►
From YouTube: Arlington County Planning Commission - October 10, 2017
Description
To view this meeting with the agenda, go to https://arlington.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=44
A
B
Good
evening,
everyone,
thanks
for
being
here,
welcome
to
the
October
2017
hearing
of
the
Arlington
County
Planning
Commission.
We
have
scheduled
two
evenings
this
month
tonight
we
will
be
hearing
the
first
three
items
on
our
agenda
and
then
tomorrow
night
we
will
hear
the
request
to
advertise
for
the
Washington
Kirkwood
special
glup
study,
which
includes
the
YMCA,
the
American
Legion
and
associated
sights.
So
if
anyone
was
planning
on
being
here
for
the
Washington
Kirkwood
study
special
globe,
that
would
be
tomorrow
night
and
same
bat-time
same
bat-channel
same
that
place,
Oh
got
that
reference.
B
C
D
Thank
you.
This
is
a
proposed
zoning
ordinance
amendment
that
would
make
some
technical
Corrections.
The
purpose
of
these
amendments
is
to
correct
what
we
call
technical
errors.
These
are
errors
that
don't
contain
any
any
changes
to
policy
they're,
simply
Corrections.
When
the
zoning
ordinance
was
there
was
a
comprehensive
update
to
the
zoning
ordinance
that
was
adopted
in
four
phases,
starting
in
2012
through
2015
and
as
part
of
that
comprehensive
update.
D
Update
I
just
want
to
spend
a
minute
talking
about
some
terminology,
I'll
use
in
this
presentation
when
I
talk
about
the
1950
toning
ordinance,
that
is
a
zoning
ordinance
that
was
in
place
before
the
comprehensive
reformat.
It
was
the
ordinance
adopted
in
1950,
and
it
includes
amendments
adopted
through
May
17
2013.
D
So
the
the
proposed
amendments
in
front
of
you
today
include
I
would
categorize
them
into
four
different
types
of
amendments
into
four
different
categories,
the
first
being
where,
as
part
of
the
the
reformat
or
one
of
the
other
phases
of
the
update
provisions
where
we
worded
or
reorganized
or
headings,
were
inserted.
However,
the
insertion
of
those
headings
or
rewording
in
and
merton
ly
changed
the
definition
or
meaning
of
the
pertinent
provisions
beneath
it.
D
There's
four
amendments
in
that
category
included
in
this
block
a
second
category
being
where
regulations
were
inadvertently
omitted
as
part
of
the
Reform
Act
not
carried
over
from
the
1950s
zoning
ordinance,
third
category
being
where
long-standing
administrative
practice
was
not
incorporated,
and
the
fourth
category
is
simply
a
clarification,
clarifying
language
fixing
of
typographical
errors
or
copy/paste
errors.
What
I
like
to
do
is
walk
through
these
first
three
categories,
which
are
a
little
bit
more
subsidence.
D
D
That
was
not
intentional,
so
this
paragraph
is
being
proposed
to
be
restored
in
the
definition
being
restored
to
minimum
lot
width
rather
than
lot
width.
The
2nd
amendment
addresses
the
setbacks
and
there's
two
amendments
related
to
setbacks.
As
I
mentioned
as
part
of
the
this
category,
the
2013
ordinance
introduced
headings
throughout
the
zoning
ordinance.
These
headings
are
for
informational
purposes
only
they
are
not
regulatory
but
they're.
There
to
help
people
under
the
reader
understand
what
the
provisions
are
underneath
that
heading
in
the
1950
ordinance.
D
There
was
a
whole
set
of
regulations
that
applied
to
setbacks
or
required
yards
that
were
applicable
from
any
street.
They
were
incorrectly
placed
under
a
heading
called
front
yard
in
the
2013
reformat
these
regulations,
however,
don't
just
apply
to
fronts
at
setbacks.
They
apply
to
setbacks
from
any
Street
which
may
or
may
not
be
the
front
yard.
So
this
proposed
amendment
would
correct
that
error,
restoring
that
to
as
well
as
introducing
some
clarifying
language
later
in
those
provisions
to
again
clarify
that
these
are
setbacks
from
Annie
Street
also
related
to
setbacks.
D
The
1950s
zoning
ordinance
included
three
phrases
that
are
sort
of
magic
phrases
in
the
arlington
county.
Zoning
ordinance
that
indicate
situations
where
the
county
board
does
not
have
the
authority
to
modify
provisions.
Those
three
phrases
under
no
circumstances.
In
no
event,
in
no
case
we're
all
used
interchangeably
in
the
90
50
ordinance.
One
of
the
things
we
did
as
part
of
the
I
think
phase
2b
of
the
comprehensive
update
is
to
consolidate
all
three
of
those
phases
into
a
single
phase
for
clarity
under
no
circumstances.
D
However,
again
in
one
case
under
three
to
six,
a
1d
which
applies
to
setbacks,
the
under
no
circumstances
phrase
was
inserted
to
replace
either
in
no
case
or
in
no
event.
It
was,
however,
not
consistent
with
long-standing
practice
that
the
board
doesn't
have
the
authority
to
modify
setbacks.
The
county
board
regularly
modifies
setbacks
as
part
of
a
site
plan
approval
and
as
well.
D
The
board
Zoning
Appeals
has
the
authority
to
modify
setbacks
through
the
approval
of
a
BCA
use,
permit
or
variance,
so
that
provision
is
being
changed
to
to
be
more
consistent
with
how
that
was
originally
intended
and
the
under
no
circumstances
phrase
is
being
removed.
In
that
case,
the
next
provision
is
related
to
a
provision
that
was
included
in
the
1950s
owning
ordinance.
It
was
not
carried
over.
It
was
included
in
a
paragraph
with
other
provisions.
It
was
not
carried
over
into
the
2013
reformats.
D
This
is
an
important
provision
that
indicates
that
in
our
districts
there
is
allowed
no
more
than
one
main
residential
valent
building
and
its
accessory
dwelling
on
one
lot.
This
hasn't
changed
in
terms
of
interpretation,
but
not
having
this
phrase
in
there
has
raised
some
questions
and
confusing
for
for
zoning
that
they've
had
to
address.
So
we
want
to
restore
that
provision,
we're
doing
that
by
adding
it
as
a
you
standard
and
referencing
that
you
standard
in
the
our
district,
you
stable
another
amendment
to
the
our
district
used
table
in
the
r5
and
r15
30t
district.
D
There
are
provisions
that
relate
to
there.
There
is
there's
a
you
standard
that
was
incorporated
directly
into
those
districts,
however,
that
you
standard
actually
applies
to
the
use
well
in
both
the
r5
and
our
1530
T
district,
the
convention
and
the
zoning
ordinances
that
we're
a
youth
standard
applies
in
more
than
one.
D
Zoning
district
is
included
in
article
12
that
use
standard
section,
so
we've
simply
moved
it
from
the
r5
and
r15
30t
districts
to
article
12
and
included
a
reference
in
the
our
district
use
table
again
to
that
ye
standard
in
the
C
district
in
the
C
district
use
table
one
of
the
things
we
did
as
part
of
the
phase
to
see
I.
Think
of
the
zoning
ordinance
update
was
look
through
the
list
of
uses
in
the
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
Different
levels
of
uses
were
listed
in
different
zoning
districts.
D
So,
for
example,
a
a
health
club
in
this
case
might
be
listed
in
one
district.
Another
district
might
list
a
dance
studio
in
the
c1
district
health
clubs
were
allowed
subject
to
use,
permit
approval
and
my
long-standing
administrative
practice.
Dance
studios
were
considered
health
clubs,
so
they
were
allowed
anywhere.
A
health
club
was
allowed
because
both
those
those
uses
are
still
listed
in
the
district.
D
There
should
have
been
a
you
in
the
in
the
c1
use
table
indicating
that
dance
studios
are
allowed
in
the
c1
districts
subject
to
use
permit
approval.
So
that's
just
an
update
here
to
fix
that
ear,
and
the
last
amendment
I
think
I
have
in
my
presentation,
is
in
the
in
Article
16
that
addresses
non-conforming
uses.
There
is
a
provision
that
is
applicable
to
lots
recorded
under
one
owning
zoning
or
sorry
under
one
ownership.
D
That
concludes
staffs
presentation.
Staff
will
be
recommending
that
the
county
board
adopt
the
amendments,
as
proposed
by
staff
and
again
I'll
remind
you
that
these
amendments
are
strictly
technical
and
do
not
implement
any
changes
to
any
policy,
be
happy
to
answer
questions
on
any
of
those
proposed
amendments
or
any
of
those
that
I
did
not
discuss.
Thank
you
thank.
A
Good
evening
item,
one
on
tonight's
agenda
is
to
correct
so-called
technical
errors
introduced
through
previous
zoning
amendments.
Our
residential
neighborhoods
were
planned,
80,
70,
60,
50
and
40
years
ago,
mr.
gut
Shaw,
to
be
residential
not
to
be
constantly
repurposed
and
re
repurposed
to
10-point,
o
FA
are
with
neighborhood
parks
to
become
regional
sports
and
activity
complexes.
A
So
what
are
the
impacts
of
the
corrected
technical
errors
on
a
residential
neighborhoods?
What
do
they
corrected?
What
did
the
corrections
to
lot
with
with,
in
the
these
error,
Corrections
translate
into
impervious
surface
into
how
much
surface
area
of
these
Lots
is
going
to
be
allowed
to
be
redeveloped
and
so
on?
In
other
words,
the
environmental
impacts.
So
another
question:
what
does
the
what
does
the
phrase
quote
located
in
a
principal
or
minor
arterial
Street,
as
designated
by
the
master
transportation
plan,
unquote
mean
how
many
of
these
treats
are
there
in
the
county?
B
You,
mr.
Harris,
that's
all
the
speakers
we
have
this
evening.
Thank
you,
you
are
there
any
other
Commission's
I,
don't
think
so
that
heard
this
or
that
one
to
speak.
It
doesn't
look
like
it
so
with
that.
The
matter
is
now
before
the
Commission
and
I'm
going
to
turn
to
our
zou
co-chair
Commissioner
Garen.
To
start
us
off.
E
B
Very
well
so
for
the
rest
of
the
other,
the
rest
of
the
Commission,
the
way
we
usually
handle
these
things
is,
if
you
have
specific
questions
that
about
any
of
these,
that
you
want
to
just
satisfy
yourself
that
that
none
of
these
changes
have
unintended
content
and
intended
consequences
or
are
in
fact
represent
a
change
in
policy.
Then
you
should
feel
free
to
raise
those.
B
F
D
D
B
Thank
You
Commissioner
McSweeney
anyone
else
I
do
actually
have
a
question:
miss
Albert
the
one
about
the
the
dance
studio
and
health
club
section.
Seven
one
two
do
I
understand
correctly.
So
what
we're
doing
now
is
by
updating
the
designation
in
table
seven
one,
two
I'm
sorry,
so
this
is
on
page
7
of
14
its
line
170.
B
The
bottom
of
page
7
of
14
in
the
staff
report
do
I
understand
correctly
I'm
celibate.
So
what
we're
doing
is
isn't
the
Zoning
Administrator
no
longer
has
to
interpret
a
dance
studio
as
a
health
club,
the
dance
studios
they
use
a
recognized
use
all
on
its
own
and
can
have
the
same
opportunities
for
a
use
permit
as
a
house
club.
Otherwise,
that's.
D
Correct
and
because
both
uses
are
explicitly
listed
in
the
use
table,
and
it
was
blank
in
the
column
for
c1
that
was
actually
an
indication
like
the
Zoning
Administrator,
wouldn't
have
had
the
authority
to
make
a
similar
use
interpretation
in
this
case,
which
is
what
she's
been
doing
for
the
past
many
many
many
years.
So
we
needed
to
correct
this
in
order
to
ensure
that
dance
studios
continued
to
be
allowed
in
the
c1
zoning
district.
Thank.
B
B
Well,
lease
with
us,
you
still
gotta
get
to
the
board.
Alright,
madam
clerk,
would
you
like
to
call
the
next
item
and
I
neglected
to
say
at
the
top
of
the
meeting?
If
anybody
is
here
and
wishes
to
speak
on
an
item,
you
have
to
have
your
speaker
slip
into
our
Clerk
before
that
item
is
called.
So,
if
you
wish
to
speak
on
this
item
that
we're
about
to
call
right
now,
your
slip
should
be
in
the
box
now.
C
Number
two
is
the
adoption
of
comprehensive
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
amendments
in
furtherance
of
the
goals
of
the
Courthouse
Square
plan,
including
to
AGP
3
3,
7,
1,
7
1
amendments
to
the
glut
map
to
be
amendments
to
the
master
transportation
plan
map
and
to
Z,
see
I'm
sorry,
zo,
a
2
0,
1,
7,
0
3
amendments
to
the
Alton
County
zoning
ordinance.
We
have
Margaret
roads
and
we
have
Kelly
brown
to
present
this
item
this
evening.
Miss.
G
G
This
is
another
background
document.
The
concept
plant
is
from
the
sector
plan
document
and
it
identifies
the
study
area,
the
central
open
space,
courthouse
square
and
the
development
sites
that
frame
it.
So,
following
an
extensive
community
and
working
group
process,
the
County
Board
adopted
the
courthouse
sector
plan
addendum
courthouse
square
in
September
of
2015
staff
has
developed
the
following
general
land-use
plan,
master
transportation
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
amendments
to
implement
the
policies
set
forth
in
the
courthouse
square
plan.
No
new
policy
is
being
established
through
these
implementation
recommendations.
G
So
the
following
is
a
list
of
proposed
general
land
use
plan
amendments.
The
amendments
include
the
creation
of
the
Courthouse
Square
special
district,
as
well
as
amendments
to
designations
for
individual
plan
properties
to
align
with
the
plan
vision.
One
thing
to
note
is
that
all,
but
one
of
the
properties
located
in
this
study
area
are
publicly
owned.
We
commonly
recommend
general
Lanie's
plan
amendments,
concurrent
with
site
plans
or
rezoning
applications.
G
So
I
will
go
ahead
and
list
these
designate
these
these
proposed
amendments
at
this
time.
The
first
is
to
change
Courthouse
Square
to
public,
for
a
new
public
plaza
to
change
Metro
Plaza
from
hi
OAH
excuse
me,
office
apartment
Hotel
to
public
for
a
new
public,
plaza
Veatch
terrace
from
public
right-of-way
to
public
for
a
new
public,
plaza,
courthouse
square
west
and
the
theater
site
from
government
and
community
facilities
to
high
office
apartment
hotel.
G
There
are
additional
recommendations
for
Club
amendments
being
made
at
this
time.
It's
also
to
add
open
spaces
for
new
public
spaces
in
certain
locations.
Courthouse
Square,
Metro,
Plaza
and
Beach
Terrace
to
apply
the
public
ownership
cross
hatch,
where
it's
needed
to
remove
and/or,
add
street
segments
to
align
with
the
Master
Transportation
amendments
being
recommended.
G
So
moving
on
to
the
master
transportation
plan
recommendations
also
by
way
of
background,
these
are
the
recommendations
that
came
from
the
plan
with
regards
to
circulation.
The
first
is
to
add
a
new
metro
station
entrance
facing
Courthouse
Square.
The
second
is
to
create
the
Yule
Street
Promenade,
which
would
be
pedestrian
priority
street.
The
northern
section
would
be
between
Clarendon
Boulevard
and
15th
Street,
and
then
the
southern
portion
would
be
along
Courthouse,
Square
terminating
at
14th
Street.
G
So
the
proposed
master
transportation
plan
amendments
are
as
described
in
the
sector
plan
and
are
indicated
here
on
this
map
again,
adding
a
new
metro
station
entrance,
changing
the
designations
of
Yule
Street
north
of
15th
Street
pedestrian
priority,
adding
a
section
of
Yule
Street,
also
as
a
pedestrian
priority
street,
alongside
Courthouse
Square,
changing
the
designations
of
15th,
Street
and
14th
Street
to
shared
streets
and
then
removing
segments
of
Yule,
Street,
&
Veatch
to
each
Street
Jason
to
quarter-square
west,
and
with
that
all
about
Margaret
Rhodes
will
speak
to
his
zoning
ordinance
amendments.
Thank
you.
In.
H
Terms
of
the
key
considerations
to
address
the
plan
specifies
maximum
Heights
in
this
discreet
geographic
area,
based
on
extensive
study
over
a
two-year
process
period,
which
included
shadow
studies
and
view
impacts
from
the
National
Mall
to
optimize
the
framing
of
the
public
open
space
per
county
board
action
at
the
plan.
Adoption
only
minimal
height
exceptions
for
exceptional
architectural
features
would
be
permitted.
