►
From YouTube: November 16, 2021 UDC Steering Committee Meeting
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/126323?handle=4B0F5F0938C84D67B2D0DBEE330426D2
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/126322?handle=80199C3440E849A983E93F50CFE85F47
1.
Three or more Planning and Zoning Commissioners may participate in the meeting. No legislative decisions or final actions of any board, commission or council will occur at this meeting.
2. Review Walkability and Sustainability Strategies
3. Discuss Neighborhood Character and Housing Options
3. Adjourn
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/126323?handle=4B0F5F0938C84D67B2D0DBEE330426D2
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/126322?handle=80199C3440E849A983E93F50CFE85F47
A
A
Such
as
home
occupations
and
what
that
looks
like
in
englewood
and
just
some
some
lighter
easier
things
maybe
to
to
talk
about
in
a
short
amount
of
time
on
december
7th.
So
I
did
send
out
a
map
and
some
language
that
the
planning
staff
worked
with
city
council
and
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
on.
A
So
hopefully
that
helped
sort
of
frame
tonight's
conversation.
Hopefully
it
might
have
triggered
some
questions
for
you
all
to
to
bring
up,
but
other
than
that
you
know
also
be
thinking
about
in.
In
your
own
perspective,
what
does
a
neighborhood
mean
to
you?
What
characteristics
of
a
neighborhood?
Do
you
particularly
like?
How
do
you
define
it?
B
B
No,
no
stealing
the
thunder,
that's
good
good
context,
and
I
really
appreciate
it.
So
that's
the
the
where
we've
been
and
as
wade
mentioned,
we're
hitting
the
five
priority
areas
from
the
code
assessment
in
this
preliminary
discussion,
as
we
were
kind
of
paralleling
our
own
independent
diagnosis
of
the
code
there
in
phase
one,
which
is
you
know
now
stretching
a
little
bit
but
we'll
begin
to
go
deeper
into
some
of
these
topics
and
beyond
these
topics.
B
B
If
it's
talking
about
maintaining
certain
scale
and
building
form,
that's
going
to
tax
some
of
the
housing
options,
and
so
we're
trying
to
hit
that
right
balance.
So
this
I'm
going
to
go
through
a
little
bit
about
your
current
code
and
how
we
look
at
it
as
the
outsider's
perspective,
in
line
with
some
of
those
goals.
There's
it's
certainly
not
the
answer
and
definitely
not
the
answer
yet
and
may
not
be
the
answer
depending
on
your
all's
discussion.
B
Even
when
you
allow
a
mix-
and
so
that's
one
thing
to
keep
in
mind-
your
development
code
does
show
some
semblance
of
already
starting
to
do
this.
And
so
our
question
is:
do
we
need
to
tweak
some
things?
Do
we
need
to
go
further?
Which
districts
would
we
choose
to
go
further
and
how
would
they
be
used?
B
B
So
don't
you
don't
necessarily
need
to
decipher
it,
but
the
the
quick
takeaway
is
that
what
I
mentioned
before
is
you
already
are
starting
to
have
some
of
this
building
type
approach
integrated
into
your
code,
but
there's
some
areas
where
we've
noticed
some
some
potential
issues
with
that,
and
it
largely
deals
with
what
we'll
talk
about
further
is
when
we
look
at
the
distinctions
between
different
zoning
districts
and
what
one
zoning
district
enables
versus
another.
That's
the
key
element.
B
We
want
to
pry
on
to
figure
out
if
these
districts
are
all
working
well
together,
but
essentially
you
can
see
on
the
right
the
the
the
way
your
code
set
up.
If
you're
not
familiar
with
it
is
you
have
three
r1
districts
which
are
primarily
single
family
districts
and
they
just
allow
different
lot
sizes.
B
The
further
up
you
go
to
our
two
districts,
which
begin
to
introduce
multi-family
buildings,
but
just
the
lower
end
of
that
scale,
the
duplex
and
then
another
type
of
multi-family
building
in
the
in
the
r2b,
and
we
have
some
kind
of
questions
or
thoughts
about
that.
And
then
the
last
category
is
for
the
higher
density.
B
Smaller
lot,
multi-unit
buildings,
so
the
buildings-
and
sometimes
it's
referred
to
another
jargon
term-
is
gentle
density.
It's
it's
a
building
pattern
and
a
building
type
that
fits
in
well
with
a
lot
of
neighborhoods,
certainly
not
all
neighborhoods,
but
they
they
mix
in
well.
But
when
you
do
the
math
on
them,
their
density
is
actually
very
high.
The
reason
for
that
is,
they
put
a
small
building
on
a
smaller
lot,
but
you
put
four
five
six
units
in
it
all
of
a
sudden.
The
density
number
goes
up,
so
this
is
a
rough
chart.
B
Sometimes
we
have
density
numbers
working
against
these
projects,
so
the
the
types
of
projects
that
could
fit
into
your
neighborhood
don't
fit
in
well
with
the
development
code
and
there's
a
little
bit
of
that
going
on
in
in
your
code,
but
certainly
not
a
lot.
Comparatively
we've
done
other
cities
where
they're
just
they
truly
are
missing.
B
Mixed
density,
neighborhoods,
that's
a
pretty
good
range
single
family
homes
can
support
walkable
commercial,
they
can
be
transit,
supported
when
they're
upper
end
of
that
range,
and
especially
so,
when
they
mix
in
with
other
districts.
So
you're
there's
not
too
many
issues
in
your
r1
neighborhoods
other
than
how
they're
used
and
some
things
that
nuances
we
might
want
to
distinguish
between
them.
When
we
graduate
up
to
the
r2
districts,
that's
where
we
start
to
see
a
little
bit
of
the
the
issues.
B
But
it's
the
multi-unit
house,
where
you
start
to
add
more
and
more
units
to
the
house
that
can
start
to
become
a
little
more
limited
just
because
of
that
cap,
and
is
that
something
we
want
to
look
at
in
in
your
r2
districts
and
then
moving
up
to
the
the
first
of
the
r3,
the
mu
3a.
It
still
retains
that
3
000
square
foot
cap
per
unit,
so
essentially
on
the
the
left
side.
B
We
don't
gain
anything
with
that
district
by
allowing
a
more
of
a
multi-family
building,
you'll
start
to
see
things
creeping
in
on
the
right
side.
We
call
those
kind
of
more
suburban
format
like
it's
a
it's
an
anomaly.
That
density
can
sometimes
push
multi-family
projects
in
the
wrong
pattern.
So
you
see
the
far
right.
There
is
apartment
complexes,
some
of
those
large
suburban
complexes.
B
They
don't
fit
in
well
in
a
lot
of
contexts,
yet
their
density
number
is
low
because
they
have
such
a
large
land
base,
even
though
they're
multi-family,
so
at
14
and
a
half
units
per
acre
you're
starting
to
push
things
to
that
type
of
format
and-
and
it
won't
in
in
as
a
built
out
community
with
a
really
established
block
structure.
Those
projects
won't
fit
in
very
well
at
all.
B
It's
a
very
suburban
format,
then
moving
up
to
your
r3b,
the
density
numbers
go
up
because
of
now,
when
you
get
over
four
units,
you
only
are
allowed.
You
are
only
required
to
have
1
000
square
feet
of
lot
area
for
each
additional
unit,
so
the
density
number
goes
up
to
anywhere
between
20
and
25
in
units
per
acre
in
most
typical
formats.
