►
From YouTube: Boulder City Planning Board Meeting 07-13-17
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
A
A
B
C
B
Opposed,
nay,
that
passes
unanimously
mm-hmm.
So
the
next
item
we
have
is
public
participation
for
matters
not
on
the
agenda
and
we
have
a
few
items
that
are
on
our
agenda
right
now,
and
so
those
are
issues
that
we
won't
be
covering
in
this
general
public
participation.
But
if
folks
have
anything
else,
so
the
issues
that
actually
we
have
a
continuation
and
we've
already
closed
the
public.
B
Testimony
on
the
comp
plan
and
see
you
south,
and
then
we
have
a
discussion
about
foreign
based
code
review
of
3,200
Bluff
Street,
where
we
will
have
a
separate
opportunity
for
people
to
weigh
in
on
that
subject.
But
we
certainly
welcome
any
other
topics
or
any
other
discussion
cindy.
Has
anybody
set
up?
B
Would
anyone
like
to
speak
on
any
other
topics,
seeing
none
we'll
move
on
to
dispositions
planning
board
call
ups
and
continuations,
which
we
have
none
of
so
we'll,
make
that
a
pretty
quick
agenda
item
and
move
to
5a,
which
is
the
continuation
of
the
public
hearing
to
deliberate
and
vote
on
the
proposed
Cu
South
land-use
map
change
and
guiding
principles
as
part
of
the
2015
major
update
to
the
Boulder
Valley
plan
and
Leslie
SM
you'll
set
that
one
up?
Yes,.
E
E
If
I
can
get
my
slide
to
advance
there,
we
go
so
just
a
quick
overview
of
where
the
plan
goes
from
here
and,
as
you
know,
of
course,
this
goes
to
the
county
and
the
Planning
Commission
will
be
having
their
deliberation
and
voting
on
the
19th
next
week.
And
then
the
county
commissioners
will
do
their
work
on
the
26
they
held
their
hearing
on
June
28th.
E
So
there's
a
little
bit
of
overlap,
planning,
City
Council
had
their
deliberations
on
Tuesday
night
and
so
we'll
share
with
you
what
they
what
they
voted
on
and
what
they
approved.
And
that's
what
we're
bringing
to
you
this
evening
for
your
approval.
Hopefully
so
on
Tuesday
evening
they
voted
on
the
Comprehensive
Plan
itself.
There
was
an
unanimous
approval
of
the
plan,
the
text,
the
policies,
maps
and
so
on.
They
had
in
their
packet,
and
you
received
as
a
link
in
your
packet,
the
June
draft
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
E
That
version
included
the
modifications
that
you
made
on
May
25th,
plus
the
modifications
that
council
made
and
some
additional
modifications
that
you
made
in
June,
and
they
accepted
that
plan
with
these
three
additional
modifications
from
the
county
that
the
county
commissioners
and
Planning
Commission
provided
after
their
discussion
on
the
28th.
And
so
we
would
ask
you
tonight
or
we'd
recommend
that
you
tonight
hopefully
just
approve
these
final
minor
changes
to
the
plan,
so
that
that
is
completed
on
the
city
side
and
then
the
county
will
do
its
deliberation.
E
It's
basically
just
to
prove
those
minor
edits
to
the
plan
and
then
on
see
you
South,
City
Council,
had
about
a
four-hour
discussion
on
this
item
and
of
course,
you
you're
about
your
board
has
had
several
several
our
discussions
in
the
past
meetings
and
provided
lots
of
very
helpful
feedback
back
particularly
around
the
guiding
principles
that
got
us
to
the
draft
that
went
to
Council
and
went
to
the
county
for
both
sets
of
deliberations,
and
so
what
you
have
in
your
packet
now
is
a
new
map.
It's
a
modified
language
around
the
guiding
principles.
E
I
won't
plan
to
go
through
that
in
detail.
I
think
you
can
see
where
the
red
lines
are.
If
you
have
any
questions,
certainly
about
why
something
appears
as
it
is,
or
what
the
deliberation
was
on
the
part
of
council,
we
can
do
our
best
to
try
to
explain
that,
for
you,
the
biggest
change,
probably
is
the
map,
as
you
can
see
on
the
screen,
when
you
saw
it
back
in
June,
it
was
a
version
of
a
map
that
had
public
and
Oso
two
designations.
E
Only
now
you
see
that
there's
there
are
three
designations,
including
the
park
urban
and
other
category
in
the
area.
That's
intended
around
the
flood
mitigation
and
the
open
space.
Other
category
is
extended
over
to
cover
the
500-year
area
protected
by
the
floodplain,
and
so
many
of
the
modifications
now
and
the
guiding
principles
also
track
with
that
change
to
the
map,
and
that
was
a
decision
that
council
made
that
they
thought
that
this
map
conveyed
our
intentions
more
closely
than
perhaps
the
map
before.
E
E
That
does
that
too,
just
to
make
sure
that
that
it's
consistent
with
what's
intended
on
that
part
of
the
property,
so
that
was
just
a
minor
housekeeping
thing
really,
but
just
to
be
sure
that
that
wouldn't
be
a
challenge
when
we
go
into
flood
facility
engineering
and
study
and
design.
So
that
changes
the
motion
slightly
then
to
track
with
the
map,
and
we
would
then
recommend
or
ask
that
you
consider
approving
that
new
map
and
the
modified
guiding
principles
that
are
in
your
packet
and
I,
believe
that
is
all
I
have
for
you.
E
B
Thank
you
Lesley.
Does
anyone
have
questions
just
to
get
started
out
on
anything
Lesley
discussed
or
what
counsel
did
on
Tuesday,
so
seeing
none
I'm
gonna
recommend
that
we
take
the
issues
one
at
a
time
and
start
with
the
changes
to
the
kind
of
main
body
text
of
the
language
and
it
looked
like.
There
are
three
relatively
modest
changes
from
our
last
change.
Is
there
any
discussion
or
a
motion
on
that
subject
and
Lesley
if
you
could
put
up
that
yeah.
E
F
E
B
C
Let
me
just
get
it.
It
mentions
our
history
of
being,
let's
see,
is
it
page
13
what
goes
through
the
history
of
oh
yeah
here
at
it's,
it's
the
new
four
of
God
I
forgot
my
classes.
It
was
gonna,
be
tough
tonight,
it's
a
bullet
on
the
top
part
of
the
page,
and
it
says
in
2016
the
city
adopted,
etc,
etc,
and
it
goes
through
some
history,
but
do
you,
since
the
City
Council's,
reconfirmed
our
commitment
to
the
Paris
Accords?
C
E
B
So
why
don't
we
move
then,
to
the
second
part
of
the
comp
plan
discussion,
which
is
the
Cu
South
discussion,
and
we
have
three
areas
of
approval
here.
We
did
not
take
a
formal
vote
as
a
board.
We
just
provided
suggestions
and
guidance
to
Council,
so
this
would
be
our
our
first
action.
Obviously,
council
took
some
of
the
suggestions
we
took
and
made
some
additional
ones.
So
is
there
any
discussion
or
a
motion
on
this
piece?
G
G
The
data
collection,
sort
of
more
evidence
and
scientific
analyses
and
that
kind
of
thing
done
prior
to
parts
of
the
annexation
proceeding,
so
that
the
flood
control
mitigation
efforts
can
proceed
and
they're
not
being
delayed
or
anything
and
they're
meeting
the
needs
of
the
neighbors
who
are
downstream,
but
they're,
also
focusing
on
making
sure
that
the
land
use
and
the
annexation
are
informed
by
real
science
and
real
data
and
and
and
preliminary
engineering
design.
So
I
really
appreciated
those
efforts.
There
was
a
hard
slog,
but
they
got
there.
So
that
was
great
great.
C
Was
just
gonna
say,
I
to
watch
the
council
meeting
and
I
agree
with
you,
Lisa
I
thought
the
discussion
was
very
informative,
but
I
wanted
to
thank
Francis
Draper
from
the
University
of
Colorado,
because
I
feel
that
a
lot
of
your
clarification,
even
if
it
didn't
address
any
specific
outcome,
it
gave
more
of
an
understanding
of
the
future
processes
that
everybody
was
going
to
have
to
be
involved
in
together.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
for
participating
into
the
late-night.
D
E
D
F
Carmen
I'm
gonna
move
the
planning
board,
approve
the
land,
use
designation
for
Cu,
South,
changing
from
low
and
medium
density,
residential
and
portions
of
open
space
other
to
public
and
parks,
urban
and
other,
and
retaining
portions
of
open
space
other
that
approve
the
guiding
principles
in
policy.
Language
which
we
have
in
our
packet
is
attachment.
B.
B
C
Yeah,
just
a
couple
things
and
I
can't
seem
to
get
my
little
attachment
C
here
working
so
just
generally
in
listening
to
the
City
Council
discussed
this
last
night.
A
couple
things
popped
out
at
me
as
we
have
we're
in
the
process,
at
least
of
a
committee
that
submitted
a
report
on
public
engagement
and
public
participation
to
the
city
manager
and
I'm.
Assuming
the
community
will
be
discussing
it
and
seeing
what
parts
can
be
applied
to
different
departments
and
I
was
wondering
how
that
will
kind
of
work
and
interface
with
the
comp
plan.
E
E
C
And
then
the
second
thing
is
the
annexation
part
with
Cu
is
all
of
our
annexation.
Agreements
address
community
benefit,
and
so
I
I
would
have
liked
to
have
seen
that
kind
of
really
spelled
out
I
mean
not
specifically,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
ways
you
can
meet.
The
community
benefit
standards
for
annexation
and
I'm
sure
one
of
the
ways
this
dedicating
land
for
public
facilities
such
as
flood
control,
another
could
be
housing.
C
C
E
And
I
think,
to
your
point,
I
mean
we
use
the
actual
word
community
benefit
in
the
guiding
principles.
But,
as
you
stated,
you
know
the
fact
that
there's
land
for
flood
control
there's
land
for
open
space,
there's
potentially
housing
I
mean
those
are
all
things
that
we
certainly
talk
about.
When
we
talk
about
community
benefits,
so
I
think
the
principles
probably
speak
to
it
in
in
concept
at
least.
B
Well,
then,
I
think
before
calling
question.
I
just
want
to
thank
the
public,
thanks
to
you,
we've
gotten
I
think
really
great
feedback
to
make
a
much
more
informed
and
I
think
a
much
better
evolved
set
of
concepts
and
principles
from
where
we
started
in
a
relatively
short
amount
of
time
and
I.
Think
from
the
people
who
are
concerned
about
any
development
on
this
parcel
and
the
people
concerned
about
flood
control
and
folks
who
are
interested
in
the
cuff
housing
and
long
term.
B
Health,
university,
I
think
we've
gotten
great
feedback
and
I
think
hopefully
good
principles
that
will
inform
the
annexation
decision
and
then
obviously
thank
you
to
staff
for
driving.
That
and
I
also
thought.
City
council
did
a
great
job
of
kind
of
polishing
this
off
and
in
having
a
pretty
good
project.
So
with
that,
I
will
call
the
question
all
in
favor
of
Harmons
motion
seconded
by
Brian,
please
say
aye
any
opposed
that
also
passes
unanimously.
Thank
you.
So
thank
you
and
I.
Think
that
concludes
our
work
on
the
comp
plan.
C
You
one
follow-up
question:
when
we,
when
we
talk
about
3303
Broadway,
we
have
a
and
the
adjacent
properties,
so
we
have
recommended
a
new
land
use
designation
for
that
quarter,
but
did
the
comp
plan?
It
was
a
little
bit
unclear,
actually
rezone
the
individual
processes
of
the
properties,
so
that
will
come
next
them.
Yes,
I.
C
B
So
that
moves
us
to
item
5b
on
our
agenda,
which
is
a
public
hearing
to
consider
farm
based
code
review
application,
Lu
our
2016
two:
zero
zero,
zero,
seven
nine
to
permit
a
new
four
to
new
four-story
55
foot
tall
general
building
type
buildings,
including
office,
retail
and
36
residential
units
at
3,200,
bluff
Street
within
the
MU
for
mixed-use
for
zoning
district
in
Boulder
Junction.
Before
we
turn
it
over
to
staff.
Are
there
any
disclosures
that
people
would
like
to
make
recusal
so
anything
else?
Brian
I'm.
H
B
F
D
G
B
Just
as
as
context
mostly
for
members
of
members
of
the
public
that
we've
got
with
us
and
folks
watching
from
home,
this
is
the
first
time
that
we've
actually
had
a
call
up
under
the
farm
based
code,
and
so
this
is
a
little
bit
new
territory
and
I
know.
Staff
will
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
process
and
our
role
and
the
review
under
the
form
based
code.
So
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
I,
don't
know
if
you're
taking
this
one
and
we'll
jump
right
in
good.
I
Evening
board
members,
so
we
have
our
first
form
based
code
review
project
before
the
board
here
tonight.
The
board
will
recall
that
the
phone
based
code
was
approved
by
the
City
Council
in
June
of
2016
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
relationship
of
this
project
to
that
process.
I'll
start
with
the
site
location,
it's
located
at
the
corner
of
Junction
place
and
bluff
Street
within
the
boulder
junction
neighborhood.
The
property
is
just
over
an
acre
in
size
and
you'll
notice
that
the
BNSF
Railway
is
to
the
west.
I
So
obviously
it's
a
developing
context
you
can
see
the
left
picture
is
the
air
gas
building
as
it
is
today
there,
and
then
we
have
pictures
of
some
of
the
steel
Yards
properties
and
then
a
view
line
on
the
lower
right
down
junction
place
towards
the
depot
Square
area.
Where
we've
seen
more
intense
development.
I
There
are
some
pictures
of
steel
yards,
which
is
in
a
different
zoning
district
and
again
the
more
intense
development
that
we've
seen
around
Depot
Square,
including
the
nickel
flats
project.
So
there's
been
a
number
of
recent
approvals
that
have
applied
to
this
area,
which
have
gone
through
the
site
review
process
that
preceded
the
adoption
of
the
form
based
code.
So
the
upper
left
is
the
boulder
Commons
project,
which
is
actually
under
development
immediately
to
the
south.
