you can get started all right good afternoon everyone I'm just told that the chairwoman is coming shortly so I will fill in until she comes so we'll call this meeting to order is 336 I understand there's a quorum so we don't need probably to have a roll call do we no need for a roll call we have a quum uh the first order of business is uh approval of the last meeting minutes you have a motion to approve the minutes make motion we have a motion we have second second motion and second those in approval please say I I those oppose motion CES okay uh public comments do we have anyone in the audience who wishes to speak I see one we close the public comments all right czen comment we don't see any uh the first order here is public meeting item is uh the consultant I think you're on you can take the floor can I borrow your mic okay can everybody hear me all right so hello again my name is Katie McGruder I'm here with kimley horn um here to update you on the Land Development code um today we're focusing solely on article four zoning districts and regulations we were sent over the notes and comments from the ldcc and so today is to go through and reconcile all those comments so that we can get you a revised version um for a more final version so part of the conversation today will be about the target areas so just wanted to remind everybody what the purpose of these areas is and they're designated for urbanization and Redevelopment opportunities with the potential for growth and revitalization the goal here is to promote compact sustainable development encourage investment and Redevelopment promote a pedestrian friendly environment and enhance quality of life we've come up with General standards that apply to all of the target areas and then specific requirements for each area you've all become very familiar with these but we have West Mitchell hammock the Gateway West core Marketplace Downtown neighborhood mixed us Corridor Central Avenue and downtown mixed use District if if I I may just a question before we get into this so we ran behind and didn't really finish article four last time so how are we going to play this after her presentation because we didn't really do the second part so how how's this going to transpire we did article four part one and part two the only areas that we left out of part one and two were the target areas okay so we covered everything that was in but in other words we haven't weighed in on these things and we're getting a presentation so are we going to meet again or we going to discuss those things today what's really the plan So the plan is to I gave um kimley horn all the information that we discussed at our meetings U we finished article four um except for we didn't have a discussion on the target areas so all of article for is what Katie is going to go over she has seen the comments that came out of that came from this board so all the comments that were made all the notes that were made um they have reviewed and now they're here to just reconcile all those comments so that we can at least get Article 4 wrapped up I will say this is the second ldcc we're talking about article four so we will probably not be bringing article four back again but I think what Dave is saying that um we did not cover article for the target areas right is a discussion so we left it for the consultant for so this is the opportunity today to go over that that's really what I'm asking so so your preference wait till you're done or interject during so it's news to me that you guys had not talked about the target areas um I don't have super in-depth slides on each of the target areas I kind of thought that we were wrapping up the comments that were in the notes that I got so we may need to like jump more in depth into that at the end which I think we'll have time for because my presentation's not super long so you're you're the chair should we just let her fly through and then cover these things at the end I think that would make sense and when we get to a to I think a lot of these slides are going to show that we've reconciled what the comment was so then at the end we can jump into specific comments that you guys have about the target areas I could actually just pull up article four as written and we can walk through it if that works when you're when you're done I get okay all right okay so the one of the first things that was brought to our attention is the height and there was a request to change the height back from um sorry from stories to feat to align with the rest of the code so we went ahead and made the changes that were requested with regard to the 35 ft moving to 75 ft for OC C1 and all the way down the rest of the table and then for the target areas we have basically equated did 10 ft per story and then given 5T of wiggle room so for downtown neighborhood that ends up at 35 for mud CA that's 45 for DM UD um I noticed the comments we had had something like 80 feet and it was brought to my attention that we had um reconciled a 12 story height so we we went ahead and increased that to 125 um for the Gateway District at 85 ft the M West Mitchell Hamm Corridor at 55 ft and the marketplace District at 85 ft does anyone remember that differently I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page so again do you want us to comment at the end or now on this type of thing if it's a comment that's an answer to the question sure like do you remember it differently uh so I don't know that we really got to specific feat I would just suggest that we want a little more than the wiggle room you're saying if we're going to encourage ground floor Heights to be higher and you know we just might want that number to be larger but that's something we don't have to get into a deep debate on now okay if that's the case it would be very helpful if you prescribed a specific number in your comment instead of this should be higher so so one of the things that wasn't in the language and we did talk about it last time is there was the eight stories by right which would be a different number and 12 stories with bonus which would be then a different number right so it looks like you've got the 12 I'm just saying we just reconciled it at 12 if that's 12 it's probably not quite enough if you have a tall ground floor and you have you know let's say someone does 10 foot stories with two foot in between floors that's 12 so you know I don't have a specific one I don't design buildings but I just think that might be a hair low that's all okay um if you don't mind I'm going to take some notes since I'm by my lome so let me just make that comment okay so here I believe that we've talked about this before because we put together graphic for the last meeting um which I brought back again um but it was the difference between front and Street side setback so I'm just going to go back and forth here so we put together this street side setbacks are only applicable to Corner Lots so that means you face a street your front property line faces a street and the side of your property line faces a second street so your front property line is always going to be the more narrow of the two and unless the land use administrator comes up with a different deter for a very unique situation your front property line is always going to be the more narrow of the two and it typically faces the more primary Street Network the secondary Street Network would be on the corner um so they're treated very similarly in more Suburban areas you're going to have a larger front setback you're going to have a larger Street side setback in a more urban area you're going to have a more narrow front setback in a more narrow um Street side setback and that's for you know in your suburban areas where traffic's going faster you need that visibility around the corner whereas in a more urban area you should be driving slower and you want to create that Urban form to around the corner of blocks with regard to the Mitchell hammock Road setbacks we showed something similar in in our uh previous meeting but we put together a separate graphic so this is an example of a property on Mitchell hammock with the West Mitchell hammock standards applied so you can see that just from the back of curb to the front property line is 30 feet and there's a similar right of way on the North side if this road was ever widened there'd be like 50 to 60 feet of extra room before you're hitting either property line to deal with that roadway it already belongs to I believe fdot so they could widen the roadway to that point before they go ahead and do imminent domain I don't see that happening here but it's always a possibility then we put in a placeholder here we're still working on the new zoning districts we had put together a no City Zoning District in um draft two but it sounds like that is not the direction that we want to go so we're still working on that and we'll provide an update at the next meeting for Multiplex standards so um I noticed a bunch of this definition or intent section was crossed out so this is just supposed to give kind of a vision and insight into what this typology is and why You' use it and why it fits within the neighborhoods that we're targeting it in if you want to strike this language that's fine it's not policy it's not a regulation it's introducing what the product is so what I can do is remove the language that you've struck and temper it to into a definition to go into the definition section to describe what it is I'm fine taking the language out of out of this but I did want to show you like a multiplex in the wild so you know what it is so on the top and on the right you have two different quad plexes or four plexes um so a multiplex is three to eight apartments or units within typically one larger building so it has the appearance of kind of a bigger single family home or a mediumsized single family home and it's scaled to fit Within These low and medium density neighborhoods and it also Blends well into like a low intensity commercial use district and so what these help provide is this missing middle housing you guys have a more larger scale multif family and single family homes and there's a lot of this missing housing type of three to eight units that can be more affordable based on their size um and actually provide this really cool way of increasing density in a neighborhood without increasing the intensity where you don't have these over looming big buildings that you creep into the territory of I don't want this in my backyard or poor man management of these types of buildings so um this is a really cool way to incorporate more housing without really large multif family buildings so um on the top and on the right those are two quad plexes that are in the city of Orlando and then on the left you have a version of a Triplex which is you know a bit bigger these units are a bit bigger this is in the City of Winter Park but I could see this typology working here as well um so this is just an example of what we mean when we talk about multiplexes Katie is this um is it for ldrs as well or mdrs I can we write that as a question to answer and I'll just pull up the land use table because I can't remember off so for the bonuses we got this comment to recalculate the math to encourage each type of these units equally and that doesn't make sense to us and the reason is because it costs more for a developer to build a very lowincome housing unit than it does for them to build a moderate income housing unit so if you lump them all together you're never going to get very low housing income units there's no incentive to build that versus the me the moderate income so so we've broken it down so that there's a larger incentive for the lower income that you go so so that was my comment and I have to apologize I read the math but I did not email the math and and I looked at actual costs and the incentive actually turned out to be greater at the less lower income levels just the way this math works out and and I could share that and you'll see what I meant and the staff had asked me to email it and I have not since the last meeting yeah that would be helpful so so I actually did the math and my only comment was to make it just as attractive to do the lower ones and the math made it not so so I'm basically matching what you said okay but I'd actually gone out in the market and and did the math yeah please Prov would will um because we are not multi family developers so if you have those numbers that's great um and then there was a comment that why Gateway West core and Marketplace were excluded and that's because they don't really fit because they only have an available bonus of five dwelling units per acre so you can't double them here and that's limited by the comp plan densities so that's why these two are left out of this section the next comment was related to Green Building um and this one has a couple of comments in it but the first is to broaden the scope of green development Beyond lead fgbc storm water harvesting low income or low impact landscaping and so uh we can look at that but we would certainly not award as big of a bonus to hitting one of those things as we would for actually getting certified because the certification includes all of those things so as long as that's the understanding as we go into this we just want to make sure everybody's on the same page you're not going to get the same bonus for uh silver lead certification as you will for incorporating some low impact Landscaping so I have a question how do we Grant bonus to something that is a possibility in the future you can't well that's the case certification is is a question mark right so how do we guarantee because we cannot revert back the bonus so we were trying to see how to make it you know I mean we could talk to legal but maybe there's a fee imposed if you if you don't get it but that that's a pretty huge risk I because it's not guaranteed I don't know if people would be willing to take that risk um but we would we would need to talk to Legal like if there's a fund that you would pay into if you didn't cuz we cannot revert right there is no possibility to revert the units so how do what is the mechanism maybe it's it's a it's a fine so Teresa I would think you are getting the density bonus because you're going to build a building that's certified you have to go get the certification before you build the units I would think I don't think you can get built so I I don't really know how that works but the comment we made so you understand at the last meeting those aren't the only methodologies so one of them that's out there and I forget exactly what it's called but there's a sustainability model that has rankings also and I think what we were saying as a committee is let's not stick to these two um so we we should add one and then maybe have a mechanism in the language or other um you know scoring system approved by the landed use ad administrator just a way to open it up so we're not stuck with just those things yeah so I would say first let's get the answer about if legally we can require some sort of fund or mechanism to get that back because if you can't going with the certifications isn't going to work and we should just do it by line item of what those certifications look at so do you when you I would presume when you design the building you get some sort of preliminary analysis from these rating agencies I mean how does it work do you even know I I have not done my continuing education on lead GA certification in about 10 years but because it's not required anymore um but I can look into it um but but if even even still that's not guaranteed so um you might be shooting for for platinum and get silver well let's at least look at adding the sustainability one because it's out there and it's kind of a thing that the city's looking at right now okay it's just it's just another measure my preference would be to just break it down into what types of things go into those certifications and give each of those some sort of credit so that you don't have to deal with the certification process yeah and maybe that we have to have a because they have to have something that we control right and Katie the um the comprehensive plan is more broad um than what than just Green Building so we can look at some of the language that's in the comp plan because it says Green Building or other recognized practices to enhance sustainability including renewable energy recycling storm water harvesting electric vehicle charging stations so we can look at a more broader yeah what I I would think on the the the lead certification um yeah St we could probably like to do on the Mobil if establish a fund separate fund account work separately so if they they achieve that then they get they get it reimbursed yeah yeah put in some sort of like Bond or you know check that could be refundable once they get it check I'm not sure you could a bond for something like that I'm not sure anybody would issue a bond for that but yeah we the mechanism has got to be there so you know we can figure that out okay I'll follow with you on okay we're fine moving this section to the engineering standards manual so I just want to make sure staff gets that before we remove it comfortable with that okay so for this one the three comments the first one we're fine addressing the headers um as for the name of the districts we've gone back and forth quite a bit um and ultimately landed on we don't want them to be the same as what the comp plan future land use designation is so we had landed on on these names um hate to continue to rehash it well I I think the committee Wants What It Wants so I think we are pretty clear on that we the doubt even though it's the same as the future land use District we'll be fine we have PS we have that already right it's the only one that we have the same name