►
From YouTube: 7-11-23 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
B
Devin
saunders,
cob:
alrighty..
So
since
we
do
have
public
participation
in
public
comment,
tonight.,
we
do
have
to
go
through
the
rules
and
procedures
here
for
public
comment.,
so
the
city
has
engaged
with
the
community
members
to
create
co-creative
vision
for
productive,,
meaningful,
and
inclusive
civic
conversations..
B
B
Devin
saunders,
cob:,
the
following
are
examples
of
rules
of
decorum
found
in
the
boulder
revised
code
and
other
guidelines
that
support
this
vision..
These
will
be
upheld
during
this
meeting
all
test
remarks
and
testimony
shall
be
limited
to
matters
related
to
city
business..
No
participants
shall
make
threats
or
use
of
other
forms
of
intimidation
against
any
person,,
obscenity,
racial
epithets,
and
other
speech
and
behaviors
that
disrupts
or
otherwise
impedes
the
ability
to
conduct.
This
meeting
are
prohibited.
B
B
Devin
saunders,
cob:
for
the
public
comments.
Section.,
it's
pretty
simple.,
there's
a
few
bars
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen.
There.
so
just
click
this,
raise
hand
button,,
and
that
will
let
everyone
know
that
you're
interested
in
commenting.
also,.
If
you
are
on
a
phone,,
you
can
do
star
9..
If
you're
on
a
mac,,
you
can
click
option
y
option
y,
or
if
you're
on
a
pc.,
you
can
click
outline,
and
those
will
all
raise
your
hand
for
you.
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
response,
time
sarah
silver,
pb:
to
comments
or
questions
that
have
been
raised
before
we
go
into
not
a
prescribed
amount
of
time.
and
that's
why
I
just
thought
the
analog
that
we
have
is
typically
the
15
min,
for
we'll
make
it
15
min..
So
if
devin,,
if
you'll
just
keep
track
of
that,
that'd
be
great.
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
promoted.,
I
think
our
whole
team
is
here,
and
if
they,,
if
anyone's
not,,
we're
just
gonna
raise
our
hand
and
hopefully
get
promoted
to
panelists.,
we
are
just
going
to
quickly
run
through
the
materials
that
we
shared
with
you.
and
we
were..
We
did
not
prepare
a
formal
presentation,,
but
we
wanted
to
provide
the
information
that
came
up
for
discussion
that
was
included
in
our
packet.
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
and
hopefully
answer
some
of
the
questions
that
started
to
be
asked
at
our
last
meeting,,
and
then
we
would
love
to
entertain
more
questions..
We
have,,
as
you
mentioned,
a
whole
slew
of
consultants
here
that
are
ready
and
able
to
answer
questions,,
and
with
that
I
would
ask
for
amy
to
share
our
pdf.
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:,
and
we
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
spending
an
extra
evening
with
us
tonight..
We
recognize
this
is
a
very
large
project..
It's
a
complex
project,
and
we
appreciate
all
of
your
time.
to
spend
a
whole
another
night
on
this,
and
we
hope
that
we
have
a
productive
discussion
and
look
forward
to
it.
E
E
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
really
creating
a
huge
public
benefit
that
with
pickle
ball
courts
and
tennis
courts
and
a
dog
park
creek
access
habitat
restoration..
So
we
feel
that
this
is
a
significant
benefit
to
the
community,
as
well
as
providing
the
ongoing
maintenance
and
management
of
this
public
space,,
so
that
we,,
the
parks
and
rec
department
and
or
open
space
department,
do
not
have
to
provide
maintenance..
They
would
provide
snow
removal
of
the
multi-use
path.
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:
and
we
are
bringing
the
site
under
modern
flood
protection..
As
we
probably
mentioned
last
time,
the
building
and
the
site
are
in
the
high..
A
lot
of
them
are
in
the
high
hazard
zone..
So
big
part
of
this
project
was
designing
the
buildings
to
be
out
of
the
flood
plane
and
creating
a
public.
E
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:
allow
them
to
stay.,
and
then
this
other
building,,
which
is
currently
office
building
for
the
tennis
center,,
would
be
open
to
small
businesses
as
an
affordable
commercial
space.
we're
also
retaining
the
fish
observatory,,
which
has
been
there
for
a
very
long,
time,
and
would,.
We
are
working
with
parks
and
rack
to
bring
that
up
to
current
standards
and
make
it
more
accessible.
we'd
also
be
providing
maintenance
for
that
space.
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
and
rooftop
solar,
which
was
brought
up
during
our
concept
plan,
hearing
and
incorporating
as
much
solar
as
possible..
We
are
unable
to
put
it
on
the
ground
plane
anywhere.
That's
in
the
high
hazard
flood
plane.,
so
we
had
to
maximize
our
rooftop
space
next
slide.
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:,
so
this
was
we
wanted
to
really
show
where
the
public
and
private
space
was,,
as
you
can
see,
on
the
site.,
a
lot
of
all
of
the
space
out.
There
now
is
private
space,,
and
so
we
will
be
turning
a
lot
of
that
into
public
open
space
with
access
easements.,
as
I
mentioned.,
and
so
we're
significantly
improving
that
we're
tripling
the
public
outdoor
space.,
we're
improving
the
creek
access.
have
a
safer
alignment
for
the
boulder
creek
path
and
creating
those
amenities
that
I
described.
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
reducing
the
impervious
surface..
This
is
a
graphic
that
we
included
in
our
site.
Review,.
You
can
see
the
existing
impervious
area
in
orange.
and
so
we're
reducing
that
through
this
redevelopment,
introducing
more
previous
areas,,
more
storm
water
quality,
which
is
not
there.
Today,
and
protection
of
the
boulder
creek,
also
increasing
the
tree
canopy
and
reducing
the
heat
island
effect..
So
we
are
in
increasing
the
number
of
trees
that
will
be
planted
there.
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
student
housing,
project.,
danica,
powell,,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
thus
reducing
the
vehicle.
miles,
traveled,,
reducing
stress
on
those
residential
communities
and
encouraging
this
modal
split
that
we've
seen
through
data
that
the
city
has
collected,.
That
students,,
when
located
near
campus,
really
reduce
or
reduce
their
single
occupant,,
vehicle,
travel
and
use..
They
walk
and
bike
and
do
other
things..
And
we
have
a
lot
of
data
that
was
provided
from
the
city
over
many
years
and
having
direct
access
to
boulder
creek
next
slide.
E
F
G
Sar
architects:
and
just
have
to
project
over
sar
architects:.
So
there
is
this
kidney
bean
shape.
That's
on
the
site..
That
is
the
area
that
is
developable
on
the
site.,
and
so
the
footprint
of
the
proposed
buildings
are
roughly
the
same
size
and
area
as
the
existing
hotel
and
the
buildings
are
situated
carefully
in
the
landscape.
in
response
to
this,
this
creek
and
the
flood
planes.
G
H
Sar
architects:
and
we
just
wanted
to
share
a
little
bit
of
the
process..
I
think
this
was
provided
certainly,
for
design
advisory,
board,
and
probably
for
the
initial
concept
plan
of
our
top
concept.
or
you
know,.
The
the
initial
response
to
a
site
from
a
developer
point
of
view
might
be.
What's
on
the
top
left.
H
H
H
H
H
H
Sar
architects:
creating
and
an
increasing
along
the
creek
to
to
enter
into
the
site
and
become
integral
to
the
buildings
and
the
overall
landscape..
So
I
think
we
had
had
that
in
the
concept
meeting
that
we
had
quite
some
time
ago,,
but
we
didn't
share
that,
and
there
were
some
new
members
of
the
board
that
might
not
have
seen
where
that
strategy.
Origin
originated.
H
sar
architects:
and
there
was
some
concern
about
the
materials
last
time
as
well.,
and
this
is
a
discussion
we
did
have
with
planning
board.
that
there
was
a
a
concern,
perhaps,,
that
there
should
be
more
materiality
distinction
between
buildings,
and
we
wanted
to
emphasize
that
we?.
We
thought
about
this
quite
carefully
in
terms
of
an
umbre
approach
to
the
brick.
H
Sar
architects:
of
going
from
a
lighter
brick
material
to
a
darker
brick
material
with
both
of
those
in
place.
and
they
sort
of
span
across
the
buildings
as
you
go
down
the
creek,
so
that
your
lighter
materials
are
at
the
west
end
of
the
creek,
west
end
of
the
site,.
And
then
we
do
changes..
We
approach
the
east
end
of
the
site,,
which
is
where
most
of
the
public
spaces
are.
H
Sar
architects:
that
there
is
a
materiality
strategy
there.-
and
this
is
something
we
work
with
carefully,
with
design
advisory
board..
We
really
appreciated
their
comments
about
it.
Feeling,
like
the
backside
of
a
building.
which
is
true,,
olson
drive
presently,
is
very
much
a
service..
It
is
the
tail
end
of
a
safe
way..
It's
a
it's
a
service
alley.
H
Sar
architects:
and
dab
and
staff
both
encouraged
us
to
contemplate..
What
would
it
look
like
if
that
changed
down
the
line??
So
how
would
we
also
drive
the
activated
and
that
caused
us
to
reconsider
our
materiality
strategy.,
where
we
have
3
stories
over
one
or
one
story
over
3
and
adding
several
entries
on
the
north
side,
as
well
as
adding
an
accessible
entry
on
the
west.
Side,
was
a
consideration
that
wasn't
there
previously.
H
Sar
architects:,
so
this
shows
a
little
bit
more
about
that
ombre
approach
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
the
bricks.,
the
brick
color,.
As
we
approach
through
it's
hard
on
screen..
It
doesn't
even
look
great
on
mine.
this.
This
is
masonry.,
but
it
does
look
in
these,
you
know,
and
viewed
online..
If
we
had
nice
big
boards
in
front
of
you.,
it
would
look
like
brick,
and
it
doesn't
so
much
right
now.,
but
we
did
add
images
of,,
you
know,
the
specific
brick
material
that
we're
thinking
of
using
associated
with
that,.