I
This
project
I
have
some
pictures
of
that
and
then
immediately
to
the
north
and
east
is
the
spark
development
which
has
been
cleared
and
is
also
under
development,
not
quite
as
far
along
as
a
boulder
Commons
is,
and
here
are
some
pictures
of
those
buildings
that
were
approved
as
part
of
those
site
review
applications.
So
this
this
is
a
picture
of
the
Boulder
Commons
project.
It's
actually
under
the
same
ownership
group
and
architecture
firm
as
the
subject
project
composed
of
two
buildings
so
getting
into
the
regulatory
con
context.
I
The
Boulder
Valley
Conference
of
plan
designates
this
area
as
mixed-use
business,
basically,
talks
about
it
being
a
business
or
residential
character,
encourages
housing
and
public
uses
supporting
housing
and
in
some
cases
they
of
those
may
be
required.
The
Boulder
Valley
area
or
the
transit
village
area
plan
applies
to
the
area.
It
actually
sets
things
more
specifically
than
the
comp
plan
does
it's.
I
It
designates
it
as
mixed-use
to
basically
talks
about
being
an
area
of
high
density
and
commercial
and
residential
as
a
mixed-use
area
with
three
to
five
story
buildings,
it's
anticipating
more
intensive
development
around
what
is
hoped
to
be
in
the
future,
a
rail
Plaza
which
is
designated
as
such.
In
the
inlet
evap
plan.
You
can
see
the
subject
location
within
the
rail
Plaza
area.
I
I
I
So
this
this
project
is
interesting
because
it
actually
predates
the
forum
based
code
and
they
had
begun
designing
the
project
before
the
farm
based
code,
where
there
is
certainty
in
whether
it
would
be
adopted
or
not.
So
they
started
off
in
the
traditional
process
of
development
review
with
a
concept
plan,
so
that
came
before
the
Planning
Board
on
May
26th
of
last
year.
That's
actually
after
the
board
was
looking
at
the
form
based
code
and
made
a
recommendation
to
council,
but
there
was
still
some
uncertainty
about.
I
You
know
whether
that
would
get
adopted
or
not
so
the
applicant
opted
to
originally
designed
it
according
to
site
review
and
then
started
adapting
it
and
working
with
staff
through
the
form
based
code
project.
They
basically
showed
their
willingness
to
be
that
first
project
to
go
through
form
based
code.
So
when
this
was
reviewed
by
well,
first
I'll
talk
about
some
of
the
connections
here.
So
there
is
a
multi-use
path,
connection
on
the
north
side
of
the
site.
That's
required!
I
So
Planning
Board
reviewed
the
project.
You
can
see
these
two
vantage
points
of
the
project
in
May
of
last
year.
A
lot
of
the
discussion
from
the
board
at
that
time
was
related
to
pedestrian
experience
on
the
site,
like
through
the
site
like
Penna
penetrations
through
the
site.
How
people
can
walk
around
through
the
site
and
around
the
site
would
that
there
were
some
concerns
about
the
to
garage
connections
that
continue
to
be
a
part
of
the
project.
I
So
again,
this
is
the
first
project
to
be
reviewed
in
this
process,
but
entails
255
foot
tall
buildings
totaling
over
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet
in
size.
The
north
building
would
be
mostly
residential
with
36
dwelling
units.
There's
a
small
commercial
space
that
would
be
in
the
upper
northeast
corner.
I
The
South
building
is
entirely
commercial
there's
some
areas
that
are
set
up
to
be
restaurant
spaces
along
Junction,
Place
there's
one
thing
that's
slightly
different
is
that
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
lot
line
between
them,
so
it
creates
basically
two
separate
buildings
that
have
to
be
separate
buildings
by
building
code.
So
there's
two
separate
garages:
that's
driving
the
request,
for
the
exception,
related
to
the
access
to
the
garage
off
a
junction
place,
there's
a
total
of
79
parking
spaces,
but
it's
effectively
two
parking
garages
by
Building
Code.
I
They
have
to
be
has
to
be
a
firewall
between
them
and
again.
I
mentioned
the
dab
review
with
an
attachment
D.
So
there
was
a
request
to
do
a
comparison
of
this
project
to
the
site
review
process,
so
I'm
going
to
try
to
walk
through
that
there
obviously
there's
a
lot
of
requirements
here
and
there's
some
board
members
that
weren't
on
the
board,
when
the
forum
based
code
was,
it
was
approved
and
reviewed.
So
I
wanted
to
kind
of
talk
about
that.
I
So
this
is
a
new
process
for
all
of
us,
and
obviously
this
is
a
test
of
the
forum
based
code,
this
particular
project.
We
don't
expect
it.
You
know
necessarily
be
people
perfect.
It's
hitting
things
in
different
ways.
City
council
requested
form
based
code
as
a
different
regulatory
tool.
There
were
some
criticisms
and
concerns
about
site
review
and
how
its
can
be
unpredictable
because
of
the
subjective
nature
of
the
site
review
criteria,
and
there
was
a
desire
to
test
out
forum
based
code
in
a
limited
area
in
the
city
that
had
a
vision.
I
Basically,
the
boulder
junction
area,
so
against
a
review
has
a
is
highly
discretionary.
It
has
enough,
you
know,
seven
pages
of
criteria,
a
lot
of
things
that
lead
to
different
conditions
of
approval.
There's
different
types
of
review,
there's
staff
level,
reviews
that
can
be
called
up
and
then
there's
some
that
require
mandatory
planning
or
reviews.
So
floor
based
codes,
a
little
bit
different,
it's
more
prescriptive.
It's
a
little
bit
more
black
and
white.
You
either
meet
the
standard
or
you
don't.
I
It
has
a
lot
more
requirements
when
it
comes
to
form
and
design
and
site
review.
The
form
based
codes
traditionally
are
more
like
building
code,
where
somebody
submits.
If
they
meet
the
requirements,
they
get
approval,
there's
no
discretion,
there's
no
board
or
council
reviews.
There
were
some
concerns
about
that
at
least
starting
off.
You
know,
and
if
there
were
concerns
about
it
would
be
evaluated
through
a
call
up
process.
I
So,
as
far
as
you
standards,
the
same
use
standards
apply
when
the
MU
for
rezoning
occurred.
It
basically
changed
the
the
use
standards
for
the
site.
It
would
comply
with
that.
We
didn't
want
to
tinker
with
the
use
standards.
The
only
additional
thing
that
would
apply
to
this
site
is
that
requirement
for
50%
residential
that
we
had
come
up
with,
because
the
transit
village
area
plan
talked
about
getting
predominantly
residential
to
get
a
massing
of
residential
met
area
as
a
transit
oriented
development.
I
So
we
put
that
in
as
an
actual
requirement
in
the
past
it
was
more
kind
of
through
concept
plan
and
talking
about
needed
uses,
and
it
was
a
little
you
know
more
subjective,
so
form
standards
are
quite
different.
The
fun
setbacks
are
prefer.
Mu4
are
pretty
similar
to
the
bill
to
zones
that
are
in
the
form
based
code.
One
one
difference
is
that
the
mu4
zone
has
a
sixty
percent
ground
facing
area
around
the
site
and
the
form
based
code.
It
was
increased
again,
it's
mostly
on
type
a
frontages,
but
it
requires
ninety
percent.
I
In
this
case,
the
project
is
pretty
close
to
a
hundred
percent.
There
are
zero
setback,
Side
setbacks
in
the
mu4
zone,
but
a
five
foot
setback
was
added
in
the
forum.
Based
code-
nordic
you
know:
building
separation
and
distinct
buildings
and
more
opportunities
for
pedestrian
connections
through
the
site.
So,
in
this
case,
with
this
project,
when
the
applicant
proposed
that
lot
line,
it
required
a
site
setback
and
they're,
asking
for
an
exception
to
that
and
I'll
talk
more
about
that.
I
We
have
the
appropriate
standards
in
the
code
which
still
apply
to
this
projects
of
the
forum
based
code
has
more
stringent
requirements
for
appurtenances
and
also
has
specific
standards
for
cap
types,
or
the
roofing
options
on
the
site
is
pretty
much
the
same
as
the
pre-existing
development
process.
Obviously,
if
somebody
were
to
go
to
55
feet
or
through
a
site
review
process,
it
would
have
to
come
before
Planning
Board
automatically
as
a
mandatory
review
and
would
have
to
meet
the
site
review
criteria
in
this
case,
it's
an
allowable
option.
In
this
particular
location.
I
There
are
limitations
on
floor
to
floor
Heights
in
the
forum
based
code
when
we
get
to
site
design
an
open
space
based
on
the
height
of
the
building
through
site
review.
There
be
a
20%
open
space
requirement
and
that
open
space
would
have
to
meet
the
open
space
criteria
and
the
site
review
criteria,
as
well
as
the
specific
standards
in
the
development
standards
and
then,
as
far
as
access
is
concerned,
we
have
a
requirement,
for
you
know,
access
to
be
from
the
lowest
category
street,
which
would
be
typically
like
at
an
alley.
I
In
this
case,
there's
no
alley
the
for
based
codes
a
little
bit
different.
It
has
a
65%
impervious
max
which
is
kind
of
a
different
way
of
regulating
it.
In
this
case,
the
proposal
would
basically
have
over
20%
open
space
if
it
were
a
site
review.
The
forum
based
code
has
Paseo
design
standards
as
far
as
the
surface
treatments
and
the
widths
and
what
needs
to
occur
along
the
Paseo.
I
There
is
a
requirement
in
the
forum
based
code
that
they're
not
be
accessed
from
a
taipei
street.
So
junction
place
is
a
taipei
street.
Again
they
don't
have
an
alley
access
and
by
subdividing
the
property
they've
asked,
for
that
exception.
There's
also
a
requirement
that
parking
and
like
refuse
areas
or
trash
enclosures
have
to
be
in
a
parking
yard,
which
basically
is
the
area
in
the
rear
yard
of
the
site,
that's
outside
of
the
front
or
sides,
and
they
would
be
asking
for
exception
to
that.
I
will
talk
more
about
that.
I
Sorry,
there's
a
lot
of
requirements
to
talk
about
so
as
far
as
intensity
standards,
the
form
based
code
is,
is
different.
It
does
not
have
an
FA
or
limit
the
mu4
zone
has
a
2.0
FA
R.
So
if
this
were
to
be
reviewed
through
site
review,
there
max
would
be
98
thousand
square
feet
at
a
2.0
FA
R
in
this
case.
There's
other
methods
to
relate
to
mass.
So
there's
150
foot
max
length.
There's
the
impervious
requirement.
There's
the
build
two
zones
that
would
regulate
the
mass
the
height
there's,
also
the
required
30%
massing
step-down.
I
So,
basically,
if
the
building
is
over
I
believe
it's
40
feet,
it
either
has
to
have
a
pitched
roof
or
they
have
to
step
the
massing
down
of
its
footprint
30%.
They
would
meet
that
this
results
in
you
know,
basically
a
building
or
two
buildings
over
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet,
most
of
the
development
standards
that
we
have
applied
to
the
project.
They're
the
same.
I
The
only
thing
that's
different
through
the
forum
based
code
is
the
explicit
standards
of
open
space,
don't
apply
because
there's
the
outdoor
space
and
pervious
standards
in
the
form
based
code,
the
biggest
difference
in
the
form
based
code
as
it
applies.
This
project
is
really
the
building
design
part.
So
everything
that
relates
to
the
skins
of
the
building
is
this
well
I
think
they
have
to
make
most
of
the
modifications
to
meet
the
form
based
code.
So
the
board
understands
that
site
review.
You
know
you
have
a
lot
of
criteria.
I
We
have
building
design
criteria
that
talk
about
compatibility
with
the
surrounding
area,
creating
authentic
materials,
high-quality
materials
on
the
building
and
then
also
focusing
on
pedestrian
interests,
but
nothing
really
specific.
So
when
we
get
into
the
form
based
code,
we
have
obviously
the
cap
type
requirements,
there's
a
requirement
for
major
materials
that
are
considered
high
quality,
stone,
metal,
wood
and
then
there's
minor
materials
that
can
be
used
to
a
lesser
extent
like
fiber
board,
siding
or
stucco
there's
requirements
for
material
changes
and
where
they
can
occur
on
the
building
to
make
it
look
more
substantial.
I
There's
requirements
for
recessed
vertically
oriented
windows
over
a
certain
percentage
of
the
facades
with
expressed
lintels
others,
transport
transparency
requirements
per
floor.
That's
to
really
get
a
you
know,
a
nice
facade
with
transparency
and
fenestration
that
would
be
per
floor.
There's
building
facade
requirements.
I
It
gets
a
little
bit
overdone
and
then
we
have
facade
detailing
requirements
like
vertical
and
horizontal
divisions
that
are
required
to
just
kind
of
add.
You
know
slight
variations
and
try
to
you
know
avoid
kind
of
mundane
facades,
so
obviously
through
site
review,
it's
a
discretionary
process,
there's
modifications
that
are
commonly
requested
to
that
process.
But
when
you
get
into
form
based
code,
that's
not
necessarily
what
we
expect.
We
want
there
to
be
more
kind
of
rigid
applicability
of
standards,
but
there
was
concern
through
the
form
based
code
that
it
could
be
too
rigid.
I
So
there
was
an
exception
process
that
we
added
into
the
form
based
code.
So
there's
the
exception
criteria
that
I'll
talk
about
that
applies
to
this
project.
So
in
this
case,
there's
basically
six
exceptions.
There
were
quite
a
bit
more
when
it
first
came
in
and
we've
been
trying
to
work
on
refining
all
those
to
kind
of
lower
those
those
down.
So
the
first
one
relates
to
the
residential
floor
area.
They
would
be
just
shy
of
the
fifty
percent
with
forty
seven
percent
of
the
residential
floor.
Ii
were
fifty
is
required.
I
Most
of
the
standards
relate
to
the
general
building
type
where
this
building
is
so
there's
the
minimum
setback.
If
there's
a
5-foot
setback
there
they're
built
they're,
basically
joining
the
buildings
together
or
that
cantilever
portion
is
there's
the
maximum
building
length
requirements,
so
they
would
be
exceeding
that
should
I
have
a
little
graphics
here.
