►
From YouTube: June 22, 2022 UDC Steering Committee Meeting
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/140154?handle=4A067702FE2A47FDA555B1A11E6F21E8
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/140153?handle=8A2AC5156B42413391F7E5B8B4D0B548
2. Unified Development Code Discussion
3. Adjourn
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/140154?handle=4A067702FE2A47FDA555B1A11E6F21E8
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/140153?handle=8A2AC5156B42413391F7E5B8B4D0B548
A
B
B
A
A
B
So
welcome
to
the
june
21st
udc
steering
committee
meeting,
we've
got
a
very
exciting
topic
today:
kind
of
our
our
consultants,
chris
brewster's,
here,
to
go
through
essentially
starting
to
lay
out
the
framework.
So
if
you
think
that
think
about
to
me
it's
kind
of
like
the
table
of
contents
of
what
our
code
is
going
to
look
like
so
without
further
ado
I'll,
let
chris
kind
of
dig
into
the
meat
of
this
one.
C
C
We
want
it
to
really
become
a
good
decision-making
tool,
something
that's
a
little
bit
more
user-friendly
for
the
people
that
encounter
the
code
so
sometimes
spending
a
lot
of
time
on
the
table
of
contents
and
organizational
structure
may
seem
a
little
bit
overkill.
But
we
do
view
it
as
one
of
the
most
important
steps
in
the
project.
So
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
and
run
through
a
little
bit
of
a
presentation.
C
That'll
give
you
guys
a
essentially
really
a
sneak
peek
into
the
the
nuts
and
bolts
of
what
we're
working
on
and
I'm
going
to
tie
it
back
to
the
topics
we've
discussed
as
a
you
as
a
committee
and
then
through
our
public
engagement
as
well.
So
you
can
begin
to
see
how
some
of
that
discussion
is
at
least
influencing,
even
our
our
framework
of
the
code
of
how
we're
putting
things
together.
C
So
essentially,
this
is
our
overall
scope
and
schedule
and,
as
you
can
see,
we're
kind
of
right
right
here
or
framework
is,
which
is
why
tonight's
topic
is
framework.
But
this
is
the
schedule
we've
been
working
on.
Basically,
since
we
set
up
that
engagement
strategy,
and
this
step
is
really
launching
us
into
doing
an
initial
drafts
of
the
code
over
the
summer
months,
we've
already
started
some
of
those
initial
drafts
of
some
of
the
more
routine
sections
and
things
like
that,
but
we'll
start
getting
into
hanging
meat
on
this
framework.
C
From
from
all
the
discussions
we've
had
with
you
all
and
through
the
public
engagement
over
over
the
rest
of
the
summer
months.
Just
as
a
quick
reminder,
we,
these
aren't
all
the
topics
you
all
have
discussed
and
they
certainly
aren't
all
the
topics
we'll
be
working
on
the
code.
But
these
are
the
main
focus
points
going
way
back
to
your
code
assessment
in
2020.
Before
we
were
even
involved.
C
What
we're
really
doing
is
kind
of
bridging
from
plans
and
policies
into
the
types
of
things
we're
going
to
regulate.
So
we
won't
be
regulating
everything
that
we've
talked
about.
We
won't
regulate
everything
in
your
plans,
but
we
want
to
be
making
sure
the
regulations
are
emphasizing
the
most
important
aspects
of
all
of
these
topics,
not
becoming
barriers
to
things
that
we
might
not
regulate,
but
we
want
to
allow
permit
and
enable
and,
lastly,
making
it
a
good
decision-making
tool.
So
all
of
those
things
can
be
contributing
to
to
meeting
the
community's
goals.
C
That's
the
part,
that's
being
sort
of
tagged
on
through
a
separate
scope
that
goes
well
beyond
regulations
and
into
policies
and
programs,
and
things
like
that,
but
we
do
want
to
make
sure
that
the
development
code
is
at
least
improving
or
conceptually
improving
the
idea
that
we'll
have
more
affordable
and
attainable
housing.
As
a
result
of
some
of
these
efforts,
we
don't.
We
always
are
cautious
that
we
don't
often
regulate
those
things
into
existence.
But
again
it's
one
of
those
things.
C
We
don't
want
the
code
to
be
a
barrier
and
we
want
to
be
monitoring
and
assessing
how
adding
new
housing
options
for
all
of
the
other
reasons
that
your
planning
policies
want
you
to
add
housing
options.
What
will
that
do
to
the
idea
of
affordability
and
attainability
simply
by
having
more
options
in
your
community?
C
So
with
that?
This
is
the
beginning
of
the
framework.
So
the
left
is
the
existing
code,
which,
if
you,
if
you
didn't
know
it's
in
title,
16
of
the
city-wide,
the
municipal
code
in
englewood
development
code.
These
are
the
main
chapters
and
headings
and
it's
pretty
typical
code.
Nothing
super
unusual.
We're
used
to
seeing
codes
organized
like
this,
and
it's
actually
you'll
see
as
we
go
through
the
new
frameworks,
not
that
much
different.
It's
it's
fairly,
well
organized,
but
we're
just
I'm
just
going
to
walk
you
through.
C
First,
at
a
high
level
where
we
see
things,
see
things
landing
under
the
new
code.
So
the
first
group
of
things
are
things
that
we're
going
to
reorganize
and
improve.
So
we
might
not
be
making
big
substantive
changes
to
these
sections,
but
we
might
be
improving
how
they're
either
presented
and
read
and
make
again
making
it
a
more
user-friendly
code,
maybe
converting
things
from
less
words
to
more
tables.
The
procedures
is
a
good
example
of
that,
but
then
we
may
be
fixing
things
that
you
know.
Staff
has
been
having
problems
with.
C
You
know
the
nuts
and
bolts
and
technical
aspects
of
the
code,
but
essentially
these
are
the
things
they're
going
to
carry
over
one
for
one
into
the
new
code
for
the
most
part,
but
not
that
we're
not
going
to
change
anything
but
there's
just
nothing.
That's
really
large
and
substantive,
going
on
within
those.
So
the
organization
framework
is
pretty
much
the
same
for
these.
C
They
may
just
find
themselves
in
a
different
place
of
the
in
the
code,
because
we
want
to
put
more
emphasis
on
a
certain
subject
or
more
continuity
in
the
way
topics
are
presented
and
organized
in
the
big
picture
scheme
of
the
code.
