August 6, 2024 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:03] And then Vivian, yeah, and then Vivian. Oh, wait no, never mind Claudia. Sorry. Yes. All right, Mr. Dornbach. Yes, Ms. Kaplan. Yes, and Miss Robles. Yes, great. So Miss Kaplan is the chair tonight. Great? Thank you so much. So I'm Laura Caplan. I'll be chairing in place of George Boone. Our chair is not able to be with us tonight, and Mark Mcintyre, our vice chair is also not able to be with us tonight, so I'm going to try to fill their large shoes. So welcome to the August 6th meeting of the planning board of the City of Boulder. And so we will. We have just 2 items on the agenda tonight. One is a potential call up, and then we have a public hearing about the North Boulder Side community plan. Before we get to those, we will take open comment as our 1st item. And Vivian is online with us tonight, Vivian, if you could, please walk us through the rules for open comment. And if anybody who would like to potentially comment

[1:09] tonight before the public hearing. Go ahead and raise your hand. So in open comment you can comment on anything except our public hearing. Item, which is the North Boulder said, community plan. Great. Thank you. Next slide, please. So I'll just run through these. These are our rules for public engagement during the meeting. and we welcome our members of the community who have joined us tonight. Thanks for being with us. And we want you to know that the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. And this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and Board Commission members as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, experiences and political perspectives. And we have more information about this productive atmospheres. Vision on our website.

[2:01] Next slide, please. And the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision, and these will be upheld during this meeting. First, st all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to speed business. Second, no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. 3, rd obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and 4th participants are required to identify themselves by 1st and last names. We can call on next slide, please. And we will know you'd like to speak by you raising your virtual hand, and you can find that at the bottom of your screen, or by you can raise your virtual hand. If you're joining us by phone by dialing our 9 next slide, please.

[3:00] And this one just shows another way to find that raise hand button so that's it. So we can move to open common. And this would be the opportunity for anyone to to talk about something besides the public hearing, which will be later on. Thank you, Vivian. Let me 1st check. Is there anyone in the room tonight who would like to speak at open comment? Okay, I don't see any. Back to you, Vivian, for anyone online. And nobody online. So over to you. Okay, then, this is the close of the open comment period tonight. Thank you, Vivian. Thank you. Next, we have one call up item, and that is a non-conforming use review. Oh, I'm sorry I skipped, going back. We have one set of minutes that needs is up for approval tonight, and that is the minutes from May 21, st 2,024. Does anybody have any questions before I ask for a motion any questions or edits to the minutes before I ask for a motion.

[4:08] seeing none. Can I have a motion to approve? I move approval of the May 21st minutes. Can I get a second second second. Thank you. Ml, I was not there for those minutes, that meeting, so I will not be voting to approve or not. but I think we do have 4 people who were there. Everyone was there for that meeting. So let's start with our folks online. Claudia. Yes. Thank you, Mason. Yep. ML. Yes. that was a yes, from Ml. And Kurt. Yes, thank you. The minutes are approved from May 21, st 2024. Okay. Now we can go on to our call up. Item, this is a nonconforming use review to expand a non-conforming use by 38 square feet. 2 single family residences exist on a single lot. The addresses are 2530, and 2,532, 6th street. The property is owned Rl. One, and is nonconforming because it does not meet intensity standards in those are shown in Table 8, 1 for a minimum lot area per dwelling unit, and it does not meet parking requirements shown in Table 9, 1 for off street parking.

[5:22] The expansion involves an increase of 3.8% total floor area as well as landscaping improvements. Exterior changes to both dwelling units added bike, parking and setback variance. The call-up period expires. August 9. So 1st any questions for staff. Ml, I know you had some questions online, and you got some answers before the meeting. But anything you want to follow up here in the meeting tonight. You're going to put your mic. Thank you so much. Let me see. So my question and hearing the way. The full description that Laura just gave more carefully is, if this wasn't

[6:05] looking to expand and create that bedroom. would they need to be in use review. Do any of the others trigger a use review independently of expanding Hi, Charles, expanding the square footage into the setback. I I think Alison Blaine, the case manager, is on the call tonight, too, but I I think it was, in fact, the addition that was triggering. The Nonconforming use review. A portion. Portions of the property are already non conforming. So the code says that you can expand properties like that. Assuming you can meet the criteria found in the non-conforming use review section of our code. So yes, they weren't proposing the addition. I think they could have just proposed the rest of the improvements by right. Right. So that was that was the question that I put there, and I wasn't.

[7:01] I don't. I don't think that making the bedroom a legal size as opposed to turning it into a studio apartment, which means it's it's not called a bedroom. It's just a design decision. In this case it's what triggered the use review. Do we know? Well, Alison, I guess you were there for the process? Did they look at the option to a user view by not making it into a bedroom, but, in fact, looking at it as a studio apartment. Hi, Emma, yeah, that's a good question. That didn't come up in my discussion with the applicant or in the review. The applicant, however, is available for questions, and I'm sure they could weigh in on that. Perfect. I don't see them. No. Who do we need to promote. Jamie Cannon right. If they could just answer that question, that would be that would be great, because I think that's in my mind, you know. Why are we going through this process? If there was a way to not

[8:05] do it? Hi, Jamie. Hear me. Hi! Wonderful! Yes. So They're during the initial design phase. We went through a number of configuration studies for the rear house, and we did consider with the homeowner turning the rear home into an well. looking at the design without an enclosed bedroom, and given the goals of the client. You know they it's a 2 sisters who own the properties and or own the property, and their goal is to live in each of the homes. And so as we. If we studied the rehabilitation efforts and really took a full study and review of the space

[9:01] it we felt they felt that a bedroom. A designated bedroom was most appropriate for that rear home. Jamie, that answers a lot of my, a lot of my questions. I love that the people that are doing this. This is the very extensive remodel for very small buildings, so that piqued my curiosity, but that the homeowners are going to actually live there. That's absolutely beautiful. I have no further questions, and I don't intend to call it up. Thank you so much. Thank you. Ml, any other questions before I ask if anybody wants to call it up. Mason or Claudia? No, Kurt. no, okay. Does anybody want to call this up? Seeing none? Your project is not called up. Thank you for being here tonight, Jamie and Alison. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, that leaves us with just one more item on the agenda, which is our public hearing. Item, a public hearing and consideration of the following related to the North Boulder subcommunity plan, a motion to approve limited amendments to the North Boulder subcommunity plan to include a vision for a mixed use creative campus in the village center area

[10:16] and update the land. Use description for the ponderosa manufactured housing community as outlined in attachment, a to the staff memorandum. And so our process here is that we will do a staff presentation, followed by board Member Q. And a clarifying questions. Then we will take public comment. then followed by board discussion, and consideration of a motion. So with that I will hand it over to Staff to give us the initial presentation. Give us one second. I just need to be able to share my screen. Good to go. There we go.

[11:05] I mean this. Yeah. all right. Good to go. All right. Move this, too. Hold on. Technology is killing me all right. Hello! Planning board. My name is Beck Hebe. I am a planning and zoning specialist within the comprehensive planning division. And tonight I'm going to walk you through the proposed amendment to the North Boulder sub Community plan the objective this evening like you just said, is the public hearing and consideration of a motion to approve limited amendments to the North North Boulder sub community plan to include a vision for a mixed use. Creative campus in the village center area and update the land. Use description for the ponderosa manufactured housing community. And I'll note that the Ponderosa piece is just a cleanup item in this. Here's our agenda for the evening, and includes a staff presentation followed by a public hearing and then board action.

[12:02] So I will just dive right into the background, and the process of the amendment for a little context. Boulder has 10 distinct sub-communities, and our discussion tonight will be centered around the North Boulder subcommunity seen in light green on the Graphic from the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan. We will be at City Council on August 15th to present the same amendment. So here's a timeline of some significant events related to the North Boulder sub community that I'm going to be touching. On this evening, 1,995, the Nobel plan became Boulder's 1st subcommunity plan. 2,017. The noble art district is formalized by City Council 2,022, a concept for 4,401 Broadway is submitted that was generally supported by planning board and city council, but has some inconsistency with the noble plan. So, following conversations with planning board and city council staff received direction to amend the Nobel plan, and I will point out here that updating the Bbcp land use would be a future step as a part of the Bbcp major update, or as a part of a future development review process, and it's not going to be a part of our discussion this evening.

