►
From YouTube: 3/17/2021 HB 2001 Meeting 2nd Phase
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
So
for
the
cottage
clusters,
I
tried
to
capture
everybody's
comments
and
discussion
that
we
had
regarding
what
to
propose
and
again
this
is
just
an
initial
draft.
I'm
hoping
everyone
had
an
opportunity
to
look
at
the
draft.
I
got
an
email
from
kathy.
It
looked
like
she
thought
I
captured
everything.
A
Okay,
I
didn't
know
if
there's
interest
on
any
particular
section
of
the
cottage
clusters
to
go
through
again,
which
is
definitely
fine
or
if
we
were
okay
with
it,
then
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
topics
and
I'm
open
to
suggestions,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
I've
captured
everybody's
thoughts
on
the
cottage
clusters.
For
this
initial
draft,
mike
has
his
hand
up.
B
B
A
Right
so
this
resides-
and
this
will
reside
in
chapter
3.8
and
any
type
of
these
developments
in
3.8
if
a
specific
standard
is
not
listed,
that
means
the
standard
of
the
underlying
zone
control.
So
if
we
don't
talk
about
height,
that
means
you
go
to
the
underlying
zone
and
that
height
will
apply
and
then
for
the
maximum
size
of
the
units.
The
vote
was
not
to
have
one
and
just
have
the
footprint
control
the
the
size
of
the
unit.
B
B
B
The
question
I
have
another
question:
it's
minor:
it's
h,
setbacks
and
building
separations
one
b
small,
I
interior,
building
separations
six
feet
between
the
eu's
on
cottage
sides
with
main
entrance.
The
separation
is
six
feet.
My
my
confusion
was
usually
the
site.
An
entrance
has
a
has
some
sort
of
covering,
and
then
I
look
at
your
exhibit,
which
you
show
on
figure.
Three
point.
Eight
point:
nine
hundred
k
point
two:
can
you
bring
that
up
on
the
screen,
but
it
would
be
helpful.
B
Go
it
if
we're
looking
for
these
good
use
of
land?
I
look
at
that
and
say
well
in
that
exhibit.
It
seems
obvious
that
the
main
entrance
would
be
not
on
the
side,
but
on
the
front,
putting
it
on
the
side
just
eats
up
more.
This
pushes
the
living
area
further
apart.
It
just
seems
like
it
eats
up
more
land,
so
I
I
was
just
curious.
B
A
So
this
this
exhibit
came
from
dlcd.
I
think
I
saw
ethan
on
here.
If
he
wants
to
try
and
address
it.
My
guess
is
it's
just
to
show
different
possible
layouts.
It's
you
know
if
someone's
designing
it,
because
this
area
here,
in
my
opinion,
is
such
a
large
setback.
These
could
have
been
pushed
back
in
the
front
entrances
on
the
front
of
the
units
I
think
was
trying
to
demonstrate
is
that
you
have
50
percent
of
the
units
facing
the
courtyard
and
that
these
don't
necessarily
have
to
because
you're
complying
with
the
50.
A
B
C
B
B
A
B
A
A
B
It's
still
parking
it's
b,
I'm
trying
to
get
the
right:
okay
b,
roman
numeral,
I
nope-
that's
not
it
gotta
get
to
the
right
one,
oh
d,
garages
and
our
points
must
not
have
but
common
courtyards.
When
I
saw
that
I
I
remember
my
recent
walk
through
of
the
project
there
at
monterey,
pines
and
a
lot
of
their
garage.
They
had
these
clusters
of
garages
off
of.
D
B
Drive
in
the
back
of
those
garages
faced
the
court,
the
open
space,
the
courtyard,
so
my
question
was:
when
does
it
become
that
garage
is
the
budding
and
wendy?
What
do
do
you
put
something
in
between
a
distance
or
planting
to
remove
that
requirement?
So
you
don't
have
somebody
saying?
Well,
you
can't
have
it
abutting
the
open
space,
even
if
you
put
a
shrub
there,
how
would
you?
B
A
I'd
have
to
look
at
it,
but
we
would
go
to
our
definition
of
a
budding
and
budding
means
that
joining
with
a
common
boundary
line,
except
for
two
or
more
lots
of
join
only
at
corners
or
corners.
They
should
not
be
considered
a
budding
unless
the
common
line
between
the
two
parcels
measures
eight
feet
or
more
in
a
single
direction.
So
we
would
go
by
the
definition
of
a
budding
and
if
it
qualifies,
then
they
could
not
put
their
garage.
A
D
B
Yeah,
I
think
that
project
must
be
18
19
years
old.
It
was
there
when
I
first
moved
to
town
and
and-
and
I
just
would
hate
to
see
a
project
like
that
which
did
such
a
nice
job
of
creating
that
little
open
space,
it's
surrounded
by
the
cottages
and
yes,
the
clustered
garage
backs
up
to
one
side
of
that
common
area.
B
That
applicant
was
good
to
work
with
he
agreed
to
put
up
a
fence
so
that
people
wouldn't
park
in
their
neighbor's
parking
lot
and
just
walk
across
the
property
line.
This
code
doesn't
say
anything
about.
You
know
if
the
parking
is
going
to
be
very
minimal
and
the
garage
is
going
to
be
short
for
a
truck.
B
A
So
b1
does
say
that
parking
cannot
be
located
in
the
setbacks
and
that
it
must
be
screened
from
public
streets
and
adjacent
residential
uses
by
a
landscape
buffer.
That
is
the
width
of
the
setback.
So
we're
talking
like,
let's
say,
a
five
side
yard
setback
is
typically
five
feet
that
five
feet
will
be
landscaped,
so
I
don't
see
how
they
could
drive
between
the
two
properties.
B
I
I
need
to
clarify
my
statement.
Then
it's
not
a
matter
of
driving
between
it's
that
if
they
have
an
oversized
vehicle-
and
they
know
it
won't
fit
in
the
garage-
and
that
was
their
only
provided
parking
space,
they
could
park
next
door,
trespassing
walk
across
the
landscaping
into
their
project
and
somebody
could
tow
their
car
away.
Frankly,.
B
Yeah
that's
unfortunate
because
that
puts
a
burden
on
them.
The
landlord,
if
it's
a
retail,
to
monitor
the
parking
lot
to
make
sure
he's
not
towing
a
customer
away
or
an
employee
away.
You
know
it
creates
a
rather
onerous
burden
on
the
neighbor,
because
there's
no
code
that
says
yeah
put
up
a
fence,
so
they
don't
walk
between
the
two.
A
There's
a
lot
of
cases
where
I
think
we
do
want
them
to
walk
between
the
two.
Let's
say
it's
a
grocery
store
and
they
just
want
to
walk
to
the
grocery
store
without
having
to
go
all
the
way
around
the
neighborhood
to
get
to
the
grocery
store.
So
it's
hard
to
write
in
a
restriction
when
it
may
have
an
effect
on
one
property,
but
not
another,
and
it
is
a
civil
matter
between
the
two.
