Are any of these have a benefit to us or a negative to us with respect to 1.2.3, Prop 1.2.3. I think you mentioned it with respect to expedited PUD review, but I just want to get a sense because you know we're hungry for those funds.

Yeah, we're still confirming with the state the exact, and I know you, Kathleen, you're working on it too. I think we're still confirming with the state exactly what we need to do, but explicitly calling out expedited PUD would only help, I think, in terms of compliance with our fast track requirements.

Yeah. I just wanted to add some more maybe on the staff analysis too. I think that when we're looking at trying to make this more feasible for projects, and I think we're looking at the city and we haven't had very much residential development recently. I think in staff's opinion, it's not because of any faults of our inclusionary housing ordinance. It's really an issue of broader land use policies, which with the housing plan and our comprehensive plan, you know, city council has set very different policies that we're implementing with the land development code. So I think that, you know, thanks for the like for like standards. I don't know that... like it doesn't seem to staff that we're not getting affordable housing and not getting development because of the inclusionary or because of the like for like standards it's really about our land use policies which we are in the process of updating we actually have pro as you know we have pro property owners that we're working with on rezonings that you'll be seeing to try to get more significant residential development and you've seen some of those So I just think from the staff analysis standpoint, again, we are trying to make things more feasible based on the recommendations of our housing experts that did our housing needs analysis. We're trying to pretty closely follow their recommendations. Again, I don't know that we need to go too far because getting the fees that would be needed to actually get our targets as well as get the type of housing that we want to meet our housing policy and the range of housing types we want, this is all structured to try to get that.

Good. Let's go to public comment. Do we have any public comment on that tonight?

We have Peter Stewart.

Good evening, mayors, members of the city council. I'm Peter Stewart, Louisville resident, and I own an architectural practice here. On behalf of Strong Towns Louisville, I want to express our sincere appreciation to council and city staff for your work on housing affordability. We share the exact same goal of creating a welcoming and inclusive community. To support this, we provided a detailed letter outlining our viewpoints and policy suggestions. To actually deliver homes, we need a thoughtful approach anchored in development reality. Hiring consultants provides helpful data, but proceeding without engaging local builders is a major misstep. As highlighted in recent research, an inclusionary policy only works if incentives mathematically offset the real financial gap of building an income-restricted unit, and those offsets must be granted by right. Discretionary votes and heavy fees introduce unpredictability at the exact moment financial certainty is crucial for project viability. I strongly encourage council to make direct developer outreach a core pillar of our upcoming zoning reform. Let's first reform our exclusionary zoning and build realistic incentives alongside practitioners and then determine what changes this ordinance needs or whether an IHO is even required at all. The $200,000 that Jeff mentioned could be and should be used first. National research strongly supports this approach as detailed in our letter. If, however, council feels compelled to amend the ordinance tonight, we respectfully ask that you incorporate four essential safeguards, amendments, as you would. First, number one, provide true by right incentives, make density, height, parking adjustments, predictable entitlements that match real cost, shall. Number two, exempt small projects, say 10 to 12 units, protect local missing metal infill, and avoid administrative friction for small projects. Number three, Adopt functional equivalence over like for like. Focus on the number of residents housed rather than matching luxury square footage and other things. Number four, establish a market to affordable CDC program. Use cash in lieu funds to purchase existing homes and convert them into permanently affordable units in 30 to 60 days. Let's put the horse back before the cart and engage our development partners during zoning reform before locking in restrictive mandates. Thank you for your time, leadership, and service to Louisville.

Thank you, Peter. Any other comments this round?

No, there's no more comments.

Okay. Back to council questions and comments. Do we have any follow-up questions for... Jeff or Rob? Yes.

Councilmember Cooperman? Yeah, just one question. This ordinance doesn't say anything about or doesn't say anything about how we use fee and lose funds?

No.

Okay, that was my understanding. Thank you. Councilmember

Yeah, I appreciate Peter Stewart's comments and Andy Johnson's weighing in. And I think, you know, I mostly agree with all those things. Some have been addressed. But yeah, generally, you know, what the big picture thing, right, that I'm hoping to accomplish is more affordable housing. That's the thing, right? So what we're not trying to do is make it harder. Absolutely not. We're not trying to make it more expensive. Absolutely not. And so for me, we're also not trying to pad the pockets of a developer and make it super profitable. That's not the idea in any of it. It's trying to collaborate and cooperate. and have it be just as profitable to bring in affordable housing as it is to bring in market housing. And that may or may not be possible, but that's the, that's the idea, right? Is to, you know, sure. Well, I have no prize developer. I have no problem giving you 12%, 20%, 40%, 80%, a hundred percent. It doesn't matter to me. The product will get me the same return on my investment. So I'm happy to provide that. And that, that might be, too big of a goal, right? But I think what we're doing, I see in every one of these an attempt in that direction. And so when I hear pushback either before or during the meeting on the efficacy, you know, I'm trying to see it through those lenses of like, Are we accidentally making it harder to do affordable housing? Let's not do that. Are we accidentally creating approval by right that we don't mean to be creating that's going to harm our community in some tangible way? I really like all these so you know I think I think being supposed by the like for like standards and I think everyone sort of the things I've heard so far are in agreement that these should be like for like maybe in size or bedrooms but mostly the building the external features and not the finishes that I'm just run through that the enhanced NC bonus should be as much as we can or entirely like buy right, you know, a shall, right? I would like to see the certainty for developers say, hey, I know that if I do affordable housing onsite, I shall get a density bonus, because I don't want to design two projects. I don't want to design a hundred unit project and 120 unit project on the same plot of land. That's really expensive. So I've just want to go with what I know I'll be able to do. And so I go a little further with the height Same thing. It's like, I don't want to know if I'm, am I planning a three story or four story or two story or three story? I don't know. I'll plan both and then come. Well, they're so different in what they will bring back for that, for that project. So I'd like that to be more certain. But what I understand that staff is trying to protect, I think us from where the community from is accidentally sort of hype by right. you know, where we don't mean for it to do that. But I'm hopeful that if we're going through this tonight, that we feel confident that we can administer that, or if it takes another meeting, that we can write it in the rules of, like, certain distance from you know like any development greater than you know 150 yards from and I'm not doing this from the dice but my point is any development x distance from a current you know housing development is used by right or height by right. But if it's within, if it's on the perimeter, it's on the edge of something else, then it's at the discretion of council to see if it fits. And so at least developers are not in the question mark should have some certainty. So hopeful that something like that can be written, but I'm sensitive to that would be potentially difficult tonight. A lot of unknowns there. Expedited PUD review, I totally support that and hope we can go straight to final. Previously approved projects, I think should absolutely pay what they agreed to pay and shouldn't get a change mid-project. So I'd like to see that written in. I'd like to keep it at the 80%, but could hear arguments for the 60%. And yeah, I already talked about number six. And then update project thresholds requiring Oh, yeah, I'm totally fine letting small projects not qualify for inclusionary housing. You know, again, I think what the intent is that less than six units don't go here. So if the little language shift, I'd support that.

Okay. Any other questions or comments before we go to the second round? I had... One, I think I had one. Oh, just in terms of the recommendations or the potential amendments and getting that done, that is If we do amendments, we're not going to be able to pass the ordinance tonight because you don't have language that's ready to go on any of them yet. Is that fair? Yes. Okay. So just to set that table, if we do that, we can continue the hearing. It's not a particularly big deal to do that, which we would do. But I just want to make sure we're not going to ask anyone in the room to try to draft language. Okay, good. Yep, before public comment, go ahead.

Just one question about number three, the expedited review. You had previously, or on a couple of occasions you've talked about having to have expedited review of some form to qualify for Prop 123 funds. So I guess what I'm wondering is staff, I don't know, would staff prefer to bring in some form of expedited review at another time or do you think it's a good idea to bring in some form of expedited review in this ordinance?

So I think this is one of the areas where I want to distinguish the inclusionary housing ordinance from our broader affordable housing policy. So if somebody brings in an affordable housing development, that's just an affordable housing development, whether it's the county housing authority or a private housing developer who's doing, that's a completely different thing that we have to have expedited review for is how I understand it. The inclusionary is just a requirement for a new neighborhood to have a minimal amount of affordable housing integrated within the neighborhood. So they're fundamentally different things. I think what we're talking about is trying to incentivize someone to build it and not give us the fee in lieu because that's our think I preferred policy is what we're hearing from council. So that incentive is if you build it on site, again, that's, I think, very separate from our Prop 123 commitment.

That's helpful. Thank you. Let's go to a second round of public comment. Do we have anybody who's in the queue?

There is nobody.

