►
From YouTube: County Board Work Session - Missing Middle Housing Study
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
We
know
this
is
a
conversation
that
has
inspired
a
lot
of
interest
and
strong
opinions,
and
I
know
that
my
colleagues
and
I
really
appreciate
the
conversations
we've
had
with
so
many
members
of
our
community
over
the
past
two
years,
and
certainly
in
recent
weeks,
whether
that
be
with
individuals,
civic
groups,
civic
associations
or
others.
We
are
looking
forward
to
many
additional
conversations
in
the
weeks
to
come
months
to
come
as
summarized
in
the
handout
everyone
has
received
and
as
we
will
be
talking
about
in
greater
depth
at
the
end
of
the
conversation
today.
A
A
So
we
really
welcome
having
so
many
folks
here
to
listen
and
learn
alongside
of
us,
it
is
going
to
be
difficult
for
you
or
for
your
group
to
engage
with
the
content
or
listen
to
the
content
without
reacting,
audibly
or
disruptively.
We
understand,
but
we
do
invite
you
to
do
so
by
watching
the
live
stream
somewhere
other
than
this
boardroom.
If
we
have
disruptions
we
are,
you
are
going
to
get
a
visit
from
our
clerk
or
county
office
staff,
encouraging
you
to
go
watch
the
live
stream
elsewhere.
A
If
there
are
extensive
disruptions,
we
will
clear
the
room
and
consistent
with
virginia
open
meetings.
Laws
continue
to
meet
with
the
live
stream
available.
With
the
boardroom
closed,
I
am
certain
it
will
not
come
to
that.
We
really
appreciate
those
who
have
joined
us
and
and
know
that
that
will
not
be
an
issue
today.
You
know,
as
I
turn
this
over
to
the
manager.
A
I
just
want
to
say
one
more
word
about
why
we
are
here
following
the
objective
1.1.10
of
the
affordable
housing
master
plan
in
2015,
which
made
it
the
policy
the
county
to
explore
flexibility
in
housing
types
within
single-family
neighborhoods.
Our
staff
began
with
a
massive
research
project
about
two
years
ago,
which
became
a
compendium
of
data
and
analysis
about
arlington's
housing
stock
about
our
local
and
regional
housing
market
and
the
90-year
evolution
of
our
land
use
policies.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
board
this
afternoon,
you're
going
to
hear
from
matt
ladd
who
will
begin
the
presentation,
assisted
by
erica
moore,
who
will
then
turn
it
back
to
matlab.
We
have
a
number
of
staff
also
available,
including
kelly
brown
and
a
number
of
people
who
worked
hard
on
this.
So
without
further
ado,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
ladd.
C
C
C
We
started
this
study
with
the
research
phase
to
provide
baseline
data
and
an
understanding
of
the
challenges
in
arlington's
housing
market
and
the
history
of
restrictive
land
use
in
the
county
in
phase
one.
We
engaged
with
the
community
on
their
priorities
and
concerns
about
expanding
housing
choice.
C
This
analysis
informed
a
draft
framework
that
seeks
to
address
the
community
priorities
and
concerns
from
phase
one
consistent
with
the
with
the
study
scope
released
in
2020
staff
is
bringing
forward
the
findings
of
the
phase,
2
analysis
and
a
summary
of
community
feedback
on
the
draft
framework
for
county
board.
Consideration,
which
is
what
brings
us
here
today
and,
if
directed
by
the
board
in
phase
3,
we
will
be
developing
new
zoning
text
to
implement
the
policy
framework.
C
C
C
The
draft
framework
includes
new
housing
types
with
the
same
design
and
building
placements
requirements
is
single.
Detached
housing
buildings
with
two
to
eight
units
would
be
allowed
only
if
they
meet
standards
for
height
setbacks,
lot
coverage,
etc,
as
as
it
is
drafted
now,
the
framework
applies
to
zoning
districts
that
only
allow
single
detached
development
today,
which
are
the
r5
r6
r8,
r10
and
r20
zones.
C
C
There
are
two
standards
in
the
framework
that
differ
from
single
detached
development.
First,
minimum
parking
requirements
go
from
one
space
per
unit
to
0.5
spaces
per
unit.
We'll
talk
more
about
parking
in
more
detail
when
we
get
to
the
policy
options
portion
of
the
work
session,
the
framework
also
limits
the
total
allowed
square
footage
of
a
building.
These
maximums
are
designed
to
encourage
the
production
of
more
one,
two
and
three
bedroom
units,
rather
than
five
bedroom
duplexes.
C
D
This
engagement
period,
which
began
in
late
april,
focused
on
reaching
people
in
a
variety
of
ways
both
to
share
information
about
the
framework
and
solicit
comments
and
feedback.
We
mail
postcards
announcing
the
posting
of
the
draft
framework
and
opportunities
to
participate
to
more
than
151
thousand
residential
addresses,
including
apartment
buildings.
D
D
One
of
our
goals
for
this
engagement
period
was
to
meet
people
where
they
are
and
bring
new
people
into
the
engagement
process.
So
we
held
pop-ups
at
strategic
locations
around
the
county
to
engage
both
with
people
who
would
potentially
benefit
from
expanding
housing
options
in
the
county
and
those
who
live
in
areas
that
would
see
more
housing
options
if
the
framework
were
adopted.
D
We
also
translated
our
engagement
materials
into
four
languages-
spanish
amharic,
arabic
and
mongolian,
and
we
did
direct
outreach
with
those
communities
to
get
the
word
out.
We
also
did
direct
outreach
with
community
partners
and
other
groups,
including
the
civic
federation,
the
chamber
of
commerce
bugatta
and
the
naacp,
as
well
as
the
forestry
and
natural
resources
commission,
the
commission
on
aging
and
the
housing
commission.
D
As
you
know,
interest
in
the
missing
middle
housing
study
is
strong
and
we
have
heard
from
thousands
of
people
since
the
framework
was
posted,
with
more
comments
continuing
to
come
in.
We
heard
from
2566
people
in
our
online
feedback
form
that
closed
on
may
27th,
but,
as
I've
mentioned,
that
form
was
only
one
way
that
people
could
engage
with
us
from
may
28
to
june
30th,
we
received
an
additional
322
open-ended
comments
through
a
second
online
form,
which
we
have
analyzed
for
this
report.
D
D
The
pop-up
engagements
provided
us
an
opportunity
to
gauge
with
people
face
to
face,
and
we
spoke
to
hundreds
of
arlington
residents
and
received
hundreds
of
pieces
of
feedback
about
the
draft
framework
that
we
may
not
have
received.
Otherwise,
and
it
is
important
to
note
that
not
everyone
we
spoke
to
at
popups
elected
to
tell
us
their
feedback
right
there
at
the
moment.
Some
wanted
to
do
the
entire
online
feedback
form
and
others
just
wanted
to
put
a
sticker
on
one
or
two
housing
types
to
provide
that
feedback.
D
D
Participation
in
the
online
feedback
form
is
heavily
toward
the
single-family
detached
homeowners,
as
has
historically
been
true
of
our
online
engagements.
You'll,
see
on
the
right
that
the
reported
demographics
in
the
feedback
form
don't
align
directly
with
the
overall
demographics
of
the
county
in
housing
type
and
occupancy,
meaning
rent
versus
own,
as
well
as
raisin,
race
and
ethnicity.
D
So,
when
planning
our
engagements,
we
did
use
the
county's
equity
lens.
We
looked
at,
who
benefits?
Who
is
burdened?
Who
is
missing
and
how
do
we
know
and
then
the
second
follow
the
fifth
follow-on
is:
what
are
we
going
to
do
about
it,
and
so
that's
where
we
work
to
determine,
especially
who
would
be
missing
potentially
from
the
conversation
and
how
do
we
reach
them
and
that's
why
we
strategically
placed
our
pop-ups
in
areas
where
we're
more
likely
to
engage
with
renters
residents?
D
Multi-Family
buildings
such
as
outside
the
crystal
city,
metro
in
shirlington,
in
roslyn
at
courthouse,
and
we
also
hosted
one
pop-up
entirely
in
spanish,
at
the
megamark
grocery
store
and
on
this
map
of
civic
associations.
You'll
see
that
we
have
participation
from
every
civic
association
in
the
county,
except
for
the
cherryville
valley,
nature
area
and
the
participation
was
spread
across
the
county
from
north
to
south.
D
Our
feedback
form
did
provide
an
opportunity
for
open-ended
comments
and
we
compiled
694
comments
that
we
received
and
tagged
them
according
to
their
topics
and
themes.
As
you
know,
the
community
has
been
passionate
on
missing
middle
housing
in
response
to
the
draft
framework,
and
that
was
reflected
in
the
comments
that
we
received
both
from
those
that
are
opposed
to
the
framework
and
those
that
are
in
favor
of
it
generally.
D
Comments
on
the
feedback
form
were
more
negative
than
positive,
but
there
were
some
that
were
mixed
with
both
positive
and
negative
things
to
say
about
the
framework.
The
top
theme
in
these
comments
was
growth,
with
comments
both
for
and
against.
Additional
density
in
the
county.
Commenters
spoke
to
concerns
about
the
impacts
on
schools,
traffic
and
their
general
quality
of
life.
There
were
some
commenters
that
found
growth
to
be
a
positive
thing
and
really
supported
opportunities
for
more
people
to
live
in
the
county.
D
For
the
open-ended
comment
comments
overview,
we
analyzed
again
the
322
open-ended
comments
received
by
june
30th.
D
The
top
theme
from
these
again
was
growth,
but
there
was
some
new
were
some
new
top
themes
here
that
we
didn't
see
before,
including
housing
costs,
both
those
that
were
appreciative
of
a
wider
range
of
prices
and
those
that
were
skeptical
about
the
anticipated
prices
from
the
missing
middle,
and
there
were
concerns
that
missing
middle
housing
would
only
benefit
developers
or
real
estate,
investors
and
landlords,
and
then
we
also
had
people
that
were
very
concerned
about
the
impacts
on
existing
property
values
and
taxes.
D
Finally,
in
our
open-ended
feedback
are
the
emails
and
letters
we
received.
We've
received
hundreds
of
them
from
the
community.
These
emails
actually
skewed
more
heavily
positive
about
the
framework.
We
responded
to
questions
received
in
our
online
faq
on
our
study
webpage
and
posted
a
response
matrix
that
response
matrix
today
has
been
contin.
It's
been
continuously
updated
and
today
includes
46
pages
of
staff
responses
to
questions,
and
we
are
also
working
through
direct
responses
to
all
of
the
emails
that
we've
received.
D
These
next
slides
show
feedback
received
on
some
of
the
specific
topics
that
you'll
be
discussing
today,
and
we
provide
them
to
you
as
a
data
point
for
consideration.
The
one
mandatory
question
in
the
online
feedback
form
asked
participants
to
rate
each
of
the
proposed
housing
types.
Responses
of
one
of
one
or
two
would
indicate
someone
did
not
like
a
housing
type,
while
four
or
five
would
mean
somebody
did
like
a
housing
type.
You'll
see
that
a
majority
of
the
responses
on
the
feedback
form
were
one
ratings
for
all
housing
types.
D
We
replicated
the
first
feedback
form
question
for
our
pop-up
engagements.
You
can
see
an
image
of
the
board
that
we
used
there.
We
invited
people
to
place
a
sticker
on
their
rating
for
each
housing
type,
and
you
will
see
that
the
majority
of
the
ratings
given
to
us
at
pop-ups
were
fives
for
all
housing
types
and
just
for
comparison,
we've
put
a
stacked
chart
here
of
the
data
on
the
previous
two
slides
for
you.
