►
From YouTube: Boulder Planning Board Meeting 1-17-19
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
A
D
A
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
about
that
or
want
to
call
it
up?
No?
Okay.
The
next
item
is
1405
Bellevue
Avenue
Kings
Gulch.
It's
a
flood
filling
map
revision
and
it
involves
revision
to
the
hundred-year
flood
plain
and
conveyance
of
Kings
Gulch
in
the
area.
1405
Bellevue
Avenue
and
does
anybody
have
any
comments
go
ahead
to
him.
E
C
F
Some
degree,
yes
into
a
degree,
they're,
actually
very
separate
issues,
so
a
particular
mapping.
Study
of
this
is
done
under
the
the
FEMA
standards
of
requirements
out
there
I'm
in
order
for
us
to
sign
off
on
the
acknowledgement
form,
and
so
that's
what
we've
looked
at
to
see.
We
wouldn't
necessarily
have
a
criteria
to
require
something.
In
addition,
in
terms
of
a
change
in
mapping,
his
mapping
is
done
again
under
the
FEMA
requirements.
The
National
Flood
Insurance
Program
I.
F
Again,
it
would
be
looked
at
in
very
separate
ways:
I'm,
not
sure
where
we
are
on
any
mitigation
planning
looking
to
Elisha
or
Kristen
if
they
know
anything
further
you're
there
so
I'd
like
to
introduce
Kristin,
Shepard
she's,
our
new
senior
civil
engineer.
This
is
a
good
opportunity
to
introduce
her.
She
was
recently
promoted
from
our
utilities,
Capital
Group
she's,
a
senior
civil
engineer
in
the
planning
development
services
and
serves
now
as
floodplain
and
wetland
program
administrator,
so
hey
relations.
Thank.
G
You
nice
to
meet
you
all
yeah,
so
what
I
know
a
little
bit
about
from
the
Kings
from
that
there's.
A
litigation
plan
currently
underway
that
Katie
Knapp
is
the
project
manager
for
and
in
that
particular
stretch
of
King's
Gulch.
G
We
did
a
lot
of
public
outreach
with
the
community
and
those
property
owners
didn't
have
a
lot
of
support
for
any
mitigation
measures
in
their
backyard,
but
what
they
did
have
some
support
for
was
maybe
some
vegetation
removal,
some
light
grading
they
didn't
want
actual
channel
widening,
and
so
because
of
that,
we
haven't
in
had
a
lot
of
conversation
with
them
about
getting
actual
easements
because
they
wanted
us
to
preserve
the
habitat
behind
their
houses.
That's
kind
of
where
that
ended
up.
G
So
I
think
in
the
process
of
the
public
process
for
the
mitigation
plan,
Katie
has
been
having
the
conversation
about
easements
being
granted
long
term.
It's
a
little
harder
to
have
that
conversation
unless
they're
coming
in
for
development,
because
we
can
do
a
bit
of
an
exchange
where
they're
saying
we
want
this
from
you
and
we
can
ask
for
an
easement
in
return.
G
D
F
Kind
of
trying
to
bring
it
back
around
here,
of
course,
we
look
at
anything
that
is
an
adopted
mitigation
plans.
This
happens
to
be
in
one
that's
in
progress,
but
also
looking
at
what's
already
out
there,
and
we
had
to
already
have
easements
necessary
for
the
conveyance,
as
has
been
previously
determined
is,
is
required
and
it
sounds
like
in
the
current
mitigation
planning.
There
isn't
actually
anything
identified.
That
would
increase
that
by
doing
this
mapping
change,
which
is
really
an
an
update
to
the
updated
mapping.
F
That
was
done
that
not
that
many
years
ago,
by
taking
a
closer
look
at
things
in
here,
we
don't
believe
it
really
is
changing
what
would
have
been
contemplated
in
the
future
or
anything
that
is
being
contemplated
through
the
current
mitigation
planning
studies
out
here
so
to
a
high
degree,
I
would
say
yes,
it
has.
It
is
not
precluding
something
that
we
were
considering
for
the
future
in
this
drainage
way.
John.
H
F
E
C
A
B
Just
John
sure
comments
just
triggered
a
thought,
and
that
is
the
Green
Race
program
had
had
a
couple
of
instances
where
they
couldn't
get
a
trail
through
property
went
on
the
market
city
bought
it.
It
was
right
at
baseline
and
near
cherryvale,
and
they
put
an
easement
on
it,
put
it
back
on
the
market,
and
that
was
done.
A
G
So
the
original
that
the
city
did
the
technical
analysis
actually
closely
mirrored
what
has
been
the
final
analysis?
What
happens?
Is
we
review
it
internally
or
we
did
the
process
internally.
We
sent
it
to
FEMA
and
they
actually
have
the
final
say
and
at
that
point
their
technical
review
team
altered
it
to
the
regulatory
outline
that
it
is
I
see,
so
we're
actually
bringing
it
back
to
what
the
city
had
originally
closer
to
it.
The
city's
technical
team
had
creating
okay.
F
I
can
add
that,
just
for
some
background,
it's
not
unusual
and
flood
plain
mapping,
studies
that
when
you
go
in
and
look
at
something
in
more
detail
than
what
we're
able
to
when
we're
doing
an
entire
Creek
that
you
may
find
modifications
and
changes
that
occurs
on
a
somewhat
regular
basis
when
you
go
in
and
get
to
that
even
more
detailed
effort.
So
it's
that
difference
between
the
30,000
of
a
few
foot
view
and
the
hundred
foot
view
right.
So.
A
G
G
G
A
A
G
A
So,
thank
you
alrighty,
so
that
takes
us
to
the
our
public
hearing
item.
We
just
have
one
tonight
and
it's
a
look
hearing
in
consideration
of
a
floodplain
development
permit
for
the
replacement
of
a
fence
located
at
816
Arapaho
Avenue
within
the
conveyance
and
high
hazard
zones
of
Gregory
Creek
now
I
believe
hello.
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
item.
Is
that
right?
Okay,
so
let's
go
through
and
do
disclosures
before
we
turn
it
over
to
staff.
I
C
J
A
H
F
Right,
thank
you.
Well,
we
appreciate
your
time
tonight
on
this.
One
I
have
Alicia
Geiger
with
me,
she's
a
civil
engineer
in
our
group
that
does
some
of
our
flex.
You
she's
gonna,
review
this
project
than
the
specific
criteria.
What
I'd
like
to
remind
the
board
is
that
there
are
very
specific
criteria
of
analysis
for
the
issuance
of
these
types
of
floodplain
development
permits.
We're
going
to
step
through
that
with
you
tonight.
So
we
can
hear
your
questions
and
concerns
and,
of
course,
be
open
to
feedback
or
information
you
have
so
with
that.
E
Just
to
give
you
the
key
issues
before
we
get
started
and
then
we'll
bring
this
up
at
the
end
again
to
remind
you
to
do
this.
But
does
the
project
comply
with
the
floodplain
development
regulations?
Section,
nine,
three,
three:
nine
three:
four
and
nine,
three
five
and
nine
three
six
of
the
boulder
Revised
Code
the
project
or
the
property,
is
located
at
816
Arapaho,
which
is
southwest
of
Arapaho
Avenue
and
ninth
Street
Gregory
Creek
runs
through
the
southeast
portion
of
this
property
and
the
property
is
highlighted
in
red,
as
shown
on
this
map.
E
The
permitting
process,
so
all
development
and
the
100-year
floodplain
requires
a
floodplain
development
permit
in
the
case
of
floodplain
projects
impacting
the
conveyance
and
high
hazard
zones,
it's
a
staff
level
review
and
then
it's
subject
to
call
it.
It's
a
planning
board.
This
permit
was
approved,
October
30th
of
2018
and
the
apartment
was
called
up
by
planning
board
member
during
the
November
15th
2018
planning
board
meeting.
Just
to
show
you
how
the
flip
lanes
look
on
this
site.
It
is
impacted
by
the
500
year
or
100
year,
conveyance
and
high
hazard
zones.
E
E
Floodplain
development
permit
criteria
analysis,
so
staff
has
concluded
that
this
project
will
have
no
impact
on
the
efficiency
or
capacity
of
the
conveyance
tone
and
high
hazard
zone.
It
will
not
cause
a
rise
in
the
hundred-year
flood
profile
and
therefore
it
won't
adversely
impact
lands
upstream
and
downstream
in
the
immediate
vicinity.
E
A
E
A
E
B
B
C
C
C
I
think
this
is
a
comment
you
might
make
that
more
clear
in
the
future
memos.
The
other
thing
I
was
wondering
about
is
that
the
existing
fence,
the
south
end
of
it,
doesn't
cross
the
creek.
It's
all
on
the
west
side
of
Gregory
Creek
correct,
so
I
was
trying
to
understand
whether
they
knew
the
portion
to
be
constructed,
how
it
matches
with
the
existing
fence.
So.
E
The
fence
isn't
going
to
go
over
Gregory
Creek.
If
that's
your
question
yeah,
so
so,
what's
their
existing
is,
but
the
perimeter
of
the
fence
or
the
fence
is
there
so
they're,
not
adding
more
fence
to
it?
They'll
just
be
modifying.
What's
there
to
be
compliant
with
the
floodplain
development
regulations,
okay,.
C
Very
good
so
then
also
I
had
similar
questions,
as
as
in
our
previous
discussion
about
Kings
Gulch
I'm,
trying
to
see
how
this
fits
in
with
the
city's
plans
for
Gregory
Creek
in
general
and
I
understand
that
the
the
city
has
has
done
quite
a
bit
of
work
along
Gregory
Creek,
but
but
that
there
has.
But
it's
not
been
completed
as
far
as
I
understand.
So
how
has
that
been
considered
in
in
the
city's
review
of
this
application?
C
E
So
through
this
venue
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
ask
for
any
kind
of
easement,
because
they're
not
asked
they're
not
required
to
get
a
building
permit.
So
we
weren't
able
to
ask
for
an
easement,
but
katie
has
been
working
closely
with
the
property
owner
to
make
sure
that
everybody's
on
board,
with
what's
happening
and
she's
aware
of
the
fence,
that's
there
and
that
it
will
be
stained.
C
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
wondering
about
is
I
could
imagine
that
in
this
area
or
this
reach
of
the
of
Gregory
Creek,
there
might
be
some
desire
by
the
city
to
alter
the
channel
shape
and
maybe
expand
its
carrying
capacity,
which,
which
might
lead
to
some
conflict
with
the
location
of
the
fence.
Right.