Okay. Then we'll take it back to council. I want to do a little bit of framing on this. In terms of The problem that we're trying to solve for here, we are, I think, based on our prior discussion, trying to fix or at least move closer to fixing the following problem, which is that Our current ordinance has never produced any on-site permanently affordable deed restricted units, right? Correct. Okay. So, and we're trying to get that to happen. That's on site. We know that it is possible to, you know, substitute fee and lieu and all of that. One of the amendments is doing that. But that's, as I understand it, the main goal. in in addressing what we're doing tonight based on our prior discussion um obviously if council members disagree with that please please do but that's um i think there'll be discussion and hopefully really good discussion around this. What I think I would propose is perhaps keying off of Councilmember Dickinson's way of talking about it, which is kind of to do a quick poll of whether people are generally in favor of each one of these amendments. And then we can get to specifics. I don't think it's clearly not going to be enough to just say, okay, fine. what what you said on because you've left some choices and some discussion for us to have and we need to have that. But I do want to ask the question of is anybody on council willing to support, wanting to support passage without any amendments whatsoever. Is there anybody? Okay. Because that would make it easy if we were to go that route, and I didn't expect it. So if you wouldn't mind being like Caleb, I guess that's, you know, what I'm kind of asking is for each of the council members to do that so we have some sense of what the, you know, general consensus is and then we'll bear down on a couple of these. Sound good? Okay. Yes, Council Member Hafner first.

I just want to clarify on the previously approved project bullet I think we might I'm not sure if we do but I think we might have some misunderstanding about what that is and does it I think in all cases right if you like if you're already in process you can keep the current fee in lieu the current no we're proposing to retroactively apply this Oh, no, no.

Yeah, I think I misunderstood your question.

If you're already in, you can keep the old law. You can keep the old rule. But this question is whether we make the new program available to old projects.

I think it's a little different. Do you want to take a shot at it?

It's when you pull your permit for the unit, not when the PUD was approved. For East Street Village, for example, the permits have been pulled, I don't know the number yet, under the current structure. Whatever the rule is at the time of the permit, that's the fee at that time. If we change this and they start pulling permits after, if we change it to say that So the fee in lieu at time of permit or the fee in lieu at the time of the PUD, then that fee gets locked in for subsequent permits after the ordinance is effective.

Right. And I think another layer of your question is if somebody had a PUD before we adopted the original ordinance, they wouldn't be subject to this. So it's only somebody who had a PUD approved at the time of the ordinance adoption. So even though we collect the fee at building permit, you're obligated to pay the fee when you get a PUD approved, you know, when the ordinance is effective.

What does saying yes to number four mean?

So... It would say that the ordinance would be changed so that a developer only pays the fee in place at the time of their PUD approval as opposed to the time of permit.

Yeah. So if we pass this ordinance now, then if a PUD comes through, then whatever fee is in place when council approves that PUD, then that's locked in for three years. And then... I think we could be clear, too, that if there's a PUD that was previously approved, they're also within the three-year time period. So when we go back to draft it, we draft it to make sure both those scenarios are covered.

So this is an edge case for developments that have an approved PUD but haven't yet pulled building permits?

Yes, it would apply to that. For those units? Does it apply to anybody else? If we wrote it in a way where it just said at time of PUD approval, then yes, it would apply to others. I don't know.

It would only apply to one project that has a PUD right now, an active PUD. So saying yes to this just means we're not going to change the rule on that midstream? Yes.

It would mean that they, in that case, they wouldn't, yeah. Yeah, and it provides more consistency for future PUDs.

I have a follow-up to that, too. So if, you know, it's pretty frequent that, you know, somebody gets their PUD and they don't necessarily bill right away. There's often delays and sometimes quite substantial ones during that three-year period. They expire after three years. But is... Again, saying yes to number four, saying to anybody coming in now, we're going to do this, we're going to do the fee-in-lieu amount as of the PUD.

Yeah, so I think staff's recommendation is to align with the three-year PUD expiration. So it gets a little complicated because if they start building towards the third year and they don't pull all their permits within that three-year period, they have to come back and get that PUD extended, which is how it is written now.

Yeah, that's the way it works.

And so there would be a fee discussion when they get the extension. Right.

In other words, this affects one current project, but it's going to affect all the others at the time, and it provides a level of certainty at the time of the PUD.

Yeah, it might affect some. Again, with our land development code, I think that we're probably going to be I mean, there's some likelihood that we'll go away from PUDs generally, and so there'll be a different structure in place, and I don't know what those expirations will be like. So again, that's part of the, you know, why we have to coordinate the next iteration of the IHO with whatever development review structure we have. So this could, you know, whatever PUDs we might have in the next maybe year and a half, it could affect those.

Very good. I think that's almost clear. Go ahead, Council Member Dickinson.

Just to finalize that conversation, there's some conversation about the city manager being able to use our methodology to change this fee annually according to the market and what it should be. And so I think if we're going to allow the city manager to make administrative changes to this fee, it's really important that The fee established at time of PUD isn't changing every year with the city manager. So that's what I like about this a lot. And I think if they get to the end of the three years, they can file an extension. And with that filing can ask for an extension of the current fees. And we can say, yes, that we're going to keep on going.

Let's jump into the yes, no. And if you can't answer yes, no, that's fine. But I want to try to go just generally through that. And then we will have additional discussion, I guess, if you feel like absolutely no, I don't want that amendment. Under any circumstances, say no. If maybe you want that. but you want to have further discussion, or you do want that for sure, then say yes. So make it, I don't want a lot of discussion yet. I want to, because I want to make sure we know where the discussion's going so we can move through that expeditiously. Does anybody have any question, objection, thought?

Does yes on number five mean keep 80 or move to 60?

I think it's... Move to 60.

It's move to 60. Okay.

With the enhanced density bonus structure saying yes, you're tying everything. The parking, the density, and the lot coverage and height.

So, I know this is confusing, but the proposal, and I can bring up the slide again, is instead of saying that only projects with 100% on-site affordable at the deeper affordability level get that 30% enhanced bonus, which is what the current ordinance is, this would open it to be more flexible and say you get an enhanced density bonus of, say, 30%. if you exceed the IHO requirements, so if you build, and this is TBD, right? If you build 20%, 30% onsite, whatever it is, for example, or if you have a deeper affordability. So there's different options in there that we don't quite have fleshed out yet, but the idea is to more broadly allow a density bonus, not just for 100% onsite or formal rental.

Let me expand on that a little bit, too, because I think as we were further contemplating this, because this is inclusionary, we're not really anticipating projects with 100% affordability. So it really didn't quite make sense. So we thought it was more meaningful if you went from 12 to a higher percentage that you would get the bonus. And so I think we haven't done the research to figure out what percentage it should go up to. But I think... That adds a lot of value to the developer and we could come back with the Recommendation if you don't want to pick the percentage July tonight, but conceptually you like it I think it might be something like going from 12 to 15 or maybe 12 to 20 percent and we could try to Come back with the recommendation on the final percentage if you don't want to pick that tonight.

Great. Thank you

I think I have two ways of making this even easier, I hope, than before. One is that when we go through this, we're not going to look at this list because it's so summary that— You know, there's not quite enough meat there, and it's, frankly, a little bit harder for the staff to remember all those things. I'm going to ask that they call up each one of those in turn when we get to that, when we get to that discussion.

And we can provide—I mean, we didn't want to bring a recommendation, but I think we have an idea— And we could try to put more structure on any of these or give you a couple options if that helps, if you want to ask for staff to do that.

Absolutely. I would expect that staff's going to be involved in this discussion, not just the council. I mean, this is going to be a good interchange, and I'm really looking forward to it. The second is actually I think an easier way to do this is just to ask – to go through these right now and ask for thumbs up on each one. That would be way easier. So, like for like standards. Okay, everybody wants to do that. Enhanced density bonus structure. Okay. Expedited PUD review. Okay, we've got most five to one on that. So I think we're gonna go through that. Previously approved projects, fee and lieu. Okay, everybody's into that. Rental AMI, and that's 80% versus 60%. Yes, did you? I looked, keep it at 80. Yeah. Keep it at 80.

I'm doing keep it at 80.

Me too, keep it at 80.

Let's talk about that just a tiny bit because maybe four to two is close enough. All right. Incentives by right instead of discretionary. All right. Good. And updating project thresholds requiring IHO compliance. lukewarm, and five others. Okay. It sounds like we're going to need to go through all of them, which is good, but that's okay. Pardon me? Because I think on some of these, I'm going to take them each. I'm trying to do this really systematically. I think if we all feel like, oh, the direction that's up there is fine, then we can say that and move on. But on some of these, you know, I haven't gotten into it, but I think there's enough ferment that we want to have a little bit more discussion, maybe some more discussion with staff too. Okay, fair enough? All right, let's, can you go back to the like for like slide? Yeah. And I think what we're looking at is kind of the three potential amendments there. Are there—is there consensus to accept— All of them some of them. Yes, go ahead councilmember.

Yeah, I would say as laid out I would accept all of them I think the thing that I'm not looking for that I can't tell I'm not sure if is included is I don't think we need to be requiring Identical square footage across unit types a three-bedroom is a three-bedroom It doesn't need to be the same square footage as long as long as it complies with code. I Okay.

Others? Yes.

Yeah, I would agree. I think that's one of the big sticking points. I think the term might have been functional equivalence. So, you know, number of sleeping units, that kind of thing. I really like the idea of removing square footage requirements, even number of garage size, like if it's a two-car and it's going to be moving to a one, that's fine. I don't think that has to be exactly the same. But I do think really calling out the language on not requiring anything other than code requirements, because that can't change, right? And that it is functionally equivalent. Everything else should be flexible.

