6 - City Council Study Session Material - Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park Boulder City Council
Study Session
August 12, 2008
6:00 - 8:0o p.m.
Discussion about city options for the orchard
Grove Mobile Home Park
1777 Broadway
Municipal BuildiY2~
City Council Chambers
Submit Written Comments to City Council
ATT~N: Alisa Lcwis, City Clerk
1777 l;roadway, 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306
or Fax to 303-441-4478
or F•.-mail council cr)bouldercolorado.gou
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor McGrath and Members of City Council
FROM: Stephanie A. Grainger, Interim City Manager
Paul Fetherston, Acting Deputy City Manager
Karen Rahn, Acting Director, Housing and Human Services
Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director
Jann Oldham, Acting Housing Division Director
Cindy Pieropan, Housing Planner
DATE: August 8, 2008
SUBJECT: Study Session: August 12, 2008
Discussion about city options for the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park
PURPOSE:
"1'he purpose of this item is to present to City Council information about options that could be
considered to address concerns related to the potential sale and redevelopment of the Orchard
Grove Mobile Home Park. The options include the City Council directed rezoning of the 27-
acre Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park with mobile home (MH) zoning, city funding and
various ownership options along with other zoning options.
F,X1?;CUTIVF. SUMMARY:
Orchard Grove, a 27 acre mobile home park at the northeast corner of 30`h and Valmont,
established in 1963, currently contains 2l 6 homes with an additional five acre vacant parcel
northeast of the Park. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) land use designation
of the 27 acre parcel is Manufactured Housing while the tive acre parcel has a land use
designation of Medium Density Kesidential. Both parcels are zoned medium density
residential and under the same ownership. The Park has been privately owned by a Boulder
partnership that has maintained historically below market mobile home space rents.
Orchard Grove is currently for sale and under contract. A private sector developer had
originally expressed an interest in purchasing the Park and redeveloping it with a higher
density development that would include 30 to 40 percent permanently affordable housing.
Given the impending sale of the Park, the residents expressed concerns about the loss of their
homes, their community and their lifestyles.
At its June~3, 2008 meeting, City Council passed a motion (9-0) directing staff to develop
options to address concerns about the potential loss of relatively affordable housing and
displacement of residents that could result from the redevelopment of Orchard Grove. At its
July 8, 2008 meeting, council passed a motion (7-2) initiating rezoning of the Park with
Mobile Home (MI l) zoning. At its July 29 meeting, council decided to place; discussion of this
t
item on the August 12 Study Session agenda. On Aug. 7, 2008 Planning Board held a public
hearing on the rezoning ordinance for the 27-acre park and unanimously recommended
approval of the ordinance. Staff will return to City Council with a first reading of the
rezoning ordinance on Aug 19, 2008. The public hearing and second reading of the ordinance
is scheduled for Sept. 2, 2008. The rezoning would bring the mobile home park into
conformance with the BVCP land use designation. Some council members have also
expressed a desire to rezone a 5 acre undeveloped parcel within the Pazk to MH zoning. That
parcel is currently zoned RM-1 and is in conformance with the BVCP land use designation.
Rezoning the 5 acre parcel would include changing the BVCP land use map and would
therefore need to proceed under a separate process from the rezoning of the 27-acre parcel.
At its Aug. 7 public hearing Planning Board recommended waiting to make changes to the 5-
acre parcel until council had discussions on options and staff could provide further analysis of
a range of issues (see Boazd Feedback p. 8).
Staff has met with representatives of the mobile home pazk and the prospective purchaser to
explore options to address concerns about the potential loss of affordable housing and
displacement of residents that could result from the redevelopment of the Orchard Grove
Mobile Home Park.
Based on discussions with the Orchard Grove residents, public testimony, council feedback
and adopted city policies, staff has identified the following potential goals for purposes of
assessing options:
1. Preserve the mobile home use
2. Preserve the relative affordability of the existing mobile homes
3. Preserve the defining physical site characteristics such as the wildlife and mature
landscape
4. Avoid displacement of current homeowners
5. Preserve the community diversity and demographics of the existing mobile home park
C. Create some amount of permanently affordable housing
7. Replacement of current infrastructure
The options presented for council consideration are as follows:
1. Rezone the 27-acre mobile home parcel with MH zoning
• Rezone both the 27 acre parcel and the 5 acre parcel with MH zoning
2. Use city subsidy funds to:
• Provide rental or relocation assistance to existing, eligible residents
• Purchase or help another entity purchase the Park
• Purchase a vacant parcel and develop a new mobile home park
3. Resident purchase of Park with no city subsidy
4. Negotiate with current or future owner of Park
5. Maintain current medium density zoning
6. Re-zone one or both parcels with RMX-2 zoning that provides incentives for more
permanently affordable housing than the 20% required by inclusionary zoning.
The analysis provided in this memo indicates that no single option addresses all of the
potential goals. Given this, council may wish to consider a combination of options.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Are the potential goals identified appropriate?
2. Would council like further analysis or information on specific options? Are there
options the council feels should he explored further?
BACKGROUND:
1. Location and General Property Characteristics
Orchard Grove is a 27 acre mobile home park on the northeast corner of 30`x' St. and Valmont
Rd. It contains 216 mobile homes, mature trees and landscaping and has an aged, private
utility system. "the Boulder and Whiterock Ditch roughly bisects the Park diagonally. A
' separate, vacant parcel of approximately five acres is to the northeast of the site, a portion of
which has been used by the homeowners of the Park as a community garden area. There are
some mobile homes that appear to encroach into the vacant five acre parcel. The Park is
accessed off Valmont Road with private streets within the Park. It is isolated from its
surroundings as it is bounded on three sides by public streets and none of the streets interior to
the Park connect to neighboring properties.
j.. =pit - .<1~
-
i
~ ..~i ~ ~
- :r
4:'.u. - 1~
.r..,'
- r>, .
_ t 1`
3 -
"k: ; r;
I;' R ~ ~
_
_ ~.1
d~
- ;
~ ! ,
kz z:. ~
2•
_
t C ~ .'.Rti
r
3
2. Mobile Homes vs. Manufactured Housing
Mobile homes and manufactured housing are types of housing that are not constructed on
fixed foundations. fioth of the terms "mobile home" and "manufactured housing" are used in
any discussion of a mobile home park. The distinction stems from the construction standard
for each. Prior to 1976, there were minimal building code regulations governing the
production of mobile homes. In 1976, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) codes went into effect and the term "manufactured housing" _
is used to describe homes constructed after 1976. Pre-HUD homes are a particularly
challenging segment of the mobile home market, with different criteria for loans, insurance,
life span, and energy efficiency than post 1976 homes. Of the 216 homes in Orchard Grove,
according to Boulder County Assessor data, 71 % or 154 homes have apre-1976 construction
date and 29% or 62 homes have a post 1976 construction date.
It is a common practice in some mobile home parks for park owners to require pre-1976
homes to be removed from the park when they are sold so that newer, manufactured homes
meeting HUD standards maybe brought in. This has not been the case at Orchard Grove
where the current owners of the Park have allowed the existing mobile homes be sold to new
residents and remain within the Park, regardless of the construction date or standard of the
home.
3. General Condition of the Utilities in the Park & Financial Considerations
Orchard Grove has an aged, private utility distribution system within the Park. Sewer lines
are forty-five year old cast iron pipes while city water is brought into a cistern in the Park,
augmented with well water and then distributed to homes. These utility conditions have been
confirmed by the prospective purchaser's engineering firm referenced in the Orchard Grove
Situational Summary (Attachment A). Key information from the engineering firm and city
engrineering staff include:
• The well/cistern pump system on site was connected to a 2" city water
meter tapped off of 30th Street in 1963. The on-site private, domestic water
distribution system is composed of 4" iron pipes that are currently beyond their
expected design life.
• The water system as it exists today appears to violate the city's cross connection
regulations as spelled out in BRC 11-1-13 (a). 1'he cross connection regulations are
desibmed to prevent contamination of treated, city water with untreated private water.
A private water supply maybe used for irrigation, but not for human consumption
and under no circumstances may it be connected to the city's water supply. When
violations of the city's utility codes are identified, property owners are typically given
30 - 180 days to correct the violation. The exact level of risk is a function of the
backflow prevention beyond the city meter and the protection provided by the
well/cistern pump feeding the private water distribution system.
• Fire protection is provided by a separate, private 6" Clean-in-Place (CIP) system
tapped off of 30`h Street. Hydrant spacing around the Park appears to be adequate.
Since the system is private, the condition of the system or the maintenance history on
4
the hydrants is unknown. Based on CIP construction, it is estimated that this system
is at least 20 years old.
The prospective purchaser has estimated the cost to replace infrastructure at $6,000,000. In a
letter dated July 24, 2008, the owner of the Park estimates the infrastructure replacement cost
at $7,500,000 (Owner Representative Letter, Attachment 13). Tlie existing homeowners, in
their report to entitled "Our Vision of Orchard Grove" (Attachment C), use an amount of
$9,000,000. Staff believes the actual cost to upgrade utilities in the existing park could be
significantly higher. The Mapleton Mobile Home Park recently completed replacement of wet
and dry utilities in a portion of the park. The total cost was approximately $3,400,000,
covering roughly 10•acres and 90 mobile home spaces. Orchard Grove is 27 acres and
contains 216 mobile home spaces. Since the inception of the Mapleton Mobile Home Park
project, key materials costs have increased 50% to 200%.
Based on Mapleton Mobile Home Park infrastructure replacement costs, begun in 2006 and
updated with construction cost inflation information from the Engineering News Record and
Colorado Department of Transportation, staff estimates the Orchard Grove infrastructure
improvement cost to be between $15,000,000 and $17,000,000.
Two tables provided below illustrate the approximate amount of total debt that various
average lot rents could support in a 215 unit mobile home park (with one rent-free unit for the
manager). These figures are based on a 20 year loan at 6.5% interest, $450,000 per year in
operating expenses and a 7% vacancy rate. This covers the cost of purchasing the total 32
acres, operating and upgrading the existing mobile home park and leaves the five acre lot
vacant. Current market rent for a mobile home space is approximately $500 per month.
Resident Project Cost Estimate. Using a total project cost of $24,000,000 ($15,000,000
purchase price plus $9,000,000 infrastructure replacement cost,) the table below illustrates the
total amount of one-time subsidy needed, based upon different average space rents, to
complete the purchase of and utility improvements in the Park.
$24,000,000 Purchase & [:tilit~ [~p~,raclc Project Cost - Ile.~~irlent Estimate
Average ;~nic,unt of 'I'ota) Project Per Space
1Vlobilc I)cbt Cost Gap ($24NI Gap Cost (or
Home Suhliort:ible »rina.c per space
Space Rent with .Annual Supportable subsidy
Net Income Ucht) needed
$325 i
current) ~3,ZU5.~42 ~2U,794,>58 $96,719
$500 _-_--`~7:~8(~;4y7 $1 fi,713.S13 $77,737
$600 _ I ~ 12 - ` I =1,38_1,488 $66,891
$700 1 I ,97(~,~38 12,U49,4G2 $56,044
$800 `~'1-1 ~8',~G4 `~2,717,43(i $45,197
$900 _ ~lc~,(~1,~1,~~s9 ~ ~7,385,4I1 $34,351
$1,000 l ~`?,9~6,!i l > ~
~,U53,38~ $23,504
$1,200 ~23;C1U,6~(i S`~89,334 $1,811
5
Approximately $21,000,000 is needed to maintain the current level of affordability in the Park
under this scenario.
Staff Project Cost Estimate. Using the same assumptions as above, but with a $16,000,000
infrastructure replacement cost, the total amount of one-time subsidy needed, based upon
different average space rents, to complete the purchase of and utility improvements in the
Park is as follows:
$32,000,OOU Purchase ~1 Utility tlpQracie Project Cost -Staff'I;.ctimate
Average Amount of Totnl Project Per Space
Mobile Dcbt Cost (:ap ($32NI Gap Cost (or
Home Supportable n:ifru.s per space
Space Rent with :annual Supportable subsidy
Net Income Debt needed
$325
current) 53,21)5,442 _ $28,794,558 $133,928
$500 $7,286,487 $24,713,513 $114,947
$600 $9,618,512 $22,381,488 $104,100
$700 $11,9.SU,538 $20,049,462 $93,253
$800 $14,2$2,564 $17,717,436 $82,407
$900 S 16,G 14,589 $15,385,411 $71,560
$1,000 18,946,615 $13,053,385 $60,713
$1,200 $23,610,f66 $8,389,334 $39,020
$1400 $28,274,717 $3,725,283 $17,327
$1600 $32,938,768 $938,768 n/a
Under this scenario, approximately $29,000,000 is needed to maintain the current level of
affordability in the Park.
4. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Existing B UCP Land Use Map and Zoning
The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) contains the city's long term goals and
policies and a land use map that provides a generalized picture of the desired future land uses.
The city's zoning code regulates every parcel of land in the city in terms of allowable uses,
density, setbacks, height, requirements for affordable housing, solar access protection, etc.
The BVCP land use map designates the 27 acre Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park as
Manufactured Housing (MH) and the 5 acre vacant parcel as Medium Density Residential
(MR). Currently, both the 27 acre mobile home parcel and the vacant five acre parcel are
zoned medium density residential (Rv1-1); however, City Council initiated rezoning of the 27
acre parcel to Mobile Home (MH-E) zoning. Planning Board held a public hearing in
consideration of the rezoning on August 7 and recommended approval of the rezoning (see
Planning Board Feedback, page 8) and City Council will consider it on August 19 (first
reading) and September 2 (second reading).
Background on both M11-E zoning and RM-1 zoning districts is provided in the Analysis
section of the memo (see Option 1 and Option 5 respectively) and Attachment D includes
maps of the existing BVCP band Use designations and zoning on the site and in the area.
BVCP Policies
Three BVCP policies are relevant to the Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park discussion and
influenced staff s identification of the overall goals for the project. These include:
• Preservation of Community Character (Policy 2.l 4)
• Preservation of Existing Housing Stock (Policy 7.07)
• Preservation and Development of Manufactured Housing (Policy 7.08)
These policies are provided in full in Attachment D.
5. Housing Affordability
Mobile homes and manufactured housing have traditionally been an affordable housing option
for lower income households.
The following table provides manufactured housing industry general prices for different sizes
of homes from the Mobile Home Quote wcbsite for Affordable Manufactured Housing:
Size Home Width Construction Quali Price
350 to 450 s uare feet single high grade $50,000
600 to 800 s . ft sin lc econom $24,000
1050 to 1 l 50 s . ft. sin le mid- ade $38,000
l 250 to 1350 s . ft. double mid- ~ ade $48,000
1800 to 1900 s . ft. double or tri le mid-grade $72,000
2000 to 2200 sq. ft. double or tri le high-grade $95,000 +
Relative to Boulder's median single family home price of $550,000, a manufactured Home
price of $40,000 to $95,000 is more affordable for lower income households. Mobile and
manufactured homes are treated as real property for property taxation purposes, titled through
the Department of Motor Vehicles and treated as personal property for financial purposes.
Interest rates for personal loans are higher than real estate mortgage rates due to the financial
risk involved for the lender. Manufactured homeowners do not receive the mortgage interest
tax deduction.
Given the Colorado law prohibiting private sector rent control, the city cannot require
permanently affordable mobile home space rents without an ownership interest by the city,
the city's housing authority or other similar agency in a mobile home park.
PLANNING BUAItD AND FEEDBACK:
Based upon council direction, an ordinance rezoning the 27 acre parcel from MR-1 to MH
was presented to the Planning Board on August 7. The Board recommended approval of the
rezoning ordinance for the 27 acre parcel from medium density residential to mobile home (6-
0, Johnson absent), adopting the staff memorandum as findings.
On the 5 acre vacant parcel, Planning Board felt that it would be premature to consider a land
use designation change until the full range of options to address other outstanding issues have
been completed. 'Therefore, the Board recommended waiting until council has had its Aug. 12
study session and staff has provided additional analysis on a range of issues such as those
listed below. Some of the information requested by the board include:
• History of the land use pattern in the area
• History of any agreements that were made between the city and the land owner
• An analysis of site opportunities and constraints (existing and proposed connections to
surrounding area, access, existing amenities, etc.)
• A comparison of the how traditional affordable housing compares to manufactured
housing in terms of providing long term affordability.
• Abetter understanding of how the infrastructure changes that maybe needed over
time can be paid for.
• • What the uses currently are on the 5 acre parcel (some of the recreational amenities
may be required to meet existing mobile home zoning requirements, for example).
