e test te e e testing he's going to be late e e e spe e e e e e e e those ready e you ready ready you guys ready good afternoon and welcome to the work session for Tuesday June 4th we need a roll call yes present today we have darl Lopez Bruce Kavanaugh Brian Smith Katherine hunt um out is Lisa Ramsey she's out sick and David Pollock and David and David deor will join us in a little bit uh next I on the agenda is a public comments anyone wishing to speak on any item that's not on the agenda for this afternoon seeing that I will close the public comment next order is order is Article Five accessory use articles staff going to present correct thank you Mr chair um today the LPA we're going to disc article five which is other uses and structures also article seven which is non-conforming situations and article 8 architectural design um we're going to have the comments on the screen from the staff as well as the Land Development code committee um and then we're also going to plug your comments into each article as we go through so if you have any questions um as I'm doing the presentation just ask your questions at that time um and then we'll just to um discuss it okay so Article [Music] Five on page one you will see that the title has changed from supplementary use regulations to other specific uses and structures and in this article um the Consultants combined um all of the accessory uses because we had accessory uses in article 8 um of the architectural design section um so we they moved all the accessory structures into one article which is this article okay and then as staff reviewed it we noticed that the section was not clear on whether this the article applied to both residential and non-residential and Kimia horn also deleted accessory structure standards from article 8 um but did not place all of them in this section so or anywhere else in the Land Development code on page four we'll see that um they deleted food trucks but it's relocated to a different section so you'll see that on the deleted number two and we also added language that says accessory structures shall not exceed the primary structure if you scroll down so you'll see that language added as well well so on number three accessory structure location and Zoning standards um you'll see we added um except as otherwise specifically specifically permitted by this section no accessory use the highlighted section is what we changed no accessory use or structure shall be located in the required front set back front and Street um side yard set backs so some of the comments on this section is we wanted to discuss if we would like to put or the city would like to allow a detached garage to be placed in the front of a house as long as it meets the front setbacks so that's something that we wanted to discuss with the LPA we discussed it with the ldcc and the ldcc as we also talked about um should we consider allowing adus with this language as it's very common for garages to have adus above them and urban settings and there was another comment shouldn't accessory structures um minimum setback follow the district setback we also need to add that drainage utility easements are the minimum when they exist so that um if there is a drainage and utility easement that it cannot um be placed within that drainage and utility easement so in terms of the detached um enclosed garage and adus being allowed in the front ldcc was okay with allowing a detached enclosed garage and adus that meets a front setback requirements and they um the discussion was they needed to have a minimum of 20 foot setback for detached garage from the RightWay and it can be placed in front of the primary structure as long as it meets the primary setback requirements and then accessory structures located in front should be similar in appearance to the primary structure so if it's located in the front it needs to have a similar appearance in terms of architectural style to the primary so the question for LPA is how do you feel about allowing um a detached enclosed garage or an Adu in front of the house or in not necessarily in front it could be in front as long as it meet set so if the house is set back further than the setback if it's setb 30 feet and the setback front setback is 25 feet are you okay with allowing the detach enclosed garage to be 25 it could be adjacent to the house as well I say no today our standard is it has to be any accessory structure detached has to be behind the principal house I personally would agree with that so we have some examples Sam is going to show you some example well an example this is a courtesy of Teresa this is a house near winter park off of Lakemont which plenty of yall I'm sure are familiar with um the front of the house you can see is here off of grel Terrace obviously this is a corner lot important to say excuse me um but if you see here this is actually detached garage um not attached to this structure nor the principal structure uh separated by the pool here and uh let's see we can that was the only one I I was thinking on the side like that dro the man otherwise I'd say no you can see it here it's a single car garage there you go I mean there's always going to be an exception to the rule but I wasn't thinking of an application in that particular manner I was thinking more of a regular residential street that only has yeah one street entrance or one entrance to the house I would say no it have to go stay in the back I mean this you could write it out you know yeah I don't that's not the house I do not consider that in front of the house we're talking about side or front Okay yeah a side yard would be the only way I would see that would work front this is in the front setback because it's um it's a corner lot so corner lot has have two front edges right so the our code would not allow that okay they would have to be placed behind the structure and um um so that would be one situation but even if that um and I think if you go to the next um house in grenell oh um is this in Winter Park it is Winter Park if you go the second house which is the other one the more than one next one more I think it has a detached garage look that yeah it has a little guy here has a detached garage in front see this is a detached garage no no I'm sorry justn so this one has a three three car garages one is detached and the other two are in the back that looks like a storage un for the record I grew up in an apartment like this on top of a garage no Okay so in terms of accessory structures detached you want it to be placed behind or to the side so we know not in the front but what about the side behind the front facade which is the front um section of the house not necessarily the rear of the house but on the side I would be good with the first example um being on the side like that I see nothing wrong with that yeah that one wouldn't bother me at all yeah I would say the only way it could be on the side if someone has a wide enough lot if someone's in a narrower lot like most of our general subdivisions are or something like that I couldn't see you know that one well narrow Lots would not fit exactly large this is really large Lots wide wide lot I'm going to ask a question because um they have different styles right one is a more modern house so it's more kind of squared and this is more of a um um Farm you know modern farmhouse is the issue the style or is the issue of the detached structure detach structure yeah the detached detached so D this so there there is consensus for to be on the side or the rear but not the front correct okay only the rear has the space for it as a side street or better yet if the house has two streets if it's a corner lot then it can be on the side if it's a corner lot or or has ability two different streets that can be on the back side so we have to not the gives consensus yeah consensus to allow it in the front happen interesting to okay well how would you okay perfect does it matter if it's similar to the primary in terms of materials and appearance if it's on the side or the rear I think it should be similar in design of material yeah I think it should match it should match the main body or the main building I would agree huh I would agree okay so the next one is on page four accessor structure location and Zoning standers C minimum setbacks from rear lot lines table you can pull the table up so the table for us was a little confusing um the setbacks need to be labeled um side and rear um and they the Consultants need to specify which accessory structures this table um applies to because we weren't sure um and how are the corner Lots handled with the two front setbacks so those were the comments that we had was it um I'm not quite sure if you all had a chance to review it but I need consensus on that as well yeah that is puzzling yeah okay so meaning the square footage of the the square footage of the accessory unit itself and then where it says height five feet talking about five feet of of a building height I don't get that doesn't make sense I don't get table at all yeah it was confusing is very confusing so we need them to it doesn't flow no so you can put the comment so the ldcc said that um there should be a separate table for non-residential accessory structures so we also said the same thing that they need to specify if it applies what it applies to non-residential residential there needs to be a separate table could they be talking about they're not talking about a shed for this sort of thing someone wants to put a shed in their backyard is that so that could be a five foot height I suppose yeah okay I guess 12 by okay page five is there a consensus from the LPA to have a table well first of all to explain the table to make it clear assesses on that and then yeah one for non-residential as well okay so page five um they created a new standard for accessory structure connected by Breezeway and they clarify that this standard is only for a single family detached so it says setbacks when attached by a Breezeway for detached single family residential access accessory structure that meets the accessory structure setbacks may be connected to the principal structure by Breezeway when all of the following conditions are met the Breezeway is open air with no screened in or enclosed space and the Breezeway is located on the ground floor not an upper floor and the Bree weigh is a maximum of 12 feet high and six feet wide and then it says an accessory structure that meets the principal building setbacks if any of the following conditions apply must meet the principal building so a is the Breezeway is screened in in enclosed or in air conditioned or the Breezeway is located on up on an upper floor or the Breezeway is taller than 12 feet or wider than six feet so this is a new standard for um accessory structures connected by Breezeway we do allow accessory structures to be connected by Breezeway today we don't have these standards so they're just placing standards um for this type of accessory so just for clarification the bottom one talks about if it is screened in air conditioned all those sort of things so it has to meet the principal building setbacks if those three conditions apply the top one has no condition has no open air one is just open air nothing screened in but it doesn't have to meet the building setbacks is what that's saying it's saying that basically if this if you're fall if you fall into this category you would work with this confusing table but if you meet any of these three criteria you'll have to meet the regular standard setbacks that come with the zoning closing it of some of some sort screen enclosure it's a home edition at that point what would happen right so what would happen if somebody had in the first one where it doesn't meet but then a year or two down the road they decide to screen it in sorry sorry we were having a sidebar conversation here I said so what would happen if someone met the first condition right now but then a year or two down the road they decide to screen it in but it doesn't meet the building setbacks what's GNA happen in a case like that big deviation coming to you guys most likely okay if they if it even got to us someone could call a screen contractor put screens up there and we would never know and that is possible people do things without permits yeah we know and it's illegal to do anything without a permit F the records stating that well they will be subject to code enforcement if we all right but yeah but if it's something in the backyard you really can't see it especially if it's under 12 feet something like that would probably come in from a neighbor complaint or something yeah yeah as many of our complaints right come from Neighbors or somebody's having work done on something else and the inspector goes out C what's this yeah okay so on page five under um right there we have comments on this section which um it was a requirement within a wetland or water body setbacks it says accessory buildings except for docs um con constructed consistent with Section 5.1 C that are located within the 25 foot principal building setback from Wetlands or 50 foot principal building setback from water body shall have a maximum height of 12 feet and shall be located a minimum of 15t from the normal high water elevation um we had a comment that we needed a diagram um what is the Wetland buffer requirements and do we want structures within the buffer well our comprehensive plan dictates what happens in um if it's a Lakefront we have a um minimum 50 foot normal high water line that you cannot come within and then um if it's within the econ that setback is different and it's all dictated by the comprehensive plan so what we did in this section is we just removed it because it was inconsistent with the comp plan yeah you said econ what about the is wetland if it's a wetland or um outside of the Eon then our development code um governs the setback of it but if it's within the econ then the comp plan governs it so we remove that section page five on three accessories structure design requirements can I ask you a question on that last one so if you're moving from here with someone that wants to build something it'll go into the environmental preservation where it talks about what somebody would know to go look at this other document that has the Wetland stuff that's not necessarily because that's I sit on our HOA board and we do have some Wetlands that Encompass some of the back of the homes obviously and this group of individuals wants us to go in there and clean wets and as we all know sitting here we can't even go in there move a branch without want man company getting little angry right and a lot of home owners don't know that so somewhere it needs to be expressed so what we can do is put that language back in there have the consultant follow the comp plan um for the econ and um put in what it is for the rest of the city we have a section in Our Land Development code that we haven't gotten to um that they do discuss a wetland um buffer so we can just it here it needs to be when when you do something like that it needs to be very and I know I'm getting off track but it needs to be very succinct and very clear not well if this and that you know kind of needs to be like part of the just plain English that the average third grader reading it would understand what's going on because a lot of homeowners they think the wetlands there behind that's their property and it's not and they can they feel they can go in there and clippings whatever they want into those areas which causes them more problems when because they're designed there for for particular reasons right so I that's all I'm saying it needs to be more succinct in how we put the you know third grade was kind of a kind of a rough statement but it needs to be really just really easy to understand well the code is on Wetlands it's pretty clear wetlands are no development they they should be kept on natural state so the code is already pretty clear on that regard although we have language of the code that is complicated but that particular one is pretty straightforward the things that people do not know and if people that are dumping on Wetlands today knowing what we know by listening to the news right or even late people they are not going to care to read the comp plan or the they out the see right so that's why we unfortunately for those folks we count on neighbors we count on people on social control um to let us know so that we can act uh we we try to do and as soon as we have code enforcement um division staffed again fully staffed again I plan to uh invite uh homeowner associations the presidents um to discuss the main issues that they face how we we all can help in educating you know the the residents but that particular one is pretty straight forward if we go to conservation here again I mean I'm not I don't want to it's the homeowners don't understand I know they really just don't understand they think because they back up to Wetlands that it's you know they could do whatever they want and then you know if it rains a lot and it floods you know that we're responsible for cleaning it no I mean that's St John Roberts management said they can't you know so I'm just saying it's I know it's a sore subject with homeowners that just don't understand it so do you want us to put the language back in