On Wednesday, March 13, 2024, from 5 to 7 p.m., members of the Nederland Board of Trustees (BOT), Downtown Development Authority (NDDA), and Town staff attended an online workshop held by SE Group. The aim of the workshop was to discuss with the public, business owners, and stakeholders the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update and the Subarea Plan, which focuses on the Town’s Central Business District (CBD).

Cheney Bostic of SE Group led the meeting, which had transitioned from a planned in-person meeting at the Nederland Community Center to a virtual-only workshop due to the snow storm. Bostic first explained the agenda for the meeting, beginning with results from an online survey which had over 200 responses, to be followed by a workshop broken down into topics pertaining to the boundaries of the CBD, the “character areas,” and visions and goals for those areas. Downtown infrastructure and East 1st Street redevelopment were topics also listed on the agenda for further discussion.

Bostic defined the subarea plan as establishing “a vision for downtown Nederland for the next 15 to 20 years” and noted that it would be less broad than the Comprehensive Plan and therefore would be able to yield more specific recommendations.

“The closest thing that you have to a downtown plan today is the NDDA’s plan of development,” Bostic explained. “It was done in 2017, but really that is the guiding document for the NDDA. It really focuses on what the NDDA can do; it doesn’t necessarily talk about the town priorities and what the Town can do with their funding.”

Bostic continued to note that the NDDA’s plan could be used as a template to compare the Town’s own expectations for downtown development, and from that comparison delegate responsibilities between the two entities based on their jurisdictions.

Early in the meeting SE Group addressed the current proposal for CBD redevelopment from Ron Mitchell and Nederland Central Business District Redevelopment LLC. The proposal has yet to be formally brought before the BOT for review and discussion.

“It is a big project for Nederland; the developer is aware of that, the Town is aware of that. Any project like this can raise concerns or fear and so we want to tease out what are the things that people are concerned about in terms of all future development.” Bostic claimed that the SE Group’s focus on creating a Subarea Plan specific to development in Nederland’s CBD was to determine guidelines for all development. He then proceeded to describe SE Group’s relationship with Mitchell and his development team.

“The architect and the developer, we’ve met with them multiple times, and I think you have a really great opportunity here,” Bostic said. “I work in a lot of communities where developers come in from out of town; they don’t know the community and of course that creates fear. But here you have someone who has been invested in the community. They’re willing to listen, they’re willing to sit through this process and listen to the community and modify their proposal based on that.”

The results from the survey indicated that, regarding Parks, Recreation, and Open Spaces, maintaining and enhancing local trails and connectivity; enhancing walkability, bikeability, and public transportation; and increasing fire mitigation and water storage were the greatest topics of concern for the community.

The types of businesses that the community most desired to see include a pharmacy and more health care options, more local food options such as a bakery and a butcher shop, and more childcare options. In terms of economic development, streetscape design and “active transportation projects that contribute to the appeal of commercial areas” were suggested by members of the community, as well as the idea of leveraging the Town’s culture, history, and arts in order to encourage tourism. Also included were the idea of instituting land use changes to grow the Town’s tax base, and “supporting the development of high quality commercial space.”

In terms of downtown redevelopment, the results of the survey indicated that the community preferred the historic character and “old style” buildings and a “small town feel.”

For infrastructure improvements, the community asked for improved sidewalks and ADA compliance, more access for bicycles, paved roads, community gathering spaces, parking infrastructure, a historic district, a pedestrian walking mall, and infill development that “fits with the character” of downtown.

Regarding land use improvements, services such as childcare, healthcare, and local housing were most requested from the community, followed by more places to dine, and more places for kids and families, and for artists and creative types. More open space improvements, enhancements to the trails and property along the creek and other “waterfront” destinations, and an outdoor amphitheater were also most requested.

Attendees participated in an exercise where they voted on areas in Nederland mentioned in the Subarea Plan that should be considered when discussing development. 73% voted on reservoir-facing properties that are not owned by Town but are considered highly valued for the town’s needs, including the property that houses the Amerigas propane tanks, and the neighboring property which is a fenced-in abandoned building.

Solutions were offered as to how the Town could acquire these properties, including opening communications with the owners and offering a price they would accept; or for the Town to attempt to use their power of “eminent domain,” which allows them to acquire and convert private property under certain conditions.

The Wolf Tongue Mill area and the property behind the Post Office, which slopes up to St. Rita’s Catholic Church, were also noted as properties the Town should consider for development.

After a brief presentation from Carly Sieff of Fehr & Peers concerning the work being conducted on the Multimodal Transportation Plan, Bostic led attendees into a discussion concerning the four different proposed locations for a second bridge across Middle Boulder Creek, and the best locations for a parking garage.

The 32 participants in the meeting were asked to vote on their preferred bridge location, on whether the bridge should be open to all traffic or for emergency use only, and whether Mitchell’s lot on 100 East 1st Street or the RTD parking lot would be the best location for parking infrastructure enhancement.

The four locations identified by Town staff as viable options for the second bridge included the Weir Bridge, Fisherman’s Lot, 100 East 1st Street, and West 1st Street.

Attendees were split on whether the bridge should be accessible by pedestrians and all vehicle traffic, and 67% voted for the RTD lot as the ideal location for a parking garage. When discussing the location of the second bridge, the sentiment was raised that the Town should focus on more than just a second bridge. Trustee Jesse Seavers noted that he would like to pursue developing all four bridges in the interest of easing traffic flow and promoting walkability throughout town.

