Thread by @CHThiem

I'm sorry if you were finally enjoying 2021, but I can't resist tonight's Boulder Planning Board meeting. There's a public hearing about converting the storied (and now landmarked) Marpa House into apartments, likely for students. It will be spicy!

I'm wrestling with a column on another infuriating topic on the side, so I might be just a tad salty too.

Yes, I know this is a demoralizing and self-destructive form of procrastination.

Writer, know thyself.

All others, please make this worth my while.

We've got 70+ people on the call as things get started. There was 300 pages of public correspondence submitted in advance, so that seems about right?

Chair Harmon Zuckerman is making a recruiting pitch for Boulder boards and commissions. Applications are due 1/28, and thus far there's only *one* person up for Planning Board....So get on it, y'all.

bouldercolorado.gov/boards-commiss…

That one person isn't me, btw.

A little appetizer before the main event: the Boulder Rez neighbors are here - as they appear to be everywhere of late - objecting to the liquor license granted to the new restaurant at the reservoir.

Also Lynn Segal wants to revisit the Macy's decision (which City Council already signed off on). This evening is going to be so wild.

Ok, the main event. Marpa House has been with us in some form since 1923. Originally it was the SAE frat house. The Marpa community dates to 1977.

Group living at the property (up to 50 people) is a non-conforming use, (legal, but not compliant with current zoning) and is generally allowed to continue with the change in ownership.

Getting technical here, the project requires review because its an *expansion* of the non-conforming use. Division into apartments creates more dwelling units (even tho it adds no people), and requires more parking. That's why we're here.

The surrounding Uni Hill neighborhood was downzoned to low-density residential in 1974, and that is the basis for many neighbors' complaints about the project.

Ah, but what *is* the proposal? Marpa would be renovated into 16 3BR apartments (max occupancy 3 humans per unit). The building's current community spaces would be eliminated.

City staff reminds Planning Board that the building is now landmarked, which limits how it can be reused. At 18,000+ square feet, its not suitable for single family occupancy.

Planning Board is trying to get clarity about how boarding house occupancy gets translated into allowable dwelling units after a renovation. When are 50 people not 50 people?

But actually it's not 50 people. A big deal - far too big, IMO - is being made about about the new occupancy being only 48.

Boarding house conversions to apartments have some history on the Hill, but not much in the last decade, according to city staff.

Sarah Silver wants to know if the 48-person occupancy could change in the future. Staff: It's linked to underlying zoning. Silver: "So if regulations around occupancy change, that number could go up."

John Gerstle is worried about people sharing bedrooms. If residents are related, the occupancy could go up very quickly.

Disclosure: People in my home share bedrooms and it's fine.

That was all Q&A with city planning staff. Now we get to hear from the developer.

Marpa was purchased by developer John Kirkland for ~$5M in 2019. A glance through the emails reveals Uni Hill neighbors really don't like him.

He owns several properties on the Hill. And the photos we're being shown, vs. the photos neighbors submitted, are worlds apart.

Kirkland's renovations eliminate all large gathering areas in older houses to mitigate noise/parties. This is a key part of their Marpa proposal.

Marpa's exterior may be landmarked, but the interior is worn and ad hoc in design. This is the case for a full renovation.

Kirkland's team is sour about the landmarking process, which was initiated while the sale was in progress. But they're satisfied with how it worked out.

Planning Board's John Gerstle is now concerned about future condominium conversions.

If things get slow I'll start adding up the forms of living he is worried about.

Sarah Silver has a question about the proposed Good Neighbor agreement. ICYMI she cut her political teeth hammering out one of those with Attention Homes in her neighborhood.

It was before my awake time. But I understand it was drama.

Anyway, there is good neighbor agreement for Marpa, mostly focused on rules in the apartment leases. Residents are individually and jointly responsible.

Based on the availability of individual leases, Silver wants to know if it's 'settled' that this will be housing for students (as opposed to families, faculty).

Kirkland's people: We wouldn't discriminate. But he goes on to say that 3 people is the limit even if the family is related. I think he's in over his head here...

Planning staff jumps into say that underlying zoning rules, and that doesn't restrict occupancy by related people.

