►
From YouTube: 8-1-23 Planning Board Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:
yes,.
Thank
you
so
much..
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
all
know
as
just
a
quick
reminder.
supplies
for
minutes
as
well
as
any
other
done.
item
tonight
we
have
for
our
public
hearing.,
but
any
agenda
item
requiring
a
vote
of
the
planning
board
is
tonight.
if
it
doesn't
receive
an
affirmative
vote
of
4
or
more.
A
A
C
C
Devin
saunders,
cob:,
so
for
this,
the
city
has
engaged
with
community
members
to
co-create
a
vision
for
productive,,
meaningful,
and
inclusive
civic
conversation..
This
vision
supports
the
physical
and
emotional
safety
for
community
members,
staff
and
boarding
commission
members,
as
well
as
the
democracy.
for
people
of
all
ages,
identities,
lived
experiences
and
political
preferences.
C
Devin
saunders,
cob:,
the
following
are
examples
of
rules
of
decorum
found
in
the
boulder,
revised
code,
and
other
guidelines
that
will
support
this
vision..
These
will
be
upheld.
during
this
meeting.
All
remarks
and
testimony
shall
be
limited
to
matters
related
to
city
business..
No
participant
shall
make
threats,
or
use
other
forms
of
intimidation
against
any
person.
C
C
C
Devin
saunders,
cob:
when
we
come
to.
for
when
we
come
to
the
time
for
public
general
public
comment
and
for
the
public
hearing.
item,,
it's
pretty
simple,
and
straightforward
to
participate
on
the
bottom
of
your
of
your
bar..
Here
you
will
see
3
icons,,
one
of
them
being
the
raised
hand,
icon
you'll,
simply
just
click
that
at
the
designated
time,
and
that
will
let
all
of
us
know
that
you're
interested
in
commenting
on
the
item.
A
A
A
D
Lynn,
segal:
unbelievable.,
it's
your
responsibility,,
not
city.
Council.-
you
report
that
I'm
complaining
that
I
want
to
see
videos..
You
know
I
see
you.,
you
need
to
see
me.,
I
mean,.
How
many
times
do
I
need?
To?
was
my
time
on
all
the
city
problems.
We
have
instead,
talking
about
simple
things
like.
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
yes,
okay.,
sarah
silver,
pb:,
you
have
some
additional
comments.
yeah,.
I
just,
I,
submitted
a
minor
amendment
to
the
may
sixteenth..
Are
we
just
talking
about
the
25.,
we're
just
we're
going
to
the
one
at
a
time.
okay,?
It's
all
right.,
it's
a
no
problem,,
all
right.,
so
planning
board
minutes
from
april
20,,
fifth.
laura.
E
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
G
Sarah
silver,
pb:
yeah.,
the
the
applicants,
will
say
a
few
words,,
but
I
will
not
be
making
a
presentation..
If
you
okay,
perfect,,
then
we'll
have
questions
for
staff
and
the
applicant,,
and
then
we
will
go
to
board
discussion..
We'll
have
public
comment.
If
there
is
any,
and
then
we'll
go
to
board
discussion.
A
G
G
G
Alison
blaine,
(she|hers),
cob:
in
terms
of
the
review
process
and
criteria
for
those
who
are
maybe
unfamiliar
annexation,
is
the
process
to
incorporate
the
land
into
city
boundaries
and
include
several
layers
of
review..
The
first
layer
is
state
law
and
the
colorado
constitution,,
which
limits
the
authority
of
the
municipalities.,
the
annexed
lands,
however,.
Any
indexation
must
meet
all
state
statutes.
G
G
G
G
Alison
blaine
(she|hers),
cob:
for
the
bbcp
area
to
refers
to
the
area
that
is
under
county
jurisdiction
that
may
be
annexed
in
the
city
as
long
as
it
meets
bbc
policies
on
growth,
management
or
requirements
and
annexation.,
and
then
there's
also
a
small
portion
of
that
green
sliver
there.
That
is
located
within
area
3,,
which
may
also
be
in
the
city
for
preservation,
purposes.
G
G
G
G
G
Alison
blaine
(she|hers),
cob:
and,,
as
I
mentioned,
a
little
bit
earlier,.
An
extension
agreement
is
required
as
part
of
the
process,
and
annexation
terms
are
in
to
anticipate
any
future
development
of
the
property,,
and
I
wanted
to
touch
base
on
some
of
the
important
provisions
going
into
this
agreement.
