►
From YouTube: 2 22 2023 UDC Steering Committee Meeting
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/155812?handle=70D2CA9AF475420AA4BF9269E24D4232
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/155811?handle=4488E79062044E31934485F94C8C06DC
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. Public Forum
This is an opportunity for the public to address the committee regarding items not on the agenda. Commissioners and staff will not engage in a dialogue or answer questions during this time. Speakers m...
3. Review of Unified Development Code
4. Adjourn
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/155812?handle=70D2CA9AF475420AA4BF9269E24D4232
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/155811?handle=4488E79062044E31934485F94C8C06DC
C
D
C
Been
since
August
well
July
of
2021,
when
this
whole
process
started
when
we
picked
the
firm
and
we've
been
through
lots
of
chapters
and
I
took
Brenda's
emails
as
a
as
a
good
hunch
that,
yes,
we
needed
to
review
exactly
what
we're
supposed
to
be
doing.
Should
we
be
reviewing
each
chapter
along
with
what's
presented,
etc,
etc.
So,
as
Chris
you
said,
we've
got
a
limited
amount
of
time,
so
I'm
just
going
to
shut
up
and
let
you
get
on
with
it,
but
yeah.
F
Okay,
so
just
before
we
get
started,
I
kind
of
it
skipped
my
mind
that
we
had
two
new
members,
so
the
presentation
is
more
of
an
overview
but
kind
of
getting
to
those
last
two
comments.
This
is
a
chance
for
us
to
kind
of
step
back
and
regroup,
assess
where
we're
at
and
and
make
sure
we
all
know
what
to
be
doing
going
forward.
So
that's
a
real,
so
some
really
good
comments.
F
F
We
have
been
filtering
things
up
to
council
that
have
comments
or
notes
from
both
your
input
and
their
input,
but
we're
kind
of
waiting
to
amend
all
those
once
we
get
the
full
picture
and
and
essentially
can
start
building
that
into
the
the
final
recommended
draft.
So
for
those
of
you
trying
to
catch
up
or
new
members,
you're
you're,
you
have
all
the
you
have
access
to
the
same
information
that
everyone
else
has
I
know
it's
kind
of
more
of
a
fire
hose
of
information.
F
So
hopefully,
this
presentation
gives
you
a
little
bit
of
a
taste
of
where
we're
going
and
then
one
of
the
slides
I
put
in
an
earlier
Council
presentation.
That's
not
in
this
now
I'm
kind
of
wishing
it
was
was
we're
presenting
all
of
this
information
in
three
kind
of
levels
of
detail.
One
an
executive
summary,
that's
just
kind
of
a
high
level
of
what
each
of
the
chapters
is
addressing
compared
to
what
your
current
codes
are.
F
Addressing
two
is
what
we
call
section
maps
where
we'll
go
through
Section
by
section
of
the
proposed
code
and
identify
where
similar
topics
are
addressed
in
your
current
code
and
then
put
a
brief
comment
about
how
we're
addressing
it
differently
or
if
it's
a
new
section,
and
why
it's
a
new
section
or,
if
nothing's,
changing,
why?
Why
nothing's
changing?
F
But
then
this
presentation
is
kind
of
about
where
some
of
those
things
may
be
shifting
and
what
the
next
steps
are.
So
it's
not
necessarily
a
complete
introduction
for
those
of
you
new
members,
but
it
is
sort
of
a
let's
take
a
step
back
and
and
regroup
and
remind
ourselves
of
the
overall
approach
to
the
code.
So
with
that
I'll
start
jumping
into
where
we've
been
so,
the
left
side
is
how
we
began
to
reorganize
your
current
title
16..
F
So
all
of
the
same
substance
of
your
current
code,
the
the
development
standards
are,
are
there,
but
we
just
try
to
organize
it
in
a
more
logical
structure
based
on
those
chapters.
The
right
side
are
all
the
all
the
meetings
we've
kind
of
been
through
and
how
we
addressed
different
topics,
the
main
one
being
when
we
started
out
in
this
process.
We
were
grouping
things
under
key
goals
of
the
comprehensive
plan
or
your
code
assessment
that
was
done
in
2020
and
2021.
F
Here
is
the
the
public
engagement
that
we
did
and
well
about
this
time.
Last
year,
February
through
June,
we
were
before
we
even
started
putting
pen
to
paper
or
drafting
changes.
We
started
a
big
public
engagement
session
on
some
of
these
key
topics
that
you'll
see
in
this
reflected
in
this
as
well.
So
we
still
have
all
of
that
information
captured
and
saved
so
for
particularly
for
the
new
members.
