##VIDEO ID:Cw9yxK6p5z0## e testing e e testing tesed e e e for e e e e [Applause] that's good yeah I know what you mean d making it toight how are you hi I'm good with that okay afternoon it is now 4:38 welcome to the local ping an work session for August 28 okay um at this time I will open up to public comments anyone wishing to speak to the board at this point now is the time to do so uh Mr chairman we U Dr TR K would like to make a short introduction with Miss Kathleen crane she's here from the public Arts board public committee okay and she has it it it has to do with uh uh something they've been discussing about public art and and at adding fees which will affect the code obviously so uh she would like to make a short introduction of Mrs SC and she she is here to talk briefly to the committee which on the hon right zero pressure by me please go go ahead and speak about it now you want to speak let her speak now you want to let let Dr Cay introduce her and talk about so um Kathleen crane is one of our U public art board members I would like um her to speak when I have the opportunity to um ex to tell you about one suggestion that came up uh from the public art board meeting that we discussed yesterday in the LCC um they have an amendment to that so I wanted to show the two proposals um for you all to discuss um so that's something that it's not in the in the um uh package that we distributed and because um it would be better for her to comment when you know what we talking about makes sense all right I will now close the public comments and going to the order of business I guess you're on the floor I guess from staff right so thank you all um well this is the ldcc right we have the the previous one so one of the things that we have been discussing and uh we're going to present today that is not in the packet we have two things one is the public art contribution and the SE second thing is the mitigations for deviations that we want to include in the code we want to have some um clear guidelines or on on how to deviate how to mitigate four deviations and if they have a contribution um how much would be the minimum contribution uh we would like to have it in the code so that we do not have to negotiate with developers um but the public art um um contribution so several so more than 300 cities in the states have a mandatory contribution from development and that is the list that I um showed to you um today that is in the in the on your table um shows the all of those in Florida so right now what we have in the in the public art um board ordinance um is that um actually public art ordinance in the code of ordinances we have for that the city will contribute 1% of every Capital Improvement projects up to $50,000 so every project that the city does that is facility um um Improvement or um new construction um the city dedicates has to dedicate 1% to public art so other cities also ask a similar contribution from the private sector um and the list that you have is just cities in Florida and we have something like 16 you know um cities or that have different levels of contribution um but they all require some contribution from the public sector so this was is what we discussed with the public art board was the initial um recommendation from the public art board and I will show the change that the ldcc proposed yesterday um so first of all the first question that we need to ask and answer is um do we are we okay with requiring a mandatory contribution so that's you know and then if we do if we say yes then we can have minimum threshold we can we have to establish what is the percentage the minimum threshold if there is a cap and there are if there are exclusions so for this one um um the city was um putting to itself 1% um private participation the public out board thought it was should be half 0.5% and um or for Lots for subdivisions would be a contribution of $1,000 per lot for subdivisions greater than 25 um Lots the minimum threshold here for the public sector um there is none so any Capital Improvement project um related to facilities would um be eligible and for the private sector we would start with a valuation of a building above $2 million and then the cap would be for 50,000 for both and then the exclusion would be affordable housing individual single family and duplexes adus parking garages interior Renovations reconstruction if reconstruction is due to fire natural disaster and then Public Schools public schools are excluded anyway because we do not issue building permit for them so they would be excluded anyway but we just put it out there well yesterday in and I'm trying to speak quickly because we have so much to to you know to cover tonight but um yesterday the LCC came with a different proposal so can we show the other one and which I'm also okay and they said well let's simplify um and they said so they said yes for the private um sector contribution but they said let's um bring it to a 0.1% and with no Thresh hold and um a cap no cap for the private sector and everybody contributes so the issue that they had with the initial proposal is that was not Equitable right we were picking and choosing so we were choosing private sector above a certain valuation and at a higher rate and they said well what if we drop the rate to you know um 0.1% so it's going to be a tenth of what the public sector is supposed to contribute but everybody contributes so that would would get more volume you know and nobody's going to be you know um well it's going to be penalized equally in a way right but we are not picking and choosing we're not excluding people because themselves they said well single family home can contribute a little bit you know because it's can we do not have you know homes with a higher valuation for building permit the the valuation is based on on the vertical construction so does not count land and side plans because we already have in the system for the building permit you have to declare the valuation of the construction right so we already have so it's an easy way for us to um to apply and it will be 0.1% so that was their um um uh Amendment and I'm I'm showing both of them so Kathleen is here representing uh um um public art board uh I already told her you know the amendment that happened yesterday and um we will have the opportunity to in September 11th you know to discuss with the public art board whatever um the LPA decides um together with the ldcc um suggestion to see if we find a consensus to move forward and incorporate in the code um to show to city council so miss crane if You' like to say something sure thank you um so as was mentioned uh we discussed this amongst the public art Arts board Monday and then um understand that this counter proposal was made yesterday um so all of us have not been able to review it my initial thought um based on our discussion is favorable to the counter proposal uh just to give you some insight into our discussion we did have a lot of discussion around the exclusions um around the original limit of $1,000 um for uh building lot and the minimum threshold and the potential impact to small businesses and you know on one hand we were trying to be um aware of any impact that might funnel down to you know citizens somebody looking to buy a home and then also to anybody that might be you know starting a business here uh I'd like the Simplicity of um the counter proposal we had also discussed um the effort that would be required to uh govern and oversee this depending on what kind of stipulations and criteria that we have in um this is more simplified as far as managing and assuring that um assuring what's coming in so I did want to mention you know we have made really good progress with the uh board that's in that's sitting on considering and approving a variety of Arts initiatives and there has been uh funding outside of the general fund that has come in over time that we have now allocated with a variety of um art initiatives and some things that I don't think we've had in the city before like a freebie sculpture art uh and even a an event by Opera coming to next year second okay uh so so we're really excited and we have a lot of um traction and energy around what we're considering and what we're able to get approved doing uh a funding source like this would give us a very consistent way and also even more equ Equitable way to predict and to recoup some funds on the scale of whatever work is being done um that would also help our planning and the scope of what kind of initiatives we could consider yeah the other thing that I would add so um right now we have a couple of projects in the pipeline for the um um public art um board and fund um the wings of joy and we we are discussing an opera to be um held in um in February for kids in vondo park but with that and we have the Jolie you know uh watercolor in the golf course as well with that we have exhausted our funds so we need to have you know it would be nice to have a flow of of of revenues to the public art board and I think this would be I also like the the counter proposal although it's much less than other cities are requesting but I think it's a way to start and it's a way that will not be um seen as um a huge penalty right it would be a contribution from everybody and will not be very um you know heavy for you know specific you know groups so so we would like yes we need consensus and discussion if you are on board and uh um which proposal or if you have an amendment or how do you feel about it I personally think it's a great idea I mean it's more Equitable across the board you know from my point of view under this plan it would even include uh remodeling is that correct or no that's a good question to be discussed yeah because we did not but we if if it's not excluded yeah right then it would include remodeling cuz I was just noticing some of these other cities have excluded remodeling repairs things like that um existing homes yeah yeah yeah I would probably want to you bring that a good point maybe do a do an exclusion for remodeling or repairs especially for homes that's the only question I really have that's a good point I support everything else about it that can be an amendment that you all Mr bring I was going to ask what on the other one the one that was the previous year it said $1,000 per up to on the private participate where was it $1,000 per single family right single family a lot single family so the developer would contribute not the U because we are ex and that proposal we were excluding single family homes excluding single family homes on the with this one not not the ldcc ldcc said no everybody should contribute including single family homes because we are dropping the contribution to to um a much lower rate and I think they also they were saying if if public art is a public commodity that everybody uh benefits from then everybody should should contribute contribute I'm I'm going to go back with Mr Smith's idea we should probably exclude remodeling for homes homeowners as well as um repairs especially what's coming down with the new city budget and the tax rate going up I think if we do if we don't exclude it we're going to have a handful of angry citizens on our hands so yeah cuz that means anytime someone wants to has to replace their roof it's going to be on there right yeah exactly anytime there's a permit pulled for anything a pool instulation a roof whatever they're doing it needs a permit this would be on there correct it would so let's see so how much is um is um roof that's I if you had remodeling 20 5,000 I just did mine okay yeah 25,000 how much is the 0 01 0.1% $250 about 250 give or take I I didn't I'm just doing the math on my head yeah so 25,000 $25 $25 that's it so that is what that's what I was trying to get out what what does it really amount to it is so that's because we dropped to so low that even um and and we were making calculations here yeah right so for you to reach um the 50,000 that before was the cap you have to have now a 50 millionar valuation project yeah okay yeah I can live with it a small because what I was trying to do is I know people talk about you know they're working on something and then they got to pull permits and it's already already a couple hundred dollars and now we're adding something else onto it so yeah but at small amounts like that it's small amount so we going to have but what we are going to have is the flow of you know of revenues from these small amounts Ramsey dedicated to the public art fund thoughts yeah I I don't have any thoughts I think that's that's not good thing I think it's a good I think it's seems fine and um it doesn't seem like a lot Lisa can you please switch on your I am in agreement I think I think um that proposal seems like it would work for what we were trying to do okay great thank you do we have consensus I think we'll just leave it like it is okay yeah okay but leave it like it is with the remodel stuff think or leave that in there is that we're saying