►
From YouTube: 2/17/2021 HB 2001 Stakeholder Advisory Group 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
Matt
and
sorry
I
forgot
to
record
so
I
just
hit
the
record
button,
so
everyone
knows
I
am
now
recording
the
only
ones
that
would
have
to
front
the
street
just
the
front
units.
So
these
one
back
here
just
the
front
right.
These
two.
B
I
mean,
I
still,
I
think,
the
flexibility
to
do
either
or
still
makes
sense.
I
mean,
even
if
you
didn't,
have
the
front
door
on
those
units,
it's
obvious
where
the
main
access
for
all
those
units
is
so
you
could
still
easily
find
the
front
door
and
the
biggest
issue
with
having
the
front
door
out.
There
is,
if
that's
a
major
street
or
a
street
with
lots
of
traffic.
You
know
it
might
be
a
sales
issue.
B
Someone
may
not
want
their
front
door
facing
the
major
right-of-way
where
there's
more
traffic
and
it
might
make
more
sense
to
take
it
off
of
the
the
interior
private
drive.
A
And
that's
a
good
discussion
for
the
group,
I
would
say,
then
a
majority
of
our
developers
will
just
front
to
the
internal
access
drive
and
I
worried
too
about
these
being.
A
You
know,
in
between
residential
developments
that
have
been
there,
where
their
front
doors
all
face
the
street
and
then
again
we're
just
seeing
the
side
of
buildings
because
developers
are
going
to
possibly
just
you
know,
put
the
same
unit
facing
internal
to
the
the
because
I
mean
technically
then
on
these
front
two
white
ones.
It
could
be
the
back
of
the
building
and
I
don't.
I
don't
know
that
that
really
creates
a
great
streetscape.
And
I
know
I'm
inserting
my
opinion
a
little
bit
too
much.
But.
A
Applications
submitted
where
we
call
them
kind
of
cheap
and
cheerful
yeah.
B
Necessarily
I
mean
maybe
it's
just
maybe
it's
a
comment
either
fronting
or
90
degrees
to
the
street,
so
that
we
know
that
that's
not
going
to
be
the
back
or
some
creative
language
like
that.
Possibly.
D
Just
a
quick
thought
on
the
fire
part,
maybe
that
150
foot
length
could
start
at
past
some
other
access
area
so
like
if
you
have
one
where
the
shared
drive
either
has
a
turnaround
built
into
it
at
some
point,
but
any
part
beyond
that
is
where
the
150
starts.
Instead
of
at
the
right-of-way.
A
D
D
Yeah
and
I
do
like
the
idea
of
a
little
bit
of
flexibility
with
the
front
or
I
see
what
you
mean
as
far
as
the
having
you
don't
want
back
sides
and
just
sides
of
buildings,
but
maybe
even
that
you
know
one
of
them
or
the
most
prominent
or
something
not
most
prominent.
That's.
D
Maybe
one
of
them
has
to
front
the
street
if
any,
but
allow
some
flexibility,
because
there
should
be
a
pretty
obvious
street,
whether
it's
a
shared
driveway
or
not,
yeah,
just
not
that
everyone
that
is
on
frontage
has
to
go
to
the
street
anyway,
two
cents.
C
Thank
you
audrey
mike
and
then
kathy
austin.
E
E
I
see
the
projects
that
polish
is
involved
with,
I
actually
drove
by
the
project
you
this
morning,
the
project
you
had
up
on
your
screen
and
I
also
drove
by
a
three-story
townhouse
project
off
of
empire,
just
to
get
a
feel
for
what
these
look
like
in
real
life
up
close
and
then
I
look
back
at
audrey's
challenge
and
I
there's
kind
of
two
questions
one,
I
kind
of
want
to
know
what
she
ended
up.
Trying
to
do
and
the
other
is
we
have,
as
I
think
kathy
mentioned.
E
Last
week
we
have
very
few
vacant,
lots
left,
infill,
lots
and,
unfortunately
they're
the
dogs,
so
the
ones
that
have
become
very
hard
to
sight
plan
around,
and
I
can't
help
but
wonder,
are
we
trying
to
make
this
so
difficult
by
trying
to
make
sure
every
single
vacant
lot?
No
matter
what
the
frontage
is,
the
topographies
work
for
every
one
of
the
wide
variety
of
housing
uses
so
and
then
we
adopt
a
code
that
makes
the
exception
work.
E
Then
we
apply
that
code,
though,
to
all
the
development
projects
that
matt
that
polish
do
day
in
and
day
out,
it
just
seems
like
we're.
Trying
to
do
one
size
fits
all,
and
is
that
making
this
code
so
watered
down
that
you
can
just
about
do
anything
you
want
so
audrey.
What's
your
solution.
A
Well,
I'm
gonna
jump
in
on
that
one.
I
agree
mike
the
intent
of
proposing
this
shared
court
is
to
provide
as
much
flexibility
as
possible.
So
that's
right,
I'm
just
getting
to.
Can
we
have
a
front
door
face
the
street,
I'm
we're
gonna
propose
you
know
a
narrow
drive
of
24
feet.
I'm
gonna
propose
exceeding
150
feet
with
the
fire
and
the
engineering
department,
I'm
proposing
no
minimum
lot
sizes,
I'm
just
almost
begging
to
say.
A
Is
there
a
way
we
can
have
a
front
or
face
the
street
so
that
it
just
carries
on
the
streetscape
that
is
potentially
in
most
cases
already
there
and
we
are
starting
to
see
applications
come
in
where
I
I
hear,
there's
a
lot
of
not
a
lot
of
infill
development
available.
A
F
A
F
G
Yeah
this,
this
is
all
parking
in
front
of
those
units.
It's
a
parking
lot
correct
where
you're
on
both
sides,
it's
a
double
loaded
parking
lot.
The
the
street
dead
ends
when
it
hits
the
parking
lot,
so
it's
actually,
but
they
are
facing.
As
you
drive
into
the
development,
you
are
seeing
the
front
of
the
units.
Those
five
units
face,
frontwards.
A
Remember
we
still
have
to
get
to
cottage
clusters.
So
when
you
look
at
this
development
in
its
entirety,
it
reminds
me
more
of
a
cluster,
even
though
they're
attached
versus
a
you
know
your
standard,
townhome
development.
A
Right-
and
we
can
make
it
very
clear
too
that,
because
the
parent
parcel
again
has
frontage
it's
just
saying:
if
the,
if
the
units
front
onto
a
street,
face
the
street,
then
they
have
to
have
a
front
door
facing
the
street.
G
Thank
you,
lynn,
and
I
apologize.
I
was
on
a
conference
listening
to
stacey
abrams
and
I
couldn't
break
myself
away
to
be
here
on
time.
So
my
apologies,
so
a
question
regarding
the
front
doors
facing
the
street
pauline.
I
had
sent
you
long
ago,
a
tea
court
type
of
design
that
I
had
where
the
sides
of
the
units
were
facing
the
street,
but
there
was
a
lot
of
art
architectural
articulation,
and
I
know
this
isn't
a
t
cork.
So
I'm
just
wondering
in
the
t
court
are
the
doors
required
to
face
the
public
street.
A
A
G
Well,
I
understand
your
goal,
but
I
do
think
it's
a
little
difficult
to
have
the
front
door
face
the
street
in
all
circumstances.
G
Perhaps
there
could
be
language
similar
to
what
we
had
some
time
before
about
diagonal.
You
know
being
at
a
45
degree
to
the
street,
so
it's
both
facing
the
the
new
driveway
as
well
as
the
public
street,
or
some
language
about
architectural
articulation,
windows,
overhangs
porches,
something
like,
for
instance,
this
one
that
the
doors
are
not
facing
the
side
they're
facing
the
interior
driveway
of
what
you're
showing
right
now,
and
yet
it's
very
clear
where
the
doors
are.
G
So
I
think
there
that
I
appreciate
that
already
we
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
flexibility,
but
I
do
think
just
a
little
bit
more
flexibility
regarding
the
door
orientation
either
being
facing
the
street
or
45
degrees
to
the
street
or
providing
significant
architectural
articulation
to
the
street,
such
as
a
wrap
around
porch,
or
you
know
a
lot
of
windows.
Something
to
that
effect
would
get
you
the
street
friendly
frontage,
without
being
quite
so
doctrinaire.
G
Oh,
and
I
also
wanted
to
mention
the
issue
about
the
150
feet-
I've
done
a
lot
of
work
with
fire
departments
over
the
years
about
that.
So
the
the
hoses
are
150
feet.
The
truck
can
back
up
150
feet.
So
if
you
put
an
interior
fire
hydrant
as
well
as
a
turn
around
in
an
interior
in
a
larger
size,
parcel
that
usually
sets
the
next
150
feet
as
audrey
was
suggesting.
G
H
Thank
you
so
much
pauline
for
putting
this
proposal
together.
I
think
it's
a
really
good
compromise,
especially
since,
if
everyone
remembers
what
the
code
is
now
for
townhouses
is.
I
believe
that
every
unit
must
face
the
front
face
the
street.
So
you
know
if
we,
if
we're
thinking
about
how
development's
going
to
occur
for
the
next
30
years
and
like
pauline,
is
saying
some
of
it
might
be
in
our
downtown
core
in
areas
that
are
right
now
very
walkable.