G
G
Alison
blaine
(she|hers),
cob:,
there
are
3
key
key
issues
identified
by
staff
in
the
middle,
the
first
one
is,
does
the
annexation
comply
with
the
clinical
state
indexation
statutes?
To?
is
the
proposal
consistent
with
the
city's
annexation
and
other
bbcp
policies,
and
3
is
the
initial
zoning
of
all
one
appropriate
for
the
subject,
property.
G
G
G
G
G
Alison
blaine,
(she|hers),,
cob:
and
then
last
in
terms
of
zoning.
If
a
property
is
annexed,,
zoning
is
established
consistent
with
the
goals
and
the
land
you
smell
of
the
bbcp..
As
mentioned
earlier,,
the
site
is
designated
as
low
density
residential,,
which
anticipates
a
density
of
2
to
6
billion
dollars
per
acre.
G
Alison
blaine,
(she|hers),,
cob:,
we're
all
one
zone
district,
allows
the
density
of
up
to
6.2
dwelling
units
per
acre..
The
are
all
one
zoning
district,
supports,
detached
single
family
uses,
and
all
future
development
will
need
to
comply
with
the
solar
and
energy
requirements,
as
well
as
compatible
development.
Standards.
G
G
Alison
blaine
(she|hers),
cob:
staff
find
that
the
initial
zoning
of
all
one
is
consistent
with
the
bbc
people
and
land
use
designation
and
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
properties..
Therefore,
staff
is
recommending
that
planning
board
adopt
the
following
motion,,
which
I
have
here
on
the
screen.
A
A
H
A
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
A
A
F
J
J
F
F
J
F
J
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):,
I
wouldn't
have
a
feel
for
that.
and
I
don't.
we
weren't
prepared
to
have
somebody
from
housing
and
human
services
on
the
call
this
evening.
it's
something
we
could
certainly
follow
up
on
kurt.
but,,
what
the
contribution?,
I'm
not.,
I'm
not
exactly
sure
fractionally.
What
that
result
in
in
the
in
the
market.
F
J
F
K
H
H
H
K
Cheriegoff:
built
by
these
communal,
long-term
community
members.,
if
you
had
a
sense
of
like
roughly
when
it
might
look
like,
because
kurt
kind
of
had
some
questions,,
I
think,
about
square
footage.,
and
so
I
was
going
to
give
you
an
opportunity
to
speak
to.
yeah.,
I
mean,.
We
can't
get
that
much
basement
in.
I
mean,
we
have
just
doesn't
make
any
sense
right?,
because
we
end
up
having
the
way
it's
designed..
There's
a
lower
level
and
part
part
of
the
lower
level
accounts
towards
the
square
footage..
So
you
know.
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
application.,
sarah
silver,
pb:,
so
key
issue
number
one
is,:
does
the
annexation
comply
with
the
pick
up
applicable
state
annexation,
statutes.
key
issue
number
2
is
the
proposal
consistent
with
the
city's
annexation
and
bbcp
policies
and
key
issue
number
3?
Is
the
initial
zoning
rl,
one
appropriate
for
the
subject?
Property.
K
K
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
but
yeah,.
I
I
think
it's
consist
of
the
bbc.
and
and
furthermore,.
Although
this
isn't
the
question,
too.,
it's
consistent
with
what
the
city
likes
to
do.,
it's
not
quite
in
in
holding.
But
if
you
look
on
the
map,
it's
kind
of
darn
close
to
it..
If
you
kind
of
think
of
area
3
in
the
blue
line,,
as
as
you
know,
being
something,
we
can't
build,
above.
anyway,,
it's
kind
of
surrounded
by
city
and
generally,.
When
that
happens,,
it's.
K
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
I
think
lisa
said
it
very
well..
I
really
appreciate
her
analysis
and
staff's
analysis..
The
only
thing
I
would
add
is
that
you
know
the
when
we
annex
the
property,.
We
look
for
that
property
to
provide
a
benefit
to
the
city,,
and
I
think
that
staff
explained
well,
and
the
applicant
explains
well
what
those
benefits
are.
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
in
terms
of
the
scenic
easement
being
maintained
and
conveyed
to
the
city,
if
requested.
the
silver
lake
ditch,
easement,
and
the
2
times
the
normal
cash
in
loo,
that
would
be
required.,
so
they
are
providing
additional
benefit
to
the
city
for
that
development.