G
C
F
You
know
development
codes
address
Can,
it
can
address
three
main
things
and
the
planning
profession
in
general
is
shifting
from
a
historic
focus
on
the
left
side
of
the
screen.
Looking
just
at
land
uses
to
moving
more
towards
the
right
side
of
the
screen
of
looking
at
how
large-scale
pieces
fit
together
and
then
an
increasing
emphasis
on
design.
Your
current
code
exhibits
that
Trend,
as
it
was
amended
over
time.
You
have
a
lot
of
design
standards.
F
Shifting
from
use
to
design
is
an
important
strategy
and
that's
not
to
say
that
we
ignore
land
uses
at
all,
it's
more
of
just
when
we
we
can
simplify
our
standards
actually
by
shifting
more
towards
the
right
of
the
screen
and
again,
most
most
of
the
things
that
we're
doing
I'm
talking
about
when
we're
regulating
design
are
already
in
your
code
in
some
form
or
another,
since
communities,
don't
very
often
revise
wholesale,
do
complete
updates
to
their
development
code.
This
is
our
opportunity
to
do
it
more
in
a
more
systematic
way.
F
So
with
that,
the
the
other
element
of
the
code
is
improving,
both
the
user
friendliness
and
and
improving
it
as
a
decision
making
tool,
and
so
that's
we.
We
call
it
flexibility
and
certainty
when
you
know
we're
always
here
two
things
when
we
do
code
updates
from
particularly
from
developers
or
those
who
are
regulated.
F
F
We
want
to
shift
more
towards
a
system
of
how
we
build
and
why
and
less
to
a
collection
of
regulations.
So
as
we
do
that
your
draft
code,
you
know
the
standards
are
critically
important
and
we
want
to
write
them
in
the
most
objective,
simple
way
as
possible,
but
we're
also
big
on
some
of
the
non-regulate
non-regulatory
language
in
the
code,
so
on
the
front,
end
intent
statements
and
what
we're
trying,
what
we're
trying?
F
What
outcomes
we
want
that
guide,
how
we
apply
those
standards
and
then
on
the
back,
end
decision
making
criteria
and,
and
when
do
should
we
consider
alternatives
and
then
the
variance
as
a
last
resort.
So
that's
a
way
of
balancing
the
the
twin
goals
of
having
flexibility,
but
also
increasing
certainty.
So
that's
is
scattered
throughout
this
code
now
as
well,
that
we're
kind
of
taking
a
step
back
and
looking
at
the
larger
perspective.
F
So
this
is
what
it
looks
like
in
in
a
specific
application
so
that
that
lower
bar
that
we
said
you,
you
know
we
have
the
objective,
measurable
standard,
but
usually
in
front
of
all
those
we'll
have
an
intent
statement
or
design
objectives.
That
say,
you
know:
why
are
we
doing
this?
What
are
we
hoping
to
achieve
and
that
helps
us
interpret
that
standard?
F
We
may
have
context
based
criteria,
things
that
refine
where
and
how
we
apply
it
and
when
and
then
we
we
are
able
to
evaluate
that
objective,
measurable
standard
when
we're
running
into
problems
of
well.
That's
not
really
achieving
the
it's
not
really
appropriate
for
that
context,
or
it's
not
achieving
the
outcome.
We
want
we'll
have
some
design
strategies
that
give
you
options.
F
You
know
there's
there
may
be
one
two
or
three
or
more
ways
to
achieve
that
standard
and
then,
lastly,
before
we
get
to
a
variance,
we
can
build
in
some
exceptions
and
administrative
adjustments.
The
key
thing
here
is
giving
staff
the
ability
to
consider
things
that
are
equally
achieving
those
goals
or
better
achieving
those
goals
within
parameters.
That's
that's
the
the
approach
we're
trying
to
take
so
in
chapter
two
that
we
built
in
a
specific
procedure
of
administrative
adjustments.
F
Again
you
you
have
that
in
your
code
right
now,
but
it's
not
really
done
in
a
systematic
way,
and
so
that
section
is
kind
of
crucial
that
building
in
that
flexibility
at
the
staff,
level
and
and
obviously
staff
can't
make
any
decision
they
want.
So
they
have
parameters
and
criteria
of
when
things
are
are
out
of
their
hands.
Some
of
the
flexibility
that
we're
talking
about
Chris.
A
G
B
B
H
B
F
I
will
keep
proceeding
and
and
so
for
those
of
you
just
joining
rather
than
go
back.
This
is
being
recorded
So.
If
you
need
to
catch
up,
it
will
be
recorded
and
you
can
go
back
to
the
beginning,
but
we're
sort
of
just
getting
started
into
the
substance
as
well.
