►
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
Good
evening,
everyone
we
are
gonna,
wait
a
minute
here
and
just
see
if
anyone
else
kind
of
shows
up
right
at
the
last
minute,
and
then
we
will
get
started
just
as
a
reminder
what
we
are
discussing
tonight,
our
other
text
amendments
we
have
had
two
meetings
related
to
r4
and
the
plex
proposal.
Specifically
those
were
last
thursday
and
last
night,
and
so
we
will
not
be
discussing
those
tonight.
A
A
A
Okay,
welcome
for
those
of
you
who
don't
know
me.
My
name
is
jackie
scanlon.
I
am
the
development
services
manager
for
the
planning
and
transportation
department
for
the
city
of
bloomington
and
for
those
of
you
who
have
joined
us
on
other
nights.
Thank
you
welcome
thanks
for
coming
back
and
for
those
of
you,
this
is
your
first
night.
Thank
you
for
being
here
I'll
briefly,
go
over
how
we've
been
running
these
meetings.
A
Basically,
we
ask
that
you
leave
your
cameras
off
and
I
will
give
a
brief
presentation
tonight
will
be
shorter
than
some
of
the
other
ones
we've
had
and
the
presentation
is
going
to
be
about
text
amendments,
excluding
amendments
related
to
r4
and
the
plex
question.
Those
have
been
discussed
previously
at
two
meetings
and
the
first
meeting
we
had
as
well.
A
Actually
briefly
so
tonight
is
going
to
be
dedicated
to
another
set
of
text,
amendments
that
we
will
be
bringing
forward
with
the
map,
zoning
map,
draft
and
text
amendment
drafts
to
plan
commission
in
january.
So
we
do
ask
again
that
you
leave
your
cameras
off.
There
will
be
a
time
for
a
question
and
answer.
So
what
we've
been
doing
is
that
you
can
see.
A
There
are
two
staff
people
that
you
can
send
questions
to
on
the
development
services,
team,
keegan
gulik
and
ryan
roebling.
You
can
use
the
chat
function
to
send
them
questions,
and
then
they
will
read
those
aloud
and
myself
and
the
and
also
them
as
well
as
senior
planner.
Eric
grulick
will
try
to
answer
those
questions
for
ones
we
either
are
not
able
to
answer
on
the
fly
or
are
not
or
don't
get
to
tonight.
A
Possibly,
we
are
compiling
the
questions
that
are
submitted
and
those
will
be
consolidated
and
put
up
on
the
website.
So
tonight
is
the
last
one
of
these
meetings.
This
is
the
sixth
one
we've
had
and
we
will
be
putting
the
questions
together
for
all
all
the
meetings
and
getting
those
up
on
the
website.
A
Is
so
this
is
the
website
here,
udo
zoning
map
public
outreach
draft
on
the
city
webpage.
It
describes
the
process
we're
going
through.
There's
information
uploaded
here,
related
to
all
the
topics
that
have
been
discussed
at
the
meetings:
maps
that
you
can
use
to
look
for,
information
related
to
your
properties
or
different
parts
of
town.
A
A
A
Okay,
so
again
for
those
who
have
just
joined
welcome.
Thank
you
all
so
much
for
giving
your
time
to
join
us
and
discuss
these
important
topics.
We
really
appreciate
it
and
are
excited
to
hear
your
feedback
tonight.
We
will
be
discussing
text
amendments
that
the
staff
has
prepared
for
to
go
to
plan
commission
in
january
those
one
text.
A
A
If
you
missed
both
of
the
meetings
related
to
that
topic,
one
this
week
and
one
last,
we
welcome
you
to
go
ahead
and
submit
your
question
via
the
chat
function
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen
to
either
keegan
gulik
or
ryan
roebling,
and
we
will
add
those
to
the
ones
that
we
received
during
the
meetings
for
those
topics
as
we
analyze
those
and
put
questions
up
on
the
website.
But
tonight
we
will
be
discussing
other
text
amendments
that
we
plan
to
bring
forward.
A
A
If
you'll
recall,
council
actually
approved
it
a
few
months
in
advance
of
the
effective
date,
and
so
as
staff,
we
were
able
to
know
what
the
text
was
going
to
be
for
sure
and
we
were
able
to
look
at
the
new
udo
as
petitions
and
permit
requests
and
questions
came
in,
just
as
we
normally
do
with
development.