I have a comment on that. I guess on the example of exterior issues, I am a little—and I will—I guess I would include garages, carports in that. I don't know that I'm thrilled with having or I have some concerns about, you know, allowing to say to carport bays for those non-affordable units and limiting the affordable units to one. I don't know if that's what you had meant, but that was my understanding.

Yeah, the example would be, let's say you're building three bedroom, two and a half bath townhouses. The market rate are maybe 2,400 square feet. Maybe the less expensive ones still are three bedroom, two and a half bath, but it's nine by 10 bedrooms instead of 13 by 10. Instead of a two car garage with the market rate, maybe it's a one car garage that comes. I think that that flexibility for the developer allows them to incorporate different sizes that does still provide the same housing type of unit and the availability for the same number of people to live there.

And I'm not necessarily quarreling with that. I think the other one is... I'm keying off a comment that I think the director made a little bit ago about... Well, no, I won't attribute it to anybody. I think I had heard it somewhere, maybe in my own head. But the idea that... is not limiting, let me think how to describe this. If we say, look, developer can do whatever square footage within the building that they want for the affordable units, are we potentially, discouraging, say, families. And I don't know that we are. But I mean, if we could end up getting more units if they're smaller square footage, and that's a good thing.

If it's functionally equivalent, it would still allow. It would mean like three bedrooms. It still needs to be three bedrooms. It would just be smaller.

Yeah. Okay. Other comments? Yes.

I would just say in general, like, we're not voting on this tonight. And so unless we're planning on having no comments when this comes back, which is kind of a joke, I'm joking. Like, we're going to have these battles when it comes back. I think trying to get, like... whether it's two bedroom or one, the detail, like we want you to bring back this updated like for like, and at that point, if you bring those kind of details back, we'll quarrel then, but we're not going to solve it tonight. And so I'm concerned about getting to that level of detail with each one of these items when we will not be making that choice tonight and we'll have another chance to nitpick the details of it. But I think the big thing is that we're sending staff back to absolutely finalize this amendment and bring it to us. And it won't be, we might tweak it, but it'll be substantively there, right? But I'm just a little concerned about... I think 10 minutes on like for like that we all agree on, right? I think we all, six thumbs up on like for like, we all agree on it pretty much and we're not gonna decide on it tonight. So I just think I don't wanna do 10, 15 minutes on each item if we're all in agreement. I'm excited about the ones where we're like four, two, that seems like where we need to focus our debate tonight.

Yes, I appreciate that. Go ahead.

Yeah, I just wanted to respond briefly. I actually am kind of hoping that we can vote on this next time. But if we get back language next time and then we all have to disagree about it and ask for amendments, I'm not exactly sure how we're going to be able to vote on it also.

That would be the reason I am just raising a couple of these things. But I'm ready to move on.

So I'm trying to follow kind of where the majority of council is at. And I know there's been three council members that I've heard really clearly that want to go beyond just the interior finishes and want to allow that there's a functional similarity. But I'm just curious about the majority of council because I've only heard three.

Okay. So it's the exterior piece that...

Right. So I think what we would want direction on is, does the majority of council want us to come back with that the units are functionally the same? And what I'm understanding that to be is that if they're townhouses, they're townhouses, but they can be smaller and they have the same number of bedrooms. Do they need to have the same number of living rooms and bathrooms? I'm going to guess yes, unless there's disagreement about like... like all of the portions of the building, or if you just want us to focus on bedrooms. So that's a point of clarification we probably want. And then I think I have a question about just exterior finishes. If it's a neighborhood of townhomes that are brick and stucco, do we want to allow the affordable units just to be siding? So I think these are the details that I think we need in order to draft this one because this is a really high-level detail one. I don't think all of them are going to be this complicated, but this one has some complications.

All right. Internally to the House, functional equivalent. I think we've got consensus. We've got unanimity on that.

So the design could be nothing on the design. And then when you say functional equivalent, it just has to have the same number of bedrooms. And then, of course, all houses have to have cooking facilities and a living area. But there's nothing else. So if the townhomes have multiple living areas, that is not required for this. And then there's no minimum square footage requirement. for them. Okay. And no exterior material requirements.

Okay. We're going to get, we're going to get to the exterior. Let's do that. Let's talk about that. Cause it sounds like we have, we're agreeable on that.

I like a similar exterior look because I do think people don't go inside each other's homes, but they do walk by them. I think having a visually different four-wheel unit versus market unit is a problem for me. So I'd say the exterior should be the same material.

That's fine. I agree. On the carport issue I mentioned before, People not particularly concerned about that being different depending on the size of the unit or whether it's affordable or not. Josh, did you have a comment?

I don't know. I mean, that, well, it seems like that could, I don't know, could get into both the exterior compatibility and what functional equivalence means, but. I don't know. I'm not fully there on just having the same number of bedrooms. So I'm a little concerned about having different parking standards for different units, even if the same number of people could live there.

I think the direction is different. to draft that. Obviously, we can vet that a little bit more and talk about it. Josh can raise that, or others, if you're thinking about it. And do you have the direction that you need?

Yeah, I think, again, I think this will be the most complicated, but I think we've got pretty good direction on that one.

I just want to make sure you have the direction so that we can have as smooth a conversation.

Yeah, I'm not thinking of, if I think of any other DEFINITIONAL QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED THE ONES I'VE THOUGHT OF SO FAR.

YEAH, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY TO SAY THIS, BUT THERE IS ONE MORE QUESTION IN MY Are we talking about the average number of bedrooms? In a market rate development, there might be four bedroom units and three bedroom units and two bedroom units. And I'm okay with this approach. If they average out roughly the same, plus or minus 20%, I'm good.

needed to be sort of a precise um distributional breakdown i just thought i'd call that out because i think that could be a factor in the drafting right um and then you know something to keep in mind is some developments might have um you know an apartment complex and town homes and single-family homes all included so when you start averaging it out um I just want to make sure you're aware of that. I don't know that there's anything wrong with it. I'm just thinking through it. But if you've got, like, 200 apartments and 10 single-family homes and 20 townhomes, you know, this could be some difficult math if we have a development that has a makeup like that. But we could put off to think that one through.

Do your best. Go ahead.

Yeah, I mean, I think it is important that when this comes back, it's clear for us and for the developer that, for instance, if there's 20, 20, and 20, the math would say, well, you need 2.4 of this, 2.4 of this, and 2.4 of that. What does that mean? Do I do two or three? Do I do two of this and three of that? Do I have to do 7.2? And does 7.2 mean eight? Or does it seven? Or like at what point? I mean, those are real and important numbers. And if they are allowed to do two, two, and two, but have to have eight total, like, okay, you have to have a minimum of two each. and eight total, like that number, like that needs to be really clearly defined. And I don't super care. I think rounding correctly, like if the total is 7.4, that rounds down to seven. If it's 7.5 rounds up to eight, I think that's fine. And that the unit should be equivalently distributed, but that maybe gets rounded down, like a minimum of blah, blah, blah, but that should be really clear.

Yeah, and so I think if, yeah, so I think we can think through that, and, you know, especially on, you know, townhomes, single-family homes with basements and things like that, you know, like, there is the possibility that, like, with basements, like, sometimes people come back and finish basements and add bedrooms. So I know there's some, you know... I'm not trying to say that they're playing games, but there's ways to change the averages and everything else. But I think if council wants to do an average, then I think we can do the average. There's just lots of ways, not about the rounding, but just lots of ways that this could play out depending on the mix of unit types within a bigger development. If this is just a 20 townhome development, very, very straightforward. So when you get the mixed-use developments with mixed-unit types that, you know, and you get a 100-unit apartment complex where 80 percent of them are one bedroom or maybe even a mix of efficiencies in one bedrooms, that it could become a little bit more complicated. But, again, like, we can work with that. And then I had one other question about lot sizes and yards as far as functional equivalency. Do you want us to say that, you know, that there's no minimum lot or yard size for the affordable units in comparison to the market rate units?

I'm a little more comfortable with that, but... Councilmember Heffner, you're comfortable with that? Others should. I mean, my concern is just that I don't want the units from the outside to be, you know, when kids are playing, I don't want people to be looking at that yard and seeing it's really small and saying, oh, that's an affordable. I mean, I just don't want to do the... you know, the stigmatizing, which I think can come sometimes with this. And I think that's a, you know, that's an example. I don't think there are many examples of that. We just talked about one, perhaps, with carporting. I don't think, I think we all agree, no, not all of us agree, but most of us agree on that. But any other questions? Any other thinking on that?

Well, when we move on to the point where if they did a larger amount of inclusionary units of affordable units, we're already going to give them an allowance to increase density. We're talking about giving them an allowance for increased density, greater lot coverage. So the developer might be taking that into consideration and considering. building it in such a way that they can utilize that and i i wouldn't want that to be the inhibiting factor to get some really great affordable units in a project it would be a shame that because somebody has a slightly bigger yard than another i mean in my neighborhood there are a lot variances like a thousand square foot difference in some of them and i don't point at the neighbor whose yard is smaller and go huh look at that i paid more for my house than you did yours That just doesn't happen. So I don't think that that's as big of a concern. I do agree with your exterior finish comment that you don't want it to be discernible from the exterior of what's definitively affordable. Councilmember Dickinson.

