►
From YouTube: Boulder Planning Board Meeting 12-20-18
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Good
evening
I'm
calling
to
order
the
December
20th
2018
meeting
of
city
of
Boulder
planning
board,
and
we
have
a
full
house
everybody's
here
tonight.
The
first
item
on
our
agenda
is
approval
of
minutes.
The
November
15
2018
minutes
are
scheduled
for
review.
Did
folks
have
any
additional
comments
other
than
what
was
sent
in
now.
E
B
F
B
D
Yes,
I
just
have
a
comment
in
reading
this
I
just
wanted
to
say
thanks
to
Boulder
housing
partners
for
engaging
the
residents
and
when
they
and
when
they
and
some
of
the
neighbors
had
questions
about
the
community
center
that
you
were
responsive
and
it
shows
up
in
the
new
site
plan.
So
thank
you.
Yeah.
B
C
A
E
B
Ok,
so
there's
no,
not
13.
Ok,
anybody
else
have
a
comment
or
question
or
anything
all
right,
so
that
one
is
not
called
up
either.
Congratulations
and
yeah
tor
would
be
awesome
someday
whenever
that's
done
so
that
takes
us
straight
to
our
public
hearing
items.
We
have
one
public
hearing
item,
so
many
people
are
leaving
I
thought
they
were
all
here
for
our
annual
letter.
Thank
you.
I
So
the
applicant
was
asked
to
revise
the
annexation
map
to
include
that
strip
and
sort
of
clean
things
up
a
little
bit.
So
that's
why
that's
part
of
this
request,
as
well,
so
for
tonight's
discussion.
I
will
cover
the
review
process,
existing
site
conditions
and
surrounding
context.
The
proposed
annexation
and
community
benefit
I'll
introduce
some
key
issues
for
discussion
and
and
with
a
recommendation
to
the
board
in
terms
of
public
notification,
the
required
public
notice
was
given
to
property
owners
within
600
feet
and
a
sign
was
posted
on.
I
I
The
applicant
is
requesting
annexation
by
petition,
as
provided
by
state
law.
The
land
may
be
conserved
for
annexation
if
it
complies
with
Colorado
Revised
Statutes
and
if
it
meets
the
policies
of
the
Boulder,
Valley,
Comprehensive
Plan
and
when
a
property
is
annexed.
Owning
is
established
according
to
the
land
use
designation.
I
So
the
purpose
of
tonight's
hearing
is
for
the
Planning
Board
to
make
a
recommendation
to
City
Council,
whether
or
not
the
annexation
should
be
approved
in
the
terms,
conditions
and
zoning
that
should
be
applied
and
the
City
Council
would
make
the
ultimate
determination
on
the
annexation
and
just
as
a
note,
the
property
would
not
be
required
to
complete
a
concept
plan
or
site
review
in
the
future,
because
they
don't
meet
the
minimum
thresholds
for
the
low-density
residential
districts.
But
it
appears
that
they
could
do
a
voluntary
site
review
if
they
wanted
to
request
some
modifications.
I
So
the
annexation
area
is
located
north
of
an
adjacent
to
South,
Boulder,
Road
and
east
of
Manhattan
Drive.
Like
I
noted,
as
I
mentioned,
the
city
of
Boulder,
open
space
is
located
to
the
south
and
establish
single-family
residential
neighborhoods
are
located
to
the
north
and
northeast,
which
is
considered
Greenbelt
meadows
and
to
the
northwest,
which
is
K.
I
I
This
site
is
designated
as
low
density
residential
under
the
Comprehensive
Plan
land-use
map,
with
a
planned
density
of
two
distance
per
acre,
and
the
designation
is
described
in
the
comp
plan
and
proposed
a
zoning
designation
of
residential
low,
which
is
defined
as
medium
density.
Residential
areas
primarily
used
for
small
lot.
Residential
development,
including
duplexes
triplexes,
are
townhomes
where
each
unit
generally
has
direct
access
to
the
ground
level
and
residential
properties
are
zoned.
Rl
2
to
the
north,
and
there
are
residential
properties
to
the
northwest
which
are
zoned
RL.
One.
I
I
I
I
So
development
potential
does
exist
under
the
proposed
zoning,
and
the
annexation
agreement
is
written
to
anticipate
any
future
development.
Although
the
current
owner
does
not
have
a
proposal
in
mind
at
this
point,
so
I'm
gonna
go
into
some
more
detail
later,
but
staff
estimates
that
up
to
14
dwelling
units
could
be
constructed
on
the
property.
I
An
annexation
policy
state
that
properties
with
significant
reeded
redevelopment
potential
must
provide
a
special
opportunity
or
benefit
to
the
city.
To
off-site
offset
the
negative
impacts
of
additional
development
and
to
meet
this
requirement.
A
community
benefit
package
is
proposed
which
includes
affordable
housing
on
the
site
and
some
site
improvements.
I
Also,
all
new
dwelling
units
must
be
duplex,
triplex
or
flexes,
and
no
detached
single-family
homes
would
be
allowed
and
that's
intended
to
maintain
affordability
on
the
site
and,
in
addition
to
the
housing
requirements
or
restrictions,
I
should
say
the
when
the
property
is
subdivided
or
developed.
The
developer
would
need
to
construct
an
eight-foot-wide
on
street
bike
lane
on
South
Boulder
road,
as
well
as
a
8
foot
wide
detached
sidewalk.
They
would
also
be
required
to
construct
a
new
access
point
from
South
Builder
Road,
which
meets
our
separation
requirements
and
I.
I
I
The
proposed,
affordable
housing
restrictions
provide
a
significant
community
benefit
in
addition
to
that,
the
annexation
would
allow
connection
to
the
city's
water
system
and
which
provides
a
public
health
benefit
by
providing
safe
and
quality.
Drinking
water
also
reduces
a
public
health
threat
that
can
occur
from
failing
septic
systems
and
just
as
another
note,
the
city-owned
open
space
is
designated
as
area
3,
but
it
is
eligible
for
annexation
because
it
is
a
publicly
owned
property
and
open
space.
Land
does
not
require
the
full
range
of
urban
services.
I
Regarding
zoning,
the
zoning
must
be
consistent
with
the
Comprehensive
Plan
in
the
land
use
code
as
I
describe,
the
property
is
designated
as
low-density
residential,
which
is
typically
a
range
of
two
to
six
dwelling
units
per
acre.
The
only
applicable
zoning
districts
in
this
density
range
are
residential,
low,
two
and
residential
low
one,
which
are
both
found
in
the
vicinity.
I
So
generally,
area
zoned,
our
l2
in
the
city,
are
along
the
eastern
and
southern
boundaries,
with
some
pockets
at
North,
Boulder
and
Gunbarrel,
as
this
property
is
along
the
eastern
boundary
and
is
adjacent
to
other
another
development
that
is
zoned.
Our
l2
staff
finds
that
this
is
consistent
and
the
approximately
70
foot
strip
of
open
space
would
be
zoned
public
consistent
with
the
land
use,
designation
and
the
adjacent
open
space.
I
J
D
D
K
G
G
I
D
M
Good
evening
Edward
Stafford
Public,
Works,
Development
Services,
so
Jenna
it's
one
of
the
challenge
areas,
because
it
is
a
water-related
issue
and,
as
the
board
is
very
aware,
we
have
minimal
groundwater
regulations
and
certainly
in
terms
of
the
impacts
of
development.
They've
highlighted
that
they
believe
that
the
infiltration
from
this
property
may
be
adversely
increasing
that
water
table,
which
is
certainly
possible.
We
wouldn't
have
technical
data
behind
to
show
that,
of
course,
because
that's
not
a
study,
that's
required
or
something
that
we
analyze
or
look
at,
but
it
certainly
could
be
happening.
M
The
trade-offs
in
the
area,
of
course,
are
infiltration
versus
flow
from
the
this
particular
lot
as
it
developed
or
if
it
develops.
I
should
say
they
would
be
required
under
our
designing
construction
standards
that
both
the
revised
code
to
attenuate
the
flow
over
land
of
their
stormwater,
which
may
involve
the
building
of
a
detention
pond
facility.
M
That
would
mean
potentially
some
infiltration
into
the
groundwater.
