►
From YouTube: November 8, 2022 UDC Steering Committee
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/149341?handle=D48AD2FC24D1472B9D4899F8AFC1E399
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/149340?handle=2ECF46B784714D43B0AF39A8C262C1C5
1.
Three or more Planning and Zoning Commissioners may participate in the meeting. No legislative decisions or final actions of any board, commission or council will occur at this meeting.
2. Review of Unified Development Code
3. Adjourn
2. Public Forum
This is an opportunity for the public to address the committee regarding items not on the agenda. The committee and staff will not engage in a dialogue or answer questions during this time. Speakers m...
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/149341?handle=D48AD2FC24D1472B9D4899F8AFC1E399
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/149340?handle=2ECF46B784714D43B0AF39A8C262C1C5
A
C
D
Oh,
it
is
basically
come
to
a
screeching
halt.
Really
yeah
I
mean
there's
stuff
I'll
drive
a
listing.
I
have
clients
who
are
buying
new
construction,
but
I
have
no
buyers,
because
what
are
they
going
to
afford?
Oh
yeah
I
hear
what
you're
saying
you
know.
Basically,
their
purchasing
power
has
gone
down
by
you
know
on
average
about
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
compared
to
the
low
point
of
Interest.
D
D
B
E
C
E
F
B
G
F
F
F
As
Brian
said,
we'll
probably
have
a
lot
of
discussion
on
this
and,
if
not
tonight,
for
those
that
aren't
there
and
come
watch
the
recording
another
at
another
time.
So
don't
feel
like
you
have
to
get
everything
in
here,
we're
just
going
to
cover
the
big
picture
Concepts.
Hopefully
some
of
them
were
evident,
maybe
others
weren't
as
evident
we'll
Point
them
out
and
give
you
all
time
to
either
comment
tonight,
discuss
further
or
think
about
them
and
kind
of
get
back
to
us.
F
So
with
that,
we're
here
at
our
our
fourth
major
topic,
there's
the
overall
framework,
and
so
here
we're
hitting
on
housing
and
neighborhood
design.
As
I
mentioned,
it's
chapter
five
but
you'll
see
things
that
we've
discussed
in
both
chapter
seven
and
eight
Revisited
and
as
I
mentioned
chapter
four
is
implicated.
Some
and
then
the
larger
scale.
Community
design
of
the
subdivision
standards,
mainly
streetscape,
and
a
little
bit
of
open
space
is
implicated
as
well.
F
So
we'll
cover
all
those
tonight
and
you
can
kind
of
see
the
the
bigger
picture
coming
together,
at
least
in
the
the
lower
chapters
are,
are
yet
to
come.
So
when
we
originally
met
with
you
all
and
and
the
technical
committee,
these
were
some
of
our
our
leading
points
with
the
the
overall
charge
and
one
of
the
main
goals
of
this
code
update
more
housing
options,
so
the
R1
districts
it
was
adus
and
small
lot
options,
the
R2
District.
F
It
was
more
small
lot
and
small
scale,
multi-unit
building
types
and
then
the
Mur
three
districts,
the
one
that's
intended
for
the
the
largest
scale,
seeing
if
we
can
also
get
a
greater
mix
of
some
of
those
small
to
moderate
size,
apartment
and
mixed
use,
buildings
a
little
bit
easily
easier
or
more
clearly
coordinated
within
the
various
Mur
three
districts
technical
committee.
Also,
the
technical
committee
is
obviously
lots
of
different
departments
that
have
an
impact
on
this.
So
with
design
issues
they
primarily
deferred
to
Community
Development.
F
So
no
one
had
too
many
concerns
with
that.
We
did
discuss
some
some
parking
issues
and
there
are
some
concerns
about
out
walking
ourselves
into
parking
problems,
as
we
densify
fire
safety
and
access
is,
is
a
concern
as
well
with
mostly
alley
loaded
blocks.
We
feel
pretty
good
about
that.
However,
fire
department
and
foremost
they
they
will
not
fight
fires
from
the
alley.
F
F
So
when
we
see
that
reflected
to
some
of
the
section
standards,
it
appears
like
this
again
the
standard
in
the
middle.
That's
what
we're
trying
to
hit
but
understanding,
particularly
with
design
standards,
that
it's
not
always
the
exact
right
answer.
When
we
try
to
do
something,
that's
objective
and
measurable,
so
we
want
flexibility,
but
also
there's
Alternatives
and
options
that
might
do
a
better
job
than
what
we
put
in
the
code,
and
so
we
want
to
be
open
to
those
as
well.
F
So
that
will
be
leveraging
on
the
left
side
of
the
screen
in
the
procedure
section.
The
administrative
adjustments
application
where
we
have
some
review
criteria
and
procedures
for
that,
mainly
it
would
be
handled
at
a
staff
level
unless
some
of
them
are
getting
out
of
bounds
of
what
we
framed
in
the
code
for
either
the
criteria
or
some
of
the
parameters
within
which
staff
has
flexibility
and
then
that
staff
would
be
able
to
bump
some
of
those
up
to
the
Planning
Commission
as
well,
as
is
what
we're
working
on
the
section
reference
there.
F
F
The
last
one
being
similar
to
what
we
talked
about
last
time
a
couple
weeks
ago
with
the
non-residential
standards
as
well.
So
we'll
cover
all
of
those
topics.
So
key
changes
over
overview.
Hopefully
the
section
maps
could
clue
you
in
I
know
I
I
kind
of
look
back
at
that
every
once
in
a
while
and
I
realize
they're
they're
written
in
a
lot
of
shorthand
and
jargon
to
us,
because
they're
kind
of
our
internal
notes.
F
So
that
involves
a
new
approach
to
the
bulk
plane,
something
we
Loosely
turned
to
three-dimensional
setback
that
gives
a
little
more
flexibility
than
the
bulk
plane
does,
but
in
our
mind,
still
achieve
some
of
the
same
goals.
More
strict
standards
for
driveways,
curb
Cuts,
frontages
front
loaded
garages,
particularly
on
the
Alley,
serve
blocks.
F
There's
currently
standards
for
that
in
the
code,
but
we're
recommending
increasing
them,
making
them
more
stringent,
basically,
Frontage
requirements
requiring
entry
features
and
transparency,
Windows
Doors
fenestration
on
the
Frontage
right
now.
Those
are
both
just
recommended
or
there's
incentives
to
do
those
things.
We
think
those
are
important
enough
that
they
should
be
a
requirement,
especially
as
you
increase,
building
capacity
and
then
more
specific
standards
for
articulation.
F
So
that's
a
big
picture
overview,
so
I
will
start
with
the
building
types
and
the
building
type
approach.
Essentially,
this
table
reflects
not
a
whole
lot
of
changes
from
your
current
code
and
the
things
that
we
did.
Change
are
Concepts
that
are
already
in
there.
So
essentially,
there
shouldn't
be
any
wholesale
changes
to
how
development
is
regulated.
F
Within
These
districts,
except
for
six
main
things
that
again
are
all
targeted
towards
that
smaller
scale,
project
and
building
type,
so
I'll
walk
through
those
and
point
them
out
in
the
table,
so
the
first
is
greater
allowance
for
small
lot
detached
houses.
So
again,
these
are
building
types
that,
due
to
the
design
standards
in
both
plane
standards
and
height
standards,
they're
going
to
have
to
be
a
very
moderate
scale.
F
In
fact,
you
have
quite
a
bit
of
these
throughout
the
community,
even
in
some
of
your
higher
density
districts,
and
we
think
that's
a
good
thing.
It's
giving
people
options
to
not
have
to
build
attached
or
higher
and
then
the
more
of
those
we
can
enable
the
more
small
scale
development.
We
may
have
the
again.
The
three
thousand
four
thousand
square
foot
lots
are
in
there
right
now.
In
most
cases,
they're
simply
in
there
to
be
grandfathered,
in
other
words,
because
they're
existing
they're
allowed,
but
we
don't
want
any
new
ones.
F
So
we've
pursued
the
idea
that
we
do
want
new
the
ability
to
build
these
new
or
even
plat
them
new,
but
in
the
R1
districts
they
might
be
in
more.
The
L
signifies
a
limited
location,
so
end
of
blocks
Corner
Lots
in
the
courtyard
pattern
which
I'll
talk
about
in
a
minute
in
those
R1
districts,
but
in
the
R2
districts,
we'd
like
to
see
these
more
generally
interspersed
throughout
the
whole
range
of
housing
types.
F
D
F
If
it's
up
to
me,
I'll
I
would
prefer
to
get
through
this
first
section
and
then
before
I
get
into
the
design
deals
we
can.
We
can
handle
all
the
the
building,
type
and
development
capacity
questions
at
once
and
then
get
into
the
design
questions.
I
have
a
feeling.
