March 21, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] Need to order and invite Vivian to give us our rules of engagement for the evening. Great, thank you, everybody, and welcome. My name is Vivian Castro Woolridge. So my role in these meetings is to help facilitate the public participation. Devon will be helping with pulling up the slides. and the meeting is also being recorded. So first I want to appreciate the members of the public for being here with us tonight, and as always, we'll be starting with open comments from community members. And then there is a public hearing later in the agenda for concept, plan, review, and comment. So i'll go over what public participation will look like in this meeting. First, we want our participants to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staff and community for productive. meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations; and the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue; while also recognizing that we want to make sure everybody participating feels safe and welcome, and we want to ensure that we make space for different viewpoints in our meetings, because we believe it believe it leads to more informed decision making

[1:16] next slide. And we do have more information on our website about what we call our productive atmospheres vision. If you're interested to look into a more detail, but I will be specific about what it means for tonight's planning board meeting There's a number of rules of decorum that are found in the boulder revised code, and we have some general guidelines that are advisory in nature to share with all of our meeting participants. This evening we asked that all remarks and testimony raised tonight be related to city business. and we will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting, or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment is prohibited, and we do also ask that participants identify themselves by the name they are commonly known by, and and we appreciate If you could display your first and last

[2:11] name before speaking, so we can call on you, and so that we know who's providing. Input and you can do that by right clicking on your name and a menu should pop up. That allows you to rename yourself if you plan to speak so. Thanks for that next slide. So we're in Zoom Webinar format, and it allows for participants from the public to speak at designated times. But we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns in this specific platform. And there's no pre-existing list for signing up to participate today. So we invite you to raise your hand at the appropriate time, so we can call on you and know that you would like to speak. And on your screen you'll see a couple of different ways to do this. At the very bottom of your screen you should see a horizontal, many horizontal menu as 3 clickable items.

[3:00] If you click on the hand, icon, it will raise the hand next to your name, and we'll know to call on you to speak at the appropriate time next slide. I think if you have an expanded menu you can also get to the raise hand, Icon, by clicking on reactions, and if you are participating by phone. We want to make sure this is inclusive as possible. So if you're connecting by phone, you can dial star 9, and next to your number on our screen, we'll see your raised hands so that we can call on you great. So just to stress again that the public participation part of the meeting coming up next. Open comment. It's a chance for you to share topics outside of the agenda with the planning board and thank you again for joining us tonight over to you, John. Thank you all right, as Vivian said. The next item on our agenda tonight is the public participation section of the meeting, and this is the time when any member of the public can address planning board on any issue except

[4:05] for the public hearing that we are dealing with tonight, which is the concept Plan Review for 401 Broadway. So if there's any other matter you want to bring to our attention, now is the time. And, Vivian. maybe you can administer this portion of the meeting as well. so you'd first raise your hand so that we know that you would like to speak, and we'll put up a timer just so that we can keep track of time. Let me give it 2 min to see if anybody raises their hand. Okay, Lynn, you're up next and Devin, do you have the 3 min timer, please. We're ready to go.

[5:03] Lynn Siegel. I have time to blow my nose. I just got in from my bike. Sure, Sure we can start it over. Lin. Is anyone before me? No, you're the only one with your hand raised right now. Okay, Ready? Great thanks. Go ahead. I was at the Rad Rad meeting last night. Tomorrow's water day. and you know the interesting thing is, water has to do with every board possible, but the board, with the most control about water is the land Use board. Oh, it needs to say, no. See you South, it needs to say no to the millennium going from 269 rooms to 942. I mean, that's astounding. That's going to congest

[6:01] the the tabs the other board involved with that, because that's going to congest the bike path, you know, and then you have not only congestion of cars, but you have congestion of bikes and the danger and the the safety issues of that. But what's really horrific. really really horrific is 2,206 pearl calling itself affordable housing to the extent that it's filling the missing middle. It is not, and you all know that i'm not telling you something that you don't know. You know all this stuff. You need to take action on it. That is market rate housing it needs absolutely no subsidy, certainly not 42 parking spaces, certainly not because it is not providing community benefit. It is driving up housing costs and causing the biggest problem. The City Council was doing another taxpayer study on homelessness, which there's no solution, not anywhere in any other States, not in any other communities because it spreads everywhere it goes international. It's horrific.

[7:11] and it's caused by subsidies to the developer. It's all caused by subsidies. So you need to consider your jobs very carefully. The position you hold is very, very critical in in the in the world. Picture very critical. So do something about it. Don't. Let 22, and 6 get by without saying exactly where the bikes can be stored. Exactly where on the balconies, you know, like where, Where? Where that they're say, because these middle income quote unquote people that are going to start out middle income are going to have high, and by which are big. and they're going to fit one person in there, and one person for one bathroom for one kitchen for that floor space is not efficient.

[8:08] Mar. The house was efficient. That's one kitchen for 40 people That's 4 bathrooms for 40 people, and easily nobody has to wait. That's the kind of housing that you need to consider when you're looking at Alpine Balson. Not these individual family units. Families can live together because you know what the pillios couldn't do for sale. Could they thank you. Thank you, Lynn. you know. So please wrap it up. Yeah, do the best you can, and consider all these factors. Water. Use land, use open space rec centers. You know the infrastructure. You know the the water system, the interceptor. These are huge, expensive products.

[9:03] Okay, thank you. Anyone else. We have quite a number of people from the public, but no other hands raised for for open comment. Oh, here for items later on in the agenda. I think that's it for open comment, John. All right, thank you. So, closing the public participation section of this meeting, we'll move ahead to the approval of the minutes from December twentieth 22, which I've been sent to you over the last couple of weeks. I would enter. If you're satisfied with these minutes, I would hope for a motion to approve them. Why. motion to approve. Please. Okay, do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. seconded by Ml: All in favor. Raise your hands.

[10:02] Looks like everybody approves some unanimously. Okay, thank you. And now we can move ahead into a consideration of dispositions and planning board call-ups we have. I'll take these individual ages, so we can decide separately on each one. The first is a call up of a final pla to subdivide a property. I don't have an address here. So property on on Bluebell Avenue. That's right. Has everybody seen the the write up of this? And does anybody want to call it out? Okay. Next one is call up of the floodplain development. Permit at 860, sorry i'm looking at the minutes of that we just approved.

[11:08] trying to get back to that address here. Oh, oh, call up for a. Q. D. A. Revision at 1401 Quince Avenue. Does anyone want to call that up? Okay, we won't be calling that one up. And then finally, a non-conforming use review at 9 1 9 lincoln place. Oh. any any call up on that? Okay, I guess we Won't be calling any of those matters up. and then we can move into our public hearing item for tonight. which is a concept plan, review and comment. or 44 or one Broadway case Number L. You are 2,022

[12:01] and we'll begin with a presentation by staff. followed by comments and presentation by the applicant. and followed by public comment, and then bring it to the Board for comment. And this is a concept plan review, which means it's not a something we approve or deny tonight. Rather, it's a comment on the concepts and and the Chandler event. Scott, the the principal planner, dealing with. This will be presenting some specific questions which he's hoping for response on from the planning board. But in general we also want your general thoughts on this project in the Big Picture, because it's a major project that, with the considerable changes from from what has been anticipated there previously in the subcommunity plan.

[13:04] but Chandler in the city attorney's office, and she has begun to support planning and development services to give hell a little help. So Laura will have a presence at our meetings here from time to time, so I wanted to welcome her to her first planning board meeting. Thank you so much, Charles. I really appreciate it. Hello to everybody so happy to have you here this evening, Laurel and John, I appreciate your remarks on tonight's concept plan. It is a very large and exciting concept, and it's a bit difficult to get one's arms around, because very frankly, it is kind of a regulatory square peg. And this kind of a concept wasn't necessarily contemplated as part of the long ring, long-range vision for North Boulder as part of the North World, or some community plan. But we recognize that it presents a real opportunity.

[14:07] Luckily we have our process by where we can evaluate the concept in without, where we can have a conversation and get some feedback in direction. so would encourage you guys to stay focused on big picture tonight. Recognizing that most of the metrics involved here, Don't necessarily coincide with the zoning and the land use, and if this were to grow some legs this evening might even result in an an additional concept plan review. but we look forward to your comments tonight. This is very unique. We very rarely do something like this. So we really appreciate everybody's consideration tonight. Your thought full responses to the key issues that Chandler is going to present this evening. So with that, said I'm happy to turn it over to Chandler and Scott, our principal planner, and he'll be presenting staff analysis tonight.

[15:01] Alright, thanks, Charles going to there my screen here. Okay, Can everyone just see the Powerpoint and not my notes. We do see your notes. I think you do. I don't understand. Okay. You can still see my notes. Yes, we can, but we don't it to them. Okay? Well, I just figure this out 2 s ago. Why is it not working now? Apologies?

[16:06] Okay, now we don't see your notes. so I will just go without notes. Okay, thanks, Charles, and good evening Planning Board members. I will be presenting the Concept Plan Review for 44, one Broadway. So presentation highlights. I'm. Going to go over the concept plan, view, purpose, public notification. Planning context, Project background, Summary of the proposed project and some key issues. So the concept plan purpose which you're all familiar with is just to give basically feedback and comments to an applicant on a variety of issues related to a development proposal prior to them, submitting for a formal site, review, or other development review application.

[17:02] There is no formal action required by the Board this evening. so in terms of public notification. Written notice was sent to property owners within 600 feet. Notice was also posted on the property staff, has received comments and questions from neighbouring property owners and residents. Initially, there were just a few emails with some concerns over proposed site access, and then a bunch of emails expressing support for proposed project. And then today, as you all are aware, we've received just a an absolute flood of emails and support of the proposal. So, in terms of the location. The project site is located in North Boulder at the intersection of Broadway and Violet I'm. Just out of 4 Mile Creek. It's Caddy Corner, across Broadway, from the new North Boulder Library branch site to the northwest of the side is the ponderous, mobile home community. The site is ported on the west and south by the shiny mountain Waldor School.

[18:04] Cresty West lies to the south, east, and file Crossing and uptown Broadway, are across Broadway to the East. The area does lie within the boundaries of the North Boulder Subcommittee plan. The North Police North Boulder Subcommittee plan identifies this parcel as a mix of residential and mixed use transition to adjacent residential. This is defined in the plan as areas adjacent to Main Street business area should contain a mix of uses and a lower scale of intensity than the uses along Broadway and Yarmouth. They should provide a transition between the main street and adjacent residential and industrial areas. They should contain residential and office uses, neighborhoods, serving restaurants and personal service uses, and a pedestrian Oriented pattern. with buildings located close to the street and parking in the rear, where people can live and work in close proximity, possibly in the same building

[19:02] in terms of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan land use designations. The site actually has 3 land use designations. There's makes a medium density residential. Mr. On the eastern portion of the site, which he anticipates. Density of 6 to 14 dwelling units per acre. There's Mu. B, which is mixed. Use business on the lower eastern portion of the site. and there is manufactured housing on the northern part of the the site. So, in terms of zoning. the site is split zone between R. M. One residential medium, one and M. U. 2, and it's Jason to Rm. 2 at the Mobile home community to the North and R. L. 2 to the west. I'm sorry i'm going to very quickly try this again, because I would really like to have my notes, apologies, everyone. I'm not. If anyone.

[20:08] No need to apologize. Technology befuddles this all. Well, Well, Chandler's working, i'll. I'll fill the the gap and chainler. Don't let me distract you too much, but I think I learned that my neighbor 2 doors down is an old friend of yours. I got to eat at Mary Gold for the first time. Oh, Marigold, yes, actually one of my best friends. Yeah, yeah. So anyway, we we saw the you, and if we were in person I pull you aside at an opportunity moment. But for now i'll just fill the gap without hopefully distracting you from hunting down here. No, no, that's okay. I know, Chandler. If if we can help you out Channel or you can send Devin or I the slides. If you want us to show them. Yeah, that was just gonna ask it. Maybe that would be easier. We can't see your notes now, but I don't know if you can.

[21:11] No right. That's just all I did last time, so I don't understand. You might have another window open. Try and drag this to another monitor on my laptop, so I don't have, so I don't know if you're able to do it then. but I can drive. Also. if you want me to. Sure. I guess we can do that. Let's yeah Channel, where your slides saved. I'll just email them to just give me a Sec. Great unless they're different from the

[22:00] I just want to say Don't stress about it. We totally support you, having your notes, especially with such a complicated project. I'll fill a little bit of time just by expressing my sincere appreciation to staff for wrestling this beast. There's a lot of issues, a lot of detail. It is a brain breaker, and you have done such a great job with the memo queuing it up for us to try to explain all of the complexity and the nuance that you have to deal with on a day to day basis, and probably especially so with this project. So just know that you have our appreciation and our support, and we definitely want you to have your notes. So Don't worry. So, Sloan, will you just let me know when you have it up.

[23:02] Is that working for everyone looks great. All right. Back it up a slide. Yeah. Slide 8. Zoning. Oh, okay. Great? Okay, Thank you. So the Rm: One zone is defined as medium density. Residential areas which have been or are to be, primarily used for attached residential development, or each unit generally has direct access to ground level, and where complementary uses may be permitted under certain conditions. The R. M. One zone portion of the site is roughly 50,000 or 57,500 square feet, or 1.3 acres in size Intensity in the rm one zone is based on a minimum required open space for dwelling in it of 3,000 square feet. There's no maximum far in the rm one zone. and the maximum allowable by right height is 35 feet, with no additional limit. On the number of stories. The Mu 2 Zone district is defined as follows. Mixed. Use residential areas adjacent to a redeveloping Main street area which are intended to provide a transition between a main street commercial area and established residential districts.

[24:17] Residential areas are intended to develop in a pedestrian Oriented pattern, with buildings built up to the street with residential office and limited retail uses, and where complementary uses may be allowed the me. 2 zone portion of the site is approximately 76,968 square feet in size, or 1.7 acres intensity in the M. U. 2 zone is based on a minimum open space requirement of 15% of the site area for residential. a minimum requirement of 60 square feet of private open space per dwelling in it. and a maximum far, or flori ratio of 0 point 6. There's also maximum allowable floor area of 15,000 square feet for principal buildings. The maximum level by right height is also 35 feet. and there is also a maximum of 2 stories per building. Next slide, please.

[25:07] So the site is also located within the noble art district. As you all know, North Boulder has become a focal point for arts and creative industries in boulder. The noble art district was started in 2,009. An official, nonprofit designation and recognition of the art district by city council occurred in 2,017. The district encompasses the areas on Broadway north of Violet, and all the budding properties. The Nobel Art district webpage describes the of our district as follows. That is, an inclusive grassroots. Community, focused organization dedicated to promoting artists and creative businesses located along Broadway in the adjoining neighborhoods in north boulder. The noble area is characterized by upscale mixed to use new urbanism, high-end restaurants, and shops, and a mix of funky artists, friendly warehouses. noble art district creates opportunities for artists to connect with each other and the broader community promoting engagement through art, education, and events. Next slide please.

[26:03] So the Nobel art district, the formation of the Nov Art district. It came about kind of in conjunction with and alongside the 2,015 community cultural plan. So this was adopted by Council in 2,015. I won't read all of these, but it outlines community priorities around boulders, culture and creative economy. while the proposed project would not be reviewed for consistency with this plan during site Review staff find that it may nonetheless be useful for the purposes of concept review, discussion. relocation and expansion of the p-moka facilities is consistent with many of the community priorities outlined in the plan. including supporting cultural organizations, creating an enhancing venues enhancing the vitality of the creative economy and support for artists and creative professionals. Next slide, please. So in terms of the surrounding context, a little bit closer. Look. This is looking at the site. Looking north.

[27:04] as you can see, 4 Mile Creek borders the site on the north, with the Padro and Mobile home community lying adjacent to the northern portion of the site on the west. Immediately northeast of the site, across Broadway is the future side of the Novo Branch Library. It's just commence construction in February, 2,023 further north and across to the east of the uptown Broadway. Mix these development. which contains approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial space and 245 residential units. The development as makes these buildings aligning the Broadway and Yarmouth frontages with parking to the rear and multiple and multi family residential buildings on the eastern portion of the site. Now these are generally 2 and 3 stories in height, with the maximum height of 48 feet. and beyond that to the north is the holiday mixed. Use neighborhood next slide, please. So this is an aerial shot looking at the site from the north to looking south. The Violet crossing development to the west across Broadway

[28:01] was approved as a site review in 2,010. This consists of 10 residential buildings, with a total of 90 department units predominantly. 2 stories. with a few three-story buildings. Development is substantially plead in 2,014, and then, beyond that, generally a single family, residential neighborhoods, and the shining mountain all their school next slide, please. So this is looking at the existing site. This is the southern portion of the existing site. and so, as you can see here, the site currently contains an auto repair shop and southern portion of a lot. I'm. In a shopping center on the northern lots that include retail and restaurant uses. The site currently has 2 access points off Broadway. with the primary access on the southern portion of the site, also providing access via a 25 foot public access easement to the neighboring property to the west, 44 30 on Broadway, I mean. You can see that highlighted in red there, where it says shared access

[29:02] so that's actually a a public access easement next slide, please. So this is looking at the northern portion of the site. As you can see. This is the shopping center. The site is also adjacent to a city owned out Lot and the Carne Syria on the north portion of the site actually is about half on the subject property, and then half on the city owned out Lot, and there's also the secondary Broadway access being shown with the Red Arrow there. Next slide, please. So this picture shows the flood plane on the site. The project site is impacted by the 100 year flood plane, almost the entirety of the site. There the by the violet lateral of silver Ditch, Silver Lake Ditch is also located along the southern portion of the proposed development. In addition, the project site abuts the city on property which I just mentioned.

[30:00] which is impacted by the high hazard flood zone. includes a portion of the existing shopping center which is located within a building event, and that outlaw is intended to accommodate future flood improvements and Broadway Street improvements next slide, please. So now i'll get into the proposed project. So the applicant is proposing to redevelop the properties at 4401 and 44, 81 Broadway, with a roughly 107,250 square foot mixed Use Project I, which they're titling the North Boulder Creative campus which would include housing, retail, light, industrial and art studio space. community, green space, and perhaps most importantly, a new home for branch of the Boulder Museum of contemporary art. The project would be composed of a roughly 17,000 square foot museum. 17,500 square feet of at grade, storefront, commercial space along Broadway.

[31:01] 67 residential units, total which includes 19 live work units. and the proposal includes 96 parking spaces, which represents roughly a 29% reduction from code requirements. Next, slide please. So this is just looking at a an image of the proposed project provided in the application packet, as you can see here. There's a 3 story museum building located on the north side of the site. There are 2 3 story mixed use buildings south of that along Broadway, and then a 2 story wrap around mixed use building on the corner of Broadway and Violet, and all these buildings would have ground floor commercial uses with residential above and on the end you 2 portion of the site. There. you can see. Oh, we'll just go to the next slide, actually next slide, please.

[32:01] And so, as you can see on this slide on the the eastern portion of the site is on a demo to the live work. Units are tucked behind the mixed use buildings along Broadway. on the Rm. One portion of the site you have a total of 5 3 story buildings along Violet, and then again live work units tucked behind with tuck under parking on the parking area. Right now the access is proposed off of Violet Street, as well as off of Tenth Street. and the applicant is proposing shared open space, which is roughly 17,555 square feet. On the Rm. One portion. and about 37,600 square feet on the m 2 portion. For the applicants written statement. The concept includes 3 courtyards, west, south, and north, connected by pedestrian alleys, encouraging walkability. On and beyond the site. The application applies that an open space reduction will be requested, and that such a reduction is necessary to provide additional residential units at a much smaller size.

[33:09] and, as noted above the minimum required, open space for dwelling in it, and R. One is 3,000 square feet per dwelling unit. which it's worth noting is not currently possible on the 57,000 square foot site, because it would require 90,000 square feet for 30 units. And yeah, next slide. These are reference images provided with the application package, or showing some of the architectural character that the applicant is drawing from. Okay, next slide, please. So this slide. You guys are still with me. You're seeing a summary of required modifications. Okay, thank you. So the summary of the required modifications, as currently shown in this application.

[34:05] So there are some modifications to the land use code that can be requested through site. Review: 29% parking reduction modification to the maximum number of stories to allow for 3 story buildings. And M. You 2, where 2 stories of the Max and a reduction to setbacks. there are other modifications shown that would require either rezoning and or land use map change. or potentially changes to use or intensity. Standards in the land use code, or some other form of legislative action. So one is the 17,500 square foot museum. 15,000 square feet is the maximum floor area for principal building and mu 2, and there's currently no way to request an increase in that number through the site. Review process. Museums are also currently prohibited in M. 2 as noted in the memo. so to allow Museum as a use would either require bending the use table for M. 2, or rezoning the site to a different zone district where museums are allowed.

[35:06] Live Work units are also shown on the western portion of the site zoned Rm. One. Those are currently prohibited in rm one The proposal currently provides about 585 square feet of open space per unit on the R. One portion of the site where the requirement is 3,000 square feet per unit. There is not a way through site review to request a reduction in open space. and then the far on the eastern portion of the site is approximately 1.0 2, and the Max F. A. R. And M. 2 is 0 point, 6 and similar to open space. There is currently not a way through site review to request an increase in far, so that would require rezoning. Okay, next slide, please. So the key issues for discussion, and these are also in the memorandum, and

[36:03] and they include kind of some sub questions or additional considerations in the memo, which we can kind of nit pick here or expand. However, you guys would like to do it. So the key issues are. We're planning Board support either changes to the M. To use standards or a potential rezoning of the me. 2 portion of the site to allow for the proposed museum use. So we're going to call key. As you want about the museum, use key issue 2 considering Boulder Valley, comp Plan, and North Border Subcommittee Plan. Goals and policies would planning board, support a land, use map, change, and or rezoning to one or both portions of the site in order to allow for the proposed density. So we're going to call key issue to the the density question number 3 is: Does the planning Board feel that on balance this project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comp Plan and Number 4 is does plain word have feedback to the applicant on the conceptual site. Plan and architecture. Next slide, please.

[37:06] So for key issue, number one again. would planning board, support either changes to the M. Twou standards, or a potential rezoning of the me. 2 portion of the site to allow for the proposed museum use So key issue one considerations under current M. Twou Standards museums are a prohibited use. The museum exceeds the 15,000 square foot maximum principal building size. and the floor area on the me. 2 portion of the site is about 76,750 square feet. which equals an far of just over 1 point. Oh, where the maximum allowable, if they are 0 point 6, which equates to about 46,180 square feet of floor area. On this portion of the site next slide, please. So some additional considerations. It is only possible to request the modification and allowable fer through the site review process

[38:06] to permit the averaging of these standards across multiple lots that are subject to site, review, and within the same zone district, and the overall allowable F cannot be greater than what is permitted by the underlying zone district. There is no process to request an increase in maximum allowable building area. and the prohibitive museum use could only be allowed through rezoning the property or amending the use table in the land. Use code next slide, please. So these are the rezoning criteria found in Section 916 of the Boulder Revised code. And so what I've done here is just highlighted. really the 3 that could potentially be applicable here. Really, Number one is is kind of not applicable. So if the if the property were to be rezoned using the existing land, use designations, then it, you would not be able to make the finding that it's necessary to come into compliance with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, because the existing zoning

[39:04] is essentially compliant with the underlying land use designations. so that leaves subsections 5 and 6. So one of these findings would have to be made. Number 5 is that the land or its surrounding environments has changed, or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area, or to recognize the change, character of the area or Number 6. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide land for a community need that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan next slide, please. So this is outlined in the memo as well. But there are currently essentially 2 zoning districts. Bms business, Main Street, and mixed use for that are consistent with the Mu B Landy designation that allow museum uses by right.

[40:01] but only me 4 also allows the proposed F. A. R. And Bms is point 6, 7, so it's still doesn't reach the the one or greater range that they need; whereas me 4 has an fa or of 2. So rezoning to one of these districts, would require meeting either section 5 or 6 described above. which would be challenging. Given that the site is located in the North Pole or Subcommittee plan, and that that plan is guided development in North Boulder, since its adoption in 1,996, and it's just we would need to to decide, or the board would need to determine whether relocation of the existing museum would qualify as a community need that was not anticipated at the time of adoption of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan, and I should note here, after speaking with the applicant, this is not a full relocation is in there vacating the existing museum and moving the museum to North boulder. This is an expansion of the museum, so this would be

[41:01] an additional museum space, and that they would continue to operate and program the site in downtown folder next slide, please. So this is one of the sub questions just for for the Board's consideration is, does the Nobel art District designation in North boulder potentially support, making a finding that the land or its surrounding environment has changed, or is changing to such a degree that is, in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. And i'm sorry i'm going through the entire presentation before we do key issue discussion. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Next slide, please. So key issue number 2. Considering the Bvcp and Nbsp goals and policies would planning board support a land, use, map, change, or and or rezoning to either a portion of the site or the entire site. in order to allow for the proposed residential density and intensity.

