►
Description
USDO Meeting
A
B
A
A
All
right,
okay,
well,
welcome
everybody.
This
is
the
may
4th
meeting
of
the
county
council's
planning,
land
use
and
economic
development
committee
committee
members
present
are
tom,
hoey
councilmember,
judy,
dosher,
myself,
kathy
fahey,
chair
and
we
are
discussing
tonight
the
usdo
amendments,
ordinances,
6,
31,
21,
7,
31,
21,
8,
31,
21,
9,
31,
21
and
10,
31,
21
and
okay,
so
brad
you
sent
out
the
memo
and
the
chain
you
know,
suggested
changes
that
we're
here
to
discuss
tonight.
A
So
I
guess
we
can
jump
in
and-
and
I
should
also
mention
from
the
planning
department.
We
have
director
brad
glass
and
zach
powell
from
planning
department
staff
and
also
from
council
staff,
john
raphael,
piccardo
and
all
right
and
then
brad.
If
we
go
ahead
and
get
started
and
take
a
look
at
the
yeah
proposed
amendments,
one.
D
One
bit
of
good
news
to
start,
you
may
have
noticed,
are
our
code
document.
Our
usdo
document
is
now
on
general
code,
so
you
can
access
it
through
that
any
any
feedback.
Let
us
know.
I
know
there
are
a
couple
of
the
tables
in
there
a
little
bit
quirky.
So
we'll
we'll
see
if
we
can
work
on
that,
but
anything
else
that
jumps
out.
Let
us
know-
and
I
think,
we've
gone
through
and
updated
all
the
links
that
we're
aware
of
on
the
website.
D
But
again,
if
you
find
a
a
broken
and
misdirected
link,
let
us
know
about
that,
and
all
the
documents
for
tonight's
meeting
should
be
on
the
web
page
tonight
we're
going
to
be
covering
some
of
the
topic
that
was
towards
the
end
of
our
presentation.
They
went
through
rather
quickly
last
time
in
a
little
bit
more
detail,
and
then
we
can
address
any
other
questions
or
items
that
council
committee
members
wanted
to
talk
about
and
discuss
what
we're
going
to
be.
D
E
Big
thanks
fred.
So,
just
before
I
start
the
presentation,
I
tried
to
group
things
as
much
as
possible
into
larger
thematic
changes
or
moves
from
article
two
to
other
articles
within
the
document.
Although
there
are
going
to
be
some
times
where
that
doesn't
align
with
the
order
of
the
content,
changes
that
were
put
into
the
memo.
F
D
D
In
some
cases,
as
we
discussed,
the
content
is
duplicative,
so
that'll
be
noted,
where
applicable-
and
there
were
a
few
content
changes
we
made
and
there's
a
couple
sections
where
we'll
probably
pause
and
ask:
if
there's
you
know
additional
discussion
items
or
things
that
we
should
be
adding
to
those
contents,
principally
residential
conversions
is
one
that
you
know
we're
going
to
continue
to
adapt
as
we
go
through
the
process.
I
know
we've
we've
removed
a
couple
and
added
a
couple
standards
on
that.
One.
F
E
Yep
so
again,
just
as
a
reminder,
this
is
the
usgo
review
webpage
for
anyone
watching
who
has
not
seen
this
before.
You
can
visit
the
website
to
get
links
to
all
the
previous
recordings
from
these
committee
meetings,
the
memos
and
then
the
powerpoint
presentations
and
we'll
try
to
upload
those
materials
as
soon
as
they're
available.
A
E
Thank
you,
okay,
so
moving
into
the
first
larger
thematic
set
of
changes
for
redundant
content,
the
first
item
is
relating
to
the
mixed-use
downtown
zoning
district
designer
view,
so
any
building
that
is
taller
than
10
stories
or
100
feet
is
required
to
go
through
design
review
with
the
planning
board.
This
content
is
listed
within
the
district
standards
for
the
mixed
use,
downtown
district,
but
it's
also
a
separate
review
or
application
type.
So
that's
already
listed
within
article
five,
so
that
content
was
already
redundant
so
again,
just
removing
that
redundancy.
E
F
If
I
can
jump
in
there
there's
a
couple
questions
I
have,
I
want
to
focus
first
on
industrial,
one,
two
and
and
land
conservation,
but
it's
really
the
industrial
one
and
two.
I
think
it's
the
biggest
issues,
so
it
says
where
the
footnote
now
says
where
the
site
abuts
a
residential
zone
district
and
the
use
is
not
completely
enclosed
within
a
building.
The
required
rear
yard
setback
is
100
feet.
F
So
the
interesting
thing
about
this
is
we:
when
we
talk
about
setbacks,
almost
all
the
way
through
the
usdo,
we
are
talking
about
the
location
of
a
structure
further
away,
and
so
this
that
general
understanding
that
that's
what
we're
generally
referring
to,
I
think
makes
this
particularly
ambiguous.
I
think
what
we're
talking
about
now
is.
The
setback
applies
to
the
use.
