e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] e e e hello hello e e e e e e e e check check testing passing e what's what's that made well I could leave that's probably true ofs first is approval of the minutes from Tuesday February 21st 2024 I have I make a motion to approve the minut as presented I next up is public comment is there any citizen public comment CL public comment and open public meeting items item number three Land Development code article zoning district and regulations finalize thank you madam chair um today we are going to finalize Article 4 part two which is dated um October 2023 uh we're also going to go over the permissible uses table and the changes that have been made um since our last meeting um as well as um comments from Mr Clay archery Archie I'm sorry um on the permissible uses table um so we're gonna start with um Dr Korea she's going to go over the permissible uses table um revisions and you all should have that document it was emailed to you so I'm going to we're going to pull it up as well so if we can yeah so what we did is to do a clean version because it was getting too complicated to see what you know was new what was changed um and then um there were some you know revisions to the footnotes because the footnotes it's it started with footnote number seven you know in the table in the previous table so I'll go over the comments that I have that we provided in the end um so we changed the um two family dwelling unit name to to say duplex because two family dwelling was not really you know the proper term because it's not two families in one dwelling it's really two units in a lot so we we changed to dlex um we also changed the definition the actually temporary residences before had um temporary residence in office um temporary office is in the same in the residential portion so we kind of removed the temporary office to the commercial and then um left only the temporary residences in the residential use section and then uh one of the things that we have to um discuss is that um because we also need to plan and that was a request also from SEO County to account for disaster mitigation if we had a major disaster our zoning should allow you know some temporary shelters and in the zoning so that you know an emergency order would uh kick in when emergency order is is approved then we would be able to allow that so I we need to Define you know temporary residences to include either model home but also have emergency um shelters um so I don't know if you want to discuss that and where we would allow it do you have any recommendations staff regarding that start the convers um are you talking large scale large scale so we could allow in an industrial zoning right in agriculture cultural zoning it's going to be temporary um so we could even allow I don't know if in public would be a good use to allow so I guess my question would be would be any Parcels available in various uses to allow for that or would the conversation on things like Parks or the golf course or those areas that have more space as well as well that's the the only areas that we control right so public would be a an option in that sense because that's the only one that we would control but we ALS we could also allow if there is available land you already have it in the residential right so there's two the question is do you want to allow temporary residences in other areas so we can split temporary residence temporary residences for us have always been Model Homes right um that that's right right it's model homes that has um either be approved under uh PSP or they would have to be a special exception use order because it's a temporary sales office as well for um selling your town homes or single family residences and they have those model hom homes as well as the sales office in these homes and they're designated today it requires a special exception use order but we're proposing to allow it as a permissible use in the various zoning districts and um it will be designated as such on the preliminary subdivision plan as well as there will be a building permit to set the time frame in which it needs to be removed so maybe we could we could change you know and include a model home so that we know exactly what we're talking about and the temporary residents would be the ones for emergency response yeah another line item so and the model homes we would allow anywhere that the residential would be allowed and the temporary you know emergency ones are the ones that we have to discuss these would be during an emergency I'm going to say uh the governor declares a state of emergency mayor is now in charge kind of stuff can't they then pass emergency ordinances that ow at the mall and on uh on the golf course or wherever that this these temporary are allowed can't they do that they can I mean the the um County require requested that cities thought about that beforehand and and and provided that in the LC so that we do not have to think you know when there is an emergency because they would don't usually the governor declares you know right just that there is an emergency right and our code would say why you can't again that it's available now that there's a state of emergency and that uh I mean literally at that point the mayor is in charge as there powers that are way vested more at that point and can you know get Council together to pass ordinance instantly and say we're passing an ordinance or have it readily available that the legal has it sit readily available in some way that the that the count Council can has the authority or abilities to do this rather than I I just don't know how deep you start going and going well do you allow this in public do you allow this at certain zones like the mall because of the physical areas that are involved Etc I I always start thinking about how I think so what's the downsides what will I then take advantage of that in some way shape or form how can I if it's not explicitly that there has to be for this to be enacted it has to you know somewhere have to say well there has to be the that the governor has declared you know things like that I I don't know where that would be listed so that this doesn't count unless the the governor declares that there's a state of emergency and that and I would like that secondary point that Council or somebody says now you can do this not well a state of emergency this automatically kicks in and then things start taking effect without thought so I I think it can happen right now so you're proposing not to have in the code correct I would so my suggestion and open it up for conversation and then um we can probably move on is so whatever needs to happen in the residential whether or not temporary residences includes temporary disaster right so somebody's house they can put their mobile home there after a disaster and get their for however length of time it's already or if you're going to add the module whatever you guys had said earlier and then I would just recommend um that your Emergency Management plan be updated to identify locations where you could have those um sites so you know you have your sunny day planning and they're identified by your staff instead of having to go in the code okay does anyone have any go ahead um I agree with Steve if we've got the authority to do this anyway I don't know why we need to put it in here doing so opens up a whole lot of definitional issues that I don't know that we want to wander into quite frankly so I just assume leave it out now you just I'm sorry you you were also talking about if somebody's house or something temp is that also the same thing that we're talking about like if somebody's house burns down is that the same thing we're talking about here or different because I isn't that what you said kind of like yes so are are these both the same thing we're talking about like a state of emergency being declared Andor somebody's house burns down it's inhabitable can they drop a a mobile home or something two things they want large scale in case large scale disaster you a house more than several families and then I guess the other question is two is there allowance in the Land Development code for temporary Sheltering on someone's private property for a disaster where the house is inhabitable and they need to get it fixed over six months or something like that right so gotcha okay so that's a question is that in the code is that allowable so that that will depend on the definition of temporary residence if we want to allow it or not and we have to have you know what are the because um you need to have sanitary right you need to have to be to be a shelter you need to have the infrastructure so if house is burned down completely do you have to have you know portable bathroom could they bring their mile their RV or something as their temporary residence on their house while we have allowed you know under emergency one case that we had here in during the last hurricane um the person brought the RV and we kind of you know waved you know the RV restrictions for that person you know but we do do not have in the codee a provision for you know to allow um someone to Camp right in their own um yard if there is if the house um is not there I think it would be better to have a provision in the code and these are not going to come very often and they can also be taken as Case by case bases when they come up but there a Vision it would be better to have for the private property or for the for individual or for large scale for both for both remember we're not going to have many private homes going to have you know temporary residencies this just doesn't happen if it does it's once in a blue moon even if there's an emergency they go and say at a hotel or with a relative for a week or so and then the emergency is over so we're not going to have many of these anyway but if there's a provision the provision can be applied so but I like I like the idea of of maybe putting um General language here and kicking it to an emergency order or to the emergency plan right to have that in the maybe that's a better to that we do not have to detail here it's whatever the the gravity of the situation requires right so staff is recommending putting some general language in that points to that um um for emergency purposes right the city May wave some you know under the temporary residence well I don't even know have to create another side another line yeah for that use because we wouldn't allow it in all those different zoning districts so we would have to put a a SE line and then maybe put a footnote that it only kicks in when the governor declares a state of emergency and then in the definition have some additional language um that details it so then I guess it goes back to so for the mass the large scale is it going to be on private property or publicly owned property because if it's on public property then I wouldn't see you would need it in code would my thinking but if it's on private property then yes unless that's wrong the mall would be a public a private property so if we were to have it at the mall it would be private um the city can waave for both right we cannot we don't control private land right so it has to be with the authorization of the property owner so we cannot impose but we can allow right if the prop the property owner consents right so that's any other thoughts all right so you're adding in language now do we need to go through where we want it or are you going to recommend come back and or just move over let us research that you know I I'll come back with the emergency a proposal for the emergency and I would compare it to just leaving this to the writing it up having it it becomes part of the Emergency Management plan yeah like there's no real this is code and I'm I hate putting stuff in code it needs to be as you know we keep coming back to making it easier and this really does it need to be part of code it's part of the Emergency Management plan and putting this all in the Emergen Emergency Management plan that says an emergency here's what should if these things apply there's a mass C you know Mass blocks of you know houses are inhabitable things like that or if the declared man then areas can be allowed whether it's the mall we look at the mall private and public areas that can be allowed things like that I think this becomes part of the Emergency Management plan not what is the consensus of the board Steve will you make a motion to that effect I can make a motion that yeah you know we look at that as part of an emergency management plan rather than put the encode this you know I think staff or you know whether it's taking our advice and adding on staff puts together something for the emery management plan St and I second that I just had a question why it was a request from the county right so they think there's a reason for it well it's to prepare for disasters right so that we have a plan if if we have a disaster you know when when we have the disaster yeah well we have never had a disaster of that magnitude but if if we have one you know but just thinking about if it's not in the code and we do have the disaster are there things that are just not getting done because we have to wait for a meeting or a consensus from no if we have in the Emergency Management plan I think that would cover it okay so there's a motion to foro language in the code pertaining to um sites of yeah I want to interject something yeah I think we do need provide for it probably Steve's is a good idea because I participated in the Katrina Katrina cleanup and in that case FEA just brought in trailers set them ex the houses that got destroyed people lived in for six months while their house had being rebuilt so you do have those situations that could come up so uh I think it's wise as Steve said to at least address emerg management situations and so forth rather than going through and trying to individually say this or that or whatever and and and Steve's right the the the mayor and the council could have emergency meeting and so forth but I I think it's a good idea to address it uh as Steve has suggested in motion all right all in favor anyone okay the other one we changed um where banks with no drive-throughs were um allowed because the code had Bank um with no drive-throughs under retail and with drive-throughs under office so we kind of changed to so that both would be in the same uh in the same place um we also removed all the target industries that um were created before to kind of either they they you know are under Light Industry and then they would be allowed on light Industries or they will be Industries so the definition of Light Industry should um be able to accommodate all those specific uses well I'm I'm going to continue if anybody has any uh you know issue or question I'm assuming everybody's agreeing with those changes uh we removed also to the convenience um store type one from the table because that's the one that did not have um attached you know the the fuel stations and that is really basically retail so we did not think there was a need to have that category um as a separate category we also removed theaters from retail and now we include in in the recreational and we change recreational title to be recreational and entertainment uses so that it accomplish you know more uses um that is already done uh also with the there was a question here that um if we do not allow retail in RP should we allow light industrial use under special exception use order in RP and then I checked so put it here to discuss with the ldcc but we checked and actually the compant doesn't like allow Industrial in office so we had to remove that so let's check actually if um the light industrial um use it's it's not an RP right we already removed right okay uh Teresa just note five okay I think you want to say does not allow which you just said but written it's written as does allow at the end of the chart under questions and comments sorry questions comments number five and the questions in comments five remove all target specialized inst includ I think you meant does not allow which you just said right yes not that anyone else will read this but said we take more time thank you for reading so um so this is one that um we were discussing internally after our last meeting that's that's 11 why just allow banks with drive-throughs in DM um which is now the DC right we changed to downtown core um if we are going to have design standards for that why only allow there and not in other you know target areas we just want go to Clay's comment right one one of the things on your list so do do we want to wait to get to his list and cover all of these or although his list is only tackling his the zoning that he's um concerned and there are other right but his comment kind of covers those other districts I would okay we we can we can move later for that one then uh we moved uh personal storage to a category called storage and parking um and then I'm just kind of this was for internal that um you all decided to remove this use from OC and we are okay with that we included pet services in industrial zoning do you have an issue with b i it's under animal services in the chart I'm confused IND those show Zone a not category s I'm sorry I apologize cuz we thought that would not be an incompatible all right no no we moved motel hotel to retail SL services I don't remember exactly what they were but they were in a strange category um number 15 we already discussed that because initially we discussed um having the category of shopping center back because we have now retail depending on the square footage but in the definition of shopping center we're going to say shopping center can can be of any size shopping center just needs just means one more than one unit one commercial unit we removed Nursery green houses with retail in C1 under special exception since noer green houses without ret retail would not allowed under se1 so we were not allowing nursery and Green Houses without retail but then we were allowing so we removed those the the the one with retail uh we also kind of Consolidated because before we had separate categories for manufacturing with and without outside display but they were allowed in the same zoning districts so if you're going to allow them in both we just remove you know the specific the differentiation um we removed the word art from museums because you know we can have different kinds of museums not necessarily art museums um we discussed allowing indoor Recreation and pli so we do not allow today indoor Recreation so we have a lot a lot of indoor Recreation but it's in the Parks so we did not reach a conclusion right if we needed to to have indoor public Recreation do you all see any need of that or should we just not change it this would be a situation where we have a building with indoor Recreation that is public so I don't understand why who owns it matters so we've got in in the chart privately owned is permitted oh I'm sorry indoor Recreation so never mind sorry okay have for other types of recreational facilities whether or not it was public or private but this one is just it it doesn't um differentiate between public or private it's just indoor Recreation right outdoor does though yes why the only thing I can think of is that if it's a um I don't know why it was split but if you do have a private um recreation facility it would not go under um P which is public lands and institution only public um parks would go in P so that's the only thing I can think of is just that P zoning um what type of Park can go so I'm just looking at publicly is allowed in CA and DC but privately is not and I just don't understand why it matters who owns it if it's an allowable use it should be an allowable use yeah I don't have an issue with allowing it in in more places Madam chair should we do something about that guys keep I'm trying to read it can you make it a little bit bigger that's why so is the question whether or not we would allow a privately owned facility on public no so if you look at privately owned recreational facilities their special exceptions are not allowed at all where publicly is allowed so my position would be take the publicly you know exactly what's there and make it match on privately because it should make no distinction how it's owned it's the use we should be right okay dealing with not the the ownership so I I I'll make such a motion if people understand that do every except that except under P because privately you won't have private ownership in p i I agree I amend my motion but I hear no say so so for discussion go so the only differ Sor the only difference is uh mud and uh CA and DC are the is that right that I'm reading it and special exception in downtown neighborhood versus permitted yeah you just look at the chart that's yeah I think it should match up I'm sorry okay that's except for be a li honestly so is that a second yeah yes look like you want to say something no I've got a question after this I if we're going to make the the publicly owned and the private the same for all these zoning then let's just eliminate one home we we can't because of P there'll be no private ownership in PL zoning all right let me ask my question now then um what if the city wanted to at some point bring in a vendor to op to have a privately operated indoor recreation facility on city land are we precluding that that would be it says owned it doesn't say operated right in in the list of uses it's who owns it so the property would still be public the vendor would be okay okay any other discussion so the motion is to make the private and public match EX for p correct we have a first and second all in favor I iose motion carries so we are changing p p DC and um DN CA and DC all change all change I don't think and actually we already had so we changed to allow indoor recreation in p which would be for the city so what do you define indoor Recreation as it would have to be a building that may because we have indoor recreation in Parks right but then it's the it's a park use that we have buildings that have indoor stuff but if if the city would be building a indoor swimming pool which is just an indoor swimming pool that would be indoor Recreation or IND IND pickle ball building or an indoor pickle ball building or indoor whatever Recreational facility so if outdoor things are allowed in downtown neighborhood then indoor things I would say should also be allowed and it's missing so what's why do you have indoor Recreation but then you have privately owned and then publicly owned Recreation those are out those are outdoor things when you're read yeah those are all Outdoors oh Outdoors I I I'm saying and I guess I'll phrase it as a motion I think indoor Recreation should be a permitted use in the downtown neighborhood District so there's a motion to include indoor in downtown neighborhood District I'm fine which would then be all the same permissible uses as any of the outdoor recreational facilities uh except for the yeah it would saying saying if Outdoors allowed indoors definitely should is there a second second all in favor I motion pass so number 20 is your question um da that we already uh