there and then just I think something needs to be in there even like you said homeowners aren't going to read it but it's just in case it's there I agree quiet it's it's c yeah please yeah that be good oh yeah because we have the AC and the fans F you're trying to keep us awake right snack here oh nice want some this sharing okay okay so on page five under three what was three accessory structure design requirements it says a detached accessory structur shall be consistent with the architectural elements materials and colors of the principal structure and then in B it says in the case of a corner lot the detached structure shall be set back from the street side property line no less than the minimum setback for the principal structure so for staff our comment is that we need clarification on the materials and um one of the comments on that is does this also include the roof and then in b um this should be included into table 5.1 which is B the ldcc consensus was to remove this l language um for A and B why oh just for a sorry um because we already stated that it should be consistent with the architectural elements um we stated already that it should be earlier that detached accessory structures should be similar to the primary um house but then this one gets a little bit more detailed in terms of the the materials um it doesn't tell you the type of materials it doesn't tell you um it could be a different architectural style the detach um accessory structure so I think the only thing that is worth keeping in there is just the colors maybe maybe the colors so I don't know how you all feel about that well if they're an HOA the colors are going to be designated by the HOA for the most part we do have a lot of areas not in Ho as well I can go either way in the previous section that we just talked about so we didn't talk about the architectural style elements sort of thing what did it say again to mat the existing building isn't that to me that means appearance should match the principal structure is the verbage I put down for the I agree with that appearance should match the principal structure yeah in in other words being the consensus being that this um this language would be here somewhere in B so do we need to rep do we need to add this additional language or is the um previous language okay so in this it gives more flexibility for the yeah the first one as opposed to this one because in in this section we're like lumping sheds in with garages right it's all together yeah so I mean a shed may not match exactly what your house so that would be tough to find a shed that exactly matched your the design of your house yeah because you can go to Home Depot and buy a shed pre you can buy a plastic shed right yeah I guess I was looking at it like that picture that one we have with the side house with the driveway you want those to match the sh be in somebody's backyard that's not really going to have Street access even if it's on a side yard it's not going to have access to the road right so that's one thing we need to specify so if you want the sheds to be located in the back only and then detach garage and um accessory dwelling units can be located to the side if it's the corner lot um if that's how you want to I can see you know in all honestly I could see sheds even on the side of some people's houses they put them up against the house they might be bu you don't even know it's there I can see that happening narrow sheds not like these 10 x 12 big room sheds I'm talking a a narrow type of shed you see those and I could see those being on the side of somebody's house well on the side but um not visible to the street yeah cuz we were discussing that one that was visible to the street in the corner lot right correct maybe that's what the language should have in there is that you have to make it so right out there but it's covered or there's some kind of landscaping around it to disguise it so it's not an eyesore so do you want to say um detach accessory structures that are visible from um a right of way should um shall be consistent with the architectural elements materials and um colors of the principal structure and then prohibit um shed from being located on the side that they need to be in the rear I I I can see being on the side if they're narrow enough they got to fit within the setbacks also right yes so there's that as well a lot of houses don't have much in the way setback on the side so they really couldn't do that sort of thing but yeah somehow not having it be visible because I can see a shed where it really it's it's no wider than like you ever seen no water than these tables right here it's a little tiny thing you got shells probably in there and stuff like that and I could see something that's two or three feet wide like that being on the side of somebody's house up against their house and you got a bush or a fence something and you can't see it from the street so as long as it's within the setback from the side and everything I would be okay with that really detailed here well you have to this is the code this is going to be for every situation that we have so I don't know how the rest of the board feels yeah I just don't see how that I could see why you would take it out because it doesn't apply to all of the accessory structures but I think maybe it should apply to certain ones that's visible from a right away yeah is is there a threshold for accessory structures that we regulate in the code I know in the Florida building code there's uh I think it's 120 square F feet same thing the same thing in ours so how many square feet 120 square fet anything that's under that's a 10 by yeah anything that's under 120 ft is not regulated by the for billing code and doesn't require permit no we do require permit if it's in structure we do require permit the affab building I'm just saying that the forab building code does not require permit for anything that's under 120 square feet to my knowledge I I don't and a lot a lot of Land Development codes have the same language I just don't I'm not familiar with that particular so this one they we require a building per if it's considered a structure so if it's less than 120 ft then they meet the 5ft setb um if it's greater than 120 square feet then they have to meet the principal building setback so it requires a permit for us okay yeah in any case even on the smaller ones that wouldn't allow people to put them in their front yards everything we're talking about we're definitely designating no fronts right no you this board has said no fronts no FRS okay so the question is is do we want to keep this language which is a detached accessory structure shall be consistent and have it apply to um anything that's visible from a RightWay or just delete it and let the previous language um govern any accessory detached structure in the previous Lang was the one off to the side that said some of that appearance had be similar had to be similar right but that gets back to Brian's question about sheds aren't necessarily if you go buy a store ball one it's not going to be similar but those don't apply based on less than 120 square feet right no they would apply they would apply yeah we require permits for them I'm leaning in favor of getting rid of the language uh like with mentioned before um that's just my opinion so but but even if we get rid of the language it still doesn't answer our question about the shed situation the difference between a shed and a accessory building that is so let's go back to the previous language we talking about two different sort of amendments here one where you all want to address the sheds and then one where we're talking about appearance let's go back to the previous language um me okay where is the so here's the LPA and ldcc I know which one you want and then we can put in the LPA to exemp sheds that's located in the um in the rear is that the consensus if it's located in the rear M okay are exemp are exempt from the matching the appearance of the principle is that the consensus okay I would agree and then it's consensus to leave this language or deleting a as well or remove it a was the one we were talking about deleting right well you can also you can also exempt sheds here because if you have a detached structure if it's built right if I'm going to build a detached garage if I'm going to build a you know a studio you know then you may consider having it with similar materials as the house MH now if it's a shed it's then it's less of it's it's it's a more of a temporary structure not a permanent structure so you may exempt those the same way you're exempting from the previous language I guess I'm okay with that also because you listed at a temporary structure I guess so maybe put in there just exempt other detach structures where it mentions pergolas sheds Cabanas okay so um so what do you want it to apply to yeah I'm still leaning in favor of just getting rid of that section A it seems to just make it more complicated than it should be and and and just we are reasonable about so if you have for instance a gazebo right in a house and there's nothing really to match right it's going to be the colors it's going to be whatever right yeah um but if you have a structure that you're building an addition to the house that is detached right then it it would be good architecture right to match yeah I think that's type stuff should match and we we kind of we we the only thing is that we do not check our vecture right no and I think as long as you can't see it I don't think it matters what it looks like but when you can see it that's when it matters yeah so I think if it's visible if you want to keep this language if it's visible from um the right of way then it needs to follow this and if it's not then it doesn't do really matter what it looks like that's what I think yeah I would agree does this section apply for single family commercial multif family so on and so forth that is the we we're not quite sure so because they were trying to take everything from article eight which is a nonresidential section and put it all into Article Five so they we that was one of our questions as staff is does this apply to both res non-residential if it does they need to separate it yeah yeah or or exempt single family right right yeah because this section is should has applied to commercial multif family town homes and and the like and and it's appropriate in that that realm they're not doing those temporary type structures they're typically doing the more permanent accessory structures they detached right so anyway yeah so we can tell them um the Consultants that if it's visible from the RightWay then um that first of all they need to separate we've told them already in the beginning that they need to separate non-residential from residential and um we can tell them again here but it's going to be throughout um and um if it's visible from the public right away from any right away then it needs to um be consistent with the architectural elements material and colors of the principal structure is that a consensus of the board okay I hesitate to ask this but if somebody had a corner lot and even if they had a fence on their corner lot and you had a structure in the backyard that for a normal house just on the street you wouldn't see it but now you can drive down the side and you could see it does that violate what we all just talked about because now their backyard is in essence you're shaking you got two sides right yeah but we consider the back of the principal structure so if they they are the back of the principal structure that other one is on is was on the front set right accessing but if you are behind the fans or you know yeah fence hedge whatever you might see a shed or something but you can see it's top yeah that would be that's okay because we have to designate in a house a rear yard so that would be their rear yard it right okay is the board okay with that language L cons sens the stuff maybe we haven't got through yet the stuff in in capital letter B are we just ruming there we're leaving those lists that list these structures these types or is the lines through a one two three and four meaning you're taking those out so we're keeping that that we um those are new I think they just reformatted we formatting the language itself was is proposed to stay the format fun so this section that talks about um the types of accessory structures um as staff we felt that this should be in the very beginning because this is basically talking about what accessory structures um the section applies to but it doesn't cover everything um so we are um recommendation was to put that at the very beginning okay because it's a little confusing in the middle of that section in the middle of um of section five um so um ldcc also um gave us consensus to have the consultant move that to the very beginning makes sense does make sense we added gas and plumbing and inground equipment so you'll see gas and plumbing um for mechanical equipment and then under mechanical equipment we put in inground equipment as well is that considered a stru it's considered mechanical equipment okay so then page six types of accessory structures right there okay so we um want to allow for um food trucks as a there right now it says food trucks may be permitted as an incidental use to any micro Brewery micro wiy micro Distillery so we what we want to do is delete um the breweries Wineries and distilleries and just put to any non-residential use we included food trucks as a permissible use and our um permissible uses table so we want to just keep that in line with um the rest of the language in the Land Development code so it says it may be permitted as an incidental use to any nonresidential use and how we do it today is it's either approved through a special event permit or through a site development order application um so it'll be the same way and then seven we added accessory dwelling units um under seven as a type of accessory structure is that that is something that we're adding in our code we don't regulate it today in our code but now we're have language to regulate it so is there a consensus from the LPA on the food truck regulations and then um accessory dwelling units yes we're talking about the ones we spoke about the last and we're gonna go over it um the standards today okay help consensus okay all right page six um C accessory pool patio and screen enclosure structure requirements so it talks about accessory structures such as pools patio decks and outdoor screen enclosure structures are permissible and residential districts in accordance with the following requirements and then a it has a locational requirements allowable locations of swimming pools patios and Screen Enclosures a accessory pool patio and Screen Enclosures must be located to the rear of the principal structure on residential lots so the comment was do we want to open this up to the sides of lots or even the front with screening so the example um that we're going to go to is 1,000 East Livingston Street in Orlando and this is a pool that's on the side that's the side which is the front I'll let you explain what that is yeah I used to live around the corner from this home so the the entrance is here on Livingston like the address um they have this um side I mean it's quite the compound as you can see but it's again a corner lot so a lot of these you know are are Corner Lots in these situations but um you'll see it's um walked by it yesterday evening or two evenings ago the only way you know is you can hear water running like little water features but there's really no way to even know that there's a pool there they obviously have really nice I mean it's a really nice property they have nice Lots uh nice lot but um the pool is technically on the sidey yard and yeah again of course they've really built it out um but there wasn't much most of these homes near this historic area they have a lot of them have the adus there's really not much else place for them to put to pool they wanted to do it okay so the ldcc consensus was to allow pools on the side of the primary structure but behind the front facade the primary structure and it must meet the setbacks so I'm not quite sure how the LPA feels about it can we you if you left because right now it just says rear we make no mention of the side is what we're saying right so can those be by I guess special ex because you're right that particular house I'd have no problem with that house being on the side like that but but you don't know it exists back there right yeah so would would that be the kind of thing that we would have an exemption for or a um a variance for something like that would today if somebody wants to do something like that what would they do it says it must be located to the rear of the property so there is no deviation for there be no deviation okay this got to be a quantifiable yeah we from quantifiable meas you can't measure the word rear there's no number what if somebody's got a wide lot not even on a corner like that and um you know I'm thinking not in an HOA one of the older areas they got a house they got lots of land but they could put something on the side and they could even put a screen around it if you had structure across it or bushes or fence or that kind of stuff but you couldn't see it what would would we