The
flexibility
for
community
benefits
that
staff
had
contemplated
was
removed
from
the
plan
language
by
the
County
Board,
and
this
was
also
something
that
the
Planning
Commission
had
recommended
at
its
meeting.
H
The
plans
building
recommendations
of
vision,
more
height
and
density
than
can
be
accommodated
through
existing
bonus
provisions
available
in
the
Co
District.
Therefore,
as
density
is
not
discussed
in
the
plan,
staff
is
proposing
an
urn
up
to
model
to
implement
the
plan
which
does
not
address
density
height.
In
addition
to
step,
backs
and
setbacks.
To
a
lesser
extent,
is
the
only
cap
on
buildings
in
this
district
and
is
therefore
a
very
important
consideration.
H
Staff
has
developed
zoning
language
to
implement
the
plans.
Guidance
staff
proposes
to
amend
Co
to
allow
for
application
of
special
provisions
within
the
courthouse
square
special
district,
as
established
on
the
general
Land
Use
Plan.
Additionally,
staff
proposes
to
amend
Co
to
allow
applicants
in
the
special
district
to
earn
up
to
the
additional
height
and
density
recommend
in
the
plan
in
exchange
for
achieving
the
priority
concept
plan
recommendations.
The
typical
site
plan
bonus
model
would
not
prioritize
the
priority
concept
plan
recommendations.
H
So
that
is
why
we're
proposing
this
earn
up
to
a
model
in
terms
of
heights
and
step-back
staff
recommends
incorporating
the
heights
map
into
Co
to
show
the
maximum
Heights
for
each
property,
accounting
for
the
alternatives
shown
in
the
plan
for
the
theater
site.
With
no
modifications
to
these
heights,
except
for
the
aforementioned
exceptional
non
occupiable
architectural
features,
staff
recommends
adding
a
provision
to
address
the
fact
that
the
plan
calls
for
Heights
that
are
exclusive
of
penthouses
height
as
see
Co
heights
or
inclusive
of
penthouses.
H
Heights
staff
also
recommends
referring
to
the
step-back
shown
in
the
plan
to
call
attention
to
the
step,
backs
and
podium
height
recommendations
in
the
plan,
while
providing
the
county
board
authority
to
modify
them,
as
is
consistent
with
the
plans.
Guidance
in
terms
of
the
mechanics
for
establishing
the
earn
up
to
approach
which
will
prioritize
the
plans
10
priority
concept.
Recommendations
staff
proposes
that
section
1557,
a
which
deals
with
modifications,
would
not
be
applicable
for
the
provision
of
additional
height
or
density.
H
H
To
ensure
again
that
the
density
is
earned,
and
here
we
have
an
image
of
the
building,
height
and
location
plan
that
is
proposed
to
be
codified
and
incorporated
into
the
zoning
ordinance
and
the
building
Heights.
You
see
here
we're
developed
to
ensure
that
Courthouse
Square
is
a
high
quality
open
space,
not
one
cast
in
shadow
appropriately,
framed
by
civic
and
private
buildings.
This
concludes
staffs
presentation.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
Item
two
is
adoption
of
the
Courthouse
Square
Comprehensive
Plan
and
zoning
amendments.
After
tending
to
neighborhood
meetings
and
perusing
the
staff
report,
it's
obvious
that
there
is
way
way
too
much
density
planned
for
this
site
and
way
to
community
amenities.
This
is
public
land,
the
taxpayers
residents
own
this
land.
A
A
Again,
when
you
vote
for
this
you're
voting
to
impose
everything
from
outdoor
sports
to
educational
infrastructure,
to
workforce
housing
a
neighborhoods
far
far
from
this
site
and
if
you're
not
building
it
here
were,
are
you
building
it?
So
you
know
mr.
Getchell,
you
have
kids,
you
know
if
they
can't
they
can't
play
soccer
in
this
neighborhood.
Where
are
they
gonna
play
soccer
Long,
Bridge,
Park,
right
someplace
else?
A
When
do
you
think
the
people
that
live
here
are
going
to
jump
on
their
bicycle
and
pedal
down
to
Giants
I'm
Washington
Boulevard
to
shop
on
Saturday
morning
or
Sunday
I
mean
this
is
what
you're
doing
you're
densifying
this
County
neighborhood
by
neighborhood
to
the
point
it's
going
to
be
unlivable,
it's
going
to
be
gridlocked
and
you
don't
see
the
consequences.
All
you
do
is
vote
for
this
stuff
project
after
project
month
after
month,
year
after
year,.
I
Hello:
everyone,
my
name,
is
Matt
almond
I'm,
with
the
law
firm
of
Walsh
Colucci
I'm
here
tonight,
representing
mid-atlantic,
real
real
estate
partners.
They
hope
to
be
here
tonight,
but
unfortunately
had
an
unavoidable
conflict.
So
they've
sent
me
in
their
stead:
Mr
P,
they
own
1310,
courthouse
road,
just
down
the
street
from
us.
That's
the
location
of
Verizon
Plaza
in
the
sector
plan
Verizon
Plaza
is
shown
in
the
plan
for
a
hundred
and
twenty
foot
office,
residential
Civic
or
retail
building
and
throughout
the
entire
development
of
a
sector
plan.
I
They
came
up
with
some
options
that
were
a
little
more
slender,
a
little
more
sculpted,
some
above
120
feet
some
below
and
their
main
goal
during
the
sector
plan
process
and
now
through
the
implementation
process,
was
just
to
make
sure
that,
however,
this
gets
implemented
that
there
would
be
some
opportunity
to
pursue
these
alternatives.
Further
and
not
preclude
one
or
the
other
building
form
right
out
of
the
gate
before
they
can
philo
site
plan.
I
I
think
the
way
that
staff
has
has
approached
the
implementation
is
a
little
prescriptive
in
that
it
doesn't
allow
for
much
consideration
of
Heights
and
an
excess
of
120
feet
so
that
might
preclude
some
of
those
options.
It
puts
a
bit
of
an
artificial
cap
on
a
community
benefits
package
that
could
be
worked
out
between
the
developer
and
the
community
and
the
county.
I
So
we
think
a
better
approach
might
be
some
implementation
that
has
a
limited
degree
of
flexibility
in
it,
perhaps
something
more
similar
to
the
Rosslyn
plan
that
we
went
through
recently,
where
you
reference
the
map
and
then
list
the
goals
that
are
important
and
pull
those
out
of
the
plan
and
say
that
applicants
have
to
show
that
they're
meeting
those
goals
if
they
want
to
go
higher
or
lower
and
I
left
an
exhibit
with
you,
I
know,
I'm
running
short
on
time.
This
is
a
shadow
impact
study
showing
the
full
build-out
of
the
plan.
I
Verizon
Plaza.
They
wanted
me
to
forward
that
to
you
just
to
show
that
there,
when
taken
in
context
and
considering
the
whole
area,
there
are
already
some
impacts
and
they
believe
that
there
are
ways
to
implement
development
intelligently
on
this
site
without
really
meaningfully
increasing
that
out
of
time.
But
we'll
stick
around
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
B
B
J
B
K
So
we're
sitting
right
here,
and
it
is
one
that
very
much
prioritizes
the
Courthouse
Square
a
large
public
square
I
can
tell
you
20
years
ago,
I
sat
on
a
group
that
was
contemplating
public
art
to
put
in
the
large
public
square
that
was
going
to
be
out
there,
which
never
came
so
I.
Think
that
it's
it's
a
goal
that
the
county
has
long
held
and
I
think
we've
now
come
with
a
plan
of
adding
height
and
density
strategically
around
a
proposed
square.
K
That
will
help
us
realize
that,
but
I
emphasize
the
square,
the
parking
garage
that
would
go
under
it
and
other
public
open
spaces,
because
this
is
an
unusual
plan
in
that
it
really
focuses
the
community
benefits
on
a
very
finite
list
and
vision
for
this
area.
It's
a
smaller
area
than
Roslin
Roslin
has
we've
heard
that
plan
alluded
to
by
one
of
the
speakers
it
as
some
different
character,
different
characteristics
than
courthouse
during
the
zoko
lrpc
zoko
meeting.
K
The
group
felt
strongly
that
the
zoning
language
should
not
leave
any
ambiguity
about
the
provision
of
step
backs,
as
they
are
very
important
to
the
massing
of
any
new
buildings,
and
so
while
the
county
board
can
still
modify
them,
I
think
the
staff
has
come
up
with
language
that
that
emphasizes
that
they
are
supposed
to
be
there
once
we
start
getting
to
site
plans.
Staff
has
also
addressed
the
depiction
of
the
theater
site
by
showing
the
lower
height
on
the
map
and
indicating
the
greater
height
for
combined
development.
K
In
the
legend
that
accompanies
the
map,
we
did
talk
some
about
the
MTP
amendments,
but
I
think.
As
commissioner
Weir
has
said,
they
were
very
much
in
line
with
again
implementing
the
plan
that
has
been
adopted
and
I
just
want
to
stress
that
this
evening
we're
not
making
any
new
policy.
This
evening
we
are
taking
the
plan
that
was
adopted
by
the
board
and
implementing
it,
and,
to
that
end,
I
would
I
would
mention
that
I
was
present
at
the
County
Board
meeting,
where
the
RTA
was
presented
in
mr.
K
K
K
So
while
the
notion
that
perhaps
the
the
building
could
be
taller
and
maybe
we'd
get
more-
is
nice
since
we're
starting
from
zero?
The
group
very
much
considered
that
did
the
County
Board,
so
I
know
I
personally,
look
forward
to
a
cyclin
coming
through
that's
at
120
feet
and
and
we'll
see
what
happens
so
with
that
I'm
available
to
answer
any
questions.
Mr.
chairman
I
think
I
had
very
few
topics
put
down
for
discussion.
Commissioner
Guerin
might
wish
to
speak
to
the
zoko
matters.
E
You
mr.
chair
I
will
underscore
what
Commissioner
Yamini
said
that
we
are
not
making
any
policy
changes
here.
We're
proposing
to
make
changes
with
regard
to
the
zoning
ordinance
that
better
implement
the
vision
for
the
area,
and
so
the
the
two
that
I
would
draw
your
attention
to
with
a
language
regarding
the
step
backs,
we're
in
our
joint
lrpc
zoko
meeting.
E
The
the
intent
is
to
have
the
heights
be
at
specific
levels
in
this
smaller
area
and
the
language
again
does
try
to
enforce
this.
It's
very
specific
that
the
maximum
Heights
include
the
penthouses.
So
that's
a
change
to
the
language
and
it
also
does
codify
the
map,
which
is
something
that
we
didn't
do
before.
One
thing
I
do
want
to
address,
since
it
was
brought
up
by
one
of
the
public
speakers.
Is
this
area
will
not
be
receiving
TDRs?
B
B
The
proposed
amendments
to
the
globe
and
TP
and
zoning
code
implement
the
vision
and
the
adopted
courthouse
plan
and
I
will
just
go
ahead
and
third,
where
you've
already
heard
this
evening
that
that
we
are
not
here
to
reopen
the
policy
that
was
already
established
by
the
board
and
the
adoption
of
the
courthouse
addendum.
The
the
plan
that
we're
here
to
implement.
So
there's
we're
not
having
conversations
tonight
about
policy
we're
having
questions
specifically
about
implementation,
and
so
has
this
implementation
appropriately
captured
and
implement
the
vision
of
the
already
adopted
courthouse
plan.
Commissioner
Hughes.
B
L
You,
mr.
Getchell,
this
might
be
a
question
for
staff
or
even
Commissioner,
Yamini
and
I
apologize
about
missing
the
lrpc
joint,
so
go
on
this.
The
affordable
housing
removal
I
understand
that
so
you're
the
basic
glove.
My
question
is:
there
are
two
other
bonus
density
provisions,
but
we're
leaving
those
intact
I
believe
his
would
be
historic,
but
at
everything
historic,
spend
bulldoze
chair
the
other
one
is
green
energy.
So
my
question
is
why
the
differentiation
between
the
affordable
housing
being
removed
and
the
the
green
energy
phone
is
being
left
within
the
implementation
tools.
The.
H
The
LEED
bonus
is
in
the
same
category
as
the
affordable
housing,
so
that
the
idea
is
really
to
prioritize
these
priority
concept,
plan
recommendations
and
not
to
allow
density
to
be
earned
through
these
other
areas.
That
doesn't
mean
that
they
can't
be
provided
or
that
they
should
be
provided,
but
we're
really
trying
to
focus
on
these
ten
goals
that
the
community
identified
there
were
over
18
working
group
meetings,
two
years
of
process,
so
those
were
really
the
10
priorities
established
by
the
community,
the
county
board.
K
M
M
You
go
okay,
sorry,
I'm,
a
bit
confused
about
how
these
goals
are
will
be
met
or
how
the
interplay
is
with
this
being
a
donor
site
for
transfer
of
development
rights
where
we're
giving
bonus
density.
This
is
right
by
a
metro.
It
is
a
very
small
area.
What
is
the
reason
for
anyone
to
want
to
transfer
density
away
from
this
site?
Then
it's.
B
G
The
proposed
approach
for
a
TDR
is
that
the
provisions
applicable
in
the
zoning
ordinance
for
TDR
would
apply
to
the
sending
of
density
rather
than
receiving
it
within
the
district,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
again.
As
Margaret
was
saying,
we
want
applicants
to
contribute
to
the
party
concept
recommendations
to
earn
their
density
rather
than
receiving
density
through
a
TDR.
So
we
that
said,
we
don't
want
to
preclude
people
from
sending
it
outside
of
the
district,
and
actually
that
probably
only
applies
to
the
publicly
owned
site
having
some
additional
density
that
might
still
be
available.
H
There
are
no
specific
sites
in
mind,
it's
just
if,
through
the
build-out,
depending
on
how
you
know,
through
the
site
plan
process,
a
site
is
developed,
there
could
potentially
be
some
excess
density,
and
the
idea
is
that
we
didn't
want
to
preclude
that
potentially
being
sold
elsewhere.
We
just
wanted
to
let
really
limit
density
coming
in
from
another
site
to
push
the
developers
to
really
earn
it
through
these
ten
priority
concept
plan
recommendations,
so
should
there
be
excess
density?
H
You
know
on
one
of
these
sites,
depending
on
how
it's
built
out,
it
could
be
sold,
but
we
again
we
really
didn't
want
density
coming
in
through
TDR,
so
we
want
it
because
it
could
be
purchased
from
another
site
and
it
would
not
be
getting
at.
You
know
these.
Basically,
these
physical
improvements
that
we
want
to
see
to
this
area.
B
Which
makes
me
I
don't
believe
that
the
plan
designates
any
sites
to
be
a
sending
site
for
42
hours.
So
I
think
that
that
would
there
well
I
thought
your
question
was
about
receiving
about
sending
sites
because
there's
no
receiving
site
the
receiving
would
not
be
permissible.
Under
these
amendments,
yeah
to.
F
M
G
The
idea
is
not
that
they
would
or
an
additional
density
that
they
could
then
sell.
It's
just
that
we
don't
want
to
preclude
that
or
prevent
that
from
happening.
If
a
site
actually
does
have
available
density
through
an
old
site
plan
or
I,
guess,
that's
really
the
only
situation
we're
thinking
of
that
they
could
then
send
it.
We
just
don't
want
to
prevent
that
from
happening.
It's.
H
A
likely
site
that
would
have
additional
site
density
would
be
our
site
by
the
county
site.
So
that's
something
that
we
wouldn't
necessarily
want
to
preclude
to
help
again
achieve
the
public
open
space,
but
it
it's
unlikely
that
there
will
be
much
you
know
based
on
our
models.
It's
unlikely
that
there
would
be
much
excess
density
on
the
other
sites.
But
again
it
depends.
You
know
the
SPRC
process,
all
these
things,
how
they
actually
develop.
L
Thank
You
mr.
Gatto
I
had
one
more
question
just
on
this
implementation
tool
and
I
am
happy
to
see
my
bell
tower.
Clock
tower
has
remained
even
this
whole
time.
I'm
Commissioner
out
to
me,
I
think
you
might
be
the
best
answers.
Question
I
again
apologize
about
missing
our
lrpc,
the
implementation
that
earn
up
to
so
the
goal
is,
of
course,
to
receive
to
get
all
ten.
L
K
B
I'm
gonna
cut
this
off
because
that
that
really
gets
back
to
that.
That
is
one
of
the
stated
goals
of
the
plan
that's
already
adopted,
so
we're
we
can't
go
back
and
read
and
revisit
that.