I didn't think the remodeling I mean to me it doesn't seem to be that big deal yeah I think it's yeah I think it's probably we're going to replace [Applause] yours so we are we good consense can we move to the next topic thank you so the next topic is with with the haris the mitigation yes I can give you mine and you give okay um so we're going to talk about mitigation mitigation uh strategies for site plans and architect poal design orders along with Mobility strategies and so in the previous or in the current adopted code we have uh mitigation strategies that were enumerated uh that an applicant could take advantage of with their architectural design order they were specifically located in the architectural section of the code I can't hear you sorry uh these mitigation strategies were listed yeah yeah can people hear me now hear yeah okay uh these mitigation strategies were specifically located in the architectural section and so anybody that had a deviation from an architectural design plan uh could go ahead and take advantage of these and apply it to to their project what we wanted to do is we wanted to make sure that site plans had the same opportunity got kind of a cafeteria uh list of different mitigation strategies they could provide but also if there's something outside of it they could provide that too some of these have changed and some of them remain the same so we'll just go we'll go ahead and go through the list and later on we'll go through the mobility strategies which the mobility strategies are required by the comp plan but we didn't we never really had a list we had kind of like an informal list that we would share with people we wanted to formalize that a little bit and also kind of provide a value a point value to it so people understood you know if I provide a bike rack what am I going to how many Mobility strategies does that account for we'll get into that in a little bit too so tree preservation that's that's an existing code that hasn't changed enhanced streets this used to be complete streets I had a figure uh we changed this uh to be enhanced streets because uh the way that Co we interpret this if you provide a protected bike lane that's in addition to the code or some other type of enhanced Street development you know that's that's going to be something that's good for the development and we can go ahead and provide that as a mitigation strategy the the weight of that mitigation strategy will be weighed based on what it is that is being provided to this City at the time for that project uh wide sidewalks it used to have I I I don't remember what the uh I believe it was 6 or 8 ft uh but instead of putting a the size of the sidewalk what we said is 2 feet wider than what is required and so having wider sidewalks is beneficial for uh multi-use paths or uh bikes being able to fit more people onto that type of network and so we wanted to be able to promote that kind of activity Mobility strategies which are listed below any of those would be able to uh count towards of for mitigation and the point value that's listed there below would apply for the amount of mitigations to account for communities for lifetime which is a a state program basically it's to be provide for uh elderly communities uh and off by offering things like elevators or master bedrooms that are on ground floors stuff of that nature this was existing and the code has not changed low impact development another one that is existing in the code has not changed it's for um engineering storm water solutions such as green green RS porse uh Paving bios swales so on and so forth uh charging stations another one what's included in the code currently has not changed use of environmentally friendly design practices another one that's in the code has not changed health health design Solutions uh this is currently in the code has not changed Community Gardens internal bicycle Lanes uh outdoor communal uh fitness equipment as well public amenities another one that's in the code has not changed uh vertical mix use uh public art uh in this one this one was in the code however what has happened in the past the opportunity for you to provide public art r on your site was in the code but providing a dollar amount to the city um that was always kind of a negotiated conversation and so we wanted to create an amount and that amounts tied to the fee ordinance and can be and can be adjusted from time to time uh 13 other mitigations so if somebody brings something that's not in this list commonly for site plans um uh somebody is not able to put in a large tree in a landscape island or they're not able to put in a landscape Island and they often uh pay one large tree payment to the tree Bank that' be another mitigation that you go provide it's not list on this list but they would be able they will be afforded that if uh they took advantage of number 13 and then uh number 14 talks about the number of mitigations and so and we'll get into it when we get into down below Ado has a c kind of a cap on the amount of mitigations that are required from a project which is up to three and we'll get into that in a second but for the site plan it's one mitigation per per deviation or or it may be one mitigation per deviation and so sometimes uh you know a particular deviation is clustered for instance uh you know your reduction of parking may involve a couple of different deviations of standards and we'll consider that is a mitigation but often times we ask for a mitigation per deviation and that's what the that's what number 14 is about any questions about the site plan mitigations well in again the site plan mitigations are also um applied to the architect or architectural deviations are able to use mitigations from the uh from that list as well in addition to the list above architectural mitigations are able to utilize is number one listed in this section which is architectural elements that are provided on the project uh sometimes people provide a prominent uh prominent facade feature or uh some other type of architectural element that enhances the project and that's what that that item is for and then again we reference the number of mitigation techniques here it's cap to three and so the way that it works if let's say project has 10 uh deviations that are on it well it only the amount of mitigations that are required are based on the highest percentage of any of those deviations and so if the highest percentage of the deviation was 18% well only one mitigation will be required if it were between 20 and 50 it would be two mitigations and if it's above 50 then it would be required to have three any questions about that perfect um C is a reference to we don't want to double dip our the mitigations that are being used or mitigations bonuses and strategies and so anyway if you're using one for mitigation then you can't use it for a bonus so on and so forth if you're using something for a bonus you can't use it for mitigation or Mobility strategy all right go ahead it's just a curious question so on all the different mitigation we're basically planning for deviations so we can still say no to a deviation right we're not we're not okay that's I just want to make sure it's not like developers decide all right well I know this doesn't match but I got to give three Dev three mitigations and I'm good you know that's a great question and and you're absolutely right this is going into uh article two and in article two it talks about how each deviation is independently evaluated the criteria to independently evaluate it what we're trying to do is we're trying to f shot a cafeteria of options to provide devel because we often get asked what oh how am we going to mitigate right so we're trying to provide a cafeteria list for people to you really to kind of make it a little bit easier on us but also make it easier on develop so they posses but not have to we don't have to correct now it's not an obligate so it's not we're not required to so it's just so it's very hard um many times especially in architecture but in site ples as well um depending on the side conditions you know to to meet all the and and it's hard for the code also to predict all situations right so there is this section that talks about flexibility in the administration allowing for deviating for quantifiable measures of the code it's just quantifiable measures and um and uh they have to justify and we have to say if it's they're applicable right if just give us more concrete guidelines as basically we try it's just get for the mitigations because and that is the portion we we we had good guidelines if meets the intent of the code or not but how to mitigate that was especially with the contribution for instance for the public art if we were not we did not want to be the ones establishing the amount um so far we have received from $500 to 25 t, for one mitigation you know um element so um it is a it's at the generosity of the developer so we would like to what is the minimum of course if you want to give 50,000 for one and you're fine with that we would accept but what is the minimum that we could accept we would like that to be established in the code so that it it removes the burden and the ambiguity of of Staff doing you know because we were at one point I heard that staff was selling deviations so we did not sell deviations are sure we did not we we if deviations are you know granted you know per code um then there is a way to mitigate and would like so more clarity from the so are you fine with the 5,000 contribution I would like to make sure that especially the contributions to the monetary contributions that you will fine right no it's this is the we established that a minimum now contribution and again this is one of the possible mitigations Right sometimes it's a easy way out for developer to say okay I pay 5,000 I I like public C I pay 5,000 and I don't have to you know I'm I'm I'm okay but um we want to make sure that the board is okay and we have another monetary contribution that you haven't spoke yet right the right yeah the mobility strategy portion of it correct and and just for instance if somebody is trying to reduce their buffer like we saw in all in office or something like that you know public order contribution is not an appropriate Devi or mitigation for that strategy you know providing some type of screening or buff or you know uh mitigation for the reduction in that buffer is going to be the appropriate not breaking any loation right exactly so uh to Mobility strategies um like we said before the Mount of Mobility strategies is is required by the comprehensive plan it's based on your PM Peak for trip generation and uh it goes up to it so it's between 1 and six so you're required to have uh either one mobility strategy up to six Mobility strategies and you can pick from this cafeteria of options you can also provide something that's not on this list um but we wanted to have a working list for people to be able to get some ideas about what they can provide to the for their project and so items that would account for 0. five of a Mobility strategy are bike repair station bench for Street Furniture or other Street Furniture additional bike racks uh for one mobility strategy the development provides sidewalks with a width of at least 2 ft above the minimum requirement accepted by the city engineer cover bike racks or lockers bus shelter without bench shower for employees micr Mobility parking space with signage pedestrian crossing lights uh for Mobility strategies account as two uh shared path minimum uh 10 ft wide that makes a viable connection zip car bus shelter with bench covered bench and raise crosswalk and then moving down to Mobility strategies for that count as three shared micr Mobility system micr Mobility access points in addition to vehicular access points add uh additional vehicular access points for uh from the minimum required Mobility Hub enhanced streetscape with shaded trees along pedestrian Pathways enhanced lighting at intersections for pedestrian path for added visibility and safety enhanced accessibility pedestrian systems which is the uh the crosswalk systems that kind of talk you know they they say walk stop that kind of thing um upgraded bike facility per uh per the street and sidewalk section of the code and then uh subsidized transit for developments within 800 ft of a Transit stop and so that concludes the list of three Mobility strategies uh then the fourth portion of it is that mon Rec contribution that Teresa was referencing uh which would be at a rate of 10,000 and could change from time to time in the fee resolution questions any questions no okay I you know such as the other section other strategies are allowed um and then the number of strategies oh there the number of strategy conversation basically says that any of those strategies can be assessed to be greater than the weight that's provided if you know based on that analysis and so for instance if a street were to be enhanced and you know