H
I
I
think
it
is
more
than
reasonable
to
expect
developers
to
have
just
the
ones
that
are
on
the
street
face
the
front
and
it's
not
about
knowing
where
the
door
is
or
not
it's
about
that
walkability
piece,
and
so,
if
there's
you
know
a
big
driveway
cut
through
a
sidewalk,
and
you
can
see
that
there's
front
doors
down
that
private
drive
that
doesn't
make
it
feel
more
walkable
to
keep
walking
on
that
sidewalk
and
straightforward.
C
I
So
yeah
I
wanted
to
just
briefly
talk
about
the
150
feet
thing
I
think.
Maybe
we
should
just
take
that
whole
thing
out:
it's
guided
by
fire
access,
that's
something
else!
I
I
feel
like.
I
feel
like
having
a
development
code
following
or
being
kind
of
a
duplicate
of
of
the
fire
code.
I
It's
a
little
is
a
little
messy.
I
mean
if
you're
going
to
develop
these
you're
going
to
have
to
adhere
to
fire
coded
anyways.
I
don't.
I
just
don't
think
it's
really
needed.
I
mean
it's
a
nice
guide
to
know
if
you're
putting
one
of
these
together
that
that
they
have
a
150
foot
limit
for
how
far
a
fire
truck
is
able
to
go
in
without
getting
a
hammerhead
or
a
turnaround.
I
But
that's
that's
that
that
should
be
dealt
with
in
fire
code.
I
think
we
should
just
take
it
that
that
section
out
and
the
other
thing
about
the
front
doors
facing
the
street.
I
I
Wouldn't
want
it,
I
wouldn't
want
it
to
be
able
to
face
completely
away
and
if
there's
other
parts
of
the
code
that
deal
with
and
I'm
trying
to
remember
off
the
top
of
my
head,
how
we've
dealt
with
this
in
the
past-
and
I
think
we
talked
about
it
a
month
ago
in
this,
but
just
if
there's
some,
if
there's
some
language
that
we
can
put
in
there
about
covered
porches
or
maybe
a
distance
from
the
street
or
or
or
something
with
sight
lines.
I
I
I
I
think
that
one
you
had
that
photo
up
when
yeah
that
one
this
is
when
we
look
at
the
other
pictures
with
the
with
the
kind
of
private
drives
and
shared
courts,
and
that
kind
of
thing
everyone
can
look
at
those
developments
and
and
it
you
know,
you
could
feel
like
the
sense
of
community
and
it's
a
nice
neighborhood
street
and
it
or
it
acts
like
a
neighborhood
street.
I
K
I
H
A
I
Yeah
there's
a
book,
and
I
can't
remember
what
planning
book
it
is.
I
think
it's
suburban
nation,
and
I
think
it
might
be
that
one
and
and
someone
they
they
rank
or
they
give
a
score
to
a
different
kind
of
urban
fabric
or
street
frontage,
and
you
know
empty
warehouses,
rank
low,
downtown
kind
of
street
frontage
is
rank
high
and
and
nice
neighborhoods,
with
front
porches
and
with
houses
that
are
kind
of
close
to
the
street.
I
They
rank
high
and
and
it's
funny,
because
that's
why
I
learned
the
term
dingbat
and
and
and
he
ranks
that,
as
as
the
some
of
the
absolute
lowest
kind
of
lowest
ranking
for
the
pleasurable
street
frontage
is,
is
that
and
it
it?
You
know
it's
it's
similar
to.
Basically
a
wall
of
garages,
anyways.
A
A
If
these
doors
were
here-
and
it
was
just
a
big-
in
my
opinion-
wall
with
windows
and
you're
walking
down
and
on
each
side
of
this
development
is
somebody's
front
door.
It
just
seems
like
all
of
a
sudden.
You
just
have
the
side
of
houses,
and
you
know
what
I'm
hearing
is.
That's
okay.
I
just
think
that
why
not
say
have
the
front
door
face
the
street.
Is
it
really
going
to
be
a
deal
breaker
to
do
this.
M
All
right
yeah,
this
is
bill
bernardi
in
in
terms
of
the
door
issue.
I
would
just
ask
that
at
some
point,
maybe
we
line
up
side
by
side
what
we've
already
said
for
other
forms.
You
know
for
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
so
forth,
because
I
think
we
talked
about
this
at
length
at
one
point
and
came
up
with
some
options.
M
You
know
you
shouldn't
end
up
having
to
choose
between
a
duplex
and
a
townhome
arrangement
because
of
whether
you
know
there's
a
door
required
on
facing
the
street.
So
so
that's
my
only
point.
I
think
we
ought
to
you
know:
we've
been
dealing
with
these
one
topic
at
a
time.
Duplexes
then
triple
plexus,
then
quads
now
town
homes,
but
at
some
point
it'd
be
nice
to
line
them
up
side
by
side
on
some
of
these
design
issues
and
see,
if
there's
consistency,
regardless
of
what
the
decision
is,
so
that
that's
my
point.
F
F
Because
we
have
people
walking
through
constantly
to
get
to
the
river,
I
mean
it's
like
a
major
thoroughfare
for
walking.
They
don't
use
the
actual
sidewalk
on
this
on
the
main
street.
A
So
I
would
say
in
these
two
cases,
if
there's
homes
fronting
the
street
next
door
to
them
for
the
entire
block
and
then
all
of
a
sudden.
You
see
the
backyards
here
that
that
would
not
be
allowed
with
what's
being
proposed,
because
we're
talking
about
lot
frontage,
okay,.
A
I'm
not
sure
how
those
got
built,
because
even
today,
under
the
code
I
mean,
if
you
front
a
lot,
you
can't
have
a
six
foot
fence
in
the
first
10
feet.
You
can
only
have
a
three
and
a
half
foot
fence
because
it's
your
front
setback,
not
your.
C
Yeah
causing
all
the
trouble
here
give
me.
C
Yeah,
okay
matt
is
next.
B
B
Because
I
guess
that's
that's
the
the
biggest
point
that
I
go
back
to
is
the
one
that
scott
brought
up
earlier,
whereas
you
know
with
a
corner
lot
at
a
street
corner.
You
know
you
can
face
the
door
at
a
90
degree
to
that
other
more
main
street
and
it's
acceptable.
But
here
we're
saying
it's
not
you
know,
and
so
in
those
situations
we
have
a
fence
that
goes
along
the
sidewalk
and
it's
acceptable,
but
in
this
instance
it's
not.
B
It
just
feels
like
we're
putting
a
little
bit
of
a
double
standard
out
there
in
my
opinion,
and
the
flexibility
would
be
warranted,
but
I
I
realize
that
it's
not
always
the
most
attractive
thing,
but
typically
it's
not
going
to
be
right.
The
house
isn't
going
to
be
right
up
next
to
the
sidewalk
anyways,
so
you
do
have
a
little
bit
of
you
know.
You
still
have
a
10-foot
setback
facing
that
street.
B
It
looks
like
the
ones
in
the
picture
there,
obviously
on
the
right
are
closer
than
that
it
appears,
so
they
wouldn't
be
right
up
on
the
street
like
that.
So
yeah
in,
in
my
opinion,
it's
something
where
I
agree:
it's
not
the
most
attractive,
but
still
in
instances
where
it
may
make
sense.
The
flexibility
would
be
nice
to
have.
A
And
again,
this
is,
you
know,
incorporating
middle
housing
into
existing
neighborhoods,
so
just
think
about,
when
you're
in
corporate
to
all
developers
incorporating
this
type
of
development
into
an
existing,
you
know
probably
single-family
detached
residential
neighborhoods.
The
whole
idea
here
is
incorporate
middle
housing
into
all
neighborhoods.
G
Thanks,
I
just
wanted
to
agree
with
bill
bernardi
regarding
consistency,
and
I
think
that
we
addressed
some
of
these
concerns
on
some
of
the
other
unit
types
that
we
were
talking
about,
and
I
thought
we
came
up
with
some
pretty
good
solutions,
and
so
it
might
be
reasonable
to
take
a
pause
and
think
about
that
about
addressing
you
know,
I
understand
the
goal
and
I
think
we
can
reach
the
goal,
but
I
think
that
the
language
is
probably
good
to
be
consistent
with
how
we're
addressing
the
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
fourplexes.
G
So
I,
like
the
idea
of
kind
of
looking
at
that
side
by
side
is
my.
My
thinking
is
that,
as
long
as
there
is
a
clear
entryway
into
the
homes
that
it's
either
a
porch
or
a
patio
with
a
you
know
with
an
overhang,
the
door
is
either
facing
the
street
or
perpendicular
or
45
degree.
Any
of
those
things
can
be
done
attractively
and
address
the
street,
so
by
just
saying
the
door
has
to
face
the
street,
I
think,
is
a
little
too
rigid.
A
So
I'll
bring
the
we
were
gonna
talk
again
about
duplex,
triplex
and
fourplex
when
it
comes
to
the
front
doors
and
garages.
But
my
memory
serves
me
correctly.
We
were
more
in
support
and
this
is
just
of
the
garage
doors
being
able
to
be
snout
houses
and
at
the
front
doors
could
be
20
feet
back.
So
we
can
compare
duplexes
and
triplexes
to
townhomes
in
this
type
of
situation,
but
it
the
garage
is
just
like
yeah.
G
G
I
will
tell
you
where
you
put
the
front
door,
has
a
big
impact
on
the
internal
design
of
how
the
first
floor
of
a
unit
is
laid
out
and
to
always
have
to
have
it
on
the
front
corner
like
you're,
showing
on
the
left
or
in
the
middle
in
the
front
on
the
right,
isn't
always
going
to
work,
given
the
size
of
the
lot,
the
shape
of
the
lot
and
how
the
unit
works.