So
things
like
the
flood,
plain
regulations
and
telecommunications
we'll
kind
of
put
later
in
the
chapters,
because
they're
more
stand-alone
topics
not
encountered
that
frequently
and
they
sort
of
interrupt
the
flow
of
looking
at
a
development
project
which
might
track
you
through
these
other
chapters.
C
Here,
in
a
more
a
more
coherent
and
chronological
way
of
looking
at
what
types
of
things
you
need
to
know
about
the
regulations
and
when,
depending
on
where
you're
at
in
a
project,
the
next
set
of
topics
are
things
that
we
think
are
gonna,
we're
gonna
incorporate
and
consolidate.
So
we
might
be
either
putting
them
in
a
different
organization,
structure
or
or
compressing
them
into
fewer
standards,
because
there
might
be
standards
in
two
different
places,
an
easy
one
for
that,
the
non-conformities
enforcement
and
penalties.
C
Those
are
more
nuts
and
bolts
type.
Things
of
how
the
code
works,
so
we're
going
to
try
to
put
them
up
into
a
subsection
of
the
general
provisions,
rather
than
have
them
be
a
stand-alone
chapter
and
command
a
whole
topic
on
their
own.
We
think
that
will
work
pretty.
Well,
though.
Essentially,
what
we're
doing
is
the
longer
those
subsections
become.
Then
that
tells
us
well
maybe
they
need
to
be
broken
off
into
a
chapter,
so
we're
keeping
the
you
know
the
flow
of
the
code
together
on.
C
I
guess
one
of
the
things
I
should
have
said
from
the
start.
Each
of
these
chapters
under
the
framework
we
already
have
a
large
set
of
sections
sub-sections
and
then
sub-sub-sections,
and
it's
again
that
idea
of
trying
to
keep
the
topics
really
well
organized
trying
to
not
say
things
twice
when
we
don't
need
to
and
and
and
keep
the
code
fairly
concise.
So
that's
an
example
of
that.
C
The
other
thing
that
we're
attempting
to
do
is
taking
this
the
chapter
of
the
zoning
districts
and
the
use,
regulations
and
merging
that
into
one
chapter
that
talks
about
zoning
districts
and
uses,
and
our
reasoning
for
that
is.
We
do
think
these
following
chapters
on
the
on
the
physical
development
form
and
design
are
going
to
really
be
emphasized
heavily,
and
so
the
idea
of
treating
this
chapter
as
the
the
kind
of
the
puzzle
pieces
where
are
districts
placed
and
located
what
uses?
C
The
next
set
of
things
are
things
that
we
want
to
refine
or
expand
upon
so
current
you'll
notice.
Currently,
there
isn't
a
chapter
that
corresponds
with
six
five
and
six,
so
we're
actually
taking
some
of
the
more
physical
development,
oriented
and
design
oriented
things
out
of
these
two
standards
and
making
them
each
a
standalone
chapter
for
residential
and
non-residential
development.
C
But
we
will
organize
those
under
chapter
six
for
the
things
that
are
non-neighborhood
oriented
essentially
and
then
the
last
part
of
the
framework
is
the
things
we
want
to
separate
out
into
their
own
topic,
because
we
want
to
focus
on
them.
Not,
I
guess
I
shouldn't
say
we
want
to
focus
on
them
essentially
like,
for
example,
signs
it's
not
something.
We
typically
like
to
focus
on
it's
a
necessary
evil
and
development
codes,
they're,
they're
kind
of
tricky
parts
of
the
regulations
and
no
one
gets
super
excited
about
sign
standards.
C
But
we
do
think
it's
it's
an
example
of
one
of
those
things.
It's
it's
a
long
section
in
the
development
standards
it
kind
of
interrupts
the
flow,
so
breaking
them
out
into
their
standalone
topics
is,
is
important.
These
other
ones
access
and
parking
and
landscape
design
are
are
good
examples
of
us
wanting
to
break
it
out
so
that
we
can
emphasize
some
of
the
key
things.
We've
talked
about
and
I'll
go
into
that
in
a
moment
too
or
I'll.
C
Give
you
a
little
bit
more
flavor
of
how
those
five
main
topics
are
influencing
these
sections
as
well,
and
then
historic
preservation
as
well.
That's
it's
currently
found
in
a
couple
different
sections
of
the
code.
It's
not
organized
under
its
own
topic,
so
we
know
it's
been
a
topic
that's
discussed
in
the
community.
C
We
know
we
aren't
going
to
get
all
the
way
to
the
final
solution
of
how
you
want
to
address
historic
preservation,
but
it
it's
something
we
often
see
as
a
standalone
chapter
and-
and
we
thought
it's
probably
appropriate
for
this
code
as
well
to
let
you
build
on
it
through
the
future,
so
the
next
set
of
slides.
I
did
want
to
go
through
each
of
the
topics.
C
C
C
Similarly,
in
the
landscape,
design,
landscape
requirements
for
a
development
site
will
be
laid
out
into
different
components
of
the
site,
one
of
which
might
be
the
streetscape
landscape
which
which
in
some
cases
should
and
could
contribute
to
your
landscape
requirements
so
that
it's
really
tying
those
sites
together.
So
that's
it
go
ahead,
christine
with
your
question.
A
C
Sure,
yes,
that's
a
good
reminder
and-
and
we
we
have
that
ingrained
in
how
we
think
about
streets,
but
I
understand
your
point
to
emphasize
it,
because
not
everyone
listening
to
us
may
so
I'll
we'll
do
it
we'll
make
that
change
in
this
presentation
as
well
before
we
resend
it
to
you
all.
So
that's
a
good
point.
Thank
you.
C
Okay,
the
next
one
is
walkability
and
parking,
and
actually
one
of
that
does
remind
me
that
the
title
seems
a
little
clunky
and
strange
now,
especially
after
that.
Just
after
that
comment,
but
one
of
the
reasons
we
have
it
labeled.
That
way.
If
you
recall
back
when
we
took
the
code
assessment
and
verified
what
the
topics
were,
that
code
assessment
had
walkability
as
a
key
topic.
C
It
also
it
had
parking
as
a
key
topic
as
well,
and
what
we
did
was
we
said:
well,
there's
a
walkability
component
to
streets.
So
let's
marry
part
of
that
conversation
to
streets
and
street
design,
there's
also
a
walkability
component
to
how
you
think
of
sites
integrating
with
site
development,
integrating
with
your
street
systems
and
how
they're
becoming
accessible
and
how
they're,
integrating
with
the
different
transportation
options
you
are.
