►
From YouTube: January 12, 2023 UDC Steering Committee Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
C
D
D
E
A
So
you
should
have
all
the
pieces
now
and
so,
if
there's
anything
not
making
sense
to
you,
it's
it's
probably
because
you've
you've
gotten
it
in
so
many
different
chunks
and-
and
we
can
help
you
kind
of
figure
that
out,
but
essentially
it's
chapter
four,
which
is
the
zoning
districts
and
uses
chapter
nine
signs
and
chapter
13
definitions,
chapter
13,
as
I'll
mention
in
a
minute,
is
a
little
bit
in
in
flux.
A
A
The
reason
for
that
is
we
wait
till
all
the
text
kind
of
gets
finalized
before
we
go
back
in
and
figure
out
what
needs
to
be
defined
and
what's
not,
but
we'll
from
that
provision
of
what
you
have
now
we'll
we'll
kind
of
we
call
it
like
a
merge
and
Purge
we
go
through
and
we
see
which
terms
don't
need
to
be
defined,
which
terms
are
no
longer
used
in
the
updated
code
which
new
definitions
we
need
to
add.
So
we
usually
approach
that
at
the
final
draft
once
we
know
everything's
finalized.
So.
C
A
C
C
A
So
this
is
everything
kind
of
in
its
context
of
the
overall
framework,
as
you
can
see
on
the
right,
all
the
the
issues
that
you
all
and
the
technical
committee
addressed
in
detail.
So
these
last
pieces
somewhat
relate
to
those
but
not
directly
they're,
more
of
just
general
updates,
but
we're
going
to
focus
on
some
of
the
ones
tonight
that
particularly
get
to
the
housing
and
neighborhoods
and
then
obviously
the
Zone
districts
and
uses
is
the
the
most
subset
of
these
as
you'll
see
in
a
minute.
A
So
overall
The
Zone
districts
and
uses
really.
We
we
approach
it
with
no
intended
substantive
changes
unless
we're
alerted
to
things
either
from
our
engagement
from
you
all
or
from
staff.
But
we
do
take
a
new
approach
to
the
uses,
particularly
when
we
are
updating
the
code
for
for
greater
design.
So
the
first
thing
we
did
is
we
we
updated
all
the
intent
statements
there
were.
A
Some
of
them
were
not
as
clear
as
maybe
they
needed
to
be
or
didn't
create
as
many
distinctions
between
the
zoning
districts
as
they
needed
to,
and
then
we
did
some
connection
to
the
the
city's
comprehensive
plan
and
updated
policies
just
to
get
a
better
connection
between
the
code
and
plans
and
policies.
So
some
subtle
changes
there
in
the
intent
statements
and
that
will
come
into
play
mainly
if
there's
ever
rezoning,
decisions
to
be
made
and
those
can
be
used
to
kind
of
help
guide
that
make
connections
the
plan.
A
Overall,
the
approach
to
the
use
table
was
to
simplify
and
clear
up
con
conflicts,
or
some
things
that
were
either
redundant
or
uses
could
have
fallen
into
a
couple
different
categories,
or
there
have
been
past
interpretation
issues
that
staff
was
dealing
with.
So
there's
just
a
few
of
those.
The
bigger
thing
we
did
was
generalize,
all
of
the
the
use
of
so
things
that
were
listed
specifically,
but
there
were
no
distinctions
between
where
they
were
enabled,
but
they
were
similar
uses.
A
We
would
combine
those
into
a
category
and
then
we
distinguished
some
uses
where
it
might
just
have
been
enabled.
We
distinguish
it
by
the
scale
and
format
of
those
and
overall,
that's
just
a
because
we're
we
want
to
be
more
flexible
with
uses,
and
this
code
is
suggesting.
Land
use
may
not
be
the
most
important
thing,
we're
regulating
the
scale
form
and
design
is,
and
so
with
that
shift
in
emphasis,
we
feel
we
can
be
more
flexible
with
uses.
A
The
code
really
was
pretty
flexible
to
begin
with,
so
some
of
those
changes
are
fairly
subtle.
I'll
explain
those
in
a
minute
too,
and
then
we
support
that
and
back
that
up
with
specific
use
standards
so
some
uses.
We
may
know
that
hey
the
general
development
standards
or
the
general
design
standards
may
not
be
enough.
Here's
a
list
of
things
that
we
always
run
into
with
this
particular
use
that
we
want
to
address,
and
so
those
are
listed
there.
We
personally
don't
go
hunting
for
those
types
of
things.
A
So
a
lot
of
those
are
things
you're
already
regulating.
We
just
kind
of
cleared
them
up
and
coordinated,
but
there
are
a
few
of
them
that
we
added
in
that
I'll
mention
as
well.
Overall,
just
coordination
with
the
chapter
five
and
six,
since
we
did
shift
a
lot
of
the
development
and
design
standards
to
that,
and
then
we're
also
going
to
talk
about
a
couple
of
specific
housing
issues
that
I
mentioned
so
a
slightly
different
and
expanded
approach
to
Manufactured
Homes.
A
We
currently
have
a
manufactured
home
standards,
but
we're
shifting
that
to
kind
of
broaden
the
applicability
based
on
your
housing
policies
and
then
the
Adu
requirements.
A
lot
of
that
was
discussed
with
our
neighborhood
design
when
we're
talking
about
the
buildings
themselves,
but
when
we
enable
that
use
as
an
accessory
use,
you
have
a
you
currently
have
a
list
of
existing
prerequisites
that
those
uses
have
to
meet
and
so
we'll
cover
those
too.
A
So
this
is
kind
of
what
I
explained
in
detail
on
that
last
slide.
This
is
sort
of
it
as
an
example
regulating
we're
regulating
in
three
main
areas,
use
form
and
design
and
because
in
chapter
five
and
six
we
we
strengthened
and
maybe
emphasized
some
of
the
things
you
were
already
regulating
to
begin
with.
A
Or
made
things
that
were
suggested
more
requirements
on
the
form
and
design
side
that
enables
us
to,
on
the
the
use
side
to
be
a
little
more
lenient,
allow
more
things
to
mix,
and
so
that
two-dimensional
map
isn't
quite
as
important,
although
it
is
still
important,
but
we're
Shifting
the
emphasis
more
to
the
right
of
this
screen
than
than
to
the
left.
A
So
again
we
we
retained
all
of
the
existing
zoning
districts.
There
was
some
discussion
of
do
we
need
to
merge
and
and
consolidate
and
and
that
could
be
warranted,
but
we
found,
since
these
things
are
already
mapped,
and
some
of
the
distinctions
were
helpful
as
we
considered
what
to
place
where
we
we
did
retain
all
of
the
existing
districts
and
didn't
merge
them.
A
Some
of
them
are
actually
getting
a
little
bit
closer
to
the
same
than
they
they
had
been,
particularly
in
the
mixed
use
categories,
so
there
we
wouldn't
rule
out
merging
them,
but
it
because
it
creates
a
additional
step
of
changing
the
map
and
changing
the
titles.
A
We
didn't
feel
it
was
worth
it
at
this
time
to
do
that
as
I
mentioned,
simplifying
and
refining
by
scale
and
use,
and
then
when
we
do,
that,
we're
able
to
take
a
step
back
and
go
okay
are
all
of
the
districts
working
together
so
that
you
know
people
can
look
for
different
opportunities
and
find
a
district
that
makes
sense
and
so
that
we
also
get
better
transitions
between
your
existing
districts
as
well.
