►
From YouTube: Boulder City Planning Board Meeting 10-18-18
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
D
C
A
A
So
we
have
a
the
next
item
on
the
agenda.
Then,
is
some
discussion
of
dispositions,
Planning,
Board
call
ups
and
continuations,
and
we
have
one
call
up
item
redevelopment
of
scott
Carpenter
Park
floodplain
development
permit?
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
or
staff
or
comments
on
that
call
up
or
have
any
interest
in
calling
it
up?
No
none,
okay,
great!
I
Thanks
very
much
good
evening
board
before
we
turn
it
over
to
Elaine.
To
present
the
staff
analysis.
I
just
wanted
to
update
the
board
on
a
discussion
that
council
had
on
Tuesday
night.
They
did
entertain
whether
or
not
to
adopt
moratorium
and
the
RR
and
Ari's
owns
related
to
maximum
housing
size.
They
did
not
end
up
adopting
a
moratorium.
Instead,
they
decided
to
hold
a
public
hearing
on
December
4th
to
hear
from
a
greater
cross-section
of
the
community
and
maybe
digest
some
of
the
data
that
staff
provided
with
them
on
Tuesday
night.
I
So
I
think
they'll
consider
that
again
on
December
4th
with
a
little
bit,
you
know
more
public
notice,
so
folks
have
the
opportunity
to
participate.
So
as
of
right
now
there
are
no
limitations
on
home
sizes
and
our
re
other
than
what's
already
included
in
the
code
today.
So
I
just
wanted
to
preface
the
discussion
since
this
particular
annexation
falls
into
one
of
those
zone.
Districts
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
So,
okay,
that
said,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
Elaine
McLaughlin
to
present
staffs
analysis
thanks.
J
Charles
good
evening,
everyone
I'm
stepping
in
for
Shannon
molar
who's
on
maternity
leave
right
now
and
she
did
the
analysis
and
prepared
the
memo
but
I'm
representing
the
staff
findings
tonight.
So,
first
off
just
a
brief
overview.
We'll
have
a
fairly
succinct
staff
presentation,
it's
all
in
your
memo,
but
did
want
to
go
over
the
context.
What
the
annexation
is
that's
proposed,
we'll
have
some
key
issues
to
discuss,
will
note
the
public
notification
process
and
then
a
staff
recommendation.
J
So
the
property
is
located
in
the
Crestview
East
neighborhood
and
it's
east
of
19th
Street
on
camera,
which
in
this
location
is
actually
not
a
through
Street.
You
can
kind
of
get
a
sense
of
that.
It
terminates
and
essentially
just
ends
at
a
few
properties
away
from
this
property
and
so
in
front
of
this
property.
It
has
a
distinctly
rural
character
so
as
an
enclave
property.
It's
important
to
note
that
there
have
been
a
number
of
annexations
that
have
occurred
in
the
past,
primarily
ten
to
twenty
years.
That
has
created
this
enclave
condition.
J
J
Of
course,
and
in
addition
for
residential
development,
emphasis
is
placed
on
the
provision
of
permanently
affordable
housing
and
in
this
case
the
applicant
has
agreed
to
pay
two
times
the
cash
in
lieu
for
any
new
residential
unit.
That's
built
on
the
site
for
q3
and
the
appropriateness
of
the
residential
estate.
Initial
zoning.
It's
actually
instructive
to
look
at
the
intent
of
the
North
Boulder
sub
Community
Plan
land-use
map
for
the
Crestview
East
area.
J
In
that
there's,
essentially,
as
you
can
see,
a
gradient
of
density
that
starts
at
violet
on
the
north,
where
it's
a
little
bit
higher
density
and
then
it
transitions
in
a
gradient
across
to
essentially
where
the
site
is
where
it
gets
to
be
lower
density
and,
ultimately,
to
very
low
density
further
to
the
south.
This
is
also
then,
of
course,
consistent
with
the
comp
plan.
J
So
then,
with
regard
to
residential
estate,
zoning,
of
course
it
has
to
meet
the
title.
9
land-use
code
standards
and
under
residential
estate
are
l1
in
our.
Our
one
properties
have
to
also
meet
compatible
development
standards,
that
limit
side
yard,
bulk,
plain
and
wall
articulation,
building
coverage
and
specific
floor
area
ratio
standards
based
on
the
standards
and
then
given
the
high
hazard
flood
constraints,
the
56,000
square
foot
lot
could
be
subdivided
into
two
acre,
so
size
Lots
with
the
maximum
of
around
7,000
square
feet
on
each
lot
and
about
5,600
square
feet
of
building
coverage.
J
But
if,
in
the
future,
the
applicant
pursues
an
amendment
to
the
existing
flood
mapping
and
successfully
demonstrates
and
removes
the
site
from
the
high
hazard
in
conveyance
and
then
in
turn,
requests
to
vacate
that
flood
control
easement
being
dedicated.
The
property
could
be
developed
with
no
more
than
three
Lots
given
the
size
of
the
property
at
one
to
you
per
15,000
square
feet
with
regard
to
public
notification,
notice
was
sent
to
property
owners
600
feet
and
it
was
posted
on
property.
J
H
H
Not
this
map
that
you're
looking
at
but
there's
another
map
in
the
sub.
Yes,
this
one
and
well.
This
is
from
the
comp
plan.
There's
another
map
in
the
sub
community
plan
that
showed
potential
open
spaces
and
public
areas,
and
it
it
seemed
to
me
to
show
that
this
lot
might
be
affected
by
that
as
well.
Okay,.
