►
From YouTube: 4/28/2021 HB 2001 Stakeholder Meeting
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
B
C
B
Okay,
I'm
gonna
start
hi.
Everybody
got
a
lot
to
get
through
today,
so
I'm
just
gonna
start
with
roll
call
and
then
I'm
sure
people
will
keep
joining
as
they
are
available.
So
is
jenna
goodman
campbell
here
today,
nope,
okay
dave.
I
saw
dave
and
lisa
hi
lisa
scott
winters.
I
believe
I
saw
scott
hi
scott
kathy
austin
she's
been
in
meetings
all
day,
not
here,
yet
she
should
be
audrey
allen.
I
believe
I
saw
here
hi
audrey,
hi,
jessie,
russell.
B
And
karna,
I'm
not
sure
she's
making
it
today,
matt
gillette,
not
yet
moey.
F
B
Hi
alexis
ryan
jennings.
B
C
B
Hi
bill
sarah
santa
hi,
paulie
hi,
sarah
and
I'm
mike
walker.
I
see
mike.
B
Is
all
right?
Can
we
see
the
beginning
of
a
powerpoint
and
I'm
going
to
get
it
to
be?
The
big
screen
is
that
better
looks
great
yeah,
all
right,
yeah,
okay,
so
a
couple
topics
I
wanted
to
cover
today
before
we
dive
into
the
draft
short-term
rentals
and
our
middle,
miss
middle
housing
that
we're
proposing
amendments,
for
I
want
to
touch
base
real
fast
on
town
homes
and
lot
sizes
and
the
density
requirements
that
are
being
proposed
and
then,
of
course,
review
the
draft.
B
So
we
have
had
some
council
interest
in
asking
this
question
and
it's
timely
and
we
have
a
good
group
of
people
here.
I
think,
to
provide
some
guidance
on
possible
amendments.
I
think
we're
all
very
familiar
with
short-term
rentals
and
what
the
requirements
are.
B
And
so,
if
you
have,
let's
say
a
quadplex,
all
four
of
those
units
today
can
be
short-term
rentals
because
they're
on
the
same
property.
So
I
wanted
to
get
some
numbers
out
there
just
to
give
the
group
an
idea
of
you
know
how
many
applications
we
have-
and
these
are.
These
are
approximate
we're
still
trying
to
tighten
them
up
some.
But
currently
we
have
a
1047
approved,
short-term
rental
applications
and
of
those
there
are
50
properties
which
doesn't
seem
like
a
lot
that
have
short-term
rentals
on
them,
but
of
those
50
properties.
B
B
So
the
question
and
discussion
for
the
group-
and
I
think
we
allocated
five
to
ten
minutes
for
this
particular
topic-
is
whether
or
not
there
is
support-
and
this
is
just
for
plexus
town
homes
and
the
cottage
clusters,
and
also
accessory
dwelling
units,
because
we
have
a
lot
of
properties
that
have
a
house
and
an
adu
on
them
and
they're
both
short-term
rentals,
whether
or
not
there's
interest
to
limiting
those
type
of
properties
to
allowing
only
one
of
the
units
on
site
to
be
a
short-term
rental
versus
all
of
the
units,
and
I
can't
see
any
hand.
H
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
have
strong
feelings
about
strs.
One
of
your
great
new
interactive
map
tools
allow
us
to
see
how
many
str's
have
been
approved
versus,
let's
say,
mental
housing
and
I've.
I've
done
the
work
right,
we've
actually
issued
771
strs
and
in
in
four
years,
2016
17,
18
and
2020.
H
At
the
same
time,
we've
only
issued
or
the
city
has
only
issued,
441
middle
housing
type
buildings
we're
losing
ground.
So
whatever
we
can
do
to
limit
str's.
That
is
severely
handicapping
the
city's
ability
to
provide
workforce
housing.
C
C
C
I
don't
think
it's
what
anyone
intended
at
the
time
the
code
was
written.
I
don't
think
it
was
discussed
and
and
and
I've
found
over
time.
People
are
very
surprised
to
find
you
can
have
multiple
permits
on
one
property,
whether
it's
a
house
in
an
adu
or
a
triplex
or
whatever.
B
Thank
you
bill
and
a
couple
of
things
I
think
you're
right.
I
don't
think
the
overall
intent
was
to
allow
multiple,
short-term
rentals
on
one
property.
We
would
keep
the
word
property
versus
between
units
because
we
have
no
way
to
measure
between
units.
We
do
have
a
way
to
measure
between
properties
and
for
this
particular
update
it
would
be
again
for
the
adus,
the
plexus
townhouses
and
cottage
clusters
developments,
and
then
this
would
be
going
forward.
B
You
know
we
have
talked
to
our
legal
department
about
it
and
it
wouldn't
be
retroactive
like
if,
if
there's
already
a
house
and
an
adu
and
they
have
their
short-term
rentals,
they
keep
them,
they
can
transfer
them
or
do
you
know,
whatever
type
of
when
they
sell
it,
it
stays
or,
however,
they're
figuring
it
out
how
to
do
that.
This
would
be
going
forward.
So
if
you
built
a
new
house
or
a
new
adu
or
if
you
just
come
in-
and
you
want
to
do
a
short-term
rental,
you
don't
have
any
approval
on
your
property.
A
Okay,
I
just
wanted
to
throw
in
a
quick.
I
really
appreciate
you
know,
limiting
those
applications
and
allowing
people
who
own
a
property
to
have
a
short
term
to
help
supplement
income,
but
to
kind
of
limit
it.
So
it's
not
investors
just
putting
it
in
and
having
a
bunch
of
short-term
rentals
without
having
workforce
housing.
So
thank
you
for
that.
I
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
I'm
absolutely
in
favor
of
this.
We
know
in
century
west
that
we've
got
a
significant
issue
with
illegal
strs,
for
example,
and
so
anything
that
we
can
do
to
try
to
stop
this
and
also
limit
the
the
number
of
strs
with
the
middle
housing.
I
think
is
really
important.
I
did
have
a
question
for
those
50
properties
currently,
if
they,
if
their
permit
expires.
I
So
you
know
if
they
take
their
short-term
rental
off
the
market,
and
somebody
decides
to
make
that
a
permanent
home
and
they
let
their
permit
lapse.
Does
that
mean
that
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
this
back
so
that
they
would
become
they
would
move
into
compliance.
B
Right
so,
and
I'm
not
the
expert
on
the
short
term
rentals.
Fortunately,
I
started
right
after
that
code
was
worked
on,
but
if
it
lapses,
you
know
another
one
can
open
up
within
250
feet
and
it
goes
away
anyway.
So
in
that
case,
yes
it
if
it
totally
lapses,
it's
gone
the
one
that
we're
looking
into
is,
if
they
don't
lapse,
but
they
sell
it
to
the
new
owner
and
the
new
owner
is
buying
it
because
they
want
the
short-term
rental
on
it.
It
doesn't
technically
lapse.
B
They
just
come
right
in
within
one
minute
of
them.
Canceling
and
I
don't
know
if
we
have
a
sufficient
way
to
avoid
that
or
to
say
no,
so
I'm
working
with
legal
on
that
particular
situation,
but
if
it
truly
lapses-
and
you
know
another
one
opens
up
within
250
feet
or
they
just
never
come
back
in
and
it's
void,
then
yeah
they'd
be
subject
to
the
new
rules.
B
B
F
B
Right
so
we're
going
to
move
on
to
the
next
one,
so
the
draft
that
goes
out
to
the
public
will
include
these
changes.
Just
so
you
know,
okay,
so
townhome
and
density.
B
I
was
working
on
the
draft
and
realized
that
we
we
talked
about
minimum
lot
sizes,
and
that
is
this
column
here
for
the
townhomes.
This
is
only
about
town
homes,
and
so
we
did
the
average,
which
is
allowed
by
the
oars
and
model
code.
B
So
it's
a
minimum
average
of
1500
square
feet
for
the
low
density
standard
and
medium,
and
then
we
did
1200
average
for
the
high.
Since
that's
what
we
have
today,
the
one
difference
between
this
type
of
middle
housing
and
the
others
is
that
you
can
have
a
maximum
density
and
so
what
we're
proposing-
and
I
think
it's
needed
just
so
people
that
it
keeps
it
within
somewhat
consistent
with
the
zone
that
it's
in
and
hopefully
I
can
explain
this
okay.
B
So
in
this
first
yellow
column,
this
is
the
bend
development
code
today,
the
current
maximum.
So
in
the
low
density
you
can
have
four
townhomes
per
acre
in
the
standard.
You
have
7.3
medium.
You
have
21
townhomes
per
acre
and
high
is
43.,
and
then,
if
we
do
our
current
lot
sizes,
the
code
would
allow
even
more
than
what
I'm
showing
here
in
the
yellow.
B
So
that's
a
significant
jump
in
the
number
of
townhomes
and
it's
still
significant
with
what
I'm
proposing
over
here,
and
this
is
what
is
allowed
in
the
model
code,
but
to
still
put
some
cap
recognizing
that
we're
definitely
significantly
reducing
the
lot
sizes
for
townhomes,
but
to
have
a
cap,
and
so
the
the
cap
would
be
16
in
the
rl,
and
this
is
the
most
we
could
cap
it
at.
You
cannot
go
any
lower.
B
I
guess,
unless
you
did
the
alternative,
siding
and
design
and
then
the
standard
and
medium
the
cap
on
the
density
would
be
25,
which
is
still
way
more
in
the
rs
than
we
can
have
today
and
then
in
the
medium.
It's
still
more
than
what
you
could
have
today
and
then
high
density
residential
would
just
be
exempt,
because
you
can
have
you
know
already
43
townhomes
per
acre
if
you
wanted
to
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
if
there's
any
comments
or
questions
on
this.
B
J
H
H
It's
just
I'm
just
pointing
it
out.
It's
a
minor
objection.
H
No,
no.
My
point
is
you're
asking
us
to
decide
whether
this
is
a
reasonable
amount,
but
we're
just
looking
at
numbers
on
a
chart
and
how
many
of
us
really
can
see.
What
would
that
look
like
in
a
site
plan,
I'm
just
pointing
out
you're
asking
a
decision
that
relies
a
lot
of
faith
in
numbers
on
a
chart
versus
a
conceptual
site
plan
to
help
us
visualize
just
what
this
means.
