►
From YouTube: HB 2001 Stakeholder Advisory Group - March 31, 2021
Description
HB 2001 Stakeholder Advisory Group - March 31, 2021 - Meeting
A
Hi,
scott,
all
right,
so
for
so
when
we
go
through
the
topics,
just
as
a
friendly
reminder,
the
people
that
can
vote
on
the
topics
are
the
ones
that
were
just
called
on
roll
call
that
are
part
of
the
stakeholder
advisory
group.
If
we
have
to,
depending
on
the
topic,
go
through
like
a
kind
of
a
poll
for
support
or
opposition
of
a
certain
topic,
then
we
will
just
ask
you
to
raise
your
hands
and
it'll
help
me
with
that.
A
D
A
A
Display,
okay,
so
couple
things
we're
going
to
go
through
today.
We
need
to
finish
talking
about
shared
courts
and
then
window
standards.
Something
came
up
since
our
last
meeting.
I
want
to
go
over
lot
sizes
with
a
group,
affordable,
housing
question
and
possibly
residential
compatibility
standards.
So
we'll
start
with
where
we
left
off
on
the
townhome
frontage
for
shared
quartz,
we.
F
A
Okay,
so
where
we
left
off
on
shared
quartz
was
you
know,
we
talked
about
town
homes.
We
got
everything
basically
dialed
in
for
that,
but
then
we
want
to
make
sure
shared.
Quartz
is
an
opportunity
for
developers
to
use
and
right
now
remember,
they're
limited
to
1.1
acres
and
we're
going
to
open
that
up
so
that
they
can
be
developed
on
much
larger
parcels.
A
We
don't
require
sidewalks
the
units,
don't
need
lot
frontages,
because
we
consider
that
share
court
to
be
their
lot
frontage.
So
the
good
news
is
the
fire
department
was
supportive
of
basically
removing
that
150
foot.
We
don't
have
to
have
it
in
the
code.
They
can
be
longer
than
150
feet.
Like
a
couple
of
you
had
mentioned,
they
would
have
to
provide
a
turnaround
of
some
sort.
You
know
you'd
work
with
the
fire
department
on
that
or
there's
an
option
to
sprinkler
it.
A
There
is
concerns,
obviously,
of
storage
of
rvs
and
boats,
basketball,
hoops
and
stuff
being
in
the
turnaround.
So
that
is
a
issue,
but
it's
not
to
say
that
we
wouldn't
allow
it
to
be
longer
than
150
feet
and
then,
in
that
turnaround
there
won't
be
parking
allowed.
So
just
wanted
to
bring
you
up
to
speed
on
that.
The
150
foot
maximum
length
will
be
taken
out
of
shear
quartz.
A
A
But
we're
talking
about
wonder
if
you
want
to
do
a
shared
court
and
we
have
that
front
frontage
requirement
where,
like
the
the
front,
entrances
have
to
face
the
street
and
wonder
if
it's
a
unique
lot
like
we
looked
at
kathy's
and
a
lot
by
audrey
or
developments
and
stuff,
and
how
do
we
get
around
that
if
we
do
have
a
unique
property
and
not
necessarily
require
the
units
to
front
the
street?
So
this
is
actually
an
example.
A
It
might
even
be
our
first
shared
court.
That's
coming
in
that
complies
with
the
code.
Today
it's
going
to
go
through
pre-op,
I
believe,
and
it's
got
it's
somewhat
a
unique
piece
of
property.
You
have
the
parkway
strip
on
the
right
and
a
street
on
the
the
bottom
and
on
the
left-hand,
but
side
were
able
to
get
it
where
they
can
meet.
A
This
is
a
single-family
home
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
them
along
the
street
that
all
front
the
street,
and
then
they
put
in
what
I
would
consider
a
shared
court
next
to
it,
except
it's
walled
in
with
landscaping
and
no
front
doors
and
basically
the
the
access
drive.
So
when
you're
walking
down
the
street,
it's
real,
abrupt.
You
walk
along
all
the
front
of
the
houses
and
then
there's
this
hedge,
like
it's
private.
A
If
we
made
a
requirement
that
if
the
parent
property
prior
to
creating
the
shared
court
development
is
less
than
a
certain
width,
then
those
frontage
requirements
go
away
because
you
still
have
to
provide
that
24
foot
access
drive
and
then
there
may
not
be
room
for
a
unit.
Let's
say
this
is
the
access
drive
here,
and
this
is
a
really
skinny
area
may
not
be
room
to
actually
put
a
unit
here
to
have
any
type
of
frontage.
G
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
there
was
any
interest
about
based
on
the
street
classification,
because
I
I
think
for
a
local,
you
know
residential
street
as
you're
walking
through
the
neighborhood.
I
think
that
those
are
the
kind
of
examples
where
we
look
at,
and
you
know
we'd
like
to
see
the
continuation
of
those
front
entrances.
But
if
it's
something
like
a
really
busy
street
that
doesn't
necessarily
have
that
that
that
frontage
on
it
that
you
know
kind
of
welcoming
street
frontage,
then
then
forcing
it.
It
seems.
G
A
So
the
only
thing
I
would
say
to
that
is
we're
only
talking
about
townhomes
right
now
and
for
as
long
as
I
know,
we've
always
required
homes
to
front
streets
or
dwelling
units,
I
should
say
any
type
of
dwelling
unit.
I
live
on
mount
washington
very
busy
street,
but
I
would
hate
to
have
seen
mount
washington
been
a
walled
in
subdivision
based
on
a
street
classification,
but.
G
G
F
Yeah
hi
pauline,
I
think
I
had
sent
to
you
a
long
time
ago,
a
shared
court
that
I
had
done
in
the
town
of
ukaya
and
we
did
not
have
a
frontage
on
the
street.
We
wanted
to
create
a
sense
of
community.
It
was
a
t-shaped
court
where
everybody
kind
of
faced
each
other
and
created
a
sense
of
community
that
way,
but
I
did
not
fence
off
or
landscape
off
the
side
facing
the
residential
street
so
that
it
was
a
very
visible
and
attractive.
F
You
know
image
from
walking
past
it
and
maybe
there's
a
way
of
just
saying
that
it
can't
be
walled
off
or
that
it
needs
to
address
the
street
in
some
way.
I
don't
know,
but
I
do
think
I'm
not
sure
if
75
feet
is
the
right
number.
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
magic
number
or
not.
I
just
think
that
when
we
want
to
create
a
sense
of
community
like
the
previous
example
of
the
townhouses,
you
showed
where
they're
facing
the
90
97
on-ramp
I
mean
that's
not.
F
F
A
Yeah
and
the
90
degrees,
so
they
would
have
to
me
only
the
ones
that
front
the
street
would
have
to
meet
the
the
what
we
came
up
with
at
the
last
meeting,
which
is
our
front
door
orientation
standards.
It
could
be
90
degrees,
45
degrees,
open
onto
a
porch.
It
could
be
any
of
that.
I
think
the
example
that
is
shown
here
on
the
screen
is
where
I
came
up
with
75,
or
maybe
it's
a
hundred.