While
we
were
still
under
the
purview
of
the
old
code
and
that's
the
code,
we
were
using
to
answer
questions
and
administer
those
petitions
and
permits.
A
We
were
able
to
kind
of
start
a
little
bit
early
and
look
at
the
new
code
and
how
how
it
would
apply
in
those
situations.
So
we
actually
were
able
to
start
that
process
before
april,
which
was
helpful
and
then
the
udo
came
online
in
april.
So
we
have
been
identifying
and
tracking
issues,
small
issues
and
maybe
a
little
bit
larger
issues
with
the
administration
of
that
code.
A
Since
since
since
it
was
approved
by
council,
so
this
code
is
formatted
much
differently
than
the
previous
code,
so
some
of
the
content
is
the
same.
Some
of
the
ideas
or
regulations
have
carried
over,
but
the
actual
organization
and
formatting
are
different,
and
you
know
we
actually,
of
course,
obviously
did
get
new
regulations
as
well.
A
So,
as
I
said,
we've
been
identifying
and
tracking
those
issues
internally
and
we
found
they
kind
of
generally
fall
into
three
categories.
So
I'm
calling
them
like
a
fixed
correction
category
clarifying
category
and
then
a
more
policy
larger,
focused
category.
So
the
plex
discussion
that
we
have
been
having
that's
definitely
a
policy
issue
so
that
we
will
propose
potentially
text
amendments
related
to
that
those
uses
duplex,
triplex
and
fourplex.
A
What
we
have
shown.
What
is
in
the
current
draft
that
has
been
released,
of
course,
shows
them
permitted
and
conditional
and
more
areas
than
they
currently
are.
That
is
a
policy
question.
There
is
a
correction
issue
with
those
as
well
the
way
that
they
appear
in
the
use
table
now
with
just
an
asterisk
in
numerous
boxes
and
not
a
p
or
c,
which
was
a
that
is
how
it
was
council
wanted
to
approve
it.
We've
actually
found
it.
A
We
are
not
able
to
use
that
to
administer
that
part
of
the
code,
so
legal
has
advised.
We
have
to
change
that,
so
that
portion
will
have
to
be
corrected,
no
matter
what
the
policy
issue
decision
ends
up
being
related
to
expanding
their
use
or
not,
okay,
so
other
other
issues
or
other
topics
that
we
found
mostly
fall
into
the
either
the
fix
or
clarifying
categories,
so
fix
is
going
to
be.
A
Something
is
just
wrong
in
in
the
in
the
writing
of
the
actual
code,
so
it
could
be.
You
know
that
something
was
labeled
incorrectly
or
put
in
the
wrong
place
that
we
missed,
and
we
just
need
to
include
those
to
counsel
and
explain
why
why
they
were
wrong
and
have
that
be
fixed
and
then
clarifying
is
similar,
but
it's
maybe
a
little
bit.
It
requires
a
little
bit
more
explanation,
so
I
would
say
that
a
clarifying
a
clarifying
correction
is
going
to
be
more
along
the
lines
of
that.
A
The
way
we
administer
the
udo
and
sometimes
these
paul.
Sometimes
these
regulations
are
ones
that
were
in
the
old
udo
as
well,
and
the
language
may
be
changed
a
little
bit
to
the
new
udo
and
for
some
reason
it's
not
quite
hitting
exactly
the
way
the
regulation
has
and
is
being
administered.
So
we
want
to
clarify
that
language
to
make
sure
that
that
the
codified
language
matches
the
intent
and
administration
of
the
code.
A
So
what
I'm
going
to
briefly
go
through
tonight
is
each
chapter
of
the
code,
where
we
have
found
where
we
have
identified
corrections
that
we
think
that
need
to
be
made
and
briefly
explain
them.
Other
staff
members
may
interject
and
give
more
detail
about
things,
and
then
we
will
do
questions
after
that.
A
Okay,
so
our
first
substantial
chapter,
chapter
2,
covers
the
zoning
districts,
so
this
is
where
you
would
go
to
you've,
seen
the
pages
that
have
the
particular
development
standards
for
each
district.
So,
for
example,
our
our
our
our
three
district,
you
know
and
then
it
would
have
the
front
yard
setback.