That's
it
that's
an
established
County
policy
to
prioritize
redevelopment
of
that
Plaza
so
appreciate
that,
where
you're
trying
to
go,
but
thank
you,
okay,
other
questions,
Commissioner
Siegel,
yes,.
N
H
District
energy
was
I,
think
something
that
was
evaluated
during
the
planning
process
and
I
believe
that
was
something
that
is
addressed
in
the
appendix
of
the
plan
is
something
that
might
work
here.
My
understanding
is
that
the
idea
of
district
energy
might
be
being
rethought
to
some
extent,
but
it
certainly
is
in
the
plan,
and
the
appendix
is
something
that.
K
I
would
I
would
simply
add
to
what
Margaret
is
saying
that
there
was
an
extensive
appendix
with
energy,
a
district,
energy
and
and
sustainability
for
this
area.
Again
it
may
or
may
not
be
something
that
district
energy
specifically
may
end
up
being,
not
something
that's
feasible
for
the
county,
but
that
again,
since
sustained
Adu
sustainability
is
one
of
the
ten
goals
and
we
spent
so
much
time
and
so
much
ink
on
the
appendix
for
energy
I'm
sure
it
will
be
thought
of.
B
Thank
you
any
other
questions
on
the
overall
vision.
Okay,
so
now
I
think
we
can
then
get
to
the
issue
of
the
step,
backs
and
I
guess
just
for
the
sake
of
clarity,
I'm
staff,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
just
sort
of
very
quickly
recount
recapping
how
you
responded
to
the
issue
raised
at
Zuko
and
lrpc
sure.
H
I
would
direct
your
attention
to
the
comment
response
matrix
at
the
back
of
your
packet.
It's
attachment
D
and
comment.
Twelve
reflects
what
was
discussed
at
the
joint
lrpc
SoCo
meeting.
The
comment
was
revisit
the
provision
that
the
County
Board
could
approve
an
application
with
no
step
backs
for
exceptional
site
plan.
Applications
step
backs
our
priority
outlined
in
the
plan
and
by
the
commissioners.
So
staff
responded
to
this
by
removing
the
or
no
step
backs
language
and
added
in
greater.
H
In
addition
to
a
lesser,
the
intent
of
this
language
is
to
ensure
that
a
step
back
of
some
kind,
either
greater
or
lesser,
is
provided
step
backs
are
important
to
defining
the
pedestrian
realm.
As
we
discussed
earlier
and
in
certain
instances
a
greater
step
back
may
be
appropriate,
such
as
in
a
situation
where
a
historic
building
is
being
preserved.
In
other
instances,
a
lesser
step
back
may
be
warranted,
as
the
plan
makes
a
distinction
between
step
back
height
and
depth,
stating
that
the
step
back
heights
are
intended
to
be
approximate.
H
O
B
H
Sure,
and
that's
actually,
the
next
comment
comment
number
13.
The
comment
was
for
the
AMC
site.
The
theater
site
showed
two
different
images:
an
option
a
and
an
option
B,
rather
than
combining
both
potential
heights
into
a
single
map.
So
what
we
did,
which
you
can
see
in
the
heights
map
depict
it
on
your
screen,
is
that
staff
added
a
box
around
the
portion
of
the
AMC
site
that
would
be
available
for
additional
height
on
the
building,
height
and
location
map
staff.
Also,
added
text
to
the
map.
H
Legend
explained
that
this
area
could
be
considered
for
additional
height
by
the
county
board
for
joint
public-private
development
and
will
add
similar
language
to
the
provisions
for
Courthouse
Square
in
the
zoning
district.
This
approach
has
been
used
for
other
parts,
the
county
where
allowances
for
additional
height
are
anticipated
through
adopted
policy.
So
we
addressed
the
comment
made
at
lrpc
and
we
modified
the
map
and
legend.
B
Would
you
be
able
to
refer
me
to
where,
in
the
text
of
the
zoning
ordinance
the
there's
the
reference
to
the
joint
well
I
see
it's
da
one
to
four
G
da
d3,
a
2
is
joint
public-private
redevelopment?
Is
that
defined
anywhere
like?
How
would
you
know
whether
or
not
it's
joint
redevelopment,
whether
it's
public-private.
H
B
H
What
it
says
so
it
says:
mixed-use
for
the
theater
portion
of
this
site
and
county
building
for
the
court
square
west
portion
of
the
site.
It's
the
idea
is
that
it.
You
know
there
could
be
different
iterations
of
that
the
different
uses
I
think.
That
would
be
something
that
would
be
discussed
further
in
the
site
plan
process.
I.
H
K
You
should
understand
that
the
joint
public-private
means
that
it's
it's
in
our
way
of
thinking
was
public
land
and
what
is
realized
as
a
building
may
be
a
mixed-use
of
retail.
It
may
all
be
private
uses
if
you
will,
or
it
could
be,
a
county
public
offices
or
other
types
of
facilities.
That's
not
going
to
be
known
until
a
site
plan
comes
in
until
it's
ready
to
be
developed
right.
B
And
so
I
think
that
that
my
concern
here
is
that
it
seems
a
little
nebulous
and
we
may
have
an
understanding
of
what
we
think
that
that
means
and
the
board
in
fact
itself
may
have
an
understanding
of
that
here
in
2017,
but
we
fast
forward
some
number
of
years
later,
where
maybe
this
might
be
site
plan
might
be
coming
in
and
I,
don't
know
that
it's
as
a
community
member.
Rather
it
would
be
crystal
clear
to
me
what
constitutes
joint
public-private.
B
H
H
4.3.2
primary
building
use
the
primary
land
use
in
the
block
should
be
either
office.
Civic
entertainment,
and/or,
cultural
uses,
underground
levels
may
accommodate
additional
entertainment
uses.
So
I
think
that,
for
this
policy
document
provides
some
framing
for
that,
and
this
is
also
something
that
we
can
clarify
in
the
staff
report.
The
final
staff
report
yeah.
B
Building
that
it
that
the
true
limit
then
really
is
is
more,
is
more
like
180
feet.
So
I
will
leave
that
comment
just
there.
As
for
consideration
for
staff
moving,
bringing
it
forward
to
the
board
all
right,
any
others
on
this
topic,
the
theater
block
all
right
and
then
so
the
last
one
on
chemistry
activities
list.
Does
the
proposed
zoning
language
seem
to
best
implement
the
intent
of
the
plan?
So
it's
really
anything
about
the
the
zoning
language
specifically.
B
B
This
is
a
little
bit
pedantic,
but
you
know
I'm
trying
to
do
that
sometimes
so,
when
we
mentioned
there
at
the
very
bottom
number
six,
these
are
the
the
ten
big
things.
Goals
of
the
plans,
recommendations
and
we
have
Verizon
Plaza
redevelopment-
is
its
Verizon
Plaza.
Is
that
notated
anywhere
indicated
anywhere?
Is
there
any
context
for
what
that?
What
that
means?
I
suppose
in
the
plan
itself,
there
would
be
oh.
G
B
N
Want
to
say
that
that
would
bother
me
to
somebody
taking
the
time
to
read
through
this
would
want
to
know
where
that
might
be
it
floats.
So
if
there's
a
way
to
I
guess
you
can't
redefine
Verizon
Plaza
redevelopment,
but
you
might
find
a
way
to
add
text
to
allow
someone
looking
at
the
club
to
find
out
where
exactly
where
it
is
actually.
F
F
Just
wanted
to
point
out
that
you
do
actually
have
that
answer
on
item
number
17
and
attachment
D
and
it
seems
to
have
to
do
with
the
ability
of
the
county
board
to
modify
the
heights
shown
in
the
plan
in
Rosslyn,
whereas
that
wouldn't
be
the
case
here
because
of
the
extensive
public
process.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
comment
had
been
addressed.
K
Move
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
to
the
county
board
that
they
adopt
resolution
to
amend
the
general
land-use
plan,
the
gap
and
booklet,
as
shown
in
attachments,
a1
and
a2,
adopt
a
resolution
to
amend
the
master
transportation
plan
MTP
map,
as
shown
an
attachment
B
and
adopt
the
ordinance
to
amend
reenact
and
we
codify
the
Arlington
County
zoning
ordinance.
Section.
Seven
point:
thirteen
point:
C
Oh
mixed
use,
district
all
is
presented
in
the
draft
staff
report
dated
September
28th
2017.
Second
seconded.
B
By
Commissioner,
Hughes,
okay,
so
move
basically
the
county
managers
recommendation.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
or
other
amendments
to
add
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
the
main
motion,
please
raise
your
hand
opposed
abstain
motion
carries
unanimously.
Thank
you
very
much.
Much
miss
Rosa,
Miss
Brown,
appreciate
it
all
right.
C
Number
three
is
a
request
to
authorize
advertisement
of
public
hearings
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
County
Board
to
consider
proposed
amendments
to
section
12,
14
and
18
of
the
Arlington
County
zoning
ordinance
to
revise
accessory
dwelling
regulations
in
order
to
increase
opportunities
for
residents
to
add
accessory
dwellings
while
maintaining
the
residential
neighborhood
character.
We
have
Joel
Franklin
housing
staff
to
present
this
item.
Mr.
B
Franklin
before
you
begin,
I
actually
want
to
ask
my
fellow
commissioners
that,
as
we
hear
this
to
bear
in
mind
so
unlike
what
we
just
heard
which
was
go,
is
going
forward
to
the
county
board
for
adoption
because
they
advertised
it
last
month.
This
is
a
request
to
advertise.
So
what
our
goal
here
is
this
evening,
and
it
will
also
by
the
way,
be
the
same
thing
tomorrow
evening
when
we're
looking
at
the
Washington
Kirkwood
special
Club
study.
B
The
goal
this
evening
is
to
really
focus
not
on
what
we
might
recommend
for
the
final
outcome,
but
to
make
sure
that
the
advertisement,
the
scope
of
the
advertisement,
is
sufficient
to
allow
fulsome
for
a
full
discussion
next
month.
So
that's
as
you're
hearing
this
tonight
and
you
hear
the
staff
report
and
you're
thinking
of
the
questions
really
just
focus
your
thoughts
on.
B
L
B
And
and
those
our
staff
is
best
left
to
answer
on
any
specific
item.
If
there's
something
that
you're
thinking
the
proposal
from
staff
is
a
but
you're
wondering
well,
we
might
want
to
consider
B
next
one.
You
should
ask
the
question
would
be
B
within
the
scope,
because
I
will
tell
you
after
doing
this
for
a
few
years,
the
What's
in
scope
and
out
of
scope
is
not
quite
as
straightforward,
as
you
might
think
so,
and
thank
you
for
making
that
for
making
that
point.
Commissioner
Siegel
well.
N
I
would
only
add
that
you
might
think
in
terms
of
erring
on
the
side
of
a
larger
scope.
If
you
think
the
question
should
really
be
debated,
because
that's
what
the
month
will
allow
the
community
to
do
to
take
an
issue
to
over
it
ask
all
the
kinds
of
questions
and
then,
when
it
comes
time
for
final
action,
there
will
be
more
information
with
which
we
can
make
maybe
a
better
decision,
and
at
that
point
the
scope.
Will
the
the
decision
will
be
better
informed,
Thank.
P
Right,
thank
you
very
much.
As
you
noted,
this
is
a
request
to
advertise
before
the
County
Board
on
October
21st,
the
original
ordinance
for
accessory
dwellings
was
implemented
in
2009
regulations
were
restrictive
in
some
areas
due
to
community
concerns
about
overcrowding,
a
large
number
of
accessory
drawings
being
added
in
park
since
2009
20
accessory
dwelling
units
have
been
approved.
No
complaints
have
been
generated
as
a
result
of
the
addition
of
those
units.
P
So
the
affordable
housing
master
plan
was
adopted
in
2015.
The
plan
was
developed
as
the
county's
long-range
vision
for
addressing
housing
needs
in
the
county
and
identified
accessory
dwellings
as
a
tool
to
provide
an
adequate
supply
of
housing.
Help
older
adults
age
in
place
provide
a
typically
lower
priced
housing
alternative.
An
enable
homeowner
Street
receive
additional
income
from
the
rental
unit.
The
plan
recommended
review
of
the
ordinance
to
encourage
greater
usage
and
the
board
directed
staff
to
look
at
accessory
dwelling
adjustments.
It's
one
of
the
priority
items
in
implementing
the
plan.
P
So
the
for
advising
master
plan
indicates
that
older
adults
are
expected
to
grow
three
times
faster
than
other
households
and,
according
to
a
survey
conducted
during
the
development
of
the
plan,
many
older
adults
want
to
remain
in
Arlington,
but
are
worried
about
rising
housing
costs.
The
average
age
of
a
homeowner
that's
create
an
accessory
dwelling
in
Arlington
is
55.
P
Additionally,
the
housing
master
plan
highlighted
a
sharp
decline
in
the
number
of
mark
market
affordable
units.
The
average
rent
that
is
being
reported
for
being
charged
for
an
accessory
dwelling
in
Arlington
is
right.
Around
$1,000,
which
is
below
60
percent
of
the
area.
Median
income
for
a
one-bedroom
unit
accessory
dwellings
won't
solve
the
housing
affordability
issue.
But
as
the
plan
noted,
it
is
another
tool.
P
So
what
currently
is
an
accessory
dwelling
in
an
Arlington
and
accessory
dwelling
is
an
independent
dwelling
unit
that
has
its
own
kitchen
and
bath
is
within
a
single-family.
Detached
house
is
occupied
by
no
more
than
two
people
has
a
separate
entrance.
The
accessory
dwelling
unit
must
meet
building
code
for
fire
separation,
fire,
egress
and
separate
heating
and
air
handling.
P
Accessory
drawings
are
currently
allowed
in
all
our
districts
in
one
family
detached
dwellings.
The
yellow
in
the
map
indicates
our
districts
in
the
county.
The
map
also
shows
the
20
approved
accessory
dwelling
locations.
As
you
can
see,
there
are
accessory
dwellings
in
East,
Falls,
Church
way,
Croft
woodland
lion
park,
Barcroft
elsewhere.
As
indicated
on
the
map,
the
chart
on
the
bottom
left
shows
the
number
approved
per
year.
We
have
averaged
just
two
and
a
half
accessory
dogs
per
year
with
a
high
of
six
units
and
2015.
P
So
the
process
today
working
group
was
created
to
advise
staff
on
what
changes
need
to
be
made
to
the
accessory
dwelling
regulations
in
order
to
encourage
greater
usage
while
preserving
the
character
of
Arlington
single-family
neighborhoods.
The
working
group
was
made
up
of
members
of
the
Housing
Commission
two
members
from
the
Commission
on
Aging
member,
the
Civic
Federation,
a
member
from
the
Alliance
for
housing
solutions.
The
working
group
looked
at
other
jurisdictions.
We
heard
from
applicants
who
were
both
successful
and
from
those
who
were
not
able
to
create
an
accessory
dwelling.
P
Community
engagement
early
kicked
off
in
the
fall
of
2016,
with
a
missing
middle
design
gallery
that
was
co-hosted
with
the
Alliance
for
housing
solution,
and
we
started
a
conversation
about
allowing
for
detached
accessory
dwellings
and
for
affordable
housing
month
in
October
staff,
developed
education,
materials
that
included
a
website,
fa,
cues
and
posters.
These
materials
provided
education
to
the
community
on
what
is
currently
allowed.
What
has
been
produced
so
far
and
what
some
of
the
issues
are
that
had
been
identified
at
that
point?
P
Staff
had
a
booth
at
the
Arlington
Home
Show
and
Expo
that
educated
attendees
on
what
is
currently
allowed
and
sought
input
on
those
issues
and
then
are
really.
Our
large
community
output
was
a
community
forum
that
was
held
in
May,
where
Shack
staff
shared
those
preliminary
ideas
for
discussion
and
ideas
for
improving
the
community
members
had
an
opportunity
to
have
small
group
discussions
on
the
topic
of
size
and
occupancy
design
requirements,
compliance
and
parking
and
whether
or
not
to
allow
for
detached
accessory
dwellings.
P
P
County
Montgomery
County
in
DC,
as
well
as
those
considered
best
practices
around
the
country,
such
as
Portland
Oregon,
Seattle,
Washington
and
Santa
Cruz
California
many
communities
are
doing
what
we
are
doing
now,
which
is
taking
another
look
at
their
ordinance
to
see
if
they
can
allow
for
more
usage.
Some
of
the
communities
we
looked
at
are
allowing
for
larger
accessory
dwellings
and
allowing
for
greater
occupancy,
and
many
of
them
are
allowing
for
detached
accessory
dwellings.
