►
From YouTube: 1.20.2021 Planning and Zoning Commission 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).
B
Yeah
one
more
time
to
not
figure
out
why
the
zoom
link
isn't
working.
A
B
D
B
B
A
Yeah
it's
the
grow
gather
mural.
I
was
at
the
judy
had
sent
or
told
us
about
the
chamber
commerce
meeting
a
week
or
two
ago,
and
I
didn't
realize
that
we
had
done
a
like
a
bar
crawl
from
all
and
to
connect
to
all
the
murals,
because
there's
so
many
different
restaurants
and
bars
that
have
murals
around
around
the
city.
It
was
kind
of
one
of
the
events
that
they
had
like
go
from
one
location
with
the
mural
to
another
one.
So.
C
B
A
Is
that
one
of
the
other
ones
way
that
you
can
get
off
your
guys
site,
or
is
that
one
of
your
own
personal,
taking.
C
A
C
A
C
C
Okay,
do
you
know
if
she
was
coming
or
did
she
confirm
a
nancy
or
I.
D
Have
not
heard
if
she
was
or
not.
C
D
C
C
A
C
G
B
C
C
C
D
D
So
we're
going
to
this
evening
present
to
you
the
initial
report
out
for
the
unified
development
code
assessment
and
community
engagement
facilitation
project
before
we
get
into
the
full
powerpoint
presentation.
I
do
want
to
say
a
few
words
basically
give
you
a
recap
of
what
we've
done
where
we've
been
and
then
I
will
turn
it
over
to
jennifer
gardner,
who
is
the
project
planner
for
logan
simpson,
who
assisted
us
through
this
process.
We
also
have
mark
white
and
rhys
wilson
on
the
line,
who
also
helped
us
out
with
this
project.
D
D
There
were
numerous
ways
that
were
created
for
people
throughout
the
community
to
engage
in
the
conversation,
the
project
team
was
focused
on
really
listening
and
learning
about
what
was
working
well,
what
was
not
working
well
and
identifying
areas
that
needed
to
be
highlighted
for
further
discussion
in
the
community's
opinion
during
this
time.
The
project
team,
as
I
mentioned,
listened
to
ideas
and.
D
D
The
purpose
and
intended
outcome,
as
I
mentioned,
was
for
the
community
to
provide
us
input
that
can
be
utilized
moving
forward
into
future
phases
of
the
project
attached
to
your
packet.
This
evening
we
did
include
the
community
outreach
report,
which
shows
you
all
of
the
venues
and
opportunities
the
community
had
to
provide
feedback
to
the
project
team,
so
in
an
effort
to
be
transparent
and
accessible.
D
The
final
report
does
contain
the
input
we
collected
at
each
event
and
the
information
will
be
included
as
an
addendum
to
the
final
report,
which
you
will
get
a
copy
here
in
a
few
weeks
as
we
wrapped
up
our
phase
one
effort
of
the
project
and
moved
into
phase
two.
The
project
team
quickly
learned
that
several
topics
were
really
rising
to
the
top,
based
on
the
amount
of
comments
and
questions
and
information.
D
We
were
hearing
from
the
community,
so
phase
two
attempted
to
dive
deeper
into
these
common
topics,
and
the
top
common
topics
really
broke
out
into
six
different
categories,
so
the
first
one
was
residential,
neighborhood,
dimensional
and
design
standards.
D
D
D
So
further
efforts
to
reach
the
community
during
phase
two,
I
saw
us
push
out
some
quick
pull
surveys.
We
did
a
postcard
mailing
to
englewood
mailing
addresses
and
had
a
second
zoom
community
meeting
to
listen
to
the
feedback
on
these
common
thread.
Topics
that
I
just
listed
and
try
to
answer
as
many
questions
as
we
could
about
those
topics
as
well
as
answer
any
other
questions
that
people
had
through
phase
one
so
phase
three
of
the
project
really
focused
on
the
assessment
of
the
code.
D
D
We
asked
questions
to
gain
feedback
and
we
utilized
a
steering
committee
of
community
members
to
be
our
sounding
board
to
to
garner
further
input
and
to
really
reach
out
into
the
community
and
make
the
community
aware
of
the
project
and
get
further
ideas
and
input.
As
I
mentioned,
the
final
report
that
you're
going
to
hear
about
tonight.
D
So
one
of
the
main
points,
as
we
start
out,
is
to
understand
that
this
report
does
not
represent
the
end
of
the
conversation
on
any
of
these
topics,
so
this
is
just
the
beginning.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
the
final
draft
report
is
going
to
be
released
to
city
council
and
discussed
at
their
meeting
on
february.
8Th.
D
D
You
know
in
talking
a
little
bit
more
about
the
report.
You
know
the
report
is
laid
out
by
types
of
of
different
zonings.
Some
of
you
have
heard
about
form
base
code.
You
know,
there's
the
euclidean
zoning,
which
englewood
primarily
has
so
there's
going
to
be
an
introduction
of
the
different
types
of
zonings
that
community
use
uses.
D
D
D
The
final
document
will
have
an
addendum
of
other
communities,
both
in
colorado,
as
well
as
nationally
best
practices,
for
example,
with
regard
to
parking
with
regard
to
walkability.
So
there's
going
to
this
is
going
to
be
sort
of
like
a
research
document
for
you
to
use.
If
you
want
to
find
out
more
about
a
certain
topic,
we'll
have
an
addendum
within
the
final
report,
so
we
also
want
to
make
sure
to
right
size
the
standards
and
procedures
within
the
code
are
there,
things
that
are
very
are
overly
complicated.
D
D
The
code
should
balance
flexibility
and
certainty
for
everyone
using
it.
There
should
be
clear
and
fluid
administrative
processes
for
applications.
We
should
avoid
non-conformities
and
provide
enforcement
tools
as
we
go
through.
So
those
are
our
10
guiding
principles
that
when
we
get
into
the
re-draft,
we
want
to
make
sure
we
we
pay
attention
to.
D
H
Good
all
right,
I
know
kate
and
diane
have
already
seen
a
lot
of
this
before,
but
for
the
rest
of
you,
this
will
be
new.
Thank
you
for
that
great
week,
lead
in
wade.
That
was
that
was
excellent.
So
generally,
throughout
the
whole
code
document,
we
have
about
four
things
that
we
recommend.
H
One
is
simplifying
technical
language.
We
heard
quite
a
bit
throughout
the
process
that,
although
this
is
a
legal
document,
we
heard
quite
a
bit
throughout
the
process
that
there
is
a
lot
of
pieces
and
parts
of
the
code
that
are
hard
to
understand
to
the
everyday
person
or
really
anyone.
So
you
know
simplifying
that
technical
language,
renaming
procedures
for
clarity
and
simplification,
modernizing
definitions
and
terms
throughout
the
document.
H
Those
are
some
of
the
some
of
the
general
simplification
items
that
we
we
would
suggest
so
next
slide.
Please
another
way
to
modernize
codes,
make
them
a
little
simpler.
A
little
more
user
friendly
is
to
add
tables,
charts
and
graphics.
There
are
very
few
graphics
in
the
current
code,
so
we
recommend
integrating
graphics
throughout
the
code
to
illustrate
dimensional
relationships
and
help
explain
some
of
the
material.