B
You
can
start
to
do
them,
but
they
don't
fit
in
quite
as
well,
and
then
your
last
district,
the
one
that's
the
the
most
dense,
is
the
one
where
they
all
become
available,
but
that's
because
there's
no
density
limit
and
it's
the
most
open
of
the
zoning
district.
So
again,
nothing
that's
really
super
burdensome
on
these
types,
but
we
do
suspect
that
it's
probably
pushing
projects
that
could
fit
in
particularly
projects
that
could
fit
in
on
a
lot
by
lot
basis.
B
They
might
be
more
difficult
to
do
or
some
of
the
projects
that
are
mixing
or
are
likely
choosing
to
do
things.
We
would
likely
need
to
do
things
through
a
planned
zoning
district
and
essentially,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
to
figure
out
which
of
these
for
mixed
density,
neighborhoods
that
have
that
mix
of
all
of
those
small
scale,
but
very
human
scale.
B
Those
are
the
things
that
we
want
to
try
to
explore,
especially
since
you
have
such
a
wide
suite
of
zoning
districts
from
the
r
the
you
know,
the
ranges
of
the
r1s
r2s
and
r3s.
It
seems
like
some
better
filtering
of
those
types
could
occur
if
we
explore
a
little
bit
further
and
really
what
happens
is
when
we,
when
we
look
to
how
how
and
why
they
fit
in
there's
typically
a
more
fine-grained
pattern
that
makes
them
all
fit
in.
You
know
they.
B
B
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
the
r1
districts
is
fairly
typical
and
that's
probably
a
good
distinguishing
based
on
on
lot
sizes.
The
r1
c,
I
guess,
is
the
most
widely
used
of
all
of
those
zoning
districts.
So
there
may
be
some
questions
there
and
there's
probably
some
questions
of
right.
Now.
They
just
enable
the
smaller
lots,
the
ones
that
are
mentioned
in
the
l
there
with
the
table
simply
based
on
if
it
was
established
already.
B
So
it's
sort
of
a
preserving
the
non-conforming
and
then
also
something
that
was
mentioned
in
the
code
assessment
and
from
some
of
the
public
feedback
is.
Maybe
we
want
to
look
at
allowing
accessory
dwelling
units
more
generously
in
some
of
these
other
districts
as
well
again,
another
way
to
get
housing
diversity,
but
with
really
small
scale
development
and
with
development
that
really
doesn't
change
the
character
and
pattern
of
neighborhoods.
B
B
So
same
lot,
pattern
building
patterns
height,
except
that
now
that
that
one
building
type
can
have
two
units
instead
of
one,
so
that
that's
kind
of
a
logical
shift
in
our
mind,
but
maybe
a
shift
that
we
could
look
at
doing
in
other
districts
as
well.
I
don't
know
third
bullet
down
when
we
shift
the
looking
at
within
the
r2,
the
differences
again
all
of
the
same
development
standards
so
essentially
r1cr
and
r2a
and
r2b
have
just
almost
exactly
the
same
lot
and
building
patterns
within
them.
B
Building,
but
maybe
appropriately
so
the
next
shift
up
the
fourth
bullet
down
r2b
to
mu,
r3a,
so
mixed-use
residential
3a,
again
all
of
the
same
development
standards,
so
you're
not
gaining
more
building
capacity
and
development
capacity
now
office
use
is
added
in
as
a
potential
use
signaling
that
mixed
use-
and
this
is
where
we're
starting
to
sense.
Some
of
the
problems
of
we
still
haven't
found
that
district
that
really
really
promotes
a
row
house
or
small
apartment
building.
B
So
that's
the
the
part
that
we
think
is
is
missing
in
in
this
code
and
then
and
then
the
next
shift
up
mur-3a
to
mur-3b
it.
It
starts
to
allow
the
density
go
up
so
that
row,
house
and
and
mixed-use
building
can
or
small
apartment
building.
I'm
sorry
can
become
a
little
more
viable
in
the
ru,
mu,
r,
3a
and
mu
r
3b.
B
But
it's
really
again
that
last
category
that
allows
all
of
the
multi.
You
know
building
types
without
a
density
limit,
but
again
it
comes
with
it
allows
everything
in
so
it
so
there's
some,
particularly
in
the
in
the
shift
between
r2b
and
our
mur
3a
and
then
the
distinguishing
and
within
the
mur
3
districts.
We
think
maybe
some
more
attention
could
be
paid
to
the
scale
and
types
of
buildings
that
would
give
us
some
better
choices.
B
B
Yet
when
we
look
at
completely
different
numbers,
there
might
be
some
things
that
really
make
the
buildings
relate
well
together
or
fit
in,
and
we
know
that
because
we
see
all
of
these
types
in
a
lot
of
neighborhoods
mixed
together,
the
question
might
be
well:
are
we?
Are
we
capping
the
scale
of
the
building
correctly?
Is
it
a
design
element
of
the
building?
Is
it
simply
a
block
structure
issue
where
they
fit
in
on
one
part
of
the
block,
but
not
other
parts
of
the
block?
B
So
a
lot
of
those
questions
go
into
play
of
how
we
mix
densities
and
get
some
of
those
again
with
the
overall
goal
being
supporting
walkable
commercial
nodes
and
corridors
supporting
transit
and
having
those
transportation
options.
It's
it's
density
for
a
purpose
right,
not
for
density,
just
for
the
sake
of
density
and
and
building
more
valuable
and
mixed
density,
neighborhoods.
That
kind
of
plays
into
your
city's
goal
of
having
more
options
for
different
stages
of
life,
so
people
can
remain
in
the
community.
B
So
all
these
options
have
a
bigger
and
broader
goal
than
just
density
for
the
sake
of
density
and
so
studying
how
they
fit
in
is
important.
We
tend
to
look
at
it
in
two
different
ways.
The
first
is
on
the
development
side,
so
starting
at
housing
types
that
first
part
of
the
presentation
which
housing
types
fit
in
and
which
ones
don't.
B
Once
we
settle
on
those
there's
some
issues
of
looking
at
the
scale
and
massing
of
them
to
make
sure
they
they
do
fit
in
because
not
all
just
because
you
have
the
right
building
type
doesn't
mean
it's
guaranteed
to
fit
in
and
then
the
third
part
is:
how
does
it
relate
to
the
neighborhood?
The
frontage
design?
B
We
really
promote
the
idea
of
the
design
of
the
frontages
and
how
it
relates
to
the
streetscape
can
can
do
a
lot
to
determining
how
a
project
fits
in
more
so
than
any
of
the
other
elements,
necessarily
so
paying
attention
to
that
relationship
and
a
common
relationship
between
different
building
types
can
often
make
things
appear
very
compatible
and
then
the
second
part
of
the
the
flip
flip
side
of
that
is
what
we
call
the
public
realm.
There's,
certainly
a
lot
of
things
that
are
not
on
the
development
side
that
will
determine
your
neighborhood
characters.
B
B
Just
because
it's
a
pleasant
and
attractive
streetscape
to
be
on
and
then
other
landscape
elements,
and
then
the
last
part
is
civic
spaces,
things
that
aren't
necessarily
public
or
maybe
public,
but
the
buildings
are
arranged
around,
whether
that's
courtyards
or
whether
it's
entry
features
and
plazas,
and
things
like
that
at
the
larger
scale,
buildings
begin
to
tie
things
into
the
bigger
picture.