J
H
A
A
J
I
A
A
J
F
I
That
actually
triggers
my
memory
I
think
the
thought
was.
We
would
get
the
underpass
at
19th
for
the
school
which
I
don't
know.
The
status
of
right
now
was
approved,
I'm,
not
sure
if
it's
under
construction,
but
there'll
be
a
bridge
that
connects
to
Tamarack,
and
that
was
the
desired
connection
not
actually
going
through
the
creek.
Okay.
A
E
Think
you
touched
on
this
Elaine,
but
the
property
is
like
fifty
six
thousand
three
hundred
and
nine
square
feet
and
me,
and
then
the
drainage
easement
that
the
applicant
is
going
to
give
to
the
city
is
eighteen
thousand
seven
hundred
and
twenty-two.
So
that
does
not
the
drainage.
Easement
is
not
subtracted
from
the
square
footage
that
can
be
developed
right.
That's.
E
J
Conceivably,
I
actually
would
defer
that
to
the
applicant
to
see
if
they've
explored
that,
but
my
understanding
is
it'd
be
pretty
hard
to
be
able
to
get
the
dimension
for
the
subdivision
standards
for
lot.
Access
lot:
frontage,
yeah
a
lot
frontage,
so
I
think
it
could
be
challenging.
But
again
the
applicant
may
have
explored
that.
Okay,
thank
you.
H
D
J
A
K
K
Eileen
did
a
good
job
with
presenting
the
zoning
here.
You
know.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
again
that
there
is
this
sort
of
cascading
level
of
intensity,
starting
at
Holiday,
which
is
our
max
down
through
the
mobile
home
park
along
violet,
which
is
our
m2
down
through
vine
Avenue,
which
is
our
l1
and
then
distending
down
past
upland
and
Tamarack,
which
is
our
e.
So
there's
a
lot
of
interest
in
this
neighborhood.
Obviously,
with
rural
subdivisions
we've
been
doing
a
lot
of
subdivisions
in
that
vine
Avenue
area.
K
We
have
a
probably
six
that
we're
working
on
right
now
there
are
a
couple
more
down
along
upland,
both
on
Crestview
East
and
Crestview
West
and,
as
Lane
pointed
out,
the
lot
minimums
for
re
is
15,000
square
feet.
Rr
is
30
just
for
argument's
sake.
The
are
l1
7000
and
RM.
2
is
6,
so
you
can
kind
of
see
how
the
cascading
zoning
really
affects
the
lot
sizes
and
the
density
as
we
move
further
south
towards
our
property.
K
K
We
got
some
comments
back
from
the
neighbors,
primarily
dealing
with
the
density
of
3
Lots
concerns
with
the
floodplain
concerns
with
clustering,
the
houses
on
the
north
side
of
the
site.
So
when
we
came
back
to
do
our
annexation,
some
it'll
in
December
we
sort
of
murph
morphed.
Our
site
plan
is
something
like
this.
Where
we
had
still
have
three
Lots,
we
put
one
of
the
Lots
in
the
back
with
the
required
attention
kind
of
at
that
southeast
corner
and
then
there's
two
Lots
in
the
front.
K
Now
we
submitted
this
in
December.
We
got
some
comments
back
January
February.
Obviously,
staff
wants
us
to
dedicate
that
flood
conveyance
easement,
which
is
that
green
line
that
kind
of
cuts
through
the
site
so
that
third
lot
in
the
back
was
generally
not
buildable
until
we
went
back
and
did
an
extensive
flood
analysis
on
that,
so
it
kind
of
came
back
during
our
March
the
middle
and
came
up
with
this
two
lot
concept,
which
would
be
basically
split
into
two
Lots.
This
graphic
shows
them
equally
distributed.
K
23,000
square
feet
each,
but
it
necessarily
wouldn't
have
to
take
this
form.
It
could
be
one
larger
law
in
the
back,
a
smaller
law
in
the
front,
so
this
is
just
kind
of
a
general
a
sense
of
what
we
accomplished
here
and,
as
you
can
see,
I
mean
the
bottom.
Third
of
this
site
is
basically
in
the
flood
control
easement
and
would
not
be
able
to
be
built
on.
K
K
So
when
we
came
out
of
the
council
meeting
in
February
2018
for
the
Crestview
East
annexation,
and
then
men,
council,
member,
more
Zell
really
had
some
great
comments
and
was
able
to
put
in
some
verbage
in
the
annexation
amendment
that
allow
us
to
do
duplexes
that
allowed
us
to
do
a
to
use
and
a
use
with
unlimited
saturation.
We
had
larger,
ad
use
and
larger
a
used,
and
what
was
that
loud
at
the
code
by
the
time
and
increased
occupancy
limits
on
those
structures
too?
K
K
You
know
the
the
Crestview
East
is
that
rm2
rl1
we've
got
two
habitats
there
on
kind
of
north
side.
You
know
overall,
I
think
we're
really
excited
about
where
councils
going
with
new
large
large
house
discussion
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
opportunities
in
this
neighborhood
for
increased
density,
smaller
Lots.
We
have
some
concerns
on
this
lot,
in
particular,
just
because
tamaracks
dead-end
street
there's
some
connection
issues.
There,
we've
heard
from
the
neighbors
that
they
want
to
maintain
this
rural
character.
K
That's
something
that's
in
the
sub
community
plan,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
we're
we're
cognizant
of
that,
and
then
we
do
have
a
lot
of
floodplain
issues
on
this
site
too.
So
I'd
be
leery
slapping
a
bunch
of
duplexes
on
this
site,
but
I
think
it
has
a
real
good
role
in
the
context
of
this
great
neighborhood
that
we
can
meet
the
requirements.
