Thread by @shayshinecastle

Kinda late in posting this, but council and Planning Board are late in starting the meeting. One agenda item tonight: Alpine-Balsam. It will be a public hearing and discussion, with PB vote. Council voting Oct. 7(?) I think... in a special meeting they just added. Goody.

Here's where we left off with this: boulderbeat.news/2019/08/30/ami…

Oh and here's an update on Sydney, just because:
She's scheduled for surgery tomorrow to remove Tumor Willis, who has begun to smell. Like what, I cannot say, because Twitter might ban me.

Getting started. Empty chambers, but I spotted a lot of green shirts walking around when I pulled up, so I assume they've signed up for the public hearing and will return after dinner and drinks.

No open comment tonight. Thankfully. I think since there are 2 gov't bodies here, I expect this meeting to be twice as unbearable as usual.

Hey, guess what: No Oct. 7 special meeting! Yay!

They're re-scheduling that later.

No on to Alpine-Balsam: adoption of the area plan. Here's the staff presentation on that. www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2A_AB_Fin…

Planning Board will vote on this tonight; council's vote is TBD.

Any ways that PB decides to change the Area Plan will come to council to vote on. If council changes things, it will have to go *back* to PB.

“This isn’t a project that will make everyone happy," planner Jean Gatza says. "But the final vision” is a compromise, with the focus on meeting city goals.

Only city properties are changing land use and zoning. Private properties will continue under current zoning.

A recap of what's going where on the BCH site that the city owns.
East block: Renovation of the Medical Pavilion for City Service Center and NewPublic Plaza
• “Flex” space – future civic mixed use (county offices) or housing (four stories)

Oh wait, crap, that was wrong.
BoCo might go in the Center Block:
• High Density Housing 2 (3 story stacked flats) on the Northern Portion of the block
• Either High Density Housing (4 story stacked flats) or Public for relocation of Boulder County Service Hub

West Block:
• High Density Housing 1 –2-3 story townhomes (under 35 ft)

Gatza: As we move forward, we hope "our staff and community members continue listen to each other and potentially heal some of the fear” and hurt feelings

Sarah Silver, from Planning Board: I was "struck" by the difference in languages over height. Some areas are supposed to go up to 45 ft in the plan, but the proposed zoning allows 55 ft.
"How does that inconsistency get resolved?"

Chris Meschuk, interim planning director: The plan describes in general what the prototype is. If we had development come in, we'd look to the height map in the plan. NOT the land use or zoning.

Gatza: That would be reflected in the zoning for that parcel.

So, basically, even though the zoning (Mixed-use 2) could go up to 55 ft, in this particular area, there are layers of regulation that cap it at 45 ft (except for the Pavilion building and parking garage)

Maybe. Mayor Jones is confused, so now I am, too.

The only types of buildings that can be 5 stories and still under the city's 55-ft height limit are generally hotels and residential, if the homes have low ceilings.

(That was in response to a q from Young)

The Area Plan switches back and forth from using stories and heights bc they want "flexibility" staff says, bc different uses can get Dif numbers of floors out of the same kind of height.

It also can account for pitched roofs, which this council has a serious hard-on for.

Weaver: The height map is pretty clearly marked. These are the limits except for roof forms, which we want creativity with. This plan "gives pretty clear guidance."

Brockett: This area plan will be a criteria in site review. Is the development compatible? If it doesn't match up with the height map, it isn't compatible.

Meschuk: Exactly. "We thought this was a great way to" develop guidance as projects come in.

Carlisle: "55 feet is still 55 ft. If it's represented as being 4 stories, that's a lot of roof form. The city has been so conscious about height for so long... floors could be a way of easing things in" rather than sticking to the height limit.

Another Silver q, about the city approaching housing at Alpine-Balsam the way it did at 30Pearl. Why is that in the plan, what does it mean?

Meschuk: We had a plan for what we wanted buildings to look like, and we got a great mix of housing (rental, ownership, all income levels) at 30Pearl. Those are the outcomes we want here.

That actually hasn't been built yet, but it's all planned out.

Weaver: We have a lot of affordability there, more than 50%. And we've got affordable retail there.

30Pearl, to be clear.