answered here yes um so we changed also to allow a driving range in the west M hamk um Corridor because actually it's the only one we have in the city and it was not allowed before so we changed that doesn't make sense we created a category for surface parking and then we need to discuss where to allow that is the one that so I did some research since our last meeting and you had referenced the idea of um temporary and I can send it on to you but I found a number of localities where based on kind of recognizing how uses transition over time it allowed surface lots for you know by approval up to five years with with onee extensions available and there's you know you need a mechanism to do it but it was a temporary and that's kind of what I saw and I could send that stuff I think that makes sense because then we can reevaluate you know when we want and it would be granted by the city right so it's not by right it would be subject to review subject right and and kind of the the idea is instead of making parking in my view a requirement it becomes its own use so if a business sees a need for parking a business can create parking there's also standards in that these codes for how you do it for safety purposes and and so forth and drainage purposes without Paving because you don't want to go do a temporary lot and and go PVE it so I could send you those localities it's for five years it kind of uh it's too expensive no one's going to do it if they have to PVE it so and I think you spoke to they have this the lot on First Street in Sanford right at the East End which is unpaved and has stop blocks and works just fine so the entrance and exits are paved but the lot itself is not it's like crushed concrete or gravel or something Gloria is there any concern I I could send on the standards so the idea is fix the table now not necessarily write the standard tonight obviously mhm but if you want me to send you what I found I'll send it so let's pull the table and see where we would allow right I think it's the the target districts where it's not allowed now so D dnca DC GW CMP and W MHC but where are we allowing on the other areas are we allowing uh C2 are really all the commercial indust Z is permissible and then in downtown core it's special exception so so we're talking about making it a special exception in DN through W MHC that's what I'm suggesting can you make a motion for that uh I make a motion that surface parking lots located not where the principal used uses be a special exception use in DN MCA DC gwc MP and W MHC there a second all in favor I I I any oppos great great um we also changed the title agricultural mining operations to agricultural uses in mining operations we move bus stations to miscellaneous public facilities um so we changed the public owned recreational facilities to re to kind of match the private one because they were you know targeting different things so I I have a question and I think I raised this last time and maybe we need some clarification here here so one of the bonus Provisions is providing Transit type stops yet we're prohibiting bus stations in the core districts so I think there needs to be some distinction between what you're perceiving as like this you know Trailway station versus what other people may perceive as an intermodal facility let's say it it's kind of unclear so I I think it should be a Terminal Station maybe we should use the same ter there's no category for these these Intermodal facilities and give me an example um it's not a stop stop let's say and and some of these are on public property some of them might be on private property so the Connector Road design purposefully has a spot within the road where buses or gas powerered trolleys or electric vehicles or something you know that are used for some sort of circulator Loop can stop and those might be in other areas and people put them in and those can be conceived as as bus stations they are not but but there's no definition and but but but we are going to Define and actually I have a list of we have a list of definitions in the so I'm going to create now one well so so I guess what I'm saying and and I don't know if anyone else sees this if we're going to encourage something as something you get a bonus with then that something should be allowed in the districts where you want it and we have no no category for that thing I I don't know is it is there a definition of accessory uses that would lay that out so we need to have a definition of a bus stop well versus a bus a bus stop is not a use right it's not a use it's it's a a terminal station is a use it's it's you consuming land right you're storing so a a parking a parking stop a parking space for a bus or it's not also used I'm just raising the issue for thinking about it when we visit the bonus we can you know kind of think about that but I put here and maybe we should use Terminal Station in the in the table I think bus station is what it means like a Greyhound bus station or it's not a bu so I'm talking about kind of morphing between those two things so there may be room for example South of Broadway where Geneva Garden Drive is proposed near the water tower to have a spot that's specifically set up for you have this circulator that runs for X number of hours it functions in in the downtown areas and where do these vehicles go you shouldn't have to send them off to an industrial area that that's what I'm saying so so I think we can have a definition a differentiation between Bus Terminal Station that's all I'm saying and hub like a hub what you're talking about is a little hub for so we may have that as accessory uses so I'm going to put here and it's should be bu bus or inter modal Hub I mean I think that's interal with that discussion I'll make a motion that we add under miscellaneous public and semi-public Facilities Intermodal hubs and make them permitted uses in all the core districts can I ask a question would that be a primary use or an accessory to another use so it would it would it be just that use for example property let's just for example the expectation is that there'll be a deal with the city like there was for the Connector Road for Geneva Garden Drive uh at the time that that occurs there will probably be a accommodation for how do we do this Intermodal Hub which is kind of in all the ideation of the the downtown district and it could be its own separate use built with the road on private property without any other uses built yet so I I I just think it needs to be its own use and that might happen in any other District that's a core District also someone as their bonus says we're going to provide X and we're going to build it and it's not accessory to anything yet it's a use it's got a site plan it's got engineering it's got to get an approval it's a use are there is there more discussion on on this so I have a I have a comment I in my brain I feel like there's could be a difference or differentiation between a bus station and an inter modal hub yeah absolutely I would assume that the Hub is going to be much smaller than a bus station much smaller yeah so um you know I'd be interested of what those definitions would be and then we can discuss well so what I'm saying is let's change the chart and and ask the staff or the consultant to come up with a definition we can review later I think it's not only changes ad because I think we need to have one for terminal station right and one for the Hub so then we have to are you saying chair that we send them with this assignment and have bring it back we can talk with um kimy horn as well CU they're coming at our next meeting and we I have to develop a list of questions to ask so that can be one of the questions that we ask do you want to take back your motion and we just have consensus to send it back fine I'll withdraw the motion thank you there was no second so it was gone anyway I don't have so um Sam have you created another line or just put a note that to create okay okay so the other one um oh on the recre the public own recreational facilities um staff also changed to allow the public in private owned recreational facilities permissible in C1 C2 i1 and I2 that is something that we changed um from our last meeting no issues sorry I thought we had already gone past that next good um we also um discuss removing fuel service stations uh which are going to be the ones without the convenience store I mean we do not any already are there no I I think Brian told me there was one there was just you know the fu stations you see those more in uh you know I don't know conversation or thoughts on that so it's the what is a fuel station without a convenience store attached is it it's a gas station a gas station yeah I in large cities we have a bunch of those but you know I would say just remove it I mean that's my recommendation I make a motion to remove does that in some way affect the gas station on City owned property on Evan Street City no because that is that's industrial Zone so it looks like it's allowed anyway well but we were but your P are you PL on that facility or but we were going to remove the use yeah should we remove the use it does not because so it that is again an accessory use for you know other services that the city does it's not really a service station right it's not only a service station so a comment for this part of the chart since it keeps coming up on the 2045 Mobility plan this discussion of as a profit making Venture charging stations so you know maybe that should just be in the list also charging stations if someone's going to do one so you're saying that that would be the entire use of the piece of proper well well the discussion was that if that's a that they're going to charge them impact fees for it well if there's going to be a use that has impact fees charged for it has to be allowed somewhere as a SE use it's access under service fuel service station I think fuel we were going to Define more broadly than gasoline well that solves that so then back to the question of if you have fuel service station doesn't that cover everything well I would suggest changing fuel to to you say there's not a service station so fuel or charging station might be a better name for that category but the the comment of a fuel station without a convenience store wouldn't it just be captured under well I'm just saying change it to to fuel and charging just just put the word there fuel by definition includes electricity so electricity is a type of fuel again say we going to the well so we're going to leave it right and um is that your little girls thing for singing songs I mean what is that you got there alternative fuels because that's the thing it's alternative fuels so I mean fuel can be corn okay I didn't make a motion so I don't have to withdraw I made one but mine dropped so the the comment that you were said about removing a fuel station without a convenience store was that that line right there no it was that line up there but we we just concluded that we going to it going to stay okay it was no it's that was another line we already talked about that I know it's confused it's a lot of uses a lot of um but yeah so because we may have although we don't see a lot of gas stations Standalone gas stations without convenience stores we may have now other alternative fuels you know stations right um and then we have um some uses that we highlighted in yellow to discuss with the consultant the crematoriums and um retail above 10,000 square ft on downtown area and again if we're going to have locational requirements for convenience store with fuel stations so the the gas stations that we have because today we have still locational it's only allowed in some intersections in the city um and so far we haven't changed that so they are still you know only allowed in some so I don't know if you want to discuss it now or I think well the the locations but I mean if we want to have discuss the crematoriums now and the retail above 10,000 sare ft on downtown area we can check at the table where we are allowing it so crematoriums we are allowing in uh i1 and I2 and you have someone asking to do it in OC is that a correct statement in the past and we had say out conversation on crator is that the actual crematorium itself like facility to perform crematoriums yeah or the real deal realy so the question is if it should be included in office commercial as well as industrial or other no I think it's a new use it is a new use we did not have it before so we are creating that and we are saying well industrial we we feel comfortable um and we want to know if that is the consensus of the board sure yeah any other thoughts just industrial so the there's a place on um it's on red bug Lake Road right it's not a prator okay so they okay all right and the retail above 10,000 square ft did we have what was I don't remember the question well that was a question for the consultant right it was the consultant okay I I have a question yes the The Current Funeral hes do they have on crator no where do they elsewhere it's not in the city yeah yeah the crematorium we only have one in the city and um they also have a facility I think at Winter Springs um so they don't perform it here okay and they're not in the industrial district anyway we have two right we have one M Hamm Funeral Home the funeral home and then we have one at um um Family Funeral Broadway not Broadway Central oh that's not in the city have they expressed interest in wanting to add that to their facility or they prefer the only one that has expressed interest is the one that's on on Central and they I think they're called crematorium okay but they're not yeah they're not would this allow them to no not at that location they would have to be in an industrial area and that's where we find most crematoriums in in the Industrial Area Industrial okay I was just saying it's just thinking the process it would be better if it were part of their facilities than to have to leave but so the other thing that we did and we have to kind of in the end also Revis so we kind of Revis the footnotes so remov some footnotes that you know that uh did not have a place anymore and then we created the list of you know new definitions to be created in article 18 um and that's it um then we can discuss um CL Archie's question so I I have I have a general question for the chart and I don't know if it's in the code or in the new draft um so we don't have a fully exhaustive list does the land use administrator have there is language yes there is language there in the code that says that um he would he would be the one making the decision or she or she is there any other discussions before we go on to questions all right okay so next up is Mr Archie and we're going to allow him to go over his um questions and comments I just know that after rather know I like and we are all heard the my conversation about just the simple thing but there are some other categories that I sent back in and hopefully everybody saw my request that I just felt like why not let us paint with these brushes as well I mean at fa bu a 10,000 Indo facility exerc facility a private and things like that so I just looked at some of these other categories and just said who knows put it out and we still have you know say that there might be environmental concerns on the field 40 to 50 AC of ups that are that we pulled away from a legacy development that we've been working on for many many years to kind of take an opportunity to take a at it all so that's what I just submit things that I know that are in othere areas that I'm just saying say will you at least allow a special exception chair can we maybe I guess go back to his category and like toggle between the absolutely well can we look at them one at a time because there all kinds of different places in the chart some of it's already taken care of with the um Recreation the indoor is already taken care of so let's start under residential so the first thing that he has on his list is going to be the two family dwelling which is the duplex give us one second I think um um it's better to close his email and then have only the table there and yeah and they will read the teamwork yeah okay so do do plag it looks like across the table it looks like if single family detached is permitted it makes no sense not to permit the more intensive residential uses agree does anyone else have so I I would support that request yes for for all those residential uses so you have two family dwelling Multiplex those are the two uses that he's requesting um right I I'll make a motion to go with to go with Clay's request on residential as Deborah stated so I I I threw it out as a joke but you know if this is going to be a more intense area is single family do we want to go more intense residential and stay away from single I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to limit that think sing I just not so so let me ask a question and we kind of had this discussion mostly from coming from Sam the other day you know we've got this thing we've got to work on which is lot sizes and when you talk about single family in oo on the park it's more of a quote Bungalow small lot size product and maybe there needs to be some distinction we're not looking to have these uses you typically might have in R1 AAA or R1 ablea or even R1 a in these core areas so maybe we need to have the consultant look at that chart and make some distinction you know you understand what I'm saying well this this is a different zone so we would have different require core area but you might want you might want some higher density type single family product zero lot line for example well the Bungalows are not zero lot line they're just reduced seac in a in a plan development so it just be higher density but still single family I I don't know how to define it no but the an interesting point that you bring is that um because our standards are minimums right so we would not preclude someone that brings a typ of development is have some sort of either minimum density or maximum lot size in a maxim lot size we would have to not sure what that should be we're not done with that section of the code yeah okay so can we revisit that later in the code well there I think what I'm saying is single family let's let's give clay what he's asking for but revisit what single family means in a core area yes so we have some things says yard that are like zero line on one side you go in and there's like a school and it's like and you're you can't even touch that wall that's right there that that belongs to your neighbor literally on the string line like I just like I said I know we have and and I haven't been over there for three years but things are changing and structure Dynamics and I just like I said I hate to I hate to to not be able to pain AO brush I I I think actually because these are the things that I only see when it's the clean comp but if we allow detached single family then we have to allow dlex and Multiplex doesn't make sense well well right but what I'm saying is is let's detached as as high density low density somehow create a break point maybe we have to define a maximum or new standards for for the sizes great all right so I think we all agreed on yes yes so do we call a vote for what we were doing I know I think we're voting on some and consensus on others so I mean yes well I I think the motion was to allow as permitted uses duplex and multilex in the W MHC District that's my motion um someone want to second that I second that Sam all in favor I passes and then consensus is we ask the consultant to revisit lot sizes for single family detached four districts not just W yes okay and so the next use is going to be a bed and breakfast any discussion on that under special exception or under permissible use any other thoughts uh if you're going to do it there then it needs to be the same for downtown Corps Gateway uh West and and what but we do not allow single family detached in downtown core right only the existing ones so it has to have where there's a single family allowable why a bed and breakfast is a use not a type of structure but it's usually in um in um single family well my only point is if it's allowed in one core area by right it should be allowed in others discussion I could see it just putting it in and I I don't know why it wouldn't be allowed at downtown core either again it the building does it Define yes traditionally if you're looking at a southern bed and breakfast that's its own thing but there are many bed and breakfasts out there you can go to DC and got other many other places got a bed and breakfast is an attached building three you know there's three duplay you know three four buildings attached and the middle one is a bed and breakfast but it's probably a town home you know single family home yeah the intent is to allow bed and breakfast wherever there um you have single family detached allowed um they do function as more non then my what's the definition like the the Define difference of bed and breakfast versus a town my town home that's attached and I could make a bed and breakfast out of it what would your town home is a single family right so versus a bed and breakfast what's the so we can go to the definition of bed and breakfast that we have it could be attached or detached but it's it's a sing Single family right it's attached or attached and the owner has to live at the location so it is a um residential use right so if we don't allow single family residential gotcha I know I that that's the twist that if you're not if it's not allowed single family residential gotcha so I would recommend that if it's whever allowed well by single family wherever single family is allowed or it's a special exception just to mimic this would be my recommendation is there any other well it would only be allowed where single family attached is isn't it like so you got MP WMC you got single family attached an MP and the single family detached downtown core asri one what is what does that reference that's a discuss to be had later or we if it already exists it's there and you're locked in you're good otherwise so yeah no more I'm just going to say there's no more in downtown core there's no single family detached that's allowed to be built so thus even if you allow to bed and breakfast it's a single family but you're allowed uh a single family attached so why can't they just take well it's there as a special ception now single family down it says P up there downtown core says single family attached no P is for yeah don't me but you're telling me a bed and breakfast has to be a single family so we're allowing a single family attached in downtown core we just can't call it a b breakfast well by special exception you can you can I just don't understand the differential so my so my recommendation is wherever it's allowed by right to allow the bed and breakfast by yes well but we haven't had the discussion of what our definition of allowable single family detached is yeah so I think we're kind of prematurely discussing this I mean are we talking about allowing somebody who lives in Alf of woods in a single family house to turn that into a bread and breakfast we're talking