• Analysis of number of units that could be built under different zoning districts/
scenarios.
The board recommended that any potential changes to the five acre parcel be considered as
soon as the above analysis is completed and did not feel that changes should wait until the
next major BVCP update.
PUBLIC FEF,DBACK:
The residents and supporters of Orchard Grove have spoken on this matter during public
participation at recent City Council meetings. Staff has met four times with Orchard Grove
residents, two of which included the prospective purchaser. 'The homeowners have expressed
a strong desire to preserve affordability, diversity, the existing community and way of life.
Specifically, residents have spoken about the wildlife, trees, spacious yards and the overall
quality of life in the Park as well as the time and money spent on their homes. Many of the
residents have expressed their desire to have the Park rezoned with MH zoning and to leave
the vacant five acre parcel undeveloped.
Approximately 175 members of the public attended the Aug. 7 public hearing on rezoning, a
majority of whom stood up to support rezoning of the park. The property owners'
representative spoke in opposition to rezoning, referencing his letter in Attachment B.
ANALYSIS:
Based on discussions with the Orchard Grove residents, public testimony, council feedback
and adopted city policies, staff has suggested the following potential goals that the options
could attempt to address:
1. Preserve the mobile home use
A
2. Preserve the relative affordability of the existing mobile homes
3. Preserve the defining physical site characteristics such as the wildlife and mature
landscape
4. Avoid displacement of current homeowners
5. Preserve the community diversity and demographics of the existing mobile home park
6. Create some amount of permanently affordable housing
7. Replacement of current infrastructure
The options presented for council consideration are as follows:
1. Rezone the 27-acre mobile home parcel with MH zoning
• Rezone both the 27 acre parcel and the 5 acre parcel with MH zoning
2. Use city subsidy funds to:
• Provide rental or relocation assistance to existing, eligible residents
• Purchase or help another entity purchase the Park
• Purchase a vacant parcel and create a new mobile home park
3. Resident purchase of Park with no city subsidy
4. Negotiate with current or future owner of Park
5. Maintain current medium density zoning
6. Re-zone one or both parcels with RMX-2 zoning that provides incentives for more
permanently affordable housing than the 20% required by inclusionary •roning.
Below is a more in-depth description and analysis of each option. Staff is seeking council
feedback on whether the potential goals outlined above are appropriate and what options
should be explored further.
9
Option 1 -Rezone 27 Acre Parcel to M>3 (Mobile Home)
Description
This option is currently in process (see Planning Board Feedback, page 8) however, since it
can be combined with other options, it is fully described here. Currently, the 27 acre parcel
which contains the existing 216 mobile homes has a BVCP land use designation of
Manufactured Housing. Rezoning the 27 acres with Mobile Home (MI1) zoning would
further BVCP goals and policies and bring the parcel into compliance with the BVCP and
thus meets the criteria for rezoning required by the city's land use regulations.
Rezoning the parcel would preserve the mobile home use as that is the only residential use
allowed in the MIi zone. The purpose of the Mobile Home zone is stated as follows:
"Mobile home parks primarily used and developed at a medium residential density where
complementary uses maybe allowed under certain conditions."
Zoning
Under MH zoning and with a modified site plan, the 27 acre site could potentially add a few
new mobile homes. Using roughly the current street widths and a 50 foot ditch buffer, the 27
acres could potentially have approximately 221 units. It should be noted that if and when
existing mobile homes which encroach into the ditch buffer or onto the adjacent five acre
parcel are replaced, the new homes would not be able to continue these encroachments
without a lot line adjustment.
Infrastructure
The infrastructure in the existing park is aged and will need to be replaced in the future. Staff
has learned that the domestic water supply does not meet the city's code requirements
regazding cross connections. Depending upon the extent and duration of the infrastructure
improvements, the project maybe expensive and disruptive for the existing residents.
Rezoning the existing park with MH zoning alone does not help to finance the needed
infrastructure improvements.
Financial
The financial costs associated with purchasing and improving the Pazk may result in increased
mobile home space rents regardless of whether the Park is owned by a public, private or non-
profit entity. Staff does not have specific income information about existing Orchard Grove
residents, however, a useful comparison maybe the Mapleton Mobile Home Park. Fifty-five
percent (55%) of the residents earned less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) and
35% of the residents earned between 30%AMI and 60%AMI.
Existing Cvnamunity
To support the purchase price, without infrastructure improvements or any development on
the vacant five acres, lot rents may need to average $850 per month, an increase above the
current average of $325. This increase may displace some current low and very low-income
homeowners.
10
While the mobile home use would be preserved, MH zoning would not ensure that the
existing homes could remain in the Park when a current mobile homeowner decided to sell.
Park owners who wish to upgrade their park might not allow a home that is being sold to
remain in the park upon sale. In Boulder, the majority of the value of a given mobile home is
tied to its location. Once that home is removed from its Boulder location, particularly if it is
an older, pre-1976 home, that home has limited value.
Other Potential Outcomes & Considerations
• From a strict land use perspective, the site could support additional mobile home or
manufactured home spaces. In order to increase park revenues, the existing arrangement
of homes could be re-done to accommodate additional homes, changing some of the
existing site features and characteristics.
• The Park could be sold to a corporate manufactured housing community company and
redeveloped into ahigh-end manufactured housing park.
• If funding is not secured for the infrastructure replacement, the Park could be closed due
to the inability to provide domestic water system that meets city code.
• Currently, the vacant five acre parcel has a BVCP land use designation of Medium
Density Residential and is zoned with Medium Density Residential-1 (RM-1). Rezoning
the five acre parcel would require a change to the BVCP land use map.
• if the vacant five acres were to be re-zoned MH, this could potentially add between 40 and
46 new manufactured housing sites to the Park. It appears that some of the mobile homes
in the existing park encroach slightly into the five acre parcel and MH zoning could
provide a sense of security to those homeowners. The area of encroachment is unlikely to
be developed given its proximity to the ditch buffer and existing encroachments would be
allowed to remain until those homes were replaced with newer homes.
• Development of additional mobile home sites would increase park revenue and help to
fund the costs of purchasing, managing and improving the Park.
• Some existing homeowners have expressed the desire to have the vacant five acres
rezoned with MH zoning to ensure compatibility with the exiting mobile home park and
potentially preserve the existing community gardens on the site. Zoning the vacant five
acres MH zoning does not necessarily preserve the existing community gardens. City
zoning does confer development rights and it is possible the property owner could
eventually develop the site with additional manufactured housing spaces.
• To support the purchase price, without any infrastructure improvements or development
on the vacant five acres, lot rents would need to average 5850 per month.
I1
Option 2 -Use City Subsidy Funds
Description
Annually, the City has $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 in local and federal housing subsidy funds to
address requests for projects that usually total $6,000,000. On average, this funding allows
for the acquisition or development of 30 to 60 permanently affordable housing units and the
rehabilitation and maintenance of 200 to 300 existing permanently affordable housing units.
Per-unit city subsidy amounts range from $45,000 to $55,000 for new construction of
permanently affordable units, from $30,000 to $40,000 for acquisition of permanently
affordable units and from $10,000 to $15,000 for rehabilitation of permanently affordable
units. The city has issued the 2009 Request for Proposals for housing subsidy funds.
Proposals requesting 2009 city housing subsidy funds are due August 21, 2008.
To assist Orchard Grove residents, city subsidy funds could be used to:
A. Provide ongoing rental assistance to existing low income homeowners,
currently estimated at $950,000 per year (this assumes that 70% of the
households arc low income and uses the difference between the current
average rent $325 acid the average rent of $850 needed to support the purchase
only of the Park.)
B. Provide relocation assistance to existing low income homeowners, estimated at
$2,000,000 to $4,000,000 depending upon the source of funds, and assuming a
range of assistance of $12,000 to $25,000 per estimated, eligible low income
household.
C. Fund the purchase of the Park by the city, the residents, anon-profit agency or
private party.
D. Purchase a vacant parcel and develop a new mobile home park.
When city subsidy funds are used for acquisition of property, this is typically in the form of a
grant combined with a deed restriction that ensures the permanent affordability of the real
property and gives the city the right to purchase the property if it is foreclosed upon.
The use of federal funds triggers regulatory requirements that include relocation assistance for
low income residents and compliance with labor and procurement regulations that could add
costs to a project.
All of the purchase options are contingent upon the following:
• The expiration of the current option to purchase the Park;
• The willingness of the current property owner to sell to the city, the residents, a non-
profit or other private party; and
• Availability of sufficient financing.
'Coning
Use of city subsidy funds to provide rental or relocation assistance or grant funds to acquire a
property is not dependent upon specific zoning or land uses.
12
A public, non-profit or resident owned park could result in a continuation of the mobile home
use and use of city subsidy funds could be conditioned upon retaining the mobile home use.
Infrastructure
Rental or relocation assistance does not have a direct impact on the infrastructure needs of the
Park.
Regardless of ownership, health and safety standards need to be met in the Park and the aging
infrastructure will need to be replaced. The financial costs associated with utility replacement
in the Park are significant.
Financial
Use of city funds to provide rental assistance could result in higher space rent increases since
the city would be covering a portion of some rental payments without the ability to control the
amount of the rents charged.
The cost to purchase, improve and maintain the park is roughly the same, regardless of the
type of ownership for the Park. Use of city funds to help purchase the park and control lot
rents could result in increased mobile home sale prices given the value or attractiveness of a
low rent space. It maybe possible for mobile home sale prices to be limited using the shared
appreciation model in place at the Mapleton Mobile Home Park.
The financial costs associated with purchasing and improving the Park are significant and
may result in increased mobile home space rents for existing residents. Depending upon the
level of affordability the city chooses or is able to maintain within the Park purchase,
operation and upgrading of the Pazk will have a significant impact upon the city's resources.
Annually, $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 in housing subsidy funds is available. This amount is
approximately 8% to 12% of the estimated total cost of purchasing and improving the Park, if
the Park is to retain the current level of affordability for existing homeowners.
Fxisting Community
Ongoing rental assistance could help to retain existing eligible, low i~lcome residents.
Relocation assistance would involve helping existing eligible, residents to find housing
outside of Orchard Grove.
The level of city subsidy fund used to purchase the park will determine the extent to which the
existing, eligible residents are able to remain in the Park.
'I'hc cun-ent homeowners have proposed a down payment in the amount of $16,000 per
household. Options for how very low and low income residents could accomplish this would
need to be developed.
Should a new mobile home park be developed using city funds, existing Orchard Grove
residents would have the opportunity to move into the new community. Eligible, low income
residents might need financial relocation assistance.
t3
Other Potential Outcomes & Considerations
• If the entire amount of annual city housing subsidy funds is allocated to Orchard
Grove, 30 to 60 fewer permanently affordable units would be created per year acid no
funds would be available to maintain existing permanently affordable units.
• If other city general funds are used for rental or relocations assistance, those funds will
need to be allocated from other programs or uses.
• Use of city subsidy funds is limited to income eligible residents.
• The existing community could find a way to fund the retention of very low and low
income households.
• The new owner maybe unable to meet the challenges involved with this project and
the Park is sold to another purchaser.
• The city could financially assist the project beyond its original commitment, further
reducing funds budgeted for permanently affordable housing or other city projects.
• Insufficient funding is secured for the infrastructure replacement and the Park is
closed due to the inability to provide domestic water system that meets city code.
• Mobile homes located on rent controlled spaces are likely to increase in value and sell
for higher prices upon subsequent sales and become less affordable, relative to similar
. homes on non-rcpt controlled spaces, thus eroding the affordability to very low and
low income households over time.
• The time needed to purchase and develop a new mobile home park is unlikely to result
in immediate assistance for existing eligible low and very low income residents.
14
Option 3 -Resident Purchase of Park with No City N ands
This option is contingent upon the following:
• The expiration of the current option to purchase the Park;
• The willingness of the current property owner to sell to the city, the residents, a non-
profit or other private party; and
• Sufficient capital to acquire the park.
Zoning
City zoning decisions are not a function of the form of ownership of the subject parcel.
Resident control of the Park is likely to result in the continued use of the Park as a mobile
home park. Financial considerations could cause a reconsideration of an exclusive mobile
home use for the entire site.
Infrastructure
Regardless of the form of ownership, health and safety standards must be met and the
infrastructure will need to be replaced. The financial costs associated with utility replacement
in the Park are significant.
1~'inancial
The financial costs associated with purchasing and improving the Park are significant and
may result in increased mobile home space rents for existing residents. It will be challenging
for a newly formed group of residents to secure financing for an aged mobile home park with
significant financial liabilities in the current lending environment.
f;'xisting Community
There are significant challenges for an existing 216 home community to reach the agreements
ticcessary to form a business entity that can obtain financing and manage the Park. Ongoing
ownership and management will involve a significant degree of financial risk making it
possible that low income residents would eventually be displaced. However, there arc
examples elsewhere in the country where residents have successfully purchased their mobile
home park using a cooperative ownership model, a process that can typically take two to three
years.
Outer Potential Outcomes & Considerations
• The existing community could find a way to fund the retention of very low and low
income households.
• The community maybe unable to meet the challenges involved with this project and
the Park is sold to another purchaser.
• Insufficient funding is secured for the infrastructure replacement and the Park is
closed due to the inability to provide a domestic water system that meets city code.
15
Option 4 - Negotiate with Park Owner
Description
The city could facilitate a discussion with the property owner and existing residents regarding
options for the property that could meet multiple community goals. If redevelopment were to
occur, the city could use its resources to provide assistance to the lowest income, eligible
residents in the Park and obtain a level of permanent affordability on the property.
Zoning
Negotiating with a willing owner or developer could result in a land use arrangement
designed to meet multiple goals.
Infrastructure
Health and safety standards need to be met for the existing park and the aging infrastructure
will need to be replaced.
Financial
The financial costs associated with utility replacement in the Park are significant. '
Existing Community
All parties have the opportunity to work together for a solution, including resolution of the
health and safety violations.
Other Potential Outcomes & Considerations
• The mobile home park use could be modified over time in a manner that allows for
~adual transitions for existing residents.
• Allows the city the opportunity to evaluate options and resources for this project
consistent with its existing affordable housing goals and priorities.
• Provides an opportunity for the Park owner, current residents and the city to work
cooperatively toward a phased solution that meets multiple community goals.
16
Option 5 -Keep Current RM-1 Zoning
Description
Z'he stated purpose of the RM-1 zone district is the following: "Medium density residential
areas which have been or are to be primarily used for attached residential development, where
each unit generally has direct access to ground level, and where complementary uses may be
permitted under certain conditions."
Zoning
Under RM-1 zoning, the site could potentially have up to 376 units which includes
approximately 59 units on the vacant five acre parcel. Given the size of the site and the
number of potential units, proposed redevelopment would be required to complete the Site
Review process. Concept plan review and neighborhood meetings would also be required.
Under Site Review, a detailed tree inventory would be required and it may be possible to
require all of the trees along the Ditch and some of the mature trees scattered around the site
to be retained or replaced. Many of the trees and site attributes could be lost.
Infrastn~cture
Redevelopment of the mobile home park to fixed foundation homes is likely under this
scenario. Existing infrastructure would be replaced wide new infrastructure built to city
standards. This would include dedication of streets within the site, and potentially a
requirement to coiulect to adjacent streets.
h'inancial
The current prospective purchaser initially indicated he would provide financial assistance to
existing homeowners in an amount equal to the appraised value of their Homes. The proposal
included the concept of providing residents with the option of either accepting the money for
tic sale of their home or using that amount for a down payment on new housing to be
developed on the site, including the permanently affordable housing.
'l'wo neighborhoods that developed under this zoning in recent years are: Dakota Ridge, a
private sector development with 20% of the total units as permanently affordable, located
north of Lee Hill Road and west of Broadway; and the Foothills neighborhood, a Boulder
Housing Partners community located just east of the Foothills Community Park.
T
xis ting Community
Existing residents could be displaced over time under this option unless the new owner chose
not to redevelop the Park. Given the time involved in designing and receiving development
approval, current residents could have two to three years before needing to make a decision
about their future housing. Under redevelopment, some residents might choose to purchase
market rate housing or new permanently affordable housing that would be required with
redevelopment, but the character, diversity, and existing sense of community would change.
17
Other Potential Outcomes & Considerations
Permanently affordable housing would be created, providing an opportunity for eligible low
income residents to own property with the equity accumulation and tax benefits associated
with owning real property.