D
We
asked
feedback
from
we
asked
feed
the
feedback
form
participants
if
they
would
exclude
any
of
the
housing
types
from
the
framework
and
67
percent
of
the
participants
said
yet.
Yes,
you
will
see
that
there's
a
strong
difference
of
opinion
between
different
stakeholders.
However,
a
strong
majority
of
participants
who
identified
as
homeowners
and
those
who
said
that
they
live
in
single-family
detached
housing
wanted
to
see
housing
types
excluded
from
the
framework.
D
And
of
those
participants
who
wanted
to
exclude
housing
types
from
the
framework
we
asked
them,
which
ones
they
would
exclude
and
you'll
see
that
most
people
chose
the
housing
types
with
more
units.
Oh
another
point
for
you
to
consider
is
645
participants
chose
to
exclude
every
housing
type
from
the
framework,
essentially
meaning
they
didn't
support
the
framework
in
any
645.
D
Sir,
then,
if
a
participant
said
they
would
exclude
a
housing
type
from
the
framework.
We
did
ask
them
to
tell
us
why
and
they
could
select
up
to
three
reasons.
The
top
reasons
selected
were.
The
potential
benefits
did
not
outweigh
the
potential
impacts,
the
increase
of
on-street
parking
and
the
number
of
cars
and
the
ability
of
county
facilities
county
facilities
to
support
additional
residents.
D
We
did
provide
an
opportunity
for
people
to
indicate
that
they
just
did
not
support
missing
mental
housing
under
any
circumstances
and
you'll
see
310
people
selected
that
option
and,
and
they
same
with
the
oh,
I
apologize
382
and
then
there
was
folks
that
they
do
not
think
there's
a
need
for
missing
middle
housing,
and
that
was
312.
D
That's
not
part
of
this
scope
of
the
missing
metal
housing
study,
but
it
could
be
a
follow-on
study.
So
we
did
ask
participants
in
the
feedback
form
how
important
they
thought
it
was
that
the
county
review
its
standards
for
single
household
development
and,
as
you
can
see,
a
large
majority
of
participants
felt
it
was
very
important
to
do.
D
A
You
so
much,
ms
moore.
I
really
appreciate
that
summary
both
of
what
the
tactics
for
engagement
were
as
well
as
the
results
I'm
going
to
open
the
floor
to
colleagues.
At
this
point,
we
are
not
giving
any
of
our
feedback
to
staff.
It
is
simply
an
opportunity
for
reflections
and
or
questions
about
how
the
engagement
process
worked
or
what
we
learned
from
it.
Mr
defranti.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
the
work,
the
and
and
got
a
chance
to
review
the
faq's
webinar.
You
did.
I
appreciate
your
work
on
that
miss
moore
I
just
want
to.
If
it's
possible,
can
we
go
to
slide
18,
slides,
18
and
20
were
the
most
striking
for
me,
one
slide:
18
is
the
pop-up
locations
and
I
was
trying
to
just
eight
eighteen
go.
E
A
couple
more
so,
and
maybe
you
have
it,
but
I
think
you
mentioned
mega
mark
crystal
city.
Are
you
able
to
just
share
those
so
that
I
can
make
sure
I've
got
those
locations?
Yes,.
D
Crystal's
sitting
outside
the
crystal
city,
metro
at
westover
library
in
quincy
park,
bluemont
park
shirlington.
We
were
right
over
next
to
the
footbridge
there,
rosalind
plaza
for
the
farmers
market
there
that
they
do.
We
were
also
in
rosalind
for
bike
to
work
day,
and
then
we
were
at
the
courthouse
farmers
market.
E
That's
that's
helpful
that,
together
with
slide
20,
which
talks
about
the
that
has
the
two
different
graphs,
one
homeowners
and
one
renters,
really
kind
of
struck
me
as
we
have.
The
majority
of
what
we've
heard
to
be
fair
has
been
opposed
to
the
missing
middle
direction,
but
we
have
heard
from
a
number
of
renters,
and
so
I
guess
the
question
is:
there's
a
lot
of
numeric
metrics.
E
You
know,
based
on
the
whole
presentation.
Is
that
a
theme?
That's
that
you
know
we.
We
should
be
humble
and
clear
that
as
much
as
everybody
in
this
room
really
cares
about
missing
middle
there's
a
whole
probably
hundred
thousand
arlentonians
who've
never
actually
heard
of
it.
But
I
don't
know
if
those
themes
of
homeownership
and
renter
kind
of
stood
out
to
you
and
you
know
if
the
pop-ups,
you
think
the
results
from
those
pop-ups
might
have
been
because
of
a
larger
renter
population.
D
So
we
did
not
there
we
go.
We
did
not
collect
demographic
data
at
the
pop-ups.
Obviously
we
were
having
conversations
we
were
engaging
with
with
folks
for
a
few
minutes,
most
of
them
not
aware
fully
of
the
missing
middle
housing
study
so
doing
some
education
as
well-
and
I
can
tell
you
anecdotally-
I
spoke
to
a
great
number
of
renters
and
folks
that
live
in
multi-family
housing
and
shared
that.
A
G
Had
enough
gain
so
the
17
to
21,
so
it's
obvious
that
in
the
online
form
there
is
a
there
is
a
progression
from
you
know
smaller
housing
type
to
the
bigger
housing
type
and
it
breaks
some
at
some
points.
Well,
I
see,
for
example,
that
in
in
the
you
know,
less
less
tolerable,
less
preferred
town
choices.
G
You
know
the
the
town,
homes
and
duplexes
are:
are
you
know
about
30
percent
of
those
who
don't
want
them
so
70
actually
do
triplexes
and
quadruplexes
seem
to
be
around
50
and
then
bigger
ones.
Six
six
duplex
and
octoplexes
seem
to
be.
You
know
the
other
side
of
of
the
the
preference
in
the
likert
sky
scale.
G
My
question
to
you
is
how
how
should
we
be
reading?
That
is
that
more
the
you
know,
the
familiarity
with
that.
So
duplex,
for
example,
is
a
familiar
thing.
So
what
is?
I
understand
that
from
the
from
the
online
form,
you
cannot
know
that,
but
definitely
from
the
interactions
at
pop-ups
you
can
because
at
pop-ups
you
can
you
know
one
can
ask
well
what
is
what
is
it?
Six
duplex,
for
example,.
D
And
thank
you.
Yes,
we
did
have
to
do
a
little
bit
of
explaining
of
that,
particularly
with
the
idea
that
these
could
be
done
within
what
is
currently
allowed
for
a
single
family
home.
I
think
that
was
confusing
for
people.
They
were
imagining.
You
know
apartment
buildings,
and
things
like
that.
D
So
I
think
there
is
a
was
at
the
pop-ups
again
anecdotally,
a
lack
of
awareness
of
what
that
necessarily
looked
like,
but
I
also
think
it
was
a
lot
of
I
heard
from
folks
that
I
talked
to
and
I'll
let
others
talk,
because
others
were
there
with
us
more
that
they
just
weren't
sure
what
that
would
mean
right.
A
duplex
is
to
your
point,
they're,
maybe
more
familiar
with
them.
C
I
would
just
add
to
that
that
on
certainly
in
the
pop-ups
and
I
believe
in
the
online
form,
the
question
was
accompanied
with
the
the
images
that
were
produced
for
the
phase
2
presentation
that
are
shown
very
small
on
this
slide,
because
it
was
a
big
board.
C
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
not
sure
that
there's
a
question
here,
but
an
overall
comment.
You
know,
I
think
it's
pretty
fair
to
say
that
from
a
staff
directed
process,
the
level
of
engagement
here
has
been
unprecedented
and
quite
creative
and
has
been
both
targeted
and
broad.
It's
kind
of
hit
all
of
the
elements
of
what
effective
engagement
means
in
order
to
be
able
to
capture
a
wide
variety
of
input.
H
It
hasn't
looked
like
a
lot
of
processes
that
we've
had
in
the
past
past
that
have
involved
people
directly
in
committing
to
a
depth
of
engagement
on
an
issue,
even
though
I
say
that
that
exists
with
the
variety
of
materials
that
were
produced
in
support
of
this
being
at
a
level
of
depth
and
accessibility.
Unlike
any
I
can
remember
before,
but
I
guess
the
question
is
given
the
extreme
polarization
of
opinion
that
we
saw
here.
H
D
I
do
you
know,
I
think
people
are
very
passionate
about
it
and
I
think
there
are
folks
that
are
very
adamantly
opposed
and
there
are
folks
that
are
very
adamantly
for
it,
and
but
I
do
think
that
there
are
people
in
the
middle,
and
you
know
again,
this
is
all
anecdotal,
but
from
the
conversations
of
the
pop-ups,
often
people
weren't
ready
to
make
a
snap
judgment
because
they
want
you
with
the
sticker
because
they
wanted
to
go
back
and
they
wanted
to
take
the
materials
and
they
wanted
to
go
online
and
read
through
all
of
the
reports
and
really
make
sure
that
they
understood
it,
because
it
is
a
complex
proposal
and
idea
for
for
people.
D
So
I
do
think
that
there
is
an
appetite.
I
think
people
want
to
learn
and
want
to
know
and
and
understand
the
details
and
I
think
that's
a
testament
to
the
community,
even
people
that
didn't
know
anything
about
it
when
we
walked
up-
and
we
say
a
little
bit
about
it.
They're,
like
oh
okay,
I
want
to
understand
a
little
bit
more
about
that.
So
I
you
know,
I'm
not
going
to
predict
what
people,
how
people
may
change
their
minds
or
or
move
one
way
on
the
other.
D
But
I
do
I
was
very
impressed
with
the
community's
interest
and
and
want
to
to
talk
about
it
in
our
engagements.
H
And,
given
that
just
do
you
think
that
there
are
any
just
from
your
professional
experience,
any
advice
that
you'd
have
for
us
if
we
were
to
want
to
engage
people
in
opportunities
to
learn
about
discuss
this
issue,
not
necessarily
in
a
way
that
can
lead
to
polarization
but
allow
for
dynamic
perspectives
of
the
78
percent.
One
side,
77
of
the
other,
to
actually
engage
with
one
another.
D
It
out
now,
but
if
you
could
just
have
a
couple
of
ideas,
that'd
be
great.
I
do
think
that
there
is
an
opportunity
for
folks
to
talk
to
each
other.
I
think
it's
you
know
human
nature,
it's
a
you.
You
find
people
that
feel
the
same
way
and
I
think
the
more
we
can
get
people
into
a
room
and
having
that
conversation
is
always
a
positive
thing.
I
think
again.
D
I
can't
predict
that
that's
gonna
change
anybody's
mind,
but
I
think
the
more
we
can
understand
where
somebody
else
may
be
coming
from
and
what
their
circumstances
are
and
what
their
background
is.
It's
brought
them
to
their
opinion
that
can
only
benefit
the
county
as
a
whole.
The
processes
as
a
whole
and
all
of
the
studies
and
initiatives.
F
Yeah,
it
took
me
a
while
to
come
up,
but
I'm
just
following
up
here
and
it's
just
a
brief
one.
Just
expanding
a
little
more
on
the
on
the
discussion
about
the
pop-ups
and
all
meeting
with
people
did
you
sense
a
shift
over
time?
In
other
words,
did
you
find
more
people
seem
aware
of
it
than
before,
or
more
people
are
more
hardened
or
anyway.
What
did
you
see
as
a
shift
over
time
with
with
the
communication.