I
So
that's
where
the
side
setback
would
what
is
requested
and
then,
as
far
as
building
length
on
the
North
elevation
of
the
North
Building,
there
would
be
about
a
hundred
and
eighty
feet
where
150
feet
is
the
max
and
on
the
South
building
I.
Believe
it's
190
feet
where
150
is
the
max
there's
the
impervious
coverage
of
exception.
I
So
in
the
code,
it's
65%
you
can
actually
ask
up
to
71%
of
they're
actually
at
73%,
so
that
requires
an
exception
and
then
the
rough
usin,
where
the
utilities
are
not
located
in
the
in
the
parking
yard
they're
actually
along
the
Paseo,
and
this
is
driven
by
there
not
being
an
alley
and
also
difficulties
working
with
Excel
on
switch
cabinet
locations
and
then,
lastly,
there's
the
the
driveway
access
so
by
subdividing
the
property
and
having
two
different
karajan's
they're,
asking
for
an
access
off
a
type,
a
facade
on
junction
place.
I
So
the
key
issues
tonight
are
pretty
straightforward.
Is
the
proposal
consistent
with
the
regulations
of
the
forum
based
code
and
appendix
m-matt,
and
we've
found
that
it
meets
most
of
the
regulations?
With
the
exception
of
those
exceptions,
we've
created
a
checklist
that
we've
attached
an
attachment,
a
to
cut
that
kind
of
details,
all
the
requirements
in
the
form
based
code
and
obviously
that
outlines
the
exceptions
that
are
required.
So
these
are
basically
the
two
criteria
that
would
apply
to
the
exceptions.
I
I
So
all
the
general
building
type
requirements
kick
in,
there's
also
the
requirement
for
the
multi-use
path
along
the
north
part
of
the
site
which
they
would
meet,
others
the
Paseo
requirements
which
they
would
meet
and
then
again
this
is
a
type
A
Street
Junction
place.
So
the
two
exceptions
I
want
to
talk
about
here
or
the
50%
residential
on
the
type
A
access,
so
staff
supports
the
the
47%
for
residential.
It's
a
minor
exception,
they're,
pretty
much.
I
The
reason
they're
asking
for
it
is
because
staff
requested
that
they
consider
putting
more
commercial
square
footage
in
that
northeast
corner.
Because
that's
the
area,
that's
gonna,
be
where
the
rail
Plaza
is.
We
felt
that,
in
order
to
give
that
area
a
little
bit
more
activity
that
that
would
be
more
appropriate
and
also
it
it's
an
area,
that's
bisected
by
one
of
the
access
points
to
the
garage.
So
it's
a
minor
deviation.
We
felt
that
it
met
the
exception
criteria
with
the
type
A
access
on
the
self
lot.
I
Again,
it's
not
an
ideal
situation
to
have
the
garage
interrupt
that
pedestrian
street
streetscape
a
long
Junction
place,
but
it's
not
an
uncommon
situation
if
properties
were
subdivided.
If
there
were,
this
were
two
Lots.
This
would
probably
be
the
likely
scenario
and
also
given
that
you
know
they,
they
are
looking
to
subdivide
the
property
and
sell
them
off
that
this
is
a
reasonable
exception
that
wouldn't
conflict
with
T
vapp.
So
we
support
that
so
moving
on
to
the
the
general
building
type
requirements,
this
is
a
list
of
the
requirements
that
come
up.
I
The
ones
in
blue
are
are
the
things
that
are
from
the
checklist
that
we
found
the
project
met,
the
ones
in
yellow
are
the
one
would
require.
You
know
the
modifications,
so
with
respect
to
the
setbacks
and
the
maximum
building
length.
We
talked
about
those
two
together
because
I
kind
of
go
hand
in
hand
because
they
that's
where
the
building's
touched
together.
I
We
felt
that
this
was
not
an
uncommon
condition
that
we've
seen
in
other
developments
in
the
area
and
and
also
the
fact
that
they've
designed
it
to
look
still
like
two
separate
buildings
and
that
they
have
that
widened
pedestrian
penetration
through
the
site
there.
We
felt
that
it
met
the
intent
of
the
forum
based
code
as
far
as
how
the
buildings
appear,
so
we
we
felt
that
those
exceptions
could
be
granted.
We
had
a
few
concerns
about
the
the
site
and
pervious
coverage.
I
I
I
think
one
of
our
biggest
concerns
is
really
their
refuse
and
utility
locations
and
how
that
would
impact
the
the
Paseo
area,
but
in
working
with
the
applicant
they
were
able
to
kind
of
design
it
with
a
kind
of
a
screening
feature
around
the
cabinets
and
the
trashy
enclosures,
and
they
they
worked
on
enhancing
the
appearance
of
the
paseo
to
make
it
more
attractive
and
also
given
that
there
wasn't
an
alley
behind
the
site.
We
felt
that
that
we
could
grant
the
exception
to
that
standard.
So.
I
As
far
as
the
building
design
requirements,
the
only
thing
that
was
a
little
bit
different
was
that
they
they
are
proposing
solar
panels
on
the
facade
similar
to
the
Boulder
Commons
project.
That's
solar
panels
are
not
explicitly
called
out
in
the
forum
based
code
as
a
major
material,
but
it
does
have
a
provision
where
you
can
ask
for
an
alternative
material.
I
So
with
that,
we
are
recommending
approval
of
the
form
based
code
review.
This
is
the
motion
language.
That's
in
the
memo
so
we're
recommending
approval
based
on
the
proposed
conditions
found
within
the
packet.
There
was
a
question
about
what
kind
of
conditions
can
be
imposed
on
the
on
the
project
and
we're
happy
to
talk
to
you
about
that.
But
basically
you
know
with
a
site
review
project
where
you
have
a
number
of
criteria.
There's
there
were,
you
can
have
any
number
of
you
know,
conditions
that
would
require
meeting
the
criteria.
I
I
So
if
you
were
to
find,
for
instance,
that
one
of
the
you
know
the
exceptions,
don't
meet
the
exception
criteria,
you
could
add
a
condition
saying
you
that
my
that
exception
is
not
approved
and
that
they'd
have
to
come
in
at
Tec
dock
meeting
the
form
based
code
requirement,
so
you
could
have
a
condition
requiring
full
compliance
with
a
form
based
code.
You
could
also
have
a
condition
that
could
require.
Maybe
a
degree
of
compliance
and
we'd
have
to
see
what
were
the
board
thinks.
I
You
know
how
these
exceptions
relate
to
the
criteria,
but
you
know
if
there
was
a
certain
type
of
exception
that
would
may
not
be
supportable
as
proposed,
but
have
changed
if
the
design
was
changed
to
better
meet
the
criteria.
A
condition
could
be
applied
in
that
case,
so
we
wouldn't
probably
see
conditions
would
traditionally
be
done.
Insight
review
where
there
might
be
a
desire
to
change
a
material
from
one
major
material
to
another
major
material,
something
that
audit
that
already
meets
the
farm
based
code
would
be
difficult.
I
You
couldn't
condition
it
to
meet
it
a
different
way.
You
couldn't
require
say
like
a
height
reduction,
because
the
form
base
code
allows
the
height
at
that
level,
whereas
in
site
review.
If
you
found
it
didn't
meet
the
site
review
criteria,
you
could
you
know,
make
changes
to
the
building
that
way,
so
that
that's
just
kind
of
a
summary
of
how
conditions
could
be
applied
so
I
hope
that
makes
sense
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
B
D
To
say
that
I
think
that
the
comparison
with
the
site
review
is
really
a
great
presentation,
because
I
helped
me
to
understand
the
difference
between
the
two,
so
that
was
really
useful.
I
appreciate
that
a
lot
I
just
had
a
couple
of
questions
in
comparing
with
the
map
and
the
fund
based
code.
It
shows
the.
D
I
I
G
G
I
A
good
question:
it
actually
only
applies
in
those
areas
that
have
required
storefront.
So
when
you
look
at
the
regulating
plan,
the
areas
that
say
required
storefront
have
the
blue
line.
So
what
usually
at
those
corners
in
prominent
corners?
That's
the
areas
where
we
intended
to
not
allow
that
that
recess.
If
this
building
were
in
the
Main
Street
storefront,
then
that
would
also
apply
in
this
particular
location.
It
doesn't
okay.
G
So
that
overhang
is
compliant.
So
are
you
keeping
a
list
of
sort
of
modification
I'm
sure
the
developers
have
their
ideas
about
a
list
of
ways,
they'd
like
to
change
the
form
based
code?
And
if
we
have
things
like
that,
you
know
that
kind
of
over
it
seems
like
kind
of
an
oversight
that
we
don't
have.
We
don't
address
that
overhang
issue
in
other
parts
of
the
farm
base
code.
G
And
look
through
the
applicants,
materials
and
there
were
in
one
area,
the
restaurant
was
added
to
the
residential
to
come
up
with
a
higher
percentage
of
the
overall
project
devoted
to
residential,
but
they
didn't
look
like
staff
actually
went
that
way.
You
don't
consider
a
restaurant
to
be
a
residential
component.
Do
you
know.
I
G
And
then
there's
a
there
was
multiple
and
I'm
bringing
this
up,
because
we
have
people
on
the
board
who
didn't
participate
in
the
form
based
code
or
the
concept
plan
in
the
applicants.
Materials
are
multiple
times
where
they
say
we're
doing
this
because
of
the
concept
plan
approval.
Well,
there
was
no
I
mean
it's
in
here
multiple
times
the
words
concept
plan
approval
and
we
didn't
actually
approve
anything,
a
concept
plan.
G
In
fact,
I
pulled
up
our
minutes
and
we
just
had
this
little
paragraph
because
it
was
the
end
of
the
palo
parkway
meeting,
and
so
we
just
said
it
was
very
brief
and
we
only
had
a
few
comments.
So
I
just
wanted
people
to
know
that
there
isn't
there
wasn't
a
concept
plan
approval
and
therefore
we're
not
necessarily
obligated
to
follow.
G
So
maybe
that's
another
thing.
You
know
I'm
kind
of
getting
into
comments,
I
guess
a
little
bit,
but
just
to
add
to
the
list
of
potential
revisions
to
the
form
based
code.
If
you're,
if
you
have
in
some
small
part
of
the
form
based
code,
they
say
you
can
modify
this
10%
and
you
feel
like
wow.
You
know,
we've
got,
we've
really
nailed
this,
but
then
something
like
building
length
can
get.
You
know
another
50
percent
or
whatever.
G
I
I
G
C
Have
some
questions
and
it
was
mainly
about
the
length
of
the
North
Building,
so
it's
180
feet
were
the
form-based
code.
It
has
a
standard
of
50
feet,
150
feet,
100
150
feet.
Thank
you
and
so
it's
30
over
then.
The
one
along
junction
place
is
190
feet
and
it
would
be
40
feet
over
but
and
I'll
ask
the
same
question
of
bill.
But
what
is
the
what
it?
I
We
pointed
it
out
to
the
applicant
as
a
concern
and
we
recommended
that
they
they
meet
that
requirement,
but
I
think
through
the
review
process,
they
made
design
changes
to
kind
of
minimize
the
the
massing
of
the
building
in
that
area
where
they
join
together.
To
give
it
more,
you
know,
distinguish
between
the
buildings
more,
so
we
felt
that
through
those
changes,
it
met
the
intent
of
how
the
building
should
read
along
the
street.
C
C
B
Any
other
questions
I
had
just
one
which
was
the
zero
sidelines,
setback
that
all
asked
the
same
question
the
applicant
almost
slightly
differently.
What
was
your
sense
for
why
there
was
the
need
to
have
the
buildings
touching
and
have
that
kind
of
read
that
way,
as
opposed
to
truly
separate
buildings
along
there.
What
was
the
a
year
thinking
on
why
I
was
helpful
to
have
the
that
second
floor
connection,
I
mean.
I
B
J
J
C
E
J
J
We
haven't
been
able
to
come
back
to
you
and
tell
you
what's
almost
constructed
and
we
have
the
same
sustainability
package
here.
So
the
net
zero
building
and
that's
the
goal
and
I
think
we'll
get
there
just
like
we
did
with
Commons,
but
primarily
because
of
quite
a
bit
of
solar
on
the
roof
and
on
the
walls,
and
these
are
just
diagrams
from
concept
plan.
J
So
once
we
got
through
concert
plan,
we
took
your
feedback
which
was
really
good
and
we
and
then
for
those
code
was
approved
and
we
started
working
with
Carl
and,
as
he's
mentions
in
in
the
memorandum
there
were
months
of
back
and
forth
with
it.
It's
one
thing
to
read:
a
regulation
is
another
thing
to
design
a
building
under
it
and
I
think
what
we
understood
about
it,
maybe
even
what
all
understood
about
it
was
put
to
the
test
and
when
we're
actually
designing
a
building
the
by
enlarge.
J
J
If
you
move
this
over
and
what,
if
you
change
that,
so
it
was
more
of
a
kind
of
a
team
oriented
thing
which
I
thought
was
pretty
cool,
the
firm
based
code
really
drives
things
like
expressive,
windows,
deep
windows,
materials
word
and
brick,
and
a
lot
of
engagement
on
the
first
floor
and
a
different
kind
of
step.
It's
not
there's
no
better
wedding
cake.
Where
you
go
out.
Three
stories
and
stuff
I
can
go
up.
It
drives
a
different
kind
of
massing,
and
this
building
doesn't
look
like
anything
else.
J
Endeavor
and
I
think
that's
a
good
thing
right.
That's
a
testament
to
the
phone-based
Kirk
working.
So
we
got
through
the
process
with
staff
and
created
this
this
building
together,
that's
representative!
What
can
be
done
under
form
based
code
on
what
form
base
coat
drives
you
to
the
attention
of
detail
in
the
document
is
really
strong
and
I.
Think
it
it's
positive.
The
vast
majority
of
form
based
code.
We
comply
with
there's
hundreds
of
it.
J
From
the
format
stuff,
how
much?
How
much
right
information
could
it's?