okay fine and then for mud CA even though that's an existing zoning District we're going to rezone it to be named downtown Street Street your comment sir this was your comment I don't think I called it downtown Street we copied it straight from the comments that were provided to us so I mean I don't care what you said it was just let us know that was not the that was not the consensus of the board that was individual ual comment so if we can ask the board if they would like to name um MCA Central Avenue is um downtown Street or was it was it something else that was talked about and maybe like the it was a game of telephone it got related to us differently I think we wanted the mud to be downtown core I don't know how much discussion we had on CA frankly I don't like IMCA but we can have that maybe downtown Central Avenue you know but um well it it's nowhere else is it it's only on Central we could just call it Central Avenue just call it just just we were trying to get rid of mud yeah yeah let's just call it downtown core that's it it's different from the DM downtown cor I mean downtown transition or or downtown transition is already neighborhood well downtown transition is a different future land use District I wouldn't do that just call it Central Avenue just call it Central Avenue just get rid of the mud get rid of yeah is the board okay we're done with mud mud old you [Music] have we're cleaning it up okay so for the height limitation this is handled by the new heights in feet instead of in stories um and we've gone ahead and struck the second or the third footnote which is the second comment on this page so this is existing language if you'd like us to change it just we're happy [Music] to it's it's D it's not Health anymore they changed it Environmental Protection legisl changed she' like to make a reference to them in this section okay but I think it's D sorry thank you Teresa so the health department also has so we Public Works make changes to the utilities to conform to the new name of the septic tanks and refer to the so this should mirror the language that we use in the that we suggested for the utility section okay so for this slide there's three comments I'll just go ahead and say number two will strike the final sentence uh it's actually kind of duplicative of what's already in the intent section for density and intensity bonuses and uh we're fine to accept the Q signage comment so talking about the first one um we are agreeable to altering this um we think that the minimum Street Dimension should be determined by Public Works um and up we Appel Hold That Sidewalk at a minimum should be provided on either side of the street um even if it's private unless you have you know a lake or something on the other side or a setback that from a wetland that's PR venting it from happening on one side of the street um and we agree for residential private streets that should be the case however for private streets serving commercial developments uh we really do uphold that streetcape requirements minimum sidewalk requirements on street parking should potentially be required so we have two different things going on here and what we discussed frankly was there's engineering standards that are specifically purposefully not met by private streets and this language would suggest that's not possible right so we're willing to amend this language and we're agreeing that so you shouldn't have to necessarily build them to what the public Street requirements are however you should meet the minimum dimensional requirements of the esm plus sidewalks on both sides so so the difficulty is and and I think Gloria can correct this if if we're wrong the the esm standards have never been updated to match kind of modern times they're still at this Suburban 50 foot everywhere but as a matter of practice it's not a public hearing type thing uh you know they've routinely allowed variation from that so I don't know when you're going to update the esm but kind of steers people the wrong so we do not so I think we have to separate the planning standards from the the technical engineering standards because we would not regulate here the technical standards from the engineer the curb the type of curb whatever we do not regulate those I'm talking about width also with yeah so with um um sidewalks and trees right these are the things that we would um regulate uh we have met with public works so today the the Public Works has the ability to um deviate right and it has done that for the chelonian not the CH the pine um well several projects several Pro but you mentioned one that you had a difficulty was that was approved by by by public works right the reduction so uh that will continue to be the case and they are going to provide some cross-sections for us let's see what the language is it just gives me pause Ka that we haven't written new language because we haven't gotten Direction well the new language that was um provided it says um now it says new streets must meet the minimum standards of public streets required improvements for new private streets shall be the same as public streets as to side walks and Street trees so that was the new language so the language where it says to delete that um we remove that and put in the new language so as to trees and sidewalks are you saying that we did it as part of draft 2 or we did no we did it that we sent to you all as part of draft two okay so you have consensus on that language there was consensus on that language already well and the with but we met with public works and um uh po Jurgen was going to he did it's I I have questions okay so we can clarify yeah we we might need to do that offline they're just very residential character characteristics in his responses we don't think that they apply to commercial yeah but the language that you guys have suggested MH would cover both yes okay so I know we talked about this before uh with regard to town houses um and garages not making up more than 50% of the ground floor facade yes this would preclude town homes with two car garages in just in the target areas and that is purposeful um with regards to drive-thru facilities the consultant advises against drive-throughs in all target areas but has imposed uh site design criteria for three target areas that could support drive-through uses um if you have issues with those we'd like some specific comments about what is the problem with the site design criteria um and then for three I think we were saying we should come up with some not that we have problems with any because there aren't any there are in the code we put them in there there's site design requirements that's the beginning do you see how there's a a colon at the end it's followed by a list of standards that help you design the in a way that you could have a drive-thru in three of the target areas where uh they're in the code that we sent we can pull it up we can we can pull it up after this help let's not go through it now but okay we we didn't have them before right they're in there they're but they're they're in the Target area section which it sounds like maybe we didn't oh okay well we didn't go over that so okay um and then personal storage um um just in many of the municipalities we've worked in we've been asked to curtail the boxy Bland design of public storage facilities and encourage secondary uses to activate the ground floor get a more urban feeling where these are put in more urban areas so today these uses are only are special exception in OC C1 C2 and permitted in i1 and I2 so there's no rights to build these right now in the target areas um so we would be granting the ability to do these with standard so we already discussed this twice I think and I think at our last meeting we we changed the table for C2 and I thought we discussed when we first talked about this of we've already got architectural standards why are we doing this yeah and we never reached a resolution I I thought we had as a committee maybe when you weren't here I mean does got related to us so that's why I'm bringing it back up does anyone know where this landed I'm trying to find here personal storage so I think in the targeted areas what we suggested is that there be um a non-residential um a mixed use in the targeted area so it it cannot be retail or office associated with the personal store because we wanted that vibrancy um so we discussed that and then we also discussed we allowed in by right in C2 i1 and I but are we are we only talking about target areas right now Katie yeah these design criteria this site design criteria only applies to Gateway West core West mitell hammock and Marketplace it's not allowed in down my comment was special exception yeah so there's special exception under those it was because we wanted that mixed use component in the targeted areas okay and and all of the targeted areas or just the three that we had shown at a special exception only the three because the other ones are not allowed perfect it's only allowed by Bri in C2 i1 and I2 and i1 and I2 we do not have standards for industrial type of use Katie in the table there's a note on the in the table where it says what does it say it says please create a footnote that if located in the targeted areas the first floor must be mixed use parentheses retail office Etc in the table we have a special exception Gateway West core Marketplace and West Mitchell hammock Corridor so we wanted a special exception to create that mixed use or we can put it in the code that if it's located within those areas that it has to be mixed use okay um I would highly suggest that you put like a number of percentage of floor area or something or require the entire floor to be mixed use just because you're going to get somebody coming in there and saying that this hole in the wall is your second use um and that's good that's good we can do a percentage or the whole floor and if I can suggest in the first comment over there garages shall make up no more than 50% of the width of the ground floor facade the ground floor primary facade of the house because if there is a real loaded we don't care you can have a TOA garage with a real loaded you know project it's the primary that we that we care let me just that I'm singlehanded today so the top comment here uh this is an intent and purpose section this is just setting the vision for what this District should look like these are not regulations so it's literally an introduction to the regulations are we saying we disagree with this vision for this District the the proof is in the pudding in the requirements later so there's nothing necessarily wrong with that Vision except for and I'll I'll give you an example suggesting as a policy statement that all ground floors should be uses other than residential is a recipe for economic disaster and failure so encouraging activation of the ground floor is one thing requiring this you know line with stores and service businesses is going to fail it will not work but it's not saying that right it does it says pedestrian oron streets lined with stores service businesses entertainment businesses and oh yeah so there's no ground Flo res Vibrant Community but there's no residential in that list so there's ways to have ground floor residential that activates the street but it's not on the list would you like me to add residential well that that that's my point so a mixture that excludes residential is going to lead to maybe not the folks sitting here that are on sta today someone's going to read that saying you're not even meeting the intent I I've been in these circumstances so we just have too much Road Frontage and not enough demand for those businesses I mean I'm the only one that spoke anyone else agree out there I'm any comments hear none so Katie what are you recommending I'm recommending that we just add the word residential at some point between stores Services service businesses entertainment businesses and restaurants yeah just residences so is there a consensus for that sure okay so let's well it's saying already it's a mixture of lend uses right but that one's not there that's my only Point well now by adding by adding that that resolves that concern you can okay that's a consensus yep go ahead so for the block size these are really important to maintain human scale uh they're from Smart code and we' done work to look at traffic volumes and the roads that these districts are on and align them with the transect zones and and what would normally be required of a blocks size perimeter um we we recommend keeping these they they don't affect small properties they only affect large developments and the point is to keep micromobility alive so if you have a building that's longer than 400t you're making it very very difficult for a pedestrian to enter a development and get to the other side of that development if there's no brakes in the building that allow for bicycle or pedestrian access so if block size is a word that freaks people out we could write this in a different way that says every 400 feet or less you have to have a pedestrian and bicycle pass through through your building so so that is the problem frankly and you say it doesn't affect small properties I would say say the language sort of the way it was initially written did so you are a project you're coming in this block you're on doesn't meet this requirement you have to provide it is kind of the way I read it and you've got to qualify the language later than this to say that's really not the case also we have kind of this split personality you've got other language saying on arterial roads we can't connect it's what it says so you have projects on an arterial road that are required to have a maximum block length but they can't connect so the distinction between vehicular and pedestrian I think is important but also the qualification that that small property shouldn't have to do this uh larger properties may not be able to but they're going to have a developers agreement to deal with those circumstances but but it's also how you define the block right how to break the block but because if it's if it's entrance to a building if it's you know a pedestrian connection because I think the what they are trying to discourage is the vehicular in arterial but not necessar careful with that language where you make the distinction that you're trying to create this pedestrian connection but one of the problems is and I'll just throw an example out there and of course I'm going to do a developers agreement but you you've got the Northern Western most block of the water tower district fronts 434 we can't have another connection than the one we're going to have which will be a right in right out it fronts future Franklin Street where there's a 12 foot Trail where you're not going to want more than one connection it fronts the cross Seminal Trail on the west where you can't have really a connection uh on the south there's private property so here's someone that can't do it okay and that's a larger piece so one of the ways we dealt with this stuff in the comp plan is we had this debate it was really about mixed use but small properties can't effectively do that so I think our break point in the comp plan was five acres right that's five so so I think a good way to keep small people from being out of these crosshairs and I don't know if five acres is the magic number but there's very few properties that that are larger than that five ACR is because the average block size is six acres well so so that would follow the comp plan and I think if you accepted that the the issue of forcing this down a small property owner's throat and making them carry the burden for the public will be gone yeah that's a great idea okay my concern is the perimeter because sometimes you have narrow and at Central you have a lot of those they are very narrow Frontage but very long and the back is w if if you clarify it to be pedestrian I I think most of my objection goes away no but even for small Lots what I'm talking about we have to kind of see the the configuration of the Lots yeah because those you have to artificially break and narrow front edge correct and I think that there's a way I mean this was an attempt to do that because we call out what a block size is and what breaks it up and cross block passages were one of those things which are pedestrian and bicycles only and so that would solve the problem of what you're saying but clearly it's not reading that way so we just need to solve the problem of it's not reading the way that it was intended to read do we agree that 400 feet though is you know a maximum that you should go without at least a pedestrian connection I I I don't know I mean that's pretty standard planning practice okay I think 400 ft makes sense let's give me uh when you say because I'm I'm my head's just looking at I'll be do in the park for a minute and going say from TAA to the Firehouse whatever how far how much is that about that doesn't have a break in it or do you count the break I forget if they have a gated or ungated entrance to the apartments does that count as a pathway you know pedestrian Gateway if it's gated no right I agree I'm just making sure so it but I don't know how long that what about is the length of that roughly in my head I'm guessing that haris can you check the Google Google worth and check the so so while he's looking that out dim and I'm not completely familiar with it but Parkplace Apartments has an opening he the one at has a walkway I think that you can go under I think so yeah that well I think where strand does not have that yeah the Strand doesn't Park Place does cuz they have the that's where they have the elevator they have an elevator but I don't you know to get to the both sides but I'm just trying to get an idea in terms of length in my head what that would be right so what