Some
of
them
are
going
to
be
somewhat
related,
because
the
building
capacity
we
feel
is
kind
of
restrained
or
Modified
by
the
design
standards,
but
that
might
be
an
easier
way
to
do
it.
The
other
option
is
I
could
try
to.
H
F
Oh
yeah,
that's
a
good
question
because
some
of
these
do
overlap
right
like
so
what,
if
I'm
a
6
000
square
foot
lot,
but
my
Frontage
is
only
a
certain
amount
of
feet.
Yeah
we
plan
on
our
viewpoint
on
that
is.
The
frontage
is
the
one
that
should
drive
it,
because
a
lot
of
the
regulations
are
keyed
off
of
the
frontage.
F
So
if
you
have
an
odd
shaped
block
or
lot-
and
you
just
happen
to
have
extra
area
that
shouldn't
kick
you
into
that,
so
we
we're
we've
we're
looking
at
either
doing
that
as
a
footnote
or
interpretation
issue
that
the
lot
sizes
are
minimums,
the
frontages
should
be
ranges
and
that
Frontage
would
control
the
which
type
you
are
I.
Think.
H
F
F
The
larger
lots
are
really
even
more
appropriate,
and
so
maybe
there
could
be
two
one
thing
about
having
two
is:
we
did
not
increase
the
capacity
of
the
both
the
the
building,
both
plane
and
all
of
those
things
for
two,
so
you
would
still
need
to
be
utilizing
your
buildable
space.
In
the
same
way,
you
would
whether
you
had
one
or
two
it's
just
on
those
larger
Lots.
You
might
have
a
little
bit
more
capacity
and
therefore
you
could
have
two
smaller
units
or
one
large
unit
is
the
idea
from
there.
F
Our
feeling
is
that's
more
handled
by
setbacks
anyway.
So
if
we
have
the
setbacks
in
the
and
the
bulk
plane
and
massing
correct,
the
open
space
requirement
shouldn't
be
a
third
byte
at
that
same
problem,
but
we
do
view
the
open
space
is
very
important,
and
so
that's
more
active
social
usable
spaces
and
then
you'll
see
when
we
get
to
that
discussion
in
the
design.
F
We
then
are
counting
some
spaces,
that's
structured
or
covered
to
that,
because
those
can
be
active
social
spaces,
that
kind
of
animate
the
frontages
or
give
people
an
amenity,
even
if
it's
on
building
in
some
cases.
So
it's
a
different
way
looking
at
that
standard,
essentially
and
which
is
why
the
numbers
have
gone
down,
we're
counting
less
of
the
space.
But
in
doing
that
we
feel
they're.
We
have
raised
the
bar
somewhat
on
what
we're
counting
towards
that.
F
The
fourth
change
is
a
context-based
exception
for
the
front
building
line
and
the
front
setback.
We're
tying
that
to
the
fronted
standard,
I've
I've
blown
up
what
the
footnote
says
in
there,
but
essentially
we're
letting
them
be
modified
by
an
analysis
of
the
the
context
you
have
this
situation,
mostly
on
the
end
grains
of
blocks.
The
lots
that
front
those
some
of
those
do
have
a
fairly
tight
setback.
F
I
think
we've
measured
some
as
low
as
as
10,
but
in
the
the
modifying
provision
we've
said
the
Gen,
the
that
front
building
line
should
generally
be
between
15
and
40
feet,
and
then
you
can
gradually
transition
between
them,
a
plus
or
minus
five
from
the
building
adjacent
to
you.
So
the
idea
of
bringing
things
closer
to
the
street
and
streetscape
is
kind
of
tied
to
that
idea
of
we
aren't.
F
And
so
these
are
the
ones
that
are
doing
that.
The
multi-unit
house,
which
is
essentially
a
house
on
a
detached
house
on
the
standard
or
medium
lot.
And
although
you
already
have
the
duplex
we're
saying
some
of
those
buildings
could
have
three
or
four
units
in
them
and
and
the
multi-unit
house
could
also
perhaps
have
an
accessory
unit.
So
there
it
gets
you
up
to
five
units
in
the
same
or
similar
scale.
Building
the
second
one
is
the
row
house.
F
We
called
it
the
small
out
row
house
because
we
kept
your
current
standard,
which
is
the
one
below
at
that
larger
lot,
that
has
the
3
000
square
foot
and
the
and
the
20
foot
per
unit
front
front
minimum
where
we've
studied
prototypes
in
the
in
the
area
and
we're
familiar
with
seminars
that
go
actually
even
lower
than
this.
But
we
think
the
1500
per
unit
and
the
15
foot.
F
Minimum
Frontage
is
a
good
dimension
for
anywhere
from
three
to
eight
buildings
and
then
the
last
one,
the
small
apartment,
building
four
to
twelve
units,
still
a
three-story
two
two
and
a
half
story
in
the
r2b.
Although
people
are
getting
three
into
that,
32
foot
height
limit,
but
a
more
generous
three
story
in
the
MU
are
three
districts
of
40
feet
and
those
Heights
reflect
the
current
standards.
For
the
most
part,
there
is
a
subtle
change
in
one
of
them.
F
You
currently
have
a
standard
that
says
the
buildings
are
32
feet
high
as
a
maximum,
but
if
it's
a
four
plus
unit
building,
it
could
go
up
to
60..
So
that's
quite
a
jump.
Our
thought
was:
let's
compromise
for
this
building
type
and
it's
a
very
comfortable
building
type
at
40
feet
high,
particularly
when
we
get
to
some
of
the
design
and
massing
standards
which
we'll
cover
in
a
minute
and
then
the
last
change
would
be
it's
not
directly
reflected
in
this
table,
but
it
coordinates
with
the
open
space
standard.
F
But
it's
something
we
talked
about
through
the
public
engagement
in
our
early
conversations
with
you
is
the
idea
of
arranging
some
of
these
around
Courtyards.
You
have
some
deeper
blocks.
You
have
alley
loaded
both
of
those
combinations
lend
themselves
to
the
idea
of
arranging
building
types
around
Courtyards.
So
this
kind
of
gives
you
a
flavor
for
the
pattern.
It's
a
good
infill
strategy,
particularly
when
you're
on
the
irregular
blocks,
and
essentially
all
we're
doing,
is
we're
saying
we're
giving
three
main
advantages
to
this
type
and
it's
in
I'll
start
with
the
eligible
building
times
again.
F
This
is
another
one
geared
toward
the
smaller
scale
and
multi-unit
building
types,
but
could
also
be
very
applicable
to
the
detached
houses
as
well.
But
essentially
what
we
do
is
we
allow
multiple
buildings
to
be
arranged
around
the
courtyard
and
they
can
get
a
20
percent
lot
size
reduction.
That
number
reflects
the
fact
that
they're
all
basically
sharing
the
same
front
yard.
So
there's
the
efficiency,
you're
you're
in
effect
overlaying.
What
would
be
their
front
setback
on
top
of
each
other?
F
So
the
corner
buildings
on
that
front
of
the
courtyard
would
need
to
be
paying
attention
to
that
detail
and
then
the
parking
and
and
access
needs
to
be
done.
Discreetly,
and
so
it's
subject
to
the
same
standards
as
of
any
project
of
that
scale,
would
be
where
we're
trying
to
limit
driveways
and
parking
in
the
frontage
and
having
buffering
and
screening
around
any
parking.
That's
to
the
side
of
the
rear
and
again
with
with
alley
access.
You
have
a
lot
more
opportunities
to
do
that
well
than
than
you
might
otherwise
have.
F
I
D
Even
if
it's
30
or
25
for
everybody
I
think
it
puts
a
huge
restriction
on
the
bigger
lots
to
be
able
to
do
anything
interesting
or
different,
and
then
always
the
front
setbacks.
I
live
in
an
area
with
large
lots,
and
you
know
we
nobody
it's
hard
to
I,
don't
know
the
houses
need
to
be
closer
to
the
street.
D
In
my
opinion,
we
ought
to
be
able
to
have
front
porches
I
mean
it
goes
on
and
on
about
what
I
think
you
ought
to
be
able
to
do
related
to
that,
but
I'm
curious
about
why
the
Open
Spaces,
all
the
was
there
a
number
you
were
shooting
for
an
actual
square
foot
and
then
it
just
calculated
out
to
be
approximately
those
percentages
for
each
size,
I
mean
I.
Just
did
the
quick,
math
they're,
you
know
sort
of
ranked
differently,
but
I
was
just
curious
on
the
open
space.
No.
F
The
first
is:
we
took
your
current
lot
coverage
and
just
compared
what
we
were
doing
with
this
to
to
the
lot
coverage
and
most
of
them
right
now,
there's
a
a
I'm
gonna
I
might
get
this
wrong.
There's
a
forty
percent
minimum
lot
coverage
or
maximum
lot
coverage.