Yeah, I think when we're done, we're looking at the final product of this. I think what is important is kind of have a red team approach of like OK, so if I met a really like bad developer, how can I use these rules to do it? wrong and I would be able to do it. So like these six units are tiny, they're like little six by six bedrooms and there's no yard and there's no garage and there's only two windows and it's like, oh, our code, our inclusionary zoning allowed that? We got it wrong. So I think it's important to look like, I don't think someone's going to do that. My normal approach is like, hey guys, it's going to be fine. They're going to be reasonably similar, but we do want to like, oh, so should we just have like a, you know, the lot has to be 75% of the other lots or is there some metric where we can kind of get rid of that. You're like, yeah, it's got to have like 80% of the same windows. I know that becomes really complex, but is there something in there that it is valuable to not have like no minimums, but we're not trying to have them be exactly the same. It's okay. They're different sizes. And I think your point you live in a neighborhood they're all different houses and like clearly the tiniest house is the least expensive house that doesn't mean they're like so it's okay that there are different sizes and one garage houses are less expensive than two garage houses and that's okay like we all get that but you just don't want it to be like oh those are the six houses got it right that I think it's what we're trying to avoid and I think we'll accomplish that if I could just

Pile on briefly, I think the other thing that's true is like we're not forcing anybody to live in these. They still have to be appealable enough that somebody's going to want to pay a few thousand dollars a month to live there. And there are alternatives, like even in the price range we're talking about. there are market alternatives in other towns and other parts of the state. And I'm not too worried that somebody is going to build a garageless subterranean hole because nobody will buy it.

So consensus that we leave that uh... you know in the example at least of the yard side uh... the yard signs we just leave that non prescriptive in the draft generally for now, and then we'll have that out if we need it later. Thumbs up? Okay.

Does that give you? Yeah, I think I've got everything unless anybody else has any other questions. I think that hits the fundamental pieces. I'm going to say that most of the other ones are going to go faster.

I think so, yeah. Because I think this was one that we had some disagreements on, and I'm glad we've kind of worked together at least to get the amendments move forward it is 808 uh i'd like to take a break until 8 15 and then we'll plow through the others fair enough all right thanks

just walking through a bunch of scenarios.

Yes. So unfortunately, before we move on to number two, there's a layer of complexity that we missed. And I don't think it was on purpose. I think it was accidental, which is is the object here to make sure, and I'll just give this example, the simplified one. It's an all townhouse community and we're gonna do functionally equivalent. Do we want the developer to be weaving those affordable units in or do we want to have the allowance of saying here's three townhouse buildings and then there's the fourth one? and that's all the affordable. All the smaller units, all the smaller yards, they're completely separate, or do we want it to be part of the fabric of the community?

I can give an example of this. If we have a bigger mixed-use development with 500 units and the average ends up being two bedrooms per unit, but it's a mix of apartments and townhomes and single-family homes, I think the direction we got is a developer could just put all 12% in the apartment units because they're two-bedroom apartments. So I think when you say functionally equivalent, if they're single-family homes, duplexes, and apartments, they have to be proportionally split out. And then there's the other layer of, again, if it's like a 30-, 40-acre development with all these different things, there's the possibility that the developer will take a block within that development and put all of those units within a block within the development because it might make design sense for them to do that within a block of the development. So is that okay? Is that something that council would support?

I think that's a legitimate point to raise. Yeah, Council Member Hefner.

I'll just say I'm pretty comfortable with allowing it wherever the developer wants to put it. And one reason is this, or other reasons, but one reason is this. Consider what we're talking about in Centennial Valley, where they're building one concentrated project to satisfy the requirements for a bunch of other projects. It's different parcels, but it's the same idea. And I don't think we objected to that. And you can imagine the same thing on a smaller scale, right? If you chopped it up and made it four projects, you could do the same thing and say, we're going to build 100% over here, and that's going to satisfy offsite for these other ones. To me, it's not a big deal. The important thing to me is getting the units. And I think there has to come a cutoff point, which we all acknowledge we are taxing. Construction of new units and if we are going to impose this pretty substantial tax on new construction we have to offer Some relief in terms of making it possible for the projects to move forward where we will we will And I'm not sure this is the home and a die on but if we add if we add too much We will continue on as we have with zero development including affordable housing of any kind and I don't think that's what we're after and

Yes, councilmember Dickinson. Yeah, I appreciate that and I think it is really complex and that is tough. I think I am convinced by the piece you're talking about. Like we're so excited for this 100% affordable housing project. It's like the biggest win. I'm like going over there and high-fiving Rob after the meeting. Like we got a 100% affordable housing project. This is so great. Oh, everyone who lives in that... Okay, yeah, that's true. Everyone who lives in that area, orchestral or other, like, yeah, I guess there's a little bit of, like, knowledge of that. But they're beautiful units and they're great, they're well-made and all those things. And so I think, yes, if you're doing four buildings and one of the buildings is the affordable units, It's like, yeah, that's the reality of that, but they're living right there in the same community, walkable to the same places with the same weather and the same community and the same schools. And it's really cool, but their units are a little smaller and they're in the building that doesn't have the best views of the mountain, right? Like you've put your higher price market units with the better views and maybe your top story is worth more than your bottom story. All those different things, right? Like end of the hall versus front of the, like, yeah, I think that's where you actually get these things to work. And what we've done is make it, hard, make it really hard to do affordable. And we're trying to make it easier. And I think this is an example of, I think I'll make it a little easier. And those units would naturally be a little less expensive because they don't have the best views. So easier to do those as the affordable ones because it won't be such a hit to make those affordable. So I think it's smart. And I don't think we're going to, I think we just need to have the protections that like And I know we have those aren't made out of cardboard, right? Those aren't actually bad units. They're still really nice units. And what does that mean? What does it mean? There's still really nice units. And I think that that's where the gray area is, but I think it's okay to generally allow for this separation.

so yeah i so i and i kind of agree and this i think goes back to the exterior being the same because if it looks just like all the other buildings then you know it's functionally going to feel like it for for people and as they're driving through you wouldn't really notice much of a difference this this to me as well as the parking are kind of the compromise areas that i'm not super comfortable with but i think are a necessity to see if this helps because right now what we do doesn't work and if this can help we need to find a way to encourage developers to do this and so I'm on board.

Anyone else?

Okay. So can it sorry if I just want to make sure I understand Is there any staff yeah, so so I've heard you I think what I'm hearing is that there shouldn't be distribution of amongst unit types that you can put all the units of a certain type as long as they're Because I think that's what I heard from Council Member Heffner, was that if you want to just do an apartment complex, as long as you're hitting the functional bedroom equivalent, then that's okay. Versus if it's a mix of single family homes, town homes, and apartments, you have to have all of those unit types. So those are two different things.

I think, and again, this is the problem with, sorry, thank you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I'm jumping. I'm I don't want to make a really good project that is potentially coming forward to us not happen because something is already underway with us changing this, but I think it should be If they're townhouses and apartments, you need to have townhouses and apartments that are affordable. You can't just make them all apartments or like you can't just say, you know, an EDU is an acceptable substitution for a townhouse complex. So I actually, my personal opinion is, I think it needs to be, is it the unit type? Is that what you're saying, Rob?

Yeah, like the unit type if they're single-family attached single-family detached Multifamily that we would have the same proportion of all those now This doesn't stop the City Council from ever doing alternative agreements to be clear So if you're doing an alternative agreement, this wouldn't impact that.

Okay, so I do think that it should be like In that sense, I don't think you should be allowed to put apartments instead of townhouses for a townhouse complex all

Yeah, I didn't get the sense that that was what our like-for-like was about. I got the sense that what we were talking about here was if you have three buildings in the development and you decide... for whatever reason, that you're going to concentrate the affordable units in one of those three instead of dispersing them, that I understood Council Member Heffner saying that's fine. And I think I agree with that. Is that what you were saying?

No, I'm not sure it is exactly. And I guess I have a question, which is, again, taking the Centennial Valley project as the example, is that 100% affordable? Affordable project going to contain all the same mix of townhouse apartment Single-family unit types as the projects for which it is satisfying the requirement No, yes, and that's why that's through an alternative agreement. So yeah, so I think that So, I guess what I'm in favor of is that arrangement. Like, if you want to satisfy it all in one place with one type, if you're producing essentially the same number of bedrooms, you know, on average, I guess I'm indifferent as to whether it's a townhome or an apartment or a single-family home or whatever the case may be. I mean, that's exactly what we've approved in Centennial Valley.

Council Member Cooperman and then Council Member... Dickinson and council member current great.

I mean, I think I agree with council member current on this point I'd like to see in this ordinance distributed among the different types of Of units and I think the difference between where a difference with the Centennial project is that that one is more deeply affordable than what we're going to be required or likely going to be requiring here. And I think that makes a pretty big difference.

Yeah, I, I apologize, but like what, You know, I think this is really complex. What I wrote as a suggestion, so I'll just read it, was to require that affordable units be equivalent to market rate units in square footage, unit type, exterior appearance, and durability, while expressly permitting differences in interior finishes, fixtures, appliances, and other features that do not materially affect the durability or exterior integration of the affordable units. Like... some leeway but like but what that does say is unit type is that like yes you can't build six little condos in a single family home space like that doesn't that doesn't really do it now could we approve it with an alternative agreement i guess and maybe we'd want to for some reason but i think the default would be now you know you're doing 20 of those you need to do 2.4 of these and that's why i want to know is it two or is it three But no, you should. If you're doing 20 of those, you should do two of those. And if you're doing 40 of those, you should do four of those, right? So I think there should be similarity in unit type, but the square footage could be different. Council Member Kern.