H
B
B
So
is
there
any
other
comments
bill
yeah.
It
looks
like
bill.
C
Just
for
clarification,
I
think
you're
absolutely
right.
These
are
the
lowest
numbers.
The
the
rules
now
allow
so
right,
I
I
you
know,
I
don't.
I
don't
think
we
could
choose,
say
12
for
rs
or
something,
and
my
understanding
was
that
this
was
sort
of
a
mandated
maximum
is.
Is
it
possible
to
not
have
a
maximum
for.
C
B
But
when
I
started
looking
at
it,
comparing
to
our
how
many
units
today
you
can
get
versus,
if
you
did
1500
square
foot
lots,
it
could
be
up
to
29
units
today
in
these
three
zones,
whereas
today
we
can
only
do
four
7.3
and
21.7
29
seem
like
a
significant
jump
to
me,
so
I
thought
it
might
be
prudent
to
at
least
put
a
cap
in
these
zones
and
granted
you
probably
won't
get
well.
I
don't
know
25
when
you
have
an
acre.
B
C
Yeah
I
mean
I,
I
would
agree
with
doing
that.
I
don't
know
where
the
state
got
these
numbers
or
if
they're
practical,
you
know
to
mike's
point,
but
but
it's
better
than
nothing.
I
have
to
say
that
I'm
still
confused.
I
guess
on
how
density
maximums
are
going
to
be
applied
in
a
practical
way
if
there
are
maximums
for
certain
types
of
housing
and
not
for
certain
others.
C
B
No
and
the
planners
have
talked
about
you
know
it
is
going
it's
going
to
be
difficult
for
sure,
and
that
brings
up
a
good
point
with
this
density
on
town
homes.
I
guess
you
could,
and
maybe
we
just
don't-
have
a
density
for
townhomes,
since
we
don't
for
all
the
others,
except
that
these
are
much
smaller
lots
than
the
other
types
of
uses
that
we're
talking
about.
You
could
limit
it
to
just
a
townhome
development.
B
C
Yeah,
I
don't
know,
I
see
it's,
it
seems
like
it's
something.
That's
going
to
have
to
be
fine-tuned
with
practical
experience
going
forward.
C
It
seems
kind
of
confusing
how
you
you're
going
to
add.
You
know
you
know
one
type
that
has
a
maximum
with
other
types
that
don't
have
a
maximum.
I
don't
know
it
just
seems
confusing.
So
in
any
case,
I
I
would
support
having
you
know
using
the
state's
sort
of
recommended
maximum
here.
B
K
Sarah
yeah
yeah,
I'm
just
wondering
if
there
isn't
a
cap
that
we
could
put
on
the
rh
just
even
carrying
forward
the
43
is.
Is
there
a
reason
that
we
couldn't
carry
that
forward.
B
Let
me
if
there's
another
comment
we
can
go
with
that.
I
have
to.
C
Can
I
just
mention
this
is
bill
again
that
hb
2001
doesn't
apply
to
rh
in
bend
because
single
family
homes
aren't
allowed
in
our
age.
B
B
7
times.
4
is
28,
so
25's
less
and
then
4
times
21
was
80,
I
don't
know
4
or
something
so
again
we
use
25
so
4
times.
43
puts
you
at
120
160,
something
units
which.
B
Right
and
it's
you
know,
you
want
to
use
25
because
that's
less
than
43
and
also
like
bill
said
and
if
you
did
a
whole
acre
just
bear
with
me
for
one.
Second,
I'm
doing
a
little
math.
E
K
L
L
So
in
terms
of
how
a
city
would
use
maximum
density
to
regulate
townhouses
when
they
don't
have
a
maximum
density
that
they're
using
to
regulate
any
other,
the
middle
housing
types,
it
doesn't
really.
The
the
overall
development
potential
of
that
subject
acre
is
not
how
that
maximum
density
standard
is
actually
used.
It's
used
at
the
time
of
development
proposal
to
determine
you
know:
can
you
actually
build
what
you're
proposing
just
based
on
our
our
maximum
density?
It's
not
an
overall
counting
all
the
units
in
in
the
subject
acre.
I
hope
that
made
sense.
E
B
On
some
of
these
comments
in
your
comment
ethan,
I
hope
I
wonder
if
we
even
need
the
maximum
units,
because
bill
brought
up
a
good
point.
I
mean
we're
not
having
it
for
the
duplexes
triplex's
quads
and
it
could
get
tricky
trying
to
regulate
density
for
townhomes
when
we're
not
regulating
it
for
other
types
of
uses,
except
for
single
family
detached.
B
So
I'm
gonna
ask
go
to
a
vote
just
because
we
need
to
move
on,
and
I'm
sorry
that
if
I
confuse
everyone
but
raise
your
hand
if
you
are
not
oh
gosh,
how
do
you
say
it
raise
your
hand
if
you're
in
support
of
not
having
this
maximum
density,
so
keep
it?
The
way
we've
already
proposed,
just
use
lot
sizes.
F
B
All
right,
sorry,
I
was
I'm
glad
I
brought
it
to
the
group,
so
we
could
all
talk
about
it
out
loud
and
now
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
one.
B
Oh
this
I
just
wanted
to
bring
to
attention
and
for
even
lisa
and
mike
and
everybody
that
just
worked
on
the
public
meeting
changes.
This
came
up
in
our
staff
meeting
today,
so
this
is
just
a.
I
just
want
to
bring
it
to
the
group's
attention
and
some
our
staff's
been
talking
about
for
a
while.
B
This
has
nothing
to
do
with
house
bill
2001,
but
in
our
public
meeting
notifications
I
wanted
to
let
the
group
know
that
we're
going
to
add
this
requirement.
So
many
of
us
are
are
aware
that
when
you
have
a
certain
type
of
application,
you
have
to
hold
a
public
meeting
with
the
neighborhoods
before
you
submit
your
application,
and
this
is
only
for
certain
types
of
applications
like
a
subdivision
or
a
conditional
use
permit.
B
Sometimes
those
public
meetings
are
held
a
long
time
before
they
actually
go
through
and
submit
their
application,
and
we
would
like
to
put
a
time
frame
of
180
days.
So
you
have
to
hold
your
public
meeting
and
submit
your
application,
then,
within
180
days
from
that
public
meeting
and
if
it's
not
submitted
within
that
six
month
time
frame,
you
have
to
hold
another
public
meeting,
and
this
is
the
same
amount
of
time
that
we
use
for
our
water
and
sewer
analysis
and
our
transportation
analysis.
B
F
H
H
H
H
B
B
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
I
I
can.
This
is
going
to
be
proposed
in
the
draft
and
then,
as
we
go
through
the
public
hearings
and
stuff
karna,
then
then
that
would
be
a
good
time
to
participate.
B
All
right
so
next
steps
for
this.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
stakeholder
advisor
groups
are
where
the
next
steps
and
then
we're
going
to
dive
into
the
draft.
But
so
today.
B
It's
not
really
related
to
house
bill
2001,
but
we
can
do
a
vote
so,
if
you're,
in
support
of
having
a
180
day,
time
frame,
which
is
the
same
time
frame
that
we
use
for
water
and
sewer
analysis
and
transportation
analysis
if
you're
in
support
of
requiring
the
neighborhood
meeting
to
be
held
within
six
months
of
submitting
the
formal
application.
Please
raise
your.
B
F
B
Thank
you,
karna
for
making
us
vote.
I
should
have
okay
so
scheduled.
Today's
got
to
be
the
last
meeting.
I
know
we
have
a
lot
to
get
through
month
of
may.
Is
our
public
outreach,
so
the
draft
will
go
out
to
the
bend
development
code,
update
group
as
well
as
everyone
that
has
been
emailing
me
or
anybody
else
to
ask
for
a
copy
to
review.
It
provide
some
high
level
comments
on
it.
B
We
are
looking
at
scheduling
the
planning
commission
work
session
for
may
24th
to
see
to
get
feedback
from
the
work
session
and
then
june.
15Th
is
when
I
submit
the
draft
to
the
department
of
land,
conservation
and
development,
as
required
by
the
grant
that
we
received
we're.
B
Looking
at
planning,
commission
hearings
in
july,
and
then
city
council
would
be
the
in
august,
and
the
hearing
dates
are
a
little
bit
subject
to
change,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
some
dates
are
out
here
and
I
think
we
are
going
to
aim
for
the
may.
24Th
planning
commission
work
session
and
then
here's
a
file
number
now
that
we've
set
up
on
cityview
for
those
that
want
to
share
it
and
then
on.
There
is
the
draft
that
we're
working
off
of
today
and
then
on
monday.
B
B
B
What
we're
going
to
do
part
of
the
public
outreach
has
included
the
stakeholder
group,
so
we've
had
the
nla
participate.
We've
had
the
planning
commission
participate
in
the
affordable
housing
advisory
committee
actively
participate
on
the
stakeholder
advisory
group
so
that
they
could
keep
their
respective
committees
informed
on
the
draft
and
the
changes.
B
So
we've
been
doing
that
now
for
about
six
or
seven
months
or
since
yeah
about
december,
and
then
now
that
this
group
has
worked
on
a
draft,
it
will
go
out
to
the
bend
development
code,
update
group
and
other
interested
people,
which
includes
about
130
people
so
far
and
there'll
be
more,
I'm
sure
and
then
we'll
have
a
planning
commission
work
session
which
is
open
to
the
public.
K
Okay,
I
just
have
you
seen
eugene's
outreach
plan,
it
just
seems
very
much
more
transparent.
B
B
K
H
Okay,
I
got
two
questions
I'll
be
quick.
First
of
all,
the
may
24th
is
a
hard
date
for
us,
as
land
use
representatives
of
neighborhood
associations.
We
have
to
somehow
now
gather
up
everything
from
today,
assuming
we
get
through
the
document
and
then
transmit
that
report
to
that
not
as
advocates
but
as
a
reporter
would
this
is
what's
happening
and
to
get
that
out,
get
information
back.
It's
going
to
be
very
hard
to
do
that
and
provide
comments
back
by
a
may,
24th
planning
planning
commission
work
session.
H
B
So
I'll
let
ethan
answer
that
part.
But
so
may
24th
is
just
a
work
session.
There
will
be
a
public
hearing,
so
that
will
be
attentively
in
either
end
of
june-
probably
begin
sometime
in
july.