That's
coming
down
the
pike
here
this
this
next
year,
but
I
would
like
to
maintain
some
sort
of
flexibility
here.
K
A
A
E
K
This
time
I
mean
that's
something
we
can
bring
up
at
Council
next
month.
You
know
I,
do
like
the
duplex,
ID
I
think
that's
a
great
way
of
providing
housing
on
some
of
these
larger
Lots
I,
like
the
a
to
use
and
the
OAU
concept.
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
area
here
that
could
be
utilized
for
smaller
dwellings,
and
you
know
allow
for
a
little
more
affordable
housing
in
this
neighborhood
and
still
maintaining
that
rural
character.
A
E
F
I
wanted
to
just
close
a
couple
things:
I've
got
I
mean
Scott,
Cox
and
associates
is
on
several
projects
with
clients
that
we've
got
and
the
I
have
a
several
clients
of
the
neighborhood
from
past
years.
There's
no
active
relationship.
Those
houses
are
all
done.
In
fact,
one
of
them
was
in
the
presentation
by
staff.
You
guys
have
to
guess
which
one
but
yeah,
none
of
those
things
impair
my
ability
to
eject
okay.
G
So,
similarly
to
Brian,
my
clients
have
hired
Scott,
Cox
and
associates
in
the
past,
and
currently,
however,
I
don't
have
any
personal
reasons.
Why
I
can't
be
completely
objective
in
reviewing
this
application
and
I
have
not
checked
the
database
to
see
if
my
law
firm
has
ever
represented
the
applicant
mr.
Tebow,
but
I
personally
have
never
represented
mr.
Tebow,
and
he
is
not
a
client
of
mine.
Thank.
L
H
L
A
Right,
okay,
so
I
don't
have
any
disclosures.
Do
you
have
any
Davis
I?
Don't?
Okay,
thanks
all
right.
So,
given
that,
then
we
can
go
ahead
and
start
our
deliberations.
The
staff
has
kindly
put
up
for
us
the
key
issues
for
discussion.
The
first
one
is:
does
the
annexation
petition
comply
with
the
applicable
state
annexation
statutes?
A
A
A
H
My
concern
is
that
there
could
be
an
indirect
way
of
wiping
out
the
Oso
characterization.
If,
in
the
future
the
floodplain
designation
has
changed
and
the
the
easement
then
is
vacated
and
I
I
want
us
to
be
aware
of
that
possibility
under
the
proposed
arrangement
and
make
sure
that
we
think
that
it's
appropriate
I
am
not
convinced
that
it
is.
Although
I
realize
we're
talking
about
a
very
small
area,
but
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
board
is
aware
of
that.
Also,
okay,.
G
You
know
my
recollection
from
the
staff
staff
report
is
that
the
underlying
land
use
designation
is
not
proposed
to
be
changed,
so
the
Oso
is
an
underlying
land
use
designation,
which
would
remain
on
the
Comprehensive
Plan
land-use
map
and
because
Oso
doesn't
have
an
overlying
zoning
district,
that's
assigned
to
it.
The
same
way
like
you
know,
low-density
residential
land
use
designation,
has
zoning
districts
like
re
n
RR
that
are
automatically
compliant
with
that
underlying
land
use
designation.
G
H
G
J
F
H
F
A
K
Yeah
correct
the
the
flood
control
easement
is
for
the
conveyance
zone
and
FEMA
designates
the
conveyance
owned
as
an
area,
that's
reserved
for
the
conveyance
of
floodwater,
so
once
we
dedicate
that
easement
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
any
creating
in
that
area
to
change
the
command
zone.
We
did
some
preliminary
studies
and
there's
some
wonkiness
in
the
model
here,
so
we
might
be
able
to
remap
some
of
this
conveyance
own,
but
it
is
quite
a
lengthy
process.
You'd
have
to
go
to
FEMA
for
a
conditional
letter
or
map
revision.
K
A
F
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
think
it's.
It
is
in
line
with
our
policies,
to
the
extent
that
our
policies
are
in
line
with
our
policies,
because
we've
talked
quite
a
bit
about
how
do
we
create
opportunities
for
more
affordable
housing?
How
do
we
create
opportunities
for
pocket
neighborhoods
if
friends,
a
fan
of
the
popular
neighborhood
and
things
like
that,
and
so
in
this
stance?
I
think
you
know
we're
kind
of
obligated
to
say.
F
Yes,
it's
an
inline
with
comp
plan
policies,
even
though
the
comp
plan
policies
are
totally
not
in
line
with
what
the
re
zoning
implements.
I
just
want
to
say
that
and
I
also
wouldn't
want
to
try
to
see
us.
You
know,
based
on
what
we've
heard
from
city
council
report
from
from
Charles
earlier.
Thank
you
and
you
know
kind
of
larger
conversations
around
the
affordable
housing
that
we've
been
having
for
a
long
time.
F
I,
wouldn't
want
to
see
us
bake
anything
into
this
annexation
agreement
that
prohibits
that
conversation
from
falling
all
the
way
through
so
I
like
the
way
the
annexation
of
great
business
written
we've
seen
a
lot
of
these
things
over
the
years
and
they
can
be
full
of
all
kinds
of
weird
little
Easter
eggs.
So
I'm
glad
this
one
does
not
have
that
characteristic.
A
A
D
D
A
I
So
here's
what
council
ended
up
approving
as
part
of
the
2180
violet
annexation,
that
included
the
Habitat
for
Humanity
and
so
hella
as
the
expert
on
the
regulations
that
are
going
forward,
I
think
can
probably
explain
to
us
what's
going
to
be
covered
in
the
ordinance
that's
about
to
be
approved.