So
essentially,
that's
saying:
there's
a
sixty
percent
open
space
requirement
on
the
larger
lots
and
the
detached
houses
and
that
kind
of
started
carrying
down
through
the
smaller
lots
and
and
but
it
was
also
counting
some
of
that
not
non-usable
space.
F
So
to
speak,
it
was
like
it
was
set
side,
setbacks
or
you
know
even
parking
lot.
Landscaping
was
counting,
but
there
was
already
a
system
of
where
you
were
kind
of
getting
less
and
less
open
space,
either
on
not
necessarily
on
the
smaller
lots
for
the
detached
houses.
So
I'll
talk
about
that
in
a
moment,
but
when
you
got
into
the
larger
building
types,
there
was
less
and
less
open
space,
because
it's
a
more
dense
zoning
District
that
they're
in
and
therefore
less
Open
Spaces
required.
F
So
the
second
thing
we
did
was,
then
we
we
took
that
inverse
and
said
what
kind
of
space
is
each
of
these
building
types
lend
itself
to,
and
so
the
multi-built
multi-unit
types
and
the
more
dense
types
lend
themselves
to
more
formal
compact
kind
of
social
spaces,
whereas
the
larger
Lots
lend
themselves
to
yards
and
again
not
that
you'd
have
to
do
that.
But
we
feel
like
the
range
of
types
we're
allowing
lets.
F
All
of
these
types
usually
pretty
easily
get
to
this
number
on
the
houses,
especially
on
their
Frontage
and
on
their
their
rear
yard.
Now
there
would
be
some
choices.
I
put
an
accessory
building
in
there
goes
that
open
space
I'm
trying
to
make
that
up
somewhere
else.
So
but
we've
gone
through
those,
and
we
think
we
think
we
have
better
options
with
the
types
of
spaces.
F
We're
counting
because
again
we're
counting
decks
and
patios
and
in
some
cases
on
building
spaces
some
of
those
active
spaces,
whereas
under
the
old
version
those
were
wouldn't
count
because
there's
a
structure
over
them.
So
so
we,
the
that
number,
should
be
a
little
bit
easier
to
get
to
than
simply
saying
it's
unbuildable
and
unconstructed
space,
that's
not
to
say
that
there
won't
be
choices,
but
the
original
part
of
your
question
of
why
is
someone
else
required
more
than
the
other?
F
I
F
A
little
bit
that's
getting
more
towards
our
what
we're
doing
with
the
bulk
plane,
but
it
is
related
in
a
way
because
the
the
idea
is
every
time
we
take
away
space
from
the
building
volume.
We
want
to
do
it
for
a
reason
that
creates
a
relationship
to
the
outside
space,
so
you're,
not
just
getting
these
leftover
space.
F
So
if,
on
those
slot
homes,
the
the
bulk
plane
standards
force
them
to
have
a
setback
in
the
the
building
mass
for
either
upper
stories
or
even
the
whole
building,
that
would
be
a
great
place
to
make
up
your
space
by
having
an
outdoor,
Courtyard
or
an
out
a
upper
level
balcony.
Although
we
limit
what
what
those
can
count,
but
it
is
a
combination
of
whittling
away
at
the
overall
building
volume,
but
then
requiring
the
outdoor
spaces
to
be
active
and
usable
Kate.
A
Question
and
I
am
just
trying
to
absorb
all
of
this,
so
I
apologize.
This
is
already
covered,
I'm
thinking
about
the
the
courtyard
pattern
and
just
looking
at
some
of
the
kind
of
missing
middle
things
to
to
consider
and
for
the
courtyard
pattern
would
we
be
encouraging
a
lot
with
basically,
usually
a
courtyard
pattern.
You'd
hope
to
have
something
that
is
attainable,
an
attainable
price
point,
because
you're
sharing
space
essentially
exterior
space
with
other
folks.
A
The
way
we
have
it
drafted
now.
Does
this
create
the
the
tall
skinnies,
so
you'd
have
a
bunch
of
tall
skinny
Tower
houses
in
a
courtyard
that
may
not
be
as
inviting
as
maybe
ones
that
aren't
as
tall
and
skinny
or
will
like
the
book
plain
and
other
things
come
into
effect
to
prevent
that
from
happening,
because
it
seems
as
though
that
can
be
just
an
easy
thing
for
developers
to
to
come
in
and
create
which
may
not
be
the
most
desirable
thing
for
what
we
want.
F
Yes,
that's
a
really
good
thought
and
good
question
in
one
actually
that
hadn't
occurred
to
me.
Yet,
although
we're
always
drawing
the
courtyards
with
the
smaller
scale
buildings,
they
you
can
look
on
this
chart,
they
all
have
a
32
foot
height
limit
in
reacting
to
your
question,
having
not
thought
through
it,
the
bulk
plane
is
going
we're
anticipating
those
being
individual
Lots,
so
the
bulk
plane
would
apply
to
those.
So,
even
though
they're
getting
close
together,
my
thought
is
the
the
it's
still
going,
the
the
real
tall
skinnies
that
we've
seen.
F
That's
you
know
a
three-story,
20
foot,
wide,
building
or
or
maybe
even
less-
that's
got
a
three
foot
setback.
It's
going
to
run
into
issues
with
the
lot
right
next
to
it,
even
though
it's
on
the
same
Courtyard,
because
in
our
interpretation
of
it
the
bulk
plane
is
going
to
have
to
apply
so
they'll
have
to
do
something
to
moderate
the
scale
of
that
building
I'll
we
have
it
run
through
the
problem.
Solving
of
is
that
too
restrictive
on
the
courtyard
pattern.
B
H
F
Yeah
I
I
we've
discussed
this
actually
with
root
policy.
Research
on
the
housing
study
part.
In
fact
we
discussed
it
as
recently
as
Friday
when
I
sent
Molly
Fitzpatrick.
The
updated
version
of
this
I
had
originally
thought
that
we
got
rid
of
the
minimum
lot
size
per
unit
altogether
on
those
types
and
we're
relying
basically
on
the
lot
width
and
Building
height
and
setbacks.
F
However,
I,
when
I
pull
this
back
up,
I'm
like
oh
wait,
we
did
leave
them
in.
We
just
reduced
them
from
three
thousand
to
one
thousand
five
hundred
her
feeling
was
that's
a
pretty
good
place
to
be,
although
she
was
going
to
look
at
it
again
to
say:
well,
maybe
maybe
that
ought
to
go
away
in
discussing
that,
though
I
think
the
one
that's
going
to
always
drive
every
one
of
these
is
going
to
be
the
parking
requirement
it's
going
to
either
be
your
lot
area,
your
height
or
your
parking.
F
The
number
of
units
you
put
in
all
are
going
to
still
be
subject
to
the
parking,
although
we
allow
reductions
and
we've
allowed,
sharing
and
different
ways
to
bring
that
down.
I
think
that's
still
going
to
be
the
one
that
drives
even
these
smaller
scale,
ones
where
they
may
actually
be
having
a
larger
lot
simply
to
have
enough
to
put
the
parking
on.
It
would
be
my
guess.
We
haven't
run
through
every
one
of
those
scenarios,
though.
H
Yeah
I
just
see
situations
that
might
come
to
us
on
the
board
of
adjustment
and
appeals
where
it's
still,
the
number
of
units
that
are
allowed.
It's
still,
maybe
the
width
and
the
height
or
or
the
parking
is
all
met,
but
there's
just
something
weird
about
the
area
and
we're
being
asked
to
to
provide
some
flexibility
there.
F
I
didn't
necessarily
have
a
problem
with
that,
because
I
think
we're
still
to
me
the
more
important
actually
the
more
important
standard
on
here,
which
this
kind
of
this
question
brings
it
up
is
if
you've
noticed,
we
did
put
a
maximum
on
the
lot
sizes
so
and
that's
again
in
keeping
with
that
idea
of.
Let's
keep
these
neighborhood
scale
buildings,
rather
than
some
of
the
larger
projects
that
can
kind
of
when
it's
just
minimums
like
they
grow
and
grow,
especially
when
there's
a
minimum
per
unit
on
there.
C
F
We'll
move
into
some
of
the
design
issues
and
again
a
lot
of
those
questions,
kind
of
hinted
at
that,
but
get
a
little
more
comprehensive
view
of
it.
If
you
remember
back
from
our
engagement
and
discussion
with,
even
you
know
what
is
neighborhood
character,
we
emphasize
that
it's
it's
a
combination
of
public
Realms,
so
what's
the
context
they're
going
in
and
we
can
do
a
lot
to
create
neighborhood
character
with
streetscape
landscape
and
Civic
spaces.
