Thread by @shayshinecastle

I do not see a presentation for this one, but it's the Waterview project. Council will decide whether or not to "call-up" or review Planning Board's unanimous approval of this 317-unit project on east Arapahoe.

Mark Wallach wants to call it up. He'd "like to get to yes" on it but he has qs on why a height mod is being done with only "the bare minimum of affordable housing."

Some info on that:
5801 and 5847 Arapahoe Ave
317 housing units - 25% affordable (80 units)
15,000 sq ft commercial space (ground floor - restaurant, retail)
421 parking spaces (439 required - 4.1% reduction)

ELUs: 182 (57%)
1-BR: 91 (29%)
2-BR: 22 (7%)
3-BR townhomes: 22 (7%)

Planning Board OK’d 7-0 with this condition:
No amplified sound on the patio after 9:30 p.m.; 11 p.m. on Friday, Saturday

The affordable housing will be on-site and integrated, which may be a first for Boulder. On site incredibly difficult, and has been done before, but usually in separate buildings due to financing challenges.

Brockett notes the on-site affordable housing in saying he has no interest in calling it up. "We so rarely get" that, Brockett says. It's "exemplary" and meets the city's criteria well.

Looooong history of trying to develop this site unsuccessfully. Per staff notes:

2001-2002 (Waterview Center): 40+ dwellings, 200,000 sq ft of industrial space
Approved but never happened - land use changed in BVCP from Light Industrial to High Density Residential and zoned to RH-4 at property owner’s request

2005: 137 dwelling units, 46,000 sq ft of industrial - Concept review
“Perhaps in part due to some neighborhood resistance, this plan did not proceed to Site Review”

2011: 288 dwellings - concept review - Planning Board felt it “lacked compatibility” with neighboring residential areas and created “dead zone” on Arapahoe due to no amenities for the residents

2012: 263 dwellings, “associated amenity buildings” + 8,700 sq ft retail
Application withdrawn before Planning Board consideration

Also this from the notes, which tells you just how long Boulder has been trying to add more housing:
“The addition of residential development in industrial zones was permitted as a result of the Jobs/Population Project completed in 2003....

....Specifically, a part of Resolution No. 922, adopted by City Council in 2003, resulted in the addition of residential development in industrial zones stating that the city goal is to 'add housing as a conditional, use review, or by-right use in industrial zones'...”

Councilwoman Mary Young: I don't believe we're able to require voucher acceptance for rentals?

Landlords can't legally turn away voucher holders, per a law passed in Boulder and then at the state level. But I'm not sure the city can require it.

Kurt Firnhaber, housing and human services, confirms that: "They aren't required to accept vouchers, but we are in conversations with them to accept some vouchers. "

Reminder: Boulder now requires that any project receiving city $$ has to set aside some units for those who have formerly experienced homelessness.

But this is a private project.

Young, referencing the many failed attempts to develop this property: "I have been through at least half the site reviews" for proposed development here. "This is by far the best one."

Doesn't want to call it up.

Friend referencing the unanimous Planning Board approval: I think our "viewpoint-diverse" board reaching that agreement together says a lot.

Nagle, who is apparently absent but I swore was here earlier, told Weaver she wants to call it up, he says. Weaver doesn't: He agrees with Young.

No one else does, so this project will not be called up. This means Planning Board's approval is final and it will happen.

Two other call-ups: A multi-year expansion of the Ball Aerospace campus, also on East Arapahoe. This one's just in early phases, so actual plans will come back to Planning Board/council for approval.

Presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_4B_-…

And good background on that here: dailycamera.com/2021/02/02/bal…

Nagle also wants to call this up: The buildings will go to 55 ft. The Ball campus got the OK for that back in 2005 since BCH is nearby.

Nobody else seems to want to, but Brockett asks that developers think about street-facing design and good interaction with pedestrians, etc.

Touching a bit on Appendix J, which as you'll no doubt remember, is the map of where buildings can go to 55 ft while Boulder is under its "temporary" timeout on building to the city's established height limit.

That moratorium will be extended for a 6th(? or 7th) time to August, so that community benefit work can be completed.

Community Benefit = what developers have to "give" in return for building to 55 ft. (More affordable housing or commercial space, etc.)

Staff recommending adding Ball Aerospace and Diagonal Plaza to the list of exemptions (Appendix J).

Wallach on Ball Aerospace: "There are several buildings on site that may have landmark-able qualities to them." Has Landmarks Board weighed in?

No, Karl Guiler says. Staff has communicated with Ball that our preference is to preserve as much as possible, but there are "usability" concerns. Still, they are open to "updating and preserving" one building, but demo-ing the others.

Meschuk adds that Landmarks Board *will* weigh in during later stages of planning.

Still, no one wants to call that up, so moving on.

Thought about starting a new thread for this, but let's keep it all together: Possible call-up of the Hill hotel.

Presentation: www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_4C_-…

"For a change of pace, I do not want to call this up," Wallach says.

Council has touched this many, many times. It's been in the planning process since 2015.

Reminder: This is a 189-room hotel, parking garage, retail, small-scale office

Original plan was to co-develop with the city for parking garage. But price was too high ($100K per spot) so city decided to sell Pleasant Street lot to developers

City began negotiations for that in April 2019:
boulderbeat.news/2019/04/23/in-…

The hotel is meant as “catalyst” to “revitalize” the Hill., which has suffered from the part-time-ness of the student population and a lack of visitation by the rest of Boulder.
A council-commissioned report (the last of multiple) found it would: boulderbeat.news/2019/08/24/rep…

Planning Board OK’d this project 7-0 with conditions:
Lighted path for pedestrian safety
Alley management plan to be completed before permit issued
Plans for hot tub on east side of deck subject to city manager approval
Property management on-site 24/7

Brockett: We've been looking at this for the entire 5 years I've been on council. It's latest iteration is the best one. "Hopefully it will be the catalytic project we've been looking for."

No one wants to call this up either, so that's an 0 for 3 on development reviews. Not sure that's ever happened before. Strange times.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.