about the core areas really only the only the core areas that's what we're talking about because somebody said that we should allow this across the categ no I meant across those categories the ones where it's allowed already is a single family that's what I me but but we already allow in residential communi is as special exception of course but not as an automatically allowed use right right no okay and it's allowed an RP as allowable it's not allow your ho anyway never we allow in Us in um agriculture in RP yes n OC a special exception so Mr Archie is asking that it be allowed as a special exception in the west Mitchell hammock Corridor sure you are allowed to have signs um on the building so it will you can't have a a sign so you it will be announced that it is a bed and breakfast a nonresidential type building and I'll I'll suggest that we do not have breast that I know is there a motion to have a bed and breakfast special exception in um Mitchell ham give just consensus Mr Jackson had a odd yes okay great is there a second second thank you all in favor I was just for for clay I'm gonna sit and go like clay why why don't you just basically everything that core has just take that and make everything that applies to core applies to West Mitchell hammock why wouldn't that basically that's what he's asking for in essence piece by piece if we piec mail it together it becomes core District the same same everything that core has basically make West Mitchell hammock and I don't personally see a problem with that that I can come up with in my head fast and believe me I've been trying to deny and everything I can but you know he's not getting that bar but um I I don't you know I I would suggest to him why that's why he's like why just ask for core and say everything's straight down the line that core has why don't you have the same well Bank we have to discuss because it isn't in core right now with a drive Multiplex is not allow so are you saying bank with a drive-thru play so we discussed this last time but the chart didn't change can we do the community um the residential Community home first and then get to the bank so you all are okay with allowing it as a special exception the community um residential home it's residential are you all okay with allowing it as a special exception special exception thumbs up what was is that a motion it's the same it's same in the downtown FL it's where you have no more than I believe eight um residences in the home it's covered under it's covered by for statutes yeah if a single family is allowed it should be allowed so that's a special exception motion by Stephen is there a second second second by Don all in favor I it's be and then the oh sorry the next is the bank and this is without drive-thru it doesn't say that it's with drivethru but so he has Bank on here so you want to talk about the banks clay it's just like I said I know that we changing gufc throw it out there who knows what banks banks are look like maybe a walk up kiosk so it's with bank with the drivethru is the question because you're allowed the other half so we discussed I thought if it was like last time or the time before I don't know that in conjunction with structured parking you can create sensible drive-thru lanes for banks which is why I think we want we did it a special exception but it's not there for the core that's what I'm saying it's there for the core it's there for the core am I missing something here drive through S oh I I'm sorry I'm reading the wrong line yeah we changed so we're saying make it special exception is that your request well Steven's friendly stepen he says thumbs up I said thumbs up I make a motion we put special exception bank for second second thank you Sam all in favor I I okay Gonna Change there so the other one is going to be retail sales without with outside storage and so then he says think Tractor Supply it was just I currently live about a mile south of this site about 10 AC if I want to go get chicken feed I to drive I mean there's feed and stuff like that my kids like to toys like sord all the wayer I just I thinking about that the other night I know like Home Depot is not in the city but that's essentially what that is correct lumber yard or I know I was saying going it's sitting right up the road on on the same road technically down the so but but this was supposed to be a growth area right now went def but thinking to supp par that was in a nicer area I looked up their history they got by down but that's that's just my I know that Tractor Supply maybe doesn't isn't as sexy but it is not let me tell you are examples and it's not allowed in any of the other target areas is is the Ace Hardware considered under this category because they have outdoor well they're already under construction so they're not considered I was just thinking of one down in I was thinking of one down in SoDo that has that's an Ace Hardware and it's right next to the the SoDo so I would I would be okay withal special exception and that's right you're making a motion I'm not making s just consideration request I'll make the motion special exception uh so so just to clarify that motion yes retail sales with outside storage being a special exception in DCW CMP and W MHC so then then I I go back to all of them the conversation I'm looking I got to go look to my my brain S size so a special exception allows you to you know kind of feed this through the staff and mitigate and do all kinds of things so that could be screening that could be requiring it to be covered that could be all those things this is this is a different I'm I'm I'll give my opinion and we are treating all the target areas the same I think people go to lows we are happy they go to lows and they give they live your area for better uses that is that is my opinion I think that the target areas are not for so let's that kind of use let me give you a couple examples and I know maybe they'll sell but you've got Downtown Winter Park you're familiar with and you've got a real nice hardware store people rarely know it has outside stuff but it does I I go there off in yeah okay so we're not necessarily talking Home Depot and Lowe's we're talking Ace Hardware and ex another example and it's not in OVO was just approved by Winter Spring City commission last year which is an Ace Hardware in their I don't remember what they call their core area transect 5 um but right next to their main intersection which is their downtown so I think it's a a matter of scale and format the thing with Winter Park is that the form came F came first right so the form is already there it has an urban form and the outdoor is the the storage is hidden uh here if we rely on by right here or even special Exception by special exception all special exception it's going to it they can come as a Suburban you know development right is that the kind of use that you want to have next to the cottage homes right like in idon the park idon the park doesn't have it right it's not something that we would encourage there Don agree you just went where I was going to go the core I'm not sure that we want the Mitchell hammock Development Area to be populated with this kind of stuff the categories on here for retail sales with outside storage could allow for example uh U-Haul or Pensky or some big rental company to come in there and park a bunch of trucks out on the road I don't think we want that and I don't think we necessarily want manufacturing on that quarter either um so I would I I don't know myself to support either one of those two quite frankly not just because I don't think that's what we want that quarter to look like I agree I think I I don't I'm not I'm gonna agree with what you just with the back part and so we don't want it to look like that I I think definitely I think I can go there as a special exception I'm not my my uh motion would not include all the other areas I'm just specifically talking about there um because I don't believe it it goes in downtown core um but you know I I also have think that because I said it should be it hopefully will want to look different on Mitchell hammock than 426 that's where we kind of started I started saying hey let's look at making that a little better than what 426 currently the industrial uses that are there so I agree with you but I think there's two things are going to the prices and I you know keep pointing out and he'll keep hitting me that we can do it but we can we can build anything anywhere the prices will preclude having what's sitting the rentals you know you have that sitting on 426 right now we have those rentals sitting out there the U-Hauls Etc I I believe that would preclude so so I'm going to withdraw my proposed amendment to your motion so right now I just I'm happy talking just about this area if we want to talk about more later or something El but I'm happily saying special exception outside I I think again you can and that's there there is some trust to be had and in all of it same thing with downtown core that it's it's going to be done right um I think it can be done and again it's not downtown core area but I'd like it to look better somewhere in between it's a transition between downtown core and outside there and and it should be better looking than the outside so your motion is for wmhc that's it yep so um since we're still in discussion to to Don's point and the point of scale and design under special exception would we have any control over that yes depending on the on the guidelines that we are going to create on special exception not the only thing is that if we have to think if we want to use or not right if we we have to create so many so if we believe that the price is not is going to prevent we are hoping that something else is going to prevent it I mean it's already it's an issue right that and that I think from all the uses that um clay brought I mean we made a lot of compromises that we think are good uses to include this one I believe it's not but okay so for this one I think we are um taking a vote so well was there a second to the motion I believe yours was a second okay so I need a second to do special exception for convenience stores with out dice no ret retail sales sorry highlighted One retail with outside storage and Mitchell hammock I have a motion is there a second as a special exception as a special exception there a second second by Sam all in favor all oppos no noes special was that a yes or no I have NOA it was a yes was okay so the next one is manufacturing no outdoor storage or display so a question before we get into that I think we already were having the consultant consolidate all these things and desine light manufacturing right which may resolve your issue when we recircle so I I don't we on it okay and my only thought was who knows what manufacturing right but but they have to Define that well we have we have to Define heavy Industries and light Industries Right light Industries already allowed in in in in your zoning that the zoning you're you're requesting so so we're going to table it yeah it's already allowed okay so the next one is going to be privately owned Rec ation facilities and we did have that discussion already would that allow like a top golf for example to be built on Mitchell hammock sorry I did not hear privately own yes would that allow a top golf type place to be built on Mitchell hammock and if so again I guess I question whether that's what we want that Corridor to be I I love Top Golf I've been there A lot of times but I'm not sure that's what we want on that on that Corridor so I think we already resolved this with our change to recreation no we only resolved it in a couple of the areas it looks like oh it was supposed to be in all of it it would that be an indoor recreation no it's outdoor outdoor so so okay as long as we're discussing this there's a reason there's a golf driving range on that part of Mitchell hammock Road it's because the physical quality of the land makes it e economically more difficult to do these types of uses and I think the staff can tell you someone came knocking on the door trying to do multif family there and they've probably disappeared by now after discovering that so I think we have to be sensitive to the status of this land and allow these uses because you can make use of this land in a cost-effective way and have services that make sense for the community has anybody here been to top Gulf yeah have you seen the traffic in and out of it do we really want to put that on Mitchell hammock which is already overed with traffic pick one Lake yeah yeah any use that you put on Mitch H private anybody who's going to have a business there that's what they want is TR yeah Deborah so one of those get what you know and I'll keep reverting every time I watch on Facebook and people say country we are an urban area we need to those roads need to be fixed everything needs to be upgraded in terms of getting it but Deborah go ahead he he just said what I was going to say so um any use is gonna it's gonna it's G to entail traffic any use and it's unprivate property so we can't say no to development because it's um it's taking if we do I don't subscribe to the theory that a developer can develop whatever he wants on a piece of property I think they have a right to develop their property but I also think the city's got a right to plan and to regulate what goes on that property as we're doing throughout this code so the argument that an owner's got the right to develop his property frankly I think is a red haing and I think we need to talk about the content of that development my my request being only special excep let me let me bring you a vision it probably won be me but like let me bring you that's so and I will just if just can add to that that the vision also entails um connectivity providing additional connectivity that's the thing that all these target areas that we increase intensity and and and density we kind of the the request and and the hope is that that we will push for more connectivity so you guys are saying there's an active proposal already for this on that road no there's one there is what I'm saying but I'm also recognizing so you know I handle uh the 40 acres to the north which has almost no above hundred-year usable area right now almost none and you look at this piece of land and you think of well what can it be used for that makes some sense and that use makes some sense uh so these outdoor recreational uses are easier to put on land that has physical challenges and I think to Steven's Point he made earlier at some point in the future whether it's in the 2045 time frame or not I don't know the value of the land will start exceeding the cost to make it usable but not today but for that use that's why there's a golf driving range there now that's exactly why so um I'm going to put out for discussion now going back to the outdoor down in those cores is maybe that they're not both public and private to the point of what exactly do we want using up that land it's one thing to put something small it's one thing to put something big so I'm going to um throughout there the IDE of changing in the those core areas outdoor recreation to um special exception to what special exception so so let's deal with with Clay's request first well it would be for all of them then that would be my recommendation we we already voted on that and did something I'm so whoever the motion are in second or I mean how do you open up a vote okay so we'll go for clay I um I would recommend that um publicly and privately owned is in West Mitchell hammock is special exception so are you asking for a motion I'm making a motion can I make a motion of course I'm making a motion second I'll second your motion so you're saying publicly and privately open owned outdoor recreation be a special exception in W MHC correct I second all in favor I no all of those no okay motion passes so now I'm going to make another motion being that that is now special exception and does not mimic the other cores so we already had a motion and a second and a vote on that matter and the motion or and the seconders is not real you I guess she voted for it she would have to make a motion to reconsider it would have to be seconded as long as she's on the prevailing side which she was you were I got then you have to make a motion to considerer and bring it back up get a second to that we vote to reconsider then you can reconsider I make a motion to reconsider um outdoor private and publicly owned um permissible uses in the core areas she needs a second even to discuss it well it's only in the list for DC for the no o DN M okay for the three that it's permissible second there thank you Sam all in favor of reconsidering reconsidering the discuss the vote I any oppose motion carries the motion to reconsider carries one okay motion to reconsider car but not the actual no that's just to reconsider did talk about it all right so open for discussion of changing permissible private publicly owned outdoor uses in the three subject in the Three core areas you need a motion well no discussion can't discussions no you didn't open it yet you need discussion okay fine okay wait so legal right so fine I make a motion to change the permissible to special exception in the those three category areas core areas and I second can that thank you Sam open for discussion now I want to comment smack I think I think to alleviate some concerns here when we have a special exception there is an opportunity for the staff to see to it that what the city wants to the area to look for you know how it is developed the what goes in there and the transportation aspect of it the connectivity all that is B I think it makes sense to make it into a special exception I I think I like that any other discussion but I let me make comment you can't use sucess exception to keep things out just because you don't like them I mean you you you design you have to come up with with a set of special exception requirements you can't just use that to keep somebody out that would that would subject the C to to litigation so I mean just because somebody doesn't like a use and you say speci okay do it you have guidelines that we have to follow so that that won't solve the city be dictate what use goes where because the city doesn't have that right we have the right to said zoning but we don't have to say well we want to Wi he's on that spot so that's all to go there because that's only L that's what we have to be careful I'm just warning you this City's very anti- litigation right now but but that we can't use special exceptions just to keep something out that we don't like that's cor all understood you still can develop provided that you meet certain requirements that all concern that are raised so the requirements would have to be in the Land Development code that they would need to comply with so we would have to have additional standards for um recreational facilities in these areas um otherwise it's not something that we can take a look at we can look at the traffic circulation um we cannot require that they connect but we can certainly U make that recommendation as staff uh we cannot deny them based on their their footprint based on their the size of the building um so we'll have to take a look at if you want a certain size we'll have to put it into the Land Development code so so just for discussion so the the list of things makes these uses seem like they'll gobble a lot of land absolutely my suggestion on Mitchell hammock was frankly for that purpose and I think it's different okay but we're conflating lots of uses here so look at one of these uses a swimming club a swimming club is not much bigger than a locker room and and a pool and maybe a meeting area there's no reason whatsoever you should prohibit that in a core area okay so I think we have to be very careful here to not make certain uses and I don't know how to define the size uh but we had a chart that we'd already settled on which made things if they were publicly owned permissible and now we're talking about making the public go through a dance with whatever these criteria are I I'm just opposed to it I I think these uses should be allowed and people would not logically use up a lot of land in a highly valuable core area unless there's a good reason and a good reason would be like on West Mitchell Havoc not elsewhere I think there's a distinction but wouldn't be like a swimming so we can separate the users because golf courses can we see golf courses an athletic field in the downtown core or you know a country club or so wouldn't be a swimming more in an indoor Recreation so I see a difference between a couple of tennis courts or a swimming pool that's outside and a golf course or a driving range or or these other things I see a distinction so I don't so should we separate those make sense so the question becomes then do we let the staff add a scale definition to this and another item on on the list so that we can make this distinction because I think we're throwing away the the baby with the bath water making it all special exceptions I mean we can have the vote but I can't support it if it's a if it's a public if it's a publicly owned um Recreation we will change it to P so that because it's public lands an institution and it will be permissible so we wouldn't have it in any other zoning District but you have it in the other zoning districts we will we do and it's a permissible use but we will certainly redesignate it like we have in the past to P so did someone someone seconded your motion so I guess it's time to vote I think we're still discussing the reality talk about all these properties how are they how are they going to come through the process are these going to come through individually pieces of property or how are they going to come these are going to be contracts they're going to be an agreement aren't they in reality let's we don't know we don't know at this point Mitchell hammock Mitchell hammock that that all land that's all owned by one set of people they're smaller pieces much not not at all but it it looks that way but it's not well all of it's not Obito in the park wasn't technically owned by the same people but was owned by the same people um was managed and and run through under an agreement and let's you know viea was a planed community that wasn't piece by piece done at will it was a somewhat of a master plan that went that went through in phases and pieces I'm I'm not saying that yes separate pie will go through but there will be a master plan and there will be plans that are set forth I I just and that's what I've always try to talk to our folks is that we would bring I've always called it a mini Master right of course then then this chart wouldn't control you right exactly you're you're not going to be controlled by this chart in reality that's that's what I'm saying is for the the magnitude of all these property that these areas that we're looking at much like you know we look at the um the mall and that kind of area they're coming through in different ways it's not well we're going to take this one piece and say do that so even with a master plan the zoning would apply unless you go for a be no