But
really
the
reason
for
the
detention
pond
is
to
slow
down
the
flow
into
the
floodway
so
that
you
don't
pass
on
a
greater
amount
and
potentially
have
an
overland
flood
problem.
Adversely
impact
the
joining
properties
of
the
downstream
properties,
so
there's
always
a
trade-off
there.
And
yes,
when
you
hold
water
on
a
property,
it
certainly
does
have
some
level
of
infiltration
which
will
in
there
into
the
groundwater
table.
So.
D
M
That's
when
you
know
they
have
a
development
plan
and
we
would
look
at
the
technical,
including
the
drainage
report,
that
would
be
required
to
show
how
they
were
conveying
their
flows.
Now.
That
would
be
at
that
time
for
any
design
of
a
detention
facility
if
they
were
to
trigger
its
requirement
in
to
ensure
that
they
were
at
least
matching
historic
flow
patterns,
and
then.
D
M
There
is
not
a
public
outreach
or
a
public
process
and
those
documents
they're
an
administrative
staff,
tactical
review
and
approval,
as
per
the
code
and
the
design
and
construction
standards,
so
that
it's
not
something
that
we
put
out
a
public
notice
for.
Nor
do
we
solicit
public
comments
in
the
review
of
those
types
of
documents.
Now,
if
they
were
to
do
something
to
trigger
a
site,
review
or
other
public
process,
they
would
of
course
be
the
public
comment.
H
D
People
should
check
that
and
see
how
they
might
be
able
to
review
that.
So
one
other
thing
you
mentioned,
we
don't
have
criteria
for
groundwater
impacts,
and
we
know
that
we
hear
that
whenever
these
projects
come
up
in
these
areas
with
a
lot
of
groundwater,
but
is
it
on
anybody's
work
plan
in
the
foreseeable
future,
not.
G
M
M
We
consider
that
as
a
part
of
the
overall
transportation
master
plan
and
connections
plan,
so
that
indicates
which
of
those
drainage
ways
we
intend
to
have
multi-use
paths.
The
draw
number
two
is
not
one
of
those,
and
so
we
did
not
exact
a
requirement
for
any
kind
of
multi-use
or
pedestrian
bike
path
through
there,
and
there
is
no
plan
that
I'm,
aware
of
for
one
along
that
section
of
directly
ditch
number
two.
So.
G
M
E
N
The
annexation
statute
allows
for
them.
So
when
you
look
at
how
many
people
signed
the
petition
and
what
their
ownership
and
the
property
is
that's
proposed
to
be
annexed,
it
excludes
right-of-way
and
city-owned
property
mm-hmm,
because
the
city
is
the
annexing
body.
You
don't
really
need
to
sign
an
annexation
petition.
Okay,.
I
B
D
No
ex
parte
contact
I
have
visited
the
site
several
times,
but
I
was
on
this.
The
Planning
Board
for
I
think
three
of
the
Hogan
pan
cost
hearings,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
testimony
from
Greenville
acre
residents
about
the
problems
with
their
basements
and
their
concern
about
flooding
due
to
additional
development,
which
would
have
been
on
the
Hogan
pankov
site.
P
J
K
K
Q
Okay,
when
the
brothers
family
came
to
me,
they
came
after
learning
that
their
property,
who
was
not
a
legal
building
lot
in
the
county
they
tried
to,
saw
and
realize
that
they
couldn't.
At
that
time,
we
discussed
the
possibility
of
annexation.
It
was
continuous
to
the
city,
it
seemed
like
a
possibility,
but
because
it's
five
adults
that
are
gonna
make
this
decision.
We
took
it
very
slowly
which
get
step
by
step,
so
they
got
their
notice
from
the
county
in
January
of
2017
that
it
was.
It
was
not
a
legal
building
lot.
Q
Q
It's
a
much
more
expensive
proposition,
so
it
took
a
little
while
for
them
to
make
that
decision
and
gather
the
resources
so
we've
applied
for
annexation.
They
are
not
developers,
they
have
no
development
plans
for
this
property.
They
simply
want
to
annexed
into
the
city
and
see
if
someone
out
there
that
would
be
interested
in
purchasing
it
they've
committed
to
as
part
of
the
annexation
agreements,
affordable
housing
requirements,
floodplain
easements
setbacks
from
South
Boulder
Road
and
worked
with
the
city
to
clean
up
that
lower
strip.
Q
Q
Q
Let
me
summarize
I
think
was
89
1989.
Their
fathers
sold
the
northern
two
acres
that
little
part
that
you
pointed
out.
Mr.
Gessell
with
the
cul-de-sac
was
previously
owned
by
the
family.
They
sold
it
and
then
that
was
developed
by
selling
it.
And
then
the
regulation
has
changed.
I
guess
because
it
all
of
a
sudden
came
it's
not
sufficient
size
to
be
a
legal
building
lot
in
the
county.
E
L
E
E
You
lose
your
legal
building
lot
status
in
the
county
if
you
have
under
35
acres
to
begin
with,
so
it
was
never
a
conforming,
but
since
the
county
adopted
35-acre
zoning,
but
by
taking
any
of
the
lot
and
selling
it
or
alienated
it
to
another
party,
changing
the
law
boundaries,
you
lose
the
building
like
that.
The
county's
policy.
B
D
I
have
a
question
and
I
don't
know
if
it
was
staff
or
the
applicant
that
suggested
the
properties
brl
rather
than
our
l1
you've
got
RL
I
mean
for
the
zoning.
The
Boulder
Valley
comes
and
I
understand
that
designation,
but
you've
got
lr
l
RL
one
on
the
west
and
RL
two
on
the
north.
The
zoning
categories,
two
of
that
map.
D
B
Think
are
you
finished
with
your
okay?
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
right
now
we
go
to
the
public
participation
portion
of
the
hearing.
Cindy
oaks
are
signed
up,
one
okay,
if
you
would
like
to
speak
to
this
issue
now
is
the
time
to
come
up
to
cindy
and
sign
up.
Okay,
Rudy
fatigue,
and
you
have
three
minutes.
F
F
Their
photos
of
what
happens
when
it
rains
and
I'm
not
talking
about
just
massive
days
days
days
of
rain,
but
I
mean
it
takes
a
significant
rain.
But
what
happened?
What
we've
they've
created
here
is
already
a
detention
pond.
Something
needs
to
happen
with
drainage
here
that
the
water
ponds
just
like
this,
in
fact,
that's
when
it's
already
drained
away
the
only
place
the
water
has
to
go,
is
into
the
ground
and
into
our
basements.
F
There's
no
drainage
whatsoever
on
this
property-
and
my
concern
is
Sloan-
was
was
great
in
communicating
with
me
by
email,
but
she
sent
me
an
email,
and
she
said
what
the
the
developers
gonna
have
to
demonstrate
is
that
historical
and
developed
runoff
conditions
will
remain
with
the
proposed
development.
So
if
what
they're
saying
is
to
develop
this
they're
gonna
create
a
detention
pond
on
the
property.
That's
what's
there
and
that's
what
doesn't
work
because
it
has
nowhere
to
go
but
down
the
hill
into
our
entire
development.
F
It
impacts
everybody
in
the
cul-de-sac
and
beyond,
and
not
just
when
we
have
a
flooding
incident
like
we
did
in
2013,
but
I've
lived
there
now
for
25
years,
I
was
the
original
owner
or
the
home
unbeknownst
to
us.
Our
property
is
five
feet
higher
than
the
lowest
point
of
the
property
where
it
meets
our
lot
line
and
it
creates
just
a
lake.
You
know
we'll
hear
frogs
out
there.
You
know
chirping
away
because
it's
a
literally
a
pond
during
times
of
heavy
rain,
so
it
seems
to
me
we
have
no
problem
with
the
annexation.
F
We'd
actually
be
happy,
I
think
with
some
construction
and
development
there,
because
the
hope
would
be
maybe
the
drainage
problem
could
be
resolved.
But
when
I
read
some
of
this
stuff
it
makes
it
seem
like
it's
not
gonna
be
resolved,
and
this
is
the
opportunity
to
resolve
it.
Can
something
be
put
into
this
annexation
agreement
that
requires
a
developer
to
fix
it?
I
mean
if
there's
gonna,
be
a
flood
drainage
easement
directly
to
the
west,
can't
the
water
be
taken
to
that
and
drained
away
number
two
I
know
I'm
running
out
of
time.