You
have
so
we
tied
a
lot
of
the
parking
themes
about
maybe
reducing
parking
or
doing
things
that
help
us
bring
down.
C
We
can't
do
that
if
we
have
huge
large
parking
fields
for
every
building,
so
that's
just
kind
of
an
aside
as
to
how
those
topics
evolve,
but
and
and
why
we
have
walkability
paired
with
parking.
In
contrast
to
that
previous
slide
as
well.
So
as
we
break
break
parking
out
into
its
own
chapter,
there's
you
can
see
where
I'm
highlighting
section
subsections,
four,
five
and
six
so
there's
a
couple
other
sections
in
front
of
this,
that
is
talking
about
site
access
and
parking
and
coordinating
with
those
streetscapes
and
streets.
C
C
We
want
you
to
do
one
of
two
things,
or
maybe
both
mitigate
that
or
prove
that
you
really
need
that
much
parking,
but
that
idea
of
too
much
can
be
as
big
a
problem
as
too
little,
but
then
also
the
idea
of
not
a
strong
theme
that
we
heard
both
in
the
public
comment
comments
from
you
all
make
sure
those
strategies
are
context
based.
So
in
our
transit
served
areas,
we
want
to
be
more
aggressive
in
our
areas
that
don't
have
access
to
transit
and
aren't
as
multimodal
in
terms
of
walkability
and
bikeability.
C
C
But
that's
just
an
example
of
we
know,
there's
differing
opinions
on
how
big
a
parking
problem
is.
But
one
thing
we
heard
loud
and
clear
was
all
these
new
ideas
for
development
are
great
as
long
as
the
parking
issue
is
solved.
What
it
means
to
solve
that
will
might
be
a
different
question
and
it
might
be
a
different
question
depending
on
what
part
of
the
community
you're
in
another
correlating
part
of
that
is.
The
landscape
standards
will
have
a
large
coordinating
component
with
parking
design.
C
C
C
It
could
be
one
of
them,
although
we
put
it
down
at
the
site
level
scale
because
that's
usually
where
we
catch
it,
but
problems
that
are
better
solved
by
more
properties,
contributing
rather
than
less
when
we
can
have
a
bigger
sustainable
impact,
so
mainly
storm
water
and
how
we
treat
landscape
design
and
then,
lastly,
at
the
site,
scale
making
sure
the
parking
landscape
standards
making
sure
anything
we're
doing
isn't
hampering
people's
efforts
at
renewable
energy.
We've
talked
a
lot
about
solar
access.
We've
talked
a
lot
about.
C
You
know:
how
do
we
deal
with
landscape
standards
competing
against
possibly
renewable
energy
standards?
So
we're
going
to
want
to
have
flexibility
in
that
regard
on
all
of
our
standards,
but
there
are
some
things
that
we're
going
to
be
paying
closer
attention
to
and
trying
to
emphasize
at
the
site
scale.
Some
of
those
may
end
up
getting
into
either
intent
statements
or
design
objectives.
C
So
one
of
the
things
the
code
is
building
for
is
we
want
to
have
a
little
bit
more
flexibility.
We
want
to
be
doing
things
a
little
bit
more
based
on
context
and
so
having
those
decision
making
triggers
in
there.
So
a
lot
of
the
sustainability
things
will
be
more
of
design
objectives
or
criteria
that
could
then
set
you
up
for
getting
a
an
easier
path
to
doing
something.
That's
maybe
not
clearly
regulated
in
the
code
or
maybe
something
that's
an
alternative
to
what
the
standards
would
have
otherwise
required.
C
So
we
expect
to
possibly
run
into
that
issue.
As
we
start
drafting
and
then
the
last
aspect
that
we've
talked
about
is
there's
a
number
of
things.
Our
code
won't
do
that'll,
be
coordinating
with
other
efforts
of
the
city
for
sustainability,
so
there's
a
lot
of
policies
towards
recycling
and
energy
use
and
things
like
that
and
then
obviously
monitoring
the
building
code
updates.
We
have
the
building
official
present
to
us.
B
C
C
Yes,
that
will
be
where
it
will
be
addressed.
That's
one
of
those
things
where
it's
difficult
to
regulate
on
a
site-by-site
basis,
because
there
are
some
potentially
competing,
or
at
least
maybe
mutually
supportive,
maybe
competing
interests,
and
it's
difficult
to
tell
on
a
site
by
side
of
what
you
do.
C
One
of
the
things
we
know
we
don't
want
to
do,
or
we
wouldn't
advise-
is
saying
that
solar
access
landscape,
for
example,
because
there's
plenty
of
evidence
that
a
well-shaded
site
can
have
a
far
better
impact
than
one
with
no
shade
at
all,
but
grabbing
solar
energy.
So
we
wouldn't
want
to
do
that
and
say
one's
right
or
wrong.
C
In
every
case,
however,
we
do
know
solar
access
is
an
issue
and
the
more
and
more
people
invest
in
solar
the
more
we
want
to
respect
that
investment
and
make
sure
we're
not
doing
things
that
unnecessarily
compromise,
that
or
or
even
doing
things
that
outright
undermine
that.
So
but
that's
a
long-winded
answer
to
your
question,
but
yes
at
the
site
scale,
that's
where
we
will
be
addressing
it.
E
E
C
Oh,
I
did
want
to
mention
so
I
mentioned
in
parking
design.
I
would
talk
about
it.
So
one
of
the
things
we
know
the
ev
being
ev
ready
and
having
parking
requirements
for
a
certain
number
of
ev
spaces.
I
think
that's
a
direction.
A
lot
of
communities
are
heading.
You
know
we're
going
to
work
with
the
technical,
many
on
different
approaches
of
what
that
means,
and
how
many
and
that
kind
of
thing,
but
it
would
be
in
that
parking
design
area
where
we
would
start
to
address,
do
some
areas
need
ev
parking.
C
Is
that
a
an
is
it
an
incentive?
Is
it
a
requirement?
What
are
the
implications
that
from
utilities
and
which
providers
are
are
setting
those
spaces
up
now
and
how
do
we
coordinate
that
from
a
technical
aspect,
but
that's
another
site,
based
example
of
a
sustainability
issue
getting
embedded
in
the
code.