It's
you
just
person
you've
met
it,
so
it
forces
the
step
down
and
it
first
is
about
to
be
the
wedding
cake
you
have
to
take
out
chunks
of
it.
So
this
meets
that
it
also
meets
the
design,
intent
with
expression,
lines
and
materials
and
gun
rectangles
and
all
that
stuff
it's
compliant
with
then
down
to
the
details.
How
do
you
return
materials
at
corner?
So
we
don't
have
the
problem
like
brick
comes
out
stops
and
then
you
have
stucco.
J
All
of
those
and
personally
I
wanted
to
say
that's
a
really,
really
good
focus
at
the
Commons.
If
you've
had
a
chance
to
go,
buy
the
materials
were
going
up
and
focus
on
a
high
level
of
craftsmanship,
though
the
contractors
doing
a
great
job
and
we've
been
pushing
them
and
pushing
them.
This
is
a
lot
easier
when
you
have
a
document
like
form
based
code
dictating
it
because
we
can
say
hey
a
contractor.
Look
look
and
it's
got
to
be
done
right,
so
it's
not
just
your
normal
stuff.
J
K
J
J
K
J
Yeah,
if
you
could
just
go
back
one
and
we'll
start
for
there
and
I'll
try
to
try
to
be
pretty
quick
and
then-
and
it
just
says
a
couple
of
comments
and
won't
be
done.
As
Carl
said,
it's
really
the
site,
that's
driving
the
exceptions
percent
of
Pollard,
that's
nice!
Squared
you
can
divide
it
up
with
alleys
and
streets
for
based
code
is
not
going
to
require
many
or
any
exceptions.
But
here
we
have
no
alleys.
J
We've
got
this
weird
triangle
shape
site
and
coupled
with
our
sustainability
goals
of
these
thin
buildings
that
we
can
sail
on
top
of
and
get
daylighting
into.
We
end
up
being
a
little
bit
oddly
configured
for
the
goals
of
form
based
code.
So
if
you
can
flip
to
the
next
slide,
the
red
boxes
are
what's
allowed.
A
hundred.
Fifty
five
hundred
and
fifty
feet.
J
And
some
of
you
went
through
the
committee,
so
you
know
more
than
I,
but
the
way
I
understood
that
there's
two
main
things
that
small
150
feet
is
trying
to
encourage
normos.
Frankly,
small
buildings,
they're,
not
huge
ownership
structures,
they're,
not
big
behemoth
things,
and
so
our
building
sizes
are
about
half,
maybe
they're
more
than
half
of
what's
allowed
by
right
under
form
based
codes,
I
think,
in
conjunction
with
staff,
we
felt
that
that
met
with
the
intent
of
form
based
code
and
the
other
is
visually
from
the
street.
J
You
don't
want
to
have
a
300
foot,
long
monoculture
building
right.
You
want
it
to
look
like
there's
a
lot
of
variety
on
the
street.
So
if
you
could
go
the
next
slide,
we've
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
staff
looking
at
how
this
breaks
down
at
the
street
level
and
so,
for
example,
the
rest
elevation.
That's
two
things,
one
of
which,
as
you
mentioned
crystal,
was
a
little
bit
longer
than
what's
allowed,
but
we've
taken
great
pains
to
make
it
feel
like
three
things.
J
We
also
met
in
conjunction
with
staff,
the
intent
of
that
part.
So
if
we
didn't
have
this
site,
we
wouldn't
be
asking
for
an
exemption.
We
broke
the
state
in
half,
so
we
get
closer
to
the
intent,
but
we
still
had
this
kind
of
weirdness.
So
that's
that's
150
feet
the
residential
great
question,
those
we
originally
designed
it
50/50,
residential
commercial
but
I'm
talking
to
staff.
J
With
this
very
good
point,
the
rumor
from
spark
hits
the
northeast
corner
where
the
two
little
restaurant
spaces
are
in
the
reservoir,
we're
fighting
with
residential
they're
better
for
the
area.
If
there
was
something
with
a
little
more
Street
engagement,
so
we
switch
those
two
residential
units
into
restaurants
that
the
percentages
were
misleading,
but
we
did
intend
to
ask
for
an
exception
there,
because
by
changing
those
19
3%
over
that's
because
of
that
restaurant
shift,
the
approvals
coverage
and
her
call.
J
J
J
Right
and
that's
that's
pretty
unusual,
there's
a
potential
experience
at
each
of
four
sides.
There's
no
alley
here,
which
is
really
what's
assumed
under
the
phone
base
code,
so
there's
no
place
for
a
truck
to
come
in,
though
trash
there's,
no
chance
for
me
to
sit
in.
So
we
took
the
trash
into
the
parking
garage,
which
is
fine,
it's
just
an
operational
expense,
but
it's
the
cost
of
having
a
four
sided
building
after
our
kind
of
early
conceptual
drawings
that
we're
using
to
understand
it.
J
But
it
gives
you
a
sense
that
that's
a
really
pedestrian
driven
space.
The
real
challenge
with
the
utility
location
is
the
switch
cabinet.
So
I
spend
just
a
little
time
on
this
and
then
be
done.
There
is
currently
two
switch
cameras
up
in
the
corner
of
Junction
and
Bluff
right
on
the
corner,
so
everyone
in
the
city
and
the
dykes
got
to
be
moved.
J
So
we
moved
with
Excel
and
identified
the
location
on
the
seven
site
where
they
are
now
is
the
only
spot
that
really
works
for
excel
fruits,
which
cabinet
there's
about
200
lines,
pairs
of
cable
and
they
can
move
it
anywhere
on
the
path
of
those
cables
follow,
but
that's
where
they
can
move
it.
They
said
so
they
agree
to
that
spot.
The
only
other
place
to
put
a
transformer,
because
we
have
this
pedestrian
East
Side,
which
of
course,
we
can't
do.
J
As
best
we
can
in
a
four
sided
site,
so
it
has
the
least
impact
to
any
of
pedestrian
activity
around
the
site.
So,
to
finish,
we'll
do
a
better
debrief
that
we
think
the
flow
based
code
is
driving
a
good
result
and
the
exceptions
that
we're
asking
for
are
entirely
driven
by
the
site
configurations.
So
in
all
mine,
the
exceptions
are
not
proving
that
it
doesn't
work.
It's
like
the
exceptions,
approve
the
rule
right.
If
you
having
regular
urban
site,
all
of
the
exceptions
were
asking
for
a
wouldn't
apply,
so
we.
J
K
L
Be
briefing
usually
I
say
thank
you
for
being
here
tonight.
I
was
actually
hoping
not
to
be
here
in
terms
of
being
called
up,
but
I
also
understand
the
process
and
and
for
me,
and
if
you
just
make
sure
you
jack
two
three
four
five
bluffs
Street
over
Colorado
I
mean
Morgan
Creek
fence
percent
thanks.
L
This
is
an
important
process
and
we're
kind
of
the
guinea
pig
the
first
one
into
the
process,
and
we
were
the
semi
guinea
pig
at
the
Commons
and
it's
been
fun
to
work
with
staff
through
the
process
and
and
I.
Think
that
you
know,
even
though
at
the
Commons
we
started
in
January
when
finished
in
August.
Here
we
started
last
May
with
concept
plan
and
we're
still
going.
You
know
my
hope
is
that
were
able
to
be
part
of
something
that
really
builds
a
process
that
creates
really
great
form
and
great
design
in
Boulder.
L
That
follows
what
we're
doing
at
the
Commons,
which
is
hopefully
the
first
Ned's
or
commercial
building,
and
that,
on
the
commercial
side,
we're
going
to
try
and
do
Commons
2.0,
which
takes
kind
of
the
leading
edge
heating
and
cooling
systems
that
we're
doing
and
tries
to
integrate
that
with
operable
windows
that
can
be
voice
command
and
tied
to
the
heating
and
cooling
system
and
I
think
the
kind
of
TDM
and
transportation
side.
What
we're
doing
at
the
Commons
really
extends
here.
L
In
that
we're
doing,
we
just
met
with
Enterprise
today
and
we're
meeting
with
local
groups
on
how
are
we
doing
at
Casa
program
how
we
voluntarily
integrate
that
with
steel
yards
and
some
of
our
neighbors
I'm
I
have
in
my
office
the
first
of
26
bikes
that
are
colored
orange.
That's
a
junction
bikes
on
them
that,
hopefully,
will
become
the
beginnings
of
a
fleet
for
that
whole
area
in
kind
of
a
demonstration
in
terms
of
what's
happening
in
the
whole
area,
and
so
we're
trying
to
be
reliever.
I'll,
be
honest.
L
Being
leaders
hard
doing,
the
vertical
solar
wall
is
easier
said
than
done,
especially
when
it
has
vertical
windows.
Horizontal
windows
and
redirecting
film
that
bounces
stuff
up
to
daylight,
but
we're
about
to
start
installing
those
first
panels,
and
hopefully
we
can
give
you
guys
a
tour
or
to
see
the
roof
system
which
has
no
RTS
on
the
roof
they're
all
down
below
and
tucked,
in
which
we
plan
to
do
here
also-
and
it
also
has
a
helical
solar
panel.
L
That's
the
most
efficient
kind
of
integration
for
that
of
solar
panels,
owners
who
have
great
panels
but
a
great
assembly
and
how
it
works,
and
it
also
it
turns
out,
keeps
it
really
low
from
a
visual
standpoint
and
it
doesn't
stick
up
like
other
solar
panel
system
in
town,
so
we're
learning
stuff,
you
guys
have
been
pushing
us
we're
all
together,
so
I
guess
in
the
end.
Probably
thank
you
for
letting
us
be
here
tonight.
Thanks
great.
G
So
I
guess
these
are
well
for
both
of
you
but
I'll
start
with
questions
for
bill.
Now
you
worked
on
the
form
based
code
development
with
with
Leslie
I
mean
what
you
want
to
talk
to
us
about.
You
know
your
input
in
the
in
our
working
group
and
stuff,
so
you
played
a
role
in
feedback
on
the
farm
based
code
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
Right
so
I
mean
it's
not
like.
It
was
brand
new
to
you
and
you
the
challenge.
J
That's
true:
the
challenge
was
two
things
really
one
was
at
the
foremost
code
was
a
moving
target.
We
didn't
know
until
council
approved
that
what
it
was
going
to
have
ate
it,
and
the
second
was
we
didn't
know
if
it's
actually
going
to
get
approved.
There
was
some
question
about
whether
or
not
to
be
frank,
council
Bok
was
seating.
Some
of
the
controls
aside
review
gives
to
both
boards,
both
Council
and
Planning
Board,
to
a
regulatory
document.
So
do
the
timelines.
J
We
were
moving
forward
under
the
site,
review,
criteria
and
and
faculty
kind
of
thought
that
was
the
most
likely
outcome.
So
when
we
got
a
phone
basecoat
approval,
we
then
had
to
shift
from
what
was
designed
to
regulate
to
work
under
the
regulations
for
site
of
you
into
this.
Now.
Having
said
that,
we
were
meeting
with
the
consultant,
her
plans
and
she
a
couple
times.
J
We
thought
that
she
would
come
back
and
say
well,
here's
what
I
I
think
works
generally
for
the
most
part,
what
she
expected
to
get
approved,
matched
original
stuff,
pretty
wall,
and
so
I.
Don't
really
know
to
be
frank
where
they
disconnect
from
her
review
to
the
one
hundred
and
fifty
feet
was
as
one
example.
There
was
a
few
other
things
that
she
thought
were
gonna
work
and
then
the
final
approved
form
based
code
didn't
really
match
what
she
thought
was
gonna
work,
but
that's
the
nature
of
a
public
process.
G
G
Okay,
so
anyway,
it's
on
the
in
our
in
your
plans
on
page
FBC
1.7.2,
and
it
talks
about
building
facade
variety
increments
and
the
intent
of
this
provision
is
a
balanced
and
articulated
building
composition,
perceived
intimate
scale
of
buildings
and
pedestrian
interests.
And
could
you
talk
about
what
your
what
exception
you're
requesting
and
are
there
for
that.
J
J
I
Think
this
is
a
remnant
from
what
was
an
exception
because
we
were
actually
Morgan.
One
of
my
bigger
concerns
on
the
project
was
on
the
North
elevation
of
the
North
building,
in
that
it
I
thought
it
didn't
meet
that
90-foot
increment
with
the
changes,
and
we
went
back
and
forth
on
that
for
quite
a
bit
until
they
made
certain
changes
and
added
new
building
elements
and
they
changed
the
window
orientations.
They
changed
the
height
of
the
elements
and
we
finally
got
to
where
it
didn't
require
an
exception
anymore.
J
G
J
J
We
wanted
that
to
be
available
for
the
residential
users,
also
to
the
residential
portion
and
there's
an
out
there's
a
door
that
you
can
get
outside
the
programming
Department
to
make
sure
the
doors
were
far
enough
back
that
they
didn't
get
in
the
way
of
the
fire
code,
with
approximately
it
doesn't
matter,
and
the
commercial
can
use
that
deck.
That's
why
the
buildings
are
joined
so
that
both
parties
can
get
home
I
get
out
on
to
it
and.
B
J
L
L
At
this
point
were
five
or
six
months
in
doze
site
review
and
doing
something
that
site
review
process
now
we're
$600,000
and
a
year
and
some
into
just
doing
form
based
code.
So
I
think
some
of
these
things
we're
just
trying
to
figure
out
as
we
go
along
and
we've
been
working
through
individual
pieces
like
how
the
garages
interconnect
and
we're
getting
into
building
code
issues
that
what
typically
would
have
been
a
site
review
issue.
So
it's
our
intent.
It
was
all
I
can
think
yeah.
G
L
Actually
has
one
garage
that
supports
two
buildings.
In
this
case
we
have
two
totally
different
uses,
that'll,
be
in
two
separate
ownerships
and
probably
financed
completely
differently.
So
they
have
to
be
two
separate
garages.
They
can
potentially
be
interconnected,
but
even
then
we
work
with
the
building
apartment.
