►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Wednesday
april
14
2021,
and
we
have
several
items
on
our
agenda
tonight
as.
A
Was
just
referred
to
us
by
the
special
through
the
special
session
we
have
ordinance
2115.
A
A
A
Regarding
changes
to
chapter
6
administration
and
procedures,
next
ordinance,
21
21.
A
A
And
ordinance
21
18,
which
is
concerning
chapter
four
development
standards
and
incentives.
A
Which
is
removal
of
the
residential
estate
zoning
all
right,
so
starting
with
ordinance
2115.
A
B
Fine
I'll
try
my
best
development
services,
manager,
planning
and
transportation
department.
B
Answer
questions
if
you
have
any
so
the
first
ordinance
we're
looking
at
tonight.
2115
is
a.
B
Technical
corrections
ordinance
so
a
little
preview
for
all
of
the
ordinances
you'll
see.
B
I
think
this
is
common
knowledge
at
this
point,
but
the
planning
and
transportation
department
is.
B
Ordinance
in
2019
through
public
process
and
that
was
became
effective
in
april
of
last
year,.
B
Portions
of
the
code
that
may
simply
contain
errors.
That
is
mostly
what
this
particular.
B
Petition
is
about,
but
others
will
be
changes
where
maybe
something
wasn't
working
quite
right.
B
Or
wasn't
exactly
how
it
was
intended
and
or
policies
that
we
are
trying
to
improve
so.
B
Official
zoning
map,
based
on
that
comprehensive
plan
and
you
new,
unified
development,
ordinance.
B
C
B
Broke
them
up
by
chapter
to
be
able
to
describe
them.
So
the
first
s
group
is
from
chapter
two.
B
And
the
red
line
was
in
your
packet
as
well
as
a
table
that
outlines
the
existing.
B
So
I
will
briefly
go
through
these.
The
first
here.
B
Where
the
table
right
now
is
indicating
that
the
first
floor
setback
is
different
than.
B
For
a
side
yard
setback,
when
you
add
additional
height,
you
have
additional
setbacks
and
while
the.
B
So
that's
the
first
change
and
then
we
have
in
in
two
tables
appearing
here
in
chapter
two.
B
And
a
setback
in
the
rh
district
and
they
don't
match
they
should
both
say
15
feet.
B
Which
is
consistent
with
the
other
setbacks
in
similar
districts,
but
the
table
the
chapter.
B
Two
table
say
ten
feet,
which
we
think
was
just
an
error,
and
so
we
are
proposing
to
change
those.
B
Both
to
15
feet
so
that
they
would
be
synced
with
the
other
table
in
the.
B
B
Just
a
physical
citation
in
the
code
is
slightly
in
the
wrong
place.
It's.
B
B
Those
two
tables
with
the
rm
and
rh
rear
yard
setbacks
to
what
is
consistent
with
the
other.
B
Districts
as
well
as
consistent
with
each
table
and
then
again,
the
25
to
40
correction
appears
in.
B
This
this
table
as
well,
and
then
we
added
a
row
for
side
and
rear
parking
setback
to.
B
A
table
again,
this
is
not
adding
a
new
regulation,
it
is
just
adding
this
information.
B
For
that
information
here
it
seemed
that
it
might
be
appropriate
to
add
that
as
well.
B
The
next
change
that
we're
proposing
is
you'll
recall
a
number
of
years
ago
we
went
through
a.
B
Process
of
changing
when
sidewalk
installation
is
required
for
new
single-family
housing
and
for.
B
Intentionally
excluded
by
us
and
wasn't
discussed
at
the
hearings,
so
this
will
revert
back
to.
B
The
language
that
was
approved
by
council
a
number
of
years
ago,
where
only
certain
single
family.
B
Then
next
is
a
reference
in
code
that
talks
about
how
we
should
look
at
fractional
numbers.
B
Related
to
rounding
up
or
down,
based
on
the
what
type
of
provision
it
is,
this
language.
B
B
In
chapter
is
the
way
that
it's
described
in
chapter
one,
so
we
are
proposing
to
remove
that.
B
Reference
the
next
is
ifis,
is
referenced
as
a
type
of
material
to
be
used
in
specific.
B
B
And
then
the
last
for
this
chapter
is
a
typo
where
I
n
should
have
been.
B
Listed
as
po
and
so
ian
is
not
district
cab
anymore
and
we
are
proposing
to
change
that.
B
The
only
change
in
chapter
six
is,
if
you
saw
in
the
red
line,
it's
basically.
B
We
are
proposing
to
add
the
language
that
is
in
all
of
the
other,
similar
tables
throughout.
B
The
code,
common
expiration
and
revocation
procedures
apply
and
then
for
chapter
seven.
B
This
is
in
the
definition
of
manufactured
home
dwelling.
They
we
accidentally
re-referenced.
B
To
make
that
correction,
and
then
the
last
one
we
have
is
that
the
code
in
some
places.
A
In
that
case,
any
ques
last
call
now
that
I
can
see
council
member.
A
Volun
any
questions
on
ordinance,
2105,
the
technical
corrections.
A
A
21
15.:
let's
go
to
the
public.
Is
there
any
member
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
comment.
F
G
G
Has
to
do
with
the
the
fact
that
we're
considering
it
first,
the
city
council
has
now
committed.
G
G
Mean
each
amendment
means
one
thing:
if
we
have
plexes
coming
and
another
thing:
if
we
don't.
A
Council
members
are
there
any
additional
questions
or
final
comments
on
ordinance,
2115.
D
Move
to
pass
second,
all
right:
a
do
pass
recommendation
has
been
made
so
I'll
just.
A
A
My
agenda
2116.
and
ms
scanlon
fill
us
in
on
ordnance
2116.
B
Facing
the
street
above
three
stories
has
to
meet
the
step
back
requirement
again.
Maybe.
B
Could
have
been
in
shock,
maybe
could
have
made
it
into
the
technical
21-1-5,
but
basically.
B
The
only
clarification
in
in
this
ordinance
and
plan
commission
recommended
approval,
9-0.
B
Sure
so
in
our
downtown
district
in
our
overlay
areas,
we
have
an
upper
floor,
facade
step
back
so.
B
That,
if
you
are
building
above
a
certain
height,
the
floors,
the
floors
above
floor,
two
typically.
B
Have
to
be
15
feet
pushed
back
from
the
front
of
the
building,
so
you
can
see
that
in
some.
B
Buildings
we
have
downtown
like
the
alleyworks
building,
where
the
addition,
the
top,
is
pushed
back.
B
Allowed
but
they
have
to
be
pushed
back
from
that
right-of-way
line
so
that
if
you
were.
B
Clarifies
clarifies
that
because
the
wording
changed
a
little
bit
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure.
B
And
this
is
also
supposed
to
reflect
the
historic
pattern
of
our
downtown.
B
In
in
most
places
where
those
are
the
sizes
of
the
buildings
that
we
have.
B
And
so
the
step
back
is
related
also
to
those
historic
buildings
and
where
they're
located.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Are
there
any
questions
on
ordinance,
2116.
H
Okay,
you
got
me
yes
copy
that
okay
yeah.
Once
again,
this
is
another
public
comment.
H
A
Amendments
in
the
agenda
that
was
publicized
and
noticed
earlier,
so
please
confine
your.
A
So
are
there
any
comments
on
the
actual
amendment
regarding
setbacks.
A
I
Yes
and
council
member
rallo-
yes,
all
right
that
do
pass
recommendation
that
receives
a
vote
of
9-0.
B
Okay
for
21-19,
this
is
our
subdivision
subdivision
standards,
chapter.
B
Related
to
tree
plot
width
and
sidewalk
multi-use
path
width,
they
currently
read
seven
feet.
B
And
five
feet
respectively,
but
we
would
like
to
add
a
reference
to
the
transportation
plan
so
that.
B
Plan
or
five
feet,
whichever
is
greater,
because
the
transportation
plan
sometimes
calls
for.
