Review: Lookout Cafe & Cocktails

Lookout Cafe & Cocktails

Lookout Cafe & Cocktails has just opened in Gunbarrel Center, the second restaurant there after Proto’s, which it’s right across from. It’s a limited service restaurant: You order and pay at a counter and then take a number to place on your table. They bring the food to your table, although they call your name for coffee. I didn’t have any alcohol, so I don’t know what they do for those drinks; perhaps they just pour your drink when you pay.

For breakfast, which is what we had, they have bagels (shown is an egg, cheese, and bacon bagel), burritos, and pastries. There are sandwiches for lunch, and tapas for dinner. Click here to see the menus. I haven’t been there yet for lunch or dinner.

For dinner, Proto’s is a better bargain, since you can get a medium pizza, enough for two, for a little as $9. Proto’s is also a full-service restaurant. But you can’t have pizza all the time, so Lookout is a welcome alternative.

Lookout Cafe & Cocktails

The bagel and burrito we had were pretty good, and not expensive. There are a dozen wine taps, a few beer taps, and full bar. The wine prices seem high to me, but the happy hour (every day from 4 to 6) prices are much lower.

Lookout Cafe & Cocktails

There’s outdoor seating, too.

Lookout Cafe & Cocktails

They’re open Sunday to Thursday from 7am-9pm, and Friday to Saturday until 10. That’s earlier and later than most other places in Gunbarrel.

Questionable Decision by the Gunbarrel Green HOA Board

From the draft minutes of the 18-Sept-2018 Gunbarrel Green HOA Board meeting, publicly posted at

New Business – The HOA would like to hire Melissa Garcia, an attorney with the firm HindmanSanchez, to review and offer changes to our outdated Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. Copies have been sent to her along with the proposed revisions suggested by our Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws Committee. Melissa reported that the Gunbarrel Green HOA is not bound by the CCIOA (Colorado Common Interest Owners Act) as we do not own any common property together, etc.. HindmanSanchez specializes in HOA matters. This firm was chosen after interviewing several candidates.

Motion by Sandi, second by Jenn. Motion passed.

We would like to ask Melissa to attend our annual HOA meeting on October 2.

Motion by Gina, second by Sandi. Motion passed.

This looks to be the fourth recent attempt to change the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. The first, in Sept. 2017, was a set of revisions sent out for a vote. Criticisms from me and, I assume, others, caused that vote to be canceled. The second was a draft from a committee formed after the Oct. 2017 HOA Annual Meeting, which was sent out in May 2018. More criticisms resulted in a cancellation of the June meeting and July vote that were supposed to follow. We’re just learning now that this secretive committee has come up with another draft, which the general HOA membership hasn’t seen, and now this attorney has been hired to produce draft four.

Note from the Board meeting minutes that the decision to hire this attorney has already been made, with no input from the HOA membership. Perhaps details of the current Bylaws and Articles draft will be revealed at the Annual meeting a week from tomorrow (Oct. 2), and perhaps the hiring of this attorney will be discussed. But neither are on the agenda, so I doubt it, unless enough members force the discussion to take place. At any rate, the decision to hire her has already been made, by the Board, acting alone and in isolation.


Here are the questions I’d like to ask, and will ask if I’m allowed to:

1. What instructions has the attorney been given? That is, is she just supposed to look for bloopers, or might she rewrite the documents from scratch, or something in-between?

2. How much will she be paid? Is there a cap? Could she take maybe $5,000? 10? 20? (The Board has had runaway costs before, such as the $7,000+ spent on a now-discarded website.)

3. What was done about the most egregious new proposal in the second draft (see above), which allowed the Board to assess a fee against any HOA member of any amount for any reason?

4. Why does the committee work in secret? Wouldn’t it be better to share their works-in-progress so that they can get feedback from the voting members?

5. What exactly in the existing Bylaws and Articles needs to be fixed, and why couldn’t we just propose some simple amendments to fix those problems?

My own view of how things ought to be done, which I’ve expressed before, including directly to the Board, is that changes to the Bylaws and Articles should be divided into two groups:

1. Cleanups, clarifications, and wording simplifications.

2. Changes in governance (e.g., new fee, changes to voting on dues).

Items in the group 2 should be discussed and voted on informally by the members (straw poll), so that work to draft language isn’t wasted on something that the membership doesn’t actually want. Otherwise, much time and money will be spent on work that will be discarded if the final vote — 60% of the HOA membership — fails.