allow that today not at all has to be behind the rear of the of the rear wall it puts a lot of people in a a pickle because you can't you can't deviate can't say an inch from the rear there's no number yeah I'm good with it being on the side as long as there's the room to do it I think there should be some kind of a screening uh from the road or some kind of buffer yeah like this one's in my opinion perfect because they've got the bushes and trees there are there any homes in the community that have come here and ask for that in my experience I've had a couple requests to put the pool on the side and do you remember like where they're at in the city no there's one house on the trail across trail that that pool faces the trail but that's their backyard is it was Road it wasn't a road that's the one yeah yeah yeah I I don't I I personally am not a big fan of this unless they wrote specific criteria I'm sorry can I'm sorry can you repeat what you said yeah I'm not a big fan of this unless there's like specific criteria that would go along with some kind of definition to support that if you ask me I mean just okay I wouldn't want to walk on a trail and see somebody's pool on the side like that I wouldn't want to drive past it on the road either they got they got a waterfall there the one yeah right there but they got the Hedge there when you're on the trail you really don't know it's there kind of like what you said you can hear it but it's not really all that there's a trail yeah further up I think it's further yes those Hedges at the end straight back there at the end there way down there oh is this one that one right there that's the one because from the street that's actually their backyard right yeah there you go well it's actually a side's street There It Is Well they're on a corner well exactly right so maybe for Corner Lots if it's a corner lot maybe it can be on the side but if it's a if it's a regularly shaped lot with one with just one street Frontage maybe it can just be in the back and that's where I was going when I said could we have some sort of special thing no deviation but you know a case like this somehow they got it so we can make an exception for Corner lots and that is visible from the runway yeah it is yeah it's really on the side front the side when the Hummer and the truck are gone the the driveway is right there no it's actually the back because the the house fronts the street here it does but we long way yeah correct so they are they were approved because they place on the back of the it's to the rear Tech behind the rear re the house in the backyard but they did not even care to to screen it's a three seethrough fence right they should had a buffer there on that that front section well it's Prime for see right so it's their choice not to not to have I think they tried huh it looks like they might have tried no but the fr again this is a good example what we're talking about here in our own City yeah we don't have to go Winter Park or Orlando it's here so this one the the trucks are the the buffer the Privacy we don't know what when was that picture in 2019 so yeah yeah it's still the same way today I drive by it every day is it well I mean the cars that's what I'm saying they may have a tasla now which is small that's total opposite so what is the board's um desire I'm okay with special exceptions like that that sort of thing that's what I'm trying to get at how do we determine a regular Street yes in the rear but in a case like this I think we need to do what was your required to allow because we can put you know instead special exceptions are um resoning process so it's yeah it's a big deal you have to do public hearings you advertise yeah Special exception or rezonings so we would not do a resoning for a pool because it it it doesn't change the use right so what would be the conditions that you think this could be allowed so because then we can we can regulate the condition say we allow those with if they are screened if they are in a corner lot if the lot has a geometry because this is a this is a challenging lot right it's not a regular lot that is you know that goes deep you know so so that so you can you can propose the criteria in which you would you think you would be acceptable what would be the appropriate language for such as a buffer or Hedges or treescape or would you want that in every situation or just certain situations if it's going to be if we're if we're talking about the side of the home such as what we just saw so do you want to allow it on the side of the homes in all situations or certain situations I would say certain to the rule maybe to the side if the back doesn't allow uh so um you would want if it's a regularly shaped lot you want it in the back if doesn't matter if because I don't want to say if it's an irregularly shaped lot but maybe if it's a corner lot the corn you have you have different you'll see you have irregular you have irregular shaped lots a lot of them and a lot of them come before you all for deviations because it's irregular but they have room in the back it's just that they trying to do deviations like a troid where it's a narrow front of the home and then everything is in the back and it opens up big and wide in the back right yeah or like okay why you got that picture on the screen right there the one directly across the street no the no I'm right there that one so that's the original House you just put your cursor around then there that's a shed on the up above it up above right there yeah that's a carport type of thing but what if someone's got a big wide lot like that and they maybe they had a lot a side door on their house right where your cursor is and they want to put the pool on that side see that's a huge wide lot they actually have there what would happen in a case like that that's not a normal subdivision lot right we would say no today say no today based on the code because it has to be to the rear of the principal structure so either you would allow it and they would have to meet the setbacks in that case or you would not allow it and it would be only allowed in the rear so we're not going to get into the size of Lots like how big your lot is as long as it can meets setbacks that's what I was trying to that's what I was trying to get it plus so so what is the problem because you talked about buffer usually we buffer um from nuisances we buffer from you know so it's I see on my perspective it's more of a privacy for them yeah sure if I am a if I am a you know owner I want my pool to be um private right um but I mean if that is not concerned for them is it an issue for the neighbors or someone driving or walking and seeing because old homes if they Corner Lots we see them we see fools in the back that actually on the side right there's no privacy and and and we see them oh yeah um is is that an issue so what is the issue right because there's an issue there is a nuisance then we can but but require a buffer could we for recreational use that is not maybe just kids playing there you know for privacy I would say but for them right for them privacy for us if I went on that trail I wouldn't want to see them I would I don't want to see themt your eyes I want to just keep on walk in listen to my music I don't want to see them that's how I would look at that I would be I'd rather see a green hedge or trees and not see them out there in the pool you never know what they could be doing too yeah we could go that way too so how many of you are okay with allowing it on the side in this particular circumstance I'm okay with it could we just say side pools would be allowed in special cases subject to review no no nope you can't be specific no you can to you you have to be specific you cannot be discretionary you cannot say it's to the discretion of the staff that's what I was looking for Teresa likes Thea doesn't like hates I would love to say yes or no I the corner lots are okay but the others what we have today say no okay so then for a we will say I know what you guys think I agree may may I make a suggestion Corner in through Lots because through Lots also kind of have that front situation no through lots for our code they meet if they they will be okay in the rear they will be okay in the rear because we have to assign a rear okay so if it's behind the principal structure so through Lots we we could see them right and there's nothing so we but it's not fair right to have a through lot and I cannot put my pool because it's going to be visible so that one in today's code we would allow perfect so LPA consensus um to um accessory pool p is must be located to the rear of the principal structure on residential lots and then um except for no to allow leave it there let's see to allow pools on the side of the primary structure but behind the front forade primary structure for only Corner Lots oh so other words they discussed this and my example of that other house they would have based on what they said right on the side was okay they would allow it on the side hide the prim behind the primary structure yeah so they're okay with allowing any it doesn't matter if it's a corner lot or if it's a regularly shaped lot as long as it um it's behind the primary facade the front the front facade and it meets setbacks but the LPA only want to allow it on the side um it's a corner lot all other pools are going to be located to the rear put that all other I me yeah the of the primary of the principal structure is that okay yeah I mean I'm good with that I'm still okay with you know pools on the side as long as they've got the room uh but sounds like we wouldn't have consensus on that that is kind of where I was trying to go I was okay with pools in the side as long as was the room that's why I was using that example of that one you had on they have to have room right they have to have room but well they have to have room to have the pool right so what what is the room that you are referring to cuz they need to have the room like an extra size lot so that's no so as long as they meet setbacks yeah that's what matters for us okay to speed you're up to speed okay okay so then let us make sure this language is the consensus of the LPA so is that your consensus what you're reading up here or are you okay with allowing pools on the side as long as it meets that back only on Corner Lots I Corner we pull up I know neighborhood next to mine where there's a house and then it's like nobody ever purchased the lot next to it let's do a hypothetical just to see what everybody would say so if you I lived in I live in the preservant Black Hammock the neighborhood right in front of that is um do you want to give the address and uh well my my address is 1295 seller Drive s l r come for tea okay now go now get out of this yeah go on this in front of it there where um go forward this way or down to South there yeah not right there then the Lots right there you see are those lots that better are up to my neighborhood y yeah so yeah go forward a little bit and yeah oh this one this one Goa I see so let's say they own let's say they own that property or somebody did one of them did is it a lot well let's just do a hypothetical I think it's a lot their house is small look at the size of their roof line compared to the nextra one yeah well the one to the other side the one on the other side yeah it's too lot right so would you so would this committee be okay with a pool right there out there on the side like that to me if that was all one lot I would be okay with it yeah as long as there was yeah and there was a HED where the uh property lines are on that property yeah you can see it I'm betting that sidew I mean I would think that would be a separate lot you can see the cut twin oak5 that house just has a smaller footprint is it a two-story house and the others are one story maybe um I don't remember exactly I'm just trying to get an idea are going to say I can give you a better much so it's one lot y just lot so they own that then yeah yeah it's just one lot it's not two lots that were it's just one but it says a partial interesting that they set the house there favorite just for illustration purposes I'm going to have you fly to one more place on this Valen Circle that's my address write that down to okay right the right okay right there that's my neighbor's house you see that oh wow that could be a perfect spot to put a swimming pool he almost has a swimming pool on the side of his house on the other side yeah you're right and so if you go over to the right that is a situation where you would put a pool on the right hand side that's that's his lot that's his lot that's pickle ball court yeah so and then another example if you want to zoom out you go to the street uh okay go down south I guess or whatever keep going that direction get lost okay go to the other side of that Lake up a little go to the right a little a sorry like go down a little that's not it right yeah like where the where the north division word is just trees there you're not some from the trees but there are lots here where there's either a double lot the ones develop that on the side of the house there's actually more the back these illustrations is there might be that's awesome yeah that's I know where that is I'll really want oh yeah I know where that is we're in the car now we all know where that says so but now we we are getting into design so this is what I'm telling you so you we getting to so this this this would be good for a large poow right we that's so we are not designing for anyone so you can have a lab pool right today is now is common to have lab pools narrow and long so the city kind of regulates the impact the nuisances what are the issues so what would be the issue because it's the same thing if you have a large beautiful pool that is more beautiful to look at or a a simpler pool that is not I mean we don't get into those details right we cannot right so what we should regulate is the nuisance is the impact so right so if there's a house on the if you have a big lot on the side of your house it's not a nuisance so I you want to look at maybe a special exception situation it's on the side versus prohibiting it completely there will be we kind of agreed to I think tentatively agreed that like on the Corner House we can do the pool on the side but am I not be a quarter house it might just be a a Big Lot Big Lot or a flag lot or an OD shaped lot and so there will be circumstances where it might not be a corner house in neighborhoods like some of these old I think that's what we're just trying to figure out what would be the language for right so what I would recommend for the language is um yeah I mean the setbacks really are good to govern said earlier the setbacks are going to govern where that goes or doesn't go right and we can increase the side setbacks for a pool it's on the side of the house yeah you can increase that way you can you can put the the same um uh setback of the principal structure because usually so the issue of putting in in between homes is the noise of course right so you can have you know um so usually the the recreation as the lot the traditional lot structure is is in the back so everybody has the noise in the back and there is my noise here your noise there know it's the recreational SE section right if you put in between homes then you can be closer to someone else's bedroom someone you know so you this is the issue if we can say well it's the same principle is the same setback as a principal structure is that okay yeah I mean that's a lot of space for but there are houses look at the back have pools right there are some houses right the literally let's look at what the setback says here for the minimum setback for swimming pools patios and screen enclosure structures so 5 feet from side rear and Alley property lines um 15 feet from Street side property lines so that's going to be your corner lot um says 10 feet behind the front building facade of a principal structure we removed that because we don't think it should be um um behind we think it should be in the rear but if it's going to be on the on the side then it should be 10 ft behind the front facade of the principal structure at least and then it says 50 feet this is from the um normal high water line and natural water bodies and then 10 ft from a retained Wetlands outside of the Ecom Basin and those are the actual setbacks based on the comp plan and then the existing Land Development code why did they take out the three the 10 behind the rear facade that is because we we were saying that it should be behind the primary structure and I would agree now if we're going to structure if we're going to allow it on the side then I think we put that put that then we'll put it back in at least 10 feet yeah you know as we talking through this and we swinging some of these Lots that's exactly what I was getting at was I think it's okay on the side if there's space and they meet all these things I would be okay with that is there a chance that a developer would come in and devel Community around that where they're putting holes in on the side or in the front if we were to say that where they would come in and come up with a concept of that I haven't seen it but anything is possible yeah if they have a development agreement they could establish their own standards and