F
B
F
Fence
line
you
see
the
fence
in
her
backyard,
that's
the
long
line,
of
course,
between
the
properties.
If
you
look
on
the
other
side
of
that
fence,
yes,
it
drops
approximately
I.
Think
five
feet
is
maybe
not
quite
that
much
but
yeah
so
I
should
say:
that's
the
drop
from
South
Boulder
road,
so
it
comes
down,
hits
our
lot
line
and
then
our
developer
obviously
brought
in
fill
in
built
our
homes
up,
put
the
fence
on,
and
now
we
have
our
home
so
yeah,
so
it
just
created
a
natural
pond.
Mm-Hmm.
G
B
D
M
D
N
A
requirement
in
our
annexation
agreement
that
the
drainage,
historic
drainage
be
maintained
and,
and
we
can't
really
change
the
drainage
of
a
property.
If
we're
saying
you
can
drain,
you
can
affect
the
drainage
to
the
north
and
we
might
be
negatively
affecting
another
neighboring
properties,
that
property
and
and
thereby
creating
a
trespass
situation.
Generally,
you
have
to
drain
consistent
with
historic
drainage
under
state
law.
D
Thank
you
and
my
my
last
question.
The
staff
is,
you
know,
I
asked
the
applicant:
why
are
L
2
over
r
l1
and
the
reason
behind
asking
that
question?
Is
we
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
from
neighbors?
That's
part
of
Hoke
and
pankov,
saying
that
the
increase
in
hard
surfaces
could
affect
their
properties
by
increasing
basement
flooding.
So
with
our
l1
you'd
have
fewer
units,
probably
fewer
parking
and
hard
surfaces,
so
I
don't
know
if
Sloan
Earth
Charles.
Why
that
why
you
chose
one
designation,
I
mean
I
could
see
on
the
north.
I
Sorry
about
that,
so
there
is
an
analysis
in
the
memo
about
the
difference
between
RL
1
and
RL
2,
and
we
felt
that
RL
2
was
consistent
with
those
lots
to
the
north
and
his
single-family
homes,
but
they
are
small
a
lot.
It's
not
a
lot
development
and
we
felt
like,
even
if
there
was
attached
housing
here,
it
would
create
a
transition
between
south
folder
Road,
which
is
a
principal
arterial,
road
and
single-family
development.
H
D
G
M
The
typical
point
is
going
to
be
how
many
Lots
they
create,
so
we
do
have
a
provision
that,
if
there's
only
two
Lots
created
in
the
subdivision,
then
drainage
and
detention
doesn't
have
to
be
introduced.
Three
Lots
or
more
would
require
that
and
to
clarify
on
the
detention
a
detention
pond
may
have
to
be
built.
G
M
P
M
Hard
to
say
what
happened
when
they
built
the
neighborhood
to
the
north
and
brought
the
fill
in
whether
they
realigned
any
of
that
towards
the
right.
Creek,
ditch
number
two.
Obviously,
today
it
can't
flow
across
those
yards,
because
the
differential
inside
historic
pattern
has
been
established
through
that
to
be
towards
very
key
Dry
Creek
good
Stover.
There
may
have
been
prior
to
any
development
in
here
a
little
bit
more
straight
Overland
flow
rather
than
all
to
the
west
there.
But
that's
the
pattern.
That's
now
developed
to.
P
M
Really
gonna
depend
on
the
grading
of
the
ultimate
development
and
how
you
can
make
everything
flow
and
work
reasonable
form,
not
something
I
could
say
tonight
that
yeah,
that
would
be
the
appropriate
corner
for
it
more
than
likely
it
would
not
be
because
is
probably
higher
to
that
side.
Given
that
dry
creek,
ditch
number
two
is
also
flowing
to
the
north
and
just.
C
B
E
E
I
just
wanted
to
ask
so
the
southerly
55
feet
of
Rose
parcel
has
been
dedicated
already
to
Boulder
County,
or
is
it
apparently
it
has
been
on
film
1,400
at
an
old
reception
number.
So
there's
a
there's
a
lot
of
the
frontage
on
this
parcel,
that's
in
South,
Boulder,
road
and
then
an
additional.
Is
there
any
additional
dedication
for
the
bike
path?
That's
gonna
be
built
with
development.
B
Okay,
so
Cindy
I
sent
you
a
file
and
I
guess
I
think
I'll
go
next.
If
that's!
Okay
with
everybody
are.
B
This
is
to
our
deliberations.
Now
we
have
three
issues
but
I'd
like
to
since
we're
talking
about
drainage
and
flooding
and
stuff.
This
is
from
the
city's
flood
map,
and
it
shows
this
is
the
map
of
flood
plains.
So
it's
not
the
2013
flood
or
whatever,
and
it
shows
the
city
properties,
properties
that
are
within
the
city.
Boundaries
have
the
saturated,
colors
and
then
the
county
is
the
washed
out
colors
and
you
can
see
Greenbelt
Meadows.
B
Don't
know
if
you
guys
remember,
but
when
we
saw
Hogan
pan
cost
alan
taylor,
who
was
like
a
Utilities
Director
or
a
floodplain
director,
or
something
like
that
for
the
city
back
in
the
when
the
Greenbelt
Meadows
was
developed,
he
said
that
they
approved
bringing
in
four
feet
of
fill
to
put
that
neighborhood
on
top
and
I
I
have
that
if
that
was
recorded
and
I
listened
to
it
multiple
times.
So
I
think
that
jives
with
what
the
neighbors
have
said
about
their
neighborhood
being
higher
than
this
rose
property.
B
I.
Just
don't
see
that
if
this
necessarily
means
the
annexation
criteria,
this
first
one
this
state
statutes
for
annexation.
There's
one
about
community
interest,
I
understand
that
there's
a
proposal
to
put
affordable
housing
or
there's
a
requirement
they
would
put
affordable
housing,
I
wouldn't
put
affordable
housing
there,
because
it's
so
prone
to
flooding,
South
Calder
Creek,
especially
this
part
of
South
Boulder
Creek.
We
have
documented
photographic
evidence
of
how
frequently
that
floods,
and
so
why
would
you
put
the
most
vulnerable
populations
there
and,
let's
see,
I,
think
that,
right
now
we
don't
have.
B
If
we
annex
this,
then
the
building's
there
would
just
be
subject
to
our
building
codes,
which
are
not
particularly
updated
for
any
kind
of
climate
change
or
the
impacts
to
extreme
events
from
climate
change.
So
we're
working
with
the
hundred
year
and
500
year,
delineations
based
on
historic
hydrology
and
not
on
any
kind
of
future
hydrology,
which
is
pretty
well
accepted
that
that's
going
to
change,
and
it's
actually
changing
now
so
I.
Don't
think
that
our
current
approach
is
really
adequate
once
once.
B
Property
is
in
the
city
and
so
I
I'm
I'm
concerned
about
annexing
it
before
we
get
adequate
regulations
in
place,
and
there
are
communities
that
do
address
this.
Take
this
really
and
not
that
we
don't
take
it
seriously,
but
they
have
been
more
proactive
about
it,
and
this
is
through
annexation.
We
can
be
more
proactive
because
we
don't
have
to
necessarily.
B
Allow
development-
and
you
know
we
don't
have
to
necessarily
follow
the
this
ting
floodplain
development
codes.
We
could
impose
different
standards
if
we
wanted
to
through
annexation
one
of
the
communities
that's
actually
taking.
This
really
seriously
is
Fort
Collins
and
after
their
1997
flood,
they
put
in
some
standards
that
were
much
more
rigorous
and
it
saved
a
lot
of
their
structures
for
the
from
being
flooded
in
the
2013
flood
and
I'm,
going
to
read
something
from
the
Pew
Charitable
Trusts
about
Fort
Collins
and
how
they
approach
development
in
the
floodplain.
B
So
if
you'll
just
bear
with
me
for
a
minute,
the
city
which
lies
sixty-five
miles
north
of
Denver
upgraded
its
building
codes
in
2000
to
prohibit
residential
construction
within
the
cash
flow
Cooter's
100-year
floodplain,
and
require
new
non-residential
development
to
be
built
at
least
two
feet
above
the
floodplain.
