►
From YouTube: Planning Board meeting 5-26-22
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
Case
so
I'll
just
say:
this
is
the
meeting
of
the
city
of
boulder
planning
board
of
may
26
2022
and
we'll
start
out
with
sarah
providing
the
rules
of
the
road
for
running
this
meeting.
B
Thank
you
so
much
good
evening,
everybody,
my
name
is
sarah
huntley,
I'm
the
director
of
communication
and
engagement
and
I'm
your
zoom
host
tonight.
You
won't
hear
much
from
me,
but
I
did
want
to
just
share
my
screen
briefly
to
go
over
some
public
deliberation
and
discourse
guidelines
that
the
city
is
recommending
for
this
meeting
tonight.
If
you
could
bear
with
me
for
one
moment,
while
I
try
to
share
my
screen.
B
Okay,
so,
as
I
mentioned,
I
represent
the
city
department
of
communication
and
engagement,
and
we
have
been
working
over
the
past
two
or
three
years
with
the
community
to
develop
a
vision
that
really
promotes
productive,
meaningful
and
inclusive
communications
and
conversations
in
meetings
such
as
this
and
a
whole
variety
of
ways
in
which
we
gather
as
community.
B
B
More
about
this
vision
can
actually
be
found
on
the
city's
website
if
you're
interested
in
diving
deeper,
but
we
just
wanted
to
sort
of
let
you
know
that
this
is
something
that
our
community
has
developed
in
collaboration
with
staff
as
a
part
of
the
vision.
We
have
some
rules
of
decorum
that
are
actually
found
in
the
boulder
revised
code
and
some
guidelines
that
we
believe
help
support
the
goal
and
outcome
of
these
kinds
of
meetings.
So
all
remarks
and
testimony
will
be
limited
tonight
to
city
business.
B
There
are
some
specific
types
of
language
and
behavior
that
can
impede
the
ability
of
the
meeting
to
continue
and
be
too
disruptive,
so
obscenity,
dehumanizing,
language,
racial
epithets
and
other
speech
and
behavior
that
is
disruptive
to
the
meeting
is
prohibited
and,
as
I
mentioned
with
the
one
phone
caller
tonight,
we
do
require
participants
to
sign
up
to
speak
using
the
name
they're
commonly
known
by
and
that
we
have
to
have
that
name
registered
in
the
list
of
people
participating
in
the
meeting.
B
Currently,
only
audio
testimony
is
permitted
online
when
we
get
to
a
point
of
public
participation
in
this
meeting.
There
are
a
couple
of
different
ways
that
you
can
indicate
to
the
chair
that
you
wish
to
be
recognized
to
speak.
So
if
you
are
on
the
meetings
with
your
computer
and
you
have
your
video
capabilities,
you
should
be
able
to
see
a
horizontal
menu
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen
and
you'll
see
a
little
icon.
That
looks
like
a
hand.
It
says
raise
hand,
guess
what
that's
what
you
do
to
raise
your
hand.
B
You
just
need
to
click
on
it
and
a
hand
will
show
up
next
to
your
name
and
will
know
that
you
wish
to
speak.
If
you
are
on
the
phone.
Instead,
you
might
want
to
use
one
of
the
options
that
I'm
showing
on
the
screen,
which
you
probably
can't
see
it's
star
9.
If
you're
on
the
phone,
you
also
might
find
that
if
you
don't
see
the
raised
hand
automatically
on
your
screen,
you
might
find
it
under
reactions.
B
So
if
you
click
on
reactions,
then
you
will
have
a
raised
hand
option
and
with
that
I
think
my
part
of
the
start
of
this
meeting
has
concluded,
and
I
can
turn
back
to
you
share.
A
We
don't
have
any
minutes
to
deal
with
tonight,
so
we'll
move
right
to
public
participation
section
of
this
meeting,
and
this
is
the
time
when
anyone
can
address
the
planning
board
on
any
wish
issue
there,
they're
interested
in
doing
so,
except
those
on
which
we
have
a
public
hearing
scheduled
for
this
evening
and
for
this
evening
the
only
public
hearing
where
we're
that's
on
the
agenda
is
dealing
with
the
consideration
of
a
recommendation
to
city
council
for
annexation
of
land
at
302
and
334
arapahoe
avenue.
A
So
if
you
want
to
talk
to
us
on
that,
please
wait
until
we
have
the
public
hearing
section
of
that
public
hearing
item
on.
But
if
you
want
to
talk
to
us
about
anything
else,
now
is
the
time
to
do
it,
and
you
should
raise
your
hand
and
let
cindy
or
sarah
know
that
you
want
to
speak
now
and
I'll.
Ask
cindy
to
manage
the
public
hearing
section.
C
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
We
do
have
one
hand
raised
and
please
keep
in
mind.
You
have
three
minutes
to
speak.
You
will
not
have
any
video,
but
you
will
definitely
have
audio
and
sarah
will
unmute
you
when
we're
ready.
I
will
display
three
minutes
on
my
clock
on
where
you
see
me,
will
then
be
a
clock
for
three
minutes,
and
so
we
have
a
miss
bob
shafer
who
has
raised
his
hand
and
mr
schaefer
will
let
allow
we
will
unmute
you
and
allow
you
to
speak.
D
Okay,
can
you
hear
me
okay?
This
is
bob
schaefer
yeah
board
how
you
doing
I
live
in
the
community.
I
live
in
north
boulder
and
my
comments.
I'll
be
brief.
I
know
there's
no
public
hearing
or
comments
scheduled
for
the
raising
cane's
application,
but
I
live
near
the
proposed
step.
Restaurant
that's
been
approved
by
the
board.
It's
really
really
close
to
me
and
I
sent
the
board
an
email.
Yesterday,
I'm
really
I
read
the
150
page
proposal
and
I'm
really
concerned
about
the
hours
of
operation.
D
The
proposal
says
that
the
the
restaurant
would
close
at
1
30
a.m
during
the
week
and
3
30
a.m,
friday,
saturday
and
sundays,
and
frankly,
that's
unacceptable
to
those
of
us
that
live
near
that
proposed
restaurant.
We
all
work,
we
go
to
bed
early
right
and
we
get
up
really
early.
This
is
a
this.
Is
a
residential
community
right
behind
here
this
restaurant
proposal?
There's
there
are
working
families.
There
are
people
like
me
that
work
full-time.
D
D
So
I
know
there's
a
lot
of
times
been
spent
to
try
to
address
the
traffic
flows
for
raising
taints,
so
it
doesn't
produce
backup.
But
we
are
very
concerned
about
the
hours
of
operation.
The
restaurant
should
close
at
10
p.m,
that
those
are
the
clock,
the
quiet
hours
in
boulder
for
this
community
right
weekends.
If
they
like
to
open
till
11,
I
think
that's
acceptable,
but
1
30
a.m
and
3
30
are
completely
unacceptable
for
us
that
live
near
the
the
restaurant,
the
proposed
restaurant.
D
So
I
I
welcome
any
comments.
I
know
there's
not
dialogue,
I
don't
know
what
the
rules
are
for
dialogue,
but
yeah.
My
neighbors
share
the
same
concerns,
so
I'm
here
representing
them,
I'm
an
individual.
I
have
that.
I
work
here
in
the
community,
so
I
live
very
close
by
and
we
know
we
have
raybach
collective
right
behind
us
here
I
mean
they've
been
good
neighbors.
They
play
their
music
till
10
during
the
summer
and
believe
me
all
of
us,
we
don't
have
air
conditioning,
and
so
we
have
to
open
our
windows
in
the
summer.
D
We
hear
this
traffic
okay
and
we're
not
permitted
to
add
air
conditioning
here
because
of
the
covenants
in
our
communities
around
here.
Okay,
so
we
do
hear
this
noise,
this
traffic
and
it
will
be
worse
when
we
have
a
double
drive
through
that's
gonna-
be
backed
way
back
with
cars
rumbling
until
1
30
and
workers
that
have
to
work
till
2
and
4
a.m.
That's
just
not
right!
A
Okay,
thanks
very
much
that
will
be
considered
in
our
next
item,
but
do
we
have
anyone
else
who
wishes
to
speak
now
in
the
in
the
public
participation
section.
E
Annexation
of
302.
E
Clock
please,
yes,
and
could
you
put
it
in
a
video
window?
Thank
you,
yeah,
thanks
yeah.
I
want
to
advise
you
guys
that
you
need
to
do
per
capita
impact
fees
for
every
you
know.
Every
individual,
rec
centers
water
water's,
the
top
one
water
is
number
one.
Gross
reservoir
colorado
river
doesn't
get
to
the
gulf.
Water
is
premier,
rec,
centers,
libraries,
social
services,
drug
treatment,
because
the
housing's
so
expensive,
there's
homeless,
all
over
the
place
and
they
resort
to
drugs.
E
So
that
goes
way
up
with
everything
that
needs
to
be
calculated
for
each
person
before
you
approve
any
development
at
all.
It
has
to
be
a
number
that
you
can
have
in
that
development,
and
it
would
be
you
know,
based
on
what
the
what
that
unit
is
supposed
to
carry
now
what
the
guy
on
55th,
don
altman
and
michael
bosma
are
doing.
Do
you
know
what
they
did
at
10?
E
Something
marine
street
bosma
went
in
there
and
tried
to
put
in
a
third
bedroom
when
it
was
no
to
put
in
a
dining
room
that
was
really
a
bedroom.
That's
how
desperate
these
people
are
to
get
every
single
square
inch.
Rented
out
just
like
with
marpa
house
they're
gonna
rent
by
the
room,
that's
what
everybody's
doing!
That's?
Why
berkeley
kicked
out?
You
know
landmark
developers
down
at
the
millennium
from
georgia,
because
they
were
stealing
the
housing
in
berkeley
and
then,
where
does
landmark
go
to
boulder?
E
It's
like
in
my
mapleton
newsletter.
There
was
a
a
big
screen.
You
know
on
the
driveway,
you
know
where
the
highway
come
to
boulder.
You
know
they're,
suckers,
they'll,
take
you,
you
know,
because
they
don't
want
people
in
over
populating
california.
So,
let's
not
foul
our
own
nest
here
right,
I
mean
just
make
a
number
hey.
If
you
want
let
this
let
the
citizens
have
a
debate
about
it.
E
You
know,
let
us
have
a
say
because,
hey
if
you
want
it
so
that
there's
a
lot
more
people
per
unit
than
great
or
you
know
you
it.
It
builds
up
the
population
that
much
more
good
good
for
you.
You're
gonna
have
a
hard
time
arguing
that,
with
the
situation,
the
way
it
is
in
boulder
for
housing
for
affordable
housing
for
permanently
affordable
housing
for
sales,
because
the
condos
are
the
boulders
sucking
it
up.
E
Like
the
guy
in
the
paper
allen
perry's
adam
perry,
said
yesterday,
all
the
hoa
fees
just
get
sunk
into
the
house
and
then
boulder
takes
it
when
they
have
to
move
out.
This
is
not
affordable.
This
is
not
permanent.
This
is
not
helping
people.
It's
making
things
worse.
Each
high
end
draws
many
more
lower
end
units.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
I'll
bring
the
public
participation
portion
of
this
meeting
to
an
end
and
we'll
move
into
a
discussion
of
dispositions
and
call-ups
and
continuations
and
tonight
there's
one
item
on
our
agenda,
and
that
is
a
use
review
for
a
the
raising
cane
restaurant
on
28th
street.
A
The
call-up
period
expires
on
june.
2Nd
for
this,
are
there
any
questions
or
ml?
I
see
your
hand
is
up
already
go
ahead.
A
Well
I
on
this
issue,
I
think
it's
clear,
there's
a
number
of
of
issues
that
that
are
in
question
here,
and
so
I
may
just
take
the
prerogative
as
being
chair
of
this
board
and
call
up
this
item
myself
or
for
discussion
in
detail
at
a
later
point.
A
G
A
Okay,
well,
then,
we're
gonna
move
ahead
with
our
public
hearing
item
that's
scheduled
for
night
for
tonight,
and
that
is
a
public
hearing
and
consideration
of
a
recommendation
to
city
council
on
the
annexation
of
approximately
one
1.087
acres
of
land
generally
located
at
302,
arapahoe
avenue
and
334
arapaina
arapaho
avenue,
with
an
initial
zoning
designation
of
residential
medium-3
and
that's
lur
2021-003.
A
And
we'll
begin
with
a
staff
presentation
followed
by
questions
from
board
to
staff,
followed
by
a
any
comments
from
the
applicant,
then
we'll
move
to
public
hearing
and
consideration
by
the
board.
So
thanks.
Let's
move
ahead
great.
G
A
Sloan
before
you
start,
I
might
just
ask
two
things:
one
of
the
board
to
make
sure
that
there's
that
anyone
who
has
a
declaration
in
this
matter
should
should
make
it
now
and
secondly,
to
let
the
public
know
that
we
would
like
to
know
of
any
relationship
that
a
public
speaker
in
the
public
portion
of
this
hearing
has
with
the
applicant
so
that
we
can
take
that
into
account
in
our
evaluation.
B
A
I
J
J
All
right
well,
thanks
for
the
introduction,
as
was
described,
the
item
before
the
board
tonight,
is
the
annexation
of
approximately
1.1
acres
of
land
generally
located
at
302
and
334
arapaho
with
rm3
zoning.
J
J
So,
in
terms
of
the
review
processes
and
criteria,
annexation
is
the
process
whereby
land
is
incorporated
into
the
municipal
boundaries.
I'm
going
to
spend
a
little
extra
time
on
this
slide
today,
since
we
have
some
new
board,
members
and
annexation
is
sort
of
defined
by
what
I
would
describe
as
a
very
complex
layer
of
laws
and
regulations,
the
first
layer
would
be
state
law.
The
colorado
constitution
limits
the
authority
of
municipalities
to
annex
land,
also,
the
state
statutes
limit
the
type
of
land
that
can
be
annexed.
J
And
lastly,
when
a
property
is
annexed,
zoning
is
established
according
to
the
land
use
designation
of
the
land
use
map
in
the
comprehensive
plan
and
consistent
with
existing
development
patterns
as
part
of
annexation.
An
annexation
agreement
is
required,
which
is
a
negotiated
contract
to
establish
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
annexation.
J
J
The
surrounding
area
is
eclectic
with
a
mix
of
commercial
office
buildings,
a
mix
of
housing
types
developed
both
in
the
city
and
the
county
and
public
lands.
Eb
g
fine
park
is
located
to
the
north
across
the
arapahoe
avenue
and
city
open
space
and
mountain
parks.
Property
is
located
directly
to
the
south.
J
J
J
J
The
southern
parcel
at
302
arapaho
contains
a
single
family
home
constructed
circa
1900,
but
a
number
of
additions
have
been
made
since
then,
this
property
is
accessed
from
an
unimproved
un
improved
access
lane,
that
was,
that
is
considered
boulder
county
right
away.
The
home
is
connected
to
city
water
services,
but
is
on
a
septic
system.
J
J
A
historic
survey
was
requested
by
staff
based
on
the
vintage
of
the
structure
and
based
on
that
historic
survey,
it
was
found
that
the
structure
lacks
architectural
integrity.
Due
to
those
modifications
made,
there
also
wasn't
any
evidence
that
the
structure
was
associated
with
an
important
historic
event
or
person.
J
J
J
J
So
to
meet
this
requirement,
a
community
benefit
package
is
proposed
which
includes
affordable
housing
constructed
on
site,
so
this
chart
is
intended
to
sort
of
summarize.
Some
of
that,
specifically,
the
agreement
requires
that
all
units
are
constructed
as
for
sale
units
50
of
new
units
are
deed,
restricted,
affordable
units.
I
would
note
they
do
receive
a
credit
for
the
four
existing
homes
and
then
fifty
percent
of
the
affordable
units
would
be
priced
to
be
affordable
to
households
between
one
hundred
percent
and
120
percent
of
area
median
income,
and
then
the
other.
J
J
In
terms
of
policies
on
annexation,
as
I
mentioned,
the
site
is
eligible
based
on
its
designation
as
an
area.
2
property
staff
finds
that
proposed,
affordable
housing
provided
at
time
of
redevelopment,
would
satisfy
the
requirement
for
community
benefit,
and
I
would
just
note
that
the
annexation
is
consistent
with
the
city's
overall
housing
policies.
J
J
J
So
in
terms
of
zoning,
as
I
described,
the
property
is
designated
as
medium
density,
residential
and
all
of
the
rm
districts
are
appropriate
and
also
found
in
the
vicinity.
J
So
just
to
sort
of
do
an
overall
analysis
of
the
three
options.
The
adjacent
property
to
the
east
is
zoned
rm1.
J
Considering
that
considering
that
context
and
the
existing
development
patterns
also,
as
I
mentioned
on
the
last
side,
they
would
be
consistent
with
bvcp
policies
on
housing.
J
The
zoning
would
allow
for
a
greater
number
of
units
which,
in
turn,
maximize
the
number
of
permanently
affordable
units.
It's
also
consistent
with
the
community's
desired
feature
for
this
area,
so,
based
on
that
staff
finds
the
proposed
annexation
consistent
with
the
state
statutes.
The
comprehensive
plan
and
the
city's
annexation
policies
and
staff
recommends
the
planning
board
adopt
the
following
motion
or
the
one
shown
on
the
screen
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
As
always,.
A
Thank
you,
questions
for
staff.
K
George
yeah,
I
I
had
a
question
regarding
when
you,
when
you
put
up
that
slide
around
the
120-150
percent
ami,
I
wanted
just
to
understand
what
does
that
mean
in
dollars?
So
I'm
trying
to.
Could
you
translate
that
slide
and
what
it
would
actually
be
in
a
for
sale,
environment.
C
Now,
michelle
your
video
is
not
on.
This
is
silly.
L
L
We
go
there,
you
go
okay,
michelle
allen,
housing
and
human
services.
So
so
we
have
three
tiers
of
middle-income
homes
and
we
price
them
at
one
price.
And
then
we
income
qualify
prospective
buyers
at
a
higher
level,
and
that
creates
a
a
band
of
of
possible
buyers.
So
we
have
enough
buyers
for
the
homes,
because
if
we
price
them
at,
for
example,
100
ami
and
then
we
income
qualified
at
100
ami
we'd
have
a
very
narrow
bunch
of
people
that
could
qualify.
So
so
we
always
do
that.
L
So
our
three
tiers
of
middle
income
homes
are
80,
100,
100,
120,
ami,
and
so
the
120
150
is
that
the
price
would
be
set
at
120
ami
and
then
the
income
qualification
would
be
at
150
ami
again
to
create
a
nice
broad
section
of
people
that
can
qualify.
K
L
The
the
pricing
you
mean
yeah,
well,
I
mean
it
depends
on
so
pricing
depends
on
the
size
of
the
unit,
the
number
of
bedrooms
and
bathrooms.
So
so
I
think
a
rule
of
thumb
you
could
say
a
hundred
percent
would
probably
be
in
the
400s.
Probably
the
mid-400s
120
is
gonna
jump
up
to
maybe
500,
maybe
around
there
yeah.
L
K
L
Well,
the
way
pricing,
affordable
pricing
works
is
that
we
recalculate
it
every
quarter
and
it
is
very
sensitive
to
the
going
interest
rate.
We
do
it
18
month,
trailing
average
interest
rate,
so
that
kind
of
takes
out
the
ups
and
downs
in
the
interest
rate
market.
But
we
do
do
it.
We
want
the
buyer
to
be
getting
a
mortgage
in
the
same
interest
rate
environment
that
the
pricing
was
done
in.
So
that's
why
we
do
it
pretty
often
every
quarter
and
if
interest
rates
go
up,
it's
an
inverse
relationship.
L
K
L
M
L
Yeah
sure
not
not
a
lot
of
people
know
how
well
that
works.
We
actually
have
four
people
in
our
home
ownership
group.
They
income
qualify
both
the
initial
buyer
and
all
future
buyers.
L
So
these
units
are
tracked
in
perpetuity
every
sale
they
actually
income,
qualify
the
buyers
and
then
the
developer
or
the
initially
it's
the
developer.
They
can
sell
to
an
income
qualified
buyer
on
a
resale.
The
person
owning
the
affordable
unit
also
has
to
go
through
our
program
and
sell
to
an
income
qualified
buyer.
L
So
they
are
at
the
closing
they're
making
sure
all
the
affordable
documents
are
in
place.
We
send
affordable
buyers
a
letter
every
year,
telling
them
how
much
appreciation,
because
there's
a
a
calculation
of
appreciation.