So
you
may
not
have
missed
too
much
so
this.
F
This
is
our
approach
to
flexibility
in
general,
so
that
administrative
adjustments
is
a
way
to
particularly
when
we're
increasing
the
emphasis
on
design
and
where
the
standards,
maybe
one
possible
way
of
doing
things.
But
there
could
be
others
we
don't
want
to
over
regulate
in
the
design
area
as
well.
F
So
it's
an
area
where,
where
flexibility
is
important,
as
long
as
we're
meeting
the
intent
and
and
the
objectives
that
of
the
standards
to
begin
with
and
and
and
then
we
will
there's
tiers
of
how
much
flexibility
does
staff
have
to
make
decisions?
How
much
flexibility
does
the
Planning
Commission
have
and
then
ultimately
things
that
go
up
to
the
to
the
city
council
and
that's
a
way
of
not
shifting.
F
So
many
things
to
oh
well
just
go
get
a
variance
from
the
board
of
adjustments,
because
that's
that's
usually
intended
for
things
that
are
truly
exceptional
and
hardships
and
unique,
and
a
lot
of
these
things
in
the
design
realm
aren't
necessarily
that
it's
just
how
do
we?
How
do
we
implement
the
plans
and
goals
and
policies
of
the
city
through
some
of
these
different
opportunities
and
objectives?
F
So
with
that,
the
the
main
any
of
the
areas
where
we
are
increasing
the
emphasis
of
design
are
the
things
where
that
administrative
adjustment
process
will
come
in
that
opportunity
for
flexibility,
and
so
those
are
summarized
here
in
chapters
I
won't
go
through
all
of
them,
but
mainly
it's
chapters.
Three
five,
six,
seven
and
eight
chapter
three
deals
with
big
picture
kind
of
public
realm
designs,
so
streets
and
Open
Spaces
chapter
five
is
dealing
with
residential
design.
Chapter
six
is
dealing
with
non-residential
design.
F
So
that's
sort
of
the
operating
system
when
we
get
to
each
of
those
elements.
I'll
go
through
now
so
design
standards
with
streets,
we're
dealing
with
two
main
challenges
here
on
streets.
One
is
the
idea
that
you're
a
built
out,
Community
you're,
not
building
new
streets
through
regulations,
so
we're
almost
always
talking
about
retrofitting
existing
right-of-way,
and
that
can
be
a
challenge
and
two
because
of
that
you're,
often
dealing
with
incremental
opportunities
to
improve
that
so
site
or
at
least
block
scale.
F
Opportunities
to
improve
Street
design
is
what
we're
looking
for
and
and
that's
the
more
difficult
challenge
the
top
represents.
What
your
current
standards
say
with
regard
to
streets
right
now,
and
it's
mainly
just
right
away
road
with
and
a
sidewalk
with,
and
it
doesn't
show
how
those
components
go
together
in
the
code
we're
trying
to
implement
a
lot
of
different
Urban
design
standards
that
are
essential
to
how
you
use
that
public
space
and
again
this
is
public
right-of-way.
So
it's
not
really
regulating
development.
F
It's
regulating
your
your
public
realm,
so
we
would
hope
to
see
this
used
as
a
guide
to
as
you
kind
of
as
developments
occurring.
Maybe
causing
someone
to
retrofit
a
streetscape
or
as
Capital
Improvements
are
done.
Perhaps
this
could
become
a
guide
for
how
we
would
think
about
assembling
that
the
the
first
challenge
I
mentioned,
that
you're
dealing
with
existing
right
away,
we're
having
we're
setting
up
default
standards
for
how
these
different
street
types
come
together,
but
each
block
in
your
community
industry
is
probably
unique.
F
So
while
we're
setting
up
default
standards
for
these
Street
types,
this
what's
reflected
on
the
left
of
the
screen
are
some
rules
for
how
you
would
might
apply
those
when
you
don't
quite
have
enough
room
or
space.
So
how
do
you
deal
with
some
of
those
competing
priorities,
whereas
the
code
currently
has
nothing?
With
regard
to
that?
We
think
this
is
at
least
improving
that
so
that
you
can
begin
to
make
better
decisions
on
some
of
those
trade-offs.
F
Now
the
Second
Challenge
I
mentioned
was.
How
do
we
do
this
on
a
site
or
block
basis?
