►
From YouTube: 5-19-22 City of Boulder Planning Board
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
Here
so
this
is
the
planning
board
meeting
of
older
for
may
19th
2022,
and
I
note
that
we
have
a
full
attendance
tonight,
so
we
do
have
a
quorum
I'll
call
the
meeting
to
order
now.
A
Our
first
action
is
with
respect
to
the
approval
of
minutes
for
the
march
31st
and
april
21st
meetings.
C
D
C
Okay,
great!
So
welcome
to
community
members
and
board
members
for
this
convening
of
the
planning
board.
We
wanted
to
just
set
the
stage
a
little
bit
with
some
common
aligned
understanding
about
expectations
for
this
public
meeting.
C
Okay,
so
we
are
in
a
zoom
webinar
phase
format
tonight,
which-
and
we
did
not
require
this
board-
does
not
require
pre-registration
to
speak.
So
when
we
get
to
the
open
comment,
public
comment,
portions
of
this
meeting,
you
are
welcome
to
raise
your
hand
by
hovering
your
mouse
or
finger
over
the
bottom
section
of
your
screen,
and
what
will
pop
up
is
a
horizontal
menu
and
you
will
see
something
that
says
raise
hand.
C
C
Okay.
So
I
think
the
other
things
that
we
wanted
to
talk
about
is
that
there
are
some
rules
of
decorum
in
the
boulder
revised
code
and
there
are
some
guidelines
that
will
support
this
vision
tonight.
All
remarks
and
testimony
will
be
limited
to
matters
related
to
city
business.
This
is
a
city
board.
There
will
be
no
participant
making
threats
or
using
forms
of
intimidation
against
any
other
person.
C
We'd
really
want
to
encourage
free
speech,
but
we
do
discourage
obscenity,
dehumanizing
language,
racial,
racial
epithets
and
other
speech
and
behavior.
That
disrupts
the
meeting
or
otherwise
impedes
the
ability
to
conduct
the
meeting
and
the
planning
board
chair
can,
let
me
know,
as
the
zoom
moderator
if
he
feels
like
that's
occurring,
and
we
do
require
participants
to
sign
up
to
speak
using
their
commonly
known
name
and
put
their
whole
name
up
before
being
allowed
to
speak
pursuant
with
city
policy.
A
Okay,
thanks
sorry
about
jumping
the
gun
there,
okay,
so
our
our
first
action
is
dealing
with
the
minutes
of
march
31st
and
april
21st
2022.
A
Okay,
now
I'm
I'm,
I
just
got
unfrozen
here.
Okay,
do
we
have
a
second.
A
Okay,
moved
by
mr
mcintyre
seconded
by
ms
kaplan,
all
in
favor
of
approving
both
minutes.
A
A
At
this
point,
we
move
ahead
to
our
public
participation
section
of
the
meeting,
and
this
is
the
time
when
anybody
who
wishes
can
address
the
planning
board
on
any
topic,
except
for
that
which
we're
dealing
with
tonight
in
a
public
hearing
which
is
the
hearing
and
recommendation
to
city
council
regarding
the
land
use
code,
brc1981.
A
G
A
Have
comments
on
that
issue?
Please
wait
until
we're
having
a
public
session
on
that
specific
issue,
but
otherwise,
if
anyone
wishes
to
speak
now's
the
time.
G
A
See
anybody
who's
is
raising
their
hand,
sarah
or
cindy.
A
Okay,
well,
then,
I'll
bring
the
public
participation
section
to
a
close
and
we'll
move
ahead
with
a
consideration
of
any
dispositions
or
planning
board
call-ups
and
continuations,
and
I
don't
see
any
of
those
in
tonight's
agenda
so.
C
A
You,
let's,
let's
give
them
a
chance.
C
H
Sorry
I
was
hitting
qa
my
bad
okay,
yeah
I'd
really
for
my
personal
and
emotional
safety.
I
would
really
rather
not
have
a
former
cop
reading
me
the
riot
act
before
I
speak.
I
feel
very
personally
insulted
by
that,
and
I
feel
that
this
could
easily
be
accessed
for
people
to
you.
Have
them
read
the
things
separately
like
just
alert
them
that
they
need
to
have
read
that
and
agree
to
it
and
it
doesn't.
H
I
don't
think
that
was
done
in
live
meetings,
and
I
find
it
very
distracting
and
very
insulting
personally,
and
I
don't
like
that-
and
also
I
would
like
my
video
up
as
to
the
issue
of
this.
The
ability
of
the
city
to
pay
for
the
community
benefit
that
it
should
receive.
H
I'm
sure
can
bring
this
up
later,
but
one
person
at
the
city
council
meeting
the
other
night
mentioned
there
were
not
enough
money
for
lifesavers
for
the
spruce
pool
to
be
open
that
they
have
to
the
people
that
want
to
be
lifesavers
have
to
pay
a
bunch
of
money
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
that's
that's
a
benefit
to
this
community.
If
we
can't
afford
that
with
all
the
developer
subsidies
that
you
hand
out
in
this
community,
we're
pretty
sad.
This
is
not
an
elite
community.
H
If
that's
the
case,
we
can't
even
open
our
freaking
swimming
pool
and
we
need
50
a
minimum
of
50
inclusionary
housing.
Donna
altman
on
55th
street
was
arguing
his
case
for
having
he's
got
20
000
square
feet
there.
He
he
wants
basically
at
least
25
units
that
would
be
800.
H
H
The
seniors
in
town
don't
want
to
live
in
apartments,
even
if
they're
those
elite
apartments
and
he's
he's
done
pretty
well
in
boulder
already.
I
don't
think
that
don
altman
and
michael
bosma
need
any
more
help.
Any
more
subsidies
in
open
space
in
parking
lifting
parking
demands-
and
this
is
on
the
golf
course
it's
it-
and
on
the
border
of
east
boulder
sub
community-
that
it's
going
to
be
high
level
housing
for
folks.
And
why
are
we
giving
them
a
subsidy
in
an
annexation
for
a
firehouse?
A
Okay,
I'll
close
for
the
second
time
the
public
participation
section.
So
now
we'll
we'll
move
ahead
on
on
our
agenda.
There
were
no
dispositions
or
planning
board
call-ups
to
consider
tonight.
So
we'll
move
ahead
to
our
public
hearing
item
and
there's
open
tonight.
That
is
a
public
hearing
and
recommendation
to
city
council
for
orton
ordinance,
8515
amending
title
ix,
land
use
code,
brc
1981
to
update
the
site
review
criteria
as
part
of
the
community
benefit
code,
change
project
and
we'll
start
out
with
a
staff
presentation.
A
Followed
by
questions
to
staff
by
the
from
the
board
that
will
be
followed
by
a
public
comment
period
and
thereafter
there'll
be
discussion
and
decision
by
the
board
on
this
topic.
I
So,
let's
move
ahead
staff
thanks
thanks
so
much
good
evening,
chair
members
of
the
board,
we're
pleased
to
be
here
this
evening
to
present
the
culmination
of
a
few
years
of
work
and
effort
to
amend
the
city
site
review
criteria,
and
we
certainly
recognize
that
this
is
really
complex,
subject
matter
and
we
really
look
forward
to
your
input
and
feedback,
essentially
or
especially
since
you're
primary
users
of
the
criteria.
So
with
that
said,
I'm
pleased
to
turn
it
over
to
carl
geiler,
who
served
as
the
project
manager
on
these
code.
J
Thanks,
charles
and
good
evening,
board
members
tonight
we're
going
to
talk
about
ordinance,
85
15,
which
is
to
update
the
site
review
criteria,
like
charles
said,
there's
a
lot
of
content
in
this
presentation,
so
I
have
a
lot
to
cover.
Certainly
if
you
have
questions
midway
through
feel
free
to
to
jump
in
with
any
questions,
so
I
can
clarify
so
just
to
talk
about
what
we're
going
to
be
going
over
tonight.
J
So
the
purpose
of
tonight,
as
the
chair
noted,
is
that
planning
board
would
be
making
a
recommendation
on
this
ordinance
to
city
council,
as
it
is
a
change
to
title
ix.
The
land
use
code.
J
The
community
benefit
project
actually
grew
out
of
what
we
call
the
design
excellence
initiative
going
back
in
time,
I
think,
basically,
to
around
2015.
There
were
a
number
of
buildings
that
were
being
built
around
boulder
that
we're
getting
some
criticism
based
on
their
design,
quality
and
raising
questions
about
whether
the
city
was
getting.
You
know,
community
benefit
in
projects
where
there
seemed
to
be
additional
mass
height
an
far
granted
through
the
approvals.
J
So
it
started.
The
community
benefit
project
in
discussion,
and
some
of
the
criticisms
that
were
fairly
routine
with
a
number
of
projects
were
that
there
were
too
many
materials
on
the
facades
of
buildings
that
made
them
look
too
busy.
There
were
material
changes
in
plane,
like
you
can
see
on
the
graphic
windows
that
were
flush
with
the
wall
that
give
it
kind
of
a
kind
of
a
cheap
tack,
on
kind
of
look
tack
on
balconies,
where
they're
not
indented,
into
the
building
and
just
overall
low
quality
of
materials.
J
So
the
city
actually
hired
victor
dover
who's
a
nationally
known,
planner
and
architect
to
basically
assess
the
city's
codes
and
give
some
advice
as
to
what
steps
should
be
taken
to
to
address
those
concerns
and
that
first
started
off
with
the
idea
of
doing
a
form
based
code
as
a
pilot
in
boulder
junction,
an
area
that
has
adopted
plans
that
set
the
vision
for
that
area.
J
Another
recommendation
from
victor
dover
was
to
update
the
site
review
criteria
to
get
more
predictability
in
projects,
and
the
recommendation
was
basically
to
remove
some
of
the
ambiguity,
some
of
the
subjective
nature
of
the
criteria
so
that
and
make
the
the
criteria
more
prescriptive,
easier
to
interpret
easier
to
to
understand
what
the
intent
is,
so
that
there
can
be
increased
predictability
in
projects.
There
was
a
number
of
projects
that
went
through
the
process
that
you
know
they
reached.
J
You
know
board
level
and
it
was
unclear
whether
it
would
be
approved
because,
because
of
the
nature
of
the
site
review
criteria.
So
this
was
something
that
was
taken
on
as
a
city
council
initiative
and
we've
worked
through
the
community
benefit
project
in
phases.
J
As
I
noted
the
project
started
in
2018.,
we
did
phase
one
which
was
focusing
on
integrating
permanently
affordable
housing
requirements
into
the
site,
review
criteria
for
buildings
that
are
in
specified
locations
over
the
floor
area
ratio
or
over
the
height
limit.
If
they
were
to
propose
a
fourth
or
fifth
story
in
a
building,
so
that
was
adopted
in
2019
and
went
into
effect
in
2020.
J
We
then
moved
on
to
phase
two,
which
was
other
community
benefits
and
in
our
check-ins
with
council.
Over
time
we
narrowed
it
down
to
our
council,
actually
narrowed
it
down
to
focusing
on
affordable
commercial
space.
We
had
a
broad
range
of
community
benefits
that
we
talked
about
in
our
study
session
with
council
in
2018,
and
that
was
narrowed
down
to
these
two
community
benefits
so
permanently:
affordable,
housing
and
affordable
commercial
space.
J
We
worked
on
phase
2
throughout
2020
into
2021.
We
developed
an
ordinance
for
those
changes,
basically
trying
to
get
the
code
written
in
a
way
where
the
affordable
commercial
requirements
would
be
roughly
equivalent
to
the
permanently
affordable
housing.
So
it
didn't
create
a
condition
where
people
would
choose
an
easier
path.
J
So
the
goals
and
objectives
you
see
up
on
the
screen
are
those
that
are
applicable
to
the
site
review
criteria
project
as
endorsed
by
city
council.
Those
goals
and
objectives
are
identify.
Incentives
to
address
the
community,
economic,
social
and
environmental
objectives
of
the
conference
of
plan
determine
additional
design
standards
for
a
project
requesting
a
height
modification,
identify
other
aspects
of
the
site,
review
criteria
to
further
city
goals
and
create
more
predictability
in
projects
for
staff
developers
and
boards
and
council.
J
J
This
shows,
for
the
community
benefit
changes.
The
areas
in
orange
are
those
areas
that
are
considered
bonus
floor
areas.
So
if
it's
any
floor
area,
that's
over
an
far
limit.
No
matter
what
floor
it's
on
or
if
it's
floor
area
and
a
fourth
or
fifth
story,
that's
considered
bonus
floor
area
that
has
increased
requirements,
so
in
this
case
it's
permanently
affordable
housing
as
it's
integrated
into
the
code
now
and
that
increased,
affordable
housing
basically
goes
from
the
buy
rate.
J
25
of
the
number
of
units
up
to
36
of
of
the
units
have
to
be
permanently
affordable
if
they
have
a
bonus
floor
area
in
the
project.
So
this
is
already
in
the
code
and
just
as
an
overall
refresher
for
the
just
the
site
review
process,
a
site
review
is
required
for
any
projects
that
are
over
a
certain
size,
acreage
number
of
units
or
if
modifications
are
requested,
and
it's
really
by
zone
every
zone
has
a
different
threshold.
J
Most
site
reviews
are
staff
level
and
all
are
subject
to
call
up
by
planning,
board
or
citizen
appeal.
Any
site
review.
That's
approved
has
to
be
found
to
meet
the
site
review
criteria
in
section
9214h.
J
So
over
the
years,
I
just
wanted
to
show
this
graphic
that
just
kind
of
shows
you
know:
we've
struggled
with
the
site
review
criteria
internally
and
externally
and
have
been
looking
at
ways
to
improve
it.
There's
there's
a
bit
of
redundancy
in
there
things
that
are
really
vague.
So
over
time,
we've
we've
been
analyzing
it
for
things
to
make
some
improvements,
and
then
we've
also
done
outreach
through
the
the
neighborhood
representation
group
and
the
site
review
focus
group
to
get
their
ideas
on
ways
to
update
the
site
review
criteria.
J
These
are
some
of
the
words
that
are
in
the
current
criteria
that
I
think
a
lot
of
folks
have
been
struggling
with,
because
everybody
has
a
different
definition
of
what
these
mean
this.
It's
ambiguous
language,
and
these
are
in
the
criteria
today,
so
providing
relief
to
density
compatibility,
character
of
the
area,
visual
interest,
pedestrian
friendly
human
scale.
What
high
quality
materials?
It's
vague
language,
that's
not
really
specified,
and
we
often
struggle
and
go
back
and
forth
through
reviews
on
whether
these
are
met.
J
J
One
criterion
might
be
more
up
to
the
nine
another.
One
might
be
like
a
seven.
You
know
and
they're
all
different.
Everybody
has
a
different
interpretation
of
that
and
that
makes
it
really
challenging
with
a
site
review
on
the
the
right
side
is
like
form
based
code,
it's
more
like
on
off
switches
like
is
it
met
or
is
it
not
met
and
it's
fairly
clear
whether
it's
met
or
not
met
and
we're
not
suggesting
through
this
project
that
we're
making
the
site
review
criteria
as
strict
as
form
based
code?
J
But
we
are
moving
more
in
that
direction
based
on
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
project,
so
again,
not
as
much
as
form-based
code,
there's
still
more
flexibility,
there's
still
some.
You
know
criteria
that
are
not
as
prescriptive
in
the
the
current
ordinance,
but
we're
trying
to
make
it
more
predictable
by
increasing
that
level
of
predictability.
J
So
the
key
issues
that
we've
outlined
for
the
board
are:
does
the
planning
board
find
that
the
updated
site
review
criteria
meet
the
goals
and
objectives
outlined
for
the
project
and
then
secondarily
does
planning
board,
recommend
any
modifications
to
the
criteria
and
the
draft
ordinance,
and
does
the
planning
board
find
that
the
criteria
should
be
modified
to
be
less
prescriptive?
So
that's
one
of
the
key
issues
we'd
like
to
talk
about
tonight.
J
So
just
starting
off
this
is
some
of
the
approaches
to
the
changes
that
we
presented
to
council
and
planning
board
in
the
past
about
where
we
were
headed
this.
These
were
kind
of
the
more
specific
ways
we
thought
we
could
improve
upon.
The
current
criteria,
with
the
new
ordinance,
so
emphasize,
criteria
that
result
in
projects
that
address
important
city
policies
reorganize
the
criteria
in
a
more
top-down
approach.
J
So
that
means
start
with
the
more
high
high-level
policy
level,
broad
things
that
apply
to
a
project
and
specify
what
that
means
and
then
trickle
down
through
the
site,
design
ultimately
to
the
building
design.
What's
what's
on
the
facades
of
buildings
and
the
detailing
so
working
down,
simplify
the
criteria
by
reducing
some
length
through
eliminating
redundant
criteria,
combining
criteria
that
already
have
similar
themes
and
goals.
J
If
you
read
through
the
current
criteria,
there's
a
lot
of
redundancy
remove,
unnecessarily
complicated
criteria
that
don't
accomplish
design
excellence,
overlap
with
other
code
sections
or
are
rarely
implemented,
and
then,
lastly,
add
more
descriptive
language
to
the
criteria
to
make
it
less
subjective,
more
prescriptive
and
measurable,
where
appropriate
and
then
in
in
and
thus
more
predictable.
J
So
this
is
what's
been
kind
of
guiding
us
through
this
project,
so
I'm
going
to
start
walking
through
the
components
of
the
ordinance
again,
if
you
have
any
questions,
certainly
feel
free
to
jump
in
again,
starting
at
the
high
level.
The
criteria
start
off
with
compliance
with
the
boulder
valley
conference
of
plan,
and
that
also
includes
any
adopted
area
plans
or
design
guidelines.
We've
worked
on
the
first
part
to
basically
not
apply
all
broad
bvcp
policies,
as
it's
stated.
Currently.
J
K
Yeah,
I
actually
have
a
question.
One
of
my
clarifying
questions
was
specifically
about
this
element.
It
wasn't
clear
to
me
in
the
material
that
you
shared
with
us
before
are
is
the
is
the
are
you
trying
here
to
push
further
up
the
priority
ladder,
these
four
components,
or
are
you
trying
to
clarify
these
four
components?
J
I
think
it's
just
it's
all
part
of
just
trying
to
make
this
section
more
specific.
So,
right
now,
when
you
read
that
criterion,
it
can
be
interpreted
any
number
of
ways
based
on
the
the
whole.
You
know
bunch
of
chapters
in
the
comp
plan
that
have
competing
issues,
so
we
looked
at
what
the
focus
areas
were
in
the
city
like
what
are
the
top
priorities?
Housing.
J
You
know
where
and
then
try
to
elevate
those
in
this
new
criterion
with
housing
diversity,
environmental
protection.
There
are
also
some
criteria
that
were
already
in
the
site:
review
criteria
that
were
more
of
a
policy
level
that
we're
in
the
building
design
section
that
we
did
elevate
up
to
this
section
laura.
I
see
you
have
your
hand
up.
F
I
had
a
very
similar
question
to
sarah's,
so
am
I
understanding
correctly
that
the
current
criterion
that
talks
about
on
balance
does
the
project
meet
the
goals
of
the
bbcp
that
would
be
eliminated
and
replaced
with
just
these
four
areas?
Energy
conservation
and
building
life
cycle
impact,
carbon
reduction,
preservation
of
important
historical
cultural
resources,
housing
diversity
and
environmental
preservation,
and
that
those
proposed
code,
sections
that
you
have
there
would
completely
replace
the
need
for
the
planning
board
to
look
at
the
comp
plan.
Is
that
what
you're
suggesting.
J
It
it
puts
emphasis
on
those
areas.
It
doesn't
mean
that
the
the
remaining
parts
of
the
criteria
don't
implement
the
comp
plan.
It
just
means
that,
like
it
can't
a
project
can't
be
denied
based
because
it
doesn't
meet
the
comp
plan
because,
again
that's
what
has
been
interpreted
as
being
very
unpredictable.
J
We
have
elevated
those
those
key
issues
that
we
think
are
measurable
metrics
into
this
section.
It
still
requires
consistency
with
area
plans
and
design
guidelines,
so
there
is
emphasis
on
that
and
it
could
be
denied
if
it
doesn't
meet
those
particular
projects.
It's
not
supposed
to
be
honed
in.
I
saw
your
question
about
you
know,
focusing
on
the
intents
and
the
goals
and
objectives
it.
It
was
not
meant
to
be
limiting
to
those
things.
J
It
was
meant
to
apply
to
the
entire
adopted
plan,
but
as
far
as
applying
the
entire
comprehensive
plan,
it
would
remove
that
as
a
way
of
either
approving
or
denying
a
project.
J
Okay,
so
in
that
particular
section,
the
four
areas
are
energy
conservation,
historic
and
cultural
resources.
That's
like
landmarking
housing
diversity.
We
have
a
more
specific
criterion.
We
do
have
a
criterion
right
now
that
record
that
speaks
to
housing
diversity,
but
it
doesn't
have
a
specific,
measurable
goal
of
what
should
be
met.
So
we've
tried
to
hone
in
on
on
a
basic
requirement
for
that,
as
well
as
environmental
preservation.
J
The
energy
conservation
would
replace
the
existing
criteria
in
the
code
about
minimize
and
mitigate
energy
conservation,
because
that's
another
criterion
that
has
raised
concerns
about
its
subjective
nature.
That's
not
specific.
The
city
already
has
a
very
rigorous
energy
code,
one
of
the
most
in
the
country,
so
we
worked
with
our
our
climate
initiative
staff
on
what
would
go
above
and
beyond
the
the
current
energy
code.
J
So
there
are
three
options
that
are
in
that
particular
criterion,
so
limiting
the
con
concrete
in
materials
or
doing
full
electrification
instead
of
using
gas
in
projects
or
doing
a
life
cycle
assessment
for
any
building.
That
is
over
thirty
thousand
square
feet
and
it
would
require
a
ten
percent
life
cycle,
carbon
reduction.
As
part
of
that,
so
it
gives
three
different
options
for
meeting
that
particular
code.
J
We
talked
about
this
at
the
the
work
session
in
october.
There's
an
economic
feasibility
criterion,
and
I
know
one
member
of
the
a
planning
board
was
asking
that
it
not
be
removed.
We're
still
recommending
that
it
not
be
included
in
the
criteria.
Again,
the
goals
of
the
criteria
are
to
simplify
where
it
makes
sense
and
review
remove
ambiguity.
We
we
just
feel
that
that
particular
criterion
still
is
difficult
and
challenging
for
staff
to
respond
to
it's.
Basically,
if
a
project
moves
forward,
you
know
the
project
is
considered
to
be
feasible.
J
J
J
We've
also
updated
the
open
space
criteria.
This
is
part
of
the
criteria,
that's
still
probably
more.
On
the
subjective
side,
just
based
on
some
of
the
input
we
received
again
it
we
tried
to
in
areas
where
it's
not
as
prescriptive.
I
I
I
call
it
more
descriptive
language,
so
it's
the
language
has
been
changed
to
just
be
more
clear
about
what
is
the
intent
of
this
section?
What
do
we
consider
good
design?
What
are
the
the
factors
that
should
apply
in
that
case?
So
that's
kind
of
what
we
did
with
open
space.
J
We
did
borrow
a
section,
that's
currently
in
our
separate
open
space
standards
and
pulled
it
into
the
criteria
to
relate
to
larger
scale
projects.
So
it's
one
that
was
used
for
the
spruce
confectionary
project
on
pearl
street
that
had
that
courtyard
they
codified
some.
Some
design
requirements
for
that
and
we
pulled
that
into
the
open
space
criteria
that
would
apply
to
any
project
that
was
larger
than
an
acre.
So
this
is
really
applying
to
a
much
larger
scale,
maybe
block
long
building.
You
might
have
to
do
that
courtyard
requirement
as
part
of
the
open
space.
J
Right
now,
it
just
says
that
you
have
to
provide
landscape
in
excess,
but
it
doesn't
say
how
much
we
resolved
that
it
would
have
to
be
15
percent
more
plantings
than
a
typical
by-right
project
would
have,
and
then
we've
also
added
some
qualitative
criteria
that
we
think
are
more
specific
to
water
conservation
and
bioswales.
Sarah.
K
J
Well,
I
just
honestly
like
we,
we
were
just
looking
at
the
existing
landscape
requirements,
so
it
depends
on
what
kind
of
project
it
is
and
I'm
I
don't
claim
to
be
an
expert
on
the
landscaping
standards,
but
it
does
specify
a
certain
number
of
plantings
for
per
the
scale
of
the
project.
So
when
working
with
them,
we
we
just
cut
it.
It
was
as
simple
as
you
know
what
about
20?
What
is
that
gonna
do?
Is
that
makes
sense,
and
in
working
with
the
landscape
architect
it
was
like.
J
K
Okay
and
then
my
follow-up
is
I'm
sort
of
curious
and
sort
of.
I
am
curious
as
to
why
open
space
and
landscaping
isn't
sort
of
combined
into
a
climate
mitigation
component
that
could
be
attached
to
energy
conservation,
because
those
those
two
are
related
in
terms
of
the
city
me
and
when
we're
talking
about
the
high-level
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
objectives
or
priorities,
it
seems
to
me
that
climate
climate
dealing
with
climate
is
a
high
priority
for
the
city,
and
it's
not
just
energy
conservation.
K
It
is
also
mitigation
et
cetera,
and
that
would
include
open
space
and
landscaping
and
tree
k
all
that
stuff.
J
Well,
I
know
there's
been
recent
discussions
about
the
cool
boulder
initiative
that
talk
about
you
know
focusing
on
open
space
and
landscaping
to
address
climate.
J
In
all
honesty,
like
you
know,
we're
always
trying
to
implement
things
that
we
think
would
would
mitigate
urban
heat
island
effect
and
things
like
that,
but
as
far
as
the
things
that
are
suggested
through
like,
for
example,
the
cool
boulder
initiative
that
came
along
very
late
in
this
project,
as
we
already
had
a
developed,
you
know
ordinance,
it
doesn't
mean
that
something
that
we
wouldn't
consider
in
future
updates
to
the
criteria.