18
Option 6 -Rezone Onc or Both Parcels to Residential Mixed 2 (RMX-2)
Description
The stated purpose of the RMX-2 zone district is the following: "Medium density residential
areas which have a mix of densities from low density to high density and where
complementary uses may be permitted." The zoning district was created to implement
concepts in the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan and is applied to the I f oliday
neighborhood (east of Broadway and north of Yarmouth), which contains a variety of housing
types with 40% of the total units as permanently affordable homes. Some of the
characteristics include:
• In order to assure a mix of housing types and densities, parcels greater than f ve acres
must provide at least five different housing types.
• Fewer parking spaces aze required than in other zones because of the mix of uses,
proximity to transit, extensive bike and pedestrian routes, and higher ratio of on-street
parking due to a grid of streets and alleys.
• It is the only zoning district in the city that provides density bonuses for projects that
provide 30% to 40% permanently affordable housing instead of the 20% required by
inclusionary coning .
"Coning
Under RMX-2 zoning, the site could have up to approximately 240 units at the base density.
Further, the RMX-2 zone provides a density bonus for permanently affordable housing and
requires a mix of housing types. "I'he base density is 10 units per acre with an additional 5
units per acre if 30% of the total units are permanently affordable, an additional 8 units per
acre for 35% permanent affordability and up to 10 units per acre for 40% permanent
affordability. With the largest density bonus, the site could have up to approximately 480
iiiiits, with 75 of those on the vacant five acre parcel and a total of 192 permanently affordable
units.
The size of the property would require Concept and Site Review. Under Site Review, a
detailed tree inventory would be required and it may be possible to require all of the trees
along the Ditch and some of the mature trees scattered around the site to be maintained. Many
of the trees and site attributes would change significantly.
Infrastructure
Redevelopment of the mobile home park to fixed foundation homes is likely under this
scenario. Existing infrastructure-water, sewer, streets and paths-could be replaced and would
be required to be brought up to city standards. This would include dedication of streets within
the site, and potentially a requirement to connect to adjacent streets.
f
irtancial
Development costs and fulfillment of affordable housing requirements would be met by the
private sector.
19
H;xisting Community
Existing residents would be displaced under this option. Under redevelopment, some residents
might choose to purchase either market rate housing or new permanently affordable housing
that would be required with redevelopment, but the character, diversity, and existing sense of
community would change.
Other Potential Outcomes & Considerations
• While the RMX-2 zone requires a variety of housing types, it is unlikely that 216
single family homes could be developed on the property.
• Only income eligible residents would be able to purchase the permanently affordable
housing units.
• City housing subsidy funds might be needed to provide housing that is permanently
affordable to very low income households.
20
SUMMARY MATRIX OF OPTIONS
Potential Goals: l.Preserve Mobile Home 2.Preserve Relative 3.Preserve Site 4.Avoid Displacement of 5. Preserve Existing 6. Create Permanently 7. Finance
Usc Affordability, of Existing Characteristics Current Homeowners Community Affordable Housing Replacement of
Options: Homes Existing
Infrastructure
1. Rezone 27 Acres ¦Yes ¦Yes ¦ Depends upon the extent of ¦ Some existing very low ¦ Some low income ¦ No, in existing park & if ¦ No
with MH the infrastructure work and & low income residents residents likely to be vacant 5 acres is zoned Mll
• Rezone 5 acres MH the owner's ability to fund the likely to be displaced by displaced ¦ Yes, if 5 acres develop with
least disruptive and most increased space rents fixed foundation housing
restorative construction
2 Use city funds to ¦ No. Rental or relocation ¦Yes. Availability of city ¦ NIA ¦Yes, for eligible, low ¦Yes, for those eligible ¦ NIA
assistance helps a particular rental or relocation income household rental low income households
• Assist existing household, regardless of the assistance could increase assistance receiving rental assistance
residents land use value of certain homes or ¦ No for eligible low & depending upon
spaces but mobile homes income household available funds
would still be priced less relocation assistance
than single family, fixed
foundation homes.
¦ No. At best tlvs could create ¦Yes, depending upon
¦ Yes, if sufficient funding (see above) ¦ Depends upon the extent of (see above) (see above) permanently affordable home the amount of
available
¦ Purchase or help to available to finance the infrastructure work and spaces with some kind of city subsidy funds
purchase the Park purchase & improvements the owner's ability to fund the voluntary, appraisal based
least disruptive and most limitation on mobile home sale
restorative construction prices
¦ No, for existing park City would control space ¦ NlA ¦ No. This option would ¦ No ¦ No
~ Purchase vacant ¦Yes, for new park rents, not home prices help displace current
parcel for new park ¦ Low space rents are likely homeowners to new park
to increase value sale location
price) of a the mobile home
in its location
3 Resident purchase ¦ Yes, if the financial ¦ Ycs ¦ Depends upon the extent of To some extent ¦ To some extent ¦ N'o ¦ No
- no city funds challenges can be met the infrastructure work and depending upon the amount depending upon the amount
the residents' ability to fund of funds available to assist of funding and financing
the least disruptive and most low income residents the residents are able to
restorative construction secure
4 Negotiate with ¦ Possibly ¦ Possibly ¦ Any redevelopment would Yes, to some extent ¦Yes, to some extent, ¦ Possibly, with permanently ¦ Possibly
Park Owner have to meet Site Review Could result in depends upon parties' affordable mobile home spaces
Criteria temporary displacement in willingness to compromise ¦ Yes, if some fixed
the case of redevelopment foundation housing is built
5 Keep current RM ¦ No ¦ NIA ¦ To a limited extent, based No, but displacement ¦ Possibly, some residents ¦Yes, up to a total of 87 units ¦Yes
zoning upon Site Review Criteria could be either temporary may be able return to site, on 32 acre parcel
or permanent but with significant
hysical chap es to site
6 Rezone RMX-2 ¦No ¦ No ¦ To a limited extent based No, but displacement ¦ Possibly, some residents ¦Yes, up to a maximum of ¦Yes
upon Site Review Criteria could be either temporary may be able return to site, 192 units on 32 acre parcel
or permanent but with significant
hysical than es to site
2]
Apprc~vccl y:
~ _
Stephanie .Grainger,
Interim City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Orchard Grove Situational Summary provided by Chapin Development, July 25,
2oox
B: Owner Representative Letter, July 24, 2008
C: Our Vision of Orchard Grove -August 4, 2008 Report to the City Council of
Boulder, Colorado by the Residents of Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park
D: Additional Background Information
Z2
ATTACHMENT A
ORCHARD GROVE
SITUATIONAL SUMMARY
This Orchard Grove Situational Summary has been prepared for the Ciry of
Boulder staff- namely Long Range Planning and I {ousing and Human Services.
The information presented herein is intended to offer Ciry Council members ad-
ditional input on the Orchard Grove situation currently in front of Council.
DILEMMA:
The Orchard Grove community is at a crossroads and change is inevitable for a
continued future. With functionally obsolete infrastructure requiring a significant
capital need on the immediate horizon, what options exist for Orchard Grove char
provide feasible solutions to the challenges ahead and that complement the growth
planned for the immediate surrounding area?
~f
Y +t
t
~ ~ 1 \
`t.,
~ V~C ~ i', i ~ - s t 4 ` , • is
~r : ,
i,~
-
.S
~ ~
1
7
RESOLUTION POSSIBILITIES FOR
ORCHARD GROVE scrNARlo I
Statru Qno, no redevelopment, replacement of infiastntcture only
The ability to address challenges at Orchard Grove is predicated Capital is generated from increased rent.
on securing capital investment to assist in funding infrastructure
improvcmenzs to the property. SCENARIO 2
Plan A, redevelopment of Orchard Grove property
Potential goals for addressing challenges facing Orchard Grove Capital is generated from redevelopment.
As rxprersed by City Council on June 24, 2008
SCENARIO 3
• Preservation of existing community Plan R, development of vacant area at Orchard Grove
• Preservation of housing type on site (mobile homes) Capital is generated from increased rent and
• Protect afiFordability of housing for residents limited development.
STATE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ~',~w:::~t` ~ :
kr. rte" '4 ~ x ti^T~, i` ~
Orchard Grove residents face si nificant challen es ertainin to the ; ~ ~ ` "
g g P g 'NORTH ~ It`'Y ~ ~
existing infrastructure serving the park. Because the park was dcvel- ~ ' ~ a~UnRs.Per'Acie } !:y ~ ~ - .
opcd in the early 1960's, the useful life of the water, sewer and road ~ < ~r•
' ~ cz
systems within Orchard Grove has expired. Already, repeated repairs I. ~ ' t` ~ "S
have been performed to keep the rystems operating and it is estimated ' ~ Q5.7 Units Per Acie ~ ~ 1 . F`
that within the neat five to seven years the existing infrastructure will EAST -
I 13;7 Unih Per`~e ~ ' ,•i'
,
sec failures beyond the level of feasible spot repair. . , ' ORC D , ;
,,i. ~ ;{..y GR E:~
„ i 8 Unlls Per A2ro ~
Estimates provided by Wyatt Construction indicate a cost of approxi- - ~ ' , I a,`• . ~1.~. ; - • • K't~ '
mately $32,000 per unit for replacement of existing infrastructure ~ i~t~~
=--1~~+~~
(based mi experience with Mapleton Mobile Home Park infractruc- ~ ' .Y,E ~ r- , r ,
lurr replacement project.) Specific infrastrucrure issues include: i ;la 1~` ~ ~ 1
_.'J
r-'`
Domestic Water System ~ rt •
• 'Typically, similar iron pipe has an expected design life of 30 to 1' ? ~ ~ ~ ~1..,-I
S(1 years, depending on soil types, before structural and corrosion _ ~ t' - 9
problems require full replacement (Orchazd Grove is 45 years old;1 ' ~ ~ ~ . ~-f~f i
• Sire of pipe and non-looping system do not meet current NaR„+.. ~ 5~~~~ , - 1 " ` ~
city s[andazds VACANT AREA 4 ` I I
5oprcc: h'ogglc l'ar+~i fix. 4.~~'I_...yh' :j
wti, .:k.
Sanitary Sewer System - '
• 5izc of pipe and non-looping system do not meet current CONTEXT MAP
city standards In recent years, many new developments have occurred in the area
• Sewer system in place is undersized to carry peak loads and surrowtding Orchard Grove, such as the redevelopment of Cross-
barelycapable of handling daily flows roads Mall into the newTwenry Ninth Street shopping center and the
Steel Yards infill project. Beyond these recent redevelopment projects,
urbanization of this area is expected into the future with the proposed
changes for the adjacent'Ii-ansit Village Area flan and the anticipated
redevelopment of the retail center at 28th Strcct and Iris Road. Thcsc
changes add to the social and economic sustainabiliry for residents
rhirough enhanced connections to transit.
Z~
SCENARIO l: Status Quo, no redevelopment, replacement of infrastructure only
Monthl Summa • Premise: Chan es ro osed are indc endent of ownershi arran ement.
Current Rent $350 er unit
Proposed Rentlncreasc
Ad'ustment to Market Rate of'$525 $175 per unit
[nfrastructurc Improvements
Futtdinggenerated by assetsmenu $560 to $710 per unit
$G to $7.5 million, S- ear a o at 896
Utilities Ex ense $100 er unit, avers e
Ncw Monthl I'a ent $1,185 to $1,335 er unit, not includin matt e a ments
SCENARIO 2: Plan redevelopment of Orchard Grove property
Monthl Summa • Premise: New deeded affordable units, For sale and for rent, are available for Orchazd Grove residents.
Mortgage for Affordable Unit Assumptions:
Salts price - $90,000 to $150,000 $510 to $870 per unit Credit For equity in mobile home: $5,000
Financin throw h A rdable Housin Pro am Estimatrd air market value
Utilities Ex ense $50 r unit, ave a for ever cfiicient units
HOA Fcc
Minimal or residents in a ordablt units $25 per unit
New Monthly Payment (mortga a payment} $585 to $945 er unit, lower rates ex ected for rental units
SCENARIO 3: Plan B, development of vacant area at Orchard Grove (see Context Map)
Monthly Summary • Premise: Mobile homes remain at Orchard Grove, no increase in deeded affordable units.
Current Rent $350 r unit _ _
Proposed Rentlncrease
Ad'ustment to Market Rate o $525 $175 per unit
Infrastructure Improvements
Subsidized by redevelopment revenues $235 to $330 per unit
$2.5•to $3.5 million, S- ear a o at 8%
Utilities Ex nse $100 r unit, avers e
Vew Monthl Pavment 3860 to $955 er unit, not includin mar a ments
SUMMARY TableA
The scenarios outlined offer a snapshot of the financial consider- Council Gaols ~b/24/08~
ations pertinent to potential changes at Orchard Grove. However, Scenarios Community Housing Type Affordability
many qualitative factors should be evaluated to ensure the best solu- 1 Status Quo See Below x
tion is identified to address the challenges at Orchard Grove. Each
scenario presented results in a range of different outcomes for the 2 A: Redevelopment See Below x
residents of Orchard Grove and the City of Boulder. 3 B: Limited See Below x
development
1 . STATUS QUO
• Cost of infrastructure likely results in displacement of residents Increased connectivity between surrounding neighborhoods
• Displacement of residents results in breakup of community and transit
• No net increase in affordable housing inventory for City A portion of existing residents may prefer relocation
of Boulder
3. PLAN B, LIMITED DEVELOPMENT
2 PLAN A, REDEVELOPMENT Mobile home housing type is preserved and community
• Protection from infrastructure failures remains in place
• Increase in affordable housing inventory for City of Boulder Cost of infrastructure improvements for residents reduced
• Permanent affordability, not market affordability No net increase in affordable housing inventory for Ciry
• Appreciating ownership opportunities for residents of Boulder
• Increased sustainability -energy efficient units, transit-oriented Mobile homes remain as market affordable units
• I:nhanccd amenities -new parks and trails, preservation of trees A portion of existing residents may prefer relocation
Z~
PARK HISTORY
y • ' .
Development of the Orchard Grove mobile home park began in ~
1960, prior to the property being located within the city's incorpo_ 'i`=1 ` r t -
rated boundaries. Today, the property remains mostly in its original f ' • -
state -with the original water and sewer system ;utd a number of the R ' . ' + •
first homes still on the property. ' ' ,rte S~ ;y', + ~
1960 First phases of Orchard Grove development begin ` : ' K~ • :
~ t.
^ ~
Orchard Court Dcwclopmcnt Company (Nuttall) ~ i
A
1963 acquires the 27-acre Orchard Grove property, and has ~ ~ r ~r'
~
operated the property as a mobile home park since ` ~,r~~••'; ~ _ ~ • : ~
0
this time ~ r •o'•~'~;- d/y1~.
,~ri Ml~ t~ " T
~ -
r ~
1965 Improvements added to property, recreation center - ~
L 1 4
1/
Mnexation of a rtion of the ro ert into Cit , " . " . ' ~
1967 Po P P Y Y ;.;p~ .w: ,:c s.
of Boulder ~ N, , N
~ _
_ ~
1972 Additional five acres at northeast corner arc purchased,
never developed
1976 HUD standards addressing mobile homes arc created
1978 Annexation of remaining portions of property into City
of Boulder, zoned RM-1
~ 965 Ciry of Boulder's mobile home zone, MH, is c mated
outlining development standards
2008 Potential purchase of Orchard Grove by Chapin
Development
REFERENCES
Countryside Asset Management Corporation
Drexel Barrell
I lousing and Human Services, City of Boulder
Long Mange Planning, Ciry of Boulder
Transit Village Area Plan, September 2007, Ciry of Boulder
~~/yatr Construction
2(0
ATTACHMENT B
~ -
11: i 1 _i.ltt:~t'1 tl..i`.tt
City aC l3ottldcr
Plattnitt~: Riaard
1'.C~. I3cr~ 7~)I
17~i<) L3ruad~t~a~~, third llctlsr
Fioultlcr, CC) 3U3{)G-1J7~> I
Ilt: ORC`!1,-tlw'1) GJtUt,L
Dear ~lrntbcrs:
The purpuss: oC this ri,rr~slx~ndett~e is to bristly address t)tc issur nresittlcd to
Orchard Cuuri !hi•~lctpntcut t_'t~ntrany I;"Cuntpam' h~• site C'ttt~ s>t li~uldcr's
i~sPressctl intent 1t, !!lone ils hrnit~t'I}' )t,c;stcd ;u 3O(1., V;lhnc>nt, licnt)dcr,
C'ttlnrttilc~, tc~ "mtlttUfitcturecl hnusittl;".