Side,
yard
setbacks,
those
types
of
things
we
have.
A
A
We
found
that
related
to
two
of
our
districts,
rm
and
rh.
There
are
tables
of
setbacks
in
chapter
two,
and
there
are
also
it's
cross-referenced
to
a
table
in
chapter
four
and
that
the
setbacks
for
front
and
rear
yards
don't
match
so
they
were
transposed.
So
that's
an
easy
fix,
that's
what
we
mean
by
fix.
We
know
what
it
was
supposed
to
be.
We
know
what
the
discussion
was
and
they,
when
the
consultant
plugged
those
in
they
just
switched
two
of
them
in
chapter
four.
A
I
believe
so
we'll
be
switching
them,
making
sure
they're
right
in
both
chapters
and
then
the
second
fix
for
this
chapter
is
going
to
be
just
basically
for
ease
of
the
user.
There's
a
table
that
appears
in
the
chapter,
and
it
is
not
immediately
adjacent
to
text
that
is
related
to
it.
So
we'll
be
moving
that
we
have
footnotes
that
apply
to
both
rear
and
side
setbacks.
But
the
way
it's
written
makes
it
seem
like
it's.
A
It's
applied
to
only
oh,
I'm
sorry
to
first
floor
and
second
floor
setbacks,
but
the
way
it's
written
makes
it
seem
like
it's
only
applied
to
one.
So
we're
clarifying
that,
because
we
know
what
the
intent
we're
fixing
that,
because
we
know
what
it's
supposed
to
be
and
it
was
just
put
in
the
wrong
place.
So
then
there
are
also
a
couple
clarifying
corrections.
A
Step
backs
have
been
in
the
code
for
a
number
of
years.
Those
happen
in
the
downtown
area
where
once
you're
over
a
certain
height,
then
your
upper
stories
have
to
be
pushed
back
from
the
right
of
way
from
the
front
sidewalk
and
the
way
that
that
language
was
transposed
from
the
old
code
to
the
new
code
kind
of
makes
it
a
little
bit
unclear
that
that
is
to
apply
to
the
whole
facade
of
the
building.
A
So
we
are
just
putting
that
into
changing
that
language,
slightly
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
that
the
intent
is
that
the
whole
front
of
the
building
above
the
certain
height,
has
to
be
pushed
back
and
then
another
clarification
that
we
that
we
want
will
propose
is
to
align
sidewalk
and
multi-use
path,
minimum
widths
with
the
transportation
plan-
and
you
know,
obviously
that
makes
sense.
We
want
to
sync
with
that.
That
document
as
well.
A
I
believe
I
could
be,
I
believe,
I'm
not
sure
if
the
transportation
plan
was
fully
adopted
when
these
regulations
were
first
approved.
So
so
you
will
see
that
appear
a
few
times
in
the
code.
I
mean
in
this
presentation.
Excuse
me
so
then
chapter
three
gets
to
use
regulations,
so
what
you're
allowed
to
do
on
each
parcel?
And
then
there
are
some
details
about
about
those
uses
located
there
as
well.
A
So
one
thing
that
we
added
in
the
april
version
in
the
udo
that
is
current
now
is
a
special
event
option
the
when
we
have
gone
to
administer
it,
we
realize
that
it
doesn't
have
a
time
limitation.
So,
for
example,
other
temporary
uses
in
town
have
15
or
30
day
limits,
but
special
event
didn't
have
one
so
yeah
that
was
unintentional,
so
we
will
be
adding
one
in
and
we'll
we're
currently
proposing
15
days.
A
The
second
fix
is
that
we
intended
that
for
storage
unit
uses
if
they're
going
to
occur
in
more
urban
parts
of
town
and
have
two
stories
in
the
code.
We
included
that
they
have
to
meet
certain
architectural
requirements
so
that
they
look
more
like
general
buildings
and
not
storage
unit
structures.
That
was
intended
to
also
include
that
upper
stories
could
be
used
for
other
uses.
They
actually
could
be
used
for
other
uses
if
there
were
storage
units
on
the
first
floor,
and
so
we
are
making.
A
So
the
first
is
that
in
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
rules,
it
was
included
that
adjacent
neighbors
interested
parties
up
to
300
feet
have
to
be
notified.
