►
From YouTube: 12-20-22 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
A
B
B
D
D
C
D
D
C
C
D
C
C
C
D
C
Christin
shepherd,
cob:
yeah.,
so
for
a
car
port,,
if
it,
if
it's
what
the
code
says
is,,
if
it's,
if
there's
existing
parking,
the
code
says
you
can't
have
new
parking
in
a
high
hazard
zone..
But
if,
if
there's
existing
parking
already
being
used
there.
if
a
car
is
already
being
parked,
or
a
parking
spot
is
in
place.
C
D
C
D
C
C
E
E
E
D
B
B
F
C
Christin
shepherd,
cob:.
I
am
not
sure
that
osmp
staff
is
christin,
shepherd,,
cob:,
here.,
christin,
shepherd,,
cob:
and
christin
shepherd,
cob:,
and
that
is
a
level
of
detail
that
my
engineering
degree
never
covered.,
but
I'm
I
am
happy
to.
I
am
also
happy
to
email,
adam
gaylord
as
the
applicant
on
this,,
and
he.
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
G
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
through
the
entirety
of
the
presentation,,
since
there
might
be
some
items
that
will
get
answered
in
the
presentation.,
but
I
I
don't
mind
getting
interrupted
in
the
presentation..
If
you
do
want
to
pose
a
question
either
way,
I'm
a
fan
of
getting
questions
answered
as
quickly
as
possible,
while
you're
thinking
about
them.
B
Charles
ferro,
cob
(he/him):,
you
know
in
in
this
case
that
may
actually
make
sense,
since
a
lot
of
what
it
is
that
we'll
be
presenting,
as
updates
to
the
work
that
kind
of
represent,
you
know,,
where
the
ordinance
has
been
since
we
last
spoke
with
planning
more
so
that
that
might
make
great
sense.
Tonight.
B
I
B
H
H
H
H
H
H
I
H
C
C
K
L
H
L
H
I
F
F
F
F
F
F
K
H
I
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
so
just
getting
to
the
background
of
the
project.
there's
been
some
perceived
unpredictable
outcomes
with
the
site
review
process,,
since
it's
been
really
initiated.
site,
review
kind
of
originated
in
the
in
the
seventies
and
as
evolved
over
time.,
but
the
site.
Review,
criteria
haven't
really
been
holistically.
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
overview
and
analysis
of
all
the
criterion
updating
those
criteria,,
and
these
are
the
goals
and
objectives
that
related
to
this
project
that
were
set
out
by
the
city
council
several
years
ago,.
When
this
project
started
as
part
of
the
community
benefit
project
in
2,018
so
specific
to
site
review.,
it
was
to
identify
incentives
to
address
community,,
economic,
social
and
environmental
objectives
of
the
boulder
valley,
comforts
of
plan.
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
so
this
project
really
kind
of
grew
out
of
some
concerns
that
came
out
of
the
community
related
to
particularly
larger
scale
projects
that
were
being
built
typically,
fourth
and
fifth
level
or
story
buildings
that
got
height
modifications,,
but
it
kind
of
begged
a
need
to
take
a
re.
Look
at
the
site,
review
criteria,
and
see
how
we
could
improve
it.
to
meet
these
goals
and
objectives.
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
so
any
additional
floor
area
above
a
floria
ratio
maximum,
or
any
additional
floor
area
in
a
fourth
or
a
fifth
story,
does
require
additional
permanently
affordable
housing,
either
on
site
or
an
increased
in
loop
fees
or
increased
commercial
linkage
fees..
So
this
is
already
in
the
code.
H
H
H
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
made
the
the
criteria
language
more
descriptive
to
really
better
define
what
these
mean.
and
that's
been.
A
really
critical
part
of
this
project
is
in
trying
to
increase
that
level
of
predictability
is
really
better
defining
what
these
mean..
So
that's
what
we'll
talk
about
tonight.,
so
the
next
slide,
please.
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
increase
that
level
of
predictability
and
and
get
better
design
projects..
So
that's
kind
of
the
direction
we
took..
We,
we
kind
of,
took
in
in
inspiration
from
the
form
based
code,,
because
we've
had
some
successful
design
outcomes
with
those
projects..
So
we
tried
to
integrate
that
into
the
criteria.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
issues
in
the
criteria
related
to,,
you
know,
greenhouse
gas,,
emission,
reduction,
environmental
protection,,
historic
preservation,,
housing,
diversity,
things
of
that
nature..
We
also
made
the
criteria
more
descriptive,,
like
I
said,
a
lot
of
the
site:
design,
open,
space,,
landscaping
and
transportation.
Related
criteria
were
made
much
more
descriptive
as
to
what
it
means
to
meet
the
criteria,
rather
than
it
being
a
very
discretionary
and
not
very
clear..
H
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
on
the
outcome
of
the
ordinance
being
to,
you
know,
versus
prescriptive.,
so
one
of
the
key
issues
we
raised
was
was
the
ordinance
to
prescriptive.,
so
the
board
was
kind
of
mixed
on
that
topic..
There
were
some
that
felt
that
the
criteria
were
appropriately
prescriptive,
and
others
felt,
that
it
was
too
prescriptive
and
needed
to
be
dialed
back
a
bit.
because
of
these
concerns.
well,,
especially
also
we.
We
talked
about
the
boulder
valley,
comforts
of
plan,
criterion.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
the
the
language
use
for
the
height,
modification,
the
board
at
that
time,
or
in
may.,
did
not
recommend
that
the
ordinance
proceed
to
city
council.
Rather,
they
wanted
the
questions
of
the
prescriptive
nature,
brought
before
the
designed
advisory
board
to
see
what
their
thoughts
were.
so.