what we don't want to happen is somebody arrives on the bus or somebody arrives on their bike and they're having to literally go down to the next street to try get to a business on the back backside when they could have a direct pedestrian path maybe not direct but at least 400t less so so so just if the language is clear so so the opening at Park Place the building and I think there's some in maand like this where the second floor third floor fourth floor is there but the the opening is there to walk through okay and that was the intent with the cross block passages it's just not it's not coming through so so it might have changed when I wrote this I wrote this place like first time it was published and it wasn't clear to me it was pedestrian got it so I was looking at well pedestrian is an option to like meet the block perimeter basically well let's just make sure that because there's places for example you'll have to oh if it's guys guys no but don't go CRA like don't go crazy I what's that the your point is about 300 about 300 feet from the from the fire whatever yeah so they 400 yeah so they're saying 400 yeah you know I think that would and you can feel it's a comfortable yeah it should have some you know but 400 that's a good you should have some past through I agree that and the Strand on the other side has the the road blocking um cutting so the Strand has you know three two blocks along over the Boulevard on the Strand yes the Strand does yes right micro way divides right okay so so what I'm hearing is there's consensus for 400 ft it doesn't have to be vehicular it's reading that it has to be vehicular so we need to make it more clear that The Pedestrian cut through is an option to meet the block perimeter yes okay exactly so all of the metrics that are in this were framed based upon a presentation I received of the propos project that you're doing so I I understand so it's funny it's just ironic that you have a problem with it so so let's just say from from the perspective of what I'm working on uhhuh we're looking at doing things that benefit the public realm to seek a bonus if I read this language and and here's the the nuances this is where you're saying you have no choice but to do this and by the way give us this property and that was really where my problem was and that's from two perspectives number one it's it's a taking and it shouldn't be and the way we dealt with that because we had these discussions at the comp plan level was there was no requirement to to deed property or so forth inconsistent with state law but I think the city and the staff could weigh in on this and we've talked about this doesn't really want to take possession of these properties that it's going to then have to maintain and manage so it was really more of a imposing this on everyone thing so again if if you have these should be requirements in your downtown and maybe not as prescriptive I can back off the prescriptive nature of the order that they should go in and maybe the exact dimension of them but I nobody should be building side less than 8T in so so here here's I'm not going to disagree that these things make sense okay what I'm going to disagree on is using a code to achieve a public ownership of property is is incorrect it doesn't say that you have to deed this property in fact I would encourage you to keep it private so so and I would encourage the city not to take it unless it meets a specific standard this my primary com understand was geared toward the people with a small amount of property so imagine you've got one of these small pieces on a road that's been widened and the dot Road 434 has typically 8 foot sidewalks and that's it so you look at this streetscape requirement you got this small little lot and suddenly you're being told I don't care what your neighbors have give this amount more and it eviscerates their parcel and they're required to do it so I just think it's theoretically you look at these things and say this might be good urban planning but we have existing properties that are going to be devastated by what they have to provide that will not line up with anybody until everything's redeveloped which might be the year 2070 or something you know I think that where you're coming from is valid however it's very much so a practice of planning and Land Development codes to dictate what streetscape should look like because we do incremental development so cities don't have enough money to build this type of thing exactly consistently right so it goes on to developers in many other municipalities I'm not disagreeing with that that that and setting the standard so that it's consistent is good planning so so imagine you're a property owner just so you understand I'm coming from here the state the county whoever comes and does a condemnation and you get compensated and there's there's all kinds of elements to that compensation and then you're done and then you turn around and they say Nat to use your property give me more there's something seriously wrong with that from a legal perspective the fact that it's been done somewhere else notwithstanding it's not somewhere else it's done almost everywhere I've ever worked so getting away with it and making it legitimately legal from the perspective of property rights is two different things so to the extent you can adjust your your language to soften this or make it not apply as strenuously to small properties I think you're better off I don't think that you get the same level of urbanism if you don't apply it to every property and I think that's more legally problematic that you're assigning different Property Owners based on the size of their personal obligations so so we're not going to resolve this debate but let me just say a code that takes property just because you write it doesn't make that's what I'm not understanding what is the taking nobody's taking proper what is the taking that you're talking about you are saying the streetcape should be a certain width and if it's not there provide it right and now you're you're basically providing rights of the public to be on your area that would not be able to be used for anything because it's a we granted in know substantial densities and intensities in the I'll stop debating but my no but let me clarify we we granted substantial densities and intensities in the downtown to get this Urban fuel so these are standards of the urban Fiel so that is the other portion of the you know of the compromise right that we agreed upon we talking about the the the the height in the city is 35 ft to today CU it's Suburban we are just discussing moving up more than 125 ft today people have land use they have it not not withstanding what they used to have they have it today so to go in and say to utilize the land use you have you must give something and it's unrelated to the impact they're causing is not a legitimate it's related to the impact no it's not it's absolutely related to to bring with the urban field so we are bringing an urban development we're not going to solve this debate here I promise I know but but this this is this is the compromise that we made that this is going this has special rules and it has special entitlements okay so let me just ask this question you take this paragraph you say because you have a land use you already have you need to do these things that the public didn't do when it created this structure and that's the absolute fact do didn't take more land the county didn't take more land the city didn't take more land there's not enough room to do these things okay so for whatever reason that's the case that's just a fact what would be in that 15 foot setback otherwise grass I said we're not going to solve this today you'll change the language as you change let let's take the conversation and flip it on its head and let's say we we talk about car car Centric development right and we have traffic and currency and the traffic currency requires you put in a right turn lane or it requires you put a traffic traffic light in or something of that nature it's the same conversation it's not well it it is because it's a Mobility conversation instead of it being a traffic Centric conversation it's about Mobility Mobility being we're pedestrian and bioy Centric development and that supports the increased entitlements that are being provided to developer all right so I hear what you're saying I wrote in my letter in October exactly what what I meant okay every imposition on private property that restricts their rights or takes their property for whatever use should be related to the intensity of the project and what it's doing and and you're kind of saying the same thing my point is you can't go back in time and say because we gave you land use yesterday yday you must give us something today so here we have just hear me out you have two different sections you have this section which says You must do these things and I'm not disagreeing that they're good things to do I'm not okay what I'm saying is here you have this section where you must okay then you have the following section or the previous section that talks about bonuses and I could see exactly what's going to happen I'm sorry you were required to give this it doesn't doesn't count do do you understand oh but we cannot um Dave bring an urban um entitlement with Suburban standards so that you know if you provide Urban standards then you get bonus if you want the bonus is to get the real hard stuff that we do not get right public art I I said we're not solve this here well but but you trying to you're trying to accommodate Urban standards with density how intensity and bring the Suburban standards as a requirement so that if you bring Urban standards then it's a plus that should not be the case this is a special um condition now we a special area that was supposed to be Urban we are bringing now the urban this and I I don't want to debate this anymore today because we're not going to solve it what this code is trying to do is obtain sufficient rights of way for urban streetscape without the government paying for it that's simply a fact okay you must give more property for this streetcape width to be this width and we don't have enough right away so give it to me that's what it says it doesn't may have to be granted as RightWay it could be it could be as an easement it's it's it's for the development work yeah Call It Whatever you will it's a grant to the public of something it doesn't have so how is that different than having to provide a turn lane or a traffic signal or something of that nature why is that because the physical impact which is measured of your project at the time of your development approval is what causes that need here you're saying globally I don't care what you're building I don't care what it is I don't care if it's more or less than what's there now you must give me something and I'll just tell you you may not be a student of it but the Supreme Court says you're not allowed to do that it's against the law you want to think it's in a code somewhere it's okay think what you want but it's not legitimate well we we it's the same standard that we have before we just changing the parameters of the standard so this is a more urban standard so Urban in urban settings you have more intense development and you have more just revise it how you revise it deal with it get there but hold on I think we're we're getting down at something though right so we require a RightWay withd we require uh side walk right now as it is and the sidewalk width is 5T so on and so forth and so there's already streetscape standard standards that we go by and we're changing the Street St standards to master Urban entitlement so is the current code unconstitutional is that what you're saying so I would say to the extent in the current code where you require a sidewalk and it ends up on private property people go along with it but it's not like it's not right I absolutely say it's not right not right and not legal are different right is morality legal is legal okay and it it's legal uh so I beg to differ but I'll wait till till a lawyer tell can I can I just um ask the board your thoughts on it because we need to get a consensus on this and it may be two different recommendations is everybody understanding what's being discussed here I mean there are two overlapping things the way I see it the what the consultant is tring try to put uniform standards and the concern here is by applying it you may have to give up certain pieces of your land to meet these standards and he is saying this is illegal but if it is I understand now if it is within the right of way and is already I think it is there like the sidewalk it is within the right of way and therefore you're not giving up anything but if this is going to be expanded and you have to give up some more land then you're correct so there's no requirement to give up any land it's going to depend where the back of the curb is in comparison to the front property line and that's why there's standards based on back of curb because what you're trying to do is like he said improve the right of way that is in front of your property to support bicycle and pedestrian traffic to support support micr Mobility right now planning in Florida has been based on automobiles since our creation and since our the construction of the state so what we're doing now is we're retrofitting cities to support people walking and how you do that in urban areas is you set a specific standard for how wide how wide does it do you need to make a tree grow it's about seven feet okay we need seven feet from the back of curb to plant trees to provide shade for people walking in a sidewalk that we want to be a consistent length from point A to point B the city is not funding That Sidewalk it's incrementally built by developers as they redevelop their property and we're not saying tomorrow you have to build this out we're saying okay you want to knock down your existing building and tap into these new standards that we've allowed this much extra height this many extra units this much extra square feet okay in turn you're going to build us an eight foot sidewalk and a 7 foot tree well and plant some trees the issue is if the street is not wide enough to do this you're imposing a requirement on private property for the land use they already have it's quite frankly illegal you don't agree with me that's fine I'll wait for someone else to read the final code and and tell you what they think we're well but we need to we need also to to see if the board understands because it's going to be a recommendation of the commit Don we have legal councel here for the city right I'd like to hear from him yeah what Dave is is bringing up and and it's a valid point uh we do have a thing called The Bert Harris Act which says if the city does something which makes a property unusual unusable then it's then it's a it's a inverse condemnation you get paid for it it's not going to make the the property unusable well to to require a wait for I think Dave's point I have to agree with it's well taken we'd have to research it more but he's saying you have a piece of property now but based on the current standards it is developable and so forth but can we can the city new standards which ends up taking part of that property so that you don't have enough property left to develop nobody's taking property well your not the right no that's not that's not correct not true the city is not taking ownership of any of the pieces of property and not only that but there are deviations that you can apply for um if no what I'm saying is if if there is a requirement for a 5 foot sidewalk now okay and all of a sudden there's a requirement for and the we change the code and there's a 10 foot requirement and if you could develop your property with a 5 foot but you got 10 foot you don't have enough to developable land that's a take well yeah but that's not that's not having the conversation about previously you were able to develop 12 units per acre and you had a 5 foot sidewalk requirement and you now can develop 35 units per an acre and you have an 8ft requirement and so on and so forth and that's not taking that into account and it's not legally allowed Harris so so I'll say it again write this how you write this let lawyers figure it out but I'm just telling you if you impose a standard that whether it takes ownership or not it's pretty clear there what it says the streetcape normally that's public that's where you're going to allow the public whether it's in easement whether it's fee it doesn't matter if you're saying hey we don't have enough room and this is absolutely true on the dot roads there's 8ot or 9 foot sidewalks that's all there is yet you're saying right there you need 16 to 20 fet well you're taking somebody's property and to to say it any other way I hear the planner speak but I'm telling you legally it would fail dual rational Nexus I'm not even talking bird Harris and it creates problems it would not it would not be a bird Harris I didn't say it was bird we would not okay so all I'm say develop way all the time and increase their sidewalk widths all of the time this happens all internationally so so what I'll tell you is the fact the fact that people don't enter into the court system and fight these things is because it's sometimes easier to acques so doing something illegal in your code doesn't make it right just because someone else got away with it doesn't make it right I had said I'm happy to stop this discussion now write what you write I'll do what I do with getting legal counsel to look at it but here what you're saying is in two steps we want to enhance the public realm we're going to make you do it and by the way we have a bonus section but you get no bonus and Harris's point and I get it okay you had this land