H
Sometimes
you
know
pictures
worth
a
thousand
words,
so
sometimes
you
can
put
a
bunch
of
words
in
a
paragraph
and
that
picture
just
helps
kind
of
seal
the
deal.
So
that's
one
of
the
other
suggestions
next
slide,
we'll
get
into
this
a
little
bit
more
through
the
chapter
by
chapter,
recommendations
or
suggestions,
but
generally
speaking,
sometimes
it's
it's
helpful
to
reorganize
a
couple
of
pieces
of
the
document
to
make
it
flow
a
little
bit
easier.
H
So
zoning
regulations
could
be
put
zoning
regulations
that
put
technical
provisions
in
the
back
of
the
document
and
keep
them
more
substantive
provisions
to
the
front
of
the
documents.
So
when
you,
when
you're
going
to
develop,
you
know
an
adu
or
a
full
property,
you
can
open
the
document
and
walk
straight
through
here's.
My
zoning,
here's
what
I
need
to
do:
here's
the
design
standards
and
then
some
of
the
technical
information
is
at
the
back
end.
So
that's
just
one.
H
We
could
add
an
executive
summary
at
the
front
of
the
first
chapter
and
then
we'll
get
into
this
again
a
little
bit
more,
but
telecommunication
sits
in
its
own
chapter
and
it
could
be
integrated
into
chapter
five,
that's
kind
of
where
it
seems
to
fit
with
the
use
regulations.
So
next
chapter
I
mean
next
next
page
slide.
H
Integrating
cross
references
is
the
fourth
and
final
kind
of
general
suggestion
so
cross
references,
an
integration
of
terms
throughout
the
document
to
minimize
confusion
and
then
oftentimes.
We
recommend
or
suggest
that
people
communities
pull
in
some
of
the
community
comprehensive
plan
language.
So
certain
purpose
statements
could
be
placed
in
throughout
the
document
italicized
and
very
specific
that
it's
just
creating
that
tie
between
the
comprehensive
plan
and
the
code
to
show
how
how
the
comprehensive
plan
has
been
integrated
and
implemented
through
the
code
document.
So
next
slide.
H
So
now
we're
going
to
go
through
there's
11
chapters
in
the
current
inglewood
unified
development
code
and
we
went
through
basically
what
we
did
is
we
took
all
of
the
public
comment
and
those
five
main
topics
that
we've
discussed
through
phase
two
and
did
a
full
top
to
bottom
review
of
the
code
with
our
team
with
staff
and
then
against.
All
of
the
comments
that
we
heard
and
combine
combine
them
all
into
the
right
places
of
the
of
the
chapters
where
they
kind
of
fit
so
chapter.
H
One
is
your
general
provisions,
like
I
said
previously,
one
suggestion
is
to
move
the
zoning
map,
rules
of
of
construction
and
interpretation
to
the
rear
of
the
document
and
then
add
content
to
the
front
of
the
document
that
ties
to
the
inglewood
forward
comprehensive
plan.
H
Another
observation
was
that
there
are
some
and
or
conjunctions
throughout
the
code,
especially
in
the
beginning
and
removing
those
for
interpretation,
conflicts
next
slide
chapter
2.
Is
your
development
review
and
approval
procedures
again,
one
suggestion
would
be
to
move
this
to
the
rear
of
the
document
when,
when
you,
when
you
go
to
apply
for
a
an
application,
you
know
you'd
have
all
your
front-end
information
and
you're
going
to
seek
out
this
information
either
way
so
creating
a
process
for
a
process
and
standards
for
interpretations.
H
Revising
the
pud
language
to
include
stringent
standards
that
exceed
development,
so
sometimes
puds
are
used
as
kind
of
there's
this.
This
particular
development
doesn't
fit
in
this
zone
perfectly.
So
a
pud
is
a
way
to
make
that
happen.
Our
suggestion
would
be.
The
pud
would
be
a
true
overlay.
You
meet
the
base,
zoning
district
requirements,
and
then
you
have
to
exceed
those
for
that
pub.
So,
just
a
just
a
suggestion,
a
lot
of
communities
have
moved
to
more
of
that
approach.
H
Revising
the
public
hearing
process
to
allow
applicants
to
respond
to
public
comments.
So
there
was
a
a
bit
of
a
discussion
with
with
internally
with
staff
about
the
public
hearing
process
and
allowing
for
both
the
public
to
comment
on
applications
and
the
applicant
to
have
adequate
time
to
respond
to
those
applications
or
those
comments
and
then
provide
a
time
limit
for
zoning
variances
so
that
an
applicant
cannot
reapply
within
a
year
next
slide
zone
districts
we're
actually
in
pretty
good
shape.
H
We
didn't
hear
a
whole
lot
about
the
districts
themselves
needing
much
so
we
you
can
see.
Englewood
sits
at
about
61
in
residential
zoning
11
in
commercial
23,
industrial
and
3
pud.
H
H
Chapter
4
was
flood
plain
regulations
again,
not
a
whole
lot
to
be
done.
With
this
chapter,
it
was
in
pretty
good
shape,
so
with
the
in
chapter
five,
the
use
regulations
when
we
get
into
that
next,
there
would
be
there's
some
suggested
tweaks
of
just
updating
and
modernizing
a
lot
of
the
uses.
H
So
we
would
have
to
make
sure
that
the
floodplain
regulations
corresponds
with
any
changes
made
to
those
uses
and
then
ensuring
this
chapter
is
flexible
and
easy
to
amend
as
fema
regulations
change
over
time,
which
does
happen
pretty
regularly
next
chapter.
Five
is
the
use
regulations
this
one?
We
actually
have
two
slides.
There
was
just
a
few
additional
comments
on
this
one,
but
one
suggestion
is
an
update
and
reorganization
of
the
use
chart.
H
There
are,
like
I
said,
a
lot
of
uses
that
are
maybe
out
of
the
language
might
be
a
little
out
of
date,
maybe
need
modernizing
so
modernizing.
The
specific
use
standards
for
manufactured
home
parks
was
another
topic
that
came
up,
reclassifying,
limited
uses
and
accessory
uses
as
permitted,
conditional,
accessory
or
temporary,
so
basically
kind
of
eliminating,
eliminating
that
limited
use,
category
and
kind
of
redefining
some
of
the
use
categories
and
then
revising
and
clarifying
automotive
uses.
H
H
H
H
I
think
part
of
that
is
is
covid
kind
of
spurred
some
discussion,
but
looking
at
some
different
various
types
of
at-home
situations
that
might
that
the
home
occupations
might
be
expanded
to
include
and
then
revising
language
and
stipulations
for
food
vending
trucks
within
the
temporary
use
section
next
chapter
six
is
actually
divided
up
into
several
slides.
This
is
our
development
standards
and
there
is
quite
a
bit
in
this
chapter.
It's
it's
a
very,
very
dense
chapter,
very,
very
important
chapter
as
well.
So
so
we
broke
it
down
into
dimensional
requirements.