I was just going to say that I don't think that the square footage piece should be in there. I think that changes the functionality.

That's in the other one. Oh, okay. I read it wrong. I added it to my sentence and added it in the wrong section. So the square footage could be different, but not the unitype.

Okay, yes, I agree. I think the other reason is I think when we're talking about ownership potential, there's an awful lot of rental opportunities. There's so little ownership opportunity that is affordable, and I think one of the best possibilities aspects of this is to try to encourage purchasable affordable deed restricted rates if somebody could buy a townhouse not rent an apartment in a community in a development where they are building for purchase items so if you're building 104 purchase units, then your deed restricted ones should be for purchase. They should not be for rent apartments when you're building a for purchase townhouse community, if that makes sense. So that's why I like, it needs to be similar, the unit type, but no restriction on square footage, that it should just be functional.

I certainly agree with that. I guess I have a question, which is, isn't that going to purchase rental distinction going to be true either way?

Yes, it would. Yeah, so if you have 100 for sale homes and 100 apartments in a new development, 12 would have to be for sale to match the homes.

There's no world in what's being proposed where you can satisfy the on-site requirements for for-sale market rate through rental.

No, I don't think we've, yeah, that hasn't been anticipated.

Yeah. So it really is just about form. We're just talking about form.

It's just unfortunate because for purchase, because of defect laws, they're not building condos. They're not building apartments for purchase. They do townhouses and single families, twins, duplexes, quadplexes. They're doing all of those for purchase, but we're not really seeing the apartments. So that's my concern with allowing the substitution of that. I mean, if it was for purchased condo complexes, I'd probably be a little bit more inclined to think that we created the same opportunity, but that's not what anybody's building right now.

But I think there is no substitute. You can't substitute the rental.

That's right. So then you shouldn't be able to substitute like a for sale townhouse with a for rent apartment, I guess is my point.

Yeah, and I think what Rob just said, and then I'll... He can't.

We don't allow that.

That's not allowed currently, isn't proposed to be allowed, regardless of what amendments we adopt. You can't use a rental unit to satisfy your on-site requirement for a for-purchase development.

Good.

Anyone? I mean, I think that's what Council Member Kern was proposing. Yep.

Yeah, my point is just that that is true regardless as to whether we require like to like as between a townhouse, a condo, and a single family house.

Okay, do you have enough direction on that? I think we're all comfortable with those.

With sounds like councilmember Kern's initial proposal plus the clarification that so the way I understand councilmember Kern's Proposal which I think is different from councilmember Hefner's proposal is that councilmember Kern is proposing? That the unit that you have to have the same proportion of unit types So if you have a hundred single-family a hundred townhomes and a hundred apartments you have to have twelve single-family twelve townhomes and twelve apartments where that i think council member hefner suggesting that all we want to align with this for sale and for rent and they could be anywhere as long as they're functionally equivalent so i'm hearing two different things well then let's say we understand the distinction but that is being drawn thank you for the for clarifying that uh... and just gonna

ask Councilmember Kern if she wants to clarify further.

Actually, I was going to ask this of staff. I'm pretty sure I know the answer already, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Do you see a world where if somebody is building single-family townhouses that they're going to be building for sale condos as their

No, I don't think condos. I think the distinction is if you're building maybe single-family homes or townhouses that... that what you could see in a neighborhood is that they will you know put the affordable ones within a very particular you know the and i think you've talked about this but i think they're going to be part of the neighborhood like council member dickinson said they're still going to have all the same amenities in the neighborhood but i think what we're opening up that they could just be You know within a particular part of the neighborhood so you might have like a row I mean it could be integrated but we wouldn't require it through the code so there's the possibility you'd have like a row of four You know 1,200 square foot homes When the rest of the town, you know The 3,000 square foot townhomes are on different blocks and they just create like a block of smaller townhomes so I think which I I'm not judging that and saying that's a bad thing. I just want to make sure that we're aware that that's how the ordinance would be drafted to allow.

I think that, yes, and that is actually one of my understanding is as long as the exterior, we talked about like exterior similarities though, right? It wouldn't be distinguished because, well, that block of buildings is all siding even though everybody else has stone.

And I think the big difference is like if you have a single family neighborhood, you could then do... row homes or town homes, and those would be the designated affordable units, even if the whole rest of the neighborhood was single family, detached. And so that's the equivalent, because they would all be for sale. So that's what we would allow.

I find that acceptable. That's the compromise. Yeah, but exactly, for sale means for sale. And it is a compromise still, but I think it helps make it feasible.

Okay. Who's on board with?

I love it. I think, remember, one of the main things we're trying to do is avoid a simple fee-in-lieu where we take that fee and then go do an entirely affordable space anyway. So we're just asking them to do it as part of their project, and it might be slightly different. So would the fee-in-lieu use be entirely different, potentially?

Okay. it sounds like there's consensus on that if not entirely unless we come up with another topic I think I have good direction yeah all right going once going twice done number two enhanced density bonus the potential amendments are the four below Are we agreeable as to all four of those or are there clarifications, changes, substitutions? Councilmember Heffner? Just give me a second.

I think, yeah, I mean, conceptually, yes, I think the numbers matter.

And Council Member Dickinson, just what's your thought?

I think I'm fine with it. I basically don't want to talk about it. I think that in what we're talking about, inclusionary, the chances of people going above 12% are super slim. I don't think you're going to see 20%. I think this is sort of inconsequential, but sure. Yeah. Like if someone wants to go to 20%, sure. So I think if you really want to put some teeth in it, you do say something like 15%, right? Like it's barely any more and you get 30% instead of 20%. So I think to Dietrich's point, the numbers matter, but I think generally I don't think this is going to have a huge impact.

Council Member Hefner?

I agree, and I guess I would propose we adopt the numbers here, 30% for hitting 20 or higher ownership and rental, and I would keep the cap but not the average. But I would keep one or the other. I'd pick the cap, but I don't really care if it's the cap or the average.

Other thoughts?

I think if the average allows for more opportunity, then that's what we go with. If the cap is what allows for more developer opportunity, then that's, so I would defer to staff on this one, whichever one of the two that they would recommend that would be more palatable is what we should use.

We could make it disjunctive, cap or average, either under the cap or below the average.

Again, I think on ones like this. I hate to be sorry. I didn't ask for no no no go ahead go ahead I I hate to be the math teacher me, but like I hate average It should be median because you do you know 140 percent and 120 percent and and the average is is skewed But it's hard to go any lower than 60 like so like I would actually use median instead of average because it's a better measure of Center and

Does staff have comments?

Yeah, and admittedly confusing how it's framed, but looking at the last bullet point, that's really just aligning with the low-income housing tax credit metric for affordability. So everything under 80, average of 60, that's all that is. So if you wanted to go above 80 and just keep it average of 60, so you could do some at 120, some at 40, I think... it's still achieving an objective and providing more flexibility. Also did want to clarify that like several things could be true under this amendment proposal to get the 30%. So you could have the deeper affordability and exceed the 12% both or one. So I think we could have, that was the intent, if that makes sense.

I would say it's more important to have the quantity instead of the deeper affordability, just because we really need units that people can move into.

Maybe we just get rid of the fourth bullet and if you go 20 or above, you get the enhancement.

Yes, Councilmember Coop.

Yeah, I guess I'd prefer both options. You know, either you can, you provide 20% of affordable units or you provide more deeply affordable ones in some particular way.

Just to move through this, why don't we include, keep the four bullets and we can have it out at the, don't want to do that. Yes.

Decide that?

Okay.

All right. We're all here talking about it right now. We might as well just decide it's gonna be the same people discussing the same topic just in the future when we've forgotten everything we said tonight.

Well, I think the point of trying to do this as I mean, there's some things that we probably, we may need to flesh out. I think there's some of this that we're going to get community input on that'll be helpful. You know, we'll see what the staff comes back with. We can't solve everything. We're going through, basically, by mostly...

To my earlier point, the chance of someone going to 20% is very slim. If they go all the way to 20%, are we really going to sit here and talk about whether it's 60% or 65%? Like, oh, my God, you went to 20%? Yeah, absolutely. You can have the density bonus. I think we're nitpicking at that point. That's fine. Yes.

Thank you, Mary. I just want to remind council, so this is an interim update, and we will be reviewing our larger development code and have more opportunity to make further updates as part of that process. So I just want to couch that, well, you're welcome to make amendments tonight. We'll bring those back. We'll set a date depending on the scale of the amendments you make tonight. Be mindful that there's not additional engagement happening between this second reading and the continued second reading, and this is not the last discussion you get to have on IHO.

I think we take Caleb's suggestion and just move it forward.

Second. All right. That's the deal.

All right. Let's go to number three. Unless there are other issues. Going once, twice, sold. We're on number three now. Expedited PUD review. There are two suggestions there. Are people comfortable with those both or not? Yes, council member.