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
in
in
the
ordinance.
they
felt
like
a
lot
of
the
things
that
were
derived
from
the
4
base
code
would
likely
increase
the
baseline
for
good
design
in
projects.
however,.
The
the
d
did
have
strong
concerns
that
the
criteria
were
too
prescriptive.
and
they
were
concerned
that
if
it
was
applied
city
wide
that
you
would
see
too
many
buildings
that
would
start
looking
the
same
throughout
the
city.
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
project
that
we
would
also
talk
about
the
site
review
project
since
this
particular
site
review
project
hadn't
been
addressed
by
the
current
council,,
so
we
felt
like
we
should
give
them
some
background
on
the
project
and
ask
them
whether
we
felt
they
felt
we
were
on
the
right
track.
As
far
as
meeting
the
goals
and
objectives
of
the
project.
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
was,
was
largely
consistent
with
the
original
goals
and
objectives
that
were
set
for
the
project
in
2,018.
but,.
The
council
did
agree
with
dab
and
some
members
of
planning
board
that
the
criteria
were
too
prescriptive,
and
that
we
should
again
dial
it.
Back.
make
the
language
more
flexible,,
more
discretionary.
and
really
kind
of
draw
from
how
we
wrote
the
criteria
for
the
open
space
site,
design
transportation
to
be
more
descriptive.
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
that
were
proposed.
but,
many
of
the
council
members
felt
that
some
of
the
requirements
should
just
be
baseline
requirements
that
apply
citywide
rather
than
being
in
a
just
site
review..
So
what
they
asked
was
that
the
reduction
of
of
concrete
and
carbon
in
concrete
and
projects
be
added
to
the.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
as
well
as
the
electrification
things
that
we
were
proposing.,
so
we
do
have
carol
and
elim
here
tonight,.
If
there
are
questions
on
that.
but,,
there
is
an
intent
to
move
forward
with
moving
some
of
those
requirements
into
the
actual
ecc
coming
for
next
year.
What
we've
focused
on
with
this
particular
ordinance
is
just
getting
to
net
0
or
being.
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
next
slide,,
please.,
cob,,
karl
guiler:,
so
attachment
a
contains
the
ordinance.
I
wanted
to
bring
up
this
slide
again..
This
is
what
we
showed
back
in
may,,
but
just
the
the
approaches
that
we
took
to
the
ordinance..
This
is
largely
the
same
as
we've.
we've
been
doing
all
along..
It's
really
to
emphasize.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
criteria
that
address
important
city
policies
to
reorganize
the
criteria.,
the
more
top
down
approach,
and
what
we
mean
by
that
is
starting
at
the
policy
level,
and
then
kind
of
working
to
like
a
site,
design,
site
wide..
It's
in
a
relationship
with
neighboring
properties,
and
then
moving
towards
actual
buildings
where
they're
placed.
and
then
the
the
actual
design
of
buildings
getting
down
to
the
detail
of
building
materials..
And
that's
what
we've
done.
Where
there's
areas
of
where
we
could
simplify.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
reduce,
redundancy
eliminating
some
criteria
that
haven't
been
used
or
have
are
not
feasible
or
overlap..
We've
we've
removed
those
criteria
and
then
the
last
one
is
really
adding
more
descriptive
language
to
make
the
criteria
less
subjective..
I've
highlighted
the
more
prescriptive
and
measurable
part,
because,
obviously
we're
we're
coming
back
with
an
ordinance
where
we've
dialed
that
back
a
bit.,
so
we've
kind
of
expanded
on
the
descriptive
language,
part.
H
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
the
language
that
you
saw
before
is
still
in
here..
It's
just
some
of
it's
been
softened,
a
little
bit,
just
to
allow
for
some
other
solutions,,
but
we
try
to
write
it
in
a
way
where
it's
a
best
practice,
like
if
somebody
comes
or
an
applicant
comes,,
and
we
look
at
a
design,
and
it's
not.
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
you
know,
windows,
to
meet
that
minimum
blazing
to
meet
this
level
of
quality..
It's
it's
a
little
less
rigid.,
but
we
still
have
include
included
that
language
to
really
guide
projects,
so
that
when
they
come
in
the
door.
they're
in
a
better
place
to
be
more
successful,
and
and
and
being
able
to
get
up,
approval.
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
we
tried
to
simplify
and
reorganize
the
criteria
as
much
as
possible
to
to
make
it
more
understandable..
The
prior
ordinance
had
a
public
realm
section,,
which
is
kind
of
the
bridge
between
site,
design,
and
building
design..
I
think
some
of
the
feedback
we
got
was
that
it?.
That
was.
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
criteria
into
those
respective
sections,
rather
than
having
a
separate
section.,
so
again,
looking
at
areas
where
we
can
simplify
as
much
as
possible.
you'll
notice
that
we've
also
updated
the
purpose
section,,
so
it
better
reflects
the
content
of
the
criteria..
So
it's
kind
of
the
main
themes
of
the
criteria
as
you
move
along,
are
better
captured
in
the
purpose
statement.
H
H
H
H
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
the
housing
diversity
criteria
is
largely
similar
to
what
we
propose
before
we
did
receive
some
feedback
from
the
board
that
if
there
was
a
project
that
was
predominantly
just,,
el
use,
that
there'd
be
a
requirement
that
there
should
be
at
least
2
housing
types..
So
we've
incorporated
that
into
the
language
we've
added
one.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
part
of
that
criterion
that
allows
for
any
other,
compelling
community
housing
needs..
If
a
project
didn't
meet
that
housing
diversity,
they
could
propose.
like..
It
might
be
a
different
type
of
project
that
fulfills
a
community.
housing
needs..
So
there
is
a
little
bit
of
flexibility.
That's
been
added
to
that.
Criterion.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
since
it
was
already
written
in
that
descriptive
manner
that
we've
tried
to
do
elsewhere..