use now you have that land use you owe us something it doesn't work that way you might feel that way but that's not legitimate exercise of just one clarification it's not that you owe it it's that that Mobility provides for it that was the vision I think we have made this point very clear my suggestion what um again I'm going to go to real terms uh 16 to 20 foot what's OO on the park currently I'm sorry what what's OVO on the park currently what what streetcape what's what is the width you're we're looking at 15 and 20 foot streetcap beginning to the back of the curb what is OBO in the park right now if I'm walking down that same 300 whatever feet that I asked about earlier what's the what do we currently have sitting there let's pull the let's pull the project it's a 5 foot or an8 foot side part of that side trying to get a realm for things um you know before we go go way down a so State Road 434 and and and I'll also put out there we paid for it so the city paid for it not road we we gave back um so we can talk taking well us but we also the city gave unhappily my point of view but we gave a lot of credits that to to facilitate making that street so I think the problem here is this is kind of removing that credit system right it's now a requirement and it's not going to fall on City taxpayers to build the streetcape it's going to fall on the person who's developing the property I I understand I said unfortunately I vote against listen I can tell you I was up there voting I voted I did not want to give the credits to the person who was doing it I thought we why we keep giving credits when it's you know something that they should build but I'm just trying to understand what is it currently that we're looking at on the park to get a realm for these three guys we deal with it more I've dealt with it they deal with it I've dealt with it these three don't deal with it in as much language as he go and for me what's it currently give me a real world example and then compare it to 15 to 20t versus what we're sitting on a v on the park that that's kind ofing for or a little better however you want to put it but we want to get more more dense and more intense and higher right so we are talking about Vis the park has three four stories we are talking about 12 stories now in same realm 12 stories that would be the maximum that's available at the is the maxim you can buildable is 12 on centralen four stories in not Central Downtown core yeah downtown core what's the maxim 12 right 12 stories what what was the maximum available for Park it's always been n they could have gone higher uh I don't think anything was in place for them to go higher at that time what's that I don't think there were any rules in place that would allow Ovito in the park to go higher well there were there were steps there were it was 16 65 I think 65 was the core so you want an example I'll give you one okay so Broadway which just went through a take there's enough room for an 8ot sidewalk in most places and there's 2 feet between the sidewalk and the back of the RightWay so there's 10 feet total right here says you have to give 16 to 20 so we're now talking that is partially a state road partially a County Road and there's 10et total that's all there is okay so what this is saying I get that the city would like a wider streetcape I appreciate and support that the city would like a a wider streetcape what I'm saying is telling someone to make it so just because they got land use in the comp plan update it's not a legitimate use of government power period uh you guys don't have to look I I'll just do it the easy way those are 6ft tables it's 18 ft across it's going to be wider than that there's an easy those are 6ft tables there's 18t between there and there that's what we're talking about is from there from the beginning of that table to the end of that table is 18 feet yeah so that's an 18 foot so it's somewhere around there is what we're talking about landscape area you have a sidewalk area and you have a retail Zone where you can put signage outdoor seating types of things that Urban environment that's why it's written the way that it's I thoroughly understand and just like you were talking about Japan been to Japan B to lived in New York I I thoroughly understand the concepts that we're talking I'm trying to put it in perspective and say that's 18 feet tell me who's got 18 feet now tell me who's got that and and actually does that show me examples and I'll go behind it I'll start saying huh that's a lot of land in my and I'm not sticking up for Dave I was actually ready to go no until I started really looking at it going 186 15 to 20 ft is a lot of Fe footage and I was thly ready to go that's what is required for set the is that now tell me where that is currently we we we we are not Urban here we are not Urban you want to see Sten hang on I can you on the park in the building that has the mixed use ground floor that width of streetscape physically exists pretty much there right now it's there right now 16 to 20 yes yeah it's there in oo in the park where um on the Strand 2 on uh yeah it's called strand 2 it's the it's the west side of the multistory building with the ground floor restaurants and the apartment because he compens there now he he did Tom caver provided you know area that is private but has the has a public use for his development to work because he wanted to have the so so side walk main main street coming down in front of the Strand where T blah blah blah you know they're all along that that 16 ft all right so I'll leave you provided a l you provided a beautiful um presentation at the CRA yes also throw there that with your L he did not do it willingly we paid for it so let let's put that I'm not going to sit there we can put it in code and we can say it but he was contractually had he he didn't work off of code it was code was um a good idea but we paid for it we had to give him credits an enormous amount of credits to have him put the brick in put the thing in put the this in put it in he's talking about kavanov yeah so so let me just offer this suggestion okay I agree this is good plan I agree that this should be there I disagree that you should impose it on people without credit because I think it's illegal so you can achieve all this but if somebody has a piece of property where they do these things and it doesn't bear a direct relationship to their impact which is dual rational Nexus you cannot impose a taking call it an easement I don't care what you call it the classic case was about a bike easement for God's sakes just look it up okay so you're saying if if you were if the streetcape were provided then you credit for the mobility then they get credit for this and that's the case virtually anywhere so I did a project in Orange County on Lake picket the the county public work staff says there's a dangerous curve in the road we want you to fix it so what happened they needed half an acre the half acre was appraised there was an impact fee credit for the half acre it's pretty simple this is not rocket science you can't just because you can get away with it say give me now as a matter of practice sometimes there wasn't enough room in the road you kind of facilitate your project part of this sidewalks on my property I'll give you an easement it's it's a reasonable thing so in in what I'm working on the theory that you give it and it doesn't count is what disturbs me it counts okay but what I always have stated in this meeting in these series of meetings you've got people with small properties they're very very constrained they have geometry problems today some of them aren't very deep they go to redevelop and where there's an an8 foot sidewalk in the rideway and no room to go out of it they're giving up a whole bunch of property and they're being told well that's because we gave you land use you owe us that now that's not really legitimate you might feel that but that's not legal I'm just telling you it's also morally wrong You can disagree but let the attorneys debate it so we get the code done in a legitimate way that's it all right Don we have a comment I just wanted to ask David again if we adopt this leave it in there it faces a legal challenge is the city likely to Prevail based on the scenario Dave is talking about that that we're changing the standards and it affects somebody that that they need a that we're we an extra 10 feet of the property we're not going to pay them for because we change his code no we wouldn't prail okay based on we just heard and based on what I hear the staff we we will also take the um take this information and review it some more with legal um I don't think we're proposing any changes at this point but let us get back with legal to talk about this let me let me go back I know what Dave's talking about and what what Steve mentioned is is when you did it with the oido in the park you gave credit so you weren't you weren't using a regulation to take someone's property without having to pay for it so I think what you do in a case so David we changed the standards all the time in the code right we are not challenged by that right understand what happens is when you widen something you usually do a credit offset credit is there a number that you would feel comfortable with increasing the imposition of the street gate no that's not the point it doesn't matter what the width is okay right so you're just against imposing that on a private developer uh I'm against imposing that without just compensation and that's very simply the way it's done in lots of other places Orange County does it all the time you know I forget what they call it but there's you know you basically have to provide this but you're going to get a credit for for and it it's okay it's the reverse I think it's if you don't build it you owe us money but but the attorne as a person writing the Orange County code let the attorneys debate the legal well I just told you the example in Orange County and my client got the money and it's not a unique situation okay well let's just summarize this and have the consultant write this according to the staff Urban Design they would like to see but run it by the legal council to make sure that it is legal it is not impinging on the right of the land owners and everyone is happy well I I think obviously we can write whatever we want and it's legal as long as as long as we put it in Council adopted it's become legal it's just whether or not is subject Challenge and and in this case it seems to me to make an argument to a judge that okay they had a piece of property that that there was an 8ot right away we change the code to make it a 20 foot right away so they're giving up 12 feet but we're not going to pay them for it that's a that's a tough sell to a judge yeah so I mean so I think I think that's what David is talking about the standards are fine if it's 20 feet or whatever V Park as long as we understand there's going to be some compensation due to the landowner and that doesn't have to really be addressed in the code it just that's just that would just have be a policy the city would adopt so that's that's my off that's my haven't looked deeply at it I will obviously have to but um I I think David was right we should adopt to the urban standards but understand we can't just make somebody give us property so a global we again we are not asking anybody to give us property so a global statement at the beginning of any section of this nature that says all of these standards shall be imposed with within the the guidelines allowable by state law solves the whole thing it really solves the whole thing and we had that debate at the comp plan and that language is in the comp plan on a lot of these situations can can we deviate from state law so I don't want to put words in but but let me just say this what I heard him say is the the city can adopt whatever it wants to adopt and that's its legitimately adopted code but that doesn't mean that it can't be challenged as non-compliant with state or federal law or case law that goes for every single section of every single that's right but setting up a situation where you're knowingly and wait till legal council reviews it knowingly imposing things that could put the city in Peril of being challenged and diminish people's capability to redevelop is not in anyone's interest and that's all I'm saying but doesn't it apply to to all the sections of the code that we have you know discussed so far right all the I think the question here is what is going to be the threshold for the bonus I think that's what is at stake here that because we increasing the the minimum standards that is going to be more difficult to achieve the bonus you know to be so beyond the a small property owner will almost invariably never be able to achieve where do you have a small property owner in the downtown core isn't that downtown core uh so there's pieces that are that are uh next to the trail on the west side of 434 there's pieces that are across in a Target area from uh Fairwinds Credit Union on the other side of the street there's there's several owners so whether it's small whether it's large the small property owners are r we going to use a bonus and this is an imposition that in my view and not just my view would take their property I'm just saying be careful Mr Hall said it let other lawyers look at it adjust the language so that you don't put yourself in Peril especially in light of the fact that not this type of circumstance it was different and maybe everyone in here doesn't know the city just paid an over $4 million judgment for not being as careful as they should be on property rights that's not a good place to be wow it's a completely different sit I said it was different completely completely different I know it was different but but he's right that the city at this point is very gunshy31 reason we need to think about what are we going to offset that take because that's fact what call an eement with credits or whatever B Den bonuses density bonus if that's what the property owner wants yes then that's great but otherwise I think we're have to consider credits right we we'll just reate the same thing go ahead and develop the standards with the understanding that whatever the devel ER has to give up it has to be compensated for in some form or fashion be it a bonus or impact fee credit or whatever whatever yeah and I will I will research that and come back to the committee with something that is the consensus of the committee good so the next two are talking about the other two target areas that were part of draft one um again these comments were left on the intent section and not on the actual standard so I I don't know what you mean by Major edits and deletions are warranted without more information so my comments I wrote on this section were last October and and we as a committee never discussed them I think the totality of the debate we just had just covers most of it frankly already understood well okay I hope that you understand that that doesn't give me much direction for what to change it to other than don't take my property well right but I think what we just discussed is you're going to write what you're write and legal's going to look at how do we thread this needle so it is legitimate use so the urban planning makes sense the taking away from people without compensation if that's what happening is happening doesn't make sense easily resolved with code language so where is this line is so 25 if we require 25% of open space and we do that not in the downtown Corp is this a taking it's not the same thing why it's not the same thing because you're not saying to someone make my streetcape wider so it's because it's a semi-public use there is a public use it's because you're trying to widen a road with regulations but no yeah what is that what he saying yeah I mean it's a take I mean when you got restrictions of use and so on and so forth that's that's a different that's Ty situation not given up you that that would be a challenge that I could I used to be able to build as much as I can now and those you know those are not as easy as challenge but in a case where I have this much land now I only have this much land because but we granting more stuff at the same token no you're not oh yeah we granting more Heights we granting yes we are no you're not absolutely this is the code okay let bonus available that that's that would be a without the bonus no people already have land use the comp has already been adopted you can't go back in time and now take something away I know but the the the height is not there the standards are not there it's in the ELD SE I think we are change we are granting much more stuff I think our chairman already resolved how we move forward I think we have we heard the legal council give his opinion let us rewrite this the way you want to with an open mind it's written the way the consultant is going to suggest it and and it means the legal standard well that's being determined by in our position yes we write standards like this for municipalities if it do then we don't have a problem if it does then there's no no problem problem but that's we're we're awaiting an opinion later from Mr h i me we need to move for he's going to review what I mean all I had was to talk about I say it's gonna piss you off but you you what you just said was we're going to write things the way the consultant's going to write it I'm going to tell you that means you're not listening to anyone of stop you're not listening to us you're not listening to the Land Development code who I may differ entire they may be and they are in some ways have a whole different aspect of no they want XYZ and I've sat on Council and I'm going to tell you Council has other whole level of stuff just stop saying it whether you feel it or