So
those
are
the
elements
of
character
that
we
look
at.
Oh
I'm
missing
a
slide
here.
B
Okay,
so
with
that
pause
for
contemplative
thinking,
this
is
a
list
of
things
we
look
at
as
the
the
tools
that
can
begin
to
to
mix
those
types
together.
You
all
have
a
lot
of
experience
if
we
were
to
check
the
boxes
on
these
there's,
probably
five
or
six
of
them,
probably
even
more-
that
you've
already
checked
the
box
on
in
your
current
code.
B
B
That's
looking
at
scale
and
massing
from
a
lot
from
the
lot
boundaries
do
we
need
to
look
at
scale
and
massing
from
the
building
types?
In
other
words,
how
does
the
building
itself,
regardless
of
how
it
relates
to
the
boundaries?
How
is
the
scale
and
massing
of
it
broken
up?
So
there's
just
a
number
of
different
ways
to
talk
about
these
topics
and
we
want
to
find
the
right
fit
for
you
all.
B
That's
really
we're
trying
to
strike
a
balance
on
three
things:
what
reflects
the
the
character
and
essence
of
your
neighborhoods
that
makes
things
fit
in
while
meeting
your
planning
goals
for
diversifying
what
can
be
easily
implemented.
Some
of
these
things
are
quite
a
large
challenge
to
implement.
And,
lastly,
what
are
the
things
you
know?
A
C
Hi,
well,
it's
nice
to
see
that
tonight
that
we've
outlined
kind
of
a
an
organized
way
of
going
about
this.
So
this
has
been
a
great
presentation.
Thank
you
so
far,
and
I
think
this
is
really
getting
to
the
heart
of
the
matter
for
a
lot
of
what
the
growth
that
we've
been
experiencing
lately,
I
have
it
on
my
blog
and
I
do
think
that
coming
to
some
kind
of
way,
we
can
get
them
to
do
some
architectural
character
in
line
with
the
surrounding
would
be
a
thing.
C
I
think
it's
important
goal
for
the
neighborhood,
so
I
I
have
a
development
in
mind
at
kenyon
and
galapagos
streets
and
I'm
I'm
very
pleased
that
they're
building
they're
taking
down
some
old,
really
rental
huts.
You
know
they
they
did.
They
tore
down
some
stuff
that
and
the
owner
sold
it
and
it
really
wasn't
beautiful
in
its
architecture,
but
what
they
are
doing
is
building
something
very
modern
across
the
street
from
something
that
was
built
in
the
70s
and
the
70s
structures
across
the
street
are
newer
and
they're.
C
B
B
The
second
category
which
you
all
have
some
experience
with
the
detailed
scale
and
mass
begins
to
look
at
the
box
in
a
little
more
of
a
architecturally
sensitive,
but
also
architecturally
neutral
way.
In
other
words,
we
still
aren't
into
anything.
That's
saying
that
particular
architectural
styles
need
to
be
done.
B
It
can
be,
and
then
that's
where
you
can
kind
of
get
into
some
trouble
of
requiring
things
to
to
be
broken
up
at
a
certain
scale
or
to
be
to
have
certain
features
on
the
building,
whereas
if
a
building
was
doing
something
really
representative
of
a
particular
architectural
style,
sometimes
those
generic
standards
can
run
counter
to
it.
There's
a
way
to
balance
that
in
the
code
don't
get
me
wrong,
but
it's
just
something
that
we
need
to
be
aware
of.
B
That's
when
you
usually
need
to
graduate
up
to
something
that
would
that
does
a
detailed
analysis
of
the
styles
themselves.
What
are
the
features
and
attributes
to
it,
and
often
what
we
see
is
a
what's
called
a
pattern
book.
In
other
words,
it
will
document
one
or
usually
several
different
styles
that
are
prevalent
and
document
the
essential
elements
of
that,
and
then
it
becomes
a
matter
of
okay.
Now,
how
do
we
implement
that?
Does
staff
have
the
expertise
or
really
quite
honestly,
the
time
to
implement
that?
B
You
need
the
process
two,
you
need
the
analysis
and
documentation
and
then
three,
the
the
either
the
local
standards
or
secretary
of
interior
standards
will
have
things
that
say:
okay,
here's
how
you
protect
that
historic
asset.
It
doesn't
mean
necessarily
that
it's
going
to
be
a
particular
style.
So
that's
the
difference
between
those
two
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
you
have
to
do
things
exactly
like
the
historic
building
was
done,
but
it
can
be.
It
can
be
a
frustrating
one
to
deal
with.
B
Let
me
say
that,
because
it
is
very
there's
debates,
even
within
the
historic
preservation
committee
community
of
like
how
is
the
best
way
to
do
that.
So
would
you
if
we're-
and
I
know
those
discussions
have
happened
in
your
community
already
and
we
just
want
to
be
sensitive
to
what's
the
ultimate
goal
here.
If
a
lot
of
what
we're
really
talking
about
is
managing
growth
and
change
within
the
character
of
a
neighborhood,
we
think
we
can
accomplish
that
without
necessarily
doing
a
full-on
historic
designation.
D
E
Way-
and
maybe
I
mean
I-
I
brought
this
up
previously
in
a
different
context,
but
what
you
know
what
what
portions
of
this
should
be
in
our
code
and
what
portions
of
this
really
belong
in
the
building
code,
as
opposed
to
the
planning
and
zoning
code,
especially
when
it
comes
to
lan.
You
know
architectural
character
or
historic
character.
E
B
B
B
So
there's
two
ways
to
address
that,
and
you
know
the
distinction
between
hey
two
r1a
neighborhoods
aren't
the
same
you're,
either
backing
them
out
as
guidelines
or
recommended
practices,
because
we
do
want
the
code
itself
to
be
easily
enforceable,
easy
interpreted
and,
and
you
know,
shooting
for
the
same
objectives,
but
maybe
different
neighborhoods
have
different
guidelines,
maybe
they're
recommended
practices,
maybe
they're
an
overlay
district,
and
you
have
some
experience
with
that.
The
cautionary
tale
we
have
there.
This
is
the
one
from
the
city
where
we're
the
on-call
planner.
B
They
essentially
each
neighborhood,
started
to
become
its
own
zoning
code
and
that
can
become
very
difficult
to
implement.
It
can
have
a
lot
of
problems
of
you
know,
people's
expectations,
because
it's
adding
more
complexity
or
code,
and
we
may
want
to
be
cautious
about
doing
that,
but
the
next
step
of
that
is
and-
and
maybe
this
is
what
you're
getting
at
as
well.
Sometimes
the
neighborhoods
themselves
might
have
these
codes
on
their
own,
so
that
was
what
was
going
on
in
this
community.
B
D
C
Yeah
along
those
lines,
I
was
just
google
searching
denver.
I
know
that
denver
had
passed
in
regulations
limiting
architectural
character
at
some
scope
and
it
seems
that
what
they
did
was
the
band.
What's
all
gloss,
so
you
can
google
search
that
and
it's
just
that
kind
of
style
where
it
looks
really
really
modern.
C
But
what
it's
really
designed
to
do
is
to
be
a
big
giant
box
that,
where
they
put
some
windows,
so
I
know
that
the
argument
is
that
architectural
style
will
cost
a
lot
of
city
resources
and
could
get
into
some
messy
territory,
but
I
think
nonetheless,
as
a
community,
we
want
to
explore
some
things
we
can
do
so.