B
More
than
the
seven
and
five-
and
we
want
to
give
deference
to
that
work
that
was
done
with.
B
The
plan
so
basically
adding
seven
and
five
as
the
minimum
there
and
then
the
third
here
is.
B
Those
four
scales
that
is
built
excuse
me
lots
that
are
created
for
those
four
uses
have.
B
To
be
on
a
public
or
on
a
public
street,
or
they
can
be
part
of
cottage
development,.
B
And
that
is
consistent
again
with
what
the
old
code
was
required
for
single
family.
B
To
common
area
easements
for
our
for
our
environmentally
restricted
areas
so
including.
B
B
And
you
have
those
types
of
areas
that
you
must
put
those
in
common
area.
We
have
found
that.
B
B
They
become
on
privately
owned
lots,
piecemeal
and
it's
much
harder
to
for
us
to
track
and
for.
B
Was
approved,
the
street
classification
names
were
changed
and
one
was
that
neighborhood.
B
B
Proposals
that
one
time
in
this
chapter,
the
term
neighborhood
appears-
and
we
are
proposing.
B
To
change
that
to
local
so
that
it
will
match
the
terminology
from
the
transportation
plan.
B
So
again,
plan
commission,
obviously,
staff
recommended
these
changes
because
we
wrote
them.
A
A
E
Now
be
able
to
unmute
hello,
this
is
margaret
clements
and
I'm
concerned
both
as
a
citizen.
J
E
A
All
right,
we
will
try
to
get
the
answer
to
that
question.
A
Just
check
with
ms
scanlon
on
ms
bernstein's
question
whether
I
suppose
here
we're.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
clarifying.
Are
there
any
comments
on
ordinance,
2119.
D
Second,
all
right
and
again
just
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.
The
these.
A
A
Moved
and
seconded
council
member
sandberg,
yes,
council,
member
scandaluri,
yes
councilmember
smith,.
B
Procedures
we
have
six
proposed
amendments
with
this
chapter.
This
is
the
with
this
petition.
B
This
is
the
first
you're
seeing
where
two
were
added
by
plan
commission.
Those
two
were.
B
Actually,
staff
that
we
asked
them
to
sponsor
so
all
six
proposed
and
supported
by
staff.
B
B
Change
the
minimum
thresholds
for
those
petitions
that
are
listed
as
major
site
plans
in.
B
B
Approval
it
would,
it
still
has
to
go
to
plan
commission
for
public
review
and
comment.
B
And
so
the
first
is
that
currently
it
is
listed
in
the
code
that
expansions
alterations.
B
B
Seen
it
in
action
is
actually
mostly
only
discouraging
smaller
apartment
apartment.
B
Smaller
apartment
developments
from
adding
on
units,
for
example,
this
would
require
that
if.
B
You
had
a
a
small
building
and
you
know
three
a
three
unit
and
you
wanted
to
add
or
two.
B
That
was
not
the
intent
here,
of
course,
to
have
a
bunch
of
small
projects
added
to
the.
B
Agenda,
the
second
is
that
expands
expansions,
alterations
or
modifications
that
increase
the.
B
B
Five
percent,
whichever
is
less
again
what
we
have
found
in
talking
with
potential
petitioners
and.
B
Low
bar
and
what
it
is
doing
is
requiring
that
petitions
that
again
are
by
right
and
have
to
be.
B
Approved
go
to
plan
commission.
The
neighbors
within
300
feet
are
immediately
adjacent
two.
B
That,
of
course,
there
is
something
that
can
be
done
there,
but
if
they
do
not
like
the.
B
B
Appropriate
cases
go
to
plan
commission
to
be
vetted
in
the
public.
We
do
think
that
these.
B
30
or
more
units
we're
proposing
to
increase
that
to
50
so
that
those
developed
developments.
B
Would
still
go
but
that
the
smaller
developments
could
be
approved
at
staff
level.
B
The
fourth
change
is
a
change
to
the
floodplain
regulations.
Currently
in
code
there
are.
B
Requirements
related
to
additions
or
lawful
non-conforming
structures
receiving
permits.
B
B
Sync,
the
language
with
the
language
that
the
state
uses
to
regulate
additions
and
alterations.
B
In
the
floodplain
and
then
the
last
two
are
related
to
bonds.
When
the
city
does
projects.
B
Although
legal
has
advised
that
it's
unlikely
that
the
language
is
probably
okay
as
it
is.
B
Said
you
know
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
change
it,
but
we
would
like
that
to
be
clear.
B
Due
and
plan
commission
recommended
approval
nine
zero
on
these
six
as
well.
B
A
L
B
Kind
of
50
was
kind
of
just
a
number
that
we
chose
that
we
thought
sounded
more
reasonable.
B
B
B
They
can
be
publicly
vetted
but
trying
to
find
that
middle
ground
of
you
know
what
things.
B
A
Residential
zone
like
one
of
the
r
zones,
yes,
these
requirements,
anyone
can
jump
and
correct
me.
B
If
I'm
wrong,
but
these
requirements
apply
to
all
site
plans,
so
the
way
we've
seen
them.
B
Mean
it
could
be
residential,
but
we've
seen
it
as,
for
example,
an
office
building
on
college
mall.
B
Road
that
was
doing
an
addition
up,
so
not
changing
the
footprint
at
all
and
doing
two.
B
Additional
stories,
so
it
was
over
the
over
the
minimum.
There
is
residential
near
there,
so
they.
B
Were
able
to
come
out
and
speak,
but
they,
the
plane
commission,
had
to
approve
the
petition.
B
So
that
kind
of
created
some
confusion
for
both
the
petitioner
who
now
was
having
to
go
through.
B
This
public
process
for
a
by
right
proposal
and
then
for
the
neighbors
who
were
disappointed.
B
Obviously,
because
they
they
were
worried
and
concerned
about
the
project
and
not
wanting
it
to.
B
Get
through
and
so
trying
to
appeal
to
the
plan,
commissioners
to
deny
it
which
they
couldn't
do.
B
Additions
are
wanting
to
be
done
that
this
is
probably
too
low
for
what
we.
M
A
Know
if
there's
a
development
of
30
apartment
buildings
next
to
a
largely
residential.
A
B
Development-
and
it's
still,
for
example,
hits
the
threshold.
B
For
a
major
site
plan
review
as
well
that
it
could
still
trigger
additionally.
B
B
City
or
surrounding
neighborhoods,
so
I
think
we
would
all
we
would
always
err
on
the
side
of
if.
B
The
two
zoning
districts
didn't
seem
compatible.
It
was
a
large
project.
We
would
refer
that
up
and.
B
Then
the
last
again
is
allows
the
director
to
be
able
to
to
push
that
up
as
well.
B
B
B
Like
what,
when
the,
how
could
the
public
give
input?
But,
yes,
neighborhood
transition
standards
are.
B
And
setback
restrictions
that
you
have
to
meet
so
a
30
unit,
a
30
unit,
multi-family
immediately.
B
Adjacent
to
existing
single
family
would
probably
be
pretty
unlikely
just
because
of
those.
B
Restrictions
and
if
and
even
if
so
would
be,
set
back
quite
a
bit.
But
but
I
can
make.
B
Sure
for
next
week
or
before
next
week,
let
you
know
if
there
are
other
triggers
that
would.
N
Yes,
thank
you
miss
scanlon.
The
question
I
would
like
to
ask
is.
N
B
B
B
I
think
that's
kind
of
where
we
were
trying
to
find
the
middle
of
wanting
them
to
be.
B
B
Were
requesting
variances
or
something,
then
you
could
go
to
the
board
of
zoning
appeals
if.
B
B
B
Are
meeting
all
of
the
requirements
of
code
so
there's
nothing.
I
think
that
there
has
been
a.
B
I
I
think,
over
time,
we've
created
kind
of
a
culture
of
because
we
used
to
have
what
we.