D
Certainly
awareness
was
a
big
shift,
so
the
pop-up's,
the
one
thing
I
didn't
mention
is
our
pop-ups
spanned,
the
full
month
of
may,
so
we
really
did
spread
them
out,
and
awareness
in
early
may
was
very
different
in
my
opinion
than
the
awareness.
Actually,
we
went
into
early
june
so
come
early
june
of
the
study
and
what
was
happening
there.
So
I
do
think
awareness
increased
over
over
time.
D
It's
hard
to
make
it's
hard
to
make
a
judgment
on
whether
people
hardened
or
or
feedback
started
to
skew
later
in
the
process,
one
way
or
the
other.
Because
again
with
the
strategic
location
of
our
pop-ups,
we
were
going
to
get
different
types
of
feedback
at
different
locations
on
different
days
and
time,
and
but
I
will
say
that
you
know
the
feedback
was
fast
and
furious
and
ongoing.
I
mean
just
the
fact
that
there's
been
another
additional.
D
I
think
it's
actually
a
little
bit
over
120
additional
comments
since
june
30th,
that's
less
than
two
weeks
ago,
just
shows
that
people
are
still
engaged
and
still
interested
in
being
a
part
of
this.
F
That's
great
and
I
think
they
will
continue
to
be
so
to
do
to
be
so,
and
I
I
know
we're
going
to
talk
about
what
goes
what
we're
doing
moving
forward,
but
the
thought
of
getting
people
together
in
a
room
to
sort
of
listen
to
each
other.
You
know
what
is
it
you're,
afraid
of
or
are
concerned
about?
What
is
it
you
think
is
going
to
happen?
I
think
you
know
all
of
that
on
both
sides
could
really
help
actually
a
little
community
building.
So
it's
great
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
conversation,
ms
moore,
this
really
excellent
work,
as
mr
dorsey
noted
a
pretty
unprecedented
amount
of
public
engagement
and
and
in
different
formats.
I
really
particularly
appreciate
how
much
you
took
to
heart
the
directive
of
our
equity
question,
to
figure
out
who's
missing
and
how
to
hear
from
them.
One
of
the
other
things
to
just
highlight,
because
this
came
up
in
a
lot
of
conversations.
I
had
was
a
point
that
that
was
highlighted
by
the
numbers.
A
How
many
of
the
comments
we
received
early
on
were,
in
fact
questions
and
to
mr
dorsey's
point
right
about
the
the
breadth
of
material
to
yours
about
how
complex
this
is.
So
I
really
appreciated
seeing
throughout
how
those
questions
fed
the
frequently
asked
questions.
If
those
who
are
interested
in
whether
their
question
got
answered,
I
really
would
encourage
people
to
check
it
out.
That
list
is
long
and
growing
and
really
also
appreciate
your
commitment
to
following
up
with
people
as
well.
A
I
know
just
from
some
of
the
conversations
or
meetings
I
had
a
lot
of
those
questions
got
really
specific
right.
What
can
I
do
on
my
particular
r12
lot?
So
the
the
efforts
to
get
into
the
specifics
are
much
appreciated.
All
right,
we
will
head
things,
turn
things
over
again
to
mr
ladd
for
options
for
consideration.
C
All
right,
thank
you,
so,
moving
on
to
our
next
agenda
topic,
we're
going
to
cover,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
options
for
either
maintaining
or
modifying
the
key
elements
of
the
draft
framework.
C
For
each
of
these
three,
I
will
present
what
is
in
the
draft
framework,
along
with
additional
options
for
consideration
and
discussion.
The
options
being
presented
today
were
informed
by
the
community
engagement.
Most
of
the
feedback
received
was
either
in
favor
of
the
draft
framework
or
in
favor
of
a
more
restrictive
approach.
C
C
The
first
framework
element
for
discussion
is
the
number
of
units
that
would
be
allowed
within
a
building.
The
draft
framework
includes
up
to
eight
units
per
building.
The
analysis
indicates
that
housing
types
with
more
units,
such
as
six
plexes
or
eight
plexes,
would
be
more
feasible
on
relatively
large
lots.
C
However,
the
draft
framework
does
not
set
a
minimum
lot
size
based
on
the
number
of
units
we
have
heard
community
concerns
that
the
framework
would
encourage
the
consolidation
of
smaller
lots.
However,
existing
restrictions
on
a
building's
footprint
mean
that
more
total
square
footage
can
be
built
on
two
lots
rather
rather
than
on
one
double
lot.
This
means
that
in
nearly
all
cases,
there's
no
economic
advantage
to
combining
lots.
C
Staff
has
prepared
options
for
county
board
consideration.
The
first
option
is
to
maintain
the
draft
framework
proposal
I
just
described.
A
second
option
is
to
tie
the
number
of
housing
units
to
a
minimum
lot
size.
For
example,
this
option
could
restrict
the
ability
to
build
six
plexes
or
eight
plexes
on
smaller
lots,
even
if
they
otherwise
meet
the
standards
for
a
single
detached
house.
C
A
third
option
is
to
restrict
or
limit
the
number
of
units
allowed
within
a
building.
This
could
be
accomplished
by
either
setting
a
straight
cap,
for
example,
no
more
than
four
or
six
units
on
any
law.
It
could
also
be
accomplished
by
requiring
a
use
permit
approval
above
a
certain
number
of
units.
A
use
permit
would
require
public
hearings
and
county
board
approval.
However,
the
costs,
time
and
uncertainty
of
the
use
permit
approach
would
mean
that
most
builders
would
opt
for
buy
right
approval
options
compared
to
the
draft
framework
options.
C
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
ladd.
We
really
appreciate
this.
Let
me
just
ask
a
clarifying
question.
As
we
begin,
and
then
colleagues,
if
you'd
like
questions,
we
can
also
begin
to
to
home
in
on
direction
for
further
discussion.
One
thing
I'd
like
to
clarify
mr
ladd
frameworks.
One
and
two
would
be
consistent
with
doing
three
at
the
time
of
adoption.
A
Would
that
be
fair
to
say
so
you
could
prepare
zoning
ordinance,
amendments
and
general
land
use
plan
changes
that
would
you
know,
exercise
option
one
two
to
eight
units
per
building
flat
to
specify
lot
size
amounts
based
on
number
of
units
up
to
eight
and
then
at
the
time
of
adoption,
the
the
county
board
and
the
planning
commission
could
say
under
that
option.
They'd
prefer
to
reduce
the
number
of
units
allowed
correct.
Yes,.
A
F
I'll
be
quick
on
this
I
mean
I
have,
you
know
been
open
with
a
lot
of
people
that
the
eight
units
makes
me
kind
of
uncomfortable
thinking
about
doing,
permitting
or
something.
However,
I've
made
it
clear
that
I'm
a
little
uncomfortable
with
the
eight
units,
I
think
like
a
lot
of
people
are.
However,
I
have
always
in
my
long
career
always
wanted
to
have
everything
on
the
table
to
discuss.
F
I
don't
ever
wanna,
I
don't
wanna,
take
things
off
the
table,
so
I'm
fine
moving
forward
with
the
options,
but
I'm
not
that's
not
to
say
that
that's
where
I'll
be
when
we
get
to
the
end,
but
I
I
would
like
to
have
it
sort
of
fleshed
out
and
actually
allow
people
to
talk
about
it
and
think
about
it.
Thank
you.
F
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
share
the
concern
with
eight
units.
For
this
specific
reason,
I
think
that
it
would
result
in
a
small
one
and
likely
result
in
more
small
one
and
two
bedroom
units,
and
I
don't
think
that
the
the
benefit
is
worse
worth
the
cost.
I
would
suggest
that
some
of
our
other
tools
and
pursuing
some
other
goals
are
the
best
way
to
do
that.
E
So
that's
one
thought
with
respect
to
just
to
sort
of.
I
share
the
desire
for
flexibility
as
long
as
possible,
but
I
also
know
you
have
to
studying
in
detail.
You
need
some
sort
of
guard
guard
rails
to
to
do
it,
so
I
guess
my
instinct
would
be
to
I'm
open
on
the
use,
permit
and
development
conditions,
but
I
am
mindful
of
the
additional
costs
that
result
from
that.
E
So
that's
that's
one
thought
I
would
be
more
inclined
to
to
try
a
tiered
approach
that
is
sort
of
that
really
focuses
on
lot
size.
So
if,
if
it,
if
we're
going
to
result
from
the
building
code
and
the
fire
code
in
quadraplexes
and
greater
not
occurring
on
small
lots,
I
would
rather
put
that
in
code
at
the
outset,
because
I
think
that
that
will
reduce
the
level
of
anxiety
of
many
in
our
community.
And
so
that's
that's
what
I
you
know
support.
I
think
that's
consistent
said.
E
Another
way
is
to
to
number
two
there,
but
I
want
to
be
transparent
that
it's
that
I'm
both
at
a
place
where
I
would
want
to
sort
of
name
those
items
in
code.
If
we
legally
can-
and
I
don't
support
the
eight-
and
I
still
beyond
that-
I
wanna
I
don't
wanna
prejudge
when
we
know
that,
there's
a
lot
that
I
that
we
still
have
to
learn.
I
still
have
to
learn
on
this
process
and
I
think,
as
a
community
there's
still
a
lot
that
we
have
to
learn.
E
A
You,
mr
carontonis
and
mr
dorsey,
thank
you.
G
A
technical
question
so,
first
of
all
now
just
to
frame
that
we've
seen
that
the
bigger
the
the
buildings,
because
they
envelop
the
the
more
anxiety
there
is,
this
may
mean
and
how
this
fits
and
how
this
may
not
fit,
and
what
the
impacts
are
for
that.
Of
course,
of
course,
I
would
have
many.
G
You
know
I
could
argue
for
a
long
time
that,
for
example,
if
a
full
fourplex
can
be,
you
know
as
impactful
as
a
let's
say,
full
six,
six
flex,
just
because
of
different
demographics,
etc,
and
I've
heard
also
from
many
constituents
who
say
well.
I
would
like
to
age
in
in
community,
for
example,
I
would
like
to
have
an
opportunity
to
downsize,
but
I
cannot
either
afford,
or
I
don't
need
that
big
of
a
unit
I
I
can
live
with
a
thousand
or
less
square
feet,
etc.
G
So
I
would
at
this
point
I
wouldn't
like
to
to
take
it
off
the
of
the
off
the
table,
but
I
would
like
to
see
whether
what
mr
deferenti
meant
with
guard
rails
is
a
feasible
option.
The
the
used
pyramid
cut
how.
How
would
this
be
handled?
How
how
onerous
can
this
be?
How
difficult
can
it
be
to
to
create
a
a
six
duplex
with
a
with
a
used
permit
cut.
C
Well,
to
you
know
to
that
question
of
how
onerous
would
it
would
a
use
permit
be
the
it
would
depend
on
on
how
we
developed
the
process
for
approval,
but
per
state
code
through
a
use
permit,
which
is
a
special
exception.
G
Until
now,
we've
seen,
we've
said
that
I
mean
we
have
been
discussing,
that
you
need
a
certain
lot
size
in
order
to
even
start
to
think
about
that
right,
more
than
12
000
square
feet.
So
how
many
of
these
do
we
have?
Is
it
a
a
common
occurrence?
Is
that
will
it
be
a?
There
will
be
a
market
for
that.
G
More
yeah,
I
could
the
blue
ones
in
there.
C
I
I
could
show
the
map
and
that,
if
you
give
me
just
a
second
to
pull
that
up,
I
I
don't
have
a
number
as
to
how
many
they
are.