Then
they
have
to
have
essentially
fire
doors
that
come
down
on
both
sides
and
we
have
to
be
able
to
ultimately
separate
them
with
concrete,
if
necessary,
required,
but
because
they're
completely
separate
ownerships
completely
separate
parcels.
L
Obviously
it's
part
of
what
even
for
best
code
and
things
like
that
drive,
is
trying
to
break
them
up
into
smaller
parcels
and
and
there's
good
and
bad
sides
of
that
in
the
scheme
things,
but
they
have
to
be
two
separate
entrances
for
two
separate
uses.
Two
separate
ownerships
completely
separate
finance.
Well,.
L
Can
do
this
but
honestly,
each
deck
easily
from
an
easement
same
point.
You
can't
share
the
rush.
It's
just
practically,
not
you
can't
do
it
from
a
financing
standpoint
or
others.
You
can
have
lots
of
little
easements
on
the
surface
of
something,
but
you
can't
have
two
interconnected
garages
that
serve
to
separate
uses
if
their
own
does
two
separate
parcels
in
today's
world.
It's
just
doesn't
happen.
G
G
G
B
D
J
J
I'm
gonna
say
this:
poorly
I
apologize
complexity
with
simplicity,
so
a
strong
overall
move,
and
then
my
texture
patterning
within
that.
So
it's
easy
to
understand
on
Breck
rate
patterns
and
lintels
and
server
courses
and
bases
and
caps,
and
all
that
stuff
this
building
is
directly
across
from
spark
so
in
designing
it.
We
felt
like
in
spec
is
a
very
contemporary
project.
We
don't
want
to
completely
turn
our
back
on
that,
so
this
is
designed
to
be
a
slightly
more
contemporary
facade
and
we
have
expression
lines
in
the
end
the
detail
required.
J
So
the
horizontal
expression
line
is
supposed
to
be
at
the
top
of
the
first
floor
and
that's
really
the
drive
of
a
definition
of
what
the
pedestrian
level
is.
So
we've
believe
in
that
really
strongly
and
we've
pushed
it
probably
beyond,
what's
contemplated
in
the
form
based
code
with
the
overhang
and
the
differentiation
between
how
the
first
floor
is
handled
and
how
the
upper
floor
is
handled,
we
want
that
first
bill
to
feel
special
and
different
kind
of
if
you
were
bird,
but
when
you're
standing
next
to
it,
it
looks
pretty
simple:
it's
just
glass.
J
J
G
A
D
G
J
J
G
History
of
the
farm
based
code-
and
you
know
Victor
Dover's,
original
memo,
and
you
know
the
design,
excellence
initiative
and
all
of
that
and
a
lot
of
it
came
from
people
being
unhappy
with
buildings
that
had
a
lot
of
different
materials
and
ins
and
outs
and
ups
and
downs,
and
all
of
that
you
know
like
solana,
for
example,
and
I.
I
was
just
concerned
that
this
started
to
look
a
little
bit
like
that.
A
little
bit
busy
a
little
bit.
Maybe
too
many
materials
and
maybe
not
simple
enough.
J
For
most
important
interpretation
of
it-
and
you
can
certainly
say
that
we're
wrong
it's
a
problem.
I've
been
wrong
ten
times
before
the
whole
facade
is
one
material
so
again
we're
trying
to
have
some
fresh
new
materials,
there's
some
accent,
materials
around
the
windows
and
at
the
decks,
and
there
is
an
announcement
of
the
vertical
circulation
which
was
also
contemplating
the
fairies
Cody.
Now
it's
your
entries
so
we're
doing
that
so.
C
You
know
to
get
the
site
review
or
forum
based
code,
but
the
reason
I
called
it
up
was
mainly
about
the
exception
for
the
length
so
going
from
a
hundred
and
fifty
feet
to
a
hundred
and
eighty,
and
it
was
the
second
building
90.
And
would
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
about
that
and
you've
already
spoken
about
the
site
and
sort
of
the
challenges
of
the
rectangular
type
of
character
of
that
site?
But
did
you
actually
consider
maybe
trying
to
meet
that
150?
C
J
There's
a
responsibility,
I
think
incumbent
on
the
first
person
that
goes
through
any
code
right
and
we
were
really
I
mean
to
be
perfectly
honest.
We
were
really
hoping
to
not
ask
for
any
exceptions.
We
wanted
to
I
mean
I
believe
in
the
form
based
code
and
I.
Think
it's
really
would
be
really
wonderful
to
be
able
to
have
a
predictable
result
that
you
guys
can
rely
on
that
doesn't
require
I'm
in
an
improvement
process.
So
both
of
us
wanted
this
to
work
without
any
exceptions.
J
We
wouldn't
be
talking
about
this,
so
it's
really
a
matter
of
trying
to
fit
reasonable,
sustainable,
decent
architecture
and
it's
a
round
hole
square
peg
problem.
I,
don't
see
them
around,
that's
what
they
got
home.
So
that's!
That's
why
it
came
there.
So
yeah
I
mean
I,
have
reams
and
reams
of
drawings
of
how
it
might
work,
but
it
just
didn't
work.
L
You
know
add
to
that
in
that
I
think
that
the
idea
of
the
form
based
code
is
to
create
a
conceptual
framework
that
gives
us
the
quality
that
we
want
to
see
in
terms
of
site,
scale
and
form
and
as
bill
showed
kind
of
150.
150
square
is
kind
of
what
we
decided
is
the
maximum
square
that
we
want
to
see
and
that's
about
25,000
square
feet
on
a
floor
plate
and
we
ended
up
in
the
12
to
14
thousand
square
foot
per
floor
plate
realm.
L
It
just
happened
to
be
in
a
slightly
different
configuration
as
bill
said,
driven
by
the
site
and
and
I
would
you
know
oversee
time
and
argue
for
some
exceptions
right.
The
that
the
reason
we
allow
for
exceptions
is
for
good
design
on
unique
sites
to
come
in
and
ask
for
an
exception
as
long
as
it's
good
design
and
good
architecture,
thoughtful
and
well
intended,
and
it's
the
same
reason
that
honestly,
we
struggled
at
the
Commons-
and
we
struggled
here
is
to
where
do
you
put
the
transformer
on
a
four
sided
building?
L
It's
really
hard,
four,
really
good
sides,
you
don't
just
talk
it
in
the
alley.
You
can't
just
tuck
it
into
the
building
and
and
I
would
say
that
you
know
in
that
same
kind
of
exception,
realm
or
maybe
next
generation
of
the
cloud
realm
is
the
code
deals
I,
think
wonderfully
with
form
and
allows
for
exceptions
which
I
think
should
be
encouraged,
but
may
require
us
having
to
come
back
to
you
and
explain
why?
But
I
think.
L
L
C
C
J
Gonna
editorialize,
really
briefly
so
yeah
I
think
the
space
between
spark
and
this
building
is
really
important
and
when
they
come
back
in
whether
it's
for
form
based
code
or
serve
you.
Hopefully
you
guys
can
take
a
look
at
that
and
make
sure
that
we're
getting
that
because
I
think
there's
gonna
be
some
pretty
good
pedestrian
traffic.
There
yeah.
C
And
one
more
thing:
you
mentioned
the
solar
on
top
of
the
roof.
To
me,
that's
a
huge
benefit,
because
my
pet
peeve
is
on
planning
board,
has
been
these
ridiculous
mechanical
systems
up
on
top
that
are
like
another
building.
It's
like
a
16-foot
tall
floor
kind
of
someone
brought
a
cream
in
and
dropped
it
on
top
of
a
building
without
any
consideration
of
design.
So
that's
why
I'm
a
fan
of
of
encouraging
that
and
because.
J
L
And
I
would
say
that
that
is
kind
of
in
maybe
form-based
code
2.0
is
and
and
when
you
come
over
and
see
the
comments
even
the
third
floor,
roof
that
has
solar
panels
on
it.
You
don't
see
them
anywhere
from
the
street
or
really
adjacent
buildings,
because
they're
laid
out
in
this
helical
shape
and
they
only
come
up
about
18
inches
off
the
top
of
the
roof
versus
a
normal
solar
panel
that
can
stick
up
up
to
like
36
inches
or
something
so
we're
learning
a
lot
of
stuff
in
that
room.
So.
D
I'm
interested
in
the
path
and
paseo
on
the
east
side,
so
you're
gonna
build
up
a
sail
over
there
that
it
actually
I,
don't
think,
is
in
the
FBC,
but
that's
just
an
additional
pedestrian
way.
So
we'll
have
both
a
multi-use
path
and
a
kind
of
a
casual
walking
space
on
that
side
sounds
like
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
yeah
exactly.
J
There's
a
drainage
easement,
it's
just
off
our
site
to
the
east.
It's
nice!
It
has
a
bunch
of
trees,
growing
in
it
willows
and
things
and
that's
unless
they
choose
to
pipe
it.
That's
always
gonna
feel
like
this
natural
area,
so
it
also
happens
to
be
between
the
path
where
you
set
up
at
the
north
side
of
the
Commons
and
the
warn
earth.
So
it
was
just
natural.
We
can't
get
a
truck
back
there
anyway,
so
why
not
make
it
a
wonderful
pedestrian
in
place?
J
J
J
B
B
C
K
B
K
G
You
know
predictability
in
a
streamlined
process,
but
in
return
the
community
gets
assurance
that
the
forum
based
code
provisions
are
being
met
and
not
huge
exceptions
being
granted
to
them,
and
so
that's
why
we're
here
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
is
because
we
are
not
sort
of
seeing
that
kind
of
symmetry
and
I.
Think
that's
important
and
I.
G
The
things
that
I
mean
it's
the
buildings
were
the
maximum
length,
the
150
feet,
I
think,
and
we
didn't
have
the
garage
entry
on
the
taipei
street.
We,
we
might
get
more
permeability
more
passageways
through
the
buildings
which
would
provide
more
pedestrian
interest
and
connectivity,
intimacy,
etc.
These
are
things
that
are
listed
in
the
form
based
code.
The
goal
was
in
part
to
make
more
opportunities
for
narrow,
passageways
and
here's
the
actual
intent
from
the
code.
G
Those
two
exemptions
are
giving
me
the
most
heartburn
or
whatever
the
garage
entrance
on
the
taipei
street,
which
I
think
is
really
sort
of
anti
pedestrian
and
then
the
the
building
lengths
exception
or
exceptions
I
mean
both
of
them.
Both
sides
have
these
garage
entrances
that
complicate
things
and
but
you
know
the
garage
entrance
on
the
type
V
Street
is
allowed
under
for
Murray's
code
I.
G
Think
so
really
it's
really
the
junction
place
facade
that
bothers
me,
the
most
with
the
extra
length,
but
we're
getting
the
extra
length,
but
not
getting
the
extra
permeability
in
fact
we're
getting
a
garage
entrance
instead.
So
otherwise
I
think
you
guys
did
a
good
job
and
I
obviously
put
a
ton
of
really
high
quality
technical
and
design
expertise
into
it
and
I
know
you
guys
do
a
good
job
and
everything,
but
those
two
issues
are
pretty
big
ones
for
me.
So
I'm
done
great.
M
Thanks
was
something
you
said
made
me
because
I'm
new
to
the
farm
based
code
conversation
because
I
am
new
to
the
board,
but
the
symmetry
assumes
that
the
each
parcel
is
gonna
be
uniform,
and
in
this
case,
how
do
you
use
exceptions?
They've
said
that
exceptions
are
coming
up
because
of
the
unique
size
of
the
parcel.
Therefore,
they
can't
change
the
parcel,
and
so
life
is
not
the
same
size.
So
would.
G
B
F
I'll
say
so,
so
you
know,
I
was
not
in
favor
of
calling
this
up
and
and
now
that
I've
seen
how
much
additional
work
was
done
between
the
applicant
and
staff
I'm
even
less
in
favor
of
us,
having
called
it
up,
you
know
it
started
out
with
a
dozen
or
more
exceptions
being
requested.
We're
down
to
five
and
I
would
push
back
on
the
notion
that
those
are
really
big
exceptions.
F
You
know
you
can
get
a
25%
parking
reduction
without
coming
in
front
of
Planning
Board
at
all,
and
neither
of
the
lengths
exceptions
are
more
than
25%.
You
know
we're
talking
150
to
180
is
20%
150
to
190
is
22
and
a
half
percent.
So
when
we
talked
about
the
form
based
code,
maybe
a
year
ago
or
six
months
ago,
I
can't
remember
one
of
the
things
that
that
I
wanted
to
get
out
there
on
the
table
and
did
and
I'll
put
it
back
on.
F
That's
a
five
or
six,
and
if
you
want
to
make
Boulder
the
kind
of
place
where
architects
come
and
propose
buildings
that
are
nines
and
tens,
you've
got
to
highlight
the
fact
that
those
exceptions
that
are
available
under
the
form
based
code
are
really
available
and
that
you
know
I,
think
I
said
at
the
time
you're
not
going
to
get
the
Guggenheim
Bilbao.
If
you
don't
Telegraph
to
the
development
community
and
the
architects
that
you're
open
to
something
like
that
and
I.
F
So
if
we
wanted
to
not
grab
the
minimum
side,
setback
we're
talking
about
a
total
redesign
and
an
alleyway,
that's
gonna,
be
ten
feet
wide
five
feet
on
each
side
of
the
property
line
with
55
foot
walls
on
each
side
of
it.
That's
a
cavern,
that's
not
an
inviting
pedestrian
way.
It's
a
bad
trade-off
compared
to
an
open
patio,
that's
big
and
inviting
and
allows
for
the
people
who
are
both
residents
and
customers
of
the
commercial
side
to
use
it.
F
F
You
know
we,
we
could
put
the
the
garage
entrance
on
a
street
that
isn't
a
type
a
street,
but
then
you
lose
the
pedestrian
for
sale,
because
that's
the
only
other
place
that
can
go
and
that
pedestrian
paseo
is
the
pedestrian
connection
that
gets
you
from
this
building
to
the
rail
yard
or
to
the
to
the
rail
line
when
it
gets
done.
So
you
know,
I
can
go
through
each
one
of
them,
but
I
think
I've
gone
through
three
or
four
of
them
already,
but
I.