M
B
I
mean
I'm
going
as
fast
as
I
possibly
can,
but
at
the
same
time
I
do
want
to
respect
may
for
giving
people
an
opportunity
four
weeks
to
or
at
least
three
weeks,
we'll
have
the
work
session
on
the
24th,
but
to
review
the
draft,
and
so
since
ethan's
not
here,
I
did
ask
for
an
extension
on
the
grant.
I
did
not
hear
back,
but
this
is
tied
to
their
budget
and
they
have
to
submit
their
budget
by
the
mid
to
end
of
june.
So
you
cannot
get
an
extension.
F
So
pauline,
if
it's
okay,
I'm
gonna,
suggest
that
we
move
forward.
F
I
think
that
there's
yeah,
I
think
we
have
been
hoping
all
along,
and
I
I
feel,
like
that's
happening
really
well
with
some
groups,
that
this
stakeholder
advisory
group
will
help
prep
each
of
your
respected
committees
or
other
folks
that
you
interact
with
that's
part
of
why
you're
on
this
group,
I
know
it
seems,
like
nla,
has
been
doing
a
tremendous
job
of
that
and
making
sure
that
folks
are
coming
along
with
what's
going
on,
even
if
that's
not
how
they
would
choose
to
proceed,
but
yeah
certainly
happy.
F
I
think
pauline-
and
I
were
talking
before
this
meeting
about
sort
of
the
differences
with
this
code
that
is
in
large
way
determined
by
the
state
versus
code
that
we
decide
the
policy
for
on
our
own,
and
so
I
think
the
framework
for
this
is
really
more
implementation.
Not
should
we
or
shouldn't
we
that's
how
we've
been
treating
it
because
of
the
state
mandate
for
better
or
worse,
that's
where
we
are,
but
more
than
happy
to
to
continue
to
work
with
y'all
and
get
that
word
out
the
best
we
can
going
forward.
E
B
F
We're
seeing
your
like
notes,
slide
kind
of
not
the
presentation
mode
but
okay,
let
me
close.
F
Notes
was
the
wrong,
but
the
the
sort
of
what
you
would
type
into
not
the
sort
of
pretty
picture
that
comes
up
when
you
hit
slideshare.
Okay,.
B
So
now
I'm
trying
to
share
the
actual
draft.
I
think
you
can
see
it
now:
yep,
okay,
perfect,
all
right.
So
what
I
did
is
I
went
through
and
highlighted
areas
that
are
relative
to
house
bill
2001
for
us
to
go
through.
Just
I'm
sure
you
saw
a
lot
of
changes.
B
We
are
taking
out
the
word
family
because
we
are
talking
about
units,
so
this
is
just
a
catch
on
the
very
beginning
to
make
sure
when
we
send
this
off
to
code
publishing
who
does
our
they
post
everything
online,
that
they
go
through
the
entire
code
and
help
us
take
out
the
word
family
and
change
it
to
unit.
B
So
in
our
bank
comprehensive
plan.
Part
of
the
changes
that
are
required
is
to
make
sure
our
policies
are
consistent
with
house
bill
2001
and
I
tried
to
go
through
and
find
all
the
policies
that
need
to
change,
but
in
the
very
beginning
and
dlcd
I
think,
provided
this
this
highlighted
parts
almost
to
catch
all,
to
say
that
if
there's
any
inconsistencies
that
house
bill
2001
controls
over
the
policies.
B
If
there's,
if
they're
inconsistent
and
I'm
going
to
keep
going
on
this,
I
didn't
think
we
needed
to
go
through
the
policies
because
they
really
just
bring
them
into
compliance,
removing
densities,
making,
sure
quadflexes
are
included
and
then
the
yellow
part.
I
just
need
to
re-number
once
the
code
gets
updated
from
the
southeast
area
plan.
Was
there
any
comments
on
the
definitions,
and
I
think
we
allocated
about
two
minutes
to
this
kathy.
J
Yeah
in
terms
of
area,
I
noticed
that
it's
been
changed
from
the
exterior
to
the
interior
of
the
walls
in
all
of
the
locations
where
it
refers
to
the
floor
area.
Yeah
instead
of
external
faces,
is
inside
of
in,
and
I
was
curious
as
to
why
and
I'll
just
say.
The
standard
for
those
of
us
architects
is
to
measure
the
exterior
face
of
stud,
and
I
mean
it's
possible
to
do
this.
It's
just
odd
that
it
would
be
switched,
and
so
I
was
just
curious
why
this
is
being
changed.
B
One
just
to
be
consistent
with
how
we're
already
measuring
accessory
dwelling
units
and
it
actually
allows
for
bigger
units.
This
came
up
on.
I
think
our
small
dwelling
units,
where
you
can
do
like
six
or
800
square
feet,
and
once
you
measure
the
wall
include
the
walls
inside
that
takes
up
50
to
100
square
feet
of
livable
space.
It
does.
I.
J
B
I
know
that's
a
little
bit
harder
to
measure,
but
it's
just
to
be
consistent
with
adus
and
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
floor
area.
J
E
H
Yes,
I
have
to
raise
a
small
red
flag.
You
blew
right
by
an
important
policy
5-56
on
page
2..
It
is
more
than
what
you
described.
It
is
taking
out
that
the
to
scratching
to
assure
the
development
integrates
with
the
existing
neighborhoods
in
which
it's
permitted
now
I
know
we're
going
to
see
that
more
in
the
development
code,
it's
kind
of
reverse
of
the
normal
process,
and
I,
as
a
language
chair
I
have
to
report.
H
I
have
to
report
that
the
comprehensive
plan,
which
is
gone
in
great
detail
in
a
land
use
education
plan
that
pauline
growth
management.
This
in
nla,
is
working
hard
together.
Ironically,
we
are
looking
right
now
at
a
two-page
document
that
hypes
how
a
great
job
is
done.
Every
time
we
update
the
comprehensive
plan
and
a
lot
of
work
goes
into
it,
and
this
type
of
change
is
going
to
be
a
significant
change
to
the
comp
plan.
H
The
blueprint
which
supposedly
helps
us
create
the
vision
that
we
have
for
ben,
so
we're
going
to
get
into
it
in
the
development
code,
but
I
I
think
we
should.
We
just
can't
assume
that
this
is
just
yeah
change,
our
code,
our
comprehensive
plan
after
we're,
trying
to
teach
our
community
how
important
the
comp
plan
is.
B
H
So
this
is
kind
of
a
minor
thing
because
we're
going
to
be
seeing
similar
changes
in
the
code,
so
it's
sort
of
the
cart
in
front
of
the
horse.
Normally
you
set
the
policies.
Then
you
set
the
code
now
we're
going
to
set
the
code
and
then
have
to
backtrack
and
make
sure
the
comp
plan
policies
are
consistent
with
the
code
and
if
we,
if
we
we
vote
against
some
of
the
code
changes,
then
it
might
affect
this
line
just
as
it's
just
a
placeholder.
That's
all
kathy.
J
H
Let's
take
a
quick
vote.
Can
I
respond
to
that?
So
we
we're
go
ahead
mike.
You
know
that
just
kind
of
throws
comp
plan
the
whole
blueprint
policy
1.1
out
the
window.
If
we
say,
let's
keep
it
as
flexible,
possibly
and
don't
worry
about
things
like
compatibility,
which
is
in
the
existing
comp
plan
just
to
scrap
for
us
to
take
a
vote.
We
have
a
lot
of
audacity
to
take
a
vote
and
think
that
we,
this
little
group
of
what
ten
twelve
thirteen
fourteen
have
fifteen
to
make.
This
call.
B
Okay,
so
I'm
just
going
to
keep
moving
on,
and
that
might
just
be
one
then
that
there's
going
to
have
to
be
public
comment
on
in
the
future.
Regarding
striking
this
one
section
or
one
line-
and
I
will
see
what
other
policies
are
in
the
comp
plan
that
maybe
already
cover
this
particular
sentence
and
sorry
to
keep
moving
through
this,
but
we
do
have
a
lot
to
get
through
today.
B
I
don't
think
there's
any
more
comments
on
the
definitions
so
now
we're
going
into
the
meet
of
house
bill
2001,
which
is
the
residential
districts,
where
we'll
see
most
of
our
changes,
this
conversion
section
here
I
didn't
highlight,
but
I
just
wanted
to
show
scott,
because
he
had
mentioned
it
a
couple
times
to
make
sure
that
we
address
you
know
if
you
want
to
convert
a
house
into
a
duplex
quad
that
you
can
do
so
as
long
as
it
doesn't
increase
any
non-conformances.
B
So
here's
our
permitted
use
table.
As
we
know
we
have
to
allow
duplexes,
triplexes,
quads,
townhouses
and
cottage
clusters
into
the
residential
zones
that
allow
residential
uses.
I
did
talk
to
ethan
with
the
lcd
about
our
urban
area
reserve
and
it
does
not
apply
to
this
area,
even
though
it
allows
a
single
family
home.
The
intent
of
the
urban
area
reserve
is
a
holding
zone,
and
so
he
brought
it
to
their
staff.
They
were
comfortable
with
us,
not
making
any
changes
to
the
urban
area
reserve.
B
B
F
E
H
Okay,
I'm
going
to
give
you
a
little.
This
is
a
short
statement
because
again
a
language
chair
has
to
report
now
to
the
association.
I'm
looking
this
thing
as
a
barrier
to
development
and
did
somebody's
explain
why
this
is
a
barrier
to
development
in
enough
specifics
or
just
a
wide
brush.
Oh
well,
let's
just
get
rid
of
it.
H
B
Okay,
well,
dave
johnson
was
definitely
there
because
he
has
a
lot,
that's
20
000
square
feet
and
larger,
and
I
believe
this
was
going
to
affect
his
lot.
I
think
this
was
the
one,
but
I
will
get
you
the
date
and
then
you
can
listen
to
the
and
I
can
send
you
the
meeting
minutes
as
well.
So
you
can
listen
to
the
discussion.
N
I
I
did,
I
did
in
fact
speak
on
that
day
and-
and
you
know,
I've
gone
even
further
in
thinking
about
it
and
in
my
neighborhood
of
of
treed
and
1980
houses.