Based on recent experience, there’s a pretty good chance that whatever is paid to this attorney, whether it’s $200 or $20,000, will be entirely wasted.

Again, PLEASE ATTEND the Annual Meeting on Oct. 2! Details are at

What’s Going On at Diagonal Crossing

That’s the triangle bordered by the Diagonal, Foothills Parkway, Independence Road, and 47th Street, which is being dug up now:

The site has been considered for years. This is the 5th project to be proposed and the first to be approved by the City. It’s an interesting combination:

  • 85 affordable units
  • 250 market-rate units
  • 20 Naropa faculty-housing units
  • 2 studio lofts
  • office space for two non-profits: Studio Arts and Meals-on-Wheels
  • a non-profit restaurant run by Bridge House

This is what the project will look like:

Note that “DIAGONAL HWY.” as labeled in the picture is not the road you drive on when you take the Diagonal to Boulder. You’re already on Foothills Parkway by the time you get to Diagonal Crossing.

Boulder needs housing, especially affordable housing, and this project provides both, on one of the few big lots still available in Boulder. But, naturally, what Gunbarrel people care about is the traffic impact on them. One indirect impact is that people in 357 units of housing won’t be driving past Gunbarrel to their work in Boulder, which would be the case if they lived in Longmont or Erie.

But more directly, what about the residents of Diagonal Crossing? There’s no direct access to Foothills Parkway (what you’re actually on if you think you’re on the Diagonal going towards Boulder once you pass Jay Road). That is, if you drive the Diagonal to Boulder, nobody from Diagonal Crossing is going to get in your way until you get past Iris Ave., and that’s a small fraction of the traffic you’re in at that point.

If you leave Boulder on Iris Ave. to merge onto the Diagonal, you’ll drive right past Diagonal Crossing, and my guess is that they’ll be a light at Independence or maybe just northeast of it. But this road is extremely underutilized now and can easily handle the new traffic.

(As an aside, it’s amazing to me that people taking Iris Ave. to the Diagonal struggle to merge onto Foothills just before Jay Road, not realizing that there’s a dedicated lane just for them, and that they don’t have to merge until they clear the light at Jay.)

Most people who live at Diagonal Crossing and want to go to Boulder will turn right onto 119 and continue onto Iris Ave., perhaps making a left on 30th St. or 28th St. Some might take 47th St. Some might want to go the other way on the Diagonal, to Gunbarrel or Longmont, but that won’t add to rush-hour traffic, because it’s a reverse commute. That is, northeast in the morning, and southwest in the evening, opposite to the way most traffic goes now.

That’s by car. The property is already very well served by bike paths, and that’s an easy commute to many places in Boulder, such as Google. I’d guess there will be bus service, too.

Anyway, this development is positive for Gunbarrel, if you assume that more housing is needed, which you surely do if you have any children. (Did you plan for them to live in their cars?) With all those new offices in Boulder, any new housing between us and Boulder keeps the density where it belongs, and avoids additional clogging of Gunbarrel roads.

If you want to read about the project in detail, especially the affordable housing part, here’s a PDF.

Restaurant openings… and a closing

First, Blackjack Pizza has closed in Gunbarrel. Plenty of other places in Boulder or Niwot to call to get a pizza delivered or to pick one up, just not as close. Proto’s is still here, of course, and if you want something for home, you can get one of their’s half-baked.

Now for the openings:

  • Up Dog Cafe, replacing Page Two Cafe, and now attached to a yoga studio (“down dog”, get it?).
  • The Morning Table, a breakfast and brunch place, a few doors east of Up Dog (in the space vacated by Gurkhas). Opening this summer. As of November, not yet open.
  • Rush Bowls, on the corner of Spine and Lookout. Looks about to open. Now open.
  • Bittersweet Cafe & Confections, in Gunbarrel Center (now open as Lookout Cafe & Cocktails)
  • Raglin Market, in Gunbarrel Center

About the new Gunbarrel Green HOA website

Last November I wrote about the horrible website. Nobody cared about what I was saying, but later the Board did care about the high maintenance and hosting costs and the fact that they couldn’t get new material posted.