It's
just
very
restrictive
from
an
architectural
point
of
view.
A
And
I
think
you
know
I've
shown
you
some
good
examples
here.
I
think
my
next
powerpoint
is
going
to
probably
show
some
examples
that
are
not
good
and
just
to
start
thinking
about
those
and
if
we're
okay
with
those
incorporating
those
into
existing
neighborhoods.
C
Okay,
if
it's
okay
pauline,
we
have
three
more
with
hands
up:
moey,
scott
and
jesse.
But
what
I'd
like
to
do
just
in
the
interest
of
time
is
maybe
take
these
three
and
then,
if
there
are
new
comments,
that's
fine!
But
let's
move
forward.
Does
that
sound?
Okay
pauline
after
this.
L
C
So
mo
you're
next
scott
and
jesse.
H
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
real
quickly,
the
idea
of
a
gridded
street
with
a
neighborhood
that
you
know.
Maybe
a
lot
is
on
the
less
busy
street
or
whatever,
with
the
door
facing
that.
J
H
That
is
different
from
a
private
drive,
which
is
basically
a
dead
end
for
someone
who
is
walking
past.
So
to
me,
it's
not
the
same
thing
to
say
that
you
know
just
because
it
I
don't
think
the
the
private
drive,
which
is
essentially
a
dead
end
to
anyone
who
doesn't
live
there
should
be
treated
the
same
as
a
gridded
street,
and
I
just
think
everyone
should
really
pay
attention
to
what
pauline
is
saying
to
us.
H
I
Yeah
I
wanted
to
talk
about
what
bill
and
kathy
had
talked
about
in
terms
of
the
language
for
kind
of
front
door
or
even
garage.
I
feel
like
these.
I
feel
like
these.
These
issues
should
almost
be
separate
from
duplex
triplex
townhome
and
they
should
be
somewhere
else
in
the
code
and
then
and
then
those
duplex,
triplex
or
shared
courtyard
or
whatever
can
then
reference
that
just
so
that
there's
a
consistency
across
our
development
code
and
maybe
there's
maybe
with
those
front
doors
and
garages,
and
things
like
that.
I
There's
there's
different,
maybe
a
few
different,
acceptable
choices
that
a
developer
could
have
and
then
in
a
row
house,
for
instance,
it's
it
might
say
refer
to
the
to
the
you
know
the
front
door,
design
standards
and
you
can
use
a
b
and
d
or
something
like
that,
because
I
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
consistency
that
we
could
find
throughout
all
these
developments,
and
maybe
some
might
not
work
for
others.
I
But
I
I
I
don't
like
I
don't
like
the
idea
of
kind
of
burying
the
front
door
in
a
specific
type
of
development
yeah.
I
just
I
I
feel
like.
If
it
was
separated
from
the
specific
types
of
development
put
somewhere
else
in
the
code,
then
the
reference
to
it
might
be
kind
of
easier
to
understand
and
also
to
update.
N
Yeah,
I
just
I
think
I
agree
with
kathy
and
bill,
but
I
think
maybe
it'd
be
useful
to
see
bad
examples
of
this.
Because
to
me
I
agree
with
the
idea
that,
like
the
trying
to
design
something
where
the
front
door
is
always
on,
the
street
is
really
difficult,
and
I
know
that
we're
trying
to
keep
our
our
street
our
streetscape
walkable,
and
what
have
you
but
to
me.
Keeping
that
being
able
to
have
the
front
door
not
not
be
on
the
street
is
is
really
important.
N
So
I
guess
I'll
just
put
my
hand
down
and
maybe
wait
to
see
what
these
bad
examples
look
like.
C
A
Oh,
I
think
I
hear
a
majority
of
not
requiring
the
front
door
to
face
the
street,
so
I
will
just
draft
the
code
with
that
in
mind.
I'm
going
to
definitely
probably
provide
some
bad
examples
for
duplexes
triplexes
fourplexes
and
these
type
of
developments.
A
So
that
we're
aware
of
what
we're
drafting
what
we
can
get
and
that
will
include
you-
know,
presentations
of
front
doors
and
garages
as
well
and
we'll
talk
I'll
bring
those
when
we
wrap
up
cottage
clusters
and
then
we
still
have
that
whole
list
of
extra
items
which
includes
the
garage
door,
discussion
I'll
include
it
as
part
of
that
to
go
through.
But
for
the
meantime,
when
I
draft
the
start
drafting
this
particular
section,
this
won't
be
a
front
door
requirement
for
townhomes.
A
So
the
next
part
of
the
presentation
is,
I
think,
onto
townhomes.
Let
me
pull
up
my
paracent
hurt,
okay
and
that's
probably
really
small.
So
let
me
try
blowing
it
up.
A
Okay,
so
last
week
or
two
weeks
ago,
when
we
talked
about
town
homes,
we
did
not
have
a
proposed
lot
size,
and
then
we
got
down
to
density
and
we
all
agreed
that
the
density
was
extremely
confusing
to
understand-
and
I
talked
to
some
of
the
planners
in
the
office
too,
and
they
asked
a
good
question.
So
wonder
if
you
do
a
large
development
and
remember
for
duplexes,
triplexes
and
quads,
we
have
lot
sizes.
We
do
not
we're
not
proposing,
because
we
can't
density
requirements,
but
wonder
if
you
do
like
a
large
development.
A
You
have
a
mix
of
town
homes
and
some
duplexes
and
some
single
family
and
everything
seems,
and
you
have
to
figure
out
density,
and
you
have
to
figure
out
lot
sizes.
Well.
If
we
treat
townhomes
completely
different
when
it
comes
to
density
than
we
do
for
single
family
and
duplexes
and
triplexes
that
they
were
asked.
How
do
you
figure
out
density
when
it
says
you
can
have
7.3
units
to
the
acre?
A
However,
all
this
is
exempt,
but
the
town
homes
aren't
exempt
from
density
and
other
single
family
homes
and
the
way
we
calculate
density
is
we
take
into
account
street
right
of
ways
that
will
be
created.
Well,
how
do
you
take
into
account
street
right
of
ways
that
are
being
created
if
a
duplex
is
going
to
front
it,
because
then
they
don't
count
towards
density,
so
this
may
sound
complicated
the
way
I'm
explaining
it.
A
This
is
how
the
planners
see
it
can
be
very,
very
complicated,
so
one
thought
would
be
is
to
treat
town
homes
the
way,
we're
treating
duplexes,
triplexes
and
fourplexes,
and
look
at
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
and
not
have
a
maximum
on
density,
and
then
that
way,
when
we
do
a
large
development,
we're
not
looking
at
density
anymore,
because
we
can't
for
a
majority
of
the
uses,
anyways
we're
simply
saying
you
can
have
all
these.
You
have
these
number
of
lots
based
on
their
lot
sizes.
H
G
Yeah,
I
think,
that's
probably
a
decent
way
of
going.
The
the
plot
plan
that
you
showed
of
my
project
also
included
the
lot
sizes
for
each
of
those
townhomes,
and
just
so
everybody
knows
the
town
homes
are
about
11
80
square
feet,
so
they're
pretty
small.
G
So
if
you
were
to
include
a
front
porch
and
a
rear,
porch
and
a
little
bit
of
yard
area
that
that's
kind
of
what
just
as
an
example
of
the
lot
size
that
you
could
look
at
and
for
the
interior
ones,
I
don't
recall
exactly
what
size
that
wound
up
being.
Maybe
it
was
a
1200
square
foot
lot
or
something,
but
anyway,
I
think
that
is
one
way
of
going.
G
A
One,
if
we
want
some
consistency,
even
with
garage
doors
or
front
doors,
it
seems
like
lot
sizes
would
be
one
and
density
would
be
one
that
way
when
you
go
through
the
code.
You're,
not
always
on
surprise
that,
oh
that's,
weird
townhomes
have
a
density,
but
the
other
uses
don't
so.
If
we
went
with
lot
sizes,
you
can
see
up
here
on
the
screen.
A
What
we
have
today,
which
in
the
standard
density,
residentials,
2000,
medium,
1600
and
high
densities,
1200
square
feet.
We
need
to
amend
those
to
be
consistent
with
the
minimum
compliance
middle
column
here,
which
is,
may
not
be
greater
than
1500
square
feet,
and
it
sounds.
I
think
you
can
also
average
them
so
that
the
average
is
at
least
1500
square
feet.
A
I
mean
this
for
rh
the
high
density
we're
already
at
12..
This
would
be
reducing
the
minimum
and
standard
density
residential
and
then
creating
a
lot
size
for
the
low
density
residential
of
minimum
of
1500,
but
we're
not
married
to
this
number.
If
there's
a
another
number
of
just
doing
like
the
high
density
of
1200
square
feet
in
every
zone,
that's
one
thing
or
we
can
have
separate
lot
sizes
depending
on
the
zone.
A
Matt,
when
you
do
your
town
homes,
I
know
polish
does
quite
a
few
of
them.
What's
your
average
lot
size.
B
I
would
say
I
mean
really
here
in
in
town.
We
really
just
have
those
alley
load,
types
that
we
do
and
our
our
typical
lot
size
for
our
middle
units
are
20
by
80,
so
1600
square
feet.
A
B
That
is
that's
our
typical.