I
could
sell
this
to
a
developer
that
wanted
to
put
a
chinese
pagoda
on
it,
which
would
look
kind
of
stupid
in
my
neighborhood.
N
Is
it
I
mean
because
it
should
look
like,
or
or
at
least
have
some
semblance
to
the
rest
of
the
of
the
neighborhood?
Is
that
a
barrier
to
development.
B
Well,
what
the
discussion
was
and
we're
not
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
this,
because
we've
already
had
a
majority
vote
on
it
was
that
someone
can
have
a
large
lot
and
they
want
to
subdivide
it,
and
they
are
now
restricted
to
much
larger
setbacks,
because
the
lot
next
to
them
is
20
000
square
feet
or
bigger.
However,
the
lot
that
is,
20,
000
square
feet
or
bigger
could
build
right
up
to
the
5
foot
setback,
so
they
have
a
lot
more
flexibility
than
the
lot.
B
That
is
subdividing,
and
then
staff
has
seen
in
several
occasions
where
this
is
a
barrier,
because
you
lose
lots
because
you
are
now
having
a
30
to
35
foot,
rear
setback.
We
worked
with
the
neighborhood
associations
on
this
many
years
ago.
The
main
driver
was
one
particular
gentleman,
basically
one
to
protect
his
home.
He
has
now
sold
his
home
to
a
developer.
So
all
the
lots
of
budding
his
property
were
subject
to
this,
and
now
that
particular
property
is
no
longer
subject
to
it.
B
O
E
B
B
Gonna
keep
moving
so
we're
not
gonna
go
back
sorry
to
keep
rushing
through,
but
the
intent
is
not
to
go
back
and
do
votes
on
everything.
The
intent
of
this
one
is
to
make
sure
if
I've
missed
something.
If
you
see
some
inconsistencies
mike
had
good
questions
because
he
wasn't
actually
at
that
particular
meeting,
so
he
needed
some
background
on
it.
That's
fine,
but
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
be
re-voting
on
a
lot
of
the
changes,
particularly
the
ones
that
have
to
do
with
the
house
bill
2001..
E
C
Am
I
correct
that
floor
area
ratio
is
being
completely
deleted
from
the
bend
development
code
as
a
thing.
B
Right
so
we
were
going
to
use
the
lot
coverages
and
not
the
floor
area
ratio,
because
this
only
applied
to
the
single-family
residential
developments
and
then
you
had
to
either
be
you
know,
comply
with
either
one
two
or
three
to
even
be
subject
to
this
particular
floor
error
ratio.
B
And
so
after
the
discussion.
I
think
this
was
a
majority
vote
as
well
to
and
to
delete
the
section,
because
I
think
even
like
number
three,
the
perimeter
of
all
new
lots
or
one
of
them
is,
if
you
add
on
well,
you
might
buy
your
house
and
not
realize
that
you
were
planning
prior
to
a
certain
date.
And
then
you
want
to
add
on
and
now
you
can't.
E
B
It's
going
away
and
we're
going
to
use
lot
coverage,
you
know
and
setbacks
and
height
so.
C
Then
let
me
point
out
that
table
2.1.700
has
a
far
of
1.1
listed.
Yes,
like
that
shouldn't
be
there.
B
Okay,
well,
when
we
get
there,
then
I'll
give
the
background
on
that
one,
because
we
all
talked
about
the
the
far
particularly
for
rs.
B
Okay,
bill
floria
ratio
in
2.1
400
is
going
away,
which
was
only
applicable
to
these
particular
situations.
B
B
And
if
I
missed
other
sections,
I
apologize
regarding
the
flurry
ratio.
F
I
was
just
gonna
say
we're
way
behind
at
this
point,
so
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
give
you
a
time
check
and
talk
through.
I
guess
whether
we
want
to
continue
or
continue
having
this
discussion,
even
though
it
means
we
may
not
be
able
to
get
through
all
of
the
items
on
the
list
today.
B
Well,
I
suppose,
well,
I
can
say
we're
not
having
another
meeting,
because
this
needs
to
go
out
on
may
3rd.
So
the
more
we
can
keep
moving
forward
the
better-
and
I
don't
mind,
giving
background
but
again
we're
not
going
to
have
a
whole
bunch
of
dialogue
about
making
changes.
B
H
You
know,
don't
send
me
the
last
one
I
miss.
I
take
very
good
notes
if
it
occurred.
It
occurred
in
the
last
meeting.
E
H
P
F
P
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
say
I
support
pauline
moving
through
this
quickly.
You
know
we've
put
so
much
time
into
this
committee
and
I
don't.
I
hardly
had
any
time
in
my
capacity
to
attend
this
meeting.
So
you
know
I
can't
do
another
meeting
and
I
hope
we
can
all
just
agree
to
keep
it
moving
forward.
B
Thank
you,
maui.
Was
there
any
edits
to
the
lot
area
and
dimensions?
One
thing
we
did
add,
which
is
new.
We've
always
required
corner
lots
to
have
an
extra
five
feet
in
width
and
then
looking
at
the
allowances.
B
F
B
Thank
you,
oh
and
then
this
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
sent
this
out
to
staff
to
review,
and
one
comment
came
back,
which
is
a
good
catch
on
the
town
homes.
I
said
the
maximum
and
the
minimum
lot
size
may
not
be
greater
than
1500,
so
that
puts
a
max
and
that's
not
the
intent,
we're
just
saying
a
minimum.
So
I
wanted
to
show
you
that
I
made
a
change
here
that
the
minimum
lot
size
must
be
at
least
1500.
B
Okay
densities:
I
reorganized
the
way
the
exemptions
are
written
for
densities,
because
getting
quite
a
few,
we
have
exemptions
for
maximum
exemptions
for
minimums
exemptions
for
both
maximums
and
minimums.
So
I
tried
to
clean
that
up.
So
it's
easier
to
read
and
then,
as
we
know,
under
the
exemptions
from
maximum
densities,
you
will
see
duplexes
triplexes,
quads
and
townhomes
in
the
rh,
and
then
we
met
with
the
affordable,
talked
about
affordable
housing
and
those
maximums
were
the
multi-unit.
B
B
Oh,
I
can
add
it.
I
part
of
me
just
wants
to
take
rm10
completely
out
of
the
code
because
we
don't
have
any
of
it,
but
I.
F
B
Okay,
so
good
caps
thanks
bill
I'll,
add
that
any
other
comments,
okay
of
hands
carry
on.
So
this
is
where
we
still
rely
on
our
maximum
lot
coverage
and
then,
as
bill
pointed
out,
we
do
have
floor
area
ratio
and
then
I
added
this
exception
here,
because
some
of
our
development
types
don't
have
maximum
lock
coverage
or
fluorite
ratio
such
as
small
dwelling
units.
So
this
just
lets
a
reader
know
that
they
can
go
to
chapter
3.8
to
see
what
other
requirements
are
there.
B
So
in
this
case
we
kept
the
lock
coverage,
except,
I
believe
we,
I
just
moved
the
exception
down
for
the
medium
density,
so
it's
a
cleaner
chart
and
then
we
added
the
1.1
for
their
flurry
ratio
for
the
rs,
and
I
think
we
had
a
oh
a
chart
where
I
broke
down.
If
we
just
relied
on
lot
coverage
what
that
equated
to
when
it
came
to
flurry
ratio
and
the
floor
area
ratio
was
much
larger
than
1.1,
so
we
wanted
to
at
least
put
some
type
of
cap.
Q
Yeah,
so
does
that
mean
on
all
rs
permits
that
far
ratio
is
going
to
be
something
that
needs
to
be
calculated
and
on
the
plans
for
every
permit.
Q
B
I
think
in
the
medium
and
high
it
was
even
higher
far,
which
was
so
high,
but
that
the
actual
lot
coverages
were
lower.
Q
Got
it
okay,
I
yeah
I
mean
I,
I
still
think
it's
a
little
excessive.
I
don't
think,
for
example,
on
a
4
000
square
foot
lot
that
you're
going
to
have
a
4
400
square
foot
far
and
be
able
to
fit
it
on
that
lot
with
that
lock
coverage
and
inside
of
setbacks,
especially
when
we're
looking
at
only
interior
area
and
we're
not
including
the
walls
on
top
of
that,
so
I
don't
ever
think
that's
going
to
come
into
play,
so
it
seems
excessive
to
even
require
those
calculations
and
that
extra
time
spent.
Q
But
I
mean
I
don't
think
it's
an
issue.
I
just
think
it's
a
a
little
extensive,
but.
H
Mike,
if
you
have
a
4
000
square
foot
lot
a
what
45
percent
lot
coverage
that
is
1800
square
foot
of
watt
coverage
times
three
that
puts
you
well
over
this
far.
That
gives
you
a
54
was
a
5400
square.
Foot
house
is
possible
at
the
30
at
for
three
levels,
so
I
have
to
disagree
that
you
can
have
if
you
eliminate
well,
we
we
went
from
an
far
of
0.6
to
1.1.
H
B
Correct
again,
I
don't
want
to
make
a
whole
bunch
of
changes
to
this.
Q
B
Q
Yeah
I
mean
I
know
that
I
know
our
land
development
department's
already
drafting
a
formal,
formal
response
for
those
public
hearings
and
and
I'll
just
make
sure
that
they
include
that
in
there
again,
it's
not
an
issue,
it's
just
excessive
to
to
try
and
apply
it
or
make
it
a
requirement
to
apply
it
when
we're
never
going
to
be
able
to
hit
that
number
anyway.
Q
F
Okay
colleen:
do
we
have
time
for
one
more
question
from
bill?
Okay,.
C
So
just
for
clarification
to
finish
the
previous
thing,
so
this
1.1
applies
in
rs.
E
B
All
right
building
height,
we
didn't
really
make
any
changes
here,
either
similar
to
setbacks.
What
we
did
do
in
the
rm
zone
is
our
medium
density
is
took
out
this
magic
data
of
december
1998.,
so
in
the
uar
rlrs
and
rm10
we're
still
at
30
feet
and
then
all
of
our
m
is
at
35
and
rh
remains
at
45.
B
M
So
my
question
has
to
do
with
affordable
housing,
and
this
a
little
bit
on
the
density
is
there
density
bonuses
above
those
heights
for
affordable
housing,
as
well
as
architectural
standards.
B
There
is
density
bonuses
for
the
height,
I
believe
it's
10
percent
right
lynn,.
