►
From YouTube: City of Boulder Planning Board Meeting 7-16-20
Description
City of Boulder Planning Board Meeting 7-16-20
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
Think
we're
good
for
right
now,
hello,
two
members
of
the
community
who
are
here
we
appreciate
being
here
for
the
planning
board
meeting.
We
would
ask
that
you
keep
your
video
told,
monitors,
turned
video
cameras
turned
off
and
we
would
appreciate
if
folks
can
change
their
names
to
a
full
name.
I
see
one
with
just
a
telephone
number
and
one
with
Chris.
It
would
be
awesome
if
you
could
name
yourselves
with
a
full
name
thanks
so
much
we'll
get
started
in
a
few
minutes.
B
A
G
E
D
G
K
K
D
K
I
D
C
B
K
Great
and
I'm
gonna
call
I'm
gonna
call
to
order,
but
first
of
all
good
evening,
everybody
and
welcome
to
the
city
of
boulders
planning,
board
meeting
Thursday
July
16th
2020
I'm
gonna
gamble
the
meeting
to
order
and
I'm
gonna
immediately
turn
it
over
to
Jean
Gazza.
Who
is
our
moderator
for
tonight
and
our
zoom
operator
and
Jean.
If
you
can
go
over
the
rules
for
tonight's
meeting,
yeah.
B
But
I'll
start
and
then
Cindy
will
put
up
a
slide.
Thank
you
for
the
introduction,
I'm
Jean.
If
you're,
if
you
use
the
chat,
please
use
the
chat
to.
Let
me
know
about
technical
issues.
I'll
be
the
one
monitoring
that
and
please
bear
with
us.
We
seem
to
learn
something
new
about
zoom
every
single
meeting.
So
hopefully
everything
will
go
smoothly.
Sonne.
Do
you
wanna?
We
have.
We
have
some
very
specific
rules
about
how
we
conduct
these
online
meetings
and
then
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
we'll
do
the
public
hearing
sure.
G
D
As
you
know,
we're
all
getting
familiar
with
these,
but
we
do
need
to
go
over
these
rules
of
decorum
every
meeting.
Just
these
rules
of
are
passed
down
by
sit
the
City,
Council
and
so
we're
pleased
to
have
you
join
us
tonight.
We're
just
these
rules
were
here
to
strike
a
balance
between
transparency,
engagement
and
online
security.
So
we
asked
everyone
try
to
follow
these
rules.
This
meeting
is,
of
course,
to
conduct
this
business
by
the
city
of
Boulder
activities
such
as
zoom
bombing
or
anything
else
that
would
disrupt
or
display
otherwise
interfere
with.
D
Is
this
meeting
are
prohibited?
The
time
for
speaking
or
asking
questions
may
be
limited.
Usually
to
three
minutes
is
our
standard.
No
persons
shall
speak,
except
when
recognized
by
the
person,
presiding
and
no
person
shall
speak
for
longer
than
the
time
allotted.
We
will
have
a
timer
up,
so
you'll
be
able
to
see
your
time.
Each
person
shall
register
to
speak
at
the
meeting
using
that
person's
real
name.
That's
why
Jeanne
asked
for
your
name.
Any
person
believed
to
be
using
a
student.
Him
will
not
be
permitted
to
speak
at
the
meeting.
D
So
if
we
do
see
people
come
into
the
meeting
that
says
Tom's
iPad
or
you
know
crazy
girl,
we're
gonna
ask
you
to
change
that,
to
your
real
name.
No
video
will
be
permitted,
except
for
city
officials,
employees
and
invited
speakers
such
as
applicants,
other
all
others
will
participate
by
voice.
Only
the
person
presiding
at
the
meeting
shall
enforce
these
rules
by
muting.
Anyone
who
violates
any
rule
the
chat
function
which
Jean
just
mentioned,
is
enabled
and
will
be
used
for
individuals
to
communicate
with
the
moderator
it
will
not
be
used
by
our
board
members.
D
If
so,
it
is
not
related.
So
it's
only
for
technical
questions
that
should
not
be
used
for
any
questions
or
comments
related
to
any
public
hearing
or
items
that
they
are
discussing.
The
board
will
not
be
seeing
these
anything
that
goes
on
in
chat.
Only
the
hosts
and
individuals
designated
by
the
host
will
be
permitted
to
share
their
screen
during
this
meeting
and
that.
B
Is
that
great
Thank,
You
Cindy
I
will
just
that
we
don't
have
a
sign
up
for
the
public
hearing
tonight.
So
if
anyone
would
like
to
speak
under
open
comment
or
under
the
public
hearing
item,
you
can
use
the
raise
hand
function
so
to
do
that.
The
raise
hand
button
is
in
the
participants
box
which
can
be
found
in
the
menu
you
hover
over
the
top
or
the
bottom
of
your
screen
and
then
on
the
participant
icon.
B
When
the
box
opens
you'll
see
the
raised
hand
button
at
the
bottom,
when
you
click
that
button
it'll
indicate
that
you'd
like
to
participate
in
an
open
or
public
comment,
I,
don't
think
anybody's
on
the
phone,
but
if
they
are,
they
could
press
star
9
to
raise
their
hand
and
I.
Think
that's
Cindy.
What
else
do
we
have
anything
else?
I
think
I.
Only
other
things
are
for
folks
to
please
keep
your
video
cameras
off
and
even
during
the
public
hearing
we
can't
we're.
B
K
J
K
E
K
G
G
E
K
But
yes,
so
the
minutes
are
approved.
Seven
to
nothing.
Next
order
is
public
participation.
This
is
the
time
when
we
afford
an
opportunity,
any
member
of
the
public
to
speak
to
any
item
that
is
not
on
the
agenda
for
public
hearing
tonight's
public
hearing
is
regarding
the
5600
airport,
road
0,
Airport
Boulevard
and
0
Belmont
Drive.
K
K
Annexation
and
site
review
and
initial
zoning,
so
you'll
need
to
talk
to
that.
If
you'd
like
to
talk
to
that
after
that
public
hearing,
we
also
have
a
fix
up
ordinance
to
title
9
which,
if
you'd
like
to
speak
to
you,
need
to
speak
to
after
that.
But
if
you
have
any
other
item
that
you
want
to
speak
to
now's
the
time
do
we
have
any
people
signed
up
at
all
for
public
participation.
K
Then
we'll
move
on
to
discussion
of
dispositions,
planning
board
call
ups
and
continuations.
We
have
one
item
which
is
a
call
up
item
for
a
standard
wetland,
permit
w80,
2020,
four
zeros
and
a
6-4
6949
Winchester
Circle
development
and
storm
water
mitigation.
Does
anybody
want
to
call
that
item
up
or
need
to
ask
any
questions
regarding
that
item.
K
Okay,
seeing
none
that
item
will
not
be
called
up,
so
we're
gonna
jump
right
into
our
first
public
hearing
item
the
agenda.
Title
is
a
public
hearing
and
consideration
of
the
following
requests
related
to
a
site
at
5600
airport
boulevard,
one
recommendation
on
an
application
to
NX
a
four
point:
eight
seven
acre
parcel
at
zero
airport
boulevard
and
a
one
point:
zero
three
acre
parcel
at
zero
Valmont
Drive,
with
initial
zoning
designations
of
industrial
general
IG
and
public
P
L.
K
You
are
2018
triple
zero
59
and
the
second
piece
of
this
item
is
a
site
review
for
the
construction
of
111
thousand
six
hundred
and
forty
five
square
foot
research
office
and
laboratory
building
on
an
existing
industrial
campus.
The
building
would
be
three
stories
and
45
feet:
in
height,
231
parking
spaces
to
be
provided
in
surface
parking
and
on
an
elevated
parking
deck.
That's
case
number
L.
You
are
2018
triple
zero
60
before
I
turn
it
over
to
staff.