F
So
that's
still
an
important
part,
all
of
those
things
that
are
in
the
chapter,
three
subdivision
standards
and
so
we're
anticipating
with
a
lot
of
these
options
that
some
of
these
things
are
are
happening
as
well,
although
they're
not
always
required
a
good
example
of
that,
is
you
know
the
streets
that
are
shown
here
with
Street
trees,
all
up
and
down.
You
don't
have
that
on
every
block,
but
there
is
a
landscape
requirement.
That's
tied
to
the
Frontage
that
says!
F
Well,
when
you
develop,
you
need
to
meet
the
landscape
standard
and
if
your
street
doesn't
have
an
area
for
Street
tree,
then
that
needs
to
move
to
the
front
end.
So
we
would
expect
to
see
some
of
these
things
kind
of
built
in
or
improved
over
time,
if
they're,
even
it
depends,
depending
on
the
context
and
what's
available
in
the
streetscape
and
then
from
there,
it
gets
to
the
development
character
of
housing
types
scale
and
massing
and
the
frontage
design
itself
to
connect
to
those
public
Realms.
F
So
that's
the
the
theme
from
which
all
of
these
design
standards
are
developed
again.
Almost
all
of
these
are
ideas
that
are
currently
in
your
code
now
in
one
way
or
another.
So
on
the
left
are
all
the
things
that
you're
currently
regulating
for
sometimes
not
in
a
coordinated
way,
and
sometimes
maybe
in
a
a
bit
of
a
conflicting
way,
or
sometimes
just
on
one
particular
district
and
not
another
which
cause
us
to
go
like
hey.
That's
a
good
idea:
it
ought
to
be
in
every
District.
F
So
you
know
this
code
update
is
an
opportunity
to
coordinate
all
of
those,
and
so
we've
done
that
by
categorizing
them
on
the
three
main
themes
on
the
right
and
the
biggest
change
I'll
go
through
some
of
the
things
where
we're
actually
kind
of
getting
a
little
more
more
strict
than
you
currently
are,
but
the
biggest
one.
That's
that's
a
new
standard
that
you
don't
really
have,
as
I
mentioned,
is
under
building
design,
the
front
entry
features
and
the
transparency.
F
Those
are
currently
implied
in
your
code
through
either
giving
exceptions
to
the
standards
or
strongly
recommending
them
or
allowing
them
to
count
towards
some
other
requirement.
But
we
think
both
of
those
are
important
enough
that
there
ought
to
be
a
basic
minimum
requirement
for
each
of
those
on
the
building
design
standards.
F
So
the
big
distinction
we
made
here
was
Ali
served
versus
non-ally
served.
So
obviously,
not
Ali
served
really
shouldn't
have
any
issue
of
meeting
these
frontages,
and
so
what
we
did
was
we
recommended
that
if
it's
alley
served,
it
really
shouldn't
have
a
driveway
and
front
loaded
garage
at
all.
All
the
service
should
come
off
the
alley.
That's
one
of
the
or
not
service
necessarily,
but
all
the
car
access
should
come
off
of
that.
F
That's
one
of
the
biggest
benefits
for
serving
that,
and
you
don't
have
too
many
instances
where
you
haven't
followed
that
rule
anyway,
just
out
of
the
practicality
out
of
it,
but
we
wouldn't
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
make
it
a
code
requirement.
We
did
draw
one
exception
that
projects
of
a
certain
width
and
capacity
could
have
a
secondary
circulation
connection
if
it
was
necessary
to
the
alley
or
necessary
to
the
project
that
connects
to
the
alley
and
creates
a
different
Outlet.
F
So
an
80
to
100
foot
lot
could
have
a
limited
access
to
the
alley
system
on
the
Alley
serve
then
for
the
non-ally
serve
the
axis
width.
We're
recommending
no
more
than
20
percent
of
the
lot
width
should
be
a
driveway
and
then
on
the
garages
themselves
that,
if
it's
flush,
unless
it's
set
back
from
the
building
Frontage,
it
shouldn't
be
more
than
25
percent
of
the
building
elevation
or
up
to
40.
If
it's
set
back
more
than
12
feet,
you
can
see
your
current
standards
down
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen
in
Red.
F
So
you
again,
you
have
standards
that
limit
these
things
already.
We
have
ramped
them
up
based
on
looking
at
some
of
the
existing
patterns,
and
essentially
what
this
means
is
that
any
lot,
that's
narrower
than
35
feet
is
going
to
have
to
look
at
some
type
of
shared
or
common
Lane
access,
and
those
can
happen.
Even
in
non-ally
situations,
you
can
see
a
drive
being
shared
along
a
common
boundary
or
you'll
often
see
a
a
drive
that
goes
in
and
accesses
three
or
four
Lots
on
either
side.
F
Your
current
standards
are
45
percent
max
for
The,
Wider,
lots
and
40
percent
for
the
narrower
Lots
I'm,
not
sure
why
that
it
actually
increases
on
The,
Wider
Lots.
It
might
be
the
idea
of
bumping
from
a
two-car
garage
to
a
three-car
garage
that
you
would
often
see,
but
essentially
our
what
we
came
up
with
was
the
numbers
of
25
and
40
percent.
And
again
it
follows
a
parallel
with
that.
What
I
mentioned
on
the
driveways,
the
constrained
ones,
are
going
to
be
the
the
narrower
ones
that
below
35
feet.
D
So
I
don't
haven't
I,
don't
live
on
an
alley,
so
I
don't
really
have
a
dog
in
this
fight,
but
the
fact
that
we
most
of
our
alleys
are
unpaved
I,
actually
don't
agree
that
people
shouldn't
be
able
to
access
their
garages
from
the
front
of
their
house.
If
the
lot
is
big
enough
and
I
think
that
the
driveway
should
be
the
same,
whether
it's
an
alley
or
a
non-ally.
D
But
I
would
like
to
hear
some
discussion
about
that
for
people
who
live
on
alleys
and
then
the
other
discussion
I
want
to
have
which
I
brought
up
before
is
the
the
things
that
you
can
the
front
entry
stuff
that
I
think
you're
gonna
eventually
get
to
here,
and
maybe
the
next
couple
slides.
But
it
specifically
says
basically:
I
can't
put
a
covered
front
porch
on
my
house,
because
it
would
go
into
the
25
foot,
setback
and
I.
D
Think
that's
ridiculous,
because
why
wouldn't
we
want
nobody
in
my,
my
neighborhood
can
put
a
front
porch
on
their
house
and
we
have
these
stupid
little
concrete
Stoops.
Nobody
uses
their
front
yards
because
they're
not
conducive
to
that
and
and
the
fact
that
it's
on
a
block
by
block
basis,
I
think,
is
also
wrong.
Simply
because
why
should
I
or
a
five
feet
related
to
my
neighbor?
So
what
I
I
bite
the
bullet
and
get
a
front
porch,
and
now
everybody
else
can
get
a
bigger
front.
D
F
F
Again,
if
I
haven't
covered
that
fully
or
if
you
still
have
concerns
that
we
haven't
addressed
The
Alley
one
we've
we've
heard
that
concerned
before
on
the
you
know
be
careful
that
we
have
a
lot
of
allies,
aren't
in
good
shape,
be
careful
what
you
say
about
them
so,
but
I
hadn't
heard
it
in.
In
that
context,
so
I
think
I'll
defer
to
the
discussion
on
what
you
all
should
do.
I
think
there's
there's
certainly
strategies
that
can
get
at
that.
F
So
it
is
more
of
a
a
shared
common
access
and
resource
I.
Think
to
not
do
that
is
missing
a
really
huge
opportunity
that
gives
you
a
lot
of
flexibility
for
development,
but
I
I
think
you
know
you
raise
a
good
question
on
the
you
know
the
ability
to
have
a
personal
access
versus
forcing
me
to
share
off
an
alley.
I
It
also
is
something
that
they
want
to
do
in
any
way
to
make
these
homes
more
marketable,
because
it's
really
hard
to
to
build
a
this
six
hundred
thousand
dollar
home
or
more
and
oh,
by
the
way,
when
you
leave
your
garage
you're
going
to
fall
into
a
giant
mud
pit.
So
that's
right,
that's
kind
of
where
I
stand
with
that.
It
I
think
that
it's
helping
with
alley.
Improvement
is
my
point.
H
J
Just
based
on
what
Brenda
said,
my
my
comment
was
actually
around
these.
You
know
we're
really
looking
a
lot
at
new
builds
for
for
a
lot
of
these
guidelines
or
rules.
So
yeah,
the
paving
of
those
Alleyways
as
a
as
part
of
those
builds
I,
think
helps
with
with
some
of
with
some
of
that.
I
do
live
on
an
alley,
and
it
is,
you
know,
mildly,
mildly,
treacherous
at
times,
but
I,
you
know
I
think
I
always
look.
J
B
D
I'm
just
curious
for
people
who
so
for
the
people
that
aren't
going
to
scrape
their
house
or
build
if
they
want
to
have
put
access
to
their
garage
from
the
street
that
that's
not
even
allowed
so
I,
don't
know.