it's a complete Street and they were only required to provide you know travel lanes and a sidewalk then maybe that's going to count for more than just three Mobility strategies maybe that would count for four or five as a as an example what may happen that would be an arbitrary decision right we would well I I guess you could call it an arbitrary decision but we would have staff and our consultant and look at so again it's difficult if you go back to the the the strategies if I have a large development and I'm providing upgraded sidewalk internally MH to the that has value we going to say because the mobility strategies the number of Mobility strategies is based on the comprehensive plan policy and its number of trips so you may have to provide five six seven Mobility strategies so if you provide something from that list that has a volume right or a scale that we say yeah that can be upgraded to 405 this everything that we do is a l use administrator decision which is you know it's our city manager when when it reach to that level and that would be you know written in the side development order or in a development agreement or you know so it it's memorialized in a document and of course we will hear our um transportation consultant and um public works so it is arbitrary in a way but it's we share the responsibility and the accountability right for those decisions yeah no any comments looks good okay so this is going to the code so now it's coming the improvisation part because I'm replacing Deborah so I'm not going to be as good as Deborah in presenting her own PowerPoint that I only what are you doing now we are going now to floodways article 10 um and if staff remember anything important that I'm missing please jump in but uh let me get to the PowerPoint here that I'm going to follow so this one um this article um did not have many changes and it's basically uh Public Works uh contribution um so they changed section 10.1 to add roadways to um um as permissible use in flood planes and I think that is already to match the engineering standards actually we're going to confirm that cuz ldcc asked the question yesterday but I think that's already um it was already it was just making things consistent um so these were all kind of provided uh comments that were provided um by uh Public Works the other section that was changed um was C1 um and that was to make the requirements um meet ordinance number 1709 yeah as amended from time to time we all always make that disclaimer because we we can change the you know the ordinance um and then the other one was um to make reference to the engineering standards in b Deborah will give you the the the page there yeah there really weren't um it was mostly technical changes in here here it is um referencing engineering standards manual or the city engineer as you can see here there really wasn't much lingo I mean a lot deleted but you can see here engineering engineering manual standards General technical standards and underground storm water system standard so these are all you know um things that FEMA ask us to to change and update um so we were just really updating you know language and um so there's no the staff engineer or the Consulting engineering no our engineering from public works okay storm water is is um done by the city yeah and and that's actually it it's it's it's about five or six esm references and then changing to city engineer a couple times but there's actually no significant language change in here and you can see the comments of Paul Jorgen he's our one of our city Engineers assistant city engineer do you have any questions on flood planes and flood ways no I mean it's an issue we have to address an easy one that was an easy one so we moved to article 11 which is streets and sidewalks correct so this one we there's still some confusion and we trying still to get because this is was the first um draft from um kimle horn um we we still have some questions um on that um and actually we promis ldcc that we are going to bring back because um there is um so this table 11.1 um we staff is putting back the commercial um uh street street type although we need to Define what is a Commercial Street we do not have defined in the in our LC so we have to see you know if that changes anything right um but also the travel lanes and travel width um the the code allows for a reduction in the pavement width for collector Road from 24 ft 22 to 22 ft with the city engineer approval and allows for a reduction from 24 to 24 local streets also with the um city engineer approval and yesterday some members of the LDC were saying well we should make the opposite because we want um narrower um lanes because they are safer narrower Lanes make you know they they are treated as a caling device as a traffic caling device so most cities are doing you know forcing you know um um reduction in the width and also to allow for other modes for bike lanes and bike paths and so they claim that it should be the opposite we should require L and ask um if you you providing more then it's at the discretion of the city engineer so we are going to clarify you know what is the position of Public Works if what they want um to have because there is a movement to reduce the width of the road it's less pavement and it is a common device so we are going to clarify what is going to be the position so this we're going to bring back um for the so they want to make the roads narrower that is the trend the trend is to to make it narrower for two reasons one we have to the right away um should be used for other modes of transportation right so we want to stimulate bike paths and bike lanes and we're going to discuss that the difference right um so we want to give room to other modes of transportation the second thing is that if you reduce the the um the weth the Lane becomes safer the more comfortable Lane it is faster they the faster you go and this region not of V but the Orlando metropolitan area is considered number one in the country in fatality so we are winning you know the the the bad in the bad it's it's and it's a um a report that every year is issued and it's than by Design it's danger because it's you know so we we because we want to simulate mix use we want to stimulate people walking to places biking to places we need also to to ensure that the infrastructure is is aligned with what we want right so this is the trend um so we need to kind of clarify and and see if if everything is is aligned with what we want um so we were going to bring that table back but the other thing that we also um discussed was um when we require bicycle lanes and um shared lanes and bicycle paths and Keyhole lanes that we're going to explain what it is so shared Lanes The Proposal is that shall be provided where the posted speed limit is less or equal than 25 miles per hour and share Lanes some um places called sherrow is those lanes that bike and cars share and usually you see a big bicycle printed on the pavement it's it's less safe so it should be only you know allowed where the speed is um is um is uh uh not very high right it's slow it's it's it's it's low uh one of the issues that we um the language here said that share lane markings show be provided where bicycle Lanes or off Street facilities are not required so that would mean that every city every Street in the city would have those markings I rais that point and I I assume it would be a huge cost for the city so I need to clarify with public works and even with the city um manager if we if this is going to be a requirement of the code right CU we do not want to impact Public Works in a way that maybe we should choose where there is a clear path right uh of uh bike routes reaching right because we do want all subdivisions in the city to have to have those I can see the markings primarily on the main arteries but some of those arteries are over mil yeah the arteries are are not for that yeah so so you're talking about you're talking about subdivisions in that case then well because every subdivision local road is at 25 right lower or up to 25 right corre so if we require those markings um we need to clarify that that situation but this is this is where we're going to have the sharos or the shared Lanes is on Street that have um a low um speed if we are going to require the markings or not or where the markings should be there should be um required that's a question that we need to clarify and I would say if you're very close to the trail right that there is a a clear path to the trail yeah it would be wise because then we know there are bikers there right uh we should have the markings required but maybe not to the whole city so that's going to something we're going to clarify bicycle Lanes shall be used on curved roadways with a posted um speed greater than 25 miles up to 35 so uh bicycle Lanes is when you have they are on the same level they just you just have a marking this is the lane but there is no obstacle between the lane and the and the um bike section yeah and the so this this is this is a this is a lane this is a lane example I guess would be Lockwood for lack of another example I guess on my part but no one does 35 yeah they go fast right well that's a different discussion that's a different that's a police discussion right an enforcement discussion but yeah you're right I mean so I would also argue Lockwood is a lot more comfortable to drive on than 419 if you will I would agree with that or or 434 or some of the other roads out there so you know while while people may not maintain 35 there are some people out there that do and from a from a personal standpoint of a person that bikes in the road from time to time when I have to um there's just a different feel when you have the speed limit out there it's 35 as opposed to 45 and the and bik lanes are not required that so we also discussed yesterday because there is this language in red bike lanes are not required residential subdivisions with fewer than 100 homes or alleys but the speed limit would already kind of exclude subdivision so we may remove that language um we also have let's discuss first the bicycle path or let's discuss Keyhole Lanes I don't know if you know what it is I did not know but the ones that you have the lane that is next to a turn lane so we have one in 434 next to Chapman if you're approaching you know from Winter Park if you're approaching Chapman from South um you have that situation and it's kind of I always cuz I turn right I always look twice to see if there's a biker coming um to to you Crossing so cars will cross the lane so that's called kho Lane um and and um so and that gives where it's going to be present right approaching an intersection adjacent to a a bus Bay or parking lane and then um bicycle path is when you have a bike lane with um either um strip of landscape like an open space in between it's protected and or you have um erased you know Concrete in little you know um division that separates you know the that's where it's really safe right to um to bike and but it requires more um width of the road so any questions on that any suggestions are you all comfortable with that language we're going to clarify those points that we discussed maybe in the next shared you know LPA ldcc meeting will clarify those we did add this language as well for Mobility strategies that if you know you go out of your way to upgrade the bike facility on your site uh from one category to the next um above whatever the minimum is then you can also uh apply that as a mitigation and Mobility strategy yeah anything that um improves other modes of transportation can be used as a Mobility strategy that's that's the goal and when they contribute to the moob mobility funds that's it's another dedicated account that only can go to um improving mobility in the city any questions yes when you were talking earlier about the width of car the car Lanes making them narrower is that in this to add bike Lanes in on existing roads and I mean I guess like when you were talking about neighborhoods I mean bikes are on bikes are a vehicle so bikes could be on a street any place right they they can that's the Shar at a speed the the only thing if there is a confrontation it's not a beautiful oh you result and and that's why it's only allowed with the when the speed is not very high but even at 25 M hour yeah you can kill someone right a kid you can so that incumbent upon all the vehicle operators whether they driving a car or riding a bicycle to be aware what around correct one would hope absolutely yeah it's absolutely but still right putting things in here that should be a given if you ask me and like the signs about the share signs is like every neighborhood has kids and people riding their bikes on the road I think is right well I I think you're right and just speaking from observation I don't think people really recognize uh that bikes belong on the road and have a right to the road at all times not not everybody shares that perception or understands