B
Commission
was
kind
of
making
helping
petitioners
in
our
downtown
overlays,
where
you
could
get.
B
There
could
be
movement
within
the
approval
where
we're
outside
of
the
downtown,
where
we
see.
B
Less
you
know
less
contentious
development
that
isn't
an
option
and
that's
even
less
likely
with.
A
A
A
O
O
A
Could
you
give
your
full
name,
please
sure
dave
asking
for
the
b
square
beacon?
Thank
you.
O
The
the
change
from
a
30
unit
threshold
to
a
50
unit
threshold
was
it
would
not
have
impacted.
O
However,
many
years
you
know,
records
have
been
kept
would
have
escaped
planned.
H
Yeah,
this
is
a
greg
rhaegal
again,
thanks
for
taking.
A
All
right,
thank
you
any
other
questions
or
I'm
sorry
comments
from
the
public.
I
see.
E
Able
to
unmute
hi.
This
is
margaret
clements
again,
and
I
would
just
like
to
encourage
you
to.
J
J
Comparable
towns
in
the
united
states
that
could
claim
as
much
external
pressure.
J
As
we
do,
and
the
only
control
that
we
have
as
a
community
over
a
future
that
we
would.
J
Fulfilled
and
having
administrative
hearings
increasing
the
thresholds
by
which
a.
J
J
Next,
eight
years
you
know
in
for
a
much
longer
term,
and
so
I
would
encourage
you
to
take.
J
G
G
Little
bit
negative
in
these
these
hearings:
this
is
one
area
of
ordinance.
This
whole
notion
of.
G
City
has
been
doing.
I
I
wanted
to
suggest
if
planners
are
open
to
changes
in
this
particular.
G
G
G
A
Do
you
see
any
mr
lucas,
I
don't.
I
do
see.
K
K
Not
in
constant
meetings
between
neighbors
and
developers,
but
I
just
want
to
echo
the
fact.
K
Pretty
threatened
in
terms
of
defining
how
we
live
and
how
our
town
develops
thanks.
Thank
you.
F
On
you,
I
would,
I
would
like
to
say
that
I
agree
with
every.
F
Could
stop
developers
from
doubling
their
their
output
on
the
spot
by
right.
E
A
All
right
we'll
come
back
to
the
council
for
first
of
all,
are
there
any
follow-up
questions.
A
L
The
public,
too,
I
appreciate
mr
askin's
question
how
many
projects
say
in
the
last
five
years.
L
Review
and
I
don't
expect
you
to
have
those
numbers
now,
but
perhaps
we
will
look
into
that.
B
B
And
council
person-
piedmont
smith
can,
if
I
can
make
one
clarification
kind
of
related.
B
To
the
comments,
what
what
this
proposal
is
doing
is
not
proposing
to
change
whether.
B
B
B
So
if
they
are
by
right,
then
they
meet
all
of
the
requirements
of
the
zoning
code.
B
Projects
that
are
smaller
would
not
have
to
go
to
be
seen
at
the
plan.
Commission.
B
Any
of
the
development
standards,
just
a
few
of
the
comments,
seem
to
maybe
have
that
confused.
B
A
M
Go
to
the
planning
commission,
so
you
know
when
we
reduced
it
in
the
current
udo
to
30.
That
was.
M
That
was
a
drastic
reduction,
so
we
are,
you
know,
as
mr
scalin
pointed
out,
we're
you
know,
picking.
M
M
M
So
there's
certainly
been
a
lot
of
improvements.
Thank
you
for
that
clarification.
A
Council,
member
of
olin
yeah,
I
I
think
it
deserves
a
little
bit
more
explanation
here.
I
I
Project
is
before
it
was
over
100.
Now
it's
over
50
with
this
amendment,
then
it
does
have
to
go.
I
To
the
plan
commission,
do
they
not
have
to
vote
to
approve
it?
I
don't
understand
what
buy
right.
B
As
like,
when
we
talk
about
a
single
family
house
being
built
or
or
the
like,
plex
discussion,.
B
We're
having
buy
right
does
mean
can
also
mean
synonymous
with
not
having
to
go
to
a
public.
B
Commission,
if
they're
over
certain
thresholds-
and
we
don't
approve,
they
can't
approve
a
project.
B
And
it
doesn't
split
those
up
by
whether
or
not
they're,
by
right.
I
Not
not
that
no,
that's
not
that
you're,
not
that
you're,
not!
I
just
don't
understand
it
as
well.
B
Wrong,
but
I
think
it
goes
back
to
the
way
we've
seen.
Projects
go
to
plan
commission
and
council.
B
Mr
grulick
pointed
out
is
supposed
to
be
more
clean,
cut
and
more
predictable,
so
a
lot
of
that
is.
B
B
Way
some
agreed-
and
some
didn't
was
just
for
more
public
exposure
of
projects.
B
I
B
B
Of
those
findings,
then
they
are
by
right,
okay,
and
we
can
maybe
have
a
more
better
legally
a
legal.
B
Description
for
you
next
week,
when
our
legal
representative
will
be
able
to
be
here,
but
that's.
A
Council,
member
flaherty,
I
think
you
are
next
I'll
I'll
pass
thanks.
Okay,
councilmember
sandberg.
Q
You
know
it's
always
good
if
we
can
try
to
put
things
in
layman's
terms.
This
is
why
this
revision.
Q
Q
Is
what
the
plan
commission
has
to
go
by
when
somebody
you
know
something?
Does.
Q
Q
Accordance
with
their
livability
or
or
what
their,
what
their
concerns
may
be,
whether
it's.
R
Ms
scanlon,
you
offered
a
answer
to
councilmember
vaughn.
You
know
regarding
what's.
R
R
A
a
development
that
might
have
you
know
eric
hvac
units
or
something
like
that.
That
may.
R
If
the
public
were
to
come
to
a
meeting
express
their
concern
about
noise.
R
Or
or
some
you
know,
visual
impairment
that
you
know
it
might
result
in
a
berm
or.
B
Anywhere
near
as
high
as
it
used
to
be
because,
yes,
those
types
of
things
can
happen
for
sure.
R
I
I
I
Commission
may
be
required
to
review
a
project,
but
no
longer
means
that
planning
commission
has.
I
B
I
B
Required
by
code,
so
if
it's
something
that
code
covers,
then
hopefully
staff
would
have
already.
B
Caught
that
it
would
be
included
so
like
for
some
of
the
examples
council
person
rallo
mentioned.
B
District
and
so
things
that
are
outside
of
those
purviews,
the
planned
commission
can't.
B
I
If
some,
if,
if
there's
a
type
of
condition
that
we
see
come
forward
in
a
petition
that.
I
Is
to
change
code,
which
is
something
that
plan
commission
can
affect,
but
that
if
it's,
if,
if.
B
I
B
Cannot
make
exceptions
or
changes
before
they
could
only
do
that
in
the
overlays.
Now
now,
even.
I
But
there's
also
no,
it
sort
of
removes
some
influence
of
the
plan
commission
correct.
Thank
you.
S
Like
some
of
the
confusion
that
ms
scanlan
kind
of
referenced
in
her
initial
presentation.
S
Again,
kind
of
clarifying
on
the
conversation,
the
only
thing
that's
changing
with
these.
S
S
S
Barriers
to
permitted
uses-
and
again
that's
just
not
the
case,
so
I
think
this
is
pretty.
S
About,
even
if
there's
no
enforcement
mechanism,
sometimes
a
simple
conversation
about
development.
S
S
Thing
too,
so
I'm
glad
that's
still
part
of
our
code
and
I
think
that's
it
for
me
thanks.
A
Councilmaborello,
yes,
just
to
say
thanks
for
that
clarification,
councilman
flaherty,.
A
A
Zero
five
as
a
due
pass
recommendation
and
we
will
move
right
along.
I
can
bring
up
my
agenda.
A
What
do
we
have
next
2121.