F
Don't
think
that
if
you're
asking
the
right
questions,
what
would
it
do
to
the
project
if
we
were
to
deny
these
these
exceptions?
I,
don't
think
you
come
up
with
a
better
building,
so
I
would
rather
have
have
trusted
staff
who
did
an
extraordinary
job.
I
mean
you've
heard
over
and
over
again
that
the
applicants
actually
grateful
for
the
input
that
they
got.
F
We've
cut
the
number
of
exceptions
down
from
12
out
of
whatever
100
and
change
checkboxes
to
five
we're
not
looking
at
granting
something
huge
and
I
think
we're
sending
a
terrible
message
that
doesn't
comport
with
the
ID
of
the
form-based
code,
which
is
come
in
here
and
use
this.
If
you
want
a
streamlined
process
and
you
want
to
meet
the
minimum
requirements
and
if
you
want
to
do
something
spectacular,
we've
got
some
exceptions
that
will
help
you
get
it
done.
C
Need
to
push
back
a
little
bit,
Harmon
you're,
probably
right,
but
and
when
the
base
code
was
developed,
it
was
developed
with
a
lot
of
community
input
and
a
lot
of
things
that
people
heard
were
one
one
of
the
things
that
was
a
big
deal
where
the
length
of
the
buildings
and
this
kind
of
super
block
kind
of
issue
and
I
do
consider
the
length
of
the
buildings
to
be
a
major
concept
exception.
If
you
hadn't
had
the
length
of
the
buildings
in
there,
I
wouldn't
have
called
it
up
for
the
other
items.
C
Quite
frankly,
so
I
agree
with
you
on
some
of
those,
but
I'm
glad
that
we
did
and
I'm
glad.
We
got
to
hear
exactly
what
was
driving.
That
and
I
am
gonna
vote
for
this
and
I
think
that
you
know.
I
worry
a
little
bit
about
a
precedent
when
other
people
start
coming
in
or
when
other
applicants
start
coming
in
in
the
transit
Village
area,
but
I
think
your
Eastside
really
achieved
that
breaking
up
of
the
building.
That's
going
to
set
a
standard
and
I.
C
C
I
think
you've
done
some
good
things,
I
totally
like
your
the
direction,
you're
going
with
all
your
sustainability
and
glad
that
the
forum
based
code
does
support
that
and
by
the
way,
in
the
comments
building,
if
I'd
made
it
bad
contained
to
that
meeting,
I
would
have
been
the
fourth
vote
to
support
your
offer
to
make
it
a
site
review
condition
to
have
it
a
net
zero
building.
So
I
always
wanted
to
say
that
to
you,
but
and
I
totally
appreciate
that
I
think.
But
anyway,
those
are
the
reasons.
I'm
I
mean
I'm.
C
I
am
gonna,
go
forward
and
vote
with
it
for
it,
and
it
is
unfortunate
to
have
that
garage
access
right
off
junction
place
and
by
calling
it
up.
I
understand
a
lot
more
about
why
it
can't
be
him
back,
but
my
main
reason
was
the
length
of
the
buildings
and
I'll
be
questioning
in
the
future
that
same
issue
to
hope
to
drive
design
like
you've
done
on
those
junction
playside
that
mitigates
that
length.
D
B
I
personally,
do
think
they're
justified
in
this
case
and
I
think
I
would
hope.
Moving
on
that
the
call-ups
will
be
rare,
but
you
know
they're
subject
to
that,
and
especially
if
there
are
exceptions,
that's
the
risk.
I
think
that
that
folks
take
that
being
said,
I
do
think
it's
a
successful
building
overall
I
actually
do
think
I
like
the
Junction
place,
facade
more
than
the
other
facade
I,
think
it
actually
works,
really
well
I,
really
like
the
roof.
B
Deck
I,
really
like
the
perfect
caps
in
the
way
that
the
solar
was
integrated
on
that
I
think
it
will
add
liveliness
and
it
will
be
a
distinctive
building
as
opposed
to
another
building
in
Boulder.
So
I
do
I.
Do
like
those
pieces
like
Liz,
I
I,
do
have
a
lot
of
concern
about
that
garage,
opening
on
junction
place
and
and
and
really
did
think
pretty
hard
about
whether
that's
an
exception
that
we
could
or
should
grant,
because
I
do
think
that
hurts
the
pedestrian
flow
on
junction
place.
B
That
being
said,
and
overall
in
overall
context
and
the
intent
of
it,
I
like
crystal
will
support
and
I
do
think
that
the
exceptions
were
justified
of
a
for
me.
That
was
the
one
that
was
the
the
closest
call.
So
I
just
include
I
really
appreciate
that
he
went
to
this
process
of
really
appreciate
staff
working
through
to
you
know:
go
through
this
I
know
it's
more
expensive.
It's
more
complicated,
it's
more
risky,
but
I
think
we've
gotten
some
guidance
out
of
this
and
a
kind
of
proof
of
concept
for
the
form
based
code.
G
Interestingly,
everyone
asked
also
said
development
applications
that
persist
through
the
process
usually
get
approved.
In
the
end,
perhaps
inadvertently,
the
message
is
being
sent
to
developer.
Applicants
that
the
zoning
the
city
has
adopted
doesn't
reflect
the
real
limits
of
what
the
city
means
to
approve
and
I
think
we're
headed
in
the
same
direction
and
we're
headed
towards
the
same
issues.
If
we
are
going
to
be
granting
large
exceptions
to
the
forum
based
code,
so
I
mean
that's.
F
So
I
think
you
know
that
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
we
weren't
gonna
be
able
to
avoid
crossing
the
sidewalk
along
junction
place
unless
we
could
get
parking
access
in
the
back
by
where
the
the
train
tracks
are
or
we
stay
with
a
single
building,
and
you
could
have
one
entrance
and
exit
on
the
north
side
of
the
buildings.
So.
B
And
I'll
just
want
to
leave
it
out
quickly,
respond
to
that
that
parking
isn't
required
on
this
there's
possibility
to
do
unbundled
parking
in
the
under
other
structure.
I
think
there
are
ways
that
you
could
get
there
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I'll
kind
of
swallow
on
on
this
one,
but
I
want
it
is
the
one
that
for
me,
as
is
the
close
call,
because
I
don't
think
we
have
to
prove
it.
I
know
the
site
is
a
constraint.
I
know
the
desire
to
it's.
B
Both
the
uses
is
a
constraint
and
ultimately
practically
the
benefits
outweigh
the
downsides,
but
I
don't
know
that
we
needed
to
do
that
and
we
wouldn't
have
had
to
put
you
know
that
that
parking
entrance
down
on
the
paseo,
we
could
have
just
said
it's
on
the
north
side,
and
you
know
that's
the
one
cut
that
you
get.
You
can
figure
out
how
to
maximize
it.
B
Is
there
a
second
for
that?
Second,
okay:
that's
been
moved
and
seconded
by
Harmon
seconded
by
David.
Is
there
any
other
discussion
on
this
before
we
vote,
then
I'll
call
the
vote
all
in
favor
of
Harmons
motion
to
support
the
application.
Please
say:
aye
aye
all
opposed
so
that
passes
five
to
one
with
Liz
opposed
yeah.
B
J
L
I
would
like
to
thank
everyone,
especially
staff,
because
they
got
to
see
my
frustration
a
month
or
so
after
me,
but
I
do
think
that,
hopefully,
this
is
just
step
one
and
we'll
have
form
based
code,
2.0
and
we'll
be
active
participants
in
terms
of
both
debriefing,
providing
ideas
and
thoughts
and
we're
on
the
right
path.
Thank.
B
You
great
thank
you
and
my
suggestion
is.
We
should
also
have
our
own
kind
of
debrief
on
form
based
code
having
gone
through
this
one,
probably
not
tonight,
but
we
should.
We
should
think
back
through
it
yeah.
So
thank
you
all
and
that
moves
us
on
to
our
next
agenda
item,
which
is
matter
6a,
which
is
an
information
item.
I
know
we
have
some
other
items
under
matters,
including
the
calendar
check
on
a
whole
campaign
that
will
talk
about.
N
O
N
There
we
go
it's
always
exciting
when
it
works
good
evening.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
to
be
here
this
evening.
I'm
Kathleen
Brad
key
I'm,
the
gore
Boulder
manager
in
the
city's
transportation
division
and
I'm
joined
with
Molly
winter,
the
director
of
the
city's
community
vitality
department,
and
we
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
provide
an
update
to
you
all
on
AMS
our
access
management
and
parking
strategy
and
we're
here
this
evening
to
seek
your
feedback
on
the
draft
report.
N
It
really
helps
to
articulate
where
we've
been
with
amps,
where
we
are
now
and
then
how
we're
moving
forward
and
what
are
some
of
those
key
initiatives
in
terms
of
what
we'll
be
working
on
and
I
think,
very
importantly,
how
we'll
be
working
on
them,
because
really
one
of
the
best
outcomes
of
the
amps
process
has
been
really
creating
this
interdisciplinary
approach
so
that
we're
holistically
addressing
ways
to
provide
for
bed
multimodal
access
for
people
throughout
the
community
and
in
the
special
districts.
So
there's
a
lot
about
amps.
N
That's
been
really
beneficial
to
go
through
as
a
process,
as
well
as
as
an
outcome.
So
some
of
the
there's
a
copy
of
the
draft
report
in
your
packet
and
tonight
we
like
to
get
any
additional
feedback
that
you
may
have
for
us
on
the
report
and
then
any
suggestions
or
questions
that
you
have
on
some
of
our
action
items
moving
forward
because
they're
still
obviously
a
lot
more
to
do
in
terms
of
all
of
these
areas.
N
So
when
we
talk
about
amps,
it's
really
about
how
do
we
best
serve
the
community
for
people
using
all
modes
of
transportation?
How
do
we
create
tailored
solutions?
We
recognize
that
there's
different
needs
in
different
areas
of
the
community,
different
needs
for
people
at
different
ages
and
stages
of
life,
and
so
how
are
we
creating
solutions
that
work
for
all
of
these
different
range
of
goals?
N
Some
of
the
guiding
principles
and
amps
really
include
seeking
a
balanced
approach
again
looking
across
all
modes
and
safety
and
then
tailoring
or
customizing
the
solutions
for
the
different
areas
of
the
community
and
another
important
principle
from
amps.
We
talk
about
a
lot
is:
how
do
we
do
things
that
have
Co
benefits
and
so
things
that
are
accomplishing
our
transportation
goals
and,
at
the
same
time,
our
economic
vitality
and
neighborhood
livability
safety
climate?
All
of
those
goals
coming
together?
N
And
how
are
we
finding
solutions
that
are
working
not
only
for
today,
but
for
the
future
as
well
and
then
again,
a
big
part
of
the
spirit
of
AMS's
partnerships,
partnerships
throughout
the
city
organization,
as
well
as
working
with
the
community
and
boards
and
commissions.
So
there's
there's
a
lot
to
think
about
when
you
think
about
access
multimodal
transportation
options.
So,
as
we
were
developing
the
amp
strategy,
we
really
tried
to
create
these
different
focus
areas.
How
were
we?
They
don't
stand
alone.
N
Each
of
them
are
interconnected
and
interrelated
with
each
other,
so
whether
it's
a
district
based
initiative
that
we're
working
on
our
code
base
they're
very
interconnected
with
each
other
and
meant
to
be
synergistic
in
the
work
that
we're
doing
the
summary
report.
As
they
said,
it's
really
kind
of
a
culmination
of
the
planning
process
and
strategic
process
we've
been
going
through
over
the
last
several
years.
I'm
it
documents
these
guiding
principles.
It's
meant
to
create
that
sort
of
history
or
framework
of
of
amps
so
that
we
can
continue
to
use
it
as
we
go
forward.
N
Amps
and
action-
and
it
was
a
way
to
highlight
some
of
the
things
we
created
and
worked
on
as
we
were
developing
the
amps
policies
and
principles
so
I'm.
Some
of
them
are
very
specific
to
different
districts
and
then
others
are
new.
For
example,
the
pilot
programs
that
are
in
place
this
summer
for
the
Chautauqua
access
management
plan.
N
That's
an
example
of
the
principles
of
amps
playing
out
in
in
that
work
that
we're
doing,
and
then
the
east
arapahoe
transportation
plan
is
a
long-term
planning
process
where
we're
able
to
apply
the
principles
of
amps
going
forward
and
then
the
D
to
D
pilot
over
the
holiday
months.
It
was
an
opportunity
to
test
new
technologies
and
see
how
that
can
apply
as
we
do
these
strategies
moving
forward
and
another
important
part
again
for
AMS's
again,
it's
not
the
what
we're
doing
it's
the.
N
Why
we're
doing
it
in
the
house
and
so
as
part
of
it.
We
created
this
sort
of
visual
representation
of
how
important
it
is
to
do
this
work
together,
so
that
we're
really
again
identifying
all
of
the
opportunities
that
are
there
and
we're
looking
for
the
ways
to
connect
and
get
implement
input
and
then
implement
and
test
evaluate
that,
and
it's
kind
of
that
continuous
improvement
model
and
I,
don't
Molly.
If
you
want
to
cover
some
of
the
going
forward.
So.
O
O
One
of
the
important
components
was
the
joint
board
workshops
that
we
had
I
think
we
had
about
three,
and
so
it
was
really
great
to
get
the
perspectives
of
the
different
boards
and
commissions,
and
then
there
was
a
lot
of
community
outreach.
So,
as
Kathleen
mentioned,
what
this
is
amps
is
not.
This
is
not
the
end.
O
Kathleen
can
come
speak
in
more
detail,
but
there's
been
a
great
joint
of
effort,
particularly
Carl
Guiler,
who
was
here
earlier
and
with
Chris
Hagelin
looking
at.
How
does
the
the
parking
code
fit
into
this
piece
and
how
does
it
work
with
a
more
structured
approach
to
travel
demand
management
programs,
an
individual
projects,
the
Civic
area
again
is
another
how,
when
we
start
redeveloping
areas
and
they
become
more
active
and
include
a
lot
of
different
uses,
how
do
we
bring
make
sure
that
access
of
all
modes
is
included
and
then,
as
Kathleen
mentioned,
moving
forward?