The
the
biggest
difference
is
that
some
of
the
courtyard
requirements
that
we
had
proposed
for
larger
projects,
that
was
in
the
open
space
criteria.
we've
moved
out
of
the
open
space
criteria
and
applied
to.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
it
can
be
met
so
that
language
at
the
beginning
of
each
section
says:
in
determining
whether
this
intent
is
met,.
The
approving
agency
will
consider
the
following
factors:.
So
this
is
some
of
the
input
we've
gotten
is
to
try
to
dial
back
that
prescriptive
nature
of
the
prior
ordinance..
So
one
a
big
bit
of.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
where
you
have
the
existing
character
as
as
a
guide,
or
it
might
be
an
emerging
character.
where
it's
changing
and
and
going
into
a
a
a
better
type
of
design,.
You
know,
having
getting
rid
of
parking
lots
along
a
street,
for
instance.
or
it
might
be
meeting
adopted,
area
plans
or
subcommittee
plans,,
just
making
it
clear
how
that
compatible.
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
so
this
is
an
important
part
of
the
ordinance,,
because
it's
one
of
the
main
objectives
of
the
project
is
increased
requirements
for
those
buildings
that
are
over
the
height,
limit
or
over
an
fa
are
limit
and
limited
situation..
So
we've
tried
to
simplify
the
criteria
that
apply
to.
H
H
H
H
G
B
H
H
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:
we've
simplified
the
roof
cap
types
language
that
we
brought
in
from
the
form
base
code.
in
this
case.
It's
just
criteria
that
really
aims:
it.
getting
more
pitch
droves
and
getting
more
roof
variations
and
trying
to
avoid
the
boxy,
flat,
roofed
buildings
that
have
caused
some
concern.
F
F
F
F
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
specific.
As
far
as
there's
another
thing
we
keep
hearing
from
the
community
is
encouraging.
pitched
roofs.
May
that
might
be
a
little
bit
over
the
height
limit..
So
we
did
make
an
update
to
the
site,
review
criteria,
and
the
last
iteration
that
would
allow
some
pitched
roofs,
some
flexibility.,
but
we've
we've
been
asked
to
even
go
further
and
make
it
a
conditional
use.
H
D
H
H
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
that's
actually
an
existing
requirement.,
that's
in
the
code
that
applies
to
the
rh.
3
zone,,
which
is
a
high
density
residential
zone..
We
found
it
to
be,,
you
know,
fairly
successful,.
So
that's
why
we
think
it
would
make
sense
to
put
in
this
particular
section,
applying
to
tall
or
larger
buildings,
because
it
does
help
break
up
the
mass
and
get
some
additional.
H
H
H
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
minimum
standard
for
wall
construction
to
minimize
noise.,
so
it
actually
wouldn't
require
a
a
study
they
just
like,.
If
they're
within
200
feet
of
an
expressway
or
a
railroad,,
they
just
have
to
have
a
certain
wall,
construction
to
minimize
noise,
and
that's
already
in
the
code,,
but
applies.
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
requirement.,
that's
in
the
code..
We
just
wanted
to
make
that
more
clear.,
so
we've
updated
the
language
in
the
code
related
to
that.
and
there's
also
specific
state
laws
that
apply
to
those
reviews
that
we
wanted
to
reference
in
the
code..
So
we've
added
some
language,
and
the
ordinance
related
to
that..
So
it's
all
points
of.
H
H
B
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:
utility
type
cob,
karl
guiler:
polls,
anything
beyond
that.
that
doesn't
meet..
That
definition
of
poll
is
a
private
facility.
basically..
So
we
look
at
it
the
same
way.
We
do
any
building,,
so
a
pull
over
35
feet
would
require
a
height
modification
that
would
be
subject
to
all
the.
H
H
Okay,
thank
you.,
yep.,
cob,,
karl
guiler:,
so
just
touching
on
public
comment,.
I
I
talked
about
this
in
in
the
may
presentation..
You
know,
we've
been
doing
ongoing
outreach
on
this
since
2,018,,
but
on
the
site
review
criteria.,
it's
largely
been
since
2,020..
We've
done
a
a
variety
of
ways
of
reaching
out.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
to
architects
and
interested
parties.
we've
been
meeting
with
the
site
review
focus
group
reaching
out
to
our
neighborhood
representatives..
We've
been
doing
the
planning
news
letter
just
to
kind
of
make
them
aware
of
what
changes
have
been
made..
So
what
you're,
seeing
on
the
slide
is
actually
our
prior
feedback
prior
to
the
current.
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
comments,
cob,
karl
guiler:,
to
applicants
which
is
helpful,
because
we
we
hope
that
that
helps
the
process,
and
hopefully
makes
it
more
successful,
and
that,
with
the
criteria
being
more
descriptive
that
they
would
be
coming
in
the
door
with
a
a
a
project
more
likely
to
be
approved
than
we
might
get
today,.
Where
there's
a
lot
more
back
and
forth,
like
you
know
that,
doesn't.
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
they
did
talk
about
the
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
reduction
requirement
that
it
would
be
a
a
bit
difficult
to
determine
compliance
at
site
review,.
Since
a
lot
of
that
energy
modeling
wouldn't
be
complete
at
that
stage..
So
we
did
update
the
language
to
be
clear,
that
there'd
be
a
condition
of
approval,
and
they
would
have
to
do
that.
Later.
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
again,
we've
tried
to
dial
back
percentages
and
numbers,,
but
just
still
some
concerns
on
that,
and
also
some
concern
about
the
additional
requirements
that
might
apply
to
taller
larger
buildings,,
and
that
section
was
too
confusing..
So
we
did
try
to
work
on
that
section,
a
little
bit
more
to
make
it
less
confusing.
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:.