Even
stronger
codes
have
been
imposed
on
critical
facilities,
such
as
schools
and
police
stations,
barring
their
development,
even
in
the
500-year
floodplain.
B
These
provisions
spared
numerous
structures,
including
a
Business
Park
during
the
2013
flood
of
the
14,000
structures
built
in
Fort
Collins,
since
1997
only
eight
were
damaged
in
2013
over
the
years.
Officials
have
also
preserved
more
than
66
percent
of
city
land
within
the
cache
lepue
ters
100-year
floodplain,
that
land
now
occupied
by
parks
and
other
open
spaces
gave
the
2013
flood
waters
room
to
spread
out,
slow
down
and
be
absorbed
without
threatening
structures
or
lives,
protecting
residents
and
businesses,
while
providing
new
recreation
areas.
B
So
I
mean
this
is
kind
of
my
same
old
story,
but
I
really
don't
think
we
should
be
putting
people
in
danger,
we're
it's
we're
endangering
life
and
property
by
building
in
the
floodplain,
especially
the
South,
Boulder
Creek
flats
language.
We
talked
about
before
which
floods
over
and
over
and
over
okay.
C
B
C
A
question
I'm
not
sure,
I,
understand
the
reality
of
that
regulations.
I'm
reading
the
four
cons,
Cussler
critter
flood,
plain
handouts
right
now
and
what
you
said
was
it
doesn't
allow
you
to
build
in
the
floodplain
and
it
requires
you
to
elevate
two
feet
above
the
floodplain
city
of
bulbs.
Regulations
already
required
to
elevate
two
feet
above
for
the
floodplain,
and
my
read
of
that.
Is
it
by
virtue
of
doing
that:
you're,
not
building
the
floodplain
and
that's
what
these
sectional
diagrams
show
in
Fort
Collins
is
handouts
on
floodplain
development
mm-hmm.
C
B
B
C
E
B
E
All
quite
okay,
so
so
anyway,
I
just
you
know
I
would
propose
you
know.
Maybe
we
need
a
stronger
language
is
what
liz
is
suggesting
and
maybe
you
know
there
just
needs
to
be
a
condition
or
a
new
paragraph
in
the
annexation
agreement.
That
says
that
you
know
no
new
development
can
raise
the
base
flood
elevation.
So
if,
if
you
do
bring
in
fill,
then
you
have
to
remove
a
commensurate
amount
of
fill
so
that
the
vfe
doesn't
get
altered
and
you
don't
put
any
more
water
on
anybody
else's
property
I.
P
Think
les
brings
up
great
points.
I
does
sound
like
there's
ways
to
build
around
it
in
a
way,
or
at
least
go
with
what
we
already
have
the
two
feet
above
the
larger
policy
issue
of,
what's
left
in
Boulder
to
build
that
is
perfect
for
affordable
or
otherwise
seems
to
be
lessening,
and
it
feels
like
we
here's
another
opportunity
to
to
do
to
get
some
affordability
and
there
may
be
ways
to
do
it
safely,
as
opposed
to
saying
flat
out
now
I'd
like
to
pursue
that
as
much
as
possible.
P
L
O
The
same
time
since
we're
going
down
this
way,
I'll
I'll
take
advantage
so
yeah
I
struggled
with
this.
You
know
every
time
we
look
at
something.
You
know
that
involves
an
annexation
where
we
have
potential
for
development
in
the
floodplain
I
guess,
if
the
problem
that
we
face
is
that
a
lot
of
what
we
discuss
is
sort
of
high
pathetically
ston?
O
L
G
G
We're
talking
about
right
now.
The
the
other
point
that
I'm
just
wondering
about
is
that
David
made
the
very
nice
point
that
this
is
adjacent
to
open
space
across
the
street.
But
in
fact
that
open
space
is
not
intended
for
public
access.
I,
there's
no
trails
going
through
there
and
it's
it's
primarily.
You
know
that's
where
there's
buffalo
grazing
and
cattle
grazing
occasionally,
but
I,
don't
think
that
it's
intended
for
the
neighbors
to
go
in
that
area
and
use
it
for
for
access.
G
O
Just
like
I
use
that
that
open
space
area
a
lot
definitely
extends
to
south
Boulder
Creek,
and
then
there
is
a
trail
that
goes
almost
certainly
almost
to
Manhattan,
but
I.
Just
I,
don't
know
the
status
of
that
trail.
It's
used
along
this
area,
that's
been
annexed,
but
it
may
not
be
an
official
trail
but
yeah,
but
to
get
to
the
official
trail,
which
would
be
right
along
South,
Boulder
Creek.
You
would
walk
a
few
doors
down
and
cross
over
right.
O
M
So
dry
creek,
ditch
number
two
sure
we're
south
Boulder
Creek,
and
so
the
entire
area
was
subject
to
the
South
Pole
Creek
mitigation
planning
efforts
of
the
past
numerous
years,
which
has
identified
a
number
of
different
improvements
in
different
areas.
Looking
at
the
recommended
improvements
in
this
particular
area,
there
are
no
changes
to
this
stretch
of
directly
ditch
number
two:
that's
adjacent
to
this
property.
There
were
proposals
for
either
piping
or
a
wider
channel.
Further
north
of
this
property
in
Greenbelt
meadows.
To
then
continue
those
floral
flows
to
the
north.
M
G
J
C
Just
if
you,
if
you're
curious
about
the
situation
around,
opens
baseline
parks
trails
that
trail
map
is
available
online
and
you
can
look
and
it
doesn't
have
any
trails
in
that
area
and
it
does
map
only
the
official
trails.
So
it
doesn't
map
the
informal
trails,
which
is
a
normal
thing,
and
if
you
look
at
the
transportation
master
plan,
there's
no
feature
connection
plan
three
of
those
things.
C
Those
are
all
those
things
that
you
can
look
up
and
understand
and
on
the
floodplain
thing,
I
think
before
we
assert
that
for
cons
or
any
other
entity
has
a
standard
we
should
adopt
or
which
uses
a
reference
point.
We
should
need
to
understand
it
fully.
So
that's
all
I'm
trying
to
do
I'm
not
actually
arguing
with
you
on
that
and
I'm,
actually
not
taking
a
stance
at
all
on
this
question.
I
was
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
I
understood
what
you're
trying
to
say.
Clearly,
okay,.
B
D
Just
a
couple
of
concerns,
so
the
whole
floodplain
discussion.
We
have
a
really
good
resilient
section
in
our
letter
and
maybe
we
can
add
a
few
other
things
to
city
council.
I'd
certainly
have
groundwater
impact
plans
and
some
of
the
things
that
you've
brought
up
Liz
and
we
could
even
reference
some
of
the
other
cities
and
on
this
property.
D
It's
it's
problematic
because
there's
an
existing
house
and
they're
just
they're
trying
to
you,
know
they're
caught
kind
of
between
the
county
and
the
city,
and
you
want
to
make
you
know,
and
there
they've
come
to
us
in
good
faith
and
where
I,
where
I,
have
an
issue.
It's
kind
of
what
this
gentleman
said
in
the
annexation
agreement.
It
says
duplexes
triplexes
and
for
Plexus.
But
if
you
just
added
single-family,
we
have
a
huge
contingent
in
this
community
that
keeps
bringing
up,
of
course,
more
affordability,
but
also
people
want
smaller
units.
D
But
a
lot
of
people
want
that
small
quote
tiny
house
and
to
some
people
a
tiny
house,
this
800
square
feet.
So
if
we
just
put
in
that
one
single
family
in
that
and
some
creative,
if
somebody
bought
the
land
or
if
one
of
you
had
an
idea
of
having
some
smaller
houses,
then
would
be
more
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
to
the
north
and
might
actually
solve
some
of
our
some
of
the
need
that
people
have
for
smaller
houses.
You
know
when
you
ask
commuters
of
the
survey.
D
What
would
what
would
it
take
to
get
them
to
move
to
Boulder?
Well,
of
course
you
know
being
able
to
afford
something,
but
the
first
thing
is
single-family
house
and
it's
filed
by
duplexes
and
then
triplexes
etc.
The
last
thing
on
the
list
is
condos,
but
that's
not
on
the
list,
so
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
it.
So
I
think
I
would
like
to
see
at
least
that
opportunity
to
have
small
single
family
as
well.
Let's
leave
those
other
those
other
options
too.