I3rtckt~rt.,usttl. ant ,tl,l(rrsin3;tti:1)' t)i~; past ti>stv (~tt)) ~~ur: the i`~~sttp.uti hay
i>petat~d tttcnt)-sct~n ~?Crt'~ t+l its pt't~pcr?is:s ay a snuhtlr ht(nt~ hstrk. '1-h~:
Itarccly t:urr~ntly u~c:d ils the pat'k ti'ure rtcquired its ) c)63. lit c arrc htu'c~l,
It) tlt~ tlisrlhcaSl, t~~;?x u~;luircd in lt)%? and rc:nt;sins untict•clvpctl anti Jesi,~natocl as
medium density rt;sulrnual under tltr Bnuldcr Valle}~ ~'i,tnltrehcnsit~r Plan-
>ri~inally, the prtt'Jx:rtics were It>eated its thr Citunty lit- t~ouhler u~itlt City utilities
prot~iciecl h}~ ordinance. Suhsequegt C.it,• ;tnttcxaticros ~~It;re ntttde in 1 ~)h7 atul
197fi, Sittec annu~alirnt. the: properties lut~~t: been zttn~tl medium dCnsit}~
residential. Uver the Mast suer decades, tht: C'ennpanv hats ~;eneruusf~- chat•~,tal
its. tr:nants atbstunUali}' Ii-SS than tbs.' rttarkct r.uc ftu it.: space., li,,re~~oin rental
int;untC in ;utticilttNiun i,l~ ei~cnlua) 1'utut~ dt.~t~rlul>mcnt. C'urrrnl Marl. raps ratt~:c
liotlt `63t'1U.Ot) C.:SS.UI) p~t• tttuttth. includin); tvatcr, ti•hilc ~tmthu-ati~•u rnarkct
ra{es a.rC ct)thrc,.r'intut~ly S~{)U.{)(t per rttottth plus utilities, ;\ucin-din~ the
Ct,rnputt}• hats esscttti;tlfi' ::uh,ttlifctl ;in tttiordahl+: housing cilnlpUnlttl lire tttr.
13ouWcr t:utttnuutii~ without arty credit qtr s'ecognttiott. Curreattly, the Ctnnpzttty's
ittvcstctrs arc in tltcir t'etir~ment yeitrs and stark to tlispcs~ sit the proper!}' cttui
liquitltttc tlteu• at`litir~, r'+s tt ith the itl~'estcsrs, the inti•u5U•u~tttr~ a{•tht: park is :a~tin~
and will yottn rzquire suhstotnial rett~~t•ataan at grt:at ~xttensr. curre?ttl}° e~tunutrtl
at se~'eit million li~c hundred tlk?u~attd dollsh (~7,;Q01lUl).(lU)'•, Cuupliu~ tlic
t:r!ci, 1 1,,.,,:t,~:
•,,...r
. . ~ ~ ~ ~"''7'{ti> r~tisl!sl~ t: t~ru,'idecJ l+v Il:c Jr, ,~t~,t,~~r, i`tkaan lle,-cl,~pn:. ru. In, thr„s~;;h it. ccnsttllu?t~
~~;rlr; ~lof, 1~-i•at; (':m~trucli~~;t
1`~tftlceci rental ine[)nt~ a'llit Il1C ilGCl) Il)1' 5LtVSl';lltllal capital infusion has c~n~•incccl thr imesM;'s
that a nett• otti•itcr a appr([hriate at tlti, time,
Ittitiai Duo 17illr;cncc. lttitjallti•. the C'c)ntpany rrt.tinc~cl the srn'iees of St.Clair tirescltlcr. 1'.C'-
tc! c~nuiuct l)rcliminarv ciuc~ clili~ct?c;c on its jtrcll)crties. Al that dint:, bebinnin~; in the [all c)l'
?()07, title warl; ~~~as r~r'ie~~•ed, the utilities t~'4re invcsli~;utrd ;~t(1 rect:ntly, ~ur~'t;ys were
ctantplctccl. Duriu~ its e;t~~luatiutt pr(x:t~,s, it hcetut7e readily apparent tlttlt the intor~ts of iltc
G1tY l+S BlllllllCl' ItC~til'il th UC ll~'t~'1"i11111U~. ~S thy. {)riul)~r11C5 1VC1't` !)hSCJ'lf~ll lC) be Llllt(fLIC hOth ~1•i1~1
1"cSpect tC~ thl.'lr tij"%C illtCl Ic)lztttolt, ultd 'specially ~,i~~[:n their proxinuty, tt.~ the south, to property
hl~lnnzd far nt:tjor rcdcicat)pn7ent. Incluirjcs u•rr~ tnadc bath thrauglt tits Cantpany's consultant,
~'inec 1?t~rNCl'11, and thrcnt~~h its cc)unscl's atten)ptrd ccjntacts with the City Vlan,tgcr's Office,
I701t4 t?1~~~'111C17 1'cSUllt'ci 117 un}' disanu'sc a~ it7lendccl. Jn soar, ttt act titnc; h,1:; the Cotitpuny sgtt~;ht
to praceccl wjtluiut City participation in its planning praccs,.
Cc~ntractin I i;it~i,t£ tint reeci~~cd :ut~' resl)ottst li•ont thr Cit} ctf l3ouWer, the Compact)'
pr<ic;cC~lccf to h:t~~c its prnltCrlics ~~alucri in the cti~et7 lnarkcl, lis[in~ its 1trC~pertics li)t• ,plu th+tuglt
tts hrc~l;cr. r~'lar~us ~ l\'11111Chitp. Excluded fn,nt thy: (islin~ at'rccmcnt it"erC ~•aric)us patties u'ho
h:nl ii~tnnrrl~ rxpressrd ~[tntc int~rest in acsluirim~ the pruhclZy, including the cun-zttt hupcl-,
C'ltanin I)c~•rlc~{)meat, htc..:)s ~~•cll :ls flu ('ity ui'E3ctuicler it5r11:'" L?~•cntually, the prnherties were
pl:arzci under rc.>ntr:tct ~.~~ith (`hattin l)rvelupntent, ~>nly t[t hc;ut•, sulrsc:clttcntly, ttl' an of~fcr t+~
t~tlrctt:[;c front Ih4 I3c>t+liler 1-Ic~a~in~~ I',~rtl~ers. d~'h%:? the i-lotrsin,~ .-1tt[horitt• r~fthc City rf L;c~ulder,
ji~1- Ifturiern million d+,llars (~l'I,UOU,iIUU.UU). 'l~hc Cctu)pany° resflc)ntlc(t to lhu (-luttsitt~
:":tltltc~rity's hruke:r, la~alt l allan C:ulnpan}• cm ;\pril ?OU3, rel'en•ing the cti•Icr to the
:'~~mpan~•'s hri~kcr •\pp:trr.ntl~• ne, pru,~res~ ha, been nrtclc to secure t}tz backup {te?sition. as
r~~qucsted h~: thr. Housing :\utlu~ritr. 17?r Cuntltan} has born rccct7tly att~•iszd that Ihz llattsitt
:\uthc~rit}• rcmnitts inict'~-slid jn u[_tluil'iit}; pert [~r itll <~f~thc pt'crpcrties, L~ttt hr)ty their itticrests ~~'ill
he cc)tnpron?is4d 1)y any rc~otting r~ntttitts uuclr:u'.
t'ltttttin's i'I;uts. T'hc current buti~cr's plans icrr dc~'elctpment include, per the Cumpany'~
uttdcrstandiny, 1n,~iniaining :tffordahlr housing fi)r the current kuanls, lo~etltcr with n mixed usr
r~-dc;~'elopment of'tltc rcnrtining property. 'Cltcses plans alsn include a ~ttl)Stantial cttslt ittfusit)tt,
,c. us to rcbutld the inGastructurc ul' Iltc park', utilities, sanuthin~ that ~ti•ill nc~c.-d to be dune in
.nt}' ease and rc~:?rdlcss cr1' thr cvcntual use of the property. C'cutsic.lcratiun has also) iticn Sivcn tot
gut c)pti~mal t:.,t5h buyout iitr c~istiny ntctbilc huroc; tcntu7ts. flans have talso ltcctt dtscttssed +,vitl7
rc;;pt:c:t to the d~~'elol)ntent ut'tl7e 13ctuldrr IVltit~ (tctrk Uitih tl<)tivitt~ t.itrctu~rt? t}tc prnitcrtZr lic)m
the suutit~vrst to th:; narlltcast. ti) ituluJc sofas tts alt integral iron r,f tits prctpettics' devclaptticnt.
t he (.'atnpany suppctris lift pl.tns and stgnific:utt ectpcesstony prc)pnsCtl by Ghanin I~t:~'eloptn~nt
u~ hcjng in the ittlc;rCits ctf the Baulde:r cc~ntmiu)it}' tts a r:huli' ,++ul the tct7<tnts.
"5a)11it~Inne hnni , 1~1~~ f_ l[., lia~l .~ulil,u-Irrl a•,r l tall}~>>n;~''`~ t71 [11GIt~~tl, t lc \~l.Ua~l, in[~U?f1311; 11ti ~ti'11u111V[ 1110 (any ~~~,lll;l
obtain Sao "Clhti~,u~", l.. t,,yulrc lElc- t?r~~~~i•ny.
Z
Telrutts' Position. Jt i. the currctu t?'ish ui p~rh;th~ a t'ocal ntinurit~~ ol- the tenants in tht: lxuk
that rede\'cloprne:nt neat occur and that the sr~~rrrs r~cr~ remnin scl t?s to pry-~crvc: the commwtity.
t~'Itilc tutdcrstandably ile57rous, the pragmati4s c}i` the situaticttt dtc:tt?te c~tltc:r\41sc. [ht currant
use oC' the park \r'ill have to be substantially' intc?•nlpte:d so as to oflect rLrUtl~tructian t~f the
infrastructure,.t0 111tr1t1(It; 11'31C1'11IIt:fi, se\\'cr Iincs and t,;as lines. ns those lines irurrentl}' Pass
t?ndcr w+cl? site's cottcl•cic had, thutic pads will ltttva to be disrupted and ralttid in order to cl'fcct
a cotnpletc reuuilding of ilie utilities systr.ms. All of this c:Mn oltly he done at great e;cpen:?r, the
burden Ot \t'h1Ch \t'i!I either fal[ upon the tc'tt,+nts illentsclveS in inerrasr<{ rent or u{x~» a
dc\'chtpcr t>.~illiltg to im'est in the hark. \•Iinitmil rent incrcaxes to tm:?ncc the rebuilding cif the
utl]itle5 1nh•astructure ~lrt(1 Cc~tnc to aP)tro~im;+tcly a?7Q,1>n Per unit Per m+~ntlf.
ltet;c?rnrncndation. ~~'e fail to see the benefit of :f?tv uaed u•I?atsuct-cr fir a rast? decision to
c{ttickly rc~zottc a parcel of this i~t: As Qtr. t'ile's i'nuns~l has ad\'iscd, the {i+ct t1r+t t#ic prctpel•ty
is under contrnta dins not iln{7acl the Cit)~'s position \ahatsc~cvcr. .Adclitic~nttlly, futlhcr lifnc: is
ftcede.'c! for rcric\\ and c~fhn disalssion as tct everyouc's fiucds. Itczonin~ the property
comhratttising tht: p??r{: at this titnc (i) etlecti\'cly Prolubilr- c:unsic{eration of att}' akcrativc use
options :md tti-ill liind the Particular Pr~?port}' tr. hr:ing solely ntobilc hitme park; (ii) elitninat~;
81tV l11C1lnt11~fU1 optic~lt:: fot~ fiYCd aClurdabl~ luiusinb as and' lUllll'C o\><ner \\'ill operate the Park
solely t+, an econc~lnic enterprise; (iii) will inc\'itably bitrdcn the tenanta ~t'ith ;tll Costs assuciufc~(l
tivit)t tltc rccon`tructi(fn of the ti+llin~ itifi•tistruutuf•e ,tncl, ftu-thcr, will Prc~hah}}• delay thr initiation
~f t(tc rehuildin~ prr>ccss; (i~•) t~•ill subslauti,rtiF• hinder tlu• dev~lulmtent nt' the iiv~ (a) :+rrrc
t;arc:el tt~ the nemhe?fsl ~\';iich t;'i11 r~tnain meiliutn tlLnsit~' t'csttlentt,tl: *i\) ,.•ill Probt+bly eut~:lil
.tn~' dwtaopmcnt u1• the crcCk arc~t ;+ti ,i canu~wnity pathway ;ofd; (vi) aril! ttc~;utirel\~ impat;t any
oppctrtttnities to Coordin:+te the derclopmcnt c?t~ tilt park prohel't)' frith the pl'~jcits to the sctuth_
'~{Canutgtil) discus.iun tt'ith the recently fonncd tcnanu' hc~nfeo~\'ner as~ueitttion neet{s to occur
<;utsidc of the conlcxt of hcatCd Pulitica! dc»>ands. In~'csti`~ation of all n{)tioltS for improvomcnt
l~f the prc?pr.rt}' should be math:. 1•~otlt the L ontlJ;fny nncl thu pmposcd buyer rett~ain rcttdy atul
~trlllllt~,' Icl 1)1rttCl~iltU ttl thLtiC dl5CL1111(1)15 a11C1 ]llallrtltt~ hrQCe9sCS +J+Ol1l~; 1(fl'1Y111'd.
tiiflt:erclti'.
i)li~:lli~Rn CUL(Z'l' l7E\'ELUP1~~tl:N'1' CUI~tNAVY
B~•: t r
t.t.f I~ttttall, Prc:siclenf
~
Scutt r1. St,C'lair. E'.sc{.
C'ountitrl for OrLhard Cbttt~ De~'etop?»cnt Cun-fp;?tt1'
" it is ;tv.uutrd that the Clt~• Council is tfot cunternt~laRn~, chr rc-. i~nirtg c~!'this ptut;rl ;ts ?hc i3ntt(d~r 1'allcy
Cc~r~,pt~tnnii~c flan d~~rs nut ittc(~~~3r th~~ ,i~r~a~~c in it.: "hilt" drsi<<Ft;:fion. 5cc alsoF3_[Z.C. 4-?-I~fr)lt)
v1
A'TTACI~MEN1' C
Our Vision of Orchard Grove
r
r~.
~
~'d~~ 4
Report to the City Council of Boulder, Colorado
August 4, 2008
by the Residents of Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park
3~
I'rirna
Authors
Safi Alschuler
Rica $
Jeffry R outman
Ueschler
Richard Carey
M;chael Dray
~urissa Eifler
A Lisa Ferreira
~ B.
Earl GOOdhearr
II~IcCo~'en
A
an
~eeparker
1~,[ark Perea
Rob,~ins
D1c ~
aukai~
and the llllams
withOUt who
el~n~ °f Orchard ,
this t~~'lration ~'rOVC,
~OU~ not ha„e b e~ sp
fort
le
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Our Vision ....................................................................................................2
Organization of the Report ..........................................................................3
Section 1: Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park ......................................................5
Who We Are ................................................................................................5
Dynamics of Our Neighborhood .................................................................7
Why Orchard Grove Includes All 32 Acres ................................................8
Sustainable Community .............................................................................11
Infrastructure ..............................................................................................15
Financing Structure ....................................................................................16
Orchard Grove Mortgage Calculator .........................................................18
Orchard Grove Sample Budget Projection ................................................19
Ownership Str~~ctures ......................................................22
Market Affordability ...................................................................................23
Ncw Category Needed for AMI Index .......................................................24
In Conclusion .............................................................................................25
Section 2: Response to the City Staff Report ......................................................27
Factual Errors and Inaccurate Assumptions in City Staff Report............27
Option 1: Rezone to MH (2? Acres) ........................................................28
Option 2: Use of City Subsidy Funds ................:.....................................29
Option 3: Keep Current RM-1 Zoning ....................................................30
Option 4: Rezone to RM-2 .......................................................................30
Option 5: Rezone 27 Acres MH and 5 Acres High Density ....................31
Option 6: Negotiate with Potential Purchaser .........................................31
Option 7: Rezone to MH (32 Acres) ...............................................:........31
Section 3: Response to Jim Chanin's Report ..................................................:...33
Infrastructure 3 3
Surrounding Density
.............................................................34
Chanin's Scenario 1 ...................................................................................35
Chanin's Scenario 2 (Plan A) .....................................................................35
Chanin's Scenario 3 (Plan B) .....................................................................37
[n Conclusion ........................................................................................................38
Works Cited ...........................................................................................................40
:i•
1~ ri
PP 3 ~ 1 ~
~ J 1'b. + ~i
,T~~i7:
n'.
