►
From YouTube: 8-29-23 Planning Board Meeting
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).
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:
good
evening,
everybody.,
so
this
evening,
both
our
chair
and
vice
chair
are
absent.,
so
we're
gonna
need
to
make
a
motion
and
and
vote
on
who
will
be
the
chair
for
this
evening's
meeting?
in
order
to
do
that.
it's
the
majority
of
those
who
are
present..
So
if
anybody
would
like
to
make
a
motion,
we
would
entertain
that.
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
I
don't
know
if
we
need
a
lot
of
discussion,,
but
I
have
every
faith
that
that
mark
would
do
a
great
job
sharing
our
meeting
tonight..
He
has
a
lot
of
ideas
about
how
to
help
us
be
efficient
and
effective.,
and
I
would
love
to
see
how
mark
runs
a
meeting
as
an
experiment,
and
just
you
know,
try
it
out.
So
I
would
be.
B
G
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
confidence
that
I
can
do
this
because
you've
expressed
confidence
that
ii
frankly
don't
have.
This
is
my
first
time
sharing,.
Even
though
I've
been
on.,
I
was
telling
vivian
lots
of
different
boards
and
commissions
and
working
groups..
This
is
my
first
time
sharing
one
officially.,
so
I'm
nervous
as
hell.
so
anyway,
that
having
said
that,
I'll
try
to
do
the
best
I
can,
and.
G
G
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
thank
you,
brad,.
I
think
a
lot
of
us
share
this
concern.
and
we
are
all
struggling
with
with
how
to
have
more
certainty
around
our
agendas..
I
can
say,
for
my
part,
that
I
have
confidence
that
we
can
complete
these
2
items.
Today,
these
2
public
hearing
items,
today,
I'm
willing
to
stay
late,
if
need
be
and
ii
would
hope
that
a
majority
of
the
board
would
be
willing
to
stay
a
reasonable
amount
of
time
late,
if
necessary,,
but
I
think
we
can
all.
C
D
G
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Brad
mueller,
cob:
administrative
one
among
the
agenda
committee
and
and
just
wanted
to
share
that.
I
don't
need
to
elaborate,
particularly
having
answer
questions,
and
I
certainly
don't
want
to
engender
a
long
conversation
around
that..
We
can
kind
of
address
that
if
and
when
we
get
to
that
on
individual
cases.
G
G
A
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
to
to
take
any
action
tonight,,
and
so
I
don't
want
to
put
the
others
on
the
spot,,
but
I
think
it
is
important
that
we
hear
how
the
others
are
feeling
about
continuing,
potentially
later.,
so
I'm
I'm
just.
yeah..
I
would
love
to
hear
from
them
if
they
felt
comfortable
doing
that.
I
F
J
J
J
J
J
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:,
when
the
vision
is
really
designed
to
promote
free
conversation
and
dialogue,,
while
also
recognizing,.
We
want
to
make
sure.
everyone
who
is
participating
feels
safe
and
welcome,,
and
we
want
to
ensure
we
make
space
for
different
viewpoints
in
our
meetings,
because
we
believe
it
leads
to
more
informed
decision
making.
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:
and
if
you
have
an
expanded
menu,,
you
can
also
get
to
the
raise
hand
icon
by
clicking
on
reactions.,
and
I
see
there
are
few
people
participating
by
phone,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
this
is
inclusive
as
possible..
So,
if
you're
on
your
computer,,
you
can
use
a
shortcut
alt
to
raise
your
hand..
But
if
you're,
connecting
from
your
phone.
J
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:,
and
we
can
call
on
you.
vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:
and
if
you
are
not
sure
how
to
change
your
name,,
you
can
also
reach
us
through
the
qa.
function
and
provide
us
with
your
with
your
name,,
and
we
can
change
it
for
you
and
the
qa
function
is
really
meant
to
help
with
these
kinds
of
process
or
technical
issues,,
and
not
really
for
side
chats
or
for
sharing
comments
related
to
agenda
items..
J
J
J
K
K
K
K
Lynn
segal:,
because
I've
got
70
mile,
an
hour
cars
driving,,
you
know,
and
I'm
in
the
in
the
shoulder..
I
know
you're,
not
planning
board,,
I
mean,.
I
know
you're
not,
tab,,
but
you're
intimately
integrated
with
tab,
and
every
one
of
those
units
at
waterview
has
a
garage,.
Every
single,
one,
and
they're
gonna
be
driving
every
single
place.
They
go
because
they're
in
a
desert.
K
Lynn,
segal:,
and
I
wanted
to
also
tell
you
a
little
story,
a
couple
stories
if
I
have
time,,
but
one
of
them
is
yesterday
going
to
the
prab.
capital
improvements,
funding,
tour
of
4
sites.,
the
civic
center,
north
boulder
park,
violet
park
upcoming
and
east
boulder
rec
center.
now,.
It
looks
like
east
boulder,
rec
center
needs.
K
K
K
J
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
to
the
side.
great.
okay.,
so
good
evening.
planning
board
members..
I'm
shannon
moeller
with
the
city
of
boulder
planning,
department.
I'll,
provide
a
brief
overview
of
this
project..
The
planning
process
to
date
surrounding
contact
summary
of
the
project
and
some
key
issues
for
discussion.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:,
so
planning
board,
heard
a
concept
plan
proposal
on
this
item
back
in
april
2022,
and
provided
helpful
feedback
at
the
time
planning
board,
discussed
and
chose
not
to
send
the
item
to
the
design
advisory
board,
due
to
the
creative
and
well-developed
design.
That
was
already
apparent
at
the
time
of
the
concept
plan..
The
proposal
has
been
updated,
based
on
planning
board's
feedback,
and
the
applicant
will
go
through
a
detailed
summary
of
those
changes
in
their
presentation.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
at
the
time
city
council
chose
not
to
call
up
the
item..
Then
the
item
went
to
the
transportation
advisory
board
for
a
hearing
related
to
the
proposed
amendment
to
the
t,
vapap
transportation
connections
plan
where
tab
was
supportive
of
the
proposed
amendment.,
then
the
site
review
application
that
we're
discussing
tonight
was
filed
in
september
2022.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:.
This
item
was
originally
scheduled
for
its
planning
board,
hearing
on
august
fifteenth.,
but
it
was
continued
to
tonight's
hearing
instead,
in
the
interim
last
week,
planning
board
did
hear
the
did
a
public
hearing
on
the
tv
amendments,
and
did
provide
a
motion
to
adopt
those
amendments.
Last
week.
L
L
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
moving
to
the
specific
site
and
surrounding
context..
This
is
about
a
5
acre
property..
It's
located
along
walnut
street,,
just
a
bit
east
of
the
foothills
parkway,
overpass
and
south
of
the
bnsf
railway..
There's
an
existing
over
100,000
square
foot
warehouse
building
on
the
site
that
was
constructed
in
1,967..
The
property
is
largely
paved
and
is
accessed
via
3
cur
cuts
from
walnut
street.
L
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
this
building
has
received
a
height
modification
up
to
46
feet
in
height,
and
also
includes
11
foot
high
rooftop,
mechanical.
to
the
south
and
east
of
this
property
are
a
mix
of
buildings,
one
to
2
stories
in
height..
They
have
a
variety
of
uses
in
those
buildings,
and
were
constructed
between
the
19
sixties
through
the
19
eighties.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
to
the
north
of
this
property
across
the
bnsf
railway.
There
are
2
large
industrial
buildings,,
also
with
a
mix
of
uses
that
were
constructed
in
the
1960
s.,
so
generally,.
This
is
an
eclectic
area..
All
the
buildings
range
between
one
to
3
stories
in
height,
and
they're,
characterized
by
extensive
surface
parking,
lots.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
the
site
is
impacted
by
the
100
year,
floodplain
of
the
boulder
slew,,
so
the
proposal
is
required
to
flood
proof
or
elevate
the
lowest
floor
to
add,
or
above
the
flood
protection
elevation..
This
is
important
to
note
in
regards
to
the
proposed
height
modification,
where
about
5
feet
of
the
proposed
height,
modification
is
due
to
the
need
to
elevate
this
building
out
of
the
flood
plain.
L
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
the
site
is
not
located
immediately
adjacent
to
any
transit
service,,
but
there
are
some
so
transit
lines
within
a
half
mile
of
the
site,
long
thirtieth,
and
arapaho..
Because
of
this,.
The
proposal
includes
a
tdm
plan
that
includes
elements
to
address
these
last
mile
connections,
and
we'll
talk
about
those
later.
in
the
presentation.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
this
site
is
located
in
an
area
that
does
not
have
any
adopted
area
plan
or
any
design
guidelines..
It
is
near
many
other
adopted
area
plans,,
including
the
new
east
border,
subcommunity
plan.,
that's
just
to
the
east..
The
bvrc
is
to
the
west,
and
the
transit
village
area
plan
is
to
the
north.
but
again,.
As
part
of
the
amendments
that
the
board
voted
on
last
week,.
The
site
is
no
longer
impacted
by
that
transit
village
area,
plan,
transportation
connections,
plan.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
this
is
a
proposed
2
storey
life
sciences,
facility
with
spaces
developed
for
science
and
technology
based
research
and
development.
Companies.,
the
site
design
locates
this
building
towards
the
south
and
west
areas
of
the
site.
parking
is
located
in
the
eastern
portion,,
and
the
service
yard
is
located
at
the
north,
facing
onto
the
rail
corridor
to
locate
those
loading
docks
away
from
the
primary
facade.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:,
it
features
a
prominent
entry
plaza
designed
for
pedestrian
and
bicycle
access
at
the
building.
Entry,
and
the
site
circulation
is
further
enhanced
with
a
perimeter
walking
path
at
all
the
edges
of
the
site.
and
again,.
It
would
provide
those
updates
to
walnut
street,,
including
the
buffered
bike,
lane,,
tree,
lawn,
and
detached
sidewalk.
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
the
open
space
design
features
that
prominent
entry
plaza.
there's
an
outdoor
cafe,
patio
surrounded
by
gardens
with
interpretive
signage,,
sculpture
and
outdoor
fitness,
area,,
the
perimeter,
walking
past
rain,
garden
and
landscaped
areas
throughout
overall..