A
Are
there
some
elements
that,
in
order
to
do
at
a
block
scale
or
at
a
larger
scale,
we
would
need
to
have
additional
information
like
to
see
what
would
what
would
be
needed
in
order
to
write
whatever
regulations
are
needed
to
to
get
to
that
goal?
Like
do
you
need
how
much
like,
if
you
are
going
to
be
able
to
do
block,
sale
or
or
large-scale
like
stormwater
management
like
within
tree
wells,
or
something
like?
C
I
think
you
hit
on
a
number
of
things
that
are
all
accurate,
so
the
first
part
of
you
know
will
we
get
to
things
that
maybe
there's
not
a
standard
in
here
now,
but
there's
a
place
holder
for
when
the
conversation
and
policy
has
evolved
to
where
we
we
now
know
the
direction
we're
going.
We
have
a
place
for
it,
so
I
would
expect
some
of
that
will
happen.
C
C
We
don't
know
what
that
design
is,
and
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
regulate
to
that
design,
but
we
would
certainly
want
your
performance
standard
that
has
that
says.
You
know
every
development
site
needs
to
meet,
needs
to
meet
a
runoff
standard
of
x
and
they
need
to
meet
a
water
quality
standard
of
that
runoff
of
y.
We
would
want
a
a
potential
block
scale
solution
to
easily
be
able
to
solve
that
as
well.
C
Yeah,
so
I
think
two
parts
to
your
question:
one,
the
specific
parking
one
and
then
two,
the
other,
the
broader
area,
and
we
a
lot
of
times
we're
mentioning
having
different
standards
for
different
contexts.
Usually
the
way
we
handle.
That
is,
it's
it's
fairly
easy
to
set
the
the
base
standard
where
we
usually
deal
with
things
that
are
based
on
context
is:
do
we
have
credits,
flexibility
or
exceptions
that,
in
certain
cases
we
know
that
base
standard
may
not
be
the
exact
right
standard,
and
so,
let's
consider
other
options.
C
So
when
we
get
into
the
drafting,
you'll
see
that
we
we
have
a
all
one
of
the
reasons
we
break
the
framework
into
these
topics
and
then
even
the
sub
sections.
We
want
all
of
the
sections
to
start
with
either
an
intent.
What
we
call
intent
statements,
things
that
say
what
we
want
the
standard
to
achieve
or
a
design
objective,
something
that
says
our.
We
want
our
outcome
to
be
this
well,
when
the
standards
aren't
leading
to
that
intent
or
that
design
objective.
C
That
tells
us
that
we're
going
to
want
to
consider
other
options
and
the
city's
the
current
code.
Already
has
a
provision
that
says
alternative
compliance,
so
that
does
let
us
take
different
parts
of
the
city
and
make
sure
we're
meeting
the
intent
and
the
objective
of
it
and
it,
but
it
may
be
met
in
different
ways
in
different
parts.
So,
broadly
speaking,
that's
one
of
the
ways
we
will
handle
how
the
standards
can
be
flexible
for
different
parts
of
the
city
to
your
question
on
parking.
C
That's
an
example
of
one
of
the
standards
that
it's
not
too
difficult
to
to
have
a
different
standard
for
each
each
place
so,
for
example,
an
apartment
building.
You
know
your
your
requirement
is
going
to
be
on
a
per
unit
basis
on
a
site.
It's
going
to
be
on
a
per
unit
basis
and
an
adu
is
a
unit,
so
it
only
needs
one
parking
space
under
your
current
code.
We
think
that's,
probably
pretty
appropriate
and
how
do
you
design
and
fit
it
in
a
larger
apartment
building.
C
One
of
the
things
we
might
want
to
add
is
some
more
nuance
to
it,
because
that
you
can
start
to
pin
the
parking
to
the
the
types
of
units,
so
maybe
some
more
nuance
on
the
per
bedroom
rate
of
a
one
bedroom
unit,
a
two
bedroom
unit,
a
three
bedroom
unit
all
have
different
parking
requirements.
So
can
we
have
better
nuance
to
it
to
figure
out?
C
What's
the
right
fit
for
that
particular
apartment
building
or
multi-family
building,
and
then
the
third
layer
would
be
backing
out
to
what
I
said
for
you
know
for
the
context.
Overall,
if
that
parking
unit
is
or
apartment
unit
is
right
at
a
transit
stopper
station,
that
should
immediately
elevate
it
to
one
that
should
get
the
largest
amount
of
credits
for
possibly
not
needing
that
many
parking
spaces,
and
so
we'll
have
decision
making
criteria.
That
would
let
you
you
have
more
flexibility
and
to
back
that
down.
Perhaps.
E
A
C
Just
interrupt
me.
If
you
have
any
so
housing,
housing
mix
and
options,
we
have
a
three.
The
next
three
main
topics
are
all
housing,
with
the
exception
of
the
attainability
one
being
coordinated
with
the
dollar
grant.
First
level
is
mixing
options.
We,
the
committee
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
this,
and
these
are
some
of
the
main
things
we're
gleaning
from
both
the
public
discussion
and
your
discussion
being
more
open
to
adus
in
different
contexts
provided
we've.
C
C
We're
having
discussions
on
how
to
allow
smaller
lots,
not
just
if
they're
existing,
which
you
have
a
lot
of
them
in
that
3000
to
6000
range
but
they're,
simply
grandfathered
in
is
that
a
tool
that
can
allow
us
to
have
more
housing
options
yet
keeping
the
na
the
development
at
a
smaller
neighborhood
scale,
while
still
adding
what
I
would
say
is
valuable
density,
not
density
just
for
the
sake
of
density,
but
density
that
gets
us
more
housing
options.
Density
that
gets
us
more
people
that
can
support
transit
density.
C
That
gets
us
more
people
near
a
walkable
commercial
neighborhood.
So
that
type
of
thing
reducing
the
per
unit,
lot
sizes
for
row,
houses
and
apartments
sounds
a
bit
counter-intuitive,
but
we
do
think
that
could
maybe
bring
down
the
scale
of
some
of
the
the
buildings
as
well
that
are
coming
in,
that
are
more.
C
So
it's
all
right
there.
So
all
of
our
menu
options
from
the
smaller
scale
to
the
larger
scale
will
be
clearly
laid
out
as
what
districts
they
go
into
and
what
we
do
plan
anticipate
anyway,
is
that
most
a
lot
of
the
potential
capacity
may
be
steps
for
future
decisions.