Back to Alpine-Balsam: The plan is meant to work whatever the mix of uses are (specifically, if the county co-locates or not) but parking is the only thing in flux, bc county offices will need a lot more than homes would.

Any changes to Community Plaza would require a site review process, Gatza reminds everyone, in response to a Young q.

Jones: What are the factors determining how much affordable housing we can get here? And can we require affordable retail, like at 30Pearl?

Kurt Firnhaber: There are a number of factors: height, density, size of buildings, cost of infrastructure, land. If we sell some of it for private development, that can fund more affordability. Rental vs. ownership. Mix of incomes we're targeting: The lower we're trying to hit..

...the more resources we need. It also impacts the number of units we'll get.

Too early to know too much.

"The project needs to be developed further .... before we can answer that. The process was done at 30Pearl three years ago."

Meschuk: This area plan has different recommendations than Boulder Junction bc the site is changing: the hospital is leaving, and it's surrounded by an active and stable neighborhood.

Moving to public hearing: 14 ppl signed up.

Barbara Fahey speaking for Think Boulder. Maybe not FOR them, but definitely in support of them. They (and 1,100+ signers to a petition) want less density at the city site.

No 4- and 5-story buildings, Fahey says.

About those petition and survey efforts: boulderbeat.news/2019/08/27/no-…

Fahey: City met with us after the last public hearing, and we're glad council abandoned the area plan for the larger neighborhood, as we requested. But we still don't want 4-5 story buildings on the city site, either.

"Return with an Alpine-Balsam plan" that has 35 ft height limits, affordable housing and more parking

Tim Eaton: "It’s easy to get ppl riled up about tall buildings" but so many ranch homes have been scraped and replaced with giant homes.

Supports the plan for more density at the city site.

"It's easy to say ppl should live out east. It only seems fair that every neighborhood in Boulder should do more to create affordable housing" and meet our goals on housing, climate and transportation.

Mariella Colvin: The traffic objection "is a red herring." The hospital generated more housing than any of these changes would. "Our neighborhood has changed over the years and it's for the worst."

This plan will make the neighborhood "more vibrant."

Francoise Poinsatte also in favor of more density. Think Boulder's survey was a "push poll," she says.

We've seen a lot of transition here, from "humble little houses" to million-dollar mansions. "When we talk about neighborhood character, what character are we talking about?"

Think about the employees of Boulder Medical Center, of Ideal Market, Poinsatte said. "We have to look at community wide benefits. This is the definition of good compact development on transit nodes, it has every kind of (retail service) and allows ppl to live" without a car.

"It's frankly been very dull and drab since BCH moved out. That's not the neighborhood I want to see."

Kathleen McCormick also likes the plan and the mix of housing it can provide for teachers, service workers, young families, etc.

"It's the 15-min neighborhood that we describe in our comp plan. This is it."

David Cook helped implement the Newlands neighborhood EcoPass program with RTD.

"Most of you don't need reminding that public transit functions at its best when more ppl can walk to a bus stop." The plan furthers that.

8% of units across the street from the site are single-family; 92% are multi-family, he says.

(Not sure about those numbers, but there are a lot of very high-density buildings in the area. The SF homes are more surrounding the area.)

Yates also asks about those numbers: Where are they?

Cook: 5 SF homes across Balsam, 12-15 unit condos across Broadway, 3 MF housing buildings on 9th and Alpine, so 53 multi-family and 5 single-family, with more multi-family coming in that I didn't count

Paul Saporito brought "pretty pictures"
I'll describe them to you.

They're not particularly pretty.
But you know what they say about beauty.

OK, these are better. Some 18th and 19th century row houses with lots of green space.

"Despite the scary block diagrams we've seen, this is more like what we'll get there," Saporito says. Also uses the phrase "stack and pack."

And something about Texas doughnuts. Idk what those are (something to do with housing) but now I'm hungry.

Needless to say, he's in favor of adopting the area plan.

Silver has a q for Saporito: I was struck by the smallness of the buildings compared to what's proposed for Mixed-Use 2 (in Saportio's design). You've proposed something that's not the same as the land use prototype. What would have to change for this plan to be possible?