K
M
C
Sorry
I
disclosed
this
last
time
it
it
isn't
really
necessary,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
people
knew
that
I
had
an
office
at
5330,
Airport
Road,
just
a
couple
buildings
down
from
here
from
2002
to
2010,
so
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
the
area
from
that
experience.
I
have
no
relationship
with
that
with
this
office
park
at
this
time
and
no
reason
why
I
can't
be
fully
objective
and
I've
also
done
site
tours.
Thank.
K
K
L
N
Right
good,
so,
as
you
described,
the
proposal
tonight
is
for
an
annexation
and
site
review.
It
involves
the
construction
of
a
new
building
that
would
house
light
industrial
uses
just
as
a
quick
overview
I'll
cover
the
review
processes
necessary.
The
surrounding
context
I'll
cover
the
proposed
projects,
bring
up
some
key
issues
for
discussion
and
then
end
with
the
staff
recommendations
for
the
board.
N
So
in
terms
of
review
process
in
order
to
develop
the
property,
it
must
be,
the
southern
portion
must
be
annexed
to
the
city
and
zone
for
industrial
development,
and
annexation
requires
a
public
hearing
before
a
Planning
Board
who
will
make
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
whether
or
not
the
annexation
should
be
approved
in
the
terms,
conditions
and
zoning
that
should
be
applied
in
terms
of
site
review.
The
proposal
exceeds
the
thresholds
of
five
acres
or
a
hundred
thousand
square
feet
of
floor
area.
N
In
both
the
IG
and
I
am
zone
districts,
a
concept
plan
was
submitted
and
reviewed
by
Planning
Board
in
2018,
and
now
they
are
completing
their
required
state
review.
There
are
two
modifications
that
are
being
proposed
through
site
review,
both
a
step-back
modification
and
nearly
11-percent
parking
reduction.
The
proposal
was
also
reviewed
by
the
design
advisory
board
and
the
open
space
board,
which
was
described
in
the
staff
memo
in
terms
of
public
notification.
The
proposal
has
meet
has
met
all
requirements
of
the
land
use
code.
N
There
was
a
written
notice
since
she
property
owners
within
600
feet.
Also,
a
sign
was
post
property
and
we
have
not
received
any
public
comments
on
these
proposals,
so
the
9.9
acre
site
is
located
in
East
Boulder,
it's
just
southeast
of
the
Boulder
Municipal
Airport,
and
at
that
easternmost
terminus,
Airport
Boulevard
the
site
consists
of
two
unclouded
parcels
to
the
south
and
one
potted
lot
fronting
on
airport.
N
Southern
personals
are
currently
under
the
jurisdiction
of
Boulder
County
and
the
boulder
and
left-hand
North
Boulder
farmer,
stitches
and
a
multi-use
path
run
along
the
south
and
east
sides
of
the
site,
and
so
in
terms
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
the
property
is
located
in
planning
areas.
One
two
and
three,
the
northern
parcel
as
I
described,
is
within
the
city
limits
and
is
located
within
area
one.
The
southern
parcels
are
located
within
areas.
N
So,
in
terms
of
the
land
use
map,
the
majority
of
the
property
within
the
city,
boundaries
and
the
northernmost
part
portion
of
the
parcels
to
the
south
are
designated
as
light
industrial.
On
the
land-use
map,
the
southern
portion
is
designated
as
open
space.
That's
the
areas
covering
the
ditches
and
to
the
south
of
the
ditches
and.
N
The
property
is
developed
with
two
one
story:
buildings
constructed
in
1995.
The
eastern
building
is
set
at
a
lower
grade
than
the
western
building
mmm-hmm
Parcells
within
the
county
or
undeveloped,
and
total
approximately
six
acres.
The
overall
site
has
a
pretty
substantial
grade:
changes
from
the
High
Point
at
the
northwest
corner
to
the
low
point
on
the
southeast
edge
of
the
site
and
they're
also
steep
slopes
along
the
ditches
and
multi-use
paths.
There
are
pretty
extensive
views
from
that.
N
Developable
portion
of
the
site
proposed
to
be
annexed,
including
to
the
foothills
and
also
over
to
about
Mount,
View
and
so
properties
to
the
north
and
west,
have
been
developed
in
a
Business
Park
style
development
to
immediately
to
the
west
as
the
former
AstraZeneca
facility,
which
was
for
research
manufacturing
and
worth
warehouse
uses
and
as
I
described,
those
stitches
run
along
the
south
end
and
an
existing
multi-use
path.
Beyond
the
city
boundaries,
the
San
Lorenzo
mobile
home
park
is
located
to
the
south
and
city-owned
property
and
fish
ponds
are
located
to
the
east.
N
N
N
As
part
of
the
annexation
package,
the
provision
has
been
included
that
allows
for
a
floor
area
transfer
from
that
northern
I
am
portion
to
the
southern
eiji
portion
as
long
as
the
development
is
consistent
with
the
site
review
plans,
staff
did
forward
a
updated
annexation
agreement
for
your
review,
which
has
some
changes
from
what
was
included
in
the
plan
or
packet
they're,
mostly
clerical.
But
there
are
some
changes
to
timing
as
well.
N
The
site
does
include
an
existing
structure
which
would
be
removed,
they're
also
proposing
payment
of
one
and
a
half
times
the
affordable
housing
commercial
linkage
fee
and
the
intent
of
that
fee
is
to
address
affordable
housing
needs
generated
by
jobs
that
would
be
created
by
this
building
and
I
sort
of
tried
to
outline
what
an
estimate
of
what
that
feat
would
be
at
the
one
and
a
half
times
rate
it
does
increasing
yearly,
but
it
caps
out
and
twenty
one
twenty
one
or
twenty
twenty
one.
Not
a
hundred
here.
N
Sorry
about
that,
so
the
proposal
in
terms
of
land
uses
is
a
light
industrial
building
that
would
be
suitable
for
uses
like
research
and
development
facilities,
testing
labs,
technical
offices
or
manufacturing
facilities.
The
two
buildings
to
the
north
would
remain
and
contain
light
industrial
uses.
Currently
hurricane
would
be
shared
across
the
site
for
all
three
buildings.
Two
three
hundred
and
twenty
three
spaces
are
proposed:
they're
provided
a
surface
parking
under
building
parking
and
also
on
a
raised
parking
deck,
and
that
amounts
to
a
10.8%
parking
reduction.
N
So
in
terms
of
site,
layouts,
the
layout
of
the
streets
and
the
orientation
of
the
building
is
driven
largely
by
the
existing
great
changes
across
the
site.
The
existing
access
points
are
not
proposed
to
change
and
due
to
great
change
that
buildings
and
vehicular
parking
are
located
pulse
the
race
parking
deck
would
provide
parking
access
to
this
building,
as
well
as
a
front
entry
Plaza,
which
would
address
airport
boulevard.
N
N
There's
that
detention
pond
in
terms
of
building
design
the
proposed
building
is
contemporary
with
flat
roofs.
Three
stories
45
feet
in
Heights
judeth
at
topography.
This
building
what
appears
two
stories
from
streets,
but
would
be
three
stories
from
the
open
spaces
and
multi-use
paths
in
terms
of
key
issues.
The
first
would
be
whether
it
meets
the
comprehensive
plan
policies
and,
as
described
in
the
memo
staff,
finds
that
the
project
is
consistent
with
the
goals,
objectives
and
recommendations
of
the
Comprehensive
Plan.
N
N
The
dedication
of
land
would
permanently
preserve
lands
with
open
space
values
which
would
provide
significant
community
benefits
as
well
as
that
one
and
a
half
times
of
the
linkage
fee
housing
is
not
proposed
on
the
sites.
However,
the
revenues
from
those
fees
would
could
be
used
to
support
the
creation
of
additional,
affordable
housing
within
the
city
in
terms
of
the
proposed
zoning.
