►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
B
Good
evening,
everyone
welcome
to
the
December
15
2022
meeting
of
the
Arlington
County
Planning
Commission
I
am
commission,
chair,
Daniel
Weir
tonight
the
commission
will
deliberate
and
discuss
on
staff
proposed
request
to
advertise
hearings
for
the
County
Planning,
Commission
and
County
board
on
the
missing
middle
housing,
study,
General
land
use
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
amendments.
This
is
an
item
that
would
be
heard
by
the
County
Board
no
earlier
than
January.
2023.
B
B
I've
had
with
many
people,
and
that
is
an
observation
on
where,
where
we
are
in
the
RTA
threshold
right
and
we
have
discussed
extensively,
the
the
sort
of
nature
of
the
RTA,
but
a
a
a
thing
that
I've
been
putting
a
lot
of
high-level
thought
into
and
asking
some
others
to
as
well
is
whether
or
not
there
is
a
threshold
test
to
apply
in
recommending
that
an
RTA
proceed.
Now.
B
As
far
as
I
have
been
able
to
ascertain,
we
are
not
subject
to
any
brightline
rule
that
we
could
use
to
make
a
decision
or
a
recommendation.
Excuse
me
about
whether
or
not
to
proceed
in
an
RTA
lucky
us.
The
best
proxy
I
can
think
of
that.
We
have
is
the
test
that
we
use
for
the
long-range
planning
committee's
special
General
land
use
plan
study
process,
where
we
ask
whether
or
not
proposed
changes
are
within
the
realm
of
consideration.
I'm,
not
saying
that
that's
the
test.
B
I've
just
said
we
don't
have
a
red
line
test,
but
it's
the
closest
proxy
that
I
can
think
of
for
an
RTA
process
and
in
there
we
ask
whether
or
not
whether
or
not
something
proposed
is
worth
continuing
to
to
consider.
And
it
seems
to
me
that
our
role
is
to
identify,
consider
to
identify
and
recommend
where
something
proposed
is
within
the
realm
of
further
consideration
and
where
it
isn't.
B
So,
to
put
it
another
way,
which
is
what
I've
been
building
towards
is
to
repeat
our
Mantra
and
something
that
a
past
chair,
Jane
Siegel
among
other
former
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
likes
to
say,
which
is
that
our
job
is
not
to
solve
the
problem.
That's
the
board's
job.
Our
job
is
to
tee
up
issues
for
the
board,
and
in
this
case
the
issue
that
we're
teeing
up
is
what
issues
to
tee
up.
B
It's,
it's
very
meta,
a
comment
that
I've
heard
from
colleagues
is
that
this
is
an
uncommon
process
insofar
as
we
don't
have
an
applicant
and
technically
strictly.
That
is
true,
but
we
do,
however,
have
at
least
one
prompt
among
many,
but
at
least
one
that
I
want
to
point
attention
to
to
work
with,
in
the
form
of
some
very
specific
questions
that
the
board
teed
up
for
us
in
its
October
31
letter
to
us.
B
The
board
specifically
seeks
our
feedback
as
to
things
like
the
number
of
units
allowed
parking,
specific
questions
about
tree
canopy
protection
Etc.
This
is,
of
course,
not
an
outside
limit
to
our
recommendations,
but
it
is
incumbent
upon
me
to
remind
us
that
as
much
as
our
purview
is
to
advise
the
board,
we
are
in
a
situation
where
the
board
has
specifically
sought
out
our
feedback.
B
Affirmatively
sought
out
our
feedback
as
to
some
specifically
teed
up
and
pointed
questions,
just
some
contextual
thoughts
that
I
wanted
to
share,
with,
on
the
record
with
everyone,
having
had
some
conversations
that
lead
out
led
up
to
these
thoughts
with
a
few
individuals.
One
other
note,
I
am
reminded
that
that
it
is
a
staff
policy
that
staff
are
to
encourage,
that
is,
as
the
county
manager's
policy
to
encourage
commissions
to
wrap
up
by
11
pm.
B
I
was
reminded
of
that
not
more
than
15
minutes
ago
by
a
a
deputy,
County
manager,
and
so
I
want
to
note
that
that
we
are
going
to
try
to
proceed
with
our
disc
discussions
and
deliberations
and
motions
with
with
that
goal
in
mind.
I,
don't
know
that
we
will
be
in
a
position
to
walk
out
of
here
at
at
11,
but
I
am
reminded
that
that
is
that.
B
That
is
a
target
and
I
I
want
to
then
last
refer
people
to
the
circulated
memo
earlier,
which
I
just
want
to
remind
people
that
it
is
not
intended
to
be
that
it's
intended
to
be
ministerial.
It's
not
comprehensive
I've
already.
You
know,
commissioner
Hughes
commissioner
gear
and
I
believe
have
already
circulated
some
items
and
commissioner
sarley
that
were
not
included
in
that.
So
just
you
know,
please
remember
that
there
you
know
just
because
something
wasn't
included
that
you
sent
me
wasn't
included.
There
is
not.
B
It
only
means
that
I
failed
to
get
that
information
from
you
timely
to
include
it,
among
other
things
or
and
simply
forgot,
and
commissioner
hughes's
case.
My
apologies,
a
note
on
attendance.
B
We
will
be
joined
in
person.
So
among
those
who
are
not
here,
we
will
be
joined
in
person
momentarily
by
commissioner
Steinberger.
We
have
a
request
from
commissioner
Patel
to
participate
remotely.
This
is
comes
under
the
Aegis
of
a
personal
category,
remote
participation.
She
is
traveling
for
work,
but
she
will
be
joining
us
later
this
evening.
I
believe
that
that
takes
care
of
attendance
so
where
I
want
to
the
sort
of
way
that
I
want
to
outline.
B
This
Omnibus
memo
I
want
to
begin
by
opening
the
floor
in
no
particular
order
for
questions
that
are
strictly
clarifying
and
factual
and
I
want
to
remind
people
that
I
will
be
fairly
light
on
the
gavel
if
I
suspect
that
you
are
not
quickly
coming
to
a
question
that
is
clarifying
or
factual,
we
will
have
an
opportunity
to
deliberate
on
each
specific
item
in
turn
and
I'm,
trying
to
buy
time
to
get
my
my
paperwork
in
front
of
me
on
the.
B
B
So,
to
read
from
the
record,
then
the
the
broader
topics
for
consideration
and
again
I'm,
going
to
open
the
floor
generally
to
clarifying
questions
but
I'm,
going
to
list
the
broader
topics
for
for
conversation
and
then
entertain
any
any
additional
topics
and
and
and
and
go
from
there,
so
just
to
outline
generally
topics,
homes
per
lot
density
and
lot
size
requirements.
That's
one
unit
size
and
adus.
B
Two
three
lot:
coverage
and
placement
for
parking:
five
trees,
six
caps,
seven
non-conforming
dwellings,
eight
definition
of
a
duplex,
nine
glup,
Amendment
language,
ten
applicability
to
Lots
covered
and
11
existing
structures
before
I
entertain
any
additional
topics.
I
want
to
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
kick
us
off
with,
in
the
same
way
that
we
kicked
off
the
discussion
of
the
Quincy
Park,
which
is
to
have
our
clarifying
of
the
Quincy
vacation,
which
is
to
have
our
our
clarifying
questions
and
conversations
be
done
within
the
context
of
emotion.
That's
on
the
floor.
B
So
that
said,
Commission
like
tell
me,
I'm,
going
to
recognize
you
for
the
purpose
of
putting
emotion
on
the
floor.
I
have
no
doubt
that
it
will
be
amended
at
some
point
before
we
all
leave
here
this
evening,
but
this
gets
us
started.
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Okay.
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chair,
I,
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
County
Board
adopt
the
resolution
attached
to
the
staff
report
authorizing
advertisement
of
public
hearings
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
County
Board
to
consider
General
land
use
plan
and
zoning
ordinance
amendments
to
implement
policies
and
regulations
relating
to
the
missing
middle
housing
study
in
furtherance
of
the
goals
of
the
affordable
housing
master
plan,
specifically
a
amendments
to
the
general
land
use
plan,
booklet
and
map
to
establish
land
use
goals
and
policies
to
support
a
wider
range
of
housing
options
in
lower
density,
residential
areas,
attachment
A
and
B,
an
ordinance
to
amend,
reenact
and
recodify.
D
B
D
In
earlier
discussions
at
lrpc
and
zelco,
we
did
raise
a
number
of
times
data
collection,
how
that
will
be
done.
What
would
be
done?
I
want
to
confirm
that
by
moving
forward
with
these
motions,
it
does
not
in
any
way
preclude
any
sort
of
data
collection,
method,
types
anything
like
that
that
we
have
full
freedom
to
to
collect
measure
all
the
aspects
of
this
proposal.
If
it
is
implemented.
E
Yes,
commissioner,
and
tell
me
for
the
record
I'm
Matt
Ladd
with
the
planning
Division
and
that's
that's
an
accurate
statement
that
staff
staff
does
intend
to
to
do
the
tracking
and
monitoring,
as
had
as
had
been
discussed
at
lrpc
and
and
that's
something
that
we
could
provide
more
details
on.
If
this
is
advertised
and
and
we
come
back
to
consider
adoption.
Thank.
D
You
then
I
do
not
need
to
add
that,
as
a
topic
for
tonight's
discussion,
thank.
B
You,
commissioner,
tell
me
other
topics
to
add
to
the
list
and
I'll
go
through
it
again:
homes
per
lot
generally
unit
size
and
adus
coverage
and
placement
parking,
trees,
caps,
non-conforming
dwellings,
definition
of
a
duplex,
glup,
Amendment
language,
applicability
of
lots
covered
and
existing
structures
and
I'll
just
say
this
sounds
like
a
lot
part
of
the
reason
it
sounds
like
a
lot
is
because
there
are
some
specific
questions
that
the
County
Board
asked
us
that
are
very,
very
finely
focused
right,
like
the
definition
of
a
duplex,
and
it
doesn't
really
fit
anywhere
else.
B
B
I
think
that
those
two,
so
that
would
be
just
an
expansion
of
the
of
the
Caps
topic
to
to
include
discussion
of
of
a
pilot
study
as
well,
or
would
that
be
a
separate?
Do
you
want
to
handle
that
indiscreetly.
F
About
see
where
it
goes
with
caps
but
I'm,
seeing
it
as
an
option
related
to
the
Caps
discussion.
B
Yeah
that
that
it
makes
sense
right
that
it
would
be
right,
yeah,
so
we'll
we'll
start
by
seeing
how
it
goes
with
caps,
and
if
we
have
to
to
sort
of
change
gears
and
say,
let's
make
sure
that
we
actually
also
talk
about
the
pilot
study.
Then
that'll
be
a
topic
that
we
pause
to
to
get
to.
Okay,
commissioner
Steinberger.
H
I'm
wondering
perhaps
implementation
approach
is
kind
of
the
umbrella
term
by
which
that
some
of
these
topics
that
you
just
raised
could
fit.
I,
don't
know
if
that
covers
additional
things
that
other
folks
might
be
thinking
of,
but
it's
a
suggestion.
B
I
I
have
two
possible
additions.
One
is
the
definition
of
cul-de-sex
for
the
purposes
of
parking
versus
Dead
End
Road
I
just
wanted
a
little
bit
of
clarification,
or
if
it's
something
we
don't
need
to
worry
about,
but
I
just
it
was
an
example
of
something
that
I
was
looking
for.
The
other
thing
was
the
notion
of
guidelines.
I
B
Can
we
for
now,
can
we
lump
that,
in
with
commissioner
steinberger's
implementation
approach,
conversation
that.
B
B
B
I'll,
take
your
word
that
it's
under
glove,
okay,
thank
you,
commissioner,
Hughes
again
so
I
I
want
to.
B
B
You
know
be
prepared
to
ask
all
of
your
questions
so
that
we're
not
bouncing
around
I'm
not
going
to
preclude
bouncing
around,
but
I
am
going
to
be
watching
I'm
going
to
have
a
stopwatch
up,
because
I
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
progressing
and
I.
You
may
find
me
in
inviting
people
to
be
thinking
about
questions
that
can
be
submitted
for
conversation
as
we
move
along.
K
Peterson,
we
don't
have
a
clarifying
question
and
I
wanted
to
say
that
it's
because
we
have
attended
so
many
zelco
meetings
on
this
topic
that
I
have
exhausted
many
of
my
clarifying
questions,
and
so
it's
not
for
lack
of
interest
in
this
topic,
but
because
we
have
all
been
doing
our
homework
for
many
months
now.
Thank.
B
You
I
thank
you
for
pointing
that
out.
I
that
is
I,
think
that
it
I
think
that
it
is
fair
and
good
to
have
that
aired.
I
would
hate
for
anyone
to
to
think
that
right.
Thank
you,
parking
any
questions
and
for
staff
on
parking.
B
And,
of
course,
trees,
canopy.
M
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
and
for
the
record
at
the
actual
PC
on
the
parking
I
just
want
to
go
back.
Real
quick
staff
had
presented
in
the
zoco
meeting
that
they
intended
to
use
the
applicable
standards
for
the
residential
RPP
program
for
parking
surveys
and
the
same
staff.
Is
that
still
staff's
intention
for
any
parking
survey
if
it
were
to
be
approved
by
the
County
Board?
Yes,.
M
F
E
On
the
on
the
question,
I
I
believe
the
question
is
about
option
6A,
where
we
would
have
the
the
Landscaping
standard
in
the
draft
text
that
it
would
require
a
one
shade
tree
per
dwelling
unit.
We
have
reviewed
that
text
with
the
county
attorney
and,
and
they
have
no
issues.
E
B
On
the
tree
standard,
a
question
that
I
have
for
staff
is
I
in
conversations
and
and
both
at
the
zoning
committee
and
in
in
correspondence
or
conversations
with
canopy
Advocates
members
of
the
fnrc.
B
We've
heard
this
idea
of
one
shade
tree
in
one
small
tree.
At
the
same
time,
other
people
have
advocated
for
language
should
should
such
a
recommendation
move
forward
of
one
shade
tree
and
one
under
story
tree.
Is
that,
commissioner,
is
that
the
term
that
you
used
for
me.
B
I,
thank
you.
I
I
just
want
to
get
it's
my
understanding
that
that
the
recommendation
to
use
a
one
shade
tree,
one
short
tree,
that
that
framework
is
tied
to
some
kind
of
document
or
list
that
the
county
maintains.
E
So
I'm
aware
that
the
county
maintains
a
list
of
Shades
trees
and
that
that
is
linked.
It's
on
the
website.
It's
it's
linked
in
the
in
the
staff
report.
It's
something!
That's
it's
a
list!
That's
updated
periodically!
Administratively
I'm
not
aware
of
a
list
of
understory
trees.
E
As
you
call
them,
it
may
exist,
I'm,
just
I'm,
just
not
particularly
aware
of
that.
So.
B
E
Ornamental
trees,
okay,
so
I
I,
think
you
know
we're
the
commission
to
to
make
a
recommendation
that
the
advertisement
be
expanded.
To
include
that
you
know
we
would
consider
it
and
we
would
consult
with
urban
forestry
staff
on
you
know
what
the
right
language
might
be
to
to
achieve
the
intent.
Thank.
B
You
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
we
at
least
knew
what
Target
we
were
aiming
for,
or
at
least
you
know,
the
name
of
the
Target
that
we
were
aiming
for.
Thank
you
other
questions
on
tree
issues
going
then
to
questions
about
caps.
B
Commissioner
Peterson,
thank
you.
Thank.
K
You
I
saw
in
your
staff
report
that
you
recommended
setting
a
cap,
possibly
of
somewhere
around
40
units
per
year
when
you
consider
conversions
as
well
as
the
the
new
development.
Did
you
consider
and
do
you
have
any
thoughts
or
recommendations
on
if
that
would
Sunset?
After
a
period
of
time
you
referenced
that
the
accessory
unit
accessory
dwelling
units,
you
know,
had
a
cap
or
had
a
cap
with
it,
looks
like
probably
a
sunset.
So
would
you
recommend
kind
of
a
time
frame
for
a
cap.
E
The
just
to
clarify
the
accessory
dwellings
didn't
have
a
sunset
in
them
there.
There
was
a
cap
that
was
set
in
2008
and
then
at
a
subsequent
zoning
ordinance
Amendment,
where
a
number
of
changes
were
made
to
that
text.
The
County
Board
just
took
action
to
remove
that
cap
and-
and
we
no
longer
have
it
on
Accessory
dwellings,
so
in
in
terms
of
whether
we,
whether
we
could
have
a
sunset
provision,
I,
think
that's
something
again.
E
K
But
you
don't
have
a
if
there
were
to
be
a
cap,
you
don't
have
an
opinion
right
now.
If
there
should
be
a
sunset,
Clause.
E
We're
really
focused
tonight
on
what's
the
scope
of
advertisement,
so
you
know
on
a
number
of
these
issues.
Staff
doesn't
have
a
position
at
this
time.
Okay,
depending
on
what
gets
advertised
we
will
and
if
it
is
advertised
we'll
come
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
with
a
with
the
staff
recommendation
of
among
these
options.
E
This
is
this
is
where
staff's
position
is,
but
again
at
this
time
it's
really
about,
as
the
chair
mentioned
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting,
what's
the
right
scope
for
consideration,
so
that
we
make
sure
that
if
the
County
Board
advertises
this
that
we're
in
good
shape
that
we
can
consider
a
range
of
possibilities,
thank.
K
D
Commissioner,
tell
me
you're
following
up
on
that
for
purposes
of
RTA.
So
no
cap
is
within
the
realm
of
consideration
under
this
RTA.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct,
okay,
right
now,
we're
we
have
ended.
An
option
of
40
per
year
is.
E
That
correct
that,
what's
in
the
what's
suggested
in
the
staff
report,
is
42
permits
per
year.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
about
that.
Permit,
it's
not
units
people
say
good,
you
know,
there's
we
hear
a
lot
of
confusion
between
lots
and
units
right.
You
know,
obviously,
when
we're
talking
about
eho,
you
can
have
multiple
units
on
a
lot.
Okay,
and
so
so,
what's
in
the
staff
report
is,
would
be
42
permits,
which
would
be
basically
42
buildings
or
42
developments.
Okay,.
D
E
That
is
I.
Always
it's
a
bit
tricky
right.
That's
why
I
want
to
know
exactly
which,
which,
which
way
you
could
go.
I
I,
don't
know
if
I
can
answer
that
right
now,
because
if,
if
the
board
is
the
board,
is
advertising
no
cap
and
then
they're
also
advertising
a
cap
of
a
certain
number,
then
it
seems
like
within
that
range
right.
The
board
might
be
able
to
increase
it,
but
I
think
that's
something
we
would
want
to.
D
B
O
I'll,
just
jump
in
I
would
say
that
if,
if
you
all
wanted
to
consider
something
different
than
the
42
units
per
year,
that's
currently
in
the
advertisement,
then
it
make
that
recommendation
and
then
we
can
go
back
and
determine.
You
know
whether
the
the
final
recommendations
for
the
RTA
to
the
board
need
to
change
to
allow
a
more
expansive
range
of
options.
G
H
E
So
if,
if
you
look
at
the
staff
report,
which
is
where
we
do
where
we
did
suggest,
as
as
a
draft
for
consideration,
42
permits,
the
thinking
behind
that
was
based
on
the
consultant's
analysis,
which
expected
a
range
of
19
to
21
Lots
per
year,
would
would
be
developed
under
that.
But
the
Consultants
analysis
only
considered
new
construction
opportunities
and
didn't
consider
the
possibility
of
converting
existing
houses
into
eho,
which
would
also
require
a
permit,
and
so
from
from
staffs.
Thinking
of
that.
E
If,
if
there
were
an
equivalent
number
of
say
21,
that
were
conversions
rather
than
new
construction,
21
plus
21
is
the
is
the
logic
behind
behind
42
but
as
as
Miss
Brown
mentioned,
we're
interested
in
hearing
from
the
commission.
If,
if
they
have
other
thoughts
as
to
how
to
how
to
set
a
cap,
we
did.
E
We
did
talk
about
this
at
zoko
and
we
are
a
limited
to
setting
a
cap
that
would
be
countywide
and
that
would
be
setting
it
at
a
certain
number
of
permits
per
year,
but
I
think
open
to
hearing
from
the
Planning
Commission
as
to
what
what
that
number
should
be
understanding
that
that
staff's
rationale
for
one
way
you
could
think
about
it
is
arrives
at
42..
H
Then
another
clarifying
question
that
I
had
is:
if
we
wanted
to
consider
a
phased
increase
to
a
cap
such
that
you
know
both,
you
know
ultimately
a
sunset,
but
also
potentially
a
stepped
increase,
either
up
or
down
in
terms
of
what
that
cap
would
look
like.
Do
we
need
to
add
specific
language
to
the
RTA
tonight
to
be
allowed
to
do
that.
E
You
know
for
for
things
that
staff
hasn't
considered
up
to
this
point,
like,
like
an
example,
would
be
what
you
just
mentioned.
Stepping
up
you
know
it's
something
that
we
would
we
would
consider,
and
we
would
also
advise
the
County
Board
on
that
and
the
and
the
county
attorney
will
be
advising
the
County
Board
as.
E
B
B
What
we
do
is
not
controlling
as
to
what
goes
into
or
does
not
go
into
the
RTA,
but
there's
only
one
way
that
the
board
can
benefit
from
our
feedback,
which
is
us
making
a
motion
and
adopting
it
or
it
failing
and,
and
you
know,
of
finding
its
way
into
the
letter
which
it
does
and
and
the
board
picking
up
on
a
minority
opinion
there.
B
So
thank
you,
commissioner,
Steinberger
for
for
chasing
that
one
to
ground
I'm
going
to
before
I
go
to
commissioner
Hughes
I
believe
your
light
was
on
I'm,
going
to
ask
another
question
about
okay,
the
the
cap
and
and
with
at
the
risk
of
of
beating
a
dead
horse.
So
what
I
Believe
Miss
Brown?
You
said
that,
while
the
number
you
know,
while
the
42
number
is
in
the
staff
report
right,
the
textual
proposed
changes
to
the
Zeo
as
presently
drafted
in
the
stone
in
the
staff
report.
B
If
it
proceeded
as
written
right
would
preclude
the
board
from
preceded
if,
if
on
February
1,
it
were
advertised
as
written.
That
would
preclude
the
board
from
considering
a
cap
at
their
March
hearing.
These
dates
are
all
for
the
sake
of
argument,
but
am
I
am
I
right.
Do
I
understand
you
correctly.
There.
O
You
know
a
cap
of
42
permits,
I
think
we
would
need
to
confirm
with
the
county
attorney's
office.
You
know
what
the
what
latitude
the
board
would
have
to
consider
something
less
than
or
greater
than
42
permits
per
year.
So
if
the
again,
if
the
commission
is
interested
in
the
board
advertising
a
different
number
than
we
would
suggest
making
a
motion
to
that
effect,
and
then
we
can
go
back
to
the
county
attorney
to
determine
what
should
be
advertised
to
allow
flexibility
to
consider
that
range.
But.
E
Go
ahead
right
so
that
so
that's
correct,
so
the
and
we
we
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
on
on
Monday
night
when
I,
when
I
gave
my
staff
presentation.
So
what's
what's
in
the
staff
report,
there
is
an
attachment
which
is
the
zoning
text
and
it's
the
same
zoning
text
that
you
saw
that's
dated
October
31st,
and
so
as
I
as
I
said
on
Monday
night.
You
know
we
recognize
that
you
will
be
making
recommendations
to
the
board
to
make
changes
to
that
and
staff
will
also
be
making
updates
right
to
that
text.
E
So,
what's
currently
in
the
staff
report,
is
not
what
is
going
to
the
board
understood
for
advertisement
and
we
will
take
into
account
whatever
whatever
actions
are
taken
tonight
right
and
and
make
revisions,
and
there
will
be
a
new
staff
report
that
goes
to
the
board
right.
B
Point
all
right,
thank
you,
apologies
to
my
colleagues
for
lingering
on
that,
commissioner
Hughes.
M
It
just
it's
a
relevant
point
for
my
colleagues
in
the
further
discussion
this
evening.
You
can
find
the
language
in
7A
option,
as
we
just
discussed
on
page
41
of
the
staff
report,
with
respect
to
the
addition
of
a
next
additional
section
of
10.47,
which
again
is
silent
and
doesn't
give
textual
change
to
the
number
42,
but
it
re-emphasizes
to
each
of
us
that
we
must
actually
communicate
to
the
board
when
we
know
these
sort
of
zones
of
consideration.
M
B
And
I
acknowledged
I'm
the
one
who
broke
the
just
clarifying
questions
request
so
I'll
take
the
blame
for
that,
but
other
clarifying
questions
on
the
topic
of
caps.
All
right.
Thank
you
all
so.
Non-Conforming
dwellings
questions
about
non-conformings
definition
of
a
duplex
questions
about
that
and
commissioner
Hughes.
M
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Hughes
questions
about
glup
language
amendments,
General,
landy's,
plan,
language,
Amendment,
language,
I,
think
this
is
this
is
I
know
this
is
a
priority
of
commissioner
tell
me's
and
it
has
to
do
with
the
Well.
It
has
to
do
with
the
the
language
in
the
club
about
the
pers,
the
the
ratio
of
units
per
acre,
but
just
just
for
the
purpose
of
wayfinding
I'm,
not
seeing
any
lights
on
this.
B
There
obviously
will
be
discussion
about
it:
applicability
of
lots,
covered
existing
structures,
implementation
approach
and
guidelines
all
right.
So
now
we
can.
Commissioner,
let
Tommy.
E
Yes,
so
that
was
something
that
that
came
up
during
the
lrpc
meeting,
because
the
draft
Amendment
to
the
glop
was
only
to
add
a
new
section
and
that
describes
new
policies
for
expanding
housing
choice
in
lower
residential
neighborhoods.
We
we
did
hear
during
the
lrpc
discussion
and
we
noted
in
the
staff
report
there.