Maybe
we
can
look
at
what
other
cities
are
doing
to
keep
from?
C
G
I
guess
one
of
the
things
that
I
have
a
hard
time
with
is
that
I,
I
appreciate
really
good
architectural
design,
but
it's
still
subjective.
It's
like
what
I
appreciate,
maybe
different
than
what
other
people
appreciate,
and
we
have
quite
a
few
different
types
of
styles
of
houses
and
quite
a
few
that
are,
you
know,
from
world
war
ii,
small
square
foot,
housing
that
I
live
in
you
know,
and
so
I
think
it's
hard
to
pick
out
those
pieces
and
that
we
could
say.
G
Oh
everyone
should
follow
this
standard
or
follow
this
guideline,
because
I
don't
know
if
that's
going
to
really
benefit
us
as
a
community,
and
I
guess
one
of
the
things
I
look
back
at
too
is
like
the
purpose
of
having
a
land
use
code
is
to,
for
you
know,
health
safety
and
welfare,
and
so
how
do
we
tie
architectural
standards
back
to
those
needs?
Is
it
for
safety?
Is
it
for
our
general
welfare
or
how
are
we?
How
can
we
defend
that?
G
So
I
guess
that's
something
that
that
I
think
of
because
it's
typically
health
safety
welfare
and
not
doing
undue
burden
onto
a
property
owner,
and
so
I
think
we
need
to
balance
and
consider
those
needs.
And
how
do
you
get
everybody's
styles
to
agree
on
what
you
would
want
in
something
that
is
a
code
which
is
law.
So
just
those
are
my
thoughts.
G
H
Yeah
just
to
briefly
tailgate
on
what
kate
said,
I
think
there
are
some
instances
where
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
try
and
establish
some
sort
of
architectural
pattern.
I
think
that,
overall,
though
it's
a
slippery
slope,
good
architecture
is
more
about
scale
and
massing
than
it
is
about
a
style
and
it's
very
subjective.
H
I
think
somebody
brought
up
a
an
infill
development,
which
I
think
I'm
responsible
for
designing
earlier,
and
it's
really
interesting
what
people
see
as
far
as
context,
because
you
can
see
the
1970s,
you
know
homes,
sort
of
suburban
homes
that
they
were
out
of
context
when
they
were
built
in
the
1970s.
And
if
you
go,
two
blocks
to
the
north,
there's
industrial
buildings
and
around
the
corner
are
apartments,
and-
and
so
I
think
architecture
does
change
over
time
and
it
should.
H
We
should
be
allowing
people
to
to
build
based
on
on
on
the
time
and
and
the
current
you
know,
needs
and
demands
really
of
the
market.
Having
said
that,
one
of
the
things
that
I've
been
working
on
in
other
communities
and
and
and
I
do
think-
would
actually
help
preserve
architectural
character
in
the
neighborhood
is
to
have
some
trade-offs
where,
if
you
are
building
a
one-story
home,
whether
it's
an
addition,
a
remodel
or
a
new,
build
within
to
allow
for
some
greater
lot
coverage,
and
maybe
some
flexibility
and
setbacks.
H
If
you
are
to
build
a
single
story
home.
In
other
words,
if
you're
you're
going
to
go
in-
and
let's
say
it's
an
infield
development
in
in
a
community
where
it's
traditionally,
you
know
either
you
know,
post-war
or
pre-war
single-story
homes
allow
for
the
for
the
necessary
components
of
a
market
based
single-story
home
to
be
built
by
allowing
some
greater
lot
coverage,
and
I
think,
maybe,
if
it's,
if
it's
a
one-story
element,
some
greater,
you
know
some
leeway
and
setbacks,
especially
the
front
setback.
H
The
the
other
thing
as
we
go
into
this-
and
this
is
mostly
for
you-
know
single
single,
family
and
and
or
lower
density
residential-
that
I'm
talking
about,
is
to
also
allow
for
an
attached
garage
to
be
to
meet
the
same
requirements
as
a
detached
garage
a
lot
of
times
when
I'm
dealing
with
even
remodels
to
these
older
homes.
We
just
we
can't
get
what
people
want
to
fit
on
the
lot
due
to
the
to
some.
G
A
I
came
from
an
area
that
had
a
historic
district
that
didn't
allow
us
to
do
anything
and
it
was
frustrating
as
all
get
out
and
the
reality
is
by
1923
house
was
a
sears
craftsman,
bungalow
that
got
shipped
in
a
crate
and
wasn't
historic
in
any
sort
of
shape,
but
was
deemed
historic.
And
so
I
like
the
idea
of
trying
to
go
more
towards
the
character
side,
and
I
know
there's
comments
about.
Maybe
does
that
limit
too
many
things,
but
I
do
think
that
there
are
homes
out
there.
That
can
be
larger.
A
I
think
two-story
homes,
or
even
some
of
the
larger
ones
can
fit
as
long
as
they
fit
architecturally
and
and
and
contextually,
and
so
I
I
I
would
lean
towards
not
historic
but
some
sort
of
characters
and
realistically
we
are
fully
built
out.
We
don't
have
infill
coming
in,
I'm
sorry
greenfield
projects
that
are
going
to
be
happening.
We
have
redevelopment.
A
So
if
we
have
six
areas
or
something
like
that,
or
maybe
eight
not
a
ton,
if
we
have
something
like
that,
I
think
it's
something
that
we
can
develop
characters
for
each
one
of
those
areas,
and
I
I
think
that
would
be
the
way
I
would
lean
towards
going
as
opposed
to
really
just
a
straight-up
historic
that
has
to
follow
the
tartan
of
interior
requirements
because
those
stink,
but
really
go
more
towards
some
sort
of
character.
Development.
So
appreciate
the
thoughts
on
that.
D
On
to
their
house
that
just
makes
things
less
feasible.
I
think
we
can
still
do
a
lot
with
massing
and
scale
without
getting
into
specifying
materials,
and
I
think,
having
some
flexibility
so
that
people
can
use
some
more
of
their
lot
without
going
up
is
really
an
interesting
idea.
Just
because
I
know
we've.
C
C
E
E
Is
there
really
a
two-story
house
so-
and
I
know
that
there's
a
lot
of
people
that
have
issues
with
if
we
would
put
a
two-story
house
here,
we'd
probably
hear
about,
but
we
we
wouldn't.
If
we
wanted
to
make
it
bigger,
we
don't
want
to
go
up.
The
reason
we
bought
a
ranch
is
because
we
didn't
want
to
have
stairs,
so
the
setback
is
definitely
an
issue,
and
just
as
a
an
aside,
I
you
know
when
we
went
through
the
torturous
adu
discussion.
E
But
so
that's
just
my
opinion
on
that.
But
adus,
I
think,
should
be
allowed
in
all
residential
zones
and
r1a,
especially,
and
I
think
that
you
ought
to
be
able
to
make
them
bigger
than
what
they
are
currently
at,
but
we
we
beat
that
to
a
so.
It
felt
like
it
was
a
dead
horseman
the
first
time
around,
but
maybe
we
have
a
little
more
people
that
are
a
little
more
open
to
it.
Now.
G
G
I
think
what
can
get
difficult
is
that
I
think
all
of
our
zone
districts
allow
for
two
stories
at
least,
and
so
we
can't
I
would
have
a
hard
time
taking
that
right
away
from
anyone.