B
By
a
plan,
commissioner,
at
the
hearings-
and
they
can
be
described
separately
as
amended
and
new,
so.
B
There
are,
there
are
six
existing
definitions
that
we
that
the
planned
commission
is
proposing
to.
B
Amend
the
first
is
related
to
the
definition
of
building
our
structure
primary.
The
definition.
B
Any
primary
use-
that's
a
permitted
use
so
that
multiple
buildings
on
a
lot
with
different
uses.
B
Could
exist
which
we
obviously
have
all
over
town
now.
The
second
is
changing
the
definition.
B
Upper
floor,
residential
that
was
removed
in
the
new
code,
but
the
the
type
of
development
that.
B
Is
which
is
like
an
apartment
above
a
building,
for
example,
on
the
square,
is
now
not
defined.
B
We
would
like
to
just
change
that
to
one
and
then
it
it
has
the
current
definition
and.
B
Would
in
the
future
definition
the
exclusion
of
our
other
residential
uses
so,
for
example,.
B
If
you
had
three
units,
but
you
met
our
definition
of
triplex,
then
you'd
be
a
triplex.
B
Then
you
would
be
considered
multi-family.
So
that's
why
we're
at
we're
asking
to
clarify
that.
B
Because
we
have
kind
of
lost
those
second
story
units
in
our
definitions,
currently.
B
2019-2020
update
at
that
time,
council
decided
to
allow
for
a
family
unit
to
be
a
one
family
unit.
B
That
was
debated
and
then
added
and
added
into
code
in
the
adu
section.
But
we
neglected
to
change.
B
The
adu
reference
in
the
definition
of
family,
which
says
that
it
can
only
be
one
one
dwelling.
B
B
B
Two
uses
are
allowed,
are
quite
different,
and
so
we
are
proposing
to
add
a
birthing
center
to.
B
The
list
of
uses
that
are
described
in
our
medical
clinic
use
so
that,
because
those
are.
B
Know
many
porches
are
not
so
we
have
changed
the
definition
of
porch
so
that
it
is
more
in.
B
B
And
then
the
sixth
is
the
supportive
housing
change
that
was
put
in
by
the
plan.
Commission.
B
And
that
they
be
receiving
medical,
correctional
or
other
mandated
supervision
that
that.
B
B
Explicitly
listed,
the
general
definition
of
supportive
housing
is
too
specific
to
actually.
B
And
then
we
have
two
new
definitions:
one
is
firearm
sales.
Again
that
used
to
be
incorporated.
B
B
Adding
that
definition
back
in
into
code
as
its
own
thing
and
then
small
livestock
is
something.
B
You'll
see
discussed
in
a
later
petition
as
well.
We
do
not
currently
have
a
definition.
B
And
so
we
are
proposing
later
to
see
those
regulated
separately
than
medium
or
large.
B
Livestock-
and
this
defines
what
those
are
so
this
was
seen
by
eight
members
of
the
planning.
A
B
The
way
that
the
way
that
that
previous
used
up
before
dwelling
upper
floor
dwelling
was
regulated.
B
Sixth
street
are
one
unit
connected
on
one
floor
with
the
work
in
front
and
live
in
back.
A
I
now
understand
all
right,
seeing
no
other
questions,
we
will
go
to
the.
A
Ordinance
2121,
which
is
revisions
to
the
definitions,
part
of
our
udo.
You
can
use
the
raise.
T
Hello,
I
didn't
completely
catch
on
the
powerpoint.
The
changes
of
definition
involving.
T
The
general
intent
of
what
it
does
is
to
make
it
easier
for
homeless,
shelters
to
exist
and.
T
If,
if
that,
if
the
interpretation
is
correct,
this
seems
like
a
good
change
of
definition.
T
T
A
B
Of
this
change
is
to
make
them
easier
to
do
to
align
the
definition
with
the
more
realistic.
B
Operation
and
we
worked
commissioner
planned
commissioner
cochran
worked
with,
I
believe.
B
A
All
right
council,
member
sandberg,
yes,
council,
member
smith,
yes
councilmember,
rallo,.
A
B
Okay,
here
we
go
2117
chapter
three,
this
these
next
three
are
kind
of
the
more
meteor
ones
that.
B
We'll
see
tonight,
but
this
has
30
proposed
amendments.
I
believe
two
were
added
at
the
plan.
B
B
Commissioner,
to
propose
at
the
hearing,
so
these
are
all
staff
proposed
and
plan
commission.
B
Backed
there
are
a
number
of
categories
here,
so
I
will
just
start
at
the
top
just
a
second.
B
Okay,
so
some
of
these
are
clarifications,
and
this
one,
for
example,
is
a
used
special.
B
Other
temporary
uses
have
time
limits
and
special
event
did
not.
So
we
are
proposing
to
add.
B
The
standard
15
day
time
limit
to
special
event.
The
second
is
related
to
food
protection.
B
Fencing
we
have
food
protection,
fencing
as
you'll
recall
from
the
2019-2020
update.
B
That
those
exact
regulations
in
the
u-specific
standards
for
urban
agriculture.
B
Non-Commercial
because
we
have
found
that,
just
in
the
use
of
the
code,
often
a
member.
B
B
Triggered
to
think
to
go,
look
for
it
in
fencing,
so
we
would
like
to
duplicate
that
there.
B
The
third
clarification
is
that
currently
in
code,
as
we
just
spoke
about
in
the
last
ordinance.
B
There
is
no
you,
there
is
no
definition
for
small
livestock,
but
we
will
be
adding.
B
B
We
would
be
proposing
to
clarify
that
those
that
the
existing
setbacks
and
code
are
for.
B
Structures
related
to
large
excuse
me
large
or
medium
livestock
and
I'll
speak
more
about.
B
That
here
in
a
minute
and
then
the
fourth
is
related
to
gas
fuel
dispenser
units,
whether.
B
B
As
one
and
so
we
are
proposing
that
each
side
be
counted
as
one,
we
just
wanted
that
that.
B
Is
how
we
do
it
functionally
when
we
use
the
code?
We
just
want
that
to
be
clear
in
the
code.
B
Needed
that
to
be
clarified,
number
five
is
for
storage
unit
buildings
in
three
of
our.
B
Mixed-Use
districts
neighborhood
medium
scale
and
downtown
the
way
that
the
regulation
is
written.
B
Is
that
we
want
those
buildings
to
look
like
typical
kind
of
office,
construction.
B
We
don't
think
that's
necessary.
The
third
is
that
existing
limits
on
accessory
structures.
B
We,
I
just
want
to
add
the
word
enclosed
again,
that's
how
we
operate
in
practice
and
have.
B
For
quite
a
number
of
years
that
those
size
restrictions
are
on
enclosed
structures
so
for.
B
B
Operate
for
a
maximum
of
180
consecutive
days,
we
would
like
to
change
that
to
180
days
within.
B
A
calendar
year,
the
point,
the
purpose
of
the
180
day
limit,
is
to
kind
of
capture
that
spring.
B
To
fall
selling
season
and
what
the
way
that
it's
currently
written,
you
could
operate
part
of.
B
The
year
stop
and
then
start
again
and
your
clock
restarts.
We
think
that,
because
the
use.
B
Is
supposed
to
be
accessory
to
to
permitted
use
on
the
lot
that
the
way
the
code
is
currently.
B
Because
it
doesn't
really
have
that
time
limit,
if
only
small
amounts
of
days
are
skipped.
B
B
Would
like
to
add,
require
that
use
specific
standards
for
student
housing
apply
in
the.
B
B
Proposing
that
in
the
multi-family
and
mixed-use
districts,
the
separation
requirements
be.
B
Changed
slightly
so
currently
the
if
you're
doing
student
housing
meeting
the
definition
of.
B
Student
housing
then
the
in
these
districts,
then
they
have
to
be
separated
by
at
least
300.