not it's about the fifth time you've you've you've asserted that we're writing it this way this is the op this is what we're going to do and it just twists me every time it comes out so that's one thing is please this is for you're you're taking our opinion you could disagree with it wholeheartedly you could say based on what but staff is also the other opinion maker here they don't you don't decree anything either in the end there's going to be five of them that's who makes the final decision taking in the opinions of all of this so when you tell us you're not going to you basically tell us I'm not listening to you we're going to put forward this it drives me nuts and like I said it's about the fifth time you've kind of made that assertation that this is the way it is and this is the way it will be and it literally from a guy who sits there who sat there for 10 years if you said that to me on councel I would have a fit like I am right now I would go berserk on you and I would say how are why am I paying you for anything it's about listening and you can disagree with Dave all I I disagree with listen I know the guy very closely we're great friends I can disagree with him wholeheartedly many times s have in this conversation and not but it's just stating at this is what's going to come I don't want to hear that and I don't think anybody here likes hearing that in that staff doesn't make this decision they're giving you their opinion we're going to give you ours then you're going to sit with Land Development code they're going to give you theirs compile it all together and put in your hey I I I want your opinion to be told to all of us going hey based on whatever based on legal the legal opinion this is what it should be you guys make the choices though whether it's 16 feet 20 feet 10 feet 5 feet whatever it is if we came in here and go hey we want 5 feet I don't we want 30 feet why wouldn't that be better why more is better okay that's the thing so but your your statement thank you for saying that I I hear you and what I've heard today is we don't want the imposition of a streetscape requirement not 16 to 20 feet doesn't work for me this works better then then you're not listening because I don't think that's Dave actually I think Dave came back and said that exactly he's like he could take you can do that entirely except don't take the property he had the only problem he's kept going with is you're taking my property it has nothing to do with with the 16 to 20 I believe he said multiple times the 16 to 20 is okay he'll he's fine with that part it's the 16 to 20 without compensation or any way since he's got X already by rights as far as he feels I'll go as far as he feels by right by by um the the uh not code compl complain complain he's already got these rights and he feels and the attorney kind of said it's a murky waters I'll give you that but he feels it's could be a murky water here that by comp plan I get the right you're now adjusting those rights later on on me but I have the right by the comp plan the most the more important document you can't do that it doesn't matter I don't think he's ever said the 16 I think he said explicitly the 16 to 20 is okay it's the taking he opposes that's where it's ately thank you very much Steve for having a fit you right on very constructive what you said and let us let us just go take look at that section we are making a recommendation or a consensus rather that this is okay you can you can have the 16 whatever feet you want for the urban planning but you have to compensate the landowner in some form or fashion for what land is being going to cheack with Lego the details of that but let me just clarify this is just a discussion and and some members of the board are more familiar with the with these issues than others so sometimes rushing you know the conversation also kind of you know you don't want to uh we want everybody to understand right and and to uh ask questions uh Mr shank we understand our role as a recommending body I know you staff I mean very comfortable I'm very comfortable here to provide our opinion and the final decision is going to be from from never city council we absolutely understand that the task that was asked to me is to present the language that what we think is best which is what we've written and there needs to be another mechanism to find that compensation that doesn't belong in the Land Development code under this section that belongs in a policy decision based on what fund is going to give those mitigation credits and that was my point as the language as written is our best recommendation with the wits that are included if that's the case Sam if I may if that's the case and you say that this is your all's best recommendation for this specific Street David has said that it's not legally defensible what I'd like to ask David is that you come back with changes to this that in your opinion would make it legally defensible in terms of are talking to huh oh David Hall I'm sorry the other David I'm happy to work with the LIC attorney let us see what it is that you think would make it legally defensible and all I was saying is that I think that we've done our best job with the language as written and to please proceed with whatever you are going to do as far as researching whether or not it's legal yeah it it what we put in the code is what what we want and the street tap scand which they do a lot of and so forth we can still dictate it we just have to understand that somewhere in a policy decision or Council or the land use whatever we have to understand that if this a particular situation Rises where this 16 or 18 ft does end up being a taking we have to we will have to comate that D some way you don't you wouldn't put that in the code but that would be in a policy some but you could put something in that's says would be appropriately uh compensated in accordance with state law no I wouldn't I wouldn't even do that because in you're in people somebody might say like like like Dave cin Evans would say okay it's for the good of the city we'll agree to do that or we want this or whatever like that so it's it's not something I would say you put in the code but yeah it's a policy so if when when they come in for a permit we say no you guys us right away uh wait a minute you know that's it's going to affect my well here's how we can work with you on that and if it still BEC a problem okay we have a city policy that we would go through effective accommodation to take and we would figure out what it's worth and sometimes you can negotiate I don't know the city would want to take over the property though I don't know if the city would want to purchase it at that point if it's we we'll have to go back and take a look at it because if it's not indeed a taking they will give it to you there's no other way to do it if it's if it's indeed not a taking then there may not be any compens needed right so we'll have to go back and see how we look at this section and how we word it yeah but an easement is an easement to take it depends on but if they're not agree to you taking your Propet they're going to give an easement so so Deborah are you familiar with the Nolan and Dolan cases have you ever read them absolutely so so it was give me a bike easement because you want to build a hardware store or something like that or a bike store or whatever it was okay and the Supreme Court said you can't do that so call it an easement call it ownership it doesn't matter okay so I'm just suggesting that we're creating a framework of what I would call forgive me for the word extortion and and I want everyone else to understand if we have a section that says here's this list of things you must do and they're in our code um then you're going to be told as a developer um that you have no choice and you have to do this and you're not going to get anything for it now the problem is not necessarily all the time for a guy like me now now I'll make a decision and David Hall was right does this facilitate your project do you let it go or do you argue about it arguing takes time and costs money and the court system sucks and you don't want to do it where it is really harsh is small Property Owners small business people that are scrimping and saving and trying to do something and can't afford the right legal council can't afford the the more expert people and are going to get hammered and that's who with language in the code I want to be careful about protecting frankly right Dave I think your point is very clear everybody understands it so let's move on whatever is being developed the legal council is going to take a look at it but please be mindful protect the the right of the property owner for fair compensation that's all go ahead oh my presentation's over okay you're done so staff where do you want to go from here so when should I expect to get comments specifically about the target areas we'll have to work together on on that um what's what about the target areas well we've proposed a lot of standards that seem to be very much so disagreed with um by this committee and I only I have comments that say we disagree with them so so to be clear you have up there my written comments from a long time ago that we've never addressed as a committee we we never got through those sections we're going to go through it right now I I don't have information right and so so it's up to to the staff kind of steering us we're going to do it right now okay I need okay maybe we should take a break Mr we've been at it I have a question I know we were working on a list um the last thing we closed at our last meeting there was the list of things for Miss Boos right have they gone over have those been addressed or there're still a working progress like the new talking the district that the permissible use table yeah we've gone ahead and updated it with all of your requests I I only brought up the comments that either I was letting you know we were accepting or things that needed to be discussed today um if you want to go through the land use table we can but we took all of the recommendations okay so we can do that let's go through um targeted areas first because there were comments with that and then we can pull up the permissible uses table okay I was just confused on where we were I thought we were starting with um those questions that list from our last meeting the list from the questions is what Katie just went over okay okay Deborah why don't you take us through what you want so we address that while you're going through that okay and the list that you're talking about is the list that I provided is that the list of different questions so she just went Bullet by Bullet over those questions and so now we're going to go through um the targeted areas but she has all was there something missing it seems like I was thinking about the um the new District That was supposed to be created for the um lots that were the mut Square this hasn't had not been created yet okay you're correct so I had a placeholder slide basically saying that we're working on that um we had proposed something as part of draft 2 that it seems like staff was not comfortable with so we're going to come back with a new plan to address those Milton Square and the expired puds okay thank you yeah so now we're going to do the targeted areas in article four yes part two so 4.13 is where it starts so you're gonna have to read over the comments here okay so we have one comment on this one and this one um was questioning whether or not single family homes are discouraged in this article so it says so Katie these are going to be questions um for you to answer yeah I mean I'll answer them to the best of my abilities and anything that I am unaware of or need to consult with our team I'll take back and get back to you yeah so I guess it's just in this area if single family homes are discouraged in this article this section of the article okay so go to the next one so I mean I can answer that okay I mean discouraged doesn't mean disallowed it it means discouraged and so you have to set standards for where they are allowed so this was a comment please add language to allow for flexibility for Creative building designs and public space and that was under building locations I mean you can have flexible and creative building designs at the same setback as other buildings are we saying that we want flexible building locations so an example maybe just to throw out there um so typically you might want to do something special at a corner in this particular Circumstance the language would not allow that so you know just just things of that nature so most of the time you're absolutely right build parallel to the right away to get your street wall and your streetcape but if you want to do something special at a corner you're not parallel anymore I mean the the remainder of the building could be parallel and you just shift it away from the but it it the language doesn't make that clear but sometimes you could create like an angle you know in the corner to have like a little Plaza a little you know semi-public space so like 70% of the building is parallel to the street type of situation or do you want this to be able to be deviated from yeah I think in in special situations we may we allow we may allow deviation perhaps like um like design um like flexibility and design can be approved through the Architectural Review process yeah yeah can you add that is that okay with the with the board okay okay please add lat and we can even add that so the idtent is to create um um a wall you know an urban wall right A Street wall but we can allow for deviation we show what is the int I'm fine putting that in here as a person on the Ado board when something comes in that's pretty wacky uh and you don't have standards for what type of flexibility that you're allowed to have just anticipate defending that I guess if you know what I mean well then then be specific like special locations like Corner Corners may may obtain flexibility through the Ado how however you say it you know how far is it activ of intersection Corners can be I think that's all I would be talking about is is everywhere else I mean you know not every road is is straight I think we'll figure that out as we go along but the corners is really all I would be concerned about Corner cor that's okay and then okay and then the next comment was um for building Frontage revisit the revisit Frontage definition I will have to remember the comment so I I think maybe a better for that is building you're you're talking about building position right I mean is Frontage the right word it's uh it's property Frontage more than it's building Frontage building or um building orientation maybe is that's right above it so it should be property Frontage is a narrow side of the it's really describing how to determine what is the front of your property and how much of the building is required to take up the frontage of that property to create Urban form so building and property Frontage so the title should change it's probably fine don't you think I mean you're saying the narrow side is the primary Frontage and we're really just trying to Define how to figure out primary what's second front what's the street side um where to measure the setbacks that we've prescribed in so when when we get to Perimeter um the block perimeter I have a comment okay so you all are okay with leaving it the way that it is on here I think so building okay so but what if you have a situation that the the lot because we are assuming that the lot is going to be narrow to the to the street and longer but we have situations that and I'm thinking about verax okay so the primary Frontage is the narrow side of a corner lot and I have added that faces the road unless otherwise determined by the land use administrator and that way you I know but then the primary Frontage is will not be the narrow side of the of the right so unless otherwise determined by the land use administrator and that will give you the power to say in unique circumstan there is you know we this is a very narrow lot very wide we're going to call the larger Frontage the actual front so I just just to throw out there um when you look at number five there the 60% requirement is not that honorous frankly Ag and so consider there's going to be through Lots or Corner Lots but most of the time Corner Lots I would think if we have this perimeter that we're going to create and have have walkways and so forth so where does the block end is it the block to the walkway is it the whole I mean where where does a block end I think a walk walkway defines a block too okay so if a walkway defines a block it's in the next section you describe one two 3 four five six different ways you can end a block okay so all I I would say here is think about the urban form and we've got a corner lot I would think you want the street front requirement to apply to both those frontages I agree so does everyone understand what I'm I'm saying so if we have a street wall we shouldn't give people that are building on a corner or through Street a free pass on one of the frontages 60% leaves them lots of room 40% is a lot so I would say the building must account for 60% of the lot Frontage on the primary and secondary Frontage I I would think Steven in another world no no I'm there so does everyone agree this is a consensus okay so let me know when we're at Perimeter I think we're there okay so based on my earlier comment and based on what what I think you your feedback was go you you went past where my is okay so where it starts where a site is too small here's where we can have this um acreage thing I guess so so that small site really is in a position to create the cross block Frontage without major destruction to it usually so you know showing it they going to show it but