That's
between,
I
think,
point
five
and
three
percent
every
year
on
the
unit.
So
they
get
a
letter
every
year
saying
if
you
want
to
sell
today.
This
is
what
you
would
get
so
we're
really
tracking
we're,
also
doing
compliance
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
renting
the
unit
outside
of
the
program
parameters.
L
That's
not
allowed!
So
yes,
and
we
we,
we
do
legal
documents
to
make
sure
that
nobody
can
like
sneakily,
sell
the
unit
without
us,
knowing
about
it
so
we're
pretty.
On
top
of
that,
we've
been
yeah.
M
M
If
they're,
does
that
mean
there
won't
be
hoa
dues
that
could
conceivably
like
what?
How
does
that
factor
in
if,
in
fact,.
L
So
first
thing
you
should
know
is
that
the
affordable
price
assumes
a
kind
of
an
average
hoa
amount
in
it.
It's
a
reverse
mortgage
calculation
that
has
an
assumption
around
hoa,
so
there's
a
sort
of
a
credit
to
the
buyer
for
hoa
fees.
It's
not
on
top
of
their
affordable
payment.
So
that's
number
one
and
it
really
comes
down
to
how
the
how
the
project
ends
being
developed.
It
are
there
common
spaces
that
need
an
hoa
to
maintain
them.
That's
usually
what
it
comes
down
to.
L
So
if
there
are
common
spaces
or
common
needs,
like
maybe
garbage
collection
or
or
whatever
an
hoa
might
be
involved
in
then
an
hoa
is
first
put
together
by
the
developer.
We
actually
review
the
hoa
decks.
The
declarations
the
city
does
to
make
sure
that
the
affordable
buyers
are
not
being
unduly
like
either
burdened
or
you
know,
discriminated
against.
So
we
we
check
those
and
have
to
approve
and
sign
off
on
the
initial
hoa
decorations
after
that,
once
all
the
units
are
sold.
N
Thank
you
and
I
appreciate
that
sarah
raised
the
hoa
issue.
As
the
you
know,
the
editorial
in
the
paper
recently
pointed
out.
I
think
it
is
a
broader
issue
that
that
we
may
want
to
talk
about,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
would
affect
my
opinion
about
this
particular
project,
but
I
do
think
that
it's
an
issue
that
will
come
around
many
times
that
we
should
be
paying
attention
to
and
michelle.
L
It
kind
of
depends
on
on
the
project
and
how
it's
structured
and
how
the
developer
wants
to
put
it
together.
Initially,
if,
if
they're
that,
if
the
town
homes
are
kind
of
like
a
fee,
simple
product,
they
might
not
have
that
exterior
maintenance
in
it.
If
they're
more
like
a
condo
situation,
then
they
they
might,
they
might
have
so
it's
hard
to
say
until
you
know
they
get
kind
of
further
down
with
down
the
road
with
the
project.
L
We
don't
we
don't
usually
weigh
in
on
that
kind
of
thing,
because
there's
usually
a
logic
behind
it.
That
will
make
sense.
But
when
we
look
at
those
hoa
declarations,
we
are
trying
to
minimize
the
overall
hoa
cost,
but
that
that's
a
you
know,
there's
a
plus
and
minus
of
that.
So
if
the
hoa
isn't
covering
it,
that
means
the
homeowner
has
to
cover
it.
L
And
so
you
just
don't
we
we
look
at
it
and
say
we
don't
want
any.
For
example,
excessive
landscaping
is,
is
that
really
necessary?
Is
that
something's
necessary
in
the
project?
The
hoa
fees
are
going
to
have
to
cover
that,
and
maybe
that's
going
to
make
the
hoa
fee
higher
and
we
would.
We
would
have
a
conversation
with
them
about
it.
N
Okay,
thank
you
good
to
know.
I
do
have
one
other
question
that
pertains
to
an
email
that
came
into
the
planning
board
from
a
nearby
resident,
mr
darnell,
with
a
concern
about
parking
on
arapahoe
avenue
and
that
that
is
already
somewhat
constrained
by
overflow
parking
from
ebon
g
fine
park.
So
I
wanted
to
ask,
I
think
I
saw
in
the
plans
that
the
town
homes
would
have
like
tuck
under
garages.
Can
we
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
what
kind
of
parking
would
be
associated
with
these
new
units.
J
I
think
at
this
point
the
plans
are
pretty
conceptual,
so
that's
what
they're
thinking
that
they
would
be
tuck
under
parking,
but
I
think
that
probably
be
a
better
question
for
the
applicant
on
what
their
plans
are,
but
I
think
it's
to
their
benefit
to
provide
enough
parking
to
residents,
since
this
is
a
for
sale,
product.
N
O
Maybe
I'm
I'm
missing
something,
but
the
the
math
associated
with
the
number
of
units
for
the
permanently
affordable
perplexes
made.
We
have
13
units,
15,
50
of
which
are
to
be
permanently
affordable.
So
fifty
percent
of
thirteen
is
six
and
a
half,
and
let's
say
you
rounded
that
down
that
would
be
six,
but
in
the
in
the
document
in
the
packet
I
keep
counting
five.
Am
I
wrong?
Am
I
missing
something?
What's
what's
going
on?
There.
O
O
So
there's
a
when
I,
when
I
read
the
code
and
the
code
says
yeah,
we
can
annex
with
50
affordable
units
that
are
for
sale,
and
then
I
look
at
the
square
footages
and
the
number
of
units
it
it's
a
long
way
off
and
again.
I
guess
it
goes
back
to
the
credits
for
those,
but
was
did
staff
determine
that
there
was
not
economic
feasibility
without
giving
the
credit
for
the
four
units.
I
I'm
still
missing
on
the
map
there.
L
So
I
can
address
that
so
the
way
that
we
it's
it's
just
basically
been
our
practice
and
annexations
to
give
credit
for
existing
units
that
are
in
good
shape
and
habitable
if
they're.
So,
if
it's
like
a
falling
down
house,
that's
a
hundred
years
old,
we're
not
going
to
give
credit
for
that,
because
that's
not
an
actual
house
and
where
we're
taking
our
directions
from
the
comprehensive
plan
that
says
that
community
benefit
is
required
of
new
development
in
the
boulder.
L
In
the
you
know,
in
the
city
of
boulder,
and
so
we
have
always
interpreted
that
to
mean
that
existing
units
will
not
provide
community
benefit.
It
will
be
the
new
development.
And
so
when
you
a
good
example
of
that
is
when
we
annexed
in
a
property
that
only
has
one
house,
we
don't
require
any
kind
of
cash
and
lure
any
kind
of
community
benefit,
because
there's
no
new
development
going
to
happen.
O
Okay,
great,
thank
you.
Okay
is
the
access
to
the
new
units
and
again,
I
know
the
site
plan
is
very
rough.
Now
it's
just
boxes,
but
am
I
reading
it
correctly
that
the
access
is
through?
O
What
is
now
the
the
smaller
narrower
property
that
fronts
arapahoe,
or
is
it
through
the
adjacent,
current
gravel
two-track
kind
of
road?
That's
to
the
west
of
the
property.
J
J
Yes,
it's
it's
a
sort
of
an
odd
situation,
but
it
is,
has
been
declared
to
be
county
right-of-way,
so
that
will
remain
hasn't
been
accepted
by
the
county,
but
it
is
county
right
away
and
that.
D
J
Remain
that
and
it's
also
used
for
access
to
that
osmp
property
and
some
single-family
homes
that
are
along
that
access
drive.
J
So
that's
a
good
question:
no,
it
doesn't
grant
any
water
rights
or
any
rights
in
the
in
the
ditch
itself.
It's
actually
was
requested
by
the
ditch
company
to
give
them
appropriate
access.
I
do
think
the
city
may
have
some
shares
in
that
ditch,
but
that
wouldn't
be
part
of
this
annexation.
A
Okay
ml.
F
Thank
you,
john.
Some
of
my
questions
I
think,
are
probably
land
in
your
court.
I
am
I'm
still
looking
at
two
things
about
the
existing
units,
so
three
of
them
have
city,
water
and
city
sewer.
F
One
of
them
has
city
water
and
is
on
a
septic
in
the
analysis
it
talks
about.
F
You
refer
to
the
benefit
that
is
provided
because
the
project
can
have
city
access
to
city
water,
but
it
already
has
that.
So
how
that
I'm
curious,
it's
not
an
added
benefit.
It
already
has
that
and
how
did
it
get
that
if
it
wasn't,
you
know
the
the
information
said
that
annexation
is
required
before
it
can
have
that.
So
how
talk
a
little
bit
about
that
curious
component.
J
Yeah,
so
my
understanding
is
that,
when
the
city
put
in
that
roundabout
adjacent
to
the
park
and
in
that
vicinity,
it
was
utilities
were
offered
up
to
some
of
the
adjacent
properties,
and
I
think
that's
how
water
was
given
to
this
site
as
part
of
an
out-of-city
utility
permit.
But
I
think
in
terms
of
storm
sewer
that
just
be
due
to
the
slope
and
that
sort
of
awkward
access
up
to
the
south
property
they
weren't
able
to
run
utilities
up
there
yeah.
P
I
can
certainly
add
so
good
evening,
edward
stafford,
senior
manager
of
engineering
planning
and
development
services,
so
properties
such
as
this,
that
has
an
out
of
city
agreement
which
can
happen
a
variety
of
ways
as
sloane
as
talked
about
in
this
one.
It
was
a
sounds
like
it
was
a
negotiation
when
we
did
infrastructure,
we
actually
have
out
of
city
agreements
in
a
lot
of
places
near
the
city
most
of
those
have
clauses
and
under
today's
code
that
limit
them
to
only
the
development
and
what
they
had
under
that
existing
out
of
city.
P
So,
for
example,
this
property
could
not
add
additional
units
that
would
have
additional
utility
needs
without
annexation.
Under
the
current
code.
There
was
a
time
many
decades
ago
when
that
was
not
necessarily
always
the
case
and
depending
on
these
negotiated
cases,
but
under
today's
regulations
they
would
be
limited
to
really
what
they
have
is
all
they
could
get
in
less
than
until
they
annexed.
F
Thank
you
for
that.
I
appreciate
the
clarity
I
so
back
to
these
same
four
units.
I
understand
I
I
think
I
understood
what
was
said
that
their
the
history
of
the
city
is
to
exempt
units
that
are
not
habitable
and
no
wait
a
minute
opposite
that
the
city
will
exempt
the
units
if
they
are
habitable
and
will
contribute
to
to
existing
housing.
So
these
units,
I
don't
know
if
they
were
declared,
not
habitable,
but
these
units
are
are
proposed
to
be
deconstructed.
F
So
I'm
I'm
curious
as
to
why
they
continue
to
be
exempt
if
they
are,
on
the
one
hand,
deemed
of
no
value
as
far
as
habitation,
because
they're
going
to
be
removed.
J
Yeah,
so
I
think
what
michelle
was
trying
to
describe
is
that
the
comprehensive
plan
says
that
you
have
to
provide
community
benefit
for
the
portion
of
the
development.
That's
called
new
and
that's
why
we
exempt
those
four
units
that
are
existing.
Yes,
the
actual
units
will
be
removed,
but
since
they
are
removing
four
units
and
replacing
it
with
four
units,
we're
exempting
those
four
units.
L
No,
but
but
definitely
that's
happened
many
times
in
the
past,
where
there
was
a
house
and
then
it
was
replaced.
L
F
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
I
have
more
questions,
but
I'm
going
to
hold
on
there
that
other
people
have
a
chance
here.
Thank
you.
So
much.
A
Okay,
I
see
lisa,
you
haven't
had
a
chance
yet.
Q
Yeah,
I
was
I'm
not
sure
who
the
right
staff
member
is
to
address
this
too,
but
I
thought
it
might
be
a
benefit
to
those
of
us.
Who've
been
on
plenty
board
for
some
time
and
especially
to
our
new
members
to
just
touch
briefly
and
maybe
a
little
more
broadly
on
what
some
of
the
benefits
to
the
city
are
of
annexing
property,
particularly
when
they're
contiguous
for
a
significant
portion
of
the
boundary
with
the
city
and
I'm
thinking,
especially
public
health
benefits.
Q
Although
I
imagine
there
might
be
other
things
like,
for
example,
I'm
thinking
of
the
wonderful
presentation
we
had
from
city,
firefighters
and
staff
talking
about
how
much
more
intense
the
code
is
for
fire
construction
within
the
city
as
opposed
to
the
county,
but
yeah
just
kind
of
some
conversation
around
public
health
benefit
in
terms
of
sewer.
You
know
septic
and
communicable
diseases,
fire
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
I'm
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
edward
or
who
that's
for.
J
Really
in
terms
of
visioning,
what
areas
of
the
city
should
be
available
to
be
annexed,
or
should
it
be
encouraged
to
be
annexed?
That's
all
done
through
the
comprehensive
plan
policy
or
the
the
updates.
So
if
a
property
is
designated
as
area
2,
that
is
basically
saying
that
we
encourage
and
expect
that
property
to
annex
within
three
years.
J
That
doesn't
always
happen,
but
that's
the
intent
and
I
think
you're
right
there
there's
a
lot
of
benefits
to
doing
that
in
certain
cases,
if
it's
already
part
of
the
developed
in
an
urban
manner
or
can
be
developed
in
an
urban
manner,
then
there's
benefits
there.
Also,
yes,
there's.
Obviously
public
health
benefits
to
removing
failing
septic
systems,
which
we
get
a
lot
of
annexations
in
that
case,
but
yeah
I'm
not
super
versed
in
how
that
works
with
the
firefighters
or
anything
like
that.
Yeah.
G
You
know,
I
think
lisa
as
far
as
the
comprehensive
plan
goes,
the
the
two
main
benefits
of
an
annexation
like
this
are
really
getting
people
on
domestic
utilities,
getting
them
off
a
septic
and
well,
and
you
know,
permanently
affordable
housing.
You
know
negotiated
into
the
annexation
agreement,
so
those
are
really
to
the
two
primary
benefits
that
the
comprehensive
plan
considers.
G
J
I
believe
it
is.
We
actually
had
a
discussion
with
dave
lowry
about
this
site
and
whether
it
was
appropriate
to
have
conditions
as
part
of
the
annexation
in
terms
of
that
barrier.
J
Truck
up
there
yeah
but
yeah,
we
did
have
that
discussion
with
him
and
it
isn't
within
that
right.
Q
And
then
one
other
question
and
I'll
see
the
floor
and
sloan,
would
you
mind
I'm
not
sure
which
slide
is
the
best
one,
but
I'm
looking
for
a
slide.
That
kind
of
shows.
I
I
don't
want
to
call
it
an
in
holding,
because
it
isn't
quite-
and
I
don't
want
to
call
it
swiss
cheese.
Q
But
there's
is
there
a
slide
that
kind
of
shows
what
city
and
and
what's
not,
maybe
zoomed
out
a
little
bit
or
I'm
just
trying
to
picture
kind
of
how
the
parcels
around
they're
all
fit
together,
and
that
may
not
be
something
you
can
get
your
hands
on
quickly.
But
it
seems
like
it's
kind
of
an
interesting
area
in
there,
where
some
county
some
zoismp
some
city
and
sometimes
kind
of
getting
a
backed
up.
Look
at
that
can
be
helpful
for
thinking
about.
Q
P
J
And
then
further
west
is
the
new
90-year
rapid
development
going
up.
J
Q
More
city
to
the
west
and-
and
I
I
can't
quite
see
on
this
image,
but
if
we
were
to
like
go,
do
south,
I
know
there's
quite
a
bit
of
osmp
that
will
hit
for
a
while.
Do
we
also
then
hit
more
neighborhoods
and
more
city.
Q
A
Okay,
I
see
there
are
more
hands
up,
but
I'll.
Take
a
crack
myself.
Now,
I'd
like
to
pursue
this
issue
of
the
driveway
to
the
west
that
that
you
mentioned
was
county
owned,
but
not
county
accepted
it'd
be
interesting
to
clarify
that
what
to
what
that
really
means
in
terms
of
both
maintenance
and
continued
access,
can
you
go
into
a
little
detail
on
that.
J
Yeah,
well
I
mean,
I
think,
in
terms
of
city
interests,
there
is
none
except
maintaining
access
to
the
osmp.
I
think
what
happened
is
that
it
was
determined
to
be
county
right-of-way
through
a
court
decree,
but
the
county
had
no
interest
in
actually
maintaining
or
taking
that
over
us
right
away.
So
it's
sort
of
this
in
between
area
right
now.
I
don't
know
as
part
of
this
this
proposal.
If
we
need
to
come
to
terms
with
what
that
is,
I
don't
know.
A
Well,
I
I'm
concerned
from
a
couple
aspects.
One
is
sure
continued
right-of-way
just
for
pedestrians
to
get
to
the
trailhead
on
the
city,
open
space
property
there
and,
secondly,
that's
actively
used
as
a
driveway
for
several
single-family
homes.
A
And
you
know
that
are
outside
the
city
boundaries
right
now,
but
I
would
think
the
city
has
interest
in
ensuring
that
it
remains
accessible
and
that,
ultimately,
if
if
annexation
continues
in
this
neck
of
the
woods
and
other
parcels
that
border
that
that
that,
at
the
argument
for
the
city
to
be
in
control
of
that
becomes
even
more
serious.
J
P
Certainly,
I
can
talk
a
little
bit
and
aaron
if
you
want
to
add
so
we
had
to
have
a
conversation
with
our
partners
in
both
transportation
and
mobility
in
the
open
space
and
mountain
parks
on
this
application
to
understand
the
desires
and
needs
of
that
particular
right
of
way,
which
sloan
is
correct,
is
unimproved
to
any
county
standards
and
now,
therefore,
hasn't
really
been
accepted
by
the
county.
What
we
learned
from
open
space
and
mountain
parks
is
they?
Well,
they
have
some
limited
use
of
it
to
some
of
the
open
space
holdings.
P
They
actually
were
not
in
favor
of
an
improved
roadway
or
approved
vehicular
connection,
especially
into
that
area.
Transportation
did
not
see
it
as
serving
a
city
community
need,
especially
as
you've
highlighted
well
john.
It
does
provide
driveway
access
to
might
be
two
houses
in
there.
There's
not
much
else
they
could
ever
provide
access
to
even
the
rest
of
the
holdings
are
primarily
city,
open
space,
owned
land.
So
from
those
provisions
we
looked
at
it
and
said
it's
actually
not
in
the
city's
interest
to
assume
the
liability
to
maintain
and
operate
a
roadway
section.
A
So
so
even
the
concern
of
potential
fire
access
is
not
of
interest
to
the
city.
I
mean
this
is.
I
was
just
up
there
today,
walking
around
checking
it
out
and-
and
that
was
the
first
thing
that
came
to
mind
to
me-
was
the
value
of
that
just
to
get
a
fire
truck
in
there
if
necessary,.
A
R
Good
evening
board
aaron
poe,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
hella
pandawig,
for
the
city
attorney's
office,
and
I
believe,
if,
if
we
needed
that
roadway
instead
of
getting
it
through
this
annexation,
we
would
be
able
to
have
an
intergovernmental
agreement
with
boulder
county.
If,
in
the
future,
we
wanted
to
to
do
something
more
with
that
roadway.
A
But
at
this
point
you
haven't
had
any
discussions
with
the
county
about
that
yeah.
A
M
Thanks
john,
so
I
have
two
questions,
one
of
which
will
be
for
michelle
and
one
of
which
will
be
for
sloan,
and
I'm
going
to
start
with
michelle.
M
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
staff
assumptions
about
the
maximum,
the
the
the
designation
of
the
market
rate
homes
that
could
max
maximally
be
3
300
square
feet
as
meeting
the
city,
one
of
the
two
goals
of
the
middle
income
housing
strategy,
particularly
the
and
I'm
quoting
here
from
the
packet
market
rate,
middle
income,
oriented
homes,
affordable
to
middle
income,
families,
eg
attached,
missing
middle
potential
for
future
ownership
and
tenure.
M
I
get
the
ownership,
but
the
a
third
I
I
did
a
tiny
little
bit
of
mathematical
calculations
and
at
the
current
rate
of
sale,
price
of
435
dollars
per
square
foot
in
boulder
for
residential
homes.
A
3
300
square
foot
house
would
actually
sell
for
1.7
million
dollars
and
with
the
help
of
a
friend
who's
in
the
development
world.
You'd
need
an
income
of
about
four
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year
to
afford
to
be
eligible
for
such
a
large
house,
a
mortgage
for
such
a
large
high
price.