If,
if
someone
is
building
an
adu,
typically
in
a
process
where
you're
going
to
a
public
hearing-
and
you
have
to
do
that-
then
you
have
to
submit
an
affidavit
to
the
department
notarized
affidavit,
indicating
that
you
have
sent
the
letters.
A
So
we
that
was
not
in
the
language
approved
by
council,
but
we
think,
as
far
as
tracking
purposes,
to
make
sure
that
it
was
done
to
help
ensure
that
the
neighbors
were
in
fact
notified
that
we
need
to
add
that
in
so
we're
proposing
to
add
that,
for
the
fuel
dispenser
unit
count
it
the
way
that
it
is
discussed
in
the
code.
So
this
is
for
like
at
a
gas
station
and
how
many,
how
many
hoses
they'll
have
how
many
sides
how
many
different
cars?
A
Basically
they
can
service
at
one
time
to
be
receiving
gas.
We
that
has
not
been
clear
in
the
code
about
what
those
limits
mean.
So
does
it
mean
per
side
like
when
you
pull
up
next
to
someone
and
you're
both
using
hoses
on
the
opposite
on
either
side
of
one
station,
or
does
that
count
as
one
or
two?
So
we
are
proposing
that
each
of
those
count
separately.
A
So
we
are
proposing
to
add
that
as
well
and
then
for
adus,
again
840
square
feet
was
approved
by
council
as
the
maximum
square
footage
for
a
detached
adu.
The
way
that
the
language
was
approved,
it
isn't
clear,
it's
a
little
bit
could
be
a
little
bit
unclear
about
whether
or
not
that's
the
maximum
size
for
the
whole
structure
or
the
portion
of
the
structure
that's
being
used
as
an
adu.
A
So
based
on
the
discussions
that
were
had
at
council,
we
do
believe
that
the
intent
was
for
the
840
to
be
for
the
adu
portion
of
the
building.
So,
for
example,
if
you
had
a
garage
underneath
and
an
adu
above
that,
the
adu
could
be
840
square
feet
as
opposed
to
the
square
footage
of
all
of
the
usable
area
in
the
building.
A
Okay,
so
chapter
four
has
a
little
bit
more.
We
found
some
more
obviously
chapter
four
is
where
the
development
standards
and
incentives
are
located,
so
that
is
kind
of
the
the
meat
of
the
analysis
that
we
use
when
analyzing
site
plans.
A
lot
of
the
regulations
come
from
this
chapter.
The
first
fix
that
we
identified
almost
immediately
was
that
the
way
the
entrances
and
drives
for
residential
properties
was
changed
or
kind
of
the
way
that
it
went
into
the
new
code.
A
So
all
of
the
much
of
the
content
was
similar,
but
the
way
that
it
was
put
into
the
new
code
made
it
unclear
that
gravel
driveways
are
allowed
for
single
family
as
long
as
they
are
edged.
That
has
been
in
place
for
some
time
here
in
bloomington,
and
we
intended
to
carry
that
forward.
It
was
it
was
just
written
in
an
unclear.
It
was
just
the
portion.
Excuse
me,
excuse
specifically
exempting
single
family
from
not
being
allowed
to
use
gravel
was
left
out,
so
that
needs
to
be
put
back
in.
A
This
is
also
another
cleanup
where
we
have
multiple
tables
in
chapter
four
that
need
to
cross
reference
each
other
so
related
to
parking
setback
as
well
as
setback
and
landscaped
area.
Those
things
work
together
in
an
analysis,
and
it
needs
to
be
clear
to
someone
reading
the
code
for
the
first
time
that,
if
they're
reading
one,
they
need
to
read
both,
and
so
that
is
something
that
we
a
cross-reference.
We
need
to
put
back
in.
A
The
third
item
is
something
that
I
believe
was
in
the
code.
Previously
we
have
had
primary
and
secondary
material
regulations
in
in
different
areas
of
town,
but
especially
in
the
especially
in
the
commercial
areas,
and
I
believe
that
metal
used
to
be
explicitly
allowed
in
the
commercial
areas
outside
of
the
downtown.
But
that
is
not
the
way
that
it
was
organized
in
the
new
code.
It
was
is
a
little
bit
different
and
it
it
did
not
appear.