[42:08] Next slide, please. So these are some considerations for key issue number 2. The proposal includes 67 units on a 3 acre site. So a gross density of roughly 22.3 dwelling units breaker. 37 units on the end you 2 portion of the site total about about 42,250 square feet. which is fairly close to the Max far allowed by M. You, too, without taking into account the commercial or the Museum uses. And again, as I mentioned before, there's currently no process to increase far under current zoning. as I mentioned before, that there are 30 units on the rm one portion of the site which, under the current code requirements, would require 90,000 square feet of open space clearly that's not possible, because it's a 57,000 square foot site. There's no process through site review to reduce the open space requirement.

[43:03] The underlying land use designation of medium density, Residential anticipates the density of 6 to 14 dwelling. It is per acre. and there's really only one other zoning district that the planning department considers consistent with the Mr. Landy's designation, and that is Rm. 2 which does not really provide any additional density over R. M. One. So rezoning to a higher density residential zone, either our H. 5 or R. H. 6, both of which could support the potential density, would require amending the Bdcp land. Use map to Hr. And it's worth noting that this would be the only parcel within the North Boulder Subcommittee plan that would have that Hr. Land use designation if that were to occur next slide. Please. So additional considerations for your key issue number 2 is: Does the board agree that provision of 67 residential units at an average size of just over a 1,000 square feet.

[44:06] I would support market rate affordability, as indicated in the application packet and given the surrounding context and the North Border Subcommittee plan objectives for areas designated residential. And the plan does the Board feel that changing the underlying landy designation from Mr. To Hr. Or to Mu B. Potentially and rezoning the arm. One portion of the site to either a mixed use or higher density. Residential zone district where the proposed density and live. We live. Work units are allowed is supportable. Next slide, please. So key issue number 3 would just be a discussion of whether the Board feels that on balance the project is consistent with the goals. Sorry I need you to go back to that last slide. Not use planning language to talk about bullet number 2. That was, that's a very long sentence with lots of questions in there, so kind of walk us through it, and i'm gonna

[45:07] some simpler way. Thank you. Yes, sorry. I. I kind of realized that as I was reading the sentence as well. So the other, you know consideration right? So it's it's designated Mr. Right now in the Boulder Valley comp plan, so medium density residential in the North Border Subcommittee plan the it's designated as residential. and in the North Pole recept community plan. There are some goals and kind of character descriptions of the residential areas that talk about compatibility with existing neighborhood character. you know, not having huge buildings. And so this question is really considering that you know the North Boulder Subcommittee plan and the Border Valley Account Plan. Both kind of look at this as a. As a medium density, residential area.

[46:03] Would the Board feel that it could be appropriate, or that it's, you know, worth discussing to change the underlying land use designation in the code or in the call plan to high density residential. They they could also theoretically change it to mub like the other portion of the site. You know, Mmu 4 is a zone district that theoretically could allow most of what they are proposing in this project. It has an it has museums. Aren't allowed use, Live work is allowed. It has a 10 to 15% overall site. Open space requirement for residential uses. But rezoning the whole site to. and you 4 would require changing the underlying land use designation to mub for the whole site

[47:00] if you wanted to rezone the eastern portion of the site to a mixed use of and rezone the western portion of the site, which is currently the the Mr. Portion to something residential. The only residential zone districts that allow the density that they are proposing our our H. 5 and our H. 6, and in order to rezone to our H 5 or our H. 6, you would have to change the underlying land use designation to Hr. In the Comp plan. And the definition of Hr. Which is shown on this Slide basically says that they're generally located to close to the University of Colorado an areas plan for transit oriented redevelopment and near major corridors and services. And that's really the only land he says, nation residential that anticipates more than 14 billiondollars per acre. Does. That. Is that a an okay explanation?

[48:06] Yes, thank you. Okay. Next slide, please. So for issue number 3 does the plan work? Feel that on balance the product is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan. These are some of the policies that included in the memo. That kind of appears that the project is consistent with community benefit. You need community identity, compact development pattern, a variety of centers commitment to walkability and accessibility support for local businesses and business retention. The role of arts, cultural historic and parks and recreational amenities. industry, cluster mixture of housing types, support for community facilities. and then really arts and cultural facilities and the arts and community culture next slide.

[49:00] So considerations for K. Issue number 3 in terms of complaint consistency in particular, the applicant is relying on the projects, consistency with the above policies taken from Section 8. So those are the policies related to arts and culture. as well as the associated 2,015 community cultural plan, and the associated Noble art district designation. At the most basic level. The applicant is arguing that the city has numerous policies and plans that support arts and culture. North Boulder has become the city's main area for arts and creative industries, and this project would serve as the central hub for arts and creative industries in north boulder in the city as a whole. Next slide, please. And then finally, key issue number 4 is just whether you have any feedback on conceptual site, plan or architecture. But yeah, I kind of put that one last, because it seems like there are bigger fish to fry with some of the other regulatory issues. So next slide, please. This slides just next steps. So. following the concept Review, hearing the City Council may vote to call the item up for a Council hearing to provide additional feedback.

[50:08] The applicant will then either proceed with submitting a development review applications, or may may submit a second concept. Review. Application. although they cannot be required to submit a second concept preview application. The Board or Council can only recommend it. and then a site review. Application would require decision by planning board, subject. To call up by city council. and any of the other processes involved, including rezoning land use, not change or other legislative actions, would require a recommendation by the planning board and a final decision by City council. Next slide is just questions. Thank you. So at this point I think we'll open it up to questions by from the board to staff before we move ahead with the applicant's presentation. So now it's the time, folks.

[51:09] Amel. Thank you, John. First off. I'd like to thank you, Chandler. for the Oh, my gosh! Superior organization is a very complex. a very complex project. So I really appreciate the way you organize this, and the way you have outlined the questions and sub questions. Great work. Thank you so much, so I I am not sure I completely follow your explanation of If there were to be a resoning and a change to use on the project which land use which land use designation, and which zoning

[52:02] is there one that would apply to the entire site that could be considered either in use or in zoning? Or would it be a mixture of zoning and use. It was hard to follow, but just like simple diagram. If this were to go that direction. what exactly are we talking about in as far as the zoning change, or that just change. So there's so. There are a few different options, and I didn't No, I didn't want to kind of recommend one over another, because I I didn't know what have traction, or or you know what's best for the applicant. So there are a few different scenarios. One of them would be rezoning the eastern portion of the site to Mu, for that allows for museums. Those are just an allowed used by right.

[53:00] and it has the far that they need under that scenario. All that would be required for that portion of the site is changing. The underlying land use designation on the northern portion of the site from Mh. To Mub. because there is that there's a little chunk of the site that has an Mh. Land use designation. and we're actually I'm. Not entirely sure of the history of that, or why it is it is there. but they already, You know we've already zoned the site M. U. 2, so that land use map change would be pretty easy to support, because it's already not really consistent with existing zoning. So in that scenario. The eastern portion of the site is Rezone to M before, and the western portion of the site would be R. H. 5 or R. H. 6. Those are high density, residential zones that theoretically allow for 30 units on 1.3 acres. And and you know, granted all all these like. I did not do a a detailed analysis of whether they're meeting open space standards or anything. I I was just looking at kind of density and uses.

[54:09] the other scenario would be rezoning the entire site so eastern and western portion to mu 4, and under that scenario the museum and live work units are allowed across the whole site. The far is 2.0 and the residential open space requirement is based on 15% of the total site area. So. But unfortunately the M. For also has a 15,000 square foot principal building floor area limitation. So that's really like that's one thing that there's not really a way around through Rezoning is the 17,000 square foot Museum. In any of the sound districts that would be feasible for the site there would be a 15,000 square foot limit on that building.

[55:00] Thank you for clarifying that. Yep. No problem. Oh, and sorry. I guess I kind of forgot to answer this the other part of your question, which was so for the western portion of the site in in either of those scenarios. If you were gonna continue it to be split zone, but have to be mixed. Use on one side and high density residential and the other you'd have to change the underlying land use designation on the western portion of the site from Mr. To Hr. And if you are going to rezone the entire site to me, for you would have to change that landy designation from Mr. To Mub. That would be for the total site. Yup! That would be if you're going to re on the whole site to Mv. 4 got it. and we still don't get around the building. Size. Correct? Yeah. The only is on districts where museums are allowed, and the fer is there, and there is no size limit on principal buildings. Our regional business and community, like BC. One and Br. One which are

[56:09] not really consistent with mub. Great thanks. Sarah. Thanks. So I have a couple of like tiny questions. One is in the the current concept plan what it's a little unclear to me. What is the open space? Because they have green green on the what? I think you're calling the eastern side that where the housing is. and they have gray on the the portion that goes along Broadway. and I don't know if that's considered open space, or whether that was going to be used for parking, or I which just wasn't clear to me. So can you just clarify that? Yeah, I mean the the kind of programming of the open space Isn't super detailed in the concept application.

[57:01] You know my understanding, the parking is all kind of tucked up behind the live work units. and so the the open area that's shown is gray kind of between the mixed use building and the Museum and the units behind those. My understanding is that would be kind of program to basically be a active public space. So they would be required to meet our usable open space standards for anything that they were trying to count towards the required amount. Could you maybe show us on Figure 11? I'm sorry to interrupt, but that one seems like it would be easy to point it out. Sure. so it just helps me. I'm more visual than auditory. So it it would be nice to see the diagram while you're talking. I apologize for interrupting. Does this work? I think it works from the next one down or one or 2, it would you? There? Yeah. So this one. So this gray air pointing at my own computer that is just not helpful. The grey area directly south of the Museum

[58:10] or the the vertical part of the backwards. L: Yeah. So yes, my understanding really is just that. That space would be. you know, essentially open to the public, intended to be a space where people could access galleries and art spaces kind of serve as a, you know, front yard gathering place for the museum and things like that. And again they? They didn't really provide details on. You know how. Whether it would be I mean at least a large part of it would have to be permeable right. So I just think there wasn't a ton of detail. I think that this slide actually shows maybe a little. They are showing some trees in there, and on this slide, you know. But I think the intent is really to have that. Be kind of flexibly programmed.

[59:02] Okay. And so let me just add on to that particular question the area to the north of the L part, which is that aside ultimately for flood plane. Would that also be green space or open space that may or may not count towards their requirement, but wouldn't would be. would be green space. Yes, I mean essentially redevelopment of this site would require the removal of the existing carnecorea, because it's, or, you know, relocation of it. But it's It's basically half on that side and half on the project site. So once that building was gone off of the city owned out Lot, then that out lot is really just intended as essentially like flood overflow zone, so it would be just go back to kind of landscape to open space. I don't know that there are any plans for a path or anything like that, since the formal creek path is just across the creek a little bit further north. But that would just be undeveloped.

[60:13] How is this? What's being not what, not what the not, what is being proposed by the applicant, but what Staff is trying to work through. How is this? Not spot zoning, which is something we're not supposed to do in the city. so I might defer to laurel on that one. We have had this discussion. Yeah, hi, everybody. I'm, Laura when I get up the city attorney's office, just talking about spot zoning. So I did a little bit of research on spotlighting today, just to see if this would be something that qualifies in generally the test for determining. If something counts as spot zoning which for those of you who don't know what spot. Zoning is maybe in the audience. It's about Zoning is what an application of a zoning designation to a specific person of land is inconsistent with the surrounding area find that it's another zoning restriction, and it's prohibited in Colorado, and so like, what do we look at for the test for spot zoning? And here it's whether the action that is taken is

[61:12] designed to relieve a certain piece of property from zoning restrictions. So if we were to take something, and really from zoning restrictions. and it's, in spite of the comprehensive plan, so one way that we could work with that is to go through a comprehensive plan change which we might have to do anyway, with the land you segment designation. and that provides a public process that people can weigh in on. And the point is to not to go in, and just specifically do a spot zone, but to allow the plan to reflect some of those changes that you want to. So that's one particular way. We can do it, and it will. You just swallow the second half of that sentence, so I didn't quite hear you. Oh, he sorry. And so could you, Laurel? Could you speak a little bit more slowly, please? I think that would absolutely yeah. I can help a little bit with that, and I have just read a lot on this today, so I think i'm excited.

[62:02] And so the idea of Spot zoning is that you're trying to get around what the comprehensive plan is, or what the jurisdiction has deemed is a is a good zone for that area. So what we could do is go in and change the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan Change to Landy's maps, and that would lessen our like of losing on a spot zoning challenge. Here in this particular case, so we would want to look into it a little bit more, of course, as we move along through the process. but the way that we would do that is to make sure that we're working within the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, or start amending it, and many it would allow the public to weigh in on that, to be able to have a process for everybody to to win and be able to respond effectively. So there are ways that we can make sure that we limit our exposure for spot zoning, and make sure that the public can weigh in on those zoning changes. and perhaps the things that we're looking at. Doing. Okay, I I I appreciate that. That's helpful for our thinking. I appreciate that. And i'm done, John. Thank you.

[63:03] Okay. Laura. Thank you. I have a few. So if this gets too lengthy, i'm happy to pass the baton and come back to me. So, Chandler, you mentioned. And, by the way, thanks again for a stunningly complex presentation, and trying to break this down for us in a way that that we can digest, and without taking a a semester course in land use. So you mentioned that if this were changed to our H 5 or 6 it would be the only our H. 5 or 6 in North Boulder. I was wondering what is the zoning of that uptown Broadway development if we know that because that looked fairly tall and fairly dense, and it's just across Broadway from this property it's M. U. 2. So how is that compliant with M. U. 2? And this design isn't, because that maybe i'm just

[64:01] going by appearances. But so I think that it's. You know a mix of the fact that it's a a bigger parcels, so they're kind of that are able to to provide shared open space. And that project also went through prior to some of the existing restrictions on height modifications. So they're able to get height modifications to go to 48 feet in certain places. and they're just a bunch of buildings, but I guess they're 15,000 square feet or less. I'm actually not sure about that. And if they're not, that must mean that we added that to M. U. 2 after uptown Broadway was built. I was also just. Thank you. That's helpful. I I was also just curious about the 14 units per acre. Limitation. Does that development meets that standard. I think m you 2 was 14 units per acre. Yeah, it's. I believe it does.

[65:06] Okay. Thank you. That's helpful to know. I I have another question that you I don't know. If you'll be able to answer this, we might need Michelle Allen for this one. But is the applicant proposing to pay into the inclusionary housing fund? Or are they thinking that the donation of land for the Museum is there community benefits? I wasn't quite clear on that I would. I probably defer to the applicant to answer that in detail. You know we don't have community benefit codified. So donation of the land to the Museum by the property owner. You know I, that would have to be a discussion as to whether the city would consider that a community benefit. I also don't know that that could take the place of providing the inclusionary housing fees, because the the Us. Our proposed at market rate. So there would be.

[66:05] you know what probably the most likely outcome would be the cash and loo payment. so I think they would pay the cash in Lou. regardless of the donation, but I I would just want to be clear channel. The donation of you know the site for the museum use wouldn't be able to be considered it. you know, in lieu of either the cash and loo, or other ways to satisfy the inclusionary housing regulations that are found in the code. So they're they're meant to get at 2 different things. Okay, I I thank you both Charles and Chandler. That's helpful. I was looking at the statement on page 170, which I think is in the applicant statement that says, No affordable units are proposed for this development as a substantial portion of the land will be donated for the new museum. and the project intends to provide low cost, share, studio, and gallery spaces to support the community. And that was my understanding, too, that those things can. They might fit the community benefit

[67:06] for the commercial uses, but they probably would not. It sounds like from Charles definitely, would not take care of the applicants inclusionary housing fees for the residential portion. If i'm understanding that correctly, I see Charles nodding there isn't a requirement to demonstrate community benefit outside of the annexation process. So you know again, maybe the language, you know, is a big conceptual in their written statement. But just to be clear there. Isn't actually a requirement for community benefit outside of the annexation process. But you're spot on on everything else, Laura. Charles, thank you. I'm still learning, and you're Thank you so much. Yeah, this is this is good. I was not clear on that. I thought that community benefit was required for the commercial portion, but I guess that's they also have to pay into the inclusionary housing. They have the linkage fees and stuff like that.

[68:02] That's correct, and that's sometimes where we get confusing language, because when we did that code change, it was under the moniker of community benefit. But sometimes it gets conflated with annexation. So yeah, the the linkage fee for commercial property is how we satisfy that requirement. Okay. So the fact that they're donating land for the museum does that take care of any of their obligations to the city for this development? No, no. and I think the reason that that part of the concept package was a little bit confusing to me initially as well. And then I, when I spoke to the applicant, they helped to help me understand that. So the donation to the museum is by the property owner, Mr. Godini, who is also acting as developer. So what I think they're trying to explain there is that the reason they're not building onsite affordable units is because he's essentially making a multi-million dollar land donation to the museum. And so he is relying on

[69:04] smaller market rate units to basically be able to make the project work as a developer. Ultimately, ultimately, maybe, some good questions for the applicant team. One yeah. very helpful. Just just a couple of more questions here. So there's a statement in the packet that says: the question of whether the project provides community benefits commensurate to the requested allowances by which I think you mean like to set back the height, the open space, All of the the rezoning will be an important piece of the ongoing discussions. Am I reading that right to say that Staff is asking planning board to think very thoughtfully about whether the project provides enough benefits to the community to warrant all of the exceptions it is asking for. That is essentially what I meant. Yes. all right. Good clarification. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure. I wasn't like assuming something that you need, and I almost didn't put that in there because of the fact that community benefit is not technically something that is required for this type of for a resounding or anything. But

[70:10] it is a a meaningful part of the discussion. I think, if we're talking about making, you know, potential legislative changes to allow the development. The proposal will have to stand on its merits and satisfy all the site review criteria. So that's an important consideration as well. Okay, great. Thank you. Just a couple more sorry. A couple more bullet points here. If we were to rezone this property to the high density residential category. Where does that happen in the process like? Could the applicant then come back with a different project at site review that has taller buildings and more density, or like like I know we we might make that change to allow this concept, but with making that change allow a more intense concept

[71:02] it would like. I mean. I would hope that it would occur concurrently because they could theoretically come in and ask for Rezoning land, use, map, change, site, review. All is one package, and I assume that's what the city would want, and what we would expect rather than coming in for a rezoning, and ladies not change before they show us a site Review. Because, yeah, I mean, m you for right. Theoretically, they could come in with something almost twice as big as this. If if it was rezone, and before blindly so, I would. I would anticipate that that we would want them to do everything concurrently. Okay. Thank you. You had mentioned in the packet that there are certain changes that we could do at site, review, and certain changes that would require a city council ordinance. How common is that like? I know we did that for a diagonal plaza. But is that? And and my impression at that time was. That's pretty exceptional. That city council would do an ordinance just to allow a particular development project. Can you comment on that a little bit like. What would it take to get this concept through

[72:10] rezoning? It requires an ordinance. and we do site reviews with rezonings, you know. Relatively, I won't say frequently, but they definitely happen it's not. It's not out. It's not abnormal for a site review, and a rezoning to come in at the same time. You know Oftentimes. if we have multi-part application where one or 2 of the processes require council approval. we would probably just refer the entire thing to council and ask for a planning Board recommendation with Council Approval of site, review, rezoning, and landy map change. I don't know if you, Charles, if you wanted to add anything to that, or well. I just want to clarify Laura. Are you asking about a discrete legislative action, or what's been referred to? You mentioned Diagonal Plaza

[73:00] running a separate ordinance to modify a section of the code rather than a comprehensive rezoning. Was that what you were referring to? I'm not sure what I'm referring to. I'm. I'm just trying to figure out like, how exceptional would this be, and how much action by city council like? Would it be super unusual? You know, an individual rezoning to accommodate a discrete development. Application is pretty rare in boulder. Oftentimes, when we see a rezoning that are on the heels of a long range planning project like East Boulder Subcommunity plan. We'll follow that up with a comprehensive rezoning to implement the plan. Oftentimes you'll see comprehensive rezonings that follow comprehensive plan updates that kind of in effect activate the land uses that were changed as part of the comp plan update

[74:01] so re-zoning do happen. It's pretty rare that they happen in a vacuum. That's around one development application, not to say that it can't happen that way just typically in bold, or we see rezonings done more often than not to implement more of a long range vision that the community has participated in along with planning board and city council. The process option exists. In the case of Diagonal plaza. We use the legislative process so an ordinance that planning board made a recommendation to the city Council on to modify a very specific section of the code that related to land use intensity. So there are some barriers there that precluded, I think, what Council ultimately found kind of the best outcome. As far as maximizing the housing benefit on the site that is pretty rare. It's been done throughout time. We don't see a dozen of them a year. We probably maybe we would. We don't see a dozen of them in 10 years.

[75:04] but it is a it is a process option that exists. I think, when there is that desire and the appetite to do it. But I think the diagnosis is the most recent example of kind of a discrete legislative action to modify a section of the code that you can't modify through Site Review. That was the benefit of using that tool. Okay, thank you. I'm just one last question which I think tease off of what you just said pretty nicely. So one of the things going on Here is the north Boulder sub-community plan and the vision for the land which guided the land use and the zoning for this parcel. And when was that plan last updated. I know it's like an it's from the nineties 90, 96. It did say it was updated in 2,020. Yeah, it was updated in 2020. But it was just to basically reflect. to change the street plan and the

[76:01] noble plan to reflect the Broadway North Broadway improvements. So pretty minor. When was the last time that it got kind of a open book Look, or has it ever to say, is this still meeting community needs? This is what we want. Should anything change? I think it was a me. I think it was originally adopted in 97 if i'm not mistaken, and I think that there have been some subsequent updates, maybe a 98 or 99, but nothing substantive. Yeah. Yeah. I think the the land use maps that are shown on the plan are all from the original. from the original adoption. Okay, so it's about 25 years old. Correct? Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. I'm sure there'll be more mark

[77:04] I I I appreciate my planning board cohorts questions because they've they are so far they are mine, and i'm gonna ask them kind of again, because i'm still trying to get my head wrapped around Some of the land. Use changes and zoning changes that would be required for this project to move forward. And so, Ml: in one way ask the question of. you know. Can we rezone and change the land? Use designation of the entire site to just be one thing. so that we don't have these multiple changes. Exactly so what I heard and reply to that I wanna make sure i'm, understanding this correctly is that an M. U. 4 designation would Wow and I. And this concept plan is is is very much a concept. So I understand that we, you know you look at it, but it would allow the concept as presented.

[78:11] with the exception being the museum being 2,000 square feet greater. Then what would be allowed for a principal building in that M. U. 4 designation. So do I. Have that correct? Yes. Okay, Great do. And when I looked at the rough portions of the museum of the 17,000 square feet, approximately 4,000 square feet were administrative. Slash office. Does does that? If you have a museum which it has administrative offices, storage, etc. And again, i'm. Not looking for loopholes here. I'm. Just actually looking for nuance in the code does do people ever

[79:05] break out a portion of a building and say, hey, this portion is this function? This portion is a different function, or do we ever say of the total 17,000 square feet, 4,000 are legitimately and concretely administrative office, etc., and hence it it fulfills the requirement of a 15,000 square foot maximum. So the 15,000 peripheral limitation is actually in the form and bulk standard. So not the use standards. So we do. You know there are circumstances where specific uses have size, requirements, or restrictions, in which case we do exactly what you're talking about. We break down the floor plan right by by what's used for what, and to determine the exact floor area. But in this case it's just principal building size. So it's really just just the amount of floor area in a structure regardless of use.