L
So
we're
looking
at
the
affordable
product
as
being
what
is
going
to
help
us
meet
our
middle
income
goals.
Okay,
market
product,
we
put
a
cap
on
the
size
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
doing
I
mean
their
house
is
going
up
all
the
time
that
in
boulder
that
are
five
six
thousand
square
feet.
L
So
we
wanted
to
get
a
reasonable
size,
but
still
allow
a
house
big
enough
because
that
could
command
a
you
know
a
relatively
high
price,
because
those
market
houses
have
to
pay
the
very
large
loss
that
a
developer
takes
on
the
affordable
product.
L
We
don't
sit
down
and
crunch
those
numbers,
but
we
kind
of
it's
more
of
a
rule
of
thumb.
L
So
we
don't
want
to
constrain
the
market
houses
too
much,
because
those
houses
have
to
again
bring
in
enough
income
for
the
developer.
To
be
able
to
do.
50
is
significant,
even
as
the
division
of
housing
when
we're
looking
at
a
project
to
do
a
50,
affordable
project,
we're
usually
very
hard-pressed
to
make
that
that
kind
of
a
development
work.
So
a
market
developer
is
also
hard-pressed,
and
so
the
intent
wasn't
to
make
those
market
units
meet
our
middle
income
goals.
M
Okay,
so
the
phrase
and
furtherance
of
the
goals
of
the
middle
income
housing
strategy,
it's
that
they
subsidize
the
goals
of
the
middle
income,
housing
strategy,
yeah.
Okay,
that's
very
helpful.
I
really
appreciate
that
michelle
and
if
I
might
not
turn
to
sloan
my
last
my
last
clarifying
question
so
paragraph
18
of
the
draft
agreement
item
g.
M
It
says
it
gives
applicants
and
city
or
city
manager
the
right
to
modify
the
requirements
of
paragraph
18.
If
quote,
the
proposed
development
would
provide
an
affordable
housing
benefit
that
provides
a
community
benefit,
at
least
equivalent
to
the
housing
benefit
provided
by
the
required
affordable
units
so
kind
of
a
mouthful
lots
of
benefits
used
in
there
and
I'm
just
trying
to
double
check.
Does
that
allow
does
that?
M
M
G
I
Q
M
Wasn't
clear
to
me
if
one
of
the
rights
the
city
manager
would
have
is
to
define
maybe
a
cash
in
lieu
as
an
alternative
to
the
on-site
affordability.
L
I
think
if
the
city
manager
were
to
determine
that
it
was
equivalent
affordable
benefit
that
that
would
be
up
to
her
to
do,
and
we
put
that
in
just
because
these
annexation
agreements
are
so
binding
that
if
somebody
wants
to
vary
just
even
some
minor
part
of
it
and
it
makes
sense
to
vary
it,
there's
no
there's
no
way
to
do
that
without
going
for
an
annexation
amendment,
and
so
a
lot
of
annexation
agreements
have
that
language
just
so
that
it's
a
little
bit
like
an
administrative
approval,
although
it's,
but
it's
the
city
manager
so
pretty
much.
L
She
would.
You
know,
exercise
a
lot
of
discretion
in
that,
but
yeah
the
way
it's
written
she
could
allow.
I
don't
she
could
allow
cash
and
lieu.
M
So
I
guess
this
is
a
question
now
for
aaron
or
jb,
which
is:
could
we
legally
add
a
phrase
that
would
limit
the
one
right,
the
one
power
of
the
city
in
turn,
or
I
don't
know
the
right
way.
M
Way
to
say
it,
but
to
not
to
to
withhold
this
one
right
this
right
from
one
thing,
which
would
be
allowing
cash
in
lieu
so
that
this
has
to
be
on-site.
I'm
just
is
that
something
that
we
could
legally
do.
R
Yes,
if
you
wanted
to
restrict
that
section
so
that
the
city
manager
could
could
modify
in
other
ways
like
housing
type
but
not
allow
for
substitution
of
cash
in
lieu.
That
would
be
something
you
could
recommend
to
city
council
and
changing
the
agreement.
O
Thanks
john,
I
want
to
build
on
john's
questions
about
the
access
road
because,
as
as
he
questioned
that
it,
it
brought
some
of
my
concerns
more
into
focus,
and
that
is
that
if
the
county
says
well,
we
don't
want
it
because
we
don't
want
to
maintain
it.
The
city
says:
well,
you
know
we're
not
really
going
after
it
and
we
don't
find
it
of
value
and
maybe
for
the
same
reasons
that
we
don't
want
to
maintain
it.
O
It
seems
as
though
we
are
setting
ourselves
up
for
a
possible
someone
throwing
up
a
gate
and
putting
a
private
property
sign
on
there,
and
suddenly
we
have
a
court
battle
over
access
to
what
has
been
a
very
long
multi-decade
historical
access
to
open
space
to
the
public
from
arapahoe
and
or
an
adverse
possession
that
well
I've
been
using
this
as
my
driveway.
O
Hence
it's
mine
anyway.
It
seems
as
though
this
is
the
time
for
the
city
to
either
say
yeah.
It's
part
of
this
annexation
we're
going
to
take
this
over,
and
that
doesn't
mean
we
need
to
pave
it
and
curbs
and
gutters
and
stuff.
It
just
means
it
clarifies
the
access
that
this
is
public
right-of-way.
I
I
am
fearful
that
we
will
have
an
access
battle
on
our
hands,
even
even
if
the
homeowners
to
the
west
of
this
development
say.
Oh
now,
I've
got
14
units.
I've
got
30
people
living
down
there.
O
I
don't
want
them
walking
up
my
driveway
and
why
people
hate
that
I
don't
know,
but
it
is
a
common
sentiment
amongst
homeowners
is
a
yeah.
I
don't
want
anyone
on
my
driveway.
I
don't
want
any
access
this
bugs
me,
so
I
would
advocate
that
somehow
we
either
clarify
public
access
as
part
of
this
annexation
agreement
or
the
city.
Just
you
know,
agree
with
the
county
that
it's
going
to
be
ours.
O
Okay,
that
wasn't
a
question,
I'm
sorry,
but
that
was
more
of
a
statement
and
maybe
that
should
come
later.
But
if
anyone
had
from
in
planning
has
a
comment
on
that,
that
would
be
great.
A
Yeah,
let's,
I
would
enjoy
some
staff
response
also
on
that
issue.
P
Certainly
so
what
I
would
encourage,
if
you
see
a
need
that
that
needs
to
be
a
city
facility
and
the
liabilities
associated
with
it,
whether
improved
further
or
not,
if
it's
in
the
city
and
as
part
of
right-of-way,
we
have
a
responsibility
to
it.
The
only
really
provision
or
way
to
do
that
through
this,
that
I
can
see
and
aaron
may
want
to
chime
in,
would
be
to
recommend
that
it
be
added
to
the
annexation.
P
That
would
mean
updating
annexation
maps
and
other
processes
that
that
then,
would
create
a
city
facility
there,
because
the
applicant
here
does
not
actually
have
ownership
of
that
and
is
not
in
control
of
or
have
an
interest.
You
could
not
do
something
in
the
annexation
agreement.
P
That
would
spell
anything
out
with
that,
because
that
agreement
is
with
this
particular
applicant
and
property
owner,
and
so
there's
not
a
way
to
say
that
will
always
be
maintained
as
public
access
there's
no
way
for
them
to
enforce
that
or
agree
to
do
that,
because
they
have
no
ownership
or
rights
to
that.
So
that
would
be
the
challenge
with
trying
to
address
it
through
this
annexation.
F
Thank
you,
john.
I
have
kind
of
a
follow-up
to
sarah's
interest
in
that
section
g
and
what
kind
of
authority
would
the
city
manager
have
in
the
process?
So
the
thing
I've
been
interested
in
is
that
so
the
site
allows
13.52
units
and
the
question-
and
I
think
it's
put
it's
in
the
document
somewhere
says:
should
the
staff
allow
14.
F
so
the
idea
that
that
could
be
rounded
up
to
14,
I'm
curious
as
to
could
we
require
in
that
g
that
if
it
goes
above
13
units
that
anything
that
goes
above
that
that
is
allowed
above,
that
is
an
affordable
unit?
F
Is
that
something
we
can
do
or
why
wouldn't
we
want
to
have
anything
that
goes
beyond
sort
of
what
the
math
shakes
out,
which
is
13.52,
which
would
be
13,
be
affordable.
L
F
Is
there
anything
that
you
can
point
to?
That
would
give
us
reason
not
to
do
that.
L
I
I
can't
I
don't
know
what
the
likelihood
is
that
they
could
get
14
units.
Maybe
maybe
sloane
would
have
a
opinion
about
that.
But
if
it's
possible
to
have
14
units
yeah,
I
I
don't.
I
don't
see
a
reason
not
to
do
that
and
the
fact
that
50
is
a
very
high
percentage
of
affordability.
L
And
so,
if
you
add
that
other
unit
then
now
you've
actually
flipped
it
over
to
being
higher
than
50.
F
F
Yeah
sloan
did
you
have
some
thoughts
about
that
or.
J
Yeah
I
mean
I
think,
because
as
long
as
you're
in
support
of
this
zone
district,
which
is
based
on
law
area,
I
think
it's-
the
probability
of
getting
to
14
is
pretty
low.
Unless
you
wanted
to
modify
some
portion
of
the
land
use
code
as
part
of
annexation
yeah,
I
think
you
would
have
to
change
the
annexation
agreement
because
the
way
it's
written,
I
don't
think
you
would
get
an
additional
unit.
F
Okay,
it
just
identified
that
that
possibility-
and
I
was
just
wanting
to
say-
okay
if
it
does
happen
to
flip
that
way.
So
that
would
be
something
we
could
look
at
somewhere.
So
my
substantive
questions
have
to
do
with
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
and
I
think
it's
1.10.
F
So
it
first
shows
up
on
page
10
in
the
conversation,
but
it
shows
up
on
page
60
in
in
the
analysis
that
the
staff
provided
with
the
packet.
So
what
I
am
concerned
about
with
the
with
that
in
particular,
is
so
if
we
look
at
page
60
under
1.10
growth
requirements,
redevelopment
to
provide
significant
community
benefits,
achieve
sustainability
goals
for
urban
form
and
to
maintain
improve
or
improve
environmental
quality
as
a
precondition.
F
So
this
goes
to
the
question
I
was
having
about
the
proposed
location
of
their
project
and
if
we
look
at
the
map
on
page
59,
that
is
the
area
that
they're
looking
at
putting
the
housing
in
and
there
would
be
a
significant
number
of
trees.
F
If
you
look
at
the
picture
on
page
56,
you
can
see
the
the
canopy
is
pretty
dense
in
there.
I
just
did
a
quick
overlay
of
the
proposed
layout
onto
the
site.
That
shows
the
tree
inventory
and
I
think
that
there
that
this
is
just
under
the
footprint.
I
think
there
were
26
trees
that
would
be
removed,
and
that
doesn't
count.
You
know
what
is
going
to
be
influenced
by
the
construction,
adjacent
and
outside
of
the
footprint.
F
So
what
you
know
when
I,
when
I
had
asked
the
question
you
know
before
it
seemed
like
you,
didn't
think
that
there
would
be
many
trees
impacted,
but
26
and
pretty
significant
trees
would
be
impacted.
How
does
that?
How
does
that
speak
to
that
part
of
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
that
wants
us
to
maintain
and
improve
the
environmental
qualities?
F
J
J
I
F
Well,
I
mean
just
the
whole
carbon
sequestration
of
existing
trees.
I
mean,
I
guess
my
question
would
be-
is
why
wouldn't
we
get
given
that
it's
a
significant
impact,
26
and-
and
I
looked
at
the
caliper
of
these
trees
on
this
little?
I'm
not
sure
who
did
this
inventory
just
like
that
applicant
did
where
they
identified
the
caliper
of
the
tree.
These
are
mature
trees
and
wouldn't
it
behoove
us
to
have
an
actual
understanding
of
what
environmental
impact
is
going
to
be.
F
Q
I
don't
I
don't
want
to
cross
over
into
discussions,
so
I'll
just
be
very
brief
and
let
staff
speak
in
a
moment,
but
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
two
things.
First,
I
I
actually
very
much
agree
with
you
and
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
things
staff
proposed
as
potentially
being
something
we
might
put
into.
Q
You
know
future
review
of
the
various
things
that
show
up
in
front
of
us,
so
that
was
more
for
use,
review
and
site
review,
but
I
I
hear
where
you're
coming
from,
I
will
say
from
a
climate
perspective
that
there
is
actually
a
confusing
and
somewhat
disturbing
reality
that
young
trees
are
worth
more
for
carbon
sequestration
than
old
trees,
and
so
you
know,
depending
on
how
you
weigh
it
and
how
you
look
at
it.
Q
A
We
can
talk
about
that
in
discussion
ml.
Were
you.
F
So
the
other
one
was
the
sustainability
in
urban
form
and
what
boulder
valley
comp
plan
has
to
say
about.
That
is
that
we
have
we
provide
dense.
You
know
a
dense
solution
in
in
a
sustainable
development,
and
this
is
a
not
really
dance
solution,
so
I
I
just
want.
I
just
wonder:
if
staff
has,
where
are
you
sloane
went
away?
I
see
your
name,
I
don't
see
your
picture.
What
are
your
thoughts
about
the
project
in
relationship
to
that
kind
of
boulder
valley,
comp
plan,
consideration.
G
Yeah,
it
looks
like
she
froze
ml,
but
I'll
take
I'll
take
a
cut
at
it.
I
mean
you
bet
we're
limited
by.
You
know
the
boulder
valley,
land
use
plan
and
the
density
that's
prescribed
under
the
zoning.
So
you
know
part
of
the
analysis
that
we've
done.
Is
you
know?
How
can
we
honor
that
goal
or
policy
in
the
comp
plan
looking
through
the
lens
of
the
limitations
of
the
land
use
map
and
the
zoning
that
we
have
to
offer?
I
G
Locking
up
on
me
right
so
density
in
the
rm3
zone,
which
we're
recommending
is
determined
by
a
minimum
lot
area,
so
3
500
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit,
which
nets
out
to
a
maximum
of
12.4
or
rounded
up
to
13
units.
F
So
the
far
is
what
would
the
far
be
on
this.
G
So
I
don't
think
that
this
zone
district
has
a
prescribed
maximum
far.
The
density
control
really
is
3
500
square
feet
per
dwelling
unit.
F
I
guess
that's
what
I'm
talking
about
when
I'm
thinking
about
this
sustainable
urban
urban
form,
where
we
remove
the
burden
of
spreading
out
on
the
property
and
instead
bring
it
into
a
denser
footprint,
which
you
know
will
have
an
impact
on
the
trees
and
on
the
grating
and
and
on
a
lot
of
things,
because
we
have
a
site
that
has
existing
circumstances,
that
on
if
you
spread
out
and
and
take
up
the
whole
site
up
there
like
this
one.
Does
it
it's
a
different
impact
than
if
you
stack
stack
your
units.
G
I
don't
know
that
just
you
know,
by
virtue
of
the
constraints
that
exist
on
the
site,
that
you
could
really
sprawl
out
and
build
corner
of
the
corner.
G
F
Right,
thank
you.
So
much
kurt
did
you
have
something
to
add
to
my
questions.
I
know
john.
I'm
overstepping
my
boundaries,
but
I
see
kirchheim
and
I
know
he's
in
housing.
H
H
So
as
as
far
as
your
question
about
adding
an
additional
units
and
could
that
and
then
could
an
additional
unit
of
affordable
homeownership
be
be
part
of
the
agreement?
I
think
it's
extremely
unlikely
that
the
developer
would
add
another
unit
that
would
have
to
be
affordable.
It's
an
additional
unit
that
they're
going
to
lose
money
on
and
probably
to
the
tune
of,
I
don't
know
one
or
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
that
they
would
lose
simply
by
building
it.
I
think
so.
H
The
paragraph
that
sarah
mentioned
gives
the
city
manager
authority
to
modify
the
agreements,
and
it
really
talks
about.
You
know
something:
that's
that's
equal
and
if
you
left
it
the
way
it
was
and
they
were
able
to
add
another
unit
which
it
also
doesn't
sound
like
they
can
from
sloan's
point
of
view,
but
if
they
could
add
another
unit,
then
the
city
manager,
under
that
paragraph,
as
it's
written
now,
could
actually
say
well.
You've
added
another
unit.
H
We're
not
going
to
get
another
affordable
unit
out
of
this,
but
let's
get
some
cash.
So
as
it
is,
it's
probably
more
beneficial
to
the
city,
and
if
there
was
an
opportunity,
it
would
create
an
opportunity
for
another
unit
from
a
developer
standpoint
as
well
and
then,
as
far
as.
H
Switching
to
cash
and
lieu
you
know,
technically
they
could
do
that.
However,
we
wouldn't
see
that
as
a
similar
community
benefits
in
our
community
for
sale,
housing
is
is
sort
of
very
high
on
the
list
for
community
benefit,
particularly
for
annexations.
H
So
if
they
decide
to
go
to
cash
and
live,
we
would
likely
ask
them
to
do
an
annexation
amendment
which
they
would
likely
be
unsuccessful
with,
and
so
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure.
If
there's
real
benefit
in
that
either
I
I
just
don't
see
that
outcome
occurring
and
it
wouldn't
benefit
the
city
to
go
in
that
direction.
A
Oh
okay,
all
right,
I
I
have
a
couple
questions
for
staff
myself.
One
is
with
respect
to
the
concerns
about
the
the
driveway
along
and
access
easement
along
the
west
side
of
this.
How
would
you
suggest
that
we
address
that
concern
if
a
majority
of
planning
board
feels
that's?
That
is
a
concern,
and
this
may
be
a
question
for
aaron
or
sloan.
P
Yeah
I'll
go
back
to
my
previous
statement.
If
it's
something
you
think
should
be
addressed
in
here
and
therefore
should
be
part
of
the
the
city,
then
I
would
suggest
you
make
a
condition
and
aaron
may
have
to
help
with
this,
because
I
don't
know
whether
we
can
do
that
in
an
annexation
to
go
forward
to
counsel
or
whether
we
would
need
to
re-notice,
but
that
you
would
want
to
see
that
right-of-way
made
a
part
of
this
annexation
and
included
the
annexation
map,
so
that
it
would
then
become
in
the
city's
jurisdiction.
A
So
would
an
option
be
to
as
part
of
our
recommendation
to
council
be
that
they
initiate
discussions
with
the
county
to
take
over
ownership
and
control
of
that
driveway
separate?
Because
it's
does
it's
not
obvious
to
me
that
this
is
something
that
the
applicant
can
deal
with.
P
G
Right
and
then
direct
staff,
if
they
agreed.
R
Your
head,
I
agree
with
that.
I
I
think
if
you
made
the
recommendation
to
council,
probably
the
easiest
way
for
them
to
do,
it
would
be
through
some
sort
of
action
with
the
county,
be
it
an
iga
or
an
annexation
that
would
not
restart
this
annexation
with
a
petition
and
notice
again.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
and
my
second
question
was
whether
I
see
that
this
project,
as
proposed
by
the
applicant,
wouldn't
come
before
planning
board
again
in
either
concept
or
site
review.
If
I
understood
sloane's
comments
correctly,
sloan.
G
I
think
that
depends
on
how
they
choose
to
develop
correct.
G
A
Right
so
my
my
question
is
whether
that
could
be
a
condition
of
annexation
that
whatever
happens
here,
has
to
come
before:
planning
board
in
concept
and
site
review.
R
I
believe
you
can,
under
the
annexation,
ordinance
9217
you,
the
planning
board,
may
add
conditions,
so
it
seems
like
that
would
be
a
reasonable
condition.
You
know
if
you
believe
it
would
create
a
burden,
otherwise
not
to
come
back.
J
A
That's
correct,
but
but
if
we
made
it
to
our
condition,
then,
as
with
any
condition
made
by
staff
suggested
by
staff,
applicant
has
to
agree
to
that
also,
so
thank
you.
Laura.
N
P
P
If
somebody
was
to
potentially
be
held
responsible
right
now,
it
would
be
the
county
if
somebody
could
enforce
upon
them,
but
I
believe
from
what
I
recall
during
the
review
they
have
more
or
less
said.
We've
never
accepted
these
improvements
and
are
not
considering
this
a
public
facility
with
the
county
stance.
P
N
A
S
Thanks,
so
you
know
my
name's
mark
young
I've
been
doing
this
a
long
time
in
town
and
I've
done
several
annexations
in
the
past.