A
F
That
would
probably
relate
better
to
how
the
each
plan
would
have
its
circulation
so
you're
not
having
a
unique
plan
at
the
end
there.
I
I
think
that
that's
probably
okay,
I
I
don't
have
a
really
strong
opinion
other
than
I
know
I've
designed
them
so
that
you
know
it's
attractive
from
the
street,
but
your
front
door
doesn't
necessarily
face
that
street.
So
I
just
think
there's
other
architectural
ways
of
dealing
with
the
situation,
but
I
understand
your
need
to
be
very
specific,
so
I'm
just
going
to
be
quiet.
E
Thank
you.
I
think
I
agree
with
everything
that
kathy
just
said
it
in
the
illustration
that
you
have
up
on
the
screen.
What
I
like
about
it
is
the
the
shared
court
does
have
some
shared
experience
from
that
street
front
with
the
the
residences
right
next
door.
If
they
didn't
have
that
walkway
and
we
just
had
another
building
there.
That
just
doesn't
seem
like
it's
very
welcoming
and
it
doesn't
seem
like
it's
part
of
the
community.
E
So
I
I
don't
have
an
answer
for
you.
I
my
I
did
have
a
question
with
the
what
scott
raised
is,
how
would
we,
how
would
we
determine
which
streets
or
or
what
speed
limit,
or
you
know
how?
How
could
we?
How
could
we
apply
that
to
the
development?
Would
that
just
be
you
know
residential
streets?
But
what
about
the
arterials?
E
I'm
I'm
thinking
about
14th
in
particular
in
that
area
they
get
a
lot
of
traffic
and
if
they
have
the
opportunity
to
have
their
front
door
on
the
corner
or
if
they're,
if
they
are
on
the
corner,
maybe
on
the
other
street,
then
it
seems
like
that's
a
better,
a
better
application.
But
I'm
sorry
I
don't
have
a
solution.
I
just
agree
with
kathy.
A
Thank
you
lisa.
So
on
our
let's
see
what
is
it
boom
now
or
the
map
wanna?
The
mapping
system
that
we
have
you
can
look
up
streets
so
locals
are
typically
residential,
but
we
do
have
collectors
that
happen
to
be
in
residential
areas
and
arterials.
I'm
not
sure
what
washington
is
in
front
of
my
house.
It
might
be
a
collector.
A
I
think
it
probably
is
a
collector
yeah,
but
it
is
in
a
residential
area.
So
that
would
be
one
way
to
look
at
it
and
then
the
the
pathway
on
this
one
that
I'm
showing
here
you
know
as
long
as
you
have
the
pathway
coming
out
and
then
you
meet
the
front
door
orientation
standards.
It
would
comply.
It's
just.
What
is
that
magic
number
here
that
you
can
have
an
exception?
A
So
it's
real
clear
and
objective
and
I
pick
75
because
the
drive
the
private
drive
has
to
be
24
feet
and
then
there's
a
five
foot
setback
between
the
access
drive
and
the
house
typically,
so
that
is
29
feet
so
30
and
then
I
don't
know
and
I'll
leave
that
to
the
developers
like
what
is
the
a
town
home
lot
depth
that
you
could
live
with?
Is
it
100
feet
or
is?
Is
it
50?
I
Can
you
go
back
to
the
colorful
houses,
yeah
yeah?
I
just
wanted
to
yeah.
I
mean
I,
even
though
you
know
these
are
nice
looking
houses,
they
they
kind
of.
You
know
they
match
the
color
scheme
of
the
single
family
house.
I
still
do
think
that
it.
It
really
detracts
from
the
overall
community
instead
of
integrating
with
it-
and
I
understand
the
idea
of
building
community
within
a
town
house
development.
But
to
me
this
looks
like
a
landscape
parking
lot.
I
don't
know
that.
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
H
Yeah-
and
I
didn't
have
an
answer
yet
on
that
with
part
of
it,
although
what
you
just
put
out,
I
thought
sounded
reasonable,
but
I
just
wanted
to
toss
in
there
for
townhomes
and
that
frontage.
I
do
like
the
idea
of
having
exceptions
for
higher
traffic
streets,
because,
when
you
think
of
families
in
townhomes,
if
it's
like
facing
an
on-ramp
or
a
very
busy
street,
that's
that
really
is
not
at
all
friendly
for
kids
getting
out
at
all.
H
It's
not
safe,
and
I
can
see
opening
it
up
to
where
there
was
a
rule
where
a
certain
percentage
of
that
wall
facing
wall
has
to
be
has
to
relate
to
the
street
and
can't
be
fenced
or
walled
off,
but
just
from
a
safety
standpoint
and
community
feel
you
don't
get
community
where
people
are
driving
45
miles
an
hour
by
and
they
shouldn't
be
gawking
out
the
houses
anyway.
If
it's
that
classification
of
street.
A
So
would
you-
and
this
is
just
for
shared
quartz-
I'm
hesitant
of
opening
up
a
code
that
we've
had
in
place
for
so
long
requiring
no
walden
subdivisions
coming
from
the
central
valley
of
california.
I
have
to
say
one
of
the
most
admiring
things
about
coming.
Here
is
seeing
homes
front
the
street
and
not
driving
down
just
walled
in
subdivisions,
and
I'm
sorry
I
keep
going
back
to
that.
But
you
know
like
the
subdivision
here
that
is
on
empire
and
boyd.
I
believe
they're
set
back
enough.
H
H
If
they
have
all
of
that
nice
interior
place,
where
you
can
really
get
community-
and
I
just
I
think
they
well
they've
got
fence
around
part
of
it,
but
it's
a
really
attractive
fence,
and
I
don't
know
I
I
totally
get
that
we
don't
want
to
just
bunch
of
walls
everywhere,
because
that
would
suck,
but
there's
just
a
certain
amount
on
the
really
high
speed
higher
speed
roads
where
it
just
I'm
not
going
to
sit
on
my
front
porch.
If,
if
I'm
just
out
there
in
exhaust
land.
J
D
J
That
you
don't
have
to
have
your
door
fronting
the
street,
but
you
do
have
to
you
know.
Instead
of
having
a
six
foot
fence,
you're
only
allowed
to
have
a
a
certain
height
of
of
either
you
know
a
shrub
or
a
fence
and
then
to
that
side
of
the
the
the
shared
court.
The
building-
that's
that's
near
the
street
you
know
requires
some
sort
of
you
know
percentage
of
windows
or
something
like
that,
because
I.
J
You
know
to
me
the
santa
cruz
one
doesn't
look
all
that
bad,
that's
kind
of
the
shared
courts
are
supposed
to
do,
and
then
I
just
think
I
think
with
kathy
mentioned.
You
know
if
you
have
to,
if
you
have
five
shared
courts
and
the
fifth
one
the
door
has
to
orient
towards
the
street,
it's
going
to
really
it's
going
to
really
affect
what
that
one
unit
is
like
and
you
won't
get
the
efficiency
of
building
all
five
units
in
the
same
pet
floor
plan.
