►
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
Okay,
thank
you.
Welcome
everyone
to
the
second
Housing
Commission
meeting
for
the
month
of
February.
This
meeting
is
being
held
virtually
based
on
the
electronic
meetings
policy
that
the
Housing
Commission
passed
last
year
and
we
are
having
a
little
bit
of
a
different
agenda
tonight.
This
meeting
is,
is
really
fully
focused,
focused
on
the
missing.
Excuse
me
missing
middle
housing
topic
and
we
will
be
considering
a
recommendation
to
the
County
Board
and
taking
a
vote
on
that
tonight.
A
So
our
agenda
will
first
be
a
presentation
from
County
staff
and
then
we
will
open
it
up
to
public
comments
and
then
Commissioners
will
discuss
and
take
action.
So
with
that,
we
can
start
with
a
staff
presentation.
B
All
right
thanks,
excuse
me.
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
good
evening
Commissioners.
My
name
is
Matt
Ladd,
with
the
counties,
planning,
Division
and
also
on
the
call
tonight
from
County
staff.
We
have
Kelly
brown
with
the
planning
division,
Richard
Tucker
from
the
housing
division
and
also
Russell
denal
Schroeder
from
the
housing
division
and
I
will
just
pull
up
my
slides.
C
B
Due
to
the
timing
of
this
meeting
tonight
within
our
overall
process,
I'll
be
presenting
us
I'll
not
be
presenting
a
staff
recommendation
tonight
that
will
come
later
in
the
process
and
so
I'll
start
with
the
general
overview
of
the
study
and
how
we
got
to
this
point
before
moving
on
to
discuss
the
glop
and
zoning
ordinance
amendments,
the
missing
middle
housing
study
as
I'm
sure,
most
of
you
know
and
recall,
started
in
2020
with
the
goals
of
increasing
the
County's
housing
Supply
and
allowing
a
wider
range
of
housing
options.
B
The
study
began
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
phase.
One
included
a
full
year
of
public
engagement,
focused
on
identifying
the
community's
priorities
and
concerns
about
expanding
housing
choice.
B
Phase
two
was
a
focused
analysis
of
different
housing
types
and
how
they
could
fit
into
Arlington's
context.
This
analysis
informed
a
draft
policy
framework
and
we're
now
in
phase
three
of
the
study,
which
includes
County
Board
engagement
and
an
iterative
process
of
drafting
and
refining
draft
amendments
to
the
general
land
use
plan
and
zoning
ordinance.
B
These
Amendments
have
been
informed
by
the
community
input
received
throughout
the
process
during
the
year-long
community
engagement
during
phase
one,
we
identified
the
key
priorities
and
concerns
shown
here
on
the
slide.
The
top
priority
from
that
engagement
was
to
reduce
housing
costs,
and
we
also
heard
many
concerns
about
the
impacts
of
growth
and
neighborhood
change,
which
were
documented
in
the
phase.
One
report
daf
released
a
draft
policy
framework
for
Community
review
and
input
in
the
spring
of
last
year.
B
This
draft
was
a
preliminary
approach
for
expanding
housing
choice
that
sought
to
address
and
balance
the
phase
one
priorities
and
concerns
shown
on
the
previous
slide.
The
framework
presented
specific
policy
choices
and
trade-offs
intended
to
facilitate
Community
feedback
Following
over
two
months
of
public
engagement
in
phase
two,
the
County
Board
held
a
work
session
and
provided
staff
with
guidance
for
moving
into
phase
three
phase.
B
This
slide
provides
some
background
on
that
action
to
advertise
and
what
it
means
for
the
process
going
forward.
A
request
to
advertise
or
RTA
takes
place
prior
to
County
Board
action
to
adopt
or
amend
a
county
plan
or
ordinance.
When
the
County
Board
acts
on
an
RTA,
it's
not
adopting
the
planner
ordinance.
It's
only
deciding
whether
to
add
advertise
public
hearings,
as
it
did
last
month,
notably
the
board's
action
last
month
to
authorize
advertisement,
also
sets
the
scope
of
what
can
or
what
could
be
adopted.
B
The
advertised
draft
zoning
text
for
the
missing
middle
housing
study
contains
a
number
of
different
options
reflecting
a
range
of
implementation
approaches.
Staff
is
currently
evaluating
all
of
those
advertised
options,
including
considering
potential
policies
through
an
equity
lens.
This
evaluation
will
be
included
in
the
staff
reports
for
next
month's
Planning
Commission
and
County
board
meetings.
B
The
draft
zoning
text
has
received
much
of
the
attention
during
phase
three,
but
staff
is
first
proposing
amendments
to
the
general
land
use
plan,
also
known
as
the
glob
Arlington's
glop
consists
of
a
map
and
booklet
that
described
the
land,
use
vision
for
the
county
as
a
whole
and
for
distinct
planning
areas.
The
draft
Club
Amendment
for
expanded
housing
options
would
add
a
new
subsection
to
the
special
planning
areas
section
of
the
booklet.
This
new
section
describes
the
overall
policy
goals
and
objectives
for
enabling
new
housing
options
in
areas
currently
limited
to
single
detached
housing.
B
The
draft
Club
Amendment
would
encourage
a
wider
range
of
housing
choices
for
lower
density,
residential
neighborhoods
that
are
compatible
in
scale
and
density.
With
the
existing
pattern
of
development,
the
draft
Amendment
to
the
glove
booklet
sets
forth
three
goals
for
these
lower
density,
residential
areas,
economic
sustainability,
environmental
sustainability
and
neighborhood
vibrancy.
B
On
the
glob
map,
the
areas
proposed
for
expanded
housing
options
are
generally
located
in
the
light
yellow
areas
on
the
map
designated
low
residential.
The
draft
go
up.
Amendment
for
advertisement
includes
one
proposed
update
to
this
map.
The
legend
for
the
low
residential
category
is
proposed
to
be
updated
to
reflect
the
range
of
housing
types
that
are
envisioned
for
these
areas,
specifically
one
family
dwellings,
accessory
dwellings
and
expanded
housing
options.
B
Moving
on
to
the
draft
zoning
Amendment
I'll
be
covering
some
of
the
key
elements
and
options
that
are
included
in
the
advertisement,
starting
with
the
zoning
mechanism.
The
draft
would
establish
a
new
optional,
buy
right
development
path,
called
expanded,
housing,
option,
development
or
eho.
For
short,
the
eho
zoning
tool
would
provide
new
options
for
property
owners
and
would
not
change
the
underlying
zoning
or
the
ability
to
build
or
expand
one
family
dwellings.
B
B
This
summary
chart
compares
the
draft
standards
for
eho
development
to
current
standards
for
single
detached
housing.
The
standards
listed
on
the
left,
including
Building
height
and
setbacks,
are
the
same
for
both
housing
types.
The
standards
listed
on
the
right.
The
draft
eho
standards
would
be
stricter
than
the
single
detached
standards.
B
Expanded
housing
option
development
would
apply
in
all
R5
to
R20
zones,
with
two
potential
exceptions.
The
first
is
a
limited
number
of
properties
that
coincide
with
three
planning
areas
defined
on
the
glut.
Map
sites
within
these
areas
may
already
have
land
use
recommendations
that
would
allow
Redevelopment
with
more
density
or
height
than
eho
through
another
zoning
tool,
such
as
the
form-based
code
or
site
plan.
B
The
advertisement
also
includes
the
option
to
allow
eho
development
in
these
areas.
The
section
the
second
exception
is
sites
that
are
larger
than
one
acre.
These
sites
also
limited
a
number.
They
include
institutional
uses
like
private
clubs
and
houses
of
worship.
They
could
redevelop
as
multiple
eho
buildings
with
the
county
board.
Approval
of
a
use
permit,
the
use
is
allowed
for
eho
would
be
two
family
dwellings
townhouses
with
three
units
or
multi-family
buildings,
with
options
with
with
a
maximum
of
six
per
site.
B
Consistent
with
the
county
board's
guidance
to
staff
from
phase
two,
the
draft
zoning
text
includes
multiple
options
for
setting
minimum
Site
Area
requirements.
Option
2A
would
maintain
the
current
Site
Area
standards
for
each
zoning
district
and
as
an
example
for
2A.
The
minimum
Site
Area
for
R6
would
be
six
thousand
square
feet
the
same.
It
is
as
it
is,
for
single,
detached
and
r10
would
be
ten
thousand
square
feet.
B
B
B
B
B
The
two
options
advertised
for
lock
coverage
would
both
maintain
the
same
maximum
coverage
that
can
be
achieved
for
a
one
family
dwelling
today.
The
difference
is
whether
a
rear
detached
garage
would
be
required
to
reach
this
maximum
Beyond
lot
coverage.
Other
standards
that
determine
what
can
be
built
on
a
site
such
as
height
setbacks
and
the
footprint
of
the
main
building
would
duplicate
the
current
single
detach
standards.
B
From
minimum
parking
requirements,
there
are
two
base
options
in
the
advertisement:
option
5A
would
set
minimum
parking
requirements
for
Transit
proximate
sites
at
0.5
spaces
per
unit.
Other
sites
would
be
required
to
provide
a
minimum
of
one
space
per
unit.
This
could
be
reduced
if
a
parking
survey
indicates
that
adequate
on-street
parking
is
available
on
that
block
option.
5C
is
the
same
as
5A,
except
that
Transit
proximate
sites
would
not
have
a
minimum
parking
requirement
under
5c.
B
Moving
to
site
layout
and
design
the
advertised
zoning
text
includes
a
number
of
standards
that
are
intended
to
address
Community
concerns
about
compatibility
with
existing
development
patterns.
These
standards
include
limits
on
where
parking
spaces
can
be
located
on
a
site
limits
on
the
width
of
a
street-facing
garage
wall
and
requirements
for
the
orientation
and
location
of
building
entrances
and
requirements
for
screening.
B
B
B
Finally,
the
draft
zoning
text
includes
options
to
set
an
annual
limit
or
cap
on
eho
permits.
The
advertised
cap
is
up
to
58
permits
per
year,
which
could
be
adopted
with
or
without
a
sunset
provision,
meaning
that
it
would
no
longer
apply
after
a
certain
date
without
a
subsequent
zoning
ordinance
Amendment.
B
The
missing
middle
housing
study
began
shortly
after
the
County
Board
adopted
its
Equity
resolution
over
three
years
ago
from
its
Inception.
The
study
has
been
grounded
in
equity
considerations.
Zoning
laws
that
dictate
which
housing
types
are
allowed
within
a
neighborhood
play
a
significant
role
in
determining
who
can
attain
housing
in
that
neighborhood
attachment.
9
of
our
RTA
staff
report
includes
an
equity
report.
Making
use
of
new
data
sets
linking
census,
housing
and
Zone.
B
Zoning
data
I'll
share
a
brief
overview
of
that
analysis
on
the
next
few
slides
when
thinking
about
Equity,
we
start
by
looking
at
the
status
quo
to
understand
the
Baseline
for
trends
that
are
already
happening
within
the
community
in
the
R5
to
R20
zones
in
Arlington.
Today,
only
28
percent
of
residents
are
people
of
color
compared
to
48
in
other
zoning
districts
and
the
R5
to
R20
zones
have
a
much
lower
proportion
of
rental
housing
than
the
county
average.
B
Based
on
our
analysis
of
current
housing
prices,
only
households
with
great
with
incomes
greater
than
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
can
attain
housing
in
these
zones,
because
missing
middle
housing
options
would
be
smaller
and
would
share
land
costs.
They're
expected
to
be
lower
cost
than
current
market
rate
housing
and
the
R5
to
R20
zones.
B
Households
with
incomes
below
the
level
needed
to
attain
missing
middle
housing
types
would
not
benefit
from
the
draft
dho
policies
without
additional
support
or
subsidy.
However,
this
study
is
just
one
piece
of
the
County's
housing
Arlington
initiative
and
other
efforts
are
focused
on
meeting
the
housing
needs
of
low-income
households.
As
this
commission
is
well
aware
in
terms
of
next
steps,
the
Planning,
Commission
and
County
Board
will
hear
the
glup
in
zoning
ordinance
amendments
at
their
next
marched
meetings.
B
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
presentation
Matthew
and
we
will
move
now
to
public
comment,
looks
like
Alice.
Hogan
is
up
first.
D
D
D
So
I
just
wanted
to
mention
a
few
things
that
AHS
is
focused
on
with
this
proposal.
We
have
been
working
on
it
for
the
past
three
years,
we're
very
much
in
favor
of
expanding
our
housing
options
in
Arlington,
knowing
that
our
supply
is
in
desperate
need
of
increase
and
that
people
in
that
middle
range
really
cannot
find
what
they
need,
and,
as
was
mentioned
in
the
presentation
of
course,
we
have
many
more
opportunities
and
programs
for
folks
making
less
than
a
hundred
thousand.
D
So
this
isn't
a
new
effort
which
is
budget
neutral
for
for
households
making
that
that
middle
section
of
of
income,
although
we
know
that's,
not
the
reason
for
the
or
the
name
of
this
this
program,
but
it
does
help
folks
at
like
almost
half
the
income
level
needed
in
other
in
other
neighborhoods.
D
So
I
wanted
to
point
out
a
few
of
the
items
that
we
were
most
interested
in,
highlighting
for
your
consideration
as
a
as
a
commission.
D
First
off
we,
you
know
we
fully
support
the
broadest
possible
ordinance
to
bring
about
new,
diverse
and
financially
attainable
housing
across
the
county.
So
we
applaud
the
work
of
the
county
staff
and
we
look
forward
to
seeing
what
the
board
comes
up
with
first
and
foremost,
of
course,
we're
interested
in
six
units
on
any
lot
possible
because
of
the
need
for
supply,
and
we
know
that
the
more
units
per
building
that
means
that
those
units
were
just
by
affordability
by
Design
will
be
the
least
expensive,
among
that.
D
So
that's
the
lower
on
that
income
scale
that
we
can
help
folks
attain
housing,
whether
it
be
rental
or
home
ownership
in
neighborhoods
that
are
currently
very
closed.
D
We're
also
interested
in
2A
the
most
flexibility
on
any
lot
4B,
allowing
that
five
percent
bonus
that
typically
goes
to
garages
to
be
put
towards
housing
itself,
five
c
and
e
minimal
to
no
parking
requirement,
because
every
time
we
ask
for
a
paved
spot
on
a
lot,
we're
preventing
more
housing
on
that
spot
and
individual
homeowners
can
determine
whether
or
not
their
spot
needs
housing
needs
parking
and
we're
opposed
to
the
cap.
Of
course,
knowing
that
we
need
Supply.
So
thank
you.
E
Hi
everyone,
my
name,
is
Jason
Schwartz.
Can
everyone
hear
me?
Okay,
hi,
I'm,
Jason,
Schwartz
and
I
sent
everyone
a
really
super
long
PDF
with
slides,
showing
why
I
support
missing
meal
housing.
E
Talking
about
the
housing
crisis,
the
environment,
Transportation
density,
equity
and
Justice
parking,
housing,
type,
Supply,
gentrification
and
displacement,
but
I
just
really
kind
of
want
to
share
again
personal
story
before
moving
to
Arlington
I
lived
in
missing
middle
housing
for
six
years,
and
the
missing
middle
housing
enabled
me
over
those
six
years
to
save
over
sixteen
thousand
dollars
by
by
not
having
to
pay
for
amenities
that
I,
you
know,
didn't
need
to
pay
for
the
elevator
Concrete
Construction
parking
garage,
gym,
rooftop,
all
those
sort
of
things
it
enabled
me
to
stay
in
neighborhoods
that
I
would
have
had
to
pay
significantly
more.
E
Otherwise,
if
I
wanted
to
be
an
apartment
complex
so
that
Housing
Opportunity
really
enabled
me
to
personally
Thrive
and
I
lived
in
three
different
places
that
had
missing
middle
housing
in
Suburban
settings
in
urban,
core
adjacent
setting
and
an
urban
core.
So
the
missing
middle
housing
is
great
in
all
sorts
of
housing
typologies.
You
know
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
an
area-
that's
already
walkable
having
a
house
when
I
was
living
in
Rocky
Mountain,
North
Carolina.
E
It
was
in
a
suburb
and
it
wasn't
very
walkable,
but
it
still
provided
cheaper
housing
than
the
single-family
alternative.
So
it's
been
really
great
and
in
my
experience,
living
in
missing
middle
housing,
it's
really
great,
because
I
lived
in
missing
middle
housing.
That
was
built
in
the
2000s
that
was
built
in
the
19th
beginning
of
the
at
the
turn
of
the
19th
century,
and
also
all
the
way
back
in
the
turn
of
the
18th
century.
E
So
three
different
centuries
of
housing
that
I've
lived
in,
and
it's
just
been
amazing
to
me,
because
I
value
living
in
diverse
neighborhoods,
where
people
of
different
incomes
can
live
together.
You
know,
people
that
are
more
are
more
wealthy.
They
can
certainly
live
in
a
larger
house
and
people
that
are
less
less
wealthy
or
they
can
live
in
a
smaller
place.
E
So
again,
my
full
information
is
on
the
slides
that
I
sent
I'm
not
going
to
go
over
those,
but
thank
you
so
much
for
giving
me
the
chance
to
speak
and
I
hope
to
see
Missy
middle
pass
without
any
more
further
reductions
in
opportunity.
For
me,
myself
and
others.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
Jason
up.
Next,
we
have
Patrick
grossby
I,
don't
know
if
I
said
that
last
name
correctly,
but.
F
Yeah
good
evening,
everyone
I
don't
think
I
can
beat
Jason
with
his
PDF
or
else
with
all
of
our
good
talking
points
but
I'm.
A
resident
of
Arlington
I
live
in
the
Boston
Virginia
square
area
and
just
coming
out
tonight
to
speak
in
favor
of
the
missing
metal
middle.
G
F
Study
overall,
as
Alice
mentioned,
like
the
issue,
has
been
studied
for
three
years
now
very
thoroughly
and
if
you
take
all
the
parts
that
you
know
Matt
presented,
which
there
are
many
many
parts
of
the
study
and
lots
of
different
options.
Overall
The
Proposal
is
quite
modest.
It's
a
you
know.
Basically,
a
market
driven
approach
to
help
Olivia
alleviate
shortages
in
our
housing
Supply.
F
It
provides
homeowners
and
property
owners
and
prospective
homeowners
and
prospective
renters
with
options.
Besides,
you
know
like
mcmansion
teardowns,
which
is
you
know
the
only
option
in
Arlington
for
75
of
the
land
on
our
County.
So
you
know.
F
Ultimately
the
government
is,
you
know,
and
all
the
rules
and
all
the
regulations
and
the
red
tape
are
the
root
of
our
housing
crisis
or
one
of
the
core
causes
so
I'm
coming
out
to
speak
in
favor
of
reducing
those,
and
you
know
enabling
the
Spy
right
permitting
process
with
as
least
restrictions
as
possible.
No,
we
don't
need
floor
area
requirements.
You
know
we
don't
need
unnecessary
parking
minimums
and
we
certainly-
and
you
know,
an
age
of
a
housing
shortage
and
a
housing
crisis
and
a
houselessness
crisis.
F
Adding
caps
to
housing,
it's
quite
absurd.
If
you
step
back
and
think
about
it
now
missing.
E
F
Housing
isn't
a
Panacea,
you
know
it's
a
very
Modest
Proposal,
but
it's
a
good
first
step.
You
know
the
staff's
done
a
lot
of
work,
studying
it
and
all
the
commissions,
including
yourself.
Thank
you
for
all
your
work.
You
know
everyone's
been
studying
and
talking
about
it,
but
you
know:
I
I
asked
that
this
commission,
this
Housing
Commission,
the
one
of
of
many
commissions,
recommend
the
widest
eho
option,
least
red
tape
and
the
most
flexibility.
F
So
six
units,
you
know
no
floor
area
restrictions
and
where,
where
at
all
possible,
no
parking
requirements,
so
I
appreciate
you
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
my
comments
and
I
wish
you
luck
in
your
consideration
of
this
proposal.
H
Yeah
my
big
concern
right
now
is
with
the
economics
of
building
missing
middle
housing.