I
mean
that's
that's
what
is
required,
that's
as
small
as
we
can
go
and
still
meet
setback
requirements
for
garages
in
the
rear.
We
like
20-foot
driveways.
You
know
for
parking
so
that
cars
aren't
in
the
alleys,
in
addition
to
the
two-car
garages,
and
then
we
go
10
feet
off
the
front
minimum.
B
So
yeah
about
1600
is
kind
of
you
know
for
middle
units.
You
know
add.
C
O
Hey
everyone
ethan
stuckmeyer
here
from
dlcd.
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
clarify
the
density,
and
I
think
this
this
really
goes
along
with
what
you
were
saying
pauline
about.
You
know
the
funkiness
about
having
a
density
maximum
for
townhomes
and
not
having
that
for
other
types
of
metal
housing.
The
way
that
we
were
thinking
about
this
when
we
were
doing
the
rulemaking
for
this
was
we
wanted
to
provide
at
least
some
sort
of
backstop
for
cities
to
say:
look
we
just
there
is
a.
O
There
is
a
limit
at
how
small
these
lots
can
be
for
townhomes,
because
you
know,
if
we're
allowing
three
stories,
potentially
even
up
to
three
and
a
half
four
story:
town
home
units.
You
know
those
those
building
footprints
can
get
pretty
small,
and
so
we
wanted
to
have
at
least
some
availability
for
cities
to
say:
look,
there's
just
some
sort
of
maximum
here.
O
So
that's
why
that
25
units
an
acre
made
its
way
in
there
for
town
houses
and
townhouses,
but
I
think
your
your
approach
to
minimum
lot
sizes
using
that
to
kind
of
regulate
the
density
in
a
roundabout
way
is
a
good
one,
and
I
think
something
that
most
cities
will
be
doing.
G
Yeah
I
was
just
calculating
out
that
the
townhouse
example
of
mine
that
you
showed
earlier,
we
probably
had
12
20
as
our
lot
sizes
is
average,
and
I
like
your
idea
of
doing
an
average
because
obviously
end
units
may
have
a
bigger
lot
than
the
center
units
and
then
doing
it
as
a
minimum.
G
So
if
you
set
a
minimum
average
of
1500,
I
think
you'll
accomplish
what
you're
you're
looking
to
do
and
if
it's
an
average
that
allows,
for
instance,
say
some
lots
are
a
little
bit
larger
because
you're
providing
an
accessible
dwelling
unit
with
a
bedroom
on
the
first
floor,
but
the
rest
of
them
all
have
all
their
bedrooms
upstairs,
and
it
allows
you
to
average
that
in
with
the
rest
of
the
smaller
units,
so
I
would
urge
us
to
consider,
averages
and
then
set.
You
know
a
minimum
lot
size.
E
E
If
nobody
has
walked
by
those,
you
might
want
to
go.
Look
at
it's
like
three-story
buildings,
narrow,
driveways,
very
small
lots
that
might
see
how
I'd
be
curious.
How
that
compares
to
our
final
statistics,
our
our
citing
standards,
when
we're
all
said
and
done,
and
go
look
at
that
one
to
see.
If
that's
something
you
feel
good
about.
C
Hey
mike,
do
you
have
any
sort
of
narrowing
of
an
address
on
empire,
not
the
actual
address
but
sort
of
roughly,
where
that
is.
I
have
not
been
up
there
for
a
while
yeah.
E
It's
at
the
corner
of
boyd
acres,
road
and
empire.
It's
got
a
new
area
that
just
has
been
very
recently
been
developed.
E
E
A
Yeah,
I
think
they're
turning
out
pretty
nice
for
that
unique
lot,
especially
on
that
busy
intersection.
C
It
looks
like
bill
mike,
I'm
not
sure
if
you
were
done.
I
don't
want
to
cut
you
off.
If
you
had
more
to
say,
if
you
are
done,
then
bill
is
next.
M
Yeah,
I
I
just
think
that
not
trying
to
apply
density
maximums
to
townhouses
makes
sense
here.
So
I
would
agree
with
what
pauline
was
proposing
in
terms
of
you
know,
specifying
lot
sizes,
probably
based
on
zones,
you
know,
and
the
idea
of
as
the
minimum
standards
indicate
here,
having
an
average
minimum
makes
sense.
So
I
would
I
would
support
those
ideas
I
mean,
unless
we
you
know,
can
see
an
example
of
where
that
would
really
create
a
problem.
M
A
The
minimum
compliance
is
1500
rh
high
density
is
well
below
that
at
12.,
so
we
could
definitely
keep
that.
Is
there
support
for
the
low
standard
and
medium
density
of
just
using
the
minimum
compliance
of
1500
that
reduces
all
three
of
those
down
for
rm.
A
A
So
any
thoughts,
I
know
we
just
talked
about
how
we
support
this
idea,
but
I
just
want
to
get
a
feeling
for
this.
If
there's
support
for
using
those
lot
sizes
that
I
just
mentioned,.
A
Okay,
if
we're
in
support,
please
raise
your
hand
of
using
1200
average
for
high
density
and
1500
square
feet
average
for
the
other
zones.
C
And
just
a
reminder:
this
is
votes
for
committee
members,
stakeholder
committee,
members,
so
I'll
try
to
cross-check
pauline,
but.
A
Okay,
good
good,
all
right,
so
we
did
last
size
street
frontage
density
setbacks.
We
haven't
ever
that
I
know
of
have
issues
with
their
setbacks.
They're
the
same
as
single
family,
detached
dwellings,
duplexes
triplexes,
except
for
obviously
when
they're
attached,
they're
20
feet
for
the
garage
side.
Yard
is
five
feet:
when
they're
not
attached
to
a
unit
front
is
10
and
the
rear
is
five.
Are
we
okay
moving
forward
with
the
setbacks
that
we
have
today,
which
are,
I
believe,
consistent
with
what
is
allowed
in
the
minimum
compliance?
A
All
right
and
height,
I
am
meeting,
I
believe,
it's
next
tuesday,
with
scott
and
kathy
from
our
stakeholder
advisory
group
to
discuss
height,
and
I
also
invited
kathleen
who's,
one
of
our
planning
techs
to
join
because
she
is
a
pro
at
understanding,
our
height
measurement
that
we
use
today
because
she
reviews
a
lot
of
plans
that
come
in
for
building
permits,
so
we'll
bring
back
height.
A
If,
if
there's
going
to
be
a
proposal
on
how
we
measure
height
at
our
next
meeting,
but
in
the
meantime,
with
this
height
requirement,
what
we've
done
with
duplexes,
triplexes
and
quads
for
height
is
30
feet
in
the
rs
we
took
out
the
1998
reference
and
rm
is
now
35
feet
and
then
rh
would
be
45
feet.
C
A
So
I'm
just
I'm
gonna
use
the
height
revisions
that
we've
made
for
the
other
uses
and
carry
them
forward
for
the
townhomes.
So
let's
jump
into
parking
so
parking
today
for
townhomes
is
two
spaces
per
dwelling
unit,
so
we
treat
them
just
like
a
single
family
detached
drawing
unit
the
minimum
compliance
says.
A
city
may
not
require
more
than
one
off-street
parking
space
per
townhouse
and
that
you
can
count
on
street
towards
credit.
A
The
model
code
states,
the
minimum
number
of
required
off-street
parking
spaces
for
a
townhouse,
is
one
space
per
unit
so
same
as
minimum
compliance
and
that
they
can
be
in
a
on
individual
lots
or
in
a
shared
parking
area
or
a
common
tract,
and
that
you
can
also
count
on
street
towards
credits.
So
it
looks
like
what
is
consistent
between
the
model
code
and
the
minimum
compliance
is.
It
is
one
space
per
unit,
so
is
there
any
hands
on
that.
M
Yeah,
I
would
support
the
model
code
here.
I
think
there
ought
to
be
flexibility
on
how
it's
achieved,
but
he
you
know,
I
mean
we're
at
the
moment
at
least,
we
require
two
spaces
for
a
single-family
detached
house
to
say
that
there
shouldn't
be
at
least
one
space
for
a
single
family
attached.
M
You
know,
in
my
mind,
wouldn't
make
sense,
and
I
I
think
there
ought
to
be
a
requirement
of
at
least
one
space,
and
you
know
I
mean
again
if
you
scale
this
stuff
up,
if
you
get
away
from
the
infill
situations-
and
you
scale
this
up,
which
is
what
has
to
be
done
in
order
to
achieve
any
quantity
of
middle
housing
in
bend,
they're
going
to
have
to
be
whole
developments
of
town
homes
and
duplexes
and
so
forth.
M
You
know
again,
the
math
just
doesn't
work.
If
you
completely
eliminate
the
standard,
I
think
it's
just
unfair,
and
so
I
I
would
endorse
the
model
code
in
this
case.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
bill
and
just
for
the
the
group's
awareness,
the
city
council
is
going
to
be
holding
a
work
session
on
doing
away
with
parking
minimums,
I'm
not
sure
when
it's
going
to
the
the
the
work
session
is
going
to
be
so
we
can
propose
stuff
as
part
of
this
package,
but
it
may
change
depending
on
the
direction
that
we
get
from
the
city
council
kathy.
G
Yeah
so
column
d,
the
highlighted
portion
would
be
my
support
because,
for
instance,
the
project
I
designed
all
the
parking
was
on
an
in
you
know
a
separate
lot,
a
common
track,
so
that
needs
to
be
in
there
I
think,
to
be
flexible
and
while
I'm
supportive
of
eliminating
parking
minimums
entirely,
I
would
I'm
fine
supporting
this
and
the
city
council
make
the
final
decision.