J
L
Thank
you,
carl.
I
have
a
question
about
the
way
this
is
all
formatted.
I
appreciate
you
know
the
slides
and
the
sort
of
big
picture
that
you're
giving
there,
but
do
you
have
a
reference
for
each
of
these
back
to
the
actual
ordinance,
which
is
actually
what
we're
looking
at
at
approving
or
deliberating
on
tonight
is.
Is
there
something
that
says?
Okay,
these
landscaping
questions
they
are
in.
You
know.
J
A
Yeah,
no,
that's
that's
a
good
idea!
Thank
you.
Sarah
in
the
agenda
com
committee
meeting,
we
we
felt
that
the
way
we
we
would
be
dealing
with
this
tonight
is
that
we
would
be
going
in
the
staff
present
after
the
staff
presentation
and
the
questions
from
the
board
and
the
public
comment.
We
would
be
first
considering
the
big
picture
question
that
staff
has
for
us,
which
is
what
is
our
general
attitude
about.
A
These
proposed
changes,
picture
and
general
thoughts
on
it
and
thereafter
we
would
go
through
the
the
changes
line
by
line
and
anyone
who
has
a
proposed
change.
That's
when
proposed
specific
choices
to
the
text
could
be
discussed.
L
Just
wanting
a
I'm
just
looking
for
a
relationship
between
this
information
that
is
being
presented
to
us
in
a
kind
of
broader
and
narrative
form
and
where
just
where
it
lies
in
the
ordinance
just
so
that
I
can
keep
stay
organized
about
what
the
staff
is,
how
the
staff
is
seeing,
because
I
think
that
the
that,
what's
on
the
what's
on
the
screen,
is
a
narrative
about
how
the
staff
is
has
perceived
the
actual
ordinance
and
what
the
intent
of
the
ordinance
is
around
around
these
particular
areas
and
I'm.
L
D
J
L
That's
great,
thank
you.
That's
that's
really.
The
relationship
I
was
looking
for
is:
where
does
this
information
land
in
the
actual
ordinance?
Thank
you
for
that
carl.
If
you
can
make
references
like
that,
just
that
would
be
great.
J
Yeah,
so
we're
moving
on
to
h2d,
which
is
the
public
realm
and
building
placement.
This
is
actually
a
again
like
we
were
talking
about
doing
like
a
top
down.
J
So
as
we
move
from
kind
of
the
holistic
site
related
issues,
this
is
kind
of
a
new
section
to
the
criteria
that
addresses
some
of
the
struggles
we've
had
with
the
terminology.
Human
scale,
attractive,
streetscape,
pedestrian
interest.
These
are
terms
that
are
again
vague,
that
are
we
often
it
causes
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
between
applicants
and
staff
on
when
a
design
that
meets
the
criteria
is
achieved.
J
So
we
decided
it
made
it.
It
made
sense
to
create
a
new
public
realm
section
and
kind
of
define
public
realm,
for
this
particular
crate
for
the
criteria
and
then
be
a
little
bit
more
specific
about
what
the
expectations
are.
So
that's
what's
been
done
in
the
public
realm
section,
there's
requirements
for
building
entries
every
75
feet,
fenestration
changes
and
requirements
that
would
basically
emphasize
an
entrance
to
a
building
and
then
just
being
more
clear
about
trying,
in
most
cases,
to
get
building
forward
design
rather
than
parking
forward
design.
J
Really
in
where
we
can-
and
it
doesn't
mean
all
buildings
have
to
be
at
zero
setback,
it
just
means
that
that
that
most
when
you're
looking
at
a
project,
you
should
be
looking
at
a
facade
of
a
building.
It
might
be
set
back
and
landscaped,
but
not
have
a
parking
lot
set
out
in
front.
So
we
wanted
to
be
a
little
bit
more
clear
about
that.
We
also
updated
within
this
section
the
criteria
related
to
view
protection.
J
We
do
have
existing
criteria
about
protecting
views,
but
it's
not
specific
in
any
way
to
what
should
be
protected.
So
we've
tried
to
be
a
little
bit
more
clear
to
meet
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
project
to
specify
views
of
the
mountains
from
generally
areas
that
are
used
by
the
public.
J
So
from
like
public
parks
or
something
or
areas
where
people
congregate
that
those
areas
there
would
be
a
higher
bar
for
protecting
views
from
those
areas,
something
that
we
heard
through
public
input
throughout
this
process
was
you
know
it
doesn't
mean
that
a
building
could
necessarily
be
built.
J
That
would
impact
a
view
from
a
park
or
something,
but
it
there
was
a
an
idea
that
if
a
building
does
that
there
should
be
an
expectation
that
that
view
should
be
preserved
within
the
building
or
atop
the
building
in
some
sort
of
open
space
area
that
could
be
used
by
the
users
of
the
building
to
see
the
views
from
that
location,
so
kind
of
similar
to
like,
like
the
daily
camera.
J
Building,
where
you
know
a
view
of
the
flatirons
was
changed
from
the
pearl
street
mall,
but
they
did
create
a
rooftop
area
where
that
view
is
preserved.
So
that's
something
that
we
try
to
incorporate
into
the
criteria.
J
So,
throughout
this
project,
we've
looked
at
the
form-based
code
as
a
as
a
example
of
where
we
believe
the
buildings
have
have
improved
design
that
we
could
borrow
from
and
pull
into
the
criteria.
J
So,
in
this
case,
there's
a
building
materials
and
transitions
requirements,
so
75
of
the
building
materials
would
have
to
be
considered
high
quality
materials
and
we've
listed
those
in
the
criteria
to
get
away
from
the
kind
of
designs
where
you
have
a
change
in
materials
on
the
facade
of
the
building
that
the
change
in
material
would
have
to
occur
away
from
would
have
to
be
basically
a
concave
corner,
so
it
doesn't
change
on
the
surface
or
would
have
to
be
around
the
corner
of
the
building,
I'm
not
facing
a
public
street.
J
These
are
all
things
that
that
are
in
the
form
based
code
that
we
think
have
worked.
Windows
is
part
of
this
there's
a
minimum
transparency
requirement
per
floor,
which
is
in
the
form
based
code.
So
what
we're
proposing
is
20
for
areas
that
face
the
public
realm
and
15
for
areas
that
don't
you
could
can
have
blank
walls
wider
than
25
feet.
J
There's
some
exceptions
for
industrial
buildings
that
we've
put
in
there.
The
other
thing
that
we
feel
has
helped
with
making
buildings
look.
Higher
quality
is
having
a
like
a
recess
of
windows
by
two
inches,
where
the
plane
of
the
glass
is
offset
from
the
material
around
it
by
two
inches
just
gives
it
creates
shadow
lines.
It
makes
the
building
look
higher
quality,
and
I
have
some
pictures
that
will
will
show
some
examples
of
this.
J
So
one
of
the
primary
things
that
was
part
of
the
project
was
applying
additional
requirements
to
those
buildings
that
are
over
requesting
a
height
modification
with
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
story.
J
Again,
we
feel
that
some
of
the
design
requirements
from
the
form
based
code
have
been
successful
in
creating
better
looking
buildings
that
are
of
for
the
larger
buildings,
so
we've
pulled
in
the
expression
lines
requirement,
which
is
basically
an
offset
of
materials
by
two
inches
same
as
like
the
windows,
where
you
create
that
shadow
line
effect,
just
a
basic
kind
of
detailing
that
would
occur
between
the
ground
floor
and
the
floor
above
or
from
the
top
of
like
a
parapet.
Wall
we've
also
put
in
a
maximum
building
length
of
150
feet.
J
There's
been
a
lot
of
concern
over
the
years
of
these
large
block
long
buildings
and
we're
trying
to
mitigate
that
required.
Facade
variation
is
to
try
to
get
away
from
the
projects
that
have
the
really
busy
facades
with
the
changing
and
building
modules
and
that
look
really
busy
with
a
lot
of
materials.
J
J
So
we've
pulled
that
in
from
the
form
based
code
as
well,
and
then
there's
the
roof
cap
types
that
apply
to
the
taller
building,
so
roofs
with
parapets
have
to
have
the
expression
line
to
create
that
detail,
or
they
have
to
have
a
flat
roof
on
top
like
an
awning
that,
should
you
can
see
in
the
pictures
on
this
slide
or
encouraging
pitched
roofs
like
gable
and
hip
roofs.
J
So
I
know
in
the
in
the
questions
we
received
before
this
hearing.
There
was
some
interest
in
hype,
modifications
and
where
they
can
be
granted.
Obviously,
there's
a
whole
map
that
we
have
later
in
the
presentation
that
shows
zones
where
one
cannot
request
a
height
modification
to
add
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
story.
But
there
was
some
interest
in
the
area
plan
area,
plans
of
the
city
and
where
some
of
the
high
frequency
transit
corridors
are.
J
So
there
is
a,
I
would
say,
a
somewhat
discretionary
criteria
in
there,
but
more
specific
than
the
current
criteria.
That
says
that
you
know
if
the
area
plan
where
the
pipe
modification
is
requested
envisions
the
height
that
that
height
is
consistent
with
the
plan
and
then,
if
it's
not
in
an
area
like
that,
it
would
need
to
be
compared
with
its
immediate
context.
Within
a
thousand
feet.
J
Are
there
other
buildings
that
are
of
similar
height
and
if
not,
the
applicant
would
have
to
just
demonstrate
that
the
height
modification
is
near
a
high
frequency
transit
corridor
and
would
otherwise
be
compatible
with
the
character
of
the
of
its
surroundings.
J
So
we've
tried
to
dial
in
a
little
bit
more
where
the
city
would
expect
to
see
some
height
modification
requests
again.
We've
eliminated
a
whole
bunch
of
zones
from
where
this
could
occur,
but
just
kind
of
narrowing
down
where
height
modifications
can
be
requested.
J
So
moving
into
the
slides
that
basically
show
why
we
think
the
the
proposed
building
design
requirements
would
be
an
improvement
and
would
be
a
good
baseline
for
projects.
J
So
in
this
case
this
is
building
materials.
So
everything
on
the
slides
on
the
left
are
some
examples
of
what
we
might
say:
low
quality
design
and
then
the
ones
on
the
right
are
more
higher
quality
design
that
would
meet
the
form
based
code
or
have
been
honestly
some
of
the
more
recent
site
reviews
that
have
been
approved.
We're
not
saying
that
adoption
of
these
criteria,
like
that
none
of
the
recent
designs
would
meet
them.
J
We
feel
that
a
lot
of
the
recent
designs
have
responded
to
the
design
excellence
concerns
and
have
already
been
meeting
a
lot
of
these
requirements.
But
here
you
can
see
the
the
difference
between
just
stucco
and
efus
versus
the
higher
quality,
brick
and
metal
that
we
see
on
some
of
the
more
recent
examples.
J
This
shows
particularly
on
the
left.
You
can
see
some
of
the
material
changes
in
plane,
often
kind
of
detract
from
the
quality
of
the
building.
So
that
would
be
something
that's
that's
not
permitted.
On
the
on
the
other
side,
you
can
see
that
there's
uniform
materiality
on
the
facades
that
face
the
public
realm.
J
J
You
get
blank
walls
and
you
can
see
that
how
the
indent
of
the
windows
does
kind
of
add
to
the
the
substantial
nature
of
the
project
like
we.
We
now
use
the
term
sense
of
permanence,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
these
buildings
that
have
that
offset
look.
You
know
more,
like
you
know,
older
style,
buildings
that
are
higher
quality
and
that's
something
that
we
think
gets
achieved
through
that
requirement.
J
You
can
see
the
difference
between
the
tacon
balconies,
the
juliet
balconies,
the
unfinished
balconies,
underneath
what
that
looks
like,
so
these
requirements
again
would
only
apply
to
the
larger
scale
projects.
I
know
one
of
the
concerns
we've
heard
is
applying
all
these
requirements
to
the
smaller
scale
projects
would
be
burdensome
again.
We've
we
tried
to
update
the
criteria
to
exempt
out
some
of
the
smaller
scale
projects
and
really
try
to
address
the
the
design
challenges
that
we've
seen
in
recent
years.
J
J
So,
just
to
talk
a
little
bit
and
I've
eluded
some
of
this.
The
public
comment
that
we've
received
through
the
project
high
level.
We've
done
a
lot
of
engagement
throughout
the
community
benefit
project.
Since
2018
with
in-person
and
virtual
meetings,
we've
had
open
houses.
We've
talked
through
a
lot
of
these
issues.
We've
had
be
heard,
boulder
questionnaires,
we
did
a
channel
eight
segment,
we've
had
the
focus
groups
that
we've
been
meeting
with.
We've
met
with
stakeholder
groups
like
plan
boulder
uli
we've
been
spreading.
J
The
word
through
the
planning
newsletter
and
we've
also
been
informing
boulder
architects
about
the
changes.
I'd
say
that
the
reviews
of
the
ordinance
are
mixed.
J
We've
heard
from
some
folks
that
expressed
support
for
the
changes
and
felt
that
it
did
accomplish
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
project
and
would
be
more
aligned
with
the
comp
plan
and
more
predictable,
but
we
we
did
hear
from
a
lot
of
folks
that
the
one-size-fits-all
nature
of
the
criteria
could
be
problematic
with
you
apply
some
of
those
large
larger
project
requirements
on
smaller
projects.
That's
why
we've
tried
to
parse
out
some
of
the
criteria
to
exempt
the
smaller
projects.
J
J
There's
there
has
been
some
express
support
for
the
form
based
code
type
requirements,
as
opposed
to
the
less
subjective
requirements,
but
there
has
been
some
caution
in
integrating
them
into
the
site
review
process
and
I'm
sure
you'll
hear
some
of
those
comments.
Tonight.
J
There
was
some
concern
about
removing
the
density
bonus
provisions
that
we
previously
had
in
the
ordinance,
and
then
we've
also
heard
from
some
that
there
should
be
a
minimum
requirement
for
home
ownership,
which
I'll
talk
about
also
as
part
of
this
presentation,
so
just
as
follow-up
from
the
work
session
with
planning
board.
This
is
the
map
I
was
just
referring
to
about
the
zones
that
would
not
allow
a
community
benefit
or
a
hype
modification
for
us,
fourth
or
fifth
story.
J
J
Appendix
j
map
we've
updated
the
the
height
modification
exemption
for
permanently
affordable
housing,
which
can
occur
city
city-wide,
but
what
we've
done
is
we've,
instead
of
it
just
being
a
requirement
for
40
of
the
floor
area
of
the
building,
it
would
have
to
be
at
least
40
percent
of
the
of
the
floyer
of
the
building,
as
well
as
40
of
the
units
being
permanently
affordable
and
we've
also
tightened
up
a
loophole
in
that
condition
that
doesn't
allow
a
project
satisfying
its
inclusionary
housing
requirements
in
it
through
another
building
that
that
project
can
then
do
a
height
modification.
J
So
we've
made
it
specific
to
a
particular
site
just
to
close
that
loophole,
and
this
section
I
know
I'm
supposed
to
be
citing
sections,
so
that's
section,
9214
b1e
of
the
code,
which
precedes
the
criteria.
J
J
J
We've
worked
on
the
housing
and
bedroom
diversity
criterion
which
I'll
I'll
pull
up
on
the
screen
here,
but
we
can
also
look
at
it
through
the
the
ordinance.
I
know
there
was
some
interest
in
this
particular
criterion
on
the
home
ownership
criteria.
That
was
mentioned
at
planning
board
in
october
of
last
year.
We
that
was
not
part
of
the
scope
of
the
project,
and
we
would
need
more
time
to
do
analysis
on
that
particular
requirement.
I
know
we've
heard
it
from
members
of
the
public
we
do
have
concerns.
J
Obviously
we're
you
know
required
to
apply
a
lens
to
these
projects
for
equity,
and
our
concern
is
that
adding
a
criterion
related
to
homeownership
could
be
exclusionary.
So
we've
not
included
that
in
these
particular
changes
and
then
for
the
details.
We've
noted
in
the
memo.
I
won't
go
into
details
but
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
We
removed
some
of
the
density
modifications,
since
some
of
that
work
has
kind
of
shifted
to
new
work
program
items
under
the
new
council.
J
J
So
again,
I've
touched
on
some
of
these.
We
we
did
meet
with
the
focus
group
and
there
were
concerns
about
some
of
the
form
based
code
requirements
being
too
strict,
so
we
have
loosened
them
in
a
number
of
areas
related
to
blank
walls
and
the
percentage
of
fenestration
and
that
height
criterion
that
we
talked
about.
J
So
we
we
have
drafted
an
alternative
compliance
section
of
the
site,
review
criteria
that
really
is
kind
of
based
on
the
existing
criteria,
because
it's
written
in
a
more
subjective
nature,
but
it
does
enable
applicants
to
request
alternative
compliance
to
a
criterion
that
that
might
not
make
sense
for
their
project,
and
it
would
give
the
city
the
ability
to
evaluate
an
alternative
to
see
if
it
still
meets
the
intent
of
what
the
site
review
criteria
are
aiming
at.
So
it's
almost
like
a
modification,
but
it
would
just
be
done
through
the
same
process.
J
J
So
that
brings
me
to
the
staff
recommendation.
We
believe
that
the
ordinance
in
attachment
a
does
meet
the
goals
and
objectives
that
were
outlined
for
the
project
at
the
onset.
J
But
again
we
raised
the
prescriptive
nature
of
the
criteria
as
a
key
issue,
so
there
have
been
some
suggestions
from
from
the
community
that
you
know.
Maybe
we
need
to
dial
it
back
and
make
it
less
prescriptive
and
an
example
is,
is
kind
of
moving
back
to
like
the
way
the
criteria
are
now
where
the
criteria
are
more
considered
on
balance,
that
would
lower
the
level
of
predictability.
J
But
if
there
are
concerns
about
it
being
too
strict,
the
criteria
could
be
rewritten
to
say
the
project
will
and
then
describe
the
intent
and
then
in
determining
whether
the
criterion
is
met,
the
following
factors
will
be
considered.
Then
perhaps
some
of
those
existing
criteria
could
be
softened
up
or
just
be
considerations
that
wouldn't
have
to
be
met
specifically.
So
again,
we've
raised
this
as
a
key
issue
for
the
board.
J
If
the
board
felt
that
the
ordinance
needed
to
be
changed
so
as
far
as
next
steps,
we
we
do
have
to
go
to
council
for
any
kind
of
adoption
of
of
an
ordinance
right
now.
The
tentative
schedule
is
to
go
on
first
reading
to
council
on
june
21st
there.
It
would
be
on
consent,
there'd
be
no
public
hearing
on
that
date
and
then
public
hearing
of
the
ordinance
on
august
4th.
J
So
that
concludes
my
presentation.
This
is
the
motion
language
that
we've
recommended
within
the
staff
memorandum
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
carl
I'll,
open
it
up
to
the
board
for
questions
to
carl
and
other
staff.
K
Just
some
clarifying
questions
first
and
then
I
know
when
we
go
through
it
line
by
line
we'll
be
able
to
touch
on
some
other
stuff,
there's
no
definition
existing
right
now
or
proposed
for
commun
design
for
community
edges
or
community
design
for
edges,
and
perhaps
that's
an
understood
concept
in
the
developer
community.
J
I'd
have
to
take
a
look
at
it.
I
mean
that
particular
criterion
is
exists
in
the
in
the
criteria.
Now
it's
it's
really.
It
really
grows
out
of
the
comp
plan
policy
on
enhanced
design
where
it
basically
talks
about
the
community
will
preserve
open
space
in
the
surroundings
of
the
community
and
that
development
will
be
encouraged
to
be
infilled
within
the
city,
but
that
that
line
between
the
open
space
and
the
city
limits
would
be
would
have
a
a
design
component
to
it,
where
it
clear
creates
like
a
clear
edge.
J
F
Thank
you,
john
first.
I
just
want
to
really
thank
carl
for
answering
my
extensive
list
of
questions
via
email
that
was
so
helpful.
You
know
one
thing
that
I
like
to
do
thinking
about
you
know
the
different
interests
in
the
community
is
to
like
say
here's
a
criticism.
I've
heard
what
do
you
think
and
give
you
a
chance
to
respond,
and
so
that
was
really
useful
to
me
to
hear
you
know
what's
planning
side
of
things
to
make
sure
I
have
a
well-rounded
view.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
answering
all
those
questions.
F
So
when
we
talk
about
the
section
on
historic
and
cultural
resources,
I
asked
who
determines
what
a
historic
or
cultural
resource
was,
and
your
answer
centered
around
the
landmarks
board,
which
clearly
has
a
role
in
landmarking
properties
of
historic
value,
and-
and
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
this
question-
but
do
they
also
deal
with
cultural
resources
or
does
cultural
have
a
different
definition
in
this
section
that
says
you
know
that
there
will
be
preservation
of
historic
and
cultural
resources.
J
J
So
basically,
when
we
get
a
project
and
there's
some
sort
of
resource
or
cultural
resource,
we'll
forward
that
project
for
their
review
and
then
they
do
have
very
specific
criteria
to
evaluate
and
then
they'll
ultimately
make
a
recommendation
about
whether
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
preserved
through
landmarking
insight,
review.
F
J
Well,
it
starts
with
the
landmark
staff,
and
then
they
elevate
it
ultimately
to
the
landmarks
board
for
for
decision.
There's,
there's
a
land
landmarks,
design
review
committee
as
well.
That
includes
members
of
the
landmarks
bar
that
that
collaborate
with
the
staff
and
they
discuss
anything
that
might
be
worthy
of
preservation
and
then
they
can
actually
call
it
up
to
the
landmarks
board
or
there
are
certain
projects
that
automatically
have
to
go
to
landmark
sport.
Ultimately,
anything
that
gets
landmarking
has
to
be
approved
by
the
landmarks
board.
M
Yeah,
I
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that,
ultimately,
the
decision
on
this
particular
criterion
lies
with
the
planning
board
or
with
staff.
If
staff
makes
the
decision-
and
it's
not
called
up
by
the
planning
board,
but
there
could
be
instances
and-
and
when
you
make
your
decision,
staff
will
have
thought
the
sought
the
advice
of
the
historic
preservation
planners.
F
Thank
you,
that's
very
helpful.
I
have
one
other
clarification
question
and.
B
G
F
About
thank
you,
john.
That's
about
this
question
that
came
up
about
the
threshold
for
site
review
being
based
on
number
of
units,
and
I
know
that
there's
been
concern
about
that.
You
know
city
council
members
have
expressed
concern
planning
board.
Members
have
expressed
concern
community
members
and
your
answers
to
that
carl
was
basically
that
that's
kind
of
out
of
scope
for
this
project.
F
F
So
that's
that's
good
to
know
how
much
work
would
it
take
to
figure
out
a
different
kind
of
threshold,
for
example,
based
on
square
footage
rather
than
number
of
units,
so
that
a
developer
wouldn't
be
incentivized
to
take
that
same
building
footprint
and
carve
it
up
into
bigger
units,
because
the
square
footage
would
be
the
same,
whether
it's
big
units
or
small
units?
How
much
work
would
it
take
to
think
about
either
that
idea
or
a
different
kind
of
threshold?
J
Well,
considering
it
it's
a
it's
a
zone
by
zone
analysis,
and
we
probably
have
to
look
at
a
lot
of
precedent
projects
it.
It
seems
to
me
like
a
fairly
large
undertaking
to
to
take
that
on.
It
does
cause
me
some
concern
too,
because
if
we
were
to
change
those
thresholds,
it
would
potentially
create
a
lot
of
non-conformities
with
projects.
J
So
there's
a
lot
of
unintended
consequences
there
that
I
would
be
concerned
about,
like
I
said
in
my
response,
I
I
feel
like
in
general,
I
feel,
like
the
thresholds
have
been
appropriate
to
you
know,
bring
in
the
type
of
projects,
I
think
would
be
of
interest
to
the
planning
board,
but
at
the
same
time
we
understand
that
you
know
we
want
to
incentivize
certain
types
of
projects
by
not
having
to
make
them
go
through
the
process.
It's
just.
J
Sometimes,
when
we
see
loosening
of
the
code,
we
see
an
outcome
project
that
doesn't
have
the
greatest
design
and
then
it
gets
criticized
and
we
end
up
having
to
go
back
to
the
code
and
repair
that
again
and
not
allow
that
to
happen.
So
there's
a
lot.
We'd
have
to
really
look
at
and
a
lot
of
forethought
about
unintended
consequences.
F
J
A
Well,
I
have
one:
oh
sarah
go
ahead.
E
Carl,
when
was
the
last
major
revision
to
the
site
review
criteria.
J
I
don't
know
that
there's
been
a
major
revision
in
my
time
here
there
have
been
so
well.
Obviously,
the
community
benefit
regs
that
were
adopted
in
2019
were
probably
the
biggest
change
to
the
criteria
by
adding
the
permanently
affordable
housing
requirement.
J
J
E
And
does
every
revision
every
revision
to
the
code,
even
if
it's
just
a
word
or
two
require
an
ordinance.
E
And
in
this
project
the
public
input
that
you
received
that
you
listed
out
there
focus
group,
uli,
etc.
But
there
was
not
a
working
group
charged
with
producing
a
product
or
with
staff
to.
N
Yeah-
and
forgive
me
carl-
you
may
have
touched
on
this
and
I
may
not
have
dug
into
it
as
deeply
as
I
should,
but
I
know
that
this
is
something
staff
has
been
working
on
for
a
long
time
and
has
put
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
and
thought
into,
and
many
rounds
of
review
and
revision
have
already
occurred.
N
Are
there
particular
examples
out
there
of
other
cities,
perhaps
in
colorado,
perhaps
somewhere
else
that
you
looked
to
that
had
already
done
some
revisions
like
this,
where
you
were
able
to
observe
that
it
either
went
particularly
well
or
it
didn't
go
terribly
well,
and
if
that
is
something
you
look
to
and
had
time
to
look
into,
how
did
that
kind
of
inform
where
staff
landed
on
what
they
included
and
what
they
didn't.