Okay,.
D
M
There's
one
more
reading
anticipated
on
the
edu,
ordinance
and
I,
don't
anticipate
that
any
changes
be
made
so
I'm
basing
what
I
say
on
what
was
approved
at
fourth
reading,
so
the
first
waiver
that
is
included
in
that
paragraph
is
that
an
ulceration
restriction
applies
for
overuse
or
ad
use.
So
in
the
old
still
current
Adu
regulations,
there
was
a
ten
percent
saturation
requirement.
M
M
Currently
a
lot
with
an
80
uro
a
you
has
the
same
total
occupancy
limit
that
exists
on
a
single-family
residential
lot,
so
this
annexation
agreement
allowed
to
be
added
on
to
that
by
allowing
three
persons
or
members
of
a
family
in
the
ATO.
So
previously.
Actually,
the
ADA
was
also
limited
to
two
people,
and
so
this
allowed
three
persons
or
members
of
a
family
under
the
new
regulations.
M
D
M
M
M
That's
up
on
the
screen
also
took
away
the
requirement
that
the
principal
dwelling
unit
be
at
least
five
years
old
before
an
Adu
or
you
could
be
established.
That
is
also
eliminated
in
the
new
regulations.
So
really
only
two
of
those
subsections
would
still
have
effect
under
then
you
go
with
the
a
and.
D
D
F
And
that's
been
clear,
like
sort
of
revisited,
I
guess
through
four
public
meetings
at
City,
Council
already
and
going
in
for
the
fifth,
it
makes
sense
to
kind
of
start
to
build
that
into
this
annexation.
Agreement
I
think
the
two
things
that
you
know
getting
rid
of
the
saturation
agreement
is
helpful
because
we
have
lots
there
next
to
each
other,
because.
D
F
Changes
opportunities
there
and
then
the
square
footage
limitations
as
well.
The
other
thing
I
would
like
to
see
us
talk
about
which
would
enable
something
like
a
little
pocket.
Neighborhood
will
be
one
little
bit
step
further
and
we
could
maybe
float
at
the
City
Council
and
see
how
they
feel
about.
It
will
be
the
ability
to
do
multiple,
ad
use
on
a
site,
so
you
could
actually
accomplish
a
little
pocket.
Neighborhood
of
you
know
four
and
five
six
hundred
square
foot
cottages,
mm-hmm.
D
A
F
F
G
G
So,
if
we're
talking
about
detached
ideas,
you
know
what
I'm
hearing
you
say
is
that
the
limitation
on
the
density
of
them
would
be
setbacks
and
density
and
lot
coverage
and
all
the
things
that
are
already
in
the
code
compatible
do
not
a
sump
a
turrible
development
you're,
not
talking
about
changing
the
the
size.
You
know,
they'd
be
550
and
and
they'd
be
800
limited
if
they
were
deed,
restricted,
affordable
at
75
percent.
I.
Think
the
one
thing
that
we
would
need
to
change
and
put
into
the
annexation
agreement
would
be
something
along.
G
The
lines
of
the
occupancy,
for
the
main
dwellings
would
be
limited
to
the
maximum
available
in
the
zoning
district,
which
is
three
or
four
unrelated
persons
or
a
family
and
and
that
and
then
each
of
the
80
use
would
be
limited
to
you
know
either
two
unrelated
persons
or
a
family
which
counts
as
one
unrelated
person,
so
you
could
have
a
family
and
a
uncle
or
something
like
that.
You
could
have
two
roommates
or
you
could
have
you
know
two
families
actually
but
yeah.
G
H
Yeah
I
I
think
all
of
these
suggestions
make
sense,
but
I
think
this
is
not
the
appropriate
place
to
go
into
these
details.
I
think
that
the
annexation
should
be
consistent
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
in
with
respect
to
the
new
Adu
regulations
that
the
city
is
developing
and
I,
don't
believe
that
it
it's
it's
necessary
or
appropriate,
to
try
and
develop
an
individual
regime
for
this
specific
annexation.
I
think
that
we
should
make
it
consistent
with
with
what
else
is
going
on.
I
guess.
F
I
would
assert
that
it
is
consistent
with
what
else
is
going
on
the
area,
because
this
is
the
most
recent
series
of
properties
in
the
neighborhood
we've
we've
worked
on
and
it
represents
the
current
best
thinking
in
the
direction
that
the
city
is
going
in,
so
I
think
it
I
think
it
does
meet
the
current
practices.
I
can.
G
Just
point
one
thing
out:
17
paragraph
17
in
the
annexation
agreement
says:
for
each
additional
dwelling
unit
on
the
property:
that's
not
deed,
restricted
is
permanently
affordable.
The
applicant
shall
pay
twice
the
applicable
cash
and
lieu
amount,
so
80
use
qualify
as
dwelling
units,
and
each
one
of
those
that
is
indeed
restricted.
Affordable
would
have
actually.
H
M
So
the
way
it's
set
up
because
the
the
duplex
is
non-conforming,
the
way
it's
set
up
is
we're
acknowledging
only
one
dwelling
unit
as
existing
on
the
property
for
purposes
of
imposing
community
benefit
in
terms
of
affordable
housing.
So
if,
if
this
property
is
redeveloped
and
two
units
are
being
built,
then
we
acknowledge
one
is
existing
and
the
second
unit
would
be
subject
to
the
two
times
in
Luffy.