I
mean
that's
their
ability
to
be
able
to
build
two
stories,
but
I
do
like
that
idea
of
being
able
to
have
more
of
that
flexibility.
G
So
people
can
keep
a
one
story
and
that
definitely
ties
in
more
to
those.
You
know
ability
to
have
a
house
that
you
can
live
in
for
many
years
and
to
have
those
one-story
homes
that
many
of
our
communities
are
lacking,
and
I
believe
centennial
is
actually
doing
a
pattern
book
right
now
and
looking
at
how
can
they
have
more
houses
that
people
can
live
in?
A
Colin
and
I
I
love
the
option
of
being
able
to
look
at
setbacks
too.
The
only
thing
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
also
considering
is
lot
coverage
when
we
have
you
know
these
huge
or
larger
single
story.
That
obviously
covers
a
lot
more
than
a
lot.
It
reduces
green
space.
That's
on
there.
It
reduces
infiltration,
there's
more
runoff.
A
You
know
if
we're
going
all
the
way
to
the
lot
lines
we
end
up
could
create
some
other
issues
that
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
considering
also
I'm
not
saying
that
I'm
against
it
by
any
stretch,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
consider
some
of
those
other
issues.
That
might
might
be
the
case
too.
G
D
Yeah,
I
think
the
point
about
lot
coverage
keeping
on
that
makes
sense,
but
I
guess
I'm
confused.
Is
there
any
good
reason
to
keep
around
these
number
of
square
feet
of
lot
for
per
unit?
If
we
also
have
lot
coverage
does
does
that
continue
to
make
sense,
or
should
we
just
focus
on
lock
coverage
and
not
tie
that
density
limit
by
by
having
a
lot
size
per
per
unit?.
G
H
H
One
of
the
things
that
has
changed
dramatically.
I
think,
since
you
know,
the
current
code
was
certainly
put
in,
is
that
the
out
the
outdoor
space
that
were
that
people
are
desiring,
whether
it's
covered
patios
or
decks
or
all
of
the
items
that
count
towards
lot
coverage.
They're
they're,
not
necessarily
always
equal
to
you
know
habitable
space,
and
you
run
into
a
lot
of
problems
with
that
with
trying
to
get
those
to
work,
and
actually
they
can
sometimes
help
with
drainage
issues
and
runoff
issues
and
things
of
that
nature.
H
I
think
we
really
need
to
look
at
some
models
and
some
examples,
because
what
you're
trading
off
for
in
in
these
one
and
one
and
a
half
story
you
know
homes-
is
that
you're
still
allowing
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
to
exist.
That
you're
also
allowing
for
that
that
neighboring
home
to
to
maintain
its
privacy
and
its
its
solar
access
and
all
the
things
that
we
we
we're
constantly
here.
So
it's!
I
don't
think
it's
a
it's!
It's
not
it's
not
a
either.
You
can
only
build
a
two-story.
H
You
can
only
build
a
one
story.
What
I'm
proposing
is
is
allow
people
to
build
a
larger
one
story
if
they
so
choose,
and
I
think
the
the
the
the
concern
for
for,
for
you
know
some
of
the
lot
coverage
items
as
far
as
green
space
and
things
of
that
nature
can
be
overcome,
and
I
think
that
would
be
part
of
the
trade-off
there
anyway.
That's
this.
This
happens
quite
often
in
almost
every
new
community.
H
That
goes
in
mostly,
you
know,
suburban
communities,
but
you
know
you
see
it
in
a
lot
of
these
sort
of
new
communities,
even
with
alley
homes
and
things
of
that
nature,
where
there
is
a
greater
lot
coverage
allowance
for
homes
that
have
that
are
the
majority
of
the
design
is
single
story,
and
I
just
think
it's
going
to
solve.
I
think
it's
going
to
help
preserve
our
neighborhoods
more
than
people
think
I
think
we
run
into
a
lot
of
restrictions.
H
We've
heard
some
some
of
them
here
just
on
this
board
for
people
that
live
in
single-family
homes.
Now
I
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
a
big
increase,
but
I
just
think
it
needs
to
allow
people
to
be
able
to
do
to
their
homes
what
they
you
know,
what
what
they
need
to
do
in
order
to
keep
pace
with
the
amenities
that
are
allowed
in
a
in
a
two
or
three
story:
home.
C
G
F
A
F
F
Oh,
I
see
okay,
that's
interesting,
so
that
would
be
what
would
cap
having
you
know,
smaller
studios
or
something
right?
Okay,
interesting!
Well,
I
think
that's
something
we
should
look
at
then
allowing
some
in
multi-family
areas
where
we
can
have
smaller
units
and
more
of
them
as
a
more
affordable
option.
D
F
D
F
D
F
B
Right,
that's
a
great
question:
I'm
a
bit
of
a
kind
of
a
an
organization
freak
on
the
code
and
I
kind
of
want
things
to
work
technically
from
the
big
picture
and
that's
not
always
the
right
answer
for
a
community.
That's
just
trying
to
get
what
works
for
them,
but
I
would
say
this
is
when
I
first
saw
your
code.
I
thought
oh
there's
too
many
and
there's
not
good
distinctions
between
them.
Now
that
I
understand
it
a
little
bit
more,
I
think
you're
about
at
the
right
number.
I
would
hesitate
adding
more.
B
I
would
think
we
would
need
to
look
at.
Are
we
making
the
right
distinctions
between
them
and
and
then,
when
we
do
that,
we
need
to
think
of
the
map,
of
course,
because
some
areas
are
already
zoned
this
and
what
would
a
change
to
one
of
these
categories
due
to
areas
already
mapped
that,
but
that's
what
we
kind
of
plan
on
looking
at
first,
it
doesn't
mean
we
wouldn't
end
up
at
hey
to
get
all
these
types
to
relate.
B
Well,
together,
we
need
to
add
a
new
district,
that's
entirely
possible,
but
we
kind
of
keep
that
as
a
last
resort,
because
we
do
try
to
keep
the
code
simpler
and
then
a
lot
of
times.
What
we
want
to
do
is
to
make
sure
that
a
district
can
have
several
of
these
things
going
on
and
that's
the
other
thing
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
is
how
easily
can
do
these
lot,
sizes
and
and
dimension
standards
relate
or
or
the
unit
counts,
within
a
building
relate
to
the
next
one
up.
B
In
other
words,
could
you
can
you
easily
change
from
one
to
the
next
or
take
a
lot
and
and
convert
it
into
two
or
three,
and
if
so,
where?
And
so
that
kind
of
incremental
and
and
long-term
evolution
within
a
zoning
district
is,
is
what
we
would
be
looking
at
as
well
and
again,
not
every
zoning
district,
but
you
probably
do
want
to
have
one
or
two
that
allow
that
to
happen
as
well.
F
B
B
Maybe
we
want
a
question
of
hey
what's
wrong
with
having
a
two
unit
house
in
r1c
when
it
looks
and
is
shaped
exactly
the
same
as
a
one
unit
house,
it
just
happens
to
have
two
units
in
it.
So
those
types
of
questions
we
might
want
to
look
at
and
and
see
if
it
and-
and
maybe
maybe
that
is
maybe
that
would
be
two
since
r1c-
is
a
lot
of
your
city.
We'd
want
to
certainly
be
very
cautious
about
that,
but
there's
things
like
that.
B
F
F
F
F
B
So
we
typically
find
those
row
home
units
fitting
anywhere
from
1
500
square
feet
to
2000
or
a
little
more
per
unit
on
a
lot
now
that
doesn't
mean
it.