J
In
all
honesty,
we
didn't
do
a
real
holistic
analysis
of
what
other
communities
do
there
are
you
know,
cities
like
fort
collins
that
have
similar
site
plan
review
criteria.
I
would
say
our
criteria
are
already
pretty
lengthy
compared
to
most
communities.
J
J
So
we
looked
at
some
of
that,
for
you
know
a
little
bit
of
a
basis,
but
it
showed
that
there's
there's
actually
something
much
more
strict
than
what
we're
proposing,
but
we
didn't
do
a
holistic.
You
know,
community
by
community
analysis
on
this.
N
Oh,
thank
you,
I
mean.
Ultimately,
it
is
so
place
specific
and
it
tends
to
be
like
layers
of
sedimentary
rock.
Almost
you
know
where
it's
just
so
particular
to
wherever
it
is,
unless
you're
truly
stripping
it
all
the
way
down
and
going
form
based.
So
that
makes
sense.
I
was
just
curious
if
you
looked
elsewhere.
A
Okay,
maybe
I'd
just
like
to
ask
carl
one
of
the
effects
of
this.
This
proposal,
I
understand
correctly,
would
be
to
diminish
the
reliance
on
interpretation
of
polk
valley
comp
plan,
as
it
is
now
by
planning
board
and
others
dealing
with
permitting.
J
Well
again,
I
think
that
particular
criterion,
because
it's
so
broad
it
says
you
know.
Basically,
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
the
policies
of
the
boulder
valley
conference
of
plan
on
balance,
and
you
know
from
looking
in
the
plan
that
there's
you
know:
energy
policies,
community
design
policies,
transportation,
housing,
there's
a
whole
number
of
policies
that
are
competing
and
that
you
know,
because
one
of
the
primary
objectives
of
the
project
is
to
increase
the
level
of
predictability
in
whether
our
project
gets
approved
or
not.
J
We
felt
like
we
had
to
work
on
that
condition,
because
it
is
quite
unpredictable
because
a
project
could
be
approved
or
denied
based
on
a
whole
range
of
those
policies.
So
we
decided
to
like
really
focus
in
on
what
we
thought
were
the
most
appropriate.
J
You
know
high
level
policies
that
should
be
implemented
through
a
site
review
and
make
those
requirements
more
specific
about
how
they're
met
and
that
that
would
be
a
better
way
and
a
more
predictable
way
to
evaluate
it
through
that
lens.
A
So
just
to
follow
up
on
that
does.
Does
that
mean
that
really
the
discretion
and
operations
of
the
planning
board
would
be
quite
limited
to
quite
a
degree
in
in
practical
terms?
A
I
I
certainly
understand
the
objective
to
increase
predictability
and
and
and
keep
keep
the
the
wild
concerns
from
out
in
left
field
from
dominating,
but
I'm
just
wondering
to
what
degree
we
are
losing
the
the
whole
purpose
and
intent
of
both
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
planning
board.
By
doing
that,.
J
J
A
lot
of
these
updates
we've
made,
you
know
to
be
more
consistent
with
like
the
community
design
requirements
and
the
landmarking
goals
of
the
comp
plan.
So
it's
not
just
that
comp
plan
section
it's
like
throughout
the
entire
site
review.
A
F
I'll
wait
till
our
discussion
and
I
think
ml
also
had
her
hand
up.
Oh.
L
Thank
you,
john.
I
I
actually
have
a
question
in
line
with
what
you're
talking
about
so
my
understanding
is
that
this
update
is
part
of
the
community
benefit
code
change
project
and,
if
you
consider
what
the
community
benefit
program
intends
as
the
outcome
for
the
code
change
it,
it's
pretty
specific.
L
L
So
it's
pretty
it's
pretty
precise
as
to
what
it
wants.
This
code
change
to
focus
on
in
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan-
I
I
think
so.
Can
you
carl
and
or
charles
talk
about
what
role
have
the
community
benefit
program
intended
outcomes
played
in
informing
kind
of
like
I
I'm
in
the
greeting
with
john?
L
It's
like
this
is
the
big
picture
directive
that
has
a
lot
of
consequences
and
if,
if
the
intended
outcome
of
the
community
benefit
program
is
kind
of
like
the
high
overarching,
then
I'm
curious
as
to
what
role
the
boulder
belly
compliant.
Sustainability
and
resiliency
sections
have
taken.
J
Well,
going
back
in
time
a
bit
with
the
community
benefit
phase
one
and
phase
two.
We
talked
about
a
number
of
policies
that
were
added
to
the
comp
plan
in
2017
that
related
specifically
to
community
benefit,
because
before
that
community
benefit
was
only
required
in
annexation
applications.
J
So
it
now
applies
to
the
policy
was
changed
to
basically
apply
to
any
request
over
the
floor
area
ratio
or
over
the
height
limit.
So
it
very
specifically
said
the
city
will
then
look
at
revising
the
land
use
code
to
update
to
implement
that
new
policy.
So
that's
what
we
did
as
part
of
phase
one
and
two
now
obviously
like
with
any
changes
we're
doing
we're
we're
trying
to
implement
policies
related
to
sustainability.
We
did
also
look
at
you
know
specific
criteria
on
resiliency.
J
They
were
ruled
out
because
we
felt
that
that
is
something
again
that
shouldn't
just
be
implemented
through
the
site
review
process
and
should
apply
more
broadly
like
the
energy
code.
So
there
already
are
projects
underway
where
the
city
is
looking
at
trying
to
respond
to
resiliency
through
building
codes.
That
would
apply
more
broadly
than
site
review
projects.
K
So
I
want
to
come
back
to
something
I
asked
earlier,
which
is
prompted
again
by
what
you
just
said:
carl,
the
the
item.
9-2-14
h1c,
the
proposed
the
energy
conservation
and
building
lifestyle
cycle
seems
to
seems
to
me
that
again,
climate
climate
adaptation
and
mid
and
climate
change
mitigation
is
actually
the
broad
bvcp
goal
and
that
the
energy
conservation
and
building
life
cycle
impact
falls
under
that,
as
would
carbon
sinks.
K
You
know
with
me
and
my
trees,
but
the
so
I'm
just
wondering
why
you
all
focus
so
specifically
on
one
one
component:
one
and
a
half
components
of
the
climate
change
adaptation
and
mitigation,
priority
or
city.
It's
a
city
priority.
Just
broadly
I'm
just
I
really
I'm
a
little.
I'm
curious
about
that.
Yeah.
J
So
on
that
topic,
you'll
recall
that
there's
existing
criteria
that
talk
about
you
know
minimize
and
mitigate.
You
know
the
energy
conservation
criteria
and
it's
always
been
kind
of
not
applied
the
same
in
every
project
and
it's
been
kind
of
challenging
to
say
when
a
project
meets
it
or
not,
it's
very
vague.
So
we
knew
we
had
to
work
on
that
criteria.
So
we
were
instructed
to
look
at
a
more
specific
requirement
to
replace
that
criterium.
J
J
How
do
we
go
beyond
that
like
what
is
more
cutting
edge
that
should
be
put
into
the
site
review
criteria,
so
we
met
with
the
building
code
planner
for
a
number
of
times
to
figure
out
what
that
could
be,
and
she
was
looking
at
other
communities
about
what
they
were
doing
and
what
that
was
considered
cutting
edge,
and
these
were
the
things
that
other
communities
were
doing,
that
she
felt
is
something
that
goes
beyond
our
energy
code.
So
that's
why
we
zeroed
in
on
on
these
particular
requirements
for
the
carbon
offset.
K
So
I
I'm
gonna
re
repeat
back
to
you
what
you
just
said,
as
I
heard
it,
which
is
that
there
are
other
that,
because
this
is
the
bvcp
priority
goals,
but
within
the
body
of
the
site,
review
criteria,
there
is
landscaping
and
open
space,
and
you
know
those
elements
that
you
this.
The
staff
feels
that
the
other
half
of
climate
mitigation
and
adaptation
and
resilience
is
captured
elsewhere
is.
Is
that
what
I'm
understanding
correctly?
Well.
J
K
I'm
yeah,
I'm
just
speaking
specifically
about
the
bvcp
priority,
what
you're,
what
you've
prioritized
here,
because
it
you
know
to
add
up
to
to
add
on
a
component
to
what
john
said
by
narrowing
the
priorities
in
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
that
planning
board
will
focus
on
their.
K
K
So
the
assumption
is
that
planning
boards
in
the
future
will
evaluate
solely
through
a
through
g,
the
a
through
g
list.
That's
on
the
9-2-proposed
9-2-14
h1
and
everything
else.
That's
in
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
is
we
need
to.
We
can
almost
set
aside
on
the
assumption
that
it's
met
that
those
issue,
those
up
those
comp
plan
objectives
are
touched
through
some
through
other
elements
of
city
code
or
city
policy
or
city
regulations
in
all
the
different
departments
am
I
under.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding
that.
J
Yeah
I
mean
it's
that,
like
that
graphic,
that's
in
the
comp
plan
that
shows
you
know
the
comp
plan.
It's
not
just
the
land
use
code,
that's
implementing!
It's
a
whole
range
of
factors
that
influence
all
the
departments
of
the
city
and
the
work
they
do.
So
you
know
we
do
have
to
figure
out,
what's
most
appropriate
with
the
tool
that
we
have
to
implement
the
comp
plan
and.
F
Thank
you
john.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
understanding
this
correctly
so
that
first
question
that
sarah
was
asking
about
the
you
know
on
balance:
does
it
meet
the
policies
of
the
bvcp?
G
J
F
Okay,
so
the
adopted
area
plans
and
guidelines-
everything
that's
in
them
would
still
be
relevant
to
the
work
of
the
planning
board,
but
the
the
rest
of
the
bbcp
that
is
not
represented
in
this
text
in
the
revised
ordinance
would
basically
be
off
limits.
Planning
board
would
not
be
able
to
attach
a
criteria
or
a
condition
based
on
the
rest
of
the
comp
plan
that
is
not
represented
in
the
ordinance.
Is
that
what
I
heard
you
say.
F
And
so
I,
when
we
get
to
the
point
where
we're
discussing
amongst
ourselves,
I
want
to
hear
from
my
colleagues
who
have
more
experience
on
planning
board.
You
know
from
sarah
from
george
from
john
from
lisa.
What
have
you
used
in
the
comp
plan
in
previous
project
submittals
that
you
think
might
be
important
that
might
not
be
represented
in
the
current
code,
because
I
don't.
F
I
don't
know
what
people
have
tended
to
pull
out
of
the
comp
plan
that
they
found
to
be
very
significant
in
project
approvals
in
the
past,
and
I
don't
know
if
that
kind
of
conversation
has
been
had
or
that
kind
of
analysis
has
been
done.
But
it
seems
like
the
planning
board.
Members
should
have
something
to
say
about
whether
this
represents
the
totality
of
what's
important
in
the
comp
plan
for
us
to
be
talking
about
in
the
future,
because
that's
a
big
change.
So
that's
something
that
I
was
going
to
suggest.
N
So,
honestly,
while
I
consider
the
criteria
in
the
comp
plan
really
important-
and
I
do
think
about
them
quite
a
bit
and
like
make
a
point
to
refer
to
them
because
we're
supposed
to
be
looking
at
them,
the
honest
answer
is:
it
ends
up
being
a
rubber
stamp
and
just
kind
of
a
thing
that
we
always
do
that's
in
there.
So
I'm
not
saying
that
the
comprehensive
plan
isn't
important
because
it
is
you
know,
and
I
I
try
to
look
to
it
and
make
and
like
consider
it.
N
But
the
reasons
why
I'm
trying
to
remember
it
I'd
have
to
look
back
through
meeting
this
and
I'm
trying
to
remember
if
there's
ever
been
a
time
when,
like
the
reason
I
voted
for
or
against
something
was
solely
based
on
the
comp
plan
and
I
think
almost
no,
it
might
come
up
more
almost
for
legislative
kind
of
things
where
we're
more
operating
but
but
yeah.
But
if
it's
down
to
site
review
criteria
or
concept
review,
or
something
like
that,
my
recollection
and
I
I'm
interested
to
hear
other
people
think
I'm
totally
off
face.
N
But
my
recollection
is
that
there's
pretty
much
always
been
something
much
more
specific
within
the
city
code.
You
know
something
else
that
I
would
point
to.
That
would
really
sway
me.
You
know
on
whether
I
was
I
thought.
A
concept
review
was
good
or
bad
or
the
commentary
I
wanted
to
offer,
or
you
know
how
I
would
ultimately
vote
on
something
when
we're
operating
the
positive
judicial
manner.
N
So
I
think
I
don't
know
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
staff's
mouth,
but
if
I
recall
back
to
past
meetings,
I
think
that's
part
of
the
way
they're
removing
it
is
that
it's
just
kind
of
ended
up
as
this
odd
thing
that's
required
to
be
in
there,
but
that
isn't
necessarily
informing
our
decisions
and
votes.
That's.
A
This
yeah
right
now
we're
focused
on
asking
carl
and
colleagues
specific
questions
about
this.
What
we're
dealing
with
in
front
of
us
so
are
there
sarah
go
ahead.
K
All
right,
one
last
question
from
me
and
and
lisa:
I'm
really
excited
about
having
this
dialogue
with
you,
because
I
think
it's
an
important
one.
I
would
like
to
understand-
and
I
know
you
said:
cool
boulder
came
in
late
in
the
process,
and
so
I
guess
over
time
it
will
get
internalized,
but
I'm
just
sort
of
curious
if
you
could
give
us
a
little
bit
of
an
insight,
because
again
this
goes
to
energy
conservation
and
building
life
cycle
where
how
does
cool?
K
J
There's
no
there's
no
directive
from
council
to
incorporate
cool
boulder
into
site
review.
It's
it's
possible
that
a
future
work
program
item
might
be
to
do
that
and
then
reopen
the
criteria
to
see
what
changes
might
make
sense.
We
also,
you
know,
probably
at
some
point
need
to
update
our
landscaping.
Regs
to
be,
you
know,
updated
because
it's
been
a
while
since
they've
been
updated,
it
could
be
done
through
that
process
as
well.
But
again,
you
know
we're
working
on
a
large
number
of
issues.
J
I
And
I
guess
I
would
also
have
the
cool
boulders
really
in
its
infancy
right
now,
and
we're
working
on
scheduling
a
joint
meeting
between
the
planning
board
and
the
environmental
advisory
board
to
start
having
more
meaningful
discussions
about
it.
So
I
think
that
that's
definitely
something
that
will
come
into
play
into
the
future.
There
just
isn't
enough
meat
on
the
phone
right
now
for
us
to.
You
know
really
integrated
into
this
work.
A
F
John,
yes,
so
750
would
be
a
12
minute
break.
Is
that
what
you
wanted.
A
Stay
tuned,
I
sort
of
anticipated
lots
of
input
from
you,
yeah
I'll.
L
It's
an
art
installation,
not
one
that
I
did,
but
one
that
I
plucked
off
the
internet.
That's
cool!
Isn't
that
a
great
artist.
L
L
If
you
look
at
that,
if
you
look
at
that
horizontal
piece
back
there,
that's
about
eye
level.
O
O
Looks
like
a
slinky
from
when
I
was
a
kid.
I
know.
E
G
L
A
A
Okay,
all
right:
well,
I
think
we
can
move
ahead
now
with
with
our
public
the
public
hearing
portion
of
this
public
hearing.
So
we
can
see.
Do
we
have
some
speakers
cindy?
Are
you
administering
this.
B
Yeah
so
far,
we
do
have
one
hand
raised
if
you
are
interested.
In
speaking,
a
lot
of
you
are
familiar
with
how
this
works.
You
just
go
down
to
the
bottom
and
click
on
ray's
hand,
and
we
do
have
a
couple
raised
hands.
You
will
have
three
minutes
each
to
speak
and
I
will
unmute
you
and
I'll.
Take
you
in
the
order
that
you've
raised
your
hands.
It
looks
like
kurt.
Norback
will
be
our
first
speaker
tonight
and
I
will
put
the
three
minutes
up
on
the
screen
so
kurt.
P
P
There
are
only
a
handful
of
people
in
the
city
who
understand
how
to
guide
a
project
through
the
process.
This
is
neither
equitable
nor
inclusive,
two,
it's
long
and
expensive
and
expensive.
This
drives
up
costs
for
the
finished
product.
In
the
case
of
housing,
exacerbating
our
affordability
crisis,
it
scares
off
developers,
it
scares
some
developers
off
entirely
exacerbating
our
housing
availability
crisis
and
it
makes
developers
risk
averse
leading
to
some
copycat
rather
than
original
design.
P
This
last
point
raises
the
question
of
what
the
basic
purpose
of
site
review
is.
The
code
says
it
is
to
quote,
allow
flexibility
and
encourage
innovation
in
land-use
development,
but
that's
not
the
outcome
and
thresholds
that
make
every
large
project
go
through
site
review
believe
this.
In
effect,
the
purpose
seems
not
to
be
to
encourage
good
design
but
to
create
a
filter
to
prevent
bad
design.
G
P
All
the
hard
work
carl
guyler
put
into
this
project.
Unfortunately,
he
was
burdened
by
unclear
even
conflicting
objectives,
and
I
feel
the
result
is
not
what
we
should
be
looking
for.
In
particular,
the
draft
is
not
simpler
in
my
reading
due
to
the
introduction
of
complex
new
requirements
like
the
acoustic
study
and
energy
conservation,
I
also
have
concerns
about
elevating
the
four
chosen
specific
bbcp
policy
areas
over
others.
P
B
Thank
you,
kurt.
Our
next
speaker
will
be
megan
cows
and
macon.
I
have
just
unmuted
you,
so
you
should
be
able
to
go.
Q
Thank
you
very
much.
This
is
macon
cole
speaking,
I'm
going
to
make
a
few
points.
First
of
all,
let
me
say
I
agree
with
the
points
that
kurt
nordbach
just
made.
I
want
to
address
some
others
when
you're
on
planning
board
and
considering
whether
to
approve
a
project
on
site
review.
One
of
the
things
you
sometimes
think
of
is
well.
If
we
don't
approve
it
on
site
review,
what
the
hell
is
a
buy
right
project
going
to
look
like.
Q
I
agree
with
all
of
the
design
objectives
that
carl
laid
out
his
the
the
the
shading
of
windows,
the
quality,
the
materials
all
of
that
very
well
done,
but
we
want
projects
that
avoid
site
review
to
have
those
attributes
as
well,
and
that's
why
I
would
I
think
that
the
design
objectives
of
form
based
code
type
requirements
should
be
in
the
other
part
of
the
code
that
all
buildings
have
to
comply
with,
not
just
those
on
site
review
number
two:
the
prohibition
on
height
modification
in
some
areas
of
town.
This
just
revives
appendix
j.
Q
In
my
opinion.
Now
let
me
talk
about
the
areas
of
town
where
you
can
ask
for
height
review
modification,
but
the
height
limit
is
35
38
or
40
feet.
There
is
something
in
addition
to
that
height.
That
is
always
permitted,
whether
you
say
grace
over
or
not,
and
that
is
developers
get
an
extra
16
feet
for
mechanicals
on
the
room
on
the
on
the
top
of
a
building
over
that
40-foot
limitation
and
one
of
the
things
I've
heard.
Q
Q
Finally,
the
fourth
point
on
those
four
criteria
that
it
moves
up
in
it
takes
you
out
of
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
and
says,
look
at
these
four
criteria:
energy
conservation,
historic
or
cultural
resources,
housing
diversity
and
environmental
preservation.
Q
Three
of
those
four
every
one
of
them,
except
housing,
diversity
increases
the
cost.
A
development
increases
the
cost
of
housing.
So
it
seems
to
me
by
focus
focusing
on
those
four.
You
are
increasing
the
cost
of
housing
projects
that
come
under
your
consideration,
thus
putting
affordable
housing,
but
in
particular
workforce
housing
market
rate
starter
home
further
from
people's
grasp.
B
H
H
If
we
can't
drink
it,
you
know
we're
done
so.
If
it
costs
there
be
it,
they
won't
come,
it's
like
you
build
it
and
they
will
come,
you
restrict
it
and
they
will
not,
and
we
need
some
kind
of
population
management
as
al
bartlett
would
gladly
say
in
this
community
and
seven
subsidies
up
at
311
was
not
in
line
with
that.
No
way
55th
street
don
altman.
H
No,
he
wants
25
units,
I
mean
he
wants.
You
know,
there's
20
000
feet
there.
He
wants
800
square
foot,
units
and
25
of
them,
and
we
want
1400
square
foot
units
for
the
missing
middle.
Why
do
we
have
the
missing
middle
because
we've
put
the
spread
the
low
income
housing
to
the
high
income?
The
more
you
know,
it's
it's
a
paradox.
Like
macon
says
it's
a
paradox:
yes,
step
costs
more
granted,
but
it
also
is
limiting
and
we've
got
a
limited
community.
H
Like
I
always
say
my
dad
moved
from
new
york
city,
not
to
new
york
city.
You
know,
there's
other
things.
I'm
gonna
go
popcorn
here
the
bus
stop
electric
stoves
with
solar.
Does
that
make
sense?
No,
no!
You
know
electric,
you
know
resistive
heat.
H
This
is
you
know,
and
I
don't
think
it
came
up.
I
come
to
a
lot
of
planning
board
meetings.
I
don't
think
I
saw
the
bus
stop
come
up
on
site
review,
the
olive
you
know
they
put
in
a
parking
lot
paid
paradise.
You
know
they
couldn't
afford
the
affordable
housing.
It's
it's
in
lieu,
get
rid
of
in
lieu
20
years
ago,
get
rid
of
it
in
lieu,
make
it
a
minimum
of
50.
Like
I
said
in
public
comment,
they've
got
to
pay,
we
got
a
reality
striking
us
in
the
face.
H
H
G
B
And
one
more
time
last
call
if
anyone
else
has
anything
they
would
like
to
say.
Please
raise
your
hand.
A
Okay,
thank
you
cindy,
so
here
we
can
see
lisa's
packing
again
so
now.
I
I
think
we'll
open
it
up
for
discussion
among
ourselves
here
on
the
board,
so
I'd
invite
your
thoughts.
A
K
F
Like
I
agree,
I
don't
think
as
a
new
planning
board
member.
It's
extremely
daunting
to
be,
like
you,
have
to
know
all
of
the
criteria
of
site
review
and
everything
in
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
and
understand
how
it
all
fits
together
to
be
able
to
apply
it,
and
it
does
seem
somewhat
arbitrary
and
capricious
that
people
can
pluck
whatever
they
want
and
say
whether
on
the
balance,
they
think
that
this
is
something
that
that
needs
to
change
about
the
project.
F
I
can
totally
understand
that
we
need
to
have
something:
that's
a
bit
more
predictable
than
that,
but
I
would
like
that
conversation
to
be
a
little
bit
more
thoughtful
and
comprehensive
about
have
we
covered
all
of
our
bases?
What's
in
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan,
that
should
become
something
that
planning
board
judges
projects
based
on,
because
not
everything
that
bbcp
applies
to
buildings
and
building
design
and
site
design
and
the
kinds
of
things
that
are
the
purview
of
planning
board,
there's
way
more
in
it
than
that.
F
G
O
Well,
I
just
want
to
correct
something
that
the
planning
board's
purview
is
is
far
beyond
building
design
and
site
design.
It's
planning
right
and
it's
detailed
planning
for
the
future
of
boulder,
and
so
I
I
think
it
is
appropriate
for
us
to
discuss
this
as
a
current
planning
board
and
run
through
sort
of
the
criteria
that
we
think
are.
O
And
maybe
some
things
that
need
to
be
considered
as
it
relates
to
the
bbcp
I'll
put
out
one
thing
which
I'll
key
off.
What
lynn
said
it
at
the
end
of
her
commentary,
which
was
the
jobs
housing
endowment,
which
is
not.
I
K
So
laura
what
I
was
not
shaking
my
head
at
is
the
I
I
agree
with
you
that
this
is
a
very
big
thing
and
I'm
guarantee
you
based
on
just
the
20
minutes
of
conversation.
We've
had
today
we're
not
going
to
be
voting
on
an
ordinance
tonight,
but
I
don't
think
sending
it
off
to
a
working
group
where
we
know
we
already
know
what
voices
are
going
to
be
heard,
because
it's
the
same
10
people
who
come
speak
to
us
in
every
meeting.
K
I
think
we
have
a
public
engagement
process
and
what
what
would
benefit
staff
is
if
we
give
them
some
guidance
and
they
go
back
to
doing
what
they
do
best
this
they
are
professionals
and
other
than
lisa.
The
rest
of
us
are
not
planning
professionals
and
ml
who's
an
architect,
but
the
the
your
other
points,
which
is
that
this
is
big
and
complex,
and
there
seem
to
be
some
open
questions
that
need
to
be
answered.
K
This
is
where
the
public
engagement
process
comes
in,
and
staff
leads
that
and
staff
designs
that
and
our
job
tonight,
I
think,
is
to
give
them
some
guidance
about
where
their
challenges
and
what
they've
brought
to
us.
K
So
that's-
I
was
just
shaking
my
head
at
the
idea
of
a
a
singular
task
for
working
group
to
so
so
that's
what
I
was
shaking
my
head
at
and
I
do
think
I
think
john
had
brought
up
so
believe
it
I'm
going
to
agree
with
macon
on
one
thing,
I
do
think
the
design
criteria
are
great.
The
additional
ones
that
they've
taken
from
a
form
based
code
are
really
good
without
without
handcuffing
us
to
a
form-based
code
across
the
city,
so
that
I
really
appreciate
that.
K
I
actually
do
think
that
the
conversations
we
have
at
site
review
about
boulder
valley
comp
plan
goals
turns
out
to
be
valuable
precisely
for
the
reason
that
george
brought
up,
which
is-
and
I'm
quoting
lupita
here-
we're
the
planning
committee,
not
the
welcoming
committee
and
those
big
planning
questions
do
require
us
to
try
to
try
to
prioritize
to
to
identify
what
the
priorities,
what
priorities
we,
we
think
the
seven
who
sit
on
planning
board
at
any
given
time
think
should
be
city
priorities
and
there's
stuff.