Even
if
we
technically
allow
up
to
six
units,
it
doesn't
do
us
any
good
if
there
are
so
many
restrictions
on
them
or
unfair
advantages
remaining
with
single-family
homes
so
as
to
make
the
building
missing
little
housing
too
difficult
and
expensive.
H
H
Even
just
the
noted,
five
percent
extra
can
make
a
big
difference
in
making
everything
from
duplexes
to
six
plexes
much
more
viable.
So
please,
let's
support
4B
and,
at
the
very
least,
illuminate
parking
minimums
on
Lots
near
Transit,
ideally,
we'd
be
eliminating
parking.
Minimums
county-wide,
like
many
growing
jurisdictions,
are
doing
right
now,
and
it's
unfortunate
that
Arlington
Long
known
for
its
forward-thinking,
Transit
oriented
development,
has
not
been
leading
in
this
issue.
Ideally,
I'd
love
for
elimination
of
parking,
minimals
and
also
just
FYI.
Whoever
is
screen
sharing
and
writing
an
email.
H
It
is
broadcasting,
but
yeah,
ideally
we'd
be
eliminating
parking
minimums
county-wide,
but
at
the
very
least,
eliminate
them
for
Parcels
Lots
near
Transit.
In
short,
with
our
land
being
at
such
a
premium,
it's
we
should
really
be
using
it
efficiently
by
allocating
as
much
as
possible
to
people
and
not
Cars.
Thank
you.
J
Hello,
everybody.
So
can
you
guys
hear
me.
I
J
Good,
so
I'm
I'm
very
excited
to
be
supporting
this
ordinance
tonight
and
I
do
have
some
detailed
comments
to
to
give
you
a
lot
more
than
what
I
can
cover
in
three
minutes,
though
so
I'll
be
fast.
So,
first
of
all
the
lot
size
tiering,
like
others,
have
said.
You
know
now
that
we've
gotten
rid
of
the
seven
and
eight
units
out
of
The
Proposal.
J
It
seems
like
there's
really
not
much
of
a
drawback
to
going
with
the
option
2A,
which
is
no
tiering
required
just
allowing
up
to
six
units
everywhere
and
in
reality
you
would
be
limiting.
There
would
be
limitations
on
the
number
of
units
on
smaller
Lots
just
because
of
the
the
other
parameters,
but
the
few
cases
where
you
could,
where
these
could
be
built,
wouldn't
be
prohibited.
J
So
if
option
A
is
not
the
preferred
option,
though
there
are
some
specific
issues
that
you
really
need
to
look
at
closely
in
the
other
options.
The
first
is
the
definition
of
Transit
proximity
which
chain
in
option
e
was
added.
When
that
was
added,
it
was
changed
to
be
a
much
more
limited
definition
that
basically
wipes
out
most
of
North
Arlington
from
the
definition
of
Transit,
proximate
and
I.
Think
that's
a
huge
red
flag.
So
please
be
careful
with
anything
evolving
around
that
and
actually
I.
J
Don't
think
that
there
is
any
need
for
any
Transit
proximity
rules
if
we
allow
six
everywhere
with
other
with
other
parameters.
J
The
second
issue
is
what's
allowed
on
non-conforming
Lots.
This
has
really
not
gotten
much
attention
option.
Two
A's
non-conforming
language
would
allow
in
the
way
that
I
read
it
any
size,
non-conforming
lot
to
have
up
to
six
units.
That's
consistent
with
how
one
unit
homes
are
treated
in
these
districts,
basically
grandfathering
in
Old
Lots,
so
that
they
can
be
built
on
regardless
of
their
area
or
width.
J
All
it
looks
to
me,
like
all
the
other
options
limit,
non-conforming
Lots
everywhere
to
only
four
units
or
five
to
six
units
with
art
for
with
larger
lot
size
sizes,
depending
on
the
option.
So
this
means
that
undersized
non-conforming,
lots
of
you
know
eight
or
nine
thousand
square
feet
in
some
zones
would
be
limited
to
four
units.
In
most
cases,
some
of
these
lots
are
pretty
big,
just
not
big
enough
for
their
zoning
District.
J
So
I
think
that
this
is
something
that
you
need
to
watch
out
for
and
looking
at
any
of
those
other
options.
J
Looking
at
the
gross
floor
area
limits
in
option
11.,
the
gross
Florida
area
limits
are
pretty
complicated
and
so
I
think
that,
basically,
if
you,
if
you
go
with
them,
it
might
be
better
to
go
if
you're
interested
in
them
might
be
better
to
go
with
them
for
a
few
years,
because
it
would
be
easier
to
remove
the
limits
than
to
add
them
later.
J
I
also
think
that
you
should
avoid
putting
on
the
design
limitations,
such
as
the
garage
width,
screening
and
building
entrance
location
requirements,
because
those
are
over
limiting
for
this
housing
type.
Thank
you.
I
K
K
No
house
at
all
in
our
neighborhood
is
over
5
000
square
feet
and
of
that
amount
there
are
very
few
so
to
say
that
six
thousand
square
feet
I
mean
an
8
000
square
feet.
Building
would
fit
in
to
a
neighborhood,
is
you're
clearly
not
looking
around.
If
that's
what
you
believe,
if
you
also
believe
that
people
don't
have
cars
because
they
live
near
a
bus
route
or
the
Metro,
clearly
you
need
to
be
driving
around
Arlington,
because
this
is
not
the
case.
The
people
that
live
me
and
I
live
near
Columbia
Pike,
a
block.
K
So
for
you
to
push
the
burden
of
you
know,
you
don't
want
cars
parked
on
your
properties
and
instead
you
want
to
push
the
burden
onto
the
neighborhood
streets
is
the
disservice
to
people
who
live
in
Arlington
and,
lastly,
I
kind
of
feel
like
when
I
hear
people
saying
bigger,
more,
don't
limit
the
floor
area,
don't
limit
that
I
mean
you
know,
reduce
the
setbacks.
K
K
Where
do
you
think
that's
gonna
fit
on
what
street
I?
Don't
I?
Just
don't
understand
this
conversation,
it's
grossly
one-sided
and
you
want
to
talk
about
equity
you're,
not
listening
to
the
population.
That
does
not
agree
with
this
and
you're
not
willing
to
make
any
concessions,
and
you
keep
pushing
people
and
families
are
fighting
and
not
so
much
neighbors,
because
most
people
don't
agree
with
this
policy
that
own
a
home
and
I
tell
you
I've
been
asking
and
in
the
blocks
where
I
live.
A
Thank
you,
Terry
I.
Think.
That
concludes
our
public
comment,
and
now
we
will
go
into
the
commission
discussion.
So
I
would
like
to
just
sort
of
set
some
parameters
or
at
least
get
confirmation.
A
So
my
understanding
is-
and
you
know,
staff-
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
essentially
there's
10
different
options
that
we
can
either
choose
to
support,
well,
10,
different
questions
that
some
have
multiple
options
and
and
some
are
binary
or-
and
some
are
just
have
one-
that
we
can
either
take
a
position
on
not
take
a
position
on
or
select
one
of
the
options,
and
then
we
also
have
the
glump
Amendments
that
we
could
support
or
not
or
not.
A
Take
a
position
is
that
accurate
am
I
missing
any
of
the
potential
options.
B
Yes,
I
think,
that's
generally,
that's
generally
accurate
what
you
can
do
in
terms
of
the
zoning
ordinance
Amendment,
since
there
are
multiple
options
advertised
you
can
recommend.
You
know
whatever
is
within
the
scope
of
what
the
county
authorized
for
advertisement
and
that
the
glove
amendment
is
a
little
simpler,
because
there
are
options.
A
Okay,
Eric,
you
have
your
hand
raised.
L
Yeah
thanks
so
I'm
wondering
if
the
way
to
approach
this
would
be
because
there's
actually
what
math
is
12
12
options
that
were
advertised
along
with
develop
amendments
I,
wonder
if
the
way
to
approach
this
is
we
could
go
through
all
all
12
or
Colin.
You
could
ask
folks
to
basically
put
things
on
the
table
because
we
don't
have.
As
Matt
was
saying,
we
don't
have
to
necessarily
provide
recommendations
on
every
single
option.
L
I
I
would
lean
towards
asking
folks
like
the
Planning
Commission.
That
is
asking
folks
to
put
things
they
want
to
discuss
on
the
table
and
then
we
can
go
through
one
by
one.
That's
my
proposal.
Okay,.
A
I
I
did
want
to
get
clarification,
though,
if
you're
saying
there's
12
what
are
eight
or
nine
eight
and
nine.
B
Okay,
so
eight
and
nine
I
I
didn't
include
in
my
presentation
and
I
I
can
go
over
them.
One
is
a
eight.
It
has
to
do
with
a
pretty
limited
circumstances
and
it's
if
you
have
an
a
non-conforming
building
and
you
want
to
convert
it
to
from
from
a
rental
property
to
condominium.
B
Currently
we
require
a
use
permit
in
that
circumstance,
so
the
option
would
be
to
continue
to
require
a
use
permit
to
convert
a
non-conforming
building
from
rental
to
ownership,
or
we
could
take
away
that
requirement,
so
you
could
just
do
it
by
right
and
then
nine
has
to
do
with
the
definition
of
the
duplex
and
it's
just
a
proposal
to
change
the
definition
of
a
duplex
which
currently
says
that
you
can
only
have
one
front
door
and
also
has
some
kind
of
subjective
language,
as
you
know,
has
to
look
like
a
like
a
one
family
house.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
If,
if
you're,
not
speaking,
if
you
could
go
on
mute.
A
It
looks
like
oh
there
we
go.
Thank
you
so
I
just
Wanda
provide
some
remarks
to
the
commission
myself.
First,
so
I
am
very
supportive
of
the
most
expansive
options
for
Missy
middle
I.
Think
very
much.
This
is
a
an
equity
driven
change
and
we
have
large
parts
of
the
county,
essentially
75
percent,
that
have
been
closed
off
to
a
lot
of
people.
A
Historically,
people
of
color
and
the
the
issues
around
generational
wealth
and
around
the
differences
in
income
levels
that
persist
to
this
day
have
made
it
even
harder
for,
or
you
know,
definitely
hard
for
residents
of
color
and
other
historically
disadvantaged
groups
to
buy
into
single
family
home
neighborhoods.
A
Missy
middle
is
I,
think
a
good
first
step
to
writing
some
of
those
wrongs.
It's
certainly
not
going
to
solve
the
housing
crisis,
Supply
crisis
that
we
have
or
the
affordable
housing
crisis
that
we
have
in
Arlington,
but
it
gives
us
some
options
that
our
market
rate-
it
doesn't
cost
Arlington
County
any
money
to
do
this,
which
I
think
is
important.
A
Although
there's
a
lot
of
other
solutions
that
do
cost
a
county
money.
That
I
think
are
also
very
important
and
should
be
considered
as
part
of
a
separate
conversation,
but
I
think
that
going
for
the
most
expansive
options
that
are
still
on
the
table
is
my
preference
and
I
have
I
have
specific.
A
You
know,
positions
for
each
of
the
different
items,
except
for
eight
and
nine
I
had
not
developed
a
specific
position
yet
on
those
but
happy
to
entertain
that
discussion
with
other
Commissioners
who
have
given
that
some
more
thought
and
I
also
I
would
like
to
propose
to
the
commission
that
we
include
in
our
letter
and
if
anyone
disagrees,
you
know
please,
please
let
me
know
our
disappointment
that
the
County
Board
removed
seven
and
eight
plexes
from
the
request
to
advertise,
because,
as
I
said
at
the
last
meeting,
we
were
not
given
a
chance
to
weigh
in
on
that
before
they
made
the
decision
to
exclude
seven
and
eights
I.
A
Think
that
seven
and
eights
were
an
important
piece
of
this.
That's
no
longer
on
the
table.
I.
Don't
think
that
that
should
be
a
central
part
of
our
letter,
but
I
I
do
think
it's
important
to
state
that
the
Housing
Commission
wasn't
given
an
opportunity
to
provide
Our
advice
to
the
County
Board
before
they
made
that
a
very
important
decision
and
we're
disappointed
in
that
action.
A
A
We
can
have
staff
put
up
the
PowerPoint
slide
relevant
to
each
each
set
of
options
so
that
people
have
that
on
the
screen
that
they
can
refer
to.
If
that
would
be
helpful,
that
is
that
is
kind
of
my
preferred
way
to
do.
This
is,
is
kind
of
throw
up
the
slide
on
the
screen
and
then
have
discussion
on
that
Laura.
M
There
we
go
what
you
just
suggested
about
having
a
slide
up
on
the
screen,
so
we
can
see
what
a
specific
option
entails.
Please
do
that
I
strongly
support
that,
because,
even
though
I
studied
this
it's
a
lot
to
page
through
and
to
try
to
remember
off
the
top
of
our
head,
so
that
would
be
great.
That's
my
One
Plea.
A
A
Oh
looks
like,
if
is
that
Doris
who's
we're
getting
there,
we
go
muted,
go
ahead,
dinky.
N
Thanks
yeah
I
think
your
idea
of
how
to
go
about
this
sounds
great
and
I
agree
with
commissioner
Laura
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
do
think
that
our
letter
should
actually
you
said
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
large
part
of
our
letter,
but
I
think
it.
We
shouldn't
minimize
it
I'm
I'm
new
to
commission,
but
if
I'm
understanding
our
charge
correctly,
it's
quite
literally
our
charge
to
advise
the
county
and
they
denied
us
of
that
opportunity.
A
Thank
you,
Nikki.
Definitely,
an
agreement,
any
other
General
comments
before
we.
We
dig
into
the
specific
areas.
A
Okay,
so
starting
with
the
first,
so
the
minimum,
the
maximum
number
of
units
per
site.
So
essentially
this
is
deciding
I,
don't
know
how
dense
we
want
it
to
be,
so
my
preference
is
to
go
up
to
six
flexes.
A
You
know
again.
This
is
still
based
off
of
fitting
into
the
same
footprint
that
we
currently
have
for
single-family
homes
when
it
comes
to
lock
coverage
and
the
like
setbacks
required.
A
So
that
doesn't
change
it's
just
how
many
families
you
can
house
on
the
same
footprint
that
you
would
have
had
for
a
single
family
home
discussion
over
or
how
people
are
thinking.
People
also
support
six
buckses
or
if
you
support
something
different.
I
C
Yes,
I
I
support
that,
like
I
mean
if
it's,
if
the
number
of
units
fits
that
lot,
then
why
why
not
again,
you
mentioned
before
this
is
for
75
of
Arlington
is
single
family
homes,
cool
and
I.
Think
that's
I
think
I've
been
discussed
many
times
that
only
zone
for
single
family
home,
so
I
I,
say
why.
Why
not?
M
Yes,
thank
you.
I
support.
The
maximum
number
of
six
that's
left
to
us
under
this
RTA
would
have
preferred
eight
I'm,
okay,
with
six.
A
Thank
you,
Laura
and,
let's
see
Margaret
your
hand
is
also
up.
O
Yeah
I
I
would
support
the
the
six
and
just
comment
that
coming
from
living
in
one
of
the
single
family
neighborhoods
as
a
homeowner
and
watching
mcmansions
go
up
all
around
me,
whose
Footprints
are
probably
doubling
or
tripling
the
size
of
my
home
I
I
would
much
rather
see
six
families
live
in
that
size.
Property
then
see
one
family
live
in
those
ginormous
properties,
so
I
think.
O
If
we're
sticking
with
existing
Footprints
and
setbacks
and
such
then,
you
know,
what's
what's
the
difference
so
and
I
and
I
Echo
the
effort
to
put
in
some
notation
regarding
that
we
could
go
up
to
the
seven
and
eights
because
again,
if
we're
using
the
same
concept,
it's
going
to
be
Market
driven
so.
A
Thank
you,
Margaret
I
think
I
saw
Eric's
hand
up,
but
I
think
you
may
put
it
back
down.
A
Any
other
comments
on
the
first
option:
the
maximum
number
of
units
per
site.
It
sounds
like
we
generally
have
consensus
on
six
flexes.
A
Okay
option
two
minimum
Site
Area,
so
for
this
one
my
preference
is
2A
which
does
not
limit
the
does
not
limit
it
just
to
Transit
areas.
A
L
Thanks
Callan
I,
so
I
think
this
is
maybe
the
most
important
thing
we're
going
to
talk
about.
Is
this
option
two
is
kellen's.
You
were
indicating
this
minimum
Site
Area
really
does
seem
to
be
one
of
the
most
important
drivers
of
how
effective
this
proposal
could
be
to
providing
greater
housing
options
and
opportunity
in
the
market,
and
so
some
background
that
and
first
off
Matt
and
Kelly
and
Richard
and
Ann
and
Anthony,
and
everybody
who's
worked
on
this
at
the
staff
level.
L
I
just
you
know
my
immense
gratitude
for
all
your
work
over
these
last
three
years
and
there's
many
many
more
folks
beyond
that
so
option
two
is
really
important
right,
and
so
we
begin
with
options,
2A
and
2B,
and
then
it
kind
of
evolved
from
there,
because
some
board
members
wanted
to
talk
about
potentially
looking
at
sites
being
this
Transit
proximate,
you
know
definition
and
then
you
know
we
got
to
e
from
board
member
diferante
at
the
last.
L
At
the
RTA,
I
mean
that
was
included,
I
find
option,
2A,
incredibly
I'm
sorry
I
find
option
2E
incredibly
problematic.
It's
not
supported
by
a
whole
lot
of
analysis.
It
wasn't
included
as
a
result
of
the
consultant
analysis.
L
It
very
clearly,
in
my
opinion,
seems
to
cut
against
a
lot
of
the
equities.
We've
talked
about
in
expanding
housing
opportunities
because,
as
Kellen
was
saying,
essentially
you're
limiting
a
lot
of
the
Lots,
especially
those
north
of
Langston
Boulevard,
because
they're
either
not
gonna
meet
the
definition
of
being
Transit,
proximate
or
they're,
not
going
to
be
12
000
square
feet,
it's
a
very,
very
large
lot,
and
so,
instead
of
how
having
a
plan
that
really
moved
towards
moves
towards
Equity
we're
really
doing
something
here
with
top
option.
L
2E
that
moves
away
from
that
Equity
goal.
I
feel
very
strongly
that
this
should
not
not
have
been
on
the
table
at
all.
I
do
concur
with
the
idea
that
option
2A
is
likely
the
strongest
option
because
it's
the
most
straightforward
and
it
does
duplicate
the
the
same
as
the
zoning
District
standard,
and
so
what
that
means
again
and
I'm
not
trying
to
talk
down
to
folks.
But
this
is
kind
of
complicated
stuff
is
right
that,
like
that,
doesn't
mean
that
you
could
build
a
six
Plex
on
any
residential
lot
in
Arlington.
L
You
still
have
to
look
at
the
different
residential
Zone
R5
R6
R20,
whatever
it
is,
but
we
basically
we
be.
We
would
be
hugging
a
lot
of
those
standards
in
2A,
so
you
couldn't
actually
build
a
six
Flex
everywhere.
L
L
We
could
secondarily
recommend
2D,
it's
very
similar
to
2A.
That's
a
little
bit
more
restrictive
for
five
and
six
units,
but
otherwise,
because
seven
and
eight
units
are
off
the
table,
it's
it's
a
95
version
of
option,
2A
and
then,
like
I
said
you
know,
2B
is
still
incredibly
restrictive
for
those
higher
unit
sizes,
the
fives
and
sixes,
which
you
know
the
consultant
analysis
at
least
suggests.
L
Maybe,
on
the
more
attainable
end
as
far
as
folks
being
able
to
get
into
them
from
a
financial
end
and
to
see
is
also
problematic
because,
as
Michelle
Winters
was
indicating,
what
is
Transit
proximate
is
incredibly
arbitrary
and
I
know
that
this
won't
be
universally
agreed,
but
I
think
this
day
and
age
in
2023,
with
the
way
our
Transit
networks
operate
and
how
we're
building
out
bus
systems
I
mean
everything
that
the
county
is
doing.