D
D
C
So
let's
not
do
any
more
I,
also
think
that,
like
they
would
give
them
the
ability
to
so
divided
into
two
properties,
avoid
dealing
with
the
floodplain
regulations
and
do
two
very
expensive
big
homes
on
Big
Lots,
which
is
essentially
funneling
us
and
trickly
towards
a
large
hot
Lots
sub
edition
problem,
they're
facing
right
now
so
I'd
say
like.
If
we
do
prohibit
single-family,
it's
gonna
help
avoid
that
outcome.
E
D
D
And
you
know
you
can
always
change
you
can
always
put
in
addition
in
to
address
single-family
houses,
smaller
ones.
I
know
it's
all
governed
by
on
our
l2
by
open
space.
So
if
you
have
eight
units
and
you're
required
to
have
6,000
square
feet
of
open
space,
that's
48
thousand
square
feet
of
open
space.
Then
you'd
have
35
thousand
for
the
the
Lots
and
the
I
think
some
of
the
roads
countess
open
space
or
do
they
not
or
sidewalk,
sir
yeah.
It
depends
anyway,
Peter.
P
You
could
still
have
very
expensive
small
houses.
Two
very
nice
finishes
and
we'd
therefore
get
exactly
what
we
didn't
want
in
terms
of
permeability,
which
is
a
great
point
you
brought
up,
you
know,
permeable,
pavers
and
systems
could
be
required
if
you're
worried
that
duplex
would
create
more
permeable
surfaces
or
impermeable,
but
to
clarify
you
you're,
bringing
up
the
point
about
single-family
homes,
small
ones,
so
that
there's
an
additional
option.
But
would
you
hang
your
hat
on
that
and
refuse
rl2
and
I
didn't?
P
Would
you
hang
your
hat
on
that
concept
and
refuse
RL
to
just
because
you
wanted
small
houses,
even
though
that's
a
loophole
that
could
be
exploited,
which
is
the
word
of
the
week
on
council
as
loopholes,
so
it
seems,
like
affordability
is
clear
and
we've
got
that
in
the
agreement
and
so
tinkering
with
rl2
except
to
say,
let's
have
more
permeable
surfaces.
I
just
want
to
see
where
you
stand
on
the
idea,
the
idea
of
single-family
home,
because
to
me
that
seems
like
a
pretty
big
move
away
from
where
we
are
right
now.
D
Ahead,
the
only
reason
I
brought
it
up
is
all
the
North
Boulder
annexations
have
included
like
the
recent
tebow
one.
It
was
a
couple
of
houses
and
then
I
think
council
allowed
him
to
do
a
couple
more
ad
use.
I
think
we
recommended
that
detached
stay
to
youth,
so
I
don't
know,
I
just
wanted
to
leave
open
the
door
for
some
creative
stuff.
If
someone
wanted
to
come
back
and
they
had
some
tiny,
you
know
little
structures.
I
know
we
don't
I,
don't
want
to
get
labeled
as
though
she
wants
big
huge
monster.
D
Single-Family
suburban
houses,
cuz
that
I
just
didn't
want
to
preempt
something
and
I
think
you
all
know
that
a
group
of
myself
and
some
other
friends
were
the
people
that
did
the
affordable
housing
alliance
that
developed
the
poplar
project,
which
was
a
whole
series
of
cottages
and
I,
believe
that
was
in
the
rl2
zone.
As
a
matter
of
fact
and
I,
don't
think
you
call
that
suburban
things
we
don't
want,
but
you
know
I'm
not
gonna
die
on
that
sort.
D
I
just
didn't
want
to
you,
know,
hearing
all
the
discussion
about
tiny
houses
and
this
and
that
I
guess
tiny
is
in
the
eye
of
beholder.
Some
people
say
800
square
feet.
Some
people
would
say
300
square
feet,
so
we
still
don't
have
that
defined.
That's
my
that
and
the
permeability
Peter.
That's
a
I'm
glad
you
brought
that
up.
That's
another
issue.
D
B
So
I'm
gonna
have
a
couple
more
comments.
I
just
I
really
feel
like
the
wise
thing
to
do,
because
we're
the
Planning
Board
and
not
the
permitting
board
is
to
preserve
that
floodplain
I
mean
in
the
long
run.
It
will
save
the
city
money
because
right
now
we're
approaching
50
million
dollars
for
a
dam
upstream
that
won't
protect
this
property
at
all,
but
because
we
built
housing
in
the
floodplain
before
and
so
now.
B
Here
we're
talking
about
putting
yet
more
housing
in
the
floodplain,
with
no
plan
for
mitigation,
mitigating
the
flood
that
will
come
and
we
and
we're
talking
about
putting
the
most
vulnerable
people
in
our
community
in
that
parcel,
which
I
still
don't
understand.
Why
that
seems
like
a
good
idea,
because
I
mean
I
would
prefer
the
megohm
it's
just
the
single
McMansion
there.
B
If
we
had
to
do
anything
because
at
least
they
could
afford
to
bail
themselves
out,
they
could
put
it
on
their
credit
card
or
whatever,
but
to
put
folks
who
are
some
are
going
to
be
disabled,
so
we're
going
to
have
small
children.
You
know
in
this
parcel
that
will
flood,
because
it's
flooded
in
multiple
times
before
it
just
seems
like
not
wise
planning
to
me
and
that's
what
we're
about
is
long-range
planning
and
no
I
am
totally
sympathetic
with
this
family.
B
It's
very
unfortunate
that
they
have
this
property,
but
the
and
apparently
part
of
it
was
sold
off
and
that
part
was
built
upon,
but
I.
We
can't
make
our
planning
decisions
based
on
this
kind
of
individual
situation.
I
don't
have
as
much
faith
in
engineering
solutions,
even
though
I'm
a
civil
engineer,
then
a
lot
of
folks
have
and
I.
B
Around
you
know
an
exit
and
Xing
it
and
then
allowing
something
to
be
constructed
on
it
by
either
you
know,
raising
the
property
and
then
taking
it
out
of
the
floodplain
or
trying
to
come
up
with
some
engineering
solution
that
moves
the
water
around
I.
Think
it's!
You
know,
Gilbert
White
said
it's
better
to
move
the
people
than
the
water
and
it
makes
more
sense
to
do
that.
So
that's
where
I
met
Carmen
so.
E
Going
down
for
me
the
the
key
issues
for
discussion,
the
first
one
does
the
petition
comply
with
applicable
estate
statute,
Lizz
Lizz
fixed
on
the
bullet?
There
is
a
community
interest
between
the
property
and
the
statute.
Properly
says
there
is
a
community
of
interest,
not
a
community
interest,
and
this
is
a
poorly
transcribed
bullet
point
here.
E
So
a
community
of
interest
is
a
term
that
means
that
the
two
parties
have
similar
interests,
and
so
all
this
is
that
the
city
and
the
owner
of
the
property
proposed
for
annexation
have
their
interests
aligned,
that's
not
a
difficult
criterion
to
meet
if
it's
read
properly,
so
I
think
that
the
annexation
petition
does
comply
with
the
state
annexation
statutes
to
the
extent
that
it
might
not
fully
comply
with
the
Boulder
Valley
comp
plan.
On
the
other
hand,
an
increasing
flood
risk
I
would
be
fine
with
recommending
another
paragraph
or
two
and
the
annexation
agreement.
E
Two
examples
of
ideas,
for
that
would
be
to
require
that
no
development,
the
development
is
just
defined
as
subdivision
in
the
agreement.
So
I
think
we
have
to
say,
construction
would
increase
the
base,
flood
elevation
and
then
maybe
another
one
where
any
new
construction
would
the
finish
floor
height.
It
would
have
to
be.
You
know
three
feet
the
flood
protection
level
for
for
this.
E
B
Okay,
here.
O
Weighing
on
the
key
issues,
yeah
I
agree
with
number
one
with
Harmons
assessment
on
that
with
number
two.
There
are
a
number
of
places
in
the
Volt
Boulder
Cat
Valley
complan,
3.21,
3.22
3.23
that
talk
about
preserving
floodplains.
So
that
is
an
area
where
my
I
do
resonate
with
Liz's
concerns
and
I
agree.
I
feel
that
there
might
be
something
we
can
add.