K
That's
left
out
in
in
the
six
or
seven
that
are
identified
in
this
current
proposal.
K
That
probably
need
to
be
part
of
the
conversation,
not
necessarily
things
priorities
that
are
priorities
to
me,
but
our
priorities
to
others
in
the
community
and
should
be
part
of
the
conversation.
So
I
I
feel
I'm
a
little.
I
understand
why
staff
has
tried
to
focus
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
priorities
from
a
from
a
site
review
pro
process,
but
I
do
think
it's
too.
I
think
it's
too,
limiting
and
I'll
just
focus
on
the
energy
conservation
like
energy.
Energy
conservation
is
a
component
of
this
much
bigger
issue.
K
On
climate
change,
adaptation
and
mitigation,
and
that
I
could
see
as
a
boulder
a
priority,
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
objective
and
then
there'd
be
all
these
elements
beneath
it,
but
limiting
it
to
the
you
know,
the
building,
the
the
energy
capture
in
the
building
seems
really
narrow,
so
that
that's
sort
of
my
take
on
it,
which
is
this
needs
to
be
broadened
out
a
bit.
A
Who
else
is
ml.
L
L
I
think
it
is
an
incredibly
powerful
and
useful
tool
and
in
part,
because
my
training
as
an
architect
and
as
a
designer
and
in
the
use
of
land,
is
you
start
with
the
big
picture.
L
You
start
with
the
big
context,
and
then
you
kind
of
narrow
it
down
to
get
particular
solutions
in
particular
locations
for
particular
clients,
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
L
The
value
I
think
of
the
comp
plan
is
is
immense,
so
I
agree
with
john's.
First
instinct
was
what
you
know.
We
suddenly
not
to
be
considering
it
as
a
as
a
comprehensive
tool,
but
I
again
looking
at
this
project
from
a
from
a
holistic
and
and
overarching
perspective.
L
L
The
community
benefit
program
intends
its
outcome
to
be
accountable
to
sustainability
and
resilience
parameters
that
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
has
put
out
there,
and
I
would
agree
with
with
sarah's
comment
that
sustainability
and
resiliency
are
are
big
and
to
reduce
either
one
of
them
down
to
a
particular
strata.
L
I
I
think
it
would
be
a
disservice,
a
disservice
to
our
role
as
serving
the
city
of
boulder's
values
and
vision.
So
I
I
like
that
the
community
benefit
program
has
given
direction
and
it's
given
direction
in
a
very
comprehensive
way.
It's
about
sustainability
and
resiliency,
and
I
think
more
so
today
than
ever.
If
that
isn't
our
number
one
and
you
know
we're
we're
kind
of
misguided,
because
these
are
the
things
that
are
pertinent
and
and
valuable
in
reviewing
a
long-term
policy
right
now
right
here.
L
L
Rural
interfacing
could
have
more
to
do
with
county
than
city,
but
it's
it's
an
important
tool.
A
Okay,
I
I
see
lisa
hasn't
said
anything:
do
you
have
any
anything
you'd
like
to
contribute
now.
N
N
N
Lot
of
the
long-range
planning
and
the
goals,
and
so
on
that
are
in
the
comp
plan,
sometimes
and
in
certain
circumstances
I
find
them
more
exciting
and
more
fun,
maybe
than
some
of
what
we
end
up
doing
when
we're
down
to
site
review
depending
on
the
plan
and
what
we're
doing
and
all
that
and
also,
I
appreciate
staff's
work
toward
trying
to
be
honest
about
how
decisions
are
actually
made
and
what
we
actually
bring
to
bear
and
how
the
process
actually
goes,
and
it
may
be
that
I'm
again
just
failing
to
remember
that
if
I
sat
down
and
reviewed
minutes,
I
would
find
examples
where
I
and
perhaps
even
more
frequently.
N
E
Yes,
the
first
thing
I
I
want
to
say
is:
I
want
to
acknowledge
the
work
of
staff
on
this
under
really
difficult
circumstances,
and
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
that
all
the
again,
virtually
all
the
public
comments
we've
received
from
the
community
have
mentioned
the
excellent
work
and
and
carl
by
name
and
and
his
team,
and
so
I
I
begin
this
with
some
praise
and-
and
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
that
that
this
is
this
is
a
big
project,
and
I
think
that
was
the
part
of
my
question
asking
carl
earlier
when's
the
last
time
we
did
this
and
you
know
how
often
do
we
do
it
and
the
answer
it
was
a
long
time
ago,
and
not
very
often-
and
so
I
think
I
think
we
have
to.
E
We
have
to
get
this
right.
My
perceptions
are
that
this
project
has
taken
a
long
time
which
speaks
to
the
amount
of
work,
but
it's
also,
I
think
it
has
crept
beyond
the
original
intent
is
morphed
into
a
project
that
has
concerns
more
about
preventing
a
building
that
being
built
that
we
don't
like,
rather
than
really
encouraging
a
vision
for
where
we,
where
we
want
to
go.
E
It's
also
been
a
plan.
That's
been
developed
under
multiple
councils
and
a
very
different
council
than
when,
when
the
project
was
started,
it's
under
a
different
planning
board.
E
The
staff
has
operated
under
different,
departmental
leaderships,
three
or
three
or
four
times,
depending
upon
how
you
count
interim
leadership,
and
so
you
know
I,
I
think
again
the
project
goals.
I
I
go
back
to
carl's
presentation
page
where
he
talked
about
emphasizing
and
meeting
our
collective
goals
simplifying
clarify,
but
I
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
items
that
have
been
pointed
out,
but
I'll
point
out
a
few
again
that
have
been
pointed
out
in
the
past.
E
That
is
not
something
that,
for
me,
belongs
here
or
should
be
part
of
this.
This
plan
and
new
ordinance
universal
sound
studies
required
in
every
in
every
instance,
in
every
location
in
every
industrial
area.
Whatever
again
we
have,
I
think
it's.
E
We
have
a
responsibility
to
be
cognizant
of
increased
costs,
prescript
prescriptive
elements
that
simply
cannot
work
in
in
a
number
of
cases
and
again
there's
the
alternative
criteria,
but
again
it
it
makes
it
makes
the
process
harder
and
more
expensive
for
for
applicants
and
the
difficulty
and
the
expense
for
applicants
has
been,
as
has
been
pointed
out,
is
something
that
creates
a
very
small
pool
of
people
who
have
the
wherewithal
and
the
the
money
and
the
knowledge
and
can
hire
the
right
people
to
navigate
a
project
through
the
process,
and
I
think
that
that
that
speaks
poorly
of
of
us
achieving
our
equity
goals.
E
I
would
you
know,
I
think
we
again,
it's
been
complained
that
we
we
see
the
same
people
over
and
over
again
many
of
those
people
have
been
on
planning
board
and
so
suddenly
we're.
You
know
it's
a
little.
E
It's
a
little
circular
thing,
a
planning
board
and
consultancy,
etc,
and-
and
I
would
like
to
see
an
ordinance
that
allowed
for
someone
other
than
major
developers
to
to
bring
forth
a
project
to
bring
forth
a
housing
project,
a
commercial
project
that
could
go
through
site
review
without
having
to
hire
those
sort
of
consultancies.
E
Finally,
I
am
in
support
of
the
idea
that
a
working
group
and
it
doesn't
always
have
to
be
the
same
usual
suspects,
although
you
know
gee,
this
is
bolder,
and
so
the
usual
suspects
tend
to
show
up,
but
but
a
working
group
rather
than
a
focus
group,
because
those
people
live
with
the
code
and
it
would
be
and
and
they
they
produce
the
product
that
we
want
to
see.
We
want
to
see
more
housing
if
you
want
middle-income.
E
Housing
then,
then,
let's,
let's
have
people
charged
in
a
working
group
with
producing
a
product,
not
just
producing
suggestions,
it's
easy
to
suggest
a
lot
of
things,
but
when
you're
tasked
with
a
working
group
that
has
people
with
different
thoughts
than
you
and
you're
tasked
with
producing
a
consensus
product,
I
think
I
think
things
good
things
can
come
out
of
that.
Finally,
you
know
I.
E
I
think
that
there
are
a
lot
of
good
elements
that
we
can
praise
in
in
what
has
been
presented
tonight,
but
the
number
of
negatives
and
the
importance
and
the
time
frame
with
which
we're
dealing
with
this
means
that
we
we
can't
approve
this,
as
is,
as
is
tonight
for
me.
I
know
I
can't
approve
it
as
is
tonight,
and
I
know
that
we
are
not
going
to
go
through
changes
in
wordsmith
enough
changes
that
we
could.
We
could
vote
for
something
for
me.
E
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
happen
tonight,
even
even
if
we
went
to
one
so
I
have
motion
language
that
I
would
like
to
submit
at
a
point
when
we're
when
we're
ready
to
discuss
motions,
but
anyway,.
A
E
I'll
I'll
do
that
I've
got
it
queued
up.
I
just
didn't
want
to.
You
know
we're
still
discussing
ways
forward.
I
didn't
want
to
step
on
the
process
in
some
way
that
didn't
acknowledge
everyone's
ability
to
to
contribute
so
well.
A
E
I'll
go
ahead
and
send
it,
but
I
think
we
should
carry
on
there's
lots
of
hands
up,
and
but
anyway
I
don't.
I
just
don't
want
to
interject
something
and
interrupt
the
discussion,
but
I'll
send
it
now
and-
and
you
can
all
take
some
time
to
look
at
it.
A
Okay,
very
good.
All
I
see
there
are
several
hands
up,
but
I'd
like
to
just
spout
off
a
little
bit
also
quickly.
A
A
I
I
am,
I
started
out
being
very
unenthusiastic
about
a
form-based
code
approach,
but
I,
after
listening
to
carl
and
learning
a
little
bit
more
about
it
and
becoming
more
familiar,
I
think
it
is
a
generally
a
reasonable
approach
to
trying
to
become
more
efficient
and
trying
to
achieve
a
more
aesthetically
pleasing
outcome.
A
Where
I
do
not
see
us,
I
I'm
not
in
favor
of
diminishing
the
planning
board's
ability
to
to
deal
with
the
comprehensive
plan,
boulder
valley
health
plan
and
to
decide
which
which
elements
are
appropriate
to
consider,
and
I
think
that
if
we
were
to
move
ahead
with
what
has
been
proposed
by
tonight
by
staff
that
a
good
deal
of
the
discretion
of
the
planning
board
would
be
lost,
and
I
think
that
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
the
job
which
I
feel
we
have
been
appointed
to
do.
A
I
won't
repeat
the
points
made
by
george
and
and
sarah,
but
I
and
and
ml,
but
I
think
they're
absolutely
relevant,
and
I
I
just
don't
see
how
we
accomplish
what
we
have
been
tasked
with
if
we
move
ahead
in
the
way
that
limits
our
ability
to
review
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
issues.
A
Okay,
I
see
laura
has
her
hand
up,
go
ahead.
F
Thank
you,
john.
So
I
just
want
to
respond
to
that,
because
I
I
really
deeply
understand
that
the
work
of
the
planning
board
is
really
really
linked
to
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
and
all
the
plans
that
tear
off
of
it.
The
sub
community
plans,
the
area
plans,
the
design
guidelines.
F
The
thing
that
I
am
very
sympathetic
to
from
staff's
perspective-
and
I
think
from
the
development
community's
perspective
is
the
barrier
that
it
poses
to
a
developer,
to
an
applicant
to
have
to
look
through
the
comp
plan
and
guess
what
sections
are
going
to
be
relevant
to
their
site
design,
their
building
design.
That
is
going
through
site
review.
F
And
that's
the
conversation
that
I
would
like
to
see
happen
because
there's
a
lot
in
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
that
is
very
relevant
to
our
legislative
functions
and
the
advice
that
we
give
to
council
about
updates
to
the
bbcp
area,
planning,
sub
community
planning
changes
to
title
ix
and
the
building
code.
That
should
not
be
something
that
an
individual
developer
is
held
to
in
their
site
review
right,
like
I'm
sympathetic
to
george's
point
about
the
jobs
housing
balance,
but
are
we
going
to
hold
every
building
that
comes
before
us
for
sight
review
to
say?
F
You
know
if,
if
the
project
is
when
something
comes
before
site
review,
we
want
to
hold
it
to
a
higher
standard
than
just
a
buy
right
project,
something
that
could
be
developed
without
site
review.
You're
you're
asking
for
something
in
site,
review,
you're,
making
a
large
impact
on
the
landscape,
because
it's
a
big
building
or
you're,
asking
for
more
height
or
more
flare
floor
area
ratio
or
less
open
space,
and
so
we're
going
to
hold
you
to
a
higher
standard,
and
so
I
think
it
does
need
to
be
predictable
and
and
telling
people
anything
in.
F
The
comp
plan
is
fair
game
and
you
could
be
held
to
anything
in
here
and
you
kind
of
have
to
guess.
It
doesn't
seem
fair
right,
and
I
know
that
we've
done
it
that
way
for
a
long
time,
but
that
really
like
doesn't
match
up
in
my
logical
brain
about
what
is
fair
to
expect
from
somebody
who
is
embarking
on
a
five.
You
know
like
a
half
million
dollar
planning
project,
so
so
that's
my
suggestion
for
the
bbcp
just
that
one
piece
of
it.
F
I
have
other
thoughts
about
the
design
excellence
stuff,
that's
in
there
and
I
have
some
very
specific
suggestions.
But
you
know
I'm
going
to
agree
with
mark
and
I
think
with
where
john
is
that
I'm
not
ready
to
approve
this
tonight,
I
think
we
do
need
to
send
it
back
for
some
changes,
one
about
that.
What
gets
pulled
out
of
the
bbcp
and
two.
F
F
This
is
the
third
question
that
staff,
I
think,
the
second
or
third
question
that
staff
asked
us
is
a
key
point:
should
it
be
less
prescriptive
and
instead
read
something
like
the
project
will
meet
a
certain
intent
and
describe
what
that
intent
is
for
each
of
the
criteria
and
then
in
determining
whether
this
criterion
is
met,
the
following
factors
will
be
considered.
F
Who
that
has
a
comment
about
this
says
that
their
preference
is
not
to
have
it
be
a
black
and
white
standard
with
alternative
compliance.
But
to
have
flexibility
built
in
show
us
what
you
think
a
good
one.
A
good
example
looks
like
and
then
let
us
be
creative.
Let
us
be
innovative,
as
mark
was
saying,
so
I
think
those
two
things
at
minimum
need
to
happen
in
a
new
version
of
this
site
review
guidelines,
and
I
do
have
some
very
specific
comments
that
I'm
also
hoping
we
can
get
to
tonight.
L
Hi,
let
me
see,
am
I
I
see
the
hand
and
I
think,
I'm
muted
sorry,
I
agree
with.
There
is
a
a
big
question
that
starts
before
we
start
going
into
line
by
line
at
the
ordinance,
and
that
is
what
impact
are
we?
L
How
are
we
looking
to
have
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
inform
these
particular
policies,
so
I
I
agree
with
laura
on
that
that
it's
a
working
group
or
not-
I,
I
really
don't
have
an
opinion
on
that.
It
seems
to
me
that
to
take
it
out
of
staff's
hands
would
be,
might
not
be
a
very
a
good
thing.
I
I
I
think
staff
has
put
a
lot
of
time
and
focus
on
this,
and
if
we
bring
our
concerns
in
a
very
clear
way
to
that
subject,
it
might
give
enough
guidance
into
okay.
L
Here's
what
we're
looking
for
to
happen
with
regard
to
to
that?
How
does
the
boulder
valley
come
plan
influence
and
inform
this
ordinance?
Secondly,
I
I
kind
of
would
like
to
hear
how
john
wants
to
run
the
rest
of
this
meeting,
because
I've
got
lined
by
dying
items.
Also,
you
know,
some
of
them
are
big
and
overarching,
and
they
deal
with
a
lot
of
the
stuff
the
public
is,
but
they
belong
in
their
section,
and
I
am
going
to
respect
that.
L
L
But
I
I
think
it
should
be
methodical,
because
this
is
too
big
and
there's
too
much
to
to
hit
it.
You
know
randomly
one
off,
so
I
think
address
the
big
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
concern
and
then
maybe
give
some
direction
on.
How
do
we
want
to
put
all
of
the
rest
of
the
concerns
that
are
policy
specific
onto
the
table?.
A
Okay,
I
well
it's
a
good
question.
I'm
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
avoid
staying
here
until
two
in
the
morning
right
and
I
do
a
lot
of
head
nodding
there.
I
think
this
conversation
in
general,
the
big
picture
is,
is
very
valuable
and
also
our
how
we
believe
this
should
interact
and
we
should
interact
with
boulder
valley
comp
plan.
I'm
wondering-
and
I
I'm
asking
your
opinion
if
you
would
like
to
send
your
detailed
comments
individually
to
staff
after
after
this
this,
the
discussion
of
the
big
picture
issues.
A
Do
you
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
if
that
is
a
is
a
suitable
way
to
proceed,
whether
whether
we
want
to
individually
talk
about
each
text,
change
that,
for
example,
a
bunch
of
us
may
have
or
if
we
just
want
to
send
them
individually
to
staff
I'd
value.
Your
your
thoughts
on
that
george,
you
have
your
hand
up.
O
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
make
a
few
points,
because
I
heard
some
things
that
I
don't
necessarily
agree
with
as
developer
and
that
I've
been
in
this
role
myself
number
one.
I
don't
think
we
should
kid
ourselves
that
it
won't
be
the
same
group
of
people
or
very
sophisticated
developers
coming
through
this
process
and
that
by
simplifying
it
to
a
point
where
we're
eliminating
standards
we're
going
to
get
some
grassroots.
O
O
There
is
not
a
lack
of
desire
to
develop
in
this
community
that
we
have
to.
You
know,
try
to
make
things
simpler,
just
to
just
to
try
to
get
more
development
or
more
people
involved,
because
I
I
do
not
believe
it's
true
that
if
we
eliminate
certain
costs,
let's
say
like
like
the
like
the
sound
ordnance
or
this,
the
sound
study.
That's
that's
been
put
forward
in
this.
O
For
my
mind,
that's
that's
an
equity
issue
right,
that's
looking
at
workers
in
these
buildings
and
it's
a
sound
study
that
they're
asking
the
developer
to
do
to
make
sure
if
they're
near
train
tracks
and
things
like
that
that
these
things
are
built
appropriately
for
that
environment.
O
I
I
don't
see
that
as
a
barrier.
I
see
that
as
an
equity
issue
in
a
place
that
you
know
if
I
was
going
to
work
in
those
buildings.
I'd
want
those
types
of
things
done,
but
I
also
don't
think
that
that's
going
to
stop
any
developer
from
developing
in
boulder.
Nor
do
I
think
it's
going
to
stop
them
from
developing
with
prescriptive,
high
quality
materials,
because
there's
there's
a
lot
of
money
to
be
made
in
this
town.
O
Secondly,
as
it
relates
to
sort
of
creating
an
environment
where
we
don't
use
bvcp
as
a
lens,
where
we
look
at
this,
you
know
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
people
in
the
development
community
would
like
us
to
look
at
this
only
on
a
project
by
project
basis,
but
our
job
as
the
planning
board
is
to
also
have
a
macro
lens.
O
Another
project
might
come
through
and
one
they
might
be
identical
and
one
might
be
right
for
the
time
and
place
and
one
might
not
be
for
reasons
of
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
and
what
we
have
as
our
task
in
front
of
us
as
as
the
planning
board.
So
I
want
to
put
forth
that
position.
O
I
think,
overall,
I
appreciate
where
this
document
has
been
and
where
it's
going
I'd
like
to
see
more
of
the
bbcp
put
into
it,
but
I
don't
necessarily
want
to
kick
it
down
to
some
another
working
group
when
this
is
something
that
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
taxed
upon
us
to
try
to
move
something
forward
rather
than
just
cricking
it
to
another
group.
That's
going
to
kick
it
back
to
us
eventually
to
try
to
move
something
forward.
K
So
it's
okay,
so
I
I
agree
with
literally
everything
george
just
said,
and
if
talking
about
how
we
might
move
forward,
I
wonder
if
what
we
could
do
is
focus
on
everything
from
site
design
down,
go
through
that
and
then
without
voting
on,
so
we're
giving
feedback
to
staff
and
and
then
ask
them
to
go
back,
revise
based
on
that
feedback
and
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
we've
raised
about
the
bvcp
component,
so
that
at
least
we've
made
some
progress
and
we've
given
staff
something
to
work
with
to
the
question
of
the
working
group.
K
You
know
a
couple
of
thoughts.
We
are
the
working
group,
we're
the
planning
board,
that's
our
job
and
we
don't
need
to
go
to
former
planning
board
members
or
developers
or
applicants
or
whomever
this
is
our
job.
This
is
why
we
sit
here
and
spend
hours
doing
this.
So
it's
our
task
to
figure
out
the
things
that
are
challenging
and
I
think
it's
important
to.
K
We
all
come
in
with
points
of
view,
but
we
don't
represent
specific
groups.
We
don't
represent
specific
voices.
We
are
here
to
represent
everyone
in
the
city
and
all
of
the
complex
and
competing
ideas
and
thoughts
and
visions
about
what
the
city
should
be,
and
that
makes
it
hard,
but
it
also
means
that
we
need
to
be
independent
voices
going
forward
and
listen
to
each
other
and
try
to
find
compromised
positions.
K
So
my
recommendation
is:
we
do
a
line
by
line
from
9-2-14
h2
site
design
onto
the
bottom.
Give
some
generic,
not
generic,
give
some
general
feedback
on
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
component
and
ask
staff
to
go
back,
revise
think
through
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
component
and
bring
this
back
at
some
later
date
for
another
discussion.
That
would
be
my
suggestion
of
how
to
move
forward.
N
Yeah,
so
I
don't
want
to
go
against
rules
of
order
again,
but
I
guess
one
of
the
things
that
as
appropriate
or,
if
appropriate,
that
would
help
me
understand
kind
of
how
to
afford
it.
I
like
the
suggestion
sarah
just
made,
would
be
when
and
if
we
can
to
ask
staff
what
would
be
most
useful
for
them
to
come
back,
I
mean,
I
think,
it's
pretty
clear,
that
you
know
that
we
feel
that
there's
some
more
work
that
needs
to
be
done
and
and
and
at
a
minimum.
N
You
know
concerns
about
losing
some
of
the
things
that
we
really
like
that
kind
of
are
brought
into
the
discussion
through
the
bvcp
you
know
and
so
on,
and
I'm
sure
people
have
line
by
line.
You
know
feedback
on
it,
but
but
I
just
I
wonder
how
in
depth
is
useful
to
staff
and
like
what
would
be
most
useful
for
them
to
then
turn
around
and
come
back
to
us
next
time
so
that
we
give
them
the
information
they
need
to
move
forward.
N
So
that's
just
something
I
had
in
mind
just
like
what
what
has
staff
heard
from
us
and
like
what
would
they
what
would
be
most
useful
to
them?
You
know,
and
I
don't
want
to
shut
down
the
conversation
all
I
want
everyone
to
get
to
say
what
they
want
to
say,
but
you
know
like
what
what
do
they
need
to
hear
so
that
you
know
we
continue
this
productively,
which
I
think
will
happen
in
a
future
meeting.
You
know
so
yeah.
A
All
right,
I
think,
that's
an
excellent
suggestion
and
I
think
after
we
have
had
this
last
round,
then
I'll
ask
staff
how
they
feel
about
that.
What
would
be
most
useful
to
them
and
I
see
a
couple
more
hands
up
mark.
F
F
I
also
have
about
three
things
that
would
not
be
covered
in
a
line-by-line
review:
they're
either
things
that
I
think
are
missing
or
or
they're
just
not
covered
in
a
line
by
line.
So
I
I
think
we
need
to
make
a
space
for
that
tonight
as
well,
because
some
of
those
things
also
are
are
significant.
A
F
F
Sure
sure
I
I
can
I
also
I
also
want
to
ask
staff
at
some
point
to
weigh
in
here
about
the
sound
study,
because
it
has
come
up
a
couple
of
times.
I
think
there
might
be
a
misconception
about
it.
You
know
my
understanding
is
that
the
acoustic
study
only
applies
to
developments
that
have
a
residential
component,
not
workers
or
office
buildings,
but
a
residential
component,
and
it
only
is
buildings
that
are
near
certain
kinds
of
predictable
noise
makers
like
railroad
tracks
and
that
sort
of
thing.
F
G
J
Yeah
to
to
answer
your
question
that
noise
criterion
is
only
pertinent
to
residential,
and
it's
only
you
know
near
primary
arterials
or
railroads
within
the
city.
F
Thank
you,
carl,
because
I
do
think
that
that
changed
since
the
first
version-
and
there
was
some
public
comment
that
was
directed
at
how
broad
they
felt
that
acoustic
study
was-
and
I
think
staff
heard
that
and
narrowed
it.
So
so
thank
you
carl
for
that,
okay,
so
the
things
I
have
that
would
not
be
covered
by
a
line
by
line.
One
is
the
one
I
mentioned
before.
That
is
staff's
a
key
question
for
us
about.
F
Does
the
planning
board
find
that
the
criteria
should
be
modified
to
be
less
prescriptive,
and
my
answer
to
that
would
be
yes,
and
I
would
like
to
see
a
rewrite
of
what
that
would
look
like
in
line
with
that
comment
about
changing
it
from
you
will
meet
this
standard
to
the
project.
Will
fulfill
this
intent
and
here
are
some
ways
to
do
it.
I
think
that
is
a
very
good
comment.
F
I've
heard
it
predictably
from
many
many
members
of
people
who
have
come
before
planning
board
both
people
that
you
would
consider
to
be
traditional
developers
and
people
that
you
consider
to
be
affordable.