So
I
just
wondered.
J
A
K
J
A
Jessie's
with
the
windows
we're
going
to
talk
about
window
percentages
coming
up
today,
and
I
want
to
move
off
this
here,
so
we
can
finish
today
the
my
sense
from
all
the
memes
we've
had
every
time
window
percentages
come
up
was
kind
of
thumbs
down.
We
don't
want
to
start
measuring
window
percentages,
the
front
doors-
I
don't
know
if
you
were
with
us
last
week
or
two
weeks
ago,
jesse
when
we
came
up
with
a
pretty
flexible
front
door
requirement,
so
it
wouldn't
change
that
front
unit.
A
A
I
think
the
example
again
on
the
screen
is
a
good
reason
to
have
shared
courts
fit
in
with
existing
neighborhoods.
If
they're
part
of
master
plan
communities,
they
can
do
whatever
they
want,
because
they'll
come
up
with
their
own
master
plan
development
standards.
But
when
we're
really
talking
about
infills
like
how
do
we
incorporate
these
very
dense
developments
into
an
existing
neighborhood
was?
Did
anybody
else
have
their
hands
raised.
G
G
G
I
feel
like
the
front
doors
should
on
those
should
just
have
the
same
standards
as
a
single
family
home
along
that
street.
What
I
was
meaning
is:
if
it's,
if
it
was
a
super
busy
street,
then
maybe
then
granting
an
exception
for
not
necessarily
for
a
whole
waldoff
community,
where
it's
like
the
the
whole.
G
It
would
be
a
whole
community
with
the
back
side
facing
the
street,
but
you
know
maybe
allowing
some
flexibility
for
for
our
classification,
higher
classification
of
streets,
but
yeah
local
streets
and
everything
I
think
they
should
just
you
know
they
don't
have
to
build
a
shared
court.
I
think
it's
it's
something.
That's
a
bonus,
so
the
one
unit
being
slightly
different-
I
I
not!
I
don't
really
have
as
much
of
a
problem
with
that.
G
A
A
When
we
are
on
arterials,
I'm
probably
not
going
to
go
all
the
way
to
a
collector,
because
I'm
pretty
sure
I
live
on
a
collector
and
I
sit
on
my
front
porch
all
the
time.
So
maybe
arterials
could
be
an
exception
to
the
front
door
standard
and
then
the
other
exception
would
be
the
75
feet
or
less.
Unless
I
hear
differently-
and
this
could
be
an
exercise
like
if
you
know
after
this
meeting
you
play
around
with
it
and
realize
75
feet-
isn't
the
right
number
you
can.
A
Let
me
know,
but
I
think
75
feet
for
the
parent
site
is
probably
a
good
enough
number,
because
that
would
be
infill.
You
know,
and
it
might
be
75
feet
at
the
front
and
then
it
opens
up
to
a
huge
piece
of
property
in
the
back
you
know,
and
so
what
we're
saying
is
that,
if
it's
narrower
on
the
front
larger
in
the
back,
then
in
the
front
we
don't
even
need
a
a
townhome
unit.
L
Yeah,
I
think
the
only
thing
that
I
so
I'm
just
looking
at
projects
that
we've
done
in
the
past
pauline-
and
I
I
know
typically
when
we
do
these
shared
courts
sort
of
deals.
You
know
we
did
some
over
in
purcell
landing.
We
typically
took
that
initial
lot
or
the
one
that
quote
unquote:
fronts
the
street
and
turned
that
into
a
separate
property
that
would
still
have
its
own
driveway
and
everything
off
of
that
main
street,
and
then
the
you
know,
the
shared
court
was
basically
more
of
a
flag
situation.
L
You
know
to
kind
of
get
around
the
rule
or
the
requirement
because
yeah
we
don't
want
to
be
designing.
You
know
a
set
of
attached
products,
but
have
units
being
different
and
a
front
door.
You
know
off
the
side
versus
off
the
same
direction
of
all
the
other
units,
just
for
efficiency
reasons,
as
scott
kind
of
pointed
out.
That's
not
something
that
that
we're
gonna
look
to
do
so,
we're
just
gonna
design
the
the
properties
differently.
L
In
order
to
get
around
that
which
you
know
kind
of
meets
the
same
intent,
I
would
say
so.
The
you
know
the
75
feet
or
less
I
mean
that
I
don't
know.
I
mean
it's
kind
of
a
gray
area
with
me
just
for
the
fact
that
the
wider
that
face
is
the
more
you
want
to
orient
the
lot
the
other
direction
and
put
the
side
of
the
home
on
siding
the
street.
L
A
L
D
A
M
So
I'm
I'm
in
favor
of
allowing
the
walled
off
for
a
arterial.
I
lived
in
a
project
in
westland
where
it
backed
up
to
rosemont.
Rosemont
was
like
a
40
45
mile,
an
hour
road
that
was
ex.
You
know
very
heavily
used.
They
had
a
very
large
sidewalk
on
the
other
side
of
the
wall,
so
you
could,
if
you
wanted
to
exercise
or
something
else,
use
the
sidewalk
along
rosemont,
but
it
was
a
larger
sidewalk
because
of
the
fact
it
was
such
a
busy
road.
D
A
D
A
So
what
we're
I
understand
that
we're
going
to
have
an
exception
that,
if
you're
on
an
arterial,
your
front
door
does
not
have
to
face
the
street.
So
that's
a
given.
The
question
is,
even
though
your
front
door
is
not
facing
the
street
and
you're
on
an
arterial.
Are
you
supportive
of
also
allowing
a
wall
so.
D
D
A
Okay,
I'm
gonna
keep
the
75
feet
and
the
other
two
exceptions,
then
the
wall
and
then
a
front
door
doesn't
have
face
to
street.
When
you
are
on
an
arterial,
good
job,
everybody
windows
standards.
I
don't
think
this
one
will
take
long.
This
is
what
is
allowed
in
the
model
code.
Minimum
15
of
the
area
of
all
street
facing
facades
must
include
windows
or
entrance
doors,
facade
separated
from
the
street
property
line
by
drawing
or
exempt
from
the
standard.
A
L
L
I
don't
necessarily
think
that's
the
right
way
to
look
at
it
because,
what's
going
to
happen,
is
everybody's
just
going
to
hit
the
roof
in
that
situation
to
get
away
from
having
to
include
that
area
and
then
you're
never
going
to
get
gable
ends,
for
example,
so
that
people
could
do
less
windows.
So
I
I
think-
and
that's
one
reason
why
I'm
not
in
support
of
this
is
because
there
are
it
there's
so
many
gray
areas
and
other
additional
items
that
should
be
worked
out.
A
A
Okay,
so
this
one's
fun
and
bear
with
me,
as
I
talk
us
through
this,
so
let
me
get
to
the
next
slide.
This
is
regarding
the
lot
sizes
and
we
I
know-
we've
already
talked
about
this,
but
something
came
up
in
the
past
two
weeks.
There
was
an
eye
opener
for
me.
I
want
to
make
sure
the
group
understands
today.