P
Some
jurisdictions
do
not
currently
allow
accessory
drawings,
such
as
the
city
of
Alexandria,
so
the
major
goals
for
revising
the
ordinance
were
for
to
make
it
easier
for
residents
to
add
accessory
drawings,
while
maintaining
the
residential
neighborhood
character.
The
areas
where
accessory
dwellings
are
currently
allowed
are
exclusively
single-family
neighborhoods.
These
neighborhoods
are
planned
for
low-density
residential
use
on
the
general
land
use
plan.
The
club,
which,
with
density,
is
typically
ranging
from
one
to
ten
dwelling
units
per
acre.
P
The
proposed
amendments
are
designed
to
enable
the
creation
of
more
accessory
dwellings
in
Arlington
has
seen
to
date,
while
also
ensuring
consistency.
What
with
that
designation
for
these
areas
accessory
drawing
regulations
are
designed
to
ensure
that
where
an
additional
dwelling
is
loud
on
a
one-family
lot,
it
is
allowed
in
a
mammer
manner
such
that,
as
doesn't
design
to
be
smaller
than
the
main
dwelling
and
designed
to
accommodate
a
smaller
household.
A
couple
with
other
regulations
related
to
design
bulk
and
placement.
P
The
accessory
dwelling
remains
commence
istant,
with
accessory
use,
as
opposed
to
a
principal
use,
so
jumping
into
the
recommendations,
starting
with
lot
area
and
width.
Currently,
the
lock
must
meet
the
minimum
area.
Requirements
for
its
zoning
district
staff
is
proposing
to
remove
this
requirement.
Zoko.
The
zoning
committee
of
the
Planning
Commission
asked
staff
to
look
into
the
impacts
of
this
requirement
and
approximately
20%
of
the
single
family.
Lots
in
Arlington
County
are
non-conforming
with
respect
to
area.
This
requirement
has
a
greater
impact
in
older
development
and
they
develop
neighborhoods.
P
For
example,
Lynx
and
brown
west
over
Penrose
Arlington
view
have
over
50%
of
their
Lots
is
under
sized,
while
non-conforming
Lots
are
smaller
than
the
minimum
size
required
by
the
zoning.
Ordinance
setback,
requirements
from
front
side
and
rear
lot
lines
are
the
same
for
undersized
Lots
as
they
are
for
in
a
conforming
Lots,
ensuring
that
buildings
and
structures
on
those
Lots
maintain
adequate
distance
from
neighboring
Lots.
P
In
addition,
the
zoning
ordinance
includes
requirements
then
sure
a
minimum
distance
between
an
accessory
and
main
building
and
requirements
that
restrict
the
height
of
accessory
buildings
within
a
certain
distance
from
a
street
and
from
a
rear.
A
lot
line.
These
requirements
ensure
adequate
tapering
from
the
accessory
building,
as
they
approach
neighborhood
properties
in
the
rear
and,
as
they
appear
from
the
street
staff,
proposed
that
these
existing
requirements
that
apply
to
all
accessory
buildings
on
all
one
family
Lots
sufficiently
mitigate
the
potential
impacts
of
adding
accessory
dwellings
on
an
undersized
lot.
P
Likewise,
currently,
Lots
must
have
a
minimum
width
of
50
feet
in
order
to
create
an
accessory
dwelling.
Steph
is
also
proposing
to
remove
this
requirement
as
well.
The
minimum
width
requirement
could
preclude
lots
in
older
neighborhoods,
which
are
narrower
than
is
currently
required.
We
know
approximately
10%
of
the
Lots
in
Arlington
do
not
meet
this
50-foot
requirement,
and
many
of
them
are
shy
of
meeting
this
requirement
by
a
few
feet
such
at
4849
feet.
Lots
with
substandard
widths
in
areas
would
still
be
subject
to
the
same
setback
and
coverage
requirements
as
standard
Lots.
P
Moving
on
to
the
maximum
size
requirements,
applicants
for
an
accessory
dwelling
noted
that
if
they
have
a
larger
basement
than
what
is
currently
allowed,
750
square
feet
and
they
would
need
to
partition
off
part
of
that
space.
So
if
they
had
850
square-foot
basement
they'd
have
to
petition
off
a
hundred
square
feet
of
that
space.
P
So,
moving
on
to
detached
accessory
dwellings,
currently
they
are
not
allowed
so
homeowners
are
unable
to
convert
an
accessory
building
such
as
a
garage
into
an
accessory
dwelling.
Under
the
current
provisions,
the
staff
proposal
would
be
to
allow
an
accessory
dwelling
and
what
you
are
currently
already
able
to
build.
The
401
are
one
and
a
half
story
accessory
building
which
is
25
feet
high.
The
requirement
for
this
for
the
detached
accessory
building
would
be
the
interior
lot.
P
Setbacks
are
1
foot
from
their
rear
and
side
lot
lines
and
8
feet
from
the
principal
dwelling,
the
corner
lot:
setbacks
are
greater
25
feet
from
the
corner,
Street
10
feet
from
the
rear,
lot
line
and
then
again
1
foot
from
the
interior
lot
line
and
he
feet
from
the
principal
dwelling.
There
was
a
concern.
Sorry,
the
footprint
cap
in
our
five
and
our
six
districts,
which
has
smaller
lot
areas,
is
560
square
feet
and
in
600
it
would
be
650
square
feet
in
all
other
districts.
P
This
is
an
illustration,
the
height
from
the
midpoint
of
the
roof
to
grade
of
a
one
and
a
half
story,
detached
associated
building
cannot
exceed
25
feet.
The
zoning
ordinance
restricts
accessory
buildings
to
this
height
when
the
accessory
building
is
located
anywhere
within
the
year
rear
yard
and
our
win.
It
is
located
within
10
feet
of
any
lot
line
or
within
15
feet
of
the
wall.
P
This
slide
shows
the
possible
placement
of
two
accessory
dwellings
detached
accessory
drawings.
Note
the
smaller
footprint
on
the
left,
which
is
representing
an
interior
lot
and
as
representing
an
r5
district
and
then
the
larger
footprint
on
the
right,
which
is
representing
a
corner
lot.
That
is
also
in
our
8
districts,
so
that,
as
the
max
square,
footage
of
650
for
a
footprint.
P
Staff
is
also
recommending
a
change
where
the
main
entrance
and
accessory
dwelling
entrance
may
be
on
the
same
side
of
the
house
as
long
as
they
are
not
facing
the
same
direction
and
similarly,
looking
at
removing
the
requirement
that
an
accessory
dwelling
with
an
entrance
above
the
first
floor
cannot
have
exterior
stairs
visible
from
the
street.
So
just
a
little
illustration
of
that,
it's
kind
of
hard
to
see
on
the
slide,
but
there
are
two
red
doors.
P
This
would
not
be
allowed,
since
the
doors
would
be
facing
the
same
direction
again,
trying
not
to
mean
have
that
look
of
a
duplex
and
then
finally,
just
a
illustration
of
where
the
exterior
stairs
can
be
located
on
an
interior
alot,
they
could
be
on
any
side
except
the
side.
That's
facing
the
street.
Likewise,
on
the
corner
a
lot,
you
cannot
have
the
stairs
on
either
side
that
faces
the
street
frontage.
P
Occupancy
requirements,
some
applicants
noted
that
they
would
like
to
rent
the
accessory
dwelling
to
a
couple
with
a
child,
but
the
current
limit
of
two
does
not
allow
for
that.
So
staffs
recommendation
is
to
allow
up
to
a
maximum
of
three
people
to
provide
that
additional
flexibility
and
who
the
homeowner
would
like
to
rent
to
arlington.
Zoning
ordinance
does
not
differentiate
occupants
based
on
age,
because
the
land
used
impacts
of
residential
dwelling
use
are
similar,
regardless
of
the
demographic
distribution
of
the
household.
That's
occupying
the
dwelling.
P
Then
currently,
the
owner
needs
to
either
live
in
the
main,
drawing
or
the
accessory
dwelling,
and
we
are
proposing
that
remain
part
of
the
ordinance.
However,
we
are
proposing
removing
the
requirement
that
the
owner
must
live
in
the
house
for
a
year
before
getting
approval
of
the
accessory
dwelling.
This
requirement
may
present
challenges
for
new
construction
or
for
new
home
buyers
wanting
to
renovate
the
space
before
they
move
in,
and
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
actually
complete
their
accessory
dwelling
until
they
have
actually
lived
in
the
home
for
a
year.
P
Additional
concerns
were
raised
through
the
outreach
process
that
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
can
be
problematic
for
families
that
may
need
to
move
for
their
job
our
place
of
employment.
However,
staff
continues
to
recommend
that
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
be
maintained,
as
it
is
critical
for
being
accountable
for
the
requirements
of
the
ordinance.
P
Lastly,
they're
currently
home
occupations
are
allowed
with
permit
consistent
with
home
occupation
regulations
for
all
Dowling's,
except
contractor.
Our
service
businesses
are
not
allowed
in
accessory
dwellings.
The
proposal
would
remove
this
restriction
on
contractors
and
service
businesses
as
home
occupation
enact
accessory
dwelling.
This
would
make
this
consistent
with
home
occupation
requirements
for
all
other
dwellings.
P
Compliance
requirements-
currently
a
covenant
is
recorded
on
the
property
when
an
accessory
dwelling
is
created.
This
alerts
a
future
homebuyer
that
there
is
an
accessory
dwelling
on
the
property
and
that
they
need
to
follow
the
existing
regulations
that
are
in
place.
We
are
recommending
still
requiring
the
deed.
Covenant
was
suggested
during
the
outreach
process,
as
part
of
it
as
part
of
both
community
and
working
group
discussions.
That
financing
can
be
problematic
with
the
presence
of
a
deed
covenant.
P
Staff
has
reached
out
to
several
banks
to
research
this
issue
and
have
heard
back
from
several
lenders,
and
the
feedback
has
really
been
mixed.
Some
said
that
they
they
didn't,
have
any
issues
with
lending
to
a
property.
With
an
accessory
dwelling,
others
said
that
they
there
could
be
some
potential
problems,
such
as
finding
comparable
sales,
since
there's
only
been
20
of
these
done
in
Arlington,
but
they
did
indicate
the
problem
wasn't
necessarily
with
the
deed
covenant,
but
just
the
presence
of
the
axil
actual
accessory
dwelling
itself.
P
So
staff
recommends
that
the
deed
covenant
requirement
be
maintained
in
order
to
ensure
that
future
purchasers
have
noticed
of
the
requirements
related
to
accessory
dwellings.
It
is
in
particular
importance
in
the
case
of
accessory,
as
we
feel
wearing
requirements
allow
for
the
creation
of
a
second
dwelling
unit
on
a
lot
planned
and
zoned
for
a
single-family
use
and
that
the
homeowner
understands
and
is
required
to
proactively
agree
to
abide
by
the
requirements
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
P
Moving
on
to
an
affidavit
of
compliance.
This
is
currently
required
at
initial
occupancy
and
whenever
new
tenants
move
in
staff
is
recommending
require
this
at
initial
occupancy.
Only
since
it
may
not
be
necessary
every
time
the
tenant
moves
in
as
the
owner
is
already
signified,
that
they
are
going
to
certify
compliance
with
ordinance,
it
would
be
required
for
each
new
owner
and
when
structural
changes
are
made
to
the
accessory
dwelling.
P
Also,
currently,
the
owner
agrees
to
cooperate
with
a
court
enforcement
staff
for
annual
inspections
and
complaints
and
staff
is
not
looking
at
making
any
changes.
Their
staff
is
proposing
to
remove
the
countywide
annual
limit
of
28
accessory
dwellings
per
year.
Zoning
and
code
enforcement
complaints
have
not
been
generated
as
a
result
of
accessory
dwellings
created
since
2009
and
production
has
been
minimal,
while
the
proposed
changes
would
add
more
flexibility
and
more
options
to
create
accessory
dwellings.
Staff
proposal
maintains
regulations
that
are
intended
to
preserve
the
character
of
Arlington
single-family
neighborhoods.
P
P
Currently,
an
accessory
homestay
is
allowed
in
attached
accessory
dwelling
staff
is
proposing
to
allow
accessory
homestay
in
a
detached
accessory
building.
Only
when
it
is
approved
as
an
accessory
dwelling
staff
proposes
that
accessory
homestay
is
an
appropriate
use
in
an
accessory
dwelling,
and
it
provides
additional
flexibility
for
the
homeowner
with
respect
to
how
the
accessory
dwelling
is
used
and
provides
additional
flexibility
or
opportunity
for
owners
to
incur
an
additional
income
through
a
small
rental
unit.
P
The
parking
requirements
remain
largely
unchanged,
with
minor
revisions
to
clarify
the
intent.
So
if
the
property
has
one
on-site,
space
than
one
space
shall
be
maintained
for
property
has
two
parking
spaces
in
those
two
parking
spaces
shall
be
maintained.
If
the
property
has
no
onsite
parking
spaces,
then
at
least
one
on
site
parking
States
shall
be
crated.
Our
parking
survey
will
be
need
to
be
conducted.
An
accessory
drawing
would
be
allowed
if
the
survey
determines
that
the
block
is
less
than
65%
parked.
Just
reiterating
that
these
are
the
existing
regulations.
P
Currently,
staff
is
recommending
removing
the
requirement
that,
if
there
are
two
spaces
that
are
not
tandem,
then
those
non
non
tandem
spaces
be
maintained.
So
what
this
means
is
that,
if
you
have
the
scenario
on
the
left,
we
have
existing
condition.
You
can
either
do
option
one
where
it's
the
two
tandem
spaces
or
you
can
do
option
two-
that
that
the
two
spaces
that
have
access
to
the
street
currently
in
under
the
ordinance,
you
could
only
do
option
two.
P
So
some
one
slight
change
to
the
Family
Caregiver
requirements.
An
accessory
dwelling
is
different
than
a
family
caregiver
street
and
that
in
accessory
dwelling
is
a
separate
dwelling
unit.
Whereas
a
family
caregiver
suite
must
have
interior
access
to
the
rest
of
the
drawing
unit.
The
Family
Caregiver
suite
can
only
be
occupied
by
two
persons,
related
blood,
marriage,
adoption
or
foster
care,
or
if
the
occupants
are
providing
on-site
care,
the
Family
Caregiver
street
cannot
have
more
than
two
rooms
plus
a
bathroom
and
efficiency
kitchen
and
can
be
a
maximum
of
500
square
feet.
P
Staff
is
recommending
increasing
the
maximum
size,
a
Family
Caregiver
street
to
750
square
feet
to
better
align
with
the
size
of
the
accessory
dwelling,
potentially
making
it
easier
to
convert
a
family
caregiver
suite
in
the
future
if
the
owner
so
wish
to
do
so.
In
converting
the
family
category
to
the
accessory
dwelling,
the
homeowner
would
still
be
required
to
comply
with
other
accessory
dwelling
requirements,
including
building
code
requirements.
P
There
was
an
interest
in
lessening
the
requirements
of
the
building
and
order
building
code
in
order
to
create
more
new
accessory
dwellings,
as
well
as
to
get
illegal
units
to
come
into
compliance.
The
Virginia
residential
code
is
determined
at
the
state
level.
Every
three
years,
Arlington's
building
official,
did
submit
a
proposal
to
add
a
definition
of
accessory
dwelling
units
which
would
have
lessened
the
building
code
implications.
P
Lastly,
there
are
additional
building
code
requirements
for
a
detached
accessory,
build
detached
accessory
dwelling.
If
the
accessory
dwelling
was
located
less
than
3
feet
from
the
property
line,
it
would
be
required
to
have
a
fire
rated
wall
and
there
would
be
no
openings
permitted,
meaning
there'd,
be
no
doors
or
windows
allowed
on
side.
If
it,
the
accessory
dwelling
was
located.
Three
feet
to
5
feet
from
the
property
line.
P
Now,
once
you
go
beyond
5
feet,
the
structure
does
not
require
any
type
of
fire
separation
and
can
have
any
number
of
openings,
such
as
windows.
Our
doors
cost
for
an
accessory
dwelling.
There
had
been
some
interest
in
this
research
indicates
that
construction
costs
for
attached
accessory
dwellings
typically
range
in
the
country
from
20,000
to
$100,000
the
creation
of
most
accessory
dwellings.
P
Our
major
construction
projects,
with
a
few
exceptions,
some
buildings
that
are
easily
adaptable,
estimated
cost
for
the
twenty
that
have
been
approved
in
Arlington,
and
this
is
based
on
industry
estimates
on
price
per
square
feet.
This
has
ranged
from
thirty
thousand
to
a
hundred
and
sixty
thousand
with
an
average
cost
of
$85,000
detached
accessory
dwellings
from
research.
