►
From YouTube: Boulder Planning Board Meeting 11-21-19
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
Okay,
welcome
everybody
to
the
November
21st
city
of
Boulder
planning
board.
Meeting
we've
got
everybody
here
tonight,
so
I'll
call
the
meeting
to
order.
So
first
just
a
note:
we've
made
a
change
to
the
agenda.
There
was
a
mistake
in
the
way
we'd
put
together
before
there
was
an
item
that
was
listed
as
a
public
hearing
item.
It's
actually
a
call
up
or
a
continuation
from
last
time,
which
dozen
ARF
slight
in
use
review.
A
So
for
those
of
you
who
are
interested
in
speaking
to
us
about
the
snarfs
site
and
you
serve
you,
there
won't
be
an
opportunity
to
do
that
under
the
public
hearings.
There
isn't
a
public
hearing
for
it,
but
you
can
speak
to
us
under
public
participation,
which
is
the
next
thing
after
the
approval
of
minutes,
and
then
just
so,
you
know,
like
the
public
participation
part.
That
is
close.
We
can't
really
consider
your
comments
as
a
part
of
our
remaining
conversation.
A
B
C
A
Anyone
have
anything
to
say
about
that
or
you
call
the
question,
seeing
nothing
on
favor
all
right
great
those
pass
unanimously.
So
now
is
the
time
for
you
to
speak
to
us
and
sign
up
with
Cindy
this
board
secretary.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
to
us
about
anything,
including
the
snarfs
continuation
or
anything
else,
that's
on
your
mind.
That's
not
our
public
hearing
item,
which
is
a
Adu
co-op,
ordinance
modification
to
the
land
use
code.
A
So
we've
got
two
folks
signed
up
the
first
one
is
Mary
hay
and
you
guys
can
go
ahead
and
kind
of
approach
and
then
I
get
in
line
with
mother.
We
only
have
two
of
you
and
the
second
one
is
James
cutoff,
so
marry
your
first
and
the
way
it
works
is
you've
got
three
minutes.
There's
three
little
lights
there,
the
green
one
means
go
the
O
and
means
you're
getting
close
to
the
red.
It
means
that
you
should
be
done.
Yes,
so,
and
you
gotta
start
off
by
giving
us
your
name
and
address.
D
Thank
you
very
much.
My
name
is
Marion.
Hey
I
live
on
Grove
Street
in
Boulder.
One
block
from
this
proposed
restaurant
I'm
here
to
support
the
staff
recommendation
that
does
not
be
granted.
That
is
that
there's
not
a
compelling
reason
to
override
the
comp
plan
and
that
the
the
site
review
the
site
here
that
says
not
to
take
away
housing.
I
just
want
to
be
we.
This
is
the
third
time
this
has
come
up
for
the
neighbors.
I
wrote
a
letter
about
it.
D
In
2012,
when
I
first
came
up,
there
was
a
1440
square
foot
coffee
house,
which
was
then
expanded
to
20
to
75,
and
that
became
the
favorite
number
and
2017
like
a
zombie.
It
came
forward
again
after
being
rejected
and
was
rejected
again,
and
so
this
is
the
third
iteration.
It's
difficult
for
us
to
keep
I
mean
I
had
to
scurry
around
and
try.
Where
are
the
papers
from
that
episode
of
life?
But
in
any
case,
so
we
do
support
the
staff
recommendation.
D
The
second
part
is
that
the
parking
assumptions
I
think
are
just
wrong
and
and
I
know
they
say
they
pay
the
parking
survey
group,
but
it
kind
of
contradicts
our
lived
experience
in
goss,
Grove
I've
lived
in
Costco
for
over
40
years,
and
it's
not
true
that
these
spaces
are
available,
they're
not
available
on
19th
Street,
south
of
Arapaho
and
on
Grove
Street
to
say
that
there
are
15
or
20
of
spaces
available
during
the
day
between
18th
and
20th.
It's
simply
not
true.
D
It's
hard
to
argue
against
this,
because
you've
got
these
stats
and
I.
Don't
know
what
day
they
rode
around
I
started
the
guy
in
the
fly
shop
and
I
both
started
to
go
around
and
look
and
count
spaces
and
so
forth,
but
we
found
that
I
mean
one
thing:
I
found
it
at
the
snarfs
now
I
went
and
there
were
seven
parking
spaces
for
this.
My
smaller
space
they
were
awful
and
the
guy
the
fly
shop
went
to.
He
said
well,
they're,
all
full
all
the
time
with
a
larger
shop.
D
It's
just
there's
not
going
to
be
parking.
It
is
going
to
be
pressed
into
our
neighborhood,
which
it
doesn't
exist.
It's
going
to
be
pressed
further,
but
this
is
a
central
issue.
We
we
worked
very
hard
to
get
the
NPP
program
because
we
couldn't
park
at
all
prior
to
it
and
now
that
we
have
it
for
gas
grove,
which
also
includes
a
rapaho.
We
have
a
rapaho
cars
parking
on
the
street
there
too.
So
just
like
you
to
really
drive
by
and
look
at
the
parking
situation.
Thank
you
great.
E
Right
good
evening,
my
name
is
James
k,
Dolph
I'm,
a
law
student
at
the
University
of
Colorado
and
I
live
at
44:58,
Hamilton
Court,
which
is
right
next
to
Table
Mesa
station
members,
the
Planning
Board,
the
City
Council
election
over
the
past
two
months.
A
major
issue
came
up
in
of
the
inclusionary
zoning.
Excuse
me
the
inclusionary
housing
policies
of
this
board,
in
particular
the
cash
and
lieu
exception,
was
cited
by
over
half
of
the
of
the
City
Council
candidates.
E
Those
important
people
here
in
Boulder
as
well
and
furthermore,
the
cash
and
loo
system
in
Boulder
has
been
addressed
by
both
the
Lincoln
Institute
of
land
policy
and
ground
solutions
network
to
be
an
innovative
and
effective
program.
That's
creating
opportunities
for
groups
who
know
affordable
housing
and
have
expertise
to
use
money
gathered
by
cash
in
lieu
to
apply
those
resources
to
people
who
need
them
the
most
and
it's.
My
second
point:
there
are
potential
problems
with
getting
rid
of
cash
in
lieu
that
some
may
have
proposed.
E
In
the
past,
Bloomberg
economist,
Noah
Smith
identified
the
primary
of
my
concerns,
that
being
that,
if
we
were
to
get
rid
of
cash
in
lieu
and
mandate
all
affordable
housing
to
occur
on
sites
that
that
could
lead
to
a
potential
decrease
in
growth
here
in
the
city
of
Boulder,
and
when
you
combine
a
lack
of
growth
with
the
needs
of
this
city
and
how
much
it
is
burgeoning
and
growing.
That
is
a
very
dangerous
combination.
E
B
E
F
F
F
Lindsey
Mountain
ice.
Okay,
now
I
was
thinking.
Why
do
I
talk
about
tonight,
but
you
reminded
me:
snarfs
I
wanted
to
bring
up
ad
use
because,
if
I'm
to
put
an
ad
you
on
myspace,
then
why
should
I,
when
I
can
only
have
to
be
unrelated
unless
I
can
get
a
family
person
with
their
kids
in
my
house,
and
that
means
they're,
one
of
their
family
members
has
to
live
in
the
outside
building
and
the
first
primary
family
member
has
to
live
in
the
house
with
me.
What
the
hey!
F
Why
do
I
want
to
do?
An
ad
you,
I
thought
you're
you're
trying
to
support,
including
more
getting
more
housing.
I
have
one
out
there,
but
I'm
not
gonna.
Do
it
I'm
not
gonna,
throw
money
at
it.
For
that
reason,
you
need
to
get
more
people.
Okay.
This
is
like
an
ethnicity
deal.
You
know
just
because
we're
blood
related,
that's
frigging,
ridiculous,
I'm,
sorry
for
playing
Boulder,
John
or
George
John,
okay,
anyway.
So
so
so
that's
my
take
on
ad
use.
F
Okay,
so
OS
o
at
3:11-
and
this
is
going
to
come
up
with
south
boulder
for
clean
and
it's
south.
Will
the
fluid
Pony
not
see
you
something?
Okay,
and
that
is
David.
Giler
told
me
yesterday
that
well,
if,
if
it's
okay
at
3:11,
there's
some
extra
space
that
they
gave
us
for,
you
know
up
on
the
along
the
ditch
like
that.
That's
an
excuse
that
that
way
they
can
encroach
on
the
oso4
building,
be
at
311,
that
is,
violation
of
the
Boulder
Valley
plane.
I'm.
Sorry
I
asked
our
attorney.
F
You
know
cuz
I
expected
a
legal
answer,
but
he
just
reminded
me
of
what
I
already
knew.
So
you
need
to
do
something
about
this
also
they're
digging
up
at
311
around
the
tower
which
was
hotly
disputed
and
they
just
demoed
part
of
one
of
the
landmark
cottages
up
there,
big
problem.
Okay,
now,
let's
go
to
snarfs
three
friggin
minutes:
okay,
snarfs
needs
to
be
landmarked,
that's
the
only
affordable
housing
left
in
for
C
U
and
C
use
impact
on
Boulder
for
housing.
And
if
you
want
to
say,
oh
it's
commercial
before
now,
it's
residential!
F
Now
we
can
just
turn
it
back
to
commercial
again.
Well,
listen
to
this
gal!
That
was
here.
That
said,
it's
impacting
her
parking
and
listen
to
the
fact.
Look
at
21st
and
Pearl,
which
was
Community
Benefit,
and
it's
now
gonna
be
office
space
where
the
people
can
live
right
across
the
street
in
the
high-end
condos
problems
in
paradise,
Lin
I'm
speaking
as
the
conscience
of
Boulder
thanks.
A
Lenny,
okay,
so
now
we'll
move
to.
Unless
we
have
anyone
else,
signing
up,
Cindy,
good,
okay,
great
move
to
a
discussion
of
dispositions,
Planning,
Board,
cobs
and
continuations
we've
got
one
call
up,
which
is
a
non-conforming
use
review
for
modifications
to
existing
legal
non-conforming
duplex
at
55,
24
18th
Street.
Does
anyone
want
to
ask
any
questions
or
talk
about
that
at
all
John.
C
I'd
like
to
ask
a
question
of
staff
on
that.
One
of
the
pieces
of
Correspondence
we
received
from
a
neighbor
was
expressing
concern
about
potential
damage
to
a
sewage,
pipe
that
that
flows
under
a
portion
of
land
that
might
be
used
for
parking
and
I.
Just
wondered
what
is
the
responsibility
of
the
landowner
not
to
damage
a
sewage
pipe
for
which
there
is
an
easement
under
another
person's
property?.
G
H
So
we
only
have
very
limited
information
available
on
this,
but
if
this
is
a
sewer
line,
that's
serving
a
neighboring
property.
It's
either
that
there
might
be
information
in
the
easement
on
on
damages
and
so
forth.
That
occur
with
work
that
occurs
on
the
property
that
might
determine
the
liability
issues,
but
it
seems
generally
likely
that
the
person
who
causes
the
damage
would
then
be
responsible
for
fixing
it.
C
I
guess
I
would
rather
not
call
this
up
if,
if
it's,
if
there's
a
clear
determination
of
responsibilities,
but
the
the
neighbor
indicated
that
he
was
concerned
that
you
know
some
heavy
truck
might
be
parking
on
top
of
his
sewer
line
and
thus
crushing
it.
But
you
can
imagine,
there's
all
kinds
of
potential
finger-pointing
if
there
ever
were
to
be
a
problem
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
there's
there's
any
way
that
that
this
might
be
dealt
with
right
now,.
A
I
J
Just
wondering
if
we
did
call
it
up
that
might
give
the
owner
of
the
the
gentleman
who
wrote
in
who's
concerned
an
opportunity
to
at
least
speak
with
the
new
land,
the
new
homeowner
and
talk
it
through,
maybe
resolve
it
before
they
go
for
it,
I
mean
I'm,
not
saying
we
should
call
it
up,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
think
about
I.
Don't.
A
A
And
I
don't
know
for
sure
about
this
one,
but
sometimes
in
the
past
we
found
out
that,
while
there
are
things
that
we
want
to
consider
on
a
column
if
the
criteria
that
are
in
front
of
us
for
that,
like
use,
review
or
non-conforming
use,
review
or
expansion
of
a
non-conforming
use
from
you,
there's
really
explicit
criteria
for
that.
And
so
we
can't
really
say,
like
oh
you're
gonna
deal
without
other
thing
also,
so
if
we
call
it
up
often
we'd,
if
it's
not
part
of
the
content,
we
just
can't
do
think
about
anyways.
So.
A
B
J
C
I
know
is
that
the
next
door
neighbor
has
written
saying
that
he
has
an
easement
for
his
sewage
line,
going
under
part
of
this
land
right
and
he's
concerned
about
potential
damage
to
that
line,
and
so
it,
my
point,
is
just
that.
It
needs
to
be
clear.
What
sort
of
responsibility
agent
Marty
has
for
maintenance
and
potential
replacement.
A
B
Yeah
use
me
languages
where
you'd
find
that
for
sure
I
think
that's
probably
a
civil
matter
for
the
the
to
to
deal
with
with
between
each
other.
And
if
you
know
if
this
applicant
has
a
property
right
sitting.
On
top
of
this
easement,
the
sewer
easement
probably
says
it's
a
sewer
easement.
It
probably
recognizes
that
it
runs
underneath
his
parking
facility
and
well.
K
C
H
A
Cool
good
questions,
thank
you,
John
and
thanks
very
forgiving,
some
time
for
staff
to
put
a
good
question
on
that.
It
answers.
Rather,
so
then,
we'll
move
to
a
item
for
be
on
our
agenda,
which
is
a
continuation
from
remember,
seventh,
meeting
consideration
of
a
site
and
use
review
L.
You
are
2019:
zero,
zero,
zero,
four
two
for
the
star
of
sandwich
shop
I,
believe
we
have
yeah.
G
We
just
have
some
stuff
remark,
so
I'm
good
evening,
members
of
the
board,
as
the
chair
mentioned,
on
November
7th
the
board
directeds
to
have
to
go
back
and
draft
conditions
of
approval
and
some
approval
findings
based
on
the
board's
discussion
from
that
evening.
So
we've
prepared
that
we've
included
that
in
your
packet
I
think.