The
proposal
provides
35%
of
the
site
as
usable,
open
space,
where
a
minimum
of
20%
is
required.
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:-
these
are
detailed
in
the
staff,
momo,,
but
generally
include
a
mix
of
items,,
including
eco,
passes,
an
alternative
transportation
subsidy
fund
for
employees
that
don't
need
a
parking
space..
It
provides
a
new
b
cycle
station,
that's
prominently
located
along
walnut
that
would
be
accessible
to
employees
and
the
public.
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
in
terms
of
the
building
design.,
this
proposal
is
a
two-story
building
which
features
sloped
roofs
that
are
designed
to
conceal
the
substantial
mechanical
equipment,
that's
necessary
to
serve
the
proposed
research
and
development
uses
throughout
boulder
right
now,
we
are
seeing
a
number
of
proposals,
sometimes
coming
in
as
retrofit
designs
for
research
and
development
uses..
This
proposal
provides
an
excellent
way
to
screen
those
mechanical
needs.
through
this
sloped
roof.
Design.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
the
building.
exterior
features,
high
quality
materials
like
dark
brick,,
metal
panel
and
wood,
look
accents
with
substantial
glazing
along
the
street
facing
and
the
entry
facades..
It
also
provides
permeability
and
activity
along
walnut
via
the
outdoor
cafe,
patio,
and
a
second
level
deck
at
either
end
of
the
building.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
in
terms
of
the
height
modification,
that's
proposed..
This
project
is
located
again
in
the
ig.
zone
because
of
the
location
of
the
property,,
not
near
any
residential
properties.,
it's
by
right
eligible
to
be
built
up
to
3
stories
in
height
and
up
to
45
feet
in
height..
The
project
is
also
eligible
to
request
a
height,
modification,
and
as
outlined
in
the
staff.
memo..
Either
of
these
2
criteria
here
result
in
it
being
eligible
to
make
the
request.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
in
terms
of
the
planning
board,
making
a
decision
on
their
request.
staff,
recommends
that
the
planning
board
look
at
the
site
review
criteria
and
determine
whether
or
not
to
grant
the
height
modification
request,,
including
specifically,
the
criteria
related
to
building
design
such
as
these,,
first
3
criteria.
Here
that
I'll
go
through
next.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
so
again,
there's
a
detailed
write
up
of
these
criteria
in
the
staff
memo,,
but
generally
staff
reviewed
the
elements
of
the
building
design,
such
as
the
height,
mass,,
scale,,
orientation,,
architecture,
and
configuration,
to
see
if
it
would
be
compatible
with
surrounding
properties.
again,
note,.
There
is
no
area,
plan
or
design
guidelines
to
guide
this
area..
So
thus
it
results
in
this
eclectic
mix
of
buildings
in
the
area.
L
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
in
terms
of
the
acres
which
results
in
the
property
being
able
to
support
a
larger
amount
of
floor
area
on
the
site..
The
placement
of
this
building
toward
the
west
end
of
the
site
allows
for
substantial
setbacks
from
the
property
to
the
east
of
over
250
feet,,
and
it's
also
buffered
from
the
properties
to
the
north
and
south,.
Due
to
the
adjacent
bnsf
and
walnut
street
ride
of
ways.
L
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
lastly,
moving
to
the
key
issues
for
tonight.
in
the
staff.
memo,.
There
were
te
2
key
issues
identified
by
staff
again
as
part
of
the
amendments
that
the
board
voted
on
just
last
week..
The
site
is
no
longer
impacted
by
the
tvap
transportation
connections
plan..
So
I
won't
be
discussing
key
issue
number
2.,
but
we
will
talk
next
about
just
key
issue
number
one,,
which
was
the
consistency
with
the
site
review
criteria.
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
so
again,
for
key
issue,.
One
staff
did
find
that
proposal
is
designed
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
site,
review
criteria
of
the
land
use
code
and
meets
many
of
the
policies
of
the
bvcp.,
including
supporting
the
inclusion
of
space
for
light
industrial
uses.
In
our
light,
industrial
areas.
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
staff
did
also
find
that
we
supported
the
proposed
parking
reduction,,
which
was
supported
by
planning
board
back
at
the
time
of
the
concept
plan,
and
is
supported
by
the
applicant's
tdm.
plan,.
That
provides
many
efforts
to
improve
those
last
mile
connections,
as
outlined
in
that
tdm
plan.
Attachment.
L
L
G
D
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
yes,
on
our
transportation
plans.
there
is
a
proposed
multi
path.
That's
depicted
along
the
the
railroad
right
away..
If
she's
noted,
that
path
is
depicted
actually
in
the
railroad
right
of
way..
So
it's
not
the
responsibility
of
this
property
to
construct
that
path.,
so
we
wouldn't
be
requiring
or
able
to
require
that
as
part
of
this
site
review.
L
D
L
F
F
F
L
L
Shannon
moeller,
cob:
sort
of
penthouse
area
with
a
catwalk
to
allow
for
tenants
to
be
able
to
put
their
mechanical
needs
up
in
that
high
ceiling
space
and
allow
for
flexibility
for
them
to
change
out
and
have
those
those
mechanical
needs
up
in
kind
of
that
tall
roof
space
to
serve
the
needs
of
the
of
the
research
and
development
users..
It's
not
intended
to
be.
F
L
C
L
L
C
G
G
E
E
E
E
Daniel
aizenman-
conscience
bay,
co.:
excellent.,
daniel
aizenman-
conscience
bay,
co.:
just
set
some
things
up:
alright.
well,,
let's
get
started..
Thank
you
very
much.
planning
board
members..
I
appreciate
you
guys
being
here
on
an
extra
meeting
that
was
just
for
us
and
other
topics..
I
know
you
had
some
retreat
that
you
mentioned
last
week.,
so
I
appreciate
you
guys
being
here.
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Daniel
aizenman-
conscience
bay,
co.:
there's
no
building
like
it
in
the
state.,
it's
the
second
or
third
in
the
country..
So
this
is
a
hero,
piece,,
not
just
for
us,,
but
for
the
city
of
boulder..
So
we're
trying
to
do
something
that
is
iconic..
We
want
to
offer
a
world-class
facility
to
support
the
scientific
discovery.
E
E
E
E
Daniel
aizenman-
conscience
bay
co.:,
so
I
wanna
remind
us
that
this
topology
of
building,,
it's
unlike
anything
in
the
city
of
boulder..
There
is
another
building
that
has
been
built
like
this
in
a
very,,
very
long
time,.
With
this
much
technology
in
it
that
could
sustain
the
science.
That's
gonna
happen,
within.
E
M
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:,
as
we
start
here
on
just
the
overall
site
plan.
I
wanna
recognize
also,,
shannon
did
a
great
presentation.,
so
we
are
going
to
try
and
not
repeat
some
of
the
information
that
she
shared.
so
just
as
we
were
visited
with
you
on
our
concept,
plan,,
just
showing
some
quick
changes
that
we
made
to
the
project
based
on
the
feedback
that
we
got
from
planning,
board,
staff
and
tab..
The
parking
spaces
have
been
reduced.
slightly
from
2
26
to
2
12,.
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
we've
increased
our
parking
reduction
to
an
in
a
an
inverse
reaction.
and
we
also
increased
our
usable
open
space
based
on
feedback
we
received
and
as
we
were,
able
to
refine
the
site
plan
and
really
drill
down
on
how
we
were,
gonna
use
the
the
spaces
that
weren't
being
utilized
by
parking
and
building..
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
the
building
footprints
remain
largely
the
same,,
and
the
total
building
area
remain
largely
the
same,.
We
did
decrease
the
building
height
based
on
that
feedback,
and
brought
that
down
a
few
feet
to
really
tighten
up
the
building
envelope
and
the
height
on
the
site.
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
so
the
height
is.
This
is
a
a
unique
height
modification,
request.
we
are,
as
shannon
mentioned,
are
falling
within
2
of
the
criteria
and
considerations
for
height
modifications
that
were
in
place
when
we
applied,
which
was
before
the
new
site
re
review,
criteria.
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:.
The
first
is
that
it's
an
industrial
use,
and
the
height
is
necessary
for
manufacturing,
testing,
or
other
processor
equipment..
So
you
can
see
on
the
top
left
image
this
catwalk
that
would
access
this
mechanical
space.
That's
shown
in
the
gray
area
outlined
in
pink,
we
created
a
roof
system
to
enclose
that..
Typically,
you
would
see
a
lot
of
this
mechanical.
on
top
of
a
flat
roof.
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
accessed
danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
through
ladders,
onto
the
roof
with
a
penthouse..
We
also
have
a
high
floor
to
floor
ratio,
16
feet,
4
inches
on
the
2
floors..
That's
a
much
higher
floor
to
floor
than
you
would
see
on
a
retail
or
residential
or
even
office.
Building,
that's
to
accommodate
large
things
like
aerospace
parts,
engineering,,
large,
lab,
equipment,,
large.
M
M
M
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
in
interest,
in
design,
excellence.,
and
so
you
can
see
on
the
left
this
clean
room,,
which
is
what
could
happen
on
the
second
floor
of
the
building.,
and
then
you
have
the
mechanical,
above.
and
ii
know.
This
is
very
technical.,
so
I'm
gonna
go
through
it
quickly,
and
maybe
we
can
come
back
to
it.
I
know.
eml,.
You
had
some
questions.
and
laura,
about
how
these
buildings
actually
function.
they're,
very
different
than
buildings
that
we're
used
to.
M
M
M
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:,
so
here
we
can
see
the
mechanical
screening
views..
We
wanted
to
show
how
those
mechanical,
that
traditional
parapet,
with
large
mechanical
units
with
a
screened
parapet,,
is
being
concealed
within
the
roof
line..
So
you
can
see
these
different
views
happy
to
come
back
to
these
and
dive
into
further
detail,,
but
really
trying
to
show
you
where
the
chillers
and
the
mechanical
equipment
are,
are
no
longer
visible.
M
M
M
M
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:,
and
I
just
we
wanted
to
also
note
that
this
is
a
more
expensive
solution
to
create
this
architectural
development
of
the
mechanical
equipment.,
but
it's
very
important,
as
daniel
described,
to
create
this
architecturally
interesting
building,.