and put that as a their standard and in a case like that if the developer building something new people buying it are going to know going in what is there right so right yeah it's all in there yeah I think it guess lusion house considers the back of the house the side of the house if they have sliding GL what what is a back of a house is it the part of the house that faces the rear of the neighbor it's it's behind the we had some pictures of that earlier back um whatever the front of the house just the opposite the opp the sometimes you have a front door on the side of your house right some your front is going to face the street so whatever street it's facing that's where your door is going to be your front and then the rear is behind that I whatever you think I think the depending but think speci you can say has to be the back except on by special exception or some sort that seemed like was we kind of were okay with it but not really I know your frame of reference is a subdivision where yeah you definitely not want pool in between two houses but if you got a wide lot my frame of reference is one you know three of you that's okay with it being on the side of the house as long you're the third subject to sets subject to setbacks Okay so consensus were to be located on the side subject to setbacks okay and more than just normal so increased setbacks what's that so increased setbacks so not the noral main structure setbacks right so we can do that that's the structure and I think you should put back the 10t behind the front facade of the house you don't need keep that language three but there is that weird house oness that's the one we talked about we had we wereing in the front of the house it's like that's the only place they for right yeah we that was we picked out because they were showing us some from Winter Park what's we've got one here in town yeah and then go back to the LBA consensus water that's in the comp plan what's that that's in the comp plan mostly for Lakes yeah it's mostly Lakes so lbaa consensus to allow pools on the side of the primary structure but behind the front facade primary structure and must meet delete the rest of that and must meet um if located on the side must meet the principal building set back okay is that the consensus let's go first one okay so um we'll go back to setbacks if you go down to page six to the setbacks um this um one of the comments for the setbacks is that the setback is generous for Screen Enclosures greater than 12 feet in height um if it's greater than 12 feet in height then we make it comply with the primary building setbacks um so this one it looks like it could be five feet from the side rear and Alley property lines and then the normal high water line setback should be located they have it located here but it also should be located in article 4 um at the bottom of the table where it talks about the setbacks for the different zoning districts so they're saying that it should be referenced in that section as well in article 4 um and that's it for that one for the setbacks did you all have any questions on the setbacks on the screen no it's already they're allowing it to be generous what that mean so if you go to the um table the the confusing table yeah let's see this set back yeah I'm we're all reading it wrong so it looks like it can be five feet perhaps right in some cases yeah if the if it's less than 12 feet high and 120 feet we could be 5 feet from the edge it confus it's greater than I was reading it totally wrong before if it's greater than 12et tall and greater than ft we need a 15t set back right okay and right now it has to comply with the primary building stepback which is 20 feet in some cases 25 in other cases and you know why I get this because there's houses in some of these neighborhoods where the the pools get pretty close to the backyard backside and it might not be 20 or 25t to the pool and screen enclosure is going to be there and maybe the screen enclosure is as high as the twostory house right so yeah and and my neighbor lived right behind me and had a pool with a screen enclosure that almost came up to the fence because the way they allowed it and it's just it's really awkward to have a structure big big big screen structure right in the bed you can't put enough landscape to cover a giant screen enclosure um so I kind of in the line it's greater than 12T it should probably have a littleit back because is one thing you're not going to see but have a giant and then people put like and you're like what just got erected 5T from my fence yeah because I experienced that in Tamp what's the current what's the current five feet the screen closure seven foot from the water or from the edge of the pool deck is the rear setback okay so the screen en closure today doesn't meet those 20 I was going to say it doesn't meet today's requirement the 12 Fe yeah that is just for um detached residential accessory structure requirements so Pool Patio screening closur have different requirements so these are going to the maximum height of the rear edge the rear edge of a screen closure measure at the minimum re set back line shall not exceed 14 ft but then they they they go high the current one is seven foot from the water lineen I'll show you right here so here it is the rear have back minimum 7 feet to the edge of Po patio decking edge of Po patio deing some some municipalities do the water line when you talk when I talk to contractors there's different yeah the waterers Edge is what they go and some of our development agreements like Sanctuary one of them does use the water's edge yeah ours is the minimum seven ft to the edge of the screen enclosure structure and so you can see the setbacks as well like the front set back is going to be the same as the principal the side setb is the same as the principal whatever the principal is for the side typically it's like 10 or eight feet depends and then um the rear set back um is seven and seven feet to the edge of the decking um Pool Patio decking yes so are they bundling the screen enclosure with the accessory structure well we're not quite sure because they cannot because it would not work right because the screen closes go pretty high right so if you look at if you go back to the proposed language Sam they have setback requirements here as well so swimming pools patio and screen enclosure structures it's 5T from the side rear and Alley property lines 15 ft from the street side property lines and then 50 feet and you see the the rest of it from the normal high and then Wetlands outside of the Ecco Basin so what is the height the height is where we just left the table we have to make cannot be no the table is confusing because it has the height there but then it has setbacks here but it also has setbacks in the other table two sets of sets so it's two sets so either it doesn't apply for this one right and then right so that's why the table is so confusing it confused all of us because we we currently have Deborah and trce were talking about it we have a 14 foot um measured at the minum rear setback line height for Screen Enclosures and then beyond that there's a sloping um sort of Regulation so that you don't get this like you know like you're talking about so I think they tried to combine um a lot of our um standards into one table and it does not necessarily match um what we have today and it's confusing the table is absolutely confusing so they're going to have to redo the table contradictory statements as well one saying one thing and the next one saying absolutely absolutely we have a comment screening closes have to have different height requirements not made that I don't believe so let's make that comment alth screen com a comment kep the height in the area that it doesn't apply forf height okay so let's move on so this one is Page seven um I where it talks about ACC structures en closures um it says accessory structures enclosures are not permitted to encroach on any easement unless otherwise authorized and this one um our comment is not just enclosures for all structures or accessory structures cannot encroach on any easement unless um otherwise authorized is there and that's um our public works department you can't encroach into a an easement so this we could override what we just talked about the 5 foot and the 15ot and all those things right well if there is a real setback of 10t an easement of 10t then the 10t will kick in not wets right right they have drainage from utility there's different easement it's usually it's not power lines because power line we do we do not we don't regulate regulate those it's usually underground so it be so it would be um landscape ismans um or drainage utility drainage or utility on a surve typically tell you D drainage easement or U utility easement no they own the land but they we have an eement on top of that property owner owns the land the property owner owns the land but um they could be they could come for an accessory structure later on and what we are saying is that you cannot do on easements unless because there is sometimes if there is a fence if there is if Public Work says it's okay even if there is a shed which is not you know permanent sometimes they will check and say no it's okay for this case so unless otherwise authorized it's not permitted access easements we have cross access easements which not really apply usually for homes right but we have um utility landscape easements sometimes wall if you have a subdivision wall so we have maintenance for the wall we can have a wall eement yeah if it if it it it cannot be placed on on it you come up to what theth requ they we have a um use easement use agreement um our public works department does and it has to be approved by the public works director is reference here well this is something that I have archived here um from Public Works acceptable uses within public ements um so yeah it gives a general list here you can see she she break they break it down to Major permanent minor permanent um considered major the minor and permanent and then objects so and then I think okay that's it oh it's already saying otherwise authorized right which would be the city authorizing that's from engineered standards manual yeah yes that the engineered standards manual is already cross reference in the code so our suggest suggestion I'm so sorry says accessory structures instead of enclosures says structures are not permitted to encroach on any easement unless otherwise authorized is there a consensus for um to delete enclosures and just put structures y we had that all conversation but all we want to do is change enclosur well we T an opportunity to answer questions right on how how we I didn't realize that was the the point I'm looking la everys oh no I didn't mean you we were we were talking about I didn't mean you I I me all everything there okay so page seven d fences and walls we're going to go to height and setback requirements and this kimley horn removed the six foot maximum um sta staff replaced it so it says fences and walls should have a maximum height of six feet unless otherwise specified below um fences and walls located they removed that 6 foot maximum B says fences and walls located in the front yard set back excluding retaining and subdivision walls shall have a maximum height um they are Consultants put three we put four and shall observe a minimum setback of two feet from the right of way C says rear and side yard fences and walls shall have a recross through maximum height of 6 ft and maximum and the minimum setback shall be zero and D um says in the case of corner Lots if the side of a principal structure faces a RightWay the walls and fences we put in shall follow the following criteria fences and walls um with a maximum height of four feet we cross through shell observe and have a minimum set back of two feet from the right away and then fences and walls in excess of four feet may observe a setback equal to one and a half of the applicable building setback what was the process of the corner lot not having a six foot high fence to me that's you know be ideal spot for a privacy fence to be 6 today um because it's a front for us it meets um the regular front of four feet what about like a flag lot that you're kind of houses are kind of staggered back and forth as well a flag lot don't have the it's not going to have a so what was the question I I I still don't see that you know dropping up to down four feet lot so you want the corner lots to be able to have a six foot side as well um the front is going to be four the side you're okay because the back can go up to six feet if it's in the rear so you want the side of it to go to six feet as well think so because that give a little bit more privacy end up putting a pool on that side on the back side or side that today we allow the six but it's half it's it's half of the of the principal building I just I would just regular I would just do regular setbacks and with the six that's my opinion I was thinking more about the height of the back rear so we so someone couldn't put an eight foot fence in the back because you know right now along the trail just up the street from that house we looked at this house is a I don't know what neighborhood that is um they're definitely eight feet high they back up to the trail they're definitely tall than I don't think we allow OT fences no unless they have a deviation because anything anything iable um in the code can um we can grant deviations so I don't know the specific we can check the addresses to see if we need to go reforce them or if you're telling them them that's fine we can just seen or they we granted a deviation it makes sense right because it's but yeah there's nothing behind the same thing argument can go on the corner lot right you know especially on that one corner you know so that's F two sense so a consensus to allow the corner lots to have six foot high fence on the side if it's if it's if it meets the setback requirement regular setback requirement okay a lot of people have houses fences that come along to the side of their house does that does that that doesn't matter for those right like if a house just has a fenced in yard and they got a space on the side it's still six feet tall yeah they're talking about you're talking about close to the road about so after the front satb back you can do you can go six feet someone could put a pick fence or something like that up front there they can yeah so is that the consensus of the board they go high as four go high as high as six on the side if it's a corner lot it might be a different section but in my neighborhood people use landscape as fenes yeah and they don't I mean sometimes they put on the road it screws up line of sight and it do we have setbacks for landscape in this code too is that a separate place um I don't think we have a separate we do not have um landscape um setbacks for landscape can we think about because we check line of sight if line of sight is an issue it's it's in here g talks about visibility okay okay that takes care of that no that is fancy but that's fancy that is fancy talk about will use shrubs like a fence yeah true and it becomes I mean they'll put it right up on the road you can't see around it there's a couple of spots where so it's going to be a little difficult for single family because because we don't require landscaping for single family um on single family individual Lots we don't require shrubs and we do require trees um per lot but not shrubs so to regulate the shrubs on a single family lot without they would have to at some point come in for a permit or I mean to go around and just regulate the line of size when landscape is being used as a fence well it's but but if they if they're kept short if they kept short is not an issue right so we regulate the nuisance so if they become a w all that becomes a nuisance or a safety issue then we may have you know and that's what's we can regulate some of them some of I know what you're talking about some of them walls and our nuisance because they're using them instead of putting in a on very large Lots right they'll put a whole row pooc carpet or a whole low bur well and they can I mean they can there's nothing wrong about using landscape in Le fances the problem is that if there's a line of sight issue right not not being able to see what is behind the the landscape is not an issue by the court enforcement board at this point what is that is that the engineering standards manual the line of sight the line of sight we have to it's engineering standards and but it's it's would only apply to driveways right the same way as as fences okay so we cannot do we cannot prohibit landscape if they do not become a Nuance all right so let's say all right here here's an you got you got a right what's that and you're at a stop sign and you have one of these fences and you cannot see the oncoming traffic that is a line of sight isssue so that's going to be our code as well our code is now going to have language about the visibility triangle because that's permitted so we can see that as well but this is uh folage folage is different we don't permit that talking about that's what he I know it's a folage then you know the city needs to be aware of that and we'll have to do a study to see if if it's really a line of sight issue and