B
L
D
L
M
A
A
So
when
we
were
looking
at
triplexes
and
quads,
we
focused
on
the
lot
sizes
in
our
low
density,
residential
and
our
standard
density
residential,
because
we
do
have
lot
sizes
today.
It
made
sense
to
carry
over
lot
sizes
with
this
proposal
and
we
just
and
my
bad
glanced
over
medium
and
high,
because
why
have
lot
sizes?
If
we
don't
today,
the.
A
A
A
A
Today,
in
the
rs
okay
in
the
today,
with
our
proposal,
we're
saying
that
in
the
standard
density
residential
zone,
you
can
also
do
a
triplex
and
a
fourplex
on
a
4
000
square
foot
lot
and
that's
what
we
came
up
with
together.
So
today
you
could
have
one
unit
with
the
proposed
draft.
This
lot
can
actually
get
up
to
four
units.
A
A
The
oers
are
minimum
compliance
said
you
can
actually
have
a
minimum
lot
size
of
5000,
which
would
allow
three
units
on
this
lot,
which
is
what
you
can
have
today
and
then,
if
we
went
with
a
model
code,
you
would
have
a
lot
size
of
2
500
which
actually
doubles
the
density
on
this
lot.
Compared
to
what
you
can
do
today,
and
maybe
that's
okay.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
this
group
understands
and
then
for
a
fourplex,
the
oars
would
say
you
have
to
have
a
7
000
square
foot
lot.
Well.
A
The
lot
here
is
less
than
7
000,
so
you'd
actually
lose
units,
and
we
don't
want
that.
If
we
went
with
a
model
code,
you
would
actually
get
five
more
units
than
what
you
could
have
today
when
we
look
at
it
and
we're
saying
that
there
is
no
minimum
lot
size.
That
means
this
person
can
come
in
here
and
do
I
don't
know
two
or
three
partitions
or
three
lots
and
put
a
four
plex
on
each
one
of
those
and
maybe
have
the
potential
for
12
la
12
units,
and
today
we
only
allow
three.
A
A
We
should
at
least
have
a
minimum
lot
size
and
the
medium
density
residential
zone
similar
to
our
standard
density
residential
zone.
So
there's
some
type
of
standard
that
we
look
at
when
someone
asks
well
how
many
units
can.
I
have
because
we're
not
going
to
look
at
the
maximum
density,
but
we
should
at
least
look
at
lot
size.
A
Another
example
is
if
this
property
was
zoned
high
density
residential,
it
could
have
seven
units
today.
Now,
if
we
went
with
the
oars,
it
would
actually
be
less.
They
can
only
have
four
units,
and
if
we
want
the
model
code,
it's
very
flexible,
it
would
just
be
limited
by
the
standard.
So
height
setbacks
parking
things
like
that
and
then
the
if
we
wanted
to
do
quads
again,
it's
kind
of
limiting,
so
my
recommendation
and
you'll
see
it
in
the
next.
A
A
A
If
you
use
the
oars,
you
would
get
three
units
which
is
two
more
than
what
would
be
allowed
on
a
4
000
square
foot
lot
today.
If
we
went
with
a
model
code,
you'd
actually
get
five
more
units
on
that
lot
than
what
you're
allowed.
Today
and
again,
I'm
recommending
to
say
a
minimum
lot
size
of
four
to
be
consistent
with
our
rs,
and
you
would
still
get
two
to
three
more
units
for
every
4
000
square
foot
lot
and
then
in
the
high
density
residential.
A
I'm
recommending
2500
square
foot
lots
so
that
you
could
at
least
get
what
you
have
today
or,
if
not
more,
and
then
it
really
starts
to
jump
up
when
you
get
bigger
lots.
So
let's
say
you
take
a
10
000
square
foot
lot
today
in
the
medium
density
residential
on
a
ten
thousand
square
foot
lot.
You
can
only
get
four
units.
A
If
we
did
four
thousand
square
foot
lots,
you
could
actually
get
six
so
for
a
triplex
or
you
can
do
eight
units.
If
you
did
two
quads
and
then
in
the
high
density,
you
would
jump
from
nine
units,
so
you
could
have
today.
If
we
had
a
minimum
lot
size
of
2500,
you
could
get
12
to
16
units,
but
without
having
any
minimum
lot
size.
These
numbers
could
be
a
lot
higher.
A
F
F
I
I
guess
I
was
thinking
in
terms
of
our
other
things,
like
setbacks
and
heights
and
so
forth.
If
I
I
don't
see
us
going
to
unlimited
number
of
units
based
on
the
other
requirements
that
we
have
so
that's
more
of
a
question
for
you,
I
mean
I
can
see
going
the
direction
that
you're
recommending,
and
I
would
support
you
on
that.
But
my
question
is:
aren't
we
somewhat
limited
by
our
setbacks
and
heights?
A
So
good
questions
in
my
personal
opinion,
I
don't
think
we're
too
limited
because
parking
if
everything
moves
forward
the
way
we're
proposing
there's
no
parking
requirements
anymore.
So
there's
no
20-foot
setbacks
anymore,
like
for
a
garage
or
a
carport,
you
would
have
a
five-foot
rear
and
side
yard
setbacks
in
a
10-foot
front.
So
you
could
pretty
much
put
quite
a
few
units
in
there
far's
going
away.
A
You
would
have
lot
coverage,
but
I
mean
you
could
probably
get
still
a
number
of
units
on
there
because
lot
coverage
is
just
the
amount
of
lot
that's
covered.
You
could
build
up
yeah,
so
you
could
get
you
know,
probably
more
than
what
we
are
thinking
or
expecting.
When
we
were
saying.
Oh,
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
lot
sizes.
F
A
C
A
A
And
it
definitely
can
be
so
if
you
did
2500
square
foot
lots,
you
would
go
from
three
units
today
to
six
for
eight
units.
So,
instead
of
thinking,
oh
I'm
gonna
have
three
units.
Next
to
me,
you
could
actually
have
eight
units
next
to
you
and
then
on
the
other
examples.
If
we
did
2500,
you
would
instead
of
having
one
unit
that
you
thought
was
allowed
next
to
you,
you
would
get
six.
A
C
A
I
played
around
with
quite
a
few
different
scenarios.
Yesterday
I
mean
this
isn't
set
in
stone.
If
someone
comes
up
with
a
better
number,
you
know
I'd
love
to
hear
about
it,
but
either
I
would
lose
units
or
it'd
be
just
a
significant
amount
of
units
where
it
didn't
really
make
sense
to
worry
about
lot
sizes.
At
that
point,
I
thought
this.
These
numbers
increase
what
you
can
have
today,
in
probably
almost
all
cases.
M
M
A
M
M
A
Earlier
for
duplexes
and
triplexes
is
proposed
to
have
no
minimum
parking
requirements,
a
fourplex
does
have
a
a
parking
requirement.
I
know,
there's
a
survey
out
there
that
says
fourplexes
don't
have
a
parking
requirement.
That
is
not
accurate.
This
group
did
vote
on
having
a
parking
requirement
for
four
plexes.