That
is
a
direct
result
of
the
design
outcomes
that
the
design
excellent
initiative.
I
know
many
of
us
were
involved
with
in
the
late
early
20.
M
M
danica,
powell,,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
so
just
to
compare
shannon
went
through
this
as
well,
the
parking
spaces..
What
we
have
today,.
This
is
not
conceptual,,
but
this
is
actually
what's
on
site.
today..
We
have
212
spaces
proposed.,
there's
210
today,,
there's
2
ev
charging,
spaces.
today.
we're
proposing
11,
plus
22
ev,
ready
and
22
capable.
we're
increasing..
There's
no
bike
parking
there
today.
we're
increasing
that
to
24.
M
M
M
M
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
shower
and
locker
rooms,,
a
parking
reduction,
that's
commiserate
with
the
use
and
the
location
and
access
to
transit
eco
passes
will
be
provided..
We
also
will
be
doing
an
alternative
transportation
fund
for
those
folks
that
decide
not
to
bring
a
car
to
the
site
and
use
that
for
lyft,
uber
ride,
share,
b
cycle
membership.
M
M
N
Daniel
aizenman-
conscience
bay
co.:
thank
you..
Can
you
hear
me
now??
Can
you
hear
me
now.,
shannon
jones,
stantec:
hi!,
I'm
shannon
stantic.,
so
thank
you,,
shannon
moller,
for
going
over
such
a
great
presentation
on
the
mobility
and
site
connectivity.
I'll
just
mention
a
few
things
as
we
work.
walk
through
these
diagrams.
We
are
really
pretty
close
to
and
under.
pass
on,
both
the
east
and
west
sides
of
your.
E
N
N
N
N
Amenity.
we
have
one
curb
cut,
as
shannon
mentioned,
and
that
drive
aisle
gets
you
all
the
way
back
to
the
service
area.,
so
that
is
facing
the
railroad
and
not
the
public
right
of
way..
We
also
have
2
underpasses,
not
too
far
away
from
our
site,,
which
is
also
a
great
way
to
make
sure
that
we
are
connecting
the
site
at
that
last
mile.
N
N
Shannon
jones,
stantec:,
we
also
have
visitor
parking,
that's
located
right
next
to
the
main
entrance
of
the
building
and
conveniently
also
located
next
to
the
employee
entrance,,
where
the
indoor
protected
bike
parking
is
located..
We
also
have
a
fenced
yard
in
the
back..
So
this
is
where
all
of
the
mechanical
and
ugly
stuff
happens.
right?
your
transformers,,
your
backup,
generators,
etc.,,
and
we
are
requesting
a
taller
fence
for
that
loading
area.
In
order
to
maintain.
N
Shannon
jones,
stantec:
in
order
to
maintain
some
views,
and
really
shield
that
from
adjacent
properties.,
we
have
some
ev
charging
stations
as
well
as
ada,
parking,
adjacent
to
the
building,,
and
some
expecting
mothers
and
senior
parking
spaces
located
really
close
to
the
drop
off
area,,
as
well
as
a
car
sharing
space
that
will
be
visible
and
accessible
for
the
public.
To
use.
N
N
Shannon
jones,
stantec:
in
terms
of
our
sustainability
for
the
project..
We
are
going
for
very
energy,
efficient
systems
and
envelope,,
as
well
as
a
number
of
solar
panels
that
will
help
to
offset
the
energy
use
of
the
building,
as
well
as
a
net
0
strategy.
geo.
exchange
system
and
climate
resilience.
N
Shannon
jones,
stantec:,
something
that
we
heard
from
concept
plan,
was
to
really
look
at
the
entrance
and
make
sure
that
it
was
visible
to
people
on
the
right
of
way.,
and
so
in
this
view,.
You
can
see,
compared
to
concept
plan,,
which
is
up
here
on
the
right,
that
we
really
pulled
that
entrance
forward
and
made
the
slats
much
more
visible,
so
that
you
get
a
good
entrance
feature
right
from
their
public
right
of
way,
as
well
as
a
buffered,
byte,
plane.
N
N
Shannon
jones,
stantec:
this
is
that
raised
very
kind
mark.
thank
you.,
so
the
drop
off
and
pedestrian
crossing
is
raised
here
in
this
view,
is
visible
along
with
some
really
lovely
landscaping..
We
have
some
great
site
materials
as
well
as
architectural
materials
that
shannon
mentioned
earlier.,
and
here
are
a
few
images
to
help
support
that.
N
N
N
G
F
E
E
F
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
E
E
F
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
N
E
N
F
E
E
F
J
Shannon
jones,
stantec:,
I
don't
know
if
I
understood
your
question.,
so
what
you're
seeing
in
the
foreground
here.
this
gray,
shaded
area
is
cut
through
the
pitched
roof,,
which
is
shielding.
the
mechanical
from
first
person,
perspective,
as
if
you
were
standing
on
the
street..
What
you're
seeing
beyond
is
the
flat
roof,
mechanical?
well,,
where
there
will,
that's
totally
open
to
above..
If
we
look
at
this
next
section,
here.
N
Shannon
jones,
stantec::
this
is
the
opposite
direction
from
the
previous
section
that
we
just
showed..
So
this
is
cutting
parallel
to
the
pitch
of
the
roof,,
and
that's
why
you
can
see
this
exterior
mechanical.
well,,
that's
on
the
roof
level,
that's
totally
open
to
the
air
above
it.
and
in
this
image,
once
again,,
you
can
sort
of
see
some
of
that
happening
beyond.
F
N
F
F
F
F
F
N
Shannon
jones,
stantec:
and
we
are
exhausting
air
after
it's
been
used
within
the
building,
up
and
out
of
this
16
foot
tall
chimney..
So
this
is
really
an
exhaust,
and
we
wanna
have
a
certain
distance
from
the
air
intake,,
where
we're
taking
in
fresh
air,
for
where,,
compared
to
where
we
are
putting
out
the
air
which
is
cleaned
through
hipaa,
cleaners,,
hipaa,
filters,,
etc.
F
E
E
Daniel
aizenman-
conscience
bay
co.:.
So
if
you
look
at
the
orb
just
for
their
cabling
and
liquids,,
they
go
sort
of
all
the
plumbing
that
goes
similar
to
what's
shown
on
this
image
right
here
on
the
left,,
the
amount
of
exhaust,
the
amount
of
a
mep
equipment
that
goes
on
on..
This
building
was,
unlike
any
other
building.
F
E
E
F
E
E
E
E
F
C
C
Daniel
aizenman-
conscience
bay,
co.:
you're,
requesting
vested
rights
for
the
parking
reduction,,
height,
modification,,
building,
footprint,
location,
the
floor
area
for
the
building,,
the
building,
square,
footage,,
the
setbacks,
and
the
building
architecture..
If
I'm
understanding
this
correctly.,
I've
been
on
planning
board
for
a
year,
and
I'm
sorry
about
my
ignorance,,
but
I
haven't
seen
this
before,.
So
could
you
explain
to
me
why
you
are
requesting
vested
rights
for
these
elements
of
your
site.
review.
E
E
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
hey,
thank
you.,
and
could
I
ask
staff
to
elaborate
on
that?
and
again,?
I
am
sorry
for
my
ignorance,
and
I
tried
looking
into
the
code,
and
I'm
not
sure..
I
entirely
understand
what
creating
these
vested
rights
means,
and
why
that
would
be
a
good
thing
for
the
applicant
and
what
it
might
imply
for
the
city.
so,
laurel,.
You
have
your
hand
up..
I
would
love
to
hear
your
take
on
what
it
means
to
the
city
to
have
these
be
vested
rights
instead
of
just
not.
B
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:
absolutely.
yes,,
and
this
is
laura
with
the
city
attorney's
office..
I
don't
think
I
introduced
myself
earlier.,
so
apologies
laura,
for
the
record.,
so
vested
rights.
when
an
advocate
goes
through
an
application
process
with
the
city
once
they're,
given
the
approval
authority.,
they
have
3
years.
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:
of
rights
to
build
their
property.
and
under
those
3
years,,
and
this
has
to
do
with
some
like
statutory
law,
and
things
like
that.
under
those
3
years.
They
get
that
opportunity
to
create
their
building
and
build
their
structure..
So
what
the
applicant
is
asking
here
is
for
a
little
bit
more
time
for
those
approvals,
and-
and
you
listen
perfectly
earlier-
what
he's
looking
for,,
but
what
the
applicant
is
looking
for.
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
but
it
allows
them
to
have
a
little
bit
more
time
to
finish
their
development
under
their
approvals
if
they
weren't
able
to
finish
it
in
3
years,
and
they
didn't
get
vested
rights..
That
means
that
they
could
be
subject
to
whatever
co
changes
we
have
or
whatever
other
changes
we
have,.
It
could
cause
problems
down
their
road.,
so
vested
rights.
are
generally
3
years
unless
they
ask
for
more..
If
they
do
ask
for
more
than
we
have
to
have
a
hearing.
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
I
mean,
in
this
case,,
since
there
was
already
going
to
be
hearing
for
the
site
review
process.
that
can
went
ahead
and
asked
for
a
little
bit
longer
for
best
in
rights,
and
there's
a
certain
amount
of
time..
It's
it's
a
little
bit
longer.
That
has
to
be
precisely
counsel
as
well..
So
that's
the
process
of
how
that
works.
C
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
I'm
sorry.
I
didn't
understand
that
last
part..
How
much
longer
do
they
get
beyond
the
normal
3
years.?
It
depends
on
how
much
they
ask
for..
I
think
it
should
be.
you
know,.
It
says
they
have
not..
Usually
it's
in
the
vested
rights
form.,
it
says,
how
long
I'm
asking
for.
okay,!
I
did
not
see
that.
M
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
the
the
development.-
in
case
there
was
something
else
that
happened
like
a
moratorium
or
the
zoning
changed,,
or
something
else
happened
that
was
that
could
conflict
with
the
site
review.,
but
the
time
periods
are
exactly
the
same.
and
there
it's..
I
think
the
performance
is
the
same..
It's
just
that
the
city
of
boulder,,
through
our
site,
review
process
best.
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
in
that
approval,
where
the
state
has
a
different
vesting
process
that
every
applicant
gets
to
choose
a
box,.