The
area
of
land
intended
to
be
dedicated
to
the
city
has
a
proposed.
N
There
are
slightly
more
allowances
and
the
IGS
on
districts
for
land
industrial
uses,
which
include
public
and
private
office,
uses
providing
social
services
as
well
as
that
the
intensity
of
development
and
IG
district
is
greater
with
a
0.5
maximum
if
they
are
versus
the
0.4,
which
is
allowed
in
the
I
M
districts.
All
other
intensity
and
form
and
bulk
standards
are
identical.
N
So,
in
terms
of
consistency
with
the
state
review
criteria,
it's
just
so
I've
done.
The
memo
staff
finds
that
it
does
mean
all
applicable
site,
review
criteria.
The
project
is
compatible
and
constructional
with
the
existing
character.
The
general
EO
of
development
is
appropriate,
given
those
topographical
constraints
and
the
existing
access
drives
and
parking.
N
In
the
immediate
context,
there
are
two
and
three
story:
buildings
such
that
the
proposed
height,
mass
and
scale
would
be
consistent.
With
this
context,
the
applicant
has
given
consideration
to
minimizing
scenic
impacts
to
the
open
space
areas
and
multi-use
paths
they're,
using
retaining
walls
that
are
terrorists
to
reduce
visual
impact
staff
also
finds.
The
amount
of
parking
is
appropriate,
given
the
limited
access
to
transit
distance
to
services
and
also
access
to
that
existing
multi-use
past
and.
N
So
in
to
wrap
it
up,
staff
recommends
the
Planning
Board
recommend
to
City
Council
approval
of
the
annexation
and
initial
zoning.
With
the
following
motion.
I
will
note
that
I
did
update
this
from
the
memo
to
reflect
that
new
annexation
agreement,
which
was
forwarded
and
staff,
also
recommends
approval
of
the
state
review
application
with
the
following
motion.
G
K
M
N
N
M
The
other
question
was
with
respect
to
the
revision
that
that
hella
sent
out
this
afternoon
about
the
conditions
our
annexation
and
I
was
particularly
interested
in
the
one
that,
in
the
in
the
proposed
change.
That
would
allow
the
city
manager
to
to
make
changes
in
the
conditions
of
annexation
and
the
construction
arrangements
and
I
wondered.
If
you
could
give
us
some
of
the
background
about.
N
F
In
this
case,
I
added
I
had
proposed
some
language
that
would
give
the
city
manager,
with
the
word
e,
to
modify
what
was
required
in
there,
and
the
reason
for
that
was
that
in
the
past,
we've
had
these
conditions
and
then,
as
the
plans
move
forward
and
get
ready
for
building
permits,
sometimes
their
amendments
to
the
site.
Reviews
that
come
up
then
have
to
be
approved
through
the
process.
F
But
if
the
site
review
as
approved,
is
referenced
in
the
annexation
agreement,
then
even
though
this
may
have
to
go
to
the
board
to
approve
the
design
change.
If
it's
referenced
in
the
annexation
agreement,
we
may
also
have
to
immense
the
annexation
agreement,
which
then
will
require
a
process
that
involves
both
City
Council
and
the
Planning
Board.
So
I
wanted
to
give
a
little
bit
of
the
way
to
allow
those
changes
to
occur
just
through
the
site
of
the
approval
without
having
to
amend
the
annexation
agreement.
C
I'm
I
was
just
looking
at
the
OS
MP
review
that
allows
dedication
of
up
to
24
acres
of
open
space
to
be
dedicated,
and
this
some
proposal
is
the
annexation
agreement
results
in
1.6,
acres
and
I.
Just
was
a
little
just
wondering.
If
you
could
explain,
will
there
be
additional
acres
or
is
just
the
language
just
allows
for
that
much
you
know.
C
N
So
annexation
is
a
negotiation
between
applicant
in
the
city
and
in
reviewing
with
the
different
options
for
community
benefit
would
be.
They
proposed
some
additional
possible
dedications
of
parcels
that
they
own
in
the
area
and
that
went
before
the
open
space
board
for
their
consideration.
We
do
have
Bethany
Collins,
they
believe
on
the
line
if
she
has
any
feedback
on
or
any
input
on,
what
the
board
discussed.
O
And
you
guys
hear
me
sorry
I'm
having
problems
I,
new
video
cuz
that
messed
everything
up
before.
So
this
the
the
additional
acreage
accompany
for
our
board
and
while
our
resource
staff
and
department
staff
was
was
fairly
interested
in
the
additional
acreage
which
we
currently
have
a
conservation
easement
on.
It
is
directly
to
the
east.
O
The
board
did
place
in
their
in
their
motion
and
I
believe
that's
been,
provided
that
the
they
identified
that
because
the
property
potentially
has
restoration,
substantial
restoration
requirements.
Although
you
know,
as
identified
by
staff,
some
of
it
is
self
restoring
and
those
cost
could
be.
You
know
anywhere
from
from
0
to
$500,000.
O
They
kind
of
put
any
consideration
of
the
community
benefit
of
that
acreage
and
any
ask
of
additional
monies
from
the
applicant
into
Planning,
Board
and
potentially
City
Council's
realm,
and
then
the
applicant
opted
with
that
kind
of
Unknowing,
obviously
to
hold
her
amount
and
just
unknowing
way
of
proceeding
to
pull
out
that
community
that
offer
in
their
community
benefit
package
and
and
go
back
to
the
original.
What
you?
What
you
all
saw
in
the
concept
plan
and
what
we
had
been
discussing
prior
to
this
you
know
potential.
C
K
K
B
P
We're
all
set
Thank,
You
Sloan,
appreciate
your
presentation,
you're
very
thorough
presentation
and
you've
been
doing
I'm,
Jeff
Wingert
1375,
Walnut
Street,
with
the
W
Reynolds
companies
good
evening
to
board
and
city
staff.
It's
great
to
be
with
you
again:
you've,
no
we're
virtually
meeting
in
these
challenging
times,
but
for
our
presentation
tonight,
I'm
here
with
my
association
wwa
miles
de
bacon,
as
well
as
our
architectural
team,
from
pdh
architects,
Peter,
Hines
and
native
Alaska.
P
That
give
a
little
background
on
another
layer,
a
company
but
also
the
lakes
in
our
business
part,
because
that's
I,
think
a
critical
component
of
how
this
all
fits
in
go
to
the
next
slide.
So
W
Debra,
L
Scott,
was
found
in
1966
by
Bill
Reynolds.
Over
that
time,
we've
developed
over
four
million
square
feet
in
Boulder
got
a
few
of
those
properties
that
are
listed
here.
It's
interesting,
in
fact
it
you
know,
still
owns
the
original
property
he
developed
in
1968
the
property
on
Pearl
Street.
P
P
Park
next
slide
get
a
history
on
the
Business
Park
itself,
so
this
was
in
mid
1980s
no
Reynolds's
partnered
had
a
vision
for
was
a
really
an
unruly
plot
land
that
was
adjacent
to
the
older
Municipal
Airport
in
a
vision
to
create
this
industrial
park,
primarily
to
account
for
and
take
care
of,
the
great
expansion
at
that
time
of
not
only
tech
companies
but
also
biome.
It
was
starting
to
really
grow
in
Boulder
area,
so
in
1990
the
land
was
annexed
and
subdivided
to
create
what
we
saw
as
the
lake
center
of
Business
Park.
P
At
the
time
it
neatly
addressed
that
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan
in
1990
and,
interestingly
today,
it
still
really
does
nicely
meet
the
requirements.
A
couple
of
quotes
up
there
from
the
the
graphic
comp
plan.
I
won't
be
through
those
and
by
the
time
just
so,
we
can
get
through
all
this.
But
again
we
really
are
a
team
and
I
know.
P
What
this
location
really
does
expand
upon
the
30-year
history
and
uses
in
the
park.