that perception or let let alone understands that statuto written that way yeah I think it's um it's also since we have more people you know biking and walking on the street this this will change right right but it's an educational proc sometimes you don't see right so I think the marking for instance is good because it reminds you that you are on a street that is shared cuz when you're going to work going to you may not remember and you may not see them or but but it's on both sides right some bikers sometimes are very bold too right so they risk themselves in situations as well so it's kind of it's It's both sides so it's it's just how how do we can C leave right or it's educating and I say that from my own personal experience from my son he was was driving he was riding his bike to school one morning it was raining and somebody HIIT him going through the you know through the different subdivision entrances so I think the drivers really need to be more connaissance of what's around their surroundings and I think the issue is the mornings in the afternoon especially in the mornings people wanting to get to work rush and and are distracted yeah I think is is the main issue so I think some signage somewhere is going to be needed yeah I I agree uh if we can get your consensus the ldcc did have a consensus last night to remove the uh requirement for the shared Lanes in these uh residential subdivisions for sure without a doubt I I don't see the need for that one of them was talking about instead requiring like a sign maybe by the speed limit sign saying that you're on a shared Lane right you're on a shared that's not idea now but there is consensus I mean is it is it the cost is that the problem yeah cost and and maintenance cost of of keeping because if if if the markings fade you have to restrip right talk about the markings on the actual on the as yeah that get get but you have to it has to be noticed in some way right well you put a sign up by the speed limit someone mentioned right the putting some kind of signage with speed limits or like hey you're on a shared path like watch for bikers yeah I'm not opposed to that okay I guess my opinion is bikes can be everywhere and everybody should be aware of it so it's it's like we're we're we're noting something that to me is a given right so but is it it's required by law right is it required by no if it's required by law we follow the law I don't think it is not okay bicycles are Vehicles bicycles are vehicles and they're allowed on the road yeah that's that is all but but the shared paintings is not yeah okay so you're not required to notify people on these subdivisions that there's also going to be bikes okay yeah no so as the the code was written here this proposal is to H every street has to have those markings right so we would have to paint you know the streets and um so we need to clarify with Public Works we need to clarify you know we we want to we want to have some information out there okay especially I think in in routes there are next to the trail that we know these are the this is how you access the trail right um so some streets of may have to have that but not all of the neighborhood streets even even okay are we good to move forward any I think I it's just my opinion everybody else is okay with that's fine I just think it's Overkill I think that I don't think we need signs on the street I don't think we need Signs by the speed limit sign to say there might be bikes here because that's just a g but let is a given but but a lot of people get distracted and forget that they are I mean so for instance Le jazp I didn't know it's probably 25 miles an per hour yeah per that's a perfect example ride on that road all the time but it's a but it has the trail exactly very close right so you imagine that you have a lot of bikers accessing the the trail so if I had to pick a you know I would pick those treets that are very close to the trail that you know have you know I live over there I ride on I ride my bicycle on that street all the time so that's why I'm thinking okay this is okay but that's just my opinion so the next vly disagree with your opinion no I want a little action here tonight in this corner okay you you're going to get back to us on that right yeah okay yeah cool streets and sidewalks I think that's the next onean fa pedestrian facilities yeah oh you need so there here here so there was a um so kimly horn proposed to increase the width from 5 ft to 6 ft for sidewalks and to increase um the setback from a sidewalk to the edge of the roadway which is the pavement from 4 to 7 feet again this I think the L CC um gave the consensus for six it did but asked some questions about this um increasing the minimum from 4 to 7 because in some situations that's not possible I'm just going to say 7 ft is way too much I mean I can see the six feet for the sidewalk but the the setback uh of of 7 ft from the roadway Edge I think we're not it's going to be tight on some areas yeah and just to be so in some of the streetscape sections what they show is a 5ft landscape area where your tree would go and so that would be F that would the 7 ft would accommodate the curb and the 5ft landscape area curb is generally 2et in S 2 feet in width okay depending on the type curve that's being applied I mean I can see see dealing both at six feet personally yeah so you you it's up to the board to to give a consensus the ldcc said to readdress right yeah they did not settle on a on a on a number so they wanted to um also to have um um a lower number do you want to propose something do you want to see what I would do six feet on both I'm good with the first one and then seven from four to to six instead of seven I'm good with that yep okay so LPA proposes 6 feet and we're okay with the 6 foot sidewalk this is this table this is a 6ot table right yep so we're talking sidewalks as wide as these tables yep almost get two bikes kind two bikes so it's really are we making bike paths no it's not protected bike path is protected um bike paths are going to be wider that I'm I'll be honest that's my bike lane to the sidewalk exactly that's CU I'm I'm afraid of the some of these roads yeah I'm afraid of the shared path so I go through the sidewalks it's not comfortable but I go to the sidewalk yeah um so now we are in um General layout of streets the dead ends yeah dead ends so there was this new language saying that dead ends um are not allowed in downtown core and downtown transition and um and and outside um those um future land use designations they should be limited to conditions where Wetlands water bodies and infrastructure corridors prevent connections so we want to have connections right that ends C the sags do not propose you know connections the only thing I think we discussed yesterday so they were fine with the prohibition in the downtown for downtown transition outside the those those areas they discuss also prohibiting but then they understood that there are limitations and we also gave limit ations to existing um development right right they did not want to um impose that on existing or the dead ends on existing yeah okay what is that they did not want one how would that worried about live o and Sanctuary no that's that's not for the they were they I think they um because we talked about the development so we have one subdivision actually a resident just called me to ask for that that is coming at Lake jip uh North Lake jaip and it's two large existing Lots today um that will be subdivided into 13 um single family detached homes so another little subdivision but the only way and they are meeting all the code requirements for lot sizes for the street the only way he can do they can do that is having one road with the KAC um accessing because they cannot access anything else see I I would I I personally would disagree you know we've had discussions here and I'm I'm sure of the CC is also we've got to stop these dead end one entrance roads uh subdivisions we we've got to find some you know I I understand that you know land pricing is expensive but we're falling back into that same old trap where we building these having any subdivisions with one entrances coming in and out and and then when we try to open open a road up or do something the homeowners complain so we have to we have to break that mold somehow so we uh I agree with you for larger subdivisions so for um and we the code I don't think you should discriminate between large and small I think it should be a blanket you you got to have multiple entrance and esses on all your just causes more issues but this one for instance I they would have to remain as they are cuz they are two long Lots fronting so they are very large Lots they can imagine they together they can um um have 13 subdivision or 13 R1 homes with a road but they cannot access cuz everything else else around them is developed with subdivisions so they cannot you know so they may have I understand that but I but we've got to start looking Beyond I totally agree I'm I'm not a a cesac you know um Advocate at all but so we have in the code that's um we do not have for subdivisions but we will have in this newly right uh we're going to propose that but for town homes for multif family anything that has more than 25 units have to have two access points yeah because you're talking the downtown core which was designed yeah I agree with you as far as no C sacks in that area but some of these infill ones where it's not that big an area you can't have yeah it's difficult to um to some of them if you're in a corner you can do a Lube right and still you have to but if you are in the middle of a block and you if you have a large lot that you can subdivide the only way is to to find and that also brings you back and I hate to go back to it but the sidewalk issue that we just talked about so I know I'm looking at where we were and it used to say arterial collector on other streets but now it's you're saying we need a six foot sidewalk and six feet from the road on any anywhere there's a new Street building so and I'm looking at the width of this table here and I'm thinking some of these subdivisions where's the person's front yard you're telling my front yard is going to be having a 6ft path down the middle of it I mean a sidewalk that was a normal sidewalk I think is fine but I think in some of these well what no cuz I think what happens like some of the older neighborhoods right you've got the street you've got then the grassy plane and then you have the sidewalk so that glass grassy plane now is going to become part of the sidewalk there won't be any any there won't be any grass not towards the home owner towards the it's coming it's coming away from the home Oh I thought the 6 foot was from the Ed it says from the edge of the roadway yeah so you would eliminate that that S I don't know what you want to call it I mean it's a right away easan I guess right no we we would not eliminate we guarantee that it's 6 feet of grass between the sidewalk and the and the and the road so you get the road you got a six so the road is a pavement right the pavement so then everything's the right away right so everything we talking about is in the in the public or private RightWay so we have the road usually you have a strip of landscape right that now they saying it has to be 6t from and and Harris was saying two two feet is the curb two feet okay so you got Road the distance it's going to be smaller it's going to be a smaller four foot strip of grass or whatever four or five depending on how we land on wide sidewalk and six foot sidewalk so that's why the lanes I disagree will be will be um um narrower okay for New Roads right so are you okay with um prohibiting dead end um roads in the core yeah and allowing outside a core yeah and what about allowing only when there is when there are limited conditions water bodies yeah water bodies umru infastructure and I think yesterday we included development dise have to go back and listen to the according for the bad Dan it seems to didn't we discuss to include um development as well you don't remember yeah as one of the restrictions if there is development around it that you cannot right if the conditions yeah so we discussed that the other thing that we discussed is that and I I don't think it's here but um if in those situations that um right away that street is going to be private there was um there were some comments in the past when we took things to council um that some council members said if a road doesn't connect to anything it's it's necessarily a private road because if it does not give access to the public then it's going to be a private road the city doesn't want dedication of cool thex right anymore so are you okay with that I'm good with I'm okay yeah did you want to revisit the sidewalks what else do we have here um we can we can bring it back up for discussion you want to what what do you want to bring back want he wants to bring back the sidewalk sure unless they