it really would not the comp plan would apply it does you're not stuck make agreement so that it a development agreement if it's a development agreement a Minges plan for the using the zoning it's the zoning the zoning still applies it doesn't apply when it's a pugg because then you have to establish you can do a master Lage plan with the dev over scre and Vary from the use chart if the compl it's prohibited yeah you can if the complain allows it you do whatever the complain says um if something is prohibited in the LC it has to be a statutory development agreement and N not a nonstatutory development agreement that has always been the position of the city but if this is this is to comply this is how the use is to be um applied in the zoning so because usually you associate devel my hand I have to vote against this motion so if that's your position so is is your suggestion that the types of recreational facilities be more defined of what's allowable in each well what I'm saying is having in the same line a golf course and a swimming pool is nonsense if we're going to make these distinctions about what should be allowed or a couple of tennis courts who cares if someone wants to put a tennis club with a couple of Courts as a separate use in one of these areas or a swimming club you know I think you're Mr shank's using a public facility right now but he might join a swimming club in the downtown core area right correct uh so if we can defer this until the Staff or the consultant takes that use under Recreation and entertainment and makes some size distinctions and divise these things up then then you know we have a motion in a second we'd have to step back does the SEC so as the creator of the motion I will amend my motion because I think that's a good idea to make leave this make it a note that we want to revisit we just need consensus for that we don't need tion we need I have to read then fine I take back take back your motion and we're all everything's the same right where you want to be anyway so the staff will revisit this give the staff or direction to go in and figure out a better way to approach this without lumping huge things for small things thank you so is there consensus on that yes next next okay so um that's going to be the same thing with the golf driving range so then monopo to Towers communication towers and camouflage Towers a monopo tower is one use one one no as opposed to a a like a matrix of metal it's just a pole that's all it means what's the difference between that and a communication Tower that's communication Tower is usually a metal grid with legs and a monopole is typically a conr metal pole okay that's all and my only reason for because we now have down we have 5G okay and so that's the only I put it in there and I don't even know what the permissible use or anything like that like if you wanted to have 5G throughout thisis whatever it's be that's where are these on the chart these are it's probably miscellaneous no it's communication tow yeah so I I have a suggestion which may become a motion so we we have these three items monopole communication and camouflage a special exception downtown core I think the coverage requirements of these Technologies should allow these things as special exceptions virtually everywhere um you know I don't know that do you have standards for communication Towers we do okay so there's standards you know for example and and we discussed this and it's allowed in downtown core you know we're kind of stuck as to height because of the water Tower and it and the water tower is old now we're trying to maintain it but if it needs to be replaced we're going to want to do either a monopole or a tower that's higher so when you have a special exception you can do things such as pressing for I would think camouflage or other things to make this less obtrusive but the technolog is not going to disappear and the needs not going to disappear and the bandwidth keeps increasing so I would make a motion that we allow monopole communication towers and I think multiple uses is kind of a weird thing to say there because monopoles can have multiple transponders so I think multiple uses should come out it's three different kinds of towers and I think we should make them special exceptions in gwc mp and W MHC and that's a motion a second I'll second that with a plea that please don't put up one of those stupid tall metal poles with a little Pine Tree on the top a fake tree is there any more discussion on that all right all on favor I so it's where DC uh G GW CMP and W MH okay great that is it for his list great can I um recommend we take a 10minute break yes thank you I don't know do you want a motion so who got more fun will have to figure out when it's over you're said espe one hole middle can handle this many people but as it gets dener it's likef they have like 8 smaller ones hands games around Tower around 50 because otherwise you nobody do anything still you can't do anything I can't what's up for e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e all right you guys ready to start in all right next up okay thank you madam chair so now we're going to article four part two which was the October 2023 um packet so we're going to go Page by page with some of the com comments and questions that were provided so on um this page we see that they added um the future land use designations that we have in our comprehensive plan and they match the different zoning districts to the Future land use designation and so one of the things that we noticed is that they left out the rce um which is the rural Country Estates zoning District so we placed that under under rural under the rural future land use designation they also left out the downtown core future land use um designation I think we put that there along with the um future with the zoning District of um which is now the new downtown core they also did not provide us with the Milton Square in Washington Park um zoning District that we re requested that they do so um they're going to have to place that in there as well we also placed OC under office and under commercial which is office commercial zoning is placed under both office now and Commercial um the mixed use future land use designation we had a discussion about um well PUD is the zoning District that typically goes with the mixed use future land use designation but we had a discussion about um creating a new mixed use zoning District um so creating that and some standards to go along with it and then P per the future per the comprehensive plan um PL can go in any uh future land use designation PL is a public land an institution it's allowed in anyone of the future land use designations so we put that note in there as well and we changed the downtown mixed use to downtown core okay did anyone have any questions with that one I did I'm sorry can you explain how these two go one is land devel code and the other is the comp plan yes so the comprehensive plan is um The Guiding document that guides the growth in the city it talks about how things are going to develop it classified like the West Mitchell hammock Corridor as West Mitchell hammock Corridor um it identifi the different targeted areas in the city and so all the future land use designations that we have in our comprehensive plan they listed and the ones they missed we put on there so with every future land use it just tells you it guides you on the maximum densities maximum intensities some areas like the downtown core um it has a minimum densities as well so it gives you the maximum and in some cases the minimum densities the zoning districts come in and it gives you more details so it tells you your um minimum lot width it tells tells you um what uses can go in the in those um future land use designation future land use category gives you broad overview of you know you can have residential you can have you know different uses the zoning District comes in and it gives you more details tells you you know the types of uses that we just went over like that permissible uses table right it tells you your lot sizes it tells you your setbacks it gives you more more details it puts more teeth into the the comprehensive plan so the other part that confused me a little is like the R11 a differences so the R1 um the differences we're going to go through tonight you're gonna see that part of the stuff we're doing this okay yeah and this is just with it no this is a great question yeah and we get it all the time so one creates the vision it's the comprehensive plan is the vision the other one regulates the vision goes into the details so this is a new table so we've never had a table that that discusses the future land use and it provides corresponding zoning districts so I think it's a great idea um to have in in Our Land Development code so that's what that does so we just added some um other things that were missing to this table okay so page four um part two so when we talk about the Milton Square area I just wanted to just show just what that is so they when we asked them to create a zoning District what they did was they went to article seven non-conforming section can you go to article seven and it's page two of article of that so go down some more there non-conforming is e so what they did was they um created a new section called non-conforming Lots in Milton Square and Washington Park and it talks about vacant single Lots where conforming Lots cannot be combined and deviations beyond the 20% numerical standard are necessary to facilitate single family development the following standards above the 20% threshold may be supported by the land use administrator for deviations without the need for a variant and then it gives the front yard setback sidey yard five feet um Street side yard set back a 5T rear yard set back of 10 and then open space of 10% our comp plan does not allow us to um go less than 25% for open space um but they put it in a non-conforming section instead of just creating zoning standards so that it's not a non-conforming situation non-conforming you cannot expand a non-conforming use you cannot add to it if it's going to increase the non-conformity so instead of classifying it as non-conforming we we we wanted them to create a zoning District just for that and I'm going to show you some of the areas of um Washington Park and Milton Square just so that you can see okay let me make this a little bigger so you'll see this is the Washington um this is Milton Square Milton Square you'll see the lot sizes you'll see it's 28 by 86 this is Second Street First Street and they're all the same they were platted back in 19 um 23 the lot sizes are a lot smaller than our average um lot sizes and for the R2 it's 7500 Square fet um and they do not meet that average lot size this is going to be your Washington Park area and the lot sizes here you'll see 28 by um 06 by about 85 feet and length so they're smaller lot sizes and this is one of the deviations that we have had to take to LPA I'm going to shrink this these are two different um homes both on First Street you'll see um this house size is 756 square fet the lot size is 2576 and the setback side setbacks for R2 it's eight so they could only meet the five foot setback same as as this house um this one also has the setb this house size is about 900 square feet so you'll see that um you can build a house they're tiny homes but you can get them there and that we are um supporting these tiny homes because it's affordable so I'm G give this back to you but they pretty much can't do it without a deviation guaranteed like anything they want to build there almost has to come to get a deviation based on the law requirements as they are now without their own special zoning District so um I'm going to need consensus from the board to have a consultant create a Washington Park U Milton Square zoning District to accommodate those lot sizes I think that's a very good use that area there that needs a lot of development so that's very good suggestion I support any other discussion thumbs up thank you I'm all thumbs up for it but what's the exact was it the exact area that you show that you showed does it extend any further or just it's those second there you know right okay thank you any other discussion all right is there a consensus right consensus okay and then we're also recommending in the taable table next go to the next page go to page six for R2 we're recommending that the go down to R2 that the side back be reduced to S and A2 ft from 8T and I need the board's consensus on that and I want to talk about the conversation that um Dr K and I had with Mr Nasser um on since we're on this table now um I don't know TR if you want to talk about it well do you want concurrence on the seven and a half first or is it all so um what's the reason for changing if from eight feet what's the reason for changing at half a foot we have a lot of deviations that um for houses for the side setback and so one of the things that staff um is recommending that we reduce the side setb back from 8 to seven and a half feet and we believe that it will accommodate um some of the uses for the deviation Tre great Madam chairman as we discussed today I think this is a very small very small negligible change I think R2 uh being medium density and allows eight Lots per acre it's just 7500 Square ft and 70 foot front hedge and 8 foot side set back is not functional is Not Practical it should be five foot side sitb back and the lot size should be reduced to 6,000 square feet for a single family so so kind of following up on that I think part of the problem is R2 has been perceived historically as duplex zoning and we're now looking at it perhaps a little differently so 7500 may be perceived as two 3750 but that's the wrong way if we're trying to broaden housing opportunities to look at this so we discussed this at our last meeting pretty extensively I don't know what you discussed with staff but I think we need to work this chart pretty considerably so since the you're looking for seven and a half but you would like to address some of the other items in R2 I would say can we have the conversation of what your conversation was today and then if there's staff recommendation to adjust R2 across the board or not i' like to have that conversation now so I think a the conversation is is more related to density than to lot sizes because what Mr Nasser is describing we have our 1B that is the 6,000 square feet and uh and has the smaller you know um the standards are reduced so we it doesn't make sense to transform R2 in an r1b so there are two things that we think are to be resolved or to be discussed one is that if we have to change the the zoning map to allow you know smaller Lots so rezone some areas right to allow allow you know reduce Lots because we do not have we have a lot of areas with R2 we do not have a lot of areas with r1b and R1 BB and those three would be um uh compatible with um medium density residential with the MDR from the comprehensive plan um so that is one way to go the other thing is that um we could have you know because I explained to Mr Nasser that if we reduced the the lot sizes they would not you know be able to have um duplexes in it because you still have to meet the density so we could have different requirements um for different typologies as we have for Town town homes so town homes have you know small Lots in every zoning District so we could have one for single family and one for duplexes where duplexes are allowed so the other option that um I'd like to also discuss because historically R2 has been for properties that want to have duplexes but it also allows single family so if you look at R1 BB that lot size is smaller than um the R2 so we can introduce duplexes into the r1b um zoning District and allow the lot size to be but in order to meet the density it has to be no less than 5,445 square feet um because that you can only get eight units per acre so technically if someone's doing a new project with roads that's not really true because absolutely you're right we discussed that so we've got to be careful with that so along the lines you're suggesting you know we have R3 which then becomes a density and there's no standards other than this the setbacks okay there's no lot sizee standards so you guys are talking about this magic other thing called a multiplex and maybe we need to find a category for that to fit in because it doesn't really fit in these things that works kind of like R3 you know you're doing something then you would have to have the the acreage that lot size to to be able to have three units no lot size requirement then it becomes we don't have to fix the chart if we allow this Multiplex type use in a new category and just deal with the setback surrounding the whole property I don't know if that's a sensible idea to you Sam or not that's going to be a typology that we will have just like Town Homes yeah we will probably have to call that out like we would Town Homes um office where there's no lot size but it's a it's um we probably have to do the same thing for that Multiplex well there is a lot size for but but it there town homes have a lot size but it's not this chart it's a small it's 20 foot in the town home absolutely so we have to do something of that nature does that work for you that's a good value concern but this can be addressed by stating that if it is a single family the minimum is 6,000 square ft but if it is a duplex then the minimum should be 7500 Square fet to maintain it has to be 10, 10,9 75 and and and um um Dave is right so this chart doesn't match exactly the the density because it was planned for community that were going to be developed so the roads would count on the density but that would make the Lots even more artificially big to achieve the density I think that was Sam's Point if you start including roads that's even more land that's even lower density in the calculation so I think the point from the last meeting no the the lots are smaller because I counted the road so but you have a lot size requirement and once you start adding roads you're decreasing the density even more so an existing lot doesn't have to worry about the roads New Lots you're you're going to end up with lower density not higher because of this and I think Sam's point is we have a comp plan that allows a density that's not achievable with the lot sizes in in the code you know it doesn't really make sense you just make if anybody understand 7500 Square fet you can have only five Lots and our two joining that allows eight so what are we doing we have to change that we have to allow eight lots and how do you achieve eight Lots you have to reduce the lot size or or what I suggested which is have like R3 there's no lot size requirement people are going to come in you you know and you have standards you have standards like you have for town homes for mult M Lex which you're saying you kind of agree with it's a typology R3 is multif family right so we do not have because it it it's going to be larger lot so it's not um it's not a minimum so so what I would say is as we urbanize and want to do that not only in core areas but in other areas this chart contradicts that intention frankly and I think that Sam's Point we're encouraging higher densities allowing higher densities but actually by virtue of this chart not allowing them and it doesn't really I don't think that's true you know the only thing is that so we have different zonings to account for what Mr Nasser wanted he doesn't want the resoning process well I agree because each extra step this would apply mostly to smaller projects and those steps are extraordinarily time consuming well but this is an exercise of also changing the zoning map so it's an opportunity for us to review if we want to allow you know smaller Lots in areas that today are are to you have some of this property off Pine Avenue do you not I I do and then we can okay I I have a client right next to him that has the same situation and what I've told them is the only way to dance around this is to do a single sight plan and a land condom and it seems to be a silly way to dance around this when we should just face the reality that this chart doesn't match our comp plan it simply just does not for for those districts that are somewhere in the mix between single family and multif family so can we ask the consultant to give us some feedback on that we're not going to solve it here right now well we already have it in r1b so why not have in R2 so the the the difference between r1b and R2 is that r1b does not allow duplexes so that was the other reason why I was going to suggest adding duplexes to r1b and then we can rezone those areas that are um currently R2 today to r1b so that the lot size is smaller that's another way doing it yeah are you making a motion I make a motion to do to to allow duplexes as a permissible use in R1 BB is that what you're saying exactly I'll second that any discussion R1 R1 r1b I'm sorry R1 BB but then we would also have to change that minimum lot size to 5,000 at least 6,000 square feet in what in R1 BB why because if you have you won't be able to meet the density you'll exceed the density so then they maybe maybe not I mean that's a if you have what if you have a minimum lot size you would not meet the density for even one single family well that's two different measures right so if they have a project that has roads they may very well not exceed the density with 5,000 if they have roads if they don't have roads you your your concern is when you do not have roads right that's the concern that Mr brought to us so I I think a simple footnote you can't exceed the density no matter what so if you're worried about that happening just put a little Aster there that you still can't exceed the density I mean it's that simple it's already there you we don't need that but what we saying what debor is saying is that to meet the 8 dwelling units per acre if you transform into square footage it's not 5,000 it has to be that's not true if you have infrastructure that's not part of the Lots that's simply not true if you have streets but the concern from Mr Nasser is for um lots that do not have that I don't think so that was the that was the discussion we had the discussion we had is that he had some lots that he cannot meet the R2 um the maximum that he could because of the R2 well my motion doesn't change the lot size so so this is a this is the lot size in order to meet the medium density residential of um no more than eight dwelling units per acre each lot that's only you don't have that is without roads common area for the project such as roads storm water and so forth most projects will so I'm saying let's not throw throw out all those potential projects and prohibit that density so you still can't exceed the the comp plan allowable density no matter what so someone brings in a project you're going to review it for that anyway and that might tell them I'm sorry you know I know that lot size is lowed but you're exceeding the density you're going to have to adjust your plan that's that's what we have been telling Mr Nasser and that's what he's complaining well that is the issue so so the