B
Those
also
have
to
be
separated
by
300
feet
and
then
because
the
regulation
is
basically.
B
Than
one
could
be
built
and
we
want
the
separation
there
as
well,
and
there
is
also
a
provision.
B
Put
in
related
to
use
of
the
affordable
housing
incentives
that
was
not
previously
included,
we
are.
B
Also
proposing
to
decrease
the
building
floor,
plate
based
on
district,
so
basically
having.
B
Them
in
the
mixed
use
districts,
as
well
as
the
rm
zoning
and
the
rh
zoning
districts.
B
Incentives
are
used
toward
affordable
housing
that
then
a
larger
floor.
Plate
could
be
used.
B
B
B
Downtown
in
the
past
that
interface
between
the
pedestrian
realm
and
the
front
of
the
building.
B
And
for
for
the
pedestrian
to
be
able
to
kind
of
enjoy
or
enact
with
that
building.
B
And
so
we're
proposing
to
set
those
areas
back
and
then
the
second
is
limiting
ground
floor.
B
That
the
direct
interface
between
the
inactive
space
and
then
the
public
realm
is
limited.
B
And
so
that
the
entirety
of
the
floor
can't
be
used
for
parking
and
that
some
sort
of
space
that.
B
And
so
back
to
the
livestock
discussion,
we
added
setback
requirements
for
structures.
B
Containing
small
livestock
and
they're
slightly
smaller
than
those
that
exist
now.
B
Livestock
which
could
be
utilized
on
some
of
our
smaller
urban
lots
and
number
two.
We
amended.
B
The
table
that
exists
in
code
related
to
how
much
space
is
required
for
livestock
and
right
now.
B
It
is
entirely
dependent
upon
pasture
size,
but
for
some
of
the
smaller
livestock
that
we
looked.
B
We
changed
the
minimum
area
needed
for
those
to
a
meeting
minimum
lot
size
for
those
areas.
B
Adding
small
livestock
again,
as
I
said,
new
use
to
the
table
and
allowing
two
per
lot
again.
If.
B
Adding
in
the
category
small
livestock,
we
tried
to
do
it
through
a
note
that
kind
of
exempted
some.
B
Size,
animals,
but
it
didn't
exactly
make
sense
and
actually
ran
afoul
of
the
definition
of
medium.
B
And
then
the
fifth
is
deleting
a
reference
to
the
age
of
animal
which
requires
us
to.
B
Know
the
number
of
months
of
the
animal
and
is
potentially
difficult
for
the.
B
Petitioner
to
provide
as
well-
and
we
don't
think
necessary
with
the
new
regulations
put
in.
B
The
next
topic
is
accessory
structures.
The
first
change
here
is
in
the
rmrh
and
rmh.
B
B
Sizes,
so
right
now
there
is
it's
percentage
based
and
if
you
have
only
a
small,
a
couple
of.
B
Small
buildings,
then
you
aren't
really
eligible
for
the
kind
of
accessory
structures.
B
B
B
In
the
re,
zoning
district,
as
agricultural
buildings
are
often
larger
than
that,
and
those.
B
Are
we
have
those
types
of
uses
potentially
in
that
district?
This
is
again
assuming
that.
B
Later
that
the
following
petition,
if
the
following
petition
does
not
pass,
then.
B
This
will
still
remove
that
provision
and
if
it
does,
then
this
will
be
moved.
It
is
removed.
B
In
the
other
petition
related
to
re,
excuse
me,
and
then
we
have
added
a
note
in
the
r1
to
exempt.
B
But
also
acknowledging
that
they
could
have
structures
in
in
r1
as
well.
B
Only
percentage
based,
and
so
if
you
happen
to
only
have
a
small
main
building,
then
your.
B
Okay,
now
we're
on
to
accessory
dwelling
units
we
are
proposing
to
remove
the
currently.
B
B
R3
and
dropped
by
2200
feet
to
5000,
and
we
have
found
when
working
with
people
who.
B
B
Lot
size
we
are
kind
of
leaving
out
a
smaller
number
of
lots
in
each
of
those
districts
and
not.
B
Really
sure
what
the
point
of
leaving
them
out
is
at
this
time,
especially
if
the
lots
can
still.
B
B
B
B
Unclear
so
we're
proposing
to
clarify
that
and
then
proposing
to
have
siding
rare
yard
setbacks.
B
For
the
attached
detached
adu
b5
feet,
which
is
in
line
with
the
previous
regulation,
it
got.
B
Changed
we
think
inadvertently
in
the
2019
update
and
then
the
fourth
is
to
remove
the
interested.
B
Party
notification
requirements
for
the
adu,
as
we've
said
earlier,
or
as
we've
discussed
before.
B
Aduc
used
to
be
conditional
approval
requirement,
and
now
they
do
not
require
that
if
they
can.
B
Meet
all
the
standards
of
the
adu,
which
you
know
include
size
requirements,
height.
B
Bulk
location
requirements
that
then
they
can
be
approved
by
right
by
staff
and.
B
B
Issue
we've
been
discussing
with
the
major
site
plan
is
that
sometimes,
when
people
receive.
B
Happen
that
has
created
a
little
bit
of
confusion
a
couple
of
times.
More
importantly,
we
don't.
B
This
a
a
one-off
so
we're
proposing
to
remove
that
requirement.
Additionally,.
B
It
it
is,
we
heard
a
lot
of
discussion
about
this
plan
question
and
I'm
sure
we
will
hear
it
as.
B
Well,
you
know
that
people,
people
neighbors,
are
interested
in
hearing
about
something
like.
B
This
and
want
to
some
want
to
be
notified,
and
whether
or
not
it's
appropriate
for
our.
B
City
zoning
code
to
require
that
someone
who's
building
a
use
by
right
talk
to
their
neighbors.
B
About
it
and
get
their
input
or
whether
or
not
that
should
just
kind
of
be
happening,
because
if.
B
You'll
hear
quite
a
bit
here
again
we're
proposing
to
remove,
because
it's
not
there
are.
B
B
Seek
out
to
build
an
adu
if
they
know
they
have
to
engage,
have
to
engage
their
neighbors
and.
B
Then
not
have
a
public
hearing
where
those
neighbors
can
be
heard.
Where
now
it's
just.
B
B
B
Your
home
than
you
can
now
also
that
that
use
could
happen
in
an
accessory
structure.
B
Some
uses,
for
example,
if
you're
running
a
business
entirely
online,
then
you
are
exempt
from.
B
Home
occupation
standards
and
then
the
second
one
would
be
adding
again
that
home
occupations
can.
B
Occur
and
accessory
structure
is
new.
Currently
they
have
to
happen
in
the
home
so
allowing.
B
B
You
will
recall,
was
discussed
with
the
bill
c
brown
fullerton
rezone,
that
in
mixed
use.
B
To
point
employment,
there
may
be
room
for
some
non-employment
uses
to
support.
B
The
primary
employment
uses
in
those
areas,
and
so
we,
through
the
plan
commission,
proposed.
B
For
a
restaurant
from
2500
square
feet
to
5
000
square
feet
in
the
mixed
use,
employment.
B
District,
so
the
plan
commission,
obviously
staff,
supports
these
amendments
that.
B
We
are
bringing
forward
and
plan
commission
recommended
approval
as
well
nine
to
zero.
Q
Going
forward
when
presentations
are
being
made,
I
know
those
of
us
that
have
been.
Q
S
Just
by
the
way
background
for
the
question
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
folks
here
know.
S
S
S
S
Ordinance,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
were
never
utilized,
so
they
were
whatever
was
being
offered
in.
S
Exchange
for
the
incentive
was
not
enough
to
move
any
profit
motivated
project.
S
Developer
anyway,
all
that
expository,
by
way
of
asking
about
the
student,
housing,
affordability.
S
That
qualify
as
student
housing
is
that
correct,
it's
miss
gandalf.
Yes,
I
think
that's
fair
to.