D
B
You
good
question
okay,
so
again
this
only
applies
to
triplex's,
quads
and
townhomes.
This
was
scott's.
Suggestion
is
to
take
it
out
of
3.6
and
have
it
all
live
in
the
same
section
in
the
residential
chapter.
So
as
you
went
through
and
saw
it
3.6
under
the
townhomes
duplex
triplex
and
quadplex
sections,
you
don't
see
any
garage
or
front
door
standards
in
those
sections
anymore.
They
all
reside
here
and
these
are,
I
believe,
I
captured
the
discussion
and
what
the
group
voted
on.
C
B
All
right,
I'm
just
gonna,
keep
going
just
edits.
There
did
someone
say:
okay,
oh
this
was
just
talked
by
the
group
here
for
the
reducing
the
size
of
a
allocated
parking
spot
in
a
garage
to
nine
by
18..
You'll
see
this
in
two
parts
I
saw
mike's
hand
go
up
and
I
have
a
feeling.
I
know
what
matt's
hand
went
up
for
so
mike
you
can
go
first.
H
B
P
I
could
be
wrong.
That's
first,
I
was
gonna
just
clarify
that
this
this
standard
is
a
minimum,
so
somebody
could
make
a
bigger
garage
right
right.
Okay,.
F
B
Q
B
So
the
changes
from
the
exhibit
that
we
originally
reviewed-
and
I
talked
to
matt
about
it-
is
to
make
it
clear
that
these
areas,
which
are
gabled
areas,
do
not
count
towards
the
15
percent
that
roofs
don't
count
towards
the
15
percent.
B
That
posts
don't
count
towards
the
15
is
really
just
this
light
gray
area
that
counts
towards
the
15
and
so
15
of
this
light
gray
area
would
require
windows,
and
when
we
took
the
vote
on
that,
the
majority
supported
it.
We
just
cleaned
up
to
make
it
clear
of
what
counts
and
what
does
not
count.
F
J
If
that
precludes
meeting
this
15,
is
there
going
to
be
any
kind
of
exemption
for
meeting
engineering,
because
sometimes
you
can't
get
this
depending
on
the
wind
load?
I
know
we
don't
have
earthquakes
here,
but
my
experience
is
it's
difficult,
sometimes
to
make
something
like
this
calculate
out,
so
I'm
just
hoping
that
there
isn't
a
conflict
with
the
engineering
when
it
comes
to
this.
It's
not
like
your
whole
thing
would
be
blank.
It's
just
that.
B
Maybe
ethan
will
have
some
input
because
this
requirement
is
out
of
the
model
code,
so.
G
N
G
J
Yeah
is
that
scott
yeah,
so
that
that's
a
real
concern
now
I
understand
you're
saying
it's
in
the
model
code,
and
this
is
a
good
clarification
it's
better
than
it
was,
but
I
do
think
there
should
be
some
acknowledgement
that
we
have
engineering
to
deal
with,
and
I
see
audrey
has
her
hand
up
so
I'll,
be
quiet.
A
L
Thank
you.
This
is
ethan,
sorry
for
jumping
in
here.
The
15
really
was
something
that
is
actually
pretty
common
in
design
standards
for
kind
of
a
higher
level
middle
housing,
and
so
you
know
that
was
the
number
we
went
with
in
the
model
code.
If
it
doesn't
work
well,
then
you
can
go
elsewhere
and.
E
Q
Yeah
just
the
the
rest
of
my
comments,
so
I
wanted
to
check
pauline.
So
in
a
situation
where
I
mean
this
example
doesn't
show
it,
but
where
we
have
a
garage
door
on
the
front
and
that
significantly
increases
obviously
wall
face
area,
does
the
garage
door
count
or
can
we
get
clarification
that
that
the
garage
door
would
count
as
far
as
part
of
that
15
or
no.
Q
B
G
Q
Know
but
not
the
not
the
so
is
the
door
included
in
having
it
should
that
be
a
blue
area.
I
guess
is,
is
my
comments
because,
obviously
yeah
I
mean
you're,
you
don't
want
full
glass
garage
doors
in
a
lot
of
cases
for
privacy
and
security
and
all
that.
So
why
should
we
count
the
solid
surface
of
the
doors
as
part
of
that
area?
Calculation?
B
Q
Yeah,
because,
if
you're
counting
that
I
mean
that's
going
to
significantly
increase
the
amount
of
windows
and
doors
and
man
doors
that
you
have
to
have,
and
you
can't
put
those
in
a
garage
door,
area
or
oftentimes,
don't
want
to
due
to
security
and
safety
and
that
sort
of
thing.
So
in
my
opinion,
it
should
be
struck
from
the
the
calculation
so.
B
Q
Yeah
and
so
would
yeah.
Is
there
a
way
to
to
clarify
that
in
some
form
or
fashion?
I
guess
would
be
the
question
you
know
at
the
same
time
the
the
garage
wings
and
the
foot
or
two
above
the
garage
door,
not
that
it
adds
a
whole
lot
of
additional
wall
area.
But
you
can't
you
know
you're.
Those
aren't
areas
aren't
large
enough
to
throw
windows
in
anyways.
So
do
you
just
take
that
whole
garage
wall
face,
but
then,
depending
on
the
garage.
B
Now
I
went
wing
with
that
because
my
friend
had
this.
Q
B
Built
by
polish-
and
it
was
a
really
neat
garage
because
you
had
the
big
roll-up
garage
door
and
right
next
to
it,
was
a
window.
So
the
third
bay
actually
wasn't
a
roll-up
door.
It
just
had
a
window
yep.
B
E
B
Q
Q
We
have
the
communities
where
we
are
required.
You
know,
in
order
to
hit
our
glazing,
we
have
to
throw
glazing
in
our
garage
doors,
those
high
windows
and
whatnot,
and
then
homeowners
move
in
and
they
replace
them
or
they
black
them
out
or
they.
You
know,
I
mean
they.
It
basically
defeats
the
purpose
at
that
point,
and
I
don't
want
us
to
end
up
in
that
same
situation.
B
Okay,
thanks
matt,
we
need
to
keep
moving
so
scott
and
then
moe
and
then
I
understand
where
matt's
coming
from
on
this.
So
I'll
probably
make
that
change,
but
moey.
P
Yeah
maui
yeah
I'll
go
and
then,
and
then
scott,
maybe
I
was
gonna
say
I
I
would
not
support
excluding
the
garage
door
from
the
calculation,
because,
if
you
I
I
totally
get
where
you're
coming
from
from
you
know
the
people
inside
the
unit,
but
for
the
street
facing
aspect
of
it
I
mean
I
think
the
garage
does
create
so
much
of
a
you
know.
Typically,
it
creates
so
much
of
a
like
wall
that
that
I
wouldn't
necessarily
want
to
like
encourage
that
to
be
more
blank
than
it
already.
F
O
Yeah
yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
say
as
far
as
glazing
on
the
garage
door.
I
don't
think
I
don't
think
any
part
of
the
garage
door
should
be
able
to
count
as
glazing
just
because
if
it's
you
shouldn't,
have
something
that
development
code
mandates
or
or
regulates
that
you
don't
need
to
revisit
the
development
code
through
some
sort
of
permitting
process
to
change
out.
Since
you
don't
need
a
permit
to
change
a
garage
door,
you
have
what
was
mentioned
earlier.
People
just
can
change
it.
So
yeah.
Those.
D
O
A
separate
deal
anyways.
B
So
scott
just
make
sure
I
understand
you
you're
kind
of
in
line
with
what
matt
saying
is
that
the
garage
door
would
be
blue
because,
and
your
in
your
opinion,
is
it
can
be
changed
out
without
a
permit.
O
I
don't
think
a
garage
should
be
allowed.
I
don't
think
if
you
put
glazing
in
a
garage
door
that
should
be
allowed
as
part
of
your
window.
B
O
My
opinion,
I
think
it
should
be
gray,
I'm
I'm
not
I'm
not
a
fan
of
garages,
so
I
I
think
that
if
you
make
it,
if
you
make
it
blue,
then
you
have
a
little
bit
left
of
the
then
the
15
requirement,
the
windows
get
get
get
shrunk
and
it
just
becomes
more
about
a
garage
and
a
blank
wall.
So.
B
J
No,
it
should
be
blue.
I
agree
with
matt.
What
happens?
Is
the
garage
is
going
to
artificially
increase
that
15
when
really
we're
talking
about
the
windows
on
the
wall
of
the
building?
So
I
think
the
direction
you
were
going
in
initially
pauline
is
is
the
way
to
go.
In
my
opinion,
if
somebody
chooses
to
put
glass
in
their
garage
door
great,
but
if
you're,
not,
if
you're
going
to
make
it
blue,
then
don't
count
the
windows
in
the
garage
door
towards
that
window.
You
know
just
make
it
blue.
M
Corner,
thank
you
kathy,
I'm
with
pauline
and
kathy
on
this.
Otherwise
you're
going
to
have
a
whole
bunch
of
windows
that
will
take
you
away
from
the
40,
affordable
housing
issue.
Windows
are
very
expensive
and
it's
hard
to
get
them
right
now.
I
just
think
it's
a
bad
idea.
I
think
it
needs
to
be
blue.
Q
Q
P
Oops,
I
would
just
request
that
if
we
are
gonna
count
the
garage
doors
blue,
my
concern
would
be
that
you
know,
then
it
would
actually
be
encouraging
a
garage
door
facing
the
street,
because
then
you
have
to
put
in
less
windows,
and
you
know
I
understand
that
they
are
expensive
and
like
karna
mentioned
so,
is
there
any
way?
I
guess
well,
no
now
I'm
thinking
aloud
that
would
reduce
the
overall
amount
of
space.
So
if
the
15
would
be
smaller,
okay.
O
You
could
maybe
say
that
only
a
certain
amount
of
blue
can
be
attributed
to
the
garage
door
or
something
like
that
I
mean
I
I
kind
of
agree
with
what
I'm
always
saying.
I
think
it's
a
self-inflicted
wound.
O
Garage
doors
are
something
that
you
put
in
as
a
design
element
or
as
a
part
of
the
program
you
know,
city
doesn't
require
them
so
saying.
Well,
hey
I
put
this
garage
door
in
now.