My only objection to this is if we think we can expedite the PUD process because it's not serving some urgent public interest or safety need or community engagement need, we should expedite it for everything. I do not want to... to start offering expedited review for some favored projects over others. Like if our PED process is too slow, let's fix it, but not start creating exceptions to it.

I think what I would say about that, I'm not disagreeing with that. We're just dealing with expedited PUD review with respect to IHO onsite. That's all we're doing tonight. I'm not saying that we don't do that for other things. I think you raise a good point about doing this across the board with other kinds of projects that aren't this.

Yeah, I'm just not willing to do it only for this until we fix it across the board because I'm worried we're not. When it comes to fixing it across the board, there's going to be lots of reasons. We need a preliminary and a final and community engagement and we need more information and so on and so on. And I would like to raise this at that time.

Yeah, I don't think that's... And taking a position on this right now is going to make, I mean, nobody's going to be barred from taking a different or more nuanced position later on. It's just that that will be folded into a larger discussion. In fact, we could come back and if we don't like, you know, if we come back with a different proposal, we can come back and change this for that matter. Anyway, I want to keep us on, I can understand when you say, I want that one out. I mean, that's what I'm hearing is take out the first bullet.

Is that, or am I not? I mean, I think the answer to the first bullet is yes, but we could do a better job on permitting. This is a complaint we hear over and over again across the board. And yet we continued, like we added the new review, you have to go through PPLAB and OSAB anytime you want to do any public land dedication, which extended our permitting. And we've heard a lot of complaints about this. and we add and add and add to land use review and permitting. And when it comes time to simplify it, there's always a lot of reasons, like in that discussion about, well, it's really important that PPLAB weigh in and it's really important that OSAP weigh in and we need preliminary and we need final and we need two rounds of comments and we need to postpone this to the next hearing so we can hear more. And I don't want to do it here and miss the opportunity to make our process better for everyone across the board.

My point is I'm trying to get this done tonight just with respect to IHO onsite. If later on I absolutely, I mean all, everything's on the table later, don't disagree, that's a separate issue.

No, I'm just offering the reason why I'm against it.

Okay, other thoughts? Are people comfortable with both, with the Hefner qualification? I'll even say that. No, no. All right. Anyway, that we're going to deal with it later. Pardon me? All right. Sometimes it is. Let's move on. Unless you need any other issues. One, two, three, go. Number four. All right. Uh, previously approved product projects fee and Lou, we had some discussion about this. Um, and I think we were gonna, let's say, yeah. Um, are people comfortable with the potential amendment on this one? Yeah, we've got a six. Oh, on that. Um, let's go to number five. Do you have any other clarifications? Are we good? Yeah, yeah. We are more than half the way. All right. Potential amendment, rental AMI 80 to 60. This would be 60% AMI standard for acquired on-site rental units. This is... Yeah, this is one which would, well, I won't restate your statement about it. Looks like we got two nos, three nos. I don't know, I'm favoring that one. 33, all right. Yes, go ahead, Council Member Hafner.

I just have a comment on this one, which is, you know, we're, At the AD level, we're picking a number that isn't supported by the model. The model says there's a negative gap, and we're imposing a positive number, which strikes me as sort of, at least on paper, unfair. I recognize the model is probably imperfect and based on imperfect data, and there may be good reason to think a positive number is appropriate, but it gives me some discomfort to say that the market is already producing UNITS AT THIS LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY, BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE'RE GOING TO IMPOSE THESE REQUIREMENTS OR A FEE ON YOU IN ORDER TO GET YOU TO A LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY YOU'RE FRANKLY, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO OUR DATA, ALREADY AT. I THINK I CAN LIVE WITH IT, BUT I HOPE WHEN IT COMES RE-EVALUATION TIME THAT WE DO NOT CONTINUE TO JUST SORT OF PICK A NUMBER BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM ALIGNED WITH OUR otherwise rigorous approach to this topic. Since we are, go ahead.

And I was going to say, I think when we're looking at, I think it was Boulder data too, not Louisville data, about the same, there are some really old buildings that are part of this. When you look, like even here within our city, and you look at newer construction, that is not applicable. Like look at D'Lo Boom rental rates, 3,000 plus. But that's not meeting the AMI requirements for 80%. So they're not there. So that's why I don't like this idea of lowering it, that they need to bring this down to the 60%. I think people who are at the 80% AMI are still really struggling to find places to afford to live in Louisville.

Let me, well, go ahead.

Sorry. I want to make a proposal, but go ahead. Yeah, I just want to be clear. I think I agree with you. I don't think you were disagreeing. Were you?

I thought, pardon me, I thought that you were saying, so we both are in the same position. This should not be lowered from 80% AMI down to the 60.

I don't want to go to 60. I just think the fee for 80 is at least according to our own methodology not supported. The fee for 80 according to our methodology should be essentially a refund to the developer, not a fee. But what we're proposing to do is use the fee calculated based from 60 and charge that fee to the developers hitting 80, which strikes me as sort of unfair.

We're doing the fee in lieu calibrated to the 60% AMI is what this says, but we're requiring 80% AMI. So that is the right way to do it, to say if you're on-site and you're doing it, you need to have, like, exactly, if you were doing 100%, it would be 80% below.

So we're charging the fee that would apply if we were requiring 60.

But we're allowing them to build up to the 80% AMI. So it's actually better and easier for them.

And at 80, the fee should, according to our methodology, which may be imperfect, should be zero. In fact, it should... ARGUABLY SHOULD BE NEGATIVE.

I THINK THAT I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION. I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION, WHICH DOES CHANGE MY MIND. BUT OTHERS, COUNSELOR COOPERMAN, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I'm not sure. I don't have to. I'm just, I saw your... Yeah.

I mean, one question you could ask is, you know, if we take the data we have and we restrict it to Louisville only, which maybe that data set is too small to work with, but, you know, you could ask... does that data set? If you go through the same analysis, you know, what numbers do you get just looking at data from Louisville? And that might then support, you know, an 80% requirement as opposed to a 60% requirement. Or maybe the fee in lieu calculation changes and at 80% you get a positive number instead of a negative one. And I don't know. I mean, I don't doubt that there are people who would still like to have who are looking for 80% AMI affordable units in Louisville. There are also people who are looking for lower AMI units in Louisville. So mostly I feel like through this moment in time where market rate is very close to 80% AMI, it's sort of an opportunity to go lower in our inclusionary housing ordinance. And then we could always revise that at, say, when we do the full development code update. That's mostly what I've been thinking. I mean, on the other hand, right, it could be that... in a few years, we'll get a divergence again where market rate is higher than 80%. And it would have been good to get 80% deed restricted units now. So it's just hard to really know. But, you know, I feel like there's a lot of need at the lower percentages. And so I'd like to try to address that need at a moment in time where I feel like there's an opportunity to do that.

So I'll ask the question again, do we stay with 80? Is there, let's just, okay. And I'm convinced now, right now. We'll see if there's more information coming, but do you have good guidance on that? I appreciate your comments. I think we all do. All right, let's move to number six. Entering the home stretch now. Council, keep on working. All right, this one, this is the buy right one. Are we all? Okay.

I'm at discussion.

Yeah, that's fine, Council Member Kern.

Thank you. I actually, I like, because I think the placement and different setbacks will still apply, you know, within a lot development. I think that allowing for additional lot coverage, so unrestricted a lot coverage, I think by right, if they meet the requirements, I think, and this is one of my big things is the Big objections, but this is a point of compromise for developers, in my opinion, is to allow them to not have a parking requirement if they meet the criteria by right, so that they can just, they shall. And I think the density increase. And the density increase, in my opinion, is by having more lot coverage opportunity. I do not... think that height incentive should either be a shell. I also don't think that it should be an incentive for low income. I think we have a process for developers to come and ask for a variance in their height. And I think that that process should be followed. It should not be, if you do a certain amount of low income in your complex, We'll consider that to be the reason for your additional height. I think that the community members overwhelmingly in Louisville, this is the number one issue that they have all the time. When they point to we don't want to look and feel like the new downtown superior in our areas, it is mostly around the height. So I don't want this to become... like where we absolutely just allow it and it shouldn't specifically be an incentive for this either it should just be part of our process that they if they want to ask for height but i like increasing the density and they can get to that through lot coverages and not having the parking mom minimums and that should be a shell and and staff can make those determinations other comments yes councilmember dickinson

I basically agree with all that, but what I was trying to thread the needle of, you know, can we make it shall in certain areas of town, right? So, like, I think, you know, if we had the time and ability to look through and be like, yeah, I'd let three stories there. I'd let four stories there. I'd only let two stories there. Make that decision and then make it shall. Like, yeah, no, basically. If you're building in that area, you can. But you're building an area where you shall get two stories. You can come ask for three, but you may not get it. But this other area, you shall get three. You can come ask for four, but you may not get it. But there are areas where you shall get a third story or a fourth story without having to wonder. And then the areas that we would maybe be a little concerned about, There is language that says in those areas of town on the peripherals or those things, you may get a height. That height bonus will be contingent on council approval. But you get certainty if you're not in that ribbon, if you understand. That's what I was kind of hoping for is places where there's certainty. But I think height is different than the rest. And I think Rob has done a really good job of kind of convincing me of that of Careful careful with height because if you if you just allow height in the wrong spot You could upset a lot of people you might want more control, but maybe not universal control So that's what I'm hoping for and I don't know if we have faith in council or staff being able to bring back some nuance to what is by right and what is council discretion Rob do you have any thought if that's an impossible mission or? reasonable

Yeah, Jeff can weigh in too. So I think... think it's difficult I mean as an incentive right I mean hopefully with our land development code we can define allowed Heights around town and have more certainty but at this moment in time you know in a bigger develop like if we want to have if we want to say that single-family neighborhoods should have a buffer we're gonna have new single-family neighborhoods built potentially so we don't know where those are to have those buffers that adds complexity so I think that I guess we're back to two options. One is we say it has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and other city policies for height, and that that'll give the flexibility and discretion, but it doesn't have the certainty for the height. But I don't think there's a wrong way to do it. It's really up to council on what you want from balancing... the predictability and the potential community concern. Council Member Kern.