G
I
I
Cassie
slade,
fox
tuttle
parking,
&
transportation:
place
to
put
it..
We
also
know
that
students
have
eco-passes,
and
they
have
the
bike
share.
Program..
We
also
on
site..
I
have
a
a
lot
of
short
term
and
long
term
bike,
parking.
and
again,.
A
lot
of
people
have
a
lot
of
our
team
has
talked
about
how
we
are
across
the
creek,
and
there's
a
lot
of
multi
past
that
connect
around
town,
and
especially
to
school.
I
danica
powell,
trestle
strategy.
Group:,
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
take
them.,
I'm
happy..
I
can
do
that.
One.
yeah,
and
we
apologize.
chris
mcgann
again,
mcgran.
a
hand
from
ls
who
did.
Our
tdm.
is
backpacking
with
his
voice.,
so
I'm
going
to
fill
in
for
him.,
our
our
tmp
plan
and
trans
or
our
the
transportation
advisory
board
and
our
alignment
with
the
tmp
plan
we
felt
was
strong..
We
have
3
north
south
connections,,
multimodal
connections.
E
E
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
the
students
travel
at
60
62%,
choose
non
auto
options
for
all
trips
within
boulder.,
so
they
have
been
taking
advantage
of
our
multimodal
system
and
opportunities,,
and
we
feel
that
those
will
increase
even
more
with
our
access
to
scooter
share,
and
with
our
alternative
transportation
fund..
So
there's
a
lot
of
data
in
here..
I
think
this.
I'll
leave
this
for
questions.
If
you'd
like
to
dive
into
it.
A
A
A
J
J
E
J
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
well,,
we
are
either
they
can
park
here
or
off
site,,
but
they
wouldn't
be
allowed
to
bring
a
car.
and
so
we're
we're
providing
those
options
for
them..
So
they
would
sign
a
lease
with
their
parents.
That
says
they
don't
bring
a
car
unless
they
have
a
paid
parking,
spot.
and
then,.
You
know,
the
idea
is,,
maybe
some
of
those
cars
stay,
and
they
use
this
multimodal,
or
they
don't
have
a
car
at
all..
E
E
Ml
robles,
pb:,
the
eco-pass.
and
so
we're
just
layering
on
top
of
that..
We
are
also
talking
with
commutify
to
manage
that
alternative
transportation.
Fund.,
that's
fine.!
I
I
was
more
concerned
about
the
people
who
are
using
it,
for
in
town..
You
know
they
have
a
car,,
but
not
taking
advantage
of
everything
you're
talking
about..
I
I
I'll
get
to
my
second
question.
J
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
so
there's
a
range
of
units
from
studio
to
4,
bedrooms,
and
typically
those
every,.
I
believe
each
person
signs
their
own
lease,
and
sometimes
they
come
together
as
a
for
some,
if
they're
in
the
larger
3
or
4,
bedrooms,
or
3
or
4,,
or
they
are
put
together
through
roommate
selection,
process.
and
so
there's
a
as
different
types
of
units,
depending
on
what
kind
of
situation?.
J
J
J
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:,
so
the
area
north
of
the
creek
is
transitional
business,,
which
brings
us
from
the
large
format
big
box
retail
towards
the
creek..
So
this
the
uses
are
mix
of
uses,,
including
housing,,
and
then
south
of
the
creek
is
high,
density,
residential,,
and
so
that
really
transitions
south
of
the
creek
to
the
there's.
A
lot
of
high
density,
residential
and
more
student
housing,
senior
housing
south
of
this..
So
the.
E
J
E
J
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
well,,
it's
a
high,,
it's
a
center
of
higher
intensity.,
and
so
this
is
a
higher
intensity,
residential
use.,
and
so
it
does
conform
with
those
desired
uses
of
higher
intensity
in
these
regional
centers..
So
it's
a
you
know..
We
have
these
nodes
along
the
boulder
valley,
regional
center,,
that
in
which
we
want
to
concentrate
that
intensity..
The
site
is
not
suitable
for
retail
or
large
format.
Retail.
so,,
as
a
residential
site.
E
J
K
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:,
it
is
complete..
I
it..
It
has
been
reviewed
at
length
by
the
city..
It
includes,
an
information
like
parking
management,,
which
was
something
that
was
significant.
brought
up
early
on..
So
we
met
with
all
our
neighbors
to
talk
about
how
we
would
manage
parking..
It
talks
about
how
the
property
would
be
managed.
E
K
A
A
L
A
M
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
in
the
event
that
the
resident
does
not
elect
to
lisa
parking,
space
resident,
hereby
acknowledges
that
resident
will
not
be
parking
a
vehicle
at
the
facility,
and
either
a
does
not
have
a
vehicle
in
boulder
or
b
resident
has
a
range
to
store
their
vehicle
on
private
property
through
a
separate
and
unrelated
agreement,.
So
they
would
be
signing
a
lease
with
their
parents.
that
says:
they're
not
going
to
park
a
a
car
on
the
public
street
that
they
would
have
to
either
not
bring
a
car
or
a
range
to
park.
M
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:
is
that
what
you're
talking
about
danica.
yes,
and
they
would
provide
proof
of
that..
So
you
have
some
long
term
storage
options
at
williams,
village
for
long
term,
parking,
and
there's
you
know
they
they
might
find
another
arrangement,,
but
they
would
have
to
provide
proof
that
that
is
what
they
are
doing.
K
K
N
N
D
D
P
Pb,
jorge
boone:
yeah,,
I
agree.-
that
is
the
one
spot
in
the
high
review
criteria
that
applies
to
this
project..
Everything
else
that
was
in
there
was
was
not
related
to
community
benefit..
We
view
it
as
the
city..
That's
helpful.,
secondly,,
we,
we're..
This
is
site,
review,
right?,
so
the
inclusionary
housing
component
of
this
is
not
necessarily
a
component
of
site
review,
as
it
relates
to
how
we
review
it
as
planning
board.,
correct.
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
that's
correct.,
yes.
laurel
witt,
cob:,
so
the
yeah.,
the
inclusionary
housing,
is
an
administrative
process
that
happens
after
side
review..
There
is
some
stuff
in
there
related
to
high
modifications.,
but
again,
that
only
applies..
If
we
get
a
high
modification.,
then
there's
a
separate
administrative
process.
After
the
start
review,
process.
P
P
A
A
J
P
laurel
witt,
cob:,
and
I
could
be
messing
this
up
a
little
bit.,
so
please,
charles,.
I
saw
you
pop
on,,
so
please
feel
free
to
interrupt..
So
the
question
is.,
where
does
inclusionary
housing
come
in
with
height
modification.?
Is
that
right?
yeah.
so
underneath.
that
particular
section
of
the
code?.
P
P
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
but
that
deciding
whether
or
not
you
get
inclusionary
housing
isn't
a
part
of
the
actual
decision
of
whether
you
want
to
allow
high
modifications
that
as
a
result
of..
So
if
you
say
we
like
the
additional
floor,
it's,,
you
know,,
it's
got
great
design,,
etc.
we
want
that
additional
height..
Then
a
result
of
that
is
that
we
get
more.
P
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:
yes,.
I
know
it's
a
little
bit
confusing,,
so
it
says
that
planning
board
may
approve
high
modification.
If
you
approve
high
modification,,
then
they
have
to
increase
inclusionary
housing.
right?.
So
the
the
may
is
ambiguous..
It's
not
tied
to
any
sort
of
conditions
in
the
code..
So
those
criteria
under
the
height.
J
J
J
P
P
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:
the
additional
bonus
laurel,
witt,
cob:
land.,
so
when
it
says
planning
board
may
allow
for
additional
height,.
It's
not
based
on
inclusionary
housing..
It
just
says:
may,,
it's
not
tied
any
conditions.,
so
we,
as
the
city,
attorney's
office,
recommend
tying
this
sort
of
decision
to
some
sort
of
criteria..
So
we
recommend
that
site
review
criteria..
It
doesn't
meet
things
like
design,
building,,
etc.,,
all
the
different
criteria
that
you
want,
and
if
it
does.,
if
you
do
want
to
give
the
high
modification.
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
I
don't
know,
charles,.
If
you
wanted
to
explain
it
differently.,
maybe
I'm
that's
very
variable.,
it's
a
little
confusing..
I
know
it's
just
because
it's
ambiguous
with
the
may,
and
it's
not
tied
to
specific,
like
criteria..
It's
just
saying,,
you
know,!
If
it
is
a
residential
development.-
if
you
do
get
this
additional.
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
J
J
A
A
A
R
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
stabs.
feedback,
sarah
silver,
pb:,
and
I
think
it
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
will
explain
to
us
which
code
criteria
you
all
use
for
your
work,
because
we
use
the
planning
criteria
from
chapter
9..
I
do
not
know
if
you
all
also
use
that
planning
criteria,
or
whether
you
use
design
criteria.
so
it'd
be
helpful.
If
you
just
help
us
to
understand
which
part
of
the
code
you
reference?.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Brendan
ash,
dab:
because
of
this
being
built
in
the
flood
plane.
it
had
to
be
on
this
podium.
and
so,
the
podium
being
a
design,
constraint
and
issue,.
You
know
what
are
some
techniques
and
detailing
and
architectural
material
uses
the
we,
and
and
also
circulation,
uses
and
entries
that
we
could
help
break
up.
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
A
A
R
N
N
N
R
Brendan
ash,
dab:
of
what
you
know,
what
we
originally
were,
looking
at,
and
then
what
was
in
the
planning
board
packet
today?,
and
I
I
think
some
of
the
elevations
have
like..
I
said,
the
north
street
elevation,.
I
think,
really
has
improved
quite
a
bit.,
but
I
I
am
still
concerned
about
the
east
elevation.
R
R
R
N
R
R
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
and
sarah
silver,
pb:
ask
you
for
your
feedback,,
your
thoughts,,
your
concerns,,
your
questions,
your
comfort,
level,,
and,
if
you
have
a
condition
to
at
least
tell
us
generally
what
that
condition.