. i ' ^~c.
i,'~i Ai1
H' I . .
r
t
Introduction
We, the residents of Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park, have a vision we want to
share with you. In this report, we place before you an innovative and creative vision
of a future for our community that we are totally passionate about. We invite you
to explore it with us.
We had been cherishing parts of this vision independently of one another, and
then, with the challenge of the loss of our whole community, we came together and
realized that we have a collective vision. It is a vision that we as individuals have
been hungry for. It is a vision of community that our culture has lost, yet we have
found here in a level of caring and a quality of commitment to community that we
were dreaming of.
We are not talking about affix-up of some poor and fragmented edge of society; we
are talking about a strong, empowered approach to creating a life we want to live.
We want to become a model far innovative approaches to mobile home park
ownership and management.
Boulder could be a leader on the cutting edge of this movement, as it was with
permanent affordable housing and as it is in becoming the first Transition town in
the United States. If we as a City can engage in leading edge work there, why not
reach for leading edge, creative solutions with our situation as well?
We know it is possible. What we ask now is for the City to rezone the entire 32
acres of Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park as MH-L. Although rezoning alone will
only discourage and not eliminate redevelopment, it is the first and essential step
for the City to take if it wishes to help us to preserve our community -all of it.
After the rezoning, we will do everything within our power to fairly compete to
become owners of the park, but that process will take longer and will require luck as
well as perseverance.
We are prepared to explore non-profit and cooperative ownership options that will
rely on City help, including financing through tax-exempt bonds, but will not
directly tax City financial resources. We are optimistic that the financing can be
made to work. We are asking only for the time to get it done, by capping the
redevelopment potential under MH-E zoning. We are seeking yaur support in
helping us find a way to our vision of aself-governing, self-sustaining mobile home
and manufactured housing community. We believe we can achieve this
1
independent of City financial help, but we will need the organizational and
financing capacities of the City to help incubate us to self-sufficiency.
What you will find on the following pages is the vision that - by rezoning all of
Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park - we invite you to support.
OUr v1SlOri
We have a vision of 32 acres of land dedicated and protected as mobile home park
that preserves and promotes our ethnically and economically diverse community in
a healthy and vibrant condition. We see ourselves moving in a concerted manner
toward agreen-built environment and a pattern of environmentally sustainable land
use.
We see no reason to tear down what exists. We want, rather, to build on what is
here as the fertile soil for aself-governing, self-sustaining community that finds its
own funding, manages its own affairs, and becomes a model within the City and the
Nation. We see practical approaches for funding our vision, improving our
i~lfrastructure, and sustaining our community.
"The greenest building is the one that is already there." -Carl Elefante
2
Organization of the Report
The details -who we are, who we want to become, and how we will accomplish it -
are laid out in the eight key points of Section 1 of our report below.
Following this, in Section 2, we respond to a draft of the report from City Staff.
Since the final version has not yet been released, when we receive it, we may address
additional issues as an Addendum to this Reporr..
In Section 3, we include a response to the report from developer Jim Chanin.
The Appendices at the end offer important references and contextual information.
3
e
-
4
Section 1
Who We Are
Among the trees of Orchard Grove, our homes shelter us, providing that sense of
home, that orientation to the world so crucial to human life. The neighborly variety
of human experience nurtured here, is what Boulder has always fostered. The
briefest of glimpses at some of our particular lives will augment what you already
know of us.
We are - Bosnians who have sought refuge here after the destruction of their homes
and the threat to their lives during the war.
We are - a graduate student of Naropa University, grateful for the affordable, quiet
living here, allowing her to serve the larger community as a therapist while paying
off student loans.
We are - a man recovering from a stroke, whose home has been adapted for
wheelchair access, allowing him to maintain a relatively independent Life as he
regains mobility.
We are - an ethnically-mixed young family, rearing their two children on painter's
wages.
We are - a disabled woman whose son at age 13 received a full-ride scholarship to
any college he chooses, who needs to stay in Orchard Grove because what he wants,
is to finish his studies at Boulder I Iigh.
We are - a retired City of Boulder employee, tending leis home and garden.
We arc - I-{ispanic parents of 3 children, juggling 4 jobs between nc~ ttvo of them,
proud to own their own home, as they pursue their dreams.
We are - a single mother who gave birth to her son while living here and has now
seen him graduate from CU and find a job in his field.
We are -single professional women enjoying the independence of living on their
own, which would otherwise be impossible for them in Boulder.
5
We are -people livin;, in the care of hospice, in the homes they have cherished for
decades.
We are -teachers, musicians, mentors, clerks, choir-members, athletes, artists,
professors, laborers, secretaries, social economists, entrepreneurs, service workers,
choreographers, writers, students, volunteers, disabled, elderly, retired.
We are -most importantly, "we." We identify as a group, not simply because we
live beside each other. Through the relationships we have established over the
years, a collective sense of home and broader family has emerged and continues to
evolve.
c:~
Many of us have lived here for over 20 years, several for over 30 years, and some
families have lived here for generations. Many of our families have cultivated a
network of relationships in Orchard Grove, relying on one another in a multitude
of ways. Many of us have found new "family" with our neighbors.
These existing networks among neighbors have broadened and combined in the
face of the bid to develop Orchard Grove. Because that plan threatens our homes,
we have united behind a formidable, active, passionate, and dedicated core of
residents who strive to preserve the quality of life and home equity for all residents.
We have formed the Orchard Grove Conservancy, a Colorado non-profit
community organization which meets regularly, frequently, and -lately -daily.
Several of us have radically altered our routines in order to devote our energy to this
effort. Some have postponed medical treatment, curtailed health exercise routines,
taken time off from work, and sacrificed social activities. Some of us have missed a
great deal of sleep because we've attended meetings, researched, and communicated
ot1 top of our jobs and routines. We've done so because home is where our hearts
~tre, because we have every intention of saving our homes. In that regard, we desire
the rezoning of Orchard Grove in order to avert the tragedy of displacing some 400
Human beings living in 216 homes.
In April, 1968, Robert Kennedy spoke to the heart of such matters: "Whenever we
tear at the fabric of the lives which other men have painfully and clumsily woven for
themselves and their children -whenever we do this -the whole nation is
degraded."
We trust that you will support our struggle to keep the fabric of our lives intact.
6
Dynamics of Our Neighborhood
One of our long-time residents, a young Hispanic woman who has lived in Orchard
Grove for 20 years, said in a speech to City Council: "We are such a beautiful
community and I think we are little pieces of different parts of the world put
together, and have a community that's like a big family. We are poster children of
what I think, or hope, Boulder wants to be."
Orchard Grove is remarkable for the way it incorporates many kinds of diversity.
We have wide differences in ethnicity, language, culture, economic status,
educational level, political belief, and religious belief. Yet ours is a community
where mutual respect and anon-judgmental attitude are the norm. Most
remarkably, this tolerant atmosphere was not engineered in any way - it grew up
naturally.
In Orchard Grove we have the peaceful environment that many communities strive
to achieve. How did this happen?
To begin with, everyone living in Orchard Grove owns their home; no one is a
renter. Home ownership fundamentally puts all our residents on an equal footing,
bringing with it personal pride and commitment to the community.
The physical layout of Orchard Grove supports social interactions. The proximity
of our homes allows a special neighborhood feeling - we typically know our
neighbors up and down our street and on nearby streets as well.
We meet and connect with each other in community locations, including the
swimming pool, laundry facilities, trash and recycling centers, community garden,
can the common greens, and sometimes in the open space which is sanctuary to the
winged and four-legged friends we have grown fond of.
We've been told that Orchard Grove has the highest density of mature trees in
Boulder. Studies have shown that having an abundance of trees not only increases
the oxygen level, but may even contribute to reducing the crime rate.
lend Orchard Grove has a virtually non-existent crime rate, not only because of the
benevolent effect of the trees, but also because of our many community
connections. We help each other by exchanging services -snow shoveling, auto
repair, sewing, cooperative foot{ preparation, interpersonal language teaching,
informal financial assistance, transporting our elders and disabled, ro name a few.
7
How we care for each other in our human relationships is mirrored in our
relationship with the common greens, open space, trees, and wildlife of the entire
32 acres of the Orchard Grove community. The fabric of our lives is woven of these
relationships. This is the whole fabric of what we call community - a living network
that you can't just rip parts out of, any more than you can rip the heart out of a
living being. Open space is the heart of Orchard Grove.
Why Orchard Grove Includes A1132 Acres
At its July 8 meeting, the City Council initiated rezoning of the 27 acres which
constitute the bulk of Orchard Grove Mobile Home Park and which are designated
as MH (Manufactured Housing) under the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
Subsequently, we Orchard Grove residents, as well as members of the City Council,
expressed concern that the 5-acre parcel in the northeast corner of the Orchard
Grove site should also be considered for rezoning, since it is currently occupied by
mobile homes, by the park maintenance building, and by the community garden
which serve Orchard Grove.
Specifically, as shown on the map on the next page, portions of nine mobile homes,
numbers 153 through 161, plus the park maintenance building and the community
garden, are located on the 5-acre parcel. No other improvements are located on the
5-acre parcel. Thus, the only current use of the 5-acre parcel, which is owned by the
owner of the mobile home park, is as a part of the mobile home park.
We Orchard Grove residents are opposed to any change in the rezoning process
which would delay consideration of the 27~cre parcel for rezoning on September 2.
I iowever, we urge the City Council to initiate a comprehensive plan change and
rezoning on the 5-acre parcel at its August 5 meeting, requesting that the Planning
Board consider both a Comprehensive Plan change to MH and a rezoning to MH-E.
A Comprehensive Plan change is appropriate for this parcel under Section II of the
Comprehensive Plan, § I b, because it reflects the actual use of the parcel and
rounds out the existing MH-designated parcel and thus is "consistent with the
policies and overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan." This proposal does not
violate any of the restrictions on Comprehensive Plan changes. In particular, it
would not affect growth or urban services and would only affect Area I of the
Comprehensive Plan.
8
With Council initiation of this second rezoning, the existing rezoning would
proceed without consideration of the 5-acre parcel, and all of the issues concerning
the ultimate use of the 5-acre parcel would be postponed until a separate hearing.
This is advisable in order to simplify the issues to be addressed on September 2 and
to assure the defensibility of any possible rezoning approved at that time.
[t is our position that Council should not allow our homes and our community to
be divided by a zoning line, and that zoning lines should generally coincide with
property lines. We also plead for the possibility that we will be able to preserve all
of Orchard Grove as it now exists. MH-E zoning is the first essential step to cap
development. Based on these considerations, we request that the City Council
initiate this second rezoning and associated Comprehensive Plan change, with a
hearing to be held in late August or early September by the Planning Board and
potentially in late September or early October by the City Council.
s~ in fir-
art yy~ ~ ~v' r, . 4~ f
. j ; F. `a F y~ 1~~. ~ `4 tc~i;e~':.~ `l` `.:tom ~ i~ ~
'7
~y
. V. N r.i. J
~
t , ~ .e. r,
1~ var~;~ i~n,~c r,v:x
~ ,S a~
n ! •t~ ~ 1~ ~ ~
' f
- -moo :"I .r ~
9
~ 'i . xis' .l~ 1-
~ Fist
E,
i~yf. 'C:-
y~ 1'
h °~r I ~iA
II `
~1.•~i
K.:
.
::a .li
10
Sustainable Cornm unity
We envision a community that is a model of healthy, humane and sustainable life
for the low and moderate income people of Boulder who live in Orchard Grove.
We see a community that will embody the values that Boulder has espoused
throughout the City: care and preservation of open space and wildlife habitat,
adequate park space for health and renewal, community gardens that supply the
local community with healthy food, and "green" homes that are energy efficient. As
we as a City face increasing energy costs and global warming, we will need to rely
even more on local resources. Our vision for Orchard Grove joins Boulder's
conversation on re-localization of natural and human resources.
Orchard Grove stands proudly on the three legs of sustainability. It has a diverse
and caring community of people with a wide range of skills and incomes. It is
market affordability in a centralized location. It is already a remarkably "green"
community.
We see, in the five acres that are currently our common area, an essci~tial
community resource, "the lungs of Orchard Grove":
• We envision protected areas along each side of the ditch, to be left as wildlife
habitat for the white-tailed deer, red foxes, raccoons, skunks, white-tailed
jackrabbits, gray squirrels, brown bats, snakes, mallard ducks, woodpeckers,
crows, ring-necked brush, grackles, flicker woodpeckers, ruby-throated
hummingbirds, bohemian nutcrackers, blue jays, and raptors such as great
horned owls who range through Orchard Grove, as well as a multitude of
other wild creatures living in this exquisite riparian habitat.
• We imagine enhancing some of the area a bit further from the creek as park
space, by grooming the existing paths and adding benches for sitting. We
enjoy our beautiful trees -weeping willow, cottonwood, sumac, silver maple,
elm, peach, green apple, cherry, plum, crabapple, aspen, catalpa, ponderosa
pine, blue spruce, white pine, and ash.
• We foresee expanding the community gardens and adding a greenhouse,
thereby significantly contributing to the health and economic sustainability
of our park families. Cities across the nation are moving toward inner city
gardens to raise the level of livelihood in low income neighborhoods.
11
~i Z T
~
1 ~
1 U~.~-' ,
~ ~ ~
~
~
~ , , ,,cam
o
1
S Ptswv Tni
/1 r IWw,~rwJ
i,. i ~
_
.i I -
~ ~
• ,1 _
i I
•
t
is
C~m,,,,~aiysv~~,~~
12
• We would love to create a community meeting room that will allow for on-
going classes, gatherings, and events that will further strengthen our
community life and spirit.
We see our homes enhancing Boulder's blossoming commitment to sustainability:
• We envision a commitment. to the installation of green manufactured
homes, as the natural life of the older homes is completed. We do not
imagine pulling out from under people their life investments, but rather
slowly moving toward a green community, humanely, step-by-step as Orchard
Grove evolves. We would not move to trash an older home if it can be
upgraded, but rather extend the life of the owner's investment. We would
continue to support the work of Longs Peak Energy Conservation, who has
to date performed weatherization upgrades on 117 of our 216 homes, and
performed rehabilitation upgrades on another 24 of them. When a mobile
home reaches the end of its useful life, we would prefer to deconstruct and
recycle the materials, as opposed to demolishing it and putting it in the
landfill.
• We will seek -for this work of creating a green community with energy
efficient homes -grants and subsidies from numerous sources, including
such local programs as Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, Boulder County
Going Local, Center for Resource Conservation, ClimateSmart, City of
Boulder Office of Environmental Affairs, Colorado Interfaith Power and
Light (COIPL), Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association (CoSEIA), the
Green Heart Institute, High Altitude Permaculture, Institute for
Intentionally Sustainable Neighborhoods (IISN), Living Space, Natural
Capitalism Solutions, Resource, and Xcel Energy.
• It is with delight that we envision other collective investments in reducing
our energy use, such as passive solar convention units, and even generating
energy to put back into Xhe grid. With roof-top solar panels on each home -
86% of which are aligned east-west for excellent solar exposure - we could
be a source of ener~,ry for the Boulder grid.
• We can put more attention and care into our individual garden spaces. We
may be able to move toward more xeriscaping, thus using less water than
what we must use to maintain the lawns required by the current owner.
Composting toilets would further reduce water usage in Orchard Grove, as
well as provide fertilizer for our gardens.
13
Other possibilities for resource use efficiency intrigue us.
We envision ourselves as a model community in the midst of the newly planned
Transit Village area - a community that will draw people to be inspired by our
innovations in sustainability. We are ready and willing to try these cutting-edge
ideas. We offer ourselves and our 216 homes as a field test, to assist Boulder in
positioning itself to be America's first Transition town.
~ry~~,
is
I
n' e
. ~ ~ I Iy`,.h .
' ~r
q~p~ ~ 7 b
' `/1,..
_ .r . ~ ~ ^~r ,arc' ~
ice., ~~~r?c~IF" .r°.•i - 4..~.
14
Infrastructure
We believe that the potential infrastructure requirements at Orchard Grove have
become a red herring that everyone seems to be using for their particular agenda-
driven interest. No one has yet had an objective, independent engineering analysis
performed - to reveal the true state of the infrastructure and what is or is not
required. We at Orchard Grove urge ali parties involved to facilitate such a study as
soon as possible.
Without an accurate assessment of infrastructure needs, it is misleading to speculate
on what those needs may be, or the urgency and sequencing of them. But even
based on a worst-case scenario - replacement of all infrastructure as at Mapleton
Park - we believe that such replacement is possible and affordable for residents,
even under private ownership.
