►
From YouTube: 2/3/2021 HB 2001 Stakeholder Advisory Group
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).
C
B
C
A
B
C
B
B
A
A
C
Out
so
I
don't
seem
to
have
the
privileges
either
it's
not
as
like,
clearly
delineated,
who
has
what
privileges
in
these
teams
meanings
as
it
is
in
like
zoom,
but
maybe
I'll
shoot
an
email
to
one
of
our
it
folks
and
just
see
if
they
have
ideas
on
how
to
do
that.
Okay,.
B
B
Okay,
thank
you,
everybody
for
joining
us
again
today,
hopefully
we'll
get
through
quadplexes
and
if
we're
really
lucky,
hopefully
we
will
start
the
discussion
on
townhouses
as
well.
I
want
to
do
a
quick
roll
call
and
then
we'll
go
over
protocols
and
then
we're
just
going
to
jump
into
the
excel
chart.
B
So
jenna
goodman
campbell.
B
I
know
he's
here
and
I
saw
lisa
is
here
scott
winters.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
hi
scott
kathy
nose
here,
audrey,
I
know
jesse
russell
is
not
able
to
make
it
today.
Karna
here,
hi
karna,
hi,
matt
gillette.
I
believe
he
declined.
The
meeting
is
matt
here
by
chance.
Does
not
look
like
it.
Moey.
B
G
E
B
Hi
ryan
jennings.
C
B
Hi
bill
sarah
santa
I'm
here,
hi,
sarah
and
mike
walker.
B
Not
yet
okay
and
then,
if
you
could
just
help
watch
for
people
that
are
maybe
still
waiting
in
the
lobby
for
the
next
couple
minutes.
That
would
be
great,
so
just
meeting
protocols
that
we
go
over
every
time.
This
is
for
the
group
members
to
participate
in.
So
those
were
the
people
that
I
just
took
attendance
on
that
can
participate
in
the
discussions.
B
We
encourage
all
group
members
to
participate
in
all
the
discussions
and
be
respectful
to
one
another
one
another's
opinions
and
comments
and
then
like
before.
B
Unless
you
want
to
speak
and
if
you
want
to
speak,
it's
always
helpful.
If
you
raise
your
hand
and
then
lynn
and
myself
can
keep
an
eye
on
whose
hands
are
raised
and
we'll
call
on
you
and
we'll
try
our
best
to
keep
it
in
the
order
that
you
raise
your
hand
as
best
as
we
can,
but
we'll
make
sure
everyone
gets
an
opportunity
that
is
a
group
member
to
be
able
to
participate.
C
Yeah,
it
is
pretty
small
pauline,
but
it
is
showing
okay,
so
how's.
That
is
that
a
little
bit
better,
it
is
for
me,
and
maybe,
if
folks
are
having
challenges,
you
could
raise
your
hand,
is
that
okay,
okay.
B
B
Lose
a
little
bit
so
we'll
just
keep
it
right
there,
okay,
so
this
is
quad
flexes.
We
do
not
have
a
specific
use
identified
as
a
quad
flex
in
the
bend
development
code.
Today,
like
we
do
for
duplexes
and
triplexes
what
we
consider
today,
a
quadplex
would
be
multi-family,
so
we've
already
talked
about
creating
a
definition
for
a
quadplex
which
will
be
four
units
attached
or
detached,
and
then
multifamily,
then,
will
become
five
units
or
more
instead
of
four
units
or
more,
which
is
in
the
code
today.
B
So
for
quads.
The
lot
and
parcel
size
will
be
our
first
discussion
again.
You
know
we
don't
have
quads.
So
what
I
did
is
in
the
second
column
here
is
compare
what
is
required
for
four
units
or
multi-family
today
in
our
low
density
and
standard
density,
residential
districts.
Quads
are
not
permitted.
If
they
were
to
be
proposed,
they
have
to
be
part
of
a
master
plan,
and
that
would
be
a
4
000
square
foot
lot
for
each
unit,
so
huge
lots
and
then
in
the
medium
and
high
density
zones.
B
Today
for
four
units
there
is
no
minimum
lot
size.
So
then,
this
column
here
is
our
minimum
compliance
standards
or
oars
that
we
can
look
at
and
then
the
last
column
here
would
be
the
model
code
lot
sizes.
B
B
So
in
the
rs,
a
single
family
is
on
a
four
thousand,
so
this
would
be
a
minimum
lot
size
in
the
rs,
then
for
seven
thousand
square
feet
and
then
in
the
rl
given
the
what's
allowed,
it
would
say
that
a
quad
would
be
on
the
same
side
slot
as
a
single
family,
and
that
is
ten
thousand.
So
what
is
proposed
here
in
the
rs
is
seven
thousand
for
a
quadplex
and
ten
thousand
for
a
complex
in
the
rl.
B
A
Yeah
I
had
a
quick
question
for
you
pauline.
It
came
up
in
a
facebook
group
that
I
have
in
terms
of
approvals
if,
if
triplex's
and
fourplexes
will
now
be
treated
as
the
lowest
level
of
approvals,
or
does
it
go
to
the
next
step
up
in
terms
of
like
use,
permits
and
so
forth?
B
Good
question
kathy
so
the
today
a
single
family,
adu,
duplex,
townhouse,
they're
all
what
we
call
type
one
minimum
development
standards,
review
right
and
then
in
the
code
today
a
triplex
and
a
fourplex
or
multi-family
would
be
bumped
up
to
a
type
2
site
plan
review
with
the
house
bill
requirements.
B
They
all
have
to
be
processed
the
same
as
a
single
family,
so
duplex
triflexes
will
re.
Duplexes
will
remain
a
type
one
and
then
the
triplexes
and
four
plexes
will
become
a
type
one
review.
Okay,.
A
That's
great,
that's
what
I
was
thinking,
but
I
I
wanted
to
verify
that.
Then
I'm
gonna
comment
on
what
you're
asking
us
about
right
now:
okay,
the
the
nice
thing
about
having
lot
coverages
and
setbacks
and
height
limits
and
so
forth,
is
that
it
will
determine
how
a
building
sits
on
a
lot.
So
I
think
it's
fine
to
do
the
ten
thousand
and
four
thousand
square
foot.
It
gives
an
opportunity
for
a
very
small
like
studio
type
of
four
plex.
A
It
can
fit
on
a
four
thousand
square
foot
lot
and
I
think
some
of
us
I
know
scott
and
I
talked
about
the
fact
that
yo
stack
units
much
easier,
so
fourplex
can
actually
have
a
smaller
footprint
than
a
triplex,
for
instance.
So
I
think
personally,
I
think
the
the
10
000
square
foot
in
the
4
000
square
foot
is
the
way
I
would
prefer
to
go
and
that's
it
for
me.
B
J
I
agree
with
kathy.
I
do
these
as
condos,
and
so
you
can
even
do
I've
done.
Fourth
out
I
mean
400
square
foot.
You
know
four
of
them.
You
know
in
a
four
plex,
you
know
which
only
ends
up
being.
What's
that
four
times
you
know
1200
squeak
total,
so
a
4
000
square
square
foot
lot
would
be
plenty
big
enough.
C
K
For
joining
us
hi
yeah,
I
was
in
the
lobby
for
some
reason
for
a
long
time,
but
I
rebooted
so
make
a
long
story
short.
It
seems
awkward
that
here
we
are
basically
having
to
take
somebody's
word
for
that.
What
will
fit
on
a
4
000
square
foot
lot,
whether
it's
even
financially
feasible
and
what
happens
with
people
who
do
want
to
have
cars?
Are
they
just
not
going
to
rent
this
unit?
It
seems
logical
that
shouldn't
we
see
a
typical
site
plan
that
shows
how
do
you
actually
fit
this?
B
F
Can
you
just
scroll
up
or
tell
us
what
are
the
three
different
columns
that
we're
looking
at
sure.
B
J
B
D
Yeah,
real
quick,
just
echoing
a
bit
what
kathy
had
said
it's,
I
don't
think
we
need
to
do
any
detailed
analysis
on
what
could
work.
The
point
is
that
if
someone
can
figure
out
a
way
to
make
it
work
within
the
rest
of
the
restrictions,
then
yay,
but
if
they
can't
make
it
fit
with
all
those
restrictions,
then
that's
okay,
they'll
just
need
a
bigger
lot.