Obviously
our
analysis
in
the
memo
is
that
we
still
believe
that
the
updated
ordinance
would
meet
the
goals
and
objectives
as
outlined
on
the
slide.
Just
understanding
that,
you
know,
by
dialing
back
the
prescription..
It
does
create
more
discretionary
type.
criteria,
not
as
much
as
it
is.
currently
we,.
We
think
it's
an
improvement,,
but
that
does
lower
the
level
of
predictability
than
than
we
had
before..
But
we
also
understand
that
when
you.,
if
you
have.
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
criteria
that
are,
you
know,
more
rigid.
When
you
have
more
of
that
prescription,,
there
would
be
more
design
uniformity
in
the
city,,
and
we
understand
that.
That's
not
something
that
the
community
necessarily
wants,
either..
So
we
feel
like
it
does
meet
the
objectives
of
the
project..
We
do
feel
that
the
ordinance
strikes
a
balance.
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
applicants
and
designers
and
the
community
more
guidance
as
to
how
to
design
a
project
that
meets
city
goals..
So
the
criteria
would
be
consistent
with
the
comp.
plan,,
its
policies,
and
any
adopted
plans..
It
does
move
more
in
the
direction
of
sustainability
and
getting
more
diverse
housing
types.
H
H
H
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
you
know,,
there's
more
language.
That
really
is
very
cob,
karl
guiler:
explicit
about
how
to
get
good
design.,
but
there
is
more
flexibility
and
simplicity
in
this
particular
version.
of
the
ordinance,
and
also
again,.
We
are
accomplishing
city
goals
for
those
projects,,
particularly
that
go
over
heightened
and
floor
area.
on
addressing
city
policies..
So.
H
H
H
H
H
H
Cob,,
karl
guiler:,
criteria.
and
obviously,
you
know,.
We
don't
expect
that
the
ordinance
will
be
perfect..
This
is
like
something
that
we
have
to
work
on
over
time.,
but
I
think,
as
we
move
forward,,
we
we're
gonna,
want
to
hear
the
feedback
from
applicants
and
the
board
as
the
criteria
are
implemented
about
where
there
can
be
some
improvements
in
the
future..
If
something's
not
working
quite
well.,
but
we
have
been
combing
through
this
for
a
long
time,
and
we
think
we
have
a
a
good.
I
I
H
H
I
Cob,
karl
guiler:
okay.
pb,,
laura
kaplan:
okay,.
I
guess
the
reason
why
it's
on
my
mind,
is
having
been
a
a
new
planning
board
member
as
of
last
april,
and
trying
to
like,
get
my
feet
under
me
with
regard
to
site.
review.
I'm.,
feeling
very
empathetic,
for
whoever
our
new
board
member
is
going
to
be.
That
comes
on
board
in
april.
I
I
G
G
H
H
H
H
G
G
F
Pb
mark
mcintyre:,
so
pb
mark
mcintyre:.
If
we're
not.
pb
mark
mcintyre:
it,,
it's
the
wording
to
me
could
be
interpreted
as
you
don't
even
have
to
satisfy
one
because
you
buy
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
to
me.
It's
an
awkward
wording
that
I
I
don't
understand
exactly
what
you're
saying
there,
and
that
in
that
and
and
I'm
big
on.
F
F
I
I
D
D
D
B
G
G
G
J
O
I
I
G
P
G
Purposes.
pb,
sarah
silver:
and
pb
mark
mcintyre:.
It
may
be
that
one
is
small
for
a
very
specific,,
very
specific
zone,
or
for
a
very
specific
types
of
building.,
and
I
just
misunderstood..
So
I'm
just
trying
to
get
some
clarification.
yeah,
no,.
I
I'm.
I'm
not.,
I'm
not
struggling
with
you
direct
it.,
it's
it's
funny
because
any
question.
I
have.
B
H
P
P
G
H
G
G
G
H
H
H
H
H
B
H
H
O
B
B
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
I
I
B
B
D
D
G
B
I
B
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
and
the
fact
that
they
are
not
here
tonight
to
testify
to
me
that
says
that
they,
don't,
have
those
concerns
anymore,
or
at
least
not
enough.
That
would
motivate
them
to
come
out
to
a
meeting
like
this..
They
also
showed
up
in
force
at
city,
council,
and
again..
The
fact
that
they're
not
here
to
me.
I
G
G
G
D
L
L
F
F
F
F
B
I
B
B
B
B
D
I
I
I
D
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
applications
are
considered
incomplete
within
those
5
days
of
submission
by
the
project
specialists,
and
then,
once
they
they
deem
it
complete,.
There
will
be
a
another
review
by
a
case
manager
once
it's
assigned..
If
there's
anything
missing,,
we
usually
work
with
the
applicant
to
get
that.
D
I
B
B
F
F
H
H
F
F
Q
Q
Hella
pannewig
-senior
assistant
city
attorney:,
what
our
intent,
was,
and
hella
pannewig
-senior
assistant
city,
attorney:,
the
language.,
hella
pannewig,
-senior
assistant
city
attorney:,
and
maybe
we
didn't
translate
it
accurately.,
actually
comes
out
of
the
comp
plan.
Itself.
the
complaint
states,,
the
policies
are
not
prioritized,
and
no
one,
policy
or
set
of
policies
must
be
satisfied
by
any
action,
ordinance,
regulation,
150.
Q
F
F
F
F
I
Q
L
I
Q
Hella
pannewig
-senior
assistant
city,
attorney:,
okay.,
hella
pannewig,
-senior
assistant
city,
attorney:
yeah..
I
guess
I
I
was
just
trying
to
say
if
and
and
I
think
you're
all
just
commenting
right,
now.,
but
just
the
discussion,.
I
think,
makes
it
clear
that
there's
root
for
improvement
in
that
language
to
make
sure
you
know
what
it
means.
it'
be
good
to
understand.