So
if
we
really
improve
these
mur
three
zoning
districts
for
those
larger
scale,
projects
that
are
currently
being
done
through
puds,
those
will
obviously
need
future
rezoning
actions
to
consider
them,
and
so
they
won't
be
they'll,
be
based
more
on
plans
and
policies.
C
But
at
least
we
know
if
we
fix
those
zoning
districts
to
be
really
good
at
the
the
narrow
strategic
areas
where
you
want
higher
density,
we
can
have
better
decision-making
criteria
there.
So
that's
one
of
the
areas
we're
focusing
on
not
just
the
the
single
family
neighborhoods
as
well,
and
then
the
other
area
where
we'll
address
the
housing
is
through
the
subdivision
and
community
design
standards
and
the
planning
process
in
the
procedure.
C
So
we
know
that
I
mentioned
earlier
that
you,
you
guys,
don't
use
the
plating
and
community
design
to
lay
out
large
new
subdivisions
because
you're
largely
built
out,
but
you
have
different
issues
from
procedures
of.
What's
the
easiest
way
to
plan
a
new
project
or
potentially
combine
a
couple
lots
into
a
project
or
split
a
lot
into
one
or
two
projects.
A
C
C
I
said
two
but
there's
three,
the
second
one,
the
second
most
important
one
is
the
streetscape
a
lot
of
those
slot
homes
clearly
look
like
they
just
turned
the
project
sideways
and
there's
a
side
on
the
street,
there's
a
large
driveway
and
garage
on
the
street,
and
so
we
think
we
can
address
that
through
residential
frontage
design
standards
which
will
be
on
the
next
slide.
So
improving
that
you
know,
are
you
a?
C
Are
you
contributing
to
the
character
of
your
community
rather
than
just
taking
from
it,
and
then
the
third
one
is
some
of
those.
There
is
a
sort
of
a
livability
aspect
to
it
too,
are
they
fronting
on
usable,
open
space,
or
are
they
simply
walking
out
into
a
you
know
a
fence
or
alley?
That's
not
the
most.
You
know
livable
thing
and-
and
I
think
those
probably
go
in
in
that
order
of
importance.
C
So
we
we
have
been
discussing
standards
that
would
address
that
and
essentially
what
the
slot
home
is
in
our
mind,
is
it's
either
what
we've
been
calling
a
row
house?
That's
turned
sideways.
It
just
has
a
different
frontage
or
it's
a
multi-unit
building
that
just
has
configured
its
buildings
in
a
way
that
we
couldn't
really
anticipate
in
a
clear
building
type.
D
Chris,
christine
this
is
brooke.
I
I
wanted
to
chime
in
on
this.
We
did
some
work
with
the
planning
commission
on
this
in
2018
and
kind
of
in
a
little
bit
into
19,
and
it
was
a
it
was.
We
made
some
good
headway
on
it,
and
it's
been
a
very
big
issue
in
denver
such
that,
even
though
they
completely
rewrote
their
code
in
2010
by
2017.
D
D
But
what
we
found
was
that
denver
really
did
make
some
good
strides
in
dealing
with
slot
homes,
and
our
code
currently
doesn't
address
it.
But
what
we
were
starting
to
work
on
in
2018
was
very,
very
close
to
denver's
code
and
and-
and
I
think
there
is
a
sort
of
a
home
for
slot
homes
in
our
code
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
work
to
be
done
there.
But
we
were
very
cognizant
of
it
and
spent
a
lot
of
time
last
thursday.
On
that,
so
is
there.
D
E
Yes,
I
have
a
comment
see.
It
goes
back
to
the
solar
access
which,
if
you
use
the
definitions
that
boulder
provided
can
be
accommodate,
can
be
the
standard
for
these
slot
homes.
They
can't
be
so
large
that
they
encumbrance
the
property
next
door
to
it
with
it
with
shade
over
their
garden,
and
they
can't
be
so
tall
that
they
encumbrance
the
roof
with
solar
panels.
E
E
C
F
C
A
So
when
you
think
big
picture
is
that
more
valuable
than
one
house's
solar
panels
to
have
10
families
in
a
lot
and
using
a
lot
less
resources
and
a
lot
less,
you
know
of
a
strain
on
on
our
infrastructure.
So
I
think
those
are
some
of
the
give
and
take
that
we
really
need
to
have
some
discussion
on.
So
we're
not.
You
know
only
thinking
down
one
way
in
terms
of
being
sustainable
and
not
thinking
big
picture
about
what
is
more,
a
better
use
of
you
know,
city
resources
and
more
efficient
overall
for
sustainability.
C
C
So
when
you
do
hit
a
a
sticking
point
of
hey,
there's
two
competing
interests
here.
What
how
do
you
make
a
decision
in
that
situation,
and
so
we
want
the
procedures.
Part
should
should
help.
It
won't
always
answer
the
question.
It
won't
be
an
easy
thing
to
answer,
but
at
least
it
will
bring
up
the
things
that
we're
just
stating
right
now
and
try
to
find
and
be
able
to
try
to
find
that
win-win
solution
as
well,
because
I
think,
in
a
lot
of
these
cases
there
is
a
win-win
solution
out
there.
C
The
other
part
that
we
think
will
be
very
important
to
the
code
is
all
of
these
sections
having
intense
statements
or
design
objectives,
so
that
we
can
start
to
identify
those.
I
keep
going
back
to
with
those
point
those
things
where
we're
going
to
want
to
be
open
to
either
exceptions
or
alternatives.
C
In
the
standards,
but
it's
also
pointing
out
to
where
we
can
solve
two
things
with
one
solution
as
well:
it's
not
always
competing
issues,
but
I
think
both
of
those
things
decision-making
criteria
and
then
the
intent
statements
and
design
objectives
will
help
make
sure
that
all
of
these
ideas
aren't
lost
that
that's
the
biggest
thing
is
we
want.
We
would
want
to
avoid
so,
for
example,
it's
it's
not
we.
C
We
won't
want
the
code
to
be
priority,
prioritizing
slot
homes
and
and
and
making
the
claim
that
like
well,
solar
access
isn't
important,
no
they're,
both
important
and
the
question
will
be.
How
do
our
standards
identify
that
and
and
and
come
up
with
a
set
of
base
standards
that
get
us
to
a
good
balance
and
then
procedures
and
decision-making
criteria
that
let
us
really
reconcile
the
toughest
questions.