A
Things
Charles
appreciate
it,
so
if
everyone's
had
a
chance
to
read
through
that
and
give
it
some
thought
basically,
our
process
is
gonna,
be
to
go
ahead
and
we
take
action
or
not
take
action
or
do
our
deliberations
right
now.
So
hey.
If
anyone
has
any
questions
of
staff
we
may
start
off
with
that,
is
that
a
questions
Harry.
J
And
I
want
to
thank
hella
for
helping
me
identify
where
to
find
this.
So
this
was
an
issue,
a
condition,
a
proposed
condition
that
I
raised
at
the
hearing
whenever
it
was
a
week
or
two
ago
regarding
the
management
plan,
and
it
just
struck
me
that
we
had
just
heard
the
management
plan,
the
use
review
for
pikas
and
they
were
trying
to
be
very
thoughtful
of
their
residential
neighbors
and
closing
off
the
outside
music
at
9
p.m.
J
and
it
struck
me
that
the
management
plan
for
this
proposal
does
not
offer
the
same
kindness
to
its
residential
neighbors
and
I
feel
that
under
9
2,
15
III,
which
is
compatibility,
concerns
that
it
would
be
reasonable
to
request
a
condition
that
music
stopped
being
played
at
9:00
p.m.
every
day
that
the
every
day
I'm
it's
open,
7
days
a
week,
so
that
that
would
be
my
condition.
A
A
M
N
I
moved
the
Planning
Board
approved
the
site
and
use
reviews
under
case
number
L.
You
are
2019:
zero,
zero,
zero,
four
two
subject
to
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval
found
in
November
22nd,
21st,
2019
staff,
member
and
adapting
adopting
the
findings
of
fact
incorporated
into
the
November
21st
2019
staff
memorandum
and
adding
an
additional
condition
that
outdoor
music
be
stopped
at
9
p.m.
as
part
of
the
good
neighbor
plan.
I
think
it's
called.
O
A
G
A
P
Evening
board
members,
some
or
all
of
you
might
recall
that
in
February
of
2019,
the
latest
updated
accessory
dwelling
unit
regulations,
one
into
effect.
The
ATU
regs
have
been
in
place
for
a
number
of
years,
but
they
were,
they
did
go
through
a
kind
of
a
holistic
rewrite
in
2018,
with
with
February
being
the
implementation
date.
P
So
since
that
time,
we've
been
monitoring
the
applications
that
have
been
coming
in
and
seeing
how
effective
it
is,
and
during
the
course
of
that
time,
we've
found
some
ambiguities
in
that
code
and
some
cleanups
and
clarifications
that
are
necessary.
So
that's
the
ordinance
that's
before
you
tonight
we're
calling
it
a
code
cleanup
in
on
illuminance
and
Andrew
Collins
is
gonna
walk
you
through
that
ordinance,
yep.
Q
Evening
board
I'm
Andrew
Collins.
The
purpose
of
tonight's
item
is
from
laying
board
to
make
a
recommendation
to
City
Council,
an
ordinance
amending
subsection,
nine
six
for
a
accessory
units
to
modify
the
roof
pitch
standards
for
existing
legal
accessory
structures
that
are
converted
to
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
to
clarify
the
existing
Adu
standards.
Along
with
related
details,
they
proposed
updates
to
the
ADA
regulations,
would
do
four
things
number
one.
They
would
allow
for
an
administrative
modification,
the
roof
pitch
ratio
standard
for
legally
existing
accessory
structures,
converting
to
a
detached
a
to
you.
Q
There's
over
20
feet
in
height.
It
would
limit
the
architectural
design
consistency
requirement
for
detached
a
to
use
to
only
new
construction.
It
would
also
add
language
that
would
clarify
or
state
that
cooperative
housing
units
need
to
use
cannot
be
locate
on
the
same
lot.
I
then
clarify
the
occupancy
of
dwelling
units
and
AD
you
code,
language
and
related
definitions.
Q
So
the
intent
of
the
ADA
regulations
has
been
to
foster
additional
housing
choice
in
the
form
of
a
to
use,
including
the
conversion.
I
can't
have
legally
existing
accessory
structures
and
two
detached
a
to
use.
As
Carl
mentioned,
the
ordinance
ad
ordinance
was
adopted
by
council
in
December
of
last
year
and
went
to
effect
in
February
2000.
Q
Nineteen
again,
we've
identified
some
ambiguities
not
anticipated
situations
such
as
some
barriers
in
the
code
to
allow
the
conversions
of
legally
existing
structure,
accessory
structures
to
ATS
and
also
the
ambiguity
that
may
exist
between
allowing
a
to
use
and
coops
on
the
same
property.
The
intent
of
the
ordinances
Carl
mentions
is
for
cleanups
and
limited
updates
to
the
code,
so
the
first
two
updates
are
to
the
ad
design
standards.
Q
Currently,
the
legally
existing
sex
accessory
structures
may
not
be
able
to
reasonably
convert
to
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
when
the
existing
structure
conflicts
with
the
eighty
design
standards.
Specifically,
there's
a
roof
pitch
ratio
requirement
at
eight
to
twelve
or
greater
for
structures
are
twenty
feet
or
taller,
and
we've
had
some
instances
where
there's
been
legal.
The
existing
structures
have
a
a
lesser
roof
pitch
and
then
secondly,
we
also
are
proposing
to
change
the
architectural
design
consistency
standard,
which
requires
ADA
you
to
be
consistent.
Q
Architectural
II,
with
the
existing
students
or
with
adjacent
buildings
along
the
side,
yard
lot
lines,
and
so
well.
This
may
be
appropriate
for
new
structures
being
built.
It
represents
a
barrier
that
could
be
cost
prohibitive
if
you
have
to
adjust
your
roofline
or
your
roof
pitch,
or
do
you
some
other
architectural
facade
redesign
of
your
existing
building?
Q
So
we're
proposing
two
things
to
address
these
one,
allowing
the
modifications,
the
roof
pitch
height
requirement
for
legally
existing
accessory
structures,
only
they
meet
the
requirements
and
are
not
increasing
their
overall
height
or
size,
and
then
clarifying
that
the
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit,
architectural
designs,
too,
enjoyed
supplies
to
new
construction.
Only
on
the
left
of
the
screen,
we
have
an
example
of
a
legally
existing
accessory
structure
that
doesn't
meet
the
roof.
Pitch
ratio
requirement
it's
again,
8
to
12,
so
8
feet
vertically
to
12
feet
in
the
center
point
out
horizontally.
Q
Q
The
third
proposed
change
in
regards
to
cooperative
housing
units
and
ad
use
on
the
same
property.
This
was
not
a
scenario
anticipated
at
the
time.
The
coop
housing
or
the
ADA
regulations
were
into
place
and
2017
and
2018
respectively.
As
such,
the
code
doesn't
currently
expressly
indicate
whether
an
Adu
or
co-op
can
be
on
the
same
property.
So
there's
some
ambiguities
there
and
there
has
been
some
concern.
There
could
be
some
unintended
impacts
to
neighborhoods
if
they
were
to
develop
concurrently
in
the
same
water
property.
Q
Q
The
fourth
change
proposed
change
rights
to
the
Adu
occupancy
language.
This
is
a
clarification,
there's
some
inconsistent
terminology
across
sections,
nine,
six
accessory
units
and
then
in
95,
the
occupancy
of
drawing
units
as
well
as
definitions.
It
switch
shifts
at
points
between
persons
and
rumors
in
a
inconsistent
manner,
as
well
as
not
consistent
with
how
it's
been
implemented.
Q
So
staff
is
proposing
a
code
change
to
simply
align
the
language
of
persons
and
rumors
in
a
consistent
fashion
across
the
sections
and
add
a
new
definition
of
rumors
to
the
code,
which
is
not
there
today
and
then
clarified
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
definition
as
well.
This
proposed
code
change
would
not
impact
number
of
occupants
allowed.
That
would
not
change
as
from
what
it
is
today.
I
also
want
to
point
out
the
most
recent
draft
of
the
proposed
ordinances
in
attachment
a
and
your
packet.
Q
The
memo
itself
contains
some
older
draft
language,
so
I
referred
to
attachment
a
as
we
move
forward
comes
the
public
feedback
we
have
published
notices
and
in
planning
newsletter,
we
talked
to
potential
applicants
of
pre
applicants
about
the
potential
updates.
We
have
received
some
recent
emails
to
the
Planning
Board,
including
from
the
boulder
Community
Housing
Association
I'm,
expressing
their
support
for
allowing
a
to
use
and
co-ops
to
exist
on
the
same
water
property
opposed
to
the
initial
staff
recommendation
to
prohibit
such
a
scenario.
Q
So
our
staff
recommendation
for
planning
boards
to
make
the
following
motion
on
the
screen
to
recommend
that
city
council
approves
the
ordinance
has
generally
found
an
attachment,
a
to
update
the
ATU
standards
just
really
quickly
next
steps.
This
is
scheduled
for
a
first
reading,
Council
on
December
3rd
and
a
public
hearing
and
second
reading
on
December
December
17th.
We
do
have
also
the
detailed
code
language
on
additional
slides.
If
you
want
to
see
that
and
so
we'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Great.
N
N
H
I
think
when
I
think
that's
been
one
pre-op
or
where
this
has
been
proposed
and
we've
discussed
it
and
that's
where
we
would
have
landed,
then
the
overall
occupancy
limits
for
for
the
coops
would
apply
to
the
entire
lot.
But
it's
not
expressly
addressed
in
the
code
and-
and
one
thing
that's
a
little
bit
odd
about
the
construct-
is
that
coops
are
approved
by
license
they're
still
considered
drawn
unit
under
the
land
use
code.
So
it's
it's
just
kind
of
a
weird
interpretation
exercise,
okay
and
then-
and
part
of
that
was
also
I.
N
J
Just
some
clarifications
versus
rumors,
quite
confusing
and
I,
didn't
see
a
definition
for
rumors
and
rumors
is
not
actually
an
English
word
as
far
as
I
can
tell
so
I
mean
it
may
be
for
the
purposes
of
our
BRC.
But
so
can
you
just
unpack
that
a
bit
more
for
me
and
because
I
wasn't
I
wasn't
clear
to
me
either
what
the
term
rumors
meant
or
whether
the
change
you
were
proposing
made
it
any
clearer
sure.
Q
Yeah
I
would
have
to
mean
I
would
defer
to
and
I
think
hello
on
this
one,
but
we're
proposing
a
new
rumor
definition
based
upon
the
definition
of
a
rooming
unit
in
the
building
code,
and
so
that's
geared
more
towards
students
living
in
a
different
arrangement
and
so
with
a
DUI
keep
ANSI
standards.
I
think
it
allows
two
additional
rumors,
but
we've
been
interpreting
that
as
two
additional
persons,
so
we're
realigning
that
language
to
say
plus
up
to
two
additional
persons.
J
P
J
So
what
does
that
mean
in
terms
of
I
realize
you
said
it
doesn't
change
the
total
number
of
people
who
can
live
in
that
dwelling
unit,
but
it
also
wasn't
wildly
clear
so
I
don't
have
the
language
right
in
front
of
me,
but
I
mean
to
to
Brian's
point.
Maybe,
instead
of
calling
them
I
mean
a
rumor
is
a
renter.
That's
really
what
you're
describing
is
a
someone
who's
renting
the
ad
you
is
that
not
accurate.
H
So
rumor
was
the
term
that
currently
exists,
okay
in
the
occupancy
standards
and
when
this
came
through
last
time,
480
you
changes.
We
discussed
it
quite
a
bit
on
on
how
staff
interpreted
the
occupancy
standards
and
it
has
been
interpreted
as
985
a1
allows
one
family
plus
two
persons,
not
just
rumors
and
with
regard
to
the
ATU
standards.
I
think
especially
harmon
brought
up
then
that
that's
very
confusing
and
if
we
interpreted
as
persons-
but
I
don't-
we
just
say
person
so
we're
implementing
that
here
by
changing
it
to
person.
H
But
there
is
an
additional
sentence
that
creates
a
floor
area
restrictions
for
rumor
uses
and
it
used
to
be
that
there
was
your
rooming
unit,
rooming
unit
use
in
the
code.
It's
no
longer
really
acknowledged,
but
there
so
that
still
some
out
there
and
I
think
that's
what
it
relates
back
to.
So
we
didn't
want
to
take
that
floor
area
limitation
out
of
here,
but
we
wanted
to
make
clear
that
we
interpret
the
occupation,
the
occupancy
standards
as
9
8,
9
8
5,
a
1
allows
a
family
plus
two
persons,
so.
J
H
It's
it's
kind
of
fun.
It's
an
old
use
that
used
to
be
in
the
code,
and
I
think
that
that
was
more
common
back
in
the
day
where
students
would
rent
just
individual
rooms
without
actually
also
using
the
kitchen
and
so
forth,
and
we
wanted
and
part
of
the
interpretation
of
the
occupancy
standards
and
the
intent
of
the
Adu
changes
that
were
adopted
were
to
allow
the
people
that
were
going
to
be
allowed
within
a
dwelling
unit
to
be
placed
in
either
the
ATU
or
the
the
principal
dwelling
unit.
H
H
H
H
G
C
Yeah
two
questions:
the
first
is
to
get
some
clarification
on
the
design
design
character
that
fits
in
with
existing
home
and
neighborhood
design
character
it.
It
sounds
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
that
actually
implies
in
terms
of
objective
definitions
of
design
is.
Is
there
an
objective
way
of
of
knowing
whether
the
design
is
consistent
with
existing
housing
design,
or
is
that
a
subjective
determination
of
staff?
It's.
P
A
subjective
termination
through
the
Adu
process,
I
mean
in
general,
the
criteria
were
created
to
create
a
grid,
the
greatest
level
of
compatibility
between
structures
in
a
neighborhood,
and
we
so
generally
we
get
these
applications.
We
look
at
kind
of
the
form
of
it
or
the
color
or
the
materials
just
make
sure
that
it
fits
in
as
long
as
that
determination
can
be
made,
it
can
be
approved
it,
but
it
doesn't
have
any
specific
criteria
related
to
design
right
well,.
P
Proposed
applied
to
new
construction,
because
that's
the
opportunity
where
it
can
use
or
take
echoes
from
other
buildings
around
it
to
to
fit
in,
whereas
an
existing
structure
may
or
may
not
have
been
designed
to
be
compatible
and
in
order
to
not
create
a
barrier
to
converting
an
existing
building.