S
Okay,
were
there
any
other
motivations?
In
particular,
I
mean
that
that
struck
me
is
probably.
S
S
Affordability,
we've
also
just
seen
in
some
of
the
designs
that
we've
seen
with
the
current
sizes.
B
Actually,
then
see
them
played
out
on
paper
that
maybe
like
especially
in
the
mn,
that
2500.
B
Really
is
still
immediately
adjacent
to
neighborhoods
and
those
types
of
areas
is.
B
Probably
more
appropriate
as
the
standard,
and
so
that
type
of
analysis
each
level
up.
I
think.
A
I
have
a
few
so
on
the
topic
of
of
student
housing.
Can
you
remind
us
what
is
the
point
of.
B
Again,
anyone
can
jump
in
if
I'm
wrong
is
so
that
they
won't
be
conglomerated
that
one
of
the.
B
Student
housing
district
and
that
we've
seen
over
time
and
complaints
about
developments
that.
B
To
require
some
sort
of
separation
so
that
they
won't
all
be
kind
of
built
in.
A
The
the
other
question
I
had
on
a
concerned
the
parking
requirements.
Oh
wait,
a
minute.
A
A
The
incentives
for
affordable
housing,
but
what
about
sustainable
development
is.
B
I
think
because
student
housing,
especially
in
this
community,
is
partic
community
is
particularly.
B
Related
to
how
we
have
in
recent
years,
kind
of
address
some
of
our
affordable.
B
Housing
issues,
housing
and
housing.
I
think
that's
why
that
was
initially
included
as
the.
B
Me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
yes
I
do
think
again.
You
know
the
green
incentives.
A
So
would
that
be
an
amendment?
I
think
that
that
would
then
be
an
amendment
to
those,
for
example,.
B
B
The
specific
incentives
that
that
indicate
that
you
can
have
larger
building
floor
plates
if
you.
A
N
Will
you
define
for
me
somewhat
or
clarify
affordable
housing
incentives
for
those
projects.
B
Have
an
incentives
section
just
a
second
and
then
that
is
split
between
affordable
housing
and.
B
B
Being
dedicated
a
percentage
of
dwelling
units
being
dedicated
to
a
certain
target
area.
B
B
Main
one
there
minimum
lot
area,
if
you're
doing
new
lots
and
then
also
height
requirements,
so.
B
If
you
meet
certain
incentives-
and
you
are
over
six
dwelling
units,
then
you
can
have
a
certain.
B
Have
additional
stories
one
to
two
stories
based
on
affordable
housing
incentives?
Thank
you.
A
I
have
a
question
about
parking
and
the
restriction
that
only.
A
Very
difficult,
as
far
as
engineering,
to
have
more
than
one
level
of
parking,
if
you
can
only.
A
In
a
ramp
and
and
get
from
one
level
to
the
next,
can
you
speak
a
little
bit
about
you
know.
B
On
one
floor
and
have
lots
of
units-
or
you
know
different
scale,
size
of
units
so.
B
On
a
small
scale
example,
for
example
like
in
a
in
an
mn
zoning
district,
the
building.
B
On
south
washington,
the
fox
building
on
south
washington
that
houses
two
sticks
bakery.
B
You
know
there
that's
a
very
small
building.
It
has
nine
one
one
unit
apartments
in
it.
B
We
have
other
projects
such
as
the
city
side,
project
at
third
and
washington,
a
lot
more
units.
B
B
The
alley
so
the
first
floor,
it
does
meet
our
50
requirement
because
they
built
by
right
under.
B
The
old
code
and
they
so
they
operate
obviously
with
more
parking
than
one
level.
B
Meaning
we
do
think
that
it's
possible
that
buildings
of
these
different
size
scales
can.
B
B
That
it
that
it
is
possible
and
that
we
are
still
looking
into
the
structured
parking
question.
B
The
second
floor,
so
that
we
can
hopefully
give
you
that
information
next
week,
so
we
do
think.
B
It's
possible
that
development
can
occur.
We
have
seen
that
properties
that
meet
this
requirement.
B
A
E
Who
should
now
be
able
to
unmute
hi
peter
dorfman?
This
was
a
big
long,
complicated
amendment.
There.
G
G
G
G
If
it's
a
buy
right
project,
I'm
I'm
strongly
opposed
to
the
removal
of
the
notification
process.
G
G
Are
entitled
to
know
that,
so
please
don't
remove
that
requirement.
Thank
you.
F
Hi,
actually,
it's
jan
sorby
here
on
john's
computer,
and
I
did
also
have
a
comment
on
removing.
F
F
F
F
Could
be
really,
oh,
I
don't
know
some
bad
water
under
the
bridge
so
to
speak.
If
that.
F
F
A
P
P
Product
where
people
can
have
some
buy-in,
or
at
least
think
that
someone's
listening?
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you
for
hearing
me.
My
name
is
margaret
clements
and
I'm
also.
J
J
J
J
J
A
B
B
And
here
we
go.
Excuse
me.
V
Yeah
ryan
robling's
only
planner.
I
just
want
to
to
address
that
and
also
make
sure
that.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification,
all
right.
Any
other
follow-up
questions.
A
Council
member
volume
yeah,
I
wanted
to
ask
that
someone
answered
the
question
that
mr.
I
Bender
asked
about
the
floor
plate
that
he
I
I've
already
kind
of
forgotten
the.
I
For
an
affordable,
housing
and
and
the
effect
of
it
on
on
floor
plate.
B
E
If
you
would,
mr
lucas,
thank
you,
mr
bender
was
asking
how
the
building
floor
plate
is
defined.
E
E
I
B
Yes
is
the
2500
feet?
Is
the
area
that
your
building
is
covering
on
the
lot
and
the
2500.
B
And
you
can
see
that
in
the
red
line,
some
the
other
mixed
use.
Districts
are
larger.
B
And
yes,
if
you
use
the
affordable
housing
incentives,
that's
how
you
get
the
larger
number.
B
And
number
of
stories
is
different
again
based
on
which
district
you're
in
and
also,
if
you're,.
B
Using
other,
if
you're,
using
incentives
to
gain
height,
okay,
thank
you
so
much
all
right,
any
other.
A
Follow-Up
questions,
council,
member
flaherty
sure
thank
you,
miss
canelon.
I
I
think
it.
S
Was
mentioned
by
by
member
of
the
public
that,
if
a
if
a
new
single-family
home
was
being
built.
R
May
well
outweigh
the
any
downside,
so
I'm
thinking
bringing
an
amendment
to
this
to
retain.
S
S
Even
though
they're
a
permitted
use,
but
I
think
there's
I
I've
just
kind
of
seen
too
much
in
the.
S
Literature
from
the
aarp
and
other
urban
planners
about
downsides
that
accessory
drilling
units.
S
Are
often
rented
for
far
below
market
rate
and
sometimes
for
no
money
at
all,
often
to.
S
And
other
sort
of
private
concerns
that
that
perhaps
shouldn't
be
aired
in
a
public
meeting.
S
S
As
a
desirable
use
for
for
neighborhoods
among
most
folks,
so
it's
something
I.
S
Wouldn't
want
to
discourage,
and
finally,
I
guess
you
know
important
to
me
is
that.
S
S
S
Requirement
for
building
an
addition
on
your
home,
I
might
feel
differently
as
well,
but
I
don't
I.
S
Think,
on
balance,
I
see
too
much
downside
risk
and
sort
of
differential
treatment
of
the
adu.
S
Concept
when
I,
when
I
think
it
really
should
be
uniform
across
the
board,
so
for
that
reason
I.
S
I
support
that
that
shift
in
this
proposed
ordinance
thanks
additional
council
comment.
A
As
far
as
the
adus,
I
I
don't
see
any
reason
to
keep
the
notification
requirement.
I.
A
Tell
us
about
this
one,
okay,
great!
Thank
you.
We
are
on
to
ordinance
2118,
which
covers
chapter
four.