told to one if you don't agree I just think that having a 6ot sidewalk in the T and the spacing we just mentioned here with the way they're building and I know we're not building that many single family homes anymore so maybe that's what I'm focusing on but I just think that's a huge sidewalk a huge strip of concrete down somebody's front yard wider than a typical 4 foot sidewalk that we might have today it's just a lot of concrete so I disagree with having have a six foot sidewalk in a residential neighborhood saying that every street has to have that and if no one else agrees I guess it doesn't matter but that's me so you're more against the first part no he's more against the at the sidewalk yeah yeah he's yeah the first part yeah so like you like you just mentioned um we are building very few single family homes these days everything's either apartments or tow houses yeah so for those I'm not too concerned I'm thinking more that well would apply apply to town homes right because town homes are face a street right multif family usually face driveways so they are not they are not Street they don't have to build although they function in streets they they have to build as the same standards as streets because they are not streets but town homes they if they are simple if they're single family you know homes they they face a street so that would apply for New Town home communities think more the res more of the same I'm thinking of these infill neighborhoods we're talking about that that would be oneway streets because you're going to build 10 or 20 houses and you got one street so it doesn't connect right right which that becomes a private road now and now but now you're saying this become a private road oh that's true but you're still requiring a six foot wide sidewalk across those neighborhoods right I would it's well the the more asphal or the more concrete um not asphal more concrete um uh argument is an argument too rise Bruce for whatever if it's any constellation they do have this language here too if sidewalks are not feasible a fee equal to the cost of constructing sidewalk it doesn't exactly affect your six foot um I don't know if you want to add language if a six- foot sidewalk is not feasible I can see 5 foot if you want to go 5 foot so right now the standard is what four feet foot five five we increased it was 4T inre the older ones are all fourt yeah most have um with the aratal standards will be increased to five and then um so like your neighborhood my neighborhood four four four feet yeah right well what's the reason for increasing it to the six like bikes so it's it's to increase for different modes of you know more people um walking biking scooting with a scooter with you know but in those neighborhoods it's a shared Lane they're going to ride on the street or but if you I don't know if a a six-year-old feels comfortable biking on the on the road right so yeah and if you walking your dog and there's a stroller you know a wheelchair right those are the things I know that we like walked our dog and there's a guy on a bicycle we have off the sidewalk come through so you have 6ot seems good seems nice I like the six foot I'm comfortable with it effect I think it's brilliant I mean I see both sides of the argum me too I see both sides I prefer the six myself yeah I prefer six thank you for checking thank you for checking again okay where were we you're it's good to have discussion absolutely and we are here for best here yeah we want you all to be ambassadors of the code when it's adopted uhoh cuz you have been you wrote the code with us right when people say Teresa's code service is code you say no no it's all of us um where are we so here the the um with right roadway design standards right that's where we at let me see um so this is proposing um well to it's explained to accommodate multimodo um and variety of users um this section is intended to acknowledge um and provide guidance so the they're providing from 11 to 12 foot wide vehicle travel lanes and that is what we were talking you know [Music] um there were some questions yesterday to check um these standards on based on the complete Street section right so so how question we're dropping it down a foot right just basically what you're saying the traffic LS streets down a foot how is that going to affect potentially affect the uh Vehicle Safety Vehicles like the fire Eng so it should not affect because they they have to that gets preceden right they have to be able to to um to travel the thing is with that we discussed yesterday um is on street parking y on street parking is what many times blocks right depending on the position that the the so I think if we be if that is we go for a reduction then we have to maybe establish more limitation for on street parking or on side or whatever you know of the street what is the width of a fire truck I they ask for 20ft clear I think or 20 clear 20 right if we have a two 22t travel Lane the the vehicle a vehicle on the road is 8T wide and so whatever that clearance is that's the clearance that they need to have they need to on a 24 hold on sorry 16 foot yeah 16 cuz my concern is like you know like part of 419 hypothetically it's not being wide so now we have two lanes of oncoming and going traffic right and if we narrow that down to 11 foot right it's going to be pretty tight where where are you changing existing roads are so there is a proposal to change Alexandria I know and I think Alaia Woods Boulevard as well this is already in the before nothing related to the code already in the in the so that's my my only concern there is if if we've got a just a two-lane you know in opposite directions yesterday one of the Terell said one of the fire one of one of the fire plans examiners um said that um an 18t they would be able to get their truck down an 18t wide uh with the particular project we were looking at that had a 18t with no traffic G no traffic right but but now I'm thinking there's going to be traffic so now if one lane is only 11 more less or and and the El left 24 you got a car is eight so now you've got 16 out that 24 how is he going to get through yeah because you've got uncoming traffic right so all and they' got no place for that those cars to get off the road that was one of the consider so earlier in the there was a table above where they reduced from 24 to 22 going from 12 to 20 and so that's the consideration that Public Works is going through right now and they also wrote language in here to that the city engineer has to approve and so that's the but but they're thinking about that clear that's the best practices for the fire engine to be able to get through because the assumption is that people are going to park on the street because they had the all the fire department um reviews all our plans M right so they have to yeah and and the fire prevention code doesn't have deviations my only concern is if you Ro is being you know if you got a fire engine coming and you've got he's got a car in front of him and a car coming and there's no room for either car to get up away yeah he's going to have to slow down for one of the vehicles to clear so that he can go around the other vehicle yeah I you know it causes some mentally for me logically I'm I'm having is there a consensus to check with the yeah that would be the consensus please on right yeah that yeah it's I think they have the that would glor yeah that's comment right there underneath yeah exactly GL is one of our engineers and she's she's noted this there is also and I'm just reading you know here General uh comments from public work there is some they want to check um consistency internal consistency CU one section you know the complete streets shows something the other one the table show something else so we we need to check all the internal consistencies as well um me see what is the next um oh it's it's because this is where it gets cloudy yeah that's so that's the the do we have anything else that we needed to to talk on the in 11 the the article starts to contradict itself a bit and so we're kicking it back CL please clean this up yeah that works okay clity is good okay so we are done with streets and sidewalks now we have recreation in open space article 17 um so they included an in an in portion that talks about the intent of the of open space and uh um where we have um where we have um exemptions so this language I think there was oh we wanted to bring it back the 10% requirement right cuz they they removed open space shall refer to any portion of a possible or area of land of water um and we say it was less than 10% of um the of requirement and we say up to 10% it's just the maximum is 10% so we we made that change and the rest we had no comment was just good good language to have um as a a preamble to the to the article then um the table 17.1 um the comprehensive plan established at the minimum home open space requirement is 25% but exempts the downtown um core and downtown transition future land use so um the LC today required um additional um open space for puds so it's 30% and we are putting everything at 25% which is the minimum and then um the down on core and out on transition we just show a zero because that's what the comprehensive plan you know establishes so that is um already there and we cannot contradict the comp plan and and usually the reason is that it it will be given as a park as a Central Park or something so in the downtown we have the Central Lake Park in the old downtown we have the Solari Park so this is the area that you know we should congregate we still want development to provide something like some open space and now we give as a bonus um for the development um minimum comments here this let me see here um this is the types they oh yes it's just changing um materials to um yes favors right and I think we wanted to bring it back right we we asked them to bring back materials and we crossed out the the pavers why they just specified pavers okay yeah so these were minor um changes yeah there weren't many changes our P our parks and wreck uh went through this okay and that is all right for um recreation in open space there really weren't I only have three slides here yeah that's that's there was hardly any changes and it's quite a small quite a small article so we are getting further than the LTC yeah yeah yeah we spent a lot of time on parking last night I'm beating Deborah now we're going to signs signs we have coron Bartley here our zoning um administrators she's she's the one that um um basically applies administer this portion of the code but I'm going over here and Kuran May jump in whenever she feels like it so first of all do and I should ask before we start do you have any comments issues with signs anything that you would like to see or or you if you read it or more neon neon yeah so let's go so the beginning was just formatting things and creating def definitions for um different signs um we established also that um please so Master indu plans um must present a master signage plan um we had that in park um and that helps you know to kind of unify you know the area and to have wayf finding and everything following the same pattern um we are also requiring that to the um ml that we are reviewing for the old downtown which is now the water tower district um so that was one of the comments here um the second one um oh the issue of the signed background okay here we are so yes so over there so here what what we do with u um signage is based on square footage right on sizes and when you only have letters right as we were showing like that we kind of TI tend to box it in a in a shape so that we can um have have the the sign area so I think this one is showing these are possible sign areas that we have to calculate um but if you have like in the one in ABCD and they do not have um a background we will box it in to show this is the sign area because we calculate on sign area um so the prohibited sign background what is that onean that that picture over there is that we would not we would not count as the whole thing right because the background is a different texture or color than we would count it as a sign area okay so why why that one is shown as prohibited sign background you clarify that a little bit for that one is prohibited because we prohibit a bar a full bar going across the front of the building when you when you mean a bar you mean like a mounting bracket for the signage no it's uh or just the texture of the finish of the building it's just say like a different color you might notice that on the gas stations on the canopy they have like a red or a green that goes across we prohibit it for most retail stor fronts from having that one specific color going across as a as a band why it was in the code yeah that's the way it is today yeah that's the way it is today and we don't mind changing that can we change it I like I mind changing to the better right because I think it doesn't make sense yeah well exactly I mean because it would