I
did.
They
were
extensively
on
that
the
crestview
east
annexation,
when
brent
bean
was
with
the
city
and
I've
been,
I
think
I've
done
four
annexations
in
town
anyway,
when
I
first
started
looking
at
this
project,
I
looked
at
it
just
buying
302
arapaho
and
using
that
unimproved
road.
As
my
access
and
improving
it,
it
was
my
intention
to
maintain
it
as
a
private
road.
S
However,
I
went
the
city
couldn't
figure
out
who
had
a
right
to
it,
went
to
the
county
they
denied
that
they
had
anything
to
do
with
it
either.
It
is
managed.
I
think,
right
now
by
three
properties,
this
property,
which
the
302
arapaho
and
then
two
more
that
that
are
up
the
road
from
there
and
the
conclusion
after
hours
of
work
and
research
was
that
nobody
wants
the
road
and
it
doesn't
serve
much
of
it.
It
doesn't
serve
very
many
people.
S
S
When
that
stalled
about
three
years
ago,
I
went
out
in
search
of
a
property
owner
adjacent
to
arapaho
that
I
could
bring
in
to
get
access
to
the
property,
and
so
I
did
find
that
property
that
property
in
the
form
of
334
arapaho
and
consequently
the
annexation
agreement
requires
that
I
stop
taking
access
off
of
that
road
off
that
side
road.
So,
in
the
event
that
I
don't
want
to
complicate
this,
we
have
a
great
way
of
accessing
the
property
right
now,
whether
or
not
their
roads
ever
improved.
S
S
So
that's
my
first,
the
first
thing
on
the
road.
Let
me
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
the
property
too,
so
the
property
302
arapaho
was
owned
by
a
guy
named
roy
rogers.
We
all
thought
it
was
the
roy
rogers.
It
turned
out
not
to
be
the
roy
rogers,
apparently
there's
plenty
of
them
out
there
and
he
he
had
that
as
a
tree
farm.
S
He
put
all
kinds
of
trees
in
there,
pear,
trees,
apple
trees,
peach
trees,
pine
trees
and
he
would
sell
the
trees
from
this
house
sell
the
trees
from
there.
So
if
we
do,
you
saw
a
picture
in
the
historic
analysis
of
the
house,
and
maybe
sloan
can
put
that
picture
up.
Real,
quick
and
we'll
talk
about
trees
for
a
minute.
S
S
So
one
of
the
things
that
that
and
historically
I've
done
pretty
green
developments
in
town,
and
I
think
that
it's
you
know
my
first
project
in
town
was
in
1997
and
it
was
at
3663
iris
and
I
saved
108
trees
on
that
site.
S
The
next
thing
I
want
to
show
you
and
sloan
if
you
put
up
that
tree
survey
with
our
overlay
on
it,
so
here's
the
tree
survey
with
the
overlay
on
it.
If
I
can
draw
your
attention
to
the
ditch,
which
is
on
the
bottom
of
the
property,
that's
where
their
most
abundant
trees
are
and
then,
if
you
follow
it,
I'm
pointy
on
my
screen.
Thinking
you
can
see
me
anyway.
If
you
look
to
the
west
side,
there's
also
trees
that
run
along
the
west
side.
S
So
I
want
to
be
a
good
steward
of
the
property
too,
maintain
the
trees
as
many
as
we
can.
We
can
take
there's
another,
exhibit
that
I'd
like
you
to
take
a
look
at
which
sloane
would
be
just
exhibit
two,
I
think,
and
if
you
can
scroll
down,
then
make
that
bigger.
S
So
if
you
look
at
the
trees
we're
going
to
lose
it's
really,
there
are
several
pine
trees,
two
deciduous
trees.
Probably
the
count
was
right:
it'd
probably
be
about
26
trees.
S
S
S
We
were
talking
about
when
we're
talking
about
community
benefit,
and
I
worked
with
michelle
on
this
project
for
a
long
time
we
were,
I
was
under
contract
for
a
long
time
on
it
trying
to
find
that
extra
access,
so
I
could
actually
develop
it.
We
didn't
we
didn't
disagree
at
all.
I
made
no
allusions
to
wanting
well,
I
can't
say
that
if
I
could
have
gotten
cash
into,
I
would
have
taken
it.
S
S
You
know
the
the
house
size
it's
interesting,
3,
300
square
feet
is
a
lot
of
house
up
there.
If
we
develop
this
to
the
maximum
size,
there's
really
no
way.
I
can
get
3
300
square
feet
in
each
one
of
those
units
we're
probably
going
to
be
closer
if
we're
probably
going
to
be
closer
to
2800
or
2600
in
the
market
rate
units.
S
S
My
expectation
is
the
affordable
units
that
we
put
in
will
have
probably
two
possibly
three
bedrooms
and
two
possibly
two
and
a
half
baths
and
would
be
around
450
square
feet,
and
I
think
that's
the
sweet
spot
for
us
for
how
we
can
develop
that
it's
been
a
real
pleasure
working
with
staff
on
this
annexation.
S
S
So
when
I
was
first
looking
at
this
project,
I
thought
I
would
probably
get
the
rm1
zoning
the
arm,
and
you
know
staff
points
out
that
rm1
zoning
would
actually
allow
for
fewer
units
on
the
site.
However,
there's
lots
of
ways
for
a
developer
to
create
open
space,
rooftop
decks
interior
interior
pedestrian
ways.
S
S
S
Let's
see
nope,
let's
go
one
more
there,
you
go
that
one.
So
what
you
can
see
here
is
at
the
property
line
between
302
arapaho
and
334
arapaho,
there's
a
retaining
wall
there
and
that
retaining
wall
was
put
in
because
when
they
developed
the
units
along
arapaho,
they
basically
just
came
in
and
leveled
it.
They
took
out
the
hillside
and
put
retaining
walls
in
behind
the
logs,
which,
if
you,
if
I
had
a
picture
of
it,
you'd
see
it
here
and
you'd
see.
Maybe
you
walked
the
site
and
saw
that
retaining
wall.
S
It
creates
an
artificial
impression
of
the
site
being
steep
and
as
long
as
you
go
down
to
the
far
south
you
can
see
here.
If
you
look
at
the
anderson,
ditch
you'll
see
stop
steep
contour
lines
around
the
anderson,
ditch
the
when
they
excavated
the
ditch.
Of
course,
they
built
up
these
berms
on
the
side
of
the
ditch,
and
so
we
have
a
unique
situation
where
it
appears
the
site
is
very,
very
steep
when,
in
reality,
if
you
walk
the
area
that
we're
proposing
to
develop,
it's
really
not
that
steep
at
all.
S
S
It
doesn't
have
any
negative
impact
for
us
whatsoever,
but
you
can
see
here
in
this
in
the
the
picture
up
above
and
we're
talking
about
unit
size
if
these
units
are
25
feet
wide
and
37
feet
deep,
that's
like
900
square
feet
per
level.
So
in
order
for
us
to
maximize
the
density,
this
is
the
way
we
have
to
do
it.
There
is
a
natural
constraint
on
what
the
size
is.
We
really
can't
go
any
further
with
that.
S
S
Just
so
everybody
knows
almost
all
development
now,
especially
in
the
city
of
boulder,
where,
if
you
have
a
multi-unit
subdivision
and
you're
required
to
have
an
out
loud
for
detention
as
soon
as
you
create
that
outlaw
you've
pushed
everybody
into
an
hoa
years
ago.
I
worked
on
trying
to
find
ways
to
keep
hys
to
a
minimum,
and
we
still,
we
we've
had
some
success
with
keeping
the
hype
fees
down,
but
I
want
you
to
know
that
the
hoa
fees
are
set
by
the
owners
of
the
property.
S
In
addition
to
that,
you
know
the
the
comp
plan
does
call
for
the
annexation
of
these
sort
of
infill
areas
on
the
west
side
of
town.
They
want
to
do
that,
and
it
makes
sense
to
do
that
because,
when
you're
providing
services
every
one
of
these
houses,
every
one
of
these
units
is
going
to
pay
that
excise
tax.
S
You
know
the
developmental
excise
tax
to
help
support
the
police
fire
stuff
like
that,
but
as
we
accumulate
these
in
fill
in
these
gaps,
it's
going
to
make
any
disruption
of
services
easier
to
identify
and
point
a
finger
at.
So
I
hope
that
makes
sense
to
you,
but
as
we
you
know,
the
furthest
we
go
furthest
west
we've
got
properties
out
there
that
have
been
annexed.
Now.
If
we
annex
this
one
we're
closing
that
gap
and
bringing
it
in
so.
S
I
M
Mark
thank
you
for
that
presentation.
I
just
have
a
question
about
how
you
intend
to
use
the
front
section
of
the
two
parcels
I
I
was
up
there
last
weekend
and
based
on
the
drawings
and
then
on
the
what's
already
there.
It
is
actually,
I
think,
it's
much
deeper
than
the
required
setback.
I
could
be
wrong.
S
S
A
Any
other
questions
I
have
a
question
again
regarding
your
decision
on
the
the
road
to
the
west
of
the
property.
Yes,
would
were
you
instructed
by
the
city
not
to
attempt
to
use
that
in
any
way
for
access
to
your
property,
or
you
you
mentioned
that
briefly,
but
I
didn't
quite
understand
how
that
decision
was
taken.
S
I
was
told
by
dave
early
on
in
transportation
that
the
city
wanted
nothing
to
do
with
that
access
lane.
I
had
actually
I'd
wanted
to
incorporate
it
into
the
project,
but
I
didn't
own
it.
I'd
have
to
get
permission
from
the
county
to
do
it
and
I
think
sloan
indicated
it
might
have
been
aaron
who
indicated
that
there's
an
easier
way
to
do
that,
rather
than
annexing
it
right,
you
could
make
you
could
ask
the
county
if
you
could
have
it.
I
think
they'd
give
it
to
you
within
a
heartbeat.
S
It's
it
doesn't
do
much.
It
would
have
been
great.
It
would
have
been
like
a
private
drive
to
my
project,
but
it
really
doesn't
do
much
other
than
that
other
than
provide
a
walkway,
and
at
the
same
time,
that
I
was
researching
that
I
was
told
that
the
I
was
told
that
that
there
was
the
easement
in
place
so
that
people
could
always
have
access
to
the
to
the
trailhead
up
there
to
the
open
space.
N
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
just
was
wondering
mark
if
you
would
like
to
comment
on
the
parking
issue
that
was
raised
by
a
resident
and
and
by
the
way
I
apologize.
If
I
misgendered
kel
darnell,
I
I
don't
know
the
gender
of
this
person
who
wrote
to
us
but
mark.
Do
you
want
to
comment
on
what
you
intend
for
parking
to
make
sure
that
it
doesn't
flow
out
into
the
already
constrained
street
parking.
S
Sure
so-
and
you
know
I'm
glad
you
asked
because
there's
something
else-
I
think
that
we
should
talk
about.
That
was
the
possibility
of
doing
a
site
plan.
S
If
I
want
to
get
a
parking
reduction,
I
would
have
to
ask
for
a
part
you
know,
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
try
to
do
administrative
parking
reduction
or
you
know
bigger
parking
reduction.
Any
of
these
anything
that
I
wanted
to
do
with
that.
I
feel,
like
I'd,
be
better
off
doing
a
site
review.
I
don't
want
to
do
a
site
review.
S
I
think
it's
an
unnecessary
layer
at
this
point
on
this
project,
primarily
I'll
I'll,
bring
it
back
to
parking
in
just
a
second
the
the
reason
for
that
is-
and
I
didn't
ask
for
any
variations
to
the
code.
I
mean
every
annexation.
I've
done
has
said.
I
need
a
reduction
in
a
setback.
I
need
this.
I
need
that
we
didn't
ask
for
any
variations
to
the
code
to
be
built
into
this
annexation
agreement.
I
didn't
ask
for
any
variations
to
parking
to
be
built
into
the
annexation
agreement.
S
The
the
units
will
be
primarily
three-bedroom
they're
all
going
to
require
two
parking
spaces.
We've
got
two
parking
spaces
allocated
to
each
unit
and
there's
room
for
some
additional
parking
and
that
whatever
amount
of
parking
I
haven't
calculated
it
there'll
be
some
handicap.
There'll
be
two
or
three
other
guest
parking
spots
and
that'll
probably
be
on
that
driveway
inn
at
the
base.
Just
before
you
go
up
to
the
second
go
up
to
the
second
property.
S
So
we
would
we
promised
not
to
be
a
parking
burden.
I
built
one
building
in
town
without
enough
parking
and
I
swear
I'd.
Never
do
it
again,
it's
a
real,
it's
a
real
drag,
I
mean
and
people
want
it.
People
want
parking,
and
especially
in
this
setting,
the
garages
will
be
larger
because
people
are
going
to
have
toys
too
bikes
things
like
that.
S
So
you
know
the
code
was
established
in
the
zone
for
a
reason-
and
you
know
I
didn't
ask
for
any
variances
to
the
code
for
a
reason.
I
wanted
this
to
be
really
easy
for
everybody.
We'll
come
forward
with
a
project.
That's
going
to
meet
the
code,
meet
the
setbacks,
meet
the
density,
meet
the
the
open
space
meet
the
construction
requirements,
without
exception.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
oh
ml!
Is
that
your
do
you
have
your?
Oh,
it's
just
my
indicator.
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
thanks
very
much
to
the
applicant
appreciate
your
information.
A
I
think
we'll
take
a
break
now,
we've
been
going
for
two
hours
and
we'll
come
back
at
600
or
sorry
805
and
discuss
this
among
ourselves.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
N
I
A
N
F
A
A
Well,
I
don't
think
it
was
his
actually,
it
was.
He
was
a
little
bit
further
to
the
west.
F
Oh,
so
that
isn't
the
side
of
where,
because
didn't
the
applicant
talk
about
it
being
a
tree
farm.
F
A
In
fact,
I
I
have
some
intimate
connection
with
with
that
tree
farm.
It
was
a
own
that
area
was
owned,
where
the
house
was
owned
by
a
fellow
named
gatterer,
and
my
family
got
some
trees
from
him,
and
I
had
to
dig
the
holes
and
plant
them
in
airplanes.
I
F
F
Yeah
yeah,
that's
got
a
big
flood
impact
and
I
don't
know
if,
if
that's
been
a
part
of,
we
haven't
seen
that
be
a
part
of
the
site
criteria
and
site
due
diligence.
Flood
impact.
A
F
A
Well,
the
yeah
the
ditches.
Well,
we
you
know,
I
don't
want
to
presume
on
on
what
staff
will
will
tell
us
about
that,
but
I'm
not
sure
which
itself
affects
the
flood
determination.
Oh.
A
N
Got
it
john.
I
N
A
Yes,
I
I
realized
after
we
had
the
break
that
I
had
forgotten
we'll
do
that.
First,
okay,
I
think
we're
are
we
all
back?
I
think
so.
Okay,
so
I'll
bring
the
meeting
into
session
again
and
we'll
move
into
the
public
comment
portion
of
this
hearing
cindy.
Is
this
something
you
would
like
to
administer.
C
Yes,
please
john.
Thank
you.
As
john
said,
we
are
ready
to
go
for
our
public
comment
section.
If
you
would
like
to
make
a
public
comment,
please
go
down
to
the
bottom
of
your
screen
and
you
can
click
on
raised
hand,
and
I
will
see
that
and
then
I
will
I'll
take
the
raised
hands
in
order
and
I
will
unmute
you
when
you're
ready
when
it's
your
turn
to
speak
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
C
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
You
know
that
I'm
stating
the
obvious
sheesh
what
is
going
on
here,
the
transportation.
Let's
see
fire
truck
right
away.
You
know
the
need,
there's
more
need
for
a
fire
truck
here.
Yet
there's
no
access.
Clearly,
oh
brother,
this
deal
making
has
got
to
go.
This
is
now.
I
really
know
why
boulder
is
the
way
it
is
all
these
deals.
I
got
a
whole
full
page
here
and
I
got
four
seconds
left.
This
is
outrageous.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you,
lynn,.
C
All
right,
if
anyone
else
has
any
remarks
they
would
like
to
make,
you
can
now's
the
time
to
raise
your
hand,
and
I
do
not
see
any
more
raised
hands.
John.
So
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
back
to
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
that
brings
an
end
to
our
the
public
portion
of
this
hearing.
So
now
we
take
it
to
discuss
among
ourselves
any
thoughts.
A
C
I'm
gonna
turn
that
over
to
sloan,
because
I
think
sloan
has
the
key
questions.
Also,
we
do
allow
the
applicant
a
three-minute
revit,
yes,
three-minute,
rebuttal
after
public
comment,
so.
A
Okay,
let's
that's
fine,
see
applicant
here.
Does
he
have
any
response
to
what
has
he's
heard
in
the
public
session?
I.
A
So
I'm
opening
this
to
thoughts,
lisa.
Q
Yeah,
I
have
a
position
on
the
first
question
and
I'm
somewhat
inclined
to
maybe
recommend
a
straw
poll.
I
I
don't.
I
see
it
as
complying
with
applicable
state
annexation,
statutes
and
suspect
that
we
may
have
much
more
to
say
about
bbcp,
bvcp
policy,
specifically
so
john,
if
you're
comfortable
with
it
or
if
someone
else
wouldn't
like
to
speak
up
on
one
I'd
almost
like
to
say
suggests
that
we
might
take
a
quick
straw
poll
on
one,
and
perhaps
we
can
move
to
two.
If,
if
my
assumption
is
correct,.
A
All
right!
Let's
do
a
thumbs
up
or
thumbs
down
on
on
the
state
statutes
question:
where
do
where
do
you
think
about
that?
What
do
you
think
I
see
a
lot
of
thumbs
up,
lisa
yeah
and
me
too
looks
like
we
all
agree
that
this
satisfies
the
state
statute
requirements.
Q
Yeah
sure
I'll
I'll
start
out.
I
think
we'll
probably
have
some
robust
discussion
around
a
lot
of
these,
and
I
don't
want
to
take
up
too
much
time
in
general.
I
think
that
it
is
consistent
with
city
annexation
and
bvcp
policies,
including
you
know,
I
think,
a
lot
of
the
questions
we
may
get
into.
I
just
want
to
preface
that
I
think
some
of
them
will
probably
one.
Q
I
want
to
be
aware
of
what
the
applicant
said
about
potentially
not
coming
back
for
concept
to
use
review,
but
some
of
those
fine
grade
things
you
know
might
might
come
up
more
than
if
it
comes
back
for
that.
I
support
the
rm3
designation,
just
given
what's
around
it,
and
given
that
it's
13
units
it's,
it
appears
one
way
or
the
other.
Q
Oh
okay,
sure
yeah,
sorry
it
all
it
all
blends
together.
For
me,
I
guess
I
would
just
say
that
it's
a
pretty
urban
area,
so
you
know
when
I
think
about
what
we
annex
and
what
bbcp
says
about
it.
The
fact
that
it's
in
what.
Q
Two
or
zone
area
two
planned
to
be
pulled
in
three
years
makes
sense.
The
public
health
arguments,
I
think,
are
significant
septic
is
a
danger
to
everyone
around
it.
The
fact
that
it
would
be
held
to
a
higher
fire
code,
the
50
affordable.
You
know,
I
think,
is
consistent
with
us,
we'll
get
into
that,
maybe
more
later
the
way
that
they're
looking
at
defensible
space.
All
that
you
know
I
just
I,
I
think
it's
consistent
with
the
city's
annexation
and
bvcp
policies
and
I'd
have
a
hard
time
arguing
against
it.
Q
Although
we
could
get
into
finer
grained
things
that
we
wish
for
there
weren't,
but
it
seems
very
consistent
given
that
it
is
in
area
two.
F
Thank
you,
john.
So
I
think
my
key
concern
remains
with
policy
with
bbc
policy
1.10
talking
about
achieving,
maintaining,
well
achieving
sustainability
goals
for
urban
form
and
maintain
or
improve
environmental
quality.
F
F
Even
though
that
there
was
a
landscaping
plan
offered
that
gave
the
type
and
the
caliber
we
don't
know
what
the
trees
worth
is
in
so
far
as
longevity.
F
F
I
think
that
that's
something
that
the
pros
can
weigh
in
on,
but
my
concern
about
meeting
that
part
of
the
boulder
valley
comp
plan
has
not
really
shifted
after
hearing
both
the
staff
and
the
applicant.