E
And
I
think
when
they
do
get
to
that
point
in
the
design,
it'll
have
to
be
worked
out
between
our
CIP
group
and
the
property
owner
about
how
how
the
fence
does
or
not
does
or
doesn't
conflict
with
the
mitigation
plan
at
that
point,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
that
level
of
detail.
I'm
saying
that
you
can't
have
the
fence
there
at
this
point.
Well,.
C
C
E
K
L
Good
evening,
Don
ash
with
Scott
Cox
and
associates
were
the
applicants.
Engineer.
I
was
a
him
and,
as
this
here
as
well
to
answer
questions
he'll,
give
it
a
little
talk
to
I
like
to
formally
welcome
you
to
flood
night
here
at
Planning,
Board,
exciting,
Thursday
and
I
will
say
before
we
get
started
that
if
you
want
to
ask
your
questions
again,
George
we
can
go
through
some
of
those
comments
about
the
easements.
Today's
been
a
Miss
John,
John
I'm,
sorry,
what
I
say:
George
George.
L
Sorry
I
always
you
guys
confused
so
yeah
I
like
to
start
off
by
thanking
staff
for
their
help
with
this
Robbie
was
really
helpful
during
our
owning
variance
process.
Hella
Edward
and
Alicia,
as
always
excellent
during
the
flood
process,
did
a
great
job
with
the
overview
here,
so
I'm
going
to
burn
through
some
of
these
slides
here.
Obviously,
you
guys
didn't
where
the
site
is.
You
know,
as
you
can
see,
were
almost
100%
encumbered
by
the
100-year
floodplain.
The
500-year
flood
plains
due
west
of
us,
and
then
we
have
this
sliver
of
Gregory
Canyon
Creek.
L
That
goes
through
the
southwest
side
of
the
site,
which
has
the
high
hazard
and
the
conveyance
owned
associated.
With
that
here's
a
little
more
detail
of
the
project.
The
original
house
was
constructed
back
in
the
50s,
I
believe
and
Jose,
and
his
wife
put
an
addition
on
back
circa
2014,
which
also
included
this
detached
garage,
slash
studio.
There
was
a
perimeter
fence
that
is
a
new
fence
that
was
constructed
about
the
same
time
as
the
building
addition
to
replace
an
existing
fence,
which
was
somewhat
dilapidated.
L
So,
as
we
said
before,
this
is
Gregor
Canyon
Creek,
the
the
creek
bed
itself,
actually
crosses
the
property
where
this
dark
pink
arrow
is.
So
there
is
a
portion
of
the
property
that
you
know
that
the
creek
is
actually
located
under
here's
another
kind
of
view
of
the
floodplain
again
five
hundred
100
conveyance
and
I
hazard,
the
fence
in
question.
This
perpendicular
piece
is
kind
of
down
at
the
south
side
they're
a
little
more
detailed.
L
Bottom
line
is
we're
looking
for
a
little
security
in
the
backyard
there
Jose
spent
a
lot
of
time
creating
kind
of
an
urban
oasis.
There's
walkways,
there's
patios
there's
gathering
spaces.
He
has
a
young
son.
He
wants
to
give
them
place
to
play
outside.
We've
had
a
lot
of
transient
activity
in
the
creek
there's
a
lot
of
trash
and
defecation
in
this
section,
Jose's
had
some
altercations
with
some
transients
in
the
back
they've
been
sheltering
under
this
existing
shed.
L
This
is
a
cross
section
of
the
creek
and,
if
you've
ever
wondered
where
this
model
comes
from,
I
mean
this.
Is
it
the
blue
that
I'm
circling
here?
That's
the
main
channel
of
the
creek.
The
section
is
taken
just
upstream
from
our
site,
and
you
can
see
the
blue
is
where
the
majority
of
the
water
is
flowing.
There's
a
higher
velocity
in
the
main
channel
there.
L
The
fence
is
over
on
this
left
over
Bank
area,
just
for
comparison
purposes.
That
blue
is
about
14
feet
per
second.
The
main
channel
flow
that
left
over
banks
is
just
about
four
to
six
inches
deep
and
flung
about
two
feet
per
second,
so
it's
left
over
bank.
It's
not
the
main
conveyance
of
the
channel.
The
majority
of
the
water
that
you're
looking
at
here
is
flowing
in
that
blue
area
and
then
off
on
the
right
there.
L
Here's
a
picture
of
the
fence,
the
fence
is
existing.
This
is
the
west
side,
and
this
is
the
fence
that
we
are
talking
about
tonight.
The
conveyance
zones
on
the
right
you
can
see
that
blue
line
running
vertically
and
then
you
can
see
the
location
of
our
proposed
hinge
panel.
The
hinge
panel
would
rotate
and
float
with
the
water
and
allows
conveyance
of
the
flood
waters
through
this
little
section.
This
is
a
section
of
the
fence.
You
can
kind
of
see
the
flow
running
right
to
left
the
base.
L
Flood
elevation
is
about
two
feet
deep
in
this
location,
so
the
hinge
panel
would
be
2
feet
above
grade
and,
as
Alicia
mentioned,
the
fourth,
the
fence
itself
is
designed
for
all
the
lateral
loads
that
are
associated
with
the
flood.
So
structurally
it
will
survive
and
it
will
be
upright.
It
won't
create
any
downstream
damage.
The
fence
again
in
elevation,
the
blue.
There
is
the
actual
floating
panel.
It's
a
polystyrene
foam.
It's
made
by
a
company
called
a
harbor
foam.
It's
UV
resistant,
it's
mold
resistant.
L
It
does
well
in
temperature
variations,
so
we
feel
like
it
would
be
a
really
good
product
to
provide
the
buoyancy
that
we're
looking
for
and
basically
you
know
when
the
water
rises,
the
foam
floats
opens
the
gate
and
we
have
flow
through
the
water.
So,
just
to
conclude,
my
portion-
I'm
gonna,
give
this
over
at
Jose
for
a
second,
you
know
we
feel
like
it
meets
all
the
flood
criteria.
We
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
staff
working
through
all
the
floodplain
development,
all
the
conveyance
and
high
hazard
issues.
M
So,
let's
see
yeah
so
I
was
just
gonna.
Add
a
few
slides,
introduce
yourself
I'm,
sorry
Lisa
I'm,
the
one
of
the
owners
of
8:16
home,
and
we
just
wanted
to
give
a
few
pieces
of
information
about
kind
of
who
we
are.
We
want
this
fence
for
so
I'm
a
professor
at
CU
and
a
climate
scientist,
and
my
wife
is
also
a
professor
of
sculpture.
We
have
a
four
year
old
and
a
74
year
old,
advancing
itself.
M
You
know
so
we
live
there
because
we
felt
or
I
felt
that
strongly.
We
wanted
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
be
able
to
work
on
bike
as
much
as
possible.
We
just
bought
a
couple
of
electric
bikes
with
the
county
program
anyway,
so
this
house
was
something
we
could
afford,
but
it
came
with
a
lot
of
strings.
We've
lived
in
Boulder
16
years
in
that
place
and
we
want
to
stay
there.
So
we
wanted
the
fans.
I
mean
you.
M
If
you
have
had
recent
contact
with
a
four
year
old,
you
will
imagine
that
the
fence
is
a
good
way
not
for
him
not
to
fall
into
the
creek.
That's
pretty
deep
and
goes
with
the
74
year
old.
There
has
always
been
a
fence
around
the
property.
It's
a
picture
of
the
older
fans.
Well,
you
can
see
this
this
section
that
they
were
looking
at.
Actually,
there
was
a
fence
before
a
permit
was
pulling
2000
by
the
previous
owner,
which
is
the
fans
you
see
here
and
the
difference
we
replace
I
know.
M
So
there
is
a
lot
of
Unleashed
dogs,
a
lot
of
students
that
live
live
around
and
often
even
if
we
leave
a
gate
open.
Often
we
have
a
dog
in
the
backyard,
the
holidays
bear
activity
and
there
is
a
lot
of
transient
activity,
and
these
are
some
examples,
is
the
culvert
under
marine
and
that
that
stuff
up
there,
which
Nathan
mayor
in
the
city
help
us
clean,
was
basically
a
large
number
of
sleeping
bags.
M
Nothing
like
that
and
I've
cleaned
in
the
last
few
years,
probably
30
contractor
bucks
worth
of
his
sleeping
bags
and
trash
from
the
creek
is
actually
my
hope
is
to
is
to
clean
the
creek.
Actually
in
these
sections,
property
owners
have
rental
properties
and
they
don't
do
much
about
it
and
decide.
You
some
some
pictures
of
the
pre-owned
are,
let's
see
so
then
I've
actually
attended
almost
every
single
floor
meeting
on
Gregory
Creek,
since
2004
I'm,
actually
and
a
mechanical
engineering
at
MIT
by
training
I'm,
actually,
an
expert
in
fluid
mechanics.
M
So
actually
my
wife
laughs,
because
when
it
rains
I
go
look
at
the
creek,
it
flows
actually
Howie.
You
know
and
I
have
to
pay
me
a
lot
about
how
to
you
know
how
to
make
that
work
better.
So
anyway,
and
there
would
be
many
meetings,
we
went
to
water
resources
board
on
different
boards
and
basically
every
every
meeting
and
I've
talked
to
Kelly
a
lot
and
I
was
looking
at
my
email.
I
have
50
was
working
for
with
her
about
the
improvements
and
basically
the
plan
of
mr.
cursor
was
suggesting.
M
What's
in
the
in
the
preliminary
plan
from
the
city
was
discussed
by
K
DME,
which
will
be
basically
a
culvert
that
goes
under
that
area,
so
that
you
can
have
the
current
capacity
in
an
area.
That's
very
narrow
in
between
two
buildings
so
anyway,
but
and
I've
been
asking
every
six
months
is
like
design,
and
so
we
are
we're
definitely
on
board
to
grant
an
easement
when
you
know
when
there
is
a
project,
so
definitely
gonna
find
opposition
from
us.
M
C
M
Mean
we've
discussed
with
Katie
and
getting
up,
and
our
intention
is
to
do
that
as
part
of
the
design
process.
Basically
this,
so
it's
been
a
few
years
that
the
design
process
was
gonna
start,
but
it
has
been
delayed
for
whatever
budget
reasons
in
the
city
and
then
when
we
said
this,
you
know
once
we
are
designing
those
improvements.
We
are
completely
willing
to
to
grant
an
easement,
but
it
didn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
to
grant
an
easement.