[13:11] So the North Boulder plan, like I said, it was adopted in 1,995. It envisioned a beautiful, diverse, inclusive, and adaptive north Boulder. The sub community has been evolving over the last 30 years from a largely rural area to nodes of more urban and mixed use neighborhoods, and that was guided by the sub community plan. North Boulder has become a focal point for the arts and creative industries in boulder enhanced by the official art district designation. It received in 2,017. The official district, as you can see in the dark gray on the Graphic encompasses the area along Broadway, north of Violet Avenue, and then all of the abutting properties. The Concept Review at 4,401 Broadway that I mentioned in the timeline also encompassed 4, 4, 8, 1 Broadway, which is along 4 Mile Canyon Creek to the north together that makes up the northwest corner of Broadway and Violet. And this is an early concept, graphic from that proposal

[14:06] the concept included a new location for the Boulder Museum of contemporary art live work units, other residential units and commercial spaces. The project team engaged the community in a variety of ways, and, like I said they did garner a general supportive sentiment from not only the community, but our boards and our Council, as well for the concept. So that corner of Broadway and Violet has several recommendations in the Nobel plan from its strategic location within what the plan envisioned as a village center. The diagram on the right of the screen is that village center area with the corner of Broadway and Violet outlined in red. The plan's existing policies call for the area along Broadway, south of 4 Mile Canyon Creek to act as a transition from Main Street business area to the north, with a mix of uses as well as a place where people can live and work within close proximity. It calls for the western portion of the red outlined area with those diagonal hatches that I don't know that you can actually see to contain residential Muses at mixed densities

[15:08] in terms of land use. The plan assigned broad land use categories across the sub community. The corner of Broadway and Violet again outlined in red. The blue was designated in the plan to be medium density residential, and the red was designated as low density residential. So here, I would say, the plan is a bit contradictory of itself, especially along Broadway, like we discussed in the previous slide. This area is a part of that village center area and was intended to contain a mix of uses to complement the main street business area to the north. But these future land uses that were prescribed are residential only in nature. So later on we'll discuss how the amendment proposes to address this. The last element of the existing plan I'll touch on is the existing land uses of the Ponderosa community, and, as I said at the start of the presentation. This is more of a cleanup item. The Ponderosa community, outlined in red on the Graphic, just northwest of Broadway, and Violet was designated as manufactured housing in the plan.

[16:06] but in 2,019 a site plan with the land Use Change request was approved for the Ponderosa community that approval initiated a Bvcp land use change for the property from manufactured housing to medium density residential. So we were proposing an amendment to the noble plan to correctly align the subcommunity plan with the current Bvcp Land use designation based on CIO recommendation. So now I'll jump into what is actually in the amendment. The proposed amendment updates include a description of the character and future land use for the proposed creative campus area at the corner of Broadway, and Violet, as well as updates the land uses of the Ponderosa community in alignment with the Bvcp Land use designation. The pages listed here are the pages from the existing plan that the amendment would update, and I will cover each of them individually. The project team's engagement goals for this process were 1st to ensure our community is aware that this process is even underway. Second, is to ensure that the most impacted stakeholders knew how to participate in the public meetings, and 3, rd to gather and share any feedback we heard with decision makers.

[17:16] and we undertook focused outreach to connect with local tenants and business owners and the residents of the nearby ponderosa and boulder meadows manufactured housing communities. On June 1st we held a community meeting, and that was our opportunity to for us to describe the city's role in the subcommittee amendment process, and for us to hear any concerns and to answer questions. So we did have 15 community members who attended all of their questions were related to the property owners, future plans for the site and not the proposed amendment. But the property owner was there, and was able to answer those questions directly, and was committed to continuing to communicate with the community throughout their process. The proposed amendment includes updates to page 13 in the neighborhood section of the plan to include the addition of the map on the right hand of the screen, which shows the noble art district boundaries with the sub community, and is accompanied by a description of that district.

[18:10] This section also includes a description of a creative campus area indicated by the red circle on the Graphic. The vision of this creative campus area is to include a range of uses at a higher intensity than the existing plan called for. So the next on page 15 and 17 of the Nobel plan, we have proposed updates to include the addition of a creative campus location to the village center diagram. And that's seen again on the right hand of the screen, and the creative campus designation is seen in red. along with the change to the Graphic. We have proposed language which describes how a creative campus could serve as an anchor to the Nobel art district, and could include a mix of uses such as housing, retail light industrial manufacturing art studios and a museum. Then onto page 19 of the Nobel plan. There's a map of community facilities we are proposing to add an indicator of the proposed creative campus location. To this map. You can see that in the Red Triangle on that graphic the intention is really just to offer an additional geographic recommendation for the location of the campus there.

[19:18] Lastly, we propose to update page 34 of the Nobel plan, which includes a future growth. Land use map. The areas of change are outlined in red. This includes updates to the future land use of the proposed creative campus area from low and medium density residential to mixed use. And this is the same mixed use category that was applied to the north of the main Street business area and across Broadway to the east of the proposed campus. Mixed use would allow the flexibility to support the types of uses and intensity of a creative campus updates would also include the land use change for the ponderosa community, as I described earlier, that change updates the area from manufactured housing to medium density residential to align with the Bvcp Land use map.

[20:04] The proposed amendment is consistent with the Bvcp policies you see on the screen. The plan's policies remain applicable, and the amendment expands on the plan's commitment to a mixture of housing types, support for community facilities. and especially strengthens the role of art within the area as specifically encouraged by several of these Bbcp policies. The amendment reinforces that the area should not be a singular residential use, but rather a compact and mixed use. Hub for arts and culture, with opportunities to live and work in the same building that is more appropriate for a gateway location along Broadway. So Staff recommends Planning Board. Approve limited amendments to the North Boulder subcommittee plan to include a vision for a mixed use, creative campus in the village center area and update the land. Use description for the ponderosa manufactured housing community as outlined in attachment. A to your staff memorandum. And I will turn things back to the board.

[21:00] Thank you, Rebecca. Okay, we'll start with board questions. Who's got questions? We'll start with. Ml. thank you. Thank you, Laura. Thank you for the presentation. I appreciate that. So I I have kind of a broad question, and I'm guessing you need to better Christopher, and come come right up to. I like to think holistically. And so one of the things that instantly comes to my mind is the library exists. It was built, and this plan talks about it as a potential. And it's not, you know, on the map you're putting the new little triangle to identify this piece. It it exists. And it so my question is. I know it's not in the literal scope. But is that? How are we going to come back? Is there a next update to this North Boulder sub community plan anticipated anytime soon, or why don't we capture things like that in this one?

[22:06] Thank you. Ml, Christopher Johnson. Comprehensive planning manager. That's a great question, and you know it was. It is a little bit out of the scope. We hadn't actually thought about capturing more of those updates, as far as things that have happened over the last 15 or so years. It certainly is something that we could do. So as you know, city Council and planning board. Both have to adopt the same changes. And so, you know, in a motion this evening you could include a condition that would say to, you know, update that future facilities. Map with things that have been completed, that would be something, we could carry forward to the city council meeting next week. and I ask, and I ask about that because we're talking about this creative campus relative to a village center in the description the creative campus is not in the village center, right? The village center ends at

[23:04] the 4 Mile Canyon. at least, according to the description on page I'm not sure what page it is where it talks about the proposed village center. It says that it goes from Yarmouth to 4 Mile Canyon Creek, and that the library would be in that. And that's, I think, an important contribution that actually strengthens the idea that this plan was proposing for a village center. Because it's it's it's a community draw which is pretty cool. I went to the opening, and it was like wall to wall people. So I think I think it. We don't know the impact of it yet, but I think it's going to be a good public impact. so that that's my big broad. I have other questions, but that's my big, broad question, and thank you, for did I hear you say that we could consider putting a condition in to you had beautiful language. Say it again.

[24:02] Well, yes, we could. Potentially there could be a condition added to update. I believe it's called the future Facilities map I'd have to look at. You know the exact language within the amendment. But basically, there could be a condition that says, to update that map to include include projects that have been completed to date as part as part of your motion. Ml, if I'm reading you right, you might want to propose that amendment, so would we perhaps want to ask Staff to draft something up so that we use the right terms and have that ready for us. I love it. That's why I was looking for Tom, whichever staff perfect. Thank you for reading my mind. Sure. Sure. Please go on with your questions. Oh, okay, so. let me see the library. you identified. So this is again a broad question.

[25:02] but not as broad. It. The so the creative campus is being articulated and its boundaries defined pretty much the Bamoka sub submittal. So if that project doesn't move forward. is this update broad enough to accommodate. Another vision for what could happen on those properties? Sure. So this, the creative campus that we've proposed really is divorced from that that submittal entirely. It's it's the idea of the community wants to see this hub for the arts in North Boulder. So I think, regardless of what happens with with that application. This is still something that the community supported and so wants to see moving forward, and anyone could could accomplish that vision there.