L
I
would
argue
that
the
entirety
of
our
county
is
Transit,
proximate
and
so
I
think
this
is
completely
inapplicable
for
such
a
kind
of
a
emerging.
You
know
Urban,
municipalities,
Arlington,
those
very
long-winded
I
will
now
see
the
floor,
but
I
would
strongly
urge
us
to
lead
into
option
2A.
A
Thank
you
Eric.
If
you're
able
to
speak
doors,
if
you're
there
on
the
phone
yep.
P
I
wanted
to
take
the
time,
on
behalf
of
of
the
disability
commission,
to
note
that
one
this
these
proposals
do
not
take
into
account
accessibility
of
the
housing
that
you
are,
that
that
will
be
planning
as
part
of
the
missing
middle.
It's
taken.
P
It
appears
to
be
taken
from
granted
that
there
isn't
even
going
to
be
a
requirement
under
the
Fair
Housing
Act
Amendments
of
1988,
but
we
would
assert
to
you
that
there
is
because
once
there
are
four
or
more
units
either
for
rent
or
for
purchase,
then
they
must
be
accessible
compliant
with
the
accessibility
standards
of
the
fair
housing
amendments
Act
of
1988,
and
we
want
would
like
to
suggest
that
the
commission,
as
it
goes
forward
with
this
and
if
it
approves
you
know
if
it
has
a
recommendation
to
approve
that
there
be
language
in
there.
P
P
We
were
supposed
to
be
trying
to
get
the
County
Board
to
approve
presenting
amendments
so
that,
among
these
different
types
of
housing,
that
there
would
be
the
option
for
increasing
the
number
of
people
who
could
live
in
a
single
family
dwelling
for
people
with
significant
disabilities,
for
example
physical
disabilities,
young
people
who
might
want
to
live
on
their
own
and
share
a
house,
but
not
necessarily
a
group
home,
not
certainly
not
a
licensed
group
home,
but
to
share
an
accessible
house,
and
we
would
like
to
see.
P
We
would
like
to
know
if
that
zoning
amendment
is
part
of
this
or
should
have
been
part
of
this
or
whether
it's
already
been
done
separately
and
the
other
thing
that
I
want
to
reflect
back
to
the
fair
housing
act.
Amendments
is
if
people,
if
people
or
developers,
are
buying
property
and
building
missing
mental
housing
that
is
covered
on
the
Fair,
Housing
Act,
then,
and
they're
for
rent
or
even
for
purchase.
Will
there
be
common
areas?
P
One
of
the
things
that
brought
this
to
mind
was
the
discussion
earlier
about
parking
and
parking
would
be
an
amenity.
These
amenities
walkways
between
these
houses
and
and
other
common
areas
need
to
be
fully
accessible,
and
certainly
that
means
there
also
needs
to
be
some
percentage
of
a
parking
offered
that
is
accessible
to
disabled
drivers.
These
are
the
comments
that
I
have
and
I
appreciate,
Mr
chair
that
you've
allowed
me
to
do
to
make
them
thank.
A
You
Doris
and
staff
if
you
could
actually
respond
to
both
well,
it's
kind
of
two,
maybe
three
questions
from
from
Doris.
First
about
the
fair
Fair,
Housing
Act
and
its
applicability
to
you
know,
potentially
four
plexes
or
more
and
I
mean.
Definitely
my
understanding
would
be
that
you
know.
Arlington
County
cannot
supersede
federal
law,
so
federal
law
applies.
It
applies,
but
you
know
still
having
a
response
from
staff
about
any
considerations
for
that
in
the
planning
process.
A
Here,
as
well
as
the
the
second
question
that
she
had
directly
asked
for
staff
input
and
then
I
think
also
the
accessibility
when
it
comes
to
like
parking
and
like
the
ability
you
know
to
access
the
units
for
people
with
disabilities.
P
And
the
end
series
as
well
and-
and
the
other
thing,
though,
is
that
that
the
I
want
to
note
is
that
in
the
form-based
code
for
Columbia
Pike,
there
were
requirements
for
for
even
if
you
built
one
house
or
a
couple
of
Townhouses,
there
was
requirements
for
and
adaptable
housing,
meaning
as
defined
in
the
State
Building
Code,
so
that
first
floor
would
have
to
be
have
a
zero
threshold
entrance
and
and
primarily,
accessibility
similar
to
the
fair
housing
act
on
the
interior
as
as
well
as
walkways
and
such
so.
P
A
Thank
you,
Doris
I,
don't
know
who
from
staff
is
taking
that
response.
B
So
I'll
I'll
start
with
the
with
the
Fair
Housing
Act
and
the
the
accessibility
and
then
I
think
I'll
I'll
turn
it
over
to
Russell
Danelle
shorter,
who
can
address
some
of
the
the
other
aspects
related
to
the
affordable
housing
master
plan.
B
B
If
the
building
has
an
has
an
elevator
I,
don't
think
we're
expecting
to
see
a
lot
of
elevator
buildings
given
the
the
height
and
the
type
of
construction,
but
at
least
in
a
in
a
four
Plex
or
more,
the
accessibility
requirements
would
kick
in
for
the
ground
floor
units,
and
that
includes
things
like
accessible
building
access
or
entrance
on
an
accessible
route,
accessible
and
usable
public
and
common
use
areas.
I
know
that
was
a
that
was
a
question
that
Miss
Ray
had
the
doors
have
to
be
usable
by
a
person
in
a
wheelchair.
B
Q
Thank
you
Matt.
As
far
as
the
recommendation
or
policy
in
the
affordable
housing
master
plan
to
allow
for
flexibility
in
the
definition
of
a
family
for
households
and
for
for
occupancy
purposes
in
the
zoning.
This
is
something
that
it
has.
It
is
on
the
work
plan
for
the
planning
department.
I
know.
Last
year,
the
planning
director
each
year
there's
a
work
session
with
the
the
planning
director
and
the
County
Board,
where
they
go
over
their
work
session
for
the
upcoming
year
last
year.
Q
That
was
on
there
but
was
on
kind
of
the
second
tier
and,
and
they
haven't
gotten
to
that
second
tier.
It's
also
was
included
again
as
a
recommendation
for
upcoming
land
use.
Zoning
work
in
the
affordable
housing
master
plan
implementation
framework
that
the
manager
put
forward
in
March
of
last
year,
so
it
still
is
on
our
radar.
Q
It's
it's
work,
that's
pending
and
and
yet
to
be
done,
but
but
not
not
forgotten
about,
and
we
hope
that
we
can
get
to
that
sooner
rather
than
later,
but
again
that
that's
going
to
be
contingent
on
a
number
of
factors
and
capacities
within
the
planning
division.
Q
Yes,
that
that
foreign
ordinance,
we
had
discussed
this
I
think
early
in
the
process,
but
when
we,
when
we
were
doing
the
scope
for
this,
that
was
not
included
in
the
scope.
We
had
some
discussions
around
it,
but
we,
the
scope,
was
limited
really
to
to
the
building
form,
and
so
you
know
it
will
be
a
separate
study
at
a
future
date.
A
Endorse
I
just
want
to
add
for
that
too.
That
is
part
of
the
recommendations
in
the
regional,
fair
housing
plan
for
Arlington
County.
A
A
Eric,
thank
you
Doris
and
thank
you
staff
for
the
answers
to
those
questions.
Eric
did
you
have
more
comments
on
this
one.
L
I
have
a
question:
first
off
didn't
recognize
Russell
when
I
was
thanking
people
before
so
Russell
also
I
mean
you've
been
with
the
department
for
a
while.
So
I
really
appreciate
all
your
work
going
back
to
the
master
plan
and
all
the
work
you
did
on
that
I
do
have
a
plan.
I
do
have
a
question
about
so
so
2A
2D.
Maybe
this
is
either
for
Matt
or
Russell.
Could
you
just
contextualize
and
explain
the
differences
between
the
two
and
so
I
mean?
L
Obviously,
with
the
five
and
six
plexes
the
lock
coverage
is
a
little
bit.
The
requirements
are
a
little
bit
more
onerous
for
option
2D,
but
then
Michelle
Winters
was
also
making
the
point
about
there's
a
difference
as
far
as
kind
of
non-conforming
structures
and
the
impact
of
that
between
2A
and
2D
2A,
allowing
them
in
two
days.
B
So
2A
right
we
don't
have
a
map
for
2A,
because
everything
would
be
teal
right,
but
but
I
think,
as
you
pointed
out
correctly,
you
know
just
because
every
lot
would
be
eligible
for
a
six-plex
under
2A
doesn't
mean
that
every
lot
would
result
in
a
six-plex,
and
you
know
you
need
a
significant
amount
of
square
footage
to
be
able
to
support
both
six
units
and
some
amount
of
parking.
B
You
know
whether
it's
one
space
per
unit
or
something
less.
So
it's
really
we've.
You
know,
we've
looked
at
this
and
unless
there's
significant
parking
reductions,
it's
very
unlikely
that
you'd
be
able
to
to
fit
six
units
on
five
thousand
square
feet,
for
example,
and
we
shared
some
of
that
work
with
with
zoko
the
the
Planning
Commission
zoning
committee
back
in
the
fall
and
I
believe
it's
in
the
the
RTA
staff
report
to
see
some
of
those
site
diagrams
that
we
put
out.
B
So
you
know,
2D,
really
sort
of
sets
a
threshold
of
six
thousand
square
feet
for
six
Plex
and
I
think
even
that
probably
would
require
in
most
cases
parking
less
than
six
parking
spaces.
In
order
to
achieve
that,
but
it
does
recognize
that
you
know
probably
on
the
smallest
sites
in
the
county:
it's
not
really
feasible
for
five
thousand
square.
B
You
know
for
a
five
thousand
square
foot
lot
or
less
than
six
thousand
square
feet
to
to
actually
result
in
a
six-plex,
and
so
it's
you
know
it's
not
a
great
loss
to
to
take
that
off
the
table
into
e
or
I'm
sorry
in
2D
and
to
your
other
question
about
the
the
non-conformities.
Basically,
the
it
does
get
a
little
complicated,
but
basically
the
approach
to
non-conformities
is
if
you
meet
whatever
the
and
I'll
go
back
to
the
previous
slide.
B
If
I,
can
you
know
if
you
meet
whatever
the
standard
is
and
you're
and
you're
still,
even
if
you're
non-conforming?
So
if
you
were
to
look
at
the
2D
for
an
example
right,
if
you
were
a
non-conforming
a
lot,
let's
say
you
were
R6
or
the
minimum
Site
Area
is
6
000
square
feet,
but
you
don't
meet
the
width
requirements,
you're,
not
you're.
B
A
lot
is
58
feet
wide,
instead
of
60
feet
wide
and
therefore
you're
non-conforming,
if
you're
a
legally
non-conforming
lot,
which
means
that
your
lot
was
legal
at
the
time
it
was
created
and
then,
through
subsequent
changes
to
the
zoning
it
became
not
in
conformance,
you
would
be
able
to
access
it
under
5D.
If
you
had
the
6
000
square
feet,
I
know,
that's
probably
hard
to
follow.
I
can
I
can
try
to
restate
it
a
little
more
clearly.
L
I
mean
it's
like
very
too
simply
put
is
that
2A
just
provides
more
flexibility,
because
not
all
lots
are
you
know
we
have
a
lot
of
irregularly
shaped
Lots,
they
might
meet
the
size
requirements
Matt,
but
they
don't.
They
might
not
meet
some
of
the
other
requirements,
but
if
they
were
legal
at
the
time
that
like
it
was
set,
then
there's
some
wiggle
room
under
2A,
less
so
under
2D.
B
Yeah
I
think
that
you
know
with
the
non-conformities
they
do.
They
provide
more
flexibility
rather
than
less.
Okay,
though
the
way
that
those
are
set
up.
You
know
so
that
if
you
had
a
you
know
non
I,
don't
know
if
if
you
had
a
non-conforming
r10
lot
and
and
we
went
with
2D,
that
lot
could
be
much
smaller
than
10
000
square
feet.
And
if
it's
a
legally
non-conforming
lot,
you
could
spill,
you
could
still
build
five
or
six
units
under
2D.
L
Okay,
I'm
still
not
totally
understanding,
but
I
I
don't
want
to
keep
the
labor
in
the
point.
I
appreciate
that
come
on
I'll
throw
it
back
to
you.
Thank.
A
You
I
think
Eric
I
know
you
had
said
that
you
were
supporting
2A,
but
you
could
also
see
supporting
2D
if
the
board
didn't
want
to
go
for
2A.
My
preference
is
for
the
commission
and
again.
If
people
disagree,
please,
you
know
speak
up
to
just
go
with.
You
know.
This
is
what
we
recommend
if
the
board
doesn't
agree.
E
A
Recommendation
and
I
think
especially
like
if
we
recommend
2A
logically,
they
could
probably
assume
that
you
know
2D
would
be
the
second
choice
based
off
of
the
reasoning
in
the
letter
as
to
why
we
would
support
two-way.
A
A
L
L
Mean
I
would
so
what
I
would
propose
I
mean
and
if
we
think,
there's
consensus,
maybe
we
we
don't
need
to
to
vote
until
the
end,
but
I
would
propose
that
we
lean
into
two
a
as
you're
suggesting
calendar,
but
I
would
also
like
to
include
language
in
the
letter
that
explains
and
again
I.
Don't
want
this
to
all
come
from
me.
L
But
I
have
a
lot
of
concerns
about
2E
to
C
to
B
and
I
also
would
like
to
affirmatively
explain,
because
it
seems
to
me
that
wherever
the
board
lands,
it
probably
isn't
going
to
just
be
2A
or
2E
or
whatever.
It's
probably
still
going
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
hybrid
of
some
of
these
options,
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
housing
and
commission
to
explain
why
they
favor
certain
options
and
why
they
don't
why
we
don't
favor
other
options.
If
that
makes
sense,.
A
That
makes
sense
to
me
and
I.
You
know,
I
think
our
letter
shouldn't
just
be.
You
know
we
support
2A
next
it'll,
you
know
definitely
go
into
detail
about
why
we
support
this
and
and
for
the
ones
where
it
makes
sense,
why
we
don't
support
some
of
the
other
options,
but
do
we
have
other
other
comments
from
Commissioners
on
this?
One?
Are
people
generally
in
support?
Oh,
go
ahead.
Laura.
M
I
just
wanted
to
support
contextualizing
the
preference
for
2A
and
then
explaining
in
some.
You
know
in
some
way,
like
some
context,
the
problems
that
we
have
with
the
other
options,
so
I'm,
leaning
towards
I
guess
what
Eric
was
suggesting.
M
You
know,
leading
with
what
you
suggest
Kellen,
because
by
all
means,
I
am
strongly
for
2A
for
all
the
reasons
that
have
been
discussed
over
the
next
last
several
minutes,
but
I
don't
want
to
leave
the
you
know
the
board
members
guessing
or
like
well.
If
we
had
that
if
we
had
the
housing
commissioner,
here
we
you
know
like
commissioned
we'd
ask
them.
M
A
Makes
sense,
thank
you,
Laura
and
I
just
applying
a
bit
further
on
this
one.
This
you
know,
I
think
this
is
especially
important
as
Eric
had
mentioned,
because
this
is
really
about
opening
up
most
of
Arlington
to
people.
Who've
never
had
the
opportunity
to
live
in
those
parts
of
Arlington
and
that
it's
it's
trying
to
lessen
the
Restriction
based
on
wealth
and
and
and
say
you
know,
people
who
are
making
with
six
flexes.
A
You
know
between
a
hundred
thousand
and
maybe
150
000,
that
home
ownership
you
know,
can
be
in
reach
for
you
too,
in
places
of
the
county
that
they
never
would
have
had
the
option
to
live
in
school,
I
guess:
school
districts,
not
school
districts,
but
school
zones
that
they
previously
may
not
have
had
access
to.
A
O
And
I
would
just
encourage
I
think
I
saw
Paul.
Brown
is
with
us.
O
O
Do
anecdotally,
think
that
you
know,
regardless
of
what
restrictions
or
flexibility
we
put
on
this,
it's
going
to
be
Market
driven
to
some
extent,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
I
have
a
perfect
sense
of
the
market,
but
it
would
be
useful
to
know
sort
of
to
have
that
perspective
of
you
know,
because
if
we
go
through
all
of
this
and
we
make
it
so
restrictive
that
you
know
nobody
that
developers
continue
to
just
do
mcmansions,
then
we
failed
so
I
want
to
try
and
make
sure
that
we
are
walking
the
ballot,
but
I'm
also
acutely
aware
that
there
are
many
homeowners
within
the
county
that
are
very
distressed
by
this.
O
R
Go
ahead,
Paul!
Thank
you.
Can
you
hear
me?
Can
you
hear
me
okay,
great,
so
thank
you.
I
would
not
profess
any
expertise
in
market
rate
or
homeownership
development,
but
I
do
believe
strongly
that
providing
the
most
flexibility
and
most
opportunities
for
development
will
yield
the
best
result
and
and
the
greatest
outcome.
So
I
agree
with
what
everybody
has
said.
R
That
2A
is
by
far
the
most
attractive
option
in
2D
is
probably
acceptable
in
my
mind
and
I
I
think
we
recognize
the
the
practicalities
that
six
unit
buildings
are
just
not
going
to
happen
in
this.
The
on
the
smallest
lots-
and
you
know-
that's
that's
fine
in
my
mind,
so
my
earlier
comments
were
largely
about
earlier
suggestions
which
I
think
have
gone
away,
for
instance,
setting
unit
size,
maximums
and
I
thought
that
was
a
a
bad
idea.
R
A
Thank
you,
Paul
and
it
looks
like
Sarah
has
her
hand
up.
C
Hi,
yes,
I
also
would
like
to
just
put
my
support
against
the
most
flexibility
that
we
can
offer.
Yes
to
developers
and
also
current
homeowners
as
well,
because
there
is
discussion
about
you
know
Aging
in
place
and
multi-generational
homes,
and
so,
if,
if
we
give
them
developers
and
current
homeowners
in
certain
areas,
I
I
think
that
will
be
helpful
and
I'm.
Speaking
for
myself,
we
do
not
think
you
know
Market
rates
homes.
You
know
these
still
might
be
expensive,
but
there
there
will
be
more
options
available.
C
A
Eric
not
hearing
anything
from
you.
L
What's
that
so
all
right
computer
issues
right
so
Margaret
and
Paul
remind
me
of
something
that
was
talked
about
at
the
the
zoning
committee,
which
is
the
you
know,
subcommittee
of
Planning
Commission
that
I
attended
several
meetings
back
in
the
fall.
There
was
a
discussion
of
basically
like
once
we
passed
this
like.
L
How
do
we
jump
start
the
market
like
how
to
you
know
basically
do
we
get
developers
or
we
get
folks
to
come
in
and
if
we're
do,
we
want
to
encourage
them
to
do
things
right
and
that's
been
a
lot
of
the
tension
of
this
whole
study
is
like
providing
opportunities,
but
then,
like
you,
know,
people
it's
private
actors,
making
making
choices,
and
so
I
don't
know
that
we
ever
the
staff
ever
went
out
to
do
this
study
to
really
solve
that
problem.
L
I
mean
it's
always
difficult
to
jump,
start
markets,
I.
Think
we've
seen
what
the
adus,
for
example,
there's
been
a
couple
companies
who've
gotten
into
that
game.
It's
been
slow,
but
it's
starting
to
pick
up
a
little
bit.
So
you
know,
that's
certainly
something
that
maybe
the
Housing
Commission
and
the
county
can
look
at
over
the
next
few
years,
but
there's
only
so
much
you
know,
governments
can
do
to
kind
of
jump,
start
markets
other
than
you
know.
L
Direct
intervention
subsidies,
things
that
I
don't
think
we're
necessarily
interested
in
doing
at
this
point,
but
so
that
was
just
a
that
came
up
and
I
think
we
talk
a
lot
about
incentives
and
I.
My
view
is:
we
need
to
make
the
plan
probably
as
as
flexible
as
possible,
but
that
certainly
doesn't
mean
that
the
market
will
just
jump
start
overnight.