A
It
almost
seems
odd
that
we
require,
if
we
go
through
with
all
this,
and
it
gets
adopted,
that
a
single
family
detached
has
to
provide
two
when
a
you
know.
Other
townhouse,
for
example,
will
only
be
allowed
to
have
one,
so
I
don't
know
something
to
think
about.
If
we
just
want
to
look
at
parking
for
single
family
detached
too
in
the
future
bill.
M
You
know
that
this
group
look
at
at
the
possibility
of
recommending
to
the
council
that
setting
a
standard
of
one
space
per
dwelling
unit
city-wide,
in
other
words,
apply
that
to
to
single-family
homes
and
apply
it
to
apartments
and
the
whole
deal.
You
know
the
average
is
1.9
vehicles
per
household
and
it
doesn't
make
it
that's
here
and
then
that's
nationwide.
It
doesn't
make
any
difference.
M
What
the
type
of
housing
is
vehicles
are
related
to
households
and
and
no
matter
how
much
middle
housing
is
built,
we're
always
going
to
have
more
single-family
homes
and
more
apartments,
and
so
you
know
if,
if
we
think
there's
too
big
a
bird
that
parking
off
street
parking
is
too
big
a
burden.
You
know
it
really
ought
to
be
looked
at
across
the
board,
but
we
need
to
be
reasonable
and
practical
and
in
my
opinion
it
is
not
practical
to
say
that
there
should
be
no
off-street
parking
requirement.
M
You
know
the
the
parking
of
private
vehicles
has
always
been
a
private
responsibility
and
we're
talking
about
shifting
that
to
a
public
obligation,
that's
a
huge
change
and
and
a
a
big
burden
for
the
public
to
take
on
and
something
that
will
need
to
have
a
lot
of
discussion.
So
I'm
glad
the
council
is
going
to
bring
it
up.
I'm
disappointed
that
they're,
starting
with
one
solution.
I
think
they
ought
to
say
what
are
the
right
standards.
M
Not
you
know,
should
we
just
eliminate
all
standards.
A
B
Yeah
I
I
kind
of
like
the
difference
between
the
two
and
the
one
for
for
single
family
versus
town
home,
just
because
it
it
creates
that
affordable
a
little
bit
of
that
affordability
factor
with
the
town
homes
and
creates
a
you
know,
a
typical
price
break
between
the
two.
You
know
it
encourages
developers
to
go
the
town
home
route
because
they
can
make
it
happen
with
smaller
lots
due
to
the
lesser
parking
requirements.
A
N
I
would
just
disagree
with
the
apartment
part
of
it
just
because
of
the
micro
car
micro
apartment
code
that
allows
for
half
a
space
and
we're
in
the
middle
of
designing
one
now
and
for
the
lot
that
we're
using.
We
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
do
the
project
if
we
didn't
have
that
in
the.
C
Code
kathy,
then
mike.
G
Yeah,
I
I
just
have
to
disagree
strongly
on
the
idea
of
one
parking
space.
No
matter
what
size
the
unit
a
studio
apartment,
one
bedroom
apartment
doesn't
need
as
much
parking
as
a
four
bedroom
house
on
a
detached
lot.
That's
ridiculous!
I'm
sorry!
So
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
look
at
the
amount
of
parking
per
the
size
of
the
units
or
the
number
of
units
and
again
I
am
supportive
of
getting
rid
of
all
of
the
requirements,
but
I
understand
in
this
circumstance
it
makes
sense
to
do
the
highlighted
portion.
E
Okay,
I
have
been
exploring
the
city
using
our
gis
tools,
the
new
tools
that
have
become
available
online
now,
there's
some
great
tools
there.
If
you
haven't
become
familiar
with
them,
it's
very
easy
to
see
where
the
majority
of
our
attached.
E
E
People
have
stuff,
and
once
you
have
a
garage,
then
do
you
put
the
garage
so
close
to
the
right
way
that
becomes
a
hazard?
No,
you
usually
set
it
back,
which
then
creates
the
second
spot.
So
I
think
if
you
go
through
the
driving
tour
and
look
at
all,
what's
being
built
the
market
driven
project,
you
have
a
garage,
you
have
one
space
behind
the
garage,
that's
not
on
street
parking.
E
The
rub
comes
into
these
infields.
Where
do
you
build
something
that
has
no
parking
or
there's
one
garage
where
it's
so
close
to
the
street
or
the
alley?
It's
a
dangerous
to
back
out
into
the
alley?
Where
do
those
people
park,
especially
as
kathy's
mentioned
you
can't
just
have
one
size
fits
all?
If
you
have
a
four
bedroom
and
you've
got
you're
renting
out
three
bedrooms
to
make
it
affordable?
Where
do
the
other
three
park
we're
going
to
probably
hear
this
argument
many
times
and
probably
at
council?
E
A
Right,
so
you
don't
even
have
to
vote
so
we're
just
gonna.
A
Do
the
the
yellow
highlighted
section
for
parking
and
lot
coverage
I'll
combine
this
when
we
talk
about
lot
coverage
for
duplexes,
triplexes
and
quads
as
well
as
far
but
really
I
mean
floor
ratio.
We
don't
really
use
that
for
townhomes
today
unless
they
add
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
So
for
the
most
part,
when
we
talk
about
flurry
ratio,
it's
really
going
to
be
about
the
duplexes,
triplexes
and
quads.
If
we
even
go
that
route
and
not
just
use
lot
coverage,
the
areas
owned
in
common
are
basically
the
same.
A
We
don't
require
it,
but
if
there
is
arizona
common,
it
has
to
be
taken
care
of
by
the
homeowners
association.
So
then,
the
design
standards
yay
front
doors.
This
talks
about
the
main
entrance
of
a
townhome.
A
Each
townhome
must
be
within
eight
feet
of
this
street
facing
wall,
and
I
think
I
wonder
if
there
is
I
was
looking
at
bear
with
me.
I
should
have
kept
it
up
actually
hold
on
just
one.
Second,
I
have
the
paper
copy
before
I
go
through
that
they
might
have.
A
F
A
Nope,
they
don't
okay.
So
what
is
proposed
here-
and
this
is
saying
that
it's
just
your
you
know-
standard
town,
home
development,
not
not
the
shared
court
type
developments
that
we
are
going
to
offer
as
well.
But
if
you
just
have
town
homes,
they're,
not
part
of
a
shared
court,
and
they
have
lot
frontage
they're
saying
that
the
front
door
has
to
be
within
eight
feet
of
the
longest
street
facing
wall.
A
If
the
lot
has
public
street
frontage
and
either
face
the
street,
be
at
an
angle,
up
to
45
degrees
from
the
street
face
a
common
open
space
or
private
access
or
driveway
on
two
sides
open
onto
a
porch,
and
we
move
that
porch
down
to
20
square
feet.
If
we
even
go
this
route,
is
there
interest
in
talking
about
the
front
doors
like
we're
going
to
with
the
duplexes
triplexes
and
quads
for
townhomes.
M
Yeah,
I
would
say
yes,
let's
just
go
back
to
what
we
talked
about
before
and
see
if
it
applies
here,
it
seems
like
it
would.
I
mean
I
don't
see
a
difference
between
you
know
a
duplex
and,
and
you
know
to
you
know
shared
wall
town
homes
that
seem
pretty
similar.
G
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
agree
with
what
scott
had
suggested,
and
that
is
a
reference
to
another
section
that
addresses
front
doors
and
that
would
be
easily
changed
if
we
see
that
there's
problems
coming
up.
But
if
each
of
these
unit
types
is
referred
to
that
section
on
the
front
door
and
then
we
can
just
deal
with
the
language
that
is
applicable
in
most
of
the
cases.
I
don't
know
if
you're
open
to
doing
it
that
way,
but
rather
than
repeating
and
maybe
having
conflicts
or
whatever.
G
A
I
can
look
at
that.
The
way
the
code's
set
up
right
now
is
chapter
2.1
is
the
residential
district
and
talks
about
setbacks
and
heights
and
what
uses
are
allowed
and
then,
if
you're
doing
a
special
use
like
or
a
use
of
a
duplex
triplex,
what
will
be
a
quad,
a
townhome
or
cottage
cluster?
It
refers
you
on
to
chapter
3.6
for
their
standards
that
are
unique
and
we
typically
place
it
in
3.6.
A
I
take
that
back
because
we
don't
have
it
applied
a
single
family
detached
so,
but
it
is
definitely
an
option
that
we
can
do
and
even
have
the
pictures
that
are
presented
in
the
model
code,
which
I'll
make
sure
those
are
part
of
the
presentation
when
we
go
through
the
standards
that
we
still
have
to
get
through.
G
I
mean
that
seems
to
me
to
make
the
most
sense.
It
addresses
bill's
concern
and
I
think
it's
an
orderly
way
of
doing
it
and
then,
if,
when
we're
doing
the
discussion
on
that,
we
see
oh
well,
maybe
it
needs
to
be
different
for
this
unit
type.
We
can
discuss
it
there,
but
it
it
just
seems
like
we
should
be
there
and
discuss
it
all
at
once.
In
one
section
like
that,.