F
So
I
think
that
this
language
needs
to
be
cleared
up
and
I'm
not.
I
I
didn't
come
up
with
easy.
You
know
it's
not
an
easy
language
fix,
but
I'm
sure
you
guys
will
for
this,
but
I
also
think
in
the
third
footnote
where
it
says
where
a
site
abuts
a
residential
zone
district,
the
required
rear
setback,
is
20
feet
and
are
we
talking
about?
In
that
case
a
structure?
E
Yeah,
so
for
the
dimensional
charts
that
would
be
referring
to
principal
or
accessory
structures,
but
I
think
going
back
to
your
first
point
with
industrial
districts.
I
think
it's
good
to
clarify
that
there
are
potential
impacts
related
to
an
industrial
structure
that
may
have
unenclosed
storage
as
well
as
industrial
use.
F
F
D
D
G
F
A
You
know
I
that
brad
is
correct.
I
remember
that
that
was
an
issue
over
on
delaware
avenue.
You
know
it
was
they
absolutely
needed.
The
increased
setback
there
in
case
you
had
a
five-story
building
built.
You
know,
because
it
took
away
sunlight
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
They
were
pretty
adamant
about
that.
D
I
mean
it,
it
may
be
useful
as
we
move
forward.
There
are
a
lot
of
provisions
that
lead
to
setbacks
and
they're
quite
disparate.
It
might
be
good
to
see
if
we
can
generalize
those
somewhat
so
if
you're
in
proximity
to
x,
district
or
a
residential
structure
or
something
to
that
effect
with
100
feet,
maybe
that's
generic.
F
Kathy,
I
just
want
to
be
clear:
I'm
not
advocating
for
the
elimination
of
the
100-foot
setback.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
I
think
I
was
raising
this
issue
in
that
community
meeting
when
we
were
talking
about
this.
What
my
concern
is
that,
if
a
lot
is
less
than
200
feet,
deep,
all
of
a
sudden,
you
can
have
that
five
and
a
half
story
building
without
that
setback.
F
A
D
You
know
just
to
expand
really
quickly.
I
think
it
may
be
the
case
where
you
know,
maybe
that
mucu
district
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
locations
within
that
district
are
in
more
urban
areas
of
the
city
and
I
think,
as
we
identified
some
of
these
other
sites
elsewhere
within
the
city
that
concern
you
know,
came
up,
and
we
addressed
that
specifically,
I
think
in
some
of
the
more
urban
areas
that
might
be
more
difficult
to
accomplish.
D
F
Yeah
there
are
I,
I
agree
that
most
of
them
are
a
little
bit
more
urban,
but
there
are
places
like,
like,
I
know
like
a
lot
along
madison
avenue,
but
but
a
lot
of
those
are
going
to
be
more
than
200
feet
deep,
so
you
know
you'll
have
the
setback.
If
it's
going
to
be
that
tall,
but
but
that's
the
challenge
is
there
are
a
lot
of
these
mucu
that
do
about
residential
areas,
and
the
question
is
you
know
in
all
those
cases?
Is
the
lot
really
200
feet
deep.
E
H
E
Yeah
I
mean
that
could
include
college
dormitories,
but
it's
usually
and
brad
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
on
the
definition
of
this,
but
it's
usually
situations
where
people
are
renting
out
rooms,
but
they
are
sharing
a
dwelling
together.
So
that
means
that
they're
sharing,
bathroom
and
kitchen
facilities
together,
but
individual
bedrooms
are
being
rented
out.
So
usually
we've
been
seeing
this
for
college
uses,
but
it
could
be
more
expansive.
F
F
E
A
G
A
F
F
D
D
I
mean
we
want
to
provide
where
there's
an
existing
storefront,
at
least
some
use
options
without
an
undue
delay,
so
you
know,
would
be
open
to
considering
if
their
particular
business
personal
service
uses
that
need
to
be
called
out
that
have
different
impacts,
then
they
should
probably
be
a
different
use
category,
but
that
is
a
big
category,
so
I
know
you've
suggested
a
couple.
We
should
probably
have
a
more
thorough
conversation
about
full
extent
of
those
those
uses
that
we
want
to
look
at
as
separate
categorizations.
A
F
The
other
thing
about
this
is,
I
know,
you're
trying
to
streamline
the
language
in
this
footnote
and
previously
the
language
where
it
was
previously
located
expressly
said
that
you
cannot
expand
beyond
the
ground
floor
or
first
floor,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
this
language
now
captures
that
we
also
the
footnote,
has
a
little
typo
grammatical
error
in
it.
This
is
only
permitted
in
a
portions,
so
it's
either
portions
b
portions
b,
portions,
probably
of
the
ground
floor
or
basement.
D
So
we
we
had
looked
at
an
option
that
would
create
sort
of
a
definition
of
what
a
pre-existing
storefront
is,
and
maybe
that's
something
that
could
be
defined
elsewhere
in
the
code.
It
is
quite
a
lengthy
passage,
so
we
were
trying
to
kind
of
condense
it
into
something
that
would
fit
well
as
a
footnote
into
the
table.