O
This
whole
concept
of
mobility
of
service,
the
the
door
to
downtown,
were
actually
having
initial
discussions
about
how
to
use
some
of
the
technologies
and
approaches,
particularly
also
integrating
electric
vehicles.
So
we
start
getting
into
that
co-benefits.
It's
not
just
about
access.
It's
about
a
lot
of
things,
we're
looking
at
a
more
extended
approach,
coming
up
possibilities
about
that
I
think
really
on
the
horizon.
To
is
what
is
the
impact
of
autonomous
vehicles
and
how?
How
are
we
going
to
approach
that?
How
is
that
going
to
fit
into
our
system
of
access?
O
So
there
are
a
lot
of
different
things
in
the
work
it
works
and
we'll
be
continuing
where
we're
seeing
a
lot
of
it.
Just
it's
great
to
hear
about
the
air.
Guess:
I
call
it
the
air
gas
site,
but
the
project
going
forward,
because
Boulder
Junction
is
an
area
that
is
living
and
breathing
many
of
the
principles
of
the
amps
approach,
and
so
it's
really
an
exciting
time
to
see
how
these
different
modes
all
fit
together
and
how
we
can
and
make
it
work
for
the
best
of
the
community.
B
Great,
thank
you
and
I
want
to
add
a
special
thanks
to
Kathleen,
which,
as
many
of
you
probably
don't
know,
was
just
appointed
to
the
regional
air
quality
council
and
as
someone
also
on
that
council
I
appreciate
the
time
above
and
beyond
what
you
do
for
city
of
Boulder
to
do
that,
and
it
ties
into
a
lot
of
the
traffic
reduction
and
air
pollution
reduction
efforts.
That
I
think
benefit
is
also
thank.
K
C
C
Well,
let
me
just
start
right
with
Brian's
comments.
It
was
interesting.
I
do
not
support
extending
Cajun
from
18th
Street
on
it's
a
mix.
It's
not
like
one
of
the
downtown
zones.
It's
it's
a
mixed
use
zone,
but
I'm
sure
you
can
discuss
it
and
there'll,
be
you
know
their
pros
and
cons
to
have
catered
in
an
area
that
has
residential
by
design
it's
because
it's
mixed-use
that's
got
residential.
It's
got
retail
first
floor
offices,
second
and
and
residential.
C
So
many
hoops
well
I
know
the
neighborhood
on
the
Walnut
Street
side,
which
doesn't
have
an
MPP,
was
very
concerned
about
the
spillover
impacts
and
I
wonder
if
it
would
have
been
as
big
a
concerned
if
they
have
the
MPP,
because
I'm
Spruce
Street,
when
you
get
buildings
going
in
you
don't
hear
a
big
uprising
from
the
residents
say.
No
stop
the
food
lab.
You
know
because
there's
a
active,
NPP
and
even
a
nighttime
one
that
then
in
fact
drives
people
to
either
other
modes
or
parking
in
a
more
organized
fashion.
C
So
I
just
want
to
make
that
comment,
but
I
also
do
want
to
say:
I
thought
you
were
guys
are
really
great
or
your
staff
were
really
great
on
being
flexible
and
listening
the
public
on
the
camp,
the
Chautauqua
access
management
plan
for
the
summer.
That
was
really
great
to
see
the
changes
as
a
result
of
impact
from
input
from
a
lot
of
people.
So
I
think
you
we're
really
on
the
right
track
there
in
reading
amps
for
sure
the
the
packet.
C
It
was
great
because
it
was
understandable
and
and
really
helpful,
but
one
thing
is
and
I
know
Molly
you
weren't
involved
in
this
and
Kathleen
you
might
have
been,
but
the
transportation
demand
management.
We
have
to
really
get
that
wrapped
up.
It's
been
going
on
for
so
many
years
and
and
and
I
guess,
you're.
The
people
now
that
are
gonna
wrap
it
up.
I
know
you're,
not
the
people
that
we're
starting
the
update
process.
That
planning
board
had
asked
about
so
I
look
forward
to
that
and
then.
C
Finally,
this
is
my
really
big
issue
and
opportunity
and
you
kind
of
address
it
in
the
parking
pricing.
But
we
have
a
lot
of
what
low
wage
earners
downtown
and
you
get
to
know
them
when
you
live
downtown
because
you
you
go
to
their
places
of
business
or
restaurants
and
even
the
postal
workers.
They
all
talk
about.
The
planning
I
mean
the
parking,
access
and
I've
discussed
this
with
councilmember
Mary
young,
because
she
I
know
has
some
of
these
same
concerns,
and
a
couple
of
decades
ago
we
were
doing
the
Whittier
parking.
C
We
had
actually
brought
it
up
and
I
think
we
talked
about
it
in
terms
of
in
the
parking
garages
after
four
and
out
after
midnight,
something
like
that
which
accommodates
the
restaurant
workers
and
it's
not
like
they're
taking
the
bus
anyway,
because
the
bus
is
stopped
and
don't
really
service
areas
adequately
after
eleven
o'clock.
So
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
you
might
address
some
of
the
lower
wage
earners
in
that
are
working
downtown.
O
We're
actually,
hopefully
starting
either
this
month
or
next,
a
pilot
program
that
will
have
a
nighttime
permit.
That
will
be
priced
differently.
We
really
couldn't
do
this
with
our
past
parking
system.
It
just
wasn't
sophisticated
enough,
but
we
have
we
replaced
our
gate
access
system
with
a
new,
more
up-to-date
and
more
has
more
flexibility,
the
software.
So
we
are
going
to
be
piloting
a
nighttime
permit
program
that
is
going
to
be
priced
differently.
O
C
O
C
Great
and
I
hope
that
the
city,
whether
it's
with
your
department
because
I,
know
cage
it,
has
some
fiduciary
responsibilities
and
just
can't
give
away
parking
to
low-income
workers
or
others,
but
maybe
some
another
City
Department
might
have
some
opportunity
to
partner
with
you
on
offsetting.
Some
of
those
cost
well.
O
I
think
there
are
a
couple
of
issues
we
actually
have
spoken
to
Human
Services
about
it.
I
think
we
want
to
try
this
approach
where
it's
actually
going
to
be
less
cost
less.
You
know
giving
parking
away.
That
is
it's
like
balancing.
You
know
all
the
benefits
like
we
have
to.
We
have
the
some
principles,
because
it
does
it's
all
about
managing
it
and
supporting
all
the
modes.
O
So
it's
always
this
balancing
act,
so
we're
gonna,
try
to
offer
this
much
lower
priced
permit
and
see
and
see
how
it
goes
and
also
make
sure
that
nighttime
employees
are
aware
of
the
parking
options
that
are
already
exist,
particularly
in
the
Civic
area
in
the
evening
that,
after
that
are
free
after
a
certain
hour.
So
we'll
try
all
of
those
approaches,
because
that
that
part
of
our
workforce
is
very
important
and.
C
Then,
just
one
last
tiny
thing
so
I
was
reading
the
San
Francisco
Chronicle
and
there
was
big
discussion
about
vehicle
miles.
Traveled
has
actually
gone
up
in
San
Francisco
because
of
and
they've
been
tracking
this
uber
lyft,
taxis
and
but
parking
demand
have
gone
down
because
of
the
same
dynamic
that
you
have.
You
know
you
you're
not
parking
all
these
individual
cars,
so
I
don't
know
it's
something
to
think
about
I'm
sure
you
have
discussed
it.
Yeah.
O
No
I
think
it
is
a
balancing
act
and
that's
why,
particularly
having
you
know
moving
into
the
world
of
electric
vehicles,
it
does
impact
the
the
pollution
component.
There
there's
still
the
vehicle
miles
traveled,
and
so
this
is
an
area
that
is
in
the
process
of
evolving
and
this,
where
we're
tracking
it
very
very
closely.
But
again
it's
it's
about
all
modes,
it's
not
moving
to
to
just
one
or
the
other,
but
having
a
menu
of
options.
It.
N
It's
not
the
technology
in
and
of
itself.
But
how
can
we
incorporate
that
transportation,
technology
or
information
technology
into
the
system
so
that
it's
helping
create
more
options
for
people
but
trying
to
manage
or
mitigate
the
potential
trade-off
side
as
well?
So
it
is
a
very
interesting
time
for
sure
great.
F
So
I
I,
like
the
the
way
you're
underselling.
This
plan,
is
just
access
management
parking
when
you've
got
this
incredibly
holistic
way
of
looking
at
parking
and
access
in
Boulder,
and
it's
really
something
worth
applauding
you
for
and
I
applaud
you
TDM
plans
and
districts
and
general
Improvement
Districts
and
parking
cash
out
programs
and
shared
parking
and
unbundled
parking
and
shared
travel
and
eco
passes
and
alleyways
and
Complete
Streets
and
event
blocks.
And
you
know
it's
it's
really
wonderful
and
I'm
glad
that
you've
I
know
you
know.
Molly
you've
been
working
on
this.
F
O
Only
shout-out
I
would
have
is
that
there
were
people
and
before
I
was
involved
in
the
70s
who
created
the
the
districts,
I
mean
it's,
it's
been
a
we've.
We've
done
a
lot
I,
don't
thank
you.
It's
very
nice
to
hear,
but
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that
we
realize
that
our
community
is
really
has
been
pointing
us
in
this
direction.
For
a
while
and
it's
a
great
foundation
from
which
to
work.
O
F
I'm
glad
you
said
that
my
only
my
only
comment,
because
I
thought
the
plan
was
great
and
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
when
we
went
over
your
Cajon
presentation
a
few
months
back
and
we
looked
at
the
utilization
tables
for
the
different
cage
at
garages
and-
and
you
know,
some
of
the
garages
were
were
more
popular
than
others
and
some
of
them,
you
know,
had
utilization
rates
down
in
the
60s
70%
65%
and
I.
I.
F
O
I
do
have
to
say
we
just
are
we're
just
completing
a
public
art
plan
for
the
five
kage
of
garages,
so
we're
very
excited
about
how
we
can
integrate,
that
we've
been
working
with
office
of
arts
and
culture,
and
so
we're
just
finalizing
a
plan
and
hope
to
do
some
pilot
projects
this
year
and
then
do
a
phased
implementation
of
both
permanent
but
also
ephemeral
and
also
doing
artists
and
residents,
because
it
really
reflects
the
culture
of
our
community
so
yeah.
Well,
maybe
we'll
come
back
with
that.
Plan
B
have
some
fun.
G
Just
had
it
I
mean
I
thought
I
really
appreciated
the
case
studies.
Those
were
really
interesting
and
I'd
had
didn't
know.
All
of
that,
and
so
I
thought
they
were
very
informative.
I
was
wandering
on
east
arapahoe
because
some
of
your
case
studies
involve
working
with
other
employers
on
the
east
arapahoe
segment.
G
N
Actually,
that's
a
great
question
and
we
have
been
it's
and
that's,
what's
I
think
great
about
incorporating
the
amps
principles
in
the
early
part
of
the
corridor
planning,
and
so
we've
been
doing
focus
groups
with
employees
on
the
corridor.
We've
been
doing
workshops
that
are
hosted
at
the
chamber
and
inviting
in
businesses
and
employers
so
getting
feedback
from
the
employers
and
the
employees
on
what's
working
today
and
what
isn't
and
then
how
do
we
look
at?
How
do
we
enhance
those
things
for
the
corridor
planning
both
for
short-term
improvements,
as
well
as
long-term.
A
N
Example,
some
of
the
things
we
hear
from
employees
are
the
challenges
with
getting
around
during
the
day,
so
they
meet
whether
they
commute
by
bus
or
by
car.
They
have
trouble
with
the
short
distance
midday
trip,
and
so
how
do
we
look
at
extending,
for
example,
be
cycle
further
east
or
there
other
ways
to
do
to
do
things
to
help
create
more
mobility
choices
for
people
during
the
work
day,
kind
of
thinking
about
the
business
areas
and
employers
as
the
neighborhood?
In
a
sense,
it's
sort
of
a
workday
neighborhood.
G
Just
tell
you
what
they
are
on
page
eight,
it
says
interdepartmental
I
should
say
and
interdepartmental
that
was
page
eight
of
our
packet,
okay,
on
page
13,
pearl
streets,
not
spelled
right
and
then
on
that
same
page,
the
word
own
is
used
where
it
should
be
our
and
then
there's
some
chapter
headings
that
are
in
quotes
and
other
chapter
headings
that
aren't
in
quotes.
I
can
just
kind
of
consisteth
I
that
and
then
finally,
this
it
took
me
a
long
time
going
through
the
document
to
realize.
Oh
there's,
this
honey
bee
thing
going.
G
G
D
Crystal
said,
a
couple
things
that
kind
of
triggered
some
thoughts
when
you
talked
about
the
John
site,
I
thought
well,
of
course,
if
the
NPP
is
an
area
where
you
would
pay
for
parking,
that's
one
thing,
but
if
you
have
the
three
hours
you
can
still
go
to
the
restaurants
right
so
that
because
I
do
a
lot
of
work
at
nonprofits,
near
Pearl,
Street
runs
and
hikes
all
the
time.
I
can
so
easily
park
in
free
three-hour
parking
and
go
do
my
thing
so
I'm.
D
Definitely
if
I'm
driving
I
could
be
very
guilty
of
spillover,
so
I'm
sure
you're,
aware
that
there
is
still
is
still
pretty
small
and
there's
still
four
people
who
are
kind
of
predisposed
to
walk
a
couple
blocks.
A
lot
of
incentive
to
spillover.
So
I
see
that
as
an
area
that
we
could
look
at
over
the
next
few
years
and
I
know
it
doesn't
work
in
my
best
interests,
but
I
think
that
it
would
be
nice
maybe
to
just
get
used
to
parking,
maybe
where
I
should
be
parking
right.
B
So
I'll
call
myself
I
agree
with
the
comments
that
have
been
made
and
that
this
is
a
really
great
report
and
really
liked
Bryan's
comments.
