Map / Planning Board / ← 2023-12-05 · 2024-01-16 →
Planning Board · regular
12-19-23 Planning Board Meeting
- Date
- Series
- regular
- Status
- past
- Sources
- YouTube, via the Woven archive; YouTube's automatic captions
Agenda
No agenda items read for this meeting.
Excerpts by topic
AI-read · unreviewed27 mentions; quotes verbatim from the captions or agenda, chosen by a model, unchecked by a personthe surveillance cameras that you and I have paid for caught the thief
Now, the other thing I wanted to talk to you about is the situation in Gaza.
First, is floodplain development. Permit Fld twenty-twenty-three 0 0 33,
We're now going to move to discussion of dispositions call ups and continue.
Goose Creek channel improvements phase 2 junction to foothills.
what are the criteria by which we're supposed to be evaluating these flood plain development projects
City Council has 30 days to call up the item for a council hearing to provide additional feedback.
there isn't guidance about specifically what these terms in this draft tdm, toolkit mean and what is necessary
So the first question is the proposal consistent with Boulder Valley comp plan.
for the area is shown in the East Boulder subcommunity plan, and we'll start with the expert
thank you for getting right into the core of the East Boulder subcommunity plan
as it stands, this is not consistent with the Boulder Valley Comp plan
pedestrian paving. and you know that has the heat island impact
that is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And so I would ask you to take a close look
Not every project has to fulfill all of the goals
I wanna talk about your transportation demand management
And those that that Tdm plan that was submitted in writing is underwhelming
because there's a lot of embodied carbon in there
repealing chapter 9, 14, residential growth management system, and deleting all references thereto
in response to the Colorado House Bill 2312, 55
the city wanted to remove barriers to the desired housing types, such as permanently affordable housing
the concepts around annexation that you know we won't provide services unless you annex into the city
factor into the capital improvements updates of having to upgrade certain lines
Could we go back to the language of the State
we just increased our population by 30,000 with CU. South
by repealing chapter 9, dash, 14, residential growth management system and deleting all references thereto
the State law it does have a little bit of an escape clause