Q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
G
G
G
G
G
F
I
I
B
L
L
L
L
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
to
improve
project
design
and
to
implement
the
goals
and
policies
of
the
bvcp.
and
other
adopted
plans
of
community..
That's
my
understanding
of
what
we're
trying
to
do.
we're
giving
people
some
flexibility
and
design,
so
that
we
make
sure
the
land
is
used.
Appropriately.
the
projects
are
good
and
improved
design,
and
we're
implementing
the
bbcp.
I
G
G
D
D
D
D
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
to
for
streets
and
utilities,,
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
for
all
of
those
8
clauses
like
it
just
doesn't
it's
not
a
50
sentence
of
what
site
review
is
that
would
help
somebody
understand
it?.
Maybe
that's
not
important
in
this
ordinance
to
be
able
to
encapsulate.
what
is
it
so
that
a
person
understands
it?
but.
B
G
G
F
F
F
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
which
I
think
is
right,,
and
then
it
says,
and
surrounding
area,,
and
it
is
not
my
understanding
that
a
project
is
required
to
provide
relief
from
intensity
in
the
surrounding
area,,
especially
if
we
have
found
that
it
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
area..
So
I
would
just
suggest
a
small
tweak
there,
and
say
that
the
project.
I
C
G
D
D
H
H
H
H
D
Q
Q
Q
Q
D
G
G
G
I
I
G
G
I
I
B
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:.
I
think
we
were
going
to
go
back
up
to
number
2
and
then
number
6,
and
then
anything
else
in
this
section?.
I
think
I
think
what
happened
was
that
mark
kind
of
skipped
ahead
to
number
7
in
this
section,
from
one
to
7,,
so
there
might
be
some
things
in
the
middle
that
got
skipped..
I
do
have
a
comment
on
number
2.
I
I
I
D
D
H
H
D
G
H
J
J
J
J
J
J
Carolyn
elam,
city
of
boulder
(she/her):.
I
think
what
we're
really
intending
is
the
carolyn
elam,
city
of
boulder
(she/her):
as
you'll
see
in
the
later
criterion
is
the
structure
itself,
and
it's
operational
emissions
that
we're
really
tackling
with
that
criteria.,
not
so
much
the
transportation
effects..
Those
are
those
are
more
to
do
with
some
of
the
transportation
criteria,
and
then
our
base
energy
conservation,
code.
F
F
F
J
J
J
J
J
J
Carolyn
elam,
city
of
boulder
(she/her):,
the
site
review
criteria,
in
the
sense
that
you
you
need
to
really
look
at
the
comprehensive..
You
know
the
area
plans
and
the
comp
plans
to
really
think
about
those
criteria
coupled
with
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
building
code..
But
I
I
certainly
am
not
the
expert
in
in
that
specific
aspect.
F
F
F
G
G
G
G
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
B
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
thank
you.,
pb,,
laura
kaplan:
I'll
just
recommend
that
to
staff
pb,
laura
kaplan:.
Is
there
a
good
reason
why?
only
having
2
stories
in
an
industrial
zone
would
qualify
you
for
height,
modification,,
all
the
other
ones
in
here.
There's
a
good
reason
like
you've
got
to
elevate
above
the
base
flood
x
elevation..
So
you
get
some
extra
height,
and
things
like
that.
this
one.
I
don't
understand.
I
I
H
Q
Q
I
Cob,
karl
guiler:
this:,
this
building
already
has
a
permit
to
have
a
certain
amount
of
height,
and
now
they're
expanding
it.
To
that
same
that,
you
know,
they're
expanding
the
floor
area
that
has
that
same
height..
I
I
didn't
see
a
problem
with
it
and
still
go
through
site
review.,
but
this
is
one
of
the
allowable
conditions.
I
G
D
H
H
H
H
O
O
D
F
B
F
B
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
I
want
to
callically
on
that
and
say,.
I
think
mark
has
pointed
out
something
that's
very
important..
I
think
staff
are
already
dealing
with
this
in
the
affordable
housing
program
in
terms
of
the
the
fees
that
have
to
be
paid
to
the
affordable
housing
program
that
are
based
on
unit
counts.
I
I
I
I
B
G
G
G
G
H
H
H
B
G
D
H
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
we
they
just
have
to
show
us
that
they
have
the
capability
of
moving
in
that
direction..
That's
what
we're
looking
at.
site!
Review.!
It's
not
going
to
be
solidified
at
that
stage..
So
we
just
wanted
to
alert
them
that
to
look
at
this
and
start
thinking
about
what
they're
going
to
do.
D
D
D
B
I
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
D
D
D
D
D
D
H
D
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:.
I
do
note
that
pb,,
laura
kaplan:
in
the
city
council
meeting
notes
they
pb,
laura
kaplan:,
specifically
directed
staff
that
they
wanted.
Staff
to
quote,
strike
a
balance
of
achieving
full
bvcp
compliance,
while
avoiding
language
that
will
result
in
arbitrary
denials
of
projects.
I
I
I
I
I
I
G
G
G
Q
Hella
pannewig
-senior
assistant
city,
attorney:,
oops
trouble
unmuting,
thanks,,
john.,
hella
pannewig,
-senior
assistant
city
attorney:.
I
have
a
follow
up
question
on
the
language
that
sarah
and
laura
were
discussing,
adding,.
I
think
it
was
to
not
only
reference
the
build
environment
in
the
unbalanced
finding,,
but
also
the
community
benefit
community
benefit.
G
G
G
Pb,
sarah
silver:
for
land
use
or
zoning
district
changes
that
result
in
increase
in
the
density
or
intensity
of
development.