how do they meet this standard so somehow making it clear they're not meeting the standard and why are they showing it if there's no standard to me just just I'm asking okay I'm thinking it might be beneficial for me to actually share my screen because I have edits that we've done since um that help explain so like for example from our previous discussion we've removed the block perimeter for the Central Avenue no longer M um because those are all very small lots and we realize that the block perimeter is going to be very difficult in that area to achieve it's a lot of different ownership so we've added for all target areas EX might have to undo display do you guys know how to do this are you like Sam an expert fig he might so if you said you changed it we'll see it again duplicate thanks guys all right so for all target areas except mud CA sites must be divided and then I've highlighted this to go back and address it and I just wanted to let you know we added Regional trails should they exist they could also count as the end of a block so so all I would say is if a site's too small that it shouldn't be imposed and we talked about something earlier Y and and five acres might be too big um you know I don't know what the right thing is but I think we can see what you come up with okay perfect so if you guys can still lead me through the comments then we can go [Music] over so I have comments I didn't give staff so so just when we get there I'll speak up are you still on block perimeter uh I I don't have anything else till cross block passages okay so I again I have a question on the on the perimeter should we say the block Frontage to the street because if you're creating blocks right you create then block per perimeter makes sense but otherwise it will some Lots will have that requirement but they they are the frontage may be narrow you may have more than five acres but it's very long so we could rewrite this section in a way that it's not talking about block perimeter and instead just talking about Frontage that are 400t or more you can't have a building longer than 400t without some sort of break and I think that that would take away some of the some of the okay whatever reaction there is to that well it it is because if you're building out of scratch right if it's a new plan it's it's something if you're working with existing you know uh geometry of lots that exist it's something else right so that is I think would would help to have the front edge so when you're working on that think about this cross block passage and if you're trying to create a pedestrian passageway to some extent you want I guess it might not be called a street wall but you want the same effect right for The Pedestrian passageway do you or don't you want a wall so so if you're breaking a block into pie and there's this pedestrian walkway should it not have a W Street wall I'm just asking I I don't know I personally don't like Street walls I don't I don't propose unless it's a dangerous when I say Street wall I don't mean a wall separating you I mean the building forming a street wall I'm sorry to clarify yeah I mean the building is is trying to be pulled up to the street to create this Urban wall right so so my question is if you create a cross block passage that's that's one of in your list which might be a pedestrian walkway do you not want the same building wall along that I don't think it's necessary for a 10 foot breake in the building okay you may have it because you may have even you know if you have the the I'm just asking because we're requiring it on primary and secondary Frontage and I'm just asking as a matter well the the wall of the building being proximate to the street and being continuous 60% so I that's a good point should should it take away from your 60% Frontage no no that's not really what I'm asking okay so here's here's a building it it's let's call it let's say it's on a corner it fronts two streets we've just said each one of those should have at least 60% continuity of the building so now you create to break up this block there's a couple blocks you're separating it with a pedestrian passageway should The Pedestrian passageway have the same 60% coverage of the building I would think you're trying to create that walkability are you creating it in this pedestrian passageway also it's just a question because the way this is written it's not obligated one would think if they're trying to get the maximum building it's going to be there anyway I would think I I think that that would be really prescriptive but I I'm just asking I I haven't written it that way that it's a requirement it can either be like open air to the sky you can separate two buildings you can have you know living space on the second floor to fourth floor like we talked about or office space or whatever the it was just a question so it's more or less just a means for someone on a bicycle or on foot to make it through the development to either the parking area or to a business that's on the other side without going around without having to walk all the way around the building a mailman you know that that would be a nice I think that's more clear now that's fine so when you're ready my comment on Cross block passages yes we're going there next so cross block passages so the last one we talked about it and I would I think we we want to be careful about that um public easen or publicly accessible tract I think so so it might not necessarily be a track you just want it to be publicly accessible but you can't gate it with a key oh okay so I would just be careful with that language and perhaps if you're saying all we really need there is unrestricted Public Access right now just to throw it out there and I've seen this come up in other localities and it's a catch 22 you're trying to create this public realm thing but you don't want to create a everybody's gone home and you have this kind of free access pathway into everybody's space you know so there's got to be some way to have have some level of security and I'm not sure how to do that but but I would just be really careful about a complete prohibition here's this walkway through your property and you have no right to control it ever even in the middle of the night do you like it as written now passages must be placed in public easement or provide for unrestricted Public Access during operational I think that's perfectly fine Katie can you make it a little bit bigger I can totally make it bigger than so I should look up up there instead of at my piece of paper you're telling me um well I'm just trying to edit as we go to save us all time yeah um and make sure that you're okay with it while I have your eyes and ears right so did you remove public I would say unrestricted passages must be placed in public EAS well I would get rid of the public or or provide for unrestricted Public Access during operational business hours okay because the previous language says passages must be place in a public easement or publicly accessible tract so you got rid of the public accessible tract did you do oh okay I missed that I'm sorry it's all right I'm just I'm trying to keep up I'm trying so so really a question for the staff do you really want the easement if you don't want it strike it and and let Let It Be publicly accessible yeah publicly accessible and easement becomes sometimes a bur on the city and that's why I'm raising that issue um an easement is a good way of enforcing things though and how many times do you get projects approved where somebody goes back and installs a gate that's going to be locked I I mean what's the magic PA downtown with the with the what is it the school that closed the sidewalk yeah yeah they lost by I mean I don't care I'll pick an either or I just don't know if the city want EAS if you're fine with it you're fine with it do we need to have an easement for um um access of of the public if we have a a a mailman or whatever I mean do we need to have an easement or police or Fire doesn't the easement help to take liability away from the developer not really the city okay unless the city accepts the burden which it doesn't want to City wouldn't do this yeah then I'm fine removing it it's up to staff I don't have a position if it's is easily enforcable through code enforcement from an easement perspective or just a line item in the code then I don't think you need it I think last time we had this discussion we left something like that in there so that you Pro were given the option to say yes or no depending upon the circumstance there's an or yeah or provided by unrestricted so you can't if I choose the or you that's not something you can enforce on me and say well you have to make it a public easement it's I or so so I'm reversing this question step this an or is a permissive option for an applicant right so I'm just asking the city do you really want the easement and and if they don't it should be stricken period right I I understand it's purely a city option thing because this this allows a developer to choose I think that um staff should maybe talk about it internally with legal and come back to us with the proposed like with the way it's proposed right now now I mean attract is also a possibility if if it's or right it is or so we could have you know I think we leave trct attract is a problem no I I well it is for maybe what you thinking you know the multif family development that you're probably think but if there's if it's um a walkway to a park or something you may have a track I mean I don't know if it's an option again it's it's either or it's either or so we're just going to add operational business if it's EAS man tract or un unrestricted Public Access you can choose I don't care right okay to find out it the way that it Wass if they're open they're open if they're closed they're closed but but if you're a multif family complex what does that mean it means it stays open always yeah you have to provide access to your residents and uh no no no residents will have a key okay the unrestricted Public Access and and so I think what David's saying is you know multif family complex is open for residents but a mixed use project has businesses that'll close so we just have to be careful on that definition of what's a business hour right if we're going to use that term we're to find it some do you have a time on your noise ordinance remind me because if there's a restaurant or something in there that's go beyond 5 or 6m because I'm thinking about right around the corner you have an ice shop and stuff like that so Katie so as stands we're going to leave it's going to say passages must be placed in a public easement or publicly accessible tract um are we keeping which provides for unrestricted Public Access so I would say and then the only thing that we're adding is during operational business hours I would change operational to normal and then create a definition in your code of what that means because operational is different for everybody it can change daily so why iitate to even include it is there's I've gotten feedback from oito on the park that there's a parking lot behind the multif family and there's no way to get there and so people who go to the restaurants and park in the multif family have to walk all the way around and if they stay at the restaurant past the normal business hours of the multif family that's exactly the situation that you're talking about where they have to walk all the way around because all sudden at 11:00 p.m. it locked but you stayed out till midnight so so interestingly they're not that this was going to ask why they are why they are parking behind the in private property they're not supposed to be there in the first place okay that's very so but actually I thought that it was open so the Parkplace has the walkways to the parking lot right and it's always open right is that gated I have no idea so so let's say you know you build a mixed use project and you have businesses that are that are quote operational but that time can change that definition can change constantly and you can't enforce it I I think the whole business hours we're not going to enforce that anyway I think we will see it on the site plan when if it's an easement we'll see it on the site plan if it's a track but to keep track of whether or not a business is open and whether or not the passage is open we're not going to enforce it we don't have enough staff all I'm saying is something in your code that preludes a property owner from providing reasonable security to their residents if there's a problem is an issue they can have a door with a gate with a code that doesn't through their building says unrestricted Public Access not inside of the building just through this hallway yeah that's a problem but by keeping that nor normal business hours we precluded your concern so it should be okay it's it's very difficult to Define that and it's very difficult to enforce that if somebody locks it in the middle of the day you know they're breaking that rule and and you know but but but every time that happens code enforcement goes out more City resources to go tell them to unlock the gate just unlock the gate I I'm just saying you build a project you spend this ton of money you have some sort of crime problem you have residents that are upset that and you don't want a situation I'm sorry the city won't let me provide security that's like a re for dis resal areas be separate than accessing the multi the mixed internally yes so those access points should you we're not regulating all we're regulating is that you have to have a pass through either between buildings or through a building every 400 feet if you don't want to do that then build two buildings that are 400t long each and have a separation between them where that's on an issue are you planning on saying something well yeah it really just echoing what Katie is saying it's really a design issue at the end of the day you can design for it I mean plany buildings have closed access and they they are designed differently to be a provide for such passage the way that Katie was talking about so I mean like even code to get in or a key card to get in and if you don't have that then you can't get in the building so is there a consensus for that language leave it the way it is yes right now it says easement or tract do we want to say easement track or unrestricted access I think so but I thought people had a problem with hours we were saying during normal business hours so that's nothing there now well we need consensus to put it there or not put it there I I I would say I want it there and we're just saying that because we don't have the staff to regulate that um we to enforce it um it's going to be difficult for us it's not going to be easily enforceable and then design can be taken into account for the CD issues so I think that's naive what I would say is if you have a situation where this however wide it is pedestrian pathway is between these buildings and it's late at night and it's providing an easy path for criminal Endeavors they're going to use it and if a uh someone who controls this property has no power to do anything about that it creates this massive liability problem you know they're supposed to provide security they're allowing this UNF walkway to be used 247 it's a problem this isn't being oned on existing projects so projects can be designed to accommodate the security on the site based on this rule if there's not enough people saying what I'm saying then it's we're done I'm good the way it's up there all right I'm done all right do we have consensus to keep it the way it is okay so then the next one is going to be I think we put an active I think we put that language inactive or non-conforming if okay you go back up so I wasn't done with that section I'm sorry go ahead okay so in in um and maybe this is okay Roman numeral 4 curbing or other vehicle barrier as approved by the city engineer so are we saying go talk to the city engineer or shouldn't there be this has been updated to the land use administrator design based on comments that we got ah um so let's say you know you can have a walkway that is created by the use of different Paving elements that doesn't have curbing or a barrier so you're saying the land use administrator would have to approve that we can't say that that's what we're saying in this statement sorry which one is the one the one with land use administrator in blue passes must be separated from adjacent roadways or parking lots by curving or other vehicular barrier as approved by the land usat so so it's basically what it's saying is if you're I mean to me we could do away with this because you wouldn't necessarily have a roadway and a crossb passage but I think that it was if if you were having like a designated bicycle area or was being proposed adjacent to a drive a that it wasn't just a flat surface that there's clear delineation of the mobility so so just an example okay so Winter Park Village went through this exercise of let's raise the road up to be at the same height as the sidewalk to create a more pedestrian friendly walkable environment or you might have a pedestrian walkway that's also your maybe for two hours in the morning it's your potential delivery path or back of house path or call it a werf or what if that's the right way to say that word a shared use path where you don't you fixed it thanks okay is everyone okay with that yep okay I'm done just tell me to look at the screen next time I was like I know where you're going with this thank you all right what's next Dave okay no no not Dave Deborah so k um density and intensity Dave did you have anything else between now andity so um it says a city will round down um the permitted number of units to the nearest whole number when rounding decimals related to density calculations so we added this