H
The
different
portions
of
the
chapter
are
dimensional
requirements,
streets
and
vehicle
access
and
circulation,
off-street
parking,
pedestrian
and
bicycle
access
fence
and
retaining
walls,
landscaping
and
screening,
design
standards
and
guidelines,
historic
preservation
signs
and
the
tsa
districts.
So
we're
going
to
go
through
each
of
those
so
bear
with
me,
but
within
the
dimensional
requirements.
One
suggestion
that
came
up
is
the
small
lot
widths
in
all
residential
zones
to
be
changed
to
37
foot
within
the
dimensional
table.
H
It
actually
is
at
37
feet
in
several
locations
within
that
table,
but
there
was
just
one
or
two
lines
that
were
not
consistent,
so
it's
just
updating
to
make
sure.
There's
consistency
within
that
small
lot,
with
requirement
simplifying
the
adu
dimensional
table
and
include
new
adu
types
and
appropriate
regulations.
H
We
came
up
with
several
best
practices
and
optional
approaches,
and
our
suggestion
would
be
to,
through
the
rewrite
process,
assess
this
a
little
bit
further
with
the
community
so
put
out
some
some
detailed
options
and
and
kind
of
come
up
with
a
good
solution
for
that.
So
next
slide
streets
and
vehicle
access,
primarily
just
making
sure
that
they
reflect
current
public
work
standards
and
maybe
a
suggestion
of
encouraging
shared
drive,
access
for
adjacent
adjacent
non-residential
development
to
discourage
unnecessary
drive
cuts
and
reduce
congestion.
So
not
a
whole
lot
to
do
with
that
section.
H
Next,
off
street
parking,
we
heard
a
lot
about
off
street
parking
and
have
had
some
really
great
conversations
with
the
community
with
our
steering
committee
internally
with
staff
and
some
of
the
suggestions
that
came
out
of
this
again,
like
like
wade,
said.
These
are
all
just
suggestions,
all
based
in
best
practices
and
what
other
communities
are
doing.
H
But
it
will
be
necessary,
through
the
full
code,
update
process
or
code,
rewrite
process
to
assess
some
of
these
and
figure
out
which
are
the
best
for
right
size
for
for
ankle
wood.
So
one
option
is
revising
the
parking
standards
to
include
parking,
maximums
and
minimums
right
now,
there's
just
a
parking
minimum,
which
is
a
fairly
high
number,
and
so
this
would
allow
this
would
make
that
minimum.
Potentially
one
option
would
be
to
make
that
minimum
a
maximum
and
then
provide
a
minimum.
So
there's
a
range
depending
on
your
development
type.
H
You
have
a
little
more
flexibility
in
the
in
the
amount
of
parking
that
you
would
be
required.
Establish
a
soft
parking.
Maximum
is
another
option
that
triggers
additional
requirements
when
spaces
are
increased,
addressing
parking
spillover
and
residential
areas
with
parking
permit
systems.
We
heard
a
bit
of
a
mixed
bag
on
the
parking
permit.
We've
heard
some
a
lot
of
people
really
liked
it,
and,
and
some
people
said
there
was
enough
permitted
parking
in
the
city.
So
we
do.
H
We
do
throw
that
suggestion
out
there
lightly,
as
as
an
option
reduce
over
parking
by
using
site-specific
parking
demand.
Analysis
heard
actually
a
lot
of
good
response
to
that
idea
and
then
tie
the
location
and
size
of
parking
areas
to
landscaping
and
shading
requirements
and
we'll
get
into
that
a
little
bit
further.
With
some
of
our
green
infrastructure
ideas,
next
bicycle
and
pedestrian
access,
so
one
one
suggestion
is
to
increase
planting
strip
requirements
from
six
to
ten
feet,
to
encourage
more
green
and
open
space
planting.
H
Since
we
put
this
slide
slide
presentation
together
and
then
met
with
our
steering
committee,
we've
been
kind
of
tweaking
the
the
final
report
a
little
bit
and
we're
talking
a
little
bit
more
thanks
to
a
couple
of
syrian
committee
members
about
not
necessarily
just
increasing
that
width,
but
also
thinking
about
the
soil
mass
that's
needed
for
for
plant
materials,
so
sometimes
in
an
urban
environment.
It's
not
a
matter
of
the
width
of
the
planting
area,
but
the
soil
space
and
you
might
have
like
floating
sidewalks
and
things
like
that.
So
providing
some.
H
Creating
contextual
design
standards
for
walkways
bus
stops,
transit
locations,
providing
flexible
incentives
depending
on
less
parking
so
like
we
just
saw
on
the
last
slide,
tying
parking
to
bicycle
and
pedestrian
and
green
infrastructure.
So
there
can
be
some
trade-offs
and
incentives
there
and
then
providing
lighting
requirements
for
connectivity
purposes.
H
Fences
and
retaining
walls.
There
really
wasn't
a
lot
in
in
this
section
that
needed
a
ton
of
updating,
but
some
suggestions
would
be
contextualizing
standards,
particularly
heights
by
zone
district
or
neighborhood.
H
Updating
the
site
triangle
illustrations,
the
site
triangle,
illustrations,
show
up
in
fences
and
then
one
other
section
of
the
code
and
one
suggestion
we
had
would
be
to
pull
those
more
to
a
front
end
or
to
a
measurements
type
section
and
just
reference
it
in
in
these
other
two
sections,
so
that
there
doesn't
end
up
being
any
conflict
between
those
and
then
supplement
table,
16-6-6.1,
fence,
classifications
with
colored
images.
H
So
again,
just
bringing
some
more
graphics
into
to
help
illustrate
the
standards
next
slide,
landscaping
and
screening
again,
this
this
section
was
in
pretty
good
shape.
So
just
building
on
that
some
suggestions
would
be
to
create
a
an
approved
plant
list
and
that
could
be
an
actual
list
of
plants
or
it
could
just
be
referencing,
something
like
csu
extensions,
approved
tree
list
or
something
to
that
effect.
H
Expanding
the
water
conservation
principles
and
creating
standards
to
support
that
intensifying
landscape
requirements
for
non-residential
zones
to
provide
more
trees,
shrubs
and
grasses,
develop
specific
landscape
site
landscape
standards
and
requirements,
and
consider
adding
a
minimum
open
space
requirement
for
some
zone
districts.
So
these
are
just
some
suggestions
that
came
out
that
could
elevate
the
existing
great
standards
next
slide
a
little
bit
more
on
landscaping,
often
times
in
an
in
a
fairly
built
out
urban
environment
such
as
inglewoods.
H
We
can
we've
worked
with
other
communities
to
substitute
civic
spaces
and
usable
open
spaces
for
required
landscaping,
so
provide
a
almost
a
menu
of
options
of
different
types
of
open
space,
rather
than
you
have
to
have
so
many
acres
of
open
space.
For
so
many
acres
of
development
so
provide
some
some
options
there,
developing
pedestrian
oriented,
streetscape
standards
for
mixed
use
and
the
tsa
district,
consider
a
minimum
landscape
requirement
for
front
yards
and
then
using
a
sliding
scale
for
landscape
percentages
with
anyway,
just
just
a
sliding
scale
to
it.
Kind
of
ties
to
that.
H
H
Design
standards
and
guidelines
so
based
on
our
conversation
of
the
kind
of
neighborhood,
specific
type
design
guidelines.