B
E
Yeah,
I
I
just
really
quick,
went
on
google
earth
and
checked
out
a
four
plex
I
lived
in
in
eugene
while
I
was
going
to
ufo
and
it
looks
like
it's
about
a
6
000
square
foot
lot
and
it
had
a
four
plex
and
it
was
four
one
bedrooms
and
they
fit
great.
E
There
was
a
two
parking
spots
in
the
rear.
There
was
an
side
alley
access
which
I
included
in
the
you
know
when
you
can
make
the
little
polygon
that
gives
you
the
square
footage
so
yeah.
I
think
ten
thousand
square
feet
you
could
you
could
totally
fit
a
four
flex
in
there
I
mean
it's,
not
gonna,
be
a
three
bedroom
each
two
bath,
but
so.
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
the
square
footage
just
seemed
fine,
the
the
and
again
this
is
my
particular
anecdotal
evidence
here,
but
the
the
apartment
that
I
lived
in
was
was
plenty
big,
especially
for
a
one
bedroom,
so
I
think
I
think
the
four
thousand
it
seems
to
fit.
E
B
Thank
you,
scott
lisa.
M
Just
to
clarify
scott,
what
size
unit
did
you
live
in
and
how
many
parking
spaces
were
allowed.
E
There
were
two
parking
spaces
in
the
back
in
that
particular
location.
We
it
was,
it
was
kind
of
near
downtown,
so
I
don't
think
we
actually
had
anyone
else
park.
So
we
just
we
just
had
usually
our
all
right.
Well,
we
actually
moved
to
eugene
with
two
cars.
We
only
used
one,
so
we
didn't
sell
on
the
other
one
and
there's.
E
We
happen
to
live
in
a
place
where
we
didn't
need
a
car
and
we
had
one
car
to
kind
of
travel
with
or
whatnot,
but
but
but
yeah
as
far
as
the
size
of
the
unit.
I
can't
remember
it
might
have
been.
E
It
was,
it
was
a
one
bedroom,
it
might
have
been
like
eight
square
feet
or
so.
E
Yes,
okay,
yeah
and
there's
also
parking
out
in
front
again.
This
is
like
downtown
living,
though
so.
This
is
we're
right
next
to
we're,
basically
on
pretty
much
in
downtown
like
right
at
the
border.
M
B
A
So
if
you
can
imagine
two
on
the
first
floor,
two
on
the
second
floor
plus
a
garage,
that's
what
would
fit
typically
on
a
4
000
square
foot
lot.
So
it
is
possible
to
have
four
parking
spaces
and
four
units
in
1250
square
feet
on
a
4000
square
foot
lot.
You
don't
have
to
take
my
word
for
it,
but
I
would
say
that
it
is
possible
and
I
have
designed
many
homes
of
that
size
on
that
size
lot.
So
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
in.
K
K
We
have
heard
now
in
several
meetings
where
the
builders
in
the
group
say
well
yeah.
We
know
what
the
market
wants.
Just
trust
us.
I
believe
that
most
developers
are
probably
going
to
say
that,
and
probably
will
do
at
least
two
spaces,
but
in
a
lot
of
cases
that
doesn't
meet
the
need.
Now
you
go
to
the
infield
project.
K
So
the
hard
part
about
what
I'm
hearing
there's
part
of
this
is
yes,
I
can
trust
most
developers,
but
then
the
other
hand.
I
can't
trust
most
people
who
do
infill
projects
to
do
the
right
thing
and
then
they
start
to
cause
livability
issues
for
their
neighbors.
So
how
do
we
solve
that?
Or
do
we
just
say?
No,
we'll
just
worry
about
the
developments
and
trust
the
developers
and
whatever
happens
in
infill,
happens
life's
tough.
C
H
I
second
what
lisa
and
mike
have
said
about
the
parking?
It's
definitely
a
concern.
I
see
it
in
my
neighborhood
all
the
time
and
per
the
letter.
Basically,
the
letter
that
you
sent
to
us
this
morning
is
exactly
my
experience,
so
I
I
would
like
to
see
how
it
would
lay
out
with
the
parking
for
four
four
units
with
one
parking
space
dedicated
to
each
unit.
I
would
be
really
curious
to
see
kind
of
how
that
would
fit.
G
G
So
you
know
I
mean
I
I
I'm
in
favor
of
having
some
minimum
parking
requirements,
but
I
I
I
think,
we've
you
know
heard
that
people
think
it's
practical
to
design
small
units
and
get
four
of
them
on
a
4
000
square
foot
lot.
So
I
don't
have
any
problem
with
that.
You
know
if
people,
if,
if,
if
a
developer
builder,
wants
to
build
larger
units,
they'll
look
for
larger
lots
is
what
I
imagine
will
happen.
B
Okay,
I
think
we'll
still
I'm
still
going
to
ask
everyone
that
it's
in
support
of
4
000
in
the
rs
and
10
000
in
the
rl
to
raise
their
hand.
C
B
More
than
half
yeah
okay,
thank
you
on
that
all
right
density.
We
don't
need
to
talk
about
because
we
know
we
can't
do
anything
about
it,
so
there
just
won't
be
any
maximum
densities
in
the
zones
setbacks.
I
imagine
we'll
use
the
same
setbacks
that
we
do
for
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
they're
all
the
same
for
every
zone
so
except
for
rl
and
then
height.
B
I
put
a
little
note
here
on
the
side,
I'm
kind
of
trying
to
capture-
and
I
know
we're
not
done
with
this
discussion,
but
what
we
talked
about
for
triplex's
and
that
we
would
strike
out
that
reference
to
1998
so
keep
30
feet
in
the
that
should
be
rs
and
then
in
the
rm
is
35
feet
and
then
in
the
rh
is
45,
so
the
only
change
that
was
different
would
be
taking
out
that
date.
B
And
so
I'm
going
to
put
that
in
the
draft
now,
just
so
quads
and
triplexes
are
similar,
I'm
going
to
work
with
kathy
and
scott
still
on
looking
at
alternatives
for
how
we
measure
height.
I
don't
know
that
we're
going
to
propose
a
change,
but
we're
definitely
going
to
meet
and
discuss
and
look
at
options
regarding
how
we
measure
height.
B
So
parking
for
four
plexes
is
based
on
bedrooms
again
today
in
the
code.
It's
one
space
per
unit
if
you
have
a
studio
or
one
bedroom.
If
you
have
a
two
bedroom
or
more,
it's
two
more
bed,
1.5.
If
you
have
three
or
more
it's
two
spaces
and
then,
if
you
go
to
this
column
here,
this
is
our
minimum
compliance
of
the
oars.
B
I
did
that
right
and
then
the
model
code
would
be
in
zones
with
a
minimum
lot
size
of
less
than
5000
would
be
one
parking
space
per
dwelling
or
per
development
per
development.
So
that
would
capture
our
s,
our
m
and
our
h,
and
then
the
second
one
would
be
our
r
l.
The
low
density
would
be
two
spaces
per
development
and,
of
course,
both
these
still
allow
the
credits
for
on
street
parking.
G
Yes,
I'm
going
to
repeat
that,
I'm
I'm,
you
know
not
in
favor
of
eliminating
minimum
off-street
parking
requirements.
I
I
if
we
go
back
to
the
fact
that
there
aren't
a
lot
of
infill
vacant,
infill
lots
available
in
the
city.
If
we're
going
to
achieve
any
reasonable
amount
of
middle
housing
construction
in
bend.
Most
of
it
is
going
to
be
in
the
expansion
areas.
G
There
has
to
be
space
for
them
and
to
to
say
that.
Well,
we
should
trust
builders
and
developers
to
do
the
right
thing
does
not
set
a
level
playing
field.
It
allows
for
some
developers
to
take
advantage.
You
know
of
a
of
a
minimum
of
zero.
G
G
J
Hi,
I
have
a
question
on
the.
What
bend
has
now
is:
do
we
have
to
do
the
two
yellows?
My
understanding
is,
we
can't
use
what
ben
has
now?
Is
that
correct.
B
A
good
question
karna,
and
that
is
my
understanding
too,
because
it
would
be
more
restrictive
than
what's
allowed
under
minimum
compliance,
and
we
can't
be
more
restrictive
unless
we
go
with
the
alternative,
citing
and
design
route,
and
we
propose.
B
You
know
that
a
through
f
criteria,
that's
required
to
see
if
the
state
would
support
an
increase
in
parking.