Housing
advocates
have
all
said
that
same
thing,
that
they
find
that
the
prescriptive
is
going
too
far,
but
that
these
are
good
examples.
F
F
The
second
one
is,
I
heard
a
lot
of
comments
saying
that
form-based
code
is
usually
developed
for
a
specific
area
like
boulder
junction
and
that,
while
they
appreciated
carl's
intent
and
planning
staff's
intent
to
take
what
is
most
basic
or
most
universal
from
the
form
base
code
and
apply
it
basically
citywide
anywhere.
There
is
a
site
review
that
there
was
some
concern,
that
that
would
produce
a
sameness
and
it
would
not
be
in
line
with.
F
F
But
I
would
like
to
get
dab
to
weigh
in
on
the
question
of
whether
these
elements
that
were
pulled
out
of
form
base
code
would
be
pretty
universally
applicable
everywhere,
that
there
is
a
site
review
project
or
if
dab
thinks
that
some
of
these
are
more
applicable
than
others,
and
they
would
take
some
out
or
there's
other
ones
that
they
would
recommend.
Because
they're,
the
architect
committee
they're
the
people
who
are
supposed
to
advise
on
design
and
that's
what
this
is-
is
quality
in
design.
F
It's
the
high
the
design
excellence,
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
shame
if
we
don't
ask
dab
to
weigh
into
design
excellence
criteria
that
are
going
to
apply
city-wide
in
a
blanket
fashion,
every
time
there's
a
site
review.
So
I
would
like
to
get
you
know,
especially
if
we're
going
to
send
this
back.
I
would
like
to
get
dab
to
weigh
in
and
have
that
feedback
inform
any
changes
that
might
be
made
to
these
criteria.
F
F
A
Okay,
I
I
think
that
your
suggestion
is
quite
reasonable
to
have
a
have
a
sense
of
the
board
response
on
each
of
those
three
as
feedback
both
to
staff
and
and
to
counsel
for
that
matter.
Mark.
E
So
my
my
only
question:
I've
I've
listened
to
our
colleagues
here
about
ways
to
proceed.
I
would
like
to
understand
so.
Staff
has
given
us
a
product
they've.
Given
us,
they've
asked
us
questions
and
I
agree
with
laura
that
the
in
terms
of
the
question
of,
is
it
too?
Is
it
too
prescriptive?
E
For
me,
the
answer
is
yes,
so
we
have
a.
We
have
a
line
by
line
methodology.
Here
we
have
a
an
alternative
motion.
We
have
staff's
motion.
What,
depending
upon
how
we
proceed
is.
Is
the
plan
to
end
up
with
a
motion
that
we
adopt
tonight,
because
staff
did
present
us
with
a
schedule
of
the
first
and
second
reading
of
of
the
ordinance
going
before
council?
E
So
the
way
I
interpret
this
is
that
when
we're
done
tonight,
we
should
have
adopted
a
motion
that
conveys
the
majority
of
a
four-person
vote
of
what
our
recommendation
to
counsel
is,
and
so
I
am
a
little
lost
as
to
how
to
proceed
and
end
up
with
a
motion
that
concisely
conveys
the
planning
board's
majority
view
to
counsel.
E
And
maybe
one
of
our
more
senior
members
can
tell
me
hell
has
got
her
hand
up,
so
that
would
be
great.
M
Well-
and
I
wasn't
actually
gonna
address
mark's
question
I
just
because
mark
is
speaking
again-
he
sent
out
a
motion.
He
was
considering
to
everybody
and
because
this
is
a
public
meeting
it,
I
would
recommend
that
you
put
it
on
the
screen
so
that
the
members
of
the
public
can
see
it
too.
You
can
just
put
it
on
the
screen
and
can
continue
your
conversation
just
for
transparency
purposes.
A
F
M
So
you
make
a
recommendation
on
the
ordinance
and
then
right
now
there
are
a
first
and
second
reading
are
scheduled.
But,
depending
on
your
advice,
I
think
staff
will
regroup
and
and
decide
what
the
next
best
step
is.
G
A
So
mark
to
to
go
back
to
your
question,
I
agree
that
we
want
to
develop
a
conclusion
tonight,
a
whether
we
I
mean-
and
I
haven't
even
had
a
chance
to
look
at
your
your
proposed
motion
yet,
but
whether
we
want
to
recommend
adoption
of
the
of
the
revisions
as
written
as
submitted
by
staff
is
one
alternative,
and
if
not,
then
we
can
say
what
we
would
like
to
have
changed
or
what
needs
additional
work
and
staff
will
deal
with
that
and
decide
how
they
want
to
deal
with
the
scheduling,
question
at
city
council.
E
Would
it
be
helpful,
procedurally
to
put
forth
staff's
motion
and,
and
then
we
debate,
discuss,
etc,
put
forth
my
motion,
I
you
know,
take
a
take
a
nod
type
of
vote,
which
council
does
all
the
time.
I
don't
necessarily
agree
with
it,
but
sometimes
it's
procedurally
convenient
so
anyway.
I
if,
if
we
need
a
motion,
I'm
ready
to
debate
staff's
motion,
I'm
ready
to
advocate
for
and
debate
mine.
L
I
I
think
that
the
kind
of
place
we're
at
were
I've
heard
my
colleagues
talking
you
know
we
may
not
be
comfortable
to
adopt
this
motion
that
the
staff
is
booked
has
put
forward,
but
I
think
that
it
would
be
remiss
of
us
if
we
didn't
go
through
the
policy
and
give
staff
the
direction
so
that
they
know
what
are
the
reasons
that
we
are
not,
and
I
don't
think
we
have
to
debate
and
come
to
agreement
about
everything,
but
I
think
it
will
be
important
for
staff
to
know
what
is
stopping
us
from
approving
it
as
it
is,
and
let's
just
let's
get
on
with
going
through
it,
and
and
do
that.
L
K
K
We
may
not
vote
on
emotion
tonight
the
motion
that
staff
has
put
in
front
of
us,
but
at
least
we
will
have
given
guidance
to
them
on
the
motion
that
they
presented
to
us,
but
mark
your
motion,
which
I
read
basically
says
we
want
it
to
to.
We
want
all
these
other
things
we
might
as
well,
then
just
say
forget
this
motion
completely
and
let's
just
keep
doing
what
we've
been
doing
for
the
last
20
years:
tools
and
guidebooks
and
blub.
K
K
O
I
was
trying
to
go
quick
too.
I
I
agree
completely
with
what
ml
said.
I
I
think
we
got
to
do
the
work
and
give
the
feedback
to
staff
rather
than
debate
this
much
longer.
O
I
also
think
we
need
to
time
keep
each
other
a
little
bit
in
this,
and
you
know
everyone
should
have
kind
of
the
same
kind
of
air
time.
So
I
I
I'd,
ask
everyone
to
kind
of
think
about
that
as
we
go
through.
Otherwise
we're
going
to
be
here
until
when
my
kids
go
to
school,
and
I
want
to
be
able
to
take
them.
There
not
fall
asleep
thanks.
O
A
All
right
short
comments
and
then
we'll
ask
staff
what
is
most
useful
for
them
and
then
we'll
proceed.
A
F
Hopefully
we
can
also
get
a
sense
of
whether
the
board
generally
agrees
or
if
it's
a
controversial
thing
that
has
been
suggested-
and
I
do
want
to
uplift
that
I
think
in
mark's
motion
he's
saying
one
of
the
same
things
that
I'm
saying
about
answering
staff's
question
number
two:
does
planning
board
recommend
that
the
criteria
should
be
modified
to
be
less
prescriptive,
and
I
think
that
the
examples
are
already
written
by
staff.
F
J
Tall
order,
I
agree
with
the
getting
feedback
on
the
prescriptive
nature.
First
might
might
kind
of
help
inform
before
we
start
walking
through
the
criteria,
so
maybe
even
some
sort
of
straw
poll
from
the
board
about
whether
it
needs
to
be
rewritten
to
be
on
balance
and
consider
the
following
factors,
and
that
might
help
walking
through.
I
Think
it
might
also
be
helpful
to
understand
what
bbcp
policies
you
would
want
implemented
in
the
site
review
criteria
or
whether
you
would
want
to
keep
the
on
balance
finding
language.
That's
in
there
that
that
seems
to
be
pretty
pivotal.
A
Ml,
you
have
indicated
you
have
the
a
lot
of
comments
directly
ready
to
go.
So
why
don't
with
the
first
with
you.
L
Thank
you.
I
think
somebody
suggested
we
start
at
h,
which
is
the
criteria
for
review
and
move
ourselves
through.
That
does
that
sound
good
to
people
for
our
line
by
line
or
do
we
want
to
start
before
that.
F
E
So
I
I
just
real
quickly:
I'm
asking
staff
just
told
us
carl
just
told
us
that
it
might
be
helpful
to
address
the
prescriptive.
E
The
big
question
of
the
prescriptive
nature
of
of
what
they've
presented
tonight.
Should
we
take
a
straw
vote?
Do
do.
Do
you
as
a
planning
board
member,
find
that
that
the
product
staff
has
produced
for
us
to
review
tonight
is
too
prescriptive.
A
Okay,
let's
take
a
straw
vote,
we
can
use
our
thumbs
and
somebody
needs
to
count.
F
A
F
A
G
O
J
J
So
not
every
single
criterion
has
to
be
met,
a
hundred
percent,
it's
a
it's
a
balance
between
them
and
some
might
not
be
met
at
all,
but
others
might
be
met
very
well.
That's
how
it's
currently
done
so
the
ordinance
in
attachment
a
is
more
like
standards,
where
it's
it's
a
little
more
black
and
white.
Some
are
still
you
know,
similar
to
the
current
site
review,
but
I
guess
the
question
is
particularly
with
respect
to
the
building
design
section.
O
K
K
There
are
many
applicants
who
come
through
the
system
who
we
did
not
hear
from
so
which
suggests
to
me
that
those
applicants
are
okay.
With
these
this
proposal,
I
know
who
we
heard
from
who
isn't
happy
with
it,
but
I
don't
think
that
it's
a.
I
think
that
what
staff
has
come
up
with
in
terms
of
site,
design,
building
design
and
the
alternative
compliance
are
from
my,
in
my
estimation,
not
overly
restrictive,
because
they
do
give
some
wiggle
room
and
they
do
create
a
less
subjective
process.
K
Now,
there's
specific
language
that
might
need
to
be
cleaned
up
in
that
and
there's
all
kinds
of
other
issues
that
we
want
to
raise
with
staff.
But
from
my
perspective
I
am
fine
with
the
prescriptive
nature
of
what
they've
proposed.
I
mean
it's
about
it's
about
fenestration
and
window
depth.
I
mean
it's
not
this.
Isn't
this
isn't
about?
K
A
Okay,
george,
you
have
your
hand
up.
A
F
Yeah,
I
mean,
I
think,
it's
a
little
bit
of
splitting
hairs,
but
I
I
do
think
making
it
a
less
prescriptive
and
being
more
descriptive
of
you
know,
building
entries
along
the
public
realm
shall
be
emphasized
and
here's
some
ways
to
do.
It
is
more
conducive
to
innovation,
creativity
and
separate
neighborhood
character
than
having
every
single
building
that
comes
through
site
review
have
to
have
these
10
cookbook
elements
right,
and
so
I
do
think
that
we
want
to
keep
this
level
of
detail
in
the
site
review
criteria.
F
So
people
know
that
if
you
do
these
things
the
way
it
is
listed
you're
definitely
getting
through,
because
you
have
you
have
done
it.
The
way
that
we
have
described
is
an
appropriate
example,
but
it
leaves
more
room
for
creativity
without
people
having
to
go
through
alternative
compliance
and,
and
some
people
have
expressed
that
they
don't
that
that
feels
very
subjective
and
would
potentially
add
time
and
cost,
and
back
and
forth
and-
and
maybe
those
people
are
just
misunderstanding,
what
the
alternative
compliance
process
would
be
like.
F
N
Thank
you
yeah.
I
think
I
agree
with
just
I.
I
agree
with
this
discussion
on
thumbs,
because
I
want
to
give
a
struggle
and
give
something
useful
to
staff.
I
agree
with
georgie
and
sarah.
I
don't
think
it's
too
prescriptive.
N
I
think
we
can
go
in
and
you
know
nitpick
little
individual
things,
I'm
not
sure.
That's
necessary
staffs,
put
a
lot
of
time
and
energy
into
this
and,
I
think,
come
with
a
really
good
product.
So,
even
though
I
I
strongly
suspect
we're
gonna
be
kicking
back
a
lot
of
this
to
staff.
I
you
know,
I
don't
feel
like
some
of
the
specific
work
that
has
been
done
is
overly
prescriptive,
but
that
also
doesn't
mean
that
there
aren't
things
that
we
might
want
to
dig
into
a
little
more
but
yeah.
N
I
think
the
overall
direction
is
good,
so
when
I,
when
I
give
my
thumbs
up,
that
is
what
I'm
attempting
to
convey,
which
is
a
little
more
nuanced
than
just
a
thumb.
A
Okay,
I'll
I'll
just
say
that
I
agree
also
with
george
and
sarah
and
there's
two
considerations
here
that
go
into
my
decision.
One
is
that
there
is
an
alternative
compliance
method
for
people
who
don't
want
to
follow
those
prescriptions,
and
the
other
is
that
our
job
here
is
to
make
sure
we're
designing
and
creating
things
that
we'll
be
happy
with
25
years
from
now.
A
Okay,
yeah,
if
please
put
up
your
thumbs,
if
you
support
the
staff
proposal
for
how
to
deal
with
these
prescriptive
requirements,.
K
What
no
it's
I
think,
john
it's
thumbs
up
if
you
feel
that
the
language
is
should
be
modified
to
be
less
critical,
no,
no,
no!
No!
No
ml!
It's
I
mean
we
can
vote.
We
can
do
it.
That
way.
Do
you
feel
the
language
is
too
prescriptive,
give
a
thumbs
up,
and
then
we
can
do
a
separate
if
you
feel
the
language
is
not
too
prescriptive
and
then
we'll
have
because.
I
E
G
A
Fair
enough,
let's
so,
if
you
think
that
the
like
I'm
not
reading
it
right
now,
that's
my
problem.
L
I
can
I
say
something:
I'm
not
I.
I
understand
why
we
had
that
little
vote
just
to
get
a
general
sense,
but
you
know
that
particular
question
is
going
to
show
up
in
the
line
by
line
in
some
very
significant
way,
so
I
I
think
it
I
think
our
little
straw
poll
may
or
may
not
have
as
much
weight
once
we
get
into
the
particulars,
because
there
are
significant
parts
of
this
ordinance
that
deal
directly
with
that.
L
So
anyway,
just
the
grain
of
salt
take
it
with
the
grain
of
salt,
because
I
think
there's
a
lot
more
to
that
that
which
is
which
will
come
up
in
the
line
by
line.
L
F
A
Yeah.
Okay,
in
fact,
I
I
wonder
carl,
if
you
want
to
lead
this
discussion
of
the
line
by
line
process
here.
J
K
K
F
So
so
I
just
want
to
say
this
is
why
I'm
suggesting
a
work
group,
whether
it's
a
work
group
of
just
planning,
board
members.
I
feel
like
the
experience
to
know
what,
from
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan
should
be
in
this
section,
lies
within
planning
board
members,
whether
it's
current
or
former,
and
that
it's
going
to
take
time
for
people
to
go
through
the
comp
plan
in
detail
and
figure
out
what
they
want
to
say.
F
And
I
think
if
we
try
to
do
it
here
tonight,
off
the
cuff,
we
would
be
doing
a
disservice
to
the
comprehensive
plan
and
to
the
work
of
planning
board
and
to
the
experience
of
all
of
our
members.
I
don't
think
we
want
to
take
our
time
to
read
through
the
comp
plan
and
make
sure
that
we're
not
that
we're
crossing
all
of
our
t's
and
dotting
all
of
our
eyes
and
making
sure
that
everything
that
needs
to
be
here
is
here.
F
B
K
Laura
I
agree
with
you
that
they're
going
to
have
to
go
back
and
consider
it,
but
what
we
have
been
doing,
what
the
city's
been
doing
for
years
is
that
the
comp
plan
is
one
of
the
key
questions
that
we
always
get
asked
about
during
site
review.
We
can
return,
we
don't
need
to
focus.
We
don't
need
to
change
what
we've
been
doing.
F
Okay,
sarah,
so
it
sounds
to
me
like
that's.
Your
proposal
is
just
return
to
the
way
it
was
where
it
asks
the
question
of
on
balance.
Does
the
project
meet
the
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
which
is
different
than
the
suggestion
that
I'm
making
and
then
what
carl
and
charles
I
think
asked
for,
which
is
which
sections
of
the
boulder
comprehensive
plan
should
be
here
and
that's
not
to
say
that
we
have
to
do
what
they
have
asked
for?
F
L
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
suggest
that
the
way
to
get
through
all
of
these
is
to,
I
think
sarah
might
have
said
this.
It's
just
like,
or
maybe
laura
somebody
said
it
just
now
that
okay,
we
agree
that
h1
we
need.
We
need
to
come
back
to
that,
because
it's
not
something
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna,
know
and
give
direction
on
tonight,
but
we
know
that
it
is
something
that
we're
not
in
agreement
with
the
way
it's
being
proposed.
So
we
need
to.
L
We
need
that
we
will
have
staff
come
back
to
us
on.
N
I
just
want
to
clarify
one
thing
too,
and
it's
possible
it's
possible.
I
miss
interpreting
on
both
sides,
but
the
way
I
understood
staffs
asked
wasn't,
go
through
the
bbcp
and
tell
us
absolutely
everything
you
want
to
include
what
I
heard
from
staff
was
to
the
extent,
and
we
don't
have
to
do
it
right
now.
I
really
like
and
I'll
suggest
and
drop
down,
I'm
not
trying
to
turn
back
to
bbcp,
but
what
I
heard
from
staff
was:
what
is
it
that
you're
anxious
that
we
didn't
include
like
what?
N
What
is
the
missing
thing
that
you
want,
and
I
understand
that
for
some
folks
who
perhaps
feel
understandably
less
less
familiar
with
the
bvcp,
and
I
certainly
don't
know
it
backward
and
forward
as
I
wish
I
did
that
that
can
feel
like,
let's
go
through
the
whole
thing
and
give
a
giant
list
of
like
all
the
things
that
have
concluded.
But
if
it's
going
to
be
that
comprehensive,
then
I
kind
of
agree
with
sarah
just
keep
the
whole
thing.
If
we're
going
to
be
that
thorough
like
fine,
then
we
just
keep
the
whole
thing
whatever.
N
But
what
I
heard
staff
asking
for
wasn't
that
it
wasn't
like
every
single
last
thing
that
we
possibly
want
to
keep
in
there.
It
was
if
we
have
an
answer
which
we
may
not
have.
What
did
staff
fail
to
incorporate
and
pull
over
that?
You
know
we
hoped
would
be
included.
N
So
you
know
which
thing
is
missing
first,
so
they
understand
that
it
may
be
impossible
to
answer
that
question
without
time
to
dig
into
the
bbcp,
but
I
think
there
is
a
distinction
there
between
combing
through
the
entire
document
together,
as
a
group
versus
you
know,
hey
we
pulled
some
stuff
out,
you're
saying
it's
not
enough.
What
else
did
you
want.
A
A
E
Concur,
I
I
think
you've
summarized
it
and
and
or
let's
phrase
it
as
a
question:
do
you
think
that
the
current
language
fulfills
our
requirements
or
do
you
support
the
language
the
staff
has
proposed,
or
do
you
have
some
very
specific
feedback?
Otherwise
I
I
am
I
I
would
vote
if
the
question
was
called
with
john,
that
the
current
language.
E
A
F
F
One
option
two
is
to
adopt
the
or
you
know
to
go
with
what
staff
have
tried
to
do,
which
is
to
pull
out
the
relevant
sections
for
site
review
and
be
more
specific,
so
that
it's
more
predictable
and
people
know
what
standard
they're
being
held
to,
rather
than
being
the
whole
bbcp.
F
N
A
If
you
don't
want
to
stick
a
thumb
up,
then
don't
okay,
but
I'm
my
thumb
is
up
said
george's
is
yours
ml.
I
can't
see
yours,
no
nora,
no
lisa,
no,
and
I
can't
see
sarah's
at
the
same
time.
G
F
L
I,
like
the
idea
of
whittling
it
down.
I
know
the
comp
plan
pretty
well
and
it
is
overwhelming.
I
think
it
would
behoove
the
developers
and
the
people
who
are
coming
to
this
review
to
have
a
sense
of
okay.
Here
are
the
areas
they're
still
they
still
might
be
substantive,
but
here
are
the
areas
that
we
will
be
subject
to.
I
think
that
that's
a
decent
thing
to
do
so
I
say
we
need
more
time
so
that
we
can
find
those
areas
and
come
back
with
the
specificity
that
people
have
been
asking
for.
L
F
F
F
F
G
J
D
F
F
F
My
point
here
is:
there
is
so
much
more
to
these
sub-community
plans
than
just
goals,
objectives
and
the
intent
of
the
guidelines
that
leaves
out
you
know
years
worth
of
work
for
east
boulder
sub-community
plan,
because
those
things
were
done
pretty
quickly,
there's
a
lot
of
specificity.
It
leaves
out
so
my
suggestion
here
was
just
to
say:
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
applicable
plan
and
guidelines.
G
D
N
I
don't
see
it
as
substantively
different,
but
if
that's
important,
that's
fine,
it's
shorter,
which
I
like.
F
The
goals
and
objectives
of
the
east
boulder
sub
community
plan
are
like
a
page,
and
the
plan
is
like
100
pages
of
detail.
So
I
would
like
a
project
to
be
consistent
with
the
entire
plan,
including
the
land
use
maps
and
the
far
ratios,
and
whatever
else
is
in
that
plan.
That
goes
beyond
the
goals
and
objectives.
F
L
N
N
Not
because,
because
I
don't
understand-
or
I
think
I
understand
laura's
concern
and
what
she's
trying
to
put
in
there
and
I'm
happy
with
the
language
as
proposed,
but
because
the
plan
may
stay
static
over
time
while
things
change
around
it,
and
I
think
that
if
we
put
in
a
word
like
entire
or
all
or
every
or
any
kind
of
extreme
language
of
that
variety
that
perhaps
rather
than
getting
to
what
I
think
is
laura's
intent
that
we
lock
ourselves
into
a
situation
where
something
might
be
impossible.
O
D
O
N
I
think
we
understand,
I
think
I
think
it's
a
matter
of
semantics,
I'm
not
suggesting
the
word
entire
okay,
because
I
think
I
and
I'm
not
saying
I'm
not
asking
you
to
agree
with
me
lauren.
You
can
totally
tell
me
you
think
I'm
losing
it,
but
I
think
for
at
least
a
couple
of
us.
We
feel
like
it's
about
the
same.
N
So
I'm
perfectly
happy
with
your
word
change
if
you're
fine
with
it,
but
I'd
also
like
to
move
that
for
the
interest
of
time
and
giving
staff
what
they
need
that
subsequent
to
be
that
we
try
to
take
several
steps
back
from
wordsmithing
and
look
more
at
overall
intent
and
meaning
and
not
trying
to
get
down
to
exact
tone
because
they'll
be
coming
back
to
us
with
this
anyway,
we
don't
need
to
work
smith
right
now,.
O
A
K
K
F
The
goals
and
objectives
goals
and
objectives
like
for
the
sub
community
plan
for
east
boulder
are
like
design,
quality
and
place.
Making
we're
gonna,
have
high
quality
design
and
we're
gonna.
Do
housing,
diversity
and
affordability,
it's
extremely
high
level
at
the
goals
and
objectives
level
and
like
why
bother
to
do
a
100-page
sub-community
plan.
If
the
projects
don't
have
to
be
consistent
when
somebody
goes
to
build,
I.
N
Think
I
just
figured
out
and
then
I'd
like
us
to
move
on
no
matter
what
we
decide,
what
what
the
possibly
what
the
inconsistency
here
is.
N
You
are
very
close
to
this
plan
and
know
it
super
well,
and
so,
when
you
see
that
goals
and
objectives,
you're
picturing
a
single
page,
I'm
interpreting
this
to
mean
the
overarching
intent
and
like
content
and
whatever
of
this
plan
and
whatever
iterations
it's
currently
in.
So
I'm
not
thinking
like
oh
the
little
page
that
says
goals
and
objectives.
I'm
like
yeah
like
overall
what
it
wants
to
be
right,
which
is
why
to
me
it
doesn't
feel
like
any
difference.
I
P
I
L
So
maybe
the
question
is,
and
maybe
it's
up
to
carl
and
charles
to
say:
are
you
getting
enough
feedback
on
this
particular
one
and
can
we
move
on
because
I.
F
O
G
G
K
Carl
asked
us
a
question
which
is:
does
going
does
proposing
going
back
to
the
way
we've
done
things
in
terms
of
boulder
valley
compound
mean
getting
rid
of
the
a
through
g
that
he
has
proposed
here.
I
would
say:
no,
I
that's
not
at
all
what
I'm
trying
to.
I
think
what
you
have
proposed
here
are
important
priorities,
just
not
to
the
exclusion
of
perhaps
everything
else
in
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan.
So
when
you
guys
go
back
from
my
perspective,
when
staff
goes
back
to
rework
this
section,
I
would
like
you
to.
K
A
That's
well
said.
K
When
we
get
to
the
housing,
diversity
and
bedrooms
types
in
section
one,
I
know
that
the
language
is
much
further
down,
but
I
just
want
to
stick
a
flag
in
there,
because
I
have
a
few
questions,
but
I
just
want
to
stick
a
flag
in
there.
So
we're.
K
I
think
ml,
what
we
just
what
I
just
put
on
the
table
and
got
some
nods
on,
would
like
your
input
as
well.
Is
that
what
we
ask
staff
to
do
is
to
come
back
with
this
section
in
a
way
that
allows
for
both
the
these.