A
If
the
residents
for
some
reason
are
parking
on
the
adjacent
property,
it
is
between
the
two
property
owners
and
they
can
place
those
no
parking
zones,
just
like
brother
john's
does,
because
our
west
side,
shorties
and
brother
john's
very
clear.
You
cannot
park
in
certain
spots
because
they
don't
belong
to
our
jobs.
They
belong
to
west
side
shorties,
even
though
they're
all
on
the
same
alley.
B
B
Okay,
I'm
not
thinking
the
one
exception
of
the
world-
I
don't
know,
but
I
know
it
happened
on
my
project
and
I
had
a
very
good
relationship
with
the
developer
and
he
agreed
to
put
up
a
fence,
but
there's
no
guarantee
there
will
even
be
a
public
hearing
on
these
projects.
I
guess
there
will
be
if
there's
a
subdivision
involved,
but
if
there's
some
people
just
say
well,
we'll
do
it
in
compliance
with
the
code
and
if
the
code
says
we
don't
care,
that's
your
problem,
then
that
puts
a
burden
on
that
existing
retailer.
A
A
H
Thank
you.
I
wanted
to
thank
mike
for
bringing
up
that
one
item
regarding
the
parking
structures,
possibly
a
budding
the
courtyard.
I
think
that
was
a
really
good
thing
to
bring
up,
and
it
might
be
that
in
the
definition
that
you
read
pauline,
it
sounded
like
there
would
be
needed
to
be
eight
feet
of
something
between
their
property
lines,
but
I
was
thinking
we
might
be
able
to
wear
this
in
such
a
way
that
there
would
be
a
requirement
for
four
or
five
feet
of
landscaping
between
the
garages
and
carports
in
the
common
area.
H
If
we
allow
them
to
about
the
common
courtyard.
As
I'm
thinking
somebody
had
mentioned
that
there
was
an
l-shaped
cottage
cluster
and
in
that
case
I
could
easily
see
where
it
would
make
sense
to
have
carports
or
garages
next
to
the
common
area,
and
I
don't
think
it's
necessarily
a
bad
thing.
I
think
it
could
be
handled
with
landscaping.
H
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
point,
and
then
I
don't
agree
with
requiring
fencing
off
a
cottage
cluster
as
mike
was
suggesting
we.
We
can't
deal
with
every
conceivable
issue
in
these
codes
and
I
think,
the
point
of
being
able
to
walk
to
a
grocery
store
if
you're
next
to
it
makes
perfect
sense.
So
I
wouldn't
support
adding
fencing
around
the
cold
development
and
that's
all
I
had
to
say.
A
Okay,
well,
I've
added,
thank
you
kathy
and
mike
I
added
a
note.
I
will
definitely
take
a
look
at
monterey,
pines
and
see
what
it
looks
like
and
how
it
lays
out
and
then,
depending
on
how
that
is,
then
I
can
draft
something
here
so
that
it's
not
so
restrictive
and
that
it
would
allow
some
garages
or
carports,
because
you
already
have
to
have
cottages
at
least
budding
two
sides
of
the
courtyard.
B
B
Best
attack
yeah,
you
know
it's,
it's
it's
a
good
college.
Try
there.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everybody
saw
that,
because,
frankly,
from
if
you're,
when
you're
standing
right
next
to
10
feet,
yeah,
it's
a
separation
when
you're
a
little
bit
further
away,
it's
kind
of
hard
to
see
that
one's
really
different
from
the
other.
So
I
I
just
point
that
out
in
case
to
make
sure
the
group
is
comfortable,
that
that
is
sufficient,
and
I
have
one
clarification.
B
I
I
don't
did
not
intend
to
suggest
that
the
courtyard
be
cottage
cluster
project
be
entirely
encompassed
an
offense
in
the
case
that
I'm
referring
to.
It
was
really
just
on
one
side
where
it
abutted
the
adjacent
property
which
wasn't
a
grocery
store
and
has
had
abuse
from
a
nearby
apartments
where
they
will
come
and
park
in
the
parking
lot
and
walk
around
the
up
across
this
this
vacant
land
when
it
was
vacant,
so
they
were
abusing
the
parking.
This
wasn't
just
a
grocery
store
and
there
are.
B
I
had
a
gentleman
leave
his
truck
there
through
the
snowmageddon
two
years
ago
and
we
kept
moving
the
snow
all
around
it
and
it
kept
getting
deeper
and
deeper
and
he
couldn't
understand
why
we
were
upset
that
he
couldn't
leave
his
car
there
because
he
was
visiting
a
buddy
on
an
adjacent
project
and
yet
it
created
a
huge
snow
removal
problem
for
us.
So
you
know
part
of
it's
just
the
life
of
owning
something,
but
there's
also
some
responsibility
that
should
be
taken.
It
doesn't
I'm
not
asking
for
a
fence
around
the
entire
property.
I
Yeah,
a
quick
one.
I
agree
with
kathy
on
the
parking
in
garages
next
to
the
common
area,
except
that
I
don't
see
that
we
would
have
to
require
landscaping,
particularly,
I
don't
see
what
the
problem
is
of
having
parking
convenient
to
that
common
area
and
having
other
requirements
added
on
to
it.
So
I
just
like
to
put
that
opinion
in
and
then
regarding
the
whole
parking
and
fencing
between
properties.
A
I
I
don't
think
it's
so
bad
if
you
have
landscaping,
if
you
can
consider
that
landscape
part
a
part
of
the
common
area,
what
I
don't
want
to
see
on
small
parcels
is
another
section
of
land
that
is
contiguous
with
a
common
area
that
is
not
allowed
to
be
included
in
that.
That
makes
it
near
impossible
to
fit
the
development
on
smaller
pieces
and
especially
if
it's
an
odd-shaped
common
area
and
it's
a
buddy
knit
in
a
small
section,
there's
just
so
many
circumstances.
I
just
don't
see
where
the
extra
landscaping
should
be
required.
D
I
F
F
I
mean
we
don't
need
to
regulate
every
neighborhood
neighbor
dispute
and
I
don't
I'm
not
in
favor
of
putting
up
fencing,
which
is
an
extremely
expensive
thing
to
do,
and
with
affordability,
issue
and
lumber
prices
you
know
are
astronomical,
maybe
even
not
available
for
certain
things
and
then
they
deteriorate
and
they
look
like
crap
after
a
certain
period
of
time.
So
I'm
totally
against
fencing
and
they've
their
fire
fire.
A
That's
akarna,
who
was
next
lynn,
was
it
bill
and
then
audrey
all
right
and
then
we'll
move
on
from
the
fencing,
make
one
or
two
more
comments.
If
there's
any
more
feedback
on
this
particular
section,
I
would
like
to
hear
that
or
on
the
cottage
code
section
and
then,
if
not
I'd
like
to
jump
into
those
little
items
that
we
still
need
to
get
through.
J
J
You
know
either
the
side
or
front
or
rear,
but
you
know
you
could
imagine
it
being
sort
of
in
the
front
corner
and
I
I
don't
particularly
have
an
opinion
about
it,
but
it
seemed
to
me
that
it
wasn't
clear
as
to
whether
you
could
count
the
square
footage
in
the
setback.