They
tend
to
be
more
expensive
than
attached
accessory
dwellings.
With
a
meeting
cost
of
about
forty
five
thousand
dollars
more
than
an
attached
unit.
P
So
we
still
have
a
few
more
Commission's
that
we
are
going
to
including
the
Housing
Commission
on
Thursday,
the
Commission
on
Aging
on
Monday
and
then
disability
Advisory
Commission
Tuesday
of
next
week,
as
I
mentioned.
This
is
going
to
pull
for
the
board
for
the
request
to
advertise
on
October
21st,
and
we
will
be
back
before
the
Planning
Commission
for
final
consideration
at
your
November
six
meeting
and
that
ends
my
presentation.
P
C
A
A
A
The
draft
staff
report
and
draft
site
plan
redevelopment
standards
are
deficient.
There
are
no
metrics
or
data
regarding
the
population
impact
on
existing
residential
neighborhoods
that
have
already
been
repurposed
for
higher
density
uses,
ie,
McMansions
and
childcare.
So
no,
there
are
no
metrics
regarding
additional
number
of
students
attending
Arlington
public
schools,
additional
parking,
additional
impact
on
public
infrastructure,
additional
impacts
on
county
services,
Police
Fire
EMS.
A
Moreover,
given
the
significant
restrictions
and
affordable
housing
in
Arlington,
ie
income
and
employment
restrictions
and
the
number
of
single-family
detached
homes,
twenty-eight
thousand
in
Arlington
accessory
units,
legal
and
illegal
will
be
the
primary
source
of
affordable
housing.
Under
the
draft
articles
before
you,
obviously,
hundreds
of
McMansions
cannon
will
become
apartment
buildings
legally
or
illegally
before
the
county
board
votes
for
this
residents
of
single-family
detached
and
town
home
neighborhoods
deserve
accurate
estimates
of
what
additional
impacts
will
be
imposed
on
these
neighborhoods
Thank
You
mr.
got
charlie
mr.
Harris
any.
B
Other
speakers
on
this
item-
thank
you,
madam
Clerk.
I.
Don't
believe
that
this
was.
We
just
saw
the
Commission
schedule,
so
I,
don't
think
we
have
any
reports
from
any
other
Commission's
on
this
and
transportation
did
not
hear
this
correct.
Okay,
so
we
are
now.
The
matter
is
before
us.
The
Commission
and
I
will
turn
it
over
to
Commissioner
Guerin.
Thank
you.
Thank.
E
You
mr.
chair
Thank
You,
mr.
Franklin,
you
did
an
excellent
job.
Sharing
this
information
with
the
Planning
Commission.
You
were
very
patient
with
the
range
of
issues
that
we
raised
over
the
course
of
our
discussion,
so
code
did
meet
twice
regarding
this
issue
in
July
and
in
September,
considering
the
proposed
changes
to
the
accessory
dwelling
regulations
in
the
zoning
ordinance
and
both
of
those
meetings
were
well
attended
by
PC
members
and
concerned
members
of
the
public.
Thank
you
for
considering
our
many
questions,
comments
and
suggestions,
even
the
ones
that
we
couldn't
address
here.
E
I
and
my
fellow
commissioners
are
very
intellectually
curious
and
we
come
from
many
different
backgrounds.
So
there's
still
a
lot
of
things
that
are
unresolved
for
us
with
regard
to
this
particular
issue,
so
staff
to
present
this
thorough
and
comprehensive
report,
the
history
in
the
context
for
the
accessory
dwelling
units
in
the
county,
the
policies
that
were
hoping
to
implement
with
that
proposed
changes.
E
We
generally
supported
the
proposed
revisions,
including
removing
the
minimum
lot
width
and
the
area
requirements,
modifying
the
design
requirements,
regard
to
the
entrances
and
the
visibility
of
the
exterior
stairs
increasing
the
maximum
occupancy
from
two
to
three
residents,
removing
the
requirement
that
the
resident
have
to
live
in
the
dwelling
unit
for
a
year
prior
to
receiving
approval
for
an
accessory
dwelling,
removing
the
restriction
on
contractors
and
service
businesses
as
home
occupations
within
them.
Removing
the
annual
limit
of
28
new
accessory
dwellings
in
the
county.
We
supported
permitting
accessory,
homestay
and
detached
accessory
buildings.
E
We
especially
were
very
excited
to
see
the
movement
towards
permitting
the
accessory
dwellings
attached
or
detached
on
all
Lots
and
the
art
districts
that
contain
one
family
dwellings,
regardless
of
non
non
conformance
with
the
area.
At
the
same
time,
this
is
a
complex
issue
and
there
are
still
some
areas
where
we
don't
feel.
There's
full
resolution.
E
It
just
seems
to
be
two
standards
there:
the
height
limits
for
the
accessory
dwellings
and
the
detached
buildings,
the
owner
occupancy
requirements,
especially
for
government
and
military
personnel,
and
perhaps
here
I'm
thinking
more
active
military
people
who
must
leave
for
a
certain
amount
of
time
who
don't
have
a
charity
to
do
something
different.
The
compliance
requirements,
including
the
recorded
deed
covenant
and
the
related
non-standard
financing,
cost
it's
just
going
to
be
more
expensive,
but
I
agree.
E
That's
likely,
just
because
of
the
association
with
the
additional
unit
that
you
can
generate
income
and
then
perhaps
most
critically,
and
this
may
not
be
something
we
can
address
within
the
scope
of
our
discussion.
The
interpretation
of
the
building
code
requirements,
including
the
definitions
associated
with
these
independent
dwellings,
and
how
they're
defined
the
separate
entrance,
the
separate
ventilation
system,
the
access
to
the
electrical
panels,
the
fire
resistant,
related
construction,
the
confusion
over
what
constitutes
a
kitchen
and
perhaps
differing
interpretations,
maybe
even
some
that
are
older
than
others.
E
Given
that
we
have
a
lot
of
people
who
don't
cook
anymore,
do
we
really
need
an
oven
in
a
stove?
Could
you
get
by
with
a
hot
plate
in
a
sink
the
cost
associated
with
the
compliance?
As
you
point
out,
you
know,
between
20
and
$100,000.
I
think
mean
that
we're
going
to
continue
to
have
a
lot
of
units
that
don't
opt
to
become
legal,
even
with
the
many
proposed
changes.
E
So
the
zoko
consensus
by
the
end
of
our
second
meeting
was
that
the
changes
proposed
some
opportunities
to
create
some
more
accessory
dwelling
units,
but
that
the
remaining
requirements,
the
limited
dwelling
unit,
size,
the
deed
covenant,
the
financing
and
the
building
code
requirements-
would
probably
pros
some
pretty
significant
barriers
to
creating
a
lot
of
legal
80
years.
And
the
public
comments
included.
E
Concerns
about
the
square
footage
we
had
someone
who
specifically
wanted
to
expand
the
basement,
a
basement
size
of
theirs
because
they're
in
a
historic
district,
so
they're
trying
to
comply
with
the
historic
requirements,
but
also
be
able
to
create
and
maintain
a
legal
accessory
dwelling
unit
request
to
consider
grandfathering.
Existing
accessory
dwelling
units
concerned
that
the
county's
not
sufficiently
encouraging
smaller
ad
use
that
might
be
feasible,
financing
issues
associated
with
the
deed,
covenant
and
again
the
requirement
for
the
second
kitchen.
E
So
that's
kind
of
what
we
heard
from
the
public
in
the
form
of
either
comments
at
our
meetings
or
letters
that
were
submitted
to
us,
so
I
throw
out
tests
for
our
initial
points
for
discussion,
things
that
might
impact
the
scope
of
what
we
want
to
advertise
because
it
broadens
this.
For
when
we
will
consider
it
in
a
month
the
size
and
height
limits,
the
owner,
occupancy
requirements
and
the
compliance
requirements,
and
you
all
have
a
copy
of
yes.
So
I
don't
need
to
go
through
that.
B
Very
well
done
very
nice
summary
actually
and
including
your
written
report
and
I
think
that
we
we
will
go
with
your
suggested
points
for
discussion
who's
at
the
bottom
of
page
two
of
your
zoko
report
to
us.
So
we
will
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
and
and
we'll
start
with
the
size
and
height
limits,
and
then
we
will
have
a
catch-all
at
the
end.
So
have
no
fear
that
if
you've
got
something,
that's
not
on
this
list,
we
will
get
to
it.
Commissioner
McSweeney
thank.
F
You
first
I
do
want
to
thank
staff
for
listening
to
the
concerns
that
were
raised
about
the
limit,
limiting
the
lot
area
and
the
lot
width
and
allowing
more
neighborhoods
to
participate.
I
think
it's
very
important,
given
the
fact
that
historically,
we've
had
zoning
codes
be
used
to
keep
people
out
of
neighborhoods
and
also
you
know,
limit
wealth
accumulation.
So
I
think
that
this
was
a
great
change.
Thank
you.
F
So
much
for
doing
that
in
terms
of
I,
guess,
I
have
a
question
for
the
chair
on
this
one
in
terms
of
the
thousand-square-foot
max
and
the
request
to
advertise,
because
it's
listed
here
as
a
topic,
and
it's
discussed
here
within
a
topic.
If
they
advertise
a
thousand
square
feet,
could
they
then
have
a
conversation
about
more
well.
B
B
So
you're
sort
of
questioning,
but
that
both
be
one
and
we've
we
certainly
talked
about
be
two.
So
let's
turn
over
to
staff
and
let
staff
educate
us
on
how
the
scoping
on
this
works.
These
proposed
maximums.
Is
it
in
scope
or
out
of
the
scope
of
the
advertisement
to
increase
the
proposed
maximums
and.
D
D
B
There
you
go
so
we
would,
if
we
want
to
suggest
to
the
board
that
they
want
to
advertise
greater
and
I
know
that
in
the
in
the
past-
and
maybe
staff
would
like
to
speak
to
this-
that
sometimes
we've
added
like
for
accessory
accessory
homestay,
where
the
board
had
an
extended
discussion
about
the
the
number
of
residents
that
were
going
to
be
allowed
under
the
accessory
homestay
permit.
They
advertise
sort
of
some
some
some
more
options.
B
D
Is
and
if
I
could
just
make
a
suggestion,
one
just
because
this
that
question
that
you
just
asked
about
scope
was
a
very
sort
of
cut
and
dry
and
clear
question
they're,
not
always
that
cut
and
drying
clear.
So
what
I
would
recommend
to
you
is
if
there
is
something
you
are
interested
in,
allowing
the
county
board
to
be
able
to
discuss.
D
Let
us
know
explicitly
let
what
that
is,
and
rather
than
trying
to
figure
out
what
the
text
needs
to
say
in
order
to
allow
that,
let
staff
kind
of
go
back
and
think
through
what
needs
to
be
advertised
in
order
to
allow
that
discussion
so
that
that
could
be
presented
to
the
County
Board.
Should
they
wish
to
advertise
it
differently.
I
mean
that
way,
you're
clear
on
what
you
rich,
the
County
Board,
to
be
able
to
consider.
Thank.
B
J
J
J
J
So
the
yeah
right,
it
was
I-
think
it
was
five
hundred
and
fifty
and
then
six
hundred
and
fifty
and
I
think
I.
Remember
you
saying
that
the
rationale
for
that
was
to
make
sure
that
the
building
the
accessory
detached
building
was
still
subordinate
to
the
primary
building.
Am
I
is
that
do
I
have
the
gist
of
it
right.
The.
J
So
long
as
the
former
doesn't
exceed
the
latter
right,
I
mean.
So
if
you
have
a,
if
you
have
an
1100
square
foot
primary
unit
right
and
you
build
a
750
square
foot,
single-story
detached
accessory
unit-
and
you
happen
to
have
a
lot-
that's
large
enough
to
allow
that,
on
all
other
conditions,
isn't
the
accessory
units
still
subordinate
to
the
primary
unit.
In
that
case,
I.
P
Mean
I
think
yeah.
Technically
it
is
smaller,
so
the
hence
subordinate
but
I,
think
you
know
we
are
viewing
this.
As
you
know,
you
know,
what
truly
did
you
know
did
somebody
to
find
accessory
versus
not
and
I
think
we
went
into
this
as
far
as
you
know,
what's
currently
allowed
the
one-third
up
to
750,
as
you
know,
what
we
thought
was
you
know
good
and
what
we
thought
was
an
issue
that
we
heard
from
people
was
the
basement
and
having
to
partition
off
part
of
that.
P
D
The
baseline
definition
of
an
accessory
of
accessory
is
to
be
supporting
it
subordinate
to
the
principle
use
the
footprint,
isn't
the
only
thing
that
that
meets
that
provision,
but
the
other
reasons
for
those
provisions
that
are
currently
in
the
ordinance
for
regulating
the
size
of
accessory
structures
and
buildings
is,
is
about
scale
and
placement,
and
and
single-family,
neighborhoods
and
general
bulk
scale
and
placement
requirements,
which
are
what
kind
of
make
neighborhoods
look
like
what
they
look
like.
So.
J
Rock
in
a
hard
place
that
I
see
this,
putting
people
who
want
to
build
a
detached
unit
in
is
on
the
one
hand,
and
and
sort
of
I'm,
just
saying
I'm
going
this
way.
Just
consistent
with
the
question
that
you
asked
us
a
moment
ago,
and
hopefully
it's
more
consistent
than
sounding
like
I'm
trying
to
cross,
examine
you,
which
I
not
I,
promise.
J
J
We're
doing
one
of
two
that
we're
doing
one
of
two
different
things:
we're
either
pushing
people
to
a
de
facto
650
square
foot
limit
for
detached
units
or
we're
pushing
the
ad
you
upward
and
creating
a
different
kind
of
massing
problem,
either
putting
windows
over
the
fenceline
or
making
something
that
just
looks
like
a
larger
structure,
because
it's
taller
in
order
for
people
to
to
get
to
that
750
or
500.
Excuse
me,
1,000
square
foot
unit,
I,
think
that
where
I.
J
B
I'm
gonna
ask
you
a
commission
where
I
think
it's
safe
to
say
from
your
line
of
questioning
that
you,
if
I
understood
you
correctly,
that
you
would
be
in
favor
of
broadening
the
scope
of
the
advertisement.
So
we
could
explore
this.
What
you're
talking
about
well
you're,
the
the
line
of
reasoning
that
you're
going
down?
We
can
explore
that
more
fully
next
month.
Yes,.
B
Gonna
have
to
go
with
this,
for
my
fellow
commissioners
is
in
this
language.
I
think
as
Miss
Albert
asked
us
we're
gonna
have
to
provide
a
recommendation
to
the
board
of
kind
of.
There
still
has
to
be
some
context
of
some
bounds.
To
put
on
this.
We,
you
know,
I,
don't
think
that
we're
proposing
that
to
be
no
cap
on
the
on
the
size
of
80s,
so
we're
gonna
have
to
come
up
with
some
number
that
passes
some
sniff
test
of
reasonableness,
but
that
allows
for
a
fulsome
discussion.
B
D
Did
and
I
just
wanted
to
provide
one
additional
piece
of
information,
as
mr.
Franklin
said,
keep
in
mind
that
those
footprint
sizes
are
the
size,
the
maximum
sizes
for
accessory
structures
accessory
buildings
and
are
districts
that
are
currently
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
what
we
don't
want
to
do
in
here
is
introduce
a
conflict
right.
D
So,
if
you
were
to
say,
oh,
you
can
have
an
excess
dwelling,
that
is,
that
is
700
square
feet
and
footprint,
but
for
all
other
accessory
buildings
and
structures
that
gets
really
really
challenging
and
it
introduces
some
weird
conflicts
into
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
one
of
the
things
we're
trying
to
do
here
with
these
footprint
maximums
is
be
consistent
with
the
the
footprints
that
are
already
in
place
for
accessory
buildings.
Well,.
B
These
are
point
of
reference.
These
are
there's
a
difference
to
me
and
the
vernacular
of
footprint
versus
total
square
footage,
because
if
you
footprint
is
talking
about
the
ground
floor,
the
actual
footprint
on
the
ground-
and
then
you
can
have
more
above
that
that
doesn't
enlarge
the
footprint,
but
enlarges
your
total
gross
floor
area.
B
So
just
to
be
clear
that
and
also
miss
Alber
is
it
am
I
correct
that
the
560
square
foot
limit
footprint
and
r5
and
r6
is
only
if
you
want
to
be
one
foot
off
the
private
land
if
you're,
if
you're
10
foot
off,
if
you
have
a
single-story,
you
can
exceed
the
500
thats
with
the
right.
Okay
setbacks:
you
can.