[26:02] So following that. Then. You look at it as a gateway to the I think you talked about the gateway to the Arts district. Why isn't the eastern side of Broadway included in that. If we look at the map that shows the Arts district, it shows it on both sides of Broadway. So why isn't. Why isn't the gateway literally a gate? Sure, I think that could have been an excellent idea. The the East Side on over there has just recently been redeveloped recently in the last. I don't know what's recent 10 years at least, those newer buildings. So that was still in line with the vision in the sub community plan when that was when that was developed. So maybe foresight. I could. You know you could have included that as a part of the gateway, but I think I don't know if anyone else I'm just curious has a better answer. I mean, these plans are a vision, you know, into the future. And why wouldn't the vision sort of complete

[27:06] this art district corridor that is intended to come down Broadway and ending it at Violet? So it would seem that it would make sense to at least have that potential. Should something shift in the market and they want to redevelop that, would it make sense to again. This is a plan for the future, and the vision is to hold to some of the very cool things that they want to have as an outcome one. Is this this robust arts district that isn't just on one side of Broadway? Yeah. anyway, it's a great point. Hi, Christopher. No, that. No, that's a great, that's a great. I just wanted to add a little bit. So the the area that's on the east side of Broadway already carries that mixed use. Future land. Use description in the North boulder sub community plan. So if that were to be redeveloped. Essentially the you know that that sort of mix of uses and the description would already be applicable to that particular

[28:10] location. Your comment about the creative campus specifically, and whether or not, we should show that on the Graphic to span both sides, east and west, I think that's something we could certainly consider, because again, it is just, it's more of an identification, almost an overlay, of a type to to say that this would be the general vicinity for that creative campus as part of the larger arts district components. That certainly is, is another relatively minor fix that we could, we could accommodate. Thank you. And would that could that be a condition as well. Yes, I believe it would need to be a condition. Could somebody start working on a potential? I I'm just what I love about, and I think you called it. You know some of the things you're cleaning up things I think this is in light of. Let's make the art district. Let's clean up so that it can be an art district to its full capacity.

[29:03] and we don't have, you know, little bits and pieces that we have to come back and look at. That's I think that's my general take. I love that we're doing this because obviously the Bamoka proposal can't go forward without it. And it's a it's a pretty powerful project that's proposed. Let's just take the opportunity to make the North Boulder subcommunity plan as robust as it can be. Thank you so much for your time. Those are all my questions. Thank you. Ml, and I see Claudia has her hand up, so Claudia will go to you next, and I'll just remind folks that this is a time for questions, and then we will have discussion and comment after we also hear from the public, and have some more board discussion. So on to you, Claudia, with your question. Thanks, Laura. My question is, what is the normal process for updating sub community plans? Do we have something comparable to the Bvcp update timeline where we're doing regular updates to sub community plans. I'm curious how long

[30:08] plans in this form are intended to be binding and or guiding, seeing as that we're looking at a 30 year old plan at this point, and if you really dig into it a lot of the a lot of the things in it really reflect, coming from a different time. Thank you, Claudia, for that question. This is Christopher. Speaking to you. We we do not have a a set timeline for updates of sub community plans. Similar to what we have for the Boulder valley. Comprehensive plan. In part, I believe that's, you know, just a a you know, a factor of staff capacity over time, as you as you noted, the North Boulder sub community plan was created in 1,995, and then the next sub community plan was not completed until just 2 years ago. And that's the East Boulder sub community plan. And so that that gap there. And we have staff that were actually hired to specifically sort of reinvigorate that sub community planning process. So it is something that's that's, you know on our work, plan over time

[31:16] to better consider how we can address these subcommittee plans, and what that cadence of of planning may look like in the future, but but as of right now there is no, there is no regular mechanism to update those on a subsequent basis, and it looks like Brad may have something to add. Yep. So, Brad Mueller, director of planning and development services, I just want to add, from kind of a management and administrative standpoint, that it's my vision that we would continue to build capacity that seems most appropriate afterward the Comp plan and and kind of consider resources, and asks to the Council for budget and that type of thing I would not necessarily advocate

[32:02] strongly for for trying to aim for a specific cadence, because I do think every sub community is is different. and and the reality of organizations is that when you try to put them on a timeframe, that that very likely is, is unrealistic, but committing to some sort of cadence of review and and the resources to or, I should say, added resources to that is is certainly something that I've got in mind. If that's helpful. Thank you. And I had a second question, which I think is probably going to build on this theme. And this is just, I think, in relation to the the conversation that we're starting about the Bvcp update. And that is how our approved sub community plans treated in that Bvcp update process? Are they also subject to revision at that time? Do they guide the Bvcp revision? Do they somehow sit outside of that process entirely?

[33:06] so what? What is? What is the role of this North Boulder subcommunity plan going to be as we go forward looking at the the big hole of the Bbcp. That is also a great question. So the The plans themselves would, would, it would certainly, I think, influence the conversations around particularly, I would say the East Boulder Subcommittee Plan, because it was a recent planning process that there's going to be a lot of relevant topics and information that came up during that process over over the last couple of years that will be relevant to the conversations as part of the comprehensive plan update. So I would I would see the sub community and area plan serving as really a a mine for us to to be able to go to to find questions to focus the conversations with the community. To, you know, reaffirm certain things. The North Boulder sub community plan as as a good example of one that's older. There may be things in there that we might want to raise up as questions to the community to see if those values still ring true, or, if there should, you know, be adjustments that should be considered.

[34:14] There is no formal role necessarily of the sub community plans as part of the comprehensive plan. Obviously we would attempt to and and hope to avoid significant conflicts between the 2. But certainly, if if that were to occur, so, if the comprehensive plan was updated and caused a significant conflict with one of the underlying area plans or sub community plans. Then that would be something we would need to potentially address through through a subsequent amendment. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you. Claudia Mason or Kurt Mason. I don't see your hand up. Okay. Kurt. Nope. Got it. Thank you. I was going to raise this later, but I feel like my colleagues. Questions are really getting at what I primarily wanted to ask, and so I will ask it now.

[35:11] So thinking back, when we developed the North Boulder subcommunity plan in 1,995, I guess it was. It was pretty much an an empty slate, a tabula rasa right? There wasn't much there, and we've developed a lot of stuff holiday and the armory project and the stuff, whatever that is violet crossing, or whatever that's called. and a lot of other stuff. Now we're developing Shining mountain. And probably this. But now we're it feels like at that point that it was. It was really a planning document. We put down ideas on paper for what this this vicinity should look like, how it should behave.

[36:03] You know the the streets, all this kind of stuff, and that has largely been built right. It's largely been created. There's still some change happening. But now we're, I feel like we're getting to the point where we're no longer so much planning. And we're more reacting to what is happening. So the this Bamoka project came along and they said, Oh, you know, we'd like to be here. Now, can we change the plan to sort of reflect. not quite the reality on the ground, but what is hoped to be the reality on the ground. Right. and with Ponderosa Mobile Home Park, Ponderosa Park, whatever it's called. we said. Oh, we want to rehabilitate this falling down Mobile Home Park and make more livable. And so we're going to do that. Oh, now we have to go and backfill the sub community plan to reflect that.

[37:04] So I'm really wondering. Has the North boulder sub community plan largely fulfilled its purpose and is a do the benefits outweigh at this point the costs of having this additional layer of of sort of planning slash. bureaucracy, slash meetings like this that we have to have. I'm happy to. But it's a lot of staff time involved. Right? Or or should we think about incorporating what remains in there, maybe into the comp plan so that it's no longer this 3rd layer of structure that needs to be updated, and you know, kind of reflecting reality. So I think it's following along in the vein of what Ml. Was asking and maybe what? And what Claudia was asking.

[38:12] yeah, thank you, Kurt. That is a bit of a philosophical question that I'm pretty sure we won't be able to answer this evening. But but it certainly is something, I think, worth worth investigating and researching a bit more, as far as you know, what is what is a an appropriate timeline for a sub community plan. is there a process to rescind a sub-community plan or an area plan? If it has served its purpose? There are a number of other primarily smaller area plans that apply to parts of town that are of a similar generation, or even older than this, that you know you. I think you could ask pretty similar questions as to the value of those plans. Currently. They do. You know, they do still serve as a reference of the community vision at the time, they do still influence our decision. Making related to development applications or

[39:08] annexation requests things like that? So they do still provide some value. But I do think your question is, you know, is certainly relevant, that that we may want to explore what? You know. What does that timeframe look like? And are there other mechanisms like the comprehensive plan that you know upon a certain timeline or or date that those end up becoming more important. Did you have more, Kurt? No. okay. I do have a question. so the the map that showed the land uses, and it showed changing this particular parcel to Mu. Did I, Rebecca? Here? You say that the mu is already in use in other parcels on that map.

[40:00] It is. It's to the north, there's mu. And then across east, like christopher was saying that development on the right is also mixed use. Okay, so this is a category that already exists. It's defined somewhere. Correct in the north boulder plan. Okay. Gotcha. Okay, Gotcha. I must have missed that. Okay, thank you. I got it. Thanks. All right, then, I think at this point we go to public comment. So I will turn it back over to Vivian to see. I don't think we have anyone here in the room tonight to do public comment. So it would just be online. So, Vivian, are you still with us. We have 2 people online. First, st up we have Andrew, Gadimi. Andrew. You will have 3 3 min to speak. I'll go ahead and start your timer and then unmute you.