Maybe
people
don't
want
to
switch
switch
it
so
they
can
access
their
garage
from
the
street.
But
if
I
were
in
the
middle
of
the
well
I
intentionally
didn't
buy
on
an
alley.
So
I
guess
it
doesn't
really
matter.
D
But
if
I
were
in
the
middle
of
a
street
that
had
an
alley,
I'd
absolutely
want
to
access
my
garage
from
the
Main
Street,
rather
than
being
stuck
in
the
middle
of
the
alley,
especially
in
the
winter,
but
like
I,
said
I'll
defer
to
people
who
live
on
alleys,
just
think
they
ought
to
be
able
to
have
a
driveway
to
their
garage
if
they
want
from
the
street.
But.
B
I
Well,
I
guess:
I,
don't
understand
that
it's
disallowed
and
I'll
tell
you
the
most
unusual
thing
about
my
block
and
being
an
old
block
from
the
50s
is
Judy.
We
have
both.
We
have
access
from
the
front
and
I
had
access
from
the
back
and
my
neighbor
can
park
on
her
front,
although
she
doesn't
have
direct
line
to
her
garage
from
the
front,
but
she
has
a
little
driveway
there.
I
mean
I,
guess
I,
don't
know
why
both
it
wouldn't
be
an
option.
F
F
I'll
address
that,
because
I
think
it
plays
into
both
the
last
comments,
so
the
red
down.
There
is
your
your
current
percentage
and
again
it's
it's
Frontage
coverage,
so
it's
referring
to
it
includes
driveways,
but
other
things
that
are
covering
the
frontage
which
which
sort
of
gets
at
your
second
point
a
little
bit
as
well.
But
at
least
our
interpretation
of
that
standard
is
you're,
trying
to
be
more
generous
for
the
non-allys
because
they
don't
have
any
other
access.
F
So
therefore
they
need
a
wider,
driveway
or
whatever,
and
then
for
the
for
the
alley,
loaded
ones,
you're
more
restrained,
we
looked
at
there's.
Also
a
current
standard
in
the
I.
Think
it's
one
of
the
Mur
districts.
Forgive
me
I
can't
remember
which
one,
but
it
said
that
each
row
house
can
have
a
10
foot
driveway
to
it,
and
then
units
of
four
or
more
are
allowed
to
have
a
driveway
access
on
the
Alley
and
in
our
mind,
what
that's
doing
it's
doing.
F
Almost
the
exact
opposite
of
what
you
want
to
do
from
a
neighborhood
design
standpoint,
because
those
are
those
attached
narrower
buildings
and
they're
all
now
having
a
driveway,
curb,
cut,
garage
and
I
think
it
was
was
mentioned
in
one
of
the
the
comments
earlier.
The
repetitive
effect
of
that
on
the
streetscape
every
one
of
those
is
an
interruption
of
the
sidewalk.
Every
one
of
those
is
taken
away
at
least
one
and
sometimes
two
on-street
parking
spaces.
F
Every
one
of
those
is
taking
away
a
space
where
Street
trees
can
go
so
it's
more
of
the
cumulative
effect,
and
so
those
percentages
actually
kind
of
work
well
for
scaling
it
towards
your
lot
width
because
it
truly
is
based
on
what
your
impact
on
the
streetscape.
So
the
wider.
You
are
the
more
opportunities
you
should
have
to
do
it
because
it's
not
a
cumulative
repetitive
thing.
So
that's
why
there
is
a
difference.
F
Okay,
so
moving
on
to
that,
so
that
was
Frontage
design
again,
there's,
there's
landscape,
streetscape
and
open
space
standards
that
will
come
into
play
and,
and
so
now
I'll
get
to
building
design.
This
will
get
to
that
earlier
point
of
the
front
entry
features
as
well
and
what
can
encroach
into
the
front
setback,
but
essentially
whether
you're
dealing
with
a
large-scale
building
or
a
smaller
scale,
building
something
more
akin
to
a
house.
We
look
at
these
four
elements
massing
in
bulk
playing
something
you're
already
well
familiar
with
regulating
front
entry
features.
F
We
are
moving
from
not
only
allowing
them
as
an
exception,
but
actually
requiring
them,
and
so
in
requiring
them.
We
are
allowing
them
to
encroach
into
that
front
step
back
even
further
than
that
front
building
line
that
was
talked
about
so
that
25
foot
line
or
even,
if,
based
on
your
context,
you're
able
to
move
up
to
a
15
foot
line
that
front
entry
feature
can
still
encroach
even
further
into
that.
So
there's
an
example
of
something
that
your
current
code
code
would
say.
F
Well,
there's
more
light
coverage
in
the
front
edge
and
you
can't
do
that,
except
that
someone
went
in
and
said
well
we're
going
to
accept
that
out
and
that
doesn't
count.
We've
taken
a
more
proactive
way
of
doing
that
saying.
Not
only
do
we
want
front
industry
features
we're
going
to
require
them
and
I'll
talk
about
that
in
a
minute
and
in
requiring
them.
That's
also
one
of
your
eligible
open
space
types.
F
So,
even
though
it's
a
structure,
even
though
it's
covering
your
lot,
there's
open
space
that
you
should
count
towards
your
open
space
requirements,
so
there's
another
way
that
it's
a
little
bit
easier
to
get
to
those
40
or
25
percent
numbers
that
were
on
that
first
chart
as
well,
and
then
the
last
two
transparency
and
facade
composition.
How
do
you
break
up
larger
wall
planes
and
again
you?
You
have
a
current
standard
for
that.
F
That's
a
menu
item,
we're
just
saying
that
the
the
window
percentage
is
a
key
part
of
that
and
we
think
it
it's
it's
something
that
you
should
have
a
minimum
for.
So
the
first
of
those
the
massing
and
bulk
playing
this
one
might
take.
Hopefully
it
doesn't
take
too
much
discussion,
but
we
were
struggling
with
a
good
way
to
graphically
show
what
we
see
as
a
a
bit
of
a
more
flexible
option,
but
also
a
bit
of
a
way
that
raises
the
standard
a
little
higher
than
where
it
might
be
right.
F
We
need
to
start
assuming
that,
but
again
it's
it's
a
12
foot
starting
point
in
r1a
and
r1b
and
the
17
and
the
others
and
then
a
45
degree
angle
from
there.
So,
back
to
that
question
of
the
building
Heights
haven't
changed
in
most
districts,
you're
at
32
feet
a
maximum
Building
height
or
you're
at
40..
F
You
can
already
see
how
constrained
those
Heights
are,
because
you
can't
even
get
to
32
feet
in
the
r1a
and
r1b
unless
you're
at
least
20
feet
further
back
than
the
required
setback
so
25
feet
into
the
lot.
Is
the
only
place
you're
going
to
get
to
that
so
on
a
50
foot
wide
lot,
you're
you're
never
going
to
get
to
it
on
a
60
or
70
you're
going
to
get
to
it
for
a
smaller
part.
So
it's
that
kind
of
that
tent
effect.
F
That's
going
on
in
there
and
and
there's
some
limited
exceptions
to
that
for
Dormers
and
things
like
that,
but
that's
the
effect
of
the
the
bulk
plane
on
those
building
Heights.
So
the
right
is
our
idea
where
we
said.
If,
if
massing
is
the
concern
and
we've
heard
a
lot
about
light
air
and
open
space?
F
What
if
we
took
that
number
so
that
gold
portion
of
the
the
current
bulk
plane-
and
we
said
you
can
allocate
it
any
way
you
want
within
the
allowed
Building
height,
so
you
could
allocate
it
all
the
way
back
at
a
single
story.
You
could
allocate
it
part
part
of
the
way
back
in
the
second
row
down
at
a
multiple
story
or
if
you
went
all
the
way
to
your
building
height
you're,
not
going
to
be
able
to
get
very
far,
but
you
could
have
a
taller,
smaller
building
and
then
in
each
of
those.
F
We
feel
there's
different
options
for
getting
light
and
air
and
access,
and
we
might
get
better
building
to
building
relationships
and
we
might
get
more
interesting
massing
of
these
different
building
types
is
the
idea.
So
it's
simply
taking
that
number
and
saying
giving
you
an
option
to
allocate
it
either
lengthwise
along
the
setback
or
height-wise
for
a
smaller
portion,
but
essentially
all
of
them
would
have
the
same
number.
F
The
next
slide
will
show
some
of
the
Nuance
of
of
the
numbers
We
we
played
with
and
what
we,
where
I
mentioned,
that
we
we
think
we
have
a
maybe
a
little
bit
of
a
higher
standard
as
well.
