##VIDEO ID:8HKC-6PEp2k## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e um Harris and Harris and take excuse me you can take that did I hear you say you needed some chairs over there for the public no that's after oh I need one oh let me put some out now how many do you think you need me to put out this one mhm I don't like the ones like that but who needs one over there that doesn't have one um okay so you can take that one okay how many do you um how many seats do you want maybe six wait until um we're going to wait well CU then you're going to have to have what's his thing come in and put them in there you Jo come in no we're going to wait until after this we don't think anyone from the public is going to come to this LPA we think someone may come and in that case we're going to use a chair that's already here to push to the back oh because they're in there if you want just to put SI four out there something no we don't need for for I got to go put my my agendas your [Music] agend for for try oh um I don't know how this meeting go right in because I've never attended something like this but should you do the um CU I don't have ter they're not having chairs or chairs but um if you were going to approve the minutes from our minut they're just deferring them to the next yeah they're deferring to the next medum because um they were still under review and I didn't finish them okay so just yeah they're under review okay and um I'm getting coffee out still she because Marisol is slow there's cold water there too I didn't know if you needed one of these they switch because joint meeting TR [Music] he so that's the only one yeah it's making ring I'm going to have to and let me put this here that [Music] I'll take you just hours did you need one this one I have it right here I just have to hand it to you you get M I'm just getting the coffee and I put one on the left of his exra you exra agendas your Flo I'm sorry you're on the side today where am ipped it because we didn't know chair over there gotta not a problem at all that just makes you closer to the goodies so miss is she's out Friday daughter-in-law having a baby she's in labor she's been in labor since yesterday friction so David so you're do that okay awesome cuz I didn't put any Vice chair or anything else it's kind of cool warm I know always this over anybody wants to now and then's I turned my phone off I think cuz I I see and I follow along that is caffeinated coffee right that's barisa and I'm about to do donut one from from City Hall coffee right download that okay I got it okay good to go [Music] um got a broad an umbrella just in case somebody decides that they need to run next door in a COR although it's not supposed to be raining today like yesterday you're so thoughtful she is I'll be like I'm swimming it's okay e e e e than I'm going to go get the coffee what's that oh I'm sorry I was telling letting her going to go and get other coffee it's oh no I forgot my glasses and you know I can't see without them about to say okay let me go run the coffee Andes [Music] stay you're exactly right first of all they're not going to show up that they're not going to show up [Music] car I we might need to hook you up to one of the outlets back here what did I do what did I do okay one up obiously where the heck is it it's that exit full can I plug in oh no they they decided that we were GNA put on you and have to PL in behind there's a couple options I'll just run off a battery and then I don't even know how much battery it have so well there is there is one down oh yeah but I don't know she's got one over there need yeah I appreciate you I don't know if I need to go through that uh that love I've been I've been so gone so long that the Olympics began and ended while you were gone pretty awesome I just need to look at it but this I already printed the presentation Sam gave me the present usually I don't have we've been put on here I'm going to turn missan Smith David do we have any knowledge on missing people is going to be late said four o' do we know ran David e e okay if we can we're going to go ahead and start we're we we don't have obviously have a full L LPA here yet we're hoping they're going to show up my it's on okay oh yeah there we go okay okay uh yeah we're going to go ahead and get started we don't have the full LPA here yet but uh there's no official action being taken this afternoon this evening so I think uh both at least the LPA C Advisory Board they're reviewing uh and giving input to the LDC res uh renovation revas so we're going to go ahead and start I've been asked to chair since we got a joint uh committee here uh so um okay business obviously we we we uh we don't have as my understand we do not have uh a minutes to approve they're in the process of being worked on so there's no approval minutes needed tonight um the uh next thing would be the um any public comment uh I don't see any members of public here we've we've received um no um thing oh and I did forget to call it order so we are officially in order and um so uh no with uh no public he here I I'll close the public comments section uh onto the U medium items uh the first going to presentation by me uh uh concerning government exactions and Regulatory takings um I'll try to cut it down some it it does it'll look like it seems to be long as not um the whole area of government uh exactions has been around for a long time time the U most of the things we look to are the Supreme Court decisions uh and unfortunately they're not clear um and and I've tried to give you a pretty good idea of what an exaction is uh and it's it's an it's it's the government requiring a developer to either pay some things uh which are impact fees those are exactions or uh they uh cond approval on another on something else such as um donation of land doation right away uh easements uh it would it would go to Wetland mitigations and stuff like that so uh it it's government asking for money or land or something from a developer in exchange for approving a development development project um okay go the next one if you would see the the uh Fifth Amendment Constitution says that uh private property no private property would be taken for public use without just compensation now just compensation doesn't always mean money it it can mean other forms of things such as uh deviations uh and variations so um it it it it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment mment because the Fifth Amendment for a long time it was held the Fifth Amendment uh use of that didn't apply to the states so the states were allowed to do what they want and about a hundred years ago uh they had a case they decided a case that says no the fourth amend 14th Amendment takes the fifth amendment applies it to the states so um they ruled that although the legisl prescribe a form or procedure to be observed in taking a real prop private property public use it is not due press of law it's not true process of law if provision was not made for the compensation so um the distinction there's distinction of compensation for money and I said compensation in some other form but uh what the court looks like is due process so if if an exaction uh can be a basis for due process then you really don't have a claim under under the U 14th and fifth amendments okay Sam um okay this is just another take on it like I said it come exactions comp forms uh impact fees uh uh cash payments dedication of land condition future land use restriction validation other restriction of burdens placed on a permit application okay Sam um and it's just more language ex exactions may also be ad hoc and imp opposed in exchange for local government granted variance to exceptions for zoning regulations so they can be variances they can be density bonuses they can be any number of things but the Florida does say that the local government in Florida has a power to impose action based on the broad zoning regulatory Powers they possess under home rules authorized by the Flor constitutions thus local governments have the power to regulate power to regulate to control the adverse impacts that development may cause to a local area so it's up to the local government to uh control development and make a determination what impacts the development have if there are uh impact fees due uh if if the uh additional land is needed um now like I said the now in some instances um and we'll get into a little more the government may have to pay uh it may have to be a condemnation or an inverse condensation so it's going to come down to a lot of the use and the basis for which the exaction is is used okay Sam uh this while there may be while there may a v valuable growth management tool loc governments must carefully Implement exactions to avoid legal pitfalls first exaction should be founded on the same general police power that underlies all zoning the authority to protect Health to protect the health safety and Welfare of the public the authority to protect the health safety 50 and where for the public had been interpreted broadly enough to local governments to Zone to theote the beauty of an era so the whole basis is S health safety and Welfare of the public and uh if if an authority can local government can show that then they pretty much can do what they want to do and it it's it's difficult to challenge okay Sam the the exaction has