resolution is and and I'm making the motion again so everyone's clear that we revise the permissible use table with respect to R1 BB to allow duplexes without changing the minimum lot size from 5,000 ft that's that's what I'm suggesting that's my motion and there was a second you seconded I I second that already okay I'm just clarifying that I don't want to change it to 6,000 just making that clear is there more discussion on this because if something come then you would just deny it they just can't do that development they have other options any other discussion all in favor I I all oppose so that changed the the table okay so I'll just ask for consensus to give direction to the staff that we come up with a as Deborah called it typology for Multiplex as opposed to trying to fit it in the chart does that make sense does does everyone understand what I'm asking for yes is there consensus yes yes cool just to yeah reiterate the um create the typology for a multiplex it's not going to be in the table not in the table like like is done for Town Homes now there's a mechanism to deal with it minimum at topim to tell them to do that is that article eight or is it move well we're going to put it there so we'll remember to tell them okay but is that where that stuff yes but you'll see there's notes on the bottom of this table that talks about the other typologies go to the bottom it's gonna be so you'll see there it has um notes that talks about minimum lot WDS and of different of different type I think it's here right it is yeah right so that would be where you have a note to say for for Multiplex right right one of the things that we talked about as staff um in those not you'll see that it says um minimum setbacks in the downtown miuse district which is going to be downtown core and mdca um is measured from the street skate so staff is um requesting that it's measured from the property line instead so what I would say to that is this kind of comes into play with the urban form standards later which I'll have some comments on but I think if we measure it from The Edge right away we have to kind of come to terms with where we don't have the desirable streetcape width and make sure that the setback is is the minimum is sufficiently large I would think in most instances 10 FTS more than enough right but we just have to be careful because these two things are inter related okay so is there consensus for that or do you want to have more discussion on it l well we'll get to it in a few pages but I I don't care if you want to make that change you want to be able to measure it from something definable exactly definable and that we can tell devel you know the the issue is you have to qualify the setback to to not miss out on your street wall you don't want things jocking around all over creation within that 10 feet so you got to be careful okay so we're gonna put l are are before you leave page six do you have other things on page six or not no okay so there was discussion at the last meeting of replacing height with with a fixed number of feet so that's something that the consultant's going to work on or you're going to work on okay also note five is not necessary because the definition of height unless it's changed already excludes all those things so that note is really not required which one is uh chimneys all that stuff it's it's just simp doesn't make sense because the definition doesn't include those things in the first place the definition is the bottom of the the top floor plate so I don't I don't think that needs to even be said is there a consensus for that to remove that language see it's already okay any other comments on that page okay so the next comment that I have is on page 10 unless someone had any comments before that so let's go to page 10 residential 4.7 right there residential dist so we removed um that the wording that says have inadequate Transportation facilities we didn't think it was necessary so we remove that language where most of these places this is um rural Country Estates a so it says the rural country of states and then the other zoning districts are designed for areas that are not served by Central water and sewer and then it says have inadequate Transportation facilities and not appropriate for higher density development so staff is recommending that we delete the langage says have inadequate Transportation facilities is there a consensus for that okay so the next did you put the next is on page 11 4.8 commercial and office District we added the word residential and and we also added light industrial uses to General commercial districts so it it looks like the way you added it it's only to C2 that is if that's not the intent I think it's just a kind of wording snafu there so we can add it to C1 and C2 yes that would be my suggestion a compl allows it I think it's just where those words are should go you know you have't as well as so maybe after retail commercial uses comma light industrial uses as well as so if you just move it up there I think that does the trick right okay is there ensus for that what about the high density residential well in mix use it's only in C1 this is needs to be rewarded right the the C1 and C it should just say at the beginning if it's it should say the C1 and C2 yeah and then you're you're done and you don't need the whole C2 sentence well C2 C1 is the less intense um commercial zoning District so C2 is the most intense so it is the widest range of commercial activities so if we want to add um but do we allow high density residential we should and mix use development if we allow in C1 we should allow in C2 right so this this is to be worded to see what whatever is common should be in the common sentence right and then whatever is different we add to the C2 right so we can reward that one okay so the next one is on page 12 section 4.10 and planned unit development so what about you that open space language um and I guess the page numbers when I printed out are different in 410 V2 that's where we're going to have our next discussion okay our page numbers are different yeah under B UniFi control so we um need to have a discussion with the public works as to whether or not we want the open space to be dedicated to the city um I'm not quite sure I don't remember what it says in the Florida Statutes in terms of open space but there is language that talks about open space in the Florida Statutes and if there's a duplication then we can delete it but the conversation still needs to be had with Public Works on whether or not we want open space to be dedicated to the city or not I I I think regardless of what Public Works thinks you you don't want to dedicate open space to the city uh in most instances this is now you're now it's your obligation it's also outside of the control of of being properly maintained by these folks that have now dedicated this to the public but that first sentence makes no sense o of course if you have those three things it's going to be one of those three things there's no other choice private reserved for common use or dedicated to the public that's the only three choices so it's a weird statement of it's stating that it that you can have all the three it's not establishing any of so but what is the problem to keep it as because the city is not obligated to receive right a dedication but we can that was a conversation that came up during our staff this discussion but we can have it I um glor Gloria isn't here Alexis is here Alexis do you she was not in the meeting when we had this discussion I don't think it's something that the city wants to accept anymore open space are you familiar with well if you at the end of this sentence dedicated to the public if the city elects to receive it then then you don't have a problem if you have circumstances where you want to receive it yeah then you receive it so if you at that on on number two dedicated to the public where the period is just have a comma if the city decides to accept such dedication but isn't that implied already no not really I mean not an obligation right now you're you're giving someone a choice it's double right it's it's through a p through a development agreement if we do not agree we don't agree well right but you're kind of saying here adding this language means people are on notice you can't just give it to the public unless they accept it you you can add if approved by the city if the city El elects to accept the dedication I would just kind of I think it's in but it's not not bad to have that language is there a consensus for that language okay so the next one is on page um 13 Did anyone have any other comments on uh I would just ask for legal review of C I mean there's other ways to hold title I don't know if we want to constrain how private space is held it can be held by easement as opposed to fee simple I don't I don't know that that's really something for a Land Development code but I'm just raising the issue and saying maybe maybe Mr Hall can weigh in outside this meeting because that shows up in several all these paragraphs I think we just got to be careful is there a consensus for that to have legal review okay okay so on page 13 go back go back to 13 on yeah so um C UniFi [Music] control one okay so it says properties designated this one is going to say properties designated PUD on the official map yeah okay for undeveloped properties designated PUD on the official zoning map the development agreement shall be approved as per provided for an article three and this section as well as the next section we're going to make sure that it's consistent with what um was decided in article three by this board meaning that the development agreement will sunset um and vacant land will um revert to some zoning designation some zoning District that will be named in the da at that time if it's not developed by certain time frame page 14 open space ratio there the consultant um was proposing to do 20% um our comprehensive plan requires 25% open space that's the minimum um we are planning to process a plan Amendment um to reduce it from 25 to to perhaps 20% in the targeted areas only because we want those areas to be more of an urban type development an open space we want to make sure we minimize it for those just those targeted areas all other places in the city will uh maintain the 25% open space so right now it's going back to 25% until we process the comp plan so this is just for the planned unit developments today but I just wanted to let you all know that we're going to process a comprehensive plan amendment to reduce the open space to 20% for the targeted areas as well and it will also include the Pud I think this is good okay on page 15 under um 05 we are um proposing to delete that language um this requires um a market demand study if the commercial or office exceeds the demands of the neighborhood I think we've only had to use this maybe once um and I believe it was for Live Oak area um but we don't require the comp plan sets how big um the intensity of a non-residential development can be in a PUD so we don't see the need to have this language in this in the code so we're recommending deletion of this language is there a consensus on the open space just one bar I'm sorry why don't you just put in there the Min percentage of open space shall be 25% but 20% in why don't you just put what you want to say in there I don't understand that just put 20% in there no but 25% except where in the other zones where you want 20% in guess the comprehensive plan doesn't allow so we would have to the comprehensive plan says 25 now it says 25 now so what we're wanting to do is do 20% it's actually 25 um with the ex exception downtown core and downtown transition yes so and that but in the other targeted areas and in other every area of the city it's still 25% yeah that would be more restrictive so you can't put that okay gotcha my head just my head was going backwards and going but that's but we're processing a complain Amendment it's going to happen simultaneously except that if we put it at 20% now it won't become effective Ive until the comp plan is adopted otherwise would be inconsistent so I understand there's no intention to do puds in core areas except where the mall is where there already is one right is that a correct statement so yes so the conversation that we had when you walked out is that we're talking about Peds now but it's also going to apply for those other targeted areas once we do a comp plan Amendment well it's a proposal right it's a proposal yeah but so that's we have a whole section after this about the target areas so I'm I don't understand so this is open space we're only talking about open space right now okay and open space is 25% throughout the city except Z core transition all right we'll see so we want to reduce it in the targeted areas we also want to reduce it in the puds but we can't reduce it until we change the comp plan for the puds and for the other areas of the city the targeted areas oh you want to change it in in the other target areas other than downtown core to something so West Mitchell hammock Corridor we want to change it for Gateway District I was not aware of that yeah our consultant we talked about that with our consultant that is yeah I'm sorry I won leave I think let's leave it yeah 25 and zero we had that conversation on the phone with our Consultants 20% she said in order for us to achieve the Urban Development we're going to have to reduce it okay well we have zero for two two future land use right well just downtown court in transition yes oh it's zero for transition just read I was performing it so okay so let's go on to page 16 page 16 under um two Water and Sewer so the note says consider adding language at clarifi the health department regulates septic tank so we're going to add that language or have a consultant add that language to that section because we don't regulate um septic tanks it does come from the health department is there a consensus for that okay P page 16 um seven open space where it talks about in landscape Furniture we recommending deleting landscape Furniture um which includes the street benches waste disposal receptacles and sidewalk plantings it's not something we look for on our conceptual development plans or even in the development agreement that's required so we're recommending deletion of it because it's not necessary consensus great okay and then page 16 um 13 lines uh we deleted the language that you see there where it says all teleone line shall be placed Underground Service lateral electrical distribution lines serving individual installations shall be placed underground other high voltage electrical lines may be placed underground or on concrete poles provided that the poles are within the street right away and have Provisions for Street lighting and then we rewarded large Transformers May instead of shall be placed on the ground and be contained in pad mounts enclosures or vaults where enclosures or vaults are used the construction and Designs shall be compatible with the primary building design so we want that language rewarded to simplify structural and Landscape screenings so so just a comment about landscape screening let's be careful here so you drive around parts of downtown Orlando and you try not to have these boxes where you don't want them but they're there and they're not in areas that are compatible with Landscaping now of course Orlando owns its own utility and Ovito does not but they've painted on them art you know there's not landscaping and Landscaping is going to be hard to make survive in these circumstances so I think that last sentence is problematic so I don't I don't know if you want to delete it or say encouraged I I I mean you know I think the Landscaping is is requirement is problematic the one part about painting on the or designing on the Transformers and whatnot uh we can't control that in the city yeah Duke Energy doesn't allow for it they they haven't well well now they don't and that's not not the only utility here I'm just saying the Landscaping is hard to you know it's just going to be sickly dead stuff frankly it's it's worse than just having the box I think that's just my view is that one of those shall versus will words that we can it says sh that's not a will correct it shall you're required so that means it has to be it's mandatory oh no encouraged I'm suggesting that we change that to sh or some other shall be encouraged as opposed to provided comp with the primary building design so like it fits in somehow already right and you know Landscaping Andre others encouraged that matches that all again I think it all supposed to match covers that that one line covers it all without I'm just expressing a concern so I I think there are two different situations where the private developer is having equipment that could be screened than when we have utility you know so maybe we have to have some language like the street trees with utility lines you know because if we only say encourag then people will see as we don't need to put the difficulty is sometimes you as the developer don't have a whole bunch of control over what this utility wants to do so here you are with this and it's not just transformers there's these Insidious things called switch gears that they'll suddenly hit you up and go you have to buy one of these you have to pay a you know contribution in AED construction for this monster thing and they're going to put it wherever they damn well please so this is is kind of a a Sticky Wicket I'm just pointing it out so instead of doing encouraged for that point can we put where feasible or because that way me it's the same thing where it where where you can do it you're required to do it not just encourage to do it if you can't do it then right has this been an issue um Harris yes it's an issue David's right in certain situations the utility company will determine that this is the only how have you been have been dealing with that well I don't believe that this section applies to the section other sections of the code where we've been applying site and uh when we're applying site this this PUD section isn't it right so you this is for PUD are you you saying that you want to apply all this stuff to all the this only PUD section uh it's not as important then I you know I I perceived you were going to try to apply this everywhere but you're saying just open space you were going to apply everywhere open space is the only thing we're applying everywhere I I'll withdraw my objection because there's not that many new puds that are going to exist right right and most of them are mixed use um but you're going to create a mixed use zoning District you said hopefully yes I I withdraw my concern okay so back to consensus of keeping it the way it is screening okay no oh you have a microphone there no but I just want to tell you that the Florida Department of Health doesn't regulate septic tanks anymore it's the Florida Department of Environmental Protection thank you you're welcome although they do delegate it to the Department of Health in seminal County you know everything goes through the department right right now goes I mean it was just changed in 23 okay page 17 so this is where we talk about the expiration date of the development agreements for Planned unit development um we're gonna we're recommending deletion of that language um so we're going to add the language where it talks about the da is GNA Sunset so we're going to add that language there it says if an expiration date has been established upon expiration of the Pud all develop must follow the regulations for no city um zoning of section 4.18 of this article and um the the no City Zoning we're also going to have them redo we wanted them to take all the puds and the ones that have expired and set zoning districts for them instead of calling it a no city um zoning so we're going to have them go back back and and they're working on that now going back and looking at the different expired puds and coming up with the zoning district for that that is it for that and I can show you really quickly some of the expired Peds that we have we have quite a bit of them hopefully you'll be able to see so live o is um expired they have a commercial area the sanctuary also expired River Oaks Reserve Waverly Woods which is in this area that's small um Kings Bridge canabury Retreat which is off of C off of alipa Chapman Groves Covington Club is expired arborview we have builtmore which is the town homes and LA park and oito Park Town Homes here those are all the expired puds that they will now have to go into and establish the areas that are um residential if it's residential we need to assign it a residential zoning District if it's um commercial areas of the Pud it needs to have a comparative um City commercial zoning District as well so our map our zoning map will change to reflect those different zoning districts okay so on page 18 this is the mobile home park district um we're recommending deletion of it we deleted that District in our permissible uses table so we're recommending deletion of the language that goes along with it is there a consensus for that yes okay so on page 20 this is the beginning of the target area discussion and that's something that we decided at our our last meeting that we were going to discuss with kimley horn when they come on the 26 so I'm going to skip over this section and go to page 28 which is the bonus discussion so one of the things that we added um is that density and intensity bonuses must be in excess of the minimum comprehensive plan and Land Development requirements or mitigation techniques um and the reason why we added that is because one if the comprehensive plan or if the Land Development code requires it you cannot use it for bonus because it's double dipping um and then if it's a mitigation let's say they're requesting a deviation and as part of their mitigation they're providing something that's on this list you can't use that for a bonus it has to be something that is not required so so Deborah I know you said we're going to discuss the prior section when kimley horn is here but there's things in the prior section that are specified as required that when we have that discussion I'll say I don't think should be and that come kind of comes into play here so specific specifically where it's exactions from private property to develop at the intensity they're allowed such as streetscape and so forth so I'm I'm just raising that issue now because this language here about the bonuses becomes kind of contradictory if you exact things improperly in the prior section and then say sorry you can't have any bonuses it's like a double whammy to somebody do you understand right so let's just discuss that when they come in and I'll that's all I'll say about it now but that changes this section potentially depending on what we do with that one okay all right so do you have that in your notes do you want me to send it to them I did not okay say that because I thought we were discussing it tonight but I can send you an email raising this concern yeah if you want me to that be good that would be really good so that way we can have that discussion in detail