We
don't
want
to
think
of
this.
As
you
know,
these
are
pockets
of
isolated
places
are
completely
different.
A
We
want
them
to
blend
and
merge
over
time.
So
you'll
see
a
lot
of
that
in
the
use
table
and
then,
lastly,
putting
in
some
decision
making
criteria
right
up
front
that
you'll
see
that
at
the
very
beginning
of
this
section
on,
if
you
care
to
read
it
for
because
we've
generalized,
if
you
run
into
things
that
is
not
clear
which
category
they
go
in,
we
have
some
decision
making
criteria
to
allow
you
to
be
flexible
with
uses
as
they
emerge.
A
So
this
slide
is
pretty
much
an
example
of
all
of
that.
A
couple,
and
then
this
carried
throughout
the
code,
so
this
is
just
a
sampling
so
that
we
don't
have
to
go
through
every
single
one.
But
if
you,
if
you've
gone
through
and
read
it
and
have
questions
of
why
certain
uses
are
treated
the
way
they
are
by
all
means,
ask
them
and
we
can
discuss
them.
But
just
the
broad
overview
is
this
is
the
theory.
A
So,
like
honest
assembly
uses,
the
the
left
is
is
how
they
were
listed
in
the
current
code,
and
you
know
so
a
couple
examples
here:
Assembly
Hall
versus
religious
assembly,
obviously
different
types
of
uses,
but
essentially
the
same
thing.
It's
a
place
where
people
are
going
to
gather
and
then
with
religious
assemblies.
A
Those
are
often
treated
much
more
favorably
in
in
residential
districts,
and
people
have
the
best
impression
that
it's
because
well,
you
can't
regulate
religious
uses,
but
it
actually
stems
from
churches,
used
to
be
very
small
and
neighborhood
scale,
and
we
wanted
them
in
our
neighborhoods.
And
it
is
true,
you
can't
discriminate
against
religious
uses,
but
you
don't
have
to
allow
them
everywhere
if
you
don't
care
to.
So
that's
an
example
of
what
this
shift
does
to
the
advantage
as
well,
and
then
things
like
membership
organizations
that
are
sort
of
Broad
and
vague.
A
They
could
fall
into
this
category
as
well
like
a
clubhouse,
Community,
Center,
neighborhood
association
and
we've
shifted
it
to
purely
the
the
scale
and
format
of
it,
so
neighborhood
scale,
Community
scale
and
then
the
larger
Regional
scale
Auditorium,
and
then
that
lets
us
pick,
which
ones
we
want
in
in
which
district
we
meet
all
of
the
legal
requirements
of
not
discriminating
by
based
on
religion
or
even
use,
whether
you're
religious
use
or
non-religious
use.
A
But
it's
simply,
the
the
city's
interest
is
to
keep
neighborhood
scale
things
in
neighborhoods
and
to
have
more
Regional
scale
things
in
your
commercial
areas,
and
so
we
think
that's
a
better
strategy
and
helps
generalize
a
lot
of
things
in
a
single
category.
Another
example
down
below
is
animal
sales
and
services.
So
again
all
listed
by
you.
So
an
easy
example
is
a
kennel,
so
a
kennel
could
be
a
very
small
building
or
it
could
be
a
huge
large
building
with
lots
of
outside
pens
and
and
things
like
that.
A
So
we
want
to
shift
those
uses
towards
a
couple
different
things,
both
the
scale
and
size
of
it,
but
what's
the
intensity
of
activity
and
the
big
one
there
is
mainly
boarding
or
not
boarding.
These
uses
do
tend
to
generate
a
lot
of
complaints
because
they
can
be
noisy,
particularly
with
the
emergence
of
dog
daycare
and
those
types
of
things.
So
we
set
up
this
tier
of
snowboarding,
limited
boarding
or
full
boarding
to
kind
of
go
with
the
scale
of
those
uses
as
well.
A
A
Not
hearing
any
but
Brian
interrupt
me
if
you
you
get
any
and
we
can
jump
back
to
this
slide
if
we
need
to
so
I
mentioned
some.
A
Some
of
the
one
of
the
larger
things
we're
doing
mainly
because
it's
tied
to
the
the
housing
policy
and
housing
options
issue
is
taking
your
current
manufactured
housing
standards
and
both
broadening
them
to
where
they
can
apply
to
more
small
types
of
small
format,
housing,
but
also
raising
the
bar
a
little
bit
on
how
they
become
a
a
nice
Community
to
live
in
and
how
they
integrate
into
your
existing
community.
A
So
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
this
is,
you
can
see
kind
of
what's
changing
and
what's
not
so
in
discussions
with
staff,
it
was
clear
that
the
the
current
standards
were
set
up
to
really
limit
prohibit
this
type
of
use,
because
in
in
a
lot
of
typical
and
conventional
formats,
it's
not
the
most
desirable
thing
to
have
in
your
community,
which
is
why
you
only
allowed
it
in
the
eye
district
and
you
had
a
very
large
threshold
for
the
size,
the
eight
acres
and
a
very
low
density
relatively
for
how
many
units
you
could
put
on
it.
A
So
all
things
that
are
meant
to
put
barriers
in
this
type
in
in
place
of
this
type
of
housing.
But
what
we're
seeing
in
a
trend
is
some
of
these
small
home
communities
can
actually
be
really
nice
and
and
they
can
have
great
design
and
they
can
integrate
well
with
their
surroundings
and
so
borrowing
some
of
the
community
design
standards
we
put
for
residential
and
neighborhood
all
together
in
the
code
and
and
integrating
them
into
your
current
standards
and
by
the
way
this
is
in
1743
A2.
A
A
Although
staff
has
alerted
us
to
the
fact
that
that's
probably
not
enough,
we
might
need
to
go
down
lower
than
that
because,
due
to
some
measurement
by
staff
members,
a
lot
of
your
current
ones
aren't
even
at
three
acres.
So
that's
just
an
example
of
how
your
your
code
is
set
up
to
be
prohibited
of
these
uses,
rather
than
promoting
them.
So
we've
got
a
couple
of
options
there
of
reducing
that
even
further,
so
that
potentially
some
of
those
sites
could
actually
redevelop
using
some
of
these
present
principles
as
well.
A
So
we'd
want
to
make
sure
we're
promoting
that
as
far
as
what's
not
changing,
we
still
are
allowing
it
only
in
the
eye,
District
and
and
in
in
that
District
it
does
need
to
be
based
on
a
development
plan.
A
So
it's
not
just
a
use
by
right,
as
it
currently
isn't
now
they
have
to
submit
a
plan
and
go
through
the
a
similar
process
that
we're
borrowing
from
the
Pud
process
to
to
redevelop
these
based
on
an
overall
development
plan,
and
then
all
of
the
the
much
of
the
current
section
and
much
of
the
what's
in
the
draft
are
things
about
almost
really
building
code
like
things
if
these
aren't
on
foundations
and
things
like
that,
how
how
is
the
building
a
safe
habitable
building,
how
does
it
get
utilities?
A
So
there's
a
lot
of
technical
Provisions
that
that
we
aren't
changing,
because
we
didn't
hear
any
recommendations
to
change
it
and
then,
lastly,
just
another
way
to
think
of
this,
you
can
kind
of
see
from
some
of
the
graphics
that
these
can
fit
in
in
different
places.