to have a rational basis that that's the whole Crux of it there has to be a rational basis for the exaction okay now the two things that that you'll see when you're when you're looking at this is called Nexus and rough proportionality um the Nexus means it has to have a logical or real basis for the exaction and the exaction has to be roughly proportional to the impact on the property affected um that's That's the basis of of Nexus and rough proportionality okay Sam the uh the the two first two big cases uh uh were Nolan versus California coast commission and there's another case called Dolan which we'll get to Next in this particular Nolan case and I said it was the first big case um the Nolans wanted to rebuild their Beach house and the uh Coastal Mission came and said well we'll we'll give you a permit to do that if you give an permanent easement to beach goers so they have uninterrupted impeded access to the beach and the court said no that that's not a rational Nexus that the them building their house had nothing to do with access to the beach and view then um and what just CIA said not a not Val not a valid regulation of land but an out now plan of of extortion okay Sam then uh the next one was it was Dolan versus city of target tiger now you'll see Nolan do a lot when you're look at this in this case the uh the uh Dolan had a piece property they had a a gravel parking lot and a creek beyond that they wanted to expand the building put a parking lot in and the in this case the city tried to extract a lot of stuff from them uh they wanted to do this and do that and the court said no you know there's there's no logical Nexus for what you want to do and the pro the rough proportionality just wasn't there okay Sam um and it all comes back to the Fifth Amendment um no person derrived life liberty property that depressive law and and um there again we go into the Nexus and R portion ality means actually must have a rational connection to the bord to the burden the government seeks to avoid and the U penal not penalty but the payment or the exaction must have must to be rough portion to the to the value to the impact on the property okay Sam now uh for a long time it went along that way and then we have a case which is is pretty much a a bellweather case uh Pennsylvania Transportation Company versus city of New York this particular case P the penvan Central Transportation wanted to greatly improve uh re almost rebuild and go way up build a big beautiful office building uh on their on their Hub and the City of New York said no and Supreme Court um said well the the city of New York does have the right to regulate and they then set upon a test uh of three factors that had to be looked at when you're looking at whether or not a exaction has a has a national Nexus and and a rough proportionality those are the impact of the regulation on the element on the claimant the extent to which a regulation interferes with distinct investment based expectations and the character of the government actions um so that's the test that is pretty much used in in all these cases going forward um but this CA but the case itself didn't give a whole lot of input so there have been cases since then that have that have gone un address this okay Sam um now this is just definition economic impact ofly is uh what what impact on the value of the property the exaction the exaction has um okay then the reasonable reasonable investment back to expectation is an objective determination what's the property worth what does how does the exaction diminish the value of the property are there offsets or whatever and then the third one which is the most the okay Sam the character regulation and then that gets back to the the city's right to regulate uh properties for the Health uh Public Safety of the citizens and uh then determines how how that burden is distributed between the individual owners and the public and a recent decision which is a Florida case was called Coons versus St John's River Management in this case uh Coons wanted to develop some property uh and this the St John's Water Management def said well you can do it but you have to give us land or you have to give us money and so forth and and he said no uh he he didn't agree to that went to court and uh so the Court held there uh two issues does it applied to demands for property even when a permit was died no condition attached and does it apply conditions requiring money not property and the Supreme Court said in both cases yes uh that it did now interesting enough in this case in this case um Co one develop St John came back and said well if you do this or if you do that you know then it'll be okay cour came back and said well if they had just simply denied him it would have been okay he wouldn't have had a claim because he wouldn't have been denied due process so uh it it's okay Sam so it's it's the courts are wrestling with it it's not clear-cut it's not clearcut at all um um and this is just some more thing but the main thing here is no compensation is due if the government agency can show the Nexus and proportionality between the impact of development and the exaction there again we go back to impact and U Nexus and rough proportionality so if if the city uh can show that there's a valid reason for it and that the the the damage is suffered is roughly proportional to what the city needs to accomplish then it's okay um they can still say no but um without a this is goes back to no without a permit no one refus to accept them s to be so without without issuing a permit then he wasn't damaged okay and that's just basically saying it's still it's still not clear here uh and whenever the cas case the case have gone Supreme Court it's still not clear they don't they don't give any guidelines they do not kind of a casebase basis okay Sam so um this is kind of conclusion the government the concept of government exaction is far from being clear-cut being cut the Supreme Court case had brought Clarity so out of clarity appears to be SP Central case has provided the test to be applied case the cases also hold an all Al exract to unlawful and violation of the fifth amend restrictions against taking of property without compensation the concept of rational NEX between the approach taking and justifiable government purpose appears to be the key in regarding whether or not there's taking and the good principle the plan of good principles of good plan practice should be asserted as a basis for descending the assertation of a claim of non-au government taking and exaction now the when you look at the the number of cases um that have gone to court um it it has come down usually on the side of government uh the taking cases like this are hard to prove they're hard to win uh because as long as the city or whatever government where the city me can show there is a rational basis for it good planning uh and the um good practices it's it's the the the regulations are such that it is for the health safety and Welfare of the public and good planning practices generally the U the courts will dismiss the claim so it it's it's not well as the case showed it's not impossible but it's a difficult task when the government sets good standards now if a if a city or county goes out just sets wild wild uh standards that's one thing there is um a case that just came out I I didn't ref reference it here but it was in up in Michigan and involve the City of Canton Michigan and there the case went to the sixth us C Circuit Court of Appeals and the Court ruled there that trees are considered personal property and the government doesn't have the right to control them uh it's it's one of those one of those reports that one of those decision that's kind of out there but still in all um it doesn't apply to Florida the the sixth Circuit Court of Appeals covers Michigan Ohio Kentucky and Tennessee so it's not binding law on us it will be cited here I'm sure uh as developers um rally against the cities and counties being able to control trees and replacement of trees but as stands now we still have that right um if if some decisions come up in other circuits that that are contrary to that one then it'll probably go Supreme Court but at this point I don't believe it's being appealed so at this point um cities are moving forward uh with the adoption of new Land Development cles like we have they are simple and development standards the the um practice that we've used uh and the presentations we've seen I think Dave made one about the urban standards and the reason for this and the reason for that are very logical and defensible uh conclusions so uh my my recommendation is that you know we look at these Concepts and and we make a recommendation to our Council of what we think is good planning practice uh and that if it's ch Down the Road Council have to make a decision if they want to make a change or whatever but but our our position is is whenever there's an exaction we have uh uh variations we have deviations we have density bonuses so if somebody claims that's going to that's going to diminish the value of our property well you can get more density on especially in our downtown area where we're trying to get very dense properties so um I always fall back to the principle of good planning good planning practices those are always defensible and uh I I would not uh want to see um a