J
Okay,
well,
I'm
certainly
not
in
favor
of
making
more
parking.
I
know
I've
heard
from
you
know
many
of
you
on
the
call
and
I'm
not
sure
anybody's,
going
to
change
their
mind
on
the
call
on
parking,
but
you
know
you
know,
I
would
say:
let's
do
the
minimum
required.
These
are
infill.
J
B
I
know
I
agree.
Okay,
so,
let's
just
make
sure,
because
that's
a
good
question
karna.
B
If
they
choose
a
lot,
that's
between
5007,
then
it
bumps
up
to
three.
So
you
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
range
with
this
one.
In
this
case,.
B
I
believe
it
is
in
zones
with
a
minimum
lot
size
of
less
than
five
thousand,
which
in
the
rm
rh
and
rs,
it
would
be
less
than
five
thousand,
so
it'd
be
one
parking
space
per
development,
and
then
this
one
would
be
our
rl,
which
is
two
spaces
per
development,
and
I'm
double
checking
that.
While
you
that's
probably
why
you
heard
me
flipping
some
pages
as.
J
B
B
Thank
you
how
about
mike
and
then
just
real
fast.
I
know
you
all
received
that
or
maybe
eugenics,
I
know
we're
all
busy
too,
but
we
did
receive
a
comment
today
that
I
forwarded
on
to
you.
Hopefully
you
had
a
chance
to
look
at
it
regarding
some
concerns
about
parking.
Okay,
sorry
about
that.
Go
ahead
mike.
K
K
The
city
staff
has
created
some
really
good
tools
in
their
mapping
service.
It's
now
called
interactive
map
gallery
where
you
can
see
where
all
the
duplexes
triplex's,
quads,
townhouses
are
and
banned,
and
and
when
you
start
to
look
at
oh
we're,
not
worried
about
people
who
have
to
park
on
the
street.
You
go
through
those
developments.
K
You
will
see
a
lot
of
the
street
parking
taken
up
and
there
is
a
confession
by
most
property
managers
that
most
people
don't
even
use
their
garage
for
parking.
They
use
it
for
storing
stuff,
so
I
guess
maybe
we're
arguing
about
two
different
two
different
things
here.
I'm
saying
we
need
more
parking
than
what's
shown
here,
but
yet
the
group
in
the
past
seems
to
be
thinking
well,
no,
we
can
just
trust
the
developer
to
provide
what's
needed.
K
K
C
Looks
like
we
have
scott,
then
lisa
and
I'm
just
really
quickly
ted.
You
are
not
a
member
of
this
stakeholder
group
so
you're
more
than
welcome
to
listen
in,
but
at
this
point
I
think
your
comments
were
presented
and
so
great
time
to
just
hold
those
until
a
true
public
meeting.
So
scott
is
next.
Thank
you.
B
And
for
clarity
on
my
topic
proposed
parking
is
regardless
of
where
the
site
is
located,
so
whatever
we
choose
would
be
for
any
property
regardless
if
it's
infill
or
part
of
a
larger
development.
E
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
something
was
just
said
that
I've
kind
of
been
thinking
about
too,
and
that
is
it
seems
like
we're
talking
about
two
different
things
or
coming
at
it
from
two
different
ways
and-
and
I
kind
of
wanted
to
talk
about
the
the
letter
that
you
sent
out
today
and
for
those
of
you
who
haven't
read
it
it's
from
a
a
land
owner
that
owns
a
couple
of
duplexes
in
the
northeast
part
of
town,
and
they
there's
some
accompanying
photos
showing
some
of
the
parking
situation.
E
And
when
you,
when
you
read
the
letter,
it
the
there's
the
words
out
of
control
and
massive
problem,
and
when
I
look
at
the
photos,
I
don't
really
see
it
and
I
feel,
like
the
whole.
We're
talking
about
two
different
things
is,
is
really
apparent
with
this.
With
this
example,
the,
for
instance,
the
the
owner
talks
about
how
the
the
renters
aren't
using
their
garage
for
parking
and
they're
parking
in
front
of
the
garage
on
the
driveway
or
the
parking
on
the
street.
E
So
that
seems
to
tell
me
that
if
it's
that
much
of
a
massive
you
know
if,
if
this
is
the
apocalypse,
they
would
put
their
cars
in
the
garage
they're
choosing
not
to
because
it's
they
can
do
it.
It's
and
it's
still
fine,
there's
a
photo
of
the
street,
and
I
I
understand
it's
not
that
it's
not
the
nicest
looking
photo.
It
shows
cars
parked
all
along
the
along
the
curb.
But
then,
when
you
look
at
the
driveways,
the
driveways
are
empty.
E
People
are
not
are
choosing
to
not
park
their
car
in
their
driveway
and
they're
parking
it
on
the
street.
Again,
I
don't
see
this
as
the
the
apocalypse
and
then
there's
even
a
picture
of
someone
who's
if
they're
in
their
driveway
is
a
bunch
of
bikes
and
their
car
is
just
parked
illegally
over
the
sidewalk,
and
I
mean
I
don't
know
what
that's
supposed
to
be.
E
It's
just
someone
doesn't
care
about
sidewalks.
I
guess
one
of
the
things
that
whenever
we
talk
about
parking
is
there
seems
to
be
a
different
definition
between
what
is
a
disaster
or
a
nightmare
scenario
or
a
threshold
at
which
parking
needs
to
be
addressed,
because
cars
parked
in
front
of
the
house
on
a
along
a
curb.
I
don't
think
I
don't
see
that
as
a
horrible
thing-
and
I
mean
is,
is
is
where
is
the
breaking
point?
E
Is
it
not
being
able
to
park
directly
in
front
of
your
house
or
being
able
to
park
in
a
in
a
garage
or
if
you
had
to
park
a
block
away,
for
instance?
Is
that
something?
That's
that's
just
totally
unacceptable
and-
and
I
think
the
thing
is
none
of
us
are
going
to
be
forced
to
live
in
in
units
that
we
don't
want
to
live
in,
that
don't
have
parking
and
we,
I
don't
think
we
need
to
treat
houses
with
two-car
garages
and
ample
parking
as
as
animals
about
to
go
extinct.
E
M
Thank
you
and
scott.
I
appreciate
your
comments
and
the
neighbor
who
wrote
that
letter
was
one
of
century
west's
neighbors,
because
I've
been
talking
about
this
in
my
board
meeting
at
the
neighborhood
association
level
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
people
scratching
their
heads
saying
what's
going
on
here.
What
are
people
thinking
to
some
of
the
points?
M
What
is
the
issue?
We
have
situations
in
our
neighborhoods,
where
there
are
so
many
cars
that
are
parked
along
the
streets,
that
the
site
to
the
intersections
are
being
blocked,
and
that
means
that
kids
are
not
able
to
ride
their
bikes
in
the
street,
which
I'm
and
I'm
not
a
parent
and
I'm
not
sure
I'd.
Let
my
kid
ride
in
the
street
anyhow,
but
we
we
shouldn't,
have
intersection
site
lines
being
blocked
because
there
are
so
many
cars
that
are
parked
on
the
street.
M
We,
I
would
be
in
favor
of
eliminating
the
parking
credit
to
satisfy
off-street
parking
requirements.
In
other
words,
I
think
all
of
the
parking
should
be
on
the
property
in
order
to
avoid
some
of
the
streets.
Now
you
know
on
street
parking.
Historically,
that's
been
for
guests,
that's
been
for
visitors,
that's
been
for
maybe
extra
cars.
I
have
another
example
of
a
client
who
has
a
a
home
in
southwest
bend.
You
know,
and
and
it's
a
a
young
man
and
he's
trying
to
make
things
work
it's
his
very,
very
first
home.
M
So
each
one
of
them
has
a
car.
So
that's
four
cars
for
one
home,
and
that
means
two
cars
are
always
parked
on
the
street.
I
I
just,
I
feel
like
we're
being
short-sighted.
I
I
feel
like
we're
all
we're
doing
is
by
creating
these
these
parking
minimums.
As
we're
kicking
the
can
down
the
road
and
we're
forcing
other
neighbors
to
have
to
deal
with
it,
and
it's
creating
other.
B
Issues,
thank
you,
lisa
was
it
karna's
next
and
then
audrey.
J
With
all
due
respect
to
lisa
and
mike
ben
changed
its
policy
many
many
years
ago
to
actually
encourage
street
parking,
if
it
wasn't
meant
to
be
parked
on
the
street,
there
would
be
a
red
line
on
it.