Is
a
little
more
difficult
to
deal
with,
but
we're
hoping
that
having
this
guy
can
let
you
spot
opportunities
where
it
doesn't
need
to
be
a
full-fledged
Capital
Improvement,
and
maybe
we
can
do
some
experimental
things
on
a
block
by
block
basis
that
let
us
assemble
streets
in
in
a
different
way
to
create
social
spaces,
to
create
multimodal
things
all
the
things
that
are
in
your
your
plans
and
policies.
F
I
know
one
of
the
things
this
committee
discussed
in
great
detail
when
we
were
looking
at
some
of
the
street
section
was
the
idea
of
particularly
with
bike
transportation.
There
were
some
discussion
and
debate
on
well,
the
bike
Lanes
really
ought
to
be
protected
or
they
ought
to
be
on
the
other
side
of
parking,
and
so
this
chart
here
talks
about
all
those
different
decisions.
It's
not
really
easy
to
write
a
specific
standard
to
that,
but
what
we
want
to
do
is
be
flagging.
F
The
best
practices
so
that
when
it
comes
time
to
assemble
a
street,
can
actually
make
changes.
You
have
all
the
right
resources
to
to
decide.
What's
the
best
use
of
that
space
because
there
are
competing
priorities
and
one
of
the
reasons
we
put
such
an
emphasis
on
streets
even
in
a
community
like
yours,
where
we're
not
regulating
them
into
existence.
They're
there
is
we're
big
Believers
in
those
set
the
context
for
what
we
can
ask
private
development
to
do
so,
not
every
Street's
the
same.
F
So
when
you
think
of
like
a
large-scale
traffic
moving
arterial,
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
require
buildings
to
front
on
it
and
be
designed
in
a
very
pedestrian
way,
whereas
on
other
streets
that
are
slow,
have
on-street
parking
and
those
types
of
things,
it
completely
makes
sense
to
regulate
that.
So
that'll
come
up
later
when
we
get
to
the
non-residential
design
standards.
F
A
E
Thank
you,
I
I,
think
one
of
the
things
that
has
been
very
confusing
for
our
group
is
identifying
some
of
these
design
suggestions
and
this
question
is
for
Brian.
Does
do
these
design
open
space
standards
affect
the
Downtown
Development
that's
pending?
Does
it
directly
affect
all
of
that
like
this
with
this
code?
E
A
A
A
E
That
would
be
helpful,
I
mean
I
was
there
for
the
whole,
a
number
of
us
I
think
watched
the
workshop
that
they
had
Saturday
or
so
ago
and
I'm
not
worried.
You
know
that
they're
going
to
find
something.
That's
just
completely
off
the
mark
of
what
this
is
happening,
but
I
wondered
how
much
they're
counting
on
this.
Are
they
counting
on
us
to
do
this
first
and
then
the
downtown
project,
because
they'll
have
this
in
stone
or
are
we
just
breaking
two
different
things
apart,
so
yeah?
F
Yeah
and
I
would
just
add
to
round
that
out.
We
would
at
this
scale
these
types
of
Open
Spaces,
we're
thinking
very
much
like
we
are
with
streets
because
you're,
a
built-out
community
we're
often
not
regulating
these
into
existence.
But
the
helpful
thing
about
putting
these
in
the
code
is:
how
does
development
respond
to
these
spaces?
F
So
you
respond
differently
to
a
trail,
adjacency
or
some
type
of
park
or
neighborhood
adjacency
than
you
would
to
a
more
formal
space
like
a
courtyard
or
a
plaza,
so
we're
keying
the
standards
off
of
if
those
exist.
So
if
they
come
into
existence
through
a
planning
effort
or
a
capital
investment
of
the
city,
they
may
not
come
in
exactly
like
the
code
is
saying,
but
what
that's
giving
us
is
cues
for
how
development
should
respond
to
it.
B
B
So
for
our
public,
if
you
would
like
to
address
the
committee,
you'll
have
three
minutes.
If
you
could
just
raise
your
hand
and
then
I
will
call
on
you
as
I,
see
you
on
on
my
screen,
if
you're
here
to
just
listen.
That
is
perfectly
fine
as
well,
but
if
you
wanted
to
make
any
comments,
just
please
raise
your
hand
virtually
and
I
I
will
allow
you
to
talk.
B
J
And
I'm
unmuted.
So
can
you
hear
me
now?
We
can
good
since
you're
talking
about
open
space
in
developments.
I
was
I'm
looking
at,
for
instance,
a
new
development.
That's
coming
in
just
south
of
me,
which
is
actually
Littleton
and
apparently
Littleton
considers
parking
space
to
be
open
space,
I'm,
I'm,
hoping
and
I'm
feeling
reassured
that
what
you're
discussing
here
is
green
space
and
that
parking
space
am
I
understanding
that
right.