government be scared of being sued by a developer on a on a on a practice that is a good plan practice so U that's kind of my it's it's like I said it's not clear at all the the cases when you read the cases the Holdings you think they didn't they read this case but they they decided on not some some say well um they didn't violate his due process so he didn't have a claim so it's it's kind of a hit and miss thing so um constitutional law Scholars often love these kind of things uh from a from a city standpoint it's you know you always worry about it but you can always defend good planning practices and as long as you treat everybody equally and you have a Nexus for the for the regulation and a if it's roughly proportionality to take then you're then you're in good shape so with that is there any questions uh I'm sure I thoroughly confused you um but it's it's it's an area that there's not a lot ofation about and it generally comes down the government prevails my quite honestly okay any if any any questions if not we'll go on with the rest of the agenda um and if anybody has any questions they want they would like to see any of the cases I'll be glad to furnish them to you if you if you need something to go to sleep at night this the cases will probably put you to sleep um but it it like I said there's some good treates out there too but anyway that having been said okay moving on to to looking at both agendas okay do you want to go through the articles that one each are are we going to talk about the okay okay so number four on Land Development code is the review of the non-consensus Articles from local panel this and Land Development code committee recommend ation so these will be the Deborah has compiled the the instances in the revised Land Development code that there is not consensus uh disagreement between the Land Development code committee and the local plan agency so with that uh I will let Deborah take charge thank you Mr chairman um just wanted to go over briefly some of the items where there was not a consensus between the LPA and the Land Development code committee and um you should have the table as well as the Articles um that were sent out to each of you um that goes over those things so we'll we'll go over each one um individually so we'll start with Section 2.4 B2 which is the first one is the um makeup of the LPA the local planning agency and the the language is a new is new language um which is membership and it talks about the composition of the L LPA it is not in our existing Land Development code it is new language um Kenley horn proposed the created language that's there um they can take that one El David po might okay okay so um the LD CC's proposal is pro is provided in the table so the table that you all have um can we pull that table up and we can just kind of show the difference oh so the first one is the LDC it says at least four um me members of the LPA should have backgrounds from the from the professions listed below kemy horn proposed at least two back two members with the background the ldcc proposed at least four members with the um professions which is the land Planning Development architecture landscape architecture Urban Design real estate civil engineering um and environmental the lpa's consensus was to remove the entire section so we want to have a discussion on and it may be that we take the two different proposals to city council for work session so our goal today is to try to build a consensus so that it's one recommendation but if we cannot then we will take forward um the two recommendations and possibly three um for staff so um just wanted to throw that out there and let you all so so how do we want to run this meeting I mean we've got our our chair here so the chair is David Hall so they okay all right so can I comment on this yeah I I think yeah we've always we've follow the comment that yeah anybody with free to come we'll we'll obviously do more one so I supported this because this if you look at what's been done down in the city of Orlando as Ovito grows and you get more complex situations it would be good to have some knowledge base on the LPA board the other the other reason was the current city council attitude which may change which kind of looks at the LPA as just a step to get P to get to to the councel and my thought was if if we work to professionalize the LPA and give it more Credence then perhaps over time more decisions can be shifted to the LPA for the council and that's why I supported kind of professionalizing it because a lot of this stuff sometimes it comes to LPA gets highly technical so it was not in any way an attack on present members or anything of that nature uh but I I I support trying to bring some knowledge to bear at that lower board and that that's all I got to say I have something to add to that if I mean sure go ahead go ahead Sam uh if you see the language says as many professions represented below as possible it is not mandatory so it is good to have if we can have it so I don't see why it wouldn't be acceptable to everybody but it may give them chance to think about what what what should be on there who what a person adds uh things like that that's all as we do this can I suggest that we kind of go back and forth and that we let each body explain the rationale for what they're recommending I think I think guys just did from our perspective yeah I think that's a good plan I I can I don't want to speak in that Bel because I recall the conversation was there was a concern about being being able to find people in those professions qu IFI who would be willing to serve because it's not the easiest task to to fill the LPA now and I think that was part of the concern was was was the ability to find these professionals who would be willing to to give the time needed uh to sit on the board and you guys can can elaborate or disagree with that I recall that was one of the reasons I think the reason that we uh kind of disagreed with that was because we felt that the LPA was representing the community as as as a whole at as at large and um I think that you know the people that you have on it maybe they're not in these professions but we have two attorneys business owner financial advisor Banker I'm not sure what David does but I think we have we can understand I don't think it's that complex that we can't read stuff and understand and hear the presentations from the from the folks from the city and when it says at least four members from those professions it kind of it's kind of like you're stacking the deck on this side and um I think that was our feeling was that that was really not the way to go if we're a representative body representing the community um and that's that's really why we all kind of agreed it that way and I will M Mike yeah so and I'll also add to that that the other discussion was we did have a engineering and he left and we also had a landscape architect and she couldn't have she didn't have the time so that's that was the other reason that we had that they were kind of piging pining Towing everybody into those four at least those four areas we felt that it was just there wasn't going to be any we weren't going to get qualified people that were going to take the time and this and we all know being you guys Ser your board we Ser our this board it takes time well no but but I think if you look at our I'll say it's a funny thing first I I'll flat out disagree wholeheartly at the LPA what the LPA is that's not what it is the LPA is not doesn't represent hey 12 homeowners or seven homeowners that's not what it is because every businessman everybody who owns a business they live pays taxes they're there you have to look at the whole every party who owns property whether they have their invested rights that were granted in like the 70s they own land owners they have the rights they have the right to sit on the board do everything you know those kind of things so I disagree that it's that's the purpose of the board I don't think if you look at how it was set up that was the purpose of the board by the state it's required by the state winter does Winter Springs do they sit still sit as there um because they sat for many years as their LPA they didn't have anybody they were their LPA they've got separate boards they now have separate boards but they didn't for a while so it's wasn't a requirement it wasn't set up that way to be the people's arm so to speak of development so I I kind of disagree with that but I think it says again it says should and you should consider and it's not bad having because there are none of those if you look really involved right now that's what you're saying I don't know I don't know the makeup I'm just saying if if they're not there it should be considered hey you should get and it's funny because it this board has actually made up pretty balanced of people who have developed in their lifetime people are in government developed not in government but sit in government you know as a representative of government and in development I have no case whatsoever I own home and that's it you know had a business for many years and three others who are involved in but it was in government not involved in government so you know I just think it by having that as a saying hey you should consider this it's I think it is important to have those ideas at least someone