They
believe
that
it
slows
cars
down
and
there's
a
huge
bodies
of
law,
not
law.
Research
that
shows
parking
on
the
street
actually
slows
the
cars
down.
So
there
has
been
a
policy
change
years
ago
to
encourage
street
parking
or
allow
street
parking
for
the
purposes
of
slowing
cars
down.
J
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
be
able
to
turn
around
the
policy
unless
city
council
changes
its
mind,
but
the
streets
are
meant
to
be
parked
on,
and
you
know
if
people
choose
to
use
their
garage
for
storage,
that's
fine
they're
allowed
to.
If
they
don't
want
to
park
in
their
driveway,
they
don't
have
to
I
mean
if
you
live
in
a
hoa
homeowner
association.
J
D
So
one
point
I
wanted
to
make
was
that
some
of
the
issues
that
were
brought
up
are
an
enforcement
issue
and
not
a
parking
issue.
Necessarily,
in
my
view
also,
I
think
part
of
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
create
the
right
product
so
that
you
don't
have
three
to
four
people:
renting
a
single
family
home
and
not
having
the
appropriate
parking.
If
we
have
products
that
are
appropriate
to
people
looking
for
an
affordable
place
to
live,
it
should
have
the
appropriate
parking
or
not
depend
on
on
the
conditions.
B
Thank
you,
audrey
and
before
mike
goes.
I
just
want
to
I'm
gonna.
Do
this
a
little
different
after
the
last
few
comments,
but
once
the
comments
are
done,
I'm
gonna
go
through
each
person
individually
and
ask
you
which
one
you
support.
Is
it
the
oar
column?
Is
it
the
model
code
column
for
some
of
you?
It
may
be
the
alternative,
sighting
and
design
process.
B
So
just
be
thinking
about
that,
because
that's
how
we're
gonna
do
this
poll,
because
it's
not
real
clear
to
me
what
the
majority
is
considering
and
I
think
that
would
be
the
best
to
at
least
one
be
able
to
move
off
this
topic
and
get
through
quadplexes
and
to
draft
something
in
the
code
and
the
discussion's
not
over.
I'm
sure
we'll
be
talking
about
parking
again,
but
just
think
about
what
your.
What
your
answer
would
be:
okay,
mike.
K
Yeah
I'll
be
quick.
I
just
want
to
confirm
what
karna
said.
Yes
in
2006,
the
code
was
completely
rewritten
and
parking
rates
were
reduced,
primarily
in
everything,
but
residential
to
try
to
encourage
more
on-street
parking,
but
also
what
has
happened
unfortunately,
is
now
there's
over
parked.
There
was
a
galveston
parking
study
done
in
2016
that
showed
we
were
parked
over
100
percent.
Of
the
capacity
reason
we
got
to
over
100
percent
is
the
issue
that
lisa
points
out.
K
I
B
Thank
you
mike
sarah
hi.
H
Yeah,
so
about
the
on-street
parking
credits.
How
is
that
controlled?
I
mean
you
know
in
our
neighborhood
if
there
were
15
units
and
each
builder
of
a
couple
of
units
said
you
know
this
is
my
on-street
parking
credit?
How?
How
is
that
managed.
B
So
it's
not
managed
what
we
do
is
look
at
the
parking
requirements
during
their
planning
application
and
we
look
at
what's
provided
on
site
and
what's
on
street
and
if
they
comply,
then
they
are
able
to
build
what
their
duplex
or
triplex
on-street
parking
is
public
parking.
So
anybody
can
park
in
front
of
your
house.
We
don't
manage,
who
is
parking
there?
B
B
Thank
you,
lisa.
M
Thank
you.
I
think
sarah
has
raised
another
good
point
in
the
chat
where
she
gave
an
example
that
even
where
there
were
no
parking
signs,
that
people
went
ahead
and
they
they
continued
to
park
on
the
street
and
then
the
police
came
and
they
issued
tickets,
and
there
was
such
an
uproar
by
the
residents
that
nobody
paid
their
tickets
and
they
ended
up
removing
the
no
parking
signs.
So
you
can
see
that
this
is
a
real
big
tussle
between
residents
and
the
city.
M
We
we
do
not
have
the
enforcement
and
we
can't
even
get
curbs
painted
these
days,
even
if
we
submit
a
citizen
request.
So
I
I
just
feel
like
this
is
really
an
unworkable
and
untenable
situation.
You
know
you've
got
residents
that
are
up
in
arms
with
parking
situation.
Currently,
as
the
letter
indicated,
it
may
not
look
like
it's
out
of
control
and
perhaps
that
picture
that
was
taken
wasn't
taken
during
the
the
prime
time.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Lisa
was
there
any
other
comments
and
then
we'll
go
one
by
one.
G
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
reiterate
a
point
that
I
made
in
the
last
meeting,
which
is
that
there's
some
practical
math
involved
in
this
stuff,
and
I,
while
I
appreciate
scott's
comments,
I
I
find
it
a
little
bit
to
an
extent
discounting
the
math,
we're
not
talking
about
people
having
to
park
a
lot
down
or
across
the
street.
G
G
G
G
So
even
people
who
bike
to
work
have
a
car,
and
so
I
you
know,
I'm
not
opposed
to
the
idea
of
reducing
minimums
from
what
they
have
been,
and
I
think
the
you
know
both
the
model
code
and
the
the
minimum
standards
here
do
that.
But
I
think
we
need
to
be
practical.
G
G
I
participated
in
a
in
a
neighborhood
meeting
recently
with
the
developers
of
discovery
west,
where
they
were
presenting
their
plans
for
the
next
half
dozen
phases
of
that
project,
which
is
the
largest
project
on
the
west
side
this
decade
and
they
will
be
building
some
apartments
130
some
apartments
as
part
of
that
and
someone
asked
what
will
the
parking
situation
be
and
they
said
we
will
comply
with
the
city's
minimum
standards.
G
E
B
F
B
Okay,
all
right,
I
think,
we'll
start
with
alexis.
If
you
could,
let
me
know
which
of
the
two
or
if
you
have
a
different
proposal
model
code.
Thank
you
model
code,
okay
and
then
audrey.
B
B
Okay,
so
I
have
one
minimum
standards
and
that
when
you
say
that
that
is
the
the
oers
and
the
two
for
model
code
dave.
B
B
A
Column
d
is
what
that's
not
the
minimum.
It's
the
that's
the
model
code.
Okay,
I
I
vote
for
the
model
code.
B
G
B
And
then
matt
looks
like
you're
here
model.
I
B
Okay,
moey.
B
B
H
I'm
with
mike
and
that
I
vote
for
b,
but,
alternatively
c
with
the
removal
of
the
parking
credits.
I'd
also
like
to
echo
what
audrey
said
about
transportation
bill.
You
know.
If
there
were
really
practical
alternatives,
then
I
would
perhaps
feel
differently.
H
B
Thank
you,
scott.
B
Okay,
so
the
model
code
is
what
will
be
proposed
in
the
the
draft,
but
I
do
think
that's
a
fair
question.
It
was
brought
up
twice,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
we
do
a
poll
on
that
and
it
is
regarding
the
credit
for
on-street
parking.
B
I
don't
know
the
so
we
went
with
the
model
code,
so
this
this
one
and
it
says
a
credit
for
on-street
parking
shall
be
granted
for
some
or
all
of
the
required
parking,
as
provided
in
b,
no
additional
parking
spaces
required
for
okay.
So
some
are
all
what
we
require
today
or
allow,
I
should
say
in
the
code
today
is
up
to
50,
so
let's
just
use
instead
of
some,
because
that's
clear,
not
clear
and
objective
use.
B
What's
in
the
code
today
that
you
allow
up
to
50
percent
on
street,
if
you're
in
support
of
allowing
a
credit
and
dave,
I
see
your
hand
up.
Well
then
real
fast
dave
did
you
have
a
question.
B
I
B
Okay,
so
if
a
it
would
be
up
to
well
that's
kind
of
how
the
code
is
today,
a
developer
can
choose
to
put
it
all
on
site
or
they
can
propose
to
put
a
50
on
street.
So
if
they
require
two
today
they
might
put
one
on
site
or
both
or
they
put
one
on
site
and
one
on
the
street.
So
I
see
what
your
point
is.