It
provides
a
rare
opportunity
to
expand
companies
in
the
park,
as
well
as
other
startup
and
growing
bolder
companies
outside
of
the
park
just
a
few
to
name
a
few
AGC
biologics,
which
this
is
the
company
John
that
you
were
asking
about,
that
did,
make
the
acquisition
of
the
Astra
Zeneca
site
just
to
the
west
of
our
facility.
The
city
actually
had
a
pretty
good
investment
in
that
to
try
to
make
that
happen.
P
So
I
think
this
will
it
provides
a
good
opportunity
to
for
the
future
for
them
to
be
successful
in
this
area,
with
potential
expansion
space,
some
illogic,
who
is
expressed
interest,
the
growing
company
in
town
we've
had
conversations
with
them
asked
and
we
avoided
another
potential
missed
opportunity,
like
blue
Canyon
technologies,
who
had
to
move
out
in
this
area
just
a
few
months
ago,
really
because
they
couldn't
get
adequate
space
in
the
area.
This
the
site
also
preserves
and
promotes
industrial
in
our
new
space,
that's
directed
by
the
comp
plan.
P
P
Sorry,
this
is
my
dates.
We
had
a
site
review
application.
We
had
a
dad
review
and,
yes,
we
did
go
through
four
separate
lis
submittals
and
we
had
countless
hours
that
we
work
with
staff
to
get
through
all
those
answering
many
many
questions
bringing
through
many
many
issues-
and
we
are
here
today,
so
the
staff
has
done
an
amazing
working
with
us
through
all
those
issues
to
get
to
a
project
that
really
is
a
better
project,
much
better
project
today.
That
was
when
we
saw
you
last
time
at
the
concept
review.
Q
Right
thanks
Jeff
Dave
bacon
from
UW
Alan's
companies
that
work
the
chef
here
on
the
development
team.
As
you
can
see,
we've
been
working
on
this
for
quite
some
time.
What
I'd
like
to
do
here
is
kind
of
outline
some
of
the
major
changes
we
made
throughout
this
process
so
long
as
you
go
to
the
next
slide.
Q
Thank
you.
So
I
know
some
of
you
weren't
on
the
Planning
Board
when
we
went
through
concept
review,
so
I
thought
this
may
be
beneficial
to
show
you
the
top
two
images.
A
couple
of
images
from
that
concept:
reviews
of
middle
I
think
one
of
the
things
you'll
see
right
off
the
bat
is
we
had
proposed
a
Phase
two,
which
was
really
a
second-story
on
the
existing
buildings
to
the
north,
and
we
decided
not
to
do
that
for
a
couple
of
reasons,
the
major
reason
being
that
we've
got
some
long-term
tenants
up
there.
Q
We
just
weren't
sure
when
that
phase
2
was
going
to
happen
and
in
addition,
we
kind
of
looked
into
what
it
would
take
to
park
and
put
the
parking
structure
on
there
and
put
this
additional
structure
on
those
buildings
and
just
technically
it
was
going
to
be
hard
to
do
so.
We
took
the
phase
2
off.
We
actually
saw
that
as
a
result,
the
site's
actually
a
little
bit
less
busy
and
less
confusing.
So
we
think
that
was
a
beneficial
thing
overall
for
the
site.
Q
Another
thing
we
heard
a
lot
about
is
site,
permeability
and
connectivity.
If
you
look
at
the
two
images
that
we
had,
a
concept
plan
was
really
internally
focused
canvas,
and
so
one
of
the
things
we
heard
was
this
is
at
the
end
of
the
coldest
active
Airport
Boulevard
it'll
bust,
some
great
open
space
in
a
multi-use
path,
and
we
need
to
really
take
advantage
of
that
and
also
work
on
pulling
people
not
just
tenants,
but
people
from
surrounding
buildings
through
the
site,
so
I'll.
Q
Let
pH
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
details
of
the
permeability
and
connections
later,
but
want
to
mention
that
now
another
thing
that
we
heard
from
Planning
Board
from
a
few
members
were
this
would
be
a
great
spot
for
a
food
truck
pad.
You
heard
Sloan
kind
of
talked
about
that
earlier.
It
really
is
a
food
desert
up
there,
and
so
the
idea
is
to
have
a
place
for
surrounding
buildings,
not
just
our
tenant
field
walk
and
enjoy.
Q
Here
next
slide,
please,
and
then
one
of
the
things
we
heard
from
nearly
everybody
I'm
playing
where
it
was
really
need
to
take
advantage
of
and
recognize
that
we're
close
to
this
open
space
and
and
how
does
our
building
interact
with
that
open
space?
And
did
we
really
do
enough
research
on
the
visual
impacts
of
our
site,
and
so
what
we
did
was
we
took
some
time
to
walk
around
the
site.
Walk
the
path,
and
this
slide
here
shows
an
image.
Q
It's
a
sheet
from
our
site
review
package
that
I'm
proud
of
our
team
for
pulling
us
together.
It
shows
the
different
viewpoints
as
you
move
along
that
path,
so
it
really
took
some
time
to
understand
and
evaluate
how
maybe
we
could
even
make
a
positive
impact
on
the
existing
path.
The
image
that
you
seeing
the
view
on
upper
right
is
a
pocket
park
again,
we'll
a
pH
kind
of
get
into
details
of
it
later.
Q
Q
So
after
we
tried
to
take
into
account
some
of
the
board's
feedback
at
concept
review,
we
initially
submitted
a
site
review
package
and
that
package
had
these
set
of
elevations.
You
see
on
the
left
and
again
all
that
ph
really
talked
about
what
we
did
at
that.
But
I
really
want
to
show
this
slide,
because
it
shows
kind
of
the
evolution
from
the
left
side
elevations
to
what
we
now
have
on
the
right
hand,
side,
which
we
believe
is
a
much
improved
overall
design.
Q
Aesthetic
next
slide,
please,
and
then
Jeff
mentioned
our
for
site
review
recent
metals.
That
I
don't
expect
anyone
to
be
able
to
read
the
images
here
on
this
slide.
But
what
I
wanted
to
kind
of
convey
is
through
those
four
recent
metals.
There
was
a
lot
of
time
spent
on
really
technical
aspects
of
the
project.
The
the
easements
access,
easements
and
detail
is
even
as
detailed
as
storefront
jams
and
how
the
construction
connections
came
together.
Q
So
some
of
that
informed
our
design
decisions
and
between
that
and
looking
at
drainage
and
retaining
walls,
there
was
a
lot
changed
over
those
that
I,
don't
think,
really
gets
conveyed
at
these
meetings.
I
wanted
to
make
an
effort
here
to
really
appreciate
the
the
technical
back-and-forth
between
our
team
and
staffs
team
have
prettied
a
great
job
and
with
that
we'll
turn
it
over
to
the
pH
folks
who
will
get
to
talk
about
more
fun
and
less
technical
aspects
of
product.
R
Next
slide,
please,
since
the
concept
plan,
we
have
worked
with
civil
engineer
traffic
engineers
to
work
on
the
poke
holes
through
and
around
the
building
of
the
site
to
allow
pedestrians
bicycles
to
get
from
their
jobs,
which
of
them
in
the
buildings
along
lakes
that
are
drive
to
the
open
space
path
or
back
or
from
the
open
space
path
to
their
jobs.
So
this
slide
shows
all
of
the
connections
how
one
can
get
from
bike
commuting
to
work
through
this
property?
How
porous
this
property
has
become
to
the
to
the
link?
Center
property?
R
It
also
shows
for
a
bit
of
a
scale
review
the
size
of
the
annexation
parcel
relative
to
the
size
of
parcel
where
this
particular
building
is
going,
and
it
shows
the
two
existing
buildings
in
the
lighter,
lighter
blue
to
the
east.
So
this
hasn't
been
just
a
one
architect.