A
That
is
the
current
proposal.
Right
now
for
duplexes
and
triplexes
quads
will
have
a
minimal
parking
requirement.
Cottages
and
townhomes
have
a
parking
requirement.
How
many
quads,
I
think,
was
pretty
low
and
it
was
like
one
per
development.
Townhome,
I
think,
was
one
per
unit
and
cottages,
I
believe,
was
one
per
unit.
G
G
In
bend
I
mean
I,
I
guess
I
I
I
almost
didn't
realize
how
little
there
is.
It
was
hard
to
find
it
and
rm.
It
does
seem
like
it's
clustered
around
places
that
you
know
I
feel
like.
If
ben's
going
to
grow
correctly,
we
kind
of
need
to
have
these
little
pockets
of
urban
development
or
something
and
some
catalyst
for
that
is,
is
density
and,
and
especially
when
I
look
at
a
lot
of
the
rm
zones,
I
mean
they're
already
built
out,
there'd
be
a
lot
of
infill.
G
G
I
I
I
I
A
N
A
So
dave
we've
gone
through
the
parking
on
every
single
unit
type
we've
voted
on
it
and
we're
moving
forward
with
that
in
the
draft.
The
draft
I'm
gonna
finish
up.
We're
gonna
have
one
more
meeting
on
it
in
two
or
three
weeks
to
go
over
everything
in
the
draft
and
then
it's
gonna
go
out
for
public
comment.
A
N
E
E
A
A
So
I
obviously
didn't
update
my
numbers
here
on
this
side.
Sorry,
but
if
you
look
at
this
today,
if
it
was
a
5000
lot
requirement
today
in
the
rm,
you
could
get
one,
you
won't
be
able
to
get
a
triplex
or
a
quad
on
a
4
000
square
foot
lot
because
of
it'd
be
too
small
and
then,
if
we
go
back
to
this
example
on
a
6
000
square
foot
lot,
if
we
did
a
five,
you
would
get
three
today.
A
If
we
did
a
four,
you
still
only
get
three
and
then,
if
we
well
seven,
you
won't
get
any.
If
you
did
six,
you
would
be
able
to
put
a
quad
on
there
and
then
that's
the
same
as
if
you
did
a
four.
So
it's
kind
of
funny
once
you
start
looking
at.
Actually
it's
not
funny.
It's
really
challenging
when
you
start
playing
around
with
these
numbers
and
then
switching
the
lot
sizes.
You
know
you're
really
only
going
up
and
down
a
unit
or
two,
it's
not
significant.
D
F
Lisa
yeah,
I
would
I
was
just
going
to
say.
While
I
appreciate
lisa
agreeing
with
me
on
some
things,
I
disagree
with
her
on
this
and
you
need
to
stick
with
four
thousand.
It
is
having
laid
out
hundreds
of
subdivisions.
I
just
believe
me:
you
need
to
stay
with
four
thousand.
It's
just
what's
going
to
work
best,
I
don't
recommend
going
to
5000.,
it's
just
my
opinion,
but
it's
through
experience.
D
M
I
A
Carter,
I
think
we'll
go.
I
I
feel
more
comfortable
if
we
just
go
to
a
vote
on
this
and
raise
your
hand
if
you're
support
the
proposal
and
I
can
put
that
chart
up
hold
on.
I
think
we
all
know
it
these
options
here.
The
10
and
4
aren't
changing
for
the
low
density
standard.
What
we're
proposing
is
4
000
in
the
rm
and
2500
in
at
the
r8,
and
only
having
an
exception
in
the
rh
if
they
are
under
the
25.
A
A
D
Thank
you,
so
you
all,
I
think,
know
me
by
now:
I'm
the
city's,
affordable
housing
manager
and
and
bringing
this
to
you
for
a
handful
of
reasons.
This
is
specific.
This
conversation
is
specific
to
multi-family
and
publicly
supported,
affordable
housing.
So
some
of
you
have
heard
me
talk
about
capital,
a
lowercase,
a
this
is
capital
a
what
what
is
sort
of
defined
and
typically
funded
by
hud
or
treasury,
or
the
state
or
us
to
be
affordable.
D
We
also
record
covenants
and
all
sorts
of
deed
restrictions
on
the
title
of
the
property
so
that
it's
guaranteed
to
be
affordable
for
typically
about
60
years.
So
just
want
to
be
clear
that
this
is
kind
of
switching
topics
a
little
bit
and
where
we
are
with
this
is
this
kind
of
came
up
earlier
today,
which
I'm
really
glad
about.
There
is
very
limited
supply
of
rm
and
rh
land
in
bend.
That
is
big
enough
to
really
make
affordable
housing
developments,
pencil
and
affordable
housing.
D
Penciling
is
a
little
different,
even
than
penciling
a
regular
market
rate
transaction
because
nothing
pencils
without
subsidy
when
you're
building
affordable.
So
so
there
are
subsidies
involved
and
all
of
us
like
to
mess
up
the
title
in
various
different
ways
to
make
sure
that
we
get
what
we
are
intending
to
get
out
of
the
development.
D
D
A
lot
of
folks
kind
of
have
typically
three,
maybe
four
story,
developments
that
they'll
put
on
the
ground
and
so
certain
models
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
not
kind
of
in
the
way
of
these
types
of
developments
getting
off
the
ground.
As
you
know,
affordable
housing,
true,
affordable
housing
is
very
much
priority
with
our
council
right
now
and
it
takes
a
lot
of
work
to
get
going.
So,
thankfully,
we
have
a
couple
of
folks
on
this
call
who
know
a
little
bit
about
that
and
hopefully
can
help
talk
through.
D
If
there
are
any
questions
that
I
can't
answer
so
within
ben
right
now,
rm
and
rh
land
is
going
for
roughly
a
million
dollars,
an
acre
that
is
extraordinarily
challenging
in
this
environment
to
get
affordable
to
pencil,
and
so
in
talking
through
with
this
development
group,
I
think
we
had
four
different
developers
represented
a
number
of
architects,
a
planner
and
and
karna.
Was
there
too,
I
guess
you're,
just
the
building
representative
and
so
really
looking
at.
D
The
reason
that
this
came
up
this
this
these
numbers
is
because
this
is
the
exact
framework
that
we're
using
in
other
parts
of
the
city.
This
is
what
I
believe
parks
is
using
for
their
sdc
calculations,
and
then
we've
talked
about
that
as
well
for
things
like
cottage
code
or
sorry
for
things
like
micro
units.
So
we
were
trying
to
create
consistency
across
all
of
our
codes
and
processes
so
that
our
staff
does
not
have
to
reconfigure
and
recalculate
based
on
13
different
metrics.
So
the
consistency
here
is
good.
D
D
So
with
this
I
wanted
to
kind
of
open
it
up
to
you
all
to
talk
through
whether
or
not
this
group
would
be
comfortable
with
this:
affordable
housing,
multi-family,
affordable
housing,
allowing
for
smaller
units
to
count
as
less
for
density
calculations
or
not
putting
a
max
density
on
for
this
publicly
supported,
affordable
housing
with
the
idea
that
things,
like
setbacks
and
height
limitations,
parking,
etc,
kind
of
control.