H
I
I
G
While
you're
getting
the
flood
map
up,
I'd
also
point
out
that,
despite
ad
use
not
being
considered
dwelling
units
for
purposes
of
participation
in
a
cache
and
Lowe
program,
there's
nothing
that
would
preclude
us
from
requiring
that
the
ad
use
participate
in
the
cache
and
Lowe
program
through
the
annexation
agreement.
Because
it's
legislative.
A
So
I,
really
like
the
possibility
of
allowing
ad
use
here
and
I
think
lifting
the
saturation
limit
makes
sense.
I
worry
about
recommending
multiple
ad
use
for
each
lot,
just
because
they're
going
to
end
up
in
this
100-year
floodplain-
and
you
know,
as
we
know,
when
you
build
in
100
year,
flood
plains,
someday
somebody's
gonna
have
to
pen
spend
millions
of
dollars
to
mitigate
this.
Let's
not
make
that
mistake.
A
Okay,
so
we
have
lots
of
developments
in
the
hundred
year.
Flood
plain
this
is,
and
this
is
not
a
redevelopment
necessarily
I
mean
this-
would
be
sort
of
new
development.
I
think
when
we
see
new
development,
we
have
the
opportunity
to
limit
what
gets
developed
in
the
flood
plain.
Then
we
should
take
it
Ryan.
Did
you
want
to
respond
to
that?
Yeah?
Sorry,.
F
So
the
reason
those
homes
that
are
in
the
floodplain
now
cost
so
much
to
mitigate
or
because
they
weren't
designed
to
current
standards
so
now
house
and
the
floodplain
has
to
be
elevated
or
have
flow
through
or
and
have
flow
through
foundations
and
stuff.
Like
that,
just
as
example,
we
did
a
house,
that's
right
where
the
bend
of
the
floodplain
is
in
the
floodplain,
maybe
five
or
seven
years
ago.
Something
like
that
before
the
flood
and
I
will
say
edit.
The
guide
was
cranky
about
having
an
element.
F
He
didn't
want
to
comply
with
all
the
regulations
that
he
had
to
follow,
but
he
was
quite
grateful
when
the
flood
left
his
home
in
perfect
tact
without
any
kind
of
follow-up
problems.
So
I
think
that
kind
of
engineering
works
really
quite
well.
It's
pretty
well
thought
out.
You
know
what
they're
doing
so,
I
think
just
just
to
base
our
decision
tonight
on
what
would
have
happened
if
it
was
built
seven
and
twenty
years
ago,
or
seven,
seventy
or
twenty
or
thirty
years
ago.
It's
not
a
good
place
to
build
our
decision-making.
Okay,.
A
Well,
I
don't
have
as
much
confidence
in
the
long-term
engineering
solutions
because
we've
seen
so
many
of
them
fail.
But
you
know
your
point
is
well-taken,
but
I,
like
I
said:
don't
have
as
much
confidence
in
that
so
anyway,
I
don't
know
how
folks
feel,
but
I
I
would
be
open
to
adding
that
paragraph.
That
was
about
lifting
the
saturation
limits
and
then
just
let
the
other
Adu
provisions
that
are
going
to
be
passed
by
Council
apply
because
I,
like
your
point
about
being
able
to
have
an
a
to
you
on
each
property
and
I.
F
I
mean
the
problem
is
that
if
you
can
look
at
the
actual
shape
of
the
site-
and
you
require
subdivision
of
it
in
order
to
get
this,
those
eighty
used
to
happen,
then
you're
forcing
the
center
of
the
property
become
flow
setbacks,
instead
of
being
able
to
create
common
elements
on
it.
It's
a
lot
of
stuff
that
you
work
towards
when
you're
trying
to
do
non.
Single-Family,
suburban
design
work
are
at
odds
with
subdivision
requirements.
D
F
F
H
B
I'm
inclined
to
support
the
proposal
that
you
and
Bryan
are
working
on
together,
and
the
compromise
sounds
good.
I
think
that
the
annexation
gives
us
the
opportunity
to
do
something
that
helps
further.
You
know
goals
that
we
have
in
in
a
place
and
not
be
constrained
as
much
as
if
it
were
already
annexed,
and
it
has
to
stay
that
way.
So
so
I
think
it
is
a
moving
a
time
of
movement
and
a
time
of
being
able
to
to
apply
something
that
we
think
is
a
worthy
print.
B
A
E
It's
interesting
with
the
Naumann
annexation
up
there,
because
it's
not
I
believe
there's
7,000
square
foot
Lots.
So
if
you
divide
seven
thousand
and
two
56,000,
which
is
what
this
site
is,
you
would
get
eight
single
family
units
now
I
understand
that
that
doesn't
account
for
roads
and
and
those
other
things.
So,
even
if
you
had
you
know
six
units
or
four
units
or
four
Lots
that
you
could
put
it
there
at
the
rl1
square.
Footage
I
do
think
it's
it's
reasonable
to
explore
the
having
four
little
units
spread
out
over
the
two
Lots.
E
And
then
the
issue
of
saturation
is
an
interesting
issue,
because
the
lots
and
the
development
patterns
are
so
inconsistent
in
this
whole
area.
I,
don't
know
what
would
catch
you
up
in
a
set
in
hitting
the
saturation
limit?
If
you
had,
you
know
the
whole,
let's
say
if
you
have
the
whole
56,000
square
feet
and
a
couple
of
your
neighbors
had
the
detached
ad
use.
Would
you
then
hit
the
saturation
limit
if
they
were
all
on
certain
corners?
Even
though
you've
got
this
monster
of
a
lot
yeah.