Potential.
they're,
already
on
city,
water
and
sewer.
as
lisa
said,.
So
annexation
was
anticipated,
and
it's
area
to
appropriate
for
annexation..
So
yes.
F
F
F
F
Kurt
nordback,
pb:.
This
certainly
will
kurt
nordback,
pb:
produce
some
benefit
from
the
creation
of
permanently
affordable,
housing..
So,
no
doubt
about
that..
We
also
have
pvcp
policy,
7.0
2,
affordable
housing,
goals,
7.7
mixture
of
housing,
types,
7.0
8,
preserve
existing
housing,
stock,
7.5,
7,
15,
integration,
and
permanently
affordable,
housing.
F
F
F
A
A
A
A
A
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
I
could
impose
my
policy
objectives
or
make
the
roles
be
different
than
they
are.
and
I'll
often
take
some
floor
time
to
talk
about
how
I
think
they're
silly,-
and
I
I
think
you
raise
a
really
good
point
about
the
value
of
this
parcel
coming
into
the
city,
and
regardless
of
what
this
applicant
builds..
You
know
what
could
be
built
there,
and
what
the
ratio
is
for
cash.
and
lou,.
I
think
I
think
that's
really
fair.
and
I've
had
that
same
thought
before
and.
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
we
are
where
we
are
today,
and
pb,
lisa
smith:
I.
I
see
my
job
as
a
member
of
planning
board
and
the
board's
role
to,
you
know,,
follow
the
code
and
and
do
what
it
says
to
do..
So
I
I
just
you
know
I'm
not
actually
pushing
back
on
your
broader
argument..
I
think
I
completely
agree
with
it.,
but
in
terms
of
the
decision
we're
asked
to
make
today,.
I
would
just.
K
F
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
thank
you.
well,.
I
I
certainly
appreciate
that.
and
I
certainly
am.
working
off
of
my
interpretation
of
the
city
code.
In
specifically
the
bbc.
as
I
read
it.,
but
I
had
a
question
for
sara.
sara.,
you
cited..
I
thought
you
were
said
that
you
were
citing
1.25
city
policy.,
it's
not
not
evolution.
A
A
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
you
know,
I
I'm
not
a
builder..
I
don't
have
a
good
sense
of
what
it
costs
the
applicant
to
acquire
the
parcel.
deconstruct,
the
old
house,
construct,
a
new
house
and
how
that
compares
with
the
benefit
that
they're
getting,
and
the
cash
and
loo
that
we
are
asking
from
them..
I
I
that's
not
the
kind
of
math
that
I'm
prepared
to
do
tonight..
So
I
guess
my
question
is
for
city
staff.
E
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
things
like
what
what
we
could
ask
for
in
exchange
for
the
benefit
that
is
being
provided..
So
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
kurt's
request
is,.
Do
we
want
to
ask
for
more
cash
and
loo.?
We
certainly
cannot
require
them
to
build
an
affordable
housing
units
on
their
property,,
and
I
think
I
read
in
the
packet
that
that.
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
you
know
with
the
rl.
one
zoning.
they
can
only
have
one
housing
unit..
They
could
build
an
to
you
if
they
want
to
like
any
other
unit,,
but
they
can
only
have
one
unit,.
We
cannot
require
it
to
be
affordable.,
so
cash
and
loo
is
an
appropriate,
buy
out.,
that's
how
we
do
it
in
the
city..
But
how
did
we
arrive
upon
2
times
the
normal
single
family,
housing
cash?,
a
new
amount?.
J
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):,
you
know.
so
like,
years,
ago,
we
kept
experiencing
this
issue
on..
You
know
really
what
the
right
ask
was
for
single
family
detached
tones
that
don't
have
additional
development
potential.
and
like
an
r,
all
one
situation.,
so
staff
work
with
council
to
get
some
annexation
guidelines.
Adopted.
J
J
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):
was
approved
by
council.-
I
want
to
say
it
was
maybe
around
10
years
ago,,
but
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
the
policy.,
but
so
it's
also
created
some
uniformity.
and
how
we
apply
that
in
these
annexations
over
time.
and
that's
it
was
really
born
out
of
conversations
like
this.,
I
really,.
What's
the
right
balance?
so.
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
glom
onto
one
thing
that
you
said.
there,
charles,,
that
was
very
helpful,,
which
is,
you
know,.