[41:08] So, Andrew, if you're speaking we can't hear you. You are unmuted, but we don't hear you about now. Sorry, everyone. Oh, there you are! Hi, Andrew! You have 3 min. Apologies. My name is Andrew Gadimi my family has held and managed the site of the proposed North Boulder creative campus since the early 19 seventies, and I will be the developer for this project. I 1st want to start by thanking the Boulder Museum of Contemporary art. The planning board the Council and city staff for all of their efforts in helping us to envision the North Boulder creative campus we support Staff's recommendation to acknowledge the noble arts district within the commute sub community plan to include the creative campus in the sub community plans village center

[42:09] and to add its location to the community facilities list. My family has been a part of the neighborhood as residents, business owners. landholders for my entire life. My father participated in the city's efforts to draft the original North Boulder sub community plan over 30 years ago. Like many, he acknowledges that the community could not foresee the robust influx of creatives into the area and the evolving live work dynamics. We believe that our proposed campus meets the intent of both the sub community plan and the comprehensive plan while providing a community nexus at the entrance of the noble Arts district. while I agree with you that we should do things on both east and west for it to be a gateway. I think

[43:05] what is so important about this site is that. It is across the street from the library which the sub community plan also didn't include, and that juxtaposition in my eyes creates that that gateway as long term community members, we view this project not merely as a financial investment, but a lasting partnership with our neighbors, dedicated to preserving and nurturing the unique character of North Boulder. Thank you to the city staff, particularly Sarah, Rebecca, Vivian Chandler, Kj. Charles and Brad, and so many more for their diligence in expanding the community outreach and proposing adjustments. Our January 1st community meeting gave us the opportunity to connect with residents, business owners, members of Ponderosa and Boulder meadows, the library and current tenants.

[44:00] it was important to not only inform them, but also to listen to their perspectives and concerns. we know that this is an ambitious project, and there is still so much work ahead. We are engaging a design team very soon to begin envisioning this campus, and we are committed to collaborating with the North Boulder Community City staff and the planning board as well as city council as we move forward. Thank you so much. Thank you, Andrew. Next up we have, David. Sorry. Just one second. Let me restart this timer. Hello. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Good evening. Planning board. I'm David. I'm the executive director of the Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art. As many of you know, we have long been looking for an anchor location for the museum.

[45:02] For several years we have pursued the idea of building a museum within a creative campus where artists can leave work and collaborate in one location. We're very excited to be partnering with emerald development to bring this vision to life in North Boulder when we brought this project to concept plan in front of you and City Council. We realized that the 1995 North Boulder sub Community Plan did not envision this type of mixed use where artists can work, and all all of the creatives can thrive through extensive engagement with both the novel and the broader community. We discovered that this idea was hardly supported. The updates presented tonight will enable us to move our project forward with an updated and refresh approach to artists and creatives that will benefit the entire community.

[46:10] We appreciate staff support in facilitating the update and diving deeper into the community, and we are committed to continue this engagement. As we start the Site Review process. our commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion will be reflected through the selection of our architectural team. As Andrew shared with you briefly before me, as well as the spaces that we create for the community. I would love to answer any questions you may have, and just want to thank everyone and city staff and planning board for considering this update to the plan, and we will look forward to bringing you our Site Review design in the coming months. Thank you. Thank you. If anybody else online would like to speak. Please go ahead and raise your hands.

[47:08] I think that's all. Okay. Thank you, Thomas, and thank you to our 2 commenters, Andrew and David. All right. So now we are at the point of board discussion before we talk about motions. thoughts, comments from my fellow board members. What would you like to discuss? Go ahead, Emma. Hmm. yes. So I think that. the conversation might or the project might benefit from the conversation. I think Kirk made an excellent point about. Has it reached its useful life?

[48:04] But let's assume it hasn't and the the 2 sort of conditions that I was looking, having the initial questions about are looking at this project or this update to the North Boulder sub community plan. with the idea that it remains or that it retains its visionary quality of what a subcommunity plan is. and some of the intentions of the original plans, such as the I know it was updated to to include this North Boulder art district, because that wasn't in the original. So that map is there, and then the village center, you know, being north of that creek.

[49:06] So I I think that if we can continue to hold the plan to the idea that it isn't just about enabling the project that Dubby was talking about. but that it is about activating and maybe fulfilling the bigger sub community intentions. So I I think, let's let's not lose lose sight of the fact that I think it as all plans, and especially a sub-community plan. It makes sense to think about it holistically. And I know that this is a precise piece that's being added. Can that precise piece be more holistic. That's that's the conversation that I think might make sense. So that we don't

[50:04] create a liability down the road. Should things. you know, turn out differently than what one plans. Thank you. Ml, can I call? Agree on that, Mason? I see your hand up. Do you mind if I follow on real quick. So this leads to one question that that this raised for me in this discussion, and you know, ml, I think you make a great point that sometimes projects fall through, and we would want, you know, as the conversation that you had with Rebecca this vision to be able to be accomplished in different ways. So I'm wondering about, you know, in the sub community plan, does this idea of a creative campus need to be tied to a specific parcel in a specific location? Or could it just be a concept that is added, that could be accomplished on this parcel, or it could be accomplished elsewhere, because I, my sense of the North Boulder Arts district, is that a creative campus could live in various places. It would not necessarily have to be the southern gateway, although that could be very appropriate. Right? I think. You know it's been rightly noted that this project received a lot of support both at city council and at planning board, but that this concept doesn't necessarily have to be accomplished by this particular project if something were to happen.

[51:15] So I guess that maybe it's a question for staff of, would it make sense, or be possible to make the concept a little bit more general rather than specific to this parcel hopefully, without harming the ability to accomplish this project. If this is the right location. Yeah, thank you, Laura. If I'm if I might think about that the so the one possible challenge that I might envision if we try to. If we tried to expand the the creative campus notion to be more broad and essentially could happen anywhere within the arts district is that the that future land use description, map, and the the definition of the village center and sort of the mixed use hub of this of the North Boulder sub community. That's all very well established. And I I would be nervous that about identifying that creative campus to be anywhere in, in that.

[52:16] Some of those other locations have been identified for other types of uses that are supportive of the larger vision for the sub community plan. So it may not actually be as appropriate as this particular location. I I agree that yes, we we do need to be cautious about being too specific about particular locations. In our plans. And that is something we're thinking about, even even as much as the comprehensive plan of trying to be a bit more broad in terms of how we're describing things. We were very intentional in the way we wrote the description of the creative campus and and the sort of explanation about what that is within the proposed amendments. We we actually explicitly did not include Bmoka as a very as a specific tenant, in part because of that, because we wanted to make sure that there was enough flexibility for this to, you know, take on a life of its own depending of

[53:09] you know on how that project ultimately comes to fruition, or if that project ultimately comes to fruition. So we were cautious in the way we described it. But from a geographic location perspective, we also feel like this is actually an appropriate location, and and really can build on the rest of the vision that's been established in the sub community plan. So then, is it your opinion that this particular parcel is the only appropriate parcel for this creative campus, or is there a broader area in or around the village center that could be designated? We would have to look more closely. I mean, we were pretty focused on this particular location. We would have to analyze. You know, the rest of those land use designations within that map and understand if there are other locations within within that overall village center area that might be appropriate. Can I just ask you, before I turn it over to Mason just for your gut check. Is that something that would be beneficial to do, or from Staff's perspective? Are you happy with what you brought us, and you don't feel like going through that exercise would add anything

[54:11] I think we're confident with with what we have so far. I mean, it is certainly something we could investigate, and we could, you know, send some kind of a follow up, you know, information to planning board. If if we did identify another area. If if you felt strongly enough about it, that could also be another condition that you could pose tonight to the rest of the board members to vote on, and then ultimately city Council. What would consider that same condition? Thank you. Thank you, Christopher, and I see Brad approaching, and then we'll get right over to you, Mason. Yeah, Brad Mueller, planning director. So agreeing and building on everything, Christopher just said one thing that we along the same vein. Try to remind both ourselves and and also remind policy and policy makers is that

[55:01] it's rarely positive thing to try to establish policy on the backs of a single application. And so I think what's constructive for me in hearing this conversation, and I think us as a team is recognizing there is a need and appetite for some of these more holistic looks. But I would just point out that I don't know that that needs any particular direction. I mean. These are the types of things that we're listening to and hearing, and frankly agree with, so duly noted. For sure. Thank you, Brad Mason, thanks for your patience. Worse. Quick question does just based on your your follow-up questions. I was wondering, does the creative campus have any additional allowed uses outside of the designation of the map, overlay.

[56:03] Could you repeat the last part outside of the. Like the mixed use, or whatever the zoning is of it. The the map overlay. It does have different uses than what would be allowed in the plan. Currently, the land uses in the Bbcp are separate, but currently in what's proposed in the plan would only be residential uses allowed, so nothing to do with mixed use would it would be a change from that. Yeah, I think. I think maybe. And if someone can educate me a little bit, I'm a little bit lost on on like the I know, designating this as the creative campus. you know, having the museum there having to be a community anchor leads to it, being more of a draw, for maybe where people want to live or businesses, or you know, art spaces things of that nature. But I think

[57:03] I I'm not exactly sure the importance of what maybe I'm this is a question for Laura. What? What would having it be more broad achieve other than yeah, I guess. What what would it achieve? I don't know. You're asking me why I was asking those questions. Yeah, essentially, thank you. Okay, I was thinking more broad, not in terms of what land uses are allowed, but in terms of where the geographic location could be, because right now, what is proposed is basically a call out for a specific piece of private property that already has a proposal that came to us for concept review before you joined the Board and take that specific property and designate it for a creative campus in this plan to enable that project to go forward in a way that is broadly supported by the community, by city council, by planning board, that we like this concept. So I understand why staff are thinking about. Well, how do we make this possible? But my question was, if we want this thing, does it need to be tied to this specific smaller parcel? Or could there be a broader area where this could happen? If, for whatever reason, this project doesn't come to fruition? Does that make sense.