to clarify because the way that it was written before basically said that like you had to round down the acreage to a whole number as opposed to the number of units so we just had to rewrite the sentence to make sure it was clear that we're talking about like a singular unit gets rounded down and not 2.6 acres is now two yeah that was a discussion we had last yes so that's the only reason this is so before you go too far all right just the point earlier that I made in Access G Roman numeral I so we have and we can't avoid it existing arterials you're trying to limit Cuts onto them which is what those governments are going to want they no problematic yet we have this block link thing and you cured it by saying those are those are vehicular right and we we're doing pedestrian Pathways so all I would say in that one is where it says new curb Cuts I would say new vehicular okay now I don't know how to deal with the situation and on the um maximum intensity presentation I did which you may not have seen of the water tower district they may have shared it with you we had an extra connection that isn't there now that's in the vicinity let's say of existing old Geneva Drive which was intended as primarily if we build that way to break up the blocks a pedestrian pathway but we have to still deal with this reality of periodic vehic you are used for these back of house operations because you have to do them somehow so they should not be off these roads is that what you're saying so if you just where it says new curb Cuts I would say vehicular add okay it's so already then thank you is the board okay with that language okay okay and then under B specific use standards for target areas we wanted to make sure that a front loaded single family a 20 foot minimum setback was consistent throughout um and then D front porches must be a minimum of eight feet deep and so we were wondering where did the eight um 8 ft come from this just a a planning rule that like what makes a usable porch where you can fit tables and chairs and still walk by the tables and chairs if if it's too prescriptive we can get rid of it I think it's too prescriptive I agree done yeah does everybody agree with removing 8T for your porch well is there going to be any minimum or it's just gone now it's gone no gone do what they want just asking getting rid of unnecessary regulation and I apologize just this is a question back in Block perimeter standards it references sites may be divided into one or more blocks including Civic and open space is that a permissive Civic and open space or a it has to be there in your reading how's that you can you show me where you are again um so it is a general standards sub e block perimeter first sentence at the end of the sentence including cic and open space are you saying that you have to divide into that or that's just one of the things you may have just I'm just trying to understand the intent well now you call it public or semiu space and open space so my only point is this is a requirement in in the core area go ahead before we dig too far deep into this language remember that I'm going to rewrite this to deal with lot frontages instead of block perimeter so that will probably go away never mind okay so then for drive-thru facilities so we changed a lot of the permissible uses um special exceptions for drive-thru facilities in the targeted areas so we just want to make sure that this area reflects the new permissible uses table and then under e so I'm sorry just recapping so you didn't change the ACT much of the actual language that's in the section you just added we just want to make sure it matches okay what's prohibited what's not so so I think what we in the latest draft you guys gave me I think what we discussed is we made them special exceptions and now we need your suggestion as to under what standards they could be done and I think one of them was a drive-through bank right right so we thought there's a way to do that in a parking garage where it's remote from the bank that could work but we have no standards and we're going to go through that we're going to do that on the table as well we put notes in the table that we need but in her paragraph here she just got that from you guys right so we don't have anything well so to be fair I haven't made all the changes from the second draft that we sent you with your comments because we had chance to talk about them so I didn't want to have to make those changes no no we're not criticizing you for not having them just saying she has them she has she has the comments no no no I'm saying let's make sure the changes that she's working on in the future reflect the special exceptions that's kind of what you were saying right so we don't have them now we can't talk about them now they'll be done later right now we're gonna talk about the permissible uses table where we talk about we put notes in it about certain things should be um speci exception with different criteria so we're going to talk about that um she has Kim Horn has all the information that you have and that we talked about so we're just going to go through it okay so under e vehicular use areas must be screened by a street wall the question is is can we use landscaping and Li of Street wall as screening I'm fine with that if yall want that sure everybody good say that again could you say that again in standad off Street wall if it's going to be if we allow landscape Straight Street wall or Landscaping so here here I I'll give you a professional opinion Street wall is going to keep pedestrians from walking through the drive-thru Lanes better than Landscaping will um just a a two cents and then second the nice thing about a street wall in this scenario only blocks um the street lights from the view of people on the road when they're coming around the building so that's tends to be why we use Street walls for those two reasons so and I not attached you're GNA leave it the way I says Ming 50% can be composed material other than Brickstone or concrete or you're saying it all can be you want to see possibly see it all uh that could be all landscape um so what staff has just proposed up is that could it be landscaping and I'm saying we have no issue with that if you guys prefer that or you want that to be an option it I it's either way is material other than Brickstone I'm just trying to so so I think what the material other than that so let's say you've got a a wall and and interspersed within the walls let's say RW iron look aluminum why shouldn't that be allow yeah now I I think the point Katie made about Landscaping you talk about code enforcement issues one of the hardest ones is getting people to take care of their landscaping and we have a lot of sickly looking shrub rows all over the place I was going to say that this landscape the only difficulty is that you install it's compliant with the code but then it's not there anymore it's not comp I would either as a as an accent or a percentage that would be so so does it make sense so so Stephen questioned what is this other material right and so I would say such as RW iron look aluminum fencing or other decorative item or something so what's the other material it kind of tells them go use ugly stucko or some other garbage you know or or like land can I follow it up with Landscaping is not a sufficient other material yeah I I would think I mean I think Landscaping is going to be dead yeah they they can accent the wall with landscaping or whatever they put up there fencing but like you said I can drive down Mitchell hammock now and go Eek A and A lot of landscaping that needs work or where it says o of material other than lands well yeah but up there composed of material maybe just the word decorative before material makes the point well we could we could we could attach that to the to the upgraded material of the facad right one of the materials of the facade well but you might not have like RW iron look aluminum or or actual rot iron or something like that well but the the if you have iron then you have if you have a rot iron you do not have the protection of the light so it's still it's still I'm just saying if you have the other 50% that because it's not solid what is it and if we don't say what it is it's a little too permissive I'm just trying to limit it not widen it so I've added the word decorative so the remaining 50% can be composed of decorative material other than Brickstone or concrete Street wall shall be a minimum of two feet from the right of way and Landscaping is not considered a decorative material do do you need an imper damn I know you're looking for and it's like or and even Teresa like some impervious you know and it can't be more than 25% impervious again having fencing or if you put on some fencing or because you're you're looking to block it entirely solid solid solid yeah put the word solid I don't care I I would say it doesn't have to but I'm I'm okay with putting the word solid so so one of the things and just think this through and I don't know how to write it so you want a significant amount of opacity well they're saying hard wall right you're saying have some opacity right but they're just look like wall I understand complete wall other stuff if I fall back from the RW iron fencing you can build a brick wall with with reasonable gaps in it that are decorative and and are openings right so I wouldn't get any more prescriptive here I think that you could propose a mostly brick wall and staff can coordinate with you if that's going to work right so so I didn't come up with the 50% I'm just saying what would be in it and if if people here don't like it take it out get rid of the fences make it a wall allow the wall to have not be required to be 100% opaque what's a magic number you know sometimes walls are nice with with space in them so the second sentence already says walls greater thanet in height above grade shall be no more than 50% solid I indicating if you wanted to have some opacity in there that you have to do the three foot high opaque and then something that is decorative on top um we were asked by staff to add the 50 remaining 50% can be composed of decorative materials because that's consistent with the other Street wall regulations in the code this looks good the way it is so let's just keep it it gives you a little flexibility but it also gives you a little muscle so so do we want to go up to five feet I I think I don't think so I think five Feet's too high maybe too let's why don't we say to some dangerous maximum four but three three is reasonable right three is probably enough you just need to allow for your decorative elements so I I yeah 3ot wall you need a wall yeah five too high I think so I I I would how are the proportions on that I'm not good at that like three foot high of opaque and then one foot of something else does that look good it does if you can look it it's going to be one thir right of be right one third of the three okay right yeah one okay thumbs up yes thumbs up cool okay so the next section is going to be um number six where it says personal storage we already talked about it didn't we so that's number five on yours so it's number six on mine and this one is to please add language that will require personal storage to be part of a mixed use development in targeted areas so we talked about the first floor um being 100% different use so and that's all in the notes for draft so just a a question well not the most recent where we talked about the first war being 100 that we just add it today if we're going to have architectural standards then why have additional ones for personal storage just make them meet the standards it's not about just the look of it it's about the the actual function as well you want to make sure that it creates that vibrancy because it doesn't no no no I'm not questioning the ground floor oh okay I'm saying so here we are in in some districts that allow eight stories by right some of them 12 why are we limiting these buildings to three stories who who cares if it meets the architectural standards and the ground floor is activated who cares yeah so so I would suggest that that sub a there just goes away and add the ground floor requirement and the the second one subb you know apply those rules to the ground floor and have the same architectural standards for that building as any other building um I'm fine with that everyone okay with that okay for C the new C which is first first floor must be utilized for secondary use we talked about 100% I'm going to advise against that and say 90% only because you're probably going to want the like Lobby office checkin for the person storage to be on the FL yeah so that would be I would say like 90% And that gives them small another way to do that and I just dealt with this dance in in the county is having a maximum square footage so the building Size Doesn't Matter so you don't end up if it's a really big building with this crazy big store selling boxes on the ground floor you know so that varied between like 500 and a th000 square feet depending on who you asked as as a maximum maximum for for the ground floor Lobby slash retail area of a storage project use so a percentage it can be a huge building and end up with this big space that would not again this is just for target areas right ex which is which is not the downtown not the Central and not because this is not allowed it's only allowed in uh in G right but I'm saying if you're going to limit its ground floor usage then the percentage is fine but it might be too much space I would I would recommend a maximum establish a maximum because maybe they just want something really small but a maximum of a thousand I think is more than enough do we normally I know we've done this before so you could do a maximum of a th000 or 10% whichever is less less because if it's really small then you're on the other end of the spectrum these days personal storage facilities are not really small too much stuff like everyone tries to do over 100,000 square feet is everybody good with C yes thank you I am thank you okay so then five downtown mixed use which is going to change Street skate requirements B Furnishing Zone we'll need a definition of what Furnishing zone is and then the retail Zone D retail zone or residential buffer is this area optional um just one little language suggestion in v and looks like we go straight to Roman numeral ey I think it's just weird formatting there it got a little wonky because I think we sent a PDF to Word document so so where you say one tree per 40 feet of property Frontage um I would say at no more than an average of one per 40 and and for example the Connector Road we're designing now it's 30 which I'm sure you find mind is okay but right here we're saying 40 I think we should say no more than okay uh no no I think that's the wrong place sorry I missed it uh one tree for what what section are you looking at okay at a let me um maximum spacing I think is the best way to say that she had it up so the trees we are talking about trees correct shall be provided in the Furnishing zone of the street street gate spaced at a maximum distance you know somehow word it so because you know it's you have to do it with new design but we're doing 30 right now on the Connector Road I mean you're putting in more trees than like than that would say yes wow Dave come you no how are you doing that the city that's what was presented in the presentation to the CRA one for 30 it was Pete buz saw Axel come on no I questioned it and and Pete said no that should be one for 30 I'm like all right hire the expert listen not more a maximum of 40t right no in front of the 40 ft yeah instead of at one tree per at spaced at not more than 40 not more than but I'd get rid of the at one tree per you don't need to say it the trees are are provided as spacing right you have you have a chance to to review your own language spaced at no more you guys I can I promise you all massages later we do not need to do it right now it's okay okay so let's go to um D mix's District I'm sorry you had a question about retail Zone we didn't get there yet oh that's right the retail is that optional yes that maybe you might have a business that doesn't require these types of things and so that's why there's a varying distance 16 to 20 fee depending on how you put this together so there's options it's not perfectly prescribed you have options within the 16 to Street how you're going to use it okay and then the following items is what it can be designated or have in that retail zone so this is your 16 it's the five and the six and the five that's that's your man right the 5 foot Furnishing Zone the six foot clear and the six the 5 foot retail okay I can make it more if you want make it as wide as you like as long as you pay for it I will if I'm developing properly okay so D mix use District Central Avenue goodbye mud three can you it says the language is confusing please clarify please add visual so we will need visuals with all of these sections so can you go over the intent of this section Central Avenue street skate sure it's to set a consistent sidewalk and Street Zone along Central Avenue so that it creates a Main Street feel okay and since it's very small properties with various owners it's not likely that this is all going to be redeveloped at the same time so this is definitely going to be an incremental development so every time something new comes in they're just going to be required to have from the back of curb an eight foot wide sidewalk and seven foot wide Street Zone to accommodate oak trees to provide shade for the new wi sidewalk it very likely that that 15t is is going to be between the back of curban where their property actually starts be within the right way so it's not just just you do have to provide a just so you know and I don't know who on