[80:06] And if if the buildings were actually separated, i'm not advocating for this. But if you had a 3,000 square foot as part of a campus, a museum, and a 3,000 square foot administrative building. and they were separated. You had to walk outside with that. then fulfill the or not violate the Bulk Building Standard. Yes. okay. You can have as many buildings of you. You could have several 14,950 square foot buildings on the site as long as you're meeting the overall. Okay, All right. Okay, Which which points out some limitations to the code, and that and that's just anyway you that as a May. Okay. So you know this, this proposal has received a tremendous amount of community support, and in my heart I support it, and it. It is a lot of things to like here. And but

[81:12] we. you know that's we're here to adjudicate these things, you know, based on the code and through a through a process, and not just on a Do we like it or not? Sort of sort of process, and I think that there is a recent example. and 3 11 Mapleton and the Frey Halls associated site. And so here we're confronted with a you know, moving of a of a of a favored museum to a great spot, and growing our arts community. And I I love all those things. But my question falls into

[82:01] the kind of order of things and the enforceability of things that should we say, okay, our recommendation is that they have an office annex. We rezon to an M. U. 4 designation. and we really like the concept that they've put forward So what's the order of things? Do we make the zoning changes, and then they come back for a site review, and then we get to say, hey, this doesn't look anything like what it was in concept. And you've been. You've done this or that or the other. You've changed things. How do we? How do we do this? So that if we're making zoning changes based on a concept that we both don't tie their hands to. maybe flaws and the concept, but the same time we don't give them a cart blanche

[83:05] to do something different than what was approved and attended by us and council in in these concept reviews. So i'm just gonna take a crack at this, because I I mean we've been thinking about this a lot as well, and and talking with the applicant a lot as well. I mean ultimately right. There's there's kind of the underlying policy documents that affect the site or the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and the North Boulder side community plan and trying to find. You know how the the Nobel plan is able to be amended. There's not much in the plan about it. It just says. will be periodically reviewed and maybe updated as needed it's being with the city attorney's office. It seems like because it was approved by both planning boarding council that that an update to the Nobel plan most likely has to be initiated by the city.

[84:04] So if planning boarding council, both felt that the community support was enough to warrant an update to the North Boulder Subcommittee plan. Essentially, the Council could initiate an update to the Nobel plan, which would then go through a public process. And if through that public process the public all agreed, and the residents of North Boulder agreed that this site we're gonna we're gonna totally update the Nobel plan to say, we want a museum at this site right like we want this creative campus, or we want this to be the the gateway to the art district right? They could. They could change the landy's map. We could change the description for the site that would then inform an update to the comprehensive plan. So we would basically be changing the underlying land use designation, starting with the Nobel plan update once that was in place. then

[85:02] it could be made clear to the applicant. We want you to come in for a rezoning and site review at the same time. so that now, even though the land use. Map has changed right. We're not going to rezone it unless we see your site Review and decide that it's something that we want to allow to happen on that site. So that's kind of the I think that's the rough outline of the steps that we need to happen. I great that that that really that was super helpful answer to me. At least I that was great, because then then we are linking site, review with the zoning change, and and And that happens simultaneously that that that's really helpful. Okay, that that's all my questions for. Now, thank you. Okay. I'm gonna go through and catch people who haven't had a chance to ask yet before we start repeating folks here.

[86:05] So, George, you're up. Yeah, thanks. I. P. You back on Mark's questions a little bit around the museum as a whole. As sort of this. This is presented as sort of a bundled good to to Mark's Point, and I guess the question would be. I I want to get a a few understandings, because the way it's presented right. This is an expansion of of what's downtown. So how do? How do we, or how does the community ensure that Number one? The downtown bemoca doesn't get diluted from this and ultimately shut down? Once this opens? Who so? There's a bundle of questions around it. You can answer it, or or fund it to the applicant who owns that Bemoka building downtown. I'm. Curious, who owns it. and who controls that? Is that a city asset?

[87:03] And then how do we ensure that this museum gets built? Once this, let's say this project gets approved like this, and then ultimately, we just end up with a bunch of apartments and commercial on the Museum never gets built to to the through office kind of technology. But but how do we ensure that for the community? Because I think that's a that's a big component of what the developers putting forward right. I would probably defer to the applicant for a lot of that. I can tell you that the city owns the current downtown, and I can tell you that the applicant has indicated that they are fully ready to continue programming that building in addition to the expanded building. But I don't know the details. Danic or David, are you guys, are you here? That's my I can wait until the applicant kind of presents for for their presentation. It was just sort of a question. So if you want to point it to them, that's fine. And then, along with that, just as as sort of a hopefully, the applicant is listening, and can include this in their answers when they go through. The presentation is

[88:14] what's driving this 17,500 square footage of programming versus a smaller 15,000 square foot building that might fulfill some things and make some things easier. And then, in addition to that, i'd like to understand again. Just a little bit more about the Bemoca building downtown and understand the current square footage of that facility. So again, that's for the applicant. If you want to just push it to them, but I just want to kind of put it out there so they can address the presentation. Thank you. Okay, I. I have a couple of questions, and then we'll start to start the round again, and i'll so I i'd be interested in in Staff's opinion about how

[89:00] one goes about changing the sub-community plan, or dating or revising it. having having been involved in that original noble plan and again in the East Boulder subcommunity plan. There's a There's a huge amount of effort both of staff and and the the neighborhood community involved in developing those plans as they stand now. So. So the process to change a plan is is of interest, I think. Yeah. I mean, you know, like I said before, the the noble plan is is kind of surprisingly vague on how to go about updating it. It just says it'll be updated as needed. You know. The city apparently felt the need to update it in 2,020, based on the seed out improvements to Broadway. and I think that was a relatively quick

[90:00] update process. So I think. and anyone who knows better, please feel free to step in and tell me if i'm saying anything egregiously incorrect here. But I think with with something like this. If if there were a a an overwhelming community desire to see this happen, and that desire was recognized by both board and council. the city could Council could direct the city to update the plan specifically for this right like I don't think that it would have to be a a comprehensive. We're gonna we're gonna look at the entire land use map for North Boulder and and decide what we like. And don't like it could be a a focus targeted update to the land use map to basically. you know, show that the community wants art space in this location. Sure, yeah, Chandler, I think that's right.

[91:01] Updates to area plans could be staff initiated. They can be initiated by council. So if Council provided us that direction, either through the this concept plan process or a subsequent concept plan process. Then we would just wanna make sure that the guard rails for the amendment were clear and that they were surgical, and If they were just related to this site. we would be able to scope that and run an outreach process that was commensur with the changes. If we got direction to kind of reopen the entire hood of the North Boulder sub community plan, land use that that that would become a work program item. But I think Chandler is right. If we got direction from council to re-examine a a small portion that was a bit more of a surgical move, I think we could probably design a process that ran alongside it did the work the applicants doing to help satisfy them.

[92:00] Okay? Well. God blessed. I remember the North Boulder Subcommittee. Bru! Ha! Ha! That was going on for about 10 years to develop a what we have now. So so that's a major issue. Okay, go ahead. Ml. Thank you, John. I just have to very specific kinds of questions in the presentation channel, as you showed that public access easement to the property. That's just to the west of where, like the museum area. What's happened to that? How? What? So that was? So the If anyone. maybe, John, you might be the only person who is on planning board the last time this property came through. when I I brought this before the board in 2,016, with an an alternate proposal. and and that proposal had kept the access. These men

[93:02] work with the neighboring proper gunner to basically determine a new access that was mutually acceptable. So, and speaking with the applicant. it just kind of slipped. Very unfortunately, the the access easement. So they're aware of the issue we included that in our initial review comments. And we've we've talked about it with them. So they're aware that basically either they would have to redesign the project if to keep that access. or they would have to vacate that easement and work with the neighboring property owner to come up with a new access to that site. Hmm. Okay, Thank you for that. I just right. I didn't see how many applicants project. So I was wondering what happened to that. So my second question, and I know that the applicant did have some language in about this. But i'm wondering what staff's position is about. Is there a thought about where the displaced businesses would go.

[94:12] I'm going to defer that to the applicant. They have indicated that they are trying to allow those businesses to remain on site if they want to to provide new space for them, or to a system and relocating I i'll let them talk in more detail about it, but we have received a letter from all of those businesses in support of this project. So clearly there's been some. Yeah, I saw that form letter. I I just was wondering whether the city had any. I don't know what I call it provisions or any. Is there any pathway

[95:00] for the city Too kind of monitor. What happens? What happens to these? Some of them have been around forever like that super root place, right? So we care about the businesses. And I did see that letter. Unfortunately, it was a form letter, you know, so everybody just got it and signed it. But I I don't know how, but so I just am curious whether the city has any. I like the word guardrails in place for those businesses that will get displaced. I mean, we we can't really require them to keep those specific businesses on site. I mean the closest that you know that we have local business retention, policy, and the plan right that we would be reviewing against so kind of a in the scenario if the businesses were loudly protesting against this development. You know that we might

[96:04] be able to to kind of say that they're not meeting the complaint in that regard during the site, review process, or something. but overall we, I mean, we can take it into consideration, but we can't really require or enforce. or anything like that. But but yeah, I think the applicant is intending to to speak about that in their presentation policy around that local business retention. Those are my questions. Thank you so much. Okay, Mark. I'm, John, i'm just gonna follow on to your question about updating the North Pole or sub community plan. and and this also relates to the spot zoning issue which Hi wasn't aware of until I mean, I i'm aware of spot zoning, but I didn't think it might be applicable here. But yeah, that's certainly a concern. So my question is

[97:07] in in one of your slides, Chandler, you listed the BBC policies that this project supported, or this this project supports those those policies, and I I think they're actually in my cursory re-reading of the BBC. Today, and some research, I thought, well, those and and maybe more does that kind of depth of benefit towards implementation of the Bvcp mean that if we're achieving those goals, can we one avoid a spot? Zoning challenge because we are clearly fulfilling these BBC policies. and does it mean that we must go back through a process to modify the North older Subcommittee plan, or can we just simply say

[98:07] the BBC. He supersedes the North Boulder Subcommittee Plan does it, and hence rezoning, changing land use, setting nations is fulfilling these BBC P. Policies. Hence we're on the safe side, legally but also on the right side of things from a community. an engagement perspective. I can see Laurel wants to speak. I'm gonna i'm going to speak really quickly, and I hand it over to Laurel. I mean the you know one of the pretty much the only criterion for a land use map changes that it's is that it is on balance consistent with the policies of of the Multi Valley comprehensive plan. So what you just asked. Yes, that's I mean. It definitely plays in right. If you, If we have a whole bunch of comp plan policies to point to to say that this is meeting

[99:01] that does make changing the landy designation easier and more supportable. As far as I. I think that we have to update both, though the Nova plan and the and the comp plan. They're both. I think, equally important in terms of the Landy's designation. Laurel, do you want to take over and stop me? Most of the spot zoning like cases, and things are on the comprehensive plan. They talk about making sure that we for the conference a plan that we're not just spotlighting something that doesn't align with with what's going on with conference a plan the North will just so for you. Plan, though also has an overly of different requirements. I think we would want to change both. To answer your question. We can't necessarily avoid a spot. Zoning challenge. We could just make our approach more possible to courts. If that makes sense, somebody wants to sue us.

[100:01] they'll sue us it, you know it, whatever decision we make. But the goal here is to try to make it, as in line with the call plan and the subcommittee plan to to make our challenge, or any sort of challenge against this decision. Harder to overcome. Does that make sense? They have to prove that the you know the the city act in an arbitrary to preach just mayor, which basically means. You know, that we really we're trying to avoid the call plan, or trying to to suffer those goals. But, like you said, there are several things in the complaint that maybe these changes would support. So there, I think it would make our our lives a little bit easier in the lawsuit if if we align the complaint and the North older and subcommittee plan. What we're doing here. Does that make sense? Okay, Thank you. So I have a Board very general question for for staff. and that is, if the applicant

[101:02] was not seeking to maximize the density and number of dwellings on this property, but say willing to diminish them by half, or something like that. That Would that would make it much, much more likely that this proposal would meet the existing zoning requirements. Isn't that correct? I mean. Yes, essentially. If if all they were asking for was a museum. it could theoretically just be a an update to the use table to a lot of museums and me, too. Okay, Thank you. All right. Let's see no more. No more hands raised, I see. So I think we'll invite the applicant to make a presentation. and after question, and offer questions to the applicant by the board.

[102:04] and then we will take a break before starting the public hearing. If that schedule seems reasonable to my colleagues. So. applicant. we're interested to hear your thoughts here. Well, thank you. We have a presentation so hopefully. Sage, you can present our presentation. I don't know if you need the ability to do that. There we go. and everybody see this. Okay, yes, looks great. Well, thank you so much next slide. So i'm here tonight to present this project along with several colleagues, and we want to appreciate your time tonight. We have David and Sage and Gwen. From Vimoka we have Andrew from emerald development. We have Jb. De Sousa, the architect, and myself.

[103:07] and Marine, who helped with community engagement, but is studying for her naturalization test tomorrow to become a Us. Citizen. She's French. Many of you have met her, so she will be in the background. and I appreciate the discussion so far. When we embarked on this project we knew it wouldn't be easy. we but we wanted to be in for the long haul. We have a uniquely committed landowner, Andrew, who you'll hear from, and a non profit partner who believe in creating a project that is a true expression of a creative campus. The creative campus includes housing, not just a museum and a diversity of housing, not just large luxury units. We think it's envisioned in the area plan, and it's also envisioned by the people currently living, working, and creating a novo. as well as those that we spoke to desiring to put down permanent artistic routes in this community. The plans you will see tonight were co-created and crowdsourced by and with the community

[104:08] we understand the complexity of what we are proposing, and we believe that it represents something worthy of a community discussion. We have unlocked many nuances in the code, and we are grateful to Staff and you the planning board for spending your time thinking about this with us tonight. Personally, this has tested my knowledge of the land use code and the Boulder Revised Code served on the planning board and 2010, and have been working with Boulder revised code for almost 20 years. So I appreciate the complexity of this discussion. It is our goal to do this with community input appropriate process and an extreme care. So we appreciate the time you've devoted to this tonight, and the discussion that we'll follow. I'm gonna pass it off to Andrew to talk through the perspective from the neighborhood.

[105:01] Thank you again. Thank you. To Charles Chandler and City staff. This, you know, project is incredibly complex. and I really appreciate the time and care they thought about conceiving. This. So my family first joined the North Boulder community in 1,979, when we purchased the northern property adjacent to 4 Mile Creek. That's me in the center. I grew up in the house directly across the street. I was born in Boulder Community Hospital, down the road. and as a child, you know. North Boulder was called Dog Patch, and was a strange hybrid of agricultural and light industrial space. I had cows and chickens where we're talking about building a museum. So it's just wild to me to even be envisioning a creative campus in a museum here.

[106:07] and that really speaks to the transformation of this community. The informal nature of this neighborhood drew a very creative group of people here to think outside of the box. and they have been working tirelessly to develop their community, practice their craft, and and build a cultural hub for the region. I've been fortunate enough to participate in that and watch it grow since the nineties and I've tried to support them in in any way I could. Once upon a time all these buildings were beige. Now they're full of murals, and i'll go through other community led initiatives that I've been fortunate enough to be a part of on the next slide.

[107:04] So over the years this community has taken it upon themselves to really transform North Boulder into the arts community that it is today. And so I was a part of the attempted bid to create a business improvement district to help fund and promote local artists. I've tried to support first Fridays, which really has been noble arts, and the artists themselves, you know, opening their doors, and over the last few years it's just exploded into one of the region's main summer events, though it happens every year in the summer. It's nuts to see the activity that's taken shape. Obviously, you guys are familiar with the community cultural plan that established novo as an arts district next slide.

[108:02] So. as I mentioned. we joined the community in 1,979. My father was a part of that envisioning of the North Boulder subcommunity plan. and that has set the basis of how we, as a community, think about growing and transforming. And it lays some key points that I think are integral, and how we conceived of this site with the community. As as Dennik mentioned, we very much crowdsourced this project hold, holding multiple shorets and different community engagements leading up to this point. Even before we started conceiving this site, I was a part of a 2 different design studios with Cu's school of environmental design, where we surveyed the community health shorets and envision. What would be the future of North Boulder which helped transform this

[109:05] looking at the sub-community plan. and what we've tried to convey, and what we've seen happen take shape is a pedestrian oriented mix of public and private facilities neighborhood scale that fosters a sense of community, and it discusses a sense of vibrancy. What it also says is, it sets aside. sites for civic buildings. but it does not designate where those should be, and it is to be determined. And so with this site as the gateway into the Arts district, we feel that this is an opportunity to establish an important civic anchor. and even though the North. the subcommittee plan for saw these civic centers. they didn't lay them out, and even though it envisioned a mixed-use pedestrian space.

[110:01] would it couldn't account for was the community transforming this neighborhood into the vibrant arts hub for the region that it that that it has become. And then, additionally, what it couldn't account for is the explosion within the region and population. And so, through my previous and community engagement with the community. What we saw was the majority of people working on our properties working within the community actually can't afford to live there. And so for us, it's important that we stay true to the intent of the subcommittee plan by providing ample housing to facilitate this vibrancy. So now you all know this site, and i'm truly grateful for for Chandler setting everything up for me, so I don't have to do it. So I just would like to know that the site is a mix of light, industrial and commercial uses.

[111:01] A lot of these businesses have been here for a while. and we have been speaking to them from the very beginning of when they signed a lease, or when they did, a renewal about our intentions to to redevelop the site. So all of them, before signing a lease or renewal, we're aware of our intentions, and we went door to door. you know, explaining our intentions for this project, and and that's why you see the signatures as they are, because we wanted to decrease the burden on them invoicing their support. So we've had the opportunity to explain the project to them, and our goal is to work with them. to put them back into the site in a new space, because these buildings are quite old, and need serious care, or work with them, and give them ample time to relocate in an appropriate manner next slide. So we really perceive this site as the

[112:03] entrance into North Boulder on the Broadway. you know, corridor, but also as a connection to Ponderosa shining Mountain school, and directly through the underpass into the Nobel Library campus and the the violet park that are soon to be developed next slide. It also is linked to the foothills Park, and thousands of trails that make up boulder. Something that's important to note is. we really conceived this as an extension of the North Boulder Library campus because of its connectivity via the underpass. So our goal is really to provide a a public space that extends beyond. You know the the North Boulder Library and for our site incorporates the North Boulder Library site and the adjacent site. So it really is a a vast public space for people to enjoy

[113:08] next site that next slide. And so, in conclusion. because we'll talk a bit more in depth about the project. You know our goal is to create a project with and for the noble community that preserves its identity provides the necessary housing and infrastructure. The community needs to thrive and respects the natural surroundings. Thank you. I'll pass it over to David. Hi, everyone, and I want to start by thanking the planning board for your feedback and your really thoughtful questions. And And so this is kind of my section of of the presentation, and I want to share a little about the Bmaka's mission

[114:00] for an expanded facility in North Wales. As I mentioned, I'm Tavi, Jodoni, and I'm, the executive director for the Boulder Museum of contemporary art. The Mo. Is an arts nonprofit that was founded by a loop group of local artists in 1,972, and for over 50 years has been serving the community through its mission of inspiring creativity and fostering community through the arts. Our exhibitions, platforms provide opportunities to local artists to present their work with other regional, national and international artists. And then our education programs provide youth families and members of the community within reaching art education programs. So I mentioned. You can imagine how excited I am to be part of this discussion with you today about not only the future of Theimoka, but what North Boulder can become in years to come for the last 49 years Vienna has been housed in the current location, thanks to a partnership with the city of boulder.

[115:04] having these space has allow us to grow. I will reach an offerings as we look forward to the next 50 years and the evolving role of museums in society. it is our vision for the new flagship facility to build community through the arts. The intention of the Sign Museum will promote deeper understanding of our mission. promote inclusion and foster accessibility, support greater greater integrity and welcome a fuller range of activities becoming the anchor of this creative campus will create synergies with the North Wales Library. the arts, this street and surrounding neighborhoods.

[116:01] Our placement in the side will create a walkable, dense neighborhood along Broadway and the 4 4 Mile Creek, and, as Andrew mentioned connections to the North Older Library. It is our intent to retain North Boulder identity. and it creative atmosphere. While becoming an added resource for the community. Art has the power to foster dialogue about relevant topics of our time. and to bring people together. Our new building will create welcoming and contemplative spaces for discovery and conversation, providing impactful programming for all ages and bring into reason to the area. Today Bimoka serves around 160,000 people, presenting 30 exhibitions a year and offering over 200.

[117:03] I'm. 50 programs in the Boulder and Denver Metro area. most of which are free to the public tomorrow's museum. We'll continue to welcome diverse members of the community. embrace the temporary nature of contemporary art. support the local large community. and provide flexible spaces for the community to participate. We hope here at Pimoka that you will support Democca's vision of building community through the arts. And with that said, I think I pass it back to you, Danica. Thank you, David. So as you've heard, community engagement is very important to this process thus far. Before we even embarked on a conceptual plan, we did an incredible amount of engagement. We hired a firm called Centro. Jamie and Maya came into the community and did one. On one interviews first Fridays they conducted a survey with over a 138 respondents. This was almost over a year ago

[118:11] that led into a design workshop and shoret that we'll discuss with Jb. De Sousa. and, as you can see tonight, we have a lot of support. We have many people. I hope anyone that's still on the call will stick around for public comment in a few minutes there were also countless newsletters, board discussions, neighbor discussions, newspaper articles. All of this was done with great care and thought to go thoughtfully into the community, both to discuss bemoca moving into North Boulder, as well as understand what a creative campus could look like for the neighborhood next slide. So this Shr. Was really important. We talk about co- creating and crowdsourcing this concept plan. This is something that I have not. This is a community first or career. First for me to be able to really work with the community, to design a concept plan instead of having.

[119:13] you know, a developer. Say this, what I need, how can we do it? We really tapped into the creative energy of the community and the collective knowledge to divine to define the aspirations. create these ideas, synthesize and get to this concept plan. After this we would go out to the broader world for to find a design architect for this project. Gv: this is a diagram. The architect use that I didn't understand it first. But what I think we all understand tonight is the top diagram is, this is the code. and this is what the code builds. It builds large units, lots of open space and less of a mixed use environment with live work, units, etc. That's at top

[120:02] diagram, and it's very easy to follow. We can build something within that. And then below, we said in our community shared. What if we didn't have all these constraints? What would we like to see here? What type of housing, what type of studio space. What type of live work, environment, what type of plaza and museum? Where should the Museum go? Should it be in the north side or the south side, and I know Jb. Is going to talk a little bit about the whole site design. But here we are. I think we all feel like our brains are a little scrambled, and that's the bottom diagram. So that's where we started with the community, and we're here with you tonight. Next slide. So in terms of attendees at this workshop one day was in person one day was virtual. You can see a broad array of experts in museum design and architecture. as well as community members, city staff, who are very

[121:03] well involved in the library project and other initiatives across the city members from the neighborhood, business owners, etc. So, and also members of the arts community. So together we worked on this concept plan over 2 days. Next slide. This is a slide that's very important. It has a lot of text on it. This is the result of Centros work. Those that survey of 138 community members, 18 interviews. and numerous, you know, first Friday and events. These were the things that, and I love. How they broke it out. Say, protect this. This is what's important to the community? Do more of this create living spaces, increase, walkability. create space for economic exchange. Do not do this, don't over, plan, create flexibility, Don't increase traffic.

[122:02] Don't ignore local local acts assets. Don't focus on one demographic. I thought that was really interesting. and do not be afraid to engage in culturally sensitive programs do not forget that shared community is a value of density. Increasing density increases opportunity for gathering and shared resources. Consider this, build flexible spaces, be intentional, maximize, maximize the assets of the community. increase opportunities for artists, allow space to gather and create sustainability for diverse ownership and investment. So this was the val. These were the values that were identified through this group that we hired. They weren't local, and I think they came in and really engaged with the community to provide an unbiased assessment of what the Novo community wanted. Next slide.

[123:01] I'm. Going to pass it off to Jb. To talk about site, plan, and architecture. Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation. It is really thorough, and I think it's been a simplified. What I need to talk about here this evening. and we perhaps need to talk a little bit less about where we ended, and a little bit more about how we got there. and as again if they just talked about how the program is the design that develops out of the exploration that we did. I'm: sorry. Jv: it's a little bit hard to hear you. Is there a way for you to get closer to your microphone? Hold on, i'm going to put my your muds in. Thank you even just leaning forward. You came in clearer. Everybody hear me now.