F
Yes,
I'll
go
yeah,
you
are
I,
think
there's
two
different
standards
that
we
would
look
at,
one
that
would
can
sometimes
open
space
is
a
proxy
for
limiting
the
building
massive
scale,
in
which
case
parking
would
count
to
that,
because
it's
non-building
space,
but
we're
talking
about
actually
either
landscape
area
or
usable,
active
open
space
in
in
this
requirement.
So
we're
trying
to
flip
the
emphasis
to
from
just
purely
building
coverage
to
something
that's
more
serving
a
function.
B
B
K
Go
ahead,
I
think
my
question
is
it's
just
more
of
a
question.
The
link
was
wrong.
That
was
shared,
so
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
us
on
here
that
just
don't
have
any
idea
what's
been
discussed
yet
because
we've
just
entered
the
meeting
so
I'd
love
to
have
some
comment,
but
I
I
have
absolutely
no
idea.
D
Joining
in
when,
when
you
did,
these
are
all
recorded
so
that
you
have
access
to
it.
Typically,
the
public
comment
would
be
the
very
first
thing
that
we
would
do
so.
We
wouldn't
normally
have
things
to
comment
on
as
we're
going
through
the
process,
and
you
know
as
much
as
I
think
we
would
all
love
to
get
everyone
up
to
speed.
We
only
have
about
a
half
hour
left
to
discuss
these
items.
I
believe
there
are
future
meetings
or
future
opportunities
for
you
to
be
able
to
continue
doing
that.
D
D
F
Okay,
yeah
and
just
to
build
on
that
for
those
of
the
public
just
joining
this
presentation
is
geared
towards
the
steering
committee
and
kind
of
doing
a
recap
of
what
they've
covered
over
the
last
month.
So
I
would
expect
many
of
you
are
sitting
there
kind
of
what
does
any
of
this
mean.
So,
just
like
the
chair
of
the
committee
mentioned,
there
are
opportunities
built
in
later
for
more
public
engagement,
more
comment
for
you
to
fully
understand
all
of
these
topics.
I
F
Yeah,
no,
that
that
hits
directly
at
the
kind
of
the
first
challenge.
I
mentioned
that
we
don't
necessarily
have
an
exact
right
standard
for
every
street
or
segment,
but
what
we
have
is
a
decision
making
tools.
So
the
challenge
you
mentioned
on
the
e-bikes
and
and
what's
the
right
location,
the
two
things
we
do
know
is
the
best
street
design.
There's
there's
always
with
Street
design.
There's
always
two
challenges:
is
it
for
transportation
or
is
it
for
public
space?
F
And
the
answer
is
it's:
both
some
streets
might
be
more
about
Mobility,
some
streets
might
be
more
about
being
in
a
place,
and
so
we
want
a
decision
making
process
that
lets.
You
do
that,
so
it's
entirely
possible
that
we,
actually
you
know
we're
often
saying
we
want
cars
to
slow
down
as
they
enter
a
place.
It's
also
true,
with
the
admin
of
e-bikes
that
we
want
the
bikes
to
slow
down
as
well.
F
So
the
the
decision
making
tool
that
we're
trying
to
to
put
in
there
is
where,
where
are
we
trying
to
slow
things
down
versus?
Where
are
we
just
trying
to
get
things
through
and
speed
differential
is?
Is
the
key
to
to
all
of
these
things,
and
so
the
bicycle
lane
standards
have
that
kind
of
decision-making
process
and
I
know
these
numbers
might
even
be
reflecting
one
of
the
earlier
drafts
where
I
think
this
committee
raised
some
question
on.
F
But
what
where
we
would
default
to
is
the
ones
going
faster,
really
kind
of
should
be
blending
in
with
traffic
more
than
they
should
be
in
a
facility
where
pedestrians
or
bikers
might
be
the
other
part
of
not
having
the
exact
right
standards
that
we
know
we
do
have
resolved.
Is
we
have
a
lot
of
default
resources
to
nacto,
which
is
the
National
Association
of
city
transportation
officials?
F
That's
the
group
of
both
planners
and
Engineers
that
are
on
the
Leading
Edge
of
all
of
this
and
they're
doing
it
in
a
very
Urban
Design,
oriented
way
that,
in
other
words,
streets
serve
development
of
urban
places.
Streets
aren't
about
engineering
for
traffic.
So
shifting
your
guidance
to
those
documents
rather
than
a
traffic
engineering
document
can
help
us
figure
out
what
the
right
solution
is
for
any
one.
Street.