They
are
certainly
in
the
minority
in
terms
of
lot
sizes.
C
So
this
is
the
map
that
was
in
our
in
our
phase
two
presentation
and
so
the
we
estimated
that
it
would
likely
take
12
000
square
feet
as
a
minimum
for
the
six
plexus
to
eight
plexes
and
part
of
that
will
depend-
and
I
know
a
future
topic
that
we'll
discuss
during
this
work
session
is-
is
a
parking
requirements
and
so
parking
requirements.
C
You
know
play
a
big
role
in
this
because
we
have
you
know
we
do
have
a
maximum
lot
coverage
and
parking
does
count
towards
the
maximum
lot
coverage.
So
if,
for
an
eight
plex,
for
example,
eight
parking
spaces
are
required,
then
you
know
you
have
already
covered
much
of
the
lot
and
there's
not
much
area
left
for
housing.
C
H
You,
madam
chair,
so
you
know
to
this
question
of
you
know
two
three,
four:
five,
six
or
eight
you
know
for
me
as
I'm
trying
to
think
about
this
in
order
to
maintain
consistent
rigor
throughout
I'm
trying
to
connect
this
with
marrying
consistency
with
what
is
currently
allowed
versus
coming
up
with
arbitrary
distinctions
like
the
number
of
units
within
it.
So
that's
the
spirit
of
where
this
comes
from.
H
So
I
think
part
of
the
concern
that
I've
heard
from
people
you
know
one
is
a
lack
of
familiarity
with
multiplexes
as
big
as
eight.
It's,
not
a
common
thing.
People
don't
have
a
lot
of
familiarity
and
even
though
the
research
compendium
provided
some
precedent
examples,
they
were
rightfully
presented
as
illustrative
and
not
regulatory
and
most
people
just
haven't,
come
across
them
in
their
daily
lives.
C
Yes,
so
the
to
answer
that
question
that
was
actually
something
that
that
will
come
up
later
in
the
work
session.
C
Can
wait
until
then?
No,
I
can
I
can
address
it
briefly
right
now.
I
I
think,
as
part
as
as
we
move
into
phase
three
staff
is
proposing
to
develop
some
basic
design
standards
that
would
provide
some
of
those
guard
rails.
That
you're
talking
about
to
you
know
eliminate
some
of
the
concerns
from
the
community
and,
frankly,
from
staff
about
you
know,
making
sure
that
new
development
is
sensitive
to
its
existing
context.
C
H
E
Yeah
please,
mr
one
more
so
I've
looked
at
some
of
the
articles
on
minneapolis,
but
I
really-
and
I
know
that
I've
had
parts
of
conversation
have
you,
mr
ladd
or
others
on
staff.
Do
we
know
of
instances
where
five
to
eight
has
actually
been
done
in
the
u.s?
E
C
So
I
think,
but
before
I
answer
that
question
I
want
to,
I
want
to
go
back
to
phase
one
of
the
study
where
we
engage
the
community
on
what
their
priorities
and
concerns
were,
and
I
showed
the
slide.
I
showed
it
very
briefly,
but
the
top
priority
that
we
heard
back
in
phase
one
was
reducing
housing
costs,
and
so
our
starting
point
for
housing
costs
in
arlington
is
higher
than
it
is
in
other
places
like
portland
or
minneapolis.
C
So
when
we
did
the
phase
two
analysis,
what
we
found
in
our
analysis
was
that
eight
plexus
could
be
physically
feasible
on
the
largest
lots.
Those
deep
blue
lots
on
on
the
map
I
just
showed
without
changing
the
height
or
the
setbacks,
or
the
lock
coverage
that
we
currently
have
today,
and
we
know
that
new
single
detached
houses
are
already
being
built
in
those
neighborhoods
that
are
seven
thousand
or
eight
thousand
square
feet.
That's
not
typical,
but
it
is.
It
is
happening.
C
So,
by
allowing
eight
units
within
the
footprint
of
a
building,
that's
already
allowed
and
being
built,
the
analysis
tells
us
that
apexes
are
the
most
responsive
to
that
phase.
One
priority
to
reduce
housing
costs
because
they're
likely
to
be
smaller
units
and
the
land
costs
would
be
shared
among
multiple
units.
C
So
going
back
to
your
question
of
portland
and
minneapolis
and
other
places
that
have
considered
expanding
housing
choice,
I
don't
know
I
can't
say
why
more
units
weren't
considered
in
those
other
cities,
and
we
know
that
minneapolis
allows
up
to
triplexes.
Portland
allows
up
to
four
plexes.
I
believe
they
just
they
just
passed
some
new
legislation
that
might
allow
up
to
six
plexes.
C
My
understanding
is
that
those
cities
and
obviously
they're
different
cities-
they
have
their
own
context.
They
generally
have
lower
minimum
lot
sizes
in
their
residential
zoning
districts.
So
portland
has
a
district
where
they
allow
four
plexes
and
the
minimum
lot
size
is
2500
square
feet.
Wow
arlington
doesn't
have
a
zoning
district,
a
residential
zoning
district.
With
with
that
minimum
lot
size,
we
go
down
to
r5,
which
is
5
000
square
feet,
and
we
go
up
to
r20,
which
is
a
minimum
lot
size
of
of
20
000
square
feet
so
without
knowing
for
sure.
E
Thank
you
very
much
at
the
start.
I
was
gonna
say
objection,
you
didn't
answer
my
question,
but
then
you
did
that
does
not.
I
guess
the
thought
is
the
one
thought
and
then
I'll
yield
is
just
that
the
analysis
is
different.
You
know,
I
just
feel
like
humility
in
what
we
know
about
you
know.
The
pes
study
is
not
divine
word,
nor
are
critiques
of
it
divine
word,
and
so
because
it's
not
been
done
elsewhere.
For
a
hundred
years
we
had
a
system,
we've
had
a
system
nationwide.
E
A
So
much
and
I
I'm
glad
you
brought
up
actually
that
analysis,
because
when
we
say,
for
example,
likely
price
points
et
cetera,
it
is
based
on
an
external
analysis
to
bring
in
some
expertise
that
we
don't
necessarily
have
in
house
here.
One
of
the
things
that
I've
heard
regarding
kind
of
this
analysis
of
those
numbers
is
well.
A
Are
they
actually
likely
to
be
priced
at
that
amount
because
aren't
developers
going
to
charge
as
much
as
they
can?
My
understanding
the
pes
report
is,
it
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
a
developer
is
charging
as
much
as
they
can.
So
when
you
see
those
prices,
it
is
not
of
you
know,
for
example,
perhaps
half
a
million
dollars
in
some
circumstances,
for
a
condominium
within
a
multiplex
that
is
not
based
on
any
kind
of
intervention.
It
is
not
based
on
any
kind
of
developer,
goodwill
or
charity.
A
It
is
based
on
what
the
market
would
likely
sustain
and
what
the
return
on
investment
would
be
for
someone
to
invest
in
it.
That's
correct.
Yes,.
A
Excellent,
I
find
that
really
helpful,
and
so
I'll
just
note
for
my
point,
you
know,
as
we
begin
to
kind
of
come
into
consensus.
I
you
know,
I
think,
what
from
what
I'm
hearing
from
colleagues
there
is
generally
a
desire
to
keep
on
the
table
the
question
of
up
to
multiplexes
so
so,
and
to
do
that
in
a
way
that
lets
building
code
markets,
geometry
right
of
the
lot
coverage
of
a
certain
our
district
and
how
many
they
can
be
subdivided
into
dictate
how
many
can
be
built.
A
There
is
also
interest
in
in
advertiser
and
there's
also
interesting,
being
able
to
consider
a
framework
that
would
specify
minimum
lot
size.
So
I
believe
the
the
the
interest
of
the
board
would
be
able
to
consider
both
option
one
and
option
two
and
I'll
just
flag.
You
know
my
interest
over
the
coming
months
is,
above
all
to
you
know,
continue
these
community
conversations,
I'm
also
interested
in
some
analysis
and
perhaps
stuff
can
guide
me
about
the
best
places
to
to
seek
this.
A
You
know
is
option
two,
which
is
to
say
kind
of
the
tiered
system
of
minimum
lots
or
number
of
units
based
on
minimum
lot
sizes.
Is
that
effectively?
Just
our
zoning
ordinance
codifying
what
the
building
code
markets
again?
Geometry
would
dictate
anyway,
and
and
sort
of
protecting
us
against
that
really
weird
outlier
or
does
option
two
functionally
mean
that
we
are
ruling
out
opportunities
that
might
otherwise
fit
into
our
community.
A
That
is
the
number
one
priority
across,
and
so
I
just
want
to
be
confident
that
if
we
are
going
to
codify
exclusions
of
number
of
units
on
certain
property,
you
know
where
we
are
have
have
have
confidence
that
we
are
not
taking
off
the
table
houses
homes
that
could
serve
that
number
one
priority,
while
still
fitting
into
the
neighborhoods.
So
I
think
that's
my
big
question
for
the
for
the
months
to
come,
but
I
think
at
this
point
we're
interested
in
seeing
option
one
and
option
two.
So
ms
garvey
yeah
absolutely
and.
F
I
just
find
a
slight
I'm
going
to
invite
all
my
colleagues.
If
you
ever
want
come
up
we'll
do
walking
tour
fairlington
I've
lived
there
since
1977.
I
am
seeing
things
I've
never
seen,
I'm
going
count.
How
many
is
that
and
I'm
counting
the
number
of
units
there
are
eight
plexes
and
you
know
there's
everything
there
and
one
thing
you
notice
is
how
important
trees
are.
F
H
And
I'll
just
be
brief,
just
I
know
that,
as
mr
d
ferrante
expressed
and
many
in
our
community
are
wanting
to
know
what
we
can
learn
from
others-
and
you
know
I
just
want
to
reinforce.
H
So
you
know,
there's
there's
just
gonna,
be
really
tough
for
our
community
to
wrap
their
head
around
analogs
from
elsewhere,
because
everything
is
so
distinctly
different
that
it's
gonna
make
what
we're
doing
very
much
our
own,
and
I
realize
that
carries
with
it
risk
and
uncertainty,
and
that
gives
people
angst.
But
we
have
to
get
comfortable
with
that.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
much
for
that
good
discussion,
mr
ladd,
thank
you
for
teeing
it
up.
I
think
we
are
putting
a
lot
of
work
on
your
plate
for
this
next
phase,
but
we
appreciate
it,
as
ms
garvey
said,
being
able
to
have
options,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
you
to
continue
with
our
next
area
of
discussion.
C
Okay,
so
moving
on
so
the
next
framework
element
for
discussion
is
is
location,
so
this
is
where
missing
middle
housing
would
be
allowed
within
the
county.
C
Compared
to
the
draft
framework.
This
option
would
produce
fewer
housing
units
and
options
in
neighborhoods
that
are
not
near
transit.
Tear
downs
would
continue,
but
alternatives
to
large
replacement
homes
would
not
be
allowed
by
limiting
where
development
could
occur.
It
is
possible
that
growth
of
new
housing
types
could
be
concentrated
rather
than
dispersed
throughout
the
county,
and
limiting
growth
to
transit
areas
could
address
some
community
concerns
about
allowing
growth
in
areas
where
residents
are
more
likely
to
be
card
dependent.
C
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
ladd.
Mr
defranti
george
begin.