[124:00] Good! Alright. Danica talked about the workshop and the workshop generated a lot of discussion across a very broad stakeholder group about the program for the site about the developing context that surrounds the site. the connections to the neighborhood. and a lot of discussion about where B. Moca's facility belongs. The stakeholders really identified 2 primary locations. The first was down at the corner of Violet and Broadway. where the Museum would serve as a gateway announcing one's arrival at the North Boulder Arts district. and the second was at the north end of the site where it could address the 4 Mile Creek path, and, together with the library, create a cultural nexus from the scribbles and doodles that came out of the workshop. we developed 3 alternative concepts. They're shown on the left-hand side of your screen. Each explores a different relationship between

[125:07] the Moca and its structure, the site and the surrounding context, and each also really looking at visibility for B. Moca as a. As a critical piece of the Museum success and the relationship between Bemoca and the mixed use program on the site, and how those 2 different program elements can support each other to create a more vital and vibrant site and creative campus. After presentation, and some additional discussion about those 3 alternatives on the left, we synthesize those into a single concept illustrated on the right, and by the kind of bright blue color which marks the location of the museum. You can see that really

[126:00] the Moca's Museum is the driver on the site, and it really starts to set the organization of of how the remainder of the site is developed. So in this synthesized scheme the the museum is at the north end the mixed use structures were placed along Broadway, and at the corner of Broadway, and violet parking was all placed away from the streets. and there was a the beginning of the concept here of the light industrial maker spaces for the North Boulder Arts community to occupy, and that those spaces would mediate between the parking and the other mixed. Use residential spaces, and you can see the way we we express through a couple of notches that were cut out of the museum that we began to develop the idea that the negative spaces on the site, the kind of empty spaces between the the solid volumes of the building

[127:02] became almost as important as the buildings themselves. and the idea developed that really the open space and the ability for be Moca to program the entire site for the site to be the museum. Not just the building is the Museum, but that their exhibition programming could spill out of the structure and out across the site to really engage the entire site, and all of the artists and the arts facilities that would be on the site together, and that they could support one another again in a really positive way. Next slide, please. So that final concept was developed into this diagram. That shows B. Moka is where the word commercial is at the angle. The the museum is intended to anchor the north end of the site. It addresses the 4 Mile Creek path and creates that cultural hub with the museum and the adjacent new library that's forthcoming.

[128:13] and the remainder of the site then develops as a series of layers. The innermost layer is is all parking, and it's a adjacent to and alongside the existing parking for that existing warehouse building that we talked about, or chandler talked about a little bit earlier, and the access for that structure inside the layer of parking is the the light industrial maker. Spaces live work units that are expected to be able to be occupied by artists, and that art could be actually made on the site, and then a layer of outdoor open space that's for residents and for the public and for museum programming, and then the outermost layer along the streets.

[129:01] really defining the urban street edge with residential structures along violet and mixed. Use structures along Broadway next slide, please. So you've You've gotten You've had a chance to see this plan. You already quite a bit this evening. This is that previous diagram transformed into an actual site plan. I think the one thing I would note is that the the building masses are broken up into smaller pieces, not just because of the 15,000 square foot maximum that we were trying to adhere to. but also to provide a lot of permeability and visibility through the site, right, so that there was a lot of opportunity for the public and for residents of the Ponderosa neighborhood adjacent and for students from Shining Mountain School to come through and move through the site, so that the entire site really becomes

[130:01] a public amenity. The Bimoka is, defines the north edge here, and you can see it's the letter a marks the footprint of the building, and you can see that we even show that the building might be carved through on the ground floor. so that the the promenade or courtyard space that runs through the site connects to the 4 Mile Creek path. so that there's a real welcoming and opening there of the site to boulder community members who might be moving through an adjacent to the site on bicycles and other modes of transport. The the mixed use occurs in buildings that are labeled B, one, B, 2, and B, 3, with commercial space on the ground floor and residential space up above it. and then buildings B 5 before and r 5. The buildings alongside the parking are the light industrial maker spaces. So These are

[131:03] structures that are envisioned to have studio and shop space on the ground floor and residential space up above. Those structures have tuck under parking beneath them, so that we maximize every square inch and every cubic foot of the volume of this of the site that we can. And then the residential structures are one, R, 2, R. 3, and R. 4, all contain a series of small residential units. Chandler did note that there is, or was to be, access to the warehouse building that's off the northwest corner of the site, and we had actually been given some information by the city, and I believe it might have come through C. Dot. that, having a second curb cut, or having a curve cut along Broadway, would not be allowed to this project.

[132:05] And so, because of that information that was communicated to us. We've looked at how we might, how we and and this site in particular would would access the site without having that curb cut, that the access easement that was discussed actually would provide. So the access he's meant we wouldn't necessarily see that as a negative to this concept that we're we've presented, but could actually be a a significant positive. Next slide up. Chandler talked about how we've really pushed the boundaries right in in an effort to create a vibrant and vital environment. You know that really supports the Museum and the North Boulder arts community through the creation of spaces where art can be made, where art can be exhibited, where it can be marketed and sold; and as a place where artists can live.

[133:01] so Bimoka has expressed the the need for a museum that's 17,500 square feet. I know you've already discussed that they also have a desire for a roof top terrace, so that they can take advantage of some of the spectacular views, and and open up other opportunities for the museum in terms of the use of the structure. The the ground floor of the mixed use structures along Broadway and at the corner of Broadway and Violet are anticipated to be commercial with residential above, and the remainder of the site is dedicated to housing and to keep the housing attainable. You know the the unit sizes are anticipated and planned to be quite small. You can see that there's 48 residential units, and a total residential square footage, of just 41,000 square feet. So the average unit size is somewhere just under 800 square feet, so they're actually quite small and compact, and

[134:01] doing that to be able to keep rents attainable for artists that live within the the North Boulder community next slide. And Chandler did ask that you talked to us about architecture and planning, and I I wanted to just close by, noting that really we really wanted to come in and talk to you about the concepts of allowable uses on the site, density, scale, and the organization of the site, and the architecture is both literally and figuratively, as you can see in the image on the site just left as a white box we really weren't trying to define, or in any way describe a specific architecture more so just to describe what the creative campus could be. and begin to get feedback on that. And the the last thing I would notice that that you can see that the structures, the the structure at the bottom is be Moca, and it's got a green, a light green tone to it.

[135:05] We've thought about sustainability. and how the roof of the Museum could actually become something of a rooftop garden. and how Bimoka would slope down as it would its roof would slope to the west, so that we are sensitive to the scale of the Ponderosa neighborhood immediately to the west of this site. and that form that's that's shown in that in the bottom there is just expresses B. Moka's desire to have a striking and sculptural structure, you know, and an icon for North boulder that really resonates with the museum's mission to bring thought-provoking design to the community. And Danica, Would you like to wrap things up? Yeah, Thank you. Jb: Again we appreciate staff time, Chandler, your thorough presentation planning boards, thoughtful deliberation. I know you'll have lots of questions for us.

[136:03] And so. as a community member, and as somebody who's also worked on Ponderosa, we we, you know, in the neighborhood. We really want to understand what is of importance to you, and we look forward to your questions and hopefully a path to move forward. Thank you. So questions for the applicant from the board. They're not I. I just have a question. So thank you all for that presentation really appreciate it. And all the thought and effort that has gone into this process. Your process. For some reason I have a recollection that live work units need to have a ground floor

[137:01] work component. I could be wrong, but i'm not sure how that would fit with the parking that would be underneath the units themselves, and I may be wrong about the requirement, but so i'm I'm. Asking both. Is that a requirement? Or is my brain making that up? And if it is a requirement. How would you manage that? I I don't know whether that's a requirement or not. But each of those spaces, each of those units that's expected to be a live working. It does have ground floor space, the shop space or studio space is expected to be on the ground for the again. The very kind of diagrammatic architecture that was shown in some of those views we wanted to express that there may be overhead doors that open on both sides of that ground floor space, both to that promenade area, that programmable outdoor space that

[138:00] was talked about earlier and also to the parking area. So it each of those does in in fact, include ground floor space for the making. There there's only units facing the the promen odds. and the parking in the back is the back of the bill there. Aren't building there. Aren't units that. Okay, All right, that's They're they're through unit and the portion of the units that cantilevers over the parking to create the tuck under spaces. That's intended to be the residential space that's on top of the studio and shop space on the ground floor. Okay, Thank you. That's good clarification. Mark. Yeah, I also want. I want to express appreciation to the applicant. This is an exciting project. It's also as you. As you pointed out.

[139:01] it's in a very preliminary stage and diagrammatic, and so you can kind of read what you want into it, or what you don't. And so i'm gonna ask some questions that maybe just they're too preliminary. But you know there there's been a lot of emphasis to the connection between the museum and the new noble library, using the underpass. The new underpass has been created. and there's some pretty big elevation differences. I I haven't gone out and measured, and I was trying to use Google Earth a little bit ago. But anyway. there's some some pretty big elevation differences between what I would expect the ground floor of the museum. and the path, as it goes under the underpass, due to all sorts of blood, regulations, accessibility, regulations, etc. So have you done much research and how to connect

[140:02] that north side of the museum? How people would actually get down onto the path and be able to go over to the to the Nova Library, because I I I can envision that being a big challenge at this point in time no we haven't done any formal or in-depth study to assess the the sectional qualities. You know the kind of vertical quality and separation between where the museum might sit on the site, and where the ground floor of the museum would need to be because of the flood plain issues. and where that is relative to the path down below. I think, if you know you're right, there could be quite a bit of of grade to navigate and negotiate between those 2 elements. I actually think that could create a very interesting space for the museum to program. And if, if in the end it required that the museum structure itself

[141:04] push a couple feet farther to the south, to open up a little bit more space between its northern facade and the path that the 4 Mile Creek path that's going underneath the underpass to kind of, you know, have more distance to use, to navigate that grade. That could certainly be done. Okay, I would just or would you after being part of Well, I was on. I was on tab during the North Broadway reconstruction discussions prior to it happening, and the complexities associated there. There were lots of thoughts that different people had about that underpass. Anyway, this is a lot of complexity there. I urge you to work on that soon, rather than rather than later, and the next question would be for the applicant in terms of I appreciate your desire to retain

[142:06] some of your tenants and offer them space within a new development for the community that might require a degree of transparency that most landlords and i'm a landlord are not willing to undertake, and so I I could foresee in the future. You know restaurants come and go. I mean the restaurant business is a perilous business, and and they come and go, and people's favorite places go away anyway. I I I would urge you to be thinking about how not to be the bad guy in the future and a structure so that you can say we were renting to Space X, the restaurant for approximately X. We've offered them X in the future, and

[143:06] and if if they choose not to partake, and that that's great. But it's not because I misled the community and said, yeah, we're going to make this affordable commercial space, and then we didn't. I I I just want you to, anyway. Do you have any thoughts on how that might be structured so that the community should tenants change or decide not to go, or whatever the the community then doesn't have a sense of. They were good, winked absolutely. So we brought a development planned to a planning board maybe 8 years ago now. and at that time. and ultimately we didn't achieve that development plan. But from that moment we realized that eventually one day we would need to redevelop these sites, or we intended to redevelop these sites. And so with every lease that we've signed. We've been very transparent about our intentions. It's within their leads

[144:09] that there are potential development plans. We have short-term leases with everyone so they understand the the constraints in renting the spaces there. I can't guarantee anything about financials at this point, because it is so preliminary. So by no means am I trying to mislead anybody and say you know it's going to be least at the same price per square foot. Now as it will be in 10 years, if that's how long it takes for this project to be built. All I can do is say, you know and demonstrate. We have been transparent with our existing tenants of our intentions. and we're giving everyone ample time to make the the decisions that they need for their business, and.

[145:00] you know. is a really interesting part of count, and it's important to us that we preserve the divorce diversity. That is this tenant mix in our project. Great. Thank you. Last question. The South. So I I have. You know, great hopes that the architecture and design of the Museum is worthy of the kind of arts community Boulder has, and that it's challenging. It's interesting. It's. You know what I I can. I'll talk a little more about that later. But But the big so in this very preliminary concept plan. The southeast corner is what is concerning to me, and and we've had different community members right about the the fact that the building is low there, so i'm not so so concerned about the height as I am about the architectural interest, the welcoming the in free way, that rather than a sharp corner on the street.

[146:06] You know. How how do you say this is? An this is this building is is just as architecturally important, and it's just as important to the community as as the Museum, so that you don't end up with a You know there, there are a lot of corner buildings that are just kind of hmm. So, anyway, I it's a concern I have. I don't know if you can address it at this point, but that's a concern. I have. Maybe I can speak, and then Jv: so I I think there are 2 important things. One is as Jb. Mentioned. The next step will be to put out an Rfq. For a design architecture firm, and the goal is to put together a team that will envision both the museum, but the site and the buildings as a whole, so the goal is to have everything conceived as one project taken for permitting as one project

[147:00] and part of that part of the way this site is laid out is there was importance that the museum expressed, as well as the community about that southern, that south eastern corner as being the the gateway or the entrance into the No North Boulder Arts community. But we also had a a few constraints or and wishes which were to have it connect directly to 4 Mile Creek, and that, and and also because there's a school there, liquor licensing, and things like that, because we need to be a certain distance from the school, and events are important part for the livelihood of but a museum space. And so we tried to design that corner in a way that you could see the museum from it. And at multiple points there there are areas where the height and the massing kind of step backs and breeds. So the museum is always the anchor, even though it is to the north part portion of the site.

[148:06] and before before. Oh, sorry. W. But I think this has been a constant debate of our team like the corner. But that corner is very interesting. It has, you know, shiny mountain kind of housing on the south. It has our corner that has violet crossing, which is a kind of multi-family apartment, very set back from the street, and then you have the other corner. And then how do you integrate all of that into a corner project? And so a lot of us, a lot of our discussions around views, and one of the inspirations that I remember is that from when I was on planning board is when you're coming down 28, and you have those apartment buildings, and you have that church that with the big prow in the frontage. So you see the prow, and then you set the buildings back. So what you experience may not be the first building, but you

[149:06] experience that coming by so for me, that was very like made a lot of sense as a non designer, and I think that's what we're trying to go for is that maybe the corner building doesn't need to be the biggest, but it needs to show deference to this larger, more interesting building behind it. What I just wanted to add is that for for the Museum and and I, we're gonna be full disclosure. We started to think about this South as the ideal location. But as we continue to explore the work with Jb. And and and all the the crowdsourcing that we did, we we felt that the North. the north end of the lot. It's. It's a better playground for the Museum. and with the 4 4 Mile Creek, the connectivity with the library and the synergies that we will have with the library are exponential. So, if we can be very clear, very fast, that the north Corner was

[150:16] a better location for us than being at the entrance of the noble arts district. Thank you. Okay? Oh, sorry, Mark, Did you have other? No, I I didn't have others. I didn't know If someone else was. Well, we didn't want the architect to answer your question. That's I. I think everybody did a good job, Mark. I would. I would say that I think that's an architectural design problem that can be met, I, and quite easily solved. I I do think that. having buildings that hold the edge of the street, and that don't in any way get carved away at the corner Helps set up an order, if you will, for

[151:06] the urban edge along Broadway. That really helps accentuate then. and heighten the sense of discovery and something special. When you do get to the museum. That's just a little farther to the north. Great. Thank you. George. Yeah, thank you. And appreciate what the applicant has propose. It's certainly ambitious and interesting. and it brings up a whole lot of questions, and so i'll. I'll try to. I might not get to all my questions, so I can get some other planning board members before I kind of circle back to me. I I've got them kind of divided up into 3 sections. Museum, the the the residential and and questions for the city, and that this is prompted. Well, i'll start with the Museum, because I think that's probably the easier ones. I

[152:02] I I don't understand exactly the parking that's planned for the Museum. Obviously bemoca downtown benefits from a lot of public parking all around it. A lot of foot traffic from the farmers market, and other things are happening down there. How is the museum? You know it's a large facility, and you talk about One of the one of the talking points was events, and having a roof deck on top of this. So how is How is this accessed by the public who are in vehicles? I mean, yeah, I think the and and i'm just going to to to take a shot on the answer in this question, because I don't know i'm not an expert on parking, but I think some some of the synergies that this campus is bringing is while the museum is open between. Right now we're open, you know, from an 11 am. To 5 Pm. Some of the residents might be out, so we might be able to to share some of the parking. And then, when the when the museum is close, some of the spots that we're using for our visitors. They will be empty because the museum is close, so residents can can be used.

[153:25] So we are looking about at those synergies, and and and how can we maximize them? So, David, what's your I? I understand. I'm an expert on parking. But as the operator of the museum. What do you? What do you need to to run it successfully as far as parking? That's a good question. I would say we would need 20 to 30 spots. I like even time. It mostly those dedicated to the Museum. And then, you know, for larger events, we would need to work with with Andrew on, on, on how to partner on the on the parking

[154:12] spots available. And and just for context, there's also having worked on projects in the neighborhood. There's hopefully, we hopefully, we would work with Shiny Mountain Waldorf School. They have a lot of parking for their center, and we could do shared parking. And then there's the community gardens up the street, and I've talked in the past with the city about shared parking, so that a lot of these uses have offset uses or hours. like the community gardens and the parks. The soccer fields up there have an incredible amount of parking that would be completely offset from the Museum Haven't gotten into details, but the goal would be to not over build the parking and to share with our neighbors in a mutually.

[155:02] you know, kind of like downtown works. Honestly. Yeah, that that's that's helpful. I guess I I would as you as you think about things. you know what's what's interesting from an equity lens right. You talk about this being sort of the flagship for Bemoka. The the downtown core is well, not easy to park in. There's plenty of abundant parking all around there, and being an amenity that's for everyone in Boulder. I would think that would be an important component to the project to really figure that out. So anyways museum square footage. I' in my comments again. This is a question for David. What's driving, you know? If you had to live with a 15,000 square foot building versus 17,500 square foot building. What would you be sacrificing? Well, that's a that's a good question. I think we would need to work with the signer with the architect designer on on on how to maximize the space.

[156:04] I I don't know if I have an answer right now for you about where we would have to sacrifice. I can tell you right now that we have somewhere around 4,500 square feet of gallery space. We need a more intentionally designed gallery space. and the fission is for a 6,500 square feet of gallery space in the new facility around 4,000 square feet of community slash education, space. I would say that I do not want to sacrifice any of those, so we would have to see how to work around, and and maybe there's a possibility of partnering. And we have talk about this partnering with a developer on leasing space that he might be building or building it together, or purchasing it from him. So you just mentioned programming at 10,500 square feet. So what's driving the additional 7,000? Oh, what is driving? Well, I mean it's driving lobby and give shop and a 2,500 square feet, restaurants, cafe rooftop.

[157:12] bathrooms. all the other things that you need, you know, corridors and and all those things. Okay. So it sounds like the answer. Is it. You probably just need to think it through a little bit more because it's a big question for us, right? It enlarging that building beyond the 15,000, and the M. U. 2 creates issues for for all of us. So, understanding how that programming lands, and why that 2,500 square fleet is really needed, it would be would be helpful to understand. There's also a possibility of the museum being multiple buildings. It just drives up costs for the Museum doing.

[158:00] Got it? Yeah. My My question was mostly about program, but understood that last question on the Museum. Before I jump to the other topics I've mentioned commitment to build. How does the community as a community ensure that when this project is built around the museum that the museum is built? To sure I can answer that one. So how we lay out the financials of this is still in process. But we have signed preliminary agreements, and we're working through our actual agreement right now in tandem with this the goal is, or the intention is to submit this and not the intention. We are submitting this as one project. Right? So we are submitting this as one project. The museum is currently in the process of fundraising for their portion of it. and we're looking at how our partnership would be structured there after to do the donation of the land and building.

[159:05] but it would be driven through with one permitting process right. and and to just add on from a process standpoint I don't know, for my office has been mentioned. I I am not familiar with what happened there, but those were 2 sites. So if this project were to move forward, all of it would have to be built together within 3 years of approval. or it doesn't exist. So I think that that the Site review process would ensure that everything was built at once. I'm not familiar with, like the scattered site situation that you guys have cited, but we wouldn't be able to not build something without the other chandler. You you you you! You! You can get a phasing plan approved through site if you need to. So if if it was absolutely critical to go beyond 3 years.

[160:04] you could get that approved as part of your development approval. You just need to be specific how long each phase will take. But you couldn't substitute a phase for another phase. It would all be it? Yeah, it would all be part of one site review. But I mean like Shiny Mountain Waldorf, I think, for example, they have 3 3 year phases approved as part of their original site Review. So they have a total of 9 years. and each phase has specific components that have to be built during that phase before they can start the next phase. and if they changed it they would go back to planning board the Chamber. That's that's interesting. So in that phase, process, could it could be required that the first phase is the as a museum, for instance? Correct? Yeah, if that if that wasn't, indeed how that could be. So okay, that's helpful. I don't want to dwell to me because I know my colleagues want to jump in with questions, too, so i'll try to get to my other ones. That was it on the Museum that I had at least high level question for the developer.

[161:13] just for clarification is any of this for sale, housing, or all of this is intended to be rental. We don't know yet. So right now it I think right now is it's designed? The intention is for it to be rental based on these units? The live work units themselves. are they? When when when people say live work. I think of a unit. an apartment, and a in a working space below being connected and being a single sort of unit, is it intended that these are not separated as far as like. If you were to rent them, would you rent the apartment and the unit below it separately, or are they combined units really live, there's a mixture of both. So on. So the feedback, one of the interesting feedback we got from the community was

[162:09] a way to conceive affordable space for them was the ability to live and work within the same place, so they wouldn't need to rent an office and their house their housing. So we tried to conceive spaces that were live work within the same unit, and then also smaller units that people could live in, and then they could share workshop space together. So it's a it's a combination of both. Okay. I know it's not. It's not not not super evolved. So I won't stop my questions there. That that was that. Was it for you appreciate that that those questions, a few questions for the city, If we were to go through the idea of zoning changes or other changes that we would need to do to accomplish this project.

[163:04] Could those changes be tied to the museum being built first, or simultaneously. Could we make stipulations like that? I might defer to laurel on that? Because I think there's some other considerations that we'd want to take into account like utilities and access, and just how everything you know would eventually build out. But whether or not we could require a certain element being built first. Yeah, I think it's an interesting question especially, or with like transportation settings and things like that. I mean, it's something that I would want to look into before answering definitively. It's an interesting question, because I think that that's sort of the the of the bargain with the community. So I just we, from my perspective. I just want to make sure it happens if we go down this road, so it would be helpful to understand what we could enforce as far as

[164:01] those types of things. If we're making some big concessions relative to zoning changes and stuff like that, especially if you have to go through a public process. Yeah, I see, Brad jumped on. I don't know if he wants to add anything to it as well. More speculation, which is to say that. you know, compelling people to build things can be, can be tricky. We will get you a more thorough answer, which is just in general terms that can be pretty. You can, as part of a development agreement, get into if then kind of things, and if when kind of situations. But that typically is going to involve infrastructure and those types of things. So what we get to give that perspective as well fair, fair enough along those same lines which is similar to you know, when we, when we go through an annexation process. we have the ability to make an affordable housing requirement on site or a portion of that. If we went through a zoning change it, the proposed what we would might need to do to do this. Could that also be part of the requirements that we could discuss rather than just taking it in the payment.