The
elements
that
are
already
that
they've
proposed
here,
without
keeping
us
from
looking
at
the
rest
of
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan,
how
they
draft
that
language.
K
L
I
have
a
comment
on
c
that
I
think
is
important.
Okay,
I
think
so.
My
comment
on
c
would
be.
I
would
suggest
that
we
modify
this
so
that
all
of
the
criteria
are
required,
not
just
one
of
these
three.
They
each
address
a
different
part
of
the
energy
and
carbon
and
and
if
there
is
one
subject
or
topic
that
should
always
be
number
one.
It's
climate
action.
You
know
we
have
to
take
action
where
we
have
the
opportunity
to
take
action,
I
the
number
one
there
reduced
embodied
carbon.
L
L
You
know
looking
for
those
kinds
of
things,
and
I
think
that
there
are
areas
in
this
where,
if
this
is
being
done
so
that
we
can
find
community
benefit
and
make
that
a
truly
robust
benefit
to
our
community
to
give
these
variances
and
these
allowances,
I
think
that
we
should
not
diminish
the
opportunity
to
put
climate
action
in
there
in
as
comprehensive
a
way
that
we're
as
we're
capable.
These
are
not
difficult
things
to
do.
L
You
know
reducing
body,
carbon
and
concrete.
That
is
not
a
difficult
thing
to
do.
I've
got
a
little
adu
that
is
750
square
feet.
It's
doing
every
single
one
of
these,
not
because
we're
being
mandated,
because
it's
the
right
thing
to
do
it's
time
that
we
just
say
you
know
the
buck
stops
here
folks,
so
I
I
think
that
we
have
to
look
for,
and
this
is
this
is
why
I
really
appreciated
the
community
benefits
intended
goals
for
intended
outcomes
when
they
said
resiliency
and
sustainability.
L
If,
if
we
can't
make
that
one
of
our
number
one
priorities
in
community
benefits
gosh,
you
know,
if
not
now,
when
type
of
thing
it's
we
can't,
we
can't
let
these
things
go
go
by.
So
I
I
feel
very,
I
feel
a
little
bit
strongly
about.
This
is
an
opportunity,
so
I
would
just
say.
K
L
Saying
well
I'm
saying
that
that
particular
one
don't
see
that
I
would
like
them
to
consider
that
they're
all
required
great.
L
G
K
K
Everyone
we're
not
wordsmithing
we're
prior
we're,
conveying
we're
conveying
what
we'd
like
to
see
here
in
order
for
us
not
to
be
here
until
one
in
the
morning.
Let's
focus
on
conveying
guide,
giving
guidance
and
and
ml.
Your
guidance
was
great
and
I
think
we
can
move
on
yeah.
F
I
think
we
need
staff
to
come
back
and
talk
about
feasibility
here,
because
I
do
not
know
what
is
the
feasibility
of
a
30
000
square
foot,
building
every
single
one
that
comes
through
site
review
being
all
electrified.
For
example,
there
may
be
some
buildings
that
will
come
back
and
say
that
they
simply
can't
do
that
now.
I
know
that
alternative
compliance
is
available,
but
I
don't
want
us
to
be
setting
everybody
up
for
that.
F
If
there's
a
significant
category
of
buildings
that
can't
meet
this,
so
I
would
like,
I
think,
it's
fine
to
tell
staff
that
at
least
some
of
us
are
interested
in
that.
I
don't
know
that
we
have
100
concurrence
on
that.
I
would
like
to
hear
more
from
staff
about
it.
K
K
A
K
L
J
I
think
that's
sufficient,
I
I
I
hear
the
viewpoints
I
I
would
we'll
need
to
go
back
to
our.
You
know,
climate
initiative
staff
to
talk
about.
You
know
applying
this
broadly
and
discuss
the
feasibility
issue
and
we
can
come
back
with
with
their
input.
F
F
If
we
are
worried
about
this
becoming
prohibitive
for
getting
the
kind
of
housing
that
we
want,
we
are
always
having
to
balance
doing
what
we
think
is
good
for
design
quality
and
for
the
environment,
with
making
sure
that
we
have
the
kind
of
housing
that
we
want
and
making
it
more
expensive.
Doesn't
it
goes
against
the
grain
of
having
low
income
and
moderate
income
and
middle-income
housing.
J
N
E
A
K
I
do
sorry
I
thought
my
mute
was
off
under
I
roman
numer,
a
little
roman
numeral,
one
for
lots
and
parcels
of
five
acres
or
less
at
least
one
qualifying
housing
type
shall
be
provided.
I'm
I'm
wondering
why
I
would
like
to
propose
staff
consider
two
qualifying
housing
types
so
that
we
don't
end
up
with
a
building,
that's
nothing
but
efficiencies.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
reasonable
concern.
F
K
K
Because
we
need
more
housing,
for
we
mean
we
need
more
diverse
housing.
We
have
lots
and
lots
and
lots
of
one-bedroom
and
efficiency
units
already
we're
going
to
keep
having
them,
they're
always
going
to
be
included
into
large
developments.
But
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
have
as
much
diverse
housing
as
possible.
F
K
K
Or
maybe
that
maybe
the
solution,
maybe
the
way
to
look
at
it,
is
make
it
make
a
parcel,
make
an
option
for
a
parcel.
That's
small,
that's
two
acres
that
could
be
one
only
one
qualifying
housing
type.
I
I
just
don't
think
you
want
any
one,
large-scale
development
that
has
only
one
housing
type.
If
it's
going
to
be
efficiency.
So
that's
that's
my
concern
so
figuring
out
how
to
make
sure
you
don't
have
a
building
of
nothing
but
efficiencies.
N
Concern
I
agree
with
that
and
I'm
just
thinking
back
to
all
the
projects
that
we've
seen
come
through
recently
and
I
think
we
all
are
interested
in
more
missing
middle.
You
know,
and
I
think
when
we
see
it
it
can.
I
don't
know
I
don't
know
about
the
developer
developer
performance
and
I'm
not
going
to
dig
into
it,
but
there
are
times
when
they
have
reasons
why
they
just
want
to
get
as
many
possible
units
in
as
they
can
as
small
as
possible,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
apartments.
N
We
see
a
lot
of
apartments
come
up,
it's
very,
very
common
and
what
I
don't
see
are
duplexes
row
houses
townhomes.
You
know
small
houses
cottages,
you
know
little
tiny
ranches
that
a
number
of
people
could
live
in
whatever
that
doesn't
show
up
it's
luxury
and
apartment
and
luxury
and
apartment
and
luxury
departments.
So
I
agree
I'd
like
staff
to
just
explore
that.
I
don't
know
what
the
answer
is.
I
think
you
know
we're
asking
for
some
help,
but
I
agree
with
that.
F
I'm
fine
with
stuff
taking
a
look
at
that.
I
do
think
that
it's
going
to
get
complicated
just
because
the
qualifying
housing
types
are
duplexes
attached,
dwelling
units,
townhouses
or
elus,
and
so
are
you
going
to
have
a
a
complex,
that's
elus
and
duplexes
like
I
don't
understand
exactly
how
staff
would
do
that.
I
trust
to
their
creativity,
but
I'm
just
pointing
this
out
as
potential
complication.
J
Think
the
next
one
is
environmental
preservation.
This.
This
is
pretty
much
an
existing
criterion
that
allows
for
preservation-
and
this
is
a
this-
is
the
second
one
is
similar
to
a
criterion
that
we
have
about
cutting
or
minimizing
cut
and
fill
on
properties.
We've
made
the
language
a
little
more
descriptive
to
understand
the
extent.
So
are
there
any
comments
on
this.
L
J
Q
J
A
K
I
have
a
couple
thoughts.
The
first
is
on
small
number,
one
where
no
adopted
plan
applies.
Good
faith,
coordinate
coordination
with
adjacent
property
owners.
This
may
already
be
in
there,
but
I
feel
like
we
got
to
make
sure
staff
is
part
of
that
discussion,
and
maybe
staff
already
is,
but
I
just
didn't
know
if
it's
already
an
implied
part
to
staff
participation.
J
K
Taking
steps
for
adopt
for
where
there
are
no
adopted
plans
right,
I
just
think
that
would
be
valuable
and
I
think
you
guys
may
already
do
that,
but
I
just
think
it
might
be
a
helpful
facilitation
step.
K
G
K
And
then
I
I
have
another
on
small
roman
numeral,
for
this
is
about
streets,
bikeways
and
pedestrian
ways.
This
isn't
so
much
about
the
language,
but
to
bring
up
something
that
harman
and
I
have
talked
about
for
used
to
talk
about
and
still
talk
about,
which
is
the
possibility
of
wider
sidewalks,
and
I
I
don't
know
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
for
you
all
to
think
about.
K
J
I
think
a
lot
of
that
is
handled
in
the
design
and
construction
standards,
but
it
doesn't.
This
particular
criterion
enables
us
to
work
with
the
applicant
to
be
like
you
know.
This
is
a
spine
that
goes
through
the
site
that
would
have
bicycle
traffic.
It
might
make
sense
to
widen
it
for
safety
reasons,
and
this
criterion
would
make
sense
to
apply
for
that.
E
So
I
have
a
question
regarding
roman
little
roman
numeral,
five
design,
a
vehicular
circulation
of
parking
areas.
E
We
we
address
vehicular
circulation
of
parking
areas.
We
don't
address
the
number
of
curb
cuts
and
access.
E
J
There's
actually
a
site
access
section
of
the
city's
development
standards
that
speaks
to
access
points
and
curb
cuts,
so
it
does
have
pretty
specific
requirements
of
when
a
property
gets
redeveloped
and
has
to
take
access
from
a
lower
category
street
and
when
a
curb
cut
would
need
to
be
sealed
up.
But
it
does
enable
applicants
to
ask
for
flexibility
from
those
standards
through
the
site
review
process.
Obviously,
then
we
would
be
using
these
criteria.
J
A
Okay,
it's
almost
10
o'clock,
I'm.
I
think
we
should
take
a
five
minute
break
and
see
if
we're
fresher
in
five
minutes.
G
G
F
A
I
F
Let's,
let's
do
I
think
the
only
one
I
have
that's
nighttime
does
have
snow
there.
You
go
lovely
that
one's
actually
a
morning.
Actually
that's
a
moon
rise
in
the
morning.
D
L
G
A
A
Okay,
well,
let's
we
made
some
decent
progress.
There
there's.
L
J
Not
a
sprint
yeah
all
right
now
we're
on
open
space.
So,
like
I
said,
a
lot
of
this
section
has
largely
been
updated
with
more
descriptive
language
about
how
to
meet
the
intent
of
the
code.
I
think
the
biggest
changes
are
the
one
related
to
the
courtyard
requirements
and
the
50
dwelling
units
requirement
for
the
active
recreation.
K
J
L
L
What
are
you
trying
to
get
at
with
that?
The
rest
of
of
the
code
seems
to
be
in
written
in
a
broader.
Well,
there
might
be
some
specifics
up
high,
but
that
one
is
just
like
you're
talking
about
specific
materials
that
are
being
proposed
or
talking
about
color.
You
know
that
they
should
be
a
color.
I
mean
why,
anyway,
that's
that's
my
comment.
If
I
don't
understand
it,
why
why
should
they
be
of
decorative
color
or
texture?
L
J
L
Well,
you
know
I
bring
it
up
again
in,
and
maybe
it's
in
another
section
where
I
talk
about
parking
if,
if
the
parking
gets
reduced,
does
that
land
then
go
to
a
higher
purpose
for
environmental
reasons
such
as
previous
ground,
it
seems
like
previous
ground
might
be
in
here
somewhere,
and
I
don't
know
where.
F
Mark
did
you
want
to
colloquy
on
what
ml
was
just
talking
about?
No,
no
okay,
so
I
have
one
on
open
space
that
may
or
may
not
be
appropriate,
so
feel
free
to
shoot
this
down.
If
it's
not,
but
I
was
concerned,
we
had
a
project
recently
where
that
there
were,
there
was
an
area
that
was
designed
to
meet
the
open
space
requirement
for
the
whole
project,
but
was
only
available
to
some
of
the
project
residents.
F
Not
all-
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way
to
put
it
into
the
code-
that
if
it,
if
it
counts
towards
open
space
for
the
whole
project,
it
has
to
be
open
to
the
users
all
of
the
users,
not
just
a
subset.
F
I
know
that
there's
a
certain
amount
of
like
private,
balconies
and
stuff
that
are
allowed
that
are
attached
to
individual
units,
but
but
beyond
that
it
was
a
little
I
mean,
and
I
understand
for
that
particular
project.
There
was
a
reason,
a
very
good
reason
that
goes
over
my
pay
grade,
but
I
would
not
like
to
see
that
become
a
habit
in
the
future.
J
F
If
we
could
just
somehow
specify
that,
because
I
that
has
always
been
my
interpretation
for
the
whole
month
and
a
half,
I've
been
on
planning
board,
but
we
had
a
project
coming
through
that.
That
subverted
that
and
again
there
were
reasons
and
happy
to
talk
about
it
offline.
But
I
don't
think
that
I'm
not
trying
to
talk
about
that
particular
project.
I
just
in
the
future
going
forward.
It
seems
like
if
it
counts,
towards
open
space
for
the
whole
project.
It
should
be
accessible
to
everybody
in
the
project.
E
That
did
not
want
that.
First,
it
was
not
anyway.
I
I
just
wonder
if
we
would
be
potentially
limiting
of
the
types
of
amenities
and
open
space
should
bhp
have
an
on-site
component
and
not
want
to
share
in,
for
whatever
reasons
the
economics
security
whatever
it
might
be.
They
don't
want
to
share
in
a
particular
amenity.
F
Yeah,
I
maybe
it's
a
broader
conversation
that
needs
to
be
had
so
that
there
is
a
a
thoughtful
consideration
of
all
of
the
aspects,
but
I
do
think
that.
E
Well,
maybe
it's
worded
somewhere
in
there
that
striving
for
that
again,
going
back
to
the
prescriptive
versus.
A
Guidance
but
anyway,
in
fact
there
there
have
been
other
projects
where
similar
issues
came
up.
You
know
three
and
four
years
ago,
and
I
I
think
laura's
point
is
excellent.
We
don't
know
the
reasons
why
certain
parties
agree
or
disagree
on
that
issue.
There
may
be
other
contractual
relationships
that
we
don't
know
about
between
various
priorities,
but
I
I
agree
with
that
comment
that
the
open
space
should
be
available
to
all
of
the
participants
all
of
the
residents
in
projects.
I.
O
I'm
I'm
also
very
supportive
of
that.
I
think
that
you
know
that
goes
core
to
equity
in
our
community
and
it's
it's
a
one
thing
to
say
it's
another
thing
to
do
it.
When
you
talk
to
developers,
then
I
know
the
reasons
why
and
they're
not
pretty
so
I'm
supportive
of
that.
O
E
A
doubling
of
that
seems
plausible.
O
A
Too,
I'm
I'm
open
to
that.
I
I'm
trying
to
imagine
if
you
know
we're
worried
about
planting
trees
in
the
middle
of
playing
fields
of
some
kind,
that
that
would
be
a
problem,
but
staff
can
take
a
look
at
that
and
consider
it.
Okay.
L
L
I
have
a
question
on
c
and
it's
a
question:
why
don't
we
require
a
use
of
gray
water
in
landscaping?
We
still
use
potable
water,
which
has
a
big
environmental
footprint.
M
Yeah
I
can
respond
to
that.
There
are
legal
reasons
for
that:
we've
explored
allowing
the
use
of
gray
water
under
building
code
requirements
and
have
not
gone
that
route
due
to
limitations
under
the
water
rights
that
the
city
has.
M
L
So
the
state
changed
out
its
its
water
use
and
even
with
that
shift,
grey
water
is
still
not
a
good
choice
for
landscaping.
M
It's
not
a
good
choice.
I
think
they're
they're,
it's
the
legal
decrees
for
the
water
that
the
city
owns
where
the
concerns
lie.
A
Yeah,
I
I
can
say
I
I
do
these
issues
professionally
and
and
hella
is
correct.
It's
it's
a
lot
more
complicated
than
one
might
think.
A
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I
agree,
it
would
be
great
it's
just.
There
are
messy
legal
issues
associated
with
it.
A
L
Well,
I'm
just
gonna
go
on
record
for
for
d
and
then
that
next
section
three
building
design
that
I
think
there
is
an
unnecessary
amount
of
of
prescriptive
burden
put
into
the
process,
and
I
understand
why
I
understand
that
you're
trying
to
have
control
over
an
outcome
but
truth
is
prescribing.
L
L
Fall
under
a
broad
community
benefit
when
you
know
what
looks
good
to
somebody
does
not
necessarily
look
good
to
somebody
else.
However,
when
a
building
functions
well
with
its
environment,
those
kind
of
buildings
tend
to
to
actually
be
a
benefit
when
they
produce
shade
when
they
cool
the
area
when
they
enable
inside
outside
relationships,
there's
a
whole
host
of
design
tools
that
good
designers
know
how
to
use
to
achieve
a
performance
based
buildings.
L
So
I
I
I
will
be
speaking
out
about
the
prescriptive
nature
of
of
this
ordinance
just
because
it
does
not
meet
the
goal.
I
I
do
not
believe
that
it
meets
the
goal
and
in
fact,
I'm
not
sure
that
it
meets
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
directives
of
a
sustainable
and
resilient
building.
L
O
Hey
ml,
can
I
can
I
ask
you,
because
your
experience
is
really
valuable
here.
I
guess,
can
I
ask
you
how
something
in
in
your
mind,
could
be
written
in
a
way
that
could
be
somewhat
prescriptive,
or
maybe
maybe
it
can't
be?
I
don't
want
to
put
words
in
your
mouth
of
how
you
would
look
at
it
where,
where
would
get
the
outcome
that
we
want
and
still
provide
a
roadmap.
L
You
know
I
looked
at
the
number
number
five
all
right
now.
It's
currently
called
alternate
compliance,
and
I
would
rewrite
that
section
to
be
the
actual
compliance
path
and
the
language
that
I
put
there
now
is.
The
purpose
of
site
review
is
to
allow
flexibility
and
encourage
innovation
in
landis
development,
which
is
the
title
to
this
whole
section
right.
The
following
shall
be
met,
referring
to
specific
bbc
policy
and
substantiated
with
clear
metrics.
L
So
it's
and
I
think,
as
we
define
the
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
policies
that
would
be
relevant
here,
it
would
give
people
okay.
I
am
going
to
meet
this
boulder
valley,
comp
plant
or
these
you
know
handful.
However,
we
articulate
that
of
in
this
regard,
and
here
will
be
the
way
you
measure
that,
and
you
know
we
don't
give
enough
credit
to
the
professions
that
work
in
this
in
this
arena.
L
O
To
me
that
sounds
like
being
a
planning
board
member
for
the
past
year.
That
sounds
like
the
the
current
site
review
criteria.
Already,
unless
I'm
hearing
you
differently,
I.
L
What
I'm
trying
to
get
across
is
that
is
that
we
hold
the
buildings
accountable
to
articulated
bc
policies
that
have
to
do
with
sustainability
and
resilience
and
that
we
require
some
metrics
just
to
support
that.
So
we're
asking
for
performance
based
we're
asking
them
to
perform
in
a
particular
way,
rather
than
to
prescribe
an
aesthetic.
L
No,
it's
not
you
know.
The
thing
with
energy
code
is,
if
you
don't
have
these
holistic
overarching
considerations
that
include
form,
they
include
material.
They
include
site,
as
well
as
building
systems
and
building
assembly,
which
is
primarily
right.
Energy
codes
building
systems
and
building
assembly,
these
other
bigger
components
of
a
building
need
to
be
pursuing
sustainability
and
resilient
goals.
From
the
very
beginning,
you
can't
come
back
afterward
and
say:
okay,
now,
I'm
going
to
go
meet
the
building
energy
code,
and
I
think
I
will
now
add
this
battery.
L
You
can't
do
that
if
you're,
if
you're,
going
to
ask
for
a
building
to
perform
relative
to
some
sustainable
and
resiliency
standards,
that
is
a
holistic
approach
and
it
is
a
design
problem
right.
You
are.
F
L
I
think,
if
my
take
on
on
the
prescriptive
design
directives
a
they
don't
belong
in
a
zoning
code.
They
belong
in
design
guidelines
so.
K
L
Off
this
is
the
wrong
place
for
them,
so
I
I
my
thought
is:
let's
not
have
them.
Instead,
let's
define
a
way
to
achieve
the
ultimate
goal
and
if
our
ultimate
goal
is
going
to
be
driven
by
moldova
valley
comp
plan
by
we
want
sustainable
and
resilient
buildings
and
community.
Well,
let's
do
that.
Let's
state
that.
D
F
F
Says
I'm
going
to
quote
from
the
bbcp
boulder's
outward?
Expansion
is
limited
and
the
inward
redevelopment
and
infill
that
occurs
make
high
quality
public
places
and
building
design
critical
and
when
we
did
east
boulder.
This
was
one
of
the
five
main
goal.
Areas
was
design,
quality
and
placemaking.
So
I
I
understand
wanting
to
judge
a
building
by
its
ability
to
perform,
rather
than
how
pretty
it
is.
F
But
I
do
think
that
what
the
buildings
look
like
matter
to
a
lot
of
the
members
of
our
community-
and
it
is
in
our
bvcp
that
we
want
our
places
to
look
a
certain
way.
We
want
them
to
have
high
quality
design,
high
quality
materials
and
that's
what
I
think
this
section
of
the
code
was
meant
to
do,
and
I.
G
F
At
least
at
least
that
that
point
about
the
prescriptive
nature
of
these
elements
like
if
there
are
other
elements
that
you
think
are
missing,
I
think
that's
fair
game,
but
I
think
you
know
saying
that
things
should
be
less
prescriptive.
I
think
we
already
kind
of
lost
that
one.
L
I
was
responding
to
people's
questions,
so
if
there
are
no
more
questions
of
my
of
my
thought
here
that
we
revisit
this
whole
thing
in
the
language
that
I
put
forth,
that
has
more
to
do
with
where
we
we
called
it
alternative
compliance,
and
we
rewrite
that
so
that
the
compliance
is
is
different,
and
I
actually
think
that
the
a
performance
based
criteria
will
get
us
closer
to
the
goals
of
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan.
L
I
think
to
me
that's
the
driving
document
and
I
I
love
the
idea
that
we're
going
to
articulate
which
parts
of
the
comp
plan
where
we
want
to
hold
ourselves
accountable
to
and
maybe
that'll
help
flesh
this
out.
But
I
do
I
do
recognize
that
we
have
been
going
down
this
path
of
trying
to
figure
out.
Why
are
we
getting
the
kinds
of
buildings
that
we're
getting
that
we're
not
happy
with
on
so
many
scales,
and
I
don't
think
that
putting
a
a
prescriptive
layer
into
our
code
is
the
means
to
that
end.
L
I
agree
that
there
is
a
problem.
I
disagree
with
the
solution.
I
don't
know
that
there
is
any
evidence
that
shows
that
putting
these
kinds
of
things
in
place-
and
I
think
somebody
asked
putting
these
things
in
place-
actually
gives
an
outcome
that
is
going
to
meet
somebody's
idea
of
this
is
the
status
aesthetically,
pleasing
or
not?
L
I
I,
I
think,
carl
you
were
asked
at
the
beginning.
Did
you
do
any
precedent?
Studies
and
you
know
about
these
kinds
of
things,
and
I
I
think
the
answer
was
no
not
really,
and
I
don't
know
that
there
are
really
any
that
show
this
show
this
particular
phenomenon.
So
I
don't
know
that
there's
evidence
to
support
this
direction
and
I
think
it
if
I
read
the
public
comments
and
I
saw
what
both
my
profession
and
other
professionals
in
the
development
world
had
to
say
these
requirements.
L
A
So
ml,
what?
How
would
performance
standards
look.
L
I
I
would
defer
performance
standards
to
point
to
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
criteria
that
we
determine
is
going
to
be
guiding
this
process,
because
I
do
believe
that
I
mean
I
could
point
to
some
now,
but
that's
not
what
I'm
going
to
do.
I
think
that
that
is
one
place
where
that
could
be
referred
to
and
say:
okay
here
here
are
the
performance
bases
to
get
us
to
this
this,
and
this-
and
here
are
the
metrics
that
will
do
that.
L
Building
science
is
a
pretty
robust
component
of
construction
these
days
and
it
has
been
ever
since
green
buildings.
You
know
came
on
board
three
decades
ago.
So
building
science
is
not
it's
common.
It's
it's
it's
there.
Everybody
knows
how
to
do
how
to
use
these
tools.
L
R
Hello,
this
is
david
from
planning
and
development
services.
If
I
might
sum
up,
it
sounds
to
me
ml,
like
what
you're
trying
to
get
at
is
that
the
standards
in
this
section
of
the
code
are
overly
prescriptive,
that
we
need
to
have
more
of
a
performance-based
approach
and
to
add
some
level
of
flexibility
based
on
context
in
terms
of
what
we
bring
back
to
the
board
is,
is
that
kind
of
I
don't
mean
to
oversimplify
it,
but.
B
R
Of
kind
of
where
you're
trying
to
get
at.
E
John,
I
I
have
going
from
the
macro
to
the
micro
d:
two:
no
building
along
the
public
round
shop,
less
than
one
defined
entry
for
every
75
feet
of
frontage,
as
described
in
sub
paragraph
one.
I
believe
that's
the
paragraph
directly
above
it.
E
So
the
word
frontage,
if
I'm
building
a
large
industrial
light
manufacturing
building
frontage,
only
refers
to
the
the
area
of
the
building
that
that
faces
the
street.
Is
that
correct.
J
E
E
So,
and
is
it
just
an
entry
I
mean
I
adore,
you
know
if
a
developer
took
this
to
the
minimal
standard,
I'm
envisioning
a
hundred
foot,
long
wall
that
has
a
a
door
in
it
that
they
placed
there
to
meet
the
prescription
of
this
code,
which
doesn't
really
have
a
function
and
is
unadorned,
and
you
know
it's
just
one
of
those
things.