it aesthetically could because a lot of things that happen in businesses right especially in these shopping centers right you've got all this folage that block some of the signage so something like that would give you the contrast and people would see the the name a little bit more visible but Kon is it prohibited as a sign feature or it's prohibited because we don't want it get caught up in the sign area basically but I mean if my if my architecture has a band we do not prohibit the band and then you have a sign in the middle exactly so but if I bring a sign that has a a sign has the the so I don't I I would not say prohibit just that I would count everything if everything is a sign you would count everything if it's a sign because I think this is to avoid having like a super red background in a sign here but I'm said um this the sign is only that but this the whole thing is is being used as a sign but you took the APC the left on the right you still got the architectural Banner is just a small area in the middle yeah so in that case it wouldn't be wouldn't be allowed yeah if it's a sign crossing the whole facade then it would count as a sign area if you have that sign area yeah you can do it if you not if right if if you don't then you cannot but if it's part of the building structure um then yeah you can have yeah right I think that's we so I think we need to clarify that uh yes we need to clarify because we had one like um May tires if you notice that that was part of their building sign look to have that band going across so it was not necessarily because they were changing their sign background it just came with their color scheme so we need to look into that and we prohibited it we we kind of allow them to they kind of cut in the band that kind of created need to visit that some what you think I don't I agree signs have a lot of complexities they do it's one of the Articles of the code that is kind of has a lot of um um meat inside more than sidewalk more than sidewalk me on yeah it's it's true um so what else did we have here so we have consensus to revisit to revisit and and FL this why it's prohibited and if it needs to be prohibited why why that's uh why is this being included in Pro prohibited signs yeah when we have multifaced signs um um we kind of allow we allow the square footage to be one side in one side yeah we um calculate only one side for the freestanding signs no multiphase signs the maximum number of Serv visible from any location will be counted provided however all service of a side shall be equal in size in height and contained with a common perimeter is that that's the new language this proposed language yeah it's not existing defition yeah all we did was ask him yeah the consultant to provide a definition for for a multiface sign here okay I need to understand that language better cuz I yeah I'm I'm a little confused on that too yeah so on any sign with more than one face the maximum number of surfaces visible from any location will be counted yeah which is what are we counting maximum number of surfaces visible from any location will be counted provided however the all surface of a m space sign shall be equal in size and height and contained in within a common perimeter so I think if you can see two two facades of the building they should be the same they should they should have uniformity again so can we get that clarified we have to have that clarified yeah because I'm I think they're talking about like a square probably talking about square footage because you can only have so much square footage in a sign so that's probably say on all the sides count yeah okay okay so the other one is that they have to uh um you have multi story developments they have to be uh in conformance with an approved Master signage plan okay so we we need more clarity and maybe Deborah was more prepared to do that one than me but let's move forward okay here we go parking garages parking garages parking garage shall not be counted as building Frontage toward the maximum allow sign area I got yeah I think that that makes sense um and yeah we had the comment to the consultant that parking garage should have their own sign and they should be regulated oh yeah no okay okay building Frontage of properties along limited access highways does not count as either primary or secondary Frontage for the purpose of calculate the maximum allowable sign area that's that's also I agree with that um free standing free standing signs table 4.1 provides stand of recent sign additional details are provided Bel signs include directional signs shopping center signs industrial parking signs and office parking signs and Kuran made a comment that directory signs to be included also uh we have a definition but no written standards for the directory signs so the directory signs are the signs that give all the yes that list all the stores within the shopping center okay any questions on that the other one is the table of um um industrial park there was a uh Industrial Park okay okay so they removed [Music] um yeah that's they removes the um some of the the standards and staff was saying please bring back the language so I have in mind that they removed the 60% oh it's in that one yeah yeah we asked the consultant to bring this back but reduce the maximum area and minimum landscaped area to 20 for the industrial uh Park freestanding signs okay we we do not have many or any Industrial Park here no so not that I know of that is I don't have the you know Office Park we did not change um did same comment for the office Park yeah to to bring it back maybe we'll have one or well maybe we'll have an industrial park okay the other one oh boy now a lot of language the next one is um9 okay 40.9 types of signs allowable building signs oh can you read it yeah here we go so we asked for visual aids in this section that helps awnings signs may only be located on the first floor of the structure that's good and they they do not count as um allowable sign area for the building are you okay with that Kon yes there are separate standards from the wall sign Mary signs we removed Yep this reference allowing such signs yeah this was a comment from an ldcc board member uh we did end up removing it but his comment was that this reference is allowing such signs to overhang and to write away if in compliance with table 14.1 I think there should be criteria for such overhang and I am not sure how table 14.1 applies but I know that Public Works has had some issue with uh signs overhanging into the right away correct yeah from a liability standpoint yeah the zero setb yeah and here excuse me we have why did we remove Mary signs Kuran we not popular we just have freestanding signs and they kind of fall under that category okay uh wall signs um is there any major changes no we asked them to bring back a table basically there used to be well in the existing code right Coran we have a table for for all of these but it all kind of disappeared in this section yes they were trying to combine all of them the industrial The Office Park the shopping center um and I think it got a little bit confusing so we kind of want to separate some of them again that Mak sense okay I think the one that'll be because all the these are those all these signs are kind of regular signs so we we can go over if you do not have any major concerns or or the changeable copy sign is one that I think it would be good to discuss and um so what is the uh it does take us to 14.10 uh if you don't mind let me just jump yeah CH copy signs the electronic ones I'm guessing it will there as well and that's the one that um in the past so um it's very limited the change of the electronic copy area it's not allowed on wall signs in the current code and it's only 20% of the sign area of the freestanding sign we allow only one a black background with one color so the change here is to go from 20 to 40% to 20 to 40 and we did not changed the color the well I believe the um the Consultants proposed 60 to which Kuran um you know had the comment that that's a huge jump from 20 would Council even support that there's a safety concern from distraction here so I think yeah as staff we came back and said okay what about 40 I can see 40% in in the other um um issue is the number five um that each message on a changeable electronic variable message sign shall be uh only allowed on U black background black background and displayed for at least 4 seconds so now we don't need the the limitation because before it was only one color mhm and now it's on the black background so do we want to limit that is that leave the multicolor one back uh the black background multi color I don't see a problem with that because in a way it's interesting cuz we kind of um negate the technology right exactly right because I we can only have a black Fair Woods has an electronic sign and they're using multiple colors yes they are because they're on a it's a different standard for the homeowners association they I disagree it should be comparable across the board what's good good for one is good for the other right I mean yeah I agree those signs are meant to be internal for internal messages not facing the road for public one how fair words is you can see it yes yeah yes I mean yeah it's right across from um Barton a lot of times it just has like an ambient flag like a US flag I it's distra I mean to me it's distracting I mean I I don't want it to look like Disney World you know but stuff that that was the reason for liting origal that was yeah so I need to we need to but that one is how do you feel do you feel the black color is still the background is still appropriate to me it to me it's not to have multiple colors it's better to do black just to just to have something that's a little bit more how do you all feel cuz if you one of the areas that we have most problem with are are like the gas stations CU they they need a much larger changeable area for their prices their LED board so if we don't separate them they kind of get restricted with the rest of the code but not for the for the they still have the black um background but they have different colors right yeah but mostly like one color in one section and the other so they they might use a green and a red the diesel gets sometimes a different color but it's still basically on one board I'm just saying that their total amount of changeable area is more way more than 20% that they would need it's basically 100% because it's only that sign right or or maybe they have other so what you're yeah I think they would the gas stations give them a little bit more leway yes we and just prevent it from being Flash in and all of that so how are they listed in here today they're not they're not listed in here they're not separated okay so we they have we have to give them an exemption you guys want to make a consensus comment to exempt gas stations from yeah looks not exempt or give different standards right different yeah different standards gas stations why because so their signs are larger and so the changeable area the way it's written now they're only allow 20% of the changeable area and most gas stations either have a regular you know a premium and a well but they will get now 40% so we have to see if whatever they have right now would not qualify comply because they all because they all advertise different pricing so because it would affect them then we're not going to do it so then I mean maybe that it doesn't need to you know done you know like what's special why would they be special well because if we don't I guess if we don't correct Mr Hall if we don't put a spec speculation or specific to the gas station then someone else can come and pick you back on it and say the same thing yeah I think makes sense yeah I mean potentially I don't think there's anything special enough about a gas station to exempt it so I think if that if we're going to do you know whatever the rule is for them should be the rule for anybody to me I don't know well we've got four so do we in a way I see as a public utility you to see this gas station has this Price Right for right for what is there because I don't know it's but why does it have to be a different color mhm I think people are use disel is green right I don't know ironically regular like ironic that's a good one um maybe they want to get into our heads yeah it's green course they do yeah it's green I don't know I don't know whatever you guys want to do um um not you're saying whatever would go for a gas station anybody I mean if it's good for the gas station then obviously who care then it doesn't matter to me you might I think you might be surprised 40% might be fine for gas stations too because if they got whatever their symbol is and really the only part that changes is the price M the other says un let it it says whatever it's not varying so the 40% actually might so we doubling right why does it have to be different right now we doubling from 20 to 40 that's fine that's better right then