that's should be or where you know Urban Design should be this way you might have someone who that's what they do we've had we had someone on that was an environmentalist and other things that sits on his board and she has different opinions at times it says here's a so I think it just is a should is the key word there and you should consider having these things and you may add to that and say you know make sure there is one person not in government I I could go along you know one person not involved in any government you know facilities kind of thing because that's important too how many members are on LPA seven seven so so a simple compromise idea here you know you might have looked at that as and and I don't think I I think like Stephen we're not trying to stack anything we're trying to create expertise let me n just one second because over the years since I've been on LPA city council has taken a lot of the major decisions away from LPA and gone straight to council now if we were going to look at something like that as you proposed then I think city council should give some of that back to those to that so so that's that's the point I'm getting at is is I think the business of the council is too much right now so so all the budgetary issues all the police and fire and Parks issues and they're kind of looking at the LPA and saying yeah whatever no matter what they said we want to figure out our own landu stuff so the idea is to try to push it down and perhaps a compromise here was the four was somewhat of an arbitrary number we started I think at some point in the discussion of everybody should be from some those lists we ended up it before so perhaps a compromise here as Stephen said it's not a must it's it's a try if possible and maybe if that number was three we can come to consensus I'm just trying to find a way now Stephen will tell you he sat on Council the council makeup's about to change because we've got someone resigning but for many years they've been unwilling to allow decisions to be made at lower levels and you know I think that's a mistake especially as we get more complicated stuff so maybe if that was a three I don't know what everyone thinks about that you just took the words out of my mouth that was going to suggest the exact same thing there's more of us than you so yeah obviously and I guess that's the problem here have to remind you all that we may not come to a consensus on TR I don't have a problem with free I mean I would like to see you know as my previous statement city council brings some of that stuff back to LPA because it like actually says you know they've got interated with so many other things going on that they don't take the time me it's just pushes it through and I think some of the suggestions are exact you know throughout that we've gone through through all this that are fall you know pushing forward to them to make the decision are pushing stuff down that it's not all your decis you know relegate some of the decisions down that need to be relegated down as part of this I don't think this like you know it's not hey keep it all up and try to get people who yeah because it be a waste of but I saying I think it does I think that's part of the whole thing that we've kind of talked about is pushing you know there are there need to be pushed back decisions down so see see a good example in Seal County subdivision preliminary subdivision plans are at the lower level unless they're appealed so there's actual things that just don't even go to councel right they're like we handle this and having more expertise on that board I think will allow the LPA to to argue to have a bigger role which was kind of the idea here are you guys making specific recommendations for what you'd like brought back to your level excuse me are you making specific recommendations to the Council on specific things you would like to have brought back to the LPA we have not given that opportunity yet I think we discussed that in the we went through yeah we went through the list of applications with um this board as well as with the LPA um there were no specific recommendations to be um to have certain applications brought back to the LPA I thought we went through the list the new we did go through the list but we didn't I thought we made some changes we made some change I think we made one um there is one application that I think to LPA okay one or two new applications think we change a little bit nothing it's nothing drastic CU you know council is going to you know if it becomes drastic then it's going to be a total wipe so I but I there were definitely some areas where we said that should be should have been always at LPA it worked its way up now it needs to need to work its way back down and I agree with that with some of the other cities that we've represent in the past that that is true it it's there's a lot concentrated in Council here that other municipalities and counties do have the LPA level so I I think that's a valid that's a valid point that everybody has raised so for my part I don't mind the three we can get Council to bring some of that stuff back L I think it'll be the utilization of the time of these exper I think what I'm hearing now it looks like LDC is agreeable to three and LPA is agreeable to three so this well I'm wait for yeah yeah I mean we only have two of the seven people here so and I'm not sure I actually agree because I just still think that there's people that can be out there that can understand the stuff that we're talking about but that doesn't prude them I don't think it precludes them I think it's to me listen I've been there I've been making that decision and I think that just even if it's you're going to take 10 seconds and look at the list versus the list of people and go you know listen there's a botanist who can help us identify what's really like trees and good and bad when we had David you know it was very informative as a staff member I to have David you know who's a tree he's a he could help us we constantly go to him like so help us understand we've got this we're going to jam in all these trees he's like yeah those going to die we like so we're really like they're going to die they're going to die we had the landscape on she would actually make those comments I appreciate and that's what I'm saying so I don't think it's mandatory but I just making Council give them 10 honest to gosh it might give them 10 seconds to look at that list and go hey look there's a there's a landscape architect on here versus there isn't and maybe you know we don't have anybody with that skill up there and it may give them and that's yeah again being up there that's what it's going to be is 10 seconds worth that we've argued more than the next 10 years if this was implemented would ever be thought of and and thought of on the day in reality to be honest with you well let's let's hear the concern what is what what is the man concern of having three I still think that it's you know it's people from the community although you said it the same to be in the community I still think to be in the community just the background has to be but it doesn't necess have to be those backgrounds I think that is kind of stacking the deck in the favor of developers and that sort of thing and I just don't think that's necessarily the way we should go devel I I've got to kind of answer to that so so the idea is anyone from those fields is is going to be in favor of of development I think they actually have knowledge to take folks on so I'll tell you um and and this is someone that that Stephen knows there's a gentleman by the name of Richard German you may or may not know him but he he does a lot of development and he's handles a lot of Investments and big money out of New York and he's who everyone fears at pnz in seminal County because he knows better so people come in there they try to snow them he can say oh no that's not the way it is and really you know get them and he does uh it's kind of surprising sometimes so this is not intended to stack any deck this is intended to provide a level of expertise to counteract whatever smoke might be blown up your skirts from someone that's just my thought we had we had uh we had a civil engineer on the board we had another an engineer from Orange County was on our board and they both left so and they brought aspects right that's I'm okay with the three person the three is certainly better than four think better than four I mean go see if they can come to consensus otherwise we don't you know you know that's what what at the LPA we'll have to discuss this issue and if there's a consensus we do if not we'll we'll submit it to there's only two of us counil yeah I don't I think you probably want to talk with the rest of I was going to suggest to bring that item to the end so that hoping that we're going to have more LPA members here so that we do a more balanced you know type of um vote right for the consensus okay and then if not at the LPA meeting we can have that discussion and then we can take back what the um ldcc their thoughts as well Y and just let me explain because it's it's been such a long process and we are trying to involve everybody what we are trying to do is hit city council when we hit city council for the public hearings with ideally one language that we all can support um and so whatever we