The
one
on
the
left
really
isn't
a
a
a
accurate
version
of
what
we're
talking
about
here,
because
that's
more
taking
infill
sites
and
developing
these
buildings
in
a
quite
neighborhood
friendly
way.
A
A
G
Can
you
remind
me
what
I
one
is?
Is
that
industrial
it.
A
We
we
looked
at
should
this
be
broadened
because
it
really
is
a
neighborhood
use
and
I
I,
don't
know
that
it
I,
don't
know
that
it
has
to
just
be
in
the
industrial
districts,
but
because
we're
trying
to
do
subtle,
changes
and
improve
it.
We
didn't
go,
enable
it
in
other
districts
because
of
some
of
the
logistics
of
it.
A
We're
just
trying
to
take
what
you
have
now
and
most
of
the
existing
ones
are
zoned
that
already
and
I
think
we
would
probably
see
this
being
used
mainly
to
rehabilitate
the
existing
ones,
rather
than
be
developing
new
versions
of
this
type
of
housing.
I
wouldn't
say
that
exclusively,
but
I
think
most
of
where
we
see
this
being
used
would
be
in
those
existing
areas.
G
Might
be
interested
in
seeing
if
we
could
broaden
where
they
might
be
able
to
be
located,
given
that
I'm
gathering
that
they're
fairly
small
units-
and
we
know
that
we
have
such
a
crunch
for
the
the
missing
middle
properties
and
and
from
those
photos
of
those
little
houses,
you
have,
they
look
kind
of
little
and
cute
like
they
would
integrate
into
regular
neighborhoods.
Not
just
industrial
areas.
A
A
So
we've
already
our
first
step
was
we
already
enabled
some
of
the
small
lot
housing
in
all
of
the
districts,
some
of
those
things
that
were
grandfathered
that
are
reflective
of
this
pattern,
maybe
not
as
small
as
the
ones
shown
here.
But
your
your
typical
single
story,
Bungalow
that
you
had
on
a
three
thousand
square
foot
lot,
is
now
being
enabled
in
some
of
the
districts
for
as
just
as
a
typical
conventional
lot
by
lot
development
home
from
there.
A
The
courtyard
pattern,
as
I
mentioned,
could
allow
you
to
arrange
several
of
those
in
a
more
efficient
pattern
up
to
a
certain
limit
sort
of
like
a
pocket
version
of
these.
The
next
one
up
would
be
well,
can
I
just
rezone
the
Pud
and
do
a
broader
neighborhood
plan
of
smaller
lot
housing.
You
certainly
could
could
I
do
this
development.
A
Yes,
you
could,
if
you're
in
the
eye,
and
so
what
we're
going
to
kind
of
monitor
is.
Is
that
transition
logical
or
do
we
need
to
think
of
this
idea
as
being
applied
more
broadly
than
just
the
eye
District,
but
we'll
we'll
certainly
make
note
of
that
and
see
if
we
have
the
appropriate
kind
of
transition
to
that?
The
last
thing
we
would
want
to
do
is
if
this
is
a
really
viable
thing
for
a
a
new
project.
A
That's
not
zoned
industrial,
for
someone
to
Zone
to
Industrial
simply
to
do
this,
because
that
would
not
be
the
intent
because
then,
all
of
a
sudden,
if,
if
the
project
didn't
come
through
bring
along
a
bunch
of
industrial
uses
and
I,
think
the
fact
that
it's
in
your
industrial
district
is
more
of
a
historical
fact
than
a
planning
policy.
C
A
I
can
think
of
one
that
is
similar
to
what
we're
talking
about
it's.
The
lots
are
like
in
the
the
three
to
five
thousand
range
and
the
streets
are
internal.
It's
on
this
I
I
wish
I
I,
don't
have
my
map
up,
so
staff
might
know
better
and
then
I
do
believe.
There's
also
a
recent
proposal
that
was
being
done
through
a
PUD
where
some
of
the
homes
weren't
running
on
streets
that
we
thought
like.
Oh
well,
maybe
that's
going
to
be
a
version
of
this,
but
I'll
and
well
and
I.
A
Take
that
back.
I
can
think
of
another.
These
Courtyard
housing
aren't
always
detached
houses,
so
you
do
have
a
couple
of
apartment
complexes
that
are
arranged
around
a
courtyard
pattern
as
well.
Some
of
them
just
just
north
of
Hampden
I
believe
I
can't
remember
the
exact
location
there
either,
but
we
can
start
looking
for
some
of
those
and
give
them
to
you
as
examples
unless
staff
knows
them
off
the
top
of
their
head.
A
That's
good
question,
so
the
courtyard
is
intended
to
truly
be
for
lots
that
don't
front
the
street
and
the
exception
is
given
so
that
because
you're
fronting
on
the
Civic
space
and
the
exception
is
given
to
be
fairly
a
fairly
narrow
exception,
because
they're
intended
to
fit
within
the
street
and
block
structure.
So
that's
a
big
distinction
of
this
pattern
to
to
that.
The
courtyard
would
not
necessarily
have
its
own
streets
running
through
it.
G
I
make
sure
that
I
was
understanding
right,
that
this
is
for
developments
that
have
a
a
decent
number
of
housing
units
as
opposed
to
what
you're
calling
Courtyard,
which
you
said,
was
in
a
different
section,
chapter
five
and
would
those
be
the
kind
of
ones
where
it's
like
for
smallish
size
houses
give
or
take
on
two
adjoining
pieces
of
property,
or
something
like
that.
A
Yes,
that's
correct,
I
think
the
the
limit
we
actually
put
was
we
limited
it
based
on
a
combination
of
buildings
and
units
because,
as
I
said,
we
do
enable
that
courtyard
pattern
for
more
than
just
a
single
unit.
So
you
could
do
a
courtyard
of
duplexes
or
row
houses.
A
So
it's
based
on
a
combination
of
building
numbers
and
units
and
mainly
because
they're
not
fronting
on
a
street
necessarily
so
I
believe
we
have
the
limited
eight
detached
houses
and
then
it
kind
of
the
building
count
goes
down,
but
the
units
go
up
from
there,
but
we're
if
they're,
based
on
a
strategy
that
that
looks
at
that.
G
Okay,
but
then
how
about
for
these
manufactured
and
small
format
housing,
so
three
acres
minimum
project
size?
How
many
houses
could
you
potentially
fit
on
there
yeah.
A
That's
good
question:
it's
a
little
bit
tough
to
say,
but
just
as
a
rough
estimate,
the
bullet
point
below
can
give
you
an
example.
So
the
the
eight
units
per
acre
was
your
current
standard
and
we
felt
that's
too
artificially
low.
When
you
look
at
these
home
sites,
let's,
let's
say
we're
talking
about
a
typical
manufactured
home
with
the
the
long
and
narrow
trailer-ish
format.
A
The
building
itself
is
going
to
be
anywhere
from
12
to
14,
to
30
to
40
feet
long.
They
usually
have
about
a
a
five
foot
setback
around
it,
so
you
can
kind
of
do
the
math
and
they're
fitting
on
about
a
1,
500
square
foot
lot,
or
maybe
even
a
1
000
square
foot
lot.
So
eight
units
per
acre
is
leaving
you
a
lot
of
space.