I
can't
meet
these
other
requirements
you're,
making
things
unaffordable.
Well,
you
don't
necessarily
have
to
put
a
garage
in
so
that's.
B
O
M
E
B
Scott
and
maui,
just
because
you
know
how
I
feel
about
garages.
I
am
pleased,
though,
to
say
that
we
are
at
least
getting
a
window
requirement
that
we
don't
have
today.
B
We
don't
have
any
window
requirements
and
I
have
a
picture
if
I
was
to
flip
my
screen
over
to
my
powerpoint
again
and
show
you
a
fourplex
in
portland
that
has
not
one
window
on
the
front
and
so
to
know
that
that
building
would
actually
have
to
provide
15
window
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction
and
I
understand
where
you're
feeling
about
the
garage
doors.
But
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
win
for
everybody.
B
So
I
think
we're
just
going
to
go
to
a
vote
to
keep
the
windows
standard,
and
I
expect
everyone
to
support
the
windows
standard
when
we
get
to
public
hearings,
because
I
like
the
windows
standard,
but
to
make
garages
blue.
So
if
you're
in
support
of
making
garages
blue,
please
raise
your.
B
B
F
To
this,
and
then
just
quick
reminder,
while
pauline's
getting
situated
to
take
down
your
hand,
unless
you
have
a
new
question,.
B
B
Oh,
this
is
just
some
cleanup
clearance.
Yes,.
C
Just
on
on
that
parking
thing,
you
know
moe
kind
of
brought
this
up
and
we
breezed
over
it,
but
the
wording
in
there
is
confusing
when
it
says
maybe
9
by
18
feet.
Does
that
mean?
I
think
it
means
a
minimum,
but
you
know
may
is
like
granting
permission
it's.
I
don't
think
it's
clear.
B
Lots
of
changes
in
chapter
2.7,
colin
and
myself
met
with
dlcd
ethan
to
go
over
what
is
really
required
for
these
existing
master
plans.
Those
are
changes
that
you
see
throughout
this
whole
chapter
of
2.7.
B
What
I
do
want
to
highlight,
though,
is
these
editions
here,
and
this
is
out
of
the
oregon
administrative
rules
and
my
understanding
talking
with
ethan,
that
any
of
the
master
plans
are
adopted
before
january.
1St
of
2021
may
allow
a
net
residential
density
of
at
least
eight
july
units
per
acre.
B
Some
of
them
have
caps,
those
caps
have
been
removed,
and
then
they
may
allow
eight
we're
not
saying
you
have
to
allow
eight
dwelling
units
per
acre,
but
if,
for
some
reason
they
want
to
up
their
density
in
these
existing
master
plans,
they
can
to
eight,
and
then
this
second
part
is
my
understanding
that
once
a
master
plan
has
been
developed
a
lot
or
parcel,
and
someone
wants
to
come
in
like
10
years
down
the
road
and
either
make
it
a
duplex
or
a
triplex
which
may
not
have
been
permitted
in
that
master
plan.
B
B
J
B
B
Yeah
but
we
can
go
back
to
that
kathy.
Any
other
comments.
B
Okay,
so
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
each
of
these
master
plans.
Do
you
know
that
we've
reached
out
to
some
of
the
applicants
that
were
part
of
these
master
plans
like
dale,
with
brooks
resources
joey
with
polish
tia,
with
some
of
them
these?
They
were
applicants
so
because
they
paid
and
put
these
master
plans
in
the
code.
We
just
thought
for
them
to
know.
The
changes
that
are
being
proposed
within
their
master
plans,
keep
them
apprised
of
the
changes
so
that
they're
not
surprised.
P
I
know
in
discovery
west
there's
going
to
be
like
some
live
work,
town
homes.
Yes,
they
were
thinking
that
would
be
the
only
place
where
people
could
have
a
short-term
rental.
But
since
it's
a
town
home
and
not
a
plex,
well,
I
guess
it
doesn't
yeah.
It's.
B
B
Okay,
so
check
the
the
discovery
west
edits,
okay
and
then
we
also
said
in
that
particular
one
that
those
live
work
townhomes,
don't
have
to
front
a
street
similar
to
how
petrosa
and
maybe
easton's
master
plans.
They
may
open
up
to
open
space
versus
onto
a
public
street.
So.
D
P
B
H
Some
of
the
citing
standards
are
much
different
from
the
siding
standards
that
we're
setting,
let's
say
into
in
section
2.1,
so
right.
That's
why
it's
okay,
then
to
not
change
the
standards
in
these
overlays
to
be
consistent
throughout
the
town
throughout
the
southwest.
It's
the
clarification,
I'm
not
saying.
B
This
part
that
we
just
went
over
mike
at
the
very
beginning
of
2.7
and
out
of
the
oregon
administrative
rules.
There's
these
dates
so
january
1st.
If
you
have
an
existing
master
plan,
you're
not
required
to
change
it.
The
only
thing
you
are
required
to
do
is
to
allow
at
least
eight
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
then
in
the
future.
B
When
those
lots
are
developed
and
redeveloped,
then
they
have
to
allow
the
types
of
units
other
than
that
we
weren't
required
to
make
any
changes,
except
if
quadflexes
were
considered
multifamily.
I
did
go
in
and
clarify
that
quadplexes
are
now
in
a
loud
use,
because
if
we
didn't,
then
they
would
only
they
would
never
have
a
way
to
get
to
four
units,
because
multifamily
is
now
defined
for
five
and
a
and
then
triplex
is
up
to
three.
So
there's
no.
H
H
E
B
And,
like
I
said,
we've
talked
to
the
applicants
on
all
these
master
plans,
so
they're
aware
of
the
changes,
especially
treating
duplexes
the
same
as
single
family
dwelling
units,
which
many
of
the
master
plans
did
not
do,
and
we
did
have
to
require
that
sorry,
it's
like
a
lot
of
the
document,
all
right.
So
now
we
are
in
chapter
3.1,
I'm
just
going
to
the
highlighted
sections
recognizing
we
have
about
a
half
hour
left
okay
parking,
as
many
of
you
probably
saw.
We
had
our
council
work
session.
B
B
It
was
the
two
spaces
per
development
in
the
rl
and
then
all
of
those
zoning
districts
was
one
space
per
development
and
then
townhomes
is
one
space
per
dwelling
unit,
and
then
we
refer
them
on
to
chapter
3.8,
because
that
is
where
the
cottage
clusters
live,
as
well
as
cottage
housing
and
other
types
of
housing
developments
which
have
their
own
parking
requirements.
I
see
sarah's
hand.
K
B
Yes,
okay,
I
think
it's
right
below
this
chart.
It
would
actually
live
unless
it
would
be
right
below
the
parking
table.
B
B
So
it's
not
in
this
draft
because
we're
not
making
any
changes
to
it.
What
you
want
to
look
at
is
in
chapter
3.3
a
and
then
I
be
it's
either
a
or
b,
and
then
you
go
there's
this
long
table
of
parking
standards
that
looks
like
this
right
below
the
table
in
the
development
code.
You
will
see
the
standard
for
the
on-street
parking
credit.
K
February,
17th,
okay,
I
will
re-listen
to
those
minutes.
Okay,
thank
you.
E
F
H
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
be
sure
I
I
know
several
meetings
ago.
We,
you
said
you
were
a
table
parking
and
bring
it
up
at
the
council
in
a
work
session.
I
listened
very
closely
to
the
live
session
and
I've
looked
at
the
recording
several
times.
H
You
have
made
a
point
here
that
you
showed
to
council,
but
the
other
shoe
didn't
drop.
There
was
no
actual
feedback
from
the
council
one
way
or
another
on
whether
they
had
an
opinion
on
this.
So
I
guess
are
you
assuming
that,
because
they
didn't
say
anything
they're,
okay
with
this
or,
let's
just
say,
you're,
just
giving
this
as
an
fyi.
F
Hey
guys,
I
think
jenna
joined
us
and
so
jenna.
I
don't
know
if
you're
even
listening
to
all
this,
but
just
because
we
have
a
counselor
on
the
line.
G
B
Jenna
we
at
the
work
session,
I
showed
the
table
for
duplexes
triplexes,
quadplexes
townhomes
and
the
cottage
clusters,
so
basically
that
the
proposed
parking
requirements
for
the
middle
housing
for
house
bill,
2001.
N
G
Well,
I
think
there
was
going
to
be
more
discussion
in
the
community
building
sub
committee,
specifically
around
parking,
and
we
didn't
want
to
get
this
on.
You
know
this,
which
was
kind
of
like
you
know,
moving
forward
mixed
up
with
our
later
discussion
in
the
work
session
on
parking,
but
I
I
you
know
I
I
think
everybody
had
was
kind
of
like
you
know,
keyed
into
that
to
the
parking
aspect
of
the
of
that
table.
G
O
Yeah,
I
was
kind
of
wondering
you
know
when
we
went
through
this
and
we
would
go
through
duplexes.
O
O
It
was,
it
was
a.
It
was
one
by
one
vote.
I
believe,
and
there
were
people
missing
during
that
meeting,
because
I
remember
thinking
wow.
If,
if,
if
x,
person
was
gone
or
x,
person
was
here
and
it
just
seemed-
I
I
don't
really
know
how
that
happened.
I
I
don't
understand
why,
because
I
think
I
think
it
we're
talking
about
affordability
and
we're
talking
about
what
type
of
developments
and
giving
design
options
and
all
that
things
all
that
stuff
having
one
type
of
development,
not
account
for
any
type
of
on-street
parking.
B
B
Only
one
in
the
city
really
that
will
not
get
a
credit,
and
that
is
something
the
majority
did
vote
on.
I
know,
maybe
it
wasn't.
B
It
was
the
majority
so
and
we're
not
I'm
not
proposing
to
change
any
of
the
parking
requirements.
I
think
this
one
was
presented
to
council
as
what
is
moving
forward.
I
didn't
hear
from
the
council
to
make
changes
and
then
just
go
through
the
process
and,
like
she
said,
we'll
probably
be
meeting
with
the
community
building
subcommittee,
I'm
not
sure
when
they
are
actually
starting
to
meet.
If
it's
going
to
be
ahead
of
the
public
hearings
or
prior
to
so
I
need
to
find
out
more
information
on
that
any
other.
G
B
I
will
double
check
that
you
attach
town
home
no
on
street
parking.