That's
why
the
suggested
changes
being
made
so.
A
C
See
and
okay.
Well,
thank
you
for
that.
The
the
other
question
I
had
is
maybe
more
for
hello
than
than
the
others,
and
that
is.
We
received
some
correspondence
talking
about
issues,
particularly
in
Lyons
I,
think
where
people
have
have
effectively
subdivided
Lots
between
an
Adu
and
and
the
main
dwelling
by
creating
an
HOA
and
selling
parts
of
an
ad
you
through
the
HOA
and
I'm.
Just
wondering
is:
is
that
something
that
could
happen
in
Boulder
under
the
existing
regulations.
H
I've,
looked
at
our
edu
regulations
and
I
think
it
might
be
possible
to
set
it
up
that
way
it
would
have
to
be
very
cleverly
drafted
and
it
would
not
change
any
of
the
requirements
that
exist
under
the
ADA,
a
regulation.
So
all
of
the
requirements
that
apply
to
80
80
80,
you
still
would
still
have
to
be
met.
There
would
still
be
the
size
limitations
that
apply
to
the
ad
you.
H
The
two
units
would
be
tied
together
in
terms
of
occupancy
because
we
look
at
the
occupancy
of
the
entire
lot
at
that
point
in
time.
It
would
still
have
to
be
the
principal
residence
of
an
owner
of
record
of
the
lot
and
it
would
be
subject,
for
example,
to
just
having
single
utility
lines
and
so
forth
and
units
wouldn't
have
their
own
utility
lines.
So
I
don't
know
that
it's
something
that
would
be
attractive
to
be
created
do.
C
H
H
Yeah
I
don't
and
then
there
are
there
restrictions
under
state
law.
With
regard
to
condominium
ization,
you
can't
prohibit
a
property
from
being
coney
minimized
and
you
can't
impose
requirements
on
a
property
that
is
condominium
eyes
that
are
not
applied
to
a
property.
That
is
a
different
form
of
ownership,
so
that
limits
what
the
city
can
do
and
I
think
it's.
It's
mostly
requirements
as
currently
already
exist,
that
that
can
disincentivize
that
kind
of
structure.
B
I
just
have
a
comment
also,
and
maybe
this
will
spur
some
conversation
I'm
reading,
that
email
that
Holly
Rogan
sent
us
on
the
19th
and
under
having
a
few
facts.
The
first
bullet
says
to
turn
a
property
into
condos.
The
property
owner
must
simply
Foreman
HOA
and
file
the
necessary
forms
with
the
assessor's
office.
It
costs
about
twenty
thousand
dollars
to
do
so,
and
you
know
what
I
don't
think
that
I
don't
know
where
you
get
the
number
twenty
thousand,
but
also
don't
know
this
is
making.
B
It
seem
a
little
easy
because
you
have
to
file
a
condo
map.
You
actually
have
to
have
a
survey
that
creates
different
ownership
parcels
and
that
certainly
doesn't
just
get
filed
with
the
Assessor
and
the
city
has
to
approve
or
deny
that
condo
map.
So
you
know
I
think
we'd
probably
want
a
little
bit
more
information
than
what
we've
gotten
might.
J
C
Don't
think
this
is
something
we'll
decide
now
I
think
we
can
talk
about
it
or
mom
ourselves
in
the
discussion
section,
but
I
think
staffs
input
is
very
interesting
and
useful
here
so
and
I
I
do
see
that
it's
desirable
to
consider
this
before
we're
faced
with
the
actual
issue,
rather
than
waiting
waiting
for
someone
to
to
do
it,
and
then
we
have
to
figure
out
how
we
respond.
I
also.
B
H
B
H
Examples
that
were
attached
to
the
emails
they
were
acceptable
requirements
for
for
condominiums
I
mean
if
it
was
required
here
and
probably
what
we
would
have
to
be
required
and
and
all
of
the
other
circumstances
as
well.
The
creation
of
townhomes
and
condos
and
in
multifamily
dwellings
and
so
forth,
and
the
city
does
have
no
involvement
in
that.
At
this
point
in
time,
yeah
I'm.
A
A
Pack,
the
front
row,
and
so
you
guys
all
probably
know
the
routines
or
since
you
heard
before,
but
you
had
three
minutes,
the
green
light
means
go,
yellow
means
you're
almost
out
of
time
and
red
means
you
should
stop
talking.
So
first
one
up
is
Rob
Ross
and
we
got
David
David,
Adamson
and
Claudia
Hanson
theme.
R
R
Matic,
my
name
is
Rob
Ross
a
little
bit:
2605
Mapleton,
Avenue
I'm,
an
architect,
and
one
of
the
owners
at
trad
design-build
here
in
Boulder
and
I,
wanted
to
discuss
the
subjective
language
related
to
architectural
design
for
detail
detached
a
to
use
which
states
architectural
design
shall
be
consistent
with
the
existing
residents
on
the
site
or
adjacent
buildings
along
the
side,
yard
or
side.
Loddon.
R
I'm
aware
that
this
has
been
in
the
ATU
code
for
years,
though,
given
the
review
now
seems
like
a
good
time
to
have
the
language
removed,
I've
spoken
with
a
number
of
other
architects
I've
had
clients
that
were
unaware
of
this
architectural
design
requirement.
They
also
felt
the
language
was
subjective
and
should
be
removed.
Neither
accessory
nor
principle.
Buildings
have
architectural
design
limitations
like
this.
For
the
most
part,
remaining
design
standard
language
that
applies
to
ad
use
is
more
consistent
with
the
zoning
code
form
bulk
standards.
R
Although
these
other
design
standards
do
create
limitations,
they
can
be
applied
fairly
universally
and
are
not
subjective.
As
for
a
tu
architecture,
fitting
with
the
principle,
buildings
and
neighboring
structures,
we
should
think
about
the
character
of
the
existing
housing
stock
or
how
new
remodels
in
those
areas
are
changing,
neighborhood
character
and
how
that
will
influence
the
design
for
split-level
homes
with
11-inch,
citing
her
brick
ranches.
R
The
alleys
have
always
been
a
place
for
beautiful
and
experimental
architecture.
When
we
build
small,
it
often
frees
up
resources
or
opportunities
to
do
something
different.
Something
unique,
so
I
request
that
the
reference
to
architectural
design
be
struck
from
this
ordinance.
It
has
no
place
in
the
regulation
of
our
backyards.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
S
Good
evening
David
Adamson,
8:15,
North,
Street
and
I'm,
the
executive
director
of
Goose
Creek,
Community,
Land,
Trust
and
I'm.
The
other
expert,
co-op,
housing
organization
and
I
would,
despite
their
great
intelligence
and
wisdom,
I'd
like
to
oppose
the
staff
recommendation.
I've
been
very
involved
in
helping
do
develop
more
co-ops.
We've
had
little
traction
in
this
much
debated
subject
and
the
barriers
to
developing
coops
are
already
considerable
and
we're
not
talking
about
occupancy.
There's
no
occupancy
impact
of
allowing
an
Adu
in
a
coop,
but
I
can
tell
and
I
can't
understand.
S
S
You
know
that
extra
kitchen
that
extra
living
space-
maybe
that's
right
for
a
family
they're
part
of
the
coop,
but
they
need
a
little
extra
privacy
at
times
and
or
for
older
couple
or
whatever
the
ability
for
coop
of
any
type.
A
private
equity,
car,
rental,
co-op
or
low-income
car
to
have
an
Adu
is
an
important
element
of
flexibility
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
in
this
town
is
get
on
board.
With
dealing
with
the
real
crisis,
we
have
with
income
inequality
and
what
housing.
S
S
Made
a
point
there
that
the
coop
should
be
able
to
be
have
within
an
attached
structure
that
a
tea
you
should
be
able
to
be
of
any
size
again.
That's
just
an
element
of
flexibility.
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
deal
with
that
tonight,
but
it
doesn't
really
matter.
The
occupancy
is
going
to
be
the
same
and
it's
a
part
of
the
over-regulation
that
we
have
in
this
town
that
that
frustrates
the
kind
of
flexibility
that's
needed
when
groups
are
coming
together
and
try
to
accommodate
a
structure
to
their
needs.
S
Finally,
I
just
like
to
similarly
just
make
the
point
about
the
roof
pitch
issue.
You
know
this
is
over-regulation.
I
have
a
modern
house
myself
and
the
existing
accessory
unit.
It
has
a
pitched
roof,
but
I
want
to
make
it
a
flat
roof.
So
you
know,
let's
reduce
the
regulation
of
people
trying
to
create
diverse
living
situations.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
T
So
the
staff
memo
suggests
that
co-locating,
coops
and
8e
use
would
quote
likely
generate
additional
impacts
to
neighborhoods
that
were
not
intended
and,
to
be
honest,
we're
not
sure
what
those
impacts
could
be.
Indeed,
we
don't
think
there's
anything
about
allowing
an
Adu
on
a
property
that
necessarily
overrides
elements
of
the
coop
ordinance
that
were
put
in
place
to
safeguard
nearby
neighbors
co-op.
Occupancy
limits
are
set
at
12.
Persons
in
low-density,
residential
zones
and
staff
may
have
other
interpretations,
but
we
see
no
reason
that
adding
an
ad
you
would
change
this
limit.
T
It
would
simply
change
how
people
are
distributed
on
an
existing
lot.
The
co-op
ordinance
also
mandates
strict
limits
on
resident
parking,
regardless
of
size.
Coops
must
limit
on
street
parking
to
three
cars,
and
again
this
requirement
would
not
change
with
the
presence
of
an
Adu.
We
know
that
occupancy
limits
and
parking
are
major
concerns
in
the
community,
but
we
simply
don't
see
how
combining
coops
and
ad
use
would
change
these
impacts.
Meanwhile,
we
think
there
are
good
reasons
to
allow
these
two
types
of
housing
together.
David
spoke
to
some
of
them.
T
First
doing
so,
wouldn't
expand
the
number
of
properties
available
for
community
living.
Only
a
small
fraction
of
existing
brother
homes
are
suitable
for
co-op
occupation,
so
including
homes
with
a
to
use
preserves
flexibility
for
people
trying
to
organize
them.
A
second
benefit
of
co-op
Eneida.
You
combinations-
and
this
is
one
that
I
personally
find
the
most
compelling
is
that
semi-private
living
actually
opens
up
shared
housing
to
a
broader
cross-section
of
our
community.
T
Currently,
living
in
a
co-op
house
requires
an
intense
commitment
to
sharing
space,
and
this
typically
attracts
young
adults,
single
people
and
others
who
are
comfortable
in
group
settings.
But
the
economic
and
social
benefits
of
community
living
are
also
attractive
to
families
with
children
or
their
adults,
and
people
who
simply
desire
more
privacy
in
their
day
to
day
lives
and
ad
use,
provide
this
option
for
them
with
both
the
coop
and
ADA
ordinances.
T
Boulder
sought
to
increase
the
availability
of
affordable
and
environmentally
friendly
housing
types
in
the
city,
and
for
our
part,
we
can
say
that
housing
cooperatives
already
provide
exceptional
benefit
for
this
community.
They
disproportionately
serve
low-income
workers.
They
have
small
per-capita
environmental
footprints,
so
allowing
for
their
pairing
with
ad
use
will
make
them
easier
to
create
and
more
accessible
and
attractive
to
more
members
of
our
community.
Thank
you.
O
Good
evening,
Lincoln
Miller
bolter
housing
coalition,
also
boulder
resident
so
I
also
am
staff
for
an
organization
that
is
quote
an
expert
cooperative
housing
organization
or
echo
under
the
new
cooperative
housing
ordinance.
So
we
have
reviewed
and
looked
at
all
of
the
applicants
that
have
received
a
license
under
the
new
cooperative
housing
ordinance
and.
O
We're
we're
just
not
seeing
the
things
that
were
described
additional
impacts,
we're
not
seeing
any
ad
use
and
co-ops
coming
together
so
far
in
any
of
the
applications,
so
there
doesn't
appear
to
be
an
existing
problem
with
AD
use
in
coops,
but
what
I
can
tell
you,
as
the
Boulder
Housing
Coalition
staff
person,
is
that
we
have
a
property
chrysalis,
that's
been
around
since
the
90s.
It
has
a
detached
cottage,
it's
a
four-plex
grandfather
and
in
four-plex
with
16
occupants.
O
It
doesn't
use
the
co-op
board
and
it's
or
the
ATU
ordinance,
but
it
has
an
effective
ad
U
building
that
has
been
used
to
support
low
income
families
and
single
parents
for
more
than
two
decades
folks
have
lived
in
that
building
and
been
part
of
the
community,
and
it's
worked
for
small
families.
There's
a
single
parent
living
in
there
right
now.
In
addition,
at
the
Ostara
cooperative,
what
we've
seen
is
well,
let
me
describe
that
building
real
quick.
O
It's
got
eight
units,
six
of
which
is
a
rooming
house,
two
of
which
are
retained
as
attached
to
bedroom
units.
Those
units
are
functioning
like
ad
use
and
co-ops
good
together,
and
they
have
two
single-parent
families,
with
five
children
in
them,
and
very
affordable
and
they've,
been
in
existence
for
20
since
2013.
So
what
we
see
in
the
real
world
of
coop
development
is
functional,
ad
use
and
co-ops
working
out
together,
very
well
so
I'd
like
you
to
consider
allowing
co-ops
and
a
to
use
to
be
together,
I
mean
and
I
guess.
O
The
final
thing
that
I
want
to
say
is
every
time
we
work
to
make
things
more
restrictive.
We
limit
our
choices
and
what
that
does
is
it
puts
upward
pressure
on
every
square
inch
of
land
in
all
the
single-family
homes,
and
it
increases
the
odds
that
every
one
of
those
homes
is
going
to
be
scraped
and
the
biggest
mansion
that
can
be
built
is
going
to
be
built.
We
need
to
be
more
flexible
and
more
nimble,
not
more
restrictive.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration.
Thanks.