Now
you
know,
since
the
creek
the
channel
is
gonna
change.
M
L
E
E
L
A
little
hard
to
tell
in
this
drawing,
but
there
is
a
box
culvert
that
extends
from
the
right
side,
the
south
to
the
alley,
all
the
way
north
past
the
fence
almost
to
this
subject
property-
and
you
can
kind
of
see
it
it's
hard
to
tell.
But
it's
just
past-
that
six
plus
zero
zero
on
the
left.
So
the
channel
is
going
to
be
entirely
in
a
box
culvert
there.
Then
it
transitions
to
another.
Open
channel,
passes
a
couple,
other
structures
and
then
goes
underneath
or
rapaho.
L
L
The
flood
way
boundary
could
change
based
on
this
project.
So
we
would
be
willing
to
give
an
easement
I'm,
just
not
sure
and
comfortable
trying
to
prescribe
where
that
easement
would
be
tonight.
I
would
be
more
comfortable
waiting
until
we
get
through
the
CIP
process
to
see
what
the
city
would
actually
require.
As
far
as
permanent
easements.
C
I
just
want
to
be
sure
that
I
understand
you,
Mr
Hammond,
s's
commitment,
I,
understand
that
the
city
has
not
determined
what
sort
of
easement
width
and
dimensions
might
be
appropriate.
But
if
I
understood
correctly,
I
heard
mr.
Jimenez
say
that
when
the
city
makes
that
determination
that
that
he
would
be
willing
to
grant
that
easement
for
that
purpose,
I
think.
L
There's
a
willingness
I'm,
not
too
sure
what
the
conditions
would
be
attached
to
that
easement,
which
is
why
I
think
there
are
some
hesitancy
from
us
to
commit
fully
to
that
easement.
If
that
ease
men
takes
up,
you
know
two
parking
spaces
and
a
shed
and
part
of
Jose's
property.
Then
it
might
be
less
willing
to
give
the
city
an
easement
for
that.
But
if
it's,
what
for
what
we're
talking
and
the
box
culvert
that
has
very
little
impact
to
our
sight,
then
yeah
I
think
we'd
be
willing
to
do
that.
D
D
A
A
A
The
thing
that
I'm
wondering
about
is
I,
look
through
all
of
the
floodplain
regulations
and
there
doesn't
seem.
Maybe
these
are
kind
of
older,
updated
in
a
long
time,
because
I
don't
see
much
in
there
about
preservation
of
the
floodplain
in
the
floodplain
function
itself,
which
may
not
be
applicable
for
a
fence.
Obviously,
but
if
it
were
say
a
subdivision,
you
know
a
little
development
with
houses
and
streets
and
that
kind
of
thing
I
don't
see
any
kind
of
regulations
in
there.
A
A
You
know
my
thinking
on
this
particular
project,
because
it's
just
a
fence
but
on
a
larger
project,
which
you
know,
we've
been
talking
about
fair
amount
lately,
projects
in
areas
where
we
might
annex
and
there
might
be
roads
and
driveways
in
a
lot
of
impervious
area.
Do
any
of
our
floodplain
regulations
address
anything
like
that.
Other.
F
These
regulations
are
current
in
terms
of
having
followed
through
with
requirements
from
FEMA
and
the
NFIP
I
think
the
last
major
update
was
looks
like
in
2013,
which
it
was
when
the
critical
facility
regulations
were
incorporated
into
that.
So
those
are
some
of
those
pieces
that
are
there.
Some
of
the
other
items
you
bring
up
are
like
I,
said
in
other
spots
or
may
not
necessarily
be
floodplain
development
criteria
itself,
yeah.
A
F
A
F
Believe
you
are
correct,
I
mean
that
that
is
very
much
a
larger
policy
issue
discussion.
If
we
want
to
further
prohibit
development
within
the
hundred
year,
flood
planner
portions
of
it
would
be
a
change
in
the
regulations
and
a
change
in
the
philosophy
behind
them.
I
mean
would
be
a
work
program
item
to
discuss.
Okay,.
C
However,
we
do
have
the
option
tonight
to
approve
this
with
conditions,
if
I
understand
correctly
and
the
applicant
has
indicated
his
willingness
to
to
grant
an
easement
for
flood
management
along
the
channel
when
the
city
determines
what's
appropriate
for
that
purpose.
So
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
to
me
it
would
be
reasonable
for
for
this
to
be
granted
with,
with
the
condition
of
that
type.
K
H
C
C
J
Yet
there
was
no
mechanism
for
me
to
voice
that
in
a
way
that
was
tied
to
criteria,
therefore
my
words:
a
zero
value,
if
maybe
you're
in
the
same
boat,
now
that,
if
it's
not
tied
to
criteria,
then
it's
an
abuse
of
our
time
here
and
we
can't
discuss
it,
we're
not
a
policy
body,
and
so,
unless
you
can
tie
it
to
criteria,
we
have
nothing
to
discuss.
If
they've
learned
anything
over
two
years
on
planning
board,
it
can
be
boiled
down
to
that.
J
I
was
curious.
You
know,
I
was
looking
forward
to
tonight,
because
you
know
more
about
this
topic.
Then
certainly
I
do
and
most
people,
and
so
I
came
to
learn
tonight
about
what
it
was
that
wanted,
drove
you
to
call
it
up
and
I
hear
now
what
it
is,
which
is
the
proper
stewardship
of
our
of
our
land
and
how
to
be
prepared
for
the
future
and
I
know
that
it
may
not
matter.
But
I
get
a
little
concerned
about
why
this
is
even
here.
J
If
a
fence
was
built
and
then
was
was,
was
there,
a
violation
was
somehow
this
tagged
so
that
there
was
a
bad
actor
moment
here.
That
then
was
caught
and
in
one
way
justice
is
being
meted
out
with
the
harbour
foam,
but
that's
it,
but
but
if
we're
gonna
have
a
large
if
the
plan
now,
are
you
saying
that
the
plan
now
for
the
concrete
box
culverts
are
outdated?
Will
they
work
well,
it
work
to
have
those
there
at
the
way
they
intend
or
is
that
is
that
the
outdated
part
I.
C
J
A
I
think
there's
for
me:
there
seems
to
be
kind
of
this
larger
issue
where
we
have
these
development
codes
in
planning,
and
then
we
have
flood
plain
management
and
floodplain
mitigation,
and
you
know
giant
projects
going
on
that
and
then
we
also
have
this
other
resilience
piece.
You
know
so
these
multiple
parts
of
the
city
and
when,
when
it
comes
down
to
a
particular
parcel
and
does
that
parcel
help
us
meet
our
resilience,
I
mean
or
what
we're
doing
on
this
parcel.
A
Does
that
help
us
meet
our
resilience
goals
or
flood
mitigation
goals
or
floodplain
preservation
goals?
None
of
that
actually
gets.
It's
not
all
integrated
at
all.
So
we
just
end
up
doing
these
little
piecemeal
things
and
so
I
think.
If
anything,
maybe
we
could
make
some
kind
of
recommendation
to
the
city
to
look
at
integrating
our
resilience
efforts
with
our
planning
efforts
and
our
utilities
stormwater
efforts,
something
like
that.
I
I
mean
just
in
defense
of
staff
I
think
they
do
a
lot
of
that
stuff
that
we
don't
see
because
what
we
see
your
permit
applications,
and
so
we
only
see
the
piece
of
this
where
someone's
asked
for
something.
So
we
don't
really
see
the
behind
the
scenes,
integration
and
stuff
and
I
think
a
lot
of
it's
been
done
or
is
being
done,
but
it's
not
all
done
yet
well.
B
Attachment
a
shows,
the
let's
see
the
mitigation
plans
of
Gregory
Creek
with
all
with
the
different
culverts,
etc,
and,
and
so
that
was
helpful,
so
I
do
have
a
Eduard
when
he
just
was
responding
to
one
of
the
questions
said.
Well,
that's
a
policy
issue,
so
I
guess
my
question
is:
is.
F
If
you
don't
mind,
I'll
address
that
first
and
Chris
can
add.
There
are
several
different
mechanisms.
There
there's
not
necessarily
a
specific
work
program
to
the
level
of
detail
of
specifics
in
these
regs,
but
there
is
a
kickoff
that
has
recently
started
with
utilities
on
the
comprehensive
of
flood
and
storm
water
management
program.
I
may
have
that
name
slightly
off
anyway.
That
has
been
started,
and
that
starts
actually
with
the
rap
the
water
resource
advisory
board.
F
That's
what
helps
to
take
a
look
at
again
those
policy
level,
setting
items
that
we
would
then
turn
into
additional
work
programs
to
implement
such
as
updates
good
new
portions
to
the
code.
We
certainly
review
the
floodplain
regulations
on
a
somewhat
regular
basis
as
a
part
of
the
audit
process
through
the
community
rating
system
and
the
National
Flood
Insurance
Program,
and
through
ensuring
we're
complying
both
with
that
and
with
the
state
minimum
requirements.
F
As
I'm
aware,
the
last
major
overall
is
the
one
we've
discussed
the
2013
that
added
the
critical
facilities,
but
we
would
point
out
is
it
would
definitely
be
a
fairly
large
work
item
to
talk
about
making
some
very
significant
changes
to
floodplain
regulations,
acknowledging
that
in
the
neighborhood
of
thirty
to
thirty
five
percent
of
the
city
is
located
within
the
floodplain
and
for
good
or
bad
reasons.
Only
that
to
the
policymakers
to
decide.
B
F
They're
still
working
on
the
process
for
all
of
that
update,
similar
to
other
master
plans
and
it'll,
have
engagement
processes
through
the
RAB
I
suspect
that
they
will
have
other
community
engagements
they're
really
in
the
initial
stages
of
kicking
off
this
master
plan,
update
I
mean-
and
it's
not,
unlike
updates
to
say,
the
open
space
master
plan.
That's
ongoing.
Now
we
have
said
he
has
lots
of
different
master
plans
for
different
things,
and
this
is
one
of
the
utility
ones
that
happens
to
now
be
up
for
its
next
renewal.
O
N
O
N
O
J
Thanks
what
would
it
take
to
get
that
to
be
part
of
our
criteria,
who
controls
that
Ryan
to
give
what
to
be
a
part
of
our
criteria?
These
considerations
that
currently
are
not
resiliency,
for
example,
what's
the
process
weight
by
not
using
a
specific
example?
What's
the
process
by
which
criteria
are
altered
to
include
more
information
as
it
becomes
available
as
we
evolved
as
a
as
a
as
a
city
and
as
a
people
for.