E
The
well
the
oh
I
use,
I
guess
so
we
use
an
a
to
use,
but
what's
I'm
not
sure
if
you
have
one
I
know
you
don't
have
one
in
the
rmx
zone,
a
saturation
limit
and
I
thought
the
our
ethos
and
the
EE
zones
fell
under
that
same
a
mission,
not
a
mission,
but
that
same
ability
to
not
have
saturation
cuz
idea
was.
The
lots
are
so
huge
I.
F
M
A
F
M
F
A
L
L
B
My
understanding,
then,
and
actually
I
did
not
realize
this-
is
that
if
you
stick
with
the
overall
limitations
on
what
you
can
build
on
the
lots
in
re,
you
can
put
in
multiple
detached
a
to
use
that
what
I'm
hearing
no.
M
B
A
A
F
Subdivision
requirements
is
really
to
leave
it
as
one
lot
and
do
a
pocket
neighborhood
on
that,
so
you're
not
having
to
go
through
a
separate
subdivision
process
in
order
to
accomplish
that,
and
it
allows
you
to
do
some
things
that
are
really
good
in
terms
of
sharing
some
of
the
resources
when
you
subdivide
properties,
you
kind
of
inflict
a
bunch
of
redundancy
on
projects
like
this,
which
is
why
poplar
works
so
well.
The
people
behind
that
project
were
clever
enough
to
not
see.
F
Planters
of
the
time
were
clever
enough
not
to
trap
themselves
in
the
subdivision
process,
and
so
not
every
unit
has
to
have
exposure
to
public
right
away.
Things
like
that,
they
all
satisfy.
You
know
fire
access
requirements
and
stuff
like
that,
but
when
you're
the
trying
to
build
community,
this
idea
of
being
concerned
of
saturation
or
only
one
per
lot
is
really
focused
on
mitigating
the
damage
of
having,
like
you
know,
those
kinds
of
people
living
in
your
neighborhood
and
instead
of
looking
at
it
as
like.
F
Well,
actually,
if
you
have
a
bunch
of
people
who
are
living
in
compact
housing
around
the
common
green,
maybe
with
a
shared
outbuilding
in
a
pocket,
neighborhood
format
like
Ross
Chapin,
has
in
his
great
book.
Then
there
are
a
lot
of
benefits
to
it,
a
lot
more
sustainable,
a
lot
more
sharing
going
on.
You
know
one
lawnmower,
30
households,
kind
of
a
thing,
so
I
think
I
I'd
like
to
have
our
mindset
be
more
focused
on.
How
do
we
create
something
good,
rather
than
prevent
something?
A
little
scary
from
happening?
Okay,.
G
You
know
I
I,
really
love
the
idea
of
pocket,
neighborhoods
and
and
for
tonight,
I
I'm,
not
gonna,
propose
that
we
do
that
or
at
least
not
without
some
significant
momentum
on
the
board
and
a
statement
from
the
applicant.
You
know
generally
everything
that
we've
been
proposing
is
optional
and
and
it's
just
over
and
above
it's,
the
flexibility.
The
applicant
call
for
over
and
above
the
two
Lots
that
they're
proposing
to
create
in
their
annexation
petition
and
so
I
actually
don't
feel
like.
G
I
Or
whatever
they'd
have
to
come
back
to
Planning
Board
in
City
Council,
to
amend
the
agreement,
but
I
think
where
we
run
afoul
of
pocket
neighborhood.
As
the
density
provisions
in
the
underlying
land
use
that
it
becomes
medium
density,
then
so
then
there
would
be
calm
playing
considerations.
We'd
have
to
take
into
account
as
well
right.
G
Zoning
and
and
I
think
that
you
know
that
might
result
in
lots
of
people
getting
up
zoned
and
some
of
them
availing
themselves
of
the
opportunity
to
subdivide
into
the
new
zoning
and
others
just
continuing
to
keep
their
rural
character.
I
mean
we've
seen
this
happen
over
and
over
again.
It's
the
way
the
world
works
that
not
everybody
immediately
subdivides,
just
because
they
can
and
some
people
who
are
wealthier
and
don't
need
to
subdivide.
Never
do
they
just
keep
one
big
house
on
one
big
lot
and
they
like
it.
That
way.
G
E
E
F
E
G
G
A
H
A
G
F
A
E
I'll
move
to
recommended
City
Council
approval
proposed
annexation
with
initials
initial
zoning
of
residential
estate
pertaining
to
request
number
L.
You
are
2017:
zero,
zero,
zero,
nine,
two
incorporating
this
staff
memorandum
as
findings
of
fact,
subject
to
the
rectum
and
recommended
conditions
of
approval
for
the
annexation,
as
provided
for
in
the
annexation
agreement
in
attachment,
C
I'll.
D
D
A
G
Not
gonna
jump
in
and
make
a
motion
or
it
slow
you
down,
and
if
you
don't
want
me
to
but
I'm
a
couple
other
things
that
I
might
want
to
talk
about.
First
to
help
you
make
a
complete
motion.
So
one
is
my
suggestion
that
if
we're
serious
about
affordable
housing
and
we're
really
trying
to
be,
you
know,
density,
affordable
housing,
walkability
things
like
that,
maybe
a
requirement
that
ii
do
all.
I
need
the
second
accessory
dwelling
unit
needs
to
pay
into
the
cash
in
lieu
fund.
G
You
know
some
amount,
the
first
one
you
know
just
follows
the
normal
code
and
then
the
the
other
suggestion
is
that
num
paragraph
number
19
and
the
annexation
agreement
requires
that
the
applicant
follow
the
design
guidelines
and
direct
their
primary
front
entry
ways
and
front
yards
to
the
street,
and
I
think
that
that
might
be
hard
to
do
and
I
wouldn't
like
to
see
a
line
of
a
to
use
all
facing
the
street.