I
wanna
vest
or
not
best,,
and
it's
always
a
debate
which
we
best
or
not
best,
and
it's
actually
quite
confusing.,
but
I
think
it.
it
procures
the
same
amount
of
rights
that
the
site
review
approval
would
as
well.
C
C
I
I
I
Jorge
boone,,
pb:
okay,
so
is
the
rendering
that
we're
looking
at
correct,
or
is
it?,
or
is
that
gonna
be
a
flat??
I
mean,
it
looks
very
elegant.,
but
it
reads
differently
on
the
on
what
you
just
said
versus
what
is
actually
displayed
on
the
rendering,.
I
cannot
control
what
the
tenant
does
within
that
space..
If
the
tenant
wants
to
do
science
in
that
space.
E
E
I
I
E
E
E
E
I
I
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:,
the
area.,
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
the
question.
but
I'll
ask
anyways,.
Is
that
cafe
because
it's
fronting
the
street,
and
it
appears
to
be
open
to
the
public.?
Is
that
intended
to
be
open
to
the
public??
Or
is
that
only
for
the
use
of
this
building
and
will
be
available
at
all
to
the
public.
E
E
I
I
I
I
G
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
yeah,,
just
one
question.,
it's
it's
about
this
street
frontage..
If
you
keep
this
image
up.,
my
understanding
is
that
the
parking
strip
there
on
between
the
the
street
and
sidewalk
can't
have
trees
because
they're
underground
utilities..
But
then
it
sounded
from
your
presentation,
like
you
were
undergrounding
with
utilities.
E
Daniel
aizenman-
conscience
bay
co.:,
when
you
underground
those
utilities,,
there's
some
setbacks
that
you
need
to
comply
with.
which
doesn't
allow
you
to
put
trees
in
some
vicinity..
I
don't
remember
the
number.
in
response
to
that.
We
put
the
street,
the
trees
in
our
properties
on
the
setback,
to
make
sure
that
at
least
we
have
some
tree
canopy
coverage
in
this
area.
D
L
M
M
M
G
G
O
O
G
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
for
site
reviews
and
use
reviews..
I
believe
we
are
supposed
to
ask,
ask
if
anyone
has
any
x
parte
communications
that
they
need
to
tell
us
about,
and
if
anyone
has
any
conflict
of
interest
that
they
need
to
tell
us
about.
So,
and
I'll
take
silence
as
a
as
they
know.
There
are
none.,
but
if
you
have
any,
raise
your
hand
and
tell
us
all
about
it.
G
G
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
and
just
to
follow
up
with
that.
If
you
are
on
verge
of
thinking
whether
or
not
it
should
be
an
expert.
take
contact.,
it's
always
better
to
disclose
that
for
the
record.
better
to
say
it
on
the
record..
So
if
that's
something
that
I'm
purpose
comfortable
with
doing,
and-
and
you
also
comfortable
talking
about
any
sort
of
visits.,
then
then
yes,.
We
would
encourage
that
for
the
record,,
so
that.
B
B
Jorge
boone,
pb:,
I'm
not
sure
that
we
have
done
that
in
the
past,,
but
I
can
do
some
research
on
that
and
get
back
to
you
for
the
next.
yeah,.
I
visited
that
site.
well,
ii
don't..
I
don't
find
it
to
be
a
conflict
of
of
interest,
or
anything
like
that
relative
to
to
to
my
work.
and
ii.
Think
that's
something
that
we
regularly
do
as
members,.
So
it
would
be
great
just
to
get
us
a
concrete
answer
on
that.
thanks.
G
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
laura,
just
quickly
to
say,.
I
agree
with
george..
It
is
my
typical
practice
to
visit
a
site
before
I
sit
in
a
quasi-judicial
role
to
make
a
decision
about
it,,
and
I
would
expect
that,
hopefully,
all
of
us
do
that
on
a
regular
basis
whenever
we
can,-
maybe
not
every
site.,
so
knowing
whether
we
need
to
disclose
that
or
not
would
be.
Good.
thank
you.
G
G
G
G
G
Mark
mcintyre,,
pb:
and
a
and
then
any
amendments
to
that
motion,
rather
than
just
a
a
longer
kind
of
general
discussion
about
thoughts
and
feelings
and
stuff..
So
we
can
begin
with
a
general
discussion.,
but
I
very
very
early
like
to
have
that
transition
to
debate
in
support
or
opposition
to
a
motion
and
an
amendment..
So
I'm
going
to
open
it.
Up.
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:,
that's
asking
for
height
exceptions.,
jorge
boone,
pb:.
That's
that's
interesting!
For
the
city,
that's
doing
something!
Innovative.!
That's
that's
demonstrating
the
need..
You
know.
be
it.
the
flood
issues,
the
mechanical
space
that
they're
looking
for
the
raise
ceilings
in
between
there..
It's
interesting
because
we've
seen
other,
you
know,
quas,
quasi
life.
Sciences,
projects
come
up
and
and
and
concept
review.
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:
and
it's
so
clear,
the
difference
of
intent
and
thoughtfulness
that
this
project
has
put
forth
versus
other
things
that
we've
seen,
and
so
ii,
I'll.
Obviously,
let
other
board
members
chime
in.,
I'm
ready
to
vote
on
this.
ii.
Think
it's
pretty
easy
vote.,
but
I
also,
I
think
it's
worth.
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:,
I
think
nearly
every
box
doesn't
hit
every
box,
because
we
still
have
a
jobs.
housing
and
balance
is
gonna,
bring
a
lot
of
high
income
jobs
into..
It's
gonna,
put
more
housing
pressure
on
us.,
but
from
what
this
project
is
doing,
ii,
just
think
it's
it's
a
rare
occurrence,,
and
it's
something
that
we
should
focus
on
on
a
board..
So
thank
you,
and
thank
you
to
developer.
and
let's
see
for
putting
it
together.,
I
will
say
the
one
my
one
will
knit.
I
C
C
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
I
do
find
that
it
is
compatible
with
the
eclectic
nature
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
vision
for
the
future..
This
is,,
as
staff
explained
in
the
opening
presentation..
This
is
right
near
boulder,
junction.,
it's
right
near
east
boulder
subcommittee,
plan.,
it's
right
near
the
pbrc..
This
is
an
area.,
it's
right.,
it's
right
near
a
railroad
tracks
and
a
major
freeway
overpass
right?.
So
this
is
an
area
of
town
where
intensity
is
appropriate,,
where
height
is
appropriate.
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
and
I
love
that
they're,
bringing
some
interesting
concepts
and
a
commitment
to
sustainability.
and
really
thinking
hard
about.
What's
the
future
need
of
the
world
as
well
as
boulder,
and
and
trying
to
be
very
aspirational
on
what
this
building
is,,
even
though
it's
gonna
cost
them
more.,
so
I'm
supportive
of
the
project.
as
always,,
I'm
willing
to
entertain
the
reasonable
suggestions
for
conditions
posed
by
other
board
members
totally
open
to
that.,
but
where
I
sit
right,
now.,
I'm
very
excited
to
approve
this
project.
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
C
C
C
G
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:,
I'm
sorry,
laura.,
you
were
asking..
I
just
wanted
to
colloquy
on.
yes.,
so
ml,
ask
staff
if
they
have
any
concerns
about
not
allowing
the
loft
and
having
it
just
be
screened.
Mechanical..
I
just
want
to
make
sure..
I
understand
that
the
applicant
also
has
an
option
as
a
by
right
building,
to
go
up
to
3
stories
and
45
feet:
tall,
plus
mechanical
on
top
of
that..
So
just
a
colloquy
on
that.
P
P
P
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):
that
would
have
to
be
factor
into
the
overall.
how
they
measure
the
building..
They
don't
get
an
additional
5
feet
because
they're
on
the
front
plane
that
has
to
be
part
of
the
the
overall
design
and
grading
of
the
site,
16
feet
of
mechanical
equipment
on
top
of
that
45
feet.,
so
you're
right
on
on
those
accounts,.
As
far
as
the
condition
goes.
P
P
P
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):
on
what
it
is.
the
board
would
want
to
see..
I
don't
know
that
I
would
necessarily
be
comfortable
translating.
just
make
it
a
flat
roof
with
exterior
roof,
mounted
mechanical
equipment..
I
also
think
from
a
policy
perspective,.
Our
code
goes
a
long
way
in
trying
to
screen
and
enclose
mechanical
equipment.
P
G
D
D
D
D
G
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
ii
would
like
to
point
out
that,
mark..
You
did
not
give
yourself
time
to
speak
before
kurt
made
the
motion..
I
don't
know
if
you
wanna
make
general
comments..
Usually
the
chair
goes
last.,
but
since
you
didn't
get
to
speak
in
the
first
round.,
if
I
may
take
the
opportunity
to
invite
you
to
say
something
if
you'd
like
to.
C
G
G
G
Mark
mcintyre,,
pb:
and
and
feed
a
vision
that
is
forward
looking
about
where
we
want
to
go,
and
especially
when
the
context
and
and
I,
I'm
not
to
diminish
the
the
people,
the
businesses
that
are
in
that
in
that
area.,
you
know,,
I
frequent
them.,
whether
it's
tundra,,
the
restaurant
supply
or
or
gases..
It's
all
I'm
familiar
with
those
businesses
and
rudy's
bakery
and
stuff.,
but.
G
G
G
G
G
F
A
A
C
F
F
G
B
I
I
I
I
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:,
because
they've
demonstrated
that.,
and
so
I
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
because
it
context
is
important..
I
don't
wanna
say
that
context
is
an
important..
I
just
think
in
this
case,
we're
we're
getting
something.
that
that
many
proposals,
we've
we've
seen
lately.
we're
getting
a
lot
of.
I
G
G
C
Q
C
G
G
G
G
G
C
G
Q
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
there's
a
lot
of
articles
that
talk
about
how
zoning
regulations
can
make
housing
costs
even
more
pronounced
if
they're,
limiting
to
how
many
housing
units
can
be
built
within
the
city..
So
that's
something
that
we've
been
looking
at
as
part
of
this
project,
alongside
the
adu
project
to
the
occupancy
project
and
the
inclusionary
housing
project.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
the
purpose
statement
of
the
project
was
to
evaluate
the
land
use
code
with
the
intent
of
removing
zoning
barriers
to
more
affordable
units
and
smaller
modest
size
units..
