Thread by @CHThiem

Hey Boulder, if you need something other than fires and elections to doomscroll tonight, I’ve got you covered. Planning Board is doing a concept review of a big downtown project…

Grace Commons Church (formerly First Pres) wants to redevelop its main campus and annex at 16th/Walnut. Church spaces, a cafe, and 30 units affordable housing are in the mix. Here’s the packet: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_5A_G…

My drink for this meeting is a "Sparks Fly" from Ratio Beerworks. Not sure what message spouse is trying to send with that delivery...

The church is DT-5 zoning, which is downtown core transitioning to more intense use, w/greatest potential for new development and redevelopment. Though staff notes it borders on DT-2, which is lower intensity.

If someone argues the project should match that adjacent zoning, rather than the zoning it’s already in, I will scream.

Some extra considerations for this project because the 1895 chapel building (which will remain) is in a historic district, and the entire area is a downtown design zone.

First question (from Sarah Silver) is about target population for the affordable housing. That will help evaluate potential parking issues.

Did I mention there are parking concerns? Plans call for 19 surface parking spaces. And 30 new housing units. A 36% parking reduction, if granted.

Can anyone remind me of the formula to calculate the number of neighbors opposed based on those numbers?

A little flavor of the church campus (annex to follow separately):

Annex proposal takes us from this...

...to this:

Sarah Silver has questions about development/management of the affordable housing component. BHP declined to partner. Church intends to own and contract for management.

John Gerstle wants to know if there are balconies for the housing units, which there are, because it's required.

Lupita Montoya is having audio problems, which means someone else will have to read her questions/comments out loud, and I feel deprived.

And her question was why housing is planned as studios/1BR. Why not family housing? Answer: Developer is hoping to get LIHTC funding, which favors larger numbers of units (30 is in fact on the low side for this financing).

There was a question about underground parking: The annex is not really a large enough site, and it would make the project prohibitively expensive.

Lisa Smith coming in with environmental issues: flood mitigation (they're planning a basement in a 100-year flood zone), and solar et. al. Most of this is still being planned.

We're going on to a public hearing, and I think there are going to be a lot of folks from the condo complex directly to the east...and then, maybe, from me?

Some samples of correspondence to Planning Board:

Pretty standard stuff. Some folks are speaking through lawyers, always a good sign at the early stages of a project...

Neighbors are organized, each taking on one particular objection. Current speaker is worried that a private deck for annex residents will allow people to 'jump a fence' on to adjacent building decks.

They are also concerned about a larger event deck on the annex roof (which is designed to be buffered from neighboring residential buildings).

Neighbors have conducted anecdotal parking survey. Mark your bingo cards.

"People attending church park in front of our building", says a person who lives across the street from a church.

Here's something new: A commenter (also a neighbor) is worried about affordable housing being provided by a church. It's a first amendment issue. Will there be restrictions on the residents? Will tax credits get mixed into church funding?

Lynn Segal says she's sorry she was born on the wrong continent. Something about in Europe philanthropy isn't a thing.

The building on 15th and Canyon also looks like a ship's prow. If you want to look at a ship, you should go to the East coast.

So other than Lynn and me <gulp>, all commenters are from the 17th and Walnut condos adjacent to the annex.

I said my piece: Don't ask for changes that reduce the feasibility of housing, allow affordable housing residents access to the same kinds of outdoor spaces (decks) that wealthy neighbors already have, and pretty please be brave about parking reductions. It's downtown, after all.

Planning Board discussing now. Asking city staff about noise regulations and options for mitigation.

Oh my, just noticed this background. I really will miss Zoom meetings if we ever stop having them:

City staff is providing some background on religious institutions as affordable housing developers/managers. It's quite common, given ubiquity of downtown church properties. There are lots of protection for residents/public funders.

Peter Vitale: Asks if there is any experience/precedent in the city for "people jumping from rooftop to rooftop." City staff: No.

David Ensign: Do we have any experience/tools for mitigating alley impacts in downtown areas (neighbors were very worried about poor condition of an alley)?

We, don't apparently. Alleys are considered mostly for service functions and are mostly privately managed.

Broad agreement that the church + annex proposal meets the criteria of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. Can we get a "hallelujah"?

Sarah Silver is also not a fan of the 'glass prow' on the corner of 15th and Walnut.

Silver also concerned about interface with small historic houses to the east of the church itself, and wants some setbacks between the annex and the Walnut condos.

It always comes up: How accessible will required open spaces be to the public? But I really wish we could talk about activated sidewalks being part of the 'open space' benefit. More important in many ways than pocket courtyards and the like.

David Ensign going to bat for intensive land uses in DT-5 zoning. Apologetic to neighbors, but doesn't need to see extensive setbacks here.

But John Gerstle wants upper-floor setbacks, even if at the expense of housing potential.

Harmon Zuckerman spinning up ideas about parking...if you *added* housing at the church site (the proposal is below FAR after all), could underground parking pencil?

Zuckerman also wants to physical interventions to mitigate rooftop impacts (not just a good neighbor/management agreement).

Lisa Smith, editorializing more generally: Hopes to see attention to sustainability *beyond* code and financing requirements early in the process, based on very in-our-face climate crisis.

That's all for the Grace Church proposal, we'll see it again for a site review in the future.

Planning Board now talking about its annual letter to City Council. CC has asked some basic questions: "What has made you happy and sad about Planning Board this year?" Chair Harmon Zuckerman is *not* enthused about answering this.

Zuckerman's alternate question: "What was most encouraging and least encouraging approach to development we've seen this year?"

Some side talk now about the current fires, and a climate reckoning. Lupita Montoya says yes, and right now the priority is political change, including local leadership that enables racism.

Lisa Smith sharing her educational/professional background - all about climate. We're either at or past a tipping point. This should be included in annual letter to Council.

Parting thoughts from Peter Vitale: "Don't light any fires in your backyard to stay warm." That's a wrap from this gang until 11/5.