[58:21] Yes, yeah, that last qualifier makes the most sense for me. So I appreciate that. great as far as what I want to discuss. I wanted to go back to. To Kurt's comment on whether or not the neighborhood plan has you know. outlived its usefulness, maybe, or just added additional complexity that takes away from set time thing of that nature. And I I'm going to agree on one hand and push back a little bit in just that. you know. I I think that 4 neighborhood plans to be useful. They have to reflect the current neighborhoods desires, and you know, having something that's 30 years old, you know. I I don't know if it does.

[59:09] We don't know if it does honestly, but I I find them very useful in terms of, you know, providing historic context, providing a little more guidance as to to what we may or may not want to consider, allowing in in certain areas. So I I mean, I'm really excited to to hear more about Brad's plans on having more continually updated, because I think once they do get this old. It's it's very easy for us to just kind of like. Well, when we're when we're considering projects in this area, you know. maybe allow ourselves to believe that doesn't necessarily reflect what the community wants anymore. Necessarily it starts to become a little more vague in that light. due to all the changes that have already gone on. So, yeah, I think the usefulness relies on it to be updated. And I do want to see these updated more because I think they are an important

[60:10] piece of information for for us, at least for me. That's my my thought. Thank you. Huh! Claudia, did you have any thoughts at this point? I I was just inspired, I think, Laura, by your line of questioning to ask is. I'm looking for a practical way to to deal with this idea of yours, that if the creative campus concept is is so important, is there a way to separate it from this parcel, but yet still facilitate this land. Use change that we're being asked to consider. And I guess that's a question for Staff. Is there a way?

[61:02] is there a way to make this update to the future land, use map to do that, mixed use change. and also to embed this concept of a creative campus into the North boulder sub community plan. But to do those 2 things without saying the creative campus has to be in this place on the map is that is that an easy change to do both of those things without tying it to the location. Thank you, Claudia, I I would say logistically or procedurally, yes, it is. It is a fairly easy change. We we would have to Well, the board would have to pass a motion that included that condition for those 2 things to be separated, and then Staff would need to make some changes to to the proposed amendment, so that when we brought that to council they would have the ability to review that, you know in light of that condition, cause they would. They would have to also approve of that of that change, so that both bodies are adopting the exact same document.

[62:13] I I think that yeah, logistically, I don't think it would be terribly difficult, because we could. We could describe the the creative campus area. And then we could also describe the locations where that might be appropriate, and I think we could do that through that land. Use Category Map. Thank you, Christopher Claudia, did you have more. That's it. Just thinking about ways to to actually enact some of what we're talking about here. Appreciate that practical thinking is welcome. Kurt. Thanks. Well, 1st of all, I would. I I think that the the proposal that is has been put forward as a concept plan, I would. I think it happened like

[63:07] the meeting before I came on the board, so I didn't actually see the concept plan, but my understanding is seems great. I want to get out of the way so that it can happen. And I think that Ml. And Laura raised some really good questions about. You know what happens if this particular proposal doesn't go through or changes, or whatever, and it wants to go a different place. I I think that that's an important question. Reading, though sort of rereading finally more carefully the definition of the creative campus. I guess I'm not sure exactly what it says, because I'll read the what I'm seeing in the amended North Boulder subcommunity plan. It says the creative campus area will serve as an anchor to the Nobo art district. The campus will include a mix of uses at a high level of intensity

[64:04] to add vitality and daytime and nighttime activity uses could include housing, retail light, industrial slash, manufacturing art studios, a museum and community open space areas. Well. and that's that's all. It says. So that to me is very, very wide, open and vague, which I think is fine. I think it's fine. It certainly doesn't in in my reading. It doesn't say that this parcel that we've identified on the map will have Bamoka in it. For example, it doesn't even say we'll have a museum. It says it could have a museum. It could have a lot of other stuff. and that's fine. And I think that the land use

[65:03] at least the yeah. The the North boulder subcommunity plan, land use designations as opposed to the Compland land, use designations at the zoning. The the North Boulder subcommunity plan. Land use designations could incorporate a museum in other places, right? And so. So I'm not entirely sure that there's a problem here most mostly because now that I reread it more carefully. I'm not sure what we're really quite saying here with in in putting the in describing the creative campus and putting it here. because I mean, it seems like you could have something that was 100% housing, and that if it

[66:00] if it's a high level of intensity, and it adds daytime and nighttime activity, then that meets it. If it's housing and some industrial use that seems to meet the criteria, if it's housing and some retail, if it's retail and some light industrial, and so on. So so I guess I'm I'm not sure quite where I'm going on this, but I think that that a really good question has been raised. I'm not sure that what we're passing would restrict the location if if this current proposal didn't happen, for whatever reason. And Bamoka said, we want to move to the Nobel Art district, but further north, or whatever, as long as it's an Mu area. I it seems like it would still work. So I guess that's kind of a question for Staff

[67:02] June. I think if I could respond to that. you know, when we this is just what comes to mind for me and Ml. You were there as well for the review of the I think we are the only 2 who are sitting here tonight who are here for the review of the project that we're talking about, so that may have something to do with. Why, this feels a little disconnected. But for that project it wasn't just well, there's a museum, and there's housing, and there's retail. But it was like a way of connecting them with walkways and the flow of traffic, and like art studios and various things where it's not just like the museum is the destination, and everything else was just mixed use. But it really was kind of designed as a destination place, with a lot of things to do and stuff happening and places you'd want to be, and open space. And at least that's my impression of what that concept was, and that maybe is not coming through as clear in this

[68:01] description of what does it mean to be a creative campus? Because I hear what you're saying is that it comes across as well. It's it's just a mixed use area. And maybe it has a museum, and maybe it doesn't. And maybe we could stick the museum somewhere else. I think it was meant to be more of an integrated concept than that if that makes sense. And again, I don't know what that means for this plan. But I think that that's that's feedback for how this is coming across. Yeah? And just to respond quickly, yeah, I think you're right. And what what? You're just the way you're describing the concept plan sounds awesome to me, right? But we're not. Yeah. We're not requiring that in the North Polter sub community plan, and I don't really know how you would require that, you know, require a development that where things really feel connected and like, how do you do that? Right? so, okay, so I guess to some degree.

[69:02] This comes back to my earlier point slash question, which was at this stage, how much is the sub community plan really achieving? And are we just trying to to sort of back fit the the the descriptions in the plan to what's already happening in Hill. Ml, you said you had a thought. Yeah, I I'm looking at. So we've got. We've got 3 different map potentials or map layers. One is the North Boulder Arts district which goes from well, everybody can see the map, but it goes from north of Lee Hill. I guess that includes the army north of Lee Hill all the way down to Violet on both sides of Broadway. In. you know, interesting

[70:01] edges because of the businesses that are there. And then we have the proposed village center, which is north of 4 Mile Canyon and up up north to just past Yarmouth. I'm I'm thinking, right? Well, it says, yeah. Just north of Yarmouth, the 4 Mile Canyon. So we've got that that is articulated in the plan as a as an area, the proposed village center. and then. we've got this creative campus. That is the bottom, the southern leg of the South South western leg of the Arts District. south of the 4 Mile Canyon. And so I'm again. I'm I'm if we look at this holistically, why wouldn't we just talk about

[71:00] this creative campus concept? If we're still attached to that as being south of the 4 Mile Canyon To the southern edge of the Arts district, so that anything in that area on either side of Broadway could carry because right now we've got kind of like little hodgepodge going on with. Once we put the creative center in creative center in on East side of Broadway. It's like it doesn't quite meet up to the idea that it's part of the art district. right it it. I think if I think if we use the map as our guide and say, Okay, we've designated proposed village center. That's north of the 4 Mile Canyon. We like this idea of a creative campus. Maybe that happens to the south of the 4 Mile Canyon.

[72:05] and its boundaries are the North Boulder Art district. you know. South of the 4 Mile Canyon. which then doesn't identify it as a particular parcel, and it gives flexibility to other developments or redevelopments. and I think it cleans up the map, you know it. It includes it includes this piece of of Broadway. from Violet to road to the 4 Mile Canyon. That isn't nicely engaged, and it's got an mu designation already. So anyway, I'm I'm just thinking. if we look at it, you know, big picture maps are really great for that and just say, Okay, if we were to articulate this in a cleaner way. could we? Could we do something like that? Thank you. Ml, for that suggestion.