There's
other
factors
that
weigh
in
and
maybe
that's
something
that
we
can
weigh
in
on
over
the
next
few
years.
That's
it
thank.
A
You
Eric
so
I
think
for
for
option.
Two
it
looks
like
2A
is
the
preferred
option
for
the
commission.
It
sounds
like
we
have
consensus.
If
anyone
you
know
disagrees
or
has
a
comment,
you
know
happy
to
entertain
that
now
and,
as
Eric
said,
we
are
going
to
take
a
vote
on
kind
of
a
slate.
So
you
know
people
are
also
able
to
to
officially
weigh
in
at
that
point,
but
for
the
sake
of
time,
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
option
three.
B
B
Is
one
where
actually
the
with
the
board's
action?
There's
only
one
option
and
it's
the
it's
the
more
expansive
option
to
this
relates
to
the
sites
larger
than
one
acre.
The
options
were
either
to
not
allow
eho
at
all
on
these
sites
or
to
allow
them.
These
are
larger
sites
that
would
multiple,
usually
likely
result
in
multiple
buildings,
and
so
there
would
be
a
use
permit
process
that
would
go
to
the
county
board
for
those.
So
there's
only
one
option
here.
A
Okay
and
sorry,
you
said
the
the
option
is
to
allow
like
the
maximum
amount
of
like
plexes
on
those
properties
and
right
have
the
regular
site
plan
process
for
something
different.
B
It
would
it
would
be
to
allow
them
on
sites
of
a
larger
acre,
where,
let's
say
you
know,
let's
say,
there's
a
house
of
worship
and
it
has
a
parking
lot
or
something
like
that
that
it
could
today,
if
it's
zoned,
R6
or
something
it
could
subdivide,
you
know
it
could
sell
that
parking
lot.
You
know,
assuming
it
can
meet
its
parking
needs
on
another
side
or
something
it
could
sell
that
parking
lot.
It
could
subdivide
it
could
build
single
detached
houses
under
the
current
zoning.
B
This
option
would
allow
that
same
thing
to
happen
with
eho,
so
you
could
have
multiple
semi-detached
or
multiple
fourplexes
on
that
building,
but
because
it's
not
just
one
infill
site
on
a
block,
it
would
likely
have
higher
impacts,
and
so
there
would
be
a
use
permit
process
where
that
would
be
reviewed
by
the
there
would
be
public
hearings
and
it
would
go
to
the
County
Board.
A
Okay,
Eric
your
hand
is
raised.
L
Sorry
about
that,
this
is
what
happens.
You
have
to
switch
rooms
because
you
have
kids,
you
try
to
hide
so
I
personally
would
prefer
us,
maybe
not
to
take
a
position
on
this
or
I
I'll.
Just
I'm,
not
necessarily
in
favor
of
this
and
I
know
that
kind
of
cuts
against
some
of
the
flexibility
arguments
that
I've
made,
but
I
seem
to
recall
Matt
at
the
zoko
meetings
like
yeah,
you
had
said
basically
like
sites
that
meet
this
criteria
are
typically
churches
in
in
low-rise,
residential
neighborhoods.
L
There's
not
like
a
ton
of
them
in
the
county
and
I.
You
know
I
would
kind
of
prefer
that
these
sites
they're
big
enough.
They
probably
would
be
better
suited
to
go
through
like
a
site
plan
process
or
something
with
a
little
bit
more
engagement
and
have
a
little
bit
more
opportunity
for
the
the
community
to
kind
of
shape
something
other
than
maybe
some
really
really
just
large
townhouses
I
don't
know.
I
I
feel
like
this.
Is
it's
big
enough,
where
I
kind
of
feel
like
it's
beyond?
L
A
I
swear
thanks
for
your
comments,
I
I.
Think
in
my
understanding
that,
though,
that
and-
and
you
know,
staff-
please
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
instead
of
just
saying
that
single-family
homes
can
be
built
on
these.
You
know
sites
larger
than
one
acre.
We're
saying
you
can
do
missing
middle
with
this.
A
This
process,
it's
not
quite
by
right,
but
it
does
not
preclude
you
from
doing
a
site
plan
to
build
something
different,
but
if
we,
if
the
board
did
not
approve
this,
it
still
allows-
and
this
is
you
know,
correct
me-
if
I'm
wrong,
it
would
still
allow
Property
Owners
to
build
single-family
homes
on
that
lot
by
right,
okay,
but
just
not
Missy
middle
homes,.
A
Okay,
then,
in
this
case
Eric
I
I
think
I
disagree
with
you,
I
think
it
makes
it.
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
to
stick
with
the
status
quo,
which
I
feel
like
favors,
detach
single-family
homes,
where
you
could
get
the
density
for
Missing
middle
properties,
so
yeah
I
think
I.
Disagree
on
this
other
thoughts
from
commissioners.
A
It
is
also
an
option,
as
I
said
at
the
beginning,
that
we
can
take
no
position
on
something.
So
if
we
have
disagreement
or
you
know,
people
don't
feel
strongly,
you
know
we
can
just
not
weigh
in
on
a
particular
number
Laura.
M
I'll
admit:
I,
don't
completely
understand
this
option,
it
sounds
like
we
would
have
to
approve
it
in
order
for
missing
middle
projects
to
go
forward
on
these
larger
size
slots,
but
I
may
be
completely
wrong
on
that.
Can
someone
just
really
simply
in
real,
simple
language,
explain
this
option.
A
Thank
you
staff.
Do
you
mind
it's
just
explaining.
A
Yeah,
just
explaining
it
again
like
what's
allowed
today
versus
what
this
option
would
allow
if
it
were
adopted
well,.
B
So,
let's
let's
say
you
have
there's
a
two
Acre
Site:
it's
you
know
it's
an
Institutional
use
or
it's
just
a
you
know.
B
There
are
some
houses
in
Arlington
that
are
on
two
acre
lots
and
you
know
not
many
of
them,
but
you
could
subdivide
that
two
acres
into
you
know
say
five
or
ten
lots
and
and
redevelop
the
site
as
and
today,
if
it's
our
Zone,
the
only
thing
you
can
do
is
is
single
detached
houses,
so
you
could
build
five
houses
or
ten
houses
or
or
whatever
the
zoning
standard
is,
for
you
know,
laying
out
lots
and
laying
out
a
development
like
that
in
terms
of
lot
width
and
lot
size,
and
so
what
this
option
is
saying
is
you
couldn't
buy
right,
builds,
eho,
build.
B
You
know
four
plexes
or
six
plexes
on
each
of
those
lots
that
you
subdivided,
but
you
could
do
it
if
you,
if
you
submitted
a
use
permit,
which
is
a
special
exception
that
gets
you
know,
gets
an
extra
level
of
review
and
has
to
be
approved
by
the
County
Board.
M
L
L
I,
just
I
think
that
one
of
the
unspoken
kind
of
understandings
and
the
community
conversation
is
that
these
lots
are,
you
know,
locks
that
you
typically
see
you
know
single
family
homes
already
on
or
would
presumably
be
built
on
and
like
in
all
practical
purposes,
like
lots
of
this
size
probably
have
a
church
on
them
or
something
and
I
just
think
that's
a
little
different
than
how
then
lots
that
currently
have
single-family
houses
on
them.
I
think
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
social
contract.
L
You
know
with
with
that
type
of
building
in
a
neighborhood
and
I
think
reasonable
people
can
disagree
about
that,
but
I
also
think
like.
If
that's
going
to
get
turned
over
I.
You
know
the
whole
reason
behind
this
scheme
is
that
we
limit
kind
of
the
community
involvement
so
that
we
reduce
costs
so
that
there's
more
certainty
for
folks
who
want
to
do
this.
They
don't
have
to
go
through
a
whole
big
process
that
takes
a
year
and
I,
think
that
makes
sense
for
a
missing
middle.
L
That's
that's
kind
of
the
point,
I
think
when
it's
a
lot
that
this
bit
it's
this
big
and
if
it's
a
church
or
something
like
I,
think
that
kind
of
does
make
more
sense
to
have
a
community
conversation
and
I
think
that
maybe
we
do
want
to
kind
of
yes,
they
could
build
single-family
homes,
but
maybe
we
do
kind
of
want
to
incentivize
them
to
consider
maybe
more
skilled
up
housing
options
if
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
allowed
or
if
there
was
like
a
zoning
change,
so
I'm,
just
not
quite
sure,
I
think
it's
kind
of
on
the
edge
of
what
we
kind
of
contemplated
with
the
scope
of
the
with
the
idea
of
missing
middle
housing
is
but
like
I
said,
I,
don't
feel
strongly
enough
to
like
try
to
stand
in
its
way
either.
M
Okay,
I
appreciate
that
Can,
the
staff
tell
us
how
many
of
these
I'm
curious.
Now
do
you
happen
to
know
what
kind
of
property
these
large
Lots?
What's
actually
on
them?.
B
Yeah
there's
a
there's
about
130
or
so
of
them.
You
know.
So
it's
it's
not
a
lot.
It's
not
something
that
we
expect
that
we
would
see,
but
also
something
that
we
wanted
to
think
about,
because
they
do
have.
You
know
they
do.
Have
the
zoning
to
do
to
do
something
different
so
that
you
know
they
have
a
right
today.
B
If
you
know
house
of
worship
were
to
you,
know
downsize
or
downscale
or
sell
their
property,
they
could
sell
to
a
developer
and
a
developer
could
subdivide
and
and
build
something
by
right.
So
you
know
I
think.
The
conversation
here
is
a
is
a
good
one.
B
I
would
respond
to
commissioner
Burkey
that
the
the
purpose
of
the
use
permit
process
is
that
there
would
be
there
would
be
some
sort
of
community
conversation
and
so
that
you
know
that's
why
this
is
not
proposed
to
be
allowed
by
right
and
that
it
would,
you
know,
by
requiring
County
board
approval.
County
Board
would
want
to
see
some
Community
engagement
around
that.
M
A
Thank
you
for
the
additional
information,
Matthew
and
yeah
I.
Think
I,
just
I
I,
don't
quite
see
the
the
concern
that
that
Eric
is
raised
about
this.
Because
to
me
it's
you
know.
The
status
quo
is
developers
either
going
to
build
single-family
homes
or
they
can
go
through
a
site
plan
process
and
build
something.
You
know
much
bigger.
A
What
this
does
is
it
gives
them
the
option.
They
can
still
do
single
family
homes
if
they
want,
but
if
they
want
to
do
Missy
middle,
they
go
through
the
wasn't
site
plan,
but
it
was
called.
Was
it
site
review
sorry,
Matt,
I'm,
forgetting
the
term
you
just
used,
but.
B
You
know
we,
we
have
public
processes
for
other
use
permits
like
the
the
Ahmad,
the
uni
unified
commercial
mixed
use,
District.
Sometimes
the
the
sprc
will
reviews
the
we'll
review.
Those.
A
Thank
you
so
it
it
makes
it
slightly
easier
to
build
basically
middle
housing
on
these
sites,
but
it
still
requires
a
public
process
and
if,
if
the
developer
does
want
something
different
like
a
you
know,
10
story
apartment
building,
they
would
still
have
to
go
through
a
site
plan
process.
So
I
think
the
only
thing
this
does
is
make
it
a
little
bit
easier
to
build
Missy
middle,
but
it
still
requires
more
steps
than
the
buy
right
process
to
build
single-family
homes,
so
I,
yeah,
I,
guess
I.
A
Just
don't
really
see
if
you're
supporting
more
missing
middle
housing
across
the
county.
I,
don't
I
still
don't
see
the
issue
with
this
one,
but
any
other
thoughts
or
questions
from
other
Commissioners.
On
on
this
item,.
L
I
mean
I'll,
just
you
know,
hey
of
all
this
I
think
we
should
move
on,
but
it's
the
incentive.
You
know
it's.
This
is
the
same
sort
of
conversation
that
we
had
with
the
Columbia
Pike.
They
were
form-based
code
amendments.
This
is
like
what
two
years
ago
now
to
incentivize
home
ownership,
and
it
is
about
when
you
provide
you
know.
Zoning
is
all
about
they.
L
You
know
my
thought
is
that
if
you
allow
that,
like
you
know,
you
may
not
want
let's
just
necessarily
see
missing
but
on
that
site,
because
you
might
want
more
denser
housing.
If
that's
something
that's
feasible,
but
you
know
reasonable
people
can
disagree.
I
don't
want
to
hold
up
the
meeting
about
this
I.
Just
that's!
That's
that's!
Where
I
landed,
it's
not
about
trying
to
prevent
housing
from
being
built.
It's
just
that.
You
know
size
of
lots
of
a
certain
size.
L
The
county
from
a
policy
standpoint
might
actually
want
more
dense
housing,
and
you
might
want
to
try
to
force
a
developer.
To
kind
of
consider
that
versus
you
know,
single-family
homes
might
really
not
be
fine
as
financially
viable
if,
depending
upon
how
big
the
site
is,
but
it's
all
good.
We
should
probably
move
on
okay.
A
A
A
Okay,
let's
let's
go
ahead
and
vote
so
and
this
is
not
an
official
vote.
This
is
more
of
a
just
internal
vote
to
get
a
sense
of
where
we
are
so
we
can
move
on
so
we're
not
officially
proving
a
motion,
but
getting
that
sense
of
the
commission
so
and
the
question
is:
do
you
support
the
one
option
that's
available,
which
is
to
allow
the
the
use
permit
process
on
sites
larger
than
one
acre
to
build
missing
middle
housing?
A
Or
do
you
not
support
it,
which
would
be
voting
no
so
vote
Yes?
If
you
do
support
the
option
that's
available
and
no,
if
you
do
not
so,
let's
start
with
commissioner
Berkey.
N
A
That
only
you
can
determine
how
you
want
to
vote
on
that.
A
Okay,
he
may
have
stepped
away,
commissioner
Lee.
A
Commissioner
Lee
nope,
okay,
then
Mr
Macbeth,
I
vote.
Yes,
make
sure
our
makeover.
A
Okay,
commissioner
Montgomery.
S
C
S
A
Okay,
so
that
passes
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six
seven
to
two.
No
so
yeah
I
think
the
the
sentiment
is
to
move
ahead
with
supporting
the
option.
3A.
Okay,
thank
you
all
so
number.
Four
lot
coverage
allowances.
A
4B
would
allow
you
to
take
what
currently
provides
like
bonus
density
for
doing
a
garage,
and
it
allows
you
to
reallocate
that
for
the
miscing
middle
housing
that
would
be
built
on
that
property
and
understanding
that
garages
are
likely
not
to
be
built
for
a
lot
of
these
multiplexes
and
someone
correct
me
if
I
explain
that
incorrectly,
but
that
is
my
understanding
of
it.
A
L
I
mean
I'm,
pretty
I'm
still
pretty
conflicted
about
this
one
having
more
flexibility
for
housing
types
is
something
that
I
am
definitely
interested
in,
but
and
I
also
think
that
we
really
should
be
encouraging
a
more
Transit.
L
You
know
friendly
Community,
but
the
reality
is
that
we
still
live
in
a
very
car
Centric
world
and
we
do,
you
know,
need
to
deal
with
the
realities
of
folks
driving
cars
and
what
those
impacts
will
be
is
always
hard
to
forecast
and
so
parking
is
such
a
pain
to
kind
of
talk
about
and
I
I'm,
just
very
I,
don't
know
I'm
landing.
L
Somebody
convinced
me
I'm
very
conflicted
on
this
one,
because
I
street
parking
is
kind
of
a
reasonable
concern
in
a
lot
of
neighborhoods,
so
I
I
don't
know
I'm
interested
in
what
other
folks
think
I'm
I'm
pretty
conflicted
myself.
A
A
question
for
staff
on
this:
does
this
impact
only
the
garage
itself,
or
does
it
also
have
an
impact
on
like
driveways.
B
Yeah
so
that
this
I
I,
think
to
what
commissioner
Burkey
is
getting
to.
This
has
no
bearing
on
parking
requirements.
It's
just
whether
the
parking
that
is
built
is
within
a
driveway
or
within
a
garage
that's
attached
to
the
main
building
or
whether
it's
in
a
garage
that's
detached
from
the
main
building
and
in
the
backyard.
B
So
the
I
think
you
know
the
discussion
about
parking
is
the
next
one
and
I
think
based
on
the
comments
I
just
heard,
maybe
that's
the
appropriate
place
for
this
conversation.
This
is
really
about.
B
Currently,
if
you
build
a
single
detached
house
you're,
given
an
extra
five
percent
lot
coverage
allowance,
if
you
build
a
rear,
detached
garage,
there
are
reasons
that
was
put
in
place,
20
or
so
years
ago,
and
I
think
you
know,
based
on
some
of
the
public
comments
that
we
heard
earlier.
B
B
Are
we
likely
to
see
a
lot
of
detached
garages
in
the
back
of
a
property,
or
are
they
more
likely
to
be?
You
know
attached,
maybe
as
a
as
a
side
loaded
garage
integrated
into
the
building
foreign.
L
I
wasn't
trying
to
conflate
it
with
the
actual
the
parking
requirements.
It's
it's
more.
It's
it's
taking
away
the
incentive
for
the
the
garage
and
and
putting
it
back
into
the
base.
That's
what
I'm
struggling
with.
B
L
I
mean
it's
it's
it.
You
know,
the
concern
is
I
mean
it
isn't.
It
is
related
to
parking
which
we'll
be
talking
about
next,
that
I
wasn't
around.
You
know
20
30
years
ago,
at
Arlington,
but
you
know
I
presume.
One
of
the
ideas
was
to
incentivize
folks
to
have
garages
so
that
they
would
store
their
cars.
You
know
off
Street
and
and
house
them
right,
but
you
know
I,
don't
know,
I
mean
I.
Also
where
I'm
conflicted
is
ultimately
like.
L
We
want
more
flexibility
for
housing
and
do
we
want
to
be
incentivizing?
L
You
know
garages
that
really
wasn't
the
intent
of
this.
You
know
policy
either.
So,
like
I
said,
I
I,
I'm,
I'm
kind
of
conflicted.
It's
really
only
because
option
4B
takes
that
incentive
off
the
table,
but
it
kind
of
makes
sense.
I
mean
you're.
L
L
You
have
to
think
about
that
kind
of
going
forward,
and
so
it
is
this
kind
of
where
I'm
struggling
is
it
is
this
kind
of
tension
of
like
a
lot
of
the
framework
is
trying
to
replicate
a
lot
of
the
standards
we
have
for
current
single
family
homes,
but
we
do
have
to
keep
this
eye
like
on
the
future.
As
far
as
like
the
types
of
development
that
we
want
to
see
in
the
county
going
forward,
for
you
know
for
our
environment,
you
know
for
walkability
livability.
L
All
these
other
reasons,
there's
like
a
little
bit
of
attention
there,
because
when
you
do
things
that
kind
of
walk
away
a
little
bit
from
what
are
the
current
standards
for
single-family
homes
like
it's,
you
know
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
tension
in
that
I.
Don't
think
that's
a
bad
thing,
but
I
think
that's,
probably
where
my
struggle
is
a
little
bit,
because
it's
it's
different
you're
you're,
removing
kind
of
that
incentive
there,
but
I
I
mean
I.
L
Can
I
I
could
probably
easily
see
myself
supporting
option
4B
as
well
so
I,
don't
know
that
was
pretty
incoherent,
but
that's
that's
kind
of
a
summary
of
my
struggle
on
this.
A
Thanks
Eric
yeah,
I
I
think
for
me
this
is
one
of
the
only
things
within
this
package
that
actually
provides
an
incentive
for
missing
middle
housing
over
a
single
family
home,
which
is
part
of
I.
To
me
why
this
is
so
important
is
that
you
know
with
a
single
family
home,
you
get
the
extra
five
percent
if
you
are
going
to
build
a
detached
to
garage,
whereas
Missy
middle.
A
A
So
to
me,
that's
that's
a
significant,
because
there's
really
not
any
other
incentives
in
this
package
for
like
multiplexes
over
single-family
homes
and
I.
Think
as.