So
we
had
presented
this
problem,
statement
and
purpose
statement
and
the
goals
and
objectives
to
council
at
a
study
session
in
november
of
2022,
and
then
yet
again.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
the
title's
already
been
read..
So
the
purpose
of
tonight
is
to
hold
a
public
hearing
on
the
on
the
ordinance.
85
99..
I
realize
it
says
occupancy.,
it's
the
zoning
for
affordable
housing
ordinance..
There
should
be
deliberation
on
the
ordinance
tonight,
and
then
a
planning
board
recommendation
to
city.
Council.-.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
before
we
start,,
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
what
is
affordable
housing..
What
do
we
mean
when
we
say
that
as
part
of
this
project.,
what
we're
saying
here
is
that
there's
there's
3
different
types
of
affordable
housing.
That's
that's
trying
to
be
achieved
through
this
project
so
obviously
permanently.
Affordable.
housing
is
where
you
have
deed,
restricted,
housing.,
that's
in
perpetuity.,
it's
done
through
our
inclusionary
housing,
program.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
and
then
we're
also
talking
about
smaller
market
rate
units
that
are
comparatively
more
affordable.
at
their
smaller
sizes.
as
compared
to
the
larger
market
rate
units
we've
seen
in
recent
years,
and
largely,,
that's
been
partly
driven
by
by
zoning..
So
that's
something.
I'm
gonna
talk
about
tonight.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
but
by
relaxing
some
zoning
limits
in
certain
zones.
the
lot
area
or
open
space
for
dwelling
unit
requirements.,
it
can
allow
more
housing
to
fit
within
the
same.
you
know,,
basically
basic
volume.,
and
what
we,
the
the
far
or
the
height
or
the
setbacks,
things
like
that..
So
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here
is
just
allowing
more
housing
and
the
more
housing
that
can
be
provided
in
these
projects
means
that
we
would
have
a
higher
percentage.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
you
can
see
that
the
highest
percentage
of
housing
types
in
the
city
of
boulder
are
single
family,
detached.
and
then
multi-family
attached..
You
can
see,
when
we're.
When
we
look
at
kind
of
the
smaller
sized
units,
like
duplexes
or
triplexes
or
townhomes,,
it
takes
up
a
much
smaller
percentage
at
9.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
person.,
so
part
of
the
goal
of
this
project
is
to
address
that
with
the
smaller
housing
types,
and
to
try
to
to
increase
that
yield
of
a
middle
housing
in
the
community..
So
you
can
see
from
this
graphic..
You
know
a
lot.,
and
this
is
pretty
typical
across
the
united
states,,
particularly
since
world
war,
2..
What
you
see
in
most
cities
or
single
family.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
housing
units,,
and
then
you
see
the
higher
stacked
housing
apartments..
You
don't
see
as
much
of
of
the
duplexes
or
triplexes
things
of
that
nature,
and
what
middle
housing
is
really
supposed
to,.
You
know,
allow
for
more
housing
opportunities
that
are
more
affordable,
comparatively,,
but
also
it
scales
that
are
more
synonymous
with.
Like
a
single
family.
Development.-.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
this
is
something
that's
playing
out
across
the
nation..
You've
probably
read
some
articles
about
how
many
cities
are
trying
to
loosen
up
their
zoning
regulations
to
get
more
middle
housing..
So
this
is
a
slide
that
just
shows
the
american
planning
association
pointing
out
that
cities
should
be
taking
this
seriously
to
add
to
their
housing
inventory..
Since
zoning
has
limited
housing
over
the
years,
and
that
has
contributed
to
increasing.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
cost,,
so
encouraging
smaller
units
where
possible,
looking
at
reducing
minimum
lot.
Sizes,
allowing,
miss
missing,
middle
housing,
everywhere,
allowing
for
more
housing
types,
and
also
taking
a
look
at
at
parking
requirements,
see
if
those
could
be
relaxed
to
to
get
allow
more
housing.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
I
think
the
board
is
aware
of
the
state
bill,
the
senate
bill
that
we
were
considering
several
weeks
ago..
It
was
something
proposed
by
the
state
where
there
were,,
basically
mandates
on
localities
for
middle
housing,
ad
use,
relaxed
occupancy
restrictions..
There
were
several
different
iterations,
and
we
were
monitoring
that
closely..
It
ultimately
did
not
pass.
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
that
kind
of
spoke
to
loosening
up
zoning
regulations..
We
tried
to
show
a
a
fair
distribution
of
articles,,
some
for
and
against,,
but
I
think
the
vast
majority
did
say
that
zoning
restrictions
greatly
limit
housing,
availability
and
communities,
and
that
restricted
housing
supply,
among
other
things,
also
drives
up
housing.
Prices.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
a
lot
of
the
articles
do
recommend
adding
housing
to
increase
affordability.
overall..
There
were
some
articles
that
made
the
argument
to
the
opposite.
there..
There
was
a
instance,
or
a
private
group
had
prepared
a
study
in
austin
saying
that
adding
the
the
additional
housing
drove
up
costs.,
but
I
think
most
of
the
studies
that
we
saw
talked
about.
you
know,.
This
is
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed
holistically
by
adding
housing.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
boulder
is
one
of
those
communities
where
we
even
have
a
a
higher
demand
than
many
places,
just
like
bay
area
communities..
So
we
have
even
more
limitations
here
that
drive
up
cost..
So
it's
even
more
difficult
to
solve
the
problem
here
in
boulder,,
so
it
has
to
be
handled
in
a
in
a
multi
pronged
approach.
either,,
you
know,
through
zoning,,
through
inclusionary
housing
and
other
methods
to
to
help
with
the
housing
costs..
So
not
one
option
can.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
so
based
on
that.,
we
went
to
council
in
march..
We,
we
basically
presented
these
particular
3
options
to
council.
At
the
time
we
had
focused
on
mainly,
our,
our,,
our
growth
areas
or
neighborhood
centers,
or
the
boulder
valley
regional
center..
Looking
at
those
zones,
areas
like
diagonal
plaza
where
there's
opportunity
to
add
housing
and
how
we
could
loosen
up.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
the
roles
in
those
areas
to
get
more
housing.
We
we
saw
from
the
diagonal
plaza
project,,
which
I'll
talk
about
briefly.,
that
there
was
limitations
on
how
many
units
they
could
build
there,
and
and
that
they
needed
a
special
ordinance
to
build
the
project
as
they
as
they
intend
to.,
with
additional
housing
and
more
ih
housing.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
when
we
we
also
talked
about
the
potential
for
adding
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
low
density
areas
of
the
city..
We
didn't
recommend
that,
at
the
time
since,
when
we
worked
on
the
large
homes
and
lots
project.,
there
weren't
that
many
lots
that
could
allow
the
additional
units..
But
we
did
take
a
second
look.
with
the
low
density
zones.
rl
one
in
particular,,
where
there
actually
is.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
go
further.
so
I,.
With
respect
to
the
density
adjustments.
Council
asked
us
to
look
at
all
the
high
density
residential
zones
and
see
if
changes
could
be
made.
There.
council
also
asked
us
to
explore
the
duplex
and
triplex
in
single
family
zones
more
and
we've
done
that.
so
ii
wanted
to
just
touch
on
that
real
quick.
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,,
cob:
kind
of
a
more
simple
way
of
of
calculating
it.
also,
would
not
stand
in
the
way
of
how
many
units
could
actually
build
on
the
site..
Obviously,
projects
are
still
gonna
have
to
meet
like
parking,
requirements,,
landscape,
and
other
open
space
requirements..
But
we
looked
at
these
zones.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
we
talked
about
this
in
april.,
basically
there,.
There
are
limitations
to
what
increasing
density
and
and
a
large
part
of
the
city
in
the
very
low
density,,
residential
or
low
density
areas
based
on
the
boulder
valley
conference
of
plan..
It
caps
out
the
density
in
those
areas..
So
if.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
density
were
to
be
increased
in
those
areas,.
It
would
have
to
be
done
first
through
a
comp
plan,
update,
process,
and
then
the
zoning
would
have
to
follow
after.,
but
we
tried
to
look
at
ways
where
we
could
allow
more
units
that
would
still
fit
within
those
limitations
in
the
bvcp..
So.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
looking
at
the
2
to
6
dwelling
units
per
acre,
that's
allowed
in
the
re,,
the
residential
estates
and
the
rl.,
though
low
density,
residential
zones,.
There
are
a
number
of
properties
in
those
areas
that
are
large
enough,
that
they
could
still
be
subdivided,
and
single
family
homes
could
be
built
under
today's
code..
But
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
add
a
duplex
or
a
triplex.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
where
people
could
either
subdivide
today
or
or
actually
convert
and
create
a
duplex
or
a
triplex
if
the
land
area
of
their
lot
still
met
the
density
requirements
that
are
in
the
code,
today.
and
then
one
note
was
looking
at
changing
the
compatible
to
development
rules,
so
they
wouldn't
just
apply
to
single
family
homes,
and
that
they
would
also
apply
to
duplexes
and
triplexes..
So
council
asked
us
to
look
into
those
2
particular
topics
and
also
get
a
more.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
we've
heard
a
diversity
of
of
feedback
on
these
particular
changes..
In
talking
to
to
a
lot
of
the
single
family.
Owners.
we've
heard
concerns
that
these
zoning
changes
will
disproportionately
impact
their
areas..
There
was
concerns
about
adding
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
single
family
neighborhoods
concerns
that
families
will
be
driven
out
by
these
changes
and
parking
impacts
will
increase.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
particularly
if,
if
changes
are
made
in
these
areas,
and
then
there's
no
guaranteed
affordability,
was
a
concern
there..
They
felt
that
there
needed
to
be
deed
restrictions
on
any
increases
in
in
housing
types
or
units
throughout
the
city,,
and
that
the
city
can't
build,
build
itself
out
of
the
the
housing
crisis.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
we
also
talked
to
the
community
connectors
and
residents,,
and
we
had
got
some
interesting
perspectives.
There..
I
think
many
of
the
members
felt
that
zoning
restrictions
in
general
are
limiting
and
in
the
past,
have
been
targeted
to
specific
types
of
people..