There
was
some
interest
in
looking
at
the
History
Section,
and
so
that's
something
that
we
can
consider
if
the
Planning
Commission
feels
strongly
about
that.
It's
something
where
you
could
make
a
motion.
E
I
think
we
we
have
a
little
bit
more
latitude
on
the
glup
in
terms
of
advertisement
than
than
for
the
zoning
ordinance
Amendment,
but
but
I
think
just
to
be
clean
about
it.
It
would
be
helpful
if
the
you
know,
if,
if
anything
for
the
glop
Amendment,
the
commission
feels
like
should
be
added
or
changed.
This
is
the
appropriate
time
to
to
do
that.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner,
Tommy
and
I'll
just
thank
commissioner
Peterson
again
for
making
the
excellent
point
that
the
the
fact
that
there
aren't
many
questions
being
asked
right
now
is
very
much
a
consequence
of
the
extensive
conversation
that
has
happened
in
our
various
committee
meetings,
which
is
how
we
do
business.
Thank
you.
Let's
go.
Are
there
any
other
I'll
just
open
the
floor,
real
quickly
again
to
other
clarifying
questions
either
going
back
or
topics
that
weren't
covered
I'm,
seeing
nodding,
heads
or
shaking
heads?
Excuse
me.
B
B
B
I
B
B
Typically,
we
have
more
items
with
smaller
numbers
of
of
issues,
and
then
we
go.
You
know
we
discuss
all
of
the
various
topics
and
then
get
to
motions
and
I
I
think
that
that's
still
the
best
practice,
rather
than
to
sort
of
subdivide
this
into
multiple
items
and
so
I
think
that
what
I
think
that
what
we
need
to
do
is
to
go.
You
know,
item
by
item
on
discussion
and
then
come
to
motions
at
the
end.
B
That
said,
you
know
it
if
you
are,
if,
if
I
have
sent
around
a
number
of
of
a
menu
of
motions,
as
you
all
know,
mostly
just
try
to
keep
balls
in
the
air,
not
not
because
I
think
any
you
know,
anyone
is
the
is
the
clear
winner
and
in
some
cases
actually
this
is.
This
is
one
of
them
I'll
point
out,
we
needed.
You
know
the
board.
B
Has
specifically
teed
up
options,
1A
and
one
B
for
us,
which
would
be
the
RTA
advertises
up
to
six
units
in
in
10.4.3.d
or
the
RTA
one,
which
would
be
watching
One
B
advertises
up
to
eight.
B
We
don't
actually
need
to
say
anything
about
either
of
those,
because
if
we
were
to
adopt
the
main
motion,
it
would
include
both
of
those
items
it
would
pre
it
would.
We
would
be
recommending
to
the
board
that
the
RTA
include
both
of
the
affirmative
option,
of
limiting
it
to
six
and
the
option
of
of
going
up
to
eight
I.
Don't
know
if
that
answers
your
question,
commissioner.
Sally
I
hope
it
does.
I
F
So
it's
what
you're
looking
for
here
you,
you
started
off
at
something
like
you're
looking
for
General
thoughts
on
this.
Our
responses
to
this.
Yes,
is
that
correct?
Yes,
okay!
Well,
notwithstanding
the
enormous
housing
crisis
that
we
Face
locally
regionally
nationally,
I'm
still
uncomfortable
going
all
the
way
up
to
six
or
eight
units.
That's
such
a
dramatic
change
in
the
single
family.
Neighborhood
two
seems
very
reasonable,
but
even
our
peer
jurisdictions
don't
really
know
what
that's
going
to
look
like
in
the
long
term.
F
B
Thank
you,
that's
this
is
that's
exactly
the
the
sort
of
like
this
is.
This
is
the
opportunity
that
we
have
to
sort
of
share
where
we're
heading
in
terms
of
what
kinds
of
recommendations
for
the
RTA
we'd
support,
I
think
it's
even
would
be
in
order.
B
If
you
have
you
know,
if
you
have
a
sense
of
where
you
would
be,
for
you
know
a
policy
outcome
just
be,
please
be
you
know
just
just
taking
the
opportunity
to
remind
people
that
we
should
at
least
try
to
Signal
where
we're
saying
one
thing
about
one
of
them.
F
Thank
you.
Well,
then,
I
will
clarify
I'm
signaling,
I'm,
really
uncomfortable
with
anything
above
four
I
appreciate
that
we've
had
these
good
conversations
at
lrpc
in
zoko.
However,
we
haven't
really
had
the
chance,
as
a
group,
to
hear
from
each
other
and
have
the
back
and
forth
in
a
discussion
that
we
tend
to
have
on
sprc's,
where
we
learn
from
each
other
and
and
maybe
some
of
us
shift
our
viewpoints.
So
I've
said
where
I
am
I'd
love
to
hear.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Garen,
commissioner,
might
tell
me.
L
D
Wouldn't
put
that
on
the
record
I'm
tonight
not
looking
really
to
vet
the
different
options
for
a
policy
Viewpoint,
what
I'm
trying
to
do,
based
and
partly
on
what
we
saw
the
other
night.
We
had
a
lot
of
very
interested
citizens
come
out
and
comment,
some
totally
supporting
it,
some
totally
rejecting
it.
Some
concerned
about
procedure,
some
going
for
more
nuanced
or
Alternatives.
We
had
a
very
large
range
of
discussion
and
viewpoints.
D
D
So
those
discussions
can
be
continuing,
which
is
why
I
would
be
in
favor
of
the
option
allowing
up
to
eight
simply
to
keep
that
conversation
going
clearly,
there's
a
lot
of
good
faith,
Arguments
for
any
number
from
a
duplex
all
the
way
up
to
eight
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
keep
that
that
in
play,
so
that's
pretty
much
where
I'm
coming
from
and
I'll
be
coming
from
that
direction
all
night.
When
it
comes
to
choosing
options
or
advancing
options,
thank
you
good.
M
I
both
want
to
wholeheartedly
endorse
everything
in
commission
line,
Tony
said
and
and
I
apologize
to
staff
only
because
it
is
a
very
late
breaking
question
that
I
have
so
I
do
apologize,
but
I
I
will
ask
it
anyways,
we
heard
from
testimony
the
other
night
and
we've
heard
throughout
the
time
the
question
of
affordability.
M
Things
like
that
this
is
an
optional
overlay
District,
so
it
is
not
necessarily
confined
within
the
the
standard
art
districts
did
staff
give
any
consideration
to
having
a
two-tiered
limit,
and
what
do
I
mean
by
that
a
a
one
set
of
limit
at
one
number
and
a
higher
tier
set
of
limit
with
an
affordability
complex.
What
what
I
mean
by
that
is
that
you
may
do
X
number
of
units
in
general.
M
E
All
right
so
I
think
you
know.
First,
a
non-profit
like
Habitat
for
Humanity
would
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
this,
whether
there's
a
correct,
a
portability
requirement
or
or
not,
and-
and
they
have
you
know,
sent
a
letter
in
support
to
that
effect.
But
more
directly
to
your
question,
it
is.
E
It
is
something
that
the
staff
has
discussed
and
I
I
think
the
way
that
in
thinking
of
it
about
tears,
because
this
is
set
up
as
a
buy
right,
zoning
District
the
best
way
or
perhaps
the
only
way
to
add
an
affordability
requirement
would
be
to
make
it
a
special
exception
use,
which
is
something
that
we've
discussed
before
with
with
zoko
and
nlrpc,
and
so
that
that
is
a
possibility.
E
It's
something
that
we
could
consider
you
know
advertising
there
are.
There
are
concerns
about
that
approach,
as
I
discussed
it
with
lrp
and
lrpc
and
zoko,
where
you
know
layering
on
that
special
access
exception
process
going
from
buy
right.
E
If
you
meet
the
standards,
it
can
be
approved
administratively
to
now
it's
something
that
the
the
County
Board
has
discretion
over
you
know
might
be
something
where
remember
we're
talking
about
housing
types
that
are
in
areas
where
there
is
a
very
strong
market
for
very
large
single
homes,
and
these
new
eho
types
would
be
competing
in
the
market
for
those
homes.
So
adding
an
affordability
requirement
adds
costs.
You
know
it
would
mean
you
have
to
be
subsidized
somehow
and
adding
a
use
permit
or
a
site
plan
process
also
adds
time
and
costs.
E
E
I
think
we
would
not
be
able
to
to
do
that
without
without
a
use
permit
or
a
site
plan
process
where
we
could
condition
the
the
development
to
the
the
terms
of
affordability
and
all
the
things
that
go
into
the
use,
permit
or
site
playing
conditions.
When,
when
we
do
receive
calfs
as
part
of
a
special
exception
project.
M
I'll
defer
to
staff
on
this
one
at
the
moment,
but
I
I
do
want
to
make
sure
the
staff
had
explored
that
concept.
H
Out
where
we
are
in
terms
of
the
density,
question
and
essential
number
of
units,
I
appreciate
the
perspectives
of
my
fellow
Commissioners
and
I
I.
Think
for
the
purposes-
and
you
know
the
request
to
advertise
and
our
role
as
advisors
to
the
County
Board
I
do
tend
to
think
that
a
broader
request
to
advertise
that
allows
the
conversation
to
move
forward
is
appropriate
for
most
things,
I
think
that's
where
I'm
going
to
follow
myself
in
terms
of
how
I
vote
this
evening.
H
That
does
not
reflect
where
I'm
ultimately
going
to
land
in
a
few
months
when
this
would
assuming
that
the
RTA
passes
that
this
would
come
back
to
us,
and
my
personal
perspective
is
that
eight
units
is
too
many.
That
does
not
mean
that
that
will
be
reflected
in
what
I
think
is
appropriate
to
advertise
at
a
certain
point.
Our
role
as
advisors
to
the
County
Board
is
to
advise
and
to
allow
the
conversations
to
happen.
H
H
Certainly
think
the
County
Board,
as
we
did
paid
close
attention
to
that
and
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
you
know,
have
the
County
Board
have
to
respond
to
some
of
those
hard
questions
and
if
we
preemptively
remove
things,
remove
Too
Much
from
the
RTA
at
this
stage,
I,
don't
think
the
County
Board
will
have
to
account
for
some
of
those
things
and
I
think
these
are
conversations
that
need
to
be
had
so
I
wanted
to
put
that
in
the
record,
to
whatever
extent
a
record
exists
and
that's
probably
going
to
be
reflected
in
how
I
approach
votes
on
motions
this
evening.
B
K
So
I,
actually
don't
have
anything
to
say
about
this
specific
topic.
I
more
wanted
to
ask
a
process
question
that
when
we
enter
a
new
agenda
item,
is
it
possible
for
our
benefit
and
for
those
listening
at
home?
To
mention
like
we're
talking
about
option
one
A
and
B
right
now
or
you
know
additional
ones,
but
so
somebody
could
know
this
particular
subject
matter
pertains
to
you
know
the
various
options
in
the
report,
foreign.
K
That's
fine,
so
I
was
thinking
that
it
might
be
easier
for
people
who
are
following
at
home.
If
we
explicitly
say
we're
talking
right
now
about
option
one,
a
or
1B
or
1C
or
1D,
so
that
they
can
know
like
the
conversation
right
happening
right
now,
is
about
options.
The
first
set
of
options.
You
know
what
I
mean.
B
I
think
that
that's
a
good
thought
so
you
know
there
are.
There-
are
more
than
one
set
of
options
that
sort
of
fall
under
this
rubric
right.
But
my
the
where
I'm
trying
to
have
us
right
now
is
that
one
we're
talking
about
option
between
option,
1A
and
1B
right,
which
could
also
include
neither
right
or
and
or
which
is
the
status
quo
of
the
staff
report.
B
Right,
so
is
everyone
with
me
on
that
that
it's
also
the
you
know
the
the,
irrespective
of
whether
the
RTA
is
six
or
eight
right,
there's
also
this
issue
of
for
five
and
more,
what's
the
smallest
lot
size
that
needs
to
be
there
in
order
to
do
five
or
more,
we
just
haven't
no
one's
said
anything
about
it
yet,
but
that
is
part
of
I
think
this
issue,
yeah.
B
I
think
commissioner
Steinberger
did
I
see,
did
I
tell
you
that
I
was
going
to
go
to
you
next
or
did
I
say
that
to
commissioner
giren,
okay,
then
I'm
gonna
go
to
commissioner.
Thank
you
for
helping
me
remember.
F
Question
for
Mr
Ladd,
probably
to
clarify,
could
you
just
run
through
what
the
use
permit
process
would
be
like.
E
So
the
I
use
permit
would
be
at
a
minimum
right,
there's
a
there's,
an
application
process
and
it
there
would
be
a
public
hearing
at
a
County
board
meeting,
and
you
know
beyond
that.
The
process
is
something
like
we
have.
The
we
have
the
the
gonna
get
all
my
I,
don't
know
what
all
these
acronyms
mean,
but
the
urd
unified
residential
development
Ahmad
is
Unified
commercial,
mixed-use
development.
E
You
know
those
are
two
use
permits
that
exist
in
the
zoning
ordinance
I
believe
also
in
article
10,
where
there
are
administrative
regulations
for
how
we,
how
we
process
those
and
so
like
I-
believe
there's
there's
an
Ahmad
Review
Committee,
which,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
is
sprc
that
reviews
those
and
I
believe
the
Planning
Commission
reviews
ahmad's.
F
So
it
would
involve
a
public
meeting
at
least
one
public
meeting
with
the
community.
Well.
E
There
would
be
at
a
minimum.
There
would
be
a
County
board
meeting
with
a
public
hearing
right
to
whether
there
is
an
sprc
type
meeting
or
whether
there's
a
public
review
outside
of
that
County
board
meeting
or
whether
the
Planning
Commission
would
hear
it.
That's
something
that
wouldn't
be
in
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
would
be
in
some
administrative
regulations.
Just
like
we
do
for
our
site
plans
have
you
know
administrative
regulation
4.1,
and
we
have
other
administrative
regulations
for
urds
and
ahmads.
F
Reason
I'm
I'm
personally
curious
about
this-
is
if
we
did
include
language
to
recommend
a
use
permit
with
the
larger
units.
One
reason
would
be:
the
change
from
a
single
family
home
to
an
aplex
is
much
different
than
from
a
single
family
home
to
a
duplex
or
a
Triplex,
and
there
might
be
local
information
that
could
inform
what
that
change
looks
like
and
how
to
best
get
there
so
I.
That's
why
I
was
wondering
if
there
is
an
opportunity
to
speak
with
the
neighbors
or
go
through
the
local
civic
association,
or
something
like
that.
F
Where
there's
you
know,
when
we've
done
this
with
other
places,
they
say:
oh
the
kids
cut
through
that
on
the
way
to
school
or
just
things
that
we
might
not
know
even
doing
our
homework.
But
it
sounds
like
it's
not
absolutely,
there's
not
a
fixed
way
that
we
would
do
that
anyway,
for
a
use
permit.
E
Right,
that's
that's
correct.
We
we
develop
these
regulations
for
these
permit
types,
and
you
know
they're
they're,
tailored
to
what
it
is
and-
and
you
know
the
the
Planning
Commission
hard
enough
mud
within
the
last
year.
That
was
more
units,
more
density
than
is
what
is
being
considered
here
so
and
the
Planning
Commission
has
also
heard
a
site
plan
for
a
semi-detached.
E
B
Commissioner,
sarley
and
I
also
want
us
to
be
mindful
of
the
time.
So
after
commissioner
sarley
I'll
do
one
more
person-
and
you
know
commissioner
Peterson
I
guess
I
see
your
light
on
and
then,
if
it
should,
there
be
need.
Well,
you
know
we
can
come
back
to
an
issue,
but
I
also
want
to.
My
goal
is
to
try
to
land
us
on
motion
somewhere
around
10
10
30,
and
we
have
10
more
topics
to
get
through.
I
I
have
a
quick
question
for
staff,
so
the
question
here
is
on
the
glop
density
chart
and
then
on
the
number
of
units
and
I'm
trying
to
tie
those
two
together
and
I
was
doing
some
quick
math
with
an
acre,
7
000
square
foot
lot.
You
know
you
could
hit
36
units
if
you
have
six
per
lot
right.
So
do
you
think
there's
some
guidance
from
the
glub
to
help
us
sort
of
come
down
on
like
the
1A
versus
the
1B
or
whatever
number
in
between
and
then
shouldn't.
We
also.
I
This
is
a
follow-up
question.
Just
change
the
language
or
eliminate
the
low
all
together
since
we're
essentially
signing
up
for
a
higher
density
of
a
one
to
ten
and
go
to
the
16
to
36
for
the
low
medium
or
higher.
E
Yeah,
so
those
are
comments
that
were
discussed
at
lrpc
and
taking
your
your
second
comment.
First,
you
know
whether
there
should
be
changes
to
the
map
which
which
were
not
included
in
the
in
the
October
31st
draft
of
the
glop
amendment
that
that
you
saw
and
we
discussed
at
lrpc,
I
I
think
we.
You
know.
We
heard
clearly
that
lrpc
from
lrpc
members
that
there
was
some
interest
in
in
looking
at
either
the
legend
or
you
know
in
in
some
regard.
E
The
map
for
the
low
residential
areas,
which
do
have
the
designation
of
of
one
one
to
ten
units
per
acre,
so
I
think
that's
something
that
that
staff
is
thinking
about
and
probably
will
be
recommending
to
the
board
advertising
something.
E
And
if
the
commission
has
thoughts
on
what
should
be
advertised,
it's
something
that
that
we
would
be
interested
in
hearing
going
back
to
your
your
first
question.
I
did
I
shared
and
I'm
going
to
pull
up
a
slide
here,
I
shared
at
one
of
the
lrpc
meetings.
If
I
can,
if
I
can
find
this.
E
Might
take
me
might
take
me
a
minute
to
pull
up
or
I
can
I
can
just
describe
it.
We,
we
shared
a
map
of
of
all
the
low
residential
areas
within
the
county,
and
we
actually,
you
know,
calculated
the
existing
density
in
in
those
areas
and
by
census
tract,
and
we
found
that
the
existing
dwelling
units
per
acre
across
all
of
those
light,
yellow
low
residential
areas,
which
are
the
areas
designated
for
one
to
ten.
E
The
average
density
across
all
those
was
was
five
units
per
acre
so
right
in
the
middle
of
that
one
to
ten
range,
and
you
know
looking
at
it
at
the
census
tract
level
there
were.
There
was
a
range
there,
maybe
going.
You
know
somewhere
at
two
units
per
acre
somewhere
closer
to
eight
units
per
acre.
None
of
them
exceeded
10
units
per
acre.
E
So
when
you
think
about
it
that
way,
rather
than
just
on
an
individual
lot,
yes
putting
you
know
a
more
than
one
or
two
units
on
a
lot
might
result
with
in
a
density
within
that
lot
that
exceeds
10
dwelling
units
per
acre.
But
if
you
look
at
it
at
the
Block
Level
or
at
the
neighborhood
level
or
zoom
out
and
recognize
that
incremental
change
is
going
to
happen
here,
where
it's
not
going
to
be
overnight,
every
single
property
develops,
it
will
be
gradual,
it
will
happen
interspersed
with
existing
single
detached
houses.
E
People
will
continue
to
maintain
their
single
detached
houses.
People
will
continue
to
build
new
single
detached
houses
and
So.
Within
that
context,
staff
believes
that
the
these
neighborhoods
would
continue
to
be
within
that
range
of
one
to
ten
dwelling
units
per
acre,
even
though
on
an
individual
site
it
might
be
higher
or
lower
than
that
reach.
I
I
I
appreciate
that,
and
thanks
for
the
explanation,
my
question
is
then
I
guess
or
my
thought
then
is
we
run
the
risk
right,
we're
sort
of
we're
sort
of
hoping
that
the
margin
is
such
that
we
don't
actually
encounter
the
density
or
or
rent
a
foul
of
the
map
in,
in
my
mind,
I
feel
like
the
eho
is
essentially
committing
to
a
higher
density
and-
and
you
know,
I
feel
like
it
behooves
us
to
just
go
ahead
and
do
it.
So
that's
my
my
reaction,
but
I
I
understand
your
explanation.
B
Seeing
other
lights
or
hands
I
want
to
move
us
to
unit
size
and
adus.
So
again,
follow-up
questions.
Thoughts,
points
concerns,
commissioner,
Sally.
I
Start
since
I
had
the
mic
last
on
the
diagrams
I
noticed
there
was
a
and
I
didn't
prepare
for
this
particular
question.
So
excuse
me,
but
essentially
I
think
on
the
diagrams
on
zoko
meeting
number
two.
If
I
recall
correctly,
the
the
housing
units
were
less
than
the
maximum,
which
leads
me
to
think
that
we
want
to
sort
of
implement
some
sort
of
mechanism
to
control
the
square
footage
per
unit.
I
I
Both
parking
is
one
of
the
things
and
then
the
the
number
of
bedrooms
you
know
per
unit,
so
you
can
have
eight
500
square
foot
units
or
you
can
have
two
500
square
foot
units
and
two
three
bedroom
units
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
if
we
have
any
role
to
play
on
sort
of
helping
the
supply
and
demand
on
some
of
those
unit
sizes
and
if
staff
have
any
thoughts
on
that.
E
So
I
I
think
to
the
the
characterization
of
the
diagrams
that
we
sh
that
we
shared
at
the
zoco
meeting
was.
We
were
really
looking
at
at
the
building
envelope,
and
so
we
we,
you
know-
staff
developed
these
diagrams,
which
was
on
if,
if
you
were
to
take
a
lot
of
5,
000
square
feet
or
7
500
square
feet
or
10
000
square
feet,
and
you
were
to
just
maximize
out
what
is
the?
What
is
the
largest
building
envelope
that
you
could
build
on
that
site?
E
It
was
a
different
standard
that
was
the
limiting
factor
that
would
that
would
stop
someone
from
going
further
and
building
any
more
square
footage
on
the
lot.
And
so
in
most
cases
it
was
the
lot
coverage.
In
some
cases
it
was
the
gross
floor
area
standards
that
that
we
had
set.
In
some
cases
it
was
the
setbacks,
so
they
all
worked
together
in
tandem
to
determine
what
the
building
envelope
is.
I
Sort
of
that
was
sort
of
the
what
so
I
wasn't
trying
to
characterize
your
drawing
I
was
reacting
to
what
I
thought
I
perceived
on
the
drawing,
which
was
a
control
on
the
unit
size
right
and
I
was
wondering,
if
thought,
if,
if
there
was
any
thought
dedicated
to
that
like
is
there
any
implementation
on
the
eho?
That
would
allow
us
to
essentially
control
the
number
of
units?
Not
not
just
it.
I
The
number
of
units
that
would
fit
different
typologies
right
so
and
I
think
the
answer
is
no,
but
so
like,
for
instance,
if
we
had
several
units
that
were
500
square
feet,
but
not
just
like
once
the
market,
here's
my
fear,
the
market
will
sort
of
figure
out
a
a
a
you
know,
quick
little
solution
or
a
template
and
it'll
just
get
rubber
stamped
all
over
the
county
right.
So
we
have
just
like
endless
number
of
500
square
foot
units
everywhere,
but
there's
no
family
or
three
bedroom
or
two
bedroom.
I
E
So
it's
it's
something
that
I
think
we
could
consider
and
we
through
the
maximum
gross
floor
area
standards
that
are
in
the
draft
sort
of
it.
Attempts
to
do
that
where,
if
you're
building
two
units
you'd
be
limited
to
a
maximum
gross
floor
area
of
4
800
square
feet.
So
that
would
be.
E
If
both
of
those
units
were
the
same
size,
they
would
be
2400
square
feet,
but
there's
flexibility
where
one
could
be
one
thousand
square
feet
and
one
could
be
3,
800
square
feet
right
and
and
that
and
that
continues
with
for
three
units.
The
maximum
gross
flare
area
would
be,
would
be
six
thousand
square
feet.
E
So
it
increases,
as
you
add
number,
as
you
add
the
number
of
units
and
the
intent
behind
that,
as
we've
discussed
before,
was
to
to
try
to
avoid
having
particularly
duplex
in
townhouse
units
that
are
at
the
size
of
what
we're
seeing
for
for
duplex
and
townhouse
units
that
are
that
are
coming
on
the
market.
E
Today,
where
they're,
you
know,
there's
still
five
bedrooms,
there's
still
three
or
four
thousand
square
feet,
and
so
you
know
could
could
we
look
at
a
way
to
encourage
or
incentivize,
not
very
small
units
but
modest
size
units
that
can
meet
a
wide
range
of
housing
needs
from
single
people
to
couples
to
families.
P
For
the
record
of
Richard
Tucker
with
the
housing
division,
I
think
that
we
run
into
problems
when
we
try
to
mandate
a
unit
mix
because
there
are
Market
realities.
So
if
we
wanted
to
require
that
a
developer
builds
a
three-bedroom,
you
know
nothing
to
say
that
that
is
marketable
as
opposed
to
two
bedrooms
or
one
bedrooms
or
some
combination
of
other
of
other
types.
So
I
think
that's
problematic,
but
we
would
be
in
in
better
shape
if
we
were
talking
about
incentives.
I
D
Yes,
I
have
an
Adu
question.
It
seemed
to
recall
from
lrpc
and
zoco
that
for
lots
that
have
an
existing
edu
on
it,
that
ad
really
can't
you.
They
can't
support
an
ehl
on
it.
If,
since
we
are
contemplating
that
a
number
of
our
houses
could
be
converted
to
ehos
existing
houses,
which
is
great
because
that's
you
know,
embedded
energy,
it's
environmentally
sustainable,
it
keeps
the
the
neighborhoods
aesthetic
looking
without
a
change.
D
Is
it
if
somebody
went
and
wanted
to
take
a
single
family
and
then
convert
it
to
a
duplex?
Even
though
there's
an
Adu
in
the
back?
Is
that
one
allowed
to?
If
not,
does
it
does
it
become
non-conforming?