So
that
might
be
one
way
of
doing
it,
but
we're
open
to
options
on
how
to
reference.
G
F
D
F
E
This
has
been
again
moved
to
the
permitted
use
table
and
also
placed
as
a
permitted
use
with
a
footnote
in
the
rt
and
the
r2
zoning
district
and
brad
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
I
think
this
is
just
trying
to
acknowledge
that
there
are
multi-unit
dwellings
within
the
r2
district
that
we
want
to
recognize
that,
but
also
ensure
that
those
dwellings
are
meeting
the
building
code
requirements
if
they're
looking
to
modify
the
buildings
or
structures
in
any
particular
way.
D
F
D
D
D
B
A
F
G
G
E
E
G
E
E
D
And
just
a
quick
note
on
on
some
of
the
changes
in
article
four
moving
to
article
four
in
particular:
we're
not
averse
to
changing
some
of
the
language.
I
know
local
street
was
referenced,
as
you
know,
something
that
could
use
clarity,
but
I
think
our
goal
with
some
of
these
is
just
to
identify
that
they're
moving
to
article
four
and
as
we
go
through
article
four,
we
would
still
have
the
opportunity
to
further
amend
that
content.
H
E
That's
something
I
think
we
would
want
to
clarify.
I
actually
had
a
similar
question
on
that,
so
I
think
that's
something
that
we're
going
to
look
to
figure
out
as
we
move
along
and
whether
it's
a
parking
garage
with
you
know
x,
number
of
spaces
or
if
it's
all
parking
garages.
I
think
you
know
again.
We
wouldn't
want
this
to
be
inhibiting
someone.
H
D
So
I
think
currently
we
would
interpret
this
provision
to
mean
you
know
any
parking
structure
that
meets
the
definition,
whether
it's
within
a
building
or
whether
it's
a
standalone
use.
We
probably
do
need
to
distinguish,
though,
just
to
make
sure
we're
not
confusing
this
with.
You
know
residential
style
garages
that
may
accompany
small
apartment
buildings
or
things
of
that
nature.
So
we'll
put
the
t's
out
that
that
language
and
thank
you
for
pointing
out
the
that
we
should
be
saying
parking
structure.
D
I
D
E
We
do
have
a
lot
of
landscaping
standards
if
the
parking
lot
is
not
separated
by
a
building
from
other
uses.
So
it's
not
necessarily
a
setback,
but
there
are
some
physical
and
architectural
landscaping
buffering.
That
does
go
on
with
some
of
that
and
in
the
proposed
number
four
standard
that
also
addresses
parking
lots
that
have
more
than
100
spaces
as
well,
but
on
the
whole
we
don't
have
as
many
setback
requirements
for
service
parking
lots.
D
D
That
may
be
the
way
of
accomplishing
this,
rather
than
explicitly
a
setback,
but
certainly,
I
think
the
main
intent
of
this
provision
I
think
it
may
be
in
principally
in
the
muci
district,
was
so
that
a
you
know,
hospital
or
institutional
use
didn't
build
a
large
parking
garage
in
proximity
to
residential
areas
or
that's
accessed
through
those
areas.
So
a
lot
of
good
comments
here,
things
to
think
about.
F
E
E
E
E
And
these
require
any
principal
use
of
a
building.
That's
not
categorized
as
industrial
and
has
a
facade
that's
longer
than
100
feet
in
length
of
budding.
A
public
street
needs
to
incorporate
at
least
one
of
the
following
frontage
elements,
and
so
this
can
relate
to
change
in
building
material
or
texture
recesses
in
the
wall.
Plane,
projections
of
at
least
six
inches
from
the
wall,
plane
windows
extending
at
least
ten
linear
feet
and
inset
into
the
building,
while
playing
at
least
four
inches
or
a
pedestrian
entrance
to
the
building.
F
B
E
The
conversion
has
to
be
done
in
a
way
that
it's
indistinguishable
from
a
structure
with
residential
use,
except
for
permitted
signage,
and
that
limit
limits
the
signage
to
four
square
feet.
It's
not
illuminated
and
interior
modifications
have
to
easily
allow
for
conver
conversions
to
residential
use
in
the
future.
E
I
E
I
D
I
mean
it's
principally
going
to
be
in
a
commercial
district
where
there
are
uses
that
are
permitted,
that
are
commercial
in
their
existing
residential
buildings,
and
someone
may
want
to
adapt
like
a
house,
that's
in
between
two
commercial
buildings
or
or
maybe
not
in
between
two
commercial
buildings
for
a
non-residential
use.
I
think
the
goal
here
is,
you
know,
don't
don't
change
it
such
that
it
can't
be
turned
back
into
a
house
or
don't
physically
alter
it.
So
much
that
you
know
it's
you're,
adding
substantial
addition
on
the
front.
D
D
I
do
think
we
may
want
to
look
at
that
four
square
foot
requirement
for
the
signage
as
well,
because
some
of
that
is
a
that's
something
that
can
be
that's
temporary
and
can
be
removed.