cannot find consensus today we are going to take to city council for a work session with them so that they can give a direction and hoping that we'd reach to the end with one one final draft okay so the next um section is section 3.5 A2 C which is the minor subdivision um plan yeah so let's go to the code a little Contex what these are yeah no the new code because this is the new okay so we have right there so we have a new minor subdivision plan this is this is a new type of application and we've had this discussion um with both boards and staff's original proposal was for an eight lot subdivision um plan and it was going to go before um it was going to be staff level approval and then um for the preliminary subdivision plan and then the final plat would go to city council because today um anything above three lots is considered a subdivision you have to do preliminary subdivision plan that goes before LPA and city council and then you also have to do a flat but the minor subdivision plan was for those missing middle type developments um so we wanted to make it easier for um developers to be able to do the missing middle type of development and I think Dave you mentioned um this in SEMO County they have where it's it's four it's four Lots yeah okay so for us we're doing eight Lots um for us um the L ldcc agreed with staff in terms of um approving the application ldcc agreed with the eight lot um subdivision LPA wanted the seven Lots instead of the eight Lots so we want to um talk about that as well developers r f easier okay I'm trying to remember the conversation I'm trying conversation so we're High okay go down to seven uh so so I'll just make one point so so for development to be efficient you try to do what's called uh double load the road so if you have a road have lots on both sides so even number makes sense uh not to say that you couldn't have a situation with seven but typically you're going to have lots on both sides of the street so doing an odd number kind of creates a weird situation why did we come up with that so I think makes sense I can't remember why we came up interestingly we have one out that it's I think it's seven of course you there's always an exception to I think probably that's why I remember you saying there was one coming through so is there a consensus from both from LPA to do eight lot subdivision it's kind of hard to say only because I can't remember the the context I hear what you just said that it makes perfect sense what you just said about the four on each side of the street well if you had an expert on your side you could refuse that's probably true you're right it doesn't make sense that was low what could resist I think might have been the uh Ingress I think is where we were going with the seven what size the one you're doing with seven what size lots are they yeah they have Town Homes Bia the new one isn't that four and three that's yeah what was the yeah what was the length too because I mean eight Lots on a Long Street would be way different than on a short Street I don't there's got to be some context for what's our space here that we're trying to fit it into no now that's that's depending on the on the size if it's a town home it's a smaller lot I think I'm not sure that I remember correctly but I think it had to be we wanted to make sure there was two entrances and exits of the property but just instead of one I think that's what we went with the seven to give an extra oh the subdivision instead of having B you know just one in go to that I think it's up to Bruce we have consensus or do we not I can't yeah can't look it's fine wow okay so it sounds like we have consensus the eight lot okay okay oh this is your big thing coming up okay so the next one is going to be article 4 section 4.2 and it's the table 4.2 if you can go to the table and in this one um The ldcc Wanted the staff and the consultant to consider reducing the minimum lot size and lot width requirements of the R2 zoning District in order to achieve a maximum density of eight dwelling units per acre so um LPA is recommending no changes to the R2 and the reason why is because um we had a chance to look at the um r r 1 BB so if you look at the R1 BB it allows for a reduced lot size of 5,000 square feet it also allows for the setbacks the side to be five as opposed to the eight if you go back down so the side is is five the um front is 20 and the is the rear 35 oh maximum height is 35 okay so the front is going to be the building 20 25 if it's the garage side is five and the rear is 20 um 20 ft so that zoning district is consistent with the medium density future land use designation which is also consistent with the R2 zoning District so um the LPA felt that um we were looking at it was a subdivision that we were looking at called Easton Park and Easton park has a future land use designation of MDR it's off it's just west of alfaya south of Chapman has a future trying to make us dizzy has a future land use designation of MDR and a zoning District of R2 I mean of R1 BB so it allows for smaller lot size so we wanted to bring that to the ldcc to just see if there's senses with not um reducing the R2 um minimum lot size and lot WID because you won't be able to achieve a duplex with even 7500 square feet so it's single family single family is allowed in the R1 BB and then R1 BB is consistent with the MDR medium density residential fature land use designation so I want to just throw that out there as well I think we have two main issues here to consider first we cannot possibly have eight Lots in one acre the math is right there and so so saying eight Acres eight Lots per acre is incorrect we cannot say that no it says eight dwelling units per AC not eight Lots so you can do okay had very a lot of pictures from different areas showing fourplex sixplex aplex that look like homes and fit in neighborhood back that is that what these this is you can possibly fit that on that on that size lot yes but it again I'm looking at that my head's turning 15 ways that sheet and I've seen it before what uh give me an R2 give me an R2 for case give me a well they just showed you one that was but that was r1bd but that was r1b so I think the point and and Sam was making it I'll try to right but I have one more to say and then you can add what you want I know R1 BB is less liberal than R2 and R1 BB requires 5,000 square ft and 50 foot side sitb back and five or five foot H side sitb back and 50 front sit back well R2 is much more liberal and requires much more restrictions it doesn't make sense I don't understand what so so one of the fallacies when you look at these things is if you look at the that lot size and say let's just divide an acre by that lot size it simply doesn't work that way because the subdivision is going to have roads yeah that take a 10 to 15% you're going to have storm water ponds that take much more than they used to might take any anywhere from 15 to 18% and I think Sam's point is we have medium density land use designation that allows 8 dwelling units per acre and without a plan development it's nearly impossible to achieve so I think he was just trying to liberalize it so to his point you're at R1 BB and you've got a five foot side and and a 20 foot is that a front mhm yeah front 20 that's a rear that's a rear okay is the front well the the front because the garages is hard to change so the point is you go to R1 BB where you're trying to get two units in 7500 square feet yet you increase the side setback and and increase the rear setback and make it impractical so right now there's a density that's allowed that forces you to do a plan development because there's no lot size that really works and if we're trying to create housing opportunities and affordability then we should have a designation and I think that's what what Sam was getting at it's not physically possible to do right now and we're just trying to make it physically possible it should be at least like the R1 BB at least but that's setbacks right Frontage sitb back and uh size so so in other words you're you're suggesting R2 be 5,000 square foot allowing two units so you is that what you're saying so in terms of density so let's talk about density let's so if you divide that 5,000 square feet by um multiply by eight is what you're trying to you get 8.7 dwelling units per AC but that's not but listen you cannot have a zoning District within a future land use designation that's going to exceed the future land use designation you're missing the point I think no and let me tell you the um the duplex itself in order to meet the density of the medium density residential you need at least 10,840 Square ft that's not true that's the density can have that's saying you have no roads and no retention that's not true that's true you set your minimum lot size that you need in order to meet the density of medium density residents that's only for isolated lots and people typically and I think Mr Nasser is talking about isolated lots and that is the issue talking about in general let's just me finish isolated Lots then you have to meet the density there is no way for subdivisions and that's why we have R2 um that for the subdivisions they would meet you know the density as a whole and then the lots are smaller they can do duplexes but only with a plan development if you have no or a subdivision a PSP not not