If
it's
allowed
or
is
it
simply
barred
from
occurring?
They'd
have
to
tear
down
the
Adu
before
they
could
add
the
second
unit
in
the
house.
E
So
the
way,
the
way
the
text
is
drafted
in
the
staff
report
there
would
you
wouldn't
be
allowed
to
have
a
combination
of
an
accessory
dwelling
and
also
do
do
ehl
and
that's
and
that's
the
way
the
zoning
ordinance
also
is
is
currently
written
right.
You
can
only
add
an
accessory
dwelling
to
a
201
family
property,
whether
that's,
whether
it's
interior
or
detached.
E
Now,
that
doesn't
mean
that's,
that's
just
a
zoning
barrier
right,
so
the
zoning
ordinance,
if
the
commission
and
ultimately
the
County
Board,
were
interested
in
allowing
accessory
dwellings
in
combination
with
eho.
That's
something
that
that
could
happen.
It's
just
not
something
that
that
staff
has
put
into
the
into
the
current
draft.
What.
D
E
I
think
the
the
current
text
would
have
to
be
modified
in
some
way
to
to
allow
for
that
to
happen
and
I
I
understand
the
concern
I
just
to
put
a
bit
of
scale
to
this,
since
the
accessory
dwellings
have
been
adopted
back
in
2008,
we've
only
approved
99
permits
for
them
and
and
a
number
of
them
are
interior
because
we
didn't
allow
detached
until
until
2017,
and
so
it's
that
could
be
a
scenario
as
you
describe
where
someone
has
an
existing
permit
and
then
that
would
preclude
them
from
doing
eho
under
the
way
the
text
is
currently
drafted.
D
And
I
recognize
that
it's
just
my
neighborhood
has
quite
a
number
of
those
Standalone
adus
in
the
back
and
I
think
it's
possible.
Some
of
them
aren't
quite
legal,
but
a
number
of
them
are
and
they
have
very
big
houses
in
front
of
them.
That
could
be
easily
made
into
two
or
more
units,
and
it
would
seem
a
waste
to
preclude
that
or
to
require
a
tear
down
of
the
either
the
house
or
or
scraping
the
lot,
which
is
the
worst
outcome
of
all
this.
We
hear
that.
Thank
you.
B
I'm
gonna
go
Christopher
solid
before
I
go
back
to
you,
I'm,
going
to
give
others
a
chance
to
to
win
on
this.
It
looks
like
no
one's
taking
me
up
on
it.
So
I'll
go
to
you.
I
I'll
be
super
quick
I
just
want
to
associate
myself
with
commissionerlin,
tell
me's
comments
and
add
to
it
that
we
ought
to
also
be
able
to
have
a
what
are
the
side-by-side
ones
again
semi-detached
the
semi-detached.
You
know,
particularly
on
the
larger
sides,
have
adus
occur
in
them.
I
would
strongly
encourage
that.
B
And
just
for
orientation
purposes,
I
have
treated
lot
coverage
and
placement
is
including
both
the
option.
4A4B,
which
is
the
question
about
the
five
percent
increase
in
lot.
Coverage
for
providing
a
rear,
detached
garage
I
have
also
included
some
ehl
specific
amendments
to
lock
coverage
ratios
and
setbacks
that
have
been
floated
at
various
levels
of
the
process,
so
just
to
say
a
little
bit
more
about
what
I
mean
when
I
say
a
lot
coverage
and
placement
I'm,
not
seeing
any
lights
or
hands
for
discussion
purposes.
I.
H
I
guess
for
them
the
perspective
of
sort
of
laying
out
where
we're
coming
to
this
from
I'm
again
in
favor
of
request
to
advertise
that
covers
the
most
parking
options
in
terms
of
what's
being
contemplated,
I
think
ultimately,
I'm
potentially
persuaded
that,
based
on
closeness
to
Transit,
it
may
make
sense
for
certain
lots
to
have
no
parking
minimum
again,
based
on
based
on
that
distance
to
Transit,
but
beyond
that
I'm,
not
in
favor
of
having
no
parking
minimums
as
a
broad
option
kind
of
throughout
the
county
for
Lots
any
witchware
if
it's
not
based
on
distance
to
Transit.
H
Some
of
that
is
out
of
caution
with
regards
to
the
number
of
units,
and
you
know,
density
that
we're
increasing
or
you
know,
looking
to
potentially
increase
and
what
that
will
do
for
shared
resources
such
as
parking
and
not
just
parking.
You
know
storm
water,
you
know
other
kind
of
access
issues
and
usage
issues,
that's
sort
of
where
I
fall.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
starts
the
conversation
for
folks.
D
D
M
Commissioner,
Hughes
or
or
parking
minimum
associated
with
Transit,
because
at
the
moment
the
the
staff's
advertised
language
is
is
primarily
based
about
the
parking
survey
and
the
0.5
spaces
per
unit
yeah.
So
it's
in
so
you
just
need
to
be
careful.
We
have
a
lot
if
we,
if
we
really
do
want
to
have
parking
options,
be
a
recommendation
to
the
County
Board
to
consider
the
variety
of
actions
we've
heard.
B
B
Commissioner,
Peterson
I'm
going
to
go
to
you
first
and
then,
commissioner
Sally.
Thank
you.
K
K
So
we
had
discussed
like
what
are
the
options
that
would
maybe
relieve
somebody
from
having
to
have
on-site
parking
if
the
number
of
curb
Cuts,
somehow
equaled
the
number
of
spots
that
they're
required
to
have.
So
if
somebody
has
a
duplex
they're,
not
near
Transit,
so
they're
required
to
have
two
parking
spots.
Both
of
those
parking
spots
are
allowed
to
be
in
the
front
yard
and
they
decide
to
do
two
curb
cuts
to
get
those
spots.
K
So
we
discussed
like.
Is
there
a
way
to
acknowledge
that,
but
I
didn't
see
anything
in
the
report
that
did
so.
Can
you
speak
to
that.
E
So
can
we
we
did
address
because
we
heard
that
from
zoko,
so
we
did
address
that
in
the
report,
but,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
beginning,
we
didn't
we
didn't
make
any
updates
to
the
draft
zoning
text.
We
were
waiting
for
this
conversation
to
happen
and
any
recommendations
to
the
board
to
consider
what
what
the
Planning
Commission
thinks
and
also
we.
You
know
we
heard
a
number
of
these
things
from
zoko
and
you
know
I
think,
on
the
on
the
issue
of
of
curb
cuts.
It
was
a
good
conversation
that
we
had
at
zoko.
E
I
So
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
the
cul-de-sac
and
the
way
that
we're
kind
of
like
giving
I
think
a
little
bit
of
a
penalty
to
for
living
on
account.
The
SEC
as
far
as
parking
goes
I
would
love
to
understand
the
difference
between
a
cul-de-sac
and
a
dead
end
Street.
I
As
far
as
parking
requirement
would
be
concerned,
we
have
quite
a
few
dead
end
streets
and
then
are
there
any
alternatives
to
allow
for
sort
of
ehos
to
happen
on
cul-de-sex,
without
sort
of
having
them
be
penalized
on
the
parking
front
right.
E
So
if
you
look
in
the
in
the
staff
report-
and
if
you
look
at
the
very
end
of
the
staff
report,
there
were
a
number
of
attachments.
The
the
last
attachment
was
the
the
response
Matrix
from
all
the
questions
we
heard
during
the
lrpc
and
zoko
meeting,
so
I
think
it's
100,
page
113.
E
of
the
staff
report
and
I
will
just
refer
to
our
response
on
this
question,
which
is
C5.
So
the
the
zoning
ordinance
defines
a
cul-de-sac
as
I'm,
going
to
quote
here
a
local
street
with
only
one
outlet
and
having
an
appropriate
terminal
for
reversal
of
traffic
movement
right.
So
a
cul-de-sac
then,
is
different
from
a
dead
end
street,
because
cul-de-sac
has
the
has
the
has.
E
The
circle
has
the
bulb
at
the
end,
where
you
can
turn
around
and
and
and
that
bulb
in
sort
of
subdivision
land
allowed
a
builder
at
some
point,
to
put
to
well
put
more
than
two
put,
maybe
three
four
five,
maybe
even
six
houses
on
the
cul-de-sac,
and
that
differs
from
a
dead-end
street,
which
is
where
the
street
just
stops.
There's
no
turn
around
and
there's
not
potentially
five
or
six
houses
at
the
end
of
that
street,
usually
there's
just
one
house
on
either
side
it's
the
same
as
a
traditional
Street.
I
E
I
would
a
dead
end.
Street
would
have
the
same
street
Frontage
right
in
terms
of
the
same
number
of
on-street
parking
spaces
as
a
Not,
Dead
End
Street
right,
the
the
reason
the
cul-de-sac
is
different
is
because
it
has
that
turn
around
at
the
end,
and
there
are
houses
that
go
around
that
and
those
houses
have.
E
I
F
E
So
I
have
Marietta
gelfort
on
the
on
the
call
she's
here
virtually
from
the
Department
of
Environmental
Services
in
their
in
their
parking
section
and
so
I'm
going
to
ask
Marietta
to
turn
her
camera
on
and
the
and
the
question
is,
do
we
is?
Is
there
an
ability
for
someone
with
mobility
issues
to
to
reserve
a
space.
R
Good
evening,
everyone
we
currently
have
a
process
in
place
where
the
community
and
the
public
can
request
a
handicap
space
in
front
of
the
building.
Now,
I
need
to
point
out
that
this
handicap
space
would
not
be
reserved
for
that
specific
household.
Any
vehicle
that
has
a
handicap
identifier
would
be
able
to
park
in
it.
F
I
can't
get
that
on
just
to
follow
up.
So
let's
say
you
had
three
houses
on
the
street
and
everybody
had
a
need
in
each
there's.
One
person
in
each
of
the
houses
that
had
a
need
for
a
handicapped
space
you
would
get.
Each
house
would
request
this
and
go
through
some
vetting
process
and
ultimately
get
a
space
designated
in
front
of
their
home,
convenient
somehow
proximate
and
convenient
for
them.
Okay,
thank
you.
F
If
this
is
part
of
the
discussion,
I
guess
I
want
to
remind
everyone,
because
we've
covered
so
many
things
in
the
course
of
our
discussions
that
when
we
move
from
single-family
homes,
which
have
a
20
percent
canopy
coverage
to
multi-family,
we
go
down
and
what
we
can
mandate
in
terms
of
tree
coverage
and
we're
already
far
short
of
the
County's
goal
for
40
tree
coverage.
At
the
same
time,
we
have
a
biophilia
initiative.
We
all
know
the
benefits
that
people
get
from
trees.
They
are
good
for
our
mental
health.
F
F
I
guess
you
know,
I'm
in
favor
of
anything
that
lets
us
get
more
housing
and
more
trees.
I,
don't
like
this
false
dichotomy.
We
put
ourselves
in
where
we
feel
like
it's
one
or
the
other
I
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
wiggle
room
on
some
other
things
here.
F
Unless
on
this
particular
issue,
so
I'm
just
sharing
in
the
conversation
that
I
would
definitely
support,
1A
I'd
probably
support
something
even
a
little
stronger,
a
canopy
treat
and
an
understory
tree
or
an
ornamental
tree
and
and
flexibility
for
citing
the
ehos
in
order
to
preserve
an
existing
canopy
tree
or
to
get
this
sort
of
vegetation
on
the
site
and
I'd
love
to
hear
what
my
colleagues
think.
K
Commissioner
giren
I
agree:
I
would
support
6A
to
require
one
tree
per
unit
and
I'd
also
be
supportive
of
any
motions
that
support
incentivizing
more
than
one
tree
I
understand
there
are
some
limitations
to
what
we
can
require
of
a
buy
right
developer,
and
so
maybe
that's
why
we're
not
requiring
the
20
tree
coverage
but
I
to
my
colleagues
if
we
have
some
ways
to
incentivize
more
trees.
K
I
Again,
I'm
gonna
go
with
the
incentives
approach,
the
notion
of
essentially
having
like
a
Tetris
approach
to
the
construction,
such
that
if
there
are
trees
and
or
existing
historic
structures
that
we
preserve
those
to
avoid
land
disturbance
and,
of
course,
work
around
existing
trees
so
that
the
construction.
So
then
we
could
encroach
upon
setbacks.
I
E
I
think
that
that's
challenging
because
we're
we're
talking
about
standards
and
then
and
now
we're
talking
about
flexibility
from
standards
which,
in
a
you
know
in
a
process
where
the
zoning
administrator
is
the
Arbiter
of
that
you
know
whether
it
meets
those
standards
having
having
standards
where
you
know,
it's
here's
the
setback,
but
in
some
certain
cases,
maybe
it's
not
the
setback
that
that
can
be
challenging
or
or
problematic,
and
and
really
something
that
is,
is
more
typically
addressed
through
our
special
exceptions,
where
the
county
kit,
where
the
County
Board
can
can
modify
those
standards
but
we've.
E
You
know,
we've
talked
previously
about
the
the
downsides
of
of
special
exception
process
versus
versus
a
buy
right
process.
I
But
in
the
interest
of
sort
of
Expediting
and
allowing
more
opportunities
for
aho,
if
we
had
sort
of
a
an
Outer
Perimeter,
if
you
will
of
the
of
the
standards
right
so
there's
the
standards,
then
there's
a
second
tier
standards
which
I
know
I'm,
essentially
talking
about
a
variance
but
with
cause
right.
So
the
cause
here
would
be
the
preservation
of
a
significant
tree.
I
E
B
You
right
I,
I'm,
gonna,
just
say
a
couple
of
things
on
this
right
and
interject
myself,
I
foreign
I'm,
going
to
begin
with
the
heavy
gaveled
comment,
which
is
that
that
I?
It
is
my
position
as
chair
that
motions
predicated
upon
disagreement
with
the
advice
of
the
County
Attorney
are
out
of
order
because
they
are
out
of
scope.
That
said,
there
are
lots
of
reasons
to
support
emotion.
B
So
you
know,
if
you
have
a
motion
that
has
a
recommendation
right,
I
I
would
invite
you
to
find
a
policy
rationale
other
than
disagreement
with
the
opinion
of
the
County
Attorney
commissioner
sarley
I'm.
Looking
at
you
because
you're
the
last
person
who
spoke
not
because
I'm
speaking
to
you.
B
And
not
because
you've
let
on
not
because
you've
said
anything
that
makes
me
think
that
you
do
disagree.
The
other
comment-
and
this
is
this-
is
the
more
important
one
I
think
for
our
purposes
is
that
this
is
another
area
where
I
think
we're.
We
do
well
to
remember
that
our
superpower
is,
is
the
ability
to
make
broad
stroke
and
broad
spectrum
recommendations
to
the
board
about
what
they
can
direct
staff
to
include
or
not
include
in
the
RTA
right,
and
so
we
do
have
we.
B
We
do
have
the
ability
to
say
that
we
recommend
that
you
know
the
board.
Consider
X,
Y
and
Z
and
staff
has
a
long
window
of
time
to
comment
to
prepare
their
their
responses
to
it
to
the
board,
and-
and
you
know,
we
know
that
they'll
be
constructive,
at
least
as
constructive
as
they
can
be,
because
we
know
the
people
who
are
sitting
near
us.
So,
commissioner,
might
tell
me
yeah.
D
Which
is
precisely
why
I
would
be
in
favor
of
keeping
both
options,
6A
and
6B,
because
I
still
am
not
certain
about
how
I
would
come
out
on
the
tree
canopy
and
what
the
best
way
to
go
forward
is
I.
Think
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
on
this
I
think
the
staff
is
still
looking
into
it
and
I.
Would
it's
certainly
at
this
point?
D
I,
don't
want
to
hamstring
any
of
us
from
any
possible
solution
that
would
give
us
the
trees
that
we
need
on
these
Lots,
but
not
penalize,
building
on
them
to
the
ex,
to
the
exclusion
of
having
to
put
a
single
family
by
right,
I'd
like
to
have
the
same
number
of
trees
for
both
and
I'd
like
to
measure
it
against
what
can
be
done
by
ripe
with
a
single
family
house
now,
which
are
going
up
all
over
the
county
with
scrape
Lots.
D
K
Thank
you,
I
was
wondering
so
option
4B
we're
talking
about
you,
get
a
bonus
for
a
question
or
option
four
we're
talking
about.
Do
you
get
the
bonus
for
having
the
detached
garage
of
I?
Think
it's
five
percent.
E
So
in
in
talking
about
this,
in
terms
of
we
have,
we
have
two
different
standards
that
we're
talking
about
right.
So
the
we
have
the
Chesapeake
Bay
preservation
Artisans,
which
has
a
tree
canopy
requirement,
which
we've
we've
talked
about:
it's
it's
20
for
a
single
detached
housing
based
on
a
state
mandated
dwelling
units
per
acre
standard
and
there's
a
formula
for
how
that
all
works.
E
Obviously
it's
not
20
tree
canopy
at
the
time
that
the
permit
is
issued,
it's
a
calculation
based
on
the
maturity
of
the
tree
at
20
years,
and
then
the
proposal
that's
within
6A
in
our
zoning
ordinance,
which
is
a
separate
ordinance
from
the
Chesapeake
Bay
preservation
ordinance,
would
be
a
standard
that
would
be
one
shade
tree
per
dwelling
unit
and
and
that's
intentional
because
we,
you
know,
we
get
into
these
legal
questions
that
that
we're
talking
about
and-
and
that
is
the
way
that
we
can
do
this
in
a
way
that
we
have
authority
to
to
require
these
trees
within
the
zoning
ordinance.
E
K
But
could
we
give
people
that
extra
five
percent
for
their
lot
size
I
think
it
was
if
they
do
two
trees.
O
Important
to
think
about
think
of
the
the
current
proposal
allow
s
for
additional
square
footage,
as
you
increase
the
number
of
units
and
also
under
the
proposal
to
require
a
tree
for
each
unit.
That
number
goes
up
with
the
number
of
units,
so
in
effect
we
actually
are
offering
a
bonus
in
some
ways
you
can
think
about
it.
That
way,
in
exchange
for
additional
trees,
foreign.
B
H
If
it
returns
to
you,
I
guess
I'm
going
to
ask
you
to
walk
me
through
one
more
time
and
maybe
I
thought
I
was
clear
on
this
and
now
I
feel
like
I'm,
not
clear
on
it.
So
apology
is
in
advance,
we're
restricted
by
the
Chesapeake
Bay
standards
in
terms
of
what
we
can
mandate,
four
single-family
homes,
but
also
for
multi-unit
homes,
or
is
that
only
contemplate.
G
E
We
could
so
the
the
standard
that
is
in
the
in
the
draft
would
apply
only
to
the
expanded
housing
option-
development-
okay,
it
wouldn't.
We
couldn't
apply
that
same
one
tree
per
unit
standard
to
a
single
detached
development,
but
they
they
do
have
different
and
that's
the
zoning
ordinance.
When
you
go
over
to
the
Chesapeake
Bay,
they
do
have
different
requirements.
H
E
H
H
F
F
Because
my
understanding
was,
it
didn't
actually
rise
to
the
level
of
the
most
important
things
that
the
board
has
brought
when
they
were
lobbying
at
the
state
level.
Over
the
last
several
years,
it's
always
been
brought
forward
from
urban
forestry.
Now
forestry,
natural
resources,
but
it's
not
it's
not
risen
to
that
level.
F
I
I
do
understand
that
and
I
think
it
typically
is.
It's
just
I
think
then
there's
a
process
that
prioritizes
all
of
the
different
things.
The
different
commissions
and
groups
want
brought
to
the
state
level,
and
this
has
not
made
to
that
and
I
guess.
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up
so
that
we
didn't
have
an
understanding
up
here
that
we
do
ask
for
that.
It's
my
understanding
that
we
haven't
actually
pushed
that
very
hard
all
right.
Thank
you.
B
I
just
would
like
to
ask
Mr
Ladd
I.
Think
you
handled
this
question
at
the
last
zoning
committee
meeting.
But
whoever
wishes
to
answer
it,
I
I,
want
to
return
a
little
bit
to
this
question
of
a
weighted
tree
requirement
as
opposed
to
just
one
tree
per,
but
instead
to
have
a
you
know,
a
weight
value
that
would
that
would
sort
of
identify.
B
B
Is
there
any
particular
reason
that
that
hasn't
been
that
something
like
that
hasn't
been
pursued
or
if
it
hasn't
been
pursued,
just
wanted
one
more
time
sort
of
Welcome
thoughts
on
it
in
case
of
motion
to
that
effect
might
come
forward.
I.
E
I
think
the
best
way
to
handle
this
and,
as
as
I
said
earlier,
the
the
option-
6A,
that's
in
the
staff
report-
has
has
been
vetted
and
other
options
have
not
been
vetted
and
so
to
the
to
the
extent
that
the
commission
makes
those
recommendations,
we
will
we'll
make
sure
that
they
get
their
proper
vetting.
B
All
right,
thank
you
and
then
the
the
second
thing
isn't
so
much
a
question
for
staff,
as
it
is
a
comment
to
colleagues
that
just
a
reminder
that
there
are
a
couple
other
additional
sort
of
things
that
we
have
talked
about
when
we
get
to
motions
on
this
one,
one
of
which
is
this
idea
of
recommending
a
a
staff
that
staff
study
alternatives
to
our
current
tools
for
determining
maximum
buildable
envelope.
B
But
at
some
point
the
commission
might
be
interested
in
weighing
in
on
whether
or
not
that's
a
recommendation
for
staff's
work
plan,
especially
in
light
I
believe
that
staff
is
has
there's
at
least
some
dismal
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
what
may
or
may
not
be
on
the
work
plan.
Without
it
in
front
of
me
and
then
the
other
thing
that
might
come
forward
is
a
motion
that
someone
might
pick
up
is
a
an
early
discussion
on
on
this,
that
into
Minor
Adjustments
to
front
and
rear
setback
requirements
for
ehos.
B
That
would
allow
for
flexibility
for
the
purposes
of
accommodating
trees,
among
other
shared
needs
and
a
related
recommendation
to
that
along
the
lines
of
the
far
recommendation
would
be
perhaps
a
comprehensive,
a
recommendation
of
a
comprehensive
study
of
setbacks
for
the
entirety
of
the
r
districts
right,
mindful
that
there's
a
little
just
tricky
to
sort
of
just
make
recommendations
as
to
the
ehos
when
the
problem
is
our
district-wide
and
not,
and
not
just
ehos.
B
So
just
a
couple
of
waypoints
I
didn't
see
any
more
lights
on
on
trees,
which
is
why
I
recommended
myself
so
I'm
going
to
go.
Recognize
myself,
I'm
going
to
go
to
caps
and
option
of
a
pilot
study,
I
guess,
commissioner
gear
and
you
reached
for
it
first.
F
It's
more
meant
to
be
broad,
but
I'd
really
like
to
discuss,
including
a
pilot
effort
for
12
to
24
months
or
so
to
see
how
this
is
working,
and
this
could
address
many
of
the
concerns
that
we
heard
from
the
community
members,
including
the
impacts
on
trees.
The
impacts
on
vulnerable
households
potentially
being
displaced
impacts
on
parking
planning
is
generally
very
incremental
and
we
are
living
in
an
Information
Age.
So
having
more
information
could
allay
many
concerns
and
provide
some
data
points
to
use
to
address.
F
With
this
proposal,
I
know
we
don't
have
data
from
our
peer
jurisdictions
and
Arlington
County
could
be
different
anyway,
but
you
know
I'd
be
much
more
comfortable
with
something
like
that.
No
caps,
no
minimums,
but
let's
just
see
what
the
impacts
are
and
I
do
understand.
The
issue
with
induced
demand
thanks
foreign.
M
And
then
an
additional
question
on
the
Caps,
so
I
understand
where
you
came
up
with
the
42
we've
heard,
I
think
on
both
sides
of
the
equation.
You
know
from
the
other
night
we
heard
that
this
will
just
be
massively
popular
and
explode
in
demand.
We've
heard
a
variety
of
of
numbers.
I
was
here
in
the
Adu
discussion
when
we
were
moved,
the
the
cap
from
the
adus
and
staff
is
open
to
other
numbers
besides,
the
42
is
that
what
I
understand
you're
seeking
our
feedback
from
that
is
that
correct.
M
Yeah
yeah,
so
I
I
would
I
could
be
amenable
to
my
fellow
Commissioners.
Any
number
on
a
cap
I
could
become
amenable
to
it.
M
Given
the
the
the
benefit
it
showed
to
the
Adu
discussion
on
calming
fears
that
adus
would
explode
across
our
County
and
and
how
that
did
not
come
to
Bear
so
long
as
the
cap
is
sufficiently
based
in
a
development
sort
of
construct
and
I
would,
instead
of
using
estimates
that
came
from
our
our
esteemed
Consultants
I
would
propose
using
factual
data
such
as
dividing
by
half
or
a
quarter.
The
number
or.
S
M
Highest
number
of
of
new,
build
and
ground
disturbing
permits.
We
issued
in
our
districts
in
2019
through
2022,
either
a
ratio
of
them
such
as
25,
50
percent
or
or
just
the
max
number
that
we
issued
either
in
29,
20
or
21,
because
we
should
be
able
to
easily
pull
the
number
of
2500
square
foot.
Land
disturbing
permits,
which
basically
means
big
additions
and
new
builds
in
our
districts
in
any
given
year,
is
that
data
stack
would
have
available
to
them.
E
We
we
could
look
into
that.
I.
Think
one
one
thing
where
we
struggle
a
little
bit
is
be
because
the
permits
would
be
required
for
a
conversion
of
an
existing
house
which
wouldn't
be
subject
to
a
land,
disturbing
permit
and
so
and
so
thinking
about
thinking
about
it.
That
way,
it's
it.
You
know
it's
hard
to
get
good
data
to
I,
think
you
know
I.
E
We
do
have
good
data
from
our
consultant
and
they
did
a
good
analysis
of
the
number
of
new
construction
that
we
would
expect,
but
in
in
terms
of
conversions,
we're
just.