C
Any
other
thoughts
or
comments
or
questions
on
on
the
mix.
The
next
slide
is
kind
of
related,
so
it
might
spur
up
some
of
them
and
we've
kind
of
hit
on
a
little
bit
of
that
already.
But
you
know
the
big
part
of
housing
and
infill
is.
We
want
to
preserve
and
protect
neighborhood
character
as
well,
and
so
the
bullet
points
on
the
on
the
left
are
some
of
the
things
we're
going
to
be
doing.
We've
already
kind
of
touched
on.
C
The
idea
of
you
know
lot
coverage
is
a
big
part
of
that,
but,
as
we
get
smaller,
we
know
it's
not
going
to
be
a
one
size
fit
fits
all
on
the
lot
coverage,
so
we're
beginning
to
look
at
how
those
standards
align
up.
We
also
know
that
scale
and
mass
is
is
as
important
or
perhaps
even
more
important
than
lock
covers,
and
so
where,
where
is
the
appropriate
balance
and
trade-off
for
that
in
the
different
zoning
districts?
That's
the
other
part
of
this.
Is
you
know
we?
C
C
You
know
the
city
has
some
standards
that
try
to
deal
with.
You
know
streetscape
or
curb
appeal.
However,
you
want
to
treat
it
or
state
it,
but
the
idea
that
street
design
is
one
of
the
more
important
aspects
of
neighborhood
character
and
the
frontages
of
how
a
building
relates
to
that,
how
its
landscape,
how
the
massing
of
that
building
front
relates
that
street
is
crucially
important
to
lining
up
as
well.
C
It
blends
together
a
lot
of
things
that
erase
sort
of
oh
that's
a
three-story
building
versus
that's
a
two-story
building.
If
the
focus
is
on
how
you
relate
to
the
street,
a
lot
of
those
mixes
can
begin
to
happen,
and
it
we
think
it'll
be
really
important.
Those
districts
the
slot
home
one
is
is
the
perfect
example.
One
of
the
the
first
problems
we
spotted
was
well
that's
because
it's
not
a
front
edge.
C
C
Yes,
it
does
right
now
there's
a
current
standard
which
allows
that,
to
be
an
exception
to
the
lot
coverage
and
to
the
setbacks,
and
so
one
of
the
questions
will
be
should
all
of
the
build.
You
know
all
the
buildings
face
the
street
and
by
facing
the
street,
what
does
that
mean?
It
may
not
always
be
a
front
porch,
but
we're
big
believers
and
there's
entry
features
that
are
single
human
scale.
C
You
know
that
that
that
it's
social
space
and
it's
also
a
one-story
massing
element
on
the
front
of
the
building
kind
of
like
you
see
in
the
in
the
picture,
although
that's
a
fairly
crude
graphic,
and
it's
conceptual
only
so
take
it
for
what
it's
worth,
but
that
three-story
building
having
a
one-story
human-oriented
element
on
it
brings
down
it's
it.
That's
a
really
important
thing
to
bring
down
the
scale
of
that
building
in
that
particular
context
and
can
make
it
relate
to
the
street
better.
C
So
we
are
big
believers
in
that
we're
going
to
try
to
advance
on
that.
You
currently
have
a
few
things
in
the
code
addressing
that
there
are
more
options
than
they
are
requirements,
so
we
do
think
if
we
go
to
a
requirement,
we're
going
to
be
need
to
be
open
to
a
lot
of
different
solutions
than
just
a
porch.
But
the
idea
of
social
space
oriented
to
the
street
and
a
structural
single
story
element
is,
is
really
important
to
the
frontages.
A
C
Yeah,
we
would
probably
categorize
that
more
into
building
massing
as
a
whole,
so
that
problem
usually
comes
in
districts
when
you're
mixing
two
and
three-story
buildings,
or
one
and
three-story
buildings
or
or
the
four
buildings.
So
that's
where
we
would
look
at
it,
so
it
may
not
be
purely
roof
shaped,
but
that's
certainly
a
large
component
of
the
massing
and
so
yeah
we
you're.
C
We
are
looking
at
your
bulk
plane
standards
and
knowing
that's
the
starting
point.
What
nuance
can
we
add
to
that
that
lets
some
of
these
building
types
mix
better
is
one
of
the
things
we're
exploring
and
it
may
mean
additions
to
your
bulk
plane
that
are
that
go
beyond
massive,
because
one
of
the
things
we
pointed
out
about
the
bulk
plane
standards
is.
It
essentially
just
puts
a
big
tent
over
the
property
which
does
solve
one
part
of
massing,
but
it
doesn't
necessarily
require
the
building
to
be
broken
up
into
smaller
masses
itself.
C
And
so
do
we
add
that
element
to
the
massing
standards.
Do
we
look
at
changing
the
bulk
plane
to
do
what
it's
sought
to
achieve
in
a
more
effective
way,
or
is
it
working
pretty
well
and
we
just
need
to
move
on
from
there?
Those
are
all
kind
of
options
that
we're
exploring
as
we
start
to
land
on
some
of
these
coverages
and
setbacks
for
the
different
building
types.
A
Okay,
yep,
that
makes
sense
it
seems
like
developers,
would
would
want
to
do
the
building
type
like
it
shows
really
square
and
blocky,
because
they
could
get
more
units
or
more
square
footage
in
there.
But
it
seems
like
the
neighbors
who
are
looking
at
neighborhood
character
might
like
if
there
was
a
a
a
roof
shape,
that
kind
of
blended
in
a
little
better.
So
it
seems
like
conflict
there,
though
bernie
might
have
some
perspective
on
their
that,
and
he
usually
brings
me
around
to
his
way
of
thinking.
B
B
Then
I
think
that
that
would
help
with
a
lot
of
these
issues,
because
it's
just
that
the
the
finished
square
footage
is
much
more
valuable
to
most
people,
I'm
not
even
talking
from
a
developer
or
builders
perspective,
I'm
just
saying
in
trying
to
maintain
a
home
and
to
deal
with
the
realities
of
some
of
the
lots
that
people
are
given
with.
So
that's
one
thing
I
would
like
to
see
considered.
The
other
is
I,
and
you
know
this
is
this.
B
I
usually
don't
go
this
way,
but
I
do
think
that
the
front
setbacks
on
some
of
the
main
street
and
some
of
the
more
let's
call
it.