References.
we're
not
going
to
take
a
straw
poll
yet..
I
just
want
to
try
to
get
everybody.
A
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
S
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
kind
of
a
hop,
skip,
or
jump
up
to
campus.,
it's
a
nice
walk
or
bike
ride
up
the
greek
path,
and
then
a
fullsome
or
straight
up
28,,
and
so
I
think
the
the
general
concept
is
completely
appropriate,
and
something
that
we
desperately
need.
frankly,.
We
here,
I'll
say
the
same
thing
that
I
said
on
the
2,700
morehead
project,
the
time
and
again,.
How
much.
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
we
need
student,,
student,
oriented
housing.,
and
this
is
very
much
student
oriented
housing,,
and
I
think
that
providing
a
lot
of
options
for
students
here
will
take
help
to
take
a
little
bit
of
the
pressure
off
some
of
the
neighborhoods
that
are
feeling
a
lot
of
pressure
to
heal,
and
martin
makers,
and
so
on..
So
I
think
it's
it's
very
appropriate..
From
that
standpoint,
the
overall
site
design
is
not.
S
S
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
elevation.,
so
I
really
appreciate
that..
I
think
that
the
parking
reduction
is
appropriate,
given
the
the,
the,
the
operating
plan
that
they
have
in
mind,,
and
you
know
that
it'll
be
students.
I
would
love
at
some
point.
If
this
is
approved
and
goes
forward.,
I
would
love
at
some
point
a.
S
S
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
the
design
is
rather
busy,
actually,
and
the
reference
images
that
they
showed
seem
much
simpler
and
cleaner..
But
I
appreciate
that
dad
actually
wanted
more
detailing,
more
articulation,
and
it
sounds
like
the
board..
Some
of
the
other
members
of
the
planning
board,
do,
too.
and
to
me
that's
largely
a
matter
of
aesthetics.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
A
S
A
N
N
N
Pb,,
jorge
boone:
is,
is
not
pb,,
jorge
boone:,
taking
care
of
that,
and
and
and
how
that,,
how
that
manifests
over
time.
is
a
it's
not
terribly
enforceable
by
the
city.,
and
when
we
see
new
developments,
we
see
dead
trees.
and
you
can
even
see
it
on
the
where
the
daily
camera
building
is
right,
now,,
where
we've
got
basically,
these
tree
wells
that
are
completely
scraped,
and
you've
just
got
concrete
there.,
and
so
I
don't
expect
that
to
happen.
Here.
N
Pb,
jorge
boone:,
I
I
do
think
we
need
to
pay
attention
to
the
structure.,
that's
permanent.
and
we'll
change
over
time.
and
right
now
that
facade,,
especially
on
20,
eighth
street,,
is
the
gateway
of
boulder..
I
think
it
would
be
a
travesty
if
that
was
approved
like
that.,
so
I'd
I'd
want
us
to
consider
that.
N
pb,
jorge
boone:.
These
are.
these
units
are
are
rented
by
the
bedroom,,
so
we've
got
940
plus
tenants,
and
while
I
appreciate
that
the
applicant
put
in
their
leases,,
the
idea
of
of
them
signing
some
sort
of
pledge
that
they're
not
going
to
bring
a
car,
that's
completely
unenforceable
from
a
city
standpoint.
N
N
N
N
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
compelling
to
me
in
terms
of
why
this
is
not
commercial,
a
commercial
use,
and
that
is
in
part
2,
page
19,,
where
they
talk
staff's
rationale..
They
talk
about
significant
flood
restrictions
on
the
site,
limit
the
placement
of
the
buildings
and
prevent
the
location
of
commercial
uses
close
to
20,
eighth
street.
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
from
higher
intensity
uses
to
lower
intensity,
uses
like
residential.,
and
so
this
this
project.,
the
argument
here,,
whether
one
agrees
with
it
or
not,,
is
that
it
does
provide
some
transition
with
those
step
downs
towards
the
creek
and
it
not
being
a
a
high
intensity,
commercial
use,,
but
being
residential
instead,.
It's
providing
a
transition
between
the
more
residential
uses.
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
and
the
commercial
uses
in
the
brvc
boulder
valley,
regional
center.
and
I
do
recall,
reading
that
those
transist
transition
zones
are
intended
to
be
located
within
the
higher
intensity
use..
So
it's
not
up
to
the
neighborhood
to
provide
the
transition
zone.
it's
up
to
the
brvc,
boulder
valley,
regional
center
to
provide
the
transition
some..
I
see
you're,
not
in
your
head,
so
cool.
we're
on
the
same
page
with
that.
M
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
where
exactly
is
it
with
parking,?
If
we're
concerned
about
students
not
parking
on
site,
but
parking
in
the
neighborhoods.?
Where
is
that
opportunity
for
them
to
park
and
create
havoc
for
for
other
neighborhoods,?
Because
in
walking
around
this
site,,
which
I
did
for
about
an
hour,,
you
know
they
could.
they
could
park
in
the.
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
there
is
residential
to
the
west,
but
they're
going
to
have
their
own
parking
areas
that
I
assume
that
they
monitor,
and
there's
parking
to
the
south..
But
there's
not
really
a
lot
of
like
free
street
parking
like
we
see
in
some
of
these
proposals
where
there's
free
street
parking
all
around..
So
I
just
would
ask
people
to
be
thinking
about..
Where
are
we
afraid
that
they're
going
to
be
going
to
be
parking
for
the
long
term
with
a
car
that
they
keep
all
semester.
T
T
T
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:.
I
think
the
regional
center
thing
is
very
interesting,
as
well,
you
know..
I
wish
that
there
was
more
mixed
use
and
kind
of
transitional
use
built
into
the
actual
building.
you
know,
and
lovely
cafes,
and
such
and
things,
you
know,
along
the
creek,
would
be
really
more
of
that
would
be
nice
to
see.
T
T
T
T
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:.
I
do
appreciate
the
effort
put
toward
doing
some
adaptive
reuse,
and
retaining
some
of
the
small
buildings
and
spaces
for
small
business
owners,,
particularly
the
day
care
and
other
long-standing
businesses..
I
I
really
appreciate
that..
I
think
we
talked
about
that
earlier,
and
I
just
thank
you
for
doing
that.
T
T
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:
I'll
I'll
leave
it
there..
Other
people
are
doing
a
better
job
of
calling
out
specific
instances,
and
so
on.
and
I'm
curious
to
see
what
conditions
might
come
forward,
but
similar
to
a
lot
of
people..
I
I
just
have
questions
about
design
and
concerns,
about
height,
and
how
all
those
play
with
each
other.
K
K
K
K
K
K
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
hold
on
that
plan,
and
it
is,.
If,
if
you
look
at
it,
it
is,,
it
is
out
of
date,
and
it
and
it
gets
short
drift
in
the
bbc.,
and
I
think
rightly
so,,
because
it's
one
of
those
things
that
we
haven't
updated,
and
and
it
might
still
provide
some
guidance
for
us..
But
I
think
this
project
falls
within
the
guidance
of
the
vvrc.
and
the
bbc.
K
K
Mark
mcintyre,,
pb:
and
looking
at
parking
and
you
know,,
we
recently
had
a
anyway,
predatory
parking
control
is
a
thing
in
boulder
and
it..
It
will
be
very
expensive.
if
someone
thinks
they
are
going
to
park
their
car
at
the
safeway
center
or
to
the
to
the
to
the
south
and
the
other
residential
area
across
the
greek..
There
just
isn't.
K
K
K
Mark
mcintyre,,
pb:
finally..
I
would
note
that
you
know
we.
We
have
goals
in
the
bbcp.
and
as
a
city
about
parking
and
about
not
letting,
parking,
dominate,
design,,
dominate
our
need
for
housing,
and
we
will
never
change
until
we
change,
and
we,.
If
we
continue
to
support
the
status
quo,
which
is
over
parked.
K
K
Mark
mcintyre,
pb::
we
have
to
take
a
view
of
this
that
is
forward
looking,
and
that
parking
and
a
parking
reduction
are
stated
goals,,
and
here
an
applicant
has
come
to
us
with
a
written
agreement
with
their
tenants,
and
a
plan
that
supports
a
parking
reduction..
So
I
I
I
remain.,
I'm
concerned
about
that.
my
one
concern.
K
K
K
K
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
in
the
morning,,
so
I
have
a
condition
prepared
to
address
that.
and
I
I
trust
the
applicant
currently..
But
you
know
we
all..
We
all
move
on.,
we
all
pass,
and-
and
it
needs
to
be
in
writing
in
such
a
way
that
it
can
never
be
misconstrued
as
a
as
possible
private
private
property
that
the
public
does
not
have
access
to.
A
A
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
only
a
request
of
that
size
is
extremely
rare.
and
actually
the
only
types
of
buildings
that
tend
to
get
a
50%
parking
reductions
are
those
that
do
not
have
a
lot
of
parking
like
the
jail
and
warehouses
and
storage..
This
is
none
of
those
things..
This
is
a
very
densely,
very
dense
housing.
Development.-.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
but
it's
matched
to
a
parking.,
it's
matched
to
a
reasonable
parking
reduction..
So
what
I've
been
thinking
about
is
sort
of
backwards.
Math
is
how
I've
been
thinking
about
it,
which
would
allow
the
348
parking
spots,
which
we
know
is
the
maximum
that
they
can
fit..
Given
the
flood
plain
issues
right,,
we
get
that.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:-
that
is
a
good
art.,
there's
a
good
argument
for
the
height,
modification,
and
addressing
the
parking
modification,
which
to
me
in
my
mind,
is
extreme.
and
it's
this
sort
of
formula,
and
I'm
open
to
negotiation
on
what
that
percentage.
Is,.
But
I,
I
think,
that's
a
way
to
approach
it,,
so
that
will
be
my
condition.