A
Any
other
comments,
okay,
so
we'll
just
move
forward
with
that
same
with
the
so
something
that
they
incorporate
and
I'll
just
get
a
feel
from
the
group
because
the
other
ones
don't
it's
it's
how
the
model
code
defines
like
a
a
townhome
unit
and
even
if
I'm
not
conveying
this
just
correct
me
correct
me,
if
I'm
not
conveying
it
correctly,
each
townhome
unit
must
include
one
of
the
following:
like
a
dormer,
a
balcony,
a
bay
window,
an
offset
an
entry
that
is
recessed
a
covered,
walkway
porch.
A
So
these
are
clear
and
objective
what
I
would
call
them
as
design
standards
per
unit.
We
don't
have
those
today.
What
we
do
have
is
eliminating
the
prominence
of
the
garage
and
bringing
forward
the
front
door.
Those
were
the
two
important
things
to
the
the
group
at
the
time
when
we
looked
at
standards
not
so
much.
A
You
know
these
architect
architectural
additions,
because
not
every
house
even
lends
itself
to
these,
especially
maybe
a
more
modern
home
went
to
have
a
roof
dormer
or
a
bay
window,
and
I've
even
talked
to
architects,
and
they
say
even
with
these
architectural
additions,
they
can
still
create
an
ugly
townhouse.
A
G
G
So
I
like
your
idea
of
not
doing
this
and
just
addressing
the
prominence
of
the
garage
and
the
location
of
the
front
door
and
not
having
all
this
silly
goofy
stuff
being
required.
So
that's
just
my
opinion,
I'm
getting!
I
guess
it's
getting
late.
Maybe
I
need
a
new
cup
of
tea
or
something,
but
I'm
sorry
to
be
grumpy.
But
this
is
I
don't
like
this
so
anyway.
That's
me.
C
What
pauline
I
don't
just
because
we
don't
have
any
more
hands!
I
I
saw
a
floating
thumbs
up,
but
what's
unfortunate
about
this
new,
you
know
emoji
situation
that
we
have
on
teams
is
that
you
can't
tell
who's
doing
what,
and
so
anyway,
I
on
occasion
I'm
seeing
the
floating
thumbs
up,
but
we
can't
really
attribute
that
to
anyone.
Maybe.
C
Yeah
it
does
like
in
the
middle
of
the
screen,
it's
really
kind
of
weird,
so
I
I
don't
know
I
that
we
got
a
thumbs
up
as
kathy
was
speaking
now
looks
like
I
was
kind
of
dragging
on
a
little
hoping.
Somebody
else
would
raise
their
hand,
and
now
we
have
scott.
So
I
think
that's
good.
A
I
A
I
Wanted
to
piggyback
on
what
kathy
said.
I
I
mean
I'm
not
a
big
fan
of
these
type
of
requirements
generally,
because
yeah
you
could,
you
could
make
ugly
buildings
with
with
all
these,
especially
if
it's
just
like
it
must
include
one
of
the
following.
I
mean
I've
yeah,
it's
this
isn't
going
to
make
a
building
beautiful.
I
think,
focusing
on
a
garage
door.
Location
would
be
more
effective
and
just
easier
to
design
around.
A
A
So
here
was
the
if
we
were
to
go
with
the
design
standards,
what
that
means.
So
the
town
home
for
the
model
code
is
less
restrictive
when
it
comes
to
the
driveways.
The
on-site
parking
and
maneuvering
areas
cannot
exceed
12
feet
wide
on
any
lot
very
restrictive.
The
garage
door
width
does
not
exceed
12
feet,
although
I
support
reducing
the
prominence
of
the
garage
that
is
just
very
narrow
and
then
the
other
alternatives
is.
A
P
Just
real
quick
yeah,
I
agree,
I
think
the
bend
code
when
we
were
helping
the
alphabet
soup
committee
that
developed
the
model
code
for
townhomes.
We
we
gave
them
some
feedback
around
that
that's
a
lot
of
pavement
and
it
doesn't
even
really
show
practical
turnarounds
on
those
two
second
examples.
P
So
it
ends
up
being
it's
a
lot
more
pavement
than
what
they're
showing
even
in
the
sample
and
then
in
central
oregon.
Where
are
we
gonna?
We're
gonna
put?
The
water
would
be
even
even
more
challenging.
A
Okay,
no
more
hands
all
right,
so
we
have
25
minutes
to
get
through
cottage
clusters.
I'm
just
gonna.
I
don't
understand
why
my
screen.
Does
this
annoying?
Okay?
I
know
it's
a
little
bit
on
the
small
side,
but
oh
good
lisa's
here.
Let
me
get
see
if
I
can
get
her
in.
C
I
just
admitted
her:
let's
see
lisa
if
you
can
hear
us
just
say
hello
or
raise
a
hand
or
something
like
that.
You
could
try
one
of
the
new
emojis.
J
A
Okay,
so
cottage
clusters,
several
of
us,
are
familiar
with
what
we
have
in
the
development
code
today,
which
is
the
cottage
housing
development
section
in
chapter
3.8.
A
So
with
the
cottage
cluster,
the
numerical
standards,
so
under
the
minimum
compliance
it
says
the
city's
not
required
to
set
a
minimum
number
of
dwelling
units
in
a
cottage
cluster.
But
if
we
want
to,
we
may
require
three
four
or
five
dwelling
units
in
a
cluster
a
city
may
but
not
require
greater
than
five
units
in
a
cluster.
Today,
in
the
bend
code,
we
allow
a
maximum
of
12,
but
we
don't
neces
and
a
minimum
of
four.
A
So
the
minimum
compliance
is.
We
could
do
three,
four
or
five
and
remember
when
you
do
these.
You
may
say
a
minimum
of
three:
I'm
gonna
guess
that
and
I'll
look
to
like
jessie
and
audrey
who
have
developed
some
of
them,
but
there's
a
lot
of
requirements
for
a
cottage
type,
housing
development.
So
to
do
three
seems
like
you
might
as
well:
just
do
a
town
home
or
a
triplex
type
development
versus
going
through
the
trouble
of
a
cottage
cluster,
but
maybe
there's
a
good
reason
to
do
it.
A
N
That's
a
minimum
of
three
per
cluster,
but-
and
I
hear
what
you're
saying
if
you're
just
gonna
do
a
small
lot-
that
why
not
just
do
a
triplex.
But
if
you
were
doing
a
larger
lot.
But
you
just
had
multiple
clusters,
there
would
be
a
there
would
be
a
a
reason
to
have
a
minimum
of
three
because
you,
depending
on
what
the
lot's
like.
N
Well,
I
mean
it
just
depends
on
the
lot
because
you
might
run
into
a
you
might
run
into
a
lot.
That's
you
know,
weirdly
shaped
where
you
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
smaller
cluster.
You
know
in
the
corner
or
something
like
that.
So
I
mean
I
I
would,
I
would
just
say
the
the
the
less
restrictive
the
better
probably
and
then
I
still
think
we
need
to
define
what
a
cluster
is.
P
Yeah,
just
real
quick,
I
think
three
is-
is
a
good
number
one
of
the
things
that
we're
we're,
certainly
focused
on,
which
helps
address
the.
I
think
some
of
the
interaction
between
existing
and
infill
would
be
fee,
simple
ownership,
which
cottage
is
easier
to
do
as
opposed
to
a
triplex,
then
you're
almost
guaranteed
to
have
at
least
two
non-owner
occupied
and
again
expanding
ownership
opportunities
helps
helps
affect
you
know
the
the
health
of
the
community.
So
that's
where
I
think
cottage
would
be
better
than
a
triplex.
So
three
works.
G
A
Okay,
so
I'm
hearing
support
for
three,
which
definitely
makes
sense
maximum
in
the
city
is
for
cottage
developments
is
12..
I
see
under
minimum
compliance,
it's
saying
eight,
but
you
can
do
more
so
any
thoughts
on
maximums
and
bill.
I
see
your
hands
up,
so
I'm
sorry.
If
you,
you
could
still
provide
comments
on
minimum
too.
If
you
would
like.
M
You
know
I
I
had
a
question
sort
of.
I
appreciate
if
you
could
clarify
the
issue
of
that
was
raised
about
ownership.
Are
we
talking
about
one
lot
that
has
multiple
units
on
it
or
are
we
talking
about
something?
That's
divided
into
fee,
simple
lots
like
the
townhouse
arrangement.
M
So
what's
the
answer
of
that?
First,
I
mean
can
are
either
of
those
a
possibility.
C
Jeff,
I
can
try
to
tackle
this
unless
you
want
to
take
it.
I
think
the
point
in
that
statement
was
that
triplexes
are
very
challenging
to
divide
into
fee
simple
ownership,
so
with
townhomes
and
cottages.
That
is
typically
a
lot
easier
for
that,
but
with
a
triplex
you're,
usually
ending
up
with
an
owner
one
owner
and
several
renters
of
those
properties
and
financing.
That
is
a
little
more
challenging,
sometimes
definitely
for
the
lower
lower
ends
of
the
economic
scale.
C
It
typically
is
more
of
an
investment
property
than
it
would
be
for
say,
a
first-time
home
buyer
or
even
really
a
middle-income
home
buyer.
I
don't
know
jeff
if
you
don't.
P
Yeah,
I
think,
you're
exactly
right.
We
have
developed
both
in
redmond.
We
have
a
cottage
development
that
meets
the
cottage
code,
but
that
is
also
on
individual
lots
and
so
it's
an
hoa
rather
than
a
condo
association,
which
ends
up
being
significantly
more
cost
effective
for
the
owners
as
well.
