The Boulder City Council is set to vote Thursday, Jan. 9 on zoning reforms that could pave the way for potentially thousands of new housing units by easing restrictions on converting single-family homes into duplexes or triplexes.
The proposed ordinance is the latest effort by councilmembers to loosen zoning rules in an attempt to lower the city’s housing costs. One of the goals is to increase the amount of “middle housing” — a housing type like duplexes, triplexes and townhomes that are typically more affordable than single-family homes. Currently, middle housing makes up just 9% of Boulder’s housing stock, according to city officials.
One key change targets mixed-use neighborhoods near downtown, including parts of Whittier and University Hill. The ordinance proposes reducing the minimum lot area per dwelling unit in the RMX-1 zoning district from 6,000 square feet to 2,500 square feet to allow for greater housing density.
These changes would not alter the height, massing or setbacks of existing homes. The goal, according to city officials, is to allow property owners to convert single-family homes into duplexes or triplexes within the existing building footprint.
Another significant proposal focuses on lower-density neighborhoods near public transit. These zoning districts — RR-1, RR-2 and RL-1 — cover parts of Newlands, Old North Boulder and much of South Boulder. While a 2023 zoning reform allowed duplexes in these areas, stringent minimum lot size requirements, such as 14,000 square feet for a duplex, often made development of multifamily housing unfeasible.
The new ordinance would allow duplexes within 350 feet of a bus corridor regardless of lot size, while retaining limits on floor area ratios, building coverage, height and setbacks. This means property owners could still increase the number of units, but the overall building footprint, including its height, would likely have to remain the same.
The ordinance also seeks to accelerate the development of affordable housing by exempting 100% permanently affordable housing projects from site review, a review process involving the Planning Board and Boulder City Council that often delays projects and adds uncertainty for developers.
City officials estimate the proposed reforms could theoretically enable the creation of up to 15,000 additional housing units, though full adoption by property owners is unlikely. The changes have the potential to make a dent in Boulder’s housing shortage, estimated at more than 10,000 homes, according to recent estimates.
Read: 10,700 new homes needed: Study highlights Boulder’s housing shortage
Given the fact that Boulder already has 9000 units approved, these proposed changes are nothing but the anti-single family homes crowds middle finger to Boulder.
By the time those approved units are actually built we will be behind in unit counts again. The IPCC report recommends precisely this type of action. “An article for the Washington Post by Sarah Kaplan and Brady Dennis summarize six of the biggest climate action recommendation of the report—in all the report includes hundreds of ideas for greenhouse gas emission reductions. One of the big ideas explored in the article—turning cities clean and green—is directly connected to the field of planning.
“Simple urban planning measures, such as increasing density, mixing residential and commercial areas so people can live where they work, and developing along public transit corridors, could cut urban carbon pollution by roughly a quarter by 2050,” according to the article.”
Oh good luck! Boulder has been good at one thing only in its brief history…never changing.
The housing shortage should properly be called the “developer income shortage.”
But Sarah, you supported this with your vote for Marpa House to be taken over by Hill Developer/Property Manager John Kirkwood when you were on Planning Board and the neighbors were trying to help the residents buy it. Kind of late to complain. More is less in Boulder anyway. Prices are untouched in an inelastic market. We all know this! Dig one’s head out of the sand. Look at 2206 Pearl Stok development for “affordable” missing middle. It’s not.
In all of this housing shortage, housing affordability discussion, the primary question is – why? What obligation does government and taxpayers have to provide housing for anybody who wants to live in Boulder? Or to fatten the wallets of landlords and developers? And is so doing to ruin neighborhoods and quality of life?
That’s how central planners think.
The lede statement about “easing restrictions on converting single-family homes into duplexes or triplexes” could be a little misleading. As the piece clarifies later, the changes in low-density zones would only allow duplexes (and only near transit lines). It would not allow triplexes. Other provisions would allow some additional units in RMX-1 and RM-1 zones, but duplexes and triplexes (and more) are already allowed there.
None of this makes any difference in Boulder, none of it is going to get built and when it does, it will only be for the rich. But housing ideologues can feel like they did something, when they really have done nothing.
Yep
That any elected official seriously thinks this will result in any middle income housing shows how completely captured they are by the developers. “Middle” income housing was recently put up near my office at Pine and 27th. Two house were bought for a little less than $1m, and the developer put up five $2m town houses in their place. 1/2 of these places sit empty as second homes. This is not middle housing, this is luxury housing, for people that want a very specific high income lifestyle. This housing is reducing no driving into Boulder, creating no worker housing, it is all developer profit. People that want houses live in the L towns or they have enough to buy into Boulder; there is no market, desire, or need for these duplexes and none will be built for regular folks by this change.
Unless, the housing created has restrictions regarding affordability, we are just creating more expensive housing.
I am not opposed increased density. I just want the priority to be that the housing has to fit the greatest need which is affordability.
It is much cheaper to create affordability by starting with existing housing such as our current apartments and condos.
We have a jobs to housing inbalance. Next time we approve commercial projects, like we did for Google, think about the in commuters and the impacts on the cost of living here.
Yep
I love to see this as a great first step towards balancing our housing supply to match demand. In Austin, where local government has made it much easier to create housing for more people, renters are actually seeing their renewal contracts go down significantly, saving them hundreds of dollars a month.
We have lived for so long with restrictive zoning and other impediments to building more housing, that I am not entirely surprised to see folks here throwing up their hands saying nothing will ever get better. We can live more densely without traffic congestion if we create mixed-use communities that don’t require everyone to get in their cars to do everything.