I'll
explain
that,
but
we
we
did
that
for
the
32
foot
scale,
buildings
so
all
of
the
r1s,
and
then
we
did
the
same
exercise
for
the
40-foot
scale
buildings,
and
then
we
went
ahead
and
even
did
it
again
for
the
60
foot,
even
though
those
are
usually
an
mu.
F
The
40
and
60
are
typically
in
the
Mur
3
B
and
C,
but
and
and
the
Mur
3C,
the
bulk
plane
doesn't
even
apply,
and
so,
when
we
went
through
and
and
did
this
for
each
scale
of
building
type,
we
started
to
think.
Well,
it
might
maybe
it
ought
apply
in
all
of
the
districts,
because
if
this
is
a
good
strategy
that
might
work,
it
should
apply
to
those
larger
scale
buildings
as
well.
F
So
this
next
slide
shows
the
table
and
kind
of
what
the
effect
is.
So
what
we,
so
the
the
graphic
on
the
left
is
showing
that
first
range,
that
zero
to
eight
and
when
you
go
down
the
the
red
boxes,
show
what,
if
you
took
a
a
typical
135
foot,
deep
lot
applied
your
rear
set
back
on
your
front
setback.
You're
left
with
about
85
feet
of
buildable
width
within
the
building
footprint,
and
essentially
your
current
bulk
plane
would
say
you
could
build
to
12
feet
or
17
feet.
F
Whichever
is
the
case
all
the
way
along
there,
and
so
that's
giving
you
about
1
000
to
to
1
700
square
foot
of
building
mass
in
that
zero
to
eight
foot
range,
but
it
can
only
be
12
feet
high
or
13
feet
high
or
14
feet,
depending
on
how
far
back
you're
going
so
again
that
tent
effect.
So
what
we're
saying
is,
let's
give
you
two
tiers.
F
The
zero
to
eight
foot
range
sort
of
like
a
three-dimensional
setback
is
why
we
called
it
that,
in
the
zero
to
eight
foot
range
for
the
lower
scale,
buildings
you'd
only
be
allowed
800
square
foot
of
massing,
so
a
little
bit
less
restrictive
or
more
restrictive
than
what
you
at
least
conceptually
could
build
under
the
the
current
bulk
plane,
which
is
this
first
number
in
red
at
the
12
foot
level.
But
we
are
saying
that
you
could
go
all
the
way
up
to
32
feet
there.
F
Before
you
get
to
a
full
Building
height,
we
give
a
little
bit
more
of
a
massing,
and
so
these
numbers
are
based
on
that
math
of
figuring
out
a
what
would
be
allowed
under
the
current
bulk
plane
and
B.
Let's
start
with
a
smaller
number,
but
let
them
go
higher
and
then
we
did
that
for
each
range
of
area
and
what
that
led
to
was
then
under
each
under
each
scenario.
F
Any
questions
on
that
idea,
or
you
know
one
of
the
things
I
think
we'll
we'll
do
is
there's
there's
two
questions
here
is
the
concept
right?
In
other
words,
do
we
want
more
flexibility
in
the
book
plan,
exchanging
the
height
for
length
and
letting
people
choose
or
giving
guidance
on
where
and
when
you
should
choose
and
then
the
second
would
be
our
numbers
right
and
we
think
if
they're
not
right,
they're
pretty
close,
but
we're
still
doing
some
exercises
to
Vet
that,
on
the
on
the
larger
scale,
buildings.
B
I
F
Yeah,
so
the
first
would
be
the
the
Mur
3B
is
most
likely
going
to
be
in
that
moderate
scale.
So
what
this
would
say
is
you're
allowed
1600
square
feet
in
that
zero
to
eight
foot
range.
So
if
you
went
all
the
way
up
to
40
feet
right
off
the
bat
to
the
height
limit,
you
would
only
be
able
to
go
40
feet
back
with
that.
So
you're
you
would
be
leaving
in
that
zero
to
eight
foot
range.
F
F
There
would
be
an
example
of
that,
not
not
dimensioned
in
the
exact
Dimension,
but
that
lower
left
concept
is
there
that
if
you
chose
to
use
all
of
your
max
height
you're
only
going
to
be
able
to
do
it
for
a
smaller
distance,
whereas
their
current
situation
is,
they
could
go
up
to
17
feet
along
the
whole
length
there
and
and
they're
likely
to
build
out
from
front
step
back
to
rear
step
back
at
17
feet
high.
Oh.
F
F
This
situation
of
having
this
be
open
and
set
back
might
be
better
than
this
situation
of
having
someone
just
build.
A
17
foot
building
masks
all
the
way
along
the
rear
setback
because
they
can.
The
rear
setback
is
only
20
feet,
so
they
can
technically
go
from
the
25
foot
front.
Setback
line
all
the
way
to
20
feet
from
the
rear
setback
line
at
17
feet,
and
so
this
is
the
other
extreme
of
that
option
of
saying
well:
go
up
to
40
feet
here
and
and
if
you're
in
the
Mur
3B
that.
F
Let
me
back
up
a
minute
here,
if
you're
in
this
moderate
scale,
building
where
you're
in
a
district
that
already
allows
up
to
40
feet
high,
that
first
tier
would
say:
1600
square
feet
of
mass,
only
Lee,
whereas
under
the
current
setback
they
would
be
allowed
anywhere
from
in
that
area.
They'd
be
allowed
anywhere
from
1400
to
2100
square
feet
of
building
Mass,
although
it
all
of
it
at
a
17
foot
height.
F
F
Yeah
good
question,
so
the
this
graphic
probably
doesn't
do
a
good
job
of
illustrating
it
because
it's
going
to
apply
to
the
left
side
as
well
right
so
they're
gonna.
What
we
would
probably
see
I,
don't
know
how
we
focus
on
one
setback
to
show
it.
But
if
we
flip
this,
you
would
have
to
see
the
same
relationships
as
a
building
would
essentially
probably
take
a
t
more
of
a
t
shape
because
it
it's
applying
to
both
sides.
F
J
F
F
However,
one
of
the
other
benefits
of
of
this
approach,
we
think,
is
when
I
mentioned,
that
it
could
lead
to
to
as
long
as
we're
I
understand,
there's
a
it's
a
height
versus
Mass,
which
are
you
more
concerned
about.
But
if
we're
more
concerned
about
the
mass
itself,
this
might
be
a
better
option.
Even
though
people
could
go
higher
because
once
they
use
up
that
budget,
it's
used
up
and
there's
probably
20
or
30
more
iterations
of
these
patterns
that
could
result
so,
who
you
know
in
in
all
of
them.
F
F
F
F
Theirs
was
more
of
completely
different
context,
the
more
concerned
with
tear
down
and
rebuilds
of
smaller
homes
into
really
really
large
homes,
and
so
we
use
this
strategy
similar
strategy,
not
exactly
this
to
to
add
variation
to
the
building,
just
view
from
afar.
It
wasn't
used
for
any
side
setback
relationships.
So
it's
a
similar
principle.
F
I
have
not
seen
this
exactly
done
this
way,
so
I
can't
comment
to
like
which
jurisdictions
are
using
this.
How
is
it
being
used
positively
and
negatively,
and
part
of
the
reason
for
that
is?
We
haven't
encountered
a
bulk
plane
similar
to
yours
where
to
me
this
is
a
maybe
a
good
option
in
response
to
your
your
starting
point
of
the
bulk
plane.
But
again
it
comes
down
to
the
the
whole
question
of.
Are
you
willing
to
exchange
height
for
for
Mass,
because
again,
I
go
back
to
so
this
one?
F
J
And
I
don't
want
to
drag
this
too
far
off
at
this
point,
although
perhaps
later,
but
I
would
be
curious.
I
appreciate
that
a
lot
of
what
you've
presented
here
has
been.
This
is
what
you
have
here's,
how
we're
not
you
know
pushing
too
far
in
any
direction,
but
for
a
theoretical
you
know
for
another
city
that
is
not
Englewood.
When
you
talk
about
this
topic,
you
know
what
would
you?
J
F
Yeah,
that's
I,
it's
a
that's
tough
to
answer
because
it's
a
it's
a
different
conversation.
Each
time
I
would
say
two
things
usually
when,
when
we're
looking
at
masking
standards,
people
are
doing
it
to
break
up
the
appearance
of
larger
blank
walls.
So
a
lot
of
times
this,
the
the
closeness
to
the
side
setback,
isn't
necessarily
the
issue,
but
the
idea
of
taking
larger
boxes
and
having
variation
in
them
is
pretty
common
and
in
a
lot
of
cities,
are
doing
that
in
different
ways.
F
I
think
the
more
unusual
thing
about
in
our
mind
about
the
the
Inglewood
approach
currently
is
the
idea
that,
in
what
I
mentioned
earlier
that
yeah,
your
height
limit
might
be
32
feet,
but
it's
really
hard
to
get
to
32
feet
unless
you
get
a
bigger
lot
and
then
put
a
bigger
building
on
it,
and
so
that's
where
I
think
the
advantage
of
this
might
be.