Project
Nathan
Pulaski
from
our
office
is
here
to
take
you
through
the
rest
of
the
slides
of
this
project.
Nathan
thank.
J
J
As
Sloane
mentioned,
the
two
existing
buildings,
the
one
off
to
the
right
in
the
back,
the
one
that
were
sort
of
standing
over
in
the
front
are
separated
by
10
vertical
feet,
which
became
a
circulation
and
connection
challenge
for
us
as
we
work
through
this
position,
see
in
the
last
slide,
we've
been
able
to
provide
a
lot
of
connection
points
from
the
pathway
down
low
all
the
way
up
to
our
new
building.
Another
challenge
with
this
campus
was
the
new
building
being
on
the
south
end
of
the
site.
J
We
wanted
to
improve
the
pedestrian
experience
and
make
it
an
intuitive
wayfinding,
so
we've
added
some
decorative
colored
concrete.
That
brings
you
all
the
way
from
Airport
Boulevard
back
to
the
entry
of
the
building
and
we've
provided
a
lot
of
vegetation
touch
down
spaces
gathering
spaces,
the
food
truck
right
there
in
the
middle
space,
extensive
landscaping
with
large
format,
boulders
that
increase
the
natural
vegetation
and
plantings
that
we
could
provide
in
the
area
between
the
two
parking
lots.
Sloan.
J
M
J
J
Spaces
and
options
for
some
light
and
shade
throughout
the
property
next
slide
the
view
from
the
pathway.
We've
got
lightweight
materials
very
durable,
aluminum,
we've
accented,
our
each
elevation
with
a
picture
frame
glass
wall
on
the
lower
left,
I
want
to
point
out,
there's
our
pocket
park
and
you
can
begin
to
see
the
circulation
that
takes
you
from
the
park
all
the
way
up
into
the
site.
J
Walking
you
past
our
bicycle
parking
as
you
approach
the
entries
to
each
of
the
building
next
line
and,
finally,
again
a
view
from
down
on
the
path,
the
pedestrian
Park
or
the
pocket
park,
with
highlighting
these
retaining
walls
that
we
had
to
build
throughout
the
site.
Because
of
the
extensive
great
changes
we're
trying
to
hide
the
parking,
we
tried
to
hide
our
retaining
walls
with
large
format,
boulders
and
terraced
walls
allowing
for
landscaping
to
give
a
more.
J
R
Kind
of
funny
you
were
talking
earlier
about
Brian
and
how,
since
he's
left
the
board,
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
send
him
a
gift.
We
snuck
in
a
little
sketch
that
he
gave
us
when
we
when
we
presented
to
you
in
the
concept
plan
and
we
snuck
it
into
our
second
slide
tonight.
I
failed
to
mention
it,
but
it
was
his
sort
of
impetus,
along
with
the
staffs
throughout
our
process.
That
pushed
us
towards
the
pedestrian
connections
that
we
presented
for
you
tonight
so,
but
that
we're
done
with
our
presentation.
P
Yeah,
no
thanks
for
everyone.
It
will
we're
here
for
questions.
We've
got
charlie
hagar
that
has
joined
us
remotely
as
well
as
christmas.
Granny
had
charlie
from
JV
a
for
civil
engineering
questions
and
chris
with
asti
transportation
for
any
transportation
questions
that
may
come
up
we're
here.
To
answer
any
questions
and
before
we're
going
to
the
next
steps
on
this.
K
M
P
So
there's
twofold:
I
think
why
and
then
your
question
John
I'll
answer
that
and
then
you
can
continue
doing,
but
we
actually
did
talk
with
AstraZeneca
some
time
ago
when
they
were
the
midst
of
remodeling.
That
location
we've
kind
of
presented
this
project
to
him
to
see
if
they
had
any
interest
in
meeting
or
using
it.
P
Obviously
they
left
and
we
have
not
been
able
to
since
it's
been
such
a
short
time
since
they
closed,
but
I
thought
with
Ag
asked
biological
to
see
what
their
interest
may
be,
but
they
are.
They
were
aware
of
what
we
were
doing
on
the
site
to
the
question
you
asked
the
the
2
foot
setback
was
I
think
to
get
into
that
was
to
allow
us
to
more
comfortable
and
be
able
to
meet
everything
on
there.
P
As
Sloane
mentioned
in
the
original,
there
were
presentation,
there's
a
lot
of
slope
and
there's
a
lot
of
contour
to
this
site
in
order
to
fit
everything
on
there.
We
got
the
squeeze
and
push
back
a
little
bit
everything.
So
that's
why
we
asked
for
that.
That's
set
back
so
that
we
could
fit
comfortably
parking.
The
the
access
all
the
points
we
needed
to
get
to
for
circulation.
P
P
M
G
K
B
Okay,
thanks
Harmon,
yup
and
I'll
just
remind
folks
that
we'll
use
the
raise
hand
function
for
the
public
hearing
the
raised
hand.
Button
can
be
found
in
the
participants
box
and
you
can
click
on
that.
I.
Don't
think
we
have
anybody
on
the
phone,
but
if
we
did
they
can
press
star
nine
to
raise
their
hand,
we'll
just
like
to
remind
folks
that
we'll
have
three
minutes
and
Cindy
will
display
the
timer
and
we'll
ask
you
to
just
be
respectful
and
just
go
with
three
minutes.
B
Lynne
looks
like
it
looks
like
we've
got
one
person
with
or
with
your
hand
up
Lynne
I'm
gonna
go
ahead.
I
can
we
do
ask
for
folks
to
have
full
names
displayed
to
be
able
to
participate
in
the
public
hearings
when
we
and
I
know
that
you've,
given
me
permission
before
to
rename
you
so
I
will
do
that
start,
the
public
hearing
are
there
any
others.
A
Yeah
I've
been
trying
to
end
mute
myself,
yeah
get
on
at
the
beginning,
because
I've
still
been
going
over
the
city
council
meeting
because
of
all
the
logistics
for
kovat
and
trying
to
streamline
that
for
everyone
to
have
all
access
to
everything,
because
this
is
gonna
go
on
for
a
long
time
and
that's
very
important.
So
I
don't
really
have
any
specific
input
to
give
on
this
project,
although
I
love,
soma
logic
and
I
would
support
anything
that
they're
doing
and
they
put
on
this
old
symposium
every
year.
A
Although
they
didn't
dismay
I'm
sure
they
would
add
a
lot
to
the
Koba
issue,
actually
they're
a
fabulous
group
and
I
support
anything
they're
involved,
but
yeah.
It
was
interesting
seeing
the
evolution.
I
think
the
imagery
was
very
well
done
for
the
concept
plans
and
the
changes,
and
that
was
really
laid
out
nicely
to
understand
it.
I
haven't
been
for
the
whole
meeting,
so
I
couldn't
really
give
any
specific
recommendations,
but
thanks
for
submitting
and
that's
it
done,
Thank
You
Lin.
K
Great
thanks,
Jean
mm-hmm
all
right.
So
let's
look
at
the
key
issues
that
are
presented
to
us
for
our
discussion
and
the
first
key
issue
is
a
question:
does
the
project
on
balance
meet
the
relevant
goals
and
policies
of
the
boulder
valley
complan?
So
who
would
like
to
kick
us
up?
Take
a
hit
a
hand
raise
David.
C
Sure
so
I'm
I'll
start
out
by
just
saying
a
few
generalities.
First
of
all,
I
don't
see
any
concerns
with
regards
to
the
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan,
given
the
yet
land
use
in
this
for
this
area
as
I
go
through
the
different
criteria,
it
seems
to
match
very
well.
Of
course,
there
is
the
jobs,
housing
imbalance,
which
is
always
a
concern,
but
I
know
that
there
are
hurdles
to
addressing
that
in
industrial
properties
that
are
deeply
within
the
industrial
zone.
C
So
I
would
be
hard
to
address
that
here
and
it's
great
to
see
that
we
will
be
getting
impact
fees.