that's better okay okay so sounds like there's two and two or there's I can go whatever you guys did I'm down with it well I'm kind of agreeing with you on that oh really I don't even know what my opinion yeah no I was agreeing yeah I think it fits in so I could go along yeah with what uh Lisa is proposing yeah I could go okay which is to maintain right right okay the the same for everybody yeah and and and have everything on a black background did the LC did not see that one oh that's why we you guys are getting the first that's why I don't remember the conversation because we did not have the conversation okay so we have to go back to where we were oh yeah we can go back up here although yeah a lot of that got cropped out uh we were yeah we were there so freestanding signs we removed all of those bring back a table uh we crossed all that out a maximum number of restaining signs on the building show not exceed one per Street front edge and a building site over 400 ft of Frontage on individual RightWay shall be permitted two freestanding signs on each Frontage exceeding 400 ft um this so we are allowing more signage no yes I mean we've had a few deviations um um like the public on 419 and um out here by um City Square where the even the public here at Central Square they had deviated to have multiple sign on one Frontage okay um and um we're not we don't allow encroachment on right away um the other section is abandon signs I think it was shown there's a comment that this actually appears to be new language so we do not have language today for abandon sign um but I think that's good language to have right to say when is a sign abandoned so do we require um an action so if it's if the sign is abandoned does that mean that the building's been abandoned the sign or sign structure is considered AB banding or discontinued when its owner fails to operate or maintain the sign for a period of 6 months or longer I guess that depends on how you define maintain the sign exactly that's such a a loose term right I mean because some of these buing ass signs have not been maintained of any kind yeah yeah so what are we so so if we say six months what's the remedy so I think it's linking to BTR so we there is a way to see if the business is active or not the only thing I don't see any action so what just just a recognition there's no remedy there's no no remedy to we need them to require the property owner to remove the sign within the time frame yeah right they talk about no longer licensed um the I don't see an action expired time right or a sign which is blank or empty um okay they Define an abandon [Music] sign uh yeah it does not appear that there is an action here yeah yeah so I think that would be the comment right yeah that's the what is the what is yeah what will be the action yeah I then you probably Define it as like if it's a monument sign or a freestanding sign so we had so where McDonald's is now um you know built the corner of Chapman there was a gas station Mystic gas station and at one point the building was demolished and the sign was still there long time and it was not looking good so we had to Cod enforce the property owner asking them to remove the sign and then they remove the sign but it it was it was an action I think we can always do that because we the code has I think beho us to have a clear action yeah so we would have to if if we are going to regulate here then we have to get give a time frame right right for the property owner to remove the sign if not then code enforcement action will start something like that so I'm going to we're going to follow up on that okay the next so we have consensus for that right yes to do that okay changeable copy sign it was the other one we already down here um check that um temporary signs um 11 okay we have yeah 141 141 okay temporary signs do you have any changes here k um that you [Music] remember I think they were cuz we have certain standards and I think they were trying to remove those to just make it just one type of temporary sign so we compiled right the signs yes um okay so there was no major change it was just more forming correct yeah add a table a table request for the signs now we are in the table um 1429 1429 okay Flags open house there is a question here for um the LPA on the construction science ah okay on top Yeah Yeah question for the boards yeah so should construction sites be allowed to have two temporary construction signes that may beow too do we maybe contract maybe like we allow only one today we allow one it kind of get crowded you have the real estate sign you have the construction sign you have the coming soon sign the permitting is that the same they're but if you have um different different um contractors right working on a side is everybody then everybody would want one the plumber the electric electrician the hand demand out of curiosity do we um regulate the you know how they have the construction fence up and they have the w we don't regulate those all right so they're able to advertise the development and the construction company and all that stuff on the fence of the fence mhm yeah some time ago we created this wrap idea which actually is good because it hides the construction and whatever it is is more beautiful than the multiple individual signs internally and usually they put some people here and there and then they put advertisement and coming soon and whatever it's better it's more expensive I think it it requires more UniFi more appealing to everyone yeah and if you have that and you have internal construction sites nobody's going to see it right so what's the what's our question is should we give them more than one right right now they're limited to one um and we actually specifically the qu we asked should they be allowed to have two no no no no okay that was pretty unanimous how that and there is some language saying it is the obligation of the contractors to place construction signs at the appropriate location during the course of the time period when construction activities are occurring on the property okay J for muros oh here we go M so I I didn't we say that we want this to be removed cuz that is not signs right yeah we we staff had a couple comments um that mural should be approved by public art boards and U Harris here actually made the argument that murals are not signs and they should be REM haris is correct I would agree I was going to say it should belong in the arts department it's it's in the art and and we Define as um in the art ordinance that um what is art so where's consensus on that okay move right yeah next one oh we are done with signage yes K on anything else on signage that we want to clarify no not at this time a lot of the sections they didn't change especially at the beginning too I think this has all just been removed content okay so we have utilities so we have utilities [Music] um El so this one is even more technical right because it's um can I can I request a five quick bathroom break oh sure can we have a five minute break just this is our last uh the last article we we have for tonight 13 Pages thank you so much how many slides I have in this one six or seven yeah the last article you remember because I most of those I did not participate right I do something else do you want to do that one pleases let's make it work man where's the the PowerPoint is in my let me see how how yeah I can see to you you're not ready to present something you're absolutely not ready in some of this discussion I did not because I was doing something else so I know the code but I'm you know the new stuff from the code see if you have it and then it's page um um it's the slide number 25 and we have six lights that for football season coming up huh you excited for football season last one yes I know we my son set up a fantasy football league yeah so I'm playing in his League okay more interested in watching the game that fantasy no I never done that my son is doing great [Applause] yeah I don't know the the LA tamatina Food Fight Festival I guess the running the bus like a week or two ago must be like in the same kind of festival or something overall the N Stuff and it really has changed I Haven seen that before yeah [Applause] I there's not too many changes here my brother said in Vietnam they have a squirt gun one it's like one of the hottest days of the year in the summer and everybody just they're off work it's school and everybody it's like they all have squirt guns and water balls just run around the city just blast waterers yeah even cool like that the reg someone's going to get sued all after a good old pig skin game haven't started working it though they I don't I've heard talking where they going to put espece yeah if you're looking on I guess if you're looking west from the stadium up be on the West Side between that area and the road there there was some vacant land I they use it for parking kind of stuff so yeah well at least the market finished strong this month actually has been a good mon I believe we struck through it it was a rcky start it was a real Rocky for no I just I think it's yeah I think it's just um better get with scary the way that it's showing up on it's up today there it is um so oh well no looks like the consultant struck through it was it yeah yeah it appears the consultant struck through yeah was ended up drop what do you think they're going drop think quarter about the quarter I really think they're going to do a point you think no haven't heard anybody talk about that I've heard yeah I think so half a point right yeah because he's saying that you will reduce the amount of houses that if they're going to require all that they're just going to be less less Housing Development think about it yeah or that they're going to they're going to translate transfer that cost of the sewer implementation into the price of the home have not I'm just my personal this is another first viewing never no they have a mind of their own right of their own yes first viewing as they say with the uh the wedding dresses did your daughter pick out her dress your daughter pick out her dress the first wedding dress Mar next year big I I don't know what the timelines for these things well she she wants to to lose RS oh okay I already have my dress I told her I'm ready we good we have we are ready okay great so now I'm going to pass the Baton to Harris to to run the utility perfect thank you um so just for clarification the ldcc has not reviewed this so lpa's got it first crack at it great all right um although there there are some comments from David Axel who's on the the ldcc is he you wouldn't know you wouldn't know so the first one being being uh language was struck from 162 uh Central Sewer Service required uh I think it's lower down into the uh oh gotcha that's what we were just on here you go yeah exactly yeah and so the comment was uh it's in agreement with the session being struck from David Axel and I believe staff concurs yeah yeah it it his comment being that um you know requiring Central sewer uh is unreasonable he says uh given areas with sewer uh that's unavailable it would reduce the housing inventory and the affordability of those homes if we if it was required for uh all new residential development I agree with that I mean I read a little earlier than I would it stand out for me as well yeah okay so is he Crossing that out H yeah I think the actually the Consultants actually crossed that out but he's just reiterating it uh in correct it's because it would limit a lot of the areas from being I agree yeah yeah uh the next is SE tanks and conservation areas I think did you start in in on in slide 25 I started on 24 oh did you want me to start on 25 um 24 for me oh yes I'm sorry I I thought you had I thought had skipped too sorry sorry um and again this one was struck and David Axel's comment basically agrees with it being struck U the provision is for sub thingss are allowed in conservation land use areas only when when necessary for facilities required to oversee said Conservation Area and David Axel's comment was this is inconsistent with acceptance accepted science and a potential un warranted expensive imposition so on and so forth any comments is there any consensus keep septic tanks out of conservation areas okay okay pretty much because of leeching right potential leeching makes sense right yeah okay so the next one we have is in 165 oh I'm sorry go ahead Sam uh 165 coming up yeah okay uh and just a side note there's uh Public Works did a lot of editing in here a lot of references like we saw in the uh the floodways just uh esm uh city engineer type references 165 [Music] 164 okay 16 five yeah the uh location of fire hydrants the revision was um at the bottom where language was added hydrant spacing requirements are located in an engineering standards manual uh before it said by development type can be uh referenced in table 16.5 it's a pretty simple edit makes sense I do have a quick question on the fireart why are they all gray now