And
I
guess
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
were
okay,
providing
a
different
sign
allowance
to
one
type
of
or
one
user,
as
opposed
to
the
user
next
door.
Just
because
it's
a
separate
building
type
so
either
way.
We
should
probably
make
a
cross-reference
in
the
signage
section
as
well.
So
we
don't
miss
that.
F
F
I
forget
what
we
what
we
did,
but
I
wouldn't
have
a
problem
with
it
being
six
square
feet,
but
you
know,
and
that
seems
to
be
adequate
and
appropriate
in
these
kind
of
areas
it
is.
This
is
interesting
in
terms
of
I
did
make
the
notation
here
that
somehow,
rather
I
feel
like
it's
appropriate
for
these
standards
to
also
apply
to
non-conforming
uses.
D
G
D
E
F
F
D
A
F
But
I
am
kind
of
feeling
like
we
want,
maybe
to
put
some
place-
and
I
was
thinking
maybe
in
the
operating
standards
or
in
some
part
of
the
planning
board
approval
to
make
it
clear
that,
especially
in
mu
and
c,
I
think
not
so
much
m-u-n-e
but
anything
other
than
any
of
the
mixed
uses.
Other
than
m-u-n-e.
F
And
I
think
that
the
the
my
thinking
along
those
lines
is
that,
in
terms
of
walkability
of
a
of
a
neighborhood-
and
you
know
establishing
you
know
establishing
those
mixed
uses
where
it's
appropriate
to
establish
those
mixed
uses
as
opposed
to
taking
something
potentially
like
our
commercial
strip.
Have
somebody
come
in
and
take
it
all
down,
and
now
we
only
have
an
apartment
building
there
I
mean.
D
Yeah
and
I
think
with
the
the
market
demand
language-
that's
currently
utilized
a
pretty
subjective
determination.
I
think
that
you
know.
If
we
were
going
to
apply
that
standard,
we
would
probably
need
to
have
a
little
bit
better
indication
of
what
or
maybe
that
was
just
intended
to
be
flexibility
provided
to
the
reviewing
entity.
But
you
know,
I
think
it's
come
up
in
a
couple
of
cases,
and
it's
really
not
clear.
D
You
know
how
you
establish.
There's
no
market
demand.
I
think
some
some
builders
or
developers
would
would
come
to
the
conclusion
that
there's
not
while
others
would,
you
know,
go
out
and
find
a
tenant
and
make
it
make
it
work.
So
you
know
just
to
see
that
we're
fairly
applying
that.
But
you
know
it's
a
question
of
whether
the
language
should
be
there,
that
that
allowance
should
be
there
or
not.
I
mean
there's
always
the
case,
to
seek
a
variance
from
a
provision
such
such
as
that,
if,
if
needed,.
F
I
think
I
think
we
take
care
of
it
with
expressing
a
preference,
so
it's
a
factor
to
be
considered
by
the
planning
board
without
it
being
an
absolute
requirement
in
terms
of
the
you
know,
desirability
of
the
planning
and
sort
of
you
know
push
pushing
an
applicant
in
that
direction,
maybe
without
absolutely
requiring
it.
I
think
you
know.
I
think
that
that's
what
was
intended
all
along
right.
We
want
to
be
able
to
push
them
to
have
some
non-residential
stuff
on
the
first
floor,
but
provide
services.
G
E
This
okay,
so
moving
to
the
next
one.
This
is
talking
about
pedestrian
scale
architecture
in
muci
districts.
So
currently,
there's
a
requirement
in
the
mixed
use.
Campus
institutional
zoning
districts
that
buildings
greater
than
three
stories
in
height
have
a
street
level
facade,
that's
distinguished
from
the
upper
floors
through
architectural
treatments
and
material
selection,
to
create
a
visual
base
for
the
building
at
an
intimate
scale
for
pedestrians.
D
You
know
I
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
either.
You
know,
I
think
we
are
talking
about
buildings
greater
than
three
stories
in
height
and
again,
one
of
those
standards
that
you
know
sort
of
resided
in
one
particular
list
of
zoning
district
standards.
That
seem
to
be
something
that
could
apply,
be
applied
more
broadly
and
wasn't
particularly
difficult
to
accomplish,
and
the
outcome
was
usually
going
to
result
in
a
better
design
building.
D
F
F
I
think
that
actually
did
have
like
the
first
story,
be
different
and
I
think-
and
I
do
think-
that
design
wise
that's
added
value.
You
know
it
did
make
it
look
nicer,
but
I
forget
completely
it's
just
you
know,
that's
one,
that's
the
only
example.
I
can
right
now
come
up
with
where,
where
I
think
that
that
was
something
that
is
like
three
stories
in
an
industrial
area,
I
assume
that's
industrial.
D
Yeah
and
and
frankly
with
the
architectural
standards,
you
know
we're
certainly
open
to
feedback.
On
that
I
know
some
of
the
comments
I've
read
on
on
facebook
and
elsewhere.