There
was
a
concern
that
you
know
in
america:
today,
a
lot
of
the
younger
generations
can't
reach
the
american
dream.
There
was
a
support
for
adding
housing
types,,
but
concerning.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
in
talking
with
the
development
community
and
some
housing
proponents.,
we've
heard
a
lot
of
support
for
these
changes.
we've
gotten
more
technical
comments,.
You
know,
from
some
in
the
community
about,
you
know,
additional
zoning
districts
that
should
be
considered,
or
tweaks
to
the
zones
that
we've
already
included
in
the
scope.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
presents.,
you
know
it.
it's
it's
only
one
tool
among
many
to
get
feedback..
It's
not
viewed
the
same
way
as
a
statistically
valid
survey.,
but
it
does
give
us,
you
know,,
basically,
a
temperature
check
on
where
people
sit
on
these
issues..
When
we
ask
questions
about
adding
additional
housing
units
in
the
commercial
areas
and
neighborhood
centers,
which
the
boulder
valley
conferences
plan
already
anticipates.,
we
saw
a
majority
of
support.
for
those
changes.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
once
on
march
twenty-twond.,
and
then
we
were
just
there
last
week
with
the
ordinance
when
we
presented
this
to
to
have
originally
have
supported
all
the
staff,
recommended
options.
at
the
march,
hearing
thing.
there
was
some
ex.
disappointment
expressed
that
we
couldn't
increase
density
in
the
single
family
areas,,
and
that
was
a
missed
opportunity.,
but
they
did
recognize
that
there
is
a
more
involved.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
of
the
change
they
commended
that
we
expanded
the
scope
of
the
project
to
include
more
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
single
family
areas
more
than
they
had
expected..
There
was
support
for
making
review
process
easier,
for
allowing
more
housing
types
in
the
community,
and
and
general
support
for
allowing
more
modest
sized
housing,,
more
missing
middle.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
increases
should
be
tied
to
missing
middle
housing..
We
should
be
focusing
more
on
property
ownership
rather
than
getting
more
renters
in
the
community..
There
was
concern
about
reducing
open
space
requirements
and
concerns
about
allowing
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
single
family
areas.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
we.,
we
basically
reported
back
on
what
kind
of
changes
could
be
made
in
the
higher
density
zones..
The
lower
end
density
zones,
as
well
as
changes
to
the
site
review
process,
to
encourage
missing
middle
housing
and
council
supported
all
the
changes
that
we
were
proposing..
So
they.
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
that,,
it
would
be
exempt
from
site
review,,
no
matter
how
many
units
are
proposed..
This
is
to
encourage
more
missing
middle
housing
in
in
the
community..
If
they
were
to
propose
any
kind
of
modifications,
it
would
that
would
kick
it
into
site
review.,
but
we're
really
trying
to
encourage
more
by
right
developments
where
the
scale,
you
know,
is
lower
and
gets
into
that
missing,
middle.
segment
of
of
what
we're
looking
for.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
townhouses
because
of
the
fact
that
we
have
side
setbacks.
and
if
you're
doing
town
homes,
where
a
town
home
is
houses
on
its
own
lot,.
You
basically
automatically
have
to
go
to
site
review.
If
you
want
to
do
the
shared
wall
and
have
it
on
its
own
lot..
So
we
were
proposing
a
a
part
of
the
ordinance
that
would
allow
down
to
0
for
townhouse
lots
without
having
to
go
through
site
review.,
and
that
would
be
one
way
of.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
moving
on
to
the
rl.
and
ree
zones.,
we've
changed
the
use
table
to
make
triplexes
and
duplexes
and
allowed
use..
The
intensity
standards
also
would
be
largely
the
same,,
except
for
re,,
where
we
would
allow
one
unit
for
every
se,
7,500
square
feet,
consistent
with
the
boulder
valley,
cumbersome,
plan.,
so
basically,.
If
the
density
requirements
are
met,,
these
uses
would
be
allowed
based
on
this
ordinance.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
the
1,600
square
feet
of
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit,
or
the
1,200
square
feet
of
open
space
for
dwelling
unit..
What
that
does,
is
it?
basically,,
if
you
think
about
it.,
if
you
have
an
far
for
a
site,
for
instance,
in
the
br.
one
zone.,
I
talked
about
this
in
april..
If
you
figure
out
the
total
floor
area,
that's
permitted
on
the
site.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
our
estimation
for
what
the
number
of
I
age
units
you
would
get
from
just
meeting..
The
zoning
was
30
units,
and
by
by
waving
that
1,200
square
feet
of
open
space
per
unit,
you
could
get
up
to
70
units..
So
it
just
shows
that
if
you
can
pack
in
more,
more
smaller
sized
units,
you
get
more.
ih
units.
as
a
result.
C
C
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
there
was
a
perception
that
the
actual
amount
of
open
space
on
the
lot
was
being
reduced,
and
it's
a
little
bit
difficult.
With,,
like
the
1,200
square
feet
of
open
space
per
unit
cause
it's
totally
dependent
on
how
many
units
they
put
on
there.
so,
but
in
general,
we're
trying
to
match.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
what
open
space
we
typically
see
in
those
those
areas.
but
largely,
we've
gone
through
each
zoning
district
and
tried
to
propose
a
site
wide
open
space
as
an
alternative
to
the
open
space
per
dwelling
unit.
in
some
zones,
you'll
see
that,
you
know,.
The
open
space
is
actually
quite
a
bit
more.
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
and
the
previous
open
space
per
unit
was
driving
us
to
have
larger
units
right?
because
there
was
only
so
much
open
space
to
go
around
and
so
dividing
that
up
you
get
larger
units.
and
so
now
we're
we're
allowing
more
smaller
units
with
basically
the
same
amount
of
open
space
on
the
property
and
sometimes
more.
D
D
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
you
know
we
have
to
look
at
the
zone..
It
word
exists
throughout
the
city,
I
think,
in
diagonal
plaza,,
you
know,,
given
the
context
of
it
being,
you
know,
a
derelict
shopping
center,
there
not
being
many
a
a
established
neighborhoods
around
it,.
We
felt
that
1.7
makes
sense.
There.,
but
1.7
is
is
kind
of
pushing
it..
When
you
talk
about.
H
G
Q
G
G
G
G
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
G
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
we're
proposing
to
eliminate
the
current
parking
requirement.
That
applies
to
one
bedroom
units,
if
they're
more
than
60%
of
a
building..
So
it's
currently
1.2
5.
That
would
just
change
to
one.
we're
proposing
to
allow
residential
parking
reductions
up
to
25
through
an
administrative
review..
So
a
staff
level
review
under
today's
code..
Any
residential
parking
reduction
automatically
requires
site
review.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
we're
proposing
to
update
the
parking
reduction
criteria
to
have
stronger,
tdm,
requirements.
and
we've
we've
done
that
in
the
language.,
and
we've
also
reorganized
and
just
kind
of
simplified
the
parking
reduction
criteria.
Just
because
there
was
a
lot
of
redundancy
and
things
that
that
didn't
mesh
with
other
parts
of
the
code..
We
kind
of
reorganized
that
accordingly.
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
and
then,
lastly,
again,
getting
back
to
townhouse
slots
there,.
There
are
some
sub
division
standards
that
require
a
minimum
lot
width
of
30
feet.
We've
heard
from
a
number
of
folks
that
a
barrier
to
townhouse
lot,
townhouse
slots.,
is
that
30
feet?,
so
we're
proposing
that
for
townhouse
lots
where
you
have
one
townhouse
lot
per
per
unit
per
lot,
that
you
could
go
down
to
15
feet.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
of
more
attainable
housing,
more
housing
units
would
be
more
deed,,
restricted,
permanently
affordable.
Housing.
we've
made
changes
in
zones
where
we
encourage
housing
in
the
boulder
valley,
regional
center
and
neighborhood
centers,
as
well
as
industrial
areas
where
we've
loosened
up
the
rules
to
really
kind
of
focus.
Housing
increases
in
those
anticipated
areas
of
growth.
Q
Q
Q
G
G
F
Q
Q
F
F
F
Q
F
F
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
thank
you.
and
thanks,
carl,
for
the
presentation
and
all
your
work
on
this..
It's
a
big
project
following
up
on
ml's
question.
we've
talked
before
about
these
bbcp
density,
intensity,
values.
again,,
the
bbc
says,.
It
is
assumed
that
variations
of
the
densities
on
a
small
area
basis
within
any
particular
designation
may
occur,,
but
an
average
density
will
be
maintained
for
the
designation.
D
D
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
it
would
be
a
very
complicated
effort
to
aggregate
all
of
the
dwelling
units
in
all
of
these
zones
and
figure
and
minus
out
the
the
rights
of
way,
and
figure
out.
What
averages
are
in
certain
areas
of
the
city,
and
then
figure
out
how
to
implement
that.
I
think
our
concern
is
that.
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
if
you
average
it
it.,
it
creates
an
equity
issue..
It's
like,.
If
somebody
decides
over
here
to
to
build
8
units,
and
that
fits
and
that
takes
away
from
this
property
owners
ability
to
to
add
3
units..
It's
just.
It
becomes
very
difficult
to
monitor
that
and
and
challenging..
So
we
feel
that
there
has
to
be
a
an
over.
Q
A
A
A
A
D
D
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
site
review
combines
all
the
properties
involved
in
the
site
review
together,
and
it
allows
you
to
average
the
floor
area
across
those
properties.
anyway..
We
actually
updated
the
code
pro,
it's
probably
10
years,
ago.
now,,
to
make
clear
that
floor
area
can
be
average.,
so
that's
across
all
zones.,
so
it
basically.
Q
G
F
F
Q
Q
F
F
Ml
robles,
pb:
require
us
to
know
what
we
mean
by
that
is
that
correct?
and
then
just
second
little
question
here.,
I'm
looking
at.
use
table
6,,
one,
the
rl,
once,,
and
the
only
thing
I
see
allow
that
is
a
plexus
and
duplex,,
and
I
thought
you
would
say
triplexes
would
be
allowed
as
well..
Is
that
an
oversight
or
no??
It's
not
the.
If
you
look
at
the.