[165:16] Charles, I think you're talking to be around. Yeah, Laurel, do you want to go first. Yeah, i'm happy to chime in on this annexation. So a little bit different because you're creating an agreement as part of the annexation. There's like this, you know. If you are accepted into the city, then we can qualify to use certain things. I'm not sure that recently has the same ability. So again something I have to look into a little bit deeper, something we've done before. but usually I, from what I understand it's something that we can guarantee as affordable on site is required. But I don't know if Charles, do you have something else to happen? No, I i'm not sure that we can actually require on site, I mean, if it were negotiated through an annexation, that might be a different question, but tying it to a rezoning, I think, would probably be

[166:04] a little tricky, but something else we'd probably have to look into as the process advances. But hearing the concern, George is helpful, and you know we'll continue to study that as this of all. Yeah, because the annexation is more of like an agreement between 2 parties where this is a little bit more of a regulatory process. Oh, I i'm sorry. One of our questions. Yeah. Excuse me, George. I see Brad has his hand up. He may have something to contribute on this one Also. I think that's actually an old hand. One more question it had to do with kind of the city and the zoning, and all this stuff. So there's that commercial building that's kind of behind this L. Right? That would make it a square. The existing commercial building that sort of grade out in the plan on Tenth Street, I think. is that owned by the developer as well. Or is that a separate part of

[167:04] So one thing I would, I would suggest we do is as we go through this process, and if there is consideration of rezoning, and we do go through a community process that that that becomes like this weird, outlier it looks. It looks to me that way, at least on Plan view. I don't know if you could bring that up it. It really looks odd. It looks like it. you know. If we're gonna we're gonna contemplate a really weird, you know. change in zoning and all this stuff. There's that one little section. that sort of left hanging out there as this commercial building. and if we go through a public process and all this stuff my inclination, unless someone has a reason for not doing that, would be to try to figure out how to include that. to make it more cohesive. because again, I I have not visited the site and understood exactly what that building is, or it looks like, but it at least in plan view. It looks

[168:08] like a significant outlier once this site is redeveloped. Could could I speak to? What about that building is quickly? So my father actually built that in the nineties and then condominiumized it out there. It's it's a condominium of light industrial space of of small units. Okay. but I just to add on. I've worked with them when we did Ponderosa. It's multiple owners, and so it's a little, you know it's more complicated because it's not one owner. But we could certainly work with them to find out what the aspirations are for that site from the city from a. If you know, because we're talking about the Subcommittee Plan and BBC. Plan and BBC plan in general. And so as an overlay in this area, as we talk about potential rezoning

[169:02] it. I Just think, we need to consider that as the planning board. To make sure we don't create this island, you know, 30 years from now there there might be, there might be some future planning, irrespective of the the existing. You know uses that are on that site. Understanding that it's kind of minimized, it's complex to aggregate those ownerships. So thank you appreciate it. That's that's I'll yield the rest of my time to my colleagues. Thank you. Okay. Laura. Thank you just a really quick Thank you to the applicant for bringing forward such an interesting project. I'm learning a ton. of course, that's the most important thing, not the community benefit. But i'm learning. So thank you. and also thank you to my colleagues for the super thoughtful questions, and to staff and the applicant for super thoughtful answers a few more questions for the applicant. Can you explain a little bit more about what makes this a creative campus like? I understand that there are some live work spaces. and I understand the museum.

[170:07] And you talk about, You know, studio spaces, performance spaces display spaces. Where do those exist? Are those mostly within the museum and the live workspaces. Or is there something else that you would like us to understand? I I can talk about about that. I think the the idea of developing this creative campus included not only the museum, but, as application, you know, some leave workspaces for creative for artists. and maybe the possibility of having residences. The possibility also of in the commercial section to have galleries. or an artist that might want to sell like a jeweler might want to sell his or her product, and in the space.

[171:07] and and then the the the central courtyard. I think you know we've been having conversations with Andrew about how to activate that with contemporary art, with rotating sculptures. and activating through partnerships, with like the third law done and etc. Etc. I'm. Sorry was that last part partnerships with part in partnership with an organization like third law dance, which is a local contemporary and dance organization or boulder ballet. and really develop it really activating the courtyard, Lady. Now, i'm not outside the museum with with programming.

[172:01] so there could be performances in the this is what you're saying. Okay as well. So I think it's important to know fair housing policy, right? We can't create spaces for artists, right? What we can do is provide spaces that we have received. You know that are designed based on community feedback to cater to. you know, or that our response to our community outreach we also, you know also the goal of bringing in the museum as an anchor. and not just putting an additional commercial space and housing help set up a certain typology of social infrastructure and a cultural sphere that people might gravitate to, and working with the community and be Moca to program those public spaces in a creative and artful way that you know, display the the you know

[173:04] what is happening within the community, and and that's how we envision it as a creative campus just to add on a little bit. The Arts Commission did a study a few years ago that we can share with you about what artists would like in living spaces, and a lot of it was about just a studio space to practice whether it's your ballet and you need a bar, or you need a piano space. And so there was actually a Study commission that was very influential to me, and understanding that artists the different types of living space in order to practice or perform, not perform necessarily, but to do their art. and that was Matt Chesanski. I don't know if he's here tonight, but he could probably talk to that study. It was very interesting. so it may be a small space, but it's a different. It has high ceilings.

[174:01] you know, less bedrooms more open space. Maybe it spills out onto the courtyard. Maybe not. Maybe it's soundproofed. It's it's a very different, just type of living arrangement. I'm: sorry go ahead. I just want to add one other thing. We're talking a lot about artists, and obviously this community has a large range of artists. But this is an incredibly diverse community as well, particularly in comparison to the rest of boulder. Just looking at socioeconomics. And this is a space for everyone. We're trying to design design a space for everyone, and looking into the future, and how it to make this in more diverse and equitable space. So while we are talking about creativity and culture. I want to make sure that we're you know. You understand that we're not just trying to create a place for one group of people, but giving the opportunity for anyone who wants to be there to be there. Thank you. A couple of follow up questions. I'm going to put them both out before I forget. One is, i'd love to hear more about what that open space looks like, and maybe that's the common Site Review. But typically when we get proposals about what open space looks like. There's like.

[175:07] Here's the playground Here's the barbecue pits. This is the dog area, and I think what I saw in Here's the Community Gardens, and I think what I saw in your proposal is that you want to keep it flexible, and I just kind of want to understand more about what that open space actually looks like. That kind of l of open space in between the buildings. That's one question. and the second is, I want to follow up Danica. And what you said about artists need like studios and places to practice. Where would those exist with those live within the museum with those live within the live workspaces like. How how do you envision that happening? I mean, I think that's the beauty of being in concept plan, we're trying to figure out if we can do this, and then we would design the space. So the the actual buildings would be designed, and the units would be designed to accommodate flexibility and live Live work is a big general term, so

[176:01] we're still very conceptual, and I think that's some of the challenges we're talking about. Big zoning and land use changes without any detail. so that would come at site review, including the space outside. But i'm happy to share with you the study that talks about how space could be designed, which is just about flexibility, which our zoning doesn't accommodate in certain ways it's like. Oh, you have to have one bedroom, one bathroom, one balcony. one kitchen, and so this is just trying to push those around a little bit. So it sounds like the studio kind of concept would happen within individual residential units, not within the commercial area or the museum. Well, the the this, the site was designed to have live work spilling out onto the that plaza Paseo area. So maybe big garage stores would open into studios and then living would be above. Maybe I think it's it's still conceptual at this point. But Jvl. pass it to you because you've thought about this more than me.

[177:07] Yeah, I, Laura, one one of the big shifts that happened in the development of the plan between those rougher initial concept sketches. And then the concept that we brought forward was as we talked about. There was a lot of discussion about that outside space, and how it could be programmed. and in some of the earlier sketches there was a discrete promenade and kind of lazar area that was surrounded by the mixed use and by the live work units. And then there was a separate soft garden area that was surrounded by residential. and they were. The site was bifurcated, really, and one of the things that came out of the discussions that we had as a team was that we really wanted the entire site to be integrated, and so those at the in the very last scheme that was brought forward for this review.

[178:04] Those 2 different courtyard spaces now connect to one another, and they have very different characters. and I think the the important thing about that space is its ability to be appropriated right? The ability for people to use it in different ways, and for people to see opportunities there, and to make sure that those opportunities exist. I don't think we want to go so far as to program every little thing that can happen within that space as part of the workshop. We asked all of the people who were gonna come to bring images of what they thought would make for an interesting PE elements that could be included in a creative campus, and the range of ideas that we got were just, it was mind blowing and really fascinating, and there were. There were a bunch of them where

[179:00] the character that really made those spatial spaces special was kind of a messy vitality, right they weren't. There were some that showed very refined and calm spaces, and there were others on the other end of the spectrum that just looked like people had taken over and kind of created their own world. And I think we're trying to find some balance there, something that both creates a beautiful space, but allows it to be appropriated by the people who will live there and occupy the space and make it their own, and therefore make it special. And the type of place that that the public would want to come through and come to. So a a lot of that, I think. would be defined in site review as we really get into the design further. But it is an important thing for us to consider. Thank you. Yeah. And I totally understand that we are in a concept of view, not site, review, and a lot of this will come later. I think I think the main thought that I have is just understanding. How is this actually going to come to be.

[180:07] you know, is the space programmed in some way? Is someone responsible for saying okay on this weekend we're going to have a dance performance. And on this weekend we're going to have a musical performance. And you know, and this weekend it's the children's chalk art, or something like, how does that actually work? Especially if the site is sort of split ownership between Bemoca has some buildings, and then there's some another ownership of rental spaces, commercial and residential. And how do you work that out? So I think those are things we're going to be asking Insight Review just trying to understand how all this works. and that it actually does kind of move towards that vision that you've just described so beautifully. So so that's the piece about the open space and trying to understand how the creative campus works. I did have a question. I i'm sure that there's code around disability access. But I was curious about how the parking for B. Moka would work, and how people would get from the parking to the museum. Maybe that comes later in site review, or if anybody wanted to comment on that now

[181:10] you're shaking your head. Well, I mean I I think I I would agree with you. I think we need to do additional work on, you know, having more parking for people with disabilities, or for people who need special parking. And I think, as we evolve. And we, we, we further develop this concept. We we will have the solutions. None answers. Yeah. Okay, thank you. The and maybe Ml. Is going to raise this, so I don't want to steal your thunder, Ml: but i'm also curious about what you might work out with those commercial condominiums that their access is going to to Broadway. It sounds like that Broadway Access will be closed. and so like is there going to be a curb cut on to Tenth Street. Is there going to be access through your sites? Do you have any thoughts about that? Or that is also something yet to be worked out.

[182:10] I think that's that's a really important site review question. So maintaining, we will have to maintain their access, and whether it goes to Broadway or Tenth, or through our site is, I I think we need to figure that out. This is a very common challenge and problem and site review to to manage and maintain access, so our we will. We are required legally to commit to that, and have talked to them about that. But the city doesn't like curb cuts on Broadway, and they've designed a project so that that's a We have lots of challenges in Site Review. That will be one of them. I I was curious about just a curb cut on the Tenth Street, because that that site basically has asphalt that goes all the way up to Tenth Street. But there's no curb cut it's just it goes falls off the curb. So it yeah. And I know i'm not sure. I have access. It's not safe. Having worked on Ponderosa and redesign that whole intersection of Cherry and 10,

[183:10] you know. There's a lot of thought that's gone into that, and I think we need to work with the traffic engineers and public works to figure out what the best access point for them is, especially if we're thinking about. You know it's it's complicated. If they're going to have additional density in the future. Where should it go? What's safe? We put a stop sign in at Tenth and Cherry that that's a site review question that we have to figure out, and we will maintain their access. 100% Gotcha. Okay, thank you. I have just a couple more questions. So it does sound like the spaces will be most likely for rent that are that are not the museum spaces that they would be market rates. and in the packet it talks about, you know. Low cost, shared studio and gallery spaces to support the community. And I was just curious about. Is there something

[184:03] intended there that it's beyond? Just they will be small, and they will be shared, and they will be market rate if if you're talking about fixing it to something like inclusionary housing or or mandated low cost right now that isn't the intent, I mean we own over a 100 light industrial spaces in the neighborhood, and so and and commercial spaces, and we have a pretty good read on what is market rate and what we're able to do. and it's important to us that we are able to maintain this this existing tenant mix that is, of the neighborhood. So we're looking at driving down costs primarily based on via design and efficiencies in space. The reality is because community benefit is not considered in lieu of inclusionary housing

[185:12] or or other taxes. You know, in order to make the land donation work. But you know we need to be able to do it at market rate with an increase density. Okay, Thank you. So it sounds like the plan is their market rate. They're small. They're shared, and it's through the fact that they are small and shared, and efficiency of design that you try to keep those costs low. Yes. okay. thank you. Good. So I summarized accurately. I am glad i'm super glad that you mentioned the community around there, You know I I did a site visit, and notice, of course, that, like 2 of the commercial spaces, you know, one's a Mexican grocery store. One's a Taco place. One's a little to that restaurant. 2 of your current tenants offer like money sending international money

[186:06] services for people who want to send money to family or friends abroad. and those are services that seem like that would be important to the local community. I I did really appreciate in the packet it talks about. I'm gonna quote here, it says, while mostly white North Boulder is home to a significant Hispanic population originating from Mexico. Puerto Rico and Cuba. Median incomes in North Boulder exceed those in Boulder by about $25,000 a year, but still nearly half of the Nobel population is considered to be rent burdens. And you know you did talk about how you will try to maintain those existing tenants, or offer them a space to return to. I think I don't expect that you necessarily have an answer to this, and you certainly don't have an obligation to do this; but I think one of the things that I've seen happen in Boulder is that you know, when a tenant has to leave a space they have to go find a new space, and then, once they have done that, they're not necessarily inclined to go through the expense and hassle of moving again. It's that transitional period where people move out of boulder like we lost

[187:11] Ross Casas up to Lafayette and and so many other restaurants and services for specific non-white boulder populations, even though, of course. white people are the majority Here. Laura, we'll have a a a time later on. We're where we can discuss the project in general. So you have a a specific question here. Yes, sorry. I'm getting to that long. When did lead in to say, Did you have any thoughts about that transitional period of when your tenants have to move out. and then how you could potentially get them back. Sure. As I mentioned, we, we're giving. We're going to give everyone ample lead time about when we need to. You know, when their lease expires and construction will begin, and we

[188:03] we have discussed with them offering temporary space within within the neighborhood on our sites before moving them back in, if it's interesting for them. Oh, that's an interesting wrinkle. Thank you for that. Okay? My last question, all of I appreciate all of the extensive outreach that you folks have done. Was there any specific outreach with the Ponderosa residents next door. or do you plan to do that at some point? Yes, we do. We haven't done extensive outreach yet. I I have worked with Pond Rosa for the last 10 years, and I think we would like to have more concrete development plans and go to them. And and you know that's an important community. We. the design of the neighborhood has a like graduated density towards the Mobile Home Park, which will stay Mobile Home Park or single family residential.

[189:01] But You know we're very close to that community and want to do outreach, but it does help to have more concrete plans to show them and get feedback makes sense. Thank you. I will lower my hand and pass on to the next person. Thank you. Okay. Ml. Okay, Thank you. Well, first off I really appreciate seeing the birthing of the concept. Thank you, Jb. And the team for presenting that it definitely gave me a better insight into the proposal. So my question. As there is a significant ask from the city to accommodate this project your proposed community benefit in my mind in my thinking about this project, and how planning board might

[190:00] for the discussion. The community benefit, I think, becomes really critical. and the community benefit, as you use the term in in your proposal. Talking about offering a multitude of benefits, including some of them. Theoka does like equitable and accessible access to the arts. These are already embedded in in. But i'm thinking about affordable workshop space. and the high number of small residential units to accommodate middle income households. We know that small doesn't, necessarily mean affordable and Of course, middle income is is a wide range, so I think that that's a critical piece, just because of the huge amount of work the city will have to do

[191:00] zoning and community outreach and changing perhaps some community plan, etc., and i'm hearing. I've heard from the you know we've heard from the staff there isn't, any way the city can hold the project accountable to producing sort of these softer community benefits like affordability, pork, shop, space, and housing. So My question is. I've heard you talk about a lot of strategies like you just did about accommodating the existing tenants into the future. What kind of thinking do you? Are you? Do you have on the table, or are you considering 2? In fact. make good on on what you talk about as the community benefits.

[192:03] If these are going to be market rate. I don't see how affordable workshop space. There seems to be a contradiction. So if if somebody can just speak to. What? What is your vision for? A cheap net? I think, first and foremost, the typology of space that this lends it to is affordable in comparison to the rest of Boulder for, and I think that's part of the reason why the arts community has grown in this neighborhood. It has to do with with the the the actual space itself, as is open canvas in these studio spaces. and the comparative affordability from other parts in boulder. So you know. in conceiving. In conceiving this project, and down the road marketing we are required. You know we're in line. We will be in line with what is the market for North Boulder. and what that rents for in order to rent it out. So first and foremost, I think that's an important benchmark, which is.

[193:16] you know how we perceive this rent, and it not being substantially more expensive than the rest of the neighborhood, because otherwise people will go elsewhere. And I understood something perhaps quite different than you in terms of what our Sis process would look like, and and how we would be submitting this project as a whole, with requirements to build it through permitting whether you know, and it could be phased, etc. But we would be required to hold true on our commitment to build this, otherwise we would have to go back the planning board. Okay, let me add in to I think that your question is really valid, Ml: like, what is the community benefit

[194:07] So first and foremost for is dedication to the Museum of Land. which is worth. you know, some amount of millions of dollars to build a museum. Beyond that, you know, we're looking at an increase in density to allow for a different type of housing. This zoning right now produces luxury, town homes on the equivalent of Newland lot sizes. It wants to have 2,000 square foot homes on, with 3,000 square feet of open area. So in essence the community benefit is trying to create a different housing type, and we need to prove that up to you like that would be part of the site. Review is to say. Hey, this is a better housing, diversity and unit type than what the zoning wants, which is a very large luxury housing with, you know, open space that it is negligible.

[195:09] They would be a 3 bedroom, 2 or 3 bedroom at 2 or 3 or 4,000 square feet versus a 2 bedroom at 1,100 square feet. Sorry, Dennik, to build on that. We have looked at at that, and our previous project proposed that, and you're looking at 2 million close to 2 million dollar townhouses and about 12 of them on that back side. And so building, bringing more housing to the community, and in proposing this and our, in our opinion, is to our intent. And and I just I wanna that would be. The easy thing is to build 12 town homes at probably more than 2 million dollars a town home. But we're Community benefit is is undefined. It it's still. It's in the code as if you get extra height. You pay extra linkage fee or you pay extra.

[196:11] And so we're trying to find a community benefit package that we would like to present to you in site Review. That looks like a great site. Design looks like great permeability. Looks like a great neighborhood. It creates a long term value for the community. But community benefit is isn't codified, and I see the attorney raising her hand, so she probably wants to jump in here your wisdom here. I didn't want to jump in in the middle of your conversation. Just wanted to say as a reminder, community benefit isn't a requirement for any of these and all of that. So just as a reminder we may not want to make that can could like respond to that, just as a sense of it's not a requirement for any of these things that we're looking at. It may not be, is the wrong terminology in our application. We talked about these kinds of things that would benefit the neighborhood. But maybe community benefit is kind of a trigger term that we should have

[197:09] not used in our application. I apologize. and and I think i'm getting the gist of what you're doing when you talk about you creating a new housing typology. and I would assume that that perhaps the black canvas idea for the Plaza. and maybe to live work having that. So I do think that it's beginning to sound to me, anyway, that the benefit is going to be brought in through. Not just an increased density and and a and a smaller size. but a revisioning on how people actually use space, so that you've talked about having a diverse population being able to say, oh, I could live there just would work for me.

[198:09] I I really appreciate that, because, you know, if I say this, this is a lot of stuff we're going to have to go through to to make sure that we have the zoning and the use and everything in place. So i'm. i'm. I'm appreciative of hearing what it is that you are the values and the strategies that you're looking at using to actually create something pretty pretty significant on this property that thank you for those for that clarification. Okay, is that? Is that the end of your questions at all? Okay. All right. Any further questions from the applicant. All right. I think it's. We've been going for wow, 3 h and 20 min time for a 10 min break.

[199:04] Come back at 9. 30, mark. Yeah. I just wanted. in consideration of the kind of long list of people that may or may not want to speak. If we come back, then we'll, we'll have our public hearing and public comment. Is that correct? That's correct for you, do you or the Board to determine? Are we taking 2 or 3 min comments, and and let everyone know now about that. So they don't feel surprised when when that determination is made. Okay? Well, I'd I'd be happy to do it if I knew how many people were intending to speak. I haven't seen a any. Hands up is

[200:00] a whole bunch of people just for people just raise it. They have 5. I we have 21 attendees. and let's say if half of them sure 6, 7, so far. But okay, let's let's see your hands if you want to talk tonight. Okay, I see 1 2 3, 7 8 9, 11. So it's it's more than 10. Well, let's see. I think we can tolerate 3 min. If this is all the folks that intend to speak. We can give them 3 min. This is a a big and important project, so 3 min, folks.

[201:00] Thank you. I'm doing. and we'll come back at 9 31. It's good devin. Just change it to 9, 31 you can hear me perfect. Thank you.

[210:13] Hey, John. I'm. Here, but i'm eating dinner. So i'm gonna leave my video off. Okay, Chew carefully. I will. Okay. it's 9, 31. And I think we have most of our folks back again. So let's let's move ahead with our consideration. We've we'll now have the the public hearing the public comment portion of the hearing. And, Vivian, if you would like to run the show here. That would be great

[211:07] if we still have Vivian here. Okay? Well, maybe i'll do it. I can go ahead and take the rains. Here, Mr. Chair. Oh, all right, go ahead, Devon. Thank you there. So for the folks who are interested in participating in the public comment for tonight. I know we do have some right hands raised already, but if you can go ahead and raise your hands now, so we can get a full picture of everything, and then I will go ahead and start the timer on my screen. Here, You'll have 3 min for public comment on this item for you today, and up first we'll go with Michael More, Michael More. You have 3 min. Hi, Can you hear me? Yeah, Can you guys hear me? Okay.

[212:00] Yeah. My name is Michael Moore. I'm a resident at Nineteenth and Quint Street. I have lived in North Boulder for the last 30 years. I am in complete agreement and support of this North Boulder creative campus. It is really a perfect fit for the North folder sub 3 tan vision statement in quote to try to create a healthy state of perpetual novelties which the moca has been doing for most of my life. I'm. 53 years old. They've been doing it the last 49 years. They have been instrumental in my education as an artist and a community member, and this is a move for Bamoka that's going to make them stronger. And this is exactly what bolder needs.

[213:00] This would be a real shame, not to as the city give it full support. and do everything we can to make this project happen at this location. A lot of things have aligned to make this a possibility. and this is an incredible opportunity for the inhabitants of Boulder and anyone who visits Folder, which is more and more every day. Thank you. Thank you so much for your contribution. All right. Next up we have, Wolfgang writes, followed by David on on sign. Wolf King, please go. I. You have 3 min. I appreciate if you can keep an eye on the timer.

[214:03] Well, Wolfgang, are you with us? Sorry. Can you hear me now? Yeah, that's perfect, loud and clear. Go ahead. I am. My name is Woofing writes. I am part owner in that great building that didn't get talked about too much, and i'm very concerned about access to Broadway. I have had a building there since about 1,900 and 91 always had a Broadway address. I don't know how we can not have a Broadway access and still have a Broadway address. I don't know how that works, I think. Also not having a Broadway access will impact our business to a great degree. and probably also impact our property value.

[215:04] So I I hope that gets worked out. I know that the development that was proposed for this previously still had a Broadway access. and I think, C. Doc saying that that curb cut will work well. It's been there for 30 years. My guess is, there must be a way around that. A curve cut on to Tenth Street is not a very good option for us. I think you know the project in general is a great thing. I I love the idea of the Moca being there. I think the Moca is kind of like the carrot to try to make this project work. and that is that part of it is great, but a lot of it in terms of the increased traffic on Broadway.

[216:01] I I that's gonna be tough. I think so. I appreciate you listening to me. It is past my bed time. I don't know how you people do it and keep that in mind. Here. you know we are. We're the closest neighbors, and I think we need to be listened to and taken into account. You know all this talk about being a good neighbor is something that I think you need to do for us also in the Gray Building. All right. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing your your abuse with us. Okay. Next we have David and find, followed by Heather Schultz. David, please go ahead. What you mean. Planning board, David, and signed 40, 20 Evans driving boulder, representing myself tonight. I'm excited to be back with you for the first time since finishing my planning Board term. I want to speak in support of the creative campus and residential neighborhood proposal I've enjoyed and benefited from having bemo in my license moving to boulder. It's exciting to see Bmo could take steps to grow and increase their impact, and encouraging to see Boulders high demand for residential solutions addressed in this proposal.

[217:26] I read through the package to see what you would be considering tonight, having been in your shoes, I know that it's challenging. When restrictions and zoning laws do not accommodate what might be exactly the right use of the land in this particular location. This proposal will require collaboration between planning board, City staff and ultimately city council to find a good path forward. It's my hope that you'd as you deliberate and provide feedback tonight. You will also focus on some impactful advice to city council. They will need to take action on the land. Use modifications, and we'll be looking toward your expertise to inform their actions.

[218:02] So i'll briefly talk about the key issues in front of you, I think, addressing key issues. 3 and 4 will be relatively straightforward. This proposal is consistent with many goals and policies in the Bvcp and providing feedback on the site, plan. Layout and architecture is always one of the most fun parts of being a planning board member. Honestly. Vacation. 2 will be really challenging. It's a a challenge, one to address to the land. Use modifications required to accommodate the requested intensity. I know you will have robust discussion about the Staff's excellent analysis, and i'm hoping you will send some strong recommendations to council on what changes should be considered to make this project successful. Kiss you. One concerning prohibition of museums and M. 2 zones is one I'd like to share just a little light on at least part of the concern. As you probably know, I've been involved in the use table Standards initiative since we started it almost 5 years ago. The work in 2,023 on module, 3 will focus on neighborhoods and neighborhood centers, which includes M. You.