B
Site
if
it's
conforming
or
non-conforming-
and
there
are
different
sections
for.
B
Those
so
the
first
one
is
just
related
to
a
table
that
is
applies
to
conforming
size.
B
Existing
encroaching
setbacks
for
additions.
This
provision
has
always
been
limited
to.
B
And
so
we
are
just
proposing
to
clarify
that
language
here,
because
it
the
language.
B
Those
districts-
and
that
has
not
been
the
case
in
the
past
number
three,
because
we
are
proposing.
B
Often
describes
kind
of
like
a
deck
or
a
concrete
slab
has
allowable
encroachments.
B
We
are
adding
a
disturbance
section
to
the
karst
conservancy
easement
portion
of
the
code
to.
B
Easement
area,
the
other
environmental
standards
have
a
particular
disturbance
section
and
this
one.
B
Does
not,
and
so
we
are
mirroring
that
language
here
just
for
clarity
and
the
flood
has
a.
B
Reduction
section:
we
are
removing
the
term
on
platted
lots
so
that
it
will
be
clear
that
the.
B
Zoning
districts
in
the
zoning
district
of
r3
for
single
family.
If
you
have
alleys
that
are.
B
Adjacent
then
you
and
doing
a
new
development,
then
you're
required
to
utilize
the
alleys
we.
B
Are
proposing
to
add
that
provision
to
r4
as
well
and
then
we
are
proposing
to
add
rm
and
rh.
B
There
we
go
number
eight
is,
as
has
been
the
case
for
a
long
time.
You
are
allowed
to
use.
B
Crushed
stone
with
a
raised
border
allowing
allowable
as
your
driveway
on
single
family.
B
Driveways,
but
we
are
that
language
got
changed
a
little
bit
in
the
switch
over
to
the
new.
B
Stone
and
then
for
number
nine
duplicating
transition,
standard,
step,
x,
setback
standards.
B
To
be
not
only
in
the
transition
standard,
neighborhood
transition
standard
section,
but.
B
Incentives
where
the
r1
through
r3
already
exist-
and
this
is
not
for
height
housing
and.
B
Of
how
roads
are
classified
in
the
new
transportation
plan,
we
did.
B
And
the
previously
called
neighborhood
roads
have
been
changed
to
the.
B
More
commonly
used
term
local
road,
and
so
that
was
done
after
the
writing
of.
B
B
Four
here
in
parking,
one
is
for
one
use
in
the
code
we're
proposing
to
increase
the
maximum.
B
Allowable
parking
from
3.3
to
five
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet.
This
is
for
the
use
medical.
B
B
Does
generate
more
need
for
parking
than
some
other
similar
uses?
3.3
is
pretty
standard
for.
B
Many
commercial
uses,
and
so
we
are
proposing
to
slightly
to
increase
that
to
five
to
allow
for.
B
Which
they
have
shown
sometimes
necessitates
extra
parking,
especially
because
a
lot
of
our.
B
Roads
in
town
don't
have
on
street
parking
which
further
limits
their
ability
to
locate.
B
For
multi-family
zone
parcels
so
that
the
for
the
recognition
that
multi-family
units.
B
May
have
a
more
on-site
parking
need
so
making
the
actual
drive
the
driveway.
B
Portion
on
a
multi-family
zone
parcel
to
be
slightly
deeper
and
then
the
the
third
here.
B
B
At
least
15
feet
from
the
public
street
so
that
there's
not
your
driveway,
you
know
immediately.
B
B
A
motorcycle
parking
space
standard,
as
that
has
come
up
a
number
of
times
in
the
past
few
years,.
B
B
It's
a
little
wordy
or
maybe
convoluted
the
way
that
it's
written,
but
the
purpose
of
the
amendment.
B
Amounts
to
a
slightly
over
two
parking
spaces
length,
or
I
mean
the
width
of
two
parking.
B
Spaces
is
how
far
back
you
have
to
be.
We
have
seen
appropriate
development
where.
B
And
that
is
something
that
we
have
seen
that
we
think
could
be
appropriate.
B
B
Metal
as
a
secondary
material
option
in
the
mixed
use
district,
something
we
have
seen
before.
B
So
not
large
metal
buildings
but
metal
accents
and
then
we
added.
B
Anti-Monotony
standards
to
our
mixed
use;
districts
that
that
did
not
have
those.
B
A
few
related
to
landscaping.
We
have
an
issue
sometimes
when
a
public
pedestrian.
B
We
then
work
with
the
property
owner
to
have
the
to
have
the
sidewalk
on
their
property
and
an.
B
Sidewalk,
we
are
proposing
to
add
into
the
code
that
in
situations
like
that,
where
there
is
no.
B
Option
for
sidewalk
in
the
right-of-way
that
the
property
owner
would
not
be
dinged
that.
B
They
would
that
the
sidewalk
that
they
are
putting
in
as
a
public
benefit
would
not
count.
B
Against
them
for
their
impervious
surface
maximums,
and
so
we
are
proposing
to
include
that
here.
B
The
second
is
a
clarification
from
the
old
code
that
mulch
and
decorative
stone
can.
B
Evergreen,
that
is
a
carryover
from
the
old
code.
Now
that
we
require
natives,
there
are
far.
B
Less
options
and
our
senior
environmental
planner
has
run
into
many
times
having
to.
B
Work
with
a
petitioner
to
do
some
species
to
allow
some,
oh,
I
can't
do
the
word.
I'm
looking.
B
B
As
the
diversity
requirement,
with
the
number
of
evergreen
shrubs
that
are
native
to
this
area,.
B
And
finally,
for
signage,
we
are
proposing
that
all
second
story
uses
be
treated
equally.
B
Out
and
so
we
are
just
now
referencing,
whether
you're
on
the
second
story
or
not,
irrespective
of.
B
Use
and
then
the
second
is
to
allow
make
it
possible
for
a
multi-tenant
center
sign.
B
Right
now
they
must
be
a
wall
sign
and
allowing
for
those
to
be
projecting
to.
I
Test
one:
two:
okay,
it's
gone
now:
okay,
I've
got
a
couple
questions.
First
of
all,
miss
canlin
can.
I
You
give
me
some
sense
of
how
you
came
to
the
decision
about
the
medical
clinic
parking.
B
Then
mr
grulick
may
be
able
to
give
a
little
bit
more
backstory
as
well.
But
I
know,
and
one
in.
B
Particular
that
we've
done
in
recent
years,
an
endodontist
on
I
don't
know
if
endodontics
is.
B
The
right
term,
sorry,
so
they
do
oral
surgeries
on
the
college
mall,
because
there's
no
street.
B
Parking
there
and
no
adjacent
opportunities
for
parking
and
because
of
the
way
their
scheduling.
B
Works
with
people
having
to
stay
longer
after
their
surgeries
are
done
to
like,
I
think.
B
Medicine
wearing
off
that
type
of
thing,
they
have
a
lot
of
overlap
where
the
number
of
patients.
B
They're,
seeing
is
smaller
than
the
you
know,
actual
number
of
people
who
are
kind
of
in
the.
B
Building
and
they
were
able
to
demonstrate
based
on
their
existing
facility,
that
they
do.
B
Discussing
parking
options
and
they're
all
we
have
seen
that
under
medical
clinic
a
number.
B
W
W
Any
parking
for
the
actual
customers,
so,
as
you
know,
as
mrs
scanlon
also
point
out,
you've.
W
W
That
so
the
five
per
thousand
was
based
on
those
situations
and
studies
that
they
had
done.
W
No,
we
we
did
not
go
into.
You
know,
specifics
of
their
business
model
of
you
know
how
they.
W
Could
reduce
their
parking
demand?
You
know
it
was
simply
a
need
based
on
their
locations.
I
Of
the
word
need
it
all,
it's
all
demand,
but
let's
go
to
the
other
question
I
had,
which
was.