A
B
C
As
the
as
the
fellow
who
called
this
up,
I
I'd
like
to
say
I,
think
that,
as
mentioned
before,
I
think
that
this
does
meet
the
existing
criteria
and
rules.
So
I
agree
with
staffs
decision
on
that.
However,
I
think
it
is
our
job
to
recommend
strongly
both
to
staff
and
to
council
that
a
review
of
these
criteria
take
place
and
also
consideration
of
how
the
criteria
are
put
into
effect
and
enforced.
I
do
not
think
that
it
would
be
unreasonable
for
these
a
condition
to
be
placed
on
this
require.
C
You
know
record
that
that
when
an
easement
is
desired
by
the
city,
when
the
city
has
determined
what
is
appropriate,
that
that
this
would
be
done
by
by
the
applicant.
But
Haleh
tells
me
that
we
can't
place
that
condition
on
on
it
tonight.
But
I
would
like
to
raise
a
big
red
flag
on
that
and
recommend
that
the
city
be
very
proactive
in
determining
what
sort
of
easements
it
wants,
get
those
dimensions
out
there,
and
then
we
can
start
asking
for
them,
as
in
connection
with
applications
in
the
floodplain
I'll.
C
C
A
J
A
K
J
C
The
same
thing
I
moved
to
approve
the
floodplain
development.
Permit
number
Lu
are
two
zero
one:
seven
dash
zero
zero
zero.
Four
five
attached
to
this
memorandum,
as
attachment
be
subject
to
the
conditions
of
approval
shown
on
such
permit
with
the
following
update
to
the
flood
vents
condition
to
read,
provide
flood
openings
that
automatically
equalize
the
hydrostatic
flood
forces
in
accordance
with
section
nine
three:
three:
a
18
B
of
the
Boulder
Revised
Code
and
the
floodplain
development
permit
that
was
issued
for
this
project
and
adopt
this
memorandum
as
findings
of
fact.
I'll.
Second,.
I
A
B
A
D
A
H
B
O
H
N
B
B
D
A
H
B
Can
I
say
something?
Yes,
thank
you
to
them
and
for
for
being
so
engaged
in
the
Gregory
Creek
floodplain
issues
over
I
think
you
said
since
2004
that's
great
and
thank
you
very
much
for
doing
that,
because
I
got
the
sense
from
your
presentation
that
you
fully
understood
all
the
issues
that
have
been
involved
and
I'm
sure
you're
going
to
continue
to
be
involved
and.
A
A
A
B
H
H
I
P
F
Gonna
transition
after
this
from
the
flood
world
to
your
sub
community
planning
world,
set
that
up.
If
you
I'm
gonna,
give
you
the
very
brief
update
on
Cu
south
and
the
annexation
process,
and
we
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
board
was
aware
of
this
information.
Originally,
this
was
planned
to
be
at
your
meeting
on
the
24th,
which
has
been
cancelled.
Hence
you
have
me
giving
this
update
rather
than
the
project
staff
tonight,
because
they
were
not
scheduled
to
be
here
so
I'm
gonna
give
you
the
information
that
they
provided
to
me.
F
If
you
have
questions,
I
may
not
necessarily
be
able
to
answer
them,
but
we
will
get
answers
for
you.
So,
as
you
know,
cu-boulder
has
been
working
toward
submitting
an
annexation
application
for
the
property
known
as
to
use
south
for
some
time.
Based
on
conversations,
we
believe
this
application
will
be
based
on
the
guiding
principles
that
were
in
the
2015
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan.
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussion,
of
course,
that
created
those
in
towards
this
annexation.
F
On
October
9th,
the
City
Council
had
a
study
session
where
they
did
direct
staff
to
pursue
the
pursue.
The
annexation
process
and
in
a
sequence
that
was
parallel
with
the
preliminary
in
hearing
in
the
flood
mitigation
process,
and
that
would
include
more
Council
board
and
community
engagement
than
we
typically
have
an
annexation
process.
F
The
sequence
would
mean
the
annexation
application
would
likely
not
be
brought
before
the
Planning
Board
here,
nor
the
City
Council
for
approval
until
2020
that
having
been
said
in
October,
some
council
members
have
expressed
an
interest
in
considering
the
annexation
application
this
summer
or
early
fall,
see
who's
agreed
to
expedite
its
application
in
some
middle
in
order
in
order
to
facilitate
the
earlier
schedule.
If
that
becomes
the
desire
or
the
full
council
for
recent
communications
with
Cu
staff,
it
appears
they
may
be
making
this
application.
F
Yet
this
month
on,
February
5th
city
staff
is
going
to
be
providing
City
Council,
with
updates
on
both
the
flood
mitigation
project
and
the
annexation.
The
flood
mitigation
project
team
will
be
providing
more
information
to
Council
on
the
design
aspects
of
the
project
that
might
affect
or
be
affected
by
the
future
annexation
discussions
between
the
city
and
cu-boulder
prior
to
beginning
community
discussions
around
those
issues.
F
These
issues
could
include
the
extent
to
which
the
project
footprint
would
need
to
excavate
on
the
public
or
Oso
land-use
areas
of
the
Cu
South
Area,
to
mitigate
to
the
500-year
storm
for
council's
most
recent
direction.
As
a
part
of
that,
the
planning
staff
will
also
present
for
councils
consideration
a
potential
modified
annexation
process
that
could
enable
the
application
to
be
considered
by
and
voted
on
by,
the
Planning
Board
and
City
Council.
F
In
mid
this,
your
staff
will
discuss
the
benefits
and
trade-offs
of
that
approach
versus
the
annexation
process
that
was
described
in
the
previous
october
9th
study
session
and
see
seek
feedback
and
nick
steps
from
the
council.
Once
we
hear
that,
we
will
of
course
follow
up
with
the
Planning
Board
after
the
City
Council
meeting
oral
I
would
relay
what
we've
heard
in
what
the
next
steps
are.
So
that's
the
general
update
of
where
we
are
in
case.
You
should
hear
more
about
it.
I
Sounds
great
thing
said:
I'm
curious,
I
mean
first
off.
We
can
obviously
ask
editing
questions
we'd
like
to
ask.
We
could
also
email
the
proper
city
staff,
who
are
maybe
more
in
front
of
the
project
after
this,
and
if
you
want
more
detailed
information
that
might
not
put
ed
on
the
stylus
by
quite
so
much
and.
F
I
would
also
say
they
are
working
on
the
staff
memo
for
the
council
February
session
and
we'll
be
done
with
that.
Probably
sooner
rather
than
later,
that
will
be
publicly
posted
would
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
at
that
because
it
will
have
some
and
it's
considerable
amount
of
information
related
to
both
the
mitigation
planning
efforts,
as
they
are
into
some
of
this
annexation
process.
Discussion
that.
I
B
F
F
So
Chris
is
actually
not
participating
in
this
because
he
has
a
conflict.
Phil
Kleiser
in
comprehensive
planning
has
taken
a
lead
on
the
planning
side,
but
there's
also
a
lead.
In
the
utilities
side,
I
mean
in
the
project
management.
Science
was
not
necessarily
a
single
point
of
contact
and
the
project.
Overall,
he
has
taken
the
lead
in
the
process:
management
for
the
annexation,
so.
B
F
I
can
address
that
first
and
how
I
can
certainly
chime
in
on
the
legal
side.
So
what
is
being
looked
at
in
terms
of
the
revised
comes
down
to
how
much
community
and
board
engagement
can
be
completed
in
that
short
period
of
time,
not
the
Lea
aspects
of
the
code
or
the
state
requirements
for
the
annexation
process.
So
the
original
process
discussed
in
October
had
a
fairly
lengthy
period
of
time
for
that
engagement
period,
and
that
was
the
direction
of
council
at
that
point.
F
B
A
Q
I'm
Kathleen
king
and
I'm,
the
senior
planner
with
the
comprehensive
planning
team,
and
we
met
back
in
September
when
we
talked
about
sub
community
planning,
then
so.
Thank
you
for
having
me
back
tonight.
I'm
excited
to
be
here
to
speak
with
you
about
sub
community
planning
and
to
work
with
this
group
to
move
the
project
forward.
Q
We're
gonna
break
tonight's
discussion
into
two
parts,
I'd
like
to
start
by
finishing
up
the
conversation
we
started
in
September
regarding
the
foundational
elements
of
the
sub
community
planning
program
and
get
your
feedback
and
direction
on
those
pieces.
First.
So
first
we'll
talk
about
what
we're
planning
for
the
scope,
community,
engagement
and
schedule
of
these
kinds
of
plans
and
then
move
into
a
discussion
about
boundary
revisions
and
where,
to
start
our
planning.
Q
Q
So
the
questions
for
the
first
half
of
our
discussion
are:
do
you
find
the
six
phases
of
the
scope
of
work
appropriate
and
does
the
board
agree
with
the
proposed
approach
for
Community
Engagement?
So
we'll
start
with
scope?
Our
team
had
a
lot
of
great
resources
to
to
gather
a
scope
of
work
for
the
sub
Community
Planning
program,
the
North
Boulder
sub
Community
Plan,
and
the
post
plan
process
evaluation.
Some
of
the
plans
from
the
National
case
studies
that
we
looked
at
in
September
and
some
other
past
and
ongoing
planning
efforts
in
the
city.
Q
We
also
met
with
staff
from
many
other
city
departments
to
find
out
how
sub
community
plans
could
support
their
work,
and
what
we
found
was
that
it's
going
to
be
important
for
the
future
scope
of
work.
For
sub
community
plans
to
achieve
three
major
goals,
the
scope
of
work
should
help
implement
the
goals
of
the
BBC
P,
as
well
as
the
department
master
plans.
Q
Q
The
next
phase
is
inventory
and
analysis.
This
phase
is
all
about
gathering
information
from
our
internal
data
outside
sources,
then,
most
importantly
from
the
residents,
landowners,
business
owners
and
other
stakeholders
whose
quality
of
life
can
be
impacted
by
these
plans.
This
phase
will
deliver
a
previous
plans
memo
which
will
help
us
understand
what
opportunities
and
constraints
we'll
be
working
with
based
on
prior
work,
as
well
as
an
inventory
and
analysis
report.
Q
Next,
we'll
take
some
of
those
concepts
and
play
them
out
to
test
what
the
impacts
might
be.
So
an
example
of
this
kind
of
scenario.
Testing
would
be
what
if
we
change
the
land
use
of
a
block
from
industrial
to
residential.