F
I
think
that
the
applicants
I
I
find
great,
I
have
great
appreciation
for
the
applicant's
history
and
the
what
what
the
applicant
talked
about
in
so
far
as
tree
replacement
and
but
then
it
was
very
easily
said
that
well
we'll
put
the
extra
parking
in
that
area
in
the
front
where
that's
where
all
the
trees
were
going
to
go.
So
I
think
there
needs
to
be
some
specificity
in
this
regards
to
accounting
to
the
trees.
That
are
there,
because
I
don't
think
we
know
so
that's
where
I'm
at.
F
A
Okay,
you,
you
had
also
mentioned
a
concern
with
urban
forum.
F
Well,
I
I
had
it's
unclear
to
me:
what's
really
driving
the
form
at
this
point,
I
understand
that
there
is
not
an
far
in
this
zone,
and
so
we
could
have
a
denser
building
with
a
smaller
footprint.
F
These
are,
I
think,
there's
enough
unknown
and
ambiguity
that
I'm
not
sure
I
don't.
I
don't
know
how
any
I
I
don't
know
how
I
would
frame
that
concern
at
this
point.
F
The
one
thing
that
happens
when
you
create
a
more
dense,
a
smaller
footprint
on
the
land
is,
of
course
you
have
less
of
an
impact
on
the
land,
which
is
my
number
one
concern
is
that
I
think
I
think
this
that
is
going
to
take
a
very
big
hit,
because
the
plan
is,
you
know
it
takes
up
what
80
percent
of
that
southern
piece
of
property.
F
I'm
guessing
it's
a
lot
of
footprint.
I
don't
know
that
it
could
be
done
better
and
have
a
and
have
a
smaller
footprint.
I
heard
what
kurt
had
to
say
and-
and
I
I
don't.
C
F
But
I
would
certainly
be
interested
to
see
if
there
could
be,
but
I
don't
know
that
I
would
go
so
far
as
to
make
that
a
kind
of
a
condition.
I
think
I
think
the
trees
are
important
more
important
than
they
should
take
a
more
a
higher
than
what
has
been
given
to
them
in
this
current
draft.
M
So
I'm
going
to
agree
with
pretty
with
almost
everything
that
lisa
said
and
add
a
few
of
my
own
points
which
have
to
do
with
the
boulder
valley,
comp
plan
housing
policies
that
this
is
going.
This
allows
us
to
meet,
including
assuming
I
still
have
the
numbers
right.
M
I've
been
using
the
hard
copy
of
the
bvcp,
and
apparently
some
of
the
numbers
have
changed:
7.01
local
solutions
to
affordable
housing,
7.02,
affordable
housing
goals,
7.06
mixture
of
housing,
type
7.09,
housing
for
a
full
range
of
households,
7.11
permanently
affordable,
housing
for
additional
intensity,
7.14
integration
of
permanently
affordable
housing,
7.16
market
affordability
and
I'm
very
supportive
of
an
annexation
that
will
advance
the
middle
income
housing
strategy.
M
M
I
also
think
it's
consistent
with
the
boulder
valley,
comprehensive
plan,
land
use
map
and
having
driven
around
there
and
having
been
part
of
planning
board
when
we
approved
a
few
new
pro
a
couple
of
new
projects
up
in
that
area.
The
proposed
zoning
is
absolutely
consistent
with
what
has
been
going
on
up
there.
So,
in
general,
I
support
I'm
supportive
of
this
as
I'm
consistent
with
the
city's
annexation
and
bvcp
policies.
N
N
The
viewpoint
trail
up
flagstaff
and
those
are
not
opportunities
that
come
around
every
day,
and
so
I
am
very
supportive
of
this
developer
and
staff
working
together
on
a
package
that
enables
those
five
families
to
have
access
in
this
really
expensive
city
to
some
of
these
beautiful
amenities
right
outside
of
their
door,
and
that
equity
issue
is
really
powerful.
For
me,
even
in
the
east
boulder
sub-community
plan,
we
really
kind
of
struggled
with
you
know,
are
we
putting
the
in
our
desire
to
have
missing
middle
housing?
N
N
For
example,
a
young
deciduous
tree,
that's
gonna
over
its
whole
life
cycle
absorb
a
whole
bunch
of
carbon
where
that
pine
tree
might
be
pretty
much
done
with
its
growth.
So
I
would
propose
that
that
kind
of
condition
be
added.
You
know
if
I
could
propose
it
or
you
could
propose
an
ml
or
anybody
could,
but,
but
in
general
I
don't
have
any
conditions
of
my
own
to
add.
N
I'm
happy
to
support
if
other
planning
board
members
feel
very
strongly
about
things
on
the
subject
of-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
going
to
be
proposed
or
not,
but
on
the
subject
of
making
sure
that
the
city
manager
can't
substitute
out
cash
and
lou
for
these
five
affordable
units.
I
would
support
some
kind
of
condition
that
says
that
the
five
affordable
units
need
to
be
built
on
site
and,
if
there's
any
additional
building
on
site
that
there
could
be
something
to
go
like.
N
I
wouldn't
want
to
rule
out
the
scenario
that
kurtz
proposed,
where
there
might
be
one
more
unit
built
on
site
that
they
can
fit
in
somehow,
and
we
could
get
some
kind
of
cash
benefit
for
that,
because
the
next
unit
would
be
a
market
rate
unit,
not
an
affordable
unit.
So
I
don't
want
to
rule
out
the
fact
that
there
could
be
some
benefit.
We
gain
from
that.
But,
however,
that
condition
is
written
and
maybe
legal
staffing
can
help
us.
I
would
support
that.
O
Thanks
john,
I
concur
with
everything
that's
been
said
so
far
with
the
exception.
I
I
think.
Well,
I
can.
I
concur
with
everything
and
I
concur
with
ml's
concerns
about
the
trees,
but
I
I
am
encouraged
by
both
the
developers
willingness
to
confer
a
one-for-one
replacement,
and
you
know
when
you
cut
down
a
tree
that
carbon
that
is
stored
there
currently
doesn't
just
immediately
go
back
into
the
environment
and
in
fact,
harvesting
a
tree
and
replacing
it
immediately
with
a
potential
tree
that
actually
has
the
ability
to
store
additional
carbon.
O
There
can
be
some
benefit
there.
So
my
only
concern-
and
I
think
we'll
we'll
get
to
that
is
john.
I
concur
with
you
that
access
and
ensuring
whether
it's
through
some
a
simple
investigation
that
confirms
there's
an
easement
in
perpetuity
for
public
access
to
the
trail
to
the
to
the
south
or
or
the
city
taking
over
the
the
the
road,
whatever
whatever
shape
or
form.
That
takes
my
my
single
concern
that
I
think
we
share
is
ongoing.
Public
access
to
the
trailhead
to
the
south.
A
Okay,
thanks,
let's
see
who
hasn't
george,
you
haven't.
K
Given
us
here
yeah,
thank
you.
I
I
generally
concur
with
sarah
laura
mark.
K
K
Because
of
this
credit
for
these
four
units
that
these
four
units
really
don't
exist
because
they're
going
to
get
demolished,
and
so
that's
the
only
way
to
build
this.
So
what
troubles
me
is
once
again,
planning
board
is
being
asked
to
accept
a
negotiation
around
financial
numbers
because
we're
being
told
that
it's
not
feasible
for
the
developer,
yet
no
numbers
are
presented
to
us
and
once
again,
I'm
going
to
say
this,
I
as.
K
I,
I
am
absolutely
in
agreement
with
the
the
idea
of
force
housing
and
this
middle
missing
middle.
I
mean
this
is
the
type
of
stuff
that
we've
been
talking
about.
That
is
that
is
paramount
to
me
and
and
and
a
critical
priority
to
what
I
think
we're
doing
on
planning
board
and
I
think
it's
a
great
opportunity,
but
I
I
I
don't
know
how
we
in
good
conscience
can
just
accept
something
without
any
data
and
that's
what
we're
left
with
once
again
around
financials.
K
A
Okay,
I
think
call
up
lots
of
people
have
thoughts
here.
I'd
I'd
like
to
throw
in
my
two
bits
worth
and
then
we'll
we'll
go
to
everyone
who
has
their
hand
up.
I.
A
I
also
agree
with
the
with
just
about
all
the
comments
that
have
been
made,
including
george's
about
understanding
the
financial
implications
of
of
making
a
deal
where
we
don't
know
any
of
the
numbers,
and
my
concern
is
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
sort
of
numbers
could
or
would
be
presented
to
us
that
could
enable
us
to
make
sense
of
this,
which
I'm
I'm
hoping,
maybe
george
or
or
somebody
can
can
tell
me,
because
I
don't
know
what's
reasonable
to
ask
of
an
applicant
in
a
situation
like
this.
A
A
I
wonder
if
some
of
the
concerns
that
ml
came
up
with
and
that
I
continue
to
have
could
be
addressed
by
putting
in
a
condition
saying
that
that
there
must
be
site,
review
and
concept
review,
that
it
has
to
come
back
to
us.
A
That's
one
way
of
addressing
ml's
concerns
about
you,
know
tree
removal
and
replacement,
and
also
the
the
urban
forum
issue,
which
is
now
which
we
have
so
little
information
about.
A
Now
that
that
it's
impossible
for
us
to
make
a
judgment
on
the
the
other
aspect
that
I
I
think
is
really
essential
from
bitter
experience,
is
to
clarify
the
access
along
this
along
the
west
side,
and
mark
has
mentioned
that
also,
and
the
applicant
said
that
there
was
an
access
easement
or
that
there
does
exist
in
access
easement
along
there,
between
arapaho
and
and
the
trailhead,
which
I
I
would
like
staff
to
confirm.
A
But
if
not,
then
I
think
we
need
to
make
that
a
condition
of
to
to
send
to
council,
along
with
our
recommendation
on
this
app
application
with
that
I'll.
Send
it
back
to
lisa
here.
F
John,
can
I
ask
you
a
question
about
that
access
because,
as
far
as
I
understand,
this
applicant
doesn't
own
that
property.
Is
that
not
correct
it's
it's
not.
I
mean
I'm
I'm
kind
of
confused.
I
understand
you
know
that
then.
F
The
discussion,
but
I
I
don't
think
it's
part
of
his
ownership-
is
that-
is
that
not
correct.
A
Well,
that's
correct,
it's
not
his
ownership,
but
it's
an
issue
that
needs
to
be
clarified
in
my
opinion,
in
a
way
and
that's
why
we,
we
may
send
our
recommendation
to
to
city
council
to
address
that
directly
with
the
county,
but
I
I
think
I
fear
greatly
that
that
what
the
scenario
that
mark
came
up
with,
where
somebody
claims
it's
his
driveway
and
puts
a
gate
there
is,
is
quite
realistic
if,
unless
we
have
some
way
to
address
that
explicitly,
but
anyway,
let's.
M
See
I'm
john.
I
just
want
to
follow
up
on
what
ml
said
and
what
you
just
said.
Maybe
draft
I'm
thinking
this
might
be
a
separate
motion
to
to
propose
because,
as
ml
said,
the
applicant
has
literally
nothing
to
do
with
what
happens
on
that
road.
M
O
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
I
I
was
actually
just
doing
that
if
john's,
if
john
you're,
okay
with
it
I'll,
just
draft
an
initial
thing
and
we
can
all
add,
delete
whatever
but
anyway,
this
would
be
like
an
advisory
motion
to
cancel
not
necessarily
tied
to
the
annex
tied
to
the
applicant's
annexation
agreement,
but
rather
something
we
communicate
to
council
so
anyway,
I'll
draft,
something
if
everybody's
okay
with
that
and
then
we
can
all
discuss
or
canada
or
whatever.
A
Okay,
george.
N
Thank
you,
so
I
wanted
to
propose
something
that
may
or
may
not
address
the
issue
that
george
brought
up.
I
I
believe
it
was
kurt
who
brought
up
that.
N
It
sounds
like
one
of
the
ways
that
staff
judge
whether
the
conditions
of
annexation,
the
negotiation
is
appropriate,
is
based
on
their
own
experience
as
a
city
we
as
a
city
as
developers
of
affordable
housing
and
and
what
is
feasible
in
terms
of
what
percentage
are
affordable
versus,
which
are
market
rate
that
carry
the
project,
and
so
perhaps
one
way
we
can
get
around
this
confidentiality
of
information
on
a
particular
project
is
to
ask
staff
to
present
numbers
from
a
comparable
city
developed
project
or,
as
close
as
they
can
get
to
help
us
understand
how
they
understand
what
is
economically
feasible,
based
on
internal
city
experience,
if
that,
if
those
are
numbers
that
can
be
presented
to
us,
so
that's
one
idea,
look
for
city
sponsored
comparables.
N
So
that's
one
point
I
had
second
about
the
access
road.
I
I
love
the
direction
that
we
are
going
and
I
would
fully
support
not
making
this
a
condition
of
of
the
annexation
agreement
in
front
of
us,
but
as
a
separate
recommendation
to
city
council
to
clarify,
is
there
existing
an
existing
access
easement
and,
if
not
to
try
to
seek
one
in
agreement
with
the
county
and
probably
the
homeowners
who
are
currently
maintaining
that
road?
N
So
that
that's
my
second
point
and
then
my
third
is
around
this
idea
of
requiring
the
developer
to
come
back
for
site
review.
N
I
mean,
I
think
we
all
know
that
site
review
is
expensive
and
and
somewhat
burdensome,
and
I
personally
feel
that
if
they
are
developing
a
project
that
is
consistent
with
the
annexation
terms
and
with
the
zoning
and
with
all
of
our
you
know,
setbacks
and
density
and
all
of
our
requirements.
I
don't
feel
like.
I
need
to
see
it
again
as
part
of
a
site
review
process.
M
John,
I
have
my
hand
up,
but
it's
really
to
suggest
that
we,
if,
if
there's
any
move
on
to
question
number
three
and
then
to
move
on
to
proposals
for
language
changes
or
conditions
and
and
the
motion
that
mark's
working
on.
A
Okay,
that's
fine!
Unless
anybody
has
something
else
to
say
on
this
issue:
no!
Okay,
let's
move
to
to
three
the
the
other.
F
I
couldn't
find
my
hand,
so
I
think
I
heard
laura
talk
about
putting
together
some
language
about
taking
up
the
applicant's
offer
to
manage
the
tree
inventory.
F
F
F
You
know
I'm
I
I
hear
your.
I
hear
why
you
are
offering
or
putting
up
the
idea
that
it
come
back
for
sight
for
for
concept
and
sight
review.
F
I
don't
know
that
there
is.
I
don't
know
that
I
feel
that
there
is
enough
policy
and
regulation
that
we
could
refer
to
that.
Would
that
would
substantially
change
anything
by
by
reviewing
it
I
mean
we
have
there's
only
so
much.
F
We
can
look
at
and
there's
only
so
much
that
the
site
will
support
and
not
knowing
the
exact
footprints
or
the
I
I
don't
know
I
I
I
would
like
to
hear
you
talk
more
about
that
at
some
point
just
to
see
whether
I
would
support
that
that
being
a
condition
or
not,
I'm
I'm
on
fence,
and
I
don't
know
what
we
can
do
about
trying
to
get
more
information
about
those
four
units
that
vanished
off
of
your
calculation,
because
you
know
I
there's
there's
a
lot
of
unknowns
here.
F
So
I
appreciate
the
subjects
the
topics
that
are
being
brought
up,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
we
do
with
them.
A
Okay,
well,
we
couldn't
think
about
that.
I
I
just
offered
that
as
a
proposal
to
deal
with
some
of
the
concerns
you
mentioned
earlier,
but
all
right.
So,
let's
see
how
do
you
think
about
about
the
zoning
is
rm3
appropriate.
M
M
I
I
think
it
is
and,
as
I
said
earlier,
it
is
totally
consistent
with
what
is
being
developed
up
there
at
this
point
and
the
new
developments
up
there
are
quite
attractive.
They
are
much
denser
than
the
single-family
homes
that
are
there,
but
they're,
not
old,
motel
style.
You
know
it's
not
that
kind
of
density,
so
I
I'm
perfectly
fine
within
it
based
on
staff
feedback,
it's
the
densest,
appropriate
development,
we're
gonna
get,
and
I
think
it's
great.
A
F
Laura
has
her
hand
up,
I'm
fine
with
it,
but
laura
has
her
hand
up.
Okay,.
N
I'm
fine
with
it
too.
I
am
curious
at
some
point
to
ask
staff
why
rm3
versus
rm2,
because
rm2
and
rm3
have
the
exact
same
number
of
the
exact
same
way
to
determine
density
with
the
12.4
unit,
maximum
up
to
13
estimated
number
of
units.
It
looks
like
the
only
difference
between
rm2
and
rm3
is
that
rm3
allows
congregate,
care
facilities,
residential
care
facilities
and
boarding
houses
as
conditional
uses,
as
well
as
custodial
care
allowed
with
use
review,
and
that
is
not
the
case
in
rm2.
N
A
Okay,
maybe
staff
has
a
response
on
that.
J
So
I
think
when
we
look
at
annexation,
we
we
try
and
look
to
the
future
of
what
potentially
could
happen
say
if
they
sell
the
property,
and
I
think
we
were
considering
the
context.
There's
commercial
uses,
there's
a
large
variety
of
uses
out
there.
It
seems
like
a
good
idea
to
allow
other
types
of
housing
like
congregate
group
homes,
to
locate
there
if
they
so
desired.
N
A
Okay,
just
looking
to
see
you
else
has
their
hand
up
when
we
have
staff
here
now.
Maybe
you
can
oh
ml
sorry
go
ahead.
A
G
You
know
I'll
defer
to
either
sloane
or
edward
as
to
whether
or
not
we
uncovered
any
form
of
existing
easement
out
there.
That
wasn't
what
I
had
understood,
but
I
would
defer
to
either
sloane
or
edward.
A
P
And
unfortunately,
I
don't
have
any
more
information
this
evening
that
I
can
provide
on
that.
We
would
have
to
go
back
and
talk
with
our
partners
and
open
space
mountain
parks
to
understand
if
they've
previously
acquired
something
we
can
certainly
go
find
out.
But
we
won't
have
that
information
this
evening.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
we'll!
Maybe
we
can
craft
a
recommendation
to
council
that
takes
into
account
that
uncertainty
in
there,
okay,
okay,
any
other
thoughts.
I
think
we
can.
We
can
move
to
to
crafting
a
decision
here.
C
I
can
share
my
screen.
I've
got
everything
here,
so
let
me
pull
that
up.
A
C
So
we
got
the
original
motion
at
the
top.
Here
is
sarah's
proposed
item
that
she
sent
me.
M
M
And
I
appreciate
the
applicant
saying
he
was
fine
with
language
such
as
this.
Q
So
sarah,
just
to
clarify
I'm
reading
the
last
sentence
in
bold
one
modification
not
available
to
the
city
manager
applicant,
is
substitution
of
cash
in
lieu.
Did
we
want
to
modify
that
to
allow
for
the
possibility
of
an
additional
unit
if
they
could
get
a
14th
on
or.
N
M
I
think
that
the
cindy
that
edition
would
need
to
go
next,
just
in
front
of
the
on-site
not
in
front
of
cash
and
lieu.
I
N
M
M
Yeah,
it
works
for
me
if
it
captures
what
ml
and
laura
were
trying
to
capture.
That's
fine
with
me.
Q
And
let
me-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
appropriate,
so
john
feel
free
to
correct
me,
but
does
legal
see
any
un
unintended
I
mean
I
I
I
think
we
all
understand
what
we're
trying
to
say
there
and
I'm
I'm
perfectly
happy
with
how
I
understand
it.
I
think
it's
fine
have
we
accidentally
introduced
something
or
or
screwed
up
or
intent
in
any
way
that
legal
sees.
A
Well,
that
appears
to
cover
what
what
my
concern
is.
N
Yeah,
I,
and
I
would
ask
legal
in
in
addition
to
what
lisa
just
asked,
does
what
we
just
wrote
here
for
sarah's
proposed
language.
Allow
for
the
kind
of
scenario
that
kurt
proposed,
where
there
might
be
an
additional
market
rate
unit
with
some
cash
and
blue
attached
to
it.
R
Modify
it
a
bit
because
we
were
talking
about
for
for
the
five
proposed
on-site,
affordable
units,
and
I
think
our
or
your
thought
would
be
that
if
there
is
a
six,
the
six
is,
what
could
be
you
know
possibly
fulfilled
with
cash
and
lieu?
Is
that
correct.
N
I
think
that
what
we're
saying
is
if
there
is
an
additional
market
rate
unit
above
the,
what
is
it
eight?