With cooperative, non-profit ownership and tax-exempt financing, infrastructure
replacement would be much more affordable. First, lot rents would exclude the
profit requirement of a private owner, saving around $100 or more per month per
lot. Second, non-profit ownership would be able to avail itself of long-term,
?noderate-interest financing to replace infrastructure - or even aself-taxing district,
if that were to prove to be the preferred vehicle.
Compare that to the high-cost model of infrastructure replacement used by Mr.
Chanin in his report: 8% financing and payback of infrastructure costs over just
five years. Anon-profit cooperative could do much better. $5,000,000 in
infrastructure costs financed at 6% over 30 years comes out to $146 per month per
lot -not insubstantial but still affordable for most Orchard Grove residents. Even
at $9,000,000, which is the most that the Orchard Grove residents could be
required, $28S would be affordable as a trade-off against increasing rents in a
redeveloping park, and the fee could be phased in over time with capitalized
interest.
Or compare that to City Staff's estimates of the cost of infrastructure replacement -
between $16,000,000 and $18,000,000, financed at 6.5% over 20 years.
These examples show why an independent engineering analysis must be performed.
15
Financing Structure
We have researched how the financing of Orchard Grove might be structured.
Here is one example.
Assumptions
(a) The land costs $15,000,000.
(b) The infrastructure costs $9,000,000. Our reasoning is as follows. Given the
experience of Mapleton Park, whose infrastructure costs totaled $32,000 per lot, we
factored in the Colorado Construction Cost Index (figuring that construction ciiight
not start for two years) as well as federal prevailing wage issues. Together those
might res~.~lt in a m~zltiplier of 1.3. $32,000 x 1.3 x 21b lots = $8,985,000.
(c) Affordable housing grant funds, as well as state or federal HUD funds, might
lie available and sliotild be pursued. We estimate that $7,000,000 could be raised
ley this method. $24,000,000 - $7,000,000 = $17,000,000.
(d) Down payment averaging $16,000 per lot would reduce the mortgage loan by
another $3,500.000, fora $13,500,000 mortgage.
(e) That would bring the debt service down to $1,200,000 per year. Add annual
operating costs of $350,000, for a total of $1,550,000 per year. Divided by 216 lots,
average lot rent would need to be $597 per month.
(f) After infrastructure replacement, annual operating costs will likely be lower,
i~ossibly by $100,000 per year. Debt service of $1,200,000 plus operating costs of
S250,000 total $1,450,000 per year, divided by 216 lots, average lot rent would need
to be $559 per month.
These are optimistic but achievable scenarios, and they assume that a package can
by put together to match Mr. Chanin's offer and fix the aging infrastructure. Not
everything will work out as we hope. But at these projected lot rents, there is room
for a little adjustment. And there is certainly more room and time for discussions
with both Mr. Nuttall and Mr. Chanin, after the rezoning and as the Orchard
16
Grove residents seek to put together a successful financing package to establish
cooperative, non-profit ownership.
Benefits
Under this scenario:
• the community remains intact, .
• the five acres are preserved for sustainable uses,
• no added revenue stream is necessary, and
• no on-going City subsidies are required.
We are not saying this scenario is a certainty. We are saying that it is suggestive
enough that such a course should he explored.
Questions
To open up more possibilities, we would love to explore the following questions in
depth.
Question: Could the City contribute one time capital grant funds to offset the
cost of acquisition and infrastructure improvement? If so, what might
the likely magnitude of such a grant be?
Question: [s any county, state, or federal low income housing grant money
available?
Question: What foundations could provide low interest loans or grants?
Question: Can Boulder County make a capital grant of part of the $15,000,000
in unspent welfare money that has to be spent by the end of this year?
question: Arc 40-year loans available? From what sources(s)?
17
Orchard Grove Mortgage Calculator
To assist you in further exploration of r.his complex set of variables, we have created
an "Orchard Grove Mortgage Calculator" at:
lutp://www.saveorchardgrave.com/calculator
The next illustration shows how the mortgage calculator computes the scenario we
presented above.
Select alld load Preset values
'load Vales
r.rr t'•rrnrln~ tdor,sselsrr
?A.mberollots. 216
costs
p'~a pa's Lsoooxo tN oclar.)
1rlrastnxt~re Costs 9000700 (1~Odlars)
Arn,alOpcratirgf~ensc- 150000 (:npolars)
Deducitoro
C+anls, Oau~or,, fl Ot,\r Oce~.ycns 7000000 (:n Ildlars)
?urtlsuo \ Rrsoncirq Lslsrmollors
LcrglA Ot Mortgage. 30 years
Arrs,a '.rlcresl Rato. 5 y~
Oar Paymert LS i'i
Cittulase
Ood filouWksns
_ _ _ _ .tiesfap#M.
alter ppv.r Paymert 120AOO,000AO (1).600,000.00)
Allcr 0easdiors If11~DOp00.00 (17.000,OOOAO)
1!}Adb,Odt1.00 .
8imp)ifled IMedaO AeIA 111C?arraa!
''''~Lt~ilajgl~irt 1s2uoo,onaoo
Pate Pe. lot 162,077.Oa ;1 11,199,000.00 / 216)
1bNldy Morlpage Pant 1
'~A7
Msrtldy0~vallrgtmcrvsPtrlx IiSSA7
Itarsl Increases ~~tW On Valwtlon O+p
bas MadNy Irmn+e 17fr~OC.Q~OIIJSaoo(mrrert teat) • 216()ots))
floss Amin Lsoonre: 1l07r200AD
AOJsated far a ]K Vgncy loss W70,9M.00
IMt Qperatllp llsmrrn(NOl): It10,N4.00 (p79,iSf.00 - f350A00.00)
Meet Martel Yoke: gtlp,b00A0 (fAl)! .065 (GpifaOtafloe Rato))
?glAlwoeaeo,~rag~Race: ?ul,ooa.s~(nol)~l,lo(oeeteo.~vageRaLe))
AmouK '.-i~,!! ~ 67,•f79,2G].J7 Amato Oar41'/ill loan WseC Ona1750 hkrtfily psyment
• Valuatbn bp: 15,920,7.30,4!
MoriNyld Maegegciv,~~~~t,:: ,x~' 1147.H
IlsaMoetNy PaymerY. 1AA71! (Valutgn (ip ~ Cunvt Rent)
l8
Orchard Grove Sample Budget Projection
While recognizing the almost limitless range of paths the sale and ownership
structure may possibly follow, we have begun preliminary analysis to prepare for a
multitude of scenarios. These proposals have helped us better understand the
economic ramifications and responsibilities of park ownership.
The following spreadsheet shows our most promising budget scenario that we have
so far developed; it is only one of several plans being discussed. All numbers are
subject to revision as we explore all of the alternatives.
This budget is based on atwo-tiered resident plan, where residents can buy into the
~ purchase of the park or stay on as renters. Any analysis by residents, such as the .
spreadsheet below, tries to maintain zero dislocation of any Orchard Grove resident.
The two-tiered plan will allow incentives for higher paying residents, by receiving
equity, to offset the loss of revenue of trying to maintain affordable rents for the
lowest income group.
http://www.saveorchardgrove.com/calculator/Proposed_Park_Budget.xls
"hhe Midget spreadsheet is reproc.luced on the following pages.
19
Orchard Grove Sample Budget Projection
Page One
A C D E F 0 H 1
3 Renters
5 Lols
7 Lot Rent
B
9 UWp@K
10 ;!nitial Share Prica
12 'Purchase Fee
14 'Monthly Membership fee
I6 Mnual Share Pnte increase
17
IB Blanket Mortgage
19 YearsolLoan
20 Annuallnterest Rate
21 'Price Of Property
77 Mer Deductions
23 Oown Payment
24 Loan Amourd
25
26 Aljrrswble Arrrwal Valdes
27 "ear 20D9 20t0 2011 2012 2013 Fts 2015
28 No 1 2 3 4 S _6 _ 7
79 Percent Purchased M 5.00% 4.00% 4.00% 400% 4101h t CO% l00%
30 Ranl Increase 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ _ - _ 000 - ~O Ot] - 000 - 0.00
31 MemberFealncreaso _ 000 0.00 0.00 _ 000 000 0_00 _ 0.00
3< Mnual Sharo Pdce Increase 0,00% 000% D.00% _ _ _U_00°6 _ _ _ __0 0_D__°S _ _ __0_ CU_',G 0.00%
3;i Inucase .n Lots 0 0 0 _ _ 0 _ _ 0 _ U _ _ 0
34 Purchase Feelncrease SO OD (000 SO.tx1 SO 00 5000 (000 (0.00
35 OperatmgExpemes (350 .00 5360500.00 337t3t500 f38y151<5 539392806 5405745.92 Sit? 1@.30
36 IntrastruclureUpgrades (000 1000 (000 (0.00 _ SOOU 5000 (0.00
37 Additional Mortgage Payments 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0.00 _ 000 0.00 0.00
:i0
i4 4uuual Calcnlarod TaUle
4J 7\nnual Res~denla Purehasmy In 11 B 8 8 7 7 7
41 total Residents Purchased In 11 19 21 35 42 49 56
42 Open Shares (Renters) 245 197 189 181 17d 167 160
d3 Snare Value f11D00040 511715Dfb (124,)6475 f132H7416 5141,5113D f150,7l553 f16D,54565
44 Fnncipat8alanceOnLoan St3,198,31D71 512,99(5.53708 512,164,17470 ft2,530,ffl420 512,295,53960 f12028.12743 111,757,04457
45 Faymenl On Pnnnpal 520t ,t~9 23 5211,773 69 5222,362 38 fI33,480 50 5245,15d 52 (257 e12 25 f270,282 86
46 Payment On Inlarect 5670 000 00 (559,915 54 f649,326 f6 !638,208 73 (626,534 71 5614,27690 (601,406 37
47 Payment OnMortgago S87t,60923 (071,68923 5811,60923 (071,60923 (871,68923 (871,689.23 f071,68923
48
49 ProfdFromBuyln f1,721,O110D0 f945,2000U S10C6,118U0 (1070,99567 3997,57909 (1061,96673 (1,130,539.57
50 Profit f rem Rent (861,000 ~ f827,d00 UD (793,800 00 (760,200 04 5730 ti00 DO 5701,100 00 (672 000 DD
51 Proid From HOA ffib00.00 fit 400 00 516.0 00 (21,000 00 52500 00 f29.t00 00 (33,600 00
c2
53 Net Income (066,910 77 (551 X310 77 (573,113 77 (698051 99 5407,961 78 5515.331 SB (516,532 04
51 Bank Account (866.91077 St ,418,72154 (1,991,035.31 (2,589,887.30 (3,077,84908 f3,593,18066 54.139,712.70
55
5h
20
Orchard Grove Sample Budget Projection
Page Two
~ ~ K - -L M N 0 - F--- - ~ - tt---
2016 2011 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
8 9 10 11 R 13 14 15 I6
1-00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 4.00% 4.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.0096
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0 W
0.00% 0.00% 000% 0.00% 0.00% O.W% 0.00% 0.00% OW%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a
so.oD so.DO sD.oo sD.oo so oD 3o W sD.oo so.W so.W
3430 d55.85 3443 369.53 5456 7D.62 3470 310.74 fd84 481.86 5499 01632 5513 .81 f629 406.41 1515.288 60
50.00 50.00 .00 fO.W SO.W SO.W 30.00 ~ 30.00 SO.W
D.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5
62 6B 74 80 85 90 95 iW 105
154 148 142 136 131 126 121 116 111
5170,938.52 S182p19.52 f193682 74 5206,185.12 (219,906.65 3234,200.59 3249,423.62 (266,636.16 5282,902.51
511,174,D4757 f11,176p6072 510,863,17/53 510,531,64403 f70,189,687W x,827,18212 ~,447,167C0 39,0/7,83612 58628,53870
328"1,797.00 5297,906.85 5312,88619 L32BS30.50 5344,957.03 5362,201.88 5360,315.12 5399,33G.B8 5419.297.12
5587,892.23 5573,702.38 5559,803 0/ (543,158.13 (526,732 20 3509,484.35 5491,374.11 3472,358.35 f452,391 81
3871,689 73 5871,689 23 3871,689 73 3871,689.73 5871,689 23 3871,689 ?3 (871,669.23 3871,689 23 5871 689 23
f1,031,631.12 f1,098,297.14 f1,169,29646 31,244,910.73 11,104,53327 f1,176p02.93 51,252,118.12 51,333,iW.80 31,419,61256
f646,8W W 5621,600 W f596,4W W 3571,2W W 5550,20000 5529,200.00 5508,2W W 5197,2W.W S4E6,2W W
537,2W W 540,8W.W 541,4W.W 3/O,OW W 161,WO.W (54,000W S57,COO.W f60,000.W S63A0000
Sd13,486 01 5415,638 38 5481,736 61 S5?2,050,76 3349,562 18 5388,497 38 5431,64208 5179 Z~.16 3531,734 7?
54,553,198.74 31,998,837.12 55,48057373 f6A02621.49 56.352,166.67 36,740684.05 57,172,326.13 5765161129 38,183.34602
21
Ownership Structures
City Staff was asked by City Council to analyze the sale of Orchard Grove and
explore other options to address public and resident concerns regarding the sale.
Several other types of ownership structure have been speculated by us. In order to
help facilitate the exploration of all options, several of these options have been
provided below.
Among types of ownership that we have explored are:
Land Lease/Land Trust
The land is titled to a third party entity, which enters into along-term lease of the
land with the community ownership. The third party entity conveys lots to the
individual residents through short term leases. Rents can be adjusted, based on
income, to accommodate all residents.
Leasehold f lan
A variation on the Land Lease/Land Trust. A third-party entity owns the land in
fee simple and leases the individual lots as separate interests, which become interests
in the corporation's leasehold rights (rather than its ownership rights). This
structure will allow for the use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs). Due
to the nature of the LIHTC program, the holders of the tax credits must be the
actual owners of the improvements in order to qualify to use the credits to reduce
their federal income tax liabilities.
Mutual Housing Association
A non-profit. organization owns the land. The non-profit organization has a
governance structure composed solely of representatives of cooperative residents.
The governance structure controls the financial structure of the non-profit and pays
expenses through rental income and other subsidies.
Land-Only Plan
A variation on the Mutual l lousing Association where the non-profit or for profit
entity owns the common land but the individual lots are owned by individual
members.
Market-Rate Plan
A non-profit organization owns the land. The primary mortgage on the main title is
a blanket mortgage. Individual residents will hold shareholder titles funded by
22
resident ownership mortgages. Tkie funds from the ownership mortgage pay into
the blanket mortgage. Each shareholder in the legal entity is granted the right to
occupy one lot subject to an occupancy agreement. The occupancy agreement
specifies the organizations rules. Residents can buy or sell their interests in them at
whatever price the market will bear. You acquire equity much the same as in other
types of home ownership.
Limited Equity Plan
A version of the Market-rate plan with restrictions imposed on how much equity
tenants can accumulate and how much they can profit from the sale of their stock
in the corporation. Limited equity plans offer affordable housing, and carry certain
benefits such as lower-interest loans, tax breaks, and grants. Both the Market-rate
plans and the Limited equity plans can provide for a dual shareholder/renter
' structure. Residents can either purchase into as share holders or remain as renters.
Marker Affordability
Every City Staff option and every developer option displaces some or all of Orchard
Grove residents. We hereby declare that it is our intention to displace none of
Orchard Grove residents.
There are three steps that can be taken to provide increasing guarantees of
predictability and affordability for manufactured homes in Orchard Grove. Taking
all three steps may not be necessary: at our July 1 meeting, City Staff stated that if
the first two steps were accomplished, Orchard Grove would meet the City's
definition of "permanently affordable."
Step One: Rezoning
MH-E keeps lot rents affordable: it has done so in the other mobile home parks in
Boulder since 1985, and they remain among the most affordable housing options in
Boulder. The market, coupled with zoning, has kept these homes affordable,
because lot rents can rise no higher than what the residents can afford to pay -that
is, what the market will bear.
Step Two: Non Profit Ownership
Ownership of the park by anon-profit whose mission is to keep housing affordable,
could take the form of a cooperative owned by residents, an independent non-profit
23
land trust, or other options. Non-profit ownership serves to keep lot rents
affordable by removing the private profit motive.
Step Three: Optional Capped Appreciation
The final possible step would be to cap the appreciation on homes for some or most
of the homeowners in Orchard Grove. In exchange for agreeing to the cap,
homeowners in certain income brackets would be guaranteed reduced lot rents.