Developer: This is mostly moot because this area is a student/university housing market. The intent is to have 48 people in the property, they are not looking for loopholes.

Summarizing because it really is this crazy: We're hearing a desire to limit the number of humans that can live here, even if that shuts out the nuclear families that the neighborhood claims to love more than the students who are the most likely neighbors.

We'll move to public comment after a quick break. There's over a hundred people on the call now, but only 30 with hands raised. Three minutes each, they're told...

I missed our first speaker start, but they are in favor! I don't expect we'll here much of this in the next few hours.

Second speaker: Also a fan. What is happening here?

Here come the nearby homeowners...This commenter is upset city staff didn't include neighborhood opposition in their memo to Planning Board. She and her spouse read all 300 pages of public comment and summarized it (in a spreadsheet?).

Our next speaker has an inventory of parking spaces on the block. There are 43, not the 50 claimed in the application. And after you take away *the owners* there are only 20-some available.

If you are monitoring Planning Board meetings as part of your 2021 self-improvement program, please note that 75% of all arguments are about parking.

Our next speaker is a design professional and likes the project. But cozy talk about the developer is not likely to get him points here.

Lots of Zoom public hearing newbies here tonight. We're losing more time than usual on unmuting and time overruns.

We had another statement of support, and now we have a speaker questioning the residence/affiliation of those in favor thus far. I gotta be honest a few have sounded a little astroturfy.

Here's a supporter who's a CU parent who has looked for student housing on the Hill. The neighbors may also discount her comment, but it's specific and authentic.

People on the call are now asking if commenters can be required to state an address (they can). This is getting ugly.

I'm queasy as hell about something we all overheard a few minutes ago. Someone accidentally unmuted: "I'm still listening to this, I did my thing, I earned my hundred dollars."

As a housing advocate, as an organizer, as someone who aspires to integrity even in the trenches, I'm gonna say right here that paying speakers is not ok, and astroturfing support is not what we're about.

Back to aggrieved homeowners - a handful have spoken while I sit with this - who may now have a much better chance of blocking housing. Here and elsewhere.

Current speaker is a CU affiliate who has liked the energy of a student neighborhood, but thinks it's gotten worse recently. The fireworks have been particularly bad.

Here are two more supporters with Hill addresses and connections but I'm not buying it.

And the hatred of student neighbors continues. This entire hearing makes me wants to curl up in a dark corner and cry.

Opponent: "I'm an actual *member* of this community, unlike other people who have been speaking." FML this stunt will do lasting damage.

"We should be talking about moving towards conformity and removing a group home." Thank you for your contribution, there are so many better reasons to support apartments here or anywhere.

Transport this comment back in time to the days of blockbusting: Allowing student apartments here will reduce the pool of families willing to buy my home.

Lisa Spalding of the Uni Hill Neighborhood Association wants affordable housing, but not space for wealthy, entitled undergraduate students.

I gotta say, if the students got on the call as part of a hustle, they are making a valiant effort to adapt their remarks on the fly. They're listening...even as this speaker is mocking them and asking the city attorney to investigate.

A rep for one of the nearby Greek houses supports the Marpa renovation, but has concerns about potential behavior issues. This meeting is making my head explode.

"This City of Boulder has decided that this is a low density neighborhood. And we need to make sure it conforms to that."

Reminder: zoning is not immutable (though often inscrutable).

"When the sorority is full, we have 70 cars in our neighborhood." More cars are a density bomb. We can't stay low-density with so many cars.

It's all about the parking.

Until it's about the noise. Parties, but also air conditioning. If this is approved, the sorority next door might also want air conditioning.

Putting boys next to a sorority is apparently also a danger. "Like bees to honey." Wake me in the real 2021, please.

Y'all, I think this suspected astroturfing incident is going to become one of Lynn Segal's standard talking points. If it wasn't already unforgivable...

Former City Council member Jan Burton (a neighbor) is speaking against. She's usually in the pro-housing camp, so...

Barry McKim is a long-time Hill resident and questions neighbors' complaints about wealth. Students should have access to better housing. "Let's get 48 kids out of the dumps they're living in."

Laura Deluca is CU faculty who was steered away from the Hill when she moved here. She ignored that advice, and loves her home. She wants housing, but with more *economic* diversity than new student apartments would bring.