There
will
be
a
difference
on
if
it's,
if
it's
platted
for
individual
ownership
versus
it's
a
group
of
buildings
where,
where
sometimes
they
can
make
up
that
lot
area
in
common
space,
those
things
can
all
happen.
B
That's
why
I
said
it's
not
impossible
to
do
row
house
units
you're
just
trying
to
do
a
math
equation
to
get
to
the
number,
whereas
we
might
want
to
look
at
study.
Some
examples,
study
some
patterns
and
say,
let's
just
codify,
that
and
figure
out
which
district
it
fits
in
and
then
and
then
I
think
a
similar
exercise
could
be
done
with
that.
The
small
apartment
building
that
kind
of
four
to
six
or
eight
unit
building
that
can
sometimes
fit
on
the
smaller
lots.
G
H
I
think
I
think
a
lot
of
the
row
house
typology
or
a
lot
of
that
missing
middle
is
usually
found
in
transitional
zoning
areas
and
that's
one
of
the
challenges
we
have.
If
you
look
at
a
large
portion
of
englewood
right
now,
we
go
directly
from
main
street
to
you,
know
single
unit
or
or
lower
density,
in
a
lot
of
places
right
away
now,
some
of
those
areas
allow
for
the
duplex
or
the
triplex
and
so
you're
starting
to
see
that
happen,
especially
on
either
side
of
broadway
on
monacoma
and
lincoln,
etc.
H
So
that's
really
always,
I
think,
been.
The
challenge
is:
how
do
you
balance
some
of
the
existing
neighborhoods
with
allowing
some
of
those
areas
to
be
to
have
some
more
options
so
that
we
can
have
that
transitional
zoning
and
increase
the
diversity
in
our
housing
type?
It's
starting
to
naturally
happen.
Some
people
don't
like
that.
It's
just
where
the
zoning
opportunities
are,
and
you
know
the
vast
majority
of
our
residential
lots
are
zoned
for
a
single
unit.
H
So
what
we're
seeing
as
far
as
low-density
multi-family
is
is
happening
in
those
areas
where
it's
allowed
right
now.
So
I
mean
it's:
it's
it's
more
of
a
statement,
I
guess
in
the
question,
but
it
would
be
interesting
to
see
how
we're
not
only
looking
at
historic
context
of
what
was
there
in
1950
or
1970.
But
what
do
we
see
happening?
What
what
has
happened
in
the
last
10
years?
That
has
changed
that
context
of
what
that
neighborhood
is
now,
and
should
that
really
be
dictating
where
some
of
these
new
options
are
allowed.
B
To
where,
then
you
have
the
discretion
to
evaluate?
Are
those
conditions
and
criteria
that
make
it
fit
in
well
that
we
establish
in
the
code
are
those
being
met.
Those
are
the
two
things
that
we're
going
to
try
to
look
at.
If
we
start
adding
new
types
in
because
your
your
point
is
exactly
right,
that
you
know
you
the
large
part
of
your
neighborhood
scape
of
blocks
and
lots
is
geared
for
exactly
what
those
r1
patterns
are
saying.
So
yeah.
I
B
It's
not
in
ours,
yet
it
is
a
big
factor.
In
fact,
what
I
was
going
to
offer
up
when,
when
I
think
maybe
it
was
even
you
that
brought
up
the
hey,
do
we
need
to
eliminate
the
the
per
unit
lot
size?
We
often
find
that
the
parking
either
the
requirement
itself
or
the
demand
for
it
that
the
the
person
developing
will
put
on
will
be
the
limiting
factor
for
some
of
these
types.
B
In
other
words,
if
you
have
to
find
five
to
ten
parking
spaces
on
your
lot
to
build
one
of
these
types,
it's
going
to
be
a
challenge,
whether
that's
required
or
whether
you're
doing
that
to
meet
your
your
market
dynamics.
And
so
then,
from
our
standpoint
from
the
you
know,
the
looking
out
for
the
public
interest
and
the
protecting
the
neighborhood.
It
becomes
a
design
challenge
of
we're
trying
to
mitigate
where
and
how
the
parking
goes.
More
so
than
we're
trying
to
say,
you
need
to
meet
a
minimum
standard,
oftentimes.
B
And
I'll
give
you
my
quick,
outsider's
objective
and
then
wade
brook
can
dive
in
with
the
details
that
I'm
going
to
miss.
Probably.
But
the
first
thing
I
would
say
is
these:
almost
all
of
the
districts
you
have
on
here
right
now
can
be
very
transit
supportive.
I
mean
when
we're
looking
at
these
you're
looking
at
densities
in
the
you
know,
seven
to
in
particular,
if
we
add
in
some
of
the
missing
middle
categories
overall,
seven
to
twenty
units
per
acre
on
a
neighborhood
scale,
that's
very
transit
supportive.
B
So
a
mix
of
these
districts
is
going
to
really
kind
of
thicken
up
your
your
units
and
neighborhoods
into
the
ones
where
the
trans
agencies
are
like.
That's
hitting
our
target.
So
then
I
think
your
more
specific
question
about
transit
oriented.
We
would
consider
those
sort
of
the
the
station
area,
larger
scale
developments
and
projects
which
what
I
neglected
to
have
on
this
table.
So
that
would
put
us
probably
in
the
the
mu,
r
3
c,
maybe
the
b
category,
depending
on
what
we
would
do
with
it
here.
B
But
then
we
quickly
jump
over
to
your
your
mixed
use.
Districts.
Your
commercial
districts
also
allow
residential
buildings
in
them
without
some
of
these
density
constraints.
So
those
were
we
are
where
we
would
probably
see
the
really
you
know,
trans
adjacent,
larger
scale,
projects
being
handled
through
that
and
and
there
those
would
be
ones
where
are
going
back
to
our
very
first
conversation
having
different
parking
strategies
for
those
building
types
in
those
locations
is
probably
warranted.
A
And,
ironically
enough,
most
of
the
land
surrounding
the
transit
stations
is
zoned,
industrial,
which
does
not
permit
residential
units.
So
most
of
the
projects
you
see
along
there
are
planned
unit
developments.
So
it's
a
negotiated
zoning
district.
If
you
will
and
to
to
allow
the
to
allow
residential-
and
so
then
the
city
has
negotiating
power
to
to
talk
about
parking
ratios
and
parking
spaces
and
other
amenities
that
would
be
allowed
to
permit
the
higher
density
in
those
areas.
C
D
The
only
other
observation
I
make
about
transit
oriented
development
is
that
we
had
a
case
at
the
board
of
adjustment
at
appeals
where
it
was
all
about
the
requirement
for
ground
floor
commercial
and
the
fact
that
that
just
wouldn't
work
to
program
the
site,
whether
it's
parking
or
just
not
being
able
to
to
lease
out
that
space,
so
that
in
the
mu
c
districts.
That
seems
to
be
a
limiting
factor
that
that
requirement
for
commercial.
On
the
first
floor.
G
H
Yeah
andy
jumped
on
what
I
was
going
to
say.
I
mean
the
comment
was
made
earlier
that
were
built
out
city,
and
this
is
going
to
be
mostly,
you
know,
infill.
I
do
think
that
there's
a
difference
in
scale-
and
I
I
do
see
some
opportunities,
especially
in
our
changing
environment,
with
some
areas
regarding
retail
and
even
office
space.