U
There
I'm
Alena
Wilson.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
This
evening,
I
live
at
748,
10th
Street,
which
is
the
pickle
brick
co-op
I've,
been
at
pickle,
brick
for
two
and
a
half
years
and
I
previously
spent
five
years
living
at
the
chrysalis
co-op,
which
Lincoln
mentioned,
is
part
of
the
Boulder
Housing
Coalition
I'm,
here
to
just
convey
a
little
bit
of
what
that
personal
experience
was
like
living
in
a
house
chrysalis
which
had
both
the
cottage-like
edu
space
that
Lincoln
described
and
also
a
basement
unit
that
was
sort
of
functioned
as
a
separate
apartment.
U
The
second
single
mom
that
I
lived
with
was
a
teacher
and
lived
at
the
co-op
in
the
apartment
to
have
her
own
space.
Her
in
the
cottage
have
her
own
space,
but
also
to
have
the
built-in
child
care
that
came
with
having
14
other
adult
roommates.
So
that
combination
was
really
beautiful
and
really
functional
for
people
who,
like
a
typical
or
like
I'm
there
until
carpet,
I
mean
now
wouldn't
work
for,
and
so
I
just
I
really
strongly
encourage
you
to
consider
continuing
to
allow
that
for
future
colder.
U
And
the
other
thing
that
I
just
want
to
reiterate
is
that
coops
are
awesome,
like
they're,
a
really
really
amazing
form
of
housing
they're
how
I've
afforded
to
stay
in
Boulder
and
live
where
I
work.
They
provide
built-in,
like
community
and
social
structure
and
responsibilities
that
are
distributed
equitably
across
everybody,
sharing
the
home
space
and.
U
We
use
a
fraction
of
the
energy
water,
natural
gas
resources
that
other
households
use
on
a
per
capita
basis,
so
they're
directly
in
line
with
all
of
the
sustainability
goals
that
we
have
as
a
city
and
the
best
part
is
that
I'm
gonna
go
home
at
7:30
and
dinner
is
gonna,
be
on
the
table.
I
didn't
have
to
cook
it
and
I'm
not
gonna
have
to
clean
up
after
it,
because
my
cooking
shift
is
not
until
Sunday
and
if
you
anybody
want
everyone's
to
come,
have
dinner
with
us.
K
V
Amy
Haywood
2075
upland,
Avenue
I
was
just
gonna,
read
the
action
list
written
in
the
2019
draft
for
amending
the
land
use
code
and
it
stresses
simplifying
current
regulations,
modifying
the
saturation
requirement
to
increase
it,
providing
flexibility
and
limits
to
unit
size,
removing
and
modifying
the
parking
requirement
and
exploring
location,
specific
implementation
in
our
neighborhood.
It's
a
combination
of
old
ranches
and
square
block,
new
kind
of
cement,
modern
construction.
So
often
throughout
Boulder.
V
You
do
not
see
architectural
uniformity,
so
I
think
trying
to
imply
ad
use
is
just
not
practical
because
there
isn't
existing
uniformity
as
it
as
it
now
exists.
I
think
that
I
don't
know
how
you
decide
if
you
don't
have
a
code,
but
there
aren't
that
many
ad
use
getting
constructed,
and
so,
if
you
had
a
board
that
went
and
helped
design
codes
that
would
be
appropriate
to
a
certain
neighborhood
or
to
an
ad
you
that
wants
to
be
constructed
that
maybe
you
could
help
inform
some
design
aspects
that
a
homeowner
could
implement
I.
V
Don't
think
it
would
require
that
much
time
or
staff
to
do
that.
I
think
just
in
general-
and
it's
for
my
own
benefit
also
that
I
would
legalize
all
preexisting
ad
use
that
are
illegal,
because
I
think
we
are
providing
an
amazing
low
income
housing
source
for
the
city,
which
is
really
important
and
I.
Think
ultimately,
we
need
to
instead
of
discouraging
shared
spaces,
encourage
shared
spaces.
Sharing
resources
is
very
important
to
combating
global
warming
and
also
loneliness.
V
That
is
one
of
the
greatest
suicide
factor
or
factors
in
suicide
and
I
think
that
when
people
live
in
community,
people
are
watching
out
for
them
and
helping
each
other,
and
it's
it's
really
important,
and
the
alternative
is
already
by
right
that
you
can
build
a
6,000
square
foot
home
that
the
large
big
developers
are
getting
everything
they
want,
but
the
alternatives
are
not
provided
for
other
people
in
Boulder.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
W
There
have
been
a
lot
of
huge
houses
go
up
and
then,
when
the
people
leave
Boulder,
then
it's
hard
to
get
three
people
who
can
afford
to
actually
pay
the
rent
on
those
huge
places.
So
we
have
empty
space.
I
think
we
should
increase
the
number
from
three
unrelated
people
to
something
that
is
more
like
a
ratio
of
the
rooms
available
or
the
square
footage
available,
so
that
we
don't
have
so
much
empty
space
that
people
can't
afford
to
use.
W
You
know
I,
think
you
know
not.
Everybody
is
a
college
student,
so
it
doesn't
really
apply
to
the
problem
on
the
hill.
You
know
they're,
like
places
in
North
Boulder.
You
know
huge
mansions
on
upland
that
are
sometimes
empty,
so
I
think
reducing
the
regulations
for
to
encourage
diverse
living
situations
is
a
smart
thing
to
address
all
these
problems.
I
mentioned
before
I
agree
with
allowing
coops
to
have
a
tea
use
everything
they
said.
I
just
want
to
second
the
motion.
Third,
it.
Fourth,
it
I
grew
up
in
a
coop.
W
You
know
I'm
60
years
old
and
my
dad
was
a
minister.
My
mom
was
a
sunday-school
manager,
you
know,
I
mean
Christian
education,
so
I
mean
it's.
He
was
a
seminary
professor
and
it
was
like
you
know:
it's
not
just
hippies,
you
know,
and
he
was
so
okay,
let's
see
encourage
them
in
existing
houses.
Let's
see
said
all
that,
yes
and
then
I
think
it's
really
important
I'm
a
conservationist
to
conserve
resources,
instead
of
using
all
of
these
natural
resources
to
build
more
places.
If
we
have
all
these
empty
places,
you
know
it's
like.
W
F
Lynd
seagull
mountain
heist,
I
just
realized
when
I
saw
your
pitches
all
this
time,
that
I
thought
I
could
have
an
Adu
when
I've
had
17
people
at
my
house
at
one
time
until
until
the
city
regulations
came
down
on
me,
no
complaints,
seven
years,
you
know
on
the
edge
of
Mapleton
Hill
17
people,
no
problem,
okay,
would
be
a
problem.
Probably
if
every
house
wanted
to
do
that,
you
know,
but
just
saying
you
know
the
persons
responsible,
the
roof
pitch
I
thought
on
my
outbuilding
was
apparently
it's
it's
a
look.
It's
a
fork.
F
F
You
know
it's
got
16,000
square
feet
for
three
people
like
she
said
what's
wrong
with
this
picture,
you
know,
like
so,
and
I
mean
marpa
house
I
recommended
to
Robbie's
group
here,
the
landmarks
that
should
be
land
marked
as
the
culture
that
it
was
40
years
on
the
hill
40
people
completely
efficient
use
of
the
space.
You
look
in
a
hundred
years
from
now
and
you're
gonna
see
ratios
of
how
many
people
to
a
kitchen
and
how
many
people
to
a
bathroom.
You
know
the
balsam.
F
Now
four
bedrooms,
four
bathrooms:
what
do
people
do
all
day
sit
in
their
bathroom
all
day?
Unbelievable
unbelievable,
you
know,
can
do
it,
you
know,
but
they
need
constraints
and
they
need
impacts,
because
in
that
twenty
bathrooms
in
the
same
plot
of
land
as
I
have
two
and
a
half
bathrooms.
You
know
that's
a
lot
of
friggin
infrastructure.
Isn't
it
you
know
so,
like
other
folks
have
said,
I
mean
I'm,
not
telling
you
anything
new
here,
it's
like
so
obvious,
but
the
kibbutz
I
guess
they
aren't
happening
in
Israel
anymore,
I.
Don't
know
why?
F
Because
marpe
house
is
great
the
culture
in
you
know
now:
that's
gonna,
be
a
frat
house
right
and
look
at
how
the
speculation
happened
when
there
started
with
three
million
bucks.
The
neighborhood
went
in
for
point
two,
but
there
was
a
balloon
payment
and
John
Cobb
with
Shambala,
with
all
the
costs
from
the
sex
scandal
he
had
to
put
in
for
four
point:
nine
look
at
that
speculation:
three
million
to
four
point:
nine.
F
X
Hi
Kurt
Nord
back
777
Dell.
What
Avenue
I
happened
to
be
the
treasurer
of
the
Boulder
Housing
Coalition,
but
I'm
speaking
tonight.
Just
for
myself,
as
the
people
have
said,
it
seems
like
well
I'm
talking
about
the
combination
of
coops
and
ad
use,
and
it
seems
like
the
proposed
restriction
seems
intended
to
mitigate
harms
that
are
imaginary,
but
will
cause
harms
that
are
real.
The
occupancy
limits
and
parking
restrictions
are
unchanged
by
the
existence
of
an
Adu,
but
prohibiting
an
ad.
X
You
further
restricts
property
options
for
coops
and
reduces
the
flexibility
of
living
arrangements,
so
I
would
request
I
think
it
makes
all
the
sense
in
the
world
to
clarify
the
ordinance
and
so
I
would
request
that
you
recommend
some
language
to
the
effect
that
a
property
with
a
co-op
license
is
allowed
to
have
any
to
you
with
occupancy
limits
and
parking
requirements,
as
determined
by
the
normal
co-op
rules.
So
I'd
encourage
you
to
include
verbage
to
that
to
that
effect.
Thank
you.
Thanks.
A
C
On
this
issue,
I'll
have
more
comments
with
other
ones,
but
on
this
one
I
wonder
why
we
need
to
have
the
the
roof
pitch
requirement
when
we
already
when,
at
the
same
time,
we
are
having
the
architectural
design
standard
character,
which
would
seem
to
me
to
deal
with
the
roof
pitch
concerns,
at
least
from
an
aesthetic
point
of
view,
is
I.
Understand
that.
Q
Correct
both
of
those
are
current
requirements
of
the
code,
so
for
a
new
structure
they
would
be
wired
to
build
eight
to
twelve
roof
pitch.
They
were
23
degrade
er
and
we
have
an
architectural
design
consistent
with
the
residents
of
the
site.
So
this
is
proposed.
Code
change
is
geared
toward
removing
a
barrier
to
existing
accessories.
Q
Accessory
structures
are
trying
to
convert,
but
their
existing
roof
pitch
can't
meet
that
requirement
and
so
may
be
a
cost
prohibitive
to
change
a
roof
form
or
renovate
the
architectural
style
to
match
the
house
and
so
an
effort
to
encourage
more
potential
conversions
to
detached
a
to
use.
We're
proposing
a
modification
process
to
help
alleviate
that,
but
those
two
design
criteria
roof
pitch
and
this
design
would
still
be
in
place
for
new
construction.
Q
P
Think
one
thing
to
point
out
is
these
requirements
I
believe
go
all
the
way
back
to
when
the
Adu
regs
were
originally
implemented,
which
I
think
is
in
the
90s,
and
one
thing
to
point
out
is
accessory
structures
are
limited
to
20
feet
in
height,
so
I
think.
When
doing
these
regulations,
they
were
trying
to
create
like
a
carriage
house
that
would
be
in
the
backyard
like
that
would
have
a
gable
roof
pitch,
so
it
actually
allows
up
to
25
feet,
which
is
over
a
typical
accessory
structure.
A
The
first
time
we
went
through
this,
and
also
just
because
it's
been
in
the
code
for
a
long
time,
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
is
good
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
examples
in
the
code
that
are
historic
and
really
pretty
poorly
thought-out,
which
is
why
we're
taking
good
doing
kiddo
good
code
updates.
So
for
me,
I
think
you
know
even
the
federal
historic
district
design
guidelines
don't
require
compatibility
in
this
kind
of
sense,
where
you
would
be
matching
materials
matching
roof
forms.
A
It's
actually
a
super
antiquated
way
of
thinking
about
compatibility,
its
conformity,
not
complement
a
complimentary
design,
and
so
I
totally
agree
with
Rob.
What
you
said
that
the
alleys
are
a
place
where
you
actually
do
get
some
kind
of
interesting,
looser
things
happening,
and
if
the
alley
doesn't
match
this
street,
if
you
were
to
walk
around
the
entire
thing,
I,
don't
think
you
experienced
a
personal
affront
when
you
do
that,
you've
walked,
you
know,
150
feet,
80
feet
and
a
hundred
and
twenty
feet,
and
you
go.
Oh
my
god.
A
B
B
N
So
I,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
putting
up
a
picture
of
what
the
roof
pitches
looked
like,
because
I
I
was
actually
almost
going
to
send
an
email
out
to
ask
for
that.
So
thank
you
for
doing
that,
because
that
helped
you
visualize,
what's
going
on
I
wanted
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what's
being
said.
These
are.
This
is
a
very
minor
update.
That's
meant
to
help
ease
the
situation
for
existing
legal
ad
use
and
so
well.
I
would.
N
Welcome
the
idea
to
maybe
make
a
statement
on
whether
additional
loosening
or
you
know
whether
we
should
examine
the
architectural
standards.
I
don't
want
to
lose
the
opportunity
also
to
support
what
you
know.
This
changes
as
well,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
to
voice
support
for
this
change,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
whether
we
might
want
to
recommend
something
additional.
It
seems
to
me
that
that
I
don't
know
if
people
are
thinking
that
would
go
into
this
ordinance,
or
maybe
a
few
Jordan
ins,
so
I
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out.
A
To
clarify
before
I
calling
you
Lupita
and
then
Peter,
we
might
suggestion
actually
be
to
get
rid
of
the
DAT
you
artificial
design
standards
and
but
keep
the
ability
to
increase
the
high
limit
to
get
a
gable
roof.
That's
steeper
because
I
think
that's
a
pretty
effective
way
of
trying
to
encourage
that
reform
which
people
seem
to
like.
Sometimes.
A
M
I
think
of
the
pitched
roof
and
I
really
wouldn't
wasn't
thinking
about
how
pretty
looks
I
was
really
thinking
about
snow
loads.
As
an
engineer,
I
was
thinking.
These
probably
was
the
sign
to
make
sure
that
they
can
withstand
the
weight
of
the
load
of
the
snow
that
may
be
collected
in
this
part
of
the
of
the
country.