This
is
another
thing
that
can
help
the
smaller
scale
buildings
on
smaller
Lots,
because
under
the
current
bulk
plane,
they'll
never
get
to
the
allowed
height
limit.
C
F
F
The
second
major
element
on
building
design
is
the
entry
features
and
again
it's
in
your
code.
Now
it's
currently
suggested
and
given
an
incentive
for,
and
we
would
like
to
require
it.
So
what
we've
done
is
we've
identified
four
different
types
and
we're
starting
to
put
the
standards
around
them.
We
have
dimensionally
I,
think
we
have
the
standards.
F
F
Stoops
can
be
uncovered,
so
each
of
these
has
a
lot
of
variations
within
it
of
what
you
can
do
and
then
we
think
each
of
them
can
apply
to
every
single
building
type
in
in
different
ways,
and
so
this
is
where,
in
exchange
in
in
exchange
with
that
massing
variations
that
we
just
had
on
the
previous
slide.
If
all
of
the
buildings
do
this
one
thing,
in
other
words,
have
an
entry
feature,
but
do
it
in
a
variety
of
different
ways.
F
We
could
get
a
lot
of
interest
to
the
streetscape,
but
the
bigger
thing
is
we're
using
that
space
well
and
we're
creating
more
active
social
spaces
to
it.
So
I'll
I'll
leave
it
I
think
that's
the
the
only
slide
on
the
entry
features
yeah.
It
is
and
then
we'll
move
to
open
space,
but
we
do
think
that's
an
important
requirement
as
well
and
and
to
the
earlier
question.
These
are
a
lot.
B
F
Yeah,
that's
an
excellent
question.
I
I
think
in
all
cases
we
need,
if
we're
not
we're
flat
out
required,
I
think
it
would
be
wise
to
say
they
can
all
be
accessible
and,
and
probably
all
should
be
we're
familiar.
You
know
again,
that's
a
a
little
bit
of
a
design
challenge,
because
you
don't
necessarily
want
the
house
that
I
know
there's
really
stringent
requirements
on
what's
wheelchair
accessible
in
terms
of
grade,
and
so
some
of
them
could
be
extending
quite
far
out.
F
So
it's
a.
We
might
need
to
look
a
little
bit
further
about
how
you
do
that
I'm
from
the
easiest
one.
To
probably
do
it
is
the
porch
I've
seen
cases
where
the
the
ramp
up
is
disguised
along
the
whole
Frontage,
and
so
it
has
a
real
good.
It
has
almost
exact
same
relationship
as
this,
but
the
ramp
is
tucked
in
and
goes
sideways.
It's
a
little
bit
harder
to
do
it
on
some
of
these
other
ones,
particularly
if
the
building
the
first
floor
elevation
is
raised.
F
B
D
D
If
I
ever
have
enough
money
and
I
have
the
design
in
my
head,
and
it
would
need
to
be
in
addition
to
that
12
feet
so,
but
anyways
I
think
if
I
think
it
absolutely
should
be
a
part
of
all
the
entry
features
or
allowed,
but
I
don't
think
that
it
should.
It
should
be
in
addition
to
whatever
dimensional
restrictions
we
have
on
here.
B
K
F
The
one
concern
we
would
have
is
I
know,
especially
if
everyone's
thinking
about
linearly
coming
out,
sometimes
those
ramps,
depending
on
how
much
they're
going
up
need
to
go
out
a
long
way,
and
so
they
can
have
a
little
bit
of
an
awkward
relationship
to
the
streetscape
and
appearance,
but
there's
plenty
of
options
where
they're
designed
really
well
and
a
major
contributor
to
the
front
entry
feature
as
well.
So
we'll
take
a
little
bit
closer
look
at
that.
F
The
last
element
is
Open
Spaces.
This
is
a
graphic
from
last
time,
because
you
know
it's.
The
idea
of
space
is
at
a
larger
scale.
Public
spaces
block
scale,
then
down
to
the
building
and
site,
and
so
in
the
bigger
schema
thing.
We're
planning
for
all
of
these
spaces
to
be
linked
and
active.
So
it's
a
scales
and
and
networks
of
spaces.
F
F
The
one
thing
I
would
point
out
is
that
that
we
did
put
a
limit
on
how
much
of
the
either
on
building
spaces,
private,
balconies
or
patios,
or
the
structured,
uncover
spaces
decks
and
patios
could
count
towards
it.
But
the
entry
features
per
the
earlier
comment.
Those
can
be
covered
in
in
crochet
into
the
front
setback.
All
of
your
Frontage
landscape
should
count
unless
it's
driveway
access
so
very
similar
to
your
current
standard.
B
D
D
F
A
good
observation,
the
one
thing
and,
and
so
that
gets
to
the
the
you
know
what
is
the
intent
of
the
open
space
requirement?
Is
it
to
and
it,
and
it
could
be
a
couple
of
things
we're
we're
suggesting
that
we
want
to
shift
this
more
to
to
active
social
usable
space
and,
under
that
vein,
yeah
the
Gazebo
might
count.
F
There
is
still
a
part
of
this.
That's
trying
to
deal
with
the
the
massing
and
and
three-dimensional
occupation
of
your
lot
too,
and
so
the
the
Gazebo
would
impact
that
and
then
speaking
from
experience
in
one
of
our
on-call
job
clients
that
runs
into
that
issue
all
the
time
there
is
a
slippery
slope
argument
there
too,
like
what's
a
gazebo,
how
you
know
I
we're
all
envisioning,
exactly
what
you're
said.
F
You
know
we
can
see
the
even
maybe
the
hexagonal,
gazebo
and
but
there's
certainly
lots
of
iterations
of
that
that
when
there's
a
structure
over
it
in
the
rear,
we
we
might
want
to
be
cautious
of
that.
But
again,
I'm
I'm,
not
disagreeing
with
the
concept
of
you
know.
Should
we
be
open
to
those
ideas,
because
it
certainly
follows
a
similar
principle
to
the
types
we're
listing
here.
F
We
think
they're
fairly
simple
options
and,
and
they
are
options
each
each
one
of
those
standards
has
a
several
different
variations
that
could
meet
the
requirements,
and
so
we
went
through
the
exercise
of
sketching
them
out
on
some
typical
buildings,
and
this
is
one
of
those
sketches
of
what
can
be
done,
even
if
you
don't
alter
the
the
building
scale
or
mass,
and
so
the
first
thing
we
did
was
on
this
particular
one
was:
if
we
limited
that
driveway
and
curb
cut
what
would
it
do
to
this
building?
This
is
an
alley
access
building.
F
Thirdly,
using
putting
the
entry
features
on
whether
it's
a
courtyard
approach
between
the
the
buildings,
that's
an
entry
feature
or
some
type
of
stoop
that
accesses
even
side
entry
to
the
to
the
side
of
the
building,
and
then
the
landscape
area
in
front
used
for
more
either
aesthetic
or
social
space,
and
then
the
third.
The
last
element
coming
in
is
more
opportunities
for
improved
streetscape.
Have
we
taken
that
same
exact
building
project
and
at
least
improved
it,
as
in
its
relationship
to
the
neighbors?
F
F
I
had
two
more
items
to
cover
and
then
kind
of
just
turn
it
over
to
open
discussion.
The
last
two
are
essentially
the
attainable
housing
guidelines.
So
again,
we're
we've
heard
a
lot
of
this
throughout
and
we're
we're
in
the
process
of
coordinating
with
root
policy.
That's
looking
at
inglewood's
affordability,
issue
issues.
F
The
concept
we
started
with
was:
let's
set
tiers
of
affordability,
so
that
first
table
is
that
idea
and
it's
based
on
one.
What
is
your
price
point
based
on
area
median?
It
excuse
me
area
median
income
and
then
two
how
much
of
each
housing
type
are
you
providing,
and
so
our
first
tier
was
well.
We
want
to
at
least
10
percent,
that's
below
60,
Ami
or
15
a
greater
percentage
if
you're
in
that
upper
tier.
F
So
again,
the
idea
of
trying
to
get
different
price
points
through
a
variety
of
projects,
so
the
tier
one
is
just
a
project.
That's
going
to
give
you
one
or
the
other
tier
two
would
be
a
project
that
begins
to
give
you
some
of
both
within
the
project
and
again,
the
idea
is
over
time
the
more
projects
you
have
doing
either
of
these
the
more
options
you're
going
to
have
over
time
and
then
tier
three
was
the
one
where
we
said.
Well,
let's
mix
in
that.
F
But
at
least
those
tier
ideas
are
are
closed,
particularly
for
tier
one,
and
two
tier
three
might
only
be
larger
scale,
neighborhood
projects
that
can
achieve
that.