It's
like
yep.
J
E
E
I
understand
the
intent
got
it,
but
it
seems
like
it
could
be
both
abused
and,
in
fact,
in
a
certain
circumstance,
actually
be
detrimental.
So
that's
my
input
on
two
and
one
d,
two
and
one.
R
So
so
mark
that
sounds
great
and
if
I
can
kind
of
play
it
back
to
you
for
kind
of
staff
feedback,
it
kind
of
sounds
like
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
is
that
this
may
be
a
general
generally
good
design
standard.
But
it's
not
a
good
design
standard
in
all
instances
and
that
we
need
to
kind
of
figure
out
what
the
flexibility
is
associated,
with
kind
of
how
it
would
be
applied
in
different
contexts.
A
O
O
I
want
to
acknowledge
some
of
what
ml
was
saying
around
sustainability
and
energy,
but
I
I
don't
I.
I
also
want
to
put
out
my
position
that
I
I
think
what
staff
has
developed
here.
Well,
it
may
not
be
perfect.
O
I
I
think
it
makes
overall
a
lot
of
sense
to
me,
but
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
what
what
what
ml
said
in
regards
to
sustainability
and
performance.
I
just
don't
know
that
to
me
that
belongs
here,
but
belongs
more
sort
of
in
environmental
energy
parameters,
so
just
putting
it
out
there.
G
L
Building
design
abc,
I
I
don't
think
we
need
that
level
of
prescription
at
all
and
actually
some
of
them
like
small,
four
and
five.
Those
are
already
proposed
elsewhere,
so
they're
kind
of
redundant
in
any
case.
But
my
comments
before
apply
to
this
and
to
the
next
section
of
building
design
a
majority
of
number
four
as
well,
although
there's
some
specificity,
but
I
don't
need
to
get
into
that.
R
So
so,
just
as
if
I
could
ml
so
just
in
terms
of
one
and
two,
it's
a
similar
comment
as.
A
G
L
Yeah,
I
think
that
you
know
they
read
more
like
design
guidelines,
and
so
I,
if
that's
what
you
mean
by
context
specific
and
and
oftentimes,
you
will
have
design
guidelines
in
the
context,
but
they're
not
in
a
zoning
code.
So
that
would
be
my
differentiation.
It's
not
like
they're,
not
valid
anywhere
they
just
this
is
this.
Is
this
is
not
the
place
for
that
level
of
prescription.
A
F
Thank
you.
I
think
there
are
a
couple
places
where
you
have
made
some
exceptions
for
single-family
homes,
duplexes
townhouses
mobile
home
parks,
for
example,
in
a2,
and
I
made
a
general
comment
about
this
prior
to
the
meeting
in
my
written
comments.
F
But
I
would
you
know:
you're
making
an
exception
for
smaller
projects,
so
that
these
prescriptive
requirements
are
not
a
deterrent
to
smaller
projects,
and
I
support
that
100
percent
and
my
comment
is
to
expand
the
kinds
of
units
that
you
include
in
these
exemptions
and
the
I
would
peg
it
to
the
definition
of
core
missing
middle
core
missing
middle
housing.
That's
in
paroleex
book
missing
middle
housing.
F
It
talks
about
other
kinds
of
plexes
like
triplexes
quadplexes,
small
cottage
quartz,
that
kind
of
thing
that
he
defines
as
missing
middle
and
I
think,
if
you're
going
to
be
making
exemptions
to
try
to
not
dissuade
small
projects
that
you
should
peg
it
to
that
definition
of
core
missing
middle
housing.
J
F
G
R
My
apologies,
if
I'm
getting.
A
Out
of
place,
I'm
I'm
happy.
You
did
yeah
all
right,
let's
just
crawl
on
through
here
and
see
where
folks
have
comments.
J
E
So
I
have
a
clarification.
Has
this
recently
so
we're
talking
about
small
roman
numeral?
Four?
Is
this
much
more
specific
than
it
was
in
some
prior
draft.
J
J
E
So
would
a
using
the
tools
using
available
tools
and
reference
materials
as
a
developer?
Could
I
produce
a
design
by
using
specific
elements,
two
by
six
construction
with
this
type
of
insulation
and
a
three
inches
of
separation
between
panes
of
glass
and
triple
pain?
Could
could
I
do
something?
E
J
I
think
it's
possible
to
to
do
a
certain
type
of
wall
design
in
an
area
that's
subject
to
this,
but
I
think
the
way
we
do
have
it
written
here
is
that
we
would
need
some
sort
of
confirming
letter
from
an
expert
that
that
would
work
unless
we
specifically
prescribe
what
that
wall
construction
would
have
to
be
in
these
areas.
G
J
R
Okay,
so
it
is
possible-
I
you
know
to
kind
of
to
mark's
point
that
that
we,
you
know
at
least
maybe
not
the
first
day
but
over
time,
that
we
could
kind
of
come
up
with
standard
approaches
to
meeting
the
standard
without
requiring
a
lot
of
expense
of
of
people
who
are
trying
to
meet
the
standard.
G
A
F
A
Q
F
So
maybe
this
is
a
good
time
for
me
to
bring
up
my
general
proposal
that
I
brought
up
at
the
beginning
that
I
understand
that
we
lost
the
vote
on
prescriptive
versus
generality
here.
But
would
the
board
be
interested
in
having
dab,
take
a
look
at
these
very
specific
building
criteria,
building
characteristics
and
weighing
in
on
whether
they
think
they
are
generally
applicable
to
site
review
situations
across
the
city
or
if
they
would
have
any
concerns
with
that,
since
they
are
our
architectural
design,
experts
in
the
city.
R
Before
the
board
weighs
in
on
that
carl,
I
assume
that
we
would
be
amenable
to
just
doing
that.
Is
there
anything
that
I'm
not
thinking
of.
R
F
That
would
be
great.
Thank
you
david.
I
think
that
the
dab
would
have
really
good
advice
on
which
of
these,
they
think
are
very
broadly
applicable
and
if
they
have
any
concerns
in
any,
you
know,
use
types
or
case
types
that
maybe
don't
spring
immediately
to
mind.
Unless
you're
working
with
this
day
in
day
out,
yeah.
N
A
Whoa,
oh,
that
you
got
eight
or
nine
hours
left
before
that.
A
Okay,
so
you
don't
need
anything
from
us
to
take
it
to
dab,
then
david
and
no,
no
we'll
just
do
it.
Okay!
Well,
thank
you
laura.
I
think
I
agree
that
that's
a
good
idea.
F
A
F
N
Specific,
I
think,
a
lot
of
stuff's
getting
touched
on
by
other
folks,
so
I
don't
really
feel
the
need
to
get
super
in
depth
on
it.
I
also
think
this
is
going
to
come
back
to
us
and
I
will
have
the
opportunity
to
say
more
if
I
realize
that
there's
something
that
I'm
really
fired
up
about,
I
can
always
email
staff,
but
not
at
this
time.
A
N
It
might
be
useful
and
not
now,
because
it's
already
so
late-
and
I
don't
know
the
best
way
to
share
it
stuff,
I'm
sure
knows,
but
to
look
back
to
some
of
the
presentations
that
were
quite
a
while
ago.
But
I
know
carl,
you
did
a
pretty
extensive
presentation
in
which
you
showed
the
past
iteration
of
the
planning
board,
kind
of
and
mli.
N
I
think
you'll
have
strong
feelings
about
it
and
understand
where
they're
coming
from,
but
you
kind
of
showed
what
had
been
happening
and
kind
of
the
effect
of
not
having
some
of
these
codes
and
then
right
way
that
that
led
to
some
of
these-
and
I
I
think,
some
of
our
playing
board
members
didn't
may
or
may
not
have
watched
that
as
audience
members
but
weren't
present
as
planning
board
members.
N
So
I
don't
know
how
in
depth
we
have
to
get
on
it
now,
but
I
just
wonder
if
that
might
be
an
interesting
thing
to
read
back
into
the
record
or
send
around
or
something
to
help
inform
why
some
of
this
you
know
was
created.
I
just
remember
pictures
of
sad
little.
You
know
we
saw
some
of
it,
I
think
repeated
today,
but
I
think
that
the
whole
thing
might
be
useful
to
the
show
again.
F
R
So
is
this
one
of
those
issues
where
it's
more
context
oriented?
You
know.
I
know
that
there's
a
rhythm
of
windows
where
recessed
windows
make
a
lot
of
sense
and
then
there
are
things
like,
dare
I
say,
the
east
folder
sub
community
plan
where
there's
a
lot
of
buildings
where
they're
not
recessed.
O
I
think
what
what
what
you
talked
about,
which
was
you
know
in
general.
I
think
what
you
we
heard
from
us
at
the
beginning
was
at
least
the
majority
of
us
was
generally
these
prescriptive.
Things
are
fine
with
us
to
go
forward
and
I
think,
to
laura's
point
right:
getting
getting
some
feedback
from
dav
just
to
make
sure
that
they
also
agree
on
sort
of
the
aesthetic
side
is
not
a
not
a
bad
call.
O
I
think
it
gets
gets
planning
board
a
little
bit
deep
into
the
weeds,
and
I
think
at
least
from
my
perspective,
I
gotta
trust
staff
and
trust
the
process
that
we've
gotten
here
so
far.
R
Okay,
that
that
that
makes
sense
to
me,
so
it
just
that
this
would
be
one
of
the
one
of
the
issues
that
we
would
try
to
focus
with
dab
on
in
terms
of
like
what's
the
appropriate
standard,
and
where
is
that
standard
appropriately
to
be
applied?.
L
I
I
I
would
just
I
would
like
to
weigh
in
it
would
be.
I
think
it
would
be
very
useful
if
there
could
be
some
evidence
that
these
kinds
of
codes
actually
lead
to
a
shift
in
the
building
results.
L
I
don't,
I
don't
know
of
any
study
or
anything,
but
it
seems
like
this
is
a
this
is
a
big
load
to
put
on
to
the
people
wanting
you
know
to
enter
into
this
process
and
if,
if
we
don't
have
any
evidence
that
shows
that
these
actually
get
us
somewhere,
you
know
you
kind
of
kind
of
makes,
makes
you
wonder
it's
like.
Okay,
we
tried
this
that
didn't
work
now,
let's
try
this
if
there
would
be
any
way
to
bring
some
evidence
to
these
things,
make
a
difference.
L
R
Yeah,
no,
I
I
think
I
get
that
and
from
my
perspective
and
for
whatever
it's
worth,
I
don't
get
the
vote.
But
from
my
perspective,
this
issue
is
really
one
of
aesthetics
as
opposed
to
functionality,
and
I
think
that
what
would
help
staff
is
for
either
the
board
or
dab
to
help
us
sort
out
that
aesthetic
issue.
O
Yeah
and
to
me,
I
think,
staff
has
brought
forward.
Evidence
may
be
a
little
strong,
but
but
they've
brought
forward.
You
know
sort
of
things
that
have
been
designed
with
ifis
and
flush
windows
and
things
like
that
and
as
the
types
of
things
that
they're
trying
to
avoid
with
with
with
a
codification
of
something
like
this,
and
so
for
me.
You
know
that
and-
and
I
think
from
the
people
that
I've
heard
from
in
the
community.
O
I
think
what
they're
trying
to
do
here
and
codify
makes
sense.
So
I'll
put
that
out
as
a
as
a
proponent
of
trying
to
put
something
in
that's
prescriptive.
That
gets
us
out
of
at
least
stuff
that
we
know
we
don't
want.
R
Right,
okay,
so
yes,
no,
I
appreciate
that
and
you
know
I
just
also
want
to
acknowledge
that
it's
a
value
judgment
and
we
we
value
the
board's
opinion
when
it
comes
to
making
those
kind
of
value
judgments.
F
I'll
just
say
for
me:
I
feel,
like
aesthetics
in
architecture
change
over
time,
just
like
they
do
in
clothing,
and
you
can
see
you
know
you
can
identify
buildings
by
the
decade
by
the
kinds
of
materials
they're
made
out
of
and
the
kind
of
aesthetic
that
they
put
forward,
and
so,
if
anybody's
going
to
help
codify.
What
is
the
aesthetic
of
now
like?
R
A
R
Yeah,
it
looks
like
mark
has
his
hand
up
for
a
comment.
E
Quick,
the
the
minimum
depth
requirement
and
the
amount
of
perimeter
a
budding
exterior
wall
I
have
experienced
in
in
old,
italian
or
spanish
european
cities,
the
balcony
that
that
really
serves
as
a
guard
rail
for
a
set
of
doors
that
opens
to
the
outside,
where
a
deep
balcony
due
to
street
width
or
whatever,
really
wouldn't
have
been
applicable,
and
so
I'm
not
advocating
that
we
have
a
stucco
building
with
a
fake
italian
balcony
tacked
onto
it.
E
But
the
way
I
read
this
that
that
that
sort
of
thing,
if
it
was
even
if
it
was
designed
properly
and
aesthetically,
was
kind
of
part
of
that
whole.
You
know
shallow
balcony,
which
is
really
functioning
as
a
big
window.
That's
operable
that
would
entirely
be
permitted
prohibited
by
this
section
of
the
code.
Yes,.
J
L
I
I
would,
I
would
suggest,
mark
that
what
you're
talking
about
is
the
difference
between
performance-based
design,
the
italian
or
french
things
that
you
they
were
totally
about
performance
right.
The
doors
had
to
fit,
they
had
to
open
out
and
they
were
designed
to
function.
So
it's
all
about
how
you're
going
to
use
the
space
versus
okay.
These
are
just
some
parameters
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
how
you're
going
to
use
the
space
or
the
ability
for
the
building
to
breathe,
which
is
you
know
the
balconies
were
the
things.
L
So
that's
very
thank
you
for
bringing
it
up.
That's
a
very
clear
example
of
the
difference
between
the
two
ways
of
approaching
the
same,
very
same
phenomenon
when
you
end
up
with
something
that
is,
that
is
brilliantly
useful
and
the
other
you
end
up
with
something
that
has
a
particular
aesthetic
for
the
sole
purpose
of
having
a
specific
aesthetic.
E
I'll
just
say
it's
a
I
find
this
to
be.
I
understand
the
intent
here.
I
I
find
it
to
be
too
prescriptive
in
the
sense
of
what
I
just
described
so
I'll.
R
Leave
it
at
that
yeah.
No,
that
is
a
great
comment,
and
it
will
be
one
of
the
issues
that
we
will
that
we
will
highlight
for
dab
to
help
us
kind
of
work
through
what
the
appropriate
standard
is.
R
A
Right
anything
else,
just
for
the
sake
of
clarity,
I
I
think
mark
makes
a
good
point.
I
I
get
the
objective
of
of
this
prescription,
but
the
degree
of
prescription
may
be
excessive
here.
So.
G
J
The
building
detailing
section-
that's
where
the
expression
lines
are
so
I
talked
about
that
in
the
presentation,
so
it's
just
that
two
inch
horizontal
offset
of
material
just
to
create
that
shadow
line.
So
it's
either
between
the
bottom
floor
and
the
floor
above
or
with
a
parapet.
Building
within
three
feet
of
the
of
the
parapet.
Are
there
concerns
about
this
section.
L
F
G
J
So
the
next
section
is,
is
the
building
design
masking
and
height
requirements
this.
These
are
the
s,
the
criteria
that
apply
to
any
buildings
that
are
basically
going
for
a
height
modification
for
a
fourth
or
fifth
story.
L
I
I
suggest
that,
because
we're
having
such
trouble
defining
high
quality
so
shall
meet
the
following
requirements:
to
ensure
high
quality,
that
we
would
scratch
high
quality
and
add
that
are
compatible
with
the
context
and
then
add
environmental
considerations
in
human
scale,
so
that
we're
trying
to
give
some
direction
that
maybe
can
land
back
in
in
our
comp
plan
values.
L
D
Souls
components
that
bring
it
back
home.
A
J
J
So
you
know
human
scale
might
be
you
know
a
two-story
building
to
one
person
or
it
might
be.
It
could
be
a
four-story
building
to
someone
else
if
the
upper
stories
were
set
back.
So
that's
the
thing:
is
it
just
it's,
not
something
that
is
universal.
L
Well,
I
think,
do
you:
do
you
think
that
it
could
be
defined
under
definitions?
I
mean
architecturally.
There
are
definitions
for
this.
Do
you
not
think
that
it
could
it
would?
It
could
be
useful
and
then
have
a
definition
that
would
give
it
give
it
specificity.
J
L
R
Is
that
something
that
would
be
appropriate
for
the
dab
review,
because
I
do
know
over
the
years,
as
I
have
seen
human
scale
kind
of
applied
to
different
projects
you
know
in
in
one
instance,
you
know
it
may
be
some
type
of
covering
over
the
pedestrian
way
in
a
four-story
building
and
something
else
when
it's
an
industrial
building,
that
that
would
be
something
that
that
we
could
ask
for
the
advice
of
dab
on.
G
A
F
A
G
F
F
I
think
we
already
have
a
map
that
restricts
where
people
can
ask
for
height
based
on
zoning,
and
then
we
also
have
this
provision
about
adopted,
sub-community
plans
and
guidelines,
and
carl
you
put
up
a
very
nice
slide
of
that.
Thank
you.
F
I
don't
think
they
have
to
be
on
a
transit
quarter
and
I
don't
think
they
have
to
be
within
a
thousand
feet
of
another
tall
building.
I'm
sensitive
to
the
concern
that
george
raised
when
we
looked
at
the
building
on
walnuts
that
you
know
if,
if
it
means
that
you're
putting
up
a
new
tent
pole,
a
new
hype
thing
every
time
you
put
up
a
tall
building,
that
makes
it
way
more
of
a
a
fraught
decision
about
whether
you
allow
that
height.
F
J
Just
because
the
first
one
relates
to
just
those
areas
that
are
area
plan
areas,
but
two
is,
is
trying
to
afford
some
flexibility
for
areas
that
are
not
in
an
area
plan
area.
So
it
creates
those
criteria
to
look
at
areas
near
a
transit
corridor.
If
we
struck
two,
it
would
limit
it
only
to
those
area
plan
areas
which
is.
F
F
Else
looks
like
it's
fair
game
to
ask
for
a
height
exemption,
and
so
what
I'm
saying
is
in
all
of
those
other
zones,
you
should
allow
people
to
ask
for
a
height
exemption
in
exchange
for
community
benefit
anywhere
in
those
zones,
not
just
limited
to
the
transit
corridors
within
those
zones.
Does
that
make
sense,
carl?
It.
F
E
Pretty
much
exactly
I
I
I
just
find
it.
You
know
boulder
has
a
long
history
of
misunderstanding
and
contention
over
height
limits.
You
know
you
ask
the
person
on
the
street.
Well,
how
tall
can
you
build?
Well
many?
If
they
have
any
answer
at
all,
it
might
be
35
feet,
it
might
be
55
feet
it.
E
There
there's
a
lot
of
misunderstanding
here
and
I
and
I
think
that
that
boulder
as
boulder
continues
to
evolve
and
change
and
and
my
hope
that
we
house
more
people
who
work
here
and
recreate
here
that
the
the
1000
foot
criteria
that
something
else
has
to
exist
today
to
create
the
community
benefit
that
we
want
tomorrow
is.
Is
it
it's
it's
it's
too
restrictive.
E
It's
a
whole
nother
overlay,
it's
a
whole
nother
layer
of
complexity,
and
I
it
concerns
me
that
when
you
say
that
well
we
would
we
would
actually
create
less
opportunity
for
a
height
exemption
if
we
took
out
two
of
the
two
in
its
entirety,
and
so
I
think,
laura
summed
it
up.
Well,
if
that's
not
the
intent-
and
maybe
you
just
take
out
all
the
reference
to
the
thousand
feet-
and
you,
if
you
have
to
make
exceptions,
just
demonstrate
that
you're
near
high
frequency
transit
corridor
et
cetera.
E
But
it's
it's
anyway.
I
think
we
need
to
accommodate
and
live
with
our
current
set
of
height
restrictions
and
not
add
on
this
overlay
of
thousand
foot
circles.
To
that.
G
J
There's
a
criterion
in
the
code
that
just
says
the
building's
height
massing
orientation
configuration
are
consistent
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area
and
that
the
building's
height
is
in
general
proportion
with
other
buildings
in
the
area.
J
The
reason
we
tightened
this
criterion
up
is
because
that
was
one
of
the
main
things
that
was
brought
up
in
the
initial
parts
of
the
project
that
we
needed
to
look
at
being
more
specific
and
hone
in
on
which
areas
would
be
appropriate
for
height
modifications,
instead
of
just
broadly
allowing
it
so.
O
O
Blanket
five
stories:
if
you
want
it,
come
get
it
community
benefit
and
what?
What
what
I
understand
our
our
policy
is
today,
is
go
ahead
and
get
community
benefit,
but
the
building
also
has
to
sit
in
the
context
of
where
it
stands,
and
that
is
a
discretionary
review
of
planning
board.
For
that
specific
reason,
because
you
need
to
think
about
context
and
so
they're
putting
they're
codifying
some
of
that
context
in
here,
a
thousand
feet
and
and
the
transit
corridor
rather
than
just
leaving
it
a
total
discretion.
E
So
I
hear
you,
but
I
I
would
say
this,
that
there
are
when
we
refer
to
the
character
of
the
surrounding
area
and
not
that
this
was
an
issue
at
diagonal
plaza,
but
when
we
think
about
diagonal
plasma
and
character,
existing
character
character,
the
surrounding
area,
well,
the
character
of
the
surrounding
area
is
a
dump
and
it's
awful,
and
so
I
think
the
discretionary.
E
The
discretionary
quality
of
the
current
code
to
me
is
preferable
over
the
requirement
that
I
I
have
to
comport
with
a
character
that
may
or
may
not
be
desirable
for
the
city's
goals
for
our
housing
goals
and
and
and
the
the
thousand
feet
gee.
Maybe
I
have
a
great
project
and
it's
a
thousand
20
feet.
You
know
I
that
that's.
F
And-
and
I'm
actually
saying
something
further
than
that,
so
I
want
to
ask
carl:
maybe
if
you
don't
mind,
could
you
put
up
the
map?
That's
on
the
pdf
page
32,
it's
page
19
of
81
in
the
packet.
F
So
this
does
not
exist
today.
As
far
as
I
understand
it,
this
is
something
new
that
we
would
be
accepting
when
we
accept
this
ordinance-
and
I
am
not
fighting
this
right,
even
though
I
am
a
proponent
of
allowing
height
for
community
benefit,
I'm
going
to
wait.
Till
carl
puts
the
map
up.
It's
a
page
yeah
page
19
of
81
in
the
packet
well.
F
Okay,
so
that's
one
of
the
maps
I
wanted
to
see.
So
this
is
something
new
that
we're
creating
that
says
height
for
community
benefit
cannot
exist
in
any
of
these
low-density
residential
zones.
I'm
okay
with
that,
mostly
because
I
know
that
height
limitations
are
important
if
we
ever
want
to
get
missing
middle
anywhere
in
the
city,
because
missing
middle
according
to
daniel
parolic
and
all
of
his
experience
and
all
of
his
research
in
his
book
cannot.
It
is
not
compatible
with
an
area
where
you
can
build
taller.
F
You
have
to
stay
within
two
and
a
half
stories
or
less.
If
you
can
go
taller,
people
will
go
taller.
It
will
not
be
economically
feasible
to
include
much
missing
middle.
So
I'm
okay
with
having
large
swaths
of
the
city,
which
currently
are
mostly
single
family,
but
might
not
always
be
where
you
have
that
height
limitation,
so
we're
creating
something
new,
a
height
limitation
which
does
not
exist,
and
some
people
have
complained
that
this
is
just
a
new
appendix
j.
F
But
yeah
you
can
see
here,
there's
like
half
the
city
is
in
and
adopted,
and
east
boulder
is
going
to
be
coming
soon.
That's
in
an
adopted
area,
plan
or
sub-community
plan,
which
also
will
tell
us
something
about
zoning
and
height,
and
so
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
the
city
that
is
left
that
doesn't
have
either
those
single-family
residential
low-density
districts,
largely
single-family,
or
an
adopted
area,
planner
sub-community
plan.
F
O
All
this
has
been
settled
right,
so
I
agree
with
you.
What
what's
been
put
in,
there
has
basically
tried
to
codify
what
context.
Is
I'm
fine
with
sticking
with
what
we
have
today,
which
is
context,
so
we
get
as
planning
board
to
look
at
the
surrounding
area
that
the
community
gets
to
be
involved
with
that
decision
and
look
at
context
and
understand
it
before
it
gets
rubber
stamped
and
what
what
they've
actually
put
in
here
is
is,
is
a
little
bit
less
of
a
barrier
to
context
than
what.
G
G
O
Is
already,
in
my
perspective,
a
little
bit
more
aggressive
than
what
exists
and
what
you're
suggesting
takes
context
and
the
discretion
of
planning
board
and
the
input
from
the
community
and
wipes
it
out
and
just
becomes
community
benefit
period.
F
Well,
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
true,
I
think
that
you
know
anything
else
that
applies
to
when
you
can
ask
for
community
benefit
and
the
discussion
around.
What
that
looks
like
it's,
not
an
automatic.
You
are
granted
a
height
modification
in
exchange
for
community
benefit,
it's
you
can
ask
for
it,
and
I
don't
like
having
this
prescriptive
criteria.
That
says
you
can
only
ask
for
it
if
you're
within
a
thousand
feet
circle
about
those
tent
poles
or
you're
near
a
major
arterial.
F
I
think
that's
too
restrictive,
because
there
may
be
buildings
like
in
other
areas,
and
I
can't
think
of
an
example
right
now,
but
there
might
be
buildings
in
other
areas
that
are
not
within
a
thousand
feet
of
another
tall
building
or
an
arterial
that
are
in
those
zones.
So
I
think
it's
too
restrictive
and
I
agree
with
you.