Some
suggestions
would
be
to
strengthen
the
residential
design
standards,
to
ensure
quality,
home
development,
develop
specific
residential
design
standards
for
each
zone,
district
or
neighborhood,
and
then
expand
the
neighborhood
preservation
standards
to
other
neighborhoods.
So
there
is
one
neighborhood
preservation
overlay
zone
in
the
murr3b
that
could
be
expanded
out
to
other
areas
or
have
additional
neighborhood
preservation,
overlays.
So
again,
some
some
suggestions
to
try
to
tie
to
the
comprehensive
plans,
neighborhood
character
goals
and
policies.
H
Next
historic
preservation,
the
historic
preservation
commission
is
working
right
now
to
develop
a
demolition
permit
and
is
doing
a
neighborhood
by
neighborhood
assessment.
H
So,
in
addition
to
that,
to
help
kind
of
give
them
a
little
bit
more
teeth
for
for
historic
preservation
review,
some
suggestions
would
be
to
establish
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
review
for
com
for
historic
properties
and
provide
regulations
for
the
demolition
of
historic
properties
that
would
tie
to
that
demolition.
Permit
process.
So
next
slide.
H
Signs,
as
wade
said,
the
sign
code
portion
of
the
code
is
very
lengthy
and
convoluted,
so
realign
sign
types
to
zoning
districts
or
street
classifications
rather
than
land
uses,
is
one
suggestion
providing
clear
and
effective
graph,
graphics
and
matrices
and
then
incorporating
sign
definitions
into
the
definitions.
Chapter
of
the
code,
rather
than
in
here
would
help
kind
of
condense.
This
chapter
a
bit
and
the
tsa
district
one
one
idea
was
to
incorporate
the
content
into
other
sections
of
the
code.
H
There's
some
really
great
design
guidelines
in
this
district,
so
kind
of
just
spreading
that
out
throughout
the
code
where
it's
appropriate
and
then
implementing
compact
walkable
and
our
transit
oriented
development
standards
to
provide
some
design
flexibility,
green
infrastructure
landscaping.
That
type
of
thing,
telecommunications,
like
we
said
before
this,
this
chapter
is
telecommunications-
has
has
moved
very
quickly
with
small
cell
facilities
and
and
a
lot
of
different
technologies.
H
So
this
section
would
need
to
be
updated
to
modern
technology
and
terminology
and
again
it
sits
alone
right
now
and
it
makes
sense
to
possibly
incorporate
it
into
the
use
regulations
or
as
a
separate
appendix
at
the
back
of
the
document.
H
Chapter.
Eight
subdivision
design
improvements
and
dedication
standards
again,
not
not
a
whole
lot
in
this
chapter.
It
was,
it
was
in
pretty
good
shape,
so
revising
land
dedication
amounts
required
to
reflect
the
type
of
improvement
through
a
menu
of
park
and
open
space
options,
so
kind
of,
like
I
talked
about
before,
being
a
built
out
community,
maybe
providing
a
little
bit
of
more
flexibility
within
that
and
then
aligning
the
street
classification
system.
H
With
the
comprehensive
plan
chapter
nine
non-conformities
there
was
one
one
section
that
just
needs
some
clarification:
basically
on
redevelopment
of
non-conforming
buildings
or
structures
with
infill
standards
to
reduce
newly
rehabilitated
non-conformities.
H
And
chapter
11
use
classifications
and
definitions,
it's
kind
of
goes
with
the
territory
whenever
you
update
a
code
that
the
definitions
will
need
to
be
updated
to
reflect
any
new
or
revised
content
throughout
the
document.
So
you
know
it
including
new
and
revised
definitions
as
needed,
modernizing
the
use,
classifications
and
definitions
and
verifying
refi.
H
H
And
then
we
have
a
pretty
lengthy
section
on
case
studies
from
across
the
country
for
for
use.
In
the
code
rewrite
process.
We
will
be
heading
to
town
council
on
our
city
council
on
february
8th
and
then
I
think
back
to
you
guys
wade
said
on
february.
17Th.
D
Yeah,
I
know
that
that's
a
lot
of
information
for
everybody
in
a
very
short
amount
of
time,
so
we're
here
as
jen
said
for
for
any
questions
you
have
initially
for
us.
C
A
That
was
a
ton
of
information,
but
really
appreciate
that
submarine.
What
you
guys
are
are
working
on
at
this
point
and
kind
of
again
summarizing
those
next
steps,
a
couple
things
I
just
caught
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
clarified
you
said
the
minimum
lot
width
of
going
to
37
feet
consistently.
A
I
thought
when
I
was
looking
through,
that
it
was
25
feet
in
most
places,
and
so
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
the
correct
width
on
there
and
I
very
well
may
have
read
it
wrong.
But,
as
I
was
scanning
through-
and
I
don't
know
if
anybody
knows
that
off
the
top
of
their
head.
H
I
did
just
look
this
up
recently
and
we
could
pull
it
up
and
and
look
at
it.
I
remember
there
are
a
few
dimensions
that
are
at
37
feet
and
there
was.
It
was
really
just
one
or
two
specific
lines
that
were
not
consistent,
but
okay,
we
can
pull
that
up
here.
E
A
Looked
at
one
of
the
tables,
and
then
maybe
I
guess
as
you're
looking
the
the
shared
drive
access
is,
that
is
that
between
shared
lots,
how
was
how
would
that
work
or
how
is
it
different
than
maybe
what's
going
on
right
now?
If
it
has
a
single
lot,
is
there
just
a
certain
number
of
driveways
that
could
happen.
H
Yeah
and
so
that's
more
towards
commercial
development,
so
to
increase
walkability
and
bike
ability,
and
so
anytime
a
redevelopment
happens.
If
there's
a
you
know,
driveways
driveway
curb
cuts,
I'm
just
going
to
throw
a
dimension
out.
There
say
they're
only
about
100
feet
apart
or
something
and
there's
a
way
to
combine
them
to
increase
effectiveness
of
of
traffic,
and
you
know
increase
that
pedestrian
environment.
That's
that's
just
a
suggestion
that
we
would.
A
A
And
then
I
guess
the
last
question
for
increasing
the
planting
strip
with.
I
think
the
property
owners
have
to
maintain
that
that
wouldn't
put
an
extra
burden
on
the
city
to
have
a
wider
area
that
they
would
be
responsible
for.
Anything
like
that.
B
Yeah,
I
was
just
one
thing
I
thought
of,
and
this
isn't
as
much
of
a
problem
in
englewood
as
it
is
in
some
other
places
in
the
in
the
in
the
region,
but
I
just
wondered
if
it
had
come
across
any
of
these
issues
with
maintaining
the
area
around
bus
stops
or
where
bus
shelters
are
and
access
for
bus,
just
something
I
thought
of
when
you
know
you're
talking
about
pedestrian
bicycle
access.
B
I
wondered
if
that
came
up,
or
there
was
any
place
where
you
think
that
might
be
appropriate
to
create.
You
know,
standards
that
that
would
encourage
a
more
favorable
environment
for
bus
stops.
For
instance,
like
some
places
you
know
you
can't
really
get
from
the
bus
stop
to
the
street
to
access
the
bus.