A
P
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
great!
great!,
I'm
gonna
read
off
my
notes,
a
little
bit..
So
sorry,
I'm
looking
at
the
other
screen..
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to.
just
clarify
the
first
one
is
with
kurtz.
note
about
getting
rid
of
the
carpet
on
20
eighth..
There
are
a
couple
of
concerns
about
that:
one.
we'll
have
to
go
through
the
tdm
process,
re-review
again..
That
was
also
done
with
c.
so
we're
not
sure
of
our
entire
authority
around
that..
It
sounds
like.
P
P
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
oral.,
I'm
sorry,
I
don't..
I
don't
entirely
understand
that
comment.
so
you're,
saying
that
the
city
and
c.
dot
went
through
a
planning
process
and
decided
because
it's
on
twenty-eighth
street,
and
decided
to
keep
that
curb
cut,
and
that
if
we,
as
planning
board,
made
it
a
condition
to
eliminate
it,,
then
that
would
require
the
city
and
see
that
to
renegotiate.
and
there's
no
guarantee
that
see?.
That
would
agree
to
that.
P
Brad
mueller,
cob:
right.,
and
I
don't
know
it's
how
it
looks
like
brad
just
jumped
on..
Somebody
has
a
little
bit
more
a
a
knowledge
about
that
one..
So
the
site
plan
that
was
brought
forward
to
you
with
staff's
review,
assumes
a
certain
set
of
traffic
patterns,,
including
volume
to
the
north,
and
internal
circulation
for
safety
and
such.
so,.
If
there
were
condition
that
that
access
were
removed.,
not
only
does
it,
but.
U
U
A
A
U
O
Laura
kaplan,
pb:.
I
just
want
to
ask
a
question
of
what
happens
if
what
we
approve
through
site
review
is
deemed
not
feasible
from
a
traffic
perspective
through
the
city's
negotiations.
With,
see
that?.
Does
that
mean
that
this
project
can't
be
built
because
it
doesn't
comply
with
what
we
approve
through
site
review,
or
what
happens.
U
U
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
thank
you..
That's
helpful
to
clarify
that
it's
not
just
see
that.,
but
if
we
approve
something
through
site
review
that
ultimately
ends
up
being
in
feasible
from
a
traffic
perspective,,
for
whatever
reason
that
the
city
can't
approve
it.,
then
what
happens??
This
is.
The
site.
Review,
then
prevent
the
project
from
being
built,
and
the
applicant
has
to
start
over
and
come
back
or
cause.
We
would
have
approved
the
site,
review
and
said,.
This
is
a
condition
so
legally,
what
what
happens.
There?.
P
A
A
S
V
Edward
stafford,
cob:
good
evening,,
edward
stanford,,
senior
manager
of
engineering
from
a
fire
and
life
safety
access..
It
would
come
under
the
fire
code
requirements..
We
would
want
to
review,
to
ensure
that
they
have
adequate
access,,
which
is
a
concern
given
the
number
of
units
and
the
limited
access
that
would
be
here
and
those
limited
movement
points..
So
we
would
need
to
take
a
review
of
that.
P
J
P
P
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
great.,
yeah.
and
then
one
other
one
for
member
mcintyre.,
one
of
the
things
you'd
mentioned,
was
open
space,
making
sure
that
that's
available
to
the
public..
One
thing
I
wanted
to
note
is
if
they,,
because
it
is
part
of
the
approved
plans.
if
they
did
want
to
change
it
and
make
it
not
available
to
the
public.,
it
would
have
to
go
through
a
site
review.
P
S
A
A
D
N
A
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
okay.
so
thumbs
up..
If
people
are
comfortable
with
the
sarah.,
but
before
we
do
a
straw
poll,
can
we
just
talk
about
a
little
bit
like
we
wanted
to
reserve
discussion,?
And
so
I
don't
know
what
people
might
think
are
the
pros
and
cons
of
an
amendment
like
that.,
I'm
not
ready
to
do
a
to
uphold
without
knowing
a
little
bit
more
about
it.
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
I
know
the
city
has
this
policy
that
says
that
for
a
development
you
only
get
one
curb
cut,
and
it
has
to
be
on
the
the
lease.,
the
smallest
street,,
basically
not
big
arterials,,
but
the
smallest
street
possible.
is
there
any
limit
to
that
like
this?
is
it?,
potentially
900
bedrooms?
and
we're
talking
about
putting
just
one
curb
cut
onto
olson,,
which
is
currently
an
ally,,
and
I
think
is
intended
to
stay
that
way
for
some
time.
M
K
V
Edward
stafford,
cob:,
I
can
certainly
give
you
the
staff
view,
if
you'd
like,
in
terms
of
answering
a
little
bit
of
what's
being
asked
here..
So
the
first
is
that
in
995
on
side
access
control.,
it
presumes.
The
starting
point
is
the
single,,
and
then
there
are.
I'll
call
them
criteria
in
there
for
additional
access
which
do
relate
to
things
such
as
circulation,
safety,,
those
types
of
items.,
you're,
correct
and
evaluating.
right,
now,,
this
site
actually
in
terms
of
access,
points.
V
Edward
stafford,
cob:
public
rural
road.
public
pride
of
way
has
3..
There
are
2
on
olson.
I'm
as
proposed
from
the
2
parking,,
and
then
there
access
the
3
quarters,
limited
access
to
20,
eighth
street,,
and
so
we
have
found
through
995,
and
through
the
traffic
analysis
and
the
circulation
material.
That
supplied.
The
staff's
recommendation
is
that
that
does
meet.
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
for
you,
ask
me,
yeah.
eliminating
the
curve.
Cut,
then,
is
the
direct
access
from
east
parking
lot
on
to
20,
eighth
street..
So
there's
there's
really
2
accesses
as
proposed
on
to
20
eighth
street..
One
is
a
direct
access
from
the
east
parking
lot,
and
the
other
one
is
false
and
drive
right.
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
and
so
my
condition
would
eliminate
that
direct
access
from
the
parking
lot
across
the
multi,
you
staff
there,,
which
to
me
it
seems
like
a
dangerous
and
problematic
crossing,
and
also
is
an
additional,.
You
know,
an
additional
conflict
point
over
what
we
clearly
are
going
to
have
at
olson
drive.
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
and
so
it
it.
to
me..
It
feels
like
it
would
improve
safety..
It
would
improve
mobility
for
people
walking
and
biking,,
and
just
clean
up
the
the
the
streetscape,
there
to
eliminate
that
access
directly
from
the
parking
lot,
between.
no,
across
a
multi-use
path,
which
we
know
are
problematic.
Movements.
S
V
V
Edward
stafford,
cob:,
the
olson
access
is
limited
to
right
in
right,
out..
There
is
not
an
opportunity
to
turn
that
into
a
3
quarter
because
of
the
other
access
points..
So
the
challenge
that
we
I'm
concerned
from
circulation
and
fire,
safety
or
piece
of
fire
safety!
is
that,
in
order
for
anybody
headed
northbound
to
get
into
this
site,
you're
going
to
have
to
loop
them
all
the
way
up
to
arapaho,
back
down
fullsome,
and.
V
Edward
stafford,
cob:
through
the
private
property,
eastman,
and
also
some
drive
into
here.,
so
there
is
a
a
limitation
to
the
maneuverability
that
occurs
with
that..
I
would
want
to
have
a
robust
conversation
with
our
fire
department
in
terms
of
limiting
access
to
a
development
of
this
size
in
that
way,,
and
only
off
of
the
single
20
foot
wide.
V
S
S
S
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
so
so
can
I.
just
ask,.
This
is
existing
condition
right
that
there
is
that
left,
turn
off
of
northbound
20,
eighth
street.,
and
this
does
cross
the
multi-use
path,
and
it
serves
the
current
millennium
hotel..
Do
we
have?
you
know.?
Is
this
a
hotspot
for
traffic
accidents?
is
it??
Is
it
a
dangerous
intersection?.
M
Edward
stafford,
cob:,
there's
yeah,
that
we
would
be
be
included
in
crash
data.,
that's
not
to
say
that..
You
know
there
are
always
a
concern
at
any
point
when
you
have
a
vehicular
crossing,
of
course,
of
a
bike,
and
ped
in
a
consideration
to
be
made
there..
So
I
don't
want
to
say
that
there's
not
any
concern
there..
It's
always
a
trade
off
of
that.
V
Edward
stafford,
cob:,
so
this
project
is
proposing
to
modify
that
to
ensure
that
the
entire
crossing,
so
right
now
half
of
that
crossing
is
raised
to
the
multi-use
path
stays
a
grade..
The
projects
proposing
to
raise
the
other
parts
of
the
entirety
of
the
multi-use
path
is
elevated
at
that
crossing.
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
and
although
this
may
not
be
the
final
language
that
that
is
proposed.
essentially,,
it's
at
the
applicant
shell.
no
sooner
than
2
years
after
the
last
certificate
of
occupancy
is
issued,
and
no
later
than
3
years
after
the
last
certificate
of
occupancy
is
issued,,
submit
to
the
city
manager,
a
parking
utilization,
study.
S
S
sarah
silver,
pb:,
but
I
think
it's
worth
considering
it
as
a
condition.
yeah,.
I
think.
If
it's
not
meant
to
be
a
condition,,
then
we
should
set
it
aside
as
a
matter,
because
it
would
be
very
helpful,,
since
almost
everything
we
get
these
days
is
student
housing
to
have
some
actual
data
about
student
housing,,
car
parking
and
utilization..
That
seems
like
a
valuable
piece
of
information.,
so
we're
not
all
just.
S
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
I
I
think
that's
true,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
it
needs
to
be
either
or
like,.
I
do
think
that
there's
value
in
like
a
pilot,
or
there's
value
in
like
we,,
we
can
at
site
review,
attach
a
condition
that
this
has
to
be
done,,
and
we
can
make
that
happen..
It
seems
like
it's
pretty
easy
for
the
applicant
to
do.
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
and
it
wouldn't
be
a
deal
killer.