You
can
have
the
larger
footprint
that
560
comes
in
when
you
have
that
specific,
where
you're
trying
to
do
the
one
and
a
half
story,
I.
B
So
you
are
correct
that
we
want
to
be
careful
about
the
entanglement
and
I
would
encourage
the
Commission
here
that
we
should
not
really
be
focused
on
footprint,
but
we
can
focus
on
total
square
footage.
I,
think
we're
safe
in
that
regard
and
I
think
it's
also
consistent
with
the
discussion
that
we've
had
up
until
this
point
we're
not
trying
to
open
up
a
huge
can
of
worms
here.
Just
a
small
can
all
right
so
I'm,
sorry,
who
did
I
say
what
I
think
Commissioner
Hughes.
Thank
you
thank.
P
So
the
question
is:
if
you
had
a
larger
basement
footprint,
why
are
we
precluding
that
correct
I
mean
I,
think
the
staff
and
the
working
group
had
a
large
discussion
about
this
and
I
think
it's
still
kind
of
boiled
down
to
you
know
what
do
we
consider
this
as
far
as
accessory
and
I
think
you
know,
we
thought
about
some
very
large
scenarios
of
some
of
the
houses
that
are
being
built
and
you
could
get
quite
quite
a
large
accessory
dwelling?
Is
that
you
know
still
accessory
in
nature?
P
N
It
does
seem
to
me
that
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
would
not
be
changed
by
someone,
including
a
thousand
square
feet.
If
that's,
what
we
feel
is
correct
in
in
their
home
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
so
I
think
two
numbers
are
right:
whether
these
are
the
right
numbers
or
not,
I
think
we're
talking
about
now.
N
I
do
worry,
though,
that
to
say-
and
maybe
percentage
might
be
a
better
way
to
go
to
say
that
in
a
home,
that's
some
debate
where
the
basement
is
a
hundred
and
ten
thousand
and
eleven
hundred
square
feet
and
you're
limited
to
a
thousand
square
feet.
Then
you
have
this
sort
of
little
bitty
wasted
space
I,
suppose
you
could
figure
out
a
way
to
do
it
if
you're
a
creative
architect,
I,
don't
know
I'm
not,
but
I
do
worry
about.
That.
N
N
When
you
did
your
original
study,
how
did
how
many
people
were
actually
who
do
do
ad
use,
use
them
as
nanny
nanny,
suites
or
mother-in-law
suites,
as
opposed
to
more
rental
property?
Did
you
have
a
sense
of
what
that
balance
is
and
what
the
demand
is?
Those
are
kind
of
two
different
sorts
of
uses
and
not
in
the
zoning
sense,
but
two
different
motivations
for
the
need
for
such
such
units.
N
P
So
we,
as
you
know,
there's
only
20
of
these
we've,
maybe
heard
from
a
handful
of
them
that
actually
created
them
and
from
those
that
we
heard
from
they
were
renting
them
out.
Maybe
they
were
renting
them
to
a
family.
Member
of
we
didn't
get
into
that
level
of
detail.
We
don't
see.
No,
that
basically
we
don't
know
the
answer
to
that
is.
F
You
so
in
and
trying
to
think
about
the
last
couple
of
questions
that
were
raised.
I
guess,
I'm
wondering
a
Ann
page
5
of
your
report.
We
do
have
percentages
maximum
of
35
percent
of
the
combined
floor
area
if
the
main
and
accessory
dwelling
and
I'm
just
wondering
how
we
reconcile
the
fact
that
we
do
have
these
percentages
here
against
the
actual
lines.
You
know
67
through
77
I
guess,
because
there
are
no
percentages
there
and
perhaps
I
just
grossly
misunderstood
something,
but.
P
P
E
P
B
Okay,
so
knowing
that
we
have
some
other
things
to
talk
about,
I
think
we're
kind
of
seems
to
be
a
working
consensus
here
so
far
that,
regardless
of
where
we
might
come
down
in
conclusions
next
month,
that
at
least
there's
the
appetite
here
to
recommend
to
the
board
a
broadened
advertisement.
Here,
let's
move
on
to
a
commissioner
sure
all
had
raised
sort
of
a
and
I
am
it's
related
to
this,
which
was
the
was
non-conforming
just
go
ahead.
Commissioner,
troll.
O
I'm
on
the
same
page,
so
lines
I
guess
starting
in
line
fifty-six
I'm
just
interested
mr.
Franklin.
If
you
could
explain
how
the
non
non-conforming
accessory
uses
would
be
treated.
Looking
in
the
response
matrix
at
the
at
the
back
of
the
document,
I
I
was
not
clear.
I
was
hoping
you
could
clarify
we'd
heard
from
some
people
at
the
eller
of
the
zoko
meetings
that
they
had
existing
accessory
uses
garages
that
were
within
the
one
foot
setback.
P
Sure
so
our
intent
is
that
non-conforming
detached
structures
would
be
allowed
to
create
an
accessory
dwelling
as
long
as
they
are
complying
with
you
know,
the
other
requirements
are
size,
occupancy
I
think
there's
still
some
details
that
need
to
be
worked
out
there,
but
I
think
you
know.
As
far
as
if
it's
encroaching
within
that
one
foot
lot
lion
I
think
that's
you
know,
that's
what
we
meant
by
allowing
for
the
nonconformity
and
that.
O
Looking
at
the
attachment,
B
pages,
2
&,
3
I
was
number
6
and
then
number
8
the
answers,
at
least
as
I
read
them
seemed
to
be
sort
of
inconsistent.
It
sounds
like
in
number
6,
you
couldn't
go
up
and
then
in
number
8
you
could
as
long
as
you
conformed
with
you
could
have,
you
know,
build
or
use
a
existing
non-conforming
use.
As
long
as
you
comply
with
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
I.
P
O
But
the
sighted
text
and
the
right
column
seems
to
only
apply
to
single
family
or
one
family
dwellings
not
to
accessory
uses
and
once
I'm
missing
something.
Even
the
explanation
from
staff
says
that
it's
kind
of
the
second
sentence
only
mentions
one
family
dwellings
and
does
not
include
accessory
buildings.
O
K
So,
just
to
be
clear:
if
there
is
a
structure
that
is
a
non-conforming
accessory
dwelling
or
just
a
non-conforming
accessory
structure,
building
say
it's
whatever
it
is,
but
it
doesn't
have
a
half
story
on
it.
It
can't
have
a
half
story
put
onto
it,
but
if
it's
non-conforming
and
happens
to
have
a
half
story
already,
it
could
be
then
used
as
an
accessory
dwelling
or.
K
P
B
I
think
it's
important
to
know
here,
because
I
could
see
where
this
might
go
in
the
end,
the
community,
that
if
your
neighbor
has
a
non-conforming
one
and
a
half
story
garage
that
you
know,
is
just
a
form
of
a
question
for
staff
that
structural
modifications
to
that
to
accommodate
new
plumbing
new.
You
know
live
loads
different.
You
know
to
make
it
ability
they
would
you
can't
make
those
structural
alterations
to
that
one
and
a
half
story
either
to
convert
it
to
this
use.
B
D
D
B
D
K
Jereth
I
might
actually
that
was
a
point.
I
had
written
down
for
later.
I
that
would
at
such
a
table
would
be
really
helpful
and
that
it
also
includes
what
you
can
and
can't
do
for
accessories
structures
just
period,
because,
if
they're
within
one
foot
lot
foot
of
the
property
line
as
opposed
to
being
three
feet
away
in
both
the
zoning
districts
and
how
you,
what
are
the
restrictions
for
the
half
story?
K
I
remember
when
we
put
a
half
story
on
our
existing
garage,
which
I
think
is
conforming
its
width,
it's
a
foot
off
the
property
line
and
is
the
maximum
footprint.
While
we
could
do
the
half
story,
we
were
actually
limited
as
to
where
that
we
could
not
put
windows
on
either
side.
We
could
put
one
in
the
rear
because
it
was
a
greater
setback,
but
one
side
was
I.
Don't
know
30
feet
from
the
next
fence
from
the
property
line,
so
anything
that
has
to
do
with
the
rules,
I
think
for
accessory
structures.
B
As
Michelle
right,
everybody
knows
it's
there's
a
intersection
here
of
building
code
requirements
and
zoning,
those
building
code
requirements.
We
don't
have
authority,
the
county
does
not
have
authority
over
and
zoning
requirements.
That's
what
we're
talking
about
alright,
commissioner
Hughes
and
then
I
will
I
will
ask
that
we
moving.
B
Almost
almost
I
have
one
quick
question:
as
I
was
trying
to
move
us
along
I
realize
I
got
something
on
size
and
height
limits,
and
it's
actually
very
much
what
we
were
just
talking
about
the
setback.
So
the
question
for
staff
is
that
if
the
board
wanted
to
include
a
setback
of
greater
than
one
foot,
which
is
what
the
current
is
for
our
one
and
a
half
structure
accessory
building,
if
it
was
going
to
be
an
aide,
an
accessory
dwelling,
would
that
be
within
the
scope?
L
You
mr.
Getchell
I
know:
we've
introduced
this
term
again
the
primary
residence,
but
last
time
we
used
it
an
accessory
homestay.
We
defined
it
this
time,
we're
not
defining
it,
and
so
is
that
on
purpose,
and
what
do
we
mean
when
we
say
primary
resident
because
it's
not
defined
as
a
general
term,
miss
Talbert
or.
L
B
B
L
D
Homestay
and
I
think-
and
we
can
confirm
this
but
I-
think
the
reason
for
that
is
with
accessory
home
stretch,
stay
all
the
all.
The
definitions
get
muddled
right
because,
with
accessory
home
say
you
can
kind
of
run
out.
Your
house
is
an
accessory
home
stand.
You
can
be
there
while
you
do
that
or
you
can
not
be
there
while
you
do
that,
so
it
gets
really
muddled.
D
B
B
That's
a
pretty
good
catch,
commissioner.
Yes,
after
my
own
heart,
all
right,
others
on
the
owner,
occupancy
requirements,
so
I
think
the
reason
this
ended
up
on
your
report.
Commissioner
Garin
right
was
that
there
was
some
sentiment
that
related
to
the
government,
military
foreign
service,
etc,
and
so
has
anybody
want
to
ask
about
that
or
represent
that?
Let.
E
Me
make
it
clear
this
list
of
things
that
came
up
in
the
meeting
or
public
comments.
It's
not.
As
commissioner
Siegel
referred
to
my
assertions.
These
are
things
that
came
up.
As
you
know,
people
other
people
raised
them.
Sometimes
I
did
and
we
might
not
agree
with
them
at
all,
but
they
did
come
up
either.
In
a
letter
public
comment,
someone
raised
it
so
I
felt
that
we
needed
to
flush
out,
even
if,
as
a
group,
we
don't
don't,
it
doesn't
rise
to
a
level
of
discussion
that
we
had
yes,
this
came
up.
E
Some
people
pointed
out
that,
given
our
unique
location
within
the
cat
within
the
country,
we
do
have
a
lot
of
residents
who
purchase
a
home
here
who
want
to
retain
this
home
for
20
30
40
years,
but
they
do
get
transferred
for
their
work,
so
they're
not
moving
out
of
choice,
they're
coming
and
going
coming
and
going
foreign
service,
military
and
so
on,
and
that's
the
context
in
which
this
came
up.
Okay,.
B
N
Want
to
apologize
and
really
thank
you
very
much
for
the
the
very
complete
list
you
always
provide
of
what
people
have
put
forward,
really
appreciate
that
this
one
confuses
me
I,
think
I
want
to
say:
I
I
live
in
an
area.
There
are
many
in
Arlington,
where
I
live
next
door
to
a
home
that
had
that
wood
was
owned
by
an
owner.
He
I,
never
I,
didn't
I
I,
never
met
this
owner
for
I,
don't
know.
N
Currently
I'm
seeing
the
same
thing:
I
live
near
the
Pentagon,
so
I'm,
seeing
the
the
people
who
bought
the
house
from
somebody
who's
lived
there
for
long
term
had
then
was
transferred
to
gosh
I
think
was
Florida
where
he
was
Europe
and
there
have
been
two
sets
of
military
families
who've
rented
this
house.
So
that's
what
I
think
of
when
I
hear
this
description
and
just
seems
to
me
that
the
family
that
they
appear
to
the
current
families
who
are
moving
through
this
this
other
home.
N
If
they're
simply
renting
the
house
and
they
don't
own
the
house,
so
I
either
I'm
confused
about
what
the
comment
was
or
it
it
doesn't
make
sense.
Maybe
I'm
confused
the
the
other
thing
that
I
would
just
add,
is
I
can't
understand
how
we
would
identify
a
discrete
group
of
renters
who
are
either
employed
by
the
State
Department
or
the
agon.
Who
who
would
then
have
this
ability
to
rebuild,
to
build
out
the
basement
or
build
an
accessory
detached
unit?
That's
another
problem
that
I
see.
J
This
is
actually
still
kind
of
on
this.
It's
part
of
this
area,
so
it's
of
course
it's
on
the
threat.
I
think
that
there
is
consensus
among
or
something
calls
to
consensus
among
the
commissioners
that
there
are
cases
of
honest
and
sincere
temporary
absence
that
should
not
disqualify
someone
from
being
an
owner
who's
occupying
the
main
dwelling,
Commissioner
Garin
pointed
out
Foreign,
Service
and
military,
for
instance,
the
military
actually
even
uses
the
term,
or
maybe
that
was
maybe
that
was
Commissioner
Siegel
I'm,
sorry,
whoever
actually
used
it.
J
J
This
is
your
real
address,
even
if
you're
not
there
for
the
time
being
and
so
I
wonder
whether
we
would
like
the
board
to
consider
something
very
simple,
as
an
exception
to
that
and
I
noticed,
for
instance,
in
the
the
the
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
has
a
model
policy
for
localities
and
in
its
owner
occupancy
provision.
It's
almost
exactly
like
what
we
have
at
lines:
130
and
131,
except
it
goes
on
to
say,
except
for
bona
fide
temporary
absences
and
rather
than
getting
into
prescribing
what
qualifies
as
a
bona
fide
temporary
absence.
J
F
Well,
I,
don't
know
that
I
want
to
risk
getting
a
long,
protracted
conversation
I
think
the
issue
that
was
raised
was
you
know.
My
neighbor
is
in
the
State
Department
and
they
often
go
away
for
two
years
and
over
their
garage.
They
have
a
walk-up
that
they
rent
out.
While
they
are
not
occupying
the
main
residence
they
may
not
rent
out
the
walk-up
I.
Think.
F
The
intention
here,
as
it
was
explained
to
me,
was
to
try
to
be
very
good
neighbors
and
that
if
the
main
owners
are
not
occupying
and
maybe
checking
some
of
the
behavior,
that's
going
on
in
the
rental
that
that
we
would
mean
we
may
not
want
to
have
two
residences
occupant
that
are
not
occupied
by
an
owner,
honest
on
the
same
property.
They
are
still
free,
of
course,
to
rent
their
main
house
out
while
they're
gone
in
their
absence.
Thank.
B
You
I'd
actually
like
to
seek
some
clarification
from
staff,
so
I
would
understand
it
that
if
you
have
an
accessory
dwelling
in
it
and
you
are
going
to
leave,
then
that
meaning
it's
not
you're
gonna
you're,
gonna,
you're
leaving
town,
it's
not
or
you're,
leaving
that
it's
not
gonna,
be
your
primary
residence
anymore.
That
then
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
apartment
would
be
revoked.
You
would
presumably
file
something,
but
the
the
unit
itself
you're
not
required
to
dismantle
it.
It's
not
that
it's
not
allowed
to
be
occupied.
B
You
just
can't
rent
it
out
as
a
separate
unit.
So
in
the
example
that
Commissioner
McSweeney
was
talking
about,
if
you
had
under
our
new
scenario,
if
you
had
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit,
but
you
left
town,
you
lost
that
permit.
You
can
rent
the
whole
house,
including
that
accessory
building
to
one
lessee,
and
that
would
still
be
legal.
Is
that
correct
this.
E
F
B
M
Also
raises
if
that,
in
fact
has
been,
the
accessory
unit
is
leased
out
which
were
contemplating
that
rental
agreement.
You
know
illegal
least
between
renter
and
okay,
no
I've
had
neighbors,
who
are
State,
Department
AG
department,
agriculture
transferred
overseas.
They
might
not
get
a
lot
of
notice
before
they
go.
Does
that
mean
that
that
lease,
which
is
presumably
a
year
lease
with
renewable,
that
the
tenants
have
to
leave
before
the
end
of
their
lease,
even
though
they
have
a
lease
that
is
legally
binding
on
the
both
both
parties?