[73:02] And Claudia. Thanks. Ml, and thanks, Laura. I think we're circulating around some of the same things here. I like my colleague Kurt. I think I'd like to land in a place where we where we are allowing for this creative campus. Proposal that's been put out there. It's a cool thing we want to get out of the way of it. We want to facilitate it happening. but I don't want to get in a position where we are requiring it to happen in one particular place. Right? We've been talking about. Well, what if? What if it wants to go somewhere else? I think we should also be looking at the question of what happens to that corner of Violet and Broadway, that northwest corner? if we decide we're gonna put a PIN on a map that says, this is going to be a creative campus. We're going to embed this in the plan. And then something else happens. There's a different location that serves to be better for it. Something happens and the plan falls through. Well, now, we've kind of micromanaged this North Boulder sub community plan to say, this particular location must be

[74:06] a creative campus. So I I continue to lean towards the situation where we we go ahead and we change that future land use designation to be mixed use. I think that's sensible, for reasons beyond this particular proposal for a creative campus to also embed that that concept of a creative campus into the North Boulder sub community plan. If we have a sense that the community is behind this, we do both of those things, but we don't say that that campus has to be in that one location. Thank you, Claudia, at this point. If my fellow Board members will indulge me, I'd like to ask Staff to put back up. I actually didn't ask you, Rebecca, if you had any key questions for us, or if it's just a consideration of a motion, I should have asked you that we do not have key questions for you. Would you like to put your motion? Your suggested motion up, and then we can talk about if we want to make any amendments to the motion. I have some ideas. But let's let's get all the ideas out on the table.

[75:18] Okay, let's give everybody a second here to reread what this motion is. So I If if you folks don't mind, I'd like to put a suggestion on the table for how we might potentially meet what we've been talking about here, which is to go ahead and allow for that land use. Change that map, change to the mu. do the clean up for ponderosa those specific things. But then, in terms of the wording about what a creative campus is and where it needs to go. we

[76:00] make an amendment here that says, basically, planning board approves the concept of a creative campus and asks Staff to consider how to broaden the language so that it does not have to be tied to a specific parcel, and that we trust basically Staff's judgment to do that and then run that by city council and then bring it back to us if there's any like reconciliation needed. I don't know if they're that's not good, clean motion language, but that would be the concept that I would propose, which is, we basically approve this concept. We'd like Staff to explore how to if it makes sense to. And if so, how to not tie it to a specific parcel which it sounds like staff kind of likes that idea. But you would need to do some more study of the map and figure out what would make sense? Yeah, yeah. Thank you, Laura. And if I might just add one additional comment related to that that the

[77:03] the targeted amendments that we were, you know, tasked with doing here were were related to our a cleanup item related to the manufactured housing community, and then also targeted around a particular application. The notion of expanding that idea of the creative campus to occur anywhere within the North Boulder sub community plan. Obviously, if it has the appropriate underlying land use. that's a that's a larger policy question that we have not, you know, asked the community. So that is one consideration that I would just put forward that that could could result in and and require some additional outreach that we have not done so far. Let me just clarify that and I must. I don't think I said this well, but I was not suggesting that it could happen anywhere in the sub-community. But if there is something that Staff would recommend to kind of broaden the area in which this could occur.

[78:01] and we would look for your recommendation on that that would still be consistent with community feedback would still be consistent with what you've heard from planning board and council, which is, we really like this concept. This seems like a good location. But I think you're hearing tonight is that we don't necessarily want to be making a change that ties it to a specific parcel. And do you think it's worth exploring? Is there a way to broaden that in whatever way you think is appropriate, whether you limit it like Ml. Said to the area south of 4 Mile Creek, or you limit it to the village center area, or you limit it to just parcels along Broadway, or whatever you think that that makes sense. I think we would be looking for you to make a recommendation based on your much deeper knowledge of this land use map and the community input than what we have. Yes, we could. We could certainly do that and make a recommendation. Ml. Has a follow-up. Kurt has a follow-up. Let's go to Ml. And then back to Christopher. The question I'm having is by changing the Houston MU.

[79:01] Does that not accomplish the client at? You know the potential for a creative campus to be built just by changing it to an mu? Didn't that give it the it? Certainly. Yeah, it certainly would go a long way. I I do think that there is value in being a bit more explicit about the notion of a creative campus, because because it is intended to be more arts focused and potentially, you know, house a community facility like a museum. It's not. It's not as generic as a as a mixed use area. So that's partly why we've included that additional language. and and have also been, you know, attempted to try to be as flexible as possible in that language, knowing as as well that the potential project could could change at some point or not be realized. but at the very least, putting the mu designation on that parcel has opened up the possibility. Yes, it does, and it. And and as Becca mentioned earlier. It makes a significant change to what's in the current sub community plan, which is only residential. And and I will also mention that you know, as we. As we dug into this and started to research the plan a bit more, we did identify that. There, you know, there were some conflicting

[80:18] policies for this particular area, and that, you know, in one part of the plan it was being described as a mixed use area and then in other parts of the plan, the land use map being one of those it was described as as being purely residential. So part of this is is a bit of cleanup as well to to be more direct about what? What is really intended for this location? Perfect. Thank you. Just a follow-up question. Call me if that's okay. Go ahead, Mason, with a colloquy. If that's okay with Kurt. Kurt was next in line. Kurt's saying, yes, go right ahead. Thank you, Kurt. So what I'm hearing is that there are some things that are clean up that need to be done. To allow this plan to move forward, but if we, the more broader, ask of allowing

[81:06] a a more broad definition of where the campus could be, could take longer due to needed community outreach. My, my follow up question is. is there a way to do those cleanups without doing that? Broad, if broader? Ask if it indeed does delay moving forward on this project. So we just separate those 2 things. It. It does make sense, I think. I think what I would say is that you know we we have budgeted time within our 2024 work plan to execute on this project. We did the outreach that was you know, associated with and appropriate for the the amendments that are before you this evening. an extended and additional engagement approach to to really dig into this question of of broadening some of the other potential locations for the creative campus, those kinds of things that would potentially cause, you know, some challenges just in terms of capacity. And, as you know, we have a comprehensive plan. Update upcoming very quickly. And so we're we are trying to, you know, close some things out, and get the team refocused on on the bigger picture here at hand.

[82:30] Brad Mueller. I'm just going to chime in and add to that by going back to my earlier comment that it it can often not be advisable to try to cure a larger policy issue with a particular application. It would have impacts on our ability to keep this particular thing moving forward or impacts to some of our other capacity. I do think there might be a space to talk about it through the comprehensive plan update. I think we could explore that more, but

[83:07] I think we would. We would be finding ourselves a bit pinched if we, if we had to do another round of public engagement on this particular. and it would actually need to be a broader topical discussion than than the fairly narrow one we were able to to do with with the scope that was before us. I believe I mean, keep me honest, other staff. So let me let me just make sure I'm understanding. Are you saying that to make the kind of adaptation that I'm suggesting, which is, just make the language around a creative campus broader, so that you are not pinpointing one particular physical location for the creative campus. That that would you would need to do broader outreach about that. You'd need to do another round of public outreach. I think we would, if we were to look at it from a property owner's perspective, even if even if they considered that a positive thing. There's this kind of thing that happened relative to their property, with limited engagement.

[84:07] And that they may have opinions about that. You know it. It. It seems benign, and it seems something that would just in the abstract be favorable. But people have different opinions about different things, and we'd want to make sure that we could honestly say that we gave people both the knowledge for discussion about that and an opportunity for that discussion, and that takes time and propping up that discussion and that type of thing. So then would it be fair to say, I think what I'm hearing is a recommendation from staff is that you would like us to go forward and approve what we have before us tonight, with the understanding that a broader discussion around this might or might not be part of the Bvcp update. I think so. But I you know, I want to make sure I'm not standing up here alone saying it. Okay, I'm seeing nodding heads. I want to thank you for making sure that we are aware of the impacts of our choices and our amendments. Thank you for that. Thank you.

[85:07] Okay, so with that understanding. yes, Kurtz, I still had a question. Please go right ahead. So I think this is a question for Christopher. So in response to Laura's question, you said, and and Brad affirmed that we would need more public engagement. My question is. did we get people saying, Oh, yes, this is the right place for it. because when you talked about the public meeting it sounded like nobody actually was engaged on that issue at all they were. It was all about the specifics of the particular project that was being proposed, and not about these broader issues. So I mean and it. I'm not trying to argue with you. It just sounds like

[86:00] people don't have strong feelings about that. And well, and I I would say, that's a bit of an unknown only because we, in in the context of of that those questions and the advertising that we did. You know about the about the amendment and about that that community meeting. It was focused on that one particular location. So we weren't asking the broader question of Where is a is a creative campus most appropriate. It was more about. You know, we are proposing to make these changes. It's in relation to this particular site and location and and application. You're correct that all of the comments received during that community meeting were specific to the application and the project itself, and not about the amendment. But we we were not asking that broader question about, you know, the most appropriate site for a future campus. So that would be the question we would want to ask the the larger community if that's the direction that we go. Thank you.