M
So
it
seems
that
that
might
not
be
the
case,
but
I
would
like
to
make
sure
because
to
me
this
things
should
not
be
arbitrary,
and
even
if
it,
though,
is
being
kind
of
assumed
that
it
is
arbitrary,
I
would
like
to
at
least
have
a
reassurance.
So
there's
no
engineering
design
behind
this
that
we
just
disregarding
just
because
we
don't
understand
it.
So
that's
will
be
my
tool,
part
I,.
A
Can
provide
a
little
clarity
on
that.
Myself
is
because
we
do
a
lot
of
snow
country,
design
on
buildings
and
current
snow
ecology
is
that
you
actually
try
to
hold
the
snow
on
the
roof
as
opposed
to
shutting
it.
There's
whole
systems
out
there
of
you,
know
snow
ladders
and
snow
cleats
to
try
to
keep
the
snow
on
the
roof.
So
actually
that's
the
sexually,
the
opposite
and
snowy
climates.
N
O
C
I
may
not
have
been
I,
don't
think.
I
stated
my
opinion
on
that.
I
think
that
the
when
I
asked
how
the
architectural
design
standard
is
is
used
because
there's
no
objective
basis.
It
depends
on
the
judgement
of
staff,
frankly,
I'm
willing
to
live
with
that
I
have
faith
in
staffs
ability
to
encourage
an
applicant
to
to
do
to
prevent
it
from
being
outstandingly
ugly,
which
is
which
is.
A
C
A
Think
I
mean
I'm
not
trying
to
get
into
too
much
of
a
debate
with
you
and
I
think
just
advancing
the
conversation.
I,
don't
really
feel
like
the
it's,
not
a
question
of
not
trusting.
Staff
I
actually
think
that
that's
a
pretty
reasonable
thing
to
be
putting
into
our
code
a
staff
to
address
stuff
like
that,
but
I
think
we're
just
setting
them
on
the
wrong
track.
A
By
saying
that
the
Adu
needs
to
match
the
house,
because
the
house
next
door
doesn't
match
the
house
and
stole
the
streetscapes
okay
and
that
the
I'm
super
familiar
with
these
design
standards
and
they
they
typically
Drive
you
towards
trying
to
match
siding
or
color
or
window
patterning
roof
pitch
stuff
like
that.
But
in
actuality.
If
you
go
through
a
lot
of
the
alleys
in
town,
you'll
have
a
Victorian,
brick
house
at
the
front
and
then
a
flat
roofed,
like
one
slope,
shed
style
carriage
house
in
the
back
or
garage
in
the
back.
M
G
R
B
Don't
know
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
problem,
my
my
personal,
architectural
taste
site,
I,
live
in
a
mid-century.
Modern
would
be
a
charitable
way
to
describe
the
stick
felt
houses
in
my
neighborhood,
but
some
of
the
new,
the
new
sheds
that
people
are
building
that
aren't
a
to
use
and
don't
have
to
go
through
the
this
design
exercise.
Are
you
know,
stucco
there
you
know
slabby
shed
roof,
really,
interestingly,
fenestrated
structures
that
look
awesome
and
and
add
to
the
a
lawn
of
a
neighborhood
that
severely
lacks
a
lot.
J
B
A
Q
Existing
you
know
current
regulation
I
think
we
were
taking
the
more
incremental
approach
to
changes.
I
think
a
larger
change
to
this
section
we
were
envision
is
more
of
a
broader
policy
discussion
with
a
more
in-depth
project
in
the
coming
year.
So
I
think
we
were
changed
to
take
an
incremental
approach
to
kind
of
tweak
the
rules
to
help
make
the
process
easier
for
some
of
the
cases
and
applicants.
Pre
applicants
we've
seen
coming
in
I
appreciate.
J
N
N
Quite
a
while
ago,
yeah
so
I
think
you
know
I
think
the
question
I
mean
it
sounds
to
me
like
at
least
we
support
one
in
two
I
haven't
heard
any
dissension
on
that,
and
then
we
just
have
to
ask
ourselves
whether
we
would
want
to
try
to
venture
into
the
territory
of
expanding
the
scope
of
this
ordinance
or
just
call
it
out
as
something
to
look
at
for
the
future.
Does
that
make
sense.
O
A
K
A
Up
to
you,
yeah
for
sure
I
mean
the
the
way
I
would
approach.
This
is
that
I
am
I
would
actually
just
suggest
that
we
either
I.
Guess
if
there's,
if
there's
broad
support,
I
would
there's
a
part
of
this
ordinance
change
be
comfortable
suggesting
because
it's
a
recommendation
to
City
Council
about
making
a
final
decision
anywhere
here
to
go
ahead
and
omit
the
DAT.
K
A
I
respect
we,
both
you
and
David,
have
said
about
like
sort
of
this-
is
a
little
bit
outside
of
the
guardrails
at
what
some
staff
is
raised
to
us
right
now.
So
I
guess
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
at
the
end
of
this,
after
we've
completed
this
I'm
gonna
make
a
motion
to
recommend
the
City
Council
that
they
either
do
away
the
ad
you
or
they
modernize
it
right.
Something
to
that
effect,
and
hopefully
we
look
more
a
little
more
eloquent
than
that
Peter.
Do
you
in
him
I.
Y
A
Let
me,
let's
us
staff
that
process
question
then.
So,
if
we
were
to
recommend
to
City
Council
that
they
either,
you
know
modernize
the
de
orchestral
design
standards
or
get
rid
of
them
completely,
could
you
guys
prepare
enough
for
them
to
be
able
to
act
on
that
when
they
see
this
either
as
a
part
of
this
item
or
as
a
part
of
a
different
update,
I
mean.
P
If
we're
talking
about
modernizing
topic,
number
two
I
I
kind
of
like
well,
one
of
you
said
regarding
being
a
little
bit
more
specific
about
what
we're
actually
looking
at
in
terms
of
architecture
and
how
it
matches
the
building.
So
I
think
that's
something
that
we
could
prepare
for.
Council
I
was
looking
at
materiality
color
form
fenestration.
You
know
we
could
add
a
sentence
that
relates
to
those.
But
again
we
did
we'd
have
to
get
clarification
about
whether
that
would
apply
to
existing
buildings
or
new
construction
and
yeah.
A
Landmarks
board
and
landmark
staff
already
used
the
Secretary
of
Secretary
of
the
interiors
standards
for
this
stuff
and
it's
super
clear
and
how
you
don't
mimic
something
that
was
built
in
the
past,
and
it
is
completely
archaic
to
suggest
that
you
would
do
that,
and
this
is
the
only
place
in
our
code
or
we
do
that.
We
don't
do
it
with
historic
structures.
We
don't
do
it
next
to
historic
structures.
We
don't
do
it
in
historic
neighborhoods.
So
why
on
earth
would
you
say
you
know
Harmons,
sixties
Ranch
has
got
to
have
a
Adu
behind.
A
C
A
But
just
just
to
be
super
clear,
I
have
actually
designed
ad
use
in
this
town
and
been
through
this
process
as
an
applicant
and
I
can
tell
you
for
a
fact,
having
spoken
to
these
guys
regularly
about
it
over
the
years
that
typically,
what
it
drives
you
towards
is
matching
sighting
matching
color
the
same
things
that
they
just
said
in
this
presentation.
So
while
they
do
have
some
latitude
in
in
making
the
determination
they
are
following
a
guideline
that
lends
towards
mashing
not
a
guideline
that
lends
towards
compatibility.
A
M
Actually,
I
was
thinking
about
this.
In
terms
of
you
know,
if
we
look
at
different
parameters
like
dimension
color
in
materials.
In
my
mind,
I
was
thinking,
I
mean
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
you
can
do
trying
to
make
things
complement.
So
in
my
mind,
I
was
pitching.
You
know
maybe
different
architecture,
but
similar
color
or
different
architecture,
but
similar
texture.
M
There
are
different
ways
that
you
can
make
things
beautiful,
that
don't
have
to
be
a
mini-me
of
what
you
already
have,
whether
it's
beautiful,
not
so
I
think
flexibility
could
be
in
the
in
the
sense
of
that
allowing
you
know
to
have
your
parameters
on
the
audience
talking.
You
know
like
the
different
options
and
then,
when
they're,
looking
at
those
things
that
there
is
a
minimum
that
can
be
I,
don't
necessarily
require,
but
there's
something
that
there
is
latitude
so
that
people
have
some
guidelines
or
you
know
some
guidance,
but
not
necessarily.
M
B
B
There's
a
you
know,
piece
about
materiality
and
there's
a
piece
about
fenestration
you
know
all
there
is
is
there's
the
height
piece
and
there's
the
architectural
design
piece,
two
things
in
the
entire
code
and
what
it
used
to
say
or
what
it
says
now
sorry
is
architectural
design
shall
be
consistent
with
the
existing
residence
on
the
site
or
the
adjacent
buildings
along
the
side.
Yards
of
the
lot
what's
proposed
is
to
add
the
words
of
new
concealing,
constructed
accessory
structures.
N
B
Just
take
that
sentence
out
just
one
sense
that
was
so
we're
not
talking
about
you
know
getting
rid
of
some
well-thought-out
set
of
architectural
review
standards.
We're
talking
about
getting
rid
of
one
sense.
Alternatively,
and
I
really
am
inspired
by
Lupita
here
when
we
look
at
how
does
staff
react
when
you
know
they
have
a
discretionary
decision
to
make?
Well,
they
should
go
back
to
the
code
and
see
what
kind
of
guidance
the
code
gives
them
and
what
the
code
says
is.
B
B
J
G
J
I
think
I
think
your
idea
is
interesting
and
the
challenge
of
ambiguity
is
important
to
count
to
include
in
this
conversation
and
I'll.
Come
back
to
what
I
said
before
I
I
appreciate
the
conversation
about.
Maybe
we
should
just
get
rid
of
two
or
but
I.
Think
it's
an
it's
a
step.
We
can
take
that
then,
and
then
we
can
open
it
up
for
a
longer
conversation
where
we
can
take
into
account
what
might
be
an
alternative
standard
set
of
standards
that
could
apply.
That
would
eliminate
ambiguity
but
also
allow
for
flexibility.
J
H
B
Mean
I'm,
gonna
say
right
now.
My
my
perspective
is
that
the
sheds
in
my
neighborhood
are
basically
the
best
buildings
in
my
neighborhood
and
they're,
not
they're,
not
subject
to
this
conformity
standard.
So
I
think
you
remove
paragraph
C
and
just
do
it
now.
You
know
we're
here
we're
the
Planning
Board
we're
making
a
recommendation
to
Council.
It's
yeah.
You
know
if
you,
if
you're
in
favor
of
an
incremental
approach,
you
know
we'll
wait
until
it
comes
back
I'm
personally,
not
that's
where
I'm
gonna
vote,
I.
N
Want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
torpedoed
what
is
really
good
here,
which
is
that
we're
removing
da
to
you
from
new
from
existing,
so
I'm
wondering
if
we
could
do
it
as
feels
that
way
as
making
sure
that
we
say
that
we
support
the
proposed
code
change
and
would
recommend
going
one
step
further.
And
that
way
it's
clear
the
City
Council
that
we
do
support
this
and
that
we,
but
that
we,
because
I
do
now
that
you
I
thought.
N
Maybe
there
was
more
to
it,
because
it
wasn't
in
our
packet
really
telling
us
exactly
what
went
into
the
DA
to
you.
But
if
it's
really
just
those
couple
of
sentences,
I
would
get
one
sentence.
Even
I
would
feel
quite
comfortable
making
that
recommendation,
because
I
don't
think
that
there
I
think
that
my
concern
about
harm
is
pretty
much
gone
away.
A
Let
me
see
if
we
can
just
move
ahead
to
the
next
piece
of
this
I
think
what
we
should
do
is
talk
about
this,
as
people
have
a
chance
to
think
about
it
as
we
go
through
the
process.
When
we
have
a
motion
on
the
table,
we
can
figure
out
which
why,
in
the
road
we
want
to
take
so
could
we
get
the
next
Rhonda
item
two
and
three
three
of
our
seventeen,
our
Planning
Board
meetings.
D
A
B
B
In
terms
of
that
limitation-
and
you
know
just
remembering
that
that
that
does
nothing
to
change
the
requirement
for
a
trash
management
plan,
nothing
to
change
the
requirement
for
a
parking
management
plan,
nothing
to
change
the
maximum
of
three
on
street
parking
spaces.
You
know
nothing
to
change
all
the
licensure
requirements,
so
I
that's
my
solution.
My
reason
is
that
I,
like
the
idea
of
creating
the
potential
of
different
kinds
of
housing
units
for
different
types
of
people
and
living
situations
and
I'm
convinced
by
that
argument.
Well,
thanks,
Harmon
I.
N
I
don't
know
if
there
are
any
other
places
where
a
clarification
might
be
needed,
but
yeah
I
would
go
with
not
just
you
know,
prohibiting
the
ADA
use
but
find
out.
Well,
if
you'd
like,
like
Harmon,
said
he,
he
identified
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
that
we
we
need
to
do
if
there
are
other
I.
Just
am
not
convinced
by
the
unintended
consequences,
because
I
haven't
really
heard
any
that
I.
N
J
P
Know
that
we
that
it
came
to
a
conclusion
that
there
was
going
to
be
significant
impact
by
allowing
both
an
Adu
and
a
co-op
on
the
same
property,
I
think
when
I
had
worked
on
a
pre-op
on
this
topic,
I
think
we
felt
that
this
was
something
that
was
not
considered
in
either
the
ATU
regs
or
the
co-op
regs
and
should
be
addressed
somehow.
So
that's
why
we
were
suggesting
that
it
not
be
permitted.
I,
don't
know
that
the
parking
plan
was
thought
out.
P
You
know
with
a
co-op
and
an
ad
you
and
I
think
our
conclusion,
or
our
interpretation
of
the
occupancy
regs
related
to
coops
is
the
same
as
what
we've
been
talking
about
tonight,
that
it
would
still
be
subject
to
that
maximum
12
in
for
a
co-op.
But
that's
not
a
hundred
percent
clear
in
the
code,
so
I
think
what
what
Harmon
had
recommended
as
a
change
to
that
section
is
what
we
would
recommend
if,
if
the
policy
decision
was
to
allow
an
Adu
and
a
co-op
on
the
same
property
and.