City staff other than Public Works was invited but there's a study that's been initiated that do is running for the RO and how it should look between Broadway and Mitchell hammock with a somewhat different initial vision and I think the first they're not calling them stakeholders there's some meeting this week I don't know were you told Teresa do you know I I don't know if it's in my calendar but I'm aware of that but but there's a kind of that started with a somewhat different vision and I think that we should share with you what that may be but it may more do this study and it's not quite this they widening what that are they widening it's intended to be a three Lane section with an interrupted Center turn lane and a separated multi-use path landscape separated on the East and a certain sidewalk width on the west funded no study it's a studies funded uh but somehow we should be consistent with with that but that's just a concept and the first meeting is this week okay I think it's this week so I I have a question on and see because technically we do not need to say in the code um yeah we can erase this any quantifiable measure is subject to deviation unless we say the opposite this is not subject to deviations right we don't me so if we can go to F Mitchell hammock Corridor um under three Street Network B streetcape requirements for secondary streets um number one where it talks about canopy overstory trees shall be provided in the street skate spaced at one tree for 40 ft and then the question is is what if there are utilities of how do we handle that then you does but I can that this won't be the final language just making this okay isn't that true for every street tree yes so should shouldn't that language be in the street tree section of the code in article have to put it in l caping as well but this is just a targeted area well but if if if any area of the city with Teresa we can make sure that it's in the Landscaping section it probably doesn't need to be repe I think it's a good point so since we have a visitor for public works at the end of the table um this issue always comes up where utilities are in the street and you're requiring trees on top of them and where that's precluded we should have some sort of reasonable relief worked into the code so it doesn't become this big dance that it is now isn't that what we're talking about or do you mean additional relief well that's overhead okay under I'm talking underground so so you know just just a way to have a mechanism where someone's not punished for what they the Public Works doesn't them to do the latest I'm not quite sure how to do this but I'm just saying it happens Prett so how we would deal with that in the city of Orlando is if there was like proven presence and somebody would just provide a survey showing the underground utilities that exist um we would reverse the two so You' connect the sidewalk and it would just be the one that's closer to the curb and move the street trees but I it's Case by case so so on Central now the project that that I'm working on so it's kind of already there uh you've got 434 it's a state road and it was a real issue with the 60 foot rideway and putting in turn Lanes so right now the sidewalk is at the edge of the rideway there's a two foot strip that's all that's there two foot and they moved uh Duke moved all the power poles and one of them has a conflict and they're going to bury it so now we're about to have buried power and a twoof foot strip and you can't put any trees in there and I think what the staff's allowed when we do developers agreements in the past is bring these onto the property they're Street trees but they're on the property and I'm just suggesting find a way to provide for that in a code so somebody without a developers agreement has a mechanism to punished and and the staff I think the code already allows that what's that the street street tree section of the code already allows that today to be placed somewhere else well let's just make sure we do that is all I'm saying yeah I'll Deborah what's next so the next one we're pulling it up now is going to be the permissible uses table um that we're going to go through which again yeah because um we had a question about the permissible use table so I want to go ahead and go through it so we're pulling it up now do you want to share yes do you have the permissible table that I emailed because I don't have I do but I'm not connected to your Wi-Fi to pull inter this is my and I've just received um comments from uh the city manager on the table of permissible uses a lot of them are questions that I could clarify but I have to go over to see um I think he he saw that we missed one um one use that we have in the code so I have to go over okay so um questions for um Katie Sam put up the permissible uses table so it's on the screen um and we're just going to go some of the questions that were at the end of the table um that was provided so we have in our comprehensive plan um what's called um primary uses primary permissible uses and secondary um uses in our comprehensive plan and secondary uses we had language in our comprehensive plan that said secondary uses were special exception use orders um and primary us were the permissible uses so the comp in our it was in the comp plan and with the latest update we took out we still have secondary uses but we don't have secondary uses um our special exception use orders so today what we're going to do what we decided to do with the table is instead of calling um as special exception use order we're going to call it secondary use order which which is the same thing as having a special exception so when you see special exception we're going to now title it secondary um uses if you can go to the bottom we're going to go over the comments and questions so Katie and we have to include a definition for um temporary residences and that's called out in the document you sent yeah it's called out it's under questions and comments on the bottom oh the one you just act actually we're going to change the term for model homes and model centers right I will double check I don't know if I have this with all the notes at the end um I will double check and let you know okay and then um I miss the questions so one of the things that we were talking about is the disaster mitigation you know how FEMA when they declare an emergency um we talked about this our last meeting um do we want to include it under temporary um homes or do we want to call it out the board's consensus was to not call it out and um use temporary residences for model homes so that's what we decided to do so we'll need to add a definition for the temporary residences also um we changed the bank with no drive-throughs to retail next to banks with drive-throughs so that's not a question I don't really see anything in here for you so quick question did you guys like track these changes or you didn't track these changes and that's why there's notes or both so we have one that has track changes this this one was the clean copy Tes put together okay and so this one doesn't have the track changes but we have both so we can give you both yeah that would be awesome I think we sent it to you I mean I trust that the clean version is the clean version um did anyone have any questions on the table or any issues that we have not covered and one of the things that we wanted to do make sure we beefed up the special exception use orders for the drive-throughs in the targeted areas so that was one of the things that so you guys provided those standards already we did not provide the standards we want we provided you with the input that we want you to come up with the standards did anyone have any issues did we had that conversation that one time and I don't know if it was this table or something else about why they created those various manufacturing types did we clarify that like is that like two meetings ago remember where it was like no we need to clarify that stuff yeah oh yeah because those are targeted business sectors in your code like in the city code those very random things and I was like none of these are listed in the use table how would you know where they fall right so then the conversation you guys can talk about it but it was pretty much why would we call them out they're still manf or whatever our recommendation was light manufactur light industry okay yeah we can erase it so that's where so I think what we discovered that was missing uh actually Brian discovered was the home occupation which are some um so it's not an office of convenience but if you have you know a a a business in your home that you have clients coming in so there is a that was intentionally removed because of the preemption there's a state preemption you can have them anywhere you can't regulate where they go anymore the Sant took that away from all of us even with the impact if there is impact doesn't matter I know you can sell guns out of your house you can I've written a determination for it it's crazy okay okay so that's why okay Mass you can do what you want so does there need to be never mind it's a pretty vast preemption it basically says municipalities cannot have rules about this but do we I we can't regulate where they go and I know that obviously it's a whole occupation to be required to have the existing permits and licenses right you still have to get a business tax receipt you still have to like register your business be on sunbiz all that does that mean to be in the code at all just or doesn't matter I mean you're reiterating state law which you could yeah it was some of them actually all of them were um special exception in in a bunch of uh zoning District so that explains yeah sorry I should have done a strike through for that we need to right yeah I'll add it back to do a strip through okay and Sam has the ones with the comments to the side so that we can see what the comments were and we are two minutes till time uh just warning but I'm happy to keep pushing for I don't think there's anything El remain on this unless you all have any other comments questions trust you that all of our comments were covered or answered in some way shape or form so we discussed last time a few things in the in the bonus section are you going to pass on those or you have passed on those comments the bonus we passed the comments on okay so we have to wait and see what we get back right okay Katie did you have any questions about this the information that I sent to you on the bonus with the questions and I don't think so I mean I presented several of them in the PowerPoint today so if I didn't cover the questions that you had we should talk about them but they were in what if if they were written down in the last meeting they were given to you we just may not have seen the final language okay so they haven't provided the final language yet okay so as long as we have a chance to see it when it okay yeah so what's going to happen is we're trying to wrap up um four right so if there are any outstanding issues before they go back and do another draft now is the time to talk about we're hoping this next draft is the final version it's what we budgeted for okay you brought something about s and it triggered me because I was thinking of it before the underground utilities you know the past couple years each the legisl is going again and again to taking you know allowing the underground the utility companies to do whatever they want and not have to recompensate and put back and do things and fix um so I'm like we should make sure that I want to say all these things are done to the highest level I hate to have you know to me it's they should have chases they should have all these things that are in these underground utilities that are out front because come you know well we're going to put new Utilities in and somebody's going to rip it up and you know I'm looking at businesses or HOAs or anything I mean I I know we're not talking about that now but if we can kind of put that in our heads that it seems the legislature is going to whether this year or next it's they've been looking to do it the past couple of years is just allow the um the the companies to not yeah you know hey we can we're going to dig up the fronts and then it's up to you to fix it not us we don't have any responsibility for that anymore um and that's been that's been in legislature the past two years and it's been moving along and then kind but the utility all the utility companies are right there behind it going yeah that's a great idea so they're they're the bigger stick right now and they seem to be pushing forward with that so if we can kind of have that in the back of our head is how do we as we're putting this together so that they do it as engineering Le correct as you know as good to help us later on or whoever is building that in the next phase you know cuz like I said I it seems that's going to be so I agree it's a problem I think that we could put something in the utility section that has some of that language whether it's going to be preempted or have any oh yeah I'm just say how you know again engineering or how it's done like how it should be done that kind of thing and again I know then the engineering laws kick into effect that say hey you can't tell them to do anything you know that kind of stuff but if we could just kind of as we're looking at at this or have it in mind that hey as they're going to be saying you have to plant these many trees you have to do this you have to do this and like you said you're already thinking without thinking and saying well we'll transpose and put these up front versus that but think of the best options that they're going to take away fixing all that sometime very shortly so do you know who can afford Street games utility util well so maybe we should put in the code utilities you have to build the prescribed Street escape on top of those utilities listen they're going to be taking away the taxes and everything that's coming next to they have an army of lawyers de one other thing the um adus we wanted to allow adus only on properties that allow single family residential anything else is it different it is okay so we changed it okay listen you did my work for me that's okay with me only and that's like notes of the clean motion anything else on our public meeting items nope all right so um closing that next is discussion items discussion of meeting times for future meetings the next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday April 16th starting at 2:30 so it's that is a recommended time so we're just making sure everyone can make it okay so we have one no so will you just send out one of those other announcements like are you going to make it so I mean I everybody else fine who said no don don just come late like me just guess what we're gonna talk about listen for 10 minutes as I was driving in I was I was pre for 10 minutes um all right any comments or announcements from the committee members which date did you say was the next meeting April 16th we'll check it to make sure all right if that if we have to change that date just let us all give us enough time all right um it is it is Wednesday April 17th that's wrong on there so let's let's I have Wednesday April 17th it's April 17th so it's April 17th and we're going to change the time we've been changing the time at that's at the regular time so the only no 2:30 we want to check to make sure 2:30 is good for everybody okay you just said 5:30 I'm definitely in for 5:30 and we had Greg Witherspoon coming next time to talk about landscape so hopefully we're getting comments okay on land before that meeting so that we can prepare so are we 5:30 or maybe we need to move this can you can you do 2:30 because it's the new new time is proposed is 2:30 because if we starts 5:30 we're going to leave it I can do 2:30 I don't know if okay Katie April 16th April 17th is not going to be good only because we have to discuss that article first and then um more valuable for me to be here after you guys have discussion I agree so the 16th 17th is not going to take it yeah so we're meeting but but Katie's not coming so does that mean we're at 5:30 or 2:30 2:30 so that we want to start having them at 2:30 or 3:30 the earlier the better so if we cannot get a Corum or if most people cannot make it then we can change it but the earlier the better for Deborah Just for future reference if the meetings are on Tuesday I cannot make them earlier if they're another day it's not a problem okay so um so this one is Wednesday it's going to be the 17th okay I I I cannot make it before the do again but Sam enjoy so much stepping in for you treat I have to be there what time can you make it goes until 23 if I leave by 4 5 o' you know okay so 3:30 perhaps I me I won't be I definitely won't be here until 4:30 or 5 there's there's no way trying to make it push it closer to some until around that time but not that time I mean if you have a quum okay and Sam does did such a good job right thank you I don't know so we had hat discussion today on all right so the 17th is going to be 230 yes so it is the 16 okay is it the public board is it the public board sry back to the 16th at 230 so I can make that one but Don can't you can make 16 you can make the 16 I can make the 16 230 okay but but Don okay the 16th back to Tuesday can you come later I know we're down to are you able to come at a normal time or yes we should at the and try can make one hour discussion on when the meeting sure and I think this was the perfect so just come if you can at that time correct 16th 230 all right and Wednesday the 30th at 2:30 is that one correct Wednesday okay all right um and with nothing else we are adjourned at 6:39 darn good thing you came today so we could I need to but I think we only have two maybe I think we only have me