J
I
B
E
B
A
I
have
a
question,
though,
I'm
a
little
confused,
I'm
sorry.
This
is
kathy
and
it
seemed
like
most
people
were
saying
they
wanted
the
middle
column,
column
c
and
yet
you're
saying
most
people
said
column
d.
So
I'm
a
little
confused
as
to
I
mean
it
might
be
easier
for
people
to
say
it's
either
c
or
d,
because
it
gets
very
confusing
to
call
it.
A
A
B
Thank
you.
It
was
3.5
for
c,
which
is
the
oars
or
minimum
compliance.
Then
there
was
two
for
doing
the
alternative,
signing
and
design,
and
then
there
was
eight
in
support
of
the
model
code.
So
what
we'll
be
voting
on,
then,
is.
If
you
are
in
support
of
allowing
up
to
50
percent,
to
count
on
street,
it
would
not
be
required,
but
if
the
developer
chose
to
do
so,
they
could
so,
if
you're,
in
support
of
allowing
on-street
credit,
please
raise
your
hand.
C
Really
quickly,
moe,
I
saw
that
you
had
your
hand
up
a
second
ago.
You
are
not
you,
don't
have
your
hand
up
now,
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
whatever
you
decide
to
do
you're
aware,
I
hope
that's.
Okay,.
B
I
think
someone
else
started
sharing,
so
I
got
to
figure
out
how
to
because
it
said
that
someone
else
is
sharing.
So
let
me
keep
your
hands
up,
though,
because
I
haven't
counted
that.
C
Oh
at
the
top,
you
should
be
able
to
request
control.
It
kind
of
looks
like
it
might
be
ted
to.
C
B
Okay,
I
don't
know
what
happened
there,
but
so,
oh
I'm
sorry,
so
you
can
even
see
what
you're
voting
on
okay.
So
we
are
looking
at
column
d,
we're
raising
our
hands
if
we're
in
support
of
allowing
up
to
50
on
street
credit,
similar
to
what
we
do
today
and
I
see
one
two
three,
four,
five,
six
seven
and
then
one
two
three
four
five
hold
on
one
two:
three,
four:
five:
six
no's.
F
B
Is
well
the
way
it's
kind
of
written
dave
brought
a
good
point.
It
makes
it
sound
like
you
have
to
well.
B
B
C
F
B
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
bearing
with
me
through
that
discussion.
We
can
take
our
hands
down
now
and
then
lot
coverage.
I
promise
to
come
back
with
lot
coverage
as
we
talked
about
in
the
floor
area
ratio,
so
we're
not
going
to
go
through
that
now
and
then
design
standards.
B
These
are
again
the
building
orientation
and
I'm
gonna
come
back
with
that,
hoping
to
get
some
exhibits
for
that
and
then
the
garage
door
requirements
that
we
talked
about
because
you
know
duplexes
and
try
are
not
in
two
plexes
triplex
and
quads.
I'd
like
to
just
have
that
discussion
together
when
it
comes
to
fronting
your
door
onto
a
street.
What
we
came
up
with
last
time
was
hold
on
now.
I
scrolled
too
far
sorry
about
my
screen.
C
B
Okay,
just
a
reminder:
when
we
talked
about
the
front
door
facing
the
street,
we
were
kind
of
coming
up
with
some
different
ideas.
B
What
percent
of
the
garage
has
to
face
the
street
or
garage
door
can
be
part
of
the
facade?
Was
it
50
60?
Or
do
we
not
even
want
this,
but
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
at
a
later
date
and
then
the
so?
I
think
that's
it
for
quads
we're
not
done
so
like.
I
said
we'll
talk
about
those
other
things
when
we
talk
about
it
with
triplexes
mike.
B
So
we're
going
to
talk
about
far
when
we
talk
about
it
as
a
whole,
so
we're
going
to
talk
about
lock,
coverage,
floor
ratio,
garages,
front
doors
and
a
couple
other
things
I
have
on
my
list
during
a
meeting
for
triplexes
and
quads
together.
But
I
just
have
not
had
time
to
work
on
examples
for
the
group.
K
Totally
understand
sorry
to
for
losing
track.
Oh.
B
So
townhouse
today
we
have
some
requirements
and
it's
quite
wordy.
The
draft
oars
are
fairly
simple
or
not
draft.
It's
the
adopted
oars
or
minimum
compliance.
So
in
column
c.
Here,
cities
must
require
at
least
two
attached
townhouse
dwelling
units
and
must
allow
up
to
four
units
subject
to
the
sighting
and
design
standards
which
we'll
go
through,
but
you
can
allow
more
in
our
code
today.
B
You
do
have
to
have
two
to
even
be
considered
a
town
home,
because
a
townhome
is
two
dwelling
units
on
their
own
lot
with
a
shared
wall
and
that
they
can't
exceed
four
attached
units
in
a
row
and
then
that's
in
the
rs
and
then
in
the
rm
and
rh.
B
A
B
How
about
you
matt,
I
believe
polish
does
quite
a
few
townhouses.
What
are
your
thoughts
on
it.
L
Yeah,
we
do
you
know.
Typically,
we
don't
do
more
than
five.
That's
just
the
the
point
financially,
where
we've
kind
of
you
know
more
than
that,
we
start
kind
of
hitting
a
point
of
diminishing
return.
As
far
as
just
ratio
of
internal
units
versus
external
units,
you
know
we
we
do
them
all.
You
know
typically
they're
two-story
row,
home
type,
town
homes,
it's
not
upstairs
and
downstairs
units
or
anything
like
that.
But
that's
just
the
way
we
choose
to
build
them.
We
always
provide
two-car
garages
on
every
lot.
L
L
Yeah,
typically
not
more
than
five,
I
mean
you
know
at
that
point:
you're,
you're
building,
you
know,
60
internal
units
versus
external
units
and
the
external
units
are
the
more
popular
typically
of
the
two
due
to
the
additional
light
and
stuff
from
the
windows.
So
that's
typically
where
we
cap
it.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
That's
good
to
to
know
other
comments.
B
Okay,
so
I'm
hearing
I
mean
I
haven't,
heard
anything
against
using
the
model
code
so
or
that
I'm
sorry
administrate
these
minimum
compliance
for
townhouses
lot
size.
B
This
isn't
in
compliance
with
the
minimum
compliance
or
the
model
code.
So
the
minimum
compliance
says
the
city
is
not
required
to
apply
a
minimum
lot
size
to
townhouses,
so
we
don't
have
to
do
one
at
all.
But
if
we
chose
to
the
average
minimum
lot
size
for
lots
in
a
townhouse
project
may
not
be
greater
than
1500
square
feet.
A
city
may
apply
separate
minimum
lot
sizes
for
internal
external
and
corner
townhouse
lots,
provided
they
average
1500
square
feet
and
when
they
talk
about
like
external
lots.
B
L
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
share
that.
You
know
again
just
an
example
what
we
typically
you
know
our
town
homes.
Typically,
it's
20
foot
wide
building
on
those
those
middle
units.
You
know
again
we're
providing
two
car
garages
with
full
20
foot
depth,
driveway
in
the
rear,
10
foot,
minimum
front
setbacks.
L
Our
units
are
20
by
50
wide,
so
it
requires
a
20
by
80
lot
just
to
fit
it
based
off
of
everything
that
we
want
to
include
with
the
parking
on
site
and
whatnot,
so
the
the
1500
square,
foot
or
less
is
less
than
that.
So
that
obviously
would
work
for
us.
The
the
rs
2000
square
feet,
obviously,
is
is
over
that
1600
square
foot,
which
limits
us
right
now
in
which
zones
that
we
can
build
those
townhomes
unless
we
do
a
master
plan.
B
Okay,
thank
you
kathy.
A
Yeah
I've
done
townhouses
where
there
are
no
garages
that
the
how
the
parking
is
remote
on
a
lot
and
say
you
if
you
have
a
1200
square
foot
or
1250
square
foot,
two-story
townhouse
your
footprints,
only
40
of
a
1500
square
foot
lot.
A
L
Yeah,
I
I
wanted
to
second
what
what
kathy
was
saying
and
that
you
know
the
example
that
I
was
providing
was
just
one
particular
instance.
There
is
definitely
a
desire
out
there
for
some
that
don't
have
garages.
You
know
due
to
costs
and
whatnot
as
well.
As
you
know,
smaller
square
footage.