we're going to code in force we start a process what are you defining as a fence is there a standard on what you're defining as offence you have to go through the definition what is offence yeah what is offence offense is a structure could be it has to be a structure so that can be permitted yeah it has to be permitted so it's a structure that has to be engineered in you know it can be wood it can be you know it can be chain link for single family yeah it can be Iron you know Decor yeah that is what is a fence I don't know if it's in that we may have to so somewhere so to put that issue to bed you're saying that in this new LDC there is a something that addresses sight triangles or line of sight issues F but not for landscape no now would have to go to engineering and code for is there a way we can address it in the Land Development code so I think the engineering standards have line of sight um regulations and um uh so if a landscape if it becomes overgrown to become a line of sight issue a safety issue then would be a code enforcement it we would have to kind of prove that there is a line of sight issue and that would be a Code Enforcement issue makes sense all to so um for the purposes of the corner Lots you there's a consensus to allow to go to six feet right on the corner Lots but it must meet the setbacks I think so looks that way up to if it principal mustve it's the same set that's right number two is this language Okay so D and then the little ins there if you're two from a right away are we saying we have maybe the closer you get right away the lower the should be so you can have a maximum height of four feet two feet two um uh feet from the right away but a six foot fence could that also be two feet oh Maxim okay so you could not you could not it has to be the set back of the principal structure that's why most homes have six feet fence right up to the house and then they they close the house right at the at the setback okay okay so um it's is the board okay with that language okay so let's go to page 8 G and that's the new visibility um triangle language um that we put in here we also exempt use the term visibility triangle a standard term that people will know what that means okay yes that's in the engineering standards manual okay so number and three we exent it says material consistencies fences and walls shall be constructed with materials that are consistent or complimentary to the architecture of the development and staff we exempt single family detached Lots from this um single family lots we don't have any um restrictions on the type of fence except that it can't be um barb wire um and there's some other um materials for a single family but it for us it didn't matter if it was consistent or comp with the architecture of of the development and again this does not separate this language came from the architectural standards which governs non-residential so they're trying to combine non-residential and residential together so we've had to go through and exempt single family because single family is a different type of um product so we exempt single family is there a consensus from the board to do that so should we put duplexes as well yes we can put D because duplexes are not also on the architectural right right duplexes so is the board okay with adding duplexes to this as well yeah yeah okay in five why did you feel you had to add on that chain link being allowed so we allow chain links for single family today so under um it says permissible prohibited fence materials permissible fence materials include wood vinyl anodized powdercoated aluminum or rod iron materials such as bark wire razor wire and chain link are prohibited so except that chain link fences are allowed on single family detached slots so this so we have to add duplexes in here as well just a quick it's probably what you know like South Florida a lot of homes put raw iron on the Windows have we addressed any of that in here no because we don't have any type of architectural um facade requirements for for single family but what you do not want to allow oh no I'm just saying have some criter for because forbid you know there's a fire they going to be able to come out I don't know we even have that here do we we don't have it yet we don't have it yet but I'm thinking I grew up near for Lauderdale Miami and my mom craw they got broken into then my grandfather slapped the rod iron and she's like now I'm going to burn alive in here that's exactly right that's exactly right so I think you know we need to think about it it's coming whether it's another five years or two years it's it'll it's coming so this is a a Florida building code issue that would be a Florida bu code not a LBC cuz um I think that that is a violation of the Florida code if it's if it's blocking the well maybe if there is another access that's not a that's okay it's it's risky but it's okay in Brazil it's common to have the one that opens the it's one step ahead some people may have burn so they developed you know is chain link not allowed in commercial no okay so um under subdivision walls while facing a RightWay it says if a if a subdivision wall faces the right away the subdivision shall provide a track or common area with a minimum width of 5T between the private property and the rideway between which the subdivision wall fence will be built and one of our comments is that we need to discuss with kimy horn which is the best way to address the ownership maintenance and setbacks from the RightWay through an easement or through a tra um for this and so right now it says that the subdivision will provide a track so we're not quite sure which way to address it which way is the best way to address it with an easement or um a RightWay I mean easement or trap so we're gonna discuss it with kimle hor can you just increase the setback for the building for the structure yeah you don't have to create a track or E the problem is that when you have the the track um so you have I cannot design here but you have a lot like that this is the subdivision wall so we create a track here this is the side of the Lots we cannot connect this fence with this fence so that creates an issue what did you say where good example Lockwood for twin members that the brick wall on both sides of Lockwood oh I know what you're talking about there's a gap some well sometimes there is I worked with yeah kids coming from school work were going through there but they couldn't connect the right that brick wall okay so we're gonna discuss it with kimley horn what was your question would it be better to just increase but she but Teresa was saying that you I guess you can't to can we allow that then um it's different Property Owners right so the HOA would have to give permission yeah app connect that or apply for because you're saying that you're Crossing Track is the common area and the idea of the common area is to um fa the maintenance so it creates some issues so either either it's a situation that the property owner owns the the the land and wall and then who maintains I know whatever so like in our case like a Twin Rivers we have that wall and we have a 5 foot and our the ho owns 5 foot from within that wall as well as everything on the other side do you have a second fence or do you conect people are connecting it but it becomes an issue right you know they plant stuff right in that now is destroying the fence the foundation yeah or the wall I should say at this point so yeah it's it's it's it's it's a nightmare so we want to discuss with them on which is the best way is there a consensus for that just keep foot well it's either a tracks or eement so can you tell me what a tract is a tract it's a just a it's a piece of land a sep that is owned by someone different than the adjacent property owner so like it's not a lot but it's another in the property appraiser it be pretty no the easement forance it's your property my property goes up to the wall but by have a easement on the property that the homeowner dedicated to the city to the homeowner association to do maintenance more no the problem is not it's not legally it's that both of them both situations create issues they create issues one is that the wall is in someone else's property and the issue of connection the other one is that it the wall my property goes up to the street so two issues one is that I have another Frontage over there so it considered a a front setback this back and we have to resolve in different ways with through Lots I think we already had language for that and then uh it's the issue of the maintenance but it so so the easement would allow you technically because you would be able to get permission to attach your fence or right up to the because it's would be in an easement but we would have to maintain that it would we would own the easement right or would be provided to us we wouldn't have main it but it would be granted the EAS right yeah so it makes more difficult for for uh if it's not ATT trct for the homeowner association to maintain if the wall is is in private property you can still have need me that the Home Association maintains the wall probably they're going to say no it's in your property you maintain it why does the city care uh how about hoa's EAS maintenance issues on their private wall because sometimes this wall and we have a subdivision and I'm going to mess up the name um um on Central north of central that the wall is falling apart and uh and we have to they don't they they don't have a homeown Association anymore right and um um it's difficult to make the property owners maintain a wall that is facing up right away and it's not only looks bad but it's also dangerous for sidewalk but that's a Code Enforcement issue then too right yeah but it's it's it is a Code Enforcement issue we have to go after each individual homeowner instead of having someone in a subdivision the homeowner association being take care of the common you know elements what if there isn't a homeowners association what is that anymore she said our yeah that one doesn't have it anymore and um and so the wall we have to enforce in idual owners to the maintenance the other thing is that then you can have okay it's my wall I'm going to paint this one red the other one I'm going to put in break the other one I'm going to put in whatever and and that is the that is the subdivision wall facing the street without maintenance without you know how how does the easement or the track prevent somebody from because if it's the homeowner association um that owns the land and owns The Wall we go after the home if they mess it up we go after the homeowner association it's one property owner right that is responsible for I'd rather the homeowners association be responsible I I've seen this before where they um the owner of the house and property there's damage to the wall that the homeowners association is supposed to take care of the homeowner association comes back and says no you need to take care of it and that's expensive too so yeah it is it's very expensive we're having just think I for how many it is it's C us almost almost $100,000 yeah I mean that doesn't surprise me at all it's not cheap I I wouldn't want to see that cost go on to the homeowner but how does this code address any of that so that's where we're saying we haven't reached the conclusion the best way to reach that because we thought the track would be the best way and then we ran out with issues of people trying to connect and how now having a gap in the in in their but that part isn't but that still addresses your concern about having a wall that would have they do have a wall yeah but so the tract would solve that problem versus the easement yeah because the wall because now the wall like we have easements yeah and like people plant trees massive you know that grow big right against the wall which destroys the wall right that becomes the HOA responsibility right well it is but then we tell the homeowner to cut down a tree and they're like no because that is actually not your land right it's it's the Homer Association this 5 ft is a tract of common area that seems to make the most sense then toy the yeah okay thank you for talking all that through I was trying to understand who has to maintain the grass there home owner association come and maintain the yard in that area well I'm theing the homeowner should but at the end of the day at the end of the day the end day it's the the HOA is responsible if it's attract if it's attract they the respon the comment are would have to be maintained by whoever there's you got get in there you got get permission to get in there to do it it's can we solve that problem by requiring then for if walls are going to be exterior walls are going to be built they have to be owned uh in in the like by in common and not individually so if you look at it says um subdivision walls facing right right away it says if a subdivision wall faces a RightWay the subdivision shall provide a track so it's requiring a track now with the minimum width of five feet between the private property and and the r yeah that seems to make the most sense then okay yeah that's just my op okay so the comment that we had was to for kimy horn to decide whether or not ATT trct or eement is more appropriate so the board sounds like it's the board's op that a trct is more appropriate is that okay yeah to keep the language as a track that the track is whato requ well not not the I mean that's fine on fence materials what about prefab concrete they make it look like brick but it's concrete I mean it's pre concrete well is it does it say brick in there somewhere this say brick stu okay well it says masonry stuck masonry concrete is masonry it is it well they're using that they're making them look like brick you know whole panel of a one came with a a whole panel here Council for Council no they they left outside so we had to recess Council went outside to look and and approve the look so was that was that classified as a it's masonry according to the internets concrete but it's not right's working with a concrete wall right there put put the comment we need to address the preab preab cheap it's cheaper than doing these bricks yeah it's not as as good looking but yeah it's cheaper expensive oh yeah because it's concrete stamped right the stones are very very ugly the ones that look at Stone it doesn't look good the braks are a little bit better I think more expensive okay more expensive D expensive no I think it's just because it's the same stamping it's just a different pattern okay like they charge by the pound for stone I'm not quite sure what time you all want to end today no we're doing a very deep dive right which is good okay so page eight 67 525 that works for me too we already pass 525 so 6:30 yeah okay so then we'll schedule another um work session to go over the remaining articles okay page eight um e mechanical we added gas and plumbing to this as mechanic um we also exempt single family residential from this requirement so it says um mechanical we added gas and plumbing equipment the intent of the section is to ensure the mechanical that mechanical equipment is located in areas that are not visible from public streets by pedestrians we exempt single families as single family detached lots are exempt from the section unless otherwise stated below and then um mechanical gas and we added gas and plumbing equipment shall be placed on the roof on the side or in the rear of each building so this section is really for non-residential so we should probably exempt um single family detach and duplex duple yeah and then it talks about rooftop equipment screening requirements under B we added language it says the paret screen height shall be at least one foot higher than the mechanical equipment being screen and then we added the applicant shall provide an elevation plan that demonstrates the equipment is not visible from pedestrian view um line of sight at 100 ft from the building additional screening shall be provided if the equipment is visible and that language was because um I don't know if you remember um haris may have to chime in on this one with ellon yeah yeah I was going to point that's ex what I was thinking yeah so when they provided the plan the plan showed um that it was screened but when they put it out there um Paris I'll let you continue when they provided the architectural design order they had showed um a guy standing in in proximity to the building and that they couldn't see over the top of it but when they actually constructed it you could clearly invisibly see the the HVAC units on top they didn't display the fact that not only did they mount HVAC units on top of there but they had for noise attenuation to lower the sound that happens on the roof they had actually raised them off of the roof so it made not only the units are but they also raised them a couple feet yeah exactly so so after the fact we you know worked in a requirement for them to go ahead and screen it and it actually cost them a lot of money to be quite Frank uh because they had already sealed in the roof and they had to void the warranty from the roofer so on and so forth but I'm getting a little too far inside baseball about so we added that language to include those situations is there a consensus from LPA good okay so page eight still um