A
Still
going
to
see
a
lot
of
single-family
homes
being
built
and
not
that
many
busy
middles
properties
at
least
initially,
but
Paul
I'm
willing
to
recognize
you.
If
you
have
a
comment
on
this.
R
It
was
more
of
a
question.
Does
4B
choir
that
the
allow
it
allowed
coverage
be
reallocated
to
the
base
or
could
a
detached
garage
still
be
constructed.
B
Right,
you
could
still
it
it
doesn't
say
you
can't
build
a
detached
garage.
It
just
you
know
removes
that
allowance
that
you
get
for
it
and
and
reallocates
it
to
the
base.
G
B
That's
I'm
going
to
use
the
R6
zoning
as
an
example
because
the
lot
the
lot
coverage
percentage
is
vary
by
zoning
District,
but
our
R6
has
a
base
lot
coverage
of
of
40
percent.
If
you
build
a
front
porch,
you
can
get
an
extra
three
percent,
so
you
can
go
to
43.
If
you
build
a
rear,
detached
garage
and
a
front
porch,
you
can
go
up
to
48
percent
three
three
percent
for
the
porch
five
percent
for
the
garage,
and
so
what
what
this
would
say
is
under
4A.
B
It
would
be
just
as
I
described
it
in
order
to
get
48
you'd
need
to
build
a
porch
and
a
garage
under
4B.
We
would
take
that
five
percent
from
the
garage
and
add
it
to
and
and
reallocate
it
to
the
base.
So
your
base
lot
coverage
would
be
45
percent
from
40
and
then,
if
you
provide
a
porch,
you
still
have
the
three
percent
to
get
up
to
the
48.
So
the
the
total
is
the
same.
A
Thank
you
for
that
other
other
thoughts
from
Commissioners
on
4A
or
4B,
where
people
are
are
landing
on
this
one.
T
B
Well,
a
garage
is
supposed
to
be
used
for
parking
a
car,
and
if
your
neighbor
has
adequate
parking
Elsewhere
on
the
site,
then
you
can
I,
don't
know.
That's
that's
a
question
for
the
zoning
administrator
whether
that's
allowed,
but
you
know
you're
supposed
to
be
parking
cars
in
garage,
just
not
putting
bathtubs
in
them.
T
A
Thank
you,
Nikki.
N
Thanks
Kellen
I
think
this
is
one
where,
like
we
need
to
think
about
the
future
a
little
bit.
You
know
as
we
move
to
Greater
ride,
sharing
and
Arlington's
expanding
Transportation
I'm,
just
not
sure
I
mean
I,
hear
the
concerns
about
parking.
I
do
think
they're
very
legitimate
as
well,
but
I
think
that
in
the
future
that
they
may
be
less
so
I
only
think
about
the
long-standing
effects
policy
can
have.
This
is
one
where
I
think
about
like
we
really
need
to
consider
the
future
and
how
how
many?
A
Nikki,
are
you,
are
you
leaning
towards
one
option
versus
the
other.
A
Other
Commissioners
it'd
be
helpful
to
get
a
sense
of
where
people
are
on
this,
so
we
can
see
if
we
need
to
take
another
Vote
or
if
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
one
Anika
and
then
Laura.
U
I'm
still
in
the
middle
I'm,
initially
was
going
towards
4B,
but
now
I'm,
looking
back
at
4A
after
the
hearing,
Eric
speak
something
he
said
that
that
made
me
re-look
at
4A
and
then
especially
when
Nikki
also
just
said
about
looking
towards
the
future.
U
Let
me
get
my
the
rest
of
my
thoughts
together,
but
I'm
I'm
I'm
in
the
middle,
but
I
might
go
back
to
4A,
so
go
ahead
with
the
next
commission.
I
was
just
giving
you
like
where
I
was
at
okay.
A
Thank
you,
Laura.
M
A
Okay,
I,
oh
Eric,
your
hand
is
out
I'm.
A
Okay,
I'm
I'm
I'm
gonna
take
a
vote
on
this
one
just
so
that
we
can
get
a
clear
sense
of
of
where
people
are
so
I
guess
we'll
start
with
4B.
If
you
support
4B,
then
you're
voting.
Yes,
if
you
do
not
support
4B
you're
voting,
no
starting
with
commissioner
Berkey.
A
Can
you,
commissioner,
Blake.
A
Commissioner
Brown,
yes.
M
A
Commissioner
heminger,
yes,
commissioner,
Lee
is
I,
don't
think
here,
commissioner
Mike
bath
votes.
Yes,
commissioner,
Mick
gilray.
U
I
might
have
stayed,
but
you
know:
I
am
conflicted
to
I'm.
Just
gonna
go
with
my
original
4B.
Just
go
ahead.
4B.
A
Okay,
commissioner
Norris
I
think
it
was
here,
and
then
commissioner
rubalcaba.
A
Okay,
well,
that
is
all
for
4B,
with
one
abstention,
so
I
think
that
helps
with
Clarity
for
that
option.
So,
let's
move
on
to
five,
which
is
parking
requirements.
I
A
It's
allowing
instead
of
just
one
space
per
unit,
half
a
space
per
unit
and
then
all
the
other
areas
would
be
one
PA
one
space
per
unit
and
again,
if
I'm
getting
this
wrong
staff.
Please
please
correct
me
and
I
also
as
a
additional
option.
I
don't
have
an
option
or
I
don't
have
an
issue
with
5e
but
happy
to
open
it
up
to
other
Commissioners
on
their
thoughts
or
questions
related
to
parking.
M
I
have
a
question
Can
somebody
explain
to
me
the
difference
between
a
premium
and
a
primary
Transit
Network.
B
Yes
and
I
think
I
actually
have
a
have
a
backup
slide
that
shows
where
these
are,
but
basically
the
the
premium
and
primary
networks
are
they're
defined
in
the
master
Transportation
plan,
which
is
the
you
know,
the
County's
long-range
plan.
G
B
For
all
Transportation,
and
so
the
primary
is
Columbia
Pike
is
the
transit
Corridor
and
then
also
Crystal
City
Pentagon
City
Potomac
Yard,
the
transit
way
there,
so
that
that's
where
we
have
the
highest
level
of
bus
service
on
those
two
corridors
and
then
the
primary
Transit
network
is
and
again
I
can
I
can
show
the
map.
But
it's
it's
basically,
where
we
have
high
frequency
buses
that
come
at
headways
of
10
or
12
minutes.
B
It's
the
County's
policy
and
our
transportation
plan
to
focus
Transit
Investments
along
those
corridors,
and
so
it
covers
some
of
the
major
corridors.
A
Sounds
good,
thank
you.
Laura
did
you
have
other
questions
or
comments,
or
was
that
it
for
now
that.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
thank
you
and
commissioner
Brown
and
Blake
is
your
hand
raised
from
before.
Or
did
you
want
to
speak
about
this
item?
L
Yeah
Matt,
could
you
just
walk
through
5B
and
I'm?
Still,
not
understanding
like
I
understand
that
it
would
remove
the
parking
survey
requirement,
but
I'm
still
not
understanding
what
5B
is.
B
So
it's
so
five
the
the
way
that
this
works
and
I'll
actually
just
because
I'm
not
able
to
find
that
other
slide.
I'll
just
share
this
one
again.
B
So
5A
and
5c
here
are
our
our
base
options
right.
So
one
like
one
of
these
has
to
get
adopted
or
or
some
combination
or
something
that
basically
says.
This
is
the
parking
requirement
for
all
of
these
eho
uses
and
then
5B
and
5e
would
be
layered
on
top
of
that,
and
so
what
5B
is
is
basically
like
a
variation
on
either
5A
or
5C,
whichever
one
gets
adopted,
because
both
of
these
have
the
possibility
of
if
you're,
not
Transit,
proximate
if
you're,
far
away
from
transit.
B
One
of
the
policies
is
to
actually
encourage
the
use
of
on-street
parking,
and
so
the
parking
survey
option
would
say:
there's
there's
a
process
and
it's
run
by
the
Department
of
Environmental
Services,
and
they
will
actually
go
out
a
certain
number
of
times
over
a
certain
period
and
Survey
the
block
and
see
how
many
people
are
parking
on
the
Block
and,
if
that's
below
65
percent,
then
those
sites
would
be
eligible
for
a
parking
reduction
so
for
maybe
for
a
four
Plex.
B
Instead
of
requiring
four
spaces,
they'd
only
be
required
to
provide
two
spaces
on
site
and
then
other
cars
could
park
down
the
street,
because
they've
demonstrated
that
there's
adequate
capacity
on
that
street.
Now
that's
a
little
complicated
Builders
may
not
want
to
do
that.
It
would
be
a
you
know,
an
extra
onerous
process.
It
would
take
some
time
so
5B
would
basically
say
you
can't
do
that,
though
you
know,
you
can't
reduce
your
parking
requirement,
even
if
you
can
demonstrate
that
there's
ample
on
street
parking.
The
your
parking
requirement
is
your
parking
requirement.
L
B
L
Yeah
so
tell
I'll
throw
the
floor
back
to
you,
I
mean
I
would
be
interested
in
us
pursuing
5c
similarly
and
with
5B
as
well.
This
is
something
that
I
know.
I
had
asked
Matt
about
like
in
zoko
and
I
know.
The
County
Board
had
asked
about
at
the
request
advertise
session
and
I
think
that
there's
some
concern
about
kind
of
that
parking
survey,
process
and
kind
of
the
length
of
time
it
may
take.
L
I
I
do
want
to
credit
the
fact
that
staff
from
I
think
it
was
Des
Matt,
but
basically
staff
is
confident
that
they
would
be
able
to
do
the
parking
survey,
but
it
would
take
what
at
least
several
weeks,
if
not
maybe
a
month
or
so
I
might
be
misquoting
the
time
frame
there.
So
you
know
staff
capacity.
L
You
know
it
needs
to
be
a
concern.
You
know,
because
it's
a
process
and
less
certainty
could
could
create
a
costlier
process
which
is
kind
of
antithetical
to
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
so
I.
Maybe
would
consider
that
as
well
I'll
throw
it
back
to
you,
Colin.
A
G
A
Eric
and
I
think
Anika
you're
up
next.
U
Not
sure
if
this
is
the
gentleman
who
can
answer
this,
both
put
the
the
parking
and
this
particular
area
for
the
middle
missing
homes
with
and
I
noticed
it
in
my
neighborhood
parking
meters
would
do
they
consider
this
and
when
they're
doing
all
the
planning.
As
far
as
what
area
they
Implement,
because
it's
so
Random,
on
which
neighborhoods
that
they
put
the
parking
meters
and
as
far
as
middle
missing
homes,
would
they
have
to
have
those
type
of
meters
in
their
particular
areas.
B
So
I'll
I
may
have
to
check
in
with
our
our
transportation
staff,
on
a
specific
answer
to
that.
But
I
would
say
you
know
in
general,
parking
meters
tend
to
be
in
the
higher
density
areas.
I'm
I'm
sure
that
there's
exceptions
to
that
like
I,
know,
there's
you
know,
there's
parking
meters
around
the
hospital
and
there's
a
residential
area
around
the
hospital.
B
So
you
know
there
are
exceptions,
but
for
the
most
part,
the
the
single
detached
zoned
areas,
the
R5
to
R20-
that
we're
talking
about
don't
have
a
lot
of
metered
parking
today
and
I
I.
Think
at
the
level
of
density
that
we're
talking
about
here
and
it's
unlikely
that
that
you
know
that
would
be
a
need
in
the
future.
B
Now
there's
you
know,
there's
also
the
residential
permit
parking
process
where
which
is
separate
from
whether
it's
metered,
but
that's
the
that's
the
the
program
where
you
know
a
neighborhood
can
request
to
have
residential
parking
only.
U
Okay,
because
if
you're
having
the
families
live
there,
nine
out
of
ten
there
probably
have
two
vehicles
so
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
because,
if
you're,
only
a
lot
in
one
parking
spot
per
unit
or
whatnot
just
take
into
consideration,
I'm,
maybe
just
thinking
too
far
ahead.
But
I
was
just
curious
about
that.
B
And
that's
a
good
question:
I
do
want
to
clarify
that
these
are
parking
minimum
requirements,
and
so,
if
there's
a
demand
for
more
than
one
space
per
unit,
it
wouldn't
preclude
that
from
happening.
You
know,
a
builder
could
could
build
more
parking
as
long
as
it
fits
on
the
site.
R
Sorry
about
that,
thank
you
so
I'm,
you
know
a
little
contrary
in
here,
but
I
think
I'm
leaning
towards
four
or
option
A,
because
it
does
allow
for
the
option
or
parking
reduction,
and
it
sounds
to
me
like
the
process,
is
ministerial
or
administrative
and
doesn't
involve
any
sort
of
policy
or
political
decisions
which
are
the
real
risks.
R
And
so
it
is
not
necessarily
subject
to
veto
by
your
by
your
neighbors.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
more
about
it,
but
I
think
I'm,
leaning
toward
option
A.
A
And
Matthew,
sorry
to
ask:
can
you
bring
up
the
the
list
of
options
again
just
to
make
it
clear,
I
know
you
just
found
this
and
and
put
this
up
so.
B
Good,
yes,
yes,
and
and
thank
you
for
Russell,
for
putting
up
the
the
transit
Network
map,
so
you
can
see
it's
like
Langston
Boulevard
is
a
primary
Network.
Some
portions
of
Glebe
Road,
okay
and
I'll
I'll
go
back
to
sharing
my
screen.
I.
A
And
Paul
just
clarification:
you
said
that
you
were
supporting
5A
and
and
I
as
I
was
trying
to
think
of
which
option
you
were
talking
about.
I
think
I
lost
what
you
were.
You
know
your
explanation
for
that.
R
Well,
I
I
was
just
saying
that
I
think
it
is
important
to
provide
some
allow
recognizing
that
that
these
this
housing
is
intended
for
families
or
is
at
least
in
part
and
recognizing,
as
we
heard
at
the
most
recent
Housing
Commission
meeting,
that
people
need
cars,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
provide
some
minimum
and
allowing
for
the
reduction
in
or
allowing
for
parking
reduction
with
a
administrative
process
that
you
know,
even
if
it
is
a
couple
months,
it
is
transparent
and
clear.
R
A
Thank
you,
Paul
and
just
clarifying
again
so
for
5c
when
it
says
Transit
proximate
sites.
Is
that
including
the
Metro?
You
know
three
quarters
a
mile
from
Metro
the
premium
Transit
and
the
primary
transit,
or
just
some
of
those.
B
Right
so
so
5c,
if
you
want
to
know
what
that
is,
it's
everything
that's
under
5A,
except
here
where
it
says,
0.5
spaces
per
unit.
It
would
be
no
parking
requirement
on
this.
Top
Line
is
5
is
5c,
so
we
just
didn't
repeat
it
because
it's
you
know
it's
it's
the
same,
except
for
that
one
element:
okay,.
A
And
I
did
receive
a
comment
from
doors
about
parking
and
she
said
I
would
suggest
language
allowing
a
vehicle
as
a
combination
for
a
person
with
a
disability
with
the
zoning
is
for
half
of
a
space.
It
needs
to
be
explicit.
A
Can
you
address
that?
How
that
comes
into
play?
If
someone
you
know
does
have
a
combination,
need
does?
Does
this
allow
for
under
each
or
any
of
the
options
to
potentially
well
I
guess
that
would
be
after
it's
built.
B
I'm
not
sure
I
have
enough
information
to
to
answer
that
question
like
if
you
know
if
a
space
needed
to
be
enlarged
after
the
fact,
I'm
not
sure
how
we
handle
that
today,
but
I
can
I
can
check
in
on
that.
B
I
P
Okay,
I
was
asking
basically,
if,
if
you
only
get
to
have
0.5
as
a
vehicle,
and
somebody
in
the
household
needs
at
least
one
space
for
an
accessible
vehicle
because
they
can't,
because
they
may
not
be
able,
they
might
be
living
in
a
neighborhood
where
they
can't
reach
public
transit
or
the
neighborhood,
isn't
very
accessible
funerals
on
Hills
or
something
that
that
they're
going
to
need
that
vehicle
at
least
some,
if
not
all,
of
the
time.
P
So
so
if,
if
this
proposal
means
that
some
of
the
units
say
in
a
four-plex
or
six
Plex
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
have
the
parking
space
that
might
become
a
problem.
You
know,
depending
on
particularly
if
it's
rental
and
and
people
come
in
and
out
you
know.
So
you
you
have
to
be
prepared,
perhaps
for
more
than
one
space.
B
But
you
know
and
I
think
the
way
I
would
the
way
that
we
think
about
this
is
that
you
know
some
people
have
I
mean
every
household
has
a
certain
need
for
whatever
parking
spaces
they
need.
Some
households,
don't
have
an
you
know,
don't
own
a
car,
don't
have
a
need
for
a
car,
don't
have
a
need
for
a
parking
space.
B
Well,
yeah,
I
I
think
that's
something
we
we
need
to
look
into
as
as
to
how
how
those
units
get
allocated.
If
there's
not
one
space
for
for
every
unit,
you
know
how.
How
is
it
determined
which
people
within
the
building
have
access
to
a
space,
but
but
again
that
would
be
known
before
someone
moves
in,
and
so,
if
you're.
B
B
Just
like
we
have
sites
in
the
high-rise
corridors.
Where
you
know
most
of
our
high-rise.
Multi-Family
development
doesn't
provide
one
space
per
unit.
It
provides
some
amount
less
than
that,
and
then
you
know
some
people
don't
have
cars
or
they,
you
know,
maybe
find
a
garage
in
the
next
building
over
and
rent
a
space
there
or
you
know
they.
They
find
some
way
to
to
meet
their
parking
needs.
B
P
I,
don't
think
so,
not
if
you're
looking
for
accessible
and
and
you
you
know
in
your
in
the
deal,
whether
it's
purchase
or
whatever
for
you
know,
you
want
to
be
part
of
of
whatever
advantages.
P
A
So
Doris,
both
5A
and
5c,
for
the
non-transit
proximate
sites
require
one
space
per
unit.
So
for
the
other
areas
like
on
that
map
that
we're
not
you
know
either
the
premium
or
primary,
or
you
know
within
three
quarters
of
a
mile
from
Metro
it,
it
would
still
require
one
space
per
unit.
So
if
you
have
a
six
plus
that's
six
spaces,
you
know
total
under
option.
A,
it's
half
a
space
per
unit.
So
if
you
have
a
duplex,
that's
one
space
for
the
total
property.
A
If
you
have
a
six
Plex,
that's
you
know
three
again,
that's
a
minimum,
not
necessarily
a
maximum,
but
then
for
a
it's
essentially
saying
because
you're
within
a
certain
distance
of
a
certain
Transit
Network
that
no
parking
requirements
should
be
needed
for
the
for
the
property.
A
P
P
That's
real
live
example
of
why,
because
I
I
brought
this
up
also
when
they
were
changing
the
parking
standards
and
I'm,
not
even
really,
you
know
for
developments
near
Metro
or
Metro
quarters
or
prime
quarters,
so
so
I
just
think
it
applies
here
and
and
I
thought
I
was
hearing
that
a
would
have
some
kind
of
administrative
process
and
and
while
I
was
hearing
that
I
was
thinking
shouldn't
there
be
some
possibility
in
in
the
zoning
requirements
for
for
accommodation.
P
A
I
A
L
A
B
Right
that
was
that's
the
administrative
process
that
that
Paul
was
talking
about
is.
Is
it's
it's
administrative
for
the
parking
survey
that
that's
not
something?
That's
it's
not
a
public
process
around
the
parking
survey.
It's
either
there
is
65
of
of
you
know
less
it's
either
less
than
65
of
the
block
is
parked
in
terms
of
Bond,
Street,
Parking
or
more
than
65
is
parked,
and
if
it's
more
than
65
administratively,
you
can't
reduce
the
parking
and,
if
less
than
65,
you
can
reduce
it
to
0.5.
A
Then
I
misunderstood
my
apologies.
L
Colin
I
do
want
to
wait
in
here.
I
I
really
respect
what
Paul's
saying
I
I
suspect
I,
don't
if
the
if
the
board
leaned
into
the
direction
of
closer
to
5C,
which
I
don't
think
just
personally
think
they'll
adopt
5c
as
written
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
a
consideration.