I
I
You
said
you
had
trouble
describing
so
when
you
say
20
feet
behind
the
front
building
wall.
I
Street
can't
be
more
than
20
feet
from
the
front
building
wall,
which
is
closest
to
the
street.
I
B
I
Okay,
so
the
the
two
situations
that
have
been
most
recent
one
is
that
chick-fil-a
that
mrs.
W
W
Commission
allowed
that
that
arrangement,
with
the
drive-through
lane
being
even
with.
W
And
the
street,
so
you
know
whether
it's
even
with
the
building
or
20
feet
back.
You
know
you.
W
W
Extreme
difficulty
meeting
that
so
we
were
just
trying
to
reconcile
the
code
with
that.
So
I
I
see.
I
Of
a
drive-through
as
an
effective
frontage
of
a
business,
in
other
words,
doesn't
this
sort.
I
Of
encourage,
you
know
like
a
lack
of
building
facade,
because
it's
in
the
name
of
a
drive-through.
W
Pedestrian
accessibility
to
the
building
you
know
having
the
drive
through
lane,
be
even.
I
B
B
B
Because
if
you
push
it
back
in
in
some
cases,
what
you
basically
end
up
needing
more
width.
B
Lot
but
then
they
would
just
be
using
up
space
that
they
would
otherwise,
you
know,
maybe
not.
B
Space,
their
minimum
landscaping,
they
would
just
be
using
it
in
a
different
location
and
we
what.
B
B
That
good,
what
we
think,
a
pedestrian
interface,
because
the
it's
not
going
in
front
of
the.
B
A
Mr
robling
and
others
are
here.
I
wonder
if
somebody
could
please
clarify
the
use.
A
Limits
even
with
using
those
incentives
yep,
certainly
I
try
to
address
some
of
that
with
you.
W
Lot
sizes
reduce
lot
width
for
the
r
districts.
However,
that
was
not
included
with
the
r4
district.
W
We
don't
believe
that
that
was
intentional.
It's
just
an
oversight,
so
we
were
proposing
to
add
the.
W
W
W
Standards
so
the
affordable
housing
doesn't
offer,
as
I
recall,
any
relief
from
that
or
reduction.
B
Question
kind
of
so
the
I
think
what
you're
asking
we've
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
via.
B
Email
there
was
some
concern
from
the
neighbors
about
if
you
are
using
the
incentives
in.
B
Or
next
to
the
our
districts,
couldn't
you
be
creating
buildings
that
are
quite
out
of
scale.
B
From
the
neighboring
buildings,
so
so
correct
me:
if
I'm
going
down
the
wrong
path,
that's
fine.
B
B
So
currently
our
e
through
r4
and
you
cannot
gain
access
to
the
additional
incentives.
The.
B
B
To
our,
our
districts
are
not
going
to
be
wide
enough,
that
you
could
be
a
hundred
feet
away
from.
B
B
Historic
neighborhoods,
which
I
know
was
a
question
and
of
some
concern,
so
the
incentive.
B
The
incentives,
as
eric
mentioned,
related
to
setbacks
and
lot
size
and
those
types
of
things.
B
B
In
the
way
that
the
code
is
written
right
now,
the
sustainable
development
incentives
are
also.
B
Potential
plexes
hold
on.
I
wanted
to
make
one
more
comment,
but
I
lost
my
page
here
just
a
second.
B
The
sustainable
development
are
not
again
eligible
for
height
incentives,.
B
And
we
want
you
to,
you,
can
get
some
bulk
allowances,
but
it
you
aren't
going
to
get
height.
B
Except
for
in
very
limited
situations
where
you're
more
than
100
feet
from.
A
B
Lower
number-
and
I
could
get
you
some
more
information
from
senior
environmental
planner.
B
B
You
know
that
could
end
up
being
one
or
two
and
she
kind
of
thought.
Maybe
the
benefit.
W
Yes,
it
sounds
like
it,
so
I
can
try
to
explain
it,
but
honestly
it's
one
of
those.
W
That
works
better
with
a
visual
representation.
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
there's
really
any.
W
So
what
you
have
to
imagine
is
imagine
a
street.
Imagine
a
frontage
there
and
then
draw
a
45
degree.
W
From
where
your
your
drive
angle
is
so
in
that
space
and
that
45
degrees
from
that
line,.
W
A
A
A
Hosts
using
the
chat
function
and
mr
steven
lucas
is
our
meeting
host.
X
X
Say
to
the
whole
council
that
I've
been
trying
to
learn
and
understand
how
the
incentives.
X
X
Those
answers
yet
and
I'm
not
sure
if
you,
if
you
all
do
and
so
I
would
encourage
you
to.
A
Mr
lucas,
do
you
see
any
messages?
No,
I
don't
see
any
additional
requests
for
comments.
A
A
V
All
right,
so
this
is
the
petition
that
will
effectively
combine
the
re.
V
And
r1
zoning
districts
it'll
remove
the
re
district
from
the
code
and
the
map.
V
And
so
this
will
allow
for
the
continued
availability
of
the
architectural
uses
in
the
re.
V
Which
was
designed
to
allow
for
a
mixture
of
residential
and
agricultural
uses,
including
crops.
V
Half
an
acre
so
quite
a
bit
smaller,
but
one
one
aspect
of
the
re
district
was
created
to.
V
V
V
Parcels
four
areas,
roughly
that
are
re-
that
will
become
r1.
If
this
is
adopted
and
let's
see.
V
I
can't
scroll
for
some
reason:
there
we
go
so
the
this
is
the
proposed.
V
Allowed
use
table,
as
it
was
amended
by
planning
commission
it'll,
move
over.
V
All
of
the
agricultural
uses
that
were
previously
r1
in
r1
allowed
as
accessory.
They.
V
Will
move
them
to
conditional
or
permitted
as
they
are
proposed
or
as
they
are
in
re
and.
V
Then
this
was
adopted
by
plan
commission
nine,
oh
and
I
can
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you,
mr
roblin,
can
you
show
us
the
map
again.
V
Currently,
re
district,
it's
down
here.
A
Recognize
north
don,
I
can't
really
recognize
you.
There's
north
stun
there's,
there's
tap
west
tap.
V
West
or
east
10th,
and
then
I
never
remember
what's
down
there
so
hang
on
one
second,
so.
W
And
then
the
one
on
the
the
southeast
side,
that
is,
a
remnant
from
the
canada
farm
pud.
W
But
it
wasn't
approved
for
any
real
uses.
It's
got
a
large
accessory
structure
on
there.
W
And
a
ball
field
right
now,
so
that's
we're
proposing
to
well.
It
was
going
to
be
ari,
but.
W
Will
be
r1
okay,
so
there
aren't
any
houses
on
there
right
now,
no,
not
for
the
one
on.
A
Well,
I
have
one
so
since
re
was
one
of
the
areas
that
urban
agriculture
was
potentially.
A
Crops
or
have
livestock,
can
you
speak
to
that
at
all
sure,
yeah
the,
since
they
will
be
combined.
V
Essentially,
it'll
take
the
r1
or
excuse
me
the
re
rules
for
fencing
which
allow
for
taller.
V
Fences
for
the
protection
of
agriculture
there's
also
the
in
the
fence
standards.
Currently,
there.
V
V
V
Sure
so
the
the
big
one
is
it'll
reduce
the
minimum
lot
size
from
the
two
and
a
half
acres.
V
Or
em
excuse
me
to
to
re
he
had
to
get
several
variances,
so
this
would
fix
one
of
those
issues.
V
Modern
development,
so
switching
it
to
re,
would
allow
for
a
more
traditional.
V
Residential
to
style
development,
rather
than
these
large
estate,
lots,
which
some
of
them.
V
Don't
even
comply
to
not
very
many,
but
some
don't
of
the
existing
lots,
don't
comply.
V
A
Rural
district,
in
my
view,
so
I'm
glad
to
support
this
particular
ordinance.