These three steps provide for increasing levels of stability and predictability in
assuring that homes in Orchard Grove remain affordable.
By far the most significant and urgent step to take in this situation is rezoning. We
urge City Council to rezone all 32 acres of Orchard Grove to MH-E in order to
preserve 216 units of already existing affordable single family housing.
If Orchard Grove is not rezoned and 21.6 mobile homes are removed from the
market, demand fir homes in other Boulder mobile home parks would increase,
and market forces would drive rents higher for all.
New Category Needed for the AMI Index
It remains a source of concern for us that the Area Median Income Chart is used to
exclude an entire category of low-income people -namely, those who have low
income but moderate equity. For example, a person receiving maximum individual
disability payments is entitled to live in a homeless shelter bed, but not in one of
our own manufactured home, because "permanently affordable housing" counts
each homeless shelter bed as a unit, but does not count a manufactured home in
Orchard Grove. This situation affects the circumstances of many of us at Orchard
Grove. Therefore, we encourage you to hold this in mind while you make decisions
about our future.
Low Income Moderate Income High Income
Shelter Market for Rent
Market for Sale
Affordable for Rent Affordable for Sale
24
In Conclusion
As you can see from what we have proposed and explored in these eight points, we
feel that there is a socially humane and economically feasible future for Orchard
Grove that the City of Boulder will ultimately be proud of.
We urge you to take the visionary high road to support us - as a community and as
dedicated citizens of Boulder - to create a truly sustainable future.
Correcting the zoning for the 32 acres of Orchard Grove is an essential step in
securing our future. Once the zoning situation is settled, we look forward to
exploring all future possibilities. But we need to be clear. Even if our objective of
cooperative non-profit ownership is not achieved, we still seek MH-E zoning for all
of Orchard Grove. We will then take our chances in negotiation with the owner of
Orchard Grove, as we have for many years with Lu Nuttall.
As you can see, we have the capacity to move successfully toward collective
management and ownership or non-profit management should these options
become possible.
You can sense our passion and drive to direct our own future, as a unique and
valued community in the rich fahric of our City.
25
J
A
~ j ~ !
~ t
A u~
a ~
~ E
J ~ M ~i~ . 4
Div z4/ .
. i .YZ Ei h ..~4't~d i , :Itrt ~.:y
ff -1 \ Il
~
i• ~ ,
e •
r'^~
~ '
.~a
' .
r, ~
x-~,, .
, ~ `
~F
a -
~_i
26
Section 2
Response to the City Staff Report
In this section, we are responding to a draft of the Ciry Staff memo that was handed
to us by them on July 24, 2008. Since we have not yet received a final draft, as of
August 3rd, we are including our commentary on the July 24`h draft for your review.
It contains valuable information that we would like to share with you. When we
receive City Staff's final report, we may address additional issues as an Addendum
to this Report.
Factual Errors and Inaccurate Assumptions in City Staff Report:
1. In five different places, the report mentions as a possible negative outcome of
leaving the mobile homes on site, that the park owner could choose to "not allow
older mobile homes to remain in park when sold." City Staff was informed on
several occasions that such practices by park owners are illegal under the Colorado
Mobile Home Park Act, as clarified by the Longmont case of Hammer v. Grand
Mcadow Mobile Home Park, 2001.
2. City Staff report states: "City water is brought into a cistern in the park,
augmented with well water and then distributed to homes." This is false: Orchard
Grove is 100% on City water and has been for a number of years now. Well water
is used to water our common area, but not commingled with City water. See the
annual water quality report on Orchard Grove water which is distributed to each
resident.
3. City Staff report states: "Under RM-1 zoning, the site could have up to 376
~inits." While this is an improvement over City Staffs original estimate of 464 units
(which assumed 100% coverage by open space and zero square footage for building
fcx~tprints and paved streets, sidewalks, etc.), it is still inflated.
RM-1 zoning requires 3,000 square feet of open space per unit. 376 units would
require 1,125,000 sq. ft. of open space. Since 32 acres totals 1,393,920 sq. ft., this
leaves a total of 268,920 square feet for 376 units plus associated roads, sidewalks,
a nil parking.
27
That means an average of 717 square feet per unit for all building footprints,
parking, streets, etc. It is difficult to see how 376 units could be built on the site
without violating the height limit.
The most accurate estimate to date of what. could be built on the full 32 acres under
RM-1 zoning was done by architect Gordon Tully, who estimated approximately
250 units maximum.
4. While City Council and City Staff repeatedly express concern for the most
vulnerable, we also want to address the fact that medium and moderate income
folks are in the same boat if City Council endorses the plans that City Staff and Mr.
Chanin are putting forward. '
5. It is significant to note that all of the recommendations by City Staff include
what is referred to as a "tighter site plan." It was not made clear in their report why
they consider packing us in such an inevitable outcome of even simple rezoning.
Packing us in tighter will entail moving homes, building new pads, and much more
investment in new infrastructure. Gardens with amended soil, trees, patios and a
wide range of household and landscape features would be heavily affected by
such packing of homes. We suggest that blithely accepting this concept without
examination amounts to amazing insensitivity to the impact this will have on our
community.
Uptron 1: Rezone to MH (27Acres)
Among the list of what Option #I would "accomplish" are included: "creates
incentive for property owner to increase lot rents" and "creates incentive for
property owner to redevelop the park, increasing the number of spaces, requiring
older homes m be removed when sold."
To paraphrase an old saying: with "accomplishments" like these, who needs failures?
We fail to see the logic in thinking that any of these incentives are created by
rezoning to MH-E, as opposed to leaving the zoning RM-l. Any of these
possibilities is equally likely under existing zoning. And rezoning to MH-E will act
to put an upper limit on the redevelopment potential of the land, which does not
exist under current zoning. Under current zoning, the owner could empty the park
with astronomical rent increases, and then redevelop (see Chanin Scenario #I).
MH-E zoning does not eliminate the potential for rent increases. Only the market
limits those. But rezoning does limit the redevelopment potential.
2 ~3
Further, as we have told City Staff: a park owner can not require "older homes to be
' removed when sold," as per the Colorado Mobile Home Park Act, and the
Longmont case of Hammer v. Grand Meadow Mobile Home Park, 2001.
Staff claims that rezoning "does not prevent the displacement of current residents."
Response: there is no zoning on earth that can prevent displacement 100%. But of
all the options before City Council, MH-E zoning would clearly minimize the
displacement potential.
Staff claims as possible outcome of rezoning: "owner of park raises rents with the
intention of vacating entire park, then requests land use and zoning change." This
far-fetched scenario has never happened in 23 years of MH-E zoning in Boulder. IC's
extremely unlikely City Council would approve such a zoning request. As one
Council member pointed out: "We're not stupid." Enough said.
Accomplishments of MH-E rezoning that City Staff did not mention:
• Prevents certain and planned displacement of over 400 people.
• Preserves 216 units of market-affordable single family housing.
• Preserves $6,000,000 in home equity of Orchard Grove homeowners.
• Preserves diverse, close-knit, 45-year-old neighborhood and community.
• Serves to put an upper limit on rent increases by eliminating the possibility
of redevelopment. This is market affordability.
• Allows for the possibility of adding up to 216 units to inventory of
permanently affordable housing. This could achieve permanent affordability.
Option Z: Use of Crty Subsidy Funds
City Staff have repeatedly expressed concern for the most vulnerable of our
residents. Not one of the options presented by City Staff really offers an affordable
choice for them. All of the options presented by City Staff -except rezoning all 32
acres MH-E -will cause unaffordable increases in lot rents/condo mortgages to
moderate and inici-income residents as well.
29
City Staff refers to City subsidies for owners of "permanently affordable housing."
However, there are other subsidies available for low income residents who may own
their own home but not the land under it. We believe there may be many Orchard
Grove residents who possess Section 8 housing subsidies, and other assistance from
the City and the County, and agencies such as Center for People with Disabilities,
Imagine!, Carmel, and the Mental Health Center of Boulder and Broomfield
Counties. These subsidies may enable more low income and disabled residents to
stay in Orchard Grove.
Section 8's maximum dollar allotment for rent is, for example, $1200 in Boulder
for athree-bedroom accommodation (with the recipient paying 30% of their
income). In Boulder, this is a difficult order to fill. In a mobile home park such as
Orchard Grove, the cost for equivalent accommodations can he considerably less.
The difference in these costs is a direct savings to the City of Boulder and to many
other government and non-government entities that provide assistance, not to
mention the residents.
Option 3: Keep Current RM-1 Zoning
This is the "do nothing" option. This option leaves us in the current position in
which we find ourselves, that we have spoken so passionately to you about at City
Council meetings. Under this option, we are vulnerable to the complete loss of our
life investments, repudiation of the historical use of the land, and destruction of
one of Boulder's "glorious" neighborhoods and communities. The proposed 20%
affordable housing may not be affordable to most of us, nor is there any guarantee
that we will be among the small number who are eligible for these homes. There is
already a long waiting list of people in Boulder who need permanently affordable
units. The residents of Orchard Grove already own homes they love.
Option 4: Rezone to RM-2
Under this option, we are even more vulnerable to the complete loss of our life
investments, repudiation of the historical use of the land, and destruction of one of
Boulder's "glorious" neighborhoods and communities. Upzoning would, among
other considerations, violate the comprehensive plan. As under Option 3, the
proposed 20% affordable housing; may not he affordable tc~ most of us, nor is there
30
any guarantee that we will be among the small number who are eligible for these
homes. We urge that the City Council take this upzoning option off the table.
Option S: Rezone 27 Acres MH and S Acres High Density
Under what Option #4 "accomplishes" and "does not accomplish" are some of the
same flawed analyses we discussed in Option # 1. Curiously, Option #4 states that
"approximately 30 - 50 units could be built on the vacant 5 acre parcel" under a
high-density rezoning, while Option #5 says that "under RM-1 zoning,
approximately 59 units" could be built on the parcel.
While the number of units possible under RM-1 zoning is exaggerated (RM-1
requires 3,000 square feet of open space per unit, so 40 is a more likely figure), the
"30 - 50 units" figure under high-density zoning just doesn't make any sense. How
can high-density zoning allow for the same amount of units as the lowest density of
the medium-density zoning categories (RM-1)?
In any case, Mr. Chanin's plans for the 5 acres (as presented to us on July 17) are
many times more dense than what City Staff describes in Option #4. But. that is his
CaSC t() pCetiCllt, nOt OL1T5.
Option 6: Negotiate with Potential Purchaser
It wasn't until after City Council IIlltlElted the rezoning process on July 8 that Mr.
C;hanin expressed any interest whatsoever in preserving the mobile home use at
Orchard Grove. We are convinced that, without the pending possibility of rezoning
to MH-E, Mr. Chanin would be back to "Plan A" -that is, the complete
redevelopment of Orchard Grove and the displacement of every mobile home and
every resident. For this reason we strongly urge City Council to proceed on
rezoning.
Option 7: Rezone to MH (32 Acres)
This option, the one we cherish, was not included in the July24~' draft, bait after
much discussion at that meeting, City Staff agreed to include it.
31
+t, r
~s ~
v~, ~ ~ ~ ti
~
•r
,u H
~ RED
D
1'
a
`f/~~fi' F r`
i s G - S~
c. R
?i V
} A v ` .
D ~
- - . wti
,s j. ~
_ ~ -
~ ~
•
T :
~
r, v -
l) - '.fy~
m G t1 > -1
. R
r: - H RO 0
n ~ r•
~ D E ~
~
t,• v
~~r
32
Section 3
Response to Jim Chanin's• Report
Chanin Development's "Orchard Grove Situational Summary" features two photos
both of which are printed in reverse. The front-page image even centers, offensively,
on Orchard Grove's dumpsters. Equally skewed and distorted are Mr. Chanin's
analysis, and the figures used to support apre-determined agenda.
Before responding in detail to Mr. Chanin's report, we feel drawn to expose how
the document attempts to frame matters. By using "situational," "dilemma," and
"resolution," Mr. Chapin claims Orchard Grove as a problem which only he can
solve. The central argument of his document hinges upon his insistence that the
infrastructure improvements at Orchard Grove require financing that only a
developer can provide. With this in mind, the rest of the document reads, not so
much as a factual presentation of three options, but rather as a justification for his
aim of total redevelopment.
Infrastructure
Mr. Chanin states that "the useful life of the water, sewer and road systems within
Orchard Grove has expired. Within the next five to seven years the existing
infrastructure will see failures beyond the level of feasible spot repair. Sewer system
in place is undersized to carry peak loads and barely capable of handling daily
flows."
As Cindy I'ieropan has acknowledged, there has never been a comprehensive,
independent engineering st<idy done of the infrastructure at Orchard Grove. All we
have are agenda-driven estimates by various parties who have a vested interest in one
particular outcome or another. Even the study done by Drexel Bartell -upon
which Mr. Chanin bases his cost estimate -did not involve ANY actual on-site
examination of the state of the infrastructure. It was simply a cost estimate based
on assuming that the infrastructure had reached the end of its useful life and would
need total replacement.
Orchard Grove continues to enjoy adequate water, sewer, electrical, and phone
service, just as it has for the past 40+ years. We have first-hand accounts from those
who service our sewer syste?n, to the effect that the Orchard Grove sewer system is
not only functional, but may in fact. he in better shape than similar private systems
33
in Boulder. Contrary to Mr. Chanin's claim that the sewer system is "barely capable
of handling daily flows," a number of our 20+ year residents report no sewer
backups in their decades at Orchard Grove. The Fire Department says our water
system is fully functional and adequate for their requirements.
As for roads: a number of City Council members toured Orchard Grove by bicycle.
Did you encounter a road system whose "useful life" had "expired"? We walk, bike,
and drive these roads every day, and Mr. Chanin's claims have no basis invisible
reality.
The only way to determine the true state of Orchard Grove's infrastructure is via an
independent, objective engineering report based upon on-site inspection. Until such
an assessment is done, all talk of infrastructure needs is completely speculative and
agendadriven.
Surrounding Density
Mr. Chapin points o~it that Orchard Grove is surrounded by much higher density
uses. For example, he states a density of 25.7 units per acre for the apartments just
to the west of Orchard Grove. However, this 25.7 density is based on earlier density
allowances. Now-a-days, the maximum density for medium-density zoning in
Boulder is 14 units per acre, and with the open space requirement under RM-1, 8 -
10 units per acre is a more realistic maximum.
Our neighbors in San Juan del Centro, Arborwood, Stratford Park, Eagle's Nest,
Eagle Creek, Glenlake, Walker Park, and Woodglen have told us how precious our
omen space is to them, because it provides aesthetic relief and functions as the
"pings" of their developments as well. We have heard repeatedly from them that
they support us in our quest to preserve Orchard Grove as it is.
Let's turn to an examination of Mr. Cllanin's three scenarios for Orchard Grove.
34
Chanrn's Scenario 1
Because of Mr. Chanin's page-one claim that "change is inevitable," subtitling this
scenario "Status Quo" belies his interest in this outcome, even though it would not
keep things in their current state. Scenario 1 is intended to show the non-viability
of rezoning the park to M11-E while improving the infrastructure. The figures are,
of course, skewed in that direction. But if we take the figures at face value, they
simply indicate that Mr. Chanin will be unable to profitably operate the mobile
home park in today's market, and would therefore be unlikely to purchase and
operate the park, after it is rezoned.
Mr. Chanin proposes in Scenario 1 to increase lot rents to $525. We estimate this
figure to be based on a re-negotiated purchase price of $12,000,000 or less, after
rezoning, factoring into the equation the kind of cash flow and operating margin
Mr. Chanin will expect. The "infrastructure improvements" figure is deliberately
skewed upward by assuming an 8% loan with afive-year payoff. With an
exaggerated monthly utility figure of $100, Mr. Chanin comes up with a total
monthly cost, not including mortgage payments, of $1,185 to $1,355.
Since there is not now, and most likely will not be in the near future, a market in
Boulder for $1,355 per month mobile home lots, Mr. Chanin's figures simply show
that he can't successfully operate a mobile home park. But anon-profit land trust or
resident-owned cooperative could. Such an entity would have access to long-term,
low interest rate financing of infrastructure improvements. And of course, we have
no idea what infrastructure improvements may be needed, nor how much they
wrnild cost.
Chanin s Scenario 2 (Plan A)
This is Mr. Chanin's original (and his preferred) redevelopment scenario. First, he
is comparing apples and oranges: one or two bedroom affordable condos or
townliomes versus single family mobile homes with two, three, or more bedrooms
and private yards. Many families with children, and even those without children,
would consider the affordable units to be inferior to their individual homes wirh
yards and gardens.