Hopefully.,
laura
kaplan,,
pb:
to
do.
a
citywide
study
would
probably
require
like
making
it
a
work,
plan,
item
and
staff
involvement,
and
and
be
a
little
bit
more
involved..
So
I'm
not
saying
I'm
against
that..
I
think
that's
a
great
idea,
too,,
but
I
don't
see
why
we
couldn't
get
this
this
one
piece
of
data
that
would
be
useful
as
well.
P
A
M
A
J
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
does
that
work
for
you?
then?
yeah,.
I
don't
mean
to
jump
ahead
of
your.
If
I
can
go
last.,
that's
what
it
doesn't
matter.
it's
I.
I
just
hadn't
mentioned
it
to
get
on
the
queue..
There's
no,,
there's
no,,
there's
no
specific
order,
except
what
it
was
on
on
devon's
page..
So
if
you
send
something
to
devin,
and
meanwhile
we
will
work
through
marks.
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
either
a.
the
agreement
will
state
that
all
outdoor
spaces,
south
of
the
north
edge
of
the
multi-use
path
and
north
of
the
southern
creek
bank,,
shall
be
fully
acceptable
by
the
public
at
all
times,.
Unless
a
closure
is
required
and
agreed
to
jointly
by
the
city
and
the
property
owners,,
and
that
such
closure
should
be
rare.
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
shall
be
fully
accessible
by
the
public
at
all
times,,
unless
it
closure
is
required
and
agreed
to
jointly
by
the
city
and
the
property
owners,,
and
that
such
closure
should
be
rare..
I
think
you're
saying
the
same:
thing.
you're
just
trying
to
define
it.
it's
yeah..
I
I
get
in
terms
of
visiting
the
site
and
trying
to
create
a
definable
boundary,
and
what
people
would
perceive
as
public
space..
I
think
the
lawn.
K
K
K
K
K
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
people,
discover.
well,,
actually.,
mark
mcintyre,,
pb:,
it's
not,
or
that
there
is.
it's
not
as
restricted
as
or
as
publicly
accessible
as
they
had
once
thought.,
and
so
I
just
simply
want
to
clarify
that
if
this
applicant
is
showing
us
a
drawing
and
saying,,
these
spaces
are
public..
K
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:,
but
they're,
not
relinquishing.,
mark
mcintyre,,
pb:,
they're,
not.
they're,
not
donating
that
to
the
city.
they're,
not
giving
it
to
the
city..
They
are,.
They
are
saying,,
it's
theirs,,
but
it's
publicly
accessible.
and
if
you
look
at,,
especially
at
the
at
the
at
that
page,,
the
one
page,
135
or
160.
K
A
A
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
actually,,
instead
of
using
applicants.,
it's
you,
you
have
to
clarify
that
it
will
be.
whoever
owns
the
property
at
any
time.
You
have
to
figure
out
how
to
get
that
in
there.
well,.
I
I
would
simply
request
we
change.,
I
I
think
that's
excellent.
input,,
sarah,
and
change..
I
I
have
property
owner..
I
I've
mixed
it
up
between
applicant
and
and
property
owner.
K
A
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:
very
good.
yeah,.
If-
and
I
don't
want
to
interrupt
your
discussion
on
this
at
all.-
just
wanted
to
comment
on
a
couple
of
things.
legally
speaking..
One
of
those
is
so
for
the
easement
part,,
where
the
multi-use
path
is
that's
done
by
code
and
access
and
maintenance
are
already
defined
in
that
easement
process..
So
I
I
just
didn't
want
to
like
duplicate
that
here,,
because
it's
already
done
in
code.
yeah..
So
just
I'm
happy
to
eliminate
that
first
paragraph..
There
was
any
question
about
that.
that
that's.
K
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
it's
on
page
1,,
19
of
the
packet,,
and
it
describes
boulder
creek
programming
and
maintenance
landmark.,
and
it
talks
about
the
pickle
ball,
courts,,
etc.
so
I
want
to
let
you
know
about
that,,
because
that
is
something
that
will
be
in
part
of
the
development
agreement
and
and
something
that
they're
being
healthy.
so
again,
just.
P
P
P
K
K
K
K
K
K
P
A
K
K
K
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:,
as
as
as
private
and
and
close
to
the
public,
and
as
they
should
be,,
and
so
I
don't
have
any
any
problem
with
that.
and
then
there's
some.,
there's
a
a
green
buffer
area
that
is
not
shown
as
yellow.
and
I,.
I
would
consider
that
to
be
under
their
jurisdiction
and
under
their
control.
and
I
and
so.
K
K
M
K
M
M
M
M
M
K
K
A
A
A
A
M
U
U
Sarah
silver,
pb:
with
what
we
think
reflects
the
discussion
here,.
We
can
also,
speak
to
speak
to
the
essence
of
it
as
you
mentioned.
thanks,.
That
would
be
great..
Thank
you
very
much.
and
just
so,
you
know.
george,
has
also
has
a
condition
he'd
like
to
add
so,
and
we'll
talk.
Through.
ml,,
we'll
come
back
to
you,
mark..
You
have
not
been
forgotten.
ml,,
let's
talk
through
years,
and
then
we'll
put
up
george's..
Sarah
devin
has
2
ahead
of
me.
J
A
A
A
A
A
J
J
J
Q
J
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):
and
while
these
policies
are
helpful
and
would
probably
be
more
appropriate
for
a
concept
level.,
you
know,,
the
design
is
pretty
well
developed
at
this
point..
So
we
would
want
very
specific
direction
from
dam
for
elements
of
the
buildings
or
the
site
plan
for
them
to
review
and
provide
comments.
On.
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
N
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
yeah.,
and
I
would
add
that
hello
would
remind
us.
and
I'm
sure
laurel
is
itching
to
remind
us
as
well..
In
order
for
us
to
put
a
condition
on
the
project,.
We
have
to
say
that
it
does
not
meet
a
certain
part
of
the
site
review
criteria.
we
cannot,.
We
cannot
reference
the
bbc,
the
boulder
rally
regional
center
and
just
say
what
we
don't
think
that
we
want
student
housing,
here.
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
we
can't
reference.
the
bvcp.
in
general,
unless
we
are
willing
to
say
that
it
does
not.
On
balance
meet
the
bvcp.
like
it
has
to
be
tied
to
what
of
the
site
review
criteria,.
Does
it
not
meet?,
and
this
condition
would
help
it
meet
that
part
of
the
site
review
criteria??
It
has
to
be
really
specific
to
be
legally
defensible.
A
A
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
A
U
U
U
J
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
whatever
the
math,,
the
math,,
either
it's
sarah
silver,
pb:.
The
building
has
to
have
a
30%
parking
reduction
or
35
or
a
40%
park
reduction,,
which
then
will
lead
the
develop
of
applicants
to
have
to
redesign
the
building
to
meet
that
reduction,,
and
that
creates
the
opportunity,
then,.
For
some
of
these.
A
A
A
A
A
Ml
robles,
pb:
connect
my,
what
what
ml,
is
saying
to
what
I'm
trying
to
say,
yeah,,
now,,
laura.
and
then
mark,,
and
I
think
brad
is
to
speak.
yeah,
and
I'll
I'll
jump
off..
I
just
want
to
make
one
more
process.
Point..
As
you
finalize
your
discussion
around
these
conditions.,
it
would
be
helpful
to
us
if,
as
staff,
if
we
could
take
a
10
min,
break
to.
U
A
M
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
okay,
well,,
I
I
I
appreciate
what
ml.
has
done
here,
and
I
think
this
is
a
good
roadmap
for
the
future.,
but
we're
not
at
concept
review.
we're
at
site
review.,
and
I
think
that
ml,,
what
you're
proposing
goes
beyond
what
at
least
I
would
be
comfortable,
approving
as
a
condition,,
because
my
understanding.
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
of
a
condition
is
that
once
we
put
conditions
on
the
process,,
the
project,
and
then
we
vote
yes,
on
the
project
with
the
conditions.,
we
never
see
it
again..
It
doesn't
come
back
to
us..
So
unless
we're
gonna
deny
the
project
and
then
make
a
recommendation.
hey,
go
to
deb,
and
come
back
to
us
with
a
new
site
review
application.
After
you
have
done
these
things.
M
M
M
K
K
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
I
I
think
you
make
a
really
good,
point,,
laura,
and-
and
I
just
want
to
say,
and
sarah
was
kind
of
interjecting
this
as
well-
that
we
actually
did
give
all
this
feedback
at
site
review..
And
then
this
is
what
got
kicked
back
to
us
like
we
told
them
all
of
this,,
and
this
is
apparently
what
we
got.
T
T
T
T
T
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:
trying
to
fix
it.
so
honestly,,
I'm
I'm
I'm
actually
fine
with
denying
this..
I
don't
know
that
we
have
the
votes,
and
if
we
don't
have
the
votes,,
then
let's
actually,,
I'm
I'm
not
in
my
head..
I
think
ml.
was
not
in
her
head..
Is
that
a
fair
comment,
ml,?
Were
you
not
in
your
head
in
agreement
with
lisa.
J
A
P
M
A
M
K
K
K
K
K
K
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
so
I
will
respond
to
that.
With,
yes,.
The
parking
root
parking
reduction
does
not
meet
code..
That
is
my
argument
for
this,
and
that's
why
I've
been
trying
to
come
up
with
an
alternative
that
would
not
deny
it,
but
also
not
allow
a
huge
parking
reduction..
So
I'm
going
to
call
on
george.
and
then
laura,
and
then
kurt.
N
N
N
N
H
Pb,
jorge
boone:
yeah.,
so
so
this
is
addressing
one
of,
but
probably
not
enough
of
what
ml's
concern
watch,,
which
is
the
facade
facing
28
street,,
shall
feature
a
greater
articulation,,
height
mass,
and
break
up
the
facade
of
the
expansive
parapet,
which
we
heard
directly
from
david,,
which
we
had
feedback
from
on.