One
of
our
goals
is
to
be
fair
and
consistent
and
apply
guidance
uniformly,,
and
it
sounds
like
this
is
a
long
standing
city
policy
of
when
we
do,
an
annexation
for
a
single
family
dwelling
unit..
This
is
the
cash
and
loo
that
we
ask
for..
So
that's
very
useful
to
know.
thank
you.
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
lobby
for
it
to
be
revisited.,
but
the
my
understanding
is.
The
goal
was
for
consistency
and
uniformity,
and
that,
regardless
of
exactly
who's
sitting
on
planning
board,
when
you
come
up,
or
which
staff
member
from
the
city
is
reviewing
it,
or
whatever,
that
people
have
some
understanding
of
of
what
they're
going
to
be
asked,
and
and
that
you're
not.
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
seeing,,
you
know,,
one
neighbor
asked
to
pay
a
certain
number,
and
then
another
neighbor
passed
us
to
pay
something,
much
less
they're
much
higher.
and
that
there's
some
a
degree
of
fairness,.
You
know
I
see
it
not
only,
as
you
know,
a
fair
amount,
but,
and
I
think
laura
uses
word,,
but
as
as
being
fair?,
so
that
we're
not.
K
F
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
yeah.
and
I
certainly
appreciate
that.
I
mean
the
fourteenth
amendment
to
the
us.
constitution,
guarantees
equal
protection
under
the
law.
right.,
and
so
I
think
for
and
so
I'm
I'm
I'm
certainly
very
sensitive
to
that.
A
question
for
staff,,
though
I
think
that
there
have
been
situations
where
we
have
at
either
ask
for
additional,
affordable
housing
money
in
in
annexation,
or
further
limited.
F
J
K
K
K
F
F
F
F
B
B
B
B
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
I
it's
not
something.
I
know.
the
answer
to
off
the
top
head
as
far
as
taking
from
part
of
the
property,,
but
I
would
assume
it
is..
We
are,
as
the
memo
talked
about,
dedicating
that
to
open
space,
or
to
these
men
above
the
blue.
Line,,
and
I
see
brad
went
off
me,
so
I
don't
know
if
he
wants
to
add
anything
to
it.
I
Brad
mueller,
cob:
yeah,,
I'm
sorry.,
I
just
I
I
want
to
share
with
us..
This
is
a
moment
where
we
probably
want
to
be
precise,
that
we
can
never
determine
the
outcome
of
the
court
case,,
which
is
what
it
takings
would
be.,
but
we
can
only
offer
whether
it's
likely
something
might
result
in
the
taking
or
not.
so.
A
A
A
A
K
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
good
reasons
why
the
city
wants
to
pull
some
of
these
properties
like
this,
that
are
surrounded
by
city
into
the
city,,
especially
when
they're
already
on
service,,
because
we
don't
have
to
pay..
That
means
we're
not
obligated
to
provide
them
with
water,
and
so
on.
Beyond
what
like,
it's
already
been
done.,
so
it's
a
less
expensive
annexation
for
the
city.,
and
there
are
practical.
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
how
that
would
go,
you
know,
on
larger
parcels.
They
already
know
that
they
don't
know
what
they're
getting
and
that
there's
going
to
be
a
negotiation
process.
and
that's
just
not
what
we
do
for
single
family.,
so
again,.
I
I
appreciate
the
creativity
and
trying
to
come
up
with,
you
know,
2
options,
which
is
awesome
of
ways
that
we
might
be
able
to
move
toward
what
what
you're
thinking
about.
but.
F
F
F
F
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
so
I
have
one
observation,
and
then
a
question
for
staff..
The
observation
is
that
I
assume
that
the
applicants
best
alternative,
if
they
don't
like
what
we
offer
them.
an
annexation
is
just
to
stay
a
county
property
and
build
according
to
county
rules,,
and
so
I
don't
have
a
good
sense
of
what
size
of
building
the
county
would
allow,
or
how
their
development
standards
compare
to
ours..
I
don't
know,
charles,.
If
you
have
some
insight
on
that.
E
J
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):
getting
well
in
septic
permits
from
the
county,
just
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
we
have
city
utilities
right
there.,
it's
essentially
an
enclave
for
all
intents
and
purposes.
and
really,.
What
the
a
jointly
adopted.
complaint
says,
is
that,
if
you're
eligible
for
annexation,
you
pursue
annexation,.
So
I
I
don't
know
that
development
in
the
county
would
really
be
an
option
for
them.