ground mounted equipment screening requirements under B says ground mounted equipment should be located in the rear facade or secondary facad ground mount shall be located to the rear or sidey yards of single family residential detach duplex Multiplex and town homes so this is um new language that we added um we deleted must not be located between the building and the street and the comments that we had for that was how do we account for utility companies placing ground m equipment on private property um and then we also had we need to have a definition for ground mounted equipment because we don't have one that Land Development code committee there was a consensus to make sure the language is consistent with pools being permitted in in the side yards for the ground Mouse equipment for the um single family detach you say about utility companies for equipment or is this just the resident so this section talks about um both single family and non-residential so we wanted to figure out how to account for the utility companies placing ground mounted equipment on private property okay because you see the power boxes from the power company all over the place okay that's for ACS too right it's for AC's it's for pool propane tanks generators that's home but the power one beside my house it's big green boxes you know big hex this table but that's not mine yeah they put whever they want they can do whatever they want yeah pretty much so we're not regulating those you can't State their state regulated okay no but we do need a definition for ground mounted equipment because we need to know what includes what all of it includes so is there a consensus I'm sorry I think you gave a pretty good summary already of ground out equipment you said you need a definition air conditioners po well it's not in our Land Development code oh so we created that ourselves we just did that we did good job thank you so is there a consensus yeah for this M why do we take out the one about must not be located between the building and the street because you don't want that in somebody's front yard I guess is really what yeah it says rear or side yard that's so we still need aition for ground how about if we just label them well I guess you really could either right any any equipment the functions of a home whether it be air conditioner pool pumps well so ground mounted equipment here could be both single family and non-residential so they'll have to um Define what what all this means so it could be anything related to residential and non-residential okay let us go to page nine the table 5.2 ground mounted and um the table this table was a little confusing so we had to add some um things to it so you'll see that we added front setbacks that was it's showing black but we actually added that um we included single family detach duplex and Multiplex so this is for ground mounted equipment setbacks um so for single family detached duplex and Multiplex we prohibited ground mounted equipment in the front setback side it should be F feet we added this and the rear should be 5 feet Town Homes is prohibited in the front um side it's going to have a zero setback rear setback is going to be 5T and all other development U which would be the nonresidential devel um the front setback is going to be the applicable front building setback um sides we um the consultant had five we put to zero and then the rear setback is going to be five we also added L language in the notes if you scroll to the bottom that says equipment shall not be located with an easement we talked about easements how you can't have any um equipment or structure in the easement um Corner Lots shall meet the front building setback um for ground mounted equipment equipment shall not be located within an easement which I think this one is INR yeah that's going to be the next section equipment okay and then you'll see the other notes that's there okay so that is the end of this section with comment from staff did you all have any other issues related to um Article Five I got one question it just keep sticking in my mind back a few ago we talk about chain link fences I see chain link fences like around the spring fields around school you know Friendship Park their Friendship Park which just been re chain Fen around that how does all that fit with this or is there some exemption the chain link fence for the park it should vinyl CED if it's on um on non-residential has to be vinyl CED okay so back in that line where we said no chain link fences even on Commercial didn't say that it was architectural it's somewhere where it allows final Cod he's talking about recreational facilities not not commercial office multi family yeah so he's what he's talking like around the spray Fields par those are those are examples those are examples those are examples that's what I was trying to figure out that consider commercial okay and one other thing that Sam reminded me that I wanted to talk about it's going to be the Adu standards so I want us to take a look at that as well so this is the beginning of dwelling unit standards so um it says under the intent accessory dwelling unit standards are intended to add accessory we removed inexpensive dwelling because we don't know if it's going to be inexpensive or not um accessory units to meet the changing needs of the community members over a lifetime to provide affordable housing within the city to protect property values and to preserve the residential character of neighborhood standards for accessory dwelling units shall conform to the following requirements we removed the um single family all those different zoning districts um because it's only allowed in where single family um l so we're going to yeah and it's already in the permissible uses table yes so it says accessory dwelling units must be built on the same uh must be built at the same time of or after the principal dwelling unit and then it says number three accessory dwelling units are prohibited on any lot containing more than one dwelling unit or on any non-conforming lot Multiplex is constructed in separate structures on a single family lot will not be considered accessory dwelling units number four is only one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted per lot and then five says Lots on which an accessory dwelling unit is located shall not be split and accessory unit shall not be sold the simple six accessory dwelling units locational requirements shall follow the accessory structure standard set forth in section U 5.1 and then seven maximum height of an accessory dwelling unit shall be the same as the maximum permitted height of the principal structure so depending on where the principal structure is it could be 35t it could be 45t it it just depends um we removed section eight we refer right because we refer to the setbacks in um six and then nine the maximum square footage of an accessory dwelling unit shall be the lesser of 1,000 sare ft or or 50% of the square footage of the principal um structure and then 10 accessory dwelling units shall be designed so that the appearance of the dwelling remains that of a single family dwelling unit the accessory dwelling unit should have a similar and compatible architectural detail Design Elements and roof design as the principal unit so I just wanted to discuss that with the board to make sure and then there's two more well this one got blacked out we have parking requirements for it it says one parking space is required for the Adu onsite in addition to parking spaces required for the principal structure did we we spoke some back about situation we were discussing a mailbox having just one address one address is that going to be part of this or is that where that would be that be inserted here do you remember that discussion we were having about trying to avoid multiple addresses remember we can put that language in here we can ex um and what would be the concern of multiple when we discussed it we were talking about we were getting into the about airbnbs and muling rentals rental UNS in the back because this this so this is not preventing being rented that's the purpose of adus it's not necessarily um mother-in-law Suite right for for family members it is for you know so for instance even for Aging in place that we called so if you become you have a property owner you know lost a spouse whatever wants to say stay in the same address but wants to downsize so she would move to the she or he would move to the um um accessory dwelling units and we rent the main house we were talking about maintaining one mailx we we we said one one mailing address one mailbox one drive the same drive one and one meter meter I don't David Mr H can we regulate whether or not it has one meter or two meters so that's why I'm saying why because if the pro if if the point is to prevent renting yeah I I don't agree if it's going to be used as a mother-in-law site great but if the intent is to be we were discussing correct yeah right but if the intents to be used for rental and that's allowed I I would prefer to have another mailbox or address or you know add a b to it uh to make it I mean if it wasn't meant to be a rental at all then I could understand not having the extra mailbox but I've I've come across this before with rentals more rain the original intent that we spoke about if I'm not mistaken was not to make it like a third party rental but as an access to the family having another space to live in if I remember correctly well if you go back to the if you look at the intent it says um accessory units to meet the changing needs of the community members over a lifetime to provide affordable housing within the city so it's not just to um house relatives it's also to provide affordable housing in the city so you're going to have where you're going to rent it out people are going to rent it out to people that they don't know um but it's a it's one way to provide for that missing middle that we've been talking about you know the missing Middle where you want to address all needs of the Community not just um not just the have it where it's the expensive homes but something where you can rent it out and it's affordable to different age brackets and income brackets and so you want the separate meters it let it up to the homeowner their responsibility I'm just trying to ref remember on this we had a big discussion about it responsibility of the homeowner to enforce was going on back there whatever came to be of that piece of property back there and and it still is right um so that's where I'm saying what what is the concern because if the concern is to prevent the idea is to prevent you know um the rental that completely you know goes against the purpose of the AG use because that is to provide other options other housing options so that's one thing the second thing if the the fear is Airbnb today we cannot regulate airbnbs we cannot regulate if you have an Airbnb in your house right because not always it's a it's an entire unit sometimes it's just a bedroom well I thought the state already kind of regulates that already you can't have like an airb no it preempts the city cities to um um we we can't we can we we are limited in the way that we can regulate airbnbs it's kind of the opposite we've lost to control to do so if if you decide to have an airb at your house and the city tried to regulate you and say no you can't then the reg the the city would be in violation of State Statute I think the most we can do is create a registry essentially we can make a list and we can have we can assign them to a list but it's all in the state now right well yeah there's some other you know we can re require them to have certain fire apparatus and uh you know a safety plan and BTR and stuff like that but it's it's limited so we provided the notes to our consultant and our consultant came back and and came up with this information so their intent like staff's intent is to allow it to be rented out um we don't want to just limit it to just people who are related um because we're really trying to accommodate people who may not make as much as as others you know so we want to make sure that it's um and we allow the homeowners that flexibility to to rent it out and we don't want to restrict it we are restricting it to one um per lot we're restricting it that way we're restricting the size we're restricting those type things it and we're not going to check to right so there's no there's not going to be any supervision or enforcement is that also including multiple units in the back no just one it's just one down to one okay yeah we limit it to one and it has to be on the same lot as the principal lot one per lot I wanted to ask about uh number nine are there the maximum square footage that was going to be allow as a th000 square feet it say or 50% % of the square footage of the principal structure so if the other structure is 4,000 square ft they can build one that's 2,000 it's the last smaller we did put the station on the size yeah and and there will be some push back on that one just the or to me says pick who whatever is the Lesser l in this case thousand thousand is the cap unless your house is smaller okay so if your house if your house is600 today then it's 800 right not the Thousand so that's going to be and the idea is that we do not want to duplicate the house we do not want to have you know then you just call it another house single call it an accessory dwelling unit but it's actually two you know right big homes in the lot TW you can have a um twostory if it as long as it doesn't exceed the square footage in the height right of the of that District whatever that District you have a single family home and say it's around say 2800 feet then the house can be the extra one could be a, 500 500 period you can only have one in two stories yeah two stories but it's one or can be on top of the garage and then would be larger there and smaller whatever and so what was the comment on that one yeah actually Teresa and we just hit both of them back to back being should we allow adus on top of a garage to exceed the height of the existing principal structure yeah because today's is limited to the height of the existing structure so could we have and sometimes we have single family homes that do that they they do a bonus room on top of the garage so the garage is two story and the house is one right so that was the question should we limit to the height of the existing structure or of the height of a single family home which is 35 ft the allow the maximum that is allowed I would probably say leave it to the height of the existing structure then they couldn't then they couldn't use the garage they have to use the land if you have a sing limited yeah about the one going on the garage I was thinking more on theary structure right right no but my point is that today we do not limit if if I want to so if I have a single family home one story and I have a garage um theen garage and I want to do a twostory you can I can right so what would be the point of not allowing for an Edo if I can put an addition to my house so and then also that like the comment on the the top on the right show so the Adu on top of the garage you a th Square ft might only the garage could be separate from the Adu right the accessory building above it it's current the bottom Flor could be a th feet of garage space if I wanted to and then have a th000 ft up above yes does that make sense garage is separate garage is separate you know it's the same structure right okay the U probably will have its own door or ESS well but it but it will be different um so if the garage is to serve the Adu it's a thousand speed oh because that's the structure usually adus do not have GES garages they would be probably in the driveway yeah the parking is on Street the parking is going to be in the driveway how would you know what is that how how would you know I mean I or they share the they share the garage that the home say the garage is mine the ab up above or I have two car garage I have one car and you put your car to and that's fine yeah but you're not but that belongs to the house that belongs to the house okay there's a follow-up comment would we want to consider a larger rear setback if the Adu goes up to two stories says I'm just thinking about someone having a second story near the rear lot line which looks down into the rear yard of an embodying lot I would say no only because I could have you could have a two-story house next to a one story house that story can look over into the other yard also yeah so that's kind of Life what that's just kind of life just life yeah okay so the LD so the lp is so it's the same you want the height to be the height of the zoning District right whatever not the height of the house corre okay so I think that is it for that one okay so now we're GNA go to article seven that's what is non-conforming section okay so page three part two uh we changed the title um to to existing non-conforming instead of continuation of non-conforming situations we just change the title on page three c yeah so we have um we deleted um C applicable to undeveloped Lots only it says the section only to undevelop um non-conforming lots a lot of record with no substantial structures so we deleted that um we were trying to clean up this language there's um language in our lot aggregation