I'm
thinking
of
too,
and
you
know,
part
of
the
elephant
in
the
room
right
is.
L
If
we
don't
have
to
build
parking,
then
in
some
of
these
sites
that
are
Transit
adjacent
or
you
know,
really
meet
any
any
one
of
these
three
criterias,
then
that
certainly
could
give
more
flexibility
to
build
the
housing
types
we
have
been
talking
about,
and
you
know
I
think
these
three
site
location,
criterias.
L
You
know
it's
I,
I
think
this
is
a
good
place
for
us
to
start
and
if
we
can
lean
into
no
minimum
requirement,
if
you
meet
one
of
those
site
locations-
and
you
know
the
board
can
give
that
strong
consideration.
I
think
that
leans
Us
in
the
direction
of
you
know
maximum
flexibility.
A
Thank
you
Eric,
so
I
feel,
like
we've
talked
a
lot
about
5A
and
5c
and
gotten
some
helpful
clarification
on
that.
As
far
as
the
additional
options,
5B
and
5e
do,
people
have
additional
questions
or
comments
on
on
those
and
what
their
impact
is.
N
N
A
B
A
B
A
What
I
thought
and
I
thought
that
Paul
and
Eric
were
saying
that
the
0.5
requires
the
administrative
process
to
get
to
that?
Okay,
so
the
the
0.5
spaces
per
unit
in
transit,
proximate
sites
is
by
right.
A
That's
correct,
Matthew,
yes,
yes,
okay
and
the
non-transit
approximate
and
called
the
sac
sites
are
one
space
per
unit.
But
if
5B
is
not
adopted,
they're
able
to
use
a
parking
study
to
potentially
go
lower
than
one
space
per
unit.
A
Yes,
yes,
okay,
can
you
provide
a
little
bit
of
an
explanation
around
5e.
B
5E
is
something
that
actually
came
out
of
the
was
recommended
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Transportation
Commission,
and
so
it's
a
it's
a
little
bit
complicated
and
it
would
apply
and
I
think
very
few
circumstances.
But
basically,
you
know
sometimes
there's
an
older
house
that
doesn't
have
a
curb
cut.
Today.
It
doesn't
have
a
driveway,
it
doesn't
have
any
parking
right.
B
It
was
built
before
there
was
a
parking
requirement,
and
so
if
one
of
those
sites
were
to
redevelop
say
as
a
duplex,
where
the
parking
space
requirement
would
you
know,
say
it's:
it's
Transit
proximate
site,
it's
a
duplex.
So
it's
two
units,
it's
parking
requirement
is
0.5
spaces.
B
So
it's
only
required
to
provide
one
space
if
they
built
a
new
curb
cut
where
there
wasn't
one
previously,
they
would
actually
take
away,
in
some
cases,
an
on-street
parking
space
in
order
to
create
an
off
street
parking
space,
and
so
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
Transportation
Commission
thought
that
that
was
a
kind
of
an
unfair
situation
to
be
taking
away
a
public
space
to
create
a
private
space.
And
so
that's
basically
the
circumstance
that
that
this
is
covering
is
saying.
If
you're
in
that
rare
circumstance,
you
don't
have
a
parking
requirement.
A
Okay,
I
think
it
would
probably
be
helpful
to
do
a
vote
to
get
a
sense
of
the
commission
on
this
this
one
as
well,
and
this
will
actually
require
a
couple,
a
couple
votes.
A
So,
okay
for
the
first
vote,
then
I
would
propose
that
it's
binary
choice
between
5A
and
5c
and
we'll
say
if
you
support
5A
vote
Yes,
if
you
support
or
if
you
don't,
which
in
effect
means
you
support
5c
vote.
No.
A
N
A
Okay,
commissioner
Brown.
R
A
Commissioner,
Lee
is
not
here,
commissioner:
Macbeth
votes.
No
commissioner
Mick
gilray.
K
U
A
Commissioner
Haley
Norris
is
not
here,
commissioner:
arubal
clava.
T
M
A
Okay,
so
5A
fails.
So
that's
two
in
favor
and
one
two,
three
four
five,
six,
seven
eight
opposed.
So
just
people.
You
know
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
if
you
voted
no,
my
assumption
is
that
you
support
5c.
If
anyone
does
not,
please,
you
know
tell
me
now.
A
Okay,
so
then
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
do
separate
votes
on
5B
and
5e
because
we
could
potentially
adopt
both
or
either
or
none.
If
that
works
for
people.
I
A
Four
five
b,
commissioner
Berkey.
A
Okay,
commissioner
Blake.
N
N
A
No
and
I
vote
no
as
well,
commissioner
mcgilvray.
No
commissioner
Montgomery.
T
T
A
So
5B
eliminates
the
survey
if
you
vote
Yes
you're
voting
to
eliminate
the
survey
so
just
clarifying
okay.
So.
A
Yeah,
basically,
if
you've
voted
no
you're
saying
that
you
do
not
support
eliminating
the
opportunity
for
reduction
with
a
parking
survey,
so
you
do
not
want
parking
surveys
if
you
voted.
No,
if
you
want
or
sorry
you
do
not
want
to
eliminate
the
parking
survey,
if
you
voted.
No,
if
you
voted
yes,
you're
saying
I
do
not
want
parking
surveys
that
could
potentially
reduce
parking
further
from
what
was
up
above.
L
L
C
C
Right
Kellen,
yes,
just
confirm
my
vote.
It
was
a
oh,
my
gosh
I
think
it
was
a
majority.
I
do
not
want
to
eliminate
the
opportunity.
A
C
G
A
Commissioner
surface
changing
her
vote.
Okay
sounds
good,
so
that
means
we
are
we're
not
proposing
that
the
board
adopt
option
5B.
A
So
the
next
one
option
5e.
So
this
is
the
very
complicated
situation
that
does
not
apply
to
most
I
guess
circumstances
that
Matthew
had
explained.
Are
there
any
additional
questions
on
this
before
we
we
vote
on
whether
whether
to
approve
the
no
minimum
parking
requirement,
if
a
new
slash,
expanded,
curb
cut
will
result
in
loss
of
equivalent
number
of
on-street
parking
spaces.
A
L
I
I
think
folks
are
generally
in
from
getting
bad
feedback.
So
I
think
folks
are
probably
generally
in
favor
of
this.
I
would
propose
that
if
we
do
vote
to
support
this,
that
we
you
know
have
language
about.
Basically,
we
we
talked
about
you
know
the
equity
concerns
I,
think
the
Transportation
Commission
had
raised.
That's
it.
A
Okay,
thank
you
Eric,
let's
start
with
the
voting
on
5e.
A
M
A
Commissioner
Brown,
yes,
okay,
commissioner
Edwards,
yes,
commissioner
heminger,
yes
and
commissioner
Macbeth
votes.
Yes,
commissioner,
McIlroy.
C
S
A
Commissioner,
Ruble
cava.
A
L
We
had
enough
of
a
discussion
about
it
and
I.
Just
also
am
not
I
really
respect
what
Doris
was
saying,
but
I
also
think
that
I'm
speaking
for
myself
here
speaks
to
Matt's
comment
earlier
about
the
type
of
development
that
we
want
to
see.
Few
you
know
in
the
county
and
I
think
that
multi,
you
know
multimodal
and
how
folks
get
around
applies
to
to
all
and
I
just
I'm,
not
wild
about
kind
of
encouraging.
L
You
know
a
lot
of
car
use.
Contrary
to
some
of
my
concerns
earlier.
I
know
that's
kind
of
contradictory,
so
I
just
don't
know
that
we've
gone
in
depth
enough
on
it
to
really
speak
in
an
informed
way,
but
that's
my
view.
A
Okay,
I
mean
we
can
definitely
note
the
concerns
that
Doris
had
raised
in
the
letter,
but
without
sort
of
including,
like
the
sentiment
of
the
full
commission
on
that
issue.
P
P
Yeah
I
think
somebody
should
research
the
fact
that
that
that,
for
any.
P
Basically,
for
any
person
with
a
disability
who
needs
an
accessible
vehicle
and
needs
a
place
to
park
it
that,
if
it's
certainly
in
a
four
Plex
or
above
that,
that
and
maybe
actually
yes
and
and
even
even
if
it's,
if,
if
well
anyway,
if
if,
if
the
owner
has
four
units
or
more
that's
the
point
that
that
you
can
request,
accommodation
and
parking
is
is,
is
a
is
very
common
for
an
accessible
vehicle
or
parking
close
to
the
door
or
the
unit
is,
is
a
common
Fair,
Housing
Act,
probably
the
most
common
request
for
accommodation.
P
A
Thank
you
Doris,
and
it
certainly
you
know.
I
would
encourage
staff
to
to
look
into
the
concerns
and
the
questions
that
you
raised.
You
know
as
they
work
on
their
own
recommendation
to
the
board.
So
definitely.
P
Yeah,
if,
if
the
fair
housing
Acts
kicks
because
of
the
number
of
units
and
then
the
the
accommodation
of
a
parking
space
near
the
unit
is
is,
is
you
know,
this
is
a
new
type
of
kind
of
housing
that
straddles
sort
of
single
family
and
not
single
families?
So
so
what
I'm
saying
is
I,
don't
think
it
should
be
ignored.
I
think
the
county
should
figure
that
out
and
and
and
also
the
doj
has,
has
enunciated
the
need
for
zoning
policies
not
to
discriminate
against
people
with
disabilities.
A
Yes,
we
can
definitely
include
you
know
summary
of
your
comments
in
in
there
and
and
take
note
of
that.
Okay
item.
Six,
the
tree
requirements
so
is:
is
this?
Are
there
multiple
option,
or
is
it
really
just
6A
for
this
one.
B
Yeah,
it's
just
6A,
but
I
think
what
I
would
say
is
you
can
see
here
that
there's
the
language
is
up
to
four
and
so
there's
the
county
board
has
advertised
for
two
to
four
units.
The
requirement
could
be
up
to
four
shade
trees
per
site.
They
would
ultimately
adopt
a
number
that's
between
zero
and
four
right
and
for
five
to
six
units.
B
They
would
ultimately
adopt
a
number
that
is
between
zero
and
eight
so
that
it
gives
the
board
some
flexibility
within
that
range,
so
that
you
know
this
is
the
option
that's
in
front
of
us,
but
you
know
the
commission
could
recommend
a
number
lower
than
four
or
a
number
lower
than
eight
and
it
would
still
be
in
scope.
A
Information
that
would
be
helpful
for
us
and
trying
to
make
a
recommendation
around
how
many
shade
trees
per
site
like
what
are
the
the
impacts
on
you
know
the
potential
unit,
development
of
more
versus
less
trees.
A
Okay,
Sarah
your
hand
is
up.
C
A
silly
question,
but
for
these
like
tree
requirements,
are
they
giving
a
list
of
trees
that
could
go
in
like
I
know
it
says
shade
trees,
but
is
there
a
list
of
actual
trees
that
would
fit
in
that
area?
So
it's
not
spreading
like
oh
God
I'm,
not
a
arborist
or
anything
like
that,
but
just
kind.
C
B
Is
right
so
there's
a
defined
list
that
the
department
of
Parks
and
Recreation
of
their
urban
forestry
section
maintains,
and
so
you
know
it's
it's
medium,
medium
large,
large
native
canopy
trees
in
general.
C
What
the
trees
are
yeah.
Thank
you
I'm
again,
it
probably
wasn't
really
for
the
question,
but
just
if
someone's
building
something
I.
E
C
A
Thank
you,
Sarah
I
think
I
saw
Eric
and
then
Nikki
after.
L
Yeah
I
would
recommend
that
we
not
take
a
position
on
this
and
move
forward.
This
is
one
of
them
more
frustrating
topics
that
those
code
meetings
and
a
not
frustrating
because
of
our
our
staff.
Just
because
of
the
nature
of
the
topic,
it's
incredibly
subjective
and
as
Matt
was
saying,
they're
looking
at
it-
and
everybody
has
a
lot
of
opinions
about
this,
and
it
certainly
has
impacts
as
far
as
flexibility
of
the
site,
but
every
one
of
us
has
seen
properties
where
trees
get
planted,
and
then
they
get
ripped
out
things
get
clear-cut.
L
It's
just
it's
it's
it's
a
really
difficult
issue
to
kind
of
get
your
arms
around
and
I'm
still
not
confident
if
I
took
another,
we
had
another
year
to
study
it.
We'd
really
still
understand
what
the
right
move
is
here.
So
I
kind
of
would
prefer
that
we
just
focus
on
seven
eight.
You
know
the
rest
of
the
options.
B
So
that
so
there
are-
and
this
is
the
the
tricky
part
of
this-
is
that
there's
trade
requirements
for
single
detached
houses,
there's
treatment
requirements
for
you
know
pretty
much
all
development
in
Arlington
County
and
we
regulate
that
not
through
the
zoning
ordinance,
which
is
what
we're
talking
about
here.
But
we
regulate
it
through
another
ordinance,
the
Chesapeake
Bay
preservation
ordinance,
and
that
is
it's
a
different.
It's
not
a
number
of
trees
that
you
have
to
plant.
It's
a
there's,
a
calculation
of
tree
canopy
that
takes
into
account.
B
You
know
what
a
what
species
you're
planting
and
what
their
maturity
will
be
in
20
years,
and
so
there's
like
a
formula
and
that
formula
is
set
by
state
code,
and
so
this
is
one
of
these
things
that,
because
we're
Virginia,
Arlington
can't
change
those
formulas
or
can't
change
those
percentages
and
actually
the
way
that
it's
set
up
is
that,
as
as
density
increases
your
tree
canopy
requirements
decrease,
which
maybe
makes
sense
for
high-rise
development
versus
single
detached
development.
B
But
we're
talking
about
buildings
that
are
fitting
into
the
same
footprint
as
a
single
detached
house,
and
so
we
have
this
because
of
the
state
tells
us
what
the
requirements
are
and
we're
actually
increasing
the
dwelling
units
per
acre
of
the
site,
even
though
we're
not
increasing
the
size
of
the
building.
What
that
means
is
most
missing.
B
I
think
the
goal
here
is
try
is
try
to
not
have
10
tree
canopy,
and
so
the
intent
is
to
require,
through
the
zoning
ordinance,
some
an
additional
layer
of
tree
planting
to
get
some
parity
between
single,
detached
and
missing
middle
housing
types
so
that
you're
not
seeing
less
tree
canopy
on
the
on
the
missing
middle
housing
types.
But
it's
also
it's
a
different
formula.
It's
a
different
way
that
you
calculate
it
and
so
there's
no
way
to
get
exact
parity.
A
And
Matthew
is
there
a
reason
why
this
isn't
using
the
same
formula?
Is
that
because
the
county
legally
cannot
require
20,
but
they
can
require
individual
trees
per
site?
That's
correct
the
wonders
of
our
state
code.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
think,
Margaret
I
saw
her
hand
up.
A
A
Okay,
yeah
I
mean
my
personal
view
on
this,
is
you
know,
I
think
at
least
one
would
be
good,
more
trees
better
for
the
environment
better,
for
you
know,
people
better,
for
you
know
eating
or
not
eating,
but
for
cooling
during
the
summer,
but
I
don't
know
what
the
right
number
is
and
I
I
don't
think.
I
have
enough
information
to
be
able
to
say
you
know
what
that
is
so
I
her
per
Eric's
recommendation.
A
I
mean
I.
Think
if
people
want,
we
can
include
a
sentiment
about.
You
know
we
we
would
like
as
much
tree
canopy
as
makes
sense,
and
you
know
we
are
pro-tree
without
specifically
taking
a
position
on
on
this.
The
specific
item
are
people
in
agreement
with
that
or
people
would
like
to
have
the
Housing
Commission
weigh
in
on
a
specific
number
of
trees
per
unit
size.
G
M
Instead
of
weighing
in
on
a
specific
number,
we
express
support,
for
you
know
like
trees
and
the
maximum
number
that
the
experts
would
recommend.
You
know,
depending
on
the
site
and
the
number
of
units,
whatever
the
magic
formula
is
that
we
get
stress.
Support
for
as
many
trees
is,
is
practicable
and
recommended
by
the
experts.
A
Sounds
good
is
everyone
else
on
the
commission?
Okay,
with
that
approach,.
C
A
About
that,
oh
no
worries.
Okay,
then
I
think
we
can
move
on
to
number
seven,
which
is
the
annual
development
cap.
If
you
could
pull
up
the
slide,
four
seven.
A
Okay,
so
basically,
this
is
whether
or
not
to
set
a
cap
and
the
type
of
cap
on
how
many
missing
middle
buildings,
or
as
this
puts
it
permits,
can
be.
A
You
know,
issued
per
year,
I
favor
7B,
no
cap,
I
I,
think
we
want
more
missing
middle,
not
mcmanchins
and
I.
Don't
think
we
should
set
a
cap.
There's
no
cap
on
tear
downs
and
building
mcmansions
in
Arlington
and
I.
Don't
think
there
should
be
a
cap
on
Missy
middle,
which
is
definitely,
in
my
view,
preferable
to
giant
single-family
homes
for
one
household,
but
7A
just
sets
I,
guess
a
permanent
cap
that,
of
course,
the
board
could
undo
with
a
separate.
A
You
know
action,
but
7c
sets
the
same
cap
of
58
permits,
but
it
it
would
automatically
Sunset
after
2028.
O
So
I
have
a
question
for
staff.
I
could
have
sworn
at
one
point.
There
had
been
some
discussion
about
limitations
on
either.
You
know
the
number
of
developments
on
a
block
or
something
that
would
you
know,
limits
an
entire
block
or
neighborhood
going
multi-family
so
I.
Just
if
you
can
refresh
my
memory
on
what
I
was
thinking
about
and
if
there
was
discussion
on
it
where
that
ended
up.
B
Yeah
so
there
there
were
some
discussions
in
the
fall
about
or
what
what
we
were
calling
Geographic
caps.
I
guess
you
know,
rather
than
you
know,
say.
If
the
number
is
58,
you
know
58
permits
county-wide
across
27,
000
give
or
take
R5
to
R20
Lots.
B
We
were
advised
by
the
county
attorney
that
really
the
only
way
that
we
could
set
caps
by
geography
legally,
it
would
be
to
do
it
by
our
existing
zoning
districts
so
that
the
five
R5
R6
R8,
r10
and
R20,
and
so
it's
possible-
and
you
know
something
that
the
commission
could
weigh
in
on
as
to
whether
that's
you
know
something
that
they
would
support,
or
not
it's
still
within
the
scope
of
advertisement
that
that
the
board
could
take
58
or
whatever
the
number
ends
up
being.
B
It
would
have
to
be
a
number
lower
than
58
to
be
consistent
with
the
scope
of
advertisement.
But
let's
say
for
discussion
purpose:
it's
58!
How
are
we
going
to
divide
that
among
these
five
zoning
districts
so
that
they
each
have
a
cap
that
maybe
collectively
add
up
to
58.
A
Thank
you
and
Eric
and
then
Mike.
L
Thanks
Kellen,
so
two
questions
for
you
Matt,
so
yeah
and
I'm
glad
that
you
spoke
to
the
methods
of
distribution
which
is
the
language
and
and
sub
Na
and
7c
there.
So
my
understanding.
This
is
just
like
a
rough
ballpark,
but
a
lot
of
you
know
residential
lots.
Yeah
I,
don't
know
what
the
the
plurality
is,
but
I
mean
a
lot
of
them
are
really
R5.
R6
right
I
mean
that's,
not
a
majority,
but
that's
a
maybe
like
a
plurality.
I
think
I
have
a
slide.
L
B
L
G
B
You're
right
that
you
know
most
most
of
this
is
R6
and
then
next
most
prevalent
is
our
10
at
18
and
then
you've
got
R5
is
about
nine
percent
of
lots.
Our
eight
is
about
six
percent.
You
can
see
you
know,
R8
is
kind
of
along
the
Langston
Boulevard
Corridor
and
then
r10
is
pretty
much
all
north
of
the
Langston
Boulevard
Corridor
and
then
Arlington
Ridge
is
also
r10
and
then
R20
is
mostly
along
along
the
river.