[219:02] the subcommittee of the planning board examined all the zones between 28 and 2020. So I was curious to know what our take was on museums, and M. You back. Then. in the summary notes of February twentieth, 2,020, I found that the committee had supported changing museums of the proposed size on this proposal in Mu, 1, 2, and 3 to be allowed through use Review. So my strong sense is that if we these table standards work had not faced various scheduling challenges, the delayed module. 3 to this year we would probably already have use table changes, allowing the Bmoka facility, and M. You to the insights from these table set can be have informed related to in in the past. So I would encourage leveraging these insights in support of accommodating the museum use and phasing in use. Table changes early if appropriate. Good luck tonight. And thanks so much for all your hard work on behalf of boulder with Yeah. Next up we have Heather Schultz, followed by Lynn Siegel Heather. Please go ahead.

[220:08] Okay, Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah. So my name is Heather Shelsey. I'm. An artist living here in Boulder. I've resided here since 2,018 in South Pole. I am here to speak in support of the remote concept plan specifically, as relates to its residential and live workspaces. We know that property costs and boulder are exceedingly high, particularly for housing. having to rent our own as an artist having to rent our own studio space as in space in which to operate an arts business, in addition to housing, is untenable for most of us a quick look at one open or one annual open studio to a revealed that over half of the listings were in residential locations, suggesting that many, if that most artists in our city work out of their own homes. I used to have a studio space in our modest home in South boulder. But my work and projects grew and required more space in which to work, and our home needed to my studio space to accommodate our growing children.

[221:03] I could not find a studio in boulder that was larger, nor could my art businesses budget afford when it was a comparable size, and most that I was finding remote, usually smaller. As a result, I ended up with a studio in Denver, which, while it affords closer links to the dynamic art scene, there creates logistical difficulties. We need more affordable space for artists to work in boulder period. I'm not sure if the site plan is going to include affordable workspace for folks who do not reside on site, nor do I know the size or rental fees of proposed studio spaces. But I would encourage consideration of access for other artists in the area, and subsidies for low income, artists for studio spaces, whether they reside on site or not. I would also love to see access to shared tool resources as part of the overall plan, especially as mentioned, the collaboration with the library district. I use the maker space all the time. especially for those of us with families who would exceed living space limitations in the planned housing units. The plan for the female, because new site is one that can meet some of these needs, especially with its vision, to work collaboratively with other community partners. It's site is accessible for public from public transportation, and is in close proximity to other local resources that provide vital services.

[222:16] This proposal is an example of working with and alongside local neighbors and artists to inform the plans the existing local needs in mind if we wish to not merely retain the artists already here, in addition to not losing them, this will also grow into a more diverse, engaging, and ultimately thriving arts, community and a city as a whole. This project offers enough opportunity to do so, and I would encourage your consideration for proving its plan. Thank you. Thank you so much, Heather. Next up we have Lynn Siegel, followed by Jerry Shepins, and if i'm pronouncing your names wrong. Please introduce yourself, anyway. When you speak, Lynn, please go ahead.

[223:00] I think this this plan last couple of things for one. It lacks a bolder master plan, not just sub-community, a number of sub-community plans. but a larger scale overall master plan for boulder which would implicate the the impacts on Broadway to this kind of development. as we've already seen, with a massive, intense development in North Boulder as kind of a semi-anaxation like gun barrel. so as a master plan. I think. Can you hear me? Okay. Also, I think you need to find out from Andrew exactly what the value of his donation is. All these things need to be itemized and quantified. because before he he could just say, Well, i'm giving this donation. Why i'm doing this big community benefit. Therefore I deserve to have market rate. Market rate is a huge big deal in boulder.

[224:14] It's an inelastic market. We've talked about this before You all know it it this, that there's no stopping anyone from wanting to come to Boulder and set up farm here. and therefore the land value has infinite. You know, as high as you can go. so quantifying everything is very important, because how much specific community benefit, for how much of what Andrew or the architects giving us. So let's see. I think also there should be some kind of zoning that folder needs to have as part of the master plan for like. For example.

[225:03] In this part of town there needs to be zoning for an international market in this space until someone comes to that space it'll be empty. so it'll draw people to that space or for drugs, or for whatever you need in that particular area for an arts center, you know it should have already been zoned like. We are going to have some zoning up in North Boulder for Art Center for Rec Center for library, or instead of after the fact getting people in like they did with Rock Creek, and then finding oh, we need roads. We need infrastructure. We need these other things. It should have this master plan. The other thing is like, I said earlier. It needs marpa-style housing. not individual and smaller housing that's not cheaper. It needs to have communal housing that's thought out from very creative architects that can even put families together in communal housing, and have their separate space, but have their communal space. That's the future

[226:14] of design for humans on the planet, and it needs to start in boulder or wherever but it Thank you, Lynn: Thank you, Lynn. That's 3 min. Want to make sure we have space for everybody. Next up we have Jerry Shepherd's, followed by Ben Myers. Please go ahead. J. There you go. I'm Jerry shapens. I'm. A former board member of the Novo Art district. I'm an artist. I've exhibited Nobel as well as at Bemoka. and I've been volunteering for for many, many years, and and really enjoying the work. How's that?

[227:02] I also want to thank planning Board with your incredible questions. They've been really thoughtful and really helpful, I think, for the whole process. Staff. It's great how you're picking your brain trying to help. I I don't think a very complicated project. Locate on a really active gateway corner. It seems like a really simple endeavor to accomplish. but it's great how you're looking at the zoning to try to make way for this project. and I want to thank the applicant with an incredibly inspiring a group of ideas. amazing input from the community and really paying attention to the past work by the sub-community plan, by the Ui caps. by many others who have been thinking about how to activate the arts community, not only in boulder, but especially in Novo, where the informality of the streetscape meets the informality of the community, and it's great how Andrew Gademi is trying to strengthen that

[228:09] with this development. I wanna just say yes, plus that for many of the concepts it's great to strengthen our soul. In North Boulder. It's great to have mixed uses and complex activities all together in one space. It's amazing how this idea has a pedestrian focus. It has numerous public spaces. It has an amazing outdoor living room that's going to be used by all. And this indoor outdoor lifestyle has been advocated by the boulder community plans forever and ever and ever. There's a great place to do that. I also love. How, through be Moca and through the uses for artists here that there's going to be diverse users who live and work, and visitors that come here. It's great how the tourist and local economy will be strengthened by this use.

[229:05] and it's really particularly wonderful that the position on the south end of Novo. This can be a gateway, and it as a gateway with both uses on the north side and the south side, and what's in between it's also great that the site plan is simple, legible, and organized. I really appreciate the responsiveness to the site and the responsiveness to have a really diverse creative program. So, of course, yes, in a really simple, quick way to zoning, to land use to the area plans. Make way for this project. Thank you. Thanks so much, Jerry. Next up we have Ben Myers, followed by Anna Maria Ernando. Then please go ahead. Nice. Can you hear me? We' Hmm.

[230:00] You want to. What do you want to do. Jerry? You need to. There you go. Then let's see if we can hear you, Ben. Can you hear me now? Yeah. Sorry about that. And my name is Ben Myers. I own a condo across the street from the proposed campus here. and the view from my patio is actually what the where the museum would be. And I've talked to so many people in the Nobel community around here about the project, and the whole community is super excited for this project and the library, and how those will connect and really create a vibrancy around here. Walk ability. and it'll it'll make noble even more of a destination.

[231:00] Bring more young professionals for the the housing. A lot of people have had concerns about Broadway being congested. But I don't know if you've driven down a recently just open and wide, and I feel I like it can accommodate even even more traffic. and our parking is really good around here. I've never had any parking issues. so i'm not worried about the reduced parking. and lastly, the the tunnel that's in the northwest corner of the site, going 4 Mile Canyon. They they've done a bunch of construction work to it, but it's still pretty dangerous. Unsafe with transients. I'm. I'm not even able to use the tunnel because I get heckled every time I try to go hiking out to one of the lake. And I think just bringing more activity here

[232:02] will help that out. So just wanted to voice my full support. Thank you so much. It's been done. I'm not sure. My Internet connections seems a little bit unstable. Thanks so much. Next up we have Anna Mariah, followed by Chris Barge. Anna, please go ahead. Hello! This is Anna Maria. I'm. A visual artist. I have lived in Boulder for almost 20 years, some from those 20 years 27. I have had this to you North Boulder. I. When I decided to move to Colorado, I moved to Boulder, because

[233:04] at the time it was the only place in the whole Metro area and way around and beyond that a complete pre our museum. I'm. Grateful for what the more could ask for our community. And these created campus is one of the most exciting new projects for the arts and for the community coming forward in the last few years in the call of the Denver Metro area. you know, as far as we need our by your time. a studio time where we are alone back. we also need a community, a community of other creatives, a community of museums. and it plays to share ideas and to grow with the idea of the idea. So father said, in that I think

[234:08] This is a fantastic project that can be a flare in the sky and attract so many. I'm right now a resource artist at Red Line in Denver. and I see a. With the back and forth. I see how for Boulder to have this project happening is to make an older, really a a place that it still stays relevant, keeping artists, that leading boulder to stay in Boulder and to track new artists. I think it's fundamental to have this project happening.

[235:00] It's exciting, but also it's new, and you, with the possibilities of projects coming. We sell this, I think we run the I it a big possibility that things might happen and make it impossible for artists to be on work there. The last thing I want to say is that I think this project is beautiful in the sense how not only brings a space for the Moca to have more space, but also invites the community to thrive through the arts and through coming together. Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate you participating tonight. Next up we have Chris Barge, followed by Andrew, and those are the only 2 hands still remaining. So anybody else's wanting to speak. Please raise your hand now so that we we see you.

[236:06] Chris, please go ahead. hey? Everybody Can you hear? Me. Yeah. Great Hi! This is Chris Barge. I've lived in Boulder for 23 years and i'm the executive director of the Boulder Library. Foundation. So I'm. Here, representing myself as a resident also the older library foundation, both in huge support of this project. As you know, it's been mentioned. The Nobel Library and we're thrilled is breaking ground. April Fifth and I'm. Looking forward to providing boulder's first north Boulders first public space, and really really hopeful that the creative campus which includes this incredible museum becomes Nobo's second public space. Just you know. I've had the opportunity in 23 years to rent downtown in the foothills on Uni Hill. First place, I own, was affordable housing in the holiday neighborhood, and you know all of those shops love that they're still there.

[237:11] many of them. And in. Now, you know, in Lower Chatauqua, in a historic fixer. Upper. So I've got experience with city planning processes and landmarks, and also been eyewitness to you know what the library has gone through getting this project? It's been, you know, 5 5 years in serious planning phase 30 years in the making for Nobo, and as I look around at these presenters tonight, I honored to know each and every one of them. What I get is that this is not a a group of developers trying to sort of slide a bigger oversized project past you while you look at the shiny object of the You know Museum, what I get is that these are people who really care about community first from a everyone that's presented here.

[238:01] And you know, in in my work, both as a daily camera reporter and as a nonprofit guy at the Community Foundation and the library foundation. I have really come to understand that that fundamentally our housing and our civic spaces make our city what it is if if people can feel that they belong especially next right. You know the fact that these 2 amenities are going to be cited right between Ponderosa and Boulder Meadows, which is, as you know, our city's largest mobile home development. How great is that to send a strong message. You both. You belong here, and you know I support this because it's thoughtful. It's got a terrific museum. There's a new housing concept that is interesting in the face of just the natural market forces that are leading us more and more towards gentrification. And it's a great partnership because it blends what business needs and what philanthropy is willing to produce. So please approve this plan. Our civic spaces are important, and this is a creative opportunity. Thank you.

[239:11] Thank you so much, Chris. Excuse me. I'd like to ask Danica and the rest of the applicants to turn off their video. Got you? Nope. Nice to with Andrew. Andrew. We don't have your last name, if you could please introduce yourself with first and last name. Please go ahead. and next up we have Makin has also raised his hand. making. Coles will call on you after Andrew Andrew. Please go ahead and introduce yourself. My name is Andrew Pryor. I am the current business owner of coyote motors. Just to the northwest of this proposed plan. I

[240:02] just what to raised a couple of my concerns first with the parking reduction. I'm a little concerned about overflow going into what limited parking I currently have, or anyway. and then with losing access to Broadway, that's the biggest one i'm already operating on a special grandfather tax license just because of the rezoning in the nineties losing access to Broadway. I am actually need to follow up and see what happens with that also concern. So the easement to Broadway that would be a big downside to a business that's been in the community, since for 32 years flood and water drainage is also another concern. It looks like the initial drawings. so like hard curves i'm concerned about. If there's a curb cut on tenth, that water would then drain into where it drains, and even more so in front of our property, as well as what it would do with it, with flowing both south and east, what that water would then back up on.

[241:13] also toe, truck and freight access running a garage. I do have toe trucks and do need room for large vehicles, or even short tractor trailers to get in and deliver. That is a a concern of mine with access on the tenth. both making the turn from Violet, and then in and around the current unit. and then all for B. Moka, but just concerned with how this impacts me and the community. I don't. I know other shops there. There's a there's a few automotive repair shops, really local, but even

[242:01] some, just a little down the road, have been pushed a little more east and boulder, and the community in North Boulder doesn't tend to follow, and moving doesn't seem to be an option in boulder with the licensing. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Andrew. making calls. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. Yes, making calls from 1726 maple 10. When I I was on the planning board and and helped in the first 2 major updates to the comp plan that we had after the millennium, and our concern was very much, for as we went up Broadway we wanted to make the east side of Broadway more urban. That's why. Couple of years later we permitted uptown Broadway to go to 48 feet, and we wanted to be very respectful and preserve the Service industrial, including with the property, the last speaker that you just heard.

[243:10] the the North Pole or sub Community plan has some wonderful things have happened under it as a result of it, and frankly, some things have sprung up that we could not have anticipated that are just so wonderful. and it was certainly not a museum, Bimoka. By the way, I'm a proud emeritus board member. I was on the the board for several years, and I enjoyed my service, and meeting the artists and all but this this project that Mr. Gademia is proposing would link this wonderful walking area, because, you know, in the early 2,000 S. We didn't have foothills Park. It wasn't developed yet. We'd bought it. It was undeveloped. We didn't have the

[244:04] affordable housing community that's just to the east of there. We didn't have pond ponderos. A mobile Home Park was in really tenuous shape, and we can thank Danica Powell for being at the point of the spirit of pulling that wonderful place together for renovation. We have the opportunity to walk from Foothills Park, past the the Waldorf School through the grounds that are being proposed here in this development. past the Pas be Moca, maybe even past the Karnissa Rio, which is not part of this project under Broadway, and then we've got that great North Boulder Library going in and to the east of that The city is now planning to develop a riparian park there that they're calling Violet Park. So I I Just one final thought is, you struggle with how this terrific idea is hard to fit it into existing zoning or land use designations.

[245:09] In 2 years we will be well into the next major update of the Count plan, and these inconsistencies can be ironed out. I know Mr. Gadem is planning to lease space and spruce auto one of the main buildings there for another 3 years. So this plan actually will move us into a time when we'll be in the midst of the major update, and you can help imagine a wonderful future for the spot. Thank you very much. Appreciate your service. Thank you. And I see no other hands up, but just want to appreciate all the members from the public that have come tonight to share their input. Thank you. Back to you. Chair. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'll bring it back to the board for discussion. And the the way I think we'll frame. It is first to make the rounds going where everyone can give their general comment, and then we'll go through the key issues that

[246:10] that Chandler identified and asked for comments on also. But you will start out by giving your your general impression on and response to this, and then move move through these specific points. So, Lisa, I see your hand is up. Not sure it. Yeah. Well, first of all, thank you. To everyone else on the board. I had notes from the packet and the notes from the presentation, and then everyone else got there first, and so I was able to sit back a little. So thank you for all the questions that I' asked. I think my overall impression is that it's an exciting project. I think there's a good idea here. I think, as we heard through the questions and commentary and public comment, the doubles and the details. And we're in that kind of awkward space where it's not detailed yet, nor can it be until the applicant get some sense of

[247:02] whether there's a chance of it moving forward. But I would say broadly, i'm I'm. Amidable to the idea. certainly, of the museum going in. I like they have a lot of work. the you know, corridor there along North Broadway, and and it's been a bone of contention for ballot and good reasons. But you do sort of have these sections where it's sort of finished on the East side and then unfinished on the west. And and there's that major transition. And when I think about Major Thoroughfare State highway, you know, transit quarter like that. That is an area where I'm. Certainly open to more density. So I hope that we can find some ways to move it forward while ticking into consideration all the important stuff we've heard. And then I also just wanted to speak to something that Laura brought up. I think some other folks brought up, and that is the public space, because one of the things I've seen. That preliminary kind of concept plan is just the legibility of that public space, and but that I mean, you know not. Only how do we see the museum, and how do we access it from Broadway entering the site otherwise?

[248:05] But how how do you know, to go to the public space, you know? And so I I think there are ways to kind of entice that maybe that's a bad word, but like to encourage people to explore areas. And so when we get back to something a little more baked, I i'd be interested to see you know one. How are you going to program it? How is it actually going to be designed? And then. you know, I I think of older cities Europe, back east, and so on, where you'll send them See? Like a ceiling created by lights. I think about the 4 columns alleys, you know. I think, about cool things with umbrellas, and I know fire trucks. Don't always love those. But yeah, how how do you make that actually work? Because my fear and I was the very different design. But my fear is the pl that Boulder junction which just isn't activated. And there's reasons for that with transit as well. But Yeah, I'm. I have a metable doubles in the details, and I think it will be interesting to to see where we land with code. But

[249:04] overall i'm excited by the prospect. I do, George. I think Lisa captured a lot of my thoughts, too. I I think it's. you know. a super interesting, ambitious project, and I thought the developer for trying to threat the needle on this because it is complex. I'm concerned about how much time this is going to require on the part of the city and staff and community outreach. And I, i'd like the city to really think through and respond to us to make sure that this is where we want to spend our energy. as it relates to trying to shoe horn up for basically Rezone and and go through a community process if we wanted to go through that, because there there are a lot of projects lined up and subcommittee plans and all kinds of other things. And so i'm. I'm concerned about the burden that it puts on staff, and the cost that will bring to the city to do this community outreach, and that needs to be thought through.

[250:17] So the public understands, and we understand what the cost of something like this would be that the city would bear. I I think I think the programming on the Bmoca building needs to be refined. I think they they really they really need to think this through relative to access parking equity. Does the building need to be more than 15,000 square feet, because some of the things will be wrestling with are around that. And I think those those should be answered the next time around, and and should be strongly considered. I I want to make clear, and that

[251:00] that well, while Bimoka is, is a is an awesome thing for this development. It's an also an awesome thing for the developer. This is the carrot for this development. Make you know. I have no doubt about it for them to for us to even be having this discussion. It's because the Mok is here, so we shouldn't confuse us with community benefit. This is an amenity for this development. In a way it works financially, this land donation to bemoca. Well, it could be millions of dollars really has to do with the entitled Value of the land. and the fact of the matter is that I I believe there will be a tax deduction for the developer relative to the donation of the land. And so we need to be clear as the planning board and as the city. that there are a lot of economic incentives for the developer to involve bemoca, and while it's a great thing, and I and I think it's the right thing. And I think there is benefit to the community.

[252:02] There's a lot of benefit to this developer that comes of this, because this discussion wouldn't be happening without the museum being put in place, and there's also a big tax deduction as part of a donation that goes along with this. Who knows what that is? Again. it would be. It'd be interesting to understand the full economics of the project when we get there. But in general i'm supportive of of thinking this through. I, there's this tonight's thing brought up more questions than answers, and, like like Lisa said, I think the devil's in the details. I could see this being a really vibrant, interesting space. I could also see it being dead and sterile, if not executed properly. and just an expensive place for people to live. So a lot of things to think through, and I appreciate the developer bringing it forward. And and and I just want us to be cognizant of

[253:01] the amount of effort that's going to require city staff. planning board, etc., in the city at large, to to to have something that makes sense, and that gets well executed at the end of the day. I'm sure that's what the developer wants to, but it's going to be a complex and probably long process in reality. Thank you. Thank you. Laura. Thank you. So when I first looked at this packet I I I wasn't kidding when I said brain breaker like there's a lot that would need to change to make this development happen. So it is asking for a lot. and and George makes a good point that it doesn't come cost-free to the city to be considering this level of of changes to our our zoning, and our land, use, especially at the same time. This project has gotten the most letters of community support from the most diverse audience and set of people

[254:04] of any project that that at least, that I've seen. I've only been here a year, but mit ctl, and quite an impressive, I think Chandler used the word flood of community support and love for this project and excitement. and people just really feeling like it fits the neighborhood, feeling like it would be an important community. Amenity feel like it could fix help fix some of the communities issues around. Activation of spaces make some important connections. So you know clearly the community wants this project, at least from what we're hearing, you know. Maybe by site review people will come out of the would work and have issues with it, but so far it seems like the community supports it, and my sense and and this is speculation, of course, is that if we were writing the North older sub community plan today. this project would be in it, and the land uses would accommodate it. Very likely. And so, you know, subcommittee plans are designed to last about 20 years. That's what I understand from the East Boulder Side community planning process. It's about a 20 year planning horizon. The North Boulder subcommittee plan has already exceeded that horizon, having been developed in the nineties.

[255:13] and it might not be updated for another 18 years or so. If it goes in rotation of, we have 10 sub communities, even if it only took 2 years to do each subcommittee plan. We only have 2 of them complete, so that's you know, 8 more to go 16 more years before North Boulder comes around in the rotation, so I don't think that it's unreasonable mit ctl, and to say, here's something that has a huge amount of community support. We can do as Charles described a surgical update to the North Boulder Subcommittee plan as me, and described, and, as we all know, 150. An update to the Comp plan is coming along. so that to me doesn't seem beyond the pale. It seems like something that we certainly it could and probably should consider. Given the level of community support for for this project. I do think that the density changes, and height could be supportable given. You know

[256:02] it's their market rate units. There will still be the donation to the inclusionary housing fund, as is required by our our regulations. and it will provide relative affordability. Not. you know, not affordability, Peg. To am. I like we have in our affordable housing program. But I I am. I am susceptible to Danica's argument that this site would be better off, as fewer as more smaller units than a small number of larger luxury homes which could happen by right. On this on the site, I think. have to go back and look at the zoning as it exists. But I think that there there could be that by right. you know. So i'm inclined to be very supportive. I'm. Inclined for us to think creatively. I don't know exactly which of the options that Chandler laid out is the Beth best pathway forward. David threw in David and signed through, and another wrinkle, which is that

[257:00] you know, updating that land use table for m you to just allow museums, fixes some of the issues, not all. I think it still wouldn't allow live work, but would want to clarify that with staff. I think we have more conversation to go about If we want to go down this road, what exactly are the right land use and zoning tools, but I do think that those are are worthy of our consideration and support, most likely. and I I did appreciate hearing from our staff that you know Bvcp changes, if I heard correctly. can be justified by consistency with BBC goals. And so it kind of cascades from is the project consistent with the goals and objectives. If so, we could change the BBC. And if we change the land, use and the Bbcp that can be used to change the zoning in a way that is legally kosher, and also very supportive of the expressed support of the community. For this particular project i'll stop there. Thank you

[258:01] matched mark. Are you ready to give us your thoughts? Sure I i'll? I'll be super short. hey? In principle, and with the concept we have before us in favor of this project, and I really don't have any much additional commentary that won't be addressed in the in the 4 key issues, so rather than repeat those, or repeat myself. I'll just say in general, i'm interested in how we can move this forward with appropriate changes to the underlying land use in the zoning. and that's it. Thank you. Let's see. Ml.