H
H
I
think
there's
ways
or
any
of
the
main
street
areas,
including
what
what
could
potentially
happen
around
the
civic
center
is,
I
think,
there's
ways
of
activating
that
street
level
with
activities
that
aren't
necessarily
mixed
use
in
nature.
I
think
there's
some
areas
where
mixed
use
works
and
I
think
we'll
see
a
bounce
back
in
the
demand
for
those
storefront
areas
that
we're
not
necessarily
seeing
right
now,
but
I
do
see
some
some
challenges,
especially
with
residential
developers,
who
don't
want
to
get
into
the
mixed
use
game.
H
There's
a
couple
of,
I
think,
really
well
done,
three-story
developments
that
have
been
built
in
the
last
few
years
along
broadway
in
denver,
and,
I
would
say,
about
80
percent,
if
not
higher,
of
the
retail
ground
floor
area
is
still
unleashed
or
unpurchased
and
depending
on
the
case.
So
I
think,
having
some
flexibility
in
that
could
help
with
those
that,
with
some
of
those
transition
areas
and
quite
honestly,
helping
to
to
to
re-establish
broadway,
both
from
a
walkability
standpoint
and
a
vitality
standpoint.
F
A
I
think
I
think
it's
something
we
could
look
at
I
I
know
there's
been
pushback
about
puds
in
the
past,
especially
from
from
council,
but
on
the
other
hand,
there's
also
some
concern
again
on
council
from
council
in
the
past
that
that
industrial
area
really
is
a
vital
part
of
of
the
city's
job
network
and
manufacturing,
and
that
that
land
has
some
value
as
well,
and
they
don't
they've
cautioned
against
really
eroding
that
industrial
zoning
too
much
in
the
past.
So
it's
there's
pros
and
cons
on
both
sides.
A
I
guess,
but
it
is.
It
is
interesting
to
to
maybe
try
to
get
away
from
as
many
of
these
negotiated
zonings
as
we
can,
especially
if
you're
tied
to
the
tod,
the
transit
stations
and
so
forth,
but
keeping
in
mind
that
there's
there's
value
in
that
industrial
land
as
well.
So
I
think
it's
a
really
good,
interesting
question
to
to
look
at
further
in
terms
of
what
we
could
do
there.
F
F
I
was
wondering
about
the
industrial
because
it
seems
like
there's
an
outcry
about
putting
too
much
multifamily
in
the
small
bungalow
areas.
People
are
pretty
protective
of
that,
but
I
don't
think
anyone
would
care
very
much
if
there
were
more
multi-families
in
kind
of
where
the
warehouses
are
because
it
wouldn't
affect
those
homeowners.
A
E
The
fact
that
we
have
a
huge
number
of
our
single-family
homes
that
are
not
known
or
occupied
is
a
discussion
that
you
know
is
a
whole
different
discussion
that
you
know.
I've
always
said
we
should
have
a
higher
tax
burden
on
those
owners
but
anyways
higher
property
tax
burden.
But
it's
just
something
that
I
want
us
to
pay
very
close
attention
to
that.
Somehow
I
don't
know
how
you
use
zoning
to
encourage
owner
occupancy,
but
I
would
I
you
know
if
it
means
we
have.
E
F
B
F
B
Typically,
not
because,
as
as
judy
mentioned,
the
code
doesn't
really
distinguish
nor,
nor
probably
could
it
or
should
it
between
how
someone
owns
property
or
not,
and
but
what
could
affect
it
is
we're
usually
on
a
path
to
make
some
of
these
types
easier
to
build
and
market
anyway,
and
that
often
means
looking
at
standards.
Just
like
judy
mentioned
of
hey,
can
you
own
half
a
duplex?
How
easy?
How
hard
is
it
you
know
with
the
the
party
wall
agreements
or
the
lot
standards?
B
Can
you
split
it
and
own
half
and
now
there's
other
issues
to
look
at
that,
but
when
I
mentioned
the
town
home
one,
that's
one
more,
you
know
everyone's
often
wanting
to
own
that
individually.
And
how
easy
can
you
do
that,
so
the
code
can
look
at
eliminating
some
of
those
barriers
and
as
long
as
you
know,
the
property,
maintenance
and
building
maintenance
things
are
are
addressed.
B
D
F
D
I
Thank
you.
Can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes
great,
I
particularly
liked
the
the
parts
about
what
I
would
essentially
call
bribing
people
to
build
one-story
buildings.
I
think
that
anytime,
we
can
put
in
incentives.
It's
great
that
way,
we're
not
telling
people
what
to
do,
but
we
are
incentivizing
them.
My
you
know.
We
all
have
an
example
that
touches
us.
I
I
But
no,
I
like
I
like
the
observations
about
whether
it
makes
sense
to
squish
zoning
units
together.
I
had
initially
thought
there
were
too
many,
but
I,
especially
after
the
additional
digging
in
from
today,
can
appreciate
what
what
is
there
and
mixed
use.
Definitely,
I
know
the
ground
floor.
Retail
is
just
not
you
know,
it
doesn't
fly,
or
at
least
that's
what
I've
heard
in
planning
and
zoning
for
the
last
almost
two
years.
Every
time
it's
come
up,
but
any
type
of
mixed
use,
I
think
is-
is
great.
I
I
spent
many
years
in
in
boston
or
cambridge
specifically
and
really
enjoyed
that.
It
was
very
dense
up
against
the
big,
the
big
streets
and
very
quickly
fell
down
to
single
family
or
one
to
two
story.
Duplexes
a
little
further
away
meant
that,
well
kind
of
a
side.
Note
I
found
a
corner
store,
I'm
not
sure
if
any
of
you
have
found
them
in
englewood,
but
I
found
one
they're
hard
to
find.
I
think
they
should
be
in
more
places
turns
out.
It's
not
a
corner
store
anymore.
I
Well,
I'm
not
sure,
but
so
if
anyone
wants
to
open
a
corner
store,
I
have
a
property
for
you,
but
yes,
zoning
that
would
allow
more
of
you
know.
This
is
along
floyd.
So
more
of
those
things
along
places
like
floyd,
so
yeah
thanks
everyone.
This
has
been
a
particularly
good
good
meeting
in
terms
of
the
info
that
has
come
forward.
D
H
Can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
there
we
go:
okay,
hooray
for
corner
stores,
I'll
kill.
I
think
brooke
touched
on
something
that
that
was
running
through
my
mind,
and
I
think
we
need
to
start
looking
at
some
of
the
allowances
as
less
of
a
density
number
of
units
and
more
of
a
volume
massing
scale
and
and
size
of
building,
because
we
can
allow
whether
it's
owner-occupied
or
owner-owned
scenarios
similar
to
an
adu
that
are
much
easier
and
much
and
to
build
that
could
later
be
converted
to
you
know,
owner
occupied.
H
From
a
building
standpoint.
There's
been
some
good,
interesting
studies
where
you
take
the
basic
shell
of
a
a
standard,
two-story
home,
you
know
denver,
four
square
or
otherwise,
and
it
looks
exactly
the
same
from
the
outside,
whether
it's
one
family
in
there
or
four,
and
so
I
think,
looking
at
it
and
trying
to
promote
on
the
smaller
scale
or
at
least
allowing
people
to
have
to
creativity
and
allowing
on
the
smaller
scale,
some
owner
occupied
density,
I
think,
would
be
worthwhile
investigating.