In
cottage
grove,
we
built
a
true
cottage
cluster
and
the
whole
thing
had
to
be
sold
to
an
investor
because
we
couldn't
land
divide
it
under
the
code
there.
So
it's
it's
a
bill.
P
M
Well,
I
I
I
would
agree
with
you.
I
I
think
expanding
ownership
opportunities
is
a
good
idea
and
having
the
option
is
a
good
idea.
I
guess
my
question
was
what
what
what
is
the
state
you
know
putting
forward
here
in
their
definition
of
a
cottage
cluster?
M
Is
it
several
units
on
one
lot
or
can
it
be
individual
lots.
A
Okay,
and
for
I
don't
know
if
everybody's
familiar
with
cottage
clusters,
here's
a
couple
pictures
of
ones
that
are
in
bend-
and
I
probably
should
have
started
with
this.
So
this
this
is
in
northwest
crossings.
But
you
can
see
this
is
a
very
recessed
area.
The
roads
are
a
lot
higher
and
so
the
cottage
clusters,
some
of
them
front
the
street,
but
a
majority
of
them.
This
would
be
considered
a
cluster
here
and
they
all
are
required
to
front
a
certain
amount
of
open
space
and
then
they're
alley
loaded.
A
So
this
serves
similar
to
like
what
we
were
talking
about
townhomes.
You
know
like
a
private
track
or
alley
that
provides
access
to
their
garages,
but
they
don't
these
units,
don't
have
any
street
frontage
because
they
front
onto
open
space.
A
This
is
another
one
that
was
recently
constructed
in
northwest
crossings
and
again
all
these
units
in
the
back
don't
have
lot
frontage.
It's
these
units
here
they
all
front
on
to
open
space
as
well,
and
this
is
a
cluster
of
12.
I
believe
so
they
met
the
the
maximum
under
one
development
and
they
actually
have
a
little
community
building
here
and
a
little
garden.
That's
up
behind
it
and
a
fireplace
this
is
one
done
under
more
like
a
planned
development,
but
it
looks
and
acts
like
a
cottage
development
off
sentry.
A
Core
just
is
under
construction
or
maybe
finish
me
know,
and
they
got
a
density
bonus
for
this
one.
I
believe
they
ended
up
with
five
one,
two
three
four
five,
I
believe
parking's
up
in
the
front
and
they
all
front
onto
open
space,
and
then
audrey
did
this
one
for
habitat
and
it
was
one
two
three
four
six
lots:
audrey.
A
Five
and
they
all
front
on
to
this
open
space
here,
the
only
street
that
is
accessed
is
right
here
and
then
all
the
units
front
onto
this
open
space
here-
and
this
is
the
off
ramp
right
here
on
the
parkway's
right
here
and
then
off
ramp
onto
reed
market,
so
definitely
a
unique
site.
A
N
There
are
22.,
that's
not
a
fully
updated
plat.
The
that
lower
unit
is
gone
from
the
this.
J
N
A
And
this
is
where
jesse
would
like
the
definition
of
a
cluster.
You
know
because
we
don't
define
it,
so
this
you
know
could
be
considered
one
cluster.
This
is
a
cluster
here
around
some
open
space,
but
it
would
be
helpful
for
developers
to
define
what
is
a
cluster
so
that
they
can
design
to
it.
N
And
that's
more
pauline
that
that
seems
to
be
more
to
me
about
how
the
houses
are
oriented
yeah,
that's
where
the
confusion
seems
to
come
in
sometimes
like
when
we
were
looking
at
that
brooks
wood
project.
You
know
we
wanted
to
keep
them
the
the
house
is
basically
straight
across,
even
though
they
did
front,
you
know,
maybe
a
common
path
or
whatever
you
know
do.
They
need
to
be
in
some
sort
of
half
circle
type
thing.
C
A
C
C
C
C
L
G
Oh
that's
funny.
I
was
just
going
to
comment
in
terms
of
affordability
by
having
individual
cottages
on
their
own
lots.
A
smaller
developer
can
build
one
sell.
It
then
build
the
next
one
sell
it
so
that
it
helps
with
financing
the
project
to
have
them
on
their
own
individual
lots.
G
That's
how
it
was
done
on
my
cottage
cluster
and
sisters
they
weren't
all
built
at
the
same
time
there
was
it
was
too
expensive
to
do
them
all
at
the
same
time.
So,
but
I
think
bill
explained
his
question
he
was
saying:
does
the
state
consider
them
both
either
all
on
one
lot
or
individual
lots,
and
I
think
you
answered
that
that
they
could
be
either
or
so
that's
great.
I
just
wanted
to
mention
the
affordability
aspect
of
developing
for
a
smaller
builder,
to
have
that
flexibility
of
individual
lots.
K
Thanks
pauline,
I
just
wanted
to
get
some
clarification
about
what
a
cottage
is,
because
I'm
kind
of
surprised
that
those
northwest
crossing
houses
would
count
as
a
cottage
cluster.
I
guess
I'm
just
a
little
bit
hazy
on
sort
of
what
the
square
footage
would
be.
Yes,.
A
They
definitely
do
the
the
northwest
crossings
has
its
own
master
plan
chapter
in
the
development
code.
They
have
their
own
section
for
cottage
cluster.
It
is
pretty
much
identical
to
what
the
bandit
cottage
cluster
code
requires.
They
have
a
little.
They
had
a
larger
square
footage
of
1200,
which
ours
bumped
up
to
now
too,
but
other
than
that.
I
don't
know
too
much
of
the
differences
between
the
two.
A
So
those
are
1200
maximum
11
or
1200
square
foot
units
single
car
garages-
they
they
all,
have
to
provide
a
certain
amount
of
open
space
and
parking.
Okay.
Thank
you.
A
So
on
the
cottage
clusters
see
if
we
get
through
one
or
two
of
these
for
lot
size,
we
don't
require
lot
sizes.
So,
when
you're
looking
at
those
pictures
today,
I
just
showed
you
there's
no
minimum
lot
size
for
each
of
the
units.
A
Again,
what
is
going
to
dictate
how
big
their
lots
are
for
a
cottage
cluster
which
is
very
unique
compared
to
the
other
types
of
missing
middle
housing
that
we've
talked
about.
Is
this
open
space
requirement,
private
space
requirement
and
some
other
spacing
requirements,
maybe
even
between
units?
So
we
don't
require
a
lot
size
today
and
it's
worked.
Fine.
A
The
minimum
compliance
doesn't
require
a
lot
size
either
it
does
have
an
option
if
there
is
interest
and
then
the
model
code
says
the
cottage
cluster
shell
meet
the
minimum
lot
size
with
depth,
standards
that
apply
to
single
family
detached.
So
that
would
be
saying
that
the
I
don't
know
if
it
means
that
the
total.
I
don't
know
what
that
means.
I
don't
think
it
means
that
each
unit
has
to
be
on
a
4,
000
square
foot,
because
then
a
cottage
cluster
is
just
not
even
doable.
M
Yeah,
so
my
my
question
is:
how
does
this
relate
to
the
small
dwelling
unit
developments
where
there's
a
minimum
lot
size
of
1500
square
feet.
A
A
Because
the
minimum,
those
small
dwelling
unit
developments
are
individual
lots
with
street
frontage.
These
cottage
clusters
don't
have
to
have
a
street
frontage.
They
have
to.
D
A
Open
space
and
then
the
small
dwelling
unit
developments
are
much
more
restrictive
on
the
size
of
the
units.
The
maximum
size
of
a
small
dwelling
unit
is
800
square
feet.
If
you
want
two
units
on
the
lot
like,
let's
say
a
house
and
an
adu,
the
cumulative
square
footage
is
1200
square
feet,
so
you
can
have
like
an
800
square
foot.
A
Primary
dwelling
in
a
400
square
foot
adu
or
you
can
have
a
duplex
and
have
two
600
square
foot
units
1200
max,
but
the
primary
unit
can
only
be
800
square
feet,
whereas
in
the
cottage
cluster
developments,
let
me
see
where
we
get
down
to
the
size
of
the
units.
I
believe
we
are
at
1200
square
feet
per
unit.
M
A
Yes,
and
that
is
restrictive,
we
tried
to
get
them
to
remove
it,
but
it
was
too
late.
Unfortunately,
because
a
lot
of
you
know,
cottage
developments
are
single
story
structures
and
they
may
want
a
thousand
square
foot
single
story
or
a
1200
square
foot
single
story
right,
but
they
can't
now,
under
this
proposed
cottage
cluster,
because
the
footprint
can
only
be
900.
A
Starting
from
scratch-
and
they
think
they
can
do
you
know
a
900
square
foot
single
story
which
we
get
plenty
of
adus
that
are
800
square
foot
single
stories,
two
bedrooms
it'll
just
be
up
to
them,
which
one
they
want
to
use.
M
I
don't
know
the
answer.
I
don't
know
the
answer
that,
but
I
mean,
could
you
have
a
so-called
cottage
cluster?
That's
you
know
three
units
and
the
whole
thing
is
really
tiny
and
would
that
be
desirable
or
not?
I
don't
know
the
answer
without
seeing
a
picture,
but
does
anybody
have
an
answer
or
an
opinion.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
back
to
the
question
here
for
just
the
individual
cottage
lots,
I'm
not
hearing
support
for
dictating
a
lot
size
and
what
I
am
hearing
is
that
there's
support
to
do
what
we
do
today,
where
there
is
no
minimum
lot
size
required
for
each
cottage
unit.