That's
either
not
used
space
or
it's
a
lot
of
community
Civic
space,
so
we
did
bump
that
up.
A
We've
done
the
math
on
the
12
and
it
seems
to
work
well
and
there's
also
it
there's
bonuses
like
it.
You
know,
based
through
the
Pud
process,
there's
criteria
for
you
know
if
you
have
certain
well-defined
defined
Civic
spaces.
A
Perhaps
that
number
can
go
up,
so
it's
not
necessarily
a
hard
and
fast
limit,
but
essentially
you
know
that
would
get
you
36
units
just
on
three
acres,
Alone
and
again
we're
talking
about
bringing
that
down
to
either
bringing
it
down
to
as
low
as
one
acre,
mainly
because
of
something
that
was
just
discovered
today
with
your
existing
ones
or
grandfathering
in
your
existing
ones.
A
To
say
if
you're
an
existing
project
like
this,
you
don't
need
to
meet
the
minimum
maker
threshold
and
then
you
could
do
it,
but
essentially
12
units
per
acre
is
we
think
it's
a
a
pretty
good
yield
and-
and
some
of
these
projects
are
coming
close
to
that
some
of
the
ones
you
see
here.
A
G
Okay,
one
more
clarifying
question:
if
that's
okay
manufactured
and
small
format,
housing
I'd
been
hearing
that
manufactured
homes,
don't
necessarily
need
to
look
like
the
old
kind
of
trailer
home
model,
and
they
could
have
a
variety
of
different
shapes.
Would
I
assume
that
those
would
still
be
allowed
on
a
normal
residential
street
just
because
they
happen
to
be
built
partially
off-site.
We
could
still
pop
them
in
our
normal
neighborhoods.
A
That
is
true,
you're
I,
I
believe
I'm
gonna,
be
speaking
a
little
bit
out
of
turn
here,
but
the
general
kind
of
understanding
is
cities
can't
necessarily
discriminate
against
a
construction
technique.
So,
as
long
as
a
house
is
meeting
your
standards,
whether
it's
development
setback
building
code,
whatever
it
might
be,
it
could
certainly
be
manufactured
off-site
and
brought
in
on
any
any
residential
property.
A
The
term
is
often
confused
as
the
trailer
building
that
we
can
make
look
like
a
house
so
we're
using
the
term
in
this
District,
mainly
because
it's
a
carryover
to
your
from
your
current
code
and
there's
a
lot
of
things
in
there.
That
would
be
tough
to
undo
if
we
got
rid
of
the
term
altogether,
but
the
addition
of
small
format
housing
is
implying
just
that
that
it's
not
necessarily
how
it's
constructed,
but
it's
the
scale
of
the
lot
building
in
the
overall
neighborhood.
A
That
makes
this
a
unique
used
to
regulate
and
then,
similarly
out
in
your
general
districts,
even
on
a
9
000
square
foot,
r1a
lot,
someone
could
technically
bring
in
a
house,
that's
been
manufactured
off-site
and
put
it
on
there.
It
would
need
to
meet
all
the
design
standards
we've
put
in,
and
so
a
a
trailer
project
probably
isn't
going
to
do
that
unless
it
has
a
lot
of
enhancements,
but
someone
could
probably
find
a
way
to
assemble
some
of
these.
In
that
way,
that's
manufactured
off-site.
F
Yeah
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
don't
want
to
be
on
Planning
and
Zoning
anymore.
If
you're
going
to
put
you
know
three
trailers
on
the
r1a
lot
and
we'll
get
total
blow
back
on
that
I
know
you're
just
kind
of
kidding
being
you
know
an
extreme
example,
but
that
would
be
crazy.
E
Chris
this
is
Brooke
here.
I
was
just
thinking
of
what
could
be
kind
of
a
courtyard
pattern
in
Inglewood
and
I
wanted
to
ask
you
if
a
that
is
kind
of
a
courtyard
pattern
and
then
and
I
can
very
quickly
just
show
my
screen
I.
Think:
okay,
if
that's
okay,
yeah.
E
E
That's
it
is
that
the
one
you
were
thinking
of
that
is
yes,
yes,
so
let
me
see
if
I
can
do
a
street
view.
I
think
this
is
eight
units.
No
no,
no
I
mean
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
so
probably
12
units
on
about
37
000
square
feet.
So
that's
about
three
quarters
of
an
acre,
so
I
think
that's
somewhere
in
between
your
thresholds
that
you
were
talking
about
earlier
and.
E
Looked
like
they're
two
stories,
so
some
of
them
are
one
story.
So
I
guess
you
could
say
we
have
an
example
of
that
in
Inglewood.
D
A
And-
and
you
know
discussing
it,
we
might
want
to
look
at
those
as
we
look
at
these,
both
this
strategy,
the
Pud
and
that
courtyard
pattern
in
in
complete
Continuum,
we'll
kind
of
look
at
the
revisit
the
numbers
as
well,
because
I
do
know
that
for
detached
units
we
had
the
Threshold
at
eight
buildings,
and
it
was
mainly
because
of
we're
trying
to
figure
out
the
both
the
frontage
on
the
courtyard
trying
to
use
some
of
the
basic
lot
standards.
A
And
then,
if
some
of
these
are
attached,
which
it
looks
like
the
back
three
might
be,
that
might
be
some
different
math
there
but
yeah.
This
is
a.
G
A
Yeah
good
question,
I
I
think
we
are
usually
what
we
see
with
with
tiny
houses.
Is
there
either
mobile
or
they're
they're
accessory
to
some
other
use
and
most
times
when
people
are
building
a
more
fixed
Community,
the
the
homes
tend
to
get
a
little
larger,
but
the
principle
is
certainly
what
we're
talking
about
and-
and
we
don't
have
a
minimum
unit
size
in
here,
because
we
thought
well,
it's
best
to
be
flexible
with
that.
A
But
if
so,
if
you
did,
the
really
tiny
homes
I
mean
some
of
them
are
like
even
like
on
a
you
know,
you
can
it's
a
you,
can
hook
them
to
a
truck
and
drag
them
around.
So
that's
not
what
we're
talking
about
here,
because
they're
not
mobile.
These
are
fixed
constructed.
It's
a
permanent
Community.
A
That
being
said,
someone
could
certainly
put
as
small
a
home
as
they
wanted
in
there.
There
would
just
be
a
lot
more
more
space,
so
we
have
designed
the
standards
for
the
the
typical
threshold
of
a
1
000
to
1
500
square
foot
home
site
which
could
fit
a
tiny
home.
A
It
could
fit
a
a
typical
trailer
that
in
fact
the
the
one
on
the
right
that
project
is,
although
from
the
aerial
it
looks
like
they
have
that
long,
narrow
format,
They
Don't
Really
they
when
you
get
into
the
community
there's
some
that
are
are
reflective
of
getting
closer
to
that
idea
of
a
tiny
home
but
they're.
Actually,
they
all
have
the
same
scale
and
appearance
and
neighborhood
amenity
to
them.
A
Someone
brought
up
in
our
discussions
earlier
I
think
like
well
like,
like
a
a
larger
and
not
a
a
courtyard
pattern,
but
a
larger
development
of
of
cabins,
and
things
like
that.
So
you
know
yeah
you're
going
to
get
a
more
neighborhood
design
because
of
the
standards
we've
put
in.
