Thread by @shayshinecastle

This is the development I was talking about earlier:
2504 Spruce Street
2.33-acre parcel
63 units + gym
(Phase 1) 16 townhomes, 2 apartments
(Phase 2) Up to 45 apartments of various sizes

This is just a concept plan, so a feedback stage. Staff presentation: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

There's also an issue here with a possible landmark on the site, which would reduce the amount of housing. And some other interesting info.

Like this: Just 28 homeowner units have become available in our affordable housing stock since 2015

This property is between Spruce and Pearl, Folsom and 28th. ARES thrift store is there, a scooter store, an auto shop and I think a pilates studio...?

8 on-site units would be permanently affordable

Planning Board took this up Sept. 2. They generally liked the plan, but suggested that the Mecca building maybe should become a landmark and be integrated into the site rather than redeveloped.

The applicant said it would result in a loss of 17 homes there. It's possible they could build higher (a fourth story) to recover some, staff said.

Here's that potentially landmark-able building.

Friend: How many sq ft is this building?
Staff not sure.
Friend: It looks like an interesting building; I can understand why ppl might be interested in landmarking it. Do buildings ever get moved? Can that be done?

Yes, Charles Ferro said. We moved the Depot. (Totally remember when that happened! It was cool!)

City also moved homes on Uni Hill. I remember those, too!

"I wouldn't say it was easy," Ferro says. "It requires a tremendous commitment from the developer."

"It's not generally the first approach from a historic preservation POV," says James Hewat, senior historic preservation planner.

Apparently built in 1972 which "doesn't sound like that long ago," says Friend with a laugh. "Sorry, that was a Gen X joke."

Some discussion over what council can require during a concept plan RE: mandating on-site affordable homes. The line of thinking was, if we don't landmark so we get more housing, can we require those to be affordable?

Staff says the only way to require more affordable housing is if they add height, via community benefit. But the applicant always has the option of paying cash instead.

It's hard to get into that during concept plan review, Kurt Firnhaber says, bc we don't know enough about the size of units, type of units, etc. And we always "have to give the developer options."

"However, your input is helpful," Firnhaber says.

Wallach questioning why we're getting so few affordable units.
I *think* the answer is a mix of on-site units and cash-in-lieu.

It's tricky bc it's a mix of rental and for-sale units, which have different requirements.

Are we allowed to condition approval on moving a building that may be landmarked? is the q from Friend/Weaver

Hella Pannewig, senior assistant city attorney: I'd want to take another look at that in the code.

"It seems like that may be possible."

Of course, no requirements during concept plan (which is for non-binding feedback). But in later stages, maybe.

Wallach asks about size, price of for-sale, market-rate townhomes
~2,600 sq ft, applicant says. $2.2-$2.4M each in today's dollars

Ali Gidfar is the applicant. Phase 1 will be all for-sale, he says. Phase 2 should be rental. We'd like to make it for-sale, but we're struggling to do that (bc of Colorado's laws around condo construction).

"This project isn't large enough for BHP or an agency like that to be interested in managing it," Gidfar says. City staff said we should do cash-in-lieu instead of on-site affordable rentals.

Young asks about the total number of units.
Gidfar: We have to do so few bc we need so much open space per unit. That's how we came up with 63 units total.

"We feel it would be better to have 2- and 3-BR than 1BR and efficiencies since there are so many of those being built right now," Gidfar says. That's why we're going with larger units.

Young: You mentioned the difficulty in creating more on-site for-sale units. 16 is the max you can have for sale?
Gidfar: It's actually 18.

Young: Did you consider playing around with the number of bedrooms to try and get more units?
Gidfar: The reason it works in Phase 1 is that they are built in a vertical fashion. They don't stack on top of one another. We can build them and have less exposure to the defects law.

"I really wanted to have more units," Gidfar says.

Kinda hard to explain Colorado's condo construction defects law, but it's one big reason we get so few for-sale condos. Or at least according to many folks in the biz. And the data.

Young: Have you had any convos with BHP about taking that second phase and maybe doing your cash-in-lieu on that site to do a higher % of affordable housing?
No, Gidfar says.

Joseph: If we call this up, it's bc we want more housing and more affordable housing. Can we convince you to reduce the size of units and increase the number?
Gidfar: "We've packed in as many as we can, so we can keep them vertical, reasonable width and so you can park under them

"I'm not sure how to increase the number beyond the building form we have," Gidfar says.

Weaver: I had the impression the condo defects issue was solved... that's why so many have been built in Denver and other places. Why is this still an issue?

"I wish we had," Gidfar said. "We really want to do the second phase as for-sale" units.

But Gidfar's attorney is still researching. One issue seems to be 20% extra due to liability insurance/costs and different construction techniques. They could possibly do them as for-sale.

Brockett: I'm interested in calling it up, not because I believe the project should be turned down. But I think we should help navigate these sticky issues around landmarking, etc.

Joseph and Friend in favor of a call-up as well.

Yates as well. "I think it's actually to your benefit to hear what we have to say sooner rather than later."

Council and Gidfar agrees to a Nov. 30 call-up for this. I'll learn more in the meantime for ya.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!