Welcome to the Online Debate. Our first question is from Brownie Marshall
What is your position on maintaining the height restrictions in Boulder, particularly in the downtown area and areas that would impede the mountain view. Are there any conditions that would prompt you to make an exception?
Matt Appelbaum
Did not participate.
Philip Bradley
Height restrictions are important and I support them full heartedly.
However I think back to the new mall days when Boulder said No to a 3'
variance for an air conditioning unit that was shot down resulting in part to our economic downturn, and I think that was un-necessary to get after them and ultimately hurt the city more than giving a variance on a building that backs onto industrial space.
Seth Brigham
Did not participate.
Shawn Coleman
Preservation of the mountain back drop is what gives Boulder it's sense of place. The preservation of height limits is important as not only a quality of life issue, but also an economic tool. That said, it is important to realize that this ordinance is not without consequence, i.e. the high cost or real estate. Any exceptions would need to meet a significant community goal. At this moment I can't think of what that benefit would be. I am not anti-growth, the issue is the growth making Boulder better. If there is a project worthy of consideration than it should be considered in it's context, but I don't think anybody in Boulder is in a rush to have skyscrapers as far as the eye can see I for one am not.
Macon Cowles
Did not participate.
Angelique Espinoza
The height restrictions in Boulder have done a very important job in preserving both views and access to the sun's solar energy that can be captured by rooftop panels. In the downtown areas, in particular, it will be important to maintain these restrictions. We are facing a real crisis, however in affordable housing, which may require us to consider the possibility of adapting these restrictions in certain areas, perhaps on the east end of town. Another consideration would be to look at form-based zoning as a way to preserve light and openness in certain areas. Denver has had some success with this strategy and I think it is worth looking into.
Crystal Gray
Arrived late
Andrew Harrison
Did not participate.
Philip Hernandez
In general, there is no area in the area west of Folsom where it would be appropriate to go above the 55 height limitation. The only exception might be if the decision to build a convention/conference center in the downtown area, but I would want to fully explore the pluses and minuses of this exception.
Areas east of Folsom might be appropriate. For example, the diagonal plaza if it is developed or in the transit village area if a trade off between higher heights and more greenbelt area would make sense.
Nabil Karkamaz
Did not participate.
Kathryn Kramer
My position would be to definitely maintain the height restrictions. As someone who grew up in Boulder I remember when the height restrictions were put in place to curb developers who had their eye on building skyscrapers. We have a beautiful mountain backdrop that is one of the things that draw people to Boulder. This backdrop would be ruined by tall buildings (and has been ruined already in some instances). I recently visited the offices of our "mother company" in Beverly Hills and although the office building was state-of-the art and very impressive, it did not have the mountain views that some office buildings in Boulder afford. That mountain backdrop is one of the reasons that draws businesses here and in fact is notated as one of the "perks" that all those in my company who have had to re-locate to Boulder have mentioned as a reason to really love it here despite the fact that they had to give up the ocean. Are there any conditions that would prompt me to make an exception. If I am on council I would be open to reviewing any exceptions. The problem with exceptions, however, is that once an exception is made, other entities want an exception made for them as well.
Adam Massey
Did not participate.
Lisa Morzel
Did not participate.
Alan O'Hashi
I’m at the dems congressional debate. I’ll be trying to webcast it while answering. I agree with the 65 ft requirement downtown, but think there are possible exceptions that could happen in the east side of town, particularly by where the existing dorms are built
Susan Osborne
Did not participate.
Eugene Pearson
In terms of the height restrictions I am in favor of them in the downtown area and in general west of 28th. I think that there may be opportunities for going above the restrictions in areas like the transit village that do not impede the views of anyone in the community currently. I am looking for a high level of mixed use development and would consider sending a ballot initiative on to the voters to exceed the height limits in this area if the percentage of affordable housing required could be correspondingly increased. The intent would be to mitigate some to the affordability issues and sprawl that Boulder is inducing in neighboring communities and outside the county. The area should address some of the shortcomings we face currently in the city. It is a perfect location to increase the percentage of affordable housing available as well because it allows for transit options that benefit low and middle income people.
Susan Peterson
I cannot think of any conditions that would prompt me to make an exception to the current height restrictions.
Larry Quilling
I believe the Boulder height restrictions are one of the most important aspects of preserving our city from the plight of “New Ubanism”. Our restrictions are reasonable and fairly administered across all commercial and private interests. I cannot think of any exceptions I would support at this time.
Tom Riley
Generally speaking, I support the 55 foot height restrictions. I think Boulder has an obligation to protect the mountain views. That said, I can see that a variety of skyline in terms of architecture may add to our mountain views. Frank Lloyd Wright is a prime example of how we as intelligent and creative people, may build structures that add to our surroundings. I think height restrictions should be afforded variances when it makes sense and should be presented to Boulder’s voters for such variances. We should always keep in mind that these buildings are all but permanent and a 55’ restriction variances should not be taken lightly. All due diligence and due process should be followed.
Eric Rutherford
Respect thy neighbor on a case by case basis. And more weight should be given to the accommodation of growing families rather than developers creating gigantic spec homes.
One exception that should be raised is the fact that commercial real estate brings in 3x more property tax than residential development and those taxes fuel our schools, so we should focus on a case by case basis on what is best for our overall community.
Rob Smoke
Did not participate.
Ken Wilson
Did not participate.