a plan unit development a PSP but but if you have a PSP we count a density the PSP will will approve the number of units but what if you don't have a lot size that works how do they do it without a plan development how do they do even if you had a plan development you cannot you have to meet you have to meet density all right you I don't think you guys are understanding density in land use is one thing no one's saying you're going to exceed it but if you don't have lot sizes that allow you to achieve it in a subdivision context it won't be achieved we we have we have our two zoning lots that that have duplexes in the city and and let me tell you planned unit devel say I'm not getting through listen planned unit developments are not as easy as people think you have to do a um development agreement it requires a development agreement as well as a conceptual development plan we rarely see them except for if it's a big development people with small lots are not going to do it people with small Lots can achieve um that small um lot size but you still need at least 10,840 ft for a duplex be because otherwise it will not meet density no if it's if it's um if it's not a PSP if it's a PSP we would count the storm water we would count the streets so and that's why not necessarily you have to have a relationship between the lot size and the density because you count usually those slots come from a PSP right from a from a subdivision plan right now you were talking about specific situation that you have R2 zoning um lots that are did not come from a subdivision came from a lot split and then you're trying to get um higher density for and I don't even think you're talking about duplex you're talking about single family I and then we have other zonings that are more applicable to that right but this is maybe there is other zoning involved but generally speaking take a look at what you're saying you're saying 7500 Square ft per lot well how many Lots per AC is 7500 Square ft that is 4 and a half so how can you say eight when you can have only four and a half well no we're we're not saying the 7500 we're looking at the R1 BB which is the 5,000 talking about R2 to match the R11 one BB that's what we are talking about we're not talking about one R1 BB we're talking about R2 so that the problem is with R2 not with R1 BB let's look at the uses in R2 compared to R R 1bb what use are you thinking of for R2 duplex I am uh thinking of the entitlements that we are saying eight Lots or eight houses or units per acre it's not doable under our requirements okay so you're saying anything that is consistent with medium density residential should have smaller lot sizes so that it can achieve the a dwelling units per acre precisely three things lot size Frontage and side sitb back as clear as can be R1 BB would allow that the way it is R2 is Not Practical it's not feasible it's not doable I can't be any more clear okay was that the board's understanding ldcc okay yeah that the the R2 should allow more and again here it should be more liberal but it seems It's actually but with all those with the 75008 ETC it is actually more restrictive you can achieve what should be achievable I don't think that's correct because the 7500 with the street gets into the minimum um um so so acreage for the density Teresa so so you're you're trying to solve the problem of you don't want people to go above eight just don't let allow them to go above the density of and we don't that that's the thing doesn't doesn't need to change but all this time that that the consultant and the staff came to us saying let's find a way to do missing middle you're now saying you don't want us to I mean that's all we're trying to do no that's not what we saying Dave because we have other lots that allow more density right smaller Lots would allow more density if the density is allowed more more lots of why am I going to transform the R2 into another R1 we already have our 1bb no that's not what he saying very few places so what what he's saying is R2 allows duplex yet it's less liberal setback wise and size-wise than R 1bb and I'm confused because I thought we were trying to come to consensus with the LPA not the state I was we were trying to explain what they what they were saying okay LPA I give up I think we are very clear I I mean the argument they presented is actually so I don't understand what is the proposal The Proposal is to make the R2 an R1 BB size side sit back and front sit back match R1 BB and width well we already have the R1 VB no R2 R1 well then it's we talking about the table of permissible uses we we can no we're not well we it's just a matter of allowing duplex in our 1bb she's right do that and we're fine she's and we allow R2 to exist as R2 but what if somebody wants only one single home so but that's what I'm saying Mr Nas you're you're talking about one specific property without resoning right having a smaller lot so we're not going to change because we already have our 1bb we have a different different sizes of Lots right but what if somebody wants to reone I mean General go through the resoning process and we entertain the resoning so s that's a different process listen to what she just suggested you want to liberalize R2 because it allows duplexes with the same measurements as R1 BB dup she's saying go to the permissibly beuse table allow duplexes R1 BB same result yep same result Let It Go good yep we already have that and I think we CH that cuz that's I'm looking at like there's just not that I have been compressed down but God there's and makes it yeah you can do you got another Choice again it's not going to be by right it has to be density everything has to be density because that's the complain we did not deviate from the comp if it meets density and and the table of permissible uses allow a duplexes in I agree say so we have do you guys understand consensus is what I think so what Teresa said do we have consensus it doesn't Mand I'm I'm confused can we look at the issue that was what the um LPA said versus what we said um when we initially did it we went through this whole thing of the math so that's where our um consensus came from and then now we're coming up with something completely different it's the no we saying the same thing not change the R2 as as um proposed by the by the LPA we are not changing the the dimensions in setbacks for R2 that's going to stay so you can still get eight units on 7500 Square F feet we're adding duplex as an allowable use to R1 BB which has the same result as and that would be eight units that would be that would allow up to up to eight because it's limited by but only by special permission no automatic I thought she said not automatically now if if the subdivision acreage meets the density we can have you know smaller Lots but the density is by acreage it's developable land so if when you're proposing a subdivision the streets count the storm water counts this is all developable land you know the if there is a Park area everything counts the the density does not need to be met by the lot itself when it's a subdivision when it's an individual lot that is not part of a subdivision it's a old subdivision whatever we lost track of those developable you know the area then it's by the lot if the lot has the acreage to to allow to me density you get the all the density if not you get the minimum so all those numbers stay the same except R 1bb now allows duplexes that's the only thing we're at correct which gives you another option to be able to build literally that product that we were all talking about that middle housing that's missing and that everybody would want gives you a little bit more density but not what you want so they're building 8 unit it does Sam Sam it does exactly what you're saying if they have a duplex but many lots are less than 7500 and they cannot have a duplex according to this criteria it's not this criteria ACH you out to achieve yes we're achieving exactly what you set out to achieve but what if a lot is less than 7500 Square ft that's you do R1 BB with the duplex you're good but it's not zoned in R1 BB so you res so you res res that's a long process to reone so how much actual R1 BB is floating around out there I just that was my next question yeah not too much we have the um get DIY we already have consensus so why why debate it anymore right that me we have to the east this discussion there's not a whole lot not a lot Sanctuary The Enclave at sanctuary and I think has not the name now are we good is there that doesn't go does that not go into if it's not already zoned that way I'm sorry Nicole can you say that again does that not go in into the where if it's not already zoned that way if it's um next to something where the residents don't want duplexes next to where they live then we're in a debate no the only two areas we have our R1 BB are two um communities P communities with homeowner associations I mean they they would not be able toil yeah buil and is anybody built anything other than Town Homes these days anyway realistically uh yes not much so I'll just say there's some medium density land across the street west from the high school where these things are possible or many other areas that that's just the example I know I'm just and we have a 13 subdivision at Lake jip as well okay so everyone is okay both fours okay so let's move