Well,
look
at
the
impacts
to
traffic
parking
schools
and
any
other
key
issues
that
may
be
defined
by
the
sub
community
goals
and
objectives,
we'll
work
with
stakeholders
to
fully
develop
a
couple
of
options
and
then
collect
feedback
from
the
community
about
what
they're
interested
in
seeing
move
forward.
Q
The
final
phase
of
work
we
plan
documentation,
and
hopefully,
adoption
and
I
like
to
include
this
in
a
scope,
because,
while
a
lot
of
the
work
will
be
documented
throughout
the
process,
packaging
it
all
together
and
going
through
a
series
of
review
cycles
as
time
consuming
and
I
think
it
helps
to
identify
this
upfront
and
be
clear
about
the
time
commitments
that
this
effort
takes.
So
we'll
go
through
a
couple
of
draft
and
review
cycles
for
the
plan
document
and
we're
also
talking
about
how
to
create
some
more
interactive
web
pages.
Q
We've
been
working
with
a
couple
of
different
departments,
in
particular
the
city
manager's
office
and
the
engagement
staff
there.
We
believe
that
sub
Community
Planning
offers
an
excellent
opportunity
to
really
operate
in
this
collaborate
space
of
the
spectrum.
This
means
that
stakeholders
will
really
direct
a
lot
of
the
ideas
and
recommendations
for
the
future
of
a
sub
Community
Plan,
and
will
collaborate
with
staff
boards
and
council
to
identify
how
their
sub
community
will
meet
citywide
goals.
Q
This
kind
of
process
takes
a
lot
of
time
for
both
staff
and
the
entire
community,
who
will
have
a
say
in
how
these
areas
evolve
with
the
city.
It's
a
lot
of
work
to
develop
material
and
establish
multiple
lines
of
communication,
and
it's
also
asking
a
lot
of
stakeholders
to
participate,
but
this
kind
of
a
process
can
also
be
really
fun
and
it
provides
a
lot
of
great
benefits
for
the
outcomes
of
the
plan,
so
it's
a
great
a
great
place
to
sort
of
operate
from.
Q
So
while
there
are
six
phases
of
work,
we
really
see
three
major
stages
for
community
engagement,
that
ask
and
answer
the
questions.
Who
are
you
so
as
an
example?
Who
is
central
Boulder?
Who
do
you
want
to
be
and
how
do
we
get
there?
These
are
the
big
questions
that
will
depend
on
stakeholders
to
help
answer
the
who
are
you
stage
aligns
with
phases
one
and
two
of
the
scope
and
will
help
us
complete
the
picture
about
each
sub
community.
We
anticipate
phases,
1
&
2
will
take
about
14
weeks.
Q
Who
do
you
want
to
be
stage,
will
help
develop
concepts
and
inform
scenario
testing?
This
will
take
some
time
and
we
anticipate
the
phases
3
&
4,
to
be
complete
within
22
weeks.
How
do
we
get
there
stage
will
be
the
hard
work
of
identifying
paths
towards
implementation
and
should
take
12
weeks,
we're
also
building
in
14
weeks
for
planned
documentation,
web
page
development
and
a
four
week
public
review
and
comment
period.
Q
The
work
plan
we've
built
for
a
sub
Community
Plan,
anticipates
a
sixteen
sixteen
month
production
schedule
with
an
additional
eight
weeks,
built
into
the
plan
to
provide
time
for
review
and
iteration
cycles
and
alignment
with
board
and
Council
schedules.
We
believe
we
can
complete
a
sub
Community
Plan
in
18
months,
so
I
would
love
to
hear
your
feedback
on
kind
of
this
first
piece
talking
about
scope
and
Community,
Engagement
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
have.
A
O
A
O
You
have
criteria
in
the
code
in
the
site,
review
criteria
to
find
consistency
with
the
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan
or,
if
there's
in
certain
areas.
If
there's
an
adopted,
sub
community
plan
or
area
plan,
you
have
code
criteria
asking
is
that
is
this
proposal,
this
development
proposal
consistent
with
those
policy
documents,
and
so
we
would
handle
any
other
sub
community
plans
similar
to
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
plans,
so
you'd
have
a
criteria
based
link
in
the
code.
This
policy
document,
okay,.
A
That's
when
I
was
getting
at
because
some
it's
I
mean
it
could
be
just
a
simple
set
of
guidelines,
for
example,
and
not
something
that
would
necessarily
help
or
something
that
people
could
actually
count
on.
I
think
that's
critical,
for
people
to
be
engaged
is
to
know
that
the
plan
is
going
to
actually
be
invoked
when
projects
are
reviewed
and
that
the
projects
are
going
to
have
to
comply
with
the
plan
so
and
I
don't
know,
I
didn't
get
that.
That
was
going
to
be
clear
to
the
public
I
think.
A
A
B
Want
to
say,
I
was
glad
to
see
that
you
added
under
collaborate
that
you
added
you
broadened
the
groups
to
collaborate
with
that.
First,
it
said
Nate
neighborhoods
and
then
you
add
business
and
community
members
and
other
stakeholders,
so
I
know
that
that
wasn't
in
the
council,
packet
and
I
think
that
they
brought
that
up.
So
thank
you
for
doing
that
and
then
you
said,
you're
gonna,
look
at
other
plans
as
part
of
the
review
for
each
of
these
stakeholder
groups.
B
I
just
want
to
think
about
the
downtown
Alliance,
which
was
conducted
a
number
of
years
ago.
Molly
winter
was
the
staff
person
and
although
she's
retired
she's
around
and
Nolan
Roselle,
who
was
the
former
planning
director
I,
believe
his
firm
handled
a
lot
of
that.
But
any
time
you
can
get
agreement
when
you've
got
four
big
neighborhoods
downtown
property
owners,
downtown
businesses,
historic
preservationist,
and
they
agree
on
something
I
think
it's
worth
a
look
to
and
even
to
interview
the
people
that
are
still
around
that
we're
involved
in
that.
C
A
Q
Not
included
later
in
the
presentation,
but
it's
something
that
I've
had
some
great
conversations
with
the
community
engagement
staff
about
where,
as
part
of
the
engagement
process
for
these
plans,
that
would
be
kind
of
the
educational
piece
would
be
really
important
to
teach
people
about
different
ways
that
they
can
be
involved
at
this
sort
of
stage
of
planning
and,
as
you
sort
of
mentioned,
what
what
those
impacts
of
your
involvement
are.
Yeah.
A
I
I
So
thanks
for
having
some
good
discernment
I
think
it's
really
great
to
see
the
tours,
especially
in
there
I
really
want
to
sort
of
focus
on
those,
because
I
think
that
kind
of
engagements
really
effective,
where
you
can
actually
walk
around
with
folks
and
get
the
kinds
of
feedback
that
can
be
rated
back
to
other
processes
like
safe
routes
to
school
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff.
You
know
you'll
you'll
get
like.
I
Oh,
my
kids
have
a
hard
time
crossing
the
street
here
when
you'll
get
stories
about
what
used
to
happen
in
this
house
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
and
I
think
it's
really
really
informative.
It's
also
community
building
because
we
go
doing
it
together
and
the
world
is
a
very
strong
piece
of
the
process
even
invented
here
and
I.
Do
really
appreciate
that
the
umbrella
assumption
of
the
whole
thing
is:
how
do
we
house
your
neighborhood
at
the
same
time,
figure
out
what
it
wants
to
be
and
implement
the
BBC
P
larger
goals?
I
I
think
that's
really
important,
underpinning
the
whole
thing
and
then
the
other
thing
I
think
that's
really
critical.
Is
that
you
stick
to
the
18-month
or
whatever
if
it's
a
two-month.
That
sounds
great
process,
because
people
need
to
have
a
predictable
series
of
events
that
you
stick
to.
Otherwise
they
start
to
feel
like
everything's
a
morphus,
and
you
aren't
really
gonna
do
the
things
you
say
you
do
and
they
lose
trust
in
the
process.
So
I
think
it's
important
to
be
fairly
crisp
about
that.
I
Q
I
will
keep
moving.
So
let's
talk
about
boundaries
now
I'm
going
to
present
some
information
and
recommendations
on
potential
revisions
to
the
existing
boundaries
and
some
thoughts
about
where
we
might
begin
the
work
to
start
I
just
want
to
make
clear
how
we
use
the
boundaries
in
planning
boundaries,
help
us
identify
an
area
of
study
and
they
provide
a
defined
area
from
which
we
can
extract
data
for
analysis
beyond
that.
Q
Sub
community
boundaries
in
Boulder
do
not
have
a
regulatory
function
and
we
are
not
limited
to
only
places
or
spaces
within
those
lines
when
we
conduct
a
sub
community
plan,
so
here
are
the
existing
boundaries
for
the
ten
sub
communities.
When
we
last
met,
we
talked
about
the
critical
nature
of
revising
boundaries.
Planning
Board
did
not
find
revisions
necessary
to
the
success
of
the
program.
Q
The
council
gave
us
some
direction
to
explore
potential
revisions
to
the
existing
boundaries,
with
particular
attention
to
the
eastern
sub
communities,
so
some
best
practices
for
drawing
boundaries
in
areas
are
you
don't
want
to
create?
I'm?
Sorry,
you
want.
Any
area
is
created
to
be
relatively
compact.
You
don't
want
too
many
sort
of
extremities.
You
want
the
areas
created
to
be,
can
take
you
contiguous,
so
you
don't
want
to
cross
back
and
forth
between
two
sub
communities.
Q
It's
helpful
to
have
areas
that
are
created
to
have
pretty
similar
population
numbers,
and
you
don't
want
to
divide
neighborhoods
or
parcels
into
more
than
one
sub
community.
Our
team
took
a
look
at
the
land
use
designations
across
the
city
as
related
to
the
boundaries,
as
well
as
the
current
zoning.
Q
Then
we
zoomed
into
the
eastern
side
of
the
city
and
studied
a
few
factors
that
could
influence
the
boundaries,
land
cover
and
parcel
patterns,
census,
tracts
natural
assets
such
as
parks
and
open
space,
but
also
the
hydrology
of
the
area
and
any
related
wetlands.
We
took
a
look
at
neighborhood
boundaries
from
a
couple
of
perspectives
and
also
Dovan
to
some
of
the
data
indicating
change.
This
includes
property
sales,
new
certificates
of
occupancy,
planned
capital
improvements,
as
well
as
completed
and
ongoing
planning
work.
We
also
just
got
out
there.