As
part
of
the
you
know,
minimum
amount
of
common
area
required
so.
A
A
A
A
A
A
I'm
just
making
sure
it's
not
in
here
anywhere
else.
That's
a
good
question.
I
think
it's
definitely
worth
talking
about
with
this
group.
You
know
as
mike's
talking
about
you
know,
access
between
properties,
we're
not
going
to
support
a
fence,
but
if
we
allow
the
alley
right
up
against
the
property
line,
it's
hard
to
prohibit
the
access,
so
it
might
make
sense
and
we're
only
talking
about
a
five
foot
setback
to
not
allow
the
access
aisle
in
the
setbacks.
J
I
Yeah
real
real,
quick
pauline.
I
was
just
hoping
when
you
look
at
the
landscaping
potential
requirement
with
the
parking
that
just
consider
why
why
would
it
be
necessary
or
why
would
it
be
required?
And
I
can
see
situations.
I
know
I've
tried
I've
designed
somewhere.
There
were
just
a
couple
spots
here
and
there
they
weren't.
I
So
I
mean
there's
one
thing
visualizing
as
parking
lots,
but
you
could
have
it
on
multiple
sides
and
still
have
the
parking
pretty
discreet
and
not
have
to
buffer
it
or
fence
it
or
landscape
it,
but
still
have
it
a
budding,
a
common
area.
So
I'm
just
hoping
there's
as
much
flexibility
built
into
that
and
not
as
much
I
mean
it's.
It's
parking
within
that
community,
as
I
don't
see
why
the
more
higher
regulations
are
going
to
be
beneficial.
I
The
reason
I
ask
also
is
on
one
of
the
tighter
properties
I
had
it
designed
to
where
the
the
garages
did
a
butt
directly
to
it.
But
I
was
able
to
do
a
a
flyby
roof
that
made
a
an
open
entertaining
patio
area
for
the
courtyard,
and
it
was
the
back
of
the
garage
structure
and
that
would
not
have
been
possible
on
that
parcel
with
additional
landscaping
or
screening.
A
A
I
A
K
F
K
K
K
Then
also
the
common,
the
separation
of
the
common
courtyards
separating
them
by
a
minimum
of
10
feet
number
two,
be
I'm
just
kind
of
wondering.
If
that's,
if
that's
needed,
because
I
mean
how
would
one
separate
if
there
were
two
courtyards
next
to
each
other?
Wouldn't
they
just?
Would
they
separate
it
by
landscaping,
which
would
just
be
as
a
I
mean
could
be
part
of
the
courtyard?
So
I
know.
K
I
I
proposed
what,
if
an
extreme
example
of
the
you
know
three
mile
long
common
courtyard
something,
but
I
just
don't
see
that
as
happening
and
I
feel
like
this-
maybe
it's
just
kind
of
arbitrary
and
doesn't
need
to
be
in
there
and
then
I
also,
I
also
agreed
with
that.
The
park
prohibiting
the
parking
around
the
courtyards
is
a
little
restrictive.
I
feel
like
I
don't.
I
don't
feel
like
that's
the
end
of
the
world,
creating
a
connection
between
a
parking
garage
or
a
garage
in
a
a
courtyard.
D
G
A
handful
of
comments
in
the
chat
pauline
and
I'm
happy
to
like
follow
up
with
what
we're
talking
about
if
you're
going
to
refer
back
to
that
later
and
want
some
context,
I'll
put
something
in
because
they're
saying
like
agree
with
scott
or
don't
agree
with
whatever.
So
I
don't
know
if
you
look
at
that,
but
I
think
folks
are
using
that
and
I'm
happy
I'm
just.
I
want
to
make
sure
you're
either
tracking
it
or
I
jump
in
and
say
about
the
courtyard.
You
know
something
like
that:
that'll
help
hint
to
you
later.
A
G
D
A
H
H
I
think
that
once
the
project
goes
to
engineering
to
deal
with
stormwater
concerns
and
all
that's
involved,
you
know
some
of
that
may
if
it's
a
specific
instance
where
it
seems
like
a
problem,
will
probably
be
addressed.
I
don't
think
we
really
need
to
put
it
in
this
code
and
I'd
like
to
say
I
agree
with
scott
regarding
referencing,
the
the
six
foot
separation
of
the
eaves
is
part
of
the
building
code
unless
there's
some
other
reason
to
do
it.
H
A
Thank
you
kathy,
and
I'm
just
to
address
that
comment
for
pre-apps.
We
don't
always
have
building
department
there
and
they're
conceptual
this
type
of
detail.
A
very
clear
and
objective
six
feet
between
eaves
is
nice
to
have
in
the
code.
So
it's
up
front
and
the
applicant
or
potential
developer
is
aware
of
it
and
they
don't
design
something,
and
then
they
get
to
the
building
code
and
they're.
A
H
A
And
I'll
talk
to
brad
I
I
would
almost
prefer
to
say
that
at
six
feet
between
the
structures-
which
I
think
is
building
code
and
not
the
eaves,
because
then
it's
gonna,
an
architect,
might
do
really
skinny
eaves,
because
all
of
a
sudden,
that's
dictating
how
far
apart
the
buildings
are.
Where
maybe
we
want
to
see
some
larger
eaves,
yeah
and.
H
H
B
Okay,
my
questions
about
purpose
of
this
code.
I
was
looking
at
some
of
the
other
sections
in
chapter
3.8,
specifically
the
courtyard
housing
development.
I
guess
I
I
keep
thinking
of
what
a
neat
little
project
that
is
on
monterey,
pine.
It
had
a
purpose.
It
had
an
intent.
When
I
look
at
3.8.5,
it
says:
provide
housing
type
that
responds
to
a
differing
housing
size
and
ages,
that
example
retirees
small
families,
single-person
households.
B
Does
it
warrant
that
this
code
chapter
or
the
section
3.8.900
should
have
a
purpose
or
anything
goes?
Can
it
be
a
three-story
building
maximizing
the
the
footprint
where
you
could
have
multiple
bedrooms
and
then
right
next
to
the
and
the
neighbor
things
wait
a
minute.
I
thought
you
were
doing
a
cottage
and
it
doesn't
look
anything
like
a
cottage.
So
it's
it's
it's
kind
of
late
in
the
game
to
be
asking
this,
but
the
chapter
here
starts
out
out
a
is
applicability.
There's
there's
nothing
that
really
talks
about.
A
We're
trying
to
move
away
from
purpose
statements
in
the
code
and
we've
actually
added
a
new
section
in
chapter
one
clarifying
that
the
purpose
has
no
bearing
on
the
land
use
decision
to
make
it
clear
it's
on
approval
criteria
like
when
we
did
micro
units.
We
didn't
put
a
purpose
statement
when
we
did
the
small
dwelling
units.
A
We
didn't
do
a
purpose
statement,
so
we
are
trying
to
actually
move
away
from
using
the
purpose
statements
just
for
what
reason,
because
they
have
no
bearing
on
the
development.