A
So
we
are
planning
to
add
that
back
in,
as
that
is
a
trend
that
we
see
in
development,
outside
of
the
downtown,
that
small
accent,
metal
is
often
used
and
and
requested,
and
looks
and
does
look
appropriate
and
was
previously
not
excluded,
and
so
we're
making
sure
that's
put
back
in
the
ethis.
Reference
is
basically
just
that
the
way
that
the
consultant
included
it
makes
it
seem
like
efus
is,
I
believe,
it's
next
to
a
reference
about
wood,
which
we
know.
A
A
An
old
number
that's
incorrect,
so
those
just
need
to
be
fixed
again
over
here
we
have
found,
while
doing
the
administration
that
sometimes
the
using
the
tables
in
this
section,
if
you
did
not
know,
for
example,
about
the
transition
zone
requirements
so
a
little
bit
about
those,
it's
basically
that
development
that's
immediately
adjacent
to
some
to
our
single
family
zone,
primarily
single-family
zoning
districts.
That,
though
there
are
additional
restrictions
on
development
to
those
so
that
they
can
be
scaled
appropriately
with
their
immediate
neighbors.
A
A
A
Drive-Throughs.
We
are
planning
to
propose
a
text
amendment
that
would
allow
that
if
a
drive-through
was
on
a
site
that
the
drive-through
could
come
up
to
the
front
building
wall,
so
basically
it
couldn't
be
in
front
of
between
the
building
and
the
road
which
it
already
cannot
be,
but
currently
under
code
requirements.
It
would
need
to
be
behind
the
front
building
wall.
A
A
So
that
so
we
would
be
changing
that
I
put
an
asterisk
there,
because
that
is
kind
of
all.
That
is
a
sensitive
topic,
of
course,
at
different
times,
and
that
may
really
kind
of
also
fall
into
a
policy
question
about
whether
or
not
we
want
to
make
that
type
of
use
easier,
which
is
basically
what
we
would
designing
that
type
of
use
easier,
which
is
what
that
would
allow.
A
Karst
area
protection
we
do
not
have
in
the
code
a
specific
reference
that
says
you
cannot
disturb
those
areas
within
our
cars
feature
and
or
karst
conservancy
easement.
We
have
some
regulations
that
that
deal
with
how
they're
limited,
but
we
have
very
specific
regulations
related
to
to
other
environmental
features
such
as
wetlands.
That
specifically
say
no
disturbance
is
allowed.
So
we
would.
A
We
would
like
to
carry
those
over
to
the
car
section
so
that
those
things
can
be
congruous
and
that
it
can
be
clear
that
that
that's
what
the
regulation
is
getting
at
and
yeah.
We
thought
that
that
was
helpful
for
the
wetlands
section
and
it
it
can
be
helpful
in
the
cars
section
and
especially
for
administration
and
enforcement.
It
just
makes
it
much
clearer
and
then
the
last
one
on
this
sheet
is
affordable,
housing
incentives.
A
So
we
have
incentives
in
this
chapter
in
this
chapter
for
sustainability
building
sustainably
and
also
for
providing
a
workforce
and
affordable
housing.
We
currently
have
incentives
available
for
our
existing
mapped,
primarily
single-family
zoning
districts,
and
so
we
would
just
be
adding
r4
to
that
section
so
that
if
and
when
it
is
mapped
that
the
affordable
housing
incentives
will
be
available
for
those
areas
as
well,
so
the
in
types
and
incentives
you
receive
there.
I
believe-
and
eric
can
correct
me
if
I'm.
B
A
And
then,
finally,
for
at
the
end
here
for
chapter
four,
one
fix
that
we
would
like
to
do.
Birthing
centers
are
kind
of
in
a
limbo
between
medical,
clinic
and
hospital,
because
we
don't
specifically
address
them
in
the
code
and
we
would
like.
We
think
that
they
are
more
more
in
line
with
the
way
a
medical
center
operates.
Medical
clinic
excuse
me
operates,
so
we
are
going
to
clarify
and
add
the
or
fix
that.
A
Excuse
me
and
add,
make
that
clear
that
that
is
part
of
the
medical
center
use
and
then,
as
I
mentioned
before,
we
will
be
having
a
number
of
things
that,
where
will
be
matching
transportation,
things
that
came
through
the
transportation
plan,
with
references
in
the
udo.