Not much, Saporito says.

Nagle is asking a "blunt" question: "As someone who is not a proponent of density, you have me bought with this." Praises the European style of his diagrams rather than "blocks."

"Why aren't these all over the city? Are you coming up against our system?"

He says he's retired, so "idk why."

"Single-family zoning!" someone shouts out from the audience.

It was a quiet shout.

Subdued crowd tonight.

John Pollak walked home from BCH after having appendicitis. We stan.

"There have always been fears" around development in Boulder: Crime, schools, traffic. "But all these developments are where many of us live in the community. It's working pretty well. The fears haven't materialized."

"You can do great design and still get in a significant number of units. If they're smaller, even the market-rate will be relatively affordable compared to the 3,000-sq-ft home down the block."

"When I moved into the neighborhood 32 yrs ago, there were working ppl, teachers, nurses. Not anymore. I think it would be great to restore some of that character back to the neighborhood."

Timothy Thomas lives in a multi-unit building in the neighborhood and bikes every day. "I'm a single renter who yearns for the day I could buy a home for my blind mother and any future family I might have."

I think I met this guy once in Scott Carpenter.

He's in favor of the plan, but has some issues with it. Thinks it's OK to build taller. "Life goes on."

And he wants to make sure that affordable housing goes there. I'm skeptical, he says.

"When it comes down to, do you want ppl like me in your neighborhood." (Thomas is black.) "Look around." (Waves to the chambers. He is the only non-white here.) "Do you really want a diverse neighborhood? It doesn't look like it."

Mark Gelband starts with some cursing.
Calculating the cost just on land, with $42M purchase price and 260 units, is $162,000 each.

The staff plan doesn't go far enough on density or height. "We've deferred to 50 of the most privileged neighbors" complaining about parking, views, traffic. "And they pretend like a hospital wasn't there with 4,500 emergency visits and a helipads."

"If we put 200 units, we're doing nothing." There were 200 beds in the hospital. "This plan compromises" to the privileged.

He is really heated.

Also said early on (but I didn't have time to type) that we should remember that 55 feet is what the people of Boulder voted on. It's in the charter.

Steve LeBlang, who owns the Ideal Market shops, criticizing Think Boulder. "Ppl were scared into signing" their petition. Wasn't happy when they were passing out materials in front of his shops.

Best environmental strategy is to concentrate ppl near their workplaces, LeBlang says.

He's reading someone else's statement, but I missed the name. Whoever it is called Boulder "an old corpse wearing expensive outdoor gear."

"My favorite question that the no-growth groups have never answered is, 'If not here, where?'"

Carlisle questioning the materials he handed out, which aren't actually from Think Boulder.

It's from the "little brother" of Think Boulder, LeBlang says.

Carlisle also points out that LeBlang was reading a statement from the guy who owns Community Plaza.

"He also has a financial interest" in that area, she says.

Someone in the audience hissed at her. They are hissing at Deborah Yin, too.

She's asking for 3D modeling of the site, saying that what staff brought forward was meant to push an objective of "maximizing development."

This kind of density makes sense some places, but not here, she said. Yin asks for lower heights: 3 stories only, 35 feet. Don't add to Pavilion building or parking garage.

Carlisle asks Yin what the density of the Holiday neighborhood is.
It's less than 20 per acre, Yin says.

(I actually don't know that, but Brockett lives there, so I feel like he would say if that was wrong.)

Matt Frommer, of SWEEP, who did this report (linked below) lives in the neighborhood and is talking about his friends who have left town. boulderbeat.news/2019/08/11/bou…

"Much of the opposition stems from a crisis in faith in design," he says. There is bad design all over Colorado, but we have the tools and know-how in Boulder to do better. "It's important to have a critical eye, but this project works best when we all buy into a shared vision."

We could probably go higher density here, Michael Leccese, but "this is a good start." It's a good return on our investment.

"It's important to develop existing land" rather than sprawling. References the declining bird population.

Lisa White the first to say she's disappointed we didn't move with the full area plan. "We're in a climate crisis. We also have a housing crisis. What we're doing here is not enough."

Her and her partner use their car once a month.

Another 30-something like Frommer who says her friends are leaving Boulder bc of housing costs.