H
Q
F
I
I
I
G
G
G
G
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
you
know
they
have
these
duplexes,
that
they,
they
called
super
duplexes,
and
they
were
likes..
They
were
right
near
the
university,
and
they
had
a
lot
of
students..
So
it
catered
to
renter
pro
population,,
but
I
don't
know
that
that
would
necessarily
be
the
case
across
all
single
family
zones
away
from
the
university..
I
didn't
find
any
data.
Q
Q
G
G
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
townhouses,,
then
there,
that
project
may
not
require,.
You
know,
site,
review
modifications
to
setbacks,
and
wouldn't
require
subdivision
waivers
to
do
the
townhouses
that
have.
they
would
just
meet
it
by
a
right.
but
again,.
I
don't
know
much
more
about
that
project,
and
you
know,
in
terms
of
what
would
be
different.
A
F
F
Q
Q
Q
F
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
is
the
equivalent
of
of
the
option
where
they
have
today
to
subdivide
their
property
and
build
another
single
family
house,,
so
making
it
more
difficult
for
them
to
do
that,.
It's
just
gonna
incentivize
them
to
use
the
mechanisms
that
are
in
the
code
today,
subdivide
and
add
a
single
family
house
rather
than.
F
F
F
F
G
G
O
Vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:
thank
you.
chair.,
so
vivian
castro-wooldridge,
cob:.
We
just
have
5
people
with
us
from
the
public,
and
we'll
start
with
lynn.
Siegel.
you'll
have
3
min,
and
I
just
request
other
members
of
the
public
to
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand
if
you
intend
to
also
share
your
comments.
during
the
public
hearing.
K
Lynn
segal:,
so
I
was
gonna
speak
to
the
to
the
ridgeway.,
but
I
was
in
the
middle
of
transporting
myself
back
to
my
house
from
jccc.
and
you
went
less
time
than
you
intended,,
which
is
2
and
a
half
hours,,
and
I
started
out
at
6
22,,
but
I
miss
underestimated.
oh,
well,
cause,
I
was.
gonna,
say
no
to
ridgeway,
much
as
it's
beautiful,
and
much
as
they're
doing
all
these
things..
But
you
know.
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
G
G
G
G
I
I
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:
was
any
home
ownership
or
potential
affordability.
from
a
market
rate
standpoint.
that
very
much
is
out
there
as
something
that's
you,
know,,
tvd.
and,
and
we
won't
really
know
for
quite
some
time..
What
I
will
know
from
a
development
perspective
is
tremel
crow,
who's,
a
national
developer,
who's
developing
that
project.
I
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:
in
the
case
of
diagonal
plaza,,
it's
an
opportunity
zone..
Their
their
goal
is
to
avoid
any
capital
gains
through
that
through
that
opportunity,
zone,
and
and
boost
the
rents
as
quickly
and
as
maximally
as
possible..
So
when
they
have
an
opportunity
to
flip
that
it
gets
flipped
at
the
lowest
cap
rate,
possible.
I
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:,
not
only
that,,
but
there's
limited
diversity
of
housing
there,
and
when
those
people
that
are
renting
are
looking
for
other
opportunities
in
boulder,.
We
don't
have
any
place
for
them
to
go,
and
a
lot
of
the
prosperity
that's
being
created
out
of
that
project
is
gonna,
be
sucked
out
of
the
community
and
into
this
national
developers.
Pockets
and
ultimately,
flipped
over
in
these
reits
doesn't
negate
the
benefit
of
the
inclusionary
housing,.
But
I'm
not
sure
that
it
does
anything.
I
I
Q
I
I
I
G
G
G
G
G
G
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
changes.,
if
we
feel
like
something,,
you
know,
fixes
something
or
makes
sense..
So
we
could
include
that
in
the
ordinance
that
goes
to
council,
and
we
would
tell
them
what
change
was
made,
or
we
might
just
list
what
was
recommended,
and
then
bring
it
up
as
a
key
issue
for
council,
and
then
council
can
then
decide
whether
something
should
be
added.
Q
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Brad
mueller,
cob:
that
apply.
this
rule
applies
to..
Then
we
would
go
probably
to
council
and
say,
here's
the
recommendation,,
and
if
you
follow
that
recommendation,
we
we
would
submit
that
additional
public
outreach
is
needed,
and
that's
kind
of
what
I
was
speaking
to
at
the
top
of
the
meeting
of
the
scope.
C
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
unlike
subcommunity
plans
or
area
plans,
council
and
planning
board,
are
not
required
by
code
to
adopt
this
and
identical
versions.,
so
they
don't
have
to
listen
to
us.,
we're
just
making
recommendations
at
this
stage,
and
there
are
various
ways
that
staff
can
can
facilitate
the
process
of
council.-
considering
our
recommendations
and
what
the
implications
of
those
recommendations
might
be.
but
council
at
the
end
of
the
day,
is
the
deciding
body..
We
are
not.
G
G
G
G
F
H
G
G
G
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
planning
board..
I
move
that
planning
board
recommends
that
city
council
adopt
ordinance
a.
5,,
9,
9
to
amend
title
9.
land,
use.
code,
brc.,
1,
81
related
to
the
site.
review
process
and
intensity,
form
and
bulk
use,
parking
and
subdivision
standards
concerning
affordable
and
modestized
housing
and
setting
forth
related
details.
G
C
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
kurt,
are
you
okay,
with
that?
okay?,
ml,
you're,
the
official
for
devon's
records.
I'll
just
speak
to
the
motion
to
say,.
This
is
the
second
time
I
have
heard
this
presentation..
I
heard
it
also
at
hab,,
where
it
was
enthusiastically
welcomed..
I
think
people
are
are,
and
I
agree
with
this,
are.
C
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
figure
out
fixes
to
a
permanently
affordable
housing,,
but
to
to
try
to
figure
out
ways
to
get
more
of
the
housing
types
that
we
know
that
we
are
missing,
like
townhouses,,
duplexes,,
townhomes
figure
out.
What,
in
our
code,
is
driving
us
to
have
this
barbell,
with
single
family
housing
on
one
side
and.
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
large
apartment
buildings
on
the
other,
and
try
to
help
relieve
those
barriers.
So
we
can.
the
market
can
start
to
fill
in
some
of
those
things.
and
the
market.
Doing
that,,
as
carl
explained
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
presentation,,
will
provide
additional
inclusionary
housing,,
especially
with
some
of
the
changes
to
our
inclusionary
housing,
ordinance
that
michelle
allen
and.
C
C
Laura
kaplan,,
pb:
or
add
units
in
that
way
that
it's
subject
to
the
inclusionary
housing
benefit,
right?
so
or
th..
There's
other
things
that
are
gonna
come
with
that.,
but
we're
gonna
get
inclusionary
housing
out
of
the
market,,
adding
more
units
one
way
or
the
other..
So
there's
no
guaranteed
affordability
out
of
building
duplexes,,
triplexes,
and
townhomes.,
but
we
get
some
natural
inclusionary
housing
benefit
out
of
it.
C
So
anyway,,
I
just
wanna,
say
I'm
excited
by
the
work
that
staff
has
done..
I
think
this
is
a
great
ordinance
that
has
been
brought
in
front
of
us..
I
suspect
that
the
changes
that
my
colleagues
are
going
to
bring
are
largely
going
to
be
to
encourage
going
farther,,
and
I
look
forward
to
staff's
reaction
and
guidance
to
us
and
input
on.
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
how
much
of
that
might
be
feasible
without
slowing
this
down
and
having
to
go
back
for
more
community
outreach,,
which
is
an
appropriate
thing
to
do
when
the
scope
changes
significantly..
So
I'm
looking
forward
to
the
conversation
as
always
very
excited
to
see
what
my
colleagues
will
bring
forth..
I
love
the
diversity
in
this
group,
and
some
folks
may
have
concerns
with
things
that
they
they
don't
wanna
see.
go
forward.
so.
G
D
D
G
C
G
G
D
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb::
what
is
the
threshold
beyond
which
a
project
needs
to
go
to
site
review.
currently,?
A
number
of
these
thresholds
are
framed,,
framed
in
terms
of
number
of
units..
So
in
a
lot
of
cases
for
a
lot
of
zone,,
if
you're
building
more
than
5
units,
for
example,,
you
need
to
go
to
site
review.
if
you're
building
more
than
20
units.
D
D
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
4
5
units
or
4
units.
if
they
build
5,
units,
they're
gonna
be
smaller..
If
they're
gonna
be.,
if
they're
gonna
build
4,
units,
they're
gonna
be
bigger
and
most
likely
more
expensive..
If
they
build
5,,
then
they
have
to
go
through
through
site
review
site
review
is,
as
we
know,
a
fairly
difficult
time
consuming
an
expensive
process.
D
D
D
Q
Q
Q
Q
G
G
C
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
because
I
think
we're
on
the
same
page
with
staff
about
the
intent.
and
it
sounds
like
1,500-
was
kind
of
a
a
bit
of
a
wag
on
on
your
part
of
like
just
trying
to
put
a
number
in
there.
That
might
make
sense,
and
I
would
trust
staff
to
find
an
appropriate
number.
if
they
do
some
calculations
and
figure
that
that's
not
the
right.
Number.
Q
Q
D
I
I
I
I
D
G
G
G
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
ii
won't
say
that
our
recommendations
were
marginalized,,
but
it
certainly
were
emphasized
in
that
discussion.
At
council.-
so,
ii
anyway,,
I
think
staff
has
latitude
given
that
all
we're
doing
is
making
a
recommendation
anyway,,
and
I
actually
think
that
clarity
of
words
of
replace.
F
F
F
G
Brad
mueller,
cob:
laura,,
I'm
gonna
jump.,
ask
you
for
just
a
second
here
and
go
to
brad..
If
that's
all
right?
yeah,,
I
was
just
gonna,
encourage
the
board
to
not
worry
too
much
about
that
language.
On
number
one..
I
think
the
spirit
of
it's
caught,
and
we
understand
the
nature
of
it.
mark,,
you're,
absolutely
right..
There's
a
fatal
flaw,.
You
know.
we're
not
gonna
fail
to
bring
that
to
the
council.
A
G
G
G
C
G
G
D
D
D
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
and
if
I
can
kurt
nordback,
pb:,
speak
on
it
now,.