E
You
know
there
was
that
the
thought
had
been
density
on
the
corridors
and
space
allowed
in
the
neighborhoods,
and
so
I
I
think
that
you
know
the
proposal
is
a
significant
departure
from
that,
and
I
think
that's
worth
acknowledging.
E
I
guess
where
I
am
is
I
want
the
status
quo
won't
do,
but
I
also
want
to
tailor
and
craft
our
own
solution
so
option
one
and
option
two.
I
could
see.
E
First,
I
think
that
you
know
land
and
additional
density
at
some
level
is
important
for
the
people
that
we're
trying
to
serve
through
this,
and
the
people
is
first,
even
though
the
means
is
missing:
middle
housing
type.
So
you
know
that
affordability
is
key,
but
I
could
see
wanting
to
do
to
allow
additional
density
on
new
on
additional
corridors,
not
just
metro
corridors,
but
that
would
be
an
addition
to
the
staff's
proposal
and
so-
and
I
know
that's
complicated
and
I
have
shared
with
colleagues
there's
a
you
know.
E
Simplicity
has
some
real
benefits,
but
the
question
is:
could
you
have
a
tiered
approach
with
the
number
of
additional
units
and
include
something
that
allows
for
additional
density
say
within
a
quarter
mile
of
langston
boulevard?
So
could
you
have?
Could
we
craft
something
that
is
both?
Is
the
question.
C
Well,
I
you
know,
I
think,
for
you
know.
First,
the
question
is:
like
you
mentioned,
langston
boulevard,
there's
a
there's,
an
ongoing
process
as
you're
aware
of
another
quarter
right
for
langston
boulevard,
and
I
think,
if
I
understand
the
question
it's
you
know,
could
we
have
the
proposal
that's
on
the
table
and
then
in
certain
areas,
could
we
plan
for
more,
you
know
more
height
or
you
know
less
less
restrictions,
et
cetera
through
a
planning
process?
C
E
E
There
have
been
a
lot
of
concerns
on
that
and,
from
my
perspective,
I
have
to
listen
to
those
in
addition
to
acknowledging
that
the
planning
that
put
the
metro
underground
is
50
years
ago
and
we're
we're
in
some
different
facts
as
far
as
the
cost
of
housing
at
the
moment.
Thank.
A
You
yeah,
mr
defending,
if
I
could
just
add,
I
think
I'm
not
entirely
sure
that
the
history
of
concentrating
development
around
metro
isn't
as
germane
of
this
conversation,
as
you
might
think
it
is,
I
think,
a
much
better
analogy
is
accessory
dwellings.
A
I
mean
we're
talking
about
gentle
density,
moderate
density
density
that
fits
within
the
footprint
of
single-family
homes
when
that
sort
of
decision
to
concentrate
density
around
the
metro
and
step
down
is
as
we
talk
about
right,
we'll
have
one
on
saturday
the
consideration
of
density
to
the
tune
of
300
units
per
per
form.
So
I
think
the
the
the
question
to
me
anyway
is
a
little
bit
less.
How
does
this
fit
within
our
historical
sector
planning
exercises
which
have
been
about?
Frankly?
A
You
know
residential
multi-family
development
is
commercial
development
in
arlington
and
so
commercial
development
relative
to
very
moderate
scale,
residential
development,
in
which
case
we
actually
have
talked
about
this
at
county-wide
points
in
the
past.
That
said,
it
may
be
helpful.
We
have
lived
through
multiple
iterations
of
revisions
to
the
accessory
dwelling
units.
Perhaps
we
can
either
individually
or
staff
can
assist
us
in
this
sort
of.
A
I
would
need
to
refresh
myself
about
what
the
conversation's
around
legalizing
adus
in
the
first
place
looked
like,
and
whether
there
were
considerations
about
kind
of
concentration
around
transit.
I
don't
think
there
were
at
least
it
wasn't
by
the
time
we
began
iterating
on
it,
but
I
think
that's
probably
the
better
analog
than
those
you
know.
300
unit
apartment
buildings,
which
I
promise
we
are
not
talking
about
with
the
missing
middle
housing
study.
E
No,
I
I
grant
your
point,
I'm
just
reflecting
what
I'm
hearing
and
I
think
I
think,
in
order
to
move
us
over
time
towards
something
that
could
resemble
consensus.
E
F
I'll
be
consistent,
I
want
to
keep
everything
on
the
table
so
that
we
can
talk
about
it
and
you
know
assuming-
and
I
I
understand
your
the
point
about
transit
whatever
I
mean,
but
you
know,
as
I
brought
back
and
report
a
little
on
micro
transit
in
homeboard,
just
because
we've
been
doing
it
that
way
for
40
years
doesn't
mean
that
we
can't
maybe
come
up
with
some
other
ways
to
provide
better
transit
actually
for
people.
F
G
This
is
a
question
from
mr
lam,
so
I
hear
you
know
the
desire
for
tailoring,
etc
is
more
it's
a
complex
desire.
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
do
with
transit
because
we
have
you
know.
In
the
last
few
years
we've
seen
radical
shifts
and
you
know
the
way
we
use
our
homes
the
way
how
long
we
stay
in
our
homes.
How
often
we
use
our
personal
transit
very
often
we
use
our
public
transit,
etc.
G
So
arlington
is
relatively
small
and
what
I
heard
from
my
constituents,
especially
in
middle
arlington
in
the
south
island
and
there's
okay.
If
we,
if
the
tailoring
is
you
know
close
to
transit-
and
this
is
basically
a
criteria,
then
you
know
the
vast
north
will
be
completely
excluded
and
that
will
perpetuate
also
an
inequality
in
transit
distribution
to
transit
availability,
because
actually
it's
the
ridership
that
that
makes
transit
happen,
not
the
other
way
around.
G
We
are
not
in
france,
we
are
here,
so
this
is
so
how
what
what
would
be
the
if,
if
we
define
these
pedestrian
sheds,
what
would
be
in
what?
How
much
would
be
out.
C
I
think
if
you'll
indulge
me
actually
so
we
put
on
the
screen
here,
just
an
example.
You
know
if,
if
the
county
board
did
want
to
go
in
this
direction,
a
three-quarter
mile
walk
shed
from
the
metro
rail
stations
a
quarter
mile
from
the
priority
and
premium
transit
network,
that's
defined
in
our
master
transportation
plan.
We've
actually
mapped
this,
and
so
I
will
pull
that
up.
C
Just
to
give
a
visual-
and
I
think
it
does
mr
carontonis.
C
If
my
computer
doesn't
freeze,
you
know
it,
it
does
show.
I
think
the
the
pattern
that
you
describe
and
there
we
go.
C
Where
the
the
blue
areas
would
be
through
areas
that
are
and
again
these
are
the
the
r5
to
r20
zoned
areas,
so
the
the
three
quarter
mile
from
a
metro
station
there
there
are
some
areas
within
arlington
that
have
that
single
detached
zoning.
Only
that
that
are
you
know
within
a
three-quarters
of
a
mile
which
is
a,
I
think,
a
reasonable
walk
to
a
metro
station,
and
then
we
also
mapped
a
quarter
mile
from
those
premium
and
priority
transit
networks.
C
H
I'll
just
say
that
you
know
understanding
the
spirit
of
the
question
with
the
advent
and
mobility
options
that
we're
providing
I'm
not
sure
how
much
utility
the
existing
metro,
rail,
walk
sheds
even
provide
us,
given
the
way
people
are
going
to
be
moving
around.
But
more
than
that
I
see
this
is
something
I
just
have
questions
about,
how
you
would
how
this
would
work
when
bus
networks
change
those
those
can
always
be
adjusted.
H
Yeah-
and
you
know
just
another
comment
on
this-
this
is
very
much.
The
proximity
to
transit
is
very
much
a
conversation
based
on
today,
not
the
next
20
years.
When
we're,
you
know
at
least
industry
is
trying
to
move
us
towards
connected
and
autonomous
vehicles
which
obviate
the
need
for
people
to
move
in
in
ways
that
that
we
do
today
and
so
yeah
that
I
think
I
think
I'm
where
you
are,
madam
jared
it
just
I
get,
I
get
the
idea,
but
to
me
I
just
don't
think
it's.
H
A
And
I'll
just
say,
maybe
in
wrapping
up,
I
there
are
things
that
I
think
proximity
to
transit
is
very
useful
for
right,
concentrating
again
as
I
was
indicating
very
significant
amounts
of
density,
absolutely
determining
to
foreshadow.
What's
coming
next
parking
requirements
right-
and
we
have
done
that-
I
think
in
throughout
the
county-
we've
actually
codified-
that
into
things,
for
example,
like
another
example
of
a
use
that
is
allowed
throughout
the
county,
child
care
right,
residential
child
care,
and
we
do
vary
the
parking
requirements
based
on
proximity
to
transit.
A
So
I
don't
mean
to
make
it
sound
as
though
I
discount
that
as
a
useful
tool,
I
think
it
is
a
useful
tool
for
some
things.
I
I
would
just
say
I
think
if
we
you
know,
mr
carantonis
point
is
one
that
I'm
really
mindful
of,
and
I
really
appreciate
mr
different,
the
goal
of
kind
of
trying
to
seek
some
consensus
or
or
ultimately
being
able
to
proceed
with
a
policy
that
that
you
know
is
not
polarizing
is
in
fact
a
widespread
policy.
I
think
this
is.
A
So
I
think
it
might
resolve
some
concern
to
to
to
adopt
a
transportation
or
transit-based
approach.
I
think
it
might
exacerbate
some
others
so,
but
I
do
appreciate
the
point
about
trying
to
get
to
something
that
that
more
earlyingtonians
can
feel
comfortable
with.
E
Yeah
I'll
be
brief,
I
mean
sometimes
you
read
the
slide
deck
and
you
have
one
opinion
and
between
you,
mr
dorsey
and
mr
carantonis,
and
the
implementation
of
something
like
this.
I
have
the
annoyance
of
being
persuaded,
try
not
to.
C
C
The
draft
frameworks,
minimum
parking
requirement-
is
.5
spaces
per
unit,
as
I
mentioned,
compared
to
the
current
one
space
per
unit
for
most
single
detached
houses.
So,
for
example,
a
four
plex
would
only
be
required
to
provide
two
spaces,
although
a
builder
might
choose
to
provide
more
spaces
based
on
market
demand.
C
The
rationale
for
reducing
parking
requirements
is
that
some
areas
have
good
transit
access,
as
we
just
discussed
and
residents
might
choose
not
to
own
a
vehicle.
Other
areas
further
away
from
transit,
typically
have
low
utilization
of
on-street
public
parking.
Reducing
parking
requirements
encourages
the
use
of
those
existing
parking
areas
on
street,
rather
than
paving
over
green
space.
C
The
fixed
minimum
parking
requirement
currently
in
the
draft
framework
could
be
increased,
could
be
decreased
or
it
could
be
even
eliminated
and
that's
option
two
would
be
eliminating
a
parking
requirement
and
that's
something
that
the
other
communities
have
been
doing.
The
third
option
on
the
slide
is
to
vary
parking
requirements
based
on
site-specific
factors.
C
However,
there
are
highly
localized
areas
within
the
county
where
parking
supply
is
limited.
Options
with
a
higher
parking
requirement,
such
as
one
space
per
unit,
could
address
community
feedback
to
prioritize
on-street
parking
availability
for
existing
residents.
Higher
requirements
could
also
reduce
the
area
available
for
tree
canopy,
increase
housing
costs
and
make
stormwater
management
more
challenging.