Beyond
what
is
permitted
by
the
underlying
zoning
or
added
height
that
increases
intensity.,
the
city
will
develop
regulations
and
incentives,
so
that
the
new
development
provides
benefits
to
the
community
beyond
those
otherwise
required
by
the
underlying
zoning.
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
Q
Hella
pannewig
-senior
assistant
city,
attorney:,
yeah.
and
historically,,
when,
when
community
benefit
originally
kind
of
came
up,
and
it
was
incorporated
into
the
comp
plan.,
it
was
talked
about,
and
we
want
additional
community
benefit..
If
somebody
asks
for
additional
density
or
hide,
and
it's
granted
to
the
site
review
criteria.
Q
G
G
Q
Q
I
Q
Q
H
H
H
H
G
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:
above
the
zoning
district
limit..
What
is
the
community
getting
in
return?
I've
been
hearing
that,
for
you
know,
a
lot
of
my
duration
here,
even
before
the
daily
camera
building..
So
it
kind
of
grew.-
and
I
think
that
was
just
an
example
project.-
that
kind
of
led
to
that
policy.
Discussion.
G
G
D
H
D
D
D
D
B
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
I
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
but
I
I
don't
have
a
long
enough
tenure
with
the
board
to
understand
exactly
how
it's
used..
I
just
sympathize
with
the
objective
of
this
project
to
simplify
how
this
174
page
document
is
used
in
the
specific
context
of
site
review..
I
absolutely
agree
that
part
of
our
purview
and
our
charge
as
planning
board
members.
I
I
I
I
O
G
D
D
D
D
D
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
B
G
G
G
B
G
G
G
Q
Q
G
G
I
G
G
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Pb,
lisa
smith:,
you
know,,
ignoring
the
excellent
work
that
everyone
has
already
done,
that
that
we
may
wish
you,
you
know,
up
to
the
chair
and
the
rest
of
the
board..
We
may
wish
to
wrap
this
portion
up.
see
if
there's
other
stuff.
We
want
to
talk
about,
and
perhaps
hand
it
back
to
staff,
with
my
apologies
to
staff.
L
I
pb,,
laura
kaplan:.
I
I
personally
think
that
you
know
if
staff,,
and
particularly
our
attorney,,
feel
that
these
are
our
obligations,
anyway,
then,
and
they've
taken
language
directly
from
the
bvcp.,
especially
for
that
last
portion.,
I'm.
perfectly
fine
with
the
language
that
staff
has
here..
If
we
want
to
give
direction
to
staff,
to
please,,
tighten
it
up
or
try
to
clarify
it.
A
little
bit.,
I'm
fine
with
that,
too.
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:.
I
just
want
to
say
to
mark
that
I
appreciated
your
suggestion
about
no
single
policy,,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
a
panacea,,
because
there
are
so
many
bvcp
policies
that
are
related,
that
for
any
issue
that
you
care
about,.
You
could
probably
cite
2
or
3..
So
I'm
just
not
sure
that
that
would
do
what
you
wanted
to
do..
G
D
D
G
G
Pb,
sarah
silver:
mit
ctl.
and
second
option..
The
proposed
project
is
consistent
with
the
bvcp
land.
use
map
and
on
balance
with
the
goals
and
policies
of
the
bbc..
Bvcp.
does
not
prioritize
goals
and
policies,,
and
it
is
recognized
that
no
policy
and
goal
or
set
of
policies
and
goals
must
be
satisfied.
150.
G
G
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
I'm:
okay,
with
that
with
one
caveat,,
which
is
that
I
would
also
be
okay
with
staff
rewording
that
clause
about
addressing
the
built
environment..
I
agree
that
it's
confusing
sarah..
You
made
a
great
point
that
it
could
be
interpreted
to
mean
just
that
one
chapter
or
one
set
of
the
policy
chapter
in
the
bbc.
B
G
F
B
G
I
O
G
G
I
M
G
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
and
that's
what
this
list
is.,
so
we're
saying:
pb,,
laura
kaplan:.
The
approving
agency
has
to
find
that
pb,,
laura
kaplan:
the
site
review
application
is
consistent
with
the
following
criteria,
and
I
feel
strongly
that
number
e.
here.
letter
e
is
not
our
job..
It
is
not
our
expertise..
We
don't
have
the
staff
available
landmarks
board
specifically
deals
with
landmarking..
They
have
a
whole
process
that
they
follow.
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
and
trying
to
landmark
over.
the
objection
of
the
property
owner
is
something
that
is
not
taken
lightly..
It
is
done.
Extremely,,
rarely.
and
seriously,
and
city
council
has
the
opportunity
to
overrule
it..
So
I
do
not
think
that
planning
board
should
be
taking
the
reins
and
saying
that.
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
no
site,
review
application
shall
be
approved
unless
the
approving
agency
us
finds
that
the
project
is
consistent.
With
this
section
e.
on
historic
or
cultural
resources.,
I
don't
think
that
we
should
be
requiring
application
and
good
faith
pursuit
of
a
local
landmark
designation.
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
and
so
I
just
feel
very,
very
strongly
that
this
is
not
at
all
our
job..
I
think
it's
fine.
If
we
want
to
say,
hey?.
I
think
this
building
might
have
historic
cultural
resources,
and
I
think
landmarks
should
take
a
close
look
at
it,
and
then
we
should
turn
the
reins
over
to
them
and
not
make
it
one
of
our
criteria
for
site.
review.
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
I
just
th..
This
is
just
not
anything
that
we
have
any
kind
of
expertise
on
and
listening
to
their
conversations
about
it..
It's
extremely
complicated,
like.
take,
for
example,
the
millennium
harvest
house
hotel..
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
thought
that
that
building
should
have
been
landmarked
and
not
demolished..
There
is
a
demolition
permit
that
is
active
for
that..
It's
allowed
to
be
demolished.
