Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK, Marpa House call-up. www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_4A_8…

Landmarked in May, initially over property owner objections. He eventually got on board.
boulderbeat.news/2020/05/08/bou…

The proposal is to take it from group living to 16 3BR units.
To be called Ash House

Planning Board OK’d this re-use unanimously with conditions:
Number of cars be limited / renters disclose if they own a car
On-site management required 24/7
Occupancy limited to 1 per BR (no matter what happens with occupancy limits)

Imposition of quiet hours (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.; 11 p.m. - 8 am weekends)
Good neighbor agreement created
and
The apartments must be marketed to more than just students

Because traffic and parking have been stated concerns, here's some traffic and parking data:

Traffic study: 7% reduction in average daily vehicle trips
71% reduction in morning rush hour trips
20% reduction in evening rush hour trips

Parking utilization at 36% on Aurora/12th, according to study: 132 available spots; 48 used

12th Street
Cascade Ave to Aurora Ave: 50 spots - 21 used (43%) 3-5 p.m.
Aurora Ave to Euclid Ave: 45 spots - 12 used (25%) 2-3 p.m.

Aurora Ave
11th St to 12th St: 20 spots - 13 used (62%) 10 a.m. - noon
12th St to 13th St: 17 spots - 2 used (7%) 9 a.m. - 5 p.m.

As you heard earlier, the idea of student housing is a big concern of neighbors who believe it will change neighborhood character. This was previously a fraternity, but it's been Buddhist group living for awhile.

Yates moves to call this up. "We'll probably discover we can do a lot less than community members hope we can." But he wants to see if council "can improve upon" Planning Board's condition.

Conditions* for approval

Wallach seconds.

Brockett: If this isn't OK'd, what could the property owner do with it? Did I hear that frats/sororities are allowed?

Sloane Walbert, city planner: Correct. Any group living situation would be allowed, but they couldn't add bedrooms or people.

Currently considered 1 dwelling unit where 50 ppl are allowed to live in dorm-style rooms.

Nagle also wants to call it up "considering the outcry from the neighborhood."

Friend asking what else the property could be used for if council denies this project, other than a frat/sorority

Some other uses:
Transitional housing
Daycare
Emergency shelter
Governmental facility
Religious assembly
School / college / adult education

Walbert: They would be more likely to operate it as it is today than to do one of these by-right uses.

Friend: If we call it up, what authority does council actually have? What can we require?

Walbert: There are v. specific review criteria. You might be able to make argument that it doesn't fit with the neighborhood character

Council votes 7-2 to call this up. Friend, Joseph opposed.

Brockett: To Yates' point, "we may only have edges to tinker around in here."

Friend: "I suspect we will only be able to tinker at the edges at best," which is why she voted no. "With our limited time, we'd be better spent" digging into other ways to help the situation on the Hill.

I'd rather focus where we can "dig in rather than nibble," she says.

A public hearing will be required, so whenever this is scheduled (I think within 60 days) it will prob be a long one.

Weaver on his yet vote: We'll mostly be reviewing Planning Board's conditions and perhaps alter them, and perhaps deny or perhaps approve as Planning Board did.

Yes* vote

Young: There's another reasons to call it up, to better understand what policy changes may be needed in the future.

Swetlik: Maybe we can ask the community to agree with previous speakers to move the public hearing along more swiftly.

Good luck with that.

Already dreading this.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.