L
Right
I
took
a
look
at
those
mice
yeah,
it's
yeah,
exactly
there's
just
very
few.
So
I
guess
you
know,
and
then
this
is
just
gonna,
obviously
stupid
question,
but
you
know
in
order
to
to
make
modifications
like
if
the
candy
board
said
okay,
you
know
what
we're
gonna
do.
A
cap,
we're
gonna,
do
a
cap
of
58
we're
gonna.
Do
we're
gonna
pick,
let's
pick
option
7A
and
then
we're
gonna
decide.
You
know
this
many
per
year
for
R5
this
many
for
ra,
you
know
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
L
The
only
way
to
change
that
is
to
to
reopen
the
zoning
ordinance
here,
basically
right,
correct,
correct
right.
So.
L
Unless
it's
sunsets
sorry,
unless
it's
sunsets
yeah
under
7c,
my
second
question
for
you
would
about
the
sunset,
so
the
board
advertised
a
sunset
under
7c,
where
the
cap
would
sunset
in
2028.
L
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
throw
a
couple
ideas
on
the
table
for
the
commission:
I
I'm.
You
know
there
might
be
a
lot
of
folks
in
the
commission
who
favor
7B,
which
is
not
having
any
cap
at
all.
I,
think
that
we
should
really
weigh
in,
though
on
the
cap,
because
my
sense
is
that
there's
a
pretty
pretty
decent
likelihood
that
we
will
see
some
type
of
cap,
regardless
of
how
we
feel
about
that
I.
L
Just
I
get
I
think
that
very
well
may
be
the
case,
and
so
it's
important
that
we
weigh
on
these
specifics.
So
I
would
recommend
that
we
consider
recommending
a
sunset
of
three
years
as
opposed
to
five,
so
that
would
be
calendar
years.
So
I
would
essentially
my
proposal
would
be
it
takes
option
7c,
but
for
it
to
read
during
the
calendar
years,
2023
2024,
2025.
L
I
believe
that's
right,
so
no
27,
no
28.,
so
that
would
be
kind
of
my
first
revision.
The
second
revision
would
be
that
they're.
Basically,
the
method
of
distribution
for
the
permits
would
be
not
to
to
have
one
I
I
am
concerned
about
trying
to
figure
out.
L
You
know
which
zoning
districts
should
be
allocated
certain
numbers
and
if
we
don't
know
how
this
is
going
to
play
out
anyway,
we're
going
from
a
cap
and
then
we're
going
to
even
small
much
smaller
caps
depending
upon
the
zoning
districts
and
the
only
way
to
change
them
would
be
to
I
guess:
either
wait
for
the
sunset
to
expire,
which
would
take
several
years
or
to
reopen
this
whole
thing.
So
that
makes
me
very
concerned
about
this.
This
Distributing
them
among
the
zoning
districts.
That's
it!
Those
are
my
comments.
A
Eric
just
clarification,
so
your
your
second
suggestion
was
so
adopting
the
58
permits
per
year
cap,
but
not
having
basically
sub
caps
for
for
each
of
the
zoning
districts.
It
would
just
be
like
first
come
first
serve
anywhere
so.
L
I
would
recommend
that
the
candy
board
adopt
option
7B
in
the
event
that
the
County
Board
does
want
to
enact
some
type
of
camp,
then
I
would
recommend
that
they
adopt
7c
with
the
full
58
caps
that
they
adopt
it
with
a
three
versus
five-year
Sunset
window,
and
that
they're
essentially
be
no.
No,
no
dictated
method
of
distribution
for
the
permits
that
essentially
I
guess
that
would
be
first
first
come
first
serve
basically.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Mike
thanks.
V
I
I
agree
with
what
commissioner
Burkey
was
saying:
I
differed
just
slightly.
V
You
know,
I
think
one
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
believe
data
has
indicated
that
this
will
add
about
a
thousand
units
across
10
years,
and
it's
also
my
understanding
that
there's
about
121
000
housing
units
currently
in
Arlington,
so
even
across
a
decade.
You
know
this
change
would
represent
a
less
than
one
percent
impact
to
the
current
housing
inventory
that
we
have
in
Arlington.
The
second
thing
is:
data
from
AHS
has
indicated
that
this
would
you
know
expanded
housing
options
would
be
about
one
unit
per
neighborhood.
V
You
know
next
I
also
just
I
keep
thinking
about
accessory
drawing
unit,
and
we
you
know
we
put
in
these
limits
and
restrictions,
and
we
ended
up
creating
a
lot
of
extra
work
for
staff
for
the
consultants
for
commissions
really
for
everyone
in
the
community.
You
know
we
did.
We
did
that.
G
V
No
reason
and
I
I
kind
of
think
you
know
here
we
are
again
in
in
thousands
and
thousands
of
hours
have
been
dedicated
to
this
process
and
yeah
I.
Do
wonder
if
we
put
in
this
arbitrary
cap
you
know:
do
we
end
up
creating
more
work
for
for
the
community
as
well,
and
then
just?
Lastly,
you
know
when
I
think
about
you
know
if
the
County
Board
decides
to
move
forward
with
expanding
housing
options,
we
get
the
green
light
next
month.
V
I
would
love
to
hear
from
staff,
but
I.
Imagine
the
first
unit
we
would
probably
see
would
probably
be
about
three
years
from
now.
So
you
know
it
capped
at
sunsets
in
2028,
again
kind
of
just
seems
arbitrary,
because
we
would
only
have
it
in
place
for
one
to
two
years.
So
is
it
worth
kind
of
creating
all
this
additional
work,
so
long
story
short
I
support.
What
commissioner
Berkey
said:
I
just
I
personally
think
that
there
should
be
no
caps
on
leaning
towards
70.
thanks.
A
Thank
you,
Mike
Paul,.
R
Thank
you
so
our
permits
by
unit
or
lot
so.
Q
R
Yes,
go
ahead,
I
would
say:
I
agree
with
Eric's
point
that
I
think
we
are.
There
is
likely
to
be
a
cap
of
some
sort,
but
I.
Don't
I
think
that
the
the
sunset
of
five
years,
just
because
of
inertia
is
you
know,
would
it
would
take
a
lot
of
work
to
undo
so
I
think
a
five-year
Sunset
is
reasonable,
because
I
think
it
is
important
to
provide
some
time
to
prove
it
out
and
demonstrate
that
the
fears
are
unfounded
and
I.
A
Thank
you,
Margaret
I
think
this
calls
for
a
vote
then
so
I
think
the
easiest
way
to
do
it
is
just
straight
up.
We
can
start
with
I,
guess,
7B
and
Eric.
You
have
a
you,
have
a
comment
or
a
question.
L
Well,
with
regards
to
7c
I,
just
wondered
if,
like
Margaret
or
Paul,
wanted
to
speak
to
my
idea
of
suggesting
the
board
not
necessarily
restrict
the
permits
by
zoning
District.
R
Yeah
I
I'm
sorry
I
should
have
yeah.
I,
definitely
agree
with
that.
I!
Don't
I
think
you
know
should
be:
don't
try
to
micromanage
that
just
let
it
happen
so.
O
I
I
think,
if
we're
I
mean
correct,
maybe
staff
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
but
to
me
the
method
of
distribution.
The
way
it's
phrased,
at
least
on
the
slide.
The
method
of
distribution
to
be
determined
leaves
it
open
that
the
method
of
the
distribution
could
be
just
county-wide
or
it
could
be
so
I
think
I'm
fine
with
it,
as
is
because
it
leaves
maximum
flexibility
for
staff
to
work
it
out,
but
I
can
go
either
way
if.
L
B
O
A
Thank
you,
Margaret
Mike,.
V
Yeah
I
just
have
a
quick
follow-up
question.
It
was
my
understanding
that
you
know
expanding
housing
options
would
slowly
ramp
up
each
year
and
I.
Wonder
if
you
know
staff
could
comment
you
know.
Has
there
been
an
analysis
done
on
how
many
units,
we
think
or
expect
will
happen
in
the
first
five
years.
B
So
we
did,
we
did
engage
a
consultant
team
of
of
economists
to
do
some
Financial
modeling,
based
on
current
conditions,
or
you
know,
based
on
2022
conditions,
when
we
did
the
analysis
and
they
I
I,
think
you
had
referenced.
B
You
know
a
thousand
units
over
10
years,
their
their
estimate
was
about
100
units
in
one
year
and
they
didn't
really
look
at
it
over
over
a
longer
span,
but
it
was
a
roughly
19
to
21
projects
per
year,
resulting
in
a
hundred
units
per
year.
Now
that
analysis
included
the
possibility
of
apexes,
so
you
know
it
might
end
up
being
reduced
from
that,
particularly
from
a
unit
perspective.
B
V
O
B
B
A
A
There
no
problem
I
have
my
calculator
next
to
me.
So
Paul
did
you
have
a
question
or
comment
or
is
your
hand
still
from
before.
A
Up
I'll
put
it
down
no
worries
and
Mike
same
question
or
comment
or
hand
just
still
erased;
yeah,
sorry,
I'll,
lower
it.
Okay,
so
I
think
that
again,
the
easiest
thing
to
do
first
is
to
vote
on
the
7B
no
cap
on
development.
If
there
is,
if
that
fails,
then
we
can
get
into
the
specifics
of
the
other
options
and
the
variations
of
them.
R
Sorry
to
interrupt,
but
I
think
Eric's
point
is
well
taken,
I
mean
I.
Think
many
of
us
would
support
no
cap,
but
I
think
we
would
want
to
give
the
County
board
our
position
if
they
decided
there
should
be
a
cap.
So
even
if
7A
passes
or
excuse
me
7B
passes,
we
should
vote
on
7A
or
the
others.
I
think.
A
Yes,
I'm
fine
with
clarifying
sort
of
what
we
would
want
next
after
that
Mike
yep
yeah.
V
I
I
agree,
I,
think
here's
where
my
mind's
at
you
know
if
we
think
the
County's
already
gonna,
you
know
put
the
cap.
You
know
that
maybe
we
use
our
advisory.
You
know
you
know
influence
as
the
chief
advisor
on
housing.
You
know
and
try
to
lean
towards
no
cap
right.
V
If
we
already
think
the
county
is
going
to
put
a
cap,
but
perhaps
in
the
letter
we
can
say
you
know
we
favor
No
Cap,
but
if
the
county
does,
then
maybe
you
know
7c
I,
guess
that's
where
I'm
at
so
it's
like
best
of
the
worth
you
know
I
definitely
am
not
a
favor
of
7A,
but
if
we
do
have
to
do
a
cap
and
I
guess,
I
can
live
with
7c.
If
that
makes
sense.
A
Sounds
good,
yeah
I
think,
let's
vote
on
7B
and
then
we
can.
We
can
figure
out
if
it
passes
what
our
next
you
know.
Best
option
would
be
for
the
board.
If
it
fails,
then
we'll
figure
out
what
our
you
know.
What
our
actual
recommendation
is
out
of
the
remaining
two
options
so
for
7B,
which
is
no
cap,
commissioner
Berkey.
L
N
R
A
O
A
May
have
lost
commissioner
Montgomery
okay,
commissioner
Ruble
cava.
C
S
A
So
that
passes
unanimously
unanimously
so
now
for
our
sort
of
backup
option.
If,
if
the
board
does
not
agree
with
our
primary
recommendation
of
no
cap
on
development,
I
get
the
sense
that
people
would
like
a
cap
with
a
sunset.
So
that
would
be
7c
that
we
would
have
our
next
vote
on.
A
But
we've
had
several
different
options
about
about
what
that
would
entail.
So
we
have
the
actual
which
is
or
the
original,
which
is
five
year
Sunset.
We
have
Eric's
suggestion
of
a
three-year
Sunset
and
also
getting
rid
of
the
the
method
of
distribution
and
basically
saying
that
it
would
be
countywide
getting
rid
of
the
the
County
Board
determining
something
other
than
a
county-wide
distribution.
A
But
we've
also
heard
of
I
think
it
was.
It
was
mainly
the
five
years
or
the
three
years
and
either
removing
the
flexibility
of
the
board
to
determine
the
method
of
distribution
or
or
keep
going
with.
That
and
I
saw
Eric's
hand
up.
L
L
Also
this
practically
speaking,
this
seems
to
be
an
area
of
the
policy
where
there's
going
to
be
a
good
deal
of
horse
trading
by
the
County
board
members
right.
So
maybe
my
recommendation
is
let's
vote
on
7c
as
written,
but
with
the
distribution
to
be
countywide.
L
V
Yeah
I
will
withdraw.
My
I
was
just
going
to
support
Eric's
three.
You
know
I
think
I'm,
just
thinking
about
the
tiering
right.
If
the
county
says
all
right
yeah,
we
do
need
a
cap
and
they're
already
gonna
go
with
five.
Let's
push
them
to
three,
and
if
we
lose
three,
then
we
get
five
but
I
I
hear
what
commissioner
Berkey
saying
so
yeah:
let's
just
go
with
the
five
for
now.
L
A
Okay,
so
we
can
take
a
vote
on
as
a
backup
option.
The
cap
of
58
permits
per
year
with
the
capsum
setting
after
five
years
and
the
method
distribution
would
be
specified
as
county-wide.
A
If
you
do
not
support
any
part
of
that,
and
you
feel
strongly
you
can
vote
no
and
then
we
can
reopen
it
up
and
and
see
what
other
changes
people
want
to
make.
But
if
you
support
that
combination,
please
vote
Yes.
I
N
R
Q
V
A
Okay,
commissioner
McBeth
votes.
Yes,
commissioner,
mcgilvray,
yes,
Mr
Montgomery,.
A
Is
not
here,
commissioner,
arubalcava.
S
A
Okay,
so
that
passes
as
our
backup
option,
with
The
Five-Year
Sunset,
but
the
county-wide
distribution
method.
A
So
we
will
put
that
in
the
letter
as
a
backup
option.
If
the
board
wants
to
do
a
cap.
Okay,
it's
the
joys
of
as
the
meeting
gets
later
and
later
into
the
evening,
how
much
more
people
are
willing
to
compromise?
A
Let's
move
on
to
number
eight,
which
is
non-conforming
building
rental
to
ownership,
which
was
not
part
of
the
presentation.
Do
people
feel
that
we
should
take
a
position
on
this?
I
do
not
actually
have
a
position
myself
on
this.
A
Any
other
thoughts
on
taking
a
position
on
non-conforming
building
rental
to
ownership.
I
B
B
But
it's
basically,
the
the
current
requirement
would
be
8B
where
again,
if
you
have
a
non-conforming
dwelling
and
you
are
converting
it
from
let's
say
you
have
a
single
detached
house-
and
it
you
know,
is
built
under
1940s
setbacks,
so
it
doesn't
meet
the
setbacks.
If
you
convert
it
into
a
duplex
and
then
you
want
to
convert
that
into
a
condo
under
current
policy,
you
would
have
to
get
a
use
permit
from
the
County
Board
and
option.
B
A
is
saying
you
shouldn't
have
to
get
a
use
permit
from
the
County
Board
in
that
situation.
I,
don't
know
how
applicable
that
situation
is
going
to
be
it's
probably
a
pretty
rare
case,
but
we
have
not
heard
any
advocacy
through.
You
know
for
pretty
much
everybody
that
we've
engaged
with
so
far
has
supported.
8A
there
has
there's
not
really
consistent
constituency
for
8B.
I
A
Okay,
hearing
none,
let's
move
on
to
nine,
which
is
definition
of
duplex,
so
this
is
also
one
that
I
do
not
have
a
position
on
but
Matthew.
If
you
want
to
provide
a
quick
summary.
B
B
When
there's
two
units
and
they're
up
and
down,
you
know
one
one
on
the
bottom
and
one
on
the
top,
rather
than
if
they're
side
by
side,
that's
technically
called
semi-detached,
and
the
current
definition
of
a
duplex
says
that
you
can
only
have
one
front
entrance,
so
you
couldn't
have
a
door
that
goes
into
the
first
floor
unit
and
then
a
door
facing
the
street
that
goes
up
the
stairs
to
a
second
floor
unit.
That's
not
allowed.
B
The
door
has
to
be
like
on
a
side
entrance
or
something,
and
then
there's
this
other
standard.
In
the
current
definition
that
says,
a
duplex
has
to
have
all
exterior
characteristics
of
a
one
family
attached
dwelling
and
that's
a
very
subjective
standard.
So
the
the
thinking
is
that
that
could
be
removed
so
that
you
know
we.
We
have
objective
standards
in
our
zoning
ordinance,
and
so
that's
that's
basically
what
it
is
and
then
9A
would
keep
the
definition
of
a
duplex
as
it
is.
A
Okay,
I
mean
to
me:
9B
makes
sense,
but
again
I,
don't
know
that
the
commission
necessarily
needs
to
weigh
in
on
this
and
he's
strong
sense
from
other
Commissioners
that
we
should
weigh
in
and
weigh
in
on
this
one
go
ahead.
I
C
I
I
know
it's
really
annoying
I
think
you
know
just
just
to
remove
the
really
subjective
requirement
and
make
it
more
objective
in
the
ordinance
just
for
the
ease
of
it.
C
That's
just
kind
of
my
stance,
you
know,
that's
it.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you,
Eric.
L
Couldn't
state
it
better
than
Sarah
did
I
also
I
do
think
we
should
weigh
in
and
I
would
strongly
support
option.
9B
I
one
of
the
the
very
few
discussion
items
that
I'm
remembering
from
zoko,
was
essentially
the
confusion
as
Matt
was
explaining
about
really
what
is
a
duplex
and
how
that
is
actually
in
the
ordinance
and
I
would
like
to
see
us
provide
more
flexibility,
but
also
remove
stigma
from
having
these
types
of
dwellings.
L
Because
to
me,
that's
a
lot
of
the
reason
why
this
was
in
the
ordinance
in
the
first
place,
and
so
I'd
like
to
see
us
lean
into
another
Direction
thanks.
Thank
you.
Eric.
A
Is
there
any
objection
to
supporting
9B.
A
Okay
sounds
good,
then
we
will
include
support
for
9B
in
the
letter
and
let's
move
on
to
ten,
which
is
the
applicability
in
zoning
districts.
B
That
would
affect
a
very
small
number
of
properties
only
about
136
throughout
the
county,
but
we
do
have
areas
and,
like
I
said,
and
it's
only
136
properties
where
we
have
a
plan
in
place
and
existing
zoning
tools
that
overlap
with
our
zoning,
mostly
R5
and
R6
zoning,
and
so
there
are
about
80
or
so
properties
within
the
Columbia
Pike
Corridor
that
are
zoned,
R5
or
R6,
and
are
also
eligible
to
redevelop
under
the
form-based
code
and
so
and
similar
with
the
Cherrydale.
There
are
zoning
tools
there.
B
There
are
and
then
East
Falls
Church.
It's
it's
just
like
a
couple
of
properties,
and
so
the
question
is:
if
we
already
have
a
plan
in
place-
and
there
are
existing
zoning
tools-
albeit
zoning
tools
that
are
not
buy
right
and
would
require.
You
know
a
larger
effort
than
doing
an
eho
project,
because
they
would
likely
require
County
board
approval.
B
A
Thank
you,
Matthew
I,
think
for
this
one.
You
know
my
instinct
is
to
support
option
10B,
which
would
allow
basic
mental
housing
in
these
well
designated
planning
districts.
Other
thoughts
from
Commissioners
or
questions
about
this
one
go.
L
Ahead,
Eric
I
didn't
I've,
I
didn't
hear
a
ton,
but
there
were
a
few
folks
who
had
specifically
mentioned
Cherrydale
and
so
yeah.
It
wouldn't
affect
a
ton
of
properties,
but
on
the
other
hand
like
we're
we're
opening
up
the
zoning
ordinance.
You
know-
and
so
it's
like
why.
Why?
Wouldn't
we
do
this
here
and
I?
Certainly
I
think
it's
always
worth
discussing
whether
we
should
be
overriding
other.