You
know
three
four
five
story
developments
they
should
be
looked
at
in
the
context
of
what
they
are,
and
I
do
think
that
in
some
cases
the
setback's
too
too,
too
minimal.
C
Okay,
good
yeah
one
one
of
the
ideas
that
I
think
I
mentioned
earlier
on
the
frontage
type
ideas.
If
we
can
begin
to
package
this,
the
concept
of
a
frontage
as
a
kit
of
parts
of
you
know,
it's
dealing
with
driveway
access,
garage
placement,
front,
building,
design,
front
entry
feature
and
maybe
have
four
different
options
and
and
then
begin
to
identify
which
ones
go
appropriately
and
maybe
not
in
which
zoning
district,
but
on
which
street,
and
so
the
idea
of
a
north
facing
street
needing
a
different
solution.
C
Hadn't
really
even
occurred
to
me
until
you
said
that,
but
it's
certainly
a
way
where
we
can
add
a
context-based
element.
One
of
the
things
we
observed
is
a
lot
of
your
smaller
homes
on
the
side.
Streets
do
have
a
much
tighter
setback
than
is
currently
allowed,
but
they
look
appropriately
scaled
to
that
street,
and
so
it's
a
combination,
I
think,
of
of
building
height
as
well
street,
and
and
but
that
is
one
of
the
examples
where
we
do
want
to
allow
greater
flexibility.
C
You
know
what
criteria
come
from,
that
flexibility
will
be
yet
to
be
determined,
but
the
idea
of
the
the
ability
to
look
at
a
a
a
site
in
context
and
go.
Oh,
this
area
needs.
You
know
if
we
add
a
through
d
frontages.
Well,
these
are
predominantly
c
frontages,
so
the
entire
block
should
be
c
frontages.
D
I
wanted
to
add
one
comment
in
thanks
for
your
comments.
Bernie
and
I
wanted
to
kind
of
chime
in
on
that
and
and
that
is
we
went
through
a
sort
of
a
a
period
of
wanting
to
push
and
we're
still
in
that
period,
but
wanting
to
push
buildings
to
the
street
and
that
was
partially
a
response
to
having
parking
lots
right
off
of
major
streets
and
especially
in
commercial
areas.
D
Forcing
buildings
to
the
street
too
closely
that
we
don't
have
enough
setbacks
in
some
cases,
even
in
an
urban
context,
to
have
a
good
feeling
for
this
sort
of
clearly
public
space,
semi
public
space
and
then
private
space
and
good
landscaping
and
streetscaping
to
go
along
with
all
of
that.
So
I
I
personally
am
very
sensitive
to
that,
and
so
I
think
those
are
points
well
made.
C
Okay,
as
I
mentioned,
that
attainability
one
was
the
last
part
that
we'll
be
rolling
in
that
sixth
criteria
that
we'll
be
rolling
in,
but
essentially
what
we
plan
on
doing
is
bringing
some
of
these
detailed
issues
to
the
technical
committee.
Under
these
four
overarching
themes,
we
haven't
quite
set
up
meetings
and
agendas,
specifically
under
them,
but
our
technical
committee
is
essentially
key
staff.
So
talking
about
things
that
okay
for
housing
options,
you
know,
here's
here's
the
options
we
think
we're
going
to
land
on
what
are
the
practical
and
technical
issues
with
those?
C
C
What
are
the
planning
issues
so
a
lot
of
those
things
that
diff
that
are
going
to
touch
different
departments
that
we
need
to
get
all
of
their
input
to
help
us
build
the
code.
So
a
lot
of
these
main
topics
that
we've
grouped
with
the
technical
committee,
are
going
to
require
that
sort
of
shared
knowledge
to
to
get
us
to
the
right
set
of
standards.
So
we
plan
on
doing
that
june
through
august
and
essentially
that
will
be
building
us
to
the
initial
draft
I'm
going
to
back
up
a
minute.
C
I
did
not
put
that
schedule
slide
in
at
the
end,
but
the
early
on
question
of
will
this
all
be
coming
back
to
us
in
draft
form
of
draft
code.
Yes,
when
you
look
at
the
schedule,
it's
a
pretty
aggressive
schedule,
so
I
was
kind
of
smiling.
I
think
when
that
question
was
there
so
we're
prepared
to
to
move
at
this
pace.
We
think
we
can
do
it
with.
You
know
we
spent
the
reason
we
spend
a
lot
of
time
having
these
discussions
and
dealing
with
the
framework
up
front.
C
Is
it
it's
easier
to
draft
the
code
in
in
short,
focused
spurts
than
it
is
to
drag
it
out,
and
we
think
we
get
better
results,
but
it
does
put
a
premium
on
people's
time.
So
bottom
line
is,
we
think,
we're
prepared
to
meet
the
schedule
if
we
find
that
either
the
technical
committee
or
steering
committee
needs
to
slow
down
we'll
do
that
as
well.
But
you
look
to
be
seeing
some
of
these
things
coming
to
you
in
draft
format.
C
Later
in
later,
in
the
summer
early
in
the
fall
one
of
the
ways
we
present
the
drafts,
we
don't
expect
you
to
to
read
every
single
word.
If
you
want
to.
We
welcome
that
if
you're
one
of
those
people
that's
predisposed
to
it
and
like
doing
that,
we
we
welcome
that.
But
if
you're,
if
you're
sitting
there
saying
oh
my
gosh,
I'm
not
never
going
to
have
the
time
to
read
the
code,
it
will
be
fairly
long,
hopefully
shorter
than
your
current
code.
C
F
C
From
from
my
perspective,
I
think
it
goes
back
to
an
earlier
question
by
I
think
kate
about.
Will
there
be
things
that
we
we
don't
get
everything
we
aren't
ready
to
put
things
in
the
code.
We
need
to
work
on
and
build
it
in.
So
I
think
we
will
hit
a
decision
point
on
some
of
those
where
it's
do.
We
hold
certain
topics
for
future
debate
discussion,
yet
move
ahead
with
the
rest,
or
do
we
slow
down
to
get
it
right
and
then
and
not
meet
that
schedule.
C
B
D
So
I
think,
there's
an
expectation
on
some
level
of
you
know
getting
it
done,
but
at
the
same
time
it
has
been
some.
You
know
different
years
in
terms
of
covet
and
and
these
are
difficult
issues
and
we
want
to
get
them
right
so
so
I
think
we
want
to
get
it
right
and
we
want
to
be
timely
and,
and
so
it'll
take
what
it
will
take.