[87:05] I have a thought, but I want to see if anybody else has a hand up. Let me check the zoom. I don't see hands up online from board members. I don't see Ml. Jumping in. I'll just say that I'm probably comfortable going ahead with Staff's recommendation, knowing that we have an applicant that is very keen on developing this project, and that this location is probably the most likely location for it, and that if it did happen to fall through, then that seems like something that we could return to as needed rather than potentially borrowing trouble right now and going through a lot of public outreach for something that may or may not be a thing. So I would be comfortable going ahead with Staff's recommendation at this point. I don't have a problem with it, but any any other thoughts. So is my my and my understanding of how this is going. This proceeds is. the motion gets put on the table and seconded, and then

[88:01] a discussion happens at the time of that is that when conditions are put. yeah, if you want to propose an amendment, the time to do it would be after the motion is made and seconded, and then you would propose an amendment to the motion. So it's not a condition. It's an amendment. Well, it's an amend. It's an amendment to the motion to impose a condition. Oh, they're the same thing. There we go. If if I'm understanding correctly, please tell me if I'm wrong, Christine, you are yeah, perfect. I am wrong, or I am right. I'm correct. Okay. so I am wrong about being wrong. That's my favorite type of being wrong. If Staff has the 2 conditions that I asked for during the conversation. That would be great to have them handy, because that we're almost coming to the point where those will be relevant. Thank you. Thank you. Ml. Christopher, or Brad, or someone else on staff. Does somebody have something written up to share with regard to Ml's potential amendments. Yeah, I think Thomas is gonna is gonna help. Thomas will do it. Okay, so let's let's go ahead and and see if we have, if we have a motion which could be what's written on the screen? Or it could be something else. But what what is the motion that we are considering who would like to make a motion. Kurt.

[89:19] I move to approve limited amendments to the North Boulder subcommunity plan to include a vision for a mixed use creative campus in the village center area and update the land. Use descriptions for the ponderosa manufactured housing community as outlined in attachment, a to the staff memorandum. can I? Well, we need to see if we have a second first.st Do we have a second. Second. Mason has seconded it. Ml, has a comment. You feel that the motion is inaccurate, correct? Why do you think the motion is inaccurate. It says that the village center

[90:01] that the creative campus is in the village center area. and if we look at the map, the proposed village center is not where the creative campus is. It's north of that. So you're saying that you feel the creative campus is not within the boundaries of the village center. as described in in the in the sub Community plan. The village center is Just north of Yarmouth to 4 Mile Canyon Creek. and this is south of 4 Mile Canyon Creek, so it's not in the proposed village center, as described. and as shown on the map. I I took in the area to be quite general. But that was, I'm just yeah. It's a good question Christopher would like to report. I did. Yes, I did just want to clarify. So the the village center land use description. That's in the map you're correct ends at. I'd have to double check

[91:01] right rosewood, I think. But the village center diagram that is within the employment and retail section. It's on page 15 of the of the plan includes the transition areas of which this location is one of the transition areas. So it is, it's part of the the larger village center area. As Kurt was referring to it's it is not part of the specific village Center land use. But it is part of that village center area. So that that's why we described it that way. But we're we're certainly happy to make adjustments as we as if we need to got it. It's not in the center, it's in the area. It's in the area, right sorry about the logistical. No, it's a great, it's a great question. Christine would be proud. Sorry. No worries. Thanks for that clarification. Ml, it's important that we if we're going to fix the plan that we make sure that it's accurate. So thank you for that, and thank you, Christopher, for clearing that up all right. We have a suggested motion with a second.

[92:05] And is everybody okay? If Ml. Goes ahead and proposes an amendment before we talk about passing the motion, so I think this would be the time to propose amendments to the motion. Correct? Yes, my only caution is that if you all don't agree with both. It might be wise to go with one motion and then another. But if Ml. Is comfortable with both those conditions on there which are up on the screen have at it? So I think Ml's proposing that we would do them separately. So We're getting an echo here. I don't think it was me. It was me. It was me sorry. Okay, I must have hit the mute button by exit. I'm wrong in so many ways tonight. Okay, so let's do the the proposed amendments to the motion one at a time. So, Ml, do you want to propose your 1st amendment?

[93:12] So I propose an amendment to the motion that includes the condition that the community facilities map on page 18 be updated with any facilities that have been completed to date. There's a whole section, also on libraries. I'm not sure who wrote this up. But do we? Do we not want because it talked about a proposed library, etc, etc. Do we not want to just kind of clean that off, too? So let's 1 at a time. Actually, could somebody put up on the screen. The community facilities map that we're talking about here. Just so everybody knows what we're talking about. You're right. That same page has. It's page 19, and it has the library

[94:02] information on it as a proposed page 18, I think. Right. Mine says 19, but well, that's a table, but there's like a map here. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay, so the community facilities map on page 18. So you're proposing adding facilities that have been completed to this map that appears on page 18 of the North Boulder sub community plan. And it sounds like, Ml, you want to maybe add and associated text to describe those facilities. Yeah. okay, so this is the map. We can go back to the motion slide. Just, I just want everybody to see what that map was that we're talking about. We're talking about adding some icons and stuff on the map and updating text to reflect facilities that have been completed. Yes. so, Thomas, if you could add into that motion language. Ml, do you mind if I take a stab at it, please do

[95:01] with the condition that the community facilities map on page 18. And any associated text be updated with any facilities that have been completed to date. Does that meet your needs? Ml, yes. okay. so that's the amendment. And let's just see if there's a second for that amendment. So this is not. We're not voting on the whole motion. We're just voting on whether to add this amendment to our motion package. Is there a second for this? A second? Claudia is seconding any discussion? Ml. And Claudia, did you want to speak to this as the motion maker and the seconder, or you feel like your proposal is clear and we can go ahead and vote. Yeah, I think that it it is. It is clear. And to me it's just if we've got an updated. If the cover of of the North Boulder subcommunity plan is going to say it was updated in 2,024.

[96:03] It would be intelligent for it to include the library having been completed because it is, in fact completed. So I think it just reflects reality and makes the plan. Relevant. Thank you. Ml. Claudia, as the seconder. Any thoughts. I again, if we're going to talk about keeping plans relevant in any way whatsoever, they should reflect current reality. So that's why I would support this. Okay, I have a question for Staff, if you don't mind me jumping in, Kurt, and then over to Kurt, question for Staff. Is this a heavy lift to do this I'll be. I'll be looking at these 2. But but no, I I don't believe that would be terribly difficult. I I think we can. We can make those updates to the map and the description pretty quickly. Okay, thank you, Kurt.

[97:00] I certainly think that maps should reflect reality. That's always a good thing. But I'm I'm just concerned that we're continuing to react as opposed to plan with this North boulder sub community plan and so, if if the plan is going to stay active and and useful, then I think it should be updated. But I still have questions about whether this is a good use of our time at all, or whether we should be taking a different of a fairly different approach with all of this data. Thank you, Kurt. Any other comments. I have one, which is, you know, I sympathize with where you're coming from, Kurt, and I do think that if we're going to make some precision cleanups to the document tonight that this is a good one to add. So I'm in favor of this motion.

[98:05] Okay, shall we go to a vote. This is only a vote. On adding this number one here proposed conditions to our amendment before we vote on the whole amendment package. So all in favor. Please just let's just do a show of hands, all in favor of adding this proposed condition. It takes 4 of us. and we have 5, we have unanimous. Okay, that one passes. Ml, would you like to make your second proposed amendment? So I will ask Christopher if that second oh. amendment condition that I'm proposing that we just expand the creative campus to include the east side of Broadway. I think you had thought that that wouldn't be wouldn't require a public hearing, wouldn't be outside of the bounds of this of this task. Is that still your thought?

[99:04] I think I think that that change would be small enough, that that could be accommodated. Those property owners were notified of the public meeting, and included as part of that. So I I do think that that would be an appropriate change that could be accommodated. Thank you. So given the discussion we've been having about not tying the creative campus to a particular piece of property and making it a little excuse me a little broader. This is this, and the intention of this is that it looks at the creative campus in one of its other intentions, which is to become a gateway. And so that's what this is speaking to. So I will make the motion to include a condition that the creative campus boundary in the village center diagram on page 15 include the mixed use area on the east side of Broadway as well.