So, they came to me, since I was the chief complainer, and because I had done an earlier website for free.

Anyway, there’s now a new site, and the hosting costs are less than $100/year, instead of $600 or whatever they were paying. Maintenance (my labor) is free.

If you’re a web designer, you may be interested in two properties of the new site: I used a layout engine called Masonry and, instead of complicated menus, I just put all the links on the first page, since the site has so little material.

Less is more.

Gunbarrel Green HOA proposed Articles gives HOA Board too much power

Did you know that under the proposed Articles the Board might be able to fix and collect dues and assessments without a vote of the membership?

The old and new Articles list powers for the HOA as a whole, and then state that anything not reserved for the membership or otherwise restricted by the Articles or Bylaws is by default a power of the Board. I went through the entire list of powers of the Association from Article III and marked the ones that require a super-majority vote of the entire membership, which is the one way powers are reserved for the membership; the other way is if the Bylaws have such a reservation. That left a surprising list of powers of the Board such as setting and collecting Dues and Fees and fixing and collecting Assessments.

The Bylaws do say that, for example, setting Dues requires a vote at a meeting (or by proxy) and that Assessments require a super-majority of the entire membership, but they also say that in the case of conflict with the Articles, the Articles control. Very confusing.

This can be entirely avoided by making the Articles and Bylaws absolutely clear about what the Board can or cannot do, rather than making the interpretation a complex legal and semantic puzzle.

The problem is that in the past the Board interpreted conflicts between the Articles and the Bylaws incorrectly. For example, dues were voted on at a meeting even though the old Articles say that increasing dues requires a super-majority of the entire membership, and the Bylaws say that the Articles control in case of a conflict. Despite this, the Board went ahead with the interpretation they desired. So, we have to ensure that the new Bylaws and Articles have no conflicts or ambiguities.

Here are the comments I sent to the Bylaws/Articles committee.

Grading the proposed Gunbarrel Green Articles and Bylaws

In my previous article I posted my detailed comments on Gunbarrel Green HOA’s proposed Bylaws and Articles. The documents are very complicated, and, therefore, so are my detailed comments, since I’m commenting on complicated things. You probably don’t want to read and study my detailed criticisms, and I totally understand and forgive you in advance.

So, here’s a shorter set of criticisms, from a different viewpoint. Namely, the original set of purposes as articulated in the cover letter mailed by the HOA Board, dated 8-May-2018. There were four stated purposes, so I’ll grade the present proposals in those terms.

1) To remove obsolete, unnecessary, and conflicting information in and between these documents;

Some of this has been removed, but other unnecessary and conflicting information has been added. I’ll give it a generous grade of C.

2) To change the method of voting to either returning a signed proxy card or voting at the annual or a special meeting, with a majority vote required for approval;

This is a strange purpose, since the original documents say in more than one place that any vote at a meeting may be by proxy. I have no clue as to what the Board meant by this, although I have some evidence based on other conversations that they weren’t really very familiar with the Bylaws and Articles. Not sure how to grade this. I’ll leave it blank.

3) To expand the vote for dues increases by allowing proxies as well as votes by those attending the annual meeting or a special meeting called for this purpose.

Very strangely worded, since the Articles, which preempt the Bylaws, state that dues increases require a vote of the entire membership, not just at a meeting (even by proxy). The honest way to word this would have been to say that dues increases will be changed from a 60% vote of the membership to a majority vote at a meeting or by proxy. That’s a huge change, and the Board made no effort to poll the members to see if they agreed with this before doing all the work to incorporate it into the proposed Bylaws and Articles. The committee gets a grade of A, because they did this, but the Board gets an F for using the misleading word “expand”, when what actually happened was shrinking, and by failing to acknowledge that they were making it much easier to raise dues.

4) To authorize the Board to increase the number of directors from five to as many as nine at their discretion.

Amazingly, it seems that the Bylaws/Articles committee totally failed to do this. I’ve read both several times, and I can’t see where the Board is anything other than 5 members. Very odd, since this one might have been noncontroversial. Grade of F, since the work wasn’t done. (I still think I’m probably wrong, because sometimes you just can’t see what’s in front of your nose. They must have done this! If I’m wrong, I’ll post a correction.)