But
at
least
that
principle
is
similar,
that
you
could
arrange
smaller
home
sites
around
common
areas.
A
And
I
think
the
the
bigger
thing
for
this
on
some
of
those
nuances
or
options
or
things
that
you
want
to
be
prepared
for
that.
We
don't
anticipate
and
can't
write
a
regulation,
for
is
because
it
is
limited
to
a
master
plan
and
a
PUD
that
gives
you
some
flexibility
to
deviate
from
these
standards,
if
they're
not
right
on
Target
and
consider
things
that
are
good,
and
it
also
gives
you
some
ability
to
filter
things
that
aren't
hitting
those
criteria
as
well.
A
So
it
wouldn't
necessarily
be
you
know
a
you
know,
some
of
the
like
mobile
or
tiny
homes
that
I
mentioned
that
they're
not
going
to
hit
those
standards.
There.
B
C
H
Chris,
do
you
have
any
idea
what
the
how
developers
feel
about
court
developments,
Courtyard
developments.
A
Yeah
I'll
I'll
answer
it
two
ways:
one
because
it's
adding
options
and
flexibility
to
be
more
efficient,
they're
generally,
all
great
with
it.
I
will
say
because
there's
a
higher
design
amenity
to
it.
It's
not
going
to
be.
It
takes
a
different
type
of
developer
to
actually
Hit
the
Target
and
carry
it
off.
So
we
we
are
familiar
with
developers
that
are
doing
this.
A
I,
don't
know
of
any
immediately
in
the
Denver
metro
that
are,
but
we
we
see
where
we
see
it
most
often
is
in
larger
scale
Redevelopment
so
in
other
words
entire
neighborhoods,
where
they're
mixing
it
into
the
overall
neighborhood
I.
Think
the
the
Midtown
neighborhood
that's
up
north
has
plenty
of
examples
of
these
Courtyard
patterns
of
newly
built
homes
and
that's
an
overall
Redevelopment
project.
So
that's
where
I've
seen
it
most,
but
it's
certainly
a
very
good
tool
for
the
the
right
type
of
small-scale
infield
developer
as
well.
A
H
Are
are
they
built
in
in
a
group
in
well
at
one
time,
or
can
you
take
a
lot
and
just
sell
a
lots
off
as
to
to
people
that
want
to
build
their
own?
Their.
A
Yeah,
that's
it!
That's
that's
an
interesting
question
and
a
good
question.
I
hadn't
really
thought
of
until
you
brought
it
up,
but
the
way
the
way
we
have
enabled
it
is.
We
did
want
to
enable
it
as
a
sort
of
lot
by
lot
right
development
and
they
can
be
be
plotted,
even
it's
the
one
exception
in
the
code
where
they
can
be
plotted,
though
not
fronting
on
a
street.
A
So
there
could
be
a
scenario
where
they
don't
build:
they
don't
build
them
all
right
away
and
a
couple
are
sitting
vacant
or
even
sold
off.
So
there
is
the
potential
for
that
I,
think
and-
and
maybe
it's
something
to
think
of
as
well,
because
I
would
think
that
you
wouldn't
get
too
many
people
that
would
invest
in
it
without
the
overall
plan
to
bring
all
the
Lots
together.
A
But
we
haven't
the
original
plan,
for
it
needs
to
be
done
at
once,
but
as
far
as
constructing
them,
we
don't
have
a
requirement
that
that
be
done.
H
A
I'll
move
down
to
the
the
adu's
next,
we,
let's.
C
A
Oops
there
we
go
so
again.
We've
discussed
this
a
lot
with
with
Article
5
but
or
chapter
five
chapter
four
is
where
your
use
standards
exist,
and
this
is,
as
the
name
implies
accessory
dwelling
unit,
it's
an
accessory
use.
A
So
in
other
words,
you
don't
get
to
do
this
unless
you
have
a
principle
lot
with
a
dwelling
unit
on
it,
and
so
this
is
listed
in
the
section
of
accessory
uses,
which
is
17
4,
along
with
other
similar
things
that
are
accessory,
and
so
we
put
your
current
standards
in
there
and
have
tweaked
them
in
in
several
ways.
So
on
the
left,
the
first,
obviously
the
bigger
issue
of
broadening
it
to
r1a
and
r1b,
allowing
potentially
two
accessory
units
on
the
larger
Lots
again
things.
A
This
can
be
discussed
allowing
them
with
two
to
four
unit
buildings.
So
it
wasn't
exactly
clear
in
the
code
whether
that
could
happen
or
not,
but
we
saw
we've
seen
a
couple
of
examples.
A
Several
I
think
in
the
vicinity
of
Inglewood,
maybe
not
Inglewood
proper,
but
the
idea
that
a
a
duplex
building
could
have
an
out
building
with
a
unit
or
they
could
have
a
subordinate
unit
somewhere
else
is
something
we're
adding
in
allowing
it
as
an
attached
internal
Adu.
So
the
left
picture
shows
that
we
had
some
comments.
Some
other
better
examples
in
the
public
engagement
that
show
this.
A
But
this
is
just
kind
of
implying
that
this
back
area
is
an
Adu
or
you
see
them
often
in
in
basements
or
attic
apartments
that
typical
format
and
then
in
doing
that,
one
of
the
the
second
to
last
bullet
on.
What's
changing,
we
did
the
current
code
says
they're
limited
to
600
square
feet
or
up
to
a
hundred
percent
of
the
size
of
the
principal
unit,
partly
because
we're
possibly
allowing
more
of
these
allowing
them
in
more
areas
and
partly
because
they
could
go
with
multi
unit
buildings.
A
We
want
to
bring
that
100
down,
so
it
truly
is
a
smaller
subordinate
unit.
So
it's
not
it's
something
that
doesn't
increase
or,
or
you
know,
convert
a
single
unit
to
a
duplex.
You
know
when
you,
if
it's
a
hundred
percent,
it's
just
two
units
smashed
together
and
they're:
they're,
not
one's
not
really
accessory
to
the
other.
So
but
they're.
Also
that
600
foot
limit
did
seem
a
little
low
so
that
we
change
the
limit
to
say
up
to
800
square
feet,
but
never
more
than
75
percent
of
the
principal
unit.
A
We're
used
to
seeing
that
number
anywhere
from
either
at
in
that
square
footage
range
and
not
basing
it
off
of
the
percent
of
the
principal
unit
or
seeing
it
even
as
low
as
no
no
more
than
50
percent
of
the
principal
unit.
Since
you
all
already
had
it
we're
allowing
them
up
to
a
hundred
percent.
We
we
didn't
bring
it
down
that
low,
but
we
did
think
it
was
appropriate
to
bring
it
down
to.
A
A
Think
one
of
the
things
we
heard
loud
and
clear
from
the
engagement
is
that
people
are
open
to
these
ideas
and
these
different
living
formats,
but
don't
create
a
parking
problem
for
me
or
my
neighborhood
or
my
street,
or
my
block
so
in
honoring
that
we
did
keep
the
parking
requirement
for
adus
I.
Think
most
of
your
Lots,
particularly
because
you
have
deep
lots
and
they're
alley
loaded,
I
think
most
of
the
places
we're
enabling
this
it
wouldn't
be
difficult
to
find
place
to
tuck
in
that
parking
spot.
A
Why
not
open
it
up
to
all
of
them
being
rented
for
right
now?