J
P
Different
types
of
coops
there's
actually
like
three
definitions
in
title
10
and
some
have
an
ownership
structure
and
some
are
just
rental.
So
if
there
were
to
be
a
circumstance
with
an
Adu
and
a
co-op,
it
would
have
to
be
one
of
those
that
have
an
ownership
structure
and
there'd
have
to
be
at
least
50%
ownership
on
the
property,
because
the
Adu
regs
require
the
owner
to
be
on
the
property,
live
on
the
property
and
then
30.
J
Right
so
it
sounds
like
there's
a
minimal
number
of
potential
coops,
where
this
would
even
apply
I
mean
there's,
there's
eight
coops
now
and
I
think
what
I
heard
from
David
was
that
it's
been
a
challenge
to
find
new
KOA.
A
lot
of
new
coughs
have
not
entered
into
the
system,
and
so
this
solves
a
problem
that
may
not
yet
exist,
but
it
also
further
limits
where
this
could
happen,
so
that
I
help
I
appreciate
that,
let
me
just
clarify
it.
J
P
We'd
have
to
get
information
about
the
coop
and
its
ownership
structure
to
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
owner
is
on
the
site
and
living
on
the
site,
I
think
as
far
as
unintended
consequences.
Again,
we
didn't
see
any
significant
consequences,
but
we
could
see
where
the
current
occupancy
standards,
because
they're
not
a
hundred
percent
clear.
It
could
lead
to
some
interpretations
that
the
ad
you
and
co-op
provisions
apply
making
the
occupancy
greater,
and
that
was
not
something
that
was
anticipated.
So
Harmons.
Y
It's
nothing
it's
a
chance
for
us
to
add
this
language,
which
we
don't
we
shouldn't
even
need
to,
but
we
will
because
it'll
make
people
feel
better,
so
I
agree
with
the
way
that
Harlan
put
it
when
I
jumped
out
saying
no,
yes,
I
was
joking.
Coming
off
your
17
hour
playing
board,
jumping
yes,
but
let's
layer
that
on
and
be
clear.
B
P
Y
J
A
I
think
what
Herman's
trying
to
do
is
it
is
a
good
way
of
kind
of
keeping
us
out
of
doing
that.
So
I,
don't
think
we
want
to
we're
not
trying
to
open
up
a
whole
new
topic
for
this
evening.
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
say
like
if
you
do
want
to
have
a
coop
like
the
ones
that
exist
now
that
have
a
diversity
of
Hattin,
so
go
ahead
and
call
myself,
because
this
is
my
opinion.
This
thing
I'm
super
ultra
passionately
opposed
to
this
thing.
A
Think
there's
nothing
wrong
with
that,
because
the
thing
that
caps,
the
occupancy
of
the
project,
is
still
the
same
and
that's
what
went
to
the
process
that
occupancy
limit
cap
for
cops
is
what
got
flogged
through
the
giant
long
process
and
I'm
not
suggesting
that
we
open
that
up.
I'm
just
saying
we
follow
it
and
let
that
be
the
guiding
principle
and
I
think
Harmons
suggestions
about
how
to
deal
with
us
in
terms
of
language
or
spot
John.
Well,.
C
C
A
I
think
we
can
talk
about
that
tonight.
I
think
you
know.
During
the
Adu
process
there
was
never
a
conversation
around
coops
having
an
Adu,
so
that's
net
that
actually
is
never
simple
at
a
day
until
this
process.
So
now
we're
talking
about
it
a
to
use
the
desire
to
have
people
living
on
site,
mental
people
felt
more
comfortable
with
the
idea
that
things
we've
all
taken.
Care
of
and
it'd
be
a
compatible
use
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood.
So
the
ATU
piece
of
it
I
wouldn't
try
to
peel
that
back
at
all.
A
B
Please
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
you're,
probably
looking
at
this,
but
maybe
the
code
already
provides
for
this,
because
if
you
look
at
in
963
and
the
specific
use
standards
for
the
detached
accessory
dwelling
units,
it
says
an
owner
or
the
owners
of
a
lot
or
a
parcel
with
an
existing
single-family
dwelling
unit,
may
establish
and
maintain
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit.
So
if
the
limiting
factor
is
to
that
an
owner.
B
I
guess
the
the
the
reason
why
we're
having
this
discussion
is
just
to
make
sure
that
there
isn't
a
scenario
where
some
notion
of
collective
ownership
defeats
the
notion
of
owner
occupancy
and
if
owner
occupancy
is
kind
of
narrowly
defined.
As
you
know,
this
single-family
home
owner
can
build
an
a
to
you,
and
now
you
have
this
cop
with
an
order
ship
structure
that's
more
distributed.
H
So
you
can
a
co-op
and
an
ad
you
provided
that
an
owner
who
owns,
for
example,
at
least
a
50%
fee
ownership
interest
in
the
property
and
that's
the
deed,
showing
the
fee.
Simple
ownership
interest
in
that
person,
not
an
LLC,
for
example,
also
has
the
principal
residence
on
the
property,
so
that
doesn't
allow
all
possible
co-op
structures.
H
H
Y
You
have
six
owners
living
there,
so
you
actually
spirit
was
to
make
sure
that
there's
someone
who
cares
someone
who
is
held
accountable
for
the
actions
now
you
know
only
you
have
more
than
one
person
in
a
co-ops
that
situation
you
have
all
of
them,
so
it's
actually
compatible
with
the
spirit
of
the
rule.
The
rule.
M
So
this
sort
of
I
mean
we've
gone
through
a
long
length
of
how
are
we
gonna
make
this
accessible
to
people
and
as
a
who
who
lives
this
way
and
it's
gonna
add
to
the
diversity
of
our
city
or
it's
not,
and
so,
if
there's
any
data
out
there
to
give
me
a
sense
that
this
is
really
gonna.
Help
diverse
people
in
AI,
diverse
I,
don't
mean
somebody
who's,
25
years
old,
but
still
white
in
male
or
a
high-school
student.
M
That
just
decided
not
to
go
to
see
you
or
went
to
see
you
and
came
out,
but
still
the
same
demographics
I
like
to
see.
Are
we
really
gonna
be
providing
legitimate
resources
in
space
to
make
this
community
diverse?
As
we
claim
you
want
to
that's
kind
of
like
what
I'm
sitting
and
just
I
know,
we
tried
very
hard
to
do
the
right
thing
here
and
I
appreciate
it
so
deeply.
But
is
this
gonna
help
us
thank.
U
Say
that
my
experience
is
anecdotal
and
I.
Think
Lincoln
may
have
statistics
that
are
more
quantitative.
I
currently
live
with
housemates,
who
are
immigrants
from
Eritrea,
Iran
and
Switzerland,
who
have
French
citizenship
and
in
the
past,
I've
lived
with
several
Mexican
Americans
with
folks
who
are
either
directly
from
or
first
generation
or
I
guess.
Technically,
second
generation
parents
from
Ghana
Mexico,
the
Philippines
at
least
five
African
Americans
off
the
top
of
my
head.
U
N
Do
we
have
do
we
know
if
there
are
any
coops
that
would
pass
this
owner-occupied
standard
because
it
sound
it
looks
to
me
like
that
would
shut
out
most
of
them,
because,
because
of
the
way
this
is
defined.
So
so
it
seems
to
me
that
that
just
kind
of
already
puts
a
barrier,
so
we'd
be
looking
at
trying
to
fix
that
right
or
am
I
mistaken.
There
are.
There
are
a
lot
of
ones
that
you
could
say
would
fit
that
yeah.
H
A
O
B
A
Nonprofits
are
less
than
citizens,
I
guess
so
I'm,
just
like
so
I
know
like
see
if
I
can
keep
it
together
here.
So
we
have
I
guess.
The
question
that
you
asked
was
how
many
we
would
have
army.
We
do
have
there's
2
out
of
the
8
that
exist.
That
could
have
an
Adu
based
on
this
and
then
the
other
thing
that
Lincoln's
brought
up
was.
Is
there
a
need
to
prohibit
a
nonprofit
that
owns
a
coop
from
having
an
Adu?
I
N
Mean
my
preference
would
be
to
open
up
the
ability
for
ad
use
to
be
placed
in
co-op
situations
for
all
ownership
structures.
I
would
like
to
look
at
that
as
a
baseline,
because
I
just
think
that
it's
so
arbitrary
to
have
the
owner-occupied
rule
apply
to
coops.
So
that's
whatever
I
would
string
cool.
C
C
B
This
is
what
I
think
what
I
would
be
proposing
would
be
to
add
the
six
words
that
I
proposed
to
make
it
clear
that
the
occupancy
requirements
apply
to
the
ATU
and
the
coop
to
to
make
it
explicit
that
coops
can
have
a
to
use
so
as
to
clarify
this
issue,
that
about
owner
occupancy.
That's
turning
everybody's
heads
and
nots,
just
one
line
that
says
coops
can
have
a
to
use
and
then
one
more
line
that
says
coops
that
have
a
to
use
have
to
have
all
of
their
occupants
be
part
of
the
coop.
B
I
J
J
A
B
First
in
9850,
you
would
say
that
all
of
these
dwelling
units
licenses
all
the
cooperatives
and
their
accessory
dwelling
units,
if
any
shall
be
limited
to
so
it
just
applies
to
the
whole
set
of
twelve
in
the
residential
districts
that
are
low
density
and
15
and
the
hired
it.
So
it
just
makes
it
clear
that
an
Adu
and
a
co-op
are
still
limited
to
the
same
dwelling
unit
limits
the
same
number
of
occupants
limits
that
would
be
limited
to
a
dwelling
unit,
the
co-operative
dwelling
unit.
Okay,
so
that's
a
part!
B
One
part
two
is
right:
now
we
have
this
this
problem
with
really
a
more
of
a
legislative
tangle
here,
which
is
that
we
have
this
definition
of
owner
occupancy
that
you
have
to
refer
back
to
to
see
if
you're
allowed
to
have
an
Adu
and
because
that
definition
would
preclude
a
to
use
that
have
distributed
ownership.
You
can
untangle
that
by
just
overriding
you
can
say,
notwithstanding
owner
occupancy
requirements
elsewhere
in
this
code,
a
cooperative
can
have
an
Adu.
So
that's
just
you
know
the
notwithstanding.
K
B
Says
nobody
has
to
think
twice
about
this.
Nobody
has
to
consult
another
section
of
the
code.
It's
just
here.
Ad
use
are
allowed
with
cause,
I
think
it's
Punk
and
then
the
third
piece
would
be
that
all
residents
of
the
coop
and
the
ATU
on
the
you
know
that's
associated
with
the
coop
have
to
be
members
of
the
club.
So.
A
J
Makes
sense
but
I
I
don't
think
it
solves
the
prop
think.
What's
first
half
solves
the
problem,
I
think
the
second
half
it's
a
hard
time,
understanding
how
a
co-op
that
is
made
up
of
individuals
who
are
members.
But
there
are
not
permanent
members,
they're
members
and
there's
going
to
be
some
some
ownership
by
these
members
of
a
new
building.
That's
by
definition,
gonna
cost,
300
or
400
thousand
dollars
to
build
I,
see
that
as
being
a
potassium.
J
Time
bomb
that
would
blow
a
coop
into
smithereens
when
there
starts
to
be
discussions
over
who
owns
what
and
I'm
just
concerned.
I'm
kind
of
concerned
about
that
and
I'm
feel
like
I
mean
I,
don't
want
to
stand
in
the
way
of
progress,
but
it
just
seems
like
sticking
with
the
ownership
requirements
for
I.
Guess
what
we're
calling
the
equity,
the
person,
the
private
equity
or.
J
A
I
can
answer
your
very
familiar
with
how
come
off
work
in
the
ownership.
The
shared
owning
of
things
is
really
at
the
heart
of
how
coops
organize
themselves.
That's
that's.
How
they
function
is
the
elegant
management
of
shared
spaces
and
shared
ownership.
So
there's
a
few
different
ownership
options.
One
is
where
they
could
eat
co-op
and
that's
when
someone
in
the
building
or
some
group
people
most
commonly
a
group
of
people
own
it.
A
So,
let's
say
like
three
people
just
put
their
money
in
together
and
they're
gonna
buy
a
house
and
they're
gonna
turn
to
a
co-op
that
has
nine
people
in
it
and
they
want
to
build
an
Adu
to
fit
somebody
who
otherwise
wouldn't
be
able
to
stay
there,
so
that
wouldn't
be
allowed
in
the
code.
Even
though
they're
people
who
live
on
the
site,
because
no
individual
owns
more
than
50%,
they
own
it
three
ways.
So
there's
no
reason
to
stop
them
from
doing
it.
A
N
Can
I
make
my
point
that
I
wanted
to
make?
So
there
was
a
lot
of
thought
put
in
to
the
co-op
ordinance
with
regard
to
coop
ownership.
That
was
all
very
well
defined
and,
and
it
really
overrides
the
occupied
portion
of
a
to
you,
because
it's
all
there
and
that's
what
you
were
saying.
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
say
it
that
way,
because
to
me
that
this
is
a
simple
way
of
looking
at
it.
All
of
the
ownership
concerns
around
coops
have
already
been
taken
care
of.
So
what
we're
asking
for?
N
It
is
to
then
separate
that
from
specific
owner-occupied
things
that
apply
to
private
homes
that
are
being
used
for
a
to
use.
The
coop
situation
is
very
clear
and
it
already
includes
a
building
with
all
the
yard
and
all
the
things
that
go
with
it.
So
there's
not
going
to
be
that
I
can
see
unless
somebody
can
point
out
something
else.
You
need
any
additional
complexity
with
whether
it's
a
single
building
or
a
single
building,
with
an
A
to
you
or
whatever.
It's
all
pretty
much
the
falls
within
the
umbrella
of
the
coop.
N
M
M
As
long
as
we
have
you
kind
of
like
the
same
limits
now
we're
just
giving
more
flexibility,
potentially
more
choices
in
terms
of
the
kind
of
people
that
can
come
in
there
are
willing
to
live
in
that
space,
especially
now
they
have
more
private
spaces
for
families,
so
I'm
feeling
better,
better
I
appreciate
that
everybody's
willing
to
unpack
it
more
so
I'm.
Thank
you,
including
the
public.
Thank
you.
So
much.