The
preserving
local
business
I'll
also
touch
on
because
that's
in
the
comp
plan.
Thank
you
both
the
applicant
and
for
the
public
for
bringing
up
soma
logic.
It
would
be
great
to
see
local
presences
preserved.
I
will
highlight
three
criteria.
One
is
commitment
to
walkable
and
accessible
city.
C
I
think
that
the
food
truck
is
is
a
good
response
to
that
and
was
brought
up
in
the
concept
review,
and
then
we
also,
of
course
you
know
it
would
be
nice
to
see
maybe
a
little
more
services
in
this
area.
Since
there
are
so
many
businesses,
but
at
least
the
food
truck
will
help
and
then
let
me
see
I
think
it's
down
after
enhanced
design,
sorry,
there's
circulation
and
linkage
so
like
the
2.26
and
2.41
criteria.
C
If
you
didn't
put
that
connection
on
the
south
side,
mountain
bikes
would
probably
find
some
way
to
go
down
a
little
dirt
path
and
it
would
be
dangerous
and
so
having
that
connection
on
the
south
is
great
and
I
think
with
both
the
ramp
and
the
steps
it's
great
and
also
the
kind
of
more
traditional
multi-use
path.
Connection
on
the
east,
so
that's
fantastic.
So
those
are
my
comments
on
BBC
P,
hey.
K
K
Great
any
other
specific
comments
that
anybody
wants
to
make
about
comp
plan
compliance
or
shall
I
just
take
a
negative
poll
and
see,
if
there's
anybody
who
doesn't
believe,
but
it
meets
yeah.
Why
don't
I
do
that?
Is
there
any
member
of
Planning
Board
that
believes
that
the
project
oughta
balance,
does
not
meet
the
relevant
goals
and
policies
is
the
multi
rally
comp
plan.
K
Is
the
board
willing
to
move
forward
to
key
issue
number
two:
okay,
seeing
a
bunch
of
heads,
not
okay,
so
this
is
a
multi-part
question
and
it's
is
the
proposed
annexation,
consistent
with
state
statutes
and
Boulder
Valley
con
plan
policies,
including
policy
1.16
annexation,
so
we're
looking
at
essentially
statutory
and
plan
compliance
based
on
this
annexation.
I
see
John's
head
is
up
yeah.
K
K
I'll,
chime
in
and
say
that,
I
also
think
that
the
donation
to
the
city
of
the
1.6
acres
of
land,
that's
going
to
be
zoned
public
and
will
be
open
space,
even
if
it's
a
gift
that
might
keep
on
giving
between
zero
and
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
worth
of
obligation
to
to
restore
you
know,
rather
than
fighting
for
additional
density
through
change
of
the
open
space
other
to
just
dedicate
that
strip
of
land
to
the
city
is
a
nice
move
and
then
just
a
thing.
I've
noticed
in
the
staff
report.
K
K
So
the
idea
is
that
there's
a
similar
interests
or
community
of
interest
between
the
property
proposed
for
annexation
in
the
city
of
Boulder
and
when
you
leave
out
the
of
people,
think
that
there
has
to
be
community
interest
in
this
annexation
in
order
for
it
to
be
approved.
And
that's
not
what
the
statute
says:
Charles
I'm!
Looking
at
you!
Could
you
please
get
that
of
in
between
community
and
interest
in
the
county's
boilerplate,
so
that
I
can
stop
bugging
you
about
this.
K
K
M
K
Okay,
all
right,
then,
can
I
just
take
a
negative
poll
and
ask:
is
there
anyone
on
the
planning
board
that
disagrees,
that
the
initial
zoning
proposed
of
industrial,
general
and
public
are
appropriate
for
the
land
proposed
to
be
annexed
and
seeing
none?
Let
the
record
show
that
the
board
agrees
with
staff
that
the
use
and
intensity
controls
of
the
IG
district
are
consistent
with
complaint
policies
and
land
use.
K
Map
designation
and
allow
for
compatible
development
with
the
surrounding
area
and
the
initial
proposed
zoning
of
P
for
the
OS
MP
portion
to
be
dedicated
to
the
city
is
appropriate
for
that
area
as
well.
So,
let's
move
on
to
key
issue
number
four
and
you
know
maybe
we'll
we'll
dig
in
a
little
bit
to
the
site
review
criteria.
So
this
is:
does
the
project
meet
the
applicable
site
review
criteria
in
section
9
to
14
H
of
the
boulder
Revised
Code
I'll
take
a
hand
any
thoughts,
John.
M
Well,
I
I
have
a
problem
with
the
requested
variance
to
the
Western
setback.
I
I
think
this
is
an
issue
that
has
not
been
adequately
dealt
with.
I
asked
both
staff
and
the
applicant
about
it
and
didn't
get
any
real
reason
why
it
was
necessary
and
so
I'm
unwilling
to
go
along
with
that
variance
in
the
setback.
But
beyond
that
I
think
it
does
meet
the
criteria.
K
E
I
think
it
does
meet
the
criteria
and
then
I
guess
I
have
a
small
bit
of
feedback
and
I'd
welcome
your
guidance
Hartmann
as
I
give
that
feedback
and
whether
it's
something
I
should
give
or
not,
and
that
is
that
the
the
parking
seems
appropriate
for
the
use
for
the
location.
Everybody
will
be
driving
there
and
I
also
wanted
to
add
just
the
architects
and
kind
of
four
futures
that
used
to
be
thinking
about
how
some
of
that
space
could
eventually
be
repurposed
or
used.
C
C
I
also
wanted
in
this
section
to
also
acknowledge
that
there
were
a
lot
of
comments
in
advance
a
little
over
two
years
ago
about
the
kind
of
welcoming
aspect
of
approaching
the
building
and
that
it
seemed
I'm
not
so
open
and
welcoming
and
I
feel
that
there
has
been
an
enormous
amount
of
improvement
on
that.
So
that
would
be
design
related
with
the
site
criteria
and
I
did
see
that
the
gab
also
had
some
recommendations
that
were
taken
quite
seriously.
So
I
kind
of
agree
that
there
was
been
a
lot
of
back-and-forth.
C
That's
been
very
productive
and
resulted
in
a
in
a
better
design
and
I
was
sort
of
relieved
to
see
that
the
phase
two
isn't
something.
We
need
to
worry
about
right
now,
because
I
think
that
it
will
be
more
welcoming
without
that
second
story,
on
the
on
the
building's
leading
up
to
it.
I'm
not
really
I,
guess
it
personally
I'm
not
that
concerned
about
the
setback,
mainly
because,
what's
on
the
adjacent
property
right
now
is
a
driveway
going
along
that
side.
I
They
may
be
out
of
bounds
here,
but
page
69
of
213.
It's
sheet
number
a
105
on
the
architecture,
drawings
there's
the
I
was
confused
by
the
brick,
the
garden,
the
the
plantings
in
front
of
the
building
and
then
the
the
large
brick
kind
of
proscenium
arch,
the
use
of
the
brick
with
the
glass.
There
was
something
about
the
pedestrian
entrance
that
I
immediately
thought.
I
was
an
old
linens
and
bangs
or
Bed
Bath
&
Beyond
store.
I
They
seemed
out
of
place
and
I
know
that
that
entire
there
are
some
large
buildings
and
the
Astros
Anika
building
has
its
own
unique
architecture
and
that
felt
like
there
was
an
opportunity
to
really
shine
above.
That
was
really
my
only
comment
and
I
try
not
to
make
comments
too
much
on
design
since
I'm,
not
a
designer,
but
that
did
strike
me.
K
Know
what
I
think
I'll
jump
in
here
about
the
setback?
You
know
when
you're
looking
at
a
site,
this
large
and
the
developer
comes
forward
asking
for
two
feet.
Where
you
know
an
attempt
would
set
we're
12
is
required.