We
didn't
because
we're
broadening
it
so
much
on
the
enabling
it
kind
of
being
cautious.
With
that
and
saying
we
do
think
there
should
be
an
owner,
occupant
presence
in
at
least
one
of
the
units,
so
that
provision
is
staying
at
least
for
now.
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
others
to
oh
well,
the
the
compliance
with
all
the
development
in
Zion
standards.
A
So
some
of
the
neighborhood
design
standards
that
are
increasing
with
the
buildings
in
general
would
apply
to
these
accessory
buildings
accessory
units,
particularly
whether
they're
an
attached
unit
or
even
the
detached
structure
as
well.
So
some
because
some
subtle
changes,
we're
making
to
accessory
building
standards
are
going
to
apply
whether
it's
a
dwelling
unit
or
whether
it's
just
a
simple,
detached
secondary
building.
B
I
Can
you
guys
hear
me
I'm,
not
sure
if
you
can
hear
me
or
not?
Yes,
you
can.
Okay,
sorry
I
had
to
pull
over
on
the
side
of
the
road.
I've
been
I'm
on
my
phone.
One
comment
on
the
on
the
detached
successory
darling
unit.
That
is
something
that
I've
run
into
and
which
is
why
I
think
there
should
just
be
maximum
sizes
allowed
per
lot.
I
Size
is
the
in
situations
where
someone
is
potentially
building
a
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
prior
to
a
planned
Redevelopment
of
the
primary
structure,
and
so
I've
had
a
couple
of
situations
where
there
are
there's
older,
relatively
small.
Sometimes
you
know
five
six
hundred
square
foot
homes
where
I've
designed
and
built
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
the
caveat
there
is
that
the
owner
is
planning
on
living
in
that
accessory
dwelling
unit
when
they
go
to
redevelop
and
rebuild
or
do
a
major
remodel
or
addition
to
the
primary
structure.
So
that
way
you
know
I
I.
I
It's
probably
not
going
to
be
an
issue
a
lot
of
the
times,
but
I
do
think
that
that
whenever
you
get
into
percentages
of
primary
structures
it
can
it
can
sometimes
arbitrarily
limit
someone's
ability
for
maximum
use
of
their
parcel.
A
Yeah,
okay,
good
yeah,
good
point,
so
your
suggestion
is
just
go
with
the
don't
have
any
percentage.
One
of
the
reasons
we
lower
the
percentage
was
because
we
were
increasing
the
allowable
square
footage,
Beyond,
600
and
we've
seen
them
kind
of
we've,
seen
them
all
over
the
board
and
I.
Don't
know
right
what's
right
and
what's
the
right
one
to
scale
but
I
think
what
you're
suggesting
is
just
pick
a
square
footage
number.
That's
a
reasonable
number
in
in
that
600
800
foot
range
and
leave
it
at
that
period.
I.
I
Would
definitely
leave
it
at
that
period
and
then
I
would
make
it
as
simple
as
possible,
and
especially
with
garage
and
parking
and
one
story
versus
one
and
a
half
story
and
I'm
talking
a
little
bit
more
about
my
dealings
with
the
current
Denver
code
than
I
am
with
Englewood
I
actually
have
not
built
one
of
these
in
Inglewood,
yet,
but
keeping
it
as
simple
as
possible.
I
think
would
is
beneficial
and
and
also
not
reducing
that
square
footage
if
it
does
indeed
wind
up
either
adjacent
to
or
on
top
of
garage
parking.
I
So
you
know
you
don't
want
to
discredit
people
from
from
providing
parking.
Obviously,
there's
going
to
be
parking
requirements
for
these,
whether
it's
you
know
covered
parking
or
not
I
think
that's
fine
I.
Just
think
that
in
some
cases
throughout
the
metro
area,
because
it's
designated
as
a
one
and
a
half
story
that
upper
story
above
the
garage
can
only
be
a
certain
percentage
of
the
maximum
footprint.
I
So
instead
of
it
being
footprint
based,
I
think
that
square
footage
is
is
fine
as
long
as
there's
not
a
as
long
as
you're,
not
defeating
the
purpose
by
squishing
that
allowable
square
footage.
When
you
do
provide
parking
below.
B
G
A
Adus
correct
they
did
yeah
that
was
discussed.
We
were
kind
of
falling.
That's
where
the
sort
of
our
compromise
position
came.
A
We
were
falling
back
on
a
lot
of
the
community
input
and,
and
it
does
make
some
some
sense
and
whether
it's
kind
of
more
anecdotal
or
actual,
but
the
idea
that
you
know
people
kind
of
have
this
false
entitlement
to
the
on-street
parking
and
all
of
that
kind
of
stuff
in
their
neighborhoods
and
and
you
hear
of
problems.
A
But
the
idea
that
a
an
additional
dwelling
is
likely
to
bring
an
additional
car
is
perfectly
reasonable
and
true,
and
we
think
in
most
of
these
cases
it
shouldn't
be
too
hard
to
find
the
two
for
the
main
unit
and
the
one
for
the
the
dwelling,
particularly
if
it's
an
alley
loaded,
it
gives
you
all
kinds
of
advantages
and
ways
to
to
tuck
the
parking
in
and
so
then,
to
the
the
count.
A
couple
of
the
council
members
push
to
say.
Well,
why
are
we
requiring
it?
A
Isn't
that
undermining
and
penalizing
I
think
to
the
extent
it
is
and
to
the
extent
it's
in
a
location
where
there
would
not
be
any
parking
issues
or
it's
an
area?
That's
that
parking
is
just
not
a
concern
and,
and
it's
more
of
a
shared
asset
for
the
whole
area.
The
ability
to
waive
the
parking
requirement
to
get
the
unit
is
something
the
city
should
entertain.
I
Yeah
for
the
parking
requirement.
Obviously
this
is
a
question.
Is
that
does
that
have
to
be
a
enclosed
garage,
covered
parking
spot
space,
or
can
it
be
just
available
parking
off
the
alley
in
you
know
the
Jay
said
Jason
to
the
garage
or
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
right.
C
I
The
the
only
other
thing
that
I
would
maybe
look
for
a
exception
to
this
is
on
lots
that
are
less
than
you
know,
a
double
lot.
You
know
any
sort
of
B,
Lots
or
37.5
foot
wide
Lots,
where
that
additional
third
space
May
based
on
the
realities
of
the
lot
become
challenging
or
a
hardship
might
be
presented.
Then
I
would
maybe
allow
that
you
know,
assuming
this
is
a
new
construction.
I
G
G
G
A
Not
to
the
full
new
building
code,
but
any
any
I
think
it's
a
current
provision
that
any
deficiencies
of
the
code
at
the
time.
So
it's
not
like.
A
Oh
you
have
to
go
in
and
upgrade
everything,
but
if
there's
any
public
health
and
safety
issues
that
you're
non-compliant
with
you
can
force
them
to
you
want
both
of
the
buildings
to
comply,
but
I
think
the
Nuance
you
brought
up
is
a
good
point
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
mean
it
has
to
be
brought
up
to
the
current
code
if
the
code
changed
since
that
building
was
built.
So
that
might
be
something
we
need
to
to
verify
and
track
and
make
sure
we
haven't
accidentally
put
a
a
pitfall
or
interpretation
issue
in
there.
I
A
On
to
I
think
it's
signs
next,
yes
sign!