Thank you. I actually like that suggestion, Director Saccaro, and I think that we do have the Land Development Code update conversation, and I think that might be a better time for staff to, and other advice, to come into the districts. Maybe it is pointed out in portions of Redtail it seems appropriate to change this, and then we do, but I think we should just follow currently what we have. with our documents for the height, but have the shell for all the other things.

I think in practice, like, when you're building single-family homes and you want to do some affordable units, you're not like, can I get a fourth story on these single-family homes? Like, that makes no sense. You don't get more affordable, right? You only want the extra floor when units are stacked on each other. And so you're only getting... like the height bonus only helps you if you're in that product, right? Like I don't understand how a height bonus is really gonna benefit a single family home development.

It uses less square footage. The first floor is smaller. So actually, it is a much less expensive thing to build a four-story single-family home that is in a smaller footprint. And you can have more of them in a smaller footprint. It's actually less expensive for developers. That's what you're seeing new is a new trend. Same thing like not putting in basements because it's expensive to add a basement.

Council Member Dickinson, did you have?

No, I mean, all that stuff. You had to seem like you had a thought on that.

It's definitely more geared to multifamily stacks as wanting the additional floor area. But I mean, it is certainly possible for single family and townhomes to want an additional story, but you're not getting an additional unit because it's Florida. It's ground to sky as a townhome or a single family. So you would just be getting more square footage for that unit. But maybe there's construction cost implications. I'm not sure about that.

Council Member Heffner. I'm going to throw an idea out there.

And Council Member Cooperman.

Director Zuccaro can tell me this is a bad idea that he doesn't want, but one idea is we could put something in that you get the height by right where the city manager or director of community development determines it's not going to impact current or future residential development. I would be comfortable with the director making that decision, but I don't know if he would be.

uh... i think in a lot of cases because usually when we put those things and we can say we can make a decision or we can defer to city council but that i think the problem is is now that we don't have an administrative process that we could fully implement that because you're still going to have so what I don't want to do is make a decision and then it goes to city council and then you know maybe that gets questioned at the time of city council discretionary hearing. So I think if But I think conceptually, as we're working towards more predictable processes, I think that's a good thing, because then I think we can use good judgment and say this is going to cause community concern and defer it to city council if we had administrative approval rights right now. Does that make sense? Because there's a distinction there.

Maybe that leaves me, I think, where Council Member Kern is, which is it's a topic to save for when we get through the development code updates.

So am I understanding that we We definitely want, Councilmember, you may wanna wait, Councilmember Dickinson, until I articulate something so you can disagree with it if you have to, that on height, we're comfortable right now in saying that that's not gonna be, by right, that's gonna be subject to Council approval. Okay. And the other ones, the other incentives, are we comfortable with shall? Okay. What other incentives are we throwing in there? Is that what the question you're going to ask?

No, I was just going to say the... In Colorado, at least shall is something that a person must do and is or must is typically something that an inanimate object does. I will leave that. But I leave that in the hands of our experts.

Yes. Well, not so much the experts, but maybe the council on that. OR BOTH. GO AHEAD.

I WAS GOING TO SAY I THINK IT'S WILL ALLOW. YOU MADE DISCRETE HIREMENT, WE WILL ALLOW. IT'S NOT SHALL. IT'S WILL.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO I MADE A PLEDGE TO STAFF THAT WE WOULD NOT DRAFT ON THE DIAS. SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. BUT I THINK YOU GET THE GIST UNLESS WE'RE CONVINCED BY WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER COOPERN WAS

I was just going to clarify. So it's parking reduction, density bonus, lot coverage bonus.

Are there others? Fee waiver. And fee waiver.

I think that was it.

Yeah. Good. Comfortable with that? Do you have enough direction?

Shall and all of those are must. Nay with height. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Any other changes? everybody's thinking a little harder on this one all right let's go to number seven this is adjusting the project thresholds I think we all agreed that we should be doing some changes on this first of all well I'm just stating what we did before but is there any particular Language, we're not language, but concepts we want them to focus on. Yes, Council Member.

My recommendation is that it does not follow the PUD guidelines, but that we set it at 10 units.

Second.

Yeah. I was going to make a slightly different suggestion, but it also comes back to my question about how we do rounding. I was going to say, like, you know, when 12% translates into one unit, maybe that's the threshold.

I think it's 9. So, right. I think it's 9. If you want a whole unit, if you want almost a whole unit, it's 8.

Whose arithmetic is going to prevail on this one?

I was actually going to recommend. Council Member. Thank you. I was going to recommend 12 units and not 10, only so that somebody could put in like three quadplexes and we'd be fine and they wouldn't have to have the inclusionary. But 10 seems to be what we've heard. And so 10, 12, I'm good with that. Nine or eight might be a little slight.

Other questions? What's the number, Council?

I think nine is the mathematical number. Ten makes a lot of sense. People are used to round numbers, and it just makes a lot of sense. I think to your point, like if you did seven and then they don't have to build any, then what's the point, right? Like if seven doesn't trigger an affordable unit, then why are we even doing this? So if it's nine that triggers one, I think rounding to ten is probably fine with me. I'd go nine or ten. Second. Second.

at least for right now. We'll have the arithmetic discussion at our follow-up. Any other changes to that one? All right. Going back, we're going to have to continue this, but I wanted to find out if staff have any other questions or issues that have come up or that you've thought about between the first one and the last one.

Can't think of any.

You have a good sense of what the amendments are going to...

I think so. I will personally re-watch this discussion for clarity, but... Yeah.

Bless you. You get to eat the grass.

Yeah. But it felt like in the moment that he had clarity on each of the seven, yeah.

Yeah. Well, you know, we... We appreciate staff having to do that once in a while, because I know it does happen. Councilman Cooper, do you want to raise a question about that? Any other thoughts about that? I do really appreciate the tenor of the discussion. Although this was a long discussion, I think we made enormous progress. And I wanted to say thank you to the staff for that, the council, and all the people who provided some additional thinking. I think we needed, what I was going to suggest is we do a motion to continue. And I'll do that. And do we need a resolution?

Date and time certain.

And a time certain, yeah. Do we need, we need a roll call? You don't need a roll call. Okay, do we need, so we need a motion. What's the, when can we do that?

We would recommend following up on September 15th.

September 15th at 6 p.m. It's in the, if we cheated a little bit. Good, yeah, I see it. Somebody want to make a motion? So moved.

Second.

So the motion is I move to continue the public hearing for ordinance number 1936 series 2026 to September 15th, 2026 at 6 p.m. So moved.

Second.

Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Good. All right, so the next issue, we have it down for appointment of two council members to conduct annual evaluations of the Louisville municipal judge and prosecuting attorney. I don't know that there's any, there's no staff presentation on this, correct? There has been some discussion, and we've gotten some input around, you know, whether how we go about doing the evaluations of the municipal judge and the prosecuting attorney. And we might want to have a little bit of a discussion about how that's done. I am inclined to call upon whoever on the staff or the city attorney to discuss or to at least mention what's done and other things. other jurisdictions or not done. And then maybe we can have a discussion amongst ourselves. Comfortable with that?

Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. do a little bit of polling. The two municipalities that responded to me do not review their prosecuting attorney and their municipal judge on a regular basis. I also asked the judge and the prosecuting attorney if they're reviewed in the other jurisdictions that they work in. The judge indicated that only one other municipality reviews him on a regular basis, and it's done by a third party contracted through their HR department, not counsel. The prosecuting attorney Her other municipalities, she is actually a member of the city attorney's office, so she's not appointed, so she gets reviewed when the city attorney's office is reviewed.