The
initial
concept
review
to
that
we
got,
and
it
doesn't
appear
to
the
developer-
is
listening
to
anybody
relative
to
this.
N
N
Pb,
jorge
boone:,
because
I
think
it's
a
massive
concern.
and
I
think
everyone
on
this
board
has
voiced
it
in
one
way
or
another..
People
may
or
may
not
feel
as
passionately
about
it,,
but
I
don't
think
there's
a
single
person
on
this
board
that
hasn't
brought
this
up.
and
I
don't
know
why
the
developer
hasn't
hasn't
addressed
this
to
appease
the
board
and
dad.
But
it's
frustrating
because
we're
in
this
position
now.
N
N
N
Pb,
jorge
boone:,
I
I
I
want
to
be
cautious
about
sending
this
back,
to
dab,,
to
and
and
removing
our
authority
as
a
board,,
because
we
also
have
the
authority
to
weigh
in
on
these
things.
and
even
prior
to
data
in
existing..
So
I
put
that
out
there
because
I'd
like
to
get
to
specific
things
like
this,
or
to
your
parking
proposal,
to
get
us
to
a
place
where
we
can
bring
some
conditions
that
we
can
move
something
forward..
But
I
also
want
to
acknowledge.
N
N
Pb,
jorge
boone:
to
give
feedback
over
and
over
again.
and
then
get
something
that
we're
we're
not
being
listened
to
and
then
just
expected
to
try
to
push
something
forward
on
behalf
of
the
developer.
and
it
seems
like
dad
had
a
similar
experience,,
especially
when
it
comes
to
this
facade,
fronting
20,
eighth,
street..
So
putting
that
out
there
for
discussion
and
trying
to
move
us
forward
in
in
some
direction.
thanks.
A
M
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
we
have
got
to
make
sure
we
have
a
rock,,
solid
legal
argument
of
how
they
have
not
met
those
criteria.,
and
so
I
would
be
interested
to
see
for
the
conditions
that
are
being
proposed,
or
for
the
denial
that
is
being
proposed..
What
code
sections,
specifically?
Are
we
saying
that
we
don't
think
it
meets,
because
I
think
we
need
that
to
be
able
to
vote
on
it.
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
if
we
were
going
to
deny
the
projects
based
on
the
idea
that
the
facade
facing
20
eighth
street
doesn't
have
a
good
enough
articulation
and
height
and
massing..
Where
is
that
in
the
code
that
they
are
required?
To,
they're
asking
for
height,
modification,
laura.
there
is.
there
is
code
specifically
around
that.
okay,.
So
let's
look
at
the
the
height
modification
section
and
talk
about
how
it
does
not
meet
the
requirements.
M
Laura
kaplan,,
pb:
and-
and
maybe
your
argument
is
around
compatibility
with
the
neighborhood.,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
the
argument
is,,
but
I
think
we
need
to
make
it
and
articulate
it
so
that
the
whole
board
can
consider
it,
and
maybe
it's
sort
of
unstated
here..
But
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
be.
J
J
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
they
will
definitely
help
us
with
the
wording.,
that's
for
sure.,
but
I
think
we
have
to
be
the
ones
to
point
to
the
code,
sections
that,
in
our
judgment,
as
the
planning
board,,
it
doesn't
meet,
and
why
we
think
that
this
condition
would
help
it
meet
it.
If
we
do
the
conditioning
route.
K
K
Mark
mcintyre,
pb:
with
what?,
going
back
to
that,
if
it's
our
choices
are
super
clear,
approval,
approval
with
conditions,
as
as
charles
said,,
that
are
actionable
in
detail
in
the
extreme
and
or
denial..
So
we
there
is
not..
There
is
not
a
process
to
go
back
to
death
that
they
would
go
back..
They
might
go
back
to
dad
if
you
kill
this.
K
K
A
T
T
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:
and
then
we're
all
arguing
with
each
other
over
like
whether
that's
right
condition
exactly
how
a
word
method.
This
is
what
happens
when
we
provide
very
clear
feedback
when
we
raise
a
lot
of
concerns,
and
and
that
this
is
a
very
experienced
developer
on
boulder,,
who
addressed
a
lot
of
it
and
has
a
very
constrained
site.
T
T
T
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:.
I
I
think
that
alone
should
be
a
sign
that
something
isn't
right.
and
you
know,.
I
I
I
just
want
to
push
back
against
the
notion
that
denying
necessarily
means
that
we're
not
going
to
prove
something,
or
that
we
don't
want
to
approve
something..
I
don't
think
we
would
have
talked
about
it
for
3
h
again
if
we
weren't
trying
to
make
it
work.
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:
we're
not
finding
a
way
to
make
it
work.
and
I
think
that's
a
sign
of
this
project.
just
isn't
ready.
and
as
for
the
particulars.,
I
think
you're
absolutely
correct..
This
is
the
kind
of
thing
the
city
can
and
does
get
sued
over..
I
will
rely
on
staff
to
ensure
that
we
do
this
correctly.,
but
but
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
I
think
the
truth
is
in
the
process.
T
P
A
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
why
don't
you
go
ahead
and
speak
now?
okay,?
That
sounds
good..
I
just
wanted
to
suggest
that
if
you
are
going
to
move
forward
with
this,
that
we
do
need
a
continuance
to
draft
those
findings,
so
it
can
come
back
before
the
board
and
review
it..
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
that
might
be
the
best
path
moving
forward.
As
far
as
drafting
the
actual
document
of.
P
P
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
the
raising.
keynes,
mentioned
that
somebody
mentioned
a
few
months
ago.,
so
that's
just
a
suggestion,
as
far
as
making
sure
that
it's
as
legally
sound
as
we
can
make
it.
okay,.
Thank
you
for
that
laurel..
That's
very
helpful.,
and
I
would
just
like
to
remind
folks
that
our
job
is
not
to
always
say
yes
for
job,
right?.
I
mean,.
I
realize
that
there's
some
comp
discomfort.
A
A
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:.
I
think
that
this
project
would
provide.
you
know,
all
of
the
things
that
we
have
talked
about..
It
does
provide
valuable
student
housing.,
it's
in
a
prime
location
for
that..
It
does
take
a
building
out
of
the
flood
plane
that
is
currently
in
the
flood,
plain
and
and
vulnerable..
It
does
improve
our
open
space..
It
does
all
of
the
things
that
that
danica
and
her
team
worked
so
hard
to
convince
us
of
what
are
the
benefits
of
this
project?.
It
provide
millions
of
dollars
for
affordable,
housing.
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
even
though
I
might
not
be
thrilled
with
the
design,
and
think
it
is
the
most
beautiful
architecture
I
have
ever
seen.
to
me.
It
meets
the
criteria
I
would
vote
to
approve,
and
I
would
vote
to.
I
would
be
happy
to
consider
reasonable
conditions.
Like,,
I
think
george's
condition
could
be,
could
be
added
and
that
that
would
not
kill
the
project..
So
I'm
not
sure
that
we
have
4
people
here
tonight
who
would
like
to
vote
to
deny
this
project.
and
I'm
hoping
that
we
have
some
discussion
about
that.
K
K
K
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
I
think
before
I
would
have
anything
meaningful
to
add
to
that,.
I
need
to
literally
go
listen
to
the
recording
of
the
meeting,,
but
I
I
think,
mark,
you'd,
be
the
first
person
to
say
that
sometimes
minutes
are
not
completely
comprehensive,
and
don't
capture
everything
that
we
say..
So
thank
you
for
bringing
that
point
up
at
the
end.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
so.
but,
laura,
before
you
say
anything,.
I
just
want
to
do
a
straw,
poll.
just.,
it's
just
a
process,
thing,
sarah..
I
think,
if
you're
asking
them
to
come
back
to
planning
board
with
another
design,,
that
is
a
denial..
We
don't
have
a
process
to
improve
it,
with
the
condition
that
they
have
to
come.
Back.
M
A
A
A
K
K
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:
yeah,
just
to
respond
quickly
to
that..
The
planning
board
has
the
purview
to
approve
any
parking
reduction.
right?,
so
any
parking
reduction
going
through
side
review
is
within
the
scope
of
the
code..
So
I
just
want
to
clarify
about
that.
and
secondly,.
We
have
seen
multiple
other.
S
S
Kurt
nordback,
pb:,
the
the
other
one,
had
a
55%
parking
reduction..
There
was
also
a
very
significant
parking
reduction
that
I
think
was
close
to
60
for
a
project
that
was
on
broadway..
It
was
right
across
from
see
you.
and
I
think
that
was
a
close
to
a
60%
partner..
That's
the
hotel.
I
think
you're
thinking
about.
A
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
so
with
parking,,
as
you
know,,
I'm
not
concerned
about
that.,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
I'm
not
concerned
is
because
of
the
physical
geography
of
this
site..
It's
bounded
on
3
sides,
by.,
there's
a
creek
on
one
side,
and
there
are
major
thoroughfares
on
other
sides,
and
there's
no
on
street
parking
that
is
convenient
and
free
anywhere
near
this
building.
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
students
would
be
very
inconvenient
to
leave
their
car
someplace
else
for
weeks
or
months
at
a
time,
and
then
come
back
to
it
right?.
So
I'm
not
concerned
about
the
parking,,
and
I
think
I
agree
with
kurt
that
we
can
approve
whatever
parking
reduction
we
want..
I
also
want
to
talk
about
the
height
for
a
second,
and
I
want
to
make
sure..
Can
we
pull
up
a
diagram
of
what's
around
this
building?.
M
M
M
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
on
the
east
side,,
which
you
can't
see.
here,
is
20
eighth
street,,
which
is
a
6
lane,
divided
highway,
plus
a
frontage
road.
and
then
on
the
other
side
of
that
is
a
commercial
area..
You
got
dentist's
office.,
you've
got
doctor's,
office,,
you've
got
insurance
and
law
offices.,
it's
not
residential..