because we're going to at the end of this meeting we're going to talk about the different um items that we want them to discuss so are you going right into affordable housing yes so I did some actual math can I share it with everybody yes okay so I went and and obtain the from Florida housing data which is an online resource for seminal County which is kind of really the Orlando area and looked at the top percentage of of the three criteria you have there and did some math with real world rents and where you do these bonuses in these core areas in most of them you're already allowed relatively high intensity and you're going to be kicked into with bonuses structured parking so I did actual rents with the cost of structured parking and actual rents right now on new project s are about $22.30 a square foot and structured parking adds about another 20 cents so 250 a square foot your typical average unit which is a two bedroom is 995 square feet and you end up at a rent of $2,487 that's an average rent of a new unit with structured parking okay today when I look at the math I just calculated okay all things being equal a project won't proceed with bonuses unless there's enough additional rent from the non affordable units to pay the price do you understand what I'm saying so using the core areas the downtown core as an example where the bonuses were doubled okay because that's kind of what I'm concentrating on for the 120% um you're increasing rents to achieve that on the other units 2.3% which is relatively modest for the 50% it's a 10% increase in everyone else's rent and for the 80% it's a 9% rent increase so what I would suggest is is you you equalize these things 2.3% is modest maybe a little more than that is modest but if you really want to have an opportunity to achieve the 80% and the 50% levels you have to up the bonus to make it financially feasible because most people aren't going to proceed with a project where their rent has to go up nine or 10% on the rest of their project in order to pay for the affordable housing so I'm just saying that the bonus needs to be adjusted because what you're doing with this standard is telling people to only go for the 120% and forget the others because that's what'll happen you understand what I'm saying so I can share this math with in an email if you want but I actually you know I have an apartment deal I'm doing right now with an apartment developer that did a structured parking deal in the past few years so I I just went and got the math and I I don't think you want to discourage affordable for those lower percentages am I making any sense you are okay so I just to restate it the bonus for lower income should be sufficient so you're saying double double that uh well I I use the double for the downtown core in my math so it's it's obviously in the other areas it's you know in the not not the downtown core would be 4.6% extra cost for everybody else's rent to get the affordable but it would be 18% and 20% and nobody's going to do that you can't finance that deal you can't build that deal it won't happen so if you want to get those you have to have bonus that still doesn't mean you'll get them but at least you'll have a chance right I'm just pointing that out and I don't know if if there's consensus to make all three income levels equally attainable as as you know for the city I mean do people think that they should be no I I I again you know each I'm sure this was worked out of some you know multiple other you know we're not in Reinventing the The Playbook here but I'm G to Guess that each location City Town um has their own nuances and ours has its own definitely excuse me um so you have to look at it differently and I appreciate what Dave's saying I don't think it has to equal but you know if there's if it's going to be really unattainable that nobody's really going to be looking at b c you know then at least if there's something we can look at to try to make it and it may not be worth it from the city point of view and from the you know not the city itself but from you know us says hey we're not going to allow three units and five units or something like that that's just way too much or you know it's two it's two and a half units it can't go up to four units and six units for the next two phases that kind of stuff it may too excessive but if we're going to have choices at least you know I'm glad you ran the math and kind of made a look at it maybe we can look at them to make them attainable in some way or just say there's only two choices because nobody's going to go for it anyway or you know you can have it understand and I don't necessarily know this but 2.3% I said is pretty modest 5% might be acceptable so perhaps the the game here is to say at 120% it's half a unit okay and at the other two they they kind of the math works out almost the same at two and three and maybe it should be four and six frankly um and that way you're you're basically increasing the rents of everyone else roughly 5% no matter what someone does it's a matter of them choosing their path you know what what are you trying to achieve and some projects frankly for example I'm working on a a project where we'd like to have a lot of entertainment experiential uses they tend to have low wages and you want somewhere to house your people so there's Sometimes some some benefit to have in that housing but having a formula that discourages you producing it is not a good idea so what is your recommendation my recommendation is that all three of those A and C that the actual math be done so that you're equally encouraging all of those things and and it's just it's just math and the bonus units would be reflective of bonus bonus units should reflect the equal encouragement is what I'm saying but then how how we how are we going to get the lower if we giving the same incentive the low the the lower ones you have to give more incentiv so so for example if you did on the first one half on the second one four and on the third one six then it it would be basically a 5% increase in rent for everyone else to help support this mix of incomes okay well S as the the the math that you so I just kind of did it seat of the pants I can put it in a spreadsheet and yeah the problem is you can look up average rents in a market but it's not easy to look up rents in new projects and you can't get incentives for for what averages are because that includes all these older projects you have to look at new construction this gets kicked into a further Vortex if you start getting into Podium construction instead of wrap construction but you could really achieve most of these densities with a wrap so that's the math I used a parking structure surrounded by buildings so I'll I'll send you this math but I I think you just need to look at that so you can actually achieve that Dave I noticed that you were talking about bonuses for the dwelling units but not talking about the int increase in intensity um the reality is the the floor area ratio is more than sufficient now and people don't really need bonuses so that's why I didn't reference it it's it's un likely that people are going to exceed a far of one where where it's allowed or you know I just don't see it happening all right so we have consensus well is there any more discussion consensus of sending the math over and then revisiting this just a question not that I have trouble with it but why would you double in core transition in W MHC but not like Gateway just curious and not the mall land use whatever that is where do you see that language um D I'm not sure why they put it there I'm not sure we can ask that question I mean I I don't really care but I just don't understand good question okay so then the next when it's going to does anyone else have any questions on the uh affordable housing no okay so then the next one is going to be the Green Building um our comments on it was please add incentives for storm water harvesting and low impact Landscaping um and there's also a mention of a Redevelopment trust fund that's in that sentence and we have no idea what this Redevelopment trust fund is so we're we want them to provide us information on what it is and um what are the requirements for this Redevelopment trust fund because there is no mention of it in the Land Development code anywhere so just a suggestion in this section and kind of global for the whole thing is you have fairly wide categories in the comp plan and ex extraordinarily narrow criteria that they're writing and there's two ways to address that one's in each section another one is at the end which which can just specify so people aren't discouraged uh other I don't know the right words but other items approved by the city council that satisfy those criteria so for example lead in Florida green building Coalition are only two of the many standards that are used these days and Lead is kind of old news so narrowing it to those two kind of locks you in and discourages people from doing other things so I just think widening this language a little bit and that goes to all the categories because these are agreements that have to go to the council anyway and although people can say well I want to do X and the comp plan says X I think your code language should be encouraging of people doing things that get them bonuses right not making it extremely narrow like you just said with where's this low impact development stuff and one of the things without necessarily doing lead what if you did Green roofs what if you you you know you you have storm water harvesting and low impact Landscaping but what about those other elements my quick question is we don't require low low impact Landscaping now like why well beyond beyond the code I think is what this should say if you're doing you have to do something it already says beyond what the code requires so we kind of talked about that at a prior meeting what's the percentage of low you know low impact Landscaping if someone does 100% well then they should get a bonus but that's kind of challenging in are speaking for uh I'll speak for Taran myself from the sustainability committee and say well it should be 100% but I wasn't here for that meeting I guess but I don't understand how it's not a huge number for the low impact Landscaping as is it should be just 100% or a very huge number um and then I can understand Incan for storm water harvesting but okay um where is um the low impact Landscaping because I think there's a big difference between low impact landscaping and low impact development because there's not all low liid is Landscaping so is that in a different area because then I would maybe suggest depending upon the way you have it instead of just Green Building could the whole section be sustainability and Green Building and some of those other well it has to match the comp language okay so I'll I'll read it Green Building or other recognized practices to enhance sustainability including renewable energy recycling storm water harvesting and electric vehicle charging stations a lot of those things are required to some extent right so instead of putting be Green Building are you saying GRE quote Green Building as in lead or are you talking sustainability so I'm saying lead lead is too narrow the the thing what's in there is too narrow and you have to have I think Teresa would say some criteria to give people guidance like the affordable is a Formula that's pretty easy this stuff's a little more challenging you know it's a little more subjective right right because because Green Building to me is the building itself so it doesn't have to say Green Building it says Green Building or other recognized practices to enhance sustainability including renewable energy recycling storm water harvesting which they just picked the first two words they just picked the first word so you can title it um sustainability and then put the language underneath so I thinkability back development seems like something I'm looking at St John St John's has that uses that as a def you know something that low you low impact development right I guess my my point is is that if B is going to include Green Building which is the building itself in the way my brain works Li renewable energy storm water retention then B should read sustainability and then those items should all go under there as a you know well that would match better the the the comp which it should because it's excluding those things now and and I think that's kind of a as I said it a global comment for this whole section I think they need to look at it a little more openly and have some sort of catchall at the end of other criteria that are found by the city council you know someone has to take the risk to do that but they're then encouraged to do things maybe not on this list that are formulaic in the list because there's best practices everywhere what they are today might not be what they are tomorrow yeah I was looking at um the third line in B1 after the parentheses on behind the word platinum you might say or equivalent scoring system is recognized by the city of oito well exactly but I think that kind of issue flows through this entire section right yeah I'm just so the recommendation I think is updating it to be more best practice or other recognizable standards and to better match everything listed in the comp plan which it doesn't really do sustainable development or sustainable practices or something well I'm saying not just for be but but for whatever else it applies to right wherever we need to put it okay so is there a consensus to change Green Building to sustainab sustainability okay let's do that and then a win for your committee and then also to have the consultant add more um more um choices to be more to have more best practices and then to change the language so that it matches more of a comp and I think the certification from leads um or any recogn not lied right I mean it's like in in engineering I know you know like I remember years ago we had to find things in the engineering and it was like you had to have this certain strap but now there's the equivalent so however that kind of same thought plan is if they can come up with and show that this is the equivalent in some way shape by a recognized organization so in um under C subd which is a little screwy um I think the the the numbering got bollocked up under under C publicly accessible Plaza if you look at what I show as D it this just doesn't work if 25% of the net buildable area above the minimum LDC requirement well the requirement for downtown court and transition as you said is zero 25% above zero is zero so this doesn't really make sense sense the way they wrote it and it needs to be kind of reviewed yeah and so on that we have are you there on under publicly accessible plazas we want them to show a table showing how you can achieve 100% of the bonus as well and so yes we did have them change that 20 that 30 to 25% we well well right but what I'm saying is 25% over zero is still zero what there has to be some other way to do this yeah absolutely where is this language um well it's D it's under it's D but it shouldn't be D because it starts with one and then goes to a it's kind of weird I I I don't know it's or maybe it's just tapped wrong yeah I think it was because we added made a change do it it was probably moved out of the way but they they will be able to to change the formatting I still haven't found a language that okay if 25% above the minimum LDC requirement well I think their phraseology is wrong I I would think 25% more than the minimum area if it's 20% 25% more than that's five so we make it 30 okay no one's going to take where they have a 25% requirement and give you 50% to get a bonus it won't happen and then 25% of zero is zero and the downtown cor the transition can never provide I I mean what do they get all the bonus none of the bonus I'm just saying the way this is done is a little weird you want to example yes okay can you go down a little the not yet submitted developers agreement go back which doesn't have this code section yet you don't have sufficient right away in a lot of locations to do the ideal streetscape with so the developer proposing to provide the streetscape with and is looking for a bonus for providing it but the way this draft is written now they're forced to provide it no matter what they get no bonus for it and how do you do a percentage the percentage doesn't it doesn't work but the catchall where if you you provide a discretionary element for the city council then people just propose what they want to propose they have their guidance and they propose what they want to propose but this open space thing for the core are are is really especially if you're going to reduce the requirement makes no sense we not reduced for the area right well zero I know to ruce yeah so a percentage of zero is still zero is all I'm saying so you provide above whatever is required so maybe it should be whatever if zero is required and you provide anything but you're not providing 25% it's not going to be 25% number I know for for the core area well no if it's for anywhere if it's additive I think they mean it as a percentage in which case it doesn't work if it's added of 25% more no one will do yeah you're not going to take you know where you at 25% open space and do 50% it just won't happen who knows who knows so not me a maybe maybe in the Mitchell ham where the golf driving range is yeah um so going I I just scrolled down to see if um like liid or any other sustainable stuff was included as a bonus so I think going back to the Green Building I mean it sounds like it's just the building so is the intention to provide bonus for other type of sustainable practices or is the intention just to have a Green Building and getting bonus for that the C plan doesn't limit it to just Green Building no we want practice it as well so the the challenge I think is simply this you can say lead has these levels here's what you get other practices is harder to put math on that's why I'm saying you have a catchall other sustainability practices at the discretion of the city council what the bonus is is going to be a staff recom Commendation and a council vote you can't have math for everything well the thing is is that I know with LPA they want to know guidelines right they want to have guidelines on what um if you provide this then you should expect to receive this well well right but having a catchall of other things they don't like that um well that's their problem because I guess it goes back to my thing of like it's one thing to be like yeah you're lead certif you're this and then you can get this bonus but if you're doing I don't know some other type of liid or sustainable practice how are you going to determine we'll have to have the consultant come up with something okay well just say equivalent like you said equivalent rating systems should be treated the same way they all have rating like I put in instead of all this storm water stuff I'm putting in Rain Gardens throughout right I don't I'm just throwing out something instead of a big that has value for example but then the onus would be on the whoever is doing it to go based on our engineering and math yeah based on our engineering and math you know we're going to save 38% of the water and do which would be the their the onus would be on the the de whoever's looking to get this bonus it would be on them to say here's we've done these things here's what our engineers and say is it'll say was % of the water it'll provide you know more blah blah blah this and that uh AC will be reduced 28% because of this etc etc so that's a good it's you know I don't understand that language the 25 25% of the net buildable area because open space is not buildable area so I don't whole thing doesn't make does sense so it's the beautiful area of the development that you if you have 25% of the buildable area of the development that you're voting for Plaza Courtyards and open space well I think what they intended to say was a percentage over the requirement which is not what they said right so the percentage of the of the required buildable so you can't call you can't this is what I'm assuming it can't be wetlands and it cannot be but but then then you're talking about the buildable but it then it's above the minimum LC requirement we don't have a minimum l requirement the requirement for open space but I think because it's Courtyard they're talking about Courtyard and other stuff so it's 25% of the N Net buildable area well no one will do that more than what's re I don't know the minimum requirement is I think they got square footage it is square footage but buildable area um I didn't know what is the minimum requirement is what I'm talking was it doesn't work the way they wrote it they need to rethink it and we said the same thing they they need to come back to us with some numbers and showing us how they calculated it okay I have a comment specifically that was my general comment to H if anyone's willing for to move that far forward historic structures anyone have any comments on De or anym all right so there are no individually listed national uh register historic buildings in any of the core areas period so that's an absolutely absurd criteria uh you know no one's going to go list a property to to do this so so I think your consultant needs to understand AG a on on H I'm just saying that there there are no such things I think there's perhaps two buildings in Ovito that are listed it's it's um what's the the the bread and breakfast and the Evans house period then there's districts that are listed that have no contributing structures left that that don't count so in in these core areas that are going to get bonuses there's absolutely nothing that qualifies for what they wrote that's silly any other thoughts on that sir are you saying take it out or just not those two get rid of that qualifying thing that has to be listed just call it a historic structure someone comes in and say the is historic I don't know 25 years and in in Florida it's 25 years anything 25 years old or older is listen as historic which is why they wrote prior to 1920 we we did it multiple years ago but they wrote listed that's kind of standard of practice right that so you're saying the added language of number five resolves this I I just think that other language is silly because you you know you're pretending there are such things by having it there are no such things but did you guys add number five was that that was something that was added by staff all right well so it's an or so listed or it's or before 19 it's not and it's or okay well that probably resolves my concern but I I'm just pointing out there are no such structures for some of those other things okay so um can we go to page 31 specific residential uses town homes so we deleted D under development standards one and two where it talks about the density density for Town H home developments deferred uh to the densities within the comprehensive plan for each future land use designation we deleted that because we're going to defer to the comp plan anyway maximum densities for uh rear loaded town home developments in the downtown transition