M
Not
really,
it's
definitely
harder.
That's
kind
of
reasons.
I
was
heading
towards
the
2500
square
foot
land
disturbing
permit
because
it
would
be
both
additions
to
large
houses
and
I.
Get
a
larger
house
today
could
possibly
convert
entirely
within
the
walls
and
not
have
triggered
the
2500
square
foot
landed
serving
permit,
but
I
would
suspect
that
I
I,
just
in
finding
a
rash
in
thinking
about
it
in
a
different
respect
for
the
rational
test.
M
I
just
came
to
that
as
sort
of
my
thoughts
with
it
so
I
I
just
think
we
want
to
be
careful
to
set
the
number
sufficient
that
enough
could
be
built
and
enough
to
alleviate
any
concerns
that
community
may
feel
that
it
will
get
out
of
hand.
K
Explain
when
the
caps
were
implemented
for
accessory
dwelling
units,
how
did
that
work
from
a
logistics
perspective
was
the
number
of
units
that
had
been
built
public
somewhere
so
that
a
potential
Builder
could
kind
of
see
like?
Is
it
worth
my
time
and
effort
to
start
a
building
project
to
you
know,
consider
a
building
project
in
March
if
we're
already
at
90
percent
of
the
the
cap,
or
you
know
so
that
people
could
plan
based
on
where
we
are
in
the
cap.
E
I
might
defer
to
Mr
Tucker
if
he
knows
the
answer
to
that.
I
know
that
we
never
came
close
to
the
cap,
so
it
was
never
an
issue,
but
I
don't
know
to
the
extent
that
staff
was
publishing.
You
know,
we've
had
I
mean
I
think
in
the
first
year
there
was
like
one
permit
and
so
I.
It
wasn't
an
issue
that
we
needed
to
do
that.
But
I
don't
know
to
the
extent
that
we
could
do
that.
K
Okay,
so
a
family
who's
considering
making
their
single
family
home
into
a
duplex
or
a
semi-detached,
would
they
be
able
to
call
cphd
and
say,
hey
we're
thinking
about
doing
this?
Is
this
even
an
option
for
us,
or
you
know
if
this
does
become
very
popular
and
we
did
set
a
cap
that
was
too
small,
you
know.
Are
we
going
to
get
to
January
1st
of
every
year
and
you
get
42
applications?
And
then
you
know,
then
no
more.
K
B
If,
if
I'm
going
to
follow
up
on
commissioner
Peterson's
question
implicit
I,
think
question
is:
if
on
January
2,
you
have
50
applications
right
and
a
cursory
review
suggests
that
all
50
are
likely
to
be
are
almost
certain
to
be
you
know
approved,
but
for
the
cap,
what
would
be,
how
Nimble,
how
nimbly
would
the
board
be
able
to
act
in
the
first
quarter
of
the
year?
Should
the
immediate
conclusion
be
just
race
the
cap
to
let
these
to
let
these
applications
proceed.
M
Right,
thank
you.
I
just
think
it's
a
as
a
person
who
sat
through
the
Ado
conversation.
The
cap
was
I'll
use
the
term
the
crutch
that
was
necessary
in
the
community
conversation
I
was
explained,
and
it
was
it
did.
It
served
its
purpose
and
I
believe
when
we
heard
the
presentation
what
seven
years
ago
it
was
eight
had
been
approved
at
the
time.
It
was
a
very
de
minimis
number
of
adus
that
had
been
approved
when
we
revised
the
Adu
standard.
So
there
was
never
a
question
whether
you
could
apply
for
it.
M
There
was
just
so
few
applications,
which
is
one
of
the
reasons
why.
Commissioner,
sorry
Peterson
that
in
in
this
conversation,
I,
was
be
very
interested
in
establishing
a
a
number
that
is
based
more
on
our
factual
data
set
of
of
incurred
units
versus
the
42,
which
I
understand
where
staff
came
from,
which
is
a
derivative
of
the
consulting's
analysis,
doubled.
So.
I
I'll
associate
myself
with
this
conversation
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
really
critical
point
and
again
thinking
of
the
success
of
these
projects
and
sort
of
putting
the
head
of
the
developer
and
the
architect.
There's
some
lead
time
to
these
processes.
So
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
investment
that
goes
into
a
project
prior
to
the
application
for
permit
and
then
to
have
that
sort
of
investment.
Be
wasted
is
something
that
I
worry
about
and
I
would
love
to
have
a
mechanism.
I
N
H
A
cap
means
a
cap,
so
the
idea
that
you
would
remove
a
cap
because
something's
popular
I'm
I'm
confused
by
that
so
I
I,
guess
that
that's
I
mean
that
to
me
indicates
that
now
we
might
want
to
play
around
with
what
a
I
mean
I.
H
You
know,
sun,
setting,
caps
I,
think
it's
a
different
conversation
and
kind
of
building
up
to
it,
but
the
idea
that
something
could
be
so
popular
that
on
day,
one
we're
like
well,
we
don't,
let's
get
rid
of
the
cat,
that
I
don't
understand
that
so
I
just
want
to
say
that,
but
beyond
that,
I
will
associate
myself
with
commissioner
sarley's
comments
with
regards
to
sort
of
the
logistics
of
how
the
permitting
process
would
play
out
and
I
would
also
I
mean.
H
I,
certainly
think
that
some
developers
that
will
have
you
know
the
permitting
process,
the
cost
and
the
time
and
stuff
to
go
into
that.
That's
going
to
necessarily
favor
larger
developers
who
have
time
and
money
to
sort
of
wait
out
a
process
of
review
and
you
know
go
into
the
queue
and
I
think
we
need
to
maybe
look
at
if
there
is
a
possibility
of
you're
going
to
tell
me
the
county.
H
The
County
Attorney
won't
agree
to
this,
but
what
I'm
going
to
say
it
anyway,
a
system
of
like
tiering
permits
so
that
you
could
have
the
opportunity
where
certain
permits
are,
for
you
know
large-scale
developers,
and
maybe
there
are
certain
permits
that
are
reserved
for
folks
who
want
to
redevelop
their
own
property
I.
Think.
Maybe,
commissioner
Peterson
has
a
motion
that
maybe
kind
of
gets
or
an
idea
that
no
never
mind
I.
Take
that
back,
but
I
I
think
that's.
H
Another
possibility
is
looking
at
the
logistics
of
what
can
we
do
in
terms
of
sorry,
I'm
being
told
I'm
to
make
that
motion
I
do
think.
That's
something
I
will
work
up.
Some
language
I
think
that
there's
Merit
to
looking
into
that.
That
said,
are
you
going
to
tell
me
now
if
the
county
attorney
will
say
no.
H
This
well
I
can't
say
the
County
Attorney
is
wrong.
With
the
county
attorney
things
side
note:
okay,
I
I
will
work
on
some
language
to
that
effect,
because
I
do
think
that,
from
a
logistics
standpoint
figuring
out
how
we
manage
the
permitting
process
so
that
it
does
not
simply
benefit
large
developers
who
maybe
don't
have
roots
in
this
community,
are
the
beneficiaries
of
you
know
all
of
the
permits
on
January,
2nd
or
whenever?
M
M
Every
single
one
of
our
old
tear
Downs
will
will
convert
immediately
because
this
is
so
popular
into
a
a
a
new
build,
a
multi
eho,
and
that
I
don't
think
any
of
us
believe
to
be
a
true
statement,
because
I
just
think
that
there
will
be
people
who
still
want
to
build
a
single
family
home,
that's
just
life,
and
there
will
be
people
who
want
to
build
things.
So
that
was
the
reason.
M
I
was
trying
to
pick
a
number
based
on
our
previous
record
of
construction
in
this
County,
using
data
from
2019
through
2021
as
the
test
for
it
and
establishing
it
at
either
a
quarter
of
those
permits
or
half
of
those
permits.
So
we
can
say
with
absolute
certainty
that
there
no
more
than
a
quarter
of
the
permits
that
we
issue
you
know,
generally
speaking
in
a
year
that
we
had
issued
in
the
past
three
years,
will
be
ehos.
M
That's
just
the
truth,
that's
what
the
cap
would
State
and
allow
it
to
be
communicated
in
a
way
to
the
public,
so
that
was
the
rational
behind
that
and
then,
commissioner
summer,
as
much
as
I
understand
your
intent,
there
there's
very
little
way
to
distinguish
between
the
little
little
lady,
the
little
old
ladies
trust
and
the
little
old
ladies.
M
You
know
newly
formed
corporation
that
that
builds
the
the
unit,
so
I
would
look
forward
to
seeing
the
language,
but,
generally
speaking,
we
don't
discriminate
against
entities
unless
we
have
a
a
test
that
we
can
objectively
apply
to
them.
B
Commissioner
Hughes
is
the
is
the
motion
and
I'll
go
to
commissioner
Peterson
after
I.
Just
ask
this
question
of
you,
commissioner.
Hughes.
Is
that
the
direction
that
you're
sort
of
thinking
about
as
a
motion
that
the
cap
would
be
set
at
a
ratio
of
like
the
the
three-year
trailing
average
or
some
formula
like
that?
I.
M
Think
the
initial
cap
has
to
be
an
objective
number
I
suspect
it
has
to
be
a
finite
number
in
the
text
which
is
I'm
fine
with
and
I
would
just
establish
that.
The
number
of
that,
if
we
were
to
to
support
a
cap
or
if
the
board
advertises
a
cap
and
I,
do
again
recognize
maximum
flexibility,
encourage
them
to
advertise.
Both
a
cap
and
a
No
Cap
option
that
the
cap
be
set
instead
of
at
42,
which
is
2x.
M
B
So
some
kind
of
formula
the.
M
N
K
I
just
wanted
to
point
out,
there's
a
precedent
in
discriminating
against
non-arlingtonians
and
arlingtonians
in
our
Parks
and
Recreation
fee
system,
so
that
could
be
a
way
of
preferencing
people
who
live
in
Arlington
and
are
their
own
little
homeowner
versus
maybe
a
builder
in
a
non-arlington
location.
B
M
I'll,
just
I
guess
a
factual
question
for
staff.
Just
for
the
record,
a
non-conforming
dwelling.
M
E
I
I
think
you're
referring
to
option
9B
9
yeah.
So
this
is
a
like
Edge
case
right
here,
or
is
this
nine
or
eight
I?
Think
we're
on
eight
excuse
me
right.
So
this
is
something
that
is
is
rarely
used
a
provision
in
the
ordinance
but,
as
we
were
scrubbing
the
zoning
ordinance
to
see
anything
that
would
be
related
to
expanding
housing
options.
E
We
found
this
provision
that,
if
you
have
a-
and
this
is
1661a
where,
if
you
have
a
non-conforming
building-
and
you
want
to
convert
that
to
a
condominium,
so
this
again
hasn't
I'm.
E
Years
that
this
has
come
up,
but
might
have
been
something
in
the
1970s
and
1980s
that
was
more
common.
When
you
had
Garden
Apartments
that
were
converting
to
Condominiums,
this
section
would
say
you
can't
just
do
that
by
right.
You
need
a
use
permit
from
the
County
Board
to
convert
a
rental
garden
apartment
to
a
condominium
garden
apartment,
and
so
you
know
this
could
be
something.
E
That
applies
again
in
a
very
rare
case
where
someone
was
taking
an
existing
non-conforming
house
and
wanted
to
convert
it
to
an
eho,
two
or
three
units
and
wanted
to
turn
that
into
a
condominium
option.
8A
would
say
you
don't
have
to
go
to
the
County
Board
to
get
a
use
permit,
to
convert
your
property
to
a
condominium.
M
I
Guess
I'll
do
a
quick
follow-up
on
that
and
Echo
the
thank
you
to
staff,
for
you
know
digging
into
this
very
dense
and
not
very
exciting
text,
so
you're
essentially
saying
that
it's
just
a
conversion
to
a
condo
but
the
eho.
Let's
say
if
it
was
a
non-conforming
got
converted
to
a
rental.
We
wouldn't
be
applying
this
situation.
E
B
Last
chance
on
non-conforming
Lots,
going
to
definition
of
a
duplex.
B
B
Oh,
where
did
I
put
it?
This
is
option
9A
and
9B,
and
if,
if
you
have
the
staff
report
in
front
of
you,
where
I
thought
that
I
would
have
it
by.
M
B
Page
49
of
the
staff
report,
if
you
have
that
in
front
of
you
and
the
the
issue
right
is,
is,
can
we
change
commission
reviews?
Are
you
am
I
right
in
your
characterization
of
it
that
can
we
can
we
have
a
duplex?
Can
we
call
it
a
duplex
if
it
has
two
doors
in
the
front?
Is
that
is
that
that's
right?
Is
that
the
gist
of
it
well,.
E
I
think
that
the
gist
of
it
is,
if,
if
you
look
at
Option
9B
right,
you
can
see
well
9A
versus
9B,
but
in
9B
you
can
see
the
strikethrough
right.
So
the
if
you
look
at
the
text
that's
struck
through.
Thank
you.
E
E
This
is
what
a
townhouse
is,
so
the
definition
of
a
duplex
is
again
it's
not
it's
not
the
semi-detached,
where
the
side
by
side
it's
up
and
down
units
where
there
are
oh
they're
stacked
on
top
of
each
other,
and
the
current
zoning
definition
of
this
is
the
building
has
all
exterior
characteristics
of
a
one
family
attached
dwelling
having
a
single
front
entrance
or
one
front
and
one
side
entrance
on
the
first
floor.
E
Would
we
want
to
change
this
definition
to
first
of
all
take
away
the
the
standard
that
is
all
exterior,
dwell
characteristics
of
a
one
family
attached
dwelling,
which
is
a
kind
of
vague
standard,
not
not
really
enforceable,
and
also
the
a
standard
that
is
enforceable
is
do
we
want
to
require
if
you
have
a
duplex,
where
there's
one
unit
on
the
first
floor
and
one
unit?
On
the
second
floor
that
it
they
can't
have
two
doors
that
are
facing
the
street.
The.
B
Is
the
is
the
impact
of
the
change
in
definitions,
anything
greater
than
the
ability
to
avoid
wasting
for
lack
of
a
better
word
square
footage
on
an
internal
Landing
to
direct
people
from
you
know
to
either
the
upstairs
or
the
downstairs
units?
Or
is
there
like
what
what's
the?
E
Oh,
you
know
a
unit
on
the
first
floor
that
has
a
door
on
one
side
of
the
house
and
you
would
have
a
unit
with
on
with
a
door
on
the
other
side
of
the
house
and
and
that
door
would
go
up
the
stairs
to
a
second
floor
and
it
it
looks
the
same
as
a
semi-detached
dwelling
right,
which
also
has
two
doors
or
townhouses
where
each
has
their
own
individual
entrance
that's
facing
the
street,
but
our
zoning
ordinance
currently
precludes
that
from
happening.
E
B
So
then,
I
want
to
chase
one
more
question
to
ground
and
then
I'll
go
to.
Commissioner,
tell
me
if
the
commission
were
to
affirmatively
recommend
that
the
RTA
only
include
option
9B
and
then,
if
the
board
were
to
take
the
commission
up
on
that
recommendation
and
then
the
RTA
only
included
9B,
the
board
would
still
be
within
us
within
its
Authority.
At
the
hearing
to
not
adopt
this
amendment.
Is
that
correct?
That's
correct!
Okay!
Thank
you,
commissioner.
One
tell
me
yeah.
It
strikes.
D
Me
that's
pretty
easy
to
give
the
board
flexibility
for
both
of
them,
but
my
question
is
this:
is
for
duplexes
so
there's
nothing
for
a
Triplex
does.
This
is
totally
irrelevant
to
a
Triplex,
but
a
Triplex
could
then
have
two
doors
in
the
front
and
one
around
the
side
or
one
in
the
front.
It's
not
addressed
by
this
particular
right.
E
E
right,
where,
where
we
talk
about
based
on
the
different
housing
types
where
building
entrances
can
be
placed,
and
so
for
a
Triplex
or
for
any
other
eho
type,
it's
going,
you
know,
what's
in
article
10,
those
design
standards
would
be
what
you
know
if
they're
ultimately
adopted.
That
would
be
what
controls,
and
this
looking
at
in
the
definitions
is,
is
more
of
a
cleanup
saying.
E
B
Commissioner,
like
Tom,
you
may
have
just
asked
gotten
the
answer
to
the
question
that
I'm
about
to
ask
but
like
what
is
the
rationale
for
including
9A,
given
that
9B
on
its
own
would
preserve
the
authority
of
the
board
to
not
adopt
the
proposed
amendment
like
I,
guess,
I'm,
missing,
I
can't
articulate
to
myself
a
reason
that
9A
would
even
be
included
before
us.
I.
E
I
think
it's
it's
more,
you
know
you're
technically
correct
right.
The
board
can
any
language
that's
in
here.
The
board
can
opt
not
to
adopt
it,
but
I
think
for
the
layperson
or
for
a
planning,
commissioner,
who
doesn't
review
zoning
text
a
lot.
You
know
it's.
If
we
hadn't
included
9A,
you
would
probably
be
asking
us
well.
Why
isn't
there
an
option
here
to
you
know
to
keep
things
the
way
they
are.
So
it's
it's
more
of
a
Communications
exercise.
I!
B
All
right,
thank
you,
I
appreciate
you
indulging
me
and
and
mostly
me,
but
also
anyone
else
on
that
I,
don't
see
anything
else
on
this,
so
I
think
we're
ready
to
go
to
Club
Amendment
language,
Commission
I'm.
Sorry,
oh
look,
commissioner,
will
tell
me
this
has
been
just
the
person
I've
talked
about
the
most
with
this.
Is
you
so
I'm
going
to
pick
on
you
to
kick
this
one
off
for
us.
D
Yeah
I'm
I'm,
not
we're
not
making
motions
at
this
point,
but
I
will
probably
want
to
make
two
of
them
one
to
deal
with
the
one
to
ten
in
the
glup
Mac
glup
map
legend
and
a
second
one
for
the
history
of
exclusionary
zoning
in
the
county.
That
would
go
in
the
glup
booklet.
B
You,
commissioner,
tell
me:
I,
don't
see
any
of
their
lights
on
this,
professor
Hughes.
M
Okay,
I'm
going
to
ask
my
club
question
here
before
we
get
to
motions
I
circulated
earlier
today.
A
possible
motion,
so
I
was
curious.
If
staff
could
help
me
again,
understand
and
I
have
the
rationale
for
excluding
I
actually
do
get
the
rationale
for
excluding
all
planned
areas
with
one
exception,
that
is
the
Cherrydale
revitalization
District,
because
it's
the
only
planned
District
where
I
went
through
the
whole
map
and
it
leaves
the
low
residential.
Then
I
pulled
the
plan
and
it
still
relieves
the
low
residential
as
the
existing
Zona
category
had
staff.
M
Given
that
any
thought
and
and
is
there
any
would
there
be
I
think
this
is
the
area
we
do
need
to
actually
put?
If
we
want
to
have
this
the
if
the
County
Board
wants
to
have
that
option,
they
do
need
to
put
it
in
this
RTA
to
have
that
flexibility,
whether
my
language
is
the
best
or
not.
It's
a
whole
separate
question.
I
would,
of
course,
defer
to
status
great
language.
E
So
I
I
think
the,
and
we
did
review
your
your
emotion,
which
would
you
know
the
the
draft.
The
draft
text
would
exclude
anywhere
that's
in
a
designated
planning
district
on
the
go
up
from
the
ho
and
and
that
ends
up
being
because
of
where
the
zoning
is
and
because
where
those
lines
are
on
the
glove,
it's
East.
E
Falls
Church
has
a
few
properties,
it's
Cherrydale
and
it's
Columbia
Pike,
where,
where
we
have
the
form-based
code
and
and
I
think
you
know
your
rationale
and
the
motion
of
Justice
Just,
excluding
excluding
Cherrydale
or
or
allowing
Cherrydale
to
have
eho
I,
think
it's
a
reason.
It's
a
reasonable
request,
and
it's
certainly
something
that
that
we
could
consider
during
during
the
advertisement
period.
And.
M
I
was
aware,
just
you
know,
of
the
neighborhood
Forum
Place
code,
and
today
I
did
read
the
East
Falls
Church
plan
to
make
sure-
and
it
looked
like
to
me,
though
you
had
re-glupt.
So
while
there
are
still
our
sixes
and
and
relatively
few
R5
I
think
in
those
zones,
it
did
appear
to
me
that,
within
the
actual
map
we
had
changed
to
at
least
a
low
medium
or
a
medium
designation.
They
weren't
actually
color
coded
as
low
residential,
which
would
preclude
a
rezoning
to
anything
other,
so
I
kind
of
got.
M
The
rationale
test
because
I
was
I
was
I,
was
I
was
on
the
edge
of
whether
I
go
full
on
like
nowhere
on
the
plans,
leave
it
everywhere
or
or
do
it
so
I
did
I
just
want
to
make
sure
staff
had
that
that
cognizance
I'm
glad
to
know
where
staff
is
on
that.
So
for
my
Commissioners
I
do
plan
to
make
my
motion
on
the
charity.
Revitalization,
District
and
it's
exclusively
because
it's
the
only
spot,
commissioner.
D
Tommy
yeah
I
have
a
question
on
that,
given
that
both
Cherrydale
and
actually
East
Hall's
church
are
within
the
study
area
for
the
plan,
Langston
Boulevard
I
would
think.
That's
a
reason
to
sort
of
just
leave
them
alone,
because
right
now
those
two
areas
are
even
though
they're
technically
within
the
plan.
Langston,
Boulevard
and
but
they're
really
not
being
studied
as
part
of
the
current
effort.
D
But
the
contemplation
is
that,
should
plant
Lancaster
Boulevard
be
adopted
by
the
County
Board,
we
would
then
move
on
to
both
Cherry
an
update
for
the
Cherrydale
plan
and
the
East
Falls
Church
plan.
Cherrydale
is
apparently
ready
for
that.
Now
that
they've
seen
helpline
Links
of
blur
Boulevard
is
going
because
they
have
concerns
that
that
sector
plan
that
area
plan
isn't
coming
through
the
way
they
had
anticipated.
D
M
I
will
be
honest
with
you,
commissioner
Timmy,
and
it's
that
point
out.
This
isn't
but
I
just
want
one
point
of
clarification.
Just
I
think
you
did,
but
the
updates
that
staff
is
currently
working
on
with
plan
Langston
Boulevard
do
not
include
the
Cherrydale
sector
plan
or
the
East
there.
It's
excluded
from
that
Planning
Network
at
the
moment
right,
correct.
That's.
M
And
so,
as
staff
alluded
to
commission
tell
me:
I
was
aware
that
there
works,
there's
East,
Falls
Church,
but
there's
also
Columbia
Pike,
neighborhoods
form-based
code
and
I
was
aware
of
some
of
those
and
I
was
actually
leaning
on
just
it
completely
ignoring
it
and
striking
all
planned
areas
so
that
it
could
be
an
eho
option
and
and
I
still
could
be
very
well
imposed.
M
That
but
I
do
think
that
thinking
about
the
Cherrydale
option,
we
have
a
42
year
old
plan
at
Boston
that
has
yet
to
be
resolved
and
the
Cherrydale
plan
is
from
1994
and
the
plain
Langston
Boulevard
Ginger
brand,
brought
to
my
attention
and
eight
years
ago,
when
we
first
joined
this
commission.
It
still
has
yet
to
be
done
so
I
I,
just
hate
to
see
those
neighbors
and
I
and
I
was
I.
M
Think
the
variety
that
could
be
occurred
is
what
I
call
the
spice
of
life
of
a
city
which,
even
if
you
end
up
with
a
nail
salon
in
Boston
that
was
a
Chinese
restaurant
it.
It
could
still
be
Variety
in
the
city
and
it
won't
preclude
the
rest
of
the
block
redeveloping.
So
if
the
little
lady
wants
to
make
you
know
an
aplex
owner
or
a
fourplex
or
a
duplex,
whatever
it
ends
up
being,
let's
let
her
do
it
and
let
that
be
this
unique
thing
within
that
context
of
the
neighborhood.
M
D
E
I
think
if,
if
I
could
make
a
suggestion,
I
think
in
in
your
draft
motions
the
the
staff
received
this
morning,
number
49
on
that
list
would
be
to
allow
Lots
in
these
planning
areas
to
be
eligible
for
ehl,
and
that
would
cover
the
range
of
they
could
be
eligible.
They
could
be
excluded
and-
and
we
could
have
this
conversation
after
the
advertisement-
thank
you
and
it
doesn't
need
to
be
specific
to
well
Cherrydale,
but
not
East,
Falls
Church
and
not.
B
B
B
This
commissioner
silee
I'm,
going
to
pick
on
you
right,
because
this
is
in
here
I've
I
I've
included
this
on
this
list,
based
on
some
recommended
potential
motions
that
you
sent
to
me
and
that
I
edited
a
little
bit
only
try
to
put
them
into
what
I
see
as
rtea
ease,
but
I
want
to
give
the
four
to
you
on
this
topic.
First.
B
So
you
know
that
the
issue
was
was
language
was
was
incentivization
to
how
we
could
include
language,
how
we
could
get
language
included
in
the
RTA.
That
would
encourage
the
retention
of
existing
structures,
both
for
historic
preservation
purposes,
for
reduction
of
site
disturbance
and
for
reuse
of
existing
a
historic
structures.
I
I
mean
that's
it
the
the
question
is
that,
like
what
can
we
do?
That
would
encourage
the
preservation,
and
this
has
so
many
benefits.
You
know
the
tree
canopy
issue,
the
environmental
embodied
energy
issue,
the
land
disturbance
issue,
the
you
know,
scale
right,
because
you're
retaining
a
structure,
it
inevitably
forces
a
certain
scale,
so
I
would
love
to
see
us
aggressively,
incentivize
the
preservation
and
or
re.
What's
the
word
these
days,
repurpose
of
existing
structures
to
the
maximum
possible,
and
this
is
where
I
keep
going
back
to
I.