You
know
pretty
everyone's
pretty
interested
in
the
look
of
buildings
and
everyone
has
a
little
bit
different
opinion.
So
certainly
we
want
attractive
new
structures,
so
we're
open
to
design
language
that
could
be
inserted
in
code.
That
would
help
facilitate
that.
F
G
D
Yeah
we
do
have
the
the
waiver
process
through
the
planning
board
that
this
would
be
eligible
be
eligible
for
so
I
mean
in
the
case
that
that
was
something
that
was
requested
on
a
few
different
occasions.
Maybe
we'd
get
the
sense
that
it
was
something
that
we
needed
to
reverse,
but
I
think
in
the
interim,
we'd
certainly
have
a
mechanism
to
you
know,
provide
relief.
E
E
So
moving
on,
currently
we
have
language
in
multiple
districts,
limiting
the
hours
of
operations
either
based
on
the
district
or
based
on
the
type
of
use,
well,
primarily
on
through
all
them
it's
based
on
whether
it's
a
commercial
use
or
not.
But
there
are
some
categories,
specifically
food
and
beverage
uses
that
also
have
additional
requirements
for
them
as
well.
E
So
it
could
look
something
like
the
list
that
you
see
in
front
of
you
or
more
of
a
chart
form
that
brad
had
provided
in
the
memo
as
well
just
to
provide
one
localized
place
for
all
this
information.
So
users
of
the
code
don't
have
to
sift
through
multiple
sections
in
order
to
find
out
all
the
various
hours
of
operations
and
all
the
standards
related
to
those
for
districts
within
the
city.
F
F
D
B
G
D
That
you
know
having
the
20,
I
mean,
and
we
heard
the
opposite
too,
but
you
know
having
the
24-hour
convenience
use.
There's
also,
you
know,
there's
some
non-residential
uses.
You
know
teasing
out
that
language
because,
for
example,
a
hospital
or
something
of
that
nature
certainly
operates.
You
know
you
know
24
hours
and
we
wouldn't
want
to
restrict
that
to
through
one
of
our
provisions
inadvertently.
D
D
Mean
we
haven't,
you
know
occasionally
there
will
be
a
an
inquiry
from
the
police
department
or
or
codes,
or
someone
else
about
problematic
use
that
I
think
they're
looking
to
use
this,
as
maybe
a
mechanism
to
to
penalize
that
use.
You
know
I
think,
with
some
of
these
standards
that
are
or
could
be,
behavior
oriented,
you
know,
a
licensed
type
system
might
be
more
appropriate.
I
know
that
was
one
way
an
alternate
way.
We
look.
D
D
That's
really
the
case
in
terms
of
hours
of
operation,
but
I
think,
in
terms
of
some
problematic
uses
a
lot
of
times
we're
we're
dealing
with
a
pad
bad
operator,
and
you
know
we
don't
necessarily
want
to
prohibit
all
other
operators
due
to
the
to
the
misfortune
of
several
bad
actors.
So
in
some
of
these
cases
you
know
these
are
issues
that
could
could
or
should
be
dealt
with
outside
of
the
zoning
laws.
D
G
D
An
alternative
you
know
I
I
I
do
see.
Sometimes
you
know
attempts
to
correct
you
know
and
business
establishments
owner's
behavior
that
ends
up
resulting
in
a
you
know
across
the
board,
prohibition
in
the
zoning
language-
and
that's
not
always
fair,
so
I
think
just
you
know.
Convenience
stores,
for
instance,
is
a
use
that
you
know.
Some
of
them
are
problems,
and
some
of
them
are
arguably,
you
know
amenities
that
that
are
providing
a
resource
to
people
that
work
late
or
other
people
that
have
odd
sleep
schedules.
D
Things
like
that,
but
you
know
to
just
I
think.
Sometimes
we
end
up
prohibiting
those
type
uses
altogether
when
you
know
we're
really
dealing
with
certain
individuals
behavior.
So
I
think
that's
just
something
to
think
about
as
we
we
worry
about
certain
use
types
or
certain.
You
know
types
of
operations
that
there
may
be
alternative
means
of
of
dealing
with
those
situations.
H
H
I
just
got
notified
by
a
resident
right
behind
1211
western
avenue,
where
the
construction
is
going
on,
they're,
doing
pile
driving
and
he's
trying
to
watch
the
news,
and
he
can't
hear
his
tv
set,
but
rick
said
they're
allowed
to
work
according
to
thing
up
to
10
o'clock,
but
I
just
want
to
bring
up
last
week
or
was
yeah.
It
was
last
week
at
12
11.
H
They
started
pouring
cement
at
2
30
in
the
morning
with
big,
spotlights
and
all
sorts
of
noise,
and
it
woke
up
the
whole
neighborhood.
So
I
I
don't
know
how
that
fits
into
here,
but
is
there
something
we
can
do
that?
You
know
construction,
the
middle
of
the
night
like
on
the
border
of
a
residential
neighborhood
that
we
can
regulate
a
little.
I'm
just
curious.