Will Toor, former mayor and now Polis admin staffer, calls for "at least" 250 homes at the BCH site. It's fiscally responsible, good for the climate, and he wants it as a neighbor. "Homes are getting bigger, but the number of people living in them seems to be getting smaller."

"It's hard to think of a better place for housing," Toor says: close to shops, walking distance to several schools for all ages, downtown, by bike and bus routes, next to a park.

He's trying to top the guy who walked home from BCH after appendicitis. He walked there when he thought he was having a heart attack.

Impressive, but we don't stan. He wasn't actually having a heart attack.

Toom Volckhausen answering Nagle's qs about why we don't see European design in Boulder: "Because it's illegal" in most of the city. Most is reserved for single-family homes.

Crap his name is Tom, not Toom.
But dang Toom Volckhausen would be a cool name. He should consider changing it.

Back to what he's saying: The comp plan "clearly" supports high-density, walkable development. The low-density, suburban-style development would "directly conflict" with the comp plan guidelines.

Carlisle breaking in again to defend Think Boulder from Volckhausen's criticism.

Claudia Hanson Thiem also critical of "punting" of the rest of the area plan. It's a lack of leadership, she says.

"Planning is about looking forward and shaping what we want and need over a generation."

"If we prefer to be comfortable, we can go with the status quo. That may be human, but it is not planning."

We need density to support walking, biking and transit use for the future of our climate, for my children. "We don't have those things now bc we didn't plan for them 50 years ago."

"We won't have them 50 years from now if we don't plan today."

That closes the public hearing. Council is going to leave after a few questions and comments.

Carlisle defending Think Boulder's use of the gray, windowless buildings. Those diagrams were first used by staff, she said.

Gatza: "The ones you're talking about were not created by staff or consultants." But the city did use some blocks in the very, very beginning of planning.

"We recognize: it's a difficult process for folks to envision what it's going to be like," Gatza says. "We hope that what we've provided in the plan with the prototypes and images and descriptions" helps.

Some back and forth between Zuckerman and Carlisle about images.

Young asking why the plan didn't contain 3D models, something Think Boulder has asked for and used to justify its use of the gray, windowless block building image in its campaigns.

Meschuk: We're going to try and do that in the future. "I think we still will have a communication challenge. They're still just blocks. It's a tool in the toolbox, amongst multiple tools."

Brockett: We took out some references to unit counts. Is there anything left in the plan, in terms of specific unit counts, from a regulatory standpoint?

Meschuck: I need you to clarify.
Brockett: I know this isn't regulatory, but in terms of guidance. If someone proposed units that went over 277 or whatever, would that not be allowed?
Meschuk: There is an estimate "based on math." It's not a requirement.

Nagle is responding to some of the speakers. What's gone up on Boulder Junction, etc. look like boxes. Is what we're going to get here look more like Europe than boxes?

Gatza: "That's the intent."

Nagle: That style is allowed here?
Gatza: When we do zoning of the site, that's where we'll address this.

Silver: I was struck by the opportunity to reach a level of housing if the county building isn't there. The folks who spoke tonight want a higher number; that's possible if we don't have the county building.

Meschuk speaking to that, RE: maybe doing housing at Broadway and Iris to get "a better outcome" if county co-locates at BCH site.

He asked Silver a clarifying q, but I kinda lost the thread.

Weaver jumping in: Staff's first criteria is to make sure we'll get materially more housing if we do the land swap at Iris and Broadway, or however that transaction applies. I hear what you're saying about complete neighborhood...

Would it still be complete with the county there? he asks staff.

Gatza: There's still more work to be done. Our working group will delve a little bit more into that.

No more qs from council' they're outta here. The Planning Board will deliberate and vote after a 15-min break.

I may or may not tweet until the vote. I got work to do.

Council is gone but Mary Young is sitting in the audience to watch Planning Board deliberate and vote.

I heard the public saying this doesn't go far enough, but "it's too late to be wordsmithing" or adding little changes, Zuckerman says. The choice as he sees it is to go back to the full-blown area plan or go forward with just the city site.