I
Think
commissioner
Peterson
had
talked
about
like
you
know,
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
incentive
for
the
garage
and
the
the
front
porch
are
applicable
in
this
typology
and
Architectural
typology,
so
I
would
love
to
move
those
over
I
mean
I
know
we
can't
throw
extra
50
square
feet
or
you
know
five
percent
density
at
everything,
because
eventually
it
just
but
I
think
you
know
it.
It
warrants
taking
a
look
at
that
closely
and
I
think
this
is
a
very,
very
High
return
on
the
investment.
I
Sorry,
there
wasn't
a
question
there.
What
are
thoughts
that
staff,
you
know
have
thought
about,
and
what
can
they
advise
us
by
way
of
implementing
or
proposing
something
like
that.
E
Well,
I
think,
for
you
know
first
I'll
say
I've:
just
is
we've
just
seen
this
for
the
first
time
this
morning,
so
we
haven't
had
a
whole
lot
of
time
to
to
formulate
our
thoughts
on
it.
But
you
know
an
immediate
reaction
to
the
proposal
to
allow
additional,
lock
coverage
for
preserving
an
existing
building,
I'm
I'm
struggling
to
see
the
the
relationship
there,
because
you
know
typically,
if
you're
preserving
an
existing
building,
you
don't
need
additional
lot
coverage.
B
I
think
that
the
idea
is
is
you're
not
just
gutting
and
you're,
not
just
doing
a
gut
job
on
the
existing
building,
you're
adding
on
to
it
as
well.
Okay,.
I
And
that
also
ties
into
the
non-conforming
so
like
let's
say
a
building
is
encroaching
on
a
setback
right.
Can
we
essentially
allow
for
them
to
expand
that
structure
right,
and
this
is
where
the
extra
density
would
come
in
and
have
some
sort
of
variances
again
going
back
to
the
contradiction
of
setting
standards
and
then
automatically
sort
of
breaking
that
rule
that
you're
trying
to
establish
but
to
encourage
the
preservation
and
still
make
the
ReUse
and
the
repurpose
of
that
structure?
You
know
very
accessible
to
anyone
willing
to
redevelop
right
instead
of
the
tear
down.
I
E
Did
that
make
sense
yeah?
No,
it
does
make
sense.
I
think
it
helps
to
understand
that
you're
thinking
about
that
these
buildings
would
be
enlarged,
correct
and
sometimes
preserving
them,
and
then
I'm.
We
have
seen
a
lot
of
that
happening
in
in
various
neighborhoods
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
end
result
is
is
what
you're
looking
for
in
terms
of
you
know
like
yes,
the
structure
is
preserved,
but
if
you
didn't
know
that
it
would
appear
to
be
a
tear
down.
I
So
that's
a
good
thing,
I
think
right,
even
though
it
has
the
appearance
of
a
tear
down.
We
still
have
achieved
the
goals
of
reducing
land
disturbance,
embodied
energy
like,
for
instance,
when
they
add
the
Second
Story,
which
doesn't
really
apply
here,
but
or
it
could
right
just
adding
a
second
story
to
the
one
story.
Houses
I
always
feel
very
encouraged
when
our
neighbors
do
that,
because
again
land
disturbance
tree
coverage.
You
know
just
smart
right,
you're
you're
using
the
same
footprint.
So
could
a
conversion?
I
Sorry
Kelly,
I'll
I'll,
stop
my
talking,
but
could
a
conversion
essentially
like
do
an
addition
in
the
rear?
Do
an
addition
on
the
side
pop
the
top
and
then
get
a
bonus
right
for
those
little
additions?
Let's
say
it's
already
a
fairly
large
house
and
it's
occupying
a
large
percentage
of
the
lot
already
right.
So
they
get
a
little
extra
density
and
then,
of
course
the
other
thing
would
be
a
possible
freestanding
Adu,
which
I
know
that's
not,
but
perhaps
this
is
where
we
bring
that
up.
Also.
O
I
think
what
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
consider
how
to
include
this
in
recommendations
for
the
board
is
just
perhaps
a
little
more
clarity
on
the
specific
goals
that
you're
trying
to
achieve
through
offering
incentives
and
maybe
a
prioritization.
So
you
know
what
is
the
most
important
on
this
list?
Is
it
reducing
site
disturbance?
Is
it
actually
achieving
historic
preservation
goals?
O
You
know,
as
would
be
considered
by
hlrb,
perhaps
what
is
most
important?
You
know
my
mind
immediately
goes
to
if
you're
providing
an
incentive
for
additional
lot
coverage,
then
doesn't
that
potentially
actually
increase
the
potential
for
site
disturbance?
So
if,
if
some
thought
could
be
given
to
that,
I
think
that
might
be
helpful
for
us,
because
this
is
good
feedback.
We
just
need,
maybe
a
little
bit
more
to
know
how
to
take
it
for
take
it.
That
next
step.
I
And
that's
a
great
question,
but
it's
difficult
to
answer,
because
I
think
it
would
be
a
unique
situation
that
we
would
then
be
reacting
to
right.
So
we
can
hypothesize
but
I
think
like,
for
instance,
the
land
disturbance
and
I
see
that
there's
an
inherent
contradiction
there,
except
by
not
tearing
down
a
large
structure
right,
you've
already
saved
a
large
portion
of
land
disturbance,
and
you
know
just
disrupting
like
the
tree.
So
it's
hard
to
prioritize
because
of
that,
like,
let's
say,
there's
a
very
you
know:
award-winning
Dogwood.
I
Next
to
this
existing
structure,
you
know
and
it's
slightly
encroaching
on
the
setback,
so
they
could
tear
that
down
and
bring
it
up
to
code
right
in
the
process
of
tearing
that
down
it's
most
likely
that
that
tree
would
die.
So
in
that
case
the
priority
would
be
to
not
disturb
the
rain
whatever
that
expression
is
of
the
tree
to
preserve
it
on
another
situation
right,
it
would
be
a
land
disturbance.
Let's
say
it's
in
a
slope
situ
site
and
we
don't
want
to
encroach
you
know
on
the
Des
rainwater
runoff.
I
So
the
short
answer
is
it's
very
hard
for
me
to
give
you
a
priority.
I
think
the
idea
would
be
to
have
a
language
that
allows
for
the
variance
or
something
to
that
effect.
That
would
take
those
elements
into
consideration
or
those
elements
would
be
viewed,
favorably
and
and
just
for
the
record
and
not
to
sort
of
say
anything
against
hlrb.
But
when
I
was
saying
with
the
word
historic,
it
was
not
on
the
hlrb
sense.
It
was
just
more
like
in
the
existing
structure
preservation.
Oh
that's
good!.
B
B
I
think
what
Ms
Brown
has
asked
for
is:
what
are
the
goals
that
these
motions
are
trying
to
Advance
and
and
then
we
can
give
broad-based
language
so
that,
mindful
again
of
the
fact
that
the
way
that
the
commission
makes
recommendations
to
the
board
is
here
right
is
is
from
the
Deus.
I
With
the
caveat
that
I
draw
these
things
better,
then
I
write
them
out.
I
will
I
will
think
about
it.
Thank
you.
B
H
I
think
I
was
proposing
that
as
the
category
by
which
we
could
consider
things
like
caps
and
a
pilot,
though
just
a
sort
of
an
overarching
I,
didn't,
have
a
specific
comment.
Beyond
that
okay.
B
I
I
again,
I
have
a
hard
time
sort
of
I
would
love
to
see
the
guidelines
be
a
little
bit
more
inclusive
and
I
know
that
we
had
a
conversation
about
this
at
the
zoko
and
there
is
the
concern
that
guidelines
can
be
onerous
or
make
the
process
harder
and
I
really
want
to
disabuse.
This
of
that
idea,
I
think
clearly
stated.
Guidelines
are
helpful
and
they
manage
expectations
really
well,
both
from
the
developer
side
and
from
the
sort
of
neighbor
side.
So
again,
I.
I
You
know
I
tend
to
think
better
on
other
mediums,
but
I
think
the
notion
is
that
guidelines
and,
if
I
understand
correctly,
we
have
roughly
two
elements,
which
is
the
front
door
guideline
in
the
garage
door,
guideline
right
and
then
I
think
on
the
you
had
a
nice
slide
on
the
last
presentation
on
Monday
that
had
the
landscape
and
some
screening,
but
I
think
you
know
to
pick
on
the
architectural
guidelines
just
to
separate
those
like
I'd
love,
to
see
things
included
that
address
like
balconies
I,
know
that
there's
a
a
surge
on
balcony
demand
and
again
this
typology
is
different
than
the
single
home.
I
So
balconies
probably
are
something
that's
going
to
come
up.
Are
those
included
in
the
square
footage
calculations
are
those
included
in
the
setback
calculations.
You
know
flat
roofs
and
and
sort
of
roof
deck.
Like
what
sort
of
guidelines
do
we
need
to
incorporate
that
both
and
this
isn't
an
aesthetic
exercise,
although
it
can
be
but
incorporate.
Some
of
these
sort
of
you
know
use
and
neighborly
approaches
to
things
so
I
don't
know,
commissioner,
we're
does
this
sort
of
cover
it
love
to
have
your
help
on
some
of
these
explanations.
N
I
B
I
I
I
I
leave
it
to
you
as
to
whether
I
mean
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
topic
for
discussion,
and
so,
if
there
are
concerns
or
questions
that
you
have,
you
know
this
would
be
the
opportunity
to
get
into
them
or
forecast
a
potential
motion
that
you
may
be
thinking
about.
Yeah.
I
I
think
I
think
that
was
a
little
bit
of
the
thinking
behind
it,
so
I'm
just
sharing
it
with
staff,
mostly
that
I
feel
like
that's
an
area
that
perhaps
we
need
to
pay
a
little
bit
more
attention
to
and
develop.
Thank
you.
The.
B
B
Where
do
the
kinds
of
guidelines
that
commissioner
sarley
is
talking
about
belong
in
planning
guidance
in
a
in
in
a
comprehensive
plan?
You
know
and
I'm,
not
that's
not
a
rhetorical
question
to
say:
that's
not
a.
Where
does
this
belong?
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
trying
to
say
that
I
don't
think
it
does
I
just
I'm
trying
to
I'm
trying
to
think
through,
like
which
closet
in
my
house
do
I
put
that
kind
of
information
in
and
I
am
want
to
throw
that
question
to
you.
O
I
think
these
sort
of
design
guidelines
can
live
in
a
number
of
different
places.
It.
It
depends
on
the
extent
to
which
you
want
them
to
be
viewed
as
suggestions,
or
you
know,
adopted
policy,
guidance
or
specific
regulations,
and
so,
if
you're
looking
for
them
to
be
specific
regulations,
then
they
belong
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
O
If
you're
looking
for
them
to
be
adopted
policy,
then
we
would
need
to
think
about.
You
know
some
other
document.
You
know
where
they
could
live
and
be
adopted
by
the
the
board
and
considered,
though
going
back
to
this
being
a
you
know,
recommended
as
a
Buy,
Right,
Use
I,
think
that
would
be
challenging
a
challenging
from
an
implementation
perspective.
You
know
it
would
really
probably
need
to
live
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
O
If
you
wanted
it
to
be
something
that
you
actually
saw
happen,
you
know,
or
it
could
just
stand
on
its
own.
You
know
as
if
you're
considering
an
eho
development.
These
are
some
things
that
we
would
like
to
see
and
it
could,
you
know,
simply
live
somewhere
on
a
website,
for
example,
so
there's
a
number
of
different
ways
that
you
could
include
design
guidelines
and
consideration
for
Asia
development.
B
Thank
you,
my
last
question
on
this:
are
there
precedence
either
in
Arlington
or
in
our
neighbor
jurisdictions,
or
these
are
communities
that
are
doing
interesting
things
and
it's
getting
talked
about
in
peer-reviewed
literature,
for
low
density
for
guide
for
guidelines
in
districts
zoned
for
some
kind
of
low
density,
Buy
Right
Use,
like
does
the
does
the
question
does,
does
that
combination
of
words
add
up
to
a
coherent
question
and
if
it
does,
then
that's
the
question.
Well,.
E
I'll
give
you
an
answer,
and
then
you
can
tell
me
whether
it
answered
your
question
we,
you
know
we
have
looked
at
other
places
that
have
implemented
missing
middle
housing
types
Minneapolis
Portland,
you
know,
Portland
includes
some
design
standards
generally
in
line
with
the
ones
that
are
in
the
draft
text.
E
Right
now
you
know
the
limits
on
the
width
of
a
garage
that
faces
the
street
or
limits
on
where
parking
can
go
and
a
lot
and
and
things
of
that
nature,
and
so
they,
you
know
typically
don't
get
to
a
very
high
level
of
detail
in
terms
of
and-
and
you
know,
we're
using
the
word
guidelines
here
but
as
as
Miss
Brown
said,
you
know
they
could
be
guidelines
which
are
advisory
aspirational
or
they
could
be
regulations
which
are
the
law,
and
you
have
to
do
it
and
there's
and
there's.
No.
B
I
Well,
I
think
I
think
that's
really
interesting,
really
it
sort
of
edification
edification,
whatever
you
get
it
conversation
because
I
think
you're
right.
The
question
of
what
ought
to
be
in
the
ordinance
versus
what
is
desirable
is
is
also
part
of
the
guidelines.
Right,
like
some
things
we
would
like
to
have,
but
some
things
I
think
ought
to
be
part
of
the
ordinance,
particularly
those
things
that
help
the
neighbors
and
the
neighborhood
sort
of
maintain
that
continuity.
I
That
I
think
is
a
well-founded
concern
right
from
some
of
our
neighbors,
so
I
think
I
would
need
to
think
a
little
bit
about
more
a
little
more
about
this
and
have
you
know,
I'm
sure
we
can
come
up
with
some
good
sort
of
ideas
to
share
with
you
and
and
go
from
there
again.
The
procedure
aspect
of
this
is
what
I'm
always
a
little
bit
at
a
loss.
So
I
don't
know
how
like
what
we
should
do
next
on
this
situate
conversation
well,.
O
Just
making
another
suggestion,
I
guess,
like
Mr
Ladd,
did
earlier
on
potential
emotions.
You
know
if,
if
if
there
is
interest
in
the
Commission
in
in
staff
in
the
board,
considering
any
or
all
of
these
as
potential
guidelines,
that
would
be
added
to
the
zoning
ordinance
as
regulations,
then
the
motion
could
include
you
know
adding
all
of
these
and
then
you
know
they
could
be
considered
further
by
staff
and
by
the
board
moving
forward.
B
I
am
just
going
back
to
my
list,
I
believe
that
we're
at
other
issues,
and
so,
if
there's
any
brief,
returns
to
either
question
early
questions.
Maybe
like
me,
you
forgot
a
question
you
had
on
a
topic
or
if
there's
just
other
concerns
you
want
to
raise
before
we
get
into
emotions.
This
would
be
the
time
commissioner.
K
Thank
you,
I
had
wanted
to
raise
an
equity
issue
related
to
the
missing
medal
study.
We've
heard
concerns
raised
about
possible
gentrification
that
can
come
through
this
through
this
work
and,
of
course,
the
goals
of
the
entire
project
are
very
laudable
and
and
but
then
a
possible
unintended
consequence
could
be
gentrification.
K
So
I
do
have
two
motions
that
I
shared
with
you
all
previously
that
I
will
be
proposing
later.
They
don't
have
to
be
I.
Don't
think
part
of
our
original
motion
related
to
the
RTA,
but
I
did
want
them
to
be
considered
by
staff
over
the
next
few
months
as
a
possible
project
that
we
could
do
in
tandem
with
the
missing
middle
housing
study.
Just
to
make
sure
that
we
are
proactively
making
sure
that
neighborhoods
do
not
get
gentrified.
M
Commissioner,
Peterson
I
I
do
I
definitely
support
your
your
motion
to
In
Motion,
one
I
just
encourage
you
I
think
that
the
resources
that
staff
could
develop
are
County,
Wide,
I,
don't
think
they're
I,
don't
think
that
they're
narrowly
applicable
to
any
one
neighborhood
in
any
way
and
I
would
encourage
I
do
think
staff
should
do
this.
I
mean
this.
This
allows
the
option
I
mean
if
I'm
an
old
man
one
day,
and
this
is
still
an
option,
there's
a
chance.
My
three
kids
might
come
back
to
live
with
me.
M
M
It
is
your
neighbors
who
are
going
to
benefit
it's
my
neighbor
who,
instead
of
having
to
sell
their
house
to
their
children
and
move
to
the
small,
tiny
condo,
might
instead
choose
to
perhaps
save
the
how
home
they
have
emotional
attachment
to
and
expand
it
and
allow
it
or
and
build
two
units
within
it
or
these
other
things
so
I.
Just
commissioner
Peterson
I
really
do
encourage
you
with
with
Equity
motion
number
one.
M
It
is
about
retaining
our
neighbors
for
the
long
run
and
that's
what
we
heard
in
the
community
conversation
throughout
this
and
and
I
do
think
that
it
is
applicable
throughout
the
county,
whether
wherever
they
are,
and
because
we
find
people
everywhere
who
could
really
use
them
to
know
hey,
you
could
build
a
Triplex
that
looks
like
this
with
an
internal
granny
Suite,
because
the
reason
people
don't
put
build
internal
adus
is
because
they're
pretty
much
impossible.
They're
rarely
pain
in
the
bottom
to
prove
an
internal
Adu.
K
I
have
father,
so
thank
you.
I
do
think
that
whatever
resources
are
developed
could
be
applied
to
anybody
in
the
county,
and
hopefully
everybody
would
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
those,
and
no
residents
are
forced
out
of
their
neighborhoods
or
their
homes
because
of
this
policy.
I
do
think
that
with
limited
staff
resources,
if
we
were
going
to
talk
about
Outreach
efforts,
I
do
have
an
interest
in
focusing
on
neighborhoods,
with
a
strong
historical
association
with
communities
of
color.
K
B
Professionally,
here's.
The
other
thing
that
I
would
point
out
is
that,
in
response
to
your
comment,
I'm
not
seeing
any
of
the
lights
so
I'm
going
to
take
the
Liberty
is,
is
it
goes
I?
Think
it's
important?
Did
someone
note
that
the
other
thing
about
the
accessory
dwelling
it
is?
Is
that
they're
accessory
right-
and
you
know
some
of
the
feedback
that
we
got
on
Monday-
took
the
form
of
well.
B
We
already
allowed
duplexes
throughout
the
county
via
the
adus,
and
that's
just
not
correct
right,
because
it's
it's
the
nature
of
an
Adu
that
whoever
is
living
in
its
rights
are
completely
dependent
on
who
whoever
owns
it
right.
So,
if
I'm,
not
if
I'm,
building
something
that
I
want
my
siblings
to
be
able
to
share
in
right,
I'm,
not
gonna,
I'm
not
going
to
pursue
the
Adu
route
because
I
don't
want
my
or
my
my
children,
because
I
don't
want.
B
You
know
my
my
older
child
to
have
to
worry
about
whether
or
not
because
they're
gonna
get
booted
out
when
the
younger
child
decides
to
sell
the
the
place,
and
it's
just
it's
not
factually
correct
to
say
that
we
have
duplexes
by
right
throughout
the
county,
because
the
interests
of
the
occupants
are
asymmetrical.
Yeah.
J
I
just
point
out
that
commissioner
Patel
has
her
hand
raised.
Thank.
B
You,
commissioner,
Patel
I
I,
neglected
to
announce
this,
but
for
the
record
commissioner
Patel
joined
us
roughly
an
hour
ago.
A
little
more
I
think.
Q
To
align
my
content
with
commissioner
Peterson's
comments,
I
know
that
she
and
I
have
spoken
about
this
a
little
bit
but
but
I
agree.
If
there's
limited
resources
available,
then
I
want
to
make
sure
that
those
resources
are
are
allocated
strategically
allocated
to
communities
of
color
to
ensure
that
we
are
not,
you
know
rapidly,
you
know
I,
guess
expanding
gentrification
in
areas
that
are
really
really
vulnerable
to
it.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Patel
I
am
going
to
and
and
thank
you,
madam
clerk
I'm,
going
to
go
back
to
a
question
I
had
and
that
I
had
met
to
ask.
B
Staff
and
it
has
to
do
with
this
option
2A
to
B
framework
the
which,
if
I,
if
I've,
if
I've
remembered
right,
the
one
I'm
talking
about
is
the
expanded
minimum
lot
sizes
for
five
plexes
through
eight
plexes
and
I
I
just
want
to
ask
again
I.
Believe
we've
talked
about
this
at
a
zoning
committee
meeting.
My
apologies
if
I
have
forgotten,
but
why
9
000
right,
it
seems
contrary
wise
it.
You
know.
B
Another
standard
might
be
that
a
high
for
for
a
higher
minimum
lot
size
is
that
it
has
to
be
a
thousand
square
feet
larger
than
the
artist
than
the
corresponding
R
District.
So,
instead
of
saying
for
a
five
Plex
and
an
R6,
you
have
to
have
9
000
square
feet.
Why
not
say
for
a
five
Plex
and
an
R6?
B
Why
9000,
as
the
as
as
the
minimum
lot
size
for
five
through
eight
for
our
for
all
of
the
r
districts
right,
I,
think
except
one
instead
of
something
that
is
more
tailored
to
the
inherent
characteristics
of
that
specific
District
to
begin
with,
or
some
other
standard.
E
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
Steph
has
prepared
some
graphics
and
Analysis
that
we'd
like
to
share
with
you
on
on
the
minimum
side
area
options,
but
but
going
with,
and
actually
let
me
let
me
share
my
screen-
I'm,
not
good
at
sharing
and
talking
at
the
same
time,
but
starting
with
option
two
2B
which,
as
you
described,
sort
of
starts
at
nine
thousand
square
feet
for
a
five
Plex
and
then
ten
thousand
for
a
six
Plex
Etc
up
to
twelve
thousand
for
I'm.
E
Okay,
so
if
you
can
see
this,
it
option
two
way,
obviously
is
the
option
where
there's
no
minimum
lot
size
other
than
what
what
it
is
for
the
zoning
District.
E
And
that
was
what
we
had
in
the
phase
two
framework.
And
then
we
we
had
the
work
session
with
the
board
and
they
suggested
we.
We
should
have
a
higher
standard,
and
that
is
resulted
in
option
2B,
which
was
basically
based
on
the
the
work
that
the
the
design
analysis
that
our
Consultants
had
done.
That
had
found
that
you
know
to
get
in.
E
So
it
was
sort
of
based
on
the
consultant's
design
work,
which
admittedly
assumed
in
in
most
cases
one
parking
space
per
dwelling
unit
and
as
we
got
into
the
zoko
process-
and
we
were
looking
at
you
know-
obviously
in
the
transit
accessible
areas
and
then
in
other
cases,
with
the
parking
survey,
there
would
be
the
possibility
to
have
0.5
parking
spaces
per
unit,
and
so
we
shared
with
zoko
some
some
additional
diagrams.
E
That
would
show
what
that
would
look
like
and
actually
shows
that
you
could
get
reasonably
sized
sixplex
and
eight
Plex
units
on
Lots
much
smaller
than
12
000
square
feet.
So
I
think
you
know,
the
zoco
process
has
been
a
good
analysis,
learning
experience
for
for
both
staff
and
for
and
for
the
commission.
So
you
know
I
think
we're
we're
open
to
other
options
other
than
2B
and
we're
aware
that
you
had
put
forth
this.
E
What
on
the
slide
here,
I'm
calling
a
Planning
Commission
alternate
option
2B,
because
I
think
that's
how
it
was
was
framed
in
in
the
in
the
language
that
I
saw,
but
on
the
top
we
have
option
two
B
as
it
is
currently
in
the
staff
report
and
then
alternate
option
2B,
which
would
be,
as
you
just
described,
start
with
the
lot
size
for
the
zoning
district
and
then
add
a
marginal
thousand
square
feet
to
get
to
five.
Six
seven
and
eight
units,
I
I,
think
I've
captured
this
correctly.
So.
B
This
is
this
is
an
exercise
in
being
careful
about
assumptions
because
I
I,
my
my
mental
image
of
of
2B,
would
have
been
the
same
as
as
Baseline
2B,
4
columns,
R20
or
10
R8
and
then,
as
you've
described
it
here
characteristic
here
for
R6
and
R5
right,
which
is
a
amusing
that
we
would
come
to
different
things.
But
it
raises
the
question
of
if
the
commission
were
to
recommend
this
to
be
here
right,
the
board
would
still
be
within
its
Authority.
B
E
Well
it
at
the
risk
of
answering
or
answering
a
question
on
scope
that
I
haven't
asked
to
the
county
attorney.
I
I
think
you
know
option
2A
would
be.
You
know
right
2A
if
it's
advertised
but
I've
crashed
I'm
gonna
go
back
I'm
stuck
here
on
my
slide,
but
option
2A
would
be
the
minimum
lot
size
currently
right.
So
for
R6
you
could
build
an
eight
Plex
or
a
six
Plex
on
a
six
thousand
square
foot
lot.
E
You'd
obviously
have
to
meet
all
the
set
all
the
standards
and
you
might
not
be
able
to
actually
do
it,
but
it
you
know
if
you
could
make
it
work,
you
could
do
it
there
we
go.
So
if
you
were
looking
at
between
option
2A
and
option
2B,
if
you
wanted
to
have
something
that
was
in
between
2A
and
2B,
I,
believe
that
would
be
in
scope.
And
so,
if
you're,
looking
at
at
an
option,
that
has
you
know
not
as
low
Site
Area
standards
as
2A,
but
lower
than
2B.
E
B
E
Is
what
you're
saying
that's
correct?
If
you
wanted
something
that
had
Higher
Side
area
standards
than
what's
shown
in
2B?
Okay,
then
you
would
need
to
that,
would
need
to
be
advertised
or
if
you
wanted
something
that
was
lower
than
2A.
That
would
need
to
be
advertised,
but
anything
in
between
that
range.
Okay,
is
within
the
realm.