That
sort
of
thing.
H
B
C
B
C
H
B
B
Good
good,
it's
very
comprehensive,
and
I
I
I
do
want
to
emphasize.
I
also
like
the
looking
at
the
emphasis
on
the
the
the
green
strip
and
I
don't
think,
as
you
said,
it's
not
so
much
as
important
from
the
specific
width
of
it
just
that
it
that
it's
in
there
and
that
it
not
be
one
of
those
things
that
you
know
it's
like.
B
Well,
it's
a
nice
thing
to
have,
but
you
know
we
you
know
too
many
exceptions
would
be
my
only
concern
with
that,
but
I
think
it's
definitely
something
desirable
to
put
in
there.
C
E
Okay,
I
got
to
participate
in
a
couple
of
the
steering
committee
meetings,
and
so
I
just
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
putting
together
such
nice,
clear,
presentations
and
and
developing
these
conversations
with,
not
just
us,
but
you
know,
community
members
at
large.
E
I'm
so
glad
that
the
planting
became
such
a
big
thing
and
I
did
notice
in
there
that
it
looked
the
same
as
before.
So
I
appreciate
you
saying
that
the
soil
volume
is
what
you
were
kind
of
tweaking
the
report
to
reflect.
But
colin's
comment,
I
I
didn't
quite
catch.
The
answer
could,
could,
you
repeat,
is
in
most
jurisdictions
to
my
understanding
the
city
would
plant
and
maintain
or
the
plant
the
trees,
but
the
homeowner
or
property
owner
would
then
be
required
to
water
and
care
for
it.
Is
that
correct.
H
Yeah
it
depe,
it
depends
on
where
that
parks
trip
lies.
Actually
to
be
honest
with
you,
if
it's
wholly
in
the
right
of
way,
then
that's
technically
city
property
and
some
cities
like
city
of
fort
collins
they
plant
and
maintain
the
trees.
But
then
the
homeowner
maintains
the
ground,
the
ground
plane
and
that's
if
it's
in
the
right
of
way
anything
from
the
right-of-way
into
the
property
is
the
property
owner's
responsibility.
H
But
our
intention
is
not
to
to
increase
maintenance
for
the
city,
particularly
it's
to
increase
the
permeability
and
the
shade
and
and
the
the
walkability
and
all
of
that.
So
it's
it's.
It's
a
it's
a
balance.
I
think
that
would
have
to
be
looked
at
one
step
further
before
the
regulation
is
fully
put
into
place.
E
Yeah,
no,
that's
that's
totally
understandable.
In
any
case,
thank
you
for
putting
us
together.
C
H
Question
yeah,
so
it
appears
in
the
r1c.
The
one
unit
dwelling
on
a
small
lot
says
37
feet
and
then,
if
you
go
down
to
r2a
one
unit,
dwelling
on
a
small
lot
is
a
40
foot.
Minimum
lot
width
and
I
believe
that
was
where
the
conflict
occurred.
A
H
H
I
think,
as
as
I
recall
from
the
conversation
I
think
the
50
and
r1a
and
r1b
was
fine.
It
was
that
r2a
that,
where
the,
where
the
the
it
was
just
a
red
flag
that
went
up-
and
we
said-
maybe
we
should
take
a
look
at
that
so
again
it
will
have
to
have
one
more
one.
More
look.
It
was
just
a
an
observation
and
kind
of
a
suggestion
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
make
sure
that
maybe
it's
the
37
dimension,
that's
off.
C
G
C
G
Thanks,
I
think
we
got
a
lot
of
great
feedback
from
the
community,
I'm
looking
forward
to
digging
through
more
of
it,
and
one
thing
I
noticed
when
some
of
the
ideas
you
know
there
will
be
an
increased
cost
or
some
cost
associated,
whether
to
the
the
city
or
to
the
resident,
or
you
know
any
of
the
other
parties.
D
Yeah
yeah,
no,
I
think
that's
a
good
idea.
We
are
in
the
process
of
of
drafting
the
rfp
for
the
actual
rewrite.
So
that
is
something
we
will
look
at
include
look
to
include
for
that
actual
rewrite
to
to
to
provide
some
estimates
of
of
cost
for
either
applicants
or
the
city
or
whomever.
A
H
Okay
and
that's
one
of
the
one
of
our
one
of
our
conversation
topics
throughout
this
was
you
know,
areas
such
as
arapahoe,
acres
or
other
areas?
Should
they
should
they
have
a
neighborhood
protection
or
preservation
overlay,
or
something
of
that
nature
that
helps
give
standards.
Currently,
arapahoe
acres
is
obviously
a
historic
district,
but
there
aren't
any
any
standards
for
redevelopment
or
anything
so
it
it
would
be
very
helpful
for
that
area,
especially.
E
B
E
E
H
Yeah,
I
would
say
it
would
be
kind
of
a
magnitude
of
cost
kind
of
an
idea.
E
Personally,
yeah,
my
other
question
was
a
little
bit
to
something
you
said
very
early
on
wade,
which
is
that
this
is.
E
This
is
the
starting
point
to
the
conversation.
So
when
you
say
that
we've
we've
gathered
all
of
this
feedback
from
the
community-
and
you
know
steering
committee
members
and
various
business
owners
and
developers
and
the
like.
So
when
the
conversation
continues,
does
that
do
you
mean
primarily
at
the
city,
council
level
or
the
planning
level
or
like
the
community,
will
continue
to
provide
a
lot
of
additional
input?
Or
how
do
you
see
that.
D
Yeah
we
we
envision
workshops
on
on
these
main
theme
topics,
so
you
know
we
have
a
lot
more
to
talk
about
with
regard
to
parking.
How
do
we
best
handle
parking?
How
do
we
best
handle
neighborhood
design
and
setbacks
and
bulk
plane,
so
not
only
on
planning
level
and
city
council
level?
But
yes,
there
will
be
more
public
participation
and
probably
more
specific
topic
related
events,
so
we
can
really
narrow
down
some
of
this
stuff
when,
as
we
go
into
the
rewrite,
so
yes,
there
will
be
additional.
D
You
know
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
may
play
a
large
role
in
any
steering
committee.
That's
formed
because
this
will
be
a
lot
more
technical
in
nature.
So
we're
we're
thinking
about
how
to
structure
that
right
now.
But
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
will
likely
have
a
have
a
larger
role
with
this
next
phase.
D
See
no
more
hands
the
column.
A
Are
we
just,
is
this
just
an
update
today?
Do
we
not
need
to
do
anything
or
propose
anything
and
then
no.
D
Nope,
it
is
just
an
update,
you
know,
don't
don't
get
nervous,
because
the
final
report
will
be
200
or
so
pages
or
or
more.
D
C
H
D
But
yeah
as
you
go
through
over
this
next
month,
we'll
talk
some
more
in
february
this.
This
does
not
need
any
official
approval
by
planning
and
zoning
or
city
council,
so
the
project
management
team
is
just
presenting
what
we
found
through
the
whole
process
and
going
from
there.
If
you
will
so
well.
Thank
you
all
that
that
was.
That
was
great.
We
appreciate
your
feedback
as
well.