The
comprehensive
plan
took
longer
than
may
have
been
anticipated,
but
it
got
done
and
it's
been
a
good
document,
so
so
yeah.
D
A
Different
topic:
if
there's
no
more
discussion
on
that
one,
okay,
two
two
things:
I
was
noticing
on
the
sustainability
list
over
to
the
right,
xeric
landscape
and
I
think
a
priority
is
not
just
water,
wise,
but
pollinator
friendly.
That,
I
think,
would
include
some
colorful
plants,
low
water
colorful
plants,
as
opposed
to
some
people.
When
you
hear
xeric
landscape,
you
think
just
plain
rocks,
which
is
not
what
we're
going
for.
A
So
that's,
maybe
a
language
thing
just
to
make
sure
that
that's
in
there
correctly
and
then
my
question,
I
remember
we
talked
about
zoning
districts
and
that
we
had
a
lot
of
them
and
that
you
think
that
the
ones
we
have
are
pretty
good.
My
question
was
on
on
the
industrial
and
manufacturing
warehouse
areas,
because
that
was
left.
C
C
But
we
are
sensitive
to
that
transition
and
though
we
just
haven't
anticipated
doing
too
much
to
the
industrial
districts,
because
we
haven't
heard
that
there's
too
many
things
wrong
with
what
they're
doing
now.
We
do
know
that
there's
been
industrial
transitioning
to
really
puds,
but
but
for
a
large
housing
component
project
but
broker
brian.
You
have
any
other
insights
into
that
issue
politically
or
policy
wise.
D
D
A
Okay,
that
makes
sense
a
couple
follow-on
questions.
So
I
hear
you
that
this
isn't
necessarily
the
right
venue
for
that
discussion,
but
are
you
going
to
have
a
slide
or
a
page
or
something
of
future
considerations
for
city
council
like
things
that
don't
fit
right
in
here,
but
that
came
up
in
the
discussions
for
them
to
consider
and
if
so,
maybe
it
could
be.
One
of
the
bullet
points
on
that
slide
and
then
okay.
So
that
was
a
suggestion,
a
commentary.
A
B
B
So
I
think
the
way
the
system
is
working
right
now
is
probably
one
of
the
better
ways
for
that
to
work.
Whether
you
know
the
comprehensive
plan
is
looking
at
it,
but
the
pud
process
seems
to
be
one
of
the
better
processes,
because,
because
there's
such
a
holistic
look
at
the
project
itself
that
they
can
go
into
all
those
different
nuances
of
the
multimodal
issues
that
we
need
to
address,
as
well
as
some
adjacency
issues,
and
some
of
the
projects
seem
like
they're
parking
issues
and
other
things
are
addressed.
That
way.
A
Okay,
that
makes
sense,
but
some
of
the
big
pud
I
think,
projects
I've
seen,
for
instance,
around
oxford
and
windermere.
I
know
we
don't
need
to
dwell
on
this,
so
I'll
try
to
be
quick.
It
seems
like
they're
working
building
by
building
our
complex
complex,
rather
than
looking
at
a
bike
lane
for
that
whole
block
or
or
a
few
blocks
at
a
time.
So,
if
you're
doing
building
by
building
it
seems
like
a
bike,
lane
would
never
happen
until
it's
too
late.
B
Well,
the
other
part
of
it
when
we
do
these
pd
processes
is
we
have
additional
plans
that
we
work
through,
like
our
walking
wheel,
master
plan
and
other
plans
that
each
development
that
comes
in
gets
to
work
on
kind
of
a
portion
of
that
to
where
we
meet
the
end
goal.
So
we
have
a
goal
in
mind
and
then
each
piece
that
comes
in
gets
to
bring
in
their
their
their
portion
of
those.
So
with
a
lot
of
those
projects,
we
have
a
lot
of
additional
standards
that
they
have
to
meet.
C
We
won't
be
regulating
a
lot
of
those
into
existence
because
you
have
built
out
street
systems,
but
we
still
think
that
street
you
describe
the
one
that
that
shows
how
to
balance
on
street
parking
with
bike
lanes
in
a
very
multi-modal
standpoint
is
a
section
that
needs
to
be
in
there.
It
may
not
be
the
exact
section
that
fits
in
the
context
you're
talking
about,
but
at
least
the
goal
is
captured
and
then,
when
those
puds
that
brian's
talking
about
come
along,
you
have
a
starting
point
to
go.
Okay,
we
need
this.
C
We
need
to
figure
out
how
it
fits
in
here.
What
compromises
we
need
to
meet
from
this
ideal
section
in
this
particular
context,
and
then
the
third
part
that
brian
mentioned.
How
do
we
build
it
over
or
is
this
something
that
needs
to
be
invested
in
now?
Sometimes
it's
even
invested
in
in
advance,
so
there
will
be.
E
E
E
So
all
we
can
do
is
ask
these
developers
for
these
kinds
of
or
have
them
entice
us
with
these
kinds
of
things
like.
Will
you
build
us
a
bike
lane
if
you
build
it
here,
but
that's
only
after
the
city
says
no
and
the
problem,
you
know,
I
don't
know
how
that's
going
to
turn
out.
I
can't
you
know,
discuss
it
too
much
among
that
committee,
but
that
we
do
want
the
city
encourages
it
with
the
master
plan.
E
E
Now,
if
they
come
along
and
say
no,
I
mean
if
the
neighbors
really
don't
want
it
they're
not
likely
to
build
a
bike
lane
out
there
and
then,
of
course,
the
bike
lane
does
fall
after
a
capital
budget
and
the
city
coppers
only
have
so
much
to
build
out,
say
navajo
street
because
that's
a
pretty
narrow
street
and
it's
pretty
pretty
strange
through
there.
But
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
where
this
kind
of
information
happens
and
kind
of
how
peds
come
into
play,
everybody
keep
in
mind.
E
E
I
think
the
price
points
were
around
250
300.,
and
so
we
do
have
some
exciting
things
happen
that
I
think
that
a
lot
of
this
applies
to
and
that
I
don't-
and
I
think
that
you
know
setting
these
guidelines
today-
will
set
some
things
in
stone
for
other
puds
who,
and
maybe
some
neighbors
would
be
more
receptive
to
pd's
in
the
future
along
that
navajo
route.
If
we,
if
we
can
get
the
capital
budget
for
peace
before
widening
that
street.