B
Of
consideration,
I
think
what
you're
telling
me
is
that
this
is
one
of
those
areas
where,
unless
someone,
unless
the
someone
on
the
commission
wants
to
go
higher
than
to
be
the
important
thing
to
do,
is
to
get
the
text
in
the
letter
right
rather
than
like
get
clever
with
motions
and
recommendations.
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
you
I'm
going
to
go
to
commissioner
Hughes.
M
Point
of
clarification
from
staff
would
a
7,
000
square
foot
R8
zoned
lot
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
the
eho
under
2A.
E
Sorry
on
under
2A-
and
we-
and
we
addressed
this
when
we
discussed
with
zoko
the
the
non-conforming
lot
so
7
000
square
foot,
R8
lot
would
be
non-conforming
because
it's
low,
it's
smaller
than
the
the
size
size.
So
if,
if
that
is
a
legally
non-conforming
lot,
meaning
that
it
was,
it
existed
under
one
ownership
in
1950,
54.,
right,
yeah,
then
then,
under
the
draft
text
it
would
be
allowed.
E
We
have.
We
have
two
different
options
for
the
non-conforming
right.
So
if,
if
we
go
with
2A,
it
would
be
allowed
to
build
anything
right,
anything
that
meets
the
standards.
And
then,
if
we
went
with
2B,
it
would
only
be
allowed
to
build
two
to
four,
because
it
doesn't
meet
that
higher
Site
Area
requirement
for
nine
thousand
for
five.
T
M
E
Would
it
while
I
just
said,
you
know
that
options
that
you're,
considering
that
are
are
in
this
range
right
would
would
be
allowed
it.
It
might
be
a
good
idea
if
it's
the
planning
commission's
intent
to
ultimately
recommend
something
that
is
lower.
That
you
know
is
between
2A
and
2B,
but
maybe
to
signal
that
to
the
board
in
its
motion.
E
But
in
between
that
range,
I
I
know
you
know
some
of
the
things
being
considered
that
we
discussed
were
that
you
know.
Perhaps
if
you're
Transit,
proximate
there'd
be
a
different
standard,
you
know,
while
while
those
would
all
be
in
scope,
if
that's
where
the
commission
is
I,
think
it
would
help
staff
to
understand.
That's
where
the
commission
is
gotcha.
K
I
was
going
to
say
something
similar
that
a
few
of
us
have
talked
about
advertising
the
broadest.
You
know
possible
options,
so
the
board
has
something
to
work
with,
but
then
they
also
want
to
know
where
we
are
kind
of
feeling
at
the
moment.
So
maybe
that's
reflected
in
the
comments
related
to
the
motion,
but
I
think
we
and
I
don't
know
how.
How
do
we
actually
accurately
assess?
K
You
know
we
are
advertising,
you
know
up
to
eight,
but
what
percentage
of
US
thinks
that
we
should
really
only
be
a
four
and
what
percentage
of
US
think
is?
No.
You
should
go
up
to
eight,
so
I'm,
not
sure
how
best
we'll
we'll
do
that
I.
B
I
appreciate
that
Insight
I
guess
for
like
as
I
as
I
think
through
it
I
mean
my
my
concern
with
2B.
Is
why
9000?
Why
not
like
R8?
Why
not
R
six
plus
one
right
like
if
that
seems
more,
stepwise
practical
to
me,
but
I,
don't
know
how
to
I
I,
don't
know
how
to
put
that
one
into
an
RTA
signal
to
the
board.
B
The
one
that
does
concern
me
I,
think,
is
the
one
that
commissioner
Hughes
is
bringing
up,
which
is
the
extent
to
which
option
2B
would
potentially
undermine
the
article
16
non-conformities
Provisions
right,
like
article
16
non-conformities,
is
Con
significantly
constrained
to
the
extent
that
the
board
would
go
with
option
2B
and-
and
this
might
be
one
of
the
only
ones
where,
for
speaking
for
myself,
only
I
would
be
this
one.
In
the
the
duplex
option
like
where
I
would
be
inclined
to
straight
recommend,
you
know
so
that
I
would
be
inclined
to
push
the
commission.
B
You
know
to
to
move
or
support.
Emotion
is
what
I
mean
to
recommend
only
one
of
the
two
options,
because
2B
really
seems
to
remove
it.
It
seems
to
create
a
very
on
inequitable
outcome
to
me
as
respects
the
the,
and
we
know
we
know
that
there
are
some
like
3
500
Lots
in
the
county
that
have
the
our
six
zoned
lots
that
are
smaller
than
six
thousand
square
feet,
with
a
single
family
home
on
them
right
and
and
so
just
in
one
Fell
Swoop.
B
E
B
E
B
So
a
a
5
000
square
foot
R6
lot!
Yes,
where
for
argument's
sake,
the
only
non-conformity
is
the
fact
that
it's
a
5000,
a
5995
square
foot
R6
lot
right!
That's
the
only
non-conformity
right
could
not
be
a
a
five
Plex
could
not
be
built
under
under
option.
B
E
O
Think
the
main
point
that
Mr
lad
is
trying
to
make
is
that
to
be
provides
equal
barriers
to
conforming
and
non-conforming
lots.
B
The
law
in
its
in
its
Equanimity
allows
both
the
rich
and
poor
prevents
both
the
rich
and
poor
alike,
from
sleeping
under
bridges.
Okay,
that's
my
snark
I'm,
not
re!
That's!
Thank
you.
Sorry.
B
I
I
have
a
question
also
about
the
distance
to
Transit
issue
Mr
Ladd.
Perhaps
you
can
bring
up
the
map
that
is
on.
B
B
Sort
of
gets
us
an
opposite
outcome
than
than
a
sort
of
distance
to
Transit
area
and
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
the
map
and
an
interesting
fact
about
it,
which
it
sort
of
looks
to
me
like
it's.
Almost
the
negative
image
of
the
of
the
map
that
Mr
Ladd
showed
a
moment
ago.
It
almost
you
know,
looks
like
an
inversion
right
where,
where
to
be,
really
concentrates
the
eligibility
of
of
five
through
eight
away
from
transit,
whereas
a
distance
to
Transit
approach-
and
this
is
for
this
map-
is
for
parking.
B
Transit
proximity,
but
you
know
it
would
show
us
how
the
a
distance
Transit
approach
for
the
opportunity
to
build
five-day
subject
to
all
of
the
other
requirements
would
concentrate
potentially
the
five
through
eight
units
towards
the
transit
corridors.
I,
don't
really
have
anything
more
I'm,
sorry,
89.
B
And
I
don't
know
where
I
land
on
this
other
than
I
mean
my
inclination
is,
is
just
2A
gets
us
away
from
having
to
think
about
this,
but
an
alternative
to
2B
that
isn't
thank
you
and,
and
perhaps
you
could
just
flip
back
and
forth
between
89
and
87.
B
Plexes
be
concentrated
a
way
to
avoid
that
problem
is,
is
2A
but
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
I'm
running
out
of
steam
on
that
thought,
and
I
would
like
to
get
to
motions
too
so
I'm
going
to
shut
myself
up.
E
B
I
did
not
mean
to
insinuate
anything.
My
apologies
I
I,
guess
you
know
the
the
question.
No,
no.
What
I
was
saying
was
that
that
what
I
was
saying
is
that
without
specifying
it
in
my
own
thinking,
I
I
had
only
like
taken
this
stepwise
approach
as
I
was.
Writing
this
to
really
talking
about
R5
and
R6?
Okay
right,
but
I
as
soon
as
I
saw
your
slide,
I
immediately
recognized
that
what
I
have
written
in
fact
also
applied
to
R8.
B
And
10
and
and
20,
and
so
you
did
not
misinterpret
what
I
wrote.
E
O
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
one
other
thing
that
you
said
I
think
I
heard
you
say
that
the
the
PC
alternate
option
2B
does
a
better
job
of
allowing
for
would
allow
for
a
better
job
would
allow
for
a
better
job
of
Permitting
buildings,
with
five
to
eight
units
closer
to
Transit
did
I
hear
you
say
that.
B
That
is
the.
B
A
goal:
what
I
was
what
I
was
trying
to
get
at
is
simply
that
that
a
goal
that
that
we
have
that
has
been
expressed
to
us
is
that,
to
the
extent
that
we're
considering
five
to
eight
right,
the
the
appropriate
place
in
the
county
for
more
density
among
the
ehos
is
close
to
Transit
right.
B
Where
I
was
looking
at
that
map.
That's
a
you
know
a
parking
map,
but
it
happens
to
like
it
happens,
to
be
a
proximity
to
transit
map
elsewhere
in
the
thing.
So,
if
all
the
only
point
that
I
want
to
share
was
just
to
remind
people
that
to
be
doesn't
align
is
maybe
not
the
best
way
of
aligning
the
recommendations
with
that
goal.
That
we've
heard
thank
you
for
asking
that.
B
B
B
T
T
B
All
right,
it's
been
a
little
bit
more
than
five
minutes.
That's
my
fault,
but
I'm
gonna
gavel
us
back
into
order.
B
B
B
If
the
commission
doesn't
act
on
either
of
you
know,
option
n
a
or
NB,
then
our
recommendation
will
be
that
the
RTA
include
both
and
so
the
easiest
way
to
move
on
there
is
nobody
make
a
motion
right,
but
there
are
other
topics
that
I
know.
B
People
have
opinions
on
any
questions,
issues
about
proceeding
this
way,
Etc
great,
so
we'll
go
and
start
again
under
the
topic
of
homes
per
lot
density
lot:
size
requirements,
I
am
just
trying
to
get
my
notes
in
front
of
me
in
a
way
that
I
can
actually
move
between
them.
B
Does
anyone
have
emotion,
Let
me?
Let
does
it
does
anyone?
Would
anyone
like
to
introduce
an
amendment
pertaining
to
either
option
1A
or
1B.
R
B
So,
okay,
is
there.
G
B
F
B
Can
I
ask
it's
it's
I
want
to
be
I,
want
to
make
sure
I've
got
some
clarity
on
something.
Are
you
effectively
recommending
that
there
be
an
option
like
sort
of
one
seed?
That
would
be
so
you've
that
the
RTA
would
include
an
eight
unit
option,
a
six
unit
option
and
a
four
unit
option
or
are
you
is
your?
Is
the
intent
of
your
motion
that
the
RTA
would
proceed
only
up
to
four
and
there
wouldn't
be
options
for
six
or
eight.
F
M
Commissioner,
I
think
I
think
at
the
moment,
if
we
were
to
advertise
the
existing
2A
or
1A
and
1B
language
either
of
them,
we
would
be
able,
after
the
RTA
stage,
if
the
County
Board
advertised
it
to
come
forward
with
a
four
unit
recommendation
to
pull
that
number
down.
Is
that
correct
from
staff?
Yes,
that's
my
understanding.
So
it's
a
it's
a
question.
If
you
want
to
restrict
it
at
this
stage
or
not.
F
I
would
love
to
get
restrict
it
at
this
stage.
But
that
goes
to
my
discussion
about
a
pilot
effort
to
understand
more
about
the
unintended
consequences
of
of
this
issue
and
to
make
sure
that
we're
actually
achieving
the
higher
density
development
in
the
form
that
we
want
and
not
necessarily
displacing
households
and
vulnerable
communities.
K
Well,
I
just
wanted
to
ask
if
option
1B
actually
includes
the
ability
to
limit
for
the
request
to
advertise
purposes.
You
could
still
do
a
four.
You
could
still
do
a
six
because
option
1B
would
allow
up
to
eight
units,
but
since
it's
up
to
you
could
do
anything
lower
right.
So,
theoretically
we
only
need
to
pass
one
b
and
then
all
the
options
on
the
table
up
to
eight
are
still
available.
Is
that
true.
E
B
D
Yeah
at
this
stage,
I
will
not
be
voting
for
this
simply
because,
as
has
already
been
explained,
1A
and
1B
actually
1B
alone
gives
all
the
flexibility.
We
need
to
continue
the
discussion,
because
I'm
certainly
not
fully
decided
yet
on
what
the
right
number
is,
but
1B
allows
us
to
look
from
duplexes
up
to
eight
plexes
everything
in
between
it's
fully
there.
D
The
conversation
can
occur
and
will
will
occur,
and
this
body
will
be
able
to
make
its
recommendation
when
that
time
comes
in
three
months,
without
precluding
any
number
eight
and
below
so
I
won't
I,
don't
see
the
need
for
this,
and
I
won't
be
voting
for
it,
I'm
not
really
ready
to
start
getting
into
the
the
specifics
of
any
of
the
the
proposals.
M
Commissioner,
I
too,
will
fall
with
commissioner
lantomi
this
evening,
although
I
do
believe,
there
are
rational
reasons
to
which
four
is
a
good
number
and
one
that
could
be
put
forward
as
a
number
in
the
future
and
I
would
hope
that
we
could
explore
those
in
three
months
time
when
this
comes
forward.
B
I
I
won't
be
supporting
it,
but
I
do
want
to
argue
on
behalf
of
it
just
so
that
people
could
be
thinking
about
it.
Right
I
mean
the
board
asked
us
specifically
to
think
about
eight
or
six
right,
and
so
the
board
is
already
dealt
with.
The
issue
of
does
eight
include
six
and
decided
that
they
wanted
to
give
staff
Direction
to
signal
both
separately
right
and
so
I
think
it
is
actually
a
fair
exercise
for
the
commission
to
say,
for
whatever
reason
you
know,
the
board
should
also
signal
four
separately.
B
I
I
would
prefer
that
the
RTA
signal,
my
my
I,
think
that
the
RTA
should
signal
six
and
eight,
but
I
I
I.
Do
think
that
it
is
a
an
exercise
worth
thinking
through
on
on
on
those
terms,
and
it's
consistent
with
the
thing
that
the
board
has
teed
up
for
us
already.
So
anyone
else.
F
J
F
B
R
B
F
B
Want
to
know
that
that's
and
that's
that's
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
move
things
so
all
right.
Any
other
questions,
commissioner.
Cues
you've
got
your
light
on
right,
so
commissioner,
Bagley
I,
think
I'm
back
to
you
now.
S
J
J
A
B
Yeah
I
vote
in
a
motion
fails
three
two:
five.
B
Are
there
any
other
motions?
Thank
you,
commissioner.
Giren.
Are
there
any
other
motions
on
homes
per
lot
density
and
lot
size
requirements
so
I
want
to
affirmatively?
Ask
then,
because
this
is
one
of
the
issues
that
the
board
teed
up
for
us
specifically.
Are
there
any
motions
to
remove
either
option
1A
or
1B?
B
Then
the
next
item
that
the
board
specifically
asked
us
to
weigh
in
on
was
option
2A
versus
2B.
B
M
I
N
Second,
commissioner,
Hughes.
M
If
I
can
speak
to
motion,
this
is
about
the
main
floor
area
restrictions
that
we
are
arbitrarily
placing
within
each
of
the
zoning
categories.
We
talked
about
this
at
lrpc,
where
we
we
reiterated
that
we
want
the
envelope
of
the
building
that
is
available
for
a
single-family
development
to
be
the
same
option
available
for
a
eho
development
and
this
particular
chart.
The
main
building
gross
floor
area
is
the
limiting
function.
That
holds
the
bounds.
M
That
says
that
if
you
build
a
two
Plex,
even
though
you
could
build
a
6
000
square
foot
single
family
home,
you
may
only
build
a
4
800
square
foot
duplex
on
that
same
parcel.
So
if
we
leave
this
language
as
advertised,
it
would
basically
mean
that
the
units
Matrix
that's
laid
out
will
be
the
restricting
function,
not
the
r
District
standards
that
single
family
homes
hold
to
that
mischaracterize,
that
all
staff.
E
M
It
would
it
would
make
the
choice
indifferent
of
the
unit
function
of
the
building.
It
would
make
it
so.
The
envelope
is
the
envelope
that
a
single
family
home,
if,
if
the
maximum
foundational
appointment,
is
a
7
800
square
foot
home
as
a
single
family
home,
nobody
has
to
say
well,
if
I
make
it
a
a
Triplex
I
only
get
six
thousand,
so
I
lose
1800
square
feet.
So
I'm
just
gonna
go
ahead
and
build
a
single
family
and
sell
that
versus
the
option
they
could
have
for
for
doing
it.
K
I
just
wanted
to
give
staff
the
opportunity
to
explain
why
they
are
putting
this
limit
in,
because
I
think
they
did
really
well
during
the
zoko
meeting
and
I
just
wanted
to
give
all
my
colleagues
the
opportunity
to
hear
the
rationale.
E
Sure
and
I
can
well
I,
won't
even
bother
trying
to
put
it
up
on
the
on
the
screen,
but
we've
we've
described
it
as
if
you
want
to
build
a
two
unit
building
there
would
be
a
maximum
floor
area
of
for
both
units
for
the
entire
main
building
of
4
800
square
feet.
It
would
be
6
000
square
feet
for
three
units.
E
It
would
be
4
800
square
feet
for
I'm,
sorry,
it
would
be
7
200
square
feet
for
four
units
and
it
would
be
8
000
square
feet,
four
five
to
eight
units
and
the
rationale
behind
that
is
that
we
have
seen.
We
haven't
seen
a
lot
of
semi-detached
properties
built
recently,
but
we
have
seen
some
and
those
that
are
being
built
are,
you
know,
effectively
they're
they're,
still
five
bedroom
homes
that
are
thirty,
five
hundred
four
thousand
square
feet
and
they're
effectively
the
very
large
shingle
detached
houses
that
we're
seeing
they're.
E
Just
you
know
they.
They
don't
have
a
setback
between
them,
and
so
the
intent
is
to
incentivize.
If
your
building
envelope
would
allow
you
to
build
six
thousand
square
feet,
as
commissioner
Hughes
had
had
described,
to
incentivize
someone
to
not
build
just
two
units
but
to
build
three
or
four
or
more
units,
but
that
said,
we
also
understand
the
concerns
that
that
were
raised
at
zoko.
K
So
I
think,
just
to
summarize
the
concern
that
I
heard
was.
If
we
allow
these
very,
very
large
semi-detached,
then
people
will
only
build
to
3,
500
square
foot
houses
and
then
we'll
never
get
to
the
threes
and
the
fours
and
the
fives
and
sixes.
B
Other
questions
comments
on
this
motion.
I'll
go
down
the
role
then,
commissioner,
Bagley.
T
J
B
Other
emotions
on
density
and
dimensionality
standards
and
if,
if,
if
there's
one
that
we
forget,
you
know
we'll
have
a
chance
to
come
back
right,
this
isn't
foreclosing,
but
okay.
The
board
has
also
asked
us
to
weigh
in
on
options
three
A
and
B.
This
has
to
do
with
process
for
ehos
as
respects
lots
of
one
acre
and
larger.
Is
there
a
motion
to
recommend
removal
of
either
3A
or
3B
from
the
RTA.
T
M
So
we're
going
to
relieve
the
Restriction
where
an
Adu
will
no
longer
be
applicable
to
an
eho.
D
So
let
me
see
if
I
get
something
on
the
Fly
here.
Yeah
I
moved
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
County
Board
include
in
the
request
to
advertise
that
an
Adu,
an
existing
Adu
with
a
single
family
house
May
remain.
M
D
It
was
yeah
I
asked,
for
you
know
it
was
consent
to
add
as
part
of
an
Adaptive
reuse,.
B
E
O
O
Okay,
so
so,
okay,
so
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
and
it
would
be
for
the
purpose
of
adaptive,
reuse,
of
the
existing
dwell.
J
D
Oh,
it
didn't
okay,
ask
unanimous,
unanimous
consent
to
add
the
word
detached
as
Mr
Pfeiffer
is
requesting
Amendment.
B
M
Pfeiffer
I
believe
we
have
under
the
between
existing
Adu,
which
should
be
the
word
detached
pursuant
to
commercial
Antonio's.
Thank
you.
Yeah.
I
D
Yeah,
this
came
up
before
I
think
when
we
were
at
either
lrpc
or
zoko,
and
the
answer
was
that
the
Adu
portion
of
the
zoning
ordinance
essentially
is
becomes
pointless
because
any
into
any
any
unit
beyond
the
first
one
in
the
main
building
is
covered
by
this.
So
if
there's
an
existing
Adu,
it's
either
a
duplex
or
a
you
know:
it's
probably
a
duplex.
M
Okay
got
it,
and
commissioner
Timmy's
language
would
encourage
an
existing
Adu
structure
to
remain
in
place
and
to
be
converted
seamlessly
into,
for
example,
a
duplex
or
or
a
semi-attached.
F
Commissioner,
then,
tell
me
I'm
not
clear
how
what
you've
proposed
relates
to
our
suggested
thinking
about
this.
If
you're
are
you
proposing
to
exclude
the
existing
Adu
from
the
maximum
building
envelope.
D
Yes,
well
actually,
when
we
were
talking
about
this,
it
was
contemplated
that,
as
long
as
it
meets
the
required
setbacks,
lot
coverage,
you
would
have
to
meet
all
of
those.
D
The
house
wouldn't
change,
it's
just
doing
internal
change
to
make
it
into
a
let's
say,
a
duplex
from
a
single
family,
but
the
house
stays
the
existing
single
family
house
stays.
This
is
for
adaptive,
reuse
and
to
encourage
to
discourage
teardowns
or
not
to
get.
It
gives
an
incentive
to
keep
existing
houses.
F
D
M
Just
to
further
I
think
amplify
the
intent
commercial
and
tell
me
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
we're
intending
of
the
adus
to
ensure
that
we
don't
have
a
situation,
as
commissioner
Garen
I
believe
is
fearful
of
that
it
is
the
adus
that
are
in
existence.
As
of
the
date
of
adoption
of
vho,
that's
correct,
just
to
make
sure
Mr
Pfeiffer
that
we
add
that
that
clarifying
language
I
would
see
unanimous
consent.
M
I'd
seek
unanimous
consent
to
after
the
word
house
for
single-family
house,
as
of
the
date
of
adoption
of
eho,
to
clarify
for
staff
that
our
goal
here
is
to
ensure
that
existing
lots
that
have
developed
with
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
have
the
ability
to
cut
up
the
interior
of
their
building.
To
allow
an
eho
option
to
be
made
a
commission
gear
into
sort
of
further.
The
hints
that
that
the
lot
doesn't
get
bulldozed.
Because
that's
the
goal.
B
I
So
I'm
a
little
unclear
on
what
we're
doing
here,
but
I
think
there's
the
unintended
consequence
of
being
able
to
have
the
eho
and
build
a
new
Adu
in
the
back
to
create
sort
of
products
that
are
scaled
down
and
still
have
that
density
available
on
the
site.
Plus.
This
could
be
one
of
the
scenarios
where
we
were
really
talking
about
incentives
on
density,
because,
let's
say
there's
some
tree
or
something
that
happened
and
it's
more
sort
of
productive
to
have
the
Adu
occur
in
the
back
and
have
a
smaller
eho
or
whatever.
B
But
this
this
motion
would
only
with
with
the
amendment
that
commissioner
Hughes
is
trying
to
adopt
get
adopted.
This
motion
would
only
pertain
to
existing
existing
to
Lots
with
adus,
as
of
March
31
2023
or
whatever.
I
M
The
moment
the
staff
report
does
preclude
that
the
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
from
being
neho.
So,
if
you'd
want
to
make
a
motion
for
an
advertisement
to
include
that
option,
you
would
have
to
make
a
separate
motion.
This
motion
is
just
to
clarify
that
those
more
or
less
100
existing.
This
is
a
grandfathering.
That's
right,
basically
understood.
M
B
Any
other
commentary
discussion
we'll
go
to
the
vote.
Commissioner
Hugh,
commissioner
Bagley.
J
L
J
J
J
B
Motion
carries
unanimously.
Are
there
other
motions
on
pertaining
to
unit
size
or
adus
I?
Think,
commissioner
siley?
This
is
what
this
would
be,
where
your
I've
got
to
teed
up
as
14,
and
this
is
my
version
of
what
you've
sent
to
me.
So
you
it's
it's
a
menu.
You
can
order.
A
special
there
are
special
orders
are
allowed.
I
So
do
I
just
read
this
as
the
motion.
If,
if
it's
fine
with
you,
it
is
fine
with
me,
the
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
County
Board
direct
staff
to
advertise
Provisions
allowing
ehos
to
include
small
adus,
including
basement
Garden
style
units
and
exempting
small
adus
from
the
maximum
buildable
envelope.
The
commission
assumes
small
to
mean
up
to
roughly
600
square
feet.
Q
I
I
feel
like
I
already
did,
but
I
will
try
again.
So
the
idea
is
that
you
know,
given
certain
sites
and
certain
conditions,
I
can
see
the
possibility,
we're
having
an
eho
you
know
occur
and
in
Adu
would
be.
You
know,
a
possibility
to
provide
more
housing
and
still
have
the
flexibility
to
work
around
trees
or
setbacks
or
whatever
the
story
may
be,
and.
B
And
commissioner
Sally
for
what
it's
worth,
I
I
you,
the
the
language
that
you
had
sent
me,
went
precisely
with
600
I
just
didn't
want
to
preclude
staff
in
the
board
from
being
able
to
work
with
a
600
square
feet
Beetle
between
now
and
March.
So
I
hope
you
don't
take
offense
at
that.
I
just
wanted
to
give
some
flexibility.
M
B
This
is
this,
is
this
is
me
this
is
on
me
right.
Commissioner
sarley
put
had
some
language
that
was
more
technical
than
this
and
and
in
the
interest
of
trying
to
make
sure
that
this
menu
that
I
circulated
was
10
pages
instead
of
more
yeah
and
and
in
the
interest
of
sort
of
recognizing.
That
staff
would
have
could
may
have
its
own
thoughts
about
you
know
of
finding
a
fact
right,
like
like
I,
I,
I
editorialized,
this
so
I
I.
Don't
want
you
to
throw
I.