future land use will defer to the multi family densities set forth in the comprehensive plan that language is unnecessary because we're going to defer to the comp anyway for density standard so we deleted that is there a consensus for for that yeah okay and then on page 32 Multiplex under D development standards the height and um height we're going to um well before before you get to height based on our prior discussion you have single family duplexes and town homes I would say somewhere there comma and other forms I don't I don't know how to say it but because we don't want to necessarily limit it to those three things you went past where are you talking intent because it talks about single family duplexes and town homes well what about triplexes quadruplexes all these other things so and other building forms maybe is a good way to say it I I don't know I mean let's not stay narrow there or I think we need stay narrow and and just include whatever we want to include because it's not going to apply to every well it may apply to every form let's see I I think it's well we have to discuss what is multilex if it's Trix and four plx and that's it it can be any number of things it can be a bunch of buildings surrounding a common Garden it can be I don't know what it is you know no a bunch of in in one in one parcel that is multif family right we have to Define if the number of units so you guys were all about missing middle I'm saying this excludes it Multiplex is for that well Triplex and poxes what however you want to say it I'm just saying there's other forms I think what he's saying is that it has duplexes Town Homes but you're missing that well St PLS and four but that's not the only forms of development I think we can delete that language and say let's put a definition in in article 18 of Multiplex so so we have to Define but we have to Define does it mean as small building with six units is that a is that a highlight m is where do we cross cross the line for multif family right so dlex so if we have CU we have we see Winter Park mland or in Orlando four plexes right that look like so it's two Town Homes next to each other with a one driveway so that is still the character of a single family neighborhood but well Define it somewhere and take the definition out of here when it's narrow well but we have to discuss how how the board where where the board sees multilex do we go to m small buildings with six units three stories is that compatible is that compatible with the you know single family neighborhood or we are talking about things that look like single family but there are more units in the lot the way you're describing multilex is different then what I think David the so well that I'm opening for discussion what is so so Town Homes aren't limited necessarily well maybe they are I I don't know if you have a limit for how many in a row or something I I don't know which is by the way contradictory to having Street walls so you got some mutually exclusive things going on here I think I'm say the fire department forms of development that can help create a mix of Housing typologies and provide missing middle housing and provide affordability that are not these predetermined duplex quadruplex town homes so I'm just saying you need to be in that other sentence it says while allowing for I would maybe take out the word apartment but small buildings of three to eight dwelling units so uh no I I would say a multiplex is any form that perhaps doesn't exceed eight units an acre how that how about that I don't care what it is right let's not try to Define it let people come up with whatever they come up no but but there is an issue of character that is different so if I have small town homes right that um group of town homes it's one thing if I have an apartment a town home because town home is single family so if if it's simp if it's simple it's you know right but the metrics from from your comp plan that is density I'm drives character is what I'm saying no not necessarily doesn't that cover character in terms of it shall has the appearance of the surrounding structures single family neighborhoods to me I feel like that character is captured in there that's the wrong statement because now what you're doing is giving ammunition to everyone in a single family home to say this project doesn't look like my house it's not allowed okay we're trying to allow things not disallow things but you also don't want something completely out of character of the surrounding neighborhood well evidently yes we do if the surrounding neighborhood is all single family homes then if you're trying to match its character that's all you're going to get no they're saying you can still have single family homes but it's not going to look like an apartment it's going to have the character eight units an acre can't look like an apartment complex well Multiplex in our table is only allowed in R2 R3 rpn o and then downtown and Which is less of a concern because that's more so it it it does not go to the inner you know Suburban communities anyway it's our to so it's less of an issue just to Dave's point just kind of restructure some of the wording in here to not limit it but still that it's up to eight dwelling units an acre or whatever the that number is defined by well it's not necessarily apartment buildings that's what I said take out apartment right that's why it already says 3 to eight well that's all it should say who cares how they do it who cares but within the character of theic yes keep that okay what does that mean because if you have dle if we're going to Define because the risk would be to go vertical right well who's going to go vertical at eight units an acre very high you're one building of you know but you're already allowed 35 ft so what difference does so that's the thing we have height we have other standards that will kind of control the character I think it should just say developed as a mix of units period who cares what type and who cares about the general character you know I I think that's a dangerous you look at it as permissive language an opponent's going to look at it as denying language do do you understand what I'm saying I know but we have to get it right so that we also do not create an issue that everybody's you have architectural standards you're going to have for multiplexes you can resolve it there I'm just saying let's not narrow the typology which is exactly what the presentation was to us about missing middle let's allow they don't they don't have architectural standards for Multiplex that's a mistake I know it is a mistake I just looked so we that was one of the comments for that section well then what I'm saying is let's change this and come up with our architectural standards for Multiplex yes well but if it multiplexes several it's it's a set of duplexes in a lot so then you just have to say to the extent consistent with Florida Statutes which prohibits you applying things to single family you're not allowed to have architectural standards for single family now simply not allowed but how do they find single family one one one unit for loss this would not be single but you if you have your standards that say to the extent of you know consistent with State statutes then you don't have a problem does anyone have any other thoughts on this I think we've had a problem with multiplexes since they again the the not having a definition for what a single family dwelling unit it just kind of throws this all into a a pile as far as I'm concerned it's hard to pull yourself out when it's kind of the base unit is non-defined and you're going to Define to stay within the general character etc etc I I think the intent to just as a mixture of of whatever units up to eight dwelling units and then in the character of I think you just take out the duple in town homes because that's limiting but I think everything else well helps to so I I'll Just Disagree that the character is the problematic language here also yeah I agree with Dave I think we should stay away from the character because what's wrong with having an apartment building in a subdivision if somebody wants to have six units Town Homes I think that's wonderful so let's stay away from the character because it doesn't it doesn't distract from anything it just adds some varieties so there's R2 on Pine Avenue in the vicinity of single family so what you're doing is saying we want this typology we want these multiplexes they're allowed in R1 BB r1b R2 we we've already determined that but we're going to say they don't match the character of these things that have no standards whatsoever under the code there's a duplex on Pine Avenue right next to single family no no what I'm saying is the general character of the established neighborhood that's proximate to this R2 L use yes there's duplexes nearby but there's also single family homes we have no regulations for what single family homes look like so saying you have to match the character of something with no rules is just patently absurd it just gives people that are nearby and I experience this on a regular basis this doesn't match the character of my neighborhood we shouldn't allow it no one wants a different housing form near them no one that's just how it works correct either we're going to allow it or we're not so I'm saying that character thing's got to come out and it should just be a density game and then the consultant staff someone we need architectural standards m mulp lexes were allowed by state law period so right now where we're proposing multiplexes are in the R2 which we talked about like the Milton squares R2 the um Washington Park areas R2 you have um some other areas in that area that's R2 um we're also allowing it in the R3 which is multif family already um so that's that's um pretty compatible with that area residential professional office which is more both you have single family that's experiencing transition to office so what you're saying is character doesn't really matter because no matter where it goes it's going to work as terms of character so in terms of character single family conversation it's not allowed in the single family residential areas matter if we keep character in there or not I mean like doesn't matter if we keep what I'm trying to say is we can keep character in there and it's not going to cause a problem with undefinable lightning rod that has no place I think Dave Axel is talking about if it's adjacent to a single family does it have to still keep the character up who's the Orbiter who's the Orbiter of the character how does that get decided it becomes a political issue it's city counc as I said how does how does that is that a staff issue and you decide 10% 20% do you decide that it exceeds a certain percentage or you just go yes no well it meets it it it it meets the character no I think character will be defined right here by height by no you can Define by Heights by a lot of things I'll just point Jessup and say there's there's a we had a big big discussion on does that development allin's Landing does that fit the character of the neighborhood at all that would be a huge fight it's not like it's ugly it's not like the houses that are there but say that was a multiplex instead that was going look the exact is landing which one is that not all Landing I'm sorry um Evans uh Evans Evans Square Evans Square well but also you have I'm just saying it's a beautiful if that was a multiplex going in that neighborhood to everybody around there those we would be killed Halfacre LS that you would say can't go there but you we would be all kill you killing it you would be killing it and saying well we don't think it goes there but you're against what you were saying the other way it's it goes there because it's right in the core almost listen it's right almost in the downtown it's sitting so I'm I'm going to say the question who are you to decide well I think they already at least Deborah said character doesn't matter because of where we're allowing it so we can take character out and leave it as a density thing and I think what Theresa is saying is we have other criteria such as and we're going to add architecture that's what saying I think we agree that we're sending them back to the drawing board a little bit we're going to fix this just to give another example just go down further on Lake Joseph Avenue where the an the church is the new town homes are being now just clearing the land that is going to be a two story building three three story building it is out of character of the whole area because there's not no three story buildings there it's a school a church and an office building across the street so they stay away from period because that is better that's just a living example it's out of character I think they agree then are you guys agreeing no character I'm sorry I thought they is not quite there no we we agree that there are other way character is not this intangible thing we can you know define character and the issue in a square was not character was the sizes was I'm saying it was the was up against it because it's well we have Halfacre an acre home sitting here and that doesn't fit the character of that neighborhood but you know again who's to judge the character you know and I think this the the idea of character was there because initially we had the hope that Multiplex would be allowed in more residential areas but it ended up being restricted to our two or three and you know so I have a suggestion if someone wants a motion of what should this say in a okay and there's going to be architectural standards we're kind of agreeing I think as a as a Direction so it should be Multiplex standards are intended to allow a mix of typologies up to eight dwelling units per acre period okay that's all you have to say that's it that simplifies that's all it needs to say and then the architectural standards will control it and the height limits in the zoning districts will control control it that's all it needs to say I mean there's nothing wrong with there's nothing wrong with consensus some of the things at the end make it as emotion I did then I second all in favor I I think you need to have a minimum there though because you don't want to say two homes would be well 3 to eight is fine I I'll amend my motion to keep the 3 to eight well as a minimum there's a minimum of three a maximum of eight is what they had I think she's saying you had duplexes earlier than would it it be two no this is per acre not per unit okay sorry we have to it cannot be it cannot be duplexes and cannot be Town Homes because Town Homes already have their own architectural standards duplex does do not have architectural standards well I said all that out all that's gone so we have to kind of can I can I make a comment when we do architectural standards can we also talk about so the last sentence is fine sorry I cannot we Al when we talk about architectural standards is it just the building or are there going to be standards on say your walls and stuff and the re I will so David you can close your ears for this one I will say that uh there's a new development um Pine Avenue that on Pine and Jessup it's all red brick and one went in that's white and so I've heard so many people complaining that it's completely out of character of the old oo red brick and everything else so well it starts to make things look haphazardly I just have to say this and I'm sure it's probably developer driven as far as return on investment and all that other stuff so things change over time right so the look of the city for many many years look at the buildings City Hall brick okay a bunch of other City buildings around brick then you then you look at what was built in Ovito on the park and you scratch your head where did we stray from this brick to this modernistic thing that's that's the amphitheater so legislating that somebody should match what somebody before them did is just silly that's just too bad they think it should be red brick brick and it's white brick that's just kind of too bad well my point and from what I've heard okay so I'm just being deliver is that if you have red red red white red everything is red within that you know whole Community it just a lot of people feel like yeah you should it should likes change or something different it's not about but saying you can only do what the guy before you did is is nonsense uh I didn't want General character to be in there at all and these are personal preferences intended to you will always have different preferences yeah just provide I think you want the whole all of that you know get rid of all that all the way through as and and all that can be replaced with allow intended to allow to allow so that's my motion up on the screen you made a motion I'm making a motion that it's exactly what Sam just did at my request in a so multiply so again we have we cannot um establish the density here because it it's allowed in areas that have more density but it already was established in there I don't understand we already had three days no we but we cannot right why because it it applies to zoning that has um higher density as well we have to revie we have to it's the definition so just Define Multiplex as being something up to eight units an acre beyond that called an apartment right and then and then you're fine that's a definition thing right so so I'm amending my already voted on motion to be the language of a I approve that but wait you just said to remove the three or not to remove the no because that's a definitional thing later okay all in favor I I oppose motion and we'll come back and discuss that because I don't know if they meant per acre or if it was just a total number of units right well we don't care what they me they're coming back with the definition so we'll come we'll revisit that okay so if you can go down to D in that same area Building height we talked about instead of stories we were going to do um feet instead and then building sighting we wanted them to add in um some visual aids so that we can see okay so I only have three more areas so so can we just say and let's not get into all the language all this language of Standards needs to match what we just did to a yes so all this language of triplexes quadruplexes blah blah blah all that needs to come out I I mean I don't think we have to vote on that we just have to make stuff match yeah so we'll highlight it needs to match um what was it a yes I like the words the front door of the units facing the primary Street Frontage must face the street huh isn't that by the word first words the front door of the unit facing the primary Street Frontage um must face the street well it's not always the case on side like a got you I let's not get into I know I got you I'm it's 626 we can't yeah go that it just read it reads funny but it's right but it reads funny okay so um let's go to the next one yeah so we um it says under B applicability except for multi family development subject to the specific design standards of a planned development zoning District the standards and requirements of the section applies Citywide to the construction of new multif family development of and it said eight and we put nine units or more so I think that goes back to the question of did they mean three more than un total yeah I'm 8.1 is more than eight they put eight and we crossed it out and put nine put more than eight so I think yes not nine right more than eight then you get trapped in between right so I have a comment a multif family Madam sherff it's all right when people are ready I have a comment on multif family all right go ahead all right so I'll qualify this statement I understand the thought process of moving toward Urban form but Frontage requirements of every apartment building to front on a public Street will just cause in many areas there to be no Apartments to be built period that's just a fact of life okay you can't take a Suburban form area and glom onto it an urban form thing it just doesn't work for a private street that meets public design standards no I'm saying the very simple fact that a front unit of a building must front a public street is not how 99% of the apartment complexes are built which means subb development they just won't be built right or a private Street it says or a private Street no it says it has to meet the same standards I'm looking at D1 oh that meets the same standards yeah didn't we have this conversation last meeting about private streets meeting the public that's not what I'm talking about I'm talking about the frontage requirement simply doesn't work somebody we have I understand what you're saying but we have to also kind of move away from the from the Suburban development type of development that the buildings are put on the S with no consideration to the street in my first round of comments on the code I talked about being careful about context okay so where I'm doing a developers agreement in a core area with high densities being allowed and you'll see it soon we're proposing exactly this street wall requirements all this stuff where you have an example that I know that maybe the crowd doesn't Sugar Mill Apartments or the paern project at Macy's where we're not there yet forcing this requirement just either number one drives up the cost of housing needlessly or number two precludes anyone doing anything at all but it's a design thing that both better designed no no what you say is better but what the market won't do what is fr unit you have an apartment building it's got a unit according to this it must be up on the street and it can have no parking in front of it period that's just not how these projects are built it's just not so what I believe Theresa is saying and tell me if I'm accurate at some point if you want to move to Urban form you've got to decide to move to Urban form I'm saying you got to have context you know you can't just put it everywhere so at the end of an existing Dead End Road in the middle of a Suburban form of development you don't force someone to build Urban form connected to nothing um you know yes I get that there's this mall they'd like to be Urban form but once this Pizer project if it moves forward is built is anyone ever going to build another apartment complex if they have to build it in a form that nobody wants to so the apartments over by the mall that just went up the Suburban they do not meet this criteria it's very Suburban development in the sense that there is no consideration to the street right they they are not you know fac in the street they don't have orientation they don't create they could create an internal driveway that looks like a street right and I'm going to give you the dwell did that the dwell is not a super Urban but they create a form but it wouldn't meet this criteria they but they create a form I don't know about all the units but I mean the building has to should should be facing a street well that's not what this says not a face yeah but I agree I agree that we have to rewrite that but the issue that we have and we have been seeing is that uh we have projects that come in the the volumes of the buildings are just kind of put in the in in the most I think it's without