Y
Yeah
I,
just
love
what
we're
getting
at
here
so
I
think
it
really
gets
to
it,
and
it
solves
the
issues
and
I
like
that.
Sarah
brought
up
the
real-world
scenario
of
ownership
and
I
like
that.
You
came
back
with
well,
that's
how
it's
that's
at
the
heart
of
it:
the
structures
so
someone's
gonna
have
the
house
itself.
They're
gonna
deal
with
and
the
who's
gonna
follow
the
same
pathway.
So
it's
not
adding
another
thing.
They're
gonna
squabble
over
because
it's
already
resolved
yeah.
C
A
J
A
Q
B
Go
for
it
so
yeah
I'm,
not
gonna,
say
a
word
about
this,
except
that
I
appreciate
the
clarification,
good
staff
and
help
put
together
for
this.
You.
N
A
A
A
A
I'll
go
and
make
a
motion:
I'm
gonna
move.
The
Planning
Board
recommends
the
City
Council
approve.
The
ordinance
is
generally
found
attachment
a
to
update
the
ATU
standards
and
I'm
gonna,
throw
myself
on
Hartman's,
hopefully
that
you
guys
some
conditions
any
conditions
to
offer
on.
There
is
anyone
to
second
it
I'll.
Second,
okay,
make
a
friendly
to
my
own
he's,
not
gonna
make
a
friendly.
B
C
B
C
P
T
A
J
B
It's
not
really
gonna
be
item
two
anywhere
right.
We're
just
gonna
recommend
that
that's
that's
the
only
change
so
that
to
clarify
for
anybody
who's
wondering
that
leaves
this
item
one
on
the
slide
alone.
So
we're
still
recommending
that
it's
that
change
it
can
we
get
the
next
slide
and
then
for
ad.
B
You
I
sent
Cindy
the
six
additional
words:
the
changing
nine
eight
five
D
to
add
and
their
accessory
dwelling
units
comment
if
any
comma
after
such
dwelling
units
in
the
second
sentence
and,
in
addition
to
add
a
provision
that
says
notwithstanding
owner
occupancy
requirements
elsewhere
in
the
code,
cooperative
housing
units
may
may
have
a
to
use
and
then
finally,
ad
use
that
are
part
of
cooperative
that
are
associated
with
cooperative
housing
units.
All
the
the.
J
N
I
J
For
it,
but
I
am
I
I'm
still
struggling
with
the
eliminating
that
one
paragraph
because
I'm
it
my
senses.
It
leaves
no
guidance
at
all
on
design
guidelines
and
that
I
just
want
to
put
myself
on
the
record
or
saying
a
little
concerned
about
the
implications
for
staff.
In
dealing
with
that,
when
proposals
come
in
free
to
use,
I'd.
B
Respond
to
that
yeah,
you
know,
there's
not
meant
to
be
a
tit-for-tat,
but
I
do
want
to
put
this
out
there,
unlike
Boulder
County,
which
has
site
plan
review
when
you,
when
you
try
to
build
a
brand-new
house
on
an
empty
lot,
you
don't
have
the
right
to
just
go
in
and
apply
for
a
building
permit.
You
have
to
go
through
a
planning
review
to
make
sure
that
this
new
house,
you
know
is
meets
the
all
the
you.
B
Criteria-
and
you
know
that
it-
you
know
it
has
to
you-
know-
be
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
and
it
can't
be
in
an
animal
migration.
Carter
and
all
this
stuff
people
do
have
the
right
to
submit
a
building
permit
by
right
in
the
city
of
Boulder,
and
there
is
no
style
review
in
the
city
of
Boulder
for
the
main
house.
B
So
the
thing
that
everybody
sees
when
they
walk
down
the
street
and
drive
down
the
street
is
in
exactly
the
situation
that
we're
trying
to
make
available
for
a
to
use
to
people
can
build
what
they
want.
We
already
have
that
right
for
the
three
thousand
square-foot
behemoth
in
front,
so
why
not
have
it
for
the
five
hundred
and
fifty
square
foot
you
know
shut
in
the
back.
B
A
A
I
H
Not
but
I
do
want
to
mention
that
I
think
the
types
of
regulation
that
would
disincentivize
according
to
minimizing
this
type
of
situation
is
just
making
it
a
lot
more
restrictive.
What
can
be
done?
I
think
some
of
the
changes
that
were
recently
done
to
the
ordinance
would
have
much
more
disincentivized
it
when
it
was
not
a
land
when
it
wasn't
a
use
under
the
code.
It
was
just
a
lies,
then
you
know
that
could
expire
and
had
to
be
reapplied
for
if
ownership
changed,
when
the
occupancy
standards
were
lower
and
so
forth.
H
J
If
they
have
the
money,
they
can
essentially
create
this
HOA
and
condo
eyes,
an
Adu,
and
once
it's
done
it's
done
and
Holly
did
offer
up
some
of
examples
of
language
that
other
towns
have
developed,
given
their
particular
regulations
and
I
would
I
would
like
I
think
it's
worth
presenting
it
to
City
Council
as
a
issue
worth
doing
asking
staff.
The
urgings
have
to
do
some
research
on
and
coming
back
to
get
us
with
a
sense
of.
Has
this
been
happening?
Hasn't
it?
A
J
A
J
Well,
because
it
won't
here's
that
no,
it
doesn't
need
to
be
limited
I'm
just
but
here's
the
deal
according
to
the
material
that
was
sent
to
us.
We
don't
know
a
city
doesn't
know
if
an
effing
HOA
has
been
created
because
it's
not
filed
with
the
city
it's
filed
with
the
county.
So
it's
one
thing:
if
someone
comes
in
and
says,
I
would
like
to
create
an
HOA
on
my
parcel
of
land.
It's
a
totally
different
thing.
J
If
someone
creates
an
HOA
and
then
it's
a
done
deal
and
then
somehow
we
find
out
about
it
because
of,
however,
we
find
out
about
it.
So
that's
I'm,
just
I,
just
think
it's
important
to
make
sure
that
the
possibility
that
the
City
Council
understands
that
it's
not
just
subdividing,
not
just
subdivisions.
It's.
J
B
W
J
B
Was
enough
I
think
we
want
to
if
we
want
to
make
it
really
specific
and
I
think
John's
language
was
was
the
best.
You
know,
because
what
John
said
was
that
he
was
concerned
about
the
abuse
of
kind
of
minimization
to
turn
houses
and
their
ad
use
into
separate
ownership
units,
basically
to
subdivide
you.
N
B
I
B
A
Z
You
Jim
and
good
evening
members,
the
Planning
Board
I,
would
well
briefly
touch
on
a
few
items.
Background
purpose,
scope,
process
and
schedule
of
our
upcoming
midterm,
update
to
the
bull,
develop
comprehensive
plan,
and
this
will
include
staffs
initial
thinking
about
the
scope
and
topics
to
be
addressed
along
with
the
schedule.
So
I
will
remind
the
board.
As
you
well
know,
we
have
a
rich
history
with
our
Boulder
Valley
comprehensive
plan
and
the
uniqueness
of
the
intergovernmental
agreement
and
cooperation
and
the
the
Coe
adoption
with
our
both
the
city
and
the
county.
Z
We're
coming
up
in
2020
will
be
40
years
since
the
first
adoption
of
the
plan.
So
a
very
long
and
rich
history,
as
I
said,
I
will
mention
at
the
last.
You
can
see
all
the
different
points
where
we've
done
major
updates
and
in
or
at
least
intergovernmental
agreements,
then
I
think
there
are
a
number
of
we
used
to
do
annual
updates
and
other
midterm
updates
in
between
more
of
these
years.
Z
So,
at
the
last
major
update
to
the
comprehensive
planning,
there
was
a
lot
of
support
for
moving
to
the
ten-year
schedule
for
the
major
updates
to
make
sure
that
we
were
making
progress
in
actually
implementing
the
plan
in
between
the
updates.
It's
only
been
about
two
years
since
we
were
in
the
throes
of
the
major
update
and
adopting
it
and
I
think
there's
what
you
can
see
from
the
information
provided
in
the
action
plan.
Z
So
again,
it's
our
opportunity
to
review
progress
on
key
objectives,
provide
that
opportunity
for
the
public
request
process,
make
our
minor
policy
additions
and
clarifications,
as
well
as
mapped
changes
to
reflect
annexations,
open
space
and
other
changes
that
have
happened
since
the
last
update,
but
not
intended
to
be
a
time
to
consider
major
policy
changes.
So
this
will
keep
us
focused
on
housekeeping
mrs.
C
Z
Can
see
there
are
a
lot
of
different
things
that
the
comp
plan
outlines
that
we
can
change
and
the
major
in
the
midterm
update.
That
doesn't
mean
we
have
to
and
we'll
talk
in
a
minute
about
the
items
that
we've
identified
so
far,
that
we'll
be
ready
to
make
some
changes
to
update
the
policy
direction
that
we've
already
adopted
since
the
last
major
update
so
sub
community
and
area
planning
revisions,
we
will
be
able
to
include
the
alpine
balsam
area
plan
in
the
comp
plan.
Z
We
have
several
master
plans
that
have
been
adapted
since
the
last
update,
the
transportation
master
plan
and
open
space
and
mountain
parks,
and
your
memo
outlines
a
little
bit
more
about.
There
may
be
some
policy
changes
that
come
from
the
process
that
is
underway
for
the
climate
mobilization
action
plan.
Z
And
our
staff
so
there's
a
and
we
included
some
information.
Actually,
no,
we
didn't
include
information
in
the
planning.
This
came
up
after
the
memo
was
ready.
There
is
a
very
specific
process
outlined
in
the
comprehensive
plan
for
the
baseline
urban
services
study,
an
identification
of
unmet
needs
within
the
existing
service
area
and
then
on
to
the
initiation
of
a
service
area
expansion
plan,
and
so
given
those
steps
would
take
quite
a
quite
a
significant
effort
and
and
time.
Z
We
will
do
a
public
application
screening,
anticipating
that
in
the
first
part
of
next
year,
and
then
subsequent
hearings,
recommendations
and
notification
with
all
the
appropriate
approval
body.
So
city,
City,
Council
and
Planning
Board
for
sure
and
depending
on
the
breadth
of
some
of
the
changes
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Board
of
County
Commissioners,
our
proposed
schedule
would
be
as
I
as
I
mentioned,
to
finalize
that
scope
and
schedule
and
open
the
public
request
process
in
the
first
quarter
of
next
year
and
then
come
back
to
the
Planning.
Z
Z
Does
it
the
criteria
is
really
around
how
much
how
much
staff
resources
is
it
in
compliance
with
the
policies
and
direction
of
the
Boulder
Valley
Comprehensive
Plan
for
land
use
changes?
Is
it
compatible
with
land
with
nearby
land
uses
etc?
So
we'll
make
a
recommendation
on
it,
the
initial
screening
and
then
it
will
proceed
through
the
four
bodies
to
make
sure
that
we've
we're
really
working
on
things
that
make
sense
to
work
on
and
not
just
working
on
things
that
we
know
aren't
aren't
in
alignment
with
our
vision
and
our
values
in
our
comprehensive
plan.
Z
I
A
K
M
One
of
the
things
that
I
would
like
to
remind
is
in
the
community
engagement.
They
have
a
very
high
priority
on
engaging
the
youth
and
finding
hopefully
creative
ways
to
make
it
very
successive.
In
terms
of
just
last
night,
I
was
at
a
ignite
event
at
Fairview,
and
all
these
young
people
were
speaking
about
very
important
things
within
the
city.
It
came
out
that
many
of
them
don't
know
that
some
of
these
stuff
is
happening
like
the
fifteen
minute
walking,
neighborhoods,
don't
know
the
young
men.
M
Let's
talk
about
that',
so
I
tell
them
a
little
bit
at
it.
Students
thought
about
climate
change
and
so
in
any
way
that
we
can
get
that
feedback
from
them
and
engage
them.
I
would
really
like
to
the
city
to
do
something
like
really
really
innovative,
like
set
the
pace
for
the
country.
You
know
just,
do
it
right,
I'm
not
to
use
the
words
of
Boulder
Cu,
but
just
be
bold,
like
really
come
up
with
something
out
of
the
ordinary.
A
Z
I
can
say
the
we
do
partner
with
growing
up
Boulder
and
our
youth
youth
opportunities,
Advisory
Board,
frequently
for
community
engagement,
but
we
try
to
do
that
selectively
to
make
sure
that
there
are.
They
are
topics
that
are
of
interest
to
the
youth
and
we
I
know
for
the
last
conpine
update.
We
worked
with
with
yo
AB
and
growing
up
Boulder
in
a
in
a
number
of
different
ways
for
that.
For
this
for
this
update,
if
there
are
really
policy
changes,
then
we
would
do
that.
Then
we
would
design
engagement
to
do
that.
Z
But
for
a
lot
of
these
changes
there
are
things
that
have
already
been
through
a
process
and
have
already
been
adopted.
They,
wouldn't
it
wouldn't
be
things
that
we
would
really
be
actively
looking
for.
You
know
new
ideas
and
feedback,
so
we
will.
We
will
make
sure
that
we
designed
that
appropriately
right.
M
Communicating
okay,
so
that
day,
so
the
students,
students
and
the
young
people
feel
that
they
understand
what's
going
on
and
but
more
parties
is
convey.
The
message
that
we
are
thinking
about
them
I
think
that
is
so
important
right
now.
This
generation
really
needs
to
feel
the
people,
the
adults
care
about
them
and.
M
A
C
Z
Far,
you
know
our
planning
staffs
work
closely
together,
so
it
will
be
Nicole.
What
was
from
the
land,
use
the
long-range
land
use
staff
and
and
again,
depending
on
the
scope
pulling
in
others
and
we've
met
met
with
Dale
case
as
well.
So
we
will
work
closely
with
them
on
the
initial
turn
of
screening
process
and
then
any
additional
analysis
of
the
changes.
Z
N
Z
Do
have
a
handful
of
folks
that
are
interested
in
and
changes.
You
know
the
small
changes,
small
parcels
here
and
there
types
of
things
that
would
be
extent
extensive
process
and
offensive
for
them
to
do
as
part
as
a
one-off,
not
part
of
the
updates.
So
we
know
of
a
few
of
those
that
might
consider,
but
not
not
like
it's.
N
Not
a
huge
number
I
know
every
once
in
a
while
in
Planning
Board.
We
see.