So,
for
example,
in
this
chapter
there
are
a
number
of
references
to
what
what
the
transportation
plan
calls
local
roads
and
I
believe
in
the
udo.
A
We
still
call
them
neighborhood
roads,
which
is
a
which
is
a
holdover
from
the
old
thoroughfare
plan.
So
we
need
to
update
those
sections
so
that
it's
clear
that
they're
talking
about
the
same
thing
and
then
another
cleanup
one
is
in
some
cases
in
a
few
cases,
when
the
consultant
changed
over
the
references
from
the
old
udo
to
the
new
udo,
they
missed
a
couple
of
the
institutional
references,
not
a
big
deal.
A
We
don't
currently
have
that,
but
we
have
been
approached
numerous
times
in
the
last
year
or
so
about
whether
or
not
that's
allowed,
and
so
we're
going
to
make
it
explicit
in
code
that
what
those
that
those
are
allowed
and
then
what
the
dimensional
requirements
are
for
that.
Additionally,
there's
been
some
confusion
or
need
for
clarity
about
center
signage.
A
So
chapter
five
is
subdivision
standards,
so
these
are
the
standards
that
lay
out
the
dimensional
requirements
for
new
lots
and
new
rights
of
way.
If
you
are
creating
new
subdivisions,
so
this
can
be
you
know,
small,
a
couple
lot
subdivisions
or
up
to
you
know
obviously
large
more
traditional
when
you
think
of
a
subdivision
subdivisions.
A
A
A
So
we
would
be
making
sure
that
that's
clear
to
put
that
back,
that
new
single
family
lots
that
are
created
have
to
have
frontage
on
a
road,
and
so
they
couldn't
be
built
behind
with
no
direct
access
from
their
from
their
own
parcel
to
the
most
to
an
adjacent
road
and
then
again
matching
the
transportation
road
classifications
in
text
in
this
area
as
well.
Since
this
area
discusses
new
roads
that
are
built
through
subdivision.
A
So
chapter
six
is
administration
and
procedures
so
how
we
administer
parts
of
the
code
and
through
permitting
and
how
and
how
different
processes
that
we
that
we
guide
the
public
through
occur.
So
the
first
one,
the
fix
is
easy,
there's
basically
just
some
missing
text
in
one
of
our
graphics.
That
appears
in
different
places
in
the
code.
A
Excuse
me,
the
first
is
related
to
additions
to
structures
in
the
floodplain.
So
we
did
address
this
council
addressed
this
with
the
version
that
came
into
play
in
april
in
the
floodplain
section,
which
is
in
a
different
chapter.
But
this
is
a
cross-reference
where
it
was
not
corrected
so
basically
in
our
old
udo
you're
limited
to.
A
But
we
need
to
change
it
in
this
area
as
well
to
make
it
clear
that
that
that
is
an
option
and
that
language,
I
believe,
is
directly
from
the
state
code,
the
flood
control
act
and
then
the
last
clarifying
correction
that
we
are
going
to
propose
for
chapter
six
is
going
to
be
to
adjust
major
site
plan
thresholds.
So
we
had
thresholds
for
site
plans
that
would
have
to
go
to
plan
commission
under
the
old
code.
A
I
believe
we
had
six,
maybe
seven
and
in
the
new
code
we
added
some
and
we
split
our
site
code
review
into
major
and
minor.
So
you
could
have
a
minor
site
plan
review
and
not
have
to
go
to
plan
commission
and
there
are
certain
characteristics
of
site
plans
that
allow
that
to
happen,
and
then
we
have
other
thresholds
where
once
you've
gone
over
them.
A
So,
for
example,
if
you're
building
more
than
30
units
or
certain
square
footage
adding
on
to
your
commercial
building
over
10
000
square
feet,
then,
while
you,
then
you
would
have
to
go
to
plan
commission.
So
those
two
in
particular
are
lower
thresholds
than
we
used
to
have
what
we
have
found
in
the
few
months.
That
we've
been
you
know
using
this
and
this
or
seven
months.
A
So
what
we
have
found
now
is
that
these
thresholds
are
particularly
the
one
related
to
expanding
existing
buildings
over
10
thousand
square
feet
or
adding
more
than
ten
percent
of
dwelling
units
to
an
existing
site
that
those
are
sending
site
plans
to
plan
commission
that
that
that
are
by
right.