J
I
Brad
mueller,
cob:
and
I
just
to
and
clarify
something
with
you,
charles,.
I
I
think
2
state
losses
that,
if
they're
within
whatever
it
is,
300
feet
of
a
sewer
line,
they're
required
to
connect
to
that
or
not
be
able
to
get
septic
as
well.
yeah,.
That's
true.
again,,
notwithstanding
the
you
know,
the
policies
on
the
comp
plan
that
talk
about
the
city,
pursuing
aggressively
annexations
in
area
to
to
get
people
off
of
well
and
septic,,
so
it
would
be
functionally
impossible
for
them.
To.
I
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):,
so
they
could
not
rebuild
a
house
as
the
county
property
and
reconnect.
They
were
already
connected.,
there's
no
more
house
there.
They
couldn't
reconnect,
but
still
stay
a
county
property..
I
don't
want
to
say
that
it
would
be
impossible..
I
think
it'd
be
very
difficult..
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
okay,
okay,,
that's
interesting
to
know.
and
then
my
second
question
is,.
I
just
want
to
clarify
what
kurt
said..
I
think
I
heard
kurt
say
that,
even
if
that
land
west
of
the
blue
line
were
dedicated
to
the
city
or
the
city,
acquired
ownership
of
that
land
that
that
parcel
their
compatible
development
standards
would
still
be
based
on
the
full
square
footage,,
including
that
parcel
that's
in
the
open
space.
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
I'm
sorry.
I
didn't
understand
that
last
part.
so
like,.
If
the
scenario
is
as
part
of
this
annexation
agreement,
we
say,.
Let's
do
it.
now:
let's
have
the
land
be
conveyed
to
the
city
now,
because
it
basically
says
you
could
do
that
at
any
time.
If
we
said,
convey
the
land
as
part
of
this
annexation,
agreement.
E
E
E
J
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
at
least,,
if,
if
you
view
that
as
a
benefit,
which
probably
the
applicant
does
not.,
but
if
planning,
board
you
that
as
a
benefit
which
kurt,
I
think,
does.,
that
is
something
that
could
be
considered..
I
don't
have.
I
I
guess
I
had
not
thought
about
that
prior
to
now..
I
think
it's
an
interesting
proposal..
I
don't
know
that
I
have
a
strong
opinion
on
it
yet,,
so
I'm
going
to
shut
up
and
listen
to
lisa.
E
E
K
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:.
The
city
then
gets
that
right
to
pull
that
that
little
piece
above
the
blue
line
whenever
they
want
it,,
while
still
having
the
protection
of
the
easement
without
having
to
take
possession
right
now.,
and
I
think
that's
why
they
structured
it.
The
way
they
did.
and
I
think
that's
what
makes
it
not
so
much
of
taking,,
because
both
parties
agreeing
to
the
contract
through
the
annexation.
and
then
they're
saying,
yes,.
K
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
and
then
I
think
my
last
question
is
just
because
I
don't
want
this
meeting
to
go
any
later
than
it
has
to
the
opportunities
for
the
applicant
to
appeal
one..
Could
they
ask
to
come
back
in
front
of
planning
board
again
with
a
fuller
quorum
of
members
and
2?
Would
they
also
have
the
option,
or
would
their
only
option
be
to
then
take
it
to
council,
and
just
see?
If
council
wants
to
do
it,
unilaterally,
like.
what??
What
are
their
options
if
we
can't
get
to
for
tonight.
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:
yes,.
I
can
weigh
in
on
that,
unless
charles
or
brad
wants
to.
okay.,
and
so
I'm
just
the
under
our
roles..
This
is
what
it
says:
so..
If
we
don't
get
about
a
4
to
0
for
moving
it
forward,,
then
the
app
again
has
the
opportunity
to
within
7
days.
requested.
we're
hearing
in
writing,,
and
then
we
have
to
follow
the
notice
procedures
right?.
So
it
won't
be
next
week.
it'll
be
a
little
bit
further
down
the
line
which
will
push
back
there.
Their
council
hearings.
B
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
so
they
can
ask
for
a
rehearing,
the
other
option.
is,.
You
know,,
sorry
to
clarify
re
here
with
at
planning,
board.,
correct?,
yes,,
yes,
and
then
the
other
thing..
So
that's
one
option
they
could
do
that..