O
I
agree
with
many
of
Harmons
recommendations
on
that
and
as
far
as
RL
I
think,
RL
is
a
good,
a
good
approach,
because
it's
the
same
as
what
of
the
properties
to
the
north
and
I
think
the
mix
of
housing
types
does
make
sense
to
me
as
well.
So
the
thing
I
would
be
really
interested
in
is
whether
we
can
come
to
terms
with
some
language
that
would
help
us
feel
that
we're
being
more
proactive
from
a
planning
perspective
on
things
that
might
be
going
into
that
floodplain.
B
C
In
terms
of
the
key
issues,
I
agree
with
Harmons
eloquent
and
fateful
way
of
stating
all
of
that
I
do
want
to
say
a
little
bit
about
the
floodplains.
I
think
you
know,
I
want
to
have
this
be
characterized
as
a
you
know,
allistic
that
for
people
where
it's
dangerous
kind
of
a
conversation
I
do
think
that
the
floodplain
regulations,
having
been
through
a
number
of
developments
here
in
town,
are
quite
stout
and
the
city
takes
it
really
seriously.
C
I,
don't
think
we're
being
irresponsible
at
doing
this,
and
also
just
looking
actually
at
the
topography
and
how
the
2013
flood
happened
and
and
where
the
flood
plains
actually
exist.
This
is
actually
not
really
contributing
to
the
flood
capacity
of
the
south
polar
creek
system,
which
is
about
five
feet
and
further
over.
This
is
actually
in
a
spillover.
C
C
Do
you
feed
above
the
base
flood
elevation
under
your
floodplain
and
the
other
going
to
be
doing
letter
of
map
provision
with
FEMA
and
to
remove
some
portion
of
the
site
from
the
floodplain
doing
calculations
tonight?
My
understanding
of
that
not
being
a
civil
engineer
is
that
they
have
to
demonstrate
that
there
isn't
a
downstream
impact
on
other
property
owners
so
correct,
yes,
general
spirit
of
it.
Maybe
I,
don't
really
know
for
sure,
but
I
feel
like
that.
Math
is
sort
of
part
of
that
thinking.
M
Interrupts
your
deliberations
so
generally
under
FEMA
and
cities
guidelines
the
hundred
year
flood
plain
in
here,
which
isn't
the
FEMA
guidelines
is
considered.
Fringe
area
could
be
filled
without
much
analysis,
the
conveyance
owners,
what
helped
control
that
and
you're
correct.
This
is
a
spill
area,
so
there's
really
not
a
conveyance
zone.
So,
yes,
this
area
could
be
filled.
A
letter
of
map
revision,
revision
based
upon
fill,
applied
for
and
likely
issue
to
prove
through
both
the
city's
regulations
and
FEMA
would
effectively
remove
it
from
the
hundred-year.
C
C
J
B
B
C
C
At
the
topography
in
Li,
Night
Court,
it's
really
clear,
you've
got
it
reflects
the
shape
of
a
curb
drainage
along
the
roadway
on
the
cul-de-sac,
there's
elevated
pad
sites
for
each
home.
It's
pretty
standard
civil
engineering
for
something
like
that.
Where
they've
you
know,
remove
something
from
the
floodplain
mm-hmm.
D
D
But
one
thing
that's
missing
for
me
is
I
would
like
to
know
at
some
point
that
maybe
at
a
study
session
exactly
what
properties
are
slated
for
acquisition
for
floodplains,
especially
in
a
long.
You
know,
South,
Boulder,
Creek
and
in
fact,
in
Phase
two
there
supposed
to
be
some
storage,
but
one
of
the
sites
was
Manhattan
middle
school
and
they
built
the
field
on
part
of
that
storage
area.
D
They
built
a
gym,
so
I
know
that
that
that's
something
I
haven't
I,
don't
know
if
you've
identified
additional
sites,
but
we
should
be
proactive
about
that
and
we
should
be
looking
at
how
to
acquire
them
and
what
funds
are
needed.
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
in
there.
But
that's
my
long
answer
to
number
one
and
I
did
like
some
of
Herman's
suggestions.
D
L
G
This
does
comply
with
applicable
state
annexation
statutes,
but
I
think
also.
We
need
to
keep
in
mind
some
of
the
conditions
that
the
City
Council
just
placed
on
the
Cu
South
annexation
arrangements,
which
have
not
yet
been
finalized,
but
one
of
them
was
that
there
shouldn't
be
any
permanent
building
construction
in
the
100-year
floodplain,
and
so
it
seems
to
me
that
this
is
inconsistent
with
that
consideration.
G
Why
would
we
move
ahead
with,
as
Liz
mentioned,
encouraging
construction
in
the
100-year
floodplain
of
facilities
for
those
people
who
are
least
able
to
deal
with
flood
disasters
and,
at
the
same
time
prevent
a
facility
such
as
Cu,
which
is
presumably
more
capable
of
dealing
with
flood
concerns
from
doing
so?
So
it
seems
to
me
that
this
would
be
to
move
ahead
not
with
annexation,
but
with
encouraging
construction
of,
for
example,
affordable
housing
in
this
area.
G
With
this
flood
pain,
flood
classification
seems
inconsistent
to
me
with
what
the
city
has
has
done
nearby
previously,
and
so
I
think
that
if
there
is
some
way
to
deal
with
that
question,
then
I
think
it
would
be
reasonable
to
move
ahead.
But
it's
not
reasonable
and
it's
not
in
bolder's
interest
to
encourage
construction
in
the
100-year
floodplain.
When
we
have
seen
what
damage
can
happen
with
the
construction
that
has
already
occurred
in
the
hundred
year.
Flood
plain
I
think
Liz
made
that
point
very,
very
well.
G
So
if
there
is
some
way
to
deal
with
that
question
as
harmon
suggested,
either
by
improving
the
drainage
along
dry,
creek,
ditch
number
two
to
change
the
floodplain
classification
of
this
property
or
some
other
method.
Then
I
think
it
might
be
reasonable
to
move
ahead.
But
until
that,
until
we
have
that
arrangement
in
place,
it
doesn't
serve
Boulder
well
to
move
ahead
and
therefore
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
recommend
annexation.
E
E
M
Anything
in
the
hundred
year,
flood
plain,
is
also
within
the
500
year.
Flood
plain
so
the
500
juror
is
an
extent
beyond
so,
if
you've
turned
off
the
hunters,
ear
layer
and
just
had
the
500
year
layer.
All
of
that
area
of
it's
all
shown
in
the
darker
blue
hundreds
here
would
also
show
in
the
lighter
blue
500
year
the.
G
E
J
E
J
D
To
explore
this
idea,
if
you
were,
if
you
were
going
to
approve
the
annexation,
with
the
condition
that
you
couldn't
build
in
the
hundred
year,
flood
plain
map
would
leave
that
South
West
kind
of
corner,
and
if
you
said
it
could
be
rl2,
you
could
put
your
probably
allow.
The
house
to
you
know
have
some
be
included
in
the
annexation,
because
it's
existing
and
then
have
duplexes
or
whatever
in
the
southwest
corner
I
mean
if
that's
something
you
could
so.
I
I
B
G
One
additional
comment-
and
that
is
in
general,
the
the
several
folks
have
said
that
it's
more
appropriate
to
build
multifamily
housing
along
a
busy
road.
That's
because
it's
less
appropriate
to
have
high
priced
single-family
or
low
density
housing.
Somehow
that
was
the
implication.
I'd
like
to
go
on
record
that
it's
not
obvious
to
me
that
you
want
to
have
the
least
expensive
housing
which
I
presume
the
multifamily
buildings
would
be
along
the
busiest
roads,
that's
again
putting
putting
the
people
who
are
least
able
to
deal
with
issues
at
the
greatest
risk.
D
C
E
O
There
are
two
sides
of
the
putting
people
in
harm's
way:
equation:
I.
You
know
every
place
that
we
look
at
to
build.
You
could
be
in
tornado
alley
and
maybe
I'd
you
know.
Maybe
if
we
looked
at
the
statistics,
we
would
find
the
people
who
build
in
certain
parts
of
the
Midwest
are
actually
more
vulnerable
to
terrible
things
happening
because
of
tornadoes
which
are
much
less
easy
to
predict
or
they're
going
to
come.
There's
there's
always
there's
always
a
chance.