Q
We
took
a
couple
of
drives
through
this
region
of
the
city,
walked
around
some
of
the
neighborhoods
shopping
areas
and
neighborhood
centers.
To
get
a
better
sense
of
this
side
of
town,
our
team
iterated
around
12
different
options,
narrowed
that
down
to
the
three
alternatives
included
in
the
packet
and
then
developed.
These
proposed
revisions
for
the
current
boundaries
and
I'll
talk
through
each
of
our
recommended
provisions.
Q
So
the
first
is
to
reflect
the
eastern
zone
of
influence
of
the
university.
We
recommend
expanding
the
Colorado
University
southeastern
boundary
from
Colorado
Avenue
to
bear
Canyon
Creek.
Then
we
propose
realigning
the
boundary
between
crossroads
and
East
Boulder
from
the
BNSF
rail
tracks
out
to
Foothills
Parkway,
and
this
aligns
with
the
transit
village
area
boundaries.
Q
We
also
proposed
connecting
the
paylo
Park
residential
neighborhoods,
with
their
local
neighborhood
center,
realigning
the
southern
boundary
from
Colorado
119
to
Belmont
Road.
This
also
applies
to
the
neighborhood's
west
of
the
airport.
We
pushed
the
boundary
of
the
paylo
Park
region
out
to
airport
road
finally
to
incorporate
all
area
to
land
that
is
not
open
space.
We
added
the
Norwood
neighborhood
to
the
central
Boulder
sub-community.
Q
Q
We
looked
at
the
outcomes
of
the
2018
east
arapahoe
transportation
plan
and
the
2016
Uli
technical
advisory
panel
report
for
the
55th
and
Arapaho
area,
which
also
provided
some
context
about
the
future
of
neighborhoods,
north
and
south
of
Arapaho,
and
then
a
lot
of
interest
and
great
work
has
been
done
to
understand
some
opportunities
at
the
55th
and
Arapaho
intersection.
Though
Boulder
and
coordination
with
planning
staff
has
recently
submitted
an
application
for
a
dr.
cog
grant
to
develop
a
55th
and
Arapaho
station
area
master
plan
as
a
next
step
to
the
east
arapahoe
transportation
plan.
Q
This
master
plan
would
provide
guidance
for
this
area
into
the
future
and
coordinate
potential
interest
for
changes
with
plans
for
a
regional
transportation
hub
and
streetscape
improvements
and
I
actually
just
heard
a
couple
of
hours
ago
today
that
the
dr.
cog
staff
is
recommending
that
we
get
awarded
$200,000
to
conduct
this
study
and
we'll
find
out
I
think
at
the
end
of
February,
whether
we
receive
that
order
or
not
so
that's
really
exciting
mm-hmm.
Q
So
the
recommendations
results
in
this
proposed
diagram
I
want
to
get
your
feedback
on
these,
but
there's
just
two
more
slides
and
then
I'll
open
it
up
to
talking
about
those
boundary
revisions.
The
last
piece
of
the
puzzle
is
related
to
prioritization
and
selecting
a
sub
community
to
be.
The
first
area
for
planning
in
September
council
indicated
that
identifying
areas
undergoing
change
would
be
a
primary
factor
in
prioritizing
sub-communities.
So
we
looked
at
a
couple
of
indicators
and
classified
them
based
on
data
sources.
Q
So
the
hard
numbers
for
things
like
residential
demolitions,
property
sales
and
certificates
of
occupancy
are
described
as
areas
with
evidence
of
change
areas.
Planning
for
change
include
parts
of
the
city
that
have
recently
completed
or
currently
undergoing
planning
exercises,
and
then
areas
of
describe
change
highlight
areas
like
55th
and
Arapaho,
as
we
just
discussed,
which
have
been
described
by
council
as
areas
experiencing
change.
Q
We
studied
all
of
these
issues,
citywide
based
on
the
proposed
sub
community
boundaries
and
recommend
the
following
three
sub
communities
as
priority
areas
for
planning,
East
Boulder
would
be
the
first
followed
by
pelo
park
and
then
central
Boulder,
and
so
we're
kind
of
prioritizing
these.
As
you
know,
there
would
be
a
planning
project
on
the
course
there's
somebody
in
the
gate
and
then
there's
somebody
on
deck
and
so
again,
I'd
like
to
open
it
back
up
for
input
on
the
recommended
boundaries
and
the
prioritized
sub
communities.
Q
A
Thank
you.
Can
you
bring
the
let's
talk
about
boundaries?
First,
if
that's,
okay
confirming
that,
so
that's
the
proposed
boundaries.
Now
you
took
this
to
Council,
that's
the
other
day.
Is
that
right,
yeah
Tuesday
night
is
this?
Does
this
reflect
their
feedback?
Yes,
okay,
and
so
there's
no
a
and
B
anymore.
Is
that
right,
that's
gone!
That's
right!
Okay,.
A
J
A
I
mean
you
may
have
one
area
that
is
where
preservation
is,
the
neighbors
have
come
out
and
said:
preservation
is
a
high
priority
for
them,
say
it's
a
Whittier,
neighborhood
or
mm-hmm
the
Uni
hill
neighborhood
or
you
know
there
are
a
number
of
old
schools
or
even
not
so
old
schools
where
people
feel
really
invested
in
their
school.
So
if
you're
have
a
neighborhood
plan
that
just
splits
the
attendance
area,
I
could
see
you
would
have.
You
could
have
this
mismatch.
So
one.
A
J
J
No
I
also
my
kids
at
horizons
now
and
it's
an
open
enrollment,
and
so
we
are
all
over
the
city
and
that's
the
bug
in
a
feature
of
an
open,
enrollment
school
we're
not
in
the
neighborhood
school
anymore,
which
was
really
difficult.
But
now
we
have
new
friends
all
over
the
city.
So
and
I
don't
see
that
as
a
we
don't
talk
about
our
sub
community
plans,
mm-hmm.
D
B
Crystal
I
think
that
was
a
good
point
lives
and
what
it,
what
how
I
see
it
playing
out
is
it's
just
another
way
to
help
inform
people,
because
the
schools
are
a
huge
communication
and,
and
one
of
the
items
thunder
collaborate
that
I
know
you
spoke
with
the
City
Council
about
was
people
adjacent
to
the
to
the
to
the
sub
communities.
You
could
have
a
voice,
and
so
this
is
an
example
of
how
you
might
do
some
additional
outreach.
B
That's
how
I
see
the
boundaries
and
also
how
kids
are
getting
to
school
from
what
you
know,
because
we
do
have
open
enrollment
from
all
over,
so
it's
not
just
contained
within
a
sub
community.
The
other
question
I
have
is,
when
you
start
the
sub
communities.
Will
you
ask
the
question
of
people?
Did
we
get
the
boundaries
correct
or
is
this
the
final?
These
are
the
boundaries.
Q
Q
B
Actually,
the
residential
goes
across
into
what's
called
crossroads
in
it
and
it's
a
wonderful
little
neighborhood
there
and
people
have
actually
been
allowed
to
do
the
Adu
detached
and
they
have
been
doing
them.
It's
really.
The
neighborhood
is
really
changed
and
is
quite
stable
and
with
the
Mapleton
mobile
home
park
in
there
they
they
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
residential
character
than
the
rest
of
the
crossroads.
B
So
that's
why
you
know
central
Boulder
is
down
the
road
a
bit
as
far
as
your
planning,
but
if
you
know
that
might
those
little
tiny
things
might
make
sense,
but
those
people
can
come
to
the
central,
Boulder
and
say
hey.
This
affects
us
and
yeah
I
think
that
I
might
but
it'd
be
nice
to
be
able
to
have
gotten
some
of
these
little
things
ironed
out
yeah
before
they
were
finalized
yeah.
B
Q
Yeah
I
think
as
part
of
the
sub
community
planning
process
it'll
be
important
to
identify
the
different
neighborhoods
that
maybe
are
within
the
boundaries,
and
they
want
to
make
sure
that
their
voice
as
a
neighborhood
and
identity
as
a
neighborhood
is,
is
made
really
clear
and
in
the
sub
community
plan,
and
there
might
be
people
adjacent
to
or
outside
the
boundaries
of
the
lines
on
the
map
for
for
a
sub
community
that
really
feel
a
part
of
that
area
and
want
to
make
sure
that
they
participate
and
I.
Don't
I.
Q
I
Had
are
you
than
that
too?
So
I
appreciate
the
way
this
has
been
laid
out
and
I
think
it
does
a
good
job
of
distinguishing
distinguishing
between
roads
that
are
dividers
and
roads
that
are
characters
like
Broadway
is
not
a
east/west.
Separator
and
xx
is
not
a
east/west
up
right
here,
but
Arapaho
is
I,
think
there's
so
many
good
stuff.
That's
built
into
that
I
do
think.
There's
like
a
little
bit
of
a
problem
with
how
you
consider
corridor
planning
on
in
this
approach,
because
you
really
have
multiple
things
happening.
I
I
Q
Q
Q
O
J
J
I
second
Brian
said
I
know
crystals
up,
but
the
only
comment
I
really
have
I,
like
that
crossroads
east
Boulder,
Paulo
park
being
together
and
figuring
that
side
out
I.
Think
your
point
on
renovation
permits
is
different
than
real
development
pattern.
Changes
is
huge,
so
I
I
like
that
idea.
A
lot
just
makes
sense
to
me.
Okay,.
C
I
agree
with
Peter
and
and
Brian's
comments
about
about
combining
pale
apart
in
Crossroads,
and
the
other
point
that
I
would
like
to
stress
also
is
the
of
not
using
the
roads
as
dividing
lines
between
neighborhoods
I.
Think
Brian
made
that
point
also,
it
seems
to
me
most
reasonable
to
use
other
characteristic.
The
land
use
characteristics
of
some
type
to
define
the
neighborhood
rather
than
a
road
with
with
similar
types
of
development
on
both
sides
of
the
road
and
I.
I
also
think
that
use
of
elementary
school
raising
areas
or.
C
The
other
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
was
in
with
respect
to
the
prioritization
of
which,
which
neighborhoods
come
first,
it
seems
to
me,
uni
Hill
is
an
area
where
there's
a
tremendous
amount
of
attention
and
concern
and
proposals
for
various
actions,
but
but
we
don't
really
have
the
master
idea.
That
would
be
very
useful
to
help
us
with
with
those
proposals,
so
I'd
like
to
see
uni
Hill
as
one
of
the
early
plan
areas
so.