M
M
M
So
laura
kaplan,
pb:
the
surroundings
around
here,,
I
think,,
are
perfectly
compatible
with
the
height
exemption
that
the
developer
is
asking
for..
This
is
where
we
want
intensity.
and
there's
there
really
is
nobody
here
that
is
in..
I
mean,
it's
not
like.
It's
single
family,
residential
and
2
stories
tall
anywhere
near
this
building.
right?.
M
So
I'm
not
bothered
by
the
height
in
laura
kaplan,
pb:
whatsoever.,
there's
also
a
wealth
of
mature
trees.
Already
on
the
site.,
the
developer
is
going
to
plant
more..
There
are
trees
along
20,
eighth
street
in
the
median,
and
along
that
frontage
road.
That
block
the
view
from
the
east.
like
it's
just.,
it's
not.
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
there's
nothing
about
this
building,
and
it's
already
a
60
foot,
building,
right?
like
we're
not
changing
the
condition.,
we're
not
raising
the
height..
I
understand
that
it's
a
larger
building.,
there's
more
of
the
site
that
is
covered.,
but
the
height
is
not
being
raised
here,.
So
I
have
no
problem
whatsoever
with
the
height.
M
M
A
M
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
you
are
directly,
sarah,
that
we
would
reduce
the
parking
and
then
reduce
the
number
of
units
or
the
scale
and
massing.
I'm
not
actually
reducing
the
parking..
I
am
letting
them
stick
with
the
amount
of
parking
the
they
are
maxed
out
on
the
parking
that
they
can
have
on
that
part
of
me.
you're,
reducing
the
allowable
parking
reduction
and
tying
that
to
a
reduction
in
the
building
itself..
So
to
allow
for
that
level
of
parking
at
a
30
to
40%
level.
M
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
if
if
this
is
reduced
to
somehow
below
the
35
by
right,
like,,
which
I
don't
think
it
would
be.,
we
allow
the
35%
by
right,
or
we
allow
it
to
be
45
feet
or
something..
But
it's
up
to
the
I'm
I'm
trying
to
come
up
with
a
formula.,
here,
here,.
Here's
my
take
on
this
lord..
You
want
this
building
as
is.
A
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
but
I
I
would
like
to
say
one
more
thing
before
you
cut
me:
off,,
sarah,
mit
ctl.
and
and
that
is,.
I
suspect
that
whatever
reduction
in
in
massing
and
units
will
simply
come
out
of
the
fourth
floor..
It's
probably
not
going
to
change
the
building
footprint.,
that's
what
the
applicant
is
most
likely,
in
my
opinion,
to
come
back
with.,
and
so
one.
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
like
I
said,.
I
don't
think
that
that
reduction
height
is
gonna
matter.,
all
that
much
to
anybody
around
here,
and
what
it
will
do
is
slice
into
our
inclusionary
housing
benefit
that
we
get
so,,
which
is
not
a
criteria
for
our..
So
I
just
want
to
say
for
my
fellow
planning
board
members
to
consider
is,.
It
is
taking
the
height
down
a
little
bit
worth
it
to
you
to
lose
that
inclusionary
housing
benefit,
which
will
be
the
impact
of
this
decision.
M
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
A
K
A
N
N
A
M
J
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:
the
project
redesigned..
I
know
you
had
said
it
could
go
to
staff..
That's
one
option..
If
you
go
to
dam
and
then
staff
approval.,
you
could
also
have
a
come
back
before
you..
If
you
are
going
to
do
that,
I'd
recommend
hearing
from
the
applicant.,
if
that's
something
they
would
be
interested
in.
P
U
A
A
A
U
U
U
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
I
did
want
to
clarify
to
you
with
what
laura
said.
we
can
move
to
deny
the
application.
we'll
just
have..
I
move
to
den
on
the
application
and
direct
the
city
attorney
and
planning
board
to
craft
finding..
So
there's
there's
a
way.
You
can
do
it.
If
you
move
to
the
denial.
just
so,,
you
know.
U
U
U
U
U
A
U
U
U
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
using
the
utilizing
the
parking
reduction
issue
as
an
opportunity
to
reduce
the
mass
and
scale
of
the
building.
Like
that's
what
I
think.
I'm
hearing
from
everybody.
we've
kept
track
of
those..
We
we
have
some
language
for
each
of
those,
and
we
can
bring
them
up
individually.
and
you
can..
You
can
discuss
them.
Individually.
T
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:
to
be
able
to
get
to
a
good
place
on
this,,
and
that's
why
my
recommending
station
would
be
one..
I
I'm
not
sure
if
60
days
is
enough
for
the
applicant,
and
we
might
want
to
hear
from
the
applicant
on
that.
if
we
want
to
consider
kicking
it
back
and
then
seeing
it
soon,.
I
I
don't
know
if
they'd
like
more
time.
T
T
K
K
K
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:-
and
I
am
sarah
silver,
pb:
seriously,.
I
do
not
appreciate
your
criticism,,
especially
since
your
own
emotion
was
it
could
be
a
or
it
could
be.
the
opportunity
is
for
us
to
talk
about
the
motions..
I
am
happy
right
now
to
make
the
motion
that
suggested
by
staff,
and
if
it
gets
voted
down,
it
gets
voted.
Down.
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
that's
what
I've
been
trying
to
do?
You.
the
fact
that
you
don't
want
me
to.,
you
don't.,
you
don't
like
my
mo.,
my
condition?
okay,,
that's
fine.!
You
don't
have
to
like
the
condition,,
but
we
are
options
here
are
pretty
limited..
We
can
either
vote
on
the
motion
yay
or
a,,
or
we
can
create
a
motion
that
would
create
a
path
forward
for
the
applicant.
A
A
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:,
who
would
like
to
make
the
motion
to
approve
the
site
and
use
review
application.
lor.
221,,
and
the
proposed
amendment
to
the
bvrc.
transportation
connections
plan
adopting
the
staff
memorandum
of
findings
of
fact,,
including
the
attached
analysis
of
review
criteria..
Would
someone
like
to
make
that
motion?.
M
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
okay,
I'm
going
to
read
the
motion,
and
then
we
will
vote..
I
think
that
there's
the
opportunity
to
add
amendments
if
folks
want,,
I
think
that's
part
of
the
process.,
but
thank
you,
sarah,,
please
go
ahead.
We
will
vote
on
this
motion,,
yay,
or
nay,,
and
then
we
can
vote
on
a
separate
motion.
M
A
A
A
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
I
would
make
the
same
motion
hope
for
a
second,
and
let
people
have
the
opportunity
to
amend
it..
If
people
want
to
add
conditions,,
it
would
be
my
strong
preference
for
us
to
see
if
we
can
approve
something
tonight..
If
the
applicant
doesn't
like
it
and
doesn't
want
to
implement
it,,
they
can
always
just
come
back
with
something
else.
they're
not
obligated
to
implement
it..
So
I
would
like
to
see
if
we
can.
M
M
P
M
A
A
K
P
J
A
A
A
P
N
N
N
Pb,
jorge
boone:,
but
I
also
think,,
I
I
don't
know
the
another
mechanism
that
we
can
get
there,,
but
I
think
what
you're
trying
to
do
is
address
the
mass
and
scaling
of
the
building.,
not
the
parking,
but
you're,
using
the
parking
to
do
that.,
so
I'm
supportive
of
the
amendment.,
but
I'm
also
supportive
of
someone
coming
up
with
a
different
amendment..
If
this
fails
to
address
the
same
thing
in
a
different
mechanism,,
if
we
can
think
of
one..
Thank
you.
T
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:
my
knee-jerk
responses
that
I
don't
love
condition
trying
to
get
to
an
end
by
conditioning
a
different
thing,
and
it
kind
of
being
this
round
about
thing..
I'm
not
saying
I
have
a
better
solution.
I
don't
like.!
That's
why
I
keep
talking
about
like
let's
just
deny
it,,
which
may
or
may
not
be
supported.
you
know.,
but
but
I
I
appreciate
where
you
got
there.,
I'm
I'm
not
sure
I
have
a
yes,
code
on
it,
because
I
I
think
it's.
T
T
J
P
J
J
J
P
J
J
J
J
A
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
if
this
amendment
fails,,
I
think
that
there
could
be
an
amendment
that
is
something
along
the
lines
of
having
varied
form
and
height
along
certain
facades
to
break
up
the
massing..
I
think
we
could
craft
an
amendment
like
that.
That
would
probably
succeed.
M
M
P
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
motion
to
to
amend
as
well
with
a
condition
that
would
allow
the
348
parking
spots,
but
would
require
the
applicant
to
reduce
the
mass
and
scale
of
the
building
until
those
348
parking
spots
are
equivalent
to
a
30,
or
between
a
30
and
35%
parking
reduction
relative
to
the
number
of
dwelling
units
for
code.
Regulations.
A
A
M
A
Sarah
silver,
pb:
we've
already
voted
down
the
motion..
We
just
put
it
down
the
amendment.
yeah.,
so
you'd
have
to
vote
on
the
actual
motion
that
laura.
well,.
I
think
that
if
people
want
to
offer
another
amendment,
a
different
amendment
like,,
if
george
wanted
to
offer
his
amendment
about
breaking
up
the
mass
like
this
is
where
we
can
add
all
the
conditions
that
we
want
to
add,
and
then
see.
If
the
package
is
something
that
people
can
vote,
for.
M
M
O
K
J
P
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:
on
this
motion
and
continue,
and
then
have
language
drafted
for
the
next
continuance.,
but
we
could
work
on
in
language
together
to
if
you
would
like
to
do
that.
Instead.,
it
kind
of
depends
on
what
the
board
would
like
to
do.
If
they
want
to
continue
this
hearing
to
have
those
findings
drafted,
or
or
if
we
want
to
try
and
do
it,,
can
I
just
call
on?,
let
me
call
on
lisa
and
see
if
he.
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:
yeah,,
I
I
don't
have
an
amendment
now,
and
and
I'm
I'm
so
sorry..