You
know
one
way
to
look
at
it
is.
You
must
have
had
a
serious
problem,
fitting
their
site
plan
in
that.
Well,
after
for
site,
reviews
and
God
knows
how
many
work
sessions
with
staff.
K
They
still
couldn't
manage
to
fit
it
in
without
a
two
foot
setback
relief-
and
you
know,
of
course
the
devil's
advocate
on
that.
Is
you
know
it's
a
pretty
big
site?
Why
can't
you
fix
it
when
you've
got
all
that
room
and
you've
had
all
those
chances?
And
so
you
know,
I
looked
in
the
application,
materials
and
I
actually
couldn't
find
any
explanation
for
why
the
applicant
is
asking
for
a
two
foot:
two
feet
of
relief
from
the
required
12
foot
setback.
So
at
some
level
I'm.
K
You
know
right
with
David
that
it's
it's
just
such
a
small
amount
on
such
a
big
site.
You
know
who's
gonna
notice,
two
feet:
what's
the
difference
between
ten
and
twelve,
when
the
projects
built
and
the
neighboring
property
owner
hasn't
commented
and
and
at
another
level,
I
would
love
to
hear
some
explanation
that
that
says
that
there
was
a
really
good
reason
why,
after
all
this
time
and
with
all
this
physical
space
to
play
with,
we
still
couldn't
get
the
site
to
fit
with
without
asking
for
two
feet.
K
R
There's
not
one
specific
reason
that
points
to
the
request
to
vary
the
setback.
If
there's
a
variety
of
reasons,
it
started
with
the
building
design
the
grid
of
the
building,
so
the
grid
of
the
building
is
a
very
sensitive
issue
when
it
comes
to
designing
a
economical
building
and
inside
the
building,
the
grids
are
or
less
specified
for
maximum
and
minimum
spans.
When
we
worked
our
way
around
to
the
West
elevation,
we
looked
at,
how
could
we
best
offer
a
in
and
outlook
or
accreditation
or
a
setback
to
the
building?
R
So
we
put
the
majority
of
the
West
elevation
right
on
the
setback
line
and
the
grid
allowed
us
to
pop
out
a
small
portion
of
the
building
to
go
into
the
into
the
setback
by
two
feet.
So
so,
building
grid
was
one
determinant
to
the
to
the
request
for
setback.
I
think
the
other
determinant
was
already
mentioned,
and
that
is
we
studied
hard,
the
developable
opportunity
at
the
AstraZeneca
and
frankly,
they
won't
be
able
to
develop
that
close
to
their
setback.
G
R
J
We
actually
followed
a
grade
line
or
or
less
with
the
curb
side
of
our
building
that
allowed
us
to
go
to
that
45
foot
height.
We
don't
have
the
opportunity
to
go
further
to
the
south
or
further
to
the
east
due
to
that
property
and
being
able
to
have
that
large
floor
plate
upper
floor.
That
is
the
large
part
and
sell
of
this
building
is
having
that
large
for
plating.
K
Let
me
ask
you
a
question:
the
the
area
that
you're
referring
to
is
the
grid.
This
is
that
that
pop-out
section
on
the
West
elevation,
that's
got
a
kind
of
salmon
colored
surround
around
a
bunch
of
a
bunch
of
glass
and
is
maybe
30%
of
the
full
length
of
the
building
facade
along
that
West
elevation.
R
R
K
M
K
K
Okay,
okay,
so
with
that
in
mind,
it
seems
like
six
of
the
seven
members
of
the
board
believe
that
the
project
meets
the
applicable
site
review
criteria
and
that
it's
compatible
and
contextual,
with
the
existing
character
of
the
area
and
meets
the
specific
criteria,
a
9
to
14
H
of
the
boulder
Revised
Code
and,
to
the
extent
that
John
believes
that
it
does
not
meet
is
only
regarding
the
setback,
variance
from
12
to
10
feet
on
the
west
side.
So
with
that
I
think
I'll
entertain
a
motion,
a
staff.
K
K
Yeah
we're
gonna
have
several
motions
right.
The
first
is
is
just
for
yeah,
okay,
so
the
first
is
for
the
annexation
initial
zoning
dude.
Does
anybody
want
to
make
a
motion
regarding
approval
of
a
recommendation
of
approval
of
the
annexation
and
initial
zoning?
Sorry
I
can't
see
okay
John
go
ahead.
Please
I
move.
M
To
recommend
to
City
Council
approval
of
the
approach
proposed
annexation
with
initial
zoning
of
industrial
general
and
public
4-0
Airport
Boulevard
and
0
Valmont
Drive
pertaining
to
case
number.
L
new
are
two
zero
one:
eight
zero,
zero,
zero
five,
nine
incorporating
the
staff
memorandum
as
mentis
findings
of
fact,
subject
to
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval
for
the
annexation
is
provided
for
in
the
draft
annexation.
Agreement
forwarded
to
the
board
on
July
16th
2020.
K
K
K
Yes,
59
incorporating
the
staff
memorandum
as
finding
his
fact
and
subject
to
the
recommended
conditions:
approval
for
the
annexation,
as
provided
in
the
memo
and
I'm,
not
going
to
get
this
exactly
right
because
I'm
reading
off
the
staff
report,
but
the
the
July
16th
memo
that
was
provided
to
us.
Okay.
So
that
is
the
motion
of
the
board.
I'll
call
the
question
all
in
favor.
Well,
sorry,
we
can't
do
that
david
ensign,
we're
gonna
do
a
poll
here.
I
john
Gerstel,
all
right,
Peter,
Batali,
hi
hi
there,
a
silver
I.
G
E
K
And
you
know
I'm
calling
you
sort
of
an
order
that
you
appear
on
my
screen,
so
the
fact
that
all
three
men
got
to
go
first
and
then
the
women
is
in
no
way
a
sexist
statement
on
my
part,
though
I
suppose
I
could
have
gone
backwards
and
I
will
vote
aye.
So
the
first
motion
passes
seven
to
nothing.
I'll.
Take
a
motion
on
the
second
motion
regarding
the
sec
review.
E
K
E
E
So
I
move
to
approve
the
site
review
case
number
L.
You
are
two
zero
one:
eight:
zero,
zero,
zero,
six,
zero,
incorporating
the
staff
mender
and
memorandum
and
the
attached
site
review
criteria
checklist
as
findings
of
fact
and
subject
to
the
conditions
of
approval
recommended
in
the
staff
memorandum
great.
K
K
Okay,
hearing
none
I'm,
gonna,
repeat
the
motion
to
make
it
the
motion
of
the
board.
The
planning
board
moves
to
approve
site
review
case
number
Lu.
Our
2018
trip
was
60,
incorporating
the
staff
memorandum
and
the
attach
site
review
criteria
checklist
as
findings
of
fact
and
subject
to
the
conditions
of
approval
recommended
in
the
staff
memorandum.
E
G
K
K
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
move
on,
you
know
I
think
I
mentioned
earlier
and
that
as
I
was
looking
at
the
agenda,
that
we
had
a
people
who
wanted
to
speak
to
the
public
hearing
items
including
clean-up
on
the
land
use
code
needed
to
speak
after
those
items,
but
that
clean
up
items
been
rescheduled
to
August
20th.
So
now
we're
kind
of
in
the
homestretch
of
the
meeting
and
we're
gonna
do
matters
from
the
Planning
Board
Planning
Director
and
City
Attorney.
K
L
E
K
K
C
K
So
the
the
next
item
is
a
matter
for
the
Planning
Board
received
a
request
from
City
Council
for
two
board
members
to
participate
in
a
series
of
discussions
about
Cu
South.
There
will
also
be
members
of
Revenue
SBT,
two
members
from
each
of
those
boards
who
will
be
invited
to
participate
in
three
meetings
with
City
Council,
to
talk
about
the
preliminary
engineering
for
the
hundred-year
flood
mitigation
concept
and
upstream
concept
as
well.