So
if
there's
a
ninth
market
rate
unit
that
some
cash
in
lieu
could
be
recovered
for
that
ninth
market
rate
unit,
because
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
build
another
affordable
unit
to
go
with
that,
ninth
market
rate
unit.
M
M
Q
You
have
that
errand
at
your
fingertips
or
can
get
at
your
fingertips.
May
I
suggest
that
perhaps
we
might
you
could
send
it
to
cindy
and
then
we
could
get
it
up
on
the
screen
below
sarah's
proposed
language
just
to
have
it
in
black
and
white
in
front
of
us
and
then
maybe
we
can
see
laura.
If,
if
you
know
you
want
to
continue
proposing
some
modifications
that
are
different
or
phrasing
in
the
opposite
direction,
but
maybe
just
seeing
it
again
would
be
helpful.
N
R
Let
me
try
to
work
on
it
and
I'll
send
it
to
cindy,
but
but
I
think
this
is
close.
Okay.
A
Okay,
we'll
wait
to
see
your
suggestion
before
spending
more
time
on
that
now,
so
I'm
looking
at
mark's
proposed
language
which
which
I
certainly
get
the
intent,
and
I
agree
with
it.
The
challenge
is
how
to
link
it
with
this
to
make
sure
council
doesn't
blow
it
off.
M
So
just
a
reminder:
I'm
hearing
I'm
hearing
harman's
voice
in
my
head,
which
is
that,
rather
than
using
a
verb
like
advise,
we
tend
to
use
a
verb
like
recommend
just
to
reflect
our
our
actual
role
here.
So
just
I'm,
I'm
literally
I'm
hearing
harmon's
voice
in
my
head,
which
is
a
little
scary.
I
Q
I
I
have
one
other
proposal,
but
I'm
not
sure
it's
necessary.
I
really
like
the
language
you
put
together
here
mark
and
I
wonder
about
perhaps
adding
another
clause
at
the
end,
so
you
know
it
says
confirmation
of
an
existing
event,
easement
and
iga
with
the
county
city
taking
control
of
the
access
lane.
I
I'm
thinking,
maybe
or
or
another
mechanism
for
ensuring
public
access.
You
know
just
like
saying
that
we're
not
trying
to
prescribe
exactly
how
you
get
there,
but
we
just
want
the
public
access
to
be
preserved.
O
Certainly
I
I
I
I
I
am
only
a
a
lawyer
by
accusation
to
my
from
my
family,
so
so
so
I
I'm
open
to
anything
that
that
they
might
come
up
with
or
might
be
existing
that
it
just
ensures
public
access
and
perpetuity
so
yeah,
whatever
whatever.
That
might
be,
that
we
haven't
thought
of.
Q
M
Q
You
look
for
that.
Sarah
may
I
have
cindy
add
my
language.
Is
that
okay
yeah?
Of
course
I
don't
wanna
cut
you
off,
okay,
so
cindy
at
the
end.
Could
you
add
the
following
or
another?
I
N
M
O
It's
it's
funny,
so
if
you
call
it
up
on
google
maps,
this
is
equally
kind
of
strange.
They
they
call
that
they
market
twice
as
viewpoint
trail,
even
though
it's
it's
it's
the
lane.
So
I
I
think
if
we
did
aka
steric
lane
yeah
aka
viewpoint
trail
in
addition
to
the
driveway
we
we
want
them
to
just
understand
that,
hey
it's
not
a
trail
and
it's
not
a
name.
You
know
it's
not
a
formal
street,
but
yeah
aka.
F
Steric,
I
think
you
have
steric
spells
incorrectly
s-t-a-r-I.
Q
Now
I
want
to
go
to
I'm
blanking
on
the
library,
the
one
named
after
carnegie
and
figure
out
who
the
heck
hysteric.
I
N
And
I
did
want
to
comment
if
I
may,
if,
with
the
chair's
permission,
I
wanted
to
comment
on
john's
concern
about
you
know,
how
do
we
make
sure
a
council
doesn't
ignore
it?
I'm
not
sure
that
we
can
I'm
not
sure
that
we
can
link
it
to
this
annexation
agreement
because,
as
people
have
pointed
out,
that
would
be
an
unfair
burden
on
the
applicant,
since
he
did
all
he
could
to
try
to
work
this
out
and
was
told,
don't
use
that
road.
N
A
No,
I
mean
council
will
deal
with
all
of
our
recommendations
as
they
wish.
Obviously,
but
my
my
you
know
the
I'm
not
so
concerned
with
burdening
you
know
the
issue
of
burdening
the
applicant,
I
mean
the
applicant.
A
A
A
N
F
I
see
we
have
the
language
up
on
on
sarah's
proposed
language.
M
Great
aaron,
I
think
that's
perfect
right
and
I
think
it
replaces
my
language
completely.
N
I'm
good
with
it
looks
great
thank
you
to
sloan
or
whomever
constructed
that.
C
C
N
May
I
recommend
I'm
good
with
sarah's
proposed
language.
We
also
talked
about
marx.
Can
I
recommend
striking
one
phrase
from
mark's
proposed
language
that
I
think
is
just
unnecessary,
and
that
is
you
know
after
we
say,
steric
road
aka
viewpoint
trail
access
road.
N
M
I
C
N
O
Okay,
I
I
just
have
well,
this
will
be
sent
to
council
should
we
agree
upon
it
with
our
recommendations
regarding
the
annexation,
so
the
the
only
purpose
was
to
tie
it
as
a
recommendation
to
our
recommendation
regarding
annexation.
O
Obviously
yeah
that
we're
not
an
except
we're,
not
annexing
the
road
anyway,
just
it
won't
be
a
freestanding,
loose
piece
of
information
out
there.
It
will
be
in
the
minutes
and
information
sent
to
council
regarding
this
animation
agreement.
M
M
The
governance
of
road
x,
then
you
go
on
to
your
recommendations.
Just
so
it
highlights.
M
O
I
O
Let's
just
take
the
language,
I
I
like
that.
I
like
putting
the
subject,
which
is
the
road
up
front,
given
the
uncertainty
of
the
governance
of
of
the
driveway
and
you
cindy,
you
can
cut
and
pace
beginning
at
driveway
or
lane
west,
if
you
to
arapahoe
property,
a.k.a
stare
at
viewpoint
right
yep,.
R
I
say
I
think
you
could
include
it
as
a
recommendation
and
have
it
be
part
of
that
same
document
that
goes
to
council.
This
is
because
I
see
that
it
could
be
fulfilled
a
couple
ways
like
one
is
showing
by
the
applicant
that
they
have
the
legal
document
showing
that
a
right
of
access
exists
and
is
good
for
the
public.
R
It's
good
for
anyone
who's
going
to
live
on
this
property
if
they
can't
do
that
or
if
it
still
is
a
little
unclear
after
they
round
up
those
legal
documents,
then
there's
the
additional
steps
that
we
could
take
as
a
city
to
make
sure
that
the
access
is,
you
know,
maintained
or
constructed
and
suitable
for
the
development
that's
going
in
there.
So
I
think,
since
you
could
go
two
ways,
it
makes
sense
to
have
it
as
one
of
the
recommendations
that
goes
forward.
N
Right,
I,
I
guess
I
think
what
sarah's
saying
is,
it
doesn't
seem
like
we
need
the
applicant
to
prove
that
they
have
a
legal
document.
It
doesn't
sound
like
they
do.
It
just
sounds
like
it
was
a
conversation,
and
so
it
shouldn't
be
the
applicant's
burden
to
dig
up
that
legal
document.
It
should
be
city
staff
or
city
council
that
work
on
it.
R
C
N
There's,
I'm
sorry
there's
an
extra
word
that
needs
to
be
struck
there
that
might
be
bugging
other
people
so
cindy
that
word
using
comma.
You
can
strike
using
comma
in
the
second
sentence.
Oh
right,
so
in
the
second
sentence
it
says
unrestricted
in
perpetuity
using
comma
through
confirmation
you
can
strike
using
comma
yep.
Thank
you.
O
N
I
I'm
a
little
so
the
one
thing
here
is
that
I
think
I
heard
from
edward
stafford
and
others
that
there
are
pros
and
cons
to
the
city
taking
control
and
I,
but
but
that
there
might
be
other
means
of
ensuring
access,
and
so
I
I
guess
I
want
something
in
here
about
you
know.
M
Okay,
the
only
reason
I'm
and
I
may
be
misunderstanding-
I
am
not
an
attorney.
I
may
be
misunderstanding
aaron's
suggestion
that
this
be
a
recommendation.
M
What
what
would
concern
me
is
that
city
council
would
also
think
that
this
was
a
condition
of
the
annexation,
and
it's
it's
not
right,
so
I'm
just
trying,
I
just
so
I'm
putting
that
to
you
aaron.
If,
if
you
is
my
concern,
misplaced.
R
I
think
you
know
council
may
have
that
first
impression.
So,
let's
see
you
know
we
there
could
be
anguish,
language
added.
Let's
see
you
know
even
at
the
end,
not
as
a
con.
You
know
not
as
a
condition
of
an
annexation
of
agreement.
N
F
F
N
N
N
F
I
am,
I
think
you
captured
the
intent.
You
know
that
the
idea
is
the
trees
are
important.
They
provide
a
useful,
a
very
important
role
in
our
carbon
sequestration
and
that
we
make
them
a
component
of
for
accountability
and
that's
what
you've
done
with
the
language
there
I
I
do.
We
need
to
refer
to
where
it
would
go
in
in
the
application
aaron
do
we
need
to
give
it
a
a
location.
R
G
Yeah,
I
don't
know
how
we
would
measure
carbon
sequestration
yeah,
I'm
just
not
an
expert,
but
we
do
have
excellent
landscape
architects
on
staff.
Look
at
the
tree
inventory
you
know
ensure
that
what's
being
planted
is
of
equal
or
greater
quality
in
numbers,
and
you
know
again
the
qualitative
aspect
of
the
species
of
trees.
F
I
think
that
there
are
carbon
sequestration
datums
and
maybe
in
in
the
consideration
of
that
equal
or
greater
environmental
quality,
that
carbon
would
be
one
of
the
considerations
of
the
quality.
M
F
No
number
two
is
is
a
condition
for
the
motion
as
well.
It's
about
the
trees,
the
condition.
A
Okay,
I
I
would
like
to
get
a
sense
of
the
word
on
on
this
question
of
whether
you
want
to
have
site
site
review
and
concept
review
in
front
of
you
again
on
this.
M
I
A
We've
heard
from
aaron
that
we
can
have
that
as
a
condition,
but
if
the
majority
of
the
board
doesn't
think
that's
necessary,
then
I'll
live
with
it.
But
I'd
just
like
to
get
that
find
out
what
my
colleagues
think
here.
A
A
In
addition
to
what
the
code
says,
that's
what
would
be
accomplished,
and
you
know
I
I
certainly
understand
if
the
majority
is
not
interested
in
doing
that,
I
personally
am,
and
I
am,
we
have
the
ability
to
do
it
as
in
the
in
the
annexation
conditions.
O
I
would
just
concur
with
both
laura
and
sarah
that
I
I
would
not
want
to
see
that
tool
used
in
this
case
when
the
applicant
has
been
careful
to
meet
all
the
criteria,
and
anyway
I
I'm
I
would.
I
support
their
position
on
that.
N
Well,
you
know,
as
my
husband
would
tell
you,
I'm
I'm
usually
not
one
to
to
resist
having
extra
control.
I
like
control,
like
I
totally
get
that
impulse,
but
in
this
case
I
think
for
me
the
equity
concern
it
kind
of
reigns
supreme.
I'm
really
happy
that
the
applicant
you
know
has
been
open
to
having
50
of
the
new
units
be
affordable.
N
I
really
don't
want
to
do
anything
that
would
you
know,
make
them
rethink
their
ability
to
to
meet
these
price
points
and,
as
we
all
know,
site
reviews
can
be
quite
expensive
like
what
I've
heard
is.
It
can
add
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
to
the
cost
of
a
project
and
I'm
just
not
sure
what
we
would
accomplish
by
adding
that
cost
to
this
project,
where
we're
really
trying
to
create
a
good
price
point
for
for
people
with
these
affordable
units.
N
So
I'm
always
leery
of
doing
anything
unnecessarily
to
to
raise
the
cost
for
developers,
not
that
I'm
su,
I'm
not
super
pro
developer,
I'm
not
super
anti-developer,
but
but
I
don't.
I
guess
I
don't
want
to
cost
burden
this
applicant
when
the
project
that
they're
proposing
meets
all
of
our
code
and
it
would
have
to
meet
all
of
our
code
or
else
they
would
have
to
come
to
us.
It
would
not
be
voluntary
if
they're
suggesting
any
modifications
or
any.
What's
the
concessions
on
the
code.
Q
Yeah
I
apologize
john,
but
but
I
kind
of
agree
with
sarah
and
laura
that
unless
they
start
really
changing
up
their
plans
in
a
way
that
would
trigger
site
review,
in
which
case
I
would
very
much
want
it
to
come
back.
I
I
I
don't
see
this
project
as
one
where
I
feel
the
need
to
require
it
to
come
back,
and
I
think
part
of
my
thinking
on
that,
as
well
rightly
or
wrongly-
I
don't
know
is-
is
the
number
of
units
the
use
its
own
for
the
area?
It's
in.
Q
You
know
if
it
were
a
larger
site
or
a
larger
project.
I
think
I
might
feel
differently,
but
if
it
moves
forward
as
proposed
and
meets
all
code,
I
just
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
see
it
again.
A
K
I
I
I
don't
believe
bringing
something
like
this
through
site
review
is
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars,
so
I
want
to
clarify
that
and
that
that's
not
something
that
that
I
don't
think
we
should
necessarily
be
concerned
with
a
planning
board.
If
we
need
to
see
a
project,
we
need
to
see
a
project,
but
in
this
case,
for
the
size
of
the
project
and
needing
the
codes
and
going
through
this
process,
I
don't
believe
that's
the
case
here.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
well,
that's
a
pretty
clear
statement
of
what
people
think
so
it's
I
think
we
can
drop
that.
A
Okay,
let's
see,
does
everyone
have
their
see
ml?
Yes,.
F
F
M
L
Right,
sorry,
excuse
me:
there's
a
rounding
rule
in
there
that
14
unit
would
not
be
subject
to
anything
right.
I
had
my
hand
up
earlier,
but
I
right,
I
wasn't
sure
I
should
interject,
but
unless
you
specifically
say
a
14th
unit
needs
to
pay
a
certain
amount
of
cash
in
lieu.
I
don't
see
how
that
could
be
enforced
right
in
this
language.
F
Q
Given
that
information,
and
given
the
fact
that
we
heard
from
sloan
that
it's
very
unlikely
that
they're
even
going
to
be
able
to
get
a
14th
unit
of
any
kind
on
this
site,
I
don't
want
to
curtail
discussions.
So
I'm
sure
other
people
have
things
to
say.
But
personally
I
would
be
comfortable
with
just
striking
the
part
about
the
units
constructed
above
13.,
because
it
seems
like
a
very
unlikely
thing
to
come
about
and
also
we're
not
going
to
get
what
we
want
out
of
it
anyway.
A
Well,
I
my
sense
of
it
is
that
you
may
be
right.
We
may
this
may
not
lead
to
any
anything
for
anybody,
but
it
could
be
that
there's
a
change
in
the
size
of
the
existing
units.
I
O
J
N
I
L
The
way
it
reads
that
that
will
not
be
the
outcome,
that's
not
the
way
this
could
be
enforced.
First
of
all,
there's
nothing
to
compel
the
city
manager
to
get
involved
in
this
annexation.
That
simply
says.
If
the
applicant
comes
to
the
city
manager
and
says
I
need
some
kind
of
slight
amendment
to
the
annexation.
L
L
That
it
be
just
part,
I'd
have
to
look
at
the
end.
I'd
have
to
it
wouldn't
go
under
this
section.
I
mean
it's
fine
to
say
that
that
the
city
manager
cannot
switch
out
cash
and
lieu
for
for
any
of
the
units
required
right.
But
if
you
want
cash
and
loot
for
some
unit,
it
needs
to
go
in
the
the
other
section.
That
says
this
is
what
we
want.
Oh
right,
you
see
what
I'm
saying
like
this
adventure
isn't
really
good.
M
So
we
kind
of
have
to
go
back
then,
to
what
I
originally
had
some
and
I
think
we
could
use
aaron's
link
in
this
section.
We
could
use
aaron's
language
and
have
it
don't
do
anything
yet
cindy.
I'm
just
gonna
talk
out
loud.
The
city
manager
may
only
substitute,
may
may
not
substitute
cash
in
lieu
to
satisfy
the
inclusionary
higher
housing
requirements
for
the
13
units
proposed
by
applicants
and
then,
if
there's
something.
L
L
L
And
now
I
have
to
go
back
and
find
it.
I
apologize.
L
L
I'm
just
looking
at
the
agreement
separately,
so
it
would
be
under.
L
Under
18
at
the
very
beginning,
the
first
paragraph,
50
of
of
of
any
new
dwelling
units
up
to
13,
shall
be
developed
because
there's
rounding
rules
in
here
so
then
it
because
any
any
dwelling
units
over
13
would
be
subject
to
the
cash
in
lieu
in
place.
That
would
apply
for
inclusionary
housing
for
a
single.
Q
L
I
mean
you've
said
that
what
we've,
what
we've
got
nailed
down
a
city
manager
can't
substitute
cash
and
move
for
the
five
units
that
you're
happy
with
what
we
don't
have
is
the
language
that
would
allow
it
to
be
implemented
to
that
anything.
Over
13
units
would
then
be
subject
to
cash
and
lieu
that.
Q
Means
right
right,
and
that
makes
sense,
and
I'm
I'm
I'm
more
than
happy
to
to
make
this
work
and
get
it
in
18..
I
was
just
I
guess,
asking
for
a
straw
poll
maybe
thumbs
or
something
of
planning
board
members.
Q
M
I'm
sorry
I'm
I
I'm
sorry
I
am
now
we
have
three
different
cooks
in
the
in
the
kitchen,
so
I'm
a
little
confused
as
to
what
it
is
we
are
talking
about
at
this
point.
Are
we
michelle
said?
You've
got
the
the
no
cash
in
lieu
for
the
five
clear,
but
I
don't
see
where
we
have
that
clear,
because
we
haven't
changed
the
language
that
aaron
proposed
that
aaron
aaron
drafted
for
us,
so
it
can't
be
that
we've
got
it
covered
given
ml's
concern
like
that's
what
I'm
very
confused
about
at
this
point.
L
So
this
motion
language
does
not
allow
the
city
manager
to
substitute
cash
in
lieu
for
the
five
units
it
does
not.
It
does
not
require
cash
and
loot
for
anything
over
13
units.
M
L
N
N
N
The
only
scenario
where
we
would
want
cash
in
lieu
is
if
they
have
exactly
one
extra
unit
exactly
one:
they
build
14
units
rather
than
13,
because
if
they
build
15,
then
we
could
have
an
extra
on-site
affordable
unit
because
it
would
be
subject
to
that
50
right.
So
I'm
not
sure
we
want
to
do
this,
like
I'm
okay,
if
they
get
exactly
14
and
they
get
one
extra
market
rate
unit.
N
N
But
if
we
wanna
say
if
they
build
exactly
fourteen
units,
then
the
fourteenth
or
if
they
build
an
odd
number
of
units,
then
the
odd
I
don't
know
how
to
phrase
it.
But
you
see
what
I'm
saying
like
it's
only
if
they
have
that
that
one
extra
unit
that
can't
be
rounded
so
that
they
have
to
you
know
what
I'm
saying.
K
L
It
would
be
probably
about
50.,
I
mean
it
depends
on
the
size
of
the
unit
and
he
we
haven't
nailed
that
down
with
him.
Cash
and
lieu
is
based
on
the
size
of
the
unit
and
the
number
of
bedrooms.
So
unless
you
know
that
it's
hard
to
know
exactly
what
it
would
be
or
how
much
it
would
be
not
to
mention
it's
adjusted
annually,
and
so
it's.
L
M
I
M
14
is
the
the
max
we're
not
going
to
get
above
14.
I
don't
think
because
of
the
zoning
they
have
to
come
in
for
some
sort
of
density
bonus
or
something,
but
what
would
be
positive
language
that
would
capture
what
you
are
trying
to
capture.
L
Why
don't
I
send
it
to
cindy
and
she
can
give
it
to
you
guys?
Okay,
thank
you.