I
Considering
that
yeah
it's
new
territory
and
things
that
may
have
to
be
adjusted
and
thought
about,
as
as
we
move
forward
or
in
the
future,
I
guess.
My
next
comment
is
related
to
both
this
and
the
parks
and
any
considerations
of
moving
beyond
Ada
access.
Ada
access,
I
guess
into
more
universal
access.
I
E
Oh
well,
this
I'm
hoping
we
can
get
through
the
kind
of
recap
tonight.
But
a
very
excellent
point
is
that,
and
this
is
the
chart.
The
point
I
tried
to
make
in
getting
us
together
was
that
we
do
need
to
discuss
streets
and
and
I
think
that
that's
a
whole
meeting,
not
just
that
topic
and
this.
So
we
have
a
good
understanding
and
we
know
and
we'll
be
visiting
this
again,
I
assume
when
we
get
a
draft
right
and
we
vote
on
that
draft.
A
F
You
yeah
and
I
think
just
to
round
that
out.
The
key
thing
about
streets
is
this
adopted.
Regulation
won't
necessarily
make
anything
happen,
because
it
only
responds
to
development
proposals
and
it
doesn't
Force
the
city
to
do
anything
necessarily
other
than
having
the
right
complementary
design
approach
to
the
proposals.
So
I
would
see
those
future
conversations
about
streets
very
much
being
about
hey
for,
for
example,
your
downtown.
F
F
What's
the
public
realm
that
we
want
development
to
stand
to
respond
to
and
then
based
on
those
criteria,
we
can
shift
to
the
left
side
of
the
screen,
which
is
development,
what
building
types,
what
what's
the
scale
and
massing
of
those
and
what
are
the
frontages
that
relate
these
projects
to
the
street
so
similar?
This
is
a
similar
graphic
to
that
land
use
issue.
We
we
showed
earlier
on,
as
we
shift
more
towards
the
design
of
these
elements
based
on
these
standards
on
the
right.
F
With
non-residential
design,
Community
character
we're
following
a
very
similar
approach,
so
the
left
side
of
the
screen
shows
it's.
This
is
a
great
book
and
resource
by
the
way
that
you
know
when
we're
talking
about
building
communities
for
people,
walkable,
Urban
places,
there's
really
only
three
things.
We
need
to
focus
on
those
three
rules
easier
said
than
done,
because
you
know
not
every
place
in
the
city
is
is
ideal
for
this
in
the
when
we're
talking
about
the
non-residential
components.
F
However,
if
similar
to
what
we're
you
know,
building
flexibility
and
building
expectations,
we're
setting
up
a
system
where
we
want
to
base
different
Frontage
design
standards
on
this
types
of
streets,
you're,
You're
Building
to
so
going
from
a
to
d,
so
a
being
the
most
pedestrian
oriented
to
D
being
the
least
pedestrian
oriented,
and
you
need
all
of
those
in
your
community
to
make
it
work.
It's
just.
F
How
do
we
refine
and
filter
that
so
we're
setting
up
default
standards
for
how
buildings
and
sites
should
relate
to
the
the
frontage
based
on
what
type
of
street
you're
on
and
from
there?
That
will
cue
us
into
okay?
What
should
your
building
design
standards
be
based
on
how
how
close
you're
oriented
to
that
street
so
that
the
idea
of
making
the
building
permeable
and
human
scale,
and
and
having
lots
of
features
that
are
interesting
to
engage
in?
F
Well,
your
closest
buildings
need
to
have
a
higher
degree
of
that
and
your
further
away
buildings
don't
need
that
as
much
and
then
the
last
part
is
rounding
out
the
Open
Spaces
part
of
which
would
be.
How
do
we
hide
in
Disguise
parking?
How
do
we
create
social
spaces
in
these
areas
and
and
having
different
standards
for
different
contexts
and
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
so
we're
trying
to
to
simplify
non-residential
design
so
commercial
and
mixed
use
areas
based
on
these
three
principles.
F
F
F
There
was
some
thought
that
that's
not
going
to
work
as
well
as
we
thought
there
were
some
unintended
consequences,
so
that
shifted
us
to
go
back
to
Let's.
Do
let's
take
two
strategies,
since
the
bulk
plane
was
familiar
and
working
fairly
well
and
actually
had
some
exception
criteria
in
there.
Let's
just
simply
expand
the
exceptions,
so
there's
currently
an
exception
that
would
allow
something
that's
shown
in
this
picture
for
a
dormer.
F
The
second
thing
we
did
take
the
opportunity
to
do
is
the
bulk
plane
currently
doesn't
apply
to
any
buildings
that
are
over
five
plus
units,
so
things
that
are
currently
allowed
in
the
particularly
in
the
r
m
Mur
three
zoning
districts,
the
the
five
plus
unit
buildings,
don't
have
any
standard.