If
you
go
to
chapter
one
or
title
one,
I
think
it's
under
general
administration,
yep
miscellaneous
provisions.
It
says
purpose
statements
for
each
chapter
are
descriptive
of
the
chapters,
characteristics
and
intent
and
are
drawn
from
the
bank
comprehensive,
planner
development
code
purpose
statements
are
informational
and
not
standards
or
approval
criteria.
B
Yes,
I
understand
the
concept:
it's
not
meant
to
be
a
site
plan
criteria
that
a
reviewer
would
use
to
say
oh
nope,
but
it
just
gives
the
general
concept
of.
Why
would
somebody
even
pick
cottage
clusters
if
they're
going
to
build
a
three
story
maximize
the
footprint
and
it
doesn't
look
anything
like
what
you
would
think
a
cottage
cluster?
A
K
It
gets
pretty
complicated
when
you're
looking
at
buildings,
proximities
and
the
type
of
openings
and
the
type
of
construction,
and
and
now
that
there
there's
another
one
that
has
to
do
with
the
the
different
heights
of
the
building,
so
that
if
there's
a
smaller
building
it
catches
on
fire,
it's
more
likely
to
catch
a
building.
Next
to
it
that's
taller,
I
was
trying
to
skim
it
really
quick,
but
yeah
again,
I
I
don't
like
mixing
the
two
very
much
I
mean.
A
One
I'll
work
with
brad
on
that
particular
section
to
make
sure
if
we
put
six
and
it
wouldn't
be
from
the
eavs
from
the
actual
foundation,
because
that's
what
we
have
in
the
other
cottage
development
code
and
it's
actually
six
and
ten.
So
it's
a
little
more
restrictive
than
this
one,
but
I'll
double
check
with
brad
and
he's
with
the
building
department.
D
D
A
E
A
A
A
So
we
have
a
definition
for
building
footprint,
which
is
basically
the
outline
of
a
building,
and
then
the
lot
coverage
means
all
the
areas
that
is
outlined
by
the
building.
So
this
gold
area
would
count
towards
lot
coverage
and
so
does
anything.
That's
18
inches
above
the
finished
grade.
So
this
porch
area
here
is
above
18
inches.
So
that
would
start
counting
towards
your
lot
coverage
and
then
in
the
code
today
we
say
you
get
a
5
foot
exemption
to
encourage
larger
porches
and
the
group
had
discussed
bumping
that
up
to
10th.
A
A
But
if
you
do
it
has
to
be
the
same
or
less
restrictive
than
what
you
require
for
a
detached
single
family
home
in
the
same
zone
model
code
you're
not
required
to
have
lot
coverage
today
in
bend.
We
do
have
a
lot
coverage
for
every
single
type
of
single
family,
duplexes,
triplexes,
quads
and
townhomes,
and
we
do
treat
them
the
same
and
it's
based
on
the
zone.
A
So
that's
lot
coverage,
which
also
is
similar
to
flurry
ratio.
They
both
control
the
sizing
of
a
building
on
a
lot.
The
minimum
compliance
here
on
the
left
side
is
similar
to
the
lot
coverage
not
required,
but
if
you're
going
to
do
it,
it
has
to
be
the
same
as
a
single
family
home
that
we
have
today
and
then
the
model
code.
If
you
were
going
to
have
it,
you
would
have
it
for
triplexes
and
quads
and
it
would
be
based
on
the
lot.
A
So
if
it's
a
lot
between
three
and
five
thousand,
then
you're
at
1.1
floor
area
ratio
and
floor
ratio
again
controls
the
massing
of
a
building
on
a
site.
We
use
floor
ratio
minimally.
Today
we
use
it
for
accessory
drawing
units
and
it's
0.6,
so
it's
definitely
considerably
less
than
what
is
in
the
model
code.
A
A
Our
lot
coverage
today
is
35
in
the
low
density,
residential
district
50
for
single-story
structures
and
single-story,
detached
structures
in
the
standard
density,
residential
and
then
45
for
all
other
uses
like
two-story
structures
and
then
in
the
rm.
It's
50
again
for
the
single
story:
single
family
dwelling
unit
45
for
all
other
single
family.
So
if
there's
a
two-story
single
family
detached
it
would
be
45,
and
then
we
bumped
up
to
60
for
what
we
consider
middle
housing,
which
is
duplexes,
triplexes,
quads
and
townhouses,
and
then
the
high
density.
A
A
A
if
by
chance,
you're
able
to
get
a
third
story
in
there,
you'd
be
at
180
floor
ratio.
So
I
broke
that
down
for
each
one
of
these.
So
the
first
one
is
the
single
story,
floor
ratio
based
on
the
lot
coverage.
The
second
one
is
for
two
story,
and
the
third
is
for
a
three
story,
and
then
the
far
right
column
in
the
green
is
what
the
model
code
would
allow.
A
A
The
only
time
we
would
really
be
over
is
if
you
did
a
three
story:
metal
housing
in
the
standard
density
residential,
because
the
model
code
would
only
allow
you
a
floor
ratio
of
110
and
a
three
story
would
actually
get
you
135,
and
then
this
other
one
down
here.
In
the
rm
again,
if
you
did
a
three
story,
middle
housing
development
you'd
be
at
180
floor
ratio
versus
140,
which
is
the
maximum.
A
The
other
ones
are
higher
than
what
we
allow
today,
which
is
60
for
those
certain
uses
that
we
talked
about.
So
if
we
did
away
with
the
60,
which
we
really
can't
use
anyways,
because
we
don't
always
use
that
for
single
family,
detached
dwellings
and
just
used
lot
coverage,
I
think
our
lock
coverage
is
close
enough
to
what
the
model
code
floor
area
ratio
requirements
are
that
we
don't
need
to
have
both
standards,
that
we
can
just
use
the
lot
coverage
and
make
sure
I
didn't
have
any
yeah.
A
H
A
D
G
D
A
H
B
Yeah,
I
want
to
sort
of
agree
with
matt
a
little
bit.
I
I
you
know
we're
looking
at
a
flat
piece
of
paper
with
the
numbers,
I'm
not
sure
if
everybody
really
understands
what
a
three-story
building
at
a
far
of
180
percent
a
ratio,
you
know
180
just
how
that
would
look
one
after
the
another
after
the
another
after
the
another
will
it
would
be
great
if
we
had
a
perspective,
a
a
what
is
it
a
side,
view
or
front
view
to
get
a
sense
of
the
scale?
B
The
architects
can
probably
correct
me
or,
if
I'm
wrong,
but
far,
really
is
about
scale
of
project
to
show
just
the
massing
of
the
building
and
how
close
it
is
to
the
next
one
and
the
next
one.
Can
you
imagine
a
a
100,
far
building
being
built
next
to
a
single
story:
single
family,
home
and
they're,
like
they've
lost
their
son?
It's
just
it
there's
quite
a
bit
of
difference
between
the
two.
So
that's
my
point.
I
I
think
we
can't
just
go
with
the.