[100:06] Thank you. Ml, do we have a second? I will second. we have a motion and a second questions or discussion. I'll I'll just say something. Yeah. Again reiterate. The idea is that we want the the vision of what a creative campus can be to not be limited to a particular parcel. And I think this starts to do that, plus capture the idea that it can be the gateway. Thank you. Ml. And Kurt, do you want to speak as the seconder? Nope Kurt is good, if I may ask a question, I'm not super familiar with this part of town being a South Boulder person. What is over there on the East Side right now? I think you said it's been recently redeveloped

[101:05] 1010 years ago. It's the uptown it's called uptown apartment there. It's like a mixed use. Residential apartments. They're, I think, 3 to 4 stories. On that corner. Actually, it is it is all apartments, 2 and 3 stories. It's called Violet Crossing. If I understand correctly. Okay, so 2 and 3 story, all residential, not mixed. Use. Correct. Okay? And does Staff see any issue with you? Don't see any issue with expanding the definition of a created campus to include a recently redeveloped residential parcel on the surface. I don't think I see any potential issues. And you know again, the the language that we created for to describe the creative campus is is intentionally pretty broad. You know it, certainly. And and as a planning document as a policy it is just guidance. It's not a requirement that those kinds of things be included and incorporated. So you know. Obviously, if that area were to redevelop at some point

[102:14] another 1520, 30 years down the road, and this plan was still in existence, if possible, and still relevant. Then, you know, that might be a consideration for a future project, but as of now, I don't. I don't necessarily consider it to be too big of an issue. Okay, thank you. Any other discussion before we vote on just adding this amendment. seeing none. Let's again just do a show of hands. Who would like to be a yes. On adding this second amendment that Ml. Has proposed to Mason. Was that a yes. mason's a yes. I will go ahead and be the 4.th So we will add this as well. Okay, so that's 4 out of 5.

[103:00] All right. So now we have a suggested motion with 2 amendments. I'm going to go ahead and read it. I think that's my duty as chair for tonight, and then we will see if there's any discussion before we vote on the whole thing. So motion to approve limited amendments to the North Boulder subcommunity plan to include a vision for a mixed use. Creative campus in the village center area and Update the land use description for the ponderosa manufactured housing community as outlined in attachment A to the staff memorandum with 2 amendments, number one, with the condition that the community facilities. Map on page 18, and any associated text be updated with any facilities that have been completed to date. and 2 with the condition that the creative campus boundary in the village center. Diagram on page 15 will include the mixed use area on the east side of Broadway. That is our motion for tonight. Any discussion before we go to a vote.

[104:01] seeing none. Do we need to do this by a voice vote, or do we? Is a show of hands. Okay. I think for the record. I'd like a voice vote for this final motion voice vote. Okay. I will start with the folks in the room. So ML. Yes. Kurt, yes. Claudia. Yes. Mason. Yes. And I'm a yes. So that's unanimous congratulations to staff on your successful update to the North Boulder subcommunity plan. Thank you for all of your work on this for being here tonight, for the clear presentations, and for answering all of our very, very interesting questions. and thank you to the folks who are with us online. Thanks for being here as well and for your good comments tonight. Okay, so that concludes our public hearing for the evening back to the excuse me for coughing in everybody's ear. The agenda for tonight

[105:01] matters any matters from planning board members before we go to Staff Nope, nothing from planning board members, matters from Staff. Hello, again. Just a couple items. I want to point out that this is Becca's official 1st full presentation to the planning board, so she's been a guest presenter a bit before. But this is the 1st full fledged one, and an excellent job, I must say so. We're super glad to have her on the team. Second, I think we previewed this with you, but I just wanna offer up and keep reminding you, as the date comes closer to mark your calendars for October 19.th That is going to be the Comp Plan Kickoff event at the Dairy Arts Center from one to 4. It is for the broad public. So you know, you're

[106:00] participation is, of course, optional as just a member of the public. But it's a kind of a foundation setting event, and really the formal kickoff to all of the other engagement that we'll be doing and many other things we'll be discussing. That's my birthday, and I can't imagine a better thing to be doing. That's that's why we picked that date. That is the most curt thing ever that is. That is why we picked that date. It's at the Dairy Arts Center. Jerry. Okay, thank you for that. Yeah, but we've got a really cool Kate with the the Comp plan map on top of it. So will we get a specific notice. Come by email, or somehow, please. I wrote it down on a scrap piece of paper. Thank you. Other than that. I just want to commend both this comprehensive plans, planning division team and also development review, and really all the divisions. The workload is high. Right now, we've just got an extraordinary amount of

[107:05] effort taking place both on the policy side and development review and out in the field, too, as some of the activity in the last few years is being realized in construction as well. So just a big shout out to the whole team and highlighting that for your awareness, they're doing a great job. August 20 second August 20 second. Yes, yes, don't forget. August 20. Second is your joint session with the Council. so that's not a Tuesday. That's a Thursday. You'll have to break out of your routine. and we'll probably have some cool setup in this room or somewhere else. Oh, it's online, never. It's online. that'll be. Yes, that's gonna be a. You'll get a good good overview of all things comprehensive plan. The Staff Memo is just getting finalized for that. So it's it's gonna be a

[108:03] barn burner. Did you say a barn burner? I did, and then I immediately regretted it. But it's gonna be exciting. It's gonna be a party, for sure, for sure. Anything else from Staff or the city attorney's office? None for me. Okay, I can. I would just say Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of this, and having thoughtful discussion and really caring about the items we're putting in front of you and taking the time to thank us, so we really appreciate it. We know it takes a lot of time for you guys to do this, too. So thank you. I'll say you're welcome on behalf of the Board members, and that it's our pleasure, and thank you for being really thoughtful and hearing our feedback and answering our probing questions. And it's a good exchange. Thank you. This could have been a very perfunctory item, and I think, you know hopefully, it was useful for you to hear some of what we think about, and it was useful, definitely useful for us to hear how you're thinking about all of this, and to hear your openness to some of our feedback about, you know, process in the future.

[109:13] Thank you. Could we raise one thing with you all before we let you go? Mostly election day meeting. Is usually your scheduled time. I don't know if Thomas wanted to take this one on. You. All are usually scheduled to meet on Tuesdays, and election day is one of those days. I'm guessing that you all are going to be busy. So we were going to propose potentially cancelling that meeting that day. And we wanted to hear your thoughts. Yes, please, it would be my thought. I'm definitely going to be busy on that day, and I, I would propose that we are open if you need that time to doing, you know, like the 4th Tuesday, or scheduling another meeting in its place.

[110:00] Okay? Yeah. I believe one of the meetings that are going to be in that place is October 20 second, and I'll let Brad take over from here, maybe on Thanksgiving week as well. Yeah, I just want to note that any cancellations do need to be voted on. Since we publish the schedule at the beginning of the year. So if you're ready to do that, that could be a vote you can make tonight. I don't know as much about the Thanksgiving Night one. But you could do both, or one or either. Can I say something? Because Laura obviously is highly involved in this election? I don't know that the rest of us will be so involved, especially that particular night. I mean, it's just going to be nervously refreshing. Right. Or screen. Right. And so Claudia and I are part of other campaigns. Okay. Well. not a campaign, but I work for county elections for these kinds of election cycles, so I will be engaged in that capacity.

[111:06] Okay, so it sounds like 3. We've got 3 out. Okay, I'm overruled. Thank you. That's a very good check, Kurt. Thank you for not letting me just run away with it. So it sounds like we have agreement that we would like to have a vote on cancelling that meeting, and it takes 4 of us to cancel. So I'm pretty sure we're safe on that one. Do we want to also vote on potentially not having a meeting on Thanksgiving the week of the week of Thanksgiving. Yeah, let's give you a date certain. So you can put that in the record. Yeah, 2 November 26.th So we're probably solid on that date. and you could make that all as one motion if you wanted move to cancel meetings on. Are you saying that our meeting would actually fall on Thanksgiving. No, the Tuesday of week is what Christy was saying. Yeah, which is the 26.th

[112:05] Yeah. Well, are there 4 of us who would not be able to make it the week of Thanksgiving, in which case I would say, Let's go ahead with the vote. But if not, maybe Ml. Is suggesting we wait for Mark, and you could certainly do that at some later time. Yeah. But are there 4 of us who absolutely would not want to meet that week. Okay, let's wait on that one and let's go ahead and take a vote. Okay? So the the I'll go ahead and make a motion for simplicity. The motion is to cancel our meeting. That would fall on election day, which is November 7, th I believe. 7th or 5, th what's election day? 5.th Okay, so the motion is to cancel the November 5th meeting of the Planning board. I'll second that Ml. Is the second all in favor. Do we need a voice vote or raise hands?

[113:00] Let's go ahead and do a voice vote. Ml, yes, yes, ml's a yes, I'm a yes yes. Claudia. Yes. Mason. Yes. Unanimous. No meeting on election day. Okay, thank you. Any other calendar check items we need to do. Thomas, do we have a meeting next week. No? Well, sometimes we do not. On the second Tuesday I thought we did. No. Our our next meeting is scheduled for the 20.th Okay of this month. Okay, thank you. No planning board meeting next week. So we have the 20th and the 20 second. Yes, Gotcha. Busy week. Okay. Alrighty. Anything else that we need to do by way of a debrief for this meeting. Excellent work, excellent leadership, Laura and sub sub chair

[114:03] work. Very good. Thank you. Thank you for your tolerance of me tonight. With that I would call for a motion to adjourn. or maybe we'll just ask for consent to adjourn anybody opposed to adjourning. Hearing no opposition. We are adjourned tonight. Thank you. Everybody so much. Thank you. Good night, everyone. It's true.