D
I
I
think
that
resides
in
another
section
of
code,
and
I
know
there
are
limitations.
I
don't
know
where
they
are
and
we
received
the
same
complaint
on
that
on
that
property.
So
I
forgot
yes
you're
right
exactly
certainly
yeah
I
mean
those
are
a
lot
of
issues
that
that
come
up,
because
sometimes
there
is
time
or
substantial
amount
of
time
between
you
know
a
project
review
process
and
when
something
actually
gets
under
construction.
H
G
E
Moving
on
the
next
one's
related
to
the
description
for
district
plans
and
what
they
allow,
this
descriptions
currently
in
the
rv
mucu
much
and
muci
district
standards.
This
is
essentially
taking
that
language
and
moving
that
into
article
four
under
a
new
section
within
the
dimensional
standards,
just
to
remind
users
that
that
is
an
option
within
these
districts
and
based
on
a
certain
size
or
collection
of
properties.
Totaling,
a
certain
size.
D
Go
ahead,
brad,
sorry
yeah!
I
there's
there's
a
little
bit
of
inconsistency
between
the
districts,
so
you
know,
I
think
it
was
a
lot
of
text
to
write
out
multiple
times,
but
I
think
that
the
difference
is
principally
the
the
rv
district
is
two
acres.
I
think
I
think
maybe
one
of
the
districts
says
10
10
acres,
so
I
think
the
goal
here
was
to
try
and
align
the
content
as
much
as
we
could.
D
May
you
know
result
in
a
bigger
consequence,
or
may
we
may
want
to
look
at
that
in
the
context
of
how
they're
operating
the
entire
property,
as
opposed
to
that
specific
circumstance,
transportation
or
parking,
something
that
nature.
But
in
the
cases
we've
actually
seen
it
been
employed,
it's
actually
mostly
not
for
institutions.
D
F
G
E
F
D
I
would
I
would
just
I
would
underscore
again
that
this
is
not
finalized.
The
intent
here
is
to
move
the
content,
and
ideally,
if
we
can,
we
can
consolidate
the
various
references
to
conversions
of
detach
the
various
kinds
of
detached
dwellings
and
tanos
dwellings
into
a
little
bit
more
condensed,
structure
and
we're.
Certainly,
I
think,
ideally,
we
would
be
able
to
provide
enough
condition,
conditions
and
assurances
that
a
conditional
use
permit
would
not
be
required.
D
D
F
So
I
I
didn't
mean
to
make
you
feel
defensive
about
this
brad.
I
was
just
I
want
to
say
clarifying
for
me
as
well,
as
you
know,
other
people
on
the
committee
that
that
the
the
nature
of
the
proposed
a
fairly
significant
potential
change
again,
because
often
he
loves
its
process
and
people
like
to
be
able
to
opine
on
things
I
my
gut
on
this
is,
and
I'm
mostly
focused
on
the
conversion,
not
in
the
townhouse
area.
F
I
would
insert
on
page
13.
I
would
insert
the
existing
single
family
dwelling
structure
contains,
it
doesn't
say
existing,
but
I
think
that
that
was
an
issue
with
regard
to
interpretation.
I
think
that
helps
you
know.
You've
made
some
change
here
that
helps
clarify.
They
think
that
that
would
help
clarify
it.
F
One
of
the
things-
and
I
note
that
you
took
out
something
with
regard
to
the
minimum
lot
size,
which
kind
of
I
don't
understand
why
that
would
be
such
a
significant
factor
in
this.
So
I
kind
of
like
I'm,
you
know
willing
to
go
along
with
that,
eliminating
it.
But
one
of
the
things
I
noticed
is
it
looks
like
when
you're
doing
a
conversion,
there's
no
prohibition
of
your
doing
an
addition,
while
you're
doing
it
is
that
correct.
D
F
D
Yeah
noted-
and
I
think
you
know
where
I
may
have
been
a
bit
defensive-
was
that
I
don't
know
that
we've
done
our
due
diligence
on
this
issue
yet
so
yeah.
I
am
a
little
bit
hesitant
saying
that
we're
proposing
to
remove
the
conditional
use
permit
requirement
without
fully
fleshing
out
the
standards,
and
I
think
there
is
a
point
that
if
we
can't
develop,
you
know
standards
that
that
adequately
address
the
concerns.
D
Then
we
probably
should
continue
as
a
conditionally
used
permit,
but
I
think
a
big
question
of
this
is
also
you
know
should
be
we
be
allowing
these
conversions
to
what
extent
and
what
is
the
purpose
that
we're
achieving?
I,
I
think
there
definitely
are.
You
know,
pros
and
cons,
but
I
think
it
would
would
help
as
we
go
through
this
process
to
try
and
articulate
you
know
what
our
intent
is
in
in
employing
these
provisions
for
conversions.
E
I
D
D
There
are
some
references
in
the
conversion
standards
that
reference
a
certain
amount.
I
think
50
percent
above
grade
right.