M
B
D
B
L
L
E
B
Thank
you
all
right,
so
as
we're
thinking
about
how
to
handle
this
I,
think
I
would
I
will
put
my
two
cents
here,
which
is
that
I
understand
the
direction
and
and
the
and
the
reason
for
the
question
I
think
miss
Albert's
comment
that
some
of
this
is
already
you
know
existing
language
and
I
think
this
kind
of
thing
there's
never
really
I
think
going
to
be
perfect
answers,
I!
Think
as
we're
thinking
about
you
know,
there's
always
some
kind
of
what-if
scenario
and
what
about
this?
And
what
about
that?
B
There
would
be
my
opinion
assessment
that
I
that
I
doubt
seriously
that
the
board
has
an
appetite
to
call
out
any
kind
of
particular
kind
of
profession
or
class
of
individuals
or
folks
that
you
know
rather
be
State
Department
of
military,
whatever
I
have
to
imagine
that
that
is
a
a
really
precarious
road
to
go
down
that
I.
Just
personally
think
the
board
would
be
very
reticent
to
go
down
so
I'm,
not
so
sure
that
I
would
support
a
motion
here
with
us
that
that
is
dependent
on
some
kind
of
language
of
that
type.
B
N
Very
quickly
now
I
understand
what
the
issue
is.
I
didn't
before.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
too,
am
troubled
by
how
how
the
law
would
were
the
ordinance
would
designate
who
we're
talking
about.
Could
it
be
broader
than
just
the
professions
I
don't
know?
What's
something
I'd
have
to
think
about?
Maybe
it's
worth
bleeding
that
question
on
the
table
for
for
a
broader
scope,
but
I
do
think
that
the
issue
that
mr.
N
Lent
Commissioner
Len
tell
me
raised
would
be
what
if
you
have
someone
you
have
a
year
lease
with
someone
in
your
basement,
you're
told
in
two
months
you
have
to
go
to
work
at
the
OECD
in
Paris.
Wouldn't
that
be
nice,
what
happens
to
the
preexisting
renter
when
you
couldn't
break
that
lease,
but
you
would
want
to
rent
out
your
main
house
so
I.
B
K
A
staff
is
researching
it.
The
one
one
of
the
things
I
wondered
about
was
how
how
the
county
would
enforce
the
fact
that
there
is
that
somebody
has
left.
How
do
we
know
that?
How
do
we
know
that
the
owner
of
the
house
is
now
actually
renting
it
to
somebody
else
with
the
ad
you,
because
it
there's
nothing
to
be
recorded?
There's
no,
there's
no
sale
transaction
in
that,
would
you
know,
check
the
RPC
number
or
anything.
So
that's
what
goes
along
with
this
is
enforcement.
K
B
Thank
You,
commissioner,
yet
Kamini
we
will
look
forward
to
that
full
response
from
staff
next
month.
Thank
you
and
I
love
that
you're
at
the
ready.
So
thank
you
for
bearing
with
us
before
we
move
on
I
have
something
somewhat
related
to
this
owner
occupancy,
which
gets
to
the
it's
the
part
about
Family
Caregiver
Suites
line
176.
B
Could
you
just
remind
me
how
you
got
to
the
the
just
of
the
justification
for
expanding
from
500
square
feet
to
750,
and
this
is
actually.
This
is
really
it's
separate
from
a
to
use.
This
is
really
just
talking
or
from
a
DS.
This
is
just
in
the
family,
caregiver
suite.
So
what's
the
genesis
of
this?
The
rationale.
P
So
this
was
a
request
to
try
and
make
them
a
little
bit
more
similar.
So
you
know
it.
You
know
the
family
caregiver
is
very
specific
on
who
is
allowed
to
use
that
he
needs
to
either
be
a
family
member
or
someone
providing
care.
So
if
you
know
that
family
member,
our
person
who's
providing
the
care
moves
out,
you
know
you
know
what
do
you
wanted?
You
know
if
there's
a
an
option
for
to
actually
use
that
space
for
something
else.
There
was
an
interest
for
allowing
that
to
be
created
into
an
accessory
dwelling.
B
O
Mr.
Franklin,
thank
you
for
providing
in
the
staff
report
this
in
attachment
see
the
other
comparisons
that
was
helpful,
I'm
wondering
if
you
could
explain,
in
addition
to
the
deed
covenants,
what
other
mechanisms
staff
looked
at
for
notifying
you
know
property
owners
who
might
be
purchasing
a
property
or
soon-to-be
property
owners
about
the
ad.
You.
P
Sure
so
the
main
other
one
that
we
looked
at
was
something
that
could
be
triggered
on
the
real
estate
database,
but
in
talking
with
their
office,
you
know
it
doesn't
have
the
same
weight
as
a
deed
covenant
and
it's
it's
more
proactive.
Someone
has
to
actually
go
looking
for
it
rather
than
being
flagged
on
the
deed
covenant
where
it
would
actually
show
up
and
alert
that
new
home
buyer
that
there's
these
requirements
beyond
that,
we
couldn't
really
find
any
other
mechanisms
that
would
actually
do
that
have
that
same
trigger
effect,.
O
P
O
I
D
O
In
the
zoning
text
you
have
starting
on
line
55,
you
talk
about
how
maybe
I'm
sorry
I'm
in
the
wrong
spot,
125
how
an
owner
Wade,
you
know,
file
ID
deed
land
records.
Can
you
walk
us
through
how
property
owner
would
kind
of
undo
all
this?
Is
it
just?
They
go
down
to
land
records
and
file
their
paperwork
to
the
zoning
ministry
or
to
remove
this
from
lien
records.
I
believe.
P
O
I
think
just
thinking
about
how
kind
of
full
process
how
you
get
one
and
then
how
you
take
it
away,
might
be
appropriate
and
I
guess.
My
last
point,
mr.
chairman
I
might
mr.
Franklin
you
mentioned
in
your
presentation
that
there
was
a
mixed,
my
response
from
the
lending
community,
so
it's
still
say
that
staffs
position
that
this
is
that
having
the
deed
covenant
is
the
like.
The
only
mechanism
that
achieves
the
notification
and
that
no
other
option
is,
is
worthwhile
for
consideration.
At
this
point,
we.
O
K
K
K
K
L
K
Youth
regulations
on
online
and
and
they
don't
require
a
deed
covenant
what's
interesting,
there
is
that
they
they
say
that
there
that
there's
now
a
distinction
between
the
main
dwelling
and
the
accessory
that
it's
43,
18
18,
8
43
18,
be
18th
Street
and
4318
a
18th
Street.
So
if
we
did
that,
then
there
would
be
created
to
our
pcs
I'm
thinking
that
would
be
linked,
I'm,
sorry,
I
guess,
I
still
get
back
to
that.
K
To
consider
have
staff
continue
to
consider
how
to
other
ways
to
do
this,
because
the
the
other
part
that
that
sort
of
bothers
me
is
that
the
reason
given
that
we
have
to
do
this
is
that
so
the
new
owner
can
comply
with
all
the
regulations,
but
the
preponderance
of
the
regulations
for
the
Adu
comes
in
the
construction
of
them.
The
only
one
that
I
see
that
actually
continues
is
the
number
of
people
that
can
occupy
it.
A
K
So
I'm
not
so
sure
that
the
solution
is
commensurate
with
the
problem.
When
we
step
back
and
think
about
what
does
it
really
mean?
Another
question:
that's
just
a
little
ancillary
to
this.
They
would
this
would
be
considered
a
subordinate
use,
so
it
would
not
be
taxed
separately
correct.
It's
just
it's
right
now.
It
stands
it's
on
the
same
RPC
the
same.
K
But
how
would
we
note
this
on
the
tax
records
I'm,
assuming
that
our
real-estate
folks
are
going
to
want
to
say
your
lot
is
now
worth
more
because
you
have
an
income
and
income
producing
unit
on
it.
Do
we
know
how
that
might
work?
And
if
you
don't
now,
I,
don't
need
an
answer
now,
because
we'll
just
prolong
the
evening
but
I
think
that's
that's
something
else
for
us
to
think
that
sort
of
goes
into
this
mix.
I
think.
B
It's
in
the
interest
of
time.
We
will
add
that
to
our
list
of
questions,
I
think
it's
it's
a
fair
question,
but
not
necessarily
a
scoping
question
tonight,
commissioner,
and
thank
you
commissioning
a
committee
for
that
line
of
questioning
I
actually
want
to
just
clarify
something
that
I
heard
this
evening
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
correctly.
B
If
I
wanted
to
to
finish
my
basement
and
I
go
in
for
a
building
permit
and
I
want
to
meet
all
of
the
requirements
with
the
the
the
fire
separation,
the
separate
HVAC,
all
of
those
other
building
code
requirements
that
would
otherwise
be
required
for
an
accessory
dwelling,
but
I
don't
want
an
accessory
dwelling
I'm
not
intending
to
rent
it
out.
I
just
want
to
build
it
to
that
standard.
If
you
will
other
than
the
rigmarole
about
the
kitchen,
what
constitutes
a
kitchen
other
than
that
I
would
be
able
to
do
that.
B
That's
legal
right,
I'd
get
a
building
permit,
build
it
to
whatever
specs
that
I
want
to
so
the
and
I'm
getting
ahead
and
head
nods.
That
are
yes,
so
the
at
that
point,
I
have
again
setting
aside
just
for
now
the
whole
rigmarole
about
the
kitchen.
I
essentially
have
an
accessory
dwelling.
That's
not
permitted
as
an
accessory
dwelling,
but
is
built
out
to
that
standard,
and
there
would
be
no
covenant
requirement,
no,
nothing
so
the
accessory
dwelling.
When
we
go,
that's
a
permit,
that's
issued
by
the
Zoning
Administrator.
If
I
read
it
correctly.
B
H
D
B
D
B
Was
just
trying
to
establish
that
like
that,
anyone
right
now
could
essentially
build
other
than
the
kitchen,
and
you
can
certainly
you
can
ruff
in
your
plumbing,
where
it's
very
easy
to
add
a
kitchen.
Once
you
get
go
to
apply
the
the
for
an
accessory
dwelling,
so
that
was
just
I
was
just
trying
to
establish
that
anyone
could
build
essentially
other
than
a
kitchen
a
separate
dwelling
unit
on
their
property
and
not
have
it
permitted.
B
So
your
grandma's
saying
because
I
know
I'm
it's
late
and
I'm
pushing
hard
on
this.
Setting
that
aside,
the
question
is:
have
you
considered
whether
or
not
having
the
permit
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
having
that
permit
extinguish
upon
sale
of
the
property?
Is
that
an
option
other
than
a
covenant?
That
would
provide
some
controls,
the
type
of
control
that
we
are
seeking
to
establish
and.
D
B
D
B
Fair
enough
I
think
that
I've
satisfied
myself,
where
we're
going
all
right.
Thank
you
for
indulging
me.
My
colleagues
where
we
at
are,
we
I
think
where
are
we
good
on
covenant?
Anybody
else
on
covenants,
alright
and
we've
danced
around
some
of
these
other
issues?
Does
anyone
have
anything
else
on
these?
B
B
N
N
What
what
are
the
scoping
implications
of
of
that
concern
if
we're
concerned
about
that,
then
our
job
tonight
is
not
to
try
to
define
it,
but
to
ask
for
further
staff
work
on,
or
does
it
exist
already,
but
or
are
we
confused
about
it?
In
other
words,
the
definition
of
a
kitchen?
Is
it
as
a
sink
in
a
and
a
hot
plate,
or.
B
B
Commissioner
Siegel,
which
is
I,
think
that
while
I
would
personally
love
that
we
would
have
that
we
would
take
on
what's
a
kitchen
all
and
I
think
that
that
might
be
something
next
month.
That
could
be
part
of
a
motion
that
is
sort
of
for
follow-on
work.
I,
don't
think,
given
the
intent
of
this
exercise,
this
effort,
that
that
is
something
that
we
can
really
take
on.
That's.
F
Just
going
being
the
person
who
brought
up
the
kitchen
in
the
first
place,
I
was
just
going
to
note
that
an
attachment
B
number
27
there
is
some
attempt
to
define
that
I.
Don't
know
if
you
saw
that
or
not
whether
or
not
we
agree
or
understand
that
as
a
different,
but
there
is
an
attempted
to
find
them.
B
You
for
that
Commissioner
Mike,
Sweeney
I,
do
have
a
question
in
terms
of
the
deletion
of
the
cap
and
I'm.
Sorry,
I
don't
have
the
line
number
so
that
we
currently
have
a
cap
of
28
and
that's
being
deleted.
Does
anyone
have
that
line
number?
But
the
question
is
for
staff
is
if
it's
proposed
for
deletion
and
there
was
any
discussion
about
I'm
keeping
a
cap
but
increasing
the
number
or
whatever
would
that
be
within
scope.
D
B
O
Quick
question
for
staff
on
I'm
on
line
372,
it's
the
parking
requirement,
I'm
interested
in
the
parking
study,
specifically
the
our
PPE,
has
been
kind
of
suspended
I'm,
we're
kind
of
wondering
about
logistics
of
running
this
parking
study.
Are
we
still
going
to
be
able
to
do
these
types
of
parking
studies
to
assess
whether
there's
the
65%
parked
in
the
next
two
years?.
P
O
J
I
you'll,
forgive
me
if
I
I
don't
know
exactly
how
to
proceed
with
this
in
terms
of
the
advertisement.
But
my
concern
is
that
the
board
be
able
to
advertise
discussion
about
the
number
of
occupants.
I
I
have
still
some
questions
about
to
use.
Commissioner
Archimedes
term,
whether
the
the
problem
and
the
solution
match
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
just
going
from
two
to
three
actually
solves
the
problem,
that's
being
put
forward
in
a
way
that
is
non
arbitrary
and
that
also
addresses
staffs
concern
about
keeping
it
subservient.
J
You
know
in
on
the
one
hand
you
could
go
from,
you
could
go
from
a
maximum
of
two
people
to
a
maximum
of
as
many
to
know
more
related
people
than
then
would
be
able
to
occupy
the
primary
unit,
and
you
would
still
not
have
expanded.
You
still
not
would
have
made
the
the
the
accessory
unit
primary
to
the
primary
unit.
J
You
know
you
would
just
have
siddik
and
have
as
many
people
you
could
say
three
unrelated
people
or
an
unlimited
number
of
related
people,
and
you
would
still
have
a
more
limited
occupancy
limit
for
the
accessory
unit
than
you
would
for
the
primary
unit.
On
the
other
hand,
you
could
have
a
retired
couple,
just
two
people
in
the
primary
unit
and
three
people
in
the
accessory
unit,
in
which
case
you
have
an
in
actuality,
more
people
living
in
the
accessory
unit
than
the
primary
unit.
J
So
I
I
don't
know
that
that
the
way
that
the
subservience
II
issue
has
been
addressed
by
just
going
from
two
to
three
I,
don't
know
that
that's
the
least
restrictive
possible
way
of
still
ensuring
subservience
II
and
that
in
that
area,
while
also
accomplishing
the
the
missing
middle
policy
goals
that
are
one
of
the
in
pattaya.
Impetuses
of
this
of
this
whole
thing
that
we're
spending
this
time
on.
I.
Also
note
that
you
know
there
are.
There
are
model
policies
out
there
like
Arps
model
policy.
J
You
know
it's
not
it's
not
something
that
would
necessarily
change
the
what's
the
exact
language
and
then
it
would
not
threaten
the
residential
neighborhood
character
to
go
from
2
2
up
to
3
or
as
many
unrelated
or
as
many
related
people
are
as
allowed
in
the
primary
unit.
I
I
just
I
think
it
falls
short
of
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
with
it.
Well,
not.
J
B
E
B
May
but
I
have
one
more
okay,
one
more
follow-up
and
miserable
have
to
forgive
me
just
so
I
understand,
though
so
on
line
166,
where,
if
there's
violations,
blah
blah
blah-
and
it
says
the
permit
may
be
revoked,
does
that
mean
that
the
kitchen
would
have
to
be
removed
and
I'm
trying
not
to
be
facetious
I,
actually
think
it's
relevant?
Yes,.
F
Right
back
to
the
very
first
thing
where
I
Thank
You
profusely
for
adding
the
lot
area
and
lot
with
I
did
want
to
just
make
sure.
Are
there
any
neighborhood
I
want
to
make
sure
I've
asked
the
question:
are
there
any
neighborhoods?
Now
that
fall
outside
of
the
ability
to
have
accessory
dwelling
units,
detached
units
or
or
attached.
P
B
E
First,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we've
got
all
of
the
questions
that
were
raised
tonight
that
we
would
like
to
hear
in
November.