So
I,
don't
have
any
snazzy
graphics
with
this
section.
Yet
so
I
apologize,
but
we'll
be
illustrating
the
sign
sections
to
make
sense
of
what
the
standards
are,
but
essentially
what
we
did
was
really
just
reorganize
and
simplify
we're
trying
to
not
one
of
the
things
that
sine
ordinances
are
famous
for.
Is
you
know,
defining
and
naming
every
type
of
sign,
awning
sign,
Marquee,
sign
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
and
essentially
what
we
wanted
to
do
was
just
speak.
A
A
As
your
current
approach,
because
we're
just
we're
simply
whittling
things
down,
so
that
we
don't
have
to
make
a
bunch
of
different
interpretation
issues
and
and
really
get
situations
where
you
have
so
many
definitions,
that
a
sign
could
count
towards
one
or
two
or
three
different
kind
of
sign
types
and
then
how
do
you
count
it?
A
Similarly,
moving
down
for
ground
they're,
also
based
on
lot
Frontage,
and
in
fact
you
all
have
currently
have
your
your
total
allowance
is
comes
out
of
that,
so
you're
building
and
ground
signs
are
going
to
come
out
of
that
budget.
That
comes
from
your
lot.
Frontage.
A
The
next
two
were
the
ones
where
we
kind
of
made
the
most
changes.
The
The
Pedestrian
sign
is
the
the
idea
that,
when
you
are
on
site
or
on
a
in
a
more
walkable
area
at
a
Street
Front
building,
there's
a
lot
of
small
scale
signs
that
shouldn't.
A
They
shouldn't
be
counting
towards
that
budget,
so
things
that
maybe
you're
you
know
at
a
door
an
entrance,
a
projecting
sign.
You
know
a
storefront
sign
a
lot
of
times
when
you
walk
under
canopies
there'll,
be
small
signs
hanging
for
each
business.
A
So
for
that
one
we
based
it
on
the
amount
of
building
Frontage,
so
the
more
building
Frontage
you
have
engaging
the
street
the
more
allowance
you
have
for
these
pedestrian
signs
and
they're
very
small
scale
signs
so
in
the
six
to
eight
square
foot
allowance,
but
essentially
every
50
feet,
and
every
entrance
makes
you
eligible
for
one
of
these
types
of
signs
and
then
lastly,
the
temporary
signs
also
based
on
lot
Frontage.
A
What
we've
done
here
is
your
current
standards
have
a
bunch
of
different
types
of
temporary
signs.
Some
of
them
are
content
based
which
is
kind
of
treading
into
rough
legal
territory.
So
here
we're
just
saying:
here's
your
temporary
sign
allowance.
If
you're
selling
your
house
having
a
garage,
sale
and
really
passionate
about
an
election
all
at
the
same
time,
you
might
have
some
choices
to
make.
A
If
you
live
next
to
someone
who
likes
to
put
up
a
lot
of
signs,
that
we've
probably
allowed
the
budget
a
little
bit
higher
than
maybe
you
want,
but
we're
banking
on
most
people
being
reasonable
and
and
the
city
having
something
to
enforce
when
someone
gets
particularly
unreasonable,
but
most
of
that
is
stemming
from
the
idea
that
we
need
to
be
completely
content
neutral
towards
this
temporary
signs
and
therefore
giving
them
a
budget
based
on
that
lot.
A
Size
in
Frontage
is
what's
important,
I
think
the
last
bigger
thing
in
signs
was
there's
a
number
of
signs
that
are
exempt
from
permits
that
that
particular
section
is
pretty
standard
in
a
lot
of
codes,
and
we've
done
done.
A
few
tweak
talking
or
better
definitions
of
some
of
those
things
like
Flags
window
signs
addresses
public
signs
and
the
right-of-way
things
like
that.
But
overall
for
the
signs,
it
was
more
of
simplification
and
getting
any
content-based
standards
out
to
the
extent
we
could
any
questions
with
signage.
F
Up
all
right,
yeah
I
really
find
this
just
breaking
the
signage
thing
down.
I've
developed
a
lot
with
different
municipalities,
and
it
is
an
absolute
mess.
I
mean
to
try
and
figure
out
they've
even
got
little
pictures
of
every
kind
of
sign,
so
breaking
it
down
to
this
very
simple
way
of
allocating
signage
is
very
intriguing.
How
many
other
cities
are
that
you've
worked
with,
have
started
this,
and
how
did
it
work
out.
A
Yeah
good
question,
so
almost
all
of
the
codes
we've
done
in
the
last
10
years
and
and
there's
probably
been
20
of
them.
A
Sometimes
we
don't
do
signs
they're,
not
the
most
fun
territory
to
regulate
in
so
sometimes
we're
lucky
enough
to
not
have
to
update
a
sign
orders,
but
we've
probably
done
at
least
10
or
12
with
this
approach
and
style,
and
it's
not
that
difficult
to
to
kind
of
walk
the
current
standards
back
to
this,
so
that
we're
not
making
as
significant
substantive
changes
we're
just
kind
of
clarifying
and
streamlining
how
it
gets
implemented.
A
A
It
takes
a
little
bit
for
the
applicants
to
kind
of
clearly
get
this,
and,
and
sometimes
they
never
will
like
sign
companies
I
think,
are
kind
of
notorious
for
just
submitting
their
application
and
letting
you
kind
of
hunt
down
whether
it
meets
the
standards
or
not,
but
some
of
them
are
kind
of
getting
it
and
going
like
okay,
I
I.
It's
very
easy
for
me
to
now
on
a
larger
development
project
to
put
a
sign
schedule
in
based
on
these
types
and
I'll.
A
I'll
show
you
what
my
calculation
is
for
my
expected
budget
for
all
of
these,
and
then
I
will
show
you
how
much
of
what
I've
used
up
and
if
I've
used
it
all
up
and
I
need
exceptions
and
I'm
in
a
different
boat,
but
I
think
that's
where
it's
the
most
beneficial.
A
The
last
thing
I
would
say
on
the
temporary
signs
we
have
in
that
same
Community.
We
have
had
some
ex
that's
one
where
it
I
hate
to
say
this,
but
it
almost
doesn't
matter
what
the
signs
say
for
temporary
signs.
People
do
whatever
they
want
and
you
have
to
have
something
to
enforce.
A
When
there's
a
problem
and
that's
where
it's
been
most
beneficial
as
a
staff
member
is
there's
plenty
of
situations
where
there's
violations
and
everything
is
going
on
with
signs
during
certain
periods
and
and
you
just
kind
of
tolerate
it
until
there's
an
Enforcement
issue,
and
this
approach
does
become
really
easy
to
enforce.
F
A
Yeah,
well,
if
you,
if
you
comb
through
it
more
and
have
any
suggestions
from
that
experience,
we're
we're
wide
open
to
that.
Because,
again,
you
know
this.
When
we
deal
with
applicants
under
the
codes,
we've
we've
done
on
signs,
it's
almost
it
well,
it
is
you
don't
get
your
sign
package
until
you
have
your
tenants
right,
and
so
it's
the
last
thing
they
do
and
they're
almost
kind
of
back
into
the
standards
themselves.
So
it's
not
always
clear
to
know
whether
we're
we're
on
target
or
not
with
some
of
that.
F
C
H
Just
for
clarification,
your
front
wall
of
your
house
is
just
a
wall
right.