[259:07] I'm: ready to speak to the key issues. Oh, okay, yeah, there, you know, I I don't need to repeat anything. Okay. I don't see any other hands raised at this point. Sarah. you're waiting to Tom. All right. I'll. I'll give my general thoughts to. I think that it's. This is a very tempting project, but there's, as as George mentioned, there's some nitty gritty aspects that it's easy to ignore at this point, and I think it is appropriate for us to to be aware of them and think about them. Among that is the the the widespread belief among many of the supporters that this will result in significant amount of affordable gallery and

[260:05] workshop space. I think this will result in some space if it is built as posed in tonight, but it's gonna be market right, and we need to understand what that means. That means that many of the people who are now in North Boulder, who who rejoice in the affordable space that they're able to find. are not likely to be able to afford what's being proposed here tonight. and the it's easy to to forget about that aspect. But I think it's a fundamental element of the support. This project is received, and and I think we need to be aware of that. There are ways in which that can be addressed. It can be. you know, there can be conditions of of approval regarding affordability and management and design and operation

[261:05] that that are that we can talk about. And I think my perception is that the the project proponents may be willing to discuss that; but as it is now, I I don't perceive it as providing affordable space that will be designated for the arts. There's other live workspace in North Boulder, and I don't believe that a huge proportion of that is being used by by Arts type folks The other aspect that I think we need to think about explicitly is what we heard about tonight, which is the museum basically changed the the Moca, changing its focus from downtown boulder to North Boulder and the Moca is is an independent operation. They can do what they want, but the city has put a huge effort into developing cultural activities

[262:08] downtown on Boulder Creek, from the library to the Municipal Building, and to where is now? And we heard tonight that they intend to stay there. But that was not the not obvious to me that there's a there's a good deal of commitment to that. My perception before tonight Was that them okay intended to move the focus of its efforts to this location. If if this project moves ahead is discussed, and I think that is a matter that the city should think about carefully about how it wants to support that, because we have put a huge amount of effort into promoting cultural activities downtown, and this would be a a real loss to that effort if if it moves away At the same time. I'm. I'm. Very sympathetic to the efforts to develop a cultural and artistic activities in North Boulder. But this is really a a. Should be a citywide decision, not just a a local decision.

[263:17] Beyond that. I I think that what is being proposed is is generally a an attractive change, but that it needs to be dealt with through the North boulder sub-community plan. There was a huge amount of effort that went through that took many years, in fact, to develop the plan as it is now, and we don't want to just cavalierly make a a significant change without going through the a procedure which gives the result credibility so beyond that it sounds like a lot of negatives, and it's not intended to be negative it. It's intended to be things that planning board needs to consider in the city in general and staff need to consider carefully in

[264:10] deciding how to move ahead with this proposal. So as well. We kind of unloaded enough on that one other aspect is that the the museum, when when George asked about the programming for the museum, and why it needed to be the size that is proposed rather than some different size, the response was that there was a variety of activities that was intended to be It it take place there that's fine, but one of the things mentioned was a restaurant in there, and to be very clear, I I don't see the need to have a restaurant within the museum in an area where there are existing restaurants directly next door. So if we're concerned about

[265:06] the size of the building for various permitting purposes and zoning purposes. I would say that that should be a an item in which there's careful consideration. If if the reason we need to have that big of a building is just to provide space for an in restaurant Museum restaurant. but anyway, so I off my adjust here all right. So I think now the thing for us to do is to go through each of the 4 he issues for discussion that was identified by staff and and give your give us coherent a response as we can. So let's start out with with the first one with planning board support either changes to the use standards or potential rezoning of the Mu. 2 portion of the site to allow for the proposed museum use.

[266:08] and you can give quick. And if you'd like. sure. can we put i'm sorry. Can we put that up on the screen somehow. Yeah, I can do that. Thanks. Yeah, that would be I'm: I'm. Just reading them off the the notes, you said. But so I just want to reference the use table process. There's a bit of a disconnect between the where we are right now in the Use Table review process and this submission, this proposal. and I, David and sign, I think, is, I think, is accurate that I think we had discussed. Allowing museums in more zones then are currently allowed. So there's a

[267:02] I there. I don't know exactly. I'm not going to exactly answer the question as it's asked, what i'd rather have us do, or have this project wait for? Are the final changes to the use table updates and then figure out what kind of is zoning? Changes might make sense here. because it I think it's a bad. I I just think it's not good process to change the use tables for the purposes of one particular development. That that's not a good. I don't think that's a effective way to set policy. so I I just want to caution. I would caution us, saying yes to changing mute to use standards

[268:01] for this one project. No, even though it's an exciting and interesting and challenging and complex problem. So I I just wanted to make that point. Okay. Morning. I agree with Sarah that changing our use tables to support one project does not make sense. and with that background I will say, the way this question is framed is, would you support either this or that? And I would say conceptually, I think that making some kind of change to make this project viable is is probably a good thing. I would support that preferably when the use tables process goes through the phase 3 or i'm. Using the wrong terms. But we think about this example as one potential reason to change those M. U. To use standards, and we see where that goes. It sounds like the timeline, for that, maybe Staff can remind us, is the third phase of use. Tables happening soon

[269:06] in the next year or so. It looks like thumbs up. Yes, so I would want to see where that process goes. And then, if that does not allow for museums and m you, too, I would be supportive of looking at Rezoning. Okay. and how? Thank you, John. So you know, I I think that the staff has produced compelling information that we can meet the Bdcp, and which establish the underlying use and deal with zoning in a hmm in a manageable manner. But I think that the real issue here is conflict with the North Boulder sub-community plan.

[270:04] We go through all these efforts of putting plans in place. but planning only goes so far, because obviously, if I can change, happen. and so we end up in a new place where we have to determine what is guiding. If the plants in place have become obsolete. so I would not support policy changes without also creating a guiding light. I think that you know to to pick and choose through the different policy strategies. I think it can be done. I think Staff has has reviewed that, but I think it's more important to make sure that the North folders of community plan is. get an update for this site, so that it it's being guided by a bigger purpose. The changes that we make are being guided by a bigger purpose than just the needs of this one

[271:06] project. So yeah, I think that's where I stand with the with the key, you know. Let's Let's deal with getting a guiding light before we start making changes to our our overarching policy here, which is the North Wales of Community plan. I you. George. I'm in I'm. In agreement with an Al relative to really looking at the North Boulder subcommittee plan. That's that's kind of why I brought up the I I think that it's it's a worthwhile exercise. I I do think it's going to take a nice amount of a a heavy lift relative to community outreach for that area. But I think that what would be the prudent thing to do here. i'm I I I also believe, to to what? To what Laura and Sarah said, I think

[272:03] that that use Table Review will be revealing, because my guess would be as we went through those changes with these things in mind that would be entirely possible. That museum use would be possible here. It would be possible that you know it's possible from a museum's perspective, that they could probably window down their space requirements to 15,000 square feet. So we don't have a a big, a bigger block here building than what's in them, You 2. My concerns around Rezoning really lie in the unintended consequence of rezoning a site without a commitment on a project like this. So this project, I believe, was at 1.0 2 in total, and I believe, when City staff talked about rezoning for the appropriate zone that this would fall into under our current scenario that that would be a up to a 2 at AR. So I I guess what what i'd be concerned about is that we went through a rezoning process, and then by right.

[273:05] this developer was able to basically develop double the size of the project that's being presented here, and that may not be what the community want. This this may be what the community wants, but with that opportunity of that rezoning and the far increase that would be far in excess of what this would be that could also create some unintended consequences. So I I think we need to think carefully about that. and I would be an advocate, for. you know, really re-addressing the the subcommittee plan, as an all said, and also waiting for the Use Table Review, because my my gut would be that a museum use would would probably fall into that. Thank you. Okay. out there. Any other comments. Well, I I can say just in the interest of being quick, that the Ml. And George presented my thoughts. Very well. I think that

[274:04] a an update of the subcommittee plan is essential, for we're moving ahead on this issue that way. Can I just ask you a question, John? John and Ml. And George? Is it your Would you, in in urging an update. Would it be a boundary to update like? Would you want it to be limited to this particular area, or or I'm? Just What do? We we talked a bit with Staff about how how much of a work? Item: a full-fledged update would be. So I I just think it would be helpful to give some guidance to staff about what you really mean by an is it a focused update, a broad update? I I think that I think that at least from my perspective, that question gets asked back to staff of what that entails. Because ideally right, you'd want to, to, to to Laura's point right. This is a 20 plus year old plan, and

[275:08] this would be the opportunity. I'm sure there are other areas that could be affected, even like the the little, the little condos that are right next door, that they have their own issues, and I heard them loud and clear. But so, but I think that's really. I almost think that's a that's a staff question, because I think everyone would prefer a broader plan, but it may not. You know we we might need to make some compromises in order to move with some speed. I I concur with this with what you're saying, George. Yeah, I think good. I agree. I see that. Does Chandler. I'm sorry. Does someone have their hand up that, he said. Address this specific issue being discussed. You do.

[276:07] We need to. I've been involved in enough community processes that we sometimes in boulder we get, we can fall prey to an endless loop of waiting for updates to rather than implementation of a plan, and the goals and policies of that plan we fall prey to. Okay. We got the plan complete, but you know it took us so darn long to complete the plan that we now need to update it to before we start actually implementation, and I think that in terms of a guiding light. We have the Bbcd. Which is on a regular schedule of updates, which is current much more current than the North Bowler Subcommittee plan, and I think that if you look at the BBC policies and goals.

[277:05] this this project answers and fulfills many of those, and I think that simple and potentially just kind of elegant zoning changes and design changes on the part of the applicant could make an M. You for zoning work. And, John, I I. I do appreciate your comments about if we're If we're creating a zoning issue by having a 17,000 square foot building, at which 2,000 of that is a restaurant in a restaurant Rich area. I I I you know, design modifications to eliminate some of the challenges. combined with simple and direct zoning changes that

[278:00] implement. The BBC. To me seems like the way to go. So that would be. And I I I when I ask Chandler Chandler outline that process of a targeted update to the North Pole, the subcommittee plan, and. anyway, that that seemed like a a simple and elegant procedure that both addresses the concerns about. Will the developer actually develop what they presented to us in concept. and how we guarantee that we're getting a product that we're approving. So I I support the process that Chandler outline for us. Thank you. Looks like Laura has some thoughts here. Thank you. Just just 2 real quick additions, one about the restaurant space. I would really leave that up to Bemoka if they were going to pair down their space. Maybe they would prefer to farm out some of their administrative offices and keep the restaurants on site. I can imagine that a restaurant has

[279:03] mit ctl and fundraising uses and celebratory uses as part of the museum, you know. They probably have a liquor license. It'll be a community gathering space. I I can see 250. The logic in not wanting to take business away from other restaurants, but they may want to have that space integrated for their own event purposes. So I would just really leave it up to them if they were going to pair down their space, how they would do it. But although these are great points to keep in mind. and then the other thing just I. I also would support Chandler's suggestion of a. And I think Charles also said of a kind of a focused, maybe not surgical, but focused on this area. Maybe it's not just the project site. Maybe it's a little bit around it, too, but a focused update to the be to the North Boulder Subcommittee plan, because, even though this plan is really old. there are 7 subcommittees in Boulder that have never had a subcommittee plan, and that are, I think, in the queue. And so we only have 2 full subcommittee plans. We have North Boulder. We have east boulder now and then. There's some stuff in gun barrel. That which, as we had discussed before, also needs updating. And so.

[280:08] before we start circling back to places that already have some plans that are working reasonably well. I wouldn't. I wouldn't personally prioritize that above the rest of the sub communities that don't have a plan personally, so i'm sure. Staff are already thinking about that, but wanted to voice that in this meeting I will put my hand down. Okay, thank you. I I just can't help but respond and say: the reason we have a sub community plan is to provide guidance, and so it's to. In my opinion. we we don't throw it out as soon as we have some project in some location that we really like we. Oh, it seems to me the thing to do is to deal with it systematically and make sure that you it's appropriate. And that's why I agreed with George and Ml. That perhaps a a staff decision could be made on how to deal with that efficiently and update the plan. But

[281:07] okay, we have everybody's thoughts on that. Now. alright. Shall we move to the key issue, too. Chandler, can you? Yes, I can do. Is it helpful to leave it up on the screen for everyone? Or should I like put these into the chat or something. I think, on the screen to that. Okay. considering Bbcp and Mbsp. Goals and policies would planning board, support a land, use map, change, and or rezoning to one or both portions of the site, in order to allow for the proposed residential density and intensity.

[282:00] Mark Yes. and I pretty much said it in the prior question. I think these are short, deeply related. So the answer is, Yes. Okay. other thoughts. I know. Thank you, John. So I. I completely recognize that for this project to get the zoning and land use map changes done. The this is a big cost to the city staff. Time to everybody involved. You know, city council would be involved. We would be involved. The public would be involved. and my perspective on this is that

[283:02] we need to get a significant benefit out of this and one way to consider a benefit that this project would bring back. I'm not going to use community benefit, because that term is his is fraught with with issues. But one form would be for the applicant to consider for sale rather than rental housing and workshops that would provide stability for affordability. You know, when people are subject to a rent increases and an UN unknown market. I think that creates instability, and perhaps the community isn't this as fixed as it might be if people owned their places. I don't know what that the economy of doing something like that would be, but I think that that would be a big benefit

[284:00] to the people who might inhabit and use the property. The additionally, I think that the project should meet superior environmental standards. and that would be building performance with significant carbon footprint reduction in embedded in use carbon. They, the applicant, is already reference to the building challenge, which is one of the highest, if not the highest. building standard in in the country. And so I believe that the thinking is already in place to try to. They're creating a new or intending to create a new typology for housing and live work and that sort of thing. I would encourage the next evolution of this project to try to be very clear and articulate how

[285:00] the project is going to benefit the people who will, who will be using it and the city at large, because the city is going to put a big investment into getting everything in place to make this project viable, and I think, having a great. a great building and creating a great community, I think that those could be significant benefits. Okay, George. Sorry. Just on meeting this questions. asking an interesting question around. Sort of splitting the baby, Which is you? You really got 2 separate land uses here. and what's going on. and what I see fronting Broadway. I think it's pretty compelling from the BBC plan and and a real additive benefit to the neighborhood, so I'm. Generally supportive of that and the concept of the live work there.

[286:06] the mixed use, the All those things are really interesting. because Chandler had mentioned to be supportive of the Resident, or or called the core residential pro part of the project on Violet and Tenth, which is a completely different use that would have to be Rezone as our H 5 or and i'm not sure without some kind of affordable component. That's on site whether that's really a good trade for the city. and really meets what we're, what our affordable housing objectives are beyond the the in blue funds, which I don't know if it is enough. and it's hard to split the project, because I understand from the developer standpoint that

[287:01] you know that's what the question is asking. So i'm answering the question. But I understand from the developers standpoint that they may need both in order to make this work, and so i'll leave it there as sort of my my nebulous answer of supporting the front parcel, but maybe not the back parcel as it's currently envisioned. Thank you. Sarah. So I think actually, what I have is a question rather than a comment, and it's a question to my colleagues. which is the answer to this question is built on the answer to the previous question: yeah. right. So if we let's assume and mark, i'm not dismissing what you said, but just for the sake of a thought thought experiment, let's assume that we are generally in agreement that we need some sort of review of some portion of the North folder sub-community plan so that we are planful, not just responding to a particular

[288:03] work. Application. then the the question, the answer to key issue to will be driven by the outcome of the review of the subcommittee plan. So it's a little hard. So is it am I under. Is that a fair understanding of what the process would be? What the what the chain of events would be Santa, are you? Is that a question for that's okay. So I I I i'm not trying to, although I am tired. I'm not trying to close down the conversation early earlier. But I it just seems like we key issue 2 will sort of answer itself if we do. The subcommittee. A review of some portion of the subcommittee. If the city does some review of the subcommittee plan.

[289:02] so that that that's sort of so i'm having a my time answering the question, because I I I agree with what most folks talked about is the answer to key issue one. I had a really hard time writing the questions. If that's any consolation I can, I respond to Sarah? I just it. It seems to me like it's a little bit of a chicken and an egg problem, because our input will likely inform what happens in the update of the North Boulder sub community plan right? Like they're going to care. Does planning board think it's appropriate to increase the residential intensity on this site. Given community input given what's developed around it in the intervening years since the subcommittee plan was first created. you know. So I don't. I don't think that that subcommittee plan update happens independently of what we think about whether residential intensity is appropriate to increase on this site.

[290:03] So so I would say, it's a great question, though I mean it definitely. It does seem like in the developer's mind, and in our minds these 2 portions are linked right? The reason the developer is asking for increased intensity here is to support the donation of land for the museum, which is what that really is. The anchor that the community wants is the the museum and the live work spaces, and there do also seem to be some folks who are very interested in having mit ctl and relative affordability, smaller units, more people living together a little bit more residential density to support some of the neighborhood serving uses and make it more of an active, lively community one. So you know. Yeah. And I so can I just charges. Do you mind if I couldn't sure have. I agree with you. But you know we have the same. We essentially have the same conversation with every mixed Use Development Project great. and so I mean, mine is a museum, part of it. But so I I I understand that I agree, and

[291:08] that there's a sequence that has to happen here, and there are details that are not captured in this proposal, like the access to Broadway. which disappeared from the plan. even though it exists. And we heard from someone who the person who owns the building in the back, who wants that access maintain like in some ways. as with most concept plans, it's it. We get them when they're still just stating. And so it's a little we're responding to things that are incomplete. But i'd be curious like. What would this look like? What might it look like? Yes. it was these different if we, if they change, if they changed it to a different different zone Zoning

[292:01] I I would just like it's I I feel like we're responding to something that we know we have no insight into, and that's hard. I I will say this is getting to the third part of what will be a sequence is that I really appreciate that staff would want the land, the zone, the zoning changes, and the site review process to go hand in hand, that they are not separate. so that so that what comes what eventually comes back to whoever is on planning board whenever this comes back is not radically different. Then what is then? Some version of what we're seeing now you know that it's not. Oh, we got our H 6, so we're gonna make it a 4 story super dense. all efficiency. And I'm making this up. Obviously, so it's I. I I appreciate that part of the sequence that

[293:04] framing of that part of the sequence as well. It's this middle part that I think we can't. It's hard to answer without knowing what what is the conclusion of the first question. Okay, Laura, you were. and I think that These are all very thoughtful points, and I I do want to answer key issue number 2 from my perspective is that I don't know what the correct rezoning would be. I think Staff raised. It could be our H. 5. It could be our H. 6. It could be mu, 4, and I don't remember if there were any other options in there. But I do think this is worth looking at. I do think the character of the neighborhood is changing. I do think that it is more dense than what was originally intended here, and I do think that that additional density supports the neighborhood vision, for for not only this site, but for the North Boulder Arts district and the artistic community.

[294:09] And so I would be in favor supportive of looking at what the correct zoning would be, and I do absolutely support that the zoning should take place at the same time as Site Review, so that we don't get into this issue of. Well, if we rezone it to this that opens the doorway to this other thing that we didn't never looked at or thought about. Okay, i'll. I'll just chime in briefly to say that I I would consider supporting it again with the North Holder subcommittee plan being updated before changing the zoning. So That's my fault. Okay, Any other thoughts on this one? Let's move to to you. Shoe 3. Does the planning board feel that on balance this project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comp. Plan

[295:16] thoughts. mark. Yes. okay. That was short and sweet Ml: to be determined. I think there's there's still some. This threads out there. Okay. next. Laura. I would say on balance, Yes, and I would also hope that the applicant would address some of the policies that staff pointed out on page 81 of the packets that might not be clearly met. So next time it comes around. I think it's worth a conversation about those things. Okay. Sarah.

[296:03] I was going to look at page 81. So me by Okay, let's see Who Else Hasn't responded. Here. George, Are you still there? I'm kind of on board with what Ml. Said it. Just I think it goes hand in hand with the other. The other questions, because it's just it's just we're just not there yet. Okay, Lisa. Yeah. Similar. I don't know exactly what it will be, but if it comes out the way. I'm envisioning it then. Yes, by all means it'll be on balance consistent. But it's hard to It's hard to answer, and we just don't know what it is yet. Okay. and i'll. I'll join the the group on that, too. Right. Sarah. Are you still looking at page 81, I am, and I Pre. And I. It enables me to agree complete with Ml. Or Laura, who said it. I'm sorry.

[297:09] All right. Okay. Let's move to the key issue, for this is another general one. This planning board have feedback to the applicant on the conceptual side of each plan and architecture. So, Chandler, you had 4 questions underneath that. Can you put those 4 questions underneath that up there as well. because it's just a little bit different and a little bit a more directive rather than just saying yes or no. Yes. you mean in the memo it's a packet. Did I have 4 questions underneath that? Okay, let me. But yeah.

[298:04] you know I only captured in my notes. I captured the first. you know line, and then dot. I thought so. I don't have the whole. I have my answers, but just for everybody else's benefit it'd be nice if we could see the the way you framed the consideration Number 4. Okay, Can you see this? I know it might be kind of small. We are not seeing anything different. There you go. Thank you. So I think under key Ish. Oh.

[299:00] sorry. No worries under key Issue Number 4 Number One is dealing with that access. and I think that we have heard, and it just makes sense, you know. Just keep the access to Broadway open. and so t issue number 4. Consideration number one. Keep the access to Broadway open. Consideration Number 2. I think my answer to that is, it's hard to know about the building height and scale as a transition. because it doesn't really feel like a transition at this point in time, so I I I think. to jury's out on consideration. Number 2

[300:02] number 3 is the proposed open space appropriate. I think I I really appreciate the mix of usable of the mix of the usable clause of space paired with the natural gardens. I think, as a concept it's, it's very much aligned with the overall use that's envisioned on the property. So I would encourage the development of those 2 different kinds of open space. and the consideration number 4. I I was not understanding the site plan until the applicant went through and talked about how they arrived at it, and the different options that they had looked at. and I think what they what they've done. It engages the natural feature of the creek and the design pathway to the library. It's a counterintuitive

[301:08] site plan from the need to make a gateway. but instead it I think it provides a powerful place, making gesture that has more to do with how they're going to experience the site. then with an an ego-driven concept. So I really appreciate where this site plan has has landed. And I think it will. I think it's a much. It it's a really strong. It's a really strong gesture for actually creating a place rather than making a statement. So i'm in support of that part of the or that consideration Number 4. Thank you. Mark.

[302:04] So I I. My addressing of this question is to the applicants, and it's my initial part is going to fall into the mundane. and that is on Packet page 169 and I don't think that page number changed between the 2 different versions of the packet that we get out there. That's their Tvm. So here we are. Mark's talking about Tdm. Again. But this is an example of once again in the applicant stating in their package, citing a Tdm toolkit that was ever adopted. It was never, it's never been code, and it's being treated by the apple again, and I I can't speak for sa, but it's been treated by the applicant as being code, and I would

[303:03] encourage the applicant to note that are Tdm. Policy is very brief. It's in the code. and it allows for a lot of flexibility. But it also is highly subjective to planning board staff and the site review process. And so I I just want the applicant when they come back for the next concept review or for Site Review. that their Tdm plan must be have the kind of robust design and intention that the rest of this project has, and that to dismiss an outdated toolkit from 2,011. Get rid of that and use and work with our transportation department staff chris haglin others to

[304:09] develop a truly forward-looking Tdm. Plan, so that that's my little Tdm. Speech. But you know I met with Brad and Charles and Chris Hagglin the other day about this issue, and then then this packet came out, and here it is again, where applicants and staff treat this old thing as code, and it's not code, and I wish it. it would all stop on the more inspirational side in terms of architecture. Obviously, this is a concept plan, and we can't deal with the architecture or materials or that sort of thing. Yeah, it's very, very, very conceptual. But I did I. I do think that one of the things that's incumbent upon the apple account

[305:04] to as part of this whole program is is excellence in architecture, and I don't mean pretty. I mean architecture that challenges us that inspires us, that this has to be. If we're if we're going to do this, this has to be the kind of architecture that 20 and 30 and 40 years later we say. this is great, and I I think about in car, you know, in card a lot of people didn't like in card when it was first done, but it's become one of the most beloved sites in boulder, and it was it's not because it was pretty. It's because it's it's is architectural excellence, and it's inspiring. So I I just wanna say that it's an incumbent burden upon the apple to come back

[306:02] with architectural excellence for this this kind of project, because it is a gateway project for the city. It is, you know, a focal point of an arts district, and you it can't be. It can't be okay or good enough. It's it's really gotta be great. So that's all I have to say about. Item 4. Thank you, Laura. So the overarching question is feedback on the conceptual site, plan and architecture. You know, as as has been pointed out, that there, there, there's not a lot of detail about architecture for us to talk about. So I'm. Going to generally agree with Ml. That you know the the way that they have program the space mit. and I agree with Ml. That the having it positioned at the North end there on Broadway makes a lot of sense, as the applicant explained.