Oh,
that's
right,
you
know
like
the
boundary
or
something
like
that.
I
don't
know
if
we
should
be
going
back
and
looking
at
those
and
calling
them
into
your
attention
or
if
there
would
be
or
maybe
that's
something
for
the
major
revision.
I
don't
know.
I.
L
Would
I
mean
my
thought
is
if,
if,
if
you
David
or
any
member
of
the
board,
was
aware
of
particular,
you
know
sort
of
housing,
disease
type
things
if
you
will
boundary
changes,
and
things
like
that.
This
is
certainly
an
opportunity
to
do
that.
I
think
where
it
would
cross
the
line
and
perhaps
be
more
appropriate
for
a
major
update
would
be
if
somehow
that
that
reflects
an
underlying
policy
debate
or
triggers
an
underlying
policy
debate.
L
B
N
Another
one
that
I
remember
I'm,
sorry
I'll
just
quickly
finish
the
that
one
is
that
there
was
a
portion
I,
think
of
Broadway
that
was
all
was
owned
for
a
certain
type
of
storefront,
except
for
one
little
area
and
I
thought
that
probably
would
potentially
create
policy
debates
that
we
probably
have
to
think
about
it,
but
anyway
go
ahead.
Peter,
I'm!
Sorry!
That's.
Y
J
Sorry
about
that,
so
I
just
had
some
feedback
on
that.
The
content
of
the
memo
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
at
our
retreat
we
discussed
the
value
of
doing
an
assessment
of
evap
Stage.
One
implementation
before
apply
in
order
to
figure
out
lessons
learned
and
applying
trying
to
figure
out
if
they
needed
to
be
applied
to
tea
vApp
Stage
two
I
just
wanted
to
remind
all
of
us
that
that
was
something
we
discussed
and
then.
J
D
B
Okay,
you
know
I
guess
I
would
just
say
that
when
we
were
talking
about
the
schedule
for
for
updates,
there
were
folks
who
were
talking
about
like
five-year
major
update
two
and
a
half
year.
Midterm
updates
and
I
was
sitting
here
going.
You
know,
as
the
only
person
on
this
planning
board
has
actually
done
a
comprehensive
plan
update
as
the
chief
planner
handling
the
update,
I,
think
you're
nuts
I
think
doing
a
major
update
every
five
years
is
just
planning
all
the
time
yeah,
and
it's
really
glad
that
we're
doing
it
on
a
ten-year
schedule.
B
I
think
I
had
probably
proposed
to
12
years
schedule
and
settled
for
10,
because
it
isn't
I'm,
not
king
of
the
world.
I
don't
get
to
make
the
call,
but
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
we
just
finished.
You
know
a
year
and
a
half
ago
we
just
finished
the
comp
plan,
update
and
we're
talking
about
scoping
the
midterm
update
in
two
months,
starting
in
two
months.
B
So
you
know
again
I'm
putting
this
out
there
that
we're
jumping
from
one
plan
to
the
next
to
the
next
to
the
next,
and
you
know
at
some
point,
maybe
going
out
to
a
like
a
15
year
schedule
with
a
seven
and
a
half
year.
Midterm
update,
you
know,
would
be
okay,
because
it
sounds
fine
when
you
say
well,
it's
a
ten
year
major
update
schedule,
but
since
the
plan
takes
three
years
to
get
across
the
finish
line,
it's
really
only
seven
years
from
when
you've
finished
the
last
one.
B
If
you,
if
you
do
the
update
cycles
too
far
apart,
you
run
the
risk
of
getting
a
calcified
plan
that
sits
on
a
shelf
that
nobody
reads
and
I
love
the
fact
that
boulders
always
reading
it's
comprehensive
plan.
Better
than
any
place
I've
ever
been,
but
but
you
have
to
walk
that
fine
line
between
are
we
just
planning
all
the
time
and
forgetting
to
you
know,
really
implement
what
we
plan
for
and
celebrate
what
we
accomplished
and
learn
to.
You
know,
love
what
we
created.
B
You
know
on
the
one
side
and
you
know,
are
we
forgetting
to
plan
as
much
as
we
should
on
the
other
side?
I
still
think
you
know
the
just
kind
of
hit
me
as
a
slap
in
the
face:
God
darn
it
we're
already
talking
about
the
midterm
update.
You
know:
I
spent
the
first
three
years
on
planning
board
doing
the
first
plan
and
now
I'm
gonna
spend
my
last
year.
B
A
Do
we
have
our
encouragement
to
remind
us
of
that
any
other
things
gonna
get
off
our
chests
we're.
X
Y
A
It's
totally
cool
to
have
this
thing,
be
like
a
page
and
a
half.
Does
anyone
have
anything
in
there
and
I
basically
didn't
make
any
changes
other
than
like
formatting
things,
as
we
put
in
there
except
for
I,
did
add.
C
J
I
just
asked
a
question
about
how
these
letters
are
used.
I
mean
I've,
sat
through
a
couple
of
city
council
retreat,
so
I
know
that
the
letters
are
looked
at
and
reviewed,
but
the
question
I
have
is:
how
useful
is
it
to
be
explicit
and
here
I'm
speaking
specifically
about
the
look-
and
we
talked
about
this
earlier-
the
location
of
opportunities
to
add,
rent
and
renters
into
the
language?
J
J
So
what
the
initial
language
I
brought
had
specific
language
and
it's
it's
not
in
the
it
is
referenced,
but
we
don't
give
them
a
specific
example
of
where
they
could
make
that
change,
and
it
may
not
be
valuable
to
do
that.
But
I'm
just
wondering,
given
that
I've
heard
I
heard
Brian
mentioned
that
we've
tried
this
before
and
nothing.
There
were
no
changes
and
perhaps
my.
J
A
N
Q
N
Not
but
it
doesn't
include
renters
and
so
I
tried
to
get
to
that,
but
I
didn't
mean
I
didn't
bring
over
the
reference
to
the
actual
code
thing
because
I
figured
I,
don't
I
didn't
know.
If
we
wanted
to
put
things
that
would
I
mean
if
the
initiatives
created
then
you're
gonna
identify
what
you
want
to
do
it
and
people
can
find
that
but
and
so
I
thought
it
was
maybe
too
detail.
But
if
we
want
to.
J
N
N
N
I
was
just
thinking
that,
for
the
input
that
you
gave
is
part
of
the
public
record,
and
you
know
we
could,
we
could
I
think.
Actually
it
might
be
in
those
minutes
from
our
meeting
that
we
could
make
sure
that
that's
in
the
minutes,
if
they're
not
in
there
yet
yeah
at
least
then
it's
kind
of
on
record,
because
I
think
it
was
good
that
you
did
all
that
research
into
where
it
could
be
changed.
A
A
C
J
I
mean
there's
just
a
we
could
maybe
do
it
as
a
but
note
and
note,
and
it's
just
the
language
I
had
in
the
notes
I
sent
to
you
all-
was
expand
public
notification
of
development
projects
to
include
all
residential
and
commercial
renters
within
600
feet
of
a
proposed
project.
The
solution
to
this
challenge
would
be
to
add
and
renters
to
all
BRC
9
4
3
public
notice
requirements.
J
B
That's
so
that's
a
great
idea.
It
finder
I
said
that
yeah
and
the
reason
why
I
think
it's
a
great
ideas,
because
it's
so
wonky
and
specific
that
to
go
in
the
you
know.
These
leading
paragraphs
just
looks
like
weird,
but
if
we
put
it
at
the
bottom
as
a
footnote
that
would
draw
extra
attention
to
that
last
sense
about
engagement
mechanisms
and
I,
like
that
a
lot
well
so
I'm.
B
We
are
changing
anything
yet,
but
what
this
would
be
Cindy
is
just
in
the
first
paragraph,
there's
a
one
and
two
underneath
it
one
for
equity
and
one
for
Community
Engagement,
and
this
would
just
be
a
asterisk
at
the
end
of
the
community
engagement
paragraph
and
then
that
would
just
be
a
footnote.
I'm.
N
A
J
A
Cool,
no
other
changes
we're
all
good.
On
the
I
mean
it
seemed
like
it
was
a
pretty
elegantly
drafted,
yeah.
K
B
W
D
A
T
A
A
C
AA
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
It
helps
to
contextualize
the
comments
you
know.
Cuz
I
think
we've
had
a
problem
in
the
past
as
like
two
or
three
who
would
like
take
off
and
write
extensively
and
separately
about
something
so
they'd
all
come
back
with
like
three
to
five
page
mm-hm
yeah
memoirs
right
then
you're
like
oh
hi,
we
rule
and
then
it's
an
affront
to
take
away
anything
that
they've
written
so
carefully.
Is
it
that's.
N
L
M
But
there
is
a
group
and
called
National
Center
for
Women
in
information
technology.
They
do
you
place
it
buyers,
workshops
and
they
do
it
within
campus
in
outside
campus.
I
mentioned
this
to
Haleh,
and
she
said
you
know,
may
be
a
good
thing
also
that
we
can
look
at
you
potentially
expand
to
all
the
board,
so
I
just
wanted
to.
Let
you
know
that
we
do
have
some
alternatives
if
the
city
doesn't
have
anything
available
and
if
we
can.
M
A
M
M
L
Y
M
M
A
Please
do
and
then
one
other
thing
Sun
belongs
for
similar
lines
like
I
took
the
city's
communication
skills
training
three-day
workshop
last
week,
which
was
a
Thursday
Friday
and
Saturday
out.
It's
a
newly
renovated
County,
open
space
or
city,
open
space
offices
and
fifth
or
whatever
it
is,
and
it
was
great,
it's
really
useful
and
and
I
know.
Every
time
I've
talked
to
a
different
city
staff
person
about
it.
They
always
are
like
yeah.
A
A
Cuz
I
end
up
knowing
what
Mark
Gerwin
was
in
there,
whose
architect
who'd
been
on
landmark
advisory
board
for
a
long
time,
he's
really
good
guy
married
Marcy,
Cameron
recently
and
then
yeah
for
real
yeah,
totally
cool
and
then
Connor
Merrigan
used
to
work
for
intern
for
bhp
during
the
holiday
process.
A
Was
there
the
Edie
from
Koho
us,
the
cozying
Association,
the
US
was
there
and
a
builder
I
worked
with
so
I
like
knew
all
these
people
in
the
room
already,
which
is
kind
of
amazing,
and
then
everybody
got
a
ton
out
of
it
actually
seemed
like
it
got
really
good
reviews
across
the
board
and
three
days
is
a
long
time,
but
it
was
worth
it,
and
so
when
we
walked
out
of
that
training,
the
trainer
said
like
okay.
Well,
we've
got
a.
A
Scheduled
training
in
January
14th
through
16th
and
the
venue
that
we
had
planned
pooped
out,
so
they
didn't
have
a
venue
for
it
and
I
said
well:
I'll
host
it
so
we're
gonna
host
it
at
wild
sage,
which
you
guys
evolved
I
think
pretty
much
been
to
the
common
house
there.
So
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna,
be
the
host
for
a
three-day
long
communication,
training.
C
K
A
AA
AA
O
AA
A
Kind
of
role-playing
that
you
do
because
there
is
some
role-playing,
is
a
kind
of
role-playing
that
even
a
guy
like
who
he
was
comfortable
with
so
mmm-hmm
pretty
tolerable
role-playing
and
the
skills
were
pretty
concrete,
so
that
was
pretty
useful,
there's
also
as
part
of
like
a
disc
training
system.
D
is
C,
so
there's
like
a
personality
test,
part
of
it,
which
is
actually
pretty
interesting
because
they.
C
A
So
I
think
the
way
it
was
structured
when
I
took
it
and
I
think
this
is
the
way
this
one
will
be
structured.
Is
it
I
think
the
training
usually
cost
like
$2,000
per
person
or
something
crazy
like
that,
but
they
offer
a
sliding
scale
from
$35
to
a
couple
hundred
or
something
like
that
and
I
think
that's
partially
I
think
some
of
that
would
go
back
to
help
pay
for
the
food.
Is
they?
A
You
know,
there's
a
coffee
and
stuff
from
the
breakfast
in
the
morning
and
then
they
provide
your
lunches,
and
we
would
probably
we
put
it
on-
will
be
responsible
for
putting
together
lunches.
So
we
get
help
from
that.
So
many
of
my
office
for
that
and
we'll
probably
like,
do
a
theme
of
like
like
local
neighborhood
stuff.
So
like
one
day,
we
like
produce
pizza
stuff,
like
that
we.
M
A
AA
A
AA
K
A
A
A
AA
A
I
N
A
N
So
I
just
thought:
I'd
ask
that
question
because,
as
we
have
looked
at,
affordable
housing
I
think
that
there
are
a
number
of
state
laws
that
get
in
the
way
of
us
having
the
tools
at
our
disposal
and
I,
don't
see
on
the
legislative
agenda.
I,
don't
know
how
influential
those
things
are
that
the
city
of
Boulder
is
asking
for
currently
friendly
State,
House
and
governor's
office
to
actually
look
at
some
of
those
things.
N
A
K
J
N
J
There
is
a
separate
proposal,
that's
likely
to
come
up
which
is
about
rent
control,
but
it
is
a
separate
piece
of
it'll
be
a
separate
piece
of
legislation
and
those
were
the
two
that
they
mentioned
and
I.
Don't
think
the
City
Council
I
think
the
only
thing
the
City
Council
responded
to
was
the
the
one
about
the
on-site,
affordable,
rentals,
okay,
well,.
B
You
know
David
I,
guess
I,
just
Sekou
Brian.
If
you
wanted
to
write
something
up
and
put
it
on
the
agenda
for
for
us
to
review
or
if
it
can
be
distributed
in
some
way
that
we
can
then
comment
on
in
public.
You
know
I
think
without
overly
words,
for
the
thing
that
I
probably
be
comfortable
just
signing
on
and
you
could
represent
that.
B
As
being
you
know
the
thoughts
of
Planning
Board
or
the
recommendation
of
Planning
Board
and
then,
if
you
wanted
to
further,
you
know,
go
to
the
council
and
make
public
comment
in
your
own
personal
capacity.
You
could
direct
them
to
your
letter,
say
this,
that
is
from
Planning
Board,
but
you
have
additional
thoughts
that
are
from
you
David
and
sign
yourself
about
the
taxation
issue
or
whatever
else
you
want
to
talk
about.
Okay,.