So
if
you
write
anything
on
your
house,
that's
a
that
becomes
a
sign,
correct.
D
H
Correct,
how
do
you
measure
the
sign
size
by
the
the
wording
on
the
on
what
you
write
the
size
of
the
print.
A
Yes,
we
and
because
that
can
vary,
we
essentially
put
a
rule
in
I,
believe
it
it's
in
the
applicability
section,
I
believe.
If
it's
not
there,
it
will
be
in
the
definitions
when
we
kind
of
round
everything
out,
but
essentially
it's
the
most.
You
enclose
the
writing
by
no
more
than
two
GM
standard,
geometric
shapes.
So
if
you
have
an
unusual
scale
of
the
writing,
you
could
use
a
like
a
for
lack
of
a
better
example.
A
H
H
A
Our
last
section
definitions
again,
the
Define
terms
portion
of
this-
that
16
3
2
isn't
well
developed.
In
fact,
that's
just
a
placeholder
of
your
existing
ones
that
will
comb
through
and
and
vet.
Once
we
get
the
once
we're
sure
that
we
have
the
final
wording
on
everything
we
do.
Try
to.
My
legal
training
is
telling
me
not
to
say
this,
but
my
planning
training
is
telling
me
we
try
not
to
over
Define
things.
A
Sometimes
we
find
codes
that
have
definitions
of
terms
that
the
the
terms
itself
was
only
used
in
the
definitions
when
you
over
Define
things,
my
opinion
is,
it
gets
harder
to
enforce
and
it
gets
harder
to
defend
the
code
if
you
have
to
legally
so
we
try
to
take
if,
if
something
has
a
plain
and
ordinary
meaning,
we
don't
want
to
Define
it
if
something's
a
term
of
art,
like
you,
often
find
in
floodplain
ordinances,
we'll
Define
it
there.
The
last
thing
we
try
to
vet.
A
The
definitions
for
is
not
just
simply
become
a
restatement
of
the
definitions
themselves.
There's
a
that's
another
example
of
over
defining.
However,
we
do
want
to
make
this
code
easy
to
interpret
and
understand,
and
we
know
that
sometimes
the
definitions
matter
and
so
we'll
kind
of
comb
through
those
at
the
end,
but
don't
be
surprised
if
we've
taken
some
things
and
and
decided
not
to
Define
find
them,
because
everyone
knows
what
it
means
and
then
the
the
other
big
thing
we've
done
is
try
and
your
current
code
does
this.
A
It
has
the
use
descriptions
carved
out,
but
in
doing
that,
then
it
also
included
them
in
the
definitions.
Also,
so
there's
a
little
bit
of
conflict
or
at
least
redundancy
there,
and
so
we
want
to
keep
those
in
one
section.
The
reason
we
separate
them
is
partly
because
of
our
more
generalized
approach
to
to
uses
anyway.
So
there
truly
are
descriptions
of
uses,
there's
not
so,
for
example,
the.
A
Is
this
there's
a
description
of
its
characteristics
and
what
the
use
entails,
but
it's
sort
of
some
of
these
things
kind
of
defy
definitions,
so
giving
descriptions
of
them
based
on
their
operational
characteristics,
scale
types
of
activities
they're
doing
is,
is
a
better
approach
than
implying
that
we
can
define
something,
so
it
has
an
exact
meaning,
and
so
that's
just
a
subtle
difference
that
we
like
to
do
mainly
because
of
that
provision
in
front
of
the
use
table
that
says
when
there's
a
gray
area
or
when
there's
something
that's
not
listed,
the
staff
gets
to
interpret
it
based
on
these
four
or
five
criteria.
A
If
you
have
a
definition,
that's
him
and
you,
and
it
can
become
a
little
bit
difficult
to
do
that.
So
we
try
to
be
a
little
bit
lenient
with
the
use
descriptions
they
do
match
up
with
the
use
table.
So
if
you
haven't
had
time
to
look
at
that
or
if
you
have
questions
on
any
of
them,
we'll
be
happy
to
to
consider
them.
It
is
one
of
the
kind
of
the
the
toughest
tasks
to
kind
of
anticipate.
A
Every
single
scenario
and
make
sure
we've
described
things
perfectly
so
that
it's
well
understood,
so
we
we
really
would
appreciate
comments
or
questions
with
regard
to
some
of
those
descriptions,
because
it's
it's
usually
one
of
the
last
things
we
do,
but
it's
also
a
pretty.
A
It
can
become
important
and
it's,
but
it's
also
challenging
to
get
those
exactly
right.
Foreign.
A
With
that
that
kind
of
ends
all
of
the
new
items
we've
had
unless
there's
any
other
discussion,
I
know
we
are
on
target
to
have
another
Council
work
session
on
January
23rd,
where
they're
going
to
a
look
at
the
this,
this
chapter
for
their
first
time
as
well
chapter
four,
they
aren't
going
to
look
at
the
signs
exactly
yet
and
then
they're
also
going
to
dive
back
into
some
of
the
affordable
housing
and
housing
options.
A
Discussions
we've
had
and
I
assume.
At
that
point
we
would
probably
Circle
back
with
you
all
on
on
a
next
steps
for
how
we
bring
this
all
to
to
a
final
draft.
Now
that
we
have
all
the
pieces,
it
gives
us
a
chance
to
step
back
and
look
at
it
all
in
a
more
comprehensive
Manner
and
then
figure
out
a
strategy
for
public
review
and
adoption.
But
Brian
I,
don't
know
if
you
had
any
other
thing
or
if
I
misspoke
on
some
of
our
next
steps,
foreign.
A
H
The
early
on
you
were
talking
about
doing
a
lot
of
drawings
and
illustrations
and
I
I'm
a
firm
believer
in
a
picture
being
worth
a
thousand
words.
So
I'd
like
to
see
a
lot
of
the
drawings
and
illustrations.
A
Yes,
we
we
will
that's
when
we
get
to
final
draft,
that's
when
we
go
start
working
with
staff
and
figuring
out
which
things
we
need
to
illustrate
fully.
A
lot
of
the
drafts
started
to
have
some
of
them
in
there,
and
some
of
them
are
quite
honestly,
are
just
kind
of
placeholders
for
graphics
that
will
develop
further,
but
we
plan
on
doing
that
as
well
with
the
final
draft
foreign.
A
I
think
the
short
answer
is
yes,
I
think
that's
part
of
our
when
we
regroup
after
this
next
Council
session
is
to
figure
out
what's
the
strategy
to
present
the
the
our
recommended
draft
and
then
go
to
file
formal
adoption.
You
know
this.
The
drafts
we've
been
circulating
so
far
have
more
been
like
a
combination
of
what
we've
heard
and
what
our
experience
is
and
we're
kind
of
trying
to
combine
those.
So
it's
not
yet
a
recommendation
of
here.
We
think
this
is
the
right
answer.
A
Some
of
the
things
we
discussed
tonight
are
really
good
examples
of
that.
So
what
we
always
like
to
do
is
when
we,
when
we
have
things
finalized
to
where
we
think
we
think
it's
the
right
answer
to
then
Circle
back
and
have
some
type
of
public
forum,
often
an
open
house,
but
how
and
when
we'll
do
that
I
think
is
we'll
get
back
with
staff
and
figure
out
an
approach
to
that
all
right.