G
Yeah,
it's
mostly
a
question.
I
know
when
we
started
all
this.
We
talked
about
the
fact
that
we
wanted
to
keep
our
cottage
code
intact
because
it
seemed
to
be
working
and
that
there
was
this
other
cottage
code
coming
down
from
the
state,
but
I
don't
understand
what
the
difference
is
and
if
we
have
to
adopt
the
one
that's
coming
down
in
the
model
code
or
not,
if
the
one
that
we've
got
is
working
well,
so
it's
more
just
of
a
question
of
like
why
are
we
talking
about
this?
A
Ethan,
if
he's
still
on
here,
he
can
correct
me,
but
because
ours
is
more
flexible.
Let's
say
we
don't
have
that
900
footprint,
then
we're
not
in
compliance
with
the
the
oars.
So.
A
That's
one
difference,
there's
probably
some
others.
So
as
we
start
going
through
this
we'll
see
what
they
are
like,
not
height,
here's
the
dwelling
unit
size
so
we're
different
here
parking.
We
could
probably
get
more
flexible
on.
A
They
have
some
different
requirements.
I
think
for
the
courtyard
and
open
space
requirements
where
we
say
400
here
without
like
going
through
each
of
these.
I
don't
know
I'm
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
there
is
slight
differences
where
I
feel
comfortable
keeping
ours
doesn't
mean.
We
can't
make
some
slight
adjustments.
I
don't
want
to
dive
too
much
into
the
code
that
we
have
today
and
then
creating
this
whole
new
cottage.
G
G
A
I
mean
technically,
we
want
to
expedite
anything.
I
could
put
together
a
draft.
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
necessarily
go
through
and
compare
what
we
have
today,
because
that's
not
really
changing
compared
to
what
is
in
the
model
code
or
oars,
or
maybe
we
just
discuss
it
at
the
next
meeting
and
go
through
it
together
and
we'll
create
a
draft
that
way.
G
Yeah,
I'm
just
not
sure
what
needs
to
change
it's
confusing,
not
knowing
what's
different
from
what
we're
already
doing
and
what
we're
required
to
do.
So.
I
apologize
I
for
my
question,
I'm
just
unclear
on
on
what
we
need
to
do
here.
A
And
maybe
the
best
thing
to
look
at
is
maybe
I
just
delete
what
the
city
already
has
and
just
focus
on
creating
this
new
cottage
cluster
and
no
don't
worry
about
what
we
have
today,
because
it's
not
going
to
change.
F
E
When
you
say
what
we
are
required
to
do,
I
think
we
should
need
to
remember
there's
a
third
path.
A
lot
of
the
design
standards-
and
I
have
to
shout
out
yahoo
to
kathy
when
she
says
designed
by
planning-
can
be
very
awkward,
we're
not
required
to
adopt
either
the
oar
or
the
minimum,
especially
if
we
can
show
that
these
standards,
especially
the
design
centers,
really
don't
amount
to
hillary
beans.
When
it
comes
to
does
well
our
current
code,
does
it
cause
an
unreasonable
cost
or
delay?
E
That's
the
filter
that
hb
2001
set
forward,
and
sometimes
we
get
into
this
fine-tuning
of
our
design
standards
or
in
the
siding
standards,
and
we
forget,
that's
the
filter.
I
don't
see
keeping
our
code
causes
unreasonable
costs
on
these
cottage
housing
types.
A
I
will
run
it
by
ethan.
Is
there
and
again
for
the
group
for
us
to
propose
this
and
mike
may
disagree?
A
The
alternative,
sighting
and
design
process
probably
have
to
hire
out
because
it's
out
of
my
area
of
expertise,
the
total
I
have
to
approve
the
total
time
and
cost
of
construction,
including
design,
labor
and
materials,
the
total
cost
of
land,
the
availability
and
acquisition
of
land,
including
areas
with
existing
development.
A
A
And
I'm
sorry,
I
realized
we
are
at
two
o'clock,
but
mike
has
his
hand
up
and
then,
if
anybody
else
has
a
suggestion
that
will
give
me
better
direction
for
the
next
meeting
mike
then
bill
or
yeah.
M
You
know
and-
and
you
know,
try
to
pick
some
features
here-
that
you
know
that
would
make
it
appealing
and
and
maybe
somewhat
different
than
the
current
things,
so
that
developers
could
say
well
I'll
do
I
can
do
a
or
b
I
mean
the.
The
one
thing
I
think
to
mike's
point
is
that
I,
I
don't
see
anything
under
the
city's
current
cottage
code
that
would
prohibit
somebody
from
doing
what
this
new
you
know.
M
Cottage
cluster
would
allow,
except
maybe
the
amount
of
open
space
you
know
on
a
square
footage
basis
per
unit
or
something
like
that,
but.
A
M
M
M
Yeah
and
it
isn't
clear
that
being
more
restrictive
is
necessarily
better.
I
mean
my
guess
is:
if
the
state
had
to
think
this
through
three
times
they
would,
they
might
say
that
wasn't
a
very
good
idea.
Somebody
probably
just
put
a
definition
on
the
table
and
it
got
adopted
yeah.
So
I
I
would
say
I
think,
to
be
efficient
here.
Maybe
it
would
help
if
you
just
put
a
draft
together
that
you
think
you
know
covers
this
and
then
we
can.
You
know
talk
about
those
details.
A
Okay:
okay,
I
think
that
might
work
and
then
that
it
won't
bring
in
confusion
with
what
we
have
today.
It's
really
just
creating
a
new
option
for
a
developer
to
look
at
for
developing
their
property,
so
it'll
just
provide
more
options,
any
other
comments.
A
Okay,
sorry,
we
went
over
up
jesse.
N
Sorry,
real
quick!
I
think
this
is
what
you're
saying
to
me.
It's
just
like.
We
have
good.
We
have
good
code
for
what
we
created
already.
So
we
keep
that
and
then
I
would
just
say
we
create
this
other
code.
The
only
thing
that
I
would
be
interested
in
is
if
any
of
this
code
is
less
restrictive
than
what
we
have
currently
in
the
city,
but
I
guess
by
creating
that
code,
you'd
be
able
to
just
use
this
second
coat.
If
you
wanted
to
use
anything
that
was
less
restrictive.
Is
that
right?
N
A
A
You
know
because
you
tend
to
do
smaller
units,
so
this
900
square
foot
probably
won't
be
an
issue
for
you
on
the
maximum
floor
area
for
the
footprint
and
some
of
the
other
stuff
may
work
even
better,
so
you'll
just
have
more
options
is
how
I
see
it
without
stripping
too
much
away
from
what
we
already
allow
today
with
our
cottage
code.
N
I
mean
it
would
be
nice
to
just
have
one
code.
I
know
we
have
to
turn
in
a
second
code,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
have
one
code.
That
is
the
least
restrictive.
It
would
be
a
bummer
if
what
you
did
is
you
looked
at
our
code
and
said,
oh,
that
I
like
that,
because
that's
really
going
to
work,
but
then
there's
other
there's
other
parts
of
the
the
state
code
that
if,
if
ours
is
overall,
less
restrictive,
that'd
be
great
but
it'd
be
a.
It
would
just
be
a
bummer.
N
If
what
was
happening
is
we
had
this
patchwork?
Where
you
know
some
of
the
some
items
were
less
restrictive
in
one
code
and
some
items
were
less
restrictive
than
the
other
code,
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way
to
you
know
to
do
that
or
not
because
the
organ
code
is
what
it
is.
I
guess.
A
Yeah
I'll
look
at
it
I'll
dive
into
this
a
little
deeper
and
just
see
what
the
differences
are,
and
if
I
see
something
glaring
that
I
think
would
benefit
our
existing
code.
I
will
definitely
let
this
committee
know
as
well
that.
A
All
right,
no
more
hands
up,
I'm
going
to
send
out
another
meeting,
invite
so
I'm
looking
probably
at
march.
Third,
probably
one
to
three-
I
just
always
coordinate
with
lynn,
and
today
she
can
only
do
12
to
two.
That's
why
we
have
the
unique
time,
but
my
hope
is
then
on
march
3rd
we
will
do
probably
one
to
three
but
you'll
get
the
meeting.
A
Invite
so
double
check
that
time
and
we
will
get
through
cottage
clusters,
then,
and
then
the
next
meeting,
I'm
hoping
will
be
march
17th
and
we
will
go
through
the
odds
and
ends
that
we
didn't
finish
that
we
still
need
to
get
through
and
then
that
will
following
that
meeting,
I
will
hopefully
finish
up
all
the
other
code
updates
that
I'm
working
on
and
be
able
to
start
really
drafting
what
we've
all
worked
on
together
and
then
we'll
set
up
a
meeting
to
go
through
that
draft,
and
I
assume
that'll
probably
take
at
least
two
meetings
but
it'll,
be
a
lot
cleaner
to
look
at
than
this
excel
chart
that
we've
all
been
working
off
of
so
one
or
two
meetings
there
and
then
you
know,
make
changes
and
then,
at
some
point
shortly
after
we'll
have
to
go
out
to
the
public
to
start
getting
some
feedback
from
the
the
group
that
I
have
a
development
code,
update
group
and
start
the
public
process
so
that
we
meet
some
of
the
timelines
that
we
were
given
for
the
grant
that
we're
working
under
two.