So
I
want
the
ad
use
exempted
from
paragraph
19
of
the
annexation
agreement.
Yeah.
F
G
G
D
N
M
F
F
G
F
D
D
A
Had
comment-
and
that
was
that
we
know
that
City
Council,
just
from
the
last
meeting
is,
would
like
to
address
the
large
house
on
large
lot
issue
and
I
think
this
is
a
kind
of
a
modest
step
in
trying
to
help
them
address
that
by
allowing
280
use
on
each
of
these
Lots
instead
of
just
one
so
I'm
gonna
support
it
and
it's
I,
don't
think
it's
a
very
dramatic
measure
at
all,
and
maybe
it
gets
us
a
little
bit
closer
to
that
goal
and
also
it
opens
it
up
for
public
some
public
discussion,
and
so
we
can
find
out
where
folks
are
at
on
this.
A
H
E
Wait
just
find
a
reason
to
have
two
additional
ad
use,
because
somebody,
if
it
was
you
know,
I
know
it
would
take
a
lot
of
figuring
and
probably
even
figure
in
a
changes
to
the
subdivision.
Regulations
for
the
Sanok
sation
to
get
three
full
Lots
with
380
use,
but
I
think
it's
doable
to
lots
with
with
280
usage,
echoes.
F
Comment,
I
think
if
you
look
at
their
initial
site
subdivision
map
that
discipline
denier
put
up,
it
was
three
Lots
side-by-side
and
if
those
each
have
the
adequate
front
edge
with
three
Lots
you'd
be
able
to
have
a
house
an
ad
you
on
each
one
of
those
right
now.
So
that
would
give
you
six
twenty
minutes
under
the
current
zoning.
So
six
is
not
more
than
six
right
now.
It
allows
for
six
we're
just
allowing
them
a
little
bit
more
freedom
to
get
them
out
of
the.
A
D
A
F
A
Okay,
we
don't
have
to
put
it-
let's
not
put
them
on
the
spot,
so
we
have
now
matters
and
we
have
three
items
only
ones
listed,
but
Jim
is
going
to
get
up
and
speak
to
us
about
the
comp
plan.
And
then
we
have
a
little
tab
discussion
by
David
and
then
I
just
thought
of
one
this
afternoon
and
wanted
to
add-
and
that
was
the
annual
letter
if
we
could
have
a
little.
E
C
A
C
C
A
G
N
Good
evening,
members
of
the
board-
Jim
Robertson
director
of
planning
and
sustainability
I'm
here
to
inform
you
or
if,
if
you
already
know
about
this,
inform
the
throngs
that
are
with
us,
both
in
person
or
electronically
of
a
happy
recent
event.
Two
weeks
ago,
I
believe
today
or
tomorrow
at
the
American
Planning
Association
in
Colorado
Conference
in
Keystone,
the
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan,
one
an
honor
award
which
this
as
a
representative
this.
N
This
is
the
the
trophy
for
the
award
in
the
category
of
general
general
planning
project,
and
that
was
in
and
really
in
recognition
of
a
number
of
aspects
of
that.
The
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan
continues
to
be
an
exemplar
of
progressive
planning,
progressive
and
sound
planning
throughout
the
state
and
and
and
with
reference
to
the
fact
that
it
continues
to
be.
It
continues
to
grow
and
evolve.
N
And,
of
course,
as
you
well
know,
there
were
some
new
areas
of
focus
added
to
the
comprehensive
plan
via
the
2015
major
update,
specifically
around
issues
of
the
arts
and
culture,
the
jobs,
housing,
balance
resiliency.
If
you
will
and
some
other
areas,
so
it
continues
to
be
a
very
live
and
organic
document
for
our
community.
A
few
facts
about
the
plan,
many
of
which
you
are
familiar
with
just
to
represent
the
scale
of
the
effort
and
I
and
I,
want
to
positive
when
I
mention
effort
to
say
this
is
effort
by
a
lot
of
people.
N
There
were
20
pop-up
events
around
the
community
over
the
course
of
the
event
we
received
in
one
form
or
another
57,000
comments
on
the
plan,
all
of
which
helped
shape
the
plan
and
all
of
which
we
read,
of
course,
and
one
that
you
know
very
well,
is
that
there
were
50
hearings
and
meet
with
decision-makers,
and
it
probably
felt
to
some
of
you,
like
you
were
involved
in
all
50
of
those,
but
I
think
that's
probably
not
quite
true,
but
I
know
47.
Okay,
I'll
buy
that
so
anyway.
N
I
E
N
Don't
know
whether
Leslie
was
at
the
conference.
I
haven't
heard
on
that,
but
course,
as
soon
as
we
found
out,
we
let
Leslie
know
less.
They
are
former
comprehensive
planning
division
manager.
We
let
her
know
I,
don't
know
whether
she
was
in
at
the
conference
in
her
new
capacity
with
Laramie
County
or
not,
but
she
has.
We
have
shared
in
the
celebration
with
her
for
sure.
That's
awesome.
All.
A
B
Well,
actually,
I
did
want
to
talk
because
I
thought
I
was
gonna,
be
absent
for
the
next
tab
meeting,
but
not
only
did
they
move
it
to
the
second
week
of
November,
oh,
but
they
moved
it
to
Tuesday
and
that's
the
day.
I
fly
home
from
Asia,
so
my
flight
gets
in
early
enough.