In
that
case,
we
set
a
a
step
back
standard
for
upper
stories
would
need
to
be
set
back,
a
certain
distance.
F
F
F
It's
currently
only
allowed
in
r1c,
so
expanding
it
into
both
R1
A
and
B,
and
then
the
idea
of
entertaining
perhaps
will
have
two
accessory
units
on
larger
Lots,
so
the
council
Direction
was
to
expand
that
to
even
go
down
to
six
thousand
square
foot
Lots,
as
well
as
removing
some
of
the
parking
requirements
for
adus
and
on
each
of
these
bullet
points
that
I'm
talking
now
that
are
current
Council
discussion
topics.
I'll
have
a
follow-up
slide
that
we'll
we'll
talk
a
little
more
specifically
about
it.
F
It's
6,
49.,
okay,
I'm,
getting
closer
wrapping
up
here,
so
I'll
speed
up
a
little
bit.
The
third
element
is
in
those
districts
that
already
allow
multi-unit
building
types
to
keep
the
height
limits
where
they
are
right
now
and
sort
of
use
that
to
our
advantage.
So
if
for
those
of
you
that
don't
know
it's
32
feet
in
some
districts,
40
feet
in
another
District,
so
basically
three
to
three
and
a
half,
maybe
four-story
buildings
is
where
you're
at
with
those
limits.
F
F
In
doing
so,
we're
recommending
that
when
you
do
that
at
least
one
of
those
units
would
have
to
be
attached
or
internal
to
the
house,
so
that
you're
not
necessarily
adding
another
detached
building,
but
it's
it's
a
similar
scale
to
what
was
otherwise
proposed
and
and
saying
that
all
of
these
are
obviously
the
buildings
and
and
site
are
going
to
have
to
meet
all
the
lot
coverage
bulk
plane,
building
design
standards
as
well.
Two
other
larger
ones
from
the
council
was
removing
the
owner
occupancy
requirement.
F
When
we
last
left
off
with
this
committee,
we
were
going
to
keep
it
so
there's
an
idea
out
there
to
either
remove
it
or
to
have
it
sunset
after
a
period
of
years
and
then
removing
the
parking
requirement
was
another
one.
We
had
it
when
we
last
left
with
this
committee
that
the
one
parking
space
per
accessory
unit
would
be
required,
wouldn't
necessarily
have
to
be
in
a
garage,
but
it
could
just
be
a
parking
pad,
particularly
for
the
alley
access
houses.
We
didn't
think
that
was
too
onerous.
F
However,
the
council
wanted
us
to
to
just
remove
the
requirement
altogether.
So
those
were
the
the
bigger
changes
with
the
adus.
Another
note
I
think
what
was
discussed
here
was
the
the
second
bullet
point
from
the
bottom
is
revising
this
size
limit.
So
it's
a
little
bit
complicated
having
two
different
measures
and
so
we're
looking
at
based
on
the
direction
of
both
this
committee
and
the
council
having
a
single
measure,
that's
that
makes
sense
and
is
slightly
more
lenient
than
the
current
standards.
F
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
evolve
it
into
a
broader
range
for
a
wide
range
of
smaller
format,
housing
communities
and
so
there's
lots
of
good
examples
for
doing
that.
The
biggest
direction-
and
you
currently
have
standards
for
this
they're
set
up
in
a
fairly
prohibitive
way.
In
fact,
we
suspect
most
of
the
current
instances
of
these
projects,
don't
meet
your
current
standards,
but
what
we're
looking
at
is
reducing
the
minimum
project
size,
so
this
could
currently
happen
on
smaller
projects
in
their.
F
Your
eight
acre
requirement
increasing
the
density,
because
these
are
very
small
units.
That
number
often
gets
well
above
eight
units
per
acre,
which
is
your
current
standard
and
then,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
allowing
some
of
these
projects
to
occur
in
the
Mur
3
rather
than
right.
Now,
it's
only
an
allowed
use
in
the
i1
District
and
then
lastly,
rounding
out
the
direction
to
consider
the
the
two
to
four
unit
buildings
in
the
R1
and
particularly
in
the
r1a
zoning
District.
F
What
we
have
before
council
is
some
points
on
potential
outcomes
that
we
need
to
be
aware
of,
in
other
words
it
because
some
of
these
Lots
in
all
of
the
R1
districts,
but
particularly
r1a,
aren't
built
out
to
the
maximum
extent
possible.