C
C
A
little
bit
on
parking
policies
and
and
parking
data
that
we
have
for
the
county,
so
the
county's
master
transportation
plan,
which
is
an
element
of
our
comprehensive
plan,
includes
policies
related
to
parking
requirements.
One
policy
is
to
ensure
that
minimum
parking
needs
are
met
and
that
excessive
parking
is
not
built.
C
The
mtp
also
encourages
use
of
on-street
parking
in
residential
neighborhoods
and
sets
a
goal
of
parking
parking
occupancy
of
60
to
85
percent
for
streets.
That's
for
streets
without
residential
permit
parking
restrictions
as
part
of
the
rpp
review
a
few
years
ago.
The
county
did
a
detailed
study
of
on-street
parking
occupancy
in
four
areas.
As
shown
on
the
map.
C
This
study
found
that
parking
occupancy
in
the
in
rpp
and
unmanaged
blocks
was
typically
20
to
45
percent
well
below
the
mtp
goal.
This
data
suggests
that
most
residential
neighborhoods
have
excess,
on-street
parking
supply
that
could
be
better
utilized
and
so
we'll
turn
it
back
over
to
you
for
discussions
on
the
parking
options.
H
Sure
you
know
this,
this
one
is
it's
it's
a
big
one.
You
know
parking
means
a
lot,
not
just
in
terms
of
the
use
of
your
own
personal
vehicle,
but
the
ability
to
have
people
visit
your
home.
Your
house,
serviced
in
in
very
many
ways
and
and
the
lack
of
availability
is
something
that
is
a
big
pain
point.
So
you
know
I
just
will
lead.
H
I'm
pretty
interested
in
probably
number
three
is
my
preferred
outcome
to
figure
out
how
we
vary
requirements
based
on
factors
for
me
on
street
parking
availability
is
the
biggest,
but
I
will
say
that
overall,
I
do
believe
I
have
a
question
before
I
get
to
that
conclusion.
Do
we
have
a
sense
of
the
number
of
dwellings
dwelling
units
in
arlington
that
do
not
have
an
occupant
with
a
primary
vehicle.
C
Exactly
right
right
right!
Yes,
so
I
believe
the
data
is
about
12
of
households
in
arlington,
don't
have
a
vehicle
and
then
the
the
other
number
that
I
always
remember
is
51.
Have
only
one
vehicle
per
household
right.
H
So
I
think
that
that
tells
me
that
you
know
we
we
do
have
to
acknowledge
the
reality
that
personal
vehicles
are
associated
with
with
dwelling
units
overall.
Now
the
instructive
thing
there
is.
Is
this
a
matter
of
regulatory
concern
or
market
concern
seems
to
be
pretty
stupid
to
build
something
and
didn't
allow
at
least
everyone
in
a
unit
to
have
to
have
the
ability
to
have
a
parking
space.
H
So
I
think
the
market
will
take
care
of
this,
but
I
think
there
might
be
a
way
to
figure
out
how
to
you
know
not
leave
the
community
with
a
trust
us
it'll
work
out,
but
to
have
a
verify
component
with
number
three.
So
I
think
that's
what
I'm
interested
in.
G
Thank
you.
I
I
fully
aligned
with
the
concerns
that
mr
dorsey
has
conveyed,
and
also
the
preference
the
since
it's
true
that
the
the
average
you
know
there
are
12
percent
or
more
or
more,
of
our
financial
households
who
don't
own
a
car
they're
muslim
in
transit
corridors
though-
and
there
is
a
there-
isn't
also
an
equity
concerns.
People
have
sometimes
they
need
a
car
to
to
to
drive
to
their
jobs,
etc,
and
they,
you
know
in
in
certain
places
in
my
neighborhood,
for
example.
This
is
a
common
concern.
F
You,
ms
garvey
yeah,
I
don't
know
if
you're
going
to
be
doing
options
when
you
come
down
to
the
end
and
looking
at
both
things,
but
I'm
most
interested
in
three,
but
you
know
also
one.
I
think
two
is
the
one
I'm
not
ready
for.
I
suspect
you
know,
maybe
decades
from
now
when
we're
looking
back.
F
You
know
that
zoning
will
change,
because
people
maybe
won't
have
cars
much
anymore
because
they
won't
need
them.
Possibly
we'll
just
have
a
car
that
we
call
or
a
robot
that
we
call
who
knows
anyway.
So
I
I
I
would
put
my
my
vote
at
the
moment
if
you
will
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
on
the
probably
the
varying
parking
requirements
in
part
to
reassure
people.
I
think
because
it's
just
a
very
emotional
issue,
parking
thanks.
E
And
I'll
just
a
line
that
having
there's
one
particular
cul-de-sac
that
I've
looked
at
and
that
comes
to
mind
and
then
there's
one-way
street
that
I
drove
this
sunday.
Parking
is
deeply
felt,
as
are
a
lot
of
these
issues,
so
I'm
inclined
towards
option
three,
and
I
think
you
know
beyond
that.
I
I
don't
option.
Two
is
not
my
instinct
and
I
feel
like
through
option
three
and
providing
some
some
predictability
some
assurances.
E
A
I
think
we
are
very
much
aligned
for
all
of
the
reasons
that
my
colleagues
have
said,
though
the
only
thing
I'll
raise
you
know,
I
just
I
think
mr
dorsey
especially
put
it
really
well
that
we
we
we
want
to
reflect
the
reality
of
our
community,
which
is
both
that
that
there
is
probably
not
a
need
to
to
park
it
as
aggressively
as
as
one
space
per
unit
or
require
as
much
parking
as
one
sweeps
per
unit,
because
you
know
fifty
percent
of
our
households
only
have
one
one
one
car
per
per
unit.
A
That
means
there'll
be
room
to
to
to
flex
a
little
bit
there,
but
assuming
something
that
is
probably
more
ambitious
than
what
the
way
people
live
now
and,
as
mr
cantonas
noted,
especially
around
transit
corridors,
is,
is
probably
a
recipe
for
causing
the
kind
of
conflict
that
makes
people
so
sensitive.
So
I
do
agree
with
that.
I
guess
the
only
question
I
had
was
just
on-street
parking
availability
changes
right.
We
know
that,
like
when
somebody
petitions
for
an
rpp,
it's
a
point
in
time.
A
Sometimes
they
succeed
and
sometimes
they
fail.
So
I
mean
you,
you
could,
for
example,
have
plenty
of
on-street
parking
availability
at
the
time.
Something
is
built
perked
at
a
lower
ratio
that
changes
over
time
I
mean
have
we
thought
at
all
about
the
fact
that,
whereas
rpp
is,
is
relative?
Residential
permit
parking
is
relatively
easy
to
sort
of
maybe
change
over
time.
A
Whether
a
parking
spot
has
been
built
on
a
property
is,
is
less
so
any
thoughts
about
just
sort
of
the
difficulties
of
taking
it
to
such
a
variable
variable
relative
to
something
like
proximity
to
transit
or
cul-de-sac
or
otherwise.
Placement
of
the
property.
A
I
A
Something
that
changes
a
lot
all
of
these
other
considerations,
notwithstanding
the
very
good
points
raised
about
how
bus
lines
can
change
but
like
proximity
to
you,
know,
metro,
rail
or
an
existing
high-speed
bus,
stop
or
location
in
a
cul-de-sac.
Otherwise
those
things
seem
relatively
fixed
to
me.
Could.
C
Right
it
could
change
over
the
over
the
course
of
decades.
I
suppose
you
know
as
as
neighborhoods
change
right,
whereas.
A
It
seems
like
residential
or
occupancy
of
the
curb
could
change
much
faster
than
those
other
things.
C
C
J
Good
evening
my
name
is
melissa,
mcmahon,
I'm
the
parking
manager,
parking
and
curb
space
manager,
and
what
I'd
like
to
well,
a
data
point
to
bring
to
bear
is
that
we
are
in
the
midst
of
finalizing
an
update
to
the
occupancy
study
that
mr
ladd
referred
to.
That
was
done
for
the
rpp
review,
and
that
is
part
of
our
commitment
for
to
the
rpp
review
is
that
we
would
go
back
and
look
and
see
how
things
are
looking
today
and
preliminarily.
J
The
data
that
we're
seeing
in
that
in
those
final
numbers
is
that
it's
not
changing
so
as
of
20
2017
to
2019
data
and
then
2022
data
occupancy,
nrpp
and
unmanaged
areas
are
still
under
50
percent
and
in
fact,
in
some
of
the
sub
areas,
I
would
say
it's
actually
gone
down.
But
we
know
a
lot
of
things
have
also
happened.
We
are
still
not
fully
out
of
covid
activities
of
households,
as
was
referenced
earlier
tonight.
People's
work
habits,
life
habits
still
a
little
bit
in
flux.
J
So
I'm
not
going
to
claim
that
anything
about
the
rpp
policy
necessarily
solidified
a
decline
over
time,
but
I
would
say
that
we
don't
see
and
there
isn't
any
literature
that
would
lead
me
to
believe
that
there's
rapid
fluctuation
okay,
what
we
do
see
is
spot
differences.
J
We
see
one
block,
actually,
I
would
say
like
a
face
of
a
block
at
a
time
where
you
might
see
85
occupancy,
but
the
blocks
beside
it
are
actually
well
under
65
occupied
and
sometimes
that's
the
nature
of
one
or
two
households
at
a
time.
But
in
a
given
zone
it's
manageable
because
you
don't
have
to
walk
more
than
a
block
to
find
a
block
that
has
room
for
your
car.
J
A
That
is
incredibly
helpful.
Thank
you
very
much.
Okay,
so
actually
we
might
be
more
likely
to
change
where
the
premium
transit
networks
are
before
before
are
the
occupancy
of
the
curb
space
changes
given
that
we're
updating
the
mtp
next
year
right,
so
thank
you
so
much.
I
really
appreciate
it.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
we
are
pretty
pretty
clear
on
that.
One:
an
interest
in
framework
three
being
able
to
vary
the
parking
requirements
based
on
the
locational
factors
on
street
parking
availability
included.
C
So,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
there
are
some
framework
elements
that
received
less
community
feedback
in
our
engagement
staff
proposes
to
move
forward
with
the
current
draft
framework,
standards
for
building
height
setbacks
and
maximum
building
square
footage.
Additional
options
for
consideration
are
provided
on
the
column
on
the
right
hand,
side
of
the
of
the
slide.
C
If
the
county
board
wishes
to
discuss
any
of
those,
and
then
we
have
another
one
of
these.
Similarly,
staff
is
proposing
to
maintain
the
draft
frameworks
limit
on
the
number
of
townhouses
within
a
development
as
well
as
not
allowing
reduced
lot
sizes
or
allowing
detached
accessory
dwellings
in
combination
with
the
new
missing
middle
housing
types.
C
The
draft
framework,
as
we
mentioned
on
a
topic
earlier,
the
draft
framework
did
not
specify
any
design
standards
such
as
just
as
an
example
here
requiring
building
orientation.
You
know
buildings
to
be
oriented
to
the
street
or
the
placement
of
parking
spaces
or
garages
within
a
lot.
So
staff
is
proposing,
as
I
said,
to
develop
those
basic
design
standards
and
those
would
be
incorporated
into
the
draft
zoning
text
in
phase
three.
C
C
C
C
And
finally,
as
we
move
forward
from
today's
work
session,
we'll
enter
the
third
phase
of
the
study,
based
on
your
guidance.
Today,
staff
will
begin
developing
draft
zoning
text
and
glop
amendments.
After
labor
day,
the
county
board
will
begin
its
engagement
period,
which
will
run
into
october.
In
november.