Silver agrees PB could say "yay or nay on the whole thing." Doesn't want to "nitpick" but she does want to add some things in. Bowen interrupting her to get her to answer the question: Hospital site or entire area plan?

Silver: I would say just hospital since that's what council directed us to do.
"Is that accurate?" Zuckerman or Vitale asks.
Bowen clarifies that Planning Board has "equal authority" to decide what goes forward.

Silver changes her answer based on that: The public doesn't want to move forward, and council decided not to. So she wants to focus on city site.

Vitale: I think it's going to be more expensive to do it later. It was a result of a miscommunication. But "it would be picking another fight and trying to clean up all the blood" if we went back to the whole area plan.

"Changing the scope at the end of a project" is not a good way to do things, Bowen agrees, but he thinks council will just kick it back to Planning Board. But wants to go "on record" that it's bad public process.

Zuckerman agrees. "Cascading density" (where the development gets less dense toward the single-family neighborhoods) is good on paper, "but it's bad planning."

"I'm with you (Bowen) on not creating and inefficient ping-ponging process, but I'm holding my nose" by focusing just on the city site.

Bowen: "A lot more could be done on the site. We're probably falling short." But given the pushback from public and council's retreat, "we're probably ending up in an OK spot."

Now singing the plan's praises, including a mix of housing. "We've got enough single-family as it is." Also good transit access, open space, etc.

On diversity and inclusion and the type of community we want to be, "This is one of the places we're able to walk our talk."

(He's still talking.)

Sometimes we see projects that aren't in the right place. This one is.

Montoya re-asking Brockett's q: Does this plan put a cap on the number of units we can do at the city site?
No, Meschuk answers again. This is about land use.

Also asking if anything will be built over 55 feet. (No.)

How is this woman on planning board if she doesn't know that's the citywide height limit?

But maybe she's doing it for public benefit, bc she says "Just to be clear, nothing is getting built over 55 ft. You'll get electrocuted in this town" for suggesting that.

Continuing on the height limit thread, Silver asking again about the differences in the allowable heights under zoning and the plan specifics, which we covered earlier. Maybe we'll get more specific or clarity on that.

She's asking that the plan gets more specific on what the height limits are "so that we don't end up back in a circular firing squad arguing about" how tall the buildings end up being.

Meschuk and Bowen having difficulty finding the discrepancies she's talking about. She's looking for them.

"I just want to make sure the mushiness doesn't allow us to get to 55 feet where we've been talking about 35-45 feet." Silver says, once she's found the references she was talking about.

Staff again defending the need for flexibility for roof forms.

Silver: "Floors and feet are different things. The public isn't thinking about floors; they're thinking about height."

Staff (again): Setting a firm height could mean the difference between a flat roof and a pitched one. The plan has heights with * to allow for better roof forms.

It's to ensure for discretion and better design, Vitale says.

Bowen: Silver make a good point. Confusion could come from this. We want to get good design but not open it up to confusion among the board or public.

Staff says further refinement will happen in the zoning process. (Again, these just land use changes. Zoning comes next.)

Here's a good visual from staff about how all these things nest together to determine what can get built where and what it can look like.

Some discussion over how much it would cost to add a floor to the parking garage, which is something council has said it doesn't really want to do.

Vitale: We hate cars for our climate goals and we hate building high, but we'd add a fifth floor for cars to have views of the mountains?

Vitale: I understand and empathize with neighbor concerns. But "I can't see how we would do anything but approve this" when we look at the comp plan.

Two members are absent tonight: David Ensign and John Gerstle.

Motion to adopt the plan has been made. Silver adds a friendly amendment about including in the plan language the cost of adding a fifth floor to the parking garage.

Meschuk asks for more details.

She just wants to know how much it will cost and if the county will pay for it or not if they co-locate there.

David Gehr, assistant city attorney, says that will be worked out as the city and county continue to negotiate. So it can be added to the plan as a criteria.

BUT stuff like that is not typically called out in the area plan.

Reminder: There's a working group trying to hash out a city/county deal.

Planning Board debating whether or not to add that friendly amendment.

They vote to advance the area plan for the city-owned site.

That's all, folks. Catch ya on the flip!

@threadreaderapp, please unroll. Thanks!