It
wouldn't
be
a
a
single
development
project
that
could
usually
achieve
that.
So
then
the
bottom
table
is
well.
What
do
you
get
in
exchange
for
doing
that?
F
So
we
went
through
and
all
of
these
will
need
to
be
tied
specifically
to
whatever
housing
policy
goal
comes
out
of
council
and
it
will
need
to
be
tied
to
specific
benchmarks
of
how
do
you
achieve
each
of
these,
but
the
essential
ideas,
let's
give
additional
height
or
parking
reductions
in
exchange
for
affordable
housing.
So
this
was
where
we
took
advantage
of
the
the
32
foot
height
limit,
that's
in
throughout
almost
all
of
the
districts.
B
H
F
Yes,
they're,
looking
at
both
of
those
aspects,
one
of
the
things
we
discussed
was:
should
this
only
be
offered
in
transit
served
areas,
particularly
if
one
of
the
larger
carrots
is
the
parking
reduction
requirement,
because
why
else
will
we
be
giving
a
parking
reduction
unless
we
weren't
getting
people
that
were
able
to
have
Mobility
options
through
Transit?
That's
kind
of
up
in
the
air
I
think
root
was
thinking
that
well
we
we
don't
necessarily
want
to
limit
affordability
to
only
Transit
served
areas,
but
I
think
your
question
was
maybe
the
opposite.
F
We
don't
want
to
turn
our
Transit
served
areas
into
the
well.
We
don't
want
that
type
of
housing
there.
That's
our
best
areas,
I
think
we're
leaning
a
little
more
towards
the
first
part
and
in
fact
one
of
the
things
they
recommended.
We
do
was
the
these
parking
reduction
rates,
and
again
these
are
all
still
very
conceptual,
as
the
right
side
of
the
screen
is
is
mentioning.
But
that
being
said,
these
rates
here
were
our
Tran.
F
Our
potential
Transit
reduced
rate
for
all
parking
and
their
recommendation
was
this
needs
to
be
the
reduced
rate
for
affordable
housing
options.
In
the
trans
and
served
area,
because
it's
such
an
attractive
option
and
it's
starting
to
match
right
up
with
rtds
requirements
and
so
for
the
non-affordable,
the
part,
the
transit
parking
reduction
isn't
quite
as
great,
and
that
was
because
they
felt
this
was
going
to
be
one
of
the
largest
carrots
there.
And
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
do
that
in
in
only
the
transit
served
areas.
H
Yeah
I
would
I
would
encourage
us
to
try
and
find
spots
that
aren't
just
Transit.
Maybe
it's
just
the
development
bonus
part
of
it.
Maybe
it's
a
different
level
on
the
parking
reduction
just
because
I
think
there
are
other
opportunities
for
people
to
go
to
downtown
one
car
or
or
no
car
that
don't
always
rely
on
Transit.
F
B
A
I
I
am
glad
we're
looking
at
this
I'm
wondering
in
terms
of
like
kind
of
the
targets.
I
guess
that
we're
working
on
with
with
root
is
this
includes
I'm,
trying
to
think
of
if
you're
meeting
this
and
you're
getting
an
extra
story
of
development,
is
it
possible
you're
only
developing
efficiency,
really
small,
tiny
apartments
at
the
below
60
Ami?
Are
you
serving
a
family
that
would
be
at
that
that
level
too
so
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
units
needed
or
the
amount
of
people
needed
would
match
up
with.
F
Yeah
and
I'll
I'll
try
to
find
that
answer,
or
perhaps
the
next
time
we
discuss
this
as
a
group
we
could
get
root
on
because
I
think
that's
a
really
good
question.
It
raises
the
question
to
me
of
I
know:
Ami
is
set
for
different
household
levels,
so
I
I
think
a
we're
likely
to
get
smaller
and
efficiency
units
to
to
hit
this
price
point
anyway.
F
Okay,
the
last
section
is
the
sustainable
site
and
building
guidelines
again
right
now.
This
is
mirroring
the
one
we
talked
about
with
chapter
six
on
the
non-residential,
with
the
exception
that
we
did
add
in
a
you're
all's
Direction,
more
emphasis
on
the
the
water
quality,
the
the
idea
of
quality
quantity
and
and
runoff
rates,
and
the
best
management
practices
that
those
should
also
be
opportunities
to
do
things
that
may
or
not
meet
the
standards
or
things
that
cause
us
to
look
at
the
standards
in
a
different
way.
F
F
F
I
appreciate
everyone's
thoughts
and
discussions
again
those
members
that
aren't
here
tonight
and
are
watching
the
the
video
of
it
we'll
look
forward
to
your
input
and
for
you
all,
as
you
continue
to
think
about
these
issues,
we'll
we'll
be
still
collecting
feedback,
thoughts
and
and
options
and
lots
of
good
thoughts
already
tonight.
So
thank
you.
Everyone.
G
The
only
thing
I
was
going
to
say
is
that
we
also
plan
once
we
get
through
this
initial
draft.
Chris
and
I
have
been
talking
about
doing
kind
of
a
a
big
recap
on
these
big
picture
items,
and
you
know
kind
of
how
we've
gotten
to
where
we
are
and
what's
changed
and
how
the
group
has
been
able
to
influence
some
of
the
the
recommendation
that'll
be
going
forward
so
just
know
that
there's
still
going
to
be
some
more
work.
This
isn't
the
end
of
it
all.
G
F
I'll
just
kind
of
elaborate
on
on
where
that
issue
came
up,
and
maybe
someone
on
staff
can
say
where
that
information
would
go.
But
essentially
we
started
talking
about
it
in
terms
of
adus
and
additional
units
and
whether
there
was
any
utility
issues
and
that
then
escalated
into
the
broader
question
of
well.
F
There
was
a
map
created
to
see
if,
if
there's
an
issue
but
I
think
the
bigger
picture
would
be
yeah
that
if
there
is
or
if
as
development
cursor
becomes
one,
it
would
become
part
of
a
larger
Capital,
Improvement
planning
or
in
the
areas
that
are
deficient.
It
could
be
a
development
code
issue
because
we
do
have
in
there
that
one
of
the
criteria
area
for
planning
and
Redevelopment
is
existing
infrastructure
capacity.
J
F
F
So
that's
the
only
real
development
code
issue
that
I
think
would
be
brought
up.
I
I
am
recalling
that
conversation
we
had
originally
so
I
might
be
missing
something
there,
but
other
than
that.
We're
typically
deferring
to
that
as
a
building
code
issue.
There
would
be
nothing
in
our
code
that
would
prohibit
you
from
doing
that.
It
doesn't
necessarily
encourage
it.
Neither
or
but
you
know
the
fact
that
you're
going
to
hit
more
standards,
the
more
you
go
up.
I
could
see
it
pushing
towards
more
of
those
options.
J
Yeah,
it's
been
a
while,
but
I
remember
the
the
conversation
being
that,
if
you,
you
know,
put
some
of
your
square
footage
in
the
basement
that
there
would
be
some
trade-offs.
You
know
in
terms
of
and
I,
don't
actually
I
think
we
were
talking
about
law
coverage
way
back
then
I
don't
know
if
that's
really
relevant
to
that
conversation,
but
things
that
would
yeah
incentivize
people
to
to
build
shorter
but
still
get
that
square
footage
so
that
they,
you
know
are
are
selling
it.
What
will
make
what
will
make
money.
F
Right
and
and
I
do
think
one
of
the
things
I
also
recall
with
that
conversation
was
it.
There
was
something
to
do
with
the
secondary
units
as
well
as
they
they
might
have
been
prohibited
in
in
that
basement,
space,
which
again
this
code,
wouldn't
necessarily
be
doing
that
either
way
it
would
be
deferring
to
the
building
code
on
that,
but
we
can
flag
that
and
and
get
with
staff
and
recall
that
conversation.
J
And
then
attached
versus
detached
accessory
dwelling
units
which
might
be
larger
than
right
now,
but
because
in
all
the
tables
that
that
you
put
up
I
I,
read
it
as
detached
accessory
dwelling
units
and
I.
Don't
know
if
that
plays
into
what
we're
doing
here
or
if
it
could,
but
maybe
shouldn't
or
where.
F
F
No,
so
that's
a
good
if
you
had
chapter
four,
it
would
have
been
able
to
answer
your
question
so
chapter
four
has
the
accessory
use
standards,
and
so
there's
10
things
that
we're
looking
at
that
you
currently
have
them
in
there
now
and
we're
rolling
them
in
and
one
of
the
things
is,
it
does
say
that
the
accessory
dwelling
can
be
either
an
attached
or
detached
structure.
Now
the
issue
is:
if
it's
attached,
it's
going
to
need
to
meet
all
the
principal
building
standards
as
well.
It's
not
additional
things.