We
anticipate
coming
before
the
planning
commission
and
board
with
a
request
to
advertise
the
proposed
text
and
amendments.
We
anticipate
that
both
bodies
would
consider
action
on
these
amendments
in
december.
A
A
So
is
there
are
there
feedback
or
questions
about
any
of
the
items
regarding
the
additional
framework
elements,
I
think
these
are
things
as
mr
aladdin
intimated
have
not
necessarily
been
the
top
things
that
have
surfaced
in
our
engagement
with
neighbors
or
in
the
the
public
comments,
but
are
nevertheless
pretty
important.
Ms
garvey
did
you
want
to
start
yeah?
I
had
a
quick.
F
Question
actually,
what
is
the
thinking
behind
limiting
townhouses
to
no
more
than
three
anywhere
just
curious.
C
So
if
you,
if
you
think
about
a
lot
and
town
houses
that
we
expect
would
be
oriented
towards
the
street,
once
you
get
to
three
you're
still
sort
of
at
that
house
scale
and
staff's
thinking
is
that
once
you
go
beyond
three
within
a
row,
you're
getting
sort
of
beyond
the
the
context
of
of
most
existing
neighborhoods
in
arlington
you're,
getting
to
a
building
width.
That's
that's
getting
a
little
bit
wider
and
would
probably
be
difficult
to
accommodate
in
most
of
the
lots
anyways
given
existing
lot
widths.
F
C
Well,
well,
so
I'm
all
right!
I
mentioned
this
earlier
about
lot,
consolidation
in
in
the
presentation
and
actually
it's
the
it's
less,
the
setbacks
and
more
there's
a
provision
in
the
zoning
ordinance
that
limits
the
the
footprint
of
a
building
and
so
that
and
there's
actually
a
cap
on
that
per
lot.
I
C
Once
you,
if
you
were
to
combine
lots,
you
would
be
likely
to
exceed
that
cap,
and
so
therefore,
it's
more
advantageous
to
keep
the
lots
as
they
are.
You
would
get
more
square
footage.
Okay,
like
you
know,
if
you
had
say
two
six
thousand
square
foot
lots,
you
would
be
able
to
develop
by
write
more
square
footage,
and
this
is
true
today
for
single
detached
housing.
C
A
And
but
you
couldn't,
for
example,
build
what
effectively
becomes
six
town
houses
by
keeping
the
two
proper
in
a
row
by
keeping
the
two
properties
distinct,
not
consolidating
them,
because
there's
gonna
be
a
setback
required.
C
A
In
the
same
scale,
right
right,
okay,
that's
really
helpful.
I,
while
we're
on
the
subject
of
towns,
one
of
the
other
questions
that
had
I
had
heard
a
couple
times
was
to
what
extent
this
framework
precludes
different
styles
of
townhouses,
for
example,
piggyback
townhouses
versus
side
by
side
other
than
limiting
to
three
attached.
A
Does
the
framework
envision
restrictions
on
what
types
of
townhouses
could
people
or
whether,
for
example,
you
see
more
of
a
classic
row
house
with
parking
behind
rather
than
you
know,
a
parking
garage
incorporated
into
the
building?
Are
we
envisioning
standards
that
would
preclude
things
other
than
townhouses
with
a
with
a
parking
garage
on
the
bottom?
Or
is
it
just?
The
other
regulations
might
kind
of
force
that.
C
So
this
gets
to
those
design
standards
that
we're
saying
that
we
want
to
develop
in
phase
three
to
address
these.
These
types
of
issues-
okay,
that
really
you
know
the
the
framework
was
at
a
at
a
higher
level
for
that
higher
level
of
community
engagement
and
now,
as
we
get
into
the
zoning
text,
we
really
look
at
how
do
we
want
to
implement
this?
And
and
what
might
those
design
standards
be
again
recognizing
that
phase?
One
concern
that
new
housing
types
might
not
be
sensitive
to
their
neighborhood
neighborhood
context.
Okay,.
A
That's
really
helpful
and
for
what
it's
worth
really
speaking
as
one
board
member
at
this
point
as
you
begin
to
develop
those
design
standards,
I
I
have
heard
from
multiple
arlingtonians
that
there
is
an
affinity
for
that
more
traditional
row
house
style
than
the
you
know
large
townhouse,
with
a
with
a
garage
in
it.
So
to
the
extent
you
know
we're
thinking
about
design
standards
that
welcome
housing,
typologies
that
people
may
find
friendlier
right.
I
I
hope
that
we
can
do
that.
Mr
karentonis.
G
Yeah,
that's
a
very
interesting
conversation
because
in
many
conversations
we
had
you
know
there
was
the
one
one.
Very
common
geometry
is
the
deep
lot
that
is,
you
know
50
feet
or
60
feet
wide
and
for
and
then
it
goes
very,
very
deep
and
of
course,
you
know,
people
neighbors
were
concerned
that
the
the
townhomes
or
the
multiplexes
would
be
built
into
the
depth
of
that.
So
so
not
an
an
available
regulatory
intervention
there
would
be
to
say
no,
it
has
to
face
the
front.
G
It
cannot
be
that
kind
of
you
know
tubular
building
that
goes
into
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
so
that
we
we
would
be.
We
would
be
basically
limiting
the
the
the
the
types
of
housing
based
on
the
pattern
book,
which
is
a
firmware
if
a
form
of
form-based
coding
right.
C
Right
so
we
we
would
be
developing
whatever
those
design
standards
are
and
obviously
in
in
phase
three
we
will.
You
know
we'll
come
back
to
the
planning
commission
and
the
county
board
for
for
community
review
of
what
those
are
they
they
haven't
been
developed.
Yet.
G
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
as
it
relates
to
town
homes,
you
know
we've
discussed
this
within
the
context
of
existing
existing
single
detached
dwellings.
Have
we
also
married
this
to
make
sure
that
they're
fully
consistent
with
current
duplex
and
townhouse
districts
in
terms
of
what
is
permitted
to
be
built?
So
there's
consistency
with
current
r27
zoning.
C
That's
a
bit
of
a
complex
question,
but
the
the
short
answer
is
the
way
that
this
framework
is
set
up
is
that
you
would
have
you
would
mimic
the
single
detached
standards
and
so
in
the
zones
where
duplexes
are
allowed,
like
r27
and
the
ra
districts,
there
are
different
standards
for
duplexes.
You
know
as
an
example:
duplexes
are
allowed
to
have
up
to
56
lot
coverage
and
we're
proposing
lower
lot
coverage
for
missing
middle
because
we're
mimicking
those
single
detached
standards.
C
H
Got
it
okay,
all
right
I'll,
have
to
think
about
that.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
think
these
I'm
good
with
these
just
because
I
don't
have
tons
of
questions
doesn't
mean
that
I'm
I'm
aligned
and
I
think
that
there's
some
some
agreement
there,
the
two
requests
one
is
I've,
been
thinking
about
what
the
powerpoint
is.
That
shows
the
concept
of
a
building
envelope,
because
every
time
someone
says
that
we're
going
to
be
like
houston
and
there's
going
to
be
an
enormous
apart,
enormous
height
apartment
building.
Right
next
to
my
home,
I
I
feel
like
I
have
not
succeeded
in
sharing.
E
What's
the
what's
in
the
proposal,
and
I
have
to
take
some
responsibility
there,
but
it's
hard
to
hear
that,
and
so
if
there
was
a
neat
little
gadget
that
could
show
in
a
way
or
like
a
gif
or
whatever
it
is
that
can
show
this
concept
of
building
envelope.
That
would
be
a
request
and
a
second
request
would
be.
E
I
don't
know
as
well,
and
this
is
for
the
next
phase,
but
it
would
be.
I
don't
know
all
of
the
steps
by
right
is
much
more
unencumbered
than
our
site
plan,
our
4.1
etc,
but
there
are
standards
in
our
buy
right
and
I
would
like
to
at
least
if
you,
if
we
could
tease
those
out
at
some
point
in
the
next
phase.
That
would
be
helpful.
F
A
F
A
One
that
a
lot
of
us
are
you're
running
the
meeting.
I
appreciate
that
I
was
just
gonna
say
I
think,
with
regard
to
the
other
additional
framework
elements,
there
are
an
area
for
us.
I
think
for
some
follow-up
is
conversation,
perhaps
an
additional
work
session
about
the
related
legal
issues.
For
example,
the
virginia
condominium
act,
the
the
law
around
lot
subdivision.
A
One
of
those
areas
is
the
idea
of
variances
and
whether
variances
could
be
sought.
I
think
that
is
probably
going
to
be
something
under
consideration,
the
framework
and
I'll
just
express
for
me.
I
think
it's
probably
pretty
important
to
pay
a
lot
of
attention
to
that.
A
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
that
folks,
rightfully
worry
about
is
that
there
could
be
greater
permissiveness
on
number
of
units
controlled
by
the
things
that
mr
deferenti
mentioned,
but
then
those
things
could
be
subject
to
a
variant
sought,
and
so
I
think,
really
being
clear.
I
would
love
staff's
recommendation.
I
will
admit
that
my
my
instinct
is
to
say
that
you
know
if
you're
building
a
missing
middle
form
you
you
are
not
eligible
for
a
variance,
but
I
I
again
this
is
sort
of
related
to.
A
I
need
to
better
understand
the
legal
framework
here,
so
I
just
put
that
one
down
for
discussion,
because
I
think
it's
related
to
that
question
about
form.
I
also
bring
it
up
to
say,
like
mr
dorsey,
I'm
very
interested
in
the
idea
of
a
pattern
book
like
montgomery
county
and
I
think
norfolk
are
proceeding
with.
I
think
it
probably
behooves
us
to
distinguish
between
design
standards
that
will
be
a
matter
of
ordnance
and
a
pattern
book
that
may
be
a
matter
of
suggestion.
A
I
think
it
sounds
like
montgomery
county
is
looking
to
incentivize
that
through
maybe
reduce
permitting
times
or
training
programs.
I
think
we
want
to
be
sure
that
we
are
not
codifying
too
much.
That
is
actually
sort
of
pattern,
preference
right
so
so
I
think
the
ability
of
of
that
to
work
as
an
additional
tool
and
not
necessarily
part
of
the
code
is
important.
A
F
Sure
I
was
actually
alighting
alighting
the
two,
because
you've
got
on
slide
43,
your
other
options
are
study
front
and
year,
rear
yard
setback,
requirements
to
support
tree
conservation
and
storm
water
management,
which
I
thought
was
kind
of
similar
to
the
same
thing
as
the
natural
resources
plan,
because
we're
going
to
consider
changes
to
zoning
ordinance
to
align
with
our
other
goals-
and
I
just
was
simply
saying
I'm
very
supportive
of
that
very
interested
in
it
and
was
going
to
ask
you
a
little
bit
about
the
timeline
which
you
may
have
mentioned,
but
I
didn't
quite
hear
for
people
listening,
thank
you
and
and
actually
and
then
my
assumption
is
whatever
applies
to
houses
as
you
change,
the
zoning
single
family
will
apply
to
missing
middle,
so
it's
all
together.
C
Right
so
in
in
terms
of
the
and
again,
this
slide
is
on
the
the
draft,
forestry
and
natural
resources
plan
and
where
that
draft
is
not
out
yet,
but
it
will
be
out
soon
and
so
we're
previewing
some
things
that
will
be
in
there
and
that
will
be
subject
to
its
own
community
engagement
process
as
developing
a
new
element
of
our
of
our
county's
comprehensive
plan.