So
moving
on
to
the
next
agenda
item
is
the
city
center
redevelopment
rezoning
with
john
vocal.
I
C
D
C
I
Yeah
so
there's
something
technical
there
that
I'm
not
getting,
but
I
think
this
will
still
work
so
we
kind
of
left
off
and
I
had
shown
you-
we
had
talked
a
little
bit
about
parking
and
I
showed
you
a
couple
of
different
parking
comparison
charts
and
there
was
a
lot
of
different
comments
and
I
still
have
some
work
to
do
on
that
and
I
hadn't
been
able
to
get
to
it
yet.
I
So
I
think
we're
going
to
start
tonight
from
the
next
topic,
which
is
bicycle
parking,
and
this
was
flagged
in
the
triba's
report
that
we
hopefully
was
in
your
packet.
But
I
was,
I
was
kind
of
dumbfounded
about
it.
I
didn't
really
understand
why
this
was
such
a
problem.
What
our
code
has
had
for
bike
parking
bicycle
parking
standards
were
introduced
into
our
zoning
code
in
85.
I
It's
currently
one
bicycle
parking
space
per
two
residential
units
and
one
for
commercial
one:
bicycle
space
per
10
required
vehicle
spaces
or
a
ratio
of
one
space
per
3
500
square
feet,
and
it
that
didn't
seem
to
be
like
all
that
space
hugging
or
you
know,
sucking
up
a
lot
of
space.
I
And
I
went
to
some
of
my
current
planners
and
asked
them
about
bicycle
parking
and
how
some
of
the
new
apartment
buildings
were
handling
that
if
they
had
any
push
back
or
any
problems
with
that,
and
they
told
me
that
they
had
absolutely
no
push
back
or
problems
of
these
apartment
complexes.
Providing
this
parking.
I
I
Okay,
if
anyone
wants
to
come
and
revisit
that
again,
please
let
me
know,
but
we'll
just
move
on
from
here
and
we'll
talk
about
residential
density
and
the
2013
english
light
rail
corridor.
Stationary
master
plan
recommended
establishing
a
maximum
residential
density
standard
of
125
units
per
acre
at
inglewood
station
based
on
our
recent
apartment.
Development
density
staff
also
believes
that
we
should
probably
also
establish
a
minimum
density
and
based
on
some
of
the
developments
we've
seen
that
might
a
good
number
for
that
might
be
75
units
per
acre.
I
These
two
standards
will
be
applied
to
properties
within
the
englewood
court
station
quarter,
mile
walk
shed
not
outside
of
the
unless
client
zoning
commission
has
some
other
ideas
about
that.
So
here,
in
the
left
hand
side
I
have
shown
you
some
different
developments
in
englewood
and
show,
and
I
show
you
what
their
density
is.
So
the
art
walk
apartments
at
801.
I
Oxford
station
comes
in
at
70
units
per
acre
and
are
the
live
apartments
at
201,
englewood
parkway,
it's
a
fairly
small,
a
parcel
and
30
unit
apartments
and
that
end
up
ends
up
calculating
to
a
density
of
127
units
per
acre,
and
so
our
staff
recommendation.
We
think
at
the
station
area.
We
want
to
encourage.
I
We
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
higher
density
there
that
in
order
to
best
utilize
and
make
the
most
of
the
station
and
based
on
the
original
recommendation
of
the
stationary
master
plan,
we're
suggesting
to
go
with
that
as
125
units
per
acre
and
as
a
minimum
we
would
go.
We
would
suggest
75
units
per
acre
and
in
terms
of
the
l,
r
parse
partners
parcel,
which
is
the
south
half
of
the
block,
the
I
believe
it's
the
office
depot
and
the
harbor
freight
area
of
that
particular
block.
I
They
would
be
allowed
to
do
if
they
were
they
have.
That
would
be
a
three
acre
parcel
there
and
at
125
units
per
acre.
That
would
yield
a
total
of
375
units,
which
is
in
the
ballpark
of
the
350
plus
or
minus
apartments
that
we
had
originally
agreed
to,
and
so
at
this
point
I
would
like
to
get
the
conversation
started
and
let
and
ask
people
how
they
feel
about
these
recommended
densities.
A
I
think
I
remember
in
some
of
the
initial
conversations
they
felt
like
the
art.
Walk
was
really
not
dense
enough
for
the
location
of
where
it
is
so.
It
sounds
like
if
I
remember
from
previous
conversations,
the
47
is
way
way
too
low.
I
guess
my
question
is:
how
is
the
oxford
station
density
working
out
and
you
know
parking
requirements
and
things
like
that?
Are
they
having
you
know?
A
I
don't
know
that
the
this
is
really
tied
together.
I
guess,
is
there
overflow
issues
on
the
parking?
That's
really
more
parking
issue,
but
is
the
number
of
people
there?
Are
they
feeling
like
they're
at
the
right
density
with
that
development
that
you've
heard
of.
I
So
as
I,
as
I
recall,
the
oxford
station,
their
parking
that
they
provided
was
at
maybe
a
little
bit
over
one
perspect
per
unit
and
in
terms
of
parking.
I
really
do
not
know
if
they,
if
they
are
including
that
in
your
the
straight
rental
for
the
unit
or
if
that's
an
additional
charge,
and
if
you
don't
have
a
car
and
don't
want
a
space,
you
don't
have
to
pay
that
additional
charge.
I
I
I
will
be
able
to
share
with
you
a
report
that
rtd
just
came
out
with
where
they
have
done
a
survey
of
a
number
of
different
apartment
complexes
that
are
within
walking
distance
of
light
rail
stations
and
it's
very
interesting
to
see
what
the
parking
utilization
of
these
apartment
complexes
are.
I
think
you'll
find
it
very
interesting
once
we
delve
into
that
report.
I
G
B
Yeah,
I
guess
I
had
the
same
question.
I
was
wondering
about
the
units
per
acre
metric
because
obviously
that's
going
to
make
a
big
difference
depending
on
you
know,
if
you
have
larger
units
or
multi-bedroom
units
and
how
many
people
is
is
really
you
know.
Obviously
what
what
we're
getting
at
is
people
that
we
want
not
necessarily
units.
So
I
did
wonder
about
that.
I
was
kind
of
surprised
too
to
see
that
something
like
the
air
walk.
You
have
such
a
doesn't
score
very
highly
on
the
units
per
acre.
B
I
So
yeah
the
art
walk,
it's
all
surface
parking,
it's
and
it's
not
tucked
under
anything,
so
it
there's
just
a
large
area
within
in
the
walls
there
when
you're
looking
at
it
on
an
aerial
photo.
You
see
this
huge
parking
area,
so
the
other
ones
like
the
bell,
cherry
hills
and
the
oxford
station
and
live
apartments
there.
They
have
some
type
of
first
floor
parking
underneath
the
units
so
they're,
better
utilizing
space.
That
way
and
that's
kind
of
the
difference.
B
Do
you
know
why
I'm
sorry?
I
was
just
wondering
what
what
I
mean.
Obviously,
these
ones
that
are
just
under
the
minimum
could
easily,
I
would
assume,
could
easily
be
tweaked
to
meet
a
minimum
metric.