C
Yeah,
I
was
just
gonna
say
exactly
what
mike
just
said
that
I
can't
fully
envision
what
the
180
and
the
135
would
look
like,
so
I
would
be
inclined
to
stick
with
the
lower
numbers
in
the
model
code
in
part
because
of
what
mike
said.
That
was
the
sunshine.
You
know
when
you
get
those
really
tall
buildings,
you're
losing
a
lot
of
the
light
down
below.
So
I
think
I'd
be
inclined
to
go
with
the
higher
numbers
than
or
the
lower
numbers
in
the
model
code
for
those
two
that
are.
K
The
three
story-
I
I
just
feel
like
getting
a
three-story,
especially
because
when
we're
talking
about
this,
I
think
a
lot
of
us
are
imagining
kind
of
neighborhood
single-family
detached
home
developments
and
getting
a
getting
a
three-story
building
with
those
building
heights
is
is
kind
of
difficult.
It
might
be
more
of
like
a
kind
of
a
topography
type
thing
so
yeah,
I
I
don't
really.
K
I
don't
imagine
that
it
would
get
built
out
with
with
that
that
kind
of
maximum
three-story
volume.
I
do
worry
about
solar
access,
and
I
think
that
there
are
better
ways
of
managing
solar
access,
and
things
like
that.
Rather
you
know
better
than
than
using
far,
but
I
I
I
don't
have
a.
I
don't-
have
a
problem
getting
rid
of
the
far.
B
B
Frankly,
what's
happened,
especially,
I
think
it's
more
of
an
issue
in
infill
rather
than
let's
say,
middle
housing
developments
is
bottom
line,
is
important
to
these
builders,
more
than
I
think
somebody
like
a
polish
or
hidden
homes
which
have
a
reputation
and
they're
selling
a
product
to
a
wide
variety.
These
infields
very
easily
could
be.
How
do
I
maximize
my
profit?
B
You
know
they
don't
have
as
much
ownership
if
it's
a
development
like
a
polish
or
a
hidden
home,
where
they're
they're
having
to
sell
it
to
a
whole
neighborhood.
So
I
I
think
you
know
a
pitch
is
worth
a
thousand
words
to
be
nice
to
see
a
graphic
that
shows
it
from
a
street
view.
What
this
could
look
like.
A
H
Yeah
pauline,
I
think
it
makes
sense
in
the
rs,
I'm
not
sure
it
makes
sense
in
the
rm
and
let
me
explain
for
a
while.
I
lived
in
cambridge
massachusetts
and
there's
a
lot
of
what
they
call
triple
deckers,
which
are
three
floor.
Buildings
that
are
repeated.
They
usually
have
a
front
porch
and
you
know
a
family
lives
in
one
and
rents
out
the
other
two
type
of
thing,
but
they
are
the
same
all
the
way
up
and
I
could
see
in
the
rm
zone
something
like
that
happening.
H
E
A
A
Well,
the
rh,
I
was
just
using
the
model
code
of
140..
We
don't
have
lot
coverage
in
the
rh,
so
I
wasn't
necessarily
even
proposing
far
in
the
rh
okay,
sorry
to
interrupt.
Oh,
that's,
okay,
no
good
catch,
because
yeah
just
to
be
clear,
I'm
not
proposing
an
far
in
our
high
density.
We
don't
have
one.
Today
we
don't
have
lot
coverage
and
our
high
density
is
to
get
as
many
units
as
possible
up
to
43
an
acre.
H
For
those
who
can't
visualize,
I
just
went
and
googled
triple
decker,
and
it
takes
you
immediately
to
images
of
what
I'm
talking
about.
If,
if
those
of
who
are
having
difficulty
visualizing
it,
I
think
you'll
see
that
it's
a
very
attractive
product
type
anyway
yeah.
So
we
don't
want
to
go
to
the
140
and
the
rh.
I
just
assumed
we
weren't
going
to
do
anything
in
the
rh
and
I
was
just
saying
the
rm.
A
So
let's
have
a
vote
on
that,
so
we
would
have
a
limit
in
the
rs
of
far
of
110.
We
would
not
have
a
limit
in
the
rm
and
I'm
not
even
gonna.
Have
you
vote
on
the
rh,
because
that
wasn't
that's
my
bad,
it's
not
even
in
the
proposal,
so
we
would
have
a
limit
if
you
support
having
a
far
limit
of
110
in
the
rs
for
the
three
stories
and
then
no
limit
in
the
rm.
A
D
A
Okay,
so
here's
another
one
of
my
favorite
topics,
garage
doors
and
I
I
tried
to
come
up
with
some
compromises,
so
we'll
see
how
I
did
so.
This
will
apply
to
triplex's
four
plexes
and
townhomes
and
when
I
say
townhomes,
this
isn't
our
share
courts.
This
is
just
if
you're
gonna
do
you
know
four
town
homes
and
they
all
front
the
street.
Then
this
is
what
would
apply
and
that's
saying,
they're
also
street
accessed,
hopefully
they're
alley
loaded.
A
A
A
A
These
are
examples
of
very
garage,
dominant
townhomes
and
very,
in
my
opinion,
garage
dominant
triplex.
I
don't
even
know
where
the
third
front
door
is
on
that
one,
so
the
current
standards
in
the
code
today
we
have
for
triplexes
because
we're
not
really
talking
about
duplexes.
We
have
to
treat
those
same
as
single
family,
so
for
garage
doors
for
triplex's.
A
Today
we
measure
the
garage
door
width
facing
the
street
and
has
to
be
a
maximum
of
50
percent
of
the
total
building
width,
and
I
do
have
exhibits
that
I'll
show
you
that
were
that
are
helpful.
We
had
talked
about
well.
Should
we
measure
the
garage
door
with
based
on
the
building
width
or
the
lot
width
so
bear
with
me
and
I'll
get
to
some
pictures
for
that,
so
the
code
today
is
garage
door
standards
50,
it's
based
on
total
building
width
and
then
in
our
garage
door
standards.
A
It
talks
about
the
front
door
location,
so
they
do
tie
together
in
the
code
today
that
if
your
garage
is
out
front,
but
you
have
livable
space
above
then,
your
front
door
could
be
10
feet
back
from
your
garage.
If
you
have
a
porch,
your
front
door
can
be
five
feet
back
from
your
garage,
so
it
still
allows
that
protruding
garage
design
townhomes.
Today
we
don't
look
at
the
front
doors.
All
we
look
at
for
townhomes
is
the
garage
door.
A
So
these
are
the
exhibits
that
were
drawn
up
for
us,
I
believe,
by
hayden
homes.
This
is
what
a
house
looks
like
with
a
garage
based
on
the
building
width.
So
the
top
two
are
saying:
if
you
want
a
16
foot
wide
garage
door,
then
you're
building
with
has
to
be
at
least
32
feet
and
that's
what
it
would
look
like.
A
A
So
here's
the
same
design,
16-foot
garage
the
house
is
at
you
can
have
a
26-foot
wide
house,
but
you
know
the
garage
is
starting
to
be
more
prominent
than
the
livable
space
of
the
structure
and
then
here's
another
example
of
sixty
percent.