K
I
would
like
to
have
David
ensign
and
John
Gerstel,
be
our
two
representatives
and
they
have
been
both
heavily
involved
in
the
sea
south
and
the
flood
mitigation
issues,
since
it
came
to
us
for
the
first
time
on
planning,
board
and
David
was
very
dedicated
to
the
follow
through
on
the
the
guiding
principles
for
Co
South
that
we
got
enacted
into
the
Comprehensive
Plan
Update
in
2017.
John,
obviously,
is
a
water
engineer
and
has
a
ton
of
experience
and
interest
in
this
and
the
last
time
that
City
Council
asked
for
our
input.
K
David
went
spoke
to
City,
Council
and
John
spoke
on
his
own
behalf
as
a
member
of
the
public,
so
they
both
paid
their
dues.
But
with
that
you
know,
I
don't
want
to
just
bulldoze
any
other
planning
board
members
desire
to
be
in
this
mix,
and
so,
if,
if
anybody
disagrees
or
would
like
to
nominate
themselves,
I
wanted
to
leave
some
room
for
that.
K
F
K
Okay
Cindy,
would
you
take
care
of
texting,
Lou
pizza
when
this
discussion
is
over
Cindy?
Can
you
do
that?
Thank
you
and,
and
actually
you
know,
I
I
have
a
appointment,
I
I
just
taught
in
the
masters
of
the
Environment
Program
for
the
last
semester
at
CU,
and
so
though,
it's
not
my
primary
job.
I
am
and
I
don't
I'm,
not
an
employee,
but
you
know
I
guess:
1099
die
I
will
be
by
Cu,
so
maybe
I
should
recuse
myself
as
well.
E
F
E
K
I
I
am
a
instructor,
a
you
know,
visiting
faculty
kind
of
professional
faculty
appointment
in
the
masters
in
the
environment
program,
I
teach
masters
level,
environmental
studies,
classes,
I
teach
one
so
far
at
the
University,
so
I'm,
not
a
member
of
the
standing
faculty.
Just
the
scrambling
faculty
and.
F
I
E
H
Well
and
I
do
think
whoever
is
recused
will
actually
be
able
to
hear
us
when
we
end
our
discussion
about
CEO
they,
we
can't
hear
them
when
they
mute
that
they
can
still
hear
us
just
having
having
had
to
recuse
myself
via
zoom.
Before
doesn't
mean
we
shouldn't
send
him
a
text.
Just
I
think
they'll
still
be
able
to
hear.
M
D
C
C
Video
as
well
great,
well
I,
guess
I'm
as
co-chaired
now
I'm
going
to
lead
us
to
the
remainder
of
this
discussion.
So
the
I
think
that
Harmon
proposed
that
the
John
and
I
be
the
be
the
take
this
on
this
interface
with
City
Council
I'll,
just
say
that
I'm
perfectly
willing
to
do
that.
I
I'm
not
currently
a
liaison
to
any
other
boards,
so
that
kind
of
nice
in
the
and
the
use
table
subcommittee
stuff's
been
winding
down.
C
H
I'll
speak
first,
if
you
don't
mind,
Peter
I
think
it
would
be
great
I.
Think
between
the
two
of
you,
you
bring
both
the
issues
related
to
water
management
and
the
experience
with
the
in
the
years
leading
up
to
where
we
are
now
to
talk
through
some
of
the
issues
that
both
were
in
the
I.
Don't
remember
what
the
material
with
the
framework
was
called
that
was
approved
by
Planning
Board
two
years
ago,
but.
C
H
Contracting
principles-
thank
you,
I'm,
sorry,
I,
just
remembered,
and
the
conversation
that
we
had
at
our
last
Planning
Board
meeting
about
this,
where
we
all
identified
various
and
sundry
concerns
about
the
step-by-step
nature
of
what
would
need
to
happen
in
from
both
an
annexation
and
a
planning
perspective,
so
I
think
it'd
be
great
to
have
both
of
you.
There.
C
C
H
K
Sara
I
heard
you
say
that
we'd
be
able
to
hear,
though
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
speak
or
be
heard,
and
and
actually
that
that's
fine,
because
that's
the
way
work
user
works
when
we're
in
chambers.
We
we
sit
in
the
ante
room
and
the
TV's
on,
and
it's
showing
us
what's
going
on
in
the
meeting,
and
we
know
when
we
can
come
back
so
for
once.
The
virtual
is
just
like
the
real.
D
D
Yeah,
yes,
we
would
like
to,
as
staff
like
to
we've,
been
giving
you
our
packets
on
Fridays
about
13
days,
almost
two
weeks
before
our
planning
board
meetings,
and
we
would
like
to
propose
something
to
you
if
we
could
possibly
move
that
date
to
the
Monday.
So
now,
10
days
before
the
actual
meeting,
it's
it's
it's.
D
They
get
the
information
to
me
by
4:00
or
5:00
on
a
Friday
and
then
I'm
working
late,
Friday
night,
and
it
would
just
be
nice
if
we
could
and
I
know
you're
waiting
anxiously
on
a
Friday
night
to
to
get
those
packets
and
read
it
all
the
way
through
the
weekend.
I
know
you're
just
dying
to
get
that
information,
but
if
we
could
maybe
push
it
out
to
Monday,
that
would
help
us
a
lot.
If
it's,
okay
with
you
guys,
yeah.
L
Thanks
India
that
completely
slipped
my
mind
and
other
contributing
factors
that
our
business
rhythm,
we
review
projects
on
three
week
review
tracks
and
our
DRC
comments
go
out
to
our
applicants
on
Fridays.
So
we
oftentimes
have
case
managers
who
have
been
up
late
and
a
planning
board
meeting
have
five
to
eight
sets
of
DRC
comments
that
they
need
to
coordinate
and
get
out
to
applicants
by
Friday
end
of
day
and
then
also
a
memo
packet.
So
it
would
actually
be
a
big
help
for
our
case
management
team.
K
K
You
know
why
not
just
take
until
Tuesday,
because
a
Monday
deadline
for
product
of
the
packet
might
mean
that
staff
would
be
working
over
the
weekend
to
get
it
out
on
Monday
and
why
not
just
take
another
day,
we'll
still
have
nine
days
to
review
the
packet
before
our
hearing
9
days,
10
days
still
just
one
weekend
and
cares
and
Cindy
said
well,
actually
I've
got
something
else.
It
has
to
be
done
on
Tuesday,
so
I
really
would
like
to
get
it
out
of
the
way
on
Monday.
K
So
I
just
want
to
thank
staff
for
for
the
you
know
when
there
are
a
lot
of
lower
line
staff
that
don't
attend
the
City
Council
hearings.
Don't
attend
planning
board
hearings
every
week.
You
know
every
time
they're
scheduled
like
Cindy
does
and
Helen
and
Charles,
and-
and
so
there
are
certain
members
of
staff
who
are
really
working
on.
You
know
just
a
constant
schedule
where
the
the
it's
just
keep
on
coming.
M
K
That
was
a
really
good
example
of
how
even
sometimes
offering
another
day
is
more
trouble,
and
these
guys
are
working
really
hard
for
us,
so
I'm
a
hundred
percent
in
favor
of
allowing
you
to
do
what
makes
your
life
easier
within
reason.
Well,
we
still
have
enough
time
to
review
these
packets
and
thanks
for
all
your
efforts.
L
A
K
Okay,
hello
thanks
so
much
for
for
catching
me
and
in
the
c2
issue,
really
appreciate
that
quick
thinking
and
that's
about
it
for
for
matters
unless
well,
we
already
called
for
planning
board
matters,
so
we
talked
about
the
packet.
That's
the
other
item
in
matters.
So
is
there
anybody
who
needs
to
debrief
from
this
meeting.