This evening wouldn't be complete without a lawyer representing several homeowners reporting the home addresses of suspected paid speakers.

Anyone want to place bets on how long Marpa will sit empty?

Public comment is now closed, and the developer's team is allowed to make a rebuttal. They're offended by suggestions of bought support. Obviously. Beyond that, they fall back on having followed City processes and recommendations.

Planning Board deliberations: Both Gerstle and Silver object because the proposal decreases compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

Silver has a long statement to that effect, and she offered to skip reading it given the late hour. Zuckerman encourages her to put it in the record. Are they building a case against?

Lupita Montoya is also getting on this train. If she's leaning against a proposal for student housing, you may have a problem.

David Ensign is dancing around the issue of increasing or decreasing of nonconformity. He wants to hear what others think before deciding.

Zuckerman makes a connection to housing co-ops when discussing parking complaints. We don't have a problem limiting cars at co-ops, but we seem hesitant to do it here. But parking exceptions are discretionary here, and we can cap what's allowed.

Peter Vitale seems likely to deny this based on nonconforming uses. He's on board with conditions on approval too, but doesn't think it will be necessary (i.e. it won't be approved).

Zuckerman is getting really into the code here. Boulder is quite liberal in allowing for expansion of nonconforming uses. That's why we have a process for it. You have to give properties a chance to change or the building will be run into the ground.

For casual observers, this is delicate maneuvering happening right now. Because this is a quasi-judicial hearing, there are only limited legally-allowable grounds for denying an application.

If they deny it. I'm sure at least a few are wondering what would happen if the ground opened up and swallowed the whole property. That might be cleaner.

David Ensign is uncomfortable with characterizing students as separate from the community. It's reasonable to have students living in this area. When you tell stories about imaginary future residents in places, that can become a distraction. This area is in transition.

Sarah Silver gets confirmation that if a nonconforming use ceases for a year the property loses that right. Kirkland has rented out portions of Marpa since acquiring it to preserve the use as a boarding house.

Zuckerman: If we deny this application does the clock get reset? Because it would be 'absolute mania' if this building was forced to become a single family house.

Peter Vitale isn't sure if Planning Board is allowed to have the conversation, but there are surely other more acceptable uses of this property...

Zuckerman is bringing things back to the decision required: Approve, approve with conditions, or deny.

So, on to conditions. Silver wants to know if a limit to three unrelated occupants can be made permanent - not lifted by future code changes. Answer: it can.

David Ensign suggests parking limits as a condition. And perhaps add on-site management to the good neighbor agreement.

Gerstle wants to send it back and ask for something different. Like a boarding house with onsite management. 🤯

Straw poll: Four of seven are leaning towards denying the application.

City Attorney Hella Pannewig introduces a twist: You could condition approval on a lower number of units, if that's of interest. Silver lights up.

David Ensign's concern about outright denial is that this becomes a zombie project. Planning Board is never forced to enumerate its concerns, so they continue to get unacceptable proposals.

Did someone say zombie? I have 2/3 of a column to write before noon tomorrow.

The developer's team is back on to discuss their openness to conditions. But they're mostly just defending their process and the proposal as it stands.

There is this procedural thing called a 'continuation' that has been mentioned a few times, and I think that would be a humane gesture at this point.

What Planning Board (and the neighbors) really seem to want is housing for quiet graduate students and graduate students with families. Not to burst their bubble, but 3BR apartments can be that.

Development team with some sense: We can't discriminate between applicants. Targeting has to happen through design. And they maintain they've designed against large gatherings.

They're discussing limits on how the apartments might be marketed. David Ensign shuts it down: We're not likely to come up with anything enforceable. I'm dying.

Silver and Montoya: One way to make it family-friendly is to add a playground.

Harmon Zuckerman just found five votes for a continuation, which means I might get some sleep soon. Gerstle and Montoya either want to pull an all-nighter or just nuke this thing right now.

Discussion will resume on 2/18, with no additional public comment accepted. City staff will try to codify the conditions board members requested before then.

There are a few odds and ends remaining, but I'm done. @threadreaderapp, please unroll!