Obviously
they
wouldn't
have
to
going
forward,
but
you
know
if,
if
they
were
redeveloped
under
your
standard,
is
that
correct
can.
C
B
Explanation
yeah,
I'm
saying
this
would
not.
This
would
be
the
new
standard
going
forward,
so
it
wouldn't
apply
to
the
existing
units.
But
if
these
units,
if
the
standard
was
established
and
these
units
were
being
built,
given
that
they're
so
close,
they
could-
you
probably
wouldn't
be
hard
for
them
to
tweak
to
to
make
that
standard.
I
Oh
yes,
so
with
the
art
walk,
I've
always
thought
that
there
would
be
an
opportunity
there
because
of
that
really
large
area
inside
the
four
walls
of
the
complex
that
is
devoted
to
parking
that
if
they,
if
the
owners
of
that
property
wanted
to
densify
that
site,
they
could
build
a
tower
in
under
in
between
those
four
walls
and
that
open
that
space
above
the
parking
and
and
significantly
increase
the
density
of
that
project.
B
I
No,
so
they
could
stay
the
way
they
are
right
as
long
as
they
want
to.
But
if
they-
but
let's
say
if
the
in
30
years
that
the
place
was
really
obsolete-
and
somebody
really
wanted
to
do
an
a
newer
project
nicer
project
and
they
wanted
to
demolish
the
art
walk,
then
they
would
be
held
to
a
higher
standard
and
would
have
to
meet
the
minimum
75
units
per
acre
in
their
design.
C
A
And
maybe
just
to
follow
up
on
that,
I
is
the
density,
though,
of
oxford
station.
Are
they
feeling
in
bell
cherry
hills,
for
that
matter?
Do
they
have
a
good
tenant
occupancy
like?
Are
they?
Is
that
a
good
density
for
these
developments?
Have
you
have
you
heard
anything
regarding
that.
I
I
I
believe
that
they
are
pretty
high
highly
occupied.
I
you
know
if
you
go
on
their
websites,
there's
not
a
there's
a
there's,
a
certain
amount
that
are
on
the
market
for
rent,
but
my
guess
is
their
occupancy
is
pretty
high
based
on
just
because
there's
such
a
shortage
of
housing
in
the
denver,
metro
and
people
are
moving
here.
All
the
time
and
rents
have
been
going
up
steadily.
E
Sorry,
a
little
bit
to
noel
and
daryl's
questions.
I
I
am
curious
how
we
can
determine
what
is
the
ideal
kind
of
activation
of
the
retail
I
mean
I
feel
like.
E
I
guess
my
question
really
is
why
why
a
maximum
of
125
if
live
apartments
is
127
I
mean:
do
we
want
to
be
a
little
more
flexible
for
potentially
greater
density,
so
there's
more
activation
on
the
street.
I'm
just
curious
the
reasoning
behind
the
maximum.
I
mean
I'm
sure
we
is
there
like
a
height
requirement
or
height
limitation.
E
I
So
let's
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
original
stationery
master
plan.
We
hired
crandall
or
rambula
out
of
portland
to
help
us
with
that
with
that
plan,
and
they
had
it's
one
of
their
kind
of
bread
and
butter
was
to
do
these
stationary
master
plans.
They
did
most
of
the
stationary
master
plans
in
the
denver
region,
and
so
I've
been
I'm
thinking.
I
That
may
that
may
be
a
little
bit
much
for
inglewood,
but
we
believe
that,
based
on
what
we've
seen
from
l
r
and
for
skb,
we
believe
that
this
is
kind
of
about
the
level
of
density
that
they
are
thinking
about.
So
we
think
it
matches
up
pretty
well.
But
if
you
know
I
have
some
other
slides
here
after
this,
that
we
start
looking
at
the
possibility
of
building
height.
I
I
However,
dan
peremba
asked
me
to
take
the
group's
temperature
in
terms
of
height,
to
see
what
your
appetite
for
that
would
be
so
that
in
case,
things
change,
we
kind
of
have
a
good
feel
for
what
what
potential
height
you
might
be
comfortable
with,
and
if,
if
that
turns
out
to
be
that
you're
much
more
comfortable
with
a
lot
more
height
than
we
currently
have,
which
is
100
feet,
we
may
think
about
adjusting
some
of
these
numbers.
I
Yes,
I
think
the
next
few
slides
are
about
well.
What
time
is
it?
Does
anybody
yeah?
We
still
have
some
time.
I
think
so.
I
think
let's
get
into
that
next
portion
of
the
presentation
and
let's
begin
taking
that
temperature.
I
So,
as
I
said,
what
we've
seen
from
skb
and
l,
r
and
tribe
architects
is
their
thinking
is.
This
would
probably
be
stick
build
construction
over
a
concrete
parking
podium,
five
to
six
stories
tall
up
to
70
feet.
I
However,
at
many
denver
metro
light
rail
stations
develops
are
choosing
to
build
taller.
Our
current
mu,
b1
max
height,
is
100
feet.
However,
the
chase
and
the
wells
fargo
towers
are
10
stories
and
approximately
120
feet
the
m1
and
m2
zone
districts
in
the
medical
district
area.
They
feature
varying
height
zones
that
allow
for
a
maximum
building
height
of
145
feet
for
portions
of
the
swedish
campus,
as
well
as
south
from
the
campus
to
u.s,
highway
285
and
the
tallest
building
in
ingwood
is
the
waterford
condominiums
at
14
stories
and
170
feet
tall.
I
I
This
is
a
proposed
development.
This
is
that
brought
at
the
broadway
station
at
I-25
and
broadway
called
the
santa
fe
yards,
and
this
is
not
built
but
they're
proposing
10
stories
at
about
130
feet.
Tall.
I
This
is
at
ninth
and
caro.
This
is
not
a
light.
Rail
location
howard
is
a
high
density,
infill
location,
the
former
university
of
colorado
university
medical
center
site.
This
is
the
theo
apartments,
and
this
building
is
at
nine
stories
and
about
114
feet
tall.
I
And
then
this
slide
kind
of
gives
you
the
feel
what
we've
got
going
on
in
inglewood,
we
have
the
waterford
at
14
stories
about
170
feet,
tall
chase,
tower,
10
stories
and
120
feet
tall.
I
The
kent
place
development
at
university
of
hampton
seven
stories
and
85
feet
tall,
the
cherokee
kivas
condos
at
kenyon
in
cherokee,
seven
stories
about
77
feet
tall
and
finally,
the
live
apartments
is
five
stories
and
about
60
feet
tall
and
then
this
last
slide
kind
of
puts
it
all
a
little
bit
in
perspective,
and
so
I
start
on
the
right
hand,
side
with
the
love
apartments
at
60
feet,
and
this
kind
of
shows
you
the
progression
of
the
different
heights
and
kind
of
how
that
looks,
relatively
speaking,
our
maximum
height
today
in
the
mu
b1
is
at
this
current
brookdale
and
meridian
height
they're
at
100
feet.
I
However,
there
are
a
couple
buildings
that
are
at
120
feet
and
that's
my
last
slide,
and
so
this
is
where
we
start
taking
the
temperature
and
see
what
people
might
be
comfortable
with
in
regards
to
height
here
at
england,
station.