O
The
scenario
if
we
go
14
units-
and
we
accept-
let's
say
50k
as
cash
in
lube,
but
if
the
developer
went
15
units,
suddenly
it's
not
another
50k
or
70k,
it's
another
unit,
yay
that
would
be
great
but
the
whether
it's
50
times
2
or
75
times
2.
It's
it's
a
lot
less.
It's
a
lot
more
to
build
that
additional
unit
and
the
likelihood
of
that
seems
slim,
maybe
I'm
wrong,
but.
O
N
J
A
All
right,
so
so
are
we
happy
with
the
way
this
is
worded
now
or
do
we
see
a
need
to
change
it?
Yeah.
N
It
needs
to
change
that
second
last
sentence.
Second
to
last
sentence
should
say:
the
city
manager
may
not
substitute
cash
in
lieu
to
satisfy
the
inclusionary
housing
requirement
for
units
for
any
of
the
units.
L
That
I
mean
it
also
says
under
18
the
first
paragraph
cash
and
lou
may
not
be
substituted
for
these
required
on-site,
affordable
units,
but
city
manager
can
modify
the
agreement.
So
I
think
it's
fine
the
way
it
is-
and
I
do
think
cash
and
lieu
on
one
unit
is
sort
of
noise.
To
be
honest,.
L
A
I
think
I've
heard
from
my
colleagues
that
very
few
of
them
would
support
that,
so
that
won't
that
won't
be
likely
here.
Q
Q
All
right
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
read
it
into
the
record,
so
I
just
want
to
clarify
cindy
before
I
start
reading.
Am
I
going
to
start
from
to
recommend.
Q
Okay,
great,
I
recommend
city
council
approval
of
the
proposed
annexation
of
prop
of
the
properties
at
304
and
334
arapahoe
avenue,
with
initial
zoning
of
residential
medium,
three
rm3
pertaining
to
case
number
lur
2021-0003.
Q
One
paragraph
18g
shall
read
as
follows:
modification
of
affordable
housing,
the
applicant
and
city
manager
or
her
delegate
may
agree
to
modify
the
requirements
set
forth
in
this
paragraph.
18
provided
the
city
manager
finds
a
proposed
development
would
provide
an
affordable
housing
benefit
that
provides
a
community
benefit,
at
least
equivalent
to
the
housing
benefit
provided
by
the
affordable
units
required
hearing.
The
city
manager
may
not
accept
cash
and
loot
to
satisfy
the
inclusionary
housing
requirement
for
any
of
the
units.
Two,
the
applicant
will
inventory
the
trees
removed
during
construction.
F
I
can
I
say
something
cindy.
Would
you
mind
my
name
is
ml
not
just
m.
I
F
N
N
N
A
Okay,
I
think
I'll
call
the
vote
all
in
favor
say
hi.
I
I
I
O
A
Okay-
and
now
we
have
another
motion
mark
is,
would
you
like
to
make
that
motion.
O
Sure
I
move
it's
fine.
Well
anyway,
I
move,
given
the
uncertainty
of
the
governance
of
the
of
the
existing
quote.
Driveway
or
lane.
End
quote
west
of
302
arapahoe
property,
aka,
starrick
road,
aka
viewpoint,
trail
access,
road
planning
board
recommends
that
city
council
ensure
that
public
access
remain
unrestricted
in
perpetuity
through
confirmation
of
an
existing
easement
or
an
iga
with
boulder
county
or
the
city.
Taking
control
of
the
access
lane
or
another
mechanism
take
out
the
word
of
another
mechanism.
A
I
O
Q
I
A
M
A
And
john
hi:
okay,
have
we?
Are
there
any
other
points
and
issues
that
could
be
discussed
or
raised
in
this
matter?.
N
S
Thank
you
from
the
applicant
to
the
planning
board
for
seeing
your
way
to
this
approval
of
this
recommendation.
I
really
appreciate
it.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
all
right,
I
think
we
can
move
on
in
our
agenda
just
for
planning
purposes,
we'll
call
a
break
at
the
first
opportunity
after
10
o'clock.
I
think.
C
A
Okay,
edward:
let's,
let's
hear
your
wisdom
tonight.
P
P
Hopefully,
you
can
see
my
screen.
Yes,
I
can
get.
My
screens
ranged
all
right,
I'm
going
to
go
through
this
very
quickly,
given
the
late
hour
of
the
night,
but
of
course,
if
you
need
me
to
stop
at
some
point
for
any
item,
please
feel
free.
The
purpose
of
tonight
is
to
provide
an
update
to
the
board
on
the
transportation
standard
phase,
two
project
that
has
been
ongoing
for
a
while
now,
so
we
will
talk
through
a
little
bit
of
the
purpose.
P
In
the
background
go
over
the
timeline
and
community
engagement
that
has
occurred,
review
a
high
level
of
the
60
proposed
changes.
You
had
more
details
available
in
your
packet
and
available
also
through
links
in
your
packet
online,
we'll
cover
some
high
level
ones
and
we'll
talk
about
the
next
steps.
P
Purpose
and
background
of
this
particular
project
and
you've
seen
parts
of
the
dcs
over
the
different
years
that
have
come
through.
You
may
recall
back
in
2019,
I
believe
it
was.
We
did
phase
one
that
had
an
incremental
update
transportation
standards.
This
is
phase
two
of
the
update
of
a
portion
of
the
city's
design
and
construction
standards.
Keep
in
mind.
The
dcs
is
used
for
all
public
infrastructure
and
privately
built
public
infrastructure
in
the
city's
rights
aways
in
eastmans,
the
dcs
itself
addresses
transportation
utilities,
storm
water,
a
number
of
areas.
P
All
of
that
relies
heavily
towards
vision,
zero
concepts
and
the
safety
of
all
users
in
a
multi-modal
system.
We
also
have
been
looking
at
it
through
the
lens
of
improving
our
fiscal
ability
to
maintain
landscaping,
that
is
part
of
public
transportation
or
public
infrastructure
projects,
while
also
recognizing
the
urban
forest
and
the
sustainability
and
resilient
resilience
and
the
master
plan
on
the
urban
canopy
and
also
ensuring
where
the
consistency
in
our
planning
is
in
urban
design
aspects
as
it
relates
to
landscape.
P
So
where
are
we?
Where
are
we
going?
Where
have
we
been
back
in
2020
in
early
2021?
We
did
project
scoping
and
consultant
selection
and
in
fact,
at
that
time
we
had
provided
the
planning
board
and
others
with
the
memo
updating
where
we
were
and
the
goals
and
some
of
the
items
we
were
just
discussing
on
the
previous.
P
So
this
has
been
to
the
transportation
advisory
board
earlier
this
month
and
it's
of
course,
a
planning
board
tonight,
we'll
be
taking
all
of
the
input
that
we
receive,
including
any
input
you
may
give
us
tonight
to
then
develop
the
90
revisions
that
we'll
be
bringing
forward
for
internal
review
first
in
the
june
july
time
frame,
and
it
will
then
go
through
the
boards
for
recommendation
for
city
council
approval.
So
right
now,
you
are
tentatively
scheduled
to
see
this
to
take
an
action
on
it
as
a
recommendation.
P
In
august
so
tonight
there
is
no
formal
action
being
requested,
presuming
an
adoption
in
october.
It
will
go
into
effect
shortly
thereafter
that
for
projects
that
come
in
from
that
point
forward,
community
engagement
has
included.
A
number
of
different
points.
We've
reached
out
to
community
cycles
has
of
course,
been
very
heavily
involved
and
they
were
part
of
the
impetus
on
some
of
the
initial
phases
actually
of
the
updates
related
to
transportation,
and
they
continue
to
be
very
involved
in
this
process.
P
P
Overall,
there's
been
general
general
support
for
the
updates,
with
some
very
specific
questions
and
items
that
we
looked
at,
some
of
which
are
outside
of
the
scope
of
this
particular
update,
so
those
will
be
saved
for
future
phases.
I
know
that
input
will
continue
to
be
cataloged
and
followed.
P
So
looking
quickly
through
the
60
proposed
changes
and
I'm
going
to
again
talk
very
high
level
and
not
go
through
all
the
details
you
can
see
on
this
screen.
The
various
sections
of
the
dcs
and
the
boulder
revised
code
were
part
of
the
scope
and
part
of
what
we're
looking
at
we'll
step
through
each
of
those
just
very
quickly.
P
In
lane
widths,
we've
taken
a
close
look
at
vehicle
lane
widths
as
they're
required
in
the
geometric
to
update
those
to
a
more
to
new,
narrower
forward
widths
that
match
the
current
best
practices
in
constructing
streets
that
are
serving
multi-modal
purposes.
P
Those
narrow
lane
widths
typically
result
in
a
lower
vehicle
speed
in
terms
of
tying
it
back
to
some
of
the
goals
and
the
lenses
we
were
looking
at
the
project
through
bike
lane
widths,
more
information,
including
additional
types,
have
been
added
in
the
chart
on
the
different
types
of
bike
facilities,
conventional
buffered,
separated
and
perking
protected.
That
way,
there
are
design
details
for
each
of
those,
depending
on
the
appropriate
location
for
them
to
be
built.
P
It's
important
to
keep
in
mind.
The
dcs
overall
is
the
standards
that
are
applied
to
where
something
is
built.
It
doesn't
necessarily
indicate
where
that
particular
improvement
is
built.
Other
things,
such
as
the
transportation
master
plan
may
speak
more
to
that.
For
example,
the
determination
of
where
a
separated
bike
lane
facility
may
be
located
is
going
to
be
something
found
to
the
tnp
and
also
through
subsets
of
the
tmb,
such
as
the
low
stress
bike
and
walk
network.
P
You
can
see
on
this
particular
table.
I
don't
expect
you
to
look
at
it
tonight
in
great
detail.
You
can
see
the
yellow
highlighted
that
we
have
made
significant
changes
about
lane
widths
throughout
many
portions
of
this
table
as
compared
to
what
has
been
there,
that
has
included
adding
additional
types
of
bike
facilities
that
have
been
recognized
in
the
tmp
and
in
some
of
the
best
practices
of
the
profession.
P
P
In
terms
of
what's
appropriate,
so
the
update
we'll
update
the
guidance
and
standards
that
are
given
to
the
designers
to
ensure
we
have
the
smallest,
effective
radii
of
curbs
that
is
considered
acceptable
in
the
multi-modal
system
and
looks
at
also
encouraging
things
such
as
curb
extensions,
where
appropriate.
That
can
both
facilitate,
of
course,
the
turning
of
vehicles
at
a
reasonably
slow
speed,
but
also
help
with
the
other
modes
in
terms
of
shortening
the
crossing
distances.
P
And
so
it's
a
there
are
always
trade-offs
to
what
you
can
do
in
curb
radii
and
ensure
that
you
don't
have
other
hazards
or
infrastructure
damage
that
are
presented.
So
all
of
that
has
been
looked
at
through
both
the
staff
team
and
our
consultant
team
on
best
practices
to
help
provide
better
direction
to
designers
as
they
work
on
public
infrastructure.
P
Roadwood,
tapers
and
left
turn
lanes
were
also
looked
at,
in
particular
on
the
road
with
tapers
a
little
bit
of
a
misnomer
that
call
it
road
with
tapers.
Although
that's
the
name
of
this
section,
that's
adding
additional
information
about
biplane
tapers
and
what
should
happen
there
to
eliminate
some
of
the
things
we
have
seen
out
there
in
the
field
with
abrupt
types
of
tapers
and
changes
to
bike
lanes
that
make
it
less
comfortable
and
less
beneficial
to
the
bicycle
mode,
in
particular.
So
providing
additional
direction
in
the
design
of
that
left.
P
Turn
lanes
also,
additional
information
on
there
to
clarify
the
use
and
win
single
left
turn
lanes
versus
dual
and
a
statement
that
triple
left
turns
require
additional
approval.
There
is
only
one
triple
left,
I
believe
in
the
city
at
this
point,
making
a
clarification
as
an
example.
Some
of
the
feedback
we've
heard
that
will
be
taken
into
consideration.
P
Some
additional
items
in
section
2.11,
looking
at
separated
bike
lanes
at
driveways
and
intersections
again
areas
where
the
current
dcs
did
not
have
a
lot
of
direction.
The
design
of
these
so
you'll
see
new
figures
being
added
for
the
bike
lanes
and
driveways,
and
also
at
intersections
again,
if
you
want
to
see
the
specific
details
they
were
available
through
your
packet,
or
I
can
certainly
bring
up
the
slide
later
through
this
work,
which
we
didn't
originally
necessarily
identify.
P
2.14
traffic
coming
to
again
provide
additional
direction
on
how
to
do
neighborhood
traffic
circles
and
raised
crossings
which
we've
been
experimenting
and
implementing
in
a
number
of
places
over
the
years
didn't
have
adopted
design
criteria,
and
so
we
will,
through
this
update
in
the
neighborhood
traffic
circles,
it's
another
new
figure
being
added
again
to
help
provide
direction
and
guidance
on
how
those
should
be
designed
if
they're
selected
in
a
traffic
calming
project
or
in.
P
Quite
honestly,
if
they're
part
of
a
private
development
project,
that's
been
identified
as
a
need
that
they've
created
on
the
public
infrastructure
and
public
streets
and
the
race
crossings.
As
I
talked
a
lot
just
a
few
minutes
ago,
adding
a
figure
and
developing
it
into
some
additional
standards
and
guidance
to
designers,
especially
as
we
start
to
see
more
potential
of
those
being
done
by
private
development
or
other
parties
that
are
not
on
the
city's
design
team
and
meaning
to
ensure
commonality
in
that
design.
P
As
a
part
of
all
of
that,
there
are
also
updates
to
be
made
in
chapter
11
to
a
number
of
related
drawings.
I'm
not
going
to
talk
through
each
of
these
in
detail.
Just
so
you
know
you
will
be
seeing
that,
of
course,
the
the
final
version
that
goes
forward
for
a
number
of
drawings
that
help
to
provide
or
update
information
again
looking
to
best
standards.
Looking
to
the
tmp
goals.
P
Looking
to
the
lens
that
we
talked
about
at
the
beginning
of
this
presentation,
continuation
of
that
list
see
a
number
of
items
related,
some
of
them,
of
course,
to
curb
return.
Given
we're
talking
about
rated
radii
modifications
other
items
through
there
that
need
to
be
updated
to
reflect
the
information
and
the
updates
in
the
earlier
part
of
chapter
two
addition
to
chapter
two:
we
have
updates
in
the
chapters
on
landscape
and
streetscape.
P
Part
of
that
is
recognizing
some
of
the
work
that
has
been
done
through
our
colleagues
in
transportation
and
mobility
on
green
infrastructure,
transportation,
landscapes,
along
with
parks
and
rec,
and
playing
development
services.
Some
of
these
have
been
looked
at
actually
for
a
number
of
years
and
we're
trying
to
bring
forward
now
as
a
part
of
this
overall,
as
it
relates
to
landscape
in
the
public
way.
P
It's
a
part
of
that.
It
looks
at
the
tree
buffer,
irrigation
recommended
plantings,
a
number
of
those
items
to
be
updated
using
again
the
collaborative
work
between
the
multiple
departments
involved.
These
chapters
are
used
by
both
the
city's
capital
projects,
team
and
private
development,
as
it
relates
to
their
landscape
design.
Examples
of
that
on
the
public
project
side
would
be
the
diagonal
reconstruction
of
a
few
years
ago
in
2016,
which
looked
to
the
standards
that
were
in
effect
for
landscape
design.
P
In
addition
to
chapter
3,
chapter
10
also
has
street
landscape
standards,
and
most
of
those
sections
are
being
updated
to
align
again
with
the
work
in
both
chapter
3
and
10..
I
know
I'm
going
really
quick
here.
We're
almost
done
with
the
formal
presentation
to
keep
us
moving.
We
can
go
back
at
any
time
if
you
need
to
the
last
section
that
we're
working
on
to
bring
forward
as
a
part
of
this
are
revisions
to
site
triangles
that
are
found
in
the
boulder
revised
code.
P
We
were
looking
at
an
update
on
the
15
by
15
triangle,
which
we'll
talk
about
a
moment
and
adding
a
new
one,
as
it
relates
to
multi-use
paths
that
are
intersecting
alleys
or
driveways,
an
area
that
we've
heard
concern
about
for
years
and
identified
through
this
work
and
through
best
practices
review.
It
would
be
helpful
to
add
to
our
code
on
the
15
by
15
site
triangle.
P
So
this
will
help
to
provide
uniformity
to
that
side
triangle
and
then,
as
I
mentioned
briefly
before,
adding
the
multi-use
path
intersecting
alley
in
driveway
right
now,
the
15
by
15
is
the
only
side
triangle.
We
have
to
apply
to
that
and
recognize
that
in
those
locations,
that's
not
necessarily
as
adequate
or
beneficial
to
what
we
need
to
do
and
so
we're
bringing
forward
a
recommendation
actually
create
a
site
triangle
that
is
15
feet
by
96.
P
Feet
recognizes
the
higher
speed
travel
that
can
occur
on
bicycles,
on
scooters
and
other
wheeled
transportation
on
the
multi-use
path
and
provides
a
greater
sight
distance
area
for
vehicles
coming
up
through
either
a
driveway
or
an
alley
to
cross
a
multi-use
path.
P
Those
are
the
items
that
will
come
forward
again
that
we're
at
our
60
level
and
bringing
things
together
rapidly
towards
the
final
version.
The
next
steps
will
be
taking
the
community
engagement
and
the
feedback
of
the
60
revision.
In
fact,
we've
already
started
this
with
some
of
the
feedback
we've
received
on
the
staff
team
to
work
then
in
the
coming
couple
of
months
on
developing
our
90
revisions,
as
we
do
that,
we'll
finalize
it
be
bringing
it
forward
through
the
process
for
adoption
later
this
year.
P
That's
my
very
rapid
presentation.
I
did
cut
out
about
half
of
the
slides
of
really
detailed
information
in
here.
If
there
are
specific
questions,
we
can
go
back
to
that.
If
you
also
looking
at
the
lateness
of
the
night,
if
you
should
come
up
with
additional
feedback
or
items
you'd
like
to
share
since
it's
not
an
actual
vote
or
action
item
tonight,
please
feel
free
to
send
those
to
me.
I
do
ask
that
you
try
and
do
it
by
no
later
than
next
wednesday.
P
F
I
do
I
just
I
I
just
have
a,
I
guess,
a
question
from
my
own
understanding.
You
talked
in
a
number
of
places
about
consultants.
What
kind
of
consultants
would
the
city
need
to
bring
in?
It
seems
like
you've,
got
a
pretty
robust
staff.
So
what.
P
Certainly
so
there
were
a
couple
of
reasons
to
bring
in
consultant.
First
was
just
the
recognition
of
the
resources
we
had
available
on
the
staff
site
to
do
this
work
and
so
adding
some
additional
consulting
help
to
ensure
we
could
move
this
project
through
a
more
reasonable
timeline
than
we
were
able
to
in
juggling
the
variety
of
projects
on
the
work
program
in
both
transportation
and
mobility
and
planning
and
development
services.
P
While
we
have
great
experts
on
staff
and
people
that
are
very
well
informed
and
do
lots
of
great
work
at
times
there
may
be
things
we
can
learn
from
others,
and
so
tool
design
was
actually
selected
and
brought
in.
They
are
a
nationwide
firm
known,
quite
well
actually
for
their
multimodal
approach
to
transportation
design
and
have
been
involved
in.
P
I
believe
it
was
denver
seattle's,
a
number
of
significant
other
jurisdictions
in
the
update
of
some
of
their
standards,
and
so
they
were
able
to
help
ensure
we
were
looking
at
things
through
all
the
potential
opportunities
out
there
and
see.
If
there
were
things
we
could
learn
from
others
on.
So
that
was
the
second
reason
to
bring
a
consultant
on
board.
I
O
Hi,
this
is
a
a
great
topic
and
ed.
I
appreciate
all
your
work,
and
so
I'm
gonna
phrase
my
comments
as
questions,
and
I
and
and
I'm
hoping
you
can
do
a
rapid
fire
answer,
because
we
have
some
people
that
need
to
leave
I'll
save
my
little
bit
longer
one
for
the
last
site,
triangles
enhanced
site
triangles
are
really
good
on
multi-use
paths.
O
What's
even
better.
In
my
mind,
is
elimination
of
of
curb
cuts
and
consolidation
of
curb
cuts
and
access.
We
just
called
up
tonight
we
for
a
later
date,
the
another
drive-in
on
28th
street
on
the
west
side
of
28th
street.
My
question
is:
does
the
updates
to
the
dcs?