B
E
So
if
I
could
yeah,
if
I
could
suggest,
the
the
accessory
dwellings
in
the
zoning
ordinance
are
are
heavily
regulated
with
regards
to
size
and
so
they're,
all
small,
and
so
it
it
might
be
simpler,
just
to
rely
on
those
existing
standards.
I
Which
was
my
intent,
I
adus
are
clearly
defined
and
clearly
you
know
it's
it's
a
process
that
occurred
so
I
was
just
piggybacking
on
that
to
allow
that
option.
I.
B
B
Any
other
discussion
on
this.
Thank
you,
commissioner,
Sally
for
teeing
this
up
I'm
going
to
call
the
role
commissioner
Bagley.
J
J
L
B
J
J
B
Commissioner
sarley
aye,
commissioner
Steinberger
aye
I
vote
I
on
some
of
these
I'm,
going
to
actually
begin
going
for.
The
motion
carries
90-0
on
some
of
these
I'm
going
to
begin
by
calling
for
unanimous
consent
where
I
think
that
there
might
be
it
just
to
move
us
along.
B
T
H
H
It
okay,
that's
fine,
so
I
like
to
make
a
motion.
The
Planning
Commission
recommends
the
County
Board
direct
staff
to
advertise
an
option
2C
such
that
five
dwelling
through
eight
dwelling
ehos
are
allowed
under
a
distance
to
Transit
standard
such
as
that
proposed
for
reduced
parking
ratios,
and
this
would
be
to
speak
to
us.
This
would
be
to
include
that
as
an
option
along
with
the
others.
It's
not
a
replacement
of
anything
else.
So
I
think
that's
a
good
option
to
consider.
B
B
You
anyone
else
wish
to
speak
or
questions
about
it.
I'm
going
to
start,
then,
as
I
threatened
before
not
threatened,
that's
tongue-in-cheek,
to
seek
unanimous
consent
to
adopt
emotion.
That's
an
that's
an
objection.
B
B
Hearing
no
objection
motion
is
adopted.
Yeah.
B
F
F
F
B
B
Anyone
else
questions,
discussion,
I'm,
gonna,
go
down
the
roll
guess
what
that
means.
Commissioner
Begley
hi,
commissioner
giren.
J
J
K
J
J
B
I
vote,
nay.
Motion
carries
five
to
four.
So
what
the
effect
of
this
is
that
the
Planning
Commission
is
recommending
that
only
for
a
now
I
ask
did
I
get
that
right,
be
included
in
the
RTA.
J
B
For
B
be
included
in
the
RTA
all
right,
any
other
emotions
as
respects
lot
coverage
and
placement.
D
When
question
around
my
tummy,
the
motion
on
study
alternatives
for
is
that
now
or
should
that
be
really
at
the
end
outside
of
these
yeah.
B
I
want
to
cover
that
I
would
my
preference
would
be
to
discuss
those
as
General
recommendations
to
the
board,
as
opposed
to
that's
fine
amendments
is
the
RTA
no
problem.
N
B
Mean
it
is
not
so
if
you
would
like
to
to
move
that,
then
now
would
be.
I
B
I
You
read
the
motion.
Please
yes,
options
in
our
in
RTA
to
change
eho
covered
ratios.
The
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
County
Board
directs
staff
to
include
options
in
the
RTA
to
adjust
eho
lot
coverage
ratios
from
the
r
District
table
located
at
3.2.5
point
a
and
to
alter
the
exclusions
in
3.1.4
0.8.2
to
exempt
excessively
sloped
areas
from
the
lot
coverage
and
to
include
any
hardscaping
elements.
Greater
than
200
square
feet
is.
B
I
Sure
I
think
this
is
a
you
know,
an
interesting
area
for
a
tree
coverage
in
in
areas
that
are
wooded.
That
usually
would
be
in
the
sloped
area
and
also
I
think
there's
some
built-in
mechanisms
with
the
r
system
that
we
probably
ought
to
move
away
from
a
little
bit
and
create
the
opportunity
to
have
a
more
equal
light
coverage
across
the
entire
District.
The
entire
County.
D
E
So
it's
steep
slopes,
you
know
generally
are
within
rpas,
but
I
can't
say
that
every
single
steep
slope
in
the
county
is
is
within
an
RPA
I.
Think
our
our
our
question
on
this
motion.
If
we
could
get
a
clarification
from
commissioner
sorry,
so
this
is
intended
to
apply
only
to
eho
development
correct,
so
it
would
be.
It
would
be
a
separate
definition
of
lot
coverage
for
eho.
I
Correct
well,
no,
not
necessarily
it
just
wouldn't
respect
the
r
coverage,
so
we
would
create
a
universal
R
system
if
that
makes
sense.
The.
M
There
is
currently
the
they
are
district
Lots,
commissioner
sarley
do
cover
currently
the
aho
and
the
all
our
districts
are
through
one
uniformly.
This
is
to
my
point
earlier
during
the
lrpc
discussion
about
the
unique
characteristics
of
a
driveway
grass
strip,
for
example,
which
does
count
as
a
driveway
and
lot
coverage.
M
So
are
you
truly
suggesting
that
we
go
down
the
list
of
creating
a
new
lot
standards
within
eho
at
this
stage
in
the
process,
or
is
it
possibly
something
that
could
or
should
be
studied
for
how
they
get
implemented
in
two
or
three
years?
Whether
or
not
we're
achieving
the
results?
We
want
how
we
could
perhaps
modify
it
through.
That
I
mean
that's.
M
That's
kind
of
where
my
head
goes
is
because
the
implications
of
changing
the
entire
County's
lot
coverage
standards
is
I'm,
supportive
of
a
lot
of
things
in
there,
but
there's
a
lot
more
nuances.
Within
that
statement,.
I
I
Yeah
I
think
you're
right.
The
idea
there
was
to
essentially
create
the
opportunity
to
protect
some
of
these
environmental.
You
know
sensitive
areas
around
these
larger
structures.
I
B
It
it's
seconded
I'm,
sorry
I
seconded
it.
No!
No,
it's
fine
I
will
say
that
the
reason
I
seconded
it
was
because
I
actually
kind
of
liked
the
idea,
if
I've
understood
it
correctly,
that
you
know
that
that,
to
the
extent
that
some
of
these
are
going
to
be
larger
projects
right,
there
might
be
a
reason
to
specifically
incentivize
protection
of
certain
areas,
but
I
also
wanted
to
make
sure
that
it
at
least
had
the
opportunity
to
be
discussed
on
the
floor.
So.
I
Yeah,
that
was
the
intent,
I
think
I'll
retract
it,
and
then
is
that
what
you
do
you
retract
it?
Oh.
I
B
Do
you
have
a
motion,
commissioner?
Sally
all.
I
Right
Planning
Commission
recommended
the
County
Board
directs
staff
to
include
options
for
the
RTA
to
adjust
eho
specific
setbacks
that
would
adjust
minimum
side
setbacks
to
reduce
minimum
front
and
rear
setbacks
so
as
to
allow
for
greater
flexibility
in
building
placement
relative
to
trees
and
steep
slopes,
and
allow
flexibility
to
locate
new
structures
on
lots
that
retain
existing
trees.
F
N
Commissioner
Sally,
would
you
like
to
speak
to
your
motion
I
think
it's
self-explanatory.
Thank
you
is.
M
So
again,
while
I
100
support
adjusting
setbacks
at
both
front
side,
setbacks
for
for
many
reasons,
not
the
least
of
which
are
the
ones
listed
here
we
are
approaching.
The
eho
at
the
moment
is
to
rely
on
the
setbacks
in
this
standard
R
districts.
So
we
don't
have
a
table
in
our
zoning
text
at
the
moment
for
staff
to
modify
or
establish
new
zones.
So
your
your
suggestions,
commissioner,
Starley,
is
that
the
staff
ad
and
RTA
table
that
has
specific
setback
standards
exclusive
to
eho.
I
M
O
It's
it
sounds
like
what
you
would
be
seeking
as
an
opportunity
to
request
a
modification
or
different
setbacks
than
than
what
is
required
by
right
and
and
I
mean
typically
those
types
of
requests.
We
have
a
there's,
a
precedent.
The
board
of
zoning
appeals
can
hear
requests
for
a
use
permit
for
placement
for
single
family
development.
So
maybe
that's
what
you
would
be
looking
for
here.
F
If
I
understand
this
right,
I
think
the
intent
of
this
is
to
find
a
way
to
accommodate
eho,
as
well
as
anything
historic
on
the
site,
any
existing
large
trees.
So
would
this
just
be
a
variance
based
on
preserving
trees
or
how
would
that
work
in
practice?
Well,
it's
not
really
a
hardship
anymore
right.
O
I'm
not
sure
if
a
variance
would
be
the
right,
because
that
has
a
very
specific
definition
in
the
state
code.
So
I
think
it
would
be
more
in
lines
with
like
a
new
use,
permit
process
that
that
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
would
have
to
consider,
but
I
think
we
would
probably
need
to
take
it
back
and
think
about
it,
a
little
bit
more.
So
if
this
is
something
you
wanted
us
to
explore,.
I
Yeah,
so
the
idea
is
that
part
of
the
language
says
that
you
can
encroach.
You
know
X
number
of
feet.
Should
these
causes
be
in
place
so
like
it
would
predetermine
that
the
setback,
let's
say
the
front
setback
of
25-
can
go
down
to
a
setback
of
10
or
by
10.
So
let's
say
15
right.
If
there's
a
significant
Landmark
or
a
significant
tree
or
a
significant
something
in
the
yard,
and
it's
sort
of
like
a
Tetris
game
is
the
way
I
pictured
it
in
my
mind.
I
B
I'm
I'm
going
to
recognize
myself
just
to
note
a
couple
of
things
that
the
motion,
commissioner,
gear
and
I
think
to
your
question-
is
a
recommendation
to
the
board
to
direct
staff
to
identify
language
right
and
so
like.
We
very
intentionally
do
not
need
to
have
a
specific
answer
from
staff
about
how.
If
the
board
were
to
take
us
up
on
this
recommendation,
it
would
need
to
be
implemented
and,
at
any
event,
right.
We've
got
the
time.
Okay,.
F
B
B
Just
to
weigh
in
on
a
couple
of
questions:
I
I'm,
I'm,
sorry
about
for
monopolizing
the
the
mic
are.
There
is
anyone
else
that
wants
to
be
recognized
on
this.
Commissioner
Steinberger.
G
G
H
Really
telling
staff
to
like
take
this
kind
of
higher
level
concept
and
come
up
with
the
standards,
because
you
know
greater
flexibility.
This
is
all
very
sort
of
top
level
and
I
just
want
to
understand.
Like
that's.
That's
the
intentionality
here
is
that
we're
saying
staff
take
this
and
turn
it
into
something
actionable,
because
this
this
isn't
enforceable.
H
B
B
If,
if
the,
if
the
board
were
to
take
the
commission
up
on
the
recommendation,
then
the
discussion
about
the
specificity
would
happen
at
the
hearing
stage.
If
the
board
were
not
to
take
the
commission
up
on
the
recommendation,
then
I
don't
think
the
discussion
would
be
had.
Okay.
J
J
Q
J
J
B
I
The
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
County
Board
direct
staff
that
the
RTA
include
the
alternative
scheme
for
determining
maximum
massing
and
bulk
utilizing
floor
area
ratio
in
the
commission
and
vision
roughly
the
following
parameters:
I,
don't
know
if
I
should
give
an
example,
but
let's
go
two
and
a
half
story.
Maximum
far
includes
interior
parking
if
there
are
limits
up
to
0.4
maximum
Main
and
secondary
building
Footprints
of
two
thousand
and
one
thousand
square
feet.
F
B
Promotion
is
made
by
commissioner
sarley
seconded
by
commissioner
giren
commissioner
Patel
I'm,
going
to
come
to
you
but
I'm,
going
to
give
commissioner
sarley
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
motion.
First.
I
M
I
I
understand
the
the
commission's
thoughts
on
this
I
understand
the
floor
area
ratio.
I
will
object
to
this
only
primarily
because
it's
not
the
language,
that's
spoken
by
most
of
our
neighbors
and
we
have
spent
the
past
eight
months
in
a
community
process
that
basically
tells
everyone.
The
eight
side
yard
the
12-foot
side
yard,
the
25
foot
and
the
25
foot
stands
and
we're
going
to
build
within
the
envelopes
we
previously
had.
So
I
don't
want
to
confuse
anyone
by
bringing
in
the
conversation
afar.
At
this
point,
I'm.
D
Ahead,
commissioner,
tell
me
yeah
for
similar
Reasons
I'm
opposing
this,
not
because
the
concept
is
unsound,
but
I
think
eventually
I'd
love
for
us
to
go
to
a
far-based
approach
for
all
residences,
not
just
ehos
and
that's
the
problem.
D
This
is
a
heavy
lift
and
switching
over
to
a
far-based
approach,
isn't
simple:
we
really
need
to
apply
it
to
every
residential
Zone
and
every
type
of
residence
in
this
in
this
County.
In
order
for
this
to
really
work,
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
just
apply
it
to
ehos.
So
for
that
reason
I'll
be
opposing
it
though
I
have
no
problem
with,
as
a
sense
of
the
commission
are
saying,
we'd
like
to
have
a
study
to
start
going
forward
to
converting
everything
to
a
to
far
approach
so
anyway,
I'll
oppose
this
specific
motion.
B
Though
I'm
going
to
associate
myself
with
commissioner
like
Tommy's
comments,
but
the
only
thing
I
want
to
add
is
commissioner
Starley.
Thank
you
pushing
this
because
you
have,
at
least
in
my
own
thinking,
persuaded
me
that
it
is
time
for
the
commission
to
recommend
a
a
comprehensive
evaluation
of
how
we
do
maximum
building
envelope
in
the
r
districts,
which
would
include
you
know,
which
should
include
the
adus
and
and
and
ehos
and
so
I
I.
Do
think
that
we'll
expect
a
motion
to
to
to
at
least
make
that
recommendation
and
again.
B
Q
It's
okay,
it's
okay,
I
I
tried
to
put
it
down.
Sorry
about
that.
Thank
you,
though.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
Anyone
else
I'll
go
down
the
line,
commissioner
Begley.
K
J
J
J
N
G
B
D
I
have
sort
of
an
Omnibus
one
that
might
cover
a
number
of
them
that
going
forward
that
are
listed
here.
D
I
moved
at
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
County
Board
direct
staff
that
the
request
to
advertise
include
the
option
to
consider
no
parking
minimum
and
an
option
to
consider
a
parking
minimum
tied
to
distance
to
Transit
and
an
option
to
allow
for
nope
a
No
Parking
requirement.
If
the
number
of
parking
spaces
required
equals
the
number
of
curb
cuts.
B
Moved
by
commissioner,
tell
me
seconded
by
commissioner
Hughes,
but
I'm
going
to
ask
commissioner
Tommy
for
you
to
repeat
that
to
what
just
repeat
the
motion.
D
Sure
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
County
Board
direct
staff,
that
the
request
to
advertise
include
the
option
to
consider
no
parking
minimum
and
an
option
to
consider
a
parking
minimum
tied
to
the
distance
to
Transit
and
an
option
to
to
allow
for
a
No
Parking
requirement.
If
the
number
of
parking
spaces
required
equals
the
number
of
curb
cuts.
Q
So
I
would,
commissioner,
will
tell
me
I
I
I
just
want
to
there's
three
different
parts
to
your
motion.
Correct
and
I
would
just
like
to
have
them
very
clean,
I,
don't
know
if
they're
gonna
pass
unanimously
or
not
so
I
just
would
like
it
so
that
it
was
like
the
language
with
a
and
then
the
language
again
would
be,
and
then
the
language
again
would
see
so.
B
That's
a
motion
for
this
separation:
if
I
don't
remember
the
term
for
it,
but
without
objection
all
right
so
we'll
continue,
we
will
discuss
these
serially
okay,
well,
I'll
give
I'll,
give
the
basics
for
it.
I.
D
D
Much
the
idea
is
to
give
more
options,
not
that
they
necessarily
will
be
or
should
be
passed
or
accepted
by
the
County
board,
but
they
should
be
part
of
the
conversation
pretty
much,
certainly
for
the
no
parking
requirement
at
all.
Personally
and
I
think
this
is
also
Transportation
Commission.
We
believe
that
any
proposals
going
forward.
We
should
not
be
having
parking
minimums
in
this
County.
This
is
going
across
the
country.
Numerous
jurisdictions
are
now
dropping
parking
requirements
for
many,
if
not
all,
of
their
projects.
D
I
think
this
is
something
that
the
market
could
better
deal
with.
It's
something
that
we
should
be
considering
actively
and
whether
we're
ready
for
it
at
this
point,
I
don't
know,
but
it
should
always
be
an
option
on
the
table
for
us
to
discuss
and
the
motion
for
Transit.
You
know
that's
consistent
with
our
comprehensive
plan
where
we
tend
to
have
less
parking,
the
closer
we
get
to
Transit
of
the
various
types
and
curb
Cuts,
that's
to
Pro
that
curb
Cuts.
D
If
there's
one
parking
space
allowed
in
the
in
the
required,
but
there's
one
curb
cut
you're,
essentially
privatizing
a
public
and
a
public
good,
which
is
that
curb
space
you've
taken
one
essentially
one
car
length
and
turned
it
into
a
driveway
which
is
guaranteed
to
that
one
owner.
So
you've
taken
a
public
good
and
made
it
a
private
good.
If
you
have
two
or
three
along
there,
that's
different
because
it
takes
two
further
cars
off
the
street,
but
one
for
one.
That's
something
where
the
option
should
exist:
that
there
would
then
be
no
parking
requirement.
B
M
So,
let's
just
take
them
one
at
a
time
and
I'll
just
yeah:
let's
do
it.
I
move
the
Planning
Commission
recommends.
M
Q
I'm,
sorry,
because
now
that
it's
written
on
the
screen,
I
I
can
retract
my
whatever
the
motion
would
have
been
the
separation
one,
because
I
think
when,
when
I
heard
it
it
made,
it
seem
like
it
all
had
to
be
there.
But
in
this
it
looks
like
it
can
it's
a
or
situation,
even
though
we're
not
using
the
word
or
precisely.
B
B
Second,
no,
that
we
do
not
need
a
second,
because
the
motion
was
moved.
B
It
was
seconded
and
then
a
separate
motion
to
consider
each
one
was
adopted,
and
so
we
we
now
have
three
motions
that
we
have
to
to
deal
with
serially,
and
so
the
first
one
to
deal
with
is:
is
the
recommendation
to
include
no
parking
minimums
so
I'll
entertain
discussion
on
the
topic
on
the
motion
hearing
none,
so
that
the
motion
is
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
RTA
include
no
parking
minimums
Last
Call
on
discussion.
Commissioner
Begley.
J
B
Commissioner
Sally
aye,
commissioner
Steinberger
aye
I,
should
have
done
that
by
unanimous
consent.
So
we'll
move
on
to
the
second
motion,
which
was
is
this
24
commissioner,
commissioner?.
B
If
assuming
there's
no
lack
of
clarity
on
that,
while
we
get
the
the
specific
language
on
the
screen,
is
there
any
discussion
I'm
going
to
call
the
roll,
then
on?
B
M
It's
to
remove
so
there's
no
parking
standards,
but
it's
based
on
distance
to
Transit,
so
the
first
one
we
did
was
no
parking
standards.
County-Wide.
This
one
would
be
another
option
that
would
be
no
parking
standards,
but
it
be
based
on
a
distance
to
Transit
standard,
basically
think
the
current
standards
table
but
strike
0.5
and
replace
it
with
a
2.0
there.
We
go
all
right.
N
S
Speak
too
briefly,
there,
as
I,
said
in
a
previous
meeting.
It
depends
on
where
you
are
located.
There
are
certain
areas:
I
live
in
one
of
them,
that
is
a
block
and
a
half
to
Metro,
where
I
will
not
have
a
parking
space
when
I
get
home
tonight.
So
there
are
certain
areas
that
commissioner
Lynn
Tomy
pointed
out
when
we
did
the
RPP
that
are
the
neighborhoods
north
of
Fairfax
Drive.
That
parking
in
those
areas
is
already
limited
really
hard
to
get
so.
I
have
I
have
a
problem
with
that.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner
Bagley
anyone
else
so
I'm
going
to
call
the
roll
then,
on
the
on
the
the
recommendation
that
there
be
no
parking
minimums
upon
a
distance
to
Transit
standard.
Is
that
correct?
For
is
that
we're
all?
On
the
same
page,
all
right,
commissioner,
Begley.
B
Thank
you,
commissioner,
commissioner
Hughes
hi,
commissioner,
tell
me
aye,
commissioner
Patel.
J
B
J
B
Commissioner,
Steinberger
aye
I've
I
motion
carries
eight
to
one:
are
there
any
other
parking
related?
Well?
Okay?
So
we
have
a
third
one
that
we
have
to
deal
with.
Serially.
D
That
would
be
I
move.
The
Plenty
Christian
recommended
the
County
Board
director
staff
to
the
request
to
advertise
an
option
to
allow
for
a
No
Parking
requirement
if
the
number
of
parking
spaces
required
equals.
The
number
of
curb
cuts
is
the
anti-curp
cut
provision.
D
No,
it's.
H
D
G
D
If
you
are
only
providing
one
parking
space
on
your
lot,
you
that
you
need
a
curb
cut
to
get
to
that
parking
space,
so
you've
taken
that
public
parking
space,
converted
it
to
a
curb,
cut
and
privatized
that
parking,
because
only
one
car
is
going
to
go
onto
that
lot.
T
M
So
if
you
are
required,
if
say,
a
standard
was
adopted,
it
had
0.5
and
you
wanted
to
build
a
semi-attach
or
duplex
and
you're
therefore
required
to
provide
one's
parking
spot.
What
the
what
Jim's
Ling,
what
the
language
would
do
would
be
to
give
you
the
option
not
to
do
that,
but
also
not
to
establish
a
curb
cut
on
your
lot,
in
other
words,
to
leave
that
one
spot
that
you
otherwise
are
entitled
to
place,
a
curb
cut
in
and
likewise
on,
a
four
Plex.
G
F
T
B
Peterson
aye,
commissioner
Sally
aye
Mr,
Steinberger
aye,
but
I
I
motion
carries
nine
to
zero
I
didn't
know
whether
or
not
that
was
going
to
happen,
but
I
should
have
gone
with
it.
Are
there
any
other
parking,
related
motions.
I
I
might
have
a
motion
about
my
front
garage
idea.
I
just
need
to
find
it.
B
We
can
come
back
to
it
while
you're,
while
you're
looking
for
it,
we'll
move
then
to
trees
and
canopy
related
motions.
Is
there
a
motion
to
remove
either
6A
or
6B
to
recommend
removal
of
either
6A
or
6B
from
the
RTA.
F
Sure
I'll
I'll
move
that
I
move
the
Planning
Commission
recommends.
The
Rota
include
only
option
6A
requiring
one
shea
tree
per
dwelling
unit.
F
Yes,
I
think
we
need
to
do
everything
we
can
to
make
sure
that
we
try
to
address
our
tree
canopy
issues
this
seems
yeah,
that's
it
I
feel
like.
We
should
take
some
action
to
do
that,
especially
given
that
we've
heard
so
much
comment
on
this
issue
from
the
beginning
of
the
discussion
and
I.
Don't
think
trees
and
housing
need
to
be
pitted
against
each
other.
I
think
this
is
a
reasonable
accommodation.
B
Thank
you.
Would
anyone
having
commissioner
Hughes
if
you'd
like
to
speak
I.
M
B
Right,
no
one,
unless
anyone
else
wishes
to
speak
I'm
going
to
go
to
the
role
commissioner
Bagley.
J
J
J
G
B
I
have
my
my
tabulation
has
has
gone
wrong.
I
am
I
correct
that
the
only
Commissioners
who
have
voted,
nay,
are
commissioner
Hughes
and
commissioner
Steinberger.
So
the
motion
passes
seven
to
two.
B
All
right,
any
other
canopy,
related
motions.
H
Looks
like
it's
item
34
here
the
weighted
tree,
a
proposal
Planning
Commission,
recommends
the
RTA
include
a
weighted
system
for
accounting
tree
requirements
under
Section
10.4.6
e
to
provide
the
flexibility
to
meet
the
requirement
of
planting
com
by
planting
combinations
of
shade
trees
and
other
trees.
D
B
Commissioner
Steinberg,
would
you
like
to
speak
to
your
motion?
Yes,.
H
This
is
would
be
an
addition,
not
in
replacement
of
one
of
the
Alternatives
proposed
I,
think
exploring
a
weighted
option
and
looking
at
more
ways
that
we
can
more
creative
ways
to
look
at
getting
tree
cover
and
plantings
in
the
county
makes
sense.
H
It
may
be
that
we
can
get
a
greater
amount
of
coverage
and
greater
Greenery
by
looking
at
combinations
of
plantings
as
opposed
to
a
you
know.
One
shade
tree
per
dwelling
standard
and
I
think
that
we
should
be
able
to
include
that
for
consideration.
B
Does
anyone
object
to
the
mo?
Is
there
any
objection
to
adopting
the
motion
by
unanimous
consent.
B
M
I
think
that
42
is
too
small
of
a
cap,
so
I
would
hate
to
see
it
advertised
at
42.
So
I'd
encourage
that
the
number
be
raised.
So
therefore
I'm
going
to
move
the
plan.
Commission
recommend
that
the
county
boards
direct
staff
to
advertise
a
number
that
sufficiently
represents
25
of
land
area
disturbance
permits
issued
in
our
districts
for
the
average
year
between
2019
and
2021..
K
Do
we
have
a
general
idea
of
what
25
of
that
is
because
that
changes,
my
support
or
not
lack
of
support
for
this.
E
Was
the
motion
I
know,
the
discussion
earlier
was
referencing
land
disturbance
permits.
Was
that
that's?
What's
in
the
motion
we
yeah?
We,
we
don't
have
a
number
for
land
disturbance
permits,
we'd
have
to
research
that
new.