B
I
B
I
actually
I
mean
I,
do
agree
with
that
and
I
think
that's
a
good
suggestion,
and
one
of
the
main
reasons
is
you
know:
wilderness
playsets
in
Phase,
two
of
the
transit
village
and
that's
an
area
that
contains
a
whole
lot
of
small
local
businesses
and
I
do
get
concerned
that
that's
gonna
get
overrun
before
we
do
any
good
planning
and
we
displace
those
wonderful
businesses
that
are
in
the
wilderness
place.
You
know,
sometimes,
when
you're
out
there
take
a
look
and
and
count
the
number
of
businesses.
I
O
Phase
2
of
the
trans
village
area
plan,
we've
done
the
planning
for
it.
We
just
have
not
initiated
land-use
map
or
zoning
code
changes
yet
and
in
the
implementation
plan
for
teve
app.
What
it
says
is
we
we
would
start
on
phase
2
once
there's.
First,
substantial
completion
of
phase
1,
which
we're
pretty
close
to
but
the
second
is.
We
really
need
a
financing
plan
for
the
public
improvements
that
will
be
necessary,
which
we
do
not
have
right
now
or
any
funding
for
that.
So
we
haven't
made
any
of
the
zoning
changes
to
that
area.
B
J
J
We're
so
divorced
from
our
food,
yet
we
need
it
and
we
get
it
in
plastic
bags.
Usually
it
cost
your
stores
and
that's
where
we
also
see
each
other
and
I.
Think
overlaying,
where
we
go
to
get
our
food
is
a
really
interesting
way
to
also
show
where
community
is
and
where
all
and
always
be,
because
I
see
my
neighbors
around
the
grocery
stores
near
our
house
and
to
have
an
area
I
just
think.
If
that
would
be
a
great
overlay
to
look
at.
Q
I
think
certainly
sort
of
food
sheds
is
is
one
aspect
and
a
big
piece
of
what
we
looked
at
when
we
were
considering
revisions
to
the
boundaries
for
the
15
minute
neighborhoods
and
what
areas
of
the
city
don't
currently
have
access
to
daily
services.
So
things
like
a
grocery
store
within
15
minutes
of
their
home
and
so
that
that
paleo
Park
area
was
definitely
a
part
of
that
region.
It.
O
Was
actually
really
interesting,
as
we
were
looking
at
the
twelve
different
options
of
boundaries,
we
had
brainstorm.
That's
a
part
of
the
genuine
conversation
we
had
we're
talking
to
folks
that
lived
in
different
sub
communities
and
the
questions
were
well
where
to
go
the
grocery
store.
If
you
have
to
run
out
and
grab
some
food,
real,
quick
at
a
restaurant
which,
where
do
you
go?
Where
do
you
drop
off
your
dry-cleaning
to
try
and
get
an
idea
of
well?
O
What
is
that
kind
of
travel,
15-minute,
neighborhood,
yeah,
neighborhood
center,
that
different
folks
use
and
we
were
trying
to
figure
out.
You
know
on
East
in
East
Boulder:
do
people
go
down
Meadows,
or
do
they
go
to
55th
and
Arapaho?
Do
they
go
all
the
way
to
the
King
Soopers
on
30th,
so
we
were
trying
to
tease
that
out
to
understand.
Could
that
inform
where
the
boundaries
should
be?
Is.
J
A
That
made
me
think
of
the
the
resilience
folks
too,
and
how
they
focus
so
much
on
community,
and
is
that
something
that
you
guys
have
thought
about
also
is
folks
that
would
be
affected
by
particular
advance
like
forest
fire
or
flood
or
whatever
being
in
a
community.
That's
you
know
defined
by
these
boundaries
so
that
they
can.
Q
C
Just
just
strikes
me
one
other
way
in
which
communities
form
is
around
irrigation,
ditches
and
speaking
as
a
member
of
one
of
those
communities
and
I
know
that
a
lot
of
town
doesn't
have
irrigation
ditches,
but
in
several
parts
of
town
they
do
exist
and
they
it's
necessary
to
have
a
strong
community
to
keep
the
ditch
functioning.
So
that's
one
one
aspect
of
community
to
consider
as
well.
Yeah.
Q
A
H
No,
this
is
a
brand
new,
huge
project
and
at
one
level
you
know
you'd,
like
community
input
on
what
that
project
ought
to
be,
and
at
another
level
that
project
doesn't
succeed
unless
it
looks
completely
different
from
most
of
the
rest
of
the
community
in
central
Boulder
central
Boulder
is
such
a
big
area.
It's
got,
you
know
the
most
of
the
central
business
district
in
it.
It's
also
got
tons
of
you
know,
ranch
scale,
ranch
style,
50s,
60s,
70s,
housing,
stock
and
fancy.
H
You
know
foothills
subdivisions
from
the
70s
and
80s
and
90s
places
that
have
just
recently
been
annexed
and
we're
in
the
county
until
you
know
two
years
ago,
places
that
have
mountain
lion,
attacks,
places
that
have
large
chain
stores.
It's
it's
just
the
most
diverse
place,
probably
in
the
whole
city
and
sort
of
try
to
you,
know,
get
all
that
under
the
roof
of
one
sub
community
plan
and
square
that
with
what's
supposed
to
be
a
really
inventive
and
innovative
and
new
part
of
the
community.
H
That's
going
to
be
developed
on
land
that
the
city
owns,
so
the
cities
kind
of
going
to
have
to
be
on
the
hook
for
listening
to
what
people
say
in
the
sub
community
planning
effort.
I
can
see
how
there
would
be
a
ton
of
cross
purposes
by
trying
to
do
the
two
at
the
same
time.
So
it's
just
a
warning
because
it's
thing
to
think
about
mm-hm.
B
D
A
A
C
I
I
think
Harmons
points
are
excellent
and
there
was
one
other
concern
that
I
had
about
both
the
prioritization
and
the
the
boundaries,
and
that
is
between
North
Boulder
and
central
Boulder.
Right
at
the
corner
of
iris
and
Broadway's
is
County
offices,
the
Health,
Department
and
so
on,
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
what
might
happen
in
on
that
County
land
in
the
future.
And
that's
right
on
the
you
know
it's
right
at
the
southern
edge
of
the
North
Boulder
area
that
you've
designated
there
and
just
outside
of
the
central
Boulder
district.
C
And
yet
what
happens?
There
may
be
of
greater
interest
to
the
central
central
Boulder
community
than
the
north
polar
community,
so
I'm.
Just
thinking
that,
although
I
don't
disagree
with
that
boundary,
it's
not
obvious
to
me
that
the
central
Boulder
area
should
receive
a
as
high
a
prioritization
in
the
as
shown
in
this
list
right
here.
A
Yeah
and
to
follow
up
on
that,
we
did
see.
There
was
a
fair
amount
of
work
done
on
a
court
or
a
plan
like
Brian
mentioned
for
Broadway.
You
know
there
was
an
inventory
done
and
the
you
know
some
workshops
and
that
kind
of
thing.
So
how
does
the
corridor
plan
for
North
Boulder
that
it
would
include
the
formal
former
county
mental
health
center,
whatever
still.
C
O
I
think
a
way
to
think
about
it
is
there's
different
layers,
so
sub
Community
Planning
is
kind
of
our
biggest
sub
area
planning
in
the
city.
Then
we
do
area
plans
and,
as
we
were
here
last
time
talking
about
sub
community
planning,
we
started
to
clarify
the
difference
between
a
sub
community
plan
in
an
area
plan.
The
area
plan
is
smaller,
so
like
Alpine,
balsam
or
transit,
Village
area
plan
or
I
think
in
this
case
say
the
Broadway
and
iris
site.
O
If
there's
an
idea
of
some
really
significant
change
there,
it
may
warrant
that
we
need
to
do
an
area
plan
for
that
area.
If
it's
just
a
little
bit
of
work
on
one
property,
maybe
it
doesn't
warrant
it,
but
area
plans
can
overlay
even
sub
community
boundaries
or
say
if
we
do
East
Boulder
first,
when
we
look
at
55th
and
Arapaho
we're
probably
gonna
we're
gonna
go
south
of
Arapaho,
even
though
the
lion
is
on
a
rapaho,
because
you
know
you
need
to
plan
the
whole
thing.
O
O
Q
A
I
J
A
C
Again,
I'd
like
to
see
you
needle
in
the
in
the
top
three
mix
at
the
expense
of
crossroads,
because
I
think
there's
been
so
much
done
already
on
the
in
the
Crossroads
area
but
I'm
you
know,
I,
don't
have
a
major
objection
to
crossroads.
It's
just
that
I'd
like
to
see
you
knee
hill
in
the
picture,
because
we
have
so
many
decisions
to
make
about
what
happens
there.
Charlie
we.
I
Just
just
to
push
back
just
a
tiny
bit,
not
so
much
to
argue
with
you
or
to
make
less
mad
at
me,
but
the
when
we
reviewed
projects
in
the
bve
RC.
That's
when
the
board
has
had
the
hardest
problem
working
with
the
existing
land
use
designations
in
the
area
plan
there.
So
that's
actually
been
a
priority.
We've
expressed
a
bunch
of
times
and
that's
that's
a
part
of
that
area.
I
just
want
to
point
that
out.
Okay.
A
The
three
priorities
that
you
had,
that
one
yeah
so
I
sort
of
agree
with
having
the
gosh
I
think
the
crossroads
area
has
the
potential
to
be
really
awful.
If
we
don't
have
a
plan
and
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
redevelopment
happening
and
we're
getting
lots
of
pretty
funky
stuff
happening
there
and
it
seems
like
it
would
really
benefit
from
a
plan.
A
I
don't
know
if
it's
if
a
community
plan
would
get
into
so
much
the
kind
of
architecture
and
things
like
that
that
and
uses,
maybe
it
would
that
a
form-based
code
type
of
plan
would
do
like
that.
That
would
be
my
preference
if
we
could
deal
with
the
form
based
code,
but
I
don't
see
that
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
as
much
appetite
for
that,
but
I
would
put
crossroads.
A
J
A
A
Don't
have
the
problem
with
central
Boulder
that
I
think
Harmon
has
because
I
saw
the
in
the
North
Boulder
sub
community
plan.
Even
the
sub
community
was
divided
into
a
bunch
of
neighborhoods
and
there
was
different
treatment
for
each
sort
of
area.
You
know,
depending
on
whether
it
was
more
rural
or
it
was
a
long,
broad
way
or
whatever
and
so
I
think
the
sub
community
plan
for
central
Boulder
could
be
subdivided
within
the
plan.