They
meet
code
entirely
but
now
are
having
to
be
approved
by
plan
commission.
Because
of
the
way
the
udo
is
written
and
that
maybe
that
wasn't
the
intent.
A
So
while
we,
while
we
are
leaving
in
proposing
to
leave
in
many
of
the
thresholds
that
trigger
the
major
site
plan,
we
are
proposing
to
remove
the
the
one
where,
if
you're
doing
10,
if
you're
increasing
your
number
of
dwelling
units
by
10
or
if
you're,
increasing
the
size
of
your
structure
by
ten
thousand
square
feet.
That
that
those
aren't
automatically
bumped
up
to
plan
commission
because
again
they
won't
be
approved.
A
Clarifying
in
the
definition
of
medical
clinic
that
birthing
center
is,
is
a
medical
clinic
use,
so
that
is
those
are
all
of
the
kind
of
nuts
and
bolts
changes
we're
looking
at.
We
have
others
there
that
we
are
considering.
These
are
the
ones
that
we
are
fairly
certain
will
go
forward.
We
are
you
know,
things
will
still
come
up.
Obviously
this
doesn't
go
to
plan.
This
doesn't
go.
A
Hopefully
the
timeline
for
planned
commission
for,
for
these
is
january,
and
you
know
things
may
come
up
during
that
time.
Issues
may
present
themselves,
so
you
may
there
may
be
more
than
these
that
go
forward,
but
at
this
time
these
are
the
you
know
handful
that
we
are
confident
need
to
be
corrected
or
clarified
and
that
they
make
sense
and
that
we
can
easily
describe
them
to
the
decision
makers
of
why
that
needs
to
happen.
One
other
one
that
we
are
considering.
A
We
recently
added
an
r1
district
and
then,
when
we
went
to
actually
map
it,
we
found
that
there
weren't
necessarily
that
many
locations
where
that
might
make
sense
where,
where
an
r2
or
an
re,
wouldn't
have
benefits
as
well.
So
it
we
one
thing
we
are
considering.
That
would
be.
A
policy
decision
would
be
to
in
some
way
combine
the
re
and
r1
districts
so
that
they
would.
A
It
would
be
so
that
the
uses
would
be
allowed
from
re,
but
that
the
development
standards
from
r1
would
apply
something
along
those
lines.
So
that's
something
we're
looking
at
because
while
we
wanted
to
have
a
district
kind
of
fill
that
large
gap
between
r2
and
re
once
we
were
able
to
actually
begin
to
start
mapping
it,
it
started
to
seem
that
it
made
sense
in
some
places
to
just
actually
use
r2,
and
then
we
started
we
are
considering
possibly
combining
those.
So
that's
another
change
that
you
might
see
yeah.
A
So
that's
what
we
have
for
now.
We
are
happy
to
answer
questions
so,
as
we
said
before,
I
know
it's
like
a
lot
of
information,
it's
kind
of
more
wonky
than
some
of
our
other
presentations,
because
it's
just
the
detailed
changes
that
we're
proposing.
But
we
do
wanna
hear
your
questions.
We
also
if
you
have
run
into
things
trying
to
use
the
code
since
april.
That's
useful
or
seen
things
you
know
just
that
you're
you're
wondering
how
we
might
be
addressing
that
in
the
code.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
So
it's
to
protect
in
a
lot
of
places,
environmental
constraints
on
lots,
but
what
we've
kind
of
looked
at
is
that
it
might
be
possible
to
allow
for
a
smaller
lot
size
in
an
re
district
with
the
same
types
of
uses
and
still
get
the
protection
that
we
have
now.
So
we
are
kind
of
thinking
about
possibly
using
the
uses
from
re
and
combining
those
with
the
more
a
smaller
lot
size
like
you
find
in
r1,
and
so
turning
that
into
one
district.
A
That
could
be
used
again
in
the
more
sensitive
areas
and
then
in
other
areas
where
we
had
originally
thought
could
kind
of
be
infilled
with
r1.
We
we
later
once
we
tried
to
map
them,
we
kind
of
had
the
thought
of
well.
Why
wouldn't
we
want
this
to
be
denser?
If
we're
looking
for
density
in
other
places,
then
maybe
the
r2
is
actually
more
appropriate
in
these
locations.
So
that's
something
we're
kind
of
looking
at
again.