If
you
want
a
three-car
garage
again,
the
garage
is
definitely
more
prominent.
A
Now
if
we
look
at
the
garage
door
based
on
the
lot
width,
the
top
ones,
this
is.
If
your
lot
was
40,
then
you
can
have
a
20
foot
wide
garage,
this
one's.
If
your
lot
is
40
and
you
went
with
a
60-
that's
a
lot
of
garage.
If
you
start
really
basing
it
off
the
lot
width
and
then
down
here
is
50
on
a
60
foot
wide
lot
and
then
sixty
percent
on
a
60
foot
wide
locked
so
bear
with
me.
A
L
L
You
know
as
the
largest
typical,
not
saying
again
that
that
somebody
wouldn't
do
something
like
that,
but
I
can't
even
think
of
a
single
instance
and
bend
where
we
have
two
two-car
garage
doors
like
that.
So
I'd
really
caution
that
on
being
an
accurate
representation
of
something
that
is
typically
built,
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up,
but.
A
A
Here's
some
other
examples,
good
and
bad.
This
is
a.
I
don't
know
it's
not
an
alley,
it's
just
a
driveway
that
they
all
share
and
each
of
these
units
has
a
front
door.
You
can't
see
it
they're
tucked
in
there,
which
is
fine,
only
front
door.
We
would
be
looking
at.
Is
this
one
in
the
front
and
instead
of
this
unit
actually
facing
the
street,
you
get
the
side
of
a
building
same
with
this
picture
here.
A
A
These
are
some
other
standards
that
we
don't
require
have
any
standards
for
garages
or
front
doors.
This
is
what
we
could
get,
what
we've
gotten
lately,
but
this
one.
I
have
no
idea
where
the
front
doors
are,
I
believe
one
might
be
over
here.
This
one
was
interesting.
They
built
the
garage
in
the
front
and
then
in
the
very
back.
You
can't
see
it,
but
there's
the
front
doors.
A
It's
a
detached
triplex
behind
there
and
the
front
doors
are
behind
this
on
each
side
of
it
is
single-family
dwellings
with
front
doors,
but
this
is
just
one
big
garage,
so
our
current
code
for
the
front
door
requires
one
one
front
door,
not
all
of
them
just
one
to
front
the
street
and
then,
if
it
wasn't
fronting
a
street,
it
could
be
onto
that
cover.
Porch,
like
that
first
picture
that
we
looked
at
and
then
the
model
code
we
had
talked
about.
A
If
we
were
going
to
have
a
front
door
standard
that
it
would
only
apply
on
the
larger
lot,
so
lots
40,
feet
or
greater
and
that
the
entrance
must
be
within
10
feet
of
the
longest
street
facing
wall.
The
model
code
actually
uses
eight,
but
the
group
had
talked
about
bumping
that
up
to
ten
and
again,
this
is
only
on
lots
that
are
40
feet
or
wider.
A
There
will
be
four
options
for
the
front
door:
one
it
can
face
the
street
one.
It
can
be
45
degrees
from
the
street,
face
a
open
space,
that's
adjacent
to
the
street
and
is
abutted
by
dwellings
on
at
least
two
sides
or
it's
open
onto
a
porch
and
we
decrease
the
size.
I
think
it
was
25
feet
in
the
model
code
and
we
put
it
down
to
20
feet.
A
These
are
the
examples
that
we
could
use
for
the
code
where
it'd
be
eight
feet
from
this
is
the
one
that
is
eight
feet,
but
we
would
do
ten.
So
anytime,
you
see
eight
make
sure
you
we,
we
bump
that
back
to
ten
10
feet
back
from
the
longest
street
facing
wall,
and
this
is
of
the
dwelling
unit.
I
would
encourage
the
group
to
consider
maybe
of
the
street
facing
wall,
so
it
might
actually
be
the
garage
because
if
not
your
garage
could
be
way
up
here
and
then
the
there's
really.
A
A
My
recommendation
is
that
we
still
use
total
building
width
and
if
you
want
to
bump
it
to
60,
that's
something
that
the
group
can
talk
about
instead
of
50,
which
is
what
we
have
today
and
then
the
front
door
would
be
basically
mirroring,
what's
in
the
model
code,
with
a
little
bit
more
flexibility,
that
it
would
only
apply
to
lots
that
are
40
feet
or
greater
and
that
it
would
be
that
the
entrance
is
10
feet
of
the
longest
street
facing
wall
of
the
dwelling
unit.
And
then
you
have
those
options.
A
J
J
D
F
A
Yeah,
but
I
mean
that's,
that's
the
reason
why
you,
if
this
group
is
wanting
to
make
sure
we
don't
get
examples
like
that
mixed
in
or
developed,
then
it
is
important
to
have
at
some
standards.
Maybe
we
provide
more
flexibility
than
what
we
have
today
or
I
know
it's
just
definitely
worth
the
discussion,
because
I'd
be
afraid
that
we
get
those
and
people
say.
Oh
what
or
oh
what
happened.
How'd
that
get
built.
J
Right
now,
these
examples
are
sort
of
different
in
that
it
seems
that
the
garages
take
up
more
than
50
percent
of
the
width,
probably
even
more
than
60
percent,
so
not
only
of
the
doors.
I
guess
I
have
a
little.
So
in
our
neighborhood
there
are
24
townhomes,
you
know
a
single
family
attached
and
the
and
you
have
to
walk
past
the
garage
to
get
to
the
door
which
is
sort
of
on
the
side,
but
at
a
45
degree,
angle
and
and
and
that
looks
okay.
J
You
know
I
mean
I
don't
know
it's
always
been
that
way.
They
they
they
maybe
we're
just
used
to
them,
but
but
they
would
obviously
you
know
they
were.
They
were
built
in
the
early
2000s,
so
they
would
have
conformed
to
whatever
the
code
requirement
was
then,
but
I
I
think
the
problem
here
is
not
so
much
that
the
door
is
recessed
as
that
the
garages
take
up.
So
much
of
the
frontage.
E
J
C
Yeah
pauline,
could
you
please
go
back
to
the
next
picture?
The
triplex?
Yes,
the
other
one,
this
one
that
one.
So
what
I'm
seeing
here
is
actually
a
little
bit
different.
I
understand
that
we
don't
want
to
look
at
a
wall
of
garage
doors,
but
what
I'm
looking
at
here
is,
I
don't
know
if
these
vehicles
can
even
fit
in
those
garages
and
then
all
of
these
trash
cans
are
outside.
C
A
Yeah-
and
I
think
you
know
from
a
planning
perspective-
are
we
planning
for
cars?
Are
we
planning
for
people
so
creating
a
neighborhood?
I
would
think
you're
really
you're
planning
for
the
people
that
live
there.
But
if
the
goal
here
is
to
really
plan
the
neighborhood
for
the
vehicles,
then
yes,
you
would
probably
want
a
more
garage,
dominant
design.