I
think,
there's
certain
there's,
there's
there's
one
that
we
can
easily
measure
and
that's
the
above
grade
calculation.
It's
a
lot
harder
for
us
to
do
the
the
below
grade
calculation.
I
don't
know
that
it's
achieving
the
purpose,
so
that
would
be
in
terms
of
that.
D
That's
the
way
that
I
think
I
I
always
understood
the
intent
when
we
wrote
the
code
was
to
be
the
upgrade
calculation,
so
I
think
we
would
tend
to
go
in
that
direction.
Now
what
the
what
the
appropriate
amount
is,
I
think
is
you
know
again:
we
were
trying
to
accommodate
some
existing
building
types
and
make
them
conforming,
but
also
you
know,
in
terms
of
the
conversions
I
think
there
have
been
a
couple
I
mean
in
some
cases
there's
there's
it's
further
above
grade
on
the
front
than
it
is
in
the
back.
D
So
there's
an
argument
made
there,
but
I
think
there's
some
some
cases
that
I
I
felt
that
there
were
more
along
the
line
of
of
a
basement
or
a
seller
that
was
being
converted,
and
I
don't
think
that
was
the
intent
of
what
we
were
trying
to
accomplish.
So
you
know,
I
think,
that's
something
we'd
like
to
clarify.
E
D
G
E
So
moving
into
content,
moving
from
article
two
to
article
five
and
then
the
last
bullet.
These
are
fairly
quick
for
content
moving
to
article
5
we
had
to
but
removed
one
of
these.
So
the
only
item
that
would
be
moving
to
article
5
is
adding
a
review
standard
requirement
for
zoning
map
amendments
so
currently
there's
language
within
the
rv
and
muci
zoning
district.
That
applicants
who
are
rezoning
the
properties
from
a
residential
zoning
classification
to
either
the
rv
or
the
muci,
need
to
look
at
a
series
of
factors
and
impacts
related
to
that
rezoning.
D
And
I
think
this
was
the
one
that
we
struggled
with
the
most
as
to
where
the
appropriate
place.
To
put
it,
was
it's
a
relatively
lengthy
standard,
for
I
mean
you
know
generically.
You
know
it's
speaking
to
a
point
that
we're
looking
to
make,
but
I
mean
a
lot
of
the
content
is
practically
covered
in
our
review
of
those
types
of
applications.
So
we
we
took
the
the
general
sentiment
and
tried
to
employ
that
as
a
standard.
F
F
F
F
F
Expecting
that
particular
development
to
go
in
there-
and
I
you
know-
I
there's
a
part
of
me
that
I'm
not
you
know,
I
wasn't
trained
in
planned,
land
use,
planning
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
But
there's
a
part
of
me
that
feels
like
you
know.
This
is
not
what
you're
supposed
to
do
is
look
at
a
particular
project
in
order
to
figure
out
whether
it's
going
to
minimize
traffic
parking
and
view
impacts.
G
A
B
F
F
D
I
think
it
was
mimicked
in
rv
as
a
part
of
providing
reassurances
to
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
expressed
regarding
the
rv
district
and
maybe
that
I
think
that
was
had
some
relation
to
the
fuller
row
projects,
because
that
was
something
that
was
proposed
at
the
time
for
an
area
that
was
slated
to
be
zoned
rv.
I
believe-
and
I
I
I
see
your
sentiments
here-
and
I
I
definitely
I
think
I
agree
is
that
you
know
that
may
not
be
the
right
language
or
the
appropriate
place.
D
I
guess
I
guess
we
were
struggling
with
how
to
move
that
content
elsewhere.
You
know
kind
of
feeling
that
it
was
sort
of
covered,
but
at
the
same
time,
not
wanting
to
appear
as
though
we
were
eliminating
that,
because
I
mean
it
makes
sense
what
it's
speaking
to
it.
Just
you
know
again
totally
outside
the
context
of
of
the
traditional
procedures
and
review
standards
and
how
we
would
sort
of
integrate
that,
in
I
mean
it's
something
we
can
continue
to
to
work
on.
F
This
really
is
about
the
approval
of
the
project,
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
change
the
zoning
provision
if
we
want,
but
in
the
meantime,
we're
we're
protecting
once
that
change
is
made
we're
protecting
the
location
against
those
kinds
of
impacts,
which
I
think
is
what
our
real
desire
is
for.
The
specific
development.
C
Judy,
I
think,
you're
spot
on
with
that,
because
I'm
because
I
remember
when
we
were
doing
the
76-
the
issue
I
was
having
when
I
was
reviewing
the
usdo
and
in
doing
the
memos
that
I've
drafted
on
this,
because
in
this
portion
that
has
shown
up
the
h
portion
on
there.
If
you
go
to
specifically
muci,
it
says
rezoning
of
land
to
muci
states.
C
Here
any
proposed
rezoning
of
land
from
a
residential
district
into
muci
districts
shall
require
the
preparational
plan
addressing
how
traffic
parking
and
view
impacts
from
the
proposed
redevelopment
will
be
minimized
from
near
from
nearby
residential
district
properties.