consideration of a network or circulation or you know a facing a street so it's still you know surrounded by parking lots and you know there is no so basically you're just trying to create a more walkable multif family right walkable in a form that it's more appealing I I have the feeling and I because I think it's really more designed than what da actually saying but I think also it's Builders come and developers come with the way that have they have been doing stuff in the past right so they don't want to necessarily change can I make the recommendation that take that back and kind of yeah no problem re so to give you an an example it's all the interpretation of this clause and how it's nuanced okay so conceivably you could say and even though Mitchell hammock and arterial Road and kind of a bad example for walkability the the Ellington Ellis whatever it's called what is it called now the Ellington the front building is facing the front Road and the parking is behind it but if you apply that to the front units is that what about the building behind that are those front units are those front buildings I I don't know what no that that needs to be changed that doesn't make sense so that that's the the problem you know what if you have no Road what if you have all a driveway and parking lot we staff was having a discussion about how parking lots operate and how we would like to have more of a street Presence at least on some of the drive aisles and having maybe you know Co to phrase here a primary drive a and maybe that's some of the there's there's ways to Nuance this I I get where you're going but you know I try to sell things and I have this different situation in in the downtown core obviously we're trying to create a downtown it's a different thing but you have to like you said overcome this resistance but you can't be so strenuous that things just don't happen and I'm just trying to strike that balance here and maybe we look at whether or not these multif family projects are in the targeted areas as opposed to areas of so this says it app this multi family for everything or it say Citywide okay but even so you have to be careful because and I know Harris had this conversation with the developer on Sugar Mill well why don't you just build more units an acre well it doesn't make sense there right now what if you just go to 50 units well obviously if that's what they were doing which we're trying to do in the downtown then this Urban makes more sense but that's probably not what's going to happen at the mall Redevelopment right now so we just have to find a balance here so I think if you I think Teresa you were saying you're really talking about the front building and having this appearance or or walkable form more so than a parking lot I I think that's I think the D the Dell managed to have that because the driveway the around created Created um um um a street you know okay so so you'll ask them to revisit this to be is that that's the consensus to revisit this thank you maybe offer bonuses and somehow instead of again there's an encouragement to do that kind of stuff to think outside the well to to to be realistic for example the the density allowed in the Gateway District right now because of the nature of that area no one's going to see the bonus right that's that's today but we're talking 2045 Okay so one of the things that came up on page 34 section 4.15 multif family g g yeah it's the crosswalks so it says all crosswalks at driveways and curve Cuts must be designed with pavers and or Texture colored concrete or similar or clearly defin um The Pedestrian Zone um so we'll have to talk with the public works about prohibiting Ada R rubber Paving but allow stamped textur designs apparently that's been an issue in the city um because of their maintenance and liability so color alone does the trick sometimes and I think uh you know your public work staff over there might acknowledge that this brick and papers and stamp stuff doesn't work out so well does it yeah so so in the middle of what is it the 434 Mitchell hammock intersection you can't even see it anymore where it was actually bricks they were a maintenance nightmare so I just think you're making a comment we need to be a little more open here as to what it is yes as long as we're complying with the statute you know when you look at all these walkable area standards one of the big things to do is just paint paint's cheap painting but but paint is easily replaceable and repaint and you know yeah as long as it's consistent with the stat and textures are problematic for handicap people yeah is there consens to do what we'll have to talk to flat right according to to Public Works yes okay so the last one besides um the questions it's going to be on page 34 and this is pretty simple it's under a prohibited uses uh I I had one more thing oh you have one more okay one more we discussed it before and and it's one of my favorites but this vehicular access thing um else where in the section we skipped it talks about when there's the absence of barriers that make it impractical so sometimes you can't connect and I think we should be a little more careful what do you really want it says vehicular access I think we're supposed to be getting away from from what matters for vehicles and what matters for people being more important so I just think there needs to be some qualification in that J when reasonably practical you know and there's language in that other section that talks about wetlands and other development you know physical barriers there's no discussion here and that triggers deviations in every such circumstance where it can't be done see I think on chelonian you decided it didn't say vehicular now that it says vehicular and it's now 100 100 units or more but it's not the matter of the number of units it's a matter no but it was 50 before the code whatever it was so now it's 100 well no this is multif family the other other part of the code was single family right we do not we do not require 50 um I'm just saying it when physically practical or something something that you know you don't Force this to be a deviation when it's not possible to do but if it's possible or not is also questionable right no to you well the burden is on the developer right and and the developer says no it's not possible but what what if somebody has 50 acres and there's only one Frontage on one road that we didn't meet this so it should be because then you should not develop it with only one one entrance right you need to have more because you know let's talk real but if they don't have any then you have to create you know another is not possible I really think that um there's one thing in terms of the developer and what they can and cannot do it's another thing in terms of um emergency services and evacuation purposes that if you only have one entrance for 100 cars simple thing and if you only have one entrance then something needs to give and I think they're either it's less units or it's more creative development because you can guarantee if you talk to your fire or police chief they might have something to say about this well and that's the reason why we have the situation in a lot of places in the city was created by the city okay development was allowed surrounding things that are now there that can't connect can't connect you don't have condemnation Authority you can't drive through your neighbor's property you can't cross a wetland while you're doing minimization with St John's you can't do certain things that cannot be done so having a requirement that cannot be met serves no useful purpose well that I so you can still stub out and create the possibility of access in the future and that would but that's not what this says well and so maybe we need to work re workor in that case because I agree in the sense that not in every situation will you be able to have that immediate connection but be able to plan for that connection in the future and increasing circulation to be able to provide for the development development that happens thereafter making sure that we have a way of providing circulation as we go on circulation is for people and vehicles this is purely about vehicles and it ignores the other ele so I agree with you the vehicle did did not come from us okay the 100 units did not come from us actually cuz it's it's it's last I'm confirming here I think it's 50 dwell units but we we um and and we are fine with micro Mobility they increased they increased from 50 I know this arit Don has a comment but so but what I wanted to say is that in two in instances we forced a little bit and we got the connection the first the first you know response is it's not possible and then we forced and now it's a connection that it's a great connection and I think the chelonian was you know it was there was always a connection it was always there we proposed it from the beginning okay Don I think there should be an allowance for um exceptions in the circumstances where you actually physically can't do one but as a general rule I think we should require in developments of this size two methods of interest of entrance and exit and if we need to massage the words a little bit Teresa I'm fine with that but I'd like to make a motion that that's what we adopt as a group well and that's how the code it is today because you can deviate but then right and um they was proposing not to have that as a deviation well the flexibility it's not possible so the problem is very simply two entrances is two one entrance is a 50% deviation the project now goes to city council even though it was physically impossible to do that's ridiculous and that's an unfair way to treat people when you're trying to do things expeditiously and these situations like I said you have kind of this two view thing you have a city council that to this day doesn't want roads to go through does not want certain roads to go through which which makes this impractical no they don't want Pine palom to go through they don't want the the previous Council vacated rights of way that should have connected we have a motion on the floor so do I have a second well I don't know what it is do you want to restate your motion I can try I move that we approve the concept for developments of this size of requiring two means of entrance and exit um and let the staff massage the wording to the way we want it um well that's a uh just leave I'm more concerned I'm not concerned with Expediting things as much as I am concerned with safety of things uh and particularly for emergency services safety and that's the reason for the motion the way it is so the motion is to for developments of around 100 units to require the two units unless for whatever purpose right there needs to be some de I don't even know what excuse me so let what were you you had mentioned something just a minute ago you had said yeah there are some in or there is future connectivity future connectivity so to look at future connectivity and the possibility how about you have something like that future connect possibility looking to add in the wordage for future connectivity yeah stub outs for future Stouts future connectivity and and other things that may you know right now and they may be temporary connections for the but let me just clarify one thing because they they changed the code the code today is 50 units anything greater than 50 units code today doesn't say vehicular either it it doesn't say vehicle so I can so developments with more than 50 dwelling units shall provide a minimum of two access points and that's why we applied for instance in the chelonian we applied that one was a vehicular and the other one was a micr Mobility which is also meets the intent of the Mobility plan yeah so are you good with yeah all right so there a there's a motion on the floor is there a second with what I'm I'm there is a I know the first part of the motion but does it also include putting in wording with Mo uh for micromobility as a secondary Andor stub outs for that's what it includes well but it's 50 or 100 100 he said 100 well they say 100 and today 50 he is saying 100 he's going along with that I'm just saying what you said already he was saying go along with this of the 100 and he was talking about wording the wording that I'm trying to massage that was saying was about future Stouts and possibly the second entrance be you know that the availability would be F or the wording to include something about possibly the second um access point could be stub Out Future stub outs and or uh Mobility you know uh that kind of thing that includes that instead of two specific vehicular as it states now yeah I would just comment that we should keep the 50 but that's tough so I need a second if you're with a 50 I need a second before we discuss the 50 and then if he wants to change his well he's I'm just trying to get his motion because he didn't have a the the back part of his motion didn't exist I'm trying to get the back part of his Mo to exist I'll do it for 50 she's do I'll second do I hear do I hear 10 I no she's she's requesting if staff's requesting 50 I I I I'll take staff's would you meend it to 50 and then I'll second it for him I will accept that as a friend I'll second it can I repeat the motion what's that can I repeat the motion so the motion would be vehicular access vehicular is gone okay so it would be access says for 50 or more units development sites with um 50 or more units must provide a minimum of two access points to include micro Mobility which could include could include SEC one could be temporary access well micromobility is a is a pedestrian sidewalk micr Mobility what does that mean have to it's bik it's bike um you know um one would beic access and the second could include micro Mobility yes micro future stub outs if to Future stub outs I think I'm in the it's a question it future stub outs if such connections are impractical so one can include one must include vehicular access the second can't include micromobility or a stub out if such a connection second vehicular access could not not vehicular I understand for safety purposes ideally you want two vehicular access points where two cannot be provided you can have the micro Mobility whatever temporary all that wording that the city can come up with well my question is the staff are saying 100 you just reduced it to 50 no staff said 50 it was or right there that no no no that's not the consultant change consultant right now it's 50 okay I the consultant said H right okay we're going back to 50 motion or second or not I think it's not practical to have two access points and most of the new developments that are coming up no I think most of the developments that AR coming up we had to to um we have one that is challenging right now and we are still trying to work around we have but the all the others have been proposed Allington proposed um the Dell proposed um and that's you know we don't want to have another Kingsbridge we don't want to have another development there is a huge development that only has one entrance yeah but Kings Bridge has one entrance it's a huge development but the vehicular access as long as the engineering of the roads and the traffic and all that is controlled and it's all met what's wrong with one AC yeah a hurricane that comes and and blocks that entrance that whole development is completely isolated that is not good plan it happened in McKinley's Mill they blocked the back McKinley's Mill they they turn off during the hurricane 434 was blocked they couldn't get out they had to take away the closures and the back of McKinley's Mill to let their residents out and then put it back afterwards but to Steven's Point and with Sam's example Kingsbridge was designed with two access point yes it was and the residents Lobby to eliminate the council went along that's happened more times than I care to mention question all right so I'm going to call for uh the vote thank you all in favor I I all oppos no motion passes I forgot to vote was that the last one is that the last one we're getting this language down when you figure it out tell us what it is I kind of you kind of understand should not be there right practic yeah I agree with you they can always go to the T yeah if one is not possible prac practical shouldn't be there that's too nebulous yeah what should it say we have let's see if we have you well so so instead of Impractical if such connections are prevented by physical barriers I mean physical or yeah physical barriers uh so the example we're talking about the physical barriers are other development projects wetlands and and that's actually mentioned in this block thing that we skipped what those what those things are that prevent connections okay so we'll come back to the board with this language okay we'll work it we'll massage so just one point to mention we're talking about going to Urban form but but the code language that deals with spacing of intersections has not changed even the Consultants has certain roads they're not going to allow more connections to so so you can't say I want these connections and they're prohibited you know now the other thing is good luck having this conversation with do all right it's not very easy we we managed at chelonian just for driveways and they did not like it okay so we'll have that discussion with the Consultants on page 34 this one we removed Standalone bars from the prohibited list because we are allowing it in some of the different zoning districts so that's the only thing I'll put my $5 right now it's never goingon to happen but go ahead we are we are supporting this staff is supporting this so it's going to be a bunch of us behind this so so that's when when clay has to come and speak to the council and see how influential he is you guys GNA have to do one on ones with the council so I have a question uhhuh it may be somewhere but I don't know where it is so right now in the whatever it's called the the most intense District in Ovito on the park what's it called right now it's the core Village core The Village core exempts entertainment uses from the noise ordinance because of the amphitheater and uh right but that is part of also the Geneva Drive agreement for the downtown corpes I just don't know if that made it into the code somewhere so there's talk about adult entertainment but that's not obviously the same thing so I'm just saying that should be somewhere because I don't know where it is it may be in here I just don't know where it is I don't know if it's in the noise it would be in the noise no no it was not in the noise no then we would probably have to put it in our code that's what I'm saying they didn't put it in here I didn't see it that's what I'm saying is it does exist now for oito on the park and it's supposed to exist for the village Corps everywhere and I don't know that it does we had that discussion remember Emma Emma didn't like it very much when it came through and the president code okay so the last thing that we need to discuss we have one other thing after this but um we need to discuss the questions that we we want to ask the consultant so I sent in the email some questions um so I want to make sure that I get all of them if you have anything that you have written um that you want us ask the consultant let us know but so far we're going to put down what's what we discussed tonight um I also have on here the explanation of the targeted areas we want to have a a deep discussion Deep dive on the targeted areas that we um skipped over for um Parts one and two that we didn't discuss um some of some of the things that we want to discuss about them is that the standards do not contemplate an urban form and a lot of those areas um and there was also a question about the intent to require vertical mixed use development in the downtown mixed use District so are you saving that as a question for them or can we talk about that now um we were going to save it for okay fine if unless you just really want to talk about that tonight if you all want to leave I'll save it okay and then we also had a discussion on the height um when they came before us they talked about eight um stories by right with the maximum of 12 um for bonus so I want to discuss that because what they provided was not what they talked about um we also had a discussion um during our meeting on the front setbacks and um we were concerned that those minimum setbacks would prevent the widening of the roads so that was a a discussion that we had some of the smaller setbacks and then discussion on the um expired puds in Milton Square um a discussion on bonus and private Street requirements that we had a discussion on last meeting were were there any other issues that I missed okay okay so the noise exception is in article 6 6.4 um the ex yeah so we G find it in the new code so now in terms of meeting times today we were able to meet at 2:30 we've been having meetings twice a month so I don't know how you all feel about meeting earlier or at least one one meeting per month we meet that's so let me just give a perspective so we are here for five hours right so if we were to start at 6:30 it would be 11: I know so if we can all meet because this there is no way to rush those conversations and discussions so if we could meet at 2:30 that would be great for which in all our meetings I don't know the dates exactly so our next meeting our next meeting is March 26 so sorry I can't make it ear okay and then are I don't know if you all want to do it once a month or twice a month where we can once a mon like once a month I think yeah the only thing that we need to we need to finish right so it's once a month gets we can finish do it slow it's get very yeah early once a month regular and early months month oh yeah yeah so our next meeting is the 20 I didn't know who can come at 2:30 you cannot who cannot come cannot come early okay and Dave theall what about the 17th April 17th well we have the consult com in going a lot of time to come after at 5:30 we'll try 530 we I have no clue everything takes longer than we have to make it concise but you can't dep how long it takes it's on the phone it may not be that you can start without me for that matter so start without you yeah then I I'll get here when I can okay don't know by We Will We Will um verify that everyone will be able to make it at 230 at least that we will have a quorum on the 26 yeah not yet so the next meeting is April 17th um and then after that it's April 30th so I want to kind of see what the time what time you guys can meet if you can meet anytime before 5:30 on any of those you can do 230 230 okay okay so I want to go ahead and post it on the web at least the next couple of meetings so we'll just verify the 26 that we have a quorum for the 26 for 230 okay okay that's all I have thank you all yes thank you so so you guys uh 2013 was when today on 20 March 12 2013 is when we approved the Ovito on the park one of the like the first the first design plan it just popped up of oito on the park wow yeah yeah it was the 11th actually but yeah on the 12th so she did I so we the old picture with the the double layer restaurant and the old Amphitheater that was it 2013 11 years ago that was