A
Let's
see,
I
go
dave,
we
aren't
going
to
talk
about
pd's.
We
had
a
pud
meeting
last
tuesday
that
was
dedicated
to
the
pud
changes.
So
if
you
have
specific
questions,
you
can
put
them
in
the
chat
and
we
can
put
them
with
those
or
you
can
email
one
of
us.
Of
course.
If
you
have
specific
questions
about
specific
puds,
we
can
do
that
ryan.
Do
you
have
something.
B
B
A
A
So
if
you
are
meeting
those
requirements,
then
you
can
have,
if
you're
doing
a
development
in
a
largely
single
family
zone,
then
you
can
have
reduced
bulk
requirements,
such
as
the
mini
minimum
lot
area
can
be
smaller
than
is
otherwise
required
by
code
or
a
lot
width
that
your
side
or
rear
building
setbacks,
or
that
your
site
or
rear
building
setbacks
can
be
reduced.
So
that
is
how
it
plays
out
in
those
districts.
There
is
also
again
with
15
of
your
total
units.
C
A
If
at
all-
and
you
know,
we
we've
seen
that
so,
for
example,
with
the
plex
discussion,
the
plexus
were
all
there
before
there
was
a
code
they're
all
lawful
non-conforming,
but
they
can't
be.
You
can't
put
in
new
ones.
So
if
the
uses
are
already
there
before
the
before
the
change
the
zoning
map
change,
then
they
can
continue
on
so
sometimes
that's
called
grandfathered.
We
just
try
to
stick
with
the
udo
term
of
lawful
non-conforming.
A
So,
of
course
just
so
everyone
knows,
I
think,
usually
if
you're
here-
you
probably
already
know
this,
but
when
this
process
starts,
when
the
actual
public
hearing
process
starts
in
january
with
plan
commission,
we
will,
of
course
there
are
public
meetings,
so
we
will
be
taking
public
comment
at
all
of
those
as
well.
So
these
these
meetings
obviously
are
not
public
hearings,
and
we
are
here
to
try
to
answer
questions
or
gather
input
from
those
who
can
attend
these
meetings.
A
But
the
actual
public
hearing
meetings
are
will
be
more
traditional
public
comment
where
you,
where
each
member
can
each
member
of
the
public
who
wants
to
can
say
their
piece
or
ask
questions
that
play
commission
or
council
could
take
up
or
not,
and
that
will
start
in
january
and
I
assume
over
zoom,
but
we
will
what
we
are
planning
to
do
for
the
plan.
Commission
hearings
is
special
sessions,
so
those
would
be
similar
to
what
we
have
done.
A
A
We
have
already
used
them,
or
I
mean
we
have
already
seen
that
they
could
be
useful
in,
for
example,
in
the
habitat
project
we
did
is
a
pud.
Had
it
been
able
to
be
strictly
zoned
r4,
then
they
could
have
used
those
incentives
to
have
the
design
that
they
wanted
without
having
to
do
a
pd.
So
we
are
confident
that
those
will
be
useful
tom.
We
don't
have
dates
so
the
idea
we
we
think
it
will
be
in
the
second
half
of
january
that
they'll
start.
A
So
our
regular
plan
commission
meeting
will
be
either
the
second
or
third
week.
Sometimes
it
changes
depending
on
the
holiday,
how
the
holidays
fall
in
those
months,
but
it
will
be
near
the
end
of
the
month
and
we
will
be
sending
paper
notice
to
every
property
owner
in
town.
So
you
should.
You
will
get
a
postcard
from
us
and
and
of
course,
obviously
the
paper
will
cover
the
newspaper.
I'm
sure
harold
times
will
cover
that
as
well
and
we
will
publicize
it
with
news
release.
A
Yes,
okay,
so
covenants
is.
I
that's
like
an
interesting
question:
it's
not
really
any
text
amendments,
unfortunately,
but
our
we
don't
know
where
the
r1s
are
going.
So
we
don't
know
if
they'll
be
in
neighborhoods
that
even
have
covenants
and
re
as
well.
I
think
in
our
most
current
locations
that
r
r
e
are
not
actually
in
subdivisions
that
likely
have
governments,
so
that
question
probably
doesn't
really
apply
to
those
areas
currently,
but
just
as
kind
of
a
a
side
we
are.