L
You
know
plans
that
we've
kind
of
put
in
place,
but
you
know
missing:
middle
study
was
for
was
for
county-wide
and
I.
Think
if
we
can
help
more
lots
and
some
of
these,
these
neighborhoods
that
because
of
the
way
they're
designated
or
not,
currently,
they
weren't
covered
under
their
kind
of
the
original
framework.
L
A
Thank
you
Eric
other
thoughts
on
on
this
one
or
questions.
A
Okay
hearing
none,
then
we
will
go
with
supporting
10B
in
our
letter.
A
Next
one
11
is
a
gross
floor
area.
You
can
pull
that
up.
A
A
So
for
this
one,
essentially,
it's
setting
maximum
sizes
for
units
of
certain
sizes,
so
this
is
slightly
different
than
what
I
was
looking
at
elsewhere,
but
basically,
both
options
set
maximum
sizes
for
I.
Believe
it's
up
to
is
it
three
plexes
or
four
plexes.
B
I
B
11A
would
set
a
maximum
gross
floor
area
for
all
EHR
development
from
two
up
to
six
units.
It's
a
graduated
scale.
All
the
you
know
the
numbers
are.
The
exact
figures
are
in
the
staff
report
from
the
RTA
they're,
the
same
ones
that
were
in
the
phase
two
framework.
So
you
know
they've
been
out
in
the
community
for
about
nine
months
now,
but
4
800,
Total
Building
sides.
If
you
have
two
units
and
then
up
to
8
000
square
foot,
Total
Building
size.
B
If
you
have
six
units
of
five
or
six
units
and
then
option
11b
would
be
only
to
set
a
maximum
gross
floor
area
for
semi-detached,
which
is
two
units
side
by
side,
and
that
would
be
five
thousand
square
foot
total
for
the
two
units
or
for
townhouses,
which
would
be
three
units
side
by
side.
That's
7,
500
square
feet
total
across
those
three
units
and
then
for
all
the
other
housing
types,
duplexes
and
multiplexes.
There
would
be
no
gross
floor
area
limit
under
11b
and
I
know.
B
Last
time
we
went
to
Housing,
Commission
I
think
in
the
summer
there
was
a
lot
of
support
to
not
set
a
gross
floor
area
standard.
We
also
heard
that
from
the
Planning
Commission,
and
so
there
was
an
option
11c
that
was
at
the
well
that
was
recommended
by
staff
for
advertisement
that
would
not
set
that
would
not
regulate
a
floor
area
for
eho.
The
County
Board
took
that
out
and
and
so
didn't
advertise
that
option.
B
Are
you
know
one
one
is
if
you
look
at
11a,
you
get
more
building
you're
allowed
more
building
area,
as
you
have
more
units,
and
so
it's
trying
to
incentivize
building
more
units,
which
you
know
helps
with
our
supply
issue
and
also
you
know,
helps
with
our
in
our
our
issue
of
having
a
range
of
options
available
in
neighborhoods,
where
there
aren't
a
range
of
options
available
and
and
I
think
we've
heard
from
and
and
the
other
advantage
of
it
is
it
does.
B
You
know
in
areas
where
you
can
build
a
very
large
building,
because
it's
a
very
large
lot
I
saw
there
was
a
there
was
a
comment
earlier,
I.
Think
in
the
public
comments
of
you
know
someone
someone
lives
in
a
neighborhood
and
none
of
the
houses
are
8
000
square
feet,
and
you
know
that's
probably
because
the
zoning
doesn't
allow
an
8
000
square
foot
building
in
that
area.
So
this
isn't
saying
this
doesn't
override
all
of
the
other
standards.
B
You
can
build
five
or
six
units
up
up
to
eight
thousand
square
feet,
but
you
can't
build
a
building
larger
than
that
and
that's
sort
of
in
keeping
with
the
concerns
that
we've
heard
in
the
community
about
compatibility
with
with
existing
development
patterns,
and
we
don't
see
a
lot
even
in
the
very
largest
houses.
Very
few
of
them
are
larger
than
8
000
square
feet,
so
it
is
trying
to
put
some
limit
on
what
can
be
built
again.
Responding
to
concerns
that
we've
heard
in
the
community
about
about
very
large
buildings.
B
11B
is
recognizing
the
fact
that
you
know
we
heard
loud
and
clear
from
the
Housing
Commission
and
the
Planning
Commission
they
didn't
like
that.
There
was
this
extra
requirement.
B
You
know
we
we
already
have
height
limits.
We
already
have
setback
requirements.
We
don't
need
an
extra
layer
limiting
what
can
be
built.
So
we
heard
that
and
11b
was
an
option
to
sort
of
create
a
compromise,
because
the
other
concern
that
we've
heard
is
that
we
have
had
some
semi-detached
projects
built
recently,
not
very
many,
but
also
townhouse
projects
where
individual
units
are
coming
in
at
three
thousand
thirty:
five
hundred
four
thousand
square
feet:
they're
six
bedroom
houses
and
that's
not
really
creating
options
that
don't
exist
in
our
neighborhoods.
B
That's
just
creating
more
five
and
six
bedroom
houses,
but
they're
attached
to
each
other,
and
so
the
thinking
behind
the
limits
here
would
be.
We
would
limit
it
to
an
average
of
2500
square
feet,
which
is
a
very
generous
size
unit
for
semi-detached
and
for
townhouse
units,
but
not
necessarily
excessive,
so
I
I
hope
that
gives
a
little
bit
of
the
rationale
there.
A
Thank
you,
Matthew
I
think
in
my
concern
with
the
limits,
especially
in
11a,
because
I
mean
they
both
have
limits,
but
11a
has
more
is
just
the
the
trade-off
for
developers.
If
you
know
the
limits
are
going
to
make
them
lean
more
towards
doing
a
single
family
home
versus
missing
middle,
even
a
duplex,
a
big
duplex
is
still
in
my
view.
You
know
better
than
like
a
mcmansion
and
is
likely
to
become
more
affordable
over
time,
but
I
understand
what
staff
is
trying
to
get
at.
A
As
far
as
putting
limits
on
to
try
to
you
know,
incentivize
smaller,
more
affordable
units
in
the
in
the
development
thoughts
from
other
commissioners.
L
Yeah
I
mean
I
I've
struggled
with
this
one
and
I've
had
this
conversation
with
Matt
at
prior
meetings
and-
and
you
know,
he's
he's
given
that
you
know
explanation
about
you
know
trying
to
incentivize
the
smaller
units
and
I
wasn't
sure
about
that.
I
I
might
I
might
have
flipped
on
that
a
little
bit.
L
Only
because
you
know
maybe
this
is
an
area
where,
like
I'm,
not
sure,
if
that's
the
case,
but
maybe
we
try
it
and
we
see
if
having
some
of
those
limits
and
so
I
think
we're
speaking
I'm
speaking
to
11b.
Here
we
see
if
that
works
over
this
five-year
period.
L
You
know
I
I,
don't
know
I
mean
I
would
have
preferred
that
the
board
advertise
11c,
they
didn't
so
I'm
I'm
persuaded
to
maybe
I
think
it's
11b
we're
talking
about
Matt
I'm
persuaded
to
give
that
a
chance
and
see.
You
know
how
that
works.
A
Thanks
Eric
thoughts
from
other
commissioners.
I
R
Ahead,
Paul,
yeah
I
would
just
repeat
what
I
said
before
I'm
I'm,
not
really
in
favor
of
any
area
limitations
so
and
wouldn't
vote
for
I,
think
A
or
B.
A
So
Paul
you're,
you're,
I,
think
or
your
preference
would
be
to
basically
say
I
mean
the
board
has
to
pick
one
of
these
options
right
Matthew
they
they
don't
have
the
option
of
not
going
with
a
limit
at
this
point
because
they
didn't
advertise
that
you're
on
mute.
I
A
So
Paul,
okay,
given
that
there's
only
two
options,
do
you
have
a
preference
for
one
of
them.
A
Thank
you
and
any
other
thoughts
from
commissioners.
L
A
Mean
I
I
prefer
11b
as
well,
but
oh
go
ahead.
Laura.
M
G
M
Express
support
you
know,
we
would
have
preferred
that
the
request
to
advertise
did
not
put
limits
on
the
maximum
floor
size,
the
maximum
gross
floor
area,
but
since
they
did,
we
kind
of
you
know
like
are
willing
to
give
11b
a
chance.
A
A
A
They
took
11c
off
the
table
and
that
we
would
prefer,
you
know
no
limits,
but
given
the
two
options,
we
would
recommend
11b
I.
M
V
A
L
Go
ahead,
why
don't
we
take
a
vote
on
11b
and
I?
Think
this
is
an
area
where
an
abstention
really
would
be
appropriate.
If
you
don't,
if
you
have
the
position
that
Mike
holds
where
basically
I
don't
like
either
option
on
the
table,
and
then
we
can
explain
that
in
the
letter-
and
maybe
that's
a
cleaner
way
just
to
do
it,
we
can
have
the
vote
on
11b
and
then
those
who
don't
think
that
we
should
vote
at
all
can
can
abstain.
N
A
P
In
favor
of
Paul's
position
on
this
and
not
setting
limits
for
for
a
number
of
reasons.
But
what
about
putting
saying?
Because
we
are
reluctant
about
this
and
we
had
supported
no
no
limit.
P
We
would
like
to
put
a
sunset
on
that
and
have
it
reconsidered,
because
one
of
the
things
that
I
recall
was
and
talk
and
say
if
I'm
wrong,
that
that
the
space
limit
would
would
constrain
developers
and
so
that
that's
what
I'm
suggesting
that
that,
because,
if
there
was
if
there
was,
if
there
had
to
be
a
reconsideration,
that's
telling
them
that
you
ought
to
really
think
that
this
is
a
good
idea.
But
you'd
like
them
to
reassess
it.
A
B
I
think
that
would
be
out
of
scope,
but
if
it's
something
that
you
feel
strongly
on
you
could
you
could
recommend
that
and
then
we
could
check
with
the
county
attorney
as
to
whether
it's
in
scope.
A
Okay,
I
think
I
think
what
makes
sense
is
to
take
a
vote
on
11b
and
we
can
try
to
incorporate
any
specific
comments
again.
The
letter
is
going
to
go
out
to
all
the
Commissioners
to
review,
and
you
know
if
people
have
language
that
they
feel
like
is
not
in
there
around
this.
You
know
expressing
disappointment
and
what
the
options
were,
or
you
know
why
we
think
this
is
not
the
best
approach.
A
We
can
massage
that
at
the
time,
but
I
think
going
through
and
taking
a
vote
on.
11B
makes
the
most
sense
right
now.
A
So,
if
you
support
11b-
and
this
this
is,
does
not
mean
that
we're
not
going
to
add
additional
language.
That
says
you
know,
but
we
preferred
5c
or
we
prefer
something
different,
but
do
you
support
11b
as
the
recommendation
to
the
board
commissioner
Burkey.
A
Okay,
I
just
want
to
reiterate
what
commissioner
Burkey
had
recommended
as
far
as
like.
If
you
want
to
show
your
strong
disapproval
of
both
options,
you
can
also
abstain
and
that
will
be
recorded
that
will
be
recorded
in.
N
M
A
Yes,
if,
if
you
say
no,
though,
and
it
does
not
pass,
then
we
and
if
people.
E
A
Schner
Macbeth
votes.
Yes,
commissioner,
Mick
gilray.
A
Passes
with
five
yeses
and
one
two,
three,
four
five
abstentions,
so
we
will
we'll
know
in
the
letter
that
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
were
unhappy
with
the
two
options
that
were
presented,
even
though
the
commission
officially
would
come
out
in
favor
of
option
b,
and
we
can,
as
I
said,
if
people
have
specific
language
that
they
want
to
add.
A
That
is
not
in
the
draft
they'll
be
able
to
add
that
in
to
the
letter-
and
we
can
go
through
that-
hopefully
we're
are
we
good
to
move
on
from
11
to
12.?
Yep
sounds
great
super
exciting,
second,
to
last
one:
okay
accessory
dwellings.
I
A
So
12a
essentially
says:
if
you
do
Missy
middle
units,
you
can't
have
an
accessory
dwelling
on
the
property.
12B
would
allow
accessory
dwellings
in
some
circumstances,
so
I
support
12b,
which
is
allowing
accessory
dwellings
in
The,
Limited
circumstances,
thoughts
from
or
questions
from
other
commissioners.
S
F
A
Any
objection
to
12b.
A
Okay
sounds
good,
some
rapid
progress,
okay
and
lastly,
we
just
have
if
we
want
to
take
a
position
on
the
glove
amendments
or
the
the
language,
so
I
think
we
should
come
out
in
support
of
it.
In
the
letter
you
know,
there's
no
options,
it's
just
supporting
the
the
language
as
advertised
questions
or
comments
from
Commissioners
on
this.
B
A
Okay,
it
sounds
like
we
have
consensus
on
supporting
the
club
amendments
and
so
I
did
want
to,
since
we
got
through
the
different
options
as
well
as
the
club
Amendment
question.
A
I
did
want
to
provide
an
opportunity
if
there
are
other
things
that
Commissioners
would
like
to
include
in
the
letter.
One
of
the
things
that
I
thought
about
is
you
know,
expressing
we've
already
talked
about
expressing
disapproval
over
and
disappointment
over
the
removal
of
7A
plexes
from
the
RTA,
but
also
recommending
to
the
County
Board
that
they
look
at
in
the
future,
including
or
allowing
seven
and
eight
plexes
that
are,
if
they're
going
to
be
committed,
affordable
or
you
know,
attainable.
A
I
A
So
essentially,
since
they
removed
seven
and
eights,
it
would
be
a
recommendation
that
the
county
consider
in
the
future
creating
a
like
a
process
by
which
either
like
committed,
affordable,
seven
and
eight
Plex
units
or
attainable
home
ownership
units
would
be
able
to
be
built
on
these.
The
same
lots
that
you
know
like
let's
say
they
adopt
six
flexes
that
six
boxes
would
be
allowed
but
not
having
to
go
through
the
full
site
playing
process
and
Eric.
You
have
go
ahead.
L
Recommendation,
we're
tweaked
to
say
that
the
that
maybe
that's
something
that
that
we
study
I,
would
be
inclined
to
support
it,
but
I'm
I'm
less
inclined
to
support
it
as
something
that
the
candidate
should
do
because
I
have
several
concerns.
Scale
is
one
of
them
and,
of
course,
the
that
speaks
directly
to
the
the
ordinance.
Then
our
affordable
housing
kind
of
scheme
and
I'm
not
sure
how
that
works
legally.
L
But
if
we
want
to
study
it
sure
yeah
I
would
support
it.
I
I
did
want
to
make
the
comment
to
before
the
meeting
ends
here.
That
I
really
feel
strongly
that
the
letter
should
also
acknowledge
the
fact
that
this
was
a
three-year
process,
pretty
much
with
many
many
hands
involved
and
I
just
feel
very
strongly.
The
commission
should
acknowledge
all
the
work
that
our
County
staff
has
done
here.
L
L
A
tremendous
amount
of
public
engagement
meetings,
talking
to
us
I
mean
just
long
nights
and
it
wasn't
like
there
was
just
all
these
examples
around
the
country
for
them
to
draw
from,
and
so
you
know
this
is
a
very
ambitious
plan
and
I
just
feel
strongly
that
we
should,
you
know,
acknowledge
staff's,
incredibly
hard
work,
we're
very
indebted
to
them.
For
that,
that's
it.
A
Thank
you,
Eric
and
I
am
fine
with
both
points
that
you
raised
so
changing
into
encouraging
them
to
study.
Looking
at
creating
a
process
for
to
support,
affordable
housing.
A
You
know
faster
development
for
seven,
a
plexes
on
the
you
know
same
units
across
the
county,
as
well
as
acknowledging
all
the
hard
work
related
to
Missy
middle
Mike.
You
had
your
hand
up.
Did
you
still
have
yeah.
M
I
agree
with
what
Eric
suggested
and
I
just
want
to
add
to
the
one
point
about
thanking
the
staff
that,
in
addition
to
you,
know
everything
that
Eric
said
they
also
did
it
through
the
myths
of
a
pandemic.
They
made
it
work
despite
a
pandemic.
A
Definitely
agree
with
that.
Any
other
comments
or
things
to
consider
before
we
entertain
a
motion
on
our
recommendation
to
the
County
Board
on
missing
middle
housing.
A
Yes,
so
I
have
notes
of
the
different
options
that
we
have
agreed
to
support
sort
of
in
in
different
places,
so
it
it's
kind
of
hard
for
me
to
read
it
back
to
everyone
now,
but
assuming
that
everyone's
okay,
this
meeting
is
recorded,
I
know
Alex
is
diligently.
Taking
notes
and
I've
been
taking
notes
as
well
of
motioning
to
to
recommend
to
the
County
Board
that
we
move
forward
with
the
things
we
have
agreed
on
tonight,
related
to
Missy
middle
I'm.
Happy
to
entertain
that
motion.
A
Okay,
do
we
have
a
second
thank
you
so
now
the
the
vote
that
really
matters.
A
The
final
vote.
Okay,
commissioner
Berkey.
A
All
the
letter
that
you're
gonna
write
all
the
previous
like
votes
that
we
took
were
really
just
like
sense
of
the
commission,
so
it
was
to
help
us
figure
out
what
people
agreed
with
and
what
they
didn't.
This
is
the
official
vote
to
say:
okay,
all
the
things
that
we've
said
that
we
agreed
on
in
this
meeting
now
we're
gonna
put
that
in
a
letter.
A
N
Sorry
I
just
just
because
I'm
newer
and
it
sounds
like
it'll,
be
a
pretty
long
Reddit
letter.
Are
you
going
to
write
the
whole
thing
or
are
you
gonna
ask
us
to
write
sections
or
we
don't
need
help?
That's.
A
A
great
question
that
I
haven't
given
a
lot
of
thought
to
yet
during
this
meeting,
but
I,
probably
if
people
would
like
to
volunteer
to
help
with
it,
I
will
happily
take
their
help
and
I
was
also
planning
to
to.
You
know,
pull
from
the
notes
that
Alex
is
taking
so
yes,
this
is
very
complicated
and
I
want
to
make
sure
you
know
we
have
everything
that
people
have
talked
about
in
the
letter.
A
So
if
people
would
like
to
help,
certainly
I
would
love
to
have
their
help
and
assistance.
A
N
I
M
A
Commissioner
Mike
best
votes.
Yes,
commissioner,
mcgilvray.
S
S
S
A
Okay,
that
passes
unanimously
so
I
just
I,
want
to
thank
all
the
Commissioners
and
all
the
staff
for
your
patience
and
your
time
spent
thinking
about
this
preparing
for
this
meeting
and
going
through
this
very
complex
zoning,
ordinance,
change
and
I.
Think
this
is
pretty
historic.
A
I
think
we're
the
first
commission
to
officially
weigh
in
on
this
correctly,
if
I'm
wrong,
since
the
RTA
was
adopted
by
the
County
Board,
and
so
hopefully
not
just
the
County
board,
but
other
commissions
will
be
looking
to
our
letter
as
well
for
some
some
sense
of
at
least
how
you
know
the
advisors
to
the
County
Board
on
housing
feel
about
missing,
middle
and
I
think
we
have
taken
a
step
in
the
right
direction
for
racial
equity
and
Justice
as
well
for
the
community
and
also
helping
to
address
our
our
housing
Supply
crisis
and
needs
that
we
have
this.
A
As
I
said
before.
This
is
not
a
perfect
solution
to
all
the
challenges
that
we
have
and
there's
a
lot
more.
That
I
think
we
need
to
do
as
a
community,
but
I
think
this
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction
and
it's
going
to
help
address
some
of
our
exclusion,
zoning
and
racist
zoning
policies
of
the
past,
so
I'm,
proud
of
what
we
were
able
to
accomplish
today
and
recommend
to
the
board
and
I'm
very
grateful
for
all
of
you
for
being
a
part
of
that.
I
P
A
And
Alex,
unless
there's
anything
else,
I
think
we
are
adjourned.
Nothing.
Q
Else
for
tonight,
so
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
end.
The
recording
sounds.