The
natural
thing
can
come
along.
O
100-Year
is
supposed
to
mean
once
in
a
hundred
years,
so
maybe
once
an
left
less
than
one
of
our
lifetimes
and
and
when
that
happens,
if
we
I
think
that
our
flood
plain
regulations
are
supposed
to
assure
that
we
do
our
best
to
make
sure
that
whatever
is
built
there
will
will
be
resilient
and
that
we
will
have
good
ways
to
help
prevent
people
from
having
real
problems
right.
So
so
I
you
know
yes,
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
say
that
there's
an
easy
answer
to
these
things
and
you
know
planning
board.
O
People
are
really
good
at
thinking
about
urban
planning
and
maybe
it's
a
little
harder
to
weigh
those
those
things.
It's
actually
kind
of
tough
responsibility
for
us
to
have
to
have
to
think
about
so
I've
been
wrestling
with
it.
I
wrestled
with
the
fact
that
I'm
just
a
couple
weeks
ago,
we
we
looked
at
one
where
we've
recommended
not
no
habitable
buildings
in
the
hundred
year,
flood
plain
as
part
of
the
annexation
agreement,
and
so
what's
different
about
this
one.
Well,
they
are
different.
O
So
so
that's
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
I'm
weighing
that.
Don't
lead
me
directly
to
the
conclusion
that
this
annexation
shouldn't
be
allowed
and
so
I
I'm
still
hoping
we
can
come
up
with
good
language.
That
will
make
people
feel
better
about
this,
because
I
think
it's,
it's
probably
a
good
thing
to
pursue
the
annexation.
So.
O
B
E
D
I'd
like
to
make
an
amendment
to
the
motion
and
it
would
be
to
change
the
zoning
designation
to
rl1
and
then
chain
item
L
in
the
annexation
agreement
and
just
add
single
family,
and
then
you
can
have
duplexes
triplexes
and
for
plexus,
which
you
usually
cannot
have
in
RL
one.
So
that's
would
be
my
amendment.
D
Would
change
the
wording
initial
zoning
of
our
L
I
would
change
it
to
our
l1,
okay
and
then
in
the
incorporate
in
the
staff
memorandum,
our
subject
to
the
recommendations
for
the
annexation
agreement,
which
are
in
attachment
C
under
item
L
I.
Believe
it's
item
L.
If
you
look
I
would
just
add
single
family
because
that
that
that
is
what's
mainly
allowed
in
residential
low,
but
I
keep
the
other
three
designations,
which
we
usually
don't
have
an
RL
one,
but
it's
an
annexation
agreement.
So
we
could
make
these
kind
of
changes.
D
What
I
wanted
to
accomplish
is
you
have
7,000
square
foot,
Lots
you'd
have
less
density,
but
you
could
still
have
your
duplexes
and
triplexes
there's
a
possibility.
Maybe
there
will
be
an
amendment
to
limit
it
limit
the
amount
of
development
in
the
hundred
year,
so
it
would
push
the
development
over
to
the
transit
quarter
and
you
can
actually
put
the
density
there.
E
Crystal
I
mean
I
would
be
half
tempted
just
to
to
agree
with
the
amendment
to
the
motion,
but
for
different
reasons
and
and
I
think
it's
important
that
you
understand
at
least
the
way
I
look
at
it
if
you
change
it
to
RO
one
with
a
minimum
lot
area
of
7,000
square
feet.
But
then
you
change
the
zoning
to
allow
duplexes,
triplexes
and
quads.
Potentially,
you
could
be
putting
50
or
60
units
on
this
lot.
Okay,.
I
E
D
Okay,
you
know
I'll
drop
it,
but
I
just
want
because
no
one's
gonna
say.
But
if
you
divide
7,000
into
83,000
square
feet,
you
get
approximately
11
units,
but
then
I
then
to
match
that
with
the
zoning
requirement,
where
you'd
have
to
have
lots,
maybe
that's
not
the
best
way
of
getting
at
it,
maybe
a
better
way
at
getting
at.
It
would
be
to
offer
an
amendment
to
not
have
development
in
the
hundred
year.
D
P
D
J
D
D
D
D
B
G
B
M
So
there
a
couple
of
items
I
would
advise
you
on
for
this.
The
first
in
terms
of
the
initial
terminology,
B
structures
intended
for
human
occupancy.
That's
a
recommendation,
because
that
is
language
that
exists
in
today's
floodplain
development
regulations
of
high
hazard.
So
it
allows
an
easier
approach
to
analyzing
it.
The
other
word
of
caution
with
this,
because,
as
we've
discussed
earlier,
this
can
be
removed
from
the
hundred
year
flood
plain
through
fill.
M
You
actually
may
not
have
prohibited
what
you
desire
with
that,
because
the
hundred
year
flood
plain
line
could
be
changed
and
they
would
no
longer
be
in
there.
I
don't
want
to
surmise
what
you're
trying
to
do
there,
but
I
want
to
give
you
that
advice
that
you
may
want
to
contemplate
what
that
wording
should
be
I.
Think
Helen
and
I
had
a
few
things
and
she
may
want
to
chime
in
on
this
yeah.
N
N
G
M
N
We've
been
Edward
and
I
have
been
discussing
different
options
to
to
achieve
what
you
are
trying
to
do.
One
of
the
things
we
discussed
as
a
requirement
that
prohibits
any
construction
that
results
in
in
a
rise
in
the
elevation
of
the
100-year
flood
I'm
concerned
about
that,
and
maybe
Edward
can
talk
about
that.
I'm
I,
wonder
whether
any
construction
would
be
possible
because
this
in
this
particular
area
we
use
the
mic
flat
model
to
establish
the
flood
plain
mapping,
and
it
is.
J
N
N
Another
option
might
be
to
require
elevation
of
any
new
dwelling
units
or
structures
on
the
property
above,
what's
already
required
under
the
code.
So
currently
it's
the
two
feet
above
the
100
you
not
playing
elevation.
It
would
make
these
structures
safer
in
a
flood,
but
it
wouldn't
change
any
rice
that
may
result
through
the
construction
of
new
structures.
B
G
N
N
M
What
limited
is
just
the
current
floodplain
regulations
that
they
have
to
meet
so,
depending
on
the
size
of
what
they
do
were
the
cost
of
what
they
do,
what
whether
they'd
have
to
elevate
or
what
improvements
that
have
to
make.
So
my
interpretation
of
that
is
that
the
current
floodplain
regulations,
as
they
would
apply
to
any
existing
house
and
100-year
floodplain
coming
in
to
do
a
remodel
or
expansion,
would
then
apply.
N
One
of
the
things
that
we
discussed
with
regard
to
prohibiting
any
new
structures
and
100-year
floodplain
is-
and
there
hasn't
been
an
analysis,
but
let's
say
the
existing
structure
would
be
demolished.
There
hasn't
been
an
analysis.
What
could
be
rebuilt
in
that
area?
That
is
only
encumbered
by
the
500-year
floodplain,
looking
at
setback
requirements
and
so
forth.
H
G
G
And
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
accomplish
this
in
an
inefficient
way.
I,
don't
necessarily
want
to
restrict
development
to
one
house
on
the
property
I
I'd
like
to
I
I
want
development
to
occur
in
a
way
that
is
appropriate
and
to
me
being
appropriate
means
that
it's
they
and
that
it's
completely
outside
of
the
hundred
year,
flood
plain
what
is
being
built
and
just
raising
a
building
by
two
feet
doesn't,
in
my
opinion,
remove
it
from
the
floodplain.
So
that's
why
I
I'm
hesitating
I'd
be
open
to
suggestions
if
a.
I
C
C
O
O
Is
there
I
do
I
do
feel?
Like
you
know
this
isn't
in
the
isn't
along
the
major
south,
boulder
creek
high
hazard
corridor,
so
it
does
seem
like
there's
a
dependency
on
that
dry.
Creek,
ditch
number
two
specifically:
is
there
anything
we
can
do
with
that,
or
is
it
just
sort
of
really
based
on
things
that
are
kind
of
hydrology
analyses
beyond
our
control?
Whether
or
not
we
go
there
and
try
to
improve
drainage
from
this
area?
I
mean
you
know
you
go
with
that
way.
So
so,
as.