why are they all gray that's the standard color I believe the color is identified in engineering standards manual if I'm not mistaken all used to be red when I was yeah yeah what what did you say why are they all gray or silver whatever yeah oh that's a that's the I I've seen Gloria put out because there's like an RGB code that they put out with it for them to go get the paint so that's that's the city's standard paint that we want the fire hydrant colored what why is another convers which I have no idea yeah I just found it odd that's all yeah I I I don't know if and by I also don't know this one but a lot of municipalities have different color fire hydrants I don't know if they're trying to distinguish whose fire or who but they different they have different colors right cities yeah i' see yellow yeah I see the gray just makes it where it doesn't stand out as much as a aesthetically pleasing that way but the fire department knows where they are right yeah and we have a map of where all the fire hyds are and yeah so but anyway I'm just curious but no very very good question I I'm I'm curious myself uh all right moving on the next one is on 165 lighting requirements General that's landscape peration here we go lighting there was additional language uh this one I guess is what the here uh light sources shall be provided at regular intervals to provide consistent illumination where required and then we said to kimley Horn please provide a division between rightaway lighting and private lighting U that that was a general comment to this section yeah makes sense okay consensus 167d oh you're already on it perfect um I mean that all makes sense to me I mean yeah it's just the standards that should be in the lighting plan right what should be required so yeah so it's clear if you scroll down just a little bit more because there's some other items here so yeah the these are the general requirements for a lighting plan to be submitted to to the city we add added the the type of poll the type of Base um to be added to the plans uh also the lighting fixtures and polls in right public RightWay and a conversation about dedication yeah now the public works is requiring that um um that the polls are provided if they are in the right way provided by the development and dedicated to the city so the cityes sense wants to own the polls right makes sense and we also there was a request to ensure that um have a um a section here saying that um the trees should not conflict with the lighting fixtures and poles who's supposed to come out in trim trees if they do like in neighborhoods when you got trees to grow up and all of a sudden in rway public rway the same well I guess it is in a neighborhood street you know if it's public streets it's the city it's the city work and they do that um I know for the Santa Claus you know ride they have to do it CU like they want to yeah the capitate people in the in so they want to make sure that there is clearance for the for the folks that are in the top of the of the truck so but they have to do that you know um fre do the lights ever go off the like the light like there's a we have a light I guess a City Light that's right in front of our house and it my my daughter's window and you know like it goes into her room so I mean do they ever like dim or anything no when thees the newer ones have blocks towards the house so that they don't affect the house as much as much I'm not saying it doesn't it's just well yeah in in the advancement LED they're actually able to programm the fixture to be able to shine light brighter in like you know the four section of the light as opposed to the back section of the light they're so it's LED provides a certain sophistication that wasn't available back in the day when we had incandescent that would just you know you have one bright bulbing you couldn't control any so the LEDs well they a lot of them are getting replaced with the LED so they can program them yeah in public and by the way in public rights way we require LED lights so for new on right yeah yeah exactly and and most of the private developments provide LED anyway just because it's cost effective um so with these uh General requirements do we have consensus I think we're good okay perfect all right it uh so we made some changes to where are you yeah there you are okay cool we struck Pole height and the reason we struck pole height from this section is because lower down um there's a convers there's a specific conversation about parking lighting and canopy lighting and and some other uh sections and so they list a pole height down there and and we didn't want to have a general requirement then a and specific requirements comp with each other exactly um what other changes do we have here pole type yeah we just yeah we added all that all all ground ground Mount of light poles within the public ridway shall have flued base and so this only applies to public rideway before the way the code has it in the architectural section is that public and private lights would have the flu to base it caused some conflict especially when um you had uh light poles that are elevated on top of a a a Podium and you know the base looks kind of funky on the podium it also costs a little bit more so so uh we want the the flu base only to apply to the public right away that asked them to bring this back we asked them to bring the elimination of streets sidewalks and common areas back uh it's important that those areas are lit yeah it's important to have that there yeah um do we have cons ensus so far on those items yeah yeah okay uh non-conforming situations that uh believe the language here changed primarily because the planning and zoning and appeals board no longer exists and uh the appeal would go to city council and that's in the non-conforming section e okay specific regulations for outdoor lighting this a repeat comment to separate the private and public right away oh same same thing we were talking about we talked up at the the beginning so do we need that that section on nonconformity David it says non-conforming situation as of July 8 1997 shall be given one year to comply with the section oh yeah no that's a good point that is way past the property owner May appeal to the city council for an extension of up 6 months due to a hardship with meeting the requirements of this section this is language that was remained yeah so can we make a yeah look look at striking this and just have it the clarification do we need that right I don't think we do do you all agree yes I agree yeah it's only a few years ago we just updated the city council but we we read the 1997 one year pass pass by review 1988 this year I know okay fair enough no good point good point um all right so moving into the specific requirements how was this calculated based on space oh yeah so we have a question about the 100 foot 100 ft apart we were asking KH or asking kley horn um where this metric came from and what the rationale is behind it and we'll see further that they actually uh talk about a uh a way to do that but it doesn't add up to this right uh right here yeah I believe right is that where they have it well that's the comment that we have oh oh sorry and yeah here it is that's that's where they have it there oh right yeah yeah so they have the 100 ft and then they have two and a half times the or or the light poles must be spaced two and a half times U fr the PO so it's it's two different metrics yeah yeah yeah it doesn't it does it's inconsistent you yeah yeah oh yeah uh Part B have a maximum height we lowered the height from 35 to 25 to you know for uh to reduce the amount of ambient light from a site we looked at surrounding codes uh to see what was going on you know some codes lower down to 20 ft we thought that was a little too low especially with the LED lighting you get more coverage for for Less height exactly so are you all on board with the 25 any strong opinions okay yeah sorry that got on the mic yeah okay so we added some sections here uh because we are you know the the uh this portion of the code is starting to get to specifics and so there are specific situations that weren't represented one of them being parking garages the top Flor the the garages are typically lit and so we added a section that limits the height of those uh fixtures on the top of the parking garage and that limit is to no more than 12 feet above the floor the second is uh lighting for recreational facilities and so for for ball fields and and some of these other recreational types they require lighting that far exceeds 25 ft to be quite Frank and some cases you know up to 75 ft or something that nature and so we provided a provision that allows for that but uh regulates how it works and so such authorization may only be granted upon finding that greater height will not have a significant effect on the citizens of the city of avido and the land use administrator is is provided with the authorization sounds good to me yeah yeah it's semantics but should we change citizens to Residents or does it not really matter right I'm I'm open to it okay that's it um and we asked them to revise this graphic uh per everything we just went over no I didn't oops it's a hick perfect the hick it's 16.7 did we discuss that there's yeah that's what we've been going through yeah okay I'll have to go back and figure out how that got moved around we still and we're still doing 67 right uh or no we're shifting in 16 169 now or well new 1611 yeah yeah okay what are we doing here uh located to serve future development yep LCC is concerns about exaction here or David a to be fair all right so uh David Axel posed qu posed a comment saying the added language could be construed as an illegal exaction utility line should be only required to ex to the extent needed for a project and to comply with technical standards of the of the U engineering standards manual and so we're going to go ahead and forward that comment to our consultant yeah checking the engineering standards manual on the comp plan as well or or are we saying that we want consensus that this is a concern well I think we should get consensus um uh from from from you all um so yeah his his concern here is that this added language would be construed as an illegal exaction um again that utility lines should only be required to the extent needed for a project whereas the new language extended to the property line whenever feasible I probably have to agree with him on that just for that project yeah I guess the out is the one ever feasible but yeah I would agree so I think we should give away because if you're providing capacity beyond what is needed to your project you are subject to um impacting credits so we could have water and sore right right uh impact the credits but so it's not an an obligation to say to the extent that it's feasible to do that and right you're saying it almost incentivize it yeah I think it's an incentive that already exists I mean you but not to say if it's easy do it at your own expense right so if you do if you're willing to do that to extend whatever um you are subject to impact fee credits you know for whatever for the category that you're increasing capacity on so if it's water it's going to be you know um water impact Fe sewer the same so I think we have to massage that language to um to give that if possible yes do that but it's at your own will right and then it um you you may be eligible to credit right yeah maybe get a more clarification yeah there yeah and even it's a little fuzzy where it says shall be extended to the property line whenever feasible yeah that's that that's what's throwing me off that there's a sh and a whenever feasible yeah we get a better clarification yeah okay maybe you could see what language we could put here to kind of Meet the um so comments that we had on the side were the emergency stands menu already requires utility lines to be extended to the property line and not Beyond it and then uh conversion should not be inv volunt so this is the part see conversions conversions should not be involuntarily required and so the section here says all developments shall comply with chapter 54 of the code of ordinances I I believe uh that comment was prior to the public works uh oh to the edit corre so before they had the city shall require the reasonable conversion of existing land use from septic tanks and package plants to Central systems oh that's right because we had conf very you're going to follow the code right yeah exactly and and it's referenc in the code of ordinance is correct yeah consensus on those items yeah yes okay perfect okay that's that's a wrap that's a wrap yes that's what thank you so much for for look at that 701 staying longer seven but we managed good night thank you um it was a consensus on see you later thank you bye thank you good night good night thank you so just say you wereing about this thank you well I know everything about it but I don't know the by the status because you know it was a lot