Thread by @shayshinecastle

It's Ponderosa. Firnhaber is presenting again. No link to this, sorry. It wasn't posted online.

Boulder is annexing this property and replacing mobile homes for residents who want new ones. They will be permanently affordable for 20-150% AMI. Duplex, triplex and carriage homes. Near net-zero energy use.

Some background:
Built sometime in 1950s
68 units today
Operated on well and septic system until 1970s
Connected to city water in 1978; city sewer in 1984
City first began looking to buy the park in 1990-1992
Made first offer in 1994 for $944,000
Upgrades estimated at $1M in 1996

Owner in April 1996: Not interested; city withdrew offer

2000: Owner began exploring annexation again but without city ownership
Withdrawn in 2002
2004: Sold mobile home park and adjacent two-acre parcel, which became 1000 Rosewood (18 units; 16 SF and duplex; 9 perm affordable)

New owner in 2013 applied to upgrade existing water lines
Due to out-of-city utility agreement, work couldn’t be done without annexation
2013 flood happened (only one home damaged) but Boulder got a community development block grant for disaster recovery that included Ponderosa

City purchased in 2017 for $4.2M. Now annexing.

The site review for this is a call-up item for council, which is why we're discussing it.

Annexation includes land use change from Mobile Home Park to Medium Density Residential; Zoning will be RM-2.

This is unusual bc Boulder specifically created land use and zoning for mobile home parks to prevent redevelopment.

But the replacement homes will be fixed-foundation, so they aren't manufactured housing per se.

Since the city owns the site, they are not worried about redevelopment.

Firnhaber going over how the homes don't meet fire codes on setbacks and things.

The homes are smaller than in many parks and if we replaced them, we would have made them smaller still and reduce # of units by 30%.

Doing some duplex, triplex, fourplex and single-family homes will allow the total number of units to be the same.

Brockett q: The current arrangement of homes presents a danger to residents from fire? It could spread from home to home?

Firnhaber: That is correct.

Also, the replacement of homes "aligns with the current layout" of water/sewer infrastructure, too.

That was Firnhaber.

There has been a lot of concern about displacement from the neighbors. Young addressing some of those now and asking why the original plan was for approx. 68 homes and now the community will be 73. Why?

Firnahber: "One of the things we talk about in our dept. is we wake up every day to create affordable housing."

The add'l units is to meet overall city goals for as many units as possible.

Young: Some of the folks won't be able to afford some of the homes. Can you address that?

DAMN WHOEVER IS OUTSIDE WITH THEIR RAP MUSIC. I can't hear Firnhaber's answer.

Firnhaber: Current housing costs, avg. is $775-$800. We're targeting housing costs with all fees included, with utilities, of $800/month.

But ppl with higher incomes will have a higher-priced home and higher monthly payment, which will allow us to provide homes to poorer ppl.

Also, residents don't *have* to take a new home. They can stay in their mobile homes. Firnhaber talking about that now.

"We're not bringing in new residents as manufactured home owners." If ppl want to stay in place, eventually we'll purchase their home....
Jones: When they're done with it?
Firnhaber: When they pass away

Young: Or if they want a fixed-foundation home?
Firnhaber: We will purchase that mobile home from them and they can use that as a down payment on the fixed-foundation home, lowering their monthly payments.

Young asks about displacements. Residents have claimed 10-12 families moved away.

Firnhaber: 2 ppl have passed away; 8 families have moved in the last year.

Firnhaber: Ppl have left "all over the place." We'll have to build homes in sets of 4, particularly since many are duplexes. "It's difficult to build one side of a duplex and then a few years later build the other side."

Young: Duplexes aren't actually touching walls. There was concern over residents who didn't want to share walls. Can you explain to everyone here?

Firnahber: Current homes they are living in are almost touching, and walls are thin. Noise goes through "relatively easily."

Duplexes, homes are separated from the foundation "up to the roof. They don't touch except around the permitter of the structure."

Perimeter* Stupid auto correct.

Also, double insulation will cancel noise.

Brockett, the only council member who doesn't live in a single-family home, confirms that noise is not an issue like ppl think it will be.

I also can confirm. The only thing I ever hear from my neighbors is their yappy freaking dog at *really* quiet times when no one else is in the house and I'm just chilling. But it just moved out, so I'm cool with it.

Also, my place is old and crazily insulated.

Crappily* not crazily. Stupid autocorrect, part 2. (Also, stupid use of a made-up word. My bad.)

We're talking about the Broadway access to Ponderosa and why it has to go: It's physically impossible to do that AND flood mitigation along the creek there, staff says.

Temporary alternate access will be provided at 10th and Cherry.

Also, a raised buffered bike lane is going in, and a driveway there will increase risk of collisions, staff says. But flood mitigation is No. 1.

Brockett: I get that there are add'l benefits, but fundamentally we're closing the access bc of flood mitigation? We need to be clear, bc folks that live there are very upset about the closing of Broadway.

The Carniceria there will stay. It will be considered a non-conforming use.

Jones: It gets to stay, and it can expand?
Charles Ferro, planner: Yes.

Carlisle has an issue with "process." Changing the OSO land use "did not go through OSBT" and the planning board chair said "it didn't matter."

Wouldn't that be a matter of courtesy for OSBT to review that change, Carlisle said, in the future?

"It should be consistent. Sometimes no, sometimes yes, sometimes it doesn't matter." (Carlisle again.)

Chris Meschuk explaining about OSO, which I wrote about last year: OSO has the word open space in it, but it's not designated open space.

dailycamera.com/2018/06/09/bou…

"For land use map changes, it's really a planning board and city council decision," Meschuk says.

Carlisle: When would it be proper to go to OSBT? Bc it has, with 311 Mapleton and CU South.

Meschuk: Those were areas adjacent to city open space. Your point is a really good one; we should be clear on when.

Jones reminding council that this Ponderosa project is on call-up, so more qs can be asked then. (This is still consent agenda.)

Also, Oct. 22 public hearing on the annexation is scheduled.

We're moving on from consent agenda.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!

@threadreaderapp Not quite yet: Human Relations Commission is already doing work on the update to the hate crimes ordinance, passing on third reading tonight.