C
So,
a
few
weeks
ago,
in
a
steering
committee
meeting,
we
actually
talked
about
the
heights
of
buildings
and
I
had
googled
the
chase
building
and
according
to
google,
it
is
like
141.
Do
you
know
if
google
is
wrong
or
if
our
data
on
the
spreadsheet's
wrong,
because
it
does
feel
taller
than
120?
So
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
see
if
that
might
be
wrong.
I
I
I
kind
of
went
over
to
that
building
because
I
was
wondering
about
it
myself
and
I
kind
of
visually.
I
got
into
the
the
stairwell,
the
fire
escape
stairwell
and
you
kind
of
see
the
the
full
length
of
a
floor
there
and
they
look
like
they.
It
looked
to
me
just
eyeballing.
I
didn't
measure
it
with
measuring
tape,
but
it
looked
like
12
foot
floors.
I
Yeah
yeah
and
with
10
stories
that
seems
to
be
compute
to
120,
so
I'm
kind
of
more
inclined
to
think
it
is
120
rather
than
140..
G
A
So
I
think
you
said
some
of
the
initial
proposals
from
skb
have
limited
to
six
stories
is:
is
that
what
they're
thinking
for
the
bulking
that
that
is
working
for
them
and
and
that
return,
and
I
think
we're
seeing
as
dan
was
saying
what
if
they
changed,
that
I
mean,
I
guess
obviously,
they're
gonna
usually
want
to
put
as
much
density
as
possible.
Is
there
a
reason
why
they
haven't
gone
taller
than
six
stories
so
far.
I
I
think
it
it.
It
has
a
lot
to
do
with
construction
and
the
it's
kind
of
with
the
type
of
construction
they're
looking
at,
which
is
the
stick
built
over
a
podium.
It
that's
kind
of
been
thought
of
as
the
about
how
high
you
can
go.
I
think
sometimes,
that
it's
possible
go
somewhat
higher
in
recent
years,
but
not
a
whole
lot
with
that
type
of
construction.
I
I
F
John,
it's
dan.
Let
me
just
throw
in
a
comment
on
that.
I
you
know,
I
think
I
would
just
generally
advocate
for
taller
taller
and
more
dense
from
a
couple
different
perspectives.
Generally,
it's
quote.
The
right
thing
to
do
is
to
put
density
at
multimodal
locations
from
a
social
equity.
You
know,
efficiency,
all
kinds
of
perspectives.
F
The
other
thing
that
I
think
you
know
we're
dealing
with.
As
a
practical
matter
is
you
know
our
discussions
with
both
skb
and
lnr
are
really
in
a
state
of
flux,
they're
trying
to
evaluate
how
covet
is
impacting.
F
F
It
also
does
some
nice
things
in
terms
of
allowing
more
smaller
development
parcels.
So
more
flexibility
and
one
of
the
things
we've
seen
happen
around
town
is
just
what
what
was
described
in
terms
of
you
know.
First
generation
of
developer
does
a
four
to
six
story
building
and
then
very
quickly.
You
see
it
move
up
in
some
cases.
The
next
generation
is,
you
know,
10
to
12
stories,
and
this
is
happening
more
quickly
at
tod
locations
than
anywhere
else.
F
So,
just
from
a
general
perspective,
I
wouldn't
get
too
too
directed
by
what
lnr
and
skb
have
talked
about
in
their
initial.
You
know
their
initial
planning,
because
it
they
could
change
pretty
quickly.
It's
just
a.
G
B
Yeah,
that's
a
that's
my
thought
as
well.
I
mean
I
thought
this
is
probably
one
of
the
best
locations
outside
of
downtown
denver
for
a
tall
building
like
this
and
probably
in
a
place
where
it's
least
likely
to
block
people's
views,
and
I
would
never
say
there
would
not
be
any
objections
but
less
objections
than
you
might
think,
and
I
think
you
know
I
think
we
should
make
this
an
area.
That's
desirable,
for
developers
for
this
kind
of
thinking.
E
Can
hear
me
yep?
Oh
man,
I
could
not
agree
more
with
what
you
said
dan.
I
I
think
from
a
social
equity
perspective.
The
public
transportation
aspect
here
is
critical
and
going
higher
again
daryl
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
I
think
this
spot
being
so
close
to
the
to
the
highway,
makes
it
the
perfect
place
to
put
a
tall
building.
E
I
think
that
fio
building
is
actually
a
fairly
good
example.
I
think,
like
from
most
angles
that
stacks
really
nicely.
It
doesn't
kind
of
impose
too
much.
You
know
and
it's
it's
a
pretty
handsome
building
for
new
construction,
and
you
know
it's
got
a
sprouts
coming
up
there.
E
I
mean
there's,
definitely
like
animation
coming
in
there,
so
I
would
also
I
would
defer
to
you
dan
on
this,
but
I
would
think
that
if
we
go
to
a
steel
and
concrete
construction,
that
sort
of
implies
that
we
have
to
do
it
a
little
bit
nicer
which
not
to
grossly
increase
the
cost
of
the
rental
unit.
But
just
you
know
it's
a
sturdier
building,
it's
a
little
bit
nicer
building
which
hopefully
would
increase
its
longevity.
I
So
is
the
group
leaning
towards
going
to
this
left-hand
side
right
immediately
at
the
station
at
290
feet
or
something
similar
to
that?
Is
that
what
I'm
hearing.
E
A
And
I
guess
maybe
following
up
we're
just
talking
about
the
height
like:
should
there
be
trade-offs
for
height
that
you
know
there
are
more
affordable,
use,
houses
or
affordable
units
or
something
along
those
lines
or
making
sure
that
we
have
that
activated
space
beneath
it?
That
means
one
thing
just
to
put
the
height
up,
but
you
know,
as
diane
said
a
couple
times
like.
What's
the
reason
people
are
going
there?
What's
you
know,
how
do
we.
A
Try
to
push
or
tie
those
together
to
make
sure
that
we're
creating
a
space
and
not
just
a
building.
F
I
I'd
throw
out
a
quick
answer
on
that,
and
I
mentioned
it
before
we're
gonna
we're
gonna
have
agreements
in
in
place
that,
in
addition
to,
I
think
the
overlay
that
john
is
envisioning.
The
combination
of
the
two
I
think
lets
us
address
a
lot
of
those
subjective
elements
in
terms
of
activation.
F
You
know:
mixes
of
housing,
affordable
housing
elements,
etc,
and
so
there
there
will
be
a
number
of
tools
in
addition
to
the
pure
underlying
zoning,
to
try
to
get
get
to
those
goals.
I
Okay,
well,
that's
all
I
have
for
you
prepared,
so
I
guess
we're
going
to
break
it
off.
I
will
be
fiercely
working
on
the
next
iteration
of
this
presentation
for
you,
and
hopefully
we
can
pick
it
up
there.
In
the
first
week
of
february.
F
C
B
I
am
well
if
I
can
pull
up
the
screen
here.
Let's
see
here,
let's
see.
C
Dugan
I've
got
nothing
tonight:
okay,.
G
I'll
get
get
the
powerpoint
sent
out
to
you.
Hopefully,
tomorrow.