I
sound
like
a
a
broken
record
here,,
but
once
again
we're
pushing
up
against
100'clock.
so
I,.
I
would
suggest
that
one
way
or
another,
again,
it
might
be
appropriate
to
continue
it.
and
I
again,.
I
think
the
fact
that
we
get
so
caught
up
in
this
is
is
indicative
of
where
the
projects
that,
but
I
I
I
would
be
happy
to
support,-
probably
either
of
those
depending
on
exactly
the
language.,
but
either.
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
you
know,
doing
a
full,,
formal,
denial,
or
just
saying
like,
hey,,
we're
gonna,
try
to
keep
amending
this.
and
as
much
as
we
all,
I
assume,
as
much
as
me,
kind
of
hate
that
we
might
be
coming
back
and
looking
at
this
again..
You
know
that
that
we're
going
to
try
to
do
something,,
because
I
do
think
that
your
idea
and
all
is,
is
a
creative
one.
and.
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:.
It
was
interesting
to
me
when
we
were
staring
at
the
pb,
lisa
smith:
kind
of
the
overhead
aspect
that
laura,
you,
I
think,
intelligently
asked
them
to
put
up
there,
that
what
I
was
seeing
was
just
yeah,,
just
the
massing
and
how
it
doesn't
step
down
toward
the
creek,,
and
it
doesn't
step
down
toward
anywhere
else..
And
it's
these
weird,
narrow,
channels.
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:
rooms
looking
at
each
other,
and
which
is
the
same
feedback.
We
gave
last
time.
you
know.
yeah.,
and-
and
so
I
I'm
just
again.-
I
I
think
we're
kind
of
at
the
time
of
night,
where
I
I
personally,
don't
trust
my
decision
making..
I
don't
want
to
say
I
don't
trust
anyone
else's.
I
think
it'd
be
appropriate
to
either.,
continue
and
try
to
do
amendments,,
and
I
I
believe,
laurel
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
T
T
Laurel
witt,
cob:
amendments
or
motion,
language.
right?,
we
we
can.,
I
mean
it..
It
takes
up
your
time,
obviously.,
but
I
think
we
are
allowed
to
do.
That.
yeah,
you're
allowed
to
do
that,
and
we
could
also
do
it,
you
know,.
If
you
want
to
do
it
right,
now,.
If
you
give
me
a
few
minutes,,
I
can
work
with
staff
to
create
something,,
but
that's
just
a
thought.,
but
you
can
work
with
me
individually,,
but
I
think
brad
has
his
hand
up..
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
okay.
if,
brad.
U
U
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:,
so
I
think
that
laurel
mentioned
one,
other
option.
and
I
would
be
interested
in
getting
data
on
this,,
which
is,
we
could
move
to
continue
for
60
days
and
let
the
applicant
come
back
with
a
new
proposal
based
on
what
they've,
heard,
and
she
said.
We'd
want
to
check
with
the
applicant
on
whether
that's
even
something
that
they're
interested
in..
I
would
be
interested
to
know
if
the
applicant
thinks
that
they
can
come
back
in
60
days
with
something
that
we
might
be
able
to
approve.
M
A
A
E
E
M
M
M
T
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
I
I
pb,
lisa
smith:.
I
think
my
concern
is
that
at
this
time
I
and
I
don't
mean
this..
I
think
I
would
have
phrase
it
very
similar
to
how
you
did,
laura,,
that
I
feel
like
well,.
We
could
do
something
like
this
or
something
like
that.
or
maybe,
if
we
did
this,
this
would
sort
of
start
to
fix
it.,
and
I
just
I
don't..
I
don't
think
that's
what
we
should
be
doing
on
this
plan,
and
I
don't
think
it's
an
issue
doing
at
this
time
of
night,.
T
T
T
T
Q
T
A
T
P
P
P
A
U
U
P
Brad
mueller,
cob:
approved
laurel
witt,
cob:
yeah,,
so
it
could
look
something
like
it.
if
it's
a
very
prat,,
if
I
just
jump
it
inside,,
I
move
to
deny
this
application
and
direct
the
city
attorney
and
planning
director
draft
findings
that
are
consistent
with
this
discussion
and
bring
it
back
to
the
board's
consideration
at
x
meeting
something
like
that.
A
N
N
U
N
Pb,
jorge
boone:
yeah,,
I
I
at
least
I
I
mean
I'll,
speak
myself,
for
as
a
board
member.
I
I
don't
think
I'm
in
it.,
I
I
don't
think
I'm
in
a
place,
necessarily
where
I'm
suggesting
full
denial,
and
to
to
the
extent
that
what
laura
was
talking
about,
for
instance,
that
he's
faced
with
that..
That
was
a
specific
condition
that
I
brought
up.
N
N
Pb,,
jorge
boone:,
I
I'm
not
opposed
to
trying
to
bring
this
to
conclusion
and
a
continuance,,
because
I
do
think
that
there
is
a
possibility
that
we
could
move
something
forward
with
the
right
amount
of
conditions..
But
I
don't
know
that
at
least
a
number
of
us
are
in
a
frame
of
mind
that
we
can
get
there
right
now..
It's
not
my
preference
to
continue,,
but
I
don't
have
another
solution
beyond
denial.
and
I
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
right
thing.
N
Pb,
jorge
boone:
for
the
project,
either,,
because
I
liked
where
ml.
was
going
with
a
number
of
things,
and
I
think
we
could
get
to
greater
specificity
and
come
to
probably
agreement
where
we
could
get,
you,
know,,
5
or
6
votes
to
to
move
it
forward,
and
then
be
in
a
comfortable
place.
at
least,.
That's
my
my
my
opinion.
J
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
no..
I
would
not
want
to
move
to
a
denial
on
the
assumption
that
that's
what
the
applicant
prefers
without
checking
with
them,,
because
I
think
what
I
heard
danica
say
was
that
she
thought
we
could
get
there..
And
so
that
sounds
to
me
like,.
If
we
can't
get
there
tonight.
and
I
agree,
it
sounds
like
people
are
not
able
to
do
to
stay
the
amount
of
time
that
would
absolutely
take
for
us
to
get
there
tonight..
So
I'm
in
favor
of
a
continuance..
If
folks
think
we
can
get
there.
M
E
E
E
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy,
group:
interesting,,
more
dynamic,,
you
know..
If,
if
we
could
create
a
beacon
on
the
on
the
north
side
of
the
project,
or,,
you
know,
break
up
the
facade
on
the
east,
change
up
the
materials,
you
know..
I
think
those
types
of
direction
would
be
very
helpful
to
us.
at
this
point
where
I
think
we
don't
know
if
we
can
get.
E
E
Danica
powell,
trestle
strategy
group:
your
expectation.,
so
we
would
like
to
get
direction
to
move
forward
with
conditions..
But
a
continuance
at
this
point
without
clear
direction
is
difficult..
We
have
been
working
on
this..
We
have
a
huge
team
with
great
architects.
we're
willing
to
take
that
direction..
We
just,
we
do
need
it
at
this
point.
and
so
a
continuation
to
ha!
to
have
this
discussion
without
clear
direction
is
challenging
for
us.
M
E
E
A
A
E
W
W
W
W
U
J
J
J
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:,
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
it
before
you
move
to
continue..
I
was
any
correct
about
being
able
to
help.
You
draft
your
your
amendments,
that,
since
it
is
caused
that
additional
hearing,,
since
we
are
continuing
it.,
it
is
a
matter
for
the
board.,
so
I
would
recommend
to
try
and
draft
something,
and
then
I
can
help.
P
K
K
P
Laurel
witt,
cob:
so
and
I
I
see
back,,
I
jump
on.,
so
I'm
just
gonna
jump
in
and
and
say
this,
and
then
brad
feel
free
to
to
add
whatever
you'd
like,.
So
you
can
contact
staff
can't
contact
each
other
because
it's
qu
judicial.
it's
supposed
to
be
in
front
of
the
in
front
of
the
public..
You
can
contact
us.,
it's
subject
to
disclosure..
We
just
can't
draft
the
like
amendment
language
for
you.,
because
it
is
an
amendment
of
the
board.
P
Brad
mueller,
cob:
does
that
make
sense?,
but
you
can
calls
with
questions
or
anything
like
that,
and
brad
feel
free
to
jump
in.
If
you
have
any
thoughts
about
that.,
but
that's
my
understanding.,
I
was
gonna,
I
just
say:
that.
yeah,,
there's
a
distinction.
you.
You
can
definitely
contact
staff
to
get
clarifications
on
the
case.
hey,
edward?.
I'm
thinking
about
crafting
a
condition
that
does
this.
U
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
I
just
wanna,
commend
the
board
members
and
staff
and
the
applicant
for
we.
we're
working
hard
on
this.
we're
trying
to
make
something.
Work,,
and
I
appreciate
everybody's
good
will
and
patience
with
each
other.
As
we
are
moving
through
this.,
I
will
offer..
I
will
volunteer
to
go
back
to
the
video
and
look
at
what
everybody
has
said
about
conditions
and
try
to
craft
some
language..
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
in,
in
in
deference
to
the
great
amount
of
effort
that
the
applicant
team
has
put
forward
to
try
to
get
this
to
work,,
to
try
to
offer
something
that
would
work
for
us..
So
I'm
going
to
put
my
own
feelings
aside,
and
try
to
draft
something
that
I
think.
Perhaps
the
board
can
take
up
next
time.
M
A
A
A
U
A
P
M
M
Laura
kaplan,
pb:
at
4,
30,
pm.
and
again
at
5
20..
If
you
want
to
see
the
staff
presentation,
and
there
will
also
be
another,
be
heard,
boulder,
survey,
and
it'll
be
open
from
july
twelfth
to
july,
30.
first,.
I
will
send
you
all
of
this.
In
writing.-
but
I
just
want
to
remind
people-
this
is
going
on,
and
your
input
is
very
welcome
as
individuals,,
not
speaking
for
the
board,,
but
just
as
individual
residents
of
boulder.