I might add a 5th purpose to the grading rubric, implied in the cover letter: One of the reasons the 2017 proposed changes failed was that the transfer fee had no limit, as noted in the cover letter. Not only does the new proposal fail to impose a limit, but it doesn’t even restrict it to a property transfer! Grade of F.

So, the final result is that, in addition to the proposed Articles and Bylaws being messed up in the ways my detailed comments show, they also failed to achieve the purposes set out by the Board.

What we have here is Fiasco #2 in the making. It can be avoided by withdrawing the current proposal for further work, or extensively revising it after the June discussion meeting. We’ll see if the current committee has the inclination and energy to do that.

What the Board should have done is what I suggested they do at the 15-Nov-2017 Board meeting:

Marc suggested that the non-controversial issues be sent out for approval by the membership (number of Board Directors, etc.) and that the controversial issues such as transfer fee amount/wording, etc. be a separate vote.

To fix the defects in the Bylaws and Articles (e.g., dues majority or 60% of entire membership?) some amendments could be proposed than don’t rewrite the entire document, the way the US Constitution is amended. If the Board really thinks that dues should be able to be increased at a meeting, without the entire membership voting, they should find out whether the members agree with them and then, if we do, propose an corresponding amendment to the Articles.

My comments on the Gunbarrel Green Bylaws and Articles changes

Here’s a post I made yesterday to

Horrible proposed changes to the Gunbarrel Green HOA Articles and Bylaws

The Gunbarrel Green HOA Board has mailed out proposed changes to the Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. They’re taking comments, and have scheduled a vote for July. There are two huge problems with these proposed changes:

1. Right now, dues can be increased only by a vote of 60% of the entire membership. They want to change it to a majority vote of members present at a meeting, or by proxy. Since a quorum is only 10 members, dues could be increased by a vote of as few of 6 members, with no upper limit on the amount.

2. The changes allow the Board, without a vote of members, to levy fees on members, to reimburse the Board for its services. The determination of what is reasonable is entirely up to the Board. They might, for example, decide to set a fee of $10 per month per member (higher than the current dues). While this might seem preposterous, a future Board could do this, and there would be no legal way to stop them. (Fees are supposed to be to cover the costs when a property changes ownership, but that’s not what the proposed changes say. That appears as only one of the purposes for which fees may be collected.)

There’s much more wrong with the way the proposed Bylaws and Articles are drafted, but these are the two most alarming provisions. I’ll have a more detailed list of the defects in a future posting here.

Please spend some time reviewing these documents!

And now here are my detailed comments, interspersed into the text of the documents, for easy reading:

Comments on the proposed Articles

Comments on the proposed Bylaws

Avery Brewing encountering tough times

I had read in the Daily Camera that Avery Brewing sold 30% of itself to a Spanish brewer, but an anonymous source just gave me some more inside info: They’ve had layoffs, have stopped standard annual raises and profit sharing, and cut back on overtime.

I don’t think this means that Avery is going away, just that they’ve done some belt-tightening and gotten a capital infusion. The positive way to look at it is that they’re tending to business. Which, as I said yesterday, is very competitive, because, while craft beer sales rose by 5% in 2017, the number of breweries rose by 16%.

Someone asked me why I don’t buy Avery beer to drink at home, and my answer pretty much sums up Avery’s problem: I said that I bought Left Hand’s variety pack, 12 cans for $15 or so, because I don’t like the beers in Avery’s variety pack. The problem this illustrates is that Avery has competition, even if you limit yourself to Boulder County.

Daily Camera fires its editorial page editor

I normally stick to Gunbarrel stuff, but I report this here as a public service, since the Daily Camera isn’t reporting it.

Dave Krieger, editorial page editor, has been fired. He wrote an editorial critical of the Camera’s owners, as did the Denver Post on April 8, which got national attention. The Camera’s publisher refused to publish it, Krieger put it on his own blog, and for that he got fired.

Of course, he’s a writer, so you can just read about the whole incident in his own words. Lots of very bad news for the Boulder area, which relies on the Daily Camera for its news.

Here’s his blog, well worth a read:

UPDATE: I see that the Camera published an article just a few minutes ago.