That
does
not
sound
familiar
to
me,
but
I
will
double.
I
will
listen
to
the
minutes
again
from
the
february
17th
meeting.
I
recall
what
scott
said
and
it
just
applied
to
the
cottage
cluster
development,
but
I'll
double
check
that
for
sure
cathy.
J
Yes,
hi
matt
just
provided
a
table
for
his
zoning
summary,
and
it
appears
to
me
that
they're,
just
under
11
units
to
the
acre
unless
I've
met
unless
I've
calculated
that
wrong.
And
that's
why
I'm
saying
eight
seems
low.
J
So
as
long
as
they
could
go
more
if
they
chose
to
is
the
thing,
because
I
think
petros
is
a
great
example
of
where
we
should
be
going
in
terms
of
the
mix
of
unit
types
and
if
they're
at
almost
11
units,
the
acre,
it
just
seems
like
we
don't
want
to
limit
these
other
plans
to
eight
units
sneaker.
If,
if
they
chose
to
go
higher,
I'm
not
saying
anybody
asking
them
to
go.
N
B
Here
on
the
screen,
it
says,
may
allow
a
net
residential
density
of
at
least
eight
dwelling
units,
at
least
okay.
They
can
go
higher
and
really
the
comp
plan
policies
are
pretty
specific
on
the
mix
of
housing,
types
that
are
provided
and
percentages
and
we
removed
density
caps
for
some
of
those
uses
too,
so
they
they
can
go
eight
or
higher
if
they
wanted
to
okay.
Thank
you,
paulie!
Oh
no
problem,
so
I'm
going
to
go
down
because
we
are
going
to
finish
today.
B
Working
okay,
that's
the
same
thing.
Okay,
so
this
is
chapter
3.6,
where
bill
has
his
hand
up
bill.
C
Yeah,
I
was
a
little
surprised,
I
guess,
to
see
this
change
in
in
the
square
footage
maximums
for
adus.
I
I
don't
remember
discussing
it.
I
I
don't
see
how
it's
connected
to
hp
2001..
I
don't
know
if
I'm
for
it
or
against
it,
but
I
was
surprised
to
see
it
here.
B
This
and
the
reason
being
is
that
we
allow
now
a
duplex
on
every
single
lot
that
allows
a
single
family
dwelling.
So
why
restrict
a
adu
to
a
certain
size
based
on
their
lot
size
if
they
can
just
do
a
duplex
of
any
size,
and
so
the
thought
was
being
still
accessory
to
the
primary
dwelling.
So,
instead
of
limiting
it
to
600
on
a
6
000
square
foot
lot
do
the
800,
regardless
of
the
lot
size,
because
you
can
do
a
duplex
now
on
a
4
000
square
for
lot.
F
C
You're
right
that
cottages
have
a
footprint
maximum
of
900
square
feet,
but
hp
2001
doesn't
address
adus
at
all
with
respect
to
middle
housing.
So
again
I
don't
know
if
I'm
opposed
or
in
favor
of
it,
but
but
it
does
sort
of
beg
a
question.
The
question
you
know
I
know
where
did
800
come
from?
Why
should
that
be
the
maximum?
B
I
think
in
2016
we
updated
the
code
to
even
push
from
six
to
eight
hundred,
and
that
was
challenging
back
then
to
get
to
800..
I
think
the
thought
is
that
they
are
accessories,
so
they
don't
have
parking
requirements
which
now
duplexes
don't
won't
either
if
that
gets
approved,
and
then
there's
a
reduction
in
fees,
because
the
idea
is
that
they
are
smaller
unit.
B
Duplexes
fees
are
higher.
I
believe
the
other
one
is
sidewalks.
I
don't
believe
adus,
because
they
are
small
in
scale,
don't
require
sidewalks,
where
duplex
does
have
to
put
it
in
if
it's
within
600
feet.
So
there
are
some
bonuses.
I
guess
you
would
say
by
doing
an
adu,
you
just
are
building
on
a
smaller
scale
versus
a
large
duplex.
E
J
Yeah,
I
would
just
I
thank
you
mike
for
pointing
that
out,
because
honestly
800
is
a
weird
size.
Honestly,
900
works
really
well
for
a
two-bedroom
and
800
is
not
quite
big
enough
to
fit
two
bedrooms,
but
it's
awfully
large
for
being
one
bedroom,
and
so
if,
if
there
was
the
ability
to
go
to
900,
it
would
be
a
lot
easier
to
design
for
just
putting
it
out
there.
B
B
Going
to
keep
moving,
affordable
housing,
I
think
we
all
remember
talking
for
those
of
you
at
the
meeting
that
the
multi-unit,
affordable,
housing,
deed
restricted,
is
no
maximum
density.
So
now
the
density
bonuses
for
affordable
housing
that
would
apply
to
single
family,
detached
dwellings,
middle
housing,
cottage
development,
housing
and
manufactured
homes.
So
if
a
developer
chose
to
do
a
certain
amount
of
affordable
units,
then
they
get
this
density
bonus
but
they're
still
subject
to
what.
B
You
yeah
that's
the
type
of
stuff,
I'm
looking
for.
Thank
you,
lynn
and
then
parking.
You
may
recall.
We
talked
about
parking
reductions
specifically
for
developments
that
are
for
special
population
or
senior
developments,
and
then
we
added
definitions
for
special
population
and
senior
developments,
and
then
the
parking
here
would
go
from
one
down
to
0.5
per
unit.
B
B
K
B
B
Oh
ethan
you're
still
here
so
I
understand
the
duplex
part,
but
for
the
rest
of
the
well
be
triplex's
quadplexes
weren't,
subject
to
these
standards.
To
begin
with,
is
storage
requirements
considered
a
sighting
or
design
standard
street
trees?
What
else.
B
L
So
that's
a
good
question,
so
these
are
things
that
likely
fall
into
like
a
design
standard
type
definition,
so
the
city
certainly
can
have
standards
that
you
know
protect
trees
or
require
storage
areas
or
anything
like
that.
The
city
would
have
to
go
through
the
alternative,
signing
and
design
process.
Basically,
just
saying
that
the
you
know
balancing
those
additional
potential
costs
of
providing
those
things
with
the
overall
intended
public
benefit
of
the
public
good
that
it
achieves,
and
just
basically
making
the
case
that
those
are
still
reasonable.
E
C
E
C
E
B
B
I
gotta
I'll
revisit
that,
so
they
got
four
driveway
approaches
just
like
this.
One
have
three,
but
the
the
total
of
the
four
approaches
cannot
exceed
32.
B
O
You
you
could
have
a
driveway,
that's
shared
for
a
little
while,
like
if
the
drive,
if
the
garage
is
in
the
back
or
something
like
that
and
where
there's
shared
driveways
between
two
units
between
two
or
two
separate
kind
of
developments
and
then
there's
garages
in
the
back.
So
that's
probably
what
that
is.
J
Q
Just
wanted
to
to
clarify
that
question
that,
on
that
driveway
width,
we
had
pushed
for
more
than
32
but
were
rejected
at
the
city
level
going
any
wider
than
that.
Q
So
we
had
hoped
to
get
that
into
something
that
was
workable
to
to
be
all
for.
You
know
so
that
you
didn't
have
to,
for
example,
start
and
then
meander
over
or
something
like
that,
but
we
were
not
allowed
to
do
that.
32
is
as
much
as
as
we
were
able
to
get
approved.
So
that's
why
we
went
with
32
in
petrosa.
J
N
I
have
a
an
eight
foot
entry
that
opens
on
to
a
40-foot
driveway
and
I
can
park
five
cars
there.
So
the
the
entryway
doesn't
have
any
any
drawback
to
the
to
what
you
can
do
with
the
the
parking
spaces
after
you
go
through
the
the
entryway
on
the
street.
B
I
just
want
to
keep
going
to
see
what
else
we
have
left.
I
don't
feel
like
it's
a
lot
and
then
there's
one
other
thing
I
need
to
address.
If
we
have
time
so
temporary
housing,
I
think
we
all
know
the
council
gave
us
direction
to
require
no
parking
minimums
for
temporary
housing.
That's
why
you
see
this
here
and
then,
oh,
I
think
we
do
so
shared
quartz
is
moving
out
of
the
infill
section
and
into
just
a
regular
type
of
alternative
development
type.
B
C
B
So
we're
treating
duplexes
and
single
family
dwelling
units
the
same,
and
this
is
alternative
site
development
standards.
So
there's
the
option
to
go
with
the
regular
development
standards
where
duplexes
are
exempt.
However,
if
you'd
like
to
go
on
a
much
smaller
lot,
1500
square
feet
instead
of
4
000,
you
can
do
this
alternative
development
and
then
you
are
limited
to
how
large
the
unit
can
be
and
we
calculate
density
differently.
So,
in
order
to
calculate
density
differently,
you
have
to
have
maximums,
and
I've
ran
this
by
ethan
too.
B
Oh
and
then
one
thing
on
here
too,
I
struck
out
something
by
accident
and
I
shouldn't
have
where
the
on-street
parking
spaces
for
small
dwelling
unit
developments.
We
never
talked
about
it
that
wasn't
proposed
to
be
changed,
not
sure
why
it
was
struck
out.
So
I
unstruck
it
for
better
term
t
quartz,
that's
existing
just
took
out
the
flurry
ratio
requirement
reference
because
that's
gone
shared
quartz
like
I
said
we
relocated
it
to
just
a
3.8
development
alternative.
So
I'm
going
to
scroll
through
that
really
fast.
B
Courtyards,
oh
because
courtyards
is
a
single
family
development.
We
had
to
add
it
to
low
density
residential
district
as
well.
Today
it's
conditional
use
permit,
but
it's
a
house
and
we
allow
them
everywhere.
So
we
added
it
there
and
you
have
to
allow
duplexes
there
too,
outright
permitted
bill.
C
Yeah,
I
have
a
couple
of
statements
here
that
haven't
sort
of
fit
anywhere
else,
because
we
breezed
over
definitions.
Why
can't?
Why?
Don't
we
just
call
town
homes,
town
homes
and
not
single
unit
attached,
parenthesis?
Townhome,
it
just
seems
unnecessarily
wordy
and
confusing,
and
the
other
thing
is.