[307:05] As I talked about earlier. I will, when it comes back for a site Review. I want to see more detail about how exactly is this a creative campus? Where do those arts uses take place, how the open space functions as a community space to make sure that it will actually function well. And you know more about, for example, the disability access with regard to the specific questions, the city of Boulder access standards, and where that access should be. I appreciate a Danica thoughtful reply about how they will work with the that building to the West and try to figure out the access question, so I I trust that they will work that out to everybody's satisfaction. I'm personally agnostic about what it looks like. As long as the city traffic engineers are happy, and that building to the West is happy, and the applicants can live with whatever that decision is. The second question, do the proposed building, height and scale provide appropriate transition between the main street in the adjacent residential areas. It looked to me like it did, looking at the different elevations from the north, south, east, and west, that the height steps down. The tallest buildings were towards Broadway.

[308:13] and then, I think you know, it was mostly 2 story buildings. After that other adjacent uses are either one or 2 stories. I don't know how else you transition from from 3 to one, except with 2. So I i'm. I think i'm pretty good with how it makes that transition. at least as currently designed. Number 3. The proposed open space is that appropriate? As I said, i'm going to want to see more of how that is programmed to make sure that it is activated by the community, and that there's not, you know, competition for who uses it when and you know that people do feel comfortable claiming that space and doing something interesting there. And I think I already talked about Number 4. We don't really have the architectural sketches, yet so, looking forward to seeing those, and I support Mark's comments on it would be great for this gateway site to be architecturally interesting, and looking forward to seeing how the applicant implements that

[309:15] Thank you, George. Yeah. I'll try not to be repetitive, because I agree with a lot of my colleagues, and what's already been said, as it relates to the cond to minimize light industrial, it's very interesting what it what wasn't brought up is that the developer created this problem for themselves. Right they they sold. They sold this building off with a Broadway address and monetized it. And now they're facing the consequences of that. and I I think that needs to be addressed with those neighbors in an appropriate matter that satisfies them because they've been sold a Broadway address. and that access by the developer who's trying to develop this all around them. And I think the developer needs to come to the table with them. They talked a lot about neighborhood outreach, except it felt like on the public comments that at least those people hadn't been spoken to.

[310:15] and the developer had a relationship with them, actually selling them their condos. So that concerns me, and I think the developer should really consider that I I also agree with with with with Mark around Tdm. I again. I I brought up. I got some really unsatisfactory answer from Bimoka. I'm really excited about that. But it doesn't feel like they. They really have analyzed or understood what their needs are to activate their museum from parking standpoint, both from employees and patrons. They're used to an environment that's downtown that has a lot of foot traffic has a lot of parking surrounding it. This site is a bit more of an island, and I I just.

[311:09] I I think that really needs to be fleshed out. I don't. I have no idea what the right answers are on that, but but but it didn't sound like the museum did, either. So that's about access. Oh, in one more thing about access. Same thing in trying to create a a vibrant live work scenario. I, personally, I would like to see this to be a very carlight environment. From the standpoint of the people, the residents that are there, so that the parking that is available is available for people to actually access their businesses, because there's a lot of talk about the businesses on site and activating these plazas. and they're going to come hopefully from all around Boulder. So something else to think about there. Massing. I didn't have any issues with massing except for

[312:02] the ask. for beyond 15,000 square feet in the Mu 2 that is inconsistent with the rest of the M. U. 2, the developer nor the Museum demonstrated any reason why they're asking for that, and not for 15,000 square feet. And I think there needs to be a very strong justification for that, because if we start making, you know, exceptions or changes there, and it could impact other things. So I I I think that needs to be thought through 3 open space. I agree with Laura and other comments that we just need to know more about how it's programmed. And same thing with architectural style, you know. I I thought their idea of creating these sort of inner plazas is super interesting, and could be really vibrant and active, but it kind of depends on the details about how it's executed. That's it.

[313:02] Thank you. Sarah. You're muted, sir. Sorry about that 2 comments we've been talking about this museum as being a gateway into the Arts district. but it's also a gateway going south. and it's into the rest of the city. And because this is just a concept plan. We don't really see or know what will be on this what looks like a big blank wall on the north side of the museum building, so I just would like to encourage once the applicant once once once we get they get further down the line that they think about how that wall can also be a gateway for folks driving into the city. And then. as I always talk about green, more green, I realize that we've been talking a lot about how to activate or how how to. But what will the activation of that plaza be? But I it could. This could be a very

[314:12] especially given the references that they have in the proposal. it could be a very stark and environment. So making. considering how to incorporate a lot of green, a lot of trees, or grasses, or shades, or something, so that it's. It's not just a a a box of glass walls and white walls, and or whatever materials will be used in in the public, that public area on the the buildings that are facing Broadway. Those are my 2 comments. Thank you. Let's see. Oh, George, did you have some more thoughts? Your hand is up.

[315:03] Okay, let's see. Is everyone else have their 2 bits? I would say. My my thoughts have been covered already by my colleagues, and I won't. Drag it out any longer, but just pay attention to them all. Okay. So any final comments by the board. Okay. with that no way. I sure I one comment, You know I really appreciate all the public who came out and spoke and sent this letters, and I hope that people understand that this is like this is a super complex situation. right? A very complex proposal. And so what you're hearing is not. We're opposed. What you're hearing is this is a rubik's queue. and it's going to take a while for the pieces to come together. So don't be disheartened that we didn't just go

[316:01] way to go applicants because I there was a lot of very positive comments, and and we're just trying to help move the process along. Thank you for that, Sarah. Yes, thank you, Sarah. I second everything that Sarah said, and I I want to say, I hope that the applicant leaves here feeling encouraged rather than discourage. You know we can get really into the weeds about what would need to change in site review. But I think, as as Sarah was saying, if I can paraphrase, I think everybody here has said some variation of this is a really exciting project. It seems like it has a lot of community support. We want to see how we can make it possible. 2, We have some concerns, of course we always do. That's what we do. That's why we're here. But we are excited about your project, and thank you so much for bringing it forward. Thank you, and i'll just summarize by saying quickly. Hmm. People like this project. We just want to make it as good as possible and move ahead in the best possible way.

[317:05] So thank you. With that i'll bring the public hearing to a close. and I think we can move into matters at this point from, so we have any matters from Staff tonight. Well, I think my only matter this evening, John, is to thank you so much for your almost a decade of service to the board. You know we've spent a lot of time together and watched a lot of evenings turn into mornings, and I just can't thank you enough for your service to the community. And, more importantly, John, your contributions to the legacy of learning and boulder. you know, as a native, I've always really appreciated your historic perspective and your real genuine commitment to the community. So thank you so much have really appreciated everything that you've brought to the conversations over the years, and we'll miss you a lot.

[318:02] There will always be a place for you on Tuesday nights here. We can always zoom you in if you if you miss us. But thank you so much for your service, and Devin is going to be getting something together. He'll be sending out a paul for the part, but we would love to find a way to send you off in person, where we can all get together and spend a little bit of time thinking you in person. So thanks again, and i'm sure I i'm i'm sure not the only one who wants to thank you. So i'm. Good on, mute. Oh. Thank you. I I it would be fun to get together. I agree. Hmm. Mark. Oh, hold in this or any other staff, and thank Charles for making those very thoughtful and and certainly very accurate comments it. It does seem very inadequate. Given your your tenure and contributions to the community to to

[319:04] say this over a zoom call, and I do, and sincerely hope we have a another opportunity in person to thank you more fully. So thank you would be great. Thank you. I just to back out for that. Oh, sorry, really quick, just to pig it back off that I'll be sending you all individual emails with a poll. So what we we can kind of get together and try to figure out some good dates and locations to have like a kind of celebratory dinner and everything for John. So then look out for that in a couple in the next couple of days. Thank you. That'll be great. It's certainly not. Goodbye, and it is certainly inadequate to send you off this way, and Charles and Brad said it said it so well, John, you you will be missed in your chair as chair. But we look forward to all of the other interactions we will have with you as we implement and benefit from your style and your learning that you have given to us.

[320:06] I'm gonna it's late, and i'm babbling. But but, John, I think you know how much you are loved and appreciated, and we are going to miss you sincerely. Excellent. I second, that third, that for that it's it's been wonderful, having you as our as the chair of our first year we've had. We've had John, and we've had John. So thank you very much. I think you've set a a really beautiful standard. you know you're just always really kind to everybody, no matter how crazy they whatever we're saying it just like we're in the middle of the night in your you're kindly appreciating it. So thank you so much for that. Excellent and thanks thanks for the good times and thanks for tolerating me as you may have learned, i'm the least natural chair that you've ever met, so I I I would just like to call out Sarah for

[321:01] for doing a lot of handholding along the way on that front. What are you going to do with your Tuesday nights? Oh. I don't know. I don't think i'm even allowed to to watch the meetings or have contact with you guys for a year. if if I recall correctly from the last time I left planning board. But anyway. I think i'm sure i'll get the instructions from. They're gonna make dinner awfully hard if you can't. That must be an exception. That's what we've been getting. We'll be talking about things. We can talk about that. Okay? Well, anyway. I I i'm gonna let let it go. I I You know I've only been up planning for a year. But I've known John.

[322:03] I really feel like I really got to know John in 2,017 when we ran for Council together. and you know I I just have to say that that, John, you you don't you are a natural chair. If If the qualities of being a natural chair, are just generally having an excellent demeanor. working hard. exhibiting leadership and friendship to your comrades on the board. Then you're a natural your natural chair. So, and I've appreciated both your your friendship and your leadership since 2,017, and especially now in this last year, on planning for so I kudos to you and and don't. So so sell yourself short. Go, go, find some other chair to be group to lead you. Can you can do it.

[323:02] Well, thanks a lot, and i'll just close by saying. Keep Keep the future, and keep how bolder it looks in 25 years from now in mind, and your decisions in addition to whatever pressures there are right now. So, anyway. thanks a lot. It's been great. I think it's time to adjourn this meeting, and I look forward to seeing you in person. I think I think Laura wanted to bring up an actual matter. I do have a couple of matters one very short, and one that could be longer, and we could kick that one off to another meeting. If we don't have time tonight. the first one that is very short is that I was requested at the last Landmarks Board meeting by I'm. Going to forget his name. I can see his face and hear his voice, but a gentleman from historic boulder to just make sure that this board is aware

[324:00] that there is a a movement afoot to try to create a historic district around Civic Center Park, and that would include the Bemoca Building, the Deshawn by T. House, the Bank building that's next to it. The band shell and other things around that civic Center Park area. and I'm. Sure Staff are well aware of this, and they will come to planning board at the appropriate time, but they just wanted to make sure there are no surprises that everybody knows there is this discussion that they're trying to push forward. I think, before the election of creating a historic district around Civic Center Park. and I apologize sincerely for forgetting the gentleman's name. I can hear his voice in my head. He gave a tour during the saving Places conference, and I apologize if I got any of the details wrong. But any questions. Okay. So that was the first one. The second one that I wanted to bring up has to do with the airport community conversation, and I think to do this one justice. We probably would need at least 15 to 20 min, and I

[325:07] i'm not sure that people are going to be awake in 15 to 20 min. It is somewhat time-sensitive, because the next meeting of the Airport Community working group. April the eleventh, and our next meeting Isn't until April, the Fourth and so I will be asking this group if there's anything that you want to say that might influence this working group and the staff that are working on it. That is something I want to ask you tonight. and if we wait until the fourth, I think we could still be influential. But but it might be better to be earlier than later, so can I ask folks indulgence for 15 to 20 min? Can I just, maybe just do a quick summary of what your concerns are what you want to bring to us, and then we can decide if we everyone's willing to stay up another 15 min. Gotcha. Okay? Well, I think if I just really so, I was. I would really love to be able to contextualize this with like

[326:01] reminding you what all the working group is trying to do as part of the community conversation. I really want to give my thanks and appreciation to all of the staff who are working on this effort and good face. I don't really want to skip those parts, but I will abbreviate it if I have to, just by saying it's a very complicated and difficult process, and, as you know. the goal is to create 3 or 4 scenarios about the future of the airport and bring those to the community for conversation through both the working group, through surveys and one survey, and through a series of open houses. And my concern is that, as I understand it. The process is being scoped such that housing is off the table. It will not be discussed in any of the scenarios that are brought to the community for discussion. The range of scenarios would, of course, and appropriately, very appropriately, include things like keep the airport basically the same. But maybe fix some of the issues around noise and lead and community relationships and safety. That might be one scenario, 250.

[327:00] Another scenario might be around growing the airport and adding different services and attracting more users. That could be another scenario. There will be some that are very airport focused, but the range will end at potentially decommissioned the airport. I understand it without any context about what might come next. And so my concern is that that turns this process into. Do you want an airport or not, and to decommission an airport is actually quite difficult. You know it. It takes time. It takes money. It takes probably negotiation, maybe a court case. The Faa does not like to let go of airports, so my concern is that it doesn't give us a reason for why we might want to do that right? Why would we go through that and decommission? The airport and the community at large would not have any context for understanding that decision of decommissioned the airport. And then my other concern is that. as we all know, the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan says, at the time of the next airport master plan. The city will work with the community to reassess the potential

[328:02] for developing a portion of the airport for housing and neighborhood serving uses. and, as I understand it, the way the conversation is currently designed that conversation will not happen unless the community says decommissioned the airport. then that would be a next step is to look at housing and neighborhood serving uses. But if this but, logically speaking, we have to be open to the possibility that that conversation could end with a scenario that supports, continued airport uses. and I can't imagine that we would then go back to them and say, Well, we're just kidding. We still need to talk to you about housing right? I think the conversation could be cut off without ever really directly asking the community what they think about housing and neighborhood services serving uses at the airport. And, Brad, please step in and correct me or Charles, if I've got these details wrong. but I think, and and there i'm sure there are very good reasons for why Staff has scoped it the way they have scoped it. maybe having to do with the work plan. I I don't know. I don't want to speculate, but

[329:02] I am concerned that the way the conversation is designed my opinion as a planning board member who cares about long-range land use at the Airport site. that we might never have that conversation about housing and neighborhood serving uses that this process that we're going through, which has such wonderful potential to be a very robust consideration of all of the options, could actually shut that door rather than open it. So what do you? What do you think we should? What would you like us to consider doing? Well, I I I would like to open the door for conversation. If people have questions, or if they want to express opinions. If we were going to do something, I think there are a couple of things that we could do. One is we could so i'm not sure that. Let me back up and say I I am. I'm quite sure that Staff feel strongly that where they are going, how they have scoped it is consistent with direction from city council. I'm not entirely sure that city council understood that scoping would be cut off at decommission, and no discussion of housing.

[330:05] So one thing we could do is recommend to staff that they go back to city council make that crystal clear, and see if that is indeed the direction that city city council would like to give them and support a process that only looks at up to decommissioning and not what comes after That's one thing we could do is make that recommendation. Another thing that we could do if we think it would be useful. And if we would like to make a statement about. do we have an opinion as planning board about whether that scope should be expanded from what is currently envisioned, such that there is a scenario. maybe more than one scenario that looks at housing and neighborhood serving uses at the airport. Maybe a hybrid of airport and housing uses, such as that range includes that conversation in this phase, and does not make it contingent upon a decision to decommission the airport. so we could make a statement about that. And if we want to, I have some draft language that we could discuss. So 2 2 potential things we could do, one or both, or none.

[331:03] So I guess I would like to answer any questions and see what people think, and I see that Brad would like to weigh in. and i'll leave it up to the chair. John, do you want to get questions and discussion going, or do you want to ask Brad to weigh in, or I think it'd be interesting to get. perhaps Fox, and then find out what the rest of our colleagues think here. Yeah, thank you, Laura. Thank you. John. And Board members. you know, fundamentally. But Laura said, we certainly agree with from a staff perspective, just as a reminder of some of the mechanics. This planning process is being managed out of the Transportation and Transit Department through Consultant. that they've hired and will be facilitating this process. What Laura said is correct. Our understanding of the scope that was to find

[332:04] my staff and for the consultants really is fundamentally our understanding of the conversation that took place with council. Laura will be speaking with Maria, the city manager. Get that on their calendars for further discussion. She is the administrative head of the city. I would expect, would take those comments to heart, and Laura shared with me her that she's had conversations with 3 Council members. and to the degree that there needs to be clarification from council, there is certainly I would offer a pass the mechanisms on a regular basis to do that through various communications. Oh, so that's that's kind of the the landscape, as as as we understand it, from a staff perspective. But as I mentioned Laura, when we talked earlier this week. Certainly it's

[333:05] her and and the planning board to to have further discussion around this Sarah Brad, is there some? Is Is there a a tactic that you think would be most meaningful. That planning board could take what it what like? What if it sounds like you and Laura share similar concerns, and I've spoken. Lord has called me and spoke to me about this, and I shared the concern. So is there some. If if we collectively share the same concern. What would be the most effective tactic we could undertake to support your conversations with Council and or nuria? No, I I I don't know that I can represent that I share the concerns quite in the same way. I I believe the planning process can lead to a discussion of commissioning, and I I do expect that

[334:04] as part of the community conversation, people will speculate about what those potential uses could be a full housing study. It's not part of the scope, but it would be if there was direction undertaken to decommission the airport. So I think it's a a difference of kind of perspective and and emphasis. You know this is really kind of getting more and policy rather than the administrative role that we play as staff. As to whether it. you know, is is being emphasized enough for or approached in the way that Council mine intended. So I think that's where you know it can provide guidance. But again, certainly it's the planning boards that to be able to

[335:01] make a motion and and and put that on the record. And and or I suppose the longer version of that would be a letter. But you know, something like that always remains within your perfume. Thank you, Brad. Can I just clarify something, John, before we go on. I I want to say I fully understand and support that this process of going out to the community with scenarios is not the same thing as a full housing study in the same way that a scenario that says continue airport uses and only airport uses is not the same thing as a master plan. Update right? This absolutely would not have the same level of details like this Out the East Folder subcommittee plan. It's not going to have a site plan. It's not going to have traffic impacts. It's not going to have utilities. Study none of that that would be required if you were going to actually move forward with developing housing here. I'm. Just asking for it to be included in the range of scenarios in a similar level of analysis and detail to the airport only scenarios. So that's that's where i'm coming from. I have always understood. Staff have been very clear that it's not going to be

[336:05] at the same level of detail as like an actual plan, and and I get that and Mel. Laura, thank you for bringing this important topic to our table. I don't have enough brain south left to give it the attention it I mean it needs. I'm hearing your words. but they're bouncing into outer space. So I I can't give you any reasonable feedback tonight. What I would suggest is, if you can articulate in a in a short email. Here's the I mean you talked about. Here's right. Now what's happening? What you think is happening right now, and it would be nice if there could be one additional thing added to that, so that it doesn't. and then you know it just like it would be useful if we could

[337:02] make your 2 suggestions for how we move forward, which I all this you've already said. But if if you just if you could, I think that would help me form a a real opinion. I'm family. Sorry if. But I i'm just not in a position to make it an intelligent Okay. Contribution. Okay, Laurel, how's your hand up? Sorry to interrupt just the attorney saying, Be careful with emails and creating any sort of public meeting outside of the meeting or any sort of decision making. Yeah, it's definitely been that Laura can give you that information, but because she could she do it like one to one? Yeah. So one email and separate it out individually. you know. No, no, you can't do a serial meeting. You can't. You can't be individually, one on one. But right. Send an email to one person, and it's an an email to the next person. So that's what's called serial meetings and the idea there is that you're

[338:07] if there is there a mechanism for me to publicly write the planning board and say, here's the issue that I would like us to take up at our next meeting, or something like that, or I don't know. Mark, you have a hand up. So I would just simply say, I dealt with this serial meeting and drafting letters to council on tab on controversial subjects, and the way we did it was a meeting like this, we said, hey. person who's interested? Who's driving this? You pick another person who who volunteers to work with you on because you can have 2, so you could say, Gee, Sarah, would you like to work with me on this letter. You draft the letter. You bring it to the next meeting.

[339:02] We edit it as a group. We in the meeting. We vote on it. People sign on to it. In in the case of my past experience we we, we we strived to create a document that had unanimous support, sometimes that work. Sometimes it didn't. But you did your final editing and discussion in the meeting. It became an agenda topic, and once that was done that went off with to council and to nurture. And a way we went. Yeah, that's definitely it's it's legal. I don't know about reason. I don't know what that's for I can't comment on reasonable bonus in general. Or you commenting on Mark's unreasonableness in particular.

[340:10] Yeah, that's an option. There's also I think there's a public email address. You couldn't reply all, too. But you can give up the information to everybody. It's the boulder planning for email address. It could be wrong about that I'm Brad please over you. Approach me, but I know that Council doesn't follow in as well, so it would be consistent for a couple of folks to work on something, and then it to a future. Yeah. Well. I'll just say, while i'm still a member of planning board, I I am absolutely concerned about the process that is being followed for the airport evaluation, and I would strongly suggest that planning Board Contact City Council directly about it.

[341:00] Does anybody else have thoughts or questions about what I shared, because I know that we're all a little bit brain fried, but people may also look at this as a record after the meeting, and want to know what people think. So if there's something that you want to say or something you want to ask, I think this is a good opportunity. Now, before we put something on paper. I i'll say from my perspective, i'm a little fried like Ml. But I also I agree very much with with John, and I trust your perspective to to help make sure that gets surface properly, and I think reaching out to council is the the right approach. And so I like the idea of what Mark suggested of putting together a letter from planning board, and maybe just adding it together in our next meeting. I thought that was. That was a reasonable idea. because I do believe it needs to be surface from, and and I trust your perspective. As you know you're you're closest to it right now. Thank you. I don't know if Sarah or Mark want to say anything.

[342:01] Alright. I agree with what George has said I, I'll just simply say that we are collectively stewards. Oh. to some degree of you know the the city's money. So our our fellow citizens monies. And when we spend a lot of money in boulder going through processes and developing plans and seeking community input that all that community input does not come for free. but if it's, it's a waste of money. If the question being asked. is, is it incomplete or preordained? The designed to have a preordained outcome, and it's it, and the question doesn't like the rest. the spectrum of community concerns, and I I I simply. I I know that all departments are overworked and understaffed, and everything.

[343:05] But if we're making an investment. I want the answer. And that investment that we may to yield a result that people say, yeah. we at least we asked the right question. I didn't get my way. I really wanted housing. We went this other way. but that they they the communities to feel like the right question was asked, and and the playing fuel was level, and that no one had their finger on the scale. And this, and the way it's designed as you've described it to me. Doesn't sound that way. It it doesn't sound which way it it doesn't it doesn't sound like a fair process. It sounds like the the question being asked is incomplete, and would not produce a product that would really engender broad support from the community.

[344:03] So so, generally speaking, you would be in favor of so expanding the scope so that the question about housing is asked directly. Yes, okay, okay. It's late. It's late. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear, because we all kind of manner a little bit. Show some phones. If we think that Mora should draft a letter. Oh, go ahead, Laura. Okay. But let's go ahead and show them. Should I draft a letter as John has asked. Okay, and does somebody want to work with me on that letter? Sarah will work with me on that letter. Great. Thank you, Sarah. I did want to ask, before we leave this conversation. Are we comfortable right here right now, recommending that Staff asks City Council for clarification of? Is the current scope consistent with city council's, understanding what this process should be? Or do we want to wait until we have the letter? I just want to chime in on that one. I. I don't know that we have a mechanism to.

[345:01] you know, informally. Go to Council on that. That really would be various per view through the mechanism she she has. So I I I would kind of counsel against that. That yeah for us at this point. So that leaves us with waiting out of writing the letter, and then at the April fourth meeting, which. if that's all right if that's the tool we have available, that's the tool we have available. Bring that to their attention again. I think I I think we'll find that you know, as as the administrative head of the city has has mechanisms to to have those conversations. Okay. thank you for that clarification, Brad. And as Brad mentioned, he has helped to hook me up with Nuria through her assistant, and we are looking for a time to to chat me and Nuria, so I will let make sure that Nuria

[346:02] she probably already understands my concerns. But just if she has any questions for me, just make sure that what we're talking about here tonight is clear, and i'll give her a heads up that we're working on that letter details. Tbd. Thank you. Everybody for your attention tonight. I know everybody really wants to go to bed, and so do I. So okay, ready back to you, John. Any any other matters from the board. What's your sign out, John? Let us go home and go to sleep. I during this meeting a nice time together in the future.