on to the next this is um article four section 4.10 this one should not be as controversial so this one is um let's go to the code and this is part of planned unit development it talks about it's that language that when we first reviewed it as staff we didn't believe that we needed to have that language there but it says it's part of open space um reserve for common use and at the end it says the organization shall be empowered to assess reasonable maintenance fees upon the owners of real property within the PUD for the maintenance of the common open space and this is for um it's like an HOA for the h so the HOA gives the HOA the right to do that right and so the ldcc said to keep the language because it's good to have in there just so that when people come with the Pud the language is there and then um LPA was okay with removing it um so we wanted to get a consensus staff was okay with removing it as well I think um David Hall mentioned we should keep it in there um when we all met with the ldcc yeah my thing is all legal is it is it like does it give more oomph to they when they form the HOA and then possibly later on or if an a HOA ceases to exist and reex ists that kind of stuff does that help that I think that was yeah I think it was the reason we wanted to keep that in there it didn't hurt anything it just it's just it was just additional uh something additional language that that could be used if you needed so so there was no down we didn't see a downside to have in there with that language gone uh nothing precludes a private Association from creating regulations of that to to that effect right correct so so to me it being out harms nothing you're saying it gives them the idea they're they're probably going to do it anyway so I'm I'm inclined to to give LPA the wi hey write that down to remove right yeah I doesn't hurt either way so I don't care either way well but my issue is that I'll be councilman Britain for a minute I have no decision make on this well that's way we because that was the question we asked as well does is there harm you way no no then just remove yeah so so let's look at it as as the memorial uh removal for our member that's no longer with us it's it's the Hank removal the thank got something there yeah and my My worry is because every time they says show Empower they LC show are we do we have to regulate that do you have to enforce that right so removing is say well they can still do that but it's the city is not implicated in in controlling that yeah we don't control that much anyway so taking it out I don't think really hurts anything I mean it's it it's kind of one of those things either way it doesn't make that much difference it's still going to function the same so I just need to be really clear in the case of my homeowners association River Oaks we Levy a fee currently for the maintenance the Landscaping the the trees the bushes the grass all of that which constitutes other than the buildings themselves a majority of the subdivision would the HOA if we take that language out have the power to continue to charge a fee to do that yeah because they typically that's under your articles it's typically in your bylaw your your ccrs uh each usually the subdivision will have their own regulations and and that is inherent in one of the powers that's in the state statute where allows that that that the the Home Association are allowed to charge a reasonable fee so that state statute cover that state law covers that so it doesn't necessar have to be here right it's really a duplic they have that power on your way okay okay so there's a consensus on that one to remove so it's gone the next one is article four section 4.14 density and intensity bonus this one should be um pretty non-controversial this one is um uh the five um where it talks about this is historic preservation of buildings and in number five it says built prior to 19 20 as determined significant by the city council um the ldcc said to keep that language in there um in terms of the 1920 and LPA wanted to strike built prior to 1920 so and just leave in there determined significant by city counc so that gives the council the right to figure out the year so it's not I have no issue with that no problem with that LPA gets two there do have consensus then is there consensus no I'm totally no I'm against that totally no there's Hey listen Florida determines that it's 25 years what is it 20 50 years old or 25 years old is a historic building because we did that right it's so we did the stupid histor and you got it you guys got to do it again by the way because we did it in 2000 but a car from the 70s is is a classic now exactly so you know I there's there's four different ways of somebody deciding what's historic why do we need to go build prior to 1920 and determine significant by city council well that's what they're saying they're Crossing it out we're saying Crossing it out we suggested Crossing it out cross it out I'm I thought you said keep it I'm sh no no no no no yeah it really didn't make any sense sorry about that sorry well you should not make sense sometimes I love for a while it was the haircut you lost your marbles with the haircut I'm go Article Five next okay so the next one is going to be Article Five I have one more after this one so the next one is Article 5 Section 5.1 a3b and we are um well we're staff is open to either one but the um the language talks about accessory structures and the location of the accessory structures so LBCC staff's comment was um should we allow accessory detach accessory structures in the front and on the side of the house so um ldcc said detach and enclosed garages and adus which meet setback requirements can be located in the front of the principal structure but they must be similar in appearances and then LPA um their language was detached and enclosed garages and adus cannot be located in the front of the principal structure but they can be located on the side and behind the front facade of the principal structure or to the rear as long as they meet setback requirements and their appearance matches the principal structures sheds located to the rear of the principal structure um are exempt from matching the appearance of the principal structure um that those comments are on this side as well so we wanted to see how um ldcc was is more liberal with allowing the detached garages and sheds in the front and on the side so we wanted to kind of come to some consensus on where these detached accessory structures and sheds can be located so before we get into the debate Deborah pictures not a picture a statute okay I'm sorry I didn't hear what you said I want to read a piece of a statute because it might frame the debate okay so section uh statute 163 32025 a and I'm not going to read all the exceptions because most of them don't apply to a veto Land Development regulations relating to building Design Elements may not be applied to a single family or two family dwelling there's some in lesses but it's pretty strict and it won't apply to most of Ido so both of our choices involve doing such regulations which were prohibited from doing so to the extent that people's opinion about location was based on enforcing similar appearance we can't enforce similar it's against the law uh so just keep that in mind we're going to have to fix that when we look at this um so if you think it's okay if it's in front because it looks similar well too bad you can't make it look similar it's not allow right can't require it so then that's going to affect the placement the location of where we allow these right so so location is not um a design Element no so you can do it but looking similar is a design element so we can't do it and I think the reason why it was allowed in the front is because it would look similar to the house so it may be um a consideration for both boards now on the location of these access detached accessory structures I just was throwing the bomb not entering the we appreciate that yeah the back so then um I don't know if the if the ldcc wants to go with what the LPA is recommending that nothing is allowed in the front but you can have it behind the front facade of the house which is behind the front um extension extension of the house and sine the sideline as the front s side line goes because there are some sheds out there we have seen that are not so pretty looking and I don't know if you want over by um I'm going to say CL are there like on some of the bigger house are there a couple I'm trying to remember in my head as I walk there like that there might be a couple of garages that are a little forward or yeah and the one one we looked at and I know we looked at one that's on the trail yeah there's there's something you know I I again there there garages that pull forward from the general line of the house now every you know you can go to Every subdivision and there's that is not that attached right no no it's attached I'm saying it's attached so so you know having it Forward of the house obviously is okay if it's attached um having it detached I don't I but then I think of the Adu and you know I'm not for having adus sitting up front a separate Adu itself just sitting in the front um a as opposed uh so that's that's my quandry is I I don't really have a big problem maybe it's a matter of how far forward of that line if that's anything