The
plan
shall
include
any
landing
facilities
within
the
current
muci
district
that
will
be
used
to
support
the
use
or
development
of
the
property
to
be
rezoned
and
shall
demonstrate
how
the
rezone,
an
existing
institutional
properties
will
manage
parking
circulation,
noise
and
visual
impacts
and
will
meet
other
applicable
development
standards
so
by
us
moving.
C
The
h
is
really
what
I
just
read
that
came
from
the
development
standard
from
muci
and
then
moving
it
into
375
505
under
g
and
to
put
an
h,
I
think
in
my
textual
writing
of
this.
This
one
may
cause
more
confusion
because,
like
for
example,
rt
districts,
we
don't
deal
rt
districts,
there's
usually
no
issue
when
it
comes
to
traffic
parking
on
that
sort.
So
I
feel
like
putting
this
in
there
for
all
zoning
map.
Amendments
may
cause
more
confusion.
I
think
it
should
stick
specifically
to
each
development
standard.
F
F
C
Yeah,
I
think,
maybe
maybe
putting
like
an
h
in
there,
but
maybe
not
that
language
maybe
being
specific
to
because
the
one
thing
I
do.
I
do
recall
having
an
issue
when
I
was
reviewing
that
one
amendment
was
being
specific,
saying,
like
maybe
an
h
that
says
and
other
applicable
portions
specific
to
the
proposed
rezoning.
So
that
way,
there's
a
refer
back
clause.
D
G
F
A
E
Yeah
so
I'll
just
move
to
the
last
one.
This
is
just
content
limiting
commercial
uses
within
connected
edge
and
neighborhood
general
portion
of
the
mixed
use.
Foreign
base
district
right
now,
there's
not
a
set
location
on
that,
because
I
think
that
depends
on
whether
we're
going
to
split
up
the
foreign-based
districts
into
separate
districts
based
on
the
areas
outlined
within
the
regulating
plan.
E
D
You
know
kind
of
wanted
feedback
on
that.
I
think
the
way
we
schedule
things
out
we're
a
little
bit
behind
schedule
so
trying
to
find
a
way
where
we
can
maybe
pick
up
the
pace,
while
still
making
sure
that
you
know
everything
is
covered
and
transparent.
I
think
in
article
two
we
we
still
have
the
overlay
disk
sections
and
we
do
have
working
on
going
through
those.
Those
are
those
are
related
to
article
four
as
well.
D
So
I
think
that's
a
good
sort
of
segue,
you
know,
and
then
you
use
specific
standards
in
article
three.
You
know,
I
think
we're
definitely
pairing
back
the
scope
of
the
changes,
but
there
are
a
few
items
like
cafes
and
satellite
dishes,
things
of
that
neighborhood
that
are
that
that
type
that
we
do
want
to
cover
and
then
we're
at
our
article
four
and
article
five,
which
we
we
know
are
gonna,
be
a
lot
of
work.
D
I'm
sorry
kathy,
I
think,
there's
a
date
june
30th,
where
we're
supposed
to
present
the
the
all
the
changes
to
costs,
and
I
you
know
that
that
is
going
to
be
pretty
tight
meeting
that
with
all
the
changes.
So
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
where
we
want
to
revisit
that
date
or
if
we
want
to
just
plan
on
presenting
where
we're
at
at
that
point
in
time,.
A
F
You
know,
take
a
look
at
that
and
you
know
either
ask
questions
or
not
so
that
at
least
they
have
the
opportunity
to
not
be
completely
overwhelmed
when
we
deliver
the
entire
thing
to
them.
So
yeah,
that's
a
thought
I
have
to
to
to
let
people
know
here
we
are
streamlining
article
two.
This
is
what
it's
gonna
look
like,
but
not
to
worry,
because
almost
everything
is
being
moved
in
these
different
locations.
F
About
that.
I
think
that
that
adjustment
I
mean
that's
one
of
the
biggest
changes
that
that
we're
doing
that
visually
will
potentially
have
a
huge
impact
on
on
council
members,
and
so
that's
just
one
thought
that
I
have
is
not
necessarily
to
wait
to
june
to
provide
them
with
some
infra
interim
information
on
that,
and
you
know
and
and
offered
to
answer
questions
if
people
have
them
I'd
be
glad
to.
You
know,
take
that
on
in
terms
of
answering
questions
if
anybody
does
decide
to
get
into
those
kinds
of
documents.
F
D
Yeah
correct,
you
know,
I
think,
there's
a
question
now
that
we
have
the
document
in
e-code.
We
could,
as
opposed
to
doing
the
separate
memorandums
we
could
start
a.
You
know,
a
running
active
edited
document
incorporating
the
change
made
to
date
and
then
continually
to
amend
that
document
that
would
allow
you
know
anyone
to
tune
in
at
whatever
point
and
take
a
look
at
the
specific
changes.
Just
just
the
thought
we
may
want
to
do
that
anyways
and
still
keep
producing
the
the
memos.
But
the
memos
are
a
little
dense.