The
frame
of
how
many
units
you
can
get
into
that
development,
so
opening
it
up
and
I'm
curious
kathy.
D
I
should
say
by
the
way
I
thought
it
was
really
interesting
to
have
a
variety
of
different
developers
come
together
and
local
and
national
folks,
more
or
less
agreeing
on
things
which
doesn't
always
happen,
and
so
that's
that
was
part
of
this
is
getting
this
consensus
from
this
group
wanting
to
test
it
on
one
other
group
before
we
moved
it
forward
in
any
way,
shape
or
form,
but
really
looking
for
your
opinions
on
this
and
kathy,
I
think
you
unmuted,
so
I'm
guessing
there.
You
are.
F
F
F
H
Well,
I
guess
it
would
have
to
be
less
than
or
equal
to,
because
you've
got
less
than
600
and
601.
So
there's
nothing
for
600.,
but
I
would
hate
to
see
the
units
you
know
have
half
the
density
allowed,
just
because
the
federal
program
and
state
programs
would
ever
require
a
unit
to
be
at
least
600
or
so
or
whatever
it
was.
D
Thanks,
I'm
trying
to
think
of
and
kathy
you
may
have
this,
but
I
believe
so
when
you
first
started
planning
that
I
don't
think
we
allowed
you
to
go
400
square
feet
or
less
in
our
code.
That
was
part
of
the
work
that
I
think
pauline
has
done
recently
to
get
that
permitted.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
what
you're
talking
about,
I
do
know
that
there
are
sort
of
limitations
with
subsidized
units
that
are
funded
by
hud,
but
the
topo
duplex
was
not
that
that
was.
H
D
D
Got
it
thank
you
audrey
that
that
helps
me
a
lot
yes.
So
the
folks
that
were
in
the
room
are
all
very
familiar
with
the
funding
and
felt
like
this
worked.
I
think
you
get
typically
folks
are
aiming
for
that
600
square
foot
mark.
Thank
you
for
the
the
correction
on
there's
no
actual
600
in
this,
we'll
fix
that
maybe
it's
equal
to
and
less
than
600
is
0.25,
but
they
and
they
typically
go
up
to
650
for
ada
units,
and
so
that
was
a
big
part
of
the
discussion
is.
D
Do
we
want
to
raise
it
so
the
ada
is
counted,
and
I
think
the
consensus
was
more
or
less
that
we're
still
getting
a
great
option
out
of
this,
and
so
it's
okay,
if
the
ada
units
count
as
0.5
instead
of
0.25,
and
that
didn't
feel
punitive
is
not
really
the
right
word,
but
that
that's
sort
of
the
sentiment.
So
I
think
that's.
D
With
that
group
weighing
in
on
this
is
workable
for
them.
So
thank
you.
I'm
sorry.
It
took
me
a
while
to
figure
out
what
you're
saying
apologies
for
that
any
other
thoughts
from
this
group
do
feel
folks
feel
comfortable
with
option
one
or
option
two.
I
think
we
have
one
specific
vote
for
option
two
so
far:
okay,
sarah,
then
scott.
K
D
D
G
Yeah,
so
I
I
agree
with
kathy,
I
I
like
the
option
too
and
and
to
address
the
project's
question.
Yes,
we
you
know.
Yes,
we
do
have
all
these
other
restrictive
factors
and
also
so
I've.
I've
worked
with
pacific
rest
on
on
some
projects
and
there's
a
little
sorry.
This
is
gonna,
be
a
little
anecdotal
story,
but
when
they
were
building
the
one
azimuth
315
in
northwest
crossing,
there
was
a
bunch
of
people
that
came
there
and
there's
some
people
that
were
concerned.
You
know
they
didn't.
G
You
know
worried
about
those
types
of
people
moving
into
their
neighborhood
or
whatever,
and
they
were
holding
it
in
their
meeting
in
in
their
other,
affordable
housing,
complex
and
and
robert
way,
the
the
owner,
one
of
the
one
of
the
owners
of
pacific
crest
was
like.
Can
you
point
to
the
people
in
this
meeting
who
live
here?
These
are
these
are
nurses,
police
officers,
teachers?
G
M
I'm
I
kind
of
like
option
one,
even
though
I
like
option
two
as
well.
The
only
reason
I
like
option.
One
is
because
it's
consistent
with
what
parks
is
doing
and
it's
an
argument
to
use
for
sdt
calculations,
which
I
know
we're
not
talking
about
today,
but
it
gives
guidance
on
possibly
what
sdcs
could
be
calculated
as
well
when
you're
so
generic
as
option
two.
It
doesn't
really
give
you
much
guidance
that
way.
So
that's
kind
of
why
I
like
the
specifics
of
option,
one
just
mine,
two
cents.
There.
D
D
A
A
N
A
A
A
We
thought
it
would
be
good
to
revisit
density
this
way
as
an
option,
one
which
is
consistent
with
how
parks
is
going
to
do
the
sdcs
and
also
consistent
with
how
we've
been
calculating
density
for
smaller
units
in
different
types
of
developments
in
bend.
So
one
idea
is
just
to
start
being
more
consistent
on
how
we're
looking
at
unit
sizes
and
density.
N
D
N
J
But
you
know
400
square
feet
with
a
mezzanine,
is,
in
my
mind
a
pretty
large
and
roomy
studio
apartment,
at
least
with
the
renderings
we've
done
now.
So
I
would
say
600
square
feet
and
I
don't
know
if
lofts
come
into
this
with
with
the
multi-family
for
affordable
housing
or
not,
but
yeah,
I
would
think
you
would
want
to
say
no
maximum
density
and
not
even
you
know,
related
to
the
the
other
two
but
then,
as
karna
brings
up.
J
I
think
it
is
really
good
to
have
this
consistency
with
the
0.25
unit
being
600
square
feet
and
then
the
0.5
unit,
because
now
we
have
it
all
over
our
code.
It's
in
both
my
in
both
cottage
codes.
It's
in
the
small
unit
development
code,
it's
in
the
micro
apartment
code,
this
particular
major
for
for
density.
J
I
realize
this
is
not
a
discussion
about
sccs,
but
I
don't
know
what
the
waving
of
sdcs
is
for:
affordable
housing,
but
for
the
micro
department
that
we're
doing
you
know
we
went
to
do
our
sec
calculation
and
ask
for
it.
Russ
from
the
city
said
that
they're,
you
know
they're
starting
to
look
at
trying
to
reduce
the
sccs
and
do
it
by
using
these
density
calculations-
and
I
didn't
know,
parks
was
doing
that
as
well,
so
there.
J
If
that
would
help
to
to
for
the
secs,
and
I
would
say
option,
one
would
be
good
to
do.
But
if,
if
the
affordable
housing
is
already
getting
scc
credits,
then
you
know,
maybe
they
should
be
less
restricted,
because
I
think
I
think
someone
can
live
really
comfortably
in
a
multi-family
apartment
at
even
you
know
at
even
300
square
feet.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
I
guess.