reconfiguration section in article two um section 3.5d and it kind of simplifies it says what this says but in a um more simplified manner U so we want them to change this out um to put that language here and that's for um c and e that we changed um e they had here this is where they addressed the Milton Square and Washington Park area instead of them creating a zoning District like we requested they added this language regarding non-conforming Lots so um we've already talked with them about removing this language and creating an actual zoning District um for the Milton Square and Washington Park area the only two areas no the whole section talks about non-conforming sections um areas of the city and so it's this is the only area that calls out a a specific area um the rest is more General um and IT addresses any conforming situation in the city so um we've asked them to simplify C and and D um and then delete e okay and then on page four 7.3 we deleted F because it's already um covered in non-conforming section this is is um f is legal non-conformities for single family residential and targeted areas it's already um addressed in E they're just calling out specific areas in f um but it says the same thing in E so this is um an F it's addressing single family and the targeted areas but it's the same language that's already addressing e so we're deleting it is there a consens for that and then in an 8.1 this is Page Three 8.1 oh we're in architectural oh yeah we're done with seven yes that was it for seven very short did you all have any questions on seven no okay they didn't make many changes in in seven so we only did five and seven today um we if we can it's still six o' so if you now we're on to8 unless you in now for what it's worth article Article 5 was 49 Pages article seven was eight and article8 is 12 so I mean five was a biggie now you're okay everyone is okay to keep going okay you all want to take a break or do you want to keep going we can still get out by 6:30 yeah it depends on how much you all talk they are yeah they're waiting for us to the boards on these different articles and the only one they're not going to from until we come up with final language it's going to be pretty um we go back through as well there some section that L did not agree our session y the Cent now that I know I think Brian and the assistant County Manager were going to meet to compare excels and we were doing some calculations to check if the compilations but it's for them to it's 189 SE w second semester didn't we something s a email task force saying that we are not to meet until second get kind ofy after a while we'll do that my bad okay so the next article is article eight architectural design and so we're going to go to page three 8.1 and tent applicability um so we noticed when we reviewed this section that um they did not provide a strike through an underlying version so it's hard to we knew they took out a lot of stuff out of here um but they we wanted to see the strike through an underline um because they didn't put some stuff back in here that we thought needed to be here um they removed a lot of the measurable standards and provided more conceptual goals which is heart and measure do they explain whyever explain why editing of the document do they explain to you why I'm just curious yeah don't know if you want to explain I think so um what is his name name Brian Canon Brian Canon was the principal for Kenyan Associates and that was the firm that we hired to do the LC and now and they were bought um by Kim Le horn and I think he he he's an architect so he has a very um like a high level you know idea of architecture um which is great but we are not the designers right so we are just regulating someone else's design so these are minimum standards these are not this is not an architectural an architectural class that we teaching the you know the principles of architecture so it has to be enforceable so we have to translate you know the intent of good architecture into some standards that are minimum and then begin enforce so this is kind of you know it's it's a challenge it's it's different than if you're coming to teach and talk about good architecture right right he thought our me our standards were too prescriptive um he wanted to be more aspirational and so for us like Dr Korea said we we are not she's an architect but without her we we would be pretty lost right so we need some measurable standards for for us to review these um applications against so and it was the discussion of being discretionary right we cannot be you submit to us and then we will analyze if it's good or not and we'll push back and this and that we have to have standards that we have to provide for clarity right for predictability so it's arbitrary so um step we included clarification to the applicability of this section um so staff also included um other uses which is a multiplex so it says under applicability all sections within this article shall apply to new development and Redevelopment you have to go down there all sections within this article shall apply to new development and redev Redevelopment change of use renovation of the facade by more than 50% um or additions regardless of zoning districts except for i1 or I2 zoning districts because we do not regulate um buildings within those zoning districts um of the following uses and it has Town Homes multif family development um the the new product that we're introducing is a multiplex um mixed use developments office commercial parking garages and institutional uses um and then we added language it says for the for this use the city will only apply the massing standards designed for commercial and office use for the institutional uses so we put back a lot of the language that was deleted um so that we know what this section applies to is there a consensus for this did you say you put back a lot of the language a lot of language that they removed we put put it back in here okay okay was there a question did I hear no I was just saying under my breath it was funny that thanks con okay and then um in terms of the definition of facade we have um um our staff to um created changes to the existing definitions and I'm going to need the yeah we created new definitions to for rear um but there's we have a definition for facade we have a definition for primary and secondary we don't have a definition for rear so we created a new definition for rear so go through the changes you okay so put in the in the there okay so you'll see facade these are my notes but you'll see facade so um today it defines it as the front of the building or any of its sides that face a public right away the facade includes all elements of the elevation of the building below the roof line the new definition is the face of a building that includes elements of the building below the roof line so what changes is that we delete it that faces a public right away so it's um includes elements of the building below the roofline instead of it faces the public right away the whole building yes and then primary is this today it says the side of a building that faces a public RightWay or has a primary entrance the new definition is a side of a building that faces a right away re removed public or has a primary entrance um and then secondary the of a building that is not a primary facade or either is visible from a public RightWay or has a secondary or tertiary entrance today's definition is a set of a building that that is either visible from a right away or has a secondary or tertiary entrance so what's differ is what's different is not a primary facade so should we remove the public too from right away oh yeah we did remove public yep I didn't highlight it so public there we go oh that is I know magic see okay and then rear there's no definition so now the definition says the side of a building that is not primary or secondary facade and is predominantly used for servicing the building the side of a building may contain parking facilities loading docks either um service entries trash removal facilities Etc I think one of the issues with um the primary um is that it or even with um right away is that um an alley or a a driveway can be considered um RightWay so that was the one concern with just adding removing the word public that a driveway could be considered right away so um that was one of the concerns that was raised from the ldcc so I don't know how the LPA feels about the definitions I'm fine I'm okay with it yeah okay okay the to write away was it just of a clarifying more topicus not using it I'm just curious It's away I from the public anyway right well but we have private streets right that we we use the public uses so it's visible from can be used visible from a private right away too so there are whole subdivisions that are private um yeah rideways Town Homes a lot of town homes have you know the streets are private but they I mean those those criteria would still apply okay yeah so if they are visible from a right away private yeah so if we remove public it's it's in it right away public and private public limits and if someone and and we always think about people challenging us I'm sorry this doesn't apply to me because it says public right away yeah okay 8.3 A and B so we deleted a um because it's it's also covered in B so a is innovative design and density bonus if you go down to B all of that is already covered in b um yeah the new a covers everything that was it was just duplication so if you go back up if we what we did was we looked at each section to make sure it was covered in B and it was covered in B go all the way to a right there Innovative design and density bonus go down on tree preservation complete streets Community for a lifetime low impact development charging stations use of environmentally friendly design practices Health design Solutions vertical mixed use so um we have treat preservation complete streets um B has actually more wide wide sidewalks Community for Lifetime residential low impact development charging station for electric cars use of environmentally friendly design practices Health Designs Solutions public amenities vertical mixed use so it has more things things but it also captures everything that was in a so is there a consensus for that yes okay and then 8.3 deviations and um mitigations number 11 so public art is a new item that we're looking into and um right now it says that there's two ways we're looking at it or this one says the development will donate public art or provide semi-public art including but not limited to sculptures or murals consistent with the city policy on public art the development may also donate a monetary contribution to the public art fund as follows and we have not finished um but we want to talk to the consultant about that so we're looking at it two ways either as mitigation um for any deviation or as a requirement that they put in um a certain percentage based on the valuation of their project into our public art fund so I'm going to let Dr Kaa talk to you further about that so one of the issues that we had in the past is that we have um contributions for um for the public art fund um given by developers but we were told we could not stipulate the amount so we had to be a voluntary thing um we have have received contributions that range from $500 to $25,000 um and that is based on the generosity of the of the developer um there is an issue with that because um and we have been and even here in the LPA we once questioned you know why are and it has never been from us it has been from the developer um so we want but then we also had people asking questions okay if we have if I donate $1 is this a is that a contribution if we cannot stipulate or push back there is no say now we cannot do anything with $1 right um and um so we were discussing if this is a donation and if this is to serve as a mitigation we can say to serve as a mitigation uh one way to treat that is say to surface a mitigation said one M mitigation will have to be a minimum of 5,000 or whatever the amount we stipulate it's in the code so if it's two mitigations you know 10,000 three mitigations would be 15 because that's the maximum that the code requires um we could do that or we could go um as any other other cities and the public art fund is also pushing for that um some cities have stipulated a mandatory contribution which is a 1% uh of the valuation of the project up to a cap is that like West Palm Beach West Palm Beach West Palm Beach has that and they have millions in the in the public art fund and that's how the cities fund public art right we are very limited um by the amount um can do that all so I think they they are starting to have here I think um suncloud was passing I don't know if they did it's going back on this week it's going back this week so they have an ordinance um um uh under discussion um I have to see actually um Julie has provided to us um our um other assistant City attorney provided to us the list of cities that have that and how much do they charge some have C caps some do not have caps our ordinance when we created the public art board um at that time the position was to require from the city so this when the city we have you know in our ordinance if the city does any new um construction then we have 1% of the valuation of the building up to $50,000 should be donated to the public he fund and of course everything in the city is very competitive right you've seen how the years that we are taking to kind of be able to fund the police station so um we haven't received anything from the city yet um but other cities take that approach of really funding uh from the private sector so that is that is something that we will We would like to discuss if you have these of to counil they decided they need account no they are dedicated exclusively to public art this is already defined it's like the tree Bank this is this goes to a dedicated account so far we haven't used any money so the city has never put money from the general fund from the taxpayers money to the public art fund everything that we have done is coming from either donations and then we have the c um that have contributed a portion of the uh of the projects that are within the CRA okay but the council can't take it out it's totally dedicated it's to be able to take that out they would have to change the ordinance and that is not something that we have ever you know seen any any intention to do that it's with any dedicated account so we have a sidewalk fund that is dedicated account we have the mobility um um fund that is dedicated and we have the tree fund these are dedicated accounts that can only be used for that a specific um designation right of whatever is there so we wanted to have the how how do you all feel about one and the other or both because we could have both I like the 1% of the project right so that's that's what I was my line of questioning related the issue here is to fund public Arts right I object No Object I object uh I don't like when we call it a mitigation because is usually putting a tree in front of a utility box to make it look pretty from the road mitigate you know the one that we remember is when okay we're going to do these driveways 5 feet shorter as mitigation I'm going to pay into the public art fund and the question I remember asking was would we have approved it anyway and you were like yeah right so it was a donation but it was like listen we're all friends here it was sugar out exactly your birthday's coming up here's here's an Edible Arrangement and by the way I like the 1% with no cap right so now here's the question if we're charging a 1% fee uh call it donate you call whatever you want it's a tax on development it's a new tax on development so we just have to call a spade to Spade right true it's not a donation if it's a mitigation it's not a donation it's a it's a fee right and so one's a fee and the other one is tax and um the question we have to ask is do we want public Arts funded in our budget do we want public Arts funded by developers or do we want public art funded by fees you know and I think we have to figure out what we want to call it I think as Ovito grows I'm sure there is an interest because I think what you all are doing out here at the Edison Edison Ellison Ellington Ellington whatever it is but that public art is nice you know and I think as we grow rather than just filling areas with concrete it's nice to have exactly things that Community can actually enjoy my only hesitation to say hey you're building here 1% up to $50,000 we don't want to um dissuade development too like we don't want to add we don't want to make it an environment where we people like I'm not doing business in noo they're going to charge 50 Grand to put in a bench you know they're going to pass those costs on the they're going to pass right inevitably somebody pays for this yeah and so what we call it a of mitigation whether they call it a fee whether they call it a tax whatever I think the decision to fund public art isn't one I think we should squeeze into the Land Development code I think it's something a decision that should be made outside of this board you know I'm okay with funding so anything that we doing here this is just a recommendation it's going to be approved by Council right so everything comes from