Those
townhomes
that
I
was
speaking
of
ours
average
around
1450
square
feet.
So
definitely
you
know
on
their
three
bed
two
and
a
half
bath,
so
definitely
bigger
than
some
of
the
product
out
there.
L
So
definitely
you
know
a
lesser
lot
square
footage
in
some
instances
for
town
homes.
Definitely
it
would
be
warranted.
F
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
good
point
and
that
this
you
know
not
everyone
is
gonna,
want
or
need
a
three-bedroom
town
home
with
a
garage
and
it'd
be
nice
to
have
the
smaller
options
available,
because
this
is
an
option
for
home
ownership
since
they're
on
their
own
lot
and
that
might
provide
you
know
more
accessible
home
ownership
options
to
people
so
yeah.
I
support
column
d.
I
believe
yes.
B
And
that
would
be
in
compliance
really
with
the
oars
too,
because
the
city
is
not
required
to
apply
minimum
lot
size
if
they
don't
want
to
how
about
how
about
mike?
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
this.
G
I
you
know,
I
hear
what
people
are
saying,
but
I
don't
understand
why
this
one
housing
type
would
have
no
minimum
lot
size
and
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
single
family
homes.
Do
I
mean
even
the
small
dwelling
unit,
you
know,
there's
a
minimum
lot
size
of
1500
square
feet.
What
what
what's
I'm
missing?
What's
so
special
or
different
or
unique,
or
about
town
homes.
B
G
B
Probably
there's
other
more
qualified
people
to
answer
that,
but
my
my
one
comment
would
be:
is
that
they're
attached?
So
you
don't
have
five
foot
side
yard
setbacks
on
the
internal
units,
only
the
external,
so
you
don't
need
the
extra
lot
size
to
accommodate
setbacks
that
that
aren't
required
and
then
maybe
some
other
people
can
comment
on
that.
A
Yeah,
I
generally
speaking
when
you
do
a
townhouse
development,
you're
working
with
a
larger
lot,
that
you're
then
subdividing
and
there's
an
opportunity
to
provide
parking
that
isn't
necessarily
attached
to
the
townhouses,
and
so
it
is
a
different
animal
than
the
other
types
of
units
that
we're
talking
about
and
which.
This
is
why,
as
moe
said,
it
creates
an
opportunity
for
ownership
where
you
don't
necessarily
want
to
be
paying
for
a
garage
and
parking
space.
A
K
Yeah
40
plus
years
ago,
my
first
job
after
school
was
in
eugene,
and
I
lived
next
to
some
very
creative
housing
where
you
weren't
they
were
attached,
they
were
townhouses,
one
project
was
had
a
garage
had
a
sparkling
spot
in
front
of
the
garage,
but
they
were
still
small.
The
other
project
in
50
feet,
100
feet
away,
was
almost
like
little
cabins
out
in
an
open
space
area
with
the
garages
clustered.
K
I
do
have
to
pause,
though,
just
because
that
there's
not
a
garage
to
attach
most
all
these
projects,
though,
still
have
some
sort
of
garage
or
storage,
so
the
cost
of
just
because
you
don't
have
an
attached
garage
or
parking.
There
still
is
some
place
on
site,
so
the
cost
still
has
occurred
and
that
cost
is
still
spread
over.
So
this
is
not
a
cost
saving
measure.
It's
just,
as
you
know,
an
option
for
different
types
of
designs.
B
B
B
K
I
have
to
retract
a
little
bit.
The
project
I
was
reminiscing
about
in
eugene
was
probably
closer
to
a
cottage
cluster
than
a
town
house.
K
So
if,
if
we're
saying
these
are
townhouses
side
by
side
by
side,
I
I
think
that
yeah,
you
do
need
to
have
a
minimum,
because
technically
they
do
have
frontage
on
an
alley.
So
so
I
think
you
have
to
have
a
minimum.
B
And
just
for
clarity
today
we
don't
allow
town
homes
to
front
alleys,
they
actually
have
to
front
a
street
or
a
private
street,
or
we've
created
the
shared
courts
that
they
confront.
They
confront
t
courts,
definitely
lots
of
options
for
them
to
front,
but
we
don't
allow
anything
to
front
and
alley,
and
developments
like
kathy
was
talking
about.
It
might
be
like
a
drive
aisle,
but
even
if
you
think,
of
base
camp
which
is
downtown
on
the
way
to
the
mill
district,
I
don't
know
what
that
street
is
colorado.
B
Maybe
they
all
front
a
street
and
then
internally
to
the
development
is
a
little
park
and
additional
parking,
but
they
all
front
a
street.
In
that
case,.
K
B
Thank
you
mike
kathy.
A
Just
more
of
a
question:
actually
this
isn't
requiring
the
the
townhouse
to
be
at
least
20
feet
wide
right.
It's
just
right
what,
because
I
think
we
had
talked
about
some
subdividing
of
lots
that
might
create
like
a
15
or
a
16
foot
wide
townhouse.
A
B
I
think
one
reason
to
have
minimum
street
frontage
is
so
that
you
have
that
the
home's
fronting
a
street
versus
fronting
an
alley
and
backing
to
a
street,
so
that
would
be
where
a
minimum,
but
it
wouldn't
have
to
I
mean
we
could.
A
Well,
what
if,
what,
if
you're
having
them,
that
townhouses
clustered
around
a
common
open
area
and
and
no
street
or
driveway
at
all,
I
mean
that's
what
I've
recently
designed,
and
so
everybody
is
clustered
around
a
common
open
space
area
and
the
parking
is
off
to
the
side.
So
I
and
every
lot
is
within
itself
but
facing
a
common
open
area.
So
I'm
just
not
sure
what
this
section
accomplishes.
A
So
I
it
I'm
sorry
I'm
confused.
I
don't
understand
why
we
would
need
it
at
all.
B
A
Okay,
well,
I
just
don't
want
to
preclude
a
town
home
development
for
not
being
on
a
street
an
alley
or
a
parking
lot,
that
it
could
be
a
town
home
development
that
has
parking,
but
the
parking
is
remote.
You
know
it's
not
in
front
of
or
directly
behind
the
units
I
mean
that
is
a
common,
at
least
for
me,
that's
a
common
way
of
doing
a
townhouse
development,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I
I
wanted
to
be
as
creative
as
possible,
and
I
just
feel
like
this
is
causing
a
problem,
not
solving
a
problem.
D
Yeah
I've
had
a
couple
properties
where
the
street
frontage
was
what
made
it
not
be
able
to
happen,
and
in
one
case
there
was
a
large
easement
off
to
one
side
where
I
wanted
to
put
access
and
parking,
but
it
was
an
affordable
development.
So
I
couldn't
afford
to
put
in
a
proper
city
street,
and
so
it
precluded
being
able
to
build
what
would
have
been
a
really
well
laid
out
usable,
townhome
development,
but
couldn't
because
of
the
street
furniture
rule.
So
I
would
love
to
see
that
go
away.
E
Yeah,
so
I
mean
I
guess,
a
lot
of
this
recent
conversation
is
about
kind
of
a
question
of
cottage
or
pound
homes
or
whatever
we're
gonna
build
them.
Is
there
a
reason,
I
guess
pauline?
Why,
in
these
situations
that
it
sounds
like
you
would
probably
want
to
as
a
developer,
to
develop
those
under
a
cottage
cluster
as
opposed
to
a
town
home
I
mean,
is:
is
there
any?
I
I'm
not
familiar
enough
with
with
the
comparing
those
two
developments.
B
So
the
cottage
clusters
in
the
code
today
help
a
lot
of
unique
lots
where
there's
not
a
lot
of
street
frontage,
because
there's
no,
you
know
you're,
not
real,
there's
minimal
requirements
for
fronting
a
street
in
a
cottage
cluster,
but
you
do
have
to
provide
open
space
and
some
other
amenities.
So.
B
Versus
that,
because
they
don't
want
to
provide
the
amenities-
I
you
know,
I
think,
of
that
base
camp
development.
And
if
we
didn't
have
lot
frontage
requirements,
we
just
see
a
big
parking
lot
and
then
the
townhomes
all
running
another
street.
I
think
it
worked
out
really
nice
requiring
the
town
homes
in
that
case,
to
front
to
street
and
there's
it's
surrounded
by
streets
on
all
sides.