M
M
O
O
E
C
Feet:
okay,
if
you
guys
look
at
the
drawings,
the
house,
where
it
sits
right
now,
is
about
60
feet
back
from
the
right
away,
based
on
a
map
link
which
is
not
something
we
can
submit
for
proper
review.
But
so
just
for
visual
reference,
like
the
front
of
the
house,
is
about
60
feet
back
from
the
property
line,
so
there'd
be
about
40
feet
in
front
of
the
existing
structure.
C
That
could
include
any
kind
of
construction
after
the
setback
right
and
then,
if
you
look
at
the
farthest
east
part
of
the
house,
that's
about
a
hundred
feet
from
the
West
property
line
and
that
West
reelin
has
a
50-foot
he's
been
along
it
right.
So,
if
you
figure
like
the
halfway
back
on
the
house,.
C
Out
so
another
one
so
from
the
front
of
the
house
which
is
about
where,
like
if
you
look
at
those
flood
plain
Maps,
that's
about
where
the
flood
plain
hits
the
south
east
corner
of
the
house
under
your
floodplain,
you
know
moving
back
left
from
that
to
the
west.
You'd
have
about
50
feet,
you
could
build
in
into
the
South
you'd
have
about
30
feet.
You
could
build
in
so
you'd.
Have
that
weird
trapezoid!
It's
about
45
50
by
about
30
with
a
triangle
on
the
side.
There's
not
a
house
site.
Okay,.
D
B
D
B
G
O
C
O
Fine
but
but
I
guess
I,
don't
know
if
tiny
homes
is
actually
defined
anywhere
in
the
code.
If
it
were,
maybe
we
could
have
just
simply
added
it
to
the
list
of
allowable
structures.
You
know
we
could
have
maybe
considered
a
stain
or
a
collection
of
homes
smaller
than
a
certain
number
square
feet.
That
would
have
been
a
simple
way
to
to
potentially
do
that.
It
didn't
occur
to
me
until
you
just
mean
you
at
last
name
and
I'm.
Sorry,
I.
C
Mean
currently,
city
staff
is
through
the
planning,
department
and
housing.
Looking
at
that
stuff
and
they're
saying
that,
there's
not
gonna
be
any
way
to
do
a
units
smaller
than
like
340
350
square
feet
so
that,
like
other
parts
of
the
code
but
preclude
you
from
doing
a
tiny
home,
anyways
yeah.
So
it.
E
And
so,
if
you
don't
have
a
specific
provision,
saying
that
you
know
five
tiny
homes
equals
one
unit
or
something
like
that
to
create
some
economies
of
scale
so
that
you
can
afford
to
run
utility
connections
to
five
homes
instead
of
one
and
when
you're
paying
seventy
thousand
dollars
to
connect
the
unit
to
utilities.
You
need
scale
when
you're
doing
tiny
homes.
So
that's
why
I
was
not
interested
in
that.
Among
other
reasons,
yeah,
okay.
B
E
B
B
Okay,
we
are
back
and
we're
going
to
finalize
the
2019
letter
to
a
city
council
annual
letter
from
Planning
Board
and
before
we
start
I
want
to
let
everybody
know
that
there
was
a
paragraph
that
was
sent
to
me
by
one
of
the
planning
board
members
and
I
completely
spaced
putting
it
in
here,
and
that
was
under
the
resilience
thing.
The
very
last
paragraph
under
that
section.
D
B
B
D
B
C
So
there's
a
lot
of
things:
I,
don't
personally
agree
or
thirds,
don't
mail
of,
but
I'm
I
didn't
go
to
the
meeting
where
we
store
this
off
and
I
respect
the
folks
who
did
I'm
not
gonna,
try
to
change
directions
and
also
I
feel
like
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
where
it's
it
does
get
a
little
bit.
Christmas
treat
and
people
add
in
a
lot
of
their
pet
things
and
I
think
that's
probably
fine.
D
B
B
G
P
L
D
O
B
B
The
I
was
at
look
wondering
about
the
growth
and
infrastructure
part
which
I
appreciate,
because
people
talk
about
whether
we're
outgrowing
our
facilities
and
that
kind
of
thing
I
do
think
that
a
lot
of
these
are
covered
under.
So
many
of
the
master
plans
already
and
so
I'm
wondering
how
to
acknowledge
that,
in
fact,
Boulder
is
you
know,
through
its
master
planning
pilot
master
planning.
Whatever
activities
is
addressing
a
lot
of
this
already
I
mean
they're.
You
know,
projecting
growth,
certain
level
of
growth,
and
will
we
meet
that
water
supply?
D
C
B
We
request
it
playing
board
requests,
something
like
that.
We'd.
L
L
J
B
J
C
C
R
E
E
E
C
B
D
D
Fees
for
different
categories
of
customers-
you
know
you've
since
water
and
wastewater
our
enterprise
funds.
Somebody
has
to
fund
them,
so
then
that
gets
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
get
transferred
into
the
middle
income
and
that
there
that
breaks
their
rates
go
up,
and
so
you
yeah
it's
a
question
that
figure
out
how
to
do
it.
Maybe
it
comes
from
another
fund
to
to
augment
the
Enterprise
Fund
yeah.
C
E
B
E
B
B
L
E
B
B
J
L
P
E
P
J
E
P
E
Okay,
there's
a
sense
that
I
don't
like
too
much
under
private
development
in
public
engagement
strategies;
first
page,
okay.
So
in
that
introductory
sentence,
it
talks
about
quaza
deficiencies
in
quasi-judicial
private
development
projects.
Well,
look
engagement,
they're,
not
quasi-judicial
projects;
they
go
through
and
quasi
judicial
processes,
so
I
could
suggest
we
could
take
now
a
new
wording.
Okay,
so
public
engagement
deficiencies
in
the
review
of
yeah.
L
E
E
B
P
B
E
J
E
So
that's
all
I'm
saying
is
that
we're
like
we
suggest
that
the
city
look
at
strategies,
we're
really
talking
about
council
and
staff,
we're
talking
about
the
city
as
a
legal
entity
as
a
government,
and
that
should
be
a
capital,
C
city.
So
I,
don't
know
if
if
Cindy
I
don't
want
to,
you
know
take
everybody's
time,
but
if
that's
something
you
could
handle
after
we're
done.
G
R
R
P
P
P
B
L
C
D
E
E
Talking
about
how
there
was
it
was
long
and
I
found
one
sense
that
we
could
get
rid
of
one
sense,
so
under
preservation
of
existing,
affordable
housing.
Stock
planning
board
supports
preservation
and
rehabilitation
of
these,
mostly
multifamily
units
than
the
next
sentence,
as
we
suggest
that
the
city
look
at
strategies
to
prevent
the
loss
of
these
units,
so
I
think
that
sentence
about
supporting
preservation
can
go
because
it's
really
well
implied
in
the
next
sentence
and.
P
B
B
B
E
O
P
D
L
B
G
R
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that,
starting
next
year,
before
a
meeting,
probably
the
day
before,
I'm
gonna
be
sending
something
called
a
quorum
check
and
just
making
sure
I
have
the
right
number
of
people
that
are
going
to
be
attending
or
not
attending.
It's
gonna
be
something
we're
gonna
be
putting
in
place
with
all
boards.
I'm.
Sorry,
what's
gonna
be
what
if
we're
gonna,
be
doing
that
for
all
our
boards?
Okay,
it's
doing
this
quorum
check.
Cindy.
E
E
R
R
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
tomorrow
because
of
the
holidays,
I
know
you're
all
going
to
be
busy
and
doing
your
own
thing,
but
I
will
be
sending
out
a
call
up
tomorrow
and
the
expiration
date
on
that
will
be
January
4th,
so
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
I'm
sending
that
out
via
email
tomorrow
to
just
kind
of
keep
your
eyes
on
it
right,
we'll
have
some
time
in
there,
but
just
one.
Let
you
be
away.
Okay
will.
D
R
B
B
O
And
could
I
just
ask?
Does
anyone
know
if
they're
not
gonna,
be
here
on
the
17th
through
the
7th
of
February?
At
this
point,
I'm
struggling
with
both
of
those
dates
but
I'm
gonna
try
to
come
back
for
the
17th
wait.
February
17th
of
January
7th
of
February,
okay,
doesn't
sound
like
I'm
competing
with
a
lot
of
other
people.