or I don't know where everybody else fits so so if it I'm fine with it being behind everybody wants to do whatever I if it's behind and no architectural control you good with that yeah I mean it's going to be pretty rare than it could be in front anyway which is what we were saying as well so a side or or side also just behind behind behind the front elevation behind the front elevation David when is that statutes from 163 32025 a when oh um I don't know when that particular paragraph Was updated but this whole statute was updated in 2024 and the the date of the exception is July 1 2023 so it's probably something around that time because the City of Winter Park has had at least well so if they had Architectural Review before a certain date then it was okay but we don't okay so that was if you had an applicable ARB board before January 1 of 2020 but we don't have one so I said there's this seven exceptions but we don't they don't really affect us so basically if if every if we want to go with ldcc if we if we want to go along with what no the LPA said and nothing in front of the frontage of the house and back then it's okay that's the question really well what is the rationale behind this why can the garage stick out no it can stick out if it's attached to the house but s it can't because it's it's it's part of the house right so a house can have has a garage and it's not a detach I think this is to avoid something like a shed or you know or a little Barn right or some some big sheds to to have you know um um uh used as garages there are metal that are not very goodlooking in know very visible from the street right but that is if it is detached detached yes but the city regulations right now for attach P garage it has to be set back 5T from the front of the house and I don't see no has a different set some zonings have a different setbacks for garages and for the for the um um the rest of the house the main house but not all of them and um so that's part of the why we have that is because we do not want the the garage to be the prominent element in the in the facade right but as Steve just said almost 90% of the homes the garage sticks out about four or five ft if not more from the old old yeah and they some and some zonings still allow they're attach but now the city says no you have to have no okay attached is okay you can still have your you can still have your garage out front we not changing we're doing this is for detached this is detached just detach this is for accessory structures accessory detached I understand that but the point is right now if somebody submits a a plan for a permit for a house the city requirements is the garage has to be set back from the structure specific zonings Mr nassa not all of them and and and if your house if you set your garage it the garage can still stick out but your garage just has to now and your house will now go back a little further you're right but you can still have that you can still have the garage out front you'll just have a greater setback is all you know they have a book in there called speciic Z they pull out my house Live Oak was like that I was on a baseball I was on a diamond and the house was here and because it the M chose had a front garage it had to push back a little bit that's all yeah the because the front of the garage had to hit the the minimum Zone and you'll see arbitrary I'm sorry what' you say I think this is arbitrary I don't see the rationale behind it well you're fighting you're fighting we on two different issues the difference between attach and detach that's all we're really talking about I know you're saying well it should that this this already applies to homes that are existing and it's like it doesn't in code right now you can build a garage the six out in you can't yes you can ask can you can the garage has more of a required setback but it could still be in front of the house the house can be further back it has yeah it's just a difference of required set but if you don't if you can't fit it in the backside you can't do that yes then you have to squish it but it has to fit in the dimensions still so but it it it's all over the place if you drive through any sub any you'll see every third house has a garage forward you know a left or right sticking garage out it's every fourth every fourth maybe it's 25 % but some number that's out there but you know we're just talking about detached versions and I said I I'm fine with it the way LPA says okay and so that would be detached and and enclosed garages and adus cannot be located in the front of the principal structure but they can be located on the side and behind the front facade of the principal structure or to the rear as long as they meet setback requirements and there so we will remove LPA as long as their appearance is match if this code is applicable yes and none of it's going to be allowed because of HOAs anyway so okay so we're going to go with the L next year legislation HS illegals yeah changed your mind they they only like condo associations okay okay then the last one so this one if that statute is applicable will not apply so this one is Article 5 Section 5.1a accessory structure design requirements we there's one you ski it's the same problem yeah it is so we can't do it right exactly which one the language so we have to go with ldcc because you can't do what LPA was saying right yeah yes exactly so we're gonna with the pools we're going to go with with this one which is the article 5 Section 5.1a based on the statute it may just be a move Point anyway so we're not going to go over that one yeah we'll go with it we'll go with nothing on that one okay and then Article 5 Section 5.1 c1a this one was just making sure we want the um for LPA ldcc the pools to meet the principal structure setbacks so and it's more clarification it says allow pools on the side of the principal structure but behind the front facade of the principal structure and they must meet setback requirements so we wanted to make sure that um ldcc meant the principal um ex principal setbacks I'm sorry LPA said allow pools on the side of the of the principal structure but behind the front for side of the principal structure but if located on the side they must meet setback requirements of the principal structure so we wanted to just check with the ldcc to see which setbacks would be applicable I went back and listen toes a few times it was never clarified set requirements WEP access so the difference is is that the primary setback so for the side if we can go to the side if you just yeah just look at any setbacks yeah yeah so on the side depending on the zoning District you'll see the side setbacks but for pools pools have us is it seven and a half seven feet same ASP build set so it makes no never for pools yeah this is so it makes no difference changes okay so then it's the same it's the same yeah no debate well go home now so that is it so we have to go back we got to come back tonight anyway 60 so you want to argue about something else and not go get a drink somewhere so we don't have any said I won't be home to late so we we have to go back to the LPA composition and let you all decide what you want to do do you want to take it back to the board we'll take it back tonight okay on new business or what discussion item such out if they you know disagree with us we come back and so so what what do you do for a living me yeah a financial gu financial advisor well let's put that on the list and then you can vote [Laughter] Yes I always try to find a compromise so so do we have to wait Mr Hall to adjourn us we adjourn so next week we have a for ldcc we have not next week it is coming up on you all are going to have a lot of articles on at our next meeting yeah so the next one is on the 20 August 27th so we're going to send you all um the articles that you will need to review and there's going to be quite a few parking is going to be one of them um I was hoping to go over parking tonight but it's not on the agenda but we're going to go over parking parking has been pretty controversial with um LPA has already reviewed parking so you'll be able to see lpa's um comments on parking as well what time only if we have some means of transort town to the other I would agree with you oh what about LPA LPA tonight no what it was just ldcc just ldcc Teresa we done you all are later that's exactly they what I just got that way I could LPA is on August 28th at 4:30 okay noting noar yeah no there's no LPA but that's the work session for LPA okay to go back over uh the next ldcc meeting is August 27th at 2:30 and then also September 24th at 2:30 those are what scheduled LPA the next meeting is August 28th at 4:30 yeah and no not includ tonight okay anything else we' got to go over okay and is there any uh comments from any of the committee members or LPA members it was great you want to bring up thank you very much for your flexibility of coming you know all the people you guys are way more oh absolutely yeah Brian is the one that really causes a problem who Brian he's the alook one yeah no no PO is the one that really now since you have additional time you can have a look on our beautiful exhibition isn't are they they're gorgeous okay we uh it is gabbage 408 yeah it's cabbage I'm sorry we you're messing up the it's okay okay it is 4:08 and we are adjourned thank you