They
could
also
take
the
so
this
is
a
recommendation
right
to
to
counsel,
but
they
could
take
that
to
council,
so
say:
we.,
you
don't
recommend,
it,
or
or
you're
split
on
it
that
can
go
forward
to
council
if
they
choose
to
go
that
route..
So
those
are
kind
of
the
options.
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
thank
you.,
I'm
just
gonna
interject
one
more
time.,
so
I
I
want
to
make
sure
everyone
gets
to
speak
as
much
as
they
want.
To,,
especially
folks,
are
concerned
about
this,
which
kurt
I
mean
you
and
also
I
I
think,
if
it's
kind
of
coming
out
clearly
that
we're
going
to
have
a
split,
I
might
encourage
us
to
move
to
a
vote.
If,
if
we
can't
come
to
some
kind
of
agreement.
as
for
now
and
then
the
applicant
can
then.
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
go
about
their
night
and
decide
what
chris
process
would
like
to
take
yet..
So
I
don't
want
to
cut
off
discussion
too
early..
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
if
we
find
that
we're
kind
of
starting
to
circle
and
spin,
and
we're
not
proceeding
that
that
it
might
make
more
sense
to
at
some
point,
move
to
a
boat
and
then
move
forward.
F
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
yeah,
thank
you,
lisa.,
I
totally
agree.,
so
I
would
like
to
suggest,
and
that
in
a
recommended
amendment
to
the
annotation
agreement,
which
would
subtract
that
portion
of
the
property
west
of
the
blue
line
from
the
the
property
area
that
would
be
considered
for
the
purposes
of
combat..
The
commendable
development
rules.
A
A
F
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:
yeah,,
one
quick
thing,
and
I
I
don't
want
to
delay
it,,
but
I
I
know
I've
probably
been
a
bit
of
broken
record
on
this,,
but
I
would
be
totally
open,
and
I
know
staff
has
a
million
one
other
things
that
are
probably
higher
priorities
on
your
list,,
but
I
would
be
open
to
maybe
looking
back
at
that
10
year
old..
This
is
the
how
we
determine
caching,
the
whatever
thing.
K
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
I
I
I
would
still
want
it
to
be
applied
uniformly,,
especially
these
single
family
annexations.,
but
I
think
it
might
be
appropriate
to
flag
that
as
a
potential
work
item
to
see,
if
maybe
that
ratio
and
some
of
those
numbers
should
be
looked-
at.
because,
again
current,.
I
think
your
overall
point
is
a
super
valid
one..
I
just.
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
number
3
is
the
initial
zoning.
rl,
one
appropriate
for
the
subject.
Property?,
I'm
just
gonna
say
yes,
given
the
requirements
that,
if
properties
annexed.
zoning
will
be
established
according
to
land
use,
designations
and
vcp,
land.
use
map
and
conform
to
city,
zoning,
categories.
yes,,
the
land
use,
designation
and
bvcp
is
lr.
low
density
residential,,
which
is
compatible
with
surrounding
properties.
A
A
B
Sarah
silver,
pb:
for
that
to
nothing,,
then
the
other
options
that
we
talked
about
earlier.
so
just
to
remind,.
If
we
don't
all
vote
together,,
we
can
talk
about
what's
next.
but
okay,,
but
we
need
to
take
that
alright..
I'm
making
a
motion
to
recommend
to
city
council
approval
of
the
proposed
annexation
of
the
property
located
at
3
0
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
street,,
with
an
initial
zoning
res
designation
of
residential
low
one
rl.,
one.
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
okay.
sarah
silver,
pb:,
I'm
going
to
read
the
motion
again,
and
then
we
will
take
a
voice,
vote
motion
to
recommend
to
city
council.:
approval
of
the
proposed
annexation
of
the
property
located
at
3
0
3
three-third
street,,
with
an
initial
zoning
designation
of
residential
low,
one
rl.,
one
pertaining
to
case
number
l..
You
are
249.
A
A
F
F
F
F
A
E
E
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
and
let
I
guess,
unless
council
reverses
that
with
that
which
I
don't
expect
them
to
do.,
and
I
also
want
to
express
appreciation
to
my
fellow
board
members
and
to
kurt
especially
for
raising
this
issue..
I
think
you're
right..
This
is
probably
something
that
should
be
looked
at..
I
did
a
thumbs
down
on
your
amendment.
Just
for
consistency,
reasons,,
you
know,
a
fair
application
of
existing
policy.,
but
I
think
you
are
right
that
we
should.