D
Thanks
jesse
really
good
point:
I
think
that
you
guys
have
maybe
potentially
a
tough
choice
to
make
than
all
of
you
kind
of
what
I'm
thinking
is.
If
there's
no
more
comments
or
questions,
let's,
let's
try
to
vote
and
what
I
seem
to
be
hearing.
What
I
think
I'd
be
hearing
is
a
little
more
support
for
option,
two,
no
max
density.
So
let's
first
do
a
vote
on
that
and
if
it
doesn't
go
forward,
then
we'll
go
back
to
option
one
and
and
do
a
vote
on
that
one.
D
We
got
nine
hands,
so
that's
a
pretty
clear,
yes
pauline,
oh,
that
might
be
ten
so
and
those
are
all
from
from
who
I
see
those
are
all
members
of
this
stakeholder
group.
So
thank
you
all.
So,
let's
go
forward
how
about,
if
everybody
pulls
the
hand
down
and
let's
go
for
the
next
slide,
please!
Oh,
yes!
D
So
lest
you
think
we
could
get
out
of
a
meeting
without
talking
about
parking
here
we
are
so.
It
was
a
really
interesting
discussion
honestly
and
I
kind
of
expected
that
our
developer
group
would
say
no
parking,
no
parking,
let's
reduce
it
all,
and
that
was
definitely
not
what
came
out
of
the
group
so
just
to
give
you
an
overview
with
multi-family.
Currently,
the
standard
in
our
code
for
all
multi-family
is
1.5
spaces
per
unit.
D
D
Then
again,
these
are
affordable,
and
I
want
to
point
out
that,
in
my
understanding,
the
difference
for
seniors
residing
in
market
rate,
housing
and
seniors
residing
in
affordable
housing
is
is
quite
different.
Seniors
in
market
rate,
housing
tend
to
bring
all
the
cars
that
may
be
three
of
them
for
a
couple
or
three
of
them
for
one
person
who
knows
that
is
not
what
we're
seeing
for
affordable
housing
developments
throughout
central
oregon,
and
so
it
was
interesting
to
hear
both
one
of
our
well-respected
local
developers.
D
Housing
works,
as
well
as
a
couple
of
the
national
developers
say
in
every
development
that
we
have
done.
You
know
we
we're
happy
with
where
we
are
and
and
several
of
them
also
shared
stories
about
never
wanting
to
under
park
a
development.
Again.
However,
they
did
feel
like
the
data
leads
towards
.8
spaces
per
unit
for
seniors
and
their
specific
technical
category
of
seniors.
That
is
allowed
to
to
be
built
only
for
that
population
group
in
an
affordable
housing
world
or
for
there's
one
project
right
now.
D
That's
for
a
special
population
which
is
developmentally
delayed
adults.
Those
folks
typically
do
not
have
cars
at
the
same
rate
that
many
of
us
do
so
that
is
the
suggestion
that
came
out
of
this
group
is:
do
we
want
to
reduce
parking
to
0.8
specifically
for
special
populations
such
as
seniors
or
developmentally
disabled
adults,
and
this
again
is
only
for
multi-family,
publicly
supported
housing.
So
carnegie,
you
got
a
hand
up
first.
A
D
M
On
these
alternative
to
a
0.8,
I
think
it
should
be
no
parking
requirements.
I
think
it
really
should
be
up
to
the
developer
on
the
special
populations,
because
they're
going
to
know
who
the
housing
provider
is
or
who's
I'd
like
to
leave
it
up
to
them,
especially
since
I
sat
in
on
that
group
and
listened
to
the
conversations
these
people
will
do
what
they
need
to
do
for
these
special
populations.
I
don't
know
that
we
need
to
require
any
parking
for
these
populations.
D
D
D
Right
and
I'm
saying
all
of
that
is
part
of
all
the
title
and
deed
restrictions
that
come
along
with
it,
so
the
funding
is
awarded
for
that
specific
purpose.
For
that
specific
development,
there
are
times
where
a
unit
or
two
will
change
over
time
after
funding,
but
you
would
have
to
unwind
a
whole
whole
whole
bunch
of
legal
work,
as
well
as
financing
to
to
move
from
a
senior
development
to
a
regular
population.
I'll
say
your
workforce
development.
If
you
wanted
to
do
that
within
60
years,
otherwise
you
are
stuck
with
it.
C
C
C
N
N
Verifies
my
contention
that
parking
limitations,
redu
reduction,
only
work
when
public
transportation
is
available
and
in
in
my
current
experience
here
in
bend
for
the
for
the
group
that
we're
talking
about
these
seniors
that
are
living
in
specific
communities.
The
communities
themselves
provide
the
the
quote-unquote
public
part
of
the
transportation.
N
D
Thanks
dave,
so
that's
all
the
hands.
We
have
here's
kind
of
what
I'm
thinking.
I
think
I
heard
a
lot
of
folks
kind
of
gelling
around
point
five,
I'm
not
sure
that
we
got
that
clear
with
zero
requirement
and
then
it
sounds
like
there's
a
lot
of
comfort
for
point
eight
as
well.
So
let's
start
with
a
0.5
requirement
and
do
a
vote
on
who
would
be
supportive
of
0.5
in
this
case.
D
Go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand
if
you
are-
and
I'm
actually
gonna
also
count
lisa
put
in
the
chat
that
she
was
supportive
of
0.5
as
well.
So
I'm
going
to
count
her
one
two,
three,
four:
five:
six:
seven,
eight,
nine,
ten,
eleven
okay,
so
that
makes
12
pauline.
I
feel,
like
that's
the
clearest
vote
we've
ever
had
in
this
group
and
particularly
about
parking.
I'm
feeling
like
we
might
have
just
got
a
huge
win
right
there
for
our
community
and
our
seniors.
D
I
A
A
and
it
works
okay,
it's
a
residential
compatibility
standards,
but
it's
come
up
so
many
times
where
we
lose
dwelling
units
because
these
these
standards
that
are
protecting,
I
guess
what
we
would
consider
some
larger
lots
today
in
the
city
of
bend.
So
this
this
standard
applies
to
only
which
is
odd,
standard
density,
residential
lots.
A
The
standard
is
again
to
provide
like
this
transitional
buffer.
I
guess
between
existing
neighborhoods,
on
very
large
lots
and
between
them
and
new
lots
that
are
created,
I'm
just
going
to
go
over
what's
in
the
code
and
then
show
you
an
example
of
how
this
does
have
significant
effects
on
new
development
and
when
I
say
significant
event
effects
it
significantly
can
reduce
their
proposed
density
and
number
of
lots
that
they
can
get.
A
It
only
applies
to
new
lots
that
are
created
in
the
standard
density
residential
zone
if
they
abut
the
same
zone
which
is
odd
or
if
they
buy
the
low
density
residential
zone,
which
is
20,
000
square
feet
or
greater.