These
are
not
specific
to
the
motion:
they're,
just
issues
of
substance,
some
definition,
if
possible
about
primary
resident.
What
constitutes
primary
resident
the
fee
and
timing
to
the
process
to
remove
the
deed
covenant
an
example
of
a
sample
covenant,
since
this
is
already
required,
how
we
tax
the
properties
that
do
comply
with
this
and
then
the
areas
where
I
felt.
E
We
would
like
to
modify
the
motion
to
expand
beyond,
what's
recommended
to
increase
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
from
the
limits
that
are
proposed
right
now
to
increase
the
number
of
occupants
from
the
current,
and
we
seem
to
be
receptive
to
some
mechanism
to
indicate
the
presence
of
the
accessory
dwelling
unit.
But
we
have
a
lot
of
support
for
looking
at
other
mechanisms,
maybe
in
a
little
more
detail
that
have
been
used
elsewhere,
whether
or
not
the
permits
or
some
as
a
separate
lot.
E
Another
RPC
that
sound
about
right
I
was
hoping
that
this
would
focus
us
more
on
what
our
motion
looks
like,
because
not
knowing
where
a
discussion
was
going
to
go
tonight,
I
realized
we
could
adopt
the
resolution
the
way
it's
presented.
We
could
defer
it
until
the
issues
can
be
resolved
or
there's
something
in
between
so.
B
I
would
I
would
recommend
that
we
go
ahead
and
move
that
the
county
managers
recommendation
and
then
we
allow
amendments
and
the
amendments
would
get
at
each
of
those
very
specific
issues,
and
we
will
have
a
friend
little
contest
here
to
see
who
can
be
the
craftiest
in
their
amendment
making.
So
with
that,
you
want
to
move
the
manager's
recommendation.
Yes,.
E
Thank
you
so
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommends.
The
County
Board
adopt
the
attached
resolution
to
authorize
advertisement
of
public
hearings
by
the
Planning
Commission
on
November
6
2017
and
the
County
Board
on
November
18
2017,
as
shown
in
the
staff
report
for
October
4
2017,
to
consider
proposed
amendments
to
section
12,
14
and
18
of
the
Arlington
County
zoning
ordinance
to
revise
the
accessory
dwelling
regulations
in
order
to
increase
opportunities
for
residents
to
add
accessory
dwellings.
As
shown
in
attachment.
A
second
seconded.
B
By
Commissioner
McSweeney
all
right,
so
we
have
the
main
motion
now
out
on
the
floor.
So
the
way
I
think
we
should
do.
This
is
we'll
kind
of
go
down
these
issues,
one
by
one
by
one
and
whoever's
feeling
brave
can
offer
up
an
amendment.
I
think
the
key
thing
here
is
not
to
try
to
wordsmith
everything
about
the
text
of
theirs
anymore.
It's
to
really
capture
and
it's
crisp
away,
our
intent
in
terms
of
the
brought
the
the
broadness
of
the
scope
of
the
advertisement
so
who
seeks
recognition,
Commissioner,
Hughes
thank.
L
You
mr.
Getchell
I,
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
County
Board
direct
the
county
manager
to
include
language
in
the
ordinance
to
request
to
advertise
for
accessory
dwellings,
affecting
line
68
and
69
related
to
attached
accessory
dwellings
wholly
within
a
basement.
To
allow
the
consideration
of
a
percentage
of
the
dwelling
alternative
to
the
square
footage
requirement.
L
Mr.
Getchell,
if
I
may,
for
a
second
sure,
the
goal
of
my
motion
is
to
see
if
there's
palatability
within
the
community,
for
an
alternative
to
the
1,000
square
foot,
which
is
an
absolute
measure
and
instead
an
alternative
meaning
that
the
consideration
be
given
to
a
percentage
of
the
dwelling,
but
that
it
only
be
applicable
to
the
accessory
dwellings
that
are
wholly
within
basement.
N
It
not
be
simpler,
I
was
thinking
of
something
much
simpler
and
I
want
to
know
whether
you
think
it's
it's
equivalent
to
what
you've
proposed
I
would
have
well.
That
would
be
a
substitute.
So
let
me
put
this
as
a
question:
if
we
simply
remove
the
cap
thousand
square
feet
centage.
Is
that
what
you're
trying
to
get
at.
L
L
Mr.
Goetsch
come
here
mr.
Siegel's,
sorry
I.
Thank
you.
Mr.
Getchell,
good
you're,
single
I,
I'm,
saying
more
hair
I'm,
leaving
that
possibility
open
personally
next
month.
I
would
move
to
move
strictly
to
a
percentage
measure,
because
I
believe
that
33.5
or
some
number
around
the
33%,
in
other
words,
two
storeys
above
and
one
storey
below,
is
a
perfectly
acceptable
alternative.
But
I'm
not
I'm
wanting
to
place
that
opportunity
in
the
for
a.
L
B
And
although
that
was
a
point
of
clarification
that
oh,
that
that
was
gonna
work
on
because
correct
so
I
understood
it,
the
intent
from
staff
was
that
actually,
the
percentage
would
apply
to
within
the
basement.
I
will
throw
out
here
that
I'm
not
quite
sure,
it's
captured
in
your
motion
that
I
think
for
purposes
of
discussion
to
me,
the
the
appropriate
upper
bound
of
what
we
wouldn't
consider
I
think
is
as
long
as
it's
within
the
basement.
B
There's
no,
no
cap
that
that
in
itself,
I
think
it
would
be
hard
to
argue
that
something
that's
in
your
basement
is
not
subordinate
to
the
rest
of
the
house
and
I
think
it
would
be
hard
to
argue
that
if
you
have
an
1100
square
foot
basement
that
you
you
know,
you
have
to
somehow
wall
off
100
square
feet
of
it
just
to
meet.
What
is
absolutely
an
arbitrary
I
mean
it's.
It
has
some
reason
behind
it,
but
it's
unfund
'mentally,
an
arbitrary
number,
others
Commissioner
Siegel
I.
N
B
L
Yeah
yeah
substitute
motion
or
may
I
create
a
new
alternative
for
motion.
Hey
I
withdraw
my
motion.
If
my
seconds,
okay,
okay,
motion
with
John
and
so
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
the
County
Board
kins
I
move
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
the
county
board
directed
county
manager
to
include
language
in
the
RTA,
allowing
the
consideration
of
attached
accessory
dwellings
wholly
within
a
basement
without
limitation
as
to
square
footage.
K
N
N
B
K
B
I
agree:
okay,
so
I
think
we
are
prepared
to
vote
on
this.
So
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
which
removes
the
Kelly,
you
guys
got
it
all
right
there
we
go
all
right.
It
passes
unanimously.
Thank
you.
So
next
up
very
well
done.
Commissioner,
Hewes,
I
think
staff
might
need
a
restatement
of
the
motion.
No.
B
K
B
J
Got
it
I've
got
it
written
up?
Okay,
that's
why
I
pulled
my
hand
down
too
early
I'm,
so
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
county
board
include
language
in
the
RTA,
allowing
consideration
of
a
maximum
occupancy
for
accessory
units
of
up
to
no
more
persons
than
would
be
allowed
to
occupy
the
primary
building
and
be
for
any
lower
occupancy
limits
a
time
period
following
issuance
of
a
permit
where
the
limitation
would
expire
and
as
to
be,
if
I
may,
the
AAR.
J
B
J
So
the
the
motion
is
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
county
board
include
language
in
the
RTA,
allowing
consideration
of
a
maximum
occupancy
for
accessory
units
of
up
to
no
more
persons
than
would
be
allowed
to
occupy
the
primary
building
and
be
for
any
lower
occupancy
limits.
A
time
period
following
issuance
of
a
permit
at
permit,
after
which
the
limitation
would
expire
period.
J
I
ran
out
of
time
on
this,
be
point
and
would
happily
drop
it
if
any,
if
it's
not
immediately
clear
to
people,
but
but
let
me,
let
me
just
say
what
what
animates
that,
and
that
is
that
the
ARP
has
a
preferred
and
a
second-level
as
an
optimal
and
a
favored
model
policy.
On
this
point,
the
optimal
is
no
occupancy
use
limitations.
B
N
J
J
N
K
Would
be
more
comfortable
with
B
got
dropped
and
I
say
that,
because
I
think
we
are
still
a
community
that
needs
to
take
on
a
to
use
incrementally
and
just
as
years
ago,
when
we
just
capped
it
at
28
a
year
that
was,
that
was
sort
of
to
say.
Okay,
people
need
to
get
comfortable
with
this,
and
clearly
we
have
because
as
a
community,
we
don't
have
anybody
here
but
saying
gosh,
don't
do
this
or
don't
don't
expand
the
ad.
You
I
think
it's
okay.
J
Lily
I
completely
agree
with
you.
That's
why
I
tried
to
say
that
thing
before
there
was
a
second,
because
once
there's
a
second,
then
we
have
to
amend
it.
So
my
apologies
to
you
all
I
should
have
brought
it
up
earlier
and
I
meant
to
is.
I
can
only
plead
the
clock,
but
procedurally
I
completely
agree
with
you
and
would
welcome
a
motion
to
drop
right.
K
K
Just
to
speak
to
your
motion,
I
I
will
not
support
even
the
a
part
and
back
speak
while
I
understand
what
you're
saying
essentially,
what
you're
doing
if,
if
or
you're
presenting,
is
that
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
becomes
you
make
it
a
duplex,
because
a
duplex
has
no
limitations.
It's
the
same
limitations
for
unrelated
adults
or
as
many
related
people,
as
you
want
to
put
in
that
structure,
and
so
you've
essentially
now
said
that
about
the
ad
you
and
I.
K
J
Yes,
it
would
be
creating
a
duplex,
especially
for
accompanied
by
a
zoning
amendment,
saying
we're
rezoning
this
for
duplexes,
but
but
taken
as
a
whole,
simply
saying
that
the
number
of
people
can
be
the
same
in
the
accessory
unit
as
in
the
primary
unit,
with
all
of
the
other
restrictions
that
we've
been
talking
about.
I
think
fundamentally
preserves
still
fundamentally
preserves
the
accessory
nature
of
it
and.
K
B
Q
Just
expand
on
this
discussion,
I
think
there's
also
a
building
code
issue
I
mean
we
can't
have
unlimited
children
or
people
adults
in
a
room.
So,
regardless
of
whether
it's
an
accessory
dwelling
or
the
main
structure,
it
will
come
down
to
square
footage,
the
room
layouts
and
how
many
people
can
live
together
in
individual
rooms
and
that
can
dictate
really
the
number
of
occupants.
Q
L
L
The
three
does
not
address
the
problem,
but
I,
don't
necessarily
say
allowing
the
same
occupancy
limit
that
applies
to
the
main
dwelling
applying
to
the
accessory
dwelling
is
a
solution
either
I'm
inclined
with
you,
meaning
that
that
does
possibly
impose
onto
community
a
two-family
dwelling
district,
which
is
the
specific
definition,
because
that's
what
we're
doing
it's
to
family
units,
so
Commissioner
Getchell
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'm
not
gonna,
go
further,
but
I
will
not
be
supporting
this
motion.
Any.
F
B
B
Okay,
so
I'll
just
say
that
I'm
kind
of
torn
here,
but
you
know
for
each
of
these
things-
I
mean
I,
think
that
we
should
allow
for
discussion
next
month,
but
I
think
that
this
is
a
very
potentially
very
hot
button
issue
and
could
be
easily
misconstrued
in
a
while.
I
totally
agree
that
three
is
kind
of
a
somewhat
arbitrary
ins.
B
You
know
we
asked
the
question
of
what,
if
somebody,
because
the
whole
idea
seemed
to
be
able
to
allow
for
a
couple
in
a
kid
right,
what
if
somebody
has
twins
right
or
if
you
just
because
you
know
honey,
I'm
pregnant?
Well
now
we
got
a
little
move.
You
know
like
that's.
You
know.
Those
kind
of
situations
are
sort
of
I,
think
counterintuitive
to
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here.
B
For
me,
I
I
do
think
that
I'm
with
Commission
area
committee,
in
the
sense
that
we've
been
more
successful,
I
think
and
some
incremental
ISM
I
think
we're
trying
to
push
the
envelope
here
as
it
is,
and
and
so
I'm
somewhat
hesitant
to
support
the
motion.
Only
for
that
reason,
because
I
think
it's
such
a
push,
button
and
Keystone
issue
on
this
whole
topic.
B
I,
guess
that
we're
ready
to
vote
so
everyone's
got
to
decide
where
they
are,
and
so
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
as
stated,
please
raise
your
hand,
so
we
have
one
two,
three,
four,
five
get
those
all
those
opposed.
Please
raise
your
hand
five
six.
So
the
motion
fails
five
six,
but
it's
good
discussion.
L
I,
like
the
sentiment
here
but
I,
don't
like
the
specificity
in
the
language
because
we're
doing
an
RTI
and
that
giving
staff
the
opportunity
to
opine
or
are
excellent
characteristics.
So
I
will
support
the
motion.
But
I
would
equally
hope
that
and
I
saying
this
for
the
Commission
I
hope
that
my
fellow
commissioners
would
feel
the
same
way
that
if
we
present
to
the
counting
board
that
we
would
be
open
to
alternative
staff
proposes
that
achieve
the
same
objective.
I
think.
B
It's
worth
noting
that
but
I
think
that
that
is
kind
of
implied
in
what
we're
doing
here.
Certainly
it
will
be
interpreted
that
way
by
both
the
board
and
staff.
Okay,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion.
Do
you
have
the
language
miss
Todd
and
will
provide
okay,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carries
unanimously.
Q
B
B
Yeah
I,
like
that,
so
we're
just
going
to
up
to
a
thousand
square
feet
instead
of
the
750
and
Commissioner
Rix.
Is
that
your
intent
then
to
leave
some
bullet
to
online
76,
which
gets
to
where
the
main
building
is
less
than
a
thousand
square
feet?
We
would
leave
that.
Yes,
we
would
correct
that
wanted
to
clarify
that
intent,
so
we're
basically
going
for
a
detached
Weathers.
B
Q
B
F
Q
B
B
Q
B
B
All
of
my
colleagues
to
do
the
same
and
I
am
fully
confident
that
I
am
in
compliance
with
all
requirements,
both
legal
requirements,
ethical,
moral
and
my
own
standards,
and
that's
enough
I
think
to
say
about
that.
Otherwise,
it
looks
like
we're
ready
to
vote.
So
all
those
in
favor
of
the
main
motion
as
amended,
please
raise
your
hand
opposed.
B
None
carries
unanimously.
Thank
you
to
staff
very
much
greatly
appreciate
it
all
right
very
quickly.
What
we're
gonna
do.
Madam
clerk,
did
you
you
look
at
me
is
what
I
want
to
do
is
not
all
of
the
organizational
matters,
but
I
actually
wanted
to
give
a
real,
quick.
The
chairs
report,
because
I
will
not
be
able
to
be
here
tomorrow
evening,
and
the
only
real
thing
that
I
wanted
to
announce
is
that
we
are
going
to
do
a
joint
meeting
with
the
Economic
Development
Commission
on
the
evening
of
November
30th.
B
B
The
whole
point
of
this
meeting
is
that
there's
an
obviously
a
lot
of
overlap
between
economic
development
and
planning,
and
many
of
us
know
the
history
that
there's
also
been
at
times
some
sense
that
there's
can
be
conflicting
priorities,
but
I
personally
think
that
there's
we
get
a
lot
farther
when
we're
all
kind
of
rowing
in
the
same
direction,
and
so
having
been
the
liaison
from
the
Planning
Commission
to
the
Economic
Development
Commission.
For
the
last
four
years,
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
really
kind
of
hear
from
them
and
see
what
what's
going
on.
B
We
had
a
joint
meeting
with
them
might
have
been
a
little
over
a
year
ago.
I
can't
remember
exactly
when
that
was
a
year
or
two
ago
that
I
think
was
very
productive,
and
so
the
whole
point
of
this
meeting
is
for
us
to
understand
to
get
a
chance
to
hear
from
them.
It
turns
sort
of
what
they
are
doing
to
further
the
cause
of
economic
development
and
how
that
relates
to
the
planning.
B
They
meet
in
Ballston
and
if
you
can
make
that
meeting
on
a
fairly
regular
basis,
I
would
strongly
encourage
one
of
us
to
take
on
that
lays
on
duty
I
think
it's
very
important
moving
forward.
That's
all
I
really
want
to
get
off
my
chest,
so
I
think
the
rest
due
tomorrow
night.
Thank
you.
Everyone
appreciate
we're
recessed.
Thank
you.