E
Okay,
the
one
thing
I
do
have
to
say,
though
the
way
it
reads
it
seems
like
you're
saying
that
the
town
homes
have
to
be
a
minimum
of
20
feet
wide
and
that's
something
I'm
not
I
I
I
kind
of
don't
agree
with
having
a
that
minimum.
B
B
F
I
think
the
base
camp
example
that
pauline
has
brought
up
is
a
good
example
for
anyone
who's
not
familiar,
it's
those,
the
ones
with
the
flat
roofs
that
are
kind
of
like
boxes.
So,
regardless
of
whether
you
like
that
shape,
I
think
you
know
that
really
contributes
to
having
a
community
feel
and
having
a
more
walkable
environment
than
if
you
were
just
looking
at.
You
know
like
the
back
of
a
bunch
of
a
row
of
buildings.
That's
that's!
F
When
you
get
into
what
people
don't
like
about
density,
where
you
know
it
might
just
feel
like
a
big
wall,
a
block
full
of
wall
that
feels
very
isolating.
F
D
D
It
wasn't
fronting
other
streets,
so
you
could
make
a
nice
private
driveway
access.
It's
not
subject,
then,
to
all
the
sidewalks
mains
of
utilities
and
all
of
that
for
an
affordable
development,
and
you
can
make
the
the
townhomes
front
off
of
that
side
access
and
make
it
look
really
nice
and
still
have
a
nice
street
frontage.
So
it
doesn't
mean
that
you're
looking
at
the
back
by
having
it
have
to
have
street
frontage.
You
preclude
some
really
creative
developments
that
are
affordable.
That
could
still
look
really
nice.
B
Okay,
what
audrey's
talking
about
that
we
just
put
in
the
code
is
called
shared
quartz
and
again
it's
for
infill
type
developments,
but
it
allows,
I
think,
it's
like
a
28-foot
paved
area
and
they
confront
that
and
then
the
only
requirement,
because
I
support
front
doors
facing
the
street-
is
that
the
end
unit
that
actually
is
the
one
closest
to
the
street.
It
would
front
the
street
or
just
have
a
front
door
face
the
street,
but
all
the
other
units
get
to
face
internal
to
it.
B
J
For
that
this
is
karna.
I
have
a
question,
so
I'm
doing
a
seven
unit
attach
so
all
seven
units
attached
town
hose
project
not
in
bend
but
where
the
topography
is
such
and
the
lot
is
such
that
they
kind
of
go
gradually
up
the
hill,
and
so
they
don't
have
parking.
You
walk
to
your
unit,
so
you
have,
you
know
one
unit
sort
of
at
the
bottom
and
then
they
gradually
go
up
the
side
of
a
hill.
J
It
wouldn't
be
a
shared
court
either
because
of
the
topography.
You
couldn't
do
it
that
way,
and
I
you
know
we
we're
running
out
of
good
nice
flat
lots
at
this
point.
So
I
don't
know
that
I
want
to
preclude
a
development
from
happening
because
of
topography
that
and
you're
not
having.
I
mean
I
don't
mind
some
street
frontage,
but
I
don't
know
that
I
want
to
require
every
single
one
of
them.
J
B
Karna
scott.
E
I
I
don't
know,
I'm
not,
I
I
don't
really
feel
like.
We
need
to
have
a
street
frontage.
I
think
the
20
feet
is
is
fairly
large.
E
You
know,
I
could
see
town
homes
being
you
know
much
skinnier
than
20
feet
and
still
being
functional
yeah.
I
would
I
I
just
err
on
the
side
of
not
requiring
it.
B
B
Perfect
mike.
K
Hey
here
I
am
again
when
kathy
was
talking
about
her
attached
town
houses,
not
fronting
a
street.
I
I
thought
of
the
type
of
project
we
used
to
call
a
plan
unit
development
in
eugene,
where
we
had
a
lot
more
flexibility.
You
know
we
have
a
code.
You
just
went
through
a
bunch
of
in-field
type
projects.
K
Now
we're
going
through
all
these
projects,
we're
always
going
to
find
an
exception
or
two
that
doesn't
quite
fit
the
definition
that
we've
defined
these
rigid
definitions
and
then
maybe
I
is
there
something
in
the
code
that
allows
you
to
do
at
least
what
we
refer
to
as
a
plan
unit
development
that
allowed
you
to
play
around
with
some
some
citing
standards
and
proposes
it,
and
those
citing
standards
gets
reviewed
and
approved
by
at
least
in
that
case
it
was
a
planning
commission
just
for
those
unique
settings
that
allow
for
a
unique
type
project
problem,
though
you
have
to
keep
in
mind,
is
we're
trying
to
make
these
affordable.
K
So
density
is
very
important
so
trying
to
have
the
creative
projects
that
don't
have
frontage
on
a
on
a
street.
You
know
we're
trying
to
visualize
what
all
this
means.
I
I
hit
this
wall
every
meeting
we've
had
we
have
meetings
where
we
talk
about
these
exceptions
and
these
types
of
projects
that
somebody's
designed,
but
yet
we
don't
see
a
picture
of
it
and
a
picture
would
be
worth
a
thousand
words.
B
Thank
you
mike
bowie,.
F
Yeah
I
wanted
to
propose
that
maybe
like
one
of
five
units-
or
you
know
20
of
the
units
or
something
like
that-
has
street
footage
and
it
could
be
less
than
20
feet.
It
could
be.
I
don't
know,
10.
B
That's
an
interesting
proposal,
thoughts
on
that
and
then
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
density.
Before
we
end
our
meeting
audrey.
D
Oh
I'm
just
gonna
toss
in
that.
If
at
least
I
would
propose
more
like
if
one
unit
of
the
development
had
the
street
frontage,
we
had
that
excess
city
property.
We
were
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
use.
It
was
very
deep
and
long
and
had
very
limited
frontage
and
just
to
avoid
the
cost
of
of
full
city
street
extensions.
B
B
Well,
I
want
to
get
to
the
kathy
and
looks
like
mike
and
moe,
but
they
are
thinking.
I
think,
moey
had
a
good
suggestion.
I
wanted
to
see
if
there's
any
support
for
that.
A
Well,
I
would
go
more
with
what
audrey
said
the
one
that's
on
the
street,
because
karna
is
absolutely
right.
We're
running
out
of
perfect
lots
and
topography
is
in
effect,
sometimes
like
audrey
finds
that
she's
in
the
older
part
of
town,
where
you
have
streets
on
two
sides
of
a
lot
and
maybe
there's
a
parking
lot
off.
You
know
some
parking
off
of
one
and
there's
no
street
frontage,
and
then
you
know
there's
just
a
lot
of.
A
We
need
to
keep
flexible
because
there's
not
that
many
beautiful
lots
left
and
also
in
new
developments.
As
mike
says
I
mean
you
just
got
to
be
able
to
be
creative,
and
I
I
just
I
see
that
says
a
city
is
not
required
to
apply
a
minimum
street
frontage.
I
would
approve
that
and
then,
if
there
is
one
unit
that
is
on
the
street
of
having
a
door
fronting
it,
that
makes
sense,
I
wouldn't
say
20,
because
you
just
don't
know
what
the
numbers
are
going
to
create.
B
So
I
thought
I
heard
a
little
compromise
between
audrey
and
alan,
that
I
mean
sorry
audrey
and
moe
that
would
front
the
street
out
of
the
development
front
door
face
the
street
with
a
minimum
lot
width
of
even
10.,
so
it
wasn't
20.
It
was
agreeing
that
maybe
one
of
them
should
front
the
street.
The
rest
could
all
back
up
like
audrey's
example
all
behind
it
and
they
could
access
what
we
would
call
like
a
shared
drive.
I'm
not,
and
they
went
to
half
street
frontage.
B
B
M
I
I
guess
it
would
really
be
helpful
to
have
a
visual
picture.
I
think
for
a
lot
of
us
myself
included,
but
I'm
I'm
trying
to
imagine
what
was
the
purpose
here
and
for
for
townhouses.
I
think
that
there
was
an
effort
to
create
some
open
space
for
the
units
they
didn't
want
to
probably
build
the
the
lot
to
an
extreme
point
that
there
just
wasn't
any
green
space.
There
wasn't
any
open
space
for
that
particular
unit,
I'm
only
guessing.
I
don't
know
why
this
provision
is
here.
M
I
I'm
still
trying
to
understand
it.