C
C
C
I
think
it
was
the
other
one,
so
these
would
be
based
on
what
right,
because
I
mean
the
pictures
make
it
seem
like
it
would
be
a
single
family
home
in
my
brain,
but
we're
talking
about
bigger
housing
developments,
we're
talking
about
the
duplexes
triplex's
townhomes.
So
I
don't.
I
like
this
one
with
the
sixty
percent.
L
Yeah,
I
think
the
the
the
lot
with
idea
and
I'm
the
original
one.
I
think
that
that
mentioned
this,
but
you
know
there's
a
good
comment
in
the
in
the
comment.
Conversation
portion
that
you
know,
then
you
have
to
look
at.
How
do
you
figure
lot
width?
Is
it
the
front
of
the
lot
in
the
middle
of
the
lot?
You
know
per
the
city
standards?
L
It's
not
always
black
and
white,
and
it
really
brings
it
open
to
you
know
a
more
complex
way
of
looking
at
it
based
off
of
if
it's
just
the
the
building
width,
but
I
do
think
if,
if
we
go
off
the
building
with
you
know,
there's
a
couple
different
things.
We
need
to
keep
in
mind
like
that
page
that
you
have
up
right
now:
the
upper
right
item
there
where
it
says
the
60
and
it
shows
all
garage
face.
L
L
You
know
whichever
we
decide
upon
is
something
that
that
comes
into
play,
and
so
I
think
some
of
these
examples
are
a
little
more
drastic
than
what
we
would
end
up
with
the
other
thing
that
one
that
you
have
up
right
now
that
I
would
want
people
to
keep
in
mind.
Is
you
know,
city
of
bend?
Rs
lots.
You
know
40
by
100,
is
kind
of
an
accepted.
L
L
F
I
agree
with
matt,
but
I
had
a
so
if
you
can
go
back
to
the
middle
picture
with
the
the
front
door
going
back
to
like
21
feet
or
20.
Oh
okay,
16
feet,
so
I
live
in
one
of
these
right
now
in
bend.
However,
the
front
area
is
a
courtyard
where
you
can
sit
and
wave
to
your
neighbors
and
interact
and
believe
me,
I
don't
have
any
trouble
with
trick-or-treaters.
They
can
find
our
front
door.
F
A
A
A
F
D
K
Yeah,
I
pauline,
I
think
you,
I
think
you
said
it
best
we're
you
know
we're
designing
for
for
people
and
not
vehicles.
You
know,
there's
there's
a
very
few
kind
of
aesthetic
restrictions
and
and
things
that
I
that
I
support
and
and
garage
doors
is
one
of
them.
You
know
if
we're
having
you
know,
there
are
many
ways
to
design
a
house
if
they're,
if
we're
having
trouble
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
make
it
feel
it's
to
to
have
it
address
the
street
or
have
it
a
pedestrian
feel.
K
It's
because
you
know
these
houses
are
laid
out
with
the
the
vehicle.
Is
the
first
thing
that
that
we're
thinking
it's
we're
designing
around
the
garage.
These
houses
are
there
for
the
vehicles
and
the
people
are
there
just
to
operate
them,
so
I
I
would
say
I
would
keep
it
at
50.
and
then
I
originally.
K
G
H
H
H
I
But
then
we
go
to
skinnier
lots,
but
we
still
have,
like
you
know,
parking
and
on
street
parking
is
a
huge
issue
and
so
there's
the
argument
that
you
need
to
make
space
to
park
those
cars.
So
unless
we
figure
out
a
way
to
get
the
cars
elsewhere,
better
transportation
off-site
parking
other
things,
you're
gonna
have
this
continuing
problem.
Either
you
make
space
to
park
those
cars
or
you
ain't
then
allow
larger
garages
and
find
ways
to
fit
in
these
skinnier
lots
or
you
do
wider
lots
and
we're
not
doing
white
or
a
lot.
I
So
I
definitely
at
this
point
would
vote
more
for
the
60
and
not
off
the
lot
bits,
because
lots
vary
in
size
and
shape,
but
more
off
the
building,
and
I
like
the
idea
of
a
front
door
still
being
able
to
be
back
further.
You
know
maybe
it's
a
covered
porch.
That
is
a
requirement,
something
architecturally
that
sticks
out.
I
You
know
maybe
there's
a
minimum
of
eight
feet
or
something
to
where
you
can
both
enter
the
unit
and
have
a
place
to
put
a
chair,
so
it
does
at
least
create
a
suitable
area,
but
there
are
definitely
situations
where
it
works
well
to
have
that
door
back
more
than
the
8
to
10
feet,
take
a
24,
deep
garage
and
10
feet
back.
You
have
a
14
foot,
useless
hallway
before
you
even
get
back
and
architecturally.
It
can
be
in
a
two
story.
K
K
A
L
You
know
you're
looking
at
a
percentage
of
64
percent,
so
I
think
it
might
make
sense
to
do
some
sort
of
scaled
approach
or
we
just
do
a
higher
percentage
on.
You
know
you
know,
depending
on
the
product
or
something
like
that,
but
it's
hard
to
get
a
one.
Size
fits
all
when
you're
looking
at
that
narrower
product,
so
possibly
something
along
what
scott
had
suggested.
L
You
know
allowing
you
know
as
long
as
your
building's
at
least
25
feet
wide
to
get
a
two-car
garage.
You
know
you
do
a
minimum
16-foot
building
or
a
16-foot
garage
door.
You
know
something
like
that,
but
then,
when
you
get
up
to
those
other
higher
percentages,
kathy
had
requested
kind
of
what
I
had
in
mind
was,
if
you
look
at
the
the
previous
slide
there.
L
So
if
you
go
that
16-foot
garage
door
based
off
of
a
40-foot
lot,
which
would
mean
you'd
look
into
the
30-foot
building,
you
know
you're
at
a
percentage
of
53
and
a
third
percent
so
round
up
you're
looking
at
a
max
of
around
54
there.
But
then,
when
you
get
up
into
a
three-car
garage,
these
ones
show
sixteen
and
eight
typically,
when
you're
doing
a
single
car
door.
Those
third
bays
are
bigger,
bays
they're
for
trailers,
bigger
trucks
that
sort
of
thing
we
typically
do
16
and
9
for
our
garage
doors.
L
So,
if
you're
taking
that
and
you
want
to
build
it
on
a
50-foot
lot,
which
would
be
a
40-foot
building,
you
know,
which
is
that
lower
one
there
in
the
lower
right.
But
again,
that's
with
an
eight
foot
door.
If
you
go
to
the
next
slide,
the
next
one.
So
if
you're
looking
at
something
where
you
know
that
lower
left,
obviously
again
is
an
exaggeration,
but
if
you're
looking
at
a
60-foot
building
with
your.
L
A
A
L
L
G
B
So
I'm
wondering
if
we're
trying
to
come
up
with
the
code
that
doesn't
really
is
not
maybe
applicable
to
most
infill
applications
and
in
the
development
case
I
think
we
all
would
probably
say:
hey
put
the
garages
on
the
back
off
of
an
alley
double
face.