I
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
I
I
I
I
D
F
F
O
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
I
again
by
myself,
the
minority.,
that's
okay..
I
would
just
ask
staff
to
talk
to
marcy,
the
the
staff
over
in
landmarks
about
whether
the
right
thing
for
us
to
be
requiring
is
good.
Faith,
pursue
of
a
local,
landmark
designation,
or
is
the
right
thing
for
us
to
be
recommending?.
Is
that
the
landmarks
board
review.
I
I
B
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
etc.,
etc.,
have
to
meet
certain
housing
and
bedroom
unit
type
requirements.,
and
this
is
the
thing
about..
They
have
to
have
2
different
types
of
housing
or
2
different
bedroom
types..
I
guess
I
just
wanted
to
know..
Why
is
our
r.
r.,
e.
and
r.
l.,
one
called
out
as
an
exemption
here.
I
D
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
I
I
I
I
G
Pb,
sarah
silver:
projects
with
more
than
22.
well,
you
know,
she'll,
include
at
least
2
different
bedroom
types..
I
think
that
thought
that
addresses
what
I
was
trying
to
raise.,
so
I
take
it
back.
yeah,.
I
I
had
concerns
about
that,
because,
like
sometimes
we
do
have
some
old
site
reviews
that
might
be
like
a
duplex.
H
H
I
H
D
D
D
D
H
H
H
D
Pb
ml
robles:
that
just
to
me,
as
identified
in
the
bbc.,
which
is
the
last
bit
of
that
sentence,,
implies
that
you're
going
to
go
and
find
compelling
community
need
in
the
bbc..
But
if
that
is
gone,,
I
hear
what
you're
saying.
you're,
giving
people
an
opportunity
to
become
creative
and
come
with
something
that.
H
H
Cob,
karl
guiler:,
at
least,,
equivalent
community
need
related
pb
ml
robles:
to
housing,,
and
then
we
can
look
at
those
bvcp
policies
that
that
that
makes
sense..
I
think
it
was
the
compelling.
that
is
just
like.
oh,
where's,
that
to
find?
that
sounds
good,,
but
I
I
wasn't
sure
where
it
would
be..
I
I
I
think,
you're
right.,
that
that's
the
point.
yeah,
go
ahead.
I
Pb,
laura
kaplan:
can
I
offer
a
wording
suggestion?.
I
think
I
think
what
you're
saying,
ml:
is
that
you're
expecting
compelling
community
need
to
be
defined
in
the
bbc.,
because
it
says,
as
identified
in
the
bbc..
I
think
we
could
avoid
that
by
saying
at
least
equivalent
either
use
the
word
compelling
or
not.
community
community
need
related
to
housing
policies.
D
D
D
D
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
and
if
you
create
something
that
isn't
actually
useful
for
people.,
it
then
becomes
a
a
danger
or
a
detraction
from
the
site,,
because
it
becomes
a
place
that
people
can
hide
or
do
unsavory
things,
and
that
you
don't
want
in
the
community
because
nobody
uses
that
space.,
it's
publicly
available,
and
there's
nobody
using
it..
I
think
we
all
know
what
can
happen
when
you
have.
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
O
H
H
H
H
F
H
H
F
I
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
mit
ctl,
and
when
affordable
units
are
provided
on
site
in
any
location
or
configuration,,
the
affordable
owners
and
renters
shall
have
access
equal
to
that
of
the
owners
and
renters
of
the
market.
Units.
such
amenities
shall
include,,
but
not
me
limited
to
parks,
outdoor
play,
areas,
pools,
exercise
facilities
and
equipment,
150,.
I
I
F
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
we
could.
pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
and
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
resolve
it
tonight..
I
think
it's
too
complicated,,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
pull
from
our
previous
experiences
things
that
were
problematic,
that
we
might
be
able
to
fix
here
and
suggest
that
to
staff,,
if
staff
have
a
really
good
reason
why
this
is
not
appropriate.,
I
will
yield.
G
B
H
H
I
I
B
G
G
H
H
H
F
B
B
Pb
john
gerstle:,
the
second
charles
ferro,,
cob,
(he/him):,
carl
or
or
charles,
I'm
not
sure
how
much
time
is
involved..
I
think
it's
just
for
the
board
to
read,,
and
if
you
have
any
questions
or
concerns,
you
can
reach
out
to
staff
directly.
There
won't
be
any
presentation.
There
won't
be
any.
it's.,
it's
purely
for
your
information..
Take
a
read
through
it..
It's
a.
B
B
G
I
I
I
H
H
I
pb,,
laura
kaplan:.
I
I
that's
the
answer.
I
thought
I
was
going
to
get,
and
thank
you
for
preparing
it..
I
do
think
it's
probably
worth
a
mention
somewhere
that
the
prescriptive
criteria
can
be
a
little
bit
more
flexible
for
the
missing
middle
housing
types
like
the
duplexes,
the
town
homes,,
the
small
multi-family
units
like
quad,
plexes
and
triplexes
and
stuff
like
that.
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
H
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
okay.
pb,,
laura
kaplan:
I'm:,
just
remembering
that
there's
specific
guidance
in
the
bvcp
for
things
like
the
boulder
valley,
regional
center.
and
I
don't
know
if
that's
just
duplicative
of
more
detailed
guidelines
that
are
available
elsewhere.
or
if
that
is
unique.
Guidance,
for,,
like
the
boulder
valley,,
I
think
in
our
reviews,
in
our
analysis
like
if.
H
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
mit
ctl,
and
whether
it's
consistency
with
a
transition
or
any
other
kind
of
consistency
with
the
area
that
we're
future
oriented.
and
first,.
We
give
sort
of
privilege
or
or
elevated
importance
to
sub-community
plans
adopted
design,
guidelines,
things
that
talk
about
the
future,
and
where
we're
trying
to
take
this
area.