So,
and
you
know,
I
can't
speak
to
the
the
timing
of
adoption,
for
that
is
it's
a
it's
a
separate
process.
C
It
has
its
own
timeline,
but
in
terms
of
you
know,
we're
certainly
aware-
and
we
have
heard
through
this
study-
you
know
the
interest
in
things
like
lot
coverage
things
like
setbacks.
You
know,
particularly
in
the
way
that
they
can
support
our
tree
canopy
goals
and
our
stormwater
management
objectives.
C
So
you
know
in
in
terms
of
something
that's
sort
of
outside
the
scope
of
missing
middle
because
it
encompasses
both
new
new
housing
types
that
would
be
enabled
and
also
the
existing
single
detached
types.
You
know
it's
it's
something
that
we're
looking
to
add
to
the
planning
division's
work
plan
in
the
near
future.
Yeah
well.
F
H
H
I
also
believe
that
we
can
do
it
in
trees,
but
that
it's
left
to
a
later
conversation
gives
me
some
pause,
and
so
you
know
I
anxiously
await
this
plan
to
see
whether
it
speaks
to
it,
but
otherwise
I
think
the
question
from
a
regulatory
regulatory
standpoint
becomes.
H
H
Basically,
you
create
a
system
where
someone
opts
in
to
this,
and
by
opting
in
the
only
requirement
is
that
they
plant
at
a
certain
level
to
have
20-year
tree
canopy
like
that
they're
they're
choosing
to
opt
in,
and
by
doing
so
I
don't
know
they
get
access
to
the
pattern
book
which
is
going
to
save
them.
Tens
of
thousands
of
dollars
in
design
costs
or
something
like
that.
H
C
A
Thanks
well
I'll
just
say
for
my
party
strongly
identify
with
my
colleagues
and
a
desire
to
see
this
advance,
and
I
think
it's
really
the
point
ms
garvey
made
is
really
important
that
anything
we
consider
for
missing
middle
would
be
subject
to
the
same
effort
to
address
lot
coverage
or
setbacks,
or
anything
else
that
we
think
can
help
protect
our
tree
canopy
on
private
property.
A
Any
other
questions,
a
lot
coverage
or
additional
engagement
themes.
Well,.
E
I'll
just
be
pretty
brief,
mr
dorsey's
comment.
I
really
like
I
feel
like
this
slide
the
bullets
on
the
left
side,
our
goals,
the
stuff
on
the
right
I
feel,
like
you
know
an
earlier
powerpoint,
said
minimize
or
eliminate.
I
think
the
more
accurate
statement
is
minimized,
even
though
the
building
envelope
is
there,
and
so
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
work
right
here.
E
Given
the
success
we
had
on
parking
a
lot
of
work
on
this
issue
and
incentives
would
be
really
worth
it
because
it's
so
deeply
felt
and
I'd
rather
start
from
a
place
of
honor.
You
know
honesty
and
saying
you
know
those
when
there's
rebuilding
there
there
do
come
trees
down,
so
I've
heard
from
folks
about
watering
trees.
You
guys
have
heard
it.
I
just
think
a
lot
of
work
on
this
would
be.
F
F
Thank
you
so
couple
questions,
two
questions
that
come
up
a
lot,
so
maybe
for
staff.
Whoever
should
answer
it.
Can
we
set
a
cap.
I
mean
if
you
come
up
forward
everything
because
there's
a
lot
of
discussion,
it's
going
to
be
some
people,
think
it's
going
to
be
way
more
than
20
units
and
we're
going
to
have
this
flood
and
it's
going
to.
If,
if
we
wanted
to,
could
we
legally
adopt
this
and
set
a
cap
on
the
number
of
units
in
a
year?
I
don't
know
I'm.
I
Sorry
if,
if
we're
staying
with
the
idea
of
having
these
developments
be
done
by
right,
that's
possible,
it
gets
a
little
bit
more
complicated
once
you
get
into
the
use
permit
realm,
but
that's
something
we'll
continue
to
look
at.
F
Okay,
thank
you
so
we'll
have
that
settled
by
the
time
we
get
to
adoption
and
then
one
more
legal
question
that
comes
up
a
lot,
which
is
say
we
adopt
this
and
again
it's
a
flood
or
it's
the
unintended
consequences.
This
is
the
people's
worst
fears
come
to,
can
we
take
it
back
again
and
rescind
it.
I
You
can
always
amend
the
zoning
ordinance.
Everyone
who
has
vested
their
rights
will
be
able
to
use
it,
the
the
whatever
it
is
they
vested
whether
they've
built
it
or
you
know
properly
applied
for
permits
and
gone
through
a
certain
amount
of.
F
I
H
H
F
A
You
thank
you,
ms
garvey,
thanks
for
raising
that
yeah,
that's
really
appreciated
the
only
other
item
I
wanted
to
surface
for
discussion,
which
is
a
big
one,
is
a
strong
interest
that
I
have,
and
I
think
my
colleagues
have
too
in
the
articulation
of
in
parallel
to
this
development,
the
articulation
of
the
opportunities
for
expansion
of
our
moderate
income
home
ownership
programs.
A
I
think
one
of
the
things
I
have
pointed
out
before,
and
forgive
me
colleagues
for
belaboring
this.
Generally
speaking,
my
understanding
is
that
our
moderate
interest
purchasing
assistant
program
is
under
subscribed,
which
is
to
say,
not
that
there
is
an
enormous
amount
of
interest
in
modern
income
purchasing
assistance,
but
that
there
is
not
enough
product
for
which
people
who
are
eligible
for
the
program
are
eligible.
For
you
know,
I
think
it
is
not
every
unit
or
every
typology
here
would
be
within
the
band
of
what's
affordable
there.
A
But
certainly
you
know
if
we're
going
to
pursue
some
of
the
higher
densities,
there
might
be
hope
that
there's
some
match
between
that
and
moderate
income.
I
know
there
may
be
other
opportunities
to
work
with,
for
example,
institutional
owners
of
our
district
properties
that
might
be
interested
in
working
on
something
that
could
be
by
design
for
moderate
income
purchasers.
I
know
we
have
heard
interest
from
community
land
trusts
that
this
is
something
in
which
they'd
be
interested.
I.
A
I
would
really
hope
that,
sometime
over
the
next
couple
of
months,
we
can
develop
with
more
specificity
either
what
those
plans
are,
what
the
further
plans
for
work
are,
so
that,
as
this
community,
hopefully
realizes
some
alternative
forms,
we
are
fully
prepared,
as
a
government
and
with
our
partners
to
make
sure
that
they
lead
down
the
path
of
home
ownership
for
moderate
income
community
members.
So
I
think
there
are
probably
a
few
ideas
about
what
that
could
look
like,
but
I
hope
it'll
be
something
we
can
can
develop
in
correlation.
G
And
I,
and
in
addition
to
that,
I
would
be
also
very
interested
to
have
it
as
a
targeted
program
so
that
to
see
you
know
how
much
more
you
know
tailoring
can
be
introduced
through
the
means
of
of
providing
home
ownership
opportunities
for
for
people
who
today
have
absolutely
no
access
to
to
the
market.
G
G
A
All
right:
well,
I
think
we
have
come
to
a
close
here.
I
we
have
heaped
enough
on
your
plate
that
I
imagine
you
are
hoping
we
will
wrap
up
there.
I
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
close
by
by
just
featuring
again.
There
is
a
a
handout
that
we
hope
that
everybody
in
the
room
has
been
provided
with.
If
not,
I
think
it
is
already
on
our
website.
It
is,
and
this
is
something
we
will
be
alluding
to
a
lot.
A
This
is,
as
I
mentioned,
up
top
no
binding
votes
taken
here.
Right.
Nothing
has
changed
in
arlington
regarding
our
land
use
policies.
We
have
a
lot
of
conversations
still
to
go.
A
I
think,
as
anybody
watching
can
see,
staff
has
a
lot
of
work
still
to
do
and
they
will
be
continuing
to
to
engage
with
the
planning,
commission
and
the
county
board
and
some
of
our
other
commissions
as
some
specific
ideas
about
the
zoning
ordinance
amendments
and
glove
changes
that
could
effectuate
some
of
the
goals
we've
discussed
today
would
look
like,
but
perhaps
more
so
than
that
kind
of
specific
conversation
about
the
zoning
ordinance
or
club
amendment
text.
A
I
think
there
is
a
strong
desire
on
the
part
of
the
county
board
and
I
know
in
the
community
to
continue
talking
about
the
big
themes
that
have
been
surfaced.
Certainly
during
phase
two.
We
are
interested
in
talking
about
those
as
well,
and
so
we
are,
as
the
board
really
hoping
to
host
this
next
phase
of
engagement.
A
We
are
looking
forward
to
doing
a
series
of
community
conversations
which
we
hope
will
be
an
opportunity
for
people
to
hear
from
one
another,
above
all
for
the
board
members
to
listen
for
people
to
have
access
to
subject
matter
experts,
either
on
staff
or
elsewhere
as
useful
to
answer
some
of
the
technical
questions,
but
really,
above
all,
for
arlingtonians
to
talk
to
other
arlingtonians.
A
If
you
have
participated
with
the
county
board
recently,
for
example,
in
the
conversations
we've
done
with
the
community
oversight
board,
you
might
have
a
sense
of
what
these
will
look
like.
We
are
planning
for
at
least
11..
We
want
to
be
able
to
keep
those
groups
small
enough
that
people
can
talk
to
one
another,
and
if
there
is
more
interest
than
11
groups
would
it
would
enable
we
will
plan
for
more.
A
We
are
also
interested
in
doing
informational
sessions
again
if
you've
engaged,
if
you
did
engage
with
the
county,
are
on
conversations
about
the
amazon
sighting
decision.
You
may
have
participated
or
seen
those
learning
sessions
wherein
we
brought
residents
together,
voices
knowledge
from
not
just
the
board
or
the
staff,
but
also
from
voices
around
the
region,
who
maybe
have
some
expertise
in
things
like
economics,
other
planning
and
land
use
to
talk
about
the
broader
context
here
for
the
missing
middle.
A
So
we're
looking
forward
to
having
those
as
a
series
of
sessions
that
can
be
streamed
or
viewed
as
webinars
for
for
many
more
months
to
come.
Those
two
strategies
or
things
that
we
have
learned
from
previous
engagements,
seem
to
work
well
and
we're
looking
forward
opportunities
to
talk.
They
are
not
exhaustive.
As
I
mentioned,
you
know,
board
members
have
been
meeting
with
civic
associations
with
civic
groups
one-on-one
with
individuals.
A
I
know
we
all
intend
to
continue
that
if
there
are
other
formats
of
engagement
that
that
community
members
would
like
to
see
us
host,
we
would
love
to
hear
about
that.
One
of
my
biggest
takeaways
from
ms
moore's
presentation
is
that
we
need
to
be
thinking
about
some
way.
We
could
do
more
pop-ups
because
of
how
effective
that
was
at
reaching
so
many
more
community
members.
A
So
again,
those
those
kind
of
two
ideas
that
are
listed
here
are
illustrative,
not
exhaustive,
but
I
will
say
I
think
really
on
behalf
of
all
of
us.
We
are
looking
forward
to
continuing
this
conversation.
This
is
not
even
the
beginning
of
the
end.
It
is
the
perhaps
end
of
the
beginning
of
this
conversation
about
phase
two.
So
with
that
colleagues,
thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you
to
those
who've
joined
us.
We
appreciate
you
and
our
staff.
Thank
you
so
very
much.
We
are
adjourned
for
today.