I
wanted
to
focus
just
on
one
thing,
and
that
was
the
autonomous
and
connected
vehicles,
piece
which
I
think
is
maybe
the
most
important
over-the-horizon
thing
that
is
both
an
opportunity
and
a
threat
to
the
investment
that
we're
putting
in.
We
could
be
over
building
drastically.
B
You
know
not
for
right
now,
but
for
an
or
20
or
50
years,
and
none
of
us
really
know
exactly
what
that
is.
But
I
think
we
got
to
call
out
some
of
those
risks
and
opportunities
and
some
of
the
things
that
might
be
done
about
them
more
explicitly
and
as
much
as
I
loved
geeking
out
with
dr.
Doug
Getman.
B
His
piece
was
very
down
in
the
weeds.
It
was
very
jargony.
There
were
a
lot
of
terms
that
weren't
defined
because
it
was
aimed
at
a
different
audience
and
the
rest
of
the
audience
you
have
aimed
it
here.
So
I'd
recommend
swapping
that
out
for
text
that
the
city
might
put
in
to
say
here
are
some
of
the
things
that
this
could
mean.
You
know
it
could
mean
we're
not
gonna
get
as
much
parking
downtown,
but
we
are
gonna
get
more
vehicles
on
the
street
circulating.
B
It
may
mean
that
we're
gonna
have
more
people
swooping
in
for
on
street
parking.
You
know
where
it's
gonna
wait
for
Christopher
call
the
you
know
the
autonomous
vehicle
or
something
else
like
that
and
then
think
about.
What
are
we
gonna
do
about
it
and
when
we're
looking
at
the
capital
improvement
program
next
week
or
other
sort
of
things,
what
are
cup?
No
regrets
things.
We
ought
to
start
thinking
about
reusability
of
the
facilities
retrofit
ability
of
some
of
the
facilities
to
you
know
their
they
talked
about.
B
Do
we
have
to
blow
them
up
and
start
over
again?
Are
there
ways
to
take
the
top
floor
too,
and
turn
them
into
affordable
housing
or
Civic
uses
or
gardens
or
I
mean
I,
don't
want
to
presume
the
answers,
but
start
thinking
about.
You
know
some
of
those
things
in
a
in
a
concrete
way
and
it
ties
into
that
program
and
I.
Think
you're
gonna
have
an
October
and
I
know
across
the
board.
B
Folks
are
thinking
about
this,
but
for
the
city's
own
facilities,
I
think
it's
a
big
financial
and
planning
issue,
obviously
for
parking
code
issues.
It's
also
an
issue
because
I
think
we're
probably
requiring
people
to
have
too
much
parking
and
not
enough
curb
front
for
drop-off
pick
up.
You
know
as
we're
thinking
through
and
that's
its
own
set
of
issues,
but
I
think
we
ought
to
start
getting.
B
N
Think,
that's
a
that's
a
great
idea.
It
is
interesting,
just
kind
of
a
sidebar
to
this
we're
currently
working
on
the
30th,
Street
and
Colorado
corridor
studies
and
working
with
CU
and
one
of
the
ideas
that's
come
up
through
the
community
working
group
is
creating
a
space
for
the
portion
of
30th
on
campus
that
could
work
for
traditional
transit
or
it
could
actually
work
for
automated
transit,
because
I
think
when
we
think
about
automated
vehicles,
there's
a
personal
vehicle
component,
there's
also
automated
transit
and
so
as
we're
designing
transit
facilities.
N
O
M
San
Francisco
recently
understands
that
the
roads
are
filled
with
uber
drivers
and
they
stop
wherever
they're
asked
to
stop,
and
that
causes
a
huge
problem.
So
it's
gridlock
of
uber
drivers,
mm-hmm,
that's
what
it
is
and
getting
that
defined
area
where
they
do
stop,
where
they're
allowed
to
stop,
doesn't
make
things
better
when
it's
just
a
whole
lot
of
uber
drivers
driving
people.
It's
part
of
it's
one
of
the
solutions,
yeah.
O
B
M
Of
laughs
I'm
just
raised
how
a
town
of
our
size
deals
with
this,
because
you
know
I
ride.
The
bus
and
I
am
often
the
only
person
on
the
bus,
and
so
we
have
a
in
in
Chicago
where
I
live
for
six
years.
The
buses
are
full,
so
Boulder
has
a
unique
make
up
of
how
we
utilize
transportation
and
our
site.
So
there's
a
lot
of
unique
aspects.
So
this
conversation
is
playing
out
all
over
the
world
and
in
every
major
city.
C
You
know
that's
a
interesting
point:
Peter,
because
I've
been
reading
the
public
engagement
draft,
that's
come
out
and
they
talk
about
how
we
are
we
asking
the
right
questions.
So
as
far
as
the
bus
goes,
there's
been
this
kind
of
perception
you
get
more
density
and
more
people
will
ride
the
bus.
Well,
I.
Think
the
question
is
we're
all
here:
why
aren't
the
people
here
writing
the
bus
and
we
haven't
asked
people
that
question
I
mean
I.
Think
transportation
might
have
talked
a
bit
about
it,
and
but
maybe
we
need
to
have
that
conversation
about.
M
Seven
person
model
acts
would
take
us
places
and
I'd
love
to
know
what
the
average
cost.
What
the
average
gallons
per
citizen
used
for
buses
is
right
now
in
the
carbon
emissions
from
the
city,
buses,
as
well
as
RTD
based
on
the
occupancy,
and
then
look
at
that
number
and
then
look
at
what
does
a
eight
to
twelve
or
a
four
to
twelve
person.
Evie
shuttle
vehicle,
that's
addressable
and
goes
and
picks
people
up
as
needed.
How
does
that
work?
N
And
we
have
at
least
to
start
with.
We
have
the
GHG
analysis.
We
did
as
part
of
the
transportation
master
plan
update
and
it
did
take
into
account
a
vehicle
mix
and
the
fleet
vehicles,
as
well
as
the
transit
vehicles
and
so
and
then,
looking
at
that
question
about
well
how
many
people
need
to
be
on
the
bus
to
make
a
net
benefit
in
terms
of
if
it's
a
traditional
diesel
bus,
so
I
think
those
are
all
really
good
questions.
N
And
then
how
do
we
size
the
different
options
and
how
are
they
all
complimentary
to
one
another,
because
I
think
it's
again,
it's
like
so
many
of
the
things
we
work
on.
It's
a
whole
menu
of
solutions
for
different
purposes,
different
stages
of
life,
and
so
how
do
we
provide
all
those
different
options
for
local
trips
and
regional
trips?
And
it's.
M
Exciting
with
the
uber
for
business
team,
which
is
150
people
out
of
the
15,000
employees
and
they're,
focused
on
these
issues.
How
do
businesses
utilize
on-demand
vehicles
and
talking
also
today
with
the
Proterra
electric
vehicle
company,
the
bus
company,
the
evie
bus
company,
and
so
it's
exciting
times.
N
C
M
N
K
M
O
N
N
D
C
B
C
Something
that
we've
heard
before
from
the
public
that
that
summer
is
particularly
hard
when
you
have
a
family
and
the
kids
are
going
to
be
back
in
school
and
if
you're
going
to
schedule
public
hearings
that
are
of
importance
to
especially
neighborhoods,
could
you
do
that
when
the
kids
get
back
into
school
and
the
public
hearing
that
was
cancelled
was
during
the
school
year
so
as
far
as
I
know
that
that
was
okay
with
them?
So
I
just
would
like
that
to
be
considered
when
I
was
on
council.
We
would
hear
this
request
so.
B
Hearings
through
the
summer
and
so-
and
we
hear
some
of
the
same
concerns
that
people
can't
make
it
to
meetings
during
the
school
year
because
they
have
school
events
during
weeknights
and
I.
Certainly
as
a
parent
know
that
that
was
my
experience,
so
I'm
pretty
reluctant
to
want
to
move
something
that
I
know
I
scheduled
my
summer
schedule
around
making
sure
I'm
available
that
night
and
I
think
other
people
have
seen
it
on
there.
B
We've
gotten
just
one
request
from
the
public
to
move
that
around
we've
had
a
number
of
other
pretty
complicated
things
that
we've
already
had
and
are
still
upcoming.
So
I
would
be
pretty
reluctant
to
move
that
calendar
piece,
but
you
know
I
think
we
ought
to
get
the
sense
of
the
entire
board
and
I
asked
Brian
briefly,
and
he
did
not
have
strong
feelings
one
way
or
the
other
just
so
we
have
the
benefits
of
his
thoughts.
So
what
do
others
think
David
just.
L
C
Not
about
me
being
there
and
then
when
I
read
Ari's
email,
it
said
something
about.
We
have
recently
been
informed,
so
I
don't
know.
I've
just
got
public
engagement
on
my
mind
and
notifying
the
public
and
I.
Don't
know
how
long
that
they've
known
about
this
rescheduling
I
think
we
probably
knew
about
it
before
they
did.
There
was
some
notice
sent
out
to
the
neighborhood,
and
when
did
you
send
it
out.
C
Well,
anyway,
I
just
it's
it's
something
that
I've
heard
before
serving
either
on
council
or
Planning
Board
about
making
sure
that
you
know
that
when
things
get
scheduled
that
it's
at
a
time
when
people
are
gonna
be
available,
I'm,
like
I,
said
the
May.
The
May
meeting
was
a
time
that
I
think
everybody
had
been
expecting.
It.
M
M
C
It
had
been
scheduled
than
the
fact
that
it
was
rescheduled
by
the
developer
or
asked
to
be
postponed
by
the
developer
and
that
they
have
a
I
understand.
The
reason
is
because
of
a
couple
of
Planning
Board
members
couldn't
be
there,
and
you
know
I,
believe
our
code
address
this
at
and
says
that
they
can
request.
C
D
It
would
be
good
to
really
remind
them
that
sometimes,
if
written
comment
before
the
beating
you
know
in
our
email,
INBOX
gives
us
a
chance
to
really
think
about
their
position
even
more
depth
than
if
we're
sitting
just
listening
to
one
person,
one
after
one
person
get
up,
so
you
know
take
it.
You
know,
if
you
can't
make
it
to
the
meeting.
You
still
have
a
good
outlet
to
get
your
thoughts
to
us.
G
Neighborhoods
have
done
like
the
Whittier
neighborhood
would
they
would
get
up
and
speak
to
us
well
in
advance.
You
know
weeks
in
advance
week
after
week,
so
that
we
were
getting
their
input
and
a
prior
to
the
hearing,
and
it
was
you
know
in
person.
So
that's
another
option
that
they
have.
The
thing
I
was
wondering
is
if,
if
August
3rd
doesn't
work
out
for
the
applicant,
because
that
turns
out
to
be
you
know,
people
are
absent
or
whatever
how
many
times
can
they
do
that?
G
Can
they
just
keep
doing
that
indefinitely
until
they
get
a
boy
that
they
I
think,
but
otherwise
I
don't
really
see
a
good
way
to
you
know,
pick
certain
projects
and
say
this
one
has
to
be
at
a
time.
The
review
of
this
one
has
to
be
at
a
time
when
most
people
are
in
town
and
the
review
of
this
one
can
be
at
a
time
when
people
are
on
vacation
or
whatever
I.
Just
think
it
would
get
really
messy
if
we
started
doing
so,
I.
M
Peter
concur
and
questioned
motives:
April
26th,
I
already
wrote,
and
this
wasn't
letter
to
the
editor
as
well
district,
disturbingly
unethical
behavior
about
the
developer
canceling
the
meeting,
and
then
he
singled
me
out
for
a
growth
real
estate
attorney
Peter
Vitali.
How
I
was
part
of
some
conspiracy
and
he
called
me
that
twice
as
if
the
same
ie
Ruben
who's
on
the
board
of
meals
on
wheels,
we
had
just
approved
diagonal
crossing
and
there
was
no
problem.
There.
M
G
F
F
B
And
I'll
call
on
myself
here
that
I
think
one
thing
we
can
do
a
better
job
of
is
communicating
how
these
meetings
get
scheduled
when
they
can
be
rescheduled
and
I.
Think
there
are
special
considerations
for
the
landowner
under
city
rules
and
state
law
and
that
sort
of
thing,
because
it
is
their
their
property.
And
so
there
is
a
special
consideration,
but
we
also
need
to
be
considerate
of
a
community
and
make
sure
we're
clearly
communicating
that
and
how
I
had
sent
around
our
board
rules
and
procedures.
B
They're
pretty
ancient,
maybe
older
than
the
median
age
in
town
now
and
so,
and
we
talked
I
think
at
our
retreat
about
reviewing
some
of
the
pieces
of
that
for
other.
This
may
be
one
of
those
other
places
that
we
just
want
to
revisit
those
rules
and
more
clearly
communicate
because
I
agree
with
you
David
and
Harmons
point.
M
B
M
F
Why
did
you
do
that?
Well,
Boulder
has
a
pretty
flexible
policy
on
scheduling
for
land
use
changes.
Individual
land
use
changes
an
annexation
request,
so
some
of
the
most
contentious
hearings
that
are
available
to
applicants
and
to
the
community
here
are,
it
can
happen
in
October.
They
can
happen
in
June
and
you
know
it
doesn't
matter.
F
C
And
thank
you
for
for
considering
this
I
totally
appreciate
it
and
appreciate
your
comments
and
I
wanted
to
follow
through
and
bring
this
up
because
it
was
sent
to
all
of
us
some
planning
board.
One
of
the
things
that
I'd
like
to
talk
about
is
a
study
session
or
a
part
of
a
study
session
on
the
Public
Engagement
plan,
because
they've
made
a
number
of
suggestions
that
I
found
applicable
to
our
to
the
work
that
the
Planning
Board
does,
and
so
once
you
all
get
a
chance
to
look
at
it.
C
C
I
was
a
little
bit
cynical
about
what
a
bunch
of
mediators
are
gonna
come
up
with
and
I
think
they
did
an
excellent
job
on
this
and
on
identifying
what
some
of
the
problems
are
and
and
maybe
helping
us.
But
we
get
away
from
these
really
contentious
hearings
by
having
some
really
good
steps
that
are
a
different
process
and
what
we
use
then,
what
issues
now,
but
so
that
might
that
might
be
worth
our
time
and.