P
And
I
can
quickly
address
that
it's
actually
addressed
in
the
boulder
revised
code
in
title
9,
so
the
dcs
gives
you
the
directions
for
how
to
design
a
curb
cut
in
title
9
in
the
site.
Access
standards
talks
about
how
many
and
how
you
can
do
shared
work,
shared
access.
How
many
crypt
cuts
you
can
have?
What
the
analysis
is
to
have
more
than
one
that
particular
area
of
work
was
not
a
part
of
this
phase
of
the
standards
update.
O
Okay,
sticking
to
site
triangles
for
just
a
moment
more:
there
is
a
new
pedestal.
Well,
there's
there
is
a
pedestrian
crossing
at
15th
and
iris,
and
it's
soon
to
be
updated.
I
believe,
with
the
rapid
flashing,
yellow
indicator
rffb's
or
whatever
the
acronym
is
I
as
a
pedestrian
approaching
from
the
south,
headed
north
across
iris.
O
P
O
My
experience
in
boulder
and
I've
had
this
discussion
with
other
transportation.
Engineers
is
that
the
radius
is
as
as
they
are
implemented
in
the
city
in
most
cases
is
insufficient
to
create
enough
deflection
to
actually
slow
a
vehicle.
So
if
you're
at
pine
and
23rd
the
traffic
circle,
there
really
does
is
not
a
traffic
calming
device.
It's
a
traffic
kind
of
confusing
device.
If
you're
headed
north
south
on
23rd
versus
the
dominant
flow
on
on
pine,
does
the
dcs
actually
address
a
the
radii
needed
to
create
real
deflection.
P
And
I
would
say
excellent
question
and
I'll
take
that
can
make
sure
staff
is
considering
that
as
we
work
through,
I
don't
miss
her.
I
have
all
your
answers
tonight.
I
want
to
take
your
feedback
and
we'll
have
some
of
that
when
we
come
back
with
the
final
version,
but
it's
a
good
point
we'll
certainly
make
sure
we
take
a
look
at
that.
I
O
My
concerns
there
are
a
number
of
places
where
I
would
hope
and
anticipate
that
the
city
would
implement
paid
parking
in
the
future,
for
instance
north
broadway,
which
is
being
constructed
reconstructed
right
now
in
the
in
the
new
parts
of
the
phase
two
of
the
transit
area
village
and
in
diagonal
plaza,
which
we
just
approved
through
site
review
a
couple
weeks
ago.
My
question
is:
does
the
dcs
require
power,
power,
post,
etc
needed?
P
O
Great,
that's
great,
solar
power
is
better,
but
I
anyway
just
it's
something.
That's
come
up
in
the
past
where
it's
like.
Well,
we
want
to
do.
Maybe
we
should
do
paid
parking
there,
but
you
know
old,
conventional
meters
and
so
forth
are
are
anyway.
There's
not
there's
not
infrastructure
there
to
accommodate
that.
O
Okay
last
one
final
one-
and
this
is
a
little
bigger
one,
but
speaking
of
diagonal
plaza
during
our
site
review
process,
the
app
I
voiced
a
concern
about
the
street
cross
section,
as
shown
in
the
application
as
being
approximately
30
some
feet
in
width
with
parallel
parking
on
both
sides
and
two
travel
loans,
and
that
was
the
extent
of
that
street
cross
section
which
the
both
the
application
and
everything.
O
O
So
when
we're
actually
creating
new
streets
in
new
locations,
it
seems
to
me
that
sometimes
the
answer
is
well.
That's
what
the
dcs
tells
us
to
do.
O
O
A
two-way,
a
bi-directional
bikeway
on
one
side
of
the
street,
with
the
dcs
have
yielded
a
different
product
than
two
rows
of
parking
and
two
travel
ones.
P
In
that
particular
project,
no,
I
don't
believe
it
would
have
again.
The
dcs
gives
you
the
the
standards
to
design
a
variety
of
facilities.
Other
things
give
the
input
about
where
those
facilities
are
the
other
thing,
I
would
say,
the
street
cross
sections
themselves
were
not
a
part
of
this
phase
and
are
recognized
that
there's
a
desire.
P
O
All
right,
that's
it
for
me
tonight!
Thank
you
and,
and
again
I
think
you've
got
what
I'm
kind
of
pointing
to
in
my
comments.
So
thanks
much.
F
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
John
a
thought
came
up
as
mark
was
was
talking
and
I'm
curious
as
to
whether
the
process
that
you're
undertaking
here
takes
into
account
the
evolution
of
streets
away
from
being
primarily
cars.
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
goals
of
that
we
were
looking
for
in
that
in
that
housing.
F
F
Does
it
remain
a
public
use
place?
Is
there
some
hybrid
as
streets
can
start
transitioning
away
from
cars,
and
especially
in
commercial
areas
like
the
edges
of
our
pedestrian
mall?
Is
there
something
like
that
happening
coming
in
either
from
consultants,
or
do
we
have
a
little
section
of
innovation
in
streets
in
this
process?.
P
So
it's
not
in
this
current
phase
of
the
dcs
updates.
You
have
to
be
cautious
when
we
talk
about
writing
standards
and
regulations
about
how
those
can
be
applied
because
they
have
standards
and
regulations,
and
so
those
provide
a
variety
of
different
challenges
for
some
of
those
projects.
It's
going
to
be
through
a
more
robust
process
than
just
the
dcs
to
look
at
different
pieces
that
could
occur.
P
Sometimes
that
has
occurred
in
some
community
plans
in
terms
of
street
cross
sections
that
are
adopted.
That
may
look
at
things,
but
you
know
in
terms
of
an
evolution
further
than
that.
It's
not
in
this
current
phase
and
could
be
in
future
projects,
whether
it
be
dcs,
whether
it
be
in
planning
efforts,
whether
it
be
in
the
tmp.
Those
could
be
potential
areas
for
that
kind
of
conversation
to
get
further
evaluated
and
more
more
proposals
or
more
direction.
Given.
F
Yeah
I
like
that
you're
suggesting
that
they
become
a
part
of
more
localized
design
guidelines,
the
new
the
new
street
section
that
could
help
us
evolve
away
from
cars.
Thank
you.
A
I
I
think
you
may
get
a
few
direct
questions
after
the
meeting,
but
appreciate
appreciate
this,
and
I
see
jared
was
here
too.
Thank
you
also
for
coming
so
good
luck.
A
Okay,
so
now
we'll
move
on
through
our
agenda.
Next
is
an
information
item
on
a
briefing
on
the
joint
board
meeting
for
june
23rd.
C
Yes,
that's
an
information,
I'm
john,
so
you
can
read
through
it
on
your
own.
It's
about
the
joint
board
meeting
that
you're
going
to
be
having
on
the
23rd.
C
So
it's
just
a
little
prequel
for
you,
my
information
for
you
on
that
is
this
week
we
had
a
discussion
and
we
are
going
to
be
now
doing
it
virtual.
So
it
is
not
going
to
be
an
in-person
meeting.
We
thought,
let's
not
have
a,
let's
not
be
responsible
for
a
super
spreader,
so
it
will
be
a
virtual
meeting
now.
A
I
O
A
Well
mark
and
I
had
a
brief
phone
conversation
the
other
day
about
the
concerns
with
the
cu
conference
center
and
hotel
and
how
that
interacts
with
the
bike
path,
going
up,
broadway
between
downtown
and
the
university,
and
so
last
time
when
we
spoke
about
this
mark
had
agreed
to
write
a
draft
that
could
be
sent
from
us
to
council
to
detail
our
concerns
in
our
phone
conversation
last
week.
A
We
thought
that
it
might
also
be
useful
to
invite
folks
from
cu
to
inform
us
of
their
plans
and
how
they
propose
to
deal
with
with
that
bike
path
crossing
at
at
marine
street
or
grand
view.
I
guess
it
is,
and
we
we
thought
that
would
be
a
a
good
and
worthwhile
thing
to
do
and
wanted
to
bring
it
up
and
see
what
you
folks
thought
and
whether
you
agreed
that
that
was
a
useful
thing.
Q
I
I
think,
that's
a
good
idea,
john,
if
they're
open
to
it,
I'm
not
sure
I
feel
quite
as
strongly
as
as
you
and
mark
do,
but
I
also
haven't
dug
into
it
the
way
you
guys
have
and
I'd
like
them
to
have
the
chance
to
come,
share
their
thoughts
and
where
they're
going
and
then
we
maybe
know
how
we
wanted
to
move
or
or
not
after
hearing
from
cu.
I
M
I
guess
my
feeling
is
that
we
we
don't
yeah,
I'm
happy
to
support
whatever
you
guys
want
to
do.
We
don't
have
a
mechanism
as
planning
board
to
to
change
anything.
Maybe
we
can
raise
this.
M
We
can
certainly
surface
it.
It
is
unclear
to
me,
based
on
what
hela
has
said
to
us.
What
impact
we
might
have,
but
maybe
see
you
in
wanting
to
be
a
good
partner
in
town
and
gown,
will
find
some
way
forward.
That
addresses
this
challenge,
but
I
think
just
broadly
across
the
city,
the
intersection
of
ipads
and
cars
is
is
a
real.
Is
it's
a
thing?
M
We
can
it's
a
little
bit
like
you
know,
whack-a-mole,
and
so
it's
worth
it's
worth
it,
but
I
just
I'm
not
trying
to
be
defeatist.
I
just
really
don't
have
any
sense
of
whether
cu's
gonna
care
to
be
something.
K
I'm
supportive,
I
mean
honestly,
I've
got
limited
bandwidth
and
we're
having
planning
board
meetings
every
single
week,
these
days
and
they're
long,
so
adding
something
that
we
have
limited
power
on
to
an
already
packed
agenda
doesn't
necessarily
feel
like
super
important
to
me.
But
again,
I'm
happy
to
support
my
colleagues.
If
you
guys
think
this
is
important,
I'm
happy
to
to
go
along
for
the
ride,
but
that's
kind
of
my
position.
N
I
think
I'm
in
the
same
boat,
like
I,
can
recognize
how
important
this
issue
is,
and
I
hope
that
we
do
get
a
chance
to
do
something
about
bike
path
and
vehicle
crossings
in
general,
that's
one
of
my
major
concerns
with
the
project
that
we
called
up
tonight
well
or
that
we
caught
we're
going
to
have
called
up
said
that
we
want
to
call
up.
So
I
hope
that
we.
N
Yeah
we
did
call
it
up.
It
will
come
back
to
us
I'll,
get
the
terminology
here
in
a
second
but
I'm
kind
of
in
the
same
boat,
with
george
and
sarah
about
the
number
of
meetings
that
we
have
the
length
of
the
meetings
and
the
need
to
kind
of
focus
our
agenda
on
the
things
that
staff
need
from
us,
which
is
considerable,
like
a
lot
of
our
attention.
N
So
if
we
can
find
a
way
to
to
get
this
in,
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
it
bump
something
else
that
is
vital
to
get
our
input
on,
but
I'm
also
supportive.
I
think
it's
interesting
and
it's
a
very,
very
important
issue
that
we
have
limited
control
over
because
of
the
town
and
gown
relationship.
A
F
So
I'm
guessing
that
the
the
intent
of
bringing
cu
into
kind
of-
let
us
know
what
their
thoughts
are,
is
so
that
we
can
craft
a
better,
more
focused
letter
to
city
council.
I
mean
that's
the
point
right.
We
want
to
get
a
position
where
we
want
to
and
we
want
input
from
the
other
side
to
see
what
our
position
is.
F
Yeah,
I'm
I
absolutely
I
agree
with
with
you
know
we
are
over
booked.
I
can't
believe
we
have
a
planning
meeting
every
week.
It
seems,
but
I
do
understand
that
if,
if,
if
it
could
happen,
if
we
could
make
that
happen,
I
think
it
would.
There
would
be
value
in
it.
So
I'd
be
willing
to.
M
Make
a
suggestion:
can
I
make
a
suggestion,
sure
john
and
mark
deputize
be
deputized
to
reach
out,
do
the
work
and
then
sit
down
with
edward,
who
would
be
the
staff
person
who
actually
has
any
sway
over
this
any
in
that
sway
he's
the
one
who's
gonna
be
doing
the
implementation
of
of
the
the
cu
plans.
He
won't
be
doing
the
implement
he'll,
be
the
one
negotiating
and
and
in
the
ways
that
you
all
can
expand
this
to
be
more
city-wide,
because,
frankly,
focusing
on
one
intersection
seems
it
isn't
nitpicky.
M
But
it
is
of
limited
value
in
the
broader
conversation
in
boulder
and
to
recognize
that
this
is
like
a
multi-year.
This
is
a
trigger
to
a
multi-year
discussion
and
not
something
that's
going
to
be
solved
in
the
next,
at
least
while
I'm
on
the
board.
I
don't
think,
but
I
think
I'm
happy
to
deputy
to
support
you
guys
to
go.
Do
that
and
see
what
you
come
back
with.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
mark.
O
I
I
just
I'll
make
a
super
quick
comment,
john,
I
think
from
the
feedback
we've
just
gotten,
it's
incumbent
upon
you
and
I
to
be
well
prepared
and
should
see
you
come
to
our
come
to
a
future
meeting
and
present
that
brevity
will
be
appreciated
and
and
and
focus
and
we'll
we'll
just
try
to
try
to
make
it
concise.
I
just
want
to
address
one
last
thing
and
yes,
bike
crossings,
bike,
lane,
crossings
of
driveways
and
intersections
is
a
thing
and
it's
a
city-wide
thing.
O
One
thing
I've
learned
at
when
I
was
on
tab
was
that
as
things
redevelop,
that
that
is
the
time
to
implement
the
the
the
better
improvement
that,
if
you
as
soon
as
you,
redevelop
something
and
then
it's
done,
and
then
everyone
realizes.
Oh,
we
really
kind
of
screwed
that
up.
Then,
then
the
reluctance
is
very
deep
to
correct.
At
that
point,
what
should
have
been
a
correction?
So,
while,
yes,
it
is
nitpicking
as
one
out
of
hundreds
or
maybe
even
many
hundreds
of
of
this
type
of
crossing.
O
This
is
a
major
redevelopment
that
I
think
it's
important
to
try
to
get
this
one
right.
As
a
redevelopment
project
and
as
an
example.
N
O
Counselor
yates
friend,
and
I
think
some
others
are-
are
quite
interested
in
this.
A
Yeah
I
can,
I
can
just
mention
I
I'm
happy
and
I
think
mark-
and
I
are
expected
to
be
to
take
the
lead
on
this,
but
one
just
so
you're
clear
about
it,
as
speaking
as
a
as
a
frequent
bike
rider
to
work
past
that
it's
particularly
sensitive
because
you
know
you're
going
down
a
hill
and
bike
fighters
are
going
really
fast
and
not
prepared
to
stop
in
the
same
way
that
they
might
be
at
another
intersection.
So
it's
a
and
it
gets
a
hell
of
a
lot
of
traffic
bike
traffic
there.
M
Yeah
but-
and
I
would
just
I'm
glad
you
guys-
are
going
to
take
it
on-
I
would
just
say
that
when
we
looked
at
the
hill
hotel,
which
was
the
one
thing
that
we
had
access
over,
we
talked
about
a
huge
amount
of
traffic
that
was
going
to
be
generated
at
that
intersection
because
of
the
combination
of
the
hill
hotel
and
the
cu
conference
center.
M
M
As
the
city
redevelops
and
we
end
up,
I
know
that
we
we
are,
we
aren't
seeing
fewer
cars
coming
into
the
city
despite
all
of
our
efforts
and
we
are
seeing
a
lot
more
development,
not
a
lot
more
but
we're
seeing
much
more
compact
development,
and
that
means
a
lot
more
interaction
between
pedestrians,
cars,
bikers
and
buildings,
and
I
think
we
make
a
lot
of
assumptions
that
are
probably
not
accurate,
and
so
it's
not
just
about
bikers.
It's
really
not
just
about
bikers.
M
It
really
is
about
access
and
movement
mobility,
and
I
live
downtown,
and
I
know
that
trying
to
get
out
of
town
downtown
in
the
next
two
years
will
be
it'll.
I
will
become
trapped
by
all
the
development
that's
happening
around
it,
so
I
just
would
like
to
if
we're
going
to
have
this
conversation
over
time.
Let's
raise
it
up
quite
a
bit
to
the
the
city-wide
challenges.
I
C
Yes,
I'd,
like
you
all
to
start
thinking
about
retreat
dates.
I
don't
want
dates
tonight,
but
we're
looking
at
our
new
planning
director
starts
june
6th
and
we're
thinking
about
doing
it
in
july.
C
So
if
you
could
come
to
our
next
planning
board
meeting
next
thursday,
yes,
it
is
next
thursday
and
I'll,
be
here
too
and
with
some
possible
dates
in
mind.
That
would
be
very
helpful.
C
And
so
then
we
can
maybe
kick
around
some
ideas
during
matters
next
thursday,
and
so
maybe
we
can
have
some
ideas.
I'm
out.
F
Cindy,
what's
involved
with
the
retreat,
is
it
is
it
I
mean
what
what
is
it
I
mean
I
asked,
I
know
what
they
are,
but
is
it
like
on
a
weekend?
Is
it
a
whole
day.
C
During
the
week
we
can
make
it
longer.
I
think,
if
I
remember
right
in
the
last.
C
C
Okay,
we
don't
want
to
do
any
more
evening
than
we
have
to
do
and
and
we'd
like
to
do
it
in
person,
I'm
sure
and
on
that,
in
a
vein
as
far
as
us,
going
back
to
in
person.
C
How
do
I
say
this,
so
we
have
realized
that
we
have
some
constraints
with
going
back
into
city
back
into
chambers.
There
we've
realized
there
are
some
technical
issues
with
going
into
chambers
and
long
and
short
of
it
is
they
don't
know
how
to
do
a
meeting.
That's
not
counsel
in
chambers
with
all
that's,
because
they
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
staff,
helping
with
counsel
we're,
not
counsel,
and
so
they
don't
know
how
to
do
it.
C
I
have
the
technology
to
do
that,
and
so
we
are
on
standby.
We
are
probably
going
to
be
the
first
board
once
they
figure
out
the
technology
to
go
in
person.
All
of
my
other
boards
are
virtual
to
the
through
the
rest
of
the
year
period,
because
we
cannot
figure
out
the
technology
but
planning
board.
We
are.
C
We
are
slated
to
be
the
first
board
to
go
hybrid.
If
we
cannot
figure
out
chambers,
we
may
have
to
find
another
room,
but
we
will
work
but
we're
working
on
it,
we're
working
on
it
diligently.
So
as
of
now
we
are
virtual,
and
so
we
can
and
it's
all
technology
I
need
to
get
trained.
We
all
need
to
get
trained,
it's
it's
a
technological
issue,
just
that's
as
basic
as
I
can
tell
you
right
now
is
what
it
is.
C
It's
a
technological
issue,
so
so
the
earliest
we
would
be
able
to
get
to
be
in
person.
Of
course
it
it
it
it.
It's
the
whether
we're
out
of
the
clear
medium
and
all
that
as
well.
You
know
it
depends
on
what
area
we
are
as
far
as
this
pandemic
as
well
too,
but
the
earliest.
We
would
be
in
person
this
july,
but
we
are
supposed
to
be
one
of
the
first,
because
we're
planning
board.
I
N
Cindy
can
I
can
I
make
it
with
the
chair's
permission.
Can
I
make
a
suggestion
about
a
technology
tool
that
may
help
us
with
scheduling
the
retreat,
and
I
can
do
this
offline
as
well,
but
there's
a
scheduling
tool.
I
like
that's,
called
when
is
good
and
you
can
basically
give
people
like
a
month
worth
of
weekdays
and
people
just
kind
of
scroll
down
and
highlight
the
areas
that
they
could
make
a
meeting,
and
then
that
will
overlap
all
of
our
availability
and
tell
you
when
is
good
for
the
whole
group.
I
C
C
I
can
check
it
out
and
just
one
last
thing
I
don't
know
if
you
all
heard
me
in
the
beginning,
I
sent
you
door
dash
cards
for
some
dinner
one
night,
maybe
next
week
at
planning
board.
Just
I
didn't
want
you
to
think
it
was
spam
and
disregard
it.
So
because
I
started
thinking,
oh
that
they
might
think
that's
not
real.
So.
N
A
All
right
any
other
points.
Anyone
wants
to
make
all
right.
I
think
wow
we
might
even
be
able
to
get
out
of
here
before
our
hard
close
time
was.