So
there's
these
minimum
lot
areas
to
me.
I,.
The
all
of
these
are
really
they're
governed
by
the
far's..
That's
how
the
intensity
is
governed,,
not
by
the
minimum
lot
area
in
our
r
and
re.
and
rl,.
The
intensity
is
governed
by
the
minimum
lot
area.,
and
so
I'm
certainly
not
proposing
to
change
the
minimum
lot
area
in
those
zones..
But
in
these
zones.
D
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
the
minimum
lot
size
is
7,000
square
feet,,
which
isn't
that
big.,
but
say,.
Somebody
wants
to
make
a
very
small,.
You
know
little
repair
shop
on
their
own
property,
on
small
parcel
of
land
of
5,000
square
feet,
or
something.
currently,.
As
I
understand
it,.
That
is
not
allowed,
and.
D
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
building
that
you
can
build.
it
is.,
but
as
it
currently
stands,
it
is
prohibiting
very
small
scale.
Development.
and
to
me,
that's
problem..
The
second
part
relates
to
the
minimum
lot
area
per
dwelling
unit
for
the
vt
2
zone.
We've
in
in
the
proposal
in
this.
in
this
ordinance,
we've
eliminated
the
lot
area.
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
per
dwelling
unit
for
a
lot
of
these
other
zones
where
we're
regulating
by
floor
area,
floor
area,
ratio,
and
but
for
some
reason
that
was
not
done
in,
and
it
seems
appropriate
to
me
to
be
consistent
and
also
do
that
in
vt.
2
again.
we..
The
goal
is
to
move
towards
regulating
my
floor
area
ratio..
So
that's
the
intake.
G
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
okay?,
we
got
a
little
mark,
mcintyre,
pb:.
Our
procedure
was
going
to
be
to
mark
mcintyre,
pb:,
discuss
it.
then
decide
if
we're
gonna
make
a
motion
or
not.,
but
you
made
the
motion
and
and
so
I'm
I'm
just
going
to
go
out
of
procedure
a
little
bit
and
ask
staff
to
respond
to
this
as
to
kind
of
which
which
sort
of
category
what
their
thoughts
are
on
this,
and
then
we
can
seek
a
second
or
actually
modify
this
or
whatever..
So
let's
look
for
staff's
response
to
this.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
I
I
I
I
Q
Q
C
Q
C
Q
C
C
G
D
D
G
G
D
D
D
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
D
C
D
D
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
there
there
may
need
to
be
some
flexibility,
some
provision
for
additional
review
to
allow
for
higher,
far
in
certain
circumstances,
such
as
was
done
in
a
a
diagonal
plaza
where
it
was
built
out
at
1
point,
I
mean
it
will
be
built
out..
It
was
approved
at
1.7,
something,
and
under
these
rules
it
would
only
be
allowed
1.5,.
So
it
probably
the
project
would
not
happen
under.
D
D
D
C
C
D
Q
Q
Q
Q
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
wild
idea,,
which
may
or
may
not
be
acceptable
to
the
motionmaker.,
but
carl,.
Would
it
be
more
acceptable
rather
than
giving
a
hard
number
like
point
5
additional
residential
far.?
Could
you
say
an
additional
10%
residential
far
or
some
percentage
increase
so
that
you
wouldn't
get
like
a
doubling,,
but
you
would
get
some
known
percentage
of
increase.?
Would
that
be
more
acceptable??
And
if
so,
is
there
a
number
that
you
would
suggest.
Q
D
D
I
G
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb::
what
do
you
think
about
george's
idea
that
this
is
something
that
should
perhaps
be
considered
with
additional
community
outreach
is??
Do
you
feel
that
this
rises
to
that
threshold?
If
we
changed
it
to
say
something
like
some
percentage,
rather
than
a
point
5.,
and
we
added
your
idea
of
community
benefits.
C
Q
Q
G
D
G
G
C
G
D
G
I
C
C
D
D
D
G
G
Mark
mcintyre,
pb::
how
would
we
track?
what
would
we
track??
How
would
we
track
it?
and
is,
is
this
necessary,
or
is
this
actually
something
that
would
be
beneficial
to
everybody,
to
state
that
we're
going
to
track
this?,
or
is
it
creating
this
giant
burden?
so
back
to
staff
on
on
what
your
thoughts
are
about?
This.
Q
Q
A
A
A
A
F
A
A
F
F
A
A
A
A
Q
C
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
to
to
creating
smaller
units.
did
we
get
on
average,
more
smaller
units,
you
know..
I
think
I
think
our
intent
is
clear
of
why
we're
making
these
changes,,
and
I
think
I
would
leave
it
to
staff's
future
creativity
to
think
about..
How
do
we
do
that??
Look
back
that
brad
is
is
describing
without
us
trying
to
design
that
here
and
now
ii.
Don't
think
we
have
any
divergence
of
interest
here.
C
I
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:,
and
so
I
agree
with
laura,,
because
ii
also
understand
from
snaps
perspective.,
but
it
it's
a
it.
We
have.
we
have
something
in
front
of
us.
That's
that's
called,!
You
know,
an
affordable
ordinance.
that
really
does
not
deal
with
affordability.
Directly..
It's
dealing
with
housing
types
that
some
postulate
that
may
impact
affordability.
I
I
G
G
G
D
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
given
the
difficulties
that
are
obvious
from
the
an
operational
standpoint.,
I'm
not
going
to
be.
bring
this
forward
as
emotion,,
but
I
think
staff
understands
the
and
shares
the
the
the
concept
behind
this
and
motivation,
and
I'm
sure
that
we
will
be
gathering
this
data
at
some
point
going
forward..
So
thank
you.
I
G
G
F
G
I
I
G
G
G
G
G
G
Jorge
boone,
pb:
that'd
be
great.,
so
the
goal
is
to
maintain
the
maximum
of
the
40
elu..
I
think
I
pointed
this
out,,
which
is
just
that
there's,,
you
know,
removing,
that
is,
it's
a
safeguard,
so
that
we
we
try
to
maintain
diversity
of
housing.
and
right
now
that
diversity
of
housing
section
is
not.
I
I
C
Q
I
I
Q
D
I
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
carl
pulled
up
on
the
screen..
That's
for
projects
that
go
through
site,
review,,
right?,
that's
not
for
all
projects
in
the
city.,
and
so
the
changing
this
threshold
would
just
say
that
fewer
projects
have
to
go
through
site
review,,
and
then
they
don't
have
to
meet
those
diversity
criteria
that
are
in
the
site,
review
criteria.
I
I
Q
Q
G
C
C
G
F
F
F
F
Q
Q
F
Q
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
an
appendix
end.,
then
you
would
be
allowed.
The
onefive
far
bonus
on
top
of
the
onefive
limit
in
the
base.
Code.
so,
carl,.
Do
you
wanna
speak
to
that.
and
did
I
get
it
wrong,
or
is
that
about
right?
no,?
That's
right.!
I
mean,.
The
appendix
end
was
created
to
apply
to
largely
the
shopping
centers
that
are
zoned
bc,
pcs
kind
of
an
odd
zone,
because
it
applies
to
those
neighborhood
centers.,
but
it
also
applies
in
some
areas
that
are
not.
Q
G
G
Q
I
Q
D
Q
C
G
D
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
and
laura
just
respond..
This
is
much
more
restrictive
than
what
I
was
proposing,.
What
I
was
proposing
would
have
applied
to
many
more
zones..
This
applies
just
to
as
I
read
it,
just
to
bc.,
one
and
bc.
2,,
and
for
bc.
one
and
vc.
2,,
only
independent,
those
independence
and
so
much.
C
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
yeah..
I
was
just
wondering
if
this
fit
under
that
umbrella,
if
it
was
already
encompassed.,
but
then
mark
reminded
me
that
that
motion
failed,.
So
this
would
be
an
attempt
to
see
if
a
more
narrow
motion
could
succeed,
so
could
I
suggest
a
wording
change
based
on
carl's.,
so
devin,
could
you,
after
appendix?
n.
C
C
G
I
I
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:
diagonal
was
approved
through
that
ordinance
was
because
someone
wanted
a
catalyst.
and
I
get
that.
and,
and
that
was
that
that
that
went
through
a
process
right.
the
right
process
for
diagonal
at
some
point
is
an
area
planning
process..
Then
the
right
process
for
these
areas
is
an
area
planning
process.
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:
and
ii
don't.,
I
just
think
we're
you're
you're
layering
on
this
bonus
that
the
community
will
just
get,.
I
mean,
crazed,
about.,
so
ii,
I'd
be
very
cautious
about
something
like
this.
ii,
don't
think
it's
necessary
to
achieve
our
goals..
We
got
diagonal
through
because
people
there
was
urgency
because
of
a
specific
to
to
carl's
point.
It
was
a
very
specific.
I
Jorge
boone,
pb:,
those
things
will
develop
on
their
own
and
in
the
meantime,.
If
we've
got
area
planning
processes
that
we
do
with
all
this
community
outreach.
and
all
of
a
sudden,,
someone
can
just
layer
on
a
10%
or
20%
or
50%
bonus.
yeah,.
I
just
think
we're
asking
for
trouble
from
the
community
that
that
that
is
irresponsible.
G
G
G
G
C
C
Q
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:
by
our
council
since
there's
been
more
of
a
focus
on
east
folder
subcommittee,
plan.,
but
ii.
Think
these
neighborhood
centers
are
opportunity
areas
for
mixed
use
and
more
housing..
So
I
think
our
suggestion
is,
yeah,.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
have
area
planning
and
then
have
your
zoning.
Q
G
G
G
C
G
G
G
G
G
G
Q
Q
Q
Q
G
Q
Q
Q
Q
G
D
I
G
G
Q
Q
Q
Q
G
Q
G
I
G
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
I
Q
Karl
guiler,
cob:,
it
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
restrictive
for
residential,
or
or
does
this?.
Does
this
modify?
sorry?
does
this
modify?
basically
is
is
mark's
thing,
saying,,
there's
a
there's,
there's
the
far
for
the
site.
and
then
there's
a
bonus.
Far
for
residential
on
top
of
that.
is
that
is
that
how
you're
interpreting
this?
yeah.