C
I
find
it
consistently
confusing
now
to
distinguish
between
courthouse
courtyard
dwelling
unit
developments
or
I'm
sorry,
cottage
housing,
developments
and
cottage
cluster
developments,
and
I
would
propos.
I
would
propose
that
we
renamed
the
original
existing
cottage
housing
development
as
a
bungalow
court.
That's
what
they
were
originally
called
in
pasadena,
which
is
where
the
concept
developed.
C
If
you
google,
the
term
it's
used
interchangeably
with
cottage
court
or
you
know
cottage
cluster,
since
the
state
has
appropriated
the
term
cottage
cluster,
it
just
seems
like
it
would
be
clearer
for
everybody
going
forward
to
have
a
different
name.
So
just
a
proposal.
It's
not
a
major
issue,
but
but
I
I
just
it's
just
confusing
and
I
think
it's
going
to
cause
more
confusion,
confusion
going
forward.
B
Okay,
I'll
look
into
that
see
how
much
time
I
have
to
devote
to
making
those
changes
throughout
the
code,
but
I
will
definitely
look
into
that.
I
agree
it
is
confusing
for
sure
and
then
townhomes
good
question.
I
will
look
into
that
as
well.
I'm
gonna
keep
going
just
because
we
have
we're
on
time.
I'm
hoping
you
can
hang
in
with
me
for
at
least
10
more
minutes.
B
I
understand
if
you
can't,
we
did
courtyard
cottage
clusters
just
seeing
if
there's
any
other
changes
to
cottage
clusters,
I
did
clean
up
after
the
planners.
I
told
you
I
sent
out
for
the
review.
It
was
very
repetitive
when
we
were
talking
about
the
lot
sizes
and
dimensions,
and
then
I
talked
about
dimensions
again.
B
So
when
you
see
the
next
draft
go
out,
you'll
see
the
same
information
is
there,
but
it
is
just
not
repetitive
and
cleaned
up
the
same
requirements,
so
I
just
want
to
highlight
that
that's
been
cleaned
up
bill
and
then
jesse.
C
So,
on
the
top
of
page
88,
it
says
there
has
to
be
six
feet
between
building
footprints
on
cottage
clusters.
I
went
back
and
looked
on
on
the
cottage
housing
developments.
It
has
to
be
six
feet
between
eaves
and
I
don't
I
don't
know
what
it
should
be,
but
that
seems
inconsistent
and
weird.
B
C
B
If
this
is
more
flexible,
I'll
probably
move
it
over
to
the
cottage
developments
too,
which
I
think
it
is.
I
think
we
all
talked
about
that.
B
Okay,
then
I'll
move
it
over.
Let's
go
with
jesse,
then
matt.
D
Pauline
I
just
have
a
question
on
the
rl
zoning
and
the
minimum,
the
minimum
outside
of
ten
thousand
square
feet.
It
seems
like
when
you
sent
me
that
one
section
of
the
code,
though
it
also
said,
if
they're
on
their
own
lot,
then
it's
so.
I
guess
my
question
is:
if
you
have,
if
you
were
subdividing
a
lot,
that
was
say,
forty
thousand
square
feet,
you'd
have
four
ten
thousand
square
foot
lots
and
then
you'd
have.
I
don't
know
how
many
say:
five,
five
cottages
on
those
lots.
D
Those
would
all
then
have
to
be
sold
together
and
and
rented,
but
was
there
also
something
in
there?
That
said,
if
they're
on
their
own
individual
lots,
then
that's
right.
B
You're
on
the
right
track,
and
it's
just
like
the
other
ones
that
we
do
the
cottage
developments,
but
it's
in
number
one
and
number
two
under
e.
D
Q
Yeah
quick
question:
this
is
something
that
that
came
to
me
from
an
outside
source
here
over.
On
my
end,
so
quick
question
on
the
the
the
triplex
quad
plex
and
townhomes
design
standard.
I
know
we
removed
duplexes
because
duplexes
have
to
be
treated
same
as
single
family.
So
how
does
that
work
with
townhomes?
Because
a
town
home
is
basically
attached
single
family?
So
if
we
can't
apply
it
to
duplexes,
how
can
we
apply
it
to
other
single
family
in
the
terms
of
town
homes.
B
And
ethan,
if
he's
still
here,
can
correct
me,
but
the
way
the
administrative
rules
are
written
in
the
bill.
It's
just
very
clear
that
duplexes
have
to
be
treated
the
same
as
I
believe
it's
single
family
detached
and
then
town
homes
were
allowed
to
be
treated
just
like
triplex's
and
quadplexes
differently.
L
Yeah
pauline-
I
can
jump
in
here
so
you're,
you're
right,
the
the
actual
language
of
hospital
2001,
specifically
talks
about
single-family
detached
homes
and
how
that
is
kind
of
the
trigger
or
the
threshold
for
allowances,
and
how
this
is
all
what
this
is
all
based
on
and
then
you
know
kind
of
two
other
points
there.
The
duplex
requirement
is
that
it's
allowed
on
every
single
lot
and
parcel
where
single
family
detached
is
allowed
other
middle
housing
types.
L
B
B
Maybe
okay,
now
it's
down
okay,
so
we've
reviewed
pretty
thoroughly
these
the
cottage
clusters.
So
if
you
have
other
comments,
as
I
scroll
through
just
let
me
know,
but
I'm
just
going
to
keep
scrolling
for
the
sake
of
everyone's
time.
B
Okay
still
cottage
cottage!
Sorry,
if
this
is
making
you
dizzy,
okay
share
quartz.
So
this
is
what
used
to
be
limited
to
1.1
units
allowed
different
uses,
but
it
was
really
truly
for
infill,
where
this
is
no
longer
considered
infill,
it
can
be
on
any
size,
parent
site.
B
The
uses
would
be
townhomes
and
adus
and
then
basically
the
same
standards
that
we
had
before
with
a
little
bit
more
flexibility,
which
I
think
I
highlighted
exceptions
to
the
front
doors
when
you
buy
an
arterial
street
or
we
talked
about
when
the
development
site
frontage
is
75,
feet
or
less,
and
then
there
was
one
other
one,
oh,
that
you
may
actually
have
a
wall
in
your
front
setback.
E
B
Oh
this
is
we
talked
about
how
I
think
we
did
I'm
adding
changes.
This
was
asked
by
planning
commission,
I
believe
the
city
council
2
and
the
nla
to
look
into
requiring
our
mailed
notices
to
not
only
the
property
owner,
but
also
to
the
property
address.
So
I've
been
working
with
our
I.t
department,
just
trying
to
figure
out
a
system
for
us
to
do
be
able
to
do
this,
we're
still
looking
into
it,
but
I
do
think
we
are
going
to
be
able
to
do
it.
B
So
I've
added
the
language
that
requires
the
notices
to
also
go
to
the
current
address
and
then
oh
and
then
in
the
same
chapter,
will
be
that
one
requirement
that
we
talked
about
on
the
powerpoint
of
the
public
meetings
being
good
for
six
months
and
then
chapter
4.2.
This
is
how
we
process
single-family
detached
duplexes,
triplexes
well,
duplex
is
in
single
family
and
80
use
today,
but
with
the
house
bill
2001,
we
have
to
also
process
triplex's,
quadplexes
and
cottage
cluster
developments.
B
The
way
we
process
single
family
and
duplexes
what
we
call
type
one
minimum
development
standards
review.
There
is
some
approval
criteria
when
sidewalks
are
required
when
they're
not
required,
whereas
today
a
triplex
would
normally
have
to
always
put
in
sidewalks
and
quadplexes.
Now
they
will
not
have
to
only
if
they're
sidewalks
within
600
feet
and
let's
see,
if
there's
anything
else.
B
No,
that
was
it.
So
I
am
available
sorry-
and
I
really
appreciate
getting
through
all
this
today
and
I
do
apologize
for
having
to
rush
through
this,
but
it's
important
that
we
have
several
weeks
in
may
to
be
able
to
let
other
people
review.
This
final
draft
and
they'll
still
be
changes,
of
course,
based
on
feedback
and
planning,
commission
work
sessions
and
public
hearings.
B
But
this
is
the
draft
that
I
will
make
the
changes
that
we
talked
about
today
and
get
it
out
for
to
the
interested
parties
to
review,
but
I
do
have
time
until
about
3
30.
If
anyone
wants
to
stick
on.
If
you
have
questions,
I
won't
make
any
changes,
because
the
group
won't
be
here,
but
if
anybody
has
questions
or
anything,
I
can
definitely
stay
on
for
a
little
bit
longer
and
answer
any
questions
you
may
have,
because
we
went
through
it
so
quickly.
Just
no
changes
would
take
place.
B
So
I
want
to
thank
you
all
for
your
time.
If
you
have
to
go,
I
totally
understand
and
then
next
week,
probably
monday
or
tuesday,
you
will
be
seeing
the
draft
go
out
and
you
will
be
included
on
the
list
of
people
for
your
review.
F
Pauline
I
have
to
drop
off,
unfortunately,
but
did
want
to
reiterate
that,
thanks
to
this
group,
it's
been
an
incredible
amount
of
time
that
you
all
have
dedicated
to
this
work
and
just
really
really
appreciate
the
good
discussion
and
and
differing
views,
even
though
that
was
hard
at
times.
Just
I
think
that's
how
we
get
a
good
product
in
the
end,
and
so
just
really
a
lot
of
appreciation
for
this
group.
Thank
you
for
all
you've
done.
B
Yes,
lynn,
definitely
bill.
C
Is
it
okay
to
send
you
an
email
with
some
other
like
edits
just
like
typos,
and
you
know
where
you
didn't
catch
word
changes
and
that
sort
of
thing.
B
Okay,
well,
if
you
do
have
to
go,
thank
you
again
for
all
the
meetings
that
we've
had.
I
believe
10
to
go
over
this,
and
I
appreciate
it
when
I
send
out
the
draft
feel
free
to
share
it
with
people,
so
that
the
more
eyes
are
on
it
to
provide
high
level
feedback
and
comments
on
it
and
just
to
get
it
out
there.
So
people
are
aware
of
the
potential
changes
that
are
coming
their
way.
B
Q
Pauline
I
got
some
separate
after
meeting
follow-up
questions
for
you
here.
E
F
B
Did
you
all
right,
matt
I'll,
stop
recording
too
hold
on
real
fast.