150.
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
building,,
sighting
and
design
are
compatible
with
the
existing
character
of
the
area,
emerging
character
of
redeveloping
areas
or
character
established
and
adopted
design
guidelines
or
subcommittee
and
area
plans..
I
think
we
should
be
privileging
the
future
vision
in
terms
of
compatibility
before
we
think
about
the
existing
character.
N
G
G
G
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:.
I
think
I
do
think
that
the
existing
context
makes
a
difference,
and
I
definitely
think
that
transitions
should
be
sensitive,
from,
say,
for
example,,
an
area
of
lower
intensity
to
an
area
of
high
intensity,,
just
like
with
the
last
project
that
we
reviewed
up
there
on
20,,
eighth,
and
j.
I
I
Pb,,
sarah
silver:
that
the
first
thing
we
should
think
about
is,.
Is
it
compatible
with
our
plans
for
this
area,
as
described
in
the
area
plan,
not
my
vision
for
the
area,,
but
then
you
have
to
have
area.,
but
then
you
have
to
have
an
area
plan,
and
we
don't
have
an
area
plan
for
everything..
So
you
know
I
I
I
think
the
answer
that
I,
my
response
to
your
thoughts.
Are.
G
G
G
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
to
be
clear..
I'm
saying
that
if
some
community
or
area
plans
exist,,
we
should
defer
to
those,
and
and
then
the
surrounding
community
context
should
also
be
considered.,
but
that
the
over
our
overriding
factor
is
the
subcommittee
or
area
plan
that
has
been
adopted
if
it
exists..
But
you
know,.
If
that's
a
controversial
concept,
that
people
can
live,
with.
I
I
B
D
D
D
D
G
G
Cob,
karl
guiler:
well,,
I
I
I
think
the
intention
was
that
you
know,
through
this
process,,
like
even
through
the
form
based
code
process..
We've
heard
a
lot
of
community
thoughts
on
development
where
there
were
concerns
about
large
boxy,
buildings,
rectangular
buildings
everywhere..
And
how
do
we
move
away
from
that.
H
D
D
I
I
I
I
H
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
so,
carl,
hearing
what
you're
saying,
that
this
is
meant
to
be
more
of
best
practices..
I'm
just
going
to
put
a
suggestion
out
there..
Would
it
work??
Would
it
be
helpful
in
line
5
here
to
say
the
approving
agency
will
consider
the
following
best
practices
rather
than
the
following
factors,,
and
make
it
more
clear
that.
H
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
oh,
you're
you're
talking
about
line
5
on.
What's
on
the
page
right,
here,
yeah.
line
5,
just
rather
than
calling
them.
consider
the
following
factors,,
maybe
make
it
more
clear
that
you're
saying,
consider
the
following
best
practices:.
I
don't
know
if
that
clarifies
or
not,
it
would
for
me,,
but
I'm
just
one
person.
I
I
H
I
I
B
I
H
H
I
I
I
H
H
I
H
I
H
D
D
Q
Q
D
Q
D
D
H
D
D
G
G
H
H
G
H
G
G
I
G
G
B
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
because
of
whatever
design
requirements
they
couldn't
recess
the
base.,
so
they
did
it
with
like
different
colored
paint
and
expression,
lines
and
things
like
that.
and
it
actually
was
a
very
nice
design
that
the
landmarks
board
was
very
happy
with..
I
don't
know
how
long
that
wall
was.
I
G
G
G
G
G
G
N
G
I
F
F
F
F
G
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
I
I
had
a
different
point..
So
if
anybody
wants
to
continue
this
conversation,,
I
don't
have
strong
feelings
about
150
versus
200,,
maybe
because
I'm
not
good
with
math
and
distance,.
So
I
would
kind
of
trust,
carl
and
staff's.
you
know..
What
do
they
think
is
reasonable??
What's
been
done
in
the
city.
I
I
H
H
I
G
G
G
B
F
G
G
F
G
F
F
F
P
P
P
P
B
pb,,
laura
kaplan:
laura,.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
this?
or
I
mean,?
I
think
if
staff
are
okay
with
near
like..
I
understand
sarah
is
concerned,,
but
I
I
do
agree
with
mark..
That
adjacent
is
too
constraining,
and
I
don't
have
a
better
suggestion..
I
was
thinking
maybe
something
having
to
do
with
walking
distance
or
5
min
walk.,
but
that
also
is
subjective..
So.
I
B
I
H
H
H
H
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:
okay.
pb,,
laura
kaplan:.
I
guess
I
was
just
wondering..
It
is
what
we
mean:
here,
like
public
lands
that
are
managed
by
the
parks
department
and
the
open
space
department.,
and
if
that's,
what
we
mean.,
could
we
just
say
that,
rather
than
a
public
park,
plaza
or
open
space
like,?
Is
this
open
space
with
a
capital
os?,
or
is
this
just
any
open,
space.
H
B
N
I
I
H
H
H
H
I
I
I
I
H
H
I
O
O
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
the
approving
authority
may
approve
a
height
up
to
55
feet.
if
the
following
criteria
are
met,,
I'm
just
going
to
put
out
my
suggestion
that
instead
of
naming
55
feet,,
we
just
talk
about
the
city's
chartered
height
limit.,
which
is
we've
talked
about
in
the
past,.
Could
change
up
or
down.
D
D
B
I
I
H
I
Pb,,
laura
kaplan:,
oh,
no,,
sorry
I'll
put
my
hand
down,,
although
I
will
just
say
for
the
record
that,
if
you're
going
to
make
me
do
something
else,
besides,
affordable
housing
for
community
benefit,,
you're
going
to
have
to
be
super
convincing
for
me
to
vote
for
it,,
because
we
just
need
housing.
So
much.