You
know
the
garages
so
you're
not
seeing
any
garages
at
all.
So
just
a
question
I
do.
I
have
not
tried
the
experiment
to
see
what
the
land
utilization
is
for
development
to
use
a
double
loaded
alley,
they're,
certainly
much
more
attractive
from
the
street.
So
just
a
thought.
K
I
live
in
a
neighborhood
with
alleys
and
the
houses
are
much
closer
to
the
street
and
it's
a
great
it's
a
great
field,
a
great
pedestrian
kind
of
environment,
and
I
feel
like
we're
again
we're
we're
designing
them
for
vehicles
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
pencil
it
out,
and
I
think
that
the
vehicles
need
to
be
secondary,
and
you
know
we're
kind
of
we're
kind
of
setting
up
parameters
that
are
restricting
us
right
off
the
bat.
I
mean
a
lot
of
this.
Conversation
is
talking
about
two-car
garages.
K
When
we've
talked
in
the
past
about
how
most
people
don't
use
both
garage
base
for
their
car,
I
mean
you
could
easily
have
a
one-car
garage
or
one
a
single
garage
door
or
whatnot,
and
have
it
double
deep
and
that's
where
people
store
all
their
stuff
is
kind
of
in
the
back.
I
I
just
I
don't
feel
like
a
street
facing
two-car
garage
is
the
first
thing
that
we
should
be
kind
of
placing
and
then
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
design
around
that.
H
H
Personally,
all
of
the
work
that
I've
ever
done
has
porches
out
protruding
in
front
of
the
house,
and
you
know
if
we
could
do
54,
I
I
don't
think
it's
the
end
of
the
world
or
saying
something
to
the
effect
that
you
know.
Six
acknowledging
that
garage
doors
are
eight
foot
and
sixteen
foot
in
width.
So
you
know,
and
not
every
circumstance
is
going
to
allow
for
an
alley,
especially
if
it's
an
infill
situation
and
there
is
no
alley.
H
So
I
would
just
urge
us
to
instead
of
doing
either
50
or
60
and
think
about
54
or
55,
or
else
make
some
reference
to
allowing
for
a
16-foot
garage
door.
You
know-
and
this
is
not
cast
in
stone
as
as
we
move
forward.
If
this
seems
to
have
been
a
mistake,
we
could
adjust
it
later,
but
just
to
stick
to
50.
I
think
is
going
to
cause
problems
down
the
line,
so
that's
all.
L
Yeah,
I
yeah,
I
think
the
the
54
is
where
the
conversation
should
start.
You
know,
but
it
but
again
I
I
would
say
that
definitely
considering
you
know
if
the
products
thinner
than
that
30
feet
definitely
make
some
exceptions
to
get
that
two
car
in
I.
I
don't
discount
scott's
comments
either
you
know
and
it
does
create
more
of
a
garage
dominant
home,
but
karna
touched
on
it.
The
comments
a
little
bit.
You
know
that
the
we
have
to
keep
in
mind
here.
You
know:
affordability,
missed
middle
housing.
L
You
know
those
are
all
things
that
are
huge
issues
that
we're
dealing
with
right
now
and
you
know
doing
some
things
like
possibly
requiring
you
know
alley
load
product
to
get
a
two-car
garage
on
a
product.
That's
skinnier,
I
mean
it.
It's
cost
prohibitive.
At
that
point,
you
know
an
alley.
Product
is
typically
viewed
as
a
more
affordable
product
by
a
buyer,
but
it's
more
to
develop.
So
you
you
contradict
yourself
a
little
bit
there.
Obviously
they
are.
Obviously
there
are
exceptions.
L
You
know
in
a
in
a
master
plan
community
northwest
crossing.
You
know
that
sort
of
feel
on
a
larger
scale,
but
you
know
really
the
that
two-car
garage
is
something
whether
a
buyer
is
parking
one
or
two
vehicles
in
it.
That
is
a
big
issue,
and-
and
it
is
a
big
selling
feature
and
if
we're
saying
that
any
front
load
product
that
is
built
that
is
thinner
than
30
feet,
can
only
have
a
one
car
garage.
L
There
are
other
communities
in
which
we
build
or
other
jurisdictions
in
which
we
build
where
that
is
a
major
issue,
and
that
is
always
the
the
lost
leaders
that
we
deal
with
in
every
community.
We
do
it
in
wilsonville,
we
do
it
in
hillsborough
and
it
is
a
big
affordability
issue.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
is
something
that
we
think
about
when
we're
making
these
final
decisions.
A
Thank
you
matt.
So,
since
we're
getting
close
to
three
o'clock,
I
thought
I'd
throw
out
an
idea.
I
like
50.
Let's
say
we
go
to
55
percent
for
the
garage
and
we'll
keep
it
based
on
the
total
building
with
or
when
ideas
I
mean.
If
we're
really
going
to
start
planning
for
big
garages
and
go
to
60
percent,
could
I
at
least
get
one
front
door
be
prominent
and
10
feet
back
like?
A
E
A
L
L
D
D
L
D
L
I
would
agree
with
that.
I
mean
it
definitely
makes
it
more
attractive.
The
only
downside
to
that
is
your
discouraging
single
level
living
single
level
designs
at
that
point,
which
is
something
that's
very
popular
and
desired
amongst
buyers,
so
taking
out
that
option,
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
sales
detriment,
but.
D
I
I
really
like
that
idea
of
a
60
50.
You
know,
depending
on
what
you're
doing
with
that
front
door,
and
I
just
want
to
toss
in
there
for
future
conversations
that
it
might
be
worth
you
know.
Allies
are
more
to
develop,
but
surely
there's
a
cheaper
way
to
do
an
alley
or
not
have
it
be
required
to
be
completely
paved
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
so
it
just
might
be
something
to
look
at
if
the
alley
could
be
used.
I
L
L
G
G
A
Okay,
so
I
will
draft
that
up
for
the
draft
and
then
only
things
we
didn't
get
through
is
the
frontage
for
shared
quartz.
So
I
might
try
drafting
something
up
for
that.
I
did
want
to
share
with
the
group.
I
talked
fire
we'll
take
out
that
150
foot
for
shared
quartz,
because
we
there
are
ways
to
get
those
to
be
longer,
especially
if
we're
talking
about
shared
courts
on
properties
longer
or
larger
than
1.1
acres,
so
that
that
will
be
coming
out.
So
that's
good
news
and
then.
G
A
G
D
G
A
Although
being
that
we're
really
close
to
finishing,
we
just
have
to
really
focus
on
the
shared
court
discussion
and
lot
frontages
for
the
townhomes
on
a
shared
court.
Maybe
I
will
set
that
up
and
then
following
that
meeting,
then
we'll
probably
take
like
a
two-week
break.
So
I
can
draft
up
everything
that
we've
talked
about.
So
look
for
a
meeting,
invite
I'm
tentatively
thinking.
Maybe
we
will
meet
on
the
march
31st
and
thank
you
everybody.
We
got
through
a
lot
more
than
I
expected
today,
so
I
really
appreciate
it.
Nice
work,
everyone.