So
if
you're,
creating
a
new
subdivision
and
those
lots
of
property,
zoned,
standard
or
low
density,
residential
and
those
lots
are
20
000
square
feet
or
greater
those
20,
000
square
feet
or
greater
properties
are
considered,
I
guess
a
protected
property,
and
so
we
define
a
budding
a
little
bit
differently.
A
So
if
you
are
doing
a
new
subdivision-
and
you
abut
one
of
these
protected
lots-
you
can't
do
a
lot
smaller
than
5
000
square
feet.
So
remember:
our
slot
sizes
are
4
000
for
single
family.
We
just
reduced
them
down
for
duplexes
and
also,
I
think
we
did
it
for
triplexes.
Now
too,
you
cannot
create
a
4
000
square
foot
lot.
A
So
our
setbacks
for
normal
subdivisions
are
only
five
and
this
is
forcing
a
30
to
35
foot
setback
and
it's
also
increasing
the
minimum
lot
sizes
from
4
000
to
at
least
5
000
square
feet.
The
intent
of
this
is
a
long
time
ago.
There
was
these
standards
and
people
put
spike
strips
behind
them
to
try
and
comply,
so
they
would
get
away
from
having
to
meet
these
standards.
But
then
you
get
this
unusable
spike
strip
behind
your
property.
A
So
hence
we
created
these
in
2015
to
try
and
you
know,
make
it
work,
but
it's
still
an
issue.
There
are
some
exceptions
that
can
encroach
into
this
massive
rear
yard
setback
like
chimneys
bay
windows,
decks
accessory
structures
that
are
small
and
then
you
can.
You
can
have
a
fence
if
you
want
a
fence
along
the
property
line.
A
There
are
some
exemptions
like
let's
say
that
that
protected
property
has
a
house
on
it,
but
that
house
is
more
than
a
hundred
foot
away.
Then
they
don't
have
to
they're
no
longer
considered
protected.
Another
exception
is
when
the
property
is
vacant,
so
there's
nothing
to
protect.
So
you
don't
have
to
do
those
massive
setbacks.
A
So
I
just
want
to
run
this
by
this
group
since
we've
been
focusing
a
lot
on
missing
middle
and
lot
sizes
and
density
with
the
you
know,
the
intent
of
getting
more
units
on
the
ground,
whether
or
not
there's
any
interest
in
deleting
the
section
out
of
the
code-
and
I
know
that's
a
big
ask,
but
I
just
wanted
to
run
it
by
the
group
to
get
some
feedback
on
that
and
then
I
I'll
move
forward
with
whatever
you
guys
decide.
So
I'm
open
to
comments
yep.
H
A
H
A
A
A
F
F
N
A
And
that's
only
if
they
do.
Thank
you
dave
for
that
input.
So
if
the
property
behind
you
is
just
already
established,
they
can
be
five
feet
behind
your
house
if
it's
standard
density
residential,
if
they
came
in
and
did
a
subdivision,
that's
where
these
standards
kick
in,
just
for
clarity
for
everybody.
D
A
B
C
A
So
then
they're
no
longer
considered
a
budding,
so
that
was
their
their
work
around
so
that
they
could
develop
the
lots,
since
that
was
leaving
a
huge,
unusable
swath
of
unmaintained
hazardous
land.
We
had
a
group
get
together
to
talk
about,
and
this
was
back
in
2015.
So
a
lot
of
things
are
changing.
You
know
with
missing
middle.
Since
then
we
had
a
group
come
in
and
say
well
instead
of
having
that
spice
strip.
C
A
Yeah,
so
this
is
just
going
through
what
we
call
pre-application
and
a
planner
sent
it
to
me
and
she
had
another
one
which
turns
out
it
didn't
apply
to.
But
you
know
it
comes
up
more
often
than
it
than
you
would
think
about
developments
having
to
lose
lots
because
of
this
particular
standard
and
the
in
this
case
like
I
said
they
would
at
least
lose
lot
five
and
six
right.
I
don't
know
if
you
would
lose
more.
C
C
K
K
Yeah
I
mean
I
personally:
if
we're
trying
to
get
people
out
of
their
cars,
walk
more,
do
away
with
parking,
then
we
need
to
make
more
sort
of
mixed
use
where
we
have
more
businesses
that
are
closer
to
residential
areas.
So
if
this
were
in
the
future
to
become
commercial
property,
wouldn't
we
have
wanted
to
preserve
this
setback.
K
A
A
Yeah,
you
know,
years
and
years
ago,
before
we
were
trying
to
increase
density,
the
way
we
are
now
and
things
started
getting
more
densified
there.
Maybe
that
was
just
a
way
of
easing
into
protecting
these
larger
properties
and
then,
as
times
have
been
changing
over
the
past
couple
years
and
with
house
bill
2001
and
trying
to
increase
density.
A
L
Yeah
I'd
be
in
support
of
deleting
it
as
well.
I
mean,
in
my
personal
opinion,
from
a
design
perspective.
You
know
if
you
have
that
large
of
a
lot
next
door,
you're,
probably
not
building
your
house
five
feet
from
a
property
line.
You're,
probably
you
know
wanting
a
little
bit
more
buffer
and
building
the
house
in
another
location
anywhere.
So
the
number
of
lots
that
are
that
size
that
probably
have
a
house
within
five
feet
of
the
property
line
are
probably
pretty
limited.
A
D
A
So
I'm
gonna
take
the
next
one
to
three
weeks
to
finish:
drafting
the
code
so
take
what
we've
talked
about
and
put
it
in
a
draft
form.
And
then
I
will
set
up
a
meeting
and
I
know
we've
been
pretty
we've
been
very
consistent.
I
mean
every
two
weeks
it
might
be
every
it
might
be
in
three
weeks,
depending
on
how
much
I
get
done
in
this
amount
of
time.
A
My
goal
is
to
meet
in
two
to
three
weeks
and
go
over
the
draft,
and
you
know,
have
some
discussions
and
then
I'll
make
revisions
based
on
that
discussion,
and
then
we
got
to
send
it
out
for
public
review.
I
did
send
an
email
into
a
dlcd
to
see
if
I
can
get
an
extension
on
the
grant,
but
I
I
think
they're
going
to
say
no
due
to
budget
and
so
the
just
a
reminder.
A
The
grant
requires
a
draft
to
be
ready
for
hearings
on
june
15th,
and
I
I'm
supposed
to
have
this
out
for
public
review
april
may
so
already
a
little
bit
behind
and
we're
doing
our
best.
I
mean
we've
been
meeting
every
two
weeks,
so
I
my
goal
is
to
meet
again
in
two
or
three
weeks
have
a
meeting
and
it
might
be.
A
Maybe
we
do
a
three
hour
meeting
and
that
might
be
quite
long
for
some
of
us
but
really
knock
out
what
we
need
to
do
so
I
can
make
revisions
and
get
this
out
for
public
review,
and
this
again
just
has
to
be
the
draft
ready
for
hearings
by
june
15th.
We
won't
be
going
to
hearings
before
june
15th.
Just
have
the
draft
ready
for
hearings
by
that
date.
Is
there
any
questions
on
that.