G
I
just
have
like
a
list
of
notes
and
reactions,
so
I
was
just
going
to
share
those
with
the
group
in
general.
I
feel
like.
Sometimes,
if
you
write
too
many
rules,
there
are
going
to
be
people
that
are
going
to
go
out
of
their
way
to
push
the
limits,
so
that's
just
kind
of
something
that
we
should
be
careful
about
and
then
another
thing
judy
when
you
were
talking
about
schools
and
like
having
more
ownership
of
homes.
G
It
reminded
me
about
recently
there's
been
a
lot
of
forecasting
that
in
the
future
a
lot
of
people
like
millennials.
If
you
don't
already
own
a
home,
it's
going
to
be
really
difficult
to
get
one
and
then
the
generation
right
behind
millennials
they
we
might
have
forever
renters,
be
just
like
the
family
situation,
and
I
know,
even
with
like
high-end
housing,
there
are
a
lot
of
people
that
they're
just
gonna
rent
forever
and
not
own.
So
I
guess
I'm
not
sure
how
much
we
can
control
that
with
all
of
this.
G
But
I
think
it's
going
to
be
more
about.
People
are
going
to
be
willing
to
pay
rent
in
areas
where
the
schools
are
best,
and
so
how
can
we
attract
people
to
our
schools?
So
I
think
that's
just
going
to
be
a
challenge
for
every
community
moving
forward
and
then
so
people
are
either
gonna
have
to
rent
in
a
place
or
they're.
G
Gonna
have
to
move
super
far
out
to
a
suburb
to
be
able
to
afford
more
space,
and
then
another
thing
I
wrote
was
I
totally
under
at
first
I
came
into
this
meeting
like
kind
of
being
like
we
need
better
setbacks,
because
all
the
houses
are
so
close,
but
after
hearing
everybody's
perspectives,
I
totally
see
both
sides.
So
I
do
like
the
idea
of
a
sort
of
compromise.
If
you
go
low,
you
can
go
far.
If
you
go
high,
you
can't
go
as
far.
G
I
think
that
sounds
like
a
really
good
idea
and
then
to
speak
to
character
of
inglewood.
I
really
like
how
all
of
the
houses
are
different.
I
can't
remember
who,
but
someone
mentioned,
that
at
the
time
where
a
lot
of
our
buildings
were
built,
they
were
a
little
bit
new
age,
not
like
out
of
place
at
the
time,
but
over
time
they
kind
of
grew
into
the
neighborhood.
G
I
think
it
works
well
in
our
neighborhood,
because
we're
really
close
to
hampton
and
the
busy
streets,
so
it
feels
more
like
a
city
over
here,
but
just
streets
away.
There
are
these
cozy
neighborhoods
tucked
away.
So
it
is
really
important
to
remember
that.
You
know
every
single
neighborhood,
even
though
we're
all
super
close
to
each
other
has
very
unique
characters.
So
just
wanted
to
add
that.
A
I
have
a
quick
question
in
our
code
today
and
in
a
lot
of
codes
that
are
of
an
older
vintage
there's
a
lot
of
talk
about
low
density,
medium
density,
high
density
zone
districts.
I'm
just
curious.
Is
that
becoming
more
of
an
antique
kind
of
phrase
or
how
would
they
fit
in
with
you
know
your
first
slide
or
whatever
that
you
showed
with
the
the
curve
on
it
and
and
classifying
those
different
types
of
housing
types?
A
A
B
Yeah,
so
we
look
at
it
in
two
ways
I
tend
to
think
density
is
a
good
evaluator
on
a
neighborhood
scale
or
a
planning
scale
when
you're
talking
about
infrastructure
or
how
you
impact
transportation
or
how
you
impact
the
commercial
market
for
a
walkable
center.
Those
numbers
all
mean
something
when
you
get
to
a
project
level,
I
think
some
of
the
comments
tonight
are
reinforcing
that
the
building
is
going
to
determine
the
relationships
and
what
fits
in
and
what
doesn't,
regardless
of
how
many
units
are
in
it.
So
that's
where
that
graph.
B
C
C
So
I
have
on
this
block
a
senior
facility
at
the
end,
a
home
assisted
care
facility,
because
it's
multi-unit.
So
when
I'm
doing
this
adu,
it's
really
just
converting
my
garage
into
a
rental,
because
I'm
I'm
900
square
feet
anyway.
So
it's
just
really
like
an
extra
bedroom,
but
it's
already
multi-unit
is
my
point:
I'm
not
changing
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Certainly,
we
can
go
through
these
zones
and
look
at
the
existing
neighborhood
and
then
through
an
evaluation
that
probably
hasn't
happened
in
50
years
is
say:
oh,
is
this
really
an
industrial
neighborhood?
C
Well
sure
we
can
change
that
or
this
is
an
mu.
This
is
multi-unit
yeah.
They
don't
need
to
have
this,
have
the
same
adu
restrictions
or
building
restrictions,
as
somebody
say
in
arapahoe
acres
you
know,
so
I
would
like
to
see
that
we
do
this
on
a
neighborhood
by
neighborhood
basis,
and
there
I
mentioned
this
before
is
because
of
that
would
answer
our
character,
how
we
answer
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
there's
no
character
in
my
neighborhood
at
all,
so
it's
pretty
okay,
that
they're
scraping
it
and
building
better
stuff.
B
We
can
figure
out
a
way
to
do
multiple
units
in
r1
through
adu
and
r2,
through
multi-unit
buildings
in
the
mu
r3
through
larger
scale,
multi-unit
buildings,
and
so
that's
where
I
think
that
that
we're
starting
to
build
our
list
of
things
that
we
have
a
technical
committee
that
we
have
to
report
to
our
list
of
questions
is
based
on
this
is
getting
longer,
because
the
bigger
one
that
density
affects
is
some
of
the
infrastructure
issues,
taps
meters.
Things
like
that.
That
we'll
have
to
be
aware
of.
Do
you
have
capacity?
B
You
know
for
the
same
building
having
one
units
now
having
four?
Is
there
any
issues
we
need
to
be
aware
of,
and
then
I
think
what
was
discussed
earlier,
the
the
bigger
impact
would
be.
Is
it
a
parking
and
traffic
impact?
So
if
we
can
use
the
r1
r2
and
mr
mu
r3
as
those
filters
we
might
be
able
to
to
blend
those
districts
a
little
better,
but
also
make
really
meaningful
distinctions.
A
Okay,
does
anybody
have
any
final
questions
or
any
questions
about
the
process
moving
forward
or
anything?
I
like
that
just
remind
you
that
december
7th
is
our
next
meeting.
However,
it
will
be
a
short
meeting,
because
the
planning
commission
will
have
a
agenda
and
a
public
hearing
that
night,
so
we
will
meet
from
six
to
seven
and
then
that
will
be
the
last
meeting
of
the
year
for
us.
G
G
And
I
guess,
if
that's
happening,
if
it
could,
instead
of
being
a
yes,
no
like
how?
How
can
we
make
this
fit,
because
my
concern
would
be
because
we
have
so
many
small
bungalows
anything
other
than
that
is
going
to
be
a
no
that
doesn't
fit.
So
just
like
what
you
know.
Bernie
had
mentioned
the
types
of
housing
where
you
have
you
look
at
it
and
you
don't
notice
that
it's
four
units
like
if
there's
a
way
to
have
some
things
that
still
somewhat
look
like
inglewood
in
terms
of
the
examples.