I'm
I'm
not
sure
that
just
limiting
the
open
space
or
the
the
street
frontage
to
just
the
end
units
is
a
good
idea,
because
it
just
it
feels
to
me
that
the
the
center
units
wouldn't
have
that
open
space,
I'm
all
for
if
we
need
to
eliminate
the
street
frontage
in
order
to
have
a
courtyard
type
setup.
I
think
that's
great,
but
I
think
that
was
the
overall
goal
was
to
create
some
open
space
for
each
one
of
the
units.
B
And
we'll
talk
about
more
open
space
type
developments
when
we
get
to
cottage
clusters,
the
townhomes
don't
have
an
open
space
requirement
as
drafted,
and
we
don't
require
it
today
either.
So,
as
you
drive
around
town,
take
a
look
at
the
townhomes
that
you
see
and
it
would
be
similar
to
those,
and
I
can
provide
examples
of
what
I've
seen
in
many
many
places
that
we
drafted
that
shared
court
development
around
where
the
front
unit
just
one
unit
has
the
front
the
street
and
the
rest
can
be
behind
it.
D
Just
a
real
quick
clarification,
I
would
add
that
if
there
is
a
unit
that
is
at
the
street,
because
the
situation
I
was
talking
about
you,
wouldn't
none
of
them
would
be
facing
the
street,
you
would
have
an
entry,
you
would
have
to
doll
up
the
entry
and
make
it
look
inviting
and
then
you'd
go
back
and
the
re
and
the
townhomes
would
be
around
the
corner
from
this
cul-de-sac,
so
just
to
say
that
there
has
to
be
maybe
street
furniture
for
that
development
and
that
if
one
unit
faces
the
street
frontage,
it
needs
to
have
the
door
there.
D
D
Well,
it
depends
on
the
lot
so
just
if
there
is
one
that
is
on
the
street,
it
should
have
the
door
face
the
street,
but
if
the
topography
or
the
shape
of
the
lot
is
such
that
none
of
the
units
are
right
near
the
street,
then
they
need
to
should
probably
face
the
approach
of.
However,
you're
approaching
it.
D
B
The
this
is
townhouses
yeah
we're
gonna,
get
to
cottage
clusters,
which
is
the
next
topic,
and
then
we
already
have
a
cottage
code.
Our
current
cottage
code
does
not
allow
townhouses.
Today
it
is
single
family
detached.
B
B
Does
that
make
sense?
Because
right
now
we're
talking
about
townhouses,
I
mean
I.
I
know
that
there's
always
going
to
be
a
unique
lot.
My
fear
is
that
we
don't
always
have
really
good
developers
that
are
going
to
take
into
account
if
there's
a
street
frontage.
If
we
say
there's
no
street
frontage
requirement,
they
could
very
well
back
all
their
townhouses
put
up
a
fence
and
say
well.
We
didn't
need
street
frontage,
so
I
just
get
concerned
because
that
is
a
possibility.
F
So
that's
what
that's
my
concern
that
you
know
the
individual
preference
might
end
up
being
like
sarah
was
saying
to
not
face
the
street
and
that's
why
you
know
this
could
turn
into
like
a
tragedy
of
the
common
situation.
J
Karna
just
one
final
comment:
you
know,
I
I
don't
disagree
with
moe.
I
don't
disagree
with
most
everybody.
My
situation
is
such
that,
if
you
have,
you
know
one
that
can
face
the
street
that
the
door
be
on
the
street.
But
if
you
have
a
flag
lot
situation
where
you
have
a
you
know
a
10
foot
driveway
that
opens
up
to
an
acre
parcel
that
you
have
no
other
access
to.
J
B
B
If
it's
like,
I
don't
know
what
the
magic
number
is
and
I
can
work
with,
maybe
matt
or
ryan
and
audrey,
or
just
get
some
input
from
developers.
If
the
parent
property
is
less
than
a
certain
width.
You
know
like
a
flag.
Lot
is
a
minimum
of
20
feet
or
10..
B
B
B
Okay,
how
about
I
work
on
this
I'll,
bring
some
examples
of
some
shared
courts
that
I've
seen
all
over
different
states,
including
oregon
of
what
it
looks
like
when
you
developments
like
audrey's
talking
about
and
karna
where
the
front
unit
confront
the
street
and
then
the
other
units
are
stacked
up
behind
it
and
accessed
by
kind
of
a
private
driveway
and
then
I'll
draft
some
language
that
we
can
all
look
at
together.
B
B
J
B
Your
hands
up-
oh
sorry,
I
meant
to
put
that
that's
okay
and
karna.
If
you
have
those
examples
too,
that
the
more
the
better,
so
we
can
look
at
them
say
this
work.
This
doesn't
work
and
really
work
on
some
code
so
that
we
can
get
some
units
when
practical
to
face
the
street,
with
hopefully
some
front
doors
actually
facing
the
street.
B
We
have
eight
minutes.
Let's
just
look
at
the
density
so
that
you
can
start
thinking
about
it.
So
today,
obviously
we
regulate
townhomes
based
on
minimum
and
maximum
densities,
and
I
had
a
call
with
ethan
today
to
make
sure
I
understand
the
minimum
compliance
column
c
and
the
model
code
column
d.
The
way
it's
written
so
ignore
our
densities.
B
Well,
not
the
maximum.
So
when
you
look
at
column
c,
the
minimum
compliance
you
have
to
allow
four
times
the
maximum
density
allowed
for
detached
single
family
dwellings
in
the
same
zone
for
the
development
of
townhouses
or
25
dwelling
units
per
acre,
whichever's
less.
So
the
math
kind
of
comes
out
funny
on
this
so
four
times
the
maximum
for
the
low
density
residential,
which
is
two
to
four
units.
B
Today,
four
times
four
is
16,
so
you
have
to
actually
allow
16
town
homes
instead
of
four
in
the
rl,
that's
less
than
25
in
the
rs
and
rm
the
math,
if
I
did
it
right,
are
both
25
and
talking
with
matt.
Obviously,
if
you
allow
25
in
the
rs,
you
can
increase
the
rm
because
it
is
your
medium
density
zone.
B
B
The
other
option
is
the
maximum
density
for
a
townhouse
project
is
based
in
the
zone
in
which
the
minimum
lot
size
for
detached
single
family
dwellings
is
2500
square
feet
or
less.
You
have
to
allow
two
times
the
density,
so
the
lots
that
have
2500
square
feet
or
less
is
our
rm,
because
it's
at
1200,
I
believe
or
16.
B
So
that's
a
lot
to
take
in,
but
matt
good.
You
have
a
comment.
L
Yeah,
the
the
oar
rule
or
proposal
there,
the
the
four
times
the
maximum
is
that
just
based
off
of
the
the
thought
of
of
four
town
home
max.
L
B
Right
other
kathy.
A
B
B
The
let's
just
say
two
times
the
mat,
the
the
allowed
density
well
in
the
rm.
Your
density
is
7.3
to
21.7,
so
it's
allowing
two
times
that
density.
So
21.7
is
the
max
today.
It
would
allow
two
times
that
so
like
43
44
units
instead
of
21.7-
and
I
think
what
it's
doing
is
taking
into
account
that
these
lots
are
so
small
that
you
can
actually
get
more
units.
G
G
If
you
know,
if
there
are
these
other
citing
standards
that
you
know
that
that
come
into
play,
it's
like
how?
How
often
how
often
do
do
developments
push
up
against
the
maximum
density.
B
That's
a
good
question.
I
mean
not
very
often
even
northwest
crossings,
I
think
it's
only
a
5.5
and
they
could
have
gone
up
7.3.
You
know
a
lot
of
cities
do
not
have
maximum
densities.
The
lot
size
dictates
how
many
units
you're
going
to
fit
and
you're
right
bill.
We
don't
well
we're
not
going
to
have
maximum
densities
for
duplexes,
triplexes
and
quads.
I
can't
remember
what
the
requirement
is
for
the
next
section
on
cottage
clusters,
but
that
is
something
for
this
group
to
consider.
B
B
We
didn't
do
a
minimum
lot
size.
Do
we
yep
that's
hard
for
me
to
do
math
any
other
comments
before
we
go
and
of
this
one,
we'll
just
we'll
start
off
in
two
weeks
on
this
section.
B
B
I'll,
make
sure
lynn's
available,
because
she's
such
a
great
help
and
again
thank
you
and
I
will
be
sending
out
an
email
soon,
thanks
again
thanks.
Everyone
thanks.