Council the final decision is Council so it's not us deciding we are just recommending one way or the other or both I would claim to to answer your question I think mitigation public heart can be mitigation and and we would we approve those um you know deviations U probably because we we we uh um they Justified but the code requires a mitigation the thing is that so and that's the what the code here um established is that there are things that are difficult to get from the comprehensive plan from you know so if we can get as mitigation because there are things that are difficult to mitigate directly right but so a public art would be a way to to to fund you know uh it be a way to fund things for the city as a mitigation for granting a deviation to the code and and there are benefits and I think that's the thing that public art in in my presentation for the um for the wings of Joy there are tangible benefits for from uh public art right um that um everybody now recognizes that increases traffic of people right increases the interest of you know of uh of the public space and the public art has to be in public or semi-public spaces so cannot be if you have a gated community and you have a a statue in your next to your Clubhouse that's great for your residents and we are all for that too that cannot be a mitigation for public Hearts can we tie a density bonus with contribution to the public art fund uh it's already there it's already as one of one of the um items so we can fund public art in different ways right um um but if you want for instance the the the the bizer homes who donated $25,000 they said well we like public Hearts I think it's good for us it's good for everybody yeah I remember and they donated and and they donated specific to solar Park which is never it's not even close to them but it said well this this makes the city more attractive and we are bringing you know development and we want to contribute to the city so um I would say that you know there are benefits right it's the same thing for um for the mandatory contribution it's if you reach that level and if you go to um West Palm you know and large cities you know have a lot of public Arts funded by developers right so um because there is there is there are gains for that here here's my proposal can I make a quick I have it in my here's my proposal tell me if we can do this for high density uh commercial development apartment buildings things that would be dense I think we should assess a fee the what you talked about the mandatory 1% up to a certain percentage because they're adding density into an area creating an urban type environment and adding a public art aspect of it would benefit the city as a whole so where they're taking they're giving right I would put it as a mitigation for not high density things like Town town home apartment you know town home developments things that don't have as big of an impact we can make it as a option for mitigation because why not in those circumstances because it's not always so they don't have to come into a project knowing that it's going to cost some x amount of dollars to develop a town home they know if they're going to build a commerci town or apartment building they know that there's going to be a fe assess to combine to the public art and you're right it may roll into the project but at that point it's a commercial project there's a lot of costs that are going to roll into that density and um I think that would be the balance between benefiting the community with the public art on those structures that are taking the most from the community because they do I mean it takes up a lot of your Skyline takes a lot of your street it takes a lot of your road so why not have them pay into something that benefits the community and then have it a mitigation and the other that would be my we do separate two three environments I didn't think so we can't sep you can't designate discrimin one project at an X and the other two projects at a y well you could say like a like a zoning right so certain zoning would have the 1% right we could do that couldn't we and zoning across the board then not making a how to take care of these issues today F much than I me I think pretty much we pretty much complete or the city a city is never complete right because you then you start having Redevelopment the redel yeah right so you have you have we still have vacant lands but um and we have you know still a lot of vacant land but we are not going to have huge subdivisions I don't I cannot see where right but um we going to have you know F fing you know INF fi and we are going to have Redevelopment you have the pulation you know Pond area yeah we have a long M hammock still you know so we in a city is never complete because then it will go higher redevelop you know so it's hard to predict but we still have Development coming right we have the mall to be redeveloped you know so so is the board okay with requiring it as mtig we're going to do to um consens one is is the board okay requiring it as mitigation or allowing it as mitigation yeah I like mitigation in this if I can't differentiate between the two projects mitigation is the fairest sort of way to apply it okay and what we have considered a staff is having a minimum amount which is somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 um for the amount per mitigation per deviation I'm okay with that so we wanted to because otherwise it oh you want to pick one between five and 10 no no no well we we can we'll have to bring back as we have we we'll decide final final we can bring it back it's somewhere between five and 10,000 per deviation can it be related to the scale of the deviation request like can you have a minimum and a maximum dependent on the scale of the deviation request so what because it's always it's it's one of the possible mitigations yeah right so it's not we don't require we don't pick and say you have to contribute to the public art I would love to do that but we cannot because I love public art it's an it's an option between several different mitigations well the reason why I say this is like let's say there's an air conditioning and you want to put a bush in front of it right and let's say the homeowner says look I don't need to put this bush here uh instead of putting a bush in front of this that's going to die anyway can I pay $50 to the public art fund they're not going to spend the 5,000 I'm just saying it is a way to give people an option to paint a public art versus a bush I'm not usually these are more for for larger projects right it's not really for for um individuals but um single family homes but uh it's usually it's going to be either I meet the code which or if 5,000 is less then having to meet the code it's good for me I'll pay the 5,000 right and again it's also we we analyze the deviation completely separate from the mitigation first we we does the does the deviation make sense right do they justify is something that the you know the conditions so it's not that we are trying to to get mitigation out of deviations we do the analysis of the deviation the first if it's fine then we discuss with the applicant how to mitigate in public art is one of the measures one of the criteria one of the ways for them to mitigate and we establish if it's one mitigation the minimum is 5,000 because at least we we have um a standard and they know right so they don't play that thing do you accept 439 you know does you said a minute ago you P $5,000 to does it water down our code show where I'm getting at someone says well I don't want to follow I give $5,000 towards the art fund and I like the idea of the art fund is that water down our code because someone say well follow this rule because so that's that's not that's not how it works no but that that's not what how it works for us so we' not Grand deviations you know that's what I was getting we negotiate we say well you can do you can meet The Code by changing your design here you know if if things are important I thought I heard you the effect of that oh well I know I can avoid this code if I no no if I if if it's if I have the option right if I have the option of um um uh what is what is what is more costly right for me I would do that but we do not Grant based on that maybe I use the wrong term but it's it is a way to um so for instance the AC nobody's going to pay if if we establish 5,000 nobody's going to give 5,000 right because I can mitigate my AC with bushes right that make more sense actually because you can mitigate the sound with landscape so nobody's going for that right but if I have um a more expensive um deviation then 5,000 makes sense now the code establish for the percentage how many mitigations in in the architecture you have to um uh provide um so that would be a a way for us to have in the code the other thing that the code allows is for you to bring public art in your development and if it's public even in so the Alon is a private land so it's a private park but has a public function right because we can all go there and sit on those benches and and that those three um sculptures cost $80,000 they sent us the invoice it was 30,001 12 something you know but it has you know because it's expensive you know public art so that's why we also when we accept $500 then we are watering down you know the mitigation because $500 for development is nothing exactly so that's why some cities said okay 1% of the value of the propert of the of the um um development up to a cap so there's consensus for the mitigation at least okay is there a consensus to have um public art and require the 1% um like the other municipalities are doing a zero consensus for that what was that sorry to have it as a mandatory requirement LC looks like they recommended the 5 to 10,000 so they are their their consensus on public art is as a mitigation requiring um 5 to 10,000 per mitigation um which was what we told them we would do somewhere around 5 to 10,000 um but there was not I don't remember there being any um issues with us having an ordinance because do you remember there being any issue I don't remember no actually Dave AEL was proposing he was okay and he's a developer I'm fine with the 1% mandatory but there was a cap and I think makes sense to make it have a cap right so we don't want to and personally Teresa you know I I'm all about the public art I'm in favor of the 1% um I think I may have actually proposed that when we were starting the the council but we weren't really ready at that time so we went the route we went but these developments are big time money and you know it's going to be a negligible amount especially if we put a cap on it on the overall project cost so I'm personally in favor of that but I'm even okay with what the ldcc consensus was as wellbody any cities right around o that are doing this like Longwood Castlebury Altimont Lake Mary I think Sanford if I'm not mistaken is considering it or is approving it because they have a very strong public art board I will bring all the cities in for our next you know next work shop I will I will bring the proposals the CI they have adopted the CI they are considering around us so there's a chance that we could be the first in s County o possibly yeah okay country municipalities so many years ago when I went to um a conference in um West Palm Beach um that's when I I've learned from from them and and uh and at the time I said well the city took a more conservative Road they were um afraid of being seen as an as an exaction um so we did not go that route and I said oh that is interesting because 500 cities in the United States do that she had the number you know and West Palm is in Florida right because it's difficult sometimes to compare to other with other states with different um um um Governors and you know but I said well we are here we have never been challenged and that's how we that's how we um fund public art and that's how many cities fund public art so is there a consensus for the mandatory as well and then we'll also bring back the list of uh municipalities close to us that's doing it as well my concern on the 1% is what we're doing board is recommending a new 1% fee on development in the city up to a certain cap to that money to be earmarked for one particular purpose the information would I'd like to know before I recommend that the board Liberty to have consensus however I'm just give you my opinion um what other needs does the city have where 1% fee up to $50,000 might satisfy more than public art now I like public art don't get me wrong but if this city has a need that's more vital than public art and we're going to assess a new fee on I'd like to know what you know I would like to know from you know what the city city manager or the financial whoever um says hey we could really use up to $50,000 per development for XYZ and I'm like okay cool I'd rather have that in the public art that's why I wouldn't don't want to take money I don't think is there any other that we can charge right well don't they pay impact impact fees they already pay that's what impact fees do and that's how you set your impact Fe schedules so to say okay we're put another fee on that's an impact fee so you would so would this if we pass that ordinance for the art public art would that be an impact Fe no no it's not an impact fee that's a fee on that's that's a fee for public art which is you know becoming more invogue so to speak but uh you know your impact fees calculations are based on uh the you have to if a do is coming in you can charge you have to base your impact fees on what impact that has on the city's infrastructure and utilities and so forth and um so if we're going to go back and say okay we're going to public fee in this we would have no way to tie that to but uh the impact the public AR fees are becoming more and more acceptable to developers because they want to give back to the community what if we wanted to do a public safety fee of 1% up to $50,000 to go toward the building fire station we already have we have police police we charge police fire uh Recreation for residential um transportation and administrative facilities fees for that we already have fees for that we already have Fe be a new fee for public art on development that is going to yeah that's going to be a mandatory 1% fee for so although it's not impact fee I get what you're saying it's still a fee that get lumped into the pile that's what I'm saying like what other fee options do we have if we're just going to take an extra 1% and and that's I support public art don't get me wrong I just just a mandatory fee on development what other needs for fees are there and that I that's already covered on impact piece that's that's why we do that's why we review them every five years we do impact piece schedule make sure we've got everything covered i% might avoid tax increase that's what I'm trying to say no I know exactly somebody pays always and that that's what I'm getting at I'm in favor of public art I just without more information I mean this is just me personally I couldn't say yeah let's add another fee to development for one specific purpose without knowing what the other needs that might be unmet are that might not be addressed by impact so they they are not they are not under the over the table right the other options for fees for new development I think it's just in back pH okay I don't see any other would it be okay to it and we get back together for the next session absolutely yeah we're going to stop here we're GNA stop here anyway um so we can come back to this at our next do you know when if you think Sanford is the only city in s that may be considering this do you know when they may their decision so I I have to check if they already have or if they are considering right now Sanford the city funds it it's part of the city's budget okay oo has not elected to do that is Orlando or anywhere we can come back with that information because we can come back I have a a list of cities yeah we can come back with that information at the next work session what I have at this point is uh LPA cons is to allow public art as a mitigation but more discussion is needed on a 1% plus cap public art fee for developers was that the was that the lpa's consensus I think we're allation I think thee we want to table I didn't get a I don't know if I got a consensus on the second part I didn't know if I got so but we didn't ask for consensus on the second part because we didn't get to that deep into it we're just now asking questions but is there a consensus on the second part we start with David discussion I think I mean we can go around the table I'm okay with that with the 1% more discussion or with the discussion the 1% are you with the one% more discussion more discussion okay Katherine and where are you more discussion okay you're on board with the one% okay and then your with the discussion with the discussion okay got it okay so we'll have more discussion at our next work session all right well that is all I have right now now I was trying to find here but I'm going to to bring next time the table okay that be great oh Mr poock you're up why because you're the vice chair chair oh okay yeah I was gonna bring up the aod oh yeah we're not formal we could just close right yeah you guys ready to close we're close yeah we're adjourned yes