I want to add one thing just in the way of background because I don't know whether any whether Everybody was I I know that not everybody was on council when we came up with the current process Which is to have a couple of council members you know, go over and sit in usually twice, it's pretty minimal, in two different sessions over at the municipal court and watch the judge, watch the prosecutor in action. you know, we can discuss whether that was useful. The criteria that we put together, I was involved in that, and we kind of put together criteria that typically, at least for the municipal judge, based on what the judicial commission for, which evaluates district judges and county judges in Colorado, just criteria that are similar, not identical, but similar to those and more or less objectively be able to evaluate I think that the reason why we decided to do an evaluation at all, we didn't before, but we had a couple of reasons. One, we have a contract with both of these folks. And I remember one year when we didn't have a process, people said, oh, my gosh. How do we know whether this is a good idea to renew the contract or not? And so we didn't really have any objective basis. It was sort of like, well, are we happy generally? Do we hear anything bad? Okay, let's just approve. We have had some very minimal concerns raised over the years about each Like the municipal judge, I can think of one occasion where there was an issue that was raised and the prosecutor sometimes, frankly, disgruntled litigants, which happens. So there's that. The other thing I would just raise is it's... Some people might be a little uncomfortable with a body like ours, legislative function, evaluating a judge. They're technically appointed by us, but there's always the chance that we're you know, sort of impinging on what judges do. I just throw that out. I don't know that that's really critical for me, but I do throw that out as a concern. So anyway, all of that. Throw this open for whether we change our system or we keep it.

Yep I just want to say a couple things one is something we do as part of this process, which you all probably know is we get feedback forms from court staff from defendants We get a feedback from the prosecutor on the judge and the other way around and as well as I'm trying to think that there's another category maybe. You said the police, right? The police, that's what it is. So we get good comprehensive feedback, which in my view is at least as valuable as like sitting in court for a morning during which it's not, I mean, you get a good sense for the feel. But to me, the written feedback from the people who are doing it day in and day out is extraordinarily helpful. I was one of the people who thought, maybe we should have a more formal different process for this. After thinking about it to prepare for this meeting, I'm happy with the process we have, and whatever process we do should continue to include the feedback from all those groups, because I think that's immensely valuable. And if something was going on that we would need to know about, I think that's the main way we would discover it. And so that's important. And then I do think because for better or for worse, we have to make the decision about whether to renew these contracts or not. We have to have an evaluation of some kind, awkward as it may be. And then the final thing I'll say, and then I'll stop, is I found it immensely valuable to have them come visit with all of us. And I think whether that's part of the evaluation or not, and maybe it shouldn't be That should be an annual touchpoint so that we all do have a better sense of what's going on in the court.

On that last point, I believe, depending on how we do this, we could change it. But I think the evaluation of the judge and the prosecutor are scheduled, is it before?

It's apparently after they have a joint meeting.

It's after they present to us and talk a little bit. Which, you know, you don't want that to be performative, right? But I don't think, frankly, that certainly wasn't performative last year. I would expect that, you know, these folks are pretty professional about that. They're not preening for us. Yes, Council Member Cronin.

Yeah, I actually agree with Councilmember Heffner and I especially did like the fact that they were both before us and actually it could be a part of it. There was a lot of items that they brought forward to us in our meeting last year of improvements that they wanted to make and evaluating whether those improvements happened or not would be interesting. I did have one question, though. Are we also considering in this evaluation any comments received from Louisville residents or the public that have interacted with the judge and prosecutor?

The answer right now is yes. They do surveys. I mean, you all have seen them. There's generally fairly few of those, but they can sometimes be useful. You have to kind of consider a little bit, especially when they're very critical, that you may not know whether the person had a really bad result or whatever, but that's

Beyond the surveys, we've gotten email comments from residents, and I wanted to know if those would be part of that evaluation process or not.

I think that's entirely up to us. We can decide to make that a part of it or not. I think they should. You like that idea? Go ahead, Councilmember Dickinson, and then Councilmember Fahey.

You can still make your comment after my motion. I move to appoint the mayor and mayor pro tem to conduct the annual evaluations of the Louisville municipal judge and the prosecuting attorney. Second. Okay.

Discussion?

I would like to get all of the information that the court staff gets, all the comment cards, any other public comment that we get regarding what they've done, what they've done well, what they've done poorly. And if we get all of that information before we have our conversation with the judge and the attorney, then I think we could make a more informed decision. I will say going into the, I did these evaluations several times already, and sitting in the courtroom or sitting in the prosecutor's office beforehand, I could tell if they were being personable, if they were answering questions of the people that they were talking to. The judge has done a wonderful job of making sure that everyone feels comfortable in answering questions and things in the courtroom. But I don't have the expertise to know should they have reduced the sentence. Should they... I don't know. I mean, I have my personal opinions on all these cases, but I would like to see the public comments, especially the people who were actually there before the judge and dealing with the prosecutor.

Yeah, I think that's what we're going to be doing. That's what's part of it right now. All the cards, that is the surveys, are part of it. I think there's, I didn't see anybody disagreeing with Council Member Kern around taking any public comment that's been made. And, you know, we weight these as we will. Right. Some things will weigh more than others. I was going to make a couple of friendly and then propose a couple of friendly amendments. One is to require that we when we appoint two people to do this, that that we require them to go to two sessions of the court, because I think we're going to be reappointing or not. I think there's something valuable in it, even if it's difficult to tell whether somebody is doing well at it. I think the point that you make, Council Member Fahey, is well taken that these folks are representatives of us and we sort of presume their competence but they need to be good representatives and I probably should have waited on that until I got a second because I'm kind of advocating for it before. So who made the motion? Councilmember Dickinson. Are you okay with that one? And actually that's that's the one that I Well, I know there is one more which is that I think the meeting that we have with the prosecutor and the municipal judge We can decide how to use that if we want to but I don't think that's I don't think we should be covering explicitly performance review in that because they're not going to have, that would make a difference to them. I think that would make a difference to anybody. And I'd rather keep it separate. We can talk about that. Is that, are you amenable to that? Right. Yeah.

how the meetings go or when the meetings are, anything. Just the two people that will go to evaluate the attorney and the judge.

Any other?

I just would like to, unless somebody has already spoken with the mayor pro tem, I would like to express concern that she is not here to weigh in on her being the one, one of the people chosen to do this. And I wouldn't want to mandate that of her that we all do without her being here to weigh in.

that exactly what you do when somebody is exactly what i did but i'll i'll rephrase my intent i moved to appoint the current mayor and the current mayor pro tem to conduct the annual evaluations of the judge and the municipal sorry municipal judge and the prosecuting attorney maybe we don't have to do this again it was it was clear oh you mean permanently that that's who always does it

Oh, not just this time. Oh, now I understand what your motion is. I would object to that.

I would object to that. Anybody can go to them and have input. But we're appointing people who have to go. I appreciate the point that's being raised.

I think it was not just this time. Caleb is suggesting that the mayor and Mayor Pro Tem always are the two people who have to do the evaluation every single year. That's what he's motioned. Not just this time. It's not just Chris and Barbara.

It's whoever has the mayor title and whoever has the mayor pro tem are the two that always talk. On behalf of this mayor and every other mayor who may come after me, I would object to that. I think that ought to be something every council member does round robin like we do right now and appointed, but I may. We'll see how that goes.

You can offer a substitute motion, but I would like to wrap up.

I'd like to wrap up, too.

So either call a vote or make a substitute motion. I'd like to wrap up.

I'm going to make a substantive motion. All right. And the motion being that we do the evaluations by using all of the information that we have customarily used in the past, that we... have the two people from council to be chosen by the council each year conduct an evaluation and to attend at least two sessions of court for both the municipal judge and the prosecutor and There was one other thing that I had mentioned before we need to pick the two people for this year Well, we need to pick the two people for this year, but that's And that those two people be The mayor and the mayor pro tem Second Any other further comment All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Opposed, nay.

Okay.

All right. State Attorney's Report.

None, thank you.

All right. Upcoming agenda items and identification of future agenda items. Councilmember Kern.

I think given the recent conversation from the last two council meetings from community members around the bocce courts, and I'll second the thanks from one of the residents with our staff doing such an amazing job so quickly responding, I'd like to make sure that we do add this at least to our conversation with the budget is making sure that this is something that's at least discussed if there is a need for us to budget a line item for it.

Let me get a reminder. Do we have any proposal within the budget currently relating to bocce?

Mayor, I'm trying to rack my mind. I do not have all of our CIPs memorized, but there's nothing on my radar in the current time for bocce. I will let you know that capital improvements are something that we are actually looking at paring down right now. So I can ask the team to prepare a little bit more information about what that would look like so you can prioritize with that context.

How would that be?

That'd be great. Thank you.

Okay. Council Member Cooperman. I was looking at the CIPs recently and I didn't see anything around bocce. I was wondering, I mean, could that fall into just operational budget? Might be another question to consider.

Yeah, it could be operation or maintenance. Certainly some of the things I heard from commenters and in emails is quite above and beyond operation and maintenance. These would be a capital improvement to update or change our bocce courts in a material way. Up to what council is interested in talking about there.

Go ahead, Councilmember Kern.

And it's sort of around budget, sort of around finance too. It is the broader question of how and because the city currently cannot accept like a donation or like to specifically work on something. We've brought this up I think in years prior and have asked if this is something that we can be look, our finance department can look into this for us. I just wanted to see if that was still on the radar.

Yeah, Councilmember Kern, that is on the radar. That's something that came up in this budget conversation. We are currently working on scheduling out your council agenda, and that's certainly something we can talk about with the work plan, what timing that fits in.

Thank you.

So it sounds like we, at this point, don't have any additional items for the agenda, that there's other... INTERNAL CITY STAFF. EXCUSE ME, WORK TO BE DONE ON SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FURTHER? ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?

SO MOVED. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THANK YOU.