I
am
asking
for
something
different,
I'm
suggesting
something
different,
so
I
think
we
have
three
options
on
the
table:
go
with
staff's
proposal
go
back
to
the
way.
F
O
F
I
don't
know,
is
it
hella?
Is
there
anything
else
in
the
criteria?
Besides
that
paragraph
about
context
that
would
make
it
not
an
automatic
grant
for
height.
O
J
We
originally
didn't
have
the
context
language
in
there
and
in
talking
to
the
site,
review,
focus
group
and
others.
We
did
re-add
the
language
about,
so
you
still
have
to
find
that
the
building's
height
mass
and
scale
is
compatible
with
other
buildings
in
in
the
vicinity.
J
J
We
do
have
that
language
in
there,
but
the
thousand
foot
is
kind
of
an
additional
bar,
but
we
could
remove
that
and
just
go
back
to
just
including
the
context.
M
And
and
the
intent
of
putting
the
1000
feet
in
there
was
to
give
a
little
bit
more
specificity
of
what
the
area
is
that
we're
looking
at.
In
terms
of
where
you
find
compatibility.
M
Yeah,
I
think
it
would
be
good
to
hear
from
you
all
if
you
prefer
to
keep
a
standard
like
is
currently
in
the
code.
That
generally
asks
for
compatibility
without
adding
this
specificity
or
if
you
would
like
to
see
more
specificity,
and
maybe
a
thousand
feet
is
not
the
right
measure,
but
I
think
that's
what
would
be
valuable
to
us
and
moving
forward.
K
A
I
agree,
and
I
I
personally
think
that
the
existing
language
is
is,
is
satisfactory.
K
I'll
give
you
an
example
where
the
existing
works,
so
the
harvest
house
hotel
proposal
came
to
us.
They
it's
it's
a
35
foot
zone
but
because
across
the
creek
are
buildings
that
are
taller,
they're
actually
taller
than
55
feet,
because
they
were
built
before
that.
Well,
they
I
don't
know
if
they
were
built
before
the
limit,
but
they're
taller
than
55
feet
for
whatever
reason,
and
because
of
that
because
of
many
things,
but
including
that
I
think
staff
is
moving
forward
in
their
discussions
with
the
developer
to
go
to
55
feet.
K
So
it's
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
what
the
distance
is
between
the
building
and
the
proposed
building
and
the
existing
buildings,
but
it
it
does
it.
It
means
that
you
have
an
area
that
has
a
feel
and
that
I
think,
does
make
a
difference
and
is
a
positive
thing
from
a
from
a
planning
perspective.
F
I
mean
I
understand
that
it's
just
what
we're
basically
describing
is
that
height
has
to
grow
from
height
right,
that
you
can't
get
height
unless
there's
already
height
nearby
or
unless
there's
an
area
plan
that
allows
that
or
unless
you're
near
a
transit
corridor.
Right
and
and
that's
the
thing
that
I
find
you
know.
F
Why
should
I
I
mean
I
so
we're
looking
from
the
perspective
of
the
person
on
the
street
and
it
might
feel
jarring
to
have
one
building
that's
more
out
of
scale
than
others
right.
But
it
just
feels
weird
to
me
that
if
your
neighbor
has
already
has
height,
then
you
can
have
height
and
if
your
neighbor
doesn't
then
you're
all
screwed
until
it
creeps
in
from
the
edges.
Pardon
me
my
pardon
my
language.
F
It's
late
at
night,
you're,
all
it's
off
limits
to
everybody
unless
it
kind
of
builds
out
from
where
it
already
is,
and.
K
That
yeah,
I
understand,
I
understand
your
perspective
and-
and
I
think
that
it's
it's
intended
or
the
value
of
the
approach
that
the
city
has
taken
in
the
past
and
seems
to
be
trying
to
continue
to
take
is,
is
that
it
creates
a
sense
of
place
rather
than
like
look
at
folsom
with
that
apartment
building.
That's
11
stories
high,
like
that's
just
it's
just
there
disconnected
from
the
rest
of
the
developments
along
folsom,
which
are
all
one
two
or
three
stories.
K
No
no
comment
about
whether
it's
a
nice
building
or
not
nice
building,
but
it's
just
sort
of
it
it.
It
makes
it
much
harder
to
create
a
sense
of
place
or
a
sense
of
a
neighborhood
or
a
sense
of
a
community
earth.
You
know
it's
so
I
ca.
I,
I
just
think
it's
a
valuable
tool
in
the
toolbox
for
planning.
F
I
understand
what
you're,
saying
and
and
to
move
us
forward.
Can
I
amend
my
suggestion
and
make
it
so
that
we
keep
it
the
last
part
of
this
sentence
where
it
says
the
building's
heights
mass
and
scale
is
compatible
with
other
buildings
and
the
character
of
the
surrounding
area.
We
keep
that
part
and
then
the
being
near
a
high
frequency,
transit
corridor
or
being
within
another
building.
K
J
We
we
use
the
term
multimodal
corridor,
but
I
believe
that's
changed.
We
actually
had
intended
it
to
be
not
specifically
defined.
I
think
we
wanted
to
leave
a
little
bit
of
discretion,
so
we
want
to
leave
it
to.
You
know
an
applicant
to
have
to
demonstrate
that
it's
a
place
where
there's
bus
transit-
and
so
it's
not
specifically
defined
here.
O
To
to
laura's
suggestion
that
last
sentence
does
it
is
it
different
than
what
it
currently
exists
around
context,
or
is
that
identical?
That's,
I
guess
my
question
because
I'm
I'm
fine
with
what
exists,
because
it
doesn't
go
beyond
what
we're.
J
Yeah,
it's
it's
largely
the
same
as
the
existing
language.
You
know
we're
just
again.
This
was
one
of
those
areas
at
the
beginning
of
the
project
that
raised
the
most
concern
that
it
needed
to
be
tightened
up
more
than
the
current
language.
So
this
was
our.
You
know
attempt
to
kind
of
better
define
an
area,
but
we
felt
that
putting
this
context,
language
back
in
probably
still
made
sense.
O
At
least
for
me,
I
I
would
I
would
second
laura's
thought
to
to
try
to
you
know
get
agreement
around
that
because
I
think
is
as
long
as
it's
consistent
because
and
that's
my
caveat,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
consistent
with
what
we
have
today
relative
to
context
and
we're
not
creating
something
new,
then
that
that
makes
sense
to
me.
E
E
L
J
What
I'm
hearing
is
that
we
would
keep
subsection
one,
and
I
think
we
would
just
combine
it
with
two
but
get
rid
of
the
specific
limitation
of
the
thousand
feet
and
then
the
the
specific
of
being
near
a
high
frequency
transit
corridor
keep
the
context
language
related
to
height,
mass
and
scale.
J
O
J
G
A
Yeah
but
but
planning
board
would
retain
its
full
discretion
in
terms
of
how
to
deal
with
that
in
considering
context
and
so
on.
R
K
And
if
I
can
dave,
if
I
could
just
add
on,
I
realize
that
we
are
going
to
that,
you
are
going
to
come
back
to
us
with
a
new
way
of
thinking
about
section
one,
the,
but
what
you
have
in
section
what
you
originally
proposed
in
section
one
highlighted
sub-community
and
area
plans
right,
so
the
context
is
one
of
the
tools
for
creating
a
sense
of
area,
even
if
there
isn't
an
area
plan-
and
so
I
think
it's
very
that
is,
that
is
the
key,
is
the
context
how
you
guys
figure.
R
A
I
was
a
little
bit
surprised
to
see
the
prohibition
on
gambril
and
mansardrews-
I
I
am
no
particular
fan
of
them,
but,
but
I
can
imagine
some
some
architect
with
some
fantasy
might
want
to
do
something
along
that
line,
and
so
it
seems
odd
to
me
to
prohibit
them
completely.
K
So
you
know
I
I
I
I'm
not
an
architect,
but
I
think
that
the
elements
of
the
form
based
code
that
you
brought
over
that
have
to
do
with
the
windows
and
the
delineations
and
the
brickwork
and
the
corners.
All
that's
awesome,
and
this
form-based
code
seems
more.
It
was
specifically
the
form-based
code
developed
for
transit,
village,
right
and
and
that
that
may
not
be.
I
know
nothing
about
these
different
kinds
of
roofs,
so
this
isn't
specific
to
the
roost.
K
But
it
seems
like
this
that
the
others,
the
other
components,
are
really
valuable,
whereas
specifically
the
roof
or
whatever
may
be,
maybe
in
a
smaller
setting
that
kind
of
root
those
kinds
of
roofs
might
actually
be
more
appropriate.
So
I
would
suggest
that
you
guys
just
try
to
think
through
whether
just
because
it
comes
from
four
base
code,
it's
the
right
thing
to
do
or
whether
it
isn't.
R
J
E
M
J
J
We
already
have
solar
access
regulations.
This
has
been
something
that
we
heard
from
the
you
know.
The
community
is
is
challenging
to
try
to
balance
all
of
these
specific
criteria
about
solar
sighting
when
we
already
have
solar
access.
So
this
was
one
of
the
points
of
simplification.
L
So
are
these
I'm
hearing
that
there
is
infra
there
is
criteria
for
solar
access.
This
goes
beyond
and
are
you
talking
about
photovoltaics
when
you
say
solar
access,
or
are
you
talking
this?
This
goes
beyond
it?
Just
is
your
building?
Can
your
building
use
solar
on-site
solar?
This
is
talking
about
site
and
the
buildings
and
the
building-
or
this
is
talking
about
a
lot
more.
L
Are
you
saying
that
this
is
duplicated
in
other
parts.
J
J
We
we
do
have
these
criteria
in
our
subdivision
standards.
I
just
think
in
implementation
of
this
particular
section.
We've
also
often
found
the
criteria
to
all
be
in
conflict
with
each
other,
and
it
hasn't
always
been
very
useful.
I
would
say-
and
we've
also
heard,
that
from
the
from
the
development
community,
so
this
was
one
of
those
areas
of
the
criteria
that
we
felt
greatly
reduced
the
predictability
of
projects
and
was
largely
not
all
that
useful.
R
So
carl,
would
you
mind
talking
a
little
bit
about
the
city's
solar
access
standards?
I
think
they're
in
nine
nine
versus
which
I
think
are
property
by
property,
oriented
yeah.
J
Right,
so
the
solar
access
standards
apply
to
all
lots
in
the
city,
regardless
of
whether
they're
in
site
review
or
not.
It
applies
to
all
buildings,
there's
three
zones,
so
basically,
one
zone
is
for
like
lower
density
areas
like
the
rl1
zone
district
and
it
hypothesizes
basically
like
a
25
foot
fence
along
the
property
lines.
J
So
if,
if
you
put
a
mythical
fence
on
your
property
line,
that's
gonna
cast
a
shadow
and
basically
your
building
that
you
build
within
the
building
envelope
can't
cast
a
shadow
over
that
solar
fence
right.
J
So
the
the
lower
density
areas
have
a
higher
standard,
and
then
you
get
into
kind
of
the
mixed
use,
areas
that
have
a
12
foot,
solar
fence
and
some
of
the
the
more
dense
areas
of
town
and
then
there's
certain
areas
within
solar
access
area,
3
that
don't
have
solar
access
requirements
just
by
virtue
of
the
the
more
urban
typology
of
those
areas.
But
there
are
sites
that
can
submit
for
a
permit
to
protect
their
existing
solar
panels
on
their
roofs.
So
it's
a
pretty
comprehensive
section.
L
So
what
I,
what
I'm
seeing
here
that
I
I'm
appreciating
is
this
is
this-
is
directing
performance-based
criteria
so,
for
example,
the
lot
layout
and
building
siding
and
the
building
form
it's
just
like
the
shape
of
the
building
is
set
up
to
maximize
solar
energy,
so
it
is
giving
it
is.
L
It
is
it's
creating
a
requirement
for
buildings
to
consider
the
sun
as
a
true
factor
in
the
location
and
development
of
the
building
and
the
site,
and
that's,
I
think,
beyond
the
you
know,
solar
fence
intent
this
this
has
this
is
talking
about
it's
beginning
to
speak
about
performance.
We
want
our
buildings
to
perform
so
that
they
are
smart
about
utilizing
the
sun.
This
is
the
source
of
energy.
This
is
a
way
to
get
off
of
greenhouse
gases.
I
mean
this
is
this
is
real
stuff
that
impacts
our
climate
goals.
L
So
I
I
I
appreciate
them
now.
I
haven't
gone
through
to
make
sure
that
they
all
you
know,
still
make
sense
fully,
but
I
guess
I
wouldn't
I
wouldn't.
I
would
suggest
to
take
take
another
look
at
them
and
see
if
perhaps
there
isn't
some
parts
of
them
that
remain
valuable
to
help
us
meet
some
climate
goals
and
to
bring
this
consciousness
onto
the
table
again,
because
I
you
know
I've,
I've
been
on
planning
work
for
like
all
of
what
six
weeks
or
something,
and
I
keep
looking
for
the
buildings
to
accommodate.
L
You
know
the
sun
in
all
kinds
of
ways,
and
they
just
don't,
and
so
I
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
to
help
us
achieve
some
climate
goals
to
consider
this
solar
component,
because,
right
now
I
can't
hold
anybody
accountable
to
doing
anything
except
for
yeah.
Maybe
you
put
solar
up,
but
that's
not
enough.
D
R
That
we
would
like
to
to
consider
how
we
might
continue
to
have
some
site
planning
standards
associated
with
solar
access.
That
would
continue
to
be
part
of
a
site
review
criteria
and,
and
that
maybe
we
would
just
look
at
both
of
those
parts
of
the
code
and
how
they
work
together
and
try
to
accommodate
both.
L
If
it
makes
sense
to
you
all,
I
I
think
I
think
again,
you
know
to
try
to
put
as
much
capacity
for
informing
climate
climate
directives.
L
G
E
E
So
I
sympathize
with,
but
I
I
read
section
g
and
to
me
it
hearkens
to
a
day
when
pvs
facing
any
which
direction
seem
to
have
great
efficacy
and
and
urban
passive
solar
design
in
multi-family
housing
is
actually
can
be
problematic
and
and
we're
dealing
with
cooling
loads
rather
than
heat
loads.
And
so
to
me
this
this
reads
as
somewhat
outdated
and
so
revision
of
it
to
our
current
condition
might
be
welcome.
J
All
right,
so
the
next
section
is
the
alternative
compliance
section.
This
is
the
the
last
new
section.
Everything
after
this
section
are
our
tweaks
to
the
existing
sections
of
the
criteria,
but
I
know
that
this
is
come
up
in
conversation,
so
any
thoughts
on
this.
K
So
the
only
question
I
really
had
on
this
was
what
so,
maybe
some
clarification
in
the
language
about
what
triggers
alternative
compliance
and
just
explaining
that
it's
it
doesn't
have
to
be
alternative
compliance
for
the
whole
project.
It
can
be,
it
might
be
for
components
of
the
project,
as
we
discussed
yesterday
and
or
yesterday
in
the
agenda
setting
meeting
it
just
it
wasn't
necessarily
entirely
clear
about
that.
So
maybe
yeah.
G
J
This
would
be
the
place
where
they
would
make
an
argument
for
what
they're
doing
as
an
alternative
to
accomplish
detailing
or
provide
that
shadow
effect
or
something
that
just
gives
the
the
building
some
visual
interest.
They
would
make
their
argument
in
this
section.
K
Right
and
all
I'm
saying
is
maybe
make
that
don't
give
examples,
but
make
it
clear
that
this
is
not
a
total
alternative
to
going
through
site
review
like
this,
isn't
some
form-based
code
approach.
R
So
sarah,
if
I
could
just
ask
a
question
of
clarification,
so
is
your
issue
about
kind
of
what
the
criteria
is
that
allows
you
to
use
the
alternative
methods
of
compliance.
K
What
are
the
potential
triggers
and
it's
just
you
know
a
sentence
or
two
that
says:
if
there
are
components
of
an
applicant's
proposal
that
do
not
meet
these
other
criteria,
then
you
would
turn
to
alternative
compliance
for
review
of
those
components
or
something
to
that
effect.
Okay,.
R
K
R
F
Hopefully
this
is
a
quick
comment:
5c
about
open
space.
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
repeat
here
the
comment
that
I
made
earlier
about
open
space,
that
if
something
qualifies
towards
open
space
for
the
whole
project,
that
it
is
accessible
to
all
residents
or
users
of
that
project.
I
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
and
see
if
staff
think
that's
necessary,
we
don't
have
to
talk
about
it,
just
flagging
it.
R
F
R
Only
comment
that
I
would
make
about
that
is
to
the
extent
that
people
create
common
interest
communities
under
the
colorado
common
interest,
community
act,
which
is
how
you
basically
create
condominiums.
R
So
one
of
the
things
that
happens
is
that
you
know
mostly,
this
is
dealt
with
by
our
housing
division,
but
they
try
to
structure
the
common
interest
community
in
a
way
that
allows
the
affordable
units
to
not
be
charged
for
some
of
those
amenities.
R
So
that
would
be
the
only
instance
when
you
know
when
you
say
make
everything
the
same.
I
think
what
it
what
it
tends
to
drive
is
then
units
have
no
amenities,
that's
that's
kind
of
for
anyone
which
it's
a
fine
outcome.
If
that's
what
you
want,
but
that's
the
outcome
it
drives.
F
You
know
I
I
understand
what
you're
saying
yeah
and-
and
I
do
think-
maybe
it's
a
it's
a
broader
conversation
that
needs
to
be
had,
because
you
know
we
have
right
in
our
inclusionary
housing,
ordinance
that
all
amenities
have
to
be
the
same
for
the
market
rate
and
the
affordable
units.
And
so
if
we
don't
really
intend
that,
if
that
is
actually
problematic,
then
we
should
have
a
conversation
about
that
and
amend
it
because
because
right
now
it's
not
a,
I
would
say
it
appears
to
be
that
we're
not
following
our
own
policy.
Sometimes.
R
R
F
Well,
I
think,
where
we
landed
earlier
is
that
that
the
board
came
down
on
the
side
of,
if
you're,
going
to
count
something
towards
open
space
and
it
quality
and
that
counts
towards
the
whole
property's
open
space
requirements.
Then
it
needs
to
be
open
to
everybody,
who's,
a
resident
or
a
user
of
that
that
property,
basically,
and
if
we
want
to
reconsider
that,
we
can.
F
Sure
and
david,
if
your
advice
to
us
is
hey
planning
board
you're,
going
down
a
path
that
doesn't
make
policy
sense,
and
you
don't
know
what
you're
talking
about,
because
there's
other
factors
you
haven't
considered.
Yet
I
actually
appreciate
that
kind
of
advice.
If
you
think
that
we
need
to
reconsider
something
or
not
do
it
right
now,
because
it
needs
to
be
part
of
a
broader
conversation.
R
There
they
are
issues
that
we
have
to
deal
with
on
a
staff
level
and
it's
well
not
just
the
staff
level,
but
it's
also.
You
know
you
have
property
owners
who
are
trying
to
also
comply
with
state
law
in
terms
of
how
they
assess
for
hoa
dues
and
in
terms
of
going
down
a
rabbit,
hole,
hoa
dues.
I
could
probably
talk
about
for
days
in
terms
of
like
how
complicated
they
can
be
for
affordable
housing
projects,
so
keeping
them
simple
for
affordable
housing
projects
and
low
are
good
things.
F
F
Okay,
thank
you.
I
know
people
who
are
leaving
their
units
that
they
bought
in
the
peloton
because
of
hoa
due
fee
increases
that,
like
they
own
an
affordable
unit,
but
they
pay
the
same
hoa
dues
as
the
market
rate
units
and
they
have
gone
up.
I
know
it's
a
problem.
It's
a
real
problem,
I'm
sensitive
to
that.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
want
to
gloss
over
that
and
I
appreciate
you
raising
it.
R
Carl,
can
you
help
us
land
this
plane.
K
I
don't
have
a
comment
on
this
section,
but
I
one
more
completely
through
this.
I
I
did
want
to
just
come
back
to
the
comp
to
the
question
you
asked
at
the
in
the
doc
document
about
is:
is
a
planning
board
or
are
planning
board
members
interested
in
staff
actually
beginning
to
undertake
some
of
the
research
on
the
home
ownership
question,
and
I
I
would
love
for
the
staff
to
begin
to
look
at
that.
If,
when,
when
you
have
the
bandwidth,
I
think
it's
worth
having.
That
kind
of.
G
K
G
F
G
J
That
we're
in
seven
now,
which
is
you
know
the
community
benefits
section.
G
A
L
I
don't
know
how
you
say
those
I
look
at
it
and
I
see
a
four
there
a
so
I
in
that
part
that's
being
added.
I
wonder
if
it
makes
sense
to
include
providing
arts,
cultural,
human
services,
housing
and
climate
action
put
climate
action
in
there
or
other
benefit.
That
is
a
community
benefit,
so
add
some
specificity
in
there
put
climate
action
in
after
housing
and
before
or
just
drive
home
that
climate
action
is
a
community
benefit,
and
this
seems
like
it
might
be
a
good
place
to.
F
Yes,
this
is
my
last
comment
that
I
have-
and
I
put
this
in
my
written
comments,
so
carl
you're,
probably
anticipating
this-
I
know
that
we
had
a
whole
community
benefits
project
about
affordable
commercial
that
has
been
frozen
in
time
for
now
like
it
has
not
been
picked
up
by
this
council,
but
I
don't
see
why
we
couldn't
put
affordable
commercial
just
in
this
list
and
let
people
be
creative
and
see
what
they
come
up
with.
I
don't.
F
None
of
this
is
codified
as
to
how
you
know
that
it's
an
equivalent
benefit
to
the
housing
benefit,
and
so
I
don't
see
why
we
should
exclude
affordable
commercial
just
because
we
couldn't
figure
it
out,
but
maybe
somebody
can
bring
something
to
us.
That
seems
to
make
sense,
and
I
appreciate
how
difficult
that
task
was.
I
just
would
hate
it's
listed
in
the
bbcp
as
one
of
the
kind
of
community
benefits
that
we're
looking
for.
I
would
hate
to
see
it
excluded
here
and
not
be
an
option
for
people's
creativity.
R
L
I
I
it's
late,
I'm
usually
asleep
and
in
my
third
realm
of
dreams
by
now,
I
I
think
that
there
are
in
the
building
and
built
environment
profession
that
there
are
things
that
are
identified,
such
as
like
building
and
building
materials
and
site
and
site
issues
such
as
perviousness
and
green
roofs
and
shade
and
habitat.
L
It's
not
a
single
menu,
it's
it
can
get
pretty
broad,
and
I
and
I'm
guessing
my
thought
in
putting
it
out
there
is
that
we
begin
to
develop
language
for
it
and
it
becomes
a
common
thing.
Oh,
how
am
I
going
to.
L
Having
a
a
reduction
on
on
having
alternative
transportation
would
be
a
climate
action
I
mean
there
are.
There
are
things
that
affect
climate.
G
L
I
think
that
that
would
be
the
the
consequence.
Is
this
affecting
climate?
Is
it
producing
greenhouse
gases?
Is
this
you
know
generating
the
environmental
factors
that
are
raising
temperatures?
You
know
that
to
me
is:
is
sort
of
the
body
of
of
elements
that
fall
under
climate,
climate
action
and.
R
L
Yes,
okay
and
my
next
question
is
actually
about
my
next
comment
would
be
over
in
eight.
Are
we
done
with
seven?
I
have
a.
I
have
a
comment
in
eight,
where
we're
looking
at
parking
eight
number
v.
L
So
if
we're,
if
we're
reducing
the
amount
of
parking,
I
wonder
if
there
is
a
way
to
include
if
there's
a
reduced
pressure
on
the
land
to
not
be
carrying
parking,
can
we
use
that
to
serve
a
climate
action
purpose?
In
other
words,
we're
freeing
up
we're
freeing
up
land
from
cars?
L
Can
we
put
that
to
a
higher
use
and
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
use
this
land?
You
know
it's
going
to
be
all
pervious,
it's
going
to
be
shaded
we're
going
to
have
habitat
we're
going
to
do
these.
Various
things
with
would
have
been
with
what
would
have
been
used
for
cars,
and
is
there
any-
and
I
don't
know
if
it's
if
this
is
the
right
place
or
but
just
to
begin
thinking
of
things
in
a
holistic
way
that
if
you
remove
something,
how
can
that
create
a
benefit
that
is
land-based.
D
G
J
Okay,
so
the
remaining
parts
of
the
ordinance
are
really
cleanup
and
updates
to
references.
I
don't
know
if
there
was
any
comments.
L
I
do
I
do
have
a
on
the
intensity
standards
on
table
eight
one-
and
this
is
a
broad
question-
can
table
81
intensity
standards,
be
somehow
amended
to
include
more
housing
such
as
modifying
minimum
lot
sizes.
L
So
we've
got
minimum
block
sizes
for
numbers
of
units
and
we've
got
also
dwelling
units
per
acre.
So
I
don't
know
if,
if
it
seems
like
this
is
an
opportunity
to
create
some
flexibility
with
land
use
to
allow
more
housing.
Q
R
Think
that
this
is
the
project
for
that
the
council
has
identified.
R
R
R
We
made
it
all
right
well,
thank
you,
carl
and
thank
you
board
members.
This
was,
I
think,
a
great
session,
and
I
I
really
appreciate
all
of
the
positive
feedback
that
you
provided
to
the
board.
I
think
it's
just
going
to
make
the
ordinance
that
much
better.
R
G
A
G
F
I
was
just
gonna
ask
david:
what
are
your
plans
now
that
we
have
a
new
planning
director?
Well.
R
But
it
does
seem
like
from
everything
I
know
about
brad
and
everything
I've
been
told
about
brad.
I
think
he's
going
to
be
a
great
addition
to
the
community
and
I
think
you
know
he
just
looks
like
he
is
just
set
for
success
here.
F
G
A
B
M
Yeah,
I
I
guess
the
board
didn't
make
any
kind
of
motion
yet
on
the
ordinance.