The remainder of the meeting was focused on the drivability, walkability, and overall flow of traffic for East 1st Street, and the preferred “massing” of buildings on East 1st Street, zoning considerations for setbacks, and the current 35-foot height limit for buildings.

Bostic first noted that East 1st Street has some of the most narrow sidewalks of any downtown area that she has visited or worked in, and listed that it also has no lighting or pedestrian amenities such as benches and ramps, or beautification such as banners.

Attendees voted on four hypothetical options for changing traffic flow and building setbacks for a more efficient downtown area: either to keep diagonal parking and a narrow drive aisle in order to add more sidewalk space for outdoor dining and other pedestrian amenities; to widen sidewalks “drastically” to keep the flow of traffic as it is, but require setbacks for new developments with a dedicated easement to create more sidewalk space; to require setbacks for new developments in order to widen the road to add parallel parking on one side of the street and diagonal parking on the other side; or to make East 1st Street a two-way street with parallel parking only, which would create 10 to 15 sidewalks, but less parking.

Widening sidewalks and requiring setbacks for new developments was the most popular option, with 41% of those in attendance choosing it; no one present voted for turning East 1st Street into a two-way street. Regarding the concept of East 1st Street being closed to through traffic and made into a pedestrian walking mall, concerns were raised about the loss of parking spaces and inability for businesses to receive their deliveries.

In terms of “massing” on East 1st Street, and the character of building fronts in relation to the entire downtown area, Bostic noted that Nederland’s current zoning allows for a zero-foot setback, meaning that properties can be built flush to the Town’s right-of-way, and that the building height limit is set at 35 feet.

Attendees were asked to choose to either keep the development conditions as is, to require setbacks to allow for better downtown walkability, to require a setback as well as a “stepback” on the third floor to create the illusion of a less-cramped aesthetic, or to require a varied third floor design as well as a pitched roof, though such a roof may require developers to build higher than the 35-foot limit.

Attendees were also asked to state their preference as to whether old downtown buildings should be required to be replaced or to be restored.

The majority of those logged into the meeting voted in favor of requiring setbacks and third floor stepbacks for new developments in the downtown area. 40% were in favor of the older buildings being required to be replaced, with 20% in favor of those buildings being restored, and 40% stating that their decision depends on the building, on a case-by-case basis.

During open discussion on the subject, some noted that their wish for a redeveloped downtown was for there not to be a single structure with no variety and no spaces in between the buildings.

NDDA Board member Steve Karowe asked if any feasibility studies had been conducted on whether buildings on both sides of East 1st Street could be constructed with required setbacks and stepbacks. Bostic said that SE Group would consider looking into such studies, and mentioned that Mitchell’s proposal includes generous setbacks for the buildings on his lots.

Karowe responded that Mitchell’s properties span across East 1st and 2nd Streets, and therefore, while his development plans are able to account for such large setbacks, properties on the other side of the downtown area may not be able to do the same because of the lot size and the creek behind them.

“It feels like what we’re being presented with here is a number of flavors of Ron’s development, his big huge development that he wants to put in the middle of downtown,” NDDA Board member Scott Papich stated. “There are other ways to develop the downtown; all of [the choices] look like Ron’s development.”

“That’s because Ron owns all that land, so unless you can talk him into doing something different or we can code something different it’s really not our choice,” Trustee Tania Corvalan retorted.

“What we’re showing is what your existing zoning allows, and it does freak people out sometimes,” Bostic said. “You’d be surprised how many communities I go into and say ‘this is what you’re allowing is just the fact that nothing has been done for years.’ That’s why we’re having a conversation.”

Mitchell joined the meeting, stating that he had difficulty logging in and desired to address many of the questions being directed toward his redevelopment proposal.

“When people make comments in a meeting like this and then there’s no response because the person who can respond doesn’t have the ability to do so, it’s very frustrating,” Mitchell continued. “This development is not just the block between 1st and 2nd and Snyder and 119, it includes other places. Every merchant that’s currently in this district has been talked with and consulted with and offered the opportunity to go into one of the new buildings temporarily and be able to come back. I have spent a good deal of time planning and trying to help those tenants so that they can come back and keep their viable businesses while that one particular block is being redeveloped.”

“These are all good points but controlling construction costs will really end up dictating what you can charge for rent, and even if you’re able to take care of the folks who rent from you now it will be the new local businesses who hopefully can afford the rents,” Mayor Billy Giblin added.

President of the Peak to Peak Chamber of Commerce Natalie Duplessy asked why Mitchell’s buildings on East 1st Street could not be rehabilitated, to which Mitchell stated that the buildings could not be saved in the state that they were in without far exceeding the cost of simply constructing a new building. Duplessy stated that she would prefer each building to be redeveloped individually and piecemeal, as it would better fit the character of the town, to which Mitchell stated his belief that the character of Nederland is always subject to change and has changed many times in his lifetime.

An in-person version of the same workshop will take place at the Nederland Community Center on Wednesday, March 20, and an online survey with the same questions asked to workshop attendees is available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DowntownNed.

SE Group will continue to gather data from the survey and workshops and report to the BOT periodically as new drafts of the Subarea Plan and the Comprehensive Plan are completed for review.