We
know
from
the
the
Consultants
analysis
that
for
a
five-year
period
there
were
175
Lots
within
the
R5
to
R20
zones
that
were
redeveloped
for
single
detached
housing
on
an
annual
basis.
Yes,
that
was
the
average
for
I,
think
2016
to
2020.
T
N
N
B
N
Q
I'm
sorry,
chairwear
I,
don't
think
commissioner
steinberger's
mic
is
on
so
I
can't
hear
her.
Thank.
H
All
right-
apologies,
Planning
Commission,
recommends
that
the
RTA
include
language,
reserving
25
of
annual
eho
permits
for
property
owners
developing
their
own
properties
as
ehos.
I
B
H
Before
but
understanding
that
the
logistics
of
enforcement
might
cause
the
County
Attorney
to
get
creative
or
not,
I
think
that
it's
reasonable
to
look
at
ways
that
we
can,
if
the
purpose
of
why
we're
going
through
the
missing
middle
exercise,
is
you
know,
in
part
or
in
substantial
part,
to
encourage
you
know
to
look
at
issues
of
diversity
to
encourage
you
know
greater
ownership
opportunities
within
our
County
and
to
look
at
the
makeup
of
what
our
you
know
how
we
can
exist
as
a
more
inclusive,
County
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
look
at
opportunities
available
to
allow
those
existing
and
living
in
our
current
County,
who
might
otherwise
need
to
move
or
to
take
advantage
of.
H
You
know,
wealth.
You
know
built
up
in
their
home
that
they
could
only
get
by
selling
to
an
out
of
town
developer,
potentially
to
look
at
ways
that
they
could
benefit
from
this
enhanced
housing
type
for
themselves
and
I.
Think
that
that's
something
that
is
encompassed
with
some
of
the
stated
and
implied
goals
of
the
entire
missing
middle
exercise.
D
Because
what
we
had
with
adus,
which
would
only
be
Property
Owners
building
them
were
very
few.
The
concern
the
community
seems
to
have
is
that
developers
will
be
in
and
buy
up
houses
and
start
building
these
property.
The
actual
Property
Owners
will
probably
not
be
a
large
number,
but
why
would
they
be
the
ones
who
would
be
since
we
want
to
encourage
them
to
stay
if
they
get
caught
up
in
a
cap
that
doesn't
help.
H
I
can't
repeat
all
that
in
summary,
I
I
will
not
accept
that
edit,
because
I
will
be
I'm
concerned
that
it
will
be
hard
to
distinguish
what
is
an
actual
individual
property
owner
versus
an
entity,
a
trust
in
a
state
or
whatever
an
LLC
in
the
name
of
an
individual,
and
it
would
be
hard
to
tell
who
is
actually
doing
the
development.
So
I
still
think
a
cap
is
necessary
for
the
community
to
feel
secure
in
what
this
in
this
approach,
so
I
still
think
a
cap
needs
to
be
applicable.
H
D
B
K
So
I
was
just
concerned
that
if
we
don't
get
a
lot
of
individual
homeowners
who
want
to
redevelop
their
property,
then
we're
leaving
possible
development
by
builders
on
the
table
and
so
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
rather
than
say,
25
has
to
be
reserved
and
at
the
end
of
the
year,
if
we
didn't
get
25
worth
of
individual
properties
and
then
that
just
doesn't
get
built
and
maybe
say
something
like,
rather
than
this
being
like
a
rolling
admissions
process
where
you
know
first
come
first
serve
is
analyzed
like
you
know,
we
we
analyze
the
permits
on
a
monthly
basis
and
at
the
end
of
the
month
we
get
all
the
applications
from
you
know,
January
and
then
somehow
give
priority
to
25
of
the
people.
K
Q
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I'm
not
going
to
support
this
motion
for
the
reasons
that
commissioner
Len
tell
me
is,
has
articulated
I
think
there's
too
many
enforcement
issues
in
in
this
one.
It
raises
too
many
questions
the.
What
I
would
ask
is
that,
after
we
do
a
roll
on
this
particular
motion,
I'd
like
to
I'd
like
to
myself,
make
the
motion
that
commissioner
Owen
tell
me
just
raised.
H
Well,
I
was
going
to
edit
the
motion
to
Encompass
better
what
commissioner
Peterson
suggested
do.
H
To
have
something
on
the
screen
and
I
would
have
been
able
to
work
off
of
that.
Thank
you.
Let's
add
up
to
25
percent.
H
After
the
yeah,
so
comma
after
ehos
shall
be
given
priorities,
priority
review.
H
Priority
view
for
permitting
application.
B
Promotions
to
amend
an
amendment
are
neither
debatable
nor
have
discussion
is
the
unanimous
consent
to
adopt
the
amendment
to
the
amendment.
B
The
amendment
is
adopted.
I
I'm,
going
to
call
the
roll
on
this
one
I'm
sitting
with
commissioner
Bagley.
J
L
J
T
K
B
I
vote
I
motion
fails
two
to
six.
Commissioner
Patel
did
you
have
a
motion.
Q
D
To
sure
up
to
25
of
annual
eho
permits
for
property
owners,
developing
wait.
B
S
B
J
J
A
B
I
hate
it
when
this
happens,
I
vote
I
for
the
purposes
of
the
RTA
motion
carries
five
to
four.
Are
there
any
other
motions
on
the
topic
of.
B
You
know
none
will
move
to
non-conformings.
Is
there
a
motion
to
recommend
removal
of
either
option
8A
or
8B
from
the
RTA.
B
B
Okay
hearing
none,
commissioner,
tell
me
I'm
going
to
go
to
you
on
a
potential
Amendment
about
the
general
land
use
plan.
Q
B
D
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
to
the
count
recommend
that
the
County
Board
direct
staff,
that
the
request
to
advertise
include
the
ability
to
amend
the
glup
booklet
to
include
an
updated
context
and
history
of
the
Arlington
zoning
ordinance
to
recognize
its
exclusionary
roots.
Commissioner,
tell
me:
would
you
like
to
speak
to
the
motion?
D
D
You
know
it
and
it
gives
a
basis
for
part
of
the
reason
why
we're
doing
what
we're
doing
here
today
so
I
think
it's
appropriate
that
this
be
recognized
in
the
glove
booklet,
where
we
do
have
at
least
at
least
some
discussion
about
the
zoning
ordinance
and
where
it
came
from,
and
if
we're
going
to
do
have
anything
in
there,
it
really
should
recognize
really
what
happened.
D
B
I
am
going
to
seek
unanimous
consent
to
adopt
a
motion
motion
is
adopted.
Commissioner.
Tell
me:
do
you
have
another
motion.
B
The
second
move
by
commissioner
would
tell
me
seconded
by
commissioner
Hughes,
commissioner,
my
Tommy
does
the
do.
We
have
the
language
on
the
screen
right
there.
Okay,
would
you.
D
Like
to
speak
to
the
motion
yeah,
this
is
something
that's
been
bothering
me
all
along
is
that
when
we're
potentially
moving
as
high
as
eight
units
per
lot,
there
will
be
parts
of
the
county
where
we
could
very
easily
bust
through
be
more
than
10
per
acre.
D
I,
absolutely
agree
with
staff
that,
on
the
average
it
would
be
decades
before
we
would
reach
an
average
of
10
per
acre
or
go
beyond
10
per
acre,
but
they're
going
to
be
pockets
of
the
of
the
county.
Where
it's
going
to
be
more
than
that
and
we're
effectively
saying
that
we
will
be
densifying
this
County.
That's
the
goal
of
this
I
think
we
should
be
upfront
about
it
and
find
a
number.
That's
more
realistic.
You
know
not
every
lot
will
be
eight,
even
if
it's
adopted
as
eight
that
will
not
happen.
D
There
are
a
large
number
of
lots
that
can't
will
not
be
able
to
support
those
numbers,
so
it
will
be
less
than
that,
but
if
it
goes
to
all
duplexes,
if
it
goes
to
all
triplexes,
you
know
that
theoretically
would
be
possible.
So
I
think
we
should
have
a
number
in
there
that
goes
from
1
to
X,
that
is
higher
than
10
per
acre.
M
Commission
line
to
me
I'm
absolutely
supportive
of
this
motion
and
perhaps
instead
of
boxing
staff
in
by
defining
the
unit
mix,
we
could
instead
typically
use
the
typical
use
definition
in
the
legend
which
is
used
further
down
in
the
commercial
industrial,
public
semi-public
units
and
even
in
high.
We
don't
even
go
to
a
density.
We
simply
just
rely
on
the
far
basis.
So
perhaps
we
can
simply
rely
on
the
low
color
designation
and
encourage
staff
to
Simply,
redefine
it
using
either
a
range
of
density
or
a
typical
use.
Categorization
I'm.
M
Perhaps
someone,
if
you
don't
mind
a
unanimous
consent
to
strike
everything
past
the
word
legend
that
way
it
leaves
it
so
that
the
legend
will
be
redefined.
M
B
Without
objection
adopted,
I
am
going
to
seek
unanimous
consent
to
adopt
emotion
as
amended.
Thank
you,
commissioner
Kieran,
commissioner
again
I'm
going
to
invite
you
to
speak
to
it.
Then.
F
B
S
J
T
T
B
Thought
I
carries
eight
to
zero.
We
have
two
I
think
small
areas
left
to
cover
and
then
we'll
get
to
the
main
motion
as
amended
and
then
any
other
motions
that
people
want
to
make
anything
on
applicability
to
Lots
covered
by
area
plans.
J
B
M
Sure
so,
right
now,
if
we
don't
advertise
or
help,
if
we
don't
encourage
the
board
to
advertise
an
option
that
includes
this,
we
will
ensure
that
any
are
zoned
lot
within
a
planned
area
does
not
have
eho
as
an
option
so
by
advertising
an
option
that
includes
striking
4.
10.4.2
point
B.
The
County
Board
will
give
itself
the
option
later
on
to
allow
properties
inside
of
planned
areas
to
have
the
ho
option.
If
it
so
chooses.
J
B
B
We're
we're
getting
there
existing
structures.
N
I
Right,
a
five
percent
increase
in
maximum
lot
coverage
shall
be
allowed
for
the
retention
of
an
existing
building,
including
the
foundation
first
floor,
Framing
and
Wall
of
such
a
building.
Just
a
second.
B
Do
you
Mr
Pfeiffer,
the
other
of
you
have
that
language.
B
Is
did
I
hear
a
second
from
me,
commissioner
Hughes
motion
by
commissioner
sarley
seconded
by
commissioner
Hughes.
Commissioner
Sally?
Could
you.
B
Hearing
no
objection
motion
is
adopted.
Commissioner
Sally.
B
I
Just
for
the
sake
of
Expediting,
and
of
course
this
is
all
for
RTA
purposes,
but
I'll
read
it
while
we're
at
10B
we're
an
existing
primary
structure
is
retained
in
its
entirety
within
defined
limits
of
modification
or
renovation
that
retain
the
existing
building
footprint,
but
allow
additions
of
up
to
30
percent
of
the
footprint
window,
replacement,
new
siding
and
facade
materials.
B
By
commissioner
sarley
moved
segmented
by
commissioner
commissioner,.
B
I
I
will
be
abstaining,
so
I'm
not
going
to
entertain
unanimous
consent.
Anyone
else
wants
to
speak
to
it.
So
we'll
go
to
commissioner
Bagley.
S
J
M
Q
T
G
B
I
also
abstain.
The
motion
carries
three
to
one
shoot:
does
it
have
to
have
five?
It's
the
number
of
people.
Voting
motion
carries
three
to
one
any
other
motions,
commissioner
Sally.
B
I
E
H
Starley
takes
a
giant
breath
and
then
speed
reads
this
I'm
wondering
if
he
would
entertain
the
idea
of
instead
of
these
very
explicit
specific
design
standards,
as
laid
out
if
a
more
generalized
proposed
RTA
recommendation
could
be
made
that
design
standards
be
established
for
the
purposes
of
ehos.
B
It
yeah
I
think
it
would
be
summarily
disregarded
what
I
would
suggest.
I.
Think,
commissioner
Sally
I
think
commissioner
Steinberger
is
on
to
something.
What
I
would
suggest
is
a
broad
scope,
broadly
worded
recommendation,
and
then
you
know
staff
should
the
motion
be
adopted.
Staff
has
the
various
ideas
that
are
animating
your
emotion
and
would
be
able
to
take
those
into
consideration
in
their
reaction
to
the
motion
before
the
board.
At
the
board's
RTA
hearing.
I
So
everyone
can
breathe
this
out
of
relief.
I
will
go
along
with
this
suggestion,
but
I
strongly
encourage
staff
to
closely
read
some
of
these
recommendations
and
take
them
further.
If
you
feel
that
we
need,
but
I
think
you
know
to
speak
to
this
motion,
I
think
it's
important
that
we
understand
what
we're
signing
up
for.
Let's
get
the
motion.
First,
all
right!
This
is
where
I
could
use
help
from
my
colleagues.
If
anyone
has
any
so
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
design
guidelines
be
extensively
done
for
the
purpose
of
vho.
I
B
Motion
by
commissioner
sarley
seconded
by
commissioner
giren
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
One
More
Time,
commissioner
sarling.
B
I
B
F
I
B
So
I
take
that
as
an
objection
to
the
inclusion
of
the
advice
word:
advisory,
I,
yes,
okay!
So
then
I
move
that
the
amendment
be
amended
to
include
the
word
advisory.
As
indicated
on
the
screen.
Second
moved
by
The
Chair
seconded
by
commissioner
Hughes
I'm,
not
going
to
speak
to
it.
Anyone
else
want
to
speak
to
it.
I'm
going
to
go
down
the
road
commissioner
Bagley
I'm.
The
motion
to
amend
the
amendment
I.
J
J
J
K
Are
we
limiting
her
so
which
one's
broader?
Does
it.
D
B
I
vote
I'm
motion.
Do
many
Amendment
carries
seven
to
one
I'm
gonna
go
to
a
vote
on
the
amended
Amendment
at
this
point.
H
H
B
Thank
you.
I'm
going
to
go
with
I'm
gonna
start
going
down
the
roll
commissioner
Bagley.
We
are
voting
on
the
text.
We
are
voting
on
this
motion,
the
one
on
the
screen.
S
L
B
Aye
I
vote
I.
This
motion
to
amend
the
amendment
carries
seven
to
one
or
are
we
now
in
a
place
to
we
just
adopted
this?
What's
on
the
screen
was
just
adopted,
we
had
unanimous
consent
to
amend
it
to
what
is
on
the
screen,
which
we
just
voted
on
and
that
carries.
Are
there
any
other
motions
to
the
main,
any
other
emotions
to
amend
the
main
motion?
Would
anyone
like
to
speak
to
the
main
motion
as
amended.
H
Briefly
and
I
alluded
to
this,
or
maybe
even
set
it
out
right
earlier
on
to
a
point,
but
I
think
that
at
this
point
you
know
we've
heard
from
the
community.
We
heard
extensively
from
the
community
a
few
nights
ago.
I
at
this
point,
moving
forward
to
a
request
to
advertise.
I
think
that
the
many
emotions
we
have
just
gone
through
as
a
group
this
evening
are
a
reflection
of
what
we
heard
from
the
community
and
I'm
thinking
in
terms
of
what
the
appropriate
number
of
eho
dwelling
units
might
be.
H
What
we
can
do
to
protect
tree
canopy
and
you
know
other
resource
allocations
and
concerns,
we've
heard
from
the
community
and
really
it's
about
getting
an
ex.
H
B
I
Will
be
voting
against
this
motion
tonight,
based
on
the
premise
that
I
think
tonight's
meeting
felt
a
lot
like
a
work
session
more
than
an
RTA
session
and
I
think,
while
I'm
strongly
supportive
of
eho
and
the
concept
and
the
county.
Actually
looking
at
this
I
I
find
that
there
there's
quite
a
bit
that's
still
lacking
and
missing,
and
there's
a
lot,
that's
being
left
up
to
chance
and
sort
of
the
hope
of
good
luck.
I
So
that's
sort
of
where
I'm
at
I
strongly
support
what
staffs
are
doing
and
the
County
Board
is
doing
I
just
think.
We
need
a
little
bit
more
time
to
understand
what
it
is
that
we're
actually
signing
up
for
and
what
the
outcomes
are
going
to
be.
Having
said
that,
I
will
be
voting
no
but
sort
of
of
two
minds,
as
it
were,
am
I
I'm,
I'm
sort
of
you
know
for
it
and
against
it.
At
the
same
time,.
S
I
would
also
like
to
align
myself
with
both
Commissioners
Sara
Lee
and
giren
I'm
highly
supportive
of
adding
housing
options
in
the
county.
I
personally
still
am
not
sure
that
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
now,
as
illustrated
by
our
com,
in-depth
conversations
tonight
that
we're
there
yet
and
I'm,
hoping
that
with
what
I
assume
the
RTA
will
go
through,
that
we
can
get
closer
to
that,
because
there's
still
a
lot
of
concern
here
on
a
number
of
fronts.
So
thank
you.
B
Is
there
anyone
else
would
like
to
be
recognized
so
I'm
going
to
say
just
a
couple
of
things.
One
I
respectfully
disagree
with
with
commissioner
sarley
about
the
the
process
where
we
are
at
I.
Think
that
this
is
entirely
appropriate.
I
mean
this
is
a
long
meeting
and
and
I
apologize
for
the
extent
of
the
duration,
to
the
extent
that
it
could
have
been
helped
by
anything
that
I
could
have
done
differently.
But
that
said,
I
believe
that
it
is
entirely
appropriate
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
give
full
and
fulsome
discussion
from
the
Deus.
B
We
have
a
great
process
that,
when
issues
are
much
less
complicated,
tends
to
yield
itself
to
teeing
up
most
things
in
terms
of
consensus
during
the
course
of
that
process.
But
the
fact
that
the
commission
has
gotten
all
the
way
in
the
weeds
at
the
RTA
status,
I
think
is
a
signal
that
the
process
also
works.
This
way
right,
we
do
not
have
to
run
everything
to
ground
before
we
can
continue
the
discussion
so
just
my
thoughts,
Commissioner
salary.
B
In
response
to
to
your
comments,
I
hope
that
that
you
take
the
the
the
the
response.
Is
respectful
I
want
to
share
one
other
thing,
and
that
is
this
picture
about?
Why
I'm
going
to
be,
why
I'm
happy
to
vote
for
this?
B
This
is
my
bedroom
in
the
way
the
toddlers
say
so
I'm
not
going
to
emulate
her
voice.
I
want
you
to
be
thinking
of
my
bedroom
of
me
when
you're
at
your
meeting,
and
she
said,
and
I
quote
when
I
am
a
grown-up,
when
I
am
growed
up,
I
will
go
to
courthouse
meetings,
because
a
courthouse
meeting
is:
is
this
it's?
C
B
Thank
you
for
indulging
me
the
anecdote
I'm
going
to
call
the
vote
unless
anyone
else
wishes
to
be
heard.
Foreign
we'll
start
with
you.
J
L
B
J
J
B
Commissioner
I
vote
I
I
skipped
someone
I'm
gonna
I
have
to
go
through
the
role
again.
My
apologies,
commissioner
Bagley.
J
B
Q
B
Commissioner
Peterson
aye
Mr
sarley,
no
commissioner
Steinberger
and
I
vote
I
as
well.
Okay,
that's
seven
to
two!
Thank
you,
my
apologies
for
putting
everyone
on
the
record
twice.
The
motion
carries
seven
to
two:
do
we
have
any
other
motions
before
we
depart?
I
have
a
few
others,
commissioner?
Peterson
I
want
to
go
to
you.
B
Let's
get
this
we'll
get
this
done.
Quick,
there's
one
other
administrative
item
and
then
we
can
all
get
home.
Okay,.
K
I
had
the
two
motions
that
I
had
sent
around
earlier
and
that
I
also
spoke
to
earlier
that
related
to
equity.
The
first
motion
is
the
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
county
manager
direct
staff
to
develop
resources
to
offer
support
to
existing
homeowners
in
redeveloping
their
own
property
and
identify
neighborhoods
with
a
strong
historical
association
with
communities
of
color
and
conduct
Outreach
to
identified
neighborhoods
with
the
aforementioned
resources
is.
Q
M
B
K
I
can
read
it
again
while
we're
patiently
waiting
at
12
13
in
the
morning.
The
planning
and
no
shade
meant
to
you,
Emma
at
all.
The
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
county
manager
direct
staff
to
develop
resources
to
offer
support
to
existing
homeowners
in
redeveloping
their
own
properties
and
identify
neighborhoods
with
a
strong
historical
association
with
communities
of
color
and
conduct
Outreach
to
identified
neighborhoods
with
the
aforementioned
resources.
M
K
N
B
I'm
going
to
call
unanimous
consent
on
the
on
the
first
motion
without
objection.
Motion
is
adopted,
commissioner
Peterson.
Thank
you.
B
That
one
is
going
to
go
to
commissioner
Hughes
moved
by
commissioner
Peterson
seconded
by
commissioner
Hughes
question
Peterson.
Would
you
like
to
speak
to
it.
K
This
goes
to
the
equity
as
well.
I
have
been
speaking
with
various
people
about
ways
that
we
can
protect
housing
in
neighborhoods
in
Arlington
and
a
community
to
land.
Trust
was
one
of
the
proposals
that
was
recommended
to
me
and
I
wanted
staff
to
research
that
to
see
if
it
would
work
in
Arlington.
B
D
Have
a
motion:
the
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
County
Board
direct
staff
to
study
alternative
approaches
to
determining
maximum
billable
envelope
in
the
R
zone
districts
beyond
the
status
quo,
Lots
covered
standard
I
was
such
as
a
floor
area
ratio
standard.
The
commission
is
specifically
interested
in
approaches
that
could
better
facilitate
a
balance
among
often
competing
needs
for
open
space,
canopy
coverage
parking
and
other
concerns.
Second,.
B
Q
D
Yeah,
this
harks
back
to
that
discussion.
We
had
earlier
about
moving
to
a
far-based
approach
and
I
think
this
is
to
sort
of
this
is
the
sense
of
the
commission.
Q
Can
I
just
have
commissioner
well
and
tell
me
read
that
motion
again?
Yes,.
D
I'm
happy
to
do
so.
We
just
call
it
up.
The
Planning
Commission
recommends
that
the
County
Board
direct
staff
to
study
alternative
approaches
to
determining
maximum
buildable
envelope
in
the
R
zone
districts
beyond
the
status
quo
lot
covered
standard,
such
as
a
floor
area
ratio.
Standard
commission
is
specifically
interested
in
approaches
that
could
better
facilitate
a
balance
among
often
competing
needs
for
open
space,
canopy
coverage
parking
and
other
concerns.
Q
Sorry
can
I
ask
commissioner
and
tell
me
a
question
commission
tell
me:
is
there
a
reason
why
we
need
to
put
the
part
the
end
part
about
what
we're
particularly
interested
in?
Is
it
sufficient
I
mean?
Can
I
ask
if
it'll
be
sufficient
just
to
kind
of
end
before
that,
and
then,
when
you
speak
to
your
motion,
that
would
be
kind
of
like
part
of
speaking
to
your
emotion,
but
I
just
worry
that
it
could
be
limiting,
rather
than
just
the
whole
idea
of
looking
at
the
whole
thing
in
total
yeah.
D
I'm
not
sure
I
have
a
problem
with
that.
Commissioner
Patel.
If
you're
willing
to
make
an
amending
motion
to
drop
that
out,
I,
don't
think
you'll
arm
the
idea.
Q
Yeah,
so
I
would
move
to
a
men
just
strike
that
language
and
I
would
ask
that
staff
just
incorporate
commissioner
and
Tommy's
basis
for
the
motion
which
I
I
support,
I,
just
I'm,
just
tinkering
with
the
language
right
now
to
make
it
as
broad
as
possible.
D
Yeah,
the
idea
is
not
to
limit
so
yeah,
yes,
that
that
I
think
that's
probably
appropriate.
B
B
Is
that
correct?
Well
we're
not
adjourned
there.
There
are
just
two
ministerial
things
that
I
have
to
deal
with
one
as
a
as
a
as
a
outgrow
as
an
outcome
of
the
the
cancellation
of
the
special
Club
study
meeting
last
month,
I
believe
that
staff
is
teeing
up.
B
Some
potential
recommended
bylaws
amendments,
I'm
not
going
to
ask
staff
to
speak
to
them,
I'm,
not
sure
that
they're
finished
yet,
but
there
was
an
interest
in
making
sure
that
we
had
at
least
you
know
the
better
part
of
a
full
month
to
to
comp
to
to
think
about
them.
B
So
that
will
be
a
memo
that
will
come
out
to
us,
and
then
you
know,
the
only
other
matter
of
business
is
to
note
that
the
that
that
I
I
want
to
thank
the
many
staff
members
and
members
of
the
commission
who
have
labored
very
hard
to
make
this
three
night
meeting
work
I'm
not
going
to
name
names,
because
it
would
only
invite
leaving
someone
out
who
shouldn't
be
left
out
but
to
everyone
who's.
Here.
Thank
you
to
your
colleagues
who
work
with
you
on
this.
B
B
This
Saturday,
we
will
be
represented
by
commissioner
Bagley,
the
item
from
Monday
and
this
evening
and
tonight
will
be
heard
by
the
County
Board
no
earlier
than
January.
We
do
not
yet
know
who
will
represent
the
commission
at
that
meeting.
Traditionally,
it
is
the
incoming
chair,
that's
something
that
we
will
be
deciding
upon
and
voting
upon
on
our
January
meeting
before
we
adjourn
commissioner
Sally,
you
see
you
have
a
question.
I
I
just
want
to
thank
commissioner
Weir
for
being
chair
this
year
and
doing
an
excellent
job
and
I
appreciate
your
effort
and
it's
late,
so
I'll
keep
it
short.
But
thank
you
very
much
you're
here.
B
Thank
you
to
all
of
you.
This
has
been
a
long
meeting.
I'm
I
appreciate
that
you're
here,
let's
go
home.
Commission
is
adjourned.