We
need
to
be
prepared
and
make
sure
we
have
standards
that
regulate
that
in
an
appropriate
way.
F
As
we
consider
this
opportunity-
and
this
is
only
being
done
in
exchange
for
ensuring
that
at
least
one
of
the
units
is
Affordable
based
on
the
housing
policy
and
studies,
so
what
we
plan
on
going
back
to
the
council,
And
discussing
in
March,
is
looking
at
a
few
different
Alternatives.
That
would
still
result
in
Meeting
those
goals
but
may
address
some
of
these
concerns
or
potential
outcomes
that
we
we
don't
want
to
see
happen.
So
that
is
increasing
the
the
option
for
smaller
lot
single-family
homes.
F
So
that
could
be
something
that
gets
you
a
same
or
similar
yield
of
units
as
you
would
in
a
multi-unit
building,
but
that
also
ensures
that
it's
more
of
a
house-scale
building
and
then
has
the
added
benefit
of
more
likely
being
owner
occupied
as
well,
which
is
a
goal
of
the
council.
Similar
option,
for
perhaps
one
of
the
ways
to
get
to
the
same
idea
is
to
reduce
the
lot
size
for
duplexes.
It
would
have
all
of
those
same
or
similar
benefits.
They
have
attendance,
see
to
be
more
easily
owner
occupied.
F
That
kind
of
sums
up
all
the
very
high
level
highlights,
as
well
as
things
that
are
kind
of
in
flexion
changing.
Most
importantly,
where
are
we
going
with
this?
As
I
mentioned,
we
have
two
more
work
sessions
at
Council.
The
one
on
the
27th
is
really
dealing
with
some
fairly
routine
articles
that
they
just
haven't
seen
yet
so
chapter
nine
on
on
signs
chapters,
11
and
12
are
on
historic
preservation
and
Telecommunications
and
chapter
13
on
definitions.
F
So
the
city
plans
on
having
workshops
with
all
the
boards
and
commissions
to
introduce
them
to
these
ideas,
having
an
additional
public
open
house
where
we
can
hear
from
the
community
of
what
they
like
and
don't
like
doing,
additional
more
targeted
stakeholder
Outreach
to
particular
constituentless
constituency
groups.
If
we
need
to
and
then
lastly,
the
formal
adoption
process,
which
would
include
public
hearings
where
the
public
is
specifically
asked
to
speak
on.
Some
of
these
that
that
would
follow
up.
F
C
Just
just
well,
it
may
not
be
a
quick
question
at
all,
but
that
last
topic
that
you
were
talking
about
am
I
understanding
correctly,
that
it's
basically
changing
or
putting
or
suggesting
that
the
any
R1
district
is
no
longer
a
one.
Basically,
if
it's
there
on
a
corner,
it's
now
can
be
up
to
four
units
or
up
to
it's
just
it's
going
away
from
it's
not
going
to
be
just
one
unit
required.
F
So
there
would
be
some
requirements
of
documenting,
demonstrating
doing
record
keeping
in
that
at
least
one
of
those
units
will
be
affordable,
based
on
where
the
housing
policy
lands
on
affordability
rates
so
currently
in
play
is
the
idea
that,
if
it's
a
rental
unit,
it
may
be
need
to
be
rentable
at
60
percent
of
the
area,
median
income
or
if
it
was
owner
occupancy
that
it
would
either
be
80
or
100.
So
that
would
be
a
an
absolute
prerequisite
that
it
wouldn't
be
that
any
property
could
do
this.
F
Right
now,
there
is
not
neces
the
the
study
on
doing
that
is
tied
to
a
grant.
What
the
the
root
policy
is
researching
is:
are
these
things
feasible
and
buildable
based
on
current
marketing
conditions,
and
what
we're
finding
is
they
are?
They
wouldn't
necessarily
need
any
additional
incentives
to
do
that
that
someone
could
build.
F
One
of
these
building
types
could
rent
it
or
sell
it
at
those
price
points,
and
it
could
at
least
technically
or
or
conceptually
work
whether
anyone
would
commit
to
that
it
would
be
up
to
them
and
up
to
the
individual
Property
Owners.
The
second
part
of
your
question,
though,
is
we're
looking
at
well.
Would
this
be
any
property?
Would
it
only
be
certain
properties?
A
B
Back
in
it
is
a
different
link
and
I
also
want
to
let
our
public
know.
There
is
public
comment
under
Planning
Commission,
so
you
would
exit
this
meeting
and
join
the
Planning
Commission
link
and
we
have
tested
it
it's
working
so
again
the
apologies
for
the
link
not
working
for
this
meeting.
Thank
you.
Okay,.