A
I'm
not
saying
separate
projects
or
anything,
but
within
the
plan
subdivided
so
that
it
was
tailored
to
the
different
areas
within
central
Boulder.
But
I
don't
see
as
much
sort
of
potential
disaster
there
as
I
do
at
the
crossroads
area,
so
yeah,
I,
I,
don't
know
I'm
just
gonna
say
crossroads.
Is
my
priority
and
I
don't
know
about
the
others,
reinforce.
I
One
thing
he
said:
I
totally
agree
with
what
you
said:
NASA
just
when
I
said,
I
think
it's
a
great
idea
to
contemplate
having
form
based
codes,
be
one
of
the
outcomes
of
this
process.
I
I
think
it's
really
good
for
some
parts
of
the
city
and
really
difficult
for
other
parts.
The
city
but
stuff
like
28th,
Street
and
30th,
running
from
crossroads
and
Apollo,
is
a
perfect
place
for
a
corridor
form
based
code.
H
Helps
out
with
your
concern
that
if
you
divide
neighborhoods
by
arteries,
the
Encarta
is
that
you
can
at
least
have
kind
of
semblance
of
planning
for
the
artery
or
the
corridor
that
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
reflect
the
rest
of
that
neighborhood
planner.
That's
a
community
plan
or
the
two
adjacent
sub
community
plans
that
need
to
be
reconciled.
Episodes
but
I
think
it
it
also.
H
It's
it's
a
place
that
has
a
ton
of
opportunities,
there's
a
real
disconnect
between
the
way
it
looks
and
its
property
values,
and
it's
a
it's
a
place
that
gets
more
visitation
by
tourists
and
and
people
who
you
know,
get
an
impression
of
Boulder
than
almost
anywhere
else.
It's
a
place
that
has
higher
crime
than
just
about
anywhere
else
and
I
think
having
a
guiding
document
and
working
with
the
university
to
help
develop
it
because
the
university
is
the
big
neighbor,
the
800-pounder
in
the
neighborhood.
H
H
There
hasn't
been
any
real
effort
to
do
anything
about
creating
University
Hill
as
a
place
for
the
university
to
show
a
different
face
and
I
think
the
dominant
face
that
the
university
shows
there
is
beer
pong.
So
there
may
be
a
real
potential
for
improvement
in
the
city
to
look
at
University
Hill
for
its
other
potentialities.
B
Brian
live
and
Harman
and
John
I
mean
in
Peter,
well,
I.
Think
I
agree
with
all
of
you
various
pieces,
but
crossroads
I
definitely
agree
with,
and
you
make
a
good
case
for
uni
Hill
and
whoever
lives.
You
made
the
comment
about
central
Boulder
being
somewhat
like
North
Boulder
I
mean
I,
see
it.
You
know
buckle
up,
it's
gonna
be
a
great
big,
huge
effort,
but
I
think
some
of
the
issues
are
gonna
be
addressed
through
some
of
the
youth
table.
Change
is
probably
the
big
lot
big
house
type
of
you
know.
B
Put
well
I'd
leave
Paulo
Park
in
because
I've
got
the
diagonal
area
and
it
just
you
know
and
I,
don't
know
if
it
includes
the
edge
of
the
planning.
Reserve
I
know
the
planning
Reserve
was
brought
up
last
night,
but
that
always
comes
up
with
every
single
comp
plan
review
that
that
edge
and
kind
of
where
Leo
Palmas
owns
property.
I
think
you
guys
all
know
what
yeah.
So,
who
knows?
I
I
O
I
J
O
O
Right
now,
it's
outside
the
city's
growth,
boundary,
yeah,
yeah,
so
I
think
just
to
circle
back
a
little
bit.
I
think
this
discussion
has
been
really
helpful
for
us
to
think
about.
What's
the
order
from
the
council,
we
had
a
pretty
strong
level
of
energy
around
East
Boulder
as
the
first
one,
so
I'd
love
to
hear
the
board's
thoughts
on
on
to
start
an
East,
Boulder
I
think
the
comments
are
on
crossroads
are
actually
a
really
compelling
and
part
of
what's
kind
of
been
noodling
through
my
mind,
as
we've
been
having.
O
This
conversation
is
also
what's
the
right
tool
of
planning
to
solve
the
issues
that
we
see
for
each
different
place
and
I
think
an
East
Boulder
we've
got
some
big
questions
out
there
of.
Where
does
residential
go
out
there?
What's
the
future
of
55th
and
Arapaho
look
like,
and
those
are
things
that
really
take
a
kind
of
big,
broad
brush
good
planning?
That's
what
sub
Community
Planning
is
about
in
Crossroads.
O
I
feel
almost
split
a
little
bit
because
there's
a
little
bit
of
questions
about
our
additional
connections
needed
in
that
area,
but
then
there's
a
whole
lot
of
forum,
bulk
intensity
questions
that
we've
got
to
solve
that
we
talked
about
ton
about
during
the
comp
plan
update
and
it's
on
the
queue
and
we're
with
the
opportunity
zone
moratorium
we're
wrestling
with
when,
when
did
those
code
changes
need
to
happen?
Do
we
need
to
move
those
up,
but
hearing
this
conversation
makes
me
start
to
noodle
a
little
bit
of
is
a
sub
community
plan.
O
J
I
think
it's
great
we're
landing
right
next
to
Council,
then,
because
the
seems
to
be
the
majority
here
is
crossroads,
and
these
boulders
in
there
for
most
people
know
starting
at
East.
Boulder
makes
sense,
I
look
at
what's
the
true
timing,
I'm
thinking
about
this
on
what
we're
trying
to
get
is
today
it's
catch,
something
before
then
before
something
happens
that
we
don't
want.
So
then
the
financial
reality
set
in
of
where
we
are
in
this
cycle
and
what's
gonna
happen
sooner?
J
Is
it
gonna,
be
mass
development
of
industrial
property,
nice
Boulder,
or
will
it
be
out-of-state
investors,
properties
in
the
Crossroads
area
and
developing
those?
Just
like
the
Macy's
thing
we're
seeing
imagine
that
a
hundred
times
over
happening
12
times
in
the
next
five
years
before
this
cycle?
That's
what
it's
gonna
do.
So,
if
we're
really
trying
to
catch
something
before
it's
out
of
the
gate,
I
feel
like
crossroads
is
the
things
that
are
gonna
happen
quicker.
Then,
someone
coming
in
and
doing
a
master
plan,
community
development
in
an
industrial
site
in
East,
Boulder
and.
O
To
respond
to
that
a
little
bit,
I
think
right
now,
I
mean
one
there's
a
moratorium
in
that
area.
So
you
can't
you,
you
can't
build
anything
right
now,
but
specific
to
the
crossroads
area.
The
current
height
ordinance
really
really
limits
development
in
that
area.
Your
economic
opportunity
on
parcels
within
the
BV
RC
is
really
up
to
up
to
the
full
height
with
a
height
exception,
and
since
you
can't
get
a
height
exception
right
now,
it's
really
holding
back
any
big
development
in
that
area,
also
if
they
are
exactly
it
so
based
on
FA
RS.
O
So
that's
that
deep
code
work
that
we
need
to
do
in
that
area
and
so
I
think
the
current
height
ordinance
is
really
the
thing.
That's
holding
back
anything
from
happening
there,
and
so
there
is
some
important
conversation
to
happen
about.
What's
the
community
benefit
project
work,
and
where
does
that
finish
before
we
start
to
then
do
some
additional
changes
in
the
B
VRC,
so
that
then
we've
got
all
that
code.
Change
work
in
place
before
a
whole.
Bunch
of
people
might
do
anything.
So
we
are
thinking
about.
O
I
I
agree
with
almost
all
of
that,
but
I
do
think,
there's
at
the
same
time
a
reality
of
a
lot
of
these
properties,
getting
redeveloped
under
the
current
code
and
then
getting
frozen
in
time
with,
like
the
next
realm
of
big
parking,
lots
and
short
buildings
along
our
major
corridors.
You
know,
so
you
don't
look
at
like
Christie
sports
right
I
mean
that's
the
model
for
the
future
or
movement
climbing
gym,
which
I
think
is
a
great
building.
But
it's
not
the
things
that
the
movement
climbing
gentlemen,
you.
I
I
think
it's
a
cool
building,
but
but
it's
like
a
it's
behind
a
parking
lot,
so
ocean
apart,
like
this,
is
the
things
that
we
probably
is
a
part
of
this
kind
of
conversation,
you're,
gonna,
address
and
I.
Think
really.
There
is
a
crystallization
of
that
whole
land-use
pattern.
That's
happening
and
there's
a
couple
factors
there.
One
is
people
are
saying:
was
that
we're
gonna
change?
So
let's
just
go
ahead
and
make
this
thing
do
what
its
gonna
do
now,
because
they
got
to
make
many
properties
and
people
want
to
run
businesses
and
stuff.
I
D
O
Yeah
and
the
current
FA
are
limits
in
the
industrial
areas
are
really
really
low
anyway.
So
it's
more
of
I
think
starting
to
address
more
of
a
use
issue
and
then
understanding
if
we
were
to
intensify
where
would
some
of
that
go,
I
think
the
industrial
areas
and
then
so.
Each
of
these
each
have
kind
of
unique
issues
or
unique
opportunities
that
are
in
front
of
us
too,
to
solve
to
really
shape
to
the
community
that
we
want
so.
A
All
of
the
fifty-fifth,
that's
East,
Boulder
that
all
the
industrial
parks
and
Flatirons
and
Business
Park,
and
all
of
that
out
there
yeah
that
definitely
needs
a
plan.
I
totally
agree
with
that,
especially
one
that
includes
a
transportation,
and
you
know
alternate
modes.
It's
really
really
hard
to
get
around
over
there
on
a
bicycle.
So
don't.
A
J
P
A
P
I
just
have
a
couple
calendar
things
I
wanted
to
remind
you.
There
is
no
meeting
next
week.
It
was
canceled
February,
7th
I
just
want
to
kind
of
let
you
know
maybe
bring
your
sleeping
bags
it's
going
to
be
a
long
night.
What's.
P
J
P
P
Dates
with
council,
things
are
coming
up
and
Council
and
they
need
to
be
addressed
now.
So
we're
butting
heads
with
Council
dates
and
stuff.
Things
need
to
go
mm-hmm
so,
unfortunately,
we'll
be
prepared,
it's
it
just
it
could
be
shorter.
These
are
just
estimates
uh-huh,
so
it
could
be
a
lot
shorter.
It's.
I
Kind
of
to
us
I'm.