That
I
can
go,
wow
I
might
be
a
little
bit
sleepy,
but
but
I
think
I
can
attend.
So
that's
I
might
as
well
fur
continuity.
B
Just
a
little
take
on
how
things
have
been
going.
I
think
that
the
restrictions
that
say
that
we
can't
talk
about
things
that
are
title
9
related
does
limit.
How
much
you
can
say
about
things.
I
I,
alerted
I
did
alert
the
tab
to
the
all
the
tools
available
to
see
what
development
projects
are
in
the
pipelines
and
they
can
kind
of
see
the
impact
on
corridors
from
stuff
that's
publicly
available.
B
So
they
can
go
to
the
the
map
that
shows
all
the
open
cases
and
kind
of
read
through
those.
So
you
know
there's
just
some
generic
stuff.
We
can.
We
can
point
people
to,
but
so
there
there
are
limitations,
but
there
are
a
couple
things
that
they're
working
on
that
we'll
probably
want
to
keep
tabs
on.
One
is
the
neighborhood
parking
program
will
be
changing
substantially
over
the
next
year
and
also
the
the
traffic
mitigation.
D
B
So
there's
gonna
be
some
revamping
of
that
program
as
well
this
year,
so
I'll
kind
of
keep
you
all
informed
on
how
that
might
impact
stuff
that
we
look
at
so
I.
Think
it's
going
well,
you
know,
I,
don't
know
if
it's
something
we'll
do
in
perpetuity,
they
did
extend
an
invitation,
an
open
invitation
to
the
chair
of
Planning
Board
to
come
and
give
an
update.
B
D
B
A
A
H
Attended
the
the
most
recent
meeting
on
Monday,
in
which
a
presentation
was
given
of
the
general
aspects
of
our
water
supply
and
how
that
pertains
with
consideration
of
climate
change
to
to
our
general
picture
in
in
weather,
we
need
to
be
concerned,
and
there's
been
a
quite
a
bit
of
recent
modeling
done
and
generally
I.
The
conclusion
is
that
we're
in
pretty
good
shape
for
the
next
20-some
years
for
a
wide
variety
of
of
climate
change,
possibilities
and
I
can
give
more
detail
to
those
who
are
interested,
there's
some
very
sophisticated
modeling
done.
A
A
E
E
So
I
am
sure
that
he'll
bring
some
experience
from
that,
but
they've
almost
completed
a
lot
of
the
work
that
they've
been
doing
on
background
of
all
the
housing
committees
and
the
housing
activities,
everything
from
financial
things
to
a
wonderful
tour
of
all
the
different
permanently
affordable,
not
all
of
them,
but
many
of
the
permanently
affordable
sites
around
town
and
small
little
ones,
tucked
in
unexpected
places
and
some
of
the
larger
more
familiar
ones.
So
they
are.
E
They
are
also
divided
up
into
committees,
and
then
they
have
a
committee
report,
various
items,
especially
public
engagement.
That's
a
very
active
committee,
so
anybody's
welcome
to
tune
in
or
come
by,
and
you
can
find
their
agenda
on
their
web
page
the
housing
advisory
board
web
page
great.
Thank
you.
C
Liz,
you
must
be
in
my
head
and
reading
my
mind
because
tomorrow,
I
am
planning
on
sending
an
email
to
all
of
you.
I
finally
received
the
questions
from
City
Council
or
your
annual
letter
and
I'm,
sending
that
out
to
you
tomorrow.
Okay
and
the
I
can
just
briefly
tell
you.
The
dates
that
everything
is
due
base
will
have
several
meetings
in
which
and
I'm
already
planning
on
putting
the
discussion
of
the
letter
on
the
November
first
agenda.
Okay,.
A
D
A
C
E
C
Pull
it
up,
they
have
two
questions
and
I'll
be
happy
to
read
them
to
you.
How
well
do
you
believe
Council
has
done
over
the
last
two
years
in
incorporating
the
priorities
of
your
board.
/
Commission
number
two,
taking
into
account
the
current
work
plan
and
your
board
feedback
from
last
year.
What
additional
priorities
do
you
think
council
should
focus
on
over
and
above
the
14
on
the
attached
list
and
I
don't
have
an
attached.
N
List
it's
pretty
easy
to
access.
If
I,
could
it's
pretty
easy
to
access
that
list,
because
it's
a
list
that
appears
at
the
top
of
every
single
council
agenda,
there's
kind
of
a
center
banner
I
think
it's
italicized
that
lists
the
14
different
high
priority
council
projects
or
initiatives.
So
if
you
don't
find
it
somewhere
else,
it's
easy
to
find
right.
There
I'll.
N
And
I
could
mention
that
we
would
like
to
mention
one
other
thing.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
Cindy
is
absolutely
correct
that
the
council
retreat
will
be
curring
but
will
be
occurring
on
January
18th
if
I'm,
not
mistaken,
I
believe
the
City
Council
is
intending
to
devote
their
study
session
on
January,
8th
to
a
review
of
departmental
work
plans
and
I
believe
on
the
8th.
They
will
also
be
presenting
to
each
other
a
summary
of
the
feedback
received
from
the
various
boards.
N
You
may
recall,
if
you've
been
to
prior
council,
retreats
that
each
council
member
is
sort
of
assigned
the
ability
of
really
absorbing
and
and
summarizing
the
the
input
from
one
or
more
boards,
and
then
they
provide
that
to
the
group.
Of
course,
they
have
the
hard
copy
as
well,
but
I
believe
that
will
be
occurring
at
the
study
session
on
January
8th
as
a
precursor
to
the
retreat
on
the
18th
great.