3.5
Second, under existing RM-1 zoning, Mr. Chapin can get 200 - 250 units
maximum on the redeveloped site, according to the only credible analysis done so
far, which takes into account the requirements of RM-1 zoning (study done by
architect Gordon Tully). Even at 250 units (apartments, not townhomes), 20%
affordability would yield only 50 units available to Orchard Grove residents,
compared to the existing 216 homes. And is Mr. Chapin assuming that Orchard
Grove residents would automatically go to the front of the line of Boulder residents
currently waiting for permanently affordable housing?
Mr. Chanin's $5,000 credit offer does not come close to covering the est{mated
$6,000,000 loss of equity to current residents. $5,000 would be equitable for some
Orchard Grove residents; however, many of us owe anywhere from $5,000 to
$SS,000 on our mortgages, obligations which are not relieved by the sale of the
park.
The complete redevelopment of Orchard Grove makes no sense economically. To
redevelop Orchard Grove without losing millions of dollars, he w{ll have to (a)
break various pledges and commitments he has made in meetings with Orchard
Grove residents, (b) get a significant up-zoning, and/or (c) obtain significant
subsidies.
At various points in the process, Mr. Chan{n has pledged to build all townhomes,
duplexes, and four-plexes on the property, not apartments; pledged to offer each
displaced Orchard Grove homeowner an affordable 1100-sq. ft. townhome; offered
to sell those townhomes at $90,000 each.
Even i{ we assume that Mr. Chan{n mod{f{es or waters down the above
commitments, he still won't be able to pull off his redevelopment scenar{o at the
current purchase price, without an upzoning.
Under RM-1 zoning, even if apartments are built rather than the promised
townhomes, the site will accommodate a maximum of 240 units. Mr. Chan{n has
offered every current res{dent an affordable unit; let's say he whittles that down
from 216 to 200. And let's assume he increases the average sale price of affordable
units from $90,000 to $120,000 (as indicated in his "Situational Summary"). Two
hundred units at $120,000 totals $24,000,000. Another 40 market rate units at
$250,000 each equals $10,000,000, for a grand total revenue from the property of
$34,000,000.
His purchase pr{ce is $15,000,000. His minimum infrastructure estimate is
$6,000,000, for a total of $21,000,000. Then there's the $5,000 he's offering every
36
mobile homeowner for their equity, which totals $1,080,000. This comes to a total
of some $22,000,000, before construction costs and all other costs.
Assuming construction costs of $100 per sq. ft.: $100 x 1100 sq. ft. x 240 units
equals $26,000,000 in construction costs.
So before factoring in overhead, legal costs, sales costs, debt service, etc., Mr.
Chanin's costs will be $48,000,000, versus $34,000,000 in total revenue based on
commitments to affordable housing and the limitations of RM-1 zoning. That
means Mr. Chanin would lose $14,000,000 before any other costs are added.
Mr. Chanin's projections for Plan A just don't add up. To rraake the project work,
he must (a) break various pledges and commitments he has made in meetings with
Orchard Grove residents, (b) get a significant up-zoning, and/or (c) obtain
significant subsidies.
Chanin s Scenario 3 (Plan B)
This is somewhat different from the Plan B he presented to Orchard Grove
residents on July 17. At that time, Plan B assumed an upzoning of the 5 acre parcel
to high density, the construction of up to 210 units on that 5 acres (40-60 units per
acre on 3.5 buildable acres), and the payment of all Orchard Grove infrastructure
needs out of the revenues from the developed 5 acres. Mr. Chanin's new Plan B
seems to imply development of the 5 acres under the existing RM-1 zoning, which
would give him only around 40 new units.
Scenario 3 still assumes infrastructure needs which may or tnay not be accurate, and
still uses a front loaded 5-year, 8% loan rate assumption for those improvements.
With more reasonable loan and payoff assumptions, and especially if the park were
to be purchased by anon-profit cooperative, any infrastructure needs could be met
without pushing lot rents beyond market affordability, as Mr. Chanin anticipates in
Scenario 3.
Mr. Chanin's figures are intended to dissuade City Council from rezoning Orchard
Grove by indicating that keeping the mobile Home park intact would not be
economically feasible. But paradoxically, Mr. Chanin is unwittingly making a
strong case- for non-profit ownership as the best and most viable option for
preserving the neighborhood, the homes, and the affordability of Orchard Grove.
37
In Conclusion
Non-profit ownership would be awin-win-win for the current owner (he could sell
profitably even under MH-E rezoning), for the residents (keeping their cherished
homes, neighborhood, and single-family lifestyle, and keeping lot rents affordable),
and for the City (adding 216 units to the inventory of permanently affordable
housing).
Please recall that Mr. Chanin frames this as a "dilemma" which describes two
premises, both of which are unfavorable to the chooser, who is forced to make a
choice. This language attempts to force unfavorable choices on both the City
Council and the residents of Orchard Grove. We wish to stress that this represents
a heavy bias toward a developer interested in profits, disregarding the feasibility of
other possibilities. bully aware that "change is inevitable for a continued future," we
have grave concerns about the quality of change Chanin Development plans to
bring to Orchard Grove, and what motives drive those plans.
We request that the City Council rezone all of Orchard Grove nowand give the
Orchard Grove residents a chance to pursue an alternative that meets the intent of
the Comprehensive flan for this area. Uur vision is not to deprive Mr. Nuttall of
any of the profits of the sale of Orchard Grove. As we have stressed, he has been a
good landlord, and he deserves a fair profit. But working with the $15,000,000
sales price, we believe that we can come up with a better package that promotes a
self-governing, economically and environmentally sustainable community. We
request only that the City Council give us a chance tc~ show what we can do.
cis
38
t,~ li ' .~I
~Q' .>'r
.ti
* ,
: ,
r'. ~
_
' f
~o
9'~
tier.
It x~;
k 'r.
t~
g : ~
3~
Works Cited
2007 Real Estate Manual. State of Colorado, Department of Regulatory Agencies,
Real Estate Division. Juiy 2007. Chapter 26. Related Real Estate Law 25 Jul. 2008
<http://www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/manual/manual_2007/Ch26.pdfl
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. 2005
<http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/PDS/BVCP/bvcp.pdf>
CFEI). 6 Jun 2008. Corporation far Enterprise Development. 6 Jun 2008.
<www.cfed.org>.
Chanin Development Co., and Designworkshop. Orchard Grove Situational
Summary. 25 Jul. 2008.
Chapter 9.9: Development Standards. Boulder Revised Code. Colorado Code
Publishing Company. (c) 2008. 25 Jul. 2008
<http://www.colocode.com/boulder2/chapter9-9.htm>.
City of Boulder. "Welcome to the Boulder Police Department" 27 Jun 2008.
Weekly Crime Map. 3 Jul 2008.
<http://www.bouldercoloxado.gov/index.php?option=
com_content&task=view&id=8495&Itemid=2933>
Do you own a manufactured home, but rent the land beneath it?. Resident Owned
Communities, USA. 6 Jun. 2008 <http://www.rocusa.or~/homcowners.htrn>
Estate Division. July 2007. Chapter 26. Related Real Estate L.aw 25 Jul. 2008
<http://www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/manual/manual 2007/Ch26.pdf>.
40
Getz , Charmaine Ortega. "Mobile Home Parks: Affordable Oasis or Mirage?"
Boulder Magazine Summer 200?. 7 Jun. 2008
<http://www.getboulder.com/visitors/articles_su07/mobile. html>.
Grainger, Stephanie, John Pollack, and Jann Oldham. "Community process for the
Review of Affordable Housing Goals and Priorities" 22 May 2008. Memorandum
for Boulder City Council Study Session.
Grissim, John. The Grissim Ratings Guide to Manufactured Homes. Rainshadow
Publications. 1 Feb. 2006
Grissim, John. The Grissim Buyers Guide to Manufactured Homes and Land.
Rainshadow Publications. 25 Apr. 2006
Hammer v. Grand Meadow Mobile Home Park. Boulder County, District Court,
Div. 6. Case #OlCVl481.
History of Mapleton Home Association. Jun. 2001 Mapleton Horne Association. 7
Jun. 2008<www.colorado-housing.net/thistle/mha/index.htm>.
1'M HOML -Innovations in Manufactured Homes. CFED
<http://www.cfed.org/focus.m?edit=0&parentid=317&siteid=317&id=2343#three>.
Manufactured Homeowners' Association of America
www.mhoaa.us
Manufactured Housing: A Responsible Vehicle for Affordable Homeownership.
Innovations in Manufactured homes 22 Jul. 2008.
<http://vvww.rocusa.org/press/ManufacturedHousingFactSheet _04_08.pdf>
Map. 2008 Boulder County ,Colorado (Aerial Photographs: Spring/Summcr
2006). <hrtp://map.co.boulder.co.t~s/basemap/default.jsp>
41
NeighborWorks Atnerica
www.nw.org
ROC USA. 6 Jun 2008. Resident Owned Communities /The Meredith Institute. 6
Jun 2008. <www.rocusa.org>
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
<http://www. rcac. org/>
Section One: Overview of national MH statistics & data. All Parks Alliance for
Change 22 Jun. 2008. <http://www.allparksallianceforchange.org/?q=national>.
Understanding Today's Manufactured Housing. Manufactured Housing Institute
t3 Jut. Zoos
<http://www.manufacturedhousing.org/understanding__today2006/index.htm>.
42
ATTACHMENT D
Additional Background on Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) Policies, Land
Use Map, and City Zoning
Four BVCP policies are relevant to this issue and influenced staff
s suggestion of the potential
goals. They include:
Policy 2.14 Preservation of Community Character.
The city will encourage the preservation of community character as reflected in the
development pattern and relative affordability of the existing Housing stock in
Boulder's varied neighborhoods.
Policy 7.07 Preserve Existing Housing Stock.
The city and county, recogniTing the value of their existing housing stock, will
encourage its preservation and rehabilitation through its land use policies, regulations
and incentives. Special efforts will be made to preserve and rehabilitate existing low
and moderate income units in order to meet the needs of all residents in the
community.
Policy 7.08 Preservation and Development of Manufactured Housing.
Recognizing the importance of manufactured housing as an option for many
households, the city and county will encourage the preservation of existing mobile
home parks and the development of new manufactured home parks, including
increasing opportunities for resident-owned parks. Whenever an existing mobile home
park is found in a hazardous area, every reasonable effort will be made to reduce or
eliminate the hazard, when feasible, or to help mitigate for the loss of housing through
relocation of affected households, development of additional manufactured housing
capacity in the county.
Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map
The 27 acre parcel where the existing 216 mobile homes are located has a BVCP land use
designation of MH (Manufactured Housing). The Comprehensive Plan Lund Use Map defines
the desired land use pattern for the Boulder Valley regarding location, type and intensity of
development. The BVCP states that "Land use desi~iations provide a generalized picture of
desired future uses in the Boulder Valley. The city's zoning code regulates every parcel of
In 2000, a new land use of Manufactured Housing was added to the BVCP and was applied to
all the city's existing mobile home parks. During 2004, the subject property was not rezoned
a5 part of the comprehensive rezoning.
31
I_J~
~ b~Y --,I
r. ~ b
~o a
r----1 • EKP
~
` ~ c ~ Hiyh Density [ - ~`,(f
L Park, Urban _
Residential and Other
T ; ~ .
~ ~ ~
Medium i Medium
Density ~ Density 1~1J ~
Residential n ~ ~ Residential e~
1
Q ~ ~ 'm ~ ~
Q ~ Manufactured
Q ° ~ Housing _ ~ ~
~ ~
-OVA "M' _
~ Commercial ~ ~ ~ .
i
i~ r ;
j Community
~ - ~ J - - ~
LJ Industrial L ~
_ _ ~ Light _1
Mixed Use Industrial l~
~ Industrial r i ~ ~ f
1 - ~ i
Existing BVCP Land Use -The 27 acre mobile home park and vacant 5 acre parcel
are outlined with a red dashed line. The brown color shows the 27 acre parcel with the
Manufactured Housing land use designation while the orange color shows the parcels
with a Medium Density Residential land use designation and includes the vacant five
acre parcel.
7.oning
Under current zoning, the site could be redeveloped with a maximum of approximately 375
units. This very general estimate does not account for site specific characteristics or design
requirements that could reduce the potential number of units. Redevelopment of the parcels
under existing zoning requires concept review and site review with the attendant public
hearings and Planning Board approval. Site review approvals or denials are also subject to
call-up by City Council.
h ~
• ~ ~ _ -fl_ . ,~1
t_ I I' ' f I _ ~ ~
I
7'7~~I ~ II - _ ~ ~ I ~ '-i11 '
1 _ _
l#--. ~ I ~l ~1 t ~ p \ ear
- - a . Q
Vii' 1I,r ~ 1~;- = --s
~ 1
RM-1 ~ ~ RM-1 s ~ RM-1
p ~ n1D~~ ~ ~ b ~ C~ ~nJ O _ _
Q ~ m
a fee ~;Jn Q
~ v
.T.:- - ~ -
~l
~
- c~ ~ '
Existinglonini;
Surrounding Context
"fhe site is situated among a diverse residential neighborhood on three sides, wish medium to
high density residential surrounding the property to the west (across 30`'' Street) as well as to
the north and east-neighborhoods not expected to change significantly in the near future.
I toward Heuston Park, a largely undeveloped seven and a half acre neighborhood park, is
located northeast of the site along the Boulder and Whiterock Ditch that also traverses the
mobile home park.
Across Valmont Road to the south are a variety of service commercial and industrial uses
within the Transit Village Area Plan (TVAP) boundaries, an area that is expected to change
over the next ten to twenty five years. The Transit Village Area Plan encompasses 160 acres
around the future regional bus rapid transit and the rail planned as a result of the passage of
I~ASTracks. The plan, adopted by Planning Board and City Council last year, envisions
preservation of the existing service commercial uses along Valmont and the existing
Steelyards neighborhood, but a change in character and mix of uses in much of the rest of the
area. This includes a new system of connected streets and paths, new inviting public spaces,
buildings ranging in height from two to four stories, and a mixture of uses, predominantly
residential. Anew north-south street will connect the bus facility with the future rail platform
acid plaza and serve as a spine for the area. Plan implementation is underway and BVCP land
use map changes and rezoning expcctccl to he carried out in ?009.
7
I '~r~ _ t v+f, ~
".'C•iY vP tai ~~t ~ alt.. , , 1 `.L~~,j t'
Zt r~sf~ I. . '+a ~ •Y~ r :1~~( 1~3 * ~ j {r K i
~~.,r._ i i i~ f'" C a `y _ ~1~ 1 li.: ~•f :.~;i,~ ~ . il. ~ ~.1~~:
27-acre , ,,;-,r~, i . ¦ ¦ s 7r 1
Orchard ~ ~ ' ~ r, •"1r ~ ~ ~,r,`~~ ' 7
Grove _ . at ~4 . > > ;,5 ~ r ~ ~ y i .
Mobile Home :.-~•-i,~,ti~ ~ ,~1 _ ~ w~ t ~~~'~rF; II6
Park ~1. ;P~.~ ~ ~ ~ F~t'`! ~~`'R,k ~ tr(~~
' `"y . ~ 'fir ~ ~ •re ~ ~ it I ;
- t~~1 ~',z t-$i~y eta ~K[lP ~ '1~ ~~~1..-~? aL~ ~R r
J ~ ~!r 1~ i
vau•iuri no ~ ~ iL
Sri r i - r---
I
f--- . _ 1._ ~
+~a MUZ 4'
+ I i ~ -
- HQR1
Lflun-St r~ OI ~
MU1 ~
IMU1
I
II - IMU2 ! HDR2 IMU2
~L HDR2 ~ ~ _.l -
• _ _ OS Go C
e~-
7ran~i4 n _ - r- - _ - - •
Village --r~'; IMU1 ~~rM
Area
Plan ~ s,
r" $
Y
p6aq u
M1;~ri h q.~ ~ ,
i N,Brlj e~-~` MIU2
M,a .i'I ~ .1. - -
High [)ens ty IZeS ar.t~a~l i rc~ist~ial Mixed Usc
Sc;rvice i.;on.mcrc•~1~
r H:gr utrnfitj KIls C,t•~~~fil i ~ I:'oustri~l h9ixcd Uso G ~ 'ark ~ ~ubl